+Philman Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) If the containers in the physical stages of a multi-stage cache are all different sizes, which size do you put down when publishing the cache? Edited February 3, 2016 by Philman Quote Link to comment
Rock Chalk Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 If the containers in the physical stages of a multi-stage cache are all different sizes, which size do you put down when publishing the cache? The size of the container found at the final. Quote Link to comment
+dprovan Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 If the containers in the physical stages of a multi-stage cache are all different sizes, which size do you put down when publishing the cache? The size of the container found at the final. Yep. If you don't want it to be a surprise, you can give the details of the sizes of the non-final stages in the description. I only remember seeing one multi that did that: the whole point was that the stages started big and got progressively smaller as you went along, so the description explained all that. Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 If the containers in the physical stages of a multi-stage cache are all different sizes, which size do you put down when publishing the cache? The size of the container found at the final. Yep. If you don't want it to be a surprise, you can give the details of the sizes of the non-final stages in the description. I only remember seeing one multi that did that: the whole point was that the stages started big and got progressively smaller as you went along, so the description explained all that. That's unfortunate. Quote Link to comment
+The Jester Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 If the containers in the physical stages of a multi-stage cache are all different sizes, which size do you put down when publishing the cache? The size of the container found at the final. Yep. If you don't want it to be a surprise, you can give the details of the sizes of the non-final stages in the description. I only remember seeing one multi that did that: the whole point was that the stages started big and got progressively smaller as you went along, so the description explained all that. That's unfortunate. I think it could be a great teaching/learning tool. A way to showcase the different hide styles and search techniques used for the various sizes of containers (I don't know if that's what the cache mentioned does or not). The only real drawback is that so few cachers seem to like multi's. Of course, any micro-phobic cacher will hate the idea, along with the number hounds and like. But it sounds like a great way to introduce the variety of cache sizes available. Quote Link to comment
+dprovan Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I only remember seeing one multi that did that: the whole point was that the stages started big and got progressively smaller as you went along, so the description explained all that. That's unfortunate. How so? I think it could be a great teaching/learning tool. A way to showcase the different hide styles and search techniques used for the various sizes of containers (I don't know if that's what the cache mentioned does or not). The only real drawback is that so few cachers seem to like multi's. It was just a joke poking fun at an earlier multicache (that I never saw) where the containers at each of the four stages were larger than the previous stage. Of course, any micro-phobic cacher will hate the idea, along with the number hounds and like. I don't see that it's any different than having the pointer stages be micros, and that's fairly typical. One cute twist was that the CO suggested trading in the earlier stages where there was room since there was no room at the end. And the first stage was, in fact, well stocked. (This was 5 years ago, back before everyone stopped trading.) Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I only remember seeing one multi that did that: the whole point was that the stages started big and got progressively smaller as you went along, so the description explained all that. That's unfortunate. How so? Because the final ends up likely being too small for more than a log. Quote Link to comment
+Philman Posted February 4, 2016 Author Share Posted February 4, 2016 Of course, any micro-phobic cacher will hate the idea, along with the number hounds and like. But it sounds like a great way to introduce the variety of cache sizes available. What are "number hounds"? I'm assuming that means the cachers who cache just to increase their numbers. Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 What are "number hounds"? I'm assuming that means the cachers who cache just to increase their numbers.Yep, that's exactly what it means. Quote Link to comment
+dprovan Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I only remember seeing one multi that did that: the whole point was that the stages started big and got progressively smaller as you went along, so the description explained all that. That's unfortunate. How so? Because the final ends up likely being too small for more than a log. Well, yeah, like about 80% of the caches in my area, so not really significant. Besides, the first and second stages were big enough for much more than a log, so that's where the SWAG was traded or whatever else you have in mind that needs extra space. Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 I only remember seeing one multi that did that: the whole point was that the stages started big and got progressively smaller as you went along, so the description explained all that. That's unfortunate. How so? Because the final ends up likely being too small for more than a log. Well, yeah, like about 80% of the caches in my area, so not really significant. Besides, the first and second stages were big enough for much more than a log, so that's where the SWAG was traded or whatever else you have in mind that needs extra space. Does that not cause issues - particularly with newbies - where they assume the first container IS the cache? That's one reason why I shy away from any container that can hold more than a log sheet as a stage in a multi-cache that I put out. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.