Any interest in a King County Thomas Guide Challenge?

[+TeamIDFC]

I ran across GCRGNP (San Bernardino County Thomas Guide Challenge) a while back and thought it was pretty cool. It takes the basic premise of Delorme/Quadrangle/etc and uses the Thomas Guide as the delineation. I've been thinking about it for some time, but didn't have the map data. Today at Costco I picked up the 2008 edition and it has map datum so this is now reasonably feasible to do and be accurate.

 

I was thinking about creating a King County version if there was sufficient interest.

 

Pros:

- Another cool challenge with about 70 caches to grab

- Reasonably close-in locations (don't have to drive all of Washington)

- Another excuse to get out, and one that is a bit easier than the Delorme to do in the winter

 

Cons:

- Some of the super-cachers will have already done many of the caches

- Another $25 to spend if you don't have a current version of the map (the only one with map datum)

- The amount of time it will take me to transcribe and convert all the map data to make GSAK filters for all the pages…

 

So, fellow cachers, I ask thee:

If I build it, will they come?

 

And, if we do go ahead with it, what are your thoughts on:

 

- New vs old: Should we allow previous finds, or force just new?

I'd be included for new to get folks out, but with some many grids perhaps old makes it more approachable?

- Cache types: Any (virtual, webcam, micro)?

I'd be included to go with any physical cache - anything with a log in it

 

Any all feedback appreciated…

 

-- Michael (Mr TeamIDFC)

[+Dgwphotos]

I might be interested, as the Counties challenge and Delorme Challenge are both impossible for me.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Dwoodford

[+Prying Pandora]

If you build any cache, they will come.

 

If you do it, I hope that you will choose to keep it simple. It seems like challenge caches are being published one right after another and the increasing and varied arbitrary restrictions placed on each one makes me lose patience with keeping track of them. An arbitrary date restriction makes me lose patience very quickly. It's true that "super cachers" will have an advantage without one, but at the end either you've done the work to have been there/done that or you haven't. I have no desire to revisit a long list of places I've already cached in for another challenge cache - they're not going to look any different after an arbitrary date than they did a month prior. Another problem with a date restriction is that many people will have quite a few of the pages cleaned out and would have to wait for new caches to be placed in each one before they could complete the challenge.

[+TeamIDFC]

If you do it, I hope that you will choose to keep it simple. An arbitrary date restriction makes me lose patience very quickly. It's true that "super cachers" will have an advantage without one, but at the end either you've done the work to have been there/done that or you haven't. I have no desire to revisit a long list of places I've already cached in for another challenge cache - they're not going to look any different after an arbitrary date than they did a month prior.

 

Good points - I was leaning that way originally, but seeing the other challenge caches made me wonder...

 

So, the current "rules" would be nothing more than finding a physical cache on each page.

[+-Hawk-]

I agree whole heartedly with PP and Dwoodford. If you do a challenge cache, it will be worked on by many, but as PP said, and I agree, the date restrictions really put a damper on the whole thing, and kinda turns me off too. Another restriction I have a problem with on other challenges is not being able to log a find on a cache that is within the date allowance, but has since been archived. It was still an active cache when I found it, it is still a "found" cache in my stats, it should count no matter what. Don't take a legit find away from me when I found it, and the owner decided to archive it 6 months later...it is still a find.

I will follow this topic, and I wish you luck. As Dwoodford said, it is another "doable" challenge, and not the WDC or WSCC, that will take me several years to complete. I live outside of King county, but it is no where near as far as the SE corner of the state.

In short...yeah, I am interested.

 

Edit to add: If it has a log sheet it is good to go.

Edited January 21, 2008 by -Hawk-

[+hydnsek]

Interesting challenge idea, so go for it!

 

But I guess I'm the contrarian on the 'rules.' I don't see any 'challenge' in sitting in front of the computer the day it's published and typing 'found it!' because I've already gotten all the required caches (I don't mean me, cos I won't, I'm speaking hypothetically). For the super-cachers (or those who cache heavily in the local area), it will be a race to see who can log the fastest, most likely, without setting foot outside the door. Not much of a 'woo hoo' in that.

 

I prefer an even playing field, where everyone starts out at the same level (no caches found). Seems more fair and inclusive to the majority of cachers, who don't have thousands of finds to draw on. Let's give everyone a chance to compete for the FTF (or 10th to find), even those with 100 finds.

 

I think the argument that people don't want to revisit places is a bit disingenuous - these same folks have happily revisited the same areas many times to find fresh caches, and never complained.

 

And there are plenty of non-challenge caches that have 'rules' to follow to log them - puzzles, multis, earthcaches, whatevah. I think folks that can do those successfully can follow whatever guidelines a challenge cache may have. I agree that I've gotten confused with the guidelines on a couple of the recent challenge caches (Can I log out-of-state caches? Oh wait, I can't log more than one number cache per day...), but it hasn't taxed my brain nearly as much as some puzzles.

 

Finally, I question whether folks will really have entire pages cleaned out. But if they do, well, it's a nice handicap for those super-cachers. Allow newly placed caches to count, and they'll soon have it covered.

 

[/contrarian mode off]

Edited January 21, 2008 by hydnsek

[+Kiersolvd]

I wonder how many pages don't have a cache on them? Just curious.

[+W7WT]

Hawk, why don't you set up a "Kitsap County Roadrunner Challenge."?

I have a 2002 edition and it has 47 pages. As I have said I am too old to start over for anything. I agree with you 100% A find is a find. There are a lot of new geocachers that will not be able to do the Counties or Delorne Challenges that would get to know beautiful Kitsap County. Dick

BTW there are lots of Kitsap County I have never been to.

[+Blue Power Ranger]

I'd probably give it a shot if it were simple.

[+Lizzy]

There's never a way to make it "one size fits all" and you will always have those that don't care for it because it's one way or the other. The intent of a challenge is what counts - not whether they can complete it from their desk at home & go out & sign the log like any other 1/1 cache. If it's a challenge, it should require the same effort for someone who has only 5 finds as one who has 5000 finds.

[+TeamIDFC]

But I guess I'm the contrarian on the 'rules.' I don't see any 'challenge' in sitting in front of the computer the day it's published and typing 'found it!' because I've already gotten all the required caches (I don't mean me, cos I won't, I'm speaking hypothetically). For the super-cachers (or those who cache heavily in the local area), it will be a race to see who can log the fastest, most likely, without setting foot outside the door. Not much of a 'woo hoo' in that.

[/contrarian mode off]

 

I don't think you are contrarian - this isn't a one-size-fits-all as was also noted. Part of the reason we are torn is when we started the Delorme we had about 10 pages - it wasn't from scratch. But, we are doing the county challenge from scratch (just 1 more to go!).

 

I like the even playing field idea.

I don't like cumbersome rules.

I like plenty of folks wanting to participate.

I don't want something fun to be contentious.

 

Good luck with all that, eh?

 

I'm off on a plane to Palm Springs, so I've got 2.5 hours to start transcribing the coordinates and setting up the filters. Once I do I'm probably going to ask some hard-core local cachers to send me a copy of their "My Finds" and see if any of them would have already completed the vast majority of the grids and that might help make the decision easier.

[+WeightMan]

But I guess I'm the contrarian on the 'rules.' I don't see any 'challenge' in sitting in front of the computer the day it's published and typing 'found it!' because I've already gotten all the required caches (I don't mean me, cos I won't, I'm speaking hypothetically). For the super-cachers (or those who cache heavily in the local area), it will be a race to see who can log the fastest, most likely, without setting foot outside the door. Not much of a 'woo hoo' in that.

[/contrarian mode off]

 

I don't think you are contrarian - this isn't a one-size-fits-all as was also noted. Part of the reason we are torn is when we started the Delorme we had about 10 pages - it wasn't from scratch. But, we are doing the county challenge from scratch (just 1 more to go!).

 

I like the even playing field idea.

I don't like cumbersome rules.

I like plenty of folks wanting to participate.

I don't want something fun to be contentious.

 

Good luck with all that, eh?

 

I'm off on a plane to Palm Springs, so I've got 2.5 hours to start transcribing the coordinates and setting up the filters. Once I do I'm probably going to ask some hard-core local cachers to send me a copy of their "My Finds" and see if any of them would have already completed the vast majority of the grids and that might help make the decision easier.

One of the problems I had with the County Challenge was that when it came out, I had just completed not long before a trip through the northeast section of the state. I was not interested in the spending the time and money to do that trip again that soon. With the King County (or any other county) Challenge, that is not that much of an issue. I can cache anywhere within the county and be home at night. I can't do that when I need a cache find in Pend Orielle County or Asotin County.

 

I'm not sure if I would do a King County Challenge and I really don't know whether a date restriction should be in place. I can see both sides of that question.

[+Dgwphotos]

For the record, the reason I said that the others are impossible for me, is personal restrictions on my range for caching. Most of you do not have those restrictions. A King County challenge is barely doable for me as it is. Since I don't have my own car, I do not have the freedom of action that the rest of you do.

[+hydnsek]

I wonder how many pages don't have a cache on them? Just curious.

After I sent my note, I actually wondered the same thing. More likely than with DeLorme, I'd wager.

[+hydnsek]

If it's a challenge, it should require the same effort for someone who has only 5 finds as one who has 5000 finds.

That was the key point of my contrarian view. Someone with 5000 finds may not have to do any work, whereas someone with 5 finds certainly will. Vast different in effort required to complete the challenge.

 

I am one of those who would be at a definite advantage with 'all previous finds count, no date restrictions,' but I'd rather see an even playing field for everyone, even though I will have to do more work and traveling.

[+AndrewRJ]

I would play either way.

 

I live in King County, and have done most of my caching there. I probibly won't have all the pages, but I will be close. Its nice to start challenges at more then zero.

 

OTOH Its King County. I could easily hit everything again in a reasonable amount of time. Might be harder for others in other counties to complete that way.

 

Overall I think that it should not have restrictions. Sure that means that a few people may be able to log it right away, but really that is to thier detriment more then someone who would be exploring the area and finding caches.

 

I do think there would be areas in east King that will have issues with there even having caches out here, especially east of Carnation/Duvall area.

[+Prying Pandora]

If it's a challenge, it should require the same effort for someone who has only 5 finds as one who has 5000 finds.

That was the key point of my contrarian view. Someone with 5000 finds may not have to do any work, whereas someone with 5 finds certainly will. Vast different in effort required to complete the challenge.

 

I am one of those who would be at a definite advantage with 'all previous finds count, no date restrictions,' but I'd rather see an even playing field for everyone, even though I will have to do more work and traveling.

I don't understand the perceived difference in effort. Cacher A takes the time and effort to visit page X today. Cacher B took the time and effort to visit page X two months ago. Cacher C will take the time and effort to visit page X three months from now. The work and traveling are all equal.

[+Allanon]

If it's a challenge, it should require the same effort for someone who has only 5 finds as one who has 5000 finds.

That was the key point of my contrarian view. Someone with 5000 finds may not have to do any work, whereas someone with 5 finds certainly will. Vast different in effort required to complete the challenge.

 

I am one of those who would be at a definite advantage with 'all previous finds count, no date restrictions,' but I'd rather see an even playing field for everyone, even though I will have to do more work and traveling.

I don't understand the perceived difference in effort. Cacher A takes the time and effort to visit page X today. Cacher B took the time and effort to visit page X two months ago. Cacher C will take the time and effort to visit page X three months from now. The work and traveling are all equal.

If I'm reading hydnsek's post correctly, she's saying in the bolded statement that she would rather everyone start at the same point (e.g. no previous finds counting)...therefore it would be more work for her because she would have to visit those places again that she's already been to...but I could be wrong.

[+Prying Pandora]

We all start out with a level playing field when we begin caching with zero finds. What you do after that is up to you. There are cachers who began after I did that have more finds than I do, and many more that have cleaned out a lot more of King County than I have. Those people worked harder at it than I did and good for them. I'm not going to cry foul and say they have an advantage over me on a challenge, when I could have worked harder but chose not to.

[+hydnsek]

We all start out with a level playing field when we begin caching with zero finds. What you do after that is up to you. There are cachers who began after I did that have more finds than I do, and many more that have cleaned out a lot more of King County than I have. Those people worked harder at it than I did and good for them. I'm not going to cry foul and say they have an advantage over me on a challenge, when I could have worked harder but chose not to.

All true. Of course, not everyone lives to cache. I guess I'm trying to put myself in the position of someone who doesn't have thousands of finds, or only started recently, and would like a sporting chance at FTFing (or being near the top of) these challenges. Again, the 'no restrictions' approach favors me, as it does you, and has helped me win or complete some challenges in an expeditious fashion. I guess I'm championing the underdog rather than the big dog, even tho it disadvantages me. Else, folks like us are likely to have a huge advantage in every similar challenge. Frankly, if I were just starting out, I'd find that a bit frustrating and intimidating (as I know some newbies do).

 

And I seem to remember some hue and cry over the Counties challenge, and its date restriction, from folks who had recently finished DeLorme and weren't able to immediately traverse the state again as others could (who hadn't just done it, or were just starting), and felt that placed them at a disadvantage. Yet the level playing field for the Counties challenge gave some non-usual suspects a great opportunity. (I think Lizzie got undeserved guff for her date-cutoff decision on that challenge.)

 

I guess what constitutes an 'advantage' for any challenge is in the eye of the beholder. No matter what course is chosen, somebody will be at a disadvantage in some fashion.

 

However this challenge is set up, though, it will be fun, and I look forward to doing it!

[+Ambrosia]

I understand that it's better for the challenge if there's a date restriction for people who have a lot of finds in those places. For someone like me, who does the best i can with all the restrictions put on me, I need every find that I may have. I'd love to do these challenges but I get discouraged and give up before I start, because I can't hope to finish them without previous finds. Heck, I probably can't hope to do them even with previous finds, although it's more likely. Just trying to show a different viewpoint. Although I might be the only person with it.

Edited January 22, 2008 by Ambrosia

[+TeamIDFC]

I guess I'm trying to put myself in the position of someone who doesn't have thousands of finds, or only started recently, and would like a sporting chance at FTFing (or being near the top of) these challenges.

I guess I'm championing the underdog rather than the big dog, even tho it disadvantages me. Else, folks like us are likely to have a huge advantage in every similar challenge. Frankly, if I were just starting out, I'd find that a bit frustrating and intimidating (as I know some newbies do).

Yet the level playing field for the Counties challenge gave some non-usual suspects a great opportunity. (I think Lizzie got undeserved guff for her date-cutoff decision on that challenge.)

I have been tending to think along these lines. Even though we are setting up the cache, Ms IDFC really wants to "find" this one as well, and she (ironicly) wants a resonable shot at an FTF or near-FTF.

 

Given that, and I know that this will be annoy some - we are leaning toward a 1/1/2008 starting point to give everyone a shot at the FTF.

 

However this challenge is set up, though, it will be fun, and I look forward to doing it!

Yeah!

 

I've transcribed about 60% of the HH' MM' SS' corners on the flight down, and I expect to have the rest of them transcribed by the end of next week.

 

Question: Does anyone know of an Excel formula or scritable web service to convert between DMS and Decimal? I'm going to have to convert about 350 of them, and I'm not willing to that by hand.

 

Also, someone asked about grids without caches. At a glance, there appear to actually be fairly few that don't have any caches. I'll likely be posting a plee for someone to place in those grids sometime next week.

 

Thanks for all the interest!

 

-- Michael

[+Lightning Jeff]

I do think there would be areas in east King that will have issues with there even having caches out here, especially east of Carnation/Duvall area.

But don't the maps really "zoom out" in those kinds of places, such that they cover a lot more ground? Seems like it might not be an issue.

 

I kind of agree with Hydnsek on the date cutoff. The argument that "I was already there and shouldn't have to go back" doesn't really convince me. As Abby points out, some of us return again and again to visit new caches. I see it like stages of a multi: The fact that you've already been down a particular trail before doesn't mean you can skip the waypoints of a new cache down that trail. Sometimes, if you want that new find, you gotta go back.

 

I can't say whether I'd chase this one or not. I'm generally ambivalent about the challenge caches because I can't see structuring the next several months/year of rare caching days around a need to visit far-flung arbitrary locations; I tend to choose locations based on a particular cache (or, increasingly, letterbox) that has caught my eye. But if ever a challenge cache was manageable even with a date restriction, it seems like this is the one, since it covers relatively little territory. Still, those Thomas Guides have a lot of pages! It might be fun to try out the "optimal routing" feature on my new Nuvi 760, but I probably don't have the discipline to keep at it.

 

Which brings me to the thought I really wanted to express: Not everyone can do every cache. There are intriguing caches out there that I know I will never be able to do, for various reasons, which might include their far-flung locations, the work involved, heights (Crazy Monkey Tripod, I shall one day ignore you!), etc. That's life. So, I say set it up in the way that will bring you the most enjoyment.

[+Dgwphotos]

 

Question: Does anyone know of an Excel formula or scritable web service to convert between DMS and Decimal? I'm going to have to convert about 350 of them, and I'm not willing to that by hand.

 

-- Michael

Google Geocalc. That's what I use.

[+FunnyNose]

I haven't looked at the Thomas Guide yet, so don't know how much area each page covers.

 

If you do use the date restriction,

What happens if a high numbers cacher has every cache on a page ?

Edited January 22, 2008 by FunnyNose

[+The Jester]

From my reading of this topic, it seems the "level playing field" is for the FTF race. So set it up that the first <pick a time frame or number of finders> have a date cutoff, then open it up to any find date. That way the FTF race is "fun", but those that are not interested in that aspect can log it whenever they complete it.

[+W7WT]

The Jester has a great suggestion. Should please about %83 of the

cachers.

[+-Hawk-]

Hawk, why don't you set up a "Kitsap County Roadrunner Challenge."?

I have a 2002 edition and it has 47 pages. As I have said I am too old to start over for anything. I agree with you 100% A find is a find. There are a lot of new geocachers that will not be able to do the Counties or Delorne Challenges that would get to know beautiful Kitsap County. Dick

BTW there are lots of Kitsap County I have never been to.

Sounds like a great idea Dick, but I really don't think I am the man for that job.....maybe the Kitsap county cacher, that is "The Man" when it comes to challenge caches, Ruck would like to do the honors. Seems fitting to me! Of course when would he have time to set something like that up, he is too busy completing the other challenges out there, maybe even twice.

 

From my reading of this topic, it seems the "level playing field" is for the FTF race. So set it up that the first <pick a time frame or number of finders> have a date cutoff, then open it up to any find date. That way the FTF race is "fun", but those that are not interested in that aspect can log it whenever they complete it.

 

Now, thats a great idea!

[+TeamIDFC]

I haven't looked at the Thomas Guide yet, so don't know how much area each page covers.

 

If you do use the date restriction,

What happens if a high numbers cacher has every cache on a page ?

I honestly don't think that's going to be a problem for all but about a couple of pages, and I'm already going to have to account for the 2 pags that don't have a cache.

 

Hmm...

[+TeamIDFC]

Google Geocalc. That's what I use.

Cool tool, and I'll keep it around, but it seems to be just interactive - I need something scriptable to handle the hundred's of points to convert...

 

Thanks!

Edited January 22, 2008 by TeamIDFC

[+GrnXnham]

We all start out with a level playing field when we begin caching with zero finds. What you do after that is up to you. There are cachers who began after I did that have more finds than I do, and many more that have cleaned out a lot more of King County than I have. Those people worked harder at it than I did and good for them. I'm not going to cry foul and say they have an advantage over me on a challenge, when I could have worked harder but chose not to.

 

We agree with you 100%

 

We only recently "discovered" that there is a Washington State County Challenge cache. We went through our cache finds to find out which counties we had already discovered caches in on our way to the final. Then I saw the rule that most of my county finds do not count because we have been caching for four years and several of the old caches had been archived. We would have to find "new" caches in several counties. Why shouldn't the old finds count? Back in 2003 when we started caching, caches were fewer with more miles between them than they are now. It was MORE of a challenge back then because there was less caches to find especially in places of Eastern Washington.

 

As for FTF, we couldn't care less who gets FTF. We've noticed that the "FTF Craze" has worn off quite a bit anyway since we started caching in 2003. It just doesn't seem like being FTF is that big of a deal anymore to a lot of cachers when there is so many caches out there.

 

So we ended up kind of annoyed at the date and archived caches rule and lost interest in the Washington State County Challenge.

Edited January 22, 2008 by GrnXnham

[+Lizzy]

From my reading of this topic, it seems the "level playing field" is for the FTF race. So set it up that the first <pick a time frame or number of finders> have a date cutoff, then open it up to any find date. That way the FTF race is "fun", but those that are not interested in that aspect can log it whenever they complete it.

WHY didn't I think of that?!!! How absolutely brilliant. That would've pleased the majority and prevented all the flaming I was getting over the whole thing. It kinda happened that way in the end with my cache, but it would've prevented the majority of heartache that was going on. Still, we'd have the "two-fer" issue going on after the date restriction was removed, but maybe people would not have taken such offense and would've let me slide on that point.

[+Lizzy]

Then I saw the rule that most of my county finds do not count because we have been caching for four years and several of the old caches had been archived. We would have to find "new" caches in several counties. Why shouldn't the old finds count?

There are reasons behind each & every rule. In order to prevent some cachers from claiming finds on un-maintained caches just to log caches in counties they've never set foot in, I do not allow archived cache finds.

[+TeamIDFC]

From my reading of this topic, it seems the "level playing field" is for the FTF race. So set it up that the first <pick a time frame or number of finders> have a date cutoff, then open it up to any find date.

WHY didn't I think of that?!!! How absolutely brilliant. That would've pleased the majority and prevented all the flaming I was getting over the whole thing.

Agreed - that is brilliant!

 

I'm thinking the first 5 are "new" (from zero) contestants - then we open to the world. That means the world can start on it immediately, but it will be a month or so before the first 5 or so log and then everyone else can.

 

Does that work for everyone?

[+AndrewRJ]

I do think there would be areas in east King that will have issues with there even having caches out here, especially east of Carnation/Duvall area.

But don't the maps really "zoom out" in those kinds of places, such that they cover a lot more ground? Seems like it might not be an issue.

 

 

Jeff

 

I looked at a book that was lying around at work, and what I saw was that after the populated areas out here, it just said look at map B. In another words, we don't have to worry about the blank spaces in the middle of the county that are just mountains. It really is just in the populated areas.

 

That said, I was a lottle suprized to see Vashon Island. I guess its been a while since I have closely looked at the map boundries out there.

[+Prying Pandora]

Then I saw the rule that most of my county finds do not count because we have been caching for four years and several of the old caches had been archived. We would have to find "new" caches in several counties. Why shouldn't the old finds count?

There are reasons behind each & every rule. In order to prevent some cachers from claiming finds on un-maintained caches just to log caches in counties they've never set foot in, I do not allow archived cache finds.

Anyone who would log a bogus find on an archived cache is the big loser in that case by cheating themselves out of the experience and making their list of cache finds meaningless. Seems a shame to deny honest cachers credit for legit finds, though.

[+-Hawk-]

Then I saw the rule that most of my county finds do not count because we have been caching for four years and several of the old caches had been archived. We would have to find "new" caches in several counties. Why shouldn't the old finds count?

There are reasons behind each & every rule. In order to prevent some cachers from claiming finds on un-maintained caches just to log caches in counties they've never set foot in, I do not allow archived cache finds.

Not to Hijack the thread, but I don't honestly think that that is a completely valid reason for excluding finds on caches that have been archived since I posted a find on them.

In the entire state, how is a challenge cache owner to determine if a particular cache is un-maintained? If there is no maintenance logs by the owner, does not mean it isn't being maintained. If a challenge cache owner is basing it on previous log entries to mine, showing this cache is not being maintained, then I think it should revert to a case by case basis on wether or not it should be included in my finds towards the challenge. This would seem to me, to be ALOT of work on the challenge cache owners part, and possibly create a biased situation.

Is claiming finds on "un-maintained" caches that were never visited, that prevelant of a problem compared to the theoretical possibilty of a cacher claiming an armchair cache on one that appears to be maintained, yet logsheets are not compared to online found entries by the cache owners, thereby giving

a cacher one more find towards completing said challenge? Even if that log was found to be invalid and deleted by the cache owner, due to no signiture in the logsheet, after the challenge was completed, the "found it" log still served it purpose, to complete the challenge. The challenge owner would never know that after the fact.

I feel that it is all the same...both are extreme, and unlikely situations, thereby not needing a restriction, on either one.

I hope I was able to get my point on this subject out in a understandable way. Not trying to step on any toes, I am hoping I am able to relay my thoughts and make sure every aspect is out there.

I had a county cache discounted due to it being archived since my logged find, but, I will deal with that one. I gotta go through that county anyways to get others beyond it. If it was the last county in the NE corner of the state, and it was the last county I needed, I would feel differently. I would then have to make a trip over there, based on a technicality.

From my reading of this topic, it seems the "level playing field" is for the FTF race. So set it up that the first <pick a time frame or number of finders> have a date cutoff, then open it up to any find date.

WHY didn't I think of that?!!! How absolutely brilliant. That would've pleased the majority and prevented all the flaming I was getting over the whole thing.

Agreed - that is brilliant!

 

I'm thinking the first 5 are "new" (from zero) contestants - then we open to the world. That means the world can start on it immediately, but it will be a month or so before the first 5 or so log and then everyone else can.

 

Does that work for everyone?

Works for me! I think it is a great idea to implement.

[+-Hawk-]

Anyone who would log a bogus find on an archived cache is the big loser in that case by cheating themselves out of the experience and making their list of cache finds meaningless. Seems a shame to deny honest cachers credit for legit finds, though.

Yah, what she said, just in less words

Edited January 22, 2008 by -Hawk-

[+fairyhoney]

"That said, I was a lottle suprized to see Vashon Island. I guess its been a while since I have closely looked at the map boundries out there."

WE went to Vaon Island and it cost us pretty near $30.00. It would be even More, now.

 

Yes, A Kitsap County one Would be nice. (maybe Seabeck Tribe?)

[+Lizzy]

Anyone who would log a bogus find on an archived cache is the big loser in that case by cheating themselves out of the experience and making their list of cache finds meaningless. Seems a shame to deny honest cachers credit for legit finds, though.

I agree with you there - but it does happen. It's a shame legit cachers can't go to Moun10bike & just state they've found one cache on each page & have him take their word for it, to get the final coordinates. Some verification has to take place or a challenge loses value.

[+AndrewRJ]

"That said, I was a lottle suprized to see Vashon Island. I guess its been a while since I have closely looked at the map boundries out there."

WE went to Vaon Island and it cost us pretty near $30.00. It would be even More, now.

 

Yes, A Kitsap County one Would be nice. (maybe Seabeck Tribe?)

 

Don't you just hate it when you catch your spelling mistakes because some one has quoted them?

 

Ok I realize that there are a lot more spelling errors in my posts, this was just one example.

Edited January 22, 2008 by AndrewRJ

[+Prying Pandora]

Anyone who would log a bogus find on an archived cache is the big loser in that case by cheating themselves out of the experience and making their list of cache finds meaningless. Seems a shame to deny honest cachers credit for legit finds, though.

I agree with you there - but it does happen. It's a shame legit cachers can't go to Moun10bike & just state they've found one cache on each page & have him take their word for it, to get the final coordinates. Some verification has to take place or a challenge loses value.

Unless you're going to request that the owners of each cache found for the challenge verify the physical logs of every cache claimed by everyone that completes the challenge, an archived cache is no more suspect than any other find claimed. Even then someone could still get around it by logging a find on an active cache that had been muggled and replaced, and backdating it to when the older container was in place. Seems better to me to have faith in the fact that most cachers are honorable and reserve the right to delete finds of those cachers that are ever discovered to have cheated. Even if a cheater is never discovered, they're the real loser in the end, aren't they?

[+Lizzy]

Anyone who would log a bogus find on an archived cache is the big loser in that case by cheating themselves out of the experience and making their list of cache finds meaningless. Seems a shame to deny honest cachers credit for legit finds, though.

I agree with you there - but it does happen. It's a shame legit cachers can't go to Moun10bike & just state they've found one cache on each page & have him take their word for it, to get the final coordinates. Some verification has to take place or a challenge loses value.

Unless you're going to request that the owners of each cache found for the challenge verify the physical logs of every cache claimed by everyone that completes the challenge, an archived cache is no more suspect than any other find claimed. Even then someone could still get around it by logging a find on an active cache that had been muggled and replaced, and backdating it to when the older container was in place. Seems better to me to have faith in the fact that most cachers are honorable and reserve the right to delete finds of those cachers that are ever discovered to have cheated. Even if a cheater is never discovered, they're the real loser in the end, aren't they?

True. There are ways around it, but you can only attempt to place rules to make it challenging for legit cachers. Trying to close up the loopholes is hard. And harder still to not offend anyone in the process. On a less serious note, are you going to continue boycotting the county challenge ?

[+ProjectFred325]

What about a Pierce County Challenge? I just looked at a Tommy guide only one page not doable due to bases and a couple real challenging pages tht could be fun. I'd run it if some one would help with the tech side.

 

Side bar.... was reviewing my counties and just found 4 of my 15 done counties had been archived so now I have to go redo the counties. Thin I am just going to give up on that challenge unless I really start to push for the WDC too. Getting Over to NE counties isn't the easiest thing and now that family isn't there any more, no real reason to go.

[+Kiersolvd]

... are you going to continue boycotting the county challenge ?

 

Me personally, I'm not boycotting the county challenge but neither am I actively following it. If, in my normal set of travels, I happen to find a cache in a county, then that cache might count toward it. If I ever get to the point where I've found a cache in all the counties, then I might come look for the challenge cache. That's how I'm approaching all the challenge caches out there and probably how I'd approach the proposed KCTG challenge as well. Thus I'm not going to advertise my progress toward any of the goals of any of the challenges until that challenge may be met.

 

I much prefer to go someplace that I'd like to explore and see what caches are in the area. I've found some pretty nice places that have surprised me in their beauty. (BTW, cache for Alphabet Soup was pretty nice and a pleasant surprise.)

[+Prying Pandora]

True. There are ways around it, but you can only attempt to place rules to make it challenging for legit cachers. Trying to close up the loopholes is hard. And harder still to not offend anyone in the process. On a less serious note, are you going to continue boycotting the county challenge ?

Closing them all up probably couldn't even be done, and a partial job won't hold back anyone determined to cheat. If you're aiming the rules at legit cachers (the vast majority) why worry about a few loopholes in a very big sieve? It holds back some legit cachers (like GrnXnham) and cheaters will get through anyway. You'll save yourself a lot of grief. You can always keep a safety net by reserving the right to delete any finds that you discover were not honestly earned. I'm no longer boycotting the county challenge but don't feel comfortable doing it because I may have been partially responsible for it being unwillingly changed. Lifting the date restriction will be a boon to many others though!

[MarcusArelius]

Another $25 to spend if you don't have a current version of the map (the only one with map datum)

 

The King County iMap viewer displays Thomas Brothers page, row, and column if you enable them under "Referance Layers". And it's free.

Edited January 22, 2008 by MarcusArelius

[+AndrewRJ]

Another $25 to spend if you don't have a current version of the map (the only one with map datum)

 

The King County iMap viewer displays Thomas Brothers page, row, and column if you enable them under "Referance Layers". And it's free.

That is great!

 

Now I am going to have to plan a trip to Vashon.

[+ProjectFred325]

dup post oops

Edited January 22, 2008 by ProjectFred325

[+fairyhoney]

"That said, I was a lottle suprized to see Vashon Island. I guess its been a while since I have closely looked at the map boundries out there."

WE went to Vaon Island and it cost us pretty near $30.00. It would be even More, now.

 

Yes, A Kitsap County one Would be nice. (maybe Seabeck Tribe?)

 

Don't you just hate it when you catch your spelling mistakes because some one has quoted them?

 

Ok I realize that there are a lot more spelling errors in my posts, this was just one example.

 

I wasn't trying to catch misspellings (as You can see, I left the "sh" out of Vashon . I was hoping Not to have to do Vashon again because of the price. I also realize that there are now More caches over there .