"Stacked" caches - good idea or no?

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:31 am

The main way of avoiding stack puzzles is to obtain a PQ for the area.

I routinely do PQs for puzzles caches only in several different states.

Now, since I have done enough of the puzzles in WI, my PQ for the state captures all the remaining ones (currently around 480). If someone has not done a lot of puzzles, then more than one PQ would be required for the entire stat (about 900?).

And that is where Puzzle Tours come in handy.

Say you want to hit Milwaukee. Get a PQ centered on that city, look thru them all to see which ones are easy solves, which ones are 'show up and solve', etc.

Plot a route, collect a Tour group, and go for them.
Easy way of knocking off 15-30 puzzles in a day.

And remember, the purpose of a Tour is to have fun, enjoy the company of some others, and find the caches.

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:42 am

Appleton Unstacked. Kaukauna, Menasha and Neenah would look similar. Not sure if it would make much difference except that the map would just look even more cluttered than it already is. That many puzzles placed individualy look pretty daunting as well.

I see no reason not to stack, especially for a series. All caches need to be reviewed, stacked or not.

Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:34 am

WOW!

That's one nasty looking snake. If you cut it's head off will it die?

WGA Member Joined: 2007-11-26 Posts: 3258

seldom|seen wrote:

That many puzzles placed individualy look pretty daunting as well.

I think all the puzzles spread in the water makes sense. For one thing, it frees up the street part of the map when you're looking at it (which can also be done by unchecking the ? box). Second, seeing the true density could be helpful.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:21 am

gotta run wrote:

seldom|seen wrote:

That many puzzles placed individualy look pretty daunting as well.

I think all the puzzles spread in the water makes sense. For one thing, it frees up the street part of the map when you're looking at it (which can also be done by unchecking the ? box). Second, seeing the true density could be helpful.

Well, Alex .... do we move our puzzles to the river?
I'm willing.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:26 am

marc_54140 wrote:

gotta run wrote:

seldom|seen wrote:

That many puzzles placed individualy look pretty daunting as well.

I think all the puzzles spread in the water makes sense. For one thing, it frees up the street part of the map when you're looking at it (which can also be done by unchecking the ? box). Second, seeing the true density could be helpful.

Well, Alex .... do we move our puzzles to the river?
I'm willing.

Is that the Bogus cords or the physical caches?

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:09 am

Guess I'd like to see a poll first on how many find it irritating vs how many don't care. I'd prefer not to, but I can be convinced otherwise.

If I did, I would probably just stack them by variants of a tenth of a degree in one direction, kinda like a hand of cards.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 6:08 pm

Team Hemisphere Dancer wrote:

marc_54140 wrote:

gotta run wrote:

seldom|seen wrote:

That many puzzles placed individualy look pretty daunting as well.

I think all the puzzles spread in the water makes sense. For one thing, it frees up the street part of the map when you're looking at it (which can also be done by unchecking the ? box). Second, seeing the true density could be helpful.

Well, Alex .... do we move our puzzles to the river?
I'm willing.

Is that the Bogus cords or the physical caches?

Yes.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:24 pm

marc_54140 wrote:

Team Hemisphere Dancer wrote:

marc_54140 wrote:

gotta run wrote:

seldom|seen wrote:

That many puzzles placed individualy look pretty daunting as well.

I think all the puzzles spread in the water makes sense. For one thing, it frees up the street part of the map when you're looking at it (which can also be done by unchecking the ? box). Second, seeing the true density could be helpful.

Well, Alex .... do we move our puzzles to the river?
I'm willing.

Is that the Bogus cords or the physical caches?

Yes.

OK I will start with yours.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:29 pm

seldom|seen wrote:

Guess I'd like to see a poll first on how many find it irritating vs how many don't care. I'd prefer not to, but I can be convinced otherwise.

As someone who loves those puzzle caches, I sort of LIKE seeing all the icons on the map. It doesn't look cluttered to me.... just exciting. Seeing MORE icons makes me MORE likely to go to that area to cache. I definitely cache by map, not by query list. I click on each icon on the map to see each mystery cache page. I know I've missed some good ones because the icons were hiding. It's a little frustrating to find out there are more caches you missed after the fact. For an out-of-town cacher, it's helpful to see all the cache choices to better plan the day.

I had stacked my own puzzle caches in West Bend, and now regret it for the same reason. That's just my two cents.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:17 pm

thepharmgirl wrote:

seldom|seen wrote:

Guess I'd like to see a poll first on how many find it irritating vs how many don't care. I'd prefer not to, but I can be convinced otherwise.

As someone who loves those puzzle caches, I sort of LIKE seeing all the icons on the map. It doesn't look cluttered to me.... just exciting. Seeing MORE icons makes me MORE likely to go to that area to cache. I definitely cache by map, not by query list. I click on each icon on the map to see each mystery cache page. I know I've missed some good ones because the icons were hiding. It's a little frustrating to find out there are more caches you missed after the fact. For an out-of-town cacher, it's helpful to see all the cache choices to better plan the day.

I had stacked my own puzzle caches in West Bend, and now regret it for the same reason. That's just my two cents.

So, are you going to move them apart?

WGA Member Joined: 2007-11-26 Posts: 3258

marc_54140 wrote:

So, are you going to move them apart?

I think so. Probably just 50' apart or so.

Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:41 pm

I think only a couple of mine are stacked and they're in neenah so it won't hurt much as that river there is nice and wide and ready for more question marks. I'll unstack any of mine that are when I find some time.

Joined: 2007-01-29 Posts: 69

So what if somebody would like to place a legitimate cache or stages in a lake or river? Now they have all these bogus coordinates that may be on top of the spot that they want to put a cache. I say stack away.

Actually, I would like to see this taken a step further. I would like to see all puzzle caches in a community that are just bogus coordinates have the same stacked starting point, regardless of the mileage.

If the cache is one that you need to go to a specific starting point, get info and then move on to next stage or final, then that cache should be listed as a multi, not a puzzle. To me puzzles are ones that require work/research before you go out and try to find it.

WGA Member Joined: 2007-11-26 Posts: 3258

Keep in mind that if you move things more than 150', I believe, you will need reviewer approval. So do the reviewers want to see a bunch of these?

This may not even be necessary. As I said when I started this thread, I was just interested in thoughts on the topic.