coachstahly

The regional forums don't get too much traffic. If you're on FB, I suggest you look on there and look for OKIC and Miami Valley Geocachers, to name 2. There are a few others but those two seem to have more active members.

This isn't about fixing; it's about improving. Bruce specifically states that it isn't "broken", which doesn't imply it needs fixing but he also states that it's not a case of "worse" or "bad". I don't have a problem with "bad" (although I think those that dislike challenges specifically due to the required ALR do) but I do with "worse". This suggestion, in his view, is just an improvement, not a fix of a broken system or a needed tweak to something that's bad. As defined, an improvement implies a better than/worse than comparison. "New and improved" implies that the original version is "older and worse" than the new one.

I'll be interested to see the results. As Cerberus mentions, a +/- of 10 ft. is considered normal so something that puts you at 20 feet is still within a +/- 10 of your coordinates and the posted coordinates. Occasionally I get poorer reception and find myself with a +/- of 20 feet, which gives me a possible +/- of 30 feet and I'm generally OK with that. Much over that and it's either bad coordinates on the CO's part, a bad signal on my part, or a combination of the two. However, if were a continually repeated error among a wide variety of COs, then I would suspect something might be off. I do remember finding Magellan placed caches on my Garmin consistently about 20 feet off from where I ended up finding the cache within my first couple years of caching. Not so much now.

His new time was "better than" his old time, which was "worse than" the new record time.

An improvement, by definition - "Make or become better" or "achieve or produce something better than" - implies that something is "worse than" since the desire is to make it "better than". The "worse than", in this case, is the ALR.

I can only anecdotally provide something that worked for me in the few situations where what is described has happened to me. All I know is that my two primary units (60 CsX and Montana) would occasionally vary as described and that my recalibration, for whatever reason, cleared up the problem enough to render the discrepancy to a point that was negligible. I can't explain why it worked, only that it did work. That doesn't mean it would work for this situation or anyone else experiencing something similar. While it seems illogical, it worked for me. The only other thing I've done that seems to have worked when I felt one of my GPS devices wasn't really locking in and believed my accuracy was suffering (when I didn't have access to both units to compare accuracy) is what is suggested when you travel a long distance without the unit on. I turn the unit on and leave it in a secure spot with a clear view of the sky for a longer period of time (15-30 minutes) so it can acclimate. Again, this is something I've only had to do a couple times and for whatever reason, it managed to clear up the issue enough that it wasn't a problem moving forward from that point. I should also point out that both of my units didn't/don't include the ability to acquire GLONASS. I don't expect that would make much difference but it's not quite the same comparison to the OP, whose unit can acquire both sets of signals.

I don't on a regular basis but every once in a while one of my units goes off a bit. I recalibrate it and I'm usually good after that. Have you tried calibrating your unit?

Thanks so much!

There was nothing to scan but I assume it would return a wrong answer. I wonder if the QR code, if actually an implemented feature, would prevent the hacking of cartridges and require cachers to complete the cartridge instead of go to the final spot. I tend to think not. I'm still uncertain as to why it popped up in the cartridge and then continued to pop up the longer the Wherigo and Wherigo app was used. That leads me to believe that it's an app issue rather than a cartridge issue.

I was playing a cartridge on my Samsung S9 using the Whereyougo app and encountered something a bit unusual on two cartridges I was playing that were created with Wherigo//kit as a question and answer style Wherigo. It only happened twice on the first cartridge when an answer was needed but it happened at each zone in the second one where an answer was needed. It didn't affect the continuation of the cartridge at all and I was otherwise able to play it like normal. When prompted with a question to answer, I was given a working QR code button option to scan something, directly beneath the answer box. It was fully functional but after communicating with the CO/creator, it was NOT something that was written into the cartridge (pretty sure Wherigo//kit doesn't allow for that within the creation process). Does anyone know what the issue might be? Is it something in the new re-activated Whereyougo app that is corrupting the cartridge in that manner? Is it something within the phone operating system? Is it something within the download from Wherigo.com that is being added? It has NO bearing on the ability to complete the cartridge so it's not overly important in that regard but it does appear to be some sort of bug that replicated the issue in the two cartridges I played yesterday. I thought about using Geooh GO to see if that worked without the same issue being replicated but the cartridges were rather longer ones involving a longer walk or a longer drive and didn't really strongly consider using it until I was halfway through the second half of the second cartridge.

I was going to say this as it's exactly what I did yesterday to clear out a backlog of older cartridges. As far as I could tell, there's no way to select (either individually or en masse) cartridges. The long press and hold for each one individually is the easiest way.

This is the question that everything really boils down to when it comes to challenge caches. Does the guideline that specifies a signature which then allows you to claim a find supersede the guideline of signing AND fulfilling the ALR in order to claim a find? Those that don't like the ALR and want to be able to claim a find believe the guidelines, that define what a challenge cache is and what you have to do to be able to find it online, are wrong. Those that like challenge caches and the way they're currently structured believe that the guidelines, that define what a challenge cache is and what you have to do to be able to find it online, are right. What does the company that writes the guidelines think about challenge caches? "Geocaching HQ has long exempted challenge caches from this guideline because they can bring so many positives to the game." (5/25/16) "A challenge cache requires seekers to find an associated physical cache, and to find an additional set of geocaches as defined by the challenge owner." You can't refer to the guidelines as the reasoning behind why you should be allowed to claim a find on a challenge cache if you only sign the log if you also choose to ignore those same guidelines that state you have to to find the cache AND complete the ALR for a challenge cache. I'm still unsure as to how much time is actually needed by TPTB in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the changes made to challenge caches. Apparently 4 years isn't long enough, despite their own admitted point about strong support within the community as well as their agreement that there are good reasons to implement just such a change. "The idea of a challenge cache icon or attribute earned significant support from the community. We agree there are a lot of good reasons to implement one. However, we want to confirm that the new framework will reduce the problems which led to the moratorium. It wouldn’t make sense to engineer a new icon or attribute only to lose it if challenge caches don’t work out. We’re going to give it a year or so, and then re-evaluate the situation. If we find that things are going well, then we will strongly consider adding a new icon or attribute for challenge caches." (5/25/16)

Maybe where you are but we've seen a lifting of the allowed maintenance deferral and a bunch of reviewer actions related to caches that need maintenance. I don't know if the CHS email is part of that or not but I would assume that the CHS has played a role. Perhaps the email will be replaced by notification via the new CO dashboard.

This is what I don't get about the CHS. I can point to lots of 1.5/1.5 caches that are most likely gone or in bad shape but they don't appear to get tagged by the CHS and just keep on keepin' on.

The Cache Health Score (CHS) is an automated algorithm that tracks the "health" of each cache. DNFs and NM logs count as negative scores while finds count as a positive score. OM logs reset the score back to where it started. The D/T rating factors into the scoring as well but no one really is sure to what extent. It's my assumption that a DNF of a 1.5/1.5 would be a larger negative score than a DNF of a 3/1.5 cache, which would be a larger negative score than a DNF of a 4.5/1.5 cache. At some point, once the score reaches a certain threshold, an automated email goes out to the CO, letting them know that their cache might need some help. I have only received one email and it specifically mentioned the CHS as the reason for my email and the issue regarding my cache. I don't know if the current notifications do the same thing since I've not received one in quite some time. As Tricia noted, is there any further specific information if you click the "?"

This is when you should TD a cache. The timing of the Temporary Disable (TD) log as it pertains to anyone other than the CO is irrelevant. You can't control what other cachers will or won't do or will or won't see. You can only control your cache and if you TD it when you pull it, those that might look at it will then see that it's not available. You can't do anything about those who have no way to know that it's disabled and not there. If they come and can't find it, then when they go to log the DNF, they'll realize why they couldn't find it. Yes they can but as I've already mentioned, I'm not bringing my laptop with me to update my GPX file on my GPS. Once I load it on Saturday (we leave on Sunday and return the following Saturday), I'm under the assumption that all is well with all the caches I've loaded, even though it may not be. That's not anyone's fault; it's just the way it happens sometimes. Should a CO still delete a find of mine if it was disabled on Monday but I found it (because the CO didn't pull it) on Friday? You seem to think that a TD log is noticed by everyone, even those who may have pre-loaded multiple caches that were fine before the TD logs were filed. If the cache is still there with a log, then it's still viable to claim a find, despite whatever might be wrong with it that required the CO to disable it but not get out there to pick it up so cachers can't log a find. They can't claim a find no matter the condition. If the cache isn't there, then they can't claim a find. If they have to put out a throwdown (without your permission), then they can't claim a find. If they don't sign the log, then they can't claim a find. If the cache is there and has a log that can be signed, then they can claim a find. The incentive lies in what you as a CO hope they experience and that you do your best to ensure that they get the best experience possible, whatever that might entail you to do as a CO. If you don't care about their experience, then toss down a crappy container if you want. It's your name attached to the cache and if that's what you want to be known for, then by all means lower the bar. Why is this odd? I started my Michigan list last week and have been winnowing it down and refining it since I actually have the time on my hands. I know there's no way I'm going to find all the caches on my list. Heck, I'll be lucky to find 50 of them in the week I'm up there. However, once I leave, my GPS can't be updated. I'll load it up the day before we leave with the most current information. I'm under the assumption that nothing has changed with regard to a TD log or an archive because I have no way of knowing. If I arrive, begin my search and find the cache that's been disabled or archived and am able to sign the log, I'm still under the assumption that nothing is wrong with the cache because I found it. How should I know that the cache is archived or disabled? Why should my find be invalidated because the CO couldn't get out there to pick it up to prevent this from happening? If you don't want cachers to log finds on the cache, then yes, you need to remove it ASAP so that they can't. It may not seem fair but it's the only control you have over a situation like this. I've TDed a few of my caches and didn't get out there to pull them but if someone had logged a find and it was verified, then I'd have to let it stand. I adopted a library cache. It was TDed because the library was closed for a few months due to the pandemic. If a librarian found the final, either by doing the multi the way it was intended or by fortuitous luck, then I'd let it stand, assuming their name was in the logbook. It's not their fault that they have access to the final location. They're just fortunate enough to have access that most everyone else doesn't have. I don't know about you, but I want my caches to be found. Not every find will be done in a manner that I approve of but if the name is in the log, then the find stands, regardless of how they got it in there. Not every finder is going to like the experience I have tried to provide for them, regardless of how much effort I put into it. Different strokes for different folks. Of course they do but not everyone is going to know if a cache is disabled or not. Most GPS units can't update without connections of some sort so this suggestion, while certainly one that should be honored when possible, is also one that's completely out of your control. You've done what you needed to so it's now left up to a cacher, who may or may not have access to the site to see the current status of a given cache. As to the TD log, if you're truly that concerned about maintenance on your caches, then why don't you have a plan in place that allows another local cacher to provide maintenance and pull the cache (preferably one who has found the cache previously) if you are traveling and need to disable one of your caches? Seems to me that's the best way to keep up with your caches when you're not in the area to do so. I'll reiterate again, cachers who load GPS units typically don't update their caches when they're out on the road unless they bring their laptops. I go on vacation to get away from my laptop, not bring it with me, so my list of caches in Michigan will be as current as I can make it but it will still be almost a week old on my next to last day in Michigan, which will also most likely be the last day I have the opportunity to cache. Why are you assuming that it's the "fault" of anyone? Sometimes things happen that neither the finder nor the CO can do anything about.

Apparently the CHS needs to be tweaked again. 2 DNFs, a find, and another DNF on a 3D cache that's less than a week old. Log the OM to reset the score if you go check to make sure it's in place.

And the only way you can truly guarantee this is to visit your cache after each log. Otherwise you're left to the vagaries of individual cachers. It's already been addressed, but how would you prevent finders from logging a find if they don't have the most current information in their GPS? I'll be loading up a bunch of caches for the areas of Michigan I'm traveling to in a week and a half. What if the CO disables or archives a cache that I plan on finding at the tail end of my trip two days after I load my updated GPX file? I go there and find the cache and sign the log. Are you saying that, through no fault of my own, that my find isn't valid? I don't think GS will be on your side for that appeal. The ONLY way to guarantee that no finds would be made on disabled or archived caches is to go out and pick them up and then disable/archive them. Until such time as they're not in the field anymore, a find can be claimed if the log has been signed, even if it means that a tree climb is on the ground, a birdhouse has no roof, or the paint or glue hasn't dried. As I stated in my first sentence, the only way you can truly guarantee the experience you want them to have is to visit your cache after each log to ensure it is back and in place in the manner which you desire - be it up in the tree where it belongs, in a roofed birdhouse, or a cured paint/glue job.

So it's a possible solution that benefits a group of cachers who feel that they should be allowed to log every cache they can get their hands on and dislike challenges based solely on the premise that they signed the log so they should be able to log the find. This, despite the fact that Groundspeak didn't get rid of challenge caches after the moratorium and recognizes them as a valid subset of caches that have an allowed additional requirement in order to claim a find. One of the points raised about this suggestion of a new icon is that it will make challenges become even more about the numbers. How does this alleviate this situation? If anything, it creates even more of a numbers binge since all those cachers who complain about challenge caches and their inability to log them if they don't qualify would now be allowed to add to their total and not concern themselves about ever qualifying for the challenge because they got their +1. How does that make a challenge cache better? It just makes it like any other cache that any other numbers cacher would now be able to find. While at the same time making other people unhappy in the process. The challenge cache has been around for how long now? It's always been a different subset and always had a different logging requirement, even after the moratorium. After 12 years of existence (not sure of the exact timeline), it's suggested that challenge caches become nothing more than a traditional cache with a virtual "souvenir" added once you meet the stated challenge. The online find of a challenge cache is predicated upon completing both parts - signing the log and qualifying for the challenge. In simplest terms, that means that you need to do both A (sign) and B (qualify) to get C (a find) - A + B = C. This suggestion, despite your protestations, separates/distinguishes this into two separate pieces since the second part, B, is no longer needed to claim C. Instead of having to do A + B to get C, you now only need to do A. A = C. B is now completely irrelevant to the action of claiming C. B = D (a virtual reward/statistic). You could even say that B = 0 since A + 0 = C. If B = 0 and B = D, then D = 0. It's meaningless because it's no longer intrinsically tied to A or C. It's been eliminated from the equation. B becomes something that many don't even bother to try to fulfill because they only care about the +1 and not the challenge that was created. How is it truly a challenge cache when you don't even need to do the challenge any more? You might as well consider getting rid of challenge caches if the finders of this "new" challenge cache don't actually have to do the challenges to log the find. In many cases, they don't care about the challenge; they only care about being allowed to log a find on a cache they've signed. You said it yourself - "that allows people who hate challenges and want to ignore them to still find and log all such caches as if they were regular physical caches". With this suggestion, that's exactly what they've become. If an automated virtual reward/statistic is given for completing a challenge, you might as well have the developers create a program that allows cachers to automatically compile all their challenge stats and post them to their profile. Oh...... wait. I'm pretty sure an API partner or two has already done this in some form or another, although not exactly in the manner described. That's what this suggestion would turn challenge caches into - a series of challenge badges to display on one's profile. Since I don't care about numbers and statistics for numbers and statistics sake, this is a meaningless reward. I can see it now. A new challenge cache series published on how many challenge stars you've earned.

It allows you to set some pre-determined criteria you want met when searching for caches to attempt. Not everything can be set to optimize your preferences but it will sort out a lot of the stuff you don't want. For example, I typically avoid all 1.5/1.5 caches (not always but much of the time). I can select my PQ to only provide me with caches that are 2/2 or higher (or just a single D/T combination if I desire). As to what device you can use them on, although I don't use the official app, it's my understanding that you can download the PQ and store it on your phone for offline use, which would allow you to access ONLY those caches within the PQ (or any other you've opted to store offline). As to using them with a GPS, it's just a little bit more work but you can put the PQ on the GPS as well, which is how almost all GPS units get their caches loaded since they don't have cell service to connect to the internet. The Monterra (Garmin unit) does have wi-fi access and Android app capabilities but I think it's the only one.

The key issue was NOT ownership. It was about how that ownership was determined. The thread you posted devolved into a, "Why did this cacher get one? I have much better CO statistics than they do. This is a kick in the teeth for those COs who have maintained their caches for a long time." Yes, someone said kick to the teeth. "It's a bit of a kick to the teeth of cache owners who have maintained caches for over ten years. " The second part was the main complaint that spurred the first part. They thought the selection process wasn't fair because many of them felt they were worthier than someone else who was awarded the virtual. The thread you posted only has 2 posts out of almost 350 (I went and reread the thread) where someone has said they wanted the opportunity to place a virtual cache. Neither of those mentioned anything about getting a rare icon added to their CO tally as a reason for why they wanted to place a virtual. No one in that thread said anything about any CO getting a new icon added to their CO list of caches owned.

And? Virtuals are a much rarer type of cache than challenge caches are (although I'm not sure how much rarer). Virtuals hadn't been allowed in how many years and now suddenly a small amount of them were made available to a limited group of cachers. Of course they're complaining. I'm guessing that more of the complaining was about who got one as well as the way in which they were rewarded rather than the fact that they got the virtual icon to add to their list of caches as a CO. They weren't jealous of the CO for having that icon; they were jealous of the fact that they weren't chosen and someone else was. You seem to think that having a rare icon available means that everyone will want one. I know plenty of COs who have no interest in challenges, have never placed them and never will, even if it means that they can get a new icon to add to their list of owned caches. Unless I can come up with some new challenge I've not thought of to date, I'm not going to publish one just to say I own a new icon cache. I can think of some other cachers who will absolutely try to publish a new icon challenge but seeing as how they already have quite a few challenges out, they will be hard pressed to come up with an idea that's different enough to warrant publication. I expect you'll get a bump in the number of new challenges published should this happen, above your current rate. Some will be good while others will be bad and the rest will be just OK. What is your current rate of challenge caches in your area? What percent do they make up of ALL the caches in your area? What percent of the COs put out the challenges? The only way I can see that you'll get a flood of new challenges published is if COs archive their old ones to make room for new ones. Is cache saturation an issue in your area? If so, that will limit new challenge caches as well. You can't place very many if there aren't many places to hide a cache. I'm not saying that your theory is wrong. I'm saying that it is taking it to an extreme expectation rather than a realistic expectation. The situation you're describing is a worst case scenario - everyone will want to hide one in order to get the icon and they're all going to be bad and low quality because they're more concerned about getting the icon than they are about the challenge itself. I'm not saying that it's a best case scenario either - NO one will want to hide one. It's all conjecture at this time (and an unlikely development as well) but a realistic expectation revolves around the notion that you will get a surge of new caches published and that some of those new challenges will be because the CO wants to add the icon to their hidden list of caches and some of those new challenges will be because someone wants to publish something that's new to the area. A few of them will be great, some will be good, some will be OK, and some will be bad, just like the current challenges that are published.

This is the way it's ALWAYS been. Some cachers hide caches because they want to hide caches and could care less about the location, the idea, or the container. Some cachers want to hide caches because they have a great idea, a great container or a great location. It's NEVER been an activity where all the caches have had a great location, a great idea, or a great hide. There was never a "golden age" of caching. That's a myth. In the early days, although there were far less caches than there are now, there were bad caches, OK caches, and good caches. Turkey Run Stash is the oldest unarchived cache in Indiana and has a great location along with a great container (an ammo can). It was placed to bring you to the location, and the cache was a nice bonus. Modoc Stash (oldest in South Carolina) is a nice hike in the woods (although apparently there's been some cutting or a fire somewhat recently). I'm looking forward to kayaking out to Power Island (oldest in Michigan) in a couple weeks. Geocache (oldest in Arizona) is a nice hike in the desert with an ammo can at the end. These are examples of caches that are really good and tend to fit the mold of how you believe a cache should be placed. Mingo (oldest cache) isn't a great cache. It's on the side of a road, just off an interstate exit. Indiana's First (oldest in Indiana) isn't a great cache either. It used to be an ammo can (something else now unless it's been replaced) but it's across from an airport with a short walk from parking. Beaver Cache (oldest in Georgia) is just behind a neighborhood tennis court and pool along a property fence line. They didn't hide these caches because they had a good idea or a good location. They hid them because they wanted to hide a cache. Unlike most of the caches published in the first couple years, these have managed to survive, not because they're great caches or great ideas or great containers (or some combination), but because they're old.

These aren't related to challenge caches and are different situations, especially your first example. These don't prove or disprove your point that a new icon will result in a flood of "new" challenges in your area so that COs can have that new icon in their collection of caches they have placed. All they show is that COs complained about not getting a virtual. In fact, the first one was extremely limited in number and your area wasn't flooded with new virtuals but held in check by the limited release. The 2nd point is closer in scope but a new icon challenge will be hard to flood the area due to duplicate challenges not being permitted as well as the senseless challenges being pretty much removed from the list of challenges that could be created. You're not addressing the points, only bringing up ancillary points that neither prove nor disprove your suggestion that your area will get flooded with challenges if a new icon is introduced. How do you know they will decrease the quality of the challenges that are published? Since they can't be duplicate challenges that means that any new challenges will be different. I'm sure some will not be very good but I'm betting that some will be good. You seem to believe that ALL of them will be worse. Why aren't you making this argument about traditional caches? These caches FAR outnumber all the other cache types combined yet more and more are coming out. Some are bad, some are not very good, some are OK, some are good, and some are great. Why do you assume that all of them will be below an acceptable level? Again, you go to the worst case scenario. As to your "supporter" you quoted, there's no way she can "guarantee" that the numbers will double or quadruple unless she's the one that decides to flood the area with new challenges. She's doing the same thing you are - going straight to the worst case scenario. There's no acknowledgement of the possibility that a best case scenario will come about (NO new challenges published) or anything up to the worst case scenario - anywhere from 1 to whatever number you might believe is the worst case scenario. The worst case scenario is a possibility but it's much more likely that it will fall somewhere in between best and worse case. And it will have to be different enough from the challenges already published in the area in order to get published as well as meet the current guidelines that specify what can and cannot be done when creating a challenge. It's not going to be as easy as publishing a traditional cache as anyone will have to get a checker made, provide a list of cachers who qualify, make sure that an existing challenge isn't already in the area, and then submit it for review and hope the reviewer agrees that all is fine in order to publish it. Someone already said it but many of the examples in your post after this quote above aren't allowed. Why should a challenge appeal to everyone? Let me phrase it slightly different because the analogy is the same. Why should different types of caches appeal to everyone? Not every cache appeals to everyone the same way so you can't use that logic as a point to raise in support of your claim that a new icon would flood the area with new, unappealing challenges. Some people love multis while others despise them. Some people love puzzles while others despise them. Some people love power trails while others despise them. I don't see anyone calling for multis, puzzles, or power trails to be placed only to appeal to everyone. That's an unrealistic expectation. What makes a challenge "useful" anyway? Who determines that? You? Do you mean "useful" to you?

Neither. You believe that there will be many new challenge caches published if a new icon is created for challenges. I'm saying that we don't know what is going to happen if a new icon is created. You have jumped straight to the worst case scenario and completely ignored the possibility that there's a wide range of possibilities at hand. The best case scenario for you is that a new icon is created and no one publishes a new challenge cache in your area while the worst case scenario means your area will get flooded with new challenge cache publications. There's plenty of room between the best and worst case scenarios that has new challenge caches (with a new challenge icon in place) being published. There's just no way to know. Knowing this, you can discount any concern about doubled up challenge caches as well. I hadn't realized this was in place. This is a completely separate topic and unrelated to this discussion. I'd like to point out that only some cachers got them and had the ability to create and own one, unlike the new challenge icon, which would be open to anyone willing and able to place one. I'm not sure why you can't create a Wherigo cache that's not a reverse Wherigo. You don't need to use urwigo or earwigo to create one, unless you want to do more than create a walking tour with questions that can be answered. Wherigo//kit is a simple Wherigo creator that will allow you to create a Wherigo with ease. The simple remedy regarding reverse Wherigos is not to do them, especially if you don't enjoy them. Doing them is different than owning them so I'm not sure what your point is, other than to point out an increase in reverse Wherigos in your area. The nonsense challenges have been pretty much eliminated by the "new" guidelines in place so that point isn't valid much any more. The "look I am so great" challenge will only be published if a reviewer-determined number of cachers in the area qualify for the challenge. If they are the only ones who qualify, then it won't get published. At least in my area, my reviewer asks that at least 10 other cachers qualify for a new challenge before it will get published. If something like boosting your numbers makes you sad, then why do you continue to find reverse wherigos and participate in souvenir promotions that are typically about finding more caches in order to get a new souvenir? You say that you want geocaching to get away from numbers. "I'd like the whole great hobby to get a little away from numbers, numbers, numbers and challenges are in fact one way to get it even closer to it." Challenge caches aren't the only types of caches that get you closer to numbers based caching. Power trails? Geo-art? Souvenirs? You've chosen to selectively focus on challenges as being numbers driven and completely ignored the fact that souvenirs, power trails, and geo-art all accomplish the same numbers mentality that you wish would be less important. If a decrease of numbers were truly your point of emphasis, you'd be arguing to get rid of power trails, geo-art, and souvenirs as well as challenge caches. Instead, you admit you want to collect more and more souvenirs, which are pretty much a numbers based caching challenge that qualifies you for a virtual souvenir instead of a challenge cache. How is that any different from a challenge cache? You can't have it both ways. You either continue to earn your souvenirs by finding more and more caches, negating your point about getting geocaching away from numbers or you choose to forego finding a high number of caches that would prevent you from earning those souvenirs. There's one thing you can do, on your own, that can reduce the focus on numbers. Not find lots of caches. Be selective about what you choose to find. Don't actively participate in souvenir promotions. Don't find challenge caches. Don't find reverse wherigos. Don't find caches that are just "fillers of space". Then, instead of it being about numbers, it will be about your personal experience and satisfaction with geocaching. Power trails, geo-art, challenges, and souvenirs aren't going anywhere any time soon so the numbers type of caches will always be there. You don't have to find them. You don't have to earn that souvenir or qualify for that challenge. If you truly care about it not being about the numbers, you can cache in a manner that allows you to forego concerns about the numbers and settle into your own personal cache haven.