I really hate this 161 metre proximity rule

[elmbeard]

I spent a lot of trouble preparing a nice photographic puzzle cache, uploading individually 41 images of a very pretty Victorian spa town centre (Great Malvern) into a html table, only twice to be told that my box breaches the 161 metre proximity rule.  Truth is, it is a small town, and the three micros have pretty well made impossible any further caches in the town, even one using a standard box that would be a delight for cachers.  Mine is well spread out, but not quite 161 metres from one of them as the crow flies.  Two of those micros are less than 161 metres apart, so the rule cannot have been around for long. I am reluctant to place the box out of the town centre, since I have already involved the seekers in a circular walk around the town, and the free parking is only for two hours, and anywhere out of town requires climbing a hill to get back.  It is hugely disappointing, and presumes that towns are well spread out - well that may be true in the States, but in the UK we live closer together. There seems no room for manoeuvre or discretion, and I am hitting a brick wall.

I am beginning to wonder whether it is really worth the bother.

[Keystone]

The 161 metre / 528 foot / .1 mile cache saturation guideline has been in effect since I became a reviewer in May 2003, so yes, it's been around for a long time.

I looked at your cache, and you are misunderstanding the cache saturation guideline.  The virtual first stage of a multicache can be less than 161 metres from a different physical cache, and that's the case for your situation.  The final location of the multicache in question is more than 161 metres from any other cache.  (Except for yours, of course.)

One purpose of the guideline is to control the absolute number of caches in any one area.  Perhaps those existing caches already serve the purpose of showing visiting geocachers this lovely small town?

Edited August 23, 2017 by Keystone

[+narcissa]

Sounds like the town is well served by geocaches already.

[+geocat_]

Reductio Ad Absurdum.  The saturation rule must exist or people could glue a thousand nano containers to a picnic table and create a super stupid "power trail lunch table"

[+hzoi]

48 minutes ago, elmbeard said:

I spent a lot of trouble preparing a nice photographic puzzle cache

I just had to redo a puzzle a well -- not because of proximity issues, but because the final location was too close to an airport fence.  I had thought otherwise when I placed it, but such is life.  I share that to say that I am sympathetic to having to remake a puzzle you thought was OK.

I hope that this can be resolved without having to alter the puzzle too much.  To avoid future issues, you are able to ask your reviewer for a saturation check before you submit a geocache -- the option is there specifically to avoid situations like this.  A quick forum search for "saturation check" should let you know how.

[+mvhayes1982]

It appears that the OP has hidden 5 caches over the last 11 years of caching -- including two multi caches. While one is certainly welcome to complain about the 161M guideline (I personally am a big fan), it seems rather disingenuous to be acting as if you did not know it existed, based on your history with this hobby. Good luck re-working what sounds like a fantastic cache. 

[+kunarion]

25 minutes ago, hzoi said:

To avoid future issues, you are able to ask your reviewer for a saturation check before you submit a geocache -- the option is there specifically to avoid situations like this.  A quick forum search for "saturation check" should let you know how.

 

In the OP's case, it might be good to go find the three caches in that less-than-320-meter-wide city.  Then it would be much easier to check distances before ever bothering with an official "saturation check".

[+Rainbow Spirit]

There is no need to find the three caches, just load them into your GPSr and go to the sites you want to use. You should be able to see how far you are from each cache on the distance to cache reading on the GPSr, (or smart phone)

[+Touchstone]

If I'm reading your concern correctly, the *real* question is: "how do I not waste my time on cache placements that will end up getting rejected?"

Link to the answer to your question:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=22&pgid=199

[+pingurus]

6 hours ago, Rainbow Spirit said:

There is no need to find the three caches, just load them into your GPSr and go to the sites you want to use. You should be able to see how far you are from each cache on the distance to cache reading on the GPSr, (or smart phone)

If I understood correctly @keystone's post, one of the caches is a multi cache, so he has to find that one to effectively know where all the physical locations are that affect him.

[+Team Microdot]

10 hours ago, geocat_ said:

Reductio Ad Absurdum.  The saturation rule must exist or people could glue a thousand nano containers to a picnic table and create a super stupid "power trail lunch table"

[+palmetto]

QUOTE: Mine is well spread out, but not quite 161 metres from one of them as the crow flies.  Two of those micros are less than 161 metres apart,

There are no caches in the area that violate cache saturation, though the PMO status of the Multi may be confusing you on this.  

You moved your final from being too close to the final of multi-cache, which as a  PMO cache, you could not see to find and hence had no way to know where it is - a completely understandable issue, and one for which you'll get sympathy  - to being much too close to a Traditional cache, which is not PMO.  You were given  good advice about using site tools to avoid cache saturation, and apparently failed to note it.

The bulk of the heavy lifting in creating your cache page (which IS a nice one) will not need to be reworked, just fiddle with the numbers in the text, once you find a final location. You really need to start with understanding cache saturation and how to use site tools to avoid it. I won't repeat those links.

 

Edited August 23, 2017 by palmetto

[+thebruce0]

In the future, it's always best to scope out any area you wish place a physical stage or container - you don't need to find traditionals, but you'd need to check for any nearby mysteries and multis (up to around 2 miles away to be safe*), and potentially have to find them to ensure they don't have a physical stage/container within 161m of where you'd like to place one.

It's tedious, but it's part of the task of placing and owning a cache.

If you're not a premium member, then you have the additional risk of being completely unaware of other caches that may hinder your placement. That's a downfall of being a free basic member.  I think most every PM would recommend you consider buying the premium membership for its cheap annual fee it really worth it.

Once you believe you've found a space that's free from any proximity concerns, create the listing before placing the container.  Then you can ask the reviewer to confirm that there's no proximity concern, officially, and when it is (and before you inform the reviewer it's ready to be finally published) place the physical containers. Then set the listing to be published.

I sympathize with you for the amount of work you put into the extensive cache. But sympathy won't fix anything   Live and learn.

 

Oh, another option you may have if there is a proximity issue with another cache is to contact its owner, politely and respectfully, to discuss perhaps a tradeoff, if they might be willing to archive theirs so that you can publish yours. Of course, that's risky and some could be offended by that type of move, but I don't personally see a problem with it unless you take a "No" personally or hold animosity towards that CO.  Really, there's no harm in asking nicely, and respecting their decision.

 

* 2 miles generally speaking. There are rare multis that could be posted far beyond the offset distance allowance, like travel multis, or teamwork multis that span multiple countries.  But those are rare, and you'll only find out about a final for those if the reviewer declines your publish because of proximity (yet they're under no obligation to tell you which cache it is).

Edited August 23, 2017 by thebruce0
corrected 2km to 2 miles

[Keystone]

The actual cache container for a Mystery (puzzle) cache can be up to two miles from the posted coordinates (3.2 km) -- not 2 km.  I always tell hiders to be aware of any caches within a two mile radius.

[+thebruce0]

lol, I'd actually initially written miles and changed it to km before posting.  Shouldn't have second-guessed myself

#Canadian

Edited August 23, 2017 by thebruce0

[+cerberus1]

17 hours ago, elmbeard said:

 There seems no room for manoeuvre or discretion, and I am hitting a brick wall.

I am beginning to wonder whether it is really worth the bother.

Maybe that is your best option for now.   

[Keystone]

I disagree that the OP should abandon their idea.  The cache design is excellent, as my colleague Palmetto noted.  Just a small shift in cache location should get the container out of the cache saturation conflict.

[+SeattleWayne]

17 hours ago, geocat_ said:

Reductio Ad Absurdum.  The saturation rule must exist or people could glue a thousand nano containers to a picnic table and create a super stupid "power trail lunch table"

[+NanCycle]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Oh, another option you may have if there is a proximity issue with another cache is to contact its owner, politely and respectfully, to discuss perhaps a tradeoff, if they might be willing to archive theirs so that you can publish yours. Of course, that's risky and some could be offended by that type of move, but I don't personally see a problem with it unless you take a "No" personally or hold animosity towards that CO.  Really, there's no harm in asking nicely, and respecting their decision.

It may not even be necessary to ask the other CO to archive their cache.  If you two work together you may find a spot where they could just move their cache enough to make room for yours.  I know that as a CO I would be willing to work with a new hider to make this work.  

Just be more than merely polite, be friendly, when you ask.  

[+thebruce0]

55 minutes ago, NanCycle said:

It may not even be necessary to ask the other CO to archive their cache.  If you two work together you may find a spot where they could just move their cache enough to make room for yours.  I know that as a CO I would be willing to work with a new hider to make this work.  

Just be more than merely polite, be friendly, when you ask.  

Yeah, archive or move. In short, work with the other CO(s) to find a resolution which allows a desireable placement

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

* 2 miles generally speaking. There are rare multis that could be posted far beyond the offset distance allowance, like travel multis, or teamwork multis that span multiple countries.  But those are rare, and you'll only find out about a final for those if the reviewer declines your publish because of proximity (yet they're under no obligation to tell you which cache it is).

The 2 mile (3.2km) restriction only applies to mysteries, not multis. I have a multi involving a bit of train travel where the starting point (the listed coordinates) is about 8km from the final.

[+thebruce0]

6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

* 2 miles generally speaking. There are rare multis that could be posted far beyond the offset distance allowance, like travel multis, or teamwork multis that span multiple countries.  But those are rare, and you'll only find out about a final for those if the reviewer declines your publish because of proximity (yet they're under no obligation to tell you which cache it is).

The 2 mile (3.2km) restriction only applies to mysteries, not multis. I have a multi involving a bit of train travel where the starting point (the listed coordinates) is about 8km from the final.

Yep. I wasn't clear - the offset distance allowance is for mystery caches. The examples I gave are demonstrations of how the rule doesn't apply to multis. Whether it's travel caches or partner/inter-country teamwork multis, there's no limit on multi-stage cache waypoints (physical or virtual), thus even if you've found every cache in a 50km radius, you could theoretically still be inhibited by a multi-cache waypoint which is posted a vast distance away.

Edited August 23, 2017 by thebruce0

[+cerberus1]

5 hours ago, NanCycle said:

It may not even be necessary to ask the other CO to archive their cache.  If you two work together you may find a spot where they could just move their cache enough to make room for yours.  I know that as a CO I would be willing to work with a new hider to make this work.  

Just be more than merely polite, be friendly, when you ask.  

I agree.  If the person was a new hider, I'd probably cut him some slack, and see if I can move over a bit.  

This OP isn't .      I recall that the last thread started, a pmo multi cache was  "hogging all the slots " ...

[+geocat_]

As I asked in another thread, why is it that folks post a topic to generate discussion and then fail to return to engage in discussion or enjoy debate?

[elmbeard]

Thanks for all the responses.

One reason the proximity rule has not been an issue is because I live in the countryside, and it is my first time in an urban environment.  What is bothering me is a series of micros, all very similar and all quite hard and unsatisfying to find, spoiling the chances of putting a larger box or an interesting puzzle cache within the community.  It is not really a serious problem in the country, since most places have to be got to by car, although a fellow cacher recently grumbled at me because a series of church micros have been knocking out village centres all over the place (and it was a church micro that knocked out that supermarket car park in Great Malvern that had a super hiding place for a large box).  I did approach the owner of that premium micro for co-ordinates, and he wrote back saying there weren't enough caches in Great Malvern, and we both felt we needed to encourage one another to set more.  Americans, I know, don't have town centres - they have shopping malls, and their town centres just have a diner and a gas station and are really not that interesting to walk around.  So maybe this is a European issue?

The thing about Great Malvern is that it is a very pretty tourist town, but not very big. It is also hilly, so not very comfortable to walk long distances on a town centre jaunt (although there are many hikers up in the hills). The three existing boxes (and all micros) by the Priory, Elgar's statue, and the church micro that knocked out the car park, mean there are only two spots left within easy walking distance.  I managed to resite my mystery, rejigging the numbers bagging one of the two left - near the library, leaving the park as the only one left, and the Priory micro knocks out most of the park already.  It means that anyone visiting the town just gets a series of micros, and that's that.  Maybe the 161 metres rule could be relaxed a little in town centres - perhaps down to 80 metres?  Elsewhere, it's fine to avoid over-saturation.

There are some here who criticise me for not getting in fast enough.

Maybe it's a national or generational cultural difference, but I was brought up to make life easier for others. The Go-Grabber mentality of the Thatcher era rather offends me, and I'd rather there was room for all of us, instead of leaping in and grabbing the best spot, denying it to all others, and think this is being "virtuous".

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by elmbeard
better word

[+Team Microdot]

I really hate it when people feel the need to start two indepent threads about the same subject and the crux of the matter is being blocked from placing a cache on a supermarket car park

[elmbeard]

16 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I really hate it when people feel the need to start two indepent threads about the same subject and the crux of the matter is being blocked from placing a cache on a supermarket car park

No, these are two separate issues.  My first thread was about revealing hidden or premium caches that are causing a proximity clash, and this was resolved by contacting the owner for co-ordinates.  Anyone wanting to set a cache less than 161 metres from my resited box would need to contact me, since it would not show up on the map, but would first need to be told about it by the reviewer, meaning the map cannot always be relied on to give an indication of free spaces.

The second thread is about challenging the saturation rule in small towns, since it seems to be contrary to the spirit of caching and far too blunt an instrument.

Edited August 31, 2017 by elmbeard

[+Team Microdot]

5 minutes ago, elmbeard said:

No, these are two separate issues.  My first thread was about revealing hidden or premium caches that are causing a proximity clash, and this was resolved by contacting the owner for co-ordinates.

The second thread is about challenging the saturation rule in small towns, since it seems to be contrary to the spirit of caching and far too blunt an instrument.

So we've got it down to the sad loss of a supermarket car park as a cache location now then?

[Keystone]

2 hours ago, elmbeard said:

Maybe it's a national or generational cultural difference, but I was brought up to make life easier for others.

I was brought up to respect fundamental fairness and equal justice for all.  Rules should apply to everyone.  I don't see the cache saturation guideline changing just for "lovely town centres in England" to fuel your misguided stereotyping.  Kindly check that attitude at the door before coming into the forums.  With that, I'm about to head into my own town's lovely town center to get a coffee at the independent coffee shop and a bagel at the bakery across the street, before I go to my office.   It's a half hour to the nearest mall.

[+RocTheCacheBox]

9 hours ago, elmbeard said:

  Americans, I know, don't have town centres - they have shopping malls, and their town centres just have a diner and a gas station and are really not that interesting to walk around.  So maybe this is a European issue?

Wow! Just, Wow.

Apparently you know less about America than I know about the U.K.

Well, the good news is your cache, https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC7A6CD_88-steps was published the day after your original post.

[+MartyBartfast]

14 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

Well, the good news is your cache, https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC7A6CD_88-steps was published the day after your original post.

Ignoring all the angst, that looks like a great cache.

[+RocTheCacheBox]

12 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Ignoring all the angst, that looks like a great cache.

Yes it does. Quite a lovely village. Unlike our American small towns that only consist of a diner and gas station and are really not that interesting to walk around. 

[+niraD]

32 minutes ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

Yes it does. Quite a lovely village. Unlike our American small towns that only consist of a diner and gas station and are really not that interesting to walk around. 

Don't forget the shopping malls. We do have shopping malls.

[+kunarion]

4 hours ago, RocTheCacheBox said:

Yes it does. Quite a lovely village. Unlike our American small towns that only consist of a diner and gas station and are really not that interesting to walk around. 

 

Here's a photo of me at the town center diner, before Geocaching at the gas station.

Edited August 31, 2017 by kunarion