Linked Multi Caches

[Pietomb00]

Hello,

 

I have a few locations that I would like to place caches, they are look out towers on hills, and as such you can see the next/previous from one. I would like to make them so that you can find a cache at one and it point you to the next, but not sure how I could go about this?

 

A) Do it as a multicache, so not actually have a cache at each, but the clue for the next one.

A cache at each but specify an order in the listing? Not sure on this as don't necessarily want to have them all shown on a map

C) Put coordinates for parking near each cache but only have the actual coordinates at the previous and next ones - this would mean you could possibly guess the location then work forwards or backwards for the next/previous ones in the series. (Does that make sense?)

 

Thanks in advance!

[+redsox_mark]

You can clearly do A - make it a multi, with stages.

 

For B, if you list them as separate caches you can't add rules about what order they are found in. And they will show on the map. You can make them puzzles so the coordinates on the map aren't real though. But then how do they get the coordinates.. which leads to your option C.

 

C could possibly work as puzzle caches, though I seem to recall there are some guidelines against a series of linked caches like this, where if one goes missing the chain is broken.

[Keystone]

Good summary, Redsox Mark -- thanks for that.

 

The "chained bonus cache" guideline limits the chain to one additional bonus cache. So, you can say "the coords for cache 2 are inside cache 1" but you cannot go on to say that "the coords for cache 3 are inside cache 2."

 

An additional design consideration is a "series bonus cache." Visit each of the locations and gather one piece of the coordinates for the bonus cache from each. Then place the bonus cache at the most scenic of the lookout locations. That way, you can make people visit each location but get a smiley for each one. You would get more visits than you would for a single multicache, at least in my area.

[+Team Microdot]

The "chained bonus cache" guideline limits the chain to one additional bonus cache. So, you can say "the coords for cache 2 are inside cache 1" but you cannot go on to say that "the coords for cache 3 are inside cache 2."

 

Can I ask - is that a recent policy change?

 

I had such a series at one point - granted I sadly ended up archiving it back in 2011 - partly because 'chain-links' did indeed go missing and render the subsequent caches unfindable until the missing link was restored.

[+dprovan]

Well, first of all, don't over look the possibility of just making it a series of traditionals. From what you describe, that would be pretty cool on its own. I agree, better if you can link them, but I'd hate to have you abandon this nice idea because you can't get them to link.

 

So in the linking discussion, a multi would probably be pretty slick. Sounds like a lot of work, though, so that would be the downside, but if you're willing for it to be hard -- and, consequently, have more people (most people?) ignore it -- it would be a good solution.

 

C could possibly work as puzzle caches, though I seem to recall there are some guidelines against a series of linked caches like this, where if one goes missing the chain is broken.

Another possibility is to make them all puzzle caches, and then link them through their solutions rather than through a physical cache with a pointer. When you started, I was thinking you were going to say "from B, if you look SE @ 133 degrees true, you'll see the site for C." So I was thinking you could start with posting coordinates for A at parking, perhaps, or just a good point of view, then have the A final be at a lookout that can be seen from those posted coordinates. Then post the coordinates for B somewhere -- could be near A or could be parking for B -- with the puzzle being "from the solution for A, look SE @133 degrees true to find the location of B". What appeals to me is that it is in theme with the locations being lookouts.

 

I don't think there's any restriction about chaining together puzzle cache solutions like that since it doesn't depend on the physical cache remaining in place. The downside is that the puzzle caches could be solved at home using maps, but I don't think that's a terribly bad thing, and if you stress the on-the-scene visual nature of the puzzles, I'd normally go do the visual part just to confirm even when I'd come up with the solution at home. It's not a big deal if someone decides not to enjoy this fun aspect of your caches, and I, for one, enjoy being able to predict where a trail is going to take me even if I'm willing to actually follow the trail when I go there.

[+Touchstone]

The "chained bonus cache" guideline limits the chain to one additional bonus cache. So, you can say "the coords for cache 2 are inside cache 1" but you cannot go on to say that "the coords for cache 3 are inside cache 2."

 

Can I ask - is that a recent policy change?

 

I had such a series at one point - granted I sadly ended up archiving it back in 2011 - partly because 'chain-links' did indeed go missing and render the subsequent caches unfindable until the missing link was restored.

 

Relevant Guideline:

 

At times a geocache may meet the requirements for publication on the site but the reviewers, as experienced geocachers, may see additional concerns not listed in these guidelines that you as a geocache placer may not have noticed. The reviewer may bring these additional concerns to your attention and offer suggestions so that the geocache can be published.

 

Your personal example seems to support the restriction on this type of cache concept.

[+Team Microdot]

The "chained bonus cache" guideline limits the chain to one additional bonus cache. So, you can say "the coords for cache 2 are inside cache 1" but you cannot go on to say that "the coords for cache 3 are inside cache 2."

 

Can I ask - is that a recent policy change?

 

I had such a series at one point - granted I sadly ended up archiving it back in 2011 - partly because 'chain-links' did indeed go missing and render the subsequent caches unfindable until the missing link was restored.

 

Relevant Guideline:

 

At times a geocache may meet the requirements for publication on the site but the reviewers, as experienced geocachers, may see additional concerns not listed in these guidelines that you as a geocache placer may not have noticed. The reviewer may bring these additional concerns to your attention and offer suggestions so that the geocache can be published.

 

Your personal example seems to support the restriction on this type of cache concept.

 

I wasn't questioning the restriction - just curious as to when it came into force in the hope that someone in the know - perhaps even a friendly moderator - might enlighten us.

[+palmetto]

Hi Team Microdot - strictly speaking, it might yet be possible to do chaining of caches. This would probably only happen for an established hider with a good maintenance record. I've published one in the last several years.

 

I'm vague on the date (early '07 to sometime in 2010), this was added to the Help Center article on Mystery caches:

 

"Generally, clues for a bonus geocache should not be placed in another bonus geocache, and the bonus geocache belongs to the owner of the geocaches where clues are found."

 

This describes for players and reviewers a general prohibition on chains of dependent caches.

[+The Jester]

Another idea is a Challenge Cache, such as Oregon Forest Fire Lookout Challenge (which also links to a couple of other NW challenges).

Edited November 23, 2014 by The Jester

[+Sharks-N-Beans]

A series of lookout towers could lend themselves to a multi or series where cachers bringing the right equipment (maybe laser pointer and binoculars) have an advantage for vertical while still utilizing coordinates to reach the next GZ.

[Pietomb00]

Thanks all for your replies, really useful response to each idea Redsox Mark thanks.

 

When you started, I was thinking you were going to say "from B, if you look SE @ 133 degrees true, you'll see the site for C." So I was thinking you could start with posting coordinates for A at parking, perhaps, or just a good point of view, then have the A final be at a lookout that can be seen from those posted coordinates. Then post the coordinates for B somewhere -- could be near A or could be parking for B -- with the puzzle being "from the solution for A, look SE @133 degrees true to find the location of B". What appeals to me is that it is in theme with the locations being lookouts.

 

 

That's exactly what I was initially thinking of doing, I'd give a bearing from each tower to the next. One possible way would to have each as a multicache, then would take a couple of waypoints to find from coordinates nearby, or if you'd found the location for the previous one then you could use a bearing. So for example, From parking near A you'd get to A, which in the description would say look SE @133 degrees true to find the location of B. Or you could start with B and the coordinates would be for parking near B, the description for B would give you bearings for A and C.

 

That would mean you could do them in any order, or separately but still find them all, or one after the other without needing to do the additional waypoints apart from for whichever you start at, how does that sound?

 

I'm not too familiar with how puzzle caches work so would have to look into them to figure that out, unless someone could lend me an example of how I could use them?

 

Another idea is a Challenge Cache, such as Oregon Forest Fire Lookout Challenge (which also links to a couple of other NW challenges).

Had a look at that, does look interesting will have a think to see if I can apply it and it work nicely.

[+dprovan]

I'm not too familiar with how puzzle caches work so would have to look into them to figure that out, unless someone could lend me an example of how I could use them?

With a multicache, you have to post coordinates of a specific spot related to finding the cache. With a puzzle cache, you don't have that restriction (although, on the other hand, the puzzle cache's posted coordinates can be related, just like for a multicache). Other than that, you can do the same things with either and, in fact, there are regional variations about which techniques are listed as multicaches and which as puzzle caches.

 

What you're describing sounds to me like it would fit better as a puzzle cache, mainly because being a puzzle cache alerts people to read the cache page in advance where they'll see the various options you're providing for figuring out where to look for the final. If listed as a multicache, people will often go to the posted coordinates first to start the cache, and it sounds like that wouldn't be the best way to do the series.

[+jellis]

Besides some good advice from others I have a one advice and two questions.

Question is, are these towers on private property? And do you have permission?

 

And maybe you can put out a few caches before a big project like this. Just saying

[Pietomb00]

 

What you're describing sounds to me like it would fit better as a puzzle cache, mainly because being a puzzle cache alerts people to read the cache page in advance where they'll see the various options you're providing for figuring out where to look for the final. If listed as a multicache, people will often go to the posted coordinates first to start the cache, and it sounds like that wouldn't be the best way to do the series.

 

That does make sense, will see what I can come up with, thanks

 

Besides some good advice from others I have a one advice and two questions.

Question is, are these towers on private property? And do you have permission?

 

And maybe you can put out a few caches before a big project like this. Just saying

 

I believe some might be on private property but others not, haven't checked permission yet would do before putting out (That's a whole other thing as it's in Spain with most of the locations just in the "farmland" that covers that area of the country)

And not to worry I intend to put a few simpler ones out before doing this, it's a long term idea for me once I've done a bit more caching. Mainly just trying to get an idea of what would work at the moment.

[cezanne]

I'm not too familiar with how puzzle caches work so would have to look into them to figure that out, unless someone could lend me an example of how I could use them?

With a multicache, you have to post coordinates of a specific spot related to finding the cache. With a puzzle cache, you don't have that restriction (although, on the other hand, the puzzle cache's posted coordinates can be related, just like for a multicache). Other than that, you can do the same things with either and, in fact, there are regional variations about which techniques are listed as multicaches and which as puzzle caches.

 

What you're describing sounds to me like it would fit better as a puzzle cache, mainly because being a puzzle cache alerts people to read the cache page in advance where they'll see the various options you're providing for figuring out where to look for the final. If listed as a multicache, people will often go to the posted coordinates first to start the cache, and it sounds like that wouldn't be the best way to do the series.

 

The big disadvantage of puzzle caches is that the header coordinates have to be within a 2 miles radius around the final. I'd set up the project as a multi cache with fields puzzle elements if it were my project (not meaning that the OP should go that way). Multi caches are much more flexible and they can have as many stages as I want them to have. So also no issues with the number of linkings in this setup.

[+dprovan]

The big disadvantage of puzzle caches is that the header coordinates have to be within a 2 miles radius around the final. I'd set up the project as a multi cache with fields puzzle elements if it were my project (not meaning that the OP should go that way). Multi caches are much more flexible and they can have as many stages as I want them to have. So also no issues with the number of linkings in this setup.

Good point. I was assuming they'd be within the distance, but I guess that's very likely not to be true in this case. As described, it would be OK to have the posted coordinates at parking -- as long as that's within 2 miles -- while still having a way of finding GZ based on the previous cache's solution location, even if the previous tower in the series is more than 2 miles away, but I agree it would be even cooler if a way could be found to link them though the longer distances possible with a multicache.