powers that be: request closer look at the .1 mile saturation guideline

[+helix149]

While I agree wholeheartedly with the reasoning behind the rule I also recently saw an issue with it. I had placed two caches in a newly opened area in a near by park both were placed in the locations chosen for two specific reasons each:

 

1st it is an amazing area deep inside a park that is little seen and only acquired by the park system 2 years ago, prior to that it was private property for over 100 years.

 

2nd both had to be place within 10 feet of their locations and this was due to safety reasons pushing the first cache 10 ft either towards or further from the nearest cache created a serious danger for both the cacher and the environment.

 

The second cache while more than 528 feet of travel due to significant ledges and boulder fields from the first cache placed was only 481 ft as the crow flies. It could not be moved any further than that due to a steep pile of loose boulders ranging from baseball to microwave in size on one side and a pile of vehicle size boulders on the other on each side of these two mounds that join in the middle are quarry cliffs that go strait up 60 ft or so on one side and 100 or more ft on the other. The only way to access this area of the park is to follow a winding trail, of which both caches are placed at opposite ends. Nature has spent 100 or so years reclaiming this abandoned quarry and this has created an area that has the feel of moss covered Mayan Ruins.

 

While it is safe to access these two caches and may be safe for experienced hikers/cachers to further explore the area I do not feel it would be safe to ask cachers to do so for the sake of finding the caches as moving stones or climbing between the boulders could result in shifting something causing injury or death or ruining habitat for small native creatures. I tried to briefly explain this to the reviewer that originally reviewed the caches and he simply responded they were to close per the saturation guideline and that one would have to be moved or archived before either would be published.

 

Due to moving the cache not being a reasonable option for safety reasons I chose to archive one and place it on another site. I would have rather seen an exception made since they were placed with safety in mind and for the purpose of exposing people to the beauty of the area.

 

In my opinion reviewers should be instructed that if safety is an issue cases such and this one could be allowed in the same way that caches on opposite sides of highways can be within the 528 ft min or ones with a lake in between them can be approved if within the min distance if it forces you to travel more than the minimum distance by foot. I can email photos of the area and offered to to send them to the reviewer with no response before I decided it would be best to archive it.

[+edscott]

2 stage multi????

[+Roland_oso]

Yep, a multi would have been the ticket. More multis need to be placed IMHO.

[+9Key]

Yep, a multi would have been the ticket. More multis need to be placed IMHO.

You like those multi's, don't 'cha!

[+helix149]

don't multi caches still have to have stages .1 miles apart and I prolly would have considered that had the reviewer suggested it

[+fegan]

don't multi caches still have to have stages .1 miles apart and I prolly would have considered that had the reviewer suggested it

There is no limit between the stages of a multi...only that each stage, and the final, must be 528ft from any other physical cache.

[+dakboy]

The second cache while more than 528 feet of travel due to significant ledges and boulder fields from the first cache placed was only 481 ft as the crow flies.

If it is not possible to travel in a straight line between the caches, the reviewer may allow the caches. The guidelines are just that - guidelines. They are not cast in stone, and if you explain politely to your reviewer that it's not possible to travel that straight line, he may OK it (consider 2 caches on opposite banks of a river or sides of a chasm 300 feet wide, but no bridges for 1 mile up or down stream).

[+helix149]

The second cache while more than 528 feet of travel due to significant ledges and boulder fields from the first cache placed was only 481 ft as the crow flies.

If it is not possible to travel in a straight line between the caches, the reviewer may allow the caches. The guidelines are just that - guidelines. They are not cast in stone, and if you explain politely to your reviewer that it's not possible to travel that straight line, he may OK it (consider 2 caches on opposite banks of a river or sides of a chasm 300 feet wide, but no bridges for 1 mile up or down stream).

 

here are notes from myself and reviewer copied and pasted reviewer name edited read notes from bottom up for correct order

 

November 26 by helix149 (38 found)

Archived verses moving cache the necessary 40-50 ft. Moving it further out would either create an unsafe circumstance or force the cache to be moved to another trail this defeats the purpose of this cache as it is off the end of a dead end trail.

 

[view/edit logs/images] [upload an image for this log]

November 25 by reviewer (0 found)

Greetings from Geocaching.com

Your new cache has been temporally disabled, because, your cache is to close to another cache !Cliff Top Bungalow by Helix149 and Shelix 149.5 (GC21DFR) “481 feet”, guideline is 528 feet.

 

From the Guideline “Cache Saturation” The reviewers use a rule of thumb that caches placed within .10 miles (528 feet or 161 meters) of another cache may not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area and to reduce confusion that might otherwise result when one cache is found while looking for another.

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide a cache every 600 feet just because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, the reviewer may require you to create a multi-cache, if the waypoints are close together.

 

After you move them re enable your cache.

 

reviewer

Geocaching.com Volunteer Cache Reviewer

Reply to: reviewerr

Please send the name of the cache and the GC# with your reply

 

[view this log]

 

November 25 by helix149 (38 found)

this was placed with another nearby cache both caches were placed at the locations selected for safety reasons to move this particular one 40 or 50 feet would mean climbing over possibly unstable vehicle sized boulders or climbing steep tall loose boulder hill. Also due to cliffs and jumbles of large boulders in the area you cannot move directly between caches if you need further explanations or photos let me know I would be happy to email them to you.

[+Prime Suspect]

don't multi caches still have to have stages .1 miles apart and I prolly would have considered that had the reviewer suggested it

It's explained in the Guidelines. Before you can submit a cache, you're required to check the box that indicates that you have read the Guidelines. You did read them, right?

[+helix149]

Yes I did read them I also asked specifically about the situation and was told due to the circumstances leave a reviewer note on the reason for them being slightly below the guide line which I did when I posted them and I posted them within minutes of each other as well as sending another email to the reviewer after his response. The saturation guideline also is just that it is not set in stone but the reviewer didn't seem to care about that. For the record I did not come here to complain I came here to voice my opinion. I also knew that what the end result ended up being was a possibility from the beginning and I am Ok with the results. The cache is still available for others to find just not on this site meaning not as many will know about it which is disappointing on one side and somewhat gratifying on the other.

[GOF and Bacall]

Multi. Show off both locations with one cache.

 

Although they are guidelines by name you can consider them rules. While not written in stone they aren't written in beach sand either.

[+helix149]

honestly I dislike finding multi and therefore wont place one I would rather leave it on the other site and place another cache somewhere else we need more caches on the other site in this area anyway and I like the site

[+Prime Suspect]

Yes I did read them I also asked specifically about the situation and was told due to the circumstances l...

don't multi caches still have to have stages .1 miles apart and I prolly would have considered that had the reviewer suggested it

 

So you did read and understand the guidelines, but didn't know it could be a multi?

[+helix149]

i read and understood guidlines that pertained to traditional cahces I am not interested in multi caches so I diddnt read the multi part

[Lemonhead]

Maybe a "special circumstances" clause? Have a volunteer, Not a reviewer, because they are always busy, and not always in the area, but someone that could go to the site physically and make an observation of the area and see if the distance rule/guideline could be excepted for "These two particular caches". Seems to me that Geocaching.com could possibly benefit from this by having more help, and alleviate possible friction between Cachers and GC.com.

 

I figure if the US constitution can be amended.

 

Just thinkin...

[+StarBrand]

Exceptions should be rare.

 

Safety is generally not a reason to either place or not place a cache so I can't see where safety should be an argument to grant a saturation guideline exception. I really don't want to see Groundspeak or any volunteer reviewers get into the business of trying to determine what is or is not "safe".

[+helix149]

Maybe a "special circumstances" clause? Have a volunteer, Not a reviewer, because they are always busy, and not always in the area, but someone that could go to the site physically and make an observation of the area and see if the distance rule/guideline could be excepted for "These two particular caches". Seems to me that Geocaching.com could possibly benefit from this by having more help, and alleviate possible friction between Cachers and GC.com.

 

I figure if the US constitution can be amended.

 

Just thinkin...

 

Thats the kind of ideas I was hoping to generate and I would love to have someone l do not have a relationship with personally visit the two caches and render an additional opinion if they still felt an exception shouldn't be made I would support it fully and feel much better about the cache not being approved there are in my opinion special circumstances that came up with this cache both in distance necessary to travel between them and with safety issues if boulder dash were to be moved further into the area it was placed. I am sure it happens on occasion with others caches as well and the only way to get the best feel for the situation often times would be to actually visit the location.

[+helix149]

Exceptions should be rare.

 

Safety is generally not a reason to either place or not place a cache so I can't see where safety should be an argument to grant a saturation guideline exception. I really don't want to see Groundspeak or any volunteer reviewers get into the business of trying to determine what is or is not "safe".

 

Safety was one of the reasons, necessary travel distance was the other. With cliff top bungalow if I had moved it further from boulder dash safety would be a concern for it and same for boulder dash it is a catch 22 situation as far as the distance traveled issue the forced distance traveled for these two would be over the .1 mile necessary albeit only slightly so either way you look at it it could have had an exception. I also offered to send pictures or personally meet a reviewer or I would have if they wanted met a representative they sent and went to the area with them then waited after return for a decision. If this could have been done I would have felt much better about the decision that was rendered instead of feeling like they scanned over the text not actually reading it then looked at the coords and blocked both from being approved until one was moved. Ultimately the issue is already solved and wont be changed but I wanted to bring the overall scenario to the attention on GS and the community. I am not mad at the reviewer or Gs and that is on of the reasons for keeping the reviewers name out of this but I do feel there is room for improvement without depredation of the current system.

[+baloo&bd]

...as far as the distance traveled issue the forced distance traveled for these two would be over the .1 mile necessary albeit only slightly so either way you look at it it could have had an exception.

 

Just to clarify since I may be reading this wrong, there is no requirement that the stages be UNDER .1, in fact many multi's are a couple miles apart.

[+sTeamTraen]

I don't understand why it's so important to place 2 caches here. If the area is truly impressive, people should be happy with a single smiley to see it.

 

Exceptions to the proximity guideline are rare; when both caches are by the same placer, they are rarissime.

Edited November 29, 2009 by sTeamTraen

[GOF and Bacall]

I see no compelling reason for an exception for these caches. Both placed at the same time by the same owner. Make 'em a multi or list one on another site.

[+Lil Devil]

You're right that TPTB should take a "closer look" at the saturation guideline, and consider increasing it to .25 mile or more. I think caches are being placed too close to each other right now.

[+Prime Suspect]

i read and understood guidlines that pertained to traditional cahces I am not interested in multi caches so I diddnt read the multi part

don't multi caches still have to have stages .1 miles apart and I prolly would have considered that had the reviewer suggested it

[+kh54s10]

You're right that TPTB should take a "closer look" at the saturation guideline, and consider increasing it to .25 mile or more. I think caches are being placed too close to each other right now.

HEY!!! I'm in Rhode Island if you increase the cache distances to .25 mi over half of the caches in the state would be in violation.

[+Allanon]

You're right that TPTB should take a "closer look" at the saturation guideline, and consider increasing it to .25 mile or more. I think caches are being placed too close to each other right now.

Glad I wasn't the only one to think that...

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Me too. Put down another vote for increasing the saturation distance.

[Lemonhead]

Is this one of the caches in question?

http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx...;zm=19&mt=k

 

Just out of Knoxville, TN

 

I'm not seeing a cliff. If a revewer saw this maybe they would not see the problem.

 

I must have the wrong cache. GC21DFR

[+Ladybug Kids]

Me too. Put down another vote for increasing the saturation distance.

Yup. There aren't many places on the planet where compelling locations appear every 528 feet.

[+zoltig]

You're right that TPTB should take a "closer look" at the saturation guideline, and consider increasing it to .25 mile or more. I think caches are being placed too close to each other right now.

I agree with that, too!

It may help slow down the "shotgunning" of micros out the car window.

[+helix149]

Is this one of the caches in question?

http://www.geocaching.com/map/default.aspx...;zm=19&mt=k

 

Just out of Knoxville, TN

 

I'm not seeing a cliff. If a revewer saw this maybe they would not see the problem.

 

I must have the wrong cache. GC21DFR

 

Yep thats one of them the cliffs are old dry quarry cliffs with trees at the top and the bottom thats why you cant see them on sat photos. Go out and grab the smiley then continue down the trail and you will see what I am talking about.

[+tozainamboku]

Me too. Put down another vote for increasing the saturation distance.

Yup. There aren't many places on the planet where compelling locations appear every 528 feet.

Of course to person who wants to place two cache closer than 528 ft from one another it is precisely because they found two compelling locations that are that close together.

 

Instead I prefer to think that the is no location that compels a geocache. If you find two spot that you think are cool that are less than 528 ft apart you can place a geocache in one or the other (or half way between them if you prefer). Or you can make a multi cache with two stages. If you find a cool spot that is less than 528 feet from someone else's cache you have even less choice. You can't put a cache there at all.

