Would this be a multi or a unknown

[Andronicus]

I am planning to place a cache that would require the finder to go to 4 survey markers and get information from the marker, then they could solve a simple problem to get the final coordinates.

 

Would this be a puzzle or a multi type cache?

[+Panther&Pine]

I consider that a multi with a field puzzle attribute- especially if you give the cords to the markers.

[Andronicus]

I consider that a multi with a field puzzle attribute- especially if you give the cords to the markers.

That was kind of what I was thinking, but was not sure. The field puzzle attribute will definitly clarify it.

[+worstcaster]

I would say it is a puzzle cache, because you aren't finding multiple containers with coordinate to the next cache but gathering information that allows you solve a puzzle. I think the field puzzle attribute is meant to show you have to solve the puzzle on site and can't look at the information on the cache page to find the location before you leave home. Here is an example of a puzzle cache I found which is similar to what you are describing: http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3X7TV_evergreen

[Moun10Bike]

I would unquestioningly call this a multi.

[+Touchstone]

I'm with the little green guy on the bike: Multi

[+narcissa]

It is a multi. Multis do not require multiple containers, just multiple waypoints.

[+Ben0w]

My interpretation:

• If start coordinate given in the listing and final coordinates are solvable on site: multi (set field puzzle attribute).

• If start coordinate has to be determined first and/or puzzle to get to the final requires internet access or other sources of information not provided on site: "unknown"/puzzle type

 

So yours seem to be a multi in this definition.

[+Wintz50]

In my opinion it is a puzzle with a field puzzle. Multi to me means multiple physical stages (more the 1)

 

If just additional waypoints make it a multi then every traditional with parking coords could be considered a multi?

[+Bear and Ragged]

Multi

 

I would say it is a puzzle cache, because you aren't finding multiple containers with coordinate to the next cache but gathering information that allows you solve a puzzle. I think the field puzzle attribute is meant to show you have to solve the puzzle on site and can't look at the information on the cache page to find the location before you leave home. Here is an example of a puzzle cache I found which is similar to what you are describing: http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3X7TV_evergreen

 

Its a STAGE of a cache.

Each Stage can be Physical (container or tag placed by the CO)

Or Virtual (its new name, was QTA -Question To Answer)

 

Field Puzzle attribute will show there is 'some' form of puzzle to do on site.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Bear and Ragged

[+Chrysalides]

Seems to be regional (and reviewer) specific. Those I've encountered in my area are all multis (and, incidentally, very few multis with actual physical stages for some reason). I've encountered some in other areas where they are published as unknowns. If you prefer them to be listed as multis and your reviewer prefer to list them as unknowns, you can quote moun10bike in this thread, since his opinion carries a lot of weight.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Definitely a multi.

[+Touchstone]

In my opinion it is a puzzle with a field puzzle.

 

Isn't that redundant

 

If just additional waypoints make it a multi then every traditional with parking coords could be considered a multi?

 

If the parking coordinates have some information that can help derive the Final coordinates or additional Stages, I'd agree with you. Otherwise no. That's not to say Puzzles can't have Stages, but my rule of thumb goes something like this:

 

1. Is there something (virtual or otherwise) at the cache page coordinates which you must visit which help derive further coordinates to Stages or the Final:

 

Yes = Multi

 

No = Puzzle

 

Your mileage may vary, and when there's no clear cut answer to the above, go with the Puzzle.

[+Wintz50]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then. One thing is for sure, finding it is another smiley either way.

[+Leo+3]

I agree with everyone above me..it's a multi.

[+MKFmly]

This cache could be classified as either multi or mystery. The determining factors would be in the details of how the cache is structured.

 

We have always considered a multi much like a breadcrumb trail, Stage 1 leads to Stage 2, that leads to Stage 3, ... that leads to Final (sequential). If the proposed cache is set up this way then it seems to easily be classified as a multi and perhaps apply the field puzzle attribute.

 

However, if you can do the "stages" in any order (then they are not really "stages" just "tasks") because they don't "lead you anywhere" then it deviates from a multi to mystery/puzzle. Armed with all the collected information you can solve the "puzzle" and find the final. The field puzzle attribute can often be omitted because you do not need to solve the puzzle exclusively in the field.

 

We have a cache (very similar to the OPs proposal) and chose to list it as mystery/puzzle with no field puzzle attribute because of how it is structured.

[+niraD]

Assuming that it really is a "simple problem" (involving only copying digits, basic arithmetic, counting, etc.), then I would expect it to be listed as a multi-cache around here.

 

But with that said, when I was in Massachusetts a couple years ago, such caches were routinely listed as mystery/puzzle caches, and the locals were surprised when I mentioned that caches like that were listed as multi-caches back home.

[+narcissa]

My definition of a multi is pretty broad. If you're making calculations in the field (like projections, circles, etc.) with a GPS, using objects you're locating on-site, it's a multi.

[+Team Microdot]

Multi.

 

Field puzzle attribute would be surplus to requirements as inherent in the concept of a multi-cache is the idea that information gathering / manipulation will be required to find and log the final cache.

[Blue Square Thing]

Seems to be regional (and reviewer) specific. Those I've encountered in my area are all multis (and, incidentally, very few multis with actual physical stages for some reason). I've encountered some in other areas where they are published as unknowns. If you prefer them to be listed as multis and your reviewer prefer to list them as unknowns, you can quote moun10bike in this thread, since his opinion carries a lot of weight.

We seem to get both in the same region with the same reviewers!! (not that I'm blaming the reviewers - I imagine that just go with whichever the cacher has chosen unless they're obviously wrong).

 

I don't think it matters all that much which it's classed as around here tbh.

[+Chrysalides]

We seem to get both in the same region with the same reviewers!! (not that I'm blaming the reviewers - I imagine that just go with whichever the cacher has chosen unless they're obviously wrong).

 

I don't think it matters all that much which it's classed as around here tbh.

Yeah, the only thing that throws a hiccup into the way I cache is that I filter out puzzles that I haven't solved, so they don't get loaded into my GPSr. But the moment I notice that it is one of these, I immediately enter corrected coordinates that are the same as the posted coordinates. I might miss a multi or two occasionally, no big deal. This is not Pokémon, no need to catch them all

[Andronicus]

This cache could be classified as either multi or mystery. The determining factors would be in the details of how the cache is structured.

 

We have always considered a multi much like a breadcrumb trail, Stage 1 leads to Stage 2, that leads to Stage 3, ... that leads to Final (sequential). If the proposed cache is set up this way then it seems to easily be classified as a multi and perhaps apply the field puzzle attribute.

 

However, if you can do the "stages" in any order (then they are not really "stages" just "tasks") because they don't "lead you anywhere" then it deviates from a multi to mystery/puzzle. Armed with all the collected information you can solve the "puzzle" and find the final. The field puzzle attribute can often be omitted because you do not need to solve the puzzle exclusively in the field.

 

We have a cache (very similar to the OPs proposal) and chose to list it as mystery/puzzle with no field puzzle attribute because of how it is structured.

I have started working on the cache page, and indeed, I even mention that you can do the "Stages" in any order. The coordinates for all 4 'Stages' are listed in the waypoint section of the cache page.

 

However, I still think it is a multi.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Andronicus

[+DanOCan]

My very first cache hide was similar, except it only involved one single benchmark. Some basic math results in coordinates to the final. It had it listed as a Multi so naturally that's my vote in this case too.

[+SwineFlew]

Multi! We got them around here as well.

[Blue Square Thing]

We seem to get both in the same region with the same reviewers!! (not that I'm blaming the reviewers - I imagine that just go with whichever the cacher has chosen unless they're obviously wrong).

 

I don't think it matters all that much which it's classed as around here tbh.

Yeah, the only thing that throws a hiccup into the way I cache is that I filter out puzzles that I haven't solved, so they don't get loaded into my GPSr. But the moment I notice that it is one of these, I immediately enter corrected coordinates that are the same as the posted coordinates. I might miss a multi or two occasionally, no big deal. This is not Pokémon, no need to catch them all

Thanks - I hadn't considered that that was even an option - I don't think I have access to any of that stuff. That makes the choice rather more important - and solves a question I had in my head about some caches I'm hoping to place...

[etarace]

I have a very similar question about a multi/puzzle cache I intend to place very soon.

I saw once before, but can't seem to find it on the "Hide a Geocache" section of the help center. Is there a limit on how far apart aspects may be from one another within a multi-cache? It seems like I've read before that it must be within one mile, but I don't know if that was "official" or not.

