This shouldn’t be called a multi right?

[+granskog123]

There’s this typical “one stage math multi” near me where the actual sign which is needed to solve it has been removed. This happened many years ago and the CO fixed this by simply adding the final coordinates to the description. Years have passed now and the final coordinates is still in the description. The sign isn’t back. 
I logged an OAR recently and now the owner has simply logged an OM claiming “everything’s fine” while still giving away the final coordinates.

I know it’s not my problem, but it just irritates me that what essentially is a traditional is being listed as a multi.

What should I do now? Post a “needs reviewer attention”?

Edited October 6, 2023 by granskog123

[RuideAlmeida]

29 minutes ago, granskog123 said:

... what essentially is a traditional is being listed as a multi.

What should I do now?

 

Happens to most of the Multi and Mysteries after the FTFer shares the GZ coord with friends...

Just do nothing like on those cases.

[+granskog123]

52 minutes ago, RuideAlmeida said:

Just do nothing like on those cases.

Assuming everyone is friend with the FTF:er…

Edited October 6, 2023 by granskog123

[+JL_HSTRE]

6 hours ago, granskog123 said:

There’s this typical “one stage math multi” near me where the actual sign which is needed to solve it has been removed. This happened many years ago and the CO fixed this by simply adding the final coordinates to the description.

 

Sounds like a cache that should have been disabled when then sign was removed and archived when it was clear the sign wouldn't be replaced, or changed to use a different sign.

[Keystone]

If a cache like this comes to my attention in my review territory, I disable it because it doesn't meet the Geocache Hiding Guidelines for its cache type.  I ask the CO to either add back another stage so it's a multicache again, or archive the cache and submit a new cache page for a traditional.  I start with the same form letter I use when someone reacts to a missing cache container by "converting it to a virtual."

[+vw_k]

One solution to this would be for the CO to change the description to include a waypoint projection. Start at the position where the sign used to be, then the cache is X metres away on Y bearing.

[+Pleu]

42 minutes ago, vw_k said:

One solution to this would be for the CO to change the description to include a waypoint projection. Start at the position where the sign used to be, then the cache is X metres away on Y bearing.

Only relevant as long as X and/or Y is calculated by counting something in the field. If X and Y are just numbers in the description it's not a multi-cache, it's a mystery.