Multi Cache Vs. Puzzle Cache

[+jhwf44]

Okay, I'm working on a cache right now and I don't know if this is considered a multi cache or a puzzle cache. Basically I plan on giving coordinates to a bunch of places in a park where people have to obtain information from to determine the coordinates of the cache. (The given coords on teh page will be for parking location) For example, one clue would be: "Go to (coordinates here) and determing the number of years the park has been open to find the last 2 numbers of the latitude." There would be a bunch of those clues with coordinates, which would come together to form the coords for the final cache with the loot. So, is this a puzzle or multi-cache?

[+Renegade Knight]

Sounds like a multi cache. The entire puzzle is visiting certain locations to find the final box.

[+º]

If you can find the cache only with the GPSr and the description it's a Multi-Cache (offset Cache).

If you have to solve a riddle before leaving home or do some other homework it's a Mystery or puzzle caches.

 

Multi:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=82924

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=92764

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=138006

 

Mystery:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=126768

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=140761

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=155193

 

Have phun

Edited July 27, 2004 by teamguzbach.org

[+briansnat]

I think something like what you describe is sort of borderline. Personally, I'd call it a puzzle cache because to me, multis are either a simple offset, or a series of caches whose coordinates lead to the next one. Once you get beyond simple use of a GPS and perhaps a compass, it becomes a puzzle cache to me. And as the Geoocaching guidelines say, the mystery/puzzle category is the The “catch-all” of cache types.

 

But I don't think anybody would quarrel with you if you called it a multi either.

[+º]

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a multi-cache.

(Cache Types)

 

so definitely a multi ...

[+HoPri]

I think something like what you describe is sort of borderline. Personally, I'd call it a puzzle cache because to me, multis are either a simple offset, or a series of caches whose coordinates lead to the next one.  Once you get beyond simple use of a GPS and perhaps a compass, it becomes a puzzle cache to me.  And as the Geoocaching guidelines say, the mystery/puzzle category is the The “catch-all” of cache types.

 

But I don't think anybody would quarrel with you if you called it a multi either.

I agree that it is not much if an issue. But it's interesting to see the different views on this...

 

In my view, a multi cache is characterized by

- having multiple (i.e. 1 or more) stages where you find information about the next waypoint and/or the final cache.

- The intermediate stages can be everything from simply reading some digits from a sign, over finding a small plate hidden by the cache placer, over finding a micro container with some info, over regularly sized box(es) with further instructions, or whatever... The point is that all tasks have to be (and can be!) solved at the place during the hunt.

- Nothing needs to be prepared in advance or is so sophisticated that you cannot do it (at least in principle) "on the fly" during you are there.

 

A puzzle cache, in my book, would be a cache where you have to solve a puzzle BEFORE you can get started. Everything, where you can't just drive and begin the hunt. Once the puzzle is solved it still can turn out to have multiple stages. Or it just can be a traditional cache.

 

A mystery cache could be anything where the cache placer for one reason or the other does not want us to know too much. Obviously, puzzle caches fall into this category, but I also know of caches which are a mixture of traditional with a puzzle and a regular multi: solve the puzzle and then you know where the cache is, or do the hike to find the information in the normal "multi cache way". They would also correctly qualify as mystery in my opinion.

 

Best regards from the land of the multi-caches... I don't know whether official statistics support my observation. But I have the impression that multis (as of my definition) are significantly more frequent in Germany than in the USA...?

 

HoPri

 

Edit: typo

Edited July 27, 2004 by HoPri

[+briansnat]

But I have the impression that multis (as of my definition) are significantly more frequent in Germany than in the USA...?

 

Probably. We Americans are lazy. If a cache takes more than 15 minutes to get to, a lot of people ehre won't bother with it and they automatically scratch any multis off their to-do list because they don't want to have to find 3-4 caches and only get credit for one.

[+HoPri]

Yeah, that's understandable... And I'm glad that there are enough traditionals around here in Germany as well to have a choice. A choice between the tougher ones, which take the whole afternoon, daay or night, and some less time-intensive traditionals, which might provide different challenges. At one time, I'm up for this and at another time I'm rather up that. But I guess that's how it works for most people all over the world.

 

Best regards,

HoPri

[+chris-mouse]

Another variation that's in use in this area is a "multi-multi" cache. Each stage in the cache is a stand alone cache that can be logged for credit. The stages also have a clue of some sort which can then be used to work out the location of a bonus cache. the individual stages could themselves be multi caches, or any other type of cache. The stages could even be placed by different cachers

GHMCMC

and

Parking on the Credit

are probably the best examples of this.

[+Strapped-4-Cache]

chris-mouse,

 

I've set up a cache as you've described. Conspiracy Theory is a series of multis, each leading to an ammo box. Each box can be logged independently, but the final stage can only be found once all of the other boxes have been found.

 

Funny thing is that so far the finders have only logged the final stage as a smiley.

 

- Mark (S-4-C)

[+º]

...

GHMCMC

and

Parking on the Credit

are probably the best examples of this.

and they are labeled with the wrong cache-type since both are mystery-caches and not multi-caches:

 

Mystery or puzzle caches

The “catch-all” of cache types, this form of cache can involve complicated puzzles you will first need to solve to determine the coordinates. The only commonality of this cache type is that the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location. Due to the increasing creativity of geocaching this becomes the staging ground for new and unique challenges.

[+jhwf44]

Hmm...so it sounds like people are quite divided on that and it's not really gonna make that huge of a difference. I would call it a puzzle but not much needs to be "sovled," however it is not just as simple as going to a bunch of coordinates and following them to the next stage. I guess either way will work maybe?

[+HoPri]

I guess either way will work maybe?

 

I'm sure it will! On the other hand, I know of quite a number of people who are more sensitive with respect to the "correct" labeling (whatever that is ).

 

The main reason is that if you are traveling (e.g. on a business trip) and want to see (e.g. on your PDA) what caches are around, you kind of need to rely on the correct labels. Sure, you can read the descriptions but that's not always feasible for each and every cache in an area.

 

If then a "multi" turns out to be only solvable if you have managed several other caches before (and you only realize this when you look closer into the description once you are at the parking lot and about to start) then you're screwed. Hence, those people are very grateful if everything which does not provide real starting coordinates and which cannot be solved right on the spot is labeled "mystery". Apparently, this would include bonus caches as well. Then they easily know that they can scratch the cache from their list of candidates (and they can do so with a simple filter on the cache type).

 

Best regards,

HoPri

Edited July 28, 2004 by HoPri

[+º]

Danke HoPri - Du sprichst mir aus der Seele

Edited July 28, 2004 by teamguzbach.org

[+New England n00b]

I guess either way will work maybe?

 

I'm sure it will! On the other hand, I know of quite a number of people who are more sensitive with respect to the "correct" labeling (whatever that is ).

 

The main reason is that if you are traveling (e.g. on a business trip) and want to see (e.g. on your PDA) what caches are around, you kind of need to rely on the correct labels. Sure, you can read the descriptions but that's not always feasible for each and every cache in an area.

 

If then a "multi" turns out to be only solvable if you have managed several other caches before (and you only realize this when you look closer into the description once you are at the parking lot and about to start) then you're screwed. Hence, those people are very grateful if everything which does not provide real starting coordinates and which cannot be solved right on the spot is labeled "mystery". Apparently, this would include bonus caches as well. Then they easily know that they can scratch the cache from their list of candidates (and they can do so with a simple filter on the cache type).

 

Best regards,

HoPri

I'll also add that if the cache requires a bit of internet googling first, then that is annoying to me.

 

In *my* perfect world, a multi-cache should be straightforward. Anything other than follow the pointer/compass to point X should be a puzzle.

 

But then, I am a simple kinda guy so...

[+briansnat]

Hmm...so it sounds like people are quite divided on that and it's not really gonna make that huge of a difference.  I would call it a puzzle but not much needs to be "sovled," however it is not just as simple as going to a bunch of coordinates and following them to the next stage.  I guess either way will work maybe?

As I said earlier, I don't think you'll get much greif no matter which you choose. If it were my cache, I'd make it a mystery/puzzle for the reasons I stated previously (which sort of echo New England n00b's comment above), but good arguments can be made for a multi designation.

Edited July 28, 2004 by briansnat

[+º]

..., but good arguments can be made for a multi designation.

I'm curious about to hear them

[+The Commissar!]

I have them with myself all the time...I have several similar caches that "could" go either way and some are listed as multis and some as puzzles...I feel like a politician waffling so much

[+CompuCash]

I guess either way will work maybe?

 

I'm sure it will! On the other hand, I know of quite a number of people who are more sensitive with respect to the "correct" labeling (whatever that is ).

 

The main reason is that if you are traveling (e.g. on a business trip) and want to see (e.g. on your PDA) what caches are around, you kind of need to rely on the correct labels. Sure, you can read the descriptions but that's not always feasible for each and every cache in an area.

 

If then a "multi" turns out to be only solvable if you have managed several other caches before (and you only realize this when you look closer into the description once you are at the parking lot and about to start) then you're screwed. Hence, those people are very grateful if everything which does not provide real starting coordinates and which cannot be solved right on the spot is labeled "mystery". Apparently, this would include bonus caches as well. Then they easily know that they can scratch the cache from their list of candidates (and they can do so with a simple filter on the cache type).

 

Best regards,

HoPri

 

Why in the world would anyone drive any number of miles to a cache without first being prepared for that cache? This includes reading the description of the cache?

 

You wouldn't go to the cache without your boots, your GPS, walking stick, and whatever else you "normally" take with you - why would you not know what this cache is about?

 

Now I do understand that this is often done, and I agree and can appreciate the need for proper and accurate descriptions, but to go to a cache without having at least looked over the description just makes me ask a big loud "WHY?" (and WTF!?).

 

You would be just as 'screwed' if you needed a certain piece of equipment to get to or open the cache. You can't blame that on the description - only your lack of preparation. What if there is some terrain issue that you can't or won't deal with? Screwed again! What if it simply said (as I often do) you needed the trail map for this park? SCREWED! again!

 

Hey - the boy scouts (which I wasn't) had it right - BE PREPAIRED!

 

Personally I think this reasoning reflects a certain lazyness and general dislike for having to read. Hey - I am a member of that club too! But I read the darn paper before I put it in the folder in my caching bag and I KNOW what I am heading for.

 

Now when I get there and find that the darn GPS is still attached to the computer in my office - now that's another issue! Argh.....

[+HoPri]

Why in the world would anyone drive any number of miles to a cache without first being prepared for that cache? This includes reading the description of the cache?

 

A good and valid question. I guess, that happens if you are on a business trip, maybe without the time of doing a thorough geocaching preparation of your trip in advance. I imagine that you then have a little time to spare and decide on some spontaneous caching. All you have is your GPSr and a PDA with the cache descriptions. Of course, you can read through the complete list of descriptions. But as labels such as type, difficulty, and terrain exist to provide a quick overview, you pre-filter the stuff according to these labels. And, if they are wrong, you end up trying something that can't work out. Bad luck.

 

You would be just as 'screwed' if you needed a certain piece of equipment to get to or open the cache. You can't blame that on the description - only your lack of preparation. What if there is some terrain issue that you can't or won't deal with? Screwed again!

 

Exactly. That's why there are guidlines as how to label caches with respect to these issues and not leave it to reading the description alone. You need a certain type of equipment that goes beyond a small flashlight, a compass, or a leatherman? Then the cache better has D=5 as this is the correct label for caches that require special equipment. You come accross a terrain point where you need to climb or abseil? Then the cache better has T=4 or 5. Because this is the label that was created to make such caches easily identifiable.

 

Of course, everything is also in the description. But the labels are there to give quick overviews. And to allow for easy filtering.

 

Hey - the boy scouts (which I wasn't) had it right - BE PREPAIRED!

 

I agree. But not everybody is capable of carrying a full set of abseil/caving/whatever gear just in case. Why do we have the labels if they are not used properly? Then they become useless. What shall all those handicapped persons say if a T=1 is not really reservrd for handicap accessible? Shall the read each and every description to find out if it says something about the terrain? If all mysteries were labelled as multis that's exactly what you would have to do if you want to avoid standing on some dummy coordinates on some dummy parking lot.

 

But I read the darn paper before I put it in the folder in my caching bag and I KNOW what I am heading for.

Well, that's exactly how I do it and how most other cachers will most certainly also do it. But sometimes it happens that you end up somewhere and think: Oh, I could do a cache. No Internet, no printer. Just your GPSr and hopefully a PDA with cache descriptions. Many people don't even have that. They download waypoints only to their GPSrs. They are screwed if the labels are not used properly. And that's because they are not prepared, just as you say. But why shall we make their life more difficult? We only have to label the caches correctly. Then they filter and go for those caches that can be done without special equipment, without Internet help and without taking the whole afternoon.

 

Best regards,

HoPri

[+º]

Danke HoPri - Du sprichst mir schon wieder aus dem Herzen

[+CompuCash]

HoPri - I agree - and I think you prove my point - because not everyone rates the caches correctly.

 

I always use clayjar and say "rated by claryjar" on the page -- but not everyone uses it. There have been several threads that harang the ratings.

 

I too use the over view of type of cache and rating but I think the description is really important. Sometimes those are pretty minimal too. Feel free to read some of my descriptions if you like - and see how I describe a cache.

 

I generally try to describe everything even the type of container you are looking for. This is from going to caches and being frustrated because I don't know what I'm looking for.

[+HoPri]

I always use clayjar and say "rated by claryjar" on the page -- but not everyone uses it. There have been several threads that harang the ratings.

 

All the labelling is not that straight forward - as many threads and discussions prove. Geocaching.com and others like clayjar provide some vaulable guidelines and tools. But they are, due to the required balance between a complex subject and comprehensibility, by far not "waterproof". In the end, the guidelines should not read like some lawer text... That's why I also like the clayjar tool. It makes it a bit easier to rate a cache. Maybe he could come up also with something for cache type!

 

... but I think the description is really important.

Yes! In the end, the description should be the reference. But then, there are some creative (and nasty) people out there who don't want to tell too much about what you will face...

 

Will this be the ultimate cache?

 

Cheers and happy caching!

HoPri

[CoyoteRed]

My take on the OP query is that should be a multi. You have basically a fill-in-the-blank puzzle that can be done without any intial preparation. It would be really no different than finding the coords to the next stage written somewhere in the envirnoment anf that would most certianly be a multi.

 

The puzzle category IMHO should be reserved for caches that require intial preparation like having to figure out where the starting point is. A puzzle can be a single stage/traditional hunt--you just have to figure out the coords.

 

So as you are only gathering pieces of the final coords at different stages, I'd call it a multi.

 

On the issue of being "correctly labeled" and those who feel that everyone should always read the description no matter what, you are ignoring one type of cacher who likes to go after caches with the minimal information. They only go after traditionals and only carry the information loaded in the GPS. By labeling a multi or puzzle as a traditional, or mis-rating a cache with the wrong number of stars you are interferring with their game.

 

It's not all about one type of play, you know.

 

With all of that said, any time you see anything other than a traditional you should read the description. OTOH, if a cache is properly marked as a traditional and rated properly you shouldn't need to read the description. Otherwise you may be categorizing or rating it wrong.

[+º]

Will this be the ultimate cache?

vielleicht?

[+jhwf44]

Thanks everybody for the ideas...just one more question. Before I mentioned putting the clue in "Go to (coordinates here) and determing the number of years the park has been open to find the last 2 numbers of the latitude." I've been thinking about it and considered just giving a general coord to get people to different areas of the park like:

 

the trail head point is at: xxxx

 

Then I write:

 

"In the trail system find the year that the trail system was established (199X) to know the last digit of the latitude which is X"

 

Does this change your opinion on puzzle/multi?

[+HoPri]

Let's see how it goes with "my" definitions:

 

- start coordinates: Yes, real start coordinates, the parking is really where you should park, no dummy coordinates (check 1 for multi)

 

- can you solve the tasks directly there or do you need preparation in advance: No, no advance preparation required in both cases. Only, that the second version is less specific as to where to find the clues. In this sense, the "puzzle" has become a bit more explicit, at least to my feeling. Hence, check 1 for multi for version 1, version 2 a bit unclear.

 

- does it require complex logic or other lengthy calculation/decoding stuff that could be hard or impossible to do in rain or snow? Don't know for sure but it does not sound like it does. Hence, another check for multi.

 

Personally, I would label your first version "multi" as you give several stages by coordinates (you just don't say in which sequence they have to be addressed but that's ok IMHO) , and the tasks are straight forward to be solved right on the spot (find a sign/plate/clue right there, no complicated reasoning or calculations required).

 

The second version is just a bit more puzzling as you don't give the precise places where one should look for clues. My feeling is that more people would like to see this version labelled "mystery/puzzle".

 

But how life goes: Regardless of your decision, there will be someone who doesn't like it. So, after you've read all the stuff that's been written here and maybe elsewhere, it's best to follow your own intuition. As, in the end, these questions are always quite a matter of preference and personal opinion Make it a cool cache - that's what matters most.

 

Best regards and happy caching!

HoPri