160 metre rule

[Agent Basil]

Just a liitle whinge !

I have no problems with no caches within 160 metres of another one. Tis a very big country we live in, plenty of spots so that hides don't need to crowd one another. However, Waypoints ???? I don't see the logic behind the reason for within 160 m of a waypoint.

Reason for rant ? That Secret Squirrel chap has a mystery waypoint in the vicinity of my beautifully crafted hide. Oh, the anquish, I solved one of his puzzles already this year (Hi Ben ) - It's too soon for another ("Time for Caching" for those interested).

sigh !

[SecretSquirrel-BJC]

Don't be cheeky, or next time we go on a walk together, I might nick your brush!!! I would look good with a double overhead foxtail on my bus!

[The SBI]

on a similar area, I was considering hiding a cache under a certain bridge, you would have to abseil into the truss of the bridge, and then climb a few meters through it, there is already a 1,1 on the bridge, can the rule be broken for completely different styles of cache?

[caughtatwork]

on a similar area, I was considering hiding a cache under a certain bridge, you would have to abseil into the truss of the bridge, and then climb a few meters through it, there is already a 1,1 on the bridge, can the rule be broken for completely different styles of cache?

Ask theUMP, it's the only way to be sure.

[tronador]

on a similar area, I was considering hiding a cache under a certain bridge, you would have to abseil into the truss of the bridge, and then climb a few meters through it, there is already a 1,1 on the bridge, can the rule be broken for completely different styles of cache?

Sounds like fun but would the police think abseiling off bridges or onto bridges is legal???

[Big Matt and Shell]

on a similar area, I was considering hiding a cache under a certain bridge, you would have to abseil into the truss of the bridge, and then climb a few meters through it, there is already a 1,1 on the bridge, can the rule be broken for completely different styles of cache?

Ask theUMP, it's the only way to be sure.

I can suggest that you will be told no. The reason the rule exists is so that two caches can be confused. I hate to say it Basil, I too have been caught out when trying to hide a cache by those annoying mystery caches, it has helped me find one or two as well...

[calumphing_four]

on a similar area, I was considering hiding a cache under a certain bridge, you would have to abseil into the truss of the bridge, and then climb a few meters through it, there is already a 1,1 on the bridge, can the rule be broken for completely different styles of cache?

I have one mystery about 80m away from a traditional. You get wet doing the trad (unless you are in luck), whilst you have to climb and get dirty doing the mystery.

[Team Carnage]

Does the rule apply across both GC and GCA?
I mean could you hide a GC cache and then hide a GCA one within the 160m radius?

[caughtatwork]

Does the rule apply across both GC and GCA?
I mean could you hide a GC cache and then hide a GCA one within the 160m radius?

No, GC and GCA are not required to follow the 161m rule.
If you list a GCA cache within 161m of a GC cache you will get a warning on the GCA cache page, but you can continue.
I have a number of GC and GCA caches that are closer than 161m apart to see what the traffic flow is between them.
I would try and keep the GCA cache more than 161m from SOMEONE ELSES GC cache just to be considerate, but there is no such formal rule at GCA.

[the farmers 5]

Further to this on how strict the 161 m rule is just between Geocaching.com caches from each other is as follows.

A year ago ,we had heard that some caches around Australia were permitted to be placed within 161m of each other.We know a couple of caches we had placed got rejected through the 161m rule even though they were a bout 157m apart.We requested surely 4m isnt anything,but 'The Ump" will refuse them as he explains its a rule not a target! and they were refused.

So,we emailed him on the definative answer on this.Had there ever been any caches allowed and published within 161m of each other ??

He emailed back with this response.Only 2 caches within Australia were ever allowed to be published within 161m of another cache already there.They were both similar situations .the newly listed cache was on a cliff face with a very wide fast flowing river below and the exsisting cache was on the other side also on a large cliff face.There was a large walk or drive downstream to cross and return then other side to get the other cache,thus,both caches could not be mixed up on arrival.

He didnt mention what state they were placed in!

[gmj3191]

I remember seeing a facility here a while back which plotted the 160m "no go" zones around existing caches, but I can no longer find it.
Could someone please post the link to it.
I'm pretty sure it was on GCA but I can't remember where and a quick look just now failed to turn it up.
I think that showed that caches with slightly overlapping 160m proximity zones were out there, and were not all that rare.

[Damo.]

Just view any cache on the google map option and tick the box.

[gmj3191]

Thanks
Check the area around the Melbourne Botanical Gardens - MCG.
There seem to be a few overlaps

[O319]

Just view any cache on the google map option and tick the box

Err, umm. Which box

[gmj3191]

Top left hand corner of Google Map screen, three checkboxes, near magnification scale.