Multi Logging Question

[+narcissa]

All this effort to thwart supposed cheaters seems like a huge waste of time that's more likely to deter the cachers who want to be honest.

[Andronicus]

Hide one regular and multiple Unknowns. First regular has coords or clues to Unknown#1. Unknown#1 has coords/clues to Unknown#2, etc. They get a smiley for each "stage" and it cuts down on just sharing coords to the final and skipping the intermediate stages.

I think that is a great idea. While cachers may still give the coordinates to eachother, finders will still have to visit each cache site. And, if it is truley a 5 difficulty, AND 5 terrain, that will still be a major undertaking that would likely take a month or more, even given all the coordinates.

[+narcissa]

Hide one regular and multiple Unknowns. First regular has coords or clues to Unknown#1. Unknown#1 has coords/clues to Unknown#2, etc. They get a smiley for each "stage" and it cuts down on just sharing coords to the final and skipping the intermediate stages.

I think that is a great idea. While cachers may still give the coordinates to eachother, finders will still have to visit each cache site. And, if it is truley a 5 difficulty, AND 5 terrain, that will still be a major undertaking that would likely take a month or more, even given all the coordinates.

 

Seems like a real shame when it could have been a great multi.

[Andronicus]

Hide one regular and multiple Unknowns. First regular has coords or clues to Unknown#1. Unknown#1 has coords/clues to Unknown#2, etc. They get a smiley for each "stage" and it cuts down on just sharing coords to the final and skipping the intermediate stages.

I think that is a great idea. While cachers may still give the coordinates to eachother, finders will still have to visit each cache site. And, if it is truley a 5 difficulty, AND 5 terrain, that will still be a major undertaking that would likely take a month or more, even given all the coordinates.

 

Seems like a real shame when it could have been a great multi.

Yes, but I totaly understand where the OP is comming from. I have a couple of multi caches out, and I also worry about people bypassing the stages. I am not quite sure why I care, but I do. I guess after all the work of setting it up, I feel cheated when someone skips the stages (and people do).

[+doc73]

Hide one regular and multiple Unknowns. First regular has coords or clues to Unknown#1. Unknown#1 has coords/clues to Unknown#2, etc. They get a smiley for each "stage" and it cuts down on just sharing coords to the final and skipping the intermediate stages.

I think that is a great idea. While cachers may still give the coordinates to eachother, finders will still have to visit each cache site. And, if it is truley a 5 difficulty, AND 5 terrain, that will still be a major undertaking that would likely take a month or more, even given all the coordinates.

 

Seems like a real shame when it could have been a great multi.

Yes, but I totaly understand where the OP is comming from. I have a couple of multi caches out, and I also worry about people bypassing the stages. I am not quite sure why I care, but I do. I guess after all the work of setting it up, I feel cheated when someone skips the stages (and people do).

 

I hear what you all say. I only have one multi so I can see why you would be upset after a I set up a 4 mile hike to complete the multi. If they cheat they cheat. People cheat to get ahead everyday. Yeah it might frustrate you but that just shows to their character. they have only cheated themselves, why loose sleep over those idiots and have it ruin your experience of the game. I also think there are a few of them in GC but probably fewer than you'd think..

[+narcissa]

Hide one regular and multiple Unknowns. First regular has coords or clues to Unknown#1. Unknown#1 has coords/clues to Unknown#2, etc. They get a smiley for each "stage" and it cuts down on just sharing coords to the final and skipping the intermediate stages.

I think that is a great idea. While cachers may still give the coordinates to eachother, finders will still have to visit each cache site. And, if it is truley a 5 difficulty, AND 5 terrain, that will still be a major undertaking that would likely take a month or more, even given all the coordinates.

 

Seems like a real shame when it could have been a great multi.

Yes, but I totaly understand where the OP is comming from. I have a couple of multi caches out, and I also worry about people bypassing the stages. I am not quite sure why I care, but I do. I guess after all the work of setting it up, I feel cheated when someone skips the stages (and people do).

 

I can understand that. It's just really disappointing that so many cache owners let that feeling govern their cache hiding decisions, instead of just being the better person and looking to the cachers who *do* appreciate challenging caches.

 

It also seems wrong to assume that "cheating" is the default. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth, for sure, and I certainly avoid or ignore caches placed by cache owners who constantly seem suspicious and angry every time someone finds their cache.

Edited January 27, 2015 by narcissa

[+L0ne.R]

Hide one regular and multiple Unknowns. First regular has coords or clues to Unknown#1. Unknown#1 has coords/clues to Unknown#2, etc. They get a smiley for each "stage" and it cuts down on just sharing coords to the final and skipping the intermediate stages.

I think that is a great idea. While cachers may still give the coordinates to eachother, finders will still have to visit each cache site. And, if it is truley a 5 difficulty, AND 5 terrain, that will still be a major undertaking that would likely take a month or more, even given all the coordinates.

 

Seems like a real shame when it could have been a great multi.

Yes, but I totaly understand where the OP is comming from. I have a couple of multi caches out, and I also worry about people bypassing the stages. I am not quite sure why I care, but I do. I guess after all the work of setting it up, I feel cheated when someone skips the stages (and people do).

 

I hear what you all say. I only have one multi so I can see why you would be upset after a I set up a 4 mile hike to complete the multi. If they cheat they cheat. People cheat to get ahead everyday. Yeah it might frustrate you but that just shows to their character. they have only cheated themselves, why loose sleep over those idiots and have it ruin your experience of the game. I also think there are a few of them in GC but probably fewer than you'd think..

 

 

I'm with Andronicus. I doubt he looses an sleep over it, but maybe like me, not keen on hiding another multi.

[+doc73]

Hide one regular and multiple Unknowns. First regular has coords or clues to Unknown#1. Unknown#1 has coords/clues to Unknown#2, etc. They get a smiley for each "stage" and it cuts down on just sharing coords to the final and skipping the intermediate stages.

I think that is a great idea. While cachers may still give the coordinates to eachother, finders will still have to visit each cache site. And, if it is truley a 5 difficulty, AND 5 terrain, that will still be a major undertaking that would likely take a month or more, even given all the coordinates.

 

Seems like a real shame when it could have been a great multi.

Yes, but I totaly understand where the OP is comming from. I have a couple of multi caches out, and I also worry about people bypassing the stages. I am not quite sure why I care, but I do. I guess after all the work of setting it up, I feel cheated when someone skips the stages (and people do).

 

I hear what you all say. I only have one multi so I can see why you would be upset after a I set up a 4 mile hike to complete the multi. If they cheat they cheat. People cheat to get ahead everyday. Yeah it might frustrate you but that just shows to their character. they have only cheated themselves, why loose sleep over those idiots and have it ruin your experience of the game. I also think there are a few of them in GC but probably fewer than you'd think..

 

 

I'm with Andronicus. I doubt he looses an sleep over it, but maybe like me, not keen on hiding another multi.

 

He might not be physically loosing sleep but he is not wanting to continue the game and that is upsetting and sad to hear. I hope he is not turned away sounds like he truly cares about the game and the experience of it so it would be sad to loose such a good hearted cacher.

[+derektiffany]

 

Cache A (traditional, contains coords for Cache B )

Cache B (unknown, contains coords for Cache C )

Cache C (unknown, contains coords for Cache D )

etc ...

All published on geocaching.com

 

Caches B, C, D, etc. would be "Bonus" caches.

 

The owner / ownership refers to the listed cache owner.

They are puzzle/unknown/mystery caches.

 

Why specify who the owner is? On all published caches the owner is shown on the listing page. The ONLY reason to specify the owner is because there is no listing page for a bonus cache.

Because chained caches where the preliminary and bonus caches have different owners may raise unique issues which the owner(s) may wish to address and / or write a maintenance plan for and / or be prepared to discuss with a reviewer prior to publication.

 

Here is a recent relevant forum thread with participation from reviewers, though the focus is on "chaining" and not "ownership". The scenario given above is specifically discussed: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=327980&view=findpost&p=5449615

[+bflentje]

How can it be a rule if there is no mechanism to enforce it, and setting the rule is, in fact, against the rules?

The mechanism to enforce the CO's rules is people thinking you're cheating. Nothing enforces the rules of solitaire, but they're still rules, and I'll still say you're cheating if I see you pull a card out of the pack.

 

It's not against Groundspeak's rules for the CO to say "do this if you don't want people to think you're cheating". It's only against Groundspeak's rules to say "do this or I'll delete your find." If you cache only to increase you find count, you might not be able to see the difference.

 

I cache for personal enjoyment. If someone "cheats" by skipping multi stages or sharing puzzle solutions, it has zero impact on me. There is no reason for me to care, or call it cheating. They aren't gaining any sort of advantage, and they aren't taking something from someone else. It's not cheating... it's just nothing.

 

Solitaire is a good example, in a way, because WHY on EARTH would you watch someone else play solitaire and complain that they are cheating?

 

I in no way mean this as negative but for someone who caches purely for their own personal enjoyment, you spend an awful lot of time here in the forums expressing opinion.. which is fine.. everyone is entitled. I just find a bit of irony, that's all.

[cezanne]

All this effort to thwart supposed cheaters seems like a huge waste of time that's more likely to deter the cachers who want to be honest.

 

Cache owners need to decide for themselves what is the best setup for them.

 

I have a mystery-multi cache the final coordinates of which somehow ended up on public cheaters list. Some finders openly admitted that they have neither solved the puzzle part at home (which is not what caused my worries) nor have been at the very special location the cache wants to show, but only at the boring final location

which has just been chosen as the other location is not suitable for a cache. I got very frustrated by their "TFTC - this was cache #x/y on this tour today and we thank all cache owners." logs and other affected cache owners felt exactly the same. I then changed this cache and it then took a long time until I received the next log, but that was very rewarding. So, yes for me it was definitely worth to stop the cheating for this cache on this large scale and my change to the cache did not deter a single cacher who wanted to be honest. It just stopped those who wanted to have a further "+1" cache on their tour on which they "collected" many caches per day without caring about the caches.

 

By the way, the cache owner might not be the only one who is affected by such logs - also other cachers who might be potentially interested into a cache might get confused if the logs of those who did not visit the interesting parts of a cache dominate. In this respect the logs of those who do not admit to have cheated are even worse. So I do not agree at all with your view that noone loses by such a behaviour.

 

 

Another issue I have with logs of cachers who just visit the final is that for caches which are visited not frequently the cache owner typically becomes aware of problems at some stages much too late.

Due to found it logs one believes that everything is ok while this is not the case.

 

Cezanne

Edited January 27, 2015 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

All this effort to thwart supposed cheaters seems like a huge waste of time that's more likely to deter the cachers who want to be honest.

 

Cache owners need to decide for themselves what is the best setup for them.

 

 

Still a shame when what is "best" is "assume everyone is a cheater."

[+doc73]

I do not think he is assuming we all our cheaters, I think maybe he's worried about the few that cheat and is trying to find a way to stop them. Could be wrong.. With the effort he sounds like he is putting into the cache he wants to make sure the experience is enjoyed and maintained. That's ok but I do think the OP is overly worried about a few bad apples that might be out. If it was my caches, all the security measures to keep the honest honest would get very quickly old. He would need to pretty much varify every find that someone was actually there. That is a lot of work.

Edited January 27, 2015 by doc73

[cezanne]

All this effort to thwart supposed cheaters seems like a huge waste of time that's more likely to deter the cachers who want to be honest.

Cache owners need to decide for themselves what is the best setup for them.

 

Still a shame when what is "best" is "assume everyone is a cheater."

 

Who recommended to assume that everyone is a cheater?

 

What I meant is that for some cache owners it might be the best reaction to cheaters to change their cache (or set it up differently proactively in areas with a known existence of cheaters) while for others the best way is to ignore the cheaters.

 

I do not think that one way is better than the other.

[+L0ne.R]

All this effort to thwart supposed cheaters seems like a huge waste of time that's more likely to deter the cachers who want to be honest.

 

Cache owners need to decide for themselves what is the best setup for them.

 

I have a mystery-multi cache the final coordinates of which somehow ended up on public cheaters list. Some finders openly admitted that they have neither solved the puzzle part at home (which is not what caused my worries) nor have been at the very special location the cache wants to show, but only at the boring final location

which has just been chosen as the other location is not suitable for a cache. I got very frustrated by their "TFTC - this was cache #x/y on this tour today and we thank all cache owners." logs and other affected cache owners felt exactly the same. I then changed this cache and it then took a long time until I received the next log, but that was very rewarding. So, yes for me it was definitely worth to stop the cheating for this cache on this large scale and my change to the cache did not deter a single cacher who wanted to be honest. It just stopped those who wanted to have a further "+1" cache on their tour on which they "collected" many caches per day without caring about the caches.

 

By the way, the cache owner might not be the only one who is affected by such logs - also other cachers who might be potentially interested into a cache might get confused if the logs of those who did not visit the interesting parts of a cache dominate. In this respect the logs of those who do not admit to have cheated are even worse. So I do not agree at all with your view that noone loses by such a behaviour.

 

 

Another issue I have with logs of cachers who just visit the final is that for caches which are visited not frequently the cache owner typically becomes aware of problems at some stages much too late.

Due to found it logs one believes that everything is ok while this is not the case.

 

Cezanne

 

I too have gotten rather peeved this week. Yet again (seems to be a monthly thing) a large group of mega cachers (they haven't finished logging in yet, but it looks like over 25+ cachers) descended upon the city looking for multis and puzzles to qualify for challenges. Their goal, to find about 50 of these types in one day. The online logs are all cut n paste logs thanking the guy who organized the hike, only one guy so far actually sort of mentions individual caches. None of them probably saw the first stage or they would likely have remembered it. I'm seriously considering not hiding anything but traditionals with a PMO requirement. Keeps our caches off the free app and is not as interesting to power mega challenge cachers. We had a really nice streak of good logs and FPs on our multi and puzzles. Not anymore.

Cezanne, PM me and let me know what change you made.

Edited January 27, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+Roman!]

Big difference, solitaire has a rules and that is cheating, the point of a multi or puzzle is to get to the final coordinates and sign the logbook, no rules stipulate how you get there hence not cheating.

Again, it's the CO's rules that are being subverted by the cheat, not the GS rule about signing the logbook.

 

I'm not playing by a COs rules, I'm playing by GS rules. The CO does not get to set the rules.

[+steelerdrew79]

I am a c/o of a 5 stage multi. You don't have to show the location of the final stage. If u look at mine (GC5HACT) I have moved the final location into the middle of a lake. just edit Edit waypoints and move the final Location. I kept mine with in the area. I also put a combo lock on the final. each stage u will get a piece of the combo and have to sign a stage log. I walk my cache once a week to check on it and because each stage is unique and is a completely different hide. I do check the logs and I have found some location and combo sharing I stated in my cache page you must find each stage and sign the log to keep the smiley it's a multi cache. If u want to find a traditional there are enuff out there.I notice most cachers are honest and don't cheat.

FYI, if I came and did your multicache, I could choose to NOT sign the stages (an ALR, which isn't allowed to log a find). When you delete my find, I could appeal to Groundspeak and get my find reinstated.

 

EDIT: Final is not at the location shown? Make the final waypoint hidden; you don't have to show all the waypoints on the listing.

Really dude. I stated in my description that all of the stages must be found to get the find. Also if u were to go right to the final location u would be swimming or really muddy cuz it's not there the location is in one of the stages. Also if u did find the final u want have the combo because every stage has a piece of it

[+narcissa]

I am a c/o of a 5 stage multi. You don't have to show the location of the final stage. If u look at mine (GC5HACT) I have moved the final location into the middle of a lake. just edit Edit waypoints and move the final Location. I kept mine with in the area. I also put a combo lock on the final. each stage u will get a piece of the combo and have to sign a stage log. I walk my cache once a week to check on it and because each stage is unique and is a completely different hide. I do check the logs and I have found some location and combo sharing I stated in my cache page you must find each stage and sign the log to keep the smiley it's a multi cache. If u want to find a traditional there are enuff out there.I notice most cachers are honest and don't cheat.

FYI, if I came and did your multicache, I could choose to NOT sign the stages (an ALR, which isn't allowed to log a find). When you delete my find, I could appeal to Groundspeak and get my find reinstated.

 

EDIT: Final is not at the location shown? Make the final waypoint hidden; you don't have to show all the waypoints on the listing.

Really dude. I stated in my description that all of the stages must be found to get the find. Also if u were to go right to the final location u would be swimming or really muddy cuz it's not there the location is in one of the stages. Also if u did find the final u want have the combo because every stage has a piece of it

 

How is it the final if the cache isn't there?

[+TriciaG]

Really dude. I stated in my description that all of the stages must be found to get the find. Also if u were to go right to the final location u would be swimming or really muddy cuz it's not there the location is in one of the stages. Also if u did find the final u want have the combo because every stage has a piece of it

 

So I don't have to sign all the stages, but can just use them to gather info for the final? Great! That's the way it should be.

[+TriciaG]

How is it the final if the cache isn't there?

Instead of making the final waypoint hidden, he has entered bogus coords for it. So you have to gather the coords from the second last stage to find the final, rather than using the visible coords on the final waypoint.

[+steelerdrew79]

Really dude. I stated in my description that all of the stages must be found to get the find. Also if u were to go right to the final location u would be swimming or really muddy cuz it's not there the location is in one of the stages. Also if u did find the final u want have the combo because every stage has a piece of it

 

So I don't have to sign all the stages, but can just use them to gather info for the final? Great! That's the way it should be.

did u eat paint chips as a kid? So u would take the time to find each stage and open them read the info that is attached to the stage log and not sign it just out of spite? I can't stop you or any one from skipping stages or combo sharing but why do a multi if u just want to get to the final that's what traditional caches are for. Would u ask a friend for the answer to a puzzle cache? then say u found it with out solving the puzzle on ur own? I know that I put a lot of time and effort into each stage of this multi and I want to share each stage with people. It's only cheating your self like the other person said would u cheat at solitaire.only u would know. but in the end it's only just a game.

[+niraD]

Is it allowed to request more then one stage have a signed logsheet?

As a practical matter, I wouldn't be surprised if people found the first stage with a logsheet, signed the logsheet, and thought they had completed the cache.

[+cerberus1]

Really dude. I stated in my description that all of the stages must be found to get the find. Also if u were to go right to the final location u would be swimming or really muddy cuz it's not there the location is in one of the stages. Also if u did find the final u want have the combo because every stage has a piece of it

 

So I don't have to sign all the stages, but can just use them to gather info for the final? Great! That's the way it should be.

did u eat paint chips as a kid? So u would take the time to find each stage and open them read the info that is attached to the stage log and not sign it just out of spite? I can't stop you or any one from skipping stages or combo sharing but why do a multi if u just want to get to the final that's what traditional caches are for. Would u ask a friend for the answer to a puzzle cache? then say u found it with out solving the puzzle on ur own? I know that I put a lot of time and effort into each stage of this multi and I want to share each stage with people. It's only cheating your self like the other person said would u cheat at solitaire.only u would know. but in the end it's only just a game.

Curious, besides the Additional Logging Requirements (which haven't been allowed for some time) of asking folks to sign stages of a multi, if someone found the final without signing stage logs, what do you think it proves?

It seems if others don't obey your ALR they're considered cheaters ?

Odd...

[+cerberus1]

Is it allowed to request more then one stage have a signed logsheet?

As a practical matter, I wouldn't be surprised if people found the first stage with a logsheet, signed the logsheet, and thought they had completed the cache.

We've seen two that had ALRs like that (thankfully now archived) and yep, folks would sign a stage (not knowing how many there were...) and call it a find.

 

We also saw that on the few traditionals we did that had those annoying decoys surrounding 'em.

[+TriciaG]

did u eat paint chips as a kid? So u would take the time to find each stage and open them read the info that is attached to the stage log and not sign it just out of spite? I can't stop you or any one from skipping stages or combo sharing but why do a multi if u just want to get to the final that's what traditional caches are for. Would u ask a friend for the answer to a puzzle cache? then say u found it with out solving the puzzle on ur own? I know that I put a lot of time and effort into each stage of this multi and I want to share each stage with people. It's only cheating your self like the other person said would u cheat at solitaire.only u would know. but in the end it's only just a game.

I've never eaten paint chips. I've never lived in a house with lead based paint, nor have I ever been exposed to high levels of mercury.

 

I would take the time to find each stage, open them, read the info, and not sign it out of principle rather than out of spite.

 

I would not skip stages or share/receive the combo elsewhere. I would do the multi as intended - and probably thoroughly enjoy it - but might not perform the ALR of signing each individual stage's log.

 

That said, I have creatively solved puzzles (but not by receiving the coords from others) and opened trick caches in a way not intended by the CO. I'm not sure if you would consider that cheating or not. But honestly, I don't care if you do. None of these are requirements for claiming the find. The find is verified by the signature in the log book/sheet of the final stage, not by any other hoops I've had to jump through to get there.

 

Have a great day!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Is it allowed to request more then one stage have a signed logsheet?

As a practical matter, I wouldn't be surprised if people found the first stage with a logsheet, signed the logsheet, and thought they had completed the cache.

We've seen two that had ALRs like that (thankfully now archived) and yep, folks would sign a stage (not knowing how many there were...) and call it a find.

 

We also saw that on the few traditionals we did that had those annoying decoys surrounding 'em.

 

There was a cache near me that was described by more than one person as a train wreck. The CO tried to place a cache in what was actually a nice spot near a waterfall in one of Ithaca's many gorges but ran into a proximity issue with what is a pretty easy puzzle cache (I own it). So he placed a container at the base of a tree (he basically put it at the bottom of a tree and leaned a rock over it) that was more than 528' feet from the final coordinates of the puzzle cache. Instead of a log sheet, there was a cryptic note in the cache about "a bonus cache" with a set of coordinates (for the original location where he tried to publish the cache). That location (because it is in a gorge) had very spotty satellite reception and some reporting actual coordinates 70-85 feet away. There were a couple of cryptic hints that implied that you found this other cache, it was similar. Unfortunately, that other cache was my nemesis for awhile and I had not yet found it so the hint was useless. As it turned out the similarity was that both were very near letterboxes, but that didn't help because their was actually another letter box on the other side of the creek (and within the reported 70-80 feet bad coordinates). It wasn't, at least one at the published coordintates, found more than a couple of times before someone added a lot sheet to the container at the published coordinates. It was published as a traditional.

[+narcissa]

Really dude. I stated in my description that all of the stages must be found to get the find. Also if u were to go right to the final location u would be swimming or really muddy cuz it's not there the location is in one of the stages. Also if u did find the final u want have the combo because every stage has a piece of it

 

So I don't have to sign all the stages, but can just use them to gather info for the final? Great! That's the way it should be.

did u eat paint chips as a kid? So u would take the time to find each stage and open them read the info that is attached to the stage log and not sign it just out of spite? I can't stop you or any one from skipping stages or combo sharing but why do a multi if u just want to get to the final that's what traditional caches are for. Would u ask a friend for the answer to a puzzle cache? then say u found it with out solving the puzzle on ur own? I know that I put a lot of time and effort into each stage of this multi and I want to share each stage with people. It's only cheating your self like the other person said would u cheat at solitaire.only u would know. but in the end it's only just a game.

 

I have found more than 150 multi caches. Never once have I found a multi where the owner wanted finders to sign more than one logbook. I wouldn't even look for a logbook in the intermediate stages of a multi.

[+narcissa]

Is it allowed to request more then one stage have a signed logsheet?

As a practical matter, I wouldn't be surprised if people found the first stage with a logsheet, signed the logsheet, and thought they had completed the cache.

We've seen two that had ALRs like that (thankfully now archived) and yep, folks would sign a stage (not knowing how many there were...) and call it a find.

 

We also saw that on the few traditionals we did that had those annoying decoys surrounding 'em.

 

There was a cache near me that was described by more than one person as a train wreck. The CO tried to place a cache in what was actually a nice spot near a waterfall in one of Ithaca's many gorges but ran into a proximity issue with what is a pretty easy puzzle cache (I own it). So he placed a container at the base of a tree (he basically put it at the bottom of a tree and leaned a rock over it) that was more than 528' feet from the final coordinates of the puzzle cache. Instead of a log sheet, there was a cryptic note in the cache about "a bonus cache" with a set of coordinates (for the original location where he tried to publish the cache). That location (because it is in a gorge) had very spotty satellite reception and some reporting actual coordinates 70-85 feet away. There were a couple of cryptic hints that implied that you found this other cache, it was similar. Unfortunately, that other cache was my nemesis for awhile and I had not yet found it so the hint was useless. As it turned out the similarity was that both were very near letterboxes, but that didn't help because their was actually another letter box on the other side of the creek (and within the reported 70-80 feet bad coordinates). It wasn't, at least one at the published coordintates, found more than a couple of times before someone added a lot sheet to the container at the published coordinates. It was published as a traditional.

 

I ran across something similar a few years ago. Same thing - proximity issue. The "final" had a little scroll that said "Find the logbook at these coordinates!" Published as a traditional "because people don't look for multis as often."

 

Actually, that wasn't even the worst thing. The worst thing was that the small container with the note was in a hole that had been bored into a live tree.

[+Chrysalides]

did u eat paint chips as a kid? So u would take the time to find each stage and open them read the info that is attached to the stage log and not sign it just out of spite? I can't stop you or any one from skipping stages or combo sharing but why do a multi if u just want to get to the final that's what traditional caches are for. Would u ask a friend for the answer to a puzzle cache? then say u found it with out solving the puzzle on ur own? I know that I put a lot of time and effort into each stage of this multi and I want to share each stage with people. It's only cheating your self like the other person said would u cheat at solitaire.only u would know. but in the end it's only just a game.

I don't believe you can require that people sign the logsheet in every intermediate stage of a multistage. Don't take my word for it. Check with your reviewer.

 

You can, however, hide 5 (or however many) traditional caches and one unknown cache, each of which contains a fragment of the final coordinates of the unknown, or the combination code to a lock for the final. But you cannot state that the unknown can be signed only if you sign the logs for the traditional caches.

 

You can make it a challenge cache, the challenge requirement being that the finder has found the traditional caches. I'm not sure if a reviewer would go for this. Again, check with a reviewer.

 

The downside is that the traditional caches need to be at least 528 ft from each other. There is no such restriction for physical stages of a multi.

[+The A-Team]

Really dude. I stated in my description that all of the stages must be found to get the find. Also if u were to go right to the final location u would be swimming or really muddy cuz it's not there the location is in one of the stages. Also if u did find the final u want have the combo because every stage has a piece of it

So I don't have to sign all the stages, but can just use them to gather info for the final? Great! That's the way it should be.

did u eat paint chips as a kid?

The amount of lead any of us has ingested has no bearing on the matter. The fact remains that the guidelines you agreed to when you submitted your cache say that you cannot require that finders sign a log in each stage. You can certainly request it, but as others have pointed out, the logsheets in the stages will often just cause confusion and you'll actually get fewer visits to the final.

 

Sorry, no matter how much you protest or insult people, you still aren't allowed to do what you describe. Unlike some other situations, the guidelines are very clear on this matter. But then, you already knew that, since you've stated that you read the guidelines for each of the 9 times you've submitted hides...

[+steelerdrew79]

Really dude. I stated in my description that all of the stages must be found to get the find. Also if u were to go right to the final location u would be swimming or really muddy cuz it's not there the location is in one of the stages. Also if u did find the final u want have the combo because every stage has a piece of it

So I don't have to sign all the stages, but can just use them to gather info for the final? Great! That's the way it should be.

did u eat paint chips as a kid?

The amount of lead any of us has ingested has no bearing on the matter. The fact remains that the guidelines you agreed to when you submitted your cache say that you cannot require that finders sign a log in each stage. You can certainly request it, but as others have pointed out, the logsheets in the stages will often just cause confusion and you'll actually get fewer visits to the final.

 

Sorry, no matter how much you protest or insult people, you still aren't allowed to do what you describe. Unlike some other situations, the guidelines are very clear on this matter. But then, you already knew that, since you've stated that you read the guidelines for each of the 9 times you've submitted hides...

no matter if it's 9 hides or 109 hides if u read the ftf log u will see that he didn't sign or even find every stage. I didn't challange him or remove his log entry. So I'm not all that worried about it. The main thing is that each person who visits it has fun and enjoys it. my thoughts behind having a log at each stage was Due to what I stated in the discription. The containers will change often. If for some reason you had to stop and come back a day or two later to finsh meanwhile I had replaced one or two of the containers the person would know oh I have been to this stage. I would never truly delete anyone's log for not signing but, I have for only logging "found" anyhow paint chips are quite good u should have tryed them.?

[+narcissa]

The main thing is that each person who visits it has fun and enjoys it.

 

As long as that fun happens in exactly the prescribed way.

[+K13]

Anyone who signs the log at the final location can post whatever they like as their online log and will win on appeal if you delete their find.

 

As to your cache, if the reviewer knew that the final location was not at the posted coordinates, it is likely that it would be archived. What you have is a Mystery cache with multiple stages to locate the clues to find it.

[+The A-Team]

...if u read the ftf log u will see that he didn't sign or even find every stage. I didn't challange him or remove his log entry. So I'm not all that worried about it. The main thing is that each person who visits it has fun and enjoys it.

I guess you can colour me confused, then. You originally said:

...I stated in my cache page you must find each stage and sign the log to keep the smiley...

I'm unsure now whether you actually enforce what you state or not. As long as you only request that people sign the log and you never delete anyone's log for an unsigned stage log, then all's good. It's when you say "you must find each stage and sign the log to keep the smiley" that it runs afoul of the guidelines.

[+steelerdrew79]

...if u read the ftf log u will see that he didn't sign or even find every stage. I didn't challange him or remove his log entry. So I'm not all that worried about it. The main thing is that each person who visits it has fun and enjoys it.

I guess you can colour me confused, then. You originally said:

...I stated in my cache page you must find each stage and sign the log to keep the smiley...

I'm unsure now whether you actually enforce what you state or not. As long as you only request that people sign the log and you never delete anyone's log for an unsigned stage log, then all's good. It's when you say "you must find each stage and sign the log to keep the smiley" that it runs afoul of the guidelines.

Wow ok you don't have to find each stage if u don't feel the need but u won't get the combo if u don't. Or if u CHEATED and had some one give u the combo then... only u know. But why even do a multi if u only want the final? Traditional caches only have a final. I'm Over THIS Topic Good night

[+cerberus1]

Edited February 10, 2015 by cerberus1

[+steelerdrew79]

Sharing information – A find is not legitimate if the finder received so much help that the cache is no longer truly hidden (#3). For regular caches, this would mean being told or shown exactly where the cache is. For puzzle caches, this would mean being given the coordinates directly or being given so much help that there is no puzzle to solve. Seeking assistance is okay. But both the seeker and giver of information should make sure that there is something legitimately left for the finder to discover. Pulled this out of the geocaching guidelines book. So YES IT'S cheating

[+niraD]

Pulled this out of the geocaching guidelines book.

What geocaching guidelines book would that be?

 

I've seen that language in another forum thread, but the opinions expressed by the original poster in that thread hardly qualify as "the geocaching guidelines book".

[+Walts Hunting]

There's is no such book accepted by the community. Sounds line one person trying to impose their value system on others. If steelerdraw79 is going to apps from it he should provide the appropriate footnote shop we all can take a look.

[+narcissa]

Sharing information – A find is not legitimate if the finder received so much help that the cache is no longer truly hidden (#3). For regular caches, this would mean being told or shown exactly where the cache is. For puzzle caches, this would mean being given the coordinates directly or being given so much help that there is no puzzle to solve. Seeking assistance is okay. But both the seeker and giver of information should make sure that there is something legitimately left for the finder to discover. Pulled this out of the geocaching guidelines book. So YES IT'S cheating

 

This isn't a competitive game.

 

There is no advantage to be gained over anybody else.

 

There is no reason to compare finds with others.

 

As long as the cache is put back for the next finder, there is no reason to worry about how someone else found it.

[cezanne]

This isn't a competitive game.

 

There is no advantage to be gained over anybody else.

 

There is no reason to compare finds with others.

 

I agree with this part.

 

As long as the cache is put back for the next finder, there is no reason to worry about how someone else found it.

 

I disagree with the above. There are many reasons in my opinion.

 

For example, for a puzzle cache often ruining a puzzle by spoiling it is worse than rehiding a container badly so that it gets lost as in the latter

case the situation often can be fixed by hiding a new container while caches involving puzzles can in some cases be completely ruined (both for the hider and future finders).

 

Another example which relates to multi caches (the topic of this thread). I do not appreciate at all having to search the logs of those who

invest 4-10 or even more day trips in a long distance hiking cache within a sea of meaningless logs of those who just visited the final. There is no way to filter out the logs

of those who just came for the added found it log.

 

As a cache owner of many complex caches, I also care a lot whether the loggers of my caches really visited the stages as it helps me to become aware of issues that might exist with some of the

stages. Of course this is not an issue if 4 cachers cache together and one is doing the work, but it relates to skipping stages or the whole cache except the final.

It's also misleading for future cachers when there are recent logs reporting that everything is fine and in reality there are issues at one or more stages.

[+narcissa]

This isn't a competitive game.

 

There is no advantage to be gained over anybody else.

 

There is no reason to compare finds with others.

 

I agree with this part.

 

As long as the cache is put back for the next finder, there is no reason to worry about how someone else found it.

 

I disagree with the above. There are many reasons in my opinion.

 

For example, for a puzzle cache often ruining a puzzle by spoiling it is worse than rehiding a container badly so that it gets lost as in the latter

case the situation often can be fixed by hiding a new container while caches involving puzzles can in some cases be completely ruined (both for the hider and future finders).

 

Another example which relates to multi caches (the topic of this thread). I do not appreciate at all having to search the logs of those who

invest 4-10 or even more day trips in a long distance hiking cache within a sea of meaningless logs of those who just visited the final. There is no way to filter out the logs

of those who just came for the added found it log.

 

As a cache owner of many complex caches, I also care a lot whether the loggers of my caches really visited the stages as it helps me to become aware of issues that might exist with some of the

stages. Of course this is not an issue if 4 cachers cache together and one is doing the work, but it relates to skipping stages or the whole cache except the final.

It's also misleading for future cachers when there are recent logs reporting that everything is fine and in reality there are issues at one or more stages.

 

I find it odd that a "long distance hiking cache" has a final that someone can get to really easily. If you must control the way people find it, hide it better.

[cezanne]

I find it odd that a "long distance hiking cache" has a final that someone can get to really easily. If you must control the way people find it, hide it better.

 

There a number of such caches in my country and also a number of established hiking trails are round trip trails - e.g. there is a very nice trail leading around Vienna and a cache dedicated to it.

 

It did not write anything about controlling people. I provided several reasons for why I do not agree with your point of view even though I agree with the part where you state

that geocaching is not a competition.

 

Almost anything could be referred to as controlling people. The wish that people act stealthy and the wish that people rehide a cache container properly could also be referred to as the wish to control (I'm not saying that I see it that way). I do not value the cache containers higher than all other aspects of a cache.

[+narcissa]

I find it odd that a "long distance hiking cache" has a final that someone can get to really easily. If you must control the way people find it, hide it better.

 

There a number of such caches in my country and also a number of established hiking trails are round trip trails - e.g. there is a very nice trail leading around Vienna and a cache dedicated to it.

 

It did not write anything about controlling people. I provided several reasons for why I do not agree with your point of view even though I agree with the part where you state

that geocaching is not a competition.

 

Almost anything could be referred to as controlling people. The wish that people act stealthy and the wish that people rehide a cache container properly could also be referred to as the wish to control (I'm not saying that I see it that way). I do not value the cache containers higher than all other aspects of a cache.

 

You can "wish" all you want, but in actuality, the only thing you can do is design your caches better.

 

If your goal is to design outdoor experiences for other people that are not contingent on a container at the end, this is the wrong activity for that.

[cezanne]

 

You can "wish" all you want, but in actuality, the only thing you can do is design your caches better.

 

You could write the same if someone is unhappy that their containers get damaged by careless handling.

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

 

If your goal is to design outdoor experiences for other people that are not contingent on a container at the end, this is the wrong activity for that.

 

Even when someone agrees on this, it does not mean that the container at the end is the only aspect that plays a role and should be treated with respect and care.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Sharing information – A find is not legitimate if the finder received so much help that the cache is no longer truly hidden (#3). For regular caches, this would mean being told or shown exactly where the cache is. For puzzle caches, this would mean being given the coordinates directly or being given so much help that there is no puzzle to solve. Seeking assistance is okay. But both the seeker and giver of information should make sure that there is something legitimately left for the finder to discover. Pulled this out of the geocaching guidelines book. So YES IT'S cheating

 

This isn't a competitive game.

 

There is no advantage to be gained over anybody else.

 

There is no reason to compare finds with others.

 

That's nice in theory, but the fact is people *do* compare finds with others and are judged based on how many finds they have.

 

How many times have we seen posts here by apparent newbies and had their opinions dismissed because they only had a few finds? When I went to HQ I wasn't asked "where are you from" or "how long have you been geocaching?". I was introduced to someone with over 24K finds and asked how many I have.

[+dprovan]

For example, for a puzzle cache often ruining a puzzle by spoiling it is worse than rehiding a container badly so that it gets lost as in the latter case the situation often can be fixed by hiding a new container while caches involving puzzles can in some cases be completely ruined (both for the hider and future finders).

Whoa, wait a minute. I'm dead set against anyone spoiling a cache, and I agree with this completely. I thought we were talking about how to react to the person that used the spoilage to find the cache, and I still say there's no reason to care about them 'cuz it's their loss.

 

Another example which relates to multi caches (the topic of this thread). I do not appreciate at all having to search the logs of those who invest 4-10 or even more day trips in a long distance hiking cache within a sea of meaningless logs of those who just visited the final. There is no way to filter out the logs of those who just came for the added found it log.

I'm really sad for you that you have such rampant spoiling going on that this is a problem. When I see logs that seemed clearly by non-solvers, it's almost always someone claiming the find because they were with a solver. And I can't remember ever seeing someone getting the final of a multi from someone else and then signing the final without follow the trail, although admittedly that has something to do with the fact that I've seen virtually no multis as rich as the ones you're talking about.

 

So I really sympathize, while admitting I can't fully understand how you feel. But I have to say that I would assume that such logs tend to be as simplistic as the finders are, so isn't it fairly simple to just skip past any single line logs when scanning the log for quality finds?

 

As a cache owner of many complex caches, I also care a lot whether the loggers of my caches really visited the stages as it helps me to become aware of issues that might exist with some of the stages. Of course this is not an issue if 4 cachers cache together and one is doing the work, but it relates to skipping stages or the whole cache except the final. It's also misleading for future cachers when there are recent logs reporting that everything is fine and in reality there are issues at one or more stages.

Yes, I see that such false logs can obscure the status of the stages, and I agree that's a negative. But once again, I think both you and future seekers won't really pay much attention to a "found it!" log where someone visiting all the stages would be expected to generate several paragraphs of comments. About the worst part of such logs would be that they'd knock logs out of the PQ, so fewer -- if any -- logs from people that visited the entire sequence would be available to the seeker in the field.

 

That's nice in theory, but the fact is people *do* compare finds with others and are judged based on how many finds they have.

Yes, it's true that some people mistake the forest for the trees, but I still say a CO should recognize that it's no skin off their cache's nose when people that don't know any better skip the interesting parts.

[+narcissa]

Sharing information – A find is not legitimate if the finder received so much help that the cache is no longer truly hidden (#3). For regular caches, this would mean being told or shown exactly where the cache is. For puzzle caches, this would mean being given the coordinates directly or being given so much help that there is no puzzle to solve. Seeking assistance is okay. But both the seeker and giver of information should make sure that there is something legitimately left for the finder to discover. Pulled this out of the geocaching guidelines book. So YES IT'S cheating

 

This isn't a competitive game.

 

There is no advantage to be gained over anybody else.

 

There is no reason to compare finds with others.

 

That's nice in theory, but the fact is people *do* compare finds with others and are judged based on how many finds they have.

 

How many times have we seen posts here by apparent newbies and had their opinions dismissed because they only had a few finds? When I went to HQ I wasn't asked "where are you from" or "how long have you been geocaching?". I was introduced to someone with over 24K finds and asked how many I have.

 

Nobody is denying that it's a point of interest, but it's not a competition.

 

When someone is introduced to me as a person who has, say, been to Moscow 15 times, I take their word for it and I don't fuss about what constitutes a "legitimate" trip to Moscow.

[+narcissa]

 

You can "wish" all you want, but in actuality, the only thing you can do is design your caches better.

 

You could write the same if someone is unhappy that their containers get damaged by careless handling.

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

 

If your goal is to design outdoor experiences for other people that are not contingent on a container at the end, this is the wrong activity for that.

 

Even when someone agrees on this, it does not mean that the container at the end is the only aspect that plays a role and should be treated with respect and care.

 

I would agree that someone whose containers get damaged by bad handling or muggling should reconsider the hide and design it to better suit the conditions.

 

Unfortunately, for you, "respect and care" is equal to "play the game the exact way that I demand." That's not a reasonable definition of "respect and care."

 

It's easier to put on slippers than it is to carpet the world, my friend.

[+bflentje]

It's easier to put on slippers than it is to carpet the world, my friend.

 

As quoted by the do-nothing Senator from Minnesota.