Cache Density Statistics...

November 7, 2004

Hey everyone,

I'm not sure if this sort of thing is listed anywhere, but I made up this little chart about cache density in each state.

Is this sort of thing interesting to anyone else but me? :unsure:

http://www.zaphs.com/geo/geodensity.htm

November 7, 2004

Very cool, although I had to open the dreaded IE to view it. Firefox did not understand the formatting and it was askew.

It must be hard to get around california without trippin on an ammo box,

November 7, 2004

Very cool, although I had to open the dreaded IE to view it. Firefox did not understand the formatting and it was askew.

It must be hard to get around california without trippin on an ammo box,

Eh, they are kind of sporadic out here. For instance, there are about 20 in the Fort Bragg area over on the Mendocino coast in Northern California, but where I am about an hour inland, there are hardly any, although its a bigger city.

Hopefully I will fix that. :unsure:

Edited November 7, 2004 by grimstuff

November 7, 2004

Fixed it for Firefox

November 7, 2004

I'm not sure where you got your stats, but I see some irregularities. For example, I don't think Iowa has close to the number of caches that your list claims.

6.5k · November 7, 2004

I'm not sure where you got your stats, but I see some irregularities. For example, I don't think Iowa has close to the number of caches that your list claims.

:unsure: Wow! Who needs needs to go to Chicago for caches??

Iowa's got about 860+- not 2541, thats almost three times too high. It also drops density to .015 or ~38th densitiest.

Interesting page though, thanks for sharing Wilkens.

November 7, 2004

Very cool, although I had to open the dreaded IE to view it. Firefox did not understand the formatting and it was askew.

It must be hard to get around california without trippin on an ammo box,

I have mozilla and it displays fine

November 7, 2004

Here is a link to Buxley's stats. The stats are a little out of date as he has not been getting new data since Aug 22.

November 7, 2004

Here is a link to Buxley's stats. The stats are a little out of date as he has not been getting new data since Aug 22.

I had Iowa and Illinois mixed up :unsure:

I never knew about buxleys stats, I guess I wasted my time....it won't be the first time....won't be the last time

November 8, 2004

Interesting. I ran these stats for Canada:

Province             Area (sq mi)       caches         density
New Brunswick         28479             1129           0.0396
PEI                   2210              35             0.0158
Nova Scotia           21595             337            0.0156
Ontario               420466            2429           0.00577
British Columbia      369037            1919           0.00520
Alberta               258354            811            0.00313
Newfoundland          158285            300            0.00189
Saskatchewan          254310            113            0.000444
Manitoba              253045            111            0.000439
Yukon                 188454            23             0.000122
Quebec                602365            449            0.0000745
NWT                   525822            15             0.0000285
Nunavut               817886            5              0.00000611

I found it fascinating how much of Canada still remains to have caches hidden :anibad:

Edited November 8, 2004 by geoSquid

6.4k · November 8, 2004

Here is a link to Buxley's stats. The stats are a little out of date as he has not been getting new data since Aug 22.

I had Iowa and Illinois mixed up

I never knew about buxleys stats, I guess I wasted my time....it won't be the first time....won't be the last time

Actually, Buxley's density stats were inaccurate even before Aug 22.

Buxley doesn't remove archived caches from his database unless someone specifically emails him and requests it. Hence, even though he hasn't updated in over 2 months, he still shows more caches then in fact exist. For example, GC.com shows 1301 caches in NJ, yet Buxley's 2 month old data shows 1514 caches. Now, navicache listings are also included in Buxley's stats, but since navicache only lists a handful of caches in NJ, and all but one or 2 are listed on GC.com anyway, that's a non-issue. Buxley is including hundreds of archived caches just in the NJ density stats. Archived caches have no bearing on current cache density.

Edited November 8, 2004 by Mopar

6.5k · November 8, 2004

Actually, Buxley's density stats were inaccurate even before Aug 22.
Buxley doesn't remove archived caches from his database unless someone specifically emails him and requests it. Hence, even though he hasn't updated in over 2 months, he still shows more caches then in fact exist. For example, GC.com shows 1301 caches in NJ, yet Buxley's 2 month old data shows 1514 caches. Now, navicache listings are also included in Buxley's stats, but since navicache only lists a handful of caches in NJ, and all but one or 2 are listed on GC.com anyway, that's a non-issue. Buxley is including hundreds of archived caches just in the NJ density stats. Archived caches have no bearing on current cache density.

Actually, I think thats only true for the gc.com dots (which of course are most of them).

Also, you would need to check with him, but I think the totals are from the number of placed dots. So if a cache would listed on more than one of the polled sites, it would get counted as many times and its plotted.

November 9, 2004

Interesting. I ran these stats for Canada:

CODE

Province Area (sq mi) caches density

New Brunswick 28479 1129 0.0396

PEI 2210 35 0.0158

Nova Scotia 21595 337 0.0156

Ontario 420466 2429 0.00577

British Columbia 369037 1919 0.00520

Alberta 258354 811 0.00313

Newfoundland 158285 300 0.00189

Saskatchewan 254310 113 0.000444

Manitoba 253045 111 0.000439

Yukon 188454 23 0.000122

Quebec 602365 449 0.0000745

NWT 525822 15 0.0000285

Nunavut 817886 5 0.00000611

I found it fascinating how much of Canada still remains to have caches hidden

Our population is about 1/10 of the U.S. with more land area and unused wilderness. We are working on expanding it one cache at a time. :lol: Interesting how the two coast lines (NB, BC) are popular caching areas.

November 9, 2004

It is interesting, but there are wide variations in density within each state.

Right now, we are trying to find all of the caches within 10 miles of our home coordinates in downstate New York: there are 41 active caches as of this morning. (We've found 9 of them.)

On the other hand, there are but 3 caches within 10 miles of my mother-in-law's home in upstate New York, and only 17 within 25 miles of her home. (Seems to me a valid reason not to visit.)

Edited November 9, 2004 by The Old Bet Brigade

November 9, 2004

Now that's funny!!!

2.5k · November 9, 2004

It's still an interesting chart.

*Is about to leave state #11 for state #17*

8.1k · November 9, 2004

Cool stats... just an aside note that the top 8 states all went for Kerry!

(this is not a political comment, just an observation)

So New Jersey is #2 huh? It seems to be getting denser by the day! Are there stats on the number of archived caches in a month verses new ones listed?

Edited November 9, 2004 by avroair

2.3k · November 9, 2004

It's REALLY dense around my house. Unfortunately I can't claim finds on any of them...

Cache Density Statistics...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation