Placing of cache

[+chlombra]

Why do caches have to be .1 miles (or 528 ft, or 161 meters) from each other? What is the reasoning? Why can't they be closer? i found an area I'd like to place a cache but it is less than 528 ft from other caches in the area. 

[+K13]

When I open the map page (default to level 14), the icons for geocaches placed at the minimum distance appear to touch each other. With any lesser spacing, the map would be a sea of overlapping icons.

 

Personally, I wouldn't be upset if the spacing was .5 miles.

[RuideAlmeida]

10 minutes ago, chlombra said:

I found an area I'd like to place a cache but it is less than 528 ft from other caches in the area. 

 

Use it as a virtual stage of a Multi, Mystery, etc.

[+barefootjeff]

39 minutes ago, K13 said:

Personally, I wouldn't be upset if the spacing was .5 miles.

 

That would ensure there could only ever be one cache (or perhaps two if they're at opposite ends) in the village of Patonga.

 

 

It would also have precluded me from placing both my Big Lagoon and Old Stone Jetty caches on Woy Woy Bay, which are 220 metres apart. They are quite different hide styles, one being a bushwalk down from the top of the ridge and the other a kayak paddle up the bay. A cache anywhere along that walking track would rule out the Stone Jetty one and vice-versa, but I can't move either of those places of interest to make them further apart.

 

 

Would that really be good for the game in areas where caches are in short enough supply as it is?

Edited September 21, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+cerberus1]

48 minutes ago, chlombra said:

Why do caches have to be .1 miles (or 528 ft, or 161 meters) from each other? What is the reasoning? Why can't they be closer? i found an area I'd like to place a cache but it is less than 528 ft from other caches in the area. 

 

We know of a few folks who'd place a cache 200 feet apart or closer if they could.   

On some lengthy rail trails, off n on the bike every 528' is already a pain-in-the-can.  Closer, just put on those hiking boots...

At one time there were quite a few folks asking for much more than the 528'  because of this nondescript cache placement "just because I can" silliness.

[+cerberus1]

16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

That would ensure there could only ever be one cache (or perhaps two if they're at opposite ends) in the village of Patonga.

 

 

I'm kinda good with that.   Guessing the "one cache" has been around earlier ?  Is it being maintained ?

We've passed most of the "on the way to..." caches (that ride on the back of that first cache placed) for years.    

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 

I'm kinda good with that.   Guessing the "one cache" has been around earlier ?  Is it being maintained ?

We've passed most of the "on the way to..." caches (that ride on the back of that first cache placed) for years.    

 

Currently there are four caches in and around Patonga, all of them mine and, to the best of my knowledge (I've checked them all in the past month), all in good condition. I used to have another one in the corner at the edge of the national park where I've marked with an arrow (GC5XVYC) but it washed away in a severe flash flood earlier in the year. I might replace it with something else eventually if I can find a more secure location for it without crossing the park boundary, assuming no-one else places anything there, but that's unlikely as no-one else has placed caches around Patonga for many years.

 

 

The one in the top right is a multi with the final located next to Patonga Drive (again just outside the national park boundary) to the west of it.

 

I should also add that those four caches are all quite different. The top right multi explores the Elephant Rock outcrop at the top of the ridge, the traditional at Dark Corner is near a sandstone cave with views down across the bay, the one on the far left is a traditional in the tidal wetlands and the other one is a multi that traverses a series of waterfalls extending up a narrow gully. They all have themed containers too. None of them are pill bottles in car parks.

 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+TriciaG]

1 hour ago, chlombra said:

Why do caches have to be .1 miles (or 528 ft, or 161 meters) from each other?

There has to be some limit. A tenth of a mile is a good cutoff, IMHO. Yes, sometimes it means not placing a cache exactly where you want one, but that's going to happen if the caches were allowed to be closer, too. *shrug*

[+barefootjeff]

I might add that, with the current 161 metre spacing, the maximum cache density is 44.5 caches per square kilometre. If that spacing was increased by a factor of five, the maximum density would be only 1.8 caches per square kilometre, or in other words 0.56 square kilometres per cache.

 

Edited to correct my maths.

Edited September 22, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+Lynx Humble]

20 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I might add that, with the current 161 metre spacing, the maximum cache density is 11.14 caches per square kilometre. If that spacing was increased by a factor of five, the maximum density would be only 0.45 caches per square kilometre, or in other words 2.24 square kilometres per cache.

Hum I would check your math again the maximum cache density is 27.16 caches per square kilometer

[+barefootjeff]

35 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

Hum I would check your math again the maximum cache density is 27.16 caches per square kilometer

 

Oops, you're right.

 

Edit to add: Unless I'm doing something else wrong, on a 161 metre grid you could have 6.2 x 6.2 caches per kilometre or about 38 per square km. With maximal packing you can do a bit better than that and get it up to about 44.5. I've edited my previous post accordingly.

Edited September 22, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+niraD]

2 hours ago, chlombra said:

Why do caches have to be .1 miles (or 528 ft, or 161 meters) from each other? What is the reasoning? Why can't they be closer? i found an area I'd like to place a cache but it is less than 528 ft from other caches in the area. 

Once upon a time, the guidelines stated that the goals of the saturation guideline are "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider."

[+chlombra]

I may be in the minority,  but I like looking for caches in a set area like on a bike path or nature trail where I can walk and get some caches along the way. I dont like driving to a spot where there are only one or two and have to go someplace else or have to walk a huge distance for them. 

[+Lynx Humble]

18 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Oops, you're right.

 

Edit to add: Unless I'm doing something else wrong, on a 161 metre grid you could have 6.2 x 6.2 caches per kilometre or about 38 per square km. With maximal packing you can do a bit better than that and get it up to about 44.5. I've edited my previous post accordingly.

The issue with that calculation is that you have caches on the edges of that square kilometer so the area those caches take are greater then your square kilometers at 1+.08+.08= 1.16x1.16 = 1.35km2

Edited September 22, 2020 by Lynx Humble
Typo

[+Lynx Humble]

4 hours ago, chlombra said:

I may be in the minority,  but I like looking for caches in a set area like on a bike path or nature trail where I can walk and get some caches along the way. I dont like driving to a spot where there are only one or two and have to go someplace else or have to walk a huge distance for them. 

Do you have mobility issues? 161m between cache is not a huge walk.

[+IceColdUK]

45 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

19 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Oops, you're right.

 

Edit to add: Unless I'm doing something else wrong, on a 161 metre grid you could have 6.2 x 6.2 caches per kilometre or about 38 per square km. With maximal packing you can do a bit better than that and get it up to about 44.5. I've edited my previous post accordingly.

The issue with that calculation is that you have caches on the edges of that square kilometer so the area those caches take are greater then your square kilometers at 1+.08+.08= 1.16x1.16 = 1.35km2

 

I'm with Jeff on this one.

 

If you imagine the ground as a pattern of equilateral triangles with side length 0.161 km, then maximum saturation is achieved by placing a cache at each apex.  Each cache then effectively takes up 'two triangles worth' of the total area.

 

The area of each rhombus is 0.022 km^2, giving just over 44.5 caches per square kilometre.

 

[+terratin]

Think of why you want to place a cache somewhere. Do you want to bring an interesting place to the attention of people or just place a cache because? And if he former, would this interesting thing be invisible from a cache just 161m away?

[+wmpastor]

On 9/22/2020 at 3:37 PM, Lynx Humble said:

Do you have mobility issues? 161m between cache is not a huge walk.

 

He stated a preference.  We all know the general maximum distance we can walk.  We may not want to do that each time out.

 

Also, sometimes 161m *is* a huge walk (example shown).

 

[+HunterandSamuel]

On 9/21/2020 at 6:51 PM, chlombra said:

Why do caches have to be .1 miles (or 528 ft, or 161 meters) from each other? What is the reasoning? Why can't they be closer?

 

 

I was always told it was to reduce over crowding of cache hides in the environment. Too many hides is not good. Space them out so there is less "littering".