Multi-Cache Clarification

[+Super_Nate]

I am not going to mention any names or details about the location here....I just want some clarification.

 

I have a multi-cache that I am wanting to get approved, and this is the email that I received when I pushed the submit cache report button.

{Your Cache }is archived and is still to close to {Another Cache} by “225” feet” at this point in time all waypoints stages even virtual count in this guideline

 

To give a little information about my cache:

 

The first stage is an offset stage. Their is no container to find....their is no coords written anywhere. You have to use a unique resource that is at this park to calculate the coords for stage two via the information that I provide on the cache page.

 

Stage two is well over .10 mile from any other cache in the area to abide by the 528 foot rule.....this stage is not the reason for this thread.

 

So this is where my question/concern comes in. I have looked all through the guidelines for offset caches and this is what I have come up with.

Offset caches are a variation on multi-caches. They are not found by simply going to some coordinates and finding a cache there. With the offset cache the published coordinates could be of an existing historical monument, plaque, or even a benchmark that you would like to have your cache hunter visit. At this spot, the hunter looks for numbers or information already appearing on the marker or on some part of the marker or site (geocachers NEVER deface public or private property). The geocacher is then able to manipulate these numbers using instructions posted on the cache page to continue the hunt.

 

I feel that my cache is an offset cache because I am using a virtual landmark that is unique to the area (other than counting the roots on a large tree....which would appear to me as a little lame) The items that I am using for this cache are many handprints on some wooden posts that were made by hundreds of kids at the time that this park was established. Those handprints along with the information on the cache page is what people follow to find the final stage.

 

In the guideline that I have just brought before you here, I have determined by the information in the guideline that I have an offset (aka virtual multi) cache on my hands. I see nothing in here that says that virtual items in my offset must be 528 feet away from the nearest cache.

 

I went on to look at the cache saturation guideline....it says

The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another. This guideline applies to all stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches

 

I am aware that the offset item that I am wanting to use for this cache is 220 feet away from the nearest cache. The ultimate container for this cache is well over 528 feet away, which is not going to "cause confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

 

Might I also add that the cache that is to close to the offset item is on the other side of a busy road and is not even in the same park as my cache.

 

I can relate to the reviewer being a little sensitive about the first stage of my cache being to close to another cache because this area is very cache dense.....However, I feel that my cache is of quality nature and should be considered as something that should be published.

 

I just want to know what the geo-community feels about this cache...I am not wanting to bash anyone (which is why I am not using names or locations in this thread) I just want to know if this cache is indeed against the guidelines or if it can be published. I want to thank the reviewers for their hard work that they put forth to this sport....but I am aware that nobody is perfect and we are all human.

 

Thanks for any help in advance.

[+palmetto]

I just want to know if this cache is indeed against the guidelines

 

In short, yes. A stage of a multi is a stage whether it has a container or is simply a location where information is gathered, and is accorded the same respect as a container - it needs to be .1 or 528 from other caches. I'm just speaking to the guidelines question you posed. Many reviewers will bend further on virtual stages than on physical - I have been known to. But only 225 feet is a lot of "bend".

[Clan Riffster]

Agreed. 400'+ might get you a nod. 225' is awfully close. If it's any consolation, I found a kick butt location for a regular, but there is an active cache just under 500' away. I've added that cache to my watchlist, and, at some unknowable point in the future, when it dies a natural death, I'll be there placing mine. Communication is your greatest asset in resolving this issue. Ask your reviewer for advice on how you could get your cache approved using those handprints. Could be all you can do is list them as an interesting reference point.

[+Super_Nate]

Agreed. 400'+ might get you a nod. 225' is awfully close. If it's any consolation, I found a kick butt location for a regular, but there is an active cache just under 500' away. I've added that cache to my watchlist, and, at some unknowable point in the future, when it dies a natural death, I'll be there placing mine. Communication is your greatest asset in resolving this issue. Ask your reviewer for advice on how you could get your cache approved using those handprints. Could be all you can do is list them as an interesting reference point.

 

Good point and advice.....I may not agree totally, but guidelines are guidelines and I can already see that this one might not work unless the other cache 225 feet away gets archived.

[+Super_Nate]

I am still trying to ponder the part where it says "the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another."

 

No body is going to be looking for the other cache and stumble across the handprints thinking that they must have missed something and start to scratch their head......They will not get "confused" while they are hunting the other cache on the other side of a busy street.

 

The nearest cache container to the other cache that is to close to my offset location is 600 feet away.

[+niraD]

Cachers have been known to search for offset multis and puzzles at the posted coordinates, ignoring the cache description which makes it clear that there is nothing at the posted coordinates. So maybe it makes sense to count virtual stages when determining cache density. Or maybe not. But why ignore the bogus coordinates for puzzles, but not virtual stages of offset multis? Anyway...

 

Might I also add that the cache that is to close to the offset item is on the other side of a busy road and is not even in the same park as my cache.

I don't see it in the guidelines, but I recall reading that barriers between cache locations could justify an exception. Examples included caches on opposite sides of a river, or caches at the top and bottom of a cliff. Perhaps the road is enough of a barrier to prevent confusion.

 

Another option is to contact the owner of the other cache. I've seen caches around here moved to make space for a new cache that was more dependent on a specific location than the first cache.

[+Super_Nate]

Cachers have been known to search for offset multis and puzzles at the posted coordinates, ignoring the cache description which makes it clear that there is nothing at the posted coordinates. So maybe it makes sense to count virtual stages when determining cache density. Or maybe not. But why ignore the bogus coordinates for puzzles, but not virtual stages of offset multis? Anyway...

 

Might I also add that the cache that is to close to the offset item is on the other side of a busy road and is not even in the same park as my cache.

I don't see it in the guidelines, but I recall reading that barriers between cache locations could justify an exception. Examples included caches on opposite sides of a river, or caches at the top and bottom of a cliff. Perhaps the road is enough of a barrier to prevent confusion.

 

I know about the barrier issue, and I own another cache that is 340 feet from the closest cache....but going at it from a bee-line is impossible. You would have to walk a good .25 to get to the cache from mine.

 

Back on track to this multi that I am trying to set up. Do you think that if I contacted my reviewer and told him about the other cache being on the other side of the busy road it would be a good step to go through? Seriously, that other cache is obviously on the other side of the road from GPS coords and that road is big enough and busy enough to make it some sort of barrier.

 

Another option is to contact the owner of the other cache. I've seen caches around here moved to make space for a new cache that was more dependent on a specific location than the first cache.

 

The owner of the other cache has been contacted...and even though he is EXTREMELY active, I have not got a response from him and it has been over a week since I emailed him.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Super_Nate

[+wimseyguy]

• Offset caches are a variation on multi-caches=A
  
• I feel that my cache is an offset cache =B
  
• This guideline applies to all stages of multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches=C
  

A+B=C

Your cache stage is covered by the guideline you have quoted. I don't see anything confusing here at all.

Edited January 5, 2007 by wimseyguy

[Neos2]

Ooops, I re-read it, and don't have anything useful to contribute. Sorry!

Edited January 5, 2007 by Neos2

[+theUMP]

As a cacher, if I've been taken to a particular part of town, or of a park, then I've been there. I don't need to be taken back there again to find another cache in the same vicinity.

 

That 0.1 mile is a minimum, not a target! It's a big country; find another place in it for your cache.

 

Just on the topic of natural barriers: I think the example of "top and bottom of a cliff" is a dangerous one. I've found caches where I searched the top _and_ bottom of a cliff, since the error radius could have placed it in either spot. If there were waypoints to different caches up and down, then I could've switched multis without meaning to!