I intend to do a cache with multiple locations that you must go to in order to obtain information already there on existing signs (virtual portion of a multi) as well as things I have placed at the location (physical portion of a multi) and then take the collected information to find the final (not a micro on a guardrail).

So... my question is, is there a limit on how far away points A, B, C can be from one another? If point A is so-and-so can point B be 15 miles away from that?

[+narcissa]

I have a very similar question about a multi/puzzle cache I intend to place very soon.

I saw once before, but can't seem to find it on the "Hide a Geocache" section of the help center. Is there a limit on how far apart aspects may be from one another within a multi-cache? It seems like I've read before that it must be within one mile, but I don't know if that was "official" or not.

I intend to do a cache with multiple locations that you must go to in order to obtain information already there on existing signs (virtual portion of a multi) as well as things I have placed at the location (physical portion of a multi) and then take the collected information to find the final (not a micro on a guardrail).

So... my question is, is there a limit on how far away points A, B, C can be from one another? If point A is so-and-so can point B be 15 miles away from that?

 

I think that, generally speaking, the posted coordinates for a puzzle aren't supposed to be very far from the physical location without some justification.

 

I've seen multis that went between two cities, so I don't think there's a limit on those.

[etarace]

 

I think that, generally speaking, the posted coordinates for a puzzle aren't supposed to be very far from the physical location without some justification.

 

I've seen multis that went between two cities, so I don't think there's a limit on those.

Cool thanks! I will get to work on putting it up then.

[+Team Microdot]

I have a very similar question about a multi/puzzle cache I intend to place very soon...

 

So... my question is, is there a limit on how far away points A, B, C can be from one another? If point A is so-and-so can point B be 15 miles away from that?

 

Go to http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#cachesaturation to read about minimum distances between stages of a multi.

 

There is no upper limit on the distance between stages of a multi - they can span the globe, if you want them to.

[+Bear and Ragged]

I have a very similar question about a multi/puzzle cache I intend to place very soon...

 

So... my question is, is there a limit on how far away points A, B, C can be from one another? If point A is so-and-so can point B be 15 miles away from that?

 

Go to http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#cachesaturation to read about minimum distances between stages of a multi.

 

There is no upper limit on the distance between stages of a multi - they can span the globe, if you want them to.

 

Proximity of stages only applies to PHYSICAL stages of your cache and other physical stages of other caches.

 

Any stages of your cache can be as close as you like to stages of your cache.

 

It's nice, but not compulsory, to warn cachers there may be a bit of distance between stages!

[etarace]

I have a very similar question about a multi/puzzle cache I intend to place very soon...

 

So... my question is, is there a limit on how far away points A, B, C can be from one another? If point A is so-and-so can point B be 15 miles away from that?

 

Go to http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#cachesaturation to read about minimum distances between stages of a multi.

 

There is no upper limit on the distance between stages of a multi - they can span the globe, if you want them to.

 

Proximity of stages only applies to PHYSICAL stages of your cache and other physical stages of other caches.

 

Any stages of your cache can be as close as you like to stages of your cache.

 

It's nice, but not compulsory, to warn cachers there may be a bit of distance between stages!

Very useful information! Also, thank you for the clarification on the proximity within my own multi, I had initially thought that it applied to any physical aspect. This helps a lot.

Edit to add: I should probably make my own topic over in the "how do I" section if I am going to continue this. Thank you for all of the very helpful information though!

Edited June 4, 2014 by etarace

[+narcissa]

Very useful information! Also, thank you for the clarification on the proximity within my own multi, I had initially thought that it applied to any physical aspect. This helps a lot.

Edit to add: I should probably make my own topic over in the "how do I" section if I am going to continue this. Thank you for all of the very helpful information though!

 

If your multi is based on existing elements, i.e. signs, inscriptions on things, etc. then you don't need to worry about proximity.

 

It's very common around here for multis to take you to something like a gravestone where you have to find a couple of numbers and substitute them into the coordinates, or calculate a projection. Here's an example of a simple one:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC1X56H_opeongo-line-1

 

For physical aspects that you are placing, they don't necessarily need to be containers. Copper tags and dymo labels are popular around here - you can often put them discreetly on something like a sign post, a fence, a tree, etc. They still count as "physical" elements though, so need to be 160m from another cache.