There is a great article in Today's Cacher about the evolution of caching, cache density, etc..
I provide the text here and a link to the website at the bottom.

quote:

---

Where Do We Go?
By Jerry Carter
aka El Diablo

Back in June of 2001 when I first started caching, there were five cachers in the area. This included myself and my wife. One of the biggest goals of hiding a cache was to take people to unique or interesting places that they might not otherwise visit. At that time, our part of the state was pretty much our playground. We had overwhelming choices of where to place a cache. If you went back and read the early logs of some of the first caches, you would notice that a lot of them stated, "Nice park, or nice trail. I didn't know this place was here." Not so today. Now, if you read the logs, you will find a lot of them saying, "Thanks for the hunt. TNLN." Why? Because there are no interesting places to go, mainly. The early cachers have taken up most of the prime real estate, and won't give it up. Why is that?

The early caches have been logged by most of the locals, and only the new players are logging them now. This means that caches, when first placed in a nice park or on a good hiking trail, were logged by many in the first couple of months, but are now logged only occasionally. The owners of those caches will argue the reason they don't archive them and open up the area to a new cache is because,"It's a good cache and it's in an area I want people to visit." Well now, that's all well and good, but let me ask you this. How many people have been back to that area? I'll venture a guess and say very few. Most are out looking for new caches, and since you won't give up the area, and there are no new caches in that area, they're not coming back.

People who came into this sport a year or two after it started want to participate. They want to hide caches as well, but where? All the places people want to go are already taken. So, what do they do? They hide lame caches that we all complain about and criticize them for. Who's to blame for this? Not the new people. They just want to participate and get the same joy of hiding a cache, and to know someone's logging it, just like us old-timers.

Why not archive your caches that are seldom-logged or have been logged by the majority of the locals, and make room for new caches? The new people would have a place to hide caches, and the old-timers would have a new cache to hunt in a area that they love so much. You can move a cache 100 feet and have a brand new hunt!In summary, there should be a time limit on caches...the cache owner can decide when that time arrives...the cache owner has to step up and lead by example. I won't even get into the issues of how this would help the environment, since we all have different opinions on that subject.

You have to have the foresight to look into the future and see where this is leading. It won't be long before no one is hiding a cache because there is no place to put one, and no one is hunting a cache, because they have already found all of them. We will be the death of our own passion. This sounds radical and farfetched for most of you, but think about it. How much has geocaching grown since you started? I guess the best question at this point is, how much more can it grow without people making room for new caches?

In summary, let me say this. Do I believe there should be a time limit on caches? Yes. Do I believe there should be an official time limit? No. Every cache and every area is different. There are caches that have been there for years that aren't a problem. On the other hand, there are caches that have out lived their usefulness. Only the cache owner can decide when that time arrives. It is also the cache owner that has to step up and lead by example.

---

From July Edition of Todays Cacher

I understand his point, but don't fully agree. For one, I don't think there are "lame caches" because we are running out of places to put new ones ... that's more a shortage of patience and imagination, not a shortage of real estate. Secondly, the typical park will easily support several well planned caches. Thirdly, I would prefer folks find new interesting places to put caches ... and I think there are still lots of them out there. And finally, I enjoy watching some of my favorite caches, to read about the adventures of other cachers in a context I understand.

I guess one thing I will agree with is: "there are caches that have out lived their usefulness". Yep, you got that right. Many of these are abandoned, and probably should be removed, but I am not aware of an official policy addressing this issue.

FWIW,
CharlieP

I think El Diablo is being a little simplistic. However some areas of the country have higher density of geocache.
Grand Terrace, CA has 5274 geocaches within 100 miles. Where as Atlanta, GA has 1299.

Of course what is interesting to me is that Toccoa, GA has 1976.

This sounds like a case of "I've found all the caches nearby and want to find more." Y'all know how I disdain stats, but he has 73 finds and only 2 active caches placed, he's hardly an authority. This seems more of a whine.

True, abandoned caches should be adopted by someone, but no way no how should they be automatically archived. Heck, one of his is on Lake Jackson (I've yet to find legal access to it) and I doubt he does cache maintenance from North Carolina.

I'm one of the cache placers here in Henry County and I hope my caches are well liked. I have "lame" ones (good for newbies) and tough ones. Having found all I'm interested in nearby, I have to travel 20 miles before I can get to a cache. Not far at all, as I see it.

I hear him, understand him, but don't agree with him.

Speaking of articles in _Today's Cacher_, I would like to immodestly suggest that you scroll down the following link to see a stirling article on what makes a cache cool. <g>

http://www.todayscacher.com/2004/jul/caches2.asp

Author! Author! Thunderous applause!

well put

I enjoyed the read. Good job birdies!

~erik~

quote:

---

Originally posted by AllenLacy:
I think El Diablo is being a little simplistic. However some areas of the country have higher density of geocache.
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?lat_ns=1&lat_h=34&lat_mmss=01.817&long_ew=-1&long_h=117&long_mmss=19.705+ has 5274 geocaches within 100 miles. Where as http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?origin_lat=33.759506&origin_long=-84.403176 has 1299.

Of course what is interesting to me is that http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?zip=30577&dist=100 has 1976.

---

Allen,

That is a strange thing.
If you map the seek you posted for Atlanta and zoom all the way out to the 2nd notch on the zoom tool, you'll see that most of the caches are placed on the north side of Atlanta. Add those to the others included from larger cities in western SC and eastern TN then the numbers are higher for Toccoa than Atlanta.

Kenneth

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebel:
This sounds like a case of "I've found all the caches nearby and want to find more." Y'all know how I disdain stats, but he has 73 finds and only 2 active caches placed, he's hardly an authority. This seems more of a whine.

---

I don't think it is a numbers thing, but it could be (besides, the might not log finds online like some other cachers we know).
I have found most of the caches near me and don't care much for numbers. I would like to visit some parks for caching again, but they are saturated with caches.
Elachee is a prime example. We have an agreement with them to not place over a certain number of caches in the reserve, so unless one is archived or changed, then why go back? (the challenge event will cure that one though, eh?)
Of course most the caches in Elachee are well thought out and should not be changed, but I'm just using it as an example. There is a virtual in there without nothing but a small depression/hole in the ground to find and little background on it's significance.

quote:

---

True, abandoned caches should be adopted by someone, but no way no how should they be automatically archived. Heck, one of his is on Lake Jackson (I've yet to find legal access to it) and I doubt he does cache maintenance from North Carolina.

---

I don't think he ever mentioned automatically archiving any caches.
He said "Only the cache owner can decide when that time arrives. It is also the cache owner that has to step up and lead by example".
I think he is just trying to get the seasoned cache owners to think about their current caches and decide if they should chose to archive (or move and relist) their caches.
I know for one I'll be thinking about my caches (although the density in my area is low).

Kenneth

quote:

---

Originally posted by birdies:
Speaking of articles in _Today's Cacher_, I would like to immodestly suggest that you scroll down the following link to see a stirling article on what makes a cache cool. <g>

http://www.todayscacher.com/2004/jul/caches2.asp

---

Well said Birdies.
I like and appreciate the positive attitude you convey.

Kenneth

quote:

---

Add those to the others included from larger cities in western SC and eastern TN then the numbers are higher for Toccoa than Atlanta.
Kenneth

---

And even higher still for Cleveland with 2299.
Location, location, location.

I had a nice reply to this a few days back, but my browser did something funky and I lost it..

I see and understand what El Diablo is saying, and even agree to an extent. For instance:

When I went looking to place my first cache, I found myself occasionally going "drat that mtn-man, he's got everyplace covered!" In that vein, it could be considered that maybe he should archive some of the ones that have been around aand most everybody has found.

But that's *not* at all what I was thinking. I'm very glad his caches were there for me to find initially, and for those finders after me. Since then, I've learned to adapt and place caches in different spots, and in some cases where caches already exist (as most of you know).

If it weren't for some of the "older" caches, I wouldn't have had nearly the experience I did when I first started caching in Dec '02. I feel the same would apply for people who are just starting out now - but in their case, they now have more caches/styles of caches/types of caches to choose from.

As previously discussed, there are some older caches (mountain caches especially) that have had very few finders relative to the time they've been out. Should these be archived? No, just as any existing cache shouldn't be archived.

So WHAT if a location has already been "claimed." It gets people out there, regardless of who's placed it. The only drawback is, over time, a given location may not be visited for awhile until someone new to the sport goes back and revisits. That's a GOOD thing. If one only goes to a given location "just for the cache.", then that's the FINDERS fault, not the hiders.

I say let the existing caches be. They'll be found in their own time. Yes, I see what he's saying, but I don't agree with it.

Jason

Amen Jason! We are VERY thankful for all of the caches (new and old) that are out there. We are trying to place some now to "give back", and it is fun finding NEW locations.