Challenge Caches

[+Kealia]

This has been an interesting read for me - being the owner of the original Fizzy Challenge.

 

Some good points have been made by all, but like other CO's I won't be making changes to my cache either.

 

Call it what you like, but it's not sadistic on my part - just my desire to keep things the way they are. Like Tequila posted - I don't want to change the playing field (in my mind anyway) in any way that detracts from the accomplishment of previous finders.

 

There are local challenges that I know I'll never qualify for as well - I chalk that up to "just another cache I won't get" and focus on the ones that I can do.

[+addisonbr]

I found a 5.0/3.5 before the challenge was posted. I've still found a 5.0/3.5 but simply because I was there I can't qualify for it. You can walk right up and log it, and use it to qualify for a challenge. Same cache, different cachers, different rules.

I guess I can just see how someone would see the other situation in a similar light. If you got to choose from 157 3.5/5.0 caches and I only get to choose the K2 cache, it doesn't feel like we're on the same footing.

 

I do agree with you in that I don't think there is something capital-U "Unfair" about it. But I can see the practical parallels.

[+Avernar]

Call it what you like, but it's not sadistic on my part

The sadistic thing was for COs who have both the "no previous finds" and "only previous caches" rules on their challenge.

 

Your cache is what 81 Proof is modeled after and we consider to be a very good challenge.

[+addisonbr]

Which brings me to my point. Is the CO making the rules to try to balance things out between the groups (older cacher or newer cacher) or is the CO making the rules so that each group has fun?

Probably depends on your perspective. I'm guessing in most cases the CO is trying to accomplish both.

 

CO's disallowing prior finds probably have an honest belief that going out and getting another rare combo cache is fun (and why not?). CO's disallowing caches placed after a certain date probably believe that chasing a challenge that gets increasingly difficult is also fun (and why not?). I can see it, but can also understand the sense of cachers caught in the disadvantaged group.

 

My guess is that in the vast majority of cases, the CO's view their setup as fair and fun. I would think that CO's setting up caches intending to be unfair or not fun (or targeting individual cachers to make their lives difficult) is pretty rare.

[+Keith Watson]

What annoys me the most is when a new challenge comes out with a "only future finds count" restriction after I've spent a lot of effort collecting hard D/T combos for existing challenges.

 

You mean like this cache? Difficulty 1 (Ontario Mini-Fizzy 9 Challenge) A cache by Avernar

 

I look at it this way. I have found all 81 combinations. I have over 4,000 finds. Do I need to qualify for someone's ALR for one extra smiley outside of my normal caching area? No. I have already found the cache and signed the log. Life goes on.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Keith Watson

[+northernpenguin]

What annoys me the most is when a new challenge comes out with a "only future finds count" restriction after I've spent a lot of effort collecting hard D/T combos for existing challenges.

 

You mean like this cache? Difficulty 1 (Ontario Mini-Fizzy 9 Challenge) A cache by Avernar

 

I look at it this way. I have found all 81 combinations. I have over 4,000 finds. Do I need to qualify for someone's ALR for one extra smiley outside of my normal caching area? No. I have already found the cache and signed the log. Life goes on.

 

Exactly. While the terms of a challenge being an ALR is something that we can debate, currently Groundspeak accepts limits like date placed for a challenge. Hunt the ones you want to find, skip the ones you don't.

 

Trying to control what challenges are going to be placed with what terms is much more difficult than herding cats. You can't possibly come out happier at the end of it all.

 

I own one of the mini-fizzys (Difficulty 3.0). Would I put a date found restriction on my next challenge cache? Probably not. At the time I thought it represented a fair way to "level the playing field". My mind has been changed after trying to chase down some of these mini fizzies and other challenges with that date restriction.

 

The mini-fizzys were setup as a group effort - I recall there was some level of disagreement about things like the terrain ratings and whether or not to date restrict. That came down to majority vote and we moved on. Keith, you have one of the Mini-Fizzys with the find after 9/9/9 rule, and a D/T Bingo with a date found restriction.

 

Would you do it again (just the finds before cache was published restriction)? I'm curious about your thoughts on it after a year. In fact, I'm curious what anyone who owns such a cache thinks about it after the long term.

[+steben6]

This has been an interesting read for me - being the owner of the original Fizzy Challenge.

 

Some good points have been made by all, but like other CO's I won't be making changes to my cache either.

 

Call it what you like, but it's not sadistic on my part - just my desire to keep things the way they are. Like Tequila posted - I don't want to change the playing field (in my mind anyway) in any way that detracts from the accomplishment of previous finders.

 

There are local challenges that I know I'll never qualify for as well - I chalk that up to "just another cache I won't get" and focus on the ones that I can do.

 

As the originator of this thread, I would like to make a couple of points clear, only from my POV. First of all, in no way do I intend or want to disparage ANY challenge caches or the people who hide them. We absolutely do not mean to criticize any caches as we appreciate anybody who hides them for us to find. We think challenge caches are incredibly fun and will continue to go after any and all we can accomplish. The original Well Rounded Cacher Fizzy cache is awesome and we appreciate the hider. Posting disparaging remarks about COs because you don't like their caches is not only unwarranted, but immature. Secondly, since this is just a game, we would hope that people would just go out and find whatever type of caches they want and just enjoy that. If you don't want to do challenge caches, then don't. The beauty of hiding any cache (including challenges) is that the creativity of the hider makes them unique. There are no rules restricting creativity. And, finally, if people want to cheat on challenge caches, who are they cheating? Just themselves. As with any challenges that may or may not have restrictions, we may or may not be able to ever qualify for them...but we will sure keep trying.

Edited October 30, 2010 by steben6

[+Keith Watson]

Would you do it again (just the finds before cache was published restriction)? I'm curious about your thoughts on it after a year. In fact, I'm curious what anyone who owns such a cache thinks about it after the long term.

 

Is any kind of date restriction fair to everyone? That will be debated till the end of time. Would I do it again? I would have to say I don't know.

 

I have though about it over the past year after getting feedback from several cachers. Some of the ones I heard complain about it have qualified and found the cache. Currently I have had over 6,000 visits by over 1,800 individual cachers. I generally place cache to be found. The two challenges I placed I are for the die-hards that want that extra challenge and have found satisfaction in finding them.

 

The biggest problem I see with challenge caches in general is the presumption that now caches placed by other people are games pieces for the challenge. If I decide I want to change something about my cache, I don't want to hear how I cheated someone out of a challenge, or that I did it just to help someone else get the challenge.

 

A problem with a published before restriction is the cache now has a finite life. There will come a point when no-one will be finding the cache because the cost and time to find it will be prohibitive.

 

The problem with the find after restriction is with out it you will have a mad rush of older cachers and then the cache goes dead. I have found that with it the finds are not as popular as my other caches, but people do visit it.

 

I also don't believe that challenge caches lead to a better caching experience. When I hear about a cacher driving 5 hours to find a cache and drive 5 hours back just to get a qualifying cache being a rewarding experience, I don't by it. it took me almost 7 years to get all 81 combinations and I can honestly say I have had far more enjoyable experiences finding caches that were not the target of a trip just to find qualifying caches for a challenge.

[+addisonbr]

The biggest problem I see with challenge caches in general is the presumption that now caches placed by other people are games pieces for the challenge.

Yes. There seems to be a real fear of cheating.

[+steben6]

One of the special things that happened as a result of a date restricted Fizzy is that a whole bunch of elder caches suddenly started seeing visits after laying dormant for months or in some cases years.

 

In Ontario, when I published Tequila:81 Proof, there was considerable forum discussion over the challenge.

 

In the background, two cachers, quietly, took up the challenge separately. They started seeking out obscure canoe caches. In the case of one cacher, it got him back into kayaking after years away from the water. As they realized they were racing each other, they left messages for each other in caches. It was fun to see the spirit unleashed by the challenge. In the end, they shared FTF.

 

Once someone had completed it, other local cachers started going to these obscure caches. Sometimes, a cache that hadn't been visited in a year, would get three or four visits in a single weekend. I am sure the owners must have been surprised at the new activity.

 

It also distracted several cachers away from quantity towards quality. As Avernar mentioned above, people would plan weekend excursions of 1200 km to get one or two caches. One local cacher even made a trip to California to get the mother of all Fizzies. Now there are at least two other local cachers working on the California Fizzy simply because of the date restricted challenge.

 

For those that chose not to travel great distances to find obscure caches to complete a date restricted challenge, there are plenty of alternatives. Challenge caches are popping up daily. They have become the new ALR,

 

I have no intention of every removing my date restriction and I hope other CO's feel the same way.

 

What's an ALR?

[+steben6]

It also distracted several cachers away from quantity towards quality.

Yup. 81 Proof was a major factor in curing my radius slave affliction.

 

It strikes me that the appeal for some (like Avernar) is that the cache keeps getting harder over time. Presumably it would be possible to adjust the date such that the cache is roughly as hard as it was for earlier finders, as opposed to unquestionably always getting harder, and eventually impossible.

That would be extremely difficult to do as it's not only the availability of certain D/T combinations but also how far away they area and the style of cache (canoe, long hike, off road adventure, etc). There are plenty of challenges around here that get easier so having one that gets harder is good for variety.

 

What annoys me the most is when a new challenge comes out with a "only future finds count" restriction after I've spent a lot of effort collecting hard D/T combos for existing challenges.

 

Challenge caches used to irk me.

Same here. I initially despised them as I really hated ALRs and that just carried over. Once I started to qualify for a few challenges and realized it was going to be fun trying to get the last few requirements my opinion on challenge caches completely changed.

 

What's an ALR?

[+E = Mc2]

What's an ALR?

 

ALR is an acronym for Alternate Logging Requirement.

 

ALRs are thing in the nature of "Must post a picture of you holding your GPS in front of", etc. Some of them can get pretty far fetched.

[+steben6]

What's an ALR?

 

ALR is an acronym for Alternate Logging Requirement.

 

ALRs are thing in the nature of "Must post a picture of you holding your GPS in front of", etc. Some of them can get pretty far fetched.

 

Thanks!

[+benh57]

What's an ALR?

 

ALR is an acronym for Alternate Logging Requirement.

 

ALRs are thing in the nature of "Must post a picture of you holding your GPS in front of", etc. Some of them can get pretty far fetched.

 

Thanks!

 

Actually, it's an acronym for 'Additional Logging Requirement' (other than just signing the log).

 

"Alternate" is incorrect as that implies it is optional. It's not.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I agree with the OP that date restrictions on Challenges tend to make them increasingly difficult over time.

 

Allowing only finds on old caches (predate the challenge) seems reasonable at the time - but 5 years later, the challenge is MUCH much more challenging then it was at the time of publication.

