Multi-caches

[+Mick McPhee]

I have a friend who placed a cache too close to an existing cache. He has already send the coordinates to a book publisher as he was not aware of the 0.1 mile rule. He has asked explained his error to the CO and asked if their cache could be moved a few hundred feet. This is in remote BLM land and the CO said NO. There are miles between the existing cache and the new proposed one.

 

Is it possible to make a muli-cache with nothing more at the book published site except a marker with coordinates which directs the searcher to the real cache placed further away than the 528 feet of the existing cache? In other words, can the first stage of a multicache be closer than 528 feet. I searched this forum and found nothing that gave me a clue about the legalities withing Geocaching for this kind of cache.

[+T.D.M.22]

Any physical stage-including co-ords to the final, must be 528 feet from another cache(but can be closer if it is the same cache) Your friend should have read the guidelines. You say there is nothing in the forums, but there is. This is also explained guidelines.

[Pup Patrol]

I have a friend who placed a cache too close to an existing cache. He has already send the coordinates to a book publisher as he was not aware of the 0.1 mile rule. He has asked explained his error to the CO and asked if their cache could be moved a few hundred feet. This is in remote BLM land and the CO said NO. There are miles between the existing cache and the new proposed one.

 

Is it possible to make a muli-cache with nothing more at the book published site except a marker with coordinates which directs the searcher to the real cache placed further away than the 528 feet of the existing cache? In other words, can the first stage of a multicache be closer than 528 feet. I searched this forum and found nothing that gave me a clue about the legalities withing Geocaching for this kind of cache.

 

Not sure what you were using for search terms, but this has been discussed numerous times in the forums.

 

Check the Guidelines:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

Click on "7. Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart." to expand the text.

 

Also check the Help Center section "Hiding a Geocache":

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.book&id=19

 

 

B.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Pup Patrol

[GrandPotentate]

so your friend is an author and had the coordinates published in a book they wrote? I'm really confused.

[+geodarts]

Of course the saturation rule applies only to caches listed on this site so coordinates published in a book might not present any more problem than if the friend had placed a letterbox. There are a number of potential solutions.

Edited August 19, 2013 by geodarts

[+Mick McPhee]

Yes, my friend was an author and yes he published the coordinates in his book prior to finding out there was an existing cache as this is a VERY REMOTE area. He will handle it and like I said I put multi-cache in the search at the top of this page prior to publishing and said I found nothing, I never said there was nothing. Seems those of you who frequent this forum have a big chip on your shoulder about your Geocache knowledge. This poor guy is putting out his first caches and asked me about multi-caches. I never visit them nor make them and did not know the answer and came here to help him. I will forward your information. BTW I joined this outfit in 2003 and have out over 60 active caches and have never run into a proximity issue as I live in the Wide Open SW Colorado.

[GrandPotentate]

I guess this will be an expensive lesson to learn. And for future knowledge for your friend, if they want a cache to be published in conjunction with a book being published, they can request that the reviewer wait to publish the cache until a specified date, that way your friend can work on getting the cache taken care of well before a deadline associated with their book.

[+Ben0w]

Let me get this straight: your new to geocaching friend publishes a cache in a written book?

 

Huh? OK, this may lead to questions: why does he publish a cache as a newbie before knowing the game, why does he participate in a (geocashing?) book with a geocaching topic when he did not do some sufficient research as one could expect from 1. a geocaching newbie and 2. an (professional?) author?

 

Here's the solution for this dilemma: as long as the new cache is not to be listed on groundspeaks database, the distance rule does not apply. It could be listed solely in the book or on other geocache listings with no formal problems. However, the reason for the distance rule is to not cause confusion with more than one box in the same spot.

 

We have two caches here in around 25m distance, one is listed on GC com, the other on OC. Formally possible, but more than once the GC online logged finders are not found in the GC approved box but in the other's logbook (since this is the easier find).

 

To solve THIS dilemma in an already printed book, your friend has two other "legal" options: talk/bribe the other owner into relocating his box by the official process (then it even could be listed on GC com) OR adding an editors note to the book about the wrong coordinates which is a common risk in book publishing (and could be avoided by research and quality control on the authors/editors side).

 

I see no other solution legal by the rules or morale (I see some illegal in this terms, but this wouldn't be my game).

 

Good luck!

[+Ben0w]

Oh, I forgot the other solution already mentiond is perfectly "legal": make it a multi or a mysterie with no physical box at the given coordinates. Would then be able to be listed on the same GC site as well.

[+niraD]

Does the geocache published in the book also need to be published on geocaching.com?

 

If you accept that the geocache published in the book does not need to be published on geocaching.com, then the problem goes away.

[+Cardinal Red]

Oh, I forgot the other solution already mentiond is perfectly "legal": make it a multi or a mysterie with no physical box at the given coordinates. Would then be able to be listed on the same GC site as well.

 

How EXACTLY do you propose to make this work "legally"? I am not saying there isn't a way, but probably NOT the way you are likely to suggest. I am very curious if you understand the physical placement guideline and the question to answer guideline the same way I do.

 

I am not inclined to lay it out for an uninformed book publisher, but would gladly discuss it with you.

[+Wes_and_Tara]

Why not make it an offset cache where the first stage is not physical? A projection perhaps?

[+Roman!]

Make it a letterbox with instructions how to get from the books coordinates to where he place the cache of make it an offset multi..

 

I'd do the letterbox.

[+Ben0w]

Oh, I forgot the other solution already mentiond is perfectly "legal": make it a multi or a mysterie with no physical box at the given coordinates. Would then be able to be listed on the same GC site as well.

 

How EXACTLY do you propose to make this work "legally"? I am not saying there isn't a way, but probably NOT the way you are likely to suggest. I am very curious if you understand the physical placement guideline and the question to answer guideline the same way I do.

I understand the "1.8 Saturation guideline" that the distance rule only applies to physical containers (if for a stage or a final location). A physical box for cache #1 at the same location where cache #2 has just a question to answer would be conform to the guidelines (which I meant by "legal"). This would make sense, because it's unlikely to confuse a QTA with a box...(and I understand a possible confusion may be the main reason for the distance rule).

 

So for having it listed despite the initial distance conflict, I suggest to make the given coordinate a QTA or a Mystery coordinate and relocate the physical box to somewhere else where the (physical) distance rule doesn't hinder it.

 

Am I wrong in my understanding here? Please don't hesitate to correct me.

[+Cardinal Red]

Oh, I forgot the other solution already mentiond is perfectly "legal": make it a multi or a mysterie with no physical box at the given coordinates. Would then be able to be listed on the same GC site as well.

 

How EXACTLY do you propose to make this work "legally"? I am not saying there isn't a way, but probably NOT the way you are likely to suggest. I am very curious if you understand the physical placement guideline and the question to answer guideline the same way I do.

I understand the "1.8 Saturation guideline" that the distance rule only applies to physical containers (if for a stage or a final location). A physical box for cache #1 at the same location where cache #2 has just a question to answer would be conform to the guidelines (which I meant by "legal"). This would make sense, because it's unlikely to confuse a QTA with a box...(and I understand a possible confusion may be the main reason for the distance rule).

 

So for having it listed despite the initial distance conflict, I suggest to make the given coordinate a QTA or a Mystery coordinate and relocate the physical box to somewhere else where the (physical) distance rule doesn't hinder it.

 

Am I wrong in my understanding here? Please don't hesitate to correct me.

 

My assumption was that you intend to PLACE your own weatherproof medium complete with data (engraved text on a durable flat surface just laying on the groung for example). Since you still did not specify your EXACT intention, I have to continue making that assumption. Am I correct, or have I completely misunderstood?

 

My concern would be that you interpret the absence of an actual CONTAINER to hold the data, qualifies it as a Question To Answer stage. My Reviewer says that does NOT qualify. If you introduce ANYTHING into that environment, it is a physical placement subject to the saturation guideline.

 

Finding a suitable existing question to answer source is not hard to find in a typical urban setting. Making it work in "remote BLM land" will require a LOT more creativity. And how would you convey the details in non written form to someone who shows up at book GZ only knowing the coordinates they read in the book?

 

You could place a legal cache that uses ONLY coordinates that pass Groundspeak Review. A Geocacher that only read the cache page (or downloaded the cache page coordinates) would NEVER go the the published book coordinates. They would never even know about them. But there would be NOTHING stop ANYONE from placing ANYTHING at book GZ, as a redirect to the legally published Groundspeak cache. And if the legal Groundspeak cache ever got archived, it would be a simple matter to alter the redirect information. That would be my advice if it was my friend.

 

So, I ask again, EXACTLY what was YOUR plan? Is there a chance it really is the same as mine?

[GrandPotentate]

Oh, I forgot the other solution already mentiond is perfectly "legal": make it a multi or a mysterie with no physical box at the given coordinates. Would then be able to be listed on the same GC site as well.

 

How EXACTLY do you propose to make this work "legally"? I am not saying there isn't a way, but probably NOT the way you are likely to suggest. I am very curious if you understand the physical placement guideline and the question to answer guideline the same way I do.

I understand the "1.8 Saturation guideline" that the distance rule only applies to physical containers (if for a stage or a final location). A physical box for cache #1 at the same location where cache #2 has just a question to answer would be conform to the guidelines (which I meant by "legal"). This would make sense, because it's unlikely to confuse a QTA with a box...(and I understand a possible confusion may be the main reason for the distance rule).

 

So for having it listed despite the initial distance conflict, I suggest to make the given coordinate a QTA or a Mystery coordinate and relocate the physical box to somewhere else where the (physical) distance rule doesn't hinder it.

 

Am I wrong in my understanding here? Please don't hesitate to correct me.

 

As long as the QTA is about something that was already at the waypoint. The proximity rule applies to anything (in a container or just a tag on a tree) the CO places at those coordinates, about the only physically place thing that I know of that does not fall under the proximity rule are "fire tacks" used in night caches.

[+Walts Hunting]

I always thought authors did acquired good information about things before publishing. Guess I was wrong. Sounds like self inflicted problem to me.

[+J Grouchy]

He should keep in mind that by publishing it this way, he's set himself a fairly high standard for maintenance since one can't very well archive a cache in a paper book. Almost seems like it would have worked better to direct the reader to a web page that could be updated.

[+Ben0w]

My concern would be that you interpret the absence of an actual CONTAINER to hold the data, qualifies it as a Question To Answer stage. My Reviewer says that does NOT qualify. If you introduce ANYTHING into that environment, it is a physical placement subject to the saturation guideline.

Oh, now I get you. I totally agree with you, sorry for not making that clear (simply didn't thought of it). I understand a QTA station as something non-physical, no box, no self-attached thing or else, just the use of information already in place.

 

Finding a suitable existing question to answer source is not hard to find in a typical urban setting. Making it work in "remote BLM land" will require a LOT more creativity.

Sure, but not impossible. And "legal".

 

And how would you convey the details in non written form to someone who shows up at book GZ only knowing the coordinates they read in the book?

That depends on the type of information which is provided in the book, which I don't know. If it just gives coordinates and points to a GC cache site, then the site could be changed. If it does NOT point to GC.com, then I wouldn't understand the hassle anyway, since then it's not listed there and no distance conflict can be in effect.

 

You could place a legal cache that uses ONLY coordinates that pass Groundspeak Review. A Geocacher that only read the cache page (or downloaded the cache page coordinates) would NEVER go the the published book coordinates. They would never even know about them. But there would be NOTHING stop ANYONE from placing ANYTHING at book GZ, as a redirect to the legally published Groundspeak cache. And if the legal Groundspeak cache ever got archived, it would be a simple matter to alter the redirect information. That would be my advice if it was my friend.

True, another alternative. But this also depends on what type the information in the book is, what I don't know.

 

So, I ask again, EXACTLY what was YOUR plan? Is there a chance it really is the same as mine?

See above. No, I hadn't your exact (good) alternative plan in mind.

 

But just for the record, to clear a possible misunderstanding: I'm not the original poster of this thread nor am I the author in question or related anyhow other than through this forum.

 

If the original poster could give more information about the actual books contents we might be able to give more specific help.

[+niraD]

(and I understand a possible confusion may be the main reason for the distance rule).

For the record, it's called a "saturation guideline", not a "possible confusion" guideline.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

He should keep in mind that by publishing it this way, he's set himself a fairly high standard for maintenance since one can't very well archive a cache in a paper book. Almost seems like it would have worked better to direct the reader to a web page that could be updated.

 

Very few books these days are only available on paper. Unfortunately, most e-books available on the web are going to include advertisements on the web page and that would run afoul of the commercial guidelines.

 

 

[+Ben0w]

(and I understand a possible confusion may be the main reason for the distance rule).

For the record, it's called a "saturation guideline", not a "possible confusion" guideline.

I thought well before I wrote the above and still think it's the possible confusion thats behind that rule and someone just named it saturation because he didnt know this or didnt come up with a better headline. Maybe I'm confused, but hey, that's the way I think.

 

YMMV...

[+niraD]

(and I understand a possible confusion may be the main reason for the distance rule).

For the record, it's called a "saturation guideline", not a "possible confusion" guideline.

I thought well before I wrote the above and still think it's the possible confusion thats behind that rule and someone just named it saturation because he didnt know this or didnt come up with a better headline. Maybe I'm confused, but hey, that's the way I think.

Once upon a time, the saturation guidelines included the sentence "The two main goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider."

 

The current saturation guidelines still include the sentence "Groundspeak may further restrict cache listings in areas where cache saturation becomes a concern."

 

But suit yourself...

[+Ben0w]

Once upon a time, the saturation guidelines included the sentence "The two main goals of the saturation guideline are to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area, especially by the same hider."

You just destroyed a well established opinion here...

 

(at least this doesnt invalidate my statements in general)