Your answer is more accurate than mine, but does not technically meet the
stated criteria of a ".05 mile buffer zone."  Of course, as you point out, a
"floating" buffer zone, while not meeting the stated goal, does allow for
more points.

 

Bill in Willcox

 

  _____  

From: az-geocaching-bounces@listserv.azgeocaching.com
[mailto:az-geocaching-bounces@listserv.azgeocaching.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Giron
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 9:02 PM
To: listserv@azgeocaching.com
Subject: Re: [Az-Geocaching] Maximum square mile cache density

 

With this new constraint (which I will call interlocking horizontal
neighbors), I will offer 2 answers to be debated.  The first is 120, since
now the rows are all 10 "dots" wide and they just shift back and forth,
forming triangles.  However, this leaves approx 250 feet wasted at the top
of the square (since there is no longer a benefit to "squaring up" the
sides.  So, I will throw out another, softer number of 125 which is the
average for two squares stacked vertically (the 250 feet from each add up to
enough to make another row which takes 457 feet, and they split the number
in the row).

 

Tim

Team AZFastFeet

 

Okay, maybe I opened a can of worms here...

 

I should be more specific...I was trying to figure out how many caches can
fit into a square mile, leaving enough buffer zone (.05 mile) around the
edges, so each square mile around the area in question can also have the
same amount of caches?

 

Any math geniuses out there? Anyone?

 

Scott and I were discussing this today, and also called it a "Power Grid"...

 

Maybe on Terracaching.com....thinking, thinking.....