Do I need to enter all waypoints when creating a multi?

[+Thewins5]

Apologies if this question has been asked before - don't use the forums much and I couldn't make a useful search.

 

I have created a few multis, but have a couple planned that will be multiple sites along a reasonably long drive (50+kms) where they will essentially be a series of containers with the waypoints for the next one. There will be a warning that the cache will require a drive (and I have created a number of other caches along the route to keep interest going).

 

My question si when I create the cache do I need to put all of the waypoints in to be reviewed, or can I get away with just putting the starting point and the final GZ? I assume because of the potential (in this case very low likelihood) of other physical caches being within the 161 metres the reviewers may want to see each stage, but my preference is that the number of points remains hidden - even if you hide all the details my understanding is that there would be an entry either way and so searchers would know that they are approaching the end (maybe I guess I just want them to be never certain whether the end is in sight).

 

As I said apologies if this has been raised before, or it is clearly in the rules what I need to do (I did look) but any thoughts appreciated.

Cheers

Thewins5

[+NYPaddleCacher]

3 minutes ago, Thewins5 said:

even if you hide all the details my understanding is that there would be an entry either way and so searchers would know that they are approaching the end (maybe I guess I just want them to be never certain whether the end is in sight).

 

Sounds like a good way to ensure that your cache doesn't get found very often.    Those that do multi cache like to have some idea for how long it's going to take.  If I am only visiting an area for a short period of time I would want to know whether multi-cache  could typically be complete in an hour (has 2-3 stages) or if it's going to take all day or more.

 

[+Thewins5]

I intend to list that the cache will take a number of hours (and is part of a trail that is likely to be 50+ caches - each cache already states the entire length of the potential trail).

I also suspect some may need to visit multiple times

But take your point that a general sense of time would be required (even if the specific number of waypoints may not)

[+on4bam]

Since the waypoints will be physical, you'll have to list them for review.

We prefer multi's but if an approximate distance is not given (>10Km attribute doesn't say much) we will skip it or at least ask the CO. The time it takes doesn't tell all, some may do it by bike, others by car. If it's not a loop we would also skip it (2*50Km would mean car only which is not what we do). The longest multi we ever did was 63 Km and 63 WPs by bike. It took all day and in the end the cache was not found. After it was replaced by the CO we were able to log it though.

 

[+Thewins5]

Thanks on4bam - that was my thought on the physical caches - will set up that way and see how people go with it

[+on4bam]

Also keep the distance between WPs in mind (even more with traditionals in between). From (our) experience: Distance between WPs/caches while walking is not important (161m is no problem), while using a bike 500m is an absolute minimum (>1Km is better) otherwise there's more stopping/starting and getting on/off the bike. If designed to do with a car WPs/traditionals should be even further apart (think about parking places).

 

 

[+Thewins5]

Yes - this will be a car-based cache (the road is not a great one for cyclists). I am always careful with parking, and the one I have in mind will be picnic areas so plenty of off road parking at the sites. Likely to be 10+ kms between caches - so too far may be the issue, but I will see how it goes (will have others where the final will be <200 metres away) - I like to give  amix of options and see who does what!

[+barefootjeff]

52 minutes ago, Thewins5 said:

My question si when I create the cache do I need to put all of the waypoints in to be reviewed, or can I get away with just putting the starting point and the final GZ? I assume because of the potential (in this case very low likelihood) of other physical caches being within the 161 metres the reviewers may want to see each stage, but my preference is that the number of points remains hidden - even if you hide all the details my understanding is that there would be an entry either way and so searchers would know that they are approaching the end (maybe I guess I just want them to be never certain whether the end is in sight).

 

On the cache creation page, you can set the waypoints to be completely visible, visible but with hidden coordinates or completely hidden. Selecting the latter should do what you want.

[+Thewins5]

barefootjeff - have tried that with a Mystery cache and found that some of the detail still appeared on the cache page (maybe I needed to leave the "Description" field blank?)

[+coachstahly]

2 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Also keep the distance between WPs in mind (even more with traditionals in between). From (our) experience: Distance between WPs/caches while walking is not important (161m is no problem), while using a bike 500m is an absolute minimum (>1Km is better) otherwise there's more stopping/starting and getting on/off the bike. If designed to do with a car WPs/traditionals should be even further apart (think about parking places).

 

I don't agree with the "minimum" stated regarding distance, as there's no minimum stated between stages when placing a stage of a multi (other than the distance from other caches in place).  That being said, most cachers would prefer longer stretches between stages, based on the mode of transport but there's nothing requiring you to do so.  If a bike is the recommended mode of transport and the stages are somewhat closer together, I'd state that in your description, but there's no "absolute minimum" in play that's required between stages.  I like to know if there's parking close by a stage, particularly if the distance is much longer than is "normal".  It's frustrating to find that a stage has no parking within a 1/2 mile (just short of i Km) and the only modes of transportation I have are my car and my feet.  I don't mind the walking, just the surprise of not being forewarned that it's something I'd have to do.

 

I have a Wherigo (basically a virtual multi) that has roughly 40 miles of driving to get to each stage and let them know how long it took for the drive (since I had to drive it myself) as well as the total distance.

[+on4bam]

11 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

I don't agree with the "minimum" stated regarding distance,

 

 

The distances I'm giving is about being comfortable, not what guidelines say. When WPs/caches are close together being on a bike is not "fun" anymore. When we're on foot we average about 2.5-3Km/h (less if we have to search long), when caches/wps are close together we have the same average on a bike. The biking average goes up as WPs/caches are further apart and it's more enjoyable to ride and look around. This completely off-topic as it's a "car cache". Since we like to enjoy walks and bike rides (in nature if possible) this is not for us (and looking at TheWins5 profile it's on the other side of the world for us anyway (no immediate plans to revisit Eastern Oz).

 

[+coachstahly]

9 minutes ago, on4bam said:

The distances I'm giving is about being comfortable, not what guidelines say.

 

I realize that but you stated the "absolute minimum" without really prefacing it with the notion that it was your preference.  "From our experience" isn't quite the same as "our preferences".  I would also much prefer longer distances if on a bike.  However, if it's a bike trail, I"m assuming there are also other caches along the trail, which means more frequent stops anyway, assuming cachers opt to do the traditional caches along the way.

 

All of this is, of course, irrelevant to the specific situation addressed by the OP, since it's a car oriented multi.but that's not evident from the title of the post.  The discussion about multiple waypoints and preferences regarding distance are valid in the sense that I'm sure many others might have opinions on the matter.

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, Thewins5 said:

barefootjeff - have tried that with a Mystery cache and found that some of the detail still appeared on the cache page (maybe I needed to leave the "Description" field blank?)

I'm not seeing any evidence that waypoints are shown even when they're hidden. Perhaps you're being fooled by the fact that the system always shows the CO the waypoints for his caches even though no one else can see them.

 

But, anyway, that's not really important to your question. The answer is that you do need to list all the waypoints, and you should list all the waypoints. That would still be true even if there is something in the system that forces you to tip your hand more than you really want to.

 

By the way, I'm always a little worried when I don't know how many stages are in a multi. Telling me the distance and how long you think it will take is certainly enough information, and I wouldn't skip the multi just because it doesn't tell me how many stages to expect. But if I'm doing the multi and I get pressed for time towards the end, I'll be in the dark about whether I have just one more stop or there are still 10 to do before I get to the end. You tell me how long you think it will take, but I don't know if I've been taking longer per stage than you expected me to. Just my personal preference for you to weigh against the surprise factor. (This reminds me of a cache I did that told me there were 59 stages, but I didn't believe it. I never made it to the end -- I only had time for a multi with a few stages -- but from the logs, apparently there really are 59 stages, but the last 30 or 40 are so obvious you don't have to actually "find" them.)

[+Thewins5]

Thanks dprovan - I think that is the key comment (forgot there is a diffrence in what a CO sees and the rest of the world does).

 

Will submit the details and ensure that there is sufficient information so that all know whether to start or not.

 

Thanks for the helpful and informative comments all - hopefully will improve my cache design and placement.

 

Cheers

[+NYPaddleCacher]

10 hours ago, Thewins5 said:

Thanks dprovan - I think that is the key comment (forgot there is a diffrence in what a CO sees and the rest of the world does).

 

Will submit the details and ensure that there is sufficient information so that all know whether to start or not.

 

Thanks for the helpful and informative comments all - hopefully will improve my cache design and placement.

 

Cheers

 

Based on your responses to the feedback you've received so far it sounds it'll be a great cache.  

[+TriciaG]

Just want to note one more thing, in case you're unaware of it: each physical stage of your cache (each of these containers with coords to the next waypoint) must be 161m (528 ft) from the location of any other caches or physical stages of other caches. So if there's a guardrail cache 300 feet from where you want your waypoint container, that'll be a problem.

 

That's another reason why the waypoints all have to be listed; so that the reviewer can check each physical waypoint for proximity issues.