Distance between caches

August 28, 2003

In my area, there are typically multiple caches within walking distance of each other in the areas where there are caches.

Got me to thinking, by changing the rule that caches have to be at least .1 miles apart to some larger increment, it would force cache placers to find new areas instead of just walking 1/10th a mile up a trail where there is an existing cache and placing another.

Just a thought.

whats your opinions of the rule?

9.4k · August 28, 2003

Your area may have a high cache density, but mine does not. You have roughly 1000 caches within 100 miles of you, my entire state (much larger than Ohio) has fewer than 500 caches!

What's wrong with picking up 2 or even 3 caches on the same trail? If they are all in unique enough locations and someone has gone to the trouble of placing and maintaining them, great! I'll hunt them.

Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness

August 28, 2003

I agree with Sax. I found 2 that were well within walking distance of each other, but both were hidden well, and were enjoyable. I had a good time finding both.

"I'm 35 Years old, I am divorced, and I live in van down by the river!" - Matt Foley

2.3k · August 28, 2003

I think they could even lower it, not increase the distance. Too hot here to be hiking all over the place. I like getting a bunch of finds in a small area. In and out quick, and your numbers go up faster. Heck, a "Cache Park" with a bunch of micros would be cool...

4.2k · August 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by TEAM 360:
I think they could even lower it, not increase the distance. Too hot here to be hiking all over the place. I like getting a bunch of finds in a small area. In and out quick, and your numbers go up faster. Heck, a "Cache Park" with a bunch of micros would be cool...

Love the idea!

Would be great to see who could come up with the best hide!

August 28, 2003

I don't mind multiple caches within walking distance... in fact, it makes me do just that - WALK and get a little exercise instead of hopping in my car and driving to the next cache (where I can). I was recently in CA and found 3 or 4 caches along a certain trail. It was a nice walk, and a trail that I probably wouldn't have spent any significant amount of time on had there been only one cache.

August 28, 2003

Good points everyone. I guess multiple caches within the short distances dont hurt anything, I would just like to see some more "out of the way " caches. As there are about 800 more caches within 100 miles of me, I'm sure they are out there.

August 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cincinnati Bearcaches:
Good points everyone. I guess multiple caches within the short distances dont hurt anything, I would just like to see some more "out of the way " caches. As there are about 800 more caches within 100 miles of me, I'm sure they are out there.

Heh. Come to western Montana. Currently just about all the caches my wife and I have to do are on the top of monutains, at the end of several mile hikes. That would be fine, but much of the forest is closed currently due to the fire danger. So we're having to take long drives just to spend the day caching...

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

9.2k · August 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Cincinnati Bearcaches:

Got me to thinking, by changing the rule that caches have to be at least .1 miles apart to some larger increment, it would force cache placers to find new areas instead of just walking 1/10th a mile up a trail where there is an existing cache and placing another.

Generally speaking, I don't think most cache hiders do this. They come across what appears to be a good place for a cache, then they check how close it might be to another cache. If it's okay, they place it.

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

3k · August 28, 2003

I originall posted this in the duplicate thread:

quote:

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

Originally posted by Cincinnati

whats your opinion of the rule?

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

Too close. I would prefer to see a limit of 1 mile.

Exception: Make that a 1 mile walking distance ... the cache could be only a couple of hundred feet away across an abyss, river, etc..

3k · August 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team GPSaxophone:
Your area may have a high cache density, but mine does not. You have roughly 1000 caches within 100 miles of you, my entire state (much larger than Ohio) has fewer than 500 caches!

What's wrong with picking up 2 or even 3 caches on the same trail?

This argument always baffles me. Sure, put as many caches as you want on one trail ... just space them out at least one mile from each other. If people reside in cache poor areas, why would they want or need to place caches in close proximity? Their geocaching resources haven't even begun to be tapped.

1.4k · August 28, 2003

I don't seem to have this issue very often. It's rare here, even with a decent cache density, to have a situation where I can really easily walk between more than two caches.

Although I guess since I'm not new to this, I've collected them in stages. So to me, it's one cache and I don't really see/do the other ones nearby.

Anyway... I like close caches. If they are unique enough, why the heck not?

--------

trippy1976 - Team KKF2A

Assimilating golf balls - one geocache at a time.

3k · August 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by trippy1976:

Anyway... I like close caches. If they are unique enough, why the heck not?

One of The Great Fundamental Truths of Geocaching seems to be that the first cache placed on a particular trail/in a particular area will always remain the farthest cache from the starting point. The next cache placed will be 2/3 of the way to the original cache, the next one 1/2 of the way, the next 1/3, etc., etc.. Finally, 1 year after the placement of the original cache, the final cache is placed 10 feet from the starting point.

8k · August 29, 2003

This probably would be better handled as email to the cache owners and the SoCalAdmin - but here is a example of a new cache being placed too close to a stage in an existing multi.

This cache is only 13 ft from the final cache location in this multi. The funny thing is reading the cache pages you can tell that both had the same idea of placing a cache behind the famous HOLLYWOOD sign. The new cache even points out that the starting location of the multi is nearby. Didn't the hider think of checking that the other stages of a nearby multi might be close to where he was hiding his cache. :confused

東西南北

Why do I always find it in the last place I look?

August 29, 2003

I have always thought this limit was too close. I think a 0.5 mile is at least better but the 1 mile Bassonpilot proposes is okay too.

I will admit I have violated this rule with at least one of my caches but I play by the 0.1 rule until it is changed.

Why should geocaching let us carpet bomb a park or trail? Along a 1 mile trail you can technically have 10 caches. Great for up-ing the find count but how about just one at the end of the trail.

August 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by orange:
I have always thought this limit was too close. I think a 0.5 mile is at least better but the 1 mile Bassonpilot proposes is okay too.

I will admit I have violated this rule with at least one of my caches but I play by the 0.1 rule until it is changed.

Why should geocaching let us carpet bomb a park or trail? Along a 1 mile trail you can technically have 10 caches. Great for up-ing the find count but how about just one at the end of the trail.

For me the thrill is that last 10 feet. The rest is just work. I like the idea of a micro park. Sort of like a gps easter egg hunt. The truth is that anythig that gets people out of their chairs is a good thing. Anyone can get to within 100 feet of a cache but can you find it? once there would it not be more fun to be able to find more than one? It's sorta like hunting once you shoot your deer that trips fun is over. Once you find the cache all you have left is the walk to the car. You did remember to mark it as a way point right?

Pat Patterson

Garmin 12XL

82CJ7 & 79F250

Herd of Turtles 4x4 club

3k · August 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by tozainamboku:
Didn't the hider think of checking that the other stages of a nearby multi might be close to where he was hiding his cache.

He very well might have; there have been many instances where people have done this intentionally.

3k · August 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Pat Patterson:
The truth is that anythig that gets people out of their chairs is a good thing. Anyone can get to within 100 feet of a cache but can you find it?

I don't think there is much exercise value in standing in the middle of the woods scratching one's ... head.

August 30, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by tozainamboku:
....here is a example of a new cache being placed too close to a stage in an existing multi.

This http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=b123c472-fd0e-4ee5-bdad-e242e7b15926 is only 13 ft from the final cache location in this http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=63e56f30-0fc5-4fce-8806-308d81af5034. The funny thing is reading the cache pages you can tell that both had the same idea of placing a cache behind the famous HOLLYWOOD sign. The new cache even points out that the starting location of the multi is nearby. Didn't the hider think of checking that the other stages of a nearby multi might be close to where he was hiding his cache._

Seeing as though the owner of the new cache has not logged the multi, it’s quite probable that the coordinates of the final cache of the multi were unknown to him. The same “problem” is true for the approver, only the starting coordinates of the multi are specified and none of the intermediate or final coordinates are required for approval.

You could actually come up with a multi that had a starting point directly adjacent to the final of an existing multi, and work your way backwards placing intermediate caches adjacent to the existing intermediate caches with your final cache adjacent to the existing starting point! How would anyone know unless they actually hunted down both?

When in trouble, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!

9.2k · August 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Trogdor!:

Seeing as though the owner of the new cache has not logged the multi, it's quite probable that the coordinates of the final cache of the multi were unknown to him. The same problem is true for the approver, only the starting coordinates of the multi are specified and none of the intermediate or final coordinates are required for approval.

Actually, many approvers are now requiring that you provide the coordinates to all stages of multi-caches before signing off on the cache.

"Don't mess with a geocacher. We know all the best places to hide a body."

2.1k · August 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:

Actually, many approvers are now requiring that you provide the coordinates to all stages of multi-caches before signing off on the cache.

Which will make it more difficult on those placing the multi's. Since it's been stated that a leg of a multi can't be within a certain distance (.1 mile) of another cache, I think that in some cases, people will not opt to make a multi or go through the trouble. I owuld guess that it would be better to make those caches like that into puzzle/unknown/mystery caches where you look up the answers to questions on the internet.

It was mentioned that legs of a multi can be closer than that to each other, but here's another question. What is the required distance on legs of multi's owned by 2 different owners? Still .1 mile? Or do they fall under the part that legs can be closer?

Brian

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

3k · August 31, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Prime Suspect:
Actually, many approvers are now requiring that you provide the coordinates to all stages of multi-caches before signing off on the cache.

You know what that means? It's the kiss of death. It means TPTB want multi-caches to suffer the same fate as Virtual caches and Locationless caches. Don't feed me this BS about them needing to ascertain that all legs are legally placed. In all except the most glaringly illegal placement, they wouldn't be able to tell the difference, anyway.

I'm not giving the intermediate and final coordinates of any multi-cache I want to place to some "sock puppet approver" who doesn't even have the guts to approve caches under their real username.

3k · August 31, 2003

(For those who are not regular forum readers, the preceding post may have been intended as a joke. But maybe not.)

August 31, 2003

In Southern California, more people equals more cachers. More people equals less spacious parks to place caches in. More geocachers equals more caches planted. So here's some fun stats:

-Within a few miles of this computer that I am pounding on there is a geocache in a small park. Also in this park, there is/was at least two caches. Across the street there is yet another geocache.

-I don't know if geocachers in remote places like Western Montana are familiar with the term "dash 'n' cache." It probably got copyrigthed in Southern California. One cache we hid you can park one foot from the location. Another: about 300 ft. The the geocache that we placed that is farthest from a parking lot is a virtual at Disneyworld's Animal Kingdom in Florida. (I think)

-Without moving our car, we hiked around a nearby trail all morning and found three caches, and we walked by the location where we would place another. (we probably went about one/one-half mile(s) from our car as the crow flies at the farthest point..if that)

-In Southern California there is NOT a wide expanse of road between cities. We pass city limit signs while driving, walking etc. all the time. Fullerton, (our home city as you can see at the bottom of this post) is basically a suburb of a suburb (Anahiem), but it is larger than 10 states cities with the largest population in that state (as of 1998). There are two cities of about 50,000 nearby, and another large city that I don't know the population of. Now, remember, all are sandwiched together; there is a nearby park in the middle of which three cities meet at one point. Within fifteen miles of some point that this website determined to be my zipcode, there are 286 caches. Most of them are about 300 feet away from parking spots, or hidden by masterminds of the area in fake sprinklers or in libraries, or in streetlamps, etc., etc.

My point is, making it so that caches have to be one miles from each other would tremendously hurt a thriving Southern California geocaching enviorment. Plus, what's wrong with getting more finds? We all want them, right?

Thank you for watching

-wray_clan

[This message was edited by wray_clan on September 01, 2003 at 07:35 PM.]

August 31, 2003

I personally don't see a problem with this, as more cachers get into this hobby, there will be a lot more caches placed out there! If you are the type that loves the hunt, do a cache a day and savor the moment, coming back later to do the others! If you like the finds, go for it, as I say more the merrier! The .1 mile is adequete I believe and if the caches are not hidden that well in the first place, they well get plundered! I have seen caches put in a park area by a lake here that started with 2 and now there are 10...some easy to find and won't last long and others that were really tough but fun to find! I am so hooked on thissport, I love to find as many caches as possible in a day! Just my three cents worth for whatever it may be worth!

Darkmoon

All you have to do to fly is throw yourself at the ground and miss!

August 31, 2003

Here in Northern Virginia we have what we call the 'Burke Lake Decathalon'. Burke Lake, which is about a 5 mile hike all the way around, has 10 caches hidden on the trails. And these are not just tupperware-thrown-in-the-woods caches, they are well thought out. It took me 6 hours to complete all 10.

And I loved it. Wish we had more like that.

September 1, 2003

Knowing full well the 0.1 is here to stay is fine but after rereading this thread and thinking about it some more I wish it had been 0.25 between caches. I speak from what I like. I like to hunt caches in a park environment. Caches closer than this are 95% of the time the same park experience. Sure I like to find a cache but it boils down to I like the hike to the cache the most.

Finding new trails and parts of parks I have never been to before that is why I like geocaching.

Also I wish hiders would refrain from putting a new cache near a brand new one for at least a month or two. This allows hunters to experience that cache the way the hider intended without the experience being changed to a 2 for one special.

September 2, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by wray_clan:

-I don't know if geocachers in remote places like Western Montana are familiar with the term "dash 'n' cache." It probably got copyrigthed in Southern California. One cache we hid you can park one _foot_ from the location. Another: about 300 ft.

Yep, we've heard of it. There's a couple of local geocachers who use the term as an insult when they log caches they don't like.

Personally, I enjoy the clever and innovative. So if I drive to the coordinates, walk fifty feet, then spend an hour searching for the evil micro container, how is that less interesting than walking a mile into the woods, looking in the obvious hollow stump, and walking back out? Based on the amount of time taken, they are equivalent. But some folks prefer the former, some the latter. I'm up for both...

I see the value in having a minimum distance to prevent one cache from being discovered while searching for another one. But there's any number of 'drive up' caches that are extremely challenging to find. Greater distance from the car doesn't automatically equate a better cache.

Ron/yumitori

---

Remember what the dormouse said...

Distance between caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation