Jump to content

Two stage multi's


THEG-FORCE
Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I can't seem to find the answer to the question, if you have a two stage multi cache, what is the maximum distance the final can be from the posted coordinates?

 

The Guidelines has the answer for you under 1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines .

 

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

 

Once you've got that open, click the text:

 

7. Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart.

 

 

B.

Edited by Pup Patrol
Link to comment

I can't seem to find the answer to the question, if you have a two stage multi cache, what is the maximum distance the final can be from the posted coordinates?

 

The Guidelines has the answer for you under 1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines .

 

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

 

Once you've got that open, click the text:

 

7. Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart.

 

 

B.

That's an answer to a different question, Pup.

Link to comment

I can't seem to find the answer to the question, if you have a two stage multi cache, what is the maximum distance the final can be from the posted coordinates?

 

The Guidelines has the answer for you under 1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines .

 

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

 

Once you've got that open, click the text:

 

7. Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart.

 

 

B.

That's an answer to a different question, Pup.

 

It's correct.

 

The only distance stipulated in the guidelines is:

7. Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart.

 

It is nice to say on the cache page, if your stages are rather a long distance from each other...

Not required, but is nice. :)

Link to comment

I can't seem to find the answer to the question, if you have a two stage multi cache, what is the maximum distance the final can be from the posted coordinates?

 

The Guidelines has the answer for you under 1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines .

 

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

 

Once you've got that open, click the text:

 

7. Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart.

 

 

B.

That's an answer to a different question, Pup.

 

It's correct.

 

The only distance stipulated in the guidelines is:

7. Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart.

 

It is nice to say on the cache page, if your stages are rather a long distance from each other...

Not required, but is nice. :)

That reference only says that stages should be "AT LEAST" that implies a minimum distance, not a maximum.

 

I know of at least on cache that has a stage in the US and a second stage in France, and the final is back in the US.

Link to comment

I can't seem to find the answer to the question, if you have a two stage multi cache, what is the maximum distance the final can be from the posted coordinates?

 

The Guidelines has the answer for you under 1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines .

 

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

 

Once you've got that open, click the text:

 

7. Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart.

 

 

B.

That's an answer to a different question, Pup.

 

It's correct.

 

The only distance stipulated in the guidelines is:

7. Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart.

 

It is nice to say on the cache page, if your stages are rather a long distance from each other...

Not required, but is nice. :)

That reference only says that stages should be "AT LEAST" that implies a minimum distance, not a maximum.

 

I know of at least on cache that has a stage in the US and a second stage in France, and the final is back in the US.

 

Exactly, it doesn't state a maximum distance. So, quite literally, there isn't one.

Link to comment

For multicaches, there is no minimum or maximum of the stages.

 

The guideline stated above is in reference to individual caches. A multi is one cache with stages that can be set out any distance from each other.

It would be nice to have some clarity about this. I've always been told that if a multi-stage is a physical container it should adhere to the distance rule just as any regular cache.
Link to comment

For multicaches, there is no minimum or maximum of the stages.

 

The guideline stated above is in reference to individual caches. A multi is one cache with stages that can be set out any distance from each other.

It would be nice to have some clarity about this. I've always been told that if a multi-stage is a physical container it should adhere to the distance rule just as any regular cache.

 

Have you read the knowledge books? My own physical multi stages can be 5 feet from each other or across planet Earth, as long as they are all at least .1 miles from everyone else's physical hides.

 

None of this applies to nonphysical or virtual stages or "hides" such as virtuals, earthcaches, or multis with nonphysical stages.

Link to comment

Have you read the knowledge books? My own physical multi stages can be 5 feet from each other or across planet Earth, as long as they are all at least .1 miles from everyone else's physical hides.

 

None of this applies to nonphysical or virtual stages or "hides" such as virtuals, earthcaches, or multis with nonphysical stages.

 

Exactly!

There is NO minimum or maximum distance for stages in the SAME cache.

 

The only distance limit is Physical Stages, with other cache's Physical Stages, which is a minimum of 0.1mile.

:)

 

You can even have two stages at the same coordinates, eg one at the bottom of a tree, the other at the top of the tree! :o

Edited by Bear and Ragged
Link to comment

The relevant part of the guidelines in this case is the cache maintenance guideline. But even that doesn't give a specific distance, since "The region in which a cacher is considered able to maintain caches responsibly will vary from person to person."

Yes, I wondered about the maintenance issue with distant stages of a multi. You need to be someone who travels. Or you do this: your distant friend is a cacher. You each create a multi with finals in opposite cities, and you each maintain the other person's nearby cache.

 

But how do you rate the difficulty? Take the US-France cache. If I'm near GZ at each spot, it may be a 2.0. But to get from stage 1 to stage 2 takes the better part of a day & $1, 000, give or take.

Link to comment

OK, if you insist. 12,500 miles

 

Actually it's more:

 

We have published and will continue to publish cache listings in outer space, such as in the International Space Station or on Mars.

 

Source: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#space

 

B)

And the maintenance plan for a cache on Mars is exactly what?? :rolleyes: How quickly can you respond when a meteor damages it? The reviewer will be on your tail in 30 days! :huh:

Link to comment

OK, if you insist. 12,500 miles

 

Actually it's more:

 

We have published and will continue to publish cache listings in outer space, such as in the International Space Station or on Mars.

 

Source: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#space

 

B)

And the maintenance plan for a cache on Mars is exactly what?? :rolleyes: How quickly can you respond when a meteor damages it? The reviewer will be on your tail in 30 days! :huh:

 

Friggen vacation cache hidden by tourists. I suppose an extraterrestrial would be needed to sponsor it and do maintenance.

Link to comment

OK, if you insist. 12,500 miles

 

Actually it's more:

 

We have published and will continue to publish cache listings in outer space, such as in the International Space Station or on Mars.

 

Source: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#space

 

B)

And the maintenance plan for a cache on Mars is exactly what?? :rolleyes: How quickly can you respond when a meteor damages it? The reviewer will be on your tail in 30 days! :huh:

 

Friggen vacation cache hidden by tourists. I suppose an extraterrestrial would be needed to sponsor it and do maintenance.

Sounds like a plan to me. Okay, forget the "needs archived."

Link to comment

I'm my area, our reviewers won't publish a cache where the stages are more than two miles apart unless that is noted in the cache description. I'm not sure if this is part of the guidelines, however I know there's been a few times where myself or another cacher I know have had this situation and been shot down unless they put something on the page informing cachers that they will need a vehicle to access the cache and stating the distance between the first and last stage.

Link to comment

I'm my area, our reviewers won't publish a cache where the stages are more than two miles apart unless that is noted in the cache description. I'm not sure if this is part of the guidelines, however I know there's been a few times where myself or another cacher I know have had this situation and been shot down unless they put something on the page informing cachers that they will need a vehicle to access the cache and stating the distance between the first and last stage.

 

I think that should be an official rule. If I see a t1.5 multi, I don't expect to be driving 6 miles between stages.

Link to comment

I'm my area, our reviewers won't publish a cache where the stages are more than two miles apart unless that is noted in the cache description. I'm not sure if this is part of the guidelines, however I know there's been a few times where myself or another cacher I know have had this situation and been shot down unless they put something on the page informing cachers that they will need a vehicle to access the cache and stating the distance between the first and last stage.

 

I think that should be an official rule. If I see a t1.5 multi, I don't expect to be driving 6 miles between stages.

 

One could use the "Takes more than an hour" attribute.

Link to comment

I'm my area, our reviewers won't publish a cache where the stages are more than two miles apart unless that is noted in the cache description. I'm not sure if this is part of the guidelines, however I know there's been a few times where myself or another cacher I know have had this situation and been shot down unless they put something on the page informing cachers that they will need a vehicle to access the cache and stating the distance between the first and last stage.

 

I think that should be an official rule. If I see a t1.5 multi, I don't expect to be driving 6 miles between stages.

 

Meh,,, we have enough hand holding already. I don't think a reviewer should concern himself with how far apart a multicache's stages are.

 

You are right that the cache should be rated correctly. Otherwise, it should be up to the CO to add as much or as little as he wants to his cache's description.

Link to comment

I'm my area, our reviewers won't publish a cache where the stages are more than two miles apart unless that is noted in the cache description. I'm not sure if this is part of the guidelines, however I know there's been a few times where myself or another cacher I know have had this situation and been shot down unless they put something on the page informing cachers that they will need a vehicle to access the cache and stating the distance between the first and last stage.

 

I think that should be an official rule. If I see a t1.5 multi, I don't expect to be driving 6 miles between stages.

Interesting. I would think if the stages are driveable than the six miles would be best reflected in the Difficulty more than the Terrain. A couple years ago I did a 15 stage multi where each stage was in a different two and the Difficulty was a 3.5 but the Terrain was only a 1.5.

 

Now, if it's a six mile hike between stages I would expect the Terrain to be higher.

Link to comment

I'm my area, our reviewers won't publish a cache where the stages are more than two miles apart unless that is noted in the cache description. I'm not sure if this is part of the guidelines, however I know there's been a few times where myself or another cacher I know have had this situation and been shot down unless they put something on the page informing cachers that they will need a vehicle to access the cache and stating the distance between the first and last stage.

 

I think that should be an official rule. If I see a t1.5 multi, I don't expect to be driving 6 miles between stages.

Interesting. I would think if the stages are driveable than the six miles would be best reflected in the Difficulty more than the Terrain. A couple years ago I did a 15 stage multi where each stage was in a different two and the Difficulty was a 3.5 but the Terrain was only a 1.5.

 

That sounds like a misuse of the difficulty rating. As I've always understood the rating system, the terrain rating is a measure of the difficulty in reaching ground zero and the difficulty rating a measure of difficulty in finding the cache once you're at GZ (of course, for unknown caches, the D rating may include the difficulty of the puzzle which much be solved to obtain the final coordinates. Increasing the difficulty because of the distance between stages, when most of that distance can be navigated with a motorized vehicle just doesn't make sense. For one of my finds I drove about 5 miles to an airport, then flew on 4 separate planes over the next 28 hours or so, then two two taxis before I finally reached the small park where the cache was hidden. The cache was accurately rated as a 1.5/1.5. Neither the difficultly nor the terrain rating should be increased because I traveled 9400 miles to get to GZ because I really only had to walk a couple of hundred feet.

 

 

 

Link to comment

That sounds like a misuse of the difficulty rating. As I've always understood the rating system, the terrain rating is a measure of the difficulty in reaching ground zero and the difficulty rating a measure of difficulty in finding the cache once you're at GZ (of course, for unknown caches, the D rating may include the difficulty of the puzzle which much be solved to obtain the final coordinates.

 

To me this is not clearly defined. Based on the Clayjar rating what is clear is that the terrain is based on physical aspects of getting to GZ, and difficulty is how hard it is to find. But I think difficulty is also used for other aspects that don't fit either of these "buckets". Puzzles are one as you have said. In the multi case, I think doing a multi with one stage in France and the other in the US (for example) is more "difficult" than one where the stages are close together. Now 6 miles is less significant; but still I could see one raising the difficulty slightly (compared to the same multi where they are close together).

Edited by redsox_mark
Link to comment

I'm my area, our reviewers won't publish a cache where the stages are more than two miles apart unless that is noted in the cache description. I'm not sure if this is part of the guidelines, however I know there's been a few times where myself or another cacher I know have had this situation and been shot down unless they put something on the page informing cachers that they will need a vehicle to access the cache and stating the distance between the first and last stage.

 

I think that should be an official rule. If I see a t1.5 multi, I don't expect to be driving 6 miles between stages.

 

No, I do not think this should be a rule. Moreover, one does not need a vehicle to cover a distance of e.g. 2.5 miles. I have walked 30km and more in a single day and I'm not fit at all.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

here in NW Ohio, our generally accepted rule-of-thumb consideration for other cachers is a two mile limit for multi-cache stages...that allows for bikers and hikers as well as drivers to enjoy the experience...

 

Oh well then I'm glad that I do not live in NW Ohio, but in a part of Europe where hiking multi caches that are longer than 100 km (Munich-Venice is even longer than 550km) are possible and have their enthusiastic audience. Among my top three caches the shortest one requires a hike of at least 82km.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

That sounds like a misuse of the difficulty rating. As I've always understood the rating system, the terrain rating is a measure of the difficulty in reaching ground zero and the difficulty rating a measure of difficulty in finding the cache once you're at GZ (of course, for unknown caches, the D rating may include the difficulty of the puzzle which much be solved to obtain the final coordinates.

 

To me this is not clearly defined. Based on the Clayjar rating what is clear is that the terrain is based on physical aspects of getting to GZ, and difficulty is how hard it is to find. But I think difficulty is also used for other aspects that don't fit either of these "buckets. Puzzles are one as you have said. In the multi case, I think doing a multi with one stage in France and the other in the US (for example) is more "difficult" the stages are close together. Now 6 miles is less significant; but still I could see one raising the difficulty slightly (compared to the same multi where they are close together).

 

I think most of the confusion stems from the fact that both the D and the T ratings are estimates of difficulty. If the terrain is "difficult" that does not mean one should increase the D rating.

 

 

Link to comment

I think most of the confusion stems from the fact that both the D and the T ratings are estimates of difficulty. If the terrain is "difficult" that does not mean one should increase the D rating.

 

For me it is more about how to take into account difficulty which is neither "how difficult is it to find the cache once at GZ" or "how physically difficult is the terrain".

 

So - for a multi with one stage in the US (wheelchair accessible) and one in France (wheelchair accessible) and both easy to find is it a 1/1? Or is it acceptable to reflect the difficulty of 2 sites being so far apart somehow, and how best to do it.

 

My view is that anything which makes a cache more difficult which is NOT related to the physical aspects of the terrain is valid to be included under "Difficulty".

 

So for multis I think it depends on intent. If the intent of the cache is to walk it, and it is 6 miles between stages, then that could be reflected in the Terrain rating. In the USA/Paris case I think it is valid to reflect the distance in the difficulty rating.

Link to comment

The cache D/T rating does an ok job identifying the requirements from some arbitrary point defined as stopped traveling/start hunting to the point of the find. As written the cache rating guide does not address the variable "effort", "time" or "resources" required that many cachers (and occationally Groundspeak) feel need to be included in the D/T ratings to get to that arbitrary point.

 

Are all Hawaii caches T5 because they are on an island(s) and require special equipment (aircraft, boat, etc) to get to? Likely not. So in the case of the US/France 2 stage multi example 1/1 seems appropriate, with the greater than 10K attribute and special equipment atttribute set ;-).

Link to comment

Are all Hawaii caches T5 because they are on an island(s) and require special equipment (aircraft, boat, etc) to get to? Likely not. So in the case of the US/France 2 stage multi example 1/1 seems appropriate, with the greater than 10K attribute and special equipment atttribute set ;-).

 

I see these as very different cases. For any cache the D/T ratings are assuming you are in that starting location already (generally they are from the expected parking location, trail head, etc). I too live on an island; I don't expect the D/T ratings on my caches to include people travelling from their home country to the UK.

 

But if I am to hide a multi-cache where the starting coordinates are in the UK, but the next stage was in the US or France then I think that makes the cache more difficult than one where the next stage is 100 feet away. Just my view.

Link to comment

I think most of the confusion stems from the fact that both the D and the T ratings are estimates of difficulty. If the terrain is "difficult" that does not mean one should increase the D rating.

 

For me it is more about how to take into account difficulty which is neither "how difficult is it to find the cache once at GZ" or "how physically difficult is the terrain".

 

So - for a multi with one stage in the US (wheelchair accessible) and one in France (wheelchair accessible) and both easy to find is it a 1/1? Or is it acceptable to reflect the difficulty of 2 sites being so far apart somehow, and how best to do it.

 

My view is that anything which makes a cache more difficult which is NOT related to the physical aspects of the terrain is valid to be included under "Difficulty".

 

So for multis I think it depends on intent. If the intent of the cache is to walk it, and it is 6 miles between stages, then that could be reflected in the Terrain rating. In the USA/Paris case I think it is valid to reflect the distance in the difficulty rating.

)

 

I understand and respect your view but if the intent is *not* to walk between stages (i.e. use some sort of motorized transportation) than I just think it more sense to base D/T ratings on the difficulty of the find and the effort required to get from the combined starting locations (i.e. parking location, trailhead, etc) to GZ. In other words, whether one drives 3 or 3000 miles in between stages shouldn't have an effect on either the D or T rating. For me, the act of geocaching doesn't start until one exits their vehicle and has their feet on the ground. Everything up to that point is just driving/flying/riding (as on a train).

 

 

Link to comment

I understand and respect your view but if the intent is *not* to walk between stages (i.e. use some sort of motorized transportation) than I just think it more sense to base D/T ratings on the difficulty of the find and the effort required to get from the combined starting locations (i.e. parking location, trailhead, etc) to GZ. ).

 

Ok, I see your view too, but we will have to disagree. I think in a multi-stage cache the difficulty to get from one stage to another (and indeed the number of stages) impacts the difficulty rating. If I hide a multi with 50 stages in 50 countries, to me that is difficult to do - even if each stage in itself is 1/1.

Link to comment

I have a Multi with huge distances between stages. The reviewer didn't mind about the distance between stages. He did mind about the distance between the first stage an the final. He gave me a radius of a few miles can't remember the exact figure. Stages are up to 500km apart ( it's called "you gotta be kidding"). You travel halfway across the country only to find that the final is back where you came from.

Link to comment

I have a Multi with huge distances between stages. The reviewer didn't mind about the distance between stages. He did mind about the distance between the first stage an the final. He gave me a radius of a few miles can't remember the exact figure.

 

As long as there are no maintenance issues with the distance between start and final or rather between final and home coordinates of the owner, I cannot see any justification for what the reviewer asked for.

 

I'd really like a comment from someone from Groundspeak. To me it appears that some reviewers interfere with something which is outside of their area of influence.

 

It's quite obvious that the final of a cache along a pilgrimage route should be near the target destination and not near the start of the hike.

For example, consider this cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC18QYC_steirischer-06-graz-mariazell which leads from Graz to Mariazell (the hiking route is about 133km long).

Some people come from Vienna to do that cache. Just imagine that they would have to go back to Graz to find the final. That's absolutely crazy.

 

There is absolutely no basis in the guidelines for limits on the distance between stages or on the distance between start and end of a multi cache.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I have a Multi with huge distances between stages. The reviewer didn't mind about the distance between stages. He did mind about the distance between the first stage an the final. He gave me a radius of a few miles can't remember the exact figure. Stages are up to 500km apart ( it's called "you gotta be kidding"). You travel halfway across the country only to find that the final is back where you came from.

 

There is such a guideline for puzzle caches. The reason being as I understand it mainly to keep the mileage distances on trackables etc accurate. So I can't put the posted coordinates in some arbitrary place many miles away.

 

Multi-caches with the final far from the start have the same issue, but I thought they were allowed.

Link to comment

I have a Multi with huge distances between stages. The reviewer didn't mind about the distance between stages. He did mind about the distance between the first stage an the final. He gave me a radius of a few miles can't remember the exact figure. Stages are up to 500km apart ( it's called "you gotta be kidding"). You travel halfway across the country only to find that the final is back where you came from.

 

There is such a guideline for puzzle caches. The reason being as I understand it mainly to keep the mileage distances on trackables etc accurate. So I can't put the posted coordinates in some arbitrary place many miles away.

 

 

This guideline does not make sense either and I rather think that they wrote it without having combined puzzle/multi caches in mind.

In any case, with a mystery cache one could simply set the header coordinates to some bogus coordinates within a 2 mile radius around the final while this is not possible for a multi cache.

 

So in theory for a mystery cache with 200km distance between start and end, one can set the header coordinates close to the end while the header coordinates of a multi cache need to point to the start. Setting up a rule for multi caches like the one mentioned above outrules a whole class of caches (long distance hiking multi caches) while puzzle caches can still spread long distances (at the inconvenience of having header coordinates very far from the start). From my point of view, cachers are more important than trackables. A cacher typically wants to search for caches he/she can start when being in an area. It does not help me when being in Venice to know that a cache that starts in Munich ends near Venice.

 

One could keep the mileage of trackables roughly within the right order of magnitude easily by blurring the final coordinates from the data basis by some large enough amount, e.g. 2 miles for caches where the header coordinates are further away. That could be easily done by the system.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I'm my area, our reviewers won't publish a cache where the stages are more than two miles apart unless that is noted in the cache description. I'm not sure if this is part of the guidelines, however I know there's been a few times where myself or another cacher I know have had this situation and been shot down unless they put something on the page informing cachers that they will need a vehicle to access the cache and stating the distance between the first and last stage.

 

I think that should be an official rule. If I see a t1.5 multi, I don't expect to be driving 6 miles between stages.

Interesting. I would think if the stages are driveable than the six miles would be best reflected in the Difficulty more than the Terrain. A couple years ago I did a 15 stage multi where each stage was in a different two and the Difficulty was a 3.5 but the Terrain was only a 1.5.

 

Now, if it's a six mile hike between stages I would expect the Terrain to be higher.

I also did that multi. I think it is acctualy 16 stages. It took me about 382.1 km total driving. It can be done with less, but I didn't do it all at once. I would tend to agree with DanOCan. Each stage was fairly easy to walk to from the available parking (the exeptions were stage 12 and 15 which each had a bit of a hill through bushes). The T chould have been slightly higher to reflect these two stages, but the total distance driven, I don't feel, should be included in the T rating. I think the drive is more analogys to a puzzle, where the difficulty in solving the puzzle is part of the D rating.

Edited by Andronicus
Link to comment

I can't seem to find the answer to the question, if you have a two stage multi cache, what is the maximum distance the final can be from the posted coordinates?

 

The Guidelines has the answer for you under 1. Fundamental Placement Guidelines .

 

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

 

Once you've got that open, click the text:

 

7. Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart.

 

 

B.

Think you cut off the important part.

 

7. Physical elements of different geocaches should be at least 0.10 miles (528 ft or 161 m) apart.

 

A physical stage is defined as any waypoint that contains a physical element placed by the cache owner, such as a container or a tag with the next set of coordinates. Non-physical caches or stages, including reference points, trail-head/parking coordinates and/or a virtual stage waypoints, are exempt from this guideline. Additionally, within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between physical elements. The graphic below shows a few examples of what is and is not acceptable in terms of cache saturation. EarthCaches are exempt from this guideline as they do not have physical waypoints.

Link to comment

I'm my area, our reviewers won't publish a cache where the stages are more than two miles apart unless that is noted in the cache description. I'm not sure if this is part of the guidelines, however I know there's been a few times where myself or another cacher I know have had this situation and been shot down unless they put something on the page informing cachers that they will need a vehicle to access the cache and stating the distance between the first and last stage.

 

Since when is a vehicle required to travel 2 miles? :o

There's the attribute 'long hike required'.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...