Jump to content

Feedback on new Elevation Challenge


_Shaddow_

Recommended Posts

_Shaddow_

 

Question:

 

What is the purpose in the date cut-off? (Originally 1/1/11 and now three months prior) I can't figure out what kind of problem there would be with someone hiking up a mountain to find a cache placed yesterday?

 

And along with that, why not allow everyone to place one cache that would count towards this challenge? I remember in the early discussion, you talked about this option but it didn't make it into the final set of rules. Someone mentioned early on that if you let cachers place unlimited caches, you would see people hike to the top of the same mountain behind their house again and again and keep placing one new cache there each time. But by limiting cachers to one placement only that would count towards the challenge, it would eliminate this. Why wouldn't this work?

 

I guess I'm just comparing it to the 100 mile hike challenge where there is no cut-off date and everyone can place one cache and I haven't seen any problems with that challenge cache. What kind of problems do you anticipate?

 

Thanks

 

Dave

 

Dave,

 

This is a point that I gave a lot of thought to over time and finally came to a conclusion that is reflected in the way I set up the cache.

 

There are good points on both sides, some of which you've made. Basically it comes down to quantity over quality. And I know that some will say that quantity IS quality but am not going to touch on that. Here's my thoughts:

 

I prefer quality over quantity and I don't want my challenge to be a motivation for placing more caches simply for them to be there; if a location or perhaps a cache concept, is worthy enough, than it will get placed anyway. If it were iffy, or less, than the extra motivation of it applying towards the challenge would tip the balance in the wrong direction (from my perspective).

 

On the other side, I don't want to exclude (hopefully better) caches once they're placed. Rolling the date forward is a compromise between these two ideas, three months should be enough time difference to remove this challenge as a major motivator yet not too much to be a pain. And I expect the normal completion time will be quite a bit longer than three months so caches placed towards the start will be available to find towards the end.

 

Re: allowing one or more placements. Same idea as just noted and I want to challenge to be about finding caches because that is the core experience of caching. Also, placing a cache could be used as a backup plan for a DNF which is not an element that I want to include. Risk should be considered and weighted when going out into the woods and I want to encourage thought processes towards 'what if' scenarios and backup plans. It also makes the game more fun in my opinion.

 

I have more motivations too. They include encouraging people to expand their experiences and the cache is set up so finding and going on hikes beyond their normal range is more likely. It also balances the cache a little better between the less and more experienced: the lesser experienced won't have as much stamina, gear, skills etc etc but will have a lot more caches to choose from while the more experienced will have already been challenged with conditioning / gathering / growing so they have to instead spend more effort to get caches they haven't done yet and that will come from expanding their normal hiking area or challenging them with tougher hikes, both which fit my goals well.

 

Kurt

Link to comment

_Shaddow_

 

I read the rules again and I don't see this clarified. I see that you can't use the final cache for elevation accumulation towards the 50,000 feet, but can you use a cache near the final cache for elevation accumulation and then log the final on the same trip?

 

In other words, if I'm just under 50,000 feet and I climb Mt. Si and find a cache that I haven't found that counts towards the challenge and it puts us over the 50,000 feet, may we then hike over to the final and log that on the same trip or do we have to come down the mountain, log it in, and then go back up the mountain on a separate trip? (Of course I guess some people can log in while on the mountain anyway with their iPhone or whatever)

 

On your cache page it doesn't say that you can't combine the final with another cache for elevation accumulation but I wanted to get clarification.

 

Thanks

Link to comment

_Shaddow_

 

I read the rules again and I don't see this clarified. I see that you can't use the final cache for elevation accumulation towards the 50,000 feet, but can you use a cache near the final cache for elevation accumulation and then log the final on the same trip?

 

In other words, if I'm just under 50,000 feet and I climb Mt. Si and find a cache that I haven't found that counts towards the challenge and it puts us over the 50,000 feet, may we then hike over to the final and log that on the same trip or do we have to come down the mountain, log it in, and then go back up the mountain on a separate trip? (Of course I guess some people can log in while on the mountain anyway with their iPhone or whatever)

 

On your cache page it doesn't say that you can't combine the final with another cache for elevation accumulation but I wanted to get clarification.

