how far is to far?

[niverson92]

I was thinking of placing a cache the length of a parkway in my area that would take you to different spots of interest around the county (i even have an evil twist in my head).

so I have read that there are several multi-caches that have great distances between the way points (some 100s and so on).

my question is how far is to far before i should give my local reviewer a heads up?

[Keystone]

The practical limit is your ability to maintain a cache container X miles from your home. If you are already maintaining several caches at distances near X, and if your record of cache finds shows many travels to distances greater than X, then a reviewer ought to be comfortable publishing a cache X miles from your home. As an alternative, arrange for a local geocacher or muggle friend to help with maintenance of the cache container(s) in your multi that are a great distance away.

[+GeoTrekker26]

The practical limit is your ability to maintain a cache container X miles from your home. If you are already maintaining several caches at distances near X, and if your record of cache finds shows many travels to distances greater than X, then a reviewer ought to be comfortable publishing a cache X miles from your home. As an alternative, arrange for a local geocacher or muggle friend to help with maintenance of the cache container(s) in your multi that are a great distance away.

 

I thought OP was asking about how spread out the stages of a multi-cache can be. I didn't think his concern was distance from home or maintenance issues.

 

If this is indeed the case, I would suggest he consider a series of independent traditional caches, with each cache providing a clue to the location of the last (puzzle) cache of the series. A multi-point cache spread over 20 or 30 miles (just guessing here) will probably not generate a lot of interest. Individual caches that could be found and logged as finds as a cacher is in the area will interest more people.

[+scrapcat]

Have you considered a Wherigo instead? My sister and I just participated in one that drove you around historical places in Detroit. We loved it!

[Keystone]

The practical limit is your ability to maintain a cache container X miles from your home. If you are already maintaining several caches at distances near X, and if your record of cache finds shows many travels to distances greater than X, then a reviewer ought to be comfortable publishing a cache X miles from your home. As an alternative, arrange for a local geocacher or muggle friend to help with maintenance of the cache container(s) in your multi that are a great distance away.

 

I thought OP was asking about how spread out the stages of a multi-cache can be. I didn't think his concern was distance from home or maintenance issues.

I answered that question from the perspective of what a reviewer will publish. If the farthest points of a 100 mile long multicache are 50 miles east and 50 miles west of the owner's home coordinates, it's likely that the cache will be published. If the farthest point is 250 miles from the owner's home, then probably not.

 

Even if the owner's concern isn't distance from home or maintenance issues, that is a reviewer's concern and I did not want to disappoint someone about their cache design if it didn't take this concern into account.

[+niraD]

Here's a multi-cache that I completed, which requires a fair bit of traveling: http://coord.info/GC1HQ1W

 

I think I ended up driving about 70-80 miles total for that one, since I did the stages in multiple trips. I've done other multi-caches and multi-stage puzzles that have required several miles of traveling.

 

And I'm familiar with multi-caches that require even more traveling.

 

From a "getting it approved" perspective, then Keystone's answer is the one you want: Can you maintain the stages of your multi-cache.

 

From a "will people enjoy it" perspective, then I think the key is whether it really holds together as a single multi-cache. If the stages could stand alone as individual caches, then it may make more sense to do a series of caches, as suggested by GeoTrekker26. But if it's more about the journey from stage to stage, or about the way the various stages relate to each other as a whole, then go ahead and do a multi-cache.

[niverson92]

thanks for the replies. just got to make up my mind since i hadn't thought of a series of traditional caches at all.

 

the point of making it a multi-cache was for the challenge of the whole thing.

 

my new question is, would you feel more accomplished after completing a long multi-cache in a single day? or several traditional caches in several days?

 

also how would i go about putting a final stage that could only be accessed, found and logged after finding all the caches if i took the series of traditional caches route?

[+BigChiefS4]

Put a code in each individual cache or 1 number of the coords. The only way to finish is to find each cache, unless there is sharing between cachers (which WILL happen at some point). If you have 15 caches, then A=first number of the coords, B=second number, etc etc.

[+ByronForestPreserve]

I just found two traditional caches, each with half the needed coordinates inside to find a third. The info was at the top of the "You found it!" sheets in the caches. I'd thought when I set out that the third one would be close by, but when I entered the coords I saw that it was about 10 miles away. At that point, it made much more sense to me that they were independent caches rather than a multi.

 

I guess it's kind of a toss-up, having the added logs, inventory, and such of several traditional caches, but on the other hand, if one needs maintenance it would be much easier to keep track, especially if they're spread apart. Imagine trying to figure out which stage is in trouble if someone only posts a NM log on a huge multi and doesn't specify...

[+Don_J]

thanks for the replies. just got to make up my mind since i hadn't thought of a series of traditional caches at all.

 

the point of making it a multi-cache was for the challenge of the whole thing.

 

my new question is, would you feel more accomplished after completing a long multi-cache in a single day? or several traditional caches in several days?

 

also how would i go about putting a final stage that could only be accessed, found and logged after finding all the caches if i took the series of traditional caches route?

 

When I think of a long multi with many waypoints in it compared to many traditional caches with clues to a bonus puzzle cache, two things come to mind.

 

1. I do not have a lot of time to cache so being able to chip away at the traditionals in order to finally solve the bonus cache is desirable.

 

2. Not everyone has the time to do the entire multi so some will not even try. The problem is you will have a lot of caches out there with unknown coordinates. This takes up real estate and makes it difficult for others to place caches without eventually running into proximity issues because they do not know where the cache are. Some will just stop trying. The traditional/bonus scheme takes up the same amount of real estate, but the locations are known and cachers placing new caches can make sure that theirs do not encroach on yours.

 

A related situation exists locally where a cacher has put out a ton of puzzles that I have no hope of ever solving. Without knowing where his caches are, I am very reluctant to even try placing a cache in that area.

[+Mr.Benchmark]

One other thought - I like multi-caches just fine. However, a very long series of multicaches may well have an annoying tendency to break, because if any of the intermediate waypoints goes missing, the finder will likely have to abort and try again after you do some maintenance. This could end up being a fairly frustrating experience. I'm not saying "don't do a multicache" - just pointing out that they can have their own special problems.

[cezanne]

1. I do not have a lot of time to cache so being able to chip away at the traditionals in order to finally solve the bonus cache is desirable.

 

YOu still can split up the cache into the same parts as if for single separate caches.

 

This cache, for example, has been divided up into up to 16 legs by cachers.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=6d831ec0-e0b0-40a0-ba52-3cb2e630de33

(at least 120km hike)

 

and I'm sure it will work equally well for this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bc6fc608-511d-4790-91a6-63898366b82c

(at least 140km hike)

 

Both caches are something very special for those who do the cache. In our area there are many series of the type you mentioned as alternative above and they receive more visits, but do not play such a special role for the finders.

 

2. Not everyone has the time to do the entire multi so some will not even try.

 

That's rather an advantage from my point of view. Many caches get too much traffic anyway.

 

The problem is you will have a lot of caches out there with unknown coordinates.

 

Not necessarily as stages can be of the question and answer type.

 

This takes up real estate and makes it difficult for others to place caches without eventually running into proximity issues because they do not know where the cache are.

 

That's much more true for cache series like the two hidden by this guy than by a long multi cache of the type I have mentioned above.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=Heinzspeedy

 

A related situation exists locally where a cacher has put out a ton of puzzles that I have no hope of ever solving. Without knowing where his caches are, I am very reluctant to even try placing a cache in that area.

 

That's more related to series like the ones mentioned above than a long multi cache as nobody is saying that all stages need to be physical ones.

 

Cezanne

[+Lady Loki]

1. I do not have a lot of time to cache so being able to chip away at the traditionals in order to finally solve the bonus cache is desirable.

 

YOu still can split up the cache into the same parts as if for single separate caches.

 

This cache, for example, has been divided up into up to 16 legs by cachers.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=6d831ec0-e0b0-40a0-ba52-3cb2e630de33

(at least 120km hike)

 

and I'm sure it will work equally well for this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=bc6fc608-511d-4790-91a6-63898366b82c

(at least 140km hike)

 

Both caches are something very special for those who do the cache. In our area there are many series of the type you mentioned as alternative above and they receive more visits, but do not play such a special role for the finders.

 

2. Not everyone has the time to do the entire multi so some will not even try.

 

That's rather an advantage from my point of view. Many caches get too much traffic anyway.

 

The problem is you will have a lot of caches out there with unknown coordinates.

 

Not necessarily as stages can be of the question and answer type.

 

This takes up real estate and makes it difficult for others to place caches without eventually running into proximity issues because they do not know where the cache are.

 

That's much more true for cache series like the two hidden by this guy than by a long multi cache of the type I have mentioned above.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=Heinzspeedy

 

A related situation exists locally where a cacher has put out a ton of puzzles that I have no hope of ever solving. Without knowing where his caches are, I am very reluctant to even try placing a cache in that area.

 

That's more related to series like the ones mentioned above than a long multi cache as nobody is saying that all stages need to be physical ones.

 

Cezanne

I'm confused by the bolded part. Please explain? I thought the point of the game was to find caches, and to place caches to be found. It sounds like you disagree with that.

[+The_Incredibles_]

1. I do not have a lot of time to cache so being able to chip away at the traditionals in order to finally solve the bonus cache is desirable.

 

2. Not everyone has the time to do the entire multi so some will not even try. The problem is you will have a lot of caches out there with unknown coordinates. This takes up real estate and makes it difficult for others to place caches without eventually running into proximity issues because they do not know where the cache are. Some will just stop trying. The traditional/bonus scheme takes up the same amount of real estate, but the locations are known and cachers placing new caches can make sure that theirs do not encroach on yours.

 

A related situation exists locally where a cacher has put out a ton of puzzles that I have no hope of ever solving. Without knowing where his caches are, I am very reluctant to even try placing a cache in that area.

 

My preference is a series of traditionals with a bonus cache for the above reasons. If this is a multi with the stages far apart, I think the cache owners in your area will be especially grateful if you do not make it a multi. If they get a cache bumped due to proximity, they will be forced to go and find your multi in order to place their cache. Some might not have the time.

[+Markwell]

I once had a cache where the first and third stages were about a mile apart. The second stage was a "question to answer" and was more that 135 miles away. The answer COULD be determined on the internet, and some did it that way, but still the stages were that far apart. I had several people attempt the cache either by using friends in the area of the second cache, or mostly by researching the 'net. I don't believe anyone physically went to all the stages except me.

 

My very first multi-cache was two "questions to answer" stages with a final cache in a third similar spot. The entire path was about 15 miles point-to-point-to-point. Very well received for several years, starting in 2001.

[cezanne]

 

My preference is a series of traditionals with a bonus cache for the above reasons. If this is a multi with the stages far apart, I think the cache owners in your area will be especially grateful if you do not make it a multi. If they get a cache bumped due to proximity, they will be forced to go and find your multi in order to place their cache. Some might not have the time.

 

Your argument is weak in my eyes as with a multi cache with question to answer stages there will be a single container causing a distance issue and that exists as well in the case of the bonus cache. Finding all caches including the bonus caches takes at least as much time as doing one multi cache (take into account the multiple search and logging effort).

 

 

Cezanne

[+Don_J]

 

My preference is a series of traditionals with a bonus cache for the above reasons. If this is a multi with the stages far apart, I think the cache owners in your area will be especially grateful if you do not make it a multi. If they get a cache bumped due to proximity, they will be forced to go and find your multi in order to place their cache. Some might not have the time.

 

Your argument is weak in my eyes as with a multi cache with question to answer stages there will be a single container causing a distance issue and that exists as well in the case of the bonus cache. Finding all caches including the bonus caches takes at least as much time as doing one multi cache (take into account the multiple search and logging effort).

 

 

Cezanne

 

Your argument is week because the OP specifically wants to hide physical containers. That is what we are discussing. The point that we are trying to make is that to some of us, having one unknown location is desirable to having many. If you don't agree with that, then discuss that, but please don't cloud the discussion with scenarios that don't apply to the issue.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Don_J

[cezanne]

 

My preference is a series of traditionals with a bonus cache for the above reasons. If this is a multi with the stages far apart, I think the cache owners in your area will be especially grateful if you do not make it a multi. If they get a cache bumped due to proximity, they will be forced to go and find your multi in order to place their cache. Some might not have the time.

 

Your argument is weak in my eyes as with a multi cache with question to answer stages there will be a single container causing a distance issue and that exists as well in the case of the bonus cache. Finding all caches including the bonus caches takes at least as much time as doing one multi cache (take into account the multiple search and logging effort).

 

 

Cezanne

 

Your argument is week because the OP specifically wants to hide physical containers.

 

In which of his postings did he write this? I could not find anything about the type of stages except that they should be located at points of interest.

 

 

That is what we are discussing. The point that we are trying to make is that to some of us, having one unknown location is desirable to having many. If you don't agree with that, then discuss that, but please don't cloud the discussion with scenarios that don't apply to the issue.

 

First, the reply The_Incredibles is formulated for multi caches in general and second, as mentioned above, I cannot find any statement that the OP is only interested into multi caches where every stage has a container. Please show me what I might have missed. For me the question was "How far is too far" and related to the distance between stages and was not talking about what type of stages are used.

 

Cezanne