Cache Requires Tools

January 5, 2016

So, I am currently creating a cache that will require specialised 'tools' to accomplish it. I'm thinking that the simplest thing to do is to provide to tool. So what is the etiquette of providing a tool...

The cache will be on the SW corner of a square compound about 15m on each side.

Can I place the tools in another "cache" on the NW corner. If so how do I label the tool cache? Does it get labelled with an "Official Geocache" Sticker? I'm not expecting to have the co-ordinates allocated a different cache ID, they would just be a useful WPT in the description...

5.7k · January 5, 2016

You could make it a multi cache, with stage 1 holding the required tool. You could then either list the coordinates to the final on the cache page, or make it a hidden waypoint and provide the coordinates inside stage 1. I've done a few "tools required" caches by the same owner in Alabama, this is how he did it.

You could also just keep it as a traditional (or unknown/puzzle cache) cache, but list the "helper" cache as an additional, optional waypoint for cachers who do not happen to have the required tools.

3.8k · January 5, 2016

You could put the tool in another container nearby and put that in as a waypoint, or just put it in the description. You could male a multi-cache. First stage they find the tool and co-ords to the second stage. Since its the same cache, the 2 stages can be close to each other as you want. Or you could put the 2 containers together, one labeled as tool, on labeled as cache. Or you could attach a TB to the tool (if it's small) and the finders would then have to find the cache, or cacher with the tool, first.

5.7k · January 5, 2016

You could put the tool in another container nearby and put that in as a waypoint, or just put it in the description. You could male a multi-cache. First stage they find the tool and co-ords to the second stage. Since its the same cache, the 2 stages can be close to each other as you want. Or you could put the 2 containers together, one labeled as tool, on labeled as cache. Or you could attach a TB to the tool (if it's small) and the finders would then have to find the cache, or cacher with the tool, first.

I think we were posting around the same time. Great minds think alike. Greater minds provide even more solutions, so well done you. :laughing:

January 5, 2016

I have a cache that requires the use of UV lights.

As a helping gesture, I placed small UV lights in the each of the caches...cachers took the lights.

If you are going to provide tools, go cheap or find a way to secure them so they don't grow legs and walk off.

7.4k · January 5, 2016

I think the best way to do this would be to make it a multi with stages that arranged to make it easy for people to return the tool to its hiding spot. If you try to make it a traditional, you'll probably get people ruining the cache by trying to open it without the tool. That sucks, but it's one of those things that is just easier to cope with through good cache design.

9.2k · January 5, 2016

Don't just have ONE tool, and expect every cacher that uses it, to then return it to the cache it came from... :rolleyes:

And. Either make it a multi, or a Puzzle at the coordinates listed.

If its listed as a Traditional, with extra work involved, someone will turn up and sign the log, no matter 'what' they have to do to get to the log! (And it wont be the way it was intended to do it )

Edited January 5, 2016 by Bear and Ragged

January 5, 2016

Wow thanks for the replies.

I have to say I'm not a multi fan. I avoid them - I had a bad experience twice. Both with 3 stage multi's that led to a final. First time I did the 3 stages and the DNFd the final which you got using data from the 3 stages. That cheezed me off. It was found by other later so it was a true DNF rather than NA. I'd done a lot of walking and it felt like a ruined day. Never been back to retry. The second time Found 2 of 3. Third cache had been muggled. Again wasted time. I now avoid the stack of yellow lock n lock boxes on the map now. Avoid puzzles for similar fears... So its gonna be a traditional.

The tool is obtainable from the £ shop. Quite happy to plaster GC stickers all over it and sign it up to say to return it or die ;-)

Placing it 30ft from the cache I hope will help it be returned, placing a TB tag on it risks two things - it might travel (although the tool is large enough that finding a cache for it will be a challenge) or more likely as most TBs seem to these days - it will vanish to then be tracked by a load of people in Germany who've never seen it!! I will buy 2 or 3 so if one goes missing (or breaks it is a £1 shop tool afterall) I have a spare ready to deploy. Can be at cache within minutes of a NM.

It will probably be a Premium Cache. I vaguely hope that helps.

