+nfa Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Hi, I was just thinking about the different search styles that geocachers bring to the table (woods?), and had a thought about a cache hide that has probably been done before, but not in my neck of the woods. The cache owner hides not 1 container, but several...say 6. If they are all within the reasonable error diameter of both the owner's and the seekers' GPS units, then they should all be found at one time or another. It would be interesting (I think) to see if people find a stump hide more frequently than a pile of sticks hide or a rock crevice hide, and to compare the results over time... This wouldn't work if people knew that there were multiple containers at the given coords...so...this friend of mine had an idea... jamie Quote Link to comment
+Confucius' Cat Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 So you ask the finder to email a secret number for "verification" of the cache find. With that you can determine which one was found. All caches should be exactly alike other than the number. Sounds good to me. After FTF, astute cachers will realize what is going on when they don't see a previous finder's sig in the log book. Quote Link to comment
bogleman Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Close - Sea creature safari to what you described Quote Link to comment
+Juicepig Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 Close - Sea creature safari to what you described Not really the same thing. bogleman is talking about not telling the finder that there is more then one cache if I am reading this right. It would make an interesting study! be sure to put up the results when you have had it up for a while. Quote Link to comment
+Isonzo Karst Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 I believe I know of two such caches - although in both cases they started out as a micro cache with vague center-of-clearing coords and a single hide. Over time, various "finders" have left a cache behind, claiming a find on it. In one case there are now 3 hides within range of the coords, in the other I believe there are 2. I'll be nearby to the second late March, I'll take a look around. The owner of the now 3 cache hide finds it amusing and I don't know about the other owner. Quote Link to comment
dutchmaster Posted January 23, 2006 Share Posted January 23, 2006 It would be interesting (I think) to see if people find a stump hide more frequently than a pile of sticks hide or a rock crevice hide, and to compare the results over time... jamie Like the old saying "it's going to be in the last place you look". Well of course it is, why would one keep looking after they found it? OTOH, if you want to really hide something, see to it that a second item will be found first, as in, why keep looking? I've also pondered your idea to get around the "one cache/half mile" rule and without the multiple waypoint deal which some find aggrevating and omit completely. My only solution, for the obsesive/complusive diehards, so far is too hide additional coords, either on the cache page, attached photos or in the cache itself so that further searches would be of a voluntary nature by seekers with greater interests other that just getting a "smilie' from yet another drive by cache. Another possiblility is that existing caches could evolve by introducing multi layers where these voluntary waypoints could/would be logged with a corresponding photo or secret number, which should be more than enough to generate a desire amongst previous or future finders too revisit a cache. Maybe I'm trying to hard to please everyone. Maybe this is a monday morning thing. I hope this helps in some abstract way. Hmmm, does this new type of cache need a name? Should TBs or FTF prizes be allowed in these extra hides or are they just bonus attractions? dutchmaster Quote Link to comment
+Rainwater Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 sounds like an idea for an evil cache I heard about... You hide a film container as the cache, and make sure you mention that the container is a film container on the cache page. then you scatter one or two bottoms and tops of other film containers in and among the area you hide the real cache...like hang the real cache but "drop" pices of conatiner in the fork of the tree, on the ground, behind a bush...etc...etc...when someone finds the top or bottom they might automaticlly think the cache was muggled and stop looking and then log a DNF... hehehe Quote Link to comment
+One of the Texas Vikings Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 sounds like an idea for an evil cache I heard about... You hide a film container as the cache, and make sure you mention that the container is a film container on the cache page. then you scatter one or two bottoms and tops of other film containers in and among the area you hide the real cache...like hang the real cache but "drop" pices of conatiner in the fork of the tree, on the ground, behind a bush...etc...etc...when someone finds the top or bottom they might automaticlly think the cache was muggled and stop looking and then log a DNF... hehehe That is not quite as evil as the one, someone mentioned on here. They had a 5 gal water bottle (water cooler style) filled with 400 film containers. only 1 was the cache the rest were empty.. Now, that's really evil Quote Link to comment
+Fergus Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 This sounds like a good idea, very evil. I say do it. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I did one once where there were two containers close together (within 30 feet of each other). Depending on which one you found first, you had a traditional cache or a multi. One was the cache and the other contained coordinates to a second waypoint, which sent you back to that spot telling you to look again. Quote Link to comment
+Miragee Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 I found a cache up a very steep hill. There was a little pile of rocks and in it was a "bottle of oxygen." You had to look around a little more to find the actual cache container. That was a fun one. I think the idea is an interesting one . . . however, around here we don't seem to have tree stumps and rocky crevices. Everyone would find the cache hidden in the tree stump. Quote Link to comment
+Map Only Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 We use multiple choice for testing wilderness navigation for Search and Rescue. The trainees find a tag on a tree/stump/log with a number. There are usually three tags per station, 100-200 feet apart. When they report the tag number they found, we know if they found the right spot. Quote Link to comment
+4leafclover Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 sounds like an idea for an evil cache I heard about... You hide a film container as the cache, and make sure you mention that the container is a film container on the cache page. then you scatter one or two bottoms and tops of other film containers in and among the area you hide the real cache...like hang the real cache but "drop" pices of conatiner in the fork of the tree, on the ground, behind a bush...etc...etc...when someone finds the top or bottom they might automaticlly think the cache was muggled and stop looking and then log a DNF... hehehe That is not quite as evil as the one, someone mentioned on here. They had a 5 gal water bottle (water cooler style) filled with 400 film containers. only 1 was the cache the rest were empty.. Now, that's really evil just found one like that in Indiana this weekend. We loved it! Quote Link to comment
+Elde Posted January 24, 2006 Share Posted January 24, 2006 sounds like an idea for an evil cache I heard about... You hide a film container as the cache, and make sure you mention that the container is a film container on the cache page. then you scatter one or two bottoms and tops of other film containers in and among the area you hide the real cache...like hang the real cache but "drop" pices of conatiner in the fork of the tree, on the ground, behind a bush...etc...etc...when someone finds the top or bottom they might automaticlly think the cache was muggled and stop looking and then log a DNF... That's not evil, it's littering. Quote Link to comment
+flask Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 sounds like an idea for an evil cache I heard about... You hide a film container as the cache, and make sure you mention that the container is a film container on the cache page. then you scatter one or two bottoms and tops of other film containers in and among the area you hide the real cache...like hang the real cache but "drop" pices of conatiner in the fork of the tree, on the ground, behind a bush...etc...etc...when someone finds the top or bottom they might automaticlly think the cache was muggled and stop looking and then log a DNF... That's not evil, it's littering. littering is evil. anyway, jamie, if you want to keep yur experiment good, you might make it a two parter in which the coordinates for the second part are in the first containers, so the number of signatures in the log are credible. you could still find some reason to ask for a code word. and i won't breathe a word of it. Quote Link to comment
+BigFurryMonster Posted January 25, 2006 Share Posted January 25, 2006 Hide 6 different code words inside the 6 caches: MULTICACHE THIS DOING FOR YOU THANK Only people who've found them all will really know what's been going on. 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.