How many hides is too many?

[RobWinmar]

Most of my favourites are multis, but I don't do as many multis as I'd like due to the preparation involved. They are much more satisfying than traditionals though.

On another note, I don't mind CBDs and inner suburbs having lots of caches because if I'm interstate I often don't have transport and this allows me to get a reasonable number on foot.

[Yurt]

Yes I also enjoy the multis but tend only to do them locally where we have the time. When travelling though I really don't have the time and enjoy the trads as they almost always take me somewhere new anyway. That's what it's all about really.



(...apart from the numbers...)

[the farmers 5]

Most of my favourites are multis, but I don't do as many multis as I'd like due to the preparation involved. They are much more satisfying than traditionals though.
.

I think what tends to happen is that most geocachers assume if its a multi ,then it must be a long walk involved. We have assummed that many a time and not done it for awhile, then later when we attempted it , found it was only a 40m walk to the cache.

I can remember one particular cache in Melbourne where the clues were all at the given co-ords at a sign in a bushy parkland area.

After the maths were done , it got the same sign.Thinking something was wrong , did the calculations again and same sign.

So, took one step and here it was on the back of the sign.
Some hiders have mentioned how long the multi would take as a courtesy in the description , but most dont.
So, you cant assume they are all long and difficult.
Most multi's usually have a starting point ,then try to guide you to the place of interest and cache hide. After all, the rules state ...the cache should be hidden at a place of interest . Keep the multi's rolling on. Always enjoy em....

[Richary]

I really really dislike multis that don't give you an indication of how long it might take. At least we have the less than an hour atttribute to use now on GC listings. But I really appreciate it on a multi if the hider gives some indication of time and distance involved, especially when interstate and I don't have too much of either available. I love finding multies but it is useful to know what I am looking at as to whether I have time that day.

My closest unfound multi is like that, starts in Parramatta and finishes in the Blue Mountains (and despite one hunt up there haven't found it). Various logs from people staying from o/s have commented the same, if they had known point 2 was so far away they wouldn't have wasted their time looking at it.

[caughtatwork]

We're straying off the topic a little here.
Let's try and get back to how many caches people can sufficiently maintain, mkay

[Yurt]

Okay one can probably maintain more multis and mysteries as they require little maintenance as no one much visits them!

[caughtatwork]

Okay one can probably maintain more multis and mysteries as they require little maintenance as no one much visits them!

[Happy Chappies]

One other thought I've had in the past re number of hides is whether you could implement some rule that said if someone has more than one cache disabled you can't hide a new one until that's fixed up... I've always felt a bit self-conscious placing a new cache when I have caches needing maintenance and felt it might be a good principle - Given than a lot of the prolific (and sometimes not prolific but problematic!) cache owners have multiple disabled caches but still keep hiding new ones.

Of course sometimes there's good reasons for long disabled caches (like groundworks at GZ, etc.) - Although i can't see Groundspeak implementing such a rule. They seem a bit reluctant to do anything that might offend anyone, regardless of how sensible it is.

[caughtatwork]

Gaaaaahhhhhhh! No more rules. There are a myriad of reasons for a cache to be disabled and none of them should be sufficient to stop someone else placing another cache.

All cache listing sites should have a process whereby if a cache is disabled for a certain period of time, it gets archived. Manual review of those caches by an administrator or reviewer should be the go rather than an automated archive process, but if the cache has been disabled for a decent period (90 days is what we use at GCA), then the listing gets a quick once over and unless there's a jolly good reason, poof, it gets cleansed from the database.

At GCA the owner can unarchive the listing whereas at a place like GC the owner needs to ask a reviewer, so there is a downside or upside, depending on your viewpoint.

Of course, if a cacher doesn't disable their listing and there's no Needs Archived log, it sits there forever gathering DNF's.

[blossom*]

...if someone has more than one cache disabled you can't hide a new one until that's fixed up... I've always felt a bit self-conscious placing a new cache when I have caches needing maintenance ...

Well, rules are annoying and we defintiely don't seem to need any more of the them. But I do agree on the principle that if a hider has a cache that needs maintenance or is disabled, that hider ought to see to that before publishing a new cache in most circustances. Nice in theory

[Tankengine]

200.

[caughtatwork]

You have 17 to go then
http://geocaching.com.au/cacher/Tankengine/hides

[Philipp]

All cache listing sites should have a process whereby if a cache is disabled for a certain period of time, it gets archived. Manual review of those caches by an administrator or reviewer should be the go rather than an automated archive process, but if the cache has been disabled for a decent period (90 days is what we use at GCA), then the listing gets a quick once over and unless there's a jolly good reason, poof, it gets cleansed from the database.

Couldn't agree more - the database should be cleaned on a regular basis.