Search the Community

Based on the average length of a Nautical Mile by International agreement: 1 Degree = 364,566.9291 feet, so round that to 365,000 feet. .00001 Degrees then = 3.65 feet. 1 Minute = 6,076.115486 feet, so round that to 6,000 feet. .001 Minutes then = 6 feet. 1 Second = 101.2685914 feet, so round that to 100 feet. .1 Second then = 10 feet. You indicate you have a dd.ddd option. If that is correct, that isn't good enough. You need dd.ddddd That is 5 decimal points needed in Decimal Degrees instead of only 3 decimal points in Decimal Degrees. If your app will actually give you 5 decimal points of Decimal Degrees accuracy, that is good no matter what they call it in the app. The mm.mmm option is good. That is the Geocaching standard. When Keystone says that an "out of the box" iPhone in degrees, minutes and seconds is an insufficient level of precision, that must mean it is only capable of ss.s At ss.ss it would have more precision than either dd.ddddd or mm.mmm Explaining to someone that 6 foot precision is the desired Geocaching standard, while 10 feet is insufficient precision could be a bit of a hard sell. So we usually don't explain it. We just say don't do it. I know why mm.mmm is the Geocaching standard. dd.ddddd would have been a much better standard at 3.65 foot precision, and one nice clean number. To late to "fix" that, but you can still collect coordinates as dd.ddddd - but they must still get published accurately on the cache page as mm.mmm Good Luck with your hide.

Suppose you found 365 caches in one day and waited to log them one on each day for a year so you could have a "streak?" Suppose I log a multi cache that I find next weekend as though I found it last weekend and a cache with 10 FP that I also find next weekend as though I found it on July 30 or 31? They're all lies.

Off-topic, but CO emails is why I haven't done a PMO since '09 (though the other 2/3rds did a couple of/with friends). Got tired of emails from micro-managing, anal-retentive cos from out of my area asking when I'm finally gonna hit it, when I simply look at it more than once. One accusing me of theft (turns out it was muggled) was the clincher. Said something on a local site about it, a local CO thought I was speaking of them ... and everything kinda went downhill real quick. Even though it's easy to skip that audit today, easier on me to not do them at all. So bringing it back on topic, I guess we need to expand/revise type III or add a category for highly selective cachers (individual criteria may vary). That's my category. I am (currently) a highly selective cacher. I once drove 1600 miles (round trip) for a single cache (Potter's Pond) to fill in Aug 2000. I did pick up about a dozen other caches on the trip, but they were spur of the moment caches. I'm highly selective based upon personal goals. Jasmer, Well-travelled, 306 degrees, GeoTours, Placed Date, 365/366 days, and other personal goals.

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:

Groundspeak seems intent on keeping streak challenges as vanilla as possible: no longer than 365 days, no more than one find per day, and no restrictions on cache types. I wonder if Groundspeak would publish the following challenge or if it would cause yet another "loophole" to be closed: Challenge: Find at least one cache per day for nine consecutive days, where a different difficulty rating is represented on each of those nine days. For example: Aug. 1 - D2.0 Aug. 2 - D1.5 Aug. 3 - D3.5 Aug. 4 - D1.0 Aug. 5 - D5.0 Aug. 6 - D4.5 Aug. 7 - D3.0 Aug. 8 - D2.5 Aug. 9 - D4.0

I think the challenge cache guidelines definitely are pushing in the direction of easier challenges. A few years ago, the brakes were applied with the adoption of a guideline that all challenges must be attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. The most recent guideline changes state that even that isn't easy enough in certain cases. Even if a reasonable number of geocachers could attain a streak longer than a year, Groundspeak deemed that challenging geocachers to do this is too hard. Streak challenges are now capped at 365 days...and one find per day...with no restrictions on the types of caches. Is finding 10 caches in a single week too much of a strain? It's not a problem any longer. Challenge caches can no longer be time limited. Even if a reasonable number of geocachers have completely filled their "Finds for Each Day of the Year" calendars, Groundspeak seems to believe that requiring a find for Feb. 29 is too hard since some geocachers might need up to four years to qualify for such a challenge. There appears to be a new hidden guideline that forbids challenge caches from requiring a find on a Leap Day. Don't want to solve a puzzle to determine a challenge cache's final coordinates? Let's require all challenge caches to be at their posted coordinates (or as a visible additional waypoint). Even if lots of geocachers already have found 10 percent of the virtual caches in your state/province/region, don't even think about creating a new challenge cache that has such a requirement. Some people don't want to make the effort needed to verify that they have completed a challenge cache. All new challenge caches must be accompanied by an automated challenge checker, so you can simply click your mouse to determine if you qualify. Even with those easy checkers, is it still too much bookkeeping for you to remember which letters you need in order to find cache titles that begin with every letter of the alphabet? Let's get rid of any challenge caches that are based on cache titles (or cache owners, GC Codes, publishing Reviewers, or listing text). GS's desire to make all challenges less challenging has successfully squelched the Bi-Polar Challenge too. All criteria were met, except there were only 6 locals cachers that I could find who already completed the challenge and GS requested that I find 10. I may resort to Plan B and publish two Polar Challenges. What do you all think?

From another thread: I think the challenge cache guidelines definitely are pushing in the direction of easier challenges. A few years ago, the brakes were applied with the adoption of a guideline that all challenges must be attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. The most recent guideline changes state that even that isn't easy enough in certain cases. Even if a reasonable number of geocachers could attain a streak longer than a year, Groundspeak deemed that challenging geocachers to do this is too hard. Streak challenges are now capped at 365 days...and one find per day...with no restrictions on the types of caches. Is finding 10 caches in a single week too much of a strain? It's not a problem any longer. Challenge caches can no longer be time limited. Even if a reasonable number of geocachers have completely filled their "Finds for Each Day of the Year" calendars, Groundspeak seems to believe that requiring a find for Feb. 29 is too hard since some geocachers might need up to four years to qualify for such a challenge. There appears to be a new hidden guideline that forbids challenge caches from requiring a find on a Leap Day. Don't want to solve a puzzle to determine a challenge cache's final coordinates? Let's require all challenge caches to be at their posted coordinates (or as a visible additional waypoint). Even if lots of geocachers already have found 10 percent of the virtual caches in your state/province/region, don't even think about creating a new challenge cache that has such a requirement. Some people don't want to make the effort needed to verify that they have completed a challenge cache. All new challenge caches must be accompanied by an automated challenge checker, so you can simply click your mouse to determine if you qualify. Even with those easy checkers, is it still too much bookkeeping for you to remember which letters you need in order to find cache titles that begin with every letter of the alphabet? Let's get rid of any challenge caches that are based on cache titles (or cache owners, GC Codes, publishing Reviewers, or listing text).

Why? You might not want to find an Antarctica cache, but a reasonable number of other geocachers already might have enjoyed doing this or might enjoy setting such a goal. Why deprive them of this potential source of happiness? I suspect this kind of attitude had a big effect on the challenge cache guideline changes. Some people complained about spelling challenges, so Groundspeak eliminated them. Others complained about the effort they expended to prove they had met certain challenges, so Groundspeak now requires challenge checkers. Streaking geocachers complained about long streak challenges, so Groundspeak imposed a 365-day limit on them. Nobody is holding a gun to the head of any of these folks. Nobody is forcing them to complete challenges they don't enjoy. There are plenty of challenge caches that I simply choose to ignore. No big deal.

I have a friend who placed a "Finds for each day of the year" cache before the new guidelines - in 2014 (also in the UK), and he was told it could only be 365, not 366. GC4X2BJ I don't think there was a communication issue in this case. Whether that was just one reviewers opinion or consistent across the UK I can't say. I did this at the end of 2013 - and there's a live checker for it - https://coord.info/GC4VT4X

I have a friend who placed a "Finds for each day of the year" cache before the new guidelines - in 2014 (also in the UK), and he was told it could only be 365, not 366. GC4X2BJ I don't think there was a communication issue in this case. Whether that was just one reviewers opinion or consistent across the UK I can't say.

Probably a bad example to use, but based on the new challenge rules regarding time limits, that Wherigo challenge wouldn't be allowed anyway, since 10 days is a hard time limit. An idea I had for a challenge cache, a 7x7 (7 different cache types from 7 different GC code time periods in a single day, i.e. GC..., GC1..., GC2....) would also not be allowed, as it is based on a time limit and GC codes, both of which are no longer allowed for challenges. The essential difference is that Keystone's Wherigo example is a "streak" challenge, which is acceptable under the new guidelines: "Maintaining a finds streak, at least one find per day, up to 365 days". Not acceptable: "Time-limited caching: as in some number of finds per day, week, month, or year. Example, Busy Day, 50 finds in a day, 500 finds in a month, etc."

There's a 10th outlier in Oregon. Month of Mystery Challenge (PMO), Austria, published on February 15, 2015. Only the FTF (top finder in Austria) claimed 'it just so happened we meet the criteria', but everyone else had at least partly to work on it, the cache now has 126 Found it. This cache inspired people to keep on streaking. Most dropped doing at least one Unknown cache per day more or less soon (the very next day or up to 123 days). Not because there are no more (solved) Unknowns, but because it wasn't fun any more. And then switched to 'find at least one cache per day' (some interpret 'log one cache per day' is the subject of streak challenges) and kept this over one year and I know some went over to streaks like '31 days of Multi-caches' (which is far more challenging in my area). There are 6 cachers alone in my city that have/had (mixed) streaks going over more than 1000 days and around 40 over one year. But if I would come up with a challenge '365 days streak of physical caches' (that is without events, earthcaches, virtuals and lab caches) I'm not convinced that too many would qualify without some work because there are only a few that had sort of stricter rules for themselves like 'one cache per day where a real existing an present cache has to be found and writing nick and date on the log is possible' (events are not really finds, but quite a large number of events helped people outlast unpleasant winter conditions and that there are only few new caches in winter, earthcaches can't be 'found' but can be logged whenever convenient, logpermissions on missing caches on a date where you need it etc.) I suppose it wouldn't be easy to find 10 locals fulfilling the criteria without anouncing the challenge, only using the challenge-checker before publication. Well, it might be that a few days after publication this certainly would be easy, when some well-known geocachers are finished with 'adapting' their statistics. If the challenge owner has to have fulfilled the challenge before publish, are then only cachers allowed to adopt a challenge cache if they also fulfill the challenge (before adopting) or is this rule only for the first owner?

Over the course of this discussion I have come to see that my optimism was unfounded. It's a very disappointing thread. In what sense do you regard the thread as disappointing? In my opinion it just reflects the fact that new guidelines raise more questions than they answer. I also wonder what kind of challenges you have in mind when you write "truly promote and inspire geocaching". Find at least one traditional caches with the significant hiking attribute at an elevation of at least 2000m (just an example - can depend on the region) on at least x days (not x consecutive days) [x will again depend on the region] e.g. seems to be a challenge cache fitting your statement but it will not be published while a 365 streak challenge will be published but does not seem to promote and inspire geocaching.

Excellent examples. Find count was one swimming through my head. Or fizzy grids. 100 DT grids... 5 caches a day for 365 days... challenges of that sort.

I'm saying it's very likely that today a reviewer will pick up on that. Ontario reviewers are very sneaky and observant. I'm glad reviewers will pick up on that important feature today, just as reviewers have been picking up on it for years. It's the reason why the "month of Unknowns" challenge doesn't violate the "positive" guideline. Being observant probably helps Ontario reviewers realize this, but I'm not sure what being sneaky has to do with anything being discussed here. Why shouldn't they allow 30-day Unknowns, just as they have in the past? Nothing has changed about the "positive" guideline, and the new cap on streaks still allows for 365-day streaks (which is more than enough to cover 30-day streaks). I completely agree. But I know that if an Ontario reviewer understands this point, they won't publish it unless of course you can convince them otherwise (because you know, exceptions and stuff) Can you provide any examples where an Ontario reviewer refused to publish a streak challenge simply because failing it made it harder to succeed on the next attempt? Did it go to appeals? I've never heard of such a case, which seems way beyond the normal amount of discretion ordinarily given to reviewers. Yes, I'm wondering why the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline exists at all. So far, nobody seems to have provided a rational reason to support that guideline, whose subjective nature causes problems for Groundspeak's Volunteer Reviewers and Appeals group (and imposes a double standard on Challenge caches). They've explained - people in the past have attempted to publish either ridiculously complex challenges to understand, or challenges that show off experience and are so high in requirements that few may ever qualify, etc etc (appeal to and be reasonably attainable by); these fall into the majority of appeals they had to deal with related to challenge caching. Those have all played into "reasonably attainable", and are interpreted as a relative standard from region to region. If Groundspeak dropped the "reasonably attainable" guideline, then there would be no "relative standard" to be "played into" nor any appeals to be made about the application of that guideline. That's one of the reasons I cited above when I suggested that Groundspeak drop that guideline. Your reasoning re-enforces my argument. The "ridiculously complex challenges to understand" violate the guideline that states: "challenge requirements should be simple, and easy to explain, follow and document." As with all subjective guidelines, some challenges that you consider to be "ridiculously complex" will get published, either because the reviewer's opinion differs from yours or the reviewer made a mistake (as humans sometimes do). This seems to be an argument in favor of reducing the number of subjective guidelines when feasible, which again supports my suggestion to drop the subjective "reasonably attainable" guideline. As for "show off" challenges, there also are Non-Challenges out there that demonstrate exceptional SCUBA, hiking, climbing, and boating skills. Groundspeak doesn't have a guideline against showing off. Ignore them, if they don't suit your tastes.

Yes, exactly, it's not stated. Which means reviewers may judge whether the additional criteria is "reasonable". I'm saying it's not "above and beyond", it's them interpreting it, as they've been instructed and allowed to do. If they are doing so incorrectly, they would have been very quickly informed to stop. Which is also why the guideline confirms that we may be "asked to produce a list of qualifying cachers" without stating how many. Ontario reviewers are doing exactly as they've been instructed. That's a wager you'd likely lose. A "month of Unknowns" challenge (or one of its cousins) has been published in Alberta, California, Minnesota, Minnesota, Missouri, and Ohio. And I'm sure I could find more if I really studied some challenge bookmark lists. All pre-moratorium. Would they have been published pre? Most likely yes. Would they be published now? Probably not. Depends on what criteria they deny it, if they deny it. As I said, haven't seen an example of arguably subjective reviewer judgement yet. My point was that it probably wouldn't, and not because it's not "reasably attainable" but because of the issue of "positive" geocaching goals; plus their leeway for subjectivity. That won't change my opinion until there's an example of a challenge like this that's either published or denied, post-moratorium. Even then, one region may differ from another. Actually it has, and I know that first hand. But again, no precedent. And judgement differs region to region. Trust me. I tried to reason out of it the same way - it can "encourage" finding elsewhere, rather than "discourage" finding that makes qualifying harder. I'm saying it's very likely that today a reviewer will pick up on that. Ontario reviewers are very sneaky and observant. IMO, I believe Groundspeak knows the popularity of streak challenges which is why they've allowed 365 find-streaks (without clarifying additional critera). Will there be reviewers who allow 30-day Unknowns? Maybe, maybe not. Let's see which reviewers do/do not and in which regions. Then we'll know. I completely agree. But I know that if an Ontario reviewer understands this point, they won't publish it unless of course you can convince them otherwise (because you know, exceptions and stuff) Yes, I'm wondering why the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline exists at all. So far, nobody seems to have provided a rational reason to support that guideline, whose subjective nature causes problems for Groundspeak's Volunteer Reviewers and Appeals group (and imposes a double standard on Challenge caches). They've explained - people in the past have attempted to publish either ridiculously complex challenges to understand, or challenges that show off experience and are so high in requirements that few may ever qualify, etc etc (appeal to and be reasonably attainable by); these fall into the majority of appeals they had to deal with related to challenge caching. Those have all played into "reasonably attainable", and are interpreted as a relative standard from region to region.

Sure. In that case, I'd wager the cache wouldn't be published, because it's not a completely "positive" geocaching goal. Cachers may be encouraged to not find unknowns, so they can save it for the month of the challenge. Additionally, if they fail the streak, they cannot use those finds over again in another month. For those reasons, it's unlikely that any reviewers will consider it publishable, now. Perhaps there may be a reviewer or few who could be outliers by making an exception. But in Ontario at least, it most likely wouldn't be publishable. Not because it's not "reasonably attainable", but because it breaks a different guideline. The new guidelines specifically allows for streaks, as long as they are not required to be more than 365 days long. I don't see why this should be a problematic requirement although of course more difficult than a normal streak since only mysteries qualify. It's not clear from this whether it is acceptable to add extra critera on top of this, i.e. in this case to replace "one find per day" with "one mystery find per day".

An upcoming GeoTour in Spokane, WA. 360 degree circle challenge Find a cache for every bearing from home. 80 degrees left. Well travelled cacher Find a cache in every 5 mile band from home, out to 500 miles. About a dozen bands left. D/T matrix Not high on my priority list 365/366 days of caching

Under the previous rules, in my area anyway, challenges to fill in 366 days were not allowed, only 365. I assume that will still be the case. I'm not sure if this is documented in the "reviewers rulebook", or just a local interpretation. I think the logic behind it is - if a new cacher were to start now, they would find it frustrating to have to wait 4 years. That's a local rule. There are lots of challenges that require all 366 days. I own one of them.

Firstly, as someone who generally likes challenge caches, I'm glad they are back and the guidelines seem good. For this calendar type Under the previous rules, in my area anyway, challenges to fill in 366 days were not allowed, only 365. I assume that will still be the case. I'm not sure if this is documented in the "reviewers rulebook", or just a local interpretation. I think the logic behind it is - if a new cacher were to start now, they would find it frustrating to have to wait 4 years.

Just to be clear, what type of challenge are you referring to with regard to "streak" challenges? I don't understand how Leap Day relates to "streak" challenges, such as this 100 day streak challenge. I don't think extending a 365 day streak to 366 days makes a significant impact on such challenges. I do see the impact of Leap Day on "calendar" challenges, such as this fill the calendar challenge. These calendar challenges are not affected by the new guidelines. Some of these challenges include Leap Day and some do not, but that's based on the preference of the challenge cache owner and is stated in the challenge cache description. Yeah...making a 366 day streak challenge could mean January 1 through January 1 of the following year...the Leap Day really has nothing to do with streaks. It's only a factor when trying to fill in the calendar, and that doesn't need to require a streak. It's merely the fastest way to accomplish the calendar fill.

Just to be clear, what type of challenge are you referring to with regard to "streak" challenges? I don't understand how Leap Day relates to "streak" challenges, such as this 100 day streak challenge. I don't think extending a 365 day streak to 366 days makes a significant impact on such challenges. I do see the impact of Leap Day on "calendar" challenges, such as this fill the calendar challenge. These calendar challenges are not affected by the new guidelines. Some of these challenges include Leap Day and some do not, but that's based on the preference of the challenge cache owner and is stated in the challenge cache description.

IMO, if you challenge yourself, then meet that challenge, you should feel a sense of accomplishment. If you keep adding new personal goals or challenges, you will continue to get that feeling of accomplishment when you complete them. Don't make competitive goals against other cachers. Don't worry about the other guy. These are your goals, and they need to match what you want, and are capable of. I base this on my own experience. I get a feeling of accomplishment by setting personal geocaching goals, then going out and completing them. Initially, it was just going out and getting caches. Then, I flirted with FTF until I got one, and I'm no longer interested. I started a streak, and gave up after 25 days, because it became a chore. I have now changed to goals that require finding multiple caches. I still get a sense of accomplishment for each cache found that advances me towards my goals. Below is a list of recently completed, and current goals that I have set for myself. Some of these match common challenge cache requirements. I have multiple, active goals, and my goals (except for GeoTours) don't have a time requirement for completion. That helps me to keep geocaching from becoming a chore. Completed GeoTours McKenzie River (Lane County, OR, now retired) Florence (Lane County, OR, now retired) Oakridge/Westfir (Lane County, OR, now retired) Territorial Highway (Lane County, OR, now retired) Spokane History WA State Parks Jasmer Completed D/T Matrix Yeah, maybe I will, not really high on my list 360 degree circle Find a cache at every degree in a circle around your home location. I only have 80 degrees left to find. Well-traveled cacher Find a cache in every 5 mile band from your home location, out to 500 miles. I have completed it out to 320 miles, and I have around a dozen bands left to reach 500 miles. 365/366 days Completed Jan - mid Aug, sporadic Aug - Dec. Different cache types in a day Managed 9 in a day.

I'd go a step further and say there shouldn't be a specific maximum for streak challenges. Groundspeak's justification for capping streak challenges at 365 is: My second question to those experienced cachers would be, "If you didn't like the streak, then why didn't you quit earlier?" If it feels like a chore, then don't do it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to find a cache every day. You shouldn't need Groundspeak to protect you against yourself. My longest caching streak is 113 days; I quit when it became too much of a chore to be worthwhile continuing.

The 365 days number should be 366 days to accommodate leap year. Yes it only happens every 4 years but Geocaching has lasted longer than 4 years.