Mutil-log multi-caches?

[GetMeOutdoors]

Hello, everyone. I have a question for you. I’ve been perusing some logs of older caches and I noticed on some multi caches that several people had logged a find for each stage of the multi. In the 2 specific examples I really paid attention to, I have only done 1 of them myself. The cache I have done does have a regular sized container and a log book at each stop, in this case 3. In both example, there were about 5 teams that logged each waypoint as a separate find.

Is this acceptable/standard when each waypoint has a logbook? Is this an old practice that is no longer supported by the general community? What’s your take?

Oh, before you ask, no, I’d rather not give away which caches I’m referring to, I don’t think it’s important and would probably lead to hurt feelings. Not looking for controversy today 🙂

[marc_54140]

This is something you run across occasionally. It is not prohibited, therefore, it is acceptable.

But like temporary caches, some approve, some do not.

Do what you want.

[SammyClaws]

I think more importantly, what does the cache owner indicate you should do? An ammo box with a log book in each one seems to indicate a find at each point. One log=one smiley. I’ve found caches where the cache pages say to log a waypoint as a bonus.

Remember its the owner who polices their caches, so they can delete excess logging if they decide that is what it is.

[GetMeOutdoors]

That’s a good point, Sammy. I guess I was thinking it was more of a global “policy” issue but you’re right… the way the cache owner designed the cache itself has alot to do with it. And since they haven’t deleted the many “multiple” logs entered, it would seem to indicate that they’re ok with it.

That’s very insightful, I guess it’s not a “policy” but more of a case by case “characteristic” of the cache.

Thanks, Sammy.

[rogheff]

I think the only multi I logged seperately was the “?” cache by the Cheeseheads. Seems to me you had to log it in order to proceed to the next step.

To each his own.

[furfool]

I will always log a multi as one log. Exception: ” If you can tell me” this or that you can have a bonus smiley.

The other which is but isn’t a multi in my book is when there may be a series of regular caches that you have to find in order to get the coords for the final. It’s a multi because of the waypoints you need to find, yet all of the waypoints are individual caches.

[Decrepit]

@rogheff wrote:

I think the only multi I logged seperately was the “?” cache by the Cheeseheads. Seems to me you had to log it in order to proceed to the next step.

Same here. But that cache could have been listed as several to begin with. There was absolutely no way to finish the whole thing in one trip. Too many puzzles to solve and none of the caches were close to each other.

So… Cheeseheads, when are you going to do another like this?

Decrepit

[Mathman]

I think everyone logs it the way they want. If the owner allows it it could be done. I for one prefer to log it as only one cache. If I were to log a 3 stage multi my stats would show that I found 3 multi caches which is NOT true. There have been several caches where I wish I could have logged each stage as a separate find such as the 6 stage cache in Burma (WRC something) or the 3 Bad Ribs in Rib Mt. This is one reason when I set up many of my new caches I will usually make them separate caches to reward those seeking numbers. I still like doing multis and won’t shy away from them. I have over 50 caches placed and my multi caches have far fewer finds than the traditional caches. That alone makes me think many are concerned about numbers rather than the experience. Just my opinion.

[zuma]

It depends on how the multi is set up, and what the preference of the cache owner is. If it is a cache like Three Bad Ribs, which has a log book in each stage, and the owner allows logging each stage, then doing so is at the discretion of the finder. In that example, each stage is more like finding a single cache, so it makes sense to me to log each stage, so I did. If others do not want to, that is up to them.

Most multis dont have a log book in each stage, so in those cases it wouldnt make sense to log the cache multiple times. But if there is a log book in each stage, that is a different story, and folks should play the game the way they want.

Just my opinion, your mileage may differ.

zuma

[-cheeto-]

I chose not to vote for the same reasons other’s have already alluded to. A choice is glaringly missing in the poll which is “I follow the cache owners instructions”.

I have not run across many cache owners/caches that allow (“bonus”) multiple logs on a multi but if I did and I earned ’em I’d log em’…

But it’s not about the numbers right everyone? 😈

On a side note, why list them as a multi if they have separate log books and you expect someone to log it multiple times online? I would list them separately… The only reason I can come up with is you want to bend the .10 rule.

[bnb]

@-cheeto- wrote:

IOn a side note, why list them as a multi if they have separate log books and you expect someone to log it multiple times online? I would list them separately… The only reason I can come up with is you want to bend the .10 rule.

I have a cache that has a bonus find that I allow to be logged. In this case, the bonus location is really where I wanted the cache to be for the purpose of bringing people to an area of park that is seldom visited. However, if I had posted the coords to that location, some people would have parked along the road nearby and bushwhacked through the woods to the cache – missing the entire point. So, I put the “official” cache at another cool spot and left the hike to the bonus location up to the cacher. Most finders don’t bother with the additional cache. Maybe they don’t notice the coords in the logbook.

[Team Black-Cat]

@-cheeto- wrote:

But it’s not about the numbers right everyone? 😈

You’re right, cheeto… It’s about the stats. I’ve never logged every stage of a multi, but I did log a “bonus” on one cache. I wish I hadn’t, and now I can’t delete it without messing up some minor milestones.
It seems akin to logging another find when you re-visit a cache. Kind of silly, but people do it.

[LightningBugs Mum]

There have been three multis that I have logged each step individually and one cache where I logged a bonus because that is the way the caches were set up. These are / were older ones hidden in the days when cache hiders were looking for ways to place something new and different and that probably wouldn’t get placed in the same way today – “?” being a prime example.

When I was completing “?”, I did a round trip once a month from home to the Racine / Kenosha area for each stage at about 120 miles each trip. With 6 or 7 stages (you do the math), you better believe I’m going to log each stage seperately. Another good example was “Need for Greed” where each stage was an ammo box with log book in a different park in Walworth County. It took an entire day to drive around and get them all – again it was 6 or 7 stages. Yeah, I think we deserved a smiley for each one.

The point of them was that you could stop at any time and only log the ones you completed, or you could keep going. But in essence they really were seperate caches. That’s not the same as logging each stage of a standard multi.

[bnb]

Jennifer makes a good point regarding the age of some of the caches mentioned. My cache with the bonus was placed in 2004. At that time there were few caches in the area and it was very unusual for someone to have found 500 caches, let alone thousands. I can think of lots of different ways I could do the offset cache now, but at the time I thought it was a nice way for people to see the trail and get a bonus smiley. There wasn’t the same type of numbers race as there is now so it didn’t look like someone was out “simply for the numbers” if they logged two hits on the same cache page. Smileys were more a way to record your adventures than anything else.

Three Bad Ribs in Wausau – hidden in 2001 – is a fine example. I would suspect that if that cache was hidden now it would be two different caches with a mystery final. Each of those caches is truly an effort to get to. (I only did two of them years ago, but have read the logs.)

It used to be a fun surprise to get to a cache and find that the owner posted coords to another cache nearby to find. Simply a bonus adventure, as intended, not a grab for numbers.

[zuma]

@bnb wrote:

Jennifer makes a good point regarding the age of some of the caches mentioned. My cache with the bonus was placed in 2004. At that time there were few caches in the area and it was very unusual for someone to have found 500 caches, let alone thousands. I can think of lots of different ways I could do the offset cache now, but at the time I thought it was a nice way for people to see the trail and get a bonus smiley. There wasn’t the same type of numbers race as there is now so it didn’t look like someone was out “simply for the numbers” if they logged two hits on the same cache page. Smileys were more a way to record your adventures than anything else.

Three Bad Ribs in Wausau – hidden in 2001 – is a fine example. I would suspect that if that cache was hidden now it would be two different caches with a mystery final. Each of those caches is truly an effort to get to. (I only did two of them years ago, but have read the logs.)

It used to be a fun surprise to get to a cache and find that the owner posted coords to another cache nearby to find. Simply a bonus adventure, as intended, not a grab for numbers.

Excellent points, and it is true that the game has changed a lot, and the “numbers” thing is a big part of the change. I am not saying that is good or bad, just that it is a fact of life.

And on Three Bad Ribs, that is a half day adventure and a great cache, whether ya think that one smiley is better, or if ya like 3 smileys for it. Either way, that great cache doesnt get as much action as nearby park and logs, as the desire for numbers encourages folks to go get 20 easy ones in the same amount of time they could do Three Bad Ribs.

Everyone plays the game the way they want, and that is great. But for me, I need to do at least one good one each day to feel like I really went caching, though I am not opposed to stopping for the easy ones along the way.

zuma

[Author]

Posts