Fire tacks in night caches

[+J-Way]

I've read here that anything left in the field as part of a multi cache should be listed as a protected waypoint (no other caches within 528-ft). This was specifically mentioned in regards to plastic/metal tags with coordinates for the next waypoint. Does this also apply to night tacks used in night caches? They are, technically, waypoints, but the actual location of the tacks isn't usually critical to the success of the multi.

 

[Edit: fixed distance]

Edited July 2, 2009 by J-Way

[+WRASTRO]

Very interesting question that I would never have considered. I would say they are not waypoints, rather add-on clues that will take you from the posted coordinates to the final.

[+wimseyguy]

Since they are game pieces placed by the cache owner, they are waypoints.

But they probably shouldn't be viewed in a saturation analysis the same as an intermediate container with the coords to the next stage.

[jholly]

From the guidelines,

 

The cache saturation guideline applies to all physical stages of multi-caches and mystery/puzzle caches, as well as any other stages entered as "stages of a multi-cache." The guideline does not apply to event caches, EarthCaches, grandfathered virtual and webcam caches, stages of multi-caches or puzzle caches entered as "question to answer" or "reference point," or to any "bogus" posted coordinates for a puzzle cache. Within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between waypoints.

 

If you have not entered the firetacks as a stage of a multicache I don't see an issue. The no minimum between waypoints in a multi-cache would also seem to apply. Why would you even try to list the firetacks as a waypoint? how could you provide the co-ordinates to the next tack with out some sort of physical container? But if you are really worried about, drop your reviewer an email to clear up the issue. I don't you need to worry, it is a mystery cache that you need to solve the mystery by following firetacks. But I don't lawyer for a living nor did I stay at a Holiday Express Inn last night. I think you have made a typo on the minimum distance, it should be 528 feet, not 58.

 

Jim

[AZcachemeister]

Did you mean

(no other caches within 528-ft)

?

 

Seriously, while a missing firetack might not preclude a find on a night-cache, they are necessary in general.

 

On the other hand, I don't think anyone will mistake your firetack for the container of another cache.

[+J-Way]

I agree with wastro. But in contemplating the creation of a night cache, I recalled something mentioned by a moderator (briansnat, I believe), which agrees with wimseyguy. Anything placed by the cache owner in relation to the cache is a physical waypoint.

 

Considering how closely you must place tacks in an overgrown area without a well-defined trail, a night-tack trail would essentially become a continuous line of blocked area. The other way of looking at it is that it would be impossible to place night-tacks along a trail where caches are already present.

 

I'm hoping a reviewer will jump in here and say that night-tacks, and similar objects without any specific directional information (reflective tape, etc.) are exempt from the 528-ft clearance requirement.

 

For the cache I'm considering the best option would be to start the tack-trail near the parking location and have it follow an existing trail before it turns off into the trees. But there are several existing caches along that trail. I think there is a even a cache within 528-ft of the turnoff point (where you leave the main trail), which would make the turn difficult to locate if I can't put tacks there. The final, and any specific directional information (tags with coordinates, etc.), would be well beyond 528-ft from the existing caches.

Edited July 2, 2009 by J-Way

[+J-Way]

If you have not entered the firetacks as a stage of a multicache I don't see an issue. The no minimum between waypoints in a multi-cache would also seem to apply. Why would you even try to list the firetacks as a waypoint? how could you provide the co-ordinates to the next tack with out some sort of physical container? But if you are really worried about, drop your reviewer an email to clear up the issue. I don't you need to worry, it is a mystery cache that you need to solve the mystery by following firetacks.

I'm well aware that I could avoid this issue by simply neglecting to report the coordinates of intermediate waypoints. Actually I never intended to record the locations of dozens of night tacks, mainly because I've never seen it done on any night cache. But using jholly's argument, the owner of any multi could place physical intermediate stage containers within a few feet of an existing cache by simply not telling Groundspeak it's there. But that would be ignoring the guidelines.

 

I'm not trying to split legal hairs here or argue semantics. I'm sure I could list the night cache, correctly reporting all true intermediate waypoints (tags with coordinates, final, etc.), and it would fly through the review process. No one would care about the glowing orange triangle in the tree 8-ft above an existing cache.

 

I'm just curious to see what our international reviewers think. Should a night-tack be considered a physical waypoint, or is it an exception? Is every night cache I've ever heard about in violation of the guidelines regarding physical waypoints?

[+WRASTRO]

At the most extreme I would think of the tacks as virtual waypoints so they would not be involved with any saturation guidlines.

 

Of course there is the issue of defacing, damaging, altering, etc., but I personally would not be concerned with that when setting up a night cache with glints. Just sayin'. But I am not the Boss.

[Clan Riffster]

For the cache I'm considering the best option would be to start the tack-trail near the parking location and have it follow an existing trail before it turns off into the trees.

It's your cache, so build it to satisfy you. However, I would argue against such a tactic. (pun intended)

Muggles are a curious lot. If they pull into a parking area at night, and see a string of reflectors leading down a trail, they might be inclined to follow it, possibly locating your cache in the process. With my 3 night caches, I started the reflector trail at a minimum, a couple tenths of a mile away from the parking area. Also, rather than locate your cache at the end of your trail, I would have your trail lead to a tag or a micro containing coords to the final. Just my $0.02.

 

Back on topic: A reflector, affixed to a tree, for the purpose of leading night cache seekers in a particular direction, is not a waypoint as used in the common geocontent. That being said, my night caches utilize about 600 reflectors, total, and I've got the coords for all of them in my POI file. This helps a lot when doing maintenance.

[+DatCrazyMongoose]

I'm curious about this issue, as well. I just picked up my reflectors from Cabela's this morning and am getting ready to set up my trail soon. Entering a waypoint for each reflector would be a PITA! I'd do it if it was required, but I think common sense should prevail here. I agree with Wrastro that they should be considered "virtual" waypoints.

[+niraD]

Would it be okay if someone else created another night cache, and placed FireTacks trail markers near the ones for your night cache?

[Clan Riffster]

OK in a guideline sense? Probably. I can't think of anything to prohibit it. It does seem like bad form though.

[+J-Way]

For the cache I'm considering the best option would be to start the tack-trail near the parking location and have it follow an existing trail before it turns off into the trees.

It's your cache, so build it to satisfy you. However, I would argue against such a tactic. (pun intended)

Muggles are a curious lot. If they pull into a parking area at night, and see a string of reflectors leading down a trail, they might be inclined to follow it, possibly locating your cache in the process. With my 3 night caches, I started the reflector trail at a minimum, a couple tenths of a mile away from the parking area. Also, rather than locate your cache at the end of your trail, I would have your trail lead to a tag or a micro containing coords to the final. Just my $0.02.

 

Back on topic: A reflector, affixed to a tree, for the purpose of leading night cache seekers in a particular direction, is not a waypoint as used in the common geocontent. That being said, my night caches utilize about 600 reflectors, total, and I've got the coords for all of them in my POI file. This helps a lot when doing maintenance.

The plan is to start the "trail" around the bend from the parking lot, not visible from parking. Along the main trail, the tacks would not be visible from each other. Just the occasional tack every hundred yards or so to confirm that you haven't missed a turn. The tacks would be a bit more dense where the main trail splits, where you leave the main trail for a side trail, and where you leave the side trail for a game/social trail. The game trail will be difficult to follow at night, so here they would be your typical arrangement of the next tack visible from the last tack. I'm actually planning for the trail to go well past the final location and end at coordinates on a tag. They you backtrack and bushwack off trail for about 50-ft.

 

And I was planning on shooting rough coordinates for all the tacks for maintenance purposes, but I was NOT planning on reporting every tack as an intermediate waypoint in the cache description.

 

niraD: Yours would be the only argument I've seen that they should be protected waypoints. But I don't want to prohibit people from placing caches along the trail, and I want to be able to place my tacks near existing caches. But if I do it this way then Riff is right - nothing would stop someone else from placing another tack trail that follows or crosses mine.

[Clan Riffster]

Sounds kewl! As you can tell, I'm a night cache nut. Having done quite a bit of my growing up in Red Bank, I may have to make a special trip north when you get it published.

[+TripCyclone]

I'd say the trail of firetacks as you described would probably not need waypoints in the system for one of the reason's I read...they would be looked at as virtual waypoints. However, there is some variations on night caches that I would think warrent adding waypoints to the cache description:

 

1.You stand in one spot and shine the light around to find the reflector. The reflector marks where a geocache is hidden. The cache either includes the next coords or some kind of puzzle to get the next coords. The coords take you to the next spot where you stand and use the flashlight to find the reflector. And so on. Each is a physical stage, thus would need waypoints entered.

 

2.Same finding method as #1, but instead of a cache hidden at the spot, the reflector is a larger reflective tape on which coordinates for the next stage are hidden.

 

Using either of these methods constitutes finding something that contains coordinates for the next location to stand and search from. Usually, these versions of night caches only employ a small number of reflectors (The smallest I've seen had 3, the largest had 6). Since there are coordinates at each stage, that would make them more like physical stages of a multi-cache, and thus should be entered as additional waypoints when creating the cache. Just make sure they are hidden from the public so that cachers can't jump straight to the second to last stage.

 

Good luck with your night cache. I always enjoy finding them.

[+WRASTRO]

I guess I would think of the glints as bits of info for a single large virtual waypoint in a multi. Go here and find some info and then continue along the path to keep finding more info that will eventually lead you to the cache. I just can't understand why there would be any reason to list each glint as a waypoint.

[+popokiiti]

A cache we did recently used a different # of tacks to indicate direction - 1 = left, 2 = straight, 3 = right and 4 was the magic number for "you're at the cache site."

[+MickEMT]

Would it be okay if someone else created another night cache, and placed FireTacks trail markers near the ones for your night cache?

 

I've seen it done. Two night caches ( same owner though) where the trails did cross. His solution was to have one trail marked with a couple sets of triple tacks at the crossing.

 

As for firetacks being waypoiints, I just can't see that. Of course, I do think night caches should be considered as a seperate type of cache and have their own icon.

[+Puppy Dawg]

What I'd doo...is load them in as reference points. That way you know where they are if you need to check on them, the reviewer knows that the cache is legit (yes that has been an issue), and best of all, proximity dosen't matter on the tacks!

[Clan Riffster]

What I'd doo...is load them in as reference points.

While that might be good advice to take for some of the reflectors, to give TPTB a general idea of the trail's layout, it can be a whole lot of work. The trails on my night caches vary from 1 to 3 miles in length, incorporating hundreds of reflectors. That would be a butt load of additional waypoints.