The REAL reason no one does multis

[+The_Incredibles_]

You could do a ultra easy Multi to test the theory. Basically make a Multi that is just two sides of a container. Mark one as the first stage and to open the other side for the final. YES, it has been done before. Put it among other commonly found caches and see how the numbers do.

 

That's a totally tubular idea! While I'm at it, I'm going to spray paint the container PINK.

 

[+The_Incredibles_]

I really think everyone is off topic on this one. I really wouldn't mind to see them in pink or maybe a fuchsia. If you don't know what color that is; look up "The 80's".

 

I agree. I have learned something about thread titles though. I need to make mine more specific. Interesting discussion, though.

[+Sunmill]

I wasn't keen on multis to start with, it seemed intimidating. Then I finally designated a chunk of time to do a nearby multi and the second stage went AWOL so we hit a dead end.

What a disappointment, the CO is not responding and I feel like I wasted a good chunk of time that would have been better spent finding other caches. Not cool IMO.

[etarace]

A few people have mentioned them, so I have to ask: why all the hate for Letterboxes? In my area they are basically a traditional with a rubber stamp inside. Am I doing them wrong?

 

Also, I like the yellow for multi's.

 

A proper letterbox gives some sort of non-GPS instructions for finding the cache, but many people just place traditionals with stamps.

Thank you for that clarification. The one that I found had dead-on coordinates, so it's good to know that this is not typically the case (and perhaps avoid them). My only other experience with them is that people tend to find "the letterbox" that is "nearby" instead of the actual geocache.

 

The multi I have done, and the others I have seen are somewhat poorly done. Coordinates are hazy and/or waypoints are not maintained. Don't get me wrong, the one I did was fun and interesting despite these facts. But many of the others I have seen didn't appear to be fun and/or interesting enough to overcome the unintentional difficulty.

[+narcissa]

A few people have mentioned them, so I have to ask: why all the hate for Letterboxes? In my area they are basically a traditional with a rubber stamp inside. Am I doing them wrong?

 

Also, I like the yellow for multi's.

 

A proper letterbox gives some sort of non-GPS instructions for finding the cache, but many people just place traditionals with stamps.

Thank you for that clarification. The one that I found had dead-on coordinates, so it's good to know that this is not typically the case (and perhaps avoid them). My only other experience with them is that people tend to find "the letterbox" that is "nearby" instead of the actual geocache.

 

The multi I have done, and the others I have seen are somewhat poorly done. Coordinates are hazy and/or waypoints are not maintained. Don't get me wrong, the one I did was fun and interesting despite these facts. But many of the others I have seen didn't appear to be fun and/or interesting enough to overcome the unintentional difficulty.

 

Hehe, this was my 2000th find today.

[+niraD]

I suppose a "guided tour" style multi could have a bunch of stages, each at a location the cache owner wants to share, with the "best" saved for the final stage.

Sometimes, the final of a multi-cache has been the "best" location along the guided tour. I found one like that recently, where the first waypoint existed mainly to comply with the requirement for GPS usage. The point of the cache was the adventure that followed, culminating in a great location.

 

But my experience is that the final of a multi-cache is often a MacGuffin of sorts, merely the thing you find at the end of the tour, but which is otherwise unremarkable. The real point of such multi-caches is the tour itself, the virtual waypoints that you visit along the way.

[+redsox_mark]

While I don't think the colour of the icon is the main factor, they ARE harder to spot, especially at this resolution

 

 

Cachers, as people, will spend their free time doing what they think will give them the most enjoyment. So they might prefer a series of traditionals if increasing their numbers gives them more enjoyment. Or they may have had bad experiences with multis where they were not able to finish them because of a missing stage. Etc.

 

In general I like multis (and also puzzle caches with multiple stages, though these are blue...). The ones I like best have a theme and take you on an adventure. I like:

 

- That I don't know where I will be taken, or how many stages (but I do like to be given a rough distance/time expected).

 

- When cache owners set themed physical stages. Note as these aren't caches in themselves that gives more flexibility; they don't need to be a "container" with a separate log.

 

In many of these the cache location may be close to the nearest trailhead; though the multi involves walking several miles.

