GC2WCBG - Lonely Cache Challenge - Ontario

[+t4e]

this thread popped up today Bogus Logs and at first i didn't think much of it until team tisri pointed out that it is a problem in the case of a Resuscitator Cache, which immediately made me think of the recently published "Lonely Cache Challenge"

 

since this aspect is not mentioned on the cache description i would like to hear a ruling from the cache owner in case there is at some point in time a bogus log on any of the otherwise qualifying caches, thus disqualifying the find

 

also, some people only log their finds once in a blue moon, how about such cases of backlogging?

[+northernpenguin]

this thread popped up today Bogus Logs and at first i didn't think much of it until team tisri pointed out that it is a problem in the case of a Resuscitator Cache, which immediately made me think of the recently published "Lonely Cache Challenge"

 

since this aspect is not mentioned on the cache description i would like to hear a ruling from the cache owner in case there is at some point in time a bogus log on any of the otherwise qualifying caches, thus disqualifying the find

 

also, some people only log their finds once in a blue moon, how about such cases of backlogging?

 

Seems to me you'll be able to tell what the last actual find date was when you have the physical logbook in your hands. Take a photo if needed.

 

If the /only/ reason you went to the cache was for the Lonely Cache challenge.... Well then you have most definitely a different caching style then I have

[+t4e]

 

If the /only/ reason you went to the cache was for the Lonely Cache challenge.... Well then you have most definitely a different caching style then I have

 

has nothing to do with "caching style"

i always found intriguing the caches that have a string of DNF's, i also do enjoy certain challenges, and this is one of them

 

however, regardless of that, the concerns i raised are valid in regards to this challenge and the logging requirements

[+Pasha88]

Ok, first of all, going to have to agree with Northern Penguin. If the ONLY reason you are going out to do a cache is to qualify for a challenge, and not because it's an awesome cache, physical challenge, mental challenge, etc... then it shouldn't even matter if the log is bogus or not.

 

My advice: go out to the cache. Take your camera. Chances are, if it's a lonely cache, there's a reason it's lonely. Maybe it's in the middle of nowhere, but the view is spectacular. Maybe it's in the middle of the jungle and people have been eaten by man-eating mosquitoes trying to find it. (You never know, it could happen)... in any case, you'll probably want to have at least one photograph of your adventure to/with/from the cache. Then, while you're there, you could always just, ya know, snap a picture of the last log in the book, IN CASE it doesn't match up with the last log online. That way, you have a photo and can show the CO of the cache with the bogus log so the bogus log can be deleted, if needed... unless there are extenuating circumstances.

 

In the cache description, the CO clearly states "For the purposes of this challenge, and for the benefit of other cachers, log your find as soon as possible on the cache you're using to qualify toward this challenge." We've all done it. Heck, I have about 75 caches from the last three days that I am slowly working on logging, in between work, laundry, eating, sleeping, etc. But, chances are that if someone finds a lonely cache, it will likely be logged within 48 hours of them finding it. Not everyone is connected wirelessly, and chances are people will want to share their experiences, especially if it was worthwhile.

[+t4e]

Ok, first of all, going to have to agree with Northern Penguin. If the ONLY reason you are going out to do a cache is to qualify for a challenge, and not because it's an awesome cache, physical challenge, mental challenge, etc... then it shouldn't even matter if the log is bogus or not.

 

why do people have to compare my caching habits with theirs and judge me because i don't cache the way they do and based on the fact that i want to take on a challenge?

you do realize that implicitly you are judging the CO for setting up this challenge, right?

 

finding a cache that has a 2 year string of DNF's is a challenge afaic...and for the purpose of this challenge any bogus logs do matter...or perhaps you would like to tell me that i shouldn't try for any challenge caches because they are not what YOU consider fun?

 

My advice: go out to the cache. Take your camera. Chances are, if it's a lonely cache, there's a reason it's lonely. Maybe it's in the middle of nowhere, but the view is spectacular. Maybe it's in the middle of the jungle and people have been eaten by man-eating mosquitoes trying to find it. (You never know, it could happen)... in any case, you'll probably want to have at least one photograph of your adventure to/with/from the cache. Then, while you're there, you could always just, ya know, snap a picture of the last log in the book, IN CASE it doesn't match up with the last log online. That way, you have a photo and can show the CO of the cache with the bogus log so the bogus log can be deleted, if needed... unless there are extenuating circumstances.

 

thanks for the advice, but no offense you can keep it for yourself, i will cache the way i see fit

 

FYI i may forget my wallet but my camera is with me at all times...

 

In the cache description, the CO clearly states "For the purposes of this challenge, and for the benefit of other cachers, log your find as soon as possible on the cache you're using to qualify toward this challenge." We've all done it. Heck, I have about 75 caches from the last three days that I am slowly working on logging, in between work, laundry, eating, sleeping, etc. But, chances are that if someone finds a lonely cache, it will likely be logged within 48 hours of them finding it. Not everyone is connected wirelessly, and chances are people will want to share their experiences, especially if it was worthwhile.

 

speculations....ONLY the CO can make a decision on that

 

you should know better that many people DO NOT log their finds online no matter what the experience

maybe you want to read my original post again...has nothing to do with when i log my finds, it has to do with the arm chair loggers, the BOTs or those that backlog

Edited August 1, 2011 by t4e

[+northernpenguin]

My original point stands. If you are trying to qualify for the Lonely Cache challenge, the requirements are that it is unfound for a given amount of time.

The physical logbook provides "proof" of find, and can be used to prove that you can use the cache for the Lonely Cache challenge, even if there is a bogus log.

 

Your worst case scenarios here are:

 

A ) You target a Lonely Cache and find a recent entry in the logbook that has not been logged online yet. You have "wasted" a trip to the cache and cannot use it to qualify. (That's the different caching style comment - I didn't say it was more or less correct, just different. My style would not be disappointed finding that log entry in the physical log book, that's all).

 

B ) You do not target a Lonely Cache because of a bogus log entry. Instead, you target a different Lonely Cache to qualify for the challenge. Can't see how this is really a big deal at the end of the day.

 

edit: turn into B )

Edited August 1, 2011 by northernpenguin

[+t4e]

My original point stands. If you are trying to qualify for the Lonely Cache challenge, the requirements are that it is unfound for a given amount of time.

The physical logbook provides "proof" of find, and can be used to prove that you can use the cache for the Lonely Cache challenge, even if there is a bogus log.

 

Your worst case scenarios here are:

 

A ) You target a Lonely Cache and find a recent entry in the logbook that has not been logged online yet. You have "wasted" a trip to the cache and cannot use it to qualify. (That's the different caching style comment - I didn't say it was more or less correct, just different. My style would not be disappointed finding that log entry in the physical log book, that's all).

 

B ) You do not target a Lonely Cache because of a bogus log entry. Instead, you target a different Lonely Cache to qualify for the challenge. Can't see how this is really a big deal at the end of the day.

 

edit: turn into B )

 

well i think we have different definitions for a bogus log...a "bogus log" is just that...bogus, be it by armchair loggers or BOTs, as we've all seen, well i did on my chaches

 

if i target a cache that i think its lonely and find someone else's signature in the log book when i get there i have absolutely no problem with it, its a chance you take when you head out for it....that is not a bogus find

 

now, as for relying on the logbook sequence its another story, i am sure you have seen logbooks signed all over the place...so i may go to the last page, take a picture of last log as of 2 years ago and mine following...only to have someone come log online saying they found it in between those dates...which can be very true and they may have signed the logbook on a random page, not necessarily in order ...what is the verdict on that?

 

another example is a nano log...don't tell me that you can actually read anything on those logs lol

Edited August 1, 2011 by t4e

[+northernpenguin]

My original point stands. If you are trying to qualify for the Lonely Cache challenge, the requirements are that it is unfound for a given amount of time.

The physical logbook provides "proof" of find, and can be used to prove that you can use the cache for the Lonely Cache challenge, even if there is a bogus log.

 

Your worst case scenarios here are:

 

A ) You target a Lonely Cache and find a recent entry in the logbook that has not been logged online yet. You have "wasted" a trip to the cache and cannot use it to qualify. (That's the different caching style comment - I didn't say it was more or less correct, just different. My style would not be disappointed finding that log entry in the physical log book, that's all).

 

B ) You do not target a Lonely Cache because of a bogus log entry. Instead, you target a different Lonely Cache to qualify for the challenge. Can't see how this is really a big deal at the end of the day.

