161m - guideline or rule?

January 31, 2015

We're yet to place our first cache, and have found an absolute cracker of a placement with some great local interest and the chance to place a really sneaky cache hidden in plain sight. But... it's about 5m inside a 161m circle from the nearest one. How strict is the 161m rule, the site is just too perfect to not use!

Ta - Malc & Chris, the St. Leonard's Warriors!

5.9k · January 31, 2015

You cannot have a physical part of any cache closer to any other cache less than those 161m.

But you can have a multi cache with a non-physical stage in that perfect spot you have in mind, as long it ends on other spot, by instance.

No problem.

Edited January 31, 2015 by Ruidealmeida

January 31, 2015

You cannot have a physical part of any cache closer to any other cache less than those 161m.

But you can have a multi cache with a non-physical stage in that perfect spot you have in mind, as long it ends on other spot, by instance.

No problem.

Ah that's just too bad, the cache has to be on the exact spot

11.6k · January 31, 2015

You could check with the Reviewer. That's typically who published local caches, the first name in a log on a cache page. There's good info here: https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

See the part about cache separation, but be sure to read the whole thing, so you know all about placing a Geocache. I don't have all the details about your proposed cache spot, but there are placement exceptions. So a reviewer may help you.

If it's a very cool cache idea, and my cache were blocking it, I would like to know. Maybe the other Cache Owner would, too. You can ask that CO about your idea. Don't expect caches to be moved for you, but maybe there's some way your idea could work. When a perfect cache site is blocked by other caches, I move on, and try to find an even more amazing spot. But it's OK to ask.

3.4k · January 31, 2015

If it's a very cool cache idea, and my cache were blocking it, I would like to know. Maybe the other Cache Owner would, too. You can ask that CO about your idea. Don't expect caches to be moved for you, but maybe there's some way your idea could work. When a perfect cache site is blocked by other caches, I move on, and try to find an even more amazing spot. But it's OK to ask.

Ditto. There aren't many of my caches that I wouldn't be willing to move 5m in order to allow a really cool cache to move in. Just don't go at it as though you expect the other CO accommodate you.

9.2k · January 31, 2015

But... it's about 5m inside a 161m circle from the nearest one. How strict is the 161m rule, the site is just too perfect to not use!

Since power trails and easing up on the "don't place one every 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) just because you can" they do rather stick to the minimum distance requirement these days...

January 31, 2015

And if they say ok 5m is ok for this one, than someone will say well my next one is 6, than 7, than 8, and we end up with them even much closer by guidelines creep.

3.3k · February 1, 2015

Before talking with the CO of the nearby cache, why not visit that other cache and see if you can find and suggest an alternative placement about 10 meters further away. Meet the cacher at a nearby coffee shop, pick up the tab for the coffee, and then go look at the locations together.

That is, if the CO is still alive, living nearby, active, and has an email address. Big "ifs"! :rolleyes:

Edited February 1, 2015 by wmpastor

38.2k · February 1, 2015

Ask your reviewer. Some will give some latitude over a matter of a few meters s long as you don't make a habit of it and the area isn't already saturated with caches. Others are strict down to the centimeter. If you get a no from the reviewer, as others mentioned, try the other cache owner. A nicely worded note explaining what you're trying to do may get him to move the cache a short distance to accommodate you.

A third option would be to make your cache a multi and using the interesting place you want to hide your cache as a virtual stage. Virtual stages are not subject to the distance guideline. Use some cues at the location to allow searchers to obtain the coordinates of the real cache, which can be hidden a short distance away. If there is a sign or date you can use letters or numbers from the sign. Searcher can count certain items (I saw one where you had to count the spokes on a wagon wheel and do some easy addition or subtraction to obtain the coordinates of the actual cache).

February 2, 2015

<snip>

A third option would be to make your cache a multi and using the interesting place you want to hide your cache as a virtual stage. Virtual stages are not subject to the distance guideline. Use some cues at the location to allow searchers to obtain the coordinates of the real cache, which can be hidden a short distance away. If there is a sign or date you can use letters or numbers from the sign. Searcher can count certain items (I saw one where you had to count the spokes on a wagon wheel and do some easy addition or subtraction to obtain the coordinates of the actual cache).

I think this is the way to go...I don't want to step on toes so it was reallly just a noob query!

Hmm... <goes away to devise a cunning plan> :ninja:

February 2, 2015

Who measured the distance and how? If you used a gps there may be an error of more than 5m. If it's only 5m I would be inclined to submit the cache and see what the reviewer says if you think the location deserves a cache.

February 2, 2015

Who measured the distance and how? If you used a gps there may be an error of more than 5m.

Using the map with the radiuses marked, from here, it's pretty clear my site is covered

February 3, 2015

Who measured the distance and how? If you used a gps there may be an error of more than 5m.

Using the map with the radiuses marked, from here, it's pretty clear my site is covered

In that case then I would go with the multi suggestion.

1.2k · February 3, 2015

It is clear that I can not assess the situation on location, but I do think it is important to ask yourself what you are adding?

There already is a cache on location.

What makes the place of so much more value that there needs to be another cache within 161 meter of the other one?

3.7k · February 3, 2015

Good idea to check with a distance checker tool like this one: http://boulter.com/gps/distance/

In a couple instances I've bumped right up inside the 528 foot limit and so I would submit the coordinates 0.001 or 0.002 off from my readings since there is bound to be some built-in error already. You are expected to have SOME small of variance just by the nature of the technology, so 10 to 15 feet variance is usually not frowned upon.

Take lots of averages and use the distance checker and you may not even have a real problem.

3.3k · February 3, 2015

I've raised the question of extreme elevation changes before (e.g., cliffs of Dover), but here's a new thought. Okay, I accept the saturation rule. I also accept that it's unlikely that there will be an exception nowadays to the saturation distance rule based on obstacles (like a river) between a cache and a proposed cache. I even accept that the "up & down" between points A & B is unlikely to allow a cache, say, 500 feet from another (based on GPS coords), even though the straight line walking distance could easily make the separation actually 550 feet in even moderately hilly terrain.

However, if it can be shown that the actual physical linear distance between the two caches is greater than 528 feet, that cache should be published IMO, even though the distance calculated based on GPS readings is less. When can this happen? When there is a severe change of elevation of the land.

Picture this. The land at the top and bottom of the cliff is perfectly flat. The cliff is 510 feet high, and the rock face is straight up and down. The lower cache is right up against the rock wall. Where can the upper cache be placed? If you calculate distance purely by GPS readings and one of those distance calculators, the upper cache needs to be a full 528 back from the upper edge of the cliff. Ridiculous! Now picture spots near the edge of the cliff. The cacher wants to put the upper cache 20 feet from the edge, arguing that the linear distance on the surface separating the two caches is 530 feet (i.e., 510 feet straight up, and 20 feet across to the cache). Good?

I'm fine with GS saying no, arguing that the linear separation (through the rock!) is actually less than 528 feet. That distance is the hypotenuse of the triangle (510 x 20 on the other sides), and although you could never actually travel that route (without dynamiting the rock), you could say that that distance is the actual linear physical separation and is less separation than the guidelines require.

Now take a placement that is 500 feet from the edge of the top of the cliff. An unscientific reviewer will say, "no dice," because the GPS-calculated-distance between the two caches is only 500 feet. HOWEVER, the actual "travel distance" is at least 1,010 feet (510 feet up and 500 feet across), and even the actual physical linear distance test that I propose is over 714 feet! In other words, if you dynamited a hole in the cliff to travel the absolutely shortest possible distance from cache A to cache B, the physical separation is 714 feet, even though a GPS-based distance calculation will tell you the separation is 500 feet and your feet and climbing rope will tell you the separation is 1,010 feet (forgetting about the dynamite).

So actual physical linear distance is the best test, IMO, and while reviewers may worry that this will complicate their work, it is actually very rarely applicable (calling for an almost cliff-like slope in order to work), and it should be up to the cacher proposing a new cache to show a detailed proof of this calculation if he or she intends to use it.

Edited February 3, 2015 by wmpastor

7.8k · February 3, 2015

...

TL;DR

...

...or, we could just stick with the current - and much easier to determine - 0.1-mile horizontal distance that encourages hiders to seek out new locations, rather than try to come up with loopholes and schemes to try to pack caches closer together.

2.4k · February 3, 2015

So actual physical linear distance is the best test, IMO

In theory, yes. But using the 2D maps and tools (coords are only 2D), a reviewer cannot tell what the linear distance is. Until that becomes simple, I think the suggestion is unworkable.

10.1k · February 3, 2015

...

TL;DR

...

...or, we could just stick with the current - and much easier to determine - 0.1-mile horizontal distance that encourages hiders to seek out new locations, rather than try to come up with loopholes and schemes to try to pack caches closer together.