 

So why is this just a guideline and why are there exceptions made some time. The main reasons is that reviewers like to publish caches. So they may allow a cache that is just a few feet short of the guideline or maybe even closer if there is a barrier of some sort that separated the caches that requires you to go around a much greater distance to get from one to the other. There may be other exceptions granted but these are extremely rare.

[+power69]

Me too. Put down another vote for increasing the saturation distance.

Yup. There aren't many places on the planet where compelling locations appear every 528 feet.

parking lots. lamp posts are closer than that

[+Lil Devil]

Lamp posts are hardly "compelling locations"

 

You're going to need a better example than that.

[+Renegade Knight]

i read and understood guidlines that pertained to traditional cahces I am not interested in multi caches so I diddnt read the multi part

 

I don't like multi's either. My solution to the 0.1 mile rule is to ignore it. I place caches that my muse demands. If it's a good spot worthy of a cache I'm not going to let the a light post cache get in the way of a truly worthy cache.

 

However I know dang well that it may not be listed on this site so if I think they may swing the guidelines my direction I'll give this site an option. If not I'll list it elsewhere where it won't be found all that much if ever.

 

In 75 or so caches placed, I've hit this issue twice. Once the other cache is in a great and worthy spot and yet completely different from the cache I had that was also in a good spot. In the other, the other caches were standard urban fare while the location I found was (and remains) one of my most favorite urban hides. Alas they are not listed here.

 

It doesn't work in reverse. GC.com has no separation rule (and I do think you need enough space to prevent accidental finds) for other cache sites. I've got another location with a GC.com cache plunked down on top of it. Folks keep finding my cache thinking it's the GC.com cache. I haven't been able to find the GC.com cache. The GC description actually leads me to believe that they may have listed my cache. The owner hasn't responded to questions.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

Me too. Put down another vote for increasing the saturation distance.

Put me down as opposed. A bigger arbitrary number is actually worse than the smaller one in that more worthy locations are blocked up by garden variety caches. That doesn't mean you will get more quality caches but you do get more opportunity for them.

[+the_bell_dingers]

don't multi caches still have to have stages .1 miles apart and I prolly would have considered that had the reviewer suggested it

I am planning on making a multi next spring and I sent a message to Groundspeak and this is what they said about .1 multi stages:

 

"Hello,

 

Thank you for writing in. All stages for the multi-cache will need to follow the .1 mile rule when you're placing a new cache. You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles.

 

I hope this helps!

 

Best Regards,

Annie"

 

So yes.

Edited December 1, 2009 by the_bell_dingers

[+fegan]

don't multi caches still have to have stages .1 miles apart and I prolly would have considered that had the reviewer suggested it

I am planning on making a multi next spring and I sent a message to Groundspeak and this is what they said about .1 multi stages:

 

"Hello,

 

Thank you for writing in. All stages for the multi-cache will need to follow the .1 mile rule when you're placing a new cache. You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles.

 

I hope this helps!

 

Best Regards,

Annie"

 

So yes.

 

When did they change that guidline? I have 3 multi-caches and all three of them have less than .1 mi between stages.

[+fegan]

From the guidelines:

 

"Cache Saturation

 

Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m). A physical stage is defined as any stage that contains a physical element placed by the geocache owner, such as a tag with the next set of coordinates or a container. Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline.

 

Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements."

[+larryc43230]

All stages for the multi-cache will need to follow the .1 mile rule when you're placing a new cache. You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles.

I don't think the guideline fegan quoted has changed, so I'm guessing she meant that you should make sure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches placed by other cachers have stages within .1 miles of any stage of your cache.

 

--Larry

[Motorcycle_Mama]

don't multi caches still have to have stages .1 miles apart and I prolly would have considered that had the reviewer suggested it

I am planning on making a multi next spring and I sent a message to Groundspeak and this is what they said about .1 multi stages:

 

"Hello,

 

Thank you for writing in. All stages for the multi-cache will need to follow the .1 mile rule when you're placing a new cache. You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles.

 

I hope this helps!

 

Best Regards,

Annie"

 

So yes.

 

Yes, if you read what Annie actually wrote, it reads "You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles."

 

This means that you need to make sure that all the physical stages of YOUR CACHE are at least 0.1 miles from all the physical stages of OTHER MYSTERY CACHES OR MULTI-CACHES. It doesn't say anything about the stages of a single multi-cache.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Motorcycle_Mama

[+sbell111]

OK, you can't move cache two.

 

Move cache one twenty feet.

[+helix149]

OK, you can't move cache two.

 

Move cache one twenty feet.

 

As I stated earlier that was not an option either moving cache one 20 feet would mean moving it to a place that would also be unsafe for most cachers. I actually looked at placing cache one 20 or 30 feet from where it was and while I could get there I am In excellent shape with years of hiking and climbing experience my roommate that is in more "average" shape with some hiking experience needed me to rope her into and out of the area where it would have to go due to a very steep clay hill that was the only relatively safe way into it. She still fell and bruised herself up pretty badly. Going up and down this hillside also damaged the environment and growth in this area and I am not going to intentionally send traffic into an area that is that fragile. If people have the skill level to explore the area they can decide to do so if they wish but in my opinion its not appropriate for our game to intentionally send someone to an area if they "will" cause damage to get there.

[+DanOCan]

I think the current cache saturation rules works well and is being properly enforced in this case.

If anything, I would increase the saturation distance.

[+the_bell_dingers]

don't multi caches still have to have stages .1 miles apart and I prolly would have considered that had the reviewer suggested it

I am planning on making a multi next spring and I sent a message to Groundspeak and this is what they said about .1 multi stages:

 

"Hello,

 

Thank you for writing in. All stages for the multi-cache will need to follow the .1 mile rule when you're placing a new cache. You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles.

 

I hope this helps!

 

Best Regards,

Annie"

 

So yes.

 

Yes, if you read what Annie actually wrote, it reads "You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles."

 

This means that you need to make sure that all the physical stages of YOUR CACHE are at least 0.1 miles from all the physical stages of OTHER MYSTERY CACHES OR MULTI-CACHES. It doesn't say anything about the stages of a single multi-cache.

 

ALL STAGES NEED TO BE .1 mile from ANY CACHE or stage of multi or mystery answer.

 

Read the bold in my Quote of my first post in this thread.

It doesn't say anything about the stages of a single multi-cache.

 

Read again MM

[+Markwell]

Read again MM

 

Did you miss that she's a Moderator?

 

Cache Saturation Guideline

Cache containers and physical stages should generally be separated by a minimum of 0.1 miles (528 feet or 161 m). A physical stage is defined as any stage that contains a physical element placed by the geocache owner, such as a tag with the next set of coordinates or a container. Non-physical caches or stages including reference points, trailhead/parking coordinates and question to answer waypoints are exempt from this guideline.

 

Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements.

 

Cache1 has four stages - beginning and end with boxes (physical) (A and D) and two "questions to answer" stages in the middle (B and C).

Cache2 has five stages - four "questions to answer" at the beginning (V,W,X,Y) and a box at the end (Z)

The points B, C, V, W, X and Y could all be on the same exact plaque and it wouldn't matter.

Points A and D could be within 10 feet of each other and it wouldn't matter.

But Point A must be more than 0.1 miles from Point Z - AND - Point D must be more than 0.1 miles from Point Z

 

Clear?

 

What they wrote: You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles.

What you missed: You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles.

 

It means that if there's another mystery or multi-stage cache in the area that has a physical container as one of its stages, and you're placing a mystery or multi-stage cache with physical boxes in the area, you'll need to check against the OTHER cache's physical stages to maintain the 0.1 saturation.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Markwell

[Motorcycle_Mama]

don't multi caches still have to have stages .1 miles apart and I prolly would have considered that had the reviewer suggested it

I am planning on making a multi next spring and I sent a message to Groundspeak and this is what they said about .1 multi stages:

 

"Hello,

 

Thank you for writing in. All stages for the multi-cache will need to follow the .1 mile rule when you're placing a new cache. You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles.

 

I hope this helps!

 

Best Regards,

Annie"

 

So yes.

 

Yes, if you read what Annie actually wrote, it reads "You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles."

 

This means that you need to make sure that all the physical stages of YOUR CACHE are at least 0.1 miles from all the physical stages of OTHER MYSTERY CACHES OR MULTI-CACHES. It doesn't say anything about the stages of a single multi-cache.

 

ALL STAGES NEED TO BE .1 mile from ANY CACHE or stage of multi or mystery answer.

 

Read the bold in my Quote of my first post in this thread.

It doesn't say anything about the stages of a single multi-cache.

 

Read again MM

Thanks but I know what it says .... backwards and forwards.

 

Perhaps you are just misinterpreting it.

 

As Markwell has pointed out in GREAT detail (thanks, Markwell!), all stages of a multi must comply with the 0.1 mile guideline FROM OTHER CACHES and STAGES of OTHER CACHES. Within a single multi, the stages can be on top of each other with no separation at all.

 

Good luck with your cache.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Within a single multi, the stages can be on top of each other with no separation at all.

 

I have one where the two stages are within arms reach of each other (well, kinda ), and there's another (which I have yet to complete because of a missing stage) where Stage 2 is "on top" of the other.

[+the_bell_dingers]

don't multi caches still have to have stages .1 miles apart and I prolly would have considered that had the reviewer suggested it

I am planning on making a multi next spring and I sent a message to Groundspeak and this is what they said about .1 multi stages:

 

"Hello,

 

Thank you for writing in. All stages for the multi-cache will need to follow the .1 mile rule when you're placing a new cache. You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles.

 

I hope this helps!

 

Best Regards,

Annie"

 

So yes.

 

Yes, if you read what Annie actually wrote, it reads "You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles."

 

This means that you need to make sure that all the physical stages of YOUR CACHE are at least 0.1 miles from all the physical stages of OTHER MYSTERY CACHES OR MULTI-CACHES. It doesn't say anything about the stages of a single multi-cache.

 

ALL STAGES NEED TO BE .1 mile from ANY CACHE or stage of multi or mystery answer.

 

Read the bold in my Quote of my first post in this thread.

It doesn't say anything about the stages of a single multi-cache.

 

Read again MM

Thanks but I know what it says .... backwards and forwards.

 

Perhaps you are just misinterpreting it.

 

As Markwell has pointed out in GREAT detail (thanks, Markwell!), all stages of a multi must comply with the 0.1 mile guideline FROM OTHER CACHES and STAGES of OTHER CACHES. Within a single multi, the stages can be on top of each other with no separation at all.

 

Good luck with your cache.

Oh okay so the rule is: All stages of the multi must follow the .1 mile rule. The stages can't be less than .1 mile from the answer to a mystery or other regular, multi cache, or stages to another multi. BUT the stages in your multi can be less than .1 from each other.

 

Now is this correct?

[GOF and Bacall]

don't multi caches still have to have stages .1 miles apart and I prolly would have considered that had the reviewer suggested it

I am planning on making a multi next spring and I sent a message to Groundspeak and this is what they said about .1 multi stages:

 

"Hello,

 

Thank you for writing in. All stages for the multi-cache will need to follow the .1 mile rule when you're placing a new cache. You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles.

 

I hope this helps!

 

Best Regards,

Annie"

 

So yes.

 

Yes, if you read what Annie actually wrote, it reads "You'll want to check the area to ensure that no other mystery caches or multi-caches have stages within .1 miles."

 

This means that you need to make sure that all the physical stages of YOUR CACHE are at least 0.1 miles from all the physical stages of OTHER MYSTERY CACHES OR MULTI-CACHES. It doesn't say anything about the stages of a single multi-cache.

 

ALL STAGES NEED TO BE .1 mile from ANY CACHE or stage of multi or mystery answer.

 

Read the bold in my Quote of my first post in this thread.

It doesn't say anything about the stages of a single multi-cache.

 

Read again MM

Thanks but I know what it says .... backwards and forwards.

 

Perhaps you are just misinterpreting it.

 

As Markwell has pointed out in GREAT detail (thanks, Markwell!), all stages of a multi must comply with the 0.1 mile guideline FROM OTHER CACHES and STAGES of OTHER CACHES. Within a single multi, the stages can be on top of each other with no separation at all.

 

Good luck with your cache.

Oh okay so the rule is: All stages of the multi must follow the .1 mile rule. The stages can't be less than .1 mile from the answer to a mystery or other regular, multi cache, or stages to another multi. BUT the stages in your multi can be less than .1 from each other.

 

Now is this correct?

 

DING-DING-DING

We have a winner!

 

Your multi can be as close to itself as you want. It can not be closer to any other cache or stage than 528 feet. The exceptions are non-physical stages/caches and events.

[+the_bell_dingers]

DING-DING-DING

Hey, that's my job!