QUIZ: Greatest Concentration of Caches?

[+Pharmadude]

Checking the archives, I see this has been discussed before, but I haven't found the definitive answer. So I'm going to make it a quiz.

 

Using the geocaching.com "seek a cache" page

 

1) Find the location that gives the most caches within 100 miles

 

2) Find the location that places the closest 25 caches within the shortest distance.

 

As I indicated, I don't have the answer to these questions, but for starters...

 

For #1, I have found a place that has 987 caches within 100 miles

 

For #2, I have found a place that has the first 25 caches within 1.9 miles.

 

I'm hoping someone can top these!

[+briansnat]

I get 872 caches within a hundred miles when I key in my zipcode. I also get 117 caches within 20 miles. That's pretty concentrated, but it doesn't beat your numbers. I'm curious, where is the area that you found so many?

 

25 caches within 1.5 miles of each other is a bit of an oversaturation I think .

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on June 22, 2002 at 04:13 AM.]

[+briansnat]

I get 872 caches within a hundred miles when I key in my zipcode. I also get 117 caches within 20 miles. That's pretty concentrated, but it doesn't beat your numbers. I'm curious, where is the area that you found so many?

 

25 caches within 1.5 miles of each other is a bit of an oversaturation I think .

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on June 22, 2002 at 04:13 AM.]

[+georgeandmary]

As of today there are 927 caches within 100 miles of 95363.

 

george

 

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

[+Shoebox]

So where was it that you found the 987 caches within 100 miles? Just wanted to know.

[+glenn95630]

There are 978 caches within 100 miles of zip code 95366 which is Ripon, California. As a sidenote, 6 months ago (Jan 2002) there were 563 caches. Or in other words, in the last six months, over 400 caches have been hidden within 100 miles of Ripon. (Ripon is about a one hour drive south of Sacramento)

[+Pharmadude]

I'd like to wait a bit and see if anyone gets it before I reveal my locations. So...stay tuned!

[+vds]

978 within 100 miles of Irvine CA

[+st_richardson]

And I thought the 327 near my zip code was a lot. You must be stumbling over caches.

[+st_richardson]

And I thought the 327 near my zip code was a lot. You must be stumbling over caches.

[+lewsie]

100 miles from my house (19503) - 906

100 miles from nearby (18045 - Easton, PA) - 947

[+Pharmadude]

Remember, I'm asking for locations with MORE than 987 caches within 100 miles (not less!)

 

Also, looking for places with 25 caches within a 2 mile radius.

[+Pharmadude]

Well, I guess there is not a lot of interest in this topic! For the record, here's what I came up with.

 

1) N 33.9 W 117.3 as of today has 1002 caches within a 100 mile radius

 

One more time...can anyone find a location with MORE THAN 1002???

 

2) N 40.78 W 73.97 has the first 25 caches (i.e. the first page that comes up on the search) within 1.9 miles.

 

Can anyone find a location with 25 caches in LESS THAN 1.9 miles???

[+briansnat]

Just curiouis, without a map or GPS in front of me, where are these places?

[+Jamie Z]

Brian,

 

JUst some guesses:

 

N33.9 W117.3: I have no idea.

 

N40.78 W73.97: Central Park?

 

Jamie

[+Pharmadude]

1) Near Riverside, CA

2) Central Park, NYC

[+oregone]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pharmadude:

2) Find the location that places the closest 25 caches within the shortest distance.

 

For #2, I have found a place that has the first 25 caches within 1.9 miles.

 

I'm hoping someone can top these!

---

 

97601 has 31 caches within 1.9 miles.

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

[+Pharmadude]

That's a whole zip code, though. Is there a specific point in that zip code that gives the same result?

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pharmadude:

That's a whole zip code, though. Is there a specific point in that zip code that gives the same result?

---

 

There's always a specific point in the zip code that gives the same result. That point is (probably) the zip code centroid as found in the Census Bureau or USPS database.

 

(added later

The Census entry for 97601 is:

 

97601 +42.293293 -121.816873 KLAMATH FALLS 41 035

 

(The 41 and 035 are the state and county FIPS codes.)

 

However, that can't be the right location; there are only 3 caches within 2 miles. Apparently the search uses a different set of points from the Census centroids.

 

Still, this search centered on the cache closest to whatever point 97601 uses has the first 25 all within 1.7 miles.

 

 

[This message was edited by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy on July 01, 2002 at 09:06 AM.]

[+parkrrrr]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pharmadude:

That's a whole zip code, though. Is there a specific point in that zip code that gives the same result?

---

 

There's always a specific point in the zip code that gives the same result. That point is (probably) the zip code centroid as found in the Census Bureau or USPS database.

 

(added later:)

The Census entry for 97601 is:

 

97601 +42.293293 -121.816873 KLAMATH FALLS 41 035

 

(The 41 and 035 are the state and county FIPS codes.)

 

However, that can't be the right location; there are only 3 caches within 2 miles. Apparently the search uses a different set of points from the Census centroids.

 

Still, this search centered on the cache closest to whatever point 97601 uses has the first 25 all within 1.7 miles.

 

 

[This message was edited by Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy on July 01, 2002 at 09:06 AM.]

[+Pharmadude]

Now we're getting somewhere!

I've also found a slightly better one for #1

 

1) N 33.71 W 117.44 has 1010 caches within 100 miles of Alberhill, CA

 

2) N 42.22 W 121.80 has 25 caches within 1.1 miles of Klamath Falls, OR

[BassoonPilot]

I'd rather spend my free time geocaching (or benchmarking) than on this.

[+oregone]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I'd rather spend my free time geocaching (or benchmarking) than on this.

---

 

or posting

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

[+oregone]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I'd rather spend my free time geocaching (or benchmarking) than on this.

---

 

or posting

 

all rights reserved, all wrongs reversed

[+smithdw]

I played around a bit with the coordinates.

At this location:

N42 13.450

W121 47.900

 

the first 25 caches are within 0.9 mi

[+glenn95630]

How many of those 25 are virtuals? I think I counted 11, but maybe I miss counted since I was rolling my eyes so much. Klammath Falls - Home of the Virtual!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pharmadude:

Now we're getting somewhere!

I've also found a slightly better one for #1

 

1) N 33.71 W 117.44 has 1010 caches within 100 miles of Alberhill, CA

 

2) N 42.22 W 121.80 has 25 caches within 1.1 miles of Klamath Falls, OR

---

[RedShoesGirl]

1) N 33.71 W 117.44 has 1010 caches within 100 miles of Alberhill, CA

 

Couldn't find a zip code for Alberhill, but I did find it on mapquest. Part of the great LA megapolis.

 

[+Pharmadude]

The closest ZIP to this point 91719 (Corona, CA) yields 1000 hits. Another nearby ZIP is 92530 (Lake Elsinore) with 1007. But if you wander out to "postal-free" territory mentioned earlier (33.71N 117.44W) you are now in range of 1014 caches.

 

Interesting point made by glenn95630 about virtual caches in Klamath falls. I hadn't noticed that.

Checking back at my first suggestion (Central Park) I see 7 virtuals, 5 letterboxes, 4 mystery caches, and 1 Webcam among the closest 25.

Hmmm...now where would we find a high concentration of regular geocaches?

[+MartyFouts]

This is an interesting quiz, because I just got back from Montana (where I grew up) I think there are more caches within 10 miles of where I live now then there are in all of Montana (the 4th largest US state.)

 

It's just another reason why it doesn't make sense to try to pretend that 'counting caches' is some kind of competitive sport.

[+pkpaul]

quote:

---

Originally posted by smithdw:

I played around a bit with the coordinates.

At this location:

N42 13.450

W121 47.900

 

the first 25 caches are within 0.9 mi

---

 

I tried this & got the following results:

From latitude: N 42 13.450 longitude: W 12 47.90

100 mile(s) radius. No results have been found. Never fear! You could be the first person to place a cache in this area. To get started, check out the how to on hiding your first geocache.

 

However...Waypoint GC30C3 (A local memorial among the nation's) has 25 caches within 1.0 miles in Washington DC (the capital of virtual-caches).

Surprisingly there are 7 non-virtuals in the total.

 

PKPaul

[+pkpaul]

My mistake.

I dropped the first 1 from 121

It now shows 25 within 0.80 miles.

My bad.

PKPaul

[+Faderaven]

1070

 

Wheee!

[+pkpaul]

RE: Closest 25 caches.

At this location:

N42 13.450

W121 47.900

 

It now shows 25 within 0.8 miles.

And 29 within 1.0 mile... Unbelievable.

PKPaul

[+fizzymagic]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pkpaul:

Waypoint GC30C3 (A local memorial among the nation's) has 25 caches within 1.0 miles in Washington DC (the capital of virtual-caches).

Surprisingly there are 7 non-virtuals in the total.

---

 

I suggest you go back and look again. The nearest non-virtual cache to that one is more than 2.5 miles away (it's across the Potomac, FWIW).

[TT120]

1159 within 100 miles

192 within 25 miles

12 within 1.9 miles

 

This does count the unavailable caches so the numbers are a bit less. (I didn't feel like adding up all the unavailable ones and subtracting them from the totals)

[+Pharmadude]

Can anyone beat this?

 

1277 within 100 miles of Macada, PA!

(Bethlehem, Allentown vicinity)

 

40.65°N 75.39°W

[+Markwell]

I could see this topic being hot in January or Feburary, but please - go out and find some caches.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

[+Markwell]

I could see this topic being hot in January or Feburary, but please - go out and find some caches.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

[+Pharmadude]

January and February? Hey, that's prime geocaching season around here! (Although I guess Chicago's usually buried in snow by then.)

[+Mr. Snazz]

Why have folks chimed in simply to put down this thread?

 

I could see suggesting that this hunt could cause undue stress on the server, but really... posting just to tell people that you don't want to participate, or to "get out and cache"?

 

[+Mr. Snazz]

Why have folks chimed in simply to put down this thread?

 

I could see suggesting that this hunt could cause undue stress on the server, but really... posting just to tell people that you don't want to participate, or to "get out and cache"?

 

[+Pharmadude]

Can anyone beat 1692 caches within 100 miles of 1509 Colesville Rd, Bethlehem, PA, 18015?

[+canadazuuk]

and here I thought Victoria BC had the most, or was that just orange tags on the nearby stumps?

 

he he he

[+Wander Lost]

Some quick searching thanks to the state search page brings up 2016 in the 100 mile radius of San Francisco.

 

Zip code 97201 has the first 25 caches with a distance of no greater than 1.8 miles.

 

If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people??

 

[+georgeandmary]

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?zip=95363

 

2192

 

It's basically because that 100 miles overlaps two dense regions... the San Jose area and the Sacrmento area.

 

george

 

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by georgeandmary:

2192

 

It's basically because that 100 miles overlaps two dense regions... the San Jose area and the Sacrmento area.

---

 

And because people keep placing more caches while rarely removing old ones.

 

I live just outside of NYC, and my zipcode has ~1500 within 100 miles. Nobody would notice if 50% of them disappeared overnight.

 

Thanks for another opportunity to suggest that the implementation of cache expiration dates, with an owner's right of renewal, is the direction geocaching needs to take.

[+briansnat]

quote:

---

I live just outside of NYC, and my zipcode has ~1500 within 100 miles. Nobody would notice if 50% of them disappeared overnight.

---

 

That's only because you found all of them! The rest of us are happy to have a wide choice available.

 

"An appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile-hoping it will eat him last" -Winston Churchill

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianSnat:

That's only because you found all of them! The reast of us are happy to have a wide choice available.

---

 

You have noted in these forums in the past that local cachers generally rush out to find new caches, and then the caches sit idle until/if "new blood" takes up caching or cachers visit from out-of-area.

 

I would suggest that if local cachers haven't visited a cache within 6 months of its placement, they aren't likely to ... especially since most cache placements are easy, 1/2 hour-or-less affairs. Many of those caches end up abandoned.

 

I agree that challenging caches receive much less frequent visits, which is why I propose that cache owner's have a "right to renew" their caches.

[+jonboy]

I can imagine Bassoon Pilots frustration having to scroll through hundreds of caches he found ages ago to find new caches. It would certainly be in his interests to archive half the caches, but not in the interests of less prolific cachers. Most of us concentrate our efforts on a approximate 30 mile radius of our home. This doesn't mean we have written off more distant caches, it is just that closer new ones keep popping up. The only caches I would like to see archived or adopted are those that have been abandoned by a placer who lost interest.

[BassoonPilot]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonboy:

I can imagine Bassoon Pilots frustration having to scroll through hundreds of caches he found ages ago to find new caches. It would certainly be in his interests to archive half the caches, but not in the interests of less prolific cachers.

---

 

No, my position is not based upon "my interests," the number of caches I have sought/found, or how many pages of caches I have to scroll past. It's about doing something that might help to eliminate abandoned caches and limit the number of "easy" caches by approving caches for a limited period of time ... and at the end of that period, the cache owner would retain the right to renew the cache ... providing they maintain an "active interest" (read: maintenance schedule) in the cache.

 

I do think a cache owner should have to provide a compelling reason why an obvious dump-and-run cache should be renewed.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jonboy:

Most of us concentrate our efforts on a approximate 30 mile radius of our home. This doesn't mean we have written off more distant caches, it is just that closer new ones keep popping up.

---

 

Well, perhaps not in your case, but it does appear that is the case for many people, just as most people automatically write off any cache with more than 3 stars.

 

I will mention that when I do visit a cache in a distant area that hasn't been found in several months (or longer), the condition of the cache almost invariably mirrors that neglect. That supports my statement that most caches are found immediately by the local cachers or ignored.

 

And that's the whole point. Caches are not little monuments to us as cache owners.