EarthCache Statistics

2.5k · February 10, 2014

Is there any way to compare other like sizes of land areas--say the US states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware to Germany.

I think that land area is about the same. Those states are relatively close to each other, too, and I tried to pick states I thought might be roughly as densely covered in EarthCaches as Germany.

I'll see what I can do. But remember, the total number of finds for the WHOLE of the USA is less than the number of finds for Germany. If one compares only a part of the USA with Germany the difference will be even bigger. Or did I misunderstand you?

Personally I think the reason is a greater number of cachers in Europe. I'll get to that soon...

You're probably right, but I'd still like to see that comparison if it's not too much trouble. I was using your numbers/land area and numbers/resident population, etc to make some comparisons of my own. I am so fascinated by all these numbers. Thanks again for doing this; it's fun.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Neos2

2.5k · February 10, 2014

Is there any way to compare other like sizes of land areas--say the US states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware to Germany.

I think that land area is about the same. Those states are relatively close to each other, too, and I tried to pick states I thought might be roughly as densely covered in EarthCaches as Germany.

I'll see what I can do. But remember, the total number of finds for the WHOLE of the USA is less than the number of finds for Germany. If one compares only a part of the USA with Germany the difference will be even bigger. Or did I misunderstand you?

Personally I think the reason is a greater number of cachers in Europe. I'll get to that soon...

You're probably right, but I'd still like to see a comparison of a densely populated EarthCache-rich portion of the US about the same size as Germany with the numbers from Germany so I feel like I'm comparing apples to apples. Perhaps I can scrape together those numbers myself. You are right, the total by country numbers won't give me what I am looking for at all.

I am so fascinated by all these numbers. Thanks again for doing this; it's fun.

1.6k · February 10, 2014

Is there any way to compare other like sizes of land areas--say the US states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Delaware to Germany.

Those four states have a total area only one sixth that of Germany. To get to a comparable area one needs to add New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Vermont.

For these 8 northeastern US states, the total number of finds is 63440 (vs. 776915 for Germany, or about 8%). It is however not a fair comparison - these states only have 616 EarthCaches vs. the 3421 of Germany.

The total number of cachers who have logged an EC find in Germany is 114418. For the USA the number is 105244, closer than I expected.

The average German EC finder has logged 6.7 ECs, vs. 6.3 for the USA. (Somewhat surprising, given the much larger average distance between EarthCaches in the USA.)

1.6k · February 10, 2014

Most EarthCache finds:

For the whole world, up to January 31, 2014:

1.  OxSling:	            2316
2.  papermanone & catlover: 1403
3.  Rote Teufel:	    1020
4.  racer2814:	             971
5.  coolhipwithit:	     861
6.  Mudelpütze:	             806
7.  The Haywood Hornet:	     678
8.  lagrac:	             677
9.  Bohnie:	             673
10. Trekkin' and birdin':    621

1.6k · February 10, 2014

In the whole world, up to January 31, 2014, there have been 348 071 different cachers who have logged a total of 2 506 175 EC finds. This gives an average of 7.2 EC finds/cacher. The median is however only 2 finds per cacher. The following graph shows the frequency distribution of the number of finds per cacher:

What this means is that 135 289, or about a third of all the cachers who have found ECs, have logged only one, 52 708 have logged two, etc.

The top 7.2% of the cachers are responsible for 50% of all the finds.

Edited February 10, 2014 by Danie Viljoen

February 11, 2014

Most EarthCache finds:

For the whole world, up to January 31, 2014:

1.  OxSling:	            2316
2.  papermanone & catlover: 1403
3.  Rote Teufel:	    1020
4.  racer2814:	             971
5.  coolhipwithit:	     861
6.  Mudelpütze:	             806
7.  The Haywood Hornet:	     678
8.  lagrac:	             677
9.  Bohnie:	             673
10. Trekkin' and birdin':    621

WOW! THAT's a lot of EarthCaches visited by the Top 10!

I wish I had the opportunity to find more ECs. Just over 20 finds myself...

4.2k · February 11, 2014

Biggest Earthcache gap in Africa

The circle with a radius of 1499.38km (931.87 miles) around N09 59.630 E21 08.303 (southeast Chad) contains no Earthcaches. It covers all of the Central African Republic, as well as large parts of Sudan, South Sudan, D.R.C., Congo, Cameroon, Nigeria and Chad. This is an area almost as large as Australia!

Managed to get the circle eventually

1.6k · February 11, 2014

I wish I had the opportunity to find more ECs. Just over 20 finds myself...

With your 21 finds you are in the top 7.6% of EC finders. It is interesting, I see the Geocaching website reports the total number of geocachers to be over 6 million. That means only about one in every 17 cachers have found an EarthCache.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Danie Viljoen

3.1k · February 11, 2014

It is interesting, I see the Geocaching website reports the total number of geocachers to be over 6 million. That means only about one in every 17 cachers have found an EarthCache.

Of course, that assumes there actually are over 6 million geocachers. Some geocachers own multiple accounts. Some "geocachers" signed up for a free account and never used it to find any caches of any sort. Etc.

1.6k · February 12, 2014

Finds per country for the last year:

For the year ending January 31, 2014:

1.  Germany	   184744 finds, 31.7% of the total
2.  United States  124567	 21.4%	
3.  Czech Republic  48309	  8.3%	
4.  Spain	    22032	  3.8%	
5.  United Kingdom  21949	  3.8%	
6.  Netherlands	    21370	  3.7%	
7.  Canada	    19938	  3.4%	
8.  Austria	    19344	  3.3%	
9.  Portugal	    15501	  2.7%	
10. France	    10705	  1.8%

This clearly shows that numbers-wise, the top two countries completely dominate EarthCaching at the moment.

1.6k · February 12, 2014

Most found EarthCaches:

Up to January 31, 2014:

1.  GCZ8H7   The Cologne Cathedral - A Geological Point of View	 Germany	 2006/11/13  6277 finds
2.  GC1AH0N  The Letna Profile / Letensky profil	         Czech Republic	 2008/03/24  3805 finds
3.  GC1Y2ZE  Lapis lazuli	                                 Austria	 2009/09/01  3784 finds
4.  GC2T2TP  Mrákotínský monolit	                         Czech Republic	 2011/04/12  3504 finds
5.  GCMH1C   Table Rock Earthcache	                         Canada	         2005/01/16  3338 finds
6.  GC2BP21  La Seu	                                         Spain	         2010/07/12  3193 finds
7.  GC10HZW  Old Faithful Geyser at Yellowstone National Park	 United States	 2007/01/24  2961 finds
8.  GC1MN5Y  Les crapauds de l'obélisque de la concorde.	 France	         2009/02/13  2895 finds
9.  GC1WRE9  Bayerns schönste Geotope Nr. 11 / Lovely Geotope	 Germany	 2009/08/03  2480 finds
10. GC11YWF  cuevas del drach - mallorcas first earthcache	 Spain	         2007/04/06  2409 finds

Eight of the top ten are in Europe.

Most found ECs during the last year:

1.  GC2T2TP  Mrákotínský monolit	                         Czech Republic	 2011/04/12  1559 finds
2.  GC1AH0N  The Letna Profile / Letensky profil	         Czech Republic	 2008/03/24  1165 finds
3.  GCZ8H7   The Cologne Cathedral - A Geological Point of View	 Germany	 2006/11/13  1019 finds
4.  GC3C9DJ  Pahorek Pecka	                                 Czech Republic	 2012/09/20   965 finds
5.  GC4K89F  AGT 37: Meteorit Muonionalusta	                 Czech Republic	 2013/09/06   943 finds
6.  GC2BP21  La Seu	                                         Spain	         2010/07/12   873 finds
7.  GC1Y2ZE  Lapis lazuli	                                 Austria	 2009/09/01   699 finds
8.  GC27K4E  Montmartre la blanche	                         France	         2010/04/27   691 finds
9.  GC2ZVK1  Helgoland - Lange Anna & Lummenfelsen	         Germany	 2011/08/16   653 finds
10. GC18FHR  Zugspitze (2962 m) - Top of Germany	         Germany	 2008/01/08   640 finds

The top 10 are all in Europe. Interesting that four of the top five are in the Czech Republic!

1.6k · February 12, 2014

EarthCaches with the most Favorite Points:

1.  GCZ8H7   The Cologne Cathedral - A Geological Point of View	 Germany	2006/11/13  633	FPs
2.  GCMH1C   Table Rock Earthcache	                         Canada	        2005/01/16  442	FPs
3.  GC18FHR  Zugspitze (2962 m) - Top of Germany	         Germany	2008/01/08  395	FPs
4.  GC1BJ4E  Two Oceans	                                         Denmark	2008/04/24  359	FPs
5.  GC16H2T  Voll der Rheinfall !	                         Switzerland	2007/10/08  357	FPs
6.  GC10HZW  Old Faithful Geyser at Yellowstone National Park	 United States	2007/01/24  330	FPs
7.  GC10ACW  Bridal Veil Falls	                                 United States	2007/01/11  313	FPs
8.  GC1V22T  Bastei	                                         Germany	2009/06/22  310	FPs
9.  GC1H8A9  Terrapin Point Horseshoe Falls	                 United States	2008/10/15  288	FPs
10. GC1GHZV  Torrent de Parreis	                                 Spain	        2008/09/23  284	FPs

1.6k · February 12, 2014

EarthCaches with the most log photos:

1.  GCZ8H7   The Cologne Cathedral - A Geological Point of View	 Germany	November 13, 2006   5217 photos
2.  GC1HGD7  PUNTA DE LA NAO (FORMENTOR, MALLORCA)	         Spain	        October 24, 2008    4114 photos
3.  GC1X4NV  Peberholm (Drogden shelf)	                         Denmark	August 11, 2009	    3755 photos
4.  GCMH1C   Table Rock Earthcache	                         Canada	        January 16, 2005    3675 photos
5.  GC2BP21  La Seu	                                         Spain	        July 12, 2010	    3294 photos
6.  GC10HZW  Old Faithful Geyser at Yellowstone National Park	 United States	January 24, 2007    3071 photos
7.  GC1MN5Y  Les crapauds de l'obélisque de la concorde.	 France	        February 13, 2009   2995 photos
8.  GC1G4W0  Umpire Rock	                                 United States	September 9, 2008   2962 photos
9.  GC18FHR  Zugspitze (2962 m) - Top of Germany	         Germany	January 8, 2008	    2946 photos
10. GC1Y2ZE  Lapis lazuli	                                 Austria	September 1, 2009   2852 photos

February 13, 2014

Thank you for providing all these interesting statistics. I'm hoping you can add one more to the list. Is it possible to calculate average number of visits per some time period (maybe per month?) then plot that versus when the cache was placed?

My curiosity about this was aroused by your earlier data of how many caches were placed per year, and the discussions that followed about difficulty of placing new ECs due to the higher standards. Have you looked at whether these newer, "harder" caches are being visited as often as some of the older ones where the requirement to log might be "Read the sign and tell me how high this pretty waterfall is"? This might tell us if cachers are still as interested in finding ECs.

February 13, 2014

BTW, I was not trying to be negative when I called the newer caches "harder". I personally prefer the ones where a real earth science lesson is given. Oh, drat. When I said "real" lesson, I did not mean that the older ones were all devoid of educational content. I'd better quit while I'm behind.

1.6k · February 14, 2014

Have you looked at whether these newer, "harder" caches are being visited as often as some of the older ones where the requirement to log might be "Read the sign and tell me how high this pretty waterfall is"? This might tell us if cachers are still as interested in finding ECs.

I can do that, but that will be for individual, specific caches. I can maybe look at a few of the busier ones. I don't expect a very noticable effect; I think the growing number of cachers would have compensated for the effect of the perceived increased difficulty. What was the change-over date; when did it become more difficult?

February 14, 2014

I don't have your database, so I created a PQ for the 500 closest EC's to my location, then sorted by date placed. I looked the number of finds for 20 consecutive ECs in several different years to get the number of finds, then calculated the average finds per month since placement:

2005 8.1

2008 5.7

2010 3.2

2013 2.7

Probably not too significant because of small sample size, but interesting still. Especially since I think the rule change occurred in 2010???

Newer cachers might not be skewing the numbers much - wouldn't they go to the earlier ones first, mostly because they are placed in the more scenic and highly traveled areas?

February 18, 2014

There was a pretty big update to the guidelines that went into effect Jan. 1, 2011, that "tightened" things up a bit. The current guidelines went into effect Jan. 1, 2013. In 2010, I think we as a review team were in general were scrutinizing logging tasks more closely (photos, Internet searches, etc.), which then led to the formal revision at the start of 2011.

--Matt

February 19, 2014

After looking at all the closest 500 EC's, there is much less difference in visits per month versus year placed. The high number in my previous post for a small part of 2005 was due to several ECs at Niagara Falls that were extremely high in logs. Only a minor drop occurred from 2010 to 2011 when some tightening of the rules took place, and 2013 was almost the same as 2012.

Looks like cachers are still coming out to get the newer caches.

1k · February 20, 2014

I would also think many of the early ones would be the big tourist locations, or a higher percentage. We're now we are getting a higher percentage of caches that are away from those touristy locals.

February 25, 2014

Blue Rajah makes a good point. In some areas, like New York probably, the earlier EarthCaches are places with more visitors in general, whereas some of the newer ones may be a bit more obscure or off the beaten path. Makes sense.

10.1k · February 26, 2014

Blue Rajah makes a good point. In some areas, like New York probably, the earlier EarthCaches are places with more visitors in general, whereas some of the newer ones may be a bit more obscure or off the beaten path. Makes sense.

Bad sample to cite, given the EarthCache Power Trails in NYC and Jersey City. (Assuming by "New York" you meant "New York City". Still don't know why anyone would set up EarthCaches in a landfill???

So, yes. The better ones would be in more obscure places. There's not really a lot to see in a landfill. "Is the current flowing upriver or downriver?"

So, that was a bad example.

1k · March 2, 2014

I just look at our oldest ones in Utah.

Zions, Arches, Bryce Canyon, Timpanogas Cave. All national monuments with lots of visitors. They are the ones that can be done easily because the signs and educational material is abundant, and public.

I agree that many of the newer ones are more interesting. They tend to be more out of the way, but more difficult as the person needs to have some knowledge of the geology. So they have fewer visitors (in general). So your data on number of visits will be skewed a bit.

1.6k · March 6, 2014

US states with the most, fewest active EarthCaches:

1. California:   621
2. Michigan:     368
3. Kentucky:     324
4. Wisconsin:    281
5. Ohio:         225
.
.
47. Vermont:	  21
48. North Dakota: 15
49. Rhode Island: 13
50. D.C.:	  12
51. Delaware:	  10

1.6k · March 6, 2014

US states with the highest/lowest EC density:

1.  D.C.:	  678 ECs per 10000 square km. Average distance between ECs: 4.1km / 2.6 miles
2.  Wisconsin:	   45		                                            16.1    10.0
3.  Rhode Island:  41		                                            16.7    10.4
4.  Kentucky:	   31		                                            19.3    12.0
5.  Connecticut:   25		                                            21.5    13.3
.
.						
47. Oklahoma:	  1.9		                                            77.3    48.1
48. Montana:	  1.6		                                            84.3    52.4
49. Nebraska:	  1.2		                                            98.9    61.5
50. North Dakota: 0.8		                                           118.8    73.8
51. Alaska:	  0.4		                                           164.8   102.4

1.6k · March 6, 2014

US states with the most/fewest EC finds (over all time):

1.  California:	 55249 finds
2.  Michigan:	 33490	
3.  Utah:	 31099	
4.  Washington:	 29751	
5.  Kentucky:	 28095	
.
.			
47. Connecticut:  2265	
48. Vermont:	  1812	
49. North Dakota: 1395	
50. Delaware:	   982	
51. Rhode Island:  880

1.6k · March 6, 2014

US states with the most/fewest average finds/EC:

1.  D.C.:	 313.4 finds/EC
2.  Hawaii:	 310.4	
3.  Wyoming:	 261.7	
4.  Nevada:	 163.7	
5.  Washington:	 146.6	
.
.			
47. Rhode Island: 62.9	
48. Maine:	  62.6	
49. Connecticut:  61.2	
50. Kentucky:	  58.8	
51. Nebraska:	  58.6	

Average:          99.8

1.6k · March 6, 2014

US states with the lowest/highest population per EC:

1.  Wyoming:	     5177 persons/EC
2.  Wisconsin:	     6449	
3.  South Dakota:    7173	
4.  Alaska:	     9363	
5.  Maine:	    10538	
.
.			
47. Louisiana:	   119256	
48. Massachusetts: 131628	
49. Georgia:	   144617	
50. New Jersey:	   163885	
51. Texas:	   173220

Average for the USA: 48457 persons/EC

1.6k · March 6, 2014

Map of EarthCache density in the USA.

3.1k · March 6, 2014

US states with the most/fewest average finds/EC:
1.  D.C.:	 313.4 finds/EC
...

You might want to crunch the numbers again.

This seemed pretty amazing to me, especially since 8 of the 12 D.C. EarthCaches were published less than a year ago. Even with the numerous tourists visiting the area, that's quite a feat.

So, I ran the numbers myself. As of this morning, the 12 ECs have 2,593 finds, for an average of 216.1 finds per EC. Even counting total logs (2,641), the average only reaches 220.1. Still pretty amazing, but not quite as much.

What am I missing here?

1.6k · March 6, 2014

What am I missing here?

You are missing two archived caches, GC38CAD (with 1086 finds) and GC20ETR (with 723 finds). Added to your 2593 it gives an average of 314.4. The difference of 1 find/EC is because my last database update was a few days ago. If everybody would just stop caching so that I can catch up!

1.6k · March 7, 2014

Number of EarthCaches per Difficulty, Terrain:

1.6k · March 7, 2014

Average number of finds per Difficulty / Terrain:

This graph shows a clear linear trend - the higher the Difficulty (or Terrain) rating, the lower the average number of finds.

1.6k · March 7, 2014

Have you looked at whether these newer, "harder" caches are being visited as often as some of the older ones where the requirement to log might be "Read the sign and tell me how high this pretty waterfall is"? This might tell us if cachers are still as interested in finding ECs.

To compare apples with apples, I compared the last 500 ECs published (worldwide) before the changeover to the more stringent guidlines, with the first 500 published after the changeover on January 1, 2011. And, to eliminate the novelty factor, I only considered finds since January 1, 2012, i.e., a year later:

The average number of finds for the pre-changeover ECs: 79.5 finds since January 1, 2012

The average number of finds for the post-changeover ECs: 78.1 finds since January 1, 2012

The difference of 1.8% is almost certainly insignificant, and I think it is safe to say that the changeover made no difference to the popularity of EarthCaches.

March 7, 2014

That's a very interesting way to analyze the data, so I did a similar analysis with my collection of ECs.

2010 ECs 82 caches: range 5 - 138 logs , mean 32.7 logs , median 22 logs

2011 ECs 62 caches: range 1 - 246 logs , mean 28.6 logs , median 23 logs

My biggest surprise was the difference in the means for your data vs mine. US Earthcaches have far fewer vists (about half), but that has already been suggested in your previous posts.

The size of the range is also interesting. Yes, there is an EC that gets about 1 visit per year!! At the same time, there are some that get visited several times per week. This makes statistical analysis difficult, doesn't it? But again, it reflects what has been said in previous posts: there are some ECs that get visited much more frequently because of the location. (The 2011 EC with the high number of visits is just off The Mall in Washington DC.)

Thanks for starting this informative thread!

Edited March 7, 2014 by egroeg

1.7k · March 7, 2014

The difference of 1.8% is almost certainly insignificant, and I think it is safe to say that the changeover made no difference to the popularity of EarthCaches.

You're probably right, that the 1.8% is insignificant, but it would be very interesting (but next to impossible) to compare the average visits of pre-changeover EC's that would be approved under the new rules, pre-changeover EC's that would not be approved under the new rules, and post-changeover EC's (that for the most part comply with the new rules).... I know, impossible as it would require checking and classifying every old EC, but my hypothesis would be that many of the old-but-now-non-compliant EC's would have easier and less complicated tasks, and may show a statistically significant difference.

1.6k · March 8, 2014

my hypothesis would be that many of the old-but-now-non-compliant EC's would have easier and less complicated tasks, and may show a statistically significant difference.

Commonsense says you are right, that "easier" ECs should lead to more finds, but my numbers simply do not support your hypothesis. Surely a fair number of the pre-changeover caches in my quite large sample must be easier than the average post-changeover cache? And yet they did not (on average) draw more visitors, even taking into account the other point made earlier, that older ECs have the advantage of better locations. I am actually surprised as well; all I can think is that most cachers don't consider the logging requirements at all. (They do however consider the Difficulty/Terrain rating, as my previous graphs clearly show.)

Edited March 8, 2014 by Danie Viljoen

1.7k · March 9, 2014

The average number of finds for the pre-changeover ECs: 79.5 finds since January 1, 2012

The average number of finds for the post-changeover ECs: 78.1 finds since January 1, 2012

The difference of 1.8% is almost certainly insignificant, and I think it is safe to say that the changeover made no difference to the popularity of EarthCaches.

Hmmm, on second thought.... It's not an even playing field. More recent EC's could be found by everyone, but older EC's could only be found be those who had not already found them before Jan 1 2012 - so you'd expect the pre-changeover EC's to have a significantly lower number of finds since Jan 1 2012, and yet they did not.

Edit... on third thought, I read again and see you attempted to eliminate that effect as much as possible. However, I'm not convinced that the first 500 earthcaches after the changeover would have had the new guidelines so strictly imposed as to see the difference.

Edited March 10, 2014 by funkymunkyzone

1.6k · March 10, 2014

EC Cacher career length:

The following graph shows the distribution of career length (interval between first and last EarthCache found):

(The number of cachers with a career length less than 1 month is not shown; it is completely off the scale. In fact, 145595 cachers have a career length of 1 day).

(The vertical axis represents number of cachers.)

This graph shows an interesting yearly cycle for which I do not have a good explanation - maybe some cachers only hunt ECs at the same time every year?

The same data, but in 4-monthly intervals, on a logarithmic scale:

1.6k · March 10, 2014

EC Cacher attrition rate:

The following graph is another way to look at the above data:

What this graph means is that only 37% of cachers make it past 1 year, 25% reach 2 years, 5% reach 5 years, etc.

1.7k · March 10, 2014

This graph shows an interesting yearly cycle for which I do not have a good explanation - maybe some cachers only hunt ECs at the same time every year?

Perhaps weather? Or more specifically cold weather, snow etc... Less fun walking to some site, maybe even impossible to complete an earthcache when the fossils, rock layers, etc are under snow...?

What this graph means is that only 37% of cachers make it past 1 year, 25% reach 2 years, 5% reach 5 years, etc.

How does that compare against the length of time any particular cacher has been caching, particularly earthcaching? Can that be measured? I just wonder how many of the 37% have only been caching for a bit more than a year...

Cool stats.

1.6k · March 10, 2014

Perhaps weather? Or more specifically cold weather, snow etc... Less fun walking to some site, maybe even impossible to complete an earthcache when the fossils, rock layers, etc are under snow...?

I agree that weather plays a role in when people cache, but why would they STOP caching at multiples of 12 months?

1.6k · March 10, 2014

How does that compare against the length of time any particular cacher has been caching, particularly earthcaching? Can that be measured? I just wonder how many of the 37% have only been caching for a bit more than a year...

I don't understand your question? The career length I graphed here IS the length of time cachers have cached until they stopped. At least for finding EarthCaches. I can't say anything about other cache types - I don't have the data.

If your question is about the end effect (career "stopped" by the data cut-off date of February 28, 2014) then yes, it will have an effect. I don't know how to compensate for it - any suggestions?

1.7k · March 10, 2014

If your question is about the end effect (career "stopped" by the data cut-off date of February 28, 2014) then yes, it will have an effect. I don't know how to compensate for it - any suggestions?

Yeah sorry I wasn't clear - that's what I meant. Obviously someone who only started caching a year ago would show up as someone who "stopped after a year". I've got no idea how you'd adjust for that!

1.7k · March 10, 2014

Perhaps weather? Or more specifically cold weather, snow etc... Less fun walking to some site, maybe even impossible to complete an earthcache when the fossils, rock layers, etc are under snow...?

I agree that weather plays a role in when people cache, but why would they STOP caching at multiples of 12 months?

At a guess I'd say there might be two answers.

1. They haven't stopped yet, but they have stopped since the start of winter? As in, they are one of those people that have started caching at some point, go finding ECs during warmer months and not during colder months as they are now in the northern hemisphere... or

2. They have started and stopped, but as you'd expect, their last EC find was during warm months when they were more likely to be finding EC's - remembering that you'll detect them stopping as the day they found their last one, rather than any time later when they actually decided to stop. Does that make sense? What I mean is, someone may stop caching, but the decision to stop caching wasn't actually the last day they found a cache, it was some time later when they decided not to bother going out again. If they are more likely to find caches during warm months then warm months are the most likely time that their last cache find would be in.

1.7k · March 10, 2014

Maybe if you graphed monthly finds on ECs between, say 20 and 40 degrees North, 40 and above degrees North, and likewise for 20 to 40 south and >40 south, and +/-20 from the equator and look at how the monthly finds compare. I'd wager for the >40 degrees north/south, there'd be a summer bias.

1.6k · March 10, 2014

They have started and stopped, but as you'd expect, their last EC find was during warm months when they were more likely to be finding EC's - remembering that you'll detect them stopping as the day they found their last one, rather than any time later when they actually decided to stop. Does that make sense?

Yes, that makes perfect sense!

1.6k · March 10, 2014

Starting dates of EarthCachers:

The current rate is about 60000 new EarthCache finders per year.

And to see the seasonal effect better, only the last 2 years:

(This is for all cachers who have found their first EarthCache during this period, worldwide.)

Even though we South Africans (and I presume the Australians) do most of our caching in December, the effect is completely overshadowed by the much larger numbers in the northern hemisphere. I was surprised by the big range - 9346 cachers found their first EC in August, versus only 2610 last February - a factor of 3.6! It looks as if caching must almost come to a standstill in the northern winter! (I'll have a look at all EC logs later.)

Edited March 10, 2014 by Danie Viljoen

1.6k · March 10, 2014

Number of new EarthCache finders per year:

A slightly worrying trend:

The number of first-time EarthCache finders peaked in May 2012, and has been declining since then.

1.6k · March 11, 2014

EarthCache finds over time:

Yearly finds, worldwide:

The total number of finds per year seems to have stabilised - since August 2012 the variation has been less than 5%.

Monthly finds, worldwide:

Seasonal finds, worldwide:

I was really surprised to see the huge variation through the year - August has more than 3 times the finds of January!

EarthCache Statistics

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment