Multi-cache ideas

[+Randall_499]

Hey! New to these forums.

So this is about to be my second year as a premium member, about fourth year as a geocacher, and about a year after hiding my first cache.

I was wondering if anyone has any cool multi-cache ideas. Not really a go from stage 1 to stage 2 that all have clues, but more of a "puzzle."

I know that what I'm asking for is kind of confusing, but I want to make a top-notch multi-cache. I have a cache at a lake an hour from my home, and that on involved a field puzzle that was a legit puzzle that pointed to the next stage, and it's been quite a hit. I want something new, if that makes any sense. Thanks in advance...

[+Mineral2]

Perhaps it's more appropriate to submit this as a Mystery cache rather than a multi? Mystery (puzzle) caches can have field puzzles that need to be solved at a specific location to get to the final coordinates.

[+narcissa]

Perhaps it's more appropriate to submit this as a Mystery cache rather than a multi? Mystery (puzzle) caches can have field puzzles that need to be solved at a specific location to get to the final coordinates.

 

If it involves multiple waypoints, listing as a multi is fine. Mystery is overused.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

[+Rustynails]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

 

Almost sounds like this very well made multi https://coord.info/GC44JT1 .

[+Mineral2]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

I've also had the idea to make a "choose your own adventure" multi, with multiple paths, some short, some long, and maybe some with dead ends. In the end, it seems like too much upkeep to maintain. Perhaps when I settle into a place for the long haul, I'll revive this idea.

[+redsox_mark]

Perhaps it's more appropriate to submit this as a Mystery cache rather than a multi? Mystery (puzzle) caches can have field puzzles that need to be solved at a specific location to get to the final coordinates.

 

If it involves multiple waypoints, listing as a multi is fine. Mystery is overused.

 

I agree a multi-cache can have field puzzles. With a multi-cache "The coordinates posted at the top of the cache listing are for the first stage of a multi-cache. " With a Mystery, this need not be the case (though it can be).

 

So if you need to solve a puzzle first to get the starting coordinates, it is a Mystery.

 

If the coordinates are for the first stage, and each stage leads to another stage, it can be a Multi, even if there are field puzzles. In general this also CAN be listed as a Mystery, unless your reviewer insists it is a multi.

 

Some people like to use Multi if the stages (including field puzzles) are "easy" and most cachers can be expected to do them. If the field puzzles are complex and may require special knowledge, I've often seen these listed as Mystery. But there is no guideline insisting on this as far as I know.

[+Randall_499]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

 

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches.

Thanks for the idea!

[+GeoTrekker26]

The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches.

Thanks for the idea!

That is true only if the multi uses physical intermediate waypoints, which many do not.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

 

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches.

Thanks for the idea!

 

Not if you make the waypoints virtual.

 

In a city, you could use street numbers or address numbers to fill in some digits of the next point. For example, you could send people to a spot, and then point them to three different addresses or streetsigns by bearing. TOTT needed: compass. If they're off the mark, they'll get incorrect results (like, the address of the next house over) and go to the wrong next location! What fun!

 

(Hmmm - I think I smell my next multicache in the works!)

[+narcissa]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

 

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches.

Thanks for the idea!

 

The best multis use pre-existing, i.e. "virtual," features that are exempt from proximity issues.

[+narcissa]

Perhaps it's more appropriate to submit this as a Mystery cache rather than a multi? Mystery (puzzle) caches can have field puzzles that need to be solved at a specific location to get to the final coordinates.

 

If it involves multiple waypoints, listing as a multi is fine. Mystery is overused.

 

I agree a multi-cache can have field puzzles. With a multi-cache "The coordinates posted at the top of the cache listing are for the first stage of a multi-cache. " With a Mystery, this need not be the case (though it can be).

 

So if you need to solve a puzzle first to get the starting coordinates, it is a Mystery.

 

If the coordinates are for the first stage, and each stage leads to another stage, it can be a Multi, even if there are field puzzles. In general this also CAN be listed as a Mystery, unless your reviewer insists it is a multi.

