Jump to content

Is "Cache Density" a real problem?


seneca

Recommended Posts

There have been recent posts on some threads suggesting that there is an apparent or impending “density” problem with physical caches that may ultimately require a much stricter approval process, similar to that of virtual caches, including the possibility of the quality of proposed caches being subjectively judged. The purpose of this thread is not to discuss the potential solutions, but to discuss the actual problem, if there is in fact a problem.

 

I do not have much to say about it, because it is certainly not currently a problem in my area, although I do live in a heavily populated urban area, and I presume that there is the potential of a many-fold increase in the number of caches.

 

I never like proposing solutions to problems that might not exist (that’s what bureaucrats do). I would like to know about the problem first. Does anyone have stories or experiences where increased cache density is now having a serious, negative impact on Geoacaching?

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. geol4.JPG

Link to comment

It's grown to epidemic proportions here in Austin. Every day the TV news is showing another hiker or jogger being hauled off by ambulance, with bloody shins from banging into all the ammo cans scattered everywhere along the trails. More and more parks are being shut down because the park rangers can't distinguish from the thousands of ammo can caches the ones that are really ammo can bombs.

 

It's getting harder and harder to find a hiding place with the new tenth-mile rule that many hiders have defected to a plethora of other lesser quality sites to list their caches, and some are even just placing them willy nilly without using any listing service and letting muggles stumble onto them.

 

The local grocery chains, H.E.B. and Randalls are reporting shortages of tupperware, even the cheap disposable kind. The tupperware party is a thing of the past here. We've had to resort to storing our leftovers in wax paper and foil. It's gotten so you can't find an ammo can either, so we've taken to storing our ammo in clay jars.

 

I'd say there's not a serious cache density problem. I'd call it more than a problem, it's becoming a crisis. A cache density crisis. Yeah, that's the ticket...

 

icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by lowracer:

I'd say there's not a serious cache density problem. I'd call it more than a problem, it's becoming a crisis. A cache density crisis. Yeah, that's the ticket...

icon_wink.gif


 

Holy c**p!! icon_eek.gif I had no idea it was that bad! It looks like its getting to the point where the only thing you can hide is your tongue in your cheek! icon_wink.gif (LOL)

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. geol4.JPG

Link to comment

I think there's plenty of real estate to go around. I'd like to hear from someone in Utah. From what I hear they are the most dense. LOL. Most dense, thats funny. You know what I mean.

 

On LI there are a LOT of caches here. But it hasn't hurt the sport. As long as the location is worthy of a cache I don't care if there's one every .10 square mile. Bring 'em on, more for me to hunt. What bothers me is that thre are still sooo many great places that don't have caches. Still people manage to find a really lame place to hide a cracked peanut butter jar filled with broken crayons, rusted bottle caps & 3 pieces of paper stapled together.

 

It's Apparent that some people just don't read the: Guide to Creating and Hiding a Cache.

 

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I-

I took the one less traveled by,

And that has made all the difference.

Because now I am Lost.

Link to comment

Way out west here in Utah the cache density is not a problem. Caches are still scattered few and far between. There are a few parkways here where you can walk three miles along a river bank and find 5-10 caches but that is an extreme example. Over all it is just fine here. They aren't so dense here that you find more than 5 in one day.

Kirk out.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by lowracer:

It's grown to epidemic proportions here in Austin. Every day the TV news is showing another hiker or jogger being hauled off by ambulance, with bloody shins from banging into all the ammo cans scattered everywhere

 

icon_wink.gif


 

Is this where the term Lame Cache comes from? icon_wink.gif Seriously though I wish cache density was greater here where I live on the edge of a relative cache desert!

 

Have boots and GPSr, will cache for fun!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

There are many places in the US that have hundreds of caches within a few miles. The fact that some cacher's have logged 115+ caches in one day in certain locations should attest to that.


 

And this a bad thing ? icon_confused.gif

 

I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. geol4.JPG

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/23324_4100.png

 

You judge. Personally, I don't see a problem, but others do. That's New Jersey under all those boxes.

 

_"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm_


 

But Brian, we have the same "People Density" problem in NJ too. SO I guess it's all relative.

 

-Midnight

Link to comment

I've seen several threads about time limits for caches, and limits to the amount of caches a person can place. In these threads, the reason given was that they were afraid of running out of good places to put caches. It's not a problem where I live, but the only big public park in town that you can visit 24 hours a day already has several caches in and around it, including one of mine. I can see that placing interesting caches with no acessibility issues could eventually become more difficult. But I don't feel that there are too many caches in my area. I'd like to see many more.

 

[This message was edited by Bloencustoms on March 32, 1999 at 25:60 PM]

Link to comment

If things were done the way it is said to be done (seek permission), then more people would be complaining about no where to place a cache. Of course you could take a relatively nice size park that will allow caches and make a grid of it at .1 mile intervals and have caches all over the place. Imagine that. Would be like swiss cheese. But given the facts that people don't ask first, then theoretically no, there are plenty of places to hide a cache.

 

Brian

www.woodsters.com

 

mystats.php?userid=Woodsters%20Outdoors&vopt=&txtdata=Stats%20Rule!&bgcol=FFFFFF&fgcol=000000

Link to comment

I've *definitely* seen a problem with cache density. The seal was compromised, so when the area flooded, the thing went right to the bottom. I never did recover it.

 

What? Oh, *that* density! Yes, I would certainly believe that some areas have a distinctly bad cache density problem. In fact, I personally use Watcher mainly to filter out as much of the noise floor as I can so I can see the caches I enjoy... they are distinctly less populous than "normal" caches... and I do *so* love the cache size filter (I'm not a microholic by *any* stretch).

 

[[[ ClayJar Networks ]]]

Home of Watcher downloads, Official Geocaching Chat, and the Geocache Rating System

Link to comment

I guess the only issue here for us is what happens if cache density becomes a problem somewhere? Does that mean approvers worldwide have the new guideline of "ensure it's a worthy cache?" I hope not, density over here is a long way from being an issue, as it seems is true of lots of the states. We are subject to worldwide guidelines on virtuals for example, as they cannot be placed where a physical is possible. I'm no fan of virtuals, but as we are nowhere near cache gridlock here I don't see an issue with having virtuals approved. I do appreciate, however, that it's a global game with global rules, so I guess cache density in places like Austin could become a problem for all those of us who never go there. It would be interesting to see what TPTB's thinking on this will be when the first area is truely gridlocked, as a global ruling could result in other sites gaining custom and passin GC.com for the worldwide lead in cache numbers if done badly. I'm sure it will be done very well of course.

 

Cheers,

Emily & Neil

 

The welfare of the forest and it's wildlife must come before the game.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Huntforit:

No density problem in southern georgia.

 

huntforit


 

I know, just as there is no density problem in the mid-panhandle of Florida. The down side to this is you don't get as many finds because they are so spread out. The up side is, eventually you will be driving to different locations that you've never been in order to cache. I don't think we'd be wandering over to Panama City or P-Cola area if it weren't for caching (ditto for Jacksonville). We are already starting the hunt for So GA caches lol.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bob - can ya beer me now?

Sandy - bite me

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Bob & Sandy:

The up side is, eventually you will be driving to different locations that you've never been in order to cache.


 

This is not necessarily true. Over time as cache density increases, you will find yourself returning to the same trails in the same parks over and over again. The park rangers will begin to recognize you as a 'regular.'

 

Usually, the original cache in the area will also be the farthest down the trail. The second placement, 2nd farthest, etc., etc.. At least with the .1 mile rule the caches now have to be 528 feet apart ... there for a while, a few people were dropping new caches 50 ft from existing ones.

 

It's time to limit the number of caches per square mile and the number of caches an individual can own. Might as well take a shot at two birds (density and cache abandonment) with one stone.

Link to comment

quote:
It's time to limit the number of caches per square mile and the number of caches an individual can own. Might as well take a shot at two birds (density and cache abandonment) with one stone.

 

I disagree. Sometimes one park has two or three distinctly interesting areas that make for a significantly different geocaching experience. In cases like this I don't think the number of caches should be limited.

 

Also, some people can't take care of one or two caches, while another can easily maintain 100.

Why limit someone who enjoys hiding caches (and has the ability to maintain them) to an arbitrary limit?

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

I'd like to point out that on the new geocaching.com maps - the icons for caches/bugs/etc are NOT drawn to scale. I know that may be obvious for most people but it can be confusing if you're not paying attention.

 

If they were drawn to scale, you probably wouldn't notice where they are icon_smile.gif

 

It may be a problem in urban areas, but in rural areas it's probably not as bad.

 

southdeltan

 

mystats.php?userid=southdeltan&vopt=link&txtdata=MS%20Geocachers%20Association&bgcol=FFFFFF&fgcol=000000&imbadge=y&badgetyp=msga-logo.jpg

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Huntforit:

No density problem in southern georgia.


 

The lack of density IS the problem. In MY 3000 square mile radius there are 12 caches.

 

MOPAR - 115 caches in one day?!?! How about 115 miles for one cache! NOW, that's a problem!

 

BOB&SANDY - Sorry for the slim pickings...Gotta hide one and dedicate to Team Bite Me (maybe a Fishing Theme??)

 

Bob ~

Early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese...

Isn't the best way to save face to keep the lower part shut?...Stephen Wright

 

mystats.php?userid=RainbowCache&vopt=user&txtdata=Somewhere%20Over%20the%20Rainbow!&bgcol=FFFFFF&fgcol=000000

Link to comment

quote:
I'd like to point out that on the new geocaching.com maps - the icons for caches/bugs/etc are NOT drawn to scale. I know that may be obvious for most people but it can be confusing if you're not paying attention.


 

Whew, thanks! I was worried there for a moment. The map of the area near my house showed a cache that covered an acre.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

 

Sometimes one park has two or three distinctly interesting areas that make for a significantly different geocaching experience. In cases like this I don't think the number of caches should be limited.


 

I agree with your first sentence. I disagree with the second. There are far too many instances where people have carefully chosen those "two or three distinctly interesting areas" in a park and placed excellent caches, only to have others come along and dump several more caches along the same trails for no apparent reason, except to dump another cache.

 

quote:
Also, some people can't take care of one or two caches, while another can easily maintain 100.

 

Again, I agree with the first part, but I have seen scant evidence that would tend to support the second part of your quote. Even for people owning as few as 50 caches, most of the evidence I have seen indicates finders/would-be-finders by-and-large do the bulk of cache maintenance.

 

quote:
Why limit someone who enjoys hiding caches (and has the ability to maintain them) to an arbitrary limit?

 

Because no number was suggested as a limit, it can hardly be described as "arbitrary." I think TPTB could initiate a study to determine how often cache owners actually visit and maintain their own caches, and from their conclusions arrive at a reasonable limit.

 

In the meantime, perhaps adding a checkbox on the "log a find" page for "this cache requires maintenance" that sends an automatic e-mail to the cache owner and TPTB (or area approver) might serve as both an "early warning system" for abandoned caches/irresponsible owners and provide some hard data concerning how often caches require maintenance and how quickly owners react (or fail to react) to problems.

 

And since we are discussing "cache density" and "limits," let's again consider the very real need for cache expiration dates/renewals and limiting the length of time caches can be "temporarily" disabled.

Link to comment

quote:
I think TPTB could initiate a study to determine how often cache owners actually visit and maintain their own caches, and from their conclusions arrive at a reasonable limit

That would mean cachers would have to LOG every visit. Some of mine I can see from the street when I drive by every day. I'm not about to log every time I see it. I have to maintain them less often since I already know they are there and the finders report no problems.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness bandbass.gif

nm_button.gifmystats.php?userid=Team%20GPSaxophone&vopt=&txtdata=&bgcol=FFFFFF&fgcol=000000

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

That would mean cachers would have to LOG every visit.


 

Cache finders or cache owners? (Actually, it doesn't matter. I suggested no such thing. Do I think cache owners should log a periodic visit to their caches? Yes.)

 

quote:
I have to maintain them less often since I already know they are there and the finders report no problems.

 

So if someone clicked on a "this cache require maintenance" button, you would be in a position to address the problem quickly. And if a maintenance visit by the cache owner was a requirement of a cache expiration/renewal procedure (in my opinion, with few exceptions a drive by does not qualify as a maintenance visit), you would have no difficulty fulfilling that requirement.

Link to comment

Some interesting and potentially controversial ideas have surfaced in this thread. At this time, Geocaching.com has no plan to do any of the following:

-- judge physical cache placements based on "quality" rather than the published guidelines

-- impose a maximum number of active caches that any one account could own (although this has been discussed among the admins, the general sentiment is that any number would be arbitrary and the appropriate number for one geocacher would be inappropriate for a second, more active and dedicated geocacher who has demonstrated an ability to maintain more caches... at this time we prefer to deal with any problems as and when they arise)

-- impose a time limit on caches (although several land managers do this as a condition under their permit systems)

 

One or more of these suggestions might be considered at a later date. For now, let the discussion continue!

 

I did, however, want to respond to one of Bassoon Pilot's comments... the maximum time that a cache should be "temporarily disabled." The guidelines already say ONE MONTH. This is a reasonable time for cache owners to schedule a trip to check on their cache. At any time longer than that, an admin may either post a note asking for the owner to state their intentions and to get the cache back up and running, or archive the cache if time has passed with no response by the owner. The archive option is especially appropriate when the logs indicate that the cache is totally missing. If there is a container at the spot, where just a maintenance trip is needed, then we want to avoid GeoLitter. The owner is told to go retrieve the cache, or volunteers are sought to pick up the pieces.

 

Several of the approvers regularly go through the temporarily disabled caches in their area of responsibility, to keep the list cleaned up. If you see a cache that's been temporarily disabled for a long time, please don't hesitate to bug the owner directly by e-mail, to place a note or a "cache should be archived" log on the page, or to contact your local approver to ask them to take a look at the cache page.

 

There are always exceptions, of course. For example, in some areas caches are disabled for the entire winter when the area is closed or inaccessible due to the weather. Or, an existing cache might be disabled while the owner works with the land manager in order to comply with a new geocache permit system. In these cases, if the cache owner states the reason for the cache being disabled, then the approver will know to let it ride.

 

124791_700.jpg Don't make me stop this car!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

That would mean cachers would have to LOG every visit.


Cache finders or cache owners? (Actually, it doesn't matter. I suggested no such thing. Do I think cache owners _should_ log _a periodic_ visit to their caches? Yes.)


Cache owners should make periodic checks on their cache and log their visit. This allows them to make sure there is room in the logbook, the cache is not full of trash (or water, etc), and lets anyone reading the cache page know that the cache was ok on (enter date here).

 

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

So if someone clicked on a "this cache require maintenance" button, you would be in a position to address the problem quickly. And if a maintenance visit by the cache owner was a requirement of a cache expiration/renewal procedure (in my opinion, with few exceptions a drive by does not qualify as a maintenance visit), you would have no difficulty fulfilling that requirement.


Of the 10 active caches I have, I could check on 9 of them the same day as receiving an email that there was a problem. The other cache would have to wait until my next day off, and I have 3 or 4 days off every week.

 

I wouldn't have a problem with requiring owners to log a visit every 6 months, but where's the enforcement? How would the admins know if I really checked, or just wrote the log?

 

Logging a visit every 6 months does, however, let others know you are still an active cacher and have not abandoned your cache. If you are taking the time to post a note to your cache page, you're probably also reading the logs. If you are reading the logs, you will know if people are having trouble finding your cache, and you can take appropriate action.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness bandbass.gif

nm_button.gifmystats.php?userid=Team%20GPSaxophone&vopt=&txtdata=&bgcol=FFFFFF&fgcol=000000

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

 

I wouldn't have a problem with requiring owners to log a visit every 6 months, but where's the enforcement? How would the admins know if I really checked, or just wrote the log?


 

I agree with you that if there is any possible way to cheat, somebody will exploit it. Fortunately, most people seem to have more integrity than that.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

 

I wouldn't have a problem with requiring owners to log a visit every 6 months, but where's the enforcement? How would the admins know if I really checked, or just wrote the log?


 

I agree with you that if there is any possible way to cheat, somebody will exploit it. Fortunately, most people seem to have more integrity than that.


 

Which is why I wrote this: 'Logging a visit every 6 months does, however, let others know you are still an active cacher and have not abandoned your cache. If you are taking the time to post a note to your cache page, you're probably also reading the logs. If you are reading the logs, you will know if people are having trouble finding your cache, and you can take appropriate action.'

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness bandbass.gif

nm_button.gifmystats.php?userid=Team%20GPSaxophone&vopt=&txtdata=&bgcol=FFFFFF&fgcol=000000

Link to comment

quote:
Logging a visit every 6 months does, however, let others know you are still an active cacher and have not abandoned your cache.


 

I agree that owners should periodically visit their caches. But what is a reasonable period?

Using the logs is a good indicator. If you get a recent find and the log says something like "cache was well stocked and in good shape", is there really a need to go out and visit it just for the sake of saying you did so?

 

There are a lot of caches out there that probably shouldn't have been hidden in the first place and many more that are now nothing but water filled containers filled with slimy contents.

 

I'm not sure how to address this. Automatic archival will only mean that the cache will become geolitter. Perhaps the geocaching community should just be a bit more honest with their logs. Nobody wants to tell a cache owner that their cache stinks, or that it's time for it to go. But if we see a cache that's obviously uncared for, maybe we should.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on his hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" - Max Beerbohm

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

If you are taking the time to post a note to your cache page, you're probably also reading the logs.


 

That may or may not be true.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:

If you are reading the logs, you will know if people are having trouble finding your cache, and you can take appropriate action.'


 

Yes, but in the world of geocaching, being aware of a problem and acting on it in a timely and appropriate manner are apparently unrelated events. (Read as much into that statement as you care to.)

 

I could point you to dozens of examples where cache owners have posted notes to their pages acknowledging a problem and not acted on it for months (if ever). In many cases, the cache was never even 'temporarily disabled,' possibly in order to escape notice by the area admin..

 

Many of those caches continued to record find after find by people mentioning the deplorable condition of the cache.

A few of those caches continued to be logged as 'virtual finds,' because the cache was long gone.

Some of those caches were eventually fixed by other cachers; a very few of them were "adopted," but most were restored only to begin a new cycle of decay.

 

And eventually, a cacher or approver would notice such a cache and seek to have it archived.

 

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

I agree that owners should periodically visit their caches. But what is a reasonable period? ... is there really a need to go out and visit it just for the sake of saying you did so?


 

Only if the condition of the container and its contents are your only concerns. If you are concerned about the manner in which the cache was hidden or any impact the cache/cachers might have had on the immediate area, etc. one would visit their cache regardless of the content of online logs. Ater all, only the cache owner knows for sure what the original conditions were.

Link to comment

It is not a problem yet in south Florida. There are still relatively few caches. The only substantive problem that I have encountered is damage to the surroundings at frequently visited caches (torn up bushes, trampled ground, etc.). I always try to place cache containers within an arm's reach of an established trail to make sure this does not occur.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by hikemeister:

It is not a problem yet in south Florida. There are still relatively few caches. The only substantive problem that I have encountered is damage to the surroundings at frequently visited caches (torn up bushes, trampled ground, etc.). I always try to place cache containers within an arm's reach of an established trail to make sure this does not occur.


I'll disagree with you on this HM... The vegetation grows back rapidly down here especially during the rainy season so I have not encountered alot of destruction. I think placing the caches so close to the trail is going to result in muggle interference and plundering of the cache. This is just my $.02.

 

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow 30296_400.gif

 

mystats.php?userid=Doc-Dean&vopt=user&txtdata=I%20am%20Still%20Ignoring%20Stats!!&bgcol=3333ff&fgcol=ffff99

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Doc-Dean:

quote:
Originally posted by hikemeister:

It is not a problem yet in south Florida. There are still relatively few caches. The only substantive problem that I have encountered is damage to the surroundings at frequently visited caches (torn up bushes, trampled ground, etc.). I always try to place cache containers within an arm's reach of an established trail to make sure this does not occur.


I'll disagree with you on this HM... The vegetation grows back rapidly down here especially during the rainy season so I have not encountered alot of destruction. I think placing the caches so close to the trail is going to result in muggle interference and plundering of the cache. This is just my $.02.

 

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

Free your mind and the rest will follow http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/30296_400.gif

 

http://www.keenpeople.com/stats/


 

I'm not talking about paved trails or even main trails, but rather narrow side trails that others already have established into the brush.

 

As for growing back -- not if the area keeps on being trashed year-round.

Link to comment

Reading this post reminds me why I read the forums. Quality discussion about an issue.

 

As far as the density issue, I am located about 1 hour drive southwest of Portland, the home of the first cache, we do not have any in the city limits, so density is not a problem. However, by discussing the problem and possible solutions prior to a problem arising, gives the TPTB a chance to work on solutions.

 

See the happy moron

He doesn't give a da**

I wish I were a moron

My God, perhaps I am

Author Unknown

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...