Jump to content

Multi or Mystery?


captnemo

Recommended Posts

I am in the process of putting out a new Gadget Cache and am wondering on whether it should be a Multi or a Mystery cache.

 

I am very much aware of the discussion  of whether  a Gadget cache should be a  Mystery or a Traditional and  Mystery is my choice, and had listed my other Gadget Caches as Mystery.

 

The new cache will have the coordinates of the Gadget  in the listing, however it will have a security cover over the puzzle part.  To open the cover you must enter a combination into the lock.  To get the combination you must visit various virtual items in the park.  The coordinates for these items will be in the listing.  All will be close to the Gadget well within 528 feet.

 

I did consider just listing the combination in the cache write up but since there are several interesting items in the park which are worth visiting I feel that it would be better to involve them in the find.

 

I am leaning to Multi but would like some input.

Link to post

I'd say it's a Multi, because you don't solve the puzzle from home (which would be a Mystery). Instead you walk to different locations, search for information and in the end go to the final coordinates. That sounds very much like a Multi.

 

 

If there is something to solve/puzzle at your final stage (except the lock) I would set the Field Puzzle attribute.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, fraggle_[DE] said:

I'd say it's a Multi, because you don't solve the puzzle from home (which would be a Mystery). Instead you walk to different locations, search for information and in the end go to the final coordinates. That sounds very much like a Multi.

 

 

If there is something to solve/puzzle at your final stage (except the lock) I would set the Field Puzzle attribute.

Yes there is a lot to solve at the final stage and I am planning on including the Field Puzzle attribute.

 

To maybe clarify, the reason I have a question is that on every other multi I have found only the first stage coordinates are listed while here, all stages and the final coordinates will be listed.

Link to post
36 minutes ago, captnemo said:

I am very much aware of the discussion  of whether  a Gadget cache should be a  Mystery or a Traditional and  Mystery is my choice, and had listed my other Gadget Caches as Mystery.

 

Because you have already selected mystery instead of traditional, I suggest that you select mystery instead of multi for the same reason. (Whatever it is)

Edited by arisoft
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, fraggle_[DE] said:

I'd say it's a Multi, because you don't solve the puzzle from home (which would be a Mystery)

 

Not solving something at home doesn't make it instantly a multi. Last month I run into a mystery cache where you had to solve a dominoes quiz on the site.

 

3 minutes ago, captnemo said:

To maybe clarify, the reason I have a question is that on every other multi I have found only the first stage coordinates are listed while here, all stages and the final coordinates will be listed.

 

To be honest, your idea is more multi-ish than the one you've brought up, at least for me :D

 

I would recommend to use this "strategy" while deciding:

Is your cache solvable/doable without internet search, specialistic knowledge and having to do a quiz-like task? ==> definitely a Multi

But of course there are multis where you have to think and make some kind of investigation for example, then you have to decide if its mysterious enough to get the mystery cachetype.

 

Your idea is a multi, even without the attribute of field-puzzle.

Link to post

Reads to me as if you could list either as Mystery, or Multi. I'd probably go Multi.  Stages  visible doesn't matter to type. What matters is: 1) cache seeker needs to visit the posted coords 2) signing log can probably be done without a great deal of research for info not immediately available between the cache page and the locations. If this is true, and it seems to be, then this a Multi-cache. 

 

You might ask a local reviewer, because if your reviewer has a strong opinion on this, it could mean editing the cache page type.

You'll lose your stages and final when you do this.  If you do change type, you can edit all waypoints to "reference", change the cache type, then edit all waypoint back.  You can't salvage the final. You'll just lose it.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
11 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Reads to me as if you could list either as Mystery, or Multi. I'd probably go Multi.  Stages  visible doesn't matter to type. What matters is: 1) cache seeker needs to visit the posted coords 2) signing log can probably be done without a great deal of research for info not immediately available between the cache page and the locations. If this is true, and it seems to be, then this a Multi-cache. 

 

You might ask a local reviewer, because if your reviewer has a strong opinion on this, it could mean editing the cache page type.

You'll lose your stages and final when you do this.  If you do change type, you can edit all waypoints to "reference", change the cache type, then edit all waypoint back.  You can't salvage the final. You'll just lose it.

Definitely will ask the reviewer for their input and will definitely follow the reviewers opinion as that is the one that counts.   Signing the log will require no research but you have to solve a puzzle. 

Link to post

If all locations are listed in advance, it is a Puzzle. A Multi is set to go from point A to B to C.

Quote from the guidelines:
"A Multi-Cache includes at least one stage in addition to the physical final stage. The posted coordinates are a stage of the Multi-Cache. At each stage, the geocacher gathers information that leads them to the next stage or to the final container. "

 

Link to post
1 minute ago, Asgoroth said:

If all locations are listed in advance, it is a Puzzle. A Multi is set to go from point A to B to C.

Quote from the guidelines:
"A Multi-Cache includes at least one stage in addition to the physical final stage. The posted coordinates are a stage of the Multi-Cache. At each stage, the geocacher gathers information that leads them to the next stage or to the final container. "

 

 

You just quoted a proof that this is a Multi-Cache, not a Mystery Cache. Read it again carefully.

  • Love 2
Link to post
1 hour ago, captnemo said:

The new cache will have the coordinates of the Gadget  in the listing, however it will have a security cover over the puzzle part.  To open the cover you must enter a combination into the lock.  To get the combination you must visit various virtual items in the park.  The coordinates for these items will be in the listing.  All will be close to the Gadget well within 528 feet.

What is the nature of the task(s) required to produce coordinates from the information at the virtual stages?

 

If all that is involved is counting, copying information, basic arithmetic, etc., then I would list it as a multi-cache (ignoring the gadget cache itself). If producing coordinates requires anything more complicated, or anything puzzle-like, then I would list it as a mystery/puzzle cache.

 

But there are regional variations. I have seen places where even simple offset caches that require copying information from a sign are listed as mystery/puzzle caches. And I have seen places where even caches with complex puzzles to produce the final coordinates are listed as multi-caches.

 

But if it were mine, then I would list it as a mystery/puzzle cache just because of the gadget cache.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Asgoroth said:

If all locations are listed in advance, it is a Puzzle. A Multi is set to go from point A to B to C.

Quote from the guidelines:
"A Multi-Cache includes at least one stage in addition to the physical final stage. The posted coordinates are a stage of the Multi-Cache. At each stage, the geocacher gathers information that leads them to the next stage or to the final container. "

 

That's a Multi to me.

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Asgoroth said:

If all locations are listed in advance, it is a Puzzle. A Multi is set to go from point A to B to C.

I have found multi-caches where all the non-final waypoints were listed in advance. Each provided information required to locate the final.

 

3 minutes ago, Asgoroth said:

Quote from the guidelines:
"A Multi-Cache includes at least one stage in addition to the physical final stage. The posted coordinates are a stage of the Multi-Cache. At each stage, the geocacher gathers information that leads them to the next stage or to the final container. "

Emphasis added. Even if all the non-final waypoints are listed in advance, they can still lead the seeker to the final container.

Link to post
1 minute ago, sernikk said:

 

You just quoted a proof that this is a Multi-Cache, not a Mystery Cache. Read it again carefully.

Not so, the OP stated that all the coordinated would be listed. A multi is specifically setup that you need to go to each stage, get information to go to the next stage, repeat until you are at final.  By listing all stages in advance, that is not required, bypassing the "geocacher gathers information that leads them to the next stage" part.

 

 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, niraD said:

I have found multi-caches where all the non-final waypoints were listed in advance. Each provided information required to locate the final.

 

Emphasis added. Even if all the non-final waypoints are listed in advance, they can still lead the seeker to the final container.

I am not saying it doesn't happen. In fact, the main reason I ran into this was my own misunderstanding. With that said, each reviewer will do what they will.

  • Funny 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, Asgoroth said:

Not so, the OP stated that all the coordinated would be listed. A multi is specifically setup that you need to go to each stage, get information to go to the next stage, repeat until you are at final.  By listing all stages in advance, that is not required, bypassing the "geocacher gathers information that leads them to the next stage" part.

 

niraD already explained it with highlighting the quote "or to the final container."

Multi-Cache has multiple stages. They can be visible, they can be hidden, doesn't matter. The only important thing is, that they are for something, and the need of visiting at least one additional stage to get to the final makes it a multi.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

And I have seen places where even caches with complex puzzles to produce the final coordinates are listed as multi-caches.

That must have been Germany ;) . Here we have quite a simple rule (observed by almost all cache owners, and supported by the reviewers): If you can walk up to the listing coordinates without any "home work", and can find the cache and sign the log in the end, it's a traditional or a multi. But if you have to do home work, usually to find out the location of the final or first stage, but maybe also some other necessary information (e.g. the code for a lock), it's a mystery cache. A multi cache can have puzzle-like tasks at its stages or the final - these can be very difficult sometimes, but as long as all the information you need to solve it can be found on site, it remains a multi.

 

All this is immensely useful, if you do a spontaneous caching tour (or multi-day trip) in an area without much time for preparation at home. Just leave out mystery caches in your PQ, and with the remaining listings you have a decent chance that you can just go there and successfully log the cache (unless the listing says that special equipment is needed, which haven't brought).

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Just leave out mystery caches in your PQ

Yep. I tend to leave them in PQs, but straight out ignore them.... (unless pre-solved). I have found some that were really multis (like cemetery number hunts), that would have been ignnored if I hadn't pre-researched the area at home....

Link to post

Since the cache is at the posted coordinates I would argue that it's a traditional cache with a field puzzle attribute. The information to unlock the cache is all in the immediate vicinity by the sound of it. An unusual traditional cache to be sure, but that's a good thing in my book. 

I'm sure I've never seen a multi with the cache at the posted coordinates, but of course that's just my experience and it might be commonplace elsewhere. 

  • Funny 1
Link to post
58 minutes ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Since the cache is at the posted coordinates I would argue that it's a traditional cache with a field puzzle attribute. The information to unlock the cache is all in the immediate vicinity by the sound of it. An unusual traditional cache to be sure, but that's a good thing in my book. 

I'm sure I've never seen a multi with the cache at the posted coordinates, but of course that's just my experience and it might be commonplace elsewhere. 

 

This is a special case where all three options are possible because there is only one physical waypoint. I have found all three types with a container locked by some sort of combination lock. One was a traditional D5 cache with no hint for the code. I would select mystery type if I want to limit number of visitors and traditional if I want more visitors and more maintenance to do.

Link to post
2 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Since the cache is at the posted coordinates I would argue that it's a traditional cache with a field puzzle attribute. The information to unlock the cache is all in the immediate vicinity by the sound of it. An unusual traditional cache to be sure, but that's a good thing in my book. 

I'm sure I've never seen a multi with the cache at the posted coordinates, but of course that's just my experience and it might be commonplace elsewhere. 


I’d missed the fact that the coords for the final would be listed along with those of the virtual waypoints.  (Must read more carefully!)

 

12 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

I’d say Multi with the Field Puzzle attribute.


Every Multi I’ve come across has had a hidden final that is revealed by first finding information at other waypoint(s).  On reflection, maybe this should be a Mystery - the catch-all for caches that don’t fit elsewhere?  I guess MM is right that it could be an (unusual) Trad too, but purely to protect the cache from the unprepared, I’d probably avoid that option.

Link to post

First Thank you to  everyone who responded.  The discussion here has done what I hoped it would.  It has made me rethink this and I have what I believe will work.

 

I am going to make the cache a Multi with the puzzle attribute where you will go to the various stations and get not only the combination to the security lock but also the final coordinates of the cache.   In this way it should archive what I want it to.  Mainly a tour of a great park and security for the gadget cache.   Since all the stages will be virtual  they should not limit placement of future caches.  

 

This whole thing started out with the desire to place another Gadget Cache that will blend in with the purpose of the park and at the same time make finders aware that this is a Gadget and not your normal traditional cache.  I will never list a Gadget cache as a traditional as it's not fair for finders to show up and have to spend up to an hour that I believe will be necessary to solve the final puzzle.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to post
17 hours ago, Mermaid.Man said:

Since the cache is at the posted coordinates I would argue that it's a traditional cache with a field puzzle attribute. The information to unlock the cache is all in the immediate vicinity by the sound of it. An unusual traditional cache to be sure, but that's a good thing in my book. 

I'm sure I've never seen a multi with the cache at the posted coordinates, but of course that's just my experience and it might be commonplace elsewhere. 

 

I own a multi that has the final located at the published coordinates, along with visible coordinates for all the other stages that finders have to visit in order to gather the info required in order to unlock the multi.  I'm satisfied that's a multi, and so is my reviewer.

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
14 hours ago, IceColdUK said:


I’d missed the fact that the coords for the final would be listed along with those of the virtual waypoints.  (Must read more carefully!)

 


Every Multi I’ve come across has had a hidden final that is revealed by first finding information at other waypoint(s).  On reflection, maybe this should be a Mystery - the catch-all for caches that don’t fit elsewhere?  I guess MM is right that it could be an (unusual) Trad too, but purely to protect the cache from the unprepared, I’d probably avoid that option.

 

Yeah, I agree, it's not a trad because the finder has to visit other locations.  It *could* be a mystery, for the reason you mentioned.  As per my message above, I have a multi that is like this - final is visible along with all other stages, but needs info from the other stages to unlock the final and access the logbook.  It gets almost no visits, which also fits with the definition of multi :laughing:

  • Funny 1
Link to post

This was asked (mystery or multi) a while back at an event where a couple of reviewers were present and their answer was, in part: 

 

If there's something at the posted coords that you need (whether set there by the CO or not) to proceed, it's a multi.

If there's nothing at the posted coords that you need to proceed, it's a mystery.

 

The cachers around here tend to work this way but there are plenty of exceptions. For example I do a lot of cemetery "mystery" caches where the posted coords are the marker with the info that you need to continue, so technically I suppose that's a multi.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

 

I own a multi that has the final located at the published coordinates, along with visible coordinates for all the other stages that finders have to visit in order to gather the info required in order to unlock the multi.  I'm satisfied that's a multi, and so is my reviewer.

Well yes FMZ I'd certainly call yours a multi, the waypoints are spread out over a 20km area and it would be ridiculous to call it a trad.

With the OP's cache as originally proposed, the waypoints are all a very short distance from the final and are all in the same small park. 

Yours looks great though and funnily enough I lived pretty close to waypoint 10 for a number of years. 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, Mermaid.Man said:

With the OP's cache as originally proposed, the waypoints are all a very short distance from the final and are all in the same small park. 

So?

 

There is no requirement for a minimum distance between stages of a multi-cache. I've found multi-caches where I could touch the first stage with one hand while touching the final with the other. And I've found plenty where the final was within 100ft/30m of the first stage. Even with the final and the other stage(s) being "a very short distance" apart, there are still multiple waypoints/stages.

Link to post
12 minutes ago, niraD said:

So?

 

There is no requirement for a minimum distance between stages of a multi-cache. I've found multi-caches where I could touch the first stage with one hand while touching the final with the other. And I've found plenty where the final was within 100ft/30m of the first stage. Even with the final and the other stage(s) being "a very short distance" apart, there are still multiple waypoints/stages.

So?

 

You must have missed my earlier point.  I was only saying that I felt that a field puzzle trad would be an acceptable option in these very specific circumstances.

 

I'm sure that we've all found multis such as you describe.  I have one myself.

Link to post

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...