Number of new caches decreasing?

[+niraD]

45 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

First I saw smartphone caching was in 2008, I don't know if it was Geocaching.com app, or some other app.

I was using an Android device at about that time. The Android version of Groundspeak's app was NOT available then. I was using other apps that used PQ data, and that could do "spur of the moment" caching by registering an interest in Google Maps URLs. If you used the smartphone browser to view the page on the geocaching.com site, you could click on the "Google Maps" link and the app would intercept the call. Instead of displaying the label and coordinates the way the default Google Maps app did, it let you navigate to the cache. You could even log your Finds via field notes.

 

But you had to set up a bunch of stuff. It wasn't the turnkey intro to geocaching that Groundspeak's app tries to be.

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, Isonzo Karst said:

First I saw smartphone caching was in 2008, I don't know if it was Geocaching.com app, or some other app. (I saw someone using an internet connected Blackberry and that was connected wirelessly to a gps to achieve something similar to smartphone caching in 2004! I was dumbfounded at the time).

 

The other 2/3rds used the Trimble app for caching with a blackberry in '05...

[+coachstahly]

I know it's anecdotal but my area appeared to have the largest growth in players and caches in 2011 and 2012, at which time it slowly tailed off, with an occasional uptick once every couple of years since, but nothing approaching the levels of those two years.  I was new in 2010 (1/2 a year's worth of caching) but I distinctly remember there being enough FTFs available for 4 of us to get to 100 each in a relatively short amount of time.  We would frequently run into each other every 2-3 days.  Those days are long past as the number of new caches has declined, due to a combination of saturation and a lack of new cachers who wish to hide.  Even the older cachers aren't placing a lot these days.

[+thebruce0]

7 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

But I also think, that a lot of good quality caches were published in 2012. Or to say it more generally, the caching community was most active in 2012. But still, it´s just a feeling.

 

I think 2012 was around the time that smartphones had an uptick in capability and HQ's efforts at improving the app were taking hold. I don't think it was some kind of "key" year or anything, there could be any number of factors, but I also do think the mobile app had a role in the uptick of geocaching activity around that time.
I began in 2009 with their old official app.

[+barefootjeff]

8 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yep, it may be important to remember that just because some year had a surge in numbers, that doesn't mean a surge in quality, and and reduction in numbers later may actually still be an increase in quality.

 

I hope so.

What I'm seeing is the power trail culture stuck. Those left playing have adapted to it. 

 

The "power trail culture" never made it here; the closest we've ever had to that were the now-archived ALL7 roadside caches that numbered 234 all up but were scattered far and wide along the hinterland roads in the north-west of the region. Apart from her, the highest number of caches anyone has ever placed in this region was 70 by GeoMonkeys, one of the foundation cachers here and creator of many fantastic hides including the sadly now archived piece de resistance DaPesky Code (GC1NH62). Even in Sydney, there are only a small handful of power trails in the outer suburbs and those number fewer than 50 caches in each.

 

I haven't noticed any change in quality from the older (pre-2012) to the newer caches. There are some very good ones from back then that are still going strong and some in ice cream buckets with cracked lids that fill with water every time it rains, and no doubt there were a lot of mint tins hidden in those early years that have long since rusted away to nothing. A cache that was published just a month or two back (Ferry McFerrycache GC80RZQ) is one of the most enjoyable caches I've done, while at the other end of the spectrum there are still mint tins being hidden right next to the ocean that have probably started to rust before the reviewer's even hit the publish button.

 

The four that have been published here this year have a good variety - there's a 2/2 regular traditional a short walk along a bush track (7 finds), a 4/3 regular multi on the beachfront (5 finds), a 1.5/1.5 small P&G next to a car park at one of the national parks (15 finds) and my one, a 2/3 regular traditional at the end of a 2km bushland hike (1 find). Note none of them are micros and only one is even a small.

 

No, the biggest change I've noticed in my six years of caching is the almost total collapse of caching activity here. My first hide, placed in 2013 in a bushland reserve close to home, was published late in the afternoon yet had six finders before midnight. It ended up with 53 finds before I archived it in 2015 when the site became untenable. Now, out of the ten caches I've had published in the last two years, only four have reached double figures in their find counts and none of those have reached 15. And as I said earlier, there have only been four new caches published in this region in the first quarter of this year and if that trend continues, it'll be the lowest annual count since 2003 or, if it dries up completely, ever.

Edited March 22, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+thebruce0]

1 minute ago, barefootjeff said:

No, the biggest change I've noticed in my six years of caching is the almost total collapse of caching activity here.

 

The interesting and unfortunate alternative is that perhaps the local culture just isn't that interested in the activity. I mean if people who love it are really trying to get people involved, but there's just no ongoing interest and spread of the pastime, then what else could be done? =/ 

Similarly, in my University/College heavy region, there are lots of high-tech, high-D, math/tech puzzle caches, moreso than other regions, which bugs some people. Or some regions may be populated with a couple of really handy geocachers who build awesome gadget caches so that region is the place to go for those. It may be that there's just a lack of geocaching-minded people in certain regions... and that sucks for the excited geocachers in those regions

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

The interesting and unfortunate alternative is that perhaps the local culture just isn't that interested in the activity. I mean if people who love it are really trying to get people involved, but there's just no ongoing interest and spread of the pastime, then what else could be done? =/ 

Similarly, in my University/College heavy region, there are lots of high-tech, high-D, math/tech puzzle caches, moreso than other regions, which bugs some people. Or some regions may be populated with a couple of really handy geocachers who build awesome gadget caches so that region is the place to go for those. It may be that there's just a lack of geocaching-minded people in certain regions... and that sucks for the excited geocachers in those regions

 

So I'm curious what has changed over those six years. The demographic here hasn't changed much, it's still a mixture of young families and retirees, the beaches are still packed in summer, with hordes of kids attending the nippers classes run by the surf lifesaving clubs, the soccer fields are still full of kids in the winter months, and we've largely been spared the high density housing development frenzy that's engulfed Sydney so our coastal towns are still just coastal towns with plenty of bushland and beaches for outdoor activities like geocaching.

 

One thing that has changed is the entry point into the game. When I started in 2013, the first thing I did was go to the local electronics store and buy a Garmin. I didn't even own a smartphone then. Today, though, I'd wager that just about every newcomer to the game is using a phone app. Is there something about the app that's turning people off after they've been using it for a few weeks or months? Or is it just the basic member D2/T2 traditional restriction that's limiting their exposure so much they get bored before reaching the point of paying for PM? I don't know; I haven't used the app enough to discover any usability problems it might have that could be turning people off. Perhaps it's not even that at all, but when I look at the logs on the P&Gs around here I see a pattern of newcomers who find ten or twenty caches then disappear without ever doing any of the bushland hiking caches or getting into multis or puzzles or whatever.

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

One thing that has changed is the entry point into the game. When I started in 2013, the first thing I did was go to the local electronics store and buy a Garmin. I didn't even own a smartphone then. Today, though, I'd wager that just about every newcomer to the game is using a phone app. Is there something about the app that's turning people off after they've been using it for a few weeks or months? Or is it just the basic member D2/T2 traditional restriction that's limiting their exposure so much they get bored before reaching the point of paying for PM? I don't know; I haven't used the app enough to discover any usability problems it might have that could be turning people off. Perhaps it's not even that at all, but when I look at the logs on the P&Gs around here I see a pattern of newcomers who find ten or twenty caches then disappear without ever doing any of the bushland hiking caches or getting into multis or puzzles or whatever.

 

There was skin in the hobby when we started.   We bought a GPSr for other reasons, but know many who had to buy one just to play.

We even bought "newer" GPSrs shortly after, so we didn't have to find a clearing to get a signal.  

Today, with most already with a phone,  you just load n go.  Just another free app game.   No incentive to stay a while...

I don't feel the 2/2 restriction is that big a deal.  Heck, we don't even see long-time cachers walking anymore.  

The last couple I hit, few have accessed any of the others in those series.  You need to walk further than 50' outta the parking lot ...  

[+Goldenwattle]

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

One thing that has changed is the entry point into the game. When I started in 2013, the first thing I did was go to the local electronics store and buy a Garmin. I didn't even own a smartphone then. Today, though, I'd wager that just about every newcomer to the game is using a phone app. Is there something about the app that's turning people off after they've been using it for a few weeks or months? Or is it just the basic member D2/T2 traditional restriction that's limiting their exposure so much they get bored before reaching the point of paying for PM? I don't know; I haven't used the app enough to discover any usability problems it might have that could be turning people off. Perhaps it's not even that at all, but when I look at the logs on the P&Gs around here I see a pattern of newcomers who find ten or twenty caches then disappear without ever doing any of the bushland hiking caches or getting into multis or puzzles or whatever.

When I started I found the first 180 caches without a GPS. No phone app then. I printed out maps and used a car Tom Tom to get me close. Then I used the map and common sense, such as looking for bent grass and other signs, to navigate to GZ. Not so easy with hard to find caches, when people have walked everywhere in their search. I sometimes just stood and looked around, thinking, where would I hide a cache. So that meant mainly drive-bys and caches off walking tracks. No cross country bush bashing without tracks. I didn't become a paying member until I purchased my Garmin etrex 30, which I still use.

I don't see the basic member D2/T2 traditional restriction as a problem. When I first joined there were caches I couldn't see, until I finally paid for that membership. I thought I had found all the close to home caches, but then after paying membership I found there were more. It was like Christmas, and I would have missed out on the thrill of discovering more caches, if all had been available to me at the beginning, so I actually enjoyed that feature.

If there is any problem, I think it's phone apps. Compared to my Garmin, they are clumsy in use. The Garmin is so much easier and user friendly than a phone app. I wonder if I would have stuck to geocaching if I only had a phone app.

[+thebruce0]

4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

There was skin in the hobby when we started.   We bought a GPSr for other reasons, but know many who had to buy one just to play.

We even bought "newer" GPSrs shortly after, so we didn't have to find a clearing to get a signal.  

Today, with most already with a phone,  you just load n go.  Just another free app game.   No incentive to stay a while...

 

Yeah, I can see that. This is one of the reasons that I like the fact that there's (don't pile on!) a range of video creators and bloggers who share geocaching experiences (reasonably) - and not just the quick P&G, quick find, run of the mill stuff. Personally I prefer showcasing some of the more adventurous experiences, challenges, things that add so much value to the hobby, which you can have even if you use a smartphone and not a dedicated gpsr.  Today's culture, as mentioned, is a lot more swipe-centric, with shorter attention spans, and more likely to lose interest if something doesn't capture their attention and widen their horizons. Geocaching is that kind of hobby - but if they discover it by an app highlight and have no exposure to that variety, yeah, there will be a whole lot of influx of new players who don't stay long because they just, well, don't know what's out there.

 

I appreciate that HQ attempts to communicate and highlight the wide variety of experiences - yes, even from quick P&Gs - up to extreme excursions and adventures. Awareness is key.  Notsomuch saying that anyones preferences are 'bad' or lesser or something, but showing what is out there and nudging people to get out and try it.

 

 

[+lee737]

11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

No, the biggest change I've noticed in my six years of caching is the almost total collapse of caching activity here. My first hide, placed in 2013 in a bushland reserve close to home, was published late in the afternoon yet had six finders before midnight. It ended up with 53 finds before I archived it in 2015 when the site became untenable. Now, out of the ten caches I've had published in the last two years, only four have reached double figures in their find counts and none of those have reached 15. And as I said earlier, there have only been four new caches published in this region in the first quarter of this year and if that trend continues, it'll be the lowest annual count since 2003 or, if it dries up completely, ever.

 

It's quite dead up here too, but it certainly seems more dead down your way Jeff. Looking at my notification folder just now - 24 search logs (find/DNF) for an 80km radius on us (Newcastle), and that was on an absolutely perfect weather Saturday 30deg C (86 deg F), barely a cloud in the sky.... the upcoming CC events seem to have nice groups forming, maybe there's hope for us yet? We've just punched submit on another cache, and have another 4 in the pipeline.....

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, lee737 said:

the upcoming CC events seem to have nice groups forming, maybe there's hope for us yet?

 

I'm looking forward to the CC events both up your way in Maitland and the one down here, but looking at the Will Attend logs so far, they're all from established cachers. Where are the newbies? Granted the Davistown one was only published this morning so it's very early days on that one, so perhaps I should reserve my judgement until the day, but for what are supposed to be educational events I really hope we don't end up just preaching to the choir.

 

Is this happening elsewhere in the world? Is there much newbie interest in the CC events?

[+Isonzo Karst]

back to numbers, l today there are

3,151,415 active caches worldwide  March 23 2019

this is an increase from a couple of years ago
3,000,000 April 18 2017   https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2017/04/celebrate-3-million-geocaches-with-new-souvenir/

2,000,000 Feb 23 2013  GC46N4E
1,627,133 March 10 2012
1,000,000 March 8 2010  ( I can't come up with the forum thread where this was being followed)

 

World wide cache numbers are still going up slowly. Slower as both absolute numbers, and as a percentage than it's been since the very early days of the site.

Some areas are seeing  decreases. Florida certainly is -  decline totals and a hard shift to lower T ratings,  away from adventure in the woods to park and grabs, and walk in the parks. Paddle caches are still plentiful, though also in decline. 

 

 

[+Lynx Humble]

At this pace we will get the 4M at the end of 2029... Saturation doesn't help certain areas but plenty of others still have space.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 3/22/2019 at 12:02 PM, IceColdUK said:

 

Don’t know either, but the friend who introduced me to caching, started (with a phone) in June 2008.

 

I used to use a phone for some paperless aspects of geocaching but not for actually finding caches.  The iphone 3G came out in 2009 and from reports that I had read the accuracy was considered fairly marginal.   According to this page the official classic app was developed in 2008.  

[+IceColdUK]

2 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I used to use a phone for some paperless aspects of geocaching but not for actually finding caches.  The iphone 3G came out in 2009 and from reports that I had read the accuracy was considered fairly marginal.   According to this page the official classic app was developed in 2008.  

 

Good spot - I’d tried to found a date, and failed.  (Like many a cache!)

 

I found my first cache in 2009, eleven days after getting an iPhone 3G.  I used it for the next year and a half, and 800+ finds.  For me its problem wasn’t so much accuracy as responsiveness - I’d constantly overshoot one way, and then the other, ..., until the ‘dot’ finally caught up with me.

[+thebruce0]

On 3/24/2019 at 10:29 AM, IceColdUK said:

On 3/24/2019 at 10:09 AM, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

I used to use a phone for some paperless aspects of geocaching but not for actually finding caches.  The iphone 3G came out in 2009 and from reports that I had read the accuracy was considered fairly marginal.   According to this page the official classic app was developed in 2008.  

 

Good spot - I’d tried to found a date, and failed.  (Like many a cache!)

 

I found my first cache in 2009, eleven days after getting an iPhone 3G.  I used it for the next year and a half, and 800+ finds.  For me its problem wasn’t so much accuracy as responsiveness - I’d constantly overshoot one way, and then the other, ..., until the ‘dot’ finally caught up with me.

 

Yep. I've never used a dedicated GPS. Started with the 3GS in 2009. It was always "sufficient". Not super fast, and accuracy was as good as needed for general geocaching.  Obviously it would be a little more difficult to work with under more extreme circumstances, but certainly not dead weight in any location that didn't make a standard gps also dead weight.  They've come a long way since then.  I'm over 12,000 finds and still completely satisfied (now with 8+) and have no desire to change to a dedicated gps (unless borrowing one perhaps, if doing a literally very extreme and dangerous long-term excursion, purely for safety's sake, especially since most likely then other benefits in a smartphone would be rendered moot anyway).

 

I'd say since about '09 smartphones have generally been a growing force to be reckoned with when it comes to geocaching for GPS capability.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

48 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Yep. I've never used a dedicated GPS. Started with the 3GS in 2009. It was always "sufficient". Not super fast, and accuracy was as good as needed for general geocaching.  Obviously it would be a little more difficult to work with under more extreme circumstances, but certainly not dead weight in any location that didn't make a standard gps also dead weight.  They've come a long way since then.  I'm over 12,000 finds and still completely satisfied (now with 8+) and have no desire to change to a dedicated gps (unless borrowing one perhaps, if doing a literally very extreme and dangerous long-term excursion, purely for safety's sake, especially since most likely then other benefits in a smartphone would be rendered moot anyway).

 

I'd say since about '09 smartphones have generally been a growing force to be reckoned with when it comes to geocaching for GPS capability.

 

There's no denying that the use of smart phones for Geocaching has grown significantly, going back to 2009.  However, in the context of correlating the use of smart phones with a contention that 2012 was the "best" year for geocaching, it would seem to me that, while many were using smart phones to find a lot of cache back in 2009, the use of smart phones for *hiding* caches would be a more accurate indicator of what impact smart phones has had on the quality of the game.  Of course, if the metric for "best" is just the number of geocachers, which inevitably translates to the number of available of geocaches to be found, then the proliferation of smart phones clearly has had an impact.   A bit murkier is whether or not the growing force of smart phone usage for geocaching had led to a higher quality of caches and the game overall. 

[+thebruce0]

I wouldn't say "best" year for geocaching, but more like most active. Unless there's an analysis that shows how many caches each of the COs who hid caches in that high-count year also owned, it could very well stand that the increase in the mobile app usage that year boosted the one-time hider count; and in the years following the decrease could be a result of that smartphone-only activity subsiding and archival of such set-em-and-forget-em trend caches.  And with the increase of other location-based mobile games, most of which don't require additional ongoing real-world responsibilities as they're purely digital in nature, many of those "oh neat" adopters of the geocaching game may have also been swayed to those games, reducing the amount of "new" caches in the following years, in proportion to 2012.

Of course many smartphone geocachers do stick around, as we can tell the hobby is still growing, just not at such an inflated rate due to the gimmicky location-based nature of mobile gaming that took off around that time.

Edited March 25, 2019 by thebruce0

[+Isonzo Karst]

Numbers again

WORLDWIDE

2,000,000 Feb 23, 2013  
3,000,000 April 18, 2017 
3,151,415 March 23, 2019
3,198,358 Oct 03, 2019 

Worldwide, numbers increasing, but slowly. 46,943 is the gain over the summer months 2019 (summer in most of the most cache active parts of the world).

 

FLORIDA

42,954 Jan 09, 2018  
41,927 Oct 12, 2018  a 1000  loss in 6 months
40,559 Oct 03, 2019  a 368 loss in one year

 

Florida continues to decline, but the rate of decline has slowed.  Some stasis may be reached, though I'd expect the shift to lower T ratings and micros to continue.  I have noticed an increase in D ratings, as  "tough micro in the woods, no hint" hide seems to be the current hot trend. Gadget caches are now somewhat off trend.  

 

[+Goldenwattle]

38 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Numbers again

WORLDWIDE

2,000,000 Feb 23, 2013  
3,000,000 April 18, 2017 
3,151,415 March 23, 2019
3,198,358 Oct 03, 2019 

Worldwide, numbers increasing, but slowly. 46,943 is the gain over the summer months 2019 (summer in most of the most cache active parts of the world).

 

FLORIDA

42,954 Jan 09, 2018  
41,927 Oct 12, 2018  a 1000  loss in 6 months
40,559 Oct 03, 2019  a 368 loss in one year

 

Florida continues to decline, but the rate of decline has slowed.  Some stasis may be reached, though I'd expect the shift to lower T ratings and micros to continue.  I have noticed an increase in D ratings, as  "tough micro in the woods, no hint" hide seems to be the current hot trend. Gadget caches are now somewhat off trend.  

 

How do I find out the number history of caches is certain areas?

[+barefootjeff]

30 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Numbers again

WORLDWIDE

2,000,000 Feb 23, 2013  
3,000,000 April 18, 2017 
3,151,415 March 23, 2019
3,198,358 Oct 03, 2019 

Worldwide, numbers increasing, but slowly. 46,943 is the gain over the summer months 2019 (summer in most of the most cache active parts of the world).

 

FLORIDA

42,954 Jan 09, 2018  
41,927 Oct 12, 2018  a 1000  loss in 6 months
40,559 Oct 03, 2019  a 368 loss in one year

 

Florida continues to decline, but the rate of decline has slowed.  Some stasis may be reached, though I'd expect the shift to lower T ratings and micros to continue.  I have noticed an increase in D ratings, as  "tough micro in the woods, no hint" hide seems to be the current hot trend. Gadget caches are now somewhat off trend.  

 

 

In the first half of this year, my region (the New South Wales Central Coast, Australia) had 11 new caches (two of them mine), all T3 or less (the only T3 was one of mine). Since the beginning of July, though, it's become almost catatonic. There was a new virtual and an urban mystery published in July, and a T4 multi of mine published in August. I have a challenge cache I've been preparing but it's currently stalled awaiting a response from the National Parks ranger which at this stage doesn't look too hopeful, and I don't know of anyone else locally with new caches pending, so that might well be it for the year. A few years back we were getting well over a hundred new caches a year so it's pretty much total collapse now.

[+Isonzo Karst]

@Goldenwattle

Hans post shows a  GSAK filter.

The opening post of this thread links to a page on project gc where you can do date range and location filtering.

 

Most of what I'm posting comes from using Search on this site, and tracking those numbers over time.

Worldwide caches is what Search returns if you put nothing in the search term box and just hit the magnifying glass, "search" icon.

 

[+HHL]

19 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Hans post shows a  GSAK filter.

No, it doesn't. I deleted my post to avoid more inappropriate comments. :-(

[+thebruce0]

For a good cycle of caches there needs to also be archivals. Let's say an area has a high activity of cache placements. In today's increasing community, it's likely that there are far more easily accessible caches being published, filling up those areas fairly quickly. Unless they also get archived quickly, there's guaranteed to be a decreasing in new cache placements in following time periods. I think what would be more informative is comparing new cache placements with archivals (and that's a tougher stat to gauge).  I'd estimate that a lower archival rate will translate to lower publish rate. A high archival rate with a low publish rate will likely mean a true decline.  But a high archival rate and a high publish rate likely means a healthy geocaching region.

 

There are a number of factors that would need to be taken into consideration before determine a 'growth' or 'decline' in any particular region.  And as with any statistical analysis there's a whole bunch of interpretation involved. If that context is outlined with the conclusion, it's a lot more informative than mere numbers.

[+Isonzo Karst]

 

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

 

There are a number of factors that would need to be taken into consideration before determine a 'growth' or 'decline' in any particular region. 

Any time the number of caches declines, clearly archive is greater than publish, and that's decline and not growth.

 

I'm not a believer in churn, ie, a lot of archives and a lot publishing = "good cycle".   What I see is a lot of archive and a lot of publish = more low T micro caches.

It may mean more caches available to be found, but I don't see this as being to the good. On the contrary, the more low T micros there are around, the faster the turnover rate of try geocaching and abandon it.   This may well vary locally.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Isonzo Karst

[+thebruce0]

If the numbers are merely new caches published, then declining numbers merely indicates how fast new caches are getting published, not how active a community is overall. 

Yes, if the numbers are active geocaches, then archivals are obviously an element, but the ratio of archivals to new publishes isn't revealed other than being of higher quantity, and isn't a conclusive look at how active a community is overall.

Numbers are always interpreted in light of a context. If number stats are broken down into their component elements (to whatever degree) it's always easier to come to different conclusions.  Those two results above are certainly true results, but they paint different pictures of the community.  So I'm saying, if we can see the rate of archivals and the rate of new publishes separately, then we have a better idea of what kind of activity a certain community is displaying. (That's not even touching on reasons for archivals, number of unique geocachers placing, etc etc)

 

And we all know that "decline" in any numbers can be good or bad depending on who you ask

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

For a good cycle of caches there needs to also be archivals. Let's say an area has a high activity of cache placements. In today's increasing community, it's likely that there are far more easily accessible caches being published, filling up those areas fairly quickly. Unless they also get archived quickly, there's guaranteed to be a decreasing in new cache placements in following time periods. I think what would be more informative is comparing new cache placements with archivals (and that's a tougher stat to gauge).  I'd estimate that a lower archival rate will translate to lower publish rate. A high archival rate with a low publish rate will likely mean a true decline.  But a high archival rate and a high publish rate likely means a healthy geocaching region.

 

Back in July last year, I wrote in this thread:

 

Quote

In the NSW Central Coast region, spanning 1680 square kilometres with a muggle population of 325,000, there's a grand total of 589 caches, 68% of which were hidden prior to 2016.

 

According to Project GC, that number has now dropped to 547 caches, a decline of 42 (about 7%). In the 15 months since that post there've been 28 new caches published so there must have been 70 archivals, most of which were in the more urban areas as they tend not to last as long as the bushland hides. Also note that this region is far from becoming saturated (547 caches in 1680 square kilometres is about one cache for every three square kilometres), so the present placements aren't really going to constrain future ones.

[+Mineral2]

43 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

According to Project GC, that number has now dropped to 547 caches, a decline of 42 (about 7%). In the 15 months since that post there've been 28 new caches published so there must have been 70 archivals, most of which were in the more urban areas as they tend not to last as long as the bushland hides. Also note that this region is far from becoming saturated (547 caches in 1680 square kilometres is about one cache for every three square kilometres), so the present placements aren't really going to constrain future ones.

That's a pretty high archival rate for as few caches are there are in that area. Makes me wonder if it's a high muggle area in which caches don't last long and CO's don't feel like replacing and maintaining their hides regularly, or if these are mostly older caches and there is a turnover in who is active in the game.

[+barefootjeff]

47 minutes ago, Mineral2 said:

That's a pretty high archival rate for as few caches are there are in that area. Makes me wonder if it's a high muggle area in which caches don't last long and CO's don't feel like replacing and maintaining their hides regularly, or if these are mostly older caches and there is a turnover in who is active in the game.

 

There's a few factors at play here. Some COs left the area and archived all their hides, some prolific hiders from the earlier part of the decade are no longer active and their caches have gradually gone missing, and some simply haven't stood the test of time. Fires and floods have also taken their toll. And it looks like the reviewers here are now using the CHS to get rid of caches with unresponsive COs where there's been a string of DNFs or a recent unanswered NM. What's the median age of a cache? In this area it looks like that's about 5 years (about half the caches hidden in 2014 have now been archived), so 12% archival over a 15 month period isn't all that unreasonable.

[+thebruce0]

Yeah, sounds like a bunch of factors.

Also consider, a high number of 'expiry' archivals by reviewers usually means they've already been in rough/bad condition for some time, so there can be a delay between 'inactivity' and fewer caches.

Also, as mentioned, maybe one year had a dramatic increase of published from say, a CO or two placing a series or powertrail. Some other year it seems like there's a dramatic drop in activity because of a high rate of archivals - caused by said series being archived for whatever reason.  ... as opposed to a general decrease in activity across a larger number of geocachers that more appropriately echoes a reduction in active community.

It's tough to come to an objective conclusion without taking a deeper look at reasons behind the numbers.

 

Unless of course you merely personally consider more publishes = good, more archives = bad, and reasons aren't as important. And well, that's fine I guess, but it can lead to a lot of 'sky is falling' alarms.

 

Meh. I tend to find looking at numbers more interesting than coming to subjective conclusions

 

I like this comment, for eg:

5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Quote

In the NSW Central Coast region, spanning 1680 square kilometres with a muggle population of 325,000, there's a grand total of 589 caches, 68% of which were hidden prior to 2016.

 

According to Project GC, that number has now dropped to 547 caches, a decline of 42 (about 7%). In the 15 months since that post there've been 28 new caches published so there must have been 70 archivals, most of which were in the more urban areas as they tend not to last as long as the bushland hides. Also note that this region is far from becoming saturated (547 caches in 1680 square kilometres is about one cache for every three square kilometres), so the present placements aren't really going to constrain future ones.

 

No conclusions, just some numbers to play with

 

[+barefootjeff]

42 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Also, as mentioned, maybe one year had a dramatic increase of published from say, a CO or two placing a series or powertrail. Some other year it seems like there's a dramatic drop in activity because of a high rate of archivals - caused by said series being archived for whatever reason.  ... as opposed to a general decrease in activity across a larger number of geocachers that more appropriately echoes a reduction in active community.

It's tough to come to an objective conclusion without taking a deeper look at reasons behind the numbers.

 

There've never been any power trails in this region and there's only ever been one CO who's hidden more than 100 caches. She hid 235 over a seven year period, scattered around all over the place, but archived all the remaining ones when she moved away in April 2017. This is the all-time top ten hiders in this region courtesy of Project-GC, with me now at number 7:

 

 

If I remove archived caches, it becomes:

 

 

So what we currently have here is a fairly broad spread of cache ownership. If I hide five more caches I'll move to equal top of that list and I don't consider myself to be one of those throw-em-out-everywhere power hiders that everyone derides.

 

51 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Unless of course you merely personally consider more publishes = good, more archives = bad, and reasons aren't as important. And well, that's fine I guess, but it can lead to a lot of 'sky is falling' alarms.

 

From my own perspective, I was looking at caching to be a long-term retirement activity but for that to work, my find rate has to be roughly equal to the number of new hides in my catchment area. My current find rate is about 130 caches per year (it peaked in 2017 with 195 finds that year), which was fine when we were getting a similar number of new hides each year, but with the annual hide rate now bordering on single digits, I'm either going to have to move, do much more long-haul travelling, or confine my caching to just routine visits to my own hides and the odd find now and then.

 

So for me, more publishes would be a good thing within reason (I still wouldn't want to see a 500-cache power trail on my doorstep), and I guess for sustainability a roughly similar rate of archivals once those caches reach end-of-life. Neither rapid growth nor rapid decline are sustainable.

 

[+Goldenwattle]

I have been clicking on THIS LINK in the first entry on page one, but that only gives me my caches. How do I do any area; not personal caches found, etc?

[+frostengel]

Come on, it is not only about the numbers, it it?

Do not just look at the pure number of new caches (and the numbers of those which are archived) but look at the quality (subjective!), type, ratings....

 

Personally I am happy if some multi caches are published (I like these best) and some caches with high terrain rating (I like these, too). Last year we had some active owners and dozens of simple traditional caches were published - that increased the numbers but it did not make me happy. That's okay - they are there and I got some on a nice biking tour but I (personally) would have liked something more (and I get it sometimes ;-)).

 

So don't give too much about rising or decreasing numbers. It is like with finds - you cannot just count "1 cache" as "1 cache" as each is different. It doesn't matter if you prefer finding 10 traditionals on a powertrail or one big multi cache - both can give you some time to enjoy and that is what counts, doesn't it?

 

Jochen

[+coachstahly]

1 hour ago, frostengel said:

Come on, it is not only about the numbers, it it?

Do not just look at the pure number of new caches (and the numbers of those which are archived) but look at the quality (subjective!), type, ratings....

 

 

The title of the thread is the pertinent topic here, not the subjective quality of the caches that are being placed.  If you're going to talk about "numbers", then you need, well, numbers, not subjective determinations about the quality of new caches.  No one is asking if the number of new quality caches is decreasing and there's absolutely no way that this could be determined, as what makes a quality cache is so subjective to likes and dislikes of individual cachers.  

 

1 hour ago, frostengel said:

So don't give too much about rising or decreasing numbers.

 

Apparently you didn't read the title of this thread.  Tell this to @barefootjeff (or any other cacher in an area with not many caches and not much hiding activity), who finds that the number of caches available for them to find is finite and will cause them to either travel extensively to find more caches or hope that someone discovers geocaching in their area and starts placing more caches or someone new moves in and starts placing caches.  When there are a limited amount of caches in an area and that number continues to decline, it absolutely affects caching, regardless of whether or not it's all about the numbers.  Those experiences you hope that people can enjoy won't be there for them to enjoy or will be very limited in scope.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, frostengel said:

Personally I am happy if some multi caches are published (I like these best)

Unfortunately many people appear not to do multicaches, or at least the longer ones. I admit I have been guilty of this myself at times when travelling, although I did do a long multicache that I drove about 12,000kms to complete.  I own three and the two longer ones haven't had many finders, and the third (shorter multicache) I think only gets as many finds as it does, because it's part of a power trail.

GC61P7D Found last month, after no finds for over a year.

GC7AGE1 Not found since February this year.

[+coachstahly]

1 hour ago, frostengel said:

I am happy if some multi caches are published (I like these best)

 

I do too but in a thread that is looking at whether or not numbers are declining (or holding steady or increasing), the type of cache being hid is irrelevant.  Of my 81 currently active hides, 31 are multis, so it's not just me saying that I like them the best.  I like them so much that I prefer to hide them as well.  My very first hide that I placed was a multi that's still out.  On their own, multis tend to get published (and found) much less frequently than traditional caches so one could certainly posit an idea that multi caches might be declining in numbers, but you'd actually need numbers that show an original baseline of number of multis, how many were archived, and how many were published in order to determine whether or not that's a valid point to make.  That's the whole premise of this thread, that someone believes that the number of new caches is decreasing.  

 

[+frostengel]

44 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

Apparently you didn't read the title of this thread.  Tell this to @barefootjeff (or any other cacher in an area with not many caches and not much hiding activity), who finds that the number of caches available for them to find is finite and will cause them to either travel extensively to find more caches or hope that someone discovers geocaching in their area and starts placing more caches or someone new moves in and starts placing caches.  When there are a limited amount of caches in an area and that number continues to decline, it absolutely affects caching, regardless of whether or not it's all about the numbers.

 

I read it for sure and I read the first posts and I read barefootjeff's one.

But that what you quote is exactly the point:

 

- the number of new caches is decreasing and so BFJ and others have to travel far to find new caches.

- the number of new caches was very high here lately but I do not like those very much (one micro traditional, another micro traditional, ...). So I have to travel far to find new terrain 5 caches or multi caches.

 

What do the pure numbers help me if I do not want to search the caches?

 

Don't forget that not every cacher just to wants to search for any caches. Many want to make those caches they like or that they are able to do (so perhaps they want especially these simple caches that I do not like, sure!).

 

Pure numbers don't help. If many caches get published I still might find no ones for me; and even if only a few caches get published but those are the "right ones" (subjective!!) I am happy.

 

I (again: personally, subjective!) prefer if owners take time to create special hides - and therefore the pure number would decrease at is easier to put out many simple standard caches than some special ones. But if this leads to a decreaing number I have no problem with that!

[+colleda]

7 minutes ago, frostengel said:

 

Pure numbers don't help. If many caches get published I still might find no ones for me; and even if only a few caches get published but those are the "right ones" (subjective!!) I am happy.

Numbers are handy when there is a souvenir promotion happening, which in BFJ's and others' situation, meant having to travel far and wide from their home area.

Edited October 4, 2019 by colleda
typo

[+frostengel]

6 minutes ago, colleda said:

Numbers are handy when there is a souvenir promotion happening

 

Pardon, for me souvenirs are a nice add-on but when thinking of geocaching I do not think of them. I think of being outside (or solving some riddles at home to be outside later ;-)), of getting fresh air and movement, of having fun and being challenged (souvenirs add to this part).

 

So, I am really sorry for my offtopic. This topic is about pure numbers and you should continue this topic. (Subjective) Quality and fun with geocaching can be discussed elsewhere - I'll be over there. :-)

 

Thanks for the short offtopic discussion!

Jochen

[+coachstahly]

4 minutes ago, frostengel said:

...

 

10 minutes ago, frostengel said:

So, I am really sorry for my offtopic. This topic is about pure numbers and you should continue this topic.

 

And this renders my reply useless.  LOL

[+thebruce0]

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

with the annual hide rate now bordering on single digits, I'm either going to have to move, do much more long-haul travelling, or confine my caching to just routine visits to my own hides and the odd find now and then.

 

I know the most common response to this which I'm sure you know of and have already considered, is to find ways to help build your local community such as through events and word of mouth or connecting with other hobby groups... You do hide, but if everyone just found caches, no one would hide more; and if everyone only hid and found, the community size wouldn't grow. Maybe you've tried hosting events or reaching out to spread the word in some way, or maybe not, so this is more a generic suggestion to the royal "you" and "we"   Proscellitize!

[+barefootjeff]

10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

18 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

with the annual hide rate now bordering on single digits, I'm either going to have to move, do much more long-haul travelling, or confine my caching to just routine visits to my own hides and the odd find now and then.

 

I know the most common response to this which I'm sure you know of and have already considered, is to find ways to help build your local community such as through events and word of mouth or connecting with other hobby groups... You do hide, but if everyone just found caches, no one would hide more; and if everyone only hid and found, the community size wouldn't grow. Maybe you've tried hosting events or reaching out to spread the word in some way, or maybe not, so this is more a generic suggestion to the royal "you" and "we"   Proscellitize!

 

The most recent event here, held during the Cache Carnival promotion, was well attended but they were mostly the same old faces, no newbies.

 

Comparing the figures for my whole state (New South Wales, Australia) with my Central Coast region paints an interesting picture. Going from the dawn of time:

 

                                      --------------------- NSW ---------------------------------                ------------------ Central Coast ----------------------

Year published           Hidden     Remaining     Percent Archived               Hidden     Remaining     Percent Archived

        2000                         7                  4                         43%                                 0                  0

        2001                      121               34                        72%                                11                 4                         64%

        2002                      210               56                        73%                                 9                  3                         67%

        2003                      308               77                        75%                               17                  7                         59%

        2004                      385             120                        69%                               11                  7                         36%

        2005                      740             240                        68%                               50                10                         80%

        2006                      922             361                        61%                               64                31                         52%

        2007                      994             317                        68%                               69                16                         77%

        2008                      996             303                        70%                               51                13                         75%

        2009                    1448            488                         66%                              23                  7                          70%

        2010                    1783            672                         62%                              52                14                          73%

        2011                    2313            952                         59%                              60                16                          73%

        2012                    2752          1372                         50%                            230               42                           82%

        2013                    3182          1650                         48%                            130               41                           68%

        2014                    2699          1544                         43%                            174               72                           59%

        2015                    2695          1717                         36%                            166               86                           48%

        2016                    2952          2113                         28%                              82               49                           40%

        2017                    2000          1449                         28%                              62               48                           23%

        2018                    3083          2569                         17%                              80*             70*                         13%      *40 of these were geoart for the Oz Geomuster mega

        2019                    2591          2321                         10%                              17               14                           18%

 

With another three months left in this year, it may well set the record for the number of new hides across the state, so the collapse of caching activity in the Central Coast region might just be a local phenomenon. Maybe I really do need to move.

[+Lynx Humble]

On 10/3/2019 at 7:09 AM, Isonzo Karst said:

Numbers again

WORLDWIDE

2,000,000 Feb 23, 2013  
3,000,000 April 18, 2017 
3,151,415 March 23, 2019
3,198,358 Oct 03, 2019 

Worldwide, numbers increasing, but slowly. 46,943 is the gain over the summer months 2019 (summer in most of the most cache active parts of the world).

 

Hum 3 190 053 active cache today. The number is going down...

[+L0ne.R]

On 11/15/2017 at 1:19 AM, brendan714 said:

Wow, it really seems like a huge decrease in caches this year almost everywhere.  

I suppose Project GC also tracks this information on their Overview page.  I attached the new hide stats for Canada and the US.

But it sure seems like a lot of our home towns are experiencing a close to or greater than 50% decline in caches compared to last year.  

 

Adding 2018 - 2019

 

And here's Canada's other cache data stats: 

 

[+cerberus1]

6 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

And here's Canada's other cache data stats: 

 

Curious, I asked another once before (and no answer...) - what does an "active cacher" even mean?   Thanks.   

I'm lucky to get out two days a month now.  I'd like to think I'm still "active"...

[+Mineral2]

With the right data, we can quantify that... Get an idea of the distribution of caching activity across users. You may be still active, but sounds like you're less active than in there past (I'm in that boat too).

 

In this case, active cashers likely refers to number of unique users submitting logs* in that time period and location. 

 

*I hope it's any log because a DNF, NM, NA, and any CO logs indicate a user is actively searching for or maintaining a geocache.

Edited November 6, 2019 by Mineral2

[+L0ne.R]

44 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

what does an "active cacher" even mean?

 

Doesn't answer the question about what is the definition of "active cacher", but I found this somewhat related....

 

https://www.cacherstats.com/cgi-bin/RankingList.pl

 

There are 483022 caching accounts with 200 or more finds. In 2013 there were 230,000 geocaching.com accounts that have found 200 or more caches.

[+BethDaddyKaty]

As a relatively "new" cacher, I would say the main barrier is probably that the app has made things so easy that people don't need to understand the concept behind Geocaching.

 

As an example, a couple of months ago I downloaded the app really as a "one day" activity. Found the cache. Bit underwhelming, didn't understand it, but hey, I've got a few more on the list so let's crack on.

 

It was only after finding a few and doing some reading I really got the idea behind it, and the fact the rewarding part isn't finding one, it's finding lots, starting to understand the patterns.

 

I do think it doesn't help having the D2/T2 restriction as well. We already have premium caches, I don't really see how the restriction converts people to premium as they can always use another app. But it does cheese them off.

 

I guess a happy half way house would be to provide some sort of tutorial/guide with the first find, to explain things a bit. Either way, I do think that there is some assumption that because things are obvious to experienced cachers, they're obvious to someone who's only knowledge about Geocaching is it was a recommended app by Google.

[+lee737]

1 minute ago, daddybeth said:

I do think it doesn't help having the D2/T2 restriction as well. We already have premium caches, I don't really see how the restriction converts people to premium as they can always use another app. But it does cheese them off.

 

+1

I think this is self defeating - newbies don't have a chance to see some better caches than the first couple of 1.5/1.5s they come across, and, as you say are probably underwhelmed and go back to chasing pokemon.