Multi-Cache waypoints are enveloping entire parks!

[CoyoteRed]

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. Evidently that would make the OP happy, but I'm not convinced it's the best outcome.....

First, I'm not opposed to "happy finds." I don't care if another geocacher stumbles over one of caches. I'm thrilled if a muggle stumbles over a cache. As long as the placement is respected and not muggled, I'm fine with it.

 

As for someone placing a cache so near one of your stages that folks will typically shortcut your multi then it's time to re-tool the multi. A linear multi--one that simply goes from stage to stage until the final--is susceptible to short cutting. You could change it so the seeker picks up portions of the final's location along the way and the penultimate stage gives the final clue instead of coords to the final. The multi is not changed in any way except for the way the final's coords are handed out.

 

In fact, a more robust way of placing a multi in terms of viability, though not story-telling, is the parallel-path multi. You give the coords to all of the intermediate stages in the beginning. In each stage you give two clues: the one for this and the one for one of the other stages. All of the clues are doubled up. This means you basically have a redundant stage in case one of the others go missing. Any one intermediate stage can go missing and the rest pick up the slack.

 

The biggest problem with any idea is breaking a paradigm. It's not as if the linear-path multi would go away, but if were a problem it could be dealt with fairly easily and the issue of proximity would be answered. You can still deal with saturation and it be user tested without giving away secrets.

[+WHO-DEY]

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. Evidently that would make the OP happy, but I'm not convinced it's the best outcome.....

 

I by no means want to see all the stages of any multi posted for viewing online. I like Multi's. I hope I expressed that. What I do not like, and feel is a disabling feature to multi's in parks, is that you cannot place any cache near stages. The .10 ruls should absolutely apply for stage one, and the final. It is the in between stages that need to be invisible and not block other caches from being placed.

WHO-DEY

[+tozainamboku]

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. Evidently that would make the OP happy, but I'm not convinced it's the best outcome.....

 

I by no means want to see all the stages of any multi posted for viewing online. I like Multi's. I hope I expressed that. What I do not like, and feel is a disabling feature to multi's in parks, is that you cannot place any cache near stages. The .10 ruls should absolutely apply for stage one, and the final. It is the in between stages that need to be invisible and not block other caches from being placed.

WHO-DEY

 

Option 1. I'm looking for the decon container you hid and find a tag with coordinates on it just 5 feet from ground zero that you had no idea was there when you hid your cache. I decide that your cache was mistyped and I'm looking for a multi so I put in the coordinates and off I go. Never do find your cache but when I find the final of the multi I log it as your cache because thats what I think it is.

 

Option 2. I'm looking for the third stage of someone else's multi that is only five feet away from the decon container you hid. The multi owner hasn't indicated the number of stages so when I find your container I figure I'm done. I sign the log in your cache and then go and claim a find on the multi.

 

Option 3. I'm looking for the decon container you hid and find a tag with coordinates on it just 5 feet from ground zero that you had no idea was there when you hid your cache. I realize that this must be from another cache so I keep looking and find your decon. But then I go looking at the coordinates I found. I don't usually do multis but decide since I found the coordinates I'll check this one out. Sure enough I find the ammo can someone has hidden at the end of their 12 stage multi but I only had to do the final stage.

 

Perhaps you could ask that the distance from intermediate stages of multis be relaxed. It doesn't have to be .1 miles in order to avoid the confusion. But just what should the distance be? 10 feet, 100 feet? I suspect the same distance as is used to separate traditional cache is used just to keep the rule simple - both for the reviewers to apply and for cache hiders to understand. The exception for virtual stages is already hard for some people to understand. Do we want to make it more complicated just so you can squeeze another cache into some park?