[+J Grouchy]

Not a huge fan of multis. I'll do them, but there are several reasons I don't enjoy them as much:

 

1 - I'm looking for several stages, but only receiving one smilie. I know, it shouldn't be about the numbers...but the reward isn't always worth the effort.

 

2 - The "tortured math" gets annoying, especially when I'm mobile. I get really annoyed when I'm told to look for eight numbers, assign each number a letter A B C D E F G and H, then add (B+D)-2*G to get X and so on and so on...all while walking around a public park with a little notebook and my phone and sometimes also my GPSr in the hot sun. By the end I'm usually just eager to sign my name and move on to a simple traditional.

 

3 - Any problem with one stage can completely ruin the experience. It's less of a problem if the first stage is missing, but if you discover that there is a problem with stage 3 of a five stage multi, you've put in a fair amount of effort already and there's nothing to be done about it but post a NM log and hope the CO is one of the 50% that actually sees the log and does anything about it. Even then it's often months before it gets fixed.

 

4 - The multis with four or more stages that, instead of sending you along a linear progression, will have you zig-zagging back and forth through a park, crossing your own path several times. To me that says the CO either planned it poorly or had a sadistic streak.

 

That being said, a recent multi I found (http://coord.info/GCRH2B) is an example of a GOOD multi (and I awarded it a favorite point).

The stages are well-defined and easy to spot. Sure, there is some "tortured math" involved, but the location and the final hide more than made up for it.

[+Ma & Pa]

Generally caches are not allowed in National Parks in Canada. Some have gotten around this by having the fist stage of a multi at a sign post (no container) in a national park.

 

Kouchibouguac National Park here in New Brunswick is a beautiful park which is very popular with campers in the summer. There are bike trails leading to all sections of the park. We created a cache where you have to bike to seven different spots in the park to get info from signs which then allows you to calculate the coords for a final hidden about 2 kms from the park entrance. It is a good cache for people who are spending a few days at the park, but would not be as good for those just travelling through the area.

 

I actually classifed this one as a puzle becuae of the calculations but called it a Multi/Puzzle.

 

http://coord.info/GC3ERWA

 

.

[+DanOCan]

I will do all the Multis around my home area because I know if I run into a problem^*, I can always come back and finish it some other time. When I'm traveling? They don't even get included in my PQ.

 

^*Stage missing, stage that takes me way out of my way, messing up the math, etc.

[+Roman!]

So a new multi comes out right by my house, 5 stages. Decide to meet up with a friend but I had 2 beer so I get my daughter to drive. So we meet and I'm the one to find all four of the stages with info for the final. The coordinates (and there is no way to misinterpret or get the coordinates wrong after finding the 4 stages) put us at an object matching the hint with no other matching object for at least 50 feet. We search and search and search, even the objects 50-60 feet away.

 

After 45 minutes my daughter needs to go so I leave, 1/2 hour after that my friend finds it 65-70 feet away from GZ.

 

That's why I don't do multis.

Edited June 17, 2014 by Roman!

[+The_Incredibles_]

The solution, really, is if the multi has 5 stages, then you should get to log a find 5 times in a row.

 

1 smilie/stage. This is what I think you should get.

[+Roman!]

The solution, really, is if the multi has 5 stages, then you should get to log a find 5 times in a row.

 

1 smilie/stage. This is what I think you should get.

 

I'd have 4 FTFs then instead of none, stupid multi.

[team tisri]

You can also fail to find a traditional.

 

Yes, but if the traditional is in an area you might like to visit even without a geocache (I've often said a mark of a good cache location is if you can leave having not found the cache but still glad you went to the coordinates) then failing to find the cache isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Don't see why this isn't true for a multi-cache as well. You even go on to say

 

It may be true, but a multi may also be the kind of cache where you gather information from signposts before being taken to the vista. I've done a few multis like that, and a few multis where the first few stages were film pots that gave the coordinates for the next one. When the third film pot wasn't there the journey was pretty much wasted, as there wasn't anything specific about the walk from the start to the third stage that was noteworthy. Admittedly it was no more wasted than a trip to a traditional that turned out to be a film pot behind a sign but, you know...

 

If you fail at a stage of a multi where each stage is a point of interest in its own right then I'd agree with you entirely. If the multi took me along trails I'd never seen before and a stage was missing then I'd still have found the trails. If a stage was missing and the trails were enjoyable I'd hike the trails anyway and be thankful that the cache took me to the trail even if I didn't get a smiley (I'm the kind of guy who sees a trail and wants to know where it goes, I've been known to plan a day's hiking on holiday around a trail marker I saw that wasn't on my trail map, and record a GPX log of the trail so I could upload it to OpenStreetMap)

What seems to be the case here is what I've call the great schism of geocaching. You are certain that the whole point of the multi-cache is to take you to some great place and that this is the final.

 

I never said I was certain, I'd just be impressed if a multi cache took in several points that all had the "wow" factor. It's something I've found with the UK's Church Micro series - I quite like finding the churches but typically have little interest in then walking half a mile to find a film pot under a stone in an alleyway somewhere. So I enjoy the church, and may or may not bother completing the cache to get the smiley.

 

On the other hand if the final stage of the multi was at a breathtaking vista that's tucked out of the way, finding a couple of stages took me through tick-infested undergrowth and having realised that stage 5 of 8 was missing there was little option but to backtrack through the ticks because the trails had stopped, I might be less enthused about it. Likewise in an urban area if you're picking information from road signs and never get to see the little park tucked away that you wouldn't otherwise have known about, failing to complete the cache means you miss out on the only interesting part of it.

This may be true if the hider has that intent. My experience is that people who want to share a great spot using a geocache are likely to use a traditional. If the route is difficult to follow they might post some intermediate waypoints. It would seem a lot of extra work to hide stages for a multi.

 

I suppose a "guided tour" style multi could have a bunch of stages, each at a location the cache owner wants to share, with the "best" saved for the final stage. I've just not done many multi like this. Those that I have, used virtual intermediate stages so there was little chance of them being missing. (Of course you could do like me and get the address off the house next door to the 100+ year old house you were supposed to get the address from).

 

When I start out doing a multi, I go with a sense of adventure - not knowing where it will take me or if I will even complete it. If someone posted a picture of the breathtaking vista at the final, that might spoil it a bit. I might try to discover the route myself, should I get stuck at some stage. Of course the odds of finding the cache and getting a WIGAS go down. And there is no guarantee that I'll find the same vista. But I will have enjoyed my adventure.

 

What's changed a lot for me is that geocaching used to be something I could reasonably expect to take me on an adventure I'd enjoy. Hence my comment that if I go to the coordinates and don't find the cache but still feel like I've had a good time then the cache was a good one. I've found several spots thanks to geocaching that I might not otherwise have visited. One of them took me eight attempts over five visits spanning nearly four years before I found it (the cache was 3500 miles from home). I still go back to the general area (the cache has long since been archived) because it's beautiful. Another took me to a breathtaking vista in a seriously out-of-the-way spot of the state forest near where my wife's family lives - there's no way I'd have gone there if the cache hadn't been there (that was a virtual, so easily found). Another cache was one I sought out with high hopes, but after a five mile hike it turned out to be a film pot. The cache was disappointing, the walk was enjoyable, but I'm not sure it's a walk I'd rush to do again. Then there was the cache within a couple of miles of home that turned out to be a film pot hidden under a pile of rubbish in the corner of the overflow parking at the railway station. I was so pleased I made the effort for that one.

 

I don't expect guarantees - the only things I can guarantee is that one day I'll die and I'll be taxed between now and then. But when the number of geocaches I'd consider uninspiring starts to exceed the number I'd consider inspiring I feel less inclination to try something without at least some idea of what to expect along the way.

[+narcissa]

The solution, really, is if the multi has 5 stages, then you should get to log a find 5 times in a row.

 

1 smilie/stage. This is what I think you should get.

 

Then it's not a multi, it's just a bunch of traditionals.

[+giddeanx]

There you go. In pink. But to be honest I don't think it would help me. They are bright orange on my iPhone app but that doesn't help me find the first stage. So far I have only been able to complete a single Multi and this was just because both stages were more traditional. I will attempt some in the future but I won't go out of my way to hunt one down.

[cezanne]

My experience is that people who want to share a great spot using a geocache are likely to use a traditional. If the route is difficult to follow they might post some intermediate waypoints. It would seem a lot of extra work to hide stages for a multi.

 

That's definitely not true in my area. Many of the really great hiking caches are multi caches and most of the stages are virtual ones.

If the goal of a cache is to show for example a nice and rarely known trail up a summit which is reachable also by cable car, it would be quite stupid to hide a traditional at the summit and provide only waypoints for the trail.

[+narcissa]

My experience is that people who want to share a great spot using a geocache are likely to use a traditional. If the route is difficult to follow they might post some intermediate waypoints. It would seem a lot of extra work to hide stages for a multi.

 

That's definitely not true in my area. Many of the really great hiking caches are multi caches and most of the stages are virtual ones.

If the goal of a cache is to show for example a nice and rarely known trail up a summit which is reachable also by cable car, it would be quite stupid to hide a traditional at the summit and provide only waypoints for the trail.

 

Not true where I live, either. Many of the really good geocaches around here are multis or puzzles. Multis that use dymo labels or copper tags to lead you on an extended hike or rigorous bushwhack are quite popular.

[+gpsblake]

I do agree with the OP that Groundspeak should change the color of the Multicache on the map page. However, I don't think that is the reason why people don't hunt them as much. As said above, it takes more time and more driving to find a multi-cache, thus they are found less often. I don't go for a multicache if I am traveling. Plus it is time consuming and sometimes even a programming pain to enter coords for the next stage manually on a GPS unit.

Edited June 17, 2014 by gpsblake

[+The_Incredibles_]

The solution, really, is if the multi has 5 stages, then you should get to log a find 5 times in a row.

 

1 smilie/stage. This is what I think you should get.

 

Then it's not a multi, it's just a bunch of traditionals.

 

Exactly!

[+narcissa]

The solution, really, is if the multi has 5 stages, then you should get to log a find 5 times in a row.

 

1 smilie/stage. This is what I think you should get.

 

Then it's not a multi, it's just a bunch of traditionals.

 

Exactly!

 

Why not just look for traditionals then?

[+J Grouchy]

I have one multi, but it barely qualifies. The first stage involves gathering data to put into a puzzle, where one obtains coordinates to the second (and final) stage. It really could have just as easily been counted as a 'mystery' or 'puzzle' cache.

 

Other than that, I do have a few ideas I've been playing with for stages on a multi that involve creative ways of providing coordinates other than just sticking a bison tube with the numbers in a bush or using numbers from a nearby sign to plug into a tortured math formula. I haven't set any of them up mostly because I just haven't found a good way of implementing the ideas in a logical way and in places that make sense. Personally, I really just don't believe in creating a multi just for the sake of owning a different type of cache. It's got to make sense thematically or as part of some personal study on ways of hiding an object or a message in plain sight and whether someone looking for it would be able to see or interpret it correctly. Another trouble I have is trying not to assume people will find it "evil" or "hard". I've learned quickly and through experience that often when I plan a "hard to find" cache, it's found quickly...and when I create a puzzle I think folks will solve easily, it sits for weeks or months unsolved.

[+Mudfrog]

My current theory as to why multis are not as popular as traditionals is their color on the map. They look so much like yellow smilies, they are easy to miss. The green boxes, on the other hand, are super easy to spot and REALLY annoying to look at so you just HAVE to go find the cache so that your map looks pretty.

 

I think the icons for multis should be purple so they stand out better.

 

Discuss.

 

I think the real reason is 2, 3, 4, 5+ finds = 1 smilie and if just one of the stages is missing = 0 smilies.

 

I think that's a huge part of it. Too much work and not enough reward for a lot of people.

 

Yes,, a very big part of it! Friends that i cache have stated more than once, that multis aren't worth going for because they only get one smiley for the effort.

[+narcissa]

Yes,, a very big part of it! Friends that i cache have stated more than once, that multis aren't worth going for because they only get one smiley for the effort.

 

And this is exactly why I like them, both as a cache owner and as a geocacher. They attract high calibre geocachers and deter riff-raff.

[+tozainamboku]

I think that's a huge part of it. Too much work and not enough reward for a lot of people.

 

Yes,, a very big part of it! Friends that i cache have stated more than once, that multis aren't worth going for because they only get one smiley for the effort.

And here I thought the fun part of geocaching was going out and looking for a cache. Apparently, I'm wrong; that part is effort. The fun part must be logging the caches online and getting a WIGAS point.

[+Mudfrog]

Yes,, a very big part of it! Friends that i cache with have stated more than once, that multis aren't worth going for because they only get one smiley for the effort.

 

And this is exactly why I like them, both as a cache owner and as a geocacher. They attract high calibre geocachers and deter riff-raff.

 

Well, my friends aren't riff-raff. They've been caching a few years using real gpsrs. I do agree with you that multis (mystery caches too) tend to attract more dedicated and higher caliber cachers overall.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Like many others have mentioned, I will skip multis and most puzzles when traveling, but will do the ones around home. I really appreciate knowing in advance how many stages there will be and the total distance to be covered. Like in this new one just a couple miles from home:

 

This is a 2-stage multi-cache. The final stage is about 2 miles from the first.

 

and this one, which gives me enough information to stay away from it (though if it were closer to home I would do it--but not alone):

 

This is a multi-location cache that can challenge even experienced geocachers. The latter portion requires walking up to one mile (round trip) on unimproved trails. . . . Driving a minimum of 12 miles required for this five stop cache.

 

Ditto. I wouldn't have an issue with walking a mile round trip, but usually when I'm traveling I don't have a car, and rely on public transportation. A multi which requires a minimum of 12 miles of driving will likely only be found by locals and those that might be spending a considerable amount of time in the area and have access to a vehicle.

Edited June 17, 2014 by NYPaddleCacher

[cezanne]

I wouldn't have an issue with walking a mile round trip, but usually when I'm traveling I don't have a car, and rely on public transportation. A multi which requires a minimum of 12 miles of driving will likely only be found by locals and those that might be spending a considerable amount of time in the area and have access to a vehicle.

 

Actually, I'm not a fan of caches that require driving 12 miles for the caches regardless of where they are. I'm into geocaching to be physically active and not to drive a car.

I do not think that this is an issue of the cache type however, it's rather an issue of the target audience of the cache.

[+-CJ-]

A most common multi is a series of virtuals plus a "tortured math" plus a traditional cache in the end of the line. I enjoy only one component of this scheme (the last one). Sadly, to get to it I have to pass through the first two stages. This is why I'm not fond of multis. I'm pretty sure there are different multis that are really interesting but... but.

 

We have enough caches of this type on our national website around here. They all sound like (Russian letters) "N 55.44.(А*Б*В*Г*Д+Е*Ж*И*К*Л-Б*В*П+Б*Е-М)+Б+М Е 37.36.(Н*П*Б+Б*В-В)-Б*(В+Н)" - with (surprise!) a magnetic nano in the end. For higher caliber cachers, you say? Maybe.

[+narcissa]

Ditto. I wouldn't have an issue with walking a mile round trip, but usually when I'm traveling I don't have a car, and rely on public transportation. A multi which requires a minimum of 12 miles of driving will likely only be found by locals and those that might be spending a considerable amount of time in the area and have access to a vehicle.

 

I haven't run into many multis that require a lot of driving, but I've done many that involve extensive hikes. They do tend to be found rarely, relatively speaking. And that's okay. Not all caches are for all people.

[+Kealia]

Why would I want to waste my time doing a multi to find a bisontube in a bush?

 

I think this is what sours people sometimes on multis (and honestly, in caching in general). If the cache and the steps are uninteresting, it comes across as a waste of time.

 

I think that's a huge part of it. Too much work and not enough reward for a lot of people.

 

Again, IMO this is the result of a poor caching experience. Somebody throwing out a cache (or multi) just to have another number/smiley or to say that they own a multi. Any good cache, IMO, should be an interesting search/hide or in an interesting location.

 

If your multi takes me somewhere cool but the hide isn't interesting, that's ok. The reverse can be true, too.

 

But, the same holds true for traditionals - it's not limited to multis.

[cezanne]

Why would I want to waste my time doing a multi to find a bisontube in a bush?

 

What makes a bison tube in the bush more attractive as a traditional?

In case of the multi, it could at least be the case that the stages before the bush showed you something of interest or

made you go for a decent walk. When I've been on a decent walk, then I never regard this as waste of time.

[etarace]

Horribly enough, my waking thoughts were of this forum.

I may have an addiction.

Anyway... I thought of a real reason that people don't do multi's. You can't punch coordinates into a phone.

I'm sure you "can" and I'm sure there are gps-only apps that make it relatively easy to do so. But if you are using a free geocaching app on your phone, I don't think there is a way to put coordinates in for navigation.

I might be wrong, I very rarely use my phone and I don't have Premium membership. But I think that there are a lot of either phone only or primarily phone cachers out there.

 

There's all the other reasons listed like not wanting to backtrack while traveling and bad experiences with missing stages. But I think that a major factor is probably the phone.

And also the fact that the icons are not pink.

[+Roman!]

On the paid app you can add a waypoint and navigate to it, not sure about the free one though.

 

I'm on a bit of a streak an oddly enough my finds for the last 2 days were on multis.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Roman!

[+cerberus1]

Why would I want to waste my time doing a multi to find a bisontube in a bush?

What makes a bison tube in the bush more attractive as a traditional?

In case of the multi, it could at least be the case that the stages before the bush showed you something of interest or made you go for a decent walk.

When I've been on a decent walk, then I never regard this as waste of time.

+1

[+J Grouchy]

On the paid app you can add a waypoint and navigate to it, not sure about the free one though.

 

I'm on a bit of a streak an oddly enough my finds for the last 2 days were on multis.

 

On the free non-GC app, yes...you can. And I actually think it is implemented better on that app. Alas...

[+thebruce0]

I think that's a huge part of it. Too much work and not enough reward for a lot of people.

Yes,, a very big part of it! Friends that i cache have stated more than once, that multis aren't worth going for because they only get one smiley for the effort.

And here I thought the fun part of geocaching was going out and looking for a cache. Apparently, I'm wrong; that part is effort. The fun part must be logging the caches online and getting a WIGAS point.

 

Well, as I'm sure you know, everyone enjoys geocaching for different reasons. It's good you enjoy it the way you do. Others enjoy it for different reasons. Whether it be numbers, or whether it just be the hiking where the geocaching (with no effective definition for 'success' or 'failure') at the same time would technically be irrelevant.

 

Now here's a multi that will test your desire for "the smiley":

 

L.E.G.O. - Mega Multi: The Devils Run

 

104 stages.

 

Suffice to say, most attempters haven't got past the 4th stage, a few a bit farther. My group could not give up on it, and completed it within a few days. In our case there were a number of draws to complete it for (omg!) single smiley:

* FTF

* challenges (tree climbs, culverts, tools, etc)

* camaraderie

* gas (ok that's a negative)

 

To address some other points earlier, this CO was responsive (mostly) while we were doing it. Not once did we not find a stage of our own err - stages were missing or moved away from their coordinates. The CO helped us in those cases. The only reason we had to make multiple trips were due to non-responsive CO at a physically missing stage. There is no way anyone will be able to do the entire thing in one sit. It requires many many many hours, and every stage to be in good findable condition. Good luck with that.

 

Many comments in this thread have described different multicache styles and setups, each with positives and negatives, PLUS many reasons as to why people like or dislike multis, typically shaped based on more experience with a certain style than multicaches on principle.

 

Multis are very versatile. I believe the only requirement that defines a multi is that each waypoint leads to physical container or a location-specific task. Other than that, especially how the final stage is located/determined, is up in the air.

 

Enjoy them, or don't enjoy them... whether it's about numbers or nature...

Edited June 18, 2014 by thebruce0

[+narcissa]

Now here's a multi that will test your desire for "the smiley":

 

This looks awesome. Seriously considering a road trip to SW Ontario to do this.

[Andronicus]

Ditto. I wouldn't have an issue with walking a mile round trip, but usually when I'm traveling I don't have a car, and rely on public transportation. A multi which requires a minimum of 12 miles of driving will likely only be found by locals and those that might be spending a considerable amount of time in the area and have access to a vehicle.

 

I haven't run into many multis that require a lot of driving, but I've done many that involve extensive hikes. They do tend to be found rarely, relatively speaking. And that's okay. Not all caches are for all people.

I finished a multi recently that required me to drive 381 km, and took me 3 years. It was awsome.

Tour of the Towns

Edited June 18, 2014 by Andronicus

[+Teach2Learn]

Yes,, a very big part of it! Friends that i cache with have stated more than once, that multis aren't worth going for because they only get one smiley for the effort.

 

And this is exactly why I like them, both as a cache owner and as a geocacher. They attract high calibre geocachers and deter riff-raff.

 

Well, my friends aren't riff-raff. They've been caching a few years using real gpsrs. I do agree with you that multis (mystery caches too) tend to attract more dedicated and higher caliber cachers overall.

 

I dont't think color would make a big difference, but pink might be more attention getting. To many, probably most, it's more about the numbers and the adventure is nice but secondary. I'm in the minority and that's fine. Consider me old school if you like.

 

I agree that multis of more than two stages often attract more dedicated cachers, not those trying to pad smileys quickly. Though the majority of my finds are traditionals, multis and hiking series caches comprise many of my best adventures, challenges, and memories of the past 11 years.

 

As a result, about half of my hides are multis, and they receive a higher percentage of favorite points than my traditonal hides, even though most of the multis were placed before the favorite system was implemented. It's always nice when cachers with 20K, 30K, 40K, and even 50K mark them as favorites.

 

Yes, they do tend to require more work than traditionals to place and maintain, just as they tend to require more effort on the cacher's part...and that's okay with me.

 

Edit to add: I always try to include time and distance estimates In the description and the final is either an ammo box or decent-sized Lock-n-Lock container, not a bison tube. Creativity is key, from theme to design.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Teach2Learn

[+giddeanx]

Horribly enough, my waking thoughts were of this forum.

I may have an addiction.

Anyway... I thought of a real reason that people don't do multi's. You can't punch coordinates into a phone.

I'm sure you "can" and I'm sure there are gps-only apps that make it relatively easy to do so. But if you are using a free geocaching app on your phone, I don't think there is a way to put coordinates in for navigation.

I might be wrong, I very rarely use my phone and I don't have Premium membership. But I think that there are a lot of either phone only or primarily phone cachers out there.

 

There's all the other reasons listed like not wanting to backtrack while traveling and bad experiences with missing stages. But I think that a major factor is probably the phone.

And also the fact that the icons are not pink.

 

There is a way to do it on the paid app. In the Navigate to Cache screen you hit the three dots in the top right corner and then click Add Waypoint and enter the coords. Then you have to find your waypoint on the screen then touch it and touch Set As Target. Not really as user friendly as my eTrex 10's Next Stage button, but the cell has a real map which is helpful since I can't fly.

 

I agree it is not really advertised in any way and is definitely a barrier.

Edited June 18, 2014 by giddeanx

[+narcissa]

Ditto. I wouldn't have an issue with walking a mile round trip, but usually when I'm traveling I don't have a car, and rely on public transportation. A multi which requires a minimum of 12 miles of driving will likely only be found by locals and those that might be spending a considerable amount of time in the area and have access to a vehicle.

 

I haven't run into many multis that require a lot of driving, but I've done many that involve extensive hikes. They do tend to be found rarely, relatively speaking. And that's okay. Not all caches are for all people.

I finished a multi recently that required me to drive 381 km, and took me 3 years. It was awsome.

Tour of the Towns

 

That looks great too! A little further from Ottawa, but worth considering on our next trip west!

[+bflentje]

I thought of a real reason that people don't do multi's. You can't punch coordinates into a phone.

