+Mallah Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Does anyone have any figures of how much the cache population is increasing each year? Even in the short time I've been playing this game, the number of caches appearing over the last 12 months seems to be far greater than any previous year. It would be interesting to see if this is true or just perception. But I wonder if we are about to reach some point of saturation in some areas before long. Could there be a problem looming? There have certainly been far more poor caches set by what I rudely call the 'smartphone' brigade (i.e. those who discover the GPS feature on their smartphone, get excited, set a cache, then lose interest) Is there a cause to restrict cache setting to premium members perhaps? Hang on that's two questions and an element of rambling.... Worth a discussion or two though. What do you guys think? Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Year Count(*) 2000 2 2001 265 2002 1156 2003 1559 2004 2674 2005 4658 2006 7600 2007 10847 2008 16199 2009 23560 2010 30373 2011 43249 2012 3287 Quote Link to comment
+Lieblweb Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Year Count(*) 2000 2 2001 265 2002 1156 2003 1559 2004 2674 2005 4658 2006 7600 2007 10847 2008 16199 2009 23560 2010 30373 2011 43249 2012 3287 Wow...that's impressive. Makes me wonder - of all those caches, how many of the CO's are still active? In other words...of all those caches, how many of them still get maintained? Quote Link to comment
+The Blorenges Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Year Count(*) 2000 2 2001 265 2002 1156 2003 1559 2004 2674 2005 4658 2006 7600 2007 10847 2008 16199 2009 23560 2010 30373 2011 43249 2012 3287 Wow...that's impressive. Makes me wonder - of all those caches, how many of the CO's are still active? In other words...of all those caches, how many of them still get maintained? It also shows why so many reviewers are needed now, compared to e.g. '04/'05. MrsB Quote Link to comment
team tisri Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Wow...that's impressive. Makes me wonder - of all those caches, how many of the CO's are still active? In other words...of all those caches, how many of them still get maintained? If they don't get maintained they disappear soon enough, which frees the space for someone else. And for all the cache setters who discover geocaching one day, hide a flimsy takeaway box the next and have given up by the end of the week it's not just those who end up leaving unmaintained caches. Quote Link to comment
+Malpas Wanderer Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Does anyone have any figures of how much the cache population is increasing each year? Even in the short time I've been playing this game, the number of caches appearing over the last 12 months seems to be far greater than any previous year. It would be interesting to see if this is true or just perception. But I wonder if we are about to reach some point of saturation in some areas before long. Could there be a problem looming? There have certainly been far more poor caches set by what I rudely call the 'smartphone' brigade (i.e. those who discover the GPS feature on their smartphone, get excited, set a cache, then lose interest) Is there a cause to restrict cache setting to premium members perhaps? Hang on that's two questions and an element of rambling.... Worth a discussion or two though. What do you guys think? Numbers refer to your sentences. 1...5 1) Answered by Alan. 2) I'm quite a strange creature and I'm quite selective in the base caches I set out to find. In that respect I started trolling through the UK caches and marking each one viewed with appropriate codes. In 2007 I had around 10000 that I'd not thus marked. Today that is now around 50000. I would say the ratio of caches getting my "choice" marker has changed greatly too. There will always be saturation hotspots and we have seen one element of control imposed i.e. within the New Forest. 3) What is a poor cache? Individuals will always have a different view upon such. My personal view is that there has not only been poor standards in setting caches but equally in seeking and logging caches too. To elaborate on that how many times have you gone round a circuit a day after someone else has visited and find most of the caches exposed, or maintain your own caches find them exposed and filled with tat. 4) I don't thing there will ever be a imposition that only Premium Members would be able to place caches but many of us do set our caches to Premium members only. My personal opinion is that the ideal would be to get rid of paper log books and move up a step in the use of technology by using "smart buttons" or RFID methods of recording finds/visits. If there had to be an investment involved in setting and finding caches it would improve the overall standard of geocaching. that does not fit the Groundspeak ethos of caching will be free to everyone though, except their own commercialism of smartphone applications which you yourself consider may be a cause of poor caching standards. 5) I certainly discussed and equally rambled. Now where is that tin hat. 6) AN EXTRA:- I foresee the biggest problem the discarded and forgotten caches littering OUR countryside. Its one thing to remove caches from a listing site but how many are being uplifted. A greater employment of the technology suggested above would allow greater traceability of culprits causing this litter. Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Makes me wonder - of all those caches, how many of the CO's are still active? In other words...of all those caches, how many of them still get maintained? The second question is difficult to answer but we can have a go at the first. There are 14500 owners of active caches. Let's say that an active cache owner is one who's placed a log of any type on any cache in the last three months. That's 8844. So only 60% of cache owners are active cachers. Usual caveats about data quality and interpretation apply. Quote Link to comment
+drsolly Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 It's exponential! Quote Link to comment
+aB5dEglYeS5P Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 (edited) It's exponential! Oh no it isn't... y = 36.695x3 - 194.18x2 + 584.11x is a pretty good fit though R² = 0.9984 Edited February 3, 2012 by aB5dEglYeS5P Quote Link to comment
+dartymoor Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 If they don't get maintained they disappear soon enough, which frees the space for someone else. And for all the cache setters who discover geocaching one day, hide a flimsy takeaway box the next and have given up by the end of the week it's not just those who end up leaving unmaintained caches. Absolutely, and when a prolific and long-term CO stops maintaining (interest, injury, moving away, whatever) they can leave dozens of caches in poor condition in a small area and this could seriously put off somebody starting who can find nothing but broken boxes and wet logs and wonders what the point is. More of a negative than the maligned example of an enthusiastic but short-lived newbie. All that said, I can see nothing but positives for the increase in numbers. I'm not particularly elitist and I'm happy to share my hobby with others. If people want more of a challenge, they can refine their search to specific types if that's how they want to play the game. Quote Link to comment
I! Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Does anyone have any figures of how much the cache population is increasing each year? http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=60549&view=findpost&p=4914726 Quote Link to comment
+hobgoblinkiteflier Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 y = 36.695x3 - 194.18x2 + 584.11x It's polynomial! Quote Link to comment
+drsolly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 It's exponential! Oh no it isn't... y = 36.695x3 - 194.18x2 + 584.11x is a pretty good fit though R² = 0.9984 With what t-value? Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Year Count(*) 2000 2 2001 265 2002 1156 2003 1559 2004 2674 2005 4658 2006 7600 2007 10847 2008 16199 2009 23560 2010 30373 2011 43249 2012 3287 Are they the numbers of new caches, or do the figures represent cache number growth? What I mean is, have you subtracted the number of caches disabled / archived in the year? I think that you have to bear in mind that there used to be such a thing as a multicache, where you'd hide several linked caches and call them a multicache. That seems rare nowadays, as people prefer to log several caches separately (and perhaps finish off with a "Bonus" cache). Unfortunately Groundspeak have never noticed this trend so we ended up with a lot of extra caches which appear to be standalone, except that the name links them together in an informal fashion. Then there is a "Bonus" cache as well, for which you need to apply some calculation to locate. The inference that more caches = worse caches I don't think holds true. Clearly, if 10% of caches would generally be judged as "poor", if there are only 10 caches nearby then only 1 is likely to be sub-standard and you'd just forget about it. But if there's 100 nearby then you could spend a whole day on the 10 poor ones and come home pretty disgruntled. Or you could be unlucky in your area and have a much higher proportion of bad caches whereas someone else has nothing but good ones. Personally, I think that the improvement in tools for selecting caches more than makes up for the increase in number of poor caches. It's easy to eliminate (most of) them from your plans. I don't have any sympathy for those that complain about poor caches but insist on attempting every single one in the area! Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Are they the numbers of new caches, or do the figures represent cache number growth? What I mean is, have you subtracted the number of caches disabled / archived in the year? The numbers are simply those caches which have a placed date in the appropriate year. Subtracting archived caches would take a long time to run because the archived date is stored only in logs. In other words, the numbers aren't the "cache population" because dead caches are included. However, I'd expect the number archived to roughly track the number placed. I'll have a look... I think that you have to bear in mind that there used to be such a thing as a multicache, where you'd hide several linked caches and call them a multicache. That seems rare nowadays, as people prefer to log several caches separately (and perhaps finish off with a "Bonus" cache). Unfortunately Groundspeak have never noticed this trend so we ended up with a lot of extra caches which appear to be standalone, except that the name links them together in an informal fashion. Then there is a "Bonus" cache as well, for which you need to apply some calculation to locate. I don't understand any of that . In the numbers above a cache is a cache. Perhaps more accurately, a listing is a listing. Quote Link to comment
+Paul & Ros Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I bunged these figures into Excel and added a trendline to predict future numbers based on the past rate of increase. If the rate remains the same : 2012 should see about 60,000 2013 about 75,000 2014 about 98,000 2015 about 122,000 2016 about 158,000 2017 about 195,000 By then the density will be so high that you should be able to log a cache without even leaving your house ! Quote Link to comment
+Lieblweb Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 If they don't get maintained they disappear soon enough, which frees the space for someone else. And for all the cache setters who discover geocaching one day, hide a flimsy takeaway box the next and have given up by the end of the week it's not just those who end up leaving unmaintained caches. Some caches don't get archived soon enough. If the container is easily found and stays dry, the only thing that goes wrong with them is the log gets full. Most cachers will simply add paper or change the logs instead of listing a 'needs maintenance'. Sure, theyr'e still part of the game..... But personally, I'd rather see those areas get opened up for the new folks to enjoy their own hides. Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 The numbers are simply those caches which have a placed date in the appropriate year. Subtracting archived caches would take a long time to run because the archived date is stored only in logs. In other words, the numbers aren't the "cache population" because dead caches are included. However, I'd expect the number archived to roughly track the number placed. I'll have a look... OK, here's an enhanced version: Year Placed Archived Nett increase Population 2000 2 0 2 2 2001 265 14 251 253 2002 1156 100 1056 1309 2003 1559 258 1301 2610 2004 2674 579 2095 4705 2005 4658 851 3807 8512 2006 7600 1369 6231 14743 2007 10847 2109 8738 23481 2008 16199 4033 12166 35647 2009 23560 5939 17621 53268 2010 30373 8620 21753 75021 2011 43249 11976 31273 106294 E&OE As I expected, a graph of any of the columns follows exactly the same line Quote Link to comment
+drsolly Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 the only thing that goes wrong with them is the log gets full. Here's drsolly's infinite log theorem: Given a log book, no matter how full, there's always somewhere to squeeze in an extra log. Let me know if you'd like to see the proof. Quote Link to comment
I! Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Let me know if you'd like to see the proof.Where were you when Fermat needed a bigger margin? Quote Link to comment
+drsolly Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Let me know if you'd like to see the proof.Where were you when Fermat needed a bigger margin? drsolly's infinite log theorem says that every margin is big enough, he should have used a sharper pencil. Quote Link to comment
+Mark+Karen Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 Like some of mine where I get 'Log Full', 'Log Full', 'Signed Log' hmm really... Quote Link to comment
+milvus-milvus Posted February 5, 2012 Share Posted February 5, 2012 drsolly's infinite log theorem says that every margin is big enough, he should have used a sharper pencil. Wait 'til you see my new "quantum-micro"... 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.