Yes. I have caches along the Palisades. Height varies from 240' at Weehawken to 480' at the GWB. My guideline is the linear distance on a two-dimensional map. I see no reason to test whether the guidelines are three dimensional. There's enough room for caches on Blvd East and along the Hudson River Walkway. I even managed to get a second cache in Guttenberg this way!

Hmm... There's a virtual on the observation deck of the Empire State Building! Should we put one at street level? Nope, I wouldn't even consider trying.

2k · February 4, 2015

I've raised the question of extreme elevation changes before (e.g., cliffs of Dover), but here's a new thought. Okay, I accept the saturation rule. I also accept that it's unlikely that there will be an exception nowadays to the saturation distance rule based on obstacles (like a river) between a cache and a proposed cache. I even accept that the "up & down" between points A & B is unlikely to allow a cache, say, 500 feet from another (based on GPS coords), even though the straight line walking distance could easily make the separation actually 550 feet in even moderately hilly terrain.

However, if it can be shown that the actual physical linear distance between the two caches is greater than 528 feet, that cache should be published IMO, even though the distance calculated based on GPS readings is less. When can this happen? When there is a severe change of elevation of the land.

Picture this. The land at the top and bottom of the cliff is perfectly flat. The cliff is 510 feet high, and the rock face is straight up and down. The lower cache is right up against the rock wall. Where can the upper cache be placed? If you calculate distance purely by GPS readings and one of those distance calculators, the upper cache needs to be a full 528 back from the upper edge of the cliff. Ridiculous! Now picture spots near the edge of the cliff. The cacher wants to put the upper cache 20 feet from the edge, arguing that the linear distance on the surface separating the two caches is 530 feet (i.e., 510 feet straight up, and 20 feet across to the cache). Good?

I'm fine with GS saying no, arguing that the linear separation (through the rock!) is actually less than 528 feet. That distance is the hypotenuse of the triangle (510 x 20 on the other sides), and although you could never actually travel that route (without dynamiting the rock), you could say that that distance is the actual linear physical separation and is less separation than the guidelines require.

Now take a placement that is 500 feet from the edge of the top of the cliff. An unscientific reviewer will say, "no dice," because the GPS-calculated-distance between the two caches is only 500 feet. HOWEVER, the actual "travel distance" is at least 1,010 feet (510 feet up and 500 feet across), and even the actual physical linear distance test that I propose is over 714 feet! In other words, if you dynamited a hole in the cliff to travel the absolutely shortest possible distance from cache A to cache B, the physical separation is 714 feet, even though a GPS-based distance calculation will tell you the separation is 500 feet and your feet and climbing rope will tell you the separation is 1,010 feet (forgetting about the dynamite).

So actual physical linear distance is the best test, IMO, and while reviewers may worry that this will complicate their work, it is actually very rarely applicable (calling for an almost cliff-like slope in order to work), and it should be up to the cacher proposing a new cache to show a detailed proof of this calculation if he or she intends to use it.

But what you forget in this is: if it's not mentioned in the cache description then a cache at a cliff could be at the bottom, at the top or somewhere inbetween. I think the distance rule makes a lot of sense for cliffs as people might still find the wrong cache. You could easily have two cache icons overlapping even though they are 181m apart in the vertical direction.

1.4k · February 4, 2015

Hmm... There's a virtual on the observation deck of the Empire State Building! Should we put one at street level? Nope, I wouldn't even consider trying.

I believe you can because the virtual is not included in the 161m guideline. Not because of the height of the building.

2.8k · February 4, 2015

Try taking the coordinates with an iPhone on different days, I'd bet that in at least one if those days you'd find yourself more than 161 meters away.

1.5k · February 4, 2015

A problem with using cliffs, rivers, ravines and other physical barriers as justification for an exemption to the 161m separation guideline is that the Reviewer gets stuck having to make a subjective call as to what is a sufficient barrier to justify the exemption. It's simply much easier to hold to the objective linear 161m guideline than sorting through many shades of grey.

1.2k · February 4, 2015

I wonder how often the International Space Station has conflicted with my caches. Oh, nevermind, I really don't wonder.

February 4, 2015

You cannot have a physical part of any cache closer to any other cache less than those 161m.

You can have a cache placed within the 161m-circle if the reviewer means, that it is ok.

I also thought, that this rule can never be disregarded, but a reviewer told me if he decided that it is ok, it is allowed.

