cron
-
Posts
231 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by cron
-
-
But how about multi caches? Is there the same rule? Thank you very much, LittleAcid
For multi caches, as long as all physical stages respect the proximity rule with other physical stages of adjacent caches, you're all good.
All components of a multi can actually be at the same coordinates (think about a tag at a base of a tree, another tag at mid-height and the cache at the top of the tree).
-
Est-ce que tu parles du forum geocaching-qc.com ?
-
Bonjour je suis débutent au geocaching
Les caches ont des coordonnées GPS ,longitude ,latitude ,mes l'altitude n'es pas préciser, aisse normal ou ces moi qui ne ces pas les lire
Car defois je suis sur le point de GPS ,mes je suis au bord d'une falaise,mes la cache et en bas 300 mètre plus bas ou le contrere juste 300 mètre plus haut .merci de bien vouloir m' éclaircir [
]Amicalement les perno li font
En effet, l'altitude ne fait pas partie des paramètres fournis par le site géocaching.com au sujet des géocaches. Il faut "deviner" en lisant le terrain ou en utilisant une carte topographique (sur le récepteur GPS ou en format papier).
Il peut arriver qu'une géocache soit délibérément placée dans une zone ambigüe où elle peut se trouver à plusieurs endroits, selon l'altitude (comme dans un stationnement à étages multiples).
-
It's why I feel like challenges ought to be dealt with as two separate groups:
1 - "Universal" challenges - those not tied to any particular place (region, state, city, etc.). These would not be true caches - no coordinates, no +1 smiley, challenge stars only (or whatever system is developed to quantify the difficulty or value of the achievement. These would include general statistical challenges such as Fizzy, D/T, 366 Day grids...or even Alphanumeric challenges (by cache name or CO)...or an individual's average D/T challenge. Maybe "challenges" is not even the proper term for these...maybe it ought to be "Accomplishments" or "Geocaching Achievements" or some such terminology. These could be automatically assessed and awarded once the individual's stats meet the requirements...much like souvenirs currently are.
Yes! Indeed, you painted the challenges for what they really are (or should be), accomplishments/achievements.
2 - Challenges that are localized...those that are tied to a place (county challenge in a given state, grid challenges in a given state, etc.) or "quirkier" challenges such as those that spell out a word or follow a theme of some sort. I see no problem with these having a physical cache to sign...or even with keeping them much like they are right now. Obviously something has to be tightened up to address the issues GS is having with challenges. I think if these were to remain actual caches with posted coordinates, there would need to be a container to find and a log to sign. Otherwise, they would be submitted for review by the cacher and the 'owner' of the challenge would then have the opportunity to review the qualifications and award the points or stars or whatever they are to the individual.
No!
What did you expect from me? 
IMHO, "local" challenges should disappear. Those are probably the ones raising the most concerns with Groundspeak, but who am I to know (just my feeling). Therefore it would leave a perfect challenge system (virtual and automatically assigned whenever you meet the easily measurable requirements).
-
I also believe that the forum discussions of this issue are worse than useless, because they tend to be dominated by people who hate challenge caches. I mainly participate in them to make sure that TPTB don't think that the anti-challenge folks constitute some kind of majority. And also to point out that their arguments are pretty weak.
This must be a really sensitive topic because we all feel the other camp is dominating the discussion and their arguments are weak.
I do agree forums are usually useless, but who knows, I'm sure here and there a good idea can make its way to Groundspeak.
BTW, the moratorium was not caused by the anti-challenge people, but by the challenge enthusiasts (maybe they were too enthusiastic?). If TPTB decided to momentarily pull the plug, there must be a good reason.
Let's hope they come back with a good solution that will please the majority.
-
C rating is an indicator of challenge difficulty. It's not something you gain.
Oh, I was speaking of challenge stars as finds (the stars you'd get when you meet the requirements of a challenge). Your reference to challenge stars in your reply to my comment made me think you were comparing these stars with the stars of the D/T.
It makes sense the "C rating" would be comparable to D/T.
But I understood from the "Challenge Stars" system that the end result for meeting the requirements of a challenge would be a virtual reward (what I thought were the challenge stars). This is what challenge lovers would not buy.
-
I am a challenge lover who is glad for the moratorium. I am very open to hearing intelligent suggestions. Unfortunately, in my opinion nothing you have offered thus far has met that criterion.
Absolutely, but you can't just sit and wait for others to provide solutions otherwise you'll always be deceived. What did you suggest so far (apart from keeping the challenge caches as is)?
....
*points*I know you embarked on the Challenge Stars topic with frinklabs, but my comment was directed at a specific person. I was wondering what was his contribution, except his criticism on other people's suggestions. Maybe he has better ideas than mine and he has the key to solve the challenge cache issues. Who knows?
-
Furthermore, a lot of people complained about a "star system". I don't think they'd buy into it. Personally, I think it's a great idea, but there should never be an option to force people into completing the challenge requirements to get a find on a physical cache. My opinion and preference.
People bought into the Difficulty "star system", and the Terrain "star system". Strictly speaking, a Challenge rating is no different than D or T. Don't think of it as a "star system". It's merely a challenge rating. For those want to tally their completed challenge ratings, it would be exactly the same process as for D or T "stars".
Hmmm... I don't see it with the same lens. To me, D/T are indicators of difficulty and terrain. They're not something I gain.
The challenge stars would be similar to finds, except they would be separate.
Again, I think it's a workable solution (as per frinklabs' position on always being able to log a find on any physical caches, and only being able to earn challenge stars when the requirements are met). I'm just not sure challenge lovers would buy much into that and as long as the criteria for challenge requirements will be left into CO's hands, it will certainly not solve the moratorium issue.
-
There's no significant burden on reviewing traditional caches. Why? I think it's because we've identified the things that shouldn't be flexible, then left the rest up to the COs, faulty judgement and all. So my first guess -- in the absence of any concrete information -- is that the problem with challenge cache reviews is that we haven't correctly identified what shouldn't be flexible and what's just a matter of judgement.
The issue with challenge caches is there's a lot of room for creativity. Unfortunately, humans are humans and someone will always try to push the envelope (actually, it looks like it's the majority as it's bugging down the system - so they say).
Assuming the anecdotes we're getting second hand are, in fact, typical of the problems that generate additional reviewer load, then the problem is that reviewers are required to make judgement calls, and the reviewers are taking that to mean they should be very restrictive. If you get in a fight every time a CO says 100 and you think it should be 50, or every time a CO says 10 miles and you think it should be 15, I can see why you're spending a lot of time in the review cycle. Would it really be so bad to say, "Well, I think 50 would be more reasonable, but it's up to you"?
And there you are, opening up the ALRs again. Wear a dress and sign a song to get your find.
The only way to control the challenges submitted for review is to be very strict about what can be proposed. Then you need some guardians to make sure no one is pushing the limits too far. And the cycle starts again.
I believe GS understood this and are trying to find a better way for challenges to exist on their website.
-
Everyone wins!
I really liked your idea until I stumbled on the option to make it mandatory to meet the requirements of the challenge to be able to log a find.
Back to square one for me as I imagine most people would use the option to make it mandatory (seems to be what people don't want to loose - the exclusivity of the finds).
Furthermore, a lot of people complained about a "star system". I don't think they'd buy into it. Personally, I think it's a great idea, but there should never be an option to force people into completing the challenge requirements to get a find on a physical cache. My opinion and preference.
-
Well, the only solution to avoid appeals is to make the creation of a challenge very strict and regulated.
If you dislike challenge caches, then that's a wonderful standard to apply to any potential solution since it would completely eliminate challenges. But if you like challenge caches and want to see changes that make them less burdensome, then that's an absurd standard.
Really? There would still be challenge caches around, so I would still live my pain (lighter, but present).
You can only work with what you know. Conspiracy theory won't do you any good. All we know is they said the challenge cache COs were creating too much fuss. Accept it or not, but that's the framework you are allowed to work with.
Being constructive will bring you more satisfaction that whine about the way they imposed a moratorium on their website.
-
I just realise it's impossible to ask challenge lovers for solutions. They just don't want to see things differently than what they are now.
Maybe it has more to do with what you say than others' inability to hear.
I am a challenge lover who is glad for the moratorium. I am very open to hearing intelligent suggestions. Unfortunately, in my opinion nothing you have offered thus far has met that criterion.
Absolutely, but you can't just sit and wait for others to provide solutions otherwise you'll always be deceived. What did you suggest so far (apart from keeping the challenge caches as is)?
-
The problem is that as long as challenge caches are physical caches (a significant point in making challenge caches what they really are currently) there can never be a happy in-between where people can find-it-sign-it-log-it-online without the challenge ALR and require a qualification ALR before logging a challenge cache that can be physically found. They can't coexist, simultaneously; they are fundamentally mutually exclusive. Anyone demanding one or the other is necessarily making it less fun for the other side.
Agreed. I'm rooting for my camp while I'm trying to also avoid challenge caches to go (as long as they don't bother me anymore). On the other hand, I won't cry if they go.
Which takes us back to Geocaching Challenges (with a bit tighter of a review process and a couple of minor changes, but nothing significant enough to make the idea sufficiently similar to the current challenge cache idea -- that is, containing a physical cache component)
The reference to Geocaching Challenges (That Horrible Thing) is kinda pejorative. The Challenges were so different from what virtual/locationless challenge caches could be. They didn't count towards your find count, they were not related to geocaching, etc. Having virtual challenges that would allow a find when meeting challenge cache's requirements (such as Fizzy, Jasmer and whatsoever) would be a totally different beast than Geocaching Challenges. Totally.
In fact, the only difference between physical challenge caches and virtual challenge caches would be there's no container to find for the +1. So what? I repeat, the goal of a challenge is to meet the requirements. That's the meat and the bonus is the +1.
-
Back to basics: find a cache, sign the logbook and log a find.
Just do all your searches targeting traditional caches and you're there without taking anything away from the rest of us.
Well, I do enjoy letterboxes and multis too. Too many "think-like-me" puzzles nowadays, but it depends. They can sometimes be entertaining.
I just don't like to jump in fire hoops because someone thinks it's fun to watch others do that. I'm all for a solution that will let me find physical caches while others can still be challenged, though. It just seems like those who like to be challenged are really, really jealous about who can log a "find" on the caches they gree. Would be nice if the challenge part would become a mandatory separate find or reward from the actual find of the physical cache, but that wouldn't stop the greed... Thus my preference for the virtualization of the challenge caches and all the potential drawbacks (for you) that would follow.
-
I just realise it's impossible to ask challenge lovers for solutions. They just don't want to see things differently than what they are now.
Your initial question is more about how can we make Groundspeak realise it's all good as it is or actually, let's demonstrate challenge caches are just as bad as any other type of geocaches. Won't fly. Moratorium was called on challenge caches for a reason.
-
Apparently, the main reason the challenge cache moratorium has been imposed is because, "[w]hile they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ."
Volunteer reviewers have added that most of these appeals are submitted after relatively long review processes, which makes their jobs more burdensome.
Is it possible to tweak the existing challenge cache guidelines in ways that might reduce the amount of review/appeals work generated by challenge caches?
Well, the only solution to avoid appeals is to make the creation of a challenge very strict and regulated. Possibly base the challenges on actual easily measurable geocaching.com statistics? Unfortunately, humans are humans and I'm sure there would be someone to figure out a way to stretch the elastic a little bit more and the appeals would start again. The solution may then be to remove that power from the players' hands...
First, I don't think Groundspeak is looking for a solution that totally avoids all appeals. If they are, then there's a lot more that must be fixed than just challenge caches.
Yes, humans will stretch the elastic regarding challenges (and commercial caches, adaquate permission, and defacing property, etc.) Totally removing their power to stretch the elastic means not allowing geocachers to place any caches -- challenge, puzzle, traditional, etc.
You know, when the police officer is walking to your car to give you the speeding ticket, it's not worth trying to tell him there's this red corvette that's also speeding in the other lane.
If you want to find a way to fix the appeal issue, stop looking at other issues around. The current moratorium is about challenge caches, not everything else that needs to be fixed (I agree with you, but it's irrelevant).
-
The problem with esoteric challenges is that they occupy space
Maybe there could be a system where the physical containers could still be logged as found while preserving the challenge aspect separately?
That would not solve the issue of the moratorium. There would still be a bunch of COs that would like to publish their esoteric challenges and they would generate as much noise in Groundspeak's ears.
-
Apparently, the main reason the challenge cache moratorium has been imposed is because, "[w]hile they account for only ~1% of all geocache submissions, challenge caches comprise the bulk of appeals made to Geocaching HQ."
Volunteer reviewers have added that most of these appeals are submitted after relatively long review processes, which makes their jobs more burdensome.
Is it possible to tweak the existing challenge cache guidelines in ways that might reduce the amount of review/appeals work generated by challenge caches?
Well, the only solution to avoid appeals is to make the creation of a challenge very strict and regulated. Possibly base the challenges on actual easily measurable geocaching.com statistics? Unfortunately, humans are humans and I'm sure there would be someone to figure out a way to stretch the elastic a little bit more and the appeals would start again. The solution may then be to remove that power from the players' hands...
-
I'm not a fan of your influence.
(not that your comments are anything new - see the rest of this and the Pause thread).All good with me as I'm not a fan of yours either. We can't all agree. I guess it takes divergent opinions to make progress.
-
And for the Nth time, why is it an irritant if you don't care about the challenge? It's like walking into a bar, and then finding it irritating that they serve alcohol.
Besides, make them virtual, and they're just Challenges reborn.
And? I won't care because they will be virtual and I won't have anything to find at some coordinates. I'll be a happy camper and challenge lovers will still have a way to challenge themselves and get a find as a reward. All good for me.
And for the Nth+1 time, if they don't meet the challenge, why do they care? Groups of cachers often visit caches which some of them have already found. Why doesn't everyone log a second find? Because one less find doesn't matter. Surely your daughter didn't come with you on that challenge cache hunt just to get +1.
I don't think we all agree on what geocaching should be, so we're left with GS experimenting.
In my humble opinion, they messed up when they accepted to allow ALRs. Hopefully they'll realize it's easier to manage the game when there's only one person/group making/applying the rules.
Back to basics: find a cache, sign the logbook and log a find. Anything else involving ALRs can be virtualized. Of course, that won't solve the issue that caused the moratorium. I would love to see challenge caches stay for those who like them and at the same, I'd like if they could be less of an irritant for me (and maybe others who don't like them). Maybe the solution for GS will be to simply do as it was proposed (own/manage a limited quantity of virtual challenge caches with well-defined and easily measurable requirements). I won't miss anything if that happens.
-
A]
Like a note, but the inverse (you meet the requirements before finding the cache). I still think it's a non-sense (with my lens - I understand it makes a lot of sense with your lens). You should deserve a find for physical caches you find and you should get a find for challenge requirements you meet (for those who want to play the sidegame). Thus why challenge and cache finds have to be split. As double-finds are not highly recommended in the geocaching community,
B]
virtualizing the challenge caches seems to be the way to go.
I don't see how you make the jump from A] to B].
Additionally, what about the rest of the issues mentioned in this thread about virtualized and/or locationless challenges?
Virtual/locationless challenge makes it accessible to anyone to log a find on a challenge they accomplished. It also makes it impossible for those who don't want to play the challenge game to get out, sign a logbook and be denied a find on a physical cache.
I'm sure there will always be justifications to promote one idea or the other. Of course you won't want to have 2,460 similar "virtual" challenge caches with the same requirements published around the World, otherwise it could become redundant. This is why GS should also take back the ownership of challenge caches. Create limited categories of challenges, publish them and let people log them when they meet the requirements, no matter where they are located (being Canadian, American, European or African won't make any difference when time comes to meet the requirements for having found one-cache-a-day-for-365-consecutive-days). We don't need the same challenge being published over and over in different areas of the World. With limited categories, GS could ensure their site would automatically detect when you meet some easily measurable requirements.
Looks like souvenirs? Maybe. The difference would be you'd get a real find whenever you meet the requirements (and a badge or souvenir if you like). Up to GS to define what they want to offer.
All I know is it's out of control now and as they're looking for new ways to regulate the (their?) hobby, it's time to jump in and try to influence.
-
I meet the requirements (at the moment), but by the time I go and sign the log, my average may have went down and I won't be able to claim a find on it anymore
The Challenge Stars system would make this work for you.
At the moment you meet the requirements, you post the Challenge Completed log type with the requirements documented.
This leaves you free to attend the container's location at any time you want with no worries about what your D/T average is at that time, because you've already completed and logged the requirements. The Found It you log at that time means just that -- that you Found It.
Key to the Challenge Stars system is the understanding that the Found It smiley is no longer the "carrot" for the challenge's completion.
Like a note, but the inverse (you meet the requirements before finding the cache). I still think it's a non-sense (with my lens - I understand it makes a lot of sense with your lens). You should deserve a find for physical caches you find and you should get a find for challenge requirements you meet (for those who want to play the sidegame). Thus why challenge and cache finds have to be split. As double-finds are not highly recommended in the geocaching community, virtualizing the challenge caches seems to be the way to go.
-
This is that rule the challenge cache's ALRs broke. Make them virtual and that irritant is gone.
The Challenge Stars system addresses this.
Not really. You apply your personal interest lens on it (as much as I do). This doesn't address me being able to log a find (not a note) on a physical cache I found, except for those who would choose to let everyone "find" the cache without meeting the requirements (probably a minority, but even then, that is not the question as it could happen all the challenge caches around my area could require to meet the requirements).
Interestingly, you mentioned a challenge cache in your reply that I think is showing the need for them to become virtual.
I meet the requirements (at the moment), but by the time I go and sign the log, my average may have went down and I won't be able to claim a find on it anymore... To add to the insult, anyone can go and sign the logbook, then claim a find whenever they'll meet the requirements later on. A non-sense.
If challenge caches were virtual, locationless or call them what you want, it would be possible for someone meeting the requirements to log a find on them (as they have accomplished what the challenge was all about). Finding the container a distance away is irrelevant to this particular challenge.
-
Again, there are people who, when finding a physical cache and care nothing for challenges, still want to claim it as Found.
And, again, if they care nothing for challenges, why did the look for the physical cache in the first place?
cron mentions the serendipitous find, but that can't be the reason because such finds so rare. In fact, they're so rare, I can't imagine anyone caring whether they can log finds on the one or two challenge caches they found in their career by happenstance.
The point is when you know there's a physical to be found, you can find it. There are multiple ways to achieve your goal (finding the cache and signing the logbook). I'm not saying they are all legit, but a find is a find. This is that rule the challenge cache's ALRs broke. Make them virtual and that irritant is gone.
]
What did you expect from me? 
*
(not that your comments are anything new - see the rest of this and the Pause thread).
Night Photography
in General geocaching topics
Posted · Edited by cron
woops, seems I already posted in this one