Challenge Caches

[+CdAGeoGeeks]

We enjoy challenge caches. We heard of a couple (dozen) that sparked our interest and opened up our eyes to some really cool things.

 

We did the Idaho Delorme. Probably never would have traveled to part of the state were it not for that. Nebraska was where we heard of our first county challenge (93 in the state - we still have 68 to work on), and it inspired us to see more of our new state. The introduction of the Jasmer challenges stoked our interests in the oldest caches in America, and we can happily say we have completed both the Utah and Colorado challenges. There are some others we are working on, such as the oldest caches in 10 different states and 250 county challenges that we would have never imagined if someone hadn't created them for us.

 

Some of the finals have been disappointing (film container just off the freeway, anyone?), and some of the bragging with/from others gets kind of old, but really the tales of adventure and dreaming we have found for some of them have been mostly inspiring, and often quite moving.

 

So, don't like them? Don't do them. It makes them just like people who don't like micros, power trails, earth caches, and so many other things here.

 

Find your niche, have some fun, but mostly, just get out there and see the world.

[+DanOCan]

I only read the first three pages of this thread, but my opinion has been the same since Souveniers were released: Souvenirs would be an excellent replacement for challenge caches. To me challenge caches are another form of ALR and should have been removed at that time.

[+fanglyfish]

I only read the first three pages of this thread, but my opinion has been the same since Souveniers were released: Souvenirs would be an excellent replacement for challenge caches. To me challenge caches are another form of ALR and should have been removed at that time.

 

Really? I think souvenirs are a colossal waste of time. Congratulations… you have worked for the last year on a challenge. Here is a virtual stamp. Souvenirs really defeat the purpose of Geocaching in the first place which is to get out and go find a log book.

[+The Jester]

I only read the first three pages of this thread, but my opinion has been the same since Souveniers were released: Souvenirs would be an excellent replacement for challenge caches. To me challenge caches are another form of ALR and should have been removed at that time.

But you haven't taken this far enough, Souveniers should be used for all puzzle and multi caches also. Both are challenge-type ALRs: Puzzle=you must do task before logging final and Multi=find a fixed list of caches to find before the final.

[+tozainamboku]

I only read the first three pages of this thread, but my opinion has been the same since Souveniers were released: Souvenirs would be an excellent replacement for challenge caches. To me challenge caches are another form of ALR and should have been removed at that time.

But you haven't taken this far enough, Souveniers should be used for all puzzle and multi caches also. Both are challenge-type ALRs: Puzzle=you must do task before logging final and Multi=find a fixed list of caches to find before the final.

Nonsense. If my friend solves the puzzle and I go with him and sign the log in the final, most people would agree that I should be able to log the find online. If I happen to find a way to shortcut a multi, I can still log my find online. Now, if I have some personal conviction that I need to meet the challenge the cache owner put out with a multi or puzzle, I may not log my find until I solve the puzzle or find the stages of the multi, but it is my choice. If I go find a challenge cache without doing the challenge and log it online, the cache owner will delete my log. The souvenir idea is simply a suggestion to get rid of this last remaining ALR that allows control-freak cache owners to delete logs of someone who had found their cache.

 

The challenge cache came about because cachers are always looking for ways to add new features to the game. It is just like the now grandfathered locationless and virtual caches which used the general geocache concept to find a way to play a game of finding places and recording their coordinates (locationless) or of finding something in a place where a physical cache could not be hidden (virtual caches). Virtual caches even became a way to use the geocaching listing to share cool interesting places (aka, waymarks).

 

The original challenges faced some issues with guideline so they had to get special approval to be published. This kept their numbers to a reasonable percentage of cache and made them unique enough to encourage people to want to do them. Then Groundspeak made the decision to allow ALR caches if they were listed as unknown type caches. This opened the doors for challenges to use the ALR model and not need special approval. You simply would provide the coordinates of the cache on the cache page and make it an ALR to do whatever challenge you liked. When the ALR decision was reverse and the ALRs were banned, someone at Groundspeak must have thought that geoacaching challenges were so cool that they needed to be exempted from the ALR ban. Of course, that meant having to define exactly what a reasonable geocaching challenge was.

 

The formula of "demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so" seemed to work pretty well. A few other specific challenge areas were also ruled out (can't be based on non-accomplishments such as DNFs, can't require the publishing of new caches, can't require archived or disabled caches be logged, can't depend on the actions of other cachers such as counting FTFs, can't use an explicit list of caches). Of course, people continue to stretch the guidelines when they can.

 

While most challenges are reasonable (if not something that everyone can do or would want to do), some may be no more that a cache owner trying come up with something just to see what people are willing to do for a smiley. Sure they may have done this themselves or are able to convince the reviewer that a substantial number of geocachers would be able to do it, but in the end you read some of these challenges and you have to wonder the reason it was made.

 

Challenge caches are the last bastion of the control freak cache owner who wants to make geocachers jump through hoops other than just finding a cache in order to log the find online. A suggestion has be made to handle geocaching challenges with another mechanism instead of using caches.

[+paleolith]

But you haven't taken this far enough, Souveniers should be used for all puzzle and multi caches also. Both are challenge-type ALRs: Puzzle=you must do task before logging final and Multi=find a fixed list of caches to find before the final.

You still haven't taken it far enough. All caches are challenge puzzles. The puzzle is to figure out how to get to the parking. The challenge is to get your butt off the sofa and outside. Once you've done those, you could get a soovayneer. End all this silly stuff about foxes in the woods. Boxes.

 

Challenge caches are the last bastion of the control freak cache owner who wants to make geocachers jump through hoops other than just finding a cache in order to log the find online.

No need. I make people jump through enough hoops

 

 

just getting to the cache.

 

 

Edward

[+G & C]

Challenge caches are the last bastion of the control freak cache owner who wants to make geocachers jump through hoops other than just finding a cache in order to log the find online.

 

This viewpoint SCREAMS of geocachers who want every single cache out there to be on a level playing field so that every cacher can get to it. All caches should be obtainable by all cachers. Excuse me while I yawn from boredom.

 

<---me yawning

 

Moving forward in your desire to ruin geocaching for all of us under the age of 80 (no offense to our over 80 crew here, it's meant in sarcasm I assure you), after ridding the world of geocaching of these evil, effort requiring nuisances called challenge caches, we will just HAVE to do away with all caches that are not 1/1, because not everyone will be capable of finding a 1.5 star difficulty find, and if it ain't wheelchair accessible, we have to get rid of if, so anything over a 1 star terrain will have to go too. Now we have ourselves a geocaching world where everyone can find everything. Sounds like fun.

 

No thank you. I'll take my 5/5s and I'll take the challenges too. Don't like them? Don't do them. But leave them the heck alone for those of us who do. Because next time, these discussions are going to encompass something about geocaching that you actually DO like, and someone else wants to take away because they don't. I will always be on the side that says don't take it away.

[+M 5]

Why don't those who want certain types of caches removed, use their efforts on caches that actually have real detrimental effects on geocachings future, instead of caches that they just don't enjoy.

[+The Jester]

But you haven't taken this far enough, Souveniers should be used for all puzzle and multi caches also. Both are challenge-type ALRs: Puzzle=you must do task before logging final and Multi=find a fixed list of caches to find before the final.

You still haven't taken it far enough. All caches are challenge puzzles. The puzzle is to figure out how to get to the parking. The challenge is to get your butt off the sofa and outside. Once you've done those, you could get a soovayneer. End all this silly stuff about foxes in the woods. Boxes.

Well, I was going to suggest that myself, but then I realized we already get a souvenier for trad caches: !

 

Sorry, this "control freak" cache owner (I started the History Challenge caches) wants more flavors of ice cream available, I'm just not satisfied with a electronic picture of ice cream.

[+Sagefox]

Challenge caches are the last bastion of the control freak cache owner who wants to make geocachers jump through hoops other than just finding a cache in order to log the find online.

Nicely written post until you had to go and ruin it with that paragraph.

 

The challenge cache owners that I know a bit about don't appear to have "control freak" issues. I find them to be interesting folks. I don't understand the venom in your statement.

[+FireRef]

Challenge caches are simply another example of the exceptions made to rules (sorry, guidelines) in this game.

 

ALR's were banned.

 

Challenge caches were allowed as an exception.

 

The guidelines, without the exception, would not allow them.

 

So in the interest of consistency, they should go away.

[+G & C]

Challenge caches are simply another example of the exceptions made to rules (sorry, guidelines) in this game.

 

ALR's were banned.

 

Challenge caches were allowed as an exception.

 

The guidelines, without the exception, would not allow them.

 

So in the interest of consistency, they should go away.

 

In line with your reasoning, as has already been discussed here several times over, mystery, multi, virtual, and webcam caches should all go the way of the dodo as well. Because all have some level of ALRs involved with them.

 

So no. Let's move away from the same point that we have continuously successfully rebutted. Find something else to complain about now. Or complain about all of those cache types as well. You know, for consistency.

[+FireRef]

Challenge caches are simply another example of the exceptions made to rules (sorry, guidelines) in this game.

 

ALR's were banned.

 

Challenge caches were allowed as an exception.

 

The guidelines, without the exception, would not allow them.

 

So in the interest of consistency, they should go away.

 

In line with your reasoning, as has already been discussed here several times over, mystery, multi, virtual, and webcam caches should all go the way of the dodo as well. Because all have some level of ALRs involved with them.

 

So no. Let's move away from the same point that we have continuously successfully rebutted. Find something else to complain about now. Or complain about all of those cache types as well. You know, for consistency.

 

Any cache that has ALR's, according to the guidelines, had to be changed or archived.

 

Except for these challenge caches.

 

Grandfathering Webcams and Virtuals is inconsistent as well. As much as I like them, to be consistent, they should be gone.

 

Earthcaches were definitely an exception which was inconsistent - virtuals with an educational point were permitted, but only if it was a geological phenomenon.

 

I don't see any tie-ins with multi's or mysteries. If they don't have ALR's, they don't violate the consistency.

 

And - to finish with your comment about successfully rebutting my points previously - If this is true, and all of the points for removing challenge caches have been successfully rebutted, why is this thread still open?

 

Guess they haven't.

[+dfx]

Challenge caches are simply another example of the exceptions made to rules (sorry, guidelines) in this game.

 

ALR's were banned.

 

Challenge caches were allowed as an exception.

 

The guidelines, without the exception, would not allow them.

 

So in the interest of consistency, they should go away.

then they would also have to stop listing earthcaches, because they're an exception to the "no new virtuals" rule.

 

Groundspeak chose to make an exception in those two cases. big deal. you don't have to participate in either of them if you don't like that.

Edited December 5, 2010 by dfx

[+fanglyfish]

Challenge caches are simply another example of the exceptions made to rules (sorry, guidelines) in this game.

 

ALR's were banned.

 

Challenge caches were allowed as an exception.

 

The guidelines, without the exception, would not allow them.

 

So in the interest of consistency, they should go away.

then they would also have to stop listing earthcaches, because they're an exception to the "no new virtuals" rule.

 

Groundspeak chose to make an exception in those two cases. big deal. you don't have to participate in either of them if you don't like that.

 

DFX, I could not agree with you more. Hence the ignore button.

[+tozainamboku]

Challenge caches are simply another example of the exceptions made to rules (sorry, guidelines) in this game.

 

ALR's were banned.

 

Challenge caches were allowed as an exception.

 

The guidelines, without the exception, would not allow them.

 

So in the interest of consistency, they should go away.

 

In line with your reasoning, as has already been discussed here several times over, mystery, multi, virtual, and webcam caches should all go the way of the dodo as well. Because all have some level of ALRs involved with them.

 

So no. Let's move away from the same point that we have continuously successfully rebutted. Find something else to complain about now. Or complain about all of those cache types as well. You know, for consistency.

I don't see what you have rebutted. Unlike challenge caches, if I don't solve the puzzle myself but somehow find the cache and sign the log, I can log it as found online. If I find the final of a multi without finding all the intermediate stages, I can log a find online, but if I find a challenge cache and haven't done the challenge, an online find log will be deleted.

 

Virtuals are not physical cache, so the no ALR rule doesn't apply. And I suppose the same argument can be made for webcams - there is no log to sign so a picture must be taken instead.

 

That said, I don't agree with FireRef that the guidelines must be what he calls consistent. There are perfectly good reasons for carving out exceptions to the guidelines. Even the early Delorme and county challenge caches needed an exception to be able to require emailing the cache owner for coordinates (and to get around the commercial guideline for the Delorme challenges). What is needed it an understanding that exceptions are just that - exceptions - and that they be granted only in exceptional cases.

 

I guess my issue is that now there are few guidelines for challenge caches (either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so) and some additional restrictions given in the Knowledge Book for challenge caches. So in some areas they are becoming no longer an exceptional cache. If someone wants to end run around the ALR ban they just need to come up with a challenge. Now it may be true that most people are placing challenge caches because they want to share some type of geocaching that they enjoy - whether it be finding different type of caches or visiting every corner of their state. But when people are placing challenges for finding 77 caches on July 7, it seems to be that this is hidden just because that person wanted to own a challenge cache.

 

BTW, while I personally like the idea of finding lonely caches that haven't been found in over a year, I wonder how challenge caches for finding a certain number of lonely caches are being approved? Per the knowledge book article "An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers. A challenge is supposed to recognize the completion of an achievement, rather than the winner of a competition." It would seem that whether a cache is lonely depends on the action (or inaction) of other cachers. A challenge could result in a number of cachers competing for a particular lonely cache, or perhaps people participating in challenge would decide not to visit a cache that doesn't quite yet meet the lonely challenge criteria, in hopes that it won't be found in the next month and they can then find it for the challenge. In some instances these challenges could result in a cache being looked for less often.

[+t4e]

Challenge caches are simply another example of the exceptions made to rules (sorry, guidelines) in this game.

 

ALR's were banned.

 

Challenge caches were allowed as an exception.

 

The guidelines, without the exception, would not allow them.

 

So in the interest of consistency, they should go away.

 

never heard the saying "Rules are made to be broken"?

 

now, who's allowed to break them and who's not is a different story, but in my experience those that make them are also allowed to break them

[+G & C]

Challenge caches are simply another example of the exceptions made to rules (sorry, guidelines) in this game.

 

ALR's were banned.

 

Challenge caches were allowed as an exception.

 

The guidelines, without the exception, would not allow them.

 

So in the interest of consistency, they should go away.

 

In line with your reasoning, as has already been discussed here several times over, mystery, multi, virtual, and webcam caches should all go the way of the dodo as well. Because all have some level of ALRs involved with them.

 

So no. Let's move away from the same point that we have continuously successfully rebutted. Find something else to complain about now. Or complain about all of those cache types as well. You know, for consistency.

I don't see what you have rebutted. Unlike challenge caches, if I don't solve the puzzle myself but somehow find the cache and sign the log, I can log it as found online. If I find the final of a multi without finding all the intermediate stages, I can log a find online, but if I find a challenge cache and haven't done the challenge, an online find log will be deleted.

 

Virtuals are not physical cache, so the no ALR rule doesn't apply. And I suppose the same argument can be made for webcams - there is no log to sign so a picture must be taken instead.

 

That said, I don't agree with FireRef that the guidelines must be what he calls consistent. There are perfectly good reasons for carving out exceptions to the guidelines. Even the early Delorme and county challenge caches needed an exception to be able to require emailing the cache owner for coordinates (and to get around the commercial guideline for the Delorme challenges). What is needed it an understanding that exceptions are just that - exceptions - and that they be granted only in exceptional cases.

 

I guess my issue is that now there are few guidelines for challenge caches (either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so) and some additional restrictions given in the Knowledge Book for challenge caches. So in some areas they are becoming no longer an exceptional cache. If someone wants to end run around the ALR ban they just need to come up with a challenge. Now it may be true that most people are placing challenge caches because they want to share some type of geocaching that they enjoy - whether it be finding different type of caches or visiting every corner of their state. But when people are placing challenges for finding 77 caches on July 7, it seems to be that this is hidden just because that person wanted to own a challenge cache.

 

BTW, while I personally like the idea of finding lonely caches that haven't been found in over a year, I wonder how challenge caches for finding a certain number of lonely caches are being approved? Per the knowledge book article "An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers. A challenge is supposed to recognize the completion of an achievement, rather than the winner of a competition." It would seem that whether a cache is lonely depends on the action (or inaction) of other cachers. A challenge could result in a number of cachers competing for a particular lonely cache, or perhaps people participating in challenge would decide not to visit a cache that doesn't quite yet meet the lonely challenge criteria, in hopes that it won't be found in the next month and they can then find it for the challenge. In some instances these challenges could result in a cache being looked for less often.

 

You need to stop trying to control how others do things. You calling people control freaks while you're trying to get new rules enacted prohibiting other geocachers to do things that they like and you don't is entirely hypocritical.

 

As stated time and time again here: if you don't like challenge caches, leave them be. Don't partake. But don't try to ruin them for everyone else. As I said before, next time this conversation very well may be about something that you actually do like and enjoy partaking in, and someone else is going to try to ruin that for you.

 

Meanwhile, those of us that actually enjoy geocaching and treat it as a game rather than a life issue, will still be on the side that says live and let live. We just can't make every cache something that every person can access, find, and in this case qualify for, and keep geocaching interesting at the same time. Extra rules (guidelines) are not needed, and in this case, most certainly not wanted.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Let's discuss the issue without the name calling and personal attacks.

[+tozainamboku]

 

You need to stop trying to control how others do things. You calling people control freaks while you're trying to get new rules enacted prohibiting other geocachers to do things that they like and you don't is entirely hypocritical.

Just because I started this thread doesn't mean I'm calling for a ban on challenge caches. I've noted some problems they cause and have suggested that a different way of handling geocaching challenges that doesn't use caches might be avoid these problems. Some people have provided good input in this thread of why using caches as a reward for doing challenges works better for them than using something like souvenirs. I am very aware that some people enjoy doing these challenges and some people no doubt enjoy setting challenges for others. I do not want to get rid of challenges, only to discuss whether using caches as the mechanism for them is the best way to go.

 

It gets a bit tiring of people asking me go away and let them do what they enjoy when I have no intention of keeping them from doing what they enjoy. I supported virtual caches right up to when they were grandfathered and even beyond. It took me a while to decide that Waymarking could be a better solution than keeping them on Geocaching.com. I supported ALRs at the time they were banned. The discussion at the time got me to realize why they caused a problem and I eventually decided that whole idea of deleting logs when someone found the cache because of an additional ALR was just a perversion of reason for the found log.

As stated time and time again here: if you don't like challenge caches, leave them be. Don't partake. But don't try to ruin them for everyone else. As I said before, next time this conversation very well may be about something that you actually do like and enjoy partaking in, and someone else is going to try to ruin that for you.

I have already stated that when there is challenge near my home that I don't intend to ever meet, it goes on my ignore list. I am well capable of ignoring caches I don't like or that I have decided not to find for some reason.

 

The conversation about limiting or banning certain kinds of caches comes up in the forum time to time and generally I would agree that if you don't like some kinds of cache ignore them. I've even used the same argument that you are making - that the next guideline change may be to restrict some kind of cache you enjoy. But over time, I come to accept that when a certain type of cache gets out of control, TPTB have decided that a guidelines change is needed and caches that people enjoy get grandfather or even banned (in the case of ALRs).

 

I don't think that challenge caches are going away just yet. More likely the restrictions in the Knowledge Book may be refined and supplemented to prevent some of the sillier challenges from getting approved. But I certainly don't think it hurts to discuss the issues some people have with some challenges in the meantime.

Meanwhile, those of us that actually enjoy geocaching and treat it as a game rather than a life issue, will still be on the side that says live and let live. We just can't make every cache something that every person can access, find, and in this case qualify for, and keep geocaching interesting at the same time. Extra rules (guidelines) are not needed, and in this case, most certainly not wanted.

Changes in the guidelines are made when TPTB decide they are warranted. In the meantime it is fun to discuss them in forums and let people with different opinions expressed theirs.

[+paleolith]

while I personally like the idea of finding lonely caches that haven't been found in over a year, I wonder how challenge caches for finding a certain number of lonely caches are being approved? Per the knowledge book article "An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers. [...]" It would seem that whether a cache is lonely depends on the action (or inaction) of other cachers.

Interesting point. In fact, fizzy challenges could be criticized in the same way. Multiple finders saying "this cache is easier/harder than rated" could induce the CO (who is also a cacher) to change the rating, potentially messing up someone's matrix.

 

However, note that your citation includes the word "should". In normal English, "should" generally means this is a guideline, whereas "must" means this is a rule. This normal meaning is formalized in many computer-related documents, and there might be one or two people at GS who are familiar with these sorts of things.

 

Finally, the end of the paragraph you cite gives an example, explains that it has three strikes against it, and then says it "would likely not be published". Does not say it would be against the rules. Does not say you could challenge its publication based on the KB. Just says something about likelihood, and implies a balance leaning in a certain direction.

 

So the answer to "how could certain caches be published" is that GS very often gives guidelines and sets directions without making them absolutes. They are leaving flexibility to experiment. And I think that's appropriate. The game is only ten years old and still evolving. Many members from "the old days" complain about the changes. And yet "the old days" were days of change, days of growth, and the game has changed and grown. This probably could have led to many outcomes, but as in life, we only have the option to do the experiment once. No control branch.

 

Heck, how many times have the guidelines been changed to accommodate a new idea? Perhaps the Space Station cache is the most obvious example, but I'm sure there are many. I'll leave the details for an historian though.

 

Edward

[+narcissa]

an historian

 

[+fizzymagic]

It gets a bit tiring of people asking me go away and let them do what they enjoy when I have no intention of keeping them from doing what they enjoy.

 

Here's a hint: maybe if you don't want to give the impression of wanting to deny other people the things they enjoy you shouldn't start a thread with the subtitle "It is time to get rid of them?"

 

I mean, seriously, how is proposing that we get rid of something not an attempt to deny it to others? I'm sorry, but your complaint is just disingenuous.

[cezanne]

One of the definitions of ALRs (to distinguish them from tree climbing caches or puzzle caches) was that the the additional logging requirement was for something you had to do after finding the cache in order to log the find. Usually it was something you needed to as part of logging your find online (post a picture, write a story, etc.)

 

I do not know how ALRs were handled in the US. I do know, however, that in German speaking countries

it was quite common to use ALRs to deal with something that had to be done during the cache hunt.

For example, provide a proof for having climbed up a tree or having walked the entire route of a log distance hiking cache.

 

I need to admit that I cannot understand why if there are challenge caches at all, they can be used to come up with rather and arbitrary requirements as having found caches in, say 20 different countries, while it is not possible to come up with conditions like having to provide a proof for having accomplished the cache in the desired way. One of the common points of criticism towards some of the ALRs were that they introduced arbitrary, not cache-related tasks. Walking along the route of a long distance cache and not asking a previous finder for the coordinates of the final is one of the most cache-relevant conditions I can think of.

 

Cezanne

[+Avernar]

Really? I think souvenirs are a colossal waste of time. Congratulations… you have worked for the last year on a challenge. Here is a virtual stamp. Souvenirs really defeat the purpose of Geocaching in the first place which is to get out and go find a log book.

I rather have the souvenir system rather than the cache icon type explosion that was happening.

 

But I agree that the completion of a challenge should be marked with a specific cache find, not a bunch of pixels.

[+Avernar]

Challenge caches are the last bastion of the control freak cache owner who wants to make geocachers jump through hoops other than just finding a cache in order to log the find online. A suggestion has be made to handle geocaching challenges with another mechanism instead of using caches.

Awww. Poor Radius Slaves. They can't clear out an area of caches. Boo hoo. My heart bleeds for them.

 

But seriously, how is requiring someone to find more caches jumping through hoops? The game is about finding caches.

 

If you don't want to go outside your normal caching area to get the requirements for a challenge, just don't find the challenge. Nobody is forcing you to.

[+Avernar]

I don't see what you have rebutted. Unlike challenge caches, if I don't solve the puzzle myself but somehow find the cache and sign the log, I can log it as found online. If I find the final of a multi without finding all the intermediate stages, I can log a find online, but if I find a challenge cache and haven't done the challenge, an online find log will be deleted.

 

Virtuals are not physical cache, so the no ALR rule doesn't apply. And I suppose the same argument can be made for webcams - there is no log to sign so a picture must be taken instead.

But if you log a virtual, webcam or earthcache without providing the information or picture, your log will get deleted too. No difference. Those cache types need an ALR so that's why they were excluded from the ALR rule.

 

The physical cache wording is an implicit way of saying "except virtuals, webcams or earthcaches". The exception for challenge caches is explicit.

 

Nothing stops you from signing the log book of a challenge. For those that don't log online, that would be more than enough of a reward.

[+dfx]

Awww. Poor Radius Slaves. They can't clear out an area of caches. Boo hoo. My heart bleeds for them.

why do people keep saying that? of course they could clear out the area if they wanted to. everybody can do challenge caches, it's just a matter of how much you can be bothered to do so.

 

But if you log a virtual, webcam or earthcache without providing the information or picture, your log will get deleted too. No difference. Those cache types need an ALR so that's why they were excluded from the ALR rule.

no, the difference is that with all non-physical "caches", it's not an additional logging requirement, but it's rather the logging requirement, as there's no physical logging taking place.

Edited December 6, 2010 by dfx

[+Sagefox]

...but if I find a challenge cache and haven't done the challenge, an online find log will be deleted.

 

When would this situation ever come up? How often do you find challenge cache containers without having done the challenge?

[+tozainamboku]

It gets a bit tiring of people asking me go away and let them do what they enjoy when I have no intention of keeping them from doing what they enjoy.

 

Here's a hint: maybe if you don't want to give the impression of wanting to deny other people the things they enjoy you shouldn't start a thread with the subtitle "It is time to get rid of them?"

 

I mean, seriously, how is proposing that we get rid of something not an attempt to deny it to others? I'm sorry, but your complaint is just disingenuous.

I see there was a typo in the the question. It should read "Is it time to get rid of them?" I can see some confusion if the the 'Is' and the 'It' are reversed. The question mark at the end should make it clear at least that I did not intend to make a statement that it is time to get rid of challenge caches. My intent was to ask whether a different solution for challenges that doesn't involve challenge caches would avoid some problems that using a cache for the challenge causes.

 

Challenge caches are the last bastion of the control freak cache owner who wants to make geocachers jump through hoops other than just finding a cache in order to log the find online. A suggestion has be made to handle geocaching challenges with another mechanism instead of using caches.

Awww. Poor Radius Slaves. They can't clear out an area of caches. Boo hoo. My heart bleeds for them.

 

But seriously, how is requiring someone to find more caches jumping through hoops? The game is about finding caches.

 

If you don't want to go outside your normal caching area to get the requirements for a challenge, just don't find the challenge. Nobody is forcing you to.

Its more often the other way. I may do a challenge in my area and then have to go to another state to find the challenge cache - which may be missing or I may DNF for some other reason and then be disappointed that I don't get credit for the challenge.

 

I will admit the the caches that prompted me to post in the first place were caches near my home where I just wasn't interested in doing the challenge. However I can solve this problem by adding the caches to my ignore list.

 

Nothing stops you from signing the log book of a challenge. For those that don't log online, that would be more than enough of a reward.

Nothing stops me from signing the log book of a challenge cache. But if I haven't done the challenge I can't log it as a find online. I like the Found It log to mean the I found the cache, not that I get a smiley for doing a challenge.

 

When would this situation ever come up? How often do you find challenge cache containers without having done the challenge?

So far twice, but it could easily come up more often. Edited December 6, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+Avernar]

Awww. Poor Radius Slaves. They can't clear out an area of caches. Boo hoo. My heart bleeds for them.

why do people keep saying that? of course they could clear out the area if they wanted to. everybody can do challenge caches, it's just a matter of how much you can be bothered to do so.

That's part of my point. They probably would complain just as loudly if a high difficulty puzzle or high terrain cache were published in their radius.

 

I don't understand why some want everything to be easy. Things would get boring pretty quickly if it were.

 

no, the difference is that with all non-physical "caches", it's not an additional logging requirement, but it's rather the logging requirement, as there's no physical logging taking place.

One could argue that actually going to the location is the logging requirement and the other stuff is just an ALR to prove you've been there. I'm just saying the the guideline wording isn't legalese and treating it as such to make a point doesn't really prove anything.

 

Groundspeak has made an exception to the ALR rule for challenge caches. Technically it's not even an ALR but a PFR (Pre Finding Requirement) but several COs relax that a little bit.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I think the challenge caches are getting a little out of hand, but they are part of this game. It really comes down to don't do them if you don't like them, and come here(the forums) to cry about why you don't like them or why they should be taken away. Can I have my ice cream now?

[+Avernar]

I think the challenge caches are getting a little out of hand

By the number that are being published or the requirements? If the latter, can you give an example?

 

In my area there's only one challenge cache that I'm not going to pursue as the requirement is a little much for me personally. But the challenge situation around here isn't out of hand.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I think the challenge caches are getting a little out of hand

By the number that are being published or the requirements? If the latter, can you give an example?

 

In my area there's only one challenge cache that I'm not going to pursue as the requirement is a little much for me personally. But the challenge situation around here isn't out of hand.

PQ challenge caches in So Cal and take your pick.

 

Here's a one with a few in line. http://coord.info/GC2G8CG

 

Here are some more in a line. http://coord.info/GC2EC0T

 

We have them bookmarked not a PQ my bad.

 

Edit to put in links

Edited December 6, 2010 by the4dirtydogs

[+ventura_kids]

I believe ALL caches should have a password inside them. ONLY those who find the cache can log the cache. This would eliminate all those cachers who log caches they never found. OH wait....wrong subject.

 

Challenge caches ? What are those?

[+Avernar]

Here's a one with a few in line. http://coord.info/GC2G8CG

 

Here are some more in a line. http://coord.info/GC2EC0T

Interesting. They grow in clumps in So Cal.

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

I'm happy to have found this thread because the dismissal of the simple/little/easy/30 second/on site ALR requirement cache being replaced by the outrageous ??????? challenge caches that require you to spend a year of your life to qualify to log, really bugs me !

 

These, "challenge ???? caches," are ALR's taken to a whole new, unachievable by most, level, and they OSTRACIZE a large group of cachers keeping them from EVER logging these ?????? caches !!!!

 

For example: You have to find 100 caches in a 100 days, consecutively.

You have to find 365 caches in 365 days, consecutively.

You have to NOT FIND/log DNF's on 100 caches rated 1.5-1.5.

You have to find a cache in every county in the state.

You have to find 75% of the caches owned by a particular CO.

You have to find 12 caches with the help/assistance or in the company of other cachers.

You have to have 15% of your total finds from caches other than traditional.

 

These are ALL Additional Logging Requirements !!

Edit: PS: Guess how many I/we, 'qualify," for, would ever qualify for, or care to qualify for ? ZERO

Edited March 9, 2011 by TeamSeekAndWeShallFind

[Clan Riffster]

You have to find 100 caches in a 100 days, consecutively.

You have to find 365 caches in 365 days, consecutively.

You have to NOT FIND/log DNF's on 100 caches rated 1.5-1.5.

You have to find a cache in every county in the state.

You have to find 75% of the caches owned by a particular CO.

You have to find 12 caches with the help/assistance or in the company of other cachers.

You have to have 15% of your total finds from caches other than traditional.

Looking at your list, I'm not seeing any challenges that are unreachable by anyone who is willing to put forth the time and effort.

These are ALL Additional Logging Requirements !!

According to Groundspeak's definition, (the only one that really matters), none of these are ALRs.

Groundspeak defines an ALR as a task you must complete after you find a cache, such as taking a picture of yourself wearing a silly hat.

A challenge is defined as a task you must complete before you find the cache.

[+Ike 13]

Oops just noticed this. See below

Edited March 9, 2011 by IkeHurley13

[+Ike 13]

For example: You have to find 100 caches in a 100 days, consecutively.

You have to find 365 caches in 365 days, consecutively.

You have to NOT FIND/log DNF's on 100 caches rated 1.5-1.5.

You have to find a cache in every county in the state.

You have to find 75% of the caches owned by a particular CO.You can no longer limit the caches to one CO

You have to find 12 caches with the help/assistance or in the company of other cachers.

You have to have 15% of your total finds from caches other than traditional.

 

You do realize that you do not have to find every cache. The ignore list really comes in handy for this. We need a variety of different caches for different people

 

Yes some of those are unreachable for some cachers (365 consecutive days with a find is unreachable for me in my area). But these are meant to be a challenge and most everyone I have seen is properly rated on how hard the challenge is.

 

As far as ALR goes ClanRiffster has it right the ALR mainly refers to a non-cache related activity you did after finding the container. A challenge cache requires you complete a caching related activity before finding the cache

Edited March 9, 2011 by IkeHurley13

[+rjb43nh]

Clan Riffster-"A challenge is defined as a task you must complete before you find the cache."

Additionally that task you complete before finding the cache has to be caching related.

 

One thing about most challenge caches I've seen, or completed, is they favor cachers with a large number of finds. I put out a simple challenge cache (17 GC1NBVB (click to view)) that favors those with fewer finds and I have qualified since I placed the cache 2 years ago, although I have quite a few finds. One cacher with a total of 94 finds completed the challenge and theoretically you could complete it with as few as 17 finds. You can meet the qualifications any place in the world before finding my easy to find cache container so it only requires the one trip to New Hampshire to find my GC1NBVB cache.

 

While challenge caches are everyone's cup of tea, read the logs for GC1NBVB and you will find most cachers who have qualified for my cache have really enjoyed completing the challenge. They have also learned some frivolous facts about the number 17, made tenuous connections with 17 to their daily life, and had fun expressing their percentage of finds to over 50 decimal points. One of the reasons I had for placing this cache was that it be a fun but not trivial challenge. I have, however, seen some challenges recently that have requirements that few, if any, could complete but some cachers will still try to do these. Having all different types of caches that appeals to the countless different cachers out there is a big positive part of geocaching. As one person once said: "Variety isn't the spice of life, it is the very stuff of it."

[+tango501]

I dont see how or even a reason why GS would make/change challenges to Souvenirs

 

I enjoy challenges but I see some dont, no biggie

if you dont like doing them, there is a traditional 528' away

just ignore them

[+Lil Devil]

I don't have dive equipment, but I don't go on ranting that every cache under water should not exist.

 

If you don't like them, ignore them, but don't take away the fun from the rest of us.

 

BTW, of the list that TeamSeekAndWeShallFind just posted, I qualify for all except the 365 day one.

[+jellis]

I agree with Lamoracke and some others that it would be too much trouble to create Souvenirs for every Challenge. Don't know where that idea got started, but doesn't even make sense to do it. Also most cacher prefer numbers, Souvenirs don't add to your numbers. Now adding a Souvenir on top of a physical find for CO who wants to have a Souvenir attached sounds better.

I agree that a separate Icon would be better because you would know right away what kind it is. If they do they should add Series caches to that Icon too.

Just like any Multis, Puzzles or Power Trails etc, you will have some who have their preferences and those who choose not to do them. I am not crazy about Multis but I would not ask to get rid of them. Challenges and Series caches are fun, and just because I can't finish some of them does not bother me. If I do then I will go find the cache when I'm ready.

[+lamoracke]

wow, jellis has agreed with me twice, I feel very honored!

 

I can tell from Jeremy that challenge caches have basically no chance of getting their own icon any more than series ones do. I originally proposed this idea to him at an event, but over time, I have gone away from the idea. The reason is there are so many challenge caches out there. Some of them are very silly and some of them are so easy, like get all the caches in a given park. You could do that in an hour. I have a pretty good idea what a challenge is, but we would have to define what a challenge is and have all the reviewers on the same page AND convert the old ones to it. Probably too much work and confusion to do that.

 

Now, I like challenge caches (which differ from a series which is usually just own by one person or a group of people who worked together) and hope they stay as I have said before for a wide number of reasons.

 

As far as souvenirs and challenges go. I think it would be cool to have a complete the fizzy souvenir, complete the calendar one, complete the jasper one, etc, but those could be done with your stats alone...the fact they have challenge caches out there are just coincidence.

[+tozainamboku]

Perhaps a reviewer can chime in. I would think that these two would not likely be published per the guidelines.

You have to NOT FIND/log DNF's on 100 caches rated 1.5-1.5.

You have to find 75% of the caches owned by a particular CO.

A challenge cache based on one or more non-accomplishments, such as DNFs, will likely not be published.

...

Requiring cachers to find an explicit list of caches (rather than a broader category of caches) will likely prevent the cache from being published.

Using a challenge cache to promote one's own caches will likely prevent the cache from being published.

When challenge caches were limited to things like the Delorme challenges or alphabet challenges these were pretty straight forward. You knew what it would take to meet the challenge and could decide whether or not you wanted to do it. But now we have people who are creating challenge caches with complex rules. These severely limit the ability of certain cachers to do the challenge, yet they seem to get published. In some cases, I suppose, the person presenting the challenge has met it themselves and the reviewer accept this as proof that the challenge is attainable.

 

Often challenges are dependant on too many other things

An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers.

 

In fact, one of the reasons I started this thread was I was working on an challenge to clear out a five mile radius around my home. Then someone posted a challenge to find 100 caches in a day - but not just any day, you must find the caches on January 1 - and put the cache less than 1 mile from my home. I knew I wasn't going to be able to cache on January 1, 2011 (at least not to do 100 caches), so that means I can't complete the challenge until 2012 at the earliest. In the meantime, I can't do the other challenge because this cache is in the middle of the area I have cleared.

 

Now, it's true that one can just ignore the challenges that you are not interested in doing or are unable to do. The issue is that the coordinates are posted. You can find challenge caches and you can sign the physical. But you cannot post a find online if you haven't met the challenge. Don't tell me this isn't an ALR. It is an ALR, but one that TPTB had decided to explicity exempt. I have found a few of these caches and have posted notes on the cache page instead of a 'Found It'. While I can't mark them as found on Geocaching.com, I have done so in GSAK so they don't take up space in my GPS. Whether or not I get a "point" for finding something is not important to me (which is why I'm often commenting on people who complain that someone is cheating when they log a find on a cache where they didn't sign the log). This just means I have less of an incentive to do the challenge. The only incentive to do a challenge is the accomplishment of the challenge itself. I do not believe that using caches to reward a challenge is a good way to handle geocaching challenges.

[+jellis]

Thank you and your welcome Lamoracke.

 

Quote

For example: You have to find 100 caches in a 100 days, consecutively.

You have to find 365 caches in 365 days, consecutively.

You have to NOT FIND/log DNF's on 100 caches rated 1.5-1.5.

You have to find a cache in every county in the state.

You have to find 75% of the caches owned by a particular CO.You can no longer limit the caches to one CO

You have to find 12 caches with the help/assistance or in the company of other cachers.

You have to have 15% of your total finds from caches other than traditional.

 

I am confused and I wonder if they will revise it due to the way it is written.

Guideline #9 in Challengess says

"Using a challenge cache to promote one's own caches will likely prevent the cache from being published."

What about someone else's caches?

A friend tried to submit one and it was denied. But did the reviewer read the guideline as it is?

Edited March 9, 2011 by jellis

[+Avernar]

I'm happy to have found this thread because the dismissal of the simple/little/easy/30 second/on site ALR requirement cache being replaced by the outrageous ??????? challenge caches that require you to spend a year of your life to qualify to log, really bugs me !

You do know you don't have to find every single cache out there? I'm can't find scuba caches as I'm not qualified. I don't complain that there are scuba caches out there. Other people don't do caving, climbing, boating caches and (most) don't complain that they exist.

 

You have to find 365 caches in 365 days, consecutively.

That's the only one in my area I'm not pursuing. I am not however complaining it exists.

 

You have to NOT FIND/log DNF's on 100 caches rated 1.5-1.5.

This one was shot down by Groundspeak around here. The CO had to change it to "Found X caches the you've previously DNFed".

 

You have to find a cache in every county in the state.

I'm working on the Ontario county challenge this year. It's going to be fun visiting some of the northern counties in the province.

 

You have to find 75% of the caches owned by a particular CO.

Odd that this was allowed.

 

You have to find 12 caches with the help/assistance or in the company of other cachers.

Very easy to do.

 

You have to have 15% of your total finds from caches other than traditional.

Checked my stats and I'd actually qualify right now.

 

These are ALL Additional Logging Requirements !!

Nope. They are things you must do before finding the cache, not after. Some COs relax this restriction and allow a find first but logged as a note.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Avernar

[+G & C]

I'm happy to have found this thread because the dismissal of the simple/little/easy/30 second/on site ALR requirement cache being replaced by the outrageous ??????? challenge caches that require you to spend a year of your life to qualify to log, really bugs me !

 

These, "challenge ???? caches," are ALR's taken to a whole new, unachievable by most, level, and they OSTRACIZE a large group of cachers keeping them from EVER logging these ?????? caches !!!!

 

For example: You have to find 100 caches in a 100 days, consecutively.

You have to find 365 caches in 365 days, consecutively.

You have to NOT FIND/log DNF's on 100 caches rated 1.5-1.5.

You have to find a cache in every county in the state.

You have to find 75% of the caches owned by a particular CO.

You have to find 12 caches with the help/assistance or in the company of other cachers.

You have to have 15% of your total finds from caches other than traditional.

 

These are ALL Additional Logging Requirements !!

Edit: PS: Guess how many I/we, 'qualify," for, would ever qualify for, or care to qualify for ? ZERO

 

Yea, it's great that you found this thread. Did you happen to READ the thread that you found before you posted?

 

Just because you can't do it, doesn't mean that others can't. Get over the fact that every geocache is not meant for every geocacher. You probably have finds that I'm not capable of making, and vice versa. Matter of fact, the only caches I actually make an effort to go out and find (these days) are caches that I don't think most people can get to or qualify for.

 

If the very last line in your post (your edit) is true, and you don't "care to qualify for" these challenge caches, then why come here and whine about them existing?

Edited March 9, 2011 by Guns & Cockpits

[+Corp Of Discovery]

The details of several of the challenges TSAWSF mention are not correct:

 

For example: You have to find 100 caches in a 100 days, consecutively. GC1VYJP

 

You have to find 365 caches in 365 days, consecutively. GC1Z5YJ NO mention of having to make the finds consecutively.

 

You have to NOT FIND/log DNF's on 100 caches rated 1.5-1.5. GC1T3C8 This one is listed as a traditional rather than a mystery/puzzle since it's only requested rather than required that finders meet the criteria- which doesn't include any terrain or difficulty ratings BTW. If this was an actual challenge I can see how it would be hard to do for people who seldom, if ever, log their DNFs.

 

You have to find a cache in every county in the state. GCT663

 

You have to find 75% of the caches owned by a particular CO. GC2J33N This is the closest one I could find to this statement. It's a bookmark list challenge. You do need to find 75% of the active ones on the list but all of the hides are NOT by the same cacher. I think 10 or so people were in on the hiding of the series

 

You have to find 12 caches with the help/assistance or in the company of other cachers. GC2E8FV Actually calls for finding a cache, or caches, with a total of 25 other (distinct) cachers. This one could be hard to do if you are on the anti-social side.

 

You have to have 15% of your total finds from caches other than traditional. GC2NFB2 Difficult for those who find traditionals almost exclusively.

 

I've added links to the actual challenges and some comments of my own (in bold) above.