8k · February 4, 2015

I've raised the question of extreme elevation changes before (e.g., cliffs of Dover), but here's a new thought. Okay, I accept the saturation rule. I also accept that it's unlikely that there will be an exception nowadays to the saturation distance rule based on obstacles (like a river) between a cache and a proposed cache. I even accept that the "up & down" between points A & B is unlikely to allow a cache, say, 500 feet from another (based on GPS coords), even though the straight line walking distance could easily make the separation actually 550 feet in even moderately hilly terrain.

However, if it can be shown that the actual physical linear distance between the two caches is greater than 528 feet, that cache should be published IMO, even though the distance calculated based on GPS readings is less. When can this happen? When there is a severe change of elevation of the land.

Picture this. The land at the top and bottom of the cliff is perfectly flat. The cliff is 510 feet high, and the rock face is straight up and down. The lower cache is right up against the rock wall. Where can the upper cache be placed? If you calculate distance purely by GPS readings and one of those distance calculators, the upper cache needs to be a full 528 back from the upper edge of the cliff. Ridiculous! Now picture spots near the edge of the cliff. The cacher wants to put the upper cache 20 feet from the edge, arguing that the linear distance on the surface separating the two caches is 530 feet (i.e., 510 feet straight up, and 20 feet across to the cache). Good?

I'm fine with GS saying no, arguing that the linear separation (through the rock!) is actually less than 528 feet. That distance is the hypotenuse of the triangle (510 x 20 on the other sides), and although you could never actually travel that route (without dynamiting the rock), you could say that that distance is the actual linear physical separation and is less separation than the guidelines require.

Now take a placement that is 500 feet from the edge of the top of the cliff. An unscientific reviewer will say, "no dice," because the GPS-calculated-distance between the two caches is only 500 feet. HOWEVER, the actual "travel distance" is at least 1,010 feet (510 feet up and 500 feet across), and even the actual physical linear distance test that I propose is over 714 feet! In other words, if you dynamited a hole in the cliff to travel the absolutely shortest possible distance from cache A to cache B, the physical separation is 714 feet, even though a GPS-based distance calculation will tell you the separation is 500 feet and your feet and climbing rope will tell you the separation is 1,010 feet (forgetting about the dynamite).

So actual physical linear distance is the best test, IMO, and while reviewers may worry that this will complicate their work, it is actually very rarely applicable (calling for an almost cliff-like slope in order to work), and it should be up to the cacher proposing a new cache to show a detailed proof of this calculation if he or she intends to use it.

How far away are the stairs?

8k · February 4, 2015

There's a virtual on the observation deck of the Empire State Building! Should we put one at street level? Nope, I wouldn't even consider trying.

The proximity guideline no longer applies to virtual caches.

3.3k · February 4, 2015

I've raised the question of extreme elevation changes before (e.g., cliffs of Dover), but here's a new thought. Okay, I accept the saturation rule. I also accept that it's unlikely that there will be an exception nowadays to the saturation distance rule based on obstacles (like a river) between a cache and a proposed cache. I even accept that the "up & down" between points A & B is unlikely to allow a cache, say, 500 feet from another (based on GPS coords), even though the straight line walking distance could easily make the separation actually 550 feet in even moderately hilly terrain.

However, if it can be shown that the actual physical linear distance between the two caches is greater than 528 feet, that cache should be published IMO, even though the distance calculated based on GPS readings is less. When can this happen? When there is a severe change of elevation of the land.

Picture this. The land at the top and bottom of the cliff is perfectly flat. The cliff is 510 feet high, and the rock face is straight up and down. The lower cache is right up against the rock wall. Where can the upper cache be placed? If you calculate distance purely by GPS readings and one of those distance calculators, the upper cache needs to be a full 528 back from the upper edge of the cliff. Ridiculous! Now picture spots near the edge of the cliff. The cacher wants to put the upper cache 20 feet from the edge, arguing that the linear distance on the surface separating the two caches is 530 feet (i.e., 510 feet straight up, and 20 feet across to the cache). Good?

I'm fine with GS saying no, arguing that the linear separation (through the rock!) is actually less than 528 feet. That distance is the hypotenuse of the triangle (510 x 20 on the other sides), and although you could never actually travel that route (without dynamiting the rock), you could say that that distance is the actual linear physical separation and is less separation than the guidelines require.