 

Some people like to use Multi if the stages (including field puzzles) are "easy" and most cachers can be expected to do them. If the field puzzles are complex and may require special knowledge, I've often seen these listed as Mystery. But there is no guideline insisting on this as far as I know.

 

My comment made no reference to the guidelines.

[+redsox_mark]

Perhaps it's more appropriate to submit this as a Mystery cache rather than a multi? Mystery (puzzle) caches can have field puzzles that need to be solved at a specific location to get to the final coordinates.

 

If it involves multiple waypoints, listing as a multi is fine. Mystery is overused.

 

I agree a multi-cache can have field puzzles. With a multi-cache "The coordinates posted at the top of the cache listing are for the first stage of a multi-cache. " With a Mystery, this need not be the case (though it can be).

 

So if you need to solve a puzzle first to get the starting coordinates, it is a Mystery.

 

If the coordinates are for the first stage, and each stage leads to another stage, it can be a Multi, even if there are field puzzles. In general this also CAN be listed as a Mystery, unless your reviewer insists it is a multi.

 

Some people like to use Multi if the stages (including field puzzles) are "easy" and most cachers can be expected to do them. If the field puzzles are complex and may require special knowledge, I've often seen these listed as Mystery. But there is no guideline insisting on this as far as I know.

 

My comment made no reference to the guidelines.

 

My comment made no reference to your comment referencing the guidelines.

 

I was trying to help by elaborating. If it involves multiple waypoints, listing as a multi is fine as long as the first stage is at the posted coordinates.

[+narcissa]

Perhaps it's more appropriate to submit this as a Mystery cache rather than a multi? Mystery (puzzle) caches can have field puzzles that need to be solved at a specific location to get to the final coordinates.

 

If it involves multiple waypoints, listing as a multi is fine. Mystery is overused.

 

I agree a multi-cache can have field puzzles. With a multi-cache "The coordinates posted at the top of the cache listing are for the first stage of a multi-cache. " With a Mystery, this need not be the case (though it can be).

 

So if you need to solve a puzzle first to get the starting coordinates, it is a Mystery.

 

If the coordinates are for the first stage, and each stage leads to another stage, it can be a Multi, even if there are field puzzles. In general this also CAN be listed as a Mystery, unless your reviewer insists it is a multi.

 

Some people like to use Multi if the stages (including field puzzles) are "easy" and most cachers can be expected to do them. If the field puzzles are complex and may require special knowledge, I've often seen these listed as Mystery. But there is no guideline insisting on this as far as I know.

 

My comment made no reference to the guidelines.

 

My comment made no reference to your comment referencing the guidelines.

 

I was trying to help by elaborating. If it involves multiple waypoints, listing as a multi is fine as long as the first stage is at the posted coordinates.

 

Some multis aren't designed in linear stages. If the work to find the cache is primarily done by in the field and involves multiple locations, I find that multi better describes the type of effort involved. But I live in a place where this cache type seems to be more common, and used more creatively. A lot of cachers can't seem to get past the idea that a multi literally means multiple containers.

[+coachstahly]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

Here's mine

[+barefootjeff]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

 

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches.

Thanks for the idea!

 

The best multis use pre-existing, i.e. "virtual," features that are exempt from proximity issues.

"Best" is perhaps a bit strong. Most of my multis use virtual waypoints but one that I'm particularly fond of has themed objects at each location, each telling a bit more of the story while providing the coordinates and extra hint for the next stage. It's a bit more maintenance-intensive, particularly at this location where it's had yobbo muggle campers who made off with one of the objects, floods that washed another away (that one's now much heavier and placed under a large rock) and even wood rot, but everyone's enjoyed the concept and it currently stands at 48% favourite points. From start to finish it spans a bit over a hundred metres and is in a fairly remote spot so proximities aren't an issue.

Edited April 9, 2017 by barefootjeff

[+narcissa]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

 

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches.

Thanks for the idea!

 

The best multis use pre-existing, i.e. "virtual," features that are exempt from proximity issues.

"Best" is perhaps a bit strong. Most of my multis use virtual waypoints but one that I'm particularly fond of has themed objects at each location, each telling a bit more of the story while providing the coordinates and extra hint for the next stage. It's a bit more maintenance-intensive, particularly at this location where it's had yobbo muggle campers who made off with one of the objects, floods that washed another away (that one's now much heavier and placed under a large rock) and even wood rot, but everyone's enjoyed the concept and it currently stands at 48% favourite points. From start to finish it spans a bit over a hundred metres and is in a fairly remote spot so proximities aren't an issue.

 

I have found many multis with physical waypoints that were fun and some even deserved an FP. Generally speaking, however, it's not the ideal format and virtual waypoints are best.

[+coachstahly]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

 

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches.

Thanks for the idea!

 

The best multis use pre-existing, i.e. "virtual," features that are exempt from proximity issues.

"Best" is perhaps a bit strong. Most of my multis use virtual waypoints but one that I'm particularly fond of has themed objects at each location, each telling a bit more of the story while providing the coordinates and extra hint for the next stage. It's a bit more maintenance-intensive, particularly at this location where it's had yobbo muggle campers who made off with one of the objects, floods that washed another away (that one's now much heavier and placed under a large rock) and even wood rot, but everyone's enjoyed the concept and it currently stands at 48% favourite points. From start to finish it spans a bit over a hundred metres and is in a fairly remote spot so proximities aren't an issue.

 

I have found many multis with physical waypoints that were fun and some even deserved an FP. Generally speaking, however, it's not the ideal format and virtual waypoints are best.

Why? If the area can sustain multiple physical stages, why would it matter if they're physical vs. virtual? Best/ideal for you, perhaps, but not best or ideal for all situations nor for all cachers. In my multi linked above, there's nothing in the area I could use for a virtual waypoint as the two buildings are faded and decrepit and there's nothing else in the small patch of woods but trees and an old house foundation.

[+narcissa]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

 

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches.

Thanks for the idea!

 

The best multis use pre-existing, i.e. "virtual," features that are exempt from proximity issues.

"Best" is perhaps a bit strong. Most of my multis use virtual waypoints but one that I'm particularly fond of has themed objects at each location, each telling a bit more of the story while providing the coordinates and extra hint for the next stage. It's a bit more maintenance-intensive, particularly at this location where it's had yobbo muggle campers who made off with one of the objects, floods that washed another away (that one's now much heavier and placed under a large rock) and even wood rot, but everyone's enjoyed the concept and it currently stands at 48% favourite points. From start to finish it spans a bit over a hundred metres and is in a fairly remote spot so proximities aren't an issue.

 

I have found many multis with physical waypoints that were fun and some even deserved an FP. Generally speaking, however, it's not the ideal format and virtual waypoints are best.

Why? If the area can sustain multiple physical stages, why would it matter if they're physical vs. virtual? Best/ideal for you, perhaps, but not best or ideal for all situations nor for all cachers. In my multi linked above, there's nothing in the area I could use for a virtual waypoint as the two buildings are faded and decrepit and there's nothing else in the small patch of woods but trees and an old house foundation.

 

Maintenance is a bigger concern than proximity, in some instances. I've been shafted by too many broken or missing physical multi elements to consider that to be best practice. It's fine and can be fun if the owner is dedicated to maintenance, but it's not optimal cache design in general. No need for tears, I just said virtual is best, I didn't say physical is garbage.

[+Mineral2]

Maintenance is a bigger concern than proximity, in some instances. I've been shafted by too many broken or missing physical multi elements to consider that to be best practice. It's fine and can be fun if the owner is dedicated to maintenance, but it's not optimal cache design in general. No need for tears, I just said virtual is best, I didn't say physical is garbage.

 

So it sounds more like a cache owner problem, rather than a cache format problem. The original intent of a multi-cache was to find a container or a tag at one location that had coordinates for the next. Really, it's the ultimate orienteering course.

[+coachstahly]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

 

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches.

Thanks for the idea!

 

The best multis use pre-existing, i.e. "virtual," features that are exempt from proximity issues.

"Best" is perhaps a bit strong. Most of my multis use virtual waypoints but one that I'm particularly fond of has themed objects at each location, each telling a bit more of the story while providing the coordinates and extra hint for the next stage. It's a bit more maintenance-intensive, particularly at this location where it's had yobbo muggle campers who made off with one of the objects, floods that washed another away (that one's now much heavier and placed under a large rock) and even wood rot, but everyone's enjoyed the concept and it currently stands at 48% favourite points. From start to finish it spans a bit over a hundred metres and is in a fairly remote spot so proximities aren't an issue.

 

I have found many multis with physical waypoints that were fun and some even deserved an FP. Generally speaking, however, it's not the ideal format and virtual waypoints are best.

Why? If the area can sustain multiple physical stages, why would it matter if they're physical vs. virtual? Best/ideal for you, perhaps, but not best or ideal for all situations nor for all cachers. In my multi linked above, there's nothing in the area I could use for a virtual waypoint as the two buildings are faded and decrepit and there's nothing else in the small patch of woods but trees and an old house foundation.

 

Maintenance is a bigger concern than proximity, in some instances. I've been shafted by too many broken or missing physical multi elements to consider that to be best practice. It's fine and can be fun if the owner is dedicated to maintenance, but it's not optimal cache design in general. No need for tears, I just said virtual is best, I didn't say physical is garbage.

No you didn't say that they were garbage but your post basically said that virtual waypoints are a better method than physical ones in general. I disagree. Perhaps you meant easier on the CO rather than better as a generality? You're free to your opinions but to state something as a general rule for ALL multi caches is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Maintenance is part and parcel of owning a cache so I don't see how it's not "optimal" to have physical stages at each location. It means more work to keep it running smoothly. If you think optimal means easier to maintain, I'm all in agreement but if you think they're better, I'll disagree. For the record, I have multis that use both virtual and physical and I don't find one type better than the other. I even have one that uses only virtual stages until the final stage. They're just different methods of providing a stage to move onto the next one. I have also had virtual stages get moved or go MIA so it applies to both types.

[+narcissa]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

 

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches.

Thanks for the idea!

 

The best multis use pre-existing, i.e. "virtual," features that are exempt from proximity issues.

"Best" is perhaps a bit strong. Most of my multis use virtual waypoints but one that I'm particularly fond of has themed objects at each location, each telling a bit more of the story while providing the coordinates and extra hint for the next stage. It's a bit more maintenance-intensive, particularly at this location where it's had yobbo muggle campers who made off with one of the objects, floods that washed another away (that one's now much heavier and placed under a large rock) and even wood rot, but everyone's enjoyed the concept and it currently stands at 48% favourite points. From start to finish it spans a bit over a hundred metres and is in a fairly remote spot so proximities aren't an issue.

 

I have found many multis with physical waypoints that were fun and some even deserved an FP. Generally speaking, however, it's not the ideal format and virtual waypoints are best.

Why? If the area can sustain multiple physical stages, why would it matter if they're physical vs. virtual? Best/ideal for you, perhaps, but not best or ideal for all situations nor for all cachers. In my multi linked above, there's nothing in the area I could use for a virtual waypoint as the two buildings are faded and decrepit and there's nothing else in the small patch of woods but trees and an old house foundation.

 

Maintenance is a bigger concern than proximity, in some instances. I've been shafted by too many broken or missing physical multi elements to consider that to be best practice. It's fine and can be fun if the owner is dedicated to maintenance, but it's not optimal cache design in general. No need for tears, I just said virtual is best, I didn't say physical is garbage.

No you didn't say that they were garbage but your post basically said that virtual waypoints are a better method than physical ones in general. I disagree. Perhaps you meant easier on the CO rather than better as a generality? You're free to your opinions but to state something as a general rule for ALL multi caches is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Maintenance is part and parcel of owning a cache so I don't see how it's not "optimal" to have physical stages at each location. It means more work to keep it running smoothly. If you think optimal means easier to maintain, I'm all in agreement but if you think they're better, I'll disagree. For the record, I have multis that use both virtual and physical and I don't find one type better than the other. I even have one that uses only virtual stages until the final stage. They're just different methods of providing a stage to move onto the next one. I have also had virtual stages get moved or go MIA so it applies to both types.

 

I don't make the rules, just so we're clear. Both are acceptable formats with valid uses but all things being equal, virtual waypoints are the superior choice.

[+narcissa]

Maintenance is a bigger concern than proximity, in some instances. I've been shafted by too many broken or missing physical multi elements to consider that to be best practice. It's fine and can be fun if the owner is dedicated to maintenance, but it's not optimal cache design in general. No need for tears, I just said virtual is best, I didn't say physical is garbage.

 

So it sounds more like a cache owner problem, rather than a cache format problem. The original intent of a multi-cache was to find a container or a tag at one location that had coordinates for the next. Really, it's the ultimate orienteering course.

 

The original intent of geocaching was to find a buried container with a can of beans in it. There was room for improvement.

[+J Grouchy]

I have been contemplating a multi-cache based (loosely) on the 'maze of twisty passages, all alike' part of the old text based Colossal Cave game. You have multiple rooms, where you can go multiple directions. These directions lead to more rooms. In the middle of this maze was the pirate's chest. (In the game, the key to mapping this area was to drop an item in each room, making it different.)

 

So, pick a starting point. At that point, instead of a single set of coordinates, you have three or four. Which ever set you pick, it would take you to either the cache, or to another set of three or four coordinates. For each cacher, the route and the number of waypoints to get to the cache could be different. I figured about a dozen waypoints total would be a decent sized maze. The cacher would have to go to at least three waypoints before they could get the actual cache coordinates.

 

No puzzle solving involved in this one, just guessing (and keeping track of coordinates).

 

I think I like this one.... I'll probably try this one out. The only thing that's hard about any multi in the city is that you're using space for other potential caches.

Thanks for the idea!

 

The best multis use pre-existing, i.e. "virtual," features that are exempt from proximity issues.

"Best" is perhaps a bit strong. Most of my multis use virtual waypoints but one that I'm particularly fond of has themed objects at each location, each telling a bit more of the story while providing the coordinates and extra hint for the next stage. It's a bit more maintenance-intensive, particularly at this location where it's had yobbo muggle campers who made off with one of the objects, floods that washed another away (that one's now much heavier and placed under a large rock) and even wood rot, but everyone's enjoyed the concept and it currently stands at 48% favourite points. From start to finish it spans a bit over a hundred metres and is in a fairly remote spot so proximities aren't an issue.

 

I have found many multis with physical waypoints that were fun and some even deserved an FP. Generally speaking, however, it's not the ideal format and virtual waypoints are best.

Why? If the area can sustain multiple physical stages, why would it matter if they're physical vs. virtual? Best/ideal for you, perhaps, but not best or ideal for all situations nor for all cachers. In my multi linked above, there's nothing in the area I could use for a virtual waypoint as the two buildings are faded and decrepit and there's nothing else in the small patch of woods but trees and an old house foundation.

 

Maintenance is a bigger concern than proximity, in some instances. I've been shafted by too many broken or missing physical multi elements to consider that to be best practice. It's fine and can be fun if the owner is dedicated to maintenance, but it's not optimal cache design in general. No need for tears, I just said virtual is best, I didn't say physical is garbage.

No you didn't say that they were garbage but your post basically said that virtual waypoints are a better method than physical ones in general. I disagree. Perhaps you meant easier on the CO rather than better as a generality? You're free to your opinions but to state something as a general rule for ALL multi caches is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Maintenance is part and parcel of owning a cache so I don't see how it's not "optimal" to have physical stages at each location. It means more work to keep it running smoothly. If you think optimal means easier to maintain, I'm all in agreement but if you think they're better, I'll disagree. For the record, I have multis that use both virtual and physical and I don't find one type better than the other. I even have one that uses only virtual stages until the final stage. They're just different methods of providing a stage to move onto the next one. I have also had virtual stages get moved or go MIA so it applies to both types.

 

I don't make the rules, just so we're clear. Both are acceptable formats with valid uses but all things being equal, virtual waypoints are the superior choice.

 

[+bflentje]

It's inescapable.

[+coachstahly]

 

I don't make the rules, just so we're clear. Both are acceptable formats with valid uses but all things being equal, virtual waypoints are the superior choice.

Must be nice to be right all the time and speak for all geocachers and geocaches. Who made you the arbiter of virtual waypoints being superior to physical waypoints?

 

Your opinions on this matter are just that, opinions, but you're making it sound like you're the authority on the types of stages of a multi cache and that your method is the better method, without providing any justification for your blanket statements.

 

Hands down the best multi I've ever done and not a virtual stage anywhere to be found.

 

The second best multi I've ever done and no virtual stages.

 

The third best multi I've ever done and no virtual stages.

 

That does NOT mean that I haven't enjoyed multis with virtual stages. I have, but I think it's rather presumptuous to conclude that the best multis use the superior choice of virtual stages over physical stages.

 

For example, this one, this one, and this one are all examples of great multis that use virtual stages, the one in NYC being all virtual with the exception of the final.

Edited April 10, 2017 by coachstahly

[+narcissa]

 

I don't make the rules, just so we're clear. Both are acceptable formats with valid uses but all things being equal, virtual waypoints are the superior choice.

Must be nice to be right all the time and speak for all geocachers and geocaches. Who made you the arbiter of virtual waypoints being superior to physical waypoints?

 

Your opinions on this matter are just that, opinions, but you're making it sound like you're the authority on the types of stages of a multi cache and that your method is the better method, without providing any justification for your blanket statements.

 

Hands down the best multi I've ever done and not a virtual stage anywhere to be found.

 

The second best multi I've ever done and no virtual stages.

 

The third best multi I've ever done and no virtual stages.

 

That does NOT mean that I haven't enjoyed multis with virtual stages. I have, but I think it's rather presumptuous to conclude that the best multis use the superior choice of virtual stages over physical stages.

 

For example, this one, this one, and this one are all examples of great multis that use virtual stages, the one in NYC being all virtual with the exception of the final.

 

Again, I don't make the rules nor do I claim to speak for anyone other than myself. It should go without saying that all forum users speak for themselves, except for those instances when reviewers or lackeys make official statements.

 

I don't really see the relevance of your post. We're all sharing opinions. Why does that need to be stated?

[cezanne]

Perhaps you meant easier on the CO rather than better as a generality? You're free to your opinions but to state something as a general rule for ALL multi caches is a bit of a stretch, IMO. Maintenance is part and parcel of owning a cache so I don't see how it's not "optimal" to have physical stages at each location. It means more work to keep it running smoothly. If you think optimal means easier to maintain, I'm all in agreement but if you think they're better, I'll disagree.

 

I agree with you that not one of the methods is better than the other. Personally I prefer however by far virtual stages as *finder* even when the cache is perfectly maintained. Virtual stages can go missing too but they typically distract much less from my main activity which is hiking, walking or biking. That's of course my individual preference.

 

I do not agree at all however with statements (not yours) that multi caches originally were meant to have only physical stages.

[+TeamRabbitRun]

 

I don't make the rules, just so we're clear. Both are acceptable formats with valid uses but all things being equal, virtual waypoints are the superior choice.

Must be nice to be right all the time and speak for all geocachers and geocaches. Who made you the arbiter of virtual waypoints being superior to physical waypoints?

 

Your opinions on this matter are just that, opinions, but you're making it sound like you're the authority on the types of stages of a multi cache and that your method is the better method, without providing any justification for your blanket statements.

 

Hands down the best multi I've ever done and not a virtual stage anywhere to be found.

 

The second best multi I've ever done and no virtual stages.

 

The third best multi I've ever done and no virtual stages.

 

That does NOT mean that I haven't enjoyed multis with virtual stages. I have, but I think it's rather presumptuous to conclude that the best multis use the superior choice of virtual stages over physical stages.

 

For example, this one, this one, and this one are all examples of great multis that use virtual stages, the one in NYC being all virtual with the exception of the final.

 

Again, I don't make the rules nor do I claim to speak for anyone other than myself. It should go without saying that all forum users speak for themselves, except for those instances when reviewers or lackeys make official statements.

 

I don't really see the relevance of your post. We're all sharing opinions. Why does that need to be stated?

 

Not that I really want to be in the middle of this one, but you seem to always say "This is the best" instead of even implying that "For me, this is the best" and that's what people twist their knickers over, but I suspect you already get that.

[+GeoTrekker26]

Again, I don't make the rules nor do I claim to speak for anyone other than myself. It should go without saying that all forum users speak for themselves, except for those instances when reviewers or lackeys make official statements.

 

I don't really see the relevance of your post. We're all sharing opinions. Why does that need to be stated?

 

So as not to confuse the new cacher, such as the one who started this thread.

[+narcissa]

 

I don't make the rules, just so we're clear. Both are acceptable formats with valid uses but all things being equal, virtual waypoints are the superior choice.

Must be nice to be right all the time and speak for all geocachers and geocaches. Who made you the arbiter of virtual waypoints being superior to physical waypoints?

 

Your opinions on this matter are just that, opinions, but you're making it sound like you're the authority on the types of stages of a multi cache and that your method is the better method, without providing any justification for your blanket statements.

 

Hands down the best multi I've ever done and not a virtual stage anywhere to be found.

 

The second best multi I've ever done and no virtual stages.

 

The third best multi I've ever done and no virtual stages.

 

That does NOT mean that I haven't enjoyed multis with virtual stages. I have, but I think it's rather presumptuous to conclude that the best multis use the superior choice of virtual stages over physical stages.

 

For example, this one, this one, and this one are all examples of great multis that use virtual stages, the one in NYC being all virtual with the exception of the final.

 

Again, I don't make the rules nor do I claim to speak for anyone other than myself. It should go without saying that all forum users speak for themselves, except for those instances when reviewers or lackeys make official statements.

 

I don't really see the relevance of your post. We're all sharing opinions. Why does that need to be stated?

 

Not that I really want to be in the middle of this one, but you seem to always say "This is the best" instead of even implying that "For me, this is the best" and that's what people twist their knickers over, but I suspect you already get that.

 

The "For me" is implied because I'm a private individual commenting on my own behalf. I still fail to see why any of these personal interpretations are at all relevant to the post, which was looking for advice on multi-caches. The alternative opinions provided are perfectly valid and didn't need to contain these personal irrelevancies.

[+coachstahly]

 

The "For me" is implied because I'm a private individual commenting on my own behalf. I still fail to see why any of these personal interpretations are at all relevant to the post, which was looking for advice on multi-caches. The alternative opinions provided are perfectly valid and didn't need to contain these personal irrelevancies.

But the inference does NOT come through on a forum like this. At times, it's important to make sure that at least once, when expressing an opinion, a poster provide a caveat that this is my opinion and not a blanket statement to apply to all caches in a given situation (or whatever is being discussed). I don't know you personally and have no idea what type of person you are and I dislike making inferences on points raised when no implication by a poster is even suggested on a topic. That's exactly what leads to confusion, such as this thread. Nowhere did you say this was your opinion. Instead it came out as you being holier than thou and that's what ends up derailing threads. It's almost like a statement of fact for you rather than an opinion because you never tell us its your opinion. Now that I know that about you and your posts, it makes more sense but it still can throw new forum users off their stride.

Edited April 11, 2017 by coachstahly

[+coachstahly]

 

Ah, sorry, I probably took your

"We here deserve to know everything that goes on behind the doors of your private company so that we (paying members or not) can feel valued and heard"

somewhat less sarcastically than you meant it I'm not a frequent flyer here, so don't really have an in-depth grasp of posters previously established viewpoints.

 

And this point from another thread perfectly sums up what I was trying to say. Not everyone knows or understands the little peccadilloes and habits of each poster and it's my assumption that newbie cachers can be overwhelmed by the fount of righteous opinions on almost any topic without realizing that they're just opinions, not the last word. I know I was the first time I hopped on here. I've gotten to "know" a few posters on here and can generally get the tone or attitude that they are indicating in their posts. Such has never been the case with narcissa because I never knew that her "For me" was always to be inferred by the readers of her posts.

 

That being said, the OP has quite a few links and ideas provided that might offer inspiration to create a multi cache in the area that's got some seldom seen stages in their neck of the woods.

[+narcissa]

 

The "For me" is implied because I'm a private individual commenting on my own behalf. I still fail to see why any of these personal interpretations are at all relevant to the post, which was looking for advice on multi-caches. The alternative opinions provided are perfectly valid and didn't need to contain these personal irrelevancies.

But the inference does NOT come through on a forum like this. At times, it's important to make sure that at least once, when expressing an opinion, a poster provide a caveat that this is my opinion and not a blanket statement to apply to all caches in a given situation (or whatever is being discussed). I don't know you personally and have no idea what type of person you are and I dislike making inferences on points raised when no implication by a poster is even suggested on a topic. That's exactly what leads to confusion, such as this thread. Nowhere did you say this was your opinion. Instead it came out as you being holier than thou and that's what ends up derailing threads. It's almost like a statement of fact for you rather than an opinion because you never tell us its your opinion. Now that I know that about you and your posts, it makes more sense but it still can throw new forum users off their stride.

 

You'll have to forgive me, I'm still having trouble connecting the dots here. How does this relate to multi-cache design issues?

[+redsox_mark]

With multi stage caches, I love ones which have a theme or story and work that into the stages. I'll give 2 examples. One is a story about a geocacher who is being chased by some sort of creature. You find various objects of his (e.g. a lost shoe) on the way, which are physical stages.

 

Second example - the cache owner discovered or knew about a small stone "cottage" in the middle of a wood. Looks like something out of a fairy tale. So he made this into a virtual stage in a fairy tale based cache.

 

A case where I use a virtual stage without a story, which is a common one, is to use an information board. I take you to a woodland, and lead you to a information board about the woodland to get the final coordinates. I do that as I want you to learn about the woodland.

 

So for me it is about what works best for a given idea. I suppose, in general, if I have the choice between an "ordinary" physical stage (e.g. film pot with coords in) and an "ordinary" virtual (count the bolts on the post), as a hider I'd go with the virtual as it is easier to maintain. And as a finder, I slightly prefer finding and counting things to finding a micro.

[+barefootjeff]

With multi stage caches, I love ones which have a theme or story and work that into the stages. I'll give 2 examples. One is a story about a geocacher who is being chased by some sort of creature. You find various objects of his (e.g. a lost shoe) on the way, which are physical stages.

 

That sounds similar to "The Lost Sheriff of Middle Sea County" multi, one of my Constable Plodfoot series set in late 19th century colonial Australia. At the listed coordinates are the remains of a campfire (in a spot no-one in their right mind would put a fire) which then leads to various items dropped by the sheriff and ultimately to his badge attached to his journal (the logbook) which explains why he's gone missing. Others in the series use either virtual or physical waypoints depending on the story being told, for example Plodfoot interrogating suspects or informants uses virtual waypoints.

[+redsox_mark]

With multi stage caches, I love ones which have a theme or story and work that into the stages. I'll give 2 examples. One is a story about a geocacher who is being chased by some sort of creature. You find various objects of his (e.g. a lost shoe) on the way, which are physical stages.

 

That sounds similar to "The Lost Sheriff of Middle Sea County" multi, one of my Constable Plodfoot series set in late 19th century colonial Australia. At the listed coordinates are the remains of a campfire (in a spot no-one in their right mind would put a fire) which then leads to various items dropped by the sheriff and ultimately to his badge attached to his journal (the logbook) which explains why he's gone missing. Others in the series use either virtual or physical waypoints depending on the story being told, for example Plodfoot interrogating suspects or informants uses virtual waypoints.

 

Sounds great!

[+coachstahly]

I enjoyed this one, which was themed around a zombie idea.