Jump to content

Minimum Geocache Distance when 2 points are not accessible of each other.


bhalbach

Recommended Posts

Posted

I did read the guidelines regarding minimum distance and saturation,but I was wondering if there are any exceptions to this rule.

 

I see 2 caches that overlap close to me on a street that don't meet this guideline (GC2HZQE & GC2TAH8). These caches are extremely close and I would consider them readily accessible to each other.

 

I felt the intent of the rule is so that people can not simply walk from one cache to another and make multiple finds with minimal effort as in the examples above.

 

However, in my case there is an existing geocache located close to our new desired geocache location (about 350ft). If you consider the distance "As the crow flies", but in all reality there is about a 60 ft elevation drop and about 100 ft of impassible blackberry bushes as well as private property. All though it is physically close by the GPS positions, it is approximately a 2 mile drive to access the cache. There is absolutely no other way, route, or trail that can connect these 2 locations together.

 

Shouldn't accessibility be considered into the distance?

Posted

It is. Or at least it used to be. But the reviewers are more strict now that we have started pushing that distance by making powertrails. The trade off of being allowed to place a cache 162m from another cache, and doing that 4 or 5 hundred times just because the rules allow it, is to not have caches less than 161m from another cache, again because that's what's in the guidelines. But it won't hurt to ask.

 

If your reviewer lets you do that, then great. If your reviewer says no, well it is in the guidelines so you really can't complain.

Posted (edited)

If you find a location where you want to put a cache, and there's a cache already at less than 528 feet, perhaps you can place a virtual stage of a multi-cache on that spot.

You want to highlight a home? put your listing coords where the home is visible, and some number is visible to the cacher - house number perhaps, then add a simple formula that takes seekers to a physical final cache elsewhere that meets the saturation guideline.

Here's a cache of this type that my player account owns as an example http://coord.info/GCVW0K

 

GC2HZQE N47 40.090 W122 05.631

GC2TAH8 N47 40.185 W122 05.615 <---from 0.11 mile

 

These caches meet the saturation guideline; they are more than one tenth mile apart. And yet they seem very close to you, suggests that the required distance is already pretty tight ;-)

 

I felt the intent of the rule is so that people can not simply walk from one cache to another and make multiple finds with minimal effort

 

The guideline is not about "effort per smiley".

 

Shouldn't accessibility be considered into the distance?

 

Not in my universe ;-) The world is large, and it is largely cache free.

Edited by palmetto
Posted

Before this thread devolves into whether or not a reviewer did his job we should get our facts straight. I don't know what the OP used to judge distance but he needs to reevaluate his procedure and instruments. Plugging into fizzy shows they are approximately 581.288242 ft apart. Seems ok to me.

 

In the future I would suggest standing at one cache and searching for the other one and looking at the distance shown.

Posted (edited)

From the Help Center:

 

If you see any physical geocache within .10 mi (528 ft or 161 m) of your proposed new geocache, your geocache is unlikely to be published.

 

Link for reference:

 

Checking for Geocache Saturation

 

Clicking on the Geocaching map link, there appears to be lots of space out towards the East, such as out further on Union Hill Road a bit further. Nonetheless, it might be worthwhile to take advantage of the advice near the bottom of the Help Center article which I linked above. The hidden Puzzle/Multi Finals can sometimes come back to bite you.

 

Good luck!

Edited by Touchstone
Posted

It is. Or at least it used to be. But the reviewers are more strict now that we have started pushing that distance by making powertrails. The trade off of being allowed to place a cache 162m from another cache, and doing that 4 or 5 hundred times just because the rules allow it, is to not have caches less than 161m from another cache, again because that's what's in the guidelines. But it won't hurt to ask.

 

If your reviewer lets you do that, then great. If your reviewer says no, well it is in the guidelines so you really can't complain.

 

That pretty much matches what a reviewer posted her on the subject that last time this issue came up (and it comes up quite a lot).

 

Yes, there are exceptions to the 161m proximity guideline, just don't expect an exception to be granted. It's also worth mentioning that attempting to use existing examples of caches closer than 161m isn't going to help, and might possibly lead to the archival of one of those caches if someone the proximity issue slipped through the cracks.

Posted

I did read the guidelines regarding minimum distance and saturation,but I was wondering if there are any exceptions to this rule.

 

I see 2 caches that overlap close to me on a street that don't meet this guideline (GC2HZQE & GC2TAH8). These caches are extremely close and I would consider them readily accessible to each other.

Just taking a quick measurement on screen, they are more than 1/10 mile apart. Make yours like that. :anicute:

 

I don't place my caches with the intention that they get in the way of an amazing one. If it's my cache that is in the way, I'd want you to email me and discuss your terrific new cache idea. Couldn't hurt to ask the Cache Owner, although without the expectation that people will clear the area for you. Often I see a cool spot where a cool electro-mechanical puzzle might work, and someone's placed a pill bottle with bad coords in a position that's not particularly notable, and doesn't maintain it. In that case, I watch and wait, and maybe that spot will be available someday. :D

 

Since the nearest cache is completely inaccessible from your proposed spot, you may ask the local reviewer as mentioned.

Posted

While I can see reasoning if there's a sheer cliff or a 300 foot wide river...fact is we're not talking about great distances here. If you can't move your cache 100 feet to avoid being too close, you are missing a creative opportunity.

Posted
All though it is physically close by the GPS positions, it is approximately a 2 mile drive to access the cache. There is absolutely no other way, route, or trail that can connect these 2 locations together.

 

Shouldn't accessibility be considered into the distance?

 

I have the benefit of being able to see your cache. The distance to other, as the reviewer has explained, is under 200ft. There is a creek crossing and I don't doubt blackberries. Makes the straight line route between the two caches terrain 3.5 or possibly terrain 4. Ugly, but doable. Looks to me like it would be possible to walk south along the paved trail, find a creek crossing further south, less steep, less vegetation, and walk back. Longer, but still under T3.

 

If you want to keep the terrain rating at 1 or 1.5, then it may be necessary to return to car, drive around to different parking.

This is not inaccessible, it's just not accessible as at low terrain.

 

And this is the problem with considering accessibility, generally. Cache on mountain top, cache down the side, below a long cliff face. Coords of the two read as close. The cache owner of cache below cliff insists it's miles to walk between the two, and is right. But the guy on the top with a rope and some skills just abseiled down to the second cache =:-)

Posted
And this is the problem with considering accessibility, generally. Cache on mountain top, cache down the side, below a long cliff face. Coords of the two read as close. The cache owner of cache below cliff insists it's miles to walk between the two, and is right. But the guy on the top with a rope and some skills just abseiled down to the second cache =:-)

 

Wasn't the original purpose of the saturation guideline to prevent confusion caused by finding one cache while searching for another?

 

In the example you gave it's hard to see how people might find one cache while looking for the other. Does the fact the guy with the rope and skills could abseil actually mean anything significant? It probably took him longer to abseil to the second cache than it would take any able-bodied person to walk the 528 feet between film pots on a power trail.

 

Generally speaking the saturation guideline is good, to avoid confusion and also prevent power trails from getting even more concentrated, but it seems to me it's good to look at the rationale behind a guideline as well as the wording of it.

Posted

I wasn't speaking to the intent of the guideline, I was speaking to addressing the cache owner's statement that "2 points are not accessible of each other", and whether this should be "considered into the distance?"

 

I'd say no. It shouldn't be considered, because the notion of accessible depends upon who is doing the accessing.

 

There does need to be some minimum distance between caches, so they not be confused, and so they can move some during their existence.

What that distance should be can argued, .1 mile is too far or too close, or just right.

I'm not interested in that particular conversation.

Posted (edited)

I wasn't speaking to the intent of the guideline, I was speaking to addressing the cache owner's statement that "2 points are not accessible of each other", and whether this should be "considered into the distance?"

 

I'd say no. It shouldn't be considered, because the notion of accessible depends upon who is doing the accessing.

 

There does need to be some minimum distance between caches, so they not be confused, and so they can move some during their existence.

What that distance should be can argued, .1 mile is too far or too close, or just right.

I'm not interested in that particular conversation.

I don't know the original reason that there was a saturation guideline, but I do know that for a long time this was one of few guidelines where Groundspeak did include the rationale. If I recall the statement was something to the effect that the main goal of the guideline was to encourage people to hide caches in new places and to prevent one person from dominating a particular area.

 

Under those guidelines reviewers could make all sorts of exceptions - both allowing cache closer than 528 ft. and preventing series of caches were 528 ft. from each other. Reviewers and everyone else knew the intent of the guidelines and decisions where made to support that intent. Powertrails were disallowed when one person was dominating an area. Caches on opposite sides of a river or similar barrier were viewed as different places, particularly if one side had few or no other caches.

 

With Groundspeak's decision to allow powertrails, the old rationale disappeared. The current rationale for keeping the saturation guideline is unknown and reviewers are left to consider only the distance between caches regardless of facts on the ground. Most people simply accept this as the 'rules' and won't question it unless they want to place a cache closer than 528 to an existing one, or they place cache and discover it is closer than 528 to a puzzle cache or stage of a multi.

Edited by tozainamboku
Posted

Maybe the following quote on the Guidelines page can help reveal the essence of the intent of the Saturation portion of the Guidelines:

 

"When you go to hide a geocache, think of the reason you are bringing people to that spot. If the only reason is for the geocache, then find a better spot." – briansnat

 

Now you could argue if 200 feet really is a *new* and extraordinary spot that simply can't be missed, but as pointed out earlier, there's probably a way to fashion a virtual waypoint at the site and place the physical container in an area that conforms with the spirit of the Guidelines.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...