Now take a placement that is 500 feet from the edge of the top of the cliff. An unscientific reviewer will say, "no dice," because the GPS-calculated-distance between the two caches is only 500 feet. HOWEVER, the actual "travel distance" is at least 1,010 feet (510 feet up and 500 feet across), and even the actual physical linear distance test that I propose is over 714 feet! In other words, if you dynamited a hole in the cliff to travel the absolutely shortest possible distance from cache A to cache B, the physical separation is 714 feet, even though a GPS-based distance calculation will tell you the separation is 500 feet and your feet and climbing rope will tell you the separation is 1,010 feet (forgetting about the dynamite).

So actual physical linear distance is the best test, IMO, and while reviewers may worry that this will complicate their work, it is actually very rarely applicable (calling for an almost cliff-like slope in order to work), and it should be up to the cacher proposing a new cache to show a detailed proof of this calculation if he or she intends to use it.

How far away are the stairs?

That's the beauty of my suggestion. Thanks for the lead-in.

The actual linear distance (ALD) is a fixed number. No matter how the terrain changes (provided the caches are still supported and don't move or collapse), ALD is constant. I agree with GS that the "walking distance" is irrelevant because it can change - if the hilly terrain is bulldozed flat, the walking distance between points is lessened. In my example, the ALD is 714 feet, using an online calculator to determine the length of the triangle's hypotenuse (through the rock). The ALD can't change provided the caches don't physically move. Tunnel through rock, install steps, whatever, the separation is 714 feet. Now actually getting from point A to B is going to require at least 1,010 feet of walking & climbing by the cacher, and for most people quite a bit more.

The only issue that's been raised that bothers me is the question about whether a cache near the top of the cliff could get searchers looking for the cache at the bottom, and vice versa, since the caches will have almost identical coords. (More incentive to read the cache description?!)

ALD is an idea to consider, and one way to approach it would be to say that a cache may be accepted if the ALD is at least 528 feet, provided another test is also met - that the separation calculated by GPS coords is still at least a certain % of the 528 feet (90%? 75%? 50%?) With that in place, there's never the risk of finding the wrong cache.

Again, this only applies in highly unusual situations. But where it does, it seems to make sense. Why *not* a cache at the bottom of a cliff and then one at the top, set back a few hundred feet (but less than 528)? Minimal extra reviewer work because (1) it's very rare, and (2) the CO spells out the details, and (3) the reviewer confirms with a quick look at a topo map and/or Google Earth.

3.7k · February 5, 2015

Last I heard, geocaching is a game played only using what are essentially 2-dimensional coordinates. Until elevation data gets embedded into the location data and a majority of devices have reliable altimeters, I see no reason to start getting into discussions of ALDs and extreme geographic features/natural barriers.

3.3k · February 5, 2015

Last I heard, geocaching is a game played only using what are essentially 2-dimensional coordinates. Until elevation data gets embedded into the location data and a majority of devices have reliable altimeters, I see no reason to start getting into discussions of ALDs and extreme geographic features/natural barriers.

2D??? Are we back in the 20th century?

Okay, we'll move forward into the future without you! :anibad: :laughing:

And why *not* okay a few more caches at the Cliffs of Dover and on Mt. Everest?!

2.8k · February 5, 2015

Last I heard, geocaching is a game played only using what are essentially 2-dimensional coordinates. Until elevation data gets embedded into the location data and a majority of devices have reliable altimeters, I see no reason to start getting into discussions of ALDs and extreme geographic features/natural barriers.

2D??? Are we back in the 20th century?

Okay, we'll move forward into the future without you!

And why *not* okay a few more caches at the Cliffs of Dover and on Mt. Everest?!

Hey, some of us still believe the earth is flat!!!!!!?!

3.7k · February 5, 2015

Last I heard, geocaching is a game played only using what are essentially 2-dimensional coordinates. Until elevation data gets embedded into the location data and a majority of devices have reliable altimeters, I see no reason to start getting into discussions of ALDs and extreme geographic features/natural barriers.

2D??? Are we back in the 20th century?

Okay, we'll move forward into the future without you!

And why *not* okay a few more caches at the Cliffs of Dover and on Mt. Everest?!

Well, last I saw, the cache page only gives two coordinate points N/S and E/W...so basically an X and a Y. When they start showing a Z on the cache page, then you can say "I told you so".

8.9k · February 6, 2015

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=261927&st=0&p=4501318entry4501318

10.2k · February 8, 2015

Just wait it out. Once the number of active caches in the world on the main page starts dropping, and Geocaching is contracting rather than expanding, they're going to lower it to 300 feet. You heard it here first. :lol:

Seriously though, have we heard from the OP on the email to the reviewer and/or asking the nearby cache owner if they'd like to move 25 feet?

6k · February 8, 2015

If the number of active caches drops that means that areas that were saturated aren't anymore so new caches can be placed Without violating the guideline.

10.2k · February 9, 2015

If the number of active caches drops that means that areas that were saturated aren't anymore so new caches can be placed Without violating the guideline.

I was joking. HOWEVER, new cache placements were down 23% in the United States in 2014 vs. 2013, and now they are down 16% from 2014's already "bad" numbers (so far up to February 9th, of course). The number of active caches in some States is actually dropping. Active caches in the world as shown on the main page continue to rise, but only by about 9,000 a month. I've only been observing this stuff since around Thanksgiving though. Some say it's saturation, some say it's apathy on the part of old timers, a combination of both, who knows? I know I haven't placed a cache since 2012.

9.2k · February 9, 2015

If the number of active caches drops that means that areas that were saturated aren't anymore so new caches can be placed Without violating the guideline.

I was joking. HOWEVER, new cache placements were down 23% in the United States in 2014 vs. 2013, and now they are down 16% from 2014's already "bad" numbers (so far up to February 9th, of course). The number of active caches in some States is actually dropping. Active caches in the world as shown on the main page continue to rise, but only by about 9,000 a month. I've only been observing this stuff since around Thanksgiving though. Some say it's saturation, some say it's apathy on the part of old timers, a combination of both, who knows? I know I haven't placed a cache since 2012.

I wonder if 'new' caches ARE being placed...

But by 'Newbies' who haven't read and understood the guidelines. Cache doesn't get published, and they're already onto the next 'Hobby' anyway.

6k · February 9, 2015

If the number of active caches drops that means that areas that were saturated aren't anymore so new caches can be placed Without violating the guideline.

I was joking. HOWEVER, new cache placements were down 23% in the United States in 2014 vs. 2013, and now they are down 16% from 2014's already "bad" numbers (so far up to February 9th, of course). The number of active caches in some States is actually dropping. Active caches in the world as shown on the main page continue to rise, but only by about 9,000 a month. I've only been observing this stuff since around Thanksgiving though. Some say it's saturation, some say it's apathy on the part of old timers, a combination of both, who knows? I know I haven't placed a cache since 2012.

Myobservation is that pretty much wherever I go theft are more caches than I can get to in years so until I run out I'm not worried.

February 17, 2015

Seriously though, have we heard from the OP on the email to the reviewer and/or asking the nearby cache owner if they'd like to move 25 feet?

Here I am!

And yes, I contacted the owner of the conflicting cache and they have very kindly moved theirs just a little so I have been able to squeeze mine in. A very nice cacher and I'm glad I asked, we had a good long natter about matters local.

Hey - if you fancy checking it out, it's "My Heart Belongs To Hastings" (GC5MRBQ). Come and visit, we have a fantastic town and no end of good caches.

I did have to alter a couple of bits of description but the reviewer eventually listed us.

Straying onto another area this thread has covered, however, is another cache we tried placing at - you guessed it - the bottom of a cliff that we now find conflicts with one on top of the cliff and is almost certainly over 161m away in a straight line! The bugger here is that it's not shown on the caching map because it's the final site of a mystery cache whose origin is just far enough away to be legit.

Hey ho, I can see the points of view on both sides but basically, all we have is phones or GPS devices or laptops with flat screens. Until someone brings out 3D (holographic?) devices I guess I'll just move it on somewhere else...

14k · February 18, 2015

If the number of active caches drops that means that areas that were saturated aren't anymore so new caches can be placed Without violating the guideline.

I was joking. HOWEVER, new cache placements were down 23% in the United States in 2014 vs. 2013, and now they are down 16% from 2014's already "bad" numbers (so far up to February 9th, of course). The number of active caches in some States is actually dropping. Active caches in the world as shown on the main page continue to rise, but only by about 9,000 a month. I've only been observing this stuff since around Thanksgiving though. Some say it's saturation, some say it's apathy on the part of old timers, a combination of both, who knows? I know I haven't placed a cache since 2012.

Myobservation is that pretty much wherever I go theft are more caches than I can get to in years so until I run out I'm not worried.

Then you're not going to the "right" places. I've been in a couple places where there wasn't a cache within 100 miles, and in one case, the closest was about 240 miles away.

161m - guideline or rule?

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

Join the conversation