Proximity rule should not be affected by a multi-stage

[+Off Grid]

So my container is trash... but all the other geocaches are not... because they are listed on a website makes them not trash vs my unlisted container?

 

If there is a legal parking spot on your street, and the city allows you to leave a car there for 72 hours without moving, your car is not abandoned. If you leave it there a month, it is an abandoned car. Same car different discriptions.

 

A cache hidden with permission, and in play, is a game piece. Remove it from play, and yes it becomes trash.

so basically your telling me that if it isnt geocaching.com...than every other site is trash just because its not geocaching.com?

 

No, what is being said is that if it gets listed it's not trash. It's part of a game. You agree to that part? If it doesn't get listed here, other sites, or kept for a private cache(Girl Guides for example) or in other words not in play-not found, not even given the opportunity to be found(intentionally, not by accident) then it is trash.

 

ill always be here to comment.

 

Good to know, I;m looking forward to all of your comment, and lack of any structure in your posts. [/sarcasm]

 

wow now you said it if it dosent get listed here or other sites its trash thank you for saying something right

 

you mean how i dont attack the person directly like you do?

[+T.D.M.22]

 

you mean how i dont attack the person directly like you do?

Never said I don't But I'll stop before I get banned. I just don't understand why it seems you have such a negative view most of the people-reviewers, the people trying to help you.(I understand why you don't like me) I'll bet If I met you and you didn't tell me your name I wouldn't know who you where-I'm sure you're much more positive in person.

 

Anyway enough off this off topic stuff-yes I am off topic this time.

Edited March 6, 2013 by T.D.M.22

[+tozainamboku]

Since we no longer know the rationale behind the saturation guidelines, perhaps it's time to review them.

 

If the reason is to prevent someone from finding a differnt cache than the one they are looking for 528 feet seems like to much. I'm not sure if what the minimum should be and it might be discussed.

 

I would argue that even if we were to keep 528 ft as the distance between traditional caches, now is the time to reduce the distance you need to be from a puzzle or a stage in a different multi cache.

 

Last weekend a group of cachers found one of my puzzles. Many finder gave the name of the one cacher among them that had supposedly solved the puzzle. That cacher posted that due to the number of new caches placed recently on the trail he was able to figure out a few possible locations to look for the puzzle. Yep, once the trail got full of traditionals, there were only a few gaps where the puzzle could be, and it wasn't hard to brute force the answer.

 

As the owner of puzzles and multis like this, I would prefer that traditionals be allowed to be place much closer to puzzles and stages of multis to make the brute force method much harder. If traditionals could be 250 feet from a puzzle, the puzzle is no longer in the "gap" but could be between any two traditionals on the trail. If the traditional can be within 100 feet of a puzzle than there would be 328 ft of trail between traditionals where you would have to look.

 

The added advantage is that people like the OP who don't do puzzles and multis would be less likely to run into issues when placing caches.

[+K13]

The OP has 7 Unknown, 2 virtual and 2 multi cache finds, out of their 414 finds. They do find these types, just not very many times.

[+Don_J]

Some of the best caches I've ever done are multis. I even have one catered to kids: http://coord.info/GC3BD9F and I would hate to think of someone skipping it just because they never do nontraditional caches. You should at least begin occasionally looking at multis. There are two main types

 

Type1) The go here and gather information. The good ones of these are usually at historic or neat locations that may not be able to house a physical cache. These can be great spots to take kids as they can learn something about the history. Plus these usually make for good picture ops.

 

Type2) Find a container go to the next container. Just like traditionals but you have to do more than one to get to the final. If your kids like looking for stuff then these may be fun (of course anything over 3 stages becomes tiring sometimes).

 

On either of these a little research beforehand can weed out ones that seem long or boring but your kids may enjoy the change of pace. You'll never know unless you try.

 

As far as your cache. I highly doubt a rule that has been in place and worked well for 10 years will be changed. Almost all cache hiders have ran into a situation similar to this. I'm sure the reviewer or a local would be willing to help figure out which multi it is and maybe you could knock it off by yourself just to know where that stage is so you can move your cache. And yes leaving your container is like littering. Why not reuse if for a new hide.

 

You forgot #3.

 

Go to posted location. Get numbers off of sign. Apply quantum physics formula to numbers to derive coordinates. Go to LPC in parking lot of regional park and find cache that is effectively blocking a mile of trail and view sites that circles the parking lot from other caches.

[+uxorious]

So my container is trash... but all the other geocaches are not... because they are listed on a website makes them not trash vs my unlisted container?

 

If there is a legal parking spot on your street, and the city allows you to leave a car there for 72 hours without moving, your car is not abandoned. If you leave it there a month, it is an abandoned car. Same car different discriptions.

 

A cache hidden with permission, and in play, is a game piece. Remove it from play, and yes it becomes trash.

so basically your telling me that if it isnt geocaching.com...than every other site is trash just because its not geocaching.com?

 

:blink: :blink: How in the world did you get that from my post? No where do I mention Geocaching.com. I said, "HIDDEN WITH PERMISSION, AND IN PLAY". There are other ways to have a cache in play other than Geocaching.com. This is the site I use and the site I like. However, I would never say a cache in play somewhere else is trash. Just that if it isn't in play, it is trash.

[+dprovan]

So the other day we find a good spot to hide a cache. Check on our phones, and no other caches are nearby (we only show traditional caches on our devices). But as luck would have it, the later stages of a multi-cache is within my cache's proximity!!?!? Seriously, now I need to go find all the potential multi-stage caches that are nearby just so I can hide my cache? Does anyone else see a problem with this rule? What if I'm unable to solve the puzzle, or the multi-stage cache, and therefore can't find all the later stages of it?

Hi! We've crossed virtual paths a number of times, so I'm very familiar with your specific problem. I myself actually love multicaches and puzzles and have solve all but a couple over here in Pleasanton, yet I still managed to hide a cache too close to one of those two puzzles' final location!

 

You've hidden several caches, all of which I've found and enjoyed, so you already know this doesn't happen every time. Most of the same puzzles and multis were already in place when you hid your other caches, after all. So please don't see this as a road block that prevents you from enjoying hiding caches. Sometimes, things like this happen. Multicaches are just one example. You could have just as easily been "beaten" to publishing by someone else hiding a traditional cache at the same time. Put a smile on your face and make the best of it!

 

There aren't that many multis in the area, so you're actually lucky you weren't caught by an unknown cache, since they're much more common around here. Somebody already pointed out Dog Years which should make for a fun adventure, taking you to many fun parks in Pleasanton. If that turned out to be the one you had trouble with, it could be a lot of fun to drive up to one of the legs and realize it's where you tried to hide your cache. Dog Years is just about the only multi I can think of in the area where the stages are nowhere near the posted coordinates.

[+briansnat]

You can list it on another site.

 

Always an option, unless you want people to actually find your cache.

[+snow_rules]

You can list it on another site.

 

Always an option, unless you want people to actually find your cache.

 

Didn't say it was a good option, but it is still an option.

[AZcachemeister]

I can understand the lack of desire to do puzzles...my Ignore List is full of them.

 

Multi-caches are a whole 'nother thing. When I have the time to do them, I love them!

Just this last weekend AZgeckogirl and I were Co-FTF on a 199 Stage multi.

It was great.

 

Certainly a multi does take a bit of concentration to stay on-task, but I have to wonder if it is the kids who don't like them...or someone else.

 

I will say it would probably be a good life-lesson for the kids to learn that the reward does not always come so quickly.

 

Please don't leave your geo-litter behind.

Clean up after yourself.

[AZcachemeister]

Since we no longer know the rationale behind the saturation guidelines, perhaps it's time to review them.

 

 

Do we really need a fourteen page monograph to explain this?

 

Why shouldn't I move my Monopoly piece eight spaces when I rolled a six?

 

It's a game.

Games have rules. (guidelines)

The guideline is: There needs to be 528 feet between game pieces.

Simple.

Un-complicated.

 

But we need a 'rationale' to explain it?

[+The_Incredibles_]

You can list it on another site.

 

Always an option, unless you want people to actually find your cache.

 

Not true! I have dozens of caches listed on another site and I get a find log at least every 6 months.

 

 

 

Edited March 7, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

[+BAIN!]

Since we no longer know the rationale behind the saturation guidelines, perhaps it's time to review them.

 

 

Do we really need a fourteen page monograph to explain this?

 

Why shouldn't I move my Monopoly piece eight spaces when I rolled a six?

 

It's a game.

Games have rules. (guidelines)

The guideline is: There needs to be 528 feet between game pieces.

Simple.

Un-complicated.

 

But we need a 'rationale' to explain it?

 

They should just be happy it isn't 529 feet the have to be away from the other cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

Since we no longer know the rationale behind the saturation guidelines, perhaps it's time to review them.

 

If the reason is to prevent someone from finding a differnt cache than the one they are looking for 528 feet seems like to much. I'm not sure if what the minimum should be and it might be discussed.

 

I would argue that even if we were to keep 528 ft as the distance between traditional caches, now is the time to reduce the distance you need to be from a puzzle or a stage in a different multi cache.

 

Last weekend a group of cachers found one of my puzzles. Many finder gave the name of the one cacher among them that had supposedly solved the puzzle. That cacher posted that due to the number of new caches placed recently on the trail he was able to figure out a few possible locations to look for the puzzle. Yep, once the trail got full of traditionals, there were only a few gaps where the puzzle could be, and it wasn't hard to brute force the answer.

 

As the owner of puzzles and multis like this, I would prefer that traditionals be allowed to be place much closer to puzzles and stages of multis to make the brute force method much harder. If traditionals could be 250 feet from a puzzle, the puzzle is no longer in the "gap" but could be between any two traditionals on the trail. If the traditional can be within 100 feet of a puzzle than there would be 328 ft of trail between traditionals where you would have to look.

 

The added advantage is that people like the OP who don't do puzzles and multis would be less likely to run into issues when placing caches.

 

Seems to me that your rational supports hiding caches and less about having caches to find.

[+tozainamboku]

 

Why shouldn't I move my Monopoly piece eight spaces when I rolled a six?

 

It's a game.

Games have rules. (guidelines)

The guideline is: There needs to be 528 feet between game pieces.

Simple.

Un-complicated.

 

But we need a 'rationale' to explain it?

Funny you should mention Monopoly. I don't think I have ever once played Monopoly following the printed rules 100%. Everybody seems to have their own variation, and in fact some variations have a pretty good "rationale" of making the game more fun for some people.

 

Geocaching is a simple game - someone hides a cache and others go and find it. When Groundspeak provides guidelines for what caches are published on their site or what responsibilities that owner has once the cache is published, they ought to have some rationale for doing so. More and more often, this rationale is becoming "We need rules for the people who can't have fun unless they are told some rules." I would like to have as few guidelines as possible and not have them be arbitrary. In the meantime I'll keep playing Monopoly the way I always have.

 

Anyhow this is a bit off topic. What I really wanted to say before was if the current rule is just an arbitrary number, maybe it's time to change it. I believe that the distance from a hidden waypoint in a mystery or multi-cache should be smaller than the the distance between visible physical caches. The current guideline makes it easy to find puzzles and stages of multi-caches by looking for gaps between physical caches. A change would not just benefit multis and puzzles. Someone like the OP might still place a physical in a area blocked by a multi-cache stage or puzzle; but each hidden puzzle or multi-cache stage would block a smaller area, so presumably this would not happen as often.

[+tozainamboku]

[snip - rationale for lowering the distance to hidden waypoints]

 

Seems to me that your rational supports hiding caches and less about having caches to find.

Not sure what you mean.

 

True than my proposal may result in in a higher overall density of caches.

 

1) The number of traditional caches may go up slightly because there is less chance that a location is "blocked" by a hidden waypoint in another cache.

 

2) The number of puzzles and muli-caches is likely to go up because these can be placed closer to traditional caches and to each other.

 

So true that this could encourage hiding more caches. Why is this bad? Doesn't that mean more caches to find.

 

If you believe the rationale for the saturation guidelines is to put caches in new area I suggest it isn't working. In my area is has become common once a few caches are place on a trail for others to "fill in the gaps". Eventually every trail becomes a power trail.

Edited March 7, 2013 by tozainamboku

[+The A-Team]

But we need a 'rationale' to explain it?

Just to muddy the waters, here's the original version of the saturation guideline from April 2003:

The approvers use a policy that caches placed within .10 miles of another cache will not be listed on the site. This is an arbitrary distance and is just a guideline, but the ultimate goal is to reduce the number of caches hidden in a particular area.

 

On the same note, don't go cache crazy and hide 10 caches because you can. If you want to create a series of caches, create a multicache.

 

Why hide two caches when one will do?

It seems pretty clear to me that the original reason for the saturation guideline was to limit the number of caches in an area, not to prevent confusion between adjacent caches. Of course, we all know how Groundspeak's position on this has changed over the years (see: Power trails).

And as Toz suspected, the number is completely arbitrary.

 

I do have to agree with Toz that we need a rationale behind the guidelines.

Rules don't need a rationale, because they're hard-and-fast. You either comply with the rule or you don't.

This site uses guidelines, not rules. As stated on the guideline page in the 6th paragraph at the top, exceptions can be made. To know whether a cache can be excepted from a guideline, you first need to know what the purpose behind the guideline is.

 

For example, let's say the reason for the saturation guideline is to prevent confusion between adjacent caches. In that case, there shouldn't be any reason why caches couldn't be placed closer together if they're separated by a wide river. As we've seen, though, there are very few cases where this occurs. AFAICT, even the reviewers don't know the reasoning behind the guidelines, so they can't consistently agree on which caches can be excepted. Can they allow the cache across the river, or will it mean there are too many caches in that area?

 

If there's no longer any rationale behind the guidelines, then they should be renamed to rules and become hard-and-fast. However, if there are grey areas, we and the reviewers need to know what shade of grey.

[+BlueDeuce]

 

If you believe the rationale for the saturation guidelines is to put caches in new area I suggest it isn't working. In my area is has become common once a few caches are place on a trail for others to "fill in the gaps". Eventually every trail becomes a power trail.

 

No, I think that saturation is just that, too much in a given area. I don't separate out cache types as if they don't interact.

 

Power trails are nothing but stats.

[+Don_J]

Since we no longer know the rationale behind the saturation guidelines, perhaps it's time to review them.

 

If the reason is to prevent someone from finding a differnt cache than the one they are looking for 528 feet seems like to much. I'm not sure if what the minimum should be and it might be discussed.

 

I would argue that even if we were to keep 528 ft as the distance between traditional caches, now is the time to reduce the distance you need to be from a puzzle or a stage in a different multi cache.

 

Last weekend a group of cachers found one of my puzzles. Many finder gave the name of the one cacher among them that had supposedly solved the puzzle. That cacher posted that due to the number of new caches placed recently on the trail he was able to figure out a few possible locations to look for the puzzle. Yep, once the trail got full of traditionals, there were only a few gaps where the puzzle could be, and it wasn't hard to brute force the answer.

 

As the owner of puzzles and multis like this, I would prefer that traditionals be allowed to be place much closer to puzzles and stages of multis to make the brute force method much harder. If traditionals could be 250 feet from a puzzle, the puzzle is no longer in the "gap" but could be between any two traditionals on the trail. If the traditional can be within 100 feet of a puzzle than there would be 328 ft of trail between traditionals where you would have to look.

 

The added advantage is that people like the OP who don't do puzzles and multis would be less likely to run into issues when placing caches.

 

As I was reading this thread I was thinking the exact same thing, only my perspective was from someone trying to hide a traditional cache. I will say this, the puzzle you are talking about is the hardest puzzle I have solved, (all but one digit), and when I hid my new caches, it never occurred to me that I was removing about two miles of trail from where your puzzle could possibly be located. I overlooked that because my attitude about puzzles is that I either solve them or forget about them. By solving them, I mean from the cache page, not the map page. I know that the same thing has happened with one of your multicaches and I think that you offer a perfect solution. If the idea is that we are not supposed to find the wrong container by mistake, 250' should be more than adequate.

[4wheelin_fool]

.1 is an easy rule of thumb to remember, and should not be watered down for other applications. Squeezing in more game pieces every 250' will lead to abuse.

 

The OP needs to teach their kid to follow rules and respect others, as well as cleaning up after themself and learning to overcome obstacles. These are very basic lessons that I suppose are not being taught anymore, as the OPs parent apparently did not instill them well enough on them.

[+edscott]

[ .... big snip... ] if the current rule is just an arbitrary number, maybe it's time to change it. I believe that the distance from a hidden waypoint in a mystery or multi-cache should be smaller than the the distance between visible physical caches. The current guideline makes it easy to find puzzles and stages of multi-caches by looking for gaps between physical caches. A change would not just benefit multis and puzzles. Someone like the OP might still place a physical in a area blocked by a multi-cache stage or puzzle; but each hidden puzzle or multi-cache stage would block a smaller area, so presumably this would not happen as often.

 

True.. As I see it the distance rule has two purposes, preventing over saturation and eliminating confusion on which cache has been found. Although it is way too late to change the saturation element I'd go for .25 as a minimum between caches, although a couple hundred feet is sufficient to differentiate between two waypoints.

[+Ambrosia]

With proximity, you also need to remember that caches can migrate over time. Caches get moved, coords get updated. The .1 guideline helps mitigate caches getting so close that they could get confused. It can happen with .1 miles, but if it was 250 feet (for instance) it could be more of a problem.

[+Oxford Stone]

This is making me think it's time to talk to a reviewer before I get too carried away placing my first caches - I've got 3 ideas up my sleeve and have sussed out 3 sites that look OK on a ma, but...

 

Going back to the original post - why get angry at mysteries and multis and say they're for hardcore cachers only? Come to Oxford and try Spies Like Us - Honeypot (GC1Y4K5 - currently disabled) which takes you to a really cool exhibit in a lovely museum (but you can be in and out in 2 mins) to pick up numbers for the co-ords. Our 3-year-old got the idea so I don't get the negativity. I understand the frustration but as has been said, live with it.

[+J Grouchy]

There's a local 3 stage multi in my part of town that has a stage 2 just over 200 feet from a traditional cache. I just noticed this yesterday when I was working it out. Not sure if it was overlooked during approval or if the reviewer let it slide since it's just a stage that provides coordinates to the final.

[+Semper Questio]

There's a local 3 stage multi in my part of town that has a stage 2 just over 200 feet from a traditional cache. I just noticed this yesterday when I was working it out. Not sure if it was overlooked during approval or if the reviewer let it slide since it's just a stage that provides coordinates to the final.

 

I don't know if this applies to the multi you are referring to, but in regards to stages of a multi, the proximity rule only applies to the distance of physical stages from another cache. It does not apply to virtual stages of a multi or the stages, physical or virtual, of itself.

[+J Grouchy]

There's a local 3 stage multi in my part of town that has a stage 2 just over 200 feet from a traditional cache. I just noticed this yesterday when I was working it out. Not sure if it was overlooked during approval or if the reviewer let it slide since it's just a stage that provides coordinates to the final.

 

I don't know if this applies to the multi you are referring to, but in regards to stages of a multi, the proximity rule only applies to the distance of physical stages from another cache. It does not apply to virtual stages of a multi or the stages, physical or virtual, of itself.

 

I haven't gone to Stage 2, but I believe from the description the Stage 2 of this multi is a physical container which holds the coordinates for the final.

 

Per the description: "You now have the coordinates to stage 2 where you will find a nano containing the coordinates leading you to the final stage."

 

This Stage 2 is roughly 200 to 250 from a Traditional cache.

[+Off Grid]

15 eh hahahahahaha I'm taking the cache that was to close to another site cause I'd rather have some cache there than nothing at all as it would be rather suited for a cache that wasn't a mystery or a deoderant spray cache

[+Off Grid]

And for the record, if I go back and retreive my container, I will take my kids, and will need to explain to them the awful rules of why our cache is rejected... In turn this would likely discourage them from doing more geocaching, since the rules don't make sense, and in turn make the game much less fun for them.... but I should lead by example right?

Something tells me this is a good thing...the losing interest part.

something tells me your out of line...and your letting a good geocacher go? shame shame

 

How is a quitter a "good geocacher"? Isn't one of the points of this game persistence? Instead of making adjustments, this person hits a single roadblock and decides this game is stupid and she can't play anymore. Anyone willing to actually search for a geocache and occasionally log a DNF ought not to be thrown off by this very minor setback.

 

uhhh, wow.

 

I suddenly just got the urge to hide another puzzle this afternoon. The best part is that my 9 year old daughter will want to assist.

each child is different if your daughter likes puzzle caches koodos but if his kids dont well thats life.

 

Each adult is different. Some use punctuation, some do not.

 

because he could or may still be a good geocacher hell might even be better than half the people looking at geocaches stats mean literally jack all

[+wimseyguy]

There's a local 3 stage multi in my part of town that has a stage 2 just over 200 feet from a traditional cache. I just noticed this yesterday when I was working it out. Not sure if it was overlooked during approval or if the reviewer let it slide since it's just a stage that provides coordinates to the final.

 

I don't know if this applies to the multi you are referring to, but in regards to stages of a multi, the proximity rule only applies to the distance of physical stages from another cache. It does not apply to virtual stages of a multi or the stages, physical or virtual, of itself.

 

I haven't gone to Stage 2, but I believe from the description the Stage 2 of this multi is a physical container which holds the coordinates for the final.

 

Per the description: "You now have the coordinates to stage 2 where you will find a nano containing the coordinates leading you to the final stage."

 

This Stage 2 is roughly 200 to 250 from a Traditional cache.

 

Another possibility is that the multi predates the Additional Waypoint feature, and the intermediate stage was never added by the CO or reviewer when the feature was rolled out. If that waypoint isn't in the database, how would the reviewer know this when they reviewed the traditional? I doubt a reviewer granted that much leeway at a review, but you never know until you have all the fact ma'am.

[+The A-Team]

15 eh hahahahahaha I'm taking the cache that was to close to another site cause I'd rather have some cache there than nothing at all as it would be rather suited for a cache that wasn't a mystery or a deoderant spray cache

Wait, are you saying you're going to remove someone else's cache? I hope I'm just misunderstanding your post and you aren't saying this, but it's very hard to tell.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

15 eh hahahahahaha I'm taking the cache that was to close to another site cause I'd rather have some cache there than nothing at all as it would be rather suited for a cache that wasn't a mystery or a deoderant spray cache

Wait, are you saying you're going to remove someone else's cache? I hope I'm just misunderstanding your post and you aren't saying this, but it's very hard to tell.

 

I think what he is saying is he is going to list his cache, that is too close to another cache, on another listing site.

 

A perfect example of why proper punctuation is critical in making a point. But since several people have pointed out (politely) this fact, and he/she fails to heed the advice, I suspect we'll continue to misinterpret their comments. And they will constantly have to clarify themselves. Or at least try to.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Another possibility is that the multi predates the Additional Waypoint feature, and the intermediate stage was never added by the CO or reviewer when the feature was rolled out.

 

I saw that happen with these two caches:

 

GC3E89

 

GC110ZZ

 

The second one got placed <20 feet from the final of the multicache. The multicache was placed in 2002, so I don't think the reviewer knew about it when the other one got published. As far as I know there was never any confusion between the two, despite them being within spitting distance of each other. They're both gone now, so the problem solved itself.

[+The A-Team]

15 eh hahahahahaha I'm taking the cache that was to close to another site cause I'd rather have some cache there than nothing at all as it would be rather suited for a cache that wasn't a mystery or a deoderant spray cache

Wait, are you saying you're going to remove someone else's cache? I hope I'm just misunderstanding your post and you aren't saying this, but it's very hard to tell.

I think what he is saying is he is going to list his cache, that is too close to another cache, on another listing site.

Okay, I can see that now. Thanks for interpreting the off grid dialect into english.

[+Don_J]

[ .... big snip... ] if the current rule is just an arbitrary number, maybe it's time to change it. I believe that the distance from a hidden waypoint in a mystery or multi-cache should be smaller than the the distance between visible physical caches. The current guideline makes it easy to find puzzles and stages of multi-caches by looking for gaps between physical caches. A change would not just benefit multis and puzzles. Someone like the OP might still place a physical in a area blocked by a multi-cache stage or puzzle; but each hidden puzzle or multi-cache stage would block a smaller area, so presumably this would not happen as often.

 

True.. As I see it the distance rule has two purposes, preventing over saturation and eliminating confusion on which cache has been found. Although it is way too late to change the saturation element I'd go for .25 as a minimum between caches, although a couple hundred feet is sufficient to differentiate between two waypoints.

 

If you throw out the "arbitrary" numbers and look at Toz's proposal on it face, it seems to be a very good idea to me. The idea is to have a different "arbitrary" number for hidden waypoint proximity. This way, as an area becomes saturated, (which I believe is Groundspeak's goal), one can't simply look at the map for the hole that must contain the puzzle they have been trying to solve since 2004.

[Keystone]

Fifteen off-topic posts have been removed from page two of this thread. The side discussion about posting etiquette, grammar and punctuation was distracting from the stated topic. Let's get back to the Cache Saturation guideline regarding "hidden" stages of multi's and puzzles. Fair warning: no more off topic posts.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

If you throw out the "arbitrary" numbers and look at Toz's proposal on it face, it seems to be a very good idea to me. The idea is to have a different "arbitrary" number for hidden waypoint proximity. This way, as an area becomes saturated, (which I believe is Groundspeak's goal), one can't simply look at the map for the hole that must contain the puzzle they have been trying to solve since 2004.

If the puzzle hole is truly the problem portrayed, I would prefer to see traditionals increased to 0.2 proximity rather than puzzle proximity reduced below 0.1.

[+K13]

If you throw out the "arbitrary" numbers and look at Toz's proposal on it face, it seems to be a very good idea to me. The idea is to have a different "arbitrary" number for hidden waypoint proximity. This way, as an area becomes saturated, (which I believe is Groundspeak's goal), one can't simply look at the map for the hole that must contain the puzzle they have been trying to solve since 2004.

If the puzzle hole is truly the problem portrayed, I would prefer to see traditionals increased to 0.2 proximity rather than puzzle proximity reduced below 0.1.

 

+1

[+Harry Dolphin]

Another possibility is that the multi predates the Additional Waypoint feature, and the intermediate stage was never added by the CO or reviewer when the feature was rolled out.

 

I saw that happen with these two caches:

 

GC3E89

 

GC110ZZ

 

The second one got placed <20 feet from the final of the multicache. The multicache was placed in 2002, so I don't think the reviewer knew about it when the other one got published. As far as I know there was never any confusion between the two, despite them being within spitting distance of each other. They're both gone now, so the problem solved itself.

 

Oh, I could point you to two caches, a traditional and the first stage of a multi about 70' apart. The one CO had been dead a few years, and the other CO has not been active in eight or more years. But those are grandfathered. Or a great example of the final of a multi about six inches from a traditional. The multi was placed before 'additional waypoints' were required. (The traditional was delisted.) Myself, I got great laughs when hiding a mystery cache. "Additional waypoints are now an option. But they are not required. But I'm not going to list your cache until you comply."

