Jump to content

Cache saturation limitation poll


TEAM 360

Recommended Posts

No, if based upon your thread title the goal in doing so is to prevent over-saturating an area with caches. I'd prefer to see that in the hands of the approvers who can regard it on a case by case basis rather than have it dictated by an arbitrary rule.

 

-=-=-=-=-=-

GPS_Brian

=-=-=-=-=-=

Link to comment

Voted no. I've brought up the question about oversaturation for future cachers before and the concern of it. It was more than stated that people were opposed to any restrictions of the sort. I wouldn't be opposed to the fact that a person can place only a certain amount of caches (that are active). But if there are not going to be any restrictions or security measures against other things, like puppet accounts placing caches or an actual distance stnadard, then I don't see the use in it.

 

Brian

 

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

Link to comment

The 0.1 mile limit is to deal with saturation. It's courtesy not to utterly dominate your area. Beyond that why make an artifical restriction?

 

Also any that get archived for this reason would just be geolitter when otherwise it's a perfectly good cache. Plus when the waiting period is over and the owner says "ok now list it" and they say, sorry someone who didn't have a waiting period placed a cache there in the meantime and so your cache stays archived..."

Link to comment

I agree with GPS_Brian. I think caches should be approved/rejected based on their individual merits rather than based on a new rule that came about as a "knee-jerk" reaction to one situation.

 

Personally, I like the idea of having several caches that are relatively close by so that I can make multiple finds in one stop. It has been somewhat frustrating for me so far to find a cache, get in the car and drive to the next location, find the cache, get in the car.... It would be nice to go to one large local park and be able to spend several hours finding several caches. At the same time, I totally understand potential environmental impact that this could have and fully agree that this factor should be taken into consideration in the approval process.

 

The bottom line in my opinion is that a hard and fast rule should not be necessary.

 

I am Lothar, King of the Hill people. I have many tails to tell....

Link to comment

I agree bigred. If you are going to have rules, then follow them. Given that there are different circumstances than anything else, I think there is too much opinion(approvers) placed on what's approved and what isn't. There are a lot of inconsistencies throughout.

 

Brian

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by bigredmed:

There should be more rigorous enforcement of the 0.1 mile between caches rules though...I pulled up a map of the Tacoma/Gig Harbor area for my Brother in Law, the map is so thick you could probably walk on the caches and not touch ground.


 

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

I agree bigred. If you are going to have rules, then follow them.


 

Did either of you actually look at the distance between caches in the Tacoma area? Yes, it is an active geocaching area with a lot of caches, but I argue that it would be difficult for you to find caches breaking the distance guideline.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by bigredmed:

... I pulled up a map of the Tacoma/Gig Harbor area for my Brother in Law, the map is so thick you could probably walk on the ...


 

Are there many in Poin Defiance area?

I did the 5 mile drive loop on the motorcycle

last weekend, and saw a lot of potential.

 

Terrain makes a difference. In the Kitsap Penninsula area (Gig Harber, Port Orchard, Bremerton, Kinston...)

You could put caches in a .1 mile dotted grid, and they'd seem far apart because of all the trees and terrain features.

 

I have a plan for a six chache theme in Banner Forest, but I have to start getting the elements together before I can begin getting serious about taking coords & such.

 

BTW, if you Bro-Inlaw is interested in trying it, and wants some help, I can always take him to one that I already have foud, or on a new find to help him out. Give him my email, and make sure he references this message thread so I'll know what it's about.

 

The offer also goes out to anyone who hasn't tried it yet... I have only been at it a week, so I'm no expert, but I know how to find things (from Hashing) and how to get lost in the woods (also from Hashing).

 

Hukt un fonix werkt fur mee

Link to comment

I voted no. We should be so lucky in Southern Georgia to be over-saturated with caches. Wish someone else would start hiding some down here so I wouldn't have to drive 60 miles one way to hunt.

 

************************************************************

"Sometimes you gotta look like an *** to get that cache!"...huntforit

************************************************************

Link to comment

I think the current rules as they are already set up should take care of the saturation situation. Keep in mind that .1 mile is only roughly 500 feet so there is a lot of gound to cover before the saturation limit gets reached.

 

I wouldn't mind walking only 500 feet inbetween caches sometimes icon_wink.gif

 

Kirk out.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

Did either of you actually look at the distance between caches in the Tacoma area? Yes, it is an active geocaching area with a lot of caches, but I argue that it would be difficult for you to find caches breaking the distance guideline.

 

http://geocachingwa.org

 

Wasn't referring to the Tacoma area, was agreeing that there should be enforcement of the .1 mile rule. AS that is a rule already in place and that should be exhausted first.

 

Brian

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

Wasn't referring to the Tacoma area, was agreeing that there should be enforcement of the .1 mile rule. AS that is a rule already in place and that should be exhausted first.


 

If you didn't mean Tacoma, then maybe you could point out for us where you have seen enough examples of caches too close to one another to state, "If you are going to have rules, then follow them."

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Micqn:

I don't know if this has been mentioned before but aren't there enough government agencies (Parks and Recreation) and land-owners that help us with over-saturation?


 

I would think that depends on where you live. Some areas get so saturated with them and others as one mentioned like s. georgia don't have hardly any.

 

I believe the feel of oversaturation comes from those who are in saturated areas that want to place a cache. As I haven't placed one or tried yet, teh saturation thing is great, because it's more to find. You have to admit that there are people with hundreds of cache's placed. Now how can one properly maintain that many? especially when they are finding hundreds a month and sometimes a week.

 

Brian

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

If you didn't mean Tacoma, then maybe you could point out for us where you have seen enough examples of caches too close to one another to state, "If you are going to have rules, then follow them."

 


I'm speaking of statements from other cachers here in the forum and discussions of multiple caches within the prescribed distance. The part of following rules is that. Don't pick and choose which rule or guideline you will follow today. i.e. if the guidelines say no vacation caches and no caches on or near military installations, then fine, follow those guidelines, but don't pick only one to follow. It's not pointing at approvers directly, but stating that different things get approved differently in different areas. One person (a teacher at that) couldn't get a virtual in Alabama to go through of a statue, but in another area (over 1000 miles away) there is a virtual of a cell phone antenna that did get approved.

 

Brian

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Woodsters Outdoors:

I'm speaking of statements from other cachers here in the forum and discussions of multiple caches within the prescribed distance.


 

So, in other words, you are speaking up about something you have no experience with yourself? How many of those caches being discussed were hidden before the distance guidelines were in place, anyway?

 

EDIT: Typo.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

 

[This message was edited by Moun10Bike on August 05, 2003 at 12:58 PM.]

Link to comment

I voted no. In fact I just painted and filled 4 ammo boxes and 2 decon containers last night and will place them as soon as the rain stops.

 

As others said, the caches should be judged for their individual merits. Besides, when caches start saturating an area, I find it's generally because several geocachers are hiding caches there, not an individual hiding a bunch.

 

Also, people may only have an afternoon available out of their schedule to place caches. Why should they be limited to one?

 

"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

Link to comment

I have mixed feelings on this. I've been in this sport/game for over 2 years now and I have caches that are almost that old. When they are first placed, there is a flurry of hits on them, but as time goes by the hits are longer and longer in between. Basically only the newbies are looking for it.

 

As time goes by it will be harder and harder to place a cache in an area that isn't already teaming with them. I for one am slowly starting to archive mine to make room for new hides. Either mine or someone elses. If a cache has been out for 2 years and the last hit on it was 6 months ago...maybe it's time to archive it. There are a lot of new cachers out there that would love to place a cache but the area is taken by a cache that has really become outdated. I know there are exceptions to the rule, but you get my drift.

 

Just an old farts 2 cents worth. icon_smile.gif

 

El Diablo

 

Everything you do in life...will impact someone,for better or for worse.

http://www.geo-hikingstick.com

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

quote:
Originally posted by makaio:

Remember when http://www.brillig.com/geocaching/united_states.shtml looked more like http://www.brillig.com/geocaching/south_america.shtml ?

 

Ahh, the good 'ol days...


 

Yes! I love looking back on the history of cache growth in various areas. I have my own http://www.switchbacks.com/gc_history.html set up with snapshots of cache density at various times early in my "geocaching career."

 

http://geocachingwa.org

 

I saw a film once that looked like that with the population of the world done in 100 years per frame. It started to really spread, then the black plague hit and the numbers went down for a while. Then right back up till today.

 

It was a propoganda film for some vegetarian cause, so I don't know how true it was, but it was cool to watch, none the less.

 

stealyourcache.gif Ever notice how anyone that caches more than you do is a maniac, while anyone that caches less than you do is an idiot? -Dru Morgan

Link to comment

quote:
As time goes by it will be harder and harder to place a cache in an area that isn't already teaming with them. I for one am slowly starting to archive mine to make room for new hides. Either mine or someone elses. If a cache has been out for 2 years and the last hit on it was 6 months ago...maybe it's time to archive it.

 

That's already the case here in NJ. We are pretty saturated. Some of my older placements though, are among my best. They are staying, even though they may get a find every three months. I placed the cache there for a reason, and that reason is still there, so I'm not archiving those caches.

 

On the other hand, I've been archiving some of my lamer caches to open up the area for others.

 

"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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Moun10Bike:

 

So, in other words, you are speaking up about something you have no experince with yourself? How many of those caches being discussed were hidden before the distance guidelines were in place, anyway?

 


 

In retrospect to the point of the distance, you are correct, I do not have any hands on experience with that. As far as if those spoken about were placed before or not, I have no idea. Someone made mention of the fact about about the rule and it being followed. I agreed, before another rule on the fact of the saturation point, then that one should be enforced. If it is enforced and there are no problems with the distance then there needs to be something else looked at as fart as oversaturation.

 

Brian

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Lothar69:

I agree with GPS_Brian. I think caches should be approved/rejected based on their individual merits rather than based on a new rule that came about as a "knee-jerk" reaction to one situation.


 

I do find it frustrating when some people place, say, ten caches in one day, all of which have vague one-line descriptions like, "Another cache, go find it!" How can you really tell if they *have* much individual merit? Especially if the person placing them has a number of other caches that are in need of maintenance but aren't getting it?

 

But what's a maintainer to do? They can't just disapprove a cache because the description is boring, or because they'd rather the person put more energy into fewer caches. They're all in legitimate areas, all more than 0.1 miles from other caches, so they're okay. Stylistic critique seems to be out of the domain of the approvers.

 

And, then, I've also seen people place ten caches in one day, and they were all decent caches. They must've been planning for a while, and then went out one weekend for the placing blitz. I'd rather parcel them out more slowly to maximize the impact and let each cache get a little bit of individual attention, but that's just a personal preference. My only real objection to people peppering the area with caches is that we didn't notice the spots they used sooner and it's getting harder to find places to hide anything!

Link to comment

Voted no, a while ago a cacher in this State planted 26 caches, using an alphabet scheme. They were all approved the same day, but I would think it was just coordinated with the approver to come out on the same day. It was too far away for me to do, but I looked at a few of the description pages, and it looked like fun.

 

I'd hate to take the creativity out of geocaching by narrowly dictating what can and can't be done to the nth degree.

 

I don't see a saturation problem here (in one of the more saturated areas), so I don't see a need for more restrictive rules.

 

_________________________________________________________

If trees could scream, would we still cut them down?

Well, maybe if they screamed all the time, for no reason.

Click here for my Geocaching pictures and Here (newest)

Link to comment

I voted no. Out were I live we are low on caches. I make up several and place them as I have time. The county I live in only has 3 atm, and if I had to wait to place more it would get to be more of a pain and the area would stay cacheless for the most part.

 

texasgeocaching_sm.gif

Link to comment

The point of my earlier post was to comment that in many areas of the country, including Omaha, the parts of town that are good for caching are getting over loaded. The use of the Tacoma area was to illustrate that the problem is not just here. IMHO, the 0.1 mile rule could be bumped up to 0.2 miles and probably result in more cleverly hidden caches.

 

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

Link to comment

quote:
You have to admit that there are people with hundreds of cache's placed. Now how can one properly maintain that many? especially when they are finding hundreds a month and sometimes a week.

 

Brian

 

_As long as you're going to think anyway, think big. -Donald Trump_


 

I may be double posting, but something weird happened, and my original post disappeared.

 

This is a good point, as I have never considered it before.

 

Obviously, the more densely populated areas will have the higher concentrations of caches.

 

No offense whatsoever to cachers with the super high numbers.

 

The .1 mile rule has been a rule of thumb, so leave it that way.

 

Even though we all share great enthusiasm in this sport, it seems that an overcrowding is eminent.

 

My main reason to hide a cache is to bring a cacher to an area that might leave some impact on them, mostly scenic. I have never considered hiding THAT many caches, as I would think they would not be noteworthy, even if a cacher that was new to the sport would find it.

 

And in protecting my rear on this one, I live in a mountainous area, sparsely populated, therefore less cache placements per geocacher within their respective area,

 

SO

 

I cannot speak for the geocachers who live near Gig Harbor, San Fransisco, Columbus, Atlanta, or any other *cache plenty area*, so I cannot say those of you (no one in particular, just using those for example) who do, are dumping purposeless caches everywhere, because I do not live there and no NOTHING about how it goes on there.

 

*I RETURN WITH AN EDIT*:

 

I can appreciate interesting micros, or really thought out caches (as a matter of fact, Team 360 emailed me pics of a couple of their caches a while back that were awesome. They were, by far, no cache that I have ever seen or heard of!! Now I would like to find some like that here.)

 

I am being reiterative on my statement about quality vs. quantity. I see that a cache does not have to be a traditonal overlooking the falls, or a mountain majesty, as possibilities are endless when it comes to fun or exciting caches.

 

I just have a feeling that we may be cache poor someday, and I hope I'm wrong.

 

[This message was edited by opey one on August 06, 2003 at 08:12 AM.]

Link to comment

I chose to abstain for voting because I'm still on the fence with this issue. I'll join the discussion for what it's worth because there is value to having the issue hashed out and resolved. Plus, consider this issue as a metaphor for larger, global issues!

 

I think Geo-Cachers by nature are people who would prefer to have fewer rules imposed on them. With freedom, however, comes the responsibility of making the personal choice on how to exercise that freedom. In my experience with people, it is here that things break down both in the mirco-environment our sport and, indeed the world at large.

 

Although those placing them would probably not share this view, it seems to me that many caches in my area have been placed out of selfishness. One cannot deny that a thrill or a sense of accomplishment or contribution is inherenet in the act of placing a cache or a sense of superiority gained by those having placed so many, etc..

 

It is these actions that lead to caches of poor quality or to areas littered with caches in banal places. Both of these consequences will deminish the enjoyment of the sport for it's players as well as put it in an increasingly dubious position with land owners and "land managment" agencies.

 

The integrity of the sport, indeed the integrity of all social systems, is dependant on individuals who are able to forgo taking actions that feed thier own ego and take ones that add quality to the system as a whole.

 

This type of discipline is difficult and it seems some people choose a path different from that of restraint. Thus it becomes necessary in some people's eyes to afford protection to the system through harsher policing policies.

 

I was drawn to the sport because of it's unique qualities and those of fellow players that I have come to know. I'd prefer, as I suspect we all would, to continue it without a heavy blanket of regulation.

 

But this can only happen if everyone involved is honest about thier motivations and takes "right action" that makes this reality possible.

 

It is also important to consider the impermanent nature of all things. Our sport, like all things, will evolve and change over time. Let us avoid allowing fear of "the man" or of change detract from our enjoyment of it, deminish the quality of how we take care of it, or lead to the exclusion of new players.

 

The trick, as in all of life, is finding balance and having tolerance.

 

'nuff said!

 

"Now may every living thing, young or old, weak or strong, living near or far, known or unknown, living or departed or yet unborn, may every living thing know happiness!"

 

[This message was edited by cool_and_the_gang on August 06, 2003 at 08:39 AM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by bigredmed:

The point of my earlier post was to comment that in many areas of the country, including Omaha, the parts of town that are good for caching are getting over loaded. The use of the Tacoma area was to illustrate that the problem is not just here.


 

Not to be argumentative, but you presented your argument not as an overloading issue, but as an issue of admins ignoring the 0.1 distance guideline: "There should be more rigorous enforcement of the 0.1 mile between caches rules though." I called you on it because I'm a bit tired of people slamming the admins without having their facts straight.

 

Also, your argument would carry more weight if you had actually visited Tacoma and cached here. Our topography is different from Omaha's and caches that may appear very close together here are often separated by significant terrain obstacles.

 

quote:
IMHO, the 0.1 mile rule could be bumped up to 0.2 miles and probably result in more cleverly hidden caches.

 

I agree with you on this, and thus at the root of our discussion I think we are mostly on the same side. I was surprised when the guideline was created and the distance was set so small, but that's what the majority decided upon.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

quote:
My main reason to hide a cache is to bring a cacher to an area that might leave some impact on them, mostly scenic. I have never considered hiding THAT many caches, as I would think they would not be noteworthy, even if a cacher that was new to the sport would find it.

 

I could easily lead people to about 15 interesting places in Banner Forest (about 800 acres, I think... it's about 3 miles by 3 miles).

 

I would say that in most cases 1/4 mile between caches seems about right, but in some cases that is too close, and in other cases 50 feet would be enough, if GPS wre accurate enough to differentiate between the caches.

 

I have the advantage of having spent a lot more time exploring that area than most people when I was scouting it for Hash Trails that I intend to eventually Hare.

 

Also, some people enjoy doing Caching with kids, and if they can do a few at a time w/o driving place to place, they might enjoy that.

 

As long as they aren't so close together that a person might mistake one for another, who cares?

 

If you only want to do one in an area... you can. But for those who enjoy several in the same area... they can't if they aren't there.

 

In other words, many caches in an area gives people the freedom to choose their own preference.

 

Hukt un fonix werkt fur mee

 

[This message was edited by Mark 42 on August 06, 2003 at 12:24 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by El Diablo:

When they are first placed, there is a flurry of hits on them, but as time goes by the hits are longer and longer in between. Basically only the newbies are looking for it.


 

This gave me an idea...

 

How about a feature in the search engine (don't whack me with that stick again if it already exists) which allows you to look for all of the caches you haven't logged a find to in a given area?

 

That way, people can quickly look for older and newer ones that they haven't found, w/o sifting through all of the ones in their area.

 

Hukt un fonix werkt fur mee

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by cool_and_the_gang:

... (I) consider this issue as a metaphor for larger, global issues!

 

...With freedom, however, comes the responsibility of making the personal choice on how to exercise that freedom.

 

The integrity of the sport, indeed the integrity of all social systems, is dependant on individuals who are able to forgo taking actions that feed thier own ego and take ones that add quality to the system as a whole.

 

This type of discipline is difficult and it seems some people choose a path different from that of restraint. Thus it becomes necessary in some people's eyes to afford protection to the system through harsher policing policies.

 

...But this can only happen if everyone involved is honest about thier motivations and takes "right action" that makes this reality possible.

The trick, as in all of life, is finding balance and having tolerance.


 

The message thread at the link below is an example of why actions of a few inconsiderate people make rules become necessary...

 

http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=4016058331&m=82760496

 

Hukt un fonix werkt fur mee

Link to comment

On the waiting period between caches:

 

I intend to do my first caches in phases.

 

First I'll be gathering containers and the toys & trinkets and logbooks to put in them.

 

See, if I come across a clearance sale on useful items, I'll stock up.

 

Then, I'll put the caches together and make sure they seal properly and all.

 

Then, I'll spend a day or two going out and returning to the locations I have scouted out (over a few months) to double check the coordinates and make sure that the site still looks viable. Also will take site pictures at this time to submit to the people who approve caches for posting to help them determine if each cache is a reasonably good quality one.

 

Then, I'll have to write up descriptions, take pictures of the cache container, cleanup the photos (site & cache contents) and have everything ready for submittal.

 

Then, I will spend a day going to all of the locations and placing the containers.

 

Then I will submit them for posting on the webpage.

 

It might appear to anyone who wasn't involved in the process that I placed 6 or 8 hastily prepared caches, when in reality they may have more thought, preparation, and quality than many others out there.

 

In other words, the frequency can be an indicator of quality, but it isn't necessarily so. A few honest opinions in the log of finds (Like "Why did you even bother... the cache location is nothing special, the container leaked, and the contents was junk") would probably dissuade the person from sacrificing quality for haste in the future.

 

Hukt un fonix werkt fur mee

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mark 42:

How about a feature in the search engine (don't whack me with that stick again if it already exists) which allows you to look for all of the caches you haven't logged a find to in a given area?

 

That way, people can quickly look for older and newer ones that they haven't found, w/o sifting through all of the ones in their area.


I won't whack you with a stick, but I will tell you that this capability does exist on the site. On your "My Cache Page" you can search for caches closest to your home coordinates (once you've entered them). Click on the "Filter Finds" link to exclude caches you've already found. Or, you can do the same thing using the "Advanced Search" link that's accessed from the top right corner of the main homepage.

 

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Next time, instead of getting married, I think I'll just find a woman I don't like and buy her a house.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mark 42:

 

I think these two are closer than .1 mile from each other.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=34178&log=y&decrypt=y

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?pf=&ID=29993&decrypt=y&log=y

 


 

Dog Free Zone is a multi, so the final cache may very well be some distance away.

 

Under such circumstances, I don't see a problem with having the listed coordinates closer than 0.10 miles. In fact, there may be some value in geocaching.com allowing certain coords to be used over and over as 'place holders' (such as ones in the middle of a river or lake, for example) for multis and some unknown caches.

 

Ron/yumitori

 

---

 

Remember what the dormouse said...

Link to comment

I voted no on the poll question. But as far as saturation. I do think a .1 mile rule is a good idea. This is especially a problem in big cities where it seems there is a cache every few feet. I don't see a problem with people placeing multiple caches at one time. But if they are all hidden within .1 mile of each other it should be a multi-cache.

Link to comment

Hard to believe I haven't commented on this topic yet.

Out here in the sparsely populated state of New Mexico (yes, that's in the USA) we have no need for caches within .1 miles of each other, nor do we have a need for cachers to slow down or wait between placements. There are fewer than 500 caches in the entire state.

This might be an issue in Los Angeles or New York, but not Albuquerque.

 

texasgeocaching_sm.gif Took sun from sky, left world in eternal darkness bandbass.gif

Link to comment

I voted no. My area is getting crowded, and it seems like all of the good (obvious) spots are taken. But I found a spot, a good one. I hope to set up my first cache there soon.

 

That Quack Cacher:

Lone Duck

 

When you don't know where you're going, every road will take you there.

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...