Jump to content

Washington State Cities And Towns Challenge


Gan Dalf

Recommended Posts

Disclaimer: I apologize for the length of this post…

 

I decided to use the Forums to introduce and solicit feedback on a new Statewide Challenge Cache that I intend to release. This is a challenge that I have considered developing almost since I began caching and learned of the Delorme and Counties Challenge. It seemed to me that a cache involving the cities in the state of Washington was the next logical step. I know that some are thinking, why do we need another State wide challenge when we already have two? My thinking is that those that have already completed the Delorme and County challenges might like to have another excuse to tour our state. And both of those challenges can be completed by simply entering a small corner of the map without really “seeing” what the area that the cache is in. A cities challenge offers another alternative to see parts of the state that might not necessarily be seen. Ideally it will give cachers the chance to see cities and towns in the state that they might not necessarily ever go to otherwise, and experience their charm.

 

Recently the subject of a cities challenge came up in another thread started by some cachers that are attempting to log a cache in every city in the state without the benefit of having a challenge cache to validate their accomplishment. When I saw this, my first thought was, arrrrghhh, I waited too long and my idea has been scooped! After a few back and forth e-mails with them however it was decided that I (with their blessing) should move forward with the idea and so here we are. Below are some rules to start off the discussion. If you’ve got ideas or suggestions please post them to the thread. I am hoping to have the cache page written and container placed by early spring, in time for the start of the decent weather/caching season.

 

To start things off first let me say that I have a solution for the Armchair vs. Fresh debate. Users will be able to decide whether to start from scratch or to do the challenge fresh. There will be separate (and wildly different) containers depending on which option you decide to do however you will only be able to log the challnge once even if you do the armchair option and then later decide to do the fresh. The basic rules will be as follows:

 

There are 281 incorporated cities and towns (205 cities, 76 towns) in the State of Washington. Cachers attempting the challenge will be required to log 3 caches in a city or town in the State of Washington for every letter of the alphabet. Furthermore, for every letter of the alphabet, they will have to find one cache in a “city” and one in a “town” (separate lists will be provided) the third required cache can come from either a city or a town, cachers choice. Major population centers (Cities of greater than 100,000 people) will be excluded, effectively eliminating the top 6 largest cities in the state for possible use in the challenge.

 

I think that is long enough for this post and gives you the general idea. I have thought of answers to many of the questions that will likely come up so feel free to fire away. I am looking forward to hearing peoples comments but please keep them constructive.

 

Thanks

FM

Link to comment

I don't think the term armchair applies here. If I start this cache using the caches I have found while out caching in no way is that an armchair find since I was out in our state getting caches. Armchair would be the cachers who without ever visiting a cache try and claim a find. This sounds fun and I would make sure I stop in other cities and towns not yet visited but to start over, not going to happen but don't call me an armchair cacher.

Link to comment

I don't think the term armchair applies here.

I think it does. In the King County Thomas Guide Challenge there were some cachers that had "completed" the challenge before it was published. They submitted their list and got the find. In this case they did not need to leave home except for the final. These finds were armchair finds. So, yes, the term applies.

 

I guess my only question is how does one determine a given cache is associated with a given city/town? Not all maps have political boundaries.

Link to comment

here are 281 incorporated cities and towns (205 cities, 76 towns) in the State of Washington. Cachers attempting the challenge will be required to log 3 caches in a city or town in the State of Washington for every letter of the alphabet. Furthermore, for every letter of the alphabet, they will have to find one cache in a “city” and one in a “town” (separate lists will be provided) the third required cache can come from either a city or a town, cachers choice.

 

Please give an example. I don't understand. Thanks Dick

Link to comment

I had the same problem when I first started caching. I didn't realize that the term "Armchair Cacher" had at least two different meanings. 1. Logging a cache without every finding it, Or 2. using past finds to qualify for a challenge. Live and learn.

 

I like the idea for this type of challenge. We have been keeping track of most of the cities and towns that we have cached in or near. To our surprise, some of our finds we thought were in a city or a town we found out later they were just outside the line. As far as I know, there is not a place that starts with a J or X and only one place that starts with Q and one with a Z in Washington state.

 

I have found that Google World does a good job of showing city and town boarders. But what happens the city or town grows or shrinks? It takes time before that new info shows up on the maps.

 

Tobias

Link to comment

here are 281 incorporated cities and towns (205 cities, 76 towns) in the State of Washington. Cachers attempting the challenge will be required to log 3 caches in a city or town in the State of Washington for every letter of the alphabet. Furthermore, for every letter of the alphabet, they will have to find one cache in a “city” and one in a “town” (separate lists will be provided) the third required cache can come from either a city or a town, cachers choice.

 

Please give an example. I don't understand.

 

Sure, so there will be a list of the 205 "cities" in Washington State Aberdeen-Zillah. Of those you would need to find one cache in a different city for each letter of the Alphabet (begins with). There will also be a list of the 76 "towns" in Washington State Albion-Yarrow Point. Of those you would need to find one cache in a different town for each letter of the Alphabet (begins with). You would additionally need to find one additional cache for each letter of the alpahbet from either list.

 

So it would be something like this, for the letter M you find a cache in Monroe, that would qulify for your "city" cache. You then find a cache in Mattawa, that would qualify as your "town" Cache. You would then need to find one additional cache from either a city or a town that begins with the letter M.

Link to comment

I guess my only question is how does one determine a given cache is associated with a given city/town? Not all maps have political boundaries.

 

My intention is to be fairly leanient with the difintion of "in". Certain locations will be required to finish the challenge. In some such cases there is not a cache in what would be considered to be the city limits. An example of such a place is Krupp, Wasinghton. That is the only town that begins witht he letter K (there are 12 such cities) and so everyone would have to find a cache there. Trouble is the closest cache to the Krupp city cneter is 6 miles away. This will be the biggest sticking point but my hope is that people will play fair and keep the spirit of the challenge in tact. Cities and towns with a relatively high cache density would be held to a higher standard. If there are 40 or 50 caches in what appears to me to be indside the city limits on a map and you try to use one that is well outside of that then it will not be allowed.

Link to comment

here are 281 incorporated cities and towns (205 cities, 76 towns) in the State of Washington. Cachers attempting the challenge will be required to log 3 caches in a city or town in the State of Washington for every letter of the alphabet. Furthermore, for every letter of the alphabet, they will have to find one cache in a “city” and one in a “town” (separate lists will be provided) the third required cache can come from either a city or a town, cachers choice.

 

Please give an example. I don't understand.

 

Sure, so there will be a list of the 205 "cities" in Washington State Aberdeen-Zillah. Of those you would need to find one cache in a different city for each letter of the Alphabet (begins with). There will also be a list of the 76 "towns" in Washington State Albion-Yarrow Point. Of those you would need to find one cache in a different town for each letter of the Alphabet (begins with). You would additionally need to find one additional cache for each letter of the alpahbet from either list.

 

So it would be something like this, for the letter M you find a cache in Monroe, that would qulify for your "city" cache. You then find a cache in Mattawa, that would qualify as your "town" Cache. You would then need to find one additional cache from either a city or a town that begins with the letter M.

So would you be able to find say 2 in Monroe and one in Mattawa and have that be your 3 or whould it need to be 3 seperate places?

Link to comment

here are 281 incorporated cities and towns (205 cities, 76 towns) in the State of Washington. Cachers attempting the challenge will be required to log 3 caches in a city or town in the State of Washington for every letter of the alphabet. Furthermore, for every letter of the alphabet, they will have to find one cache in a “city” and one in a “town” (separate lists will be provided) the third required cache can come from either a city or a town, cachers choice.

 

Please give an example. I don't understand.

 

Sure, so there will be a list of the 205 "cities" in Washington State Aberdeen-Zillah. Of those you would need to find one cache in a different city for each letter of the Alphabet (begins with). There will also be a list of the 76 "towns" in Washington State Albion-Yarrow Point. Of those you would need to find one cache in a different town for each letter of the Alphabet (begins with). You would additionally need to find one additional cache for each letter of the alpahbet from either list.

 

So it would be something like this, for the letter M you find a cache in Monroe, that would qulify for your "city" cache. You then find a cache in Mattawa, that would qualify as your "town" Cache. You would then need to find one additional cache from either a city or a town that begins with the letter M.

So would you be able to find say 2 in Monroe and one in Mattawa and have that be your 3 or whould it need to be 3 seperate places?

 

Sorry should have clarified that better. You may not use the same location twice. The idea is to get people into a decent number of cities and towns without requiring all of them. I thought that would be too large a task...

Link to comment

As far as I know, there is not a place that starts with a J or X and only one place that starts with Q and one with a Z in Washington state.

 

Yes, this another of the issues that needs to be dealt with. As you've said, no J or X and only one Q or Z and both of theose are cities. Because of my requirement to find a cache in a City AND a Town for each letter of the alphabet I am considering allowing places that CONTAIN those letters as substitutes. This will also help with other letters (I and H for example) that are underrepresented.

Link to comment

I love this challenge idea! I can do this! But...it's very hard for me to wrap my head around the 3 caches, alphabetical rule. I want to do this, but that part was/is hard for me to understand. Great challenge idea though - now to decide on whether to armchair some of the far-flung cities or visit all over again! I'd still like to visit ALL of the cities though :)

Edited by Lizzy
Link to comment

The more complicated the requirement, the more work it is to administrate. Simplicity is your friend here.

 

I agree, why not keep it simple like the Delorme and Washington State County Challenge. If the goal is to visit towns and cities in Washington. You can do that with just one cache for each.

Link to comment

The more complicated the requirement, the more work it is to administrate. Simplicity is your friend here.

 

[snip] ...why not keep it simple like the Delorme and Washington State County Challenge. If the goal is to visit towns and cities in Washington. You can do that with just one cache for each.

 

True... But that would be 286 caches that would need to be found and would require much more driving then even the Delorme or Counties challenge. I wanted to make it attainable to those that can't go on the long raod trips that would be rquired for every city but still give people a braod cross section of places that would see while doing th e challenge...

Link to comment

The more complicated the requirement, the more work it is to administrate. Simplicity is your friend here.

 

[snip] ...why not keep it simple like the Delorme and Washington State County Challenge. If the goal is to visit towns and cities in Washington. You can do that with just one cache for each.

 

True... But that would be 286 caches that would need to be found and would require much more driving then even the Delorme or Counties challenge. I wanted to make it attainable to those that can't go on the long raod trips that would be rquired for every city but still give people a braod cross section of places that would see while doing th e challenge...

 

 

Probably too close to the county challenge, just an idea you could narrow it down to just town or cities with courthouses. Don't pay to much attention to me, I had open heart surgery three months ago and my Doctor told me today that it may take me a year to get back to normal. Pick what is best for the group so they will have fun geocasching.

Link to comment

Sure, so there will be a list of the 205 "cities" in Washington State Aberdeen-Zillah. Of those you would need to find one cache in a different city for each letter of the Alphabet (begins with). There will also be a list of the 76 "towns" in Washington State Albion-Yarrow Point. Of those you would need to find one cache in a different town for each letter of the Alphabet (begins with). You would additionally need to find one additional cache for each letter of the alpahbet from either list.

 

I'd suggest that unless somebody cooks up a GSAK macro to automate figuring out where the heck we are in the complicated scenario, you're not going to get a whole lot of nibbles. Some. Not many.

 

To even make it possible, you'd need to lat/lon polygons for each city+town. Seems like a lot to set up.

Link to comment

I'd suggest that unless somebody cooks up a GSAK macro to automate figuring out where the heck we are in the complicated scenario, you're not going to get a whole lot of nibbles. Some. Not many.

Would you be more likely to do it if the requirement was to find caches in all 286 cities and towns?

 

To even make it possible, you'd need to lat/lon polygons for each city+town. Seems like a lot to set up.

As I said:

My intention is to be fairly leanient with the difintion of "in".