But, as I see it, the point of this thread is that the OP does not think that the guidelines should apply to him/her. Whether the guidleines are meaningful is irrelevant. S/he doesn't like them, so they should not apply. As many have said: That's a great lesson to teach your children.

[+tozainamboku]

If the puzzle hole is truly the problem portrayed, I would prefer to see traditionals increased to 0.2 proximity rather than puzzle proximity reduced below 0.1.

The number is arbitrary so I wonder why the resistance to lowering the distance. My guess is that some people associate higher density with lower quality caches, and that may be true in some area that are only starting to get clusters with high density.

 

In areas where the density of caches is already high the rules actually make it harder to hide quality caches and discourage hiding of puzzles and multis with hidden waypoints.

 

As has been pointed out, if the distance were to be increased, they would have to grandfather caches that are already published, so this wouldn't help with my problem at all. You can brute force a puzzle now by placing one traditional cache .1 away one side and one .1 mile away on the other side so these caches are already ~.2 miles apart. The fact that only a puzzle cache could be put in between, combined with few other gaps on the trail gives away the puzzle.

 

But, as I see it, the point of this thread is that the OP does not think that the guidelines should apply to him/her. Whether the guidleines are meaningful is irrelevant. S/he doesn't like them, so they should not apply. As many have said: That's a great lesson to teach your children.

 

Other that the response of leaving her unlisted cache there, I don't think you can make the claim that OP thinks she should be exempt from the guidelines. Many cachers have carefully looked for empty spots on maps to place cache only to find that a puzzle or multi-stage is blocking that location. The response that you should find the multis and puzzle before hiding a cache does not work well, as many people can't solve every puzzle or if they cache with kids may find they don't have the patience to do a multi.

 

So there have been many suggestions for ways to allow these people a way to check for truly empty areas so they aren't surprised. The best answer so far it to ask your reviewer is a spot is available before hiding a cache, but that requires email and waiting for a response.

 

While my proposal to allow caches to be placed closer to hidden waypoints won't eliminate caches being turned down, it will reduce how often this happens.

[+fbingha]

There's a local 3 stage multi in my part of town that has a stage 2 just over 200 feet from a traditional cache. I just noticed this yesterday when I was working it out. Not sure if it was overlooked during approval or if the reviewer let it slide since it's just a stage that provides coordinates to the final.

 

In my area, it seems custom to only register the first and last location of a multistage in the listing. Intermediate stages can't be blocked by other caches if they aren't listed. I've not done this but it became obvious to me others have when proximity checks that should fail due to intermeditate stages of multi-caches, came back clear.

Edited March 8, 2013 by fbingha

[+hzoi]

You've been caching since '08 and hiding since '11.

- Caching and hiding long enough where these proximity rules shouldn't be something new for you.

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.

[+Cool Cow Cachers]

Since we no longer know the rationale behind the saturation guidelines, perhaps it's time to review them.

 

Go to a parking lot where there is a Munzee on every 50' on every lamp post. Now imaging that every one of those lamp posts have a lame micro underneath them. If that isn't enough rationale I don't know what is.

[+Don_J]

Since we no longer know the rationale behind the saturation guidelines, perhaps it's time to review them.

 

Go to a parking lot where there is a Munzee on every 50' on every lamp post. Now imaging that every one of those lamp posts have a lame micro underneath them. If that isn't enough rationale I don't know what is.

 

Well, first, we were talking about 250', not 50', and second, we were talking about the distance between a hidden puzzle final and a traditional cache. The distance between two traditional caches would not change. So, what you want us to "image" would never happen.

[+tozainamboku]

Since we no longer know the rationale behind the saturation guidelines, perhaps it's time to review them.

 

Go to a parking lot where there is a Munzee on every 50' on every lamp post. Now imaging that every one of those lamp posts have a lame micro underneath them. If that isn't enough rationale I don't know what is.

I can see that many people associate high density with lameness. It's not clear to me that there is any connection, but I do understand that in area where cache density is increasing at a high rate, that it may seem all the caches are "lame" ones.

 

There are certainly people who like having a lot of caches to find (or QR codes if they play that game). In areas that haven't been completely filled up, these people may tend to hide a lot of quick and easy (and perhaps less creative) caches. At some point the density issue starts effecting creative caches. Maybe some people who are going to spend little more effort on placing caches will go farther from home to find a spot. But I would suggest that there are plenty of creative hiders who would like to find a spot close to home and that the current rules prevent them from hiding a cache there.

 

My proposal would not change the distance between traditional caches. But it would allow hidden waypoints from multi-caches and puzzles to be closer to traditional caches (as well as to each other). In general, people who complain of too many 35mm cans in lamppost are complaining about traditional caches that serve no purpose but to provide another find. These same people seem to find multi-caches and puzzles more likely to be "worthy". Some will even forgive a final in a lamppost if the puzzle was interesting and fun to solve.

 

The idea that the rationale for the proximity rule is to prevent more lame caches is ludicrous. In my opinion, it is does the opposite. People who want more caches will place them at whatever distance is allowed and will complain when someone puts a creative cache (particular one with hidden waypoints) in such a place as to block their P&G. Some will watchlist these creative caches just to move in if they are archived, and more and more I see 'Needs Archive' logs just because a puzzle or multi hasn't been found in a while, presumably by someone wanting to place an LPC.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

If the puzzle hole is truly the problem portrayed, I would prefer to see traditionals increased to 0.2 proximity rather than puzzle proximity reduced below 0.1.

The number is arbitrary so I wonder why the resistance to lowering the distance. My guess is that some people associate higher density with lower quality caches, and that may be true in some area that are only starting to get clusters with high density.

 

You're right. The number is arbitrary. It's just the point at which the GPS stops measuring in miles and starts measuring in feet. Even so, I do not think that it's an association between higher cache density and lower quality caches. The rule was in place long before there was any real cache density in the world. I think it's simply that TPTB didn't want things to get ridiculous. There had to be some kind of limit, or else finding a cache would be like finding a pebble in a riverbed.

 

Giving some thought to your proposition of reducing the limit for hidden locations, my first thought was to agree with Sharks-N-Beans, that I'd rather have the limit increased for traditionals than have it decreased for puzzle caches and multis. The only compromise I could come up with is suggesting that if the limit is reduced for these types, so that they can hide within the range for traditionals, then they ought to have a much larger limit with respect to each other. Remember, as with micro caches, the easiest cache type to hide is the one that eventually dominates. I don't want to see the map littered with twice as many puzzle caches as traditionals, and I don't want to see several puzzle caches clustered tightly together within the range of a single traditional cache.

[Trinity's Crew]

If you throw out the "arbitrary" numbers and look at Toz's proposal on it face, it seems to be a very good idea to me. The idea is to have a different "arbitrary" number for hidden waypoint proximity. This way, as an area becomes saturated, (which I believe is Groundspeak's goal), one can't simply look at the map for the hole that must contain the puzzle they have been trying to solve since 2004.

If the puzzle hole is truly the problem portrayed, I would prefer to see traditionals increased to 0.2 proximity rather than puzzle proximity reduced below 0.1.

And archive active caches that are currently 0.1 mile apart?

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

And archive active caches that are currently 0.1 mile apart?

No, existing caches could be grandfathered.

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

my first thought was to agree with Sharks-N-Beans, that I'd rather have the limit increased for traditionals than have it decreased for puzzle caches and multis. The only compromise I could come up with is suggesting that if the limit is reduced for these types, so that they can hide within the range for traditionals, then they ought to have a much larger limit with respect to each other.

The bolded part is brilliant! This plan is adding a level of complexity to puzzle saturation rules that is appropriate for puzzle hiders.

[AZcachemeister]

my first thought was to agree with Sharks-N-Beans, that I'd rather have the limit increased for traditionals than have it decreased for puzzle caches and multis. The only compromise I could come up with is suggesting that if the limit is reduced for these types, so that they can hide within the range for traditionals, then they ought to have a much larger limit with respect to each other.

The bolded part is brilliant! This plan is adding a level of complexity to puzzle saturation rules that is appropriate for puzzle hiders.

 

Agreed!

I think a 100 mile separation between puzzles would be appropriate!

[+tozainamboku]

Yes, the proposal I put forth could result in more puzzlea and multis (since it reduces the minimum distance between them), but it will also likely increase the number of traditional caches. It reduces the impact that puzzles and hidden stages in multis have on the placement of traditionals.

 

Under the current rules the local puzzle hider has blocked off large areas, either because they are too close to one of the puzzles or because hiders are unwilling to place anything other than the ubiquitous film can in a lamppost because it might get turned down. Under my proposal, at least until the puzzle guy hides a lot more puzzles, these areas will open up, as there is a better chance the puzzle will not block it. There will be more traditional caches and, hopefully, some better quality ones.

 

I would think that while the rule change will allow more puzzles and multis, that they will still cause less problems for traditionals than the current rule. Puzzle guy will have to go crazy placing new puzzles to see an effect tradionals. More likely these new puzzles will be placed in-between existing traditionals.

 

The change I propose could be seen an favoring a particular cache type. I believe it will provide the most relief to those who prefer traditional caches.