+TheWilkens Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted 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? http://www.zaphs.com/geo/geodensity.htm Quote Link to comment
+soreyes Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted 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, Quote Link to comment
Grimstone Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted November 7, 2004 (edited) 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. Edited November 7, 2004 by grimstuff Quote Link to comment
+TheWilkens Posted November 7, 2004 Author Share Posted November 7, 2004 Fixed it for Firefox Quote Link to comment
+kbraband Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment
+welch Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted 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. 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. Quote Link to comment
+programmer64 Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment
+geojeeper74 Posted November 7, 2004 Share Posted 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 The stats are a little out of date as he has not been getting new data since Aug 22. Quote Link to comment
+TheWilkens Posted November 7, 2004 Author Share Posted 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 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 Quote Link to comment
+geoSquid Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 (edited) 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 Edited November 8, 2004 by geoSquid Quote Link to comment
+Mopar Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted November 8, 2004 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment
+welch Posted November 8, 2004 Share Posted 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. Quote Link to comment
+Chillibusher Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted 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. Interesting how the two coast lines (NB, BC) are popular caching areas. Quote Link to comment
+Old Bet Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment
+DuncanClan Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 Now that's funny!!! Quote Link to comment
+fly46 Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 It's still an interesting chart. *Is about to leave state #11 for state #17* Quote Link to comment
+avroair Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment
+SixDogTeam Posted November 9, 2004 Share Posted November 9, 2004 It's REALLY dense around my house. Unfortunately I can't claim finds on any of them... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.