Suggesting changes to the cache categories: Multi-cache with more than two stages

[+edexter]

The categories used to group caches that have more than one stage fall into two groups:  Multi-caches and Mysteries.  (Leaving aside "adventure labs")  The great majority of these caches consist of only two stages:  First stage:  Mystery:  solve a puzzle at your computer to obtain the coords to the cache, or go to a physical stage (field puzzle)  that consists of a sign and gather information from it to obtain coords to the final.   90% of Multicaches I've found (487 so far) are two stages long. I think of these caches as "couples".   

A different form of multi-cache consists of three or more stages set out along a route that leads you to the final stage.  These are typically woodland hiking caches that direct you to a series of hides along a trail system.  Each stage contains either coordinates to the next stage or information you need to figure out where the final is.  Depending upon how the stages are constructed these caches are currently categorized as either multi-caches or mysteries but generally have little relationship to the typical cache in either category and consist of 3 to 10 (or more) stages.  These caches categorically different and deserve some easy way to be easily distinguished from the typical two stage multi.  At present there is no way to find them other than by systematically reading the cache page descriptions.  They typically have a high percentage of favorite points but a low number of finds...

edexter

[+niraD]

3 minutes ago, edexter said:

90% of Multicaches I've found (487 so far) are two stages long. I think of these caches as "couples".

FWIW, I've heard the term "offset cache" used to describe two-stage caches where the first stage directs you to the final. Generally, the interesting thing that motivated an offset cache is the first stage, where there are no good hiding spot, and the final is somewhere nearby that has a good hiding spot.

 

46 minutes ago, edexter said:

These caches categorically different and deserve some easy way to be easily distinguished from the typical two stage multi.

I disagree. They're all multi-caches.

 

If you start distinguishing between multi-caches with 2 stages and those with 3+ stages, then I'm going to argue that a 3-stage cache (e.g., virtual for latitude, virtual for longitude, and final) is "categorically different" from a 54-stage cache with 54 physical stages. And both of those are "categorically different" from a walking tour cache with 15 virtual stages for the GPS coordinates and a physical final. And so on.

 

No, they're all multi-caches.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

We can use attributes to categorize these.

• Takes less than one hour
• Field puzzle 

And, if we take the 'hike' attributes and change the meaning to mean total distance traveled, not necessarily by hiking, we can get an idea of the area that the multi-cache spans.

• Short hike
• Medium hike
• Long hike

For example, most offset caches (2 stage caches) should have the field puzzle, takes less than one hour, and short hike attributes. Multi-caches with more than 5 stages would probably be not takes less than one hour, and be a medium or long hike. 

 

 

[+niraD]

20 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

For example, most offset caches (2 stage caches) should have the field puzzle, takes less than one hour, and short hike attributes.

Huh... Most of the offset caches I've done have not had a field puzzle. Most of them have just had me collect information (count things, copy words from signs,  copy dates from plaques, etc.) and then use that information to determine where the final is. The formula for determining where the final is has almost always been straightforward substitution or arithmetic.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

51 minutes ago, niraD said:

Huh... Most of the offset caches I've done have not had a field puzzle. Most of them have just had me collect information (count things, copy words from signs,  copy dates from plaques, etc.) and then use that information to determine where the final is. The formula for determining where the final is has almost always been straightforward substitution or arithmetic.

What you just described fits my definition of a field puzzle. You must go into the field to collect the info.

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

What you just described fits my definition of a field puzzle. You must go into the field to collect the info.

 

Yep, looking through my own multis, I've set the Field Puzzle attribute whenever there's any questions to answer or a manipulation of numbers needed in the field where having a pen and paper might be handy, even if the actual puzzle is quite trivial. The ones without that attribute have an object to find that just has the coordinates of the next stage written on it that can be just keyed directly into your device.

[+niraD]

23 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

39 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

What you just described fits my definition of a field puzzle. You must go into the field to collect the info.

Yep, looking through my own multis, I've set the Field Puzzle attribute whenever there's any questions to answer or a manipulation of numbers needed in the field where having a pen and paper might be handy, even if the actual puzzle is quite trivial. The ones without that attribute have an object to find that just has the coordinates of the next stage written on it that can be just keyed directly into your device.

Maybe it's just me, but I would expect a field puzzle to include some sort of puzzle. Simple counting, substitution, or arithmetic isn't a puzzle, IMHO.

[+Jayeffel]

Maybe that is what makes geocaching so fun (mostly)-- trying to figure what the CO intends when describing the cache etc. 

[+lee737]

I've often thought that a superscript digit with the cache symbol on the map showing the number of waypoints could be helpful, but not a new cache type - don't forget the GPSr users....

 

[+JL_HSTRE]

8 hours ago, niraD said:

FWIW, I've heard the term "offset cache" used to describe two-stage caches where the first stage directs you to the final. Generally, the interesting thing that motivated an offset cache is the first stage, where there are no good hiding spot, and the final is somewhere nearby that has a good hiding spot.

 

That's only true if the first stage is a virtual field puzzle. Sometimes a two-stage multi is just two physical stages. Occasionally there are number trails consisting of multis like this.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

That's only true if the first stage is a virtual field puzzle. Sometimes a two-stage multi is just two physical stages. Occasionally there are number trails consisting of multis like this.

Well, sure, I wouldn't expect a cache on a numbers trail to have anything interesting at any of its stages. The whole point is numbers and speed. Interesting stages get in the way of numbers and speed.

[+Goldenwattle]

I own three multicaches. All of them have the stages listed, so people have no surprise how many stages they need to find. For the two longer ones (ten & eleven stages), I give the kilometre distance and type of terrain, so no surprises there either. I think if more people did that, there would maybe be less need to a conversation about the length of multicaches. What I find unfair, is one smiley for a multicache, that might have needed a 12,000km drive, and 6 (including the bonus cache) for an AL with a walk around the park. 'Literally a walk around the park!'

Both give distance, terrain (flattish) and show number of stages, so should be reduced surprises.

Narrabundah Ramble Multi-cache GC61P7D

Narrabundah Ramble II Multi-cache GC7AGE1

[+hzoi]

22 hours ago, edexter said:

At present there is no way to find them other than by systematically reading the cache page descriptions.

 

There are multiple attributes that can be used to differentiate. Rather than reinvent the wheel:

 

Quick multis should be using attributes such as: Park and grab; Takes less than one hour; Short hike (<1 km).

 

Not quick multis should be using attributes such as: Not a park and grab; Does not take less than an hour; Medium hike (1 km–10 km) or Long hike (>10 km) or even Significant hike.

 

If your local COs aren't using attributes, perhaps suggest that they do. But the solution isn't making a new cache type.

[+edexter]

Actually, I think a combination of lee737's idea of a superscript digit showing the number of stages and hzoi's  idea of using attributes attributes to differentiate  would work pretty well.

An attribute for "3 or more stages" would allow a search for a multicache with that attribute and be exactly what I am looking for.  It would differentiate between the 90% of multies that are two stages and the rest, and would be far more likely to be used. 

While, I agree that "Quick multis should be using attributes such as: Park and grab and<1km hike..."   a search using those criteria tuned up only four multis (two of them mine) in my locale,  A search for multis with "Medium hike (1 km–10 km)" was more useful:  It identified all of my multis and a handful of others some of which were more than two stages...But again it's not possible to identify caches with three or more stages and a decent hike with this method as it filters out the caches that don't use the hike length attributes...and several of the caches that passed this filter (shown as "<10km" on the cache page, not as "medium hike 1<10km" ) describe the cache on the cache page as "less than a half mile hike" so...not so helpful, I'm afraid.

[+vw_k]

It takes a couple of seconds to click on a cache listing and see if it's a simple 2 stage offset or a 3+ stage walking tour.

[+Goldenwattle]

On 10/27/2022 at 2:00 AM, hzoi said:

Medium hike (1 km–10 km) or Long hike (>10 km) or even Significant hike.

That only works for hiking. Some long distance caches are for driving. Unless one wants to walk thousands of kms. (I have actually seen people walking on the routes I was driving, and they do plan to walk thousand of kms, but they are very unusual.)

[+Gill & Tony]

12 hours ago, vw_k said:

It takes a couple of seconds to click on a cache listing and see if it's a simple 2 stage offset or a 3+ stage walking tour.

So, I have a database or list of multi caches in the area I'm heading to, let's say 50 multis.  

 

Option 1.  Click on every one of them, read the listing and see whether it fits my needs.  2 seconds to click and open the listing, 30 seconds to read the listing and make a note, 2 seconds to close the listing. Times 50.  That's half an hour

 

Option 2.  Add an attribute to the search and eliminate the ones I don't want.  Maybe a minute.

 

I know which I prefer.

[+egroeg]

Is it even required that a cache owner list in his description the number of stages in his cache?

[+fuzziebear3]

It is not required to list the number of stages, sometimes that is part of the adventure.

 

As for clicking and checking, I think the mystery or the multi are always a clue that you need to double check, read the cache page before you search.

It sounds like you want to turn multis into the same thing as a simple 1.5/1.5 traditional -- load and go, show up, no need to read a cache page.

There can be more to this hobby than just simple hides.   Just read the cache pages to figure out which adventures are for you.

 

 

 

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

If we do show the number of stages, this would need to be a maximum number of stages, or even a range. While very rare, there are multi-caches where you have choices. I was thinking of making one where each stage had a list of 3 or 4 coordinates. Pick one, and see where it leads. (Remember where you've been, so you don't end up in a loop.) Maybe it takes you four stages, maybe it takes you twelve.

 

And, maybe we want to add another set of distance attributes, or something to do with driving. This multi-cache, https://coord.info/GCM0GX has 50km between waypoints three and four. And, when you do make it to the fourth waypoint, you have an uphill, 5km long hike (one way) ahead of you, on an abandoned rail line (through tunnels, and across wooden trestles). Maybe something like driving recommended, or total travel distance > 50km.

 

Anyhow, back to the OP's question, I think that attributes would be more appropriate than a new cache type. I would like to see some adjustments made to the attributes, to make selecting caches I want to find a bit easier, and I would love to see crowdsourced attributes for older caches. But, that's a different topic for a different day.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

As for clicking and checking, I think the mystery or the multi are always a clue that you need to double check, read the cache page before you search.

It sounds like you want to turn multis into the same thing as a simple 1.5/1.5 traditional -- load and go, show up, no need to read a cache page.

There can be more to this hobby than just simple hides.   Just read the cache pages to figure out which adventures are for you.

 

Actually I think the OP was wanting to do the opposite, to sift out all those easy two-stage multis in order to focus on the more involved ones.

[+edexter]

vw-K  "It takes a couple of seconds to click on a cache listing and see if it's a simple 2 stage offset or a 3+ stage walking tour."

If you want to do a two stage multi. you are correct:  It takes a couple of seconds:  Click on pretty much any multi and you'll find it has two stages:  (generally the first will be a sign where you collect information and the second will be a container nearby.)  If however you want to find a three stage or more hiking cache you will have to search through all of the multis that come up on your search to find the one or two that are hidden under the category.  

As I said in the original post, "At present there is no way to find them other than by systematically reading the cache page descriptions"   I always read the cache page when I search for a cache but I have no interest in wading through dozens of caches each time I search for a walkabout which is of course the reason I'm suggesting a change in the system.

As an aside, for several years I systematically reviewed every cache that I was notified about in my locale.  I read the cache page and found they fell into three categories 1, Curbside (within 50 feet of pavement, roughly 50% of all hides..2, Short walks (between 50 feet and 100 yards (roughly 25%) 3, Woodland caches (more than 100 yards) 25%  I thought this categorization might be useful to others but found few actually look at bookmark lists and the feedback was infrequent but negative.  Folks who like to find caches within sight of their car don't appreciate distance based descriptions apparently 

 

[+cerberus1]

21 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

If we do show the number of stages, this would need to be a maximum number of stages, or even a range. While very rare, there are multi-caches where you have choices. I was thinking of making one where each stage had a list of 3 or 4 coordinates. Pick one, and see where it leads. (Remember where you've been, so you don't end up in a loop.) Maybe it takes you four stages, maybe it takes you twelve.

 

We spent a day far from home on similar, one find led you to your choice of a couple, each doing the same. Might be fun for those close by.

Eventually we just lost interest and went shopping locally.  

[+cerberus1]

I was kinda torn on this idea when brought up before. The idea that we have to hold hands and tell people how to take each step of their day...

We've been to a few multis with high terrain and a ridiculous number of stages.  Reading the page tells us that. Sorta.

A lot had stages broken/missing, I don't PAF or know COs in that area to notify, so it's bag-it for the day.

 - One example - six 4+T stages done, and the CO archives the cache rather than fix the darn thing. 

Another had over a dozen stages, all 4.5-5T, the driving distance far enough away that a year later it never got done. 

 - And why I wouldn't want to see them a cache type.  COs just trying to make it "the toughest" with no real thought process otherwise.

I'd probably like to see equipment requirements as well as a clever hint in the description, as one day I lugged an army duffle packed fulla "stuff", and simply had to climb a couple trees.  Maybe the CO wanted the experience to be a surprise...   But a new cache type?  No thanks...

 

[+hzoi]

On 10/29/2022 at 7:23 PM, Goldenwattle said:

On 10/26/2022 at 11:00 AM, hzoi said:

Medium hike (1 km–10 km) or Long hike (>10 km) or even Significant hike.

That only works for hiking. Some long distance caches are for driving. Unless one wants to walk thousands of kms. (I have actually seen people walking on the routes I was driving, and they do plan to walk thousand of kms, but they are very unusual.)

 

Yes...which is why those weren't the only attributes I suggested as possibilities. I was not suggesting using all of these attributes - hence why it says "or" at the end of the list, not "and."

 

The text you trimmed out also works to differentiate longer multis quite nicely, don't you think?

 

On 10/26/2022 at 11:00 AM, hzoi said:

Not quick multis should be using attributes such as: Not a park and grab; Does not take less than an hour; Medium hike (1 km–10 km) or Long hike (>10 km) or even Significant hike.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2022 by hzoi

[+Mysterion604]

There are lots of 2 stage multis that I hardly consider "multi" at all. Quick ones are nice sometimes, but I do not see a need to segregate between true multis (3+ stages or at least a significant distance to the final) and mini-multis (one stage and not far away). I tend to mentally tie-in the number of stages to the difficulty rating when it comes to multis; one key factor in assessing how much work (mental and phsyical) it takes to solve & find a multi cache.

 

People can just read the cache description, and the number of stages should be in the description / listing  - unless the idea is to make it more difficult by deliberately keeping the number of waypoints a secret.

 

CO's should use the attributes too. "Field puzzle" seems like an oddball of a thing to put on a multi (kind of redundant?). But all the rest about distance, time, etc. are useful and it is courteous & helpful to put those things in the cache listing. At the very least, it helps cachers sort out whether they have the time & energy to go after that multi cache. Some multis can be solved & found faster than it takes to put on your boots; others turn into months-long projects to gather clues for, figure out, and then go get. People need to know that before they decide to make the attempt.