Cache Saturation

[+GeoTechnician & OliviaRed]

We're not exactly newbies (found 480) but we have a question about hiding caches. When you hide a series of caches along a scenic hiking route and they're all individual hides, with most way farther than 600 ft apart, is this cache saturation? We haven't heard back from our reviewer who suggested we do multi caches instead of the regular caches we hid. What is the point of multi caches instead of regular caches? How does this prevent cache saturation? There is still a physical cache there, it has now become a multi cache and everyone who finds our caches will get fewer finds. Is hiding caches along a scenic route not a good idea? Are people in other areas having problems with this too? From our point of view it is evironmentally sound--it not only saves on gas but requires exercise. Everyone benefits.

[+Markwell]

Multi-caches would save on gas as well. Why list 6 caches when you can list one? It just seems like a way to up your hide count and entice people with more smilies.

 

Since the numbers don't matter (the mantra of this site), why list 6 or 7 (or whatever the number)?

[+RichardMoore]

Multi-caches would save on gas as well. Why list 6 caches when you can list one? It just seems like a way to up your hide count and entice people with more smilies.

 

Since the numbers don't matter (the mantra of this site), why list 6 or 7 (or whatever the number)?

One advantage to having it be a series instead of a multi is that if one of the caches disappears it doesn't affect the others.

[+briansnat]

When you hide a series of caches along a scenic hiking route and they're all individual hides, with most way farther than 600 ft apart, is this cache saturation?

 

How "way farther" are you talking about? I have a series of 8 caches spread over a 9 mile hike that is popular. If you're talking every 1/4 mile, I don't see the point.

 

Is hiding caches along a scenic route not a good idea?

 

Its a very good idea. If you want to guarantee that finders will follow the route as you envision it, then a multi is the best way to do it. Otherwise searchers will skip sections, or only look for the closest caches, or find shortcuts.

 

The fore mentioned series I placed wasn't done that way to ensure that finders get 8 "found its" as a reward for their hike, it was done to allow for flexibility. Because of the design of the trail system in the area and numerous access points, I wanted them to be able to do the series as a whole if they desired, or individually of they so chose.

 

To my surprise, the majority of finders have tackled the series as a whole, but if I had wanted to "force" them to do the hike as I envisioned it, I would have made it a multi. There have been several people who have skipped what I felt was the best section of the hike because of the flexibility. Their loss.

 

I have several multis where I do force the seekers to follow a certain route that I felt was interesting. If I had broken them into individual caches I doubt half of the finders would have taken the route I wanted them to.

 

...it has now become a multi cache and everyone who finds our caches will get fewer finds

 

What's wrong with that? It's about the hunt, not the numbers right? My wife and I recently completed a 5 stage multicache that took us on a 8 1/2 mile hike and it was one of the best, most rewarding cache hunts I've experienced. I don't see how my being able to log 5 smilies instead of 1 would have made it any better.

Edited November 19, 2004 by briansnat

[+Night Stalker]

I personally like the idea of having several individual caches. There are times when I don't have the time available to a multi. I could find one of the caches one time and come back for more in the future. We also have many of our caches disappear where I am from. If it was a multi all it would take would be a part to get plundered and the whole cache is spoiled.

 

[+JohnnyVegas]

An advantage to hiding just one or two caches is fewer caches to maintain. Maintenance can be a real job when you have lots of caches to take care of. There are days when all I do is cache maintenance.

[+larsl]

I personally like the idea of having several individual caches.  There are times when I don't have the time available to a multi.  I could find one of the caches one time and come back for more in the future.

You can do one of the steps in a multi one time and come back and do the others later.

[+briansnat]

An advantage to hiding just one or two caches is fewer caches to maintain. Maintenance can be a real job when you have lots of caches to take care of. There are days when all I do is cache maintenance.

True to a point. While you should periodically check all the statges of a multi, there are no extra full (or wet) logbooks to worry about, no garbage to clean out and no trade items to refresh.

 

The initial expense of planting is lower too because you can get away with cheaper (or even no) containers for the first stages and don't have to buy swag to fill them.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Too much work for the approver?

 

As was stated above, if one goes missing it doesn't ruin the rest. Silly approvers

[Bobthearch]

My question, does the area ~really~ need six new caches, or would one be sufficient?

 

-Bob

[CoyoteRed]

So...

 

Just what ~is~ "sufficient?"

[Keystone]

As this topic has nothing to do with Getting Started as a new geocacher, I am moving it down the Power Trail to the general Geocaching Topics forum.

[+ironman114]

My question, does the area ~really~ need six new caches, or would one be sufficient?

 

-Bob

there are 2,764 caches within 100 miles of me.

 

Do we need even one more?

 

Not for me, but maybe for those that have found most of these, the answer is yes.

[+fly46]

An advantage to hiding just one or two caches is fewer caches to maintain. Maintenance can be a real job when you have lots of caches to take care of. There are days when all I do is cache maintenance.

You still have the same number of things to check on.

 

I say do as many separate caches as you'd like.

 

Maybe someone won't have time/be able to do the whole trail at once. Let them have the chance to get some caches.

[CoyoteRed]

I say, what's the difference if one person places the cache or several? If they all are viable caches, then so be it.

 

(As long as you're not hogging the area and preventing others ample opportunity to place their own.)

[+GeoTechnician & OliviaRed]

Thanks for all your input. You pretty well hashed out the topic. We did individual finds because many cachers in our area are statistics driven. The area we hid them in has no caches and you have to pay an entrance fee (a state park). I don't think a few multi caches would have motivated people to enter unless they really wanted to see the area. The area doesn't get many visits in the winter (that we've seen). We also don't really mind how they get to the caches. The hike is their own.

[+Nuwati]

I have hidden a few caches some multi, some traditional, and some micro. I find that most folks would rather find the ordinary traditional cache. I like my caches to be found and if traditional is what the majority wants traditional is what they get.

 

Don't get me wrong I enjoy hiding a multi cache, but I can only keep one multi going at a time and still feel as if I am providing the cachers in my area with a good experience.

 

Another point is that many caches that are wilderness based go unfound because of the extra time dedicated to finding them. These seem to require an increased amount of effort. It seems that many people are like water; they travel to the area of least resistance. Let us be real I don't think there is a single geocacher that is against the rise of their cache numbers. Why would a hardcore cacher spend 4 hours finding one multi when they could find ten traditional caches. I love multi caches please don't get me wrong.

 

I hate riding in the car. I would prefer hiking on a single trail that is "saturated" with creative cache hides. I think cache trails are a great idea. Here in Western North Carolina we have a great cache trail (Turkey Pen). There are well over ten caches hidden. Over the past couple of months cachers have come out and added to these caches. It has become a game of leap frog. Compare cache GCJ7JB (Turkey Pen) with GC4VF (Pisgah Nat. Forest) to see the difference in the level of participation. Today I hid two caches in an effort to bring another trail into the picture. Sometimes it is just nice to have places where you and the kids get worn out before the caches. I would rather have my kids on the trail then in the back of the car. And still have "treasures" to find.

 

Sorry for the ramble.

 

Nuwati