Average number of visitors

[+WildcatRegi]

OK, there's been many threads about the impact that geocachers have on the environment based on the additional foot traffic in a certain area.

 

Has anyone figured out what the average number of visitors is for a given difficulty rating?

 

I've been bothered by this question since an individual took it upon himself to remove one of my caches because of "so many people driving down the road in front of his house and that he just couldn't live like that" (I calculated based on the number of logs that 1 extra car drove by his house every 3 weeks! of course in his mind, every car going down that public road was going to my cache).

 

So anyhow, enough rant, I'd like to see a simple tablulation.... difficulty 1 is about 10 visitors a month, difficulty 2 about 8, diff. 3 about 7, etc.

 

Jeremy - is it possible with all the data you have on file now that you could come up with some stats? (no made up ones now!

 

 

"The hardest thing to find is something that's not there!"

[+sbell111]

Difficulty certainly would be a factor, but the age of the cache would also figure in. Often, all interested locals will have found a cache in the first month or so. After this initial period, the only searchers will be newbies and vacationers.

[Dinoprophet]

Throw terrain in there, too. I have a 2-star difficulty with 3.5 star terrain in the same area as a 2/1.5. The 2/1.5 has had a couple of finders in the last month, neither of whom has come for mine, either at the same time or in the previous six months mine's been there. That's fine, I wanted it to be a little intimidating, but it goes to show.

 

BTW, I was one of the many ones of people that drove down that road to find MuzzleBlast's cache. Sorry.

 

Well the mountain was so beautiful that this guy built a mall and a pizza shack

Yeah he built an ugly city because he wanted the mountain to love him back -- Dar Williams

[+ooga booga]

I think proximity to an urban area is also going to be even more of a factor than the difficulty/terrain rating. A 3/3 cache on a hill in the middle of town is, by virtue of its location, going to get a lot more visitors than a 2/2 that's 40 miles from anywhere.

[+briansnat]

It seems to me that people weigh the terrain more than the difficulty level when deciding whether to look for a cache. Dinoprophets post seems to support this. Besides, it's been my experience that there are very few caches that have a legit difficulty rating higher than two.

And as Sbell says, the age of a cache is important. Most seem to get the bulk of their visits in the first 2-3 months and after that, visits are very sporadic.

 

I have 6 caches that are rated either 3, or 3.5 stars for terrain (all are either 1.5 or 2 star difficulty).

 

They have been out there a combined 81 months and have received a combined 102 visits (founds and not founds). That's what, about 1.2 or 1.3 visits a month.

 

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on July 30, 2003 at 11:43 AM.]

[+EthicalEgoist]

In a related vein, if you're planting a cache, how do you go about assigning a number of stars for terrain difficulty? Are there criteria, or is it more-or-less arbitrary?

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

In a related vein, if you're planting a cache, how do you go about assigning a number of stars for terrain difficulty? Are there criteria, or is it more-or-less arbitrary?

---

 

Here is the rating system. Unfortunately, very few people seem to use it. 1 star terrain is supposed to be handicap acessable, but I've encountered 1 star caches that involved stream crossings, negotiating downed trees, swampy areas and going off trail.

 

Difficulty rating:

1 star - Easy. In plain sight or can be found in a few minutes of searching.

2 stars - Average. The average cache hunter would be able to find this in less than 30 minutes of hunting.

3 stars - Challenging. An experienced cache hunter will find this challenging, and it could take up a good portion of an afternoon.

4 stars -Difficult. A real challenge for the experienced cache hunter - may require special skills or knowledge, or in-depth preparation to find. May require multiple days / trips to complete.

5 stars - Extreme. A serious mental or physical challenge. Requires specialized knowledge, skills, or equipment to find cache.

 

Terrain rating:

1 star - Handicapped accessible. (Terrain is likely to be paved, is relatively flat, and less than a 1/2 mile hike is required.)

2 stars - Suitable for small children. (Terrain is generally along marked trails, there are no steep elevation changes or heavy overgrowth. Less than a 2 mile hike required.)

3 stars - Not suitable for small children. (The average adult or older child should be OK depending on physical condition. Terrain is likely off-trail. May have one or more of the following: some overgrowth, some steep elevation changes, or more than a 2 mile hike.)

4 stars - Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only. (Terrain is probably off-trail. Will have one or more of the following: very heavy overgrowth, very steep elevation (requiring use of hands), or more than a 10 mile hike. May require an overnight stay.)

5 stars - Requires specialized equipment and knowledge or experience, (boat, 4WD, rock climbing, SCUBA, etc) or is otherwise extremely difficult.

 

It can be found here: http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/

Personally, I find that using the questionaire on this page gives you a terrain rating that is 1/2 to 1 star too high, so I go by the definitions above.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

[+sbell111]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BayRidgeRyan:

In a related vein, if you're planting a cache, how do you go about assigning a number of stars for terrain difficulty? Are there criteria, or is it more-or-less arbitrary?

---

Clayjar's rating system is the approved and recommended way to rate the difficulty and terrain. It can be accessed from the 'Report a New Cache' form.

 

<EDIT> What he said.

[+The Gowen Family]

Our family put out this one the day after the fourth of July, its only had six visitors.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=78419

[+Renegade Knight]

It's a real estate funcion. Location, Location, Location.

 

Urban is more frequent. Close to the interstate gets more visits from travelers, etc. Remote is much less likely. Located by other caches improves the odds.

 

Maybe this is Skydiver type math.

[+bigredmed]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinoprophet:

Throw terrain in there, too. ... The 2/1.5 has had a couple of finders in the last month, neither of whom has come for mine, either at the same time or in the previous six months mine's been there. That's fine, I wanted it to be a little intimidating, but it goes to show.

 

---

 

I think that a lot of us have seen the terrain ratings be way off and get leary. This is an area where the ratings system seems to be buggy. I have placed caches that are on flat ground and within 20 feet of really good trail that is along the river (thus flat) and yet it comes up as 2.5 on the terrain meter due to the fact that its about a mile from the parking lot. We have a cache in West Omaha that is along a creek that is 4 stars for terrain, yet its within 0.25 miles of the road. Probably a good thing that people are wary of the terrain ratings.

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nebraskache/

[+Jaguar1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

It's a real estate funcion. Location, Location, Location.

 

Urban is more frequent. Close to the interstate gets more visits from travelers, etc. Remote is much less likely. Located by other caches improves the odds.

 

Maybe this is Skydiver type math.

---

 

Then why hasn't this one been found frequently: Welcome To Southeast Louisiana

 

"Following animal paths may make the bushwacking a little easier, but probably won't pay off in the long run, since deer tend not to geocache much." - Geocacher Peeve on the Vaught Ranch Bushwackin Fun (B.D. #2) cache

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

Urban is more frequent. Close to the interstate gets more visits from travelers, etc. Remote is much less likely. Located by other caches improves the odds.

---

 

The irony is, that many state and all national parks have an issue with geocaching. They're worried about the "environmental damage" that could result from a cache placement. In reality, the more remote the cache is, the fewer visitors it will receive. Living in NJ, which is a popular area for geocaching, my more remote caches average about a finder a month. And when you take into consideration that most of the finds are in the first month of a cache's life....then the average is more like one every two or three months.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on July 30, 2003 at 06:15 PM.]

[kite]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisfromMS:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

It's a real estate funcion. Location, Location, Location.

 

Urban is more frequent. Close to the interstate gets more visits from travelers, etc. Remote is much less likely. Located by other caches improves the odds.

 

Maybe this is Skydiver type math.

---

 

Then why hasn't this one been found frequently: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=67101

---

 

Because it's a 4 terrain! That's part of 'location,' methinks. There's by the freeway, and then there's by the freeway.

[+Renegade Knight]

I forgot to mention. Fee Charging locations also lower the finds. So do Boring sounding locations? (Note, I have a few of these so don't flame me!)

[+Searching_ut]

Since this thread got me reading the ratings system again, I've come up with a question for terrain. Is the 10 mile distance on the 4 star one way distance, or round trip?

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

Since this thread got me reading the ratings system again, I've come up with a question for terrain. Is the 10 mile distance on the 4 star one way distance, or round trip?

---

 

I always assumed it meant round trip.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry

[+Searching_ut]

quote:

---

BrianSnat said:

 

I always assumed it meant round trip

---

 

Thanks, I suppose I should bump the difficulty up on my second cache by half a star.

[CleDvy]

The guy removed your cache? You should make his house a virtual—everyone can stop right in front and stare in his windows, but he won't have anything to throw away...

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

I forgot to mention. Fee Charging locations also lower the finds. So do Boring sounding locations? (Note, I have a few of these so don't flame me!)

---

 

Fees do lower the find count, but I disagree with your comment about boring locations. I have some caches in boring locations and others in beautiful areas.

 

Because the 'boring' caches tend to be 1/1.5's they get hit frequently, while my much more interesting caches can go months between finds. It seems to me that given the choice between spending 2-3 hours bagging a bunch of boring 1/1's, or one interesting cache, most geocachers will go for quantity.

 

"Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, he'll sit in a boat and drink beer all day" - Dave Barry