Jump to content

Multi-Cache waypoints are enveloping entire parks!


WHO-DEY

Recommended Posts

Example: There is a park near me that has 8 caches. It is a huge park of 239 acres, 6 miles of trails, many paths. You would think I would have no problem hiding a traditional cache out here...plenty of room. I went out twice, trying to launch a cache. I knew where the cache locations around the park were as they were either found or loaded into my Garmin. I was nowhere near any listings. So I placed it. Then drove home and submitted it, and waited eagerly for publication. Unfortunately I got an email telling me I was too close to a waypoint on a multi located here. I said "what?" So I drove back out, found it, moved it marked it, and then went home again to submit it under the new location. BAM! Again, another location too close to a waypoint of a different multi. This is getting old. I gave up, picked it up, and placed it elsewhere, a different park miles away. :laughing:

I learned that a couple of the existing caches here are Multi's, one being 6 stages (GCN8F8). Therefore no other cache can be with .10 miles of any of each of the stages/waypoints. That is where the question, or issue, lies. Does anyone else feel that disallowing a cache to be launched in a location because you are near a little tag containing coordinates only, is a little overkill? And as a result, is it possibly not allowing any other cache's in the area/park to be published? Devil's Advocate: What if I made a 12 stage cache in a new park...it is feasable that no other cache could be placed in that if I staggered them just right (or wrong). I am proposing a consideration to Groundspeak.com to only have the .10 rule be in effect for the 1st (only published) location, and the last/final cache location. The example I posted above is a really great cache (GCN8F8) but it begins and ends right near the parking area. But the waypoints (little tags) are all over and deep into the park. And that is great, as it gets you to the coolest parts of the park, and all over it. But from the perspective (and reality) of a fellow cacher who wants to place a traditional ammo box in the park, I likely cannot, due to all of the stages/waypoints of the multi's in the park. It seems to be, well, silly. I mean, they are just coordinates that are found and then the cacher moves on. No logs to sign, no kids sitting digging through a box...just get and go, once found. What do we all think? :ph34r:

Link to comment

Last week I was vacationing and sightseeing around the New England seacoast where I found a cache named "I wish I lived Across the Street!" As we drove around I thought of how nice it would be to be able to find a piece of inexpensive waterfront property with a terrific view. The problem is that those who got to the area earlier bought all of the property I would like to have found at a cheap price.

 

That's sort of how it is with trying to find a place to hide a geocache in a popular park. It might be possible to locate a spot after finding all of the existing caches and plotting their stages using mapping software. An alternative is to find an interesting place that has not already been peppered with caches. That way people can be brought to an area they probably would never have visited except for your cache.

 

Back to the original question, if the park is as saturated as suggested, additional geocaching traffic would probably be harmful.

Link to comment

Devil's Advocate: What if you were placing a multi and one of your waypoints is 20 feet from another caches way point? I go to 'YOUR' way point but get 'THEIR' way point instead. So I start at your Cache and get theirs. Hummm....Maybe there should only be a 100ft buffer around waypoints.

 

That is kind of why I post on here. there are many scenarios I could not consider. I was comparing as single stage traditional launch to to a park full of laminated tags... where the cache is not even in the park path area. But you have a valid point. Perhaps adding the Cache ID to the tag (previous example: GCN8F8) would solve that. That would not be a bad idea anyway.

Link to comment

Last week I was vacationing and sightseeing around the New England seacoast where I found a cache named "I wish I lived Across the Street!" As we drove around I thought of how nice it would be to be able to find a piece of inexpensive waterfront property with a terrific view. The problem is that those who got to the area earlier bought all of the property I would like to have found at a cheap price.

 

That's sort of how it is with trying to find a place to hide a geocache in a popular park. It might be possible to locate a spot after finding all of the existing caches and plotting their stages using mapping software. An alternative is to find an interesting place that has not already been peppered with caches. That way people can be brought to an area they probably would never have visited except for your cache.

 

Back to the original question, if the park is as saturated as suggested, additional geocaching traffic would probably be harmful.

 

Understood. But the actual saturation goes from 8 caches on 239 acres...to 17 due to the waypoints inclusion. Again, you do not have 17 caches being opened, logs signed, SWAG sifted through. It is usually a look and walk situation. And in many park locals, the stage tags are on a bench, deck, sign, etc. Where congregating is already abundant or frequent. I do not want to split hairs...as there is always an exception. :laughing::ph34r:

Link to comment

While I agree it seems odd to have a proximity rule for stages of a multi which are nothing more than coordinates on a tag, it comes down to consistency. The example was already brought up about getting containers of different multis mixed up. So, the solution would be that if it is just a tag with coordinates then it is exempt. That means the reviewers would need to know what sort of hide each stage of the multi is. That adds a lot of work.

 

By applying a simple standard of "Proximity rules apply to all stages of a Multi" it really makes things easier for everyone -- the reviewers and hiders because the same rule applies regardless of the type of hide. Just wait until you go to hide another one and run into the final of a Puzzle you didn't know about. :ph34r:

Link to comment

By applying a simple standard of "Proximity rules apply to all physical stages of a Multi" it really makes things easier for everyone -- the reviewers and hiders because the same rule applies regardless of the type of hide. Just wait until you go to hide another one and run into the final of a Puzzle you didn't know about. :laughing:

Fixed. :ph34r:

 

Stages that are listed using the virtual WP types "Reference Point" or "Question to Answer" don't count against the proximity guideline.

Link to comment

I have a ten stage multi meant to be a tour around the city. It is made up of a virtual clue for each waypoint. You have to look for something, like count and record the number of....., at each waypoint before going on to the next waypoint. Then these numbers are used to figure out the location of the final cache. The proximity rule does not apply for virtual information gathering clues so the only proximity I have to worry about is the final cache (an actual physical cache). Just something to consider.

Link to comment
By applying a simple standard of "Proximity rules apply to all physical stages of a Multi" it really makes things easier for everyone -- the reviewers and hiders because the same rule applies regardless of the type of hide. Just wait until you go to hide another one and run into the final of a Puzzle you didn't know about. :laughing:

Fixed. :ph34r:

 

Stages that are listed using the virtual WP types "Reference Point" or "Question to Answer" don't count against the proximity guideline.

What about someone with a 10 stage multi who has virtual stages yet sets their waypoints as "Stages of a Multicache" to protect them? I once listed a cache 20 feet away from a virtual stage of a cache because the stage was listed as a "Question to Answer". I got an e-mail from the cache owner who was not happy that the stage was spoiled (people who were finding the cache were posting pictures, drawing attention to this 'item')

 

The waypoint was changed to "Stage of a Multicache" and is now protected, even though it's not a physical stage. Therefore you can't always go on physical vs non-physical as your scenario suggests, but it's close in most cases!

Edited by Quiggle
Link to comment

By applying a simple standard of "Proximity rules apply to all physical stages of a Multi" it really makes things easier for everyone -- the reviewers and hiders because the same rule applies regardless of the type of hide. Just wait until you go to hide another one and run into the final of a Puzzle you didn't know about. :laughing:

Fixed. :ph34r:

 

Stages that are listed using the virtual WP types "Reference Point" or "Question to Answer" don't count against the proximity guideline.

Yep. The stages of a multi are already handled special within the guidelines so arguing consistency does really amount to a reason.

 

Within a given multi cache there is no proximity rule. Stages can be placed as close to or as far from one another as the hider wishes. There is also no guideline on the number of stages one can have. So it is pretty easy for a person to saturate a park by careful placing the stages of multi so as to keep any other caches from being placed there. If the multi hider wanted, they could even place another cache or allow a friend to place a cache by simply moving an existing waypoint to open the area. I don't believe that reviewers are notified when an additional waypoint is added or deleted or edited.

 

On the other hand the guideline was change a couple of years ago, somewhat along the lines of what the OP is asking for, to allow a multi owner to list intermediate stages as "Reference point" or "Question to answer" so it wouldn't block other caches. While meant to be used for "virtual" stages, I doubt a review would know if this were used on a stage where the coordinates were on a tag or even in a micro container. Since, as Quiggle points out, a "virtual" stage can be protected by listing it as a "Stage of a Multicache", I would guess one could leave physical stages unprotected. You might try getting the owner of the multi that is blocking your cache to change one or more stages to "Reference Point" and then resubmit your cache.

Link to comment

I think the current rules make it difficult to place caches and thats unfortunate. My own view is to just get rid of multi's....I'm guessing 90% of the cachers would rather find 10 caches than a 10 part multi. Anyone who caches a great deal has to travel almost immediately once the home base caches are found. Almost all cachers ( including me )will look for multi's in their home area but very few include them in their queries when they are on the road. While not numbers driven I do like some bang for the buck. With gas cost high it cost me about $5 a cache or more depending if I spend the night out of town and thats with my wife and I trying to hustle a bit. To spend a couple of hours on a long multi is one thing but if you DNF a latter stage you have one long no-find. Also, say with a 10 part cache, it is 10 times more likely that something has happened to one of the stages.

The multi's I like are where you drive to one and walk from the first to the last ( 2-stage)....if they were all like this I would look for all of them.

Again, just my thoughts.....I like ALL caches but the current waypoint rule on multi's is the pits......I can tell you having hid almost 250 caches its hard enough without having to do it over....and over......

Link to comment

By applying a simple standard of "Proximity rules apply to all physical stages of a Multi" it really makes things easier for everyone -- the reviewers and hiders because the same rule applies regardless of the type of hide. Just wait until you go to hide another one and run into the final of a Puzzle you didn't know about. :laughing:

Fixed. :ph34r:

 

Stages that are listed using the virtual WP types "Reference Point" or "Question to Answer" don't count against the proximity guideline.

You might try getting the owner of the multi that is blocking your cache to change one or more stages to "Reference Point" and then resubmit your cache.

Agree with you and Quiggle that it's all in how the WPs are listed (which is why I said it that way). You can protect the area around a virtual stage by listing it as "Stages of a Multicache," which implies a physical placement and triggers the proximity guideline.

 

And some hiders use "Stages" for virtual WPs because they think that's the correct choice, without realizing one of the other options could be used or that it will block other placements.

 

I had a similar situation to the OP's a couple years ago, when I wanted to place a cache about 200 ft from one stage of a multi. Three of the multi's stages were virtual (trailhead, signs) but had been listed as "Stages of a Multicache" because the hider didn't know better. I checked with the owner and reviewer, the designations of the stages were revised to reflect their virtual nature, and I got my cache approved. :anibad:

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

I think the current rules make it difficult to place caches and thats unfortunate. My own view is to just get rid of multi's....I'm guessing 90% of the cachers would rather find 10 caches than a 10 part multi. Anyone who caches a great deal has to travel almost immediately once the home base caches are found. Almost all cachers ( including me )will look for multi's in their home area but very few include them in their queries when they are on the road. While not numbers driven I do like some bang for the buck. With gas cost high it cost me about $5 a cache or more depending if I spend the night out of town and thats with my wife and I trying to hustle a bit. To spend a couple of hours on a long multi is one thing but if you DNF a latter stage you have one long no-find. Also, say with a 10 part cache, it is 10 times more likely that something has happened to one of the stages.

The multi's I like are where you drive to one and walk from the first to the last ( 2-stage)....if they were all like this I would look for all of them.

Again, just my thoughts.....I like ALL caches but the current waypoint rule on multi's is the pits......I can tell you having hid almost 250 caches its hard enough without having to do it over....and over......

This could probably be it's own thread discussing the merits of each type of cache. I for one try to avoid multi's unless I want to work on 1 close to home (we have many in the area) knowing it will probably be an all day thing. Just a couple weeks ago we spent an entire Saturday working on 1 and when we got to the end the final stage was missing! :ph34r: Contacted the owners and set a needs maintenance but nothing has been done yet. The next day the wife and I took off on a caching run and bagged 12 singles as well as stopping for a nice late lunch. You tell me which day was better? :laughing:

Link to comment

Although I have not read all of this thread I do think that there should be a limit to the number of multi caches in an area!

We have a wonderful park nearby that is about 5 sq KM but it has several multis in it and there would be more regular caches there if not for the total 15-20 multi stages/

 

Thats my 2 cents

Link to comment
Stages that are listed using the virtual WP types "Reference Point" or "Question to Answer" don't count against the proximity guideline.

What about someone with a 10 stage multi who has virtual stages yet sets their waypoints as "Stages of a Multicache" to protect them?

I have some multis that have no containers except for the final. The interim stages are figured out by going to virtual things and doing some math. I've listed those as "stages of a multi" because of the guideline that says, "Please provide the coordinates of all stages of the multicache..." The wording made me think they needed to be listed as "stages of a multicache."

 

If I understand correctly, I should change these to be "reference points," right?

 

And, if this is the case, if there's an offset cache where the first stage is a historical marker, with the final 1/4 mile away, could a cache container be hidden at the marker itself or no since it's the first stage to the other cache, even though it's just a reference point?

 

Edit to add one other question. If the interim stages are virtual types and will have no bearing on other caches being placed, is there really a need to even list them?

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment

Although I have not read all of this thread I do think that there should be a limit to the number of multi caches in an area!

We have a wonderful park nearby that is about 5 sq KM but it has several multis in it and there would be more regular caches there if not for the total 15-20 multi stages/

 

Thats my 2 cents

 

In a nutshell..that is the issue. The stages beyond the first and last are "blocking" others caches.

 

And again, to address the issue of "mixing up" one tag for another tag or cache in the rare case that they are placed too close...ask the cacher to place the GC# on the tag. I can't see this really happening...but, there is an answer.

Link to comment

understand that something can or cant change, what i read was the frustration of a person who is attempting to partisipate more than just finding things. Recently I had the same experence where I did my research, found a location that appeared to be free of caches, which was cool cuz there was a 1950's car rusting at the bottom of a canyon, hiked down and took a part off of it to make a container fit for the location, created a way cool cache page that requred a tad research on a book called crash club, hiked back down there, placed cache, got location, came back and attempted to pubish only to find out exactly the same thing. talked about a downer... once i realized that placing caches is like walking thru a mine field, ya start to question why take the time to put something really cool togheter only in the end to be shot down by some invisable force, and maybe altoids, magbox and 35mm containers are used for a reason (you dont need to recover them?). So i started playing with all of the virt, and multi and mystrys to find out the problem and it;s up on the othe side of the road on top of a cliff that you cant even get there from here. Now I have to hike back down, retreive cache and figure out what to do with a cache that is made out of a rusty old shock absorber.

 

my suggestion would be a location check . where one could put in a lat/long and it would tell me if there is something blocking the location prior to going to review. it wouldnt tell me what or where, but would give me a heads up that this is not a good location.

 

it might also make it easier on the reviewer, cuz when i got the "I;m sorry email", he clearly took the blunt of my frustration, and once I found the issue, I was even more ticked off when I explained the issue, and I still got a "I'm sorry email". If I could have REALLY check the location prior to all of this, I wouldnt be sitting here with a stupid cache wondering why I try anything more that just guardrail hides.

 

PS other than my first hide, NO ONE CAN SUGGEST that my hide locations or containers are anything but something they have never seen before. - but i am still bitter about this one! (can you tell?)

Edited by retrofit
Link to comment

understand that something can or cant change, what i read was the frustration of a person who is attempting to partisipate more than just finding things. Recently I had the same experence where I did my research, found a location that appeared to be free of caches, which was cool cuz there was a 1950's car rusting at the bottom of a canyon, hiked down and took a part off of it to make a container fit for the location, created a way cool cache page that requred a tad research on a book called crash club, hiked back down there, placed cache, got location, came back and attempted to pubish only to find out exactly the same thing. talked about a downer... once i realized that placing caches is like walking thru a mine field, ya start to question why take the time to put something really cool togheter only in the end to be shot down by some invisable force, and maybe altoids, magbox and 35mm containers are used for a reason (you dont need to recover them?). So i started playing with all of the virt, and multi and mystrys to find out the problem and it;s up on the othe side of the road on top of a cliff that you cant even get there from here. Now I have to hike back down, retreive cache and figure out what to do with a cache that is made out of a rusty old shock absorber.

 

my suggestion would be a location check . where one could put in a lat/long and it would tell me if there is something blocking the location prior to going to review. it wouldnt tell me what or where, but would give me a heads up that this is not a good location.

 

it might also make it easier on the reviewer, cuz when i got the "I;m sorry email", he clearly took the blunt of my frustration, and once I found the issue, I was even more ticked off when I explained the issue, and I still got a "I'm sorry email". If I could have REALLY check the location prior to all of this, I wouldnt be sitting here with a stupid cache wondering why I try anything more that just guardrail hides.

 

PS other than my first hide, NO ONE CAN SUGGEST that my hide locations or containers are anything but something they have never seen before. - but i am still bitter about this one! (can you tell?)

 

WOW, that stinks. Luckily (for me) I did not have an "I want THAT spot" issue. I was using trees and logs to help hide...so it was more flexible than a killer spot like a rusty car in a valley. What a bummer. Great hide container as well. Stick with the theme of the local..nice..but sad you could not do it. :)

Link to comment
my suggestion would be a location check . where one could put in a lat/long and it would tell me if there is something blocking the location prior to going to review. it wouldnt tell me what or where, but would give me a heads up that this is not a good location.

 

You can do a location check - you can put your coords into a cache page, UNCHECK "this cache is currently active" then ask your reviewer to check by emailing them with the GCxxxxx of the cache listing. Or you can just email them with the coords.

Link to comment
You can do a location check - you can put your coords into a cache page, UNCHECK "this cache is currently active" then ask your reviewer to check by emailing them with the GCxxxxx of the cache listing. Or you can just email them with the coords.

This is the method I prefer. Or even leave the box checked so it goes into my queue, and make sure it's CLEAR on the cache page not to publish it. Of course if there's an issue with the listing I won't publish it anyway :)

Link to comment
You can do a location check - you can put your coords into a cache page, UNCHECK "this cache is currently active" then ask your reviewer to check by emailing them with the GCxxxxx of the cache listing. Or you can just email them with the coords.

This is the method I prefer. Or even leave the box checked so it goes into my queue, and make sure it's CLEAR on the cache page not to publish it. Of course if there's an issue with the listing I won't publish it anyway :)

 

That does help with the issue of placing a cache only to find out it is too close to a waypoint. HOWEVER, that does not help with the rule of waypoints engulfing parks.

Edited by WHO-DEY
Link to comment
Just a couple weeks ago we spent an entire Saturday working on 1 and when we got to the end the final stage was missing! :) Contacted the owners and set a needs maintenance but nothing has been done yet. The next day the wife and I took off on a caching run and bagged 12 singles as well as stopping for a nice late lunch. You tell me which day was better? :)

I don't know. If logging smilies is the goal then I guess you being able to log 12 smilies versus not logging one makes the second day better.

 

OTOH, if having fun is your goal, I can think of quite a few large multis that would be better to attempt sans a final than any 12 traches. In fact, I've done some caches multiple times without the offer of a new smilie while I've driven past several "lesser" caches on a daily basis without even the desire to stop and grab an easy smilie. Go figure.

 

So, without further information on your goals and what you like to get out of geocaching it's hard to answer your query about which day would be better. I'm only assuming you liked the 12 smilie day because of the way you posed the question.

Link to comment
You can do a location check - you can put your coords into a cache page, UNCHECK "this cache is currently active" then ask your reviewer to check by emailing them with the GCxxxxx of the cache listing. Or you can just email them with the coords.

This is the method I prefer. Or even leave the box checked so it goes into my queue, and make sure it's CLEAR on the cache page not to publish it. Of course if there's an issue with the listing I won't publish it anyway :)

 

That does help with the issue of palcing a cache only to find out it is too close to a waypoint. HOWEVER, that does not help with the rule of waypoints engulfing parks.

 

here is what i do for research. i ihave a PQ that runs all caches in my area. down load that to cachemate, run a macro for cachecircles that opens up google earth and puts a circle around all caches. it's easy to see places that are open... again except for those places that are not listed part of a multi or puzzle. my suggestion would be on the cache setup page you could press a button called "location check" and it would give feedback regarding posible conflicts. IE a waypoint is within XXX feet @ # degrees true north of your requested location. this would stop people who are really trying to partispate from going down a path which will end in failier as well as reduce the effort reviewers of people contacting them saying "what about here" and keep them from being the bad guy who is just a meannie not publishing my cache because someone is using the mile marker number as part of their mystry/multi.

Link to comment

Example: There is a park near me that has 8 caches. It is a huge park of 239 acres, ......

 

To me 239 acres isn't that huge a park and having 8 caches there is plenty. At that concentration I would be living next to a public park area with 239 caches instead of the 20 or so that are there now. I personally wouldn't try to put another one in there even if you find a spot that qualifies.

Link to comment

my suggestion would be on the cache setup page you could press a button called "location check" and it would give feedback regarding posible conflicts. IE a waypoint is within XXX feet @ # degrees true north of your requested location. this would stop people who are really trying to partispate from going down a path which will end in failier as well as reduce the effort reviewers of people contacting them saying "what about here" and keep them from being the bad guy who is just a meannie not publishing my cache because someone is using the mile marker number as part of their mystry/multi.

One problem with a location check is that if you gave as much information as you are suggesting, the system would be abused by people trying to find a puzzle cache location without working the puzzle. Even if you gave only a yes/no to the question of whether there is a waypoint within .1 miles people could still solve puzzles by repeating the location check enough times to determine where the waypoint is. There are probably ways to restrict the number of times one could check or to fuzzy the results a bit to make it less useful for find puzzle.

 

The real problem is that a automated system wouldn't eliminate the issue with cache being placed close to other cache. The reviewers will tell you that 90% of the caches with proximity problems are with caches placed too close to traditional caches which you can already check for. If you had an automated check that could be run to look for puzzles, multis, and unpublished caches, there is no guarantee that it would be used. The reviewer isn't going to seem any less a meanie when they deny a cache that is too close and say "but you should've used the check location button before you submitted". In addition, the proximity rule is a rule-of-thumb. Only a human reviewer can check if the conditions are such that the caches can be closer or even if they should be further apart. Some land managers have a stricter proximity rule than the Geocaching.com guidelines, and the reviewer will enforce that.

 

The current system works well. If you are unsure if there is a stage of a multi or a puzzle you can ask your reviewer. Many reviewers will work to help you find an area nearby that works. As far as multis, we need to educate people that if they use a virtual stage (or even if they use tags and don't care if there is a physical cache at the same location) they can list the stage as "Question to answer" or "Reference point" so that it doesn't block physical caches.

Link to comment
To me 239 acres isn't that huge a park and having 8 caches there is plenty. At that concentration I would be living next to a public park area with 239 caches instead of the 20 or so that are there now. I personally wouldn't try to put another one in there even if you find a spot that qualifies.

I would agree. 239 acres isn't really that big of space is about 1/3 of a mile on each side.

Link to comment
To me 239 acres isn't that huge a park and having 8 caches there is plenty. At that concentration I would be living next to a public park area with 239 caches instead of the 20 or so that are there now. I personally wouldn't try to put another one in there even if you find a spot that qualifies.

I would agree. 239 acres isn't really that big of space is about 1/3 of a mile on each side.

239 Acres = 0.3734375 sq miles

For a square piece of property: sqrt(.3734375) = 0.611 miles per side

 

Just saying. :)

Link to comment
... it;s up on the othe side of the road on top of a cliff that you cant even get there from here. Now I have to hike back down, retreive cache and figure out what to do with a cache that is made out of a rusty old shock absorber.

...

PS other than my first hide, NO ONE CAN SUGGEST that my hide locations or containers are anything but something they have never seen before. - but i am still bitter about this one! (can you tell?)

Did you discuss this with your reviewer? Don't forget, (s)he's almost certainly looking at a lot of caches, and doesn't spend 20 minutes checking each one, or even each problem cache, in Google Earth, etc. to see what the exact deal is. If you reckon there's a significant natural barrier between your cache and that problem waypoint, then make your case with a screenshot or two.

The decision might still stand, but your chances of not wasting your good work can only go up!

Link to comment
Just a couple weeks ago we spent an entire Saturday working on 1 and when we got to the end the final stage was missing! :laughing: Contacted the owners and set a needs maintenance but nothing has been done yet. The next day the wife and I took off on a caching run and bagged 12 singles as well as stopping for a nice late lunch. You tell me which day was better? :P

I don't know. If logging smilies is the goal then I guess you being able to log 12 smilies versus not logging one makes the second day better.

 

OTOH, if having fun is your goal, I can think of quite a few large multis that would be better to attempt sans a final than any 12 traches. In fact, I've done some caches multiple times without the offer of a new smilie while I've driven past several "lesser" caches on a daily basis without even the desire to stop and grab an easy smilie. Go figure.

 

So, without further information on your goals and what you like to get out of geocaching it's hard to answer your query about which day would be better. I'm only assuming you liked the 12 smilie day because of the way you posed the question.

 

I'll take the 12 finds and the lunch anytime.

In fact I've been accused of not being a cacher so much but someone who uses caching as an excuse to find good places to eat :unsure: ......theres nothing like a great meal at the end of a long ( successfull ) caching day.

I will admit we've had long, tough DNF's that we've loved because of location but you can't beat finding stuff and I can't even fathom an entire day of DNF's.........that would be a bummer.

Link to comment
Just a couple weeks ago we spent an entire Saturday working on 1 and when we got to the end the final stage was missing! :laughing: Contacted the owners and set a needs maintenance but nothing has been done yet. The next day the wife and I took off on a caching run and bagged 12 singles as well as stopping for a nice late lunch. You tell me which day was better? :unsure:

I don't know. If logging smilies is the goal then I guess you being able to log 12 smilies versus not logging one makes the second day better.

 

OTOH, if having fun is your goal, I can think of quite a few large multis that would be better to attempt sans a final than any 12 traches. In fact, I've done some caches multiple times without the offer of a new smilie while I've driven past several "lesser" caches on a daily basis without even the desire to stop and grab an easy smilie. Go figure.

 

So, without further information on your goals and what you like to get out of geocaching it's hard to answer your query about which day would be better. I'm only assuming you liked the 12 smilie day because of the way you posed the question.

You could also ask: what would have been different if the final stage had been found? Same hike, same hunt. The only difference: the smiley.

 

That said, I've argued before that in many cases (not all), several traditionals are better than a multi. If, for example, it had been the third of a five-stage multi that was missing, you could more easily argue that your caching day had been spoiled. Had the stages been five traditionals instead, you could have continued hunting caches even if one, several, or even all were missing.

Link to comment
In fact I've been accused of not being a cacher so much but someone who uses caching as an excuse to find good places to eat :laughing: ......theres nothing like a great meal at the end of a long ( successfull ) caching day.

I will admit we've had long, tough DNF's that we've loved because of location but you can't beat finding stuff and I can't even fathom an entire day of DNF's.........that would be a bummer.

We also like to eat at little hole-in-the-walls, too. I feel it makes the day that much better than any chain I can visit up the street from my house.

 

Yes, DNFs leave you less than fully satisfied. Still, we've walked away from a day of caching with only DNFs and still drove past trache. It's a bummer, but some days you eat the bear...

Link to comment
To me 239 acres isn't that huge a park and having 8 caches there is plenty. At that concentration I would be living next to a public park area with 239 caches instead of the 20 or so that are there now. I personally wouldn't try to put another one in there even if you find a spot that qualifies.

I would agree. 239 acres isn't really that big of space is about 1/3 of a mile on each side.

 

The park is not square..so 239 acres AND 6 miles of trails does make it big. Here is a map:

 

lg_hemlock_pine.jpg

Link to comment
That said, I've argued before that in many cases (not all), several traditionals are better than a multi. If, for example, it had been the third of a five-stage multi that was missing, you could more easily argue that your caching day had been spoiled. Had the stages been five traditionals instead, you could have continued hunting caches even if one, several, or even all were missing.

