Challenge Caches

[+Avernar]

Speaking of perception, you're on the attack because a type of geocache you enjoy is theoretically threatened here. I get that. But I think if you step back a bit you'll see that the discussion here is struggling toward some sort of consensus about these popular, but flawed caches. "Leave them as they are" is a valid point.

I'm not against improving the way challenge caches work. My position has never been to leave them as they exactly are.

 

Claiming that others are intentionally trying to spoil things for you is an irrational and excessive reaction to the discussion.

You suggested getting rid of the cache part of "Challenge Cache" and just turning it into a "Challenge". I think the final cache is a big part of it. If you and others convince Groundspeak to ban "Challenge Caches" then you would be spoiling my fun. How is that irrational and excessive? Groundspeak has done this before (virtuals, locationless, ALRs) so my concerns are not unfounded.

[+Avernar]

The point is that the original simile and the larger analogy with a marathon fails because a challenge cache is not analogous to a marathon. What people consider the "finish line" obviously varies from one person to the next. Your staunch insistence that the final cache is comparable to a finish line doesn't make it so. Your perception is valid, but it is only yours.

And your insistence that it's NOT the finish line doesn't make it untrue. You need to take your own advice - it's only your perception.

+1

[+narcissa]

And your insistence that it's NOT the finish line doesn't make it untrue. You need to take your own advice - it's only your perception.

 

Except that it's not a race, and there isn't a finish line at all. The analogy is a failure because we can't agree on what's analogous to a finish line. It's best to discuss it in real terms, and dispense with an analogy that isn't working.

 

And you are on the attack because why? The only thing I can see is you see a challenge cache as "that is a bit of a nuisance because it's so rarely found and is taking up a pretty prime spot." That's so similar to the people that complain about "lame" parking lot cache blocking a "better" hide nearby. That CO got there first, so the spot is "his" (until he archives the cache).

 

I'm on the defensive because another geocacher I haven't spoken to before in my life (afaik) has taken very personally my suggestions about how Groundspeak might deal with the challenge cache problem.

 

The geocache I was thinking of is a really cool challenge, but it is extremely difficult, time-consuming, and rarely accomplished. In my opinion, that sort of challenge would be better served by a different sort of award or badge instead of a final cache. It was merely an example of one of the drawbacks of challenge caches. It's unfortunate that this was misunderstood as an attack on the quality of that particular cache. In a cache-dense area, caches that are only available to select people can be a bit of a nuisance.

 

I understand that the cache owner has claim to the spot until he or she chooses to archive the cache. I can still think of that cache as a local nuisance. It doesn't mean I'm going to muggle it or try to get it archived, and it doesn't mean I think it's a "crappy" cache.

[Andronicus]

I think the final can be a big part of the challenge if it is done right. If it is a film can on the back of a stop sign, that is lame, and results in an anti-climactic finish to the challange. It really is just a reflection of the CO. Here in Alberta we have a lonely cache challange. The final is a day hike way off in the mountains. That is a good final to a challange cache, it is in keeping with the theam of the challange. A bad one would be a micro in town somewhere.

[+G & C]

I think the final can be a big part of the challenge if it is done right. If it is a film can on the back of a stop sign, that is lame, and results in an anti-climactic finish to the challange. It really is just a reflection of the CO. Here in Alberta we have a lonely cache challange. The final is a day hike way off in the mountains. That is a good final to a challange cache, it is in keeping with the theam of the challange. A bad one would be a micro in town somewhere.

 

What if it's the final to "The Micro In Town Somewhere" Challenge?

[+Avernar]

I'm on the defensive because another geocacher I haven't spoken to before in my life (afaik) has taken very personally my suggestions about how Groundspeak might deal with the challenge cache problem.

I've taken it personally because it would affect me, which is what personally means. I'm not arguing against it for academic or other reason.

 

I chose to reply to you because of this:

 

I think we can all agree that what makes a challenge worthwhile is the challenge itself, and not the cache at the end of it.

 

I don't know if it's just your writing style but that comes across as if you're speaking for all of us here. I wrote that we all don't agree.

 

The point of the challenge is the challenge, right? Why does there need to be a cache at the end of it?

Here you asked some questions that I chose to answer. Then you seem to take offense in how I answered it. Telling me I shouldn't uses analogies and then start attacking the analogy instead of the points I was trying to make.

 

Some people want/need that final step/thing to mark the end of their journey. The last cache they found doesn't cut it as its not the defined end point (ie everybody would have a different end point).

 

That was my whole point. To me and others, just getting the qualifying caches doesn't feel like were finished yet. To me, just getting an icon on the site is lower on the "completeness" scale than if the final were a lame micro.

[+niraD]

The only thing I can see is you see a challenge cache as "that is a bit of a nuisance because it's so rarely found and is taking up a pretty prime spot." That's so similar to the people that complain about "lame" parking lot cache blocking a "better" hide nearby. That CO got there first, so the spot is "his" (until he archives the cache).

I think the big difference between challenge caches and "lame" caches (or anything else that someone thinks "takes up space") is that someone can find that "lame" cache, sign the physical log, and post a Found log online. With a challenge cache, you can find the cache and sign the physical log, but an "arbitrary rule" prevents you from logging your find online.

 

If the online log reflects the challenge, then those who have completed the challenge should get a smiley.

 

If the online log reflects the cache, then those who have found the cache should get a smiley.

Edited December 1, 2010 by niraD

[+two bison]

When I complete the Northern California DeLorme Challenge, I want to go find a cache. I don't want an image in a file, Souvenirs, I'll never look at.

 

I'd like challenges like DeLorme, all the counties of a state, etc, i.e., significant efforts get their own cache-type icon. I think challenges of this sort should be separated from challenges like GC2JMAQ which should remain in the Unknown category.

[+northernpenguin]

Here's something I can do with a Challenge Cache, that I can't do with a Souvenir (and besides the Tin Hat brigade will be all over that one with the Privacy hullabaloo).

 

I can put a watch on a Challenge Cache.

[+addisonbr]

Here's something I can do with a Challenge Cache, that I can't do with a Souvenir (and besides the Tin Hat brigade will be all over that one with the Privacy hullabaloo).

 

I can put a watch on a Challenge Cache.

I have a number of Challenge Caches on my watch list. They make for pretty good logs.

[Andronicus]

I think the final can be a big part of the challenge if it is done right. If it is a film can on the back of a stop sign, that is lame, and results in an anti-climactic finish to the challange. It really is just a reflection of the CO. Here in Alberta we have a lonely cache challange. The final is a day hike way off in the mountains. That is a good final to a challange cache, it is in keeping with the theam of the challange. A bad one would be a micro in town somewhere.

 

What if it's the final to "The Micro In Town Somewhere" Challenge?

Well, I guess in that case, a micro on the back of a stop sign would be the perfect final.

[+Avernar]

If the online log reflects the challenge, then those who have completed the challenge should get a smiley.

 

If the online log reflects the cache, then those who have found the cache should get a smiley.

You missed one:

 

If the online log reflects the challenge and the cache, then those who have completed the challenge and found the cache should get a smiley.

[+tozainamboku]

I think the final can be a big part of the challenge if it is done right. If it is a film can on the back of a stop sign, that is lame, and results in an anti-climactic finish to the challange. It really is just a reflection of the CO. Here in Alberta we have a lonely cache challange. The final is a day hike way off in the mountains. That is a good final to a challange cache, it is in keeping with the theam of the challange. A bad one would be a micro in town somewhere.

So if the challenge cache itself it something you enjoy then you've been given a reward by the challenge cache owner for completing the challenge, but if the challenge cache is something you think is lame the challenge isn't worth doing?

 

It seems to me that challenge itself should be what determines if the challenge is worth doing.

 

Here's something I can do with a Challenge Cache, that I can't do with a Souvenir (and besides the Tin Hat brigade will be all over that one with the Privacy hullabaloo).

 

I can put a watch on a Challenge Cache.

While the souvenir solution doesn't provide for logs (or watchlists), there is nothing that says challenges couldn't be like travel bugs, each with its own page that can be logged and put on a watchlist. Nothing that says challenges couldn't be owned by individuals who would check that the challenge was completed before allowing a Challenge Completed log to be posted. I suspect that challenges could be given a geographic area they apply to (or allow global logging) on a case by case basis.

Edited December 1, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+Avernar]

While the souvenir solution doesn't provide for logs (or watchlists), there is nothing that says challenges couldn't be like travel bugs, each with its own page that can be logged and put on a watchlist. Nothing that says challenges couldn't be owned by individuals who would check that the challenge was completed before allowing a Challenge Completed log to be posted. I suspect that challenges could be given a geographic area they apply to (or allow global logging) on a case by case basis.

A lot of good ideas. My only concern is that people would start listing challenges like crazy. Every variation you can think of just because they can. At least with a physical cache attached to it the challenge owner needs to be a little serious about it.

 

Can you think of a way to keep the challenge explosion from happening without a physical cache to go with it?

[+addisonbr]

So if the challenge cache itself it something you enjoy then you've been given a reward by the challenge cache owner for completing the challenge, but if the challenge cache is something you think is lame the challenge isn't worth doing?

Speaking only for myself, I have to admit that there is an effect there.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to put it in stark black and white "the challenge isn't worth doing if the final container isn't interesting". But in my personal caching adventures I've found that "lame" (for lack of a better term) final containers for otherwise amazing puzzles or challenges have left me walking away with a bit of anti-climax-ish-ness.

 

Does it become the only thing I consider? No, definitely not - I wouldn't outright reject a great challenge on that basis. But it becomes a part of the mix, and as I sort through the growing number of available challenges, it does play a part.

 

Just one man's opinion / experience.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I still want to know why someone, whose major thought is that 'There are no rules. Do anything you want' is trying to impose his rules on others?!?

Hey, Toz: Play your own game. Stop tying to affect the way others play the game.

[Andronicus]

I think the final can be a big part of the challenge if it is done right. If it is a film can on the back of a stop sign, that is lame, and results in an anti-climactic finish to the challange. It really is just a reflection of the CO. Here in Alberta we have a lonely cache challange. The final is a day hike way off in the mountains. That is a good final to a challange cache, it is in keeping with the theam of the challange. A bad one would be a micro in town somewhere.

So if the challenge cache itself it something you enjoy then you've been given a reward by the challenge cache owner for completing the challenge, but if the challenge cache is something you think is lame the challenge isn't worth doing?

 

It seems to me that challenge itself should be what determines if the challenge is worth doing.

 

That is not what I am getting at at all. A lame final (or a final that is not in keeping with the challange) makes for an anti-climactic finish to the challange. It doesn't change the fun-ness of the actual challange.

[+niraD]

Can you think of a way to keep the challenge explosion from happening without a physical cache to go with it?

No. But I can't think of a way to stop the challenge explosion from happening with physical caches to go with challenges either...

[+Avernar]

Can you think of a way to keep the challenge explosion from happening without a physical cache to go with it?

No. But I can't think of a way to stop the challenge explosion from happening with physical caches to go with challenges either...

The fact that you actually have to put out a container is enough to keep everyone from listing several dozen challenges each.

[+rawkhopper]

Pardon my ignorance, seriously, can you make a challenge cache that avoids ALR's? Is there something stopping me from finding a challenge cache without doing the challenge? I have not done any so these are serious questions.

 

Without knowing more about it it seems I would prefer, rather than a challenge cache, a challenge badge through badgegen. Has anyone thought about submitting ideas for new badges in badgegen?

[+niraD]

Pardon my ignorance, seriously, can you make a challenge cache that avoids ALR's? Is there something stopping me from finding a challenge cache without doing the challenge? I have not done any so these are serious questions.

There are a few older challenge caches where you have to email proof that you've completed the challenge to the cache owner, and the cache owner emails you the coordinates. (I've heard of some like this where you even schedule an appointment to find the challenge cache, because the owner puts it in its hiding place only when he expects someone to be looking for it.)

 

Most challenge caches (and all of the ones hidden in the last few years) are actually at the posted coordinates. There is nothing stopping you from finding the challenge cache, from signing the log, from swapping trade items, etc. But you can't post a Found log without providing proof that you completed the challenge, or the owner will delete your log.

 

Without knowing more about it it seems I would prefer, rather than a challenge cache, a challenge badge through badgegen. Has anyone thought about submitting ideas for new badges in badgegen?

Yeah, that's the point the OP made, although he suggested using Groundspeak's new Souvenirs feature, rather than a third-party service like badgegen.

[+t4e]

Pardon my ignorance, seriously, can you make a challenge cache that avoids ALR's? Is there something stopping me from finding a challenge cache without doing the challenge? I have not done any so these are serious questions.

 

Without knowing more about it it seems I would prefer, rather than a challenge cache, a challenge badge through badgegen. Has anyone thought about submitting ideas for new badges in badgegen?

 

technically no, but you won't have a smiley for long cause the CO will delete your log

Edited December 2, 2010 by t4e

[+BlueDeuce]

Wait a minute, challenge caches should fall under the Wow factor?

[+John in Valley Forge]

To me a challenge cache is just that. Each cacher can choose to undertake the challenge or ignore it. I have done one challenge cache and enjoyed it but I do not expect to do any others. I certainly am not bothered in any way by the existence of challenge caches. I actually like the idea. Kind of like the arguments for and against puzzles, multis, micros, etc., etc., etc. ...

 

I agree. To me they are another aspect of caching. I've looked at lots of different challenge caches and they would like to try all of them. All D/T combination. All Cache Types. A Busy Day.

Maybe I'll be able to, maybe I won't, but I am glad for the chance.

[+paleolith]

Most challenge caches (and all of the ones hidden in the last few years) are actually at the posted coordinates.

Technically this is not correct. The rule is that you must be able to locate the final cache from the cache page. The final can be a multi, an offset, a puzzle, a letterbox, etc. One of the challenges I published is an offset (though it's trivial). The San Diego history challenges are multis. It simply must conform to the same requirement as other caches in terms of finding it without needing to contact the CO, engage in a commercial transaction, etc. AFAIK, DeLorme and County challenges are still exempted from this rule, even new ones.

 

Edward

[+paleolith]

What's the matter Toz, challenge caches leave a bad taste in your mouth? Some people enjoy that flavor.

Perhaps this log explains some things.

 

The cachers who have completed the challenges I've published seem to have enjoyed finding the finals. As others have mentioned, the logs are some of the best. Some finders have used the finals as milestones. I think a large part of the reason is that they are intimately connected with the locality, so both the challenge and the final are part of hiking in an area that many enjoy. (Both challenges require a lot of hiking.) I gather that even toz thinks the finals are worthy caches, even if he doesn't care about the challenge part.

 

There are several kinds of challenges:

 

1) Compilation challenges: find a specific set of caches. This breaks down into at least two subcategories: the list can grow, or it cannot. History challenges are generally of the latter kind. Caches along a specific trail are of the former kind. I have published one of each.

 

2) Technical, unchangeable: this includes distributed location challenges, for example DeLorme and county challenges. Critically, the relevant caches generally cannot become ineligible after being found -- for example, coordinates cannot change. Cache types cannot change.

 

3) Technical, changeable: in the sense that these rely on the description, or past logs, or anything else which can change after the find. The popular fizzy matrix is in this category. (If I ever discover that someone is planning to use one of my caches for a fizzy challenge, I will have to warn them that I will not hesitate to change the D/T if changed circumstances demand it.) Challenges based on characteristics of the cache name are also in this category.

 

"Lonely hearts challenges" could be considered either type 2 or type 3. In theory, the time since the previous find could be upset by a late log of a previous find, or a deletion of the previous find, or a date change on the previous find. However, this seems less of a problem than the fizzy matrix changeability. In any case, either could be resolved if the seeker saves a copy of the cache page immediately after logging the find, to satisfy any subsequent ... um, challenge.

 

It appears to me that some people don't like any challenge caches, but that others like one type or another. Perhaps having them clearly identified (at least in the descriptions) would reduce some of the bad tastes.

 

Edward

[+t4e]

Most challenge caches (and all of the ones hidden in the last few years) are actually at the posted coordinates.

Technically this is not correct. The rule is that you must be able to locate the final cache from the cache page. The final can be a multi, an offset, a puzzle, a letterbox, etc. One of the challenges I published is an offset (though it's trivial). The San Diego history challenges are multis. It simply must conform to the same requirement as other caches in terms of finding it without needing to contact the CO, engage in a commercial transaction, etc. AFAIK, DeLorme and County challenges are still exempted from this rule, even new ones.

 

Edward

 

to me what you're describing is plain and simple a multi cache, not a challenge cache this thread is talking about

[+paleolith]

to me what you're describing is plain and simple a multi cache, not a challenge cache this thread is talking about

On the contrary, these are all caches with very real geocaching-related requirements to log a find. They are also multis, or other types. A challenge is a combo of sorts, a geocaching prerequisite plus a final cache. Although the final is listed as an unknown, the method of finding it can be the same as any type except a challenge.

 

My point to which you responded was that even challenge caches published today are not required to be at the posted coordinates. You may or may not like it, but that's what I was addressing.

 

Edward

[+fizzymagic]

I like challenge caches. I'm glad they are physical caches, because, after all, finding caches is what Geocaching is about. Not getting yellow smilies or souvenirs or FTFs or whatnot. They give me something to shoot for to keep caching interesting, and I am glad to go out and find them.

 

Many challenge caches in our area require significant hikes to get to, so it's not just a matter of fulfilling the requirements and then doing a drive-up. Those that require some effort to find I like best of all.

[+northernpenguin]

I like challenge caches. I'm glad they are physical caches, because, after all, finding caches is what Geocaching is about. Not getting yellow smilies or souvenirs or FTFs or whatnot.

 

This hits that proverbial nail on the head for me. Geocaching is about finding geocaches, so it's only a good thing to mark a challenge with a phyiscal geocache.

 

This is geocaching, not Foursquare.

[+addisonbr]

Technically this is not correct. The rule is that you must be able to locate the final cache from the cache page. The final can be a multi, an offset, a puzzle, a letterbox, etc.... It simply must conform to the same requirement as other caches in terms of finding it without needing to contact the CO, engage in a commercial transaction, etc. AFAIK, DeLorme and County challenges are still exempted from this rule, even new ones.

That's a great distinction. Also, I didn't realize that DeLorme/County challenges were exempt - I just did a little searching around and couldn't find anything about that. Where did you see / hear / etc. about that exception?

 

There are several kinds of challenges:

 

1) Compilation challenges: find a specific set of caches. This breaks down into at least two subcategories: the list can grow, or it cannot. History challenges are generally of the latter kind. Caches along a specific trail are of the former kind. I have published one of each.

Interestingly, we have received feedback from our local reviewer that specific sets of caches are not allowed as inputs for challenge caches - that the caches required needed to be more generally defined. We were told, for example, that while a county or borough challenge was okay, a challenge cache requiring someone to find all 20 caches in a specific series was not. (The latter could be listed as a bonus cache of 'unknown' type, but there would be no ability to restrict finders to those who finished the challenge - if for example the final coordinates were passed around and people were signing the log, their finds would stand.)

 

I've also heard that in some parts of the country attempts to list new 'blackout' caches were denied, because at any given point a 'blackout' is almost by definition a specific set of caches. The older blackouts being grandfathered.

 

So my question is... do you know if I'm somehow misunderstanding something fundamental about how challenge caches are treated, or is this possibly a regional difference in interpretation?

 

2) Technical, unchangeable: this includes distributed location challenges, for example DeLorme and county challenges. Critically, the relevant caches generally cannot become ineligible after being found -- for example, coordinates cannot change. Cache types cannot change.

I didn't quite understand your final two sentences here. When you say that the relevant caches cannot become ineligible after being found, do you mean that by some sort of rule, or just that generally speaking those types of things (coordinates, cache types) don't often change in a way that would affect the challenge? Cache types really can't change anymore, but coordinates change all the time - but not necessarily in a way that would affect most challenges. For example, it would be a bit rare for a cache coordinates to change enough to switch counties but not enough to require a new listing. (But I suppose that (these days) there could be a challenge cache that required someone to find 10 caches that are on Points of Confluence, so if someone updated coordinates by even a few yards it would affect things.)

 

Anyway, I was just wondering if when you said "cannot" w.r.t. coordinates it was meant in a mostly practical sense, or a literal rule-based 'cannot' sense.

 

I appreciate any insights; I'm working with someone locally on a couple of challenge cache ideas that we've been having some trouble implementing, and you seem to know a lot about the subject.

[+tozainamboku]

I appreciate any insights; I'm working with someone locally on a couple of challenge cache ideas that we've been having some trouble implementing, and you seem to know a lot about the subject.

One place to start is the Groundspeak Knowledge Book article on Challenge Caches

 

Interestingly, this say that "The cache's true coordinates must appear on the cache page, so that the cacher need not email the cache owner for coordinates. " So it would seem that if you made the challenge cache a puzzle or a multi you would still need to put the true coordinates on the cache page. This doesn't seem right, so perhaps it will be changed in a future update.

 

The knowledge book also say that "Requiring cachers to find an explicit list of caches (rather than a broader category of caches) will likely prevent publication of the cache listing." This is a rule to prevent problems of caches like paleolith's. One of his challenges is to find all the caches in a list of older caches. As time has gone on this task has gotten easier as a few of the caches have been archived. There is also a problem when a cache on the list is disabled for an extended period of time, making it impossible to complete the challenge. His other challenge is to find all the caches placed on a particular trail. This challenge gets harder all the time as new caches get added to the trail. So now challenges like this are not likely to be approved.

 

Essentially I see two types of challenges left. One is to fill in some kind of grid - fizzy challenge, day of the year, county challenges, etc. The other is an endurance test - find some number of caches (perhaps of certain types) in a given time period or cache for a certain number of consecutive days.

Edited December 2, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+addisonbr]

One place to start is the Groundspeak Knowledge Book article on Challenge Caches

Yeah, I think where I have been getting tripped up are where the Knowledge Book differs from paleolith's experiences. I wasn't sure if it was because different regions of the country interpret the guidelines / KB differently, or if the KB was a little out of date, or what.

[+Isonzo Karst]

are where the Knowledge Book differs from paleolith's experiences. I wasn't sure if it was because different regions of the country interpret the guidelines / KB differently, or if the KB was a little out of date, or what.

 

I'd say the KB is current (that article has gone through a number of changes since it was first introduced, some recently), and you're seeing older caches around that probably wouldn't be published today.

 

I used to own an ALR cache, that I reworked to fit the Challenge standard. But there are still old ALR caches around. Some of them with the word, "challenge" in the title - but that doesn't mean they were published to the current standard.

[+ArtieD]

This year I completed the Missouri County and Delorme challenges, and it was very nice to sign the final log books. To me, signing them was the icing on the cake, a fitting end to a long journey. Getting a virtual award would not have done the challenges justice.

 

I have placed a challenge cache as well, and the people seem to enjoy finding that final cache, too. I know I enjoy it because I get to meet the people as they finish it.

[+paleolith]

Well, first, it's hard to tell whether that KB page is intended to be part of the guidelines, since it isn't linked from there.

 

And the statement "The cache's true coordinates must appear on the cache page; the cacher need not email the cache owner for coordinates" seems to imply that the other cases simply were not considered when the page was written. Also, it's not clear whether it's intended to say that the cache's official coordinates must be the true location, or simply that they must appear somewhere on the page, for example in the description or as a waypoint. Overall just a very badly written sentence.

 

I have posted a request on the feedback thingamajiggy to review these points. Had to hold my nose. Geez, I was so happy to move away from 24x80 character-based pinholes twenty years ago, and here's a web forum which crashes me into a 4x40 pinhole. Certainly speaks volumes about how much feedback is truly desired. OK, rant mode off.

 

Much of what I say is based on the experience of publishing those two challenges. It was clear that some things in the review process are not public. For one thing, I was told that GS does not want the word "challenge" in the title except for DeLorme and county challenges, perhaps anything similar, did not get additional clarification. Thus "adventure" in the name of one, which I copied from the San Diego ones. For the second one, I knew about the issue in advance and came up with a better name.

 

The reviewer even pointed me to the San Diego caches (which are linked from my description) as examples. They are even listed as multis. Of course there's the grandfathering issue, and by the current guidelines they would be listed as unknowns. I think the idea with those was to make it a bit clearer that they weren't just caches to go and grab. Mine being somewhat different in nature, I decided I didn't need that.

 

I think that a specific set of caches will probably still be allowed as long as it is based on a reasonable criterion. In the case of my two challenge caches, the bookmark list is simply a convenience. I could have said, in the first case, "find all active caches placed before 5/1/2003 in the Santa Monica Mountains as defined by the polygon described below". And in fact the description does say that. But it gives the bookmark list also. The other could have said "find all active caches within 250' of the Backbone Trail". And those are the caches which the bookmark list includes. But had either list been arbitrary, had it just been my favorite caches, had I excluded some caches for no apparent reason -- that might well have been rejected, even at that time.

 

Of course all the guidelines are applied by reviewers, and it's no secret that reviewer interpretations sometimes vary. So some regional differences would not be surprising.

 

I didn't quite understand your final two sentences here. When you say that the relevant caches cannot become ineligible after being found, do you mean that by some sort of rule, or just that generally speaking those types of things (coordinates, cache types) don't often change in a way that would affect the challenge? ... Anyway, I was just wondering if when you said "cannot" w.r.t. coordinates it was meant in a mostly practical sense, or a literal rule-based 'cannot' sense.

I meant in a practical sense. I did think as I was writing about the possibility of a cache switching DeLorme pages, but that was straying a bit far from the point I was trying to make. Coordinates seldom change enough to matter. Cache types almost never change, since the CO can't do that without reviewer help. But D/T change all the time, and are often inaccurate as well, so things like a fizzy matrix have to decide what to do with such changes.

 

I have found that if I try to pin down every possible situation, I get into reams of legalese, and I probably have too much of it already. I do state "this is for fun and you are on the honor system", period. The unexpected will happen. The Washington state history challenge (which I think was the progenitor of all the history challenges) actually had to deal with a placement date changing -- the details should be in the logs, but basically it was a virtual, the hardest terrain on the list, and the "date placed" differed from the publication date. Reviewer logs for publication are more recent, so determining the true publication date required direct database access.

 

I appreciate any insights; I'm working with someone locally on a couple of challenge cache ideas that we've been having some trouble implementing, and you seem to know a lot about the subject.

I have a lot to say about the subject ... whether that means I know a lot about it is up for interpretation.

 

This is a rule to prevent problems of caches like paleolith's. One of his challenges is to find all the caches in a list of older caches. As time has gone on this task has gotten easier as a few of the caches have been archived. There is also a problem when a cache on the list is disabled for an extended period of time, making it impossible to complete the challenge. His other challenge is to find all the caches placed on a particular trail. This challenge gets harder all the time as new caches get added to the trail. So now challenges like this are not likely to be approved.

You're certainly right about Spinal Tap getting more caches to find. It started at 90 and is up to 165. OTOH, the trail hasn't gotten any longer, and I'm not sure but what the caches placed since publication may pose less difficulty in finding, thus less likelihood of needing to spend a lot of time searching during a long hike, or having to return to rectify a DNF. I'm still divided as to its effect on caches on the BBT. People have certainly been filling the BBT with caches! But are they more numerous, or any better or worse, than they would have been without the challenge? I don't know.

 

The SMM History Adventure has only lost one of its 64 caches in the almost three years since it was published. I think that's pretty impressive, given that all the caches were nearly five years old, minimum, at that time. So it hasn't really gotten any easier. One could argue that it's gotten harder because anywhere you go for a historical cache, where three years ago you had a couple of other caches in the area, now you have a dozen, and of course you may as well find them while you're in the area. Some of the other history challenges have mechanisms to add caches when some are archived, or to say that the challenge cache will be archived when the number of related caches drops below a certain number. I decided not to do that, and I've been happy with that decision. It would have been just more irrelevant legalese.

 

The existence of the BBT challenge has, I think, caused problem caches to be addressed more aggressively. Cachers tend to let problem caches slide, and that's not happening any more on the BBT. One can argue whether this is good or bad, but I do think the challenge has affected such actions. The history challenge has helped some caches to be better cared for, though a lot of the fixes were mine. Two of the caches are in trouble now, but will probably be saved, and I think part of that attention is due to the challenge. Again, you can argue whether it's good or bad to keep those caches, but I think it's good to avoid leaving rotting caches lying out there.

 

But as to toz's point on whether this would affect whether the cache would be published today, I don't know whether there's been any change. As I explained above, the lists are really just convenience lists of caches which meet certain criteria, so I think the "fixed list" objection might not apply. The history challenge, at the rate it's going, will still have nearly 50 caches when I'm 100 years old. Spinal Tap is limited by the trail length and required spacing -- Don_J and I did some calculation before publishing it, I forget the exact numbers, but we figured it could go over 200 caches but not a lot more. The trail is only 70 miles long and won't get any longer, and nearly 25 miles of that are off limits, and switchbacks further limit placements.

 

I guess it all gets back to the usual advice: if you're unsure what will be published, ask the reviewer.

 

Edward

[+Isonzo Karst]

hard to tell whether that KB page is intended to be part of the guidelines, since it isn't linked from there

"linked", perhaps in the long awaited major guidelines update? Even if it's not linked, it is available.*

 

Much of what I say is based on the experience of publishing those two challenges

 

Two years ago in 2008. The death of ALR and the addition of Challenge caches as a subset of mystery date from April 09.

Being "told that GS does not want the word "challenge" in the title except for DeLorme and county challenges," does represents a case of "some things in the review process are not public".

(Use of "challenge" only for Delorme and county is not the case now. I'm guessing it was the case then, as those 2 caches were still being allowed to use "email me" for coords? just guessing here).

*Adding information to the KB seems to be Groundspeak's attempt to make the review process more transparent. The Challenge Caches article is a prime example; reviewers work from it, and it's available to cache owners too.

I think that a specific set of caches will probably still be allowed as long as it is based on a reasonable criterion

I agree, in fact, that's how I reworked my ALR cache - from a list of caches, to a set; defined as "oldest active cache each county of west central Florida". The same caches, but defined such that one of them being archived simply shifts the needed find to another. Offering to let cachers use the oldest or second oldest would open up that list somewhat, and be okay by me too. The bookmarked list is a convenience, I've already identified the qualifying caches (and found them too.)

 

I have found that if I try to pin down every possible situation, I get into reams of legalese, and I probably have too much of it already. I do state "this is for fun and you are on the honor system"

 

I believe this is precisely why the sentence you dislike so much is worded the way it is...("The cache's true coordinates must appear on the cache page; the cacher need not email the cache owner for coordinates") Implies a path, but leaves some wiggle room. To me, its wording is nearly ideal.

[+addisonbr]

This is a rule to prevent problems of caches like paleolith's. One of his challenges is to find all the caches in a list of older caches. As time has gone on this task has gotten easier as a few of the caches have been archived... His other challenge is to find all the caches placed on a particular trail. This challenge gets harder all the time as new caches get added to the trail... So now challenges like this are not likely to be approved.

I actually find this to be true of most Challenge caches (that the difficulty varies with time). DeLorme challenges and Fizzy challenges are easier than they used to be, since there are so many more caches placed now than even a couple of years ago. Month Grid challenges seem to get harder, as more months are added - about one a month, if I'm doing the math right - and caches keep getting archived from the older months. I think it's an unusual Challenge cache that has a static difficulty in the way that a Traditional might.

[+addisonbr]

Fantastic insights, thanks. Some comments below:

 

And the statement "The cache's true coordinates must appear on the cache page; the cacher need not email the cache owner for coordinates" seems to imply that the other cases simply were not considered when the page was written.

I'm inclined to agree. I think the intent is simply to ensure that you don't need to contact the CO.

 

I was told that GS does not want the word "challenge" in the title except for DeLorme and county challenges, perhaps anything similar, did not get additional clarification.

I suspect this is no longer the case. Many of the challenges I've seen published lately have that word in the title. For example, there's an account in Sacramento called "I Challenge You" that owns over 20 challenge caches of varying degrees of frivolity (find a cache in a city that begins with each letter of the word 'GEOCACHE' for example), and all of them have "challenge" in the title.

 

I think that a specific set of caches will probably still be allowed as long as it is based on a reasonable criterion.

I could have *sworn* I read or heard somewhere about a new blackout challenge being rejected because it was, by one definition, a specific set of caches. But several searches of the forums and of my email doesn't seem to be turning up the conversation, so for now I'll assume it was a possible misunderstanding.

 

I have found that if I try to pin down every possible situation, I get into reams of legalese

QFT.

[+paleolith]

A small additional point (if I haven't written enough already): on one of my challenges, I explicitly state that the criterion takes precedence over the bookmark list, and that if the bookmark list isn't kept up to date, the criterion prevails. This challenge also has a grace period -- new caches aren't required until they are three months old -- and the description also states that the grace period runs from the publication date, not from the date the cache is added to the bookmark list.

 

I don't have such a statement on the other, earlier, simpler challenge -- I refined my text for the second one, but did not go back and revise the first -- but the only possible change for the history challenge is archiving, and I could easily enough add that archived caches are exempt even if I haven't gotten around to removing them from the list. Also, for that cache, I said the requirement is "all but two". One cache on the list requires rock climbing skills and would have stopped most contenders from completing the challenge. But instead of exempting that cache specifically, I just said the requirement is "all but two". I had one other in mind in terms of terrain, though in the end it turned out to be less of an issue than I anticipated.

 

Also, one cache was long-term disabled at publication time due to the fire in Griffith Park, and I had in mind that it would not be available for a good while. For the second challenge, Don_J suggested the "disabled for environmental reasons" exemption. I would have incorporated this in the first challenge had I thought of it. This does have an element of CO judgment rather than being a fully independent criterion, but I think it's a strong enough reason to weather that criticism. (We originally applied it to caches in the area closed by the Corral Canyon Fire, and have not needed it since that area was re-opened. But the frequency of wildfires in SoCal means that the situation is likely to arise again.)

 

Isonzo: I just wish I knew whether (or when) KB articles were official GS positions. The home page refers to "informative documentation", which doesn't exactly make it crystal clear. I'm OK with some ambiguity, but I'd rather know when I'm facing ambiguity. I guess I have my limits.

 

On the actual guidelines page, under Mystery, the first paragraph spells out quite clearly what is required in terms of the official coordinates. I don't see why the KB article doesn't just have the same text, or refer back to the guidelines. What's in the guidelines works for me and AFAIK works for everyone who isn't trying to create their own version of reality. The problem is that the KB article tried to restate the criterion that's in the guidelines, and modified it. It's not clear whether the modification was intentional. So I don't agree that the KB wording is "ideal". The guidelines aren't ideal either -- life isn't perfect -- but the wording in the guidelines seems to me to be concise, sufficient, and flexible.

 

addisonbr: thanks for the info about new caches with "challenge" in the name. I'll quit citing that old experience unless I receive information indicating that it's still ... operative ... quite likely it was a transitional thing.

 

Edward

 

(edit: change operational to operative. how soon we forget.)

Edited December 3, 2010 by paleolith

[+FloridaFour]

What I like best about geocaching is that there are SO MANY different things you can do with it. If I get bored with one aspect of it, there are others to CHOOSE from. I haven't done a challenge cache yet, but I do think I would like to try one. There are other things I would not be interested in doing. If you don't want to do a challenge cache, then don't. There is no way to satisfy everyone's interests except to keep different things available to those that want the opportunity to choose. As long as the caches aren't missing, and can be replaced (other topic) then I say keep them.

[+John in Valley Forge]

I'm thinking of putting out the idiots* challenge: You need to find one 4.5 terrain cache on the hottest day of the year and then find another 4.5 terrain cache during a snow storm.

 

Well, the Ontario reviewers have an easy solution for that. You get an email that asks:

 

Have you done this, or can you prove a significant number of geocachers have done this?

 

The challenge cache owners around here have to eat their own dog food.

 

Do you have to be eligible to complete have completed the challenge yourself as CO in order to place a challenge? Just curious.

 

edited to try to clear up awkward grammer

Edited December 3, 2010 by John in Valley Forge

[+addisonbr]

Do you have to be eligible to complete the challenge yourself as CO in order to place a challenge? Just curious.

I don't think you *have to* have to, in terms of an iron-clad requirement. But at some point reviewers started asking potential COs to demonstrate that either they have completed the task, and/or that a decent number of other cachers have done so.

 

Introducing that rule of thumb as a question for reviewers to ask seems to have cut down on some of the challenge cache clutter a bit.

[+roziecakes]

I have no interest in doing them, but people seem to like them so I have no problem with them. I'd really like to see them get their own icon to distinguish them from the puzzle/mystery category.

 

I do have a lot of interest in them, and I love challenge caches. I do as many as possible. And I agree 100% with you BrianSnat that they need their own icon. It will help those who want to find them be able to search for them, and it will help those who don't want to do them filter them out

[+paleolith]

Do you have to be eligible to complete have completed the challenge yourself as CO in order to place a challenge?

From the guidelines:

 

If you are thinking of creating [a challenge] cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

 

Edward

[+narcissa]

I'm thinking of putting out the idiots* challenge: You need to find one 4.5 terrain cache on the hottest day of the year and then find another 4.5 terrain cache during a snow storm.

 

Well, the Ontario reviewers have an easy solution for that. You get an email that asks:

 

Have you done this, or can you prove a significant number of geocachers have done this?

 

The challenge cache owners around here have to eat their own dog food.

 

Do you have to be eligible to complete have completed the challenge yourself as CO in order to place a challenge? Just curious.

 

edited to try to clear up awkward grammer

 

You have to show that the challenge is reasonably possible, so either you, or somebody you know has fulfilled the requirement.

[+John in Valley Forge]

Do you have to be eligible to complete have completed the challenge yourself as CO in order to place a challenge? Just curious.

 

edited to try to clear up awkward grammer

 

You have to show that the challenge is reasonably possible, so either you, or somebody you know has fulfilled the requirement.

 

That makes perfect sense.

This has been a very enlightening thread as I have had a challenge idea rattling around in my cranium for a few weeks.

 

I wonder if I could bounce the concept off of one of the mod/reviewers here (off line of course). I can sum it up in a few sentences.

[+paleolith]

I wonder if I could bounce the concept off of one of the mod/reviewers here (off line of course). I can sum it up in a few sentences.

If you specifically want a reviewer's opinion, then email the reviewer who would review the cache.

 

Post here, and you'll get opinions from all over the peanut gallery. (You're welcome.)

 

Edward

[+John in Valley Forge]

I wonder if I could bounce the concept off of one of the mod/reviewers here (off line of course). I can sum it up in a few sentences.

If you specifically want a reviewer's opinion, then email the reviewer who would review the cache.

 

Post here, and you'll get opinions from all over the peanut gallery. (You're welcome.)

 

Edward

 

LOL

I can't argue with that.

[AZcachemeister]

If I don't think I'll like the sauerkraut ice cream, I just don't buy any.