seperate caches or stages of a multicache

[yatesDELTA]

i was wondering wheather it would be better to list my new multi/series that imp planning as stages of a multi or sperate listings. Ive seen examples of both.

each stage will have its own logbook and a few might be larger than micro caches

 

im not sure about the rules on this. Also i wouldnt want to over-clog the system and contribute towards saturation it its not necasery

 

yatesDELTA

[+Lotho]

If you are going to add log books in all of the caches then most people cache 1 logbook= 1 cache, so id say do it that way. However, if you want to make it a multi and not a series of trads, dont put logbooks in any but the last.

[+Gushoneybun]

If you are going to add log books in all of the caches then most people cache 1 logbook= 1 cache, so id say do it that way. However, if you want to make it a multi and not a series of trads, dont put logbooks in any but the last.

 

I agree with Lotho, I came across a multi with a log book in each cache as well as swaps! It was a mess people did the first one then logged the cache and did not bother with the other three parts nor the final (which was a micro .)

[nobby.nobbs]

as long as each location is worth the stop then make it a cache at each.

[Lactodorum]

A multi cache has several stages plus a final box with a logbook in it. If each cache has a logbook then each one is a separate cache. However, as the guidelines state, please do not create a series of separate caches 0.1 miles apart just because you can.

 

If I were placing the caches the rule of thumb I would use is that every spot I placed a cache should be worthwhile visiting. Unfortunately I can't apply this rule while reviewing and I see an awful lot of caches which comply with the guidelines where I think "Why here?!"

[yatesDELTA]

maybe i could do it as stages.

 

im planning six stages or smaller caches in the 6 main viallages that surround stevenage(each ebing about 3 miles apart. atleast.. each cache will have a number that is part of the co-ordinate for the final

 

i think a multi might be better but unsure as i have done both. what is you peoples personal preference?

[+rutson]

If they are that far apart and worthy of individual cache, I would definitely prefer:

 

a) them to be separately logable

put out in the next week or so ;-)

[+Tiger-Eyes]

As you have just descibed it i would prefer it as several caches, i prefer multis if i can walk to the different stages

[+Team Sieni]

You may find useful advice in This Thread

[+Coppers Lot]

It's all about the numbers YatesDELTA; if you want people to visit the series then it'll have to be separately loggable caches making an over all series with a finale cache to hook it all together. Esp if the parts of the series are more than walking distance from one another.

 

My experience is that most cachers don't like walking miles and miles to score only one find. If you produce a multi like this then it'll hardly get visited which is a shame but a fact.

[yatesDELTA]

well lets just say its not realistic to walk the whole lot. would be perhaps a fewe trips or the cachmobile doing a fair bit of work.

 

i think sperates of normal caches and for someone to have done the lot a final larger cache could work

[+Renegade Knight]

Separate Caches. Creating 20 times the work for one log, just because you can is worse than placing caches 0.1 mile along a path just because you can.

 

TIC Post aside.

 

A theme alone isn't enough to bind a buch of caches into a multi and give them a sence of bieng all the same cache. For a multi to be something more than just randomly linked locations it takes some thought. More than some actually.

Edited August 15, 2007 by Renegade Knight

[+TrailGators]

Multis are fun especially if they take you on a tour. I prefer virtual stages in high muggle areas. You can give someone a fun tour of an area without having to resort to making them find a micro just for the sake of finding a micro.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Have done a series where you find cache A and it has North co-ords,

then go and find cache B which has West co-ords,

so you can then find cache C.

 

3 caches, but you need to find 2 to find the 3rd!

 

G

[+imajeep]

FWIW, we tend not to do multis, unless they are really good and get rave reviews from other cachers. We recently spent an entire day bushwacking a muti series--seven separate caches that yielded three smileys whan all were found (which we did). If we're going to do that much work, we'd like seven smileys.

 

 

The best multi-series we have done was an abandoned bridge ruins series. There were three multis. Each was a micro on an abandoned bridge abutment, which led to an ammo box nearby with a log and a history of the bridge. The bonus led to an ammo box with copies of a CD-ROM that contained a digitized plat map of the county from 1880, showing all the bridges. A very well-thought-out multi series, and one of our favorites!

[+Sensei TSKC]

FWIW, we tend not to do multis, unless they are really good and get rave reviews from other cachers. ..... If we're going to do that much work, we'd like seven smileys.

... but it's not all about the numbers!

 

Surely, the idea behind caching is "caching". Enough of the wind up.

 

Horses for causes I say. There are quite a few "mega caches" around and although they may take anything from a few hours to a few days to complete, the setter has taken alot of time to set and from the ones I know about, certainly gets a reputation of being great.

 

Personally, I prefer either short (2-3 stage) multi's or series of caches leading to the main Bonus cache.

Then I get rewarded for my finds. Oooops! It is 'all about the numbers!'

[+Pharisee]

If you want folks to go and find your caches, then make them separate, individually loggable caches. If you're not worried about how many people find them, then make them stages of a single multi but don't put a log book in each stage. The log book only goes in the final element of the cache.

 

 

I have a multi that requires a considerable expenditure of energy and resources on the part of the hunter. It requires you to visit about 17 different locations, driving in excess of 200 miles and the fastest time taken to complete it was 3 days. All for one Smilie As you'd expect, it gets very few takers but those that have completed it seem to have 'enjoyed' the experience and it's been sitting at the top of the G:UK highest rated cache list for months.

 

 

Up to you, mate.... you'll never please everybody so don't even try.... Set it to please yourself!

[+nipperoon]

 

The best multi-series we have done was an abandoned bridge ruins series. There were three multis. Each was a micro on an abandoned bridge abutment, which led to an ammo box nearby with a log and a history of the bridge. The bonus led to an ammo box with copies of a CD-ROM that contained a digitized plat map of the county from 1880, showing all the bridges. A very well-thought-out multi series, and one of our favorites!

shame i live:

NW 3926.5mi from your home coordinates

from it cos it looks well good.

 

im gna try to think of a theme to link them up such as common hiing places but then it might get easy towards the end?

 

also the bonus. should it be like a large type? im stuggling to think of a good place to hide one

[yatesDELTA]

oops that post(the above one) was me on my dads account

 

(he musta forgot to log out lol)

[markandlynn]

If you want folks to go and find your caches, then make them separate, individually loggable caches. If you're not worried about how many people find them, then make them stages of a single multi but don't put a log book in each stage. The log book only goes in the final element of the cache.

 

 

I have a multi that requires a considerable expenditure of energy and resources on the part of the hunter. It requires you to visit about 17 different locations, driving in excess of 200 miles and the fastest time taken to complete it was 3 days. All for one Smilie As you'd expect, it gets very few takers but those that have completed it seem to have 'enjoyed' the experience and it's been sitting at the top of the G:UK highest rated cache list for months.

 

 

Up to you, mate.... you'll never please everybody so don't even try.... Set it to please yourself!

 

Ditto with pharisee

 

Something else to consider here is maintainance.

 

The more often a cache is visited the more likely it is to go missing our 10 stage multi atrracts few visitors but every log we read is worthwhile, it also means we only have to walk it once or twice a year to check on the stages.

 

If it was 10 loggable stages it would get more visitors but would also need more maintainance visits.

 

Nips off to add pharisees cache to wish list