Not sure I understand the point of providing the tool on a string to stop it getting filched.

Short of getting a saw out I don't think its possible to retrieve without the tool ;-) I am ready to be proved wrong.

Might all be fruitless - I've just had a reply from who I thought was the land owner to discover they aren't the land owner. How do you find a land owner of an abandonded bit of land?

You could also just keep it as a traditional (or unknown/puzzle cache) cache, but list the "helper" cache as an additional, optional waypoint for cachers who do not happen to have the required tools.

So the helper cache was my plan. How do I label the helper cache box is really the question. Is it physically in the field labelled as a cache?

Edited January 5, 2016 by Shiny Black Shoe

January 5, 2016

Oh and both the main cache and helper cache will be in plain sight ;-)

Edited January 5, 2016 by Shiny Black Shoe

January 5, 2016

Oh and both the main cache and helper cache will be in plain sight ;-)

Sounds good but I'd suspect you're going to get people finding the helper cache and claiming a find just for that.

January 5, 2016

I once did a cache that said in the description "Help is hidden in a tree 5m away" and that's where the "special equipment" was that was required.

Another option would be to make it a Mystery cache, have the start co-ordinates at the hidden tool and say the cache is 50m away on a bearing of 180 degrees or whatever.

7.8k · January 6, 2016

Another option would be to make it a Mystery cache, have the start co-ordinates at the hidden tool and say the cache is 50m away on a bearing of 180 degrees or whatever.

That's not a bad idea, but I could see even more occurrences of what TheOldfields mentioned with such a setup.

"When I found the box at the posted coordinates, all it had in it was an odd swag item and no log, so I added a fresh logbook for you. TFTC!" :laughing:

Edited January 6, 2016 by The A-Team

7.4k · January 6, 2016

I once did a cache that said in the description "Help is hidden in a tree 5m away" and that's where the "special equipment" was that was required.

Another option would be to make it a Mystery cache, have the start co-ordinates at the hidden tool and say the cache is 50m away on a bearing of 180 degrees or whatever.

This is a good idea, except it should be a multi.

7.4k · January 6, 2016

So its gonna be a traditional.

If it requires people to visit multiple waypoints, it is disingenuous to list it as a traditional no matter how much you dislike yellow boxes on your map. People will be, as you say, "cheezed off" when they find the tool missing. You are setting yourself up for a great deal of maintenance and/or many frustrated cachers. Good luck.

7.5k · January 6, 2016

I have to say I'm not a multi fan. I avoid them - I had a bad experience twice. Both with 3 stage multi's that led to a final. First time I did the 3 stages and the DNFd the final which you got using data from the 3 stages. That cheezed me off. It was found by other later so it was a true DNF rather than NA. I'd done a lot of walking and it felt like a ruined day. Never been back to retry. The second time Found 2 of 3. Third cache had been muggled. Again wasted time. I now avoid the stack of yellow lock n lock boxes on the map now. Avoid puzzles for similar fears... So its gonna be a traditional.

Personally, I don't have a problem with you listing it as a traditional since you imply that the tool and the container are near enough to be considered at the same location, but please notice that your plan has exactly the same problem as these multi's: being 2 parts, one of the 2 can have problems while the other is still fine. Listing it as a traditional doesn't make this problem go away, it just avoids announcing that it has this quality. Whether you list it as a multi or a traditional, you still need to hold yourself to a higher maintenance standard, something the COs of those other multis failed to do.

One thing that helps keep the cache going even when you aren't paying attention: if the tool isn't unique, you can hint at what would be needed so people can bring their own even if yours goes missing.

Edited January 6, 2016 by dprovan

9.2k · January 6, 2016

List it as a Traditional. Place it at those co-ordinates.

Use the attribute Field Puzzle.

There will be those that complain, but you have the Field Attribute to say it's a Puzzle type cache...

Add the 'Helper Tool' co-ordinates as an Aditional Waypoint

It's a help if you say what the tool is, so cachers can bring their own, the hint can say there's a tool at the Additional Waypoint for those that don't bring their own tool..

Then stand by and see who the first cacher is to say "Found the cache, couldn't open it, so signed the box." :laughing:

4.6k · January 6, 2016

Then stand by and see who the first cacher is to say "Found the cache, couldn't open it, so signed the box."

Or "Not easy to get to the logbook, cache needs maintenance"

7.4k · January 6, 2016

Then stand by and see who the first cacher is to say "Found the cache, couldn't open it, so signed the box."

Or "Not easy to get to the logbook, cache needs maintenance"

Or this sequence:

"Had trouble at first but managed to pry it open with my pocket knife."

"Cache is wet and doesn't close. Needs maintenance."

4.6k · January 6, 2016

By making it a traditional you moght attacht more people who "avoid multi's and mysteries" and expect a quick grab. I noticed many hee on this forum even say they don't read listings. So they arrive at GZ and go for the logbook.

7.4k · January 6, 2016

By making it a traditional you moght attacht more people who "avoid multi's and mysteries" and expect a quick grab. I noticed many hee on this forum even say they don't read listings. So they arrive at GZ and go for the logbook.

Making a cache a multi is a far more effective way to increase the quality of visitors than adding attributes, scolding people in owner logs, writing lengthy cache pages, or making a cache PMO.

1.1k · January 6, 2016

This last summer I found a great mystery cache, GC3v974 Tale of the Fairy Princess and Dragon,.

This cache has you find a tool box at the listed coordinates where there are the coordinates to the final are and 10 or so tool bags with multiple tools in each bag.

Taking one bag we went to the final and then had to figure out which tools to use to open the cache. You are told to only take one bag and Not to return the bag to the tool box and that seemed to be working.

This may work well for you as cachers will not return a tool to your tool box every time. :blink: This cache has a 76% favorite point rating so finders like the idea.

January 6, 2016

By making it a traditional you moght attacht more people who "avoid multi's and mysteries" and expect a quick grab. I noticed many hee on this forum even say they don't read listings. So they arrive at GZ and go for the logbook.

Making a cache a multi is a far more effective way to increase the quality of visitors than adding attributes, scolding people in owner logs, writing lengthy cache pages, or making a cache PMO.

Agreed, no matter how many attributes you add or what you put in the description some people are still never going to look at them and just follow the arrow and expect an easy find. By making it a multi or mystery (depending on what's involved) cachers that choose to look for it will know there's more to the cache and reading the description/attributes will be necessary.

You could of course do away with the hidden tool and call your traditional cache something like "BRING A 1/2" SPANNER" with a similar guideline added to the hint. There was a series near me that told you on each page what tools you needed to bring.

January 6, 2016

I've just looked at the multis you have logged as found and really have to say that they look dreadful - seven(?) stage drive bys that were archived for no apparent reason? Those are not really representative of decent multis. Maybe try another published less than 5 years ago that has a few fave points? You can normally (if they're doing it right) see from the description/logs whether it's a 10 mile trek or a 10 yard stroll.

Might be worth finding a few more before you start placing.

5.7k · January 7, 2016

Good idea to have the tool be inexpensive.

As others point out, as long as you are prepared for having to restore order after receiving the occasional visitor who doesn't get it (including non-cachers who stumble across it), you should have all the info you need.

I hope it turns out well!

Edited January 7, 2016 by hzoi

15.3k · January 7, 2016

Good idea to have the tool be inexpensive.

And make/buy more than one, so you're ready to replace the one in the field when it goes missing.

January 7, 2016

One of my favorites in central Oregon involves finding the box with many tool kits in sandwich baggies. You take 1 baggie and it's yours to keep after you sign the log of the cache which

is about a quarter mile away. The cache is inside a bird nest box attached to a dead tree. The wooden box has a narrow slot in the front. You have to figure out which of the cheap tools

in the baggie will open the box. I did use the pipe cleaner to help put the balloon in place and then blew up the balloon to release the mechanism.

I don't remember what other cheap "tools" were in the baggie (maybe a band-aid?).

A magnet and a multi-tool are among my standard TOTT.

January 7, 2016

So its gonna be a traditional.

If it requires people to visit multiple waypoints, it is disingenuous to list it as a traditional no matter how much you dislike yellow boxes on your map. People will be, as you say, "cheezed off" when they find the tool missing. You are setting yourself up for a great deal of maintenance and/or many frustrated cachers. Good luck.

The two would be so close together I don't think its fair to call it a multi. In-fact if you are given the coords for the tool and find the cache first you will then be left posting - "NM: tried to get into tool box - couldn't"

Personally, I don't have a problem with you listing it as a traditional since you imply that the tool and the container are near enough to be considered at the same location, but please notice that your plan has exactly the same problem as these multi's: being 2 parts, one of the 2 can have problems while the other is still fine. Listing it as a traditional doesn't make this problem go away, it just avoids announcing that it has this quality. Whether you list it as a multi or a traditional, you still need to hold yourself to a higher maintenance standard, something the COs of those other multis failed to do.

True - maybe I'm trad'ing it to lure me in if I was playing it!

One thing that helps keep the cache going even when you aren't paying attention: if the tool isn't unique, you can hint at what would be needed so people can bring their own even if yours goes missing.

Tool will be a standard bike tyre pump. Certainly planned to make some hint/reference.

By making it a traditional you moght attacht more people who "avoid multi's and mysteries" and expect a quick grab. I noticed many hee on this forum even say they don't read listings. So they arrive at GZ and go for the logbook.

Making a cache a multi is a far more effective way to increase the quality of visitors than adding attributes, scolding people in owner logs, writing lengthy cache pages, or making a cache PMO.

Agreed, no matter how many attributes you add or what you put in the description some people are still never going to look at them and just follow the arrow and expect an easy find. By making it a multi or mystery (depending on what's involved) cachers that choose to look for it will know there's more to the cache and reading the description/attributes will be necessary.

You could of course do away with the hidden tool and call your traditional cache something like "BRING A 1/2" SPANNER" with a similar guideline added to the hint. There was a series near me that told you on each page what tools you needed to bring.

I could - but I think that increases the likelihood people will turn up not tooled up and then get cheezed off. At least if I turn up for a lazy driveby and haven't read the description if I am "stuck" opening the box I'll soon read the description and toddle off for the tool. I know some wont have smart phone, and some with it wont read it.

Good idea to have the tool be inexpensive.
And make/buy more than one, so you're ready to replace the one in the field when it goes missing.

Yip thats in the master plan. Although not keen on providing a box of 10 as suggested....!

15.3k · January 8, 2016

The two would be so close together I don't think its fair to call it a multi.

FWIW, there is no minimum distance between stages of a multi-cache. I've found more than one where I could touch the first stage with one hand while touching the final with the other hand. And I've found a few more where the stages were within the distance I consider a normal search radius.

January 8, 2016

The two would be so close together I don't think its fair to call it a multi.
FWIW, there is no minimum distance between stages of a multi-cache. I've found more than one where I could touch the first stage with one hand while touching the final with the other hand. And I've found a few more where the stages were within the distance I consider a normal search radius.

Mmmm... does that not risk people getting the two mixed up... "FTF: Found the cache couldn't get into it... sawed the top off using my angle grinder that I carry in my cache box for such emergencies. Got the container out eventually. Strangely no coords for the next stage and it says well done on finding the final cache. SL, TN, L-sawn open cache"

7.5k · January 9, 2016

The two would be so close together I don't think its fair to call it a multi.
FWIW, there is no minimum distance between stages of a multi-cache. I've found more than one where I could touch the first stage with one hand while touching the final with the other hand. And I've found a few more where the stages were within the distance I consider a normal search radius.

Mmmm... does that not risk people getting the two mixed up... "FTF: Found the cache couldn't get into it... sawed the top off using my angle grinder that I carry in my cache box for such emergencies. Got the container out eventually. Strangely no coords for the next stage and it says well done on finding the final cache. SL, TN, L-sawn open cache"

niraD may or may not be thinking of the same ones as me, but the one's I've found where the final is quite close to the posted coordinates start with a decoding exercise at a sign, so you know you're not looking for a container holding the pointer. (As it turns out, in my area it's somewhat rare for a multi cache to use a container at stage 1, anyway.)

15.3k · January 9, 2016

niraD may or may not be thinking of the same ones as me, but the one's I've found where the final is quite close to the posted coordinates start with a decoding exercise at a sign, so you know you're not looking for a container holding the pointer. (As it turns out, in my area it's somewhat rare for a multi cache to use a container at stage 1, anyway.)

Yep, they've generally been offset caches. You know going in that you're looking for information on a sign/plaque/monument/whatever, and that the information will give you a bearing and distance, or new coordinates. But when you do the math, you discover that the new location is the same as the current location (or nearly so).

But you'd only find the final by accident if you ignored the fact that you should be looking for an existing sign/plaque/monument/whatever at the first stage.

January 11, 2016

Love reading this post as I've seen all of the above. There are some crazy cachers out there.

If the OP is still wondering how to find the owner of the property they could try a tax map.

7.4k · January 11, 2016

So its gonna be a traditional.

If it requires people to visit multiple waypoints, it is disingenuous to list it as a traditional no matter how much you dislike yellow boxes on your map. People will be, as you say, "cheezed off" when they find the tool missing. You are setting yourself up for a great deal of maintenance and/or many frustrated cachers. Good luck.

The two would be so close together I don't think its fair to call it a multi. In-fact if you are given the coords for the tool and find the cache first you will then be left posting - "NM: tried to get into tool box - couldn't"

What does the distance have to do with anything? You're asking people to go to two separate spots and open two separate containers. That's a multi, whether you correctly call it one or not. I don't think it's fair to mislead people and then act surprised when they don't complete the cache in the manner intended.

3.7k · January 11, 2016

Seriously...why all the angst about making it a multi? Anyone who ignores multi-caches completely are probably the sort you wouldn't want working out the necessary steps to open the cache anyway. People who ignore multi-caches and mysteries are not looking for caches requiring multiple steps.

7.5k · January 11, 2016

What does the distance have to do with anything? You're asking people to go to two separate spots and open two separate containers. That's a multi, whether you correctly call it one or not. I don't think it's fair to mislead people and then act surprised when they don't complete the cache in the manner intended.

The tool doesn't point to the final location, so it's really nothing like a multi. By your logic, if the cache were hoisted into a tree with a pulley, it should be a multi because the pulley and the cache are two different things even though they're at the same coordinates.

Seriously...why all the angst about making it a multi? Anyone who ignores multi-caches completely are probably the sort you wouldn't want working out the necessary steps to open the cache anyway. People who ignore multi-caches and mysteries are not looking for caches requiring multiple steps.

While agreeing with the logic of your argument, I remind you that the OP told us he is such a person, so he was trying to avoid making it a multi because, as a seeker, he wouldn't want it to be a multi.

3.7k · January 11, 2016

Seriously...why all the angst about making it a multi? Anyone who ignores multi-caches completely are probably the sort you wouldn't want working out the necessary steps to open the cache anyway. People who ignore multi-caches and mysteries are not looking for caches requiring multiple steps.

While agreeing with the logic of your argument, I remind you that the OP told us he is such a person, so he was trying to avoid making it a multi because, as a seeker, he wouldn't want it to be a multi.

That doesn't really mean he shouldn't make it a multi. I enjoy making puzzles, but I'm fairly lousy at solving them. I'm not a huge fan of multi-caches with more than three stages, but I own a six stage multi and a nine stage multi. Owning a cache is not the same as finding it.

7.4k · January 11, 2016

What does the distance have to do with anything? You're asking people to go to two separate spots and open two separate containers. That's a multi, whether you correctly call it one or not. I don't think it's fair to mislead people and then act surprised when they don't complete the cache in the manner intended.

The tool doesn't point to the final location, so it's really nothing like a multi. By your logic, if the cache were hoisted into a tree with a pulley, it should be a multi because the pulley and the cache are two different things even though they're at the same coordinates.

Is the pulley somehow in a container with separate instructions telling you how to retrieve it?

My logic is based entirely on knowing how these types of caches get treated in the field. I've seen a lot of cool cache ideas get ruined because of very basic flaws in the cache listing that result in excessive maintenance that the CO can't keep up with.

January 11, 2016

Seriously...why all the angst about making it a multi? Anyone who ignores multi-caches completely are probably the sort you wouldn't want working out the necessary steps to open the cache anyway. People who ignore multi-caches and mysteries are not looking for caches requiring multiple steps.

OK so chance has it I was trying to indoctrinate my brother into caching. I've tried and failed before. He thinks caching is "sad" blah blah. Well then I briefly mentioned puzzle caches. Doubtfully he looked as if to say how hard can it be. There was one with co-ords 400m from his house so I said crack on (it was T2 D4!) - we couldn't even work out which part of the listing was the puzzle! We spent about 3 hours reading it, reading linked pages in the listing and still perplexed. I found an easier one which is more like puzzles I've studied before - go here get info X and Y add them together and replace ABC in the long lat with X+Y and go get cache. He seemed to be getting the idea so I found a D3 from the same CO as the first one and after an hour we cracked the puzzle. He now looks hooked.

I'm not opposed to puzzles etc - but I've spent a lot of time looking at them and getting no-where and so I'll tend to pass them by. But I do like a puzzle. I don't think the cache I'm proposing is a puzzle... I'd liken it to the ones where you have to float the cache box out the tube with water while plugging the holes at the bottom... Are they puzzles? I've not come across one in the field. In comparison my cache and sub cache would be the cache and the bucket for collecting water from the stream... Is the bucket a multi?

The tool doesn't point to the final location, so it's really nothing like a multi. By your logic, if the cache were hoisted into a tree with a pulley, it should be a multi because the pulley and the cache are two different things even though they're at the same coordinates.

Seriously...why all the angst about making it a multi? Anyone who ignores multi-caches completely are probably the sort you wouldn't want working out the necessary steps to open the cache anyway. People who ignore multi-caches and mysteries are not looking for caches requiring multiple steps.

While agreeing with the logic of your argument, I remind you that the OP told us he is such a person, so he was trying to avoid making it a multi because, as a seeker, he wouldn't want it to be a multi.

So-

A. I like the idea of getting people to try things that are a bit different to box hidden in base of tree. Its an easy physical puzzle IMHO. People into Puzzles will be disappointed. People into normal caches will (I hope) think - well that was a bit different... I'm aiming for that audience not the people who like to solve the cryptic crossword to get the co-ords...

B. I agree - I wasn't planning to have Cache A point to Cache B. If you bring the right tool you don't need to multi it...

My logic is based entirely on knowing how these types of caches get treated in the field. I've seen a lot of cool cache ideas get ruined because of very basic flaws in the cache listing that result in excessive maintenance that the CO can't keep up with.

OK so as CO thats my risk. Its 2 miles from the house, with minimal access challenges to GZ. I can maintain it, no issues.

I'm accepting that if I list it as a puzzle/multi it may get less DNF/NM notes. I'm also feeling it may get less visits.

January 11, 2016

Love reading this post as I've seen all of the above. There are some crazy cachers out there.

If the OP is still wondering how to find the owner of the property they could try a tax map.

Not aware of Tax Maps in the UK. But we do have Land Registry - who will know who the registered Land Owner is. They exist to ensure I cant sell the land to someone else by claiming I own it...

There is a cost involved in searching them. I'm not sure how much or what they will tell me... for my house I suspect they tell you my name and my address which is my house. For effectively a field will they just tell me the address of the field?

7.5k · January 11, 2016

While agreeing with the logic of your argument, I remind you that the OP told us he is such a person, so he was trying to avoid making it a multi because, as a seeker, he wouldn't want it to be a multi.

That doesn't really mean he shouldn't make it a multi.

That's what I said, too! I'm just explaining to you why the OP initially resisted making it a multi, something you characterized (inaccurately, in my opinion) as "angst".

My logic is based entirely on knowing how these types of caches get treated in the field. I've seen a lot of cool cache ideas get ruined because of very basic flaws in the cache listing that result in excessive maintenance that the CO can't keep up with.

OK so as CO thats my risk. Its 2 miles from the house, with minimal access challenges to GZ. I can maintain it, no issues.

I'm accepting that if I list it as a puzzle/multi it may get less DNF/NM notes. I'm also feeling it may get less visits.

Well, no, narcissa is pointing out that it's an increased risk for any seeker despite your current resolve to keep up with maintenance. I don't want to speak for narcissa, but my impression is that one idea behind suggesting a multi here is precisely to get fewer yet more engaged visitors because it's the casual visitor just expecting a traditional cache that is more likely to lose the tool, walk off with the tool, or just get frustrated because they don't have the tool. I concur that that's a consideration, but I'm not convinced it would really make much difference in this case, so I'm still OK with it whichever way you decide to go.

4.6k · January 11, 2016

I'm also feeling it may get less visits.

That's not a bad thing. Many of the great multi's we do only get a fraction of the visits plain run of the mill traditionals get.

On the other hand, these multi's get lot's of favorites while the heavily visited traditionals get less/none.

The question is, what do you prefer?

3.7k · January 11, 2016

While agreeing with the logic of your argument, I remind you that the OP told us he is such a person, so he was trying to avoid making it a multi because, as a seeker, he wouldn't want it to be a multi.

That doesn't really mean he shouldn't make it a multi.

That's what I said, too! I'm just explaining to you why the OP initially resisted making it a multi, something you characterized (inaccurately, in my opinion) as "angst".

I was talking about the discussion in general...not just comments by the OP.

7.5k · January 12, 2016

I was talking about the discussion in general...not just comments by the OP.

Oh, sorry. I didn't notice anyone other than the OP so much as speaking negatively about multi's, let alone angsting over them. I must have missed that.

7.4k · January 12, 2016

My logic is based entirely on knowing how these types of caches get treated in the field. I've seen a lot of cool cache ideas get ruined because of very basic flaws in the cache listing that result in excessive maintenance that the CO can't keep up with.

OK so as CO thats my risk. Its 2 miles from the house, with minimal access challenges to GZ. I can maintain it, no issues.

I'm accepting that if I list it as a puzzle/multi it may get less DNF/NM notes. I'm also feeling it may get less visits.

Well, no, narcissa is pointing out that it's an increased risk for any seeker despite your current resolve to keep up with maintenance. I don't want to speak for narcissa, but my impression is that one idea behind suggesting a multi here is precisely to get fewer yet more engaged visitors because it's the casual visitor just expecting a traditional cache that is more likely to lose the tool, walk off with the tool, or just get frustrated because they don't have the tool. I concur that that's a consideration, but I'm not convinced it would really make much difference in this case, so I'm still OK with it whichever way you decide to go.

Exactly. I see this happen all the time - cool cache gets trashed, the CO rants about "disrespect" (when the issue could have been averted at the outset by better cache design), and the cache gets archived. One engaged and respectful visitor who puts things back properly is worth 100 TFTC cachers who expect a park and grab, and treat it like one. But if you're up for replacing the tool constantly and you're not going to get angry about it, cool. Only you can know what you can handle.

January 12, 2016

Love reading this post as I've seen all of the above. There are some crazy cachers out there.

If the OP is still wondering how to find the owner of the property they could try a tax map.

Not aware of Tax Maps in the UK. But we do have Land Registry - who will know who the registered Land Owner is. They exist to ensure I cant sell the land to someone else by claiming I own it...

There is a cost involved in searching them. I'm not sure how much or what they will tell me... for my house I suspect they tell you my name and my address which is my house. For effectively a field will they just tell me the address of the field?

You can look on the local tax maps here to find name of an owner (no cost- public record), then you have the fun of trying to figure out how to contact them. I often look for a neighbor or nearby business to find an owner. Easiest for me. I may see someone out in their yard and simply stop and ask them if they know who owns the field next door. Usually though I mainly hide caches on property that I know allows caching like state parks and other property where the managers have agreed to allow caching.

January 17, 2016

extending dog leads, one at the cache with a key on the end, that unlocks the next lead, and so on until you've got to the last lead with the tool to open the cache.

January 20, 2016

extending dog leads, one at the cache with a key on the end, that unlocks the next lead, and so on until you've got to the last lead with the tool to open the cache.

Cool idea

Cache Requires Tools

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation