Quest Caches

February 1, 2007

I have been thinking about this for a few weeks now and have talked to a few people and I think this is the best place to start my thought or campaign. I have started the Washington Delorme Challenge and the Washington County Challenge. We are very excited about the upcoming adventure and journey these two big caches will take us. Here lies the problem they are classified as a traditional cache and they are not. They are not traditional multi caches either. I have been thinking hard about this and noticed that almost every state has a Delorme challenge. Is there a trend nationwide for these large caches? If there is I think we need a new type of cache, a Quest Cache. The Quest cache should be a cache that was physically impossible to complete in one day. You would have to plan your attack of these caches as they would be way to big to just grab your gps and go. Events now have a mega event icon if it is over 500 people why can’t we have a quest cache if is a long journey to the finish. Our whole family will be doing two quests this spring with thousands of miles to travel, hundreds of dollars spent, hundreds of caches found and many many hours spent planning our trips all for a traditional cache it doesn’t seem right. I have earned a Quest icon in my finds list. Icon or no icon this family will be going and completing this quest not for an icon but for an adventure.

2.2k · February 1, 2007

The Quest cache should be a cache that was physically impossible to complete in one day.

How is this different than a high difficulty multi? I think something like this would be better for cache attributes. IMHO

February 1, 2007

First the two caches that I mentioned are not multi caches because the owner only has one waypoint all the caches you must get are someone else’s. Second difficulty and terrain ratings are interrupted values. They have no solid rules only suggested guide lines. I cannot compare a cache like Washington Delorme Challenge GCQQ9B, and Washington County Challenge GCZB73 with a level 5 difficulty cache. The level 5 could be because the owner thinks his puzzle is hard or that he has made a really good container that will be hard to find and I think with a little time you can come up with more reasons that someone would call their cache a level 5. The quest cache would have criteria for being a quest.

quest (kw st)

n. An expedition undertaken in medieval romance by a knight in order to perform a prescribed feat.

I think that caches like WDC fit that definition. They take multiple days, extensive resources, many hours of planning and a thirst for adventure that is above and beyond a normal geocacher(if there is one).

And my opinion for adding it as an attribute is that attributes are not cherished like a find icon or a geocoin icon. When have you ever heard anyone say I have three cache finds that have a tick attribute or a stealth required attribute. These caches are a special part of geocaching that like a mega event not everyone will be able to do but if or when they do it will be something they will remember.

I really like your statement it makes me think more in-depth about this subject. And I think that you do have a valid point and I have reasons to disagree.

2.2k · February 1, 2007

First the two caches that I mentioned are not multi caches because the owner only has one waypoint all the caches you must get are someone else’s.

So the quest cache is a bunch of other caches combined into a single cache? Is it sort of like a cache machine? So you would get a find for each cache in the quest and then some kind of special icon or something when you complete the entire "quest"?

I just started a cache called "Infinity Gauntlet". I believe there are 7 stages, but the journey is several hundred miles. Although there is only one cache at the end with each stage providing coords to the final (typical multi). I understand the difference now.

I'm still a little hesistant to call it a "Cache" though. You aren't really finding a cache, but the "quest" is just a compilation of other people's caches? Unless I'm misunderstanding still.

5.3k · February 1, 2007

So the quest cache is a bunch of other caches combined into a single cache? Is it sort of like a cache machine?

Um, no.

You haven't bothered to actually read the cache pages for any of the Delorme challenges, have you? You might find it useful to do so before opining about them in the forums.

I agree with the OP that they constitute a unique type of cache; whether they should be classified as mystery caches or some new type is a reasonable question. They certainly do not qualify as either traditional or multi caches.

February 1, 2007

Washington Delorme Challenge ... classified as a traditional cache

:wub:

GCQQ9B is correctly labeled as a mystery cache with a difficulty of 5.

I have earned a Quest icon in my finds list.

So it's about the icons... :blink:

February 1, 2007

I agree... it is about the icons. I think the quest idea is a good one. I have thought about putting out a series of caches from one end (bottom) of the state to the other (top), but have given up on the idea because there wouldn't be enough cachers determined enough to go for the one smiley, even if they received smileys for each individual leg of the quest.... Now, if it garnered them a QUEST ICON, I bet they would go for it.

2.8k · February 1, 2007

I have thought about putting out a series of caches from one end (bottom) of the state to the other (top), but have given up on the idea because there wouldn't be enough cachers determined enough to go for the one smiley, even if they received smileys for each individual leg of the quest

I set up the Rhode Island DeLorme Challenge 2 months ago, and have only three finders (two more seem to be working it). And there are only 12 pages to worry about!!

February 1, 2007

If a Quest type cache were to be created, an Icon would work as recognition for your accomplishment, but some criteria would have to be set up to deffently distiguish it from a multi.. some standing multis right now could in some ways be a "quest" so what would you put as a distiguishing factor? I don't know about costs or resources as the factor as many caches require planning, special equipment, ect. I really like your idea but I feel some kind of deciding factor must be in place to make it unique. I was thinking of a series of caches that are around the sport of fishing which would take the cacher who did them all to lakes and my own personal favorite fishing spots along rivers and included things like fishing lures in the caches. This could be a "quest" about fishing or just a multi staged cache. I would like to hear more input on this idea.

9.1k · February 1, 2007

I am the co-owner (under a group account) of a DeLorme Challenge cache, and I'm now working on a different type of Challenge. I like them! I do not, however, believe that "Quest Caches" ought to be a separate cache type. I would submit that the reward is in the completion of a long and difficult and FUN journey, and not in collecting another icon as if it were just this month's latest geocoin.

Also, since every "Quest" by definition requires a waiver of at least one important listing guideline in order to be published, I'd be quite surprised if Groundspeak chose to encourage them by creating a new cache type. They may be willing to allow the DeLorme Challenges as exceptions, but perhaps not the Wal-Mart Challenge, to find at least 100 caches located in Wal-Mart parking lots. The average DeLorme Challenge technically violates three listing guidelines.

My DeLorme Challenge is correctly listed as a 5/4 Mystery/Unknown cache. I am very happy with it and so are the finders. :blink: The smiley is sufficient reward.

1.5k · February 1, 2007

Also, since every "Quest" by definition requires a waiver of at least one important listing guideline in order to be published, I'd be quite surprised if Groundspeak chose to encourage them by creating a new cache type. They may be willing to allow the DeLorme Challenges as exceptions, but perhaps not the Wal-Mart Challenge, to find at least 100 caches located in Wal-Mart parking lots. The average DeLorme Challenge technically violates three listing guidelines.

I see a distinction between Delorme or County challenges and a hypotheical "find 100 guardrail or Walmart caches" challenge. I wouldn't consider the latter to be an appropriate challenge, instead I tend to think of a challenge cache as one that breaks an area/state/region/country into individual sections based on some artificial criteria (delorme atlas pages, or county boundaries) that is independent on whether there is actually a cache hidden within each section. I don't think that mega-multis (such as the series in West Tennessee) fit this description, neither would a state capitol series, since finding the final requires visiting specific caches. That's more of a large cache series than a "challenge".

February 1, 2007

I learn something new every day! I have been to both cache pages a few times or more and for some reason i didn't notice that they were mystery caches. That still doesnt change my mind on the fact that I think they should be a quest cache. I have read all of the posts up to now and since i am on quick break i will try to bring my thoughts about the post into an acutual complete thought and post it tonight.

7.2k · February 2, 2007

I'm wondering how this is different than any other bonus cache.

24.7k · February 2, 2007

I think the idea has merit, but it would need to be polished.

A delomre challenge is one thing but what other general kinds of things could you really do for a quest cache? It's the other things all of which are different but which fit a cache type, that would define a quest cache.

24.7k · February 2, 2007

...So it's about the icons...

For some it is. Call it a quest of a different sort.

February 2, 2007

This log is to clarify my thoughts on the quest cache and to let you see were I am coming from. I did not go to deep into it in my op because I didn’t want it to be to long. This cache type is designed for only about 5% or 10% of the cachers out there. Only the craziest of us all every try or even complete caches like this. Let me break down the two qualifying factors to place these caches.

First the cacher must qualify to even be able to place the cache. I know some people may disagree but stay with me on this one I think I can make a good point for this. Since only the best of the best complete these caches they need to be of the highest quality. How many of us have found a cache out there and thought that the owner didn’t care enough to think it through before they placed it. I know I have. These caches are supposed to be the best of the best. The criteria for a cacher to qualify...

1 Must be a premium member. These caches should be for premium members but that is a totally different topic. For a latter date.

2 Must have at least 500 finds or be a charter member. This will be so that the cache owner has more experience and the quality should be better. This rules me out for now but that’s ok because the game is what’s important.

The criteria for the cache to qualify as a quest…

1 Cannot be completed in one day. It should require multiple days to complete. Multiple full days of caching not just an hour or two a day.

2 The quest needs to require a lot of planning. I know some of us plan our caching trips more than others. But for these quests you may have to get chart, maps, vacation time from work or even a guide.

3 All quest caches need to equal at least a 4 difficulty. These will not be easy or fast. They may contain the need to get caches that are easy (like the Delorme challenge) or have their own multiple waypoints.

4 They must have meaning. I know this one will all be subjective but I think that for it to be a quest there has to be a great adventure to go on. The final decision for this would be a panel of three administrators who volunteer for the added joy of helping a cacher place a quest.

5 The cache owner must complete the quest first. There could be an exception for the Delorme challenge but the owner would have to actively pursuing the quest.

6 The quest must first be submitted as an idea and approved by the panel before continuing on with planning and work with the panel the would way through. Some may be a quick thing like a Delorme challenge or some maybe a process like a backpacking trip on the wonderland trail around Mt Rainer. http://www.nps.gov/archive/mora/trail/wonder.htm

These are all just ideas I have. These rules should keep the number of quests low and the quality high. If you look at the logs for the WDC after the cachers complete this quest they are left asking what’s next. Well lets give them a what’s next.

Edited February 2, 2007 by quadsinthemudd

February 2, 2007

2 Must have at least 500 finds or be a charter member. This will be so that the cache owner has more experience and the quality should be better. This rules me out for now but that’s ok because the game is what’s important.

That sounds like a good way to motivate people to log fake finds.

4 They must have meaning. I know this one will all be subjective but I think that for it to be a quest there has to be a great adventure to go on. The final decision for this would be a panel of three administrators who volunteer for the added joy of helping a cacher place a quest.

Kinda like the ol' virtual "wow" factor?

5 The cache owner must complete the quest first. There could be an exception for the Delorme challenge but the owner would have to actively pursuing the quest.

Chicken and egg, anyone?

6 The quest must first be submitted as an idea and approved by the panel before continuing on with planning and work with the panel the would way through. Some may be a quick thing like a Delorme challenge or some maybe a process like a backpacking trip on the wonderland trail around Mt Rainer. http://www.nps.gov/archive/mora/trail/wonder.htm

So, even more of a workload placed upon the volunteer reviewer community?

All this just for another icon? Sounds like too much effort, not enough benefit. There's no reason you can't set up such a quest cache today in the existing structure.

-eP

February 2, 2007

Now that I have my complete thought out for this idea I can answer some of the comments.

First it is about the icons, the numbers, the paper logs, the dnf’s, the adventure, the forums, the TB’s, the coins, the finds, it’s about all that! Everyone is different about how they place these things in order of importance. Why is there a mega event icon? Because it is special that’s why it is a very big deal that requires a lot of planning to host and to attend. I heard of a mega event in the planning stage that will be 10 hours from our home if it wasn’t for the mega icon I probably would not attend. Sorry some may think that is dumb, and others totally agree. that is the good thing about this game you can make it your own.

Since the challenges now break up to three of the guidelines for posting that just shows that these caches do not fit the molds that are in place now.

As for the last log I think maybe you should do a little more thinking before you just post the first negative thing that comes to your mind. Wow I bet people have great ideas all the time but read the logs and think that if they post thier idea there will be some negative Nancy that all they do is cut it down without thinking about it. The whole point of this forum is to talk about ideas and fine tune them for Groundspeak to look at and decide if it is a good thing to implement or not. If the forums are just for us monkeys to fling our poo at each other I’m out! but if you have ideas or thoughts about this subject please post that. Sorry if you recived all of my frustration but since I have posted this idea I have looked at a lot of posts and they always start out with someone’s idea and it turns into someone throwing poo. If you have questions about this topic then post them and i will give you my thoughts and so will others as it stands now i am disregarding your post.

Edited February 2, 2007 by quadsinthemudd

February 2, 2007

As one of the "crazies" who competed in and completed "Counting Counties in Oregon" GCR9XY, I think this cache deserves more than just a mystery cache designation. Logscaler & Red and several other dedicated cachers worked long and hard to keep it under control throughout 2006.

It was truly a quest scoring the maximum number of points for the 36 counties of Oregon, including seven 10 point caches (5/5's) Twenty-some individuals/teams signed up before the 9/30/06 cutoff date. Less than half finished by 12/31/06.

The scariest 10 point cache that I did alone was 4.5 miles downstream along the Rogue from where James Kim died 3 weeks later. It took me 13 hours from the time I left the truck until I got back to the truck.

I disagree with the notion that the cache lister must complete the quest cache themselves. I trust the reviewers to set the requirements that separate a mystery cache from a quest.

Tom Fuller

Crescent Oregon

2.2k · February 2, 2007

So the quest cache is a bunch of other caches combined into a single cache? Is it sort of like a cache machine?

Um, no.

You haven't bothered to actually read the cache pages for any of the Delorme challenges, have you? You might find it useful to do so before opining about them in the forums.

I agree with the OP that they constitute a unique type of cache; whether they should be classified as mystery caches or some new type is a reasonable question. They certainly do not qualify as either traditional or multi caches.

I just read the Washington Delorme Challenge and it looks like a lot of fun. Did you read your response? You don't get to tell me when I can and cannot have an opinion. Back to topic:

I don't know a lot about the Delorme Challenge and I was asking the OP for more info on it. I now have more info on it thanks to someone posting the cache later in the thread. It does look like a lot of fun, but it is actually very similar to a cache machine, except with requirements for what caches you can find. If after completing the "quest", you got the coordinates to find the actual cache, I could see it fitting into the unknown/mystery cache type, but with the absence of an actual cache and logbook, I'm not sure that I would call it a cache.

February 2, 2007

Sorry some may think that is dumb, and others totally agree. that is the good thing about this game you can make it your own.

Amen, brother. I collect icons, too.

Since the challenges now break up to three of the guidelines for posting that just shows that these caches do not fit the molds that are in place now.

I disagree. If you look at my profile, you'll see that I'm working on what you would consider to be two quest caches right now as well as a smaller one that I haven't documented there, all of which have managed to find a way to fit into the existing structure. But I want to finish them not for some 30x30 low-res image on my profile page, I want to finish them because they're compelling enough to want to finish. Isn't that more important?

As for the last log I think maybe you should do a little more thinking before you just post the first negative thing that comes to your mind. Wow I bet people have great ideas all the time but read the logs and think that if they post thier idea there will be some negative Nancy that all they do is cut it down without thinking about it.

As for the last log, I think maybe you should realize that comments like this are a two-way street.

The whole point of this forum is to talk about ideas and fine tune them for Groundspeak to look at and decide if it is a good thing to implement or not.

I'm sorry, but isn't that precisely what we were doing?

If the forums are just for us monkeys to fling our poo at each other I’m out! but if you have ideas or thoughts about this subject please post that. Sorry if you recived all of my frustration but since I have posted this idea I have looked at a lot of posts and they always start out with someone’s idea and it turns into someone throwing poo. If you have questions about this topic then post them and i will give you my thoughts and so will others as it stands now i am disregarding your post.

That's a shame. I would imagine that you'd find participating in a discussion forum like this would be a lot more rewarding if you were more open to honest, nonpersonal constructive criticism. Ideas evolve through peer review and critique. It is the fire that forges the best ideas and turns losing ideas into ashes. Having someone publicly challenge a person's ideas and assertions is not a bad thing ... it's how good ideas come to life.

-eP

5.9k · February 2, 2007

This log is to clarify my thoughts on the quest cache and to let you see were I am coming from. I did not go to deep into it in my op because I didn’t want it to be to long. This cache type is designed for only about 5% or 10% of the cachers out there. Only the craziest of us all every try or even complete caches like this. Let me break down the two qualifying factors to place these caches.

First the cacher must qualify to even be able to place the cache. I know some people may disagree but stay with me on this one I think I can make a good point for this. Since only the best of the best complete these caches they need to be of the highest quality. How many of us have found a cache out there and thought that the owner didn’t care enough to think it through before they placed it. I know I have. These caches are supposed to be the best of the best. The criteria for a cacher to qualify...

1 Must be a premium member. These caches should be for premium members but that is a totally different topic. For a latter date.

2 Must have at least 500 finds or be a charter member. This will be so that the cache owner has more experience and the quality should be better. This rules me out for now but that’s ok because the game is what’s important.

The criteria for the cache to qualify as a quest…

1 Cannot be completed in one day. It should require multiple days to complete. Multiple full days of caching not just an hour or two a day.

2 The quest needs to require a lot of planning. I know some of us plan our caching trips more than others. But for these quests you may have to get chart, maps, vacation time from work or even a guide.

3 All quest caches need to equal at least a 4 difficulty. These will not be easy or fast. They may contain the need to get caches that are easy (like the Delorme challenge) or have their own multiple waypoints.

4 They must have meaning. I know this one will all be subjective but I think that for it to be a quest there has to be a great adventure to go on. The final decision for this would be a panel of three administrators who volunteer for the added joy of helping a cacher place a quest.

5 The cache owner must complete the quest first. There could be an exception for the Delorme challenge but the owner would have to actively pursuing the quest.

6 The quest must first be submitted as an idea and approved by the panel before continuing on with planning and work with the panel the would way through. Some may be a quick thing like a Delorme challenge or some maybe a process like a backpacking trip on the wonderland trail around Mt Rainer. http://www.nps.gov/archive/mora/trail/wonder.htm

These are all just ideas I have. These rules should keep the number of quests low and the quality high. If you look at the logs for the WDC after the cachers complete this quest they are left asking what’s next. Well lets give them a what’s next.

That's pretty complicated. I see a lot of exclusivity too.

Words like "Challenge" and "Quest" bring to (my) mind considerable effort. Even the Washington Delorme Challenge is less of a challenge and more of a Delorme run-around. Maybe you could exclude all the caches with a combined difficulty + terrain rating below, say, 5 (total), then it would qualify as a Quest. Wait, the difficulty and terrain ratings are pretty relative and not clearly defined….getting even more complicated….head about to explode…

Geocaching is a simple and inclusive game, as it should be.

4.2k · February 2, 2007

This cache type is designed for only about 5% or 10% of the cachers out there. Only the craziest of us all every try or even complete caches like this.

For me, that's enough of a reward. To see only 5 or 10 logs on a cache and be one of them is reward enough.

2 Must have at least 500 finds or be a charter member. This will be so that the cache owner has more experience and the quality should be better. This rules me out for now but that’s ok because the game is what’s important.

I know lots of cachers with 1,000+ finds that put out crappy caches. Don't equate quantity with quality.

The criteria for the cache to qualify as a quest…

1 Cannot be completed in one day. It should require multiple days to complete. Multiple full days of caching not just an hour or two a day.

Too subjective. What I can do in a few hours make take others all day.

2 The quest needs to require a lot of planning. I know some of us plan our caching trips more than others. But for these quests you may have to get chart, maps, vacation time from work or even a guide.

Again, too subjective. Some people are very good at planning and for others it becomes impossible.

4 They must have meaning. I know this one will all be subjective but I think that for it to be a quest there has to be a great adventure to go on. The final decision for this would be a panel of three administrators who volunteer for the added joy of helping a cacher place a quest.

'Nuff said here.

And as others have said - please be open to feedback. Criticism of the idea is not criticism of you presonally. Just because somebody doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean that they didn't think about thier response. Don't be so quick to dismiss other's posts - it's doesn't reflect well upon you.

I don't care either way really about the icon. I do hard caches like this when I want to and when I can. I'm in the middle of finishing one now, and hiding one shortly. I could care less what the icon is. One of my multis takes about 3 hours to do and has only been done by a handful of the people around here.

It's gotten great responses and I want people to do it to enjoy what I've put together - not for multiple smileys or a new icon.

Edited February 2, 2007 by kealia

February 3, 2007

Actually I am very open to criticism. I want to know why people agree or disagree with my idea not some witty one line jab at everything. Some of the later posts have valid reasons why they either don’t like the whole idea or think that just parts of it they don’t like. Comments like “Chicken and egg, anyone?” all I see is a negative comment not a complete thought. If you think about that part of the quest alone you will se that it is not that different from placing a cache now, you have to go to the cache site and in a multi you have to place your waypoints. Also it would limit the number of these caches so we wouldn’t have someone in their Wal-Mart computer chair find caches in common and making a quest out of them just because they can. That is not what it is all about.

One of the problems with geocaching.com now is the fact that it is “all inclusive”. This would be a cache type that you have to pay your dues to be able to complete. We all win when there are more privileges to being a premium member. And the more premium member the more revenue Groundspeak gets for site upgrades and maintenance. Geocaching has never been or ever will be all inclusive. There are caches out there I am not physically able to get, can not afford to get or am even smart enough to figure out the puzzle to get. I don’t want this game to ever be all inclusive it’s not the way it should be. There are obstacles in my way that I can overcome to find caches and some I never will and that’s ok.

On the icon thing like I said before some people care about them some don’t. I think that the folks at ground speak know how much some of us care about them. If you want proof just look at all the icons that are created for geocoins. People love the icons let me rephrase that I LOVE THE ICONS. It is a personal choice.

As for the dumb caches issue I totally agree with you. But I think the longer someone has caches the dedicated to game they become and hopefully they understand it more. In my experience some of the dumbest caches were placed by people with few finds and fairly new to this game. If a cacher had to do his own quest first you think it would be a lot better than someone who could just slap something together. With the help of the others in planning the caches it also should help in limiting the number placed and limit dumb caches.

I am just putting out an idea out there. I know everyone has their own way of caching and their own goals to complete to make this game fun. The only one we are really competing against is ourselves since it is mostly on the honor system and our goals we place upon ourselves so who wins and what is fun is all subjective.

Thanks for the posts. The one that agree and the ones that don’t. I do like the one that disagree when they have a thought or reason for their view. It does help refine the idea.

I love this game and think this would be a great addition to the game it is ok if everyone doesn’t think that way.

February 3, 2007

Actually I am very open to criticism. I want to know why people agree or disagree with my idea not some witty one line jab at everything. Some of the later posts have valid reasons why they either don’t like the whole idea or think that just parts of it they don’t like. Comments like “Chicken and egg, anyone?” all I see is a negative comment not a complete thought.

Do not confuse the compactness of a response with a lack of careful consideration.

One of the problems with geocaching.com now is the fact that it is “all inclusive”.

So making it more "elitist" would fix that problem?

This would be a cache type that you have to pay your dues to be able to complete.

To me, a 5/5 rating on a cache means you're going to have to pay your dues to be able to complete it. You don't need a special icon to convey that message.

And the more premium member the more revenue Groundspeak gets for site upgrades and maintenance.

So, your assertion is that creating a new icon for caches that less than 10% of the caching population could even consider attempting would increase Groundspeak's revenue stream? That seems to me like an unsubstantiated stretch of the imagination. I bet there's more money to be made in pandering to folks who like lamp-skirt micros.

On the icon thing like I said before some people care about them some don’t. I think that the folks at ground speak know how much some of us care about them. If you want proof just look at all the icons that are created for geocoins. People love the icons let me rephrase that I LOVE THE ICONS. It is a personal choice.

I don't think anybody is questioning that. If Groundspeak creates a new cache type icon, there are people who will go to otherwise-irrational extremes to get it (ie, Project A.P.E. caches). The A.P.E. caches would get nowhere near the traffic and attention that they do were it not for the icon. There are also people who would go to the same extremes just to be able to report such caches to get the icon on the other side of the profile page.

But I suspect that folks that are truly motivated to complete a quest cache care a lot more about deriving pleasure from the preparation and execution of the quest than about a few pixels on the screen. Which is my original point - the existing structure allows for an adequate level of definition, publication, review, and logging of such quests today without the need for additional rules, committees, and icons.

Here are a few examples of quests that are local to me:

Final Florida Challenge Quest (GCTVTE)

Let the Games Begin! (GCTG4C)

These would certainly meet all of your criteria to qualify as quests. The current system today seems to support them just fine. And there is no shortage of cachers that rightfully view the completion of those quests as a personal badge of honor that is worth more than any icon.

-eP

February 3, 2007

Thanks for the reply. This is the kind of thing I thought I would get when I started this topic. Thank you!

First thing if that comment was directed toward you how would you take it? I think someone who has read other posts would probably feel the same way I did because it is not uncommon for people to go into a forum post short quick jabs and leave. If that was not your intention to I am sorry.

Second no I don’t think that would fix the problem at all but I do not think it is a bad idea. I have a few new caches in my pea sized brain that I will be releasing as soon as the snow is gone and have decided to post for premium members only. I am guilty myself of not even thinking about the benefit of doing this for other cachers who support this game. I also think that there are not enough real usable benefits for premium members. All I have to tell other cachers about the benefit of being a premium member is pocket queries. And yes that is a very big reason but how many of us would still be premium members if they took away that feature? Does anybody use the other feature enough to justify the cost? Sorry but I think right now with the kids and all I would have to wait to become a premium member. But for me if pocket queries were the only added feature it pays for it’s self. I am just looking for more features for future cachers to want so bad they have to take the leap into premium membership. That’s all.

With the dif rating like I said before it is all what the cache owner thinks that’s it. With a quest cache it has to meet certain standards and what the reviewer thinks about it. I know people in the past and future will disagree with the reviewer but they have for the most part a better idea of what will work as the have posted many caches and archived many. I think that quest caches should be something like a mega event if it’s not big and grand you can just post it as a multi or mystery.

I looked at both those cache pages and think in my own opinion that one is a quest and one probably is not a quest. Look at the logs for the Florida challenge. Tell me would it be fair if those people got a different icon for what they accomplished? Read their logs that is what I’m talking about.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...d2-3e6010c17858

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...0e-29540365dde6

These two logs point out what the quest is all about. It is rated at a 5,2 which opens it up to some people who can go on a quest but maybe not a physical one like if there was a wonder land trail quest. I personally like people to find my cachers and get to experience what I got to experience. The new icon would help that out. If there ever is an icon like that I would place a quest cache of my own if it passed the reviewers scrutiny. My idea would be to boat from Lewiston, id on the Snake River to Ilwaco at the mouth of the Columbia River. That is approximately 495 nautical miles to travel. Do you think cachers would attempt that cache? I know at least one so they could get the FTF. If it was a quest not only would they get a new icon but would be able to search for it a lot easier since it would be a different type of cache.

The second cache I don’t think is a quest not because it isn’t but because I don’t know a lot about it. It seems to me like they have made a game out of what we do up here in Washington to try and get moun10bike coins. If I live in that area I probably would do that cache because it just seems like the stuff I like. But that is just my 2cents worth.

I think this is turning into a great discussion about this topic. I hope people can see what i'm trying to do with this idea. I don’t want to change the game at all I just want to make it better. I do this in my work every day I am a skilled tradesman and have been doing the same trade for over 10years but not a day goes bye that I don’t look for something to make me better at what I do and how I do it. So take a second look at this idea in a different light. Look at it as if it was going to be implemented, how can we as the players make it the best and improve the game. That’s it. That all I want is to improve the game. Some wont ever use it some will search it out far and wide and some will sit back and watch other people enjoy it.

Sorry what started out as my 2cent has turned into a twenty dollar bill.

February 3, 2007

I also think that there are not enough real usable benefits for premium members. All I have to tell other cachers about the benefit of being a premium member is pocket queries. And yes that is a very big reason but how many of us would still be premium members if they took away that feature? Does anybody use the other feature enough to justify the cost?

Not to get too far off of the original topic, but here's reasons enough. I use some premium membership features every single day. Here's the list of all the features you get with membership:

- Pocket Queries - Greatly expands the ability to narrow your searches

- Paperless Caching - My Palm Tungsten E2 has all the data I ever need

- Caches along a Route (haven't used this yet, but will to complete the South Florida Challenge Quest)

- Google Maps - I *LOVE* this feature

- Instant Log Notification - Great for racing the other FTF hounds when new postings come out

- Unlimited Watchlist Items - I don't know what the non-member limit is

- Bookmark and Ignore Lists - Turn off caches you don't like, remember ones you do

- Members Only Caches - This is the feature I use the least

Sorry but I think right now with the kids and all I would have to wait to become a premium member.

Membership is $3/month. That's less than most people pay for a double latte at Starbucks.

The second cache I don’t think is a quest not because it isn’t but because I don’t know a lot about it.

It definitely is, as log entries by Paradise and antimony13 show (because they're older entries, you might not be able to view them unless you're a premium member). I've been working on it for the past month and have probably driven 300 miles and hiked 20 miles so far while seeking and moving various game pieces. I hadn't solved the puzzle until very recently. Even having solved it, it's still going to take some nontrivial planning and effort to get to the final.

I personally like people to find my cachers and get to experience what I got to experience. The new icon would help that out.

I definitely agree a new icon would rapidly draw attention to any cache that had it. There would be a big race to be the first to place and first to find such caches.

The question is one of functionality: what purpose would a new icon serve? If all the icon gives you is a merit badge, then that's probably not really a good reason to implement it in the game. I think the reward of being able to say "I did it!" is probably 100x more valuable than being able to say "Look at this cool icon on my page."

If the icon gives people the ability to use that information to search the database better than they can already, then that would be a good thing. I think that's why there are normal event, megaevent, and CITO event cache types.

You're ultimately going to have to refine those criteria for what is and what is not a quest. How far do you have to drive? How far do you have to hike? How high do you have to climb? How long should it take? What level of risk should you incur? We've already touched upon that discussion already in this thread - is the Let The Games Begin (GCTG4C) a quest or not?

The biggest problem I see with your proposal for a quest cache type is what I've said before: the effort required to review such a cache and deem it worthy of a new icon seems to be considerable and potentially loaded with drama and politics. The early quests are going to be reviewed and approved, which will then set the standard for future quest proposals. And as the definition evolves, it will be harder and harder to get new quests approved. Then folks will feel slighted because their pet quest idea was rejected when someone's much easier quest idea had been approved the year before.

I don't think adding a new cache type icon would be bad for the game. I do think adding a new level of review and approval is not going to yield any better quality quests than we currently have today.

-eP

February 3, 2007

I agree totally that this idea needs refinement. I am not the all knowing guru of geocaching I am just a guy with an idea that I think has merit. With the right guidelines and rules it could be a great addition to the game. That’s it, nothing else. The comment that it will create drama and politics it true but since you read the forums you know that there is absolutely no way around that. People get very passionate about such topics as how many x’s should be after GC in the lookup screen or if a cache page should say how many people are watching a cache. There is no way around it period. All we Groundspeak can do is try to please as many premium cachers as possible because they are the ones who pay the bills. It has got to be a tough job because everybody ahs opinions and a lot of the cachers I meet are very passionate about this game and I’m included in that group. I love the feed back on this subject I never ever thought that I would post my idea everyone would think I just saved geocaching from falling off the face of the earth. I have an idea that I think is a good and valid idea that needs help from people like you who may see weakness in this idea and were it needs to be strengthened.

2.2k · February 3, 2007

I agree totally that this idea needs refinement.

Let me preface my comments by saying I think a quest sounds like a lot of fun! But I am struggling with one aspect of this idea. You want a new cache icon, but there is no cache? If you could incorporate putting clues to some kind of "Final" location in all the caches along the way, then it at least fulfills the requirements of being an actual cache. It would then be an extensive multi or unknown cache type. Then you could argue that that the quest type would be unique in that it involves gathering clues from other placed DIFFICULT caches to find the prize cache at the end.

IMO (Been adding this lately because people get angsty when you opine in a forum, go figure?)

7.3k · February 3, 2007

Not to get too far off of the original topic, but here's reasons enough. I use some premium membership features every single day. Here's the list of all the features you get with membership:

- Pocket Queries - Greatly expands the ability to narrow your searches

- Paperless Caching - My Palm Tungsten E2 has all the data I ever need

- Caches along a Route (haven't used this yet, but will to complete the South Florida Challenge Quest)

- Google Maps - I *LOVE* this feature

- Instant Log Notification - Great for racing the other FTF hounds when new postings come out

- Unlimited Watchlist Items - I don't know what the non-member limit is

- Bookmark and Ignore Lists - Turn off caches you don't like, remember ones you do

- Members Only Caches - This is the feature I use the least

- Access to Off Topic in the forums.

This is the reason that I got my first Premium Membership (as a gift from someone).

7.3k · February 3, 2007

I agree totally that this idea needs refinement.

Let me preface my comments by saying I think a quest sounds like a lot of fun! But I am struggling with one aspect of this idea. You want a new cache icon, but there is no cache? If you could incorporate putting clues to some kind of "Final" location in all the caches along the way, then it at least fulfills the requirements of being an actual cache. It would then be an extensive multi or unknown cache type. Then you could argue that that the quest type would be unique in that it involves gathering clues from other placed DIFFICULT caches to find the prize cache at the end.

IMO (Been adding this lately because people get angsty when you opine in a forum, go figure?)

I'm confused by what you are saying. The DeLorme cache is a physical cache. You may have to go to a bunch of other caches before it to get the coordinates to it, but it's there. That cache page would have the proposed icon on it.

2.2k · February 3, 2007

.

I agree totally that this idea needs refinement.

Let me preface my comments by saying I think a quest sounds like a lot of fun! But I am struggling with one aspect of this idea. You want a new cache icon, but there is no cache? If you could incorporate putting clues to some kind of "Final" location in all the caches along the way, then it at least fulfills the requirements of being an actual cache. It would then be an extensive multi or unknown cache type. Then you could argue that that the quest type would be unique in that it involves gathering clues from other placed DIFFICULT caches to find the prize cache at the end.

IMO (Been adding this lately because people get angsty when you opine in a forum, go figure?)

I'm confused by what you are saying. The DeLorme cache is a physical cache. You may have to go to a bunch of other caches before it to get the coordinates to it, but it's there. That cache page would have the proposed icon on it.

The DeLorme cache is not a "Quest" cache? I thought we were talking about the OP's idea? If the op's idea included a final cache, then I stand corrected, but that's not what I've been reading. Below are the ops guidelines for a quest cache:

1 Cannot be completed in one day. It should require multiple days to complete. Multiple full days of caching not just an hour or two a day.

2 The quest needs to require a lot of planning. I know some of us plan our caching trips more than others. But for these quests you may have to get chart, maps, vacation time from work or even a guide.

3 All quest caches need to equal at least a 4 difficulty. These will not be easy or fast. They may contain the need to get caches that are easy (like the Delorme challenge) or have their own multiple waypoints.

4 They must have meaning. I know this one will all be subjective but I think that for it to be a quest there has to be a great adventure to go on. The final decision for this would be a panel of three administrators who volunteer for the added joy of helping a cacher place a quest.

5 The cache owner must complete the quest first. There could be an exception for the Delorme challenge but the owner would have to actively pursuing the quest.

6 The quest must first be submitted as an idea and approved by the panel before continuing on with planning and work with the panel the would way through. Some may be a quick thing like a Delorme challenge or some maybe a process like a backpacking trip on the wonderland trail around Mt Rainer. http://www.nps.gov/archive/mora/trail/wonder.htm

Only mention of finding other peoples caches.

Edited February 3, 2007 by ReadyOrNot

7.3k · February 3, 2007

I agree totally that this idea needs refinement.

Let me preface my comments by saying I think a quest sounds like a lot of fun! But I am struggling with one aspect of this idea. You want a new cache icon, but there is no cache? If you could incorporate putting clues to some kind of "Final" location in all the caches along the way, then it at least fulfills the requirements of being an actual cache. It would then be an extensive multi or unknown cache type. Then you could argue that that the quest type would be unique in that it involves gathering clues from other placed DIFFICULT caches to find the prize cache at the end.

IMO (Been adding this lately because people get angsty when you opine in a forum, go figure?)

I'm confused by what you are saying. The DeLorme cache is a physical cache. You may have to go to a bunch of other caches before it to get the coordinates to it, but it's there. That cache page would have the proposed icon on it.

The DeLorme cache is not a "Quest" cache? I thought we were talking about the OP's idea? If the op's idea included a final cache, then I stand corrected, but that's not what I've been reading

Lol, maybe I shouldn't be in the forums today, because this post just confuses me more.

2.2k · February 3, 2007

Lol, maybe I shouldn't be in the forums today, because this post just confuses me more.

Im confused by your confusion I agree that the Delorme Challenge is a real cache. Maybe the op is assuming I'm not an idiot? All the discussion has been about finding other people's caches, I haven't read anything about the OP placing an actual cache. I just got up, maybe I'm temporarily impaired. Wouldn't be the first time.

7.3k · February 3, 2007

Lol, maybe I shouldn't be in the forums today, because this post just confuses me more.

Im confused by your confusion I agree that the Delorme Challenge is a real cache. Maybe the op is assuming I'm not an idiot? All the discussion has been about finding other people's caches, I haven't read anything about the OP placing an actual cache. I just got up, maybe I'm temporarily impaired. Wouldn't be the first time.

Naw, I have a disability, so I'll take the blame. I'll just not post in this thread for a while, like I've had the good sense to do until now!

February 3, 2007

this bunch of posts are my falt. I just assumed that there would be a end cache placed by the owner. This is not a virtual quest. I think that there is a market curently at geocaching.com for this type of cache. Just look at all the people doing these i would love to see more quests that are placed by the owners. the idea of the fishing cache would be a good start to develope a quest. I stubled upon the Delorme Challange now i am hooked on this beast of a cache. I would love for there to be an icon to search for.

February 3, 2007

As a test to see just how really hooked you are, why not take on the Florida Challenge?

February 4, 2007

If i win power ball..........

1.5k · February 4, 2007

As a test to see just how really hooked you are, why not take on the Florida Challenge?

Because it would be so much cooler to have the bragging rights from being first to complete the Texas County Challenge

February 4, 2007

forget power ball i think i would need to be the president and use my secret service to collect them for me.

Quest Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment