Hiding a hint in a Geocache for another Geocache

[KingDarius_9]

Hello 

 

I wanted to ask whether it would be possible to leave a hint at a geocache, e.g. the coordinates to the next cache. 

I am currently planning a series of geocaches.  They are all mistery geocaches. I've decided that only the first geocache will have something in the listing (hints) and that you have to have solved the first one to get to the other caches. For example, you can get to the first geocache from the listing of the first cache and the riddle for the second is there. The second cache contains the riddle for the third and so on.

Is that possible?

Thank you for your answers

 

[Keystone]

That sounds like "daisy chaining," as explained in this Help Center article. 

 

You could use this design as a single multicache, or a multicache with a single related bonus cache.

[geoawareUSA9]

You can do this up to a point. See the articles on mystery caches (which should have the puzzle information available on the cache page) and bonus caches (which have the next cache's information available inside another geocache).

 

What you're proposing - cache A has the info you need to find cache B inside it, cache B has the info you need to find cache C inside it, etc. - seems like a "daisy chain" of bonus caches, which would not be OK.

 

edit, I guess @Keystone and I checked the board at the same time today.

Edited March 18 by geoawareUSA9

[KingDarius_9]

Thank you for all the answers...

[+thebruce0]

You might aim to make it so the first cache doesn't need to be found in order to attain the hint for the second. But, if you're placing something physical at that location then it would violate the proximity rule of physical items placed for geocaches. It would need to be a piece of information that was pre-existing at the same location.

 

You could place a physical cache at 'stage 1' for cache #2, where at stage 1 the person needs to find information say from a sign. You can't force them to find cache #1, but if they're going for the cache #2, there's a good chance they'll also look for cache #1 while getting the needed info.

 

Basically, it's not very user-friendly to try to make a daisy-chain-like set of geocaches, which can't be connected at all

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

But, if you're placing something physical at that location then it would violate the proximity rule of physical items placed for geocaches.

 

You are right about the proximity but this has not been a problem ever when the physical item or marking is inside the cache. Some kind of loophole, but if you think about it, it does not increase the saturation because there is alrady a cache and no more caches is created during the process.

Edited March 19 by arisoft

[+thebruce0]

On 3/19/2025 at 1:31 PM, arisoft said:

You are right about the proximity but this has not been a problem ever when the physical item or marking is inside the cache. Some kind of loophole, but if you think about it, it does not increase the saturation because there is alrady a cache and no more caches is created during the process.

 

That only counts if (assuming people are honest) the 'item' is already part of the physical geocache. If you can convince the reviewer that the needed info wasn't physically placed FOR the 2nd geocache, and you're just making use of info at the coordinates provided which happens to be the location of another geocache, then they may allow it. But you'd need to be on the reviewer's good side   If they think you placed something in the geocache needed for the 2nd geocache, then the reviewer would be within guidelines to deny publishing for proximity issues.

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If they think you placed something in the geocache needed for the 2nd geocache, then the reviewer would be within guidelines to deny publishing for proximity issues.

 

Can your theory explain mystery caches which can be solved by searching physical travellers placed by the CO inside other caches?

[+thebruce0]

On 3/22/2025 at 7:34 AM, arisoft said:

Can your theory explain mystery caches which can be solved by searching physical travellers placed by the CO inside other caches?

Are you referring to 'find the TB' puzzles where you look up the TB code, find out which cache it's in, then hope you find it there to get the needed information?

If so I'd wager that is a different concept than placed a static physical item inside a geocache as a stage for a separate geocache - this would be a physical stage placed in the real world but would be in proximity conflict with the cache it's placed in.

The find-the-TB puzzle cache style is a different setup I'd think, and my best guess is you'd need to check with the regional reviewer to see if it's still allowed (I don't if they are in general, but I have a couple over the years, so maybe they're grandfathered, who knows)

[+arisoft]

5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Are you referring to 'find the TB' puzzles where you look up the TB code, find out which cache it's in, then hope you find it there to get the needed information?

 

Yes, this is the puzzle type I am referring here. I have seen this kind of puzzles and also participated to make one years ago.

 

If you think about why the saturation guideline was placed originally, could you understand why this kind of loophole would be acceptable?

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

If you think about why the saturation guideline was placed originally, could you understand why this kind of loophole would be acceptable?

The only difference I can see between them is, as I mentioned, one is a static waypoint where a physical item is placed for the multi-stage cache (multi or mystery) which is too close in proximity to (or inside) another static physical stage/cache. I say static to distinguish from the Trackable item which is not given coordinates but may in theory be anywhere as it moves, but rather the puzzle instructs that one must find the TB to gain the information needed.  In a static physical element setup, the proximity is directly applicable. In a find-the-TB setup, the TB does not have coordinates - even though it's a physical item, proximity can't be determined the same way. Whether that style is publishable today, I'm not sure. So check with a local reviewer.

[+CheekyBrit]

Excellent side topics as always, chaps. Great reading.
Going back up the tangents to the CO's original question, I may have a solution: As long as each subsequent geocache can be solved on their own without the explicit need to do them in a daisy chain order, then as far as I can tell, you should be able to add "optional hints" in geocaches helping out other ones.

Fictitious example:

• CACHE 1: solve the puzzle, get cache 1 final coordinates. In final container is an optional hint for cache 2, like the checksum of the coordinates.
• CACHE 2: Solve the puzzle just using the cache page to get cache 2 final coordinates. (Making this a bonus cache and requiring info from cache 1 is allowed but you choose not to this time). For those struggling on this puzzle, there is an optional hint in cache 1. In the final container is an optional hint for cache 3, like a few digits in the final coordinates.
• Cache 3: Solve the puzzle just using the cache page to get cache 3 final coordinates. (Once again, this time you choose not to make it a bonus cache). For those struggling with this puzzle , there is an optional hint in cache 2. In the final container is an optional hint for cache 4, like a wiki link that explains how to solve this type of puzzle.
• Cache 4: Solve the puzzle using just the cache page to get cache 4 final coordinates. (Still not a bonus cache). All you need is on the cache page but in case you ramp up the difficulty of puzzle each time, quite a few could get stuck. They could turn to cache 3 and find an optional hint inside to help them out.

 

Side note, you could do this in pairs, like 2 being a bonus off of 1, 4 being a bonus off of 3, 6 being a bonus off of5 and so on. This makes the whole setup discrete segments you can start halfway instead of a fixed sequence for a set experience. You could even use the optional hint strategy to kinda link the pairs together for an optional experience following the sequence but not a required sequence.

Second side note: You could break away from a network shape that is a straight line sequence (optional daisy chaining) and avoid the many to 1 permitted design of bonus caches, and do an entire web / tree structure using 'optional hints'. 

All of these concepts being discussed in this thread have the potential to make for an excellent designed experience like a GeoTour but also have the potential to cause a real headache. If someone is eager to find a particular cache (for a challenge, for stats, their buddy recommended it....) but haven't the time/ability/patience to find the whole sequence up to that one, it could be a negative experience. 

 

TLDR: Can you do a sequence that's connected with optional hints? Yeah. Is there a chance some people will be disappointed with whatever you build? Always.

 

I hope that helps.
Cheers,

CheekyBrit

[+thebruce0]

Yeah, my understanding has always been that you can put information for puzzles inside the text of other cache listings, but you can't require finding those geocaches in order to find the original.