When I seek a cache location I always try to do as you suggest. The only problem I have is that it can take alot of time to complete all the Multi’s and Mystery caches in an area based on saturation before you know whether or not there might be a conflict.
Of course you can’t provide us with the coordinates of caches that we haven’t found so it can create a problem. I’m wondering if it would be possible to have access to a generic waypoint map? For example just show waypoints on a map with coordinates and no waypoint identification. At least this way one could make a quick check and see if there is an existing waypoint within the .10 mile distance and ammend their hide before submitting it.
The only problem with this is that there is the potential that someone could theorize what the unkown waypoints may belong to.
I fear that even if the map is available people will still submit caches without first checking just because of the time involved to check. Human nature is to get it done and off of their desk.

The other option could be to have a web link where a cacher could enter the coordinates and it could kick back a response that it is within XX feet or XX miles of the nearest published active waypoint and what bearing the existing waypoint is from the suggested coordinates. This wouldn’t have to be exact measurements or bearings just close enough so the cacher would know what direction they need to move the cache in order to satisfy the .10 mile rule.

Just my 2 cents.

Not to sound like a sourpuss… but Im not a big fan of multis for this reason. Ive yet to do one that I thought could not have been equally good as a traditional cache. But then, maybe Im doing the wrong multis.

But wait… Ill make two exceptions –

One was Three Little Cemeteries – but then, it pointed you only to the general location, and each location would be too small to hold more than one cache in any case.

The other was “On the Border” – which the containers and the placement was a challenge. But most of the multis I have encountered have just been a few different film canisters, or micros leading to a larger one.

If the locations TAKE you somewhere interesting, or have you find interesting containers, or fun spots – then I understand a good multi. But some of the ones we have found would have been perfectly acceptable traditionals.

It just sucks when you have a GREAT spot for a cache picked out, only to find out that a stage two film canister is preventing you from hiding a nice cache.

I suspect that it would not be all that tough for GC.com to create such a tool … but as others have stated, it would mean that all multis/mysteries would have their “secret” coordinates filled in to the system. Since no single human would have time to do this and you’d never get all cache owners to comply … I don’t see that it would ever become a usable tool.

If it were possible, I would suggest that the system not even tell you how many feet away you are away or what direction … just a pass or fail response. Otherwise such a tool has too much potential for giving things away … especially when you happen to be real close to the “secret” coordinates. If you think about it, if the system tells me I can’t plant a cache because there’s something 25 feet away, it would be pretty easy to go find that container.

@Cheese-Wis wrote:

May I suggest/refresh a rule of thumb for placing caches:

Do not place a cache unless you have hunted every multiple or puzzle cache within a 2 mile radius and know where all the intermediate waypoints are located — especially in urban/suburban areas where cache concentration is high.

The only problem is A: I may have done the puzzle/multi a year ago and I have no idea where the intermediate points are. (Although emailing the cache owner could help this one) B: There are some puzzles that I have either no interest in or have been unable to solve.

I know the reviewers have no direct control over this, but now that GC.com has given us the ability to enter in stages of a multi, they need to add in some sort of checking system to let the hiders know of proximity problems before it gets to the reviewers.

I agree about some I just dont want to complete… but another problem I personally came across during a new plant was that the REPORTED final coordinates for a local multi-stage cache were NOT where the final ACTUALLY is located. (And no, its not a matter of a glitchy GPS or just off by a few feet… its like, other side of the woods off. Across a lake off. Over a half mile off.)

So… my chosen spot was rejected – there was NOTHING in the area. Nothing at all. Until, we were able to provide the coords to the final cache – which it ended up being well UNDER the required distance from yet ANOTHER cache.

So.. it was frustrating – and no – it wasn’t any of our usual cachers who made this plant! LOL

All was resolved, and everyones caches are in place and active now.

But, I agree that there should be a system – I was so frustrated with one we planted – went out, found the PERFECT spot, and it was 50 feet too close. I didnt get a chance to get right out to move it, and the cache went missing before it ever got active, as a RASH of them were muggled in this area. I only wish that a few folks could have found it, as I think it would have been a really enjoyable one.

We had a real bummer when placing our new DaVinci series… there is another Mystery cache in Racine that began near a building that we SOOOOOOOOOOOOO wanted to use as a clue… we had to settle for a cemetery instead, but it worked out.

I just could never bring myself to ask someone who owned an existing cache to move, or remove it to place another. (Although, that particular cache for the series IMO would have been REALLY super.. it still does what it needs to accomplish, but we had one HECK of a time finding another suitable spot!)

We did have one local cacher (TDSC) OFFER a great spot where an existing cache was for the series – and we GREATLY appreciated it.

Maybe if the Racine cache is ever archived, Ill redo our cache. But.. in the case of mystery caches, its a shame that the beginning coords will effect actual cache placement when another COULD be there. I mean, at this location is nothing to log, or sign but just a way to figure out how to find the next waypoint.

Our DESIRED spot is over 475 feet away from the ‘faux’ waypoint of the existing mystery cache, but not QUITE far enough. (And if any locals are curious as to where Im talking about – feel free to email… its a phenominal spot for the series…)

As I said, the existing cache is WONDERFUL, but I DO wish their mystery waypoint was a tiny bit further, or was a random location – it just bummed us out that our DREAM spot was unusable.

Also, my understanding is that virtual caches and virtual waypoints (where no actual container is present) are generally not covered by the cache proximity rule. The idea of the rule is to prevent someone from accidentally finding the wrong cache container. Its not likely that someone will mistake a tombstone or phone booth for a cache container. Here is a link

http://wi-geocaching.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1072&highlight=

On a related note, I had the pleasure of working with a relatively new cacher to try and “fix” one of these problem caches. His cache was too close to a mystery cache (no, it wasn’t one of mine) where the bogus coordinates were around 0.75 miles away, so he didn’t think to check it. To make matters worse, he had used a similar hiding technique as the existing cache, and both caches had provided hints describing the technique. When I explained to him that there were already 5 caches in the particular park and 5 more caches within a mile, he decided the park didn’t need another cache and moved on. Problem solved, but…….

I was under the impression that if the “additional waypoints” feature was used, the approvers could see immediately that there was a conflict. I have good reason to believe that, at least in this one instance, that the additional waypoint was specified (or at least it should have been). I’m sure most of the people who post here have been diligent in adding these waypoints to their mystery and multi caches. Has the approval process been modified to check these additional waypoints yet? If not, what is the timeline on this?