Trying to Hide a Cache - Too Close to Another Mulitstage Cache - How Do You Know?

[+CacheKaiser]

Ok, I'm a little frustrated here. I did all of my research to be sure that a cache that I was going to hide with my son was not with 1/10 of a mile of any other cache sites. We hid the cache. I tried posting it, but I was told that it was too close to a mulitstage cache. How do you know where the other parts of a mulitistage cache are if you can't see them on the map. I could spend forever trying to hide a cache because I would always be to close to a stage of a multistage cache. Is there a way to find out this info? I don't want to hide and submit and then have to re-hide and submit everytime I want to hide a cache. Suggestions?

[+WatchDog2020]

Ok, I'm a little frustrated here. I did all of my research to be sure that a cache that I was going to hide with my son was not with 1/10 of a mile of any other cache sites. We hid the cache. I tried posting it, but I was told that it was too close to a mulitstage cache. How do you know where the other parts of a mulitistage cache are if you can't see them on the map. I could spend forever trying to hide a cache because I would always be to close to a stage of a multistage cache. Is there a way to find out this info? I don't want to hide and submit and then have to re-hide and submit everytime I want to hide a cache. Suggestions?

 

I just sent a note to the area reviewer not 20 minutes ago on this. I made a new cache page and asked him to please check the waypoint and final locations for prox. issues. If there is - I'll just recycle to page for another cache.

[+larryc43230]

I just sent a note to the area reviewer not 20 minutes ago on this. I made a new cache page and asked him to please check the waypoint and final locations for prox. issues. If there is - I'll just recycle to page for another cache.

I asked our reviewer a similar question about a month ago about a cache my partner and I wanted to hide. There is an active multi cache in the same park, five stages in total, and there was more than 20 inches of snow on the ground at the time that would have made it difficult-to-impossible to find all the stages of the multi. The reviewer never responded to my request.

 

Since Valentine's Day was rapidly approaching, and the cache had a Valentine's Day theme, we decided in desperation to go for the multi, deep snow notwithstanding. After trudging through the snow for several hours (admittedly having fun and getting some great exercise in the process), we determined the final coordinates for the multi but never actually found the final stage. Based on the hint on the cache page, the final is at the base of a tree, and was probably still under a couple of feet of snow.

 

After all that work for a DNF, assuming our calculations were accurate (and I'm almost sure they were), the final stage of the multi is within five feet of where we had planned to hide our Valentine's Day cache.

 

Real life and bad weather have gotten in the way since then, and we haven't yet found a new location for our cache.

 

-Larry

Edited March 5, 2010 by larryc43230

[+WatchDog2020]

With mine I know there are no regular or multi's in the way. I wanted to check to see if someone 'reserved the spot' with a cache they have not publisehed yet.

[hoyshnin]

I used to email my reviewer and give him/her coordinates and ask if there were any other caches too close, but recently I was asked by him/her to instead create the cache page (which has the coordinates in it) and WRITE in the notes of it to the reviewer that I just want to know whether or not this spot is available (and not to publish it yet). For some reason, doing it this way is easier for them to check.

[jholly]

I used to email my reviewer and give him/her coordinates and ask if there were any other caches too close, but recently I was asked by him/her to instead create the cache page (which has the coordinates in it) and WRITE in the notes of it to the reviewer that I just want to know whether or not this spot is available (and not to publish it yet). For some reason, doing it this way is easier for them to check.

 

Yes, their proximity tools are set up to work with cache pages. If you just send co-ordinates it is more work for the reviewer.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

You could and probably should do all the stages of the nearest multi. You might even find a better place to hide your own while doing it.

[+Pax42]

I agree with the above. Why not complete any multistage or mystery caches in the area you want to put a hide. You'll then know exactly where that leaves for your placement and you may find that you really enjoy those types of hides.

[+baja_Traveler]

I modified and submitted a cache page six times on a hide in a local canyon, and every time hidden waypoints of a multi stage got it rejected. The placer of the multi stage had essentially locked up the entire 2 mile long canyon with his one stupid cache. Pissed me off enough that I just gave up trying.

 

In my opinion that rule needs to be changed - a hidden waypoint should not interfere with a real cache at all, only the final destination cache should...

[+briansnat]

If you see any multis within a mile or two of your proposed location, there are essentially two ways. Either find the multi yourself and write down the coords of each stage, or run your proposed coordinates by the reviewer.

 

This should eliminate 95 percent of the conflicts. You may still get bitten buy a multi that starts more than 2 miles away, but this should be pretty rare.

 

This happened to me last week. There was the first stage of a multi near a lake where I was thinking of placing a cache. I haven't placed mine yet because I want to find that multi first. I could also ask the local reviewer if my coords are OK, but I'd rather find the cache.

[+briansnat]

I modified and submitted a cache page six times on a hide in a local canyon, and every time hidden waypoints of a multi stage got it rejected. The placer of the multi stage had essentially locked up the entire 2 mile long canyon with his one stupid cache. Pissed me off enough that I just gave up trying.

 

In my opinion that rule needs to be changed - a hidden waypoint should not interfere with a real cache at all, only the final destination cache should...

 

At that point you could probably ask the reviewer if there is a spot in that canyon that is NOT in conflict.

[+CacheKaiser]

At this point, I have submitted three new locations. All three rejected. This could take forever and thus taking all fun out of it!

[+Prime Reviewer]

At this point, I have submitted three new locations. All three rejected. This could take forever and thus taking all fun out of it!

The last set you submitted were too close to a Traditional cache. There's no reason you couldn't have checked that yourself. Reviewers don't mind checking coordinates, but you should at least do your own checking first.

[+WatchDog2020]

CacheKaiser - Download Google Earth. You can have it link to GeoCaching Network KML, that shows all the caches in an area (regular). The caches 'dance around' some but it will give you a good idea what's around. The program has a ruler so you can measure the distance from the cache in place (.10 mile), and the location you like. Plus, it shows all the fun stuff - like streams, deer trails etc. It will bring the fun back to looking for a cool location.

[+RaeRae7133]

This hobby is getting awfully frustrating to me. The proximity guideline is just that - a guideline. Not a rule. I've been working to create unique caches with fun and challenging hints, only to be told that they are too close to another cache.

 

This is my 3rd attempted hide that this has happened to. I'm sorry to say that this totally ruins the fun of the hide for me. You want to hide something in a place that you can easily maintain, that you put a lot of thought into, etc. But when it's maybe 5 feet too close to another cache - come on!

 

I guess I'm going to stick to just finding. This is so disappointing, and I wish it wasn't like this.

[+Taoiseach]

Many reviewers are pretty flexible, and they'll let a few feet slide. The proximity rule is important though to keep areas from becoming completely saturated.

 

The two main reasons for the proximity guideline are that it; a) prevents a cacher from finding one cache, and logging the cache that's 12 feet away, and forces cachers to hide caches in places that do not already have caches.

 

It has happened to me a few times, including my most recent cache. I just moved the final, and had it re-reviewed.

 

It happens to the best of us, and there's no reason to get frustrated :signalsmile:

Edited March 23, 2010 by Taoiseach

[+narcissa]

I modified and submitted a cache page six times on a hide in a local canyon, and every time hidden waypoints of a multi stage got it rejected. The placer of the multi stage had essentially locked up the entire 2 mile long canyon with his one stupid cache. Pissed me off enough that I just gave up trying.

 

In my opinion that rule needs to be changed - a hidden waypoint should not interfere with a real cache at all, only the final destination cache should...

 

Have you done the multi-cache? Why is it stupid?

 

One of the reasons for the proximity guideline is to get cachers to find NEW places to hide caches. If the canyon is already well-served by this multi-cache, it's not really necessary to plop down a traditional in that space.

[+RaeRae7133]

Definitely reason to get frustrated

 

You find that perfect spot, you develop hints and a description based on that spot, and it's 5 darn feet to close to another cache. This has happened to me with each of the 3 caches I have tried to hide. I've done research, mapped out the other nearby caches, but the darn puzzle ones get me each time.

 

The proximity rule doesn't seem to always work. For example, in downtown San Francisco, there are TONS of unique and awesome places to hide caches - always a challenge (especially because the building make GPS signals difficult to get). So that little tiny log-only cache stuck in a planter prevents anyone else from hiding anything.

 

Living in a densely cached area makes it hard to participate in the other side of this hobby. Sure, I could go out and hide it far away, but the chances of me being able to maintain that are much smaller.

 

Instead, I would love to see a rule that limits hiders from placing too many caches within a certain area. Seems like a cacher takes over an entire city near me and makes it hard for anyone else to participate.

[+palmetto]

There's an article in the Knowledge Books on the subject, Checking for Cache Saturation

 

Notice the first sentence! "Before placing a new cache, it is best to go geocaching in that area first. It’s possible that other people have already placed their own geocaches"

 

And also the advice to look around at nearby multi and puzzle caches.

 

RaeRae7133, two of your new caches are just barely too close to each other, but more importantly, to the final of a multi-cache that starts within a half mile. It shows up as nearby, and that's a warning! It's often the case when you see a "cache empty" park in a saturated area that it isn't really empty.

 

It IS getting harder to place in many cache dense areas, I see no immediate solution.

[+t4e]

 

Instead, I would love to see a rule that limits hiders from placing too many caches within a certain area. Seems like a cacher takes over an entire city near me and makes it hard for anyone else to participate.

 

tbh that i think would be pretty stupid and frustrating

 

last year we surveyed the cache free areas on google maps and noticed a trail system that has been cache free for as long as i can remember

we went and placed 3 caches there, why should i be limited in how many to place, i did my research and found the place when nobody else bothered before

 

mind you, there is still plenty of space to place more, but as of today nobody else did, although everyone comments on how beautiful that trail system is

[Nomex]

Instead, I would love to see a rule that limits hiders from placing too many caches within a certain area.

 

The Cache Owner of the nearby Multi that you're having problems with on your two Listings has 6 caches Hidden. What exactly would you put as the upper limit?

[+RaeRae7133]

Instead, I would love to see a rule that limits hiders from placing too many caches within a certain area.

 

The Cache Owner of the nearby Multi that you're having problems with on your two Listings has 6 caches Hidden. What exactly would you put as the upper limit?

 

That particular cache owner I think is fine. I'm looking at areas like in San Francisco, where one cache owner has basically taken over the whole city

[+Harry Dolphin]

Sounds like an entitlement problem? Other people should archive their caches so you can hide one? First come, first served.

When I hide a cache, I know what other caches are in the area, and work around them. Yes. That includes multi and mystery caches. Though, mostly I hide caches in pretty places that have no other caches.

[+RaeRae7133]

Sounds like an entitlement problem? Other people should archive their caches so you can hide one? First come, first served.

When I hide a cache, I know what other caches are in the area, and work around them. Yes. That includes multi and mystery caches. Though, mostly I hide caches in pretty places that have no other caches.

 

Not looking for any one to have to archive their caches - I was just suggesting an alternative idea to the proximity guideline. If you took my post to mean otherwise, I apologize for not being more clear

 

I've got a decent number of finds under my belt, but it's difficult to know the placement of a final stage of a puzzle cache - I certainly don't think a cacher should have to find all the caches in an area before placing one.

 

I totally understand the reasons for the proximity guideline, but it does make it difficult for newcomers to join in the fun - would you disagree? Perhaps Groundspeak could develop a tool to help hiders better identify nearby caches - ie, place your coordinates for the new cache, it lets you know how close other caches (including multi and puzzle caches) are from this location)?

Edited March 23, 2010 by RaeRae7133

[+palmetto]

I'd very much like to see a something, a Pop up warning, perhaps, when cachers fill in the cache submit form and are too near an existing traditional cache. This is nearly 80% of the saturation errors I catch in reviewing.

 

There have been requests before for automated checks against stages of multi-caches and puzzle solutions. It's hard to design any system that won't lend itself to people using it to get puzzle solution and final coords. The people sophisticated enough to use it are the same group sophisticated enough to abuse it.

 

The bulk of saturation errors are totally novice, against visible coords. Which is not to downplay the frustration of encountering "invisible" caches - I know it's real. The current solution is look around with some care, and to use a reviewer to check coords before making a huge investment of time and energy in a cache placement. I'm doing coord checks for cachers daily. It beats telling them after their cache is placed that I cannot publish it.

[+RaeRae7133]

Palmetto, I think you're dead on

 

Out of curiosity, what tools do you use for coord checks?

[Keystone]

Out of curiosity, what tools do you use for coord checks?

Reviewers can open a cache page and (basically) search for "nearest caches" except that we can also see the hidden waypoints for multicaches and mystery/puzzle caches. This is why it's generally easier for coordinate check requests to be submitted on a "draft" cache page. We just have to click a few buttons rather than inputting the coordinates into a cache page ourselves.

 

(This explanation is oversimplified - the details are confidential.)

[+Happy Bubbles]

 

You find that perfect spot, you develop hints and a description based on that spot, and it's 5 darn feet to close to another cache. This has happened to me with each of the 3 caches I have tried to hide.

 

Literally, 5 feet too close? If this isn't just hyperbole, 5 feet is always well within the margin of error in commercial GPS unit reception. You could just change the last digit of your coordinates without moving the cache and it would more than likely be just as easy to find. If our GPS units point us anywhere in a 20-30 foot radius, an extra five feet won't make much difference.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Literally, 5 feet too close? If this isn't just hyperbole, 5 feet is always well within the margin of error in commercial GPS unit reception. You could just change the last digit of your coordinates without moving the cache and it would more than likely be just as easy to find. If our GPS units point us anywhere in a 20-30 foot radius, an extra five feet won't make much difference.

I "almost" agree with this. The BUT comes up with, once doing that, then the next one is "another digit further" change, and on and on and on.

 

It is akin to advocating "soft coords", and not something that I would suggest.

 

Although five ft. may be within the margin of error, as far as a GPSr is concerned, intentionally setting coords to something other than the best/accurate you can obtain, is just flat out lying! Sure, it may be a "white lie" but it is a lie nonetheless.