Munzees as first stages in a multi

[+g0t0pless]

I'd like to place a multi-cache in my area.

In order to get the final coords, you'd have to find several munzees.

 

Is this permitted?

[knowschad]

I'd like to place a multi-cache in my area.

In order to get the final coords, you'd have to find several munzees.

 

Is this permitted?

I seriously doubt it. Groundspeak apparently considers the munzee game to be in competition with their business model. I don't think that would be allowed.

[+docsigma]

munzee

IBTL.

[+g0t0pless]

Hmmm. Maybe I'll just put the coords to each stage on the back of each Munzee then?

[+Dan2099]

I'd like to place a multi-cache in my area.

In order to get the final coords, you'd have to find several munzees.

 

Is this permitted?

 

Are you just wanting to use a QR code as a puzzle aspect in your multi-cache or create an actual munzee? If you are actually creating a munzee I highly doubt its allowed.

[jholly]

I'd like to place a multi-cache in my area.

In order to get the final coords, you'd have to find several munzees.

 

Is this permitted?

Mutis have a low find rate compared to traditionals. So why would you put out a cache that a number of cachers, like me, can't find because they don't have a smartphone? Besides, Groundspeak does not like munzees so it will not be approved.

[+g0t0pless]

The first stages would be QR codes, that are readable by any QR software (including Munzee). The first stages would be located WITH Munzees, but not actually BE Munzees. If that makes any sense.

 

I see it has having 2 QR Codes. One of them being the Munzee, the other being the coords to the next stage, which may or may not be another Munzee.

[+g0t0pless]

Mutis have a low find rate compared to traditionals. So why would you put out a cache that a number of cachers, like me, can't find because they don't have a smartphone? Besides, Groundspeak does not like munzees so it will not be approved.

 

I am aware, but the final is going to be a large 5 gallon bucket, filled with GOOD stuff, and at a very nice location. Its small waterfall that you can see from a trail, but as you get closer tot he waterfall, you realize it goes up much much higher and get bigger and bigger as it goes. Its quite spectacular. I cant beleive there isnt already a cache there to be honest.

[Mr.Yuck]

I'd like to place a multi-cache in my area.

In order to get the final coords, you'd have to find several munzees.

 

Is this permitted?

 

Dude, your thread is going to be locked for even using that word in the forums. I'd say there's a better chance of me being struck by lightning as I type this that you could do this.

 

Just kidding. But you actually probably could get away with this if you didn't say anything. And by the way, I didn't get struck.

[+g0t0pless]

I didn't realize they were such a bad word around here until I saw the replies and dug a little deeper.

 

I guess thats what the forums are for!!!!

 

I'll just refer to them as QR Codes from now on.

[+SwineFlew]

The answer is a big fat NO! Dont challenge it please, it will earn you a nice vac.

 

IBTL

[4wheelin_fool]

If it were QR codes not associated with the other site, it may be okay.

[+GeoTrekker26]

The first stages would be QR codes, that are readable by any QR software (including Munzee). The first stages would be located WITH Munzees, but not actually BE Munzees. If that makes any sense.

 

I see it has having 2 QR Codes. One of them being the Munzee, the other being the coords to the next stage, which may or may not be another Munzee.

 

I'm curious why you are so insistent about having your stages co-located with Munzees? Also since Munzees rely on QR codes, why not do something more clever to direct the cacher to the the next WP?

[+Dan2099]

I'd like to place a multi-cache in my area.

In order to get the final coords, you'd have to find several munzees.

 

Is this permitted?

Mutis have a low find rate compared to traditionals. So why would you put out a cache that a number of cachers, like me, can't find because they don't have a smartphone? Besides, Groundspeak does not like munzees so it will not be approved.

 

I have seen a multi scuba cache talk about a select few...

 

If it were QR codes not associated with the other site, it may be okay.

 

I agree.

[+ShaunEM]

I am surprised this post even lasted in the forums without being removed.

 

Groundspeak does not want any reference to munzee anywhere in regards to geocaching. Not even a little bit.

 

Shaun

[knowschad]

I am surprised this post even lasted in the forums without being removed.

 

Groundspeak does not want any reference to munzee anywhere in regards to geocaching. Not even a little bit.

 

Shaun

 

Generally, Groundspeak doesn't seem to have a problem with words like "Munzee" per se. Its when they see threads promoting sites that they perceive as competition that they shut things down. "I went to a cache and there was also a Munzee there" is a lot different than, "Hey guys... have you seen that Munzee site yet?"

 

This thread is probably (I'm guessing) borderline in that area.

[+Snoogans]

I'd like to place a multi-cache in my area.

In order to get the final coords, you'd have to find several munzees.

 

Is this permitted?

I seriously doubt it. Groundspeak apparently considers the munzee game to be in competition with their business model. I don't think that would be allowed.

 

M-word is the new NI of geocaching. No amount of shrubbery will be accepted to let it pass.

 

[+SwineFlew]

I am surprised this post even lasted in the forums without being removed.

 

Groundspeak does not want any reference to munzee anywhere in regards to geocaching. Not even a little bit.

 

Shaun

 

Generally, Groundspeak doesn't seem to have a problem with words like "Munzee" per se. Its when they see threads promoting sites that they perceive as competition that they shut things down. "I went to a cache and there was also a Munzee there" is a lot different than, "Hey guys... have you seen that Munzee site yet?"

 

This thread is probably (I'm guessing) borderline in that area.

This post will get this thread locked. HAHAHAHHAHA

 

J/K!!

[knowschad]

I am surprised this post even lasted in the forums without being removed.

 

Groundspeak does not want any reference to munzee anywhere in regards to geocaching. Not even a little bit.

 

Shaun

 

Generally, Groundspeak doesn't seem to have a problem with words like "Munzee" per se. Its when they see threads promoting sites that they perceive as competition that they shut things down. "I went to a cache and there was also a Munzee there" is a lot different than, "Hey guys... have you seen that Munzee site yet?"

 

This thread is probably (I'm guessing) borderline in that area.

This post will get this thread locked. HAHAHAHHAHA

 

J/K!!

J/K is right!! Your record so far at predicting thread locks is dismal, at best. I'm guessing the mods check first to see if you have predicted a lock, and if you have, they just leave the thread alone.

[+SwineFlew]

I am surprised this post even lasted in the forums without being removed.

 

Groundspeak does not want any reference to munzee anywhere in regards to geocaching. Not even a little bit.

 

Shaun

 

Generally, Groundspeak doesn't seem to have a problem with words like "Munzee" per se. Its when they see threads promoting sites that they perceive as competition that they shut things down. "I went to a cache and there was also a Munzee there" is a lot different than, "Hey guys... have you seen that Munzee site yet?"

 

This thread is probably (I'm guessing) borderline in that area.

This post will get this thread locked. HAHAHAHHAHA

 

J/K!!

J/K is right!! Your record so far at predicting thread locks is dismal, at best. I'm guessing the mods check first to see if you have predicted a lock, and if you have, they just leave the thread alone.

We can keep on and get this thread off topic and it will get locked.

[+Dan2099]

I am surprised this post even lasted in the forums without being removed.

 

Groundspeak does not want any reference to munzee anywhere in regards to geocaching. Not even a little bit.

 

Shaun

 

Generally, Groundspeak doesn't seem to have a problem with words like "Munzee" per se. Its when they see threads promoting sites that they perceive as competition that they shut things down. "I went to a cache and there was also a Munzee there" is a lot different than, "Hey guys... have you seen that Munzee site yet?"

 

This thread is probably (I'm guessing) borderline in that area.

This post will get this thread locked. HAHAHAHHAHA

 

J/K!!

J/K is right!! Your record so far at predicting thread locks is dismal, at best. I'm guessing the mods check first to see if you have predicted a lock, and if you have, they just leave the thread alone.

We can keep on and get this thread off topic and it will get locked.

 

Anyone ever watch the tv show Renegade?

[cezanne]

Mutis have a low find rate compared to traditionals. So why would you put out a cache that a number of cachers, like me, can't find because they don't have a smartphone? Besides, Groundspeak does not like munzees so it will not be approved.

 

I am aware, but the final is going to be a large 5 gallon bucket, filled with GOOD stuff, and at a very nice location. Its small waterfall that you can see from a trail, but as you get closer tot he waterfall, you realize it goes up much much higher and get bigger and bigger as it goes. Its quite spectacular. I cant beleive there isnt already a cache there to be honest.

 

I do not understand at all why you want to colocate some prior stages with munzees. I'm not a fan of QR codes at all (I would not like to have to go home at least once in order to obtained the next coordinates when your real goal is to show me a nice waterfall), but I can understand why some people like to use them. I cannot understand at all however whether someone wants to use the same location for different things. I do not care about Groundspeak's opinion about munzees. In my country I noticed that many munzees are placed by geocachers at location where already caches exist and the main intent seems to be increase the number count. I neither appreciate munzees that are on purpose colocated with existing geocaches nor the other way round. Above all I'm against this "Visit location X, and increase your find count for traditionals, letterboxes, Earthcaches, multi-caches, Munzees, etc at the same time by minimizing the invested effort. (For munzees I even come across such absurd constructions like munzee hotels where an unlimited number of munzees can be put into and each finder can bring along a new one. This is even worse than the number game in geocaching.)

 

 

Cezanne

[Pup Patrol]

The first stages would be QR codes, that are readable by any QR software (including Munzee). The first stages would be located WITH Munzees, but not actually BE Munzees. If that makes any sense.

 

I see it has having 2 QR Codes. One of them being the Munzee, the other being the coords to the next stage, which may or may not be another Munzee.

 

How are people supposed to read these codes in the field, if they don't have anything with that software?

 

We don't have a smartphone, or any portable phone. We take our gps and a camera and go caching. We have no way of reading such codes, so I guess we would need to ignore a cache that uses them.

 

 

B.

[+GeoBain]

I'd like to place a multi-cache in my area.

In order to get the final coords, you'd have to find several *******.

 

Is this permitted?

I seriously doubt it. Groundspeak apparently considers the ******* game to be in competition with their business model.

 

So much so that some of us are not even allowed to speak of its existence.

[+St.Matthew]

I have done one or two multis that utilize a QR code at each stage, but having another game entirely as stages for this game is frowned upon. If I started going after a multi with munzees as stages I would stop immediately. I would probably post a Needs Archived log also.

[+St.Matthew]

The first stages would be QR codes, that are readable by any QR software (including Munzee). The first stages would be located WITH Munzees, but not actually BE Munzees. If that makes any sense.

 

I see it has having 2 QR Codes. One of them being the Munzee, the other being the coords to the next stage, which may or may not be another Munzee.

 

How are people supposed to read these codes in the field, if they don't have anything with that software?

 

We don't have a smartphone, or any portable phone. We take our gps and a camera and go caching. We have no way of reading such codes, so I guess we would need to ignore a cache that uses them.

 

B

 

It is a pain, but you can read a QR code by taking its picture with any camera and uploading it to any site that reads them.

Edited June 20, 2012 by St.Matthew

[Pup Patrol]

The first stages would be QR codes, that are readable by any QR software (including Munzee). The first stages would be located WITH Munzees, but not actually BE Munzees. If that makes any sense.

 

I see it has having 2 QR Codes. One of them being the Munzee, the other being the coords to the next stage, which may or may not be another Munzee.

 

How are people supposed to read these codes in the field, if they don't have anything with that software?

 

We don't have a smartphone, or any portable phone. We take our gps and a camera and go caching. We have no way of reading such codes, so I guess we would need to ignore a cache that uses them.

 

B

 

It is a pain, but you can read a QR code by taking its picture with any camera and uploading it to any site that reads them.

 

Thanks.

 

So that answers my concern: it can't be completed in the field. It would require multiple visits.

 

Not very tourist-friendly, if that's of any concern to the OP. I love "waterfall" caches. I think it would be nice for people passing through to be able to find the caches that take them to spectacular locations. But if the multicache can't be completed in the field, then that's a major disappointment to visitors who just wouldn't have that kind of time.

 

 

B.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Pup Patrol

[Blue Square Thing]

So that answers my concern: it can't be completed in the field. It would require multiple visits.

 

Not very tourist-friendly, if that's of any concern to the OP. I love "waterfall" caches. I think it would be nice for people passing through to be able to find the caches that take them to spectacular locations. But if the multicache can't be completed in the field, then that's a major disappointment to visitors who just wouldn't have that kind of time.

 

Well, you can - with special equipment. So long as it had that attribute applied to it it'd be fine wouldn't it? And, even better (mainly because I never really look at attributes) if it said it in the description.

 

Sure, it'll keep people away a bit, but if the end location is that nice then that, frankly, might not be a bad thing in some circumstances.

Edited June 20, 2012 by Blue Square Thing

[+T.D.M.22]

No? Not one person has suggested asking a reviewer? Should probably try that. I don't think it will be allowed but can't hurt to ask.

[knowschad]

Ask a reviewer.

[+tozainamboku]

The first stages would be QR codes, that are readable by any QR software (including Munzee). The first stages would be located WITH Munzees, but not actually BE Munzees. If that makes any sense.

 

I see it has having 2 QR Codes. One of them being the Munzee, the other being the coords to the next stage, which may or may not be another Munzee.

 

How are people supposed to read these codes in the field, if they don't have anything with that software?

 

We don't have a smartphone, or any portable phone. We take our gps and a camera and go caching. We have no way of reading such codes, so I guess we would need to ignore a cache that uses them.

 

 

B.

How is that different than a "Chirp" or other beacon cache?

[Keystone]

Ask a reviewer.

Indeed. As the OP's reviewer, this question could easily have been included in the same email today wherein the OP inquired about the proposed final cache coordinates.

 

The answer is "no, I wouldn't publish a cache that required accessing a competing website or product."

 

The answer about the proposed final coordinates is that there are no conflicting hidden waypoints for a radius of .5 miles from the coordinates specified.

 

With all the questions answered, I think it's appropriate to close the thread at this time. Free pass to the OP for asking about the M-word innocently; wrist slap for those who knew better.