This is true, but only if all stages were caches, i.e. it was really a "multi-cache." A multi-stage cache is different.

 

Personally, I can see dropping the protection of a stage while keeping the protection of a intermediate cache. (Though, you don't see too many true multi-caches.) I really don't see the necessity of protecting a re-director tag. Sure, it's something physical that was placed by the owner, but it is till basically a virtual stage--the only difference is it was placed versus found by the CO.

 

"But, what about conflicts, CR?"

 

So? Let the COs sort it out. Tags can have a certain theme, cache name, or GC# on it. You don't need 528' separation. Nor do you need to keep physical caches and re-director tags so far apart, either.

 

No, I wouldn't throw out the reporting of intermediate stages. It's useful to the review process.

 

EDIT: Spelling.

Edited by CoyoteRed
Link to comment
To me 239 acres isn't that huge a park and having 8 caches there is plenty. At that concentration I would be living next to a public park area with 239 caches instead of the 20 or so that are there now. I personally wouldn't try to put another one in there even if you find a spot that qualifies.

I would agree. 239 acres isn't really that big of space is about 1/3 of a mile on each side.

 

The park is not square..so 239 acres AND 6 miles of trails does make it big. Here is a map:

 

lg_hemlock_pine.jpg

True. And with my bad math, it's much bigger than I thought. I was basing my reply on my bad math of 1/3 of a mile per side. 2/3 of a mile is quite a lot bigger and agree since it's not square that more caches could probably be put in there...except for the multis that are taking up a lot of potential areas.

Edited by Skippermark
Link to comment
I really don't see the necessity of protecting a re-director tag. Sure, it's something physical that was placed by the owner, but ....

 

Sounds like you're suggesting that micro caches shouldn't count for proximity checks. The assumption being that most multi-cache stages are some form of micro - tag, matchsafe etc. But if you disallow proximity on multi-cache micro stages, why not go whole hog and disallow proximity on all micros?

 

By the way, I've never seen a "re-director tag" - I've seen matchsafe stages (commonest local to me), pvc or other stake stages ("geostake" size = regular?) ammo can stages, decon stages, and assorted "other" - I own a couple of Large stages. You're suggesting that my decon/ammo can/large stages would have proximity, but my matchsafe stages wouldn't? Messy......

 

A bit more OT - I prefer multi-caches to any other type. Although I readily concede that they're more likely to end with a DNF then seeking traditional caches. On the other hand, unlike some others who have posted, I actively seek them when I travel.

Link to comment
Sounds like you're suggesting that micro caches shouldn't count for proximity checks. The assumption being that most multi-cache stages are some form of micro - tag, matchsafe etc. But if you disallow proximity on multi-cache micro stages, why not go whole hog and disallow proximity on all micros?

One has a log. The other does not.

 

But, then again, I'm not fond of the proximity rule to begin with.

 

By the way, I've never seen a "re-director tag"

I have and plenty of them.

Link to comment
That said, I've argued before that in many cases (not all), several traditionals are better than a multi. If, for example, it had been the third of a five-stage multi that was missing, you could more easily argue that your caching day had been spoiled. Had the stages been five traditionals instead, you could have continued hunting caches even if one, several, or even all were missing.

This is true, but only if all stages were caches, i.e. it was really a "multi-cache." A multi-stage cache is different.

 

Personally, I can see dropping the protection of a stage while keeping the protection of a intermediate cache. (Though, you don't see too many true multi-caches.) I really don't see the necessity of protecting a re-director tag. Sure, it's something physical that was placed by the owner, but it is till basically a virtual stage--the only difference is it was placed versus found by the CO.

 

"But, what about conflicts, CR?"

 

So? Let the COs sort it out. Tags can have a certain theme, cache name, or GC# on it. You don't need 528' separation. Nor do you need to keep physical caches and re-director tags so far apart, either.

 

No, I wouldn't through out the reporting of intermediate stages. It's useful to the review process.

I agree with that, but you would still want to protect stages of a multi from being too close to stages of another multi. Oh, the hijinx that could ensue then!

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment
...but you would still want to protect stages of a multi from being too close to stages of another multi. Oh, the hijinx that could ensue then!

If I were the type to not mind high jinx and I was told one of my stages was too close to another cache or stage, I'd just say that I changed the mutli to skip that stage when, in reality, I simply didn't report that stage.

 

Personally, I'd drop the proximity rule in favor of properly marking the stage or cache. I mean we already certify that we have adequate permission to place the cache. Why can't we certify that we've properly marked the cache? Break the paradigm of every cache being "protected" by some huge buffer, have every cache marked at to which cache it is, then you'd do away with problems of logging the wrong cache or finding a non-GC cache and logging it as one. The proximity rule only protects one GC cache from another. Properly marking the cache deals with the issue of differentiating any cache from any other cache. (Assuming that everyone properly marks their cache.)

 

I don't buy the saturation reason for the proximity rule either. Proximity is how close a object is while saturation is how many are in a certain area. Two different things. The kicker is saturation can be tested for by the user without it giving away any secrets. (Not saying it can't be done, just not likely.)

Link to comment
...but you would still want to protect stages of a multi from being too close to stages of another multi. Oh, the hijinx that could ensue then!

If I were the type to not mind high jinx and I was told one of my stages was too close to another cache or stage, I'd just say that I changed the mutli to skip that stage when, in reality, I simply didn't report that stage.

I guess "high jinx" implies intention. I really just meant that it would be easy to accidentally find a stage for the wrong multi and end up finishing a cache other than the one you started. Proper marking of all stages would help.

Link to comment
One has a log. The other does not.

 

Ah, gotcha.

 

I think you still end up needing a proximity check (of some distance) just so my 6th stage decon isn't discovered by the cacher seeking the new traditional "small" along the same trail. Although I'm not one to get all bent out of shape if someone finds the final without finding all the stages - but a set up whereby starting the multi on stage 6 becomes likely is sure gonna kill my incentive to hide multicaches at all. :laughing: Evidently that would make the OP happy, but I'm not convinced it's the best outcome.....

Link to comment
Stages that are listed using the virtual WP types "Reference Point" or "Question to Answer" don't count against the proximity guideline.

What about someone with a 10 stage multi who has virtual stages yet sets their waypoints as "Stages of a Multicache" to protect them?

I have some multis that have no containers except for the final. The interim stages are figured out by going to virtual things and doing some math. I've listed those as "stages of a multi" because of the guideline that says, "Please provide the coordinates of all stages of the multicache..." The wording made me think they needed to be listed as "stages of a multicache."

 

If I understand correctly, I should change these to be "reference points," right?

Correct. Agree that the guideline wording is confusing, which is why some folks don't use the virtual WP options when they could/should. Per my other entry:

 

And some hiders use "Stages" for virtual WPs because they think that's the correct choice, without realizing one of the other options could be used or that it will block other placements.

 

I had a similar situation to the OP's a couple years ago, when I wanted to place a cache about 200 ft from one stage of a multi. Three of the multi's stages were virtual (trailhead, signs) but had been listed as "Stages of a Multicache" because the hider didn't know better. I checked with the owner and reviewer, the designations of the stages were revised to reflect their virtual nature, and I got my cache approved.

Link to comment
I really don't see the necessity of protecting a re-director tag. Sure, it's something physical that was placed by the owner, but ....

 

Sounds like you're suggesting that micro caches shouldn't count for proximity checks. The assumption being that most multi-cache stages are some form of micro - tag, matchsafe etc. But if you disallow proximity on multi-cache micro stages, why not go whole hog and disallow proximity on all micros?

 

I did not think he was saying that. There is adifference between a micro/nano and a waypoint/Multicache stage. With stages you read and move...no log to sign and read, not box to dig through swag etc. Just get the new3 coords..and scoot. :(

Link to comment
Multi's are waste of time, containers, logs, and fuel use, for only 1 smiley...Not "cost effective"...why not have a traditional cache for each container...same thing only more smileys. Put this thought together and think about it.....Happy caching

It's interesting that the people I saw who basically said this in the thread have almost 100% traditional hides and finds and more than 100 traditional hides...

 

"Cost effective" is horrible reasoning in my opinion. Fun = cost effective to me. If fun is 5 stages, 1 smile or 5 cache 5 smiles, they're both fun to me.

 

Multis have a lot of good uses, the biggest is to 'force' cachers to follow a route rather than bushwhack from one cache to another.

Link to comment
Multi's are waste of time, containers, logs, and fuel use, for only 1 smiley...Not "cost effective"...why not have a traditional cache for each container...same thing only more smileys. Put this thought together and think about it.....Happy caching

It's interesting that the people I saw who basically said this in the thread have almost 100% traditional hides and finds and more than 100 traditional hides...

 

"Cost effective" is horrible reasoning in my opinion. Fun = cost effective to me. If fun is 5 stages, 1 smile or 5 cache 5 smiles, they're both fun to me.

 

Multis have a lot of good uses, the biggest is to 'force' cachers to follow a route rather than bushwhack from one cache to another.

 

I AM WITH YOU ON THIS, OREVIEWER. I like Multi's. Especially in wooded areas.

Link to comment

Multi's are waste of time, containers, logs, and fuel use, for only 1 smiley...Not "cost effective"...why not have a traditional cache for each container...same thing only more smileys. Put this thought together and think about it.....Happy caching

Why have triple scoop ice cream cones? Wouldn't it be more "cost effective" to have three single scoop cones? :(:):D

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...