Times for multi-caches

[+speedy09]

Hello cacher friends

 

we especially like the multi-caches. Unfortunately, we often have the problem that we often misjudge us time-wise. For a family hike it would be nice to know how long this will last or that multi. Therefore, the cache owner should specify those times in the cache description. We have already addressed this problem with Groundspeak. There the idea was well received. Groundspeak referred us to the forum. So many can express their opinion to do so.

We are looking forward to your opinions.

Thank you!

[+T.D.M.22]

While well intentioned, there are too many variables. What took most people about 45 minutes took me an hour and a half. And even the. I had to come back the next day. Is the multi on a mountain? I could walk all day but an experienced hiker would take less time than I would. I'd take less time than some others. Not every multi would be on a mountain, but the idea is the same.

[+dprovan]

I definitely agree that the description should give some kind of feeling for how much time the multi will take or, more commonly, how far the cacher will need to go, particularly if it is longer than one might expect (which around here is about a half mile walk). I really appreciate it when COs provide that kind of information

 

On the other side, though, if the description doesn't say, then either prepared for the worst or live with the idea that you might not be able to complete the multi in one trip. One of the first multis I did had 4 stages and I made a trip for each stage. For another one, I gathered the information one day and then finally went to look for the final 2 years later. Of course, sometimes you won't be able to come back later, but not completing a multi isn't that big of a deal.

 

If you have your sights set on a particular multi and are looking at it in advance, consider asking the CO how long it will take. If enough people ask, it might occur to them to put it in the description!

[+cerberus1]

Since most don't walk at the same pace, how would a CO figure this?

Age and physical condition come into play.

Some motor on, while others like to take their time, enjoying the outdoors.

- How could you possibly factor that in?

I'm not sure anyone could calculate time for all.

- Guesstimate maybe...

 

There's already Difficulty and Terrain to go by and attributes saying (roughly) how long the distance is.

 

We have a cache that I state how far it is round-trip.

- I'd have to hike with you sometime to tell roughly how long it'd take you to get there...

[+wmpastor]

The prior posts can give a good idea of the time needed for the multi.

[+kunarion]

We are looking forward to your opinions.

Thank you!

I posted distance and time info on my cache "Horton's Forest". It's just an estimate, but it should help people decide which caches to try. "Does it take all day?", "Is the Final far from here?" Most of the time, I don't know that on Multis I hunt. I tend to hunt in a certain area at a time, so if one cache's stage resolves to 10 miles west, and the another cache's stage is 10 miles east, I'll abandon one or both, likely will move them to the bottom of my cache pile (I have plenty of caches to choose), and might never Find either. I'd appreciate some advance info, but if the Cache Owner didn't provide it, I "DNF" and move on. Maybe I'll still have the coords when I'm closer, someday.

 

On my first puzzle cache, there is no distance nor time estimate, since people seem to take the hardest route -- so hazardous, they may have to abandon the search, or take a few hours, in an extreme case. I did mention the easy way, but the recent rains caused even that way to become much trickier. And I didn't give a time to solve the puzzle, since I never found out how long it's taking the average finder to solve it.

 

I often run PQs only for Traditional caches, so I don't waste a lot of time figuring out that the next stage is far away. I made my first cache a puzzle with the intention that it would be filtered out by people, so it might always be a quiet cache and always in fine shape for the occasional finder.

Edited October 5, 2013 by kunarion

[+dprovan]

Since most don't walk at the same pace, how would a CO figure this?

Naturally the CO would give typical numbers from which someone could judge how long it's likely to take them based on their speed.

 

There's already Difficulty and Terrain to go by and attributes saying (roughly) how long the distance is.

Wow, talk about something that involves a lot of factors. I'm actually thinking this is most useful for easier caches, where the D/T aren't likely to tell you whether it will be a couple minutes or an hour. But, yes, I think a high D/T would be a good tip that this multi's likely to take an arbitrarily long time, so one shouldn't expect to find it on any kind of deadline.

 

The prior posts can give a good idea of the time needed for the multi.

I've gotten some hints about how long a multi is from logs, but not always, and, of course, never on multis that have just been published. But in any case, I don't see why the CO would want to force me to get the information from other seekers when he could provide it himself.

 

By the way, I just want to make it clear: I'm encouraging CO's to add this information, but I don't think there's a feature here that should be or needs to be added.

[+edscott]

As one who is constantly determining expected running times for Orienteering courses I am sure nearly all the data provided by the average cache owner will be irrelevant to anyone else. Variables in walking/running speed, route choices made, and the amount of time spent searching once the cache site is reached will make huge variations in total time. To guess on a total time requires a knowledge of the persons speed, the amount of time on trails and off trails, the thickness of the vegetation when off trails, the steepness of the terrain, the footing.. mud rocks, snow.. etc The owner could add how long it takes to do an existence check of all the stages, but what does that mean to anyone else?

[+ngrrfan]

Variables in walking/running speed, route choices made, and the amount of time spent searching once the cache site is reached will make huge variations in total time. To guess on a total time requires a knowledge of the persons speed, the amount of time on trails and off trails, the thickness of the vegetation when off trails, the steepness of the terrain, the footing.. mud rocks, snow.. etc The owner could add how long it takes to do an existence check of all the stages, but what does that mean to anyone else?

Not to mention how many other caches are along the way. Normally when I do a multi I also look for other caches along the way if the stage I'm heading for is more than .1 mi away.

 

I recently did a multi in Denver where the CO said it would take anywhere from 2-4 hours and the stages were miles apart. It took me about 3 hours but I had fun doing it and saw things I normally wouldn't have seen.

[+cerberus1]

Since most don't walk at the same pace, how would a CO figure this?

Naturally the CO would give typical numbers from which someone could judge how long it's likely to take them based on their speed.

What would you consider "typical" numbers?

Is there a typical numbers calculator online somewhere?

 

Getting back to the difficulty end, I guess we're just assuming they can even find each stage, or find it quick enough to stay "within time".

- Or we could add another calculation (from the typical numbers calculator), maybe factoring in their stats on difficulty variables...

[+dprovan]

What would you consider "typical" numbers?

I would consider the CO's time at a casual pace a good choice. If that's too confusing to you, then "It took me 20 minutes to walk to GZ" is fine, even after we consider all the possibilities that might make it take me more or less time. Yes, of course this time doesn't include the time to find anything.

 

Guys, with all the variations you're proposing, you're thinking of a very complex multi. I understand that in that case it may be as vague as "at least an hour" or even "will take a while". I'm talking about the CO giving me a feel for whether it's a 2 minute walk to the other side of the lawn or an hour hike into the hills. It's not as if I'm planning on using a stopwatch and then complaining if it's a few minutes off. And it's not as if I expect them to say "after 23 and a half minutes, you'll be done and on your way".

 

I'm really surprised there's all this pushback. The bottom line is that if you want people to attempt your multi, it would be friendly for you to give them an idea of what they're getting into. Is that such an absurd concept?

[+cerberus1]

I'm talking about the CO giving me a feel for whether it's a 2 minute walk to the other side of the lawn or an hour hike into the hills.

Which the D/T ratings and attributes provide.

[+ShaunEM]

This isn't that hard...

 

I too appreciate knowing how multi it is going to be and if my kids can do it in one trip.

 

Some poeple seem to want to go out of their way NOT to provide this..

 

Shaun

[+cerberus1]

This isn't that hard...

 

I too appreciate knowing how multi it is going to be and if my kids can do it in one trip.

 

Shaun

I agree.

By simply looking at the D/T of the cache and attributes of Recommended for kids, Takes less than an hour and Short hike less than <1km, it'd give you an idea it'd fit.

Higher D/T, with medium to long hike attributes, or any of the May Require... attributes, maybe not.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I'm talking about the CO giving me a feel for whether it's a 2 minute walk to the other side of the lawn or an hour hike into the hills.

Which the D/T ratings and attributes provide.

 

I agree, though it would be nice to see that approximate distance one needs to travel to complete all the stages. I can make a estimate for how long it will take for me to complete it from that. A piece of information that is usually missing for multi cache is the general direction one must got from the first stage to the final. I have on several occasions found the first stage of a multi only to discover I had driven near the final awhile back because I wasn't traveling in the "right" direction. In a couple of instances I was on my way home so didn't backtrack to get the final and still haven't completed it. If the cache page said "the final can be found a couple miles to the south of the first stage" I would have known to try and find the first stage while "outbound" rather than on the way back home.

[+ngrrfan]

I'm really surprised there's all this pushback. The bottom line is that if you want people to attempt your multi, it would be friendly for you to give them an idea of what they're getting into. Is that such an absurd concept?

Actually when I do a multi, I'd rather know how many stages there are. I'm more prone to do a 2-4 stage multi rather than a 5+ stage multi.

[+speedy09]

I see that you can look at many variables .

But perhaps there is already sufficient, only the pure runtime (on foot, by bike, by car) indicated. For example, less than 1 hour, 1-2 hours, etc. How long does a station, then there is probably at each cacher. There are also guidelines as 5 km / hour on foot, 15 km / hour by bike ...

[cezanne]

But perhaps there is already sufficient, only the pure runtime (on foot, by bike, by car) indicated. For example, less than 1 hour, 1-2 hours, etc. How long does a station, then there is probably at each cacher. There are also guidelines as 5 km / hour on foot, 15 km / hour by bike ...

 

I cannot keep my pace at 5km except on paved flat terrain due to problems with some joints. Even in better times I could easily happen that I needed four times as much time than the fastest one and maybe was twice as fast as the slowest one and no, I'm not talking about a few minutes.

 

There are long hiking multi caches where I manage to end up with an average moving speed of 4km/h, sometimes my average is 2.5km/h. It can be as high as a bit over 5km/h for very easy terrain.

 

The same is true for bicycle rides. Some local cachers manage to maintain an average of 30km/h. Mine can be as high as 18 km/h, but also as low as 10 km/h depending on the profile.

 

Those who do not know me will not have any profit at all from knowing how long I needed. It not only depends on distance and involved height meters, but a lot on other parameters as well.

 

People are so different from each other. Many people are faster in the descent than in the ascent, but for those with heavy knee troubles it is the other way round.

 

Whenever it does spoil too much, one can include information on the distance and the approximate involved height meters. Everything else everyone needs to estimate on him/her own. What could be helpful is if other finders mention in their logs the time they needed - but this only helps if you know these people.

 

Cezanne

Edited October 7, 2013 by cezanne

[+speedy09]

But perhaps there is already sufficient, only the pure runtime (on foot, by bike, by car) indicated. For example, less than 1 hour, 1-2 hours, etc. How long does a station, then there is probably at each cacher. There are also guidelines as 5 km / hour on foot, 15 km / hour by bike ...

 

I cannot keep my pace at 5km except on paved flat terrain due to problems with some joints. Even in better times I could easily happen that I needed four times as much time than the fastest one and maybe was twice as fast as the slowest one and no, I'm not talking about a few minutes.

 

There are long hiking multi caches where I manage to end up with an average moving speed of 4km/h, sometimes my average is 2.5km/h. It can be as high as a bit over 5km/h for very easy terrain.

 

The same is true for bicycle rides. Some local cachers manage to maintain an average of 30km/h. Mine can be as high as 18 km/h, but also as low as 10 km/h depending on the profile.

 

Those who do not know me will not have any profit at all from knowing how long I needed. It not only depends on distance and involved height meters, but a lot on other parameters as well.

 

People are so different from each other. Many people are faster in the descent than in the ascent, but for those with heavy knee troubles it is the other way round.

 

Whenever it does spoil too much, one can include information on the distance and the approximate involved height meters. Everything else everyone needs to estimate on him/her own. What could be helpful is if other finders mention in their logs the time they needed - but this only helps if you know these people.

 

Cezanne

[+speedy09]

I'm sorry, but I also said "average times". Of course everyone is different. But you can still assess themselves.

[+ecanderson]

Not sure why some are so concerned about nailing it down to the minute, or whatever they believe is trying to be accomplished.

 

The original post brings up a very valid point which each owner needs to address in the best fashion possible given the circumstances. Without a clue as to number of stages, approximate total distance, etc., there's no clue as to whether a person should expect to add a particular multi into a normal cache run or plan to make a day (or more!) of it just finding the one. I'm always very appreciative of any information I receive along these lines, and on the few multi's I am running, try to do the same.

[+ecanderson]

While well intentioned, there are too many variables. What took most people about 45 minutes took me an hour and a half.

Which misses the point. We have multi's here in Colorado that require multiple days to complete. A typical spread is 2X (per your example) isn't what's critical, and I don't think anyone is attempting to narrow it down much further than that. The point is that there's a huge difference between a simple offset multi that takes an additional 5 minute walk, and an all-day marathon of the sort we were working on here last weekend. Without a clue as to which you've begun, you have NO idea where it all might end. Any information giving a relative answer is always welcome.

[cezanne]

I'm sorry, but I also said "average times". Of course everyone is different. But you can still assess themselves.

 

In all those 11 years I'm into geocaching, I did not manage to come up with a method for estimating average times for the cachers in my area and this now even became harder for me as there are routes where I'm hardly slower or even faster than person X and others where I take 4 times as long. The cachers in my area are so different than noone can make use of average times - it is not even clear over which group I should take the average. For getting the information you would like to have you would need finders to provide the times they needed and provide this distribution (but certainly many would provide shorter times than those they really needed).

 

The hider cannot do much more than provide information like length of the route and invovled height meters as the moving time is concerned and information like whether there are few or many stages (if the number is not given explicitely) and if one should expect to need longer at the stages.

 

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

We have multi's here in Colorado that require multiple days to complete. A typical spread is 2X (per your example) isn't what's critical, and I don't think anyone is attempting to narrow it down much further than that. The point is that there's a huge difference between a simple offset multi that takes an additional 5 minute walk, and an all-day marathon of the sort we were working on here last weekend.

 

The offset multi will hopefully have the takes less than one hour attribute and the multiple days caches are typically easily distinguishable from from the first class.

 

I understood the OP in a way that it makes a difference for him whether a cache needs 3 hours or 6 hours and this is within the span you mention above and is indeed something which easily can happen that even if no search times occur, one needs 3 hours and someone else needs 6 hours.

 

Cezanne

[+Harry Dolphin]

I have never thought of providing such information, nor have I expected it from a cache owner. Do I need to hold the cache hunter's hand all the while? You make your choice and take your chances.

I found a multi once, where the final was five miles away. I found the final a few months later. Not a problem for me. I do not understand why it is a problem for others,

[+dprovan]

I have never thought of providing such information, nor have I expected it from a cache owner. Do I need to hold the cache hunter's hand all the while? You make your choice and take your chances.

The request is for some obvious information to help me make an informed choice, after which I'll be happy to take my chances. If you don't want to provide such information, that's fine. There's no reason to get snitty about my asking. I'm starting to get the impression that some CO's really enjoy sucking people into long multis without any warning.

 

I found a multi once, where the final was five miles away. I found the final a few months later. Not a problem for me. I do not understand why it is a problem for others,

Some people are only in the area for one day and would rather not waste it on a multi they won't ever be able to finish.

[cezanne]

Some people are only in the area for one day and would rather not waste it on a multi they won't ever be able to finish.

 

But maybe you then should restrict yourselves to those caches where information is available, e.g. takes less than hour, or ask for further advice in case of doubt.

If you ask me about one of my caches, I'd be happy to provide you with my estimation whether I think that a particular cache would be feasible for you - the more I'm told about you, your level of fitness of you and others that come along, the better I can try to be helpful.

 

There are many caches that are not directed to cachers who are just on a short trip (most of my caches belong to this category).

 

Unlike the OP who has not hidden a single cache under his account, I do have experience with hiding (and also have been involved into several multi caches that are listed under my account).

I always tried to provide whatever I can provide without spoilering the concept of the concerned cache.

 

opencaching.de offers the option to add the required time, but I never knew what to put there.

 

It will not help you with your decision if the cache owner writes that one needs 4 hours if this could mean also that you need eight hours which would be too much in the season with shorter days in many cases. A difference by a factor 2 is however not extreme at all and I have seen differences by much higher factors.

 

I welcome the existence of attributes like "takes less than one hour", but think that a very specific time requirement simply does not male sense as it is too subjective.

 

Cezanne

Edited October 8, 2013 by cezanne

[+speedy09]

It should have nothing to do with whether we have hidden a cache or not. The point is that a lot of families with children are traveling. It then creates this cache in the afternoon or a whole day required? If I'm traveling alone, the duration is not always a priority for me.

[cezanne]

It should have nothing to do with whether we have hidden a cache or not.

 

The relationship is that in this way you never have been forced to decide what to put in the field "time requirement" if it existed.

 

The point is that a lot of families with children are traveling. It then creates this cache in the afternoon or a whole day required? If I'm traveling alone, the duration is not always a priority for me.

 

What does "It then creates this cache in the afternoon or a whole day required" mean? Even with knowing German I have no clue what you try to say.

 

I do understand that you would like to have an estimate for the time you need with your family. I also like to know whether I can dare to go for a hike (I often go for long hikes alone and I need to

count in for extra time if something does not work out as expected which can easily happen in an alpine setting). Typically I need to ask cachers that know me or I need to describe in detail my situation.

 

Even when restricted to families, there are so many different sorts of families. There are families with children who are three times as fast than I'm and there are families that are slower.

 

How I should I know to which category you belong? How do you think that someone who has no children and has no experience with children will be able to estimate how long children of a certain age and say average level of fitness (even if it is not clear what is meant by that) need?

How should a young fit guy who has never suffered from physical handicaps know how much ruined knees might slow down?

Questions over questions.

 

There are cachers in my area that managed distances of 80km with many height meters in one day and there are cachers who would not manage 15km in a single day.

 

Cezanne

Edited October 8, 2013 by cezanne

[+Harry Dolphin]

I have never thought of providing such information, nor have I expected it from a cache owner. Do I need to hold the cache hunter's hand all the while? You make your choice and take your chances.

The request is for some obvious information to help me make an informed choice, after which I'll be happy to take my chances. If you don't want to provide such information, that's fine. There's no reason to get snitty about my asking. I'm starting to get the impression that some CO's really enjoy sucking people into long multis without any warning.

 

I found a multi once, where the final was five miles away. I found the final a few months later. Not a problem for me. I do not understand why it is a problem for others,

Some people are only in the area for one day and would rather not waste it on a multi they won't ever be able to finish.

 

There was nothing personal to you in my response. It just seems that in the modern world, everyone is expecting to be handed to them.

If you are travelling, and don't want to spend a lot of time on a cache, then don't. Seems simple. It is certainly not required. Avoid multis and mysteries. Lots of trads to find.

Tell me how many feet I need to travel! What? It's more than .12 from the parking?!? No way! That's what I'm seeing.

First cache I found was about a mile hike in, with about 400' of climb. (Of course, I did know that. I maintained the trail.)

If you don't have the time, then ignore the tough caches.

I have two multis and a multi-stage mystery. And many hiking caches. One of my multis is .12 mile easy walk. The other is a mile in with 400' of climb. My multi-stage mystery is about a mile each way with 400' of climb each way. Nope. Doesn't get found very often.

Of course, the cachers looking for P&Gs wouldn't bother with a large number of my caches. They should stick to the P&Gs.

If a cacher does not want to spend a lot of time on one cache, then they should stick to the P&Gs. There is no requirement that 'time' must be listed. But, with the modern P&G cachers, that may come soon. And that will be sad.

If you are on tight time, then go for the easy ones! I just spent a week in the Seattle area. Found 53 caches. None of them were time consuming. We picked easy ones. How difficult is that concept?

Near home, when I have the time, I can go for the long cache hikes, multi-stage caches. I don't expect COs to hold my fin. I'll look at the area, and decide what I have the time to do. And go for those.

If your time is constrained, go for the easy caches!

[+dprovan]

Some people are only in the area for one day and would rather not waste it on a multi they won't ever be able to finish.

But maybe you then should restrict yourselves to those caches where information is available, e.g. takes less than hour, or ask for further advice in case of doubt.

In a perfect world, a lack of information would mean only one thing and I would never be in a position to have to guess. In real life, I may make a judgement call to attempt the multi, in which case I'll probably think it was rude that I could only discover what was involved after finding a stage or two.

 

Look, if you don't want to do it, then don't. Stop fussing about it. I'm just pointing out why such information is useful and saying I appreciate it when it's there. And, yes, if it's not there, I may skip your cache rather than risk it even when it turns out I would have had time for it. If that's what you want, be my guest.

 

If you are travelling, and don't want to spend a lot of time on a cache, then don't. Seems simple. It is certainly not required. Avoid multis and mysteries. Lots of trads to find.

And there are lots of multis which tell me what I need to know to determine whether I have enough time.

 

First cache I found was about a mile...

Oh, spare me. The point isn't that we want to avoid difficult multis. The point is that we want enough information to determine if we have time for the effort. I love a long multi, I just don't want to discover I've wasted time starting it when I can't possibly complete it. On another day, I might use this information to skip a multi because it's too simple.

[+NanCycle]

I have a multi for which I stated on the cache page that it is 3 stages. I also used the attributes for less than 1K hike and takes less than 1 hour. Do you think this is enough information?

 

There's one around that I was thinking of doing until I read that it would involve driving all over town. (And it's not the town I live in, so doing it piecemeal would not be practical.) I did appreciate having that information before I even started it.

 

There was another one in town that stated that it was 7 stages--all over town. I think I did all 7 stages on different days, and had to come back to a couple of them more than once--because the stage was missing or I just couldn't find it.

 

I think I get what you're saying and I agree that having some idea of what to expect would be very helpful. If the CO doesn't give any information, I probably just wouldn't even attempt it.

[+wmpastor]

Since most don't walk at the same pace, how would a CO figure this?

Naturally the CO would give typical numbers from which someone could judge how long it's likely to take them based on their speed.

What would you consider "typical" numbers?

Is there a typical numbers calculator online somewhere?

On relatively flat ground without obstacles, 2-3 mph is reasonable. That means 20-30 minutes per mile. A brisk walker can do 4 mph.

[cezanne]

Look, if you don't want to do it, then don't. Stop fussing about it. I'm just pointing out why such information is useful and saying I appreciate it when it's there. And, yes, if it's not there, I may skip your cache rather than risk it even when it turns out I would have had time for it. If that's what you want, be my guest.

 

There are certainly caches which are not well suited for short term visitors and for such caches I agree with you that one better stays away if one does not want to be exposed to a high probability for not being successful until the end.

 

My main argument is however a different one: I simply do not know how I should provide what the OP has in mind and he belongs just to one possible target group.

 

While it is not too difficult to only mark caches with "takes less than 1 hour" which are not coming close to the one hour limit so that even someone considerably slower will not need more than say two hours, for longer caches the insecurity factor gets too influential.

 

I looked at your caches: except one they are all T=1.5* and the only with T=2* also appears to be quite short and even there you do not mention the required time, but just the approximate distance. I recently have hidden multi cache together with a friend and we provided the length of the trail and even a gpx track of the hiking route except the way to the final.

Still I would not be able to provide a required time that really makes sense. There are cachers who will manage to complete the cache within two hours (or even faster) and some might need six hours and more and there are no containers to be searched for except at the very end and the height profile is very moderate. Guess how large the differences can be in my home area which is more alpine.

 

 

Cezanne

[+cerberus1]

Since most don't walk at the same pace, how would a CO figure this?

Naturally the CO would give typical numbers from which someone could judge how long it's likely to take them based on their speed.

What would you consider "typical" numbers?

Is there a typical numbers calculator online somewhere?

On relatively flat ground without obstacles, 2-3 mph is reasonable. That means 20-30 minutes per mile. A brisk walker can do 4 mph.

That'd work for those who only do multis up to 1.5 in terrain, they'd then be more concerned with how many stages there were and distance if trying to fit it in time-wise. Hopefully the CO posted that info on the cache page.

We've done over 180 multis and have done only a few with "relatively flat ground without obstacles".

- Guess it's a regional thing...

Edited October 9, 2013 by cerberus1

[+J Grouchy]

I think the best anyone could hope for is listing the number of stages, a D/T rating for each stage, a rough distance between stages...and whether walking/driving is expected between stages. Search times and travel times can vary wildly and weather, missing stages, puzzle solving times (and degree of difficulty), muggles, etc...can be a HUGE factor in any multi.

[+L0ne.R]

... listing the number of stages, a D/T rating for each stage, a rough distance between stages...and whether walking/driving is expected between stages.

 

That would be fantastic. And it would be nice if it was built into the form - a set of fields to be filled in. With those fields appearing at the top of the multi cache description for easy viewing.

[cezanne]

... listing the number of stages, a D/T rating for each stage, a rough distance between stages...and whether walking/driving is expected between stages.

 

That would be fantastic. And it would be nice if it was built into the form - a set of fields to be filled in. With those fields appearing at the top of the multi cache description for easy viewing.

 

But it would need to stay optional as some caches live from the surprise factor and then I'm not sure whether a built in form would be flexible enough.

 

Cezanne

[+cerberus1]

... listing the number of stages, a D/T rating for each stage, a rough distance between stages...and whether walking/driving is expected between stages.

 

That would be fantastic. And it would be nice if it was built into the form - a set of fields to be filled in. With those fields appearing at the top of the multi cache description for easy viewing.

 

But it would need to stay optional as some caches live from the surprise factor and then I'm not sure whether a built in form would be flexible enough.

 

Cezanne

I agree.

Funny thing is, I remember numerous threads were folks stated they never (or rarely) read the cache pages anyway.

I always thought the D/T ratings and Attributes were listed so we didn't have to spoonfeed every little bit of info in the description, believing that it was up to the searcher to look it up and judge for themselves if it's doable.

- Maybe Harry's right.

I wouldn't want to hit a hide where the CO's holding my hand the whole trip.

[+dprovan]

I have a multi for which I stated on the cache page that it is 3 stages. I also used the attributes for less than 1K hike and takes less than 1 hour. Do you think this is enough information?

That's enough information, but since attributes are easily ignored -- my GPSr doesn't show them to me, so I'll never see them if I'm in the field -- saying that it requires less than a 1K hike and less than an hour in the description would be even better.

 

But it would need to stay optional as some caches live from the surprise factor and then I'm not sure whether a built in form would be flexible enough.

Oh my goodness, yes! As I said earlier, I don't even think this should be a feature, I'm just saying that for caches where a reasonable estimate of time involved is possible, it's mighty nice of the CO to tell me what that estimate is unless the intention is to make it a "surprise".

[cezanne]

As I said earlier, I don't even think this should be a feature, I'm just saying that for caches where a reasonable estimate of time involved is possible, it's mighty nice of the CO to tell me what that estimate is unless the intention is to make it a "surprise".

 

The issue I have is that it seems to be that the OP does not understand that he would like to have is something which can be given to him only when knowing him and his personal situation.

 

If only 8 hours of daylight are available it does not help me when the average cacher that goes for hiking caches in certain areas of my country needs only 4 hours if I need 10.

In some areas the average cacher is experienced in rock climbing which I'm not etc.

 

If a cache is comparatively short and not in very hard terrain, estimates are of course easier to come up. For hikes close to 10km and even more that are longer it gets harder and harder to provide really meaningful estimates for the time. And that was the point I tried to make and edscott explained before that for off trail terrain it becomes impossible already for shorter distances.

 

It also happens regularly that if someone who walks slowly writes expect 4 hours in the cache description, faster guys complain that this is misleading and turns people away from the cache which only needs 2 hours. Averaging does not really make much sense in this context as everyone wants to have an estimate for him/herself.

 

Cezanne

[+speedy09]

It is a pity that here speaks a lot against the idea. What is possible on opencaching.de, it seems to be not at all possible.

[+J Grouchy]

I do like the idea of having a D/T rating for each stage. My first mystery/multi is 3 stages...but the second and third would probably be a 1.5/1.5 each and the first would be a 3 or 3.5 difficulty and a 1.5 terrain. While it's probably always just safe to go with the highest stage rating for the entire multi, it would be good for people to know where they may be devoting most of their time (if it's not obvious from the description).

[+NYPaddleCacher]

... listing the number of stages, a D/T rating for each stage, a rough distance between stages...and whether walking/driving is expected between stages.

 

That would be fantastic. And it would be nice if it was built into the form - a set of fields to be filled in. With those fields appearing at the top of the multi cache description for easy viewing.

 

That would be nice (I'd also like to see the general direction of the final). However, I doubt that it's ever going to happen. Putting those fields into a form would mean that each of the fields would have to be persisted in the database for every cache. It would require adding each of those fields to the GS cache database. I just don't see GS making a significant modification to their database when the same information could just be included in the description. A cache owner that would fill out those fields in a form would likely be a cache owner that would include that helpful information in the description..

 

[cezanne]

It is a pity that here speaks a lot against the idea. What is possible on opencaching.de, it seems to be not at all possible.

 

As I said, I offer some of my caches on opencaching.de as well and I never knew what I should put into the time field.

 

The key issue is not having a field for a certain information, but rather how to obtain the information to be put there.

 

As descriptions for multi caches should be read anyway, one can add estimates about the time in the cache description whenever

such estimates are available. As I mentioned, some of my caches contain information on the expected distance and height meters, but I did not put any time

requirement there for good reasons.

 

You did not answer a single of my questions, like the one how someone without experience with children should know what is a reasonable estimate for a certain

walk with say two children aged 6 years.

 

 

Cezanne

[+cerberus1]

I always thought the D/T ratings and Attributes were listed so we didn't have to spoonfeed every little bit of info in the description, believing that it was up to the searcher to look it up and judge for themselves if it's doable.

- Maybe Harry's right.

I wouldn't want to hit a hide where the CO's holding my hand the whole trip.

I have a multi for which I stated on the cache page that it is 3 stages. I also used the attributes for less than 1K hike and takes less than 1 hour. Do you think this is enough information?

I think it perfect and the norm ( in my area).

 

That's enough information, but since attributes are easily ignored -- my GPSr doesn't show them to me, so I'll never see them if I'm in the field -- saying that it requires less than a 1K hike and less than an hour in the description would be even better.

- And I rest my case.

[+coachstahly]

[q

I agree.

Funny thing is, I remember numerous threads were folks stated they never (or rarely) read the cache pages anyway.

I always thought the D/T ratings and Attributes were listed so we didn't have to spoonfeed every little bit of info in the description, believing that it was up to the searcher to look it up and judge for themselves if it's doable.

- Maybe Harry's right.

I wouldn't want to hit a hide where the CO's holding my hand the whole trip.

I have a multi stage Wherigo that states the mileage covered as well as how long it took me to beta test it. In the description I state in BOLD letters that I STRONGLY encourage seekers to either ride bikes or use their car. First two cachers choose to walk it and then gripe about how long it took. Way to read the description!

 

That being said, I don't specify how long it will take because it's an unknown factor. I do include the # of stages and the attributes also make mention of the distance covered. Any more than that and I can't make any guarantees.

 

I don't like the idea of a general direction with regard to where the final is located because around here, we have some cachers that will attempt to find the final without looking for the other stages. They've shortcut some based on what they know of hiders and what few hiding spots are available in the area.

 

Finally, I rate my multis on the cumulative effort needed to make the find at the final to sign the log, not necessarily the hardest of the stages. Mine will ALWAYS be at the highest difficulty hide but might be even higher based on the cumulative experience. That being said, it's often said that my multis are underrated. I don't see it that way, but a lot of that is I know where they are!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I don't like the idea of a general direction with regard to where the final is located because around here, we have some cachers that will attempt to find the final without looking for the other stages. They've shortcut some based on what they know of hiders and what few hiding spots are available in the area.

 

If someone is able to find the a final just with the information that it is "northwest of the published coordinates" I say more power to them. Since a multi doesn't have a limit on how far can be from the published coordinates, even in a heavily saturated area, that covers a lot of real estate. The issue that I've run into is I've driven 30 miles to an area to do some caching (because I'd found most of the nearby caches) and then found the first stage of a multi on my way home only to discover that I'd driven by the location of the final 10 miles back.

 

[+PEPREO]

I suggest that it would be better to know the approximate distance of a multi rather than the time, because time is so depending on a lot of factors...