Cache Saturated Locations

[+splicingdan]

Here a a few locations that I believe are saturated with caches:

 

Central Park - 14 active

 

Cheesequake Park - 14 active

 

Queens County (eastern) - approx. 35 active

 

Then there's the absurdity of Harriman SP - too difficult to count from the map

[+Team Bam Bam]

Then there's the absurdity of Harriman SP - too difficult to count from the map

Sections of Harriman are certainly saturated but Harriman is huge and there are plenty of areas with very few caches. You have to work to get to most of these areas but they're there. Cache saturation is more than just a number. There are parks that would be saturated if they contained 2 caches.

[+Squealy]

Here a a few locations that I believe are saturated with caches:

 

Central Park - 14 active

 

Cheesequake Park - 14 active

 

Queens County (eastern) - approx. 35 active

 

Then there's the absurdity of Harriman SP - too difficult to count from the map

What's your problem exactly?

[+jonboy]

Ithink when you talk about saturation, you have to think of cache density , or caches per acre.

 

Central Park 843 acres - 14 caches = 60.2 acres per cache

 

Cheesequake State Park - 1,284 acres - 14 caches = 91.7 acres per cache

 

Harriman State Park - 52,000 acres - about 110 caches = 472 acres per cache

 

I can think of more than one postage stamp size park that doesn't have any where near this ratio of acres per cache.

[marty621]

Since I have moved away from the area, which would make cache maintenance tough, I may archive some of my simpler caches in Cheesequake Park.

[+Team DEMP]

Great way of looking at it Jonboy! Personally, though I guess if I was there, I'd go after the Central Park caches, but the hikes (7-15 mi loops at a clip) around Harriman have been tremendous and ones I remember most.

[+Squealy]

Not yet, Marty - Cheesequake is on my to do list!

 

Jonboy's "formula" is right on the money - I bet if you used it to measure cache density in say. oh, I don't know, downtown Manhattan, it would prove to be much more dense than Harriman.

[+briansnat]

I hear Harriman is getting to the saturation point and I believe it is an issue with NY Admin and the park authorities.

 

But what is saturation? If you can find an interesting or unique area then why not place a cache there? Today I was hiking and found two really cool spots. Both were in a state forest that has a good number of caches. I have a box ready to go for one and the other is now on my list of great places for a cache.

 

Could a person look at a map and say the area is saturated? Yeah, by looking at a map, but the hiker or geocacher will be thrilled to find another neat place.

[+Squealy]

In the grand scheme of things, if it is not about numbers, saturation shouldn't matter, because you are going after the type of caches that you like.

 

It is not like Harriman or the CPK caches are these crummy micros under a mailbox every other block.

 

If someone finds a spot to be cool, they should be able to share it - and if a cache is there, even better.

[avroair]

Then there's the absurdity of Harriman SP - too difficult to count from the map

 

Harriman caches done by SplicingDan = none?

 

Are you kidding me, look at the topo on most of those caches, they may be .25 miles from eachother, but they are up two different mountains, each with beautiful overlooks, one facing south the other facing east....

 

I can hike 10 miles in Harriman grab 7 caches and not have to step back into my car between caches...

 

I donot believe ALL of Harriman is saturated. But there other areas I would agree with you... some guy placed 6 caches in Nutley! The nerve of him!!!

[+Squealy]

.. some guy placed 6 caches in Nutley! The nerve of him!!!

Yeah, and we ALL know THAT guy is a jerk!!!

Edited November 11, 2004 by Squealy

[avroair]

Yeah, and we ALL know THAT guy is a jerk!!!

 

Haven't found them yet Squealy have you!!!!

[+splicingdan]

What's your problem exactly?

 

Not necessarily a problem, just an observation.

 

I think that lameness is a product of density.

My post is really directed towards new cachers who have placed pointless caches.

 

For example.

I'll also add Roosevelt Park (Menlo Park, NJ) to that list.

King Pellinore's "Two Springs" makes excellent use of an otherwise generic park.

Then there's 4 other caches that make me wonder why.

 

Jonboy's formula is good, but it doesn't take into consideration the actual area that is available for a cache placement.

I'd guess that 60%+ of Central Park is either roadway, water, ballfield/grass, or paved path. What's left for caches?

 

My Cheesquake reference is certainly not a knock on Marty's caches. He used the park's land features for some great caches. Later hiders should have used them as examples.

 

 

I bet if you used it to measure cache density in say. oh, I don't know, downtown Manhattan, it would prove to be much more dense than Harriman.

 

Hehe.

Well, downtown, generally considered below Houston St., has 8 caches (1 is a virtual that has no correct answer). 6 of the other 7 are part of my puzzle series, all placed in cache desolate areas.

 

 

Harriman State Park - 52,000 acres - about 110 caches = 472 acres per cache

 

I'd say that's saturation.

Believe me, I love Harriman and have done some caching there. But 110.......

[+splicingdan]

Harriman caches done by SplicingDan = none?

 

4 out of 5 (meaning one DNF).

 

Out of those, I'd say 3 were pointless.

 

BTW, I have covered 200+ miles during races in Harriman Park alone.

 

Does every peak or viewpoint really need a cache?

[+briansnat]

Does every peak or viewpoint really need a cache?

 

That's debatable, but consider ourselves blessed that we're in a region where we're discussing the plethora of caches in places like Harriman. We are talking about caches at every viewpoint and peak, while in other parts of the country they're complaining about caches at every Walmart parking lot.

 

I'll take our "problem".

Edited November 11, 2004 by briansnat

[+Team Bam Bam]

In the grand scheme of things, if it is not about numbers, saturation shouldn't matter, because you are going after the type of caches that you like.

Saturation does matter. It matters to Admins and to those who would care to take issue with our sport. They do not look at the specific location or vista, only at the all-mighty cache-map.

 

In all fairness, I argued the exact opposite point while trying to get One Particular Harbour approved but the fact is, if looking to carry Geocaching well into the future, we need to look at area saturation as an issue that outsiders might look at with ignorance to cache quality.

[+jonboy]

I think that part of the problem with cache saturation is that very few people ever voluntarily archive a cache. If we want to have the pleasure of putting out new caches, then we are going to have to consider archiving those caches that have outlived their usefulness or been abandoned by the person who placed them. I myself have only archived one cache voluntarily, but after a couple of years, I am looking at some of my inactive caches and wondering. Bassoon Pilot advocated a rather extreme version of this, and practiced it himself, archiving all of his caches.

 

Another issue complicating matters is that placement guidelines have been tightened up, so that caches on the AT are now usually turned down. This offers a compelling reason for people to take advantage of the fact that older non-conforming caches are grand fathered in, particularily in areas where there is few large tracts of land other than the AT. The cache I voluntarily archived (Jumping Jack Flash) was on the AT(therefore non-complying with current guidelines), had never been visited by me for maintenance in it's two years of existence and received very few logged visits. I am thinking about archiving a couple more of my caches for similar reasons. I am not saying merely click "Archive" on the cache sheet, but go out there and remove them. If a cache owner has abandoned a cache, it is litter and should be removed, not adopted. This gives new cachers a chance to place caches as well.

[+Squealy]

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, Jonboy, but I do not think archiving a cache that is inactive for a while, thus opening the area to a new cache makes much sense.

 

To me, THAT would make it about the numbers. Hide a cache, wait for most of the local active cachers to find it, archive it and let someone else use the spot to hide a cache. I think that would create a cycle that only boosted people's numbers.

 

Saturation SHOULD NOT be an issue because of the restrictions on so many places. In NY, the restrictions on placing in DEC and Federal ladns is astounding. If those were opened up, then I might be able to see a good reason for maybe clamping down on the 528ft rule (does anyone really hide them within 528ft of one another?).

 

I think Harriman is a unique circumstance. You can't go to Harriman and bang out 20-30 in a day. If you're lucky and in good shape, you may get close to 20 but you will be recuperating for a few days. You have to work for almost every cache in Harriman - and usually you find yourself at some awesome spot - and that's what makes the place so great.

 

As for "lameness" of caches, Dan, I think that is purely subjective. I guess some people love finding the park and grabs nabbing 20 in a day - others would prefer to hike 10 miles to a desolate area and find one cache - that's what is good about this hobby - do what you like.

 

As for YOU, Tony Blair, eventually I will make my way out there - perhaps, I will have to do some maintenance on them for you - I will sign the back of the log book.

[Keystone]

Saturation SHOULD NOT be an issue because of the restrictions on so many places. In NY, the restrictions on placing in DEC and Federal ladns is astounding. If those were opened up, then I might be able to see a good reason for maybe clamping down on the 528ft rule (does anyone really hide them within 528ft of one another?).

Every day. Trust me on that. I saw two yesterday alone in the review queue.

 

Y'all just see the ones that *do* comply with the proximity/saturation guidelines, or for which a justifiable exception has been made, such as top vs. bottom of a cliff, east vs. west bank of a river.

 

As I've mentioned in other threads, we are starting to see land managers who are imposing their own more stringent cache saturation controls. Examples include the Columbus Ohio MetroParks (one cache per park, though the parks are huge), and Centre County (State College, PA) parks (two caches per park). And I also had a chance to learn the views of Warner Parks in Nashville. Seeing the cache map with micros at every Wal-Mart, the Nashville area park manager strictly controls all new cache placements, allowing only a limited number of high quality hides.

 

All that being said, if a guidelines-compliant cache is placed 600 feet from an existing cache, I am obligated to list it and I will happily do so.

[+jonboy]

Some of my best caches are seldom visited, because getting to them involves hard work. But all of us with more than a few placements probably have caches that are not really quality caches. It could be too hard for us to restock, too many finds by muggles, poor GPS reception, whatever. The point is that the caches you have out reflect on you, if they cause problems, or have been allowed to degrade, consider removing them. The sky will not fall if you weed out some of your lesser caches.

[+Team Bam Bam]

The sky will not fall if you weed out some of your lesser caches.

Yeah, if we wanted 'lesser caches' we would go to Nutley, NJ.

[+JMBella]

Out of those, I'd say 3 were pointless.

 

Define pointless. I might be missing something but in your examples I don't see any problem. If land managers are seeing damage caused by cache saturation than you have a point but I don't think that's the case.

 

BTW, Out of 100 caches I have archived 20 of them for one reason or another. Some were simply because I felt it had "lived it's life" or reconsidered whether it was a worthy hide

[+macatac1961]

Harriman State Park - 52,000 acres - about 110 caches = 472 acres per cache

 

472 Acres equals 0.7375 Square miles

 

Saturation? I don't know, that seems like a lot of land per cache.

[avroair]

If a cache owner has abandoned a cache, it is litter and should be removed, not adopted

 

I hit this problem when appealing to cachers to replace some of Artful Dodger's caches. I now see this was probably a good course of action since he cannot maintain them himself. If they get archived then no one would go out to remove them.

 

Who is there to remove caches that are archived?

 

 

Back to the orginal topic, I agree with SplicingDan that there are alot of areas that would seem to me to have too many caches. But I also agree with BrianSnat that the caches in this area are generally in my view better than other areas I have cached.

 

Now I would definately agree we have a saturation of events in this area!

Edited November 12, 2004 by avroair

[+splicingdan]

Define pointless

 

POINTLESS:

 

No reason whatsoever for a cache to be placed there. No view, no scenery, no creativity, uninteresting route, carelessly hidden.

In other words, LAME.

[avroair]

DPM

 

Des Palourdes Morte = Lame cache

 

Just another term for lame.

Edited November 13, 2004 by avroair

[+briansnat]

Define pointless

 

POINTLESS:

 

No reason whatsoever for a cache to be placed there. No view, no scenery, no creativity, uninteresting route, carelessly hidden.

In other words, LAME.

Oh, You mean a Hartclimbs cache.

[+splicingdan]

DMF

 

Spell it out Mark.

What are you trying to say?

[+Squealy]

DMF

OO OO OOOOOOO - Can we guess?

 

I am going with...

 

Dumb Muther F.....

[+brian b]

This is something that I, too, have been struggling with. While I don't condone calling any cache placement "lame" or "pointless" (obviously the placer had some reason for deciding to use that location -- whether it be the hike was over, the location holds meaning, or it is just where the cache landed when it was dropped), I do find that certain cachers think through their placement and have a definitive reason for its placement -- usually something any seeker will notice upon arrival at that point: sometimes it is just a serene enviornment, sometimes it is a fine view, sometimes, an awsome waterfall. Who knows.

 

Like I said, I have questioned this as well, especially around Harriman. I wonder about the concept of cache=trash. Sometimes, I feel like I have simply found a peice of trash in the woods, with some coords attatched to it. Othertimes, I feel like I've found something well worth an effort.

 

I have also wondered just how long one ought to leave a cache -- not necessarily to open the way for other nearby caches, but also to reduce the enviornmental impact that a cache naturally produces in an area.

 

That being said, I have contemplated removing my Shelters Series, since these areas are already abused by users.

[+briansnat]

That being said, I have contemplated removing my Shelters Series, since these areas are already abused by users.

 

That doesn't make sense. Being that the shelters are heavily used, the tiny extra traffic generated by a cache won't make much difference.

 

Most environmentalists will tell you there are two ways to reduce impact overall. Either concentrate it (e.g. shelters, designated campsites, trails) or spread it out over a wide area so it has time to recover.

[+HartClimbs]

Define pointless

 

POINTLESS:

 

No reason whatsoever for a cache to be placed there. No view, no scenery, no creativity, uninteresting route, carelessly hidden.

In other words, LAME.

Oh, You mean a Hartclimbs cache.

What, no "smiley face"?

 

That's it - I'm going to archive all my caches and stop logging my finds online!

 

p.s. To any new cachers reading these forums for the first time after seeing the article in Parade magazine - so you don't get the wrong idea ....BrianSnat and I are friends.....or *were* friends.......or... well, he owes me money and is selling my caches for cash. He's also dating NJAdmin and wears a prom dress and high heels while out caching in the woods.

 

Oh, and cache saturation - who knows? I only know that after a few hundred finds, it feels like I've seen so many similar caches - I now enjoy the walk much more than finding the actual cache. I don't know if it's a function of too many caches being placed, or too many being found - but it's a fun game and not worth getting angry about. As we've seen - land managers clearly have concerns over saturation. I'm more concerned with disposition of old caches than the density of well-maintained caches being placed.

 

There's nice folks involved in the game (except for Snat of course) - enjoy what's good and have fun!

[+briansnat]

He's also dating NJAdmin and wears a prom dress and high heels while out caching in the woods.

 

I do not wear high heels in the woods. Its too dangerous, they keep catching on rocks.

Edited November 13, 2004 by briansnat

[Three Simple Words]

??? With the amount of cache saturation in Harriman, If two people decided to cache for 24hrs, how many of the caches do you think they would find???

[+JMBella]

??? With the amount of cache saturation in Harriman, If two people decided to cache for 24hrs, how many of the caches do you think they would find???

I actually have thought about that but I'm not nearly familiar enough with Harriman to give you an accurate answer.

 

As far as caches being placed for a limited amount of time, I don't think it can be one broad rule for all caches. The life line of each cache should be considered respectively. Some caches can last years without any noticeable damage to the surrounding area, while others may produce a social trail after a couple of months. The cache owner needs to be responsible enough to make the judgment.

Edited November 13, 2004 by JMBella

[+macatac1961]

??? With the amount of cache saturation in Harriman, If two people decided to cache for 24hrs, how many of the caches do you think they would find???

Have you tried Harriman yet? Much more than 10 - 12 hours and it's gonna hurt.

[+Team Bam Bam]

Have you tried Harriman yet? Much more than 10 - 12 hours and it's gonna hurt.

Agreed. (this was only posted to further my quest to surpass Briansnat's 'post total')

[+JMBella]

Have you tried Harriman yet?  Much more than 10 - 12 hours and it's gonna hurt.

Agreed. (this was only posted to further my quest to surpass Briansnat's 'post total')

I think you're gaining on him.

[+Squealy]

I have to agree with Hart on this one. Most cachers are nice, except for that Snat guy.

 

As for Brian b (also known as NYAdmin, BrianSnats' other date when NJAdmin is out of town), I seriously doubt the Shelter Series of caches is doing any damage in comparison to the beer swilling teens who visit those shelters during nice weather (for those of you who haven't had the opportunity - those in the series I have done have been very cool caches).

 

Whenever I think about the impact caching has on an area, I think about one time JMBella and I were in Staten Island - there was a slight bushwack through some ferns - they were waist high and thick - and someone was there three days before us, and you would have never known, unless you saw the log.

 

I don't want to turn this into one of the many "Impact of Geocaching" threads, but you know what, a cache has very little impact on an area after its first three months, if it has any impact at all.

[avroair]

I don't know if it's a function of too many caches being placed, or too many being found

 

Probably a little of both. With more caches placed people tend to go after more.

 

Any suggestions?

 

The game is played by all types. So therefore all types of caches will get placed.

Edited November 13, 2004 by avroair

[+splicingdan]

Whenever I think about the impact caching has on an area, I think about one time JMBella and I were in Staten Island - there was a slight bushwack through some ferns - they were waist high and thick - and someone was there three days before us, and you would have never known, unless you saw the log.

 

Ha Ha!

The easy/easier route is a trail on the east side of the park. It's super steep with fixed ropes for aid and a rotting ladder at the bottom.

I can't believe you guys bushwhacked down that hill.

[+brian b]

I seriously doubt the Shelter Series of caches is doing any damage in comparison to the beer swilling teens who visit those shelters during nice weather

 

Yes, you are right (however, many of the beer swillers are probably NOT teens, although I have no proof of that, and even so, better for them to be swilling in the woods and not driving . . . .), these irresponsible people are responsible for more damage than the average cacher, and yes,

 

BrianSnat is also correct in the placement of camping areas to minimize the impact elsewhere.

 

That being said, I still question whether I want to be part of the general over-population of caches in what I consider an already over-populated area.

 

I just got out of Harriman a few hours ago; trecked up to jonboy's Lost in the Ozone -- a fine cache, a fine hike. I could see the West Mountain shelter from the view. My gps said that my cache was .2 mile away. Yet, the hike to get there is going to be more than .2 mile -- even a straight line bushwacked (not recommended). As much as this seems to contradict my original statement, the point is that two fine (assuming the shelter cache and jonboy's cache can be called fine) cache exist, but they are relatively close (emphasis on the word relative).

 

The bottom line is -- How long does a cache maintain its usefulness?

[+briansnat]

How long does a cache maintain its usefulness?

 

In my mind as long as the owner is willing to maintain it. He put it there for a reason. Maybe a nice view, great hike or just a peaceful, secluded area. That reason never goes away, so as long as the owner is keeping up the cache, I see no reason to remove it,

[+Squealy]

Ha Ha!

The easy/easier route is a trail on the east side of the park. It's super steep with fixed ropes for aid and a rotting ladder at the bottom.

I can't believe you guys bushwhacked down that hill.

Uh, that's not the cache I was talking about.

 

Even though we DID bushwack down THAT hill. And we did it like men!! Reminded me of my stint in Cambodia...

[+JMBella]

Ha Ha!

The easy/easier route is a trail on the east side of the park. It's super steep with fixed ropes for aid and a rotting ladder at the bottom.

I can't believe you guys bushwhacked down that hill.

Uh, that's not the cache I was talking about.

 

Even though we DID bushwack down THAT hill. And we did it like men!! Reminded me of my stint in Cambodia...

Yes, that was a ridiculous bushwhack. I kept waiting for someone to yell INCOMING!!!! No the cache Neil is talking about is this very cool cache by Crouching Tiger, Hidden Cache called, Ruins of Heyerdahl. At this cache the mosquitos do more damage than geocachers. They're like huey choppers flying around.

[+splicingdan]

Uh, that's not the cache I was talking about. dry.gif

 

Oh sorry.

For some reason I thought that you were being sarcastic.

[+JMBella]

Uh, that's not the cache I was talking about. dry.gif

 

Oh sorry.

For some reason I thought that you were being sarcastic.

Neil? Sarcastic? Noooooooo

[+Crouching Hiker, Hidden Cache]

No the cache Neil is talking about is this very cool cache by Crouching Tiger, Hidden Cache called, Ruins of Heyerdahl.  At this cache the mosquitos do more damage than geocachers.  They're like huey choppers flying around.

 

Crouching Hiker, Hidden Cache. Not Tiger. Man, I thought it was clever at the time, now its just a pain in the a** having to correct folks.

 

Thanks for the kudos though.

 

Regarding the topic, my own method of cache placement has generally been to take larger natural areas and create a single multicache that takes the seeker on a journey through most of the area, or at least to the more interesting parts. Being on SI, I of course have the advantage of very few hiders about and can do this wihout issue. This rather than multiple single caches that offer less apparent purpose by themselves, and may not get the same level of attention to creativity. As Dan noted, there are certain areas where I find these types of caches abound, which seem to be there simply to exist and take up the next allotted square footage of cache space. That can be OK if the cache is hidden in some interesting fashion, but a lot these types are pretty crap-tastic imho. Yes this quite subjective, others will surely find purpose and interest where I will not, and thats great for them.

 

Harriman? Know nothing about it yet, other than that its big and cool.

[+Squealy]

Neil? Sarcastic? Noooooooo

I don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[avroair]

It seems there a bunch of smaller parks around that once had one cache but now have multiple caches: Rifle Camp, Garret Mountain, Mills Reservation, Hilltop are all within 4 miles of me and have many caches.

 

The game continues to evolve. I am currently in California and from what I have seen they have the same issues here. I went to one headlands area and did a nice walk and 5 caches all within 3 miles... one of them was a 2000 cache.

 

So my question is:

Since there seems to be agreement that there is cache saturation around Northern New Jersey how do we remedy that? (and asking Brian to archive all of his isn't an option!!! )

 

Any ideas?