How many is too Many?

[+Chris n Maria]

A common concern raised on the thread about the TV program seems to be based around an increase in the number of caches out there. So lets have some opinions...how many is to many?

 

Would you rather each cache was an individual location? Could caches be improved by having neighbouring caches within walking distance allowing you to join them into a days walk linked by caching? Are there enough good locations for us to carry on planting at the rate we have? How far apart should caches be?

 

Come on lets have everyones opinion - pretty soon the UK moderators (cache approvers) will have to rule on these matters. Lets say what we want the future to be know - whilst we still can.

 

Chris

Bear rescues a speciality!

London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net

[+washboy]

quote:

---

A common concern raised on the thread about the TV program seems to be based around an increase in the number of caches out there.

---

 

Eh? From where I sit, the common concern appeared to be that there won't be a sufficient number of "new" caches to satisfy the appetites of veteran cachers unless loads of new recruits join our ranks and place them.

 

=====

There's no such thing as a free lunchbox!

[+Masher]

Whilst new blood will always be needed to maintain the levels of plastic currently stashed in the countryside, I am concerned that a large influx of new cachers... no sorry, a large influx of new PLANTERS resulting from advertising, is likely to lower the average quality of the caches out there.

 

Any advertising, whether a telly spot, magazine article or whatever, will generate some new blood. Some of them will be genuinely enthusiastic and take to this game, much as we have. And we will welcome them. But, a lot of that new blood will be the 5-minute-wonder brigade, who will steam out there with the GPS unit that they got for Christmas - but didn't know what to do with until now - find a couple of caches and then plant a couple of caches, before losing interest.

 

I can see a time when my search page is littered with "Bob's First Cache" and "Bill's Number 1" - a load of boxes that are no longer maintained, stuffed with a bunch of old crap and unimaginatively chucked under a bramble bush 18 feet off the side of the A429.

 

And I know, from reading these forums, that we NOW all prefer to do a cache with a nice view, or with a theme, or with something different about it, or with a bear in it. This is also evident as harder and harder caches are getting planted now.

 

IMHO, less is sometimes more.

 

Mark

----------------------

I was technical once

[+Tim & June]

Chris n Maria have raised some valid questions to which we (T&J) would appreciate some feedback

 

Firstly though, the subject of this thread is very closely related to the thread mentioned by Chris n Maria (about advertising the hobby on TV). It is so close that to some extent the subject is likely to drift in the direction of the rights and wrongs of advertising, therefore can we please try to keep this thread on track as far as is possible. Thanks.

 

quote:

---

Are there enough good locations for us to carry on planting at the rate we have?

---

I know that we (T & J) are running out of our most favorite locations so the quality of those locations could deteriorate. That's why it's taking us longer to find places to plant more caches at really nice locations. I'm not suggesting that we are going to stop placing caches because we have run out of nice places, it just takes more time to find them. I hope that new cachers will bring new ideas and food for thought.

 

quote:

---

How far apart should caches be?

---

Is there a definitive answer to that ? I'm not sure. Currently, when reviewing a cache for approval we look at how far away the nearest cache is. If that is at least .2 of a mile, there is no issue. If it is below .1 of a mile, we need to have a fairly compelling reason to approve the cache. I'm not sure if this is actually written down anywhere, but a hard and fast rule would prevent us using some common sense. It's worth noting that a traditional cache will always take priority over a virtual and we enforce the rule that a virtual can only be approved if the location cannot sustain a physical cache.

 

A little off topic :

I guess that the quality of caches is something which could possibly suffer as a result of a major influx of new cachers. There are already a number of caches

'unimaginatively chucked under a bramble bush' alongside the road. This is likely to continue unless cachers post comment in their logs something along the lines of 'this was a lame location, 3 yards from where I parked the car and I had to climb over a fly-tip to reach it'. We (T&J) have in the past been cautious about posting such remarks because we don't want to offend and simply say very little. If things start to get out of hand and there are loads of that standard of cache, perhaps we need to be brutally honest in our logs.

 

Tim & June (Winchester)

 

See June, I told you that sign which said 'Unsuitable for Motor Vehicles' was wrong !

[+Pharisee]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Masher:

 

I can see a time when my search page is littered with "Bob's First Cache" and "Bill's Number 1" - a load of boxes that are no longer maintained, stuffed with a bunch of old crap and unimaginatively chucked under a bramble bush 18 feet off the side of the A429.

 

---

 

As I’ve already said on other threads, I’m fairly new to this game. I only found my first cache about 6 weeks ago. I now have 22 found and already I’m getting a little bored with the ‘local’ caches. Having just done a quick check, of the 50 closest to me that I have yet to find, 39 are rated at 2/2 or easier. Only 5 have a 3 or higher rating for either difficulty or terrain. All are within about a 15-mile radius.

I seem to be blessed with a number of quite prolific cache setters in the area where I live. They have hidden to found ratios of about 8:1 with one of them on a 1.7:1 ratio! (Has anybody any idea what the national average is?). Most of these are of the 2/2 or less type although, as Masher has said, there does seem to be a gratifying trend towards setting harder, or at least, more interesting caches. I wonder how often these prolific cache setters visit their earlier caches for any sort of maintenance?

A previous thread talked about the most caches found in a day with figures of 30 being talked about and up to 50 in a weekend. These can’t have been particularly difficult so was it really that much fun? Maybe I’m a bit slow but I did four in one afternoon a couple of weeks ago around Gloucester and after walking up all those hills, I didn’t want to do any more!

Personally, I would prefer to do one or two harder caches in a session than a whole bucket load of 1/1’s. I know that there are a few local caches that are going to be on my nearest list for a long time because right now, I just can’t get up the enthusiasm to go and do them. I guess I could make a concerted effort and do a load of them in one go. It would improve my ‘numbers’ but quite honestly, I’d sooner go a bit further afield to find one or two harder ones.

 

I suppose I could have just said ‘I’m with you, Masher’ and not bothered to write all this garbage but it’s a bit slow at work right now .

 

John

 

________________________________________________

 

Where did all the sunshine go?

 

[This message was edited by Pharisee on December 03, 2002 at 02:05 AM.]

[+John Stead]

Surely we have room for both sorts of cache, the out for a day ones and the quickies. I agree some are rather easy but if they are in interesting spots, so what! I quite enjoy breaking a long journey with a break of half an hour or so to find a cache in an area I would not otherwise visit and where I could not justify half a day or more. On the other hand when out for a day's caching I welcome a challenge.

Provided people are realistic in their gradings I am quite happy to have both sorts.

[+Kouros]

This weekend I only did one cache - a really easy (which had more to do with where I parked than anything else).

 

But I enjoyed it - I always enjoy the caches, mostly because I love reading through other peoples logs, especially when I find a nice log (like I did this weekend) from someone who finds the cache by accident.

 

There's plenty of space for easy and hard caches, IMHO - and given enough time, I'll go out and hunt both!

 

------

An it harm none, do what ye will

[+Huga]

I agree totally that it's not about numbers and amassing as many easy caches as possible.

 

But these days, my cloest not-done cache is 40 miles away, and I can't justify driving an 80-mile round trip and spending a whole day (with the current season's short daylight hours) to do one cache. If it's a really fun cache then it may justify itself, but I just can't afford to spend that amount of money on petrol. Thus when I do a caching trip, I try to hit as many as possible.

 

We do need more exciting caches out there, as too many are being placed for the sheer hell of it (I'm a leetle bit guilty of this, but plan to upgrade some of my less great caches).

 

So I currently torn between having lots of doable caches (especially in the East Anglia area!), and not populating the countryside with lame caches. One example (which I won't name for fear of offending the placer) was a crappy plastic box that didn't seal properly, that had been placed with a tealight candle and a lighter as its starting contents. Everyone that has visited has either takne/left nothing or left something without removing anything, to try to bolster its contents. I really didn't enjoy finding such rubbish...

 

--

**Mother is the name of God on the lips of all children**

[+element14]

There was a discussion along these lines about a year or so ago when "he who shall not be named" started placing lots of caches albeit commercial ones in one area.

 

With the growth in numbers of seekers there is bound to be an increase in cache density. As long as they are good ones and not in dodgy areas or rubbish dumps I'm not to concerned.

 

My view is that as long as they are in an interesting place it shouldn't matter. The thrill of the chase/hunt is the main reason for me to do it, nto what I find, although it is nicer to swap something useful/interesting for something else. I haven't come across any caches that just contain junk.

 

I think there should be a mix of difficulties for different occassions/abilities - for example I did a cache quickly in passing on the way home from a meeting in Birmingham today which was a 1/1 rating, but wouldn't have had the time to do a more complex multi cache due to lack of time. Similarly when I'm on a break, I will attempt the more difficult or multi-caches which take a bit of planning or more time to complete.

 

I already have a couple of caches that I have placed near to me and am planning a six part multi-cache which will have two legs near these current ones, but other virtual legs and the final physical cache in a completely new location - this way I cater for different audiences.

 

element14

[MCL]

I want both kinds of caches: Ones that are hard and ones that are dead easy. The dead easy ones are good for introducing new people to the game, (I prefer this method of expansion rather than TV promotion...) plus the fact that they are good for people with disabilities who may not be able to climb, or even walk any sort of distance.

 

Having said that I would say that if you had more than half a dozen of these type of caches within a 5 mile radius of your home location then that would be too many. How about aiming for a sort of distribution figure such that in any given area the proportions of cache difficulties are something like 5 ones (easy) 4 twos, 3 threes, 2 fours and a five (hard)?

 

So if you lived in an area that had 20 easy ones and no hard ones you could consider it your duty to redress the balance...

 

Bear in mind also that by their very nature, the easy ones tend to be the ones that go missing, so there is a certain amount of "replacing" going on when you hide a 1/1. I am a bit worried by the fact that people around my region seem to be hiding the harder types of cache, and so as time goes on and the easier ones disappear, we are going to get a sport which consists of ever more 4s and 5s and fewer 1s and 2s.

 

I think T&J's rule of thumb about distances is a good one. However I worry about the idea that they might not apporove caches on the basis of having too many other easy ones in the area. That IMHO is being a bit *too* judgmental. Not all cachers are agile, young, fit, and intelligent and educated. We wouldn't want to be considered to be discriminating against ageing, unfit and intellectually challenged cachers now would we?

 

This point may raise a smile in the reader, (and it was partly meant to) but in fact behind it I am being deadly serious. It seems that the vast majority on here are an intelligent, articulate and well-read bunch of Doug Adams fans and there is nothing wrong in that. But not everyone out there is. Some people are *not* able to attempt caches that have puzzles associated with them especially ones that require a certain level of literature knowledge. Some people are too old or frail to walk up hills and down dales, climbing over styles and shimmying up trees.

 

The current population stats show that over 1 in 3 of the population of the UK are over 50. Thats 20 million out of 56 million. Every time we place a very demanding cache (physically) we are effectively excluding many in this group. I believe this must be borne in mind. For instance, I did "Brian's Warren" a while back. Lovely cache but I would not allow my 65 year old dad to attempt it. Not without an ambulance standing by anyway...

 

Now, if I am to get my Dad more into caching, I need to know that there are sufficient caches in his region to occupy him , and that sufficient new ones are being placed. This trend for only placing harder nd harder ones is no use to someone like him.

 

As others have said, we need both kinds of cache and we need to keep a balance.

 

No trees were harmed during the production of this posting, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced....

[+Huga]

I think that restrictions on caches in an area based on their difficulty is a very bad thing, and I also think that we shouldn't feel under obligation to provide caches for the whole spectrum of the public.

We're a voluntary group of people under no regulationary authorities, andas such, we have no real responibilities to members or potential members.

 

The day that a cache fails to get approved because it can't be accessed by someone in a wheelchair is a very sad day. This is an outdoor activity, and a very physical one by its very nature, and as such it naturally excludes a fair chunk of the public. Its not fair, possibly, but that's the way it goes.

 

There are many caches out there I can't do - ones that require rock climbing, scuba diving or similar, but I don't complain about those. There are plenty of caches around (around 1200 in the UK alone), that everyone ought ot be kept happy for a decent length of time.

 

--

**Mother is the name of God on the lips of all children**

[+Icenians]

I think we have to be careful we don't go down the road of 'that cache is too easy so not approved' Different people want different things from this hobby. What is wrong with a cache 3 paces from the road? If you are in a wheelchair this may be all you can get at.

 

Easy to find for me may not be for my kids. If you don't like easy caches that are next to the road, don't do them.

 

I would suggest that we can all get an OS grid ref of the cache and look it up on a map to see if it is in a place that would be of interest.

 

The same can be said for the area it is placed. Miles of empty fields and countryside may be a wonderful view to one person or just a few miles of empty fields to another. Are we saying that you can't set a cache because you don't have anywhere I think is interesting near you?

 

Live and let live. I think we are a long way from saturation, especially around here. It's been mentioned before, there are thousands of letterboxes on Dartmoor and that doesn't seem to be a problem.

 

Statistics show that those with the most birthdays live longest.

[+jeremyp]

I think we're getting too wound up about the rules here.

 

Firstly, I think there have always been good and bad caches - well there have since I started. If people want to raise the quality of caches, they should make their feelings known in the cache log (politely of course!). If planters get truthfl feedback, they'll soon start improving their caches.

 

Secondly, there is no hard and fast rule about how close together "too close" is. The SP series are all quite close together and yet make a nice afternoon's caching - or would if they weren't so easy. I could envisage a situation where two caches are a few yards apart but separated by a fast flowing river that you have to go ten miles to cross. There are two virtual caches in London that use the same inscription as their clues (actually that does go a bit far).

 

-------

jeremyp

The second ten million caches were the worst too.

http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching

[el10t]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeremyp:

There are two virtual caches in London that use the same inscription as their clues (actually that does go a bit far).

---

You're just bitter because you weren't efficient enough to bag them both on the same visit.

 

Rich

mobilis in mobili

[+John Stead]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Icenians:

 

Easy to find for me may not be for my kids..

---

 

Are you sure it's not - Easy to find for the kids may not be for me!?

[+paul.blitz]

I enjoy the variety of cache types... let me ramble a moment:

 

First of all, much of my caching is done at weekends, mainly with Michael. For those, I certainly don't mind if a single cache takes an hour or two, as long as the place, the chase, and the 'difficulty' are all interesting.

 

But I also go around the country on business, and if I have some time, its nice to try & slip in a cache if there's one nearby. If its just a day trip, then I don't have much time, so prefer simpler caches (under an hour from parking to returning). But sometimes (like last week) I stay overnight, and then I have a bit more time (up to maybe 2 hours).

 

But when going around the country, I have probably not had much time to research the area, so can not cope with a multi-cache that takes me all over the place. A 2-drop is fine, if there is little or no driving between, and a 3 or 4 is no problems if its a fairly simple 'each cache gives location of next' (ie NON-cryptic clues).

 

I guess as long as I know e=hat to expect, I don't mind.

 

Next week I'm off to North Devon, and because I had time, emailed the cache owner about the "expected time"... at 1.5 to 2 hrs, I won't have time, but it would be nice if there were a "shorter" one around.

 

As for the "2 minute caches": if they take me somewhere NICE, then THAT is worthwhile in itself (especially when I'm visiting an area I don't know): the cache itself becomes a little added extra.

 

OK, slight aside: after Xmas, we're visiting York for a week... I've been looking at the caches in the area, but was wondering if anyone can suggest (BY EMAIL PLEASE!) any "must do" caches?

 

Paul

(paul@blitzfamily.org.uk)

 

Team Blitz

 

No, I gave YOU the spare batteries....

[+The Merman]

As I travel along the road, like a lot of people I keep thinking...Great cache site...Great cache site.

I am sure if I see all these interesting and fun looking sites within just a few yards of the main roads, then how many thousands of sites must be just begging to be explored?

 

I just got back from the states and found some superb caches over there, but the thing they all had in common was that they led you to a spot that you were glad you went to.

 

If a cache is placed for cache sake, and has no redeaming feature such as great view, historic importance or unique experience, then it is not going to be high on my list of sites to do.

 

I have not be doing as much caching as I would have liked recently because the old jallopy is off the road, but as soon as it is fixed I will be out with a mission.

 

I will break down the sites into two camps, the ones I want to enjoy for the view etc. and the ones that do not particularly excite me will be done as night caches using my nightvision equipment. That way I can have two different types of fun!

 

JMTCW

 

P.S. Does anyone out there use nightvision to hunt at night?

If so I would be interested to hear how it works.

 

I woke this morning and my boat was not rocking...for one horrid moment I thought I lived in a house!