cron

After reading some of the answers in all these threads, I don't think your solution would work. To be appealing to challenge aficionados, challenge caches have to be exclusive finds. If you don't impose the coupling of the find with the challenge completion, you'll loose the challenge crowd. If you impose the coupling, you're back to square one (for both camps). Virtualizing the challenge caches would have the benefit to stop the irritant for those who care nothing about challenges as there would be nothing to find at GZ, except meeting the requirements of the challenge (which should be the driver for challenge lovers). Of course, some people will say it has less value than a "real find" because they want to keep them physical for the sake of exclusivity. Human nature.

I guess it has to do with the fact they are physical caches. You can stumble on any physical cache while wandering around (puzzles, challenge caches, multis, etc.) and as long as you put your name in the logbook, you should be allowed a find. Be it a non-solved puzzle cache (you saw the container in its hiding spot or you followed footsteps in the snow or you asked coordinates to a friend), a T5 cache at a top of a tree (it happened to be on the ground when you went by or you asked someone else to climb for you) or a challenge cache (you got the coordinates). Again, this has nothing to do with the moratorium, it's just an irritant of the challenge caches (why should the golden rule of geocaching not apply to them?).

To be honest, the old interface just works, so I'm using it. If it ever disappear, I'll try to figure out another way. At the moment, you can search by owner in the new interface, but the results do not include the archived caches. Maybe there's a way to fiddle with the URL to get them, but I don't have time for that.

Personally, I think that if the new search works correctly for they type of search someone is asking for we should recommend that. The old page isn't going to be around forever so the sooner users can work with it the better. I guess mentioning both and leaving the option to choose is the best way. The output that the new search delivers is horrible (much too large and a lot of wasted space). So in my opinion every avoided use of the new search is a win situation (avoided annoyance). By the way to the OP, my preferred way of looking for archived caches is using project-gc (and a local site for local caches). The old search page provides at least one functionality I cannot get on the new one (I can find all caches of a CO, even the archived ones).

Hmmm... The problem is not the file, it's what is using the file. Viruses exploit flaws in software (PDF in PDF viewer, DOC in WinWord, TXT in Notepad, etc.) to execute and infect a computer.

Malware can be injected anywhere along the line of transmission (from Groundspeak to you, through all the service providers and the potential man in the middle). If more people report it, then it could be Groundspeak. If not, anywhere else or a false positive. As a side note for the moderator, viruses can be injected in almost any type of files, including the simplest.

One way to be sure would be to download a zip file from another site. Same warning, virus is most likely local. No warning, you've tagged it.

Or just use the old page. http://geocaching.com/seek and search the GC code or the owner (if you know).

Did you run a full scan on your computer? Any other files infected? The files could have been infected on Groundspeak's servers, but they could also have been infected by your own computer while they were downloaded and written on your disk.

Hey, I found the opposite! When traveling in Hawaii, I stumbled on a small book with a chain attached to it. The chain reminded me of a TB chain, so I decided to take the book with me to investigate. I quickly found a reference in the book that brought me to the TB page on the geocaching site. It turned out to be a TB that was missing for over 4 years! The funny thing is it disappeared from a cache located in my province in 2009, but it kept traveling with no TB tag attached to it and no logs either. I found it in Hawaii (8,000 kms away) in 2013 and brought it back to the very same province. I contacted the owner, got the TB number, created a new TB tag and sent it back in the wild. It has now a new life and it traveled a lot (currently in Europe). Things are never lost!

Ditto. Great batteries. They have a terrific shelf life and seemingly last forever in my eTrex's, too. I switched to the Eneloops a couple of years ago after reading about them here in this forum. It was good advise then and still is now. Never achieved 20 hours with any kind of batteries (rechargeable or alkaline), but my 60CSx and 62s are configured with backlight on, WAAS on, all sensors on and I'm often using autorouting to caches. Usually get 7-8 hours on Eneloops. I've got about 50 of them, so I'm always carrying 8 in a case for both my GPSr and my headlamp. Easy to swap and throw on the charger when I come back home.

Here's another endorsement for the OSM maps. I've used them in Beijing, Malaysia, Singapore, Japan, Costa Rica, Rome, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Hamburg (Germany), Montpellier (France), and Tanzania, When I used the one in Costa Rica I showed roads (which I drove on) which didn't even appear on Google maps. http://garmin.openstreetmap.nl/ is the place to go to download your free OSM-based maps. They are routable. You select the area, click on the button and download the file on your computer. You can then just drag/drop on the recent GPSr units. For older units, you need to "compile" them in Mapsource/Basecamp if you want multiple areas (e.g. multiple files). On newer devices, you can just drop the different files in the GPSr (not sure what is the max number).

You're blaming that on challenge caches? Seems like a stretch. People intently doing many caches by cutting corners aren't going to waste time working towards specific challenge caches. The only challenge caches they care about are the ones they already qualify for. Not a stretch at all. It's actually happening in my area. There's a large group that goes out once a month with a list of about 60 caches (mostly non-traditionals) printed and handed out by the host. 1/3 of their cut n paste logs say they are working towards challenge qualifications. The same also happens with placement of caches for others to qualify for challenges (say a series of puzzles ranging from D3.5 to 5 in the T4.5/5 area). You'd usually see one published, but suddenly there is a bunch published in the same neck of the woods by the same CO. Even better, they are archived a few weeks down and republished with a new GC (same D/T) in the tree besides. Hey, two for one... Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours... Anyway, these are downsides/consequences of challenge caches, but they are not the reasons for the moratorium.

Because I do not think that Groundspeak is willing and able to come up with challenges that make sense for various regions, but not for the majority of countries. They lack the competence about what is an interesting challenge in region X and if they involve the local reviewers we are back at what we have now. What they could do is comeup with some standard challenges like Fizzy, day grid filled etc but that's what I regard as the boring part. And everyone would have to read all logs and not only the ones of the local cachers. Moreover, and that's essential in some areas one can easily require e.g. 100 lonely caches - in others 10 might be a challenge etc. To explain it I used the example with the favourite points. Requiring >27000 FPs for the topmost 10 caches found, is something that can be reasonably required in Germany, but not in the US. I would not call the outcome challenge cache game - it's something different. It's about achievements and not any longer a cache. IMHO, you're digging your own grave. I completely understand your point, but I can only see difficulties for Groundspeak to implement your vision of challenge caches. Pretty much what we have at present and is causing the moratorium (everyone is special, everyone wants to create their own little version of a challenge). The easiest solution for Groundspeak is to go virtual with a very limited number of challenge types, owned and managed by them. Will they go to that extent?

I think you're making Groundspeak's point about challenge caches. Everyone is looking at their own belly button and it creates a mess for GS to manage CO's requests. That's a good thing as it will most likely help them to streamline challenge types.

In any case the ideas behind the souvenirs give a nice insight how worldwide challenge caches without actual containers hidden somewhere and thus turning them into something regional would look like. Tasks like finding a cache with 10 favourites is absolutely ridiculous in most European countries. There are challenge caches in Germany that require for example having found 10 caches in Germany that together have more than 27000 (no typo) FPs. Of course such challenge caches would not make sense in the US and also not in Austria. A challenge that requires 1000 multis is perfectly reasonable in my country and is not reasonable in the US. There is a local challenge that requires one find in each of the 13 counties of my home state (Styria) of which at least 11 have to be multis. What I enjoy the most with that challenge is reading the logs of the local cachers and see with which caches they qualify. I'm not at all interested how many cachers worldwide have found caches in all counties of a state. Virtual/locationless implementations will not be localized and will not allow the same enjoyment of reading logs. A local lonely cache challenge is intended to increase the attractivity of lonely caches in that specific area. Awarding those who find lonely caches worldwide is not the key aspect in my opinion and that's why award systems will not achieve the same goals as challenge caches right now. You, him, her, me. As you can see, no one agrees on what makes a good or bad challenge because everyone has its preferences. This is probably part of the issue for GS as people will try to create challenges based on their own interests (there's no stop to human creativity). My bet is many challenge types will not be authorized by GS in the future (like lonely caches). It's easy to understand their own challenge on regulating challenge caches. When you think about it, the only challenges that should be acceptable worldwide would be those based on hard statistics from geocaching.com (difficulty/terrain ratings, date placed, number of caches, etc.). Incidentally, these would be easily verifiable with an automatic tool on the official website. They could do something with "number of countries" (this would be acceptable to a worldwide audience), but anything that has to do with provinces, states, counties and whatever it's named in other places of the world would need to have their equivalent. This could be a daunting task, unless they privilege some countries first.

Yeah, they started out for visiting places, they are not for going to events or accomplishing a challenge. If that's not what they're for, why is Groundspeak offering them for the third summer in a row? Call me crazy, but I think Groundspeak knows what souvenirs are for. But the question is does Groundspeak know what geocachers want souvenirs to be for. Yeah, souvenirs used to be for places you visited, then events you attended or special days you cached on, then specific caches you found. But it's their thing, so they can make it what they want. Actually, they may have started a trend of "challenge" souvenirs because of the popularity of challenge caches. That doesn't mean the challenge caches would become souvenirs. These are probably two different things (at the moment).

Again, as noted repeatedly in this thread, the moratorium is not a response to people not liking challenge caches. I don't know if GS will take the time/effort to put some thoughts around other concerns about challenge caches apart from the main topic which is the burden from challenge cache COs on reviewers/GS. I sure hope they do, but in any case, I'm pretty certain one of the easy solutions to cut the crap is to have all challenge caches owned/operated/managed by GS. Of course, if that happens, there's no way they would remain physical unless they come up with some kind of a system for cache maintenance by local enthusiasts. I doubt. This could also mean to make them easily verifiable, the type of challenges would be rationalized. Why not automate the qualification factor based on the user's statistics? Then what's the difference between a challenge cache and a souvenir? I wouldn't care less, but I'm sure a lot of people would not be happy about that. So better stop the "if you don't like them, ignore them" or "don't touch at my challenge caches" comments and start thinking about constructive criticism.

Somebody decides to open a road in the park besides your pool because it's a good shortcut. More people start to use it. Unfortunately, it's a dirt trail and dust keep going into your pool. You're asking them to pave it. But their answer is that if you don't want to use it, you just have to ignore it. Think of it: some solutions for challenge caches, including virtualization, would mean those who like them would still be able to qualify for them and get awards/recognition (e.g. "a find"), but at least it would not annoy those that don't want to play a sidegame having to "qualify" to log a physical cache. Of course, the authorities can always choose to close the road if no one can come up with a comprise...

Just a few from my profile. Coming back from a FTF on a trail that took longer time than expected (got caught by darkness) http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=36a6cb6b-5049-4081-aaf5-a3c6f636bce7 Sun down, but still some light in Iceland (around 11pm) http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=5b8f2d7d-d4a6-4dd9-a448-62a41ad06c26 Sunrise at Haleakala (Hawaii) http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=e0edc843-259c-4766-bb65-702d32be20c1 http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LUID=fa4ea793-66e3-4e4f-a946-8793873ea4af Lava flowing at sunset (Hawaii)

I like night photography too (and most certainly night caching)! Light painting at a FTF (Premier à trouver - PAT in French) Playing with the background at Kilauea (Hawaii) Going for a cache and a lunch in a cabin in Gatineau Park

That's right, I would not be happy about it -- well, more to the point, I probably wouldn't do them anymore -- and for 2 main reasons. First, as I just explained, finding a physical cache is what's important, the challenge is just an extra flair comparable to the added fun of climbing or kayaking for a cache. And second, by fixing the cache at a particular place that people have to travel to, the finds in the log are limited to people caching in that geographic area. In other words, while satisfying the requirement is not necessarily a local phenomenon, my main interest as an observer are the geocachers that are in that area. Huh? I don't see the value of "finding" a local cache under a lamppost vs the work required to complete a challenge cache. It's probably even anticlimatic to "finish" a challenge like that. Oh well... Challenge caches don't lure people to look for a cache that can't be found any more than puzzle caches lure people to look for a cache in the wrong place. Otherwise, yes, they allow the CO to limit finds to people interested in satisfying the requirements in the same way puzzle caches, climbing caches, water caches, hard to find caches, and caches at the end of 10 mile hikes are limited to people willing to satisfy those requirements. The difference you're complaining about is that with those other cache types, if you find a way to sign the log by "cheating", you're allowed to claim the find. Wrong. The reason it's wrong is there are no ALRs for all other physical cache types. Log signed, cache found. Don't ask me what people will do to put their names in the logbook, but they do. So yes, the ALR aspect of the challenge cache is just a lure to deny a find. I wish challenge caches don't go away for the people that like them, but I hope Groundspeak will go back to the basics and virtualize them so the same "log signed, cache found" rule applies to all physical caches.

Yes, I meant there's no container at the posted coordinates. Really, the meat of a challenge cache is working towards the completion of the requirements which (hopefully) include finding more than one cache. At the moment, once the hard work is done, you can armchair log a challenge cache you previously visited some time ago to sign the logbook, or you can get out to sign the logbook, then log. If they would be "locationless", you would still get an extra find for the challenge you just accomplished. Those not meeting the requirements would not be allowed to log it as a find. If the type of challenges would be contained, this could also be automated (like the souvenirs). This is interesting how even if such a solution would still provide an exclusive find to those who like challenge caches, they are not happy about it. It's like if for them, all that is important, is that the cache has to be accessible to everyone (physical box), luring people to "find a cache", but to keep a way for the CO to deny the find to those who are not interested by the sidegame. The virtual attribute of the challenge in itself would prevent the luring aspect of the challenge caches. Is this really what challenge caches are all about?

Maybe, but not my call. Only those who qualified would be entitled to log a find on a virtual challenge cache. That means you still have to work your way as hard as before to meet the requirements and you end up with the same result: an exclusive find others can't get for your accomplishment. Those who don't qualify would never be able to log a find on them and they would never stumble on the physical cache as it wouldn't exist in the first place. If you really really want to hide and maintain a cache, there are other types of caches you can hide. I don't see your point about the "challenge cache" having to be physical. But you don't need to try to convince me. Anyway, I think they're looking for ideas on how to control the challenge aspect of these caches, not really how they're managed on the site (from what I could understand).

What makes you think decoupling the physical cache from the qualification for a challenge would be a mistake? It depends how it's made... If everyone can log the physical cache and all you get if you qualify for the requirements is a little star, yes it could be demotivating. But what if your qualification entitles you to a second find on the same cache? Or what if the challenge caches are now virtual and only those who qualify can log them?