Jump to content

Why aren't cache series allowed anymore?


Avernar
Followers 6

Recommended Posts

My friend recently tried to publish a cache series where one cache daisy chains into the other. The first has the coordinates for the second, the second has the coordinates for the third, etc. The first is a Traditional and the rest are Unknown/Puzzle Caches. This is your standard cache series.

 

The reviewers refused to publish any of the unknown caches and appeals has told him to just turn them into traditional caches. :huh:

 

I want to know why cache series are not longer allowed and, more importantly, why haven't we been told about this change in policy. The guidelines don't prohibit these kinds of cache series so why all of a sudden are they a problem?

Link to comment

What you described is not a standard cache series. I dont believe those have ever been allowed. That sounds like trying to split a multi up into several caches.

 

You can either do a series of Traditionals or create a multi. If you want to link caches together (requiring the find of one to discover the next), you must combine the caches into one multi. You can however just link traditional caches together with them being themed together or in a "trail" along a common path. Those are standard series.

 

There was no recent change in policy, it has been this way. Happy caching!

Edited by LuckyPlan
Link to comment

What you described is not a standard cache series. I dont believe those have ever been allowed. That sounds like trying to split a multi up into several caches.

 

You can either do a series of Traditionals or create a multi. If you want to link caches together (requiring the find of one to discover the next), you must combine the caches into one multi. You can however just link traditional caches together with them being themed together or in a "trail" along a common path. Those are standard series.

 

There was no recent change in policy, it has been this way.

No. There are several series like this out there so they have been allowed. There have been several topics in the forums where people were asking what are the pro and cons of using either method.

 

Besides, the only difference between a series and a multi is how many smilies you get and Groundspeak has never cared about keeping score.

Link to comment

What you described is not a standard cache series. I dont believe those have ever been allowed. That sounds like trying to split a multi up into several caches.

No. There are several series like this out there so they have been allowed. There have been several topics in the forums where people were asking what are the pro and cons of using either method.

 

Besides, the only difference between a series and a multi is how many smilies you get and Groundspeak has never cared about keeping score.

 

Oh I know they're out there. However, it wSmy understanding that GC wants them either separate Traditionals or a multi. They may have been allowed in the very early 2000's however.

 

I believe One reason is because when someone selects a mystery cache, it's confusing if they have to backtrack to a different cache first. One purpose of multi was to avoid this and group the stages together. So you start with the first and move on. This simplifies the database of caches. If they were separate caches and one stage goes missing or needs archived, all the other caches are affected (they may néed to all be archived as well) and may not get the necessary attention. Unfortunately however, it seems people like to circumvent this so they can offer more smileys and therefore have more people attemp their caches.

Link to comment

My friend recently tried to publish a cache series where one cache daisy chains into the other. The first has the coordinates for the second, the second has the coordinates for the third, etc. The first is a Traditional and the rest are Unknown/Puzzle Caches. This is your standard cache series.

 

The reviewers refused to publish any of the unknown caches and appeals has told him to just turn them into traditional caches. :huh:

 

I want to know why cache series are not longer allowed and, more importantly, why haven't we been told about this change in policy. The guidelines don't prohibit these kinds of cache series so why all of a sudden are they a problem?

 

What you have described is a multi-cache, pretty much word for word. From the guidelines:

 

Multi-Cache (Offset Cache)

A Multi-Cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations. The final location is a physical container. There are many variations, but most Multi-Caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has a hint to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a Multi-Cache.

 

The series caches I have seen have all been traditionals with each containing a part of the co-ords to the final which is a mystery cache. I have never seen one like you described.

Link to comment

My friend recently tried to publish a cache series where one cache daisy chains into the other. The first has the coordinates for the second, the second has the coordinates for the third, etc. The first is a Traditional and the rest are Unknown/Puzzle Caches. This is your standard cache series.

 

The reviewers refused to publish any of the unknown caches and appeals has told him to just turn them into traditional caches. :huh:

 

I want to know why cache series are not longer allowed and, more importantly, why haven't we been told about this change in policy. The guidelines don't prohibit these kinds of cache series so why all of a sudden are they a problem?

 

What you have described is a multi-cache, pretty much word for word. From the guidelines:

 

Multi-Cache (Offset Cache)

A Multi-Cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations. The final location is a physical container. There are many variations, but most Multi-Caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has a hint to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a Multi-Cache.

 

The series caches I have seen have all been traditionals with each containing a part of the co-ords to the final which is a mystery cache. I have never seen one like you described.

 

I have never seen a series like this, either.

Link to comment

I've recently seen a series such as the OP describes which has the first cache as a Traditional, and the others all listed as Multis - which I don't think is correct either. (These "Multis" need the coordinates from a different, distinct Traditional cache; so they are not self-contained as Multis usually are).

 

There are anomalies out there though. I think the series the OP describes one.

Link to comment

Yup, looks like a multicache to me. The only difference is that your friend would be allowing a :) for finding each stage of the multi.

 

One problem with a daisy chained cache like this is that if one part goes missing, then all the other parts after that become unfindable. So instead of having to disable a single cache (the single multi, or one of the traditional caches) all the other caches in the series fall to the domino effect.

Link to comment
where one cache daisy chains into the other. The first has the coordinates for the second, the second has the coordinates for the third, etc. The first is a Traditional and the rest are Unknown/Puzzle Caches. This is your standard cache series.

 

As others have already said, this is definitely not standard in my part of the world. The "standard cache series" is a series of traditional caches, perhaps with some bonus cache(s) whose coords are derived from the traditionals.

 

Edit, remove all the stuff that's redundant to ChileHead's response... ;-)

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

Series of caches are still allowed. What you describe is actually a multi cache, but the owner is trying to make them individual caches. Though you may find a few examples of this, for the most part has not been allowed in the past.

 

One series that is allowed and somewhat popular is when there are several mystery caches whose coordinates can be found in a single traditional cache. But I've never seen a linked series of caches such as the one you mention published in my area or any other that I've visited.

Link to comment

Whether or not there are other 'series' done like what the OP describes, I don't see the problem either.

If the second, third, > final are all listed as Mysteries, then you will read the write-up, and know what you are getting into. If you don't like the set-up, don't do the cache(s)!

Actually, I rather like the idea since (as so many have complained about before), you DO get 'credit' for the 'intermediate stages', and this even if one of the stages goes missing. As we all know, when an intermediate stage of the usual style multi goes missing, you have 'wasted' all the time spent up to that point.

Link to comment

I rather like the idea since (as so many have complained about before), you DO get 'credit' for the 'intermediate stages', and this even if one of the stages goes missing.

Maybe it's an issue of "cache permenence" in this case (is it set up this way because stages are very likely to go missing?). Anyway, there's more to the story.

 

I was kind of considering an idea like the Op's friends caches. So I hope that type is allowed. If not, and it needs to be set up specially for some reason, you might make it a Multi, so it can be listed, and specify that each stage has a log and each can be a Smiley.

Edited by kunarion
Link to comment
where one cache daisy chains into the other. The first has the coordinates for the second, the second has the coordinates for the third, etc. The first is a Traditional and the rest are Unknown/Puzzle Caches. This is your standard cache series.

 

As others have already said, this is definitely not standard in my part of the world. The "standard cache series" is a series of traditional caches, perhaps with some bonus cache(s) whose coords are derived from the traditionals.

 

Edit, remove all the stuff that's redundant to ChileHead's response... ;-)

 

The OP is from Southern Ontario, and I'm near there, with over 400 finds. I will say it did indeed seem to be rather common in the past. But you know, the whole "no precedence" thing. :)

Link to comment

What you described is not a standard cache series. I dont believe those have ever been allowed. That sounds like trying to split a multi up into several caches.

No. There are several series like this out there so they have been allowed. There have been several topics in the forums where people were asking what are the pro and cons of using either method.

 

Besides, the only difference between a series and a multi is how many smilies you get and Groundspeak has never cared about keeping score.

 

Oh I know they're out there. However, it wSmy understanding that GC wants them either separate Traditionals or a multi. They may have been allowed in the very early 2000's however.

Huh? You said they've never been allowed but you know they're out there. Can't be both. There are two series in SW Ontario that have been published in 2006 and 2007 so it's not an ancient thing like you say.

 

I believe One reason is because when someone selects a mystery cache, it's confusing if they have to backtrack to a different cache first. One purpose of multi was to avoid this and group the stages together. So you start with the first and move on. This simplifies the database of caches. If they were separate caches and one stage goes missing or needs archived, all the other caches are affected (they may néed to all be archived as well) and may not get the necessary attention.

The mystery caches have a link to the first cache in the series so spending 2 seconds clicking on a link is hardly confusing or having to backtrack. You know exactly what the first cache is. And the name of the series usually indicates it's a series. An attribute for this has also been requested.

 

I don't by the database maintenance argument. This is no different from a CO failing to disable any other cache type. There's already a mechanism in place for missing COs, the needs archive log. If I see a series I can't complete because previous stages are missing I'll NA them.

 

Unfortunately however, it seems people like to circumvent this so they can offer more smileys and therefore have more people attemp their caches.

So? Groundspeak doesn't care how many similes one gets. Until they disallow multiple found logs on a cache this argument is moot. I've seen several multis where the CO asked people to log a found for each stage and Groundspeak never shut this down.

 

What you have described is a multi-cache, pretty much word for word. From the guidelines:

Yes, so there's nothing wrong with the concept of having the coordinates for one stage in a previous stage. But there comes a time where a multi is so complex that it makes sense to break it down into individual listings.

 

The series caches I have seen have all been traditionals with each containing a part of the co-ords to the final which is a mystery cache. I have never seen one like you described.

So that final bonus should not be allowed either based on the arguments in this thread. If any of the traditionals go missing then the bonus becomes unfindable. All the maintenance, archival and database "problems" mentioned here also apply to bonus caches.

 

I don't really care if you or anyone else hasn't seen this type of thing. I haven't seen many other types of caches setups out in the world and that's no reason to disallow something.

 

Yup, looks like a multicache to me. The only difference is that your friend would be allowing a :) for finding each stage of the multi.

If that's the only difference then a series should be allowed. I've already mentioned that Groundspeak doesn't care about the find count as the allow multi logs on events and even stages of a multi.

 

One problem with a daisy chained cache like this is that if one part goes missing, then all the other parts after that become unfindable. So instead of having to disable a single cache (the single multi, or one of the traditional caches) all the other caches in the series fall to the domino effect.

Again, that's a maintenance issue not a listing issue. If the CO is on top of things like they agreed to then this is not an issue. My friend even told them that if anything goes missing he'll temporarily put in the coords to the next stage until he fixes the missing cache.

 

As others have already said, this is definitely not standard in my part of the world. The "standard cache series" is a series of traditional caches, perhaps with some bonus cache(s) whose coords are derived from the traditionals.

Standard in what way? Neither type is disallowed or endorsed by the guidelines. I've already wrote that the bonus cache would suffer all the "problems" mentioned here by the others.

Link to comment

Series of caches are still allowed. What you describe is actually a multi cache, but the owner is trying to make them individual caches. Though you may find a few examples of this, for the most part has not been allowed in the past.

So why isn't it against the guidelines? They don't place any restrictions on where the coordinates for the Unknown/Puzzle come from other that how to find them must be on the cache page.

 

A mystery cache that tells you to go to a sign and get some numbers would also not be allowed. That sign isn't permanent and can be taken down or changed any time by a third party. With a series, the CO gets to control where the coordinates are and can prevent missing information like this.

 

One series that is allowed and somewhat popular is when there are several mystery caches whose coordinates can be found in a single traditional cache.

So then that series shouldn't be allowed either then. If one traditional cache goes missing then all the other mystery caches can't be found. It's the exact same thing.

 

But I've never seen a linked series of caches such as the one you mention published in my area or any other that I've visited.

I've never seen your type of series in my area or any other that I've visited so does that mean they shouldn't be allowed either?

 

This kind of series has been done before with caches published in 2007. I don't see the problem. But f the frog has spoken neither my opinion or precedence matters.

The frog has been know to be swayed by public opinion in the past. As for precedence, you'll notice I didn't post examples of past caches in my original post. All I asked where why they aren't allowed anymore.

 

Maybe it's an issue of "cache permenence" in this case (is it set up this way because stages are very likely to go missing?). Anyway, there's more to the story.

Cache permanence and missing stages? No different than a multi. I too would like to know the rest of the story but Groundspeak has never mentioned anything about this.

 

I was kind of considering an idea like the Op's friends caches. So I hope that type is allowed. If not, and it needs to be set up specially for some reason, you might make it a Multi, so it can be listed, and specify that each stage has a log and each can be a Smiley.

Making it a multi would not solve anything other than getting around Groundspeak's arbitrary decision. It would suffer all the same problems as a series. In fact it would be worse. The listing would be huge and might even hit the limit on size.

 

If a stage goes missing then the entire serise would get disabled instead of just the stage that has the problem. In my friends case these caches would take most of a day or even multiple days to complete. If the multi were disabled because stage 6 is misisng that would keep people from starting even though they have 5 days or more of work to do to get to stage 6 even.

 

And what if the final goes missing permanently, now someone who has done weeks of work and travel has absolutely nothing to show for it.

 

The OP is from Southern Ontario, and I'm near there, with over 400 finds. I will say it did indeed seem to be rather common in the past. But you know, the whole "no precedence" thing. :)

I'm not bringing up past caches as examples. I want to know why it's not allowed now. Especially since it does not violate the guidelines in any way, shape or form.

Link to comment

Well, this is what I'll say on my previous comments:

 

When I say I know they're out there, I don't necessary say those are allowed or should be allowed now. There are thousands of caches out there that need attention as far as the rules go, but that's besides the point. As far as circumventing goes: Many times reviewers don't catch it or the worst is when after a cache is published, the CO modifies the listing in a way to their liking to an extent that the cache is no longer within guidelines. It happens and it often goes unreported.

 

It is exactly my point that GC doesn't care about numbers, this is why they prefer if it was just one multi. It simplifies the system and database. I would imagine a huge reason for the multi type is to keep the caches organized. For example: a CO has a piggyback series and one cache goes missing. And worse yet, the CO has gone missing. Now it is left up to the reviewer to figure out the system and go through and archive several caches, not just one. Let's face it, this is a concern because CO's go missing all the time and reviewers shouldn't have the responsibility to archive a whole bunch of caches in this case because one cache went missing . This may have not been a serious issue in the past which is probably why reviewers would sometimes let it slide.

 

As far as the actual guidelines go, if the situation describes a multi cache, than the guidelines say the series must be defined as a multi-cache or modified to fit the guidelines of traditional caches. There of course is no strict line in the guidelines that says "dot dot dot" is not allowed... Let at least not that I'm aware of.

 

Sounds like a nice set of caches though. Hope your friend gets them published.

Link to comment

Some of the better caches in this area (which is the same area as the OP) are linked-series caches. I don't see why they should be blocked.

If anything it's a welcome relief from the absolute explosion of power trails around here that are 75 margarine containers or film canisters sprayed along every hiking, biking, and rail trail in the Province.

 

At least with the linked-series power trail type you're stopping to enter/figure out co-ordinates rather than trying to blast through 890 caches per hour.

Link to comment

It is exactly my point that GC doesn't care about numbers, this is why they prefer if it was just one multi.

There's a logic error in your statement. You're linking the fact they don't care about the numbers as justification for the other reasons they want it a multi.

 

It simplifies the system and database.

Which brings me to the second problem in your statement. They wanted him to turn all the Unknowns into Traditionals, not one multi. Same number of caches, same number of listings, same maintenance issues.

 

I would imagine a huge reason for the multi type is to keep the caches organized.

Care to back up that claim with some facts? If that were true then they should force everyone putting out a bunch of themed set of traditionals to list them all as a multi.

 

The two reasons I've heared from COs as to why they put out a multi were:

 

1) Get around the proximty rule

2) Try to get the finder to follow a specific path.

 

For example: a CO has a piggyback series and one cache goes missing. And worse yet, the CO has gone missing. Now it is left up to the reviewer to figure out the system and go through and archive several caches, not just one. Let's face it, this is a concern because CO's go missing all the time and reviewers shouldn't have the responsibility to archive a whole bunch of caches in this case because one cache went missing . This may have not been a serious issue in the past which is probably why reviewers would sometimes let it slide.

No. This has come up before. The reviewer should NOT go through the other caches figuring things out. That makes them the owner of the cache and Groundspeak has maintained that they're a listing service to avoid being sued.

 

If a CO goes missing the reviewers do not go out and archive all their traditionals. They let the users file a NA and then archive the caches.

 

So until Groundspeak puts in the guidelines that if when a CO goes "missing" all their caches get archived, this argument is false.

 

As far as the actual guidelines go, if the situation describes a multi cache, than the guidelines say the series must be defined as a multi-cache or modified to fit the guidelines of traditional caches. There of course is no strict line in the guidelines that says "dot dot dot" is not allowed... Let at least not that I'm aware of.

That's the problem with the guidelines. Groundspeak refuses to put in all the details.

 

In fact, Unknown caches are called puzzle caches in the guidelines. The Unknown puzzle type is a catch all type. If your cache doesn't quite fit the other categories it should be listed as an Unknown.

 

Take a traditional cache with a complicated lock on it. It's clearly a traditional but most people would list it as an Unknown as they're a special case here.

 

Sounds like a nice set of caches though. Hope your friend gets them published.

From what he told me it would be and amazing series. I hope Groundspeak doesn't ruin it.

Link to comment

archive several caches, not just one.

Almost forgot. There's an excellent series here called Bruce Almighty. I've been working on the series for years, grabbing a cache every now and then. The first cache has recently been archived. I'm glad they rest haven't been auto archived by a reviewer as I can still finish the series. Eventually the CO, not the reviewer will archive the rest once the others stop getting visitors and/or he's satisfied that people had a chance to complete the series.

Link to comment

Some of the better caches in this area (which is the same area as the OP) are linked-series caches. I don't see why they should be blocked.

Here's a bunch which I've complete or working on:

 

Bruce Almighty

Away Mission/Species 448788

 

Both are amazing series and would be lessened if they were forced to be traditionals.

Link to comment

Which part of the guidelines did the reviewer say this violates?

 

It does sound like a multi-cache the way it is laid out. It would seem the only reason to make it a series is to allow puritans to log each stage of the multi. If the cache owner just wanted to allow people to claim a smiley for each stage they could have allowed bonus smileys. However, I don't know of any guideline that says you can't split up a multi into a series of unknowns.

 

Is this a secret hidden guideline? It sounds like perhaps the reviewers have discussed what would happen if a cacher split up a multi this way developed a secret guideline we are now seeing or perhaps found some obscure clause that allows them to refuse a series because it would be "better" as a multi? Wow, can the reviewers decided what is a better - a multi or a series?

 

Note that more common series of traditional caches with one mystery at the end could also be set up as multi cache. Nothing prevents a multi from having a number of published waypoints and then a field puzzle to get the location of the final cache. Are reviewers able to say that one type is better done as multi and the other is better done as a series of caches? Wow.

Link to comment

No. This has come up before. The reviewer should NOT go through the other caches figuring things out. That makes them the owner of the cache and Groundspeak has maintained that they're a listing service to avoid being sued.

 

If a CO goes missing the reviewers do not go out and archive all their traditionals. They let the users file a NA and then archive the caches.

 

So until Groundspeak puts in the guidelines that if when a CO goes "missing" all their caches get archived, this argument is false.

 

 

So I feel I should expound on my example to make it more relevant:

 

Suppose a CO has a series of 30 piggyback unknown caches (the first being traditional and the others piggybacking). And lets suppose cache number 3 in the series goes missing, as well as the CO. Caches 4-30 have all become unfindable because the coords to cache number 4 can't be obtained. So it will take several NA logs for the rest of the series to get archived. In which, with each NA log, the reviewer will eventually be the one to pull the plug because they are often the ones who have to deal with the NA logs if the owner doesn't respond. Reviewers should not have to deal with that may NA logs. If the series was simplified to one Multi, only one archive will need to take place. Or if the series were just themed (all traditionals), then when one goes missing, typically only that cache needs archived... much less maintenance issues. ALL the caches from that owner do not need archived, only those which cannot be found because a previous stage went missing.

 

Not here to argue of course, just clarifying myself to express my understanding of why the reviewer is not publishing the series, as you asked.

 

I hope it does turn into an amazing series. I loved series, whether they be themed, a trail or whatever. I love heading to caches that I know wont be another LPC before I get to them. Well, it's about time I get out there and cache. :D

Link to comment

Which part of the guidelines did the reviewer say this violates?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. From what my friend told me it wasn't a guideline violation.

 

It does sound like a multi-cache the way it is laid out.

So are power trails.

 

It would seem the only reason to make it a series is to allow puritans to log each stage of the multi.

Ah the P word. Was waiting for that. :laughing:

 

Power trails are much worse than that. Most could be a single multi.

 

I can assure you that this series was not created for the smiley count. It's a very difficult series with stages considerably geographically separated.

 

If the cache owner just wanted to allow people to claim a smiley for each stage they could have allowed bonus smileys.

Our area is non-multi log. One cache was like that and I even noticed people deleting their multiple logs eventually. As I said, it's not about the smiles. The theme of the series requires you to "advance" from one stage to the next. Why don't I just show you, the first cache has been published: Goju Ryu: White Belt

 

Actually, I made one mistake. The first cache is also an Unknown/Puzzle as it requires you to solve a puzzle first. Doesn't change anything though.

 

However, I don't know of any guideline that says you can't split up a multi into a series of unknowns.

Exactly!

Edited by Avernar
Link to comment

Just another data point:

 

I've found series before, where each cache could be found independently of the others.

 

I've found series before, where each cache could be found independently of the others, except for a final bonus cache that was listed as a mystery/puzzle cache, and that required information from all the other caches in the series.

 

I've found multi-caches before, where each stage of the multi-cache required information from the previous stage, and only the coordinates of the first stage were provided.

 

I've never seen a series like Avernar described, where all the caches but the first are essentially a chain of bonus caches. I'd have a tough time calling that a "standard cache series".

 

But I don't think we'll discover the whole story in this thread.

Link to comment

Caches 4-30 have all become unfindable because the coords to cache number 4 can't be obtained.

No. That's the flaw in your logic. The other caches can still be found for several reasons:

 

1) Someone who has already found stage 3 can keep going.

2) Someone can ask someone who found stage 3 for the coords for stage 4.

3) The CO can change the page for 3 or 4 to show the coords to 4 before vanishing.

 

So it will take several NA logs for the rest of the series to get archived.

Just like it will take several NA logs to clear out all their other caches. That's how the system works. If Groundspeak wants to change that they can very easily put in an auto archive if the CO doesn't log in every 3 months. They've refused to do so, therefore this is not an issue.

 

If the series was simplified to one Multi, only one archive will need to take place.

So by your logic there, all power trails need to be a multi. If the CO goes missing the reviewers have to archive hundreds or even thousands of caches.

 

You need to reread your argument to see how silly it sounds:

 

Reviewer: I'm sorry, you can't publish these 30 traditionals because if you dissapear I'll have to waste my time archiving them all.

CO: Wha? :huh:

 

The CO has clicked the checkbox agreeing to the maintenance of his caches. Groundspeak should treat him the same way as if he were going to maintain a power trail or any other group of caches. Otherwise they're applying a double standard and basically calling him a liar.

Link to comment

However, I don't know of any guideline that says you can't split up a multi into a series of unknowns.

Exactly!

I have done an excellent puzzle series exactly as described by the OP. But you find out about this new? secret "guideline" exactly the same way I did. Try to submit a cache beyond one "bonus" cache and have it denied.

Link to comment

I've never seen a series like Avernar described, where all the caches but the first are essentially a chain of bonus caches. I'd have a tough time calling that a "standard cache series".

