View Full Version : My rant of new cahes and legs to multi caches



attroll
04-14-2009, 08:43 PM
Before I start my rant I want to make it perfectly clear that this is not directed at the Maine approver. The Maine approver is just following the guidelines set by GC.

I have discovered a rule set buy GC in 2005 (as I was told) has really come to annoy me in the past couple of days.

When placing caches they need to be 528 feet or .8 miles from the nearest cache. This I do not have a problem with.

When you are placing a cache out you can look on GC ahead of time to verify that there are no caches in the area and then you should know you are safe to go place one in the location you were planning on, WRONG. If there is a leg of a multi cache in the area where you want to place your cache that is less than 528 feet or .8 miles from within where you going to place your cache then it will get disapproved.

I can understand this with traditional caches but how are we the caches suppose to know where legs are to multi caches unless we have done all the multi caches around? Some multi caches have legs that or miles from each other and some donít. Most of the time multi caches are micros or close to being micros.

Here is the problem I ran into. I placed a cache and was told that there was a cache to close to the one I had placed. I looked and I saw that there was a multi (first stage) exactly 528 from where I had place it so I was disapproved because it need to be moved at least one foot further. I had no problem with this. This was my fault.

I moved the cash a couple hundred feet further just to be safe. I resubmitted the cache and was disapproved again. I was told that there was a cache within 422 feet of my placement and it was one of the legs to a multi stage micro. This was when I started to get irritated but I kept my cool.

I went out with all intentions of doing this multi stage micro today so that I would know where all the legs were. First you have to realize I am not good at doing micros hence I donít normally do them but in order to place a cache in my area I had to find all the stages of the mulit micro so that I would not keep getting jerked around by GC. I found the first stage and moved on to the second stage where I spent 45 minutes looking for it. I could not find it. I had to give up because it was starting to get dark.

This is where the problem lies. I could not find this leg of the multi cache and to top it off it is a micro. I really do not think that legs to a multi cache should be considered as part of a cache when placing other caches. How is a cacher supposed to know where the caches are prior to placing a new cache out if they cannot look on CG and see all cache locations. They should not be required to do multi caches and find all the legs to the multi cache before placing a new cache.

Here is an example. Jack places a mulit cache out and the first leg is on his front door step in Lewiston, ME. The second leg is placed in Litchfield at a boat launch. The third leg is in Brunswick at a boat launch. Now a person placing a new cache is required to know where the legs to these caches are before placing a new cache so that it will not get disapproved. This is a little asinine in my opinion. This would require me to do all the multi caches in Maine in order to know where legs are before I place a new cache. If a cacher named Fred goes to Litchfield to place a cache at the boat launch it will get disapproved even though he looked on GC and verified that there were not caches within miles of that location.

This is my rant and my opinion only.

Gob-ler
04-14-2009, 09:02 PM
If you PM me the GC number of the multi in question I would be happy to give you a hand finding the stages etc.

Haffy
04-14-2009, 09:03 PM
All you have to do without the approver giving you the coordinates is just ask the approver if there are any caches near coordinates that you propose to place yours in. Pretty simple I think.

pm28570
04-14-2009, 09:03 PM
While I am yet to place any caches, nor do I care for puzzle caches, I would have to agree with you. That said, is it 528 feet or .08 miles? Is .8 not 8/10's?




When placing caches they need to be 528 feet or .8 miles from the nearest cache.

attroll
04-14-2009, 09:08 PM
All you have to do without the approver giving you the coordinates is just ask the approver if there are any caches near coordinates that you propose to place yours in. Pretty simple I think.
You should not have to write to the approver and wait for a response. This is putting more work on the approver and give you a wait time until you hear back from them. It would be a lot easier if you could search GC yourself or exempt legs to multi caches. I think the point is getting missed here. Placing caches should be easy and user friendly. You should not be required to know the legs to all the multi caches in the state of Maine before placing a cache.

attroll
04-14-2009, 09:21 PM
If you PM me the GC number of the multi in question I would be happy to give you a hand finding the stages etc.
Thanks Gob-ler, will send you a PM.

brdad
04-14-2009, 09:22 PM
First of all, 528 feet is .1 miles, not .8 miles. I'm sure Rick just made an error there.

You are correct about a stage of a multi being a pain if you try to place a cache near one. But keeping the .1 mile rule for stages of caches keeps you from confusing two caches or stages of two caches.

For me, it goes one step further. My battleship cache has virtual stages - generally caches may be placed within .1 mile of virtual stages, but I have mine designated as physical stages. Discretion is basically left up to the approver, but generally labeling virtual stages as physical is allowed if the hider does not want caches being placed near the virtual stages. I have little doubt 95% of the populous disagrees with me, but I think placing caches near the stages of my multi takes away from my cache.

So, I am all for not allowing caches within .1 mile of multi stages. Heck, I'd be happy if the .1 mile rule was increased to 1 mile.

A bunch of us submitted a solution to gc.com several years ago, but it was never implemented. The idea - allow caches to be "pre-approved" - this way you could submit a cache without physically placing it. You would fill out the cache page and the coords of where the stages would be, so you would know ahead of time if the location you chose to hide a cache was not going to be allowed before placing the actual cache. Haffy's response was similar to this, but not as official if it was set up that way right at the cache submission page. A great alternative would be for the web site to be able to tell you if you placed a cache within .1 miles of another, but that could be abused and used to find the location of other caches.

I have no doubt there are hundreds of caches (probably even more likely with micros) which were placed and left there as trash because they never got approved.

Haffy
04-14-2009, 09:28 PM
You should not be required to know the legs to all the multi caches in the state of Maine before placing a cache.

Nobody is asking you to know all the multi caches and their legs. I think asking the approver if there are any legs near the coordinates where you intend to put your cache is the correct way of going about this. I think asking another cacher where the legs to the multi is, is just another way of cheating so to speak. You would then know where a certain leg is located and then if you decided to do the multi would have an advantage to doing that particular cache. JMHO

attroll
04-14-2009, 09:35 PM
I understand what your saying Brdad and I agree with you. You Battleship cache is a good example of my point. As someone placing a new cache in the Bangor or Brewer are they are expected to know where all the stages are to you Battleship cache before they place a new cache. How are they suppose to know that unless they have done that multi cache. These types of caches are not for everyone and not everyone likes doing multi caches. How are we suppose to know where the legs are?

brdad
04-14-2009, 10:11 PM
With Battleship, the coords are given on the cache page of all 25 stages. But I know that is a pain for anyone to check when hiding a new cache. Especially since I am too mean to include the waypoints in the GPX file. :rolleyes:

With the system set up the way it is now, you have two options, set your cache up and see what happens, or send an approver the coords and ask as Haffy said.

I'm not sure as it's fair or easy. As far as being harder for the approver, I am not sure it is a lot more, it has to be checked at some time anyway.

WhereRWe?
04-15-2009, 07:46 AM
Nobody is asking you to know all the multi caches and their legs. I think asking the approver if there are any legs near the coordinates where you intend to put your cache is the correct way of going about this.

Sheesh! Wait a minute! Unless I completely misunderstand this thread, I agree with Attroll. The cache approver isn't going to know the coordinates of the different legs of a multi. The only coordinates posted are the coordinates for the first stage, and nobody knows the coordinates of the second and subsequent stages until they find them. :confused::confused:

attroll
04-15-2009, 08:21 AM
Sheesh! Wait a minute! Unless I completely misunderstand this thread, I agree with Attroll. The cache approver isn't going to know the coordinates of the different legs of a multi. The only coordinates posted are the coordinates for the first stage, and nobody knows the coordinates of the second and subsequent stages until they find them. :confused::confused:The cache approver does know all the coordinates to all legs of the multi cache. Otherwise I would have been able to place it the first few times. My point is that we the cachers don't know the coordinates to the legs unless we do the cash.

WhereRWe?
04-15-2009, 08:56 AM
All you have to do without the approver giving you the coordinates is just ask the approver if there are any caches near coordinates that you propose to place yours in. Pretty simple I think.

In our case, this is actually a pretty good suggestion. Since TAT is our approver, and he's a decent guy by all reports ;);), I'm pretty sure he'd be willing to help in these instances. :D:D

brdad
04-15-2009, 08:59 AM
... you did not have to give the coordinates for stages of a multi when submitting them. It was because caches were getting placed on top of stages of multis that gc.com started asking for the stage coordinates to be given.

masterson of the universe
04-15-2009, 09:01 AM
I am still fairly new at this but it sounds like attroll is correct. The only people who would know where the stages / legs are would be the cache owner and cachers who have completed the multi. Unless the approver has actually done the cache, how are they supposed to answer emailed or pm'd questions in regards to whether placing a new hide would be over the required distance? What would be the purpose of a multi if you had to post the coords for every stage? :confused:

In regards to Battleship, What would happen if someone entered an area with no caches placed yet and set up a big multi making all the locations physical? If the approver really looked closely at all the locations, wouldn't that basically lock up that particular area from any other new hides?

Brdad, I guess I'm not sure I'm reading your post correctly. Please feel free to correct me as i said, I still consider myself pretty new to some of this stuff. The battleship locations are set up as physical? :confused: If thats the case, shouldn't caches like 'Remember When, Dow AFB' (C5 on battleship) and 'Thomas Hill Cache' (E2), and P.A.L. Cache (B3) have been denied if the approver was looking really closely at the locations?

masterson of the universe
04-15-2009, 09:09 AM
For me, it goes one step further. My battleship cache has virtual stages - generally caches may be placed within .1 mile of virtual stages, but I have mine designated as physical stages. Discretion is basically left up to the approver, but generally labeling virtual stages as physical is allowed if the hider does not want caches being placed near the virtual stages. I have little doubt 95% of the populous disagrees with me, but I think placing caches near the stages of my multi takes away from my cache.



I guess it's just this part that got me confused...:confused: Just seems to say they are both virtual and physical in the same sentence...

Haffy
04-15-2009, 09:33 AM
I am still fairly new at this but it sounds like attroll is correct. The only people who would know where the stages / legs are would be the cache owner and cachers who have completed the multi. Unless the approver has actually done the cache, how are they supposed to answer emailed or pm'd questions in regards to whether placing a new hide would be over the required distance? What would be the purpose of a multi if you had to post the coords for every stage? :confused:



On the contrary the reviewer is required to have all the coordinates to each stage of the multi as well as the final as to ensure that no other caches are within the 528 ft rule. This info is only available to the reviewer though.

brdad
04-15-2009, 09:53 AM
Sorry - I know it is confusing.

The stages of battleship are virtual - there is no physical cache at the locations.

When you submit a multicache, you are allowed to designate the stages as physical stages even if they are virtual, and that is what I did.

If an approver goes by the guidelines, he will not allow a new cache or stage of another cache within .1 miles of a physical stage of a multi. When it comes to virtual stages designated as physical, the approver has more room break the .1 mile rule.

Now the really confusing part. Some caches were placed within .1 miles of my battleship stages before posting the coords to stages of multis (as welll as the ability to designate them as virtual or physical) were required - those caches would be grandfathered and allowed to stay. The newer caches were either placed because the approver felt it should be allowed, or because the approver emailed me and asked if I would allow placement. There are a few caches I wish had not been approved that were close to battleship stages, and there are a few which I denied and a few I approved when I was asked if it was ok.

So, if all approvers were very rigid in their ideas, no new physical caches could be placed within .1 miles of any stage of battleship. It would as you say, essentially lock up those areas to new caches.

I made up a kml for Google Earth so I can see which placed caches fall within .1 miles of my battleship stages. as you can see, some caches are within .1 miles, as you suggested the Thomas Hill Standpipe is one.

Hope that helps!

http://bytethebullet.com/geocaching/fora/proximity.jpg

masterson of the universe
04-15-2009, 10:02 AM
That clears it up. Thanks.:)

tat
04-15-2009, 12:41 PM
As many of you know, I am also MainePublisher. I thought I'd chime in and hopefully try to correct some misconceptions

The current guidelines state:

Cache Saturation



...The cache saturation guideline applies to all physical stages of multi-caches and mystery/puzzle caches, as well as any other stages entered as "stages of a multi-cache." The guideline does not apply to event caches, EarthCaches, grandfathered virtual and webcam caches, stages of multi-caches or puzzle caches entered as "question to answer" or "reference point," or to any "bogus" posted coordinates for a puzzle cache. Within a single multi-cache or mystery/puzzle cache, there is no minimum required distance between waypoints.


"Applies to all physical stages of multi-caches" means ATTROLL was unable to place his cache because the nearby multi cache used an actual container.

On the other hand, BRDAD's battleship cache uses "question to answer" or "reference point" stages and are not considered in the saturation rule. However, the cache was placed in 2002, some 3 years before the saturation guideline included multi-caches. BRDAD also had a specific exception from Groundspeak.