Logging Your Own DeLorme Challenge?

[+Moose Mob]

Just to play devil's advocate, perhaps the owner of the Challenge should do this "before" they can own it? Much like having someone place a cache for you in an area you have never been, then owning it. That also applies to adopting a cache, one must find it prior to adopting (or go do a maintenance visit shortly after). So, I am tossing out the thought that a person should have been at the location prior to owning it. That applies to multi-caches, and if a person wants to own a cache that requires a cacher to visit all the DeLorme pages or counties, then the owner should do that prior to publication.

That's a very interesting position, but wouldn't it open the field up to making it acceptable for all cache owners to claim finds on their caches?

I thought it would open the door to having a cacher's count as a combined number of unigue finds & hides. Of course, I would half expect it to be limited to that would not double count caches that you own & found (through adoption or log error).

[+sbell111]

Just to play devil's advocate, perhaps the owner of the Challenge should do this "before" they can own it? Much like having someone place a cache for you in an area you have never been, then owning it. That also applies to adopting a cache, one must find it prior to adopting (or go do a maintenance visit shortly after). So, I am tossing out the thought that a person should have been at the location prior to owning it. That applies to multi-caches, and if a person wants to own a cache that requires a cacher to visit all the DeLorme pages or counties, then the owner should do that prior to publication.

That's a very interesting position, but wouldn't it open the field up to making it acceptable for all cache owners to claim finds on their caches?

I thought it would open the door to having a cacher's count as a combined number of unigue finds & hides. Of course, I would half expect it to be limited to that would not double count caches that you own & found (through adoption or log error).

I getcha.

[+Renegade Knight]

Here's the question. Is it OK to log a DeLorme Challenge if you are the owner of the Challenge?

 

I would meet all of the requirements to log it, and I would physically go out to the Final to sign the log book (I *did not* sign it when I placed it).

 

All opinions welcome.

 

No. It's cheezy. If someone really wanted to DO the challenge instead of GIVE the challenge they should talk someone else into listing the thing. If you absolutly positivly have to log your own challenge adopt it out and at least maintain appearences.

 

Ditto, every other challenge cache that's going to come along.

Counties, Peaks, Fire Lookouts, Areas Below Sea Level, Islands of the 7 Seas, 7 Caching Wonders, ad nausiem.

[+Prime Suspect]

That's a very interesting position, but wouldn't it open the field up to making it acceptable for all cache owners to claim finds on their caches?

Doesn't your position ("I have no problem with it. Go for it.") open up the field to not having to find the final stage of a multi-cache in order to log it as a find? I don't see much difference between the two.

[+Kealia]

PS - I don't follow your train of thought. What does logging one's own caches have to do with not finding the final stage of a multi? You lost me.

[+Prime Suspect]

PS - I don't follow your train of thought. What does logging one's own caches have to do with not finding the final stage of a multi? You lost me.

Didn't think the train was moving that fast. I'll slow it down.

 

For the cache in question, the owner placed the cache and knows its location. Therefore, it's not possible to "find" the last stage of the challenge, since he already knows where it is. So apparently, going by these new rules, it's okay to log a find without actually completing the cache. So why not also log multi-caches without bothering to complete them?

[+TrailGators]

I guess I don't see the logic in those that typically won't log their own cache but will on these - is it just because it's harder? Help me understand.

It's funny but I'm one of those that understand this. Let's pretend you come up with a fun idea to have a cache that requires people to find a cache in all 50 states before they can sign the official logbook. So you travel all over the country bagging caches that you have never found. It's not like a multi because you've never been to any of the caches. So after 5+ years you finally complete the mission. Then you sign the mission logbook adding your name to a select list of people that have completed this very tough mission.

 

So the final cache is the mission logbook and nothing more. There are ways to make this more palettable. You could host an event and invite all the people that completed the mission to the event. The final cache coords could be at the event where the logbook would be on the table. Nothing to "find." You could also make up a geocaching name for your dog and have her list the cache, so people wouldn't flake out about you signing the logbook. Whatever.....

 

So hit me with all the tomatoes! I don't care!

Edited October 17, 2007 by TrailGators

[+BlueDeuce]

deja' moo

[CoyoteRed]

Now here's been a very interesting discussion to say the least!

 

I think I'm tending to possibly think about leaning towards PS's side of the fence. I agree with everything he is saying on this issue. It makes sense.

 

However, it does seem as though these challenges are a hybrid of sorts. Like the hitchhikers early in the game when TB's didn't exist, folks adapted caches listings to fill the roll. This feels the same. A challenge similar to these--which aren't exactly bona fide bonus caches--seems to be more of a hybrid puzzle/locationless cache.

 

I'm wondering if this may be one of those rare instances where a new category may be appropriate. A "Challenge" would not be a cache, but closer to a locationless in that you have to find a owner-defined grouping of caches--as opposed to a limited series to find a bonus cache--in order to log the challenge compete. There would be no additional cache to find which would eliminate the topic of this very thread.

 

I would see these as similar to events in that there is not a physical cache to find, but a task to do. What separates a challenge from an event or locationless is you are tasked in actually finding physical caches. Because of this element it would belong here and not over on Waymarking.com just like geocaching events belong here.

 

As for the OP's question, I doubt I'd log it if it were my cache, but I don't think I'd think any less of someone who does. Mainly because it is a special case and we're forced to stuff a peg into a hole that doesn't quite fit.

[+The Leprechauns]

If someone really wanted to DO the challenge instead of GIVE the challenge they should talk someone else into listing the thing.

I had been wanting a DeLorme Challenge in Pennsylvania for years, and I knew of a couple of geocachers who had one in the planning stages, but those efforts were abandoned. Finally I teamed up with some other people and took the bull by the horns. It's proven to be quite popular, and it makes me happy to see people having fun completing the Challenge. Three geocaching accounts are presently eligible to seek the final cache, so there may be a traffic jam there over the next several weekends. I am proud to be one of them. It was a lot of fun to travel to the far corners of the state that I may not otherwise have visited if it weren't for those darn map grids. My fun factor over the one year course of pursuing this Challenge is pretty much the same regardless of whether I hid the ammo can under the pile of sticks or if someone else hid the ammo can under the pile of sticks.

[+sbell111]

That's a very interesting position, but wouldn't it open the field up to making it acceptable for all cache owners to claim finds on their caches?

Doesn't your position ("I have no problem with it. Go for it.") open up the field to not having to find the final stage of a multi-cache in order to log it as a find? I don't see much difference between the two.

I get what you are saying, but I disagree with your conclusion.

 

My opinion on the original question was that I had no problem with an owner of a DeLorme Challenge cache to complete the challenge and log a find, even though he knows the location of the final cache location.

 

Moose Mob's idea was that the cache owner should complete the task and log the find before the cache is activated. I opined that this might open the door for owners of all kinds of caches to do the same (log a find prior to the cache being activated).

 

I don't believe that either my opinion on this issue or Moose Mob's 'devils advocate' position would open the door to non-owners of multis to be able to log finds without finding the final cache location and signing the log. I hold this opinion for two reasons. First, in Moose Mob and my scenarios, the log book would be signed. In your scenario, the logbook would not. Second, you are speculating on the logging of caches that are owned by someone else. In your scenario, the owner of the multi would have to agree to allow the online log of the person who did not locate the final cache location and sign the logbook. I don't believe that the many cache owners would allow those logs to stand.

[+J-Way]

I'll throw in a brief opinion. If the cache is counted under your personal account, then you already have credit for the cache as the owner. I don't think you should log it as a "find", but I'd definitely post a note proclaiming success completing the challenge.

 

If the cache is counted under a team account, or under a "sock puppet" account, then I see no reason why you can't claim it as a "find" after completing the challenge AND SIGNING THE LOG. Sure, you knew where the actual container was hidden, but finding a single container is an insignificant task compared to finding dozens/hundreds of containers hidden over hundreds of square miles.

 

Others have compared this to claiming a find on a multi without finding the last container. This is a real stretch for a comparison, unless you're talking about a multi with 70+ stages requiring $100's of dollars in gas money and many hundreds of miles of travel.

 

One more point: using the phone-a-friend network, lots of people know precisely where particular caches are hidden before starting the search, but they get credit for the find the same as anyone else. I don't like doing it this way, but each to his/her own.

Edited October 17, 2007 by J-Way

[+Renegade Knight]

If someone really wanted to DO the challenge instead of GIVE the challenge they should talk someone else into listing the thing.

I had been wanting a DeLorme Challenge in Pennsylvania for years, and I knew of a couple of geocachers who had one in the planning stages, but those efforts were abandoned. Finally I teamed up with some other people and took the bull by the horns. It's proven to be quite popular, and it makes me happy to see people having fun completing the Challenge. Three geocaching accounts are presently eligible to seek the final cache, so there may be a traffic jam there over the next several weekends. I am proud to be one of them. It was a lot of fun to travel to the far corners of the state that I may not otherwise have visited if it weren't for those darn map grids. My fun factor over the one year course of pursuing this Challenge is pretty much the same regardless of whether I hid the ammo can under the pile of sticks or if someone else hid the ammo can under the pile of sticks.

 

Then it's ok to log as found all your own caches that you had to work to find because a finder moved them.

 

A challenge cache changes nothing about that final log. Either it's ok, or it's frowned upon. The challenge itself isn't the issue, fun as it may be.

[+hydnsek]

Nope. You have an advantage over the others participating in the challenge. Wouldn't be Cricket.

 

I'd like to pursue this a bit farther. What advantage does a DeLorme cache owner have?

I didn't get that either. The challenge is finding the 50+ caches. The final is just logging that you have completed the entire mission.

Nope. Completing the challenge portion just gets you the final coordinates to the actual cache location.

 

It seems that a lot of people who have responded to this don't actually understand how a DeLorme Challenge works.

Not only do we understand how it works, but some of us have completed one. I just don't happen to agree with your assessment. In Washington, there are 99 grids for the DeLorme (take that, you wimpy 50-grid states ). The challenge is finding caches in all those grids; some are pretty remote. That's a lot of work (time, gas, money), and anyone who completes it has earned a find. Walking into the woods and signing the log on the final box is just crossing the last 't'. Like I said before, if the cache owner does all that, they deserve to log the final. This is a case where the journey earns the reward.

[+hydnsek]

If the cache is counted under your personal account, then you already have credit for the cache as the owner.

 

Sure, you knew where the actual container was hidden, but finding a single container is an insignificant task compared to finding dozens/hundreds of containers hidden over hundreds of square miles.

 

Others have compared this to claiming a find on a multi without finding the last container. This is a real stretch for a comparison, unless you're talking about a multi with 70+ stages requiring $100's of dollars in gas money and many hundreds of miles of travel.

Agree that logging a Challenge find when you already are the owner is a bit of a gray area....but as I said in my earlier posts, I still think this is an exception to the rule (ok, guideline), in line with your other comments.

 

I'm usually pretty conservative on logging practices: I would never log a find on a cache I own (and I don't own any challenge caches), I don't log Velcro strips, unlisted caches found at events, etc. BUT I do think complex challenge caches that require you to find lots of other (potentially challenging) caches are a gray area, and if the owners choose to complete the challenge and log the final, they've earned it.

 

For me, that includes challenges besides the DeLorme. Kealia and Jester have commented in this thread relative to their challenge caches, both of which can be as challenging as the DeLorme. I think if they complete those, they've earned finds on them as well, although neither has chosen to claim a find.

 

In the great state of Washington, we now have 9 challenge caches. A couple are a bit lame (imo), but we also have:

• WA DeLorme Challenge - 99 grids
  
• WA County Challenge - 39 counties
  
• Well Rounded WA Cacher (Fizzy) - 80 D/T combos, 10 icons (including the APE cache!)
  
• WA History Challenge - find the remaining 31 caches (specific list) in WA from the first year of geocaching (many are fairly remote and good hikes - ah, the good ole days)
  
• WA Forest Fire Lookouts - 50 lookouts across 9 geographical areas (4 required per area)
  
• WA Highest Caches - achieve a combined 350,000 ft elevation by finding enough caches (about 50) from the list of WA's 100 highest caches (which changes as new ones are placed, so you can lose elevation along the way!)
  

All of these are serious undertakings requiring weeks/months of work, physical prowess (we have a lot of mountains), plenty of travel and cash, and some can only be done in summer months (due to snow in the mountains). Kudos to all who complete them, and if the owners manage to finish their challenges, I would support their logging a find. Yes, just my opinion. Your mileage may (and clearly does) vary.

Edited October 18, 2007 by hydnsek

[+Renegade Knight]

... Walking into the woods and signing the log on the final box is just crossing the last 't'. Like I said before, if the cache owner does all that, they deserve to log the final. This is a case where the journey earns the reward.

It gets back to basics. Either the owner can sign their own log and that's ok, or it's not. The challenge isn't tied to the answer. Yes it's a lot of work. But that work leads you to a cache, and there is a log in a cache that you placed that you are going to sign having "found" that final cache.

 

If it's the challenge then it was approved without that final box since the box doesn't matter. I suspect though that that box does matter and that everything else is just a working mans puzzle.

 

If it is all about the challeng then there should be a challenge cache catagory. Then the goal is to complete some caching related challenge with other caches, then you can log that you completed the challenge. To eliminate the "Owner logging issue" then you can make it so the owner had to complte the challenge to even list the cache. I actually like the idea of a challenge cache catagory. They do have their own flavour.

[+hydnsek]

If it's the challenge then it was approved without that final box since the box doesn't matter. I suspect though that that box does matter and that everything else is just a working mans puzzle.

 

If it is all about the challeng then there should be a challenge cache catagory. Then the goal is to complete some caching related challenge with other caches, then you can log that you completed the challenge. To eliminate the "Owner logging issue" then you can make it so the owner had to complte the challenge to even list the cache. I actually like the idea of a challenge cache catagory. They do have their own flavour.

For most of the WA challenges I've completed, the final was easy, placed because geocaches require logs and so we could trade special swag. I guess that's one reason I support owners logging challenge caches. It's usually not about the final box. (OK, Lep's DeLorme final might be an exception...)

 

I like your idea of a separate category for challenge caches. Yes, they are different beasts, and perhaps, like mega-events and CITOs (special categories of events), and letterbox caches (special type of traditional), they should be broken off into a new category and icon.

Edited October 17, 2007 by hydnsek

[Dinoprophet]

I like the challenge category, too. But, if people today hide "for the numbers" caches, isn't it likely the same would happen with challenges? It seems to me there would have to be some subjective guidelines as to whether a challenge was truly a challenge, lest we end up with hundreds of "Find Both LPCs At the Springfield Walmart Challenge".

[+TrailGators]

I like the challenge category, too. But, if people today hide "for the numbers" caches, isn't it likely the same would happen with challenges? It seems to me there would have to be some subjective guidelines as to whether a challenge was truly a challenge, lest we end up with hundreds of "Find Both LPCs At the Springfield Walmart Challenge".

This is a very good point. It would open Pandora's box.....

[+Renegade Knight]

I like the challenge category, too. But, if people today hide "for the numbers" caches, isn't it likely the same would happen with challenges? It seems to me there would have to be some subjective guidelines as to whether a challenge was truly a challenge, lest we end up with hundreds of "Find Both LPCs At the Springfield Walmart Challenge".

 

True enough. Every solution creates it's own problems. Sometimes it's all about finding the solution that creates less problems than the others. Icon whores should find it a real challenge to earn a challenge Icon...

[+sbell111]

I like the challenge category, too. But, if people today hide "for the numbers" caches, isn't it likely the same would happen with challenges? It seems to me there would have to be some subjective guidelines as to whether a challenge was truly a challenge, lest we end up with hundreds of "Find Both LPCs At the Springfield Walmart Challenge".

 

True enough. Every solution creates it's own problems. Sometimes it's all about finding the solution that creates less problems than the others. Icon whores should find it a real challenge to earn a challenge Icon...

Doesn't that automatically rule out the cache that started this thread?

[CoyoteRed]

I suppose there would have to be some sort of criteria that prevent such things. One could be a challenge is not something that can be done with a series. Many, if not all, of the challenges today present a challenge that can't be accomplished with a series because they do not generally indicate which individual caches to find. At most, you choose from a list of caches. Most of the time you get to choose caches based on how they fill a particular point in the challenge.

 

I'm sure the big thinkers could come up with some objective criteria that would help prevent "challenge spew."

[+TrailGators]

I'm sure the big thinkers could come up with some objective criteria that would help prevent "challenge spew."

Challenge spew....

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm sure the big thinkers could come up with some objective criteria that would help prevent "challenge spew."

Challenge spew....

Why I remember in the old days when every cache was a challenge. Now we have to have a challenge cache to have a challenge. I want the days of old when I could just pick a random cache and Know I was going to enjoy it and the challenge was going to be more than getting open the childproof top while dodging WalMart security cameras. For most caches the only real challenge is avoiding blame for being Last To Find.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Sure, you knew where the actual container was hidden, but finding a single container is an insignificant task compared to finding dozens/hundreds of containers hidden over hundreds of square miles.

It doesn't matter how much work you put into finding a cache - whether you find a park and grab or a 5/5 you get one smilie.

[+Prime Suspect]

Not only do we understand how it works, but some of us have completed one. I just don't happen to agree with your assessment. In Washington, there are 99 grids for the DeLorme (take that, you wimpy 50-grid states ). The challenge is finding caches in all those grids; some are pretty remote. That's a lot of work (time, gas, money), and anyone who completes it has earned a find. Walking into the woods and signing the log on the final box is just crossing the last 't'. Like I said before, if the cache owner does all that, they deserve to log the final. This is a case where the journey earns the reward.

I agree, especially with this part: "if the cache owner does all that, they deserve to log the final". The OP has failed in this regard, since he didn't do ALL that.

 

How about a 40 staqe multi, that covers over 100 miles (best case scenario, assuming you do it all in one day). At what point do you become pleased enough with the "journey" and just decided to call it find? 15th stage? 28th? 34th? How about 39th? After all, you've had most of the "journey", and what's one extra stage in relationship to what's already been done? All hail the new rules! Do as much as you like (until you get a warm, fuzzy feeling, I guess), then log it Found! Hurray!

[+BlueDeuce]

Sure, you knew where the actual container was hidden, but finding a single container is an insignificant task compared to finding dozens/hundreds of containers hidden over hundreds of square miles.

It doesn't matter how much work you put into finding a cache - whether you find a park and grab or a 5/5 you get one smilie.

 

Don't forget about the credit for the hide. Guess it's not enough for some.

Edited October 17, 2007 by BlueDeuce

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I agree, especially with this part: "if the cache owner does all that, they deserve to log the final". The OP has failed in this regard, since he didn't do ALL that.

 

What part of "ALL that" haven't I accomplished? I have completed all of the grids, and I have signed the final's logbook. What am I missing?

 

And for the record, I have only posted a note indicating I have completed the Challenge. As I mentioned in an earlier post, when I placed the cache, I had never really intending on "finding" the Challenge. I never gave it a second thought. The question came up since I was going out to the final to place a DeLorme Challange coin I had picked up while in Virginia. As I was planning my next day's caching activities (which was the maintenance and a new placement), I figured let me see if I have met the requirements. I had, except for the final signing, which I did when I got there.

 

BTW, the final had moved slightly, due to the fact that some RI National Guardsmen had gotten their Humvee stuck on the log it was under, discovered it, and then had to move it, since the log was butchered in order free their truck. (This from a log entry they left!)

[+The Jester]

Not only do we understand how it works, but some of us have completed one. I just don't happen to agree with your assessment. In Washington, there are 99 grids for the DeLorme (take that, you wimpy 50-grid states ). The challenge is finding caches in all those grids; some are pretty remote. That's a lot of work (time, gas, money), and anyone who completes it has earned a find. Walking into the woods and signing the log on the final box is just crossing the last 't'. Like I said before, if the cache owner does all that, they deserve to log the final. This is a case where the journey earns the reward.

I agree, especially with this part: "if the cache owner does all that, they deserve to log the final". The OP has failed in this regard, since he didn't do ALL that.

 

How about a 40 staqe multi, that covers over 100 miles (best case scenario, assuming you do it all in one day). At what point do you become pleased enough with the "journey" and just decided to call it find? 15th stage? 28th? 34th? How about 39th? After all, you've had most of the "journey", and what's one extra stage in relationship to what's already been done? All hail the new rules! Do as much as you like (until you get a warm, fuzzy feeling, I guess), then log it Found! Hurray!

It's already been pointed out that your example has nothing to do with the discussion. Claiming a find on a cache you haven't completed is different than logging a challenge cache that you have completed the requirements for, but can't/won't log because you are the owner of the final box. Nowhere in this discussion has been suggested that an owner wanted to log the final before he had completed all the requirements.

[+The Jester]

I like the challenge category, too. But, if people today hide "for the numbers" caches, isn't it likely the same would happen with challenges? It seems to me there would have to be some subjective guidelines as to whether a challenge was truly a challenge, lest we end up with hundreds of "Find Both LPCs At the Springfield Walmart Challenge".

This is a very good point. It would open Pandora's box.....

I don't think so. You would still have to go thru the review process and get a Challenge approved. So don't thing "Challenge Spew" is going to happen.

 

OT: I've opened Pandora's box(s): Pandora's Big 'Un & Pandora’s Box of Troubles (and about 50 others by her).

[Dinoprophet]

I like the challenge category, too. But, if people today hide "for the numbers" caches, isn't it likely the same would happen with challenges? It seems to me there would have to be some subjective guidelines as to whether a challenge was truly a challenge, lest we end up with hundreds of "Find Both LPCs At the Springfield Walmart Challenge".

This is a very good point. It would open Pandora's box.....

I don't think so. You would still have to go thru the review process and get a Challenge approved. So don't thing "Challenge Spew" is going to happen.

Right. There would have to be an approval process. The question is how subjective it would be. As CR says, the big brains would have to sort it out, but as I see it now, it would be tough to avoid something like the "uniqueness" factor for locationless or "wow" factor for virts.

 

The thing is, I could easily invent one hundred challenges in 60 seconds. They are far easier to come up with than a location for a cache or a locationless theme. I'm all for this idea, but these things will need to be addressed first.

 

One idea: a very low limit on the number of challenges someone can create. Another would be not tying it to any particular cache, as someone has already said. Another could be that they have to be "immortal" -- that is, they will always be achievable (barring unforeseeable events like a major coastline change, the complete banning of a certain type of cache, etc)

Edited October 18, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[+The Jester]

I like the challenge category, too. But, if people today hide "for the numbers" caches, isn't it likely the same would happen with challenges? It seems to me there would have to be some subjective guidelines as to whether a challenge was truly a challenge, lest we end up with hundreds of "Find Both LPCs At the Springfield Walmart Challenge".

This is a very good point. It would open Pandora's box.....

I don't think so. You would still have to go thru the review process and get a Challenge approved. So don't thing "Challenge Spew" is going to happen.

Right. There would have to be an approval process. The question is how subjective it would be. As CR says, the big brains would have to sort it out, but as I see it now, it would be tough to avoid something like the "uniqueness" factor for locationless or "wow" factor for virts.

 

The thing is, I could easily invent one hundred challenges in 60 seconds. They are far easier to come up with than a location for a cache or a locationless theme. I'm all for this idea, but these things will need to be addressed first.

 

One idea: a very low limit on the number of challenges someone can create. Another would be not tying it to any particular cache, as someone has already said. Another could be that they have to be "immortal" -- that is, they will always be achievable (barring unforeseeable events like a major coastline change, the complete banning of a certain type of cache, etc)

The real limiting factor is getting permission to use the "email me for the co-ords". As this is against the guidelines, the reviewers aren't going to do it all that often.

[+alexrudd]

I fully understand the challenge concept. Like someone else mentioned, the final cache is merely the hlogbook for the effort undertaken. My final was a mile in, and is a very easy hide. I made it such, seeing as the real effort was driving all over Rhode Island to find 12 caches and didn't want people having to spend ours at GZ in order to log the cache.

No offense to your fine state, but that comment just about made my day.

[CoyoteRed]

The real limiting factor is getting permission to use the "email me for the co-ords". As this is against the guidelines, the reviewers aren't going to do it all that often.

The interaction with the cache owner is probably an inherent feature of the challenge. Sure, you could probably program a feature to automatically send the final coords for a Delorme Challenge, but because we're looking for a broad spectrum of criteria it would not be feasible to program for every situation.

 

I think part of the general prohibition of required cache owner interaction is non-responsive or uncooperative cache owners. Maybe this could be a criteria, but how it would work I've not given much thought. Maybe, considering there is no physical object to maintain, the threat of archival or forced adoption could be used as a stick? If folks are working on a set of find criteria it shouldn't who owns a challenge whether it is new or adopted.

 

Which brings up a another point, what about duplicate challenges? Should there be only a single general challenge like the "Fizzy challenge?" Would that preclude a single state "Fizzy Challenge" where folks had to limit the criteria finds to that state? Could there be two challenges that use the exact same criteria? Stuff like that. How would that work?

[+Moose Mob]

It's time to get this back on the right track. This thread started about logging one's own challenge cache. If you folks want a thread about challenge spew and/or criteria for a true challenge, please start a new thread. Or... a Moderator could split this one if they were so inclined.

[+sbell111]

I was thinking this morning about Lep's comment about multiple players who had fulfilled the requirements to find his challenge cache and would likely making the trip to find it soon. (Note to self: report the broken ignore feature.)

 

I was also thinking about all those times when we search for a cache with someone else. Often times, the other person makes the find. Even though we didn't find it ourselves, most of us are comfortable with scribbling our name in the book and logging the cache online as a find. After all, we hiked to the site, and we signed the book. It didn't matter that we weren't the person to actually find the cache.

 

If we, as a community, find those logs to be acceptable, why are we overwhelmed with angst about an owner of a delorme cache logging the cache as a 'find' if he 1) found caches in each of the required areas and 2) signed the logbook? After all, we have already established that actually finding a cache oneself is not the determining factor in whether one should log a find. Rather, the determinant is whether the ALRs were completed and the logbook was signed.

[+flyingmoose]

The real problem is; I can add my name to the list on the cache page but I will not have a smiley for completing it!

 

Depending on which DeLorme Challenge you created and then want to log a find then you will have found 30-100 caches or what ever it may be. Why that one more smiley means something when you already "own it" is beyond me. Is it not enough in this game that you go out and had a good time? Do we need to find a way to get credit for everything we do in this game? Personally I am sad this was even asked but I will play my way and you will play yours, just keep in mind what your actions speak to those who are new or the easily influenced because if you bend the rules so will they.

Edited October 18, 2007 by flyingmoose

[+sbell111]

The real problem is; I can add my name to the list on the cache page but I will not have a smiley for completing it!

 

Depending on which DeLorme Challenge you created and then want to log a find then you will have found 30-100 caches or what ever it may be. Why that one more smiley means something when you already "own it" is beyond me. Is it not enough in this game that you got out and had a good time? Do we need to find a way to get credit for everything we do in this game? Personally I am sad this was even asked but I will play my way and you will play yours, just keep in mind what your actions speak to those who are new or the easily influenced because if you bend the rules so will they.

Well, I have to believe that there is some reason that we have online logs and that they increment our smiley count.

[+Sagefox]

...why are we overwhelmed with angst about an owner of a delorme cache logging the cache as a 'find' if he 1) found caches in each of the required areas and 2) signed the logbook? After all, we have already established that actually finding a cache oneself is not the determining factor in whether one should log a find. Rather, the determinant is whether the ALRs were completed and the logbook was signed.

 

Why indeed!

 

I still think my challenge owner disclaimer note solves this problem completely and cleanly.

 

I have placed a "final" container to facilitate the logging of this challenge cache and for trade items that only those completing this challenge will have access to. Given that the challenge is related to DeLorme pages rather than the typical container cache find I reserve the right to log this cache as a "Found It" should I be fortunate enough to complete the qualifications.

[+flyingmoose]

Well, I have to believe that there is some reason that we have online logs and that they increment our smiley count.

 

Who says online logs have to be logged as a find? There is a "write note" option which I use all them time on caches and events I choose not to claim as finds.

[+sbell111]

Well, I have to believe that there is some reason that we have online logs and that they increment our smiley count.

Who says online logs have to be logged as a find? There is a "write note" option which I use all them time on caches and events I choose not to claim as finds.

[Dinoprophet]

I was thinking this morning about Lep's comment about multiple players who had fulfilled the requirements to find his challenge cache and would likely making the trip to find it soon. (Note to self: report the broken ignore feature.)

 

I was also thinking about all those times when we search for a cache with someone else. Often times, the other person makes the find. Even though we didn't find it ourselves, most of us are comfortable with scribbling our name in the book and logging the cache online as a find. After all, we hiked to the site, and we signed the book. It didn't matter that we weren't the person to actually find the cache.

 

If we, as a community, find those logs to be acceptable, why are we overwhelmed with angst about an owner of a delorme cache logging the cache as a 'find' if he 1) found caches in each of the required areas and 2) signed the logbook? After all, we have already established that actually finding a cache oneself is not the determining factor in whether one should log a find. Rather, the determinant is whether the ALRs were completed and the logbook was signed.

Does it not follow, then, that anyone who completes the ALR for their own cache should be able to log it as found? Even if the only ALR is hiking to the site? If not, why are these different than other ALRs?

 

Again, I don't care what people do, I'm just trying to understand this argument.

[+sbell111]

I was thinking this morning about Lep's comment about multiple players who had fulfilled the requirements to find his challenge cache and would likely making the trip to find it soon. (Note to self: report the broken ignore feature.)

 

I was also thinking about all those times when we search for a cache with someone else. Often times, the other person makes the find. Even though we didn't find it ourselves, most of us are comfortable with scribbling our name in the book and logging the cache online as a find. After all, we hiked to the site, and we signed the book. It didn't matter that we weren't the person to actually find the cache.

 

If we, as a community, find those logs to be acceptable, why are we overwhelmed with angst about an owner of a delorme cache logging the cache as a 'find' if he 1) found caches in each of the required areas and 2) signed the logbook? After all, we have already established that actually finding a cache oneself is not the determining factor in whether one should log a find. Rather, the determinant is whether the ALRs were completed and the logbook was signed.

Does it not follow, then, that anyone who completes the ALR for their own cache should be able to log it as found? Even if the only ALR is hiking to the site? If not, why are these different than other ALRs?

 

Again, I don't care what people do, I'm just trying to understand this argument.

It does so follow.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

No.

[+Sagefox]

But isn't it possible that cache owners might log their own challenge caches as found, where the challenge is distinctly separate from the container they might have placed for logging and trading by those who complete the challenge requirements, (bleep, bleep, de-bleeped reference to errant cache practice)... that they might do this and not log any of their traditional caches as found?

 

It seems possible to me that this could be done and it won't change the owner into someone who suddenly decides that they can log finds for any or all of their traditional caches or ALR caches where the finding the final IS the requirement.

 

And it seems possible to me that they could do this and it won't cause many tens or hundreds of other cachers to start logging their own caches as found.

 

We keep returning to the rationalization that someone traveling 38mph in a 35mph zone should receive the same fine as someone going 108 in a 35.

 

This binary logic (it's either on or off and there is no inbetween) is easy to defend because all you have to say is "These are the only two options". Columbus believed there might be other options.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Team Sagefox

[+Prime Suspect]

But isn't it possible that cache owners might log their own challenge caches as found, where the challenge is distinctly separate from the container they might have placed for logging and trading by those who complete the challenge requirements, (not all challenge caches have a final container)... that they might do this and not log any of their traditional caches as found?

 

(not all challenge caches have a final container)

 

I don't think that's correct. It would be a violation of the guidelines. Can you name an example?

Edited October 20, 2007 by Prime Suspect

[+Sagefox]

(not all challenge caches have a final container)

 

I don't think that's correct. It would be a violation of the guidelines. Can you name an example?

 

Oops! Well, now that you put it that way... no, I guess I won't give the name of an example.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Team Sagefox

[+GeoBlank]

I realize this topic has been talked to death but if it has not been mentioned, maybe a reviewer account should own these challenge type of caches if the inventor of it should really log it.

 

At the end of the day it does not matter each way but it is one idea

[CoyoteRed]

If it becomes acceptable to log one's own challenge cache would that mean I could place a "100 Find Logs Challenge" and immediately be able to log it considering I already have over 100 found it logs?

 

Extending this notion a bit, could I figure out any other criteria that I've already completed, or about to complete, create a challenge cache so I could log it? Right now, we're talking about the different in, say, puzzle caches (as a form of challenge) and a DeLorme-style challenge. One we're fairly clear on the logging protocol and the other some are using a different standard. As puzzles get more "DeLorme-esque" and challenge caches get more puzzle-like, where do we draw the line between one protocol and the other?

 

I see the challenge that must be completed as little different than solving a puzzle or hiking 2 days to find the cache. It's a challenge one must overcome. Who cares if the owner hasn't done it, the owner is the owner. We don't let owners "find" a cache when he already knows where it is in any other case. Why should this be different?

 

I'm now firmly in the "no" camp. I wouldn't claim it as a find, but I may acknowledge I completed the challenge. I would think less of those who would claim it as a find. That's my personal opinion.

 

Besides, why would one need that smilie as a validation they did something?

[+Sagefox]

Right now, we're talking about the different in, say, puzzle caches (as a form of challenge) and a DeLorme-style challenge. One we're fairly clear on the logging protocol and the other some are using a different standard. As puzzles get more "DeLorme-esque" and challenge caches get more puzzle-like, where do we draw the line between one protocol and the other?

 

When the final container is only used for logging the challenge and is available only to those who complete the challenge and where completing the challenge requirements does not give you the coordinates to the container location... that seems like a clearly drawn line to me.

 

Besides, why would one need that smilie as a validation they did something?

 

We don't need smilies. They are a reward for accomplishing something. Why should someone be denied this reward when the accomplishment has nothing to do with the final container as defined above?