Longer Hike-why Not A Multi?

November 28, 2005

Just posing a question or a muse (prompted by my lazy, non-hiking-by-nature master and mistress )... we often wish we had intermediate stops to make when finding a final cache on a long hike and wonder why not a multi...or if it had been us "we would have"...why not have somthing to do along the way, so to speak? At times it seems like a very long endeavor to go these long distances for just one cache. Thoughts? As a dog, I have plenty of things to keep me busy, but for them, well, they need to stay occupied along the way.

7.3k · November 28, 2005

If it's a long hike, why not seperate caches, instead of a multi? That way you get smilies, as well.

I still prefer the caches to be put there for a reason, though, not just for the numbers...a nice view, interesting spot, etc.

I agree with you. Sometimes when I take a long hike to a cache at the end, I think that there should be something along the way, as well.

November 28, 2005

I both agree and disagree.

I enjoy when I can do a multi on a long cache and/or multiple caches along one route. However, I don't mind walking 1-2, even 3 miles for a single cache. Why?

It's the ends and the journeys that jutify the means. If it's a scenic/historical hike with a scenic/historical endpoint, I enjoy the moments along the way. Maybe I'm seeing this from a common backpacker/trekker perspective instead of a family perspective, but I don't find the adventure in the cache -- I find it in the journey to the cache.

Just my opinion.

- JD

2.2k · November 28, 2005

If it's a long hike, why not seperate caches, instead of a multi?

That's exactly what I would prefer.

The stages of a multi are often removed by muggles. No one likes to give up some 100 meters away from the final just because a box with the final coordinates was removed.

November 28, 2005

we often wish we had intermediate stops to make when finding a final cache on a long hike and wonder why not a multi...

When trail running, we would often go 10-15 miles for NO cache. The woods were always full of other things for us to find. Sure, I now appreciate a cache at the end of a longish hike, but if there are no other stages, that leaves me free to explore willy-nilly.

-WR

9.5k · November 28, 2005

If you're looking for something to do on the way to a cache on a longish hike, slow down and take notice of the nature around you. You don't need to have a waypoint be the reason for being there.

5.3k · November 28, 2005

Like totemlake said, enjoy the hike, pack a lunch and also tale a camera. Your other option is to look a and area with several caches the are close together, then hike from cache to cache.

7.3k · November 28, 2005

If you're looking for something to do on the way to a cache on a longish hike, slow down and take notice of the nature around you. You don't need to have a waypoint be the reason for being there.

I agree, the hike is there for the hike's sake, with or without any geocaches at all.

But I won't complain if there's a few of 'em here and there along the way.

November 28, 2005

I too like a hike for the sake of the hike.

But why are the clues always so vague for a cache 3 miles in, compared to the micro down the street that I was able to find without using my GPSr?

"Look under a rock" when the cache is in an abandoned quarry?! IEEEEEEE!!

1.4k · November 28, 2005

What do you consider a long hike? I have placed several that involve at the most a 3 mile hike round trip. I would consider a long hike at least 4 miles one way. Multi or not I would still go after it. I would rather just have a single cache to find while on the adventure it is just too easy to give up after a couple and never get to the big one.

38.2k · November 28, 2005

Personally I'm out there for the hike and the cache is secondary.

The reason I don't create multis very often is simple. People don't look for them. I can place a cache that is a 3 or 4 mile hike over 3.5 star terrain and it will get takers, but as soon as its a multi cache it seems 3/4 of the area geocachers won't bother with it - even if its a short hike.

November 28, 2005

Thanks for your thoughts--I deduce that there is a difference between hikers and backpackers and the like who took on geocaching as an addition to the hike and those that would not be out in the woods if it were not FOR geocaching. The mistress very much likes to be in the nature, but the master would not be in the woods at all if it were not for the cache--hence wanting more stuff to do along the way (especially when every hidey hole catches his eye)...and of course, he likes multis to begin with. I like it all, myself.

I can honestly say that CT doesn't really seem to have multis that sit...the ones that sit are the single caches in the middle of nowhere with no others to go to nearby (but that is a different subject).

7.3k · November 28, 2005

Personally I'm out there for the hike and the cache is secondary.

The reason I don't create multis very often is simple. People don't look for them. I can place a cache that is a 3 or 4 mile hike over 3.5 star terrain and it will get takers, but as soon as its a multi cache it seems 3/4 of the area geocachers won't bother with it - even if its a short hike.

I completely agree. I have two multis that are like that. One is on a 4 mile hike, the other on a 2. Both areas have other caches in them, and I see those caches hit, with notes that the people took the whole walk.....then why didn't they do the multi at the same time? I'll never quite figure it out.

11.3k · November 28, 2005

Although I don't filter out Multis from my PQs, I do filter out Puzzle caches. Maybe some of those people didn't even know the Multi was there . . . which is a shame.

I've really enjoyed most of the multi-caches I've done. :ninja:

7.3k · November 28, 2005

Although I don't filter out Multis from my PQs, I do filter out Puzzle caches. Maybe some of those people didn't even know the Multi was there . . . which is a shame.

I've really enjoyed most of the multi-caches I've done.

This is true. Some of them were locals, though, which is just down-right silly. :ninja:

24.7k · November 28, 2005

Weather or not I'm capable of enjoying the hike with our without caches, the simple fact is I hike more because of caching than cache because of hiking.

All other things being equil, given a choice between a power trail or the risk of a multi that I may never finish I'll take the power trail. If the cache description said something that caught my interest I'd hike for a single cache over a trail just for the adventure of it.

November 28, 2005

but the master would not be in the woods at all if it were not for the cache

Huh? :ninja:

Yoda, quit talking like that about your master!! I've been with your master hiking and if he doesn't enjoy it, he sure hides it well.

Or maybe it was just our company. :ninja:

I do think our multis have gotten less finds than our regulars, but then again, our multis are just plain tougher. Then again, all multis are just plain tougher. The more pieces to find, the easier it is to not find em. :ninja: KD

November 28, 2005

I place my caches because I want you to see the bluffs, the rock formations, the creek, the waterfall, the moss covered rocks, the arch, the petroglyphs, the petrified wood, and the largest sand stone cave in north America, as well as seeing the mushrooms, the flowers, the fallen leaves, the ripples in the water, the squirrel, the dear, the birds, the inscets........

I do not want you staring at your GPS and digging in a stump every .10 mile.

I want you to stop along the way and investigate things that you discover, not a rock I covered a cache with. There is so much to see and new things to discover on every hike you take, you just have to learn how to get yourself to see them. Rarely do I go out without discovering something new and I alway try to talk about what everyone liked the most and learned from the outing.

I have a friend, a bit ADHD, and he wants Yosemite Valley around every bend. He likes things grand. Ten years ago a walk in the woods turned into a nonstop power walk because he kept going in search of the grand view - everything else was the same old trees he has seen his entire life. After a few years of just began stopping and making him come back to see a flower, or insect, or whatever, he has learned to enjoy local walks now. While hiking in September I was amazed, he was pointing out mushrooms, and insects to me - It is like hiking with a different person now.

So come take a hike with me, I will take you to some great caches and try to help you enjoy the journey as well.

GEO.JOE

4.5k · November 28, 2005

Personally I'm out there for the hike and the cache is secondary.

The reason I don't create multis very often is simple. People don't look for them. I can place a cache that is a 3 or 4 mile hike over 3.5 star terrain and it will get takers, but as soon as its a multi cache it seems 3/4 of the area geocachers won't bother with it - even if its a short hike.

I completely agree. I have two multis that are like that. One is on a 4 mile hike, the other on a 2. Both areas have other caches in them, and I see those caches hit, with notes that the people took the whole walk.....then why didn't they do the multi at the same time? I'll never quite figure it out.

Multi's usually don;t say how long the hike is to do all the stages. I'm not a big hiker. Some of us are you know getting on :ninja: Others have families with small kids. Or maybe they have physical limitations. Also I like to have an idea of the time involved. Sometimes you can estimate from the logs, often not. Therefore, not knowing the total distance means I take the cache off my "to do" list. My suggestion for multi hiders is to post distance, number of stages and elevations on the cache page. (D/T's are valueless for this - give specifics) You might get more people willing to take a shot a something they know what's required. Also, the fact there are others hiders' caches along your multi route is of no inducment value since no one could know that except you and finders who have done your cache. If that is the case, why not say whose other caches are along your multi route. Then it would become an inducement.

Also, if you hide intermediate but separately logged caches rather than a multi, I might do the first or second standard caches of the former type while skipping a multi; again because of distance. That happened on one of Brian's. I was visiting NJ and saw his route that had I think 6 or so separate caches. I only had time to do the first. Had it been the first stage of a multi, I never would have done it.

Edited November 28, 2005 by Alan2

7.2k · November 28, 2005

The reason I don't create multis very often is simple. People don't look for them. I can place a cache that is a 3 or 4 mile hike over 3.5 star terrain and it will get takers, but as soon as its a multi cache it seems 3/4 of the area geocachers won't bother with it - even if its a short hike.

I concur. We have two beginner caches, one a traditional and the other a multi. The traditional is practically a drive by. The multi takes less than ten minutes and a 6 year old has completed it (I'm talking figured out the clues and operated the GPS), but highlights the bronze statuary and ponds of the park.

Folks will grab the traditional--and even mention how easy it was--and skip the multi.

Now, I can't completely blame this phenomena on laziness or whoring numbers. Many multis require closer attention to the description and note-taking, something some folks just aren't always prepared for. There are a lot of folks who don't keep a journal. If they are paperless, they might not have anything to write on to keep track of stages and face it, how many really use their PDA to the fullest?

It's too bad too as many times a multi is much better suited to highlight features than a single cache or even a series.

7.3k · November 28, 2005

Personally I'm out there for the hike and the cache is secondary.

The reason I don't create multis very often is simple. People don't look for them. I can place a cache that is a 3 or 4 mile hike over 3.5 star terrain and it will get takers, but as soon as its a multi cache it seems 3/4 of the area geocachers won't bother with it - even if its a short hike.

I completely agree. I have two multis that are like that. One is on a 4 mile hike, the other on a 2. Both areas have other caches in them, and I see those caches hit, with notes that the people took the whole walk.....then why didn't they do the multi at the same time? I'll never quite figure it out.

Multi's usually don;t say how long the hike is to do all the stages. I'm not a big hiker. Some of us are you know getting on Others have families with small kids. Or maybe they have physical limitations. Also I like to have an idea of the time involved. Sometimes you can estimate from the logs, often not. Therefore, not knowing the total distance means I take the cache off my "to do" list. My suggestion for multi hiders is to post distance, number of stages and elevations on the cache page. (D/T's are valueless for this - give specifics) You might get more people willing to take a shot a something they know what's required. Also, the fact there are others hiders' caches along your multi route is of no inducment value since no one could know that except you and finders who have done your cache. If that is the case, why not say whose other caches are along your multi route. Then it would become an inducement.

Also, if you hide intermediate but separately logged caches rather than a multi, I might do the first or second standard caches of the former type while skipping a multi; again because of distance. That happened on one of Brian's. I was visiting NJ and saw his route that had I think 6 or so separate caches. I only had time to do the first. Had it been the first stage of a multi, I never would have done it.

This is true...when you are visiting an area, it can be extremely difficult to know which caches to go to, if there is not enough information. I often wish that cache owners were more forthright in their descriptions when I am traveling.

In my case, however, I have been very careful with these two multis. I put exactly how many miles, how long it will take, describe the stages, and that both my children did them with no problem. I also have a link to the other caches along the multi route.

I just feel bad when someone takes the time to walk the whole multi route but then doesn't get that one more cache and smilie. Seems like a waste to me. :ninja:

4.5k · November 28, 2005

Well, at least they did your multi. Thanks for posting that info. I'm sure that may have helped people to decide to do it. Most multi's however don't have that kind of info. It's a shame because if someone posted their multi was a 3-stage with a let's say 3/4 mile one-way, I might do that. But with no distance given, it might turn out to be a multi-mile, something I don;t like doing.

7.3k · November 28, 2005

Well, at least they did your multi. Thanks for posting that info. I'm sure that may have helped people to decide to do it. Most multi's however don't have that kind of info. It's a shame because if someone posted their multi was a 3-stage with a let's say 3/4 mile one-way, I might do that. But with no distance given, it might turn out to be a multi-mile, something I don;t like doing.

Yeah...I won't even bother. If you don't live in the area, why take the chance on a big unknown? Not my cup of tea.

From traveling, I have discovered a lot of things that would make my caching such a better experiance. I have some plans to change some of my cache descriptions to reflect that hard-earned knowledge so that visitors to my area can make wiser decisions on which cache to go to.

November 28, 2005

Yeah...I won't even bother. If you don't live in the area, why take the chance on a big unknown? Not my cup of tea.

That statement right there sums up the reason I'm leery of multis. Many of them provide no clue as to the distance to be covered or potential time required. Sometimes you can glean this information from previous logs, others not.

Providing time/distance info would go a long way toward increasing the popularity of a given multicache. You won't convert the lazy folks (who probably don't hike anyway), but you may catch some of the gotta-be-home-by-the-agreed-upon-time folks (like me).

As to splitting a longer hike into a multi, I have a suggestion: Instead of breaking the hike into stages and making it a formal multicache, just provide waypoints for significant features like photo opps, plant/tree identification, good sittin' rock for lunch, etc. If it's an off-trail hike (bushwhack), provide waypoints that constitute a navigable route. There's a cacher in my area who does an excellent job of this.

November 28, 2005

Just posing a question or a muse (prompted by my lazy, non-hiking-by-nature master and mistress )... we often wish we had intermediate stops to make when finding a final cache on a long hike and wonder why not a multi...or if it had been us "we would have"...why not have somthing to do along the way, so to speak? At times it seems like a very long endeavor to go these long distances for just one cache. Thoughts? As a dog, I have plenty of things to keep me busy, but for them, well, they need to stay occupied along the way.

I humbly suggest trying:

Jumping Trout Cache

:ninja:

November 28, 2005

One of the best caches I ever found was a 1.8 mile hike with an 800 foot rise in elevation. It did not need to be a multi at all.

November 28, 2005

If it's a long hike, why not seperate caches, instead of a multi? That way you get smilies, as well.

ABSOLUTELY! A nice hike with a cache every .1 miles ..... such as The Sportsmens series in the Poconos of PA. Here we hiked around a nice lake and found multiple caches along the way!

I prefer multis to be much more closely spaced together.

:ninja: ImpalaBob

11.3k · November 28, 2005

There is a cache on a peak here that got very few visitors. I placed five caches on the mountain, then five more. Those additional ten smilies might motivate more people to make the hike. :ninja:

9.5k · November 28, 2005

I don't mind hiking 4 or 6 miles in for 2 caches, even for only one cache. Washington has so many places to hike I'm less inclined to drive 20-30 miles to go on a specific hike and try to complete a multi on a trail that I may never come back to. It definitely isn't about laziness. I just don't feel like repeating the trail to fix a DNF. I would be even less inclined to stop every 528 feet to hit a waypoint to find a multi when I'm on a multi-mile hike. I'm just getting my wind and hate to break stride at that point. With that said, why clutter a trail with multi's or create power cache trails? Generally speaking, there's a lot I can see on my own without someone thinking they need to guide my tour. Unless there was something very specific to the area that I wouldn't be able to discern on my own, it isn't needed. I do like discovering things on my own.

I would suggest keeping the multi's closer to home where they are not only easier to maintain, but easier for the hunter to go back to when fixing a DNF or merely completing an unfinished attempt. I think multi's are strictly a local cache for local hunters who have the time and wherewithal to go back and complete.

2.6k · November 28, 2005

The best reason to make a long hike into a multi is to lead people around to especially nice spots in a big park, to make sure they don't miss something good. If it's just a long hike with stages along the natural path, why would the one be preferable over the other?

I'm delighted to do a long hike for a single smiley. Even better, multiple smilies along a path. If there's a multi in the park, I'll try for that, too.

However, I usually won't go out for the express purpose of doing one multi unless it's been found quite recently. I did a whole series this Summer where one stage was missing or I simply DNF'ed partway in and I went home without a smiley. Do that a few weekends in a row, and it'll give you the blues. Multis would be my favorites, if only I could be sure ahead of time that everything was in order :ninja:

11.3k · November 28, 2005

I did a multi-waypoint Multi this summer that had pretty good clues for the waypoints. We looked and looked and looked for the first waypoint and when we couldn't find it, we just started walking. We did the whole circle around the little lake and found the final cache . . . mainly using the hints.

I'm glad we were able to complete the multi, but I would have liked to have actually found all the cleverly-disguised waypoints . . . :ninja:

November 29, 2005

but the master would not be in the woods at all if it were not for the cache

Huh?

Yoda, quit talking like that about your master!! I've been with your master hiking and if he doesn't enjoy it, he sure hides it well.

Or maybe it was just our company.

OK--he likes the company BUT, if you were to ask him to hike 2 miles just to enjoy the scenery, he wouldn't go. Maybe he does have ADHD -- he has to be doing something while en route. Trust me, the mistress and I try to point out cool stuff but usually only get a "hmmm" or a "yeah." Would he do an 11+ mile hike ever for its own sake? No way -- but give him plenty of things to look for, and he is off and running , as in one of our favorite CT caches! A busy brain is a happy soul .

In a big park with special things to see, it seems like it might be a good idea to bring people to the cool areas by placing a micro or something--I know the master would miss these neat areas (especially if it were away from home turf). I guess we all would .

I would also like to mention that I greatly appreciate the points that were made of how long the hike is -- since most of my caches are multis, this is a point well-taken and something I did not consider -- especially for out-of-towners. Thanks for the insights!

(Guess it is time to fish for trout, Trampers...really time )

November 29, 2005

I just enjoy a good cache. I don't mind walking if the journey is interesting and the end worthwhile. But then, I am into travel bugs so I like the big caches.

Since doing more and more caches that require an effort to get to I am getting in better shape. I am not so willing to go after the "cache in every lamp post" theme anymore. Since I am not into numbers I would rather go after the challenges and the fun ones.

Multi caches are a blast - but you have to enjoy puzzles and thinking and sometimes a bit of mystery. Some of these caches are awesome and well thought out.

So, I would not mind some extra caching along the way - but it isn't nessesary for me to have fun.

2.7k · November 29, 2005

If you do your nearby cache location search this sweet multi will give you several hikes and a few more smileys.

1.4k · November 29, 2005

It's a good idea to make all the stages fit a main theme when you place a multi, whether the hike is long or short. For example, you can introduce native plants, geography, or remnants of abandoned mines.

Otherwise, I'd recommend just placing traditional caches at interesting points along the route (view, unique tree, rock formations, etc.). It'd be even better if this is done as a group so you don't hog all the prime locations by yourself.

November 29, 2005

It is very interesting to read about all the opinions with respect to how people think of multi caches. Over here in Germany a large percentage of caches are multi-stage caches (~40% I guesstimate) - about as many as there are traditionals. For a German geocacher, a multi is just as normal as a traditional.

Good multis will be like an interesting guide to a special hike. They will take you around a spot like a local guide would do. And the really good ones will have suprising elements (like nice self-constructed clues or tasks) or locations that you would typically miss. How to tell the good ones from the boring ones? In the same way you do with traditionals: Look at the description and the logs. EDIT: From the view point of the placer: Would I like to see this spot? Would I like to investigate this place? Would I have fun with this task?

Sure, often you could place a sequence of traditionals instead of a multi-cache but that's not always possible. And - what I personally like most (and I hear that reason also from many others) - is exactly the adventure that lies in the unknown elements.

For one of our favorite caches, we had to explore different parts of an old mine (find a micro here, follow a bearing to another part, follow a chain of reflectors to a side-passageway, locate an old writing at the wall in still another part of the mine, get out, across some rugged terrain and by some old mining equipment (clues given underway), abseil down into another mine, get to read the clue that was fixed to the wall underway, etc. It was just one big fun adventure. We did not know whether we would succeed or how long it would take (a full day afterall) or where the clues would eventually take us. It was big part of the fun to FIND OUT. And imagine our pleasure when we finally got the box!

Ok, this was one hell of a cache, sure not all have this quality. But still, well-done multis can be a lot of fun - at least if you are prepared "to venture into the unknown"... :lol:

Best regards and happy hunting (whatever caches you prefer).

HoPri

Edited November 29, 2005 by HoPri

38.2k · November 29, 2005

I place my caches because I want you to see the bluffs, the rock formations, the creek, the waterfall, the moss covered rocks, the arch, the petroglyphs, the petrified wood, and the largest sand stone cave in north America, as well as seeing the mushrooms, the flowers, the fallen leaves, the ripples in the water, the squirrel, the dear, the birds, the inscets........

I do not want you staring at your GPS and digging in a stump every .10 mile.

I want you to stop along the way and investigate things that you discover, not a rock I covered a cache with. There is so much to see and new things to discover on every hike you take, you just have to learn how to get yourself to see them.

I think multis are perfect for this. You don't have to place a stage every .1 mile just for the sake of doing so, but if you make good use of the stages, you can bring people to interesting, slightly out of the way spots that they may have missed had they been focused on a single cache at the end. This is one of the chief reasons I create multis. To highlight interesting things along the route. My cache may be at a scenic overlook, but seekers will probably miss that ancient farm foundation along the way that is 50 yards off the trail. Making it a multi and putting a stage there will guarantee that it won't be missed.

The second reason I create multis is to force people to take the route I want them to take. You can post suggested parking coordinates and a suggested trail, but geocachers will nearly always try to find the shortcut. Even if it means shortcutting 1/2 mile through an industrial park rather than following a pleasant, 3/4 mile long trail through the woods.

Edited November 29, 2005 by briansnat

3.2k · November 29, 2005

Just posing a question or a muse (prompted by my lazy, non-hiking-by-nature master and mistress )... we often wish we had intermediate stops to make when finding a final cache on a long hike and wonder why not a multi...or if it had been us "we would have"...why not have somthing to do along the way, so to speak? At times it seems like a very long endeavor to go these long distances for just one cache. Thoughts? As a dog, I have plenty of things to keep me busy, but for them, well, they need to stay occupied along the way.

For my personal caching method, multis stink. I go to part one.. get the coordinates then either have to go home to download the part 2 map, or do the math and plot the point on my existing map.. if it covers the spot I need to find. On a long hike it will probably be off the edge of the page since I like to use maps of 1:5000 or even 1:2500. I've done a few but generally aviod them unless they are in an area that I visit frequently.

For those that use a GPS I think a multi is a great way to show folks an area while making some sort of circular route returning to the vicinity of the original parking area. ...or for a big area make two multis.. one out and one back with parkling at each end so it won't matter which is done first.

November 30, 2005

It was just one big fun adventure. We did not know whether we would succeed or how long it would take (a full day afterall) or where the clues would eventually take us. It was big part of the fun to FIND OUT. And imagine our pleasure when we finally got the box!

HoPri

HoPri-

This is the sort of thing we enjoy, too. We just completed a cache that was similar to this in the fun factor, and you make a good point. When the long journey is amusing and fun, you can't wait to FIND OUT what is going to happen next. Kind of like reading a good novel -- and if we had to "put the book down now and then," (this one we worked on over a number of trips), so be it.

(When it was over, to be honest, we were a bit sad and speechless -- that combined with the sense of accomplishment that a duo of older folks and a Chewee-ridden dog actually completed the journey).

Lazy brainiacs we are, I guess (but not always so smart for sure!) :unsure: .

Longer Hike-why Not A Multi?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation