Jump to content

How close is too close?


Recommended Posts

I noticed recently two caches that seemed IMHO too close. This cache was palced maybe a few hunderd yards from this one.. Although the park is sizable, the area suitable for hiking (and hiding a cache) is rather small. One trail perhaps 1/3 mile to 1/2 mile long at best. This didn't bother me per se, but i felt it was too close.

 

But then the topic got close to home. In Oct I hid

Harold's Home in the remains of the estate of John Ringling. It is mere yards from an old bridge which leads to an incredibly beautiful vista overlooking the Hudson River. Then two weeks ago this cache was hidden maybe 500 feet away. Bear in mind this park is 13 miles long. The other caches in the park are miles away. There is no lack of beautiful, scenic cache sights here. Although this person did throw a nod to me by calling it "A Walk to Harolds", it just seems like a lazy cache.

 

I am just wondering how close people feel is too close, what if anything they've done, or if I even have a right to be annoyed. Might it draw more visitors to my cache? Sure. Did he name it after mine? Yes. Couldn't he have found a spot not so close to mine? Sure. Should he have? That's what I don't know. Feedback please. I'm still new at this & not entirely sure what the "protocol" is for this situation...

 

TeamGwho

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

I noticed recently two caches that seemed IMHO too close. This http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=4578 was palced maybe a few hunderd yards from http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=15085. Although the park is sizable, the area suitable for hiking (and hiding a cache) is rather small. One trail perhaps 1/3 mile to 1/2 mile long at best. This didn't bother me per se, but i felt it was too close.


 

I think you have those two caches reversed . . . Stayfloopy's cache has been in Van Saun Park for a very long time. I agree the second one is too close to Floopy's; there are other suitable places in other parts of the park.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

But then the topic got close to home. In Oct I hid

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=9077 in the remains of the estate of John Ringling. It is mere yards from an old bridge which leads to an incredibly beautiful vista overlooking the Hudson River. Then two weeks ago http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=15527 was hidden maybe 500 feet away. Bear in mind this park is 13 miles long. The other caches in the park are miles away. There is no lack of beautiful, scenic cache sights here. Although this person did throw a nod to me by calling it "A Walk to Harolds", it just seems like a lazy cache.


 

It is amazing how much overlap there is among the several multicaches in this park . . . in fact, two of your multicaches overlap each other, and one of them overlaps an multicache already in existence when you placed yours. But that's understandable, because a couple of these areas have so much of interest. It has been interesting to see that to date, few cache seekers have combined hunts for the multicaches requiring long hikes.

 

Of course, the two caches you are discussing don't require long hikes. "Walk to Harold's Home" is very close you your "Harold's Home" cache, but if the doubling-up of caches will entice a few more seekers to hike 3/4 of a mile in to the caches, and then just a little past them to the overlook with the awesome views, then that's a good thing, right? And maybe, just maybe, they will be so impressed with the views that they undertake one of the more challenging hikes in this great park.

 

But I agree the newer cache could have been placed 1/2 way between the trailhead and your cache with similar result.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Gwho:

I noticed recently two caches that seemed IMHO too close. This http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=4578 was palced maybe a few hunderd yards from http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=15085. Although the park is sizable, the area suitable for hiking (and hiding a cache) is rather small. One trail perhaps 1/3 mile to 1/2 mile long at best. This didn't bother me per se, but i felt it was too close.


 

Actually, Van Saun Park has more hiding potential than that. If the other hider had consulted me, I'd have suggested the duck pond area on the other side of the park where there is a jogging path and a bridge. In the process of finding a hiding spot for my own cache, I also explored that part of the park and it certainly would have been possible to duck behind the bushes and place a cache there.

 

With just a little planning, we could have had a pair of caches that will encourage geocachers to explore more of the park instead of just giving them an easy two-bagger.

 

I hope that in the future, there will be more cooperation between cachers on cache placement.

Link to comment

I'm glad to see this addressed, although it appears to be a recycled topic. I've thought of placing a cache in a park that already has one. The place I'm thinking of would be a couple of miles from the other if one were following the trails. I'm not sure what the *crow-miles* would be. I wondered if placing another in a park that already has one would be considered rude. Should I contact the other cache-owner first? I'm new to this sport but would like to see it grow in this area.

 

Hoosiermom - team leader of GeoStars

Link to comment

I don't have a problem with two caches being a few hundred feet apart. AS LONG as there is something between them that makes you walk a mile or two around, over or under it. It would be great to be able to see a cache area only 150 feet away and have to walk or bushwack a long distance to get there. Rivers, cliffs and swamps come to mind as a barrier to a quick second find.

 

icon_biggrin.gif

 

As always this is just MHO

Link to comment

I don't have a problem with two caches being a few hundred feet apart. AS LONG as there is something between them that makes you walk a mile or two around, over or under it. It would be great to be able to see a cache area only 150 feet away and have to walk or bushwack a long distance to get there. Rivers, cliffs and swamps come to mind as a barrier to a quick second find.

 

icon_biggrin.gif

 

As always this is just MHO

Link to comment

I believe that there is no thing as too close. A few people I know that would like to cache would rather hit as many as they could in one park no matter how close.

We seem to be forgetting it's the thrill of the find.

Seems this person wants to claim the park as his only and thats very unsportsman like. The Parks belong to the people not just one person.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by RDVH:

I believe that there is no thing as too close. A few people I know that would like to cache would rather hit as many as they could in one park no matter how close.

We seem to be forgetting it's the thrill of the find.

Seems this person wants to claim the park as his only and thats very unsportsman like. The Parks belong to the people not just one person.


 

And just how much thrill is there in walking 60ft from cache A to cache B? Or is the thrill come from tripping over cache B while seeking cache A?

I don't see anyone that wants to "claim the park as his only", I see people who are upset that the thrill of the find has been reduced to "hey! there's a cache under BOTH of these fallen trees here!"

And yes, if you would like to check, I have placed a cache myself 500ft from another cache.

I am also pretty sure it will take anyone (other then BassoonPilot!) 30 minutes or more to get from one cache to the other.

 

Illegitimus non carborundum!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by RDVH:

I believe that there is no thing as too close. A few people I know that would like to cache would rather hit as many as they could in one park no matter how close. We seem to be forgetting it's the thrill of the find.


 

That reminds me . . . I've got to organize the Easter egg hunt for the kids this year. Thanks!

 

I would think that a steady diet of closely spaced, unchallenging caches would become "old" rather quickly. Another long-time geocacher and I happened to meet at a cache recently and were discussing how we just walk right up to most of the caches being placed in our area . . . many of them involve no search at all, just a very short walk to an obvious location. And that's fine, I guess, if that's all most of the local geocachers want or expect.

 

Personally, my favorite part of geocaching is getting TO the site; especially the challenges and obstacles the cache placer may have led us to . . . and of course the views and scenery. Even better when such an adventure ends with a tough find. You know, I can clearly recall every detail of the higher difficulty caches I've sought, but many, if not most, of the dash-and-grabs blur together after a while.

 

Returning finally to the topic, one thing bothers me: Some people place caches very close to existing caches without having even bothered to look for the existing cache. I consider that disrespectful.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

 

Returning finally to the topic, one thing bothers me: Some people place caches very close to existing caches without having even bothered to look for the existing cache. I consider that disrespectful.


 

I have a Cache so close to my Saddle River Seeker Cache its almost spitting distance icon_frown.gif But the more caches, the merrier icon_smile.gif

 

Yep, I agree BP. I dont get to do as much caching as I would like to do but, sure, if I was to place a cache, it would be common courtesy to visit the other caches in close proximity, if that were applicable.

 

I agree that getting to cache is most of the fun part of the cache seek! I think I will tackle Waterboy's NY/NJ Multicache on Saturday icon_smile.gif

 

Northern NJ is starting to get a little crowded now... I wouldnt be surprised to see some future 'encroachments' accidental or not.

 

9929_700.jpg

 

[This message was edited by The Artful Dodger on March 07, 2002 at 08:23 AM.]

Link to comment

The closeness depends on the nature of the cache, if they are standard caches some distance should be allowed or clues to make the closeness hard to find. If they are virtuals the same coords could be used for 2 caches. The questions and final solution are different. I have several in Loveland and they are close but so far apart when it comes to solving the cache.

The "Bushwhacker" icon_smile.gif

 

The "Bushwhacker"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by RDVH:

I believe that there is no thing as too close. A few people I know that would like to cache would rather hit as many as they could in one park no matter how close.

We seem to be forgetting it's the thrill of the find.

Seems this person wants to claim the park as his only and thats very unsportsman like. The Parks belong to the people not just one person.


 

sigh. I wish people would read posts before knee-jerkr eacting to what they "think" is being said between the lines. I just knew someone would accuse me of claiming the park as mine. I clearly said that this park has many scenic places that are excellent for cache placement. I don't claim it to be mine, but I do feel as if this cache was a lazy act. "Oh he found a cool spot, let me hide something near the same cool spot rather then seeking a cool spot of my own."

 

I clearly asked what people thought. Was I wrong to be annoyed. I think the posts speak for themselves. PS apologies to stayfloopy. I got the caches bakcwards. StayFloopy's was there first, but my writeup made it sound like his was the 2nd cache there.

 

TeamGwho

 

WUHOO TEAMGWHO!

Link to comment

Close proximity caches should be the least of anyone's worries. I mean look at the letterboxing in Dartmoor, England. Several THOUSAND boxes in ONE NATIONAL PARK. Yet, every box is hidden, and despite the many thousands of visitors, it's still a pristine place to visit nature.

 

(How many taboo's can you count in THAT statement???)

 

Venture Forth, out to the wild, wet forest...

Link to comment

Why is this such an issue? While I would not seek to hide one close to another, if I had the perfect spot picked out and someone posts one close... I'm not going to change my mind. Besides there is always a chance one will get plundered and have to be archived and the other can remain. The only real issue I can see is that an area might get trampled more. Still if you don't want to walk 60 ft, go home. Come back another day.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Renegade Knight:

Why is this such an issue? While I would not seek to hide one close to another, if I had the perfect spot picked out and someone posts one close... I'm not going to change my mind. . . . Still if you don't want to walk 60 ft, go home. Come back another day.


 

I see the nearest cache to the one you've placed is 8 3/4 miles. When someone places a cache of significantly lower quality than yours 75 feet away, I'd be interested in hearing if you still feel the same. It really does cheapen the experience.

 

I also feel it's not dissimilar to freeloading . . . someone takes the time and effort to find a really good site, and then someone else comes along and just dumps another cache there. How much thought or effort was required to do that?

 

Incidentally, this has not happened to any of my caches, but I have visited caches where this has occurred many times. (Sounds sort of like those old "I'm not a real doctor, but I play one on TV" commercials.) icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

I came across this thread because I've noticed caches being placed much closer together than what used to be allowed. I recall placing a cache only to be told by the geocaching website that it wasn't far away enough from another cache - and the distance had to be something like 1/2 mile. Now I'm finding caches that are only 300' apart. I just want to know what the 'rule' changes are, and when they were made. As for my opinion on the issue - I think it is relative to the area. If a town or city has numerous areas of interest it would be reasonable to have multiple caches located within a four-block area. If the location is a natural area, with particular areas of geographic interest the number of caches should be limited for the reasons others have mentioned. For me, the interest of geocaching is in discovering new places that I might not have ever otherwise come across - not in finding as many caches as possible in that area. I also think too many folks involved in the sport are overly concerned with their "cache found" count rather than the quality of the experience. Just MHO!

Edited by XploreN
Link to comment

I came across this thread because I've noticed caches being placed much closer together than what used to be allowed. I recall placing a cache only to be told by the geocaching website that it wasn't far away enough from another cache - and the distance had to be something like 1/2 mile. Now I'm finding caches that are only 300' apart. I just want to know what the 'rule' changes are, and when they were made.

 

Distance is, and always has been:

# Geocaches should generally be at least 0.10 miles or 161 meters apart.

Link to comment

It depends on how cosy you are with the reviewer.

If you are good chumps you can have two caches within a hair from each other, if not, Mount Everest could be between the two caches but the reviewer will refuse because they are not apart as per the guidelines.

And GC is none the wiser. Does GC even know what the reviewers are doing?

Link to comment

I came across this thread because I've noticed caches being placed much closer together than what used to be allowed. I recall placing a cache only to be told by the geocaching website that it wasn't far away enough from another cache - and the distance had to be something like 1/2 mile. Now I'm finding caches that are only 300' apart. I just want to know what the 'rule' changes are, and when they were made. As for my opinion on the issue - I think it is relative to the area. If a town or city has numerous areas of interest it would be reasonable to have multiple caches located within a four-block area. If the location is a natural area, with particular areas of geographic interest the number of caches should be limited for the reasons others have mentioned. For me, the interest of geocaching is in discovering new places that I might not have ever otherwise come across - not in finding as many caches as possible in that area. I also think too many folks involved in the sport are overly concerned with their "cache found" count rather than the quality of the experience. Just MHO!

 

The guideline has been .1 mile pretty much since I've been geocaching. There has been no change, at least as far as real caches. Virtuals no longer count. There are reasons caches might sneak under the .1 mile guideline. First off it's a guideline,not a hard rule. Many reviewers will make an exception if there is a significant barrier between the caches - a deep river for instance.

 

Second it may be the final of a multi or puzzle that was placed before final waypoints were required. The reviewer may have published a new cache being unaware that there is the final of a puzzle or multi nearby.

 

Finally, a reviewer might have just screwed up. Done it myself.

 

 

It depends on how cosy you are with the reviewer.

If you are good chumps you can have two caches within a hair from each other, if not, Mount Everest could be between the two caches but the reviewer will refuse because they are not apart as per the guidelines.

And GC is none the wiser. Does GC even know what the reviewers are doing?

 

Since you're publicly accusing reviewers of wrongdoing I hope you have specific examples to back it up.

Edited by briansnat
Link to comment

It depends on how cosy you are with the reviewer.

If you are good chumps you can have two caches within a hair from each other, if not, Mount Everest could be between the two caches but the reviewer will refuse because they are not apart as per the guidelines.

And GC is none the wiser. Does GC even know what the reviewers are doing?

 

Pretty big accusations. Any proof to back them up?

Link to comment

And if a reviewer does sloppy work and publishes a cache within less than 528 feet of an existing cache

 

AND

 

the owner of the existing cache does not complain right away

 

AND

 

nobody confuses one cache with the other within two years

 

THEN

 

the newer cache that does not meet the saturation guideline can stay...regardless of the guideline.

Link to comment

It depends on how cosy you are with the reviewer.

If you are good chumps you can have two caches within a hair from each other, if not, Mount Everest could be between the two caches but the reviewer will refuse because they are not apart as per the guidelines.

And GC is none the wiser. Does GC even know what the reviewers are doing?

 

I thought your issue was with the appeals process, not the saturation one?

I guess it just depends on who is the bigger chump? :unsure:

 

Yup - no changes from when this thread was created.

Actually, back then even virtual stages got 528' of open space around them. That isn't the case any longer. But the distance between physical stages/caches remains the same.

Edited by wimseyguy
Link to comment

It depends on how cosy you are with the reviewer.

If you are good chumps you can have two caches within a hair from each other, if not, Mount Everest could be between the two caches but the reviewer will refuse because they are not apart as per the guidelines.

And GC is none the wiser. Does GC even know what the reviewers are doing?

If there is any truth to that at all it might be better phrased that if the Reviewer knows you to be an experienced cacher and trusts your judgement they MAY on occasion allow a minor variance from the Guidelines, but it's rare. One of the first things cachers who are friends with a Reviewer learns is to not expect favoritism or preference, it's not gonna happen.

 

And yes, Groundspeak IS aware of everything their Volunteer Cache Reviewers do. While Reviewers do have some discretion they are expected to adhere to the Guidelines. Groundspeak is very aware and protective of their image and monitors the cadre of Reviewers accordingly.

Link to comment

And if a reviewer does sloppy work and publishes a cache within less than 528 feet of an existing cache

 

AND

 

the owner of the existing cache does not complain right away

 

AND

 

nobody confuses one cache with the other within two years

 

THEN

 

the newer cache that does not meet the saturation guideline can stay...regardless of the guideline.

What you call "sloppy", Groundspeak calls "flexible." It's why Cache Saturation is a guideline, not a rule. A week does not go by without my publishing a cache less than 528 feet from its neighbor.

 

Another way in which caches can be less than 528 feet apart is when multicaches or puzzles don't have accurate Additional Waypoints recorded in the database. If someone moves the container for their puzzle cache but forgets to update the hidden waypoint, I'm not psychic.

 

Posts like yours and ZeMartolo's tempt me to say "no" the next time someone's cache shows up 524 feet from another cache. But guess what? I will say "yes" because it's the right thing to do.

 

On topic, I am glad this ancient thread was bumped. It reminded me of the thought process back in the days when even the largest of parks had only one cache each. For my second cache placement in August 2002, I recall writing to the owner of the other cache in the park to ask permission, not wishing to "crowd" their cache a half mile away. Now there are seven caches in that park, including three multis.

Link to comment

I came across this thread because I've noticed caches being placed much closer together than what used to be allowed. I recall placing a cache only to be told by the geocaching website that it wasn't far away enough from another cache - and the distance had to be something like 1/2 mile. Now I'm finding caches that are only 300' apart. I just want to know what the 'rule' changes are, and when they were made. As for my opinion on the issue - I think it is relative to the area. If a town or city has numerous areas of interest it would be reasonable to have multiple caches located within a four-block area. If the location is a natural area, with particular areas of geographic interest the number of caches should be limited for the reasons others have mentioned. For me, the interest of geocaching is in discovering new places that I might not have ever otherwise come across - not in finding as many caches as possible in that area. I also think too many folks involved in the sport are overly concerned with their "cache found" count rather than the quality of the experience. Just MHO!

I really didn't mean to start a feud over this - maybe my perception of distance is exaggerated in the wild. The example I recall was of placing a cache in a wilderness preserve and it was deemed to be too close to another cache. Now there are a half dozen new caches within what I perceive to be between my cache and the one I was told I was too close to. Not to mention another three caches that are located in the same shopping complex parking lots. I personally don't get as much out of finding a micro cache hidden in the light pole of a parking lot vs an experience like a trek into a wild place to discover something like a hidden waterfall, etc. - but that's just me. As I stated in my previous post, I think there are many folks who concentrate on building up their "caches found" number. I just don't happen to fit in that category. If you look at my years as a member vs my number of caches found you might come to the conclusion that I am a very casual 'cacher. Quite the contrary - I've found many more caches than I've found the time to log - across the country and internationally. Each to his own, I guess - BUT while on the topic, I do say that the ability to FAV a cache should cause cache placers to put a little more thought into creating unique, quality caches.

Link to comment

It depends on how cosy you are with the reviewer.

If you are good chumps you can have two caches within a hair from each other, if not, Mount Everest could be between the two caches but the reviewer will refuse because they are not apart as per the guidelines.

And GC is none the wiser. Does GC even know what the reviewers are doing?

 

:blink: You'd better provide some backup to that statement, my friend. Typically the exact opposite is true.

Link to comment

I came across this thread because I've noticed caches being placed much closer together than what used to be allowed. I recall placing a cache only to be told by the geocaching website that it wasn't far away enough from another cache - and the distance had to be something like 1/2 mile. Now I'm finding caches that are only 300' apart. I just want to know what the 'rule' changes are, and when they were made. As for my opinion on the issue - I think it is relative to the area. If a town or city has numerous areas of interest it would be reasonable to have multiple caches located within a four-block area. If the location is a natural area, with particular areas of geographic interest the number of caches should be limited for the reasons others have mentioned. For me, the interest of geocaching is in discovering new places that I might not have ever otherwise come across - not in finding as many caches as possible in that area. I also think too many folks involved in the sport are overly concerned with their "cache found" count rather than the quality of the experience. Just MHO!

I really didn't mean to start a feud over this - maybe my perception of distance is exaggerated in the wild. The example I recall was of placing a cache in a wilderness preserve and it was deemed to be too close to another cache. Now there are a half dozen new caches within what I perceive to be between my cache and the one I was told I was too close to. Not to mention another three caches that are located in the same shopping complex parking lots. I personally don't get as much out of finding a micro cache hidden in the light pole of a parking lot vs an experience like a trek into a wild place to discover something like a hidden waterfall, etc. - but that's just me. As I stated in my previous post, I think there are many folks who concentrate on building up their "caches found" number. I just don't happen to fit in that category. If you look at my years as a member vs my number of caches found you might come to the conclusion that I am a very casual 'cacher. Quite the contrary - I've found many more caches than I've found the time to log - across the country and internationally. Each to his own, I guess - BUT while on the topic, I do say that the ability to FAV a cache should cause cache placers to put a little more thought into creating unique, quality caches.

Actually, I don't think it was your post that started a feud, if there indeed is a feud. It was somebody that claimed a reviewer favoritism conspiracy.

 

However, I think that many of us would love to see specific examples of "caches only 300' apart". I certainly don't know of any, and I have had caches turned down that were 524' from another (to use Keystone's example).

Link to comment

 

What you call "sloppy", Groundspeak calls "flexible." It's why Cache Saturation is a guideline, not a rule. A week does not go by without my publishing a cache less than 528 feet from its neighbor.

 

 

Cal me a fool for going toe-to-toe with Keystone.

 

BUT, considering the great number of threads that have been posted asking what to do because a cache was denied due to being only 495 (wild example only) feet from an existing cache (or even just a potentially false waypoint associated with a cache) I would say that 'flexibility' is not being applied in an even-handed manner.

 

Saying 'we messed up, but it's only a guideline' when it suits you (reviewers in general) in one case, but then denying publication on another cache that 'flexes' the guideline very little just doesn't proclaim a very high level of integrity.

 

How far are you willing to flex? I've had two different caches placed within 200 feet of a PHYSICAL STAGE of one of my multis, approved by TWO different reviewers. And before you ask, yes all the stages' co-ordinates have been recorded as hidden waypoints.

 

Caches published on Indian Reservations

Caches published in Wilderness Areas

Caches published in 'closed to the public due to fire danger' forests

Caches published that have the same exact co-ordinates (one a puzzle, one a trad)

 

Yeah, the review process in Arizona is sloppy.

Link to comment

It depends on how cosy you are with the reviewer.

If you are good chumps you can have two caches within a hair from each other, if not, Mount Everest could be between the two caches but the reviewer will refuse because they are not apart as per the guidelines.

And GC is none the wiser. Does GC even know what the reviewers are doing?

 

:blink: You'd better provide some backup to that statement, my friend. Typically the exact opposite is true.

 

Im sorry, Im not about to plaster names in here. I know the crowd would want nothing more than for me to do that.

 

I see whats going on in my corner of the world that backs up my statement.

Link to comment

Posters with specific axes to grind against specific reviewers are advised to write an email to Groundspeak so that the volunteer program coordinators can review the matter. Specific caches and names can be provided privately as part of that process. This is far preferable to dropping unsubstantiated allegations into an otherwise productive forum discussion.

 

Let's get back to discussing saturation in general terms. Does anyone wish it was like the days of the opening post, when two caches in the same park was debated as "crowding?"

Link to comment

Posters with specific axes to grind against specific reviewers are advised to write an email to Groundspeak so that the volunteer program coordinators can review the matter. Specific caches and names can be provided privately as part of that process. This is far preferable to dropping unsubstantiated allegations into an otherwise productive forum discussion.

 

Let's get back to discussing saturation in general terms. Does anyone wish it was like the days of the opening post, when two caches in the same park was debated as "crowding?"

 

Nope. The lives and occupations of geocachers vary so much that the greater proliferation of caches allows those of us who might not always have time for a trek in the woods to enjoy the thrill of finding something. I know that I myself fluctuate between grabbing LPCs and going on longer hikes to enjoy the scenery based on time. While it can be frustrating to some to see the saturation of geocaches in some areas, this has always been a growing hobby, but one thing that has not changed is that the choice remains with the geocacher. They can choose to go for a P&G or they can choose to travel to caches they feel are truly worth the effort. I know that there are some parts of Cincinnati that at first glance would seem saturated to me, but I have learned that sometimes there can indeed be two notable points of interest in a small area. Why judge all of them based on what I can see from a satellite map?

 

To the OP, for what it's worth, most of the time a geocacher can tell the amount of effort someone has put into placing their cache by the cache description. Personally, I also look for ones that have been around the longest, as they sometimes do tend to have the best locations.

 

Edited to ficks my speeling eror.

Edited by Disabajn
Link to comment

Let's get back to discussing saturation in general terms. Does anyone wish it was like the days of the opening post, when two caches in the same park was debated as "crowding?"

The guidelines still say, "The two main goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider."

 

Its pretty clear that back in the days of this thread's OP these goals were critical to the growth of geocaching. The idea was to spread geocaches into new areas and to to encourage the new geocachers in these ares to participate by leaving room for them to hide their own caches.

 

Perhaps it is time to revisit the rationale behind the the guidelines. There is hardly an area left where geocaching hasn't spread to (at least areas where there is a significant potential for new geocachers to discover this hobby). In the meantime, geocaching is no longer dominated by outdoorsy adventuring types who are willing to travel long distances to find caches. Higher gasoline prices have also contribute to a desire to find more caches closer to home. The result have been more urban hides and more series and power trails to increase density and the number of caches available in an area. Even the ideas of cache permanence have changed. There are many who now feel that after a year or two, most locals have found their cache, so they archive the listing in order to hide a new cache or to "open the area up to others". Geocaching growth is no longer promoted by placing caches in remote areas where few will go to find them. Instead growth comes from increasing the density of caches in an area and in recycling cache locations. In fact, instead of threads about "How close is too close", the forums now are full of threads like "Should disabled caches be archived after a fixed time" or "Should there be a limit on the number of caches one person can own?"

Link to comment

I believe the 528 feet guideline is reasonable. However, I don't understand how a cache, even placed within 200 feet of another, if allowed, would cheapen the expereince of either cache. If I'm at a trade show and see a booth for Apple's latest uber-cool product next to a booth with a cheesy video game, I don't walk away thinking that I had fun playing with Apple's new product but feeling robbed due to the lame game next to it.

Link to comment

It depends on how cosy you are with the reviewer.

If you are good chumps you can have two caches within a hair from each other, if not, Mount Everest could be between the two caches but the reviewer will refuse because they are not apart as per the guidelines.

And GC is none the wiser. Does GC even know what the reviewers are doing?

 

:blink: You'd better provide some backup to that statement, my friend. Typically the exact opposite is true.

 

Im sorry, Im not about to plaster names in here. I know the crowd would want nothing more than for me to do that.

 

I see whats going on in my corner of the world that backs up my statement.

 

Just what I figured, no concrete example. Just asperse all reviewers with vague claims of favoritism and leave it at that.

Link to comment

It depends on how cosy you are with the reviewer.

If you are good chumps you can have two caches within a hair from each other, if not, Mount Everest could be between the two caches but the reviewer will refuse because they are not apart as per the guidelines.

And GC is none the wiser. Does GC even know what the reviewers are doing?

 

:blink: You'd better provide some backup to that statement, my friend. Typically the exact opposite is true.

 

Im sorry, Im not about to plaster names in here. I know the crowd would want nothing more than for me to do that.

 

I see whats going on in my corner of the world that backs up my statement.

 

If your plan is to keep your mouth shut, then you should keep it shut to start with. Making those kinds of statements with absolutely nothing to back it up is irresponsible and libel.

Link to comment
Let's get back to discussing saturation in general terms. Does anyone wish it was like the days of the opening post, when two caches in the same park was debated as "crowding?"

When I find 2 caches in the same Wally World parking lot I think it's crowded. I would love to see the saturation limit raised to 1/4 mile (402 meters).

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...