 

Thanks

 

I had originally intended it to be a separate hike after completing the challenge but rethinking it now and based on how I set up the rules I see it as ok to do your last cache and the final on the same hike.


  1.  
  2. The challenge is to get 50,000 feet of geo related elevation, not 50,000 + then 4,000+ to get the cache. If that where true then it should have been a 54,000 feet challenge
  3. It's all about the gain so technically, once you find the cache that takes you over 50,000 feet, there is no need to come back down to claim the find and elevation. So ya, like you said, you could be within the current rules by logging the find while sitting next to the last cache. However, I won't require that. When you get back home I would ask that you log your find on the last cache like a normal log then log a separate found log on the final.
  4. Note that to find and log the cache, you need to qualify for the final. If your last cache was unqualified for some reason, say too recently placed, or a DNF, then you will not qualify and can't claim a find on the final.

However:

Given that the challenge is meant to be 50,000 feet total and that I see no point in 'reserving' a nearby cache for the last find I'm going to revise the rules to qualify the final as the last cache. Therefore, you'll need to get a lesser minimum before heading up to the cache; the minimum would depend on your origin trailhead. The final is at 4,560'.

  • Little Si Trailhead is at 500'
    The gain is then 4280'* so a minimum previously logged cumulative gain of 45,720' would be required
  • Mt Si Trailhead is at 660'
    Via Mt Si the gain is 4,120'** so a minimum previously logged cumulative gain of 45,880' would be required
    Via Teneriffe logging roads the gain is 3,900' a minimum previously logged cumulative gain of 46,100' would be required
  • Teneriffe Mt Trailhead is at 950'
    The gain is 3,610' so a minimum previously logged cumulative gain of 46,390' would be required

Of course CJJIT already got his 50,000' before this rule change but he was in training so the extra elevation is no big deal and I'll revise his stats to add the additional gain to his final total.

 

* Cumulative elevation for route Little Si Trailhead to the cache

500 to Mt Si Upper Connector Trail high point (N47 30.402 W121 44.116) 4040 = 3540

Mount Si Upper Connector Trail Low Point 3820

(N47 30.493 W121 43.795) to the cache at 4560 = 740

Total = 4280

** Same as via Little Si Trailhead minus the 160' higher trailhead elevation

Link to comment

I've heard your feedback about the rules being complicated and difficult to follow, and while I knew that they could be reduced, part of the reason I left them is that they help avoid questions through their completeness.

 

But I agree, they could be better, at the very least more concise.

 

I'd like your feedback on doing just that: make the rules easier to read, understand and follow. At the same time, I want to be careful to maintain the core concepts, goals etc as well as not compromise the accomplishments of participants to date.

 

Feel free to throw anything out there, I'll consider it all. So if it bugs you let me know and we'll see what we can do. If you're uncomfortable about posting in the forum, feel free to email me. I'll share the gist of our side conversations here but will keep you anonymous.

 

Thanks for your time

Edited by _Shaddow_
Link to comment

I've heard your feedback about the rules being complicated and difficult to follow, and while I knew that they could be reduced, part of the reason I left them is that they help avoid questions through their completeness.

 

But I agree, they could be better, at the very least more concise.

 

I'd like your feedback on doing just that: make the rules easier to read, understand and follow. At the same time, I want to be careful to maintain the core concepts, goals etc as well as not compromise the accomplishments of participants to date.

 

Feel free to throw anything out there, I'll consider it all. So if it bugs you let me know and we'll see what we can do. If you're uncomfortable about posting in the forum, feel free to email me. I'll share the gist of our side conversations here but will keep you anonymous.

 

Thanks for your time

 

I think that the rule about it being a physical cache should be revised. I've climbed Mt. Rainier twice (to Camp Muir) and there are no caches with log books, but it's quite a bit of elevation gain I could have for this challenge. The first year (last weekend of July 2010) I got one of the virtual caches at Camp Muir, and the second year (last weekend of July 2011) I got the other one ("Top o' the Field" and "Banana Slugs In High Places"). I did them seperately on purpose so I could count both hikes for the 100 miles challenge. I would like to do the same for this challenge. I have pictures posted on those cache pages showing me at the location, which in my mind, is more proof than claiming I signed a log book.

 

Maybe that whole rule can be eliminated, because why would it matter if the cache were placed three months before I found it. That makes sure that I can't get an FTF on it if I want to count it for this challenge. I don't think there should be that kind of restriction. From past posts here, it seems you're just trying to make sure that a cache doesn't get archived soon after it's published, or that it's a bad cache just placed for this challenge. I think if you revised the rule enough that you couldn't log the find for the final until all found caches had existed for at least three months, or something like that, you might still accomplish your goal, while not punishing the FTF cacher from counting that hike. Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

Thanks

Link to comment

I've heard your feedback about the rules being complicated and difficult to follow, and while I knew that they could be reduced, part of the reason I left them is that they help avoid questions through their completeness.

 

But I agree, they could be better, at the very least more concise.

 

I'd like your feedback on doing just that: make the rules easier to read, understand and follow. At the same time, I want to be careful to maintain the core concepts, goals etc as well as not compromise the accomplishments of participants to date.

 

Feel free to throw anything out there, I'll consider it all. So if it bugs you let me know and we'll see what we can do. If you're uncomfortable about posting in the forum, feel free to email me. I'll share the gist of our side conversations here but will keep you anonymous.

 

Thanks for your time

 

I think that the rule about it being a physical cache should be revised. I've climbed Mt. Rainier twice (to Camp Muir) and there are no caches with log books, but it's quite a bit of elevation gain I could have for this challenge. The first year (last weekend of July 2010) I got one of the virtual caches at Camp Muir, and the second year (last weekend of July 2011) I got the other one ("Top o' the Field" and "Banana Slugs In High Places"). I did them seperately on purpose so I could count both hikes for the 100 miles challenge. I would like to do the same for this challenge. I have pictures posted on those cache pages showing me at the location, which in my mind, is more proof than claiming I signed a log book.

 

Maybe that whole rule can be eliminated, because why would it matter if the cache were placed three months before I found it. That makes sure that I can't get an FTF on it if I want to count it for this challenge. I don't think there should be that kind of restriction. From past posts here, it seems you're just trying to make sure that a cache doesn't get archived soon after it's published, or that it's a bad cache just placed for this challenge. I think if you revised the rule enough that you couldn't log the find for the final until all found caches had existed for at least three months, or something like that, you might still accomplish your goal, while not punishing the FTF cacher from counting that hike. Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

Thanks

 

+1

 

I can't say I've understood the reasoning being limit the challenge to physical caches. I was bummed when I submitted the Loowit Falls Earthcache hike I made and it was rejected for inclusion.

Link to comment

I think that the rule about it being a physical cache should be revised. I've climbed Mt. Rainier twice (to Camp Muir) and there are no caches with log books, but it's quite a bit of elevation gain I could have for this challenge. The first year (last weekend of July 2010) I got one of the virtual caches at Camp Muir, and the second year (last weekend of July 2011) I got the other one ("Top o' the Field" and "Banana Slugs In High Places"). I did them seperately on purpose so I could count both hikes for the 100 miles challenge. I would like to do the same for this challenge. I have pictures posted on those cache pages showing me at the location, which in my mind, is more proof than claiming I signed a log book.

+1

 

I can't say I've understood the reasoning being limit the challenge to physical caches. I was bummed when I submitted the Loowit Falls Earthcache hike I made and it was rejected for inclusion.

Basically by owner’s prerogative: I think a location (coordinates) where there is no physical item to find is not a cache (not just my opinion: the definition of a cache is a physical store. Also GS requires a physical item for that matter, except they have made an exception for Earthcaches and grandfathered types that have been eliminated)

 

I'm sorry Moun10Bike, I don't want anyone to be bummed out or have a negative experience while doing this challenge, just the opposite. I think maybe my goals here now would have helped in that case; I want to clarify and make the rules much easier to understand and follow. I think that can be done without changing the core structure much.

 

Maybe that whole rule can be eliminated, because why would it matter if the cache were placed three months before I found it. That makes sure that I can't get an FTF on it if I want to count it for this challenge. I don't think there should be that kind of restriction. From past posts here, it seems you're just trying to make sure that a cache doesn't get archived soon after it's published, or that it's a bad cache just placed for this challenge. I think if you revised the rule enough that you couldn't log the find for the final until all found caches had existed for at least three months, or something like that, you might still accomplish your goal, while not punishing the FTF cacher from counting that hike. Anyway, just some thoughts.

 

Thanks

Thank you for your thoughts. I heard what you were saying and did reconsider it again. Unfortunately I don’t think changing the rule in that way would have the affect I want and would increase the difficulty in understanding as well as make it harder to maintain the cache.

 

I understand that this is another rule that’s been a thorn, even for my friends, which like me and you, like to hunt FTFs. I’ll tell you what I tell them: 1) FTF is a pretty good reward in itself, made more sweeter if you have to sacrifice for it (you can choose, either get the FTF or apply the elevation to this challenge) 2). Let me ask you, are you going to stop hiking as soon as you reach 50,000 ft? I’m confidently guessing that the answer is no. So really, this rule doesn’t affect if you finish but when. You can think about this way, if you go for FTFs or other caches that don’t qualify, then you’ve got more incentive for additional hikes and that’s a good thing, right? Also, I think this rule has a pretty minimum affect as there aren’t many new caches placed high; maybe a few good ones a year. Most of the hike caches have been in place for quite a while.

 

Besides, both of these would have too great an affect to apply them fairly and I want to ‘not compromise the accomplishments of participants to date.’ For example. I know others in the challenge have summited Rainer and this rule would have had an impact on the FTF race as well as effect the current status and pending finish orders. I also know that there have been several FTF runs that were not allowed for others, including myself. Personally, I had 93,000 feet total when I reached 50,000 feet qualifying elevation.

 

Maybe this will help too, I've tossed around the idea of doing a follow up challenge based on this one but which would have some modified rules, all of which to make it easier and include more hikes. One change I would do is include all types of listings on GS. Another would be to include new caches.

Link to comment

Here's some ideas I'm thinking about:

 

Eliminate rule #3. Basically, this one isn't necessary and I've been slack very on this one for a couple of cachers that have been hiking areas not yet mapped. I'd lose some towards a couple of my goals but eliminating it doesn't have a significant affect on previous challengers.

FWIW, some of my affected goals:

  • encourage increased mapping and related software skills
  • promote NW Topos (NW Trails)
  • encourage submitting tracks to the NW Trails project

Also, I could move the bulleted points under rule to a topic here on the forums. They now appear as a big blob of rules when really they are just clarifications on the main rule. They're there to give answers without having to ask the question. Moving them to a forum topic meets that goal and would vastly improve the readability of the description.

 

Another idea is to eliminate the need to include the trail names in the logs (except when not clear). Again I lose some towards a couple of my goals but eliminating it doesn't have a significant affect on previous challengers.

FWIW, some of my affected goals:

  • encourage increased mapping and related software skills
  • promote NW Topos (NW Trails)
  • provide route ideas for others
  • make it easier for me to check logs (though I've found that it's not necessary and doesn't help much anyway)

Link to comment

Maybe this will help too, I've tossed around the idea of doing a follow up challenge based on this one but which would have some modified rules, all of which to make it easier and include more hikes. One change I would do is include all types of listings on GS. Another would be to include new caches.

 

I'm glad you've come up with something! We've been unsuccessfully trying to figure out how to design a third hiking challenge while making it different than the elevation challenge and the 100 mile hike challenge.

 

If you place it, we will hike.

Edited by GrnXnham
Link to comment

Maybe this will help too, I've tossed around the idea of doing a follow up challenge based on this one but which would have some modified rules, all of which to make it easier and include more hikes. One change I would do is include all types of listings on GS. Another would be to include new caches.

 

I'm glad you've come up with something! We've been unsuccessfully trying to figure out how to design a third hiking challenge while making it different than the elevation challenge and the 100 mile hike challenge.

 

If you place it, we will hike.

Unfortunately nothing so clever here, just thinking a follow up with a higher elevation goal and relaxed rules. But I have major reservations about doing it including minimizing the 50,000 challenge with a superseding one as well as making them both un-unique (for the lack of a better word).

Link to comment

Yeah, that's true and the main issue. I just don't think I'll do it, at least not as a direct elevation challenge.

 

This all got me thinking though about bring back Moun10Bike's Highest Peak Challenge. I got a hold of him the day before yesterday and he's just fine with the idea. Have you seen that one? Check it out here: Washington's Highest Caches Challenge. I'd do it mostly the same though ease the rules a bit, or at least make them more concise.

 

I also have been tossing the idea of a Lonely Cache Challenge, not an elevation but those type of caches would be ones on the list simply because they don't get found often.

 

I really like your idea of a Peak Bagger Challenge. There is some overlap with the Fire Lookout, and the Highest Peak, but maybe there is a way to do it with out too much overlap. One of my hiking buddies logs his summits on Peak Bagger and I'm often surprised which peaks are on the list. Might be a way to encourage hunting of high caches that are in neat spots but not necessary the main summit in the area.

Link to comment

Yeah, that's true and the main issue. I just don't think I'll do it, at least not as a direct elevation challenge.

 

This all got me thinking though about bring back Moun10Bike's Highest Peak Challenge. I got a hold of him the day before yesterday and he's just fine with the idea. Have you seen that one? Check it out here: Washington's Highest Caches Challenge. I'd do it mostly the same though ease the rules a bit, or at least make them more concise.

 

I also have been tossing the idea of a Lonely Cache Challenge, not an elevation but those type of caches would be ones on the list simply because they don't get found often.

 

I really like your idea of a Peak Bagger Challenge. There is some overlap with the Fire Lookout, and the Highest Peak, but maybe there is a way to do it with out too much overlap. One of my hiking buddies logs his summits on Peak Bagger and I'm often surprised which peaks are on the list. Might be a way to encourage hunting of high caches that are in neat spots but not necessary the main summit in the area.

[/q

 

Just let me know if you guys start anything new...I hate coming in late. ;)

Edited by CJJIT
Link to comment

I'm a spaz!!! How do these things work?!!!? If Grnxnham er Shaddow posts a new challenge....Hello?!?!?! is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can here me.....

I don't know if this fully answers your question, but the WA Challenge Caches bookmark is a good resource and is updated as new challenges appear. The existing hiking and elevation challenges are on it, and any new ones would be added.

Link to comment

I'm a spaz!!! How do these things work?!!!? If Grnxnham er Shaddow posts a new challenge....Hello?!?!?! is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can here me.....

 

Come on now, I hear you're feeling down. Well I can ease your pain, get you on your feet again...

 

No easy way unfortunately. Word of mouth is probably the easiest and fastest way to find out

Link to comment

I created a new cache on the Mailbox Peak summit (my close-by trainer of choice): http://coord.info/GC4M6PK. Originally I wanted to adopt the one that was there but the CO never got back to me. In fact, I believe _Shaddow_ is familiar with the situation.

 

I was wondering if this could count for logging elevation gained. I know it's my own, but it was intended to be an adoption and still denotes my elevation gained (in fact, I'm doing this hike today and exchanging a trackable if the cache is accessible since there's still quite a bit of snow up there).

 

I'll be sure to log the 3/4 way cache for at least that much gain, but I'm really hoping the summit cache can count. I'd consider packing my snowshoes up and taking the crest over to Dirtybox Peak to log that cache, but the final approach to that cache, IIRC, would be fairly dangerous when covered in snow and ice - at least going solo.

 

Also, can we log a find on a cache we already found? I've done most of the peaks through the I-90 corridor with only a few left to do until about exit 47. I do visit the North Cascades on occasion and plan a summit bid for Rainier last this summer/fall, but the I-90 corridor is so close to home!

Edited by clubstew
Link to comment

I was wondering if this could count for logging elevation gained. I know it's my own, but it was intended to be an adoption and still denotes my elevation gained (in fact, I'm doing this hike today and exchanging a trackable if the cache is accessible since there's still quite a bit of snow up there).

 

Turns out it was still buried by several feet of snow, so the 3/4 way up cache (didn't feel like going for the one slightly higher for little extra gain) will have to do anyway if we can log a cache we already found.

Link to comment

I created a new cache on the Mailbox Peak summit (my close-by trainer of choice): http://coord.info/GC4M6PK. Originally I wanted to adopt the one that was there but the CO never got back to me. In fact, I believe _Shaddow_ is familiar with the situation.I was wondering if this could count for logging elevation gained. I know it's my own, but it was intended to be an adoption and still denotes my elevation gained (in fact, I'm doing this hike today and exchanging a trackable if the cache is accessible since there's still quite a bit of snow up there).I'll be sure to log the 3/4 way cache for at least that much gain, but I'm really hoping the summit cache can count. I'd consider packing my snowshoes up and taking the crest over to Dirtybox Peak to log that cache, but the final approach to that cache, IIRC, would be fairly dangerous when covered in snow and ice - at least going solo.Also, can we log a find on a cache we already found? I've done most of the peaks through the I-90 corridor with only a few left to do until about exit 47. I do visit the North Cascades on occasion and plan a summit bid for Rainier last this summer/fall, but the I-90 corridor is so close to home!

 

I was wondering if this could count for logging elevation gained. I know it's my own, but it was intended to be an adoption and still denotes my elevation gained (in fact, I'm doing this hike today and exchanging a trackable if the cache is accessible since there's still quite a bit of snow up there).
Turns out it was still buried by several feet of snow, so the 3/4 way up cache (didn't feel like going for the one slightly higher for little extra gain) will have to do anyway if we can log a cache we already found.

 

Welcome to the 50,000 Feet Challenge.

 

A qualifying trip includes finding a cache the traditional manner. Re-visiting a cache or checking on an owned one does not qualify.

 

The good news is that you'll visit areas and find caches that you haven't been to or found before.

 

Quoted from the cache page:

A lot of the hardcore ele junkies have already gotten most of the nearby caches so this challenge will be equally hard for them just in a different way as they will find it necessary to drive further and hike farther then they have before

 

Shaddow

Link to comment

Here's some ideas I'm thinking about:

 

Eliminate rule #3.

 

I'd love to see #3 eliminated or at least add Alberta to your list. It's clearly part of the NW unless you're disqualifying it as being over the Continental Divide (as is most of MT and WY). I would have qualified just over the last year if Alberta were part of the challenge.

Link to comment

Here's some ideas I'm thinking about:

 

Eliminate rule #3.

 

I'd love to see #3 eliminated or at least add Alberta to your list. It's clearly part of the NW unless you're disqualifying it as being over the Continental Divide (as is most of MT and WY). I would have qualified just over the last year if Alberta were part of the challenge.

 

First, thank you for reading this forum first before asking your question

 

I think that the name of the mapset we're using is causing some misunderstanding, while it does have Northwest in the map title, I have not so much directly related this challenge to the NW. For example, if the mapset were to be updated to include more area outside of the NW, or renamed to something such as Western Trails, I would more than likely still use it.

 

And good news that the newest mapset does have some areas of Alberta in it, per the Switchbacks page under the title General Information:

The mapset is dynamic and continually growing and improving. As of this release, it covers all of the State of Washington along with North Idaho, Western Montana, much of northern and western Oregon, the areas around Victoria and Vancouver in British Columbia, and Calgary, Alberta:

 

I am not sure where in Alberta you are located, but perhaps you can do the hikes in the areas covered by the mapset

Link to comment

A copying of my response on the cache page:

 

behmSquad, log,

Thanks for taking time to read (and post) in the forum.

 

While I have been allowing trips on trails not in the NW Topos (Trails) mapset, these have been within the greater bounder of the mapset. The reason I've allowed them is to encourage improvement and maintenance of the mapset. Data Submission Upload page.

 

For now I would like to keep it as is with the boundaries determined by the extent of the mapset and trips on unmapped trails within the boundaries are accepted with the understanding that the tracks will be submitted to the NW Topo (Trails) project.

Link to comment

 

And good news that the newest mapset does have some areas of Alberta in it, per the Switchbacks page under the title General Information:

The mapset is dynamic and continually growing and improving. As of this release, it covers all of the State of Washington along with North Idaho, Western Montana, much of northern and western Oregon, the areas around Victoria and Vancouver in British Columbia, and Calgary, Alberta:

 

I am not sure where in Alberta you are located, but perhaps you can do the hikes in the areas covered by the mapset

 

I live in Calgary.

 

And this was my point. The map sets clearly included portions of Alberta, but the cache page excluded Alberta from rule 3. From this, I drew the assumption that you were drawing the line at the Continental Divide. Based on your response, I will now assume that the Alberta mountains W and SW of Calgary, which are included in the maps, are valid hikes.

 

This all raises another point. I regularly record my tracks. If we contribute a track log to the project that is not part of the current mapset, can we then count that track toward this challenge? It would certainly encourage contributions.

Link to comment

 

And good news that the newest mapset does have some areas of Alberta in it, per the Switchbacks page under the title General Information:

The mapset is dynamic and continually growing and improving. As of this release, it covers all of the State of Washington along with North Idaho, Western Montana, much of northern and western Oregon, the areas around Victoria and Vancouver in British Columbia, and Calgary, Alberta:

 

I am not sure where in Alberta you are located, but perhaps you can do the hikes in the areas covered by the mapset

 

I live in Calgary.

 

And this was my point. The map sets clearly included portions of Alberta, but the cache page excluded Alberta from rule 3. From this, I drew the assumption that you were drawing the line at the Continental Divide. Based on your response, I will now assume that the Alberta mountains W and SW of Calgary, which are included in the maps, are valid hikes.

 

This all raises another point. I regularly record my tracks. If we contribute a track log to the project that is not part of the current mapset, can we then count that track toward this challenge? It would certainly encourage contributions.

 

Nothing in rule 3 was meant to exclude Alberta, it only restricts to within the boundaries of NW Topos mapset. The bulleted info underneath, which is what I think you're referencing, clarified what areas are included in the mapset. At the time of the writing NW Topos didn't include any of Alberta so it wasn't included in that text.

 

I've updated the bulleted item to make it current (pulled from the website) and also added some wording to indicate that it may change:

"Currently includes Washington, North Idaho, western Montana, much of northern and western Oregon, the areas around Victoria and Vancouver in British Columbia, and Calgary, Alberta"

 

In addition, in reviewing the Switchbacks pages on NW Trails and NW Topos, it looks like the NW Trails now includes all of Alberta as well as British Columbia and Alaska. And that area is much larger than the area covered in NW Topos. Because of that I've changed the rule wording from "NW Trails" to "NW Topos" to clarify we use the NW Topos mapset not the NW Trails mapset. It should have said Topos anyway, but now there is more of a need to make it clearer. These changes will their way to the page at the next trip update.

 

I'm am not sure why the Topo mapset is smaller than the Trails mapset, though I'm sure it's a good reason. Could have to do with time and effort involved for a voluntary project, or the overall file size (currently at 1.25 GB). I'm also not sure about his desire to increase the size of NW Topos.

 

So here's my thoughts: I am keeping the boundaries of the challenge within those areas covered by NW Topos. The boundary has to be drawn somewhere, and it has to affect some people. I'm sorry that affects you and I'd like you in the challenge. One option you can pursue is to get in touch with Jon at Switchbacks and see if he will extend the Topo Mapset into the your areas.

Link to comment

Some more changes to the rules and description:

 

In addition to the changes to rule 3 noted in my previous post, I've removed the wording "generally within" and specifically required that trips be completed on a road or trail in NW Topos. In a new bullet item located below the rule, I've noted that I'll accept most trips on roads and trails not yet in NW Topos with the understanding that tracks will be submitted to Switchbacks

 

Since we use NW Topos as the official map for elevations and it now differs in extent from NW Trails I've gone through the cache description and made minor changes to make this more clear by removing most references to NW Trails. This effectively just clarifies the boundaries since NW Topos now covers a smaller area than NW Trails.

 

I've updated my coordinate format request to remove the comma between the latitude and longitude, it is now

NXX XX.XXX WXXX XX.XXX

This helps ease my check effort as I can cut and paste quickly, MapSource is very picky and won't accept the comma.

 

Significantly changed the text at the bullet under 'Additional Information; For each elevation, use NW Topos Maps or another topo map and round to the nearest 10'' to be more friendly and explain that some updates to posted trip elevations may be because of the differences between maps, and showing those differences improves our navigation skills which is a key goal for this challenge.

 

Corrected spelling errors throughout the page.

 

Additional Note:

Up until now I've used the names NW Trails and NW Topos somewhat interchangeably since NW Topos was simply NW Trails data combined with a topo map and otherwise they had the same data. Now using the terms interchangeably creates confusion. Even in my recent log I used the wording "NW Topos (Trails) mapset" as if they are the essentially same which might have cause some confusion. From now on, I'll be referencing NW Topos separately from NW Trails.

Edited by _Shaddow_
Link to comment

This challenge is currently my top Geocaching focus so I hope it continues on, either as-is or modified, after Groundspeak publishes their anticipated guidelines/rules for challenge caches. I find that the cache logs are a nice source of possible hikes.

 

It would be awesome if Groundspeak was able to automatically calculate our elevation statistics based on the cacher providing a starting point and travel mode - hike/bike/boat. I've completed the survey and can't remember if I included that as a suggestion.

Link to comment

Regarding GC24K9Z: 50,000 Feet Elevation Challenge – I am looking for hikers and climbers with whom to hike up to geocaches to complete this challenge. Since I moved to Washington in January 2014, I have done many peaks with geocaches atop them, including Mount Adams and most of the famous peaks along the I-90 corridor (i.e. Mt. St, Teneriffe, Mailbox Peak, Mt. Washington, etc.), and others elsewhere such as Snoqualmie Peak and Guye Peak. Unfortunately I didn't read the rules of this challenge until earlier today, so all my hard work has gone to naught, so I have to start from zero and I have to begin climbing again tomorrow.

 

If you are going on any hikes or climbs to geocaches, can you please invite me to join you? Whenever I go hiking or climbing with people who are not geocachers, such as people I meet through Meetup.com or The Mountaineers, they don’t look fondly on my desire to geocache and appear that they don’t want for me to look for geocaches. This has led me to go on most hikes by myself.

 

Therefore, I need to hike and climb with geocachers. I need to let you know that I am not fast, and I often fall behind hikers who are in significantly better shape than me. This, in addition to my passion for geocaching, has resulted in tension between me and non-geocaching hikers. However, I am very persistent and I will usually reach my goal unless I have to turn back due to conditions beyond my control (i.e. bad weather) or the climb is technically far beyond my current level of expertise. I completed peaks such as Mount Adams and Mount Daniel (highest point of King and Kittatas counties) in one day, so I prefer long day trips but I will backpack if necessary, as I did to ascend Mount Shasta in northern California, July 4-5, 2014. I am also open to winter ascents as I have an ice axe, crampons, and snowshoes.

 

Therefore, will you consider letting me join you whenever you are considering a hike or a climb to geocache? You can call me at 480-628-5575 (cell) or 303-800-4545 (Skype). My direct email is Ken.Akerman@gmail.com. Thank you.

 

Ken

Link to comment

I REALLY hope this cache is not archived due to the (overdue) determination regarding new rules for challenge caches. I qualified for the final with over 51k accumulated back in Oct of `14 but due to medical issues I was out of action for almost a year, then moved out of state. This summer I will be returning for a few months and hope to go for the final. It would be a big disappointment if the new rules prevented me from claiming this challenge I had worked so long and hard for.

Edited by Geoboater
Link to comment

I REALLY hope this cache is not archived due to the (overdue) determination regarding new rules for challenge caches. I qualified for the final with over 51k accumulated back in Oct of `14 but due to medical issues I was out of action for almost a year, then moved out of state. This summer I will be returning for a few months and hope to go for the final. It would be a big disappointment if the new rules prevented me from claiming this challenge I had worked so long and hard for.

 

Yes, overdue after more than a year. They did post an update in the forums on 4/21/16 but it all it really says they are going to take more time. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=338633 It's a long read at 16 pages right now but I can summarize quickly. In the post the only new requirement they mention is that future challenge caches will need an online checker. But it's very clear that they haven't thought through any finer details of how it will work. The rest of the 16 pages of post are basically one of two things, catchers unhappy that GS appears to not have made any meaningful progress or about the problems / issues / details around the online checkers. For example that checker process would be through an uncompensated third party site and how it would work for a site of volunteers to take this work load.

 

Back to your concern, I'm hopeful they will grandfather in existing challenge caches. Even if they don't, we can find a way for you to complete the challenge and log a find. I have some ideas we can discuss if it becomes a need

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...