Originally Posted by
amberel
I understood that 22 in 5 miles would get a hammering if they weren't very good caches, but my question really was would they still get a hammering if every one of the 22 was a top quality cache in its own right, i.e. if every one would have got a high rating PROVIDED the other 21 were not present. If that's the case, and I understand from your reply that it probably is, then it implies there is an optimal cache density.
I think I can guess which 22 is being referred to here, and I'm using them to produce some example cache density figures, but I'm not judging how good they are because I haven't done them yet. For the purposes of the discussion we need to assume they are all good quality caches.
I'm guessing it goes without saying that one cache every 10,000 square kms would be regarded as less dense than optimal, and by the sound of it one cache every 0.25 square kms would be regarded as excessively dense irrespective of the quality of the individual caches. So what, roughly, might a typical TC'er (or TC'ers collectively) consider the optimal density?
Is the optimal density dependent on the terrain (e.g. desert, forest, urban), or is it an absolute?
I think, from what I've read, that scoring is affected by cache density. Is the TC'er optimal cache density based on what gives them the most caching enjoyment or that which gives them the opportunity for an optimal score? I understand that if you like the concept of scoring, then a high score is likely to increase your enjoyment, but that's not really what I meant here.
Sorry to ask all these hard questions of you, Kev, and I realise it's hard work being the most prominent TC advocate. But there do appear to be major differences in the approach of a typical TC'er and that of a typical GC'er, and it is useful to work them out.
It's interesting that, in theory, GC also disapproves of a very high cache density. They impose a normal 0.1 mile separation limit, they disapprove of "power trails", though without really specifying what constitutes a "power trail", and they suggest considering if several traditional caches close together might be replaced by one multi. But collectively, GC'ers seem to like "power trails" and prefer a group of trads to one multi.
My own preference is for a group of trads over a multi. That's not to say I don't find or set multis, but other things being equal I prefer trads. I like rings of caches close together, provided they are in a place I like to visit. Other things being equal I would choose to visit an area with 10 caches in preference to a single one.
But though I like what a TC'er might regard as a high cache density, those "other things being equal" phrases should not be ignored - e.g. I would choose a single trad that required me to take a dinghy to an island, or single multi that took a whole day's walk through a forest, in preference to 30 undistinguised micros in an urban environment. So, for me, high cache density but highly dependent on the terrain.
Rgds, Andy