Hey.. that's my park!

[+orange74thing]

Ok, this may already be a thread, but I didn't see it. Is it just me, or do others get angry when you're the first to put a cache in a local park and then someone else puts another cache there too. I realize these are public parks, but come on people... let's separate these caches by at least a mile or so. Maybe that's too much, but I've had 2 different people place caches within 0.1 miles of a cache that I placed. One of the new caches I can actually see someone at if I'm standing at mine! There are plenty of areas around to hide these things. Let's get original here... What are your thoughts?

 

Here is a link to the park site. As you can see, the park is outlined in orange. The longest side of the boundry is just about 1500 feet long. This is a small park. I suppose this may be a territorial issue.

 

[This message was edited by orange74thing on July 12, 2003 at 07:15 PM.]

 

[This message was edited by orange74thing on July 12, 2003 at 07:23 PM.]park

 

[This message was edited by orange74thing on July 12, 2003 at 07:24 PM.]

[+Cacheola Crew]

If it was only .10 mile or so, yeah, I guess I wouldn't be happy. It would also depend on how big the park is. We have a cache in a very small park, and I don't think anyone could even put another cache there that is more than .10 miles away.

 

But other than that, I think it is fine if someone puts a cache in the same park, especially larger parks. Having more than one cache in one park often brings more cachers, who like to do two for one!

 

Janine

 

"You have brains in your head; You have feet in your shoes.

You can steer yourself any direction you choose.

You're on your own. And you know what you know.

And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go...."

Dr. Seuss

[+jollybgood]

Don't know the particular circumstances of your cache but personally I enjoy caches which are grouped in a particular area. It encourages more visitors and gives them a chance to see other interesting spots in the same park.

 

For example there are about 12 caches grouped around an area back in Indiana where I have a few caches. Each one is at a spot with historical significance or at a spot with a good vista.

 

I've never seen it as a territorial thing. But that's just me.

 

Jolly R. Blackburn

http://kenzerco.com

"Never declare war on a man who buys his ink by the gallon."

[Northern-Lights]

Well..understanding your fairly new...and before anyone jumps on you un-necessarily....let me give a few hints. If you find a cache is withen .1 of another....the first cache usually has presidence.....(usually because the second cache placed maybe was in the works for awhile and just didn't get approved as fast as the other....) Caches are not supposed to be withen .1 of each other. All you have to do, is e-mail the approver of the second cache and calmly explain the problem. The second cache will probably be archived. You may also want to send a polite note to the cache hider of the second cache and inform them of the problem....they may not know your cache is that close to theirs....

 

Good luck

 

If God is your co-pilot, it's time to change seats!!!

 

http://www.mi-geocaching.org/

[+Cacheola Crew]

Wow, I just looked at what I think is the cache in question and there is one 410 feet away and one .10 mile away!

 

I don't think I would even like to FIND them that close together.

 

Janine

 

"You have brains in your head; You have feet in your shoes.

You can steer yourself any direction you choose.

You're on your own. And you know what you know.

And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go...."

Dr. Seuss

[+Team GPSaxophone]

.1 miles (or 528 feet) is the guideline for distance between caches. There may be exceptions in some cases. Suppose they are on opposite sides of a river or freeway? If the scenery is different enough to warrant a second cache, an exception might be made.

It is also possible that it slipped through the cracks. 410 feet seems a bit close, but after reading some of the logs on Stand Tall and Toy Chest, it appears that they are different enough. The second cache actually describes the area quite nicely (I'm not slamming yours, as descriptions are not always necessary).

Since there are actually 3 caches in the same general area, have you noticed if the land is in good shape? If trails are being formed or the ground is very trampled around the caches, it would be wise to relocate them to allow the area to recover.

 

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

[+ZingerHead]

ummm, let me get this straight. You are upset because there are TOO MANY CACHES? Hello Twice as many reasons to visit your park. One more cache to find on your lunch hour. No need to drive 2 hours to the nearest cache - it's right here! I just don't see the downside. Of course, if it's less than .1 miles away, it violates the GC placement rules....But really, aren't there more important things to fret over? I can understand a certain sense of pride of ownership in the original cache in the park, but rather than get aggravated, consider it the sincerest form of flattery - imitation!

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

Is it just me, or do others get angry when you're the first to put a cache in a local park and then someone else puts another cache there too.

---

 

No, it's not just you. There are a number of people who think they "own" an area simply because they put a cache there. Kind of odd if you ask me.

 

I'd be happy to see another cache near one of mine. Chiefly because it would increase traffic in the area and draw people to my cache and also because it validates my choice, telling me the area is an appealing one for a cache.

 

"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 13, 2003 at 02:40 AM.]

[+Spzzmoose]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZingerHead:

ummm, let me get this straight. You are upset because there are TOO MANY CACHES? Hello Twice as many reasons to visit your park. One more cache to find on your lunch hour. No need to drive 2 hours to the nearest cache - it's right here! I just don't see the downside. Of course, if it's less than .1 miles away, it violates the GC placement rules....But really, aren't there more important things to fret over? I can understand a certain sense of pride of ownership in the original cache in the park, but rather than get aggravated, consider it the sincerest form of flattery - imitation!

---

 

I'm with you Zinger! The more the better! I think it's OK as long as they are not within sight of each other...

