Geocaching Australia

I've asked this question in the SA Forum recently about why multis seem to be so unpopular among finders. I've set one that has only had a few visitors over many months, and found others that nobody has found in over a year. Not quite sure I've got the answer apart from some people don't like maths!

i'm wondering what the situation is like in other states. Are multis hit that much less than a normal cache everywhere?

OK, mine is a 6 part and takes a couple of hours (but I have put that and the distance in the notes so people know what to expect).

That's one thing I found in Melbourne when I visited for work early this year, a lot of multis but no indication if the end point was within walking distance or would require a journey across town. Hard when I had a spare hour between appointments to hit something.

Personally I would prefer to conquer a challenging multi than a drive by. But that is probably a by product of having done over 250. So for anyone reading who hasn't done a multi, give it a go. They can be a lot of fun and lead you to some interesting places.

I really don't care one way or the other. When I'm looking for caches in an area the type is not high on the list. I'm quite happy to do a multi.
The multi caches I place are usually designed to 'funnel' the finders along a particular route so they get to see the interesting items around them. I am assuming that they look somewhere other than the GPSr readout.
With one exception mine have all waypoints within walking distance.

Maybe some people don't like multis if their aim is to get as many caches as they can in a day? However your point regarding the amount of time to do one is valid. If it was always stated in the log, then you can plan accordingly.

I went to Adelaide for a week in April. My intention was to collect as many caching experiences as I could while there. Multis were not specifically excluded from my list, however, if I had any reason to think that it would take more than an hour, or involved a long drive, then I turned the page and looked for another cache. There were some multis in Adelaide that I'm glad I did, they were challenging and I nearly gave up on one or two of them.

At home in Canberra I'm still trying get the motivation to tackle A to Z. I'm actually looking forward to it, but just don't have a full weekend to spare.

I also went to Tasmania last year and the first cache I attempted was a multi, it would have been my first Tasmanian cache, only to find that the coords pointed me interstate. At the time it was a real let-down. Although if I eventually get to the final location I will probably count it amongst those I will remember years from now.

So I would have to agree that the time/distance factor probably inhibits some people who are after a high find count. The distance factor can be really frustrating. For those who are not as interested in dramatically increasing their find count the unknown factor, which for me makes multis interesting, is a risky venture when one has a limited amount of time to spare.

Would having time/distance information clearly stated entice more people. It may, then again it may also remove some of the suspense as well, reducing their attraction for others.
Diadem

We much prefer well thought out multi caches.
Intermediate points are often interesting signs, plaques, buildings etc in areas where you can't place a cache anyway.
We like to experience an area when we go caching.
If a cache takes 1hr, 3hrs or all day, we don't mind and prefer the length of the hunt to be a surprise.

The distance to the actual cache is irrelevant for us, if it is too far away to do that day, we file it for next time we are back in the area.
Makes a good reason to go back.
We have been known to take 6 months or longer to complete some caches.
Its the experience that counts, not the find tally at the end of the day.
Kevin

Diadem wrote: I also went to Tasmania last year and the first cache I attempted was a multi, it would have been my first Tasmanian cache, only to find that the coords pointed me interstate. At the time it was a real let-down. Although if I eventually get to the final location I will probably count it amongst those I will remember years from now.

Hey, that gives me an idea! how about an international multi?
Now that I am moving to Europe I can maintain a WP there, and I know some people in California that surely would like to help out too...

Does anybody think it is a good idea to have a around the globe multi??

only if it could be done in any order!!

All Cached Up wrote:only if it could be done in any order!!

Thats what I was thinking too, something in the line of happily ever after..

ToolkiT wrote:

Diadem wrote: Does anybody think it is a good idea to have a around the globe multi??

I doubt you would have many finders.

Damo. wrote:

ToolkiT wrote:

Diadem wrote: Does anybody think it is a good idea to have a around the globe multi??

I doubt you would have many finders.

I was thinking of using the system of 'happily ever after', where you place a couple of caches all with part of the coords of the final one...
You'd have to find all of the caches to find the trophy one

MULTI'S GGGRRRRR. I hate them. Well not all of them but most of them. If its maths I give it a big berth. If it just one or two way points then maybe but any more then it's trashed.

I like multi's (well, most of them).

What I don't particularly like are the ones where you have no idea if it should take an hour or 5 and the ones where the final location is 500 miles away. I think a protocol should be agreed that there is enough information supplied so you can work out whether you can fit it into your day.

I also have a dislike not knowing whether I will walk 3 miles in a single direction and then have to walk 3 miles back to the car. I prefer that they take you back (or kind of back) to the initial location so you're not faced with a major walk back.

Also, multi's with a lot of convoluted waypoints are annoying. While I do take a note pad and pen, in the wet things can get confused and then I'm not sure which number is supposed to be what.

Especially if some of the waypoint caclulations are 'inline'.

eg.
37 44.(a*b)B(ddd-fff+64) - Dislike

A = a*b
B = B
C = ddd-fff+64
37 44.ABC - Prefer

But each to his or her own way of doing things. I suppose some of them are intended to be confusing so you feel that you earn each waypoint as you go. Me, I just curse the cache hider.

What I also dislike about some multi's is the other possible confusing directions.
eg. Go to these co-ordinates and then walk 50 meters south and 20 meters east.
In my opinion the point of Geocaching is to use the GPS. If I wanted to take a map and compass with me I would go and play a different game.

I am also frustrated by multi's that force you to use certain technologies. No finger pointing, but when you need to download an excel spreadsheet, take it with you and then unlock it using some code that you can't find at one of the waypoints, but have to go home and look up on the internet. Man, that's annoying as hell.

Again, the point of Geocaching is to use your GPS not your ability to crack Excel passwords and lug technology along with you on the trail. What happens to those people who don't have laptops or are unwilling to take them along for the ride, just in case.

I appreciate that as time goes by some become jaded with the go to this set of co-ords, find the plastic box, but sometimes the waypoints, I think, are set up just to show you how clever the cache hider is.

I'm also very grumpy about finding clues, attempting to solve puzzles, only to find that there are 3 or 4 different possible answers. OK, maybe there is only one possible answer, but depending on the order you do something, you end up with a couple of different final solutions. I think the point should be that you can ONLY end up with one solution and not have to hunt in 4 different places not knowing whether you should persist at any given one, or move on to the next one.

This is not a game about how clever you are versus how clever I am. This is a game of finding the treasure at the co-ordinates.

Long rant, sorry.

I do like multi's and my hit rate vs. traditional is probably 50/50, but I'm sure over time, the number of 'clever' multi's puts some people off them for good.

Maybe if you're not getting a good attempt / find rate at a multi, you may consider putting in information about how long it should take or how far away the final location is.

Geocaching is certainly not limited to one type of person, so it makes sense that there is a variety of cache types. Multis and the challenging puzzles have developed through innovation (or imitation) on the part of the hider. The difficulty rating is there to give an indication of how challenging a cache is.

Everyone has free choice to pursue a cache or not. The surprise and expectation of what we will find is the main appeal in this hobby/sport/affliction, Multis simply prolong that and make the journey to the cache more of an experience.

That said, difficult caches with technical "access" methods or very limited information given are going to have limited appeal. Spending time being frustrated by someone's website in order to get the starting coords for a cache is just annoying. But if that's what appeals to a particular hider, (my caches are so difficult no-one ever finds them!) then that's their choice too.

I get frustrated by not finding caches like everyone else, but in every hunt I have made a choice to search for each cache with the information provided by the hider. If it looks too hard or I have limited time, I choose not to look.

Caughtatwork...shake my hand. You have said what I have thought for a long time but if I had written that I would have been kicked up the backside and told to get a life and stop being a geocop. Thanks thanks thanks.I love you.We will have to meet up at a GPS waypoint, none of those stupid maths and discuss our preference.