Challenge Caches

[4wheelin_fool]

In most cases the real challenge is being able to put these caches on an ignore list, I suppose.

[+hzoi]

Dear holy crap. I thought this thread died in December.

 

I love challenge caches. Geographic (Delorme, county, Kurpfalz); statistical (Fizzy, calendar, Jasmer [sic?]), miscellaneous (alphabet, bingo, animal crackers, busy day, cache owner, baker's dozen), even bonus caches at the end of a series.

 

Challenge caches add an extra element to the game for those of us who want it. Apparently you don't want that element. Fortunately, there is a solution: if you're not up to the challenge, go look for another cache. If you find that attitude exclusionary or ostracizing, then maybe it is to a certain extent. Guess what? Not every cache is meant to be found by every cacher.

 

Some non-challenge examples: There were dozens of (traditional) caches in Germany near where we used to live that required rappelling gear or climbing gear. I'm not great with heights (bizarre, since I've been through paratrooper school). I never went for those. There are several (traditional and virtual) scuba caches near San Diego, where we have a vacation planned this summer. We're not going for those.

 

I view some challenge caches the same way. There's a challenge cache near us that requires 366 consecutive days of caching. No thanks. There's another that requires 100 finds in a day, including at least six different cache types. Not for me. But I don't excluded because some folks are willing to invest the time and effort into finding those. Good for them, I say, and I hope they have a blast.

[+Ike 13]

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?

This happened near me a couple months ago. Cacher A hid a cache in 'honor' of cacher B. A wanted it to be a challenge where you had to find 100 of B's caches first. The reviewer denied it for 2 main reasons. 1) Cahcer B would never be able to find it since he cannot find his own caches 2) The reviewer felt it also violated this quideline:

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

[+jellis]

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?

This happened near me a couple months ago. Cacher A hid a cache in 'honor' of cacher B. A wanted it to be a challenge where you had to find 100 of B's caches first. The reviewer denied it for 2 main reasons. 1) Cahcer B would never be able to find it since he cannot find his own caches 2) The reviewer felt it also violated this quideline:

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

But that cover most Challenges?

[+hzoi]

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 !!!!

...

 

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

 

I'd just like to quote a great log I saw on a 5/5 cache at the end of a bonus series:

 

I know,I've said "There's no crying in GeoCaching"

 

I bet there are plenty of cachers who are in your area that would never go for this cache, especially if it involved finding a series of cachs, then boating to an island, then walking through 425' of stinging nettles. I bet there are plenty of folks in the area who could apply your "ostracizing" comment to this cache. Yet you had a blast at it:

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH for this incredible series!It remains one of THE BEST GeoAdventures we've had to date.

 

So . . . it would appear that different cachers have different experiences with different caches. In short, to each his or her own.

Edited March 9, 2011 by hzoi

[+Avernar]

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

GC1Z5YJ NO mention of having to make the finds consecutively.

Here's the one I was talking about: GC280PA Ironman Cache a Day Challenge

 

It's one of the few I'll probably never qualify for.

 

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.

 

Here's the one near me: GC1WPH4 Turn that frown upside down-A DNF>Found challenge

[+Lil Devil]

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.

 

Here's the one near me: GC1WPH4 Turn that frown upside down-A DNF>Found challenge

Both of these pre-date the current guidelines. When they were published they were OK but would not be published today.

[+Avernar]

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.

 

Here's the one near me: GC1WPH4 Turn that frown upside down-A DNF>Found challenge

Both of these pre-date the current guidelines. When they were published they were OK but would not be published today.

Huh? How does the iron man one violate the guidelines?

 

And the DNF one did violate guideline #4 and was refused publication until the ", that you have since Found!" text was added.

[+GeoGeeBee]

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

 

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.

 

Well, that's the point of a challenge cache, innit? To... err.. challenge folks to stretch their boundaries a bit and try something new.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

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 !!!!

...

 

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

 

I'd just like to quote a great log I saw on a 5/5 cache at the end of a bonus series:

 

I know,I've said "There's no crying in GeoCaching"

 

I bet there are plenty of cachers who are in your area that would never go for this cache, especially if it involved finding a series of cachs, then boating to an island, then walking through 425' of stinging nettles. I bet there are plenty of folks in the area who could apply your "ostracizing" comment to this cache. Yet you had a blast at it:

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH for this incredible series!It remains one of THE BEST GeoAdventures we've had to date.

 

So . . . it would appear that different cachers have different experiences with different caches. In short, to each his or her own.

 

Look back to 4/22/07 for the logs/pictures of the people I did it with. Me and a buddy of mine waded to the cache. That was during springtime and the water would have been higher than in the summertime.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

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

GC1Z5YJ NO mention of having to make the finds consecutively.

Here's the one I was talking about: GC280PA Ironman Cache a Day Challenge

 

It's one of the few I'll probably never qualify for.

 

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.

 

Here's the one near me: GC1WPH4 Turn that frown upside down-A DNF>Found challenge

 

Right, I was referring to the one TSAWSF was talking about tho. I doubt I'd ever be able to qualify for the one near you either.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

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.

 

Here's the one near me: GC1WPH4 Turn that frown upside down-A DNF>Found challenge

Both of these pre-date the current guidelines. When they were published they were OK but would not be published today.

 

From what I've heard the one I linked to was denied as a challenge, that's why it's listed as a 'Traditional' and the DNFs are only requested rather than required. Interesting twist on the one Avernar linked to.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

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

 

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.

 

Well, that's the point of a challenge cache, innit? To... err.. challenge folks to stretch their boundaries a bit and try something new.

 

Absolutely- it's one of the things I like about them.

[+CanadianRockies]

Just a heads up. It looks like Groundspeak is planning to create a new icon for challenge caches (or at least something functionally similar).

[jholly]

Just a heads up. It looks like Groundspeak is planning to create a new icon for challenge caches (or at least something functionally similar).

Planned - some time between now and the 12th.

[+jellis]

I hope they do and I am sure they will help us transfer the types from Mystery to the new icon.

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

I have yet to see a "challenge cache," that's friendly towards new cachers with not a lot of finds, cachers who aren't totally obsessed or cachers who aren't part of a "certain group," of cachers.

 

So, with that being said, I have an idea for a, "challenge cache," of my own !

 

In order to QUALIFY to log my, "challenge cache," you have to have uhhhhh, let's see..... 8% of your total finds in the form of giving back to the geocaching community as OWNED HIDES !!!

 

I understand that one of the prerequisites to having a, "challenge cache," approved and published you have to have accomplished or reached the goal of said challenge personally. After all, you can't require others to accomplish a goal you yourself have not reached !

 

We have approx. 2,500 finds and we've given back to the GC community with 195 hides so if we hide 5 more caches, we qualify and we would be allowed to own a "challenge cache," which requires others to do the same right ?

 

SO, if you have, let's say, 11,000 finds, in order to QUALIFY to log my, "challenge cache," you need to have.....880 hides out there ! Jeesh. that's a lot of hides.

 

EDIT: PMO caches are always being bashed with comments like, "They're nothing special," etc... If I ever decide to take on a, "challenge cache," and spend 100 consecutive days finding a cache or the filling in of the 365 day grid, that cache needs to be the best/most special cache I've ever seen !

Edited March 13, 2011 by TeamSeekAndWeShallFind

[+simpjkee]

I have no problem with challenge caches, but I worry that in the future a lot of them will be abandoned by the owner and the integrity of the logs will be compromised like the virtuals that get a lot of visitors from Germany.

[+CanadianRockies]

I have yet to see a "challenge cache," that's friendly towards new cachers with not a lot of finds, cachers who aren't totally obsessed or cachers who aren't part of a "certain group," of cachers.

GC29JDW requires that you have one previous find (albeit in a particular community). Both GC24HH4J and GC28CFZ require three EarthCaches in two or more states/countries. That said, most Challenge Caches are easier to complete if you have lots of finds.

 

So, with that being said, I have an idea for a, "challenge cache," of my own !

 

In order to QUALIFY to log my, "challenge cache," you have to have uhhhhh, let's see..... 8% of your total finds in the form of giving back to the geocaching community as OWNED HIDES !!!

The Challenge Cache guidelines used to discourage requirements that included hiding caches. I cannot find that "prohibition" in the current version, but it might still exist in implicit form.

 

I understand that one of the prerequisites to having a, "challenge cache," approved and published you have to have accomplished or reached the goal of said challenge personally. After all, you can't require others to accomplish a goal you yourself have not reached !

It's a little more lenient than that:

 

Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that the challenge is attainable. Reviewers may ask the cache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

[Pup Patrol]

The Challenge Cache guidelines used to discourage requirements that included hiding caches. I cannot find that "prohibition" in the current version, but it might still exist in implicit form.

 

5. Challenge caches may not require the publication of a new cache as a logging requirement. Challenges must be achievable by those who do not own caches.

[Pup Patrol]

I have yet to see a "challenge cache," that's friendly towards new cachers with not a lot of finds, cachers who aren't totally obsessed or cachers who aren't part of a "certain group," of cachers.

 

You've seen every Challenge Cache published?

 

I don't see that this one falls under your sweeping generalizations:

 

GC24RB8 Ontario's Public Holidays Challenge Cache

[+MenInTrees]

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?

This happened near me a couple months ago. Cacher A hid a cache in 'honor' of cacher B. A wanted it to be a challenge where you had to find 100 of B's caches first. The reviewer denied it for 2 main reasons. 1) Cahcer B would never be able to find it since he cannot find his own caches 2) The reviewer felt it also violated this quideline:

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

Hmmmmmm

One just got published in Washington.

GC2PZ6M

got to find the only Wherigos in Washington which is only 9. Seems pretty limited to me

[+lamoracke]

well, the Wherigo challenge is probably not much different than the challenge to find 100 virtuals (listed in Washington), 100 multis (also listed in WA), 100 puzzles (Oregon), 200 puzzles (Oregon), 50 earth caches (WA), 20 earth caches (OR), 100 letterboxes (Minnesota). Why not 5 wherigos?

 

Will be interesting to see how this icon thing rolls out. Have found like 70 different challenges and have looked at many of them across the state and continent, so, I know its not a simple task.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I have yet to see a "challenge cache," that's friendly towards new cachers with not a lot of finds, cachers who aren't totally obsessed or cachers who aren't part of a "certain group," of cachers.

 

How about the Little Rhody DeLorme Challenge? Twelve caches and you're in!

 

(Edit for typos)

Edited March 13, 2011 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[+lamoracke]

Supposedly the Delaware Delorme is only 3 caches.

 

I am not sure you can make a hard and fast bottom # for a challenge cache. Some challenges I have done have taken 500, some, like the Delaware Delorme, 3. The answer is somewhere between 3 and 500. I would love to be in a debate to discuss what makes a challenge, a series, or not...but dont want to bog down this forum topic thread in doing so. Might take a NCAA March Madness Tournament Selection Committee to do so.

[+CanadianRockies]

I have yet to see a "challenge cache," that's friendly towards new cachers with not a lot of finds, cachers who aren't totally obsessed or cachers who aren't part of a "certain group," of cachers.

When working on GC2K23J, it's actually advantageous to have few finds because any finds before Dec. 5, 2010, are disqualified.

[+jellis]

I have yet to see a "challenge cache," that's friendly towards new cachers with not a lot of finds, cachers who aren't totally obsessed or cachers who aren't part of a "certain group," of cachers.

When working on GC2K23J, it's actually advantageous to have few finds because any finds before Dec. 5, 2010, are disqualified.

I agree, I asked a cacher in WA if I could copy his challenge because I felt it was more fair for newbies then number cachers. The "Know your local Cacher" I made mine with a restriction with beginning of the year (the year it went published) and I didn't give a distance restriction. Kind of evened out the playing field. Number cachers found most of them and didn't qualify. So they basically had to find ones out of their area.

Edited March 14, 2011 by jellis

[+JL_HSTRE]

Just a heads up. It looks like Groundspeak is planning to create a new icon for challenge caches (or at least something functionally similar).

 

And the peasants rejoice! (myself included - I enjoy Challenge caches)

 

I have yet to see a "challenge cache," that's friendly towards new cachers with not a lot of finds, cachers who aren't totally obsessed or cachers who aren't part of a "certain group," of cachers.

 

I think that's simply the nature of Challenges. They give you caching goals and caching goals are easier to reach if you do a great deal of caching and are looking for challenges/goals.

 

One just got published in Washington.

GC2PZ6M

got to find the only Wherigos in Washington which is only 9. Seems pretty limited to me

 

Certainly seems like a clever way to promote Wherigo. So long as the Wherigos aren't mostly/entirely hidden by the same CO it would seem okay.

[+lamoracke]

One just got published in Washington.

GC2PZ6M

got to find the only Wherigos in Washington which is only 9. Seems pretty limited to me

 

Certainly seems like a clever way to promote Wherigo. So long as the Wherigos aren't mostly/entirely hidden by the same CO it would seem okay.

 

You have to find 5 wherigos and was just saying there were 9 at this time. The one in Bellingham does not really work as a Wherigo last I looked, but hopefully he will get it fixed. There are 3 in western WA, 1 in Bellingham, 4 in Central Washington and 1 in EWA. You just need 5. Obviously more can get listed still, but 5 seems to be a good limiting number at present....perhaps when 50 exist, 5 will seem small and silly, but it works for now.

[+The Jester]

There are 3 in western WA, 1 in Bellingham, 4 in Central Washington and 1 in EWA.

Silly me. I alway thought Bellingham was in Western WA. Let's see, it's not in western, not in central, not in eastern, so it must be ... ???

[+lamoracke]

I consider that Northwest Washington...as opposed to WWA which I call in the center of the western part. Just like Aberdeen would SW Washington. Details, minor details.

[+Lil Devil]

It's all "up in the wet state" to me

 

(I'm in California)

[+The Jester]

It's all "up in the wet state" to me

 

(I'm in California)

That should be Washington AC (Above California)!

[+hotshoe]

It's all "up in the wet state" to me

 

(I'm in California)

That should be Washington AC (Above California)!

 

Good one. I needed something to smile about on this grim news day, thanks !

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

In the GS guidelines for "challenge caches," 4.14. challenge caches, No. 7 states:

 

"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. For example, a challenge based on "First to Finds" is dependent on the actions of other cachers, is a competition, and cannot be verified, so would likely not be published."

 

So what about GC22XE6 ? In order to log said cache as a find you have to prove you have 100 FTF's ??

Edited March 16, 2011 by TeamSeekAndWeShallFind

[+TeamSeekAndWeShallFind]

No. 8 in the GS "Challenge Cache," guidelines states:

 

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

 

Does GC2J33N require cachers to find an explicit list of caches ?

 

EDIT: I knew there was a "challenge cache," in my area that didn't seem to abide by "challenge cache," guideline #4...

 

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

 

I just found it and it has been archived GC1BQ7P.

Edited March 16, 2011 by TeamSeekAndWeShallFind

[+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 !!!!

...

 

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

 

I'd just like to quote a great log I saw on a 5/5 cache at the end of a bonus series:

 

I know,I've said "There's no crying in GeoCaching"

 

I bet there are plenty of cachers who are in your area that would never go for this cache, especially if it involved finding a series of cachs, then boating to an island, then walking through 425' of stinging nettles. I bet there are plenty of folks in the area who could apply your "ostracizing" comment to this cache. Yet you had a blast at it:

 

THANK YOU SO MUCH for this incredible series!It remains one of THE BEST GeoAdventures we've had to date.

 

So . . . it would appear that different cachers have different experiences with different caches. In short, to each his or her own.

Thank you ???? I'm not all that great at this forum stuff but I think this is a compliment ?

[+Avernar]

No. 8 in the GS "Challenge Cache," guidelines states:

 

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

 

Does GC2J33N require cachers to find an explicit list of caches ?

No. The "75% of" makes it non-explicit. I would get to choose which caches I'd hunt for, even those the pool to choose from is possibly very small.

 

EDIT: I knew there was a "challenge cache," in my area that didn't seem to abide by "challenge cache," guideline #4...

 

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

 

I just found it and it has been archived GC1BQ7P.

Looks like an old ALR cache masquerading as a challenge cache. The CO didn't even bother to but Challenge in the cache name as per guideline #1.

Edited March 16, 2011 by Avernar

[+hzoi]

(snip)

So . . . it would appear that different cachers have different experiences with different caches. In short, to each his or her own.

Thank you ???? I'm not all that great at this forum stuff but I think this is a compliment ?

 

It's neither a compliment nor an insult. It's a comment, designed to present you with a different point of view. I'll try again.

 

In your original post, you railed against challenge caches that require a great deal of time and effort for cachers to qualify to log them, and you indicated that you have no interest in completing them. You seemed to be taking it personally that someone would put together a cache that "ostracized" you.

 

I did a quick look at your profile and located a cache you found that required a great deal of time and effort for you to complete, and you seemed to have a really good time doing so. I bet there are plenty of folks who would look at that cache and decide they weren't interested in doing it. By your argument, these people have been ostracized by the owner of the "Scout Master" cache.

 

My point is this: You don't have to do every cache, and just because you don't like a cache doesn't automatically mean it's a bad cache.

 

And I still don't understand your "ostracizing" comment. If someone makes a challenge that you personally decide you are not interested in completing, the owner isn't excluding you, you're excluding the challenge. As I posted above, there are several challenge caches in our area that we are absolutely not interested in chasing. I don't take it personally that I will never log those caches. I'm just not going to try to complete those challenges. That's it.

[+dfx]

http://coord.info/GC2C91R was just recently published in our area and has caused quite a bit of fuss. It's an icon challenge cache and requires people two find at least two caches for each type given. Among the required types is "challenge cache" (in addition to mystery cache). Honestly I don't understand how it got published in its current state.

 

[+fanglyfish]

i don't care for most challenge caches, there are only a few that seem appealing to me

afaic they're not affecting my caching in any way and they can continue to exist

 

the only thing that is annoying is the "i'm better than you" attitude of those that chose to complete them

 

Or the dreaded: "I'm to good to do them" attitude.

[+Lil Devil]

Sweet. As soon as I find the Brazil APE cache later this year, I'll have to head up to Ontario to log this. Thanks for letting me know about it

[+Corp Of Discovery]

http://coord.info/GC2C91R was just recently published in our area and has caused quite a bit of fuss. It's an icon challenge cache and requires people two find at least two caches for each type given. Among the required types is "challenge cache" (in addition to mystery cache). Honestly I don't understand how it got published in its current state.

 

I don't see how either. The APE caches aren't too much of an issue but there is no challenge cache icon yet and benchmarks are not caches- doesn't that drift into making it an ALR?

[+lamoracke]

there are other challenge caches that ask you to find benchmarks. I do not see why it would not be okay to make that a requirement for a challenge cache. Its on the same website, why not?

 

I do agree to ask for 2 ape cache finds is ridiculous. That limits you to the old time wide traveling cachers or the whopping 24 or so finders who have done Brazil and Seattle apes, or folks who have done both in theory.

[+DanOCan]

http://coord.info/GC2C91R was just recently published in our area and has caused quite a bit of fuss. It's an icon challenge cache and requires people two find at least two caches for each type given. Among the required types is "challenge cache" (in addition to mystery cache). Honestly I don't understand how it got published in its current state.

 

I see on the cache page the Reviewer Cachedrone gives us some insight as to the decision:

The point is though that the CO is accepting past finds to count so anyone that has done any of the original 12 has an advantage. Having an advantage is not an issue, nor can it be avoided in any challenge cache. Typically we consider that if the CO has done it AND/OR dozens of people easily could that the CO has validated it as attainable. It is a simple matter to check anyone's profile to see if they have met the conditions.

 

There are dozen, maybe hundreds of challenge style caches that are equally demanding and ambitious. Some people like a formidable challenge and since this one is achievable by many I felt it met the overall spirit of a challenge cache.

 

I would venture a guess that the number of people who found multiple APE caches are vastly outnumbered by the number of people who have only been around long enough to essentially have this challenge include an "explicit list of caches".

 

It's requirements like this that made me into an anti-challenge cache person. I've softened that stance a little bit and now evaluate each one on its merits -- is it reasonable, is it fun (to me), or is it just there because a CO wants to be difficult? This one smacks of the latter so it would end up on my Ignore list if I lived closer.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Nevermind.

Edited March 22, 2011 by BBWolf+3Pigs

[+t4e]

i don't care for most challenge caches, there are only a few that seem appealing to me

afaic they're not affecting my caching in any way and they can continue to exist

 

the only thing that is annoying is the "i'm better than you" attitude of those that chose to complete them

 

Or the dreaded: "I'm to good to do them" attitude.

 

you must have had that bookmarked, can't really believe you read the whole thread

 

I see on the cache page the Reviewer Cachedrone gives us some insight as to the decision:

 

no, he hasn't...he did not address the points made, at least in my two notes, of which one relates to the Guidelines, he made it look like its about APE caches

 

i have no problem with the challenge itself, there are many out there that i will never even think to attempt, this being one of them

my problem is with the two points i raised in my notes

 

technically i can log a find, if my log gets deleted i can appeal it based on the fact that there is no validation requirement in the description.

 

It's requirements like this that made me into an anti-challenge cache person. I've softened that stance a little bit and now evaluate each one on its merits -- is it reasonable, is it fun (to me), or is it just there because a CO wants to be difficult? This one smacks of the latter so it would end up on my Ignore list if I lived closer.

 

i am not anti-challenge caches but it is on my Ignore List

[+hzoi]

http://coord.info/GC2C91R was just recently published in our area and has caused quite a bit of fuss. It's an icon challenge cache and requires people two find at least two caches for each type given. Among the required types is "challenge cache" (in addition to mystery cache). Honestly I don't understand how it got published in its current state.

 

Yeah, at a minimum, the A.P.E. cache part of the challenge doesn't seem too well thought out. Most of those A.P.E. caches didn't even last a year and only had a relative handful of finders. The one in Atlanta lasted a little longer and got decent traffic, 60 or so finders, before dropping out of sight in 2003. Two lasted until late 2006, the one in Chicago and the one in Maryland, so folks who were caching then had more of an opportunity. But anyone who has been caching for less than 4 1/2 years needs to fly to Seattle and Sao Paulo.

 

Surprised it got past the reviewer. But whatever -- another challenge that won't be on our to do list. Though the Brazil A.P.E. cache is on our wish list...hmm...

[+fanglyfish]

http://coord.info/GC2C91R was just recently published in our area and has caused quite a bit of fuss. It's an icon challenge cache and requires people two find at least two caches for each type given. Among the required types is "challenge cache" (in addition to mystery cache). Honestly I don't understand how it got published in its current state.

 

Yeah, at a minimum, the A.P.E. cache part of the challenge doesn't seem too well thought out. Most of those A.P.E. caches didn't even last a year and only had a relative handful of finders. The one in Atlanta lasted a little longer and got decent traffic, 60 or so finders, before dropping out of sight in 2003. Two lasted until late 2006, the one in Chicago and the one in Maryland, so folks who were caching then had more of an opportunity. But anyone who has been caching for less than 4 1/2 years needs to fly to Seattle and Sao Paulo.

 

Surprised it got past the reviewer. But whatever -- another challenge that won't be on our to do list. Though the Brazil A.P.E. cache is on our wish list...hmm...

 

Bet they are rethinking it now.... Bye Bye Tunnel of light.....

[+lamoracke]

Just a heads up. It looks like Groundspeak is planning to create a new icon for challenge caches (or at least something functionally similar).

 

As one who has found half of the 100 challenges in Washington state and many others, I originally was for this idea, but not sure about it anymore. Its all about the implementation. We need a clear definition of what a challenge is called (as opposed to a series) and then a system to fix existing challenges to this icon.

 

Calling any cache with the word "challenge" in the title is not a challenge cache, and nor are series in my opinion.