My first cache hide

[+carloadof8balls]

Hi, being new to Geocaching I'm eager to set up my first cache hide.

Are multi hides popular or avoided?

My plan is to navigate users to the first point that then has the coordinates for the next point and so on covering the radius of my local park.

Six in total hidden magnetic strips with the coords for the next one written on the underneath of each magnetic strip with the final hide a 35mm container with the log book inside.

I've applied for permission from the relative authorities.

Just want others opinion whether this is a popular type of cache?

 

Many thanks in advance..

[+whh0]

Hi there, good luck on your first hide.

 

Unless the park was outstanding and the magnetic strips brought me to places that were particularly beautiful or unusual I wouldn't be interesting in walking round 6 points from one magnetic strip to the next with just a 35mm container at the end. (But that is just my personal opinion)

 

Why not place 6 traditionals then I can get 6 smiley faces for walking round the park and not just 1

 

My favourite multis are those where we collect clues from each location - the kids enjoy those too and if there is a nice big box with swag at the end then that is a bonus.

 

What ever you end up doing I hope it goes well.

[+mcgreggor57]

Agreed. I live across from a large state park. I love the fact that it has around 22 caches for me to find, including a couple of mystery caches.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Are multi hides popular or avoided?...

coords for the next one written on the underneath of each magnetic strip with the final hide a 35mm container...

I've applied for permission from the relative authorities.

 

I prefer multi-caches both to own and to hunt.

Those I own and hunt tend to be found less than nearby trads, but have relatively high favorite point percentages.

That said, I'm clearly in the minority. Most cachers would prefer that your 7 stages be converted into as many traditional hides as the space permits.

 

"Space permits" refers to the need for each separate listing's physical container to be at least one tenth mile, 528ft, from other caches.

So in a small park, there may only be room for one or two trads, or your mulit. Multi stages can be close to one another http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#cachesaturation

 

Agreeing with whh0 re stages - stages for the sake of stages are not of any interest. More maintenance for you, more coords loading for me.

Each stage of a multi-cache should either be at a point of interest worth sharing, or help with navigation. One of the strengths of a mulit is enforcing a certain route (I'm working on one now - the final could be a free standing trad, but the temptation to trespass from the south would be strong - I'll force legal access with one or two stages coming down through the public lands).

 

I'm a something of a container snob, and would be unhappy about doing 6 stages of coord loading to find a film can, which is the poster child for the

lousy cache container, placed by the cache owner who thinks that the only thing that matters is the smiley. Seriously consider upgrading that container to the best small trading cache that cover permits and your budget allows.

 

Many thanks for starting with permission!

[+carloadof8balls]

Thanks for the replies guys,

I agree the final container is worth upgrading to accommodate swapables etc.

I am now in the process of tweaking the 6 mid hides to include something a little more interesting.

Just a thought though,,,

There are two existing caches in this park already that are situated at the far end, opposite to where I plan to start AND finish my hunt although a couple of the mid hides come close to them.

As these wont be shown as a cache on the map I'm presuming they will be fine to have there.. Correct?

 

Again, thanks in advance

[+Bear and Ragged]

I did The Stamford Taurus where you need to find information from signs, to get the next coordinates...

 

A LOT better than finding tubs/tabs to get the next stage.

And less maintenance, with fewer chances of 'stages' going missing and preventing cachers from finishing the cache!

 

If it's a good area/tour (Historic/interesting) I'd settle for a micro at the end.

(Prefer something larger though! )

Edited May 8, 2014 by Bear and Ragged

[Keystone]

There are two existing caches in this park already that are situated at the far end, opposite to where I plan to start AND finish my hunt although a couple of the mid hides come close to them.

As these wont be shown as a cache on the map I'm presuming they will be fine to have there.. Correct?

Any object that you place in the environment, like a tag with coordinates to the next stage, needs to be at least .1 miles away from those other existing caches. It's OK for stages within your own multicache to be less than .1 miles away from each other - this is one reason people choose multicaches, if there are cool hiding places close together.

 

See the Geocache Listing Guidelines on this subject here: http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx?expand=1#cachesaturation Also, please see the Page in the Groundspeak Knowledge Books entitled "Checking for Cache Saturation": http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=199

[+J Grouchy]

Not a fan of multis, really. I don't mind when it is two or three stages, but they can be tedious and if one stage is missing or poorly maintained the whole cache is a failure.

 

Quite often the ones I see end up being an exercise in what I call "tortured math"...which involves taking words or numbers on some sign and fitting them awkwardly into some equation to get coordinates to the next stage. It doesn't bother me much until you get a cache that has four or five stages and you end up having to zig zag all over a park gathering numbers and trying to keep them all straight. That's when I start wishing the CO had just placed two or three traditionals instead and not taken up so much space with all the stages of one cache...ESPECIALLY when the end stage is a fake rock with a bison tube inside.

 

This is a good example of what I mean: http://coord.info/GC2APYB

Edited May 8, 2014 by J Grouchy

[+kunarion]

Not a fan of multis, really. I don't mind when it is two or three stages, but they can be tedious and if one stage is missing or poorly maintained the whole cache is a failure.

 

Quite often the ones I see end up being an exercise in what I call "tortured math"...which involves taking words or numbers on some sign and fitting them awkwardly into some equation to get coordinates to the next stage. It doesn't bother me much until you get a cache that has four or five stages and you end up having to zig zag all over a park gathering numbers and trying to keep them all straight. That's when I start wishing the CO had just placed two or three traditionals instead and not taken up so much space with all the stages of one cache...ESPECIALLY when the end stage is a fake rock with a bison tube inside.

 

This is a good example of what I mean: http://coord.info/GC2APYB

That one is suitable for people who enjoy word problems (and even work them out in their head). It seems to be a little nonstandard with its formulas (both braces and parentheses?!), but at least doesn't have obvious typoes. It would help if Finders would mention the puzzle when they log a puzzle cache , especially if any apparent mistakes aren't actually the puzzle. ”The extra '&' seems to be a typo", or whatever. If a puzzle cache page is mostly errors, I may skip that one.

Edited May 8, 2014 by kunarion

[cezanne]

 

Quite often the ones I see end up being an exercise in what I call "tortured math"...which involves taking words or numbers on some sign and fitting them awkwardly into some equation to get coordinates to the next stage. It doesn't bother me much until you get a cache that has four or five stages and you end up having to zig zag all over a park gathering numbers and trying to keep them all straight. That's when I start wishing the CO had just placed two or three traditionals instead and not taken up so much space with all the stages of one cache...ESPECIALLY when the end stage is a fake rock with a bison tube inside.

 

This is a good example of what I mean: http://coord.info/GC2APYB

 

I cannot follow your argument at all. All the intermediary stages are of the type question to answer. So the example cache takes up much less space than several traditionals.

 

Multi caches where all stages except the last one are question to answer belong to my preferred caches. A cache with say 10 question to answer stages spread over a hike of 10 km takes up only a single location while a series of traditionals with 11 caches takes up 11 locations. My preferred type of multi cache leaves much more space for other hiders than series of traditionals do.

 

Another advantage of multi caches from my personal point of view is that for me it's mainly about the walk/hike and if a multi cache leads me along a nice walking route, I'm fine with some intermediary stages that mainly serve navigational purposes (as mentioned by Isonzo Karst) and do not end up disappointed of not all stages are placed at special locations. For a series of tradiditionals each cache stands on its own for me and the way between the caches does not belong to the experience of either of these caches. I find it much easier to write a nice log for a single multi cache that showed me a nice hiking route than for a series of traditionals where the highlights were not the hidden caches.

 

 

Cezanne

[+J Grouchy]

Multi caches where all stages except the last one are question to answer belong to my preferred caches.

 

Good for you. I find them to be tedious, particularly when they build on each other. I would prefer one bit of information be obtained at each stage and the coordinates to each stage given without the silly equations. In the example I gave, the path takes one back and forth all over the park. I'd rather find my own way to the different points, gathering the information at each and putting it all together for the last instead of doing it for each stage. Instead of forcing a path and frustrating the cacher, it allows a more natural movement without the stress of one minor error messing up the entire trip.

 

I still prefer to not have numerous stages. At some point, whatever lesson or information the CO is trying to impart gets lost because after traveling for three or four stages the cacher (not just me) is more likely to be impatient with the whole thing.

 

Amazing that two people can have two different opinions, eh?

[cezanne]

Multi caches where all stages except the last one are question to answer belong to my preferred caches.

Good for you. I find them to be tedious, particularly when they build on each other. I would prefer one bit of information be obtained at each stage and the coordinates to each stage given without the silly equations.

 

I did not say anything about the nature of the question to answer stages. There are many different setups possible, including the one you seem to prefer (my most recent cache is of that type).

 

Instead of forcing a path and frustrating the cacher, it allows a more natural movement without the stress of one minor error messing up the entire trip.

 

I depends on the setup. I've experienced many times that the sequential setup allowed me to correct mistakes early onwards while with the version you prefer I ended up with nonsense coordinates at the end and then had no idea what went wrong. So both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages.

 

I still prefer to not have numerous stages. At some point, whatever lesson or information the CO is trying to impart gets lost because after traveling for three or four stages the cacher (not just me) is more likely to be impatient with the whole thing.

 

For me it depends on the overall distance travelled. I would not want to have 10 stages over 1 km, but for example 10 stages over 15 km is fine with me and helps me to stay fully motivated.

 

Amazing that two people can have two different opinions, eh?

 

Not at all. The aspect of your post that confused me was your statement that multi caches like the one you mentioned as example take up more space than traditionals.

 

 

Cezanne

[+dprovan]

Just want others opinion whether this is a popular type of cache?

Look at multi's in your area, and compare how often they're found to how often nearby traditionals are found. If your area is typical, you'll find the multicaches are visited far less often, but you can also decide if they are still visited enough for you, since that's really the question you should be asking yourself.

 

That doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, though. Especially since you already have an idea all laid out, I'd encourage you to go ahead and do it. Personally, I love to do multis, and park tours of the type you're describing are some of my favorites. Which reminds me: when you look at how popular your local multis are, also look at how many favorite points they get vs. their neighbors. A good multi often gets a high percentage of favorite points.

[+SwineFlew]

My personal advice... dont hide multi when its your first hide.

 

Multi are high maintenance caches. They need to be check up on more often. Way more often than a regular cache.

 

If you do hide one... make sure you check every stages even only one stage need to be check up on.

 

Many cachers avoid them because of lack of maintenance of them. The new multi seem to get get hit on really hard because most cachers know its in working order, but after a while, it's another story.

 

Give good hints, that way the finders will find it every time when its there. That way you as a CO know if one of your stages is missing.

 

I dont hide multi because they are high maintenance and have to be check up on more often.

 

If you got like a 12 stages multi, there higher chances of one of the stages will go missing. When I see a old multi with many stages and havent been found for a while, I skip it but if the CO does a once a month checkup on it, I will go out and try to find it. I dont like to waste my time when there is a higher chances that one of the stages is really missing.

Edited May 9, 2014 by SwineFlew

[+Ambrosia]

Well, it kind of depends on where and how you hide your multi. My first cache was a multi, with three physical stages on a 4 mile hike. It's been going for almost 12 years now, and the original log and final container is still in place.

[+niraD]

Many of my Favorites have been multi-caches or multi-stage mystery/puzzle caches. But with that said, I prefer if each stage of such a cache has something interesting on its own. Collecting bits of information from otherwise identical magnets seems tedious to me. Collecting bits of information from existing sculptures, murals, monuments, plaques, etc. sounds like a great way to spend an hour or more.

[+terratin]

We have two caches in parks, one a multi, the other a letterbox. Both bring people to interesting things to see and tell a bit about the history of that place. It was a lot of work to create them, and it still will be a lot of work if a station goes missing, but they are fairly popular. These are also the type of multies we like to do. Just going from one location to another without anything special there to see on the other hand is a little pointless for us.

 

Mrs. Terratin

[+Crow-T-Robot]

My thoughts are that if you're going to place a multicache, try to make it an outstanding cache. Do something different. Six identical stages leading to a film can? I enjoy multis but I probably wouldn't bother with that. For me, it's not about having an ammo can or some unique container...it's about how much thought the owner put into the cache. A film can as the final is fine...as long as the rest of the multi makes it worth hunting for. Many of the multis that I've done that end in a film can or bison tube or micro fall into the "lame" category and show that the owner didn't really put much effort into the hide. I walked away wondering why I even bothered. So now I try to do multis that have promise of being memorable.

 

Most of my favorite cache finds have been multicaches and after each one, I walked away feeling like I just completed a great cache. You don't want people finishing your cache feeling like they wasted their time.

 

Multi's, in this traditional dominated world, aren't going to be found as often, so if you want more visitors, you're going to have to make it special.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Multis are less popular than traditionals. I am reluctant to do them because if you can't find 1 of the stages, you're screwed.

 

If possible, I would suggest several traditionals. If it makes more sense to do a multi, for instance, there are certain spots you want to take people to, then, by all means, make it a multi. If possible, I would do questions-to-answer, for instance, reading numbers from signposts or benches. These are less likely to go missing than magnetic strips. And definitely, make the final the largest container that will fit in that location. Good luck!

[cezanne]

We have two caches in parks, one a multi, the other a letterbox. Both bring people to interesting things to see and tell a bit about the history of that place. It was a lot of work to create them, and it still will be a lot of work if a station goes missing, but they are fairly popular. These are also the type of multies we like to do. Just going from one location to another without anything special there to see on the other hand is a little pointless for us.

 

I think that the area where a cache is hidden plays a big role. A multi cache in a landscape park cannot be compared for example with a multi cache along a long distance hiking trail.

 

I've done a couple of long distance hiking multi caches (with lengths of up to 180km) and there what can be experienced is usually on the way and it's the journey itself. I do not enjoy it that much to walk from one gas sign to the next in a small park and repeat this 10 times, but I definitely enjoyed enormously all the long distance hiking caches I did and there I prefer if one can move quickly from stage to stage - if the next stage is 2km or more ahead and if one plans to walk distance of >25km per day, then it's definitely not about the individual stages. In such a setting a series of traditionals is even more annoying from my point of view.

Hardly any of the stages of this multi cache

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC22D00_lets-rug?guid=6d831ec0-e0b0-40a0-ba52-3cb2e630de33

is located at a place that is special in itself, but still the cache has its audience and a large proportion of favourite points.

Whenever I have started in such a cache, I feel the eagerness in me to continue and want to spend every suitable day for continuing and I do know that others that are attracted by such caches feel similarly.

 

I'm aware of the fact that the planned multi of the OP does not appear to be a hiking multi cache. The point I tried to make is that it depends on many aspects which type of set up for a multi cache makes sense in a particular situation.

 

Cezanne

[team tisri]

Not a fan of multis, really. I don't mind when it is two or three stages, but they can be tedious and if one stage is missing or poorly maintained the whole cache is a failure.

 

Quite often the ones I see end up being an exercise in what I call "tortured math"...which involves taking words or numbers on some sign and fitting them awkwardly into some equation to get coordinates to the next stage. It doesn't bother me much until you get a cache that has four or five stages and you end up having to zig zag all over a park gathering numbers and trying to keep them all straight. That's when I start wishing the CO had just placed two or three traditionals instead and not taken up so much space with all the stages of one cache...ESPECIALLY when the end stage is a fake rock with a bison tube inside.

 

This is a good example of what I mean: http://coord.info/GC2APYB

 

Tortured calculations are irritating for me as well.

 

If a stage says "Look at the sign. A is the number of miles to Squidgeworthy, B is the number of miles to Smellyville, the next stage is at N 51 23.A B+2 6 W 0 34.B A-1 9" then it works. If it tells me that "X = 12*A + 14*B *75 - 436, Y = 48*B - 28*A + 129, the next stage is at N 51 23.A W 0 34.B" it seems to be making the calculation needlessly complex, increasing the chances I'll drop a digit somewhere and get it wrong while doing nothing to make the cache more enjoyable. I'd say the only reason for avoiding the first method is if there's a specific reason you wouldn't want someone looking on a map to see which of the possible permutations might be eliminated and playing battleships with your cache. If you're building up a multi you can accumulate all the values to date, so by the time you get to the final you could be saying it's at N 51 2D.AFE W 0 3B.CHG

 

Going back to what someone said earlier about encouraging access via a legal route, if your cache has a bunch of stages where you gather information for the next stage, don't have the penultimate stage giving information and saying the cache is as N 51 23.45A W 0 34.56B - that invites people to just say A=5, B=5 and go to the coordinates knowing they'll be within about 10 feet, and potentially crossing the area you wanted to encourage them to avoid.

[+dprovan]

I think that the area where a cache is hidden plays a big role. A multi cache in a landscape park cannot be compared for example with a multi cache along a long distance hiking trail.

While I enjoy longer multis, too, I actually prefer multis of the size and scope of the OP's. But neither of our opinions are very important, since the OP is just asking about his plan, not soliciting other ideas.

[+Chief301]

I think you should consider hiding a few traditionals first til you get the hang of the cache hiding aspect of the game. For example, learning how to obtain the most accurate coordinates possible. This takes a little practice and experience. It is tricky enough to get one set of good coordinates, much less six or seven.

 

And I agree with some of the other posters....if I spent that much time going through six stages of multi I would hope to find something a little more interesting than a film canister at the end. Besides, why jam up all the real estate in the park for a whole bunch of stages? Remember all physical stages of a cache must be .10 mile from all other physical stages. So you'd be monopolizing a big part of the park for your own single cache. I'd much rather take a nice walk in a big park to gather 3 or 4 individual caches than do all that walking to 5 or 6 spots for just one film canister.

 

I have only one multi out and I put a lot of work into it. It hasn't been found often but those who have found it absolutely loved it. One of the main reasons I decided to go multi with this hide is that the container is pretty unique and would be hard to replace. Since most beginners and even some experienced cachers won't mess with multis it is safer from being muggled. It is also my only PMO cache for the same reason.

 

My other multi-stage cache is listed as an Unknown (puzzle) because you have to visit 4,different plaques and monuments to gather numbers to plug in to the coordinates to get to the final. They are all pretty close together since the 528 feet rule doesn't apply to stages where an object hasn't been placed in the environment. But there's an interesting little bit of local history to be learned at each stage. And the final stage is a Small (Lock-N-Lock) with some swag instead of just a film canister. I've received compliments on this one as well.

 

Personally, I don't even trade swag, but I'd still prefer to find a Small or a Regular if the area can support it. Micros are easy to hide and don't require much thought or effort, which is why there are so many of them.

[cezanne]

I think that the area where a cache is hidden plays a big role. A multi cache in a landscape park cannot be compared for example with a multi cache along a long distance hiking trail.

While I enjoy longer multis, too, I actually prefer multis of the size and scope of the OP's. But neither of our opinions are very important, since the OP is just asking about his plan, not soliciting other ideas.

 

But he does not tell us how large the local park is and how it looks like. I need to admit that I have no idea what kind of park to expect and whether or not the example provided by terratin of a cache in an European landscape park comes close to the local park the OP has in mind.

 

It is hard (at least for me) to answer how popular the kind of cache the OP talks about is without knowing more details about the area.

 

The number of stages does not tell too much about a multi cache. I have done fabulous multi caches with 3 stages and a length of 25km and boring ones with 10 stages and a length of less than 1 km where I got tired of the many stages.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited May 9, 2014 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

I love multis for several reasons:

 

-They are great if you want to really show someone around an area and get them to notice things of interest.

 

-Since they're a little more complex, they encourage cachers to pay closer attention to the cache page.

 

-They deter most n00bs, so your cache logs will be higher quality, and the cachers who visit will behave in a more respectful and sensible manner.

 

-They are fun to find, especially if they involve creative thinking, learning, or field work with different functions on a GPS.

 

I'd rather find one good multi than six unremarkable traditionals, any day.

[+Chief301]

I'd rather find one good multi than six unremarkable traditionals, any day.

 

A GOOD multi, sure. If the stages of the multi also bring you to interesting locations, or if the final is something noteworthy and worth the extra effort, then sure, a multi can be very rewarding and enjoyable. However, when you make it a multi just to say you made a multi and the final is just sort of meh, it just feels tedious.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Besides, why jam up all the real estate in the park for a whole bunch of stages? Remember all physical stages of a cache must be .10 mile from all other physical stages.

 

If you're stating that physical stages of your own multicache must be .10 of a mile from other physical stages of that same cache, that is incorrect. Stages of your own multicache, whether physical or virtual, can be as close or as far from each other as you want...as long as the physical stages are at least .10 miles from a DIFFERENT cache/stage.

[+Chief301]

Besides, why jam up all the real estate in the park for a whole bunch of stages? Remember all physical stages of a cache must be .10 mile from all other physical stages.

 

If you're stating that physical stages of your own multicache must be .10 of a mile from other physical stages of that same cache, that is incorrect. Stages of your own multicache, whether physical or virtual, can be as close or as far from each other as you want...as long as the physical stages are at least .10 miles from a DIFFERENT cache/stage.

 

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification 😎

[+narcissa]

Besides, why jam up all the real estate in the park for a whole bunch of stages? Remember all physical stages of a cache must be .10 mile from all other physical stages.

 

If you're stating that physical stages of your own multicache must be .10 of a mile from other physical stages of that same cache, that is incorrect. Stages of your own multicache, whether physical or virtual, can be as close or as far from each other as you want...as long as the physical stages are at least .10 miles from a DIFFERENT cache/stage.

 

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification 😎

 

Also, if you use existing elements (plaques, signs, etc.) as waypoints, rather than using containers or tags that you've placed, the proximity rule doesn't matter.

[+Chief301]

Besides, why jam up all the real estate in the park for a whole bunch of stages? Remember all physical stages of a cache must be .10 mile from all other physical stages.

 

If you're stating that physical stages of your own multicache must be .10 of a mile from other physical stages of that same cache, that is incorrect. Stages of your own multicache, whether physical or virtual, can be as close or as far from each other as you want...as long as the physical stages are at least .10 miles from a DIFFERENT cache/stage.

 

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification 😎

 

Also, if you use existing elements (plaques, signs, etc.) as waypoints, rather than using containers or tags that you've placed, the proximity rule doesn't matter.

 

Yes, that part I was aware of....I have one cache which is a field puzzle/multi where the stages are much closer than that, but they are all existing historic markers and plaques to gather info from. The only element I placed is the final container.

[+Colonial Cats]

I see you have almost 200 finds so you should know what may or may not work. Personally, I only create multis only when a traditional cache is not feasible. For one location, I did a multi when the final location was way too easy to find if I had done a traditional. In another case, I created an off-set cache where the first stage was the more important and interesting location, however a traditional would not fit there.

[KyleNorth]

well if i cant find one after spending some hours looking for the first few you best lock yer doors i take my smileys seriously #tryhard

[+K13]

well if i cant find one after spending some hours looking for the first few you best lock yer doors i take my smileys seriously #tryhard

 

What does the bolded (by me) part of your statement mean? Is that some of the twitface nomenclature?

[JohnX]

Hi, being new to Geocaching I'm eager to set up my first cache hide.

Are multi hides popular or avoided?

My plan is to navigate users to the first point that then has the coordinates for the next point and so on covering the radius of my local park.

Six in total hidden magnetic strips with the coords for the next one written on the underneath of each magnetic strip with the final hide a 35mm container with the log book inside.

I've applied for permission from the relative authorities.

Just want others opinion whether this is a popular type of cache?

 

Many thanks in advance..

My opinion is this. A first cache placed with six stages to get to a 35mm film canister sounds about as lame as it gets. Why use up so many locations and lock other people out of placing caches in the area? How about finding one decent location and placing a decent container? I would never go after a six stage cache. Perhaps I am missing something, please consider what would make the cache a decent experience to find. Edited May 14, 2014 by JohnX

[+niraD]

My opinion is this. A first cache placed with six stages to get to a 35mm film canister sounds about as lame as it gets. Why use up so many locations and lock other people out of placing caches in the area?

FWIW, "question to answer" stages that use existing objects like sculptures, murals, monuments, plaques, etc. don't affect the saturation guidelines, so they don't use up locations or lock other cache owners out.

 

I would never go after a six stage cache. Perhaps I am missing something, please consider what would make the cache a decent experience to find.

Maybe it's just me, but spending an hour or so wandering around a park exploring the sculptures, murals, monuments, and plaques of the park sounds like a great time.

[+carloadof8balls]

Thanks, some great replies there,

I decided to go with just the four waypoints but the novel idea of using QR codes which open up a picture of the next waypoint to find each one I think will make it an interesting enough hunt.

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC54YF2_quick-response-multi

 

I think its just a shame that this has to be a mystery cache instead of a multi cache, as personally I think mystery caches aren't quite as popular as multi caches and seem to be avoided.

 

Should my cache really be a 'Mystery cache'?

 

Thoughts?

[+Bear and Ragged]

Thanks, some great replies there,

I decided to go with just the four waypoints but the novel idea of using QR codes which open up a picture of the next waypoint to find each one I think will make it an interesting enough hunt.

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC54YF2_quick-response-multi

 

I think its just a shame that this has to be a mystery cache instead of a multi cache, as personally I think mystery caches aren't quite as popular as multi caches and seem to be avoided.

 

Should my cache really be a 'Mystery cache'?

 

Thoughts?

 

If it uses QR code, yes.

People are more likely to read the description as a Mystery, and find out they need to be able to 'read' QR code.

 

(Not everyone has the ability to scan QR code. It's the same as the Chirp caches. Have to be set as a ? cache. (Unless they are solvable in other ways?))

Edited May 18, 2014 by Bear and Ragged

[+Chief301]

Thanks, some great replies there,

I decided to go with just the four waypoints but the novel idea of using QR codes which open up a picture of the next waypoint to find each one I think will make it an interesting enough hunt.

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC54YF2_quick-response-multi

 

I think its just a shame that this has to be a mystery cache instead of a multi cache, as personally I think mystery caches aren't quite as popular as multi caches and seem to be avoided.

 

Should my cache really be a 'Mystery cache'?

 

Thoughts?

 

Not everyone has the ability to read QR codes in the field. Don't assume every cacher is out there Geocaching with a smart phone or even own a smart phone. There are plenty of cachers out there just using a good old fashioned GPS.

 

I think if you are going to go with QR codes (which isn't as novel as you think, such caches already exist), you should definitely list it as a Mystery or Puzzle cache instead of a multi, since there is more involved to obtaining the coordinates than simply reading them at each stage.

 

And I would recommend that you make it very clear in the description that you will have to have the means to read QR codes to complete this cache. It will just tick people off to include your cache in their itinerary for the day, find the first stage and realize only then that they lack the tools to proceed any further.

 

You're worried about listing your cache as a Mystery because people might avoid it? Make it a requirement that they also have to be able to read QR codes in the field and see just how much they avoid it....

Edited May 18, 2014 by Chief301

[+Chief301]

Just another thought....since this is your first hide, why not think about hiding a couple of Traditionals first, just to learn about obtaining coordinates, creating a cache page and submitting it for approval, etc., before adding the complication of a multi-stage cache.