I'm sure you "can" and I'm sure there are gps-only apps that make it relatively easy to do so.

 

I know for a fact that using the Google Maps app, on both Android and IOS, that you can punch coordinates into the search box and it will work, so long as it's properly formatted.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I thought of a real reason that people don't do multi's. You can't punch coordinates into a phone.

I'm sure you "can" and I'm sure there are gps-only apps that make it relatively easy to do so.

 

I know for a fact that using the Google Maps app, on both Android and IOS, that you can punch coordinates into the search box and it will work, so long as it's properly formatted.

 

I just tried it on my iPhone and it "works". That is, it places a red marker on the map. Tapping the marker allows me to share the location and tells me the driving distance to that location. Unless I am missing something, it doesn't provide the means to navigate to that location.

[+eightwednesday]

I don't do a lot of multis because my husband hates to do them and he's an outstanding whiner

 

Admittedly, our two favorite caches ever are both multis (one is multi-night cache), yet many of our least favorite caches have been very poorly executed multi-caches.

[+J Grouchy]

I thought of a real reason that people don't do multi's. You can't punch coordinates into a phone.

I'm sure you "can" and I'm sure there are gps-only apps that make it relatively easy to do so.

 

I know for a fact that using the Google Maps app, on both Android and IOS, that you can punch coordinates into the search box and it will work, so long as it's properly formatted.

 

I just tried it on my iPhone and it "works". That is, it places a red marker on the map. Tapping the marker allows me to share the location and tells me the driving distance to that location. Unless I am missing something, it doesn't provide the means to navigate to that location.

 

I don't know about Apple Maps, but basic Google Maps has been doing this on Android for years. It's one of the most basic features.

[+thebruce0]

you can navigate in google maps by holding on the map at a location. If you can get it on a pin, then just zoom and navigate to a spot nearby using that method.

But google maps on iphone has the white bar on the bottom with a travel method and distance on the right - tap that to get to navigation options. That should be there for any pin.

[team tisri]

A most common multi is a series of virtuals plus a "tortured math" plus a traditional cache in the end of the line. I enjoy only one component of this scheme (the last one). Sadly, to get to it I have to pass through the first two stages. This is why I'm not fond of multis. I'm pretty sure there are different multis that are really interesting but... but.

 

We have enough caches of this type on our national website around here. They all sound like (Russian letters) "N 55.44.(А*Б*В*Г*Д+Е*Ж*И*К*Л-Б*В*П+Б*Е-М)+Б+М Е 37.36.(Н*П*Б+Б*В-В)-Б*(В+Н)" - with (surprise!) a magnetic nano in the end. For higher caliber cachers, you say? Maybe.

 

Caches like that (although the ones near me use English letters ) irritate me too. When you could just say (A+5) why make it more complex? All you do is make it more likely people will drop a digit somewhere without adding anything to the puzzle or the cache. You might as well say "A is the number of letters on the sign" when there are two signs and it's not clear which sign is the right one.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

you can navigate in google maps by holding on the map at a location. If you can get it on a pin, then just zoom and navigate to a spot nearby using that method.

But google maps on iphone has the white bar on the bottom with a travel method and distance on the right - tap that to get to navigation options. That should be there for any pin.

 

Okay, I got that to work as well. However, when I select the pedestrian icon it looks like it's still using turn-by-turn navigation (i.e. it displays which roads to walk). That's not particularly useful if the subsequent stage of a multi is far from a road.

 

 

[+thebruce0]

Okay, I got that to work as well. However, when I select the pedestrian icon it looks like it's still using turn-by-turn navigation (i.e. it displays which roads to walk). That's not particularly useful if the subsequent stage of a multi is far from a road.

 

Unfortunately, walking/cycling routes only work with what information google has set up in their maps. If there are marked walking trails, walking will use them, cycling as well. If there is biking-specific data (bike-friendly roads, lanes, trails, etc) the bike routing will be optimized using that info. Every option (except transit) falls back to roads. So it may be that your area satellite imagery can see trails, but they're not (yet?) marked as such for walk routing (or vice versa; new trails are routed, but maps are showing old imagery)