Fugads

I saw this for a while when I was in Eastern Tennessee, the podium thing that is. Doesn't look like the geocachers there are still using it though.

I agree with this. The lure of a FTF will sometimes entice me to visit areas that otherwise are not high on my list of places to go... but for whatever silly reason I want to pursue the FTF. Once the FTF is no longer available, that enticement goes away and I will decide to visit the cache based on other criteria. Often there is no particular rush to go after said cache and I will wait until it makes sense for me to visit.

I feel the same way. The same kind of thing applies to a CO as well. It's easier to create one nice listing, than try to generate a bunch of geocache listings all having kind of similar information in them. At least I feel so.

I am not convinced that an extensive multi has a lot more concern for maintenance than a series of individual caches. This is of course true if the individual caches are treated as "disposable" and that when someone reports an issue with one, the CO simply archives it. I can see this happening, and this allows a CO who is not really committed to doing maintenance in the first place a way to keep the remaining members of the series alive. I can see this being especially appealing to remote area hides, where it can be difficult to get out to perform maintenance. But I think this is a different topic. If a CO is committed to maintain the hides, I don't see how the maintenance for the multi is much different than maintaining a series of individual caches. Any time a cacher reports an issue, the CO can go out and perform maintenance on that stage/hide. I don't see that the CO is obligated to check on all the other stages/hides where no problems were reported. I will concede that for the multi-cache, if an issue is reported with one stage and a cacher does not visit the later stages, the status of those later stages may is unknown. And I guess this is where you may think it is the responsibility of the CO to check all those later stages to remove that uncertainty. I think the CO may be justified in assuming that those other stages are ok until a report comes in otherwise, but knowing that a cacher is going to make a return trip, it may be in the best interest of the CO to ensure that the rest of the stages are in good shape so that the returning cacher doesn't have another negative experience.

You may be right. I'm trying to understand why someone would suggest that a CO would be better off placing a string of traditionals caches along a route, rather than make the same experience a single multi-cache. That was basically what someone suggested in another discussion thread, and it rubbed me the wrong way. It struck me as a comment with a subtext.. that numbers of finds is what COs should be striving to create. As a CO who is wanting to place a string of containers along a route, I see that you have a choice of making is string of hides into either a multi cache or a bunch of separate listings, and I've come around to thinking that unless there is some special reason for making each hide an individual listing, CO's are better off creating a single multi-cache listing for the experience. This feeling is probably not a popular one though, but that's ok. Another reason for this thought experiment is the topic of what makes a quality geocache, a thread that is going on right now and one I've been thinking of. My own thoughts are that the experience a geocache provides is mainly what makes it a quality geocache. And then I got to thinking, if the experience of finding a multi is more or less the same experience as doing a string of traditional hides, why would geocachers prefer a group of traditionals over a multi. And this train of thought led me to conclude that should the experiences be more or less the same, it is the number of finds that makes one more desirable. So yeah... that was my hare-brained thought process.

What you say above is what interests me most. Do you care to expand on your observation #4 above? Why is it that if the experiences are the same, you would prefer a series of trads over a single multi? Your observation #5 is also what I was getting at. It seems that more and more, geocachers are drawn towards high numbers of caches. Your original multi in that location would have been just as fun an experience for geocachers as the series of caches that replaced it. And the evidence shows that a lot more people will visit the series than the original multi in the same spot. Yes there are a myriad of reasons why multi's appeal less then traditionals, but I still think one of the main reasons is that folks prefer to get lots of finds rather than one for any given experience. Numbers are a big motivating factor in this game.

I agree with you to a point. I too have spent a days going after single multi-stage caches, and days spent finding bunches of caches. The thought experiment isn't really for you to compare any particular experience you have had going after a long multi-cache, with any other experience you have had finding a bunch of traditional. The point I am unsuccessfully trying to make is that a series of traditional caches and a single multi-cache can offer the same experience. A hypothetical multi-cache could be 5 stages along a trail/road, and someone would need to go to each spot to complete it. Alternatively, there could be a series of 5 traditional caches along the same road/trail, requiring a geocacher to make the same 5 stops in order to complete the series. In both cases, you travel the same route and have to find the same things. But it can be a "multi" or a "series" and one main difference is the stats you come away with. I will admit, I may be communicating this idea poorly, or maybe am just not making a good point at all. I guess I just got to thinking about multis versus a series of trads. As to dprovan's point, I wouldn't go so far as to say it is like two different games... but I see that the expereince can be very different. It can also not be different if that makes any sense? I think what you are getting at at the main difference between these two "options" is that with a multi-cache listing there is an unknown element that leads to surprises and having to think on your feet. With a series of traditionals, this is not really the case as you know before you even leave your house what the route will be like. I may be taking this whole idea too seriously, but a lot of long multi caches I have found the route is not really that ambiguous. You know from the outset that you will be going up X mountain, or down Y canyon and while you may not know precisely where each stage is going to be along the trail, or in the canyon, you more or less know what to expect and where you'll end up. In my warped way of thinking about this today, I see this as giving a very similar experience to a series of traditional geocaches also along a trail to X mountain or down Y canyon. What really got me thinking about this subject was a comment in another thread and I wondered how prevalent this attitude might be. A lot of multi-caches could be turned into a series of traditional hides and you can give people more or less the same experience (minus the sense of surprise?). And a series of traditionals could also just as easily be turned into a single multi-cache listing. Why do one over the other? What is the appeal of one over the other? Hwat is the role that stats play in making one experience more rewarding than another? Or what is the role of ambiguity in the multi-cache and is this a necessary feature?

You are right that depending on how the CO designed the multi, it may be doable even if some of the stages are not found. But I would guess that this is pretty rare and that the majority of multi caches rely on a linear progression: stage A goes to stage B goes to stage C etc... If a stage isn't found then further progress is unlikely. Maybe I need to find more multi caches though.

I'd like to think that multi's are not as "negative" as a power trail as far as making it difficult for others to place new caches on a trail, but then I am fond of multis so quite biased here. With a bunch of traditional hides, it is very easy for new hiders to locate available spots. With a long multi, new hiders need to put in more work to determine where the available spots are. A multi along a 5 mile trail with 5 stages still leaves a lot of room for other geocaches, but the entry barrier for folks figuring out where those stages are means that less people will bother to make their hides there. There is one area I know in Alamogordo, NM where one CO has a bunch of very difficult, adventurous multi caches in several canyons near the town. There are almost no other geocaches hidden in those canyons, although a few exist, and I bet this has a lot to do with not many geocachers being able to complete these multi caches and not knowing where the available locations are in those canyons. And I very selfishly think that this is ok, because I loved every single one of those multi-cache adventures that I went on.

I see this too. And my gut feeling is that this is driven by people's desire to improve their stats. But I also need to concede that it could have something to do with cachers being risk averse and wanting to make sure that they come away from their day of geocaching with "something to show".

I share this feeling. Going after lonely caches brings me joy.

This is another interesting point you bring up. I agree that variety is nice. The simple fact that a CO places multiple hides (whether they are traditionals or a single multi) means that this one road or trail lacks a certain variety. One difference for the greater community though is that a trail of traditionals makes it clear where there is/isn't room for other hides and variety, whereas with the multi, new COs who wish to place hides along that area need to make guesses as to where they can place hides, or complete the multi themselves so that they don't run into proximity issues. Often I've seen that a certain trail or area that has a long multi cache ends up getting a lot less other hides on it because other COs don't wan't to figure out where all the stages are that they need to avoid. To take your point further though, its seems like you wouldn't be an advocate of multi-caches really at all, since they take up more locations that others could use to increase the variety of hides in an area. unless all those stages were virtual...

Good point. There is much greater risk that by doing a multi you will come away with a DNF. A set of traditional caches along a route does not have this same risk. I concede that this is a factor for geocachers deciding what to spend their time on. I think my use of the ET highway in this thought experiment was perhaps misguided. I glommed onto the ET highway as an extreme example, but that's not really necessary for thinking about this topic. What if I framed the thought experiment this way: Two geocachers decide that they want to spend their day geocaching. One of them chooses a single multi cache in an interesting area that is very involved with many stages. The other chooses a trail of traditional geocaches by the same CO which define a route in an interesting area. Both geocachers spend the same amount of time driving to and hiking to the various "stops" along their route. They both find the same kind of containers, mostly affordable and readily replaceable containers that the CO can get in bulk and which makes maintenance for the CO easier. They both complete their journey and enjoy themselves. What is the difference in their experiences? These two geocachers have more or less the same experience. the main difference I see is in the stats that accompany their experience. One gets one find credited to their account, the other gets multiples. My hypothesis is that these stats are driving what motivates cachers more than the experiences themselves. if given a choice over these two rather identical experiences, geocachers tend to gravitate towards the choice that shows "better stats". There is the issue that Viajero brings up too though; that the multi-cache experience involves more risk that you walk away with a DNF before completing the whole route, and therefore have your experience cut short and are left unsatisfied. This may also explain why geocachers gravitate away from long multi-caches and towards trails of traditionals. Being risk averse. Despite this argument, my gut tells me that stats is still a strong motivating factor.

Someone posted a comment in another thread that got me thinking about multi-caches versus power-trails. This got me thinking about the difference between a string of traditional caches versus a single multi cache. Both can take you to the same number of spots, and same locations. Both more or less give you the same kind of experience. And yet, I am guessing they attract very different kinds of attention from the overall geocaching community. And my brain jumped to a funny spot, thinking about one of the most famous power-trails of all time, the ET highway. What if instead of thousands of traditional caches, it was instead a multi cache with thousands of stages. Would anyone still find it? Would people still make that barren desert in Nevada the geocaching travel destination that it has become? Since I'm starting off this thread, here are some of my thoughts: The value that geocachers place on doing something like the ET Highway is mostly due to the # of finds that result in doing it. Same can be said for most power trails. Yes, there is something to be said about the experience that doing such a trail gives (good and bad), but if that same experience could be had but only counted for a single find, would it still draw much attention from the geocaching community? I suspect it would instead be a rare oddity of a geocache, a D5 endeavor that a few people would seek out as a crazy challenge, but mostly would go on people's ignore lists. And I bet folks can post examples of crazy multi-stages that are like this, with hundreds of stages and very rare "found" logs. I'd love to see some. That said, I think the answer to the above bolded questions will be a resounding NO. In a nutshell, this really shows how the find count numbers play into the overall psych of the geocaching community. But then most people already know that about power-trails. I am more curious about the perception of multi-caches. If the experience of a multi-cache can be almost identical to the experience of finding several traditional caches along a trail, do people still feel like multi caches of this sort should be pursued? In order for a multi cache to stand out against a series of traditional caches, is it necessary for it to use some of the guidelines that would not be allowed by traditionals (virtual stages, stages without containers but still coordinates, stages in close proximity etc..)?

This is interesting. I feel the exact opposite. Why put a string of traditional caches along a trail when you can accomplish the same thing with a single multi? I guess there are various logistical reasons. The CO of a bunch of traditionals has the option of archiving any one without having to do maintenance on the whole lot. Seems like a bit of a cop-out to me. If COs are doing this, to me it indicates that they are not really that interested in maintaining their hides. From a finders perspective, having a bunch of traditionals means they can better prepare for what they are getting into, and if one cache is not found they can continue on to the rest. I can see some value in that. Depending on how the CO creates the listing for a multi, you may not know exactly the route you will be taking or what you are getting into. But I can't think of any examples of this. Every long multi I have done has good write-ups so you know what to expect and how to prepare. This holds true even for the ones that have surprising route-finding challenges and your final destination is not entirely clear. I just love those kinds of experiences. One other point that I like about a single Multi vs. a string of Trads is that both the CO and finders can put more thought into what they write about the a single Multi. As a CO, you can put a bunch of effort into a good write up on the one cache listing. If you broke it up into a bunch of traditionals, you would either have copy-paste information on each, or somehow break up the information for each cache. I'm not expressing this well... but the feeling I get is that for a single multi-cache, you can very clearly state what you expect the experience to be like. And if you break it up into several individual caches, you still want people to experience the whole string, but cannot be sure that's really what people will be doing, so you need to piece-meal together various cache listings, encouraging people to complete the whole experience. Same goes for logging the finds. I'd much rather write one nice log on a caching experience that took me to lots of different places, than have to write a bunch of separate logs for different legs of the journey. The one consolidated log gives a better story and is more worht sharing with a CO in my opinion. The separate logs for each leg of the journey can create the same story, but depending on how you break up the lgos it may be difficult to follow. Or maybe you copy-paste the whole story on each log? This has its own down-sides. As a CO I never like to see the same thing posted over and over again. But then, hiding a series of traditionals that are meant to be found as a single hike may be begging people to do this. Anyhow, interesting point that you brought up about multi caches. I'd love to get other peoples takes.

The two things I like best about multi caches is the ability for them to provide a really fun and adventurous route, and also their ability to surprise you with a destination that you may not have expected. The latter is more unique to multis, as you can get a fun adventure from linking a bunch of Traditional hides along a route. I kept a bookmark list for a while of favorite multis I've encountered over the years. Most have a really high T rating... that's where my preferences lie. You're welcome to check it out though and see if it offers any inspiration. The ability for a multi-cache to take a geocacher to some unique spot, but without the knowledge beforehand of exactly where they'll end up... that's the key. For letterboxes I'll second what Isonzo Karst stated; a thematically appropriate stamp, preferably hand-carved is what makes a good LBH in my book. I get pretty disappointed with some of the "random" letterbox hides that have simple cheap stamps that having nothing to do with the hide location or theme of the hide in any way. Someone simply had a smiley face stamp so they decided their cache would be a letterbox... or something. I keep a separate letterboxing journal and it is really cool to go through it and see where I've collected stamps, and what amazing stamps can be found. I suspect not many geocachers use these though.

I do this too. Having a more flexible rating system would be nice. There was a local geocacher that rated all his finds (for a few years at least) on a scale from 1-5 and kept bookmark lists for caches he rated 4, 4.5 and 5 on this scale. I found his lists super helpful, especially since we had a similar caching style (both like long remote hikes and climbs). Tools like this, being able to identify another cacher who shares your taste in geocaches and then go after ones that that cacher has favorably rated is really awesome. but the site isn't geared towards this as it is now (although it can be done). I dabble with 3rd party extensions such as GCvote which does allow you to rate geocaches on a 5-star scale. However, unless it is widely used by your community, it doesn't offer that much help.

I sympathize with the CO. Major bummer to have issues with a cache placement right after it is published. My own example is a multi-cache I placed over a 8 miles of greenway trail in Oak Ridge Tennessee. Right after publication I got some DNFs and went to check on it... all 9 stages had been taken. Someone really didn't want my multi out there, because they went through quite a bit of effort to hike/run the whole multi. Needless to say, I didn't try to hide any more caches in that greenway.

Please do! I actually have a second EC that was also just published in Ghost Ranch, one on top of Kitchen Mesa. A bit more of a hike but well worth it.https://coord.info/GC7R74N I still haven't been to your EC at Echo Amphitheater, despite going up to Ghost Ranch and Abuiqui lake several times. Man, I need to do that, it's definitely on my list.

After the helpful response from Blue Raja, I tweaked my listing, mostly fixing the logging requirements. Even after my edits, I wasn't sure if it would pass muster with the reviewer, but today it was published! https://coord.info/GC7R77A. I'm very pleased and am thankful for the encouragement. I am still a little unsure about how to write these up, and was hoping to get some more feedback from the reviewer. But for now, I'll just sit back and let the logs roll in...

Thanks for the response. Very encouraging. I sent you a PM with follow up.

Is this forum a place where I can ask for help with my earthcache creation? Not sure if that is misuse of the forums, but I figure there is no harm in asking. I have invested considerable hours into the creation of an earthcache at a spot that I felt was unique and interesting, but my listing was returned to me by the Geoaware reviewer with the following note: I understand the reason for this but it also does not seem cut and dry to me. It seems like using information from informational signs can sometimes be allowed, but is discouraged. What I am struggling with is the location for this earthcache leans heavily on the presence of those signs. And I am beginning to think that maybe because of this, the location is simply not earthcache worthy, even though it may be an interesting spot. I'd love to get some more thoughts and feedback from the greater earthcaching community to help me see if this project is worth pursuing. I've already invested a good chunk of time into it, but don't want to expend more effort if the earthcache project really shouldn't proceed. Here is a link to my listing as it currently is. So I guess I could use help in two ways: Is this earthcache worth pursuing? Is it simply not a location with enough of an earth science lesson? If it is worth pursuing, any feedback or suggestions for how to craft suitable logging requirements.

I didn't realize this was a widespread thing in other states. Guess I need to get out more :). The only other state I've lived in as a geocacher was Tennessee and they have a law prohibiting geocaches in cemeteries there.

There are probably lessons to be learned from other outdoor recreation activities. The example that comes to mind is rock climbing. Climbers often develop new crags by installing bolts in the cliffs to make climbs safe, but I have not heard of any liability placed on those who actually are installing the bolts. In lots of places, the bolts are old and rusty, or maybe they were not placed properly. And often there is little or no record of when and how the bolt was placed. As a climber you usually have no way of knowing if the bolt you are clipping and relying on for your safety is going to perform as you expect. It is understood that as a participant in this activity, you are taking responsibility for these risks. Yes, someone placing a bunch of bolts in a crag does entice other climbers to the area, but ultimately you have decide whether you are going to climb it. I'd be curious if this debate as to holding bolt-placers liable for bad placements has ever played out?

There is one series I know of in the states that was made along the same lines as the Church micro Series, started by a geocacher in Tennessee. it is called Guard Rail Fun (GRF), and as the name implies, the series is meant to be easy finds along guardrails all over the country. According to the bookmark list I found, there were 320 of these published between 2009 and 2013. https://coord.info/GC20PGH Here is a quote from the GRF cache listings: I suspect some folks will not be happy about this kind of series, especially here in the forums. I'll admit, I think the series is pretty silly and it does not inspire me to get out caching. I mainly wanted to psot about it as an example of a non-UK series similar to those mentioned above in the thread. There is another series here in New Mexico (Southwest USA for the non US-centric out there) called the "Spirit of Insert Town Name" where caches are placed near small rural cemeteries. Here is an example: https://coord.info/GC4EG0M. This series doesn't seem to have any formal book-keeper (I couldn't find a comprehensive bookmark list either), but a bunch of NM geocachers place these in tiny desert towns all over the state, and they all seem to have the same name.