[+smithdw]

The more caches, the better in my book. Having a couple of caches close to each other is a good attractant for geocachers around here.

 

"The best way to accelerate a Macintosh is at 9.8m/sec/sec."

-Marcus Dolengo

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Yeah, if all one is interested in is numbers, then "the more the better" is fine.

 

Is a new cache placed within .1 mile of an existing cache an attractant? I would think that unless the location of the first cache was outstanding, those who had found the first cache would skip the second. Unless the walk to the cache was very short in the first place, of course. It does appear to be true that most cachers would rather walk the same paved 1/8th mile path 16 times than try an unfamiliar yet spectacular 2 mile hike.

[+woodsters]

I know we bagged 3 here in the same Conservation area. They were pretty close, but not within the .1 mile of each other I don't believe. Maybe 2 of them were close to it, but the way we ended up going they weren't

 

I don't think there are no territorial issues here or there shouldn't be. I would say that it isn't courteous to place one within that prescribed distance. The one who has placed on within that distance, didn't do their part of checking before placing the cache as well as the approver. But, I do not know if the approver can plot them out or not on their computer. Do they? I thought I read on a thread that they do. If you find it to be a problem (too close) then I would email the cache placer as well as CC the approver. Explain to them that the cache was placed in less distance prescribed by the guidlines and leave it at that. I wouldn't demand that it be moved. Just see if they decide to take action. If you don't see anything after a while then email the approver and express your concerns. He might be happy to help you or not. Then you decide later how you want to handle it. It's a box in the woods that you took time to place. But I wouldn't get overly bent out of shape over it. AS many others stated here, they wouldn't mind it.

 

Brian

 

As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

I don't think there are no territorial issues here or there shouldn't be.

---

 

What he said.

[+Snoogans]

O-74-thingy,

 

I have asked about this subject before and I still don't understand it. I keep getting the picture of those surfers beating up a guy because the ocean isn't big enough for everyone to catch a wave. If I lived in your area I would be placing a cache .15 from yours today. IMHO Ya snooze, ya lose.

 

Sngans

The greatest labor saving invention of today is tomorrow....

[+gpsfun]

Hi, orange74thing.

 

I am the admin who made an exception and approved Toy Chest, and I did so in full knowledge of the 410 foot separation from your cache. My rationale for the approval is the kid friendly nature of Toy Chest, and my personal opinion that getting youngsters engaged in the sport at an early age is good for them and for the sport. I cannot see that it infringes on your cache in any way, and it has a specific target audience.

 

Several days later, I saw Badges in the queue and wrote to the user who submitted it, specifically on the density question. The user responded politely, providing reasonable rational for having an aggressively hidden cache in the area. I see that it still has not been found, and there is one not-found log on that page at this writing.

 

The 0.1 mile separation requirement is a good guideline that should be observed in most cases. However, circumstances do alter cases, and I stand by the approvals because of their diversity.

 

-gpsfun

[The Falcon]

I can understand why you might be bothered, but now you have even more reason to make your cache better!

 

Maybe talk w/ the other cachers nearby and have a shared theme, like yours is McToys only, theirs is Burger Fling toys only, or see if you can get one item/TB to stay within those caches? Just some ideas.

 

=====

It is the tale, not he who tells it."

[+Cacheola Crew]

Thanks for explaining it GPSFUN, sound like good reasoning behind it.

 

Where I'm at there are only 194 caches within 100 miles, so I've never had the experience of just walking 410 or 528 feet from one cache to another.

 

Janine

Join the HamptonRoadsVA geocaching group

 

"You have brains in your head; You have feet in your shoes.

You can steer yourself any direction you choose.

You're on your own. And you know what you know.

And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go...."

Dr. Seuss

[+Mopar]

quote:

---

Originally posted by gpsfun:

The 0.1 mile separation requirement is a good guideline that should be observed in most cases. However, circumstances do alter cases, and I stand by the approvals because of their diversity.

 

-gpsfun

---

Sounds like a reasonable explanation. The guidelines are there for a reason, but they are guidelines, not rules. Guidelines allow for exceptions like these that each seem to add differing elements to the game, even if they are closer then 528ft apart.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

[+Renegade Knight]

The 0.1 mile rule is rounded if I recall correctly. Thus 450' is 0.1 mile.

 

And that's fine. It's really no big deal. The only time I've been mildly bothered is when they placed a cache close then used my cache name as part of their cache name.

 

But I got over it because it really was no big deal and they placed there where I didn't think I could get one in at my self. More power to em.

[+WildcatRegi]

Actually, I think this gives me a challenge - I wonder how many caches I could put in an area that was exactly 528 feet from each other????

 

 

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

[+flask]

i think i can weigh in here...

 

i have hunted all three of the caches in question.

 

the original is VERY DIFFICULT. the second is supposed to be easy and it's nearby. the idea behind it is to be one the kids can find.

 

i haven't found the third, but its area is sufficiently different (different habitat) and distand to let it by.

 

and if we're going to talk territory, i've been planning a cache in that park since january. my intended site is far enough from all three to qualify; i may or may not use it. it's the closest park to my house.

 

yes, it's a little park. one hunt does not spoil the other. why do you care?

 

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.