Partial Find On Multi Stage - Full Credit?

[+briansnat]

Whenever I've sought a multi stage cache, I wouldn't log the find until I found the actual cache. In some cases I've made several visits before I found the actual cache. I assumed this was the norm, until I ran into this log, where cachers are logging finds for the first stage of the cache and I guess, will log another find when they find the second stage: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=22674

 

Not a real big deal, but I think its somewhat dishonest. What are your thoughts?

 

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on July 01, 2002 at 08:28 PM.]

[+bitbrain]

Hmmm... As there is no option for granting partial credit, and since Geocaching is first and foremost about fun (my POV), I'm not going to make a fuss if someone logs one part of a multi as a find.

 

The first multi-cache I did, I only posted a note after finding part 1. I didn't log it as Found until I had located part 2 a couple of weeks later.

 

On the other hand, we have a local multi-cache that is listed as a traditional. I didn't realize it was a multi until I had already logged my find and read other people reports. Went out the next weekend and bagged part 2 of that one.

[Steak N Eggs]

Geocaching is fun, but there are some rules to follow. To sign the log book (at the cache) is to log a find on the net. No log book, no find.

 

"My gps say's it RIGHT HERE".

http://www.geogadgets.com

[+Jamie Z]

I've seen a couple of multi's around here be abused that way. Folks are logging finds for finding only the first part, or logging more than one find for the whole cache. I think that's silly. It's only one cache.

 

The two multi's I've found, I posted a note after I found the first part detailing my plans to find the rest of the cache.

 

If I were a multi-cache owner (which I will be in the near future) I would ask that folks change their "founds" into "notes" if they haven't signed the logbook for the final cache.

 

Dang, I'm gonna be an ornery owner. Maybe I ought to lighten up.

 

Jamie

[GeoStars]

because I didn't know better. It was our second find (and a darn hard one at that!). The first stage had a traditional trading type cache complete with log book. We traded, signed it, and logged it online. We did attempt part 2 but ran out of time. Since it's about 350 miles away, we haven't done part 2 although we plan to on our next visit. I will not post the second stage as an additional *find* unless the owner decides to make it a separate cache as he/she has talked about doing. Most people that have posted have logged it as a *find* even though they didn't do the second stage. That's why I thought it was O.K. at the time. Now I know better and am currently working on an even harder multi-stage that we will most definitely not log as a find until complete. And it will get completed, eventually...

 

GeoMedic - team leader of GeoStars

[GeoStars]

because I didn't know better. It was our second find (and a darn hard one at that!). The first stage had a traditional trading type cache complete with log book. We traded, signed it, and logged it online. We did attempt part 2 but ran out of time. Since it's about 350 miles away, we haven't done part 2 although we plan to on our next visit. I will not post the second stage as an additional *find* unless the owner decides to make it a separate cache as he/she has talked about doing. Most people that have posted have logged it as a *find* even though they didn't do the second stage. That's why I thought it was O.K. at the time. Now I know better and am currently working on an even harder multi-stage that we will most definitely not log as a find until complete. And it will get completed, eventually...

 

GeoMedic - team leader of GeoStars

[BassoonPilot]

If there are obvious problems with the multicache, allow the "partial find" until the problems are rectified. It's entirely possible the seeker has already put more time and effort into the (defective) cache than the owner/placer did.

 

But if it's simply a matter of the seeker not having the time or interest in completing a multi, then no; that should be a "note" or "couldn't find."

 

I notice that few cache owners seem to care; or at least don't care to play cache cop.

[+Ttepee]

I have one multicache, it was logged once as a find with only a partial find. I let it go.. didn't seem worth getting picky over.. I'd read some other logs from this cacher and he seemed ornery and difficult to make happy... keep'n him movin on was my motivation. Call me a wimp but I'm in this for the fun... I have enough of confrontation in the day to day... geocaching is to get away from that. I don't think it's right though...and it helped form my opinion of the guy... if he can live with it so can I.

 

With the cache in question it seems that once it was partially logged once, everyone else just followed suit. I am glad that didn't happen to mine.. I geuss that's a risk I took though.

 

BTW...Jamie can't wait to see what you've been working on. :

[+Alan2]

This coming weekend I'll be traveling to 5 covered bridges to gather info for a multi where the last bridge will have a conventional cache.

 

At first I was thinking of setting it up so you have to go through the first four to get the coordinates to the last and then you could log the find when you find the cache there. However, I was thinking that some people might not have the time. I figure it would take about three hours as part of a covered bridge tour a family or individual would like to make on an afternoon. So I'm thinking of posting the coordinates for all 5 bridges in sequence and let each person decide how muching touring they wish to do. They can start where ever they want including just the last one, the fifth. As long as they find the cache at the fifth, it's a find.

 

What do you think? Any variations you might suggest?

 

Tks

 

Alan

[GeoStars]

quote:

---

At first I was thinking of setting it up so you have to go through the first four to get the coordinates to the last and then you could log the find when you find the cache there. However, I was thinking that some people might not have the time. I figure it would take about three hours as part of a covered bridge tour a family or individual would like to make on an afternoon. So I'm thinking of posting the coordinates for all 5 bridges in sequence and let each person decide how muching touring they wish to do. They can start where ever they want including just the last one, the fifth. As long as they find the cache at the fifth, it's a find.

 

What do you think? Any variations you might suggest?

---

 

I've debated on how to do ours and have been swayed by two things; the current lack of geocaching activity in the area and the recent poll I read that showed many people weren't in favor of multi-caches. I like multi-caches so what I've decided to do is to make 5 stand-alone caches that each give needed information to a 6th cache. Each of the "information" caches can be logged separately for those who don't wish to devote the time needed for a lengthy multi-cache. The 6th, however, will be only available to those that have found the previous five (or four for the really astute). I have enlisted the help of another team with planning, placement, and maintenance so it will be spread out over a fairly large (although doable) geographic area. Each will be somehow different and each hopefully fun and challenging. Because of the distance and uniqueness of each primary stage, I will let each be logged as a find. I'm hoping this will appeal to a variety of cache seekers.

 

I'm a little disappointed at the lack of geocaching activity in our area right now but am hoping it's a weather thing. The weather has been miserable lately (temps in the 90's with high humidity). We're hoping to have this one together for the anticipated upswing in activity come early fall.

 

GeoMedic - team leader of GeoStars

[PioneerGal]

I have a 3 bridge multi in central PA. It's in the middle of nowhere, but once you get to the area the cache itself is easy. Mine is set up to get the coords at the first two locations and the cache in the final spot. Including the drive time it could take a few hours (rural area), but the people that have found it seem to like it.

 

Alan2, I really like covered bridges and I will keep my eye on your caches. I am planning a trip up your way in August so maybe a stop over to do the cache if you have it up and running...hmmm....

 

There is also a new covered bridge multi in Lancaster County, PA. I haven't tried it yet, but it looks good.

 

As to the topic question at hand, I'm a finish what you start kind of gal so I think credit should be given when the cache is completed and not before. I did a virtual recently and the pics did not turn out. Noted it, then took more pics and posted it found. The same could be done with multis. I like multis because I like a challenge. I think most of the people who go after them feel the same way. If people want an easy 'drive and grab' kind of cache there are plenty of those around without trying to cause strife to the multi owners or legitimate finders.

 

[This message was edited by PioneerGal on July 01, 2002 at 11:36 PM.]

[skydiver]

I'd say it's a case of not knowing better. Looks to me like the last 2 searchers logged part 1 as a find with plans to come back. Second one may well have just been following the lead of what the first did.

I'd politely email the people in question and ask that they change it too a note. If you don't, they may not ever learn the right way, and will instead teach other newbies the wrong way, even if just by setting the example.

Ultimately though, it's your cache, so you get to make the rules, and you get to enforce them if you so choose. Not that you should be required to post ALL of the 'rules' on the cache page. Some rules need to go without saying, and I belive this is one of them.

 

---------------------------------------

Friends don't let friends NOT geocache.

---------------------------------------

[+Jamie Z]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ttepee:

BTW...Jamie can't wait to see what you've been working on. :

---

It will be at least a couple of months before it's posted, as one leg is somewhat time-sensitive. I just hope none of my other locations for the multi are "taken" before then.

 

Jamie

[+Alan2]

Thanks Geostarsand Pioneergal I like your caches. You've both given me ideas. I'll do my tour, take pictures of clues along the way and plant one cache on the last one (five is too many for me) and then figure what to do when I get home.

 

Great ideas.

 

Alan

[+Alan2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan2:

This coming weekend I'll be traveling to 5 covered bridges to gather info for a multi where the last bridge will have a conventional cache.

 

At first I was thinking of setting it up so you have to go through the first four to get the coordinates to the last and then you could log the find when you find the cache there. However, I was thinking that some people might not have the time. I figure it would take about three hours as part of a covered bridge tour a family or individual would like to make on an afternoon. So I'm thinking of posting the coordinates for all 5 bridges in sequence and let each person decide how muching touring they wish to do. They can start where ever they want including just the last one, the fifth. As long as they find the cache at the fifth, it's a find.

 

What do you think? Any variations you might suggest?

 

Tks

 

Alan

---

 

What do you guys think about two finds for the same cache in this case. Since all bridges coordinates are listed, if you go only to the last cache and find the conventional cache you get "find". However, if you also go to the first four "virtuals" and email the answer to the posted questions you can log on the cache a second "find".

 

I suppose the alternative would be to have to separate caches. One a conventional and the second a vitual.

 

Comments??

 

Alan

[+Jamie Z]

Alan,

 

I'm not a big fan of virtual caches... part of that may be that there aren't any around here, or maybe I'm just lucky...

 

But anyway, I don't have any problem with an owner of a cache allowing an extra find for some extra "work" that the cacher did.

 

Personally if I searched for that cache, I may well visit the other four bridges (they're very cool.. known as "kissing bridges," you know) but I wouldn't log a second find. I'd find the container at the fifth bridge, and log my single find for finding the container... but as I said, I think as the owner, you can allow extra finds if you see fit.

 

Jamie

[BassoonPilot]

I don't care how many elements are involved. If it's contained within the description of a single "geocaching adventure," (aka it is assigned one GC waypoint) it is one find.

 

If individual bridges (or whatever, as the case may be) can be claimed individually, they should each have a page.

[PioneerGal]

I think logging it twice could be a good incentive for some people to visit the cache. If it requires a lot of time and/or answers then I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

It really is your decision about how people get credit for the cache. Do you think there will be accessibility issues? Would the virtual and conventional be rated the same for difficulty and terrain? Just a few questions, but overall I think it's a workable plan.

 

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. E Roosevelt

[+Alan2]

I think basssoonpilot raises a good point. If each cache owner can decide how many "finds" a cache can contain, it could raise big issues with find counts and how they're handled. People might set them up just to escalate their cache count artificially.

 

I just came back from doing the pre-cache tour of the bridges and hid a conventional on the "last" bridge. All the 5 "kissing" bridges are accessible by car making them a nice tour (about 3 hours depending on bathroom and snack stops).

 

I haven't submitted the cache yet to geocaching.com. I could have a virtual for 4 of them and a second cache page for the one conventional/covered bridge. Then I could cross-reference the two so that if someone wants to do the full "tour" of all five bridges which I think is the way to do it, they would know about it. Yet, the separate 1 bridge/conventional cache would be a separate cache just for the person who only has time to go to one brdige.

The other option, as I mentioned in a previous post, is to list the cooredinates for all 5 in one cache and allow people to pick and chose how many they wanted to go to including just the one with the actual container. Container found = find.

 

Comments, opinions or suggestions.

 

Alan

[+Alan2]

I could have a virtual for 4 of them and a second cache page for the one conventional/covered bridge. Then I could cross-reference the two so that if someone wants to do the full "tour" of all five bridges which I think is the way to do it, they would know about it. Yet, the separate 1 bridge/conventional cache would be a separate cache just for the person who only has time to go to one brdige.

 

Well that's how I finally set it up. I think it works pretty good. Thanks to everyone for your input. If you're up in NY, come visit.

 

Chestnut Creek Covered Bridge

 

web page

 

Alan