Ratios??

[Guest adventuretom]

I have seen a couple of threads talking about the finding/hiding ratio. I am currently at 17 found and 6 hidden. That's probably a good ratio, but it got me thinking. If I continue playing and I expect I will, what happens when I get to 100 finds? Should I have 33 hidden? I can tell you from experience that will never work. I am feeling the strain maintaining 6 caches and by the time I reach 10-15 will most likely max out. I can't imaging having to visit 30+ caches and maintain them and do it right. So I'm not sure the ratio idea makes much sense. I do think you should participate by hiding also, but there most certainly is a limit. Thoughts?

[Guest brokenwing]

I agree that hide/find ratios are not a good idea. I think the concept came about from some folks being upset that certain people take, but don't seem to give back to the sport. The consensus in those posts seemed to be that ratios mean nothing anyway. Some will give back, some won?t.

 

You are correct, 30+ would not be maintainable. I would say you have done your share and should be proud of the caches you have placed. Thanks for placing them, and for being conscientious enough to remember that they must be maintained!

 

Obviously there are some folks that have never placed any, even after playing for a while. I feel we need to find a way to encourage those folks to hide caches, or the sport will start to wither.

 

Any ideas? I personally like the idea of also listing the number of caches placed out next to the user ID. (You know, right next to where it says number found now.) There is no need to average them, or create ratios or anything. The idea is just give people bragging rights as an incentive.

 

brokenwing

[Guest Eoghan]

As a dissenting voice to those who think you SHOULD hide any number of caches based on your finds, I'd say that in areas approaching saturation, that a more responsible chioice would be to _refrain_ from placing a cache at all. If "giving something back" is the motivation, perhaps improving or helping to maintain existing caches would be a better way to give back to the sport.

Add nicer things to the caches. Replace aging ziplock baggies or disposable storage containers with more durable containers. "Adopt" your favorite caches and make sure the areas stay litter free and aren't trampled excessively. Organize events that emphasize good caching manners. Volunteer to do trail maintenance with other groups. There are lots of ways to increase the experience other than making your own stash.

[Guest brokenwing]

368 square miles of their Dartmoor National Park. That an average of 58 ammo boxes and tupperware containers per square mile. Actually it is higher; some of the land within the park boundary is privately held (31,000 people live there), some is a military firing range, some land is out of bounds for envrionmental or archaeological reasons.

 

Approximately 11 million visitors enter Dartmoor each year and about 5% of them come primarily for letterboxing; 550,000+ letterboxers running around with maps, compasses and rubber stamps per year.

 

The sport of letterboxing got its start in Dartmoor in 1854 and Dartmoor remains the central focus of this sport.

 

Letterbox density in Dartmoor has not effected the 145 year growth of this 'treasure hunt' sport.

 

Personal opinion: It seems to me that Britian's Dartmoor National Park is the DisneyWorld of letterboxing. I wish we had something similar on this side of the Atlantic for geocaching. In light of the above facts, why the concern with spreading things out?

 

Sources:

http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Gorge/7370/dartinfo.html

http://www.Dartmoor-npa.gov.uk/

---

 

Why are we so worried about geocaches being "too close"? I just don't get it. To me, the more caches, the better. It just adds to the enjoyment. Why do you feel it doesn't? What's the danger of having more caches?

 

Thanks,

brokenwing

 

 

[This message has been edited by brokenwing (edited 10 August 2001).]