Search the Community

For Washington, I would personally not list the Eatonville one, its a weird version of it where you have to have finds in that one city. You may want to add for Washington Calendar: GC40KEM Double Calendar Challenge GC3D7NN Calendar 365 Challenge GC3D7P0 Calendar 366 Challenge GC22BVM Calendar 365 Challenge GC29BV8 Calendar 365 Challenge it would seem both our Placed Dates Challenges are gone, you got the Fizzy and the remaining Jasmer So, that would complete you for Washington State.

So you expect these Volunteers to be available 24/7/365 to monitor the traveling cache? I am happy when my reviewer can approve a new cache placement in a couple days. You are expecting way too much from the Reviewers.

I believe you are reading it wrong, or at least not the way I read it. The person wants you to fill in your 365 day grid (non-streak so the fill ins can be from any year). This kind of challenge isn't really touched upon in the guidelines other than the leap day part of it. Originally, the challenge I sent to HQ was fill in your grid with 3x mystery caches a day. When I sent it to Appeals it was for two reasons: 1) Is a specific cache type 365-nonstreak grid an okay challenge? 2) Advice on "are there enough qualifiers being published of said type in a given area" The answer I got was due to what is being published in the area and generally (not sure about globally), there are enough traditionals and mystery caches being published to meet this challenge going forward. I decided to do a little data mining. Just a snap shot of one state. I ran a lot of PQs to get all of the caches in PA last month. The entire state which is bigger than what I would consider the region for a cacher, there are -1197 Multi caches -3755 Mystery caches -21 Letterboxes -20 Earthcaches What more, in 2016 to date published: -87 Multi caches -466 Mystery caches -151 Letterboxes -237 Earthcaches Based on all this, I think the 'ruling' makes sense to me. I also think that if you provide appeals info for ones area to show it is doable and that there are more than enough caches to do it and caches being published to make it feasible, they may allow it. You can understand why they might not allow some of the others though. It would be near impossible to fill in say a yearly grid of virtual or webcams or letterboxes. Edit: they also said 1x a day max for these kinds of challenges. My opinion is it can become a slippery slope of how many is too many; as you can see has happened with the 2+x Fizzy, etc.

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does that answer the question...namely, why are multi-caches excluded from the 365 day challenge? Perhaps a better question is "what reason can be given for excluding them?" Perhaps I'm reading the supporting links differently, but the OP on PGC wants a checker built for individual cache types for a 365 day streak. The Help Center article explicitly excludes streaks for individual cache types. It appears that all cache types must be included in any streak challenge submission. From the quoted thread on project-gc:

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does that answer the question...namely, why are multi-caches excluded from the 365 day challenge? Perhaps a better question is "what reason can be given for excluding them?" Perhaps I'm reading the supporting links differently, but the OP on PGC wants a checker built for individual cache types for a 365 day streak. The Help Center article explicitly excludes streaks for individual cache types. It appears that all cache types must be included in any streak challenge submission.

Hoe moet je de Achievements van de verschillende geocoins interpreteren? Bijvoorbeeld de 365 days of caching. Betekent dit dat je 365 dagen achter elkaar elke dag een cache gevonden moet hebben of dat je je 365 dagen grid vol moet hebben (evt na een aantal jaren). Deze vraag geldt ook voor de 31 dagen of caching. Mag die alleen in augustus verdiend worden? Van de andere coins is het duidelijk maar deze zijn op verschillende manieren uitlegbaar. Een makkelijk en een moeilijk haalbare manier. Ik heb nog nergens een duidelijke uitleg gevonden.

Looking at the Top Finders list for Norway on Project-GC it lists that top 10000 finders (#10000 has 79 finds, so there is more than that). The top 19 finders would represent .19% of the total number of cachers in Norway. It seems to me that there is a pretty broad range between a challenge attainable by .19% of all cachers in the country and instant gratification for all. To me, "reasonably attainable" would mean that a much larger percentage than 2% of the cachers in the area will be able to find it, and instant gratification would man a qualifying percentage close to 100%. I only looked at Norway's top 20 most prolific finders and saw that the first 19 of them already had completely filled in their 366-day calendars for finds. If someone wants to look at Norway's top 10,000 finders, I'm sure they would find many more examples of completely filled calendars. You might feel that for a challenge cache to be attainable by a "reasonable" number of geocachers it should be findable by far more than 2% of the local geocachers, but Groundspeak reviewers seem to have opinions that differ from yours. In Florida, reviewers apparently set "reasonable" to mean that at least 10 of that state's geocachers (9,435 have 79+ finds) have pre-qualified. That's less than 0.11 percent of that state's geocachers. Similarly, Ontario reviewers expect at least 10 of that province's geocachers (9,163 have 79+ finds) to have pre-qualified. That's also less than 0.11 percent of that province's geocachers. I stopped counting after seeing that at least 19 of Norway's geocachers have pre-qualified because I was pretty sure that number would meet any "attainable by a reasonable number of [local] geocachers" standard that the local reviewers were likely to impose. As for my "instant gratification" comment, I didn't mean to suggest that Groundspeak now expects nearly all geocachers to be able to complete all challenges. My comment was in reference to views of many people in today's world that if a goal isn't "instantly" achievable, then it isn't worth pursuing. I fear that's a path Groundspeak might be walking: Requiring a Finds Calendar to be completely filled for 366 days might delay a geocacher's gratification for up to four years, so let's ban those kinds of challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. Some geocachers don't enjoy streak challenges that last longer than 365 days, so let's ban those kinds of challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. Some geocachers don't want to deal with the stress of finding 10 caches in a single day, so let's ban time-limited challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. Some geocachers don't want the hassle of remembering which letters they're missing in "alphabetical" challenges, so let's ban challenges that use cache titles, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. As you noted in another thread: Yes, I wrote that and also think there has been a general trend for instant gratification and entitlement such that there is an expectation that every cache should be easy. My point is that instant gratification and entitlement are a long way from challenge caches that are only attainable by a tiny fraction of the geocaching population. Before the moratorium it sometimes seemed like some challenges were created as if it was a contest to see who could create something that excluded as many geocachers as possible. I have no issues with creating caches that are difficult to find, or challenges with criteria that is hard to achieve, but at some point it just looks like an exercise in exclusivity that allows the uber elite to be able to pat themselves on the back for being better than everyone else. I just don't seen the benefit to the game in creating a cache that is more of a novelty (hello ISS cache) than anything else, especially if it involves changes to the guidelines. I will also note that there are 10's if not 100's of challenge caches which pre-exist the moratorium and new rules, some of them extremely difficult. For example, there's a "Find a cache 1000 days in a row" challenge in Sweden that was placed before the moratorium. With the guideline change, no *new* cache a day streaks more than 365 day are allowed. If you're going to argue that GS should allow new challenges which are only attainable by a tiny fraction of the geocaching population, then it seems to me that the existence of a challenge that might require traveling thousands of miles to find the container would provided a very difficult challenge as well. Do we really need a "Find a cache 1004 days in a row" challenge in every city? For those that want to do extremely difficult challenge caches, there are plenty of them already available and the travel involved to get to them can be considered part of the challenge. Fair enough but they will slowly die out like aging webcams and virtuals. Still maybe one of them will be the next APE.

Looking at the Top Finders list for Norway on Project-GC it lists that top 10000 finders (#10000 has 79 finds, so there is more than that). The top 19 finders would represent .19% of the total number of cachers in Norway. It seems to me that there is a pretty broad range between a challenge attainable by .19% of all cachers in the country and instant gratification for all. To me, "reasonably attainable" would mean that a much larger percentage than 2% of the cachers in the area will be able to find it, and instant gratification would man a qualifying percentage close to 100%. I only looked at Norway's top 20 most prolific finders and saw that the first 19 of them already had completely filled in their 366-day calendars for finds. If someone wants to look at Norway's top 10,000 finders, I'm sure they would find many more examples of completely filled calendars. You might feel that for a challenge cache to be attainable by a "reasonable" number of geocachers it should be findable by far more than 2% of the local geocachers, but Groundspeak reviewers seem to have opinions that differ from yours. In Florida, reviewers apparently set "reasonable" to mean that at least 10 of that state's geocachers (9,435 have 79+ finds) have pre-qualified. That's less than 0.11 percent of that state's geocachers. Similarly, Ontario reviewers expect at least 10 of that province's geocachers (9,163 have 79+ finds) to have pre-qualified. That's also less than 0.11 percent of that province's geocachers. I stopped counting after seeing that at least 19 of Norway's geocachers have pre-qualified because I was pretty sure that number would meet any "attainable by a reasonable number of [local] geocachers" standard that the local reviewers were likely to impose. As for my "instant gratification" comment, I didn't mean to suggest that Groundspeak now expects nearly all geocachers to be able to complete all challenges. My comment was in reference to views of many people in today's world that if a goal isn't "instantly" achievable, then it isn't worth pursuing. I fear that's a path Groundspeak might be walking: Requiring a Finds Calendar to be completely filled for 366 days might delay a geocacher's gratification for up to four years, so let's ban those kinds of challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. Some geocachers don't enjoy streak challenges that last longer than 365 days, so let's ban those kinds of challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. Some geocachers don't want to deal with the stress of finding 10 caches in a single day, so let's ban time-limited challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. Some geocachers don't want the hassle of remembering which letters they're missing in "alphabetical" challenges, so let's ban challenges that use cache titles, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. As you noted in another thread: Yes, I wrote that and also think there has been a general trend for instant gratification and entitlement such that there is an expectation that every cache should be easy. My point is that instant gratification and entitlement are a long way from challenge caches that are only attainable by a tiny fraction of the geocaching population. Before the moratorium it sometimes seemed like some challenges were created as if it was a contest to see who could create something that excluded as many geocachers as possible. I have no issues with creating caches that are difficult to find, or challenges with criteria that is hard to achieve, but at some point it just looks like an exercise in exclusivity that allows the uber elite to be able to pat themselves on the back for being better than everyone else. I just don't seen the benefit to the game in creating a cache that is more of a novelty (hello ISS cache) than anything else, especially if it involves changes to the guidelines. I will also note that there are 10's if not 100's of challenge caches which pre-exist the moratorium and new rules, some of them extremely difficult. For example, there's a "Find a cache 1000 days in a row" challenge in Sweden that was placed before the moratorium. With the guideline change, no *new* cache a day streaks more than 365 day are allowed. If you're going to argue that GS should allow new challenges which are only attainable by a tiny fraction of the geocaching population, then it seems to me that the existence of a challenge that might require traveling thousands of miles to find the container would provided a very difficult challenge as well. Do we really need a "Find a cache 1004 days in a row" challenge in every city? For those that want to do extremely difficult challenge caches, there are plenty of them already available and the travel involved to get to them can be considered part of the challenge.

Not a lurker ... trying not to be one? Fairly new to forums though and same as CheekyBrit, I search out my Qs to avoid repetition! Fam and I are in Ontario, Canada and love to get out and explore new areas. We have two littles in tow, so often go after easier/traditional caches because they hold their attention more. Goals include: - 365 challenge - Getting the EarthCache badges - Finding a cache in every province and state (and beyond) - Learn how to fully utilize my GPS beyond the beginner basics - Meet more cachers!

Filling a finds by Date Placed year grid to 366 is different than a 365 day streak that can't be 366. You could theoretically fill the Date Placed year grid in one day, or ten years; the limit is just for streak challenges. In a way I can understand the exclusion of Feb 29th, although there's nothing saying a 366 day streak requires Feb 29th. The difference between 365 and 366 really is, well, just one day, any day, so that streak limit feels a little arbitrary. Oh I agree, just gave that as a counter example As for countries, I only have 2, and will probably only have 2 for years. Unless I can get up to Newfoundland and hop over the water to get a cache in St Pierre Miquelon So all those country challenges of at least 3, or distance challenges of say 5000+ kms between two caches - out of reach for me, but I wouldn't consider that a loss. I consider those challenges a bonus reward for those who do have that achievement. Don't gotta find ev'ry cache!

Perhaps it's simply a miscommunication between the CO and the reviewer, but there's a challenge cache in the United Kingdom (GC6M9BN) where the owner claims they're not allowed to require geocachers to completely fill in their "Finds for Each Day of the Year" calendars (Feb. 29 must be allowed to remain empty). I understand that streak challenges are limited to 365 days, but this is the first I've heard about limiting the Finds calendar to 365 days. Interestingly, that same challenge is allowed to require geocachers to completely fill in their "Finds by Hidden Date" calendars (including Feb. 29).

I'm the reviewers would disagree with your claims to lack of "common sense", and almost certainly Groundspeak is on the reviewers' side. I agree with you in sentiment, but I won't throw around claims to "common sense". "Common sense" in this case is determining what is reasonable. I may disagree with what they decide is "reasonable", not that they are not using "common sense". Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting Ontario reviewers lack common sense (I didn't say that's what you said, but ok). I'm saying they seem to favor (according to you) the automation of a challenge checker to determine "attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" and pass on the opportunity to apply their common sense (which I'm sure they have in abundance) to make that judgment call. Thus Ontario reviewers are unlikely to approve the kinds of challenges (like the "month of Unknowns") that obviously can be accomplished by a "reasonable number of cachers" but likely will have few pre-qualified geocachers in the area. Citing myself again, I don't know if reviewers will or won't publish that specific example; I'm citing an explanation that would be logically deduced from their interpretation of the guidelines. Would they consider it reasonable in Ontario? I don't know - we haven't seen one published or denied yet. I would certainly hope they see it as reasonable, but I can see that potential drawback one may use as reason for denial - holding off finding Unknowns in order to qualify. I don't know what you mean by "automated challenge checkers". This is the first comment you've referred to that. Challenge checkers are automated. Click. Checked. Also, I don't get your first sentence. They are using their common sense, that is, based on their knowledge of the geocaching landscape in Ontario, based on discussions amongst themselves, based on evidence and defense presented in favour of publishing the cache, they make a judgement call. They use common sense when making judgements. They just don't necessarily agree with us about what is "reasonable". I don't want to throw around "common sense" because that term is heavily abused an one-sided often by people who disagree with an authority. It doesn't helpt he argument. Rather, we may disagree with their judgement reasoning. Why would changes to other guidelines affect how the unchanged "positive" guideline is interpreted? Nothing is impossible, but I'd be happy to accept your wager that my "A Month of Unknowns Challenge" wouldn't be published post-moratorium. I like my odds. If you submit one, I hope it does get published. If it does, then we will know that it is considered reasonable by the Ontario reviewers. Until then, it's pointless arguing who is "right", because there is no test case result to analyze. I'm merely stating that I can see reasoning as to why a reviewer could interpret the guidelines, using their common sense, to deny the listing, if they felt the task was not "reasonable" in their region. If a challenge doesn't explicitly break a requirement, then the subjective guidelines come into play. A month of Unknowns doesn't break a requirement (eg, the streak is not more than 365 days), but it falls into the subjective judgement area (eg, as it can discourage finding Unknowns in order to qualify, but since filters aren't explicitly denied for a streak, are there enough in the region that this isn't an issue? Is it attainable by a reasonable number of cachers, 10 in Ontario? etc) It's like the difference between letter of the law and spirit of the law. 365 day streak max is the letter - a cache will be denied if it breaks that rule. "Reasonably attainable" is the spirit of the law, and is only judged by the reviewer(team). If a cache can be argued to conflict with the spirit of the law on one point, it may still be considered "reasonable". If it conflicts with the spirit of the law on multiple points, it may not be considered "reasonable". I've simply explained aspects of the "Month of Unknowns" concept that are in conflict with the spirit of the law - and so a reviewer in the region may not consider it reasonable. Or they may. If they do, great. So, let's get some examples either way! Did you save the email where the reviewer spelled out that reason? You seem to have an odd way of interpreting the "positive" guideline, so I'm not sure you were denied publication for the reason you believe. Literally hundreds of streak challenges have been published, even though they can cause geocachers to change their "regular caching habits." I can't imagine you were denied because of that reason; there probably is more to this story than we know. Nope. Because it was years ago. And my challenge was not like a standard streak challenge. My challenge was published because I made a number of changes, one of them was to make it reasonably attainable. Both in that I would qualify myself, and that the reviewer(s) felt it was reasonable. At that time, I wasn't asked for a list of pre-qualifiers. It was entirely judgement. And I explicitly recall being given the example of a cacher choosing to find a cache, then remembering that if they found it, they wouldn't qualify for a challenge, or couldn't use it for a challenge, so if they felt compelled to skip it when they otherwise would, because of a challenge, then the challenge would not be approved. That was a reviewer's judgement. I recall that expicitly because I I was highly frustrated by it. Correction: I did take my challenge to appeals (I found an appeals email after the initial review), and I have one reviewer note on record. Context: Primary denial reason was based on the initial concept of consecutive finds (logs) of a specific cache criteria (a direct context for restricting caching in order to qualify). Secondary was how reasonable the tasks were (by extension, rare criteria meant that one would have to restrict their caching habits in order to attempt to qualify). It's the Ironman Bingo Challenge, which underwent a number of changes to be publishable (barely; that is, judged sufficient, 'reasonable') as is. Denials: 1. Restricts caching (in this context, consecutive finds; elsewhere, example given by restricting regular 'caching habits') 2. Severly limits number of cachers (reasonable number of cachers) Side note: I just completed a challenge that requires 100 consecutive non-traditional find logs in order to qualify (published Feb 22, 2012; 2 weeks before my bingo challenge). I was extremely surprised to see that one was published when I noticed it a while back. I'm confident that was either an exception, or a misjudgement. But I completed it. I have no complaints about the challenge (other than, as above, it caused me to be compelled not to find Traditionals for the extent of the challenge). Pretty confident it would not be published now. But it was then. Despite reasoning given me from appeals and reviewers that conflict with the concept (with a 2 week window to have otherwise grandfathered that challenge and denied mine).

As I haven't yet addressed the previous request for an update, I'll attempt to address everything to this point... Some people think that because it's not extraodrinary to them that it's it's fundamentally unimportant to anyone. Is the cache itself extraordinary in the grand scheme of things? No. Has it ever been described as extraordinary? YMMV. But let's examine this for argument's sake... The closest 5/5 365 challenge cache is 500 miles away in Missouri. The next closest 5/5 365 challenge cache is in Southern England. The next closest 5/5 365 challenge cache is in Switzerland. The next closest ... uh, actually there's no more that I could find. I've now created a bookmark list of cache-a-day challenges. It contains 29 listings worldwide. One archived. Extraordinary? Perhaps not. Rare? You'd better believe it. Simple resolution? Most definitely. My personal crusade: Is it important for me? Absolutely. This cache was ~7.5km from my home. A bike ride. And archived halfway through my year's progress. Would I sign a different cache-a-day challenge? Why not. I'd be most appreciative if another 5/5 365 challenge cache is published within biking distance if this one is not unarchived. Would I still like this one unarchived? Absolutely. It's a simple request with no logical reason for flat out denial, with a history of previous finders with whom I'd love to be listed along-side. Things move slowly, if at all. Please don't ask me for updates - if and when there is one, I'll update. Or for that matter, anyone else can, of course. At this point, I don't expect anything further to happen. It's clear from another recent thread which, in my opinion, had even more merit against a reviewer interpretation of guidelines but was shut down and locked by Keystone, that this is a losing battle (even though a 5 year old archived cache was unarchived and adopted, and still active today). So, regardless of how many may agree or disagree with this push for GC280PA unarchival and adoption, it is, to be realistic, a futile fight. I personally never believed otherwise. It's frustrating and upsetting, but that's the way things work around here for paying customers, as evidenced by other legitimate guideline debates, though TPTB can and will never admit it. Ultimately, this is Groundspeak's baby, and they set the rules. Not everyone can be pleased. But you'd think that solid debates and concerns would be addressed. But anyway. If any appeal goes through or there's any official update, please post here, as I too will if I have any. Otherwise, there's not much else to say (which would be productive, at least).

Interesting point. You're aware of a high number of caches which suit most of the cachers you know ( I assume you mean cachers rather than caches) and yet you view that type of cache as harmful to the game. How? (Not that I disagree) yes I meant " most cachers". No thought put into 99.9 percent of them. like someone else said. A lot are hidden just so they can have a certain name so a buddy can complete a challenge. If ya get a bunch of throw downs placed for you does this really make the person feel good about completing that challenge? Did you complete the challenge in the way it was intended? Just like a cacher asked me if they could log my 365 consecutive day of finding a cache. My response was " Did you find a cache every single day?" Knowing they had changed dates and doctored logs all the time. There response was "No, but I have over 365 consecutive days of logging caches. I just use challenge caches to fill in days when I don't feel like going out and getting one". Then they told me" this how I play the game, and that is how you play the game". I kinda see there point. A lot of people have all kinds of opionons and mine is just one.

The Julian calendar began in 45 BC (709 AUC) as a reform of the Roman calendar by Julius Caesar. It was chosen after consultation with the astronomer Sosigenes of Alexandria and was probably designed to approximate the tropical year (known at least since Hipparchus). The Julian calendar has a regular year of 365 days divided into 12 months with a leap day added to February every four years. The Julian year is, therefore, on average 365.25 days long. The motivation for most calendars is to fix the number of days between return of the cycle of seasons (from Spring equinox to the next Spring equinox, for example), so that the calendar could be used as an aid to planting and other season-related activities. The cycle of seasons (tropical year) had been known since ancient times to be about 365 and 1/4 days long. The more modern Gregorian calendar eventually superseded the Julian calendar: the reason is that a tropical year (or solar year) is actually about 11 minutes shorter than 365.25 days. These extra 11 minutes per year in the Julian calendar caused it to gain about three days every four centuries, when compared to the observed equinox times and the seasons. In the Gregorian calendar system, first proposed in the 16th century, this problem was dealt with by dropping some calendar days, in order to realign the calendar and the equinox times. Subsequently, the Gregorian calendar drops three leap year days across every four centuries. The Julian calendar is still used by the Berber people of North Africa, and on Mount Athos. Mount Athos is a mountain and peninsula in Macedonia, Greece. A World Heritage Site, it is home to 20 Eastern Orthodox monasteries and forms a self-governed monastic state within the sovereignty of the Hellenic Republic. Spiritually, Mount Athos comes under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Today Greeks commonly refer to Mount Athos as the "Holy Mountain" Someone else can ask the next question

Lasst euch nicht einreden, so wie ihr die „Challenge“ formuliert habt, beschreibt ihr euch auf keinen Fall. Ihr wollt jeden Tag eine Dose loggen, nirgendwo habt Ihr geschrieben, dass er jeden Tag eine Dose suchen und finden wollt. Nur zu, hab Spaß daran und fühlt euch gut! Solange ihr dann später nicht behauptet, dass ihr an jedem Tag 365 Tage im Jahr einen Cache gefunden habt, habe ich da überhaupt keine Probleme mit.

Jo, bescheiß dich ruhig selber. Kannst auch einfach bei 365 schon gefundenen nachträglich das Datum ändern. Macht weniger Arbeit und kommt aufs gleiche raus. Viel Spaß Irgendwie hab ich den leisen Eindruck das hier nur jemand derbe Reaktionen provozieren mag

Błędu nie widzę... Jeśli gość ma faktycznie ciągłość przez 14 lat, to ma diamenta z dziewiątką, bo wyższych stopni już nie ma. Błąd jest na pewno, ale nie łapię idei tego badża w wersji z pętlami, więc trudno mi osądzić jaki. 1) Specyfikacja Badgegen mówi tyle: Różnych dni kalendarzowych jest 366. Nie ma więcej i już. Dlaczego zatem Project-GC w ogóle tego badża pętli? Ja w swoich statystykach mam 365/366 i uznaję to za prawidłowe - brakuje mi znalezienia 29.II, a to, że mam dłuższą ciągłość, w niektóre dni mam więcej znalezień / znalezienia w różnych latach nie powinno mieć (i w moim przypadku nie ma) żadnego wpływu na wartość badża. 2) Dlaczego maksymalna wartość pętli to 9? Faktycznie tak jest i dotyczy to też innych badży. Ale - po pierwsze nie ma to żadnego logicznego wytłumaczenia, po drugie nie jest nigdzie wyjaśnione (przynajmniej nie w miejscach intuicyjnych) ani na stronie Project-GC ani na Badgegen. 3) Osoby, które mają znalezienia we wszystkie 366 dni w roku mają często diamenta zwielokrotnionego. Ale na jakiej zasadzie? To też nie jest nigdzie wyjaśnione. Z analizy wyników oraz statystyk kolegi/kolezanki otasparta wynika, że chodzi o liczbę keszy znalezionych każdego dnia kalendarzowego. Faktycznie: 5123 / 366 = 13.99. Jeżeli spojrzymy na kalendarz znalezień otasparta, wszystko się wyjaśnia. Keszer ów ma tylko jeden dzień w kalendarzu z 13 znalezieniami. Każdego z pozostałych 365 dni znalazł co najmniej 14 keszy. Tak samo są liczone pętle badża dla matriska D/T. A 9 w kółku pojawia się dlatego, że dla Projekt-GC jest to maksymalna wartość badża jaką można osiągnąć. Ufff.... zrozumiałem w trakcie pisania tego wywodu. Nie ma błędu w obliczeniach, ani w synchronizacji bazy danych. Błędem są niedostatki w dokumentacji oraz mylący komunikat. Bo trudno uznać by zapis: odzwierciedlał fakt, że chodzi o znalezienie w 366 różnych dni kalendarzowych, co najmniej 9 znalezień każdego dnia.

I have a theory that might explain part of this: If a number of cachers only cache at a specific time of the year (for example during a yearly holiday), then this sort of phenomenon will show up in the numbers. (Although I described it as career length yesterday, it is important to realize that the numbers include all currently active cachers as well. So not all of them have actually stopped.) A fixed yearly caching spree is the only mechanism I can think of that will force a cacher's first and last finds to be at discrete intervals. I still can't explain why it is not 365 days. Maybe it is just noise in the data (although the peaks appear to be quite clear).

Hahahaha! thanks for the laugh this A.M. We neither of us have smart phones. Have stupid ones for emergencies. One of us used to work for the Bell System (remember that? AT&T before it became AT&T oh, so many light years ago), and worked in the international division. Think 'tethered to a land line 27/7/365' for decades. Working holidays, working crazy hours. No real interest in having anything that resembles that scenario again! And remember the techn-saur bit? That's us. No TV, either. Though yes, a computer. You have all be so! helpful and welcoming. We appreciate it. Going to try to create a new folder and move current caches to old one. Am sure we'll have a zillion more questions.

I maintain a series of bookmark lists for Lonely Caches in Florida. For those unfamiliar, a Lonely Cache has zero Found logs during the past year (365 days). To keep things simple for myself, I update the lists at the end of the year. So the update I'm doing right now will feature all Florida caches not found during calendar year 2018. Updating the list requires a time consuming process outlined here. Short version: use the old search to bring up all caches within the state, sort by Last Found, then download lots of LOCs (updated in GSAK). To make matters more difficult, geocaching.com now has reCaptcha meaning that I keep having to prove to the website that I am not a bot as I download hundreds of caches thus slowing down an already slow process. It's rather unfortunate that I'm trying to do a good deed for the geocaching community and now I have extra hurdles in the way. Pocket Queries are not an alternative as they only allow for querying via Placed Date, not Found Date. Also, keep in mind there are over 41,000 active cache listings in Florida. Does anyone have a suggestion on a better way I might go about doing this? Something through Project-GC or a similiar site using the API?

Following up on NYPaddleCacher's post, I agree that there two styles of play. However, a cacher may be one style today, and another tomorrow. It has to do with why they are going geocaching today. When I'm with the grandkids, I want to find large containers with good swag. If I am doing a reward trail, I want great containers, great locations, and well maintained caches. If I am trying for a challenge like the 365/366 day challenge, pretty much any cache will do. Searching for caches to complete a Jasmer challenge is another kind of search. If I am traveling across the country, I may seek out Virtual and Earthcaches. In other words, what is a quality cache candidate to me could change daily, or even hourly. Each reason has specific search criteria, some easier to do than others. I would like to see GS make finding relevant caches easier. Most of these searches are straight-forward, the problem is more with the data I am searching, with the biggest issue being inconsistent application of attributes. I would like to see crowd-sourced attributes. Allow for attribute corrections to be 'suggested' by loggers. If enough people suggest that the cache description should have the 'restroom nearby' attribute, then it would be added to the cache description. It should also work for removing attributes. A few new attributes would be useful, such as a power trail attribute. There are also some that could probably be eliminated.

Bissle inkonsequent, oder . Wer paranoid ist, dürfte dann konsequenter weise auch nicht loggen! Das lassen sich ja prima Bewegungsprofile erstellen... Grundsätzlich finde ich meine Statistik, und die meiner Caches, sehr interessant. Vor allem die Ausführliche von Project-GC. Aber weder die 81er Matrix oder 365 Tage Statistik interessieren mich. Gruß, Daniel

I think we all agree that the "Challenge" in the title "solution" is a hack. The observation is that it is a solution, not that it's a better solution than a new type. I'm not sure I'd call it "resistance". What I see are people discussing the various problems with implementing it because it's a change. I don't see anyone arguing that it wouldn't have been the correct solution if GS had thought of it from the start. You got a response that talked about other challenges, but I've always assumed that if they added a challenge type, it would be a subtype of the existing unknown cache type, so I can't imagine that it would change a challenge cache from being an unknown type to some other type. And even if it did change the base type, while that would cause some annoying glitches in meeting some challenge requirements, I don't think it's enough of a problem to worry about. If a CO isn't sympathetic to that problem, I'd be more worried about that CO's attitude than the fact that someone somewhere couldn't claim a find on a 365 day mystery cache challenge. The more likely problem is that the new type causes some GPSrs to crash or fail in other ways that make the new type interfere with people's geocaching. I'm particularly sympathetic to that concern since my GPSr's software hasn't been maintained for years, so if anyone would have an unavoidable, unfixable problem with a new attribute, it would be me. But it turns out I'm not really worried about it. If someone seriously started saying there'd be a new type, I might fake a text .GPX file just to see what happens, but I'm kinda hoping GS would do that first. But in the end, if I found a problem with my GPSr, I wouldn't necessarily think that one problem would be enough to reject the idea. My guess is that the only issues will be in map icons, since a new type would not have a defined icon. I kinda suspect a new cache type would result in the cache not being displayed on the map because it would not have an icon to map it to. If that's what happens, that means that Challenge Caches which I can now see on the map wouldn't show up anymore. So that would be a negative, at least for me, since I do want to find challenge caches. Other people might consider than an advantage. ? I actually don't have any idea whether they'd change existing types. It's true that there's no precedence, but I also don't think there's been a similar situation. But never mind that: let's assume it's true that they wouldn't change old cache types, that just leads to the other part of the argument against a new type: if it doesn't include challenge caches that already exist, what's the point? It's the challenge caches that already exist that people want to filter out. If only new challenge caches are given this new type, it's almost not worth the effort since it would take years before we could filter out a significant fraction of challenge caches by type.

It would invalidate some challenges one have already qualified. For example 365 day mystery cache streak.