Skipping Multi-cache Stages

2.2k · January 26, 2004

There are those with the unusual ability to find the main cache in a multi without visiting all the checkpoints first. (I am not one of these people ). Is this practice cheating, or is it cleverness on the part of the cacher?

2.6k · January 26, 2004

It depends whether the hider (and also the hunter) considers it cheating. To me, multis are an entity of a kind, and I really would like to experience the whole of it to see why the hider wanted to lead the hunters that certain way. I've taken short cuts on few rare occasions (e.g. once all the stages were in the center of my home town and I knew all the places very well already and visit them frequently anyway), but usually I try to complete the mission in the way the hider wanted me to.

Of course, if (s)he wants, by planning carefully the hider can build almost any multi in a way that hunters have no choise but visit all the checkpoints. I wouldn't say its cheating, but not all hiders necessarily like taking short cuts.

1.5k · January 26, 2004

I agree. The cache should be done the way it was intended, but the ultimate answer lies with each individual cacher. You're only cheating yourself by cheating and skipping stages of the cache just to grab the find that much quicker.

It is true that a well thought out multi can make it very difficult, if not impossible, to skip stages of a cache. A cache designed for the Halloween event last October was deemed cheat-proof. One cacher spent quite a bit of time trying to find ways to defeat it, and couldn't. It was merely to find out if it was possible to do so.

January 26, 2004

Of the 184 multi's I have found, I'm sure I skipped one or more stages on at least half of them. I have been chastised by very few owners over this. CacheBandits cursed me over one of theirs, but then they are always cursing at me.

I suspect some of the other owners were not particulary enthused by my actions. On a number of occasions, the hints were changed after I posted my log.

I can see the argument about possibly missing some of what the hider wanted me to pass by, but trust me in that I usuallly end of knowing more about the area than those who walk it with GPS in hand. Skipping stages often means careful investigation of trail maps, and delving into the mind of the hider. It means making slow careful inspection of the route, looking for sites that match the clues, without knowing if you are on the right trail.

Honestly, when I do multi's together with a GPS owner, I often feel like THAT is cheating.

-WR

January 26, 2004

One time I did a mystery cache that had a rather clever clue in it but my mind just sort of went click and before I though about it I had the cache in my hands, I was not going to do the whole thing after already finding the caches I logged it and the owner did not have a problem with it, then at another cache I got the maths wrong and by the time I realised it was late but then I saw the spot that matched the descriptions and low and behold the cache was there, logged it to and again the owner did not mind,

2.2k · January 26, 2004

I did it only once because the stages of the cache were about 20 km apart and the cache owner suggested to go by car from stage to stage. Because I don't like to make caches by car I used a map and google to get the information.

1.3k · January 26, 2004

There are those with the unusual ability to find the main cache in a multi without visiting all the checkpoints first. (I am not one of these people ). Is this practice cheating, or is it cleverness on the part of the cacher?

From the above responses, I'd suspect that the answer really is "design flaw" but then again, I probably think to much about designing security into products.

If you make it possible for someone to skip a step or two, it's likely someone is going to skip a step or two. That's just human nature.

5k · January 26, 2004

I've skipped parts of two multi's.

With one, I spent several hours doing calculations to try to figure out the final coords, but still couldn't find the answer, even though I knew it was possible. I emailed the owner of the cache to verify that he'd given the correct information in the instructions. He replied, not giving away the answer, but giving me a tip on using Excel to calculate the answer. He admitted that he knew it was possible, but didn't figure anyone would do it.

On another multi, the middle leg is supposed to throw you off.. but I caught on and didn't go there. When I read others' logs, I learned that several other people had done the same.

Jamie

9.2k · January 26, 2004

As has been mentioned, the cache owner is mostly at fault for not thinking carefully enough about their design. I had to re-work one of my caches because the clue answers were available on the internet.

One cache recently discussed, had you going to various locations in a field with your GPS tracking turned on. When done, you were supposed to see what constellation the track lines formed. The big flaw was that they posted all the location points on the cache page. In about 3 minutes, I was able to plot the whole thing in Street Atlas, and knew the answer. Had they done it as a multi, that would have been impossible.