 

There's no symmetry. I've seen challenge cache owners state, "no old finds, to level the playing field". It doesn't level the field. Generally, this heavily handicaps established cachers. On the other hand, allowing "old finds" can mean that there will be cachers who qualify today. New cachers have some work ahead.

 

but I agree with Kealia's post - once a Challenge has been set up with restrictions, they ought not be adjusted (Unless absolutely necessary - generally that's not going to arise over date restrictions, unless there are also geographic restrictions.)

 

If a Challenge is initially established with a "restrictions will be adjusted from time to time" clause, great!

 

the requirement be that, in order to log a cache for the challenge, the cache must be at least a year old when you find/log it.

 

Nice idea; I think it comes close to solving the problem of sorta fake caches and cache ratings, placed just for the challenge and comes as close to the "level playing field" as any notion I've seen.

[+addisonbr]

Nice idea; I think it comes close to solving the problem of sorta fake caches and cache ratings, placed just for the challenge and comes as close to the "level playing field" as any notion I've seen.

I'm inclined to agree.

[+DanOCan]

It's an example of why I think challenge caches should have been included with other ALRs and why most of them end up on my Ignore list.

[+Kealia]

As the originator of this thread, I would like to make a couple of points clear, only from my POV. First of all, in no way do I intend or want to disparage ANY challenge caches or the people who hide them. We absolutely do not mean to criticize any caches as we appreciate anybody who hides them for us to find.

 

No offense taken, don't worry. I took is as opinion and not a personal attack in any way.

[+Avernar]

What annoys me the most is when a new challenge comes out with a "only future finds count" restriction after I've spent a lot of effort collecting hard D/T combos for existing challenges.

You mean like this cache? Difficulty 1 (Ontario Mini-Fizzy 9 Challenge) A cache by Avernar

Which I've already admitted to:

 

I own a finds from before today cache doesn't count challenge - I've had lots of people log it happily, and others who are working on it.

Same here.

I'm not annoyed at the CO for putting out the new cache with that restriction, I'm annoyed with the timing that's beyond my control. It's more of a "Doh!" thing as in "Doh, why couldn't have that challenge come out a little earlier" or "Doh, why didn't I grab those hard ones a little later."

 

I'd bet a lot of people doing the February Cache A Day Challenge feel the same way: "Doh! Why didn't I grab a cache on Feb 29th, 2008!!!"

 

I look at it this way. I have found all 81 combinations. I have over 4,000 finds. Do I need to qualify for someone's ALR for one extra smiley outside of my normal caching area? No. I have already found the cache and signed the log. Life goes on.

I'm not going after that challenge just for a smiley. Smileys are a dime a dozen. I'm doing it because it forces me out of my normal caching area to go places I've never been to. It'll also give me a sense of accomplishment when I finally finish it. Kind of like crossing the finish line in a marathon.

[+Avernar]

The biggest problem I see with challenge caches in general is the presumption that now caches placed by other people are games pieces for the challenge. If I decide I want to change something about my cache, I don't want to hear how I cheated someone out of a challenge, or that I did it just to help someone else get the challenge.

It's not only for challenge caches but for statistics as well. You previously sated you completed all 81 D/T combinations. How would you feel if someone changed the ratings of the 5/5s to follow the new guidelines and now you only have 80?

 

That's the reason why some people argue if a cache changes that much (i.e. bridge washes out, closest trailhead closed, etc.) that it should be archived and a new GC code used since it's a new cache experience.

[+northernpenguin]

The biggest problem I see with challenge caches in general is the presumption that now caches placed by other people are games pieces for the challenge. If I decide I want to change something about my cache, I don't want to hear how I cheated someone out of a challenge, or that I did it just to help someone else get the challenge.

It's not only for challenge caches but for statistics as well. You previously sated you completed all 81 D/T combinations. How would you feel if someone changed the ratings of the 5/5s to follow the new guidelines and now you only have 80?

 

That's the reason why some people argue if a cache changes that much (i.e. bridge washes out, closest trailhead closed, etc.) that it should be archived and a new GC code used since it's a new cache experience.

 

You know, I think Keith makes a valid point here. Challenge caches are placed, and use other caches as qualification pieces. That's akin to claiming some sort of ownership over caches.

 

While cache owners should be sensitive to "challenge cache" seekers the fact of the matter is, that the only person that owns a cache (and it's rating) is the cache owner, and not some third party who placed another cache.

 

For example, a cache is placed 300 metres into a swamp. It gets a terrain 4 rating.

Then someone builds a boardwalk across the swamp, and passes within 8 inches of the cache. The terrain is now a 1. A responsible cache owner needs to make that change to the rating. It's still the same cache, in the same place so we can't really say archive it and republish it, just to support the challenge cache that the CO didn't place, or the statistics that some cachers want to generate - that's third party to Geocaching, and the Geocaching experience.

 

What I do on my caches, when a rating is changed is post a note indicating the old rating and the new rating.

 

I wouldn't want to deliberately mess with a challenge cache but I will adjust my caches when it is appropriate. The last few I placed I under-estimated the difficulty, and that got adjusted within a day or two.

[+dfx]

I have no intention of every removing my date restriction and I hope other CO's feel the same way.

I don't think your cache is in any danger of this, since it's only a couple of years old and is not restricted geographically. But theoretically, if you were facing a situation where the only remaining cache at a particular D/T combo had been archived, would you archive your cache?

Yes.

 

To do otherwise would cheapen the effort of those who found it with the date restriction.

but in the current setup, doesn't every new completion/find of the challenge already cheapen the effort of those who found it before them? less and less caches are available and the challenge becomes more and more difficult over time. at some point, there will be only one cache left to fill a certain grid square, and it may be on the other side of the world. somebody may still complete the challenge then, but comparing the effort this finder has put into completing the challenge with the effort the first finders put in would be completely ridiculous.

[+Keith Watson]

The biggest problem I see with challenge caches in general is the presumption that now caches placed by other people are games pieces for the challenge. If I decide I want to change something about my cache, I don't want to hear how I cheated someone out of a challenge, or that I did it just to help someone else get the challenge.

It's not only for challenge caches but for statistics as well. You previously sated you completed all 81 D/T combinations. How would you feel if someone changed the ratings of the 5/5s to follow the new guidelines and now you only have 80?

 

That's the reason why some people argue if a cache changes that much (i.e. bridge washes out, closest trailhead closed, etc.) that it should be archived and a new GC code used since it's a new cache experience.

 

I have had caches I have found change in rating. I keep a database of every cache I have found and have seen ratings change. At the time I got all 81 combinations I had all 81 combinations. If someone updated a cache that altered that I wouldn't be running to the forums pointing fingers and crying they took something away from me. I know were I was and when I got all 81. The caches I find are not my caches so I really don't have control over what someone else does with their caches.

 

I look at it this way. My records record the rating when I found the cache because they are a historical record of caches I found. If someone changes the rating it doesn't matter to be because they can't change history.

[+mwellman]

When we created our Alphabet Towns Challenge in Saskatchewan, we debated prior finds vs. a clean slate. The problem was that there were not very many caches in Saskatchewan and the more experienced cachers had found the vast majority of them. But then we also wanted to create a level playing field.

 

Our solution: Two Challenge Caches, one where you could use prior finds and one where you couldn't. As expected, the senior cacher in the province quickly found the prior finds challenge cache and a newbie found the challenge that required only new finds. Then they both also completed the other challenge.

 

What we have learned is not to clean an area out of alphabet name/cacher/town/county or higher difficulty/terrain combinations, just in case!

 

We now live in Alberta, where there are lots of new caches to find and some new challenges to complete.

 

As we are not mountain climbers, we may not complete a fizzy challenge but we are having fun trying! And that is whole point of caching.

 

Enjoy your Geocaching Adventures, even the Challenges!

[+northernpenguin]

What we have learned is not to clean an area out of alphabet name/cacher/town/county or higher difficulty/terrain combinations, just in case!

 

... and that's the tragic part of the "clean slate provision". It becomes a reason NOT to go caching, instead of a reason to GO caching.

 

I went and cleared out an area with 8 terrain 5 caches in the spring. Sure enough, a date restricted challenge came out a week later. I'm far happier that I went on the adventure rather than hold off "just in case"

[+addisonbr]

... and that's the tragic part of the "clean slate provision". It becomes a reason NOT to go caching, instead of a reason to GO caching.

Valid point.

[+Avernar]

You know, I think Keith makes a valid point here. Challenge caches are placed, and use other caches as qualification pieces. That's akin to claiming some sort of ownership over caches.

 

While cache owners should be sensitive to "challenge cache" seekers the fact of the matter is, that the only person that owns a cache (and it's rating) is the cache owner, and not some third party who placed another cache.

Geocaches are placed on private property (with or without permission) . That's akin to claiming some sort of ownership over the area.

 

While property owners should be sensitive to "geocache" seekers the fact of the matter is, that the only person that owns the property (and it's usage) is the land owner, and not some third party who placed another cache.

 

Welcome to Geocaching.

 

For example, a cache is placed 300 metres into a swamp. It gets a terrain 4 rating.

Then someone builds a boardwalk across the swamp, and passes within 8 inches of the cache. The terrain is now a 1. A responsible cache owner needs to make that change to the rating. It's still the same cache, in the same place so we can't really say archive it and republish it, just to support the challenge cache that the CO didn't place, or the statistics that some cachers want to generate - that's third party to Geocaching, and the Geocaching experience.

It may be the same container but not the same cache. If the cache changed that fundamentally then I'd say a new GC would be a good idea. Not only do previous finders get to keep their statistics correct, they also get an opportunity to find the cache again in a completely different way.

 

Nowhere am I advocating that a CO be forced to do anything. But if they know some people enjoy that aspect of the game, why not support them? If someone is using my cache to have fun and not hurting anyone else's fun, why not let them?

 

What I do on my caches, when a rating is changed is post a note indicating the old rating and the new rating.

 

I wouldn't want to deliberately mess with a challenge cache but I will adjust my caches when it is appropriate. The last few I placed I under-estimated the difficulty, and that got adjusted within a day or two.

I wish more people would adjust their cache rating after the first few finders give feedback. There are way to many inaccurately rated caches out there.

 

But for older caches with lots of finds that have high or rare D/T ratings, the CO should keep challenge caches in mind when making a decision to re-rate the cache. A lot of these re-ratings are usually half star changes. Does that really make that much of a difference?

 

A solution might be just to re-hide the cache slightly different and keep the same rating. In your boardwalk example, moving the cache away from the boardwalk would result in the rating staying the same and the experience of the cache being the same.

[+Avernar]

I look at it this way. My records record the rating when I found the cache because they are a historical record of caches I found. If someone changes the rating it doesn't matter to be because they can't change history.

Which would be nice if Groundspeak did this. Make the D/T change a log type so that people could tell what the rating was when they logged it.

 

It would keep both sides happy. The CO could update the D/T as much as they want and the statistics/challenge people would have their accurate historical numbers.

[+northernpenguin]

You know, I think Keith makes a valid point here. Challenge caches are placed, and use other caches as qualification pieces. That's akin to claiming some sort of ownership over caches.

 

While cache owners should be sensitive to "challenge cache" seekers the fact of the matter is, that the only person that owns a cache (and it's rating) is the cache owner, and not some third party who placed another cache.

Geocaches are placed on private property (with or without permission) . That's akin to claiming some sort of ownership over the area.

 

While property owners should be sensitive to "geocache" seekers the fact of the matter is, that the only person that owns the property (and it's usage) is the land owner, and not some third party who placed another cache.

 

Welcome to Geocaching.

 

Not really the same. As a property owner, I can boot an unwanted cache off my island and make it stay away. I can't make my neighbour keep the same phone number because I am using it as a reference point in some game.

 

There's an entire legal system based on that right here.

 

If I go out and place a cache, that does not mean you can include it in your challenge / multi / puzzle and expect me to support it. Let's say someone uses the code inside in my latest BFL cache as a stage in their cache. Should I be expected to leave that code intact forever, or can I change it when I move the final?

 

I would be screwing up future cachers who are completing that puzzle, but *I* didn't put that puzzle cache out. I own the cache, whether or not I have the deed to the land it sits on.

 

There is a difference between what a considerate cache owner does and what is expected for a cache owner.

 

For example, a cache is placed 300 metres into a swamp. It gets a terrain 4 rating.

Then someone builds a boardwalk across the swamp, and passes within 8 inches of the cache. The terrain is now a 1. A responsible cache owner needs to make that change to the rating. It's still the same cache, in the same place so we can't really say archive it and republish it, just to support the challenge cache that the CO didn't place, or the statistics that some cachers want to generate - that's third party to Geocaching, and the Geocaching experience.

It may be the same container but not the same cache. If the cache changed that fundamentally then I'd say a new GC would be a good idea. Not only do previous finders get to keep their statistics correct, they also get an opportunity to find the cache again in a completely different way.

 

Nowhere am I advocating that a CO be forced to do anything. But if they know some people enjoy that aspect of the game, why not support them? If someone is using my cache to have fun and not hurting anyone else's fun, why not let them?

 

Demanding a cache owner lock the ratings in place forever and archive the cache / republish is a very strong request. We can change the D/T ratings after the fact for a reason. These things change from time to time. While that's not being specifically demanded by you or anyone else there are strong overtones of that in this discussion, and other threads on the site.

 

It IS the same cache if it's the same container. How you got there was up to you.

 

This has been applied in the reverse when people have attempted to revive old cache listings by dropping a new container and "adopting" the listing.

 

What I do on my caches, when a rating is changed is post a note indicating the old rating and the new rating.

 

I wouldn't want to deliberately mess with a challenge cache but I will adjust my caches when it is appropriate. The last few I placed I under-estimated the difficulty, and that got adjusted within a day or two.

I wish more people would adjust their cache rating after the first few finders give feedback. There are way to many inaccurately rated caches out there.

 

But for older caches with lots of finds that have high or rare D/T ratings, the CO should keep challenge caches in mind when making a decision to re-rate the cache. A lot of these re-ratings are usually half star changes. Does that really make that much of a difference?

 

A solution might be just to re-hide the cache slightly different and keep the same rating. In your boardwalk example, moving the cache away from the boardwalk would result in the rating staying the same and the experience of the cache being the same.

 

I agree. A lot of caches do need adjustments based on the first few logs. Older caches with rare D/T ratings *shouldn't* change but sometimes things change. Archive/republish doesn't solve the problem for challenge caches list 81 Proof, as the cache gets removed from the pool anyway. Archive/republish when the box is in the same spot is just bringing people back to the same spot.

 

The boardwalk example, moving it away from the boardwalk - why should a CO have to do that? For a statistics game that is an extension to geocaching?

 

I will say it again, a CO should be considerate where possible but at the end of the day - they own the cache and the cache listing. It's very inconsiderate to change the rating just before you archive the cache - that's just messing with people .... but a cache that is updated to reflect changes to D/T is still the same cache and it's a part of normal maintenance.

[+Avernar]

but in the current setup, doesn't every new completion/find of the challenge already cheapen the effort of those who found it before them? less and less caches are available and the challenge becomes more and more difficult over time. at some point, there will be only one cache left to fill a certain grid square, and it may be on the other side of the world. somebody may still complete the challenge then, but comparing the effort this finder has put into completing the challenge with the effort the first finders put in would be completely ridiculous.

That's a bit of reverse logic. Most people don't complain when others do something a harder way. If you run a marathon and someone else doubled the distance by taking the scenic route, does your accomplishment somehow get reduced? No.

 

It's actually the other way around. Completing the challenge with the least amount of effort is what people brag about. Some people managed to complete 81 Proof using only Ontario caches. I need to find one in Quebec to complete the challenge. While I put in more effort, having all Ontario finds would have been more prestigious.

[+Avernar]

Not really the same. As a property owner, I can boot an unwanted cache off my island and make it stay away. I can't make my neighbour keep the same phone number because I am using it as a reference point in some game.

It's exactly the same. The property owner controls their land, the CO controls their cache listing. The CO uses they property owners land for their purpose, the challenge owner uses the other cache for their purpose. The property owner sets restrictions for use of their land (permits, exclusions), the CO changes ratings on their cache. The CO complains about the land owners restrictions in the forums, the challenge owner complains about the CO's rating changes in the forum.

 

There's an entire legal system based on that right here.

And their are guidelines for listing a cache here. Same thing.

 

If I go out and place a cache, that does not mean you can include it in your challenge / multi / puzzle and expect me to support it. Let's say someone uses the code inside in my latest BFL cache as a stage in their cache. Should I be expected to leave that code intact forever, or can I change it when I move the final?

If I make some land publicly accessible, that does not mean you can put a cache there and expect me to support it. If someone uses a number from a sign on my propery as a stage in their cache, should I be expected to leave the sign intact forever, or can I change it when I need to?

 

I would be screwing up future cachers who are completing that puzzle, but *I* didn't put that puzzle cache out. I own the cache, whether or not I have the deed to the land it sits on.

And if I forced the removal of a stage of a multicache off my propery I would be screwing up future cachers who are completing that multi, but *I* didn't put that multi out.

 

There is a difference between what a considerate cache owner does and what is expected for a cache owner.

I am agreeing with all of your arguments. I'm just pointing out how closely this issue parallels the CO/land owner situation.

 

We hope that the land owner will be supportive of out hiding caches on their property just as the challenge owner hopes that other COs will be supportive of their challenge.

 

Demanding a cache owner lock the ratings in place forever and archive the cache / republish is a very strong request. We can change the D/T ratings after the fact for a reason. These things change from time to time. While that's not being specifically demanded by you or anyone else there are strong overtones of that in this discussion, and other threads on the site.

Nobody is demanding anything. I've seen reviewers encourage people in the forums to relist the cache if the type, location or experience of the cache changes drastically. But nowhere is anybody demanding or forcing anyone to do anything.

 

It IS the same cache if it's the same container. How you got there was up to you.

 

This has been applied in the reverse when people have attempted to revive old cache listings by dropping a new container and "adopting" the listing.

So then a listing should be archived as soon as the container goes missing. But people replace the containers all the time and keep the same GC code.

 

What constitutes "the same cache" varies. Sometimes it is the container because of the construction of the container (bolt micro, special cammo, etc). Sometimes it's the location. Sometimes is how you get there.

 

My point is that if the D/T changes then there's a good chance the cache changed fundamentally. If so it may be a good idea to relist it. But nobody is forcing anyone to.

 

Archive/republish doesn't solve the problem for challenge caches list 81 Proof, as the cache gets removed from the pool anyway. Archive/republish when the box is in the same spot is just bringing people back to the same spot.

Yes it does. It would keep the same rating for those that already found it. For those that haven't found it yet they would still have a cache with new rating to find.

 

Who is forcing who to go back? You don't have to find them all. There's no difference from an archive/republish and and archive by old CO and publish by new CO. In both cases there something new with the cache.

 

Remember, I'm only advocating this for fundamental changes. If only a minor tweak to the ratings would be required then the rehiding the cache slightly different idea should be considered.

 

The boardwalk example, moving it away from the boardwalk - why should a CO have to do that? For a statistics game that is an extension to geocaching?

No, to keep the same intent of the cache. They put the cache in the middle of the swamp for a reason. If they still want people to have the swamp experience then they should move it.

 

I will say it again, a CO should be considerate where possible but at the end of the day - they own the cache and the cache listing. It's very inconsiderate to change the rating just before you archive the cache - that's just messing with people .... but a cache that is updated to reflect changes to D/T is still the same cache and it's a part of normal maintenance.

 

I completely agree. And for the vast majority of caches tweaking the D/T would make little difference. But for the hard or rare D/T's the COs should keep challenge caches in mind before tweaking the D/T. Is the tweak really necessary? Is there another way to keep the D/T accurate (reposition, hint change, etc)?

 

What some people are getting worked up about is after a cache has been out for years with a certain D/T and there have been no complaints about the rating accuracy, was a half star tweak really warranted? I think that's what's causing the frustration.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Avernar

[+northernpenguin]

It's exactly the same. The property owner controls their land, the CO controls their cache listing. The CO uses they property owners land for their purpose, the challenge owner uses the other cache for their purpose. The property owner sets restrictions for use of their land (permits, exclusions), the CO changes ratings on their cache. The CO complains about the land owners restrictions in the forums, the challenge owner complains about the CO's rating changes in the forum.

 

No, for it to be the same comparison it would have to be a landowner complaining the other land owner changed their phone number.

 

If I make some land publicly accessible, that does not mean you can put a cache there and expect me to support it. If someone uses a number from a sign on my propery as a stage in their cache, should I be expected to leave the sign intact forever, or can I change it when I need to?

 

Right. You can boot it off the property and stick your middle finger up at me if I put a cache on your publicly accessible land without your permission. Different issue.

 

You can change your sign, because it's your sign. If some geocacher comes knocking at your door because you changed the sign, you'd tell them off. Why is it different if I change a number in the logbook of my cache?

 

And if I forced the removal of a stage of a multicache off my propery I would be screwing up future cachers who are completing that multi, but *I* didn't put that multi out.

 

If you archive a stage of your own cache, or remove a cache that was placed on your property without permission, that is not the same as including someone else's cache in your cache.

 

We hope that the land owner will be supportive of out hiding caches on their property just as the challenge owner hopes that other COs will be supportive of their challenge.

 

Yes there is supporting a challenge, or thinking it's a good idea. Then there's someone telling me how to run my cache so it won't interfere with their cache. Why is their cache "better" than mine? Why do I have to adjust to meet the needs of their cache? They should manage their challenge cache and adjust as necessary. Blacklist my cache from their challenge. Maintain snapshots. Whatever. But leave me to run my cache as I see fit. I'm called a Cache Owner, not a Cache Lessee, or Cache Renter.

 

So then a listing should be archived as soon as the container goes missing. But people replace the containers all the time and keep the same GC code.

 

What constitutes "the same cache" varies. Sometimes it is the container because of the construction of the container (bolt micro, special cammo, etc). Sometimes it's the location. Sometimes is how you get there.

 

My point is that if the D/T changes then there's a good chance the cache changed fundamentally. If so it may be a good idea to relist it. But nobody is forcing anyone to.

 

That's between the Cache Owner and the Reviewers. Right now replacing a cache container by the owner is considered "maintenance" and does not generate a new listing. Try moving your cache 100M from that new boardwalk in the example above and see if you get to keep the same GC code.

 

Yes it does. It would keep the same rating for those that already found it. For those that haven't found it yet they would still have a cache with new rating to find.

 

Except that the new cache is published after 81 Proof so it's invalid. Still removed from the pool.

 

No, to keep the same intent of the cache. They put the cache in the middle of the swamp for a reason. If they still want people to have the swamp experience then they should move it.

 

You assume they put it in the swamp "for a reason". It may be that the cache location was special for some other reason than the terrain. That's up to the Cache Owner.

 

I completely agree. And for the vast majority of caches tweaking the D/T would make little difference. But for the hard or rare D/T's the COs should keep challenge caches in mind before tweaking the D/T. Is the tweak really necessary? Is there another way to keep the D/T accurate (reposition, hint change, etc)?

 

What some people are getting worked up about is after a cache has been out for years with a certain D/T and there have been no complaints about the rating accuracy, was a half star tweak really warranted? I think that's what's causing the frustration.

 

I saw in another thread someone suggest people start using the Lock Listing device in GSAK to freeze the cache rating to what it was when they found it. That would be a possible compromise between those who want caches frozen in time and those who feel the cache listings should be updated periodically.

[+Keith Watson]

I completely agree. And for the vast majority of caches tweaking the D/T would make little difference. But for the hard or rare D/T's the COs should keep challenge caches in mind before tweaking the D/T. Is the tweak really necessary? Is there another way to keep the D/T accurate (reposition, hint change, etc)?

 

Why should there be any difference between rare and not rare combinations? A cache is a cache. The only reason I see anyone could possibly make a distinction on how they should be treated is because they want to make sure they can meet a challenge or maintain some sort of statistics. That would be asking a cache owner to cache your way and not their way.

 

If it is really that important to you, then keep your own records.

[+Avernar]

No, for it to be the same comparison it would have to be a landowner complaining the other land owner changed their phone number.

We're getting into semantics here now.

 

My point was that COs who use other people's land as a game piece complaining that other people are using their cache listing as a game piece is a little hypocritical. There are not many COs who have all their hides on their own property.

 

I agree with everything else you said about the CO controlling their own listing.

 

That's between the Cache Owner and the Reviewers. Right now replacing a cache container by the owner is considered "maintenance" and does not generate a new listing. Try moving your cache 100M from that new boardwalk in the example above and see if you get to keep the same GC code.

My point was that the archive/relist is just one option to keep everyone happy.

 

Except that the new cache is published after 81 Proof so it's invalid. Still removed from the pool.

But just changing the rating locks it at the old rating with a recommendation to avoid since new finders are not really finding that old rating.

 

That's why I'm suggesting that alternative ways to keep the rating should be considered.

 

Except that the new cache is You assume they put it in the swamp "for a reason". It may be that the cache location was special for some other reason than the terrain. That's up to the Cache Owner.

That's my point. If it was for another reason then the archive/relist might make more sense. In your boardwalk example it give previous finders a reason to go back if they choose to. Now that there's a boardwalk they'd want to return with all their expensive camera equipment.

 

I saw in another thread someone suggest people start using the Lock Listing device in GSAK to freeze the cache rating to what it was when they found it. That would be a possible compromise between those who want caches frozen in time and those who feel the cache listings should be updated periodically.

I just wish GSAK had finer grained control over what gets locked. Right now the lock option locks everything. If the cache gets archived it won't pick that up.

[+Avernar]

Why should there be any difference between rare and not rare combinations?

The difference is that for the rare combo's there may not be another cache around to take it's place. Nobody is forcing a CO to do anything. It would just be nice if they'd keep challenges in mind when changing the rating of a long standing cache.

 

A cache is a cache.

Spoken as a true numbers hound.

 

I'm quite sure there's a difference between a cache like Bushwacker and a common LPC. Or Ishpatina vs a flash mob event.

[Skippermark]

I've seen challenge cache owners state, "no old finds, to level the playing field". It doesn't level the field. Generally, this heavily handicaps established cachers. On the other hand, allowing "old finds" can mean that there will be cachers who qualify today. New cachers have some work ahead.

True, true. Someone with a lot of finds might get penalized because there aren't enough caches in the "range" that they need because they've already found them, yet new cachers can meet the challenge fairly quickly sometimes.

 

By putting "future" dates on caches, I've seen and heard cachers admit that they rated caches incorrectly just so they meet the required rating that someone needs to find a cache.

 

""So, Bill, You think my cache was rated correctly as a 3/4?" "No way, George, it's definitely a 4/3.5. Pus, that'll give me the grid I need to complete that new challenge cache." "Thanks, it definitely sounds like a 4/3.5 is the way to go then."

Edited November 1, 2010 by Skippermark

[+northernpenguin]

""So, Bill, You think my cache was rated correctly as a 3/4?" "No way, George, it's definitely a 4/3.5. Pus, that'll give me the grid I need to complete that new challenge cache." "Thanks, it definitely sounds like a 4/3.5 is the way to go then."

 

Yup, we can fully expect shenanigans like this to happen while Cache Owners have full control of D/T.

The talk of a peer-cache rating system may offer an alternative but that's a whole other Pandora's box.

[+niraD]

But for the hard or rare D/T's the COs should keep challenge caches in mind before tweaking the D/T.

Even for cache owners who routinely ignore mystery/puzzle caches, who don't frequent the forums, and who are therefore unaware of challenge caches that use the difficulty/terrain ratings of their caches?

 

I'm on the side of cache owners who update their difficulty/terrain ratings to more accurately reflect changing conditions. Difficulty and terrain ratings should be a tool for cache owners to communicate to cache seekers. Any other use is purely secondary.

[+Keith Watson]

Why should there be any difference between rare and not rare combinations?

The difference is that for the rare combo's there may not be another cache around to take it's place. Nobody is forcing a CO to do anything. It would just be nice if they'd keep challenges in mind when changing the rating of a long standing cache.

 

Again I ask, what makes one cache rating better than another unless you are seeking specific cache ratings? If the owner placed a cache just to place a specific rating, i doubt they would ever change it. If they do change the rating I would guess accuracy is more important to them than a few individuals conquest to complete a cache challenge or personal challenge.

 

A cache is a cache.

Spoken as a true numbers hound.

 

Please leave the name calling out of the forums.

 

I'm quite sure there's a difference between a cache like Bushwacker and a common LPC. Or Ishpatina vs a flash mob event.

Actually there was a flash mob at Ishpatina Ridge.

[+Keith Watson]

I'm on the side of cache owners who update their difficulty/terrain ratings to more accurately reflect changing conditions. Difficulty and terrain ratings should be a tool for cache owners to communicate to cache seekers. Any other use is purely secondary.

 

I am 100% in agreement on that. That was very well put.

[+Keith Watson]

Sorry, dupe, server lag.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Keith Watson

[+Avernar]

Even for cache owners who routinely ignore mystery/puzzle caches, who don't frequent the forums, and who are therefore unaware of challenge caches that use the difficulty/terrain ratings of their caches?

Who don't have any logs indicating the find was part of a challenge, who don't have any challenge bookmark lists on the side of their cache page indicating it was used in a challenge? No, we can't expect them to know about it.

 

All I'm saying is those that their cache is desperately needed for a challenge to keep this in mind. One CO did maintenance on his cache instead of archiving it because he knew it was being used for a challenge.

 

He didn't have to, he was just being nice.

 

I'm on the side of cache owners who update their difficulty/terrain ratings to more accurately reflect changing conditions. Difficulty and terrain ratings should be a tool for cache owners to communicate to cache seekers. Any other use is purely secondary.

So am I. I'd be a hypocrite otherwise.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Why should there be any difference between rare and not rare combinations?

The difference is that for the rare combo's there may not be another cache around to take it's place. Nobody is forcing a CO to do anything. It would just be nice if they'd keep challenges in mind when changing the rating of a long standing cache.

 

Reminds me of the fun we had with the New Jersey DeLorme Challenge. Two pages only had two caches on them. Spent a fair while trying to find the second one on page 52, but it was missing, and later archived. The other one is on 16 bookmark lists for the challenge. Fortunately, the CO is maintaing the cache well. Never knew what he was getting himself in for! Oddly, there was one cache in New Jersey that was not on any DeLorme page!

As Skippermark notes: I helped someone hide a cache. I said it was a 3.5/1.5. CO rated it 4.5/2.5 "Because there weren't any". Oh, well.

[+Avernar]

Again I ask, what makes one cache rating better than another unless you are seeking specific cache ratings?

I never said one rating was better than another. I said that some ratings are more rare than others.

 

Yes, the people who would care if a rating was rare or not were people doing a challenge and the COs who don't want to hinder them.

 

If the owner placed a cache just to place a specific rating, i doubt they would ever change it. If they do change the rating I would guess accuracy is more important to them than a few individuals conquest to complete a cache challenge or personal challenge.

I would place accuracy above trying not to mess up other peoples goals to. They're not mutually exclusive however.

 

Spoken as a true numbers hound.

Please leave the name calling out of the forums.

That wasn't name calling, I apologize if it sounded as such.

 

Actually there was a flash mob at Ishpatina Ridge.

A "drive by" flash mob vs a "hours of hiking to get to" flash mob would still make my point.

[+Avernar]

As Skippermark notes: I helped someone hide a cache. I said it was a 3.5/1.5. CO rated it 4.5/2.5 "Because there weren't any". Oh, well.

Yeah, I don't agree with that but it's the COs listing to do with as they want.