0.1 Mile Distance Between Caches

[+WhipArtist]

I would love to see the .1 mile relaxed in urban areas. There are so many cool potential cache sites in downtown San Francisco, for example, that the .1 mile rule is quite restrictive. In a wooded area, though, it's easy to leave more space between them.

[+bons]

Generic thoughts:

.1 mile = 512 feet or so.

A city block also tends to be about .1 mile. Obviously this isn't extremely accurate, but it seems like a good rough estimate. An eyeball of San Fran on mapquest seems to back that up.

So, in downtown San Francisco, you should be able to place a cache on every other block without too much of a problem.

That seems reasonable to me. I don't think I'd feel good about two caches on te same city block, espcially since in some cities the skyscrapers doing a real number on GPS reception.

Looking at the geocaching.com maps of San Francisco I'm not seeing saturation anywhere near that. In fact the cache closest to 94101 (GC3299) doesn't have another cache within a half mile.

[CoyoteRed]

OTOH, a city like Charleston, SC is saturated with historical significance. You could easily create several differently-themed multis that crisscrossed the city but for the .1 mile rule.

[+Team DaSH]

How about this? When someone suggests a new rule, they become solely responsible to be sure that every new cache placement fits within the new guidlines before the cache is sent to the approvers. That way we could have lots of great new rules without any added burden on TPTB!

[+bigredmed]

...QUESTION – Is it better to have an outside agency regulate caching or to have GC.com do its own police work?

It's better to have the city groups self regulate in cities , state groups in states and national groups self regulate nationally to avoid this.

Depends on how responsive they are and how honest the regulators are about the regulations.

 

We have a city parks department that has given pretty clear guidance about geocaching in the city parks and where they want them and don't want them. Follow the rules, and everybody's happy. We have a state park system that published rules on geocaching in a public magazine they put out and with in a month of the publication were beginning to wiggle out from under them. The thing is that these people have no meaningful supervision and can basically do what they want to you and you have to take it.

 

The first case leads to caches placed in parks that are on the OK list and not in parks that are not. The second case leads to people placing caches without permission because to get permission is impossible.

 

I would rather see GC take a more active role in the sport's structure and operation or GET OUT OF THE WAY of some group that is more willing to do so. We need to ensure the quality of our sport so it can continue to grow and develop.

 

We need people who can assure more local regulations like case 1 and fewer like case 2. We need people who like to help new players develop their skills and are willing to share their experiences so new players advance the game rather than repeat the same things we did. In other words, time for geocaching to become a real sport (with training, rules, etc), not just a geek hobby.

[+JeepCachr]

I would rather see GC take a more active role in the sport's structure and operation or GET OUT OF THE WAY of some group that is more willing to do so. We need to ensure the quality of our sport so it can continue to grow and develop.

How is GCC getting in the way? I see more of these battles as local or regional. The local Michigan geocaching organization here has been negotiating with the state parks to establish a policy that the cachers and the parks can be happy with. I think most people would get upset if gcc came in and made some global concessions to get those guidelines established. So many people seem to forget the gcc is a listing service world wide and their guidelines are worldwide.

 

I think things like Jeep releasing 4000 travel bugs is a huge step in promoting our sport and those types of things are what gc.com should focus on.

[+JMBella]

What if the cache is crosslisted?

You mean like... tranny caches?

 

OH, crossLISTED! never mind!

[bug and snake]

You wanna new rule? OK, you can have one but since you have reached the maximum number of rules allowed, you have to give up one of the others. Which one will you give up?

 

I did a study in university on simplistic, minimalist government. We concluded that to keep it small you needed to have fewer lawyers. The only way to implement that properly was to have fewer and simply stated laws. The final conclusion was a finite number of laws. You want a new one? OK, give up one of the existing ones. The theory was that, eventually, the right set of rules would evolve to fit all situations and to suit all people. It didn't work then either. The point of the study was to show that a lot of thought should go into any changes made and that government, in any form, at any level, needs to be a slow moving but dynamic entity.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

OTOH, a city like Charleston, SC is saturated with historical significance. You could easily create several differently-themed multis that crisscrossed the city but for the .1 mile rule.

Thank god for that .1 mile rule then. I think the next new rule should be no multis

 

I'm kidding, don't like multis but dislike rules more.

You wanna new rule? OK, you can have one but since you have reached the maximum number of rules allowed, you have to give up one of the others. Which one will you give up?

Best comment yet.