Geocaching Australia

Hi All,
near where I live is a path that winds through bushland for several kms and looks like a prime setup for a caching trail. But the quandry is how close is too close between caches?

According to the cache placement guidelines on Geocaching.com (assuming you aren't talking about Geocaching.com.au caches where the rules are different):

Cache Saturation
Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m). A physical stage is defined as any stage that contains a physical element placed by the geocache owner, such as a tag with the next set of coordinates or a container. Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline.

I would ask yourself the question what am I trying to showcase with this cache? There is not a lot of merit (IMHO) in just placing a cache every few hundred metres along a nice path.

If there are certain spots of interest such as a great view, interesting plants or a spot you always hear lots of little birds, then those spots can merit a cache along the path.

Of course, you can always make it a multi so people need to follow the waypoints along the trail but I do recognise that multis are not always so popular (or easy to maintain)

Otherwise, put one at each end (or close to it) and one in the middle to ensure people walk between them to enjoy the bush along the way. But do keep in mind that if your car is at one end, you have to somehow get back to it, so the walk will be twice the length of the pathway which can be a fair way for some people and children.

General rule: if the only reason for placing a cache at a given location is the cache itself, not the location, then don't place the cache.

Papa Bear_Left wrote:General rule: if the only reason for placing a cache at a given location is the cache itself, not the location, then don't place the cache.

Shame a lot of placers never heed that reason.

I found one this morning that was a perfect example of that. A film canister behind a small tree against a fence in a boring park (nothing there but a tennis court) opposite a suburban shopping centre. Still it fulfilled it's purpose - I needed a find for Feb 12, so an easy one after I had to work and in the rain was probably better than a longish walk and hunting through the wet bush.

Of course, given the right conditions a nice walk and challenging hide would normally be much higher up the list.

EDIT: Can we get that put on the cache placement guidelines that in theory people read at least the first time they place one?

Richary wrote:I found one this morning that was a perfect example of that. A film canister behind a small tree against a fence in a boring park (nothing there but a tennis court) opposite a suburban shopping centre. Still it fulfilled it's purpose - I needed a find for Feb 12, so an easy one after I had to work and in the rain was probably better than a longish walk and hunting through the wet bush.

You could have picked up a gnome in my back street for your Feb 12th find http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga2964

blossom* wrote:You could have picked up a gnome in my back street for your Feb 12th find http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga2964

I've still got 5 of the little guys (or not so little) to hide somewhere. Might be heading eastern suburbs tomorrow if the weather isn't too bad. Got World Cache to finish off.

I have a question. What should you do if you find two gc mystery caches are within 80 metres of each other. Should you tell the ump?

Nah, considering he approves caches, before publishing, to make sure they arent too close to each other, it's ok.
For mystery caches, the location that it displays, as a rule, isnt where the cache is located, therefore, mysteries dont have that rule apply to them.

Sorry. I have found both caches a they are phyiscally 80 metres from each other.

budgietas wrote:I have a question. What should you do if you find two gc mystery caches are within 80 metres of each other. Should you tell the ump?

If they were both published after about late 2006, then I wouldn't mind having a look at them, just to see if someone's been moving their GZ around a bit freely.

If at least one of them is quite old (in geocaching terms, at least), then it probably pre-dated the "additional waypoints" feature and a newer one was allowed nearby because the reviewer didn't know about the older one.

In that case, I'm inclined to consider them grandfathered. It's disappointing for cachers to be taken back to the same place when they solve the second mystery cache (but they should be used to that, with plenty of other cachers carefully measuring 162m gaps to shoehorn one more cache into the same park!)

I placed a cache earlier last year, a multi, when I'd only been caching for two months. The cache was approved. Later in the year I did an old multi in Parramatta which, when GZ was calculated, took me to within a hundred metres of my own cache in the mountains. Naturally I had had no idea this multi was there, and I was curious as to why mine had been approved. I later came to the conclusion theUMP outlines, that the age of the multi meant additional waypoints had not been recorded.

While I might be biased, I personally think it would be a pity to remove my own cache, since it has had a lot of positive feedback and some favourite votes, but I think anyone would agree that the proximity problem wasn't my fault. At the time I was amazed there seemed to be no cache at the location. Later I found out.

I like bikerbudy's cache best too - becasue I found that one!! We had no luck with the multi and where our gps was pointing looked quite slippery and difficult. Since we weren't sure of the accuracy down there, we didn't risk clambering around for the multi. But really enjoyed the trad of bikerbudy

I've found both of those caches & enjoyed both of them. I didn't realise they were so close together though, it seemed like a longer walk to get the non-bikerbuddy one than just a 100m. Those 2 & the other nearby multi made for a nice afternoon of caching for us.

I think that another new cache that has just popped up in that area might also be pretty close to the original cache. And I would guess that the cache owners of the new one don't know about the other multi due to very distant starting point .