Densest concentration of caches

[+4forfun]

My wife and I were wondering where the most caches in a square mile were. We guessed that Central Park in NY would be because there aren't a lot of plants elsewhere in the area, and the population of the area is huge. Does anyone know an area that could beat it? I show 32 caches that can be identified simultaneously in the Central Park.

[+st_richardson]

Gwinnett county in GA has quite a few.

[+KD7MXI]

PROVO, SALT LAKE CITY UTAH

 

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

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?u=KD7MXI

http://www.cachunuts.com

[+inceptor]

1 per mile. Boy is that a heavy concentration!

[+Gloom]

That's 67 caches within a five mile radius of the center of my zip code. Which of course is the center of Klamath Falls.

 

D'oh!! Was too tired to make even a simple calculation. That actually works out to less than 1 per square mile. Thanks kablooey for showing me the error of my ways. Just 'cause I know that there ARE a lot around here I did it again for a 1 mile radius and came up with 7.3 per square mile (23 in 1 mile radius). Not quite 13, but I'll take it.

 

-Gloom

 

[This message was edited by Gloom on May 06, 2002 at 05:36 PM.]

[kablooey]

Somebody needs a math lesson.

[+unclerojelio]

According to Buxley's, the densesy place is D.C.

 

... Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--

I took the one less traveled by, ...

 

unclerojelio

[Zuckerruebensirup]

The Buxley's stats are for the average across an entire state. I'll bet there are higher concentrations if you narrow it just to a 10 square mile area.

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

[+VentureForth]

The "Love" caches in the UK...oh...um...were those commercial? Doh...They've been archived...deleted...Am I opening up old wounds here?

 

Hey, the question was about cache denisity, and I think there is quite a density of them near London. So the Love caches aren't on geocaching.com anymore, but I think they still exist...

 

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

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

 

[This message was edited by VentureForth on May 06, 2002 at 10:44 AM.]

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VentureForth:

Am I opening up new wounds here?

---

No old wounds here...just new questions. "Love" caches? Do tell!

[+Harrald]

quote:

---

Originally posted by 4forfun: I show 32 caches that can be identified simultaneously in the Central Park.

---

 

It may look as if the park has the most. But most of them are gone. I work about 5 blocks from there and have been looking during lunch for weeks. Check the log pages on those caches. You'll see most of them have quite a few 'Not Found' logs on most.

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

[+VentureForth]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

No old wounds here...just new questions. "Love" caches? Do tell!

---

 

Well, I meant the "Lovelock" caches. But, I see that they are not relevant to this thread anymore 'cause they've been removed. Basically, an eacher geocaching couple in the UK planted nearly 37 within a mile from their home, and most were really really easy. Lots of folks got upset because it appeared to be very commercialized, but then someone took it upon themselves to remove most of them.

 

It was a sad time in geocaching history - a lot of hurt and frustration from various sides of the issue. The issue is silent now. I felt that a need to bring it up was relevant to this thread, because in part, it was the density of their caches that started the mess.

 

Moral of the story: A few, well-hidden, non-commercial geocaches in a small area are fine. Otherwise, think hard before contributing to some potential mess.

 

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

Go! And don't be afraid to get a little wet!

[Zuckerruebensirup]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VentureForth:

 

Moral of the story: A few, well-hidden, non-commercial geocaches in a small area are fine. Otherwise, think hard before contributing to some potential mess.

---

 

"Think hard before contributing to some potential mess."

 

Ah, if only we all used that philosophy across the board with geocaching (and all of our activities in life, for that matter).

 

Not only in how close we place caches to others, and the hiding spots we place them in...but also how we hide them (i.e. burying), whether or not to ask advanced permission, how we conduct ourselves when searching for a cache (i.e., littering, cutting off-trail, disturbing wildlife, etc.), what we trade for, the condition we leave the cache in, what we say in our online log (or even if we log)...etc., etc.

 

If, before taking action, we'd pause for a moment to ask ourselves, "How will this choice affect others who follow after me, or observe my actions? How will it affect the environment? How might it be perceived by others (even if that perception is incorrect)?" perhaps we'd do a few things just a little bit differently.

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!"

[+geospotter]

Words to live by...

[Moss Trooper]

LOVELOCK.. Aggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

 

Moss de Boss... Sorta

[k2dave]

In the middle of Africa, right on the equator and on the prime meridian would be my guess as lots of locationless caches are listed at 0,0

 

-------> Did you ever do any trail maintainence? - if so you will know that all but the most worn trails need continuous maintenance to prevent mother nature from reclaiming it. herd paths are quickly reclaimed - k2dave to a troll