9.1k · January 26, 2004

I own six multicaches, which most folks consider to be quite challenging. Several of them are set up to make the hunt for the final cache more challenging for people who scout out cache areas carefully in advance using topo maps and other tools. While people can "cheat" some of my multi's by parking at the closest access point to each stage in order to avoid a longer hike, I don't consider that cheating, just good planning. To my knowledge, nobody has ever guessed one of my final cache locations without visiting the other stages of the multicache. If they did, I would bow down in tribute. Beating the hider in that fashion would, to me, be the finder's ultimate victory in our little game. I'd welcome anyone to try it.

January 26, 2004

I own six multicaches, which most folks consider to be quite challenging. Several of them are set up to make the hunt for the final cache more challenging for people who scout out cache areas carefully in advance using topo maps and other tools. While people can "cheat" some of my multi's by parking at the closest access point to each stage in order to avoid a longer hike, I don't consider that cheating, just good planning. To my knowledge, nobody has ever guessed one of my final cache locations without visiting the other stages of the multicache. If they did, I would bow down in tribute. Beating the hider in that fashion would, to me, be the finder's ultimate victory in our little game. I'd welcome anyone to try it.

The perfect attitude! I like it.

January 26, 2004

I own six multicaches, which most folks consider to be quite challenging. Several of them are set up to make the hunt for the final cache more challenging for people who scout out cache areas carefully in advance using topo maps and other tools. While people can "cheat" some of my multi's by parking at the closest access point to each stage in order to avoid a longer hike, I don't consider that cheating, just good planning. To my knowledge, nobody has ever guessed one of my final cache locations without visiting the other stages of the multicache. If they did, I would bow down in tribute. Beating the hider in that fashion would, to me, be the finder's ultimate victory in our little game. I'd welcome anyone to try it.

The perfect attitude! I like it.

I like it too!

Hmmm, I may be down in PA this summer. Perhaps I will take him up on the challenge

-WR

5.9k · January 26, 2004

There are a series of caches in a large park here. There are three caches, by three different hiders that must be found to get the coordinates for another cache. One of the caches required bothersome math computations. So I skipped that one and solved for the final one by inserting the median number 5 in the coordinates. For example, W 122° 35.7X2. I replaced the X with a 5 and that got me close enough to find the cache using a little hunting skill and reading the “sign” left by other cachers.

The cache owner changed the requirements afterward to specify that all the caches must be found first.

BTW, the cache was the absolute coolest container I’ve seen to date.

I do not think that is cheating. It's only cheating if you make it easier, not harder. I felt it made it harder to find w/o the whole coordinate string.

I didn't cheat on this cache either.

January 26, 2004

I don't think skipping steps in a multi is cheating (except perhaps cheating yourself of some interesting stages). As far as the game is concerned, I always consider that in a multi-cache, the final cache is the goal, and the steps along the way are simply clues that assist you in getting there. If someone can figure out another way to get to the final cache without going through all of the steps, then it simply means that they were clever enough not to need the additional clues. We had a cacher in our area that used to try very hard to find a multi-cache without having to go through all the steps - and he was very good at it. He was proud of it, and would let everyone know what he achieved. It just made cachers around here all the more careful (and devious)in designing multi-caches.

Edited January 26, 2004 by seneca

1.1k · January 26, 2004

We just placed a mystery (really a 3 stage mutli, shhh don't tell). In the cache description is this text:

Cachers like us, sure do have fun. Racing the wind, chasing the sun. Take the long way around, back to square one. Today we're just outlaws, out on the run. There will be no regrets, no worries and such, for cachers like us.

There is a hint here, it is intentional. If they can figure it out then they deserve to save themselves a walk. IMHO.

4.2k · January 26, 2004

Cachers like us, sure do have fun. Racing the wind, chasing the sun. Take the long way around, back to square one. Today we're just outlaws, out on the run. There will be no regrets, no worries and such, for cachers like us.

Where have I heard thsoe words before????

Y'all have fun with this!

1.7k · January 26, 2004

Lots of people "cheated" on this (now archived) cache. As the first person to admit in a log to having done so, I obviously didn't consider it cheating to save myself the 50 mile round trip to get the other stage.

We did finally get that stage, though.

1.1k · January 26, 2004

Cachers like us, sure do have fun. Racing the wind, chasing the sun. Take the long way around, back to square one. Today we're just outlaws, out on the run. There will be no regrets, no worries and such, for cachers like us.

Where have I heard thsoe words before????

Y'all have fun with this!

I didn't claim authorship or originality.

January 26, 2004

Part of the multicache is the experience in doing it. I've done a few and the best ones ("Ruined Chicken" and "Fair Hill") in Northeastern Maryland were walking caches that criss-crossed the woods over about 7 miles or so. I did one in the heat of the summer, and the other in the colors of fall; neither would have been as good if I had shaved off a stage or two. I'l probably go back and hike in that area again, just for the walk, even though it's a good hour and a half + away from home. Another "Gone Fishin'" in Delaware, I've been doing since August. About midway through the course, which takes you to scenic hidden fishing ponds in the mid-state, I had a good idea of the area of the final cache. I'm at the last stage now, and will finish it someday soon. What, all that work for just one cache to add to my cache-count? Yeah...

24.7k · January 26, 2004

It's not cheating to bit a tootsie pop, so why would it be cheating if you should find the end stage of a multi before the middle steps are done. A multi cache is just a puzzle cache with rules on what the the puzzle is (find a, a takes you to b, be to c and c to the final log) There is no rule that says you can't solve a puzzle via a means that the person who made the puzzle didn't consider. Drawing in 3D for example to solve a 3D math cache.

January 27, 2004

I've seen more than one multi that could have the interim steps skipped based on the way they were laid out.

If you need me to find a couple of plaques to get coords, don't bother to encrypt the degrees and one digit of the minutes. The first stop let me complete the minutes. I correctly assumed the degrees didn't change and went right to the cache.

I sent a note to the cache owner and recommended a few changes. You now need to visit every step.

January 27, 2004

Now that I'm thinking about it, I also recall a multi that required you to solve a math problem to get the final coords. You needed to count the number of letters at a sign and plug it into the problem. That was fine except that any number less than 7 resulted in a negative answer. I did the calculation with a 7, 8, and 9. The coords with the 8 put me in a city park not to far from the first stage. I tried it and found the cache right away.

I also discussed this one with the cache owner and helped them redesign the equation to prevent skipping the previous 4 stages.

3.9k · January 27, 2004

I think I only skipped to the final stage on a multi once. I don't think it's cheating. the idea is to find the cache. If you find it you find it.

May 18, 2008

My apologies for resurrecting a four-year old thread, but I couldn't find another that directly addressed what I wanted to ask. (If someone can direct me that way, great!)

A new cache pops up in my area and it looks like an epic adventure based on a well-known TV series. At the first stage a book is provided with information on the seventeen "episodes", many with seemingly intricate puzzles to solve and a couple that will have to be completed at night. After a complete read of the book I discover that the location of the final cache is pretty darn obvious so make the 40 mile round-trip drive, find the cache, sign the logbook, and swap some trackables. I also send an email to the cache owner letting them know what I did, how I did it, and promising to complete all of the other stages in the near future and in the company of a couple of friends.

The cache was found by two cachers later that day who completed all episodes, some in the company of the cache owner.

My Find log gets deleted by the cache owner who claims that they were getting flak. (Quotes from emails include, "It was not fair to the group who spent two days searching and locating each episode." and "I was put in a bad situation with other cachers being not to happy about it being there ,so I removed it!")

At the time I signed the logbook there was nothing on the cache page about having to find all episodes in order to find the cache, but it now contains, "YOU MUST FIND ALL EPISODES TO LOG THIS CACHE! IT IS A REQUIREMENT!"

In the big picture this is no big deal. I plan to find all of the episodes when time allows. (The two who completed all 17 episodes took about 14 hours.) I know that a cache owner has much power and latitude with their caches, but should my "Find" have been deleted? Was my "Find" legitimate?

2.4k · May 18, 2008

In the big picture this is no big deal. I plan to find all of the episodes when time allows. (The two who completed all 17 episodes took about 14 hours.) I know that a cache owner has much power and latitude with their caches, but should my "Find" have been deleted? Was my "Find" legitimate?

We have had people find some of our caches by means other than those we originally had in mind. We would never dream of deleting their finds -- they found it, they deserved the smiley. I don't consider it cheating at all, nor do I consider their finds to be of a somehow lesser quality than the finds of those who did it the "hard" way. If anything, I'd consider it a flawed cache design on my part. But mostly I just think of it as resourceful thinking on their part.

I'd look at it this way:

Say I spent all day trudging through the woods looking for a place to hide a cache, and found a really good spot for it. Based the on the route I took, which involved scrambling up a steep rocky cliff, wading through a chest-high swamp, and bushwhacking through 500 feet of brambles and briars, I rate it a "4" for terrain. I publish the cache, giving the coords for the parking and trailhead that I used to start the arduous trek.

Some people take my suggested route, and have a true four-star experience and take 9 hours to reach the cache. They are wet, muddy, bug-bitten, scratched, bloody, and have rips in their pants, but they are happy to be FTF -- until they open the logbook and see that it's already been signed: "I looked at a map and saw a much closer trailhead than the one listed on the cache page. Reached the cache site after an easy 20-minute walk. TFTC."

That's certainly a valid FTF log, and shouldn't be deleted -- and neither should the log of someone who manages to figure out the location of the final cache even if they don't find all of the intermediate stages of a multi of solve all of the puzzles or take all of the steps envisioned by the cache creator.

38.2k · May 18, 2008

My apologies for resurrecting a four-year old thread, but I couldn't find another that directly addressed what I wanted to ask. (If someone can direct me that way, great!)

A new cache pops up in my area and it looks like an epic adventure based on a well-known TV series. At the first stage a book is provided with information on the seventeen "episodes", many with seemingly intricate puzzles to solve and a couple that will have to be completed at night. After a complete read of the book I discover that the location of the final cache is pretty darn obvious so make the 40 mile round-trip drive, find the cache, sign the logbook, and swap some trackables. I also send an email to the cache owner letting them know what I did, how I did it, and promising to complete all of the other stages in the near future and in the company of a couple of friends.

The cache was found by two cachers later that day who completed all episodes, some in the company of the cache owner.

My Find log gets deleted by the cache owner who claims that they were getting flak. (Quotes from emails include, "It was not fair to the group who spent two days searching and locating each episode." and "I was put in a bad situation with other cachers being not to happy about it being there ,so I removed it!")

At the time I signed the logbook there was nothing on the cache page about having to find all episodes in order to find the cache, but it now contains, "YOU MUST FIND ALL EPISODES TO LOG THIS CACHE! IT IS A REQUIREMENT!"

In the big picture this is no big deal. I plan to find all of the episodes when time allows. (The two who completed all 17 episodes took about 14 hours.) I know that a cache owner has much power and latitude with their caches, but should my "Find" have been deleted? Was my "Find" legitimate?

You found the cache and signed the log. That's a find in my book. It's not your fault that the owner designed the cache so poorly that the final stage could be determined in the first. Now that the requirement was added, then that changes things, but it wasn't the case when you found it.

3.2k · May 18, 2008

Briansnat beat me to it. I agree with Briansnat 100%. From your post this sounds like a case of poor cache design.

If your account of the situation is accurate then your find is legitimate and, in my opinion, shouldn't have been deleted. I am not against ALRs (Additional Logging Requirements). I normally enjoy ALRs, but I am not a big fan of poorly managed ALRs, and adding a new ALR (which is all his added text amounts to) to a description AFTER the listing has been published and AFTER the first find, in order to retroactively delete that find, is silly.

You were able to skip the intermediate steps because:

(1) the cache owner never said you couldn't skip them (until after you posted your find), and

(2) the location of the final was intuitively apparent to you for some reason, which implies that the cache owner should have taken that reason into consideration when designing the cache.

Therefore your ability to bypass steps is the cache owner's fault, not yours, and the owner should probably accept that fact. He should either re-design the cache (not patch his faulty stages by barking ALRs at finders via his description) or congratulate those who are clever enough to see the shortcut.

It sounds like he probably caved in to some griping he received from a few FTF hounds who failed to see whatever it was you saw.

It is ultimately the owner's decision, however. If I were in your shoes I would make a polite and reasoned appeal. If that didn't work I probably wouldn't bother with the cache any further, and would just forget about it.

In hindsight maybe you should have posted a simple and vague "Found it – great cache!" with your smiley and left it at that ... then sat back and watched the fun.

May 18, 2008

Thanks to all who have replied so far.

I have already communicated with the cache owner about the possibility of keeping the find, but her reply was not all that positive. It was fairly obvious that she did not take the time to read my reasoned logic; her reply was, "I am not getting into drama with you. It was a given to locate all stages." (Though she did offer me the opportunity to log a Note.)

The vague Find log suggested by KBI would not have worked as there were apparently some problems at a number of the stages/episodes which warranted cache owner contact so that the other two could continue. Since I did not contact the cache owner to request clarification she was already pretty sure that I may not have hit all the stages.

Deleting the find was what really threw me! I would have been happier had she asked me to change it into a Note. (Though I'm still not sure how I would have reacted to that request...)

But I tend to agree that finding the cache and signing the logbook -- without any help from the cache owner I might add -- seems to qualify as a found cache.

9.1k · May 18, 2008

I would put this cache, and all others by that hider, on my ignore list. There are too many other caches out there to find. Why worry about the small percentage of owners who delete legitimate finds? You signed the logbook and nobody whispered the coordinates to you.

7.3k · May 18, 2008

should my "Find" have been deleted?

No

Was my "Find" legitimate?

Yes.

As others have said - if the owner intended that all stages be found the cache should have been designed to enforce that.

That the cache owner has changed the cache description after your find is unfair and unkind. You are being punished for the owner's design failure.

Of course, there's nothing to be done about it now.

(On topic of bypassing multi-stages. I own a 13 mile 8 stage multi-cache. A finder told me that he noticed the faintest suggestion of trail off the bike path one day while biking, considered my known fondness for swamps and that it might be one of my stages, and followed it to stage 5, then finished up the cache from there. I thought that was pretty cool. He'd been contemplating doing the cache, and understood that it was going to mostly follow the main 13 mile bike loop around the Preserve. Sharp eyes to pick up on that faintest piece of user trail into the cypress, and to locate a cache there just on the hint of a suggestion that it might be the right spot. He eventually found stages 1-4 as they're all along trails he regularly rides)

1.4k · May 18, 2008

Of the 184 multi's I have found, I'm sure I skipped one or more stages on at least half of them. I have been chastised by very few owners over this. CacheBandits cursed me over one of theirs, but then they are always cursing at me.

I suspect some of the other owners were not particulary enthused by my actions. On a number of occasions, the hints were changed after I posted my log.

I can see the argument about possibly missing some of what the hider wanted me to pass by, but trust me in that I usuallly end of knowing more about the area than those who walk it with GPS in hand. Skipping stages often means careful investigation of trail maps, and delving into the mind of the hider. It means making slow careful inspection of the route, looking for sites that match the clues, without knowing if you are on the right trail.

Honestly, when I do multi's together with a GPS owner, I often feel like THAT is cheating.

-WR

As a hider that puts a lot of effort into the stages of my multi-caches, I really appreciate the folks that go out of their way to find all the stages. They are part of the experience that I want the finder to have and if someone not only skipped stages but then they wrote about how they did that in their online log, I'm not sure I'd still feel good about all the work I put in the cache.

I've put some safeguards against skipping stages on a few hunts as well. I have more than one cache where you are gathering vital information at each stage and will end up looking a combination lock without the combo or things of this nature. I even have a night cache where if you skip one stage, you would not know that I changed the values of the symbols that you are seeking and you will find yourself wandering around in a sea of decoys.

May 18, 2008

I have already communicated with the cache owner about the possibility of keeping the find, but her reply was not all that positive. It was fairly obvious that she did not take the time to read my reasoned logic; her reply was, "I am not getting into drama with you. It was a given to locate all stages." (Though she did offer me the opportunity to log a Note.)

Wait a month and post another found it log as by then all the "kinks" will have been worked out and tensions will have settled a bit.

If your found it log is still deleted, time for the ignore list. Just my .02.

May 18, 2008

TGB:

My online log does NOT mention that I skipped stages, but it does say that a ton of work was put into the cache. (As evidenced by the 36-page book printed like TV Guide -- and shrink-wrapped -- found at the first stage.)

But I know exactly how the cache owners feel! I have a fifteen cache series -- 8 in the first level leading to four leading to two leading to one. The FTF on the 15th cache had not found any of the previous 14 and were able to make a few guesses based on info provided on the cache page. I was initially ticked off, but then I got over it. (And I never thought about deleting their finds.) I reworked the cache page to make it almost impossible to find the last one without having found the previous two. It was definitely my fault for designing the puzzle so poorly, and kudos to those who were able to utilize this loophole.

I suppose that an additional question related to my original questions is, "Is it a given that all stages of a multi MUST be found in order to qualify for signing the logbook and then claiming an online find?"

Edited May 18, 2008 by OzGuff

7.2k · May 18, 2008

I know that a cache owner has much power and latitude with their caches, but should my "Find" have been deleted? Was my "Find" legitimate?

No, if you signed the logbook then it shouldn't have been deleted. Yes, the find is legitimate.

You found the cache and signed the log. That's a find in my book. It's not your fault that the owner designed the cache so poorly that the final stage could be determined in the first. Now that the requirement was added, then that changes things, but it wasn't the case when you found it.

I've always held to a simple axiom: you sign the logbook, it's a find. A muggle accidentally finding a cache is a find so I don't see why it should be any different if somebody shortcuts a multi or puzzle. I've had our multis shortcutted a time or two and wouldn't have dreamed of deleting the find. I considered the failure to prevent the shortcut a failure on my part, not cheating on theirs.

I would put this cache, and all others by that hider, on my ignore list. There are too many other caches out there to find. Why worry about the small percentage of owners who delete legitimate finds? You signed the logbook and nobody whispered the coordinates to you.

Myself, I wouldn't cut her loose so quickly. She has shown a desire to place a nicer cache. She just needs guidance and feedback. Slapping on an ALR as a patch is not the same as fixing the holes. On the surface, I see her as a potentially more valuable member of the community than one that has popped up in our area that has placed almost nothing but lame PLCs.

7.2k · May 18, 2008

I suppose that an additional question related to my original questions is, "Is it a given that all stages of a multi MUST be found in order to qualify for signing the logbook and then claiming an online find?"

See my previous post as, like you, we've have multis shortcutted. I fall back to my simply rule of thumb: if the logbook was signed, it's a find.

I say chalk the hunt up as a find, ignore it, and put it on a bookmark list under "Legitimate Finds deleted by the Cache Owner." You can still mark it as a find in GSAK if you use that program.

3.7k · May 18, 2008

I agree with those that say "a find is a find" on this one.

The logic of deleting your log escapes me: what if you HAD said merely "Nice cache. Thanks.". Assuming that the cache owner went out to check that you'd signed the log (he did, didn't he?), then even if she was surprised that you managed to succeed on the problem stages somehow, what evidence is there that you didn't complete the cache "properly"? Because you tried to help her out by highlighting the weakness in her design, you get punished. Changing it to an ALR cache after you found it and then insisting on the ALR is lame in the extreme (and rude).

I have a long multi that has had stages bypassed: several of them on occasions (it was my first cache placement). I was grateful that the finders mentioned that they'd taken short cuts as it helped me to tighten it up.

In your case, I'd be tempted to log it again but this time say "Re-found after owner intervention forced me to revisit.". Then evade further discussion!

5.3k · May 18, 2008

Isn't it true that posting via the WAP site doesn't generate a notification email?

Maybe you could just relog the find.

May 18, 2008

If you're able to figure out where the final is without visiting all the intermediates, then you're clever, not cheating.

Or the multi wasn't designed properly.

1.4k · May 18, 2008

TGB:

My online log does NOT mention that I skipped stages, but it does say that a ton of work was put into the cache. (As evidenced by the 36-page book printed like TV Guide -- and shrink-wrapped -- found at the first stage.)

But I know exactly how the cache owners feel! I have a fifteen cache series -- 8 in the first level leading to four leading to two leading to one. The FTF on the 15th cache had not found any of the previous 14 and were able to make a few guesses based on info provided on the cache page. I was initially ticked off, but then I got over it. (And I never thought about deleting their finds.) I reworked the cache page to make it almost impossible to find the last one without having found the previous two. It was definitely my fault for designing the puzzle so poorly, and kudos to those who were able to utilize this loophole.

I suppose that an additional question related to my original questions is, "Is it a given that all stages of a multi MUST be found in order to qualify for signing the logbook and then claiming an online find?"

Oh okay. I guess I drew that conclusion when you said that the owners were changing the hints after you found the caches. It looks like we are on the same page and I'd agree that it is still a find if you don't find any of the stages but I am not sure why anyone would want to do that.

2.4k · May 18, 2008

I suppose that an additional question related to my original questions is, "Is it a given that all stages of a multi MUST be found in order to qualify for signing the logbook and then claiming an online find?"

I certainly don't consider it a given, no.

There are a few around here that explicitly state on the cache page that all of the intermediate stages must be found (and they include logsheets at each stage which must be signed). We abide by the listed rules for those few, but don't feel bound by them on caches without such an explicit rule.

One of the "must find and sign all stages" one is driving us crazy, because it's a puzzle cache that is meant to be solved using a keyword located at the first stage. We can't find the first stage... but we have solved the puzzle without the keyword anyway, so we know the final coordinates. But we can't go look for it until we sign the stage-1 micro. (If that rule weren't specifically listed on the page, we'd go after the final in a heartbeat.)

There was another instance of this type of multi that I found with some caching friends. We found and signed all six stages, as required. Later that same day, we were doing another multi by the same hider, and came up completely empty at the first stage. We read through all of the previous finders' logs looking for clues, and saw that someone had posted a warning picture of a wasps' nest that they said was somewhere near the final (not right next to it, but close enough to the general search radius that someone might accidentally approach it). So we decided to wander the maze of trails to see if we could spot the nest. Luckily for us, this cache didn't have a find-all-stages requirement, and our search was successful -- we were able to bypass all of the intermediate stages and find the final. We even mentioned in our log that we couldn't find stage 1 and had to pick up the trail somewhere later on -- and there was never any suggestion by the cache owner that we had cheated or that our logs should be deleted.

6.5k · May 18, 2008

Found the cache signed the logbook=a find. They should have created the stages and puzzles to prevent this from happening, and it isn't your fault there is a design flaw that you exposed. By doing so you also deprived yourself of the full experience they tried to share with you. This thread isn't about your motivation though.

The owner is out of line and incorrect for deleting your log. However, since they do have the power to do so as the CO, they can and did delete a legit find. Cache owners can do that, right or wrong. I think this is a big part of why 'email me for the final coords' isn't permitted in puzzles. It takes the personal interaction and relationships out of the equation.

Your choice is to forget about it and move on, create more drama and escalate the situation, or try to persuade the CO to reconsider their actions.

May 18, 2008

Your choice is to forget about it and move on, create more drama and escalate the situation, or try to persuade the CO to reconsider their actions.

WG:

You know me. We have cached together. We have broken bread together. How could you possibly think that I would create more drama and escalate the situation?

I still DO plan on finding the rest of the stages as it sounds like a ton of fun. And still not sure what I will do -- if anything -- about the deleted find.

Thanks to all for the feedback!

9.2k · May 18, 2008

I was able to skip all 18 preliminary stages of this cache, and go straight to the final, because of a puzzle flaw the owner apparently didn't anticipate. But he couldn't really complain, since he previously used info from the Internet to skip some stages on one of my puzzles, and I let it slide.

One thing you don't mention is if the cache in question is listed as a Puzzle or Multi. If it's a puzzle, then pretty much anything is fair game.

Edited May 19, 2008 by Prime Suspect

May 18, 2008

I was able to skip all 18 preliminary stages of this cache, and go straight to the final, because of a puzzle flaw the owner apparently didn't anticipate. But he couldn't really complain, since he previously used info from the Internet to skip some stages on one of my puzzles, and I let it slid.

One thing you don't mention is if the cache in question is listed as a Puzzle or Multi. If it's a puzzle, then pretty much anything is fair game.

I just figured out the final coordinates to the above referenced cache while sitting in my living room in Asheville NC. Nice idea for a cache but the walk through the Arbor Hills Nature Preserve -- except to find the final -- was unnecessary.

BTW -- the cache in my situation is listed as a multi.

May 18, 2008

Not a big deal in my eyes. If the owner makes it possible, then it's possible. I did it just this morning becuase I didn't want the stages to get muggled. First 3 stages were in a ball park complex. The first was right directly in front of a muggle in his car. But the page description said the "first 3" went clockwise around the fields. Now, not only was a muggle staring right at #1, but ball teams were showing up, even though it was 8:00 in the morning. So I went to where the last one had to be to get the final coords. I'm happy, and the stages are safe. We all win.

Edited May 18, 2008 by scuba dude

7.2k · May 18, 2008

I was able to skip all 18 preliminary stages of this cache, and go straight to the final, because of a puzzle flaw the owner apparently didn't anticipate. But he couldn't really complain, since he previously used info from the Internet to skip some stages on one of my puzzles, and I let it slid.

One thing you don't mention is if the cache in question is listed as a Puzzle or Multi. If it's a puzzle, then pretty much anything is fair game.

I just figured out the final coordinates to the above referenced cache while sitting in my living room in Asheville NC. Nice idea for a cache but the walk through the Arbor Hills Nature Preserve -- except to find the final -- was unnecessary.

BTW -- the cache in my situation is listed as a multi.

This is prime example (no pun intended) of an overly complicated puzzle where the owner unintentionally built in a way to short cut the multi. Any time you make a puzzle more complicated the more you have to pay attention to the details. While it appears the owner of the linked puzzle intended to create a sort of non-linear multi he did, in fact, also create a simple substitution cypher. Oops!

3.3k · May 18, 2008

If it was my multi I would have congratulated you for being clever and then fixed it. I have solved finals for multis without finding all the waypoints. I have solved puzzles in ways the owner never thought of. Felt good about each and every one of them.

1.1k · May 18, 2008

Was my "Find" legitimate?

I agree with everyone else who's posted in the affirmative. You found the final, you signed the logbook, you found the cache.

Your mistake may have been in telling the cache owner that you didn't go to all of the stages, eh? Apparently, instead of fixing the cache to reflect the information you gave him w/o mentioning to others that you'd solved it without actually having to go to all of the stages... he told everyone and then put stipulations on how you had to go about completing the cache.

(Does this change it from a multi to a ? type cache?)

I figure if you're smart enough to find the cache w/o actually having to go through the motions, more power to ya.

A friend and I found a cache a few years back (Multi Murals Micro) that only had 9 or 10 stages, but it was one where you keep track of how long it takes from start to finish. The record was something like 1hr 28 minutes.

We fully admitted the trick of our trade (dumb luck) were able to keep our find, but our start to finish time was not noted as being the fastest. I guess 8 minutes from the first waypoint to the last (with a different cache in between) wasn't really what he was looking for.

michelle

5.3k · May 18, 2008

If I were to find out the some one had passed over stages of one of my multis, I would delete their find.

Edited May 18, 2008 by JohnnyVegas

2.4k · May 18, 2008

If I were to find out the some one had passed over stages of one of my multis, I would delete their find.

Why?

Skipping Multi-cache Stages

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment