Jump to content

Series Caches


McDeHack
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

With a single cache, you follow the GPS to the co-ords and find the cache. Be it a regular or virtual. Later, you log as found and it is added to your score.

 

So the object of this exercise is to find and log.

With some series caches, at every find of the series one has to gather a clue to find the final location of the cache.

Why then do some people that construct series caches allow each clue to count as a find, and log as such, as I have done. Yet others the found clues do not gain the finder a log as found?

 

Yes, I know many would say it is part of the fun to just use the GPS to get to a location, to find the clue to prove that it can be done.

 

Is caching a numbers game for some? If so, then would you go and do a series cache where the clues do not count as a find? There is one series cache that I know has ten non-log virtual clues for the one find.

I do not think I would do this one, because I am sorry to say. I think I have become a numbers man.

Link to comment

I was talking to Moss Trooper at the North East Get Together yesterday, and he described a humungous geopuzzle which he'd devised. It involved finding loads of things, solving clues, *lots* of travel.....all to lead you to a a cache, which you'd then log as a single find.

On the way home it got me to thinking that insome ways it could be nice for cache setters to rate their caches with a number of points scored for a find. Say 1 point for a straight-forward 1 star cache, up to 10 points for a 5 star complex multi.

Probably a nightmare for the moderators and site admins though....

Link to comment

A series cache.. is a series of caches that go together with the aim of finding a final cache. Each cache has an individual cache page

 

A multicache has seperate locations, requireing you to find some information whether planted or not and leads you to a cache find.. This having only a single cache.

 

About as good a deffinition as yer can get.. I think.. unless our intrepid approvers wana ad to it.. <_<

Link to comment

Surely a series has a proper cache that is loggable on each part and a multicache has several parts with one loggable cache at the end, that must be staightforward enough, very different things for sure.

We have done a couple of series of which each part of the series was a multicache in its own right, in which case what you are describing would have meant about 40 crap finds instead of 5 well earnt finds! Give me a good multi anyday, far more fun and challenge than following a pointer across a field to a lunchbox!

I guess it's whatever rocks your boat, try doing it for fun and forget the numbers, isn't that what it's about?

Link to comment

In my book, a 'Series' cache is one of a number of caches that are connected by a common theme. In a Series, there will usually be a bonus cache which can only be found if you have successfully completed all the other caches in the series. Scotty's Cluedo series was a good example, or the Alchemy Quest series.

 

In the days when Virtual caches were freely permitted, it was not necessary to have a real container cache for each element in a series.

 

Any cache which involves visiting several locations, simply in order to collect clues to the location of the cache container, is a 'MultiCache'.

 

Creating Virtual caches of nondescript locations, just because the location can be used for a clue (information boards, monumental inscriptions, etc.), is wrong. There should be some particular distinction to the location. In this respect, McDeHack's own (excellent) London Rainbow series might have difficulty getting past the approvers these days <_< The Jack the Ripper series, interestingly, has been passed as a series of 'Mystery' caches when, in fact, each clue element is probably a valid Virtual. Go figure, as they say.

 

Incidentally, I'm most definitely not a numbers man. So, when I came out of self-imposed geo-retirement to do the Jack the Ripper series, I logged only the final, physical, cache as a find - thus losing 6 points for the intermediate locations. To me, it is really a MultiCache.

 

Different strokes... <_<

Link to comment

I think if there was a multi with lots of stages and logs from finders such as "Great fun! Loved finding this one!" and "Tricky, but worth it for the final location" then I'd probably pick them over a series of dull micros followed by a dull end where you could log each stage.

 

It's about the walk, views, surroundings and exercise for me.

 

(Sarah's views may vary!)

 

Cheers,

 

Stu

Link to comment

If it is an interesting multi then yes. :huh:

 

I tend to avoid multis if I am on a numbers mission although having said that the largest multi I ever did (and maybe the largest multi in the British Isles?) was this one which I completed during my Manx Mission last May...

 

Man Hunt by Happy Humphrey :)

 

... which is a fantastic cache and worth 18 easy micros any day!

 

There are some great multis out there and for those that are interested my top 10 are listed here...

 

Top 10 Multis - First 1000 Finds

 

.. and I'm sure there are many many more to be discovered. :)

 

Cheers!

 

Seasider

 

P.S. I am not a numbers man!

Edited by Seasider
Link to comment

I made the Alchemy Quest loggable at each stage to allow and encourage people just passing through to visit some of the locations that only hard-core local cachers would have seen if it was a single entity. The 8 base caches therefore are simply normal traditionals and in no way any way inferior to any other cache I've placed.

Yes, I could have made it just one cache, but then the individual stories at each cache would be lost as people would be more likely just to mention the 14 sub-caches in passing in the final log.

MarcB

Link to comment

Down to the setter really. I would be more likely to choose a series cache that allowed all the stages to be logged (the polaris series for example) however along long mynd which has several containers but only one cache find is still a good cache. If I was setting it i would probably make all stages loggable to encourage less hard core cachers to attempt it and maybe have a hall of fame for completing all in one day like wrekin havoc.

I am glad that in this country we do not have the cache machine's like some set up in the USA.

Link to comment
I made the Alchemy Quest loggable at each stage to allow and encourage people just passing through to visit some of the locations that only hard-core local cachers would have seen if it was a single entity. The 8 base caches therefore are simply normal traditionals and in no way any way inferior to any other cache I've placed.

Yes, I could have made it just one cache, but then the individual stories at each cache would be lost as people would be more likely just to mention the 14 sub-caches in passing in the final log.

MarcB

At the end of the day, the Alchemy Quest would be an utter nightmare as a single cache. In a series like that where the caches are well spaced, each cache HAS to have it's own page as each has it's own situation as regards parking/access and the like.

Link to comment

What I don't like is the genuine Multis where there is no clue as to how far apart the elements are. It is not unusual to start off on foot with no transport, get the first item, which gives you the coordinates for the next element which is beyond walking distance etc. I think multis, and serials, should give a clue a the outset of what is involved. I know many do, and the owners of those caches should be commended for it.

Link to comment

I've set both types and from reading the logs, those cachers that have done them seemed to have enjoyed them.

My 'series' cache consists of 5 individually loggable caches. The first four contain clues to the location of the fifth and they can be done in any order.

The last one I set is a multi-location cache. After determining the stating location, each of the following locations must be visited in sequence until the final cache is located. It's a great deal of effort for just one 'find'. I give no indication of the distance that has to be travelled other than to say that it's (very) unlikely that it will be completed in one outing or even one day, for that matter but those that have completed it, thought it enjoyable enough.

So... I guess it doesn't really matter too much. Whatever you hide and however you hide it, someone will take the time to go and look for it.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...