False Finds

[Clan Riffster]

The coord's must be on the cache page, either encoded in a puzzle or posted in the clear.

So posting the coords on the cache page in the form of a dang near impossible to solve puzzle format would be OK, in this case.

E-mailing for "hints" is a time honored practice for difficult puzzles.

[+climbstuff]

Try the sentence before the highlight one.

The information needed to solve the puzzle must be available to the general caching community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page.

 

The coord's must be on the cache page, either encoded in a puzzle or posted in the clear.

Not exactly. Caches have to have grid coordinates as part of the hunt. The puzzle doesn't have to reveal coordinates, but could reveal other clues on how to proceed.

 

For instance, the posted coords can be bogus and used as only an anchor. A puzzle might describe a particular place to go and spot in which to look. There you find a tag with coordinates on it to punch into the GPS and continue with the hunt.

 

What that segment means is the cache must be solvable without any interaction between the owner and the seeker.

 

Apples and Oranges

 

Your example is still considered to be encrypted coordinates. (and waypoints will still need to be loaded on the page under 'additional waypoints')

[+Blue Blazes]

This has been my humble experience with the actual coordinates guideline:

 

It applies to "challenge" type puzzle caches.

There have been exceptions to the guideline (DeLorme, for example).

The guideline is firmly held by Groundspeak at this time.

It has been revealed privately.

As this thread suggests, this guideline is not be well-understood.

[+Totem Clan]

Try the sentence before the highlight one.

The information needed to solve the puzzle must be available to the general caching community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page.

 

The coord's must be on the cache page, either encoded in a puzzle or posted in the clear.

Not exactly. Caches have to have grid coordinates as part of the hunt. The puzzle doesn't have to reveal coordinates, but could reveal other clues on how to proceed.

 

For instance, the posted coords can be bogus and used as only an anchor. A puzzle might describe a particular place to go and spot in which to look. There you find a tag with coordinates on it to punch into the GPS and continue with the hunt.

 

What that segment means is the cache must be solvable without any interaction between the owner and the seeker.

Exactly! That is what we were disscusing.

 

With the execption of the DeLorme and county challenges, you can't have a challenge cache that does not list the acutal coord's for the final. That comes per the guiidelines from the reveiwers.

 

That is what led to Blue Balzes' problem and is what seems to have been confusing many of the folks here.

[+Totem Clan]

The coord's must be on the cache page, either encoded in a puzzle or posted in the clear.

So posting the coords on the cache page in the form of a dang near impossible to solve puzzle format would be OK, in this case.

E-mailing for "hints" is a time honored practice for difficult puzzles.

Emailing for hints if you want them is one thing, being forced to contact the owner in order to get the coord's is another.

 

GC has decide that you are not allowed to force a cacher to send you an email in order to complete your cache. They have however made an exception for two types of challenges. Apart from that all caches must be 'findable' (my choice of word, not GC's) strictly from what can be derived from the cache page and its instructions.

 

If you want to make a puzzle "dang near impossible to solve" that's fine. If you want contact the owner for a hint that's fine. If you as the owner want to give hints that's fine. However you can't make contacting you as the owner part of the requirement for find the cache. (Except in the above sited cases.)

[+tozainamboku]

I'm still not seeing how this contradicts my post above, in which I mentioned that requiring users to get the coordinates by email is against the guidelines. The issue in question is the one that says that challenge caches must have the actual coordinates posted on the page -- I'm not seeing that guideline written anywhere.

I agree. The guidelines should be updated or clarified by Groundspeak. Once again the "flexibility" that is built into the guidelines has allowed Groundspeak to make a change to the interpretation of the guidelines without informing the general geocaching community.

 

When challenge caches first began to become popular, Groundspeak (or perhaps most reviewers) decided that these caches would given an exception to the guideline regarding having to email the cache owner to get coordinates. It was assumed that people wanting to do the challenge would be willing to wait for the cache owner to verify the challenge was met and send email. The challenge caches were listed as mystery caches because they were not at the listed coordinates.

 

Later the guidelines were changed so that caches that had an additional logging requirement would be listed as mystery caches. Someone (either Groundspeak or a reviewer) realized that challenge caches are essentially an additional logging requirement. In order to log the cache you have to have completed the challenge. The reviewers (or Groundspeak) changed the "rule" for challenges to require the actual coordinates be listed but the cache still be listed as a mystery cache because of the additional logging requirement

 

So we have many older challenge caches that are grandfathered under the old rule that allows the cache owner to email the coordinates to a cacher who has met the challenge, while newer challenge caches rely on people not logging a find online till they have met the challenge. It seems that new method makes more work for the cache owner who will have to delete logs of cachers who have not met the challenge but insist on logging a found it online anyhow. In many instances, legitimate finders still need to email the list of cache they found to complete the challenge to the cache owner so that it can be verified. The issue comes from people who oppose the idea of any additional logging requirements in the first place. They think that since they found the cache the ought to get "credit" for it. Unless Groundspeak provides a better method to prevent people from logging caches where they have met an additional logging requirement, we will continue to have arguments over deleting logs from someone who "found" the cache but didn't met the requirements for logging. Jeremy himself could come here and announce that you shouldn't log a cache online unless you have met all stated requirements and it wouldn't help because some people will insist that if you sign the physical log you can log the find online.

[Neos2]

This has been my humble experience with the actual coordinates guideline:

 

It applies to "challenge" type puzzle caches.

There have been exceptions to the guideline (DeLorme, for example).

The guideline is firmly held by Groundspeak at this time.

It has been revealed privately.

As this thread suggests, this guideline is not be well-understood.

I think people are getting too hung up on terminology.

 

A challenge cache is a cache with ALRs (additional Logging Requirements). Caches with additional logging requirements go under the mystery/puzzle category.

 

Just like any other ALR cache you can go there and find the cache and you can sign the physical log, but the owner doesn't have to let you claim the find online until you complete the additional logging requirements.

 

Frankly, there isn't any reason not to have the coords on the cache page ---unless we want to go back to the argument from a few weeks ago that there shouldn't be any caches with ALRs. There is no reason to add a puzzle that is almost impossible to solve (in fact, if you did that, someone would soon be in these forums complaining that even though they solved the almost impossible to solve puzzle and signed the physical log they still aren't beig allowed to log the find!).

 

Now, if you were asking for a separate category for challenge caches, that would be another argument....

[+Totem Clan]

<snipped for space>

The issue comes from people who oppose the idea of any additional logging requirements in the first place. They think that since they found the cache the ought to get "credit" for it. Unless Groundspeak provides a better method to prevent people from logging caches where they have met an additional logging requirement, we will continue to have arguments over deleting logs from someone who "found" the cache but didn't met the requirements for logging. Jeremy himself could come here and announce that you shouldn't log a cache online unless you have met all stated requirements and it wouldn't help because some people will insist that if you sign the physical log you can log the find online.

Ding, ding, ding, ding

 

"We have a winner!"

 

That is the issue. It is not whether you have to or don't have put the coord's on the cache. GC settled that for us. (note: That was not an endorsement for or against the guidelines as written, so let's not go down that road on this thread.) The issue is what do you do with a cacher's log if they do log it as a find without meeting the ALR's.

[jholly]

Ding, ding, ding, ding

 

"We have a winner!"

 

That is the issue. It is not whether you have to or don't have put the coord's on the cache. GC settled that for us. (note: That was not an endorsement for or against the guidelines as written, so let's not go down that road on this thread.) The issue is what do you do with a cacher's log if they do log it as a find without meeting the ALR's.

 

You delete the find. And if the cacher continues to log the find after you delete his entry, you let the entry stand, put a note after his smiley stating that it was not a legal find and then have a Hall Of Shame on the top or your page listing those that logged a find without completing the challenge. This cacher gets to be first entry. Hopefully the Hall Of Shame and the cacher list is in bold red. That is something he can not mess with.

 

Jim

[Dinoprophet]

I just learned that MiGO has created a pin to award to anyone who finds a cache in all 83 Michigan counties. Maybe that's the way to deal with challenges. Even a virtual "medal" system that shows up in your stats. Whatever it is, I'd like to see something new -- challenges are popular enough, and the best methods for running one are unique enough, that shoehorning them into the Mystery type doesn't make much sense anymore.

[Clan Riffster]

With the execption of the DeLorme and county challenges, you can't have a challenge cache that does not list the acutal coord's for the final. That comes per the guiidelines from the reveiwers.

But that's not in, nor even hinted at, in the guidelines.

 

If you want to make a puzzle "dang near impossible to solve" that's fine. If you want contact the owner for a hint that's fine. If you as the owner want to give hints that's fine. However you can't make contacting you as the owner part of the requirement for find the cache. (Except in the above sited cases.)

That's all I'm suggesting. It's a solution to the OP's problems, that fits within the guidelines. The cache already bears the Mystery Cache logo, (as it should, being an ALR), might as well make it a true puzzle as well.

 

Frankly, there isn't any reason not to have the coords on the cache page

The OP might not agree with you. If they had not listed the actual coords, chances are, they wouldn't have had a problem with someone making an illegitimate find. Seems like a pretty good reason to me to avoid putting the real coords on the page, in an unencrypted format.

[+FireRef]

In my opinion, the biggest problem with this kind of cache is that there is no way, short of the owner deleting logs for people who claim it that haven't met the requirements, to stop the person from logging it without meeting those additional requirements.

 

I have several caches with ALR's, which require the cacher to post a picture related to the element the cache is named after. It is clearly stated on the cache page that logs without the picture attached within a reasonable period after the found it log is posted will be deleted. I have had no problems with this - I reminded 2-3 people over the life of the caches to post the photos, and never had to delete a log. Maybe people around here respect the ALR's a little better than most.

 

I don't understand what the problem GS has with emailing an owner for permission to log a cache. Unless it is too similar to virtuals, which we already know they have a problem with. What, specifically, is the issue with this? It seems it would solve the problem if the coords were revealed this way.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I don't understand what the problem GS has with emailing an owner for permission to log a cache. Unless it is too similar to virtuals, which we already know they have a problem with. What, specifically, is the issue with this? It seems it would solve the problem if the coords were revealed this way.

I think the problem is that people do not always respond "promptly" to their emails, verily, we could never even agree on what "promptly" would mean.

 

Because the game is basically an online game, it works best in "automatic" mode. having to wait for interaction with another player detracts from the game because it slows down the completion of the task.

 

Even in the case of virtuals, no interaction with the owner was required to actually FIND the cache. A seeker could simply download the cache page and be off. The true fun of the game being in the actual DOING of the find task, the seeker has essentially accomplished hisher goal even if they cannot log it online for whatever reason.

 

Furthermore, requiring interaction of this sort in order to actually FIND the cache leaves open the possibility that legitimate finders could not complete the mission because of untended emails or simply the additional time delay imposed by requiring interaction with the owner.

 

Consider for example a person who is from out of town and intends to get the final part of a challenge cache and sign the challenge cache log whilst in town for only a short period of time. If heshe had to wait for an email from the owner, especially with the owner only giving out the coordinates AFTER validating the challenge, which my example cacher will not complete till actually arriving in the area, heshe would be SOL.

 

An even more insidious potential is for a cache owner to discriminate unfairly in distribution of the coordinates, e.g. refusing to give the coordinates (or simply not responding) to persons the cache owner dislikes.

 

You just found a cache in every developed country in the civilised world and want to log the challenge, so you send an email to the owner to get the coordinates:

 

*cache owner's thought bubble*

"I'm ignoring that one." "If TPTB inquire, I'll say," "I didn't get the email... server must have died." ("serves that bloody beggar right for deleting MY log on his LPC three years ago.")

 

Actually this very type of interaction pretty much terminated my very short "career" on Waymarking. I submitted a "landlocked lighthouse" and was told by the online landlocked lighthouse keeper that it was not really a lighthouse. I pretty much figure if everything you do gets "judged" by some petty dictator, it ain't much worth a flip as a hobby.

 

Geocaching is a game that requires TRUST to even exist. It goes both ways and the ALR owner is expected to judge fairly if their requirements are met while the logger is expected to respect the requirements.

 

Clearly this trust has been broken in this case, but overall I think these things resolve a lot easier by simply being "let die." The bogus log will soon be on page two, then three, then four... and soon few if any will notice or even care. And it REALLY doesn't hurt the legitimate finders AT ALL- they have met the challenge and they know THEIR smiley is legit.

 

An honest man is no less honest if all other men are thieves.

Edited June 17, 2008 by Confucius' Cat

[Neos2]

Frankly, there isn't any reason not to have the coords on the cache page

The OP might not agree with you. If they had not listed the actual coords, chances are, they wouldn't have had a problem with someone making an illegitimate find. Seems like a pretty good reason to me to avoid putting the real coords on the page, in an unencrypted format.

Quoting just that snippet from me takes what I said completely out of context.

 

The cache owner has an actual physical cache in that location. He wants people to go there and sign that log. It's not just a virtual bonus log you get after doing x, y, and z. So it needs cords of some sort, yes? Plenty of other caches have additional logging requirements and you can't log the cache online until you complete those requirements.

 

It shouldn't be a problem to explain that to someone who loads up the gps without reading the cache page and finds the cache or to someone who just doesn't "get" ALR caches. Really, it's no different than telling someone who hasn't signed the logbook they can't log the cache online. In both cases, the finder just hasn't done what they needed to do to qualify to sign the cache.

[+sbell111]

I don't understand what the problem GS has with emailing an owner for permission to log a cache. Unless it is too similar to virtuals, which we already know they have a problem with. What, specifically, is the issue with this? It seems it would solve the problem if the coords were revealed this way.

I think the problem is that people do not always respond "promptly" to their emails, verily, we could never even agree on what "promptly" would mean. ...

You will also have a problem with some cachers not giving the coords to people that they don't like.

[Dinoprophet]

There are potential problems, but this site would never have got off the ground if they foolproofed everything. I imagine few people who would bother setting up a challenge cache would be the petty grudge-holding type.

 

I know the reviewers have more than enough to do already, but I'd almost like to see challenges handled through them. No worry about grudges, no angst about people logging their own challenge.

[+Totem Clan]

There are potential problems, but this site would never have got off the ground if they foolproofed everything. I imagine few people who would bother setting up a challenge cache would be the petty grudge-holding type.

 

I know the reviewers have more than enough to do already, but I'd almost like to see challenges handled through them. No worry about grudges, no angst about people logging their own challenge.

No challenges in out of the way places like North Dakota.

[+sbell111]

The current way works. If you want to own an ALR, you should be willing to maintain it. That means that if you don't think it's a find unless the cacher completes whatever task you've required, you have to delete the log.

 

Requiring the cache owner to be the heavy is one check against onerous tasks.

Edited June 17, 2008 by sbell111

[+Totem Clan]

The current way works. If you want to own an ALR, you should be willing to maintain it. That means that if you don't think it's a find unless the cacher completes whatever task you've required, you have to delete the log.

 

Requiring the cache owner to be the heavy is one check against onerous tasks.

Yep!

 

Trust me I wouldn't be putting out the challenge/ALR caches up here that I am doing right now if another cacher would. I like creative caches as much as the next guy and I love the comments of approval that the 'Alphabet Soup' cache has received and the that the DeLorme cache is receiving, and it has even been published yet; however I'm not looking forward to deleting logs (read playing the heavy). I will do it, but that does mean I'm looking forward to it.

[+eigengott]

I don't understand what the problem GS has with emailing an owner for permission to log a cache. Unless it is too similar to virtuals, which we already know they have a problem with. What, specifically, is the issue with this?

 

It's easy to deny forget to send the email to those people you don't like.

[Dinoprophet]

There are potential problems, but this site would never have got off the ground if they foolproofed everything. I imagine few people who would bother setting up a challenge cache would be the petty grudge-holding type.

 

I know the reviewers have more than enough to do already, but I'd almost like to see challenges handled through them. No worry about grudges, no angst about people logging their own challenge.

No challenges in out of the way places like North Dakota.

I don't follow.

[+Totem Clan]

I don't follow.

Reviewers have been putting out challenge for some time. Just look at PA for an example. In spite of this there are were no challenge caches in North Dakota. That's not the reviewer's fault, because, after all, she lives in Illinois. How can you expect reviewers for some of the more remote places like this or Alaska, or even Hawaii to place and maintain caches in places they may never go to?

[Dinoprophet]

I don't follow.

Reviewers have been putting out challenge for some time. Just look at PA for an example. In spite of this there are were no challenge caches in North Dakota. That's not the reviewer's fault, because, after all, she lives in Illinois. How can you expect reviewers for some of the more remote places like this or Alaska, or even Hawaii to place and maintain caches in places they may never go to?

I see; I didn't mean they'd be expected to place and maintain the cache. I was thinking of a disinterested third-party handling the verification. I know, as I said, it's a bit too much to be really feasible. Especially when dealing with things like counties.

 

At any rate, I'm more in favor of a "token" reward for challenges. Like the honorary caches discussed recently, why must achievements be recognized using more caches? I'm not a numbers cacher by any stretch, but I think a column on people's profiles with icons for the challenges they've completed would be really cool.

 

Yes, it works well enough now, but it's become a big part of the game that doesn't quite fit. Locationless caches mostly worked here but not quite; Waymarking did them justice. Similarly, I think challenges could be better accomodated.

[+Blue Blazes]

While this thought is off-topic, I've come to think it noteworthy that a Letterbox cache, for example, has its own icon, but Challenge caches don't, especially when considering the difference in effort required to be successful.

[+ODragon]

As long as cachers want to place challenge caches, with silly requirements, they are going to have to deal with geocachers who don't want to play by the rules.

 

I think this single post hit the nail on the head... There are lots of silly or lame challenges out there, (IMHO, the one in this topic is one of them), and if I lived in that area, it would probably go on the ignore list or the 'do as I'm doing something else list' vs things like the DeLorme/AllCounties/Fizzy which to me are more interesting.

 

While this thought is off-topic, I've come to think it noteworthy that a Letterbox cache, for example, has its own icon, but Challenge caches don't, especially when considering the difference in effort required to be successful.

 

Maybe because in general one doesn't want to promote Challenge caches the same way one doesn't want to promote ALR caches.

[CoyoteRed]

While this thought is off-topic, I've come to think it noteworthy that a Letterbox cache, for example, has its own icon, but Challenge caches don't, especially when considering the difference in effort required to be successful.

The hybrid had its own history and it had nothing to do with how successful they were here. In today's climate they probably wouldn't be remotely considered for a separate category.

 

I do agree with the idea challenges should be broken out, but not as a new category type. They really should be achievements. Being "allowed" to log a particular cache after you completed a challenge is poor recognition. A badge would probably be a better way to go.

[+Totem Clan]

The hybrid had its own history and it had nothing to do with how successful they were here. In today's climate they probably wouldn't be remotely considered for a separate category.

 

I do agree with the idea challenges should be broken out, but not as a new category type. They really should be achievements. Being "allowed" to log a particular cache after you completed a challenge is poor recognition. A badge would probably be a better way to go.

Why is the phrase, "Badge? We don't need no stinking badges!" running through my head?

 

As see challenge caches as a challenge to myself. Therefore I don't care if stays the way it is way if they change it to its own grouping or award badges.

The only problem I see with the new grouping or the award badge idea is that some folks would create, please pardon the word, "lame" challenges just so they could have the icon in there hidden stat. To prevent this we would need to implement the "Wow" factor again and well we've "been there done that."

I say we keep things as they are for now. Maybe some of the answers to the lame/wow problem will come with V2.

 

Edit fur spelin'

Edited June 17, 2008 by Totem Clan

[CoyoteRed]

Why is the phrase, "Badge? We don't need no stinking badges!" running through my head?

Probably the same reason it runs through mine.

[Clan Riffster]

So it needs cords of some sort, yes?

Of course it needs coords. One method of supplying said coords involves placing them prominently on the cache page, and treating it as an ALR. Another method of supplying the coords would be burying them in a ultra complex puzzle, with hints provided to anyone who met the cache requirements. It seemed that the OP had a problem doing it the first way, so I suggested an alternative method.

[+Confucius' Cat]

I don't understand what the problem GS has with emailing an owner for permission to log a cache. Unless it is too similar to virtuals, which we already know they have a problem with. What, specifically, is the issue with this? It seems it would solve the problem if the coords were revealed this way.

I think the problem is that people do not always respond "promptly" to their emails, verily, we could never even agree on what "promptly" would mean. ...

You will also have a problem with some cachers not giving the coords to people that they don't like.

Didn't I say that?

An even more insidious potential is for a cache owner to discriminate unfairly in distribution of the coordinates, e.g. refusing to give the coordinates (or simply not responding) to persons the cache owner dislikes.

[+paleolith]

Ambrosia and Confucius' Cat have posted particularly lucid descriptions of some of the issues, so I'll only summarize those:

 

-- We are talking about caches where the ALR is to first log caches belonging to others, so you can't put in codes, or at least you have no good way to maintain them.

 

-- There really are good reasons for prohibiting "email owner for coords".

 

The type split goes farther, though. There are two types of challenge caches. (OK, why is that sentence running though my head, there are three kinds of people, those who can count and those who can't.)

 

Variable-list challenges: the owner lays down requirements, but the seeker decides which caches satisfy the requirements.

 

Fixed-list challenges: the owner provides a list of caches to find to satisfy the requirements.

 

Blue Blazes' challenge caches are variable-list challenges. (BTW, someone called them lame. I find those comments unfair. I'm not interested, but if I were a long-distance truck driver, I might be very interested.)

 

My Santa Monica Mtns History Adventure GC18DXW is a fixed-list challenge. If you get something from gc.com referring the challenge cache guidelines, I suspect that it refers to variable-list caches. I base this on a comment from the reviewer to mine, the first submission of which had "Challenge" in the name:

I just went through a similar cache like this for San Diego County, and the staff at GC.com didn't like the word "Challenge" in the cache name because they have come up with some special guidelines for "Challenge" caches.

Obviously some caches have been grandfathered in terms of the name -- perhaps most famously the [url=]http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=32d4e6e9-2469-426d-8d01-9eced6c3a089Washington History Challenge GCR110[/url], which is a fixed-list challenge. If you want to peruse other fixed-list challenges, look at the links in my description and at esquimaux's bookmark list on my cache.

 

The reviewer went on to say

this cache requires an "e-mail me for the coordinates" and that is not permissible except for the limited exception of "Delorme Challenge" caches.

Fair enough, I actually knew that but had forgotten. Easily fixed. It is interesting, though, that "Delorme Challenge" caches are still exempt. Blue Blazes' experience indicates that this is not true of all variable-list challenges, and thus establishes yet another subdivision. I don't know where that line lies. There are other area-based or map-based challenges, particularly county challenges, and I don't know which guideline they fall under. (Remember of course that this comment came in the discussion of a particular cache and was not an attempt to explain all the reviewing requirements, so do not take it as gospel. Also it's clear that Groundspeak has spent some time trying to deal with these issues, and so might well revisit the issues again and possibly change something. I hope that the reviewer does not mind my citing these comments for community education purposes.)

Please take a look at the following two caches in San Diego that were recently approved: <URLs given for caches by Miragee, the second poster in this thread> You can model your cache after these two. Note that the final coords are provided, but the cache owner reserves the right to delete logs for anyone who fails to post a list of the "historic" caches on the list with their find dates.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Miragee made the finals puzzle caches. I decided for mine that there was no need, and left the coordinates in the open. Would a puzzle help avoid bogus find logs? I'm not sure. Certainly it would not stop someone who likes puzzles. I chose to help publicize mine by including the challenge on the public bookmark list of required caches, which is thus visible on all those pages. My list includes 52 traditional, 5 multi, 5 virtual, 1 puzzle, and 1 letterbox. None of these have a difficult puzzle component. So trying to protect the final with a difficult puzzle would simply discourage good cachers who are not interested in a difficult puzzle, and might encourage "attack" by those who like puzzles but aren't interested in the prerequisite list.

 

So it's clear that a fixed-list challenge does not require the coordinates to be on the cache page, only that they can be determined without consulting the owner. I'll be surprised if this is different for variable-list challenges, and expect that someone writing to Blue Blazes got the wording wrong in an email or reviewer note. I could be wrong of course, it's happened before, why I remember one time as recently as 1991 ...

 

In almost four months, I've only had one bogus find log, and it was a simple mistake which the poster quickly corrected. I hope I don't have to get into a fight with anyone. After reading about Blue Blazes' experience, if it happens, I'll first write a nice email (mistakes happen), and if the finder persists, I'll leave the find log and exclude them from my list of seekers in the description. (I most certainly will not, as someone suggested, put their name in red in a "hall of shame". Remember the advertisers' adage: all publicity is good publicity. Jerks enjoy confrontation. I would just allow the bogus log to get buried.)

 

Finally, I don't feel any need for special icon. A question mark is fine with me. (Miragee's challenge caches are multis, which also works.) Mine is already on two public bookmark lists of challenge caches, which I think is good publicity -- I like public bookmark lists.

 

Edward

[+sbell111]

I don't understand what the problem GS has with emailing an owner for permission to log a cache. Unless it is too similar to virtuals, which we already know they have a problem with. What, specifically, is the issue with this? It seems it would solve the problem if the coords were revealed this way.

I think the problem is that people do not always respond "promptly" to their emails, verily, we could never even agree on what "promptly" would mean. ...

You will also have a problem with some cachers not giving the coords to people that they don't like.

Didn't I say that?

An even more insidious potential is for a cache owner to discriminate unfairly in distribution of the coordinates, e.g. refusing to give the coordinates (or simply not responding) to persons the cache owner dislikes.

I guess you did. My eyes must have glazed over before I got to that part of your very long post.

[+Happy Humphrey]

A Challenge cache should really be an Award that you can stick on your profile (i.e. an icon). The problem with the OP's cache is that he's trying to shoehorn an idea into a cache that isn't designed to cater for it.

 

Perhaps one day, Groundspeak will come up with a solution that will work elegantly.

 

In the meantime, why not just let people log the cache whichever way they choose. If they submitted evidence that showed them to have completed the challenge, they get a place in the "Hall Of Fame" in the cache description (should they want such recognition).

 

If not, they just get the usual smiley, without the extra kudos.

 

If I'd completed the challenge, why would I be bothered that others had found the cache without jumping through all the hoops? It's just a record that they visited the cache: it doesn't affect me - I have a record that I found the cache AND completed the challenge.

[+sbell111]

A Challenge cache should really be an Award that you can stick on your profile (i.e. an icon). The problem with the OP's cache is that he's trying to shoehorn an idea into a cache that isn't designed to cater for it.

 

Perhaps one day, Groundspeak will come up with a solution that will work elegantly.

 

In the meantime, why not just let people log the cache whichever way they choose. If they submitted evidence that showed them to have completed the challenge, they get a place in the "Hall Of Fame" in the cache description (should they want such recognition).

 

If not, they just get the usual smiley, without the extra kudos.

 

If I'd completed the challenge, why would I be bothered that others had found the cache without jumping through all the hoops? It's just a record that they visited the cache: it doesn't affect me - I have a record that I found the cache AND completed the challenge.

Because that's not how ALRs work?

[+ODragon]

Variable-list challenges: the owner lays down requirements, but the seeker decides which caches satisfy the requirements.

 

Blue Blazes' challenge caches are variable-list challenges. (BTW, someone called them lame. I find those comments unfair. I'm not interested, but if I were a long-distance truck driver, I might be very interested.)

 

Challenge caches, IMHO, should be special. I liked when it was essentailly DeLorme, County and Fizzy, maybe one or two more.

 

The problem with too many challenge caches (especially silly or lame ones) is that they water down the concept to the point where they just become 'another cache'. I don't want just another cache, we have enough of those.

 

Someone could come out with the "T1* challenge" where all you have to do is find a Terrain 1 with the 9 Difficulty possibilities. Why would someone do this? I don't know but they could. To me it is just a watered down part of the Fizzy challenge.

 

IMO, when you can take the challange and plop it down in multiple parts of the same state, it's probably something I would consider watering down the concept and as such, lame or silly. (IE, this cache should just as easily spawn the I76, I81, I80, I95, etc).

[+infiniteMPG]

Don't see why not just make the final a mystery cache and break the coords up into puzzles or hints or clues in the other "regular" caches to find them. We have the Back 2 Nature series that's several caches called Packed Like Sardines (something) which are located around sprawling condo/apartment mega-complexes and they each hold a piece of a puzzle that solves the coords for Back 2 Nature, which is hidden at a location... well, let's just say the opposite of the preliminary caches type locations. Never had a problem with it (other then the occasional damage or muggling).

 

Doesn't have to be coords, could be puzzle pieces. We have eight individual caches hidden in a large nature preserve with neat trails and each of them has a tag with a letter in them. Each cache + letter equals something on a chart and after you plug these into the puzzle for a bonus (mystery) cache, you get the coords for the big cache for the finale. Works well so far.

 

And did do a lock box one that had numbers in several smaller caches in the area and they ended up being the combination to a combination lock on a big ammo can locker box. So you might find the final, but you can't get IN TO it to sign the log without the combination.

 

Lots of options that work within the guidelines.

[CoyoteRed]

Don't see why not just make the final a mystery cache and break the coords up into puzzles or hints or clues in the other "regular" caches to find them.

As has been mentioned a few times already: there is no predetermined set of caches into which to place the clues. It's up to the seeker to determine the caches which fit the criteria set forth by the challenge.

[+Blue Blazes]

ODragon:

IMO, when you can take the challange and plop it down in multiple parts of the same state, it's probably something I would consider watering down the concept and as such, lame or silly. (IE, this cache should just as easily spawn the I76, I81, I80, I95, etc).

 

 

I am currently the owner of other Interstate Highway Challenge caches, and new ones are planned.

There has been interest in different parts of the nation.

 

The cache description clearly states that they are not for everyone.

RVers, sales people, truckers, vacationers, retired folks and just adventurers may not agree with you.

 

Afterall what would caching be like if we all had the same interests? Lighten up.

[+infiniteMPG]

As has been mentioned a few times already: there is no predetermined set of caches into which to place the clues. It's up to the seeker to determine the caches which fit the criteria set forth by the challenge.

If only one specific set of caches can be used to compile the information to solve the challenge correctly then why not just have the clues or puzzle pieces in those particular caches and make the final (mystery?) cache have some chart/listing/code listed that would be used to plug this in to? Then you could also put bogus clues in other caches in the area so if someone solved it incorrectly they'd not have a valid answer. Then you could plop the coords in a site like geochecker and let people check what their solution was before they headed out.... no emailing of coords... only one solution.... no actual coords on the final listing page... and not many ways to cheat around it.

[+FamilyDNA]

Someone could come out with the "T1* challenge" where all you have to do is find a Terrain 1 with the 9 Difficulty possibilities. Why would someone do this? I don't know but they could. To me it is just a watered down part of the Fizzy challenge.

Someone has.

[+sbell111]

As has been mentioned a few times already: there is no predetermined set of caches into which to place the clues. It's up to the seeker to determine the caches which fit the criteria set forth by the challenge.

If only one specific set of caches can be used to compile the information to solve the challenge correctly then why not just have the clues or puzzle pieces in those particular caches and make the final (mystery?) cache have some chart/listing/code listed that would be used to plug this in to? Then you could also put bogus clues in other caches in the area so if someone solved it incorrectly they'd not have a valid answer. Then you could plop the coords in a site like geochecker and let people check what their solution was before they headed out.... no emailing of coords... only one solution.... no actual coords on the final listing page... and not many ways to cheat around it.

As CR stated, there is no 'one' specific set of caches to complete these challenges. Also, those caches are not owned by the owner of the challenge cache. He has no right to require that clues to his cache remain in those caches. Edited June 18, 2008 by sbell111

[+Mudfrog]

I know that we need guidelines to follow to keep structure in our hobby but it sure seems like more and more little rules are being added every day. We all know that caching consists of different risks and in my opinion, a person who decides for himself to rely on an email for coordinates is taking one of those risks. I don't think that GC.com needs to be so controlling with this aspect of our hobby.

 

I've seen posted on here many times that GC.com is just a listing service and that the cache owner can set up his or her cache in just about any way they see fit. Well, it's certainly not like this these days!

[CoyoteRed]

I know that we need guidelines to follow to keep structure in our hobby but it sure seems like more and more little rules are being added every day. We all know that caching consists of different risks and in my opinion, a person who decides for himself to rely on an email for coordinates is taking one of those risks. I don't think that GC.com needs to be so controlling with this aspect of our hobby.

I couldn't agree with you more on that! It's one thing to say you can't list a cache with more than one stage as a traditional, but it's quite another to be so controlling in an category that is a "catch-all."

[+tozainamboku]

I know that we need guidelines to follow to keep structure in our hobby but it sure seems like more and more little rules are being added every day. We all know that caching consists of different risks and in my opinion, a person who decides for himself to rely on an email for coordinates is taking one of those risks. I don't think that GC.com needs to be so controlling with this aspect of our hobby.

I couldn't agree with you more on that! It's one thing to say you can't list a cache with more than one stage as a traditional, but it's quite another to be so controlling in an category that is a "catch-all."

Except that e-mailing a cache owner for coordinates has long been against the guidelines (or at least required a exception be made by the reviewer)

a puzzle that requires sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the solution in order to obtain the coordinates may not be [acceptable]

Several people have made attempts here to explain why a Delorme or county challenge might be granted a exception while other challenges might not. But as far as I can tell, if this is the case, a challenge which the reviewer thinks is "wow" enough might be given an exception while one that isn't "wow" would have have to post the actual coordinates and list the challenge as an ALR. I just wish Groundspeak would be consistent and treat all challenges the same or publish objective guideline that can be applied to all challenge caches.

[CoyoteRed]

I just wish Groundspeak would be consistent and treat all challenges the same or publish objective guideline that can be applied to all challenge caches.

Yep.

 

"You can't do [THIS] unless I give you special permission." Isn't that kind of like the idea of cache owners not being able to email solutions because they might not give out the solutions fairly? When you allow something on a whim, others who don't get their way feel left out.

 

Consistency had never really been a strong point with Groundspeak. Sure, it's a new hobby and things get to be tried out, but grandfathering things that are supposed to be bad (moving caches, virts), not grandfathering others (locationlesses), or removing and then bringing back things that are not consistent with what was left (earth caches) leaves folks scratching their heads.

 

"Well, it's their site. They can do it however they please." Yeah, well it's the cache owner's cache. Shouldn't they do it however they please? If the cache owner is willing to put up with the hassle of emailing folks coordinates then what's the difference in a Delorme challenge or some other one? ...or is there some other issue going on?

[CoyoteRed]

Except that e-mailing a cache owner for coordinates has long been against the guidelines (or at least required a exception be made by the reviewer)

Forgot to address this part.

 

When I heard of the first Delorme challenge it left me wondering how it got approved considering it was against the guidelines. I guess it's a "who you know" type of situation. I wonder if I could get a Rand McNally challenge approved.

[AZcachemeister]

Those who DID NOT complete your challenge will be forever haunted by that fact.

 

I doubt the kind of person who would flout the rules for a cache would be haunted for a fraction of a second. Some people walk around with a sense of entitlement and are beyond shame.

 

There are many ways to be haunted...such as the continued disrespect of one's peers:

"Hey, aren't you the jerk who logged the XXX Challenge cache without completing the challenge?"

Yes, I am enough of a jerk to ask them. Then I would throw dog poop on their shoes!

[AZcachemeister]

Ding, ding, ding, ding

 

"We have a winner!"

 

That is the issue. It is not whether you have to or don't have put the coord's on the cache. GC settled that for us. (note: That was not an endorsement for or against the guidelines as written, so let's not go down that road on this thread.) The issue is what do you do with a cacher's log if they do log it as a find without meeting the ALR's.

 

You delete the find. And if the cacher continues to log the find after you delete his entry, you let the entry stand, put a note after his smiley stating that it was not a legal find and then have a Hall Of Shame on the top or your page listing those that logged a find without completing the challenge. This cacher gets to be first entry. Hopefully the Hall Of Shame and the cacher list is in bold red. That is something he can not mess with.

 

Jim

 

Yes, but how does one deal with the possibility that the miffed 'finder' will 'mess' with the owner's cache(s)?

Let them have the smiley and move on...others will know what happened.

[+flarbear]

Here are some thoughts.

 

Under the rules "logging" a challenge cache doesn't require interaction with the publisher, but the log can be deleted by the publisher. Thus, keeping the log does require some implicit compliance from the publisher. Thus, while it is interesting to take into account the possibility that a publisher with a grudge might keep a logger from finding the cache by denying the final coordinates - that isn't the end of the story for whether or not the logger can log it.

 

The point about having to wait for verification to get the final coordinates when there is a time constraint (such as being in the correct area on vacation) is an important one in my view. This primarily requires a non-interactive way to get the coordinates and email seems to be the first thing that comes to mind and the easiest to implement, but there could be other alternatives. I did see on one puzzle cache a link to a web page where I could type in my answer and have a server tell me if I was right (not required to solve it, but it prevented footwork if you were wrong). This seemed like a great way to provide an automated "yes, you solved it" system that required no interaction with the publisher. Obviously something that simple doesn't work with challenge caches, but you could imagine a system that could allow a potential logger to enter the cache codes and some way to provide either an automated verification to deliver the final coordinates, or minimally a record of their attempt to qualify that could be recorded. Obviously this would require quite a bit of programming on someone's part, but the current geocaching.com site does seem to have some very powerful tools for doing location-based queries on the database. It would be interesting to develop an automated challenge cache mechanism that would let someone set up some query-like requirements and have potential finders submit geocaches from their logs against those requirements. Such a system could then automate the delivery of the final coordinates. Even if the challenge requirements couldn't be expressed in queries, the system could at least require the submission of a set of cache IDs that would go on record as their "claim" to the right to see the final coordinates.

 

Also, the log system currently only provides one way to deal with the ALR requirements - the publisher can allow or delete the log. It would be nice if the log system (I know, I know - great way to suggest work for others to complete...) could be upgraded to allow a publisher to flag a "found" log as "verified" or "unverified". Only the publisher would have access to these additional tags, and possibly only if the cache was marked with a "challenge" attribute flag. This would likely defuse much of the angst over logging/deleting as the log would still be there, but the status would be viewable and could be culled out in the statistics. Those who could care less about the ALR could log them and get a "smirky" in their stats and move on. Those who are serious about ALR caches could enjoy the peace and tranquility of having "ear to ear grinnies" in their stats page that others lack.

 

Finally, would it work better if the focus of delivering the list of qualifying caches be the log itself rather than email? That would make the list of what they tried to submit and why it might have been denied a matter of public record to avoid the "I didn't get their email" problems. It might also let them appeal to a GS volunteer if there is a dispute (hopefully rare).

Edited June 19, 2008 by flarbear

[4wheelin_fool]

Ding, ding, ding, ding

 

"We have a winner!"

 

That is the issue. It is not whether you have to or don't have put the coord's on the cache. GC settled that for us. (note: That was not an endorsement for or against the guidelines as written, so let's not go down that road on this thread.) The issue is what do you do with a cacher's log if they do log it as a find without meeting the ALR's.

 

You delete the find. And if the cacher continues to log the find after you delete his entry, you let the entry stand, put a note after his smiley stating that it was not a legal find and then have a Hall Of Shame on the top or your page listing those that logged a find without completing the challenge. This cacher gets to be first entry. Hopefully the Hall Of Shame and the cacher list is in bold red. That is something he can not mess with.

 

Jim

 

Yes, but how does one deal with the possibility that the miffed 'finder' will 'mess' with the owner's cache(s)?

Let them have the smiley and move on...others will know what happened.

 

I would not put a negative spin on it such as calling it the "Hall of Shame". Just state the facts plainly like this example: 4wheelin_fool has NOT met the requirements of this challenge and I am leaving it up to him to delete their find

 

The log implies that they have met the challenge, if the page states otherwise it's only fair. Its rather impossible to get someone to change their behaviour by trying to get them mad. If you act fairly, there is a chance they may see their error later and apologize. If you try to "get even", they may eventually realize they made a mistake but may leave the log there out of spite.