Last time I checked, Maine was east of the Mississippi. Did they move it? :)

Thanks for doing the computations, Steve. That's an interesting report. I
had a feeling Oregon, Utah, and Washington would be up there, but I was
shocked with Wyoming. My mom's family is all from there, and I didn't think
any of them had ever heard of a GPS. :)

-FroBro Q-Tip


-----Original Message-----
From: az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com
[mailto:az-geocaching-admin@listserv.azgeocaching.com]On Behalf Of Team
Tierra Buena
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 2:43 PM
To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
Subject: RE: [Az-Geocaching] 1000th cache



> Is there a ranking somewhere that shows caches per population
> density?
> I would bet that would push Arizona higher than number 8.
>
> Brian Cluff
> Team Snaptek

You and Jason are always so responsive to us, I'm happy to oblige with
the attached. Actually, I was wondering the same thing and decided to
"do the math".

Surprisingly, when ranked by caches per population density (based on
2000 census data), we slip to ninth, behind (in order)
Utah, Idaho, Oregon, Wyoming, Washington, Alaska, Maine, and Nevada. I
find it interesting that you have to go all the way down to the
fifteenth spot to find a state east of the Mississippi (New Hampshire).

The attached file is a zipped Excel (Windows) spreadsheet file. If
anyone would like this data in some other format, email me directly
(don't clutter the listserver, please), and let me know what format
you'd like to receive the data in. I'll do my best to oblige.

I've really gotta find a job.

Steve
Team Tierra Buena

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." --
Attributed, probably incorrectly, to both Mark Twain and Benjamin
Disraeli