 

I do not intend to set boundries for every city. You are right, it would be a lot to set up and something that is beyond my current knowledge base. As long as people don't abuse it, I'm thinking that it wouldn't be that difficult to determine manually.

Edited by FobesMan
Link to comment

Let me see if I've got this right:

 

You need 78 finds, 3 finds per letter of alphabet with at least one city and at least one town for each letter, no duplicates.

That's the general idea, yes. As is not unusual for me, I probably over explained it because that sounds much simpler than when I said it.

 

What about placing caches? If a town (I doubt any cities are cacheless) doesn't have one (such as Krupp), does placing one count?

Even if I did allow that, which I'm not sure I would, I believe that particular thing is against Groundspeak guidelines for challenge caches.

Link to comment

 

What about placing caches? If a town (I doubt any cities are cacheless) doesn't have one (such as Krupp), does placing one count?

Even if I did allow that, which I'm not sure I would, I believe that particular thing is against Groundspeak guidelines for challenge caches.

 

It was allowed in the Kitsap County Challenge, The Washington State Delorme, Idaho Delorme, and probably others. Vacation cache rules apply. But I guess you will need to discuss with a reviewer the actual intent of point #5 in the knowledge book. My take is that as long as you don't *require* the publication of a cache that should be fine. The point your going have to get the reviewer to agree to is the challenge being achievable by those that do not own caches. Obviously if a cache does not exist in a city/town then the challenge is not achievable, but does allowing the placing of a cache for credit to make the challenge achievable in conflict with point #5?

Edited by jholly
Link to comment

 

What about placing caches? If a town (I doubt any cities are cacheless) doesn't have one (such as Krupp), does placing one count?

Even if I did allow that, which I'm not sure I would, I believe that particular thing is against Groundspeak guidelines for challenge caches.

 

It was allowed in the Kitsap County Challenge, The Washington State Delorme, Idaho Delorme, and probably others. Vacation cache rules apply.

 

Perhaps I misunderstood. It would solve some of the more problematic letters. What are Vacation Cache rules?

Link to comment

What I don't like is the (addition requirement of the letters.) That is going to complicate the route you take to complete the challenge. All the other major challenges can be laid out in a route that you can do without back tracking. You have a lot of experienced cachers here that have done most of the major challenges in the area and several that are running major challenges. I assume you have done some of these challenges. I am worried about places like Pend Oreille County and other Eastern Washington areas.

Link to comment

Perhaps I misunderstood. It would solve some of the more problematic letters. What are Vacation Cache rules?

As I mentioned, there is a sticky sentence in point #5 that needs to be clarified by the reviewing staff. Vacation caches are caches that are placed outside of your normal caching radius. You need to have the reviewer satisfied that you can maintain the cache. Under this rule you, as a Olympic peninsula resident, would have a hard time placing a cache in, say, Ione.

Link to comment

What I don't like is the (addition requirement of the letters.)

I'm willing to drop the letters requirment if I thought people would be willing to find a cache in each city in the state. My concern has always been that requiring a find in every city would be too much for even the most ardent road trip cacher.

 

That is going to complicate the route you take to complete the challenge. All the other major challenges can be laid out in a route that you can do without back tracking.

I'm not convinced that you could not do the same by requiring the alphabet part of the challenge. Most letters have several options.

 

You have a lot of experienced cachers here that have done most of the major challenges in the area and several that are running major challenges. I assume you have done some of these challenges.

Not that it matters but I have done or am working on Snohomish County TGC, Counties and Delorme. I have used a a get 'em when I'm there approach for all of them.

 

 

I am worried about places like Pend Oreille County and other Eastern Washington areas.

I'm not sure I understand this point. Can you explain it for me?

Link to comment

We thought about setting up a challenge like this a few years ago. Once we had completed DeLorme and Counties (and later the Oregon DeLorme and Counties, Idaho DeLorme, and now most of Colorado DeLorme) we realized we loved road-trips and caching. I think the idea of having/wanting/needing to explore the state again is great.

 

But, I agree with the folks that say "simple is better". I also agree that GSAK should be a requirement - you will need the boundaries, even if they are rough.

 

When I was thinking about it I considered it a couple ways:

- log a cache in all cities/towns above a certain population. That tended to skew pretty urban, though.

- log a cache in all cities/town below a certain population. Same problem, bnut skewed rural.

- log a cache in every “defined locale”. That made it pretty overwhelming.

 

What I eventually settled on (but never implemented) was a pre-defined list of cities/towns/locales scattered across the state - thus forcing the spread across the state again. For example, there are not many "cities" in Asotin, but you darn sure want to make people go there as part of any statewide challenge.

 

I'd pick a round number - say 100, and divide it up across the state. Maybe the top 2 or 3 “cities” in each county?

 

However you pick it, a defined list will help you generate the tools that will make managing the challenge not take over your life. It will also make road-trip planning pretty deterministic for the rest of us.

 

Just my 4 cents....

Link to comment

If the point is for exploration of the state I think you should leave it all the cities and towns as of posting. Let us armchair cachers use our finds. What it will do is get everybody to go caching in places they have never cached before. While the cachers who have finished the Delorme challenge may have a few more cities than others but with 200+ cities and towns they wont be that close to being done. As for the city limits issue, there isn't a website with that info that you could link to? City limits and all cities simple done. :blink:

Link to comment

We thought about setting up a challenge like this a few years ago. Once we had completed DeLorme and Counties (and later the Oregon DeLorme and Counties, Idaho DeLorme, and now most of Colorado DeLorme) we realized we loved road-trips and caching. I think the idea of having/wanting/needing to explore the state again is great.

 

But, I agree with the folks that say "simple is better". I also agree that GSAK should be a requirement - you will need the boundaries, even if they are rough.

 

When I was thinking about it I considered it a couple ways:

- log a cache in all cities/towns above a certain population. That tended to skew pretty urban, though.

- log a cache in all cities/town below a certain population. Same problem, bnut skewed rural.

- log a cache in every “defined locale”. That made it pretty overwhelming.

 

What I eventually settled on (but never implemented) was a pre-defined list of cities/towns/locales scattered across the state - thus forcing the spread across the state again. For example, there are not many "cities" in Asotin, but you darn sure want to make people go there as part of any statewide challenge.

 

I'd pick a round number - say 100, and divide it up across the state. Maybe the top 2 or 3 “cities” in each county?

 

However you pick it, a defined list will help you generate the tools that will make managing the challenge not take over your life. It will also make road-trip planning pretty deterministic for the rest of us.

 

Just my 4 cents....

 

I like this approach as well. I thought of the 100 number and considered the cities in each county idea but a set of predefined cities never occured to me. I think that this is an idea that I can move forward with...

Link to comment

Time for me to throw in our two cents.

 

Finding out what is a city is actually pretty simple, just throw the town/city name into the geocaching search and it plops you in the middle of it. That is what we have been doing and the area that is actually in the incorporated city/town shows up in a shaded area. To make it fair for people, it would seem, that you would just use this sort of method (or something similar) as a standard reference. However, you run into the additional issue of population boundries expanding or (possibly) contracting during the course of the Challenge (for however long it goes).

 

There are several towns that do not have caches (just from our experiences so far) and the best way we have tried to approach is is making sure that we find at least something that is close to it or in the unincorporated town limits (which is sounds like what you are going for here).

 

By the nature of what we, as a team, are accomplishing there is a lot of backtracking definitly. However, with the lower find requirement, I think planning viable routes is very workable. Zilah is off the main roads, but while there you can hit so much more in Eastern Washington.

 

As to the why for it, I think there is so much out there that is just cool to see. So many cool little places to look at and eat. You get a real sense of towns that were one small and are now thriving and the vice versa. In the 62 cities and towns that we have visited over the last four months, we have seen the whole gamut and experienced a lot of those little towns that you just don't think about too much when you are passing them unless you are from them (Pe El comes to mind)

Link to comment

Time for me to throw in our two cents.

 

Finding out what is a city is actually pretty simple, just throw the town/city name into the geocaching search and it plops you in the middle of it. That is what we have been doing and the area that is actually in the incorporated city/town shows up in a shaded area. To make it fair for people, it would seem, that you would just use this sort of method (or something similar) as a standard reference. However, you run into the additional issue of population boundries expanding or (possibly) contracting during the course of the Challenge (for however long it goes).

 

There are several towns that do not have caches (just from our experiences so far) and the best way we have tried to approach is is making sure that we find at least something that is close to it or in the unincorporated town limits (which is sounds like what you are going for here).

 

By the nature of what we, as a team, are accomplishing there is a lot of backtracking definitly. However, with the lower find requirement, I think planning viable routes is very workable. Zilah is off the main roads, but while there you can hit so much more in Eastern Washington.

 

As to the why for it, I think there is so much out there that is just cool to see. So many cool little places to look at and eat. You get a real sense of towns that were one small and are now thriving and the vice versa. In the 62 cities and towns that we have visited over the last four months, we have seen the whole gamut and experienced a lot of those little towns that you just don't think about too much when you are passing them unless you are from them (Pe El comes to mind)

The search is smarter than that. Yesterday I type in ballard, wa and the search returned caches in the correct area.

Link to comment

Ok, so I decided to take the plunge and follow some of the suggestions and I have started the preliminaries to get this published. I liked the idea of a working list and so that is what I have gone with. Rather than 100 though I decided on 120. The reason for this is that I agree that setting the requirments to just the smallest cities as being to rural. so there will be a mix of small and large cities with the majority being the samller ones that most people seem to like the idea of finding.

 

I've also started the process of isolating the cities using GSAK. This has actually proven to be much easier than I expectd it to be and I am done with setting the boundries for about half of the cities in the challenge. As I said before I intend to be somewhat forgiving with my judgements but in general a cache will have to fall within the boundries of the city as defined by my filter.

 

Stay Tuned, comments still welcome but I am far enough in to the process now that I am likely to stay the course with what I've decided to this point.

Link to comment

I've also started the process of isolating the cities using GSAK.

 

Will there be a non-GSAK map or program for us to use?

 

there will be a list of cities that you can use to search for caches and look at maps on Geocaching.com. There might be a way for me to create files to use on google earth and MapSource which I will explore once I am finished with the GSAK filters and will include if it is as easy as converting my GSAK filter to some other format.

Link to comment

Will all the towns and cities have caches available? Also we will be getting a list of the available towns and cities before you submit the cache? It would give us a chance to get a feel for the challenge. Thank you. Dick

 

As I'm setting boundries for each location I'm checking the smaller ones on Geocaching.com to see if they have caches and picking new ones that are comparably sized that are nearby if the town I've pre-selected does not have any caches. I've had to make two or three changes so far because of this. Keep in mind this doesn't mean that the caches in these small towns will always have them. some of them only have two or three and they could (probably will) get archived over time. Hopefully the locals in those towns will place new ones before that happens.

 

When I'm done with the filter I'll post a list of the towns to the forum. I still have to pick a spot to place that cache as well.

Link to comment

Sorry to have so many questions. Just playing around on this very cold day. I know we have found several caches in Forks but doing a Search showed no finds, just new caches. No big deal as we will probably be going thru there anyway. My question will archived caches count if we found them when they were active. Thanks

Link to comment

Sorry to have so many questions. Just playing around on this very cold day. I know we have found several caches in Forks but doing a Search showed no finds, just new caches. No big deal as we will probably be going thru there anyway. My question will archived caches count if we found them when they were active. Thanks

 

For the armchair, most likely yes. Obviuosly for the fresh, you'll need to find a new one there. FYI Forks is in the challenge...

Link to comment

It's me again. Probably most do not have the time as I have. I am recovering from getting a new aortic valve and my wife Arlene had a stroke that affected her eyesight and balance. So we are just taking it easy and not even doing any local caches. With the wx and now the price of gas it would be expensive to take the starting fresh approach for us. Many of those that commented on the challenge have done both the Delorme and County challenges and have found caches in a lot of the cities and towns that will be on the list. I have gone to "Show all logs" which started in August of 2001.

I have gone thru and written down towns I thought might be on the list. If I find a town such as Grandview that shows I found Red Roses (GC1J62X) in 6-12-09 but is now archived. There are two caches there that I haven't found. Putting GC1J62X in the hide and seak search brings up the cache and Google Map shows it to be in the city limits. Some of the other maps show the boundries of Grandview. Would this be a valid find for Grandview?

Edited by W7WT
Link to comment

It's me again. Probably most do not have the time as I have. I am recovering from getting a new aortic valve and my wife Arlene had a stroke that affected her eyesight and balance. So we are just taking it easy and not even doing any local caches. With the wx and now the price of gas it would be expensive to take the starting fresh approach for us. Many of those that commented on the challenge have done both the Delorme and County challenges and have found caches in a lot of the cities and towns that will be on the list. I have gone to "Show all logs" which started in August of 2001.

I have gone thru and written down towns I thought might be on the list. If I find a town such as Grandview that shows I found Red Roses (GC1J62X) in 6-12-09 but is now archived. There are two caches there that I haven't found. Putting GC1J62X in the hide and seak search brings up the cache and Google Map shows it to be in the city limits. Some of the other maps show the boundries of Grandview. Would this be a valid find for Grandview?

 

Hi Dick,

 

I given it some more thought and I've decided almost definitively that there willnot be a requirment for only fresh finds. What I mean is that you will be able to use old finds AND there will be no fresh requirement to log it.

 

The reason I've decided to do this is because I serioulsy doubt that anyone will be able to go out and log the cache right away without finding caches in at least a few of the cities that will be in the challenge. A cursory glance of those that have completed the Delorme challenge reveals that the vast majority of the grids have only one find for that grid. What that tells me is that for the most part, they were on a road trip, just passing through, the sole purpose of which was to log a cache in that particular grid. They most likely found something very close to whatever highway they were on and were outside of the city limits of any particular city.

 

That said, were Grandview in the Challenge, yes, the cache you found that is now archived would be included. I will tell you though that Grandview is not one of the cities that I have included in the challenge.

Link to comment

It's me again. Probably most do not have the time as I have. I am recovering from getting a new aortic valve and my wife Arlene had a stroke that affected her eyesight and balance. So we are just taking it easy and not even doing any local caches. With the wx and now the price of gas it would be expensive to take the starting fresh approach for us. Many of those that commented on the challenge have done both the Delorme and County challenges and have found caches in a lot of the cities and towns that will be on the list. I have gone to "Show all logs" which started in August of 2001.

I have gone thru and written down towns I thought might be on the list. If I find a town such as Grandview that shows I found Red Roses (GC1J62X) in 6-12-09 but is now archived. There are two caches there that I haven't found. Putting GC1J62X in the hide and seak search brings up the cache and Google Map shows it to be in the city limits. Some of the other maps show the boundries of Grandview. Would this be a valid find for Grandview?

 

Hi Dick,

 

I given it some more thought and I've decided almost definitively that there willnot be a requirment for only fresh finds. What I mean is that you will be able to use old finds AND there will be no fresh requirement to log it.

 

The reason I've decided to do this is because I serioulsy doubt that anyone will be able to go out and log the cache right away without finding caches in at least a few of the cities that will be in the challenge. A cursory glance of those that have completed the Delorme challenge reveals that the vast majority of the grids have only one find for that grid. What that tells me is that for the most part, they were on a road trip, just passing through, the sole purpose of which was to log a cache in that particular grid. They most likely found something very close to whatever highway they were on and were outside of the city limits of any particular city.

 

That said, were Grandview in the Challenge, yes, the cache you found that is now archived would be included. I will tell you though that Grandview is not one of the cities that I have included in the challenge.

 

 

Thank you. I just picked Grandview at random. I have gone thru all of our finds. For a old man, I have a fairly good memory and looking thru our finds

brought back enjoyable menories. Thank you for the update. Dick

Link to comment

Thanks that makes sense. I am not going to live long enough to attempt that one. The way the Post Office is closing offices and moving zipcodes around and trying to sell the one that I have a PO Box in that would make trying to administer the challenge very difficult.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...