Hide to Find Ratio / Courtesy

[+YankeeRage]

I was reading someone celebrated leaving their 100'th cache. This made me think that this was too many. Once they have stuffed all the parks in the area, what fun is that for others?

 

Isn't creating a new cache part of the fun of the game.

 

( note: not the Virtual nor Event caches, which I think are a complete different thing/activity but the traditional, puzzel, micro, muti (an x-part multi counts as 1 if in the same park) )

 

How many is too many? Or, perhaps what ratio is too high?

 

I'm stumped for the 'right' word here - coutesey, ethic, sportsmanship... help me out.

[+Bull Moose]

There's almost always room for more caches if you use your imagination.

 

We have a couple cachers here that account for a large portion of the caches on our penninsula, but people, including me, always seem to find room to install some if we want.

 

[+niskibum]

Now here is a topic I can sink my teeth into! First off, I don't know how someone could maintain 100 caches properly. Of course I have a full time job (and then some) so that makes it a little tougher. Secondly, if someone can maintain them, and plants good well planed out caches then let them plant as many as they want, I will enjoy trying to find them all. Unfortunatly, I don't consider 1x1 star caches well planed out or entertaining. Planting a cache just because there isn't one there yet shows a lack of imagination. You might as well drive around and throw them out the window, marking waypoints as you go. The problem is when someone wants to plant a fun and creative cache and finds the perfect spot, but someone else has put a 1x1 there already everyone else loses out on the quality cache and has to settle for the junk because of the proximity rule. As with most things, quantity does not equal quality. Of course, I also think that if something is hard to find just because it is really small, that doesn't mean it is well thought out.

 

OK all you one star hiders, fire away!

[+Renegade Knight]

You should'nt saturate your area for exactly the reasons you said.

 

However if nobody will get off their lazy cache finding butt's and plant a cache, then to heck with them. Drive up and down the roads, toss caches out the windows and see what happens. Sooner or later you will hide a good one using that method. Probably later but it's not like anyone else was doing anything better.

 

Having said that, I've heard good things about niskibum's caches clear down here in the hinterlands of Idaho and that doesn't happen for just any ol' cache.

 

This post was the long way to say "it depends on your local scene"

 

By the way, 100 well thought out caches need less work to maintain than 100 random tosses.

[+yumitori]

I don't know that I would judge the quality of a cache solely on its rating.

 

Indeed, a true 1/1 cache can be pretty bloody tricky to pull off. It has to be immediately obvious to most geocachers, per the 1 Difficulty, but needs to be handicapped accessible per the 1 Terrain. Carrying that off while also keeping it from getting looted by muggles can be rather difficult.

 

Back to the question, though. First thing to consider, are all 100 caches still active? Second, how many geocachers are there in the local area? If there's only ten, 1 or 2 caches each is way too few. If there's a couple thousand, 1 or 2 could potentially be too many.

 

I suspect that's why geocaching.com put a limit on density, not number per cacher. How many caches are on your nearest list?

 

Ron/yumitori

 

---

 

Remember what the dormouse said...

[+niskibum]

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I have to ask why would you want to do a 1x1 in the first place? I can understand doing a one for terrain so that the handicapped can access it too, but a one in difficulty as well is downright boring to find compared to somthing that is easily accessed, yet makes you scratch your head for a while and then gives you that feeling of success when you locate it. You may say that it get's people to the spot, but a difficult or challenging find gets them there as well and adds to the visit.

 

As far a density goes, I would much rather see 100 good challenging caches in my area than 500 that are made up of good and not so good (being polite) where you have to sort through them to find the gems. I'm sure we have all had those times where we said to ourselves either "wow, that was cool!" or "wow, why did I waste my time doing that?"

 

Every time someone plants a poor cache, they take that spot away from someone who could have placed a really good one there.

[+Suziq]

quote:

---

Originally posted by niskibum:

Sorry if this is a bit off topic, but I have to ask why would you want to do a 1x1 in the first place?

---

 

I can tell you why. When you first start out Caching and all you have is hard to find caches it is very easy to get discouraged and give up. It takes a while for a person to get used to using there GPS. It is always challenging the last 30 feet or so to find a cache and I have done a few caches where if they had been my first ones I would not be here now. There is just somthing about that first cache that makes it seem worth doing it.

 

Also if you have kids that learning how the easier the better for the same reason. If you have ever seen a kid who who has discovered "treasure" on there own you would not have to ask.

 

I think all levels have there place form the 11 to the 55 and if you think they are to easy just dont do them. And most of the 11 I have seen are in parks where 1/1 is all there could be.

[+niskibum]

I disagree with a few of your points. First off, if my first cache had been one of those urban caches with no imagination I probably would not have continued. If you want to introduce someone new to geocaching do you take them to a boring one that you stumble over as you climb out of the car or do you take them to an interesting one that will peak their interest? It is not always challenging the last 30 ft, there are a lot of times where I can tell where the cache is before I get out of the truck because they are so obvious.

 

You should give your kids more credit, they are often more imaginative than you are. I placed a 5x3.5 cache where the first finder wouldn't have gotten it without their kid, and typically when we go as a group she is the first one to locate a cache. She probably wouldn't have been so thrilled if her first one had been lame.

 

As far as parks that can only be 1x1, I completly disagree. I have several caches in parks where you wouldn't think there can be one, and other than one virt I don't have any one stars, nor will I ever plant one. Go try some of Otis pugs caches just east of LA. He can put a cache right in front of your face and you wouldn't know it. Not every cache has to be that imaginative, but every cache should be a little imaginative.

[+Suziq]

I was courious as to what you would concider a 1/1 so looked Up some caches in your area. I grew up around spokane and northern Idaho. I was just back a couple of months ago and did a few caches in the area. I did not have time for more. I have read some of the discriptions and just by reading the posts I probebly could get you in the general location without a GPS.

 

I looked at what these were rated.

 

And some of the"urban caches without imagination" around here would be rated much higher over there. Just because a cache is "urban" and can be reached by walking down an asphalt path and grabbing a cache a few feet off the path, does not make it any different. than walking down a path in the forest and grabing a cache that is a few feet off the path.

 

Except now since its a "forest" path and not a asphalt one the cache is rated 2/1 instead of 1/1.

 

The rateing system is to broad and what one person conciders a 4 you or I might concider a 3 or vice a versa. If you limit yourself to just 1/2 or 2/1 because you think the others are to easy you might be missing a great spot.

 

But to each his own. I still believe all types of caches have there place.

 

As to the orginal topic I agree. I would hate to see any cach not being placed. maybe if there is a cache that you would like to do but because of other caches close by you can not maybe you could ask the keeper if you could do yours instead.

 

If somone is trying to maintain 100 caches he might be gratefull if you would take a few off his hands.

[+niskibum]

I guess I should clarify a couple of things.

 

What I call a 1 star cache may or may not be rated a 1 star cache by the owner.

 

Most of the ones I have been talking about here are urban caches, in places that are not paricularly interesting. Just caches placed for the purpose of placing a cache.

 

Most of the "forest" caches I have done are not 1 stars usually because "forest paths" are far more difficult and longer than anything you find in the city, and usually have difficulty due to tree cover etc.

 

I have found caches that I wish had not been placed because the area is now tied up and can't be used to place a good one.

 

My goal when placing a cache is to have people looking at the list of caches in the area say "hey there's a new niskibum cache, grab the gps!" I don't always achieve that goal, but I sure try. You should too.

 

I am going to Cali next month for training and I can't wait to hit some of Otis Pugs new ones. There are a ton of cachers down there, but I can only remember a couple of their names (not that I've found some from all of them), and thats because they hide such great caches.

 

If someone is trying to maintain 100 caches and wants a few taken off his hands, they should archive some of the lesser ones and free the areas up for better caches. They shouldn't have to be asked.