some questions about multi caches...

[ashnikes]

just a few things about multi caches im interested in knowing from a wide audience.

 

first off,

do you own a multi cache? if so why did you go with a multi instead of a regular?

 

second, did you go with a multi to bypass the saturation rule on one of your caches, now waypoints? why did you chose this route?

 

third, as a cache finder, do you avoid multi's since sometimes they can not only be way more difficult to get the smiley, but they may run you all over town looking for the next stage in the cache.

 

the reason im asking is because i want to place a cache (too) near another one of my caches, in a small college campus, this new cache i was trying to submit fell within something like 250ft from the first cache which is already approved. This new cache, i am trying to get approved, is on the 4th floor of a nearby building, and is showcasing a much different part of this beautiful college i know most people without a cache to hunt would never think about visiting.

 

so i decided i could make this new cache part of a two stage multi-cache, first cache being a ways away from my other already activated cache, so it fits within the guidelines. thereby making this other cache, the one on the 4th floor the second stage, and thereby a waypoint of my new multi, what are your thoughts on all these multi questions as well as my new idea for this multi cache?

[+FamilyDNA]

All physical waypoints are subject to the saturation guidelines. Making your cache a multi won't help you.

[ashnikes]

All physical waypoints are subject to the saturation guidelines. Making your cache a multi won't help you.

 

hmmm....

 

define physical .... as in listed on the cach epage for everyone to see? because couldnt i then just hide the waypoint from everyone but my reviewer, and then it would make it a virtual waypoint, seeming how you would have to visit spot a to get the choords for spot b?

[+Isonzo Karst]

I own a number of multicaches. I prefer them, as typically the placer has taken some care in creating the cache.

 

Multicaches can be used to create (or force) routes, and to develop a theme.

 

I don't recall every using a multi because I had 2 locations that were too close together to be free-standing traditional caches, but I do think it's an excellent way to use the cache type. If 2 locations 400 feet apart both seem to need caches, one multi works nicely.

 

I don't avoid them, as I've already said, I prefer them, especially when traveling.

 

I'm not an urban cacher however - re "all over town". It's part of why I like multis. I get out of the car and start hiking, or kayaking. I'm not driving any more.

[+wimseyguy]

because couldnt i then just hide the waypoint from everyone but my reviewer, and then it would make it a virtual waypoint, seeming how you would have to visit spot a to get the choords for spot b?

Once again you fail to scroll down far enough to understand the multi cache guideline.

A virtual stage is one that uses information off of an existing object-historical marker, plaque, street sign, etc.

A physical stage is one that uses a container that you have placed there to direct the seekers to the next stage. It can be visible to all, or invisible to all.

The saturation guideline applies to all physical stages of all caches, except for intermediate stages within the same multi.

 

I own two multis and have them set up each way. For the one with invisible intermediate and final stages I lead you on a certain path around the park to get to the final stage. For the other I provide the coords for six virtual stage locations where you gather info that solves to ABC and DEF which are the last three digits of the coords for the final stage. I don't really care which order you visit those location in, but it is somewhat linear so most cachers will work from one end to the other.

These are set up as multis because these particular caching experiences work better as a multi.

 

I enjoy all kinds of caches at different times. I may avoid multis when I am traveling unless they appear to be special or only have 2-3 stages. I also don't like multis that do not tell you how many stages there are up front. Who cares if it is more difficult to get the smiley if it is a fun caching experience. I cache to have fun, not to have a big smiley count.

Edited June 19, 2010 by wimseyguy

[+Isonzo Karst]

the reason im asking is because i want to place a cache (too) near another one of my caches, in a small college campus, this new cache i was trying to submit fell within something like 250ft from the first cache which is already approved. This new cache, i am trying to get approved, is on the 4th floor of a nearby building, and is showcasing a much different part of this beautiful college i know most people without a cache to hunt would never think about visiting.

 

If you want to place something at both places, they need to be ONE multi-cache. Ie, archive your trad and combine it with the new cache for one multi.

 

Or,Stage one of your new multi, sends cachers to the 4th floor. There they read something or count something that generates coords for the final that you've placed that clears your existing physical cache by .1 miles. Instructions for the counting/ reading that generates coords for the final could be on the cache page. That way there is no placement by you at the location that's too close to your existing cache.

[+FamilyDNA]

All physical waypoints are subject to the saturation guidelines. Making your cache a multi won't help you.

 

hmmm....

 

define physical .... as in listed on the cach epage for everyone to see? because couldnt i then just hide the waypoint from everyone but my reviewer, and then it would make it a virtual waypoint, seeming how you would have to visit spot a to get the choords for spot b?

No, physical ... as in you put something there.

 

All parts you place must be at least the minimum distance from all points of another cache. (They don't have to be any minimum distance from eachother in the same multi.)

 

Since your location is too close to another of your caches, it won't work, even as the final for a multi. Another option might be to use that too close location as a "question to answer" stage. Is there something there someone could get information from to calculate the final set of coordinates, which would be placed elsewhere?

[ashnikes]

see how that could be confusing to a n00b?

 

so what you are suggesting is i make my existing cache, lets call it cache A the begining part of the multi, which will include cache B (the cache in the building near by) so that i can bypass the saturation rule as now both active caches are within the same multicache, and therefore allowed to be closer than the 528? ft?

 

hmm....

 

sounds like a sound plan except cache A is for showcasing the local college radio stations physical location, and cache B is for showcasing the cool rooms in the college library next door, so in order to make them fit into the same multi it will require a lengthy (or witty) explanation,

 

so lets say I figure out how to tie these two caches together in a multi, the steps of action would then be as follows, correct me if im wrong.

 

I would have to archive both listings, including cache B which is still waiting in the que to be approved by the reviewer....

 

then make a new cache listing, which would be a multi, which lists both cache A and cache B as phyiscal waypoints, and if i chose to make one of them hidden from the cachers, i can do so, but it will still remain visible to myself and the reviewer, but at least one of the stages of the new multi has to be able to be seen for the cachers, it doesnt matter which stage as long as one of them is shown, most people prefer to make the first in the series shown, but it honestly does not matter,

 

now if i hide them, the containers at each of the waypoints must contain the coords to the next (or another) in the series of waypoints, but does not have to contain swag nor a log of any kind, as long as the final stage or one of the stages contains a log i am good to go....

Edited June 19, 2010 by ashnikes

[GOF's Sock Puppet]

Have you actually read the guidelines? Or did you just hit the highlights?

[+dfx]

so what you are suggesting is i make my existing cache, lets call it cache A the begining part of the multi, which will include cache B (the cache in the building near by) so that i can bypass the saturation rule as now both active caches are within the same multicache, and therefore allowed to be closer than the 528? ft?

you won't have "two active caches" then, you will only have a single multi-cache.

[+FamilyDNA]

Another problem you might hit, if you try to archive your existing cache to make a multi, is cache permanence. It's been out there less than a month. Archiving to replace with a new cache might raise the eyebrows of your reviewer.

[ashnikes]

so what you are suggesting is i make my existing cache, lets call it cache A the begining part of the multi, which will include cache B (the cache in the building near by) so that i can bypass the saturation rule as now both active caches are within the same multicache, and therefore allowed to be closer than the 528? ft?

you won't have "two active caches" then, you will only have a single multi-cache.

 

I understand, i worded that wrong, should have took out the "active" part.

 

also apart form my nitpicking questioning, i would also like some input on the first few questions in the OP, on other peoples stats, and viewpoints on multi caches.

[+dfx]

do you own a multi cache? if so why did you go with a multi instead of a regular?

i own 4 multis. i made them multis becase there's a certain point to them: two of them are meant for people who like challenging caches - one of them is a night cache and the other is a long-distance multi that takes several hours to complete (or several days, depends). the other two are set up to show people something interesting, something that's not possible with a single cache, e.g. a trip around a park (as opposed to only a single spot in a park).

 

third, as a cache finder, do you avoid multi's since sometimes they can not only be way more difficult to get the smiley, but they may run you all over town looking for the next stage in the cache.

a good multi will tell you ahead of time how much effort is required to complete it and roughly how long it will take (and usually how many stages there are). i enjoy doing them if they're well set up, but mostly ignore them when being on a trip as caching usually isn't the main point of the trip and multis have the potential of being quite time consuming.

Edited June 19, 2010 by dfx

[+Isonzo Karst]

I would have to archive both listings, including cache B which is still waiting in the que to be approved by the reviewer....

 

then make a new cache listing, which would be a multi, which lists both cache A and cache B as phyiscal waypoints,

 

yes. This works. The alternative route is archive the as yet unapproved cache, from what you've said, it won't be published anyway.

 

Then leave your current traditional as is.

 

Place a "virtual" - information gathering stage on the fourth floor, that leads to a physical cache elsewhere. Here's a multi I own of that type (Off-set) - The first stage location would be OFF LIMITS to a physical placement (bridge over the interstate), so I used a virtual first stage. GC232EH

 

This would work for you as well. If you place nothing at the point that's too close to your other cache, that's a virtual stage. It can crowd the existing cache. You do have a place a physical stage somewhere with a log to sign.

 

Re multis - I want the cache owner to tell me how far, or how many stages, or both. I do on multis I own. And most of what I hunt is by cache owners who are going to say that.

I'm willing to risk not finishing, if the place and the route looks good. No smiley? oh well....

[+uxorious]

 

third, as a cache finder, do you avoid multi's since sometimes they can not only be way more difficult to get the smiley, but they may run you all over town looking for the next stage in the cache.

 

 

I do not avoid multi's because they make it more difficult to get a smiley, nor because they may run me all over town.

 

I do avoid multi's that do not give an idea of how far apart the stages may be, especially the final. I have limited mobility, and have started a couple of multi's only to discover, after spending a lot of time on them, I could not finish them.

 

I do not mind heading out for a single cache, and discovering when I get to the start, (trail head or whatever) that it will be more than I can do. I do not like to do several staged of a cache, and not be able to finish it.

Edited June 19, 2010 by uxorious

[I!]

third, as a cache finder, do you avoid multi's since sometimes they can not only be way more difficult to get the smiley, but they may run you all over town looking for the next stage in the cache.

I tend to cut multis short with a bit of internet research, then go straight to the final. I suppose it's like treating a multi as a mystery cache: great fun if you like puzzles, and it works for about half the multis round here.

 

And, yes, to answer your question, a factor in me doing that is my reluctance to be "run all over town".

[+Chokecherry]

There seems to be a small hiccup of multis here and yes I do typically avoid them for a myriad of reasons. One being that I plan my caches out and I don't know where that end of the multi is going to put me all over town can man quite a trek here depending on town.

 

Then I notice some of them are less maintained. I did one yesterday where I found step one but the part to step 2 was on the ground and greatly faded (turns out it was a common problem for this cache). Ended up 20 miles out of of the way only to never find the end cache. I did e-mail the cache owner about that as I'm sure after yesterday the coordinates for the next step blew away with our strong winds here.

 

If I'm going to end up at one not well maintained I'd rather have it be a one shot instead of going through multiple steps to realize it.

[+L0ne.R]

a good multi will tell you ahead of time how much effort is required to complete it and roughly how long it will take (and usually how many stages there are). i enjoy doing them if they're well set up, but mostly ignore them when being on a trip as caching usually isn't the main point of the trip and multis have the potential of being quite time consuming.

 

My sentiments too about what makes a good multi. And also about multis on vacation. I mostly try multis close to home so that if I can't finish it in an outing I'll go back another day.

 

I have one multi because at the time the stages (6 in total) were .1 miles or just a little more apart. The reviewer felt it was a power trail so suggested I make it a multi. I did. It gets fewer visitors then my traditionals but those that have visited have left some great comments (I especially liked Team Speed's online log).

[Balok]

Don't expect a lot of visits on a multi. I have got 3 visits in almost 2 years on mine in an urban park. Just thought this was low, even for a multi.

[BCProspectors]

We avoid multis not because they make us run over town, but rather because coordinates in multis (and all other caches) are in given in minutes and seconds and we use the UTM format. This is no problem with Traditional caches because the UTM coordinates are listed right under the regular coordinates on the cache page, but in the field (which is where coordinates to the next stage in a multi is discovered)we have no way of converting them.

[ashnikes]

so then when placing multis the most common format i should plant the waypoints in should be the utm format, or is this just the kind your gps uses? i thought degres and mins were fairly common, and therefore an acceptable way of placing a waypoint, am i wrong?

 

also,

lets say i place this multi cache, and later decide I want to add another stage to it down the road for whatever reason, would I be able to add another waypoint or stage at any time, or do i need to archive it and make a new cache with the additional waypoint added then?

[DannyCaffeine]

I like playing multi's for the challenge.

[+FancoverFive]

so then when placing multis the most common format i should plant the waypoints in should be the utm format, or is this just the kind your gps uses? i thought degres and mins were fairly common, and therefore an acceptable way of placing a waypoint, am i wrong?

 

The VAST majority of cachers are absolutely fine with degrees and minutes, and this is the format in which the waypoints should be listed. A few cachers like to use alternative formats - if they want to be difficult, they can do their own conversions.

[Clan Riffster]

I enjoy multis, so long as the owner spells out what my journey will entail. I do not like walking into one blind. Tell me how many stages I'll have to hunt for, and roughly how far I'll have to travel round trip, and I'll be a very happy Riffster. Leave me guessing and I'll probably ignore it.

[+birder428]

Multis are not my favorite. Generally when we go caching, we have a set amount of time (could be a lot or a little), and the uncertainty of the multi makes planning difficult. Once, we planned a morning to do a five stage multi. Couldn't find the first stage (it was missing), and there went the morning. If if was five different caches, we could have taken the dnf on the first one, and moved on to the others. Instead, we went home - to chores!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

We avoid multis not because they make us run over town, but rather because coordinates in multis (and all other caches) are in given in minutes and seconds and we use the UTM format. This is no problem with Traditional caches because the UTM coordinates are listed right under the regular coordinates on the cache page, but in the field (which is where coordinates to the next stage in a multi is discovered)we have no way of converting them.

 

The standard format for geocaching is *not* minutes and seconds. It's degrees, decimal minutes. Unless you've got some weird GPS that only uses UTM format (I've never heard of one) there isn't any reason why you can't use degrees, decimal minutes like the rest of the geocaching world.

[+gpicard]

just a few things about multi caches im interested in knowing from a wide audience.

 

first off,

do you own a multi cache? if so why did you go with a multi instead of a regular?

 

second, did you go with a multi to bypass the saturation rule on one of your caches, now waypoints? why did you chose this route?

 

third, as a cache finder, do you avoid multi's since sometimes they can not only be way more difficult to get the smiley, but they may run you all over town looking for the next stage in the cache.

 

 

I have one multi cache(GC27Y8D). I went with a multi because it followed the theme of the cache which talked about different areas of the town.

 

I do not avoid multi caches but I do consider how much time is available and what kind of caching experience I am looking for that day.

[+dfx]

lets say i place this multi cache, and later decide I want to add another stage to it down the road for whatever reason, would I be able to add another waypoint or stage at any time, or do i need to archive it and make a new cache with the additional waypoint added then?

you can add and remove waypoints or stages at any point, but you should ask yourself if you really wanna do that, as it has the potential of changing the overall experience of the cache. of course if the multi has 10 stages and you decide to add or remove one to make it 9 or 11, it won't make much of a difference.

[+Isonzo Karst]

also,

lets say i place this multi cache, and later decide I want to add another stage to it down the road for whatever reason, would I be able to add another waypoint or stage at any time, or do i need to archive it and make a new cache with the additional waypoint added then?

 

As a technical matter, yes. You can add stage coords to the existing containers, and on GC.com, edit the additional waypoints (hidden) attached to the cache page.

 

I've moved a stage of an 11 mile multi that I own, a pretty far move - but not relative to the total 11 miles.

Because the overall experience isn't altered much, I've left the multi "as is" and just made edits to the hidden additional waypoints. Keeping the info on GC.com current is what protects your stages from another cache being placed on top of it.

 

If adding the stage is much extra distance or effort, it's better to archive and start over. Also, if you just start adding stuff, you may be stumbling over puzzle solutions, or other multicache stages that you don't know about.

[+geodarts]

you can add and remove waypoints or stages at any point, but you should ask yourself if you really wanna do that, as it has the potential of changing the overall experience of the cache.

 

In some situations, adding a physical stage to an existing multi would create saturation problems.

 

But in any event, I like multis that have a purpose - particularly offsets that begin in an interesting place where a physical cache could not be placed. Multis that are set up just to have a multi are not so enjoyable to me. At some point I got tired of the kind of that seemed to just want to take you from one tree to another in the same general location.

 

One of my favorite caches that I have placed is a multi, which is based on a very unique spot. But when I am traveling I exclude multis from my pq because so many of them are not what I want to do when my time is limited. I am sure I miss some things because of that.

[ashnikes]

I just sent this question to my humble and awesome reviewer, who has to work with my dumb butt, bless his heart,

 

but i thought i would post it here, in case some f you may have the same question....

 

I am planning on hiding a physical cache which has an optional "virtual" or waypoint as a second destination, to explain differently, I am hiding a physical container with the log book somewhere that is easier to acheive permission, and accessable to find at all hours of the night and day. where i orig wanted to hide it, which is 4 floors up in a library that has weird hours, would have been impossible to gain permission to hide a cache, but its where i really wanted to bring cachers, so i am putting a suggested coordinate destination for cachers who find the physical cache to visit afterwords,

 

my question then would be, is this considered a multi because there are two stages, or is it a regular cache since its really only one location, which suggests cachers visit another location which is not manditory to get the smiley, but highly suggested.

[+FancoverFive]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you would give the coordinates for a cache with a logbook, which is the final cache. You would also say that if cachers wanted to find out more, they could visit a virtual location which you would give.

 

That sounds like a traditional to me. You'd have to be sure that you didn't REQUIRE cachers to visit this location, otherwise it would be an ALR.

 

If you want to bring cachers to the library, then have the coordinates point to that, and tell cachers to find information at this site, which could be converted to the final cache location. This would be listed as a multi.

[BCProspectors]

so then when placing multis the most common format i should plant the waypoints in should be the utm format, or is this just the kind your gps uses?

You are correct, degrees and decimal minutes are the most widely used format. My dad likes to use UTM for some reason; I've never asked him why.

 

Unless you've got some weird GPS that only uses UTM format (I've never heard of one) there isn't any reason why you can't use degrees, decimal minutes like the rest of the geocaching world.

I'm not saying people need to start using the UTM format because we do. The OP asked if anyone avoids multi caches and we do, so I answered accordingly.

[+roziecakes]

I love multi-caches. I know it doesn't help the topic much, but I thought I'd say that.