Cache Per Capita State Rankings

[+RakeInTheCache]

Caches per 100,000 inhabitants. Another interesting statistic would be caches per unit area. I'll leave that for someone else.

 

National Average : 39.2

• 1. 198.1 Idaho
  
• 2. 151.1 Utah
  
• 3. 126.9 Oregon
  
• 4. 110.2 Wyoming
  
• 5. 94.9 Montana
  
• 6. 85.7 Washington
  
• 7. 79.5 Nevada
  
• 8. 78.9 Alaska
  
• 9. 68.5 Vermont
  
• 10. 62.5 Tennessee
  
• 11. 58.3 Arizona
  
• 12. 58.2 New Mexico
  
• 13. 56.8 Nebraska
  
• 14. 52.8 Maine
  
• 15. 52.7 California
  
• 16. 51.6 Indiana
  
• 17. 48.3 New Hampshire
  
• 18. 47.4 Kansas
  
• 19. 45.9 South Dakota
  
• 20. 44.9 Colorado
  
• 21. 44.1 Wisconsin
  
• 22. 42.3 Minnesota
  
• 23. 39.1 Iowa
  
• 24. 38.1 Arkansas
  
• 25. 38.0 Kentucky
  
• 26. 35.9 Oklahoma
  
• 27. 34.5 Florida
  
• 28. 34.1 North Carolina
  
• 28. 34.1 Texas
  
• 30. 31.6 Alabama
  
• 31. 30.2 Michigan
  
• 32. 30.1 Virginia
  
• 33. 29.6 Mississippi
  
• 34. 29.2 West Virginia
  
• 35. 29.1 Pennsylvania
  
• 36. 27.5 Delaware
  
• 37. 27.3 North Dakota
  
• 38. 26.8 Missouri
  
• 38. 26.8 Hawaii
  
• 40. 26.5 Massachusetts
  
• 41. 25.7 South Carolina
  
• 42. 25.4 Georgia
  
• 43. 24.7 Maryland
  
• 44. 24.3 Connecticut
  
• 45. 23.3 Illinois
  
• 46. 22.9 Ohio
  
• 47. 21.6 Rhode Island
  
• 48. 21.5 New York
  
• 49. 18.6 New Jersey
  
• 50. 15.6 Louisiana
  
• 51. 12.8 DC
  
• 52. 0.6 Puerto Rico
  

When compared to the Europeans we're number 2 right behind Sweden.

Edited May 20, 2005 by RakeInTheCache

[+Team Cotati]

News Flash: Mysterious aircraft seen in skies over California...all Geocaches disappear. Mere coincidence?

Edited May 19, 2005 by Team cotati697

[+JMBella]

# 45. 21.5 New York

 

Holy Crap! I've got some work to do I guess!

Edited May 19, 2005 by JMBella

[+Simulatmore]

Glad I found a couple while I was in San Diego a couple of weeks ago

[+ODragon]

# 45. 21.5 New York

 

Holy Crap! I've got some work to do I guess!

It makes sense. NY as a state had an insane amount of people but most of them are in a relatively small area. There are miles and miles of empty caching land in upstate New York.

[+Team Perks]

News Flash: Mysterious aircraft seen in skies over California...all Geocaches disappear. Mere coincidence?

Oops! I guess I archived a few too many of my caches.

 

By my math, if California were assumed to be part of the United States, we'd be #14 with 53.28 caches per 100,000 people (based on 2003 population estimate).

Edited May 19, 2005 by Team Perks

[+tozainamboku]

After missing Finland in one list and California and some other states here, I discount RakeIntTheCache statistics altogether. Carelessness in reporting statistics tends to make me think that there are probably other errors in the way these were collected.

[+briansnat]

# 43. 22.9 Ohio

# 44. 21.6 Rhode Island

# 45. 21.5 New York

# 46. 18.6 New Jersey

# 47. 15.6 Louisiana

# 48. 12.8 DC

 

 

I'd better get crackin'. NJ is however #1 in caches per square mile (not including DC).

[+Team Perks]

After missing Finland in one list and California and some other states here, I discount RakeIntTheCache statistics altogether. Carelessness in reporting statistics tends to make me think that there are probably other errors in the way these were collected.

Hey, it's not about the numbers anyway!

[+KoosKoos]

After missing Finland in one list and California and some other states here, I discount RakeIntTheCache statistics altogether. Carelessness in reporting statistics tends to make me think that there are probably other errors in the way these were collected.

78.34% of all statistics are either incorrect or from suspect sources, so I only believe 18.29% of them.

[+welch]

After missing Finland in one list and California and some other states here, I discount RakeIntTheCache statistics altogether. Carelessness in reporting statistics tends to make me think that there are probably other errors in the way these were collected.

78.34% of all statistics are either incorrect or from suspect sources, so I only believe 18.29% of them.

108.2% of all people know this be true

[+Bellageo Cache Game]

Caches per 100,000 inhabitants.

How 'bout total caches per state? (I'm just tryin' to get Oregon to the top of the list. Grin.)

[+BadAndy]

*chanting*

 

We're Number 1....We're number 1!!!!!!

 

And by a large margin to boot.

[+RakeInTheCache]

News Flash: Mysterious aircraft seen in skies over California...all Geocaches disappear. Mere coincidence?

Oops. The PDA didn't sort the list correctly so I had to do it manually. Must have(accidentally) left out California, or maybe it was my sub-conscious evil twin. It's corrected now. Hey is there any connection between California and Finland?

Edited May 19, 2005 by RakeInTheCache

[+rusty_tlc]

Discrepant numbers aside, what meaning do these statistics have? How can they be usefully applied?

 

Statistics for statistics sake?

[+RakeInTheCache]

Discrepant numbers aside, what meaning do these statistics have? How can they be usefully applied?

 

Statistics for statistics sake? 

They could be used to indicate the relative popularity of the sport in each state (with some extenuating factors thrown in). For example none of the Southern States reach the national average. The West as a whole is above average. Of the New England States, Vermont ranks highest. That kind of stuff.

 

I was to surprised to see that my home state of Michigan was below the average.

Edited May 19, 2005 by RakeInTheCache

[+sbell111]

Per capita numbers merely give you your odds of running into another cacher in the field. How about numbers based on area? Which states are the most dense? (Wow, that's an easy joke, isn't it?)

[+sbell111]

... For example none of the Southern States reach the national average. ...

Tennessee is in the south. My wishing hasn't yet moved it northward.

[+RakeInTheCache]

After missing Finland in one list and California and some other states here, I discount RakeIntTheCache statistics altogether. Carelessness in reporting statistics tends to make me think that there are probably other errors in the way these were collected.

You can check them yourself. It's not difficult. Census bureau for pop. and Geocaching for the cache count. If you find an error let me know. (I'm sure you will)

[+RakeInTheCache]

... For example none of the Southern States reach the national average. ...

Tennessee is in the south. My wishing hasn't yet moved it northward.

I feel a fever coming on again ...

[twjolson & Kay]

Where did you get this, and do they have world stats?

[+BadAndy]

When compared to the Europeans we're number 2 right behind Sweden.

I think the european union should be counted as a whole, with their member states counted as you counted the individual US states.

[+RakeInTheCache]

Where did you get this, and do they have world stats?

 

I made them myself. Here's the recipe. 1 part population statistic from you friendly census website, 1 part Geocaching search on country/state. Do the math and voila.

Edited May 19, 2005 by RakeInTheCache

[Trinity's Crew]

If I want to move Maryland up in the standings I'm gonna have to start hiding caches or killing people...

[+diverhank]

So RITC, what happened to California? Also, I think it's more useful to have statistics on cache density (caches per area). Can you come up with those too? []. thanks.

[+RakeInTheCache]

If I want to move Maryland up in the standings I'm gonna have to start hiding caches or killing people...

Just as long as you don't use a gun.

[+Joypa]

I think the formula is #of interesting sites in state/#of fat, lazy people.

[+wimseyguy]

Per capita numbers merely give you your odds of running into another cacher in the field.  How about numbers based on area?  Which states are the most dense?  (Wow, that's an easy joke, isn't it?) 

it's so easy because we covered it 10 days ago.

[+Cardinal Red]

RakeInTheCache Posted on May 19 2005, 01:08 PM

If you find an error let me know.

 

28. 34.1 North Carolina

28. 34.1 Texas

29. 31.6 Alabama

 

That would make Alabama # 30. Right?

 

 

37. 26.8 Missouri

37. 26.8 Hawaii

38. 26.5 Massachusetts

 

And don't forget this one.

[+rusty_tlc]

It might be interesting to do the same set based on pop/area and compare the list.

[+Harry Dolphin]

# 43. 22.9 Ohio

# 44. 21.6 Rhode Island

# 45. 21.5 New York

# 46. 18.6 New Jersey

# 47. 15.6 Louisiana

# 48. 12.8 DC

 

 

I'd better get crackin'. NJ is however #1 in caches per square mile (not including DC).

No! NO!! No more boulder field caches!! Let TPTB declare a moratorium on them!

I shall, however, make up the difference with Evil Mystery caches!

[+Renegade Knight]

Discrepant numbers aside, what meaning do these statistics have? How can they be usefully applied?

 

Statistics for statistics sake? 

They could be used to indicate the relative popularity of the sport in each state (with some extenuating factors thrown in). For example none of the Southern States reach the national average. The West as a whole is above average. Of the New England States, Vermont ranks highest. That kind of stuff.

 

I was to surprised to see that my home state of Michigan was below the average.

Good points.

 

Also interesting to note is that Idaho being #1 per capita seems to have virtually no regulation of caching . Where I've talked to people they are thrilled to have people use their trials, or parks. When I've asked about permits they laugh because it would require rules and regulations and people to enforce them for an activity they consider harmless.

 

This sentament is not universal, but I have not talked to anyone who felt otherwise. Merley heard of them 2nd hand.

[+RockyRaab]

Hey KoosKoos, it's also true that 91.4% of all statistics are made up on the sopt.

 

Based on that list, those of us in the Utah/Idaho/Wyoming area (as I am proud to be) are fortunate in our caching opportunities.

[+rusty_tlc]

Discrepant numbers aside, what meaning do these statistics have? How can they be usefully applied?

 

Statistics for statistics sake? 

They could be used to indicate the relative popularity of the sport in each state (with some extenuating factors thrown in). For example none of the Southern States reach the national average. The West as a whole is above average. Of the New England States, Vermont ranks highest. That kind of stuff.

 

I was to surprised to see that my home state of Michigan was below the average.

Good points.

 

Also interesting to note is that Idaho being #1 per capita seems to have virtually no regulation of caching . Where I've talked to people they are thrilled to have people use their trials, or parks. When I've asked about permits they laugh because it would require rules and regulations and people to enforce them for an activity they consider harmless.

 

This sentament is not universal, but I have not talked to anyone who felt otherwise. Merley heard of them 2nd hand.

Pretty much the response I got from the Nevada(#7) State Parks Director.

[lucyandrickie]

Oops!!!

Edited May 20, 2005 by lucyandrickie

[lucyandrickie]

Someone asked for caches by area. Below is a ranking of the states by caches per 100 sq mi.

 

1. District of Columbia 94.1

2. New Jersey 18.8

3. Massachusetts 16.1

4. Connetticut 15.4

5. Rhode Island 15.4

6. California 11.6

7. Maryland 11.2

8. Florida 9.1

9. Delaware 8.9

10. Indiana 8.8

11. Tennessee 8.7

12. Pennsylvania 7.9

13. New York 7.6

14. Washington 7.4

15. New Hampshire 6.7

16. Ohio 5.9

17. North Carolina 5.4

18. Virginia 5.3

19. Illinois 5.1

20. Oregon 4.6

21. Vermont 4.3

22. Utah 4.3

23. Kentucky 3.9

24. Georgia 3.8

25. Wisconsin 3.7

26. South Carolina 3.4

27. Idaho 3.3

28. Hawaii 3.2

29. Michigan 3.2

30. Arizona 2.9

31. Texas 2.9

32. Alabama 2.7

33. Minnesota 2.5

34. Missouri 2.2

35. West Virginia 2.2

36. Iowa 2.0

37. Colorado 2.0

38. Maine 1.9

39. Arkansas 1.9

40. Oklahoma 1.8

41. Mississippi 1.8

42. Nevada 1.7

43. Kansas 1.6

44. Louisiana 1.4

45. Nebraska 1.2

46. New Mexico 0.9

47. Montana 0.6

48. Wyoming 0.6

49. South Dakota 0.5

50. North Dakota 0.2

51. Alaska 0.1

 

I've been keeping these statistics for a while and it is a constantly changing list.

Edited May 20, 2005 by lucyandrickie

[lucyandrickie]

Someone else asked for a ranking by total number of caches. These are the totals as of today.

1. California 18916

2. Texas 7689

3. Florida 6012

4. Washington 5309

5. Oregon 4572

6. New York 4140

7. Tennessee 3685

8. Utah 3625

9. Pennsylvania 3617

10. Arizona 3324

11. Indiana 3197

12. Michigan 3055

13. Illinois 2965

14. North Carolina 2916

15. Idaho 2777

16. Ohio 2639

17. Wisconsin 2424

18. Virginia 2257

19. Georgia 2240

20. Minnesota 2162

21. Colorado 2067

22. Nevada 1830

23. Massachusetts 1699

24. New Jersey 1639

25. Kentucky 1556

26. Missouri 1529

27. Alabama 1423

28. Maryland 1385

29. Kansas 1280

30. Oklahoma 1256

31. Iowa 1135

32. New Mexico 1104

33. South Carolina 1081

34. Arkansas 1030

35. Nebraska 966

36. Mississippi 859

37. Montana 858

38. Connetticut 855

39. Louisiana 700

40. Maine 687

41. New Hampshire 628

42. Alaska 552

43. Wyoming 551

44. West Virginia 528

45. Vermont 413

46. South Dakota 367

47. Hawaii 348

48. Rhode Island 238

49. Delaware 221

50. North Dakota 166

51. District of Columbia 64

[Trinity's Crew]

Oh, great... Now I either have to hide more caches or conquer/annex some high density states!

[+Team Perks]

Dude, better check your math.

 

So you say California has 11.6 caches per 1000 square mile?

 

But...

 

There are 18,916 caches, and California is 163,707 square miles in size...

 

Which totals to 0.11554 caches per square mile...

 

Or 115.54 caches per 1000 square miles.

 

???

Edited May 20, 2005 by Team Perks

[lucyandrickie]

Oops!!!!!

 

One too many zeros. It should be caches per 100 sq mi. I'll go back and fix that.

[+RakeInTheCache]

ok the ranking numbers have been corrected.

[+brodiebunch]

How about caches per square mile rather than per person?

[+RakeInTheCache]

Someone asked for caches by area. Below is a ranking of the states by caches per 100 sq mi.

 

1. District of Columbia 94.1

2. New Jersey 18.8

3. Massachusetts 16.1

4. Connetticut 15.4

5. Rhode Island 15.4

6. California 11.6

7. Maryland 11.2

8. Florida 9.1

9. Delaware 8.9

10. Indiana 8.8

11. Tennessee 8.7

12. Pennsylvania 7.9

13. New York 7.6

14. Washington 7.4

15. New Hampshire 6.7

16. Ohio 5.9

17. North Carolina 5.4

18. Virginia 5.3

19. Illinois 5.1

20. Oregon 4.6

21. Vermont 4.3

22. Utah 4.3

23. Kentucky 3.9

24. Georgia 3.8

25. Wisconsin 3.7

26. South Carolina 3.4

27. Idaho 3.3

28. Hawaii 3.2

29. Michigan 3.2

30. Arizona 2.9

31. Texas 2.9

32. Alabama 2.7

33. Minnesota 2.5

34. Missouri 2.2

35. West Virginia 2.2

36. Iowa 2.0

37. Colorado 2.0

38. Maine 1.9

39. Arkansas 1.9

40. Oklahoma 1.8

41. Mississippi 1.8

42. Nevada 1.7

43. Kansas 1.6

44. Louisiana 1.4

45. Nebraska 1.2

46. New Mexico 0.9

47. Montana 0.6

48. Wyoming 0.6

49. South Dakota 0.5

50. North Dakota 0.2

51. Alaska 0.1

 

I've been keeping these statistics for a while and it is a constantly changing list.

Which confirms that New Jersey is probably completely saturated. Low number on the caches/capita, high on the caches/area. The sport is unable to grow there to match the population.

[+BadAndy]

The most important stat would be caches times cachers minus virts per acre......squared.

 

I prefer the caches per capita list. Not only because my state came out on top, but because it's a more accurate reflection of how popular the sport is becoming.

[trashcann]

Let’s not forget the territories! Guam ranks behind DC and ahead of Puerto Rico at 11.1 caches per 100,000 people but ranks 12'th in the area category with 8 caches per 100 square miles.

[The Junkyard Dogs]

Must get a hidin here in texas.

[+RakeInTheCache]

In fact it appears that states with large urban centers in restricted geographical settings (New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc.) may have artificially low numbers. Cache density around the city (or all over New Jersey) would be abnormally high, that in the country abnormally low because the population is not centered in the middle of the state and can't as easily reach it as they would otherwise be able being centrally located.

 

Doesn't explain why Ohio is so low. Bit of a surprise.

[WH]

Doesn't explain why Ohio is so low. Bit of a surprise.

Must be because the Constitution doesn't give the right for Ohio residents to geocache.

[+Divine]

When compared to the Europeans we're number 2 right behind Sweden.

I think the european union should be counted as a whole, with their member states counted as you counted the individual US states.

Not good. That'd still leave several individual European countries outside. A country is a country is a country.

[+RakeInTheCache]

Doesn't explain why Ohio is so low.  Bit of a surprise.

Must be because the Constitution doesn't give the right for Ohio residents to geocache.

That would be the Ohio Constitution of course. As we've learned, the 9th amendment gives everyone the right to do anything they please.