Jump to content

QUIZ: Greatest Concentration of Caches?


Pharmadude
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

My Corona zipcode (92883) brings up 1,948 in a 100 mile radius. I'm guessing that's got to be up there with the highest.

 

I guess I'll be kept busy for a while. Hey Bruce S, come to California and go on a wild week of caching. You could double your total in a week!

 

--CoronaKid

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

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.


 

What happens to the hundreds of caches that don't get renewed because their owners rode away into the sunset never to be heard from again? It seems like your method would lead to a horde of geolitter.

 

At least now, an abandoned cache stays listed and in the consciousness of the geocaching community. That gives people a chance to remove it or adopt it.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Kaniksu:

 

What happens to the hundreds of caches that don't get renewed because their owners rode away into the sunset never to be heard from again? It seems like your method would lead to a horde of geolitter.


 

One of the recurring themes in these forums concerns how quickly the contents of caches degrade to little more than GeoTrash via "trading down," so those unmaintained caches are usually already in a sorry state. I think local volunteers (perhaps recruited and working anonymously) could easily be found to remove abandoned caches.

 

quote:
Originally posted by Kaniksu:

At least now, an abandoned cache stays listed and in the consciousness of the geocaching community. That gives people a chance to remove it or adopt it.


 

I don't agree with that first sentence. I could easily name off the top of my head a couple of dozen caches that remain listed on the website as active, yet have been missing or abandoned for over a year. People quickly learn to just scroll past those pages ... I would not term that "in the consciousness of the geocaching community."

 

I could cite an equal (or higher) number of missing or abandoned caches that were "temporarily disabled" by their owners at least 6 months ago where no corrective/further action has ever been taken. I believe the "temporarily disabled" feature also needs to be modified to send a red flag to the site administrators after a certain period has elapsed.

 

Further, I don't agree with the concept of "cache adoption" unless the the original owner has been contacted and has expressly granted their permission for the cache to be adopted. After an abandoned cache has been removed and archived, an active (and presumably interested) cacher could place a new cache (perhaps of an entirely different nature) in the same general area.

 

We also read in these forums that "cache saturation" is a concern among the administrators. I believe my suggestions are also practical ideas that help to address that problem.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 12, 2003 at 01:57 PM.]

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Kaniksu:

What happens to the hundreds of caches that don't get renewed because their owners rode away into the sunset never to be heard from again? It seems like your method would lead to a horde of geolitter.

 

At least now, an abandoned cache stays listed and in the consciousness of the geocaching community. That gives people a chance to remove it or adopt it.


 

How's this for an idea. I like BP's suggestion of having to renew caches (an email verification once a year isn't a big deal for cache owners I'd imagine), but there *is* the issue of the old abandoned tupperware sitting under a rock someplace.

 

How about having a new cache designation: 'NonRenewed' where the next finder would be asked to collect the cache. When he/she logs their find (on the NonRenewed cache) - if they've picked it up, the cache should THEN be archived.

 

I wouldn't mind picking up old abandoned caches if it helped eliminate some of the garbage out there. Cache in - pack out!

 

Otherwise, as others have already noted - it just becomes trash.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

I could easily name off the top of my head a couple of dozen caches that remain listed on the website as active, yet have been missing or abandoned for over a year...I could cite an equal (or higher) number of missing or abandoned caches that were "temporarily disabled" by their owners at least 6 months ago where no corrective/further action has ever been taken.


 

It sounds to me like these are the sorts of situations for which Jeremy created the "cache should be archived" log type.

 

I like HartClimb's suggestion of a "Not Renewed" state on caches, signalling the next finder to remove the cache. Maybe we'd then see people competing to be "Last Finder" as well as "First Finder!" icon_smile.gif

 

I still believe, however, that anything that archives or disables an "unrenewed" cache in the manner we are discussing would lead to more incidents of geolitter than the current system. Around here, people are always sprucing up "forgotten" caches and giving them extra life after their proper owners are gone. Better that than having them rot under the radar.

 

As for creating bands of cachers around the country who anonymously remove abandoned caches, I guess I'm always skeptical of solutions that propose adding layers of overhead/bureaucracy. Maybe it's worth a try, though.

Link to comment

Just to bring things back on-topic for a minute...

Georgeandmary reported 2192 at zip 95363. A little sidestepping to zip 95231, coordinates N 37.88 W 121.31 puts you on West Mathews Rd, French Camp, CA (just south of Stockton) where you will find 2,320 caches within 100 mile radius.

 

Looking for challengers!

Link to comment

I kinda like that idea, too. That way, I could collect stuff to use as a cache later. Perhaps the container, or geotrinkets. Whatever is simply trash would go there. Of course determining that an abandoned cache is actually gone as opposed to simply "not found" can make things interesting when deciding to archive or not....

 

Just because you're paranoid DOESN'T mean they're not ALL out to get you.

Link to comment

quote:
How about having a new cache designation: 'NonRenewed' where the next finder would be asked to collect the cache. When he/she logs their find (on the NonRenewed cache) - if they've picked it up, the cache should THEN be archived.

 

I think this is an excellent idea. Perhaps you should mention it in the Geocaching.com forum.

I'd say if a cache is not renewed AND the owner does not respond to an e-mail within, say 60 days,

then designate the cache can be considered abandoned or "not renewed: and designated for removal by the next finder.

 

On the other hand I'm against the idea of simply archiving caches that appear to be abandoned because then they just becomes litter. I think there should be a way of making certain a cache has been removed before it's archived. Hart's idea is a way to accomplish this.

 

quote:
As for creating bands of cachers around the country who anonymously remove abandoned caches, I guess I'm always skeptical of solutions that propose adding layers of overhead/bureaucracy. Maybe it's worth a try, though.

 

I don't like the idea of self-appointed vigilantes deciding which caches need to be removed. I can see them starting with abandoned caches, then some moving on to what they consider to be "lousy" caches...or removing them based on whatever criterion they decide. This is already happened in some instances and has generated a lot of ill will.

 

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

Link to comment

When I put my home coordinates in, I get 1,579 caches within 100 miles of my house...how many are virtuals? Who knows, my guess is a whole heck of a lot. And I get about 115 within 25 miles of my home, again, I don't know how many are virtuals.

 

Southeast, PA

 

True-North icon_cool.gif

 

"The more I study nature, the more I am amazed at the Creator."

- Louis Pasteur

Link to comment

Following Brian's quote is what I actually wrote. How that quote was derived from what I wrote (also quoted below) is truly baffling.

 

quote:
Originally posted by BrianSnat:

I don't like the idea of self-appointed vigilantes deciding which caches need to be removed. I can see them starting with abandoned caches, then some moving on to what they consider to be "lousy" caches...or removing them based on whatever criterion they decide. This is already happened in some instances and has generated a lot of ill will.


 

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:

One of the recurring themes in these forums concerns how quickly the contents of caches degrade to little more than GeoTrash via "trading down," so those unmaintained caches are usually already in a sorry state. I think local volunteers (perhaps recruited and working anonymously) could easily be found to remove abandoned caches.


 

That's local volunteers recruited by the site administrators.

 

As Brian mentioned, "self-appointed vigilantes" have apparently existed almost as long as this site has. It appeared to me that at least a few of those reprehensible acts were the direct result of ill will caused by confrontations in these forums or through cache logs.

 

[This message was edited by BassoonPilot on March 12, 2003 at 05:51 PM.]

Link to comment

I like the idea of Last Finder!

With or without it though, I'd be willing to adopt or pick up an abandoned cache. I've also used the "this cache should be archived" avenue.

I'd prefer to adopt or pick up to avoid trash.

 

Without question, the greatest invention in the history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you the wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does not go nearly as well with pizza. - Dave Barry

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by HartClimbs:

How's this for an idea. I like BP's suggestion of having to renew caches (an email verification once a year isn't a big deal for cache owners I'd imagine), but there *is* the issue of the old abandoned tupperware sitting under a rock someplace.

 

How about having a new cache designation: 'NonRenewed' where the next finder would be asked to collect the cache. When he/she logs their find (on the NonRenewed cache) - if they've picked it up, the cache should THEN be archived.

 

I wouldn't mind picking up old abandoned caches if it helped eliminate some of the garbage out there. Cache in - pack out!

 

Otherwise, as others have already noted - it just becomes trash.


 

Seems like a reasonable way to help remove, both physically and from the web site, any abandoned caches. I'm fairly new to this sport and have only place one cache myself. But I intend to maintain that cache for its entire life. Should I lose interest in this sport someday, and not wish to maintain my cache or caches, then I will make sure to both remove them and archive them. But for those less conscious of their actions and abandoning caches this would be a good way to clean them up for the lazy or uncaring former cachers that placed them. SilverRubicon

Link to comment

within 2 miles starting with Solar Sailing in front of the Air and Space Museum in DC. Some of these have got to be lame but some are probably OK. But listing every statue down there is a bit much. I did a few last month and got bored pretty quickly.

 

These changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes;

Nothing remains quite the same.

Through all of the islands and all of the highlands,

If we couldn't laugh we would all go insane

Link to comment

It doesn't quite answer the question, but on July 19, I sat out to find a place for a caching destination for a weekend trip. The criteria were strange: it needed to be someplace that Southwest flies (free ticket) that was far enough away from Nashville to be practical to fly (thus precluding, say, Louisville) and I wasn't trying to throw a dart at the precise epicenter of the optimal geocache density - I was just trying to pick a town to go to. So I started with a list of Southwest destinations and created a table of the number of caches within 100 miles, within 30 miles, and within 5.

 

Albany 882 96 15

Albuquerque 289 163 32

*Amarillo 27 0 0

Austin 539 248 78

Boise 636 337 87

Buffalo 1047 159 14

Burbank 2035 620 44

Chicago Midway 1130 333 6

Cleveland 519 104 12

Columbus 636 133 17

*Corpus Christi 40 0 0

Dallas Love Field 782 447 31

Detroit 702 207 2

El Paso 75 0 0

Harlingen/South Padre Island 0 0 0

Hartford/Springfield 1778 198 10

Houston Hobby 521 302 37

Jacksonville 0 0 0

Kansas City 403 237 13

Los Angeles 2030 665 36

*Lubbock 52 0 0

Manchester 0 0 0

Nashville 729 465 105

New Orleans 236 90 33

Norfolk, VA/Southern Virginia 160 0 0

Oakland 2804 846 46

Orange County 0 0 0

Orlando 855 191 19

Portland 1236 462 82

Raleigh/Durham 381 165 31

Reno 713 132 21

Sacramento 2882 434 74

Salt Lake City 1171 508 54

San Antonio 449 110 20

San Diego 1611 537 70

San Jose 2571 765 106

Seattle/Tacoma 1749 698 46

Spokane 552 222 73

Tampa 664 260 18

West Palm Beach 209 51 2

 

I was suprised that Nashville and San Jose had similar densities within a 5 mile circle. It's far less suprising that Nashville petered out way before SJC did as you got out of the center of the city.

 

Note that my San Jose and Chicago numbers may be skewed: I've been to each once and was looking for findable (to me) caches.

 

Anyway, this table was a pile of work to collect so maybe it'll provide some enlightenment for others to start it...

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by wimseyguy:

within 2 miles starting with Solar Sailing in front of the Air and Space Museum in DC. Some of these have got to be lame but some are probably OK. But listing every statue down there is a bit much. I did a few last month and got bored pretty quickly.


 

I have to disagree.

 

I had two trips to DC last fall and did about 30 of these caches and had a simply wonderful time wandering on foot all throughout the Mall and surrounding area.

 

Even having been through DC many times over the years and being very familiar with the area, I saw probably 15 places I'd never seen before.

 

I'd call all but a couple worth going to if you want to experience DC on foot.

 

I mapped where I was on my home page (see the DC map link on my web site, for details start at the top above the White House, and follow things counterclockwise back to the same place. My recollection is that I walked about 12 miles in 6 hours last October. It was simply great fun on a 70 degree fall day.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

I see someone already mentioned Riverside, ca. The concentrations in Box Springs/Sycamore canyon are enough to keep you busy for some time.

 

However until last week when I started doing virtuals around San Bernardino, there were NO Caches within 5 miles of my home, but 3002 within 100 miles.

 

A lot of my area has great places to drop a cache, but the SAFETY here sucks you would walk around about 2 seconds before someone snatched your GPS and took off.

 

One "promising spot" would have been the "Wig Wam Motel #6" on Route 66. BUT as the sign advertises "Do it in a Tee Pee" and is directly across from a XXX bookstore and NEXT DOOR to a Behavioral Health Clinic, I thought "no"

 

They call this neighborhood "The Shooting Gallery".

 

geocan.jpg

 

Trash-out, EVERYtime

 

~~

 

Geo-cach-er, n. generally a highy technically competent person with lots of free time. (see also- "Unemployed", Computer administrator, aircraft technician- defense worker- dot-com executive- systems administrator, et.al

 

[This message was edited by GeoCan on August 09, 2003 at 10:05 PM.]

Link to comment

39159 - 128 caches

25 caches within 49.2 miles ;p

 

I loved the bit about people concentrating within 30 miles. The nearest cache to me is about 53 miles as the crow flies. The drive is farther than that. My location shows a whole different situation. Aside from those in Alaska - I wonder which zipcode has the least caches within a 100 mile radius.

 

I like the idea of log-type for abandonded/temporarily inactive caches that leads to a 'last finder'. There are several here amongst the jillions of caches that need removing.

 

southdeltan

 

"Man can counterfeit everything except silence". - William Faulkner

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by southdeltan:

Aside from those in Alaska - I wonder which zipcode has the least caches within a 100 mile radius.


 

I messed around for a little while and came up with 59219 (Dagman, MT) and 59211 (Antelope, MT), which have a total of 2 caches within 100 miles. (One of which is still waiting for a first-to-find!!) Eastern Montana is pretty much devoid of caches - I wonder if there's some spot out there that's not within 100mi of any of them.

Link to comment

I get 1833 within 100 miles for the Finger Lakes area, but only 80 within 20 miles. That is funny because I just posted two caches that are not within 3 miles of another cache in any direction.

 

Actually, the 100 mile number is only high because it encompasses Syracuse, Rochester and the outskirst of Buffalo.

Link to comment

In searching Tucson, Az. (zip 85701), I found 1176 in 100 miles,295 in 25 miles. Further investigation found very few micros, multis, virtuals, and archived caches. The vast majority were regular caches of 3 or less difficulty and almost all have been recently logged. Looks like a nice place to go, except for the middle of summer perhaps, for a personal one-day record, if anyone was so inclined.

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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...