Multi Or A Series Of Related But Distinct Caches?

[+nfa]

Hi,

 

I have an area scouted out for a couple of caches, and was wondering what the opinion of people (and other beings reading these forums) are as regards placing a multi versus placing a series of caches within a nice hiking area...

 

The multi would allow for an involved hunt and length hike, but having the caches be seperate but relatively close would allow for more freedom of choice on the part of cachers.

 

what do you think?

 

nfa

[+wrlwnd]

As a Noob one of the times I did 2 close by caches in a nice park in OH. I think that if well done a multi would be good to show various parts of a nice park and that would be enjoyable.

 

I have yet to do any Multi's but have my eye on a coulpe that look interesting.

 

Eric

[+bigredmed]

Try a cache cafe.

 

This is a variant of the multi.

 

The coords are to a micro at some nice location in the park central to the other hiding areas.

 

The cacher is then given options to go after different sub caches which can be of different types.

 

For example, I have one that has an ultramicro (no longer allowed here) and a regular cache attached to the micro.

 

People have had positive things to say about the cache.

 

The reason I think these are better is that I am busy. I don't have time to track all over looking for coords hidden under rocks in flower bed A to find flower bed B to find the final hide. These also bore me. The cache cafe offers choice, if you want a trad so your kids can trade a toy, go for it. If ultra micros are your thing, go for it. If you have time to do both, go for it.

[+Wacka]

There's a few in my area that consist 5 caches that can be logged separately. In each is a a "puzzle piece" that if you get all five, gives the coordinates of a final cache. With one I did all 5 and found the "bonus cache", while with the other, I've done only 2 of them.

[+nfa]

hi,

 

anyone else with an opinion or some guidance or help...or has the debate about the silly thread taken it out of everyone?

 

nfa

[+Team DEMP]

If it's a good area where you're doing some decent hiking in-between, I think individual caches would be preferred. A great example of this is BrianSnat's Hiker Series

Edited May 21, 2004 by Team DEMP

[+WhipArtist]

If there's something especially difficult or rewarding about each of the caches, I think I'd prefer to have them as a linked series rather than as a multi. I can't imagine wanting to spend an hour or more on each phase of a multi.

[+Team DEMP]

If you're going on an 8 mile or so loop (as the Hiker Series is), and it was setup as 1 multi-cache, it would be pretty disappointing to get to stage 3 of an 8 stage multi, be unable to find it, and have to bag the rest of the hike because you can't get the coords for the next stage. At least with separate caches, if you get a DNF, you can continue along to the other caches and the rest of the hike.

[+Snoogans]

Series!

 

Look at my stats. I have less than 10 multis in over 220 finds. I don't usually have/make time for a multi. Multis get visited less and need more maintenance.

 

Sn gans

Edited May 21, 2004 by Snoogans

[+nfa]

I like the idea of the series...I think I will lay out a number of traditional caches in hiking distance of each other, with each one contributing a piece of the puzzle to find a final traditional cache, making it sort of a multi made up of traiditonals.

 

Thanks for all of the help and advice so far...

 

nfa

[+The Leprechauns]

You will get more finds on your caches if you set them up as separate caches. The number-bagging crowd will find 4 separate caches, but skip a 4-stage multicache. Many people just don't like multi's.

 

I happen to like multi's more than any other cache type, if they're set up right. You know the area better than I do. If there is an especially cool way to get from one side of the park to the other, and you want to force me to follow the yellow trail and then take the white trail loop, so that I don't miss the view of the river, then a multicache works great. If you put separate caches at each spot, I will try to optimize my route and it may be very different than the path you intended me to follow, either because I chose something faster or because I screwed up. If you found a cool area like a stream at the bottom of a ravine, you can torture finders by putting the stages of your multi close together but on alternating sides of the ravine. As separate caches, I'd find all the ones on the west side, cross the ravine once, and return on the east side.

 

In general I think multi's work better when the waypoints are not scattered all over the place, but instead packed into a hike of a few miles. Anything longer and I'll be wondering what these spots have to do with each other - which brings me to the concept of a theme or a journey. Multi's are better, I think, if there is a journey of some type involved. If there are four historic spots in the park, take me to all four and I feel like I've seen the whole park and maybe learned something. With a multicache I tend to take my time; with a single stage cache I find it, log it and move on to the next one.

 

On the other hand, if you have just picked out a half dozen cool spots in the park that really don't have anything to do with each other and don't hang together in any logical fashion, then I'd rather find those as single-stage caches.

[+Mastifflover]

I would too rather do a series than a long multi. Of course being a numbers guy I would rather get three or four smilies out of a 8 mile hike than just one.

[+Will+Bill]

I like the cafe idea, and am thinking of doing one of my own like that. Personally, it really depends. If you want a visitor to see multipatle parts of an area that are related and not more than a few miles apart, do a multi-cache ( get it?) If you just want to show some interesting spots, or have a great place for a cache, do a traditional.

[+Team DEMP]

Another area to consider is who is likely to do your cache. If it's long hike, but not extremely difficult, kids could come along for the adventure. Most kids like trading, and in a typical multi, the trade would only occur at the final cache. It could make the one multi-cache less attractive to that group of folks whereas a trade at each traditional cache would be more up their alley.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I like the idea of the series...I think I will lay out a number of traditional caches in hiking distance of each other, with each one contributing a piece of the puzzle to find a final traditional cache, making it sort of a multi made up of traiditonals.

 

Thanks for all of the help and advice so far...

 

nfa

This seems to work around here (Chicago). I like 'em, then again I'm easy and will do pretty much any cache.

[Ferreter5]

I love the idea of a series with the option to do a bonus cache upon completing the series.

 

Also, as someone else said, it really sucks to get stuck in the middle of a multi because you can't find a stage -- especially if there's significant distances between the stages. I'd think a multi would require more maintenance too.

[+briansnat]

I have an area scouted out for a couple of caches, and was wondering what the opinion of people (and other beings reading these forums) are as regards placing a multi versus placing a series of caches within a nice hiking area...

 

The multi would allow for an involved hunt and length hike, but having the caches be seperate but relatively close would allow for more freedom of choice on the part of cachers.

 

I've done both and as a geocacher I'd find either to be attractive. One series of caches that I placedinvolves an 8-10 mile hike and 6-8 caches (depending on the route). I detailed the recomended route and order on each page, fully expecting most people to bag them individually. Instead, most have done the entire route and I'm very surprised at the popularity of series as a series.

 

 

Here is one of the cache pages for an example of how I did it.

[+ShadowAce]

I of course can only speak from personal feelings, but here we have a cache that is in total 7 caches. 5 of which lead you to a confirmation cache which tells you how to find number 7.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.asp...=arizona+tidbit should bring up the cache's.. If not they are hidden by MO & GO and they contain the words 'arizona tidbit'

 

My family loved them.. We could do one a day or all in a day, dependant on the time we had. There have been many multi's we do that require more then one trip to complete and sometimes this leaves the younger ones to a state of coma.. "Do we have to go to that park again?" is the phrase used..

 

Sprocket's 12 step program on the other hand is a trully wonderful and painful experience.. It helps to show who is a true addict and who is mearly a user... I do not believe this would have been nearly as challenging or as fun if it were in multi cache setup..

 

So where as this does not answer the question, it might show a logical purpose for both of them. Use your judgement and always remember, the game is for all, but we only have to keep ourselves and our loved ones happy. Someone will always complain it was too close to a pile of dog poo (which was not there when you placed the cache) or it was too tall to reach (Sometimes it has to be more then 6 inches from the ground). If you place a cache in good faith and are not one who places it in the center of a mall and only give coordinates within 300 feet, you should be ok.

 

Enjoy the hunt... The finds are a bonus.

[mortonfox]

It really depends on the area. A multi would make sense if it leads the cachers along a nice loop, for instance.

 

Personally, multicaches make up fewer than 5% of my finds so it is evident that I tend not to seek them.