A Questionable Multi?

May 30, 2004

While doing our weekly geocaching, my husband and I decided to try a new multi in the area. However, once we got started, we saw some things that we thought might be questionable. The first leg was normal, except the clue to the second leg simply said "drive .36 miles to the top of the hill and look for concrete." Okay. We did that, and we found the coords written with paint (maybe?) on a concrete block. We followed that and found that the 3rd stage of the cache was a glass bottle with more instructions inside. It said to "drive 1.65 miles, bearing right, and look for a white tub." No further instructions after that. We found the (rusty) white tub, but we had no idea what we were looking for.... coord? A cache? We searched for quite some time for both coords or a cache, but found neither. Okay, so maybe we're a bit bitter about not finding the cache but I'm also kind of uneasy about the vague directions, the grafitti, the glass bottle..... I don't know. Any thought? Thanks!

2.7k · May 30, 2004

Sounds like a very poorly planned cache and not even worth looking for.

5.3k · May 30, 2004

..... I don't know. Any thought? Thanks!

Yeah...good luck when you go back to complete it! I hate that feeling of not completing a hunt. It bugs me until I finally finish it.

May 30, 2004

the graffitti and such, it really depends. There are some areas that would undoubtedly be improved with a splash of paint or two. The bottle in my opinion, is silly, as it is akin to a piece of trash...oh, and the lack of a use of coordinates is kinda sad. I mean really! one clue, or maybe 2 if there are like 20, could work that way, but all of them? just silly.

3.9k · May 30, 2004

Sounds like a very poorly planned cache and not even worth looking for.

sounds interesting to me. It also seems to have had the desired effect. Apparently there is more there than meets the eye.

El Diablo

3.9k · May 30, 2004

Sounds to me like the hider had a really good idea but executed it very poorly.

May 30, 2004

Did any one find the completed series yet?

May 30, 2004

Last time I checked, no one had completed it yet. Not only that, but this multi is one of a series of 5 other multis the cache owner either has planted or has planned. I've seen 3 of them actually posted, none of which have been found yet. I'm hoping it's just because they've only been out for 2 weeks, not because of similiar flaws. Yet with all the enthusiastic cachers in our area, I would be surprised if no one else has attempted them.

Edited May 30, 2004 by WolfPack2099

May 30, 2004

Sounds to me like a questionable multi.

(I'm not being "wise", I agree!)

However, emailing the hider might produce more answers than here!

Whenever I get stuck beyond the resources of the cache page, I ask the hider for some clues (but NOT spoilers) after I've posted my DNF...

So far, that gets me to it. If there's no response, and no finds at all, and it's been a while, and still no indication of maintenance, then more drastic action might be called for.

Enjoy,

Randy

24.7k · May 30, 2004

Grafitti on trash? That doesn't sound like a problem to me. Or did I miss something?

It sounds more interesting than the crappy multi caches you get when you have to use the number on a plaque to get to the next stage.

May 30, 2004

It sounds more interesting than the crappy multi caches you get when you have to use the number on a plaque to get to the next stage.

Why would this be considered crappy ? - I ask because I am planning a new cache, and thought that in order to show cachers around the area, I'd do a multi where clues could be derived from plaques that are along the trails.

Is this considered generally bad form for a multi ? Is it better if I hide containers at each stage ? etc. etc. ?

5.3k · May 30, 2004

It sounds more interesting than the crappy multi caches you get when you have to use the number on a plaque to get to the next stage.

Why would this be considered crappy ? - I ask because I am planning a new cache, and thought that in order to show cachers around the area, I'd do a multi where clues could be derived from plaques that are along the trails.

Is this considered generally bad form for a multi ? Is it better if I hide containers at each stage ? etc. etc. ?

The use of plaques to derive clues for a multi is fine, I have found mulit that used that type of system. As far as the cache being discribed, It sounds like the cache owner was not clear about regarding the tub, was it the last part or another leg. It is nice start a mulit knowing how many legs there are. It is also nice if the leg before the cache mentions the next coordinates are the location of the cache. It would be nice the have coordinates listed as well as a clue as to what you are looking for. As it has been siad before, this sounds like a poorly planed cache. It seem to be that the cache should have been found within two weeks. Unless there is a probem with the cache

24.7k · May 30, 2004

It sounds more interesting than the crappy multi caches you get when you have to use the number on a plaque to get to the next stage.

Why would this be considered crappy ? - I ask because I am planning a new cache, and thought that in order to show cachers around the area, I'd do a multi where clues could be derived from plaques that are along the trails.

Is this considered generally bad form for a multi ? Is it better if I hide containers at each stage ? etc. etc. ?

In a nutshell this is why. It's also my opinion.

While on vacatino I did a cache. It used variouse numbers on variouse plaques and monuments around town. which led to the final cache. A micro.

Without asking the owner it looked like exactly the kind of thing you have to do to get a virtual approved.

While doing this cache our focus was the numbers to do the math for the next stage. The last stage was just a multi by a head wall on a drainagle ditch. Looking back at the cache the interesting parts were the history presented on the monuments and the plaque. The headwall was merely the one place you could actually hide a cache at in the parks we toured.

The net result was that something that would of made a nice virtual beame a crappy multi cache. One reason for a virtual cache is to draw your attention to something unique about an area, history, etc. Something the cache owner feels is worth sharing (which is different from WOW). Making a plaque a stage in a mutli shifts the focus from the history to solving the stage and moving on.

A multi cache should stand on it's own merits. A theme would be nice something to tie it all together but not such that the stages are lost in the effort to find the last stage.

5.6k · May 31, 2004

Making a plaque a stage in a mutli shifts the focus from the history to solving the stage and moving on.

That's just one opinion.

I have a multi in Renton, WA that uses plaques and monuments of the coal industry for the numbers, ending in a park nearby. Most people think the history tie in makes it a better cache. But if someone is so focused on the final cache they can't see the interesting points along the way, I feel sorry for them. I like finding caches that show me parts of the area I don't know about. That's another opinion.

24.7k · May 31, 2004

...I have a multi in Renton, WA that uses plaques and monuments of the coal industry for the numbers, ending in a park nearby. Most people think the history tie in makes it a better cache. But if someone is so focused on the final cache they can't see the interesting points along the way, I feel sorry for them. I like finding caches that show me parts of the area I don't know about. That's another opinion.

The history makes this cache all the better. Hermit Home

The concept of making the cache so that the focus is on what you want the finder to see or know is valid. There are ways to enhance that focus that will work for most people. There are also ways to detract from the goal. Hermit home will have you wondering where the kitchen was at, how he dug out the cave, and what he was like. The cache owner framed the cache very well and when an opportinity to do it better came along he did so.

There is nothing wrong with using a plaque in a multi cache. A cache owner can set up their cache any way they like. However I do think that having something of significance be a stage in a multi rather than the main point of the cache detracts from that focus.

I don't know your multi cache. It's entirely possible that you have led your cachers down a path the focuses them on exactly what you wanted them to see. If so great. If not, then your cache isn't doing what you intended for it to do. What was the point of you placing the cache? To feel sorry for people who are looking for a number to do math with like you told them to do, or for them to stop and look around at something you found interesting enough to share?

In that same town with the lame multi was another cache. It was at a cabin where the surrounding land had been restored to what the high mountain desert looked like when this country was first settled. That cache was interesting. The look and lay of the land was vastly different from what it was today. Same cache owner. Different result. I can't remember what the multi was focused on. I do recall the cabin.

June 14, 2004

The cache I have in mind to hide will be a large container traditional final cache. The only reason I want to make a multi there is so hunters will see more of the nature reserver (all points and the final will be in the reserve).

There is a selection of trails, with intersections etc. Along the trails are a few interpetive plaques with nature information on them. Finding 2 or 3 plaques before the cache site would ensure that hunters get to see more of the trails and the area.

Any thoughts on this plan ????

5.7k · June 14, 2004

the graffitti and such, it really depends. There are some areas that would undoubtedly be improved with a splash of paint or two.

I know you were probably joking about this. Spray painting coords on public property (or property that you don't own and don't have permission to paint) is a bad, bad thing.

--Marky

2.3k · June 14, 2004

This is a prime example of why I don't even bother with 99.9% of multi's....

"I ain't got time to bleed...." or to waste like that.....

3.1k · June 14, 2004

I've never like multis and seldom hunt them. This is just one of the reasons why

June 14, 2004

This is a prime example of why I don't even bother with 99.9% of multi's....

"I ain't got time to bleed...." or to waste like that.....

We recently did a cache that required you to visit 2 locations, answer 5 questions, and find the cache hidden in the woods. I had d/l'd it in a pocket query and we were at the first location before I had actually read anything about the cache. It was a well thought out cache and the history was interesting but, the questions had nothing to do with the second stage of the cache. You had to e-mail them to the owner to verify that you had been there. No big deal I guess except, if I had read all that was required to log ONE cache, I would have passed on it. My mistake.....

June 14, 2004

I know that everyone has their own likes and dislikes... still it's tough to understand why one would decide against doing multicaches at all. Some of the nicest hikes around (Dierkes Delirium, Cliffhanger) my area are multis.

It is my hope that for every cache that is placed there is a reason. That reason may be to get folks to an interesting (or beautiful or educational or special...) spot. It may be because of a unique hiding container or style that the cacher has devised. It may be as part of a puzzle. It may have some special meaning to the hider that is not obvious to the seeker (I have two placed with my small children which would fit this category). Some may try to add an new idea to the sport.

The caches which should be discouraged are not the multis, and they are not the micros, and they are not the traditional caches. They are the boxes, tins, film cannisters, and ammo cans which are placed without any reason for their existence. Make each cache count.

...just my pair of pennies...

SkinGuy

June 14, 2004

The caches which should be discouraged are not the multis, and they are not the micros, and they are not the traditional caches. They are the boxes, tins, film cannisters, and ammo cans which are placed without any reason for their existence. Make each cache count.

I didn't mean to discourage placing a cache, on the contrary, I was only expressing my personal likes and dislikes. I still do multi's, just not so many as I do other caches because of the time involved. I will do fewer multi's if I'm out of town because I went out of town most times to get numbers. Pisgah National Forest is the exception to that rule. I go there for the scenery. Most of those caches are regular caches.

As far as caches that have no reason to exist, if a tourist is visiting the area and want to get "lightpole" caches because they are quick, then the cache has a reason to exist. So in my mind, a cache placed with reasonable expectation of being found has a reason to exist.

1.3k · June 15, 2004

Note on the historical marker multi issue.

Click on the below link and find the number that occurs twice in the plaque:

http://www.oglefamilyofmarylandandalliedfa...AL%20MARKER.JPG

Ok. Good. Got that out of the way? Are you sure you know the number? Now here's the next step. Ask yourself if you really read the plaque in an effort to learn what it said or if you were distracted by the number of times each year appeared. And did you really read the plaque to the end?

If you read it all and paid attention to it, congrats, but that's simply not how a lot of people's brains work. People don't stop and enjoy the moment for what it is, especially when they're busy trying to get to the ending.

The secret to writing a good story is to get the reader so immersed that he forgets he's reading a story. If you can succeed in doing the same with a cache and get the searcher immersed in the area then you have a wonderful cache. Unfortunately, it really isn't easy.

http://www.findadeath.com/Decesed/g/Fred%2...al%20marker.JPG is interesting. I could see someone wanting a cache near this particular marker. What's fun is that if you have the person waypoint the marker and you have them waypoint the entrance to the location of the church bell and then do something with those two waypoints I think the people are more likely to actually read the entire marker. They're not thinking about the math because they can't actually do any math or anything else until they get to the church and that frees them up to actually read the marker without as much of a distraction.

(note: both markers were pulled off the front page of a google image search for "historical marker". Any similarity to real caches is purely accidental.)

Edited June 15, 2004 by bons

4.7k · June 15, 2004

as for graffitti, i'm thinking of doing a cache where i get permission from a landowner to write coordinates on the building. it would be inappropriate for me to give more in the way of details.

June 15, 2004

This is a prime example of why I don't even bother with 99.9% of multi's....

"I ain't got time to bleed...." or to waste like that.....

We recently did a cache that required you to visit 2 locations, answer 5 questions, and find the cache hidden in the woods. I had d/l'd it in a pocket query and we were at the first location before I had actually read anything about the cache. It was a well thought out cache and the history was interesting but, the questions had nothing to do with the second stage of the cache. You had to e-mail them to the owner to verify that you had been there. No big deal I guess except, if I had read all that was required to log ONE cache, I would have passed on it. My mistake.....

Guess that is why you can choose what type of caches you want to d/l in the PQs.

On topic, It doesn't seem like writting the coords on trash is the best idea. Someone might give up looking and CITO the clue without realizing it

There is at least one cache that incourages graffitti! We did in on vacation recently, really fun!

June 17, 2004

Guess that is why you can choose what type of caches you want to d/l in the PQs.

Yeah, I should have set better parameters in the PQ. Doesn't matter now, this one is out of the way. I wouldn't have skipped it altogether, I would have saved it for a later date. Like I said, it was well thought out and interesting.

7.2k · June 17, 2004

I can't really comment on the multi mentioned in the opening post. It could be the clues get harder, I dunno.

As for multis, I'm getting so tired of the fill-in-the-blank, tedious math multis that I realize that's not the type of cache I want to hunt. So much so that I'm considering archiving one our caches that use that kind of hunt. I don't want to own a cache that I wouldn't enjoy myself.

I'm with Bons on this issue, it becomes a chore and it's easy to lose focus on your surroundings. We've recently did a series of multis where most of the stages had absolutely no point to them what so ever. In fact, we've decided to skip the last one. (Fourtunately, it's not within our 50 mile radius we like to try to keep cleared out.)

(This is not to mention some math based multis are so poorly conceived that you only need a few of the numbers to be able to deduce the rest thus breaking the intended sequence.)

June 18, 2004

ask yourself if you really read the plaque

Didn't read a word of it... did copy the image into paint shop pro so i could reduce it and 'read' it more easily.

A Questionable Multi?

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

Join the conversation