Shortcutting on Multicaches

[+tozainamboku]

Post #49

 

Again I want to point out that when the new guideline that says you may log a physical cache when you have signed the log and that cache owners could no longer delete logs base on additional logging requirements, I and many others asked if this would effect other case where a cache owner was up to that time permitted to delete logs. I and several others posted lists of situations where we asked what logs could still be deleted. We were not given straight answers by TPTB. However we were told by several reviewers and Groundspeak lackeys that the new rule was meant only to apply to additional logging requirements. So we are left with trying to understand if a requirement to visit all the stages of a multi is an additional logging requirement, a stated requirement of doing multi caches, a geocaching related challenge, or something else.

 

So we have a senior reviewer who has given his opinion that this is an ALR and a junior moderator who quotes a section of the guidelines (as if it applies to a log that may have been deleted prior to the change in the guidelines). I am not convinced this is the case. If Jeremy wants to post here that he sees this as an ALR so be it. I will be unhappy because the rights of cache owners to manage their own cache pages has been taken away. (Albeit because a few people abused this right and deleted logs arbitrarily). I will not know when I should delete a log anymore. A dirty word - is that an ALR that you use family friendly language? A spoiler - who gets to decided how much information constitutes a spoiler? Someone posting that they ignored the signs saying the park was closed - is that an ALR that you must comply with park rules and guidelines to log this cache?

 

It's funny that I agree that the OP shouldn't have deleted these logs and IMO a cacher who is clever enough to find a way to shortcut a multicache should get to log their find. But I get really ticked because a small change to the guidelines seems to treat cache owners who want to have their cache found in a certain way as children who can't be trusted to make reasonable request from cache hunters and that cache hunters are given all the rights to ignore even reasonable request. It is like cache owners are being collectively punished for a few bad apples who insisted on creating ALRs that were there only so they could delete peoples logs.

 

The puritans want simple. They want a online found lot to be tied to writing your name on a piece of paper in the cache. I have always felt that a find depends on the particular cache. For many caches, I feel its enough to just see the cache. You know you found the cache, sign the log is just a formality that can serve as proof in case there is any doubt. In other case it is obvious that the cache owner meant for you to retrieve the cache and open it up. A signed log is a sure way to show that you did this. It never bothered me that some cache owners asked you to do more. But the puritans have removed that way of play from the game. They couldn't be bothered to read the cache page before looking and then complained because their silly online smiley was lost because they didn't do the requirement. We have lost a entire part of the game much like we have lost virtual caches. I understand why Geocaching.com choose to do this. I only shudder thinking about the next variation that will get banned. (I know a lot of you are rooting for LPCs to be next). Something else will be banned, and then something else, and soon we will only have vanilla ice cream left

[+WRASTRO]

I don't know how to make it any more clear. So I'll go in baby steps.

 

Step 1: This is a multicache which means there is a least two satges that you need to go to.

Where in the guidelines does it say that anyone needs to go to all the stages of a multi-cache?

This is exactly the point I was going to make. The guidelines describe examples of what multi-caches can be but they do not say that all stages of a multi MUST be visited in order to claim the find. There is nothing anywhere in the guidelines that state any cacher must search for a cache in exactly the manner the cache owner anticipated when designing and placing the cache. NOTHING.

 

What is completely clear is that once a cacher has signed the log at the cache he/she can legitimately log the find online.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I don't know how to make it any more clear. So I'll go in baby steps.

 

Step 1: This is a multicache which means there is a least two satges that you need to go to.

Where in the guidelines does it say that anyone needs to go to all the stages of a multi-cache?

 

And that is the answer in a nutshell. Signing the log is the requirement to log a cache. Requiring anything more (such as finding all stages, or taking your photo with a tin-foil hat) is an ALR. The fact that there is a puzzle to be solved, or intermediate caches to be found does not require that they be found. The only requirement is to sign the log.

[+WRASTRO]

Post #49

 

Again I want to point out that when the new guideline that says you may log a physical cache when you have signed the log and that cache owners could no longer delete logs base on additional logging requirements, I and many others asked if this would effect other case where a cache owner was up to that time permitted to delete logs. I and several others posted lists of situations where we asked what logs could still be deleted. We were not given straight answers by TPTB. However we were told by several reviewers and Groundspeak lackeys that the new rule was meant only to apply to additional logging requirements. So we are left with trying to understand if a requirement to visit all the stages of a multi is an additional logging requirement, a stated requirement of doing multi caches, a geocaching related challenge, or something else.

 

So we have a senior reviewer who has given his opinion that this is an ALR and a junior moderator who quotes a section of the guidelines (as if it applies to a log that may have been deleted prior to the change in the guidelines). I am not convinced this is the case. If Jeremy wants to post here that he sees this as an ALR so be it. I will be unhappy because the rights of cache owners to manage their own cache pages has been taken away. (Albeit because a few people abused this right and deleted logs arbitrarily). I will not know when I should delete a log anymore. A dirty word - is that an ALR that you use family friendly language? A spoiler - who gets to decided how much information constitutes a spoiler? Someone posting that they ignored the signs saying the park was closed - is that an ALR that you must comply with park rules and guidelines to log this cache?

 

It's funny that I agree that the OP shouldn't have deleted these logs and IMO a cacher who is clever enough to find a way to shortcut a multicache should get to log their find. But I get really ticked because a small change to the guidelines seems to treat cache owners who want to have their cache found in a certain way as children who can't be trusted to make reasonable request from cache hunters and that cache hunters are given all the rights to ignore even reasonable request. It is like cache owners are being collectively punished for a few bad apples who insisted on creating ALRs that were there only so they could delete peoples logs.

 

The puritans want simple. They want a online found lot to be tied to writing your name on a piece of paper in the cache. I have always felt that a find depends on the particular cache. For many caches, I feel its enough to just see the cache. You know you found the cache, sign the log is just a formality that can serve as proof in case there is any doubt. In other case it is obvious that the cache owner meant for you to retrieve the cache and open it up. A signed log is a sure way to show that you did this. It never bothered me that some cache owners asked you to do more. But the puritans have removed that way of play from the game. They couldn't be bothered to read the cache page before looking and then complained because their silly online smiley was lost because they didn't do the requirement. We have lost a entire part of the game much like we have lost virtual caches. I understand why Geocaching.com choose to do this. I only shudder thinking about the next variation that will get banned. (I know a lot of you are rooting for LPCs to be next). Something else will be banned, and then something else, and soon we will only have vanilla ice cream left

I believe you are making more of this than necessary. The purpose of a cache with a physical container is to find the container and sign the log. Regardless of the type of cache the purpose remains the same. Regardless of how the container is found once the log is signed it is a find for the cacher who signed the log. It doesn't matter if the cache is a multi, a puzzle or a traditional. Find the container, sign the log, claim the find.

 

A cache owner who feels the need to delete logs for cachers who found the container and signed the log is not playing the game in a way that I consider to be within the guidelines or ethical.

[+Lakebum]

I look at it like this:

If you were to recommend to me I climb a mountain because the view is great and climb is great fun, then I were instead to take a helicopter to the top of the mountain, I would be missing out on the journey but I still made it to the top.

 

Who's loss is it that I missed out on the journey? Absolutely my loss. It really should not make much of a difference to you, I did not lesson your experience. I only hurt myself.

[Clan Riffster]

By defintion a multicache has at least two stages.

I think you are twisting this definition to fit your particular agenda. That portion of the guidelines defines the criteria by which a cache is listed as a multi, and makes no mention regarding how folks find it. While it's true that a multi, by definition, has more than one stage, nowhere in that definition is a requirement for a seeker to find all of the stages. While most folks do it that way, the guidelines, as pointed out by Keystone, allow for variations in hunting methods. When the short cut bandits found your cache, presumably all the stages were in place both before their hunt and after their hunt. Nothing was changed by their behavior. It still fit the criteria for a multi after they left. On the cache page in question, you mentioned that folks had "cheated", which is an indication of your thought process. Back when they found the cache, using the information you provided, their methods were perfectly within the guidelines. Had they found the cache in this day and age, their methods would still be within the guidelines. Ergo, there was no cheating going on. Their behavior was perfectly acceptable. Their log specified exactly what they did, eliminating any possibility of someone claiming the log was bogus. The only person who behaved poorly, (by deleting a legitimate find), was you.

[+bittsen]

As too post 76,

 

I realize this is a reviewer who is blogging. This is why I posted such a defense to show that within the geocaching guidelines I have not violated any rules! Its unethical but it is not rule breaking. There is a difference between ethics and rules.

 

To Keystone I respect your opinion but these people posted right on their "Found" logs that they SKIPPED all intial stages except the last. By defintion a multicache has at least two stages. They found only one stage therefore they did not stand within the requirements of a multicache and I have the right if I so choose to delete their post to maintain quality of my cache.

 

Now I realize some people don't mind if people shortcut on their multicaches and that is completely fine (that is your cache its your choice) but with this one that I created, I felt that they didn't complete what by defintion is a multicache.

 

It should also be noted for those of you who are big on the "Smiley" I made a traditional cache in this park to meet exactly the expectaions that you wanted (Find container, signed log, claim a smiley). I was hoping that would fill the caching fix. Obviously it didn't and was partially the reason why I archived this cache and replaced it with an Earthcache whichhas solved this problem. Again I placed this topic to determine ethics solely.

 

Keystone I ask you respectfully, please let my decisions in the past remain the way they are. Multicaches that I will create in the future will not have this problem as I will leave them hintless and will respect what cachers in this blog have strongly consider ethical. this should prevent both seeker and CO's little toes from being stepped on.

 

With all due respect....you are wrong.

[+tozainamboku]

The guidelines state that "there are many variations to multi-stage caches. The most common is that in which the first container or waypoint contains or provides coordinates to the next location. Another popular variant is a series of multiple waypoints, each of which provide partial coordinates for the final cache position." What most people are looking at here is this traditional view of a multi-cache where the goal is to find the final stage and sign the log. They then argue that the only criteria for completing such a cache is to sign the log in the final stage at which point you can log a find whether or not you found the other stages. The problem is that these do not seem to be the only variations that are published. Some people have hidden multi caches that are simply multiple caches. They give you the coordinated for all the "stages" which may be done in any order. Each stage has a log book. A find is when you have completed all the stages. Others have designed a walking tour. The intend to lead you through a series of locations with either virtual or physical thing to find. There is a log in the final to sign after you have completed the stages. I'm working on multi-cache now where I have to find a geocacher on the other side of the country. I give them the coordinates to a cache there and they will send me the coordinates they find in that cache so I can go to the final. I suppose I could try to brute force and find this cache and skip the stage that someone else does but what fun would that be? I am also working on one where I found the physical part and signed the log. Now I have to visit another location and take a picture. I suppose that this could be construed as a traditional cache with an additional logging requirement. But it is listed as multi cache. Perhaps this is a reviewer error and I should just go ahead and log that I found it. But what fun would that be? It seems to me we have lost the capability for making caches that are unique and add something to the game in order satisfy the few who can't see farther than sign the log = found the cache. This is sad.

[Clan Riffster]

The guidelines state that "there are many variations to multi-stage caches.

An astute observation. However, if the thread is about deleting finds because a particularly anal cache owner didn't like the methods employed by those seeking the cache, (even when those methods were put into play by what was on the cache page), then what is more relevant to that part of the guidelines is what they don't say. Specifically, there are no prohibitions even hinted at against shortcutting multis. This is an argument that the CO won't win with guideline references, because the guidelines support the so called cheaters.

 

It seems to me we have lost the capability for making caches that are unique and add something to the game

Relax Toz. The sky is not falling. I see wondrous examples of creativity every time I hit the treeline with my GPSr. If you can't find anything creative in your PQs, I'd say the problem was with the folks who hide caches in the area you hunt them, not with the guidelines. Obviously, Groundspeak is not engaged in any deep, dark conspiracy to end creative thought. Drama Queen posts like this one do nothing to enhance this activity.

[+fizzymagic]

This thread brings up yet another reason I tend to avoid multicaches unless there are really glowing logs for them.

 

Multicaches are much more likely than other types to be placed by control freaks who cannot stand it if you don't do the cache exactly as they want you to. They see any deviation from their rigidly defined path as (to quote the OP) "disrespectful."

 

Since, for me, the fun of caching is about the adventure and challenge of figuring out how to get to a spot, and not so much about being led around by the nose, this kind of cache has no appeal for me.

 

So I tend not to do them. There are lots of other caches out there, many of which are creative and enjoyable. I do those instead.

[+rob3k]

This is why I posted such a defense to show that within the geocaching guidelines I have not violated any rules! Its unethical but it is not rule breaking.

 

I'm confused about why you'd want to leave things unchanged when you now consider your actions to be unethical. Why not restore the logs? Or if a CO doesn't have the power to restore deleted logs, send Keystone a PM asking him to do it.

[+sbell111]

To those who believe that all stages of a multi must be found before a find can be logged online, imagine this scenario:

 

On a beautiful Saturday, you go after a eight-stage multi which requires miles of hiking; some scenic, some not so much. By midafternoon, you have conquered the first six stages. You arrive at the seventh location to find an area that has been recently cleared. Since all previous stages have been hidden in the same manner, you are reasonably certain that the cache was in a tree that no longer exists.

 

A review of the coordinate bits that were found in the previous stages reveals that you have all but one digit of the final location's coordinates and that the final digit can only be one of two numbers and still allow the cache to be within the park.

 

You now have a choice. You can either go check out those two possible locations and make the find, or you can go home and log a DNF. Which do you choose? If you decide that it is OK to go ahead and make the find, then you disagree with the OP. Instead, you agree with those who say that it is not required to find every stage of a multi in order to log the find and that the only requirement is to sign the logbook.

Edited October 14, 2009 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

This is why I posted such a defense to show that within the geocaching guidelines I have not violated any rules! Its unethical but it is not rule breaking.

 

I'm confused about why you'd want to leave things unchanged when you now consider your actions to be unethical. Why not restore the logs? Or if a CO doesn't have the power to restore deleted logs, send Keystone a PM asking him to do it.

As I understand it, the OP deleted the finds prior to the 'anti-ALR' guideline. As such, his decision probably could technically stand, although it would have been better if the description had stated that all stages must be found.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Geoextreme87,

 

You are so wrong milti cache is a type of cache, not a requirement on how to complete the cache.

The only requirement for a multi is on the CO, IE they must make a multi to get it listed as a milti.

That is so simple a two year old can understand it.

A multi cache works exactly like this...

1. CO must make at least 2 stages to get it listed as a multi.

2. Finder must find final and sign log to claim find on multi.

Shall we reiterate it for you? Here I'll do it...

1. Go ga ga gee

2. Che wha go gaf

Understand now?

[+Renegade Knight]

I don't know how to make it any more clear. So I'll go in baby steps.

 

Step 1: This is a multicache which means there is a least two satges that you need to go to.

Where in the guidelines does it say that anyone needs to go to all the stages of a multi-cache?

This is exactly the point I was going to make. The guidelines describe examples of what multi-caches can be but they do not say that all stages of a multi MUST be visited in order to claim the find....

 

However they do say that all the stages much be placed to be a multi. Apparently now it's a double standard.

 

So from another angle, by gosh if I as an owner have to go place the dadgum stages to claim the cache listing, you can bet your sweet bippy that finders are going to have to jump throug the same hoops to claim a find in that hard earned listing.

[+Renegade Knight]

...A review of the coordinate bits that were found in the previous stages reveals that you have all but one digit of the final location's coordinates and that the final digit can only be one of two numbers and still allow the cache to be within the park....

 

I'd go find the cache and email the owner about logging a find or posting a note. My stand has been the owner makes the call. If an owner is happy with you finding the final, great. It's a find. If the owner wants every stage well heck, it's a note.

 

I've had owners go either way on me and my logs reflect their wishes.

[+bittsen]

This goes to show you why you shouldn't write a lot on your online logs. Telling the CO that a "stage" was skipped is the problem. The cacher should have just said TNLNSLTFTC and called it good.

[+Renegade Knight]

This goes to show you why you shouldn't write a lot on your online logs. Telling the CO that a "stage" was skipped is the problem. The cacher should have just said TNLNSLTFTC and called it good.

 

They couldhave added.

 

SASNNN (skipped a stage, neener neener neener) and nobody would be the wiser.

[Clan Riffster]

you can bet your sweet bippy that finders are going to have to jump throug the same hoops to claim a find

But in the case we're citing, the find is not something that was "claimed". It is a fact that can be proved or disproved with just a glance at the logbook. According to the OP, the cache itself was found. This is not subject to dispute. Their signatures are in the logbook for all to see. They don't need to "claim" a find, the facts are on record.

[Clan Riffster]

SASNNN

[Skippermark]

Multicaches are much more likely than other types to be placed by control freaks who cannot stand it if you don't do the cache exactly as they want you to. They see any deviation from their rigidly defined path as (to quote the OP) "disrespectful."

I know of some cachers who found a really hard cache quite quickly because the cache had problems, like containers being on the ground instead of as originally hidden and things like that.

 

The owner wanted to delete their logs because they didn't find the cache as intended.

 

The finders said it wasn't their fault. They didn't know the cache had problems when they started out.

 

The owner said they should have realized the cache had issues and abandoned the search and saved it for another day because of the problems.

[knowschad]

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. "

 

I'd call that a definition for the hider, not a rule for the finder.

[+bittsen]

I know of some cachers who found a really hard cache quite quickly because the cache had problems, like containers being on the ground instead of as originally hidden and things like that.

 

The owner wanted to delete their logs because they didn't find the cache as intended.

 

The finders said it wasn't their fault. They didn't know the cache had problems when they started out.

 

The owner said they should have realized the cache had issues and abandoned the search and saved it for another day because of the problems.

 

Heh, hilarious.

So I find a cache in a hidey hole and log the find but the CO wants to delete my log because someone forgot to put the rock back in front of the cache?...

 

I honestly know the type. I know of someone who would criticize every cache they come across if not for the ridicule they would suffer. I dread the day that I have to log one of their caches because I'm sure my log won't be correct in one way or another.

 

I'm so glad for the no ALR clauses in the guidelines.

[+Stargazer22]

To those who believe that all stages of a multi must be found before a find can be logged online, imagine this scenario:

 

On a beautiful Saturday, you go after a eight-stage multi which requires miles of hiking; some scenic, some not so much. By midafternoon, you have conquered the first six stages. You arrive at the seventh location to find an area that has been recently cleared. Since all previous stages have been hidden in the same manner, you are reasonably certain that the cache was in a tree that no longer exists.

 

A review of the coordinate bits that were found in the previous stages reveals that you have all but one digit of the final location's coordinates and that the final digit can only be one of two numbers and still allow the cache to be within the park.

 

You now have a choice. You can either go check out those two possible locations and make the find, or you can go home and log a DNF. Which do you choose? If you decide that it is OK to go ahead and make the find, then you disagree with the OP. Instead, you agree with those who say that it is not required to find every stage of a multi in order to log the find and that the only requirement is to sign the logbook.

 

We once had almost this exact scenario.

 

Doing a 6 stage multi that was in an area where a fire had come through recently. One stage was found but burned to a crisp. I was lucky enough to pry all the plastic apart and get the digit from inside the slag. Another stage was completely missing, this area being burned worse than the others. That left us one missing digit which was unfortunately not the least significant one. It was the digit right after the decimal point, so the possible 10 locations it could be in were all about 500-600 feet apart. Only two of them were outside of the area, so we had 8 locations to check for the final, spread out over about a mile.

Of course it turned out to be in the 8th location, the one that was the longest walk.

 

We signed the log and logged our find online. The owner did not object and was glad to know exactly which stages they needed to replace and that the final survived the fire OK.

 

We wound up doing a lot more work by going to all those other 7 places (some of them were quite a bushwhack) that we didn't need to go to. After doing all that extra work I would have been really disappointed if the cache owner had been such a control freak that he would have deleted my find because I 'skipped' a stage.

 

Sometimes a 'shortcut' on a multi is anything but a shortcut!

[+Renegade Knight]

you can bet your sweet bippy that finders are going to have to jump throug the same hoops to claim a find

But in the case we're citing, the find is not something that was "claimed". It is a fact that can be proved or disproved with just a glance at the logbook. According to the OP, the cache itself was found. This is not subject to dispute. Their signatures are in the logbook for all to see. They don't need to "claim" a find, the facts are on record.

 

All finds are claimed. Most are accepted and not disputed. The case we are citing has facts as you note. Some stages were found, some were not. We are debating if finding one stage is a valid find for a multi stage cache. We have accepted that owners have to place all the stages. Finders though seem to be able to sign "The log". In my area it's normal practice for all stages to have a log. Those who are saying it's all in "The log" are likely thinking of the last one, and not an earlier one, but it's all the same to me. Incomplete and up to the owner. So are you all thinking of "The Log" being the last stage? Wouldn't a requirement to sign that one be an ALR as opposed to any of the logs in the multi?

[+Renegade Knight]

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. "

 

I'd call that a definition for the hider, not a rule for the finder.

 

I'm not so sure. If you found a cache in one location that doesn't sound like a multi find to me at all. Should you log your traditinoal find on the multi page? Dont' answer that some folks log non approvable caches on the event page.

[Clan Riffster]

In my area it's normal practice for all stages to have a log.

That seems pretty odd. I've only seen that done once, and I couldn't figure out why it was done that way. What is the reasoning behind doing this? To ensure that folks have found each stage? If I ever get to be that anal, I hope some kind soul will come along and shoot me in the foot.

[+Renegade Knight]

In my area it's normal practice for all stages to have a log.

That seems pretty odd. I've only seen that done once, and I couldn't figure out why it was done that way. What is the reasoning behind doing this? ...

 

Maybe habit. Put out a container, put in a log? I doubt it was for checking up on each stage. Most people I know are happy enough to assume we are all honest loggers unless proven otherwise. I can tell you though there is more than one DNF on a multi that has me signing logs for several of the stages before I didn't find the last one. Seems like it captures some history that not having the log wouldn't.

[Skippermark]

In my area it's normal practice for all stages to have a log.

That seems pretty odd. I've only seen that done once, and I couldn't figure out why it was done that way. What is the reasoning behind doing this? To ensure that folks have found each stage? If I ever get to be that anal, I hope some kind soul will come along and shoot me in the foot.

Yeah, that's not something we see around here either.

[+sbell111]

In my area it's normal practice for all stages to have a log.

That seems pretty odd. I've only seen that done once, and I couldn't figure out why it was done that way. What is the reasoning behind doing this? ...

 

Maybe habit. Put out a container, put in a log? I doubt it was for checking up on each stage. Most people I know are happy enough to assume we are all honest loggers unless proven otherwise. I can tell you though there is more than one DNF on a multi that has me signing logs for several of the stages before I didn't find the last one. Seems like it captures some history that not having the log wouldn't.

Those cachers who believe that there is nothing wrong with not necessarily visiting every stage of a multi as long as the final log is signed do not see themselves as dishonest. Edited October 15, 2009 by sbell111

[knowschad]

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. "

 

I'd call that a definition for the hider, not a rule for the finder.

 

I'm not so sure. If you found a cache in one location that doesn't sound like a multi find to me at all. Should you log your traditinoal find on the multi page? Dont' answer that some folks log non approvable caches on the event page.

 

 

You're not sure that I'd call that a definition instead of a rule?!? Well, thanks for straighting me out on that fine point. It still sounds to me like a definition to me, though, and not a logging requirement.

[knowschad]

In my area it's normal practice for all stages to have a log.

That seems pretty odd. I've only seen that done once, and I couldn't figure out why it was done that way. What is the reasoning behind doing this? To ensure that folks have found each stage? If I ever get to be that anal, I hope some kind soul will come along and shoot me in the foot.

Yeah, that's not something we see around here either.

 

Never seen it in my 5+ years, either, but I do know that regional differences in caching do seem to take hold. Probably somebody did that early on in RK's area, and others just followed suit and it continues to this day.

[+Renegade Knight]

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. "

 

I'd call that a definition for the hider, not a rule for the finder.

 

I'm not so sure. If you found a cache in one location that doesn't sound like a multi find to me at all. Should you log your traditinoal find on the multi page? Dont' answer that some folks log non approvable caches on the event page.

 

 

You're not sure that I'd call that a definition instead of a rule?!? Well, thanks for straighting me out on that fine point. It still sounds to me like a definition to me, though, and not a logging requirement.

 

Ok by defintion if you found one cache, what kind was it?

[+Castle Mischief]

In my area it's normal practice for all stages to have a log.

That seems pretty odd. I've only seen that done once, and I couldn't figure out why it was done that way. What is the reasoning behind doing this? ...

 

Maybe habit. Put out a container, put in a log? I doubt it was for checking up on each stage. Most people I know are happy enough to assume we are all honest loggers unless proven otherwise. I can tell you though there is more than one DNF on a multi that has me signing logs for several of the stages before I didn't find the last one. Seems like it captures some history that not having the log wouldn't.

 

Never seen that either. That would actually be more confusing for me. I generally assume that the log is in the final. If I found a log in one of the stages I'm not sure what I'd think. I guess it would depend on what else was written in the log (coords for the next stage) and how closely I read the cache page.

[+Renegade Knight]

In my area it's normal practice for all stages to have a log.

That seems pretty odd. I've only seen that done once, and I couldn't figure out why it was done that way. What is the reasoning behind doing this? To ensure that folks have found each stage? If I ever get to be that anal, I hope some kind soul will come along and shoot me in the foot.

Yeah, that's not something we see around here either.

 

Never seen it in my 5+ years, either, but I do know that regional differences in caching do seem to take hold. Probably somebody did that early on in RK's area, and others just followed suit and it continues to this day.

 

To be fair I haven't done a multi in 6* or more years. The last time I did one micro's were not yet common. Things change. I've got one planned though that the Phone A Friend Network could sure ruin.

 

One exception was a multi in a new area where I happned on the next to last stage of 7 or 8 stages. That was just the clue to the last stage. I got a DNF on that, and the onwner wasn't on board with me claiming the find if I did find the last stage so I didn't work too hard at going backwards. The DNF stands and the cache is now archived.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+sbell111]

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. "

 

I'd call that a definition for the hider, not a rule for the finder.

 

I'm not so sure. If you found a cache in one location that doesn't sound like a multi find to me at all. Should you log your traditinoal find on the multi page? Dont' answer that some folks log non approvable caches on the event page.

 

 

You're not sure that I'd call that a definition instead of a rule?!? Well, thanks for straighting me out on that fine point. It still sounds to me like a definition to me, though, and not a logging requirement.

 

Ok by defintion if you found one cache, what kind was it?

One would need more information to answer your question. It could have been a trad, a virt, a multi, a puzzle, or an earthcache.

[+Renegade Knight]

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. "

 

I'd call that a definition for the hider, not a rule for the finder.

 

I'm not so sure. If you found a cache in one location that doesn't sound like a multi find to me at all. Should you log your traditinoal find on the multi page? Dont' answer that some folks log non approvable caches on the event page.

 

 

You're not sure that I'd call that a definition instead of a rule?!? Well, thanks for straighting me out on that fine point. It still sounds to me like a definition to me, though, and not a logging requirement.

 

Ok by defintion if you found one cache, what kind was it?

One would need more information to answer your question. It could have been a trad, a virt, a multi, a puzzle, or an earthcache.

By defintion some of those kinds are not a viable answer. That's my point, but you knew that.

[+sbell111]

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. "

 

I'd call that a definition for the hider, not a rule for the finder.

 

I'm not so sure. If you found a cache in one location that doesn't sound like a multi find to me at all. Should you log your traditinoal find on the multi page? Dont' answer that some folks log non approvable caches on the event page.

 

 

You're not sure that I'd call that a definition instead of a rule?!? Well, thanks for straighting me out on that fine point. It still sounds to me like a definition to me, though, and not a logging requirement.

 

Ok by defintion if you found one cache, what kind was it?

One would need more information to answer your question. It could have been a trad, a virt, a multi, a puzzle, or an earthcache.

By defintion some of those kinds are not a viable answer. That's my point, but you knew that.

Not true.

 

If I found one traditional cache, I would have found one cache.

If I found one virtual cache, I would have found one cache.

If I found one multicache, I would have found one cache.

If I found one puzzle cache, I would have found one cache.

If I found one earthcache cache, I would have found one cache.

If I found one apecache, I would have found one cache.

[+wimseyguy]

In my area it's normal practice for all stages to have a log.

That seems pretty odd. I've only seen that done once, and I couldn't figure out why it was done that way. What is the reasoning behind doing this? To ensure that folks have found each stage? If I ever get to be that anal, I hope some kind soul will come along and shoot me in the foot.

Yeah, that's not something we see around here either.

 

Never seen it in my 5+ years, either, but I do know that regional differences in caching do seem to take hold. Probably somebody did that early on in RK's area, and others just followed suit and it continues to this day.

 

I've never seen this practice either, and I've found caches in a couple of different states. But many of my open states are out in RK's direction. I often avoid multis when traveling, but I will usually find 1-2 if I'm there for an extended visit. Especially if they come highly recommended. On my last road trip I spent the better part of Friday afternoon doing a neat multi, and all of trads that we walked past along its route.

Edited October 15, 2009 by wimseyguy

[knowschad]

Ok by defintion if you found one cache, what kind was it?

 

If it is listed as a multi, then I found the final stage of a multi.

 

 

Look, all I'm saying here is that the quoted part of the geocache types document does nothing more than to define what a multicache is. When you see a multicache listed, you understand that the posted coordinates do not take you directly to the final Nothing that I can find says that you MUST get the final by that route.