davester Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Is it me or do most new caches in the UK seem to be offset caches that are masquarading as multi-caches? To me, a multi-cache is a series of caches such as the fabled Alchemy Quest. To the majority of places, it seems that an offset cache is now a multi-cache. It does not make a crap cache good if you have to spend 30 minutes looking for inane clues first. Equally if a cache is of good enough quality you shouldn't ruin it with a mundane and pointless "quest" first! The main reason I find this so dadgum frustrating is that, as many of you know, I do the majority of my caching while walking. Often I sit down on a Friday night to sort out the weekends route on Memory Map and curse with frustration that a cache I liked the look of is one of these "multi's". That means the cache is impossible to incorporate in a walk as the final location is needed. I know it's a moan, but how about including the final location in your spoiler! Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 (edited) To me, a multi-cache is a series of caches To you, perhaps, but not to the guidelines and, I suspect, most cachers. From http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx "Multi-Cache (offset Cache) A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a multi-cache." A series is a collection of related caches (such as Alchemy), which themselves may be traditional, multi or anything else. [Edit: fix broken link] Edited January 5, 2006 by Alan White Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 agree entirelty with alan! Also, having set a multi with plaques, exactly as davester describes, to me this is equally as good as a traditional. Our intention, and also with one in the pipeline, is not the 'challenge' as such, but to make people read interesting things about an area. We love finding out these facts, and hope others do too! Quote Link to comment
+Mr Nibbler Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Mrs N won't do anything other than the "multi-caches" where she has to find clues and solve the final location. I, on the other hand, am more than happy with multi's which lead me from micro to micro....to cache (sometimes). Perhaps you should ignore Multi's and plan your walks around traditional cache types. Or check out the cache pages first. It's down to the setter how they classify them and some quiz caches show up as multis. I find it annoying but can usually work through it. Quote Link to comment
+Pengy&Tigger Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 As long as they are listed as multis I'm okay with them. Its when they are listed as traditional that it gets my goat. T Quote Link to comment
+The Hokesters Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 OK I hear what Dave is saying and I fully understand why he wouldn't like them in his plans. However we'd rather invest an afternoon in one cache than dash from one to another. My understanding of a multi-cache was always that you had to go from one box to another in order to learn the location of the final box but it appears a cache where you collect clues to decipher the final cache is also a multi. What's a puzzle/unknown cach then? Quote Link to comment
Lactodorum Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I think the main problem is that there is no distinction between an offset i.e. "find the clue - find the cache" and a "true" multi cache. When reviewing new caches we have to classify anything that is more than a simple "go to the co-ords - find the box" as a multi. It might not be perfect but "them's the rules" Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 OK I hear what Dave is saying and I fully understand why he wouldn't like them in his plans. I don't, actually. Surely when walking there's no reason not to include the various locations of a multi, so long as they don't take you off your route. As always, the rule is "if you don't like particular sorts of cache, don't do them." What's a puzzle/unknown cach then? A fine line, I think. My 2p is that if the coords of all the waypoints but the final are on the cache page then it's a multi. If you have to get info at wpt A before you know where wpt B is then it's a mystery. But the guidelines are very woolly on this. Quote Link to comment
+Learned Gerbil Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Are there not three categories - the offset, the series, and the multi? 1) Offset - find clues - find location, find cache. One cache one score. 2) Series - lots of caches leading to a final location and a final find. Lots of caches, lots of scores. 3) Multi - a find that itself does not count as a cache, but only provides the location of the cache itself and only counts as one find. All three get the same icon but all three are a very different experience. Al lare very enjoyable in their own way. All get classed the same. Quote Link to comment
+The Hokesters Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Surely a series of trad caches which (if you want to) you need to find all the trads to get a final "bonus" cache at the end of the series should all be listed as trads? Unless any of the series are themselves multis. Anyone want me to explain the off-side rule? Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 OK I hear what Dave is saying and I fully understand why he wouldn't like them in his plans. I don't, actually. Surely when walking there's no reason not to include the various locations of a multi, so long as they don't take you off your route. As always, the rule is "if you don't like particular sorts of cache, don't do them." What's a puzzle/unknown cach then? A fine line, I think. My 2p is that if the coords of all the waypoints but the final are on the cache page then it's a multi. If you have to get info at wpt A before you know where wpt B is then it's a mystery. But the guidelines are very woolly on this. my own 1.5 p worth - I've always thought of a puzzle cache as one where the coords are not on the cache page OR immediately obtainable from a basic series of clues. Instead, a certain amount of thought is required, possibly at home beforehand, before one can set off. multis in my mind come in two sorts, those with lots of waypoints on the cache page, leading to one final, such as this one and those as Alan describes as a puzzle. The difference between these two is neglible in practical terms isn't it? A series can be made of trads, multis, possibly even puzzles, and gives lots of loggable finds! However, only an opinion. Dave PS - please don't mention the subtle cache advert to our reviewers Quote Link to comment
+Stuey Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Surely a series of trad caches which (if you want to) you need to find all the trads to get a final "bonus" cache at the end of the series should all be listed as trads? Unless any of the series are themselves multis. Agreed, and there is no reason why a series couldn't have a virtual or a puzzle chucked in to the mix as well as trads and multis. Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 It might not be defined in the guidelines as such, but I regard a "mystery" cache as one where there's no point in leaving home until you've solved the mystery or puzzle in the cache description. The waypoint is usually just a useful starting point (parking, for instance). A multi / offset cache consists of going straight to the waypoint, then finding something there, which you use to direct you to the cache, or to the next stage in the multicache, then repeating this (if necessary) until you get to the cache itself. A series is a set of separate caches, of any type, which are devised to be logged as a set of caches in some way. You may or may not have to find clues to help find another cache in the series. The only link might be that they have a common name or theme, or they could be tightly bound together. If I was planning a walk, I would just ignore any multicaches unless I had plenty of time to wander away from my route! HH Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Oooo I get to rant without starting "Rutson's Rant #832" Mystery caches that aren't. From the guidlines: The only commonality of this cache type is that the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location. There seem to be rather a lot of caches classifed as 'Mystery' where the container is unual, but AT THE POSTED COORDINATES. I read that to be a hard traditional. Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Oooo I get to rant without starting "Rutson's Rant #832" Mystery caches that aren't. From the guidlines: The only commonality of this cache type is that the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location. There seem to be rather a lot of caches classifed as 'Mystery' where the container is unual, but AT THE POSTED COORDINATES. I read that to be a hard traditional. So a mystery COULD be anything apart from a trad (and a virtual)?? That may be why there is confusion! Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I regard a "mystery" cache as one where there's no point in leaving home until you've solved the mystery or puzzle in the cache description. That's certainly one example, but there are mystery caches where you can't solve them unless you leave home Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 there are mystery caches where you can't solve them unless you leave home So you have no waypoint, and no puzzle to solve to give you a clue - what DO you have??? Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 There seem to be rather a lot of caches classifed as 'Mystery' where the container is unual, but AT THE POSTED COORDINATES. I read that to be a hard traditional. Absolutely. If the cache is at the published coords it's a traditional. I doubt there can be any argument about that. (But I bet there will be ) Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I read that to be a hard traditional. So do I! Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 So you have no waypoint, and no puzzle to solve to give you a clue - what DO you have??? You do have a waypoint (the published coords) but it might be parking, with some instructions as to what to do when you get there, as in this cache. Or it might be something nearby, as in this cache. Quote Link to comment
+Stuey Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 If the cache is at the published coords it's a traditional. I doubt there can be any argument about that. (But I bet there will be ) I'll bite, hehe. I had a new one listed as a traditional once, but the general consensus from the early visitors was that it should be a "Mystery", so I had it changed. It was at the posted co-ordinates sure enough, but it was certainly not a "traditional" cache in the traditional sense. There are lots of different combinations which are valid, and I'd personally say that the only one that is a problem is when a traditional listing refers to something other than a traditional cache. Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 How can it possibly be a Mystery if it's at the posted coordinates? Quote Link to comment
+Stuey Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 How can it possibly be a Mystery if it's at the posted coordinates? What if it is not a container? What if there is nothing there for that matter? It's a mystery Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 How can it possibly be a Mystery if it's at the posted coordinates? i should imagine that stuey can't say, otherwise it wouldn't be a mystery! I can think of one though, whish although it was at the coords, wasn't quite the usual trad! Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 If there's something to sign at the coords, it's a trad. If there's something at the coords to lead you to something to sign it's a multi. And before anyone notices, yes I've had (got?) at least one that's wrongly classifed. Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 What if it is not a container? What if there is nothing there for that matter? It's a mystery If you're referring to this one, that's a traditional, judging by the spoiler photos. The item to find and log is at the published coords. It's therefore another "hard traditional", reflected in the difficulty rating. Quote Link to comment
+rutson Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Yep, that's a traditional if very I saw one. A pretty hard one though! Quote Link to comment
+Stuey Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Can we keep on topic please . That might be one of them, but this thread is about multi's Quote Link to comment
lakeuk Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 This cache Wainwright's Inn had me confused, when I went looking for it in the summer I only had the waypoint details on my gps, didn't take the write up details with me - the gps took me to behind the pub and I knew I was the wrong side of the river for the cache from reading the logs. The actual cache location was written in the details. I couldn't see why this cache was marked as a multi, to me it should be a traditional as you don't need to go to point 1 to get to point 2 Quote Link to comment
+Pengy&Tigger Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 (edited) And before anyone notices, yes I've had (got?) at least one that's wrongly classifed. So have I but those 2 were adopted by us (GCGRNY and GCGRPB). I believe at the time they were hidden, a mystery type container was acceptable to be a mystery cache. I have also seen offsets described as mystery caches, for example a series of caches where there co-ords of the next one are in each cache. To me that makes the first a trad as it is at listed co-ords, and the following caches multis as the co-ords are in the previous cache. They aren't mysteries as such, because you know exactly where to get the co-ords. Tigger. Note to reviewers: feel free the change the cache type of our two above to traditional. Edited January 5, 2006 by Pengy&Tigger Quote Link to comment
adrianjohn Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 It does not make a crap cache good if you have to spend 30 minutes looking for inane clues first. Equally if a cache is of good enough quality you shouldn't ruin it with a mundane and pointless "quest" first! I am with davester on this one, dressing up a cache with a pointless hunt for clues often to end up at a crap cache is not fun. I also agree that sometimes you do not want to deviate from a planned walk in order to log a cache, which at first sight appeared to be a traditional. I have on some occasions circumvented the trail of clues to just go to the final, being able to deduce the answer before leaving home. Pointless trails are not for me, a good walk of my choice and a couple of caches is. Now for a rant, I hate bloody Sudoku!!!!!!!!!! Why so many pointless trails to get numbers to stick in a stupid grid just to find a box of tat. Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 and the following caches multis as the co-ords are in the previous cache. The following caches could only be multis if they themselves had more than one location. Even if they did, I'd still say they're mystery, because you don't know where to start until you've done something else. Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 P&T, for example a series of caches where there co-ords of the next one are in each cache I'd say that the first is a traditional, then the others are mystery caches. If you want to do one (apart from the first), in isolation, there's no cache or clue item at the coordinates. Adrianjohn, dressing up a cache with a pointless hunt for clues Agreed that this is annoying, but only if it's really pointless. A good multi would take you on a reasonably logical trail to the final cache, showing you some points of interest on the way. And give you some indication of what you're letting yourself in for, so you can choose to ignore the cache if you don't have the time or inclination! HH Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 you do not want to deviate from a planned walk in order to log a cache, which at first sight appeared to be a traditional. Misclassified traditionals are certainly the most annoying. which is why it's so important to bring it to the attention of someone who can fix it. That way, subsequent cachers can avoid it if they want to. I hate bloody Sudoku!!!!!!!!!! Then don't do Sudoku. Quote Link to comment
+Happy Humphrey Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 This cache Wainwright's Inn had me confused I think that the cache should be a Mystery cache. The fact that it's not much of a mystery is irrelevant. HH Quote Link to comment
adrianjohn Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 The colour of Europe Linky More Multis! Quote Link to comment
+purple_pineapple Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 but surely the point of our obsession is being taken to new places, not ticking off as many plastic boxes as possible? Therefore, a good multi with interesting plaques, signs or whatevers COULD be better than a trad? Assuming its correctly classified of course... Quote Link to comment
Alan White Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Therefore, a good multi with interesting plaques, signs or whatevers COULD be better than a trad? I think it's a little more than "could", according to the G:UK ratings. Of the top ten caches, 7 are mysteries. The other 3 are traditionals. But 2 of the trads are misclassified - they should be mysteries. So there's little doubt where our preferences are for enjoyable caches. Quote Link to comment
+Sensei TSKC Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Multi's can be EXCELLENT! I have looked at the caches I have set, which is only 18. Of those 7 are Multi's, 8 are Mystery's and 3 Trads (one of those some people say should be a Mystery, but I have not altered it). One of the reasons for not putting out Trad after Trad is for the fun factor - not the numbers game. There is a time and place for collecting numbers and that is usually with Trads. Some Multi's require very little work and little walking too. Check the cache page. With multi's, especially the clue collecting type, there will be a big pointer in how much work you need to do to complete it. Like some others, I would rather do a good Multi/Mystery etc than 4 or 5 crappy trads. It has been said, time and time again - play the game your way and leave others to play theirs. This has given me a kick to start another thread or two......... Oss! Quote Link to comment
+Alibags Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I agree with Sensei on this. Read the cache page. If you are preparing for a long walk with caches, surely this would be part of your prep anyway? Not all multis are time consuming, some are short offsets. I have done both unknowns and multis on a 'numbers day', purely by having done my homework beforehand. I agree with Davester in so much as sometimes you do a multi and the number gathering is neither interesting, nor challenging, and so you wonder why they didn't just make it a trad and have done with it. However, I guess I can answer that myself. I have a cache like that myself! I made it that way as it is part of a series, so I wanted the cache to appear on the route in the appropriate place. However, due to muggles, I needed to offset it slightly, and so I made a one stop, simple numbers gathering exercise part of the cache. I personal would classify a cache as a mystery if it was not a simple info gathering to get final co-ords type, but you had to use your brain to work out a puzzle of bring in some other information or use other skills to get to the cache. I can see there is a certain blurring of the classifications between mystery and multi though. I like a bit of all cache types. Having spent all day doing a single cache (multi/mystery) on more than one occasion, I have to say that that is certainly rewarding... although your numbers do look good after a day of 'breath strip container attached with magnets to a park bench' type trads. Quote Link to comment
mjbvbjjbtmb Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 but surely the point of our obsession is being taken to new places, not ticking off as many plastic boxes as possible? Therefore, a good multi with interesting plaques, signs or whatevers COULD be better than a trad? Assuming its correctly classified of course... I agree! The most enjoyable caches we've done are the multis which have led us in a nice, organised circular walk, collecting clues as we go until we get to the actual cache. That sort of cache shows us new places, new aspects to towns and their history (I can think of two caches in Chesham that did that and one in Aston Clinton). What I don't like, though, is multi-caches which take us one place for a clue, then to another... but zigzagging over the place with no real structure to the walk so you find yourself overlapping where you have already been - we lose patience with those! We don't cache for the numbers, but to get us out on nice walks to places we haven't previously been to, so bring on the multis/offset! Oh - and also a well thought out series of trads is also great fun...Simply Paul's canal caches were a great introduction to caching! We've got our eyes on the Nicky line for when the weather gets better and we can get JJB out on his tagalong! Quote Link to comment
+The HERB5 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 a good multi with interesting plaques, signs or whatevers except when they get to you looking at fire hydrants or 'count the benches', this just seems a bit anoraky/lazy. If you have to resort to these tactics, maybe it 's not worth a cache.... Quote Link to comment
+kewfriend Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 QUOTE (purple_pineapple @ Jan 5 2006, 03:11 PM) a good multi with interesting plaques, signs or whatevers Doesnt always work - I quizzed a cacher after he had done one my multis recently - "Did you discover the origin of the word Kew?" "errr ... no ... where was it?" - - "on the same block of stone as you found the date of the origin of the word" "So thats why the date was there!" - "DOH" We try - we try Quote Link to comment
+Alibags Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I had occasion to do some multis in Hants back in August. I was most intrigued by the regional variations. In other words, a lot of the multis up here seem to adhere to a similar template and a bit of variety was very welcome! for example, I seem to be retrieving a lot of dates from benches, gravestones, monuments, etc, round here, but down there I was called upon to do quite a lot of counting and, heaven forbid, a bit of brainwork. However, Hants also appears to be UPOS central, so I think we have the edge there! Quote Link to comment
+Pengy&Tigger Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 UPOS ???? Uniform pile of sticks? Quote Link to comment
+t.a.folk Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 (edited) QUOTE (t.a.folk @ Jan 6 2006, 06:10 PM) QUOTE UPOS ???? Uniform pile of sticks? Thanks for explanation. Our experience of Hants caches is not identical . Edited January 6, 2006 by t.a.folk Quote Link to comment
+The Hokesters Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 UPOS could be Uniform Pile Of Sticks (or stones). You could also subsititute the U with "uneccessary" or "unlikely" Quote Link to comment
+wigglesworth Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 We are happy to tackle multi caches BUT prefer the clues to be on plaques etc. Why? There is no risk that part of the series of multi caches will have gone missing preventing us completing the series! There is nothing more frusrating than travelling a long distance, finding a few clues then being prevented from logging the final cache due to a missing clue. If yo have to find a container there is an argument that it is a cache in its own right! Peter Quote Link to comment
+Stuey Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 ....prefer the clues to be on plaques etc. Why? There is no risk that part of the series of multi caches will have gone missing Not quite "no risk", but much less risk. I've seen several caches where a plaque has been removed... but admittedly I've seen far more multi's where micro stages have gone missing. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.