Again, why does it matter that you haven't seen that particular type of series before? I never heard of a Fizzy challenge until one showed up in my area. And that was because it was copied from somewhere else.

 

But I don't think we'll discover the whole story in this thread.

Why not. You suggesting Groudndspeak will refuse to comment? :anibad:

Link to comment

I have done an excellent puzzle series exactly as described by the OP. But you find out about this new? secret "guideline" exactly the same way I did. Try to submit a cache beyond one "bonus" cache and have it denied.

That's why I'm so mad about this hidden guideline. I was starting work on a series and would be very upset if all my work was for nothing when I learned about this guideline at publishing time. Fortunately I found out about it when my friend was declined. Unfortunately he wasted a lot of time, money and effort on his series.

Link to comment
I've never seen a series like Avernar described, where all the caches but the first are essentially a chain of bonus caches. I'd have a tough time calling that a "standard cache series".
Again, why does it matter that you haven't seen that particular type of series before?
It matters because something I would call a "standard cache series" should be more like the kinds of series I've seen frequently, and less like something I've never seen before.

 

But I don't think we'll discover the whole story in this thread.
Why not. You suggesting Groudndspeak will refuse to comment? :anibad:
I'm suggesting that all this discussion is based on second-hand information at best, and that the rest of the story is something that will probably remain between the parties involved (i.e., between Groundspeak and the original CO).
Link to comment

The series caches I have seen have all been traditionals with each containing a part of the co-ords to the final which is a mystery cache. I have never seen one like you described.

 

I see it the same way. I have a series like the one you described Ace.

That's not a series. It's a bunch of caches with a bonus. A series is where you do the caches in order, not randomly.

 

If you wish to call this other type of setup a series, go ahead, but it's not the topic of this thread.

Link to comment

My friend recently tried to publish a cache series where one cache daisy chains into the other. The first has the coordinates for the second, the second has the coordinates for the third, etc. The first is a Traditional and the rest are Unknown/Puzzle Caches. This is your standard cache series.

<<snip>>

 

I want to know why cache series are not longer allowed and, more importantly, why haven't we been told about this change in policy. The guidelines don't prohibit these kinds of cache series so why all of a sudden are they a problem?

The guidelines don't prohibit this sort of cache series, they just call it a Multi cache and expect it to be published that way.

Link to comment

It matters because something I would call a "standard cache series" should be more like the kinds of series I've seen frequently, and less like something I've never seen before.

I never called it a "standard cache series" and it's not the topic so why does it matter if one, two or three other variants exists?

 

I'm suggesting that all this discussion is based on second-hand information at best, and that the rest of the story is something that will probably remain between the parties involved (i.e., between Groundspeak and the original CO).

The original CO may show up here. And I don't want it limited between the original CO and Groundspeak because it affects me and others as well.

Link to comment

The guidelines don't prohibit this sort of cache series, they just call it a Multi cache and expect it to be published that way.

There's a couple of logical flaws to that.

 

First, just because that kind of setup can be a multi doesn't mean it can not be. We're allowed to use the unknown type if we think that something is not quite like the existing types. There are many traditional type caches hidden as unknowns.

 

Second, since you like quoting guidelines:

 

Provide the coordinates of all stages of the multi-cache by using the Additional Waypoints feature. The posted coordinates are for the first stage. If you don't want the coordinates for the rest of the stages displayed to the public, mark them as "hidden."

Notice the wording? Starts of saying that the stages will be visible and can optionally be hidden. Hmmm. A multi with all stages visible and a hidden final. That sounds familiar. Oh, wait. A bunch of traditionals with a bonus sounds exactly like that!

 

So I guess they expect a bunch of traditionals with a bonus to be listed as a multi then?

 

And, since you obviously missed it, they weren't asking for it to be a multi but a bunch changed to a bunch of traditionals so your argument that they want it a multi is flawed from the beginning.

Link to comment

Nothing says a series has to be a set of caches that have to be done in order. A series is any set of caches that are linked in some way. Be it through there naming or the kind of locations they are highlighting. I recently did a series that involved a bunch of caches in an area that took you well off the beaten path. The order you found them didn't matter as long as you found them all and got all the clues needed to find the final in the series.

 

Here is the first cache of anther such series in my area that i've been wanting to get to since it was posted 4 months ago. It follows a theme educating caches on the ranks of a Boy Scout.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC2W9W4

 

Here is the final listing all the caches in the series.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC2WA8F

 

In this case the series is made up of both traditional caches and puzzle caches.

 

What you talked about in the OP is a multi. If the cords for the next container are in the previous container that is a multi. But from what you have said the only issue the reviewer has is that the 2nd on up caches should be marked as traditional not puzzle. This makes perfect since because you are not solving any puzzle to get to the next cache. So all your fiend needs to do is mark them all traditional and move on.

 

There was a series near me that used the Who wants to be a millionaire theme. The first cache asked a multiple choice question and list 4 possible answeres. Each answer had a set of cords next to it. The right answer lead you to the next in the series. All caches in the series where marked puzzle since you had to solve for the correct answer. By your definition this is a true sere.

Link to comment

What you talked about in the OP is a multi.

 

I recently did a series that involved a bunch of caches in an area that took you well off the beaten path. The order you found them didn't matter as long as you found them all and got all the clues needed to find the final in the series.

Reread the quidelines. That is a multi as well.

 

If the cords for the next container are in the previous container that is a multi. But from what you have said the only issue the reviewer has is that the 2nd on up caches should be marked as traditional not puzzle. This makes perfect since because you are not solving any puzzle to get to the next cache. So all your fiend needs to do is mark them all traditional and move on.

Not by the way the guidelines are written. Nothing in the guidelines says that the stages of the multi must be in order. And they explicitly say the stages need not be hidden.

 

You people really should read the guidelines before trying to beat me over the head with them. :P

Link to comment

So what do you consider a multi-cache then?

A multicache can be a sequential series of stages. It can also be a bunch of random stages and a final. Both ways of doing it are in the guidelines which I quoted above.

 

Yet I don't see caches with a bonus being forced into being a multi.

Link to comment

So what do you consider a multi-cache then?

A multicache can be a sequential series of stages. It can also be a bunch of random stages and a final. Both ways of doing it are in the guidelines which I quoted above.

 

Yet I don't see caches with a bonus being forced into being a multi.

 

How can a multi-cache be a bunch of random stages with a final? Usually when a multi-cache is published, it has one set of co-ords. The second stage is dependent on the first, the third on the second stage, and so on. The final stage contains the log and you get the smiley.

I think the definition of a multi is being confused somewhere in this thread.

Link to comment

How can a multi-cache be a bunch of random stages with a final?

You haven't heard of that setup? I have. So have many others. Funny how the tables have turned.

 

Usually when a multi-cache is published, it has one set of co-ords. The second stage is dependent on the first, the third on the second stage, and so on. The final stage contains the log and you get the smiley.

Usually doesn't mean always. The posted coords are usually one of the stages although I've seen them being the parking coordinates on a few occasions. The other stages are listed in the description and are non-hidden additional waypoints.

 

The most common non sequential multicache setup is a three stage with the first two stages visible. One stage contains the north coords of the final while the other contains the west coords of the final.

 

I think the definition of a multi is being confused somewhere in this thread.

Definition of a multi: A cache with more than one stage.

 

Pretty simple huh? No mention of having to be sequential. No mention of which stages must be hidden. Heck, I've seen a multi with more than one final even.

 

The definition of a multi is definitely being confused. People are making up their own additions to the basic definition. Here's the guideline again:

 

1. Multi-Caches

 

Provide the coordinates of all stages of the multi-cache by using the Additional Waypoints feature. The posted coordinates are for the first stage. If you don't want the coordinates for the rest of the stages displayed to the public, mark them as "hidden." Only the cache owner and reviewers are permitted to view hidden coordinates.

 

Where does it say it has to be sequential?

Link to comment

never mind.

 

I wrote something about the puzzle on the first cache but then realized that some moderator would likely decide that that was a hint for the puzzle without getting the permission of the cache owner. (I still plan to start a different thread to discuss that section of the TOUs)

 

Too late. It got quoted.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

 

Why don't I just show you, the first cache has been published: Goju Ryu: White Belt

 

Actually, I made one mistake. The first cache is also an Unknown/Puzzle as it requires you to solve a puzzle first. Doesn't change anything though.

What puzzle? The coordinates of the first cache are written in plain text on the cache page (at least for tozainamboku). ;)

 

(oops!. I'll probably get punished for the violation of the TOUs now).

I think this series looks like a lot of fun, and I wish I lived closer. I'm not sure many people looked at the link, because everyone seems to be posting mainly based on the OP's first comments on the cache. Reading the cache page, it doesn't really say the coords to the next cache will be in the previous, but to pay attention to details along the way that you may need later. It could be the coords are in each stage, but not necessarily. Either way, I don't see a reason for these not to be published, but there may be other problems we don't know about.

Link to comment

 

I think the definition of a multi is being confused somewhere in this thread.

Definition of a multi: A cache with more than one stage.

 

Pretty simple huh? No mention of having to be sequential. No mention of which stages must be hidden. Heck, I've seen a multi with more than one final even.

 

The definition of a multi is definitely being confused. People are making up their own additions to the basic definition. Here's the guideline again:

 

1. Multi-Caches

 

Provide the coordinates of all stages of the multi-cache by using the Additional Waypoints feature. The posted coordinates are for the first stage. If you don't want the coordinates for the rest of the stages displayed to the public, mark them as "hidden." Only the cache owner and reviewers are permitted to view hidden coordinates.

 

Where does it say it has to be sequential?

 

Except you've quoted the additional listing guidelines, which says to list a mutli-cache you must provide the coordinates to all stages of a multi-cache, not the definition. Yes, you don't have to make all the waypoints hidden, but then what would be the point of the multi then? I could just go to the final stage and sign the log. It's not really a multi anymore but a traditional.

 

If you look just above on the page you quoted it gives a link to Cache Type Definitions

 

And for multi-caches it does say,

Multi-Cache (Offset Cache)

A Multi-Cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations. The final location is a physical container. There are many variations, but most Multi-Caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has a hint to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a Multi-Cache.

Edited by ace862
Link to comment

 

I think the definition of a multi is being confused somewhere in this thread.

Definition of a multi: A cache with more than one stage.

 

Pretty simple huh? No mention of having to be sequential. No mention of which stages must be hidden. Heck, I've seen a multi with more than one final even.

 

The definition of a multi is definitely being confused. People are making up their own additions to the basic definition. Here's the guideline again:

 

1. Multi-Caches

 

Provide the coordinates of all stages of the multi-cache by using the Additional Waypoints feature. The posted coordinates are for the first stage. If you don't want the coordinates for the rest of the stages displayed to the public, mark them as "hidden." Only the cache owner and reviewers are permitted to view hidden coordinates.

 

Where does it say it has to be sequential?

 

Except you've quoted the additional listing guidelines, which says to list a mutli-cache you must provide the coordinates to all stages of a multi-cache, not the definition. Yes, you don't have to make all the waypoints hidden, but then what would be the point of the multi then? I could just go to the final stage and sign the log. It's not really a multi anymore but a traditional.

 

If you look just above on the page you quoted it gives a link to Cache Type Definitions

 

And for multi-caches it does say,

Multi-Cache (Offset Cache)

A Multi-Cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations. The final location is a physical container. There are many variations, but most Multi-Caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has a hint to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a Multi-Cache.

Are we going to have another semantics lesson; this time over the meaning of the word most?

Link to comment

Except you've quoted the additional listing guidelines, which says to list a mutli-cache you must provide the coordinates to all stages of a multi-cache, not the definition.

Because that's one of the two documents they ask you to agree to when listing a cache:

 

Yes. I have read and understand the guidelines for listing a cache.

Yes. I have read and agree to the terms of use agreement.

 

Yes, you don't have to make all the waypoints hidden, but then what would be the point of the multi then?

As long as you have to visit each stage to find the info for the final then that's the point. Visiting the stages sequentially or randomly doesn't change the nature of a multi stage cache.

 

I could just go to the final stage and sign the log. It's not really a multi anymore but a traditional.

How could you go to the hidden final without getting the info from the other stages? Same things as a sequential multi. You can somehow "cheat" and get the info from a friend I suppose, but that applies to both sequential and random types.

 

If you look just above on the page you quoted it gives a link to Cache Type Definitions

 

And for multi-caches it does say,

Multi-Cache (Offset Cache)

A Multi-Cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations. The final location is a physical container. There are many variations, but most Multi-Caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has a hint to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a Multi-Cache.

Thank you for quoting that. It just reinforces my argument.

Link to comment

And for multi-caches it does say,

Multi-Cache (Offset Cache)

A Multi-Cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations. The final location is a physical container. There are many variations, but most Multi-Caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has a hint to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a Multi-Cache.

Are we going to have another semantics lesson; this time over the meaning of the word most?

Looks like it. :(

 

I think when people see the word "most" they subconsciously substitute the word "all".

Link to comment

My friend recently tried to publish a cache series where one cache daisy chains into the other. The first has the coordinates for the second, the second has the coordinates for the third, etc. The first is a Traditional and the rest are Unknown/Puzzle Caches. This is your standard cache series.

<<snip>>

 

I want to know why cache series are not longer allowed and, more importantly, why haven't we been told about this change in policy. The guidelines don't prohibit these kinds of cache series so why all of a sudden are they a problem?

The guidelines don't prohibit this sort of cache series, they just call it a Multi cache and expect it to be published that way.

DanOCan, thank you for this succinct explanation. The relevant primary guideline violation is "the owner selected the wrong cache type." I can think of many examples where I've corrected the owner's choice of cache type.

 

But, to further expand upon this logical concept, and in order to avoid allegations of "hidden guidelines," there is a Page in the Groundspeak Knowledge Books that provides guidance to hiders of mystery/puzzle caches. Quoting from that page: "Bonus Caches Clues to the bonus cache location (often coordinates, or partial coordinates in several caches) are hidden in one or more other caches. Clues for a bonus cache should not be placed in another bonus cache. Generally, the bonus cache belongs to the owner of the caches where clues are found."

 

So, Groundspeak has provided detailed guidance warning hiders that the "daisy chain" method of stringing together multiple bonus caches ought to be submitted as a single multicache.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 6
×
×
  • Create New...