 

edit: turn into B )

 

well i think we have different definitions for a bogus log...a "bogus log" is just that...bogus, be it by armchair loggers or BOTs, as we've all seen, well i did on my chaches

 

if i target a cache that i think its lonely and find someone else's signature in the log book when i get there i have absolutely no problem with it, its a chance you take when you head out for it....that is not a bogus find

 

now, as for relying on the logbook sequence its another story, i am sure you have seen logbooks signed all over the place...so i may go to the last page, take a picture of last log as of 2 years ago and mine following...only to have someone come log online saying they found it in between those dates...which can be very true and they may have signed the logbook on a random page, not necessarily in order ...what is the verdict on that?

 

another example is a nano log...don't tell me that you can actually read anything on those logs lol

 

Heh. In my opinion nanos /should/ be lonely but that's a preference.

 

Yup, I've seen the jumbled logbooks .... didn't say that would be easy, going page to page. Real problem on those caches where the logbook should have been changed 6 months ago too. But, those are the chances you take. Same as any other challenge. Most 81 matrix cachers have had the issue where a cache gets re-rated after their find for example. Angst abounds in the forums but in the end, if we're enjoying the cache hunts, well, then it's all good.

 

I think I'm up to 0 points on the Lonely Cache challenge so far, even though that last cache I hit took 6 days for me to visit . Someone else could hit it as a smash-n-grab is the problem when the trail has two ends.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Actually I agree with t4e on this issue. Challenge caches are supposed to be geocaching (Waymarking / Wherigo too) achievements and not affected by the actions of others. When "Player A" logs a find on a cache then that cache is not longer eligible for "Player B" to use. That means the actions of one cacher can impact another. But since the "Lonely Cache Challenge" is a long standing accepted concept from before the death of ALRs that introduced this new push for challenge caches... I assume the idea is grandfathered.

 

I would expect that the CO of this challenge is able to use some latitude like the reviewers do, in that they will determine if the log is valid or not and why it isn't if they do decide it doesn't count.

 

BQ

Edited August 1, 2011 by The Blue Quasar

[+northernpenguin]

Actually I agree with t4e on this issue. Challenge caches are supposed to be geocaching (Waymarking / Wherigo too) achievements and not affected by the actions of others. When "Player A" logs a find on a cache then that cache is not longer eligible for "Player B" to use. That means the actions of one cacher can impact another. But since the "Lonely Cache Challenge" is a long standing accepted concept from before the death of ALRs that introduced this new push for challenge caches... I assume the idea is grandfathered.

 

I would expect that the CO of this challenge is able to use some latitude like the reviewers do, in that they will determine if the log is valid or not and why it isn't if they do decide it doesn't count.

 

BQ

 

Dunno about that. The CO can /try/ but given the types that lurk around here these days I fully expect that he'll have to maintain a rulebook the size of the Nynex Yellow Pages (whoops that's a commercial name) in order to keep things straight.

 

Knowing the CO as I do, I'm sure he'll be fairly easy going about the whole thing anyway. If it's obviously a bot log then yeah, who cares about it.

 

If people log late and that affects a challenge cacher I file that under "so what". Not everybody is tracking every challenge cache, and cache owners are free to edit their listings if things change like D/T (classic: someone builds a bridge to the island - is it a T5 or a T1 now?)

 

Take last week for example. Imagine GCG4RN Algonquin Western Uplands was a lonely cache and t4e decided to head on up on July 26, the day after I first found it. Should I accept their rage at not having logged the cache for a week if they had driven to Algonquin specifically to log a lonely cache while I was out hiking the loop for 6 days without my laptop?

[+t4e]

Should I accept their rage at not having logged the cache for a week if they had driven to Algonquin specifically to log a lonely cache while I was out hiking the loop for 6 days without my laptop?

 

excuse me?...where exactly did you get the idea that i would be in a rage because someone hasn't logged their finds in time?

 

my stand on that is only few posts above

 

 

if i target a cache that i think its lonely and find someone else's signature in the log book when i get there i have absolutely no problem with it, its a chance you take when you head out for it....that is not a bogus find

 

[+Keith Watson]

This concept is new to me and after reading this thread the concept seems a little unfair. I'll accept that yes it is a challenge and everyone is free to decide of they want to take on the challenge. The unfair part I see is that everyone should be given a fair shot to complete a challenge. Every time a lonely cache is found, the less there are for everyone else. That will lead to disappointment and possibly anger the further one has to go to get a qualifying cache and the greater the risk it is a waste of time. To add the aggravation of finding out missing a chance because of a bogus log would really suck.

 

I would suggest that taking a picture of the log book would help claiming a qualifying cache. Unfortunately that will not help with the bogus logs from blocking a cache from being visited for the challenge. Very sucky indeed.

[+northernpenguin]

Should I accept their rage at not having logged the cache for a week if they had driven to Algonquin specifically to log a lonely cache while I was out hiking the loop for 6 days without my laptop?

 

excuse me?...where exactly did you get the idea that i would be in a rage because someone hasn't logged their finds in time?

 

my stand on that is only few posts above

 

 

if i target a cache that i think its lonely and find someone else's signature in the log book when i get there i have absolutely no problem with it, its a chance you take when you head out for it....that is not a bogus find

 

 

Just a hypothetical example, that's all. No harm intended.

[+t4e]

 

I would suggest that taking a picture of the log book would help claiming a qualifying cache. Unfortunately that will not help with the bogus logs from blocking a cache from being visited for the challenge. Very sucky indeed.

 

this is what we've been doing, and posting them with our "found it" log

 

 

Just a hypothetical example, that's all. No harm intended.

 

taking it to a certain extent personally because as it happens, someone posted a "needs archive" log on a cache that hasn't been found since 2009, all while the CO has posted an "Owner Maintenance" just few weeks ago confirming the cache is at its location

 

so i sent a polite email to the NA logger, whom has 84 finds in all, with a link to the knowledge books that explain what a NA log is for....few minutes later i get a reply telling me to go check out a "anger management" site and stating that the email was unfriendly

 

but seriously that really made me LOL

 

i find it amazing how people misinterpret everything as "anger" or "rage", so hence my slight concern with your statement

[+Dr. House]

Firstly, a Preamble:

 

I’m glad that there’s interest in this challenge cache. I’m even happier that the folks who are choosing to take on the challenge are reporting back to me and advising that it is a positive experience. For me, it augments the way I choose to cache since I am more likely to visit one of these “lonely” caches or choose one of these as a target and cache in the same area. For others, it harkens back to the by-gone days when cache opportunities were mainly available in remote locations. Your experience and preference may vary, as it should. The beauty of our game is that for the many different styles and options available to millions of people around the world, all provided under one roof, enjoyment is possible if you look for it.

 

So enjoy the cache idea and the experience and effort that will go into qualifying, should you choose. I am.

 

Secondly, the Meat and Potatoes:

 

From the standpoint of the owner of a challenge cache on this website, I manage the verification component through the logs on individual caches. To that end, I, like every other challenge cache owner, rely on the validity of logs on other people’s caches to facilitate and manage the requirements of my challenge. As such, the basic premise that I operate on is that I will assume a "Found It" log is legitimate if it was allowed to stand by the owner of that qualifying cache.

 

Bogus Logs – My viewpoint on "Bogus" logs on any particular cache is quite simple: Unless the cache in question belongs to me, this isn’t my concern. My suggestion would be to take it up with the owner of the cache in question who, as I read it, may or may not be performing their Maintenance Duties as outlined in the KB article 6.7 found here. Understand, I am not suggesting that you inundate every potential "Lonely" cache owner with this concern, but rather, I’m shifting the focus to those who actually control their own listing content, including the logs therein. Should you not wish to pursue that avenue or don’t find the resolution you’d hoped for, strive to be the better cacher and choose another cache.

 

Backlogging – This really comes down to 2 different scenarios as I see it, both of which are managed by me through common sense and the pre-existing “Muggle” clause on my listing:

 

Scenario 1

– You find a cache that based on my listing guidelines appears “lonely” on geocaching.com. Once you open the logbook, you notice that it was last found by some people who signed as “northernpenguin”, “The Blue Quasar”, and “Dr. House”. Common sense should apply here, since most folks will recognize these folks as cachers. If the date that those folks signed the log would render that cache “Un-Lonely” or decrease the point total, I’d suggest that you move on to another cache because these folks are quite likely to log their find eventually, and thus, you’ll still have more work to do. You still have a find, and there are plenty others to find that do qualify.

 

Scenario 2

– You find a cache that based on my listing guidelines appears “lonely” on geocaching.com. Once you open the logbook, you notice that it was last found by some people who signed as “Mulva”, “Gipple”, and “Delores”. Common sense will also apply here too, since these folks are not likely cachers, but rather muggles that have stumbled onto that cache. I’d suggest that in this scenario, you’re probably reasonably safe to claim the points until such a time as those who’ve signed the logbook create an account with geocaching.com.

 

Depletion of Qualifying Caches – The KB article on Challenge caches is 4.14, found here and the specific point in question by a member of this thread is point #7 that states: "An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers". This, indeed, is a challenge cache that is affected by the actions of others. This fact is undeniable, so I won’t bother trying. The amount of caches that do qualify in Ontario alone is so large, however, that I hardly see how it matters. Add to that, the fact that caches anywhere in the world qualify, and hopefully you’ll see why it really isn’t an issue in the grand scheme of things.

 

I will also point out is that the verbiage of this point that may have allowed for some leeway during the review process is that it states "should" rather than "must", though I am merely speculating since, like all other cache owners, I was not privy to the decision making process.

 

I am going to add this to the listing: I will verify your qualifying caches once all required points have been attained and you’ve either logged a note or a find on the listing and attach a bookmark list to my challenge. My goal is to review that list within 72 hours. Keep any records you feel necessary to verify your qualifying find(s). Common sense says that a picture works best for verification purposes. Should you have a question on an individual, specific cache listing that you feel directly affects you, please email me and I’ll happily review your concern on a case-by-case basis as it pertains to qualifying for this challenge cache.

 

Lastly, a Few Words:

 

This will be the last time I address this forum thread. I did not create it, and thus believe I have no responsibility to address the content within. I had politely requested on my cache listing that all questions should be directed to me via email, and yet, I feel dragged into these forums once again to address something that is better self-governed with some individual caching ethic and common sense. Occasionally, on items that I feel strongly about, I will come to the forums to speak, but for the most part, it just ain’t my cup of tea. I’d rather go out and enjoy the game than debate the fluff any day.

 

I have addressed, and will continue to address, fairly and efficiently, any and all queries that have come or will come through to me. If I feel it warranted, I will modify the requirements on the cache page based on specific situations that arise and post a note for all to see.

 

As far as I’m concerned, the questions posed to me in this thread about my cache have been satisfactorily answered, and since any further queries will only be addressed via email, I’d be OK if a moderator chose to close this thread.

[+t4e]

 

This will be the last time I address this forum thread. I did not create it, and thus believe I have no responsibility to address the content within. I had politely requested on my cache listing that all questions should be directed to me via email, and yet, I feel dragged into these forums once again to address something that is better self-governed with some individual caching ethic and common sense. Occasionally, on items that I feel strongly about, I will come to the forums to speak, but for the most part, it just ain’t my cup of tea. I’d rather go out and enjoy the game than debate the fluff any day.

 

I have addressed, and will continue to address, fairly and efficiently, any and all queries that have come or will come through to me. If I feel it warranted, I will modify the requirements on the cache page based on specific situations that arise and post a note for all to see.

 

As far as I’m concerned, the questions posed to me in this thread about my cache have been satisfactorily answered, and since any further queries will only be addressed via email, I’d be OK if a moderator chose to close this thread.

 

thanks for the lengthy reply

 

forums are for people to discuss things, and since this was a point that could affect others this was best brought up here rather than personal exchange of emails

actually any points that could be of interest to others should be discussed in a medium where is easily accessible and available for future reference

 

but that is my opinion, i prefer things be done out in the open rather than behind closed doors, my apologies for causing such a burden

 

as for closing the thread, that is up to me to request its closure or not

[+Keith Watson]

Depletion of Qualifying Caches – The KB article on Challenge caches is 4.14, found here and the specific point in question by a member of this thread is point #7 that states: "An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers". This, indeed, is a challenge cache that is affected by the actions of others. This fact is undeniable, so I won’t bother trying. The amount of caches that do qualify in Ontario alone is so large, however, that I hardly see how it matters. Add to that, the fact that caches anywhere in the world qualify, and hopefully you’ll see why it really isn’t an issue in the grand scheme of things.

 

After thinking about this I am now under the opinion that this cache should have never been published. Please don't take this personal. By the owners own admission this cache violates the guidelines. Considering the recent publication date, it is not a grandfathered cache and the guidelines also state that pre-existing caches shall not be used to justify new ones. So I have to wonder how a cache that in my opinion is clearly not fair to all cachers was allowed to be published in the first place and then allowed to continue.

[+Tequila]

Depletion of Qualifying Caches – The KB article on Challenge caches is 4.14, found here and the specific point in question by a member of this thread is point #7 that states: "An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers". This, indeed, is a challenge cache that is affected by the actions of others. This fact is undeniable, so I won’t bother trying. The amount of caches that do qualify in Ontario alone is so large, however, that I hardly see how it matters. Add to that, the fact that caches anywhere in the world qualify, and hopefully you’ll see why it really isn’t an issue in the grand scheme of things.

 

After thinking about this I am now under the opinion that this cache should have never been published. Please don't take this personal. By the owners own admission this cache violates the guidelines. Considering the recent publication date, it is not a grandfathered cache and the guidelines also state that pre-existing caches shall not be used to justify new ones. So I have to wonder how a cache that in my opinion is clearly not fair to all cachers was allowed to be published in the first place and then allowed to continue.

 

If you feel that strongly about it, then you should log a Needs Archiving

[+northernpenguin]

Depletion of Qualifying Caches – The KB article on Challenge caches is 4.14, found here and the specific point in question by a member of this thread is point #7 that states: "An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers". This, indeed, is a challenge cache that is affected by the actions of others. This fact is undeniable, so I won’t bother trying. The amount of caches that do qualify in Ontario alone is so large, however, that I hardly see how it matters. Add to that, the fact that caches anywhere in the world qualify, and hopefully you’ll see why it really isn’t an issue in the grand scheme of things.

 

After thinking about this I am now under the opinion that this cache should have never been published. Please don't take this personal. By the owners own admission this cache violates the guidelines. Considering the recent publication date, it is not a grandfathered cache and the guidelines also state that pre-existing caches shall not be used to justify new ones. So I have to wonder how a cache that in my opinion is clearly not fair to all cachers was allowed to be published in the first place and then allowed to continue.

 

Should != Must

One word makes all the difference.

[+Keith Watson]

If you feel that strongly about it, then you should log a Needs Archiving

 

I am not the cache police. Only voicing my opinion. I try not to post negative things on other peoples caches. Been there, done that, didn't end well, learned my lesson.

 

Should != Must

One word makes all the difference.

 

Guidelines != Rules

 

Same difference.

 

Again, making observations and voicing my opinion.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Keith Watson

[+northernpenguin]

 

Should != Must

One word makes all the difference.

 

Guidelines != Rules

 

Same difference.

 

Again, making observations and voicing my opinion.

 

Exactly. The VRs have latitude to allow it or disallow it. In this case, it was allowed because a Guideline isn't a rule as you stated.

Besides, even if the entire lonely cache pool gets exhausted around here .... give it six months and the pool is refreshed again with new caches (or even perhaps the same ones). I really, really doubt that the number of cachers pursuing this challenge will ever get the available caches pool to zero.

 

This "lonely cache" challenge provides a net positive for the geocaching community. It refreshes activity on old caches - which can update area cachers about the status of the cache.

[+Keith Watson]

The VRs have latitude to allow it or disallow it.

 

Ah yes, have to remind myself that the reviewers can decide which guideline they wish to apply and which they don't.

[+northernpenguin]

The VRs have latitude to allow it or disallow it.

 

Ah yes, have to remind myself that the reviewers can decide which guideline they wish to apply and which they don't.

 

That's sort of their job.

 

If you feel they are doing things unfairly, you know you can always fire off an email to appeals.

Pretty sure you won't get their attention here in a forum thread, if that's what you'd like.

 

If the cache itself is bothering you, yet you don't want to go the appeals route, might I suggest tossing it on your ignore list?

[+t4e]

 

Should != Must

One word makes all the difference.

 

Guidelines != Rules

 

Same difference.

 

Again, making observations and voicing my opinion.

 

Exactly. The VRs have latitude to allow it or disallow it. In this case, it was allowed because a Guideline isn't a rule as you stated.

Besides, even if the entire lonely cache pool gets exhausted around here .... give it six months and the pool is refreshed again with new caches (or even perhaps the same ones). I really, really doubt that the number of cachers pursuing this challenge will ever get the available caches pool to zero.

 

This "lonely cache" challenge provides a net positive for the geocaching community. It refreshes activity on old caches - which can update area cachers about the status of the cache.

 

either we have guidelines or we have rules...a guideline can't be also a rule and vice-versa

 

Jeremey has stated that Groundspeak has opted for guidelines instead of rules because the latter will require extensive writing that would result in thousands of pages of documentation, plus there is no meaningful way of enforcing rules

 

so we're back to square one of the discussion in this thread...the guidelines are useless if we can't rely on them as they are currently written but are rather left at the interpretation of each individual reviewer and seems to me also dependent on whom submits the cache

 

who, how, based on what is the decision made whether or not to follow the guidelines to the letter or not?

 

 

disclaimer: to those that like to get their knickers in a knot, don't assume that this is inferring that this challenge cache shouldn't have been published, we are actually close to completing it

however there is one, although currently archived due to certain events, that should have never been published that broke the guidelines and had one of the requirements actually impossible to prove even as of this day

Edited August 3, 2011 by t4e

[+Keith Watson]

If you feel they are doing things unfairly, you know you can always fire off an email to appeals.

Pretty sure you won't get their attention here in a forum thread, if that's what you'd like.

 

If the cache itself is bothering you, yet you don't want to go the appeals route, might I suggest tossing it on your ignore list?

 

Once again my post was not personal. It is not my intention to get this or any other cache disabled or archived. Never said that. In fact I stated the quite opposite. Cache is not bothering me, never said that either. I am only making observations and offering my opinion which is that I believe this kind of cache is not fair to everyone which i think is the intent of the guideline.

 

I get it, you don't agree. So you don't agree with me. What is the point of suggesting that I complain to appeals or post a needs archived log as someone else suggested?

Edited August 3, 2011 by Keith Watson

[+northernpenguin]

If you feel they are doing things unfairly, you know you can always fire off an email to appeals.

Pretty sure you won't get their attention here in a forum thread, if that's what you'd like.

 

If the cache itself is bothering you, yet you don't want to go the appeals route, might I suggest tossing it on your ignore list?

 

Once again my post was not personal. It is not my intention to get this or any other cache disabled or archived. Never said that. In fact I stated the quite opposite. Cache is not bothering me, never said that either. I am only making observations and offering my opinion which is that I believe this kind of cache is not fair to everyone which i think is the intent of the guideline. Not sure what the point is being suggested that I complain to appeals or post a needs archived log.

 

Ok, I'll bite. How is this cache unfair to everyone?

 

Everyone has a chance to visit a lonely cache. Someone else might beat you to a specific lonely cache, but you both had equal opportunity to visit that cache. It's not like there is some secret group of caches being reserved for one group of cachers ....

 

Please demonstrate how one group of cachers is getting an upper hand here.

[+Keith Watson]

Ok, I'll bite. How is this cache unfair to everyone?

 

Everyone has a chance to visit a lonely cache. Someone else might beat you to a specific lonely cache, but you both had equal opportunity to visit that cache. It's not like there is some secret group of caches being reserved for one group of cachers ....

 

Please demonstrate how one group of cachers is getting an upper hand here.

 

Nothing to do with one group of cachers getting an upper hand at all.

 

Two cachers live side by side. 1 km away is a traditional cache. Both decide they want to find it on their own and they do. Each cacher only had to travel 1 km to get the cache. Now both cachers want to pursue a lonely cache challenge. 1 km away is a qualifying cache. The next qualifying cache is 20 km away. One cacher gets the cache 1 km away. This means the second cacher has to travel 20 km to get a qualifying cache. Now compound that with the 1 km cache being a lamp skirt micro and the 20 km cache is a three day canoe trip. Clearly there is a gap forming of the work involved for both cachers to qualify for the lonely cache challenge.

[+northernpenguin]

Ok, I'll bite. How is this cache unfair to everyone?

 

Everyone has a chance to visit a lonely cache. Someone else might beat you to a specific lonely cache, but you both had equal opportunity to visit that cache. It's not like there is some secret group of caches being reserved for one group of cachers ....

 

Please demonstrate how one group of cachers is getting an upper hand here.

 

Nothing to do with one group of cachers getting an upper hand at all.

 

Two cachers live side by side. 1 km away is a traditional cache. Both decide they want to find it on their own and they do. Each cacher only had to travel 1 km to get the cache. Now both cachers want to pursue a lonely cache challenge. 1 km away is a qualifying cache. The next qualifying cache is 20 km away. One cacher gets the cache 1 km away. This means the second cacher has to travel 20 km to get a qualifying cache. Now compound that with the 1 km cache being a lamp skirt micro and the 20 km cache is a three day canoe trip. Clearly there is a gap forming of the work involved for both cachers to qualify for the lonely cache challenge.

 

By that logic all geocaches are unfair because of the distance to them. You could argue that GCG4RN - Algonguin Western Uplands is not fair to cachers who do not own a car (except that there IS a shuttle bus service there in the summer).

 

There are lonely caches all over the Province of Ontario. Literally hundreds of them.

[+northernpenguin]

Ok, I'll bite. How is this cache unfair to everyone?

 

Everyone has a chance to visit a lonely cache. Someone else might beat you to a specific lonely cache, but you both had equal opportunity to visit that cache. It's not like there is some secret group of caches being reserved for one group of cachers ....

 

Please demonstrate how one group of cachers is getting an upper hand here.

 

Nothing to do with one group of cachers getting an upper hand at all.

 

Two cachers live side by side. 1 km away is a traditional cache. Both decide they want to find it on their own and they do. Each cacher only had to travel 1 km to get the cache. Now both cachers want to pursue a lonely cache challenge. 1 km away is a qualifying cache. The next qualifying cache is 20 km away. One cacher gets the cache 1 km away. This means the second cacher has to travel 20 km to get a qualifying cache. Now compound that with the 1 km cache being a lamp skirt micro and the 20 km cache is a three day canoe trip. Clearly there is a gap forming of the work involved for both cachers to qualify for the lonely cache challenge.

 

Also, both cachers who live side by side have equal opportunity to pursue that nearby cache. It's down to who goes first.

Same as the FTF game.

Miss the FTF, still get a smiley though.

Miss the Lonely cache qualifier, still get a geocache visit.

[+Keith Watson]

Ok, I'll bite. How is this cache unfair to everyone?

 

Everyone has a chance to visit a lonely cache. Someone else might beat you to a specific lonely cache, but you both had equal opportunity to visit that cache. It's not like there is some secret group of caches being reserved for one group of cachers ....

 

Please demonstrate how one group of cachers is getting an upper hand here.

 

Nothing to do with one group of cachers getting an upper hand at all.

 

Two cachers live side by side. 1 km away is a traditional cache. Both decide they want to find it on their own and they do. Each cacher only had to travel 1 km to get the cache. Now both cachers want to pursue a lonely cache challenge. 1 km away is a qualifying cache. The next qualifying cache is 20 km away. One cacher gets the cache 1 km away. This means the second cacher has to travel 20 km to get a qualifying cache. Now compound that with the 1 km cache being a lamp skirt micro and the 20 km cache is a three day canoe trip. Clearly there is a gap forming of the work involved for both cachers to qualify for the lonely cache challenge.

 

By that logic all geocaches are unfair because of the distance to them. You could argue that GCG4RN - Algonguin Western Uplands is not fair to cachers who do not own a car (except that there IS a shuttle bus service there in the summer).

 

There are lonely caches all over the Province of Ontario. Literally hundreds of them.

 

Not the same thing, not even close unless Algonguin Western Uplands is one of the lonely caches. At least in a fizzy type challenge, everyone can use the same cache provided they don't get archived or disqualified for some other reason. A lonely cache blocks a cache from being used again until the minimum time has passed. If I wanted to be a jerk, I could go out and visit everyone lonely cache I could with in a 200 km radius just to make everyone else go further to try and complete the challenge and not even visit the challenge cache itself. I have neither them time nor the inclination to do that, but the fact remains that one person can affect how other complete the challenge.

 

Also, both cachers who live side by side have equal opportunity to pursue that nearby cache. It's down to who goes first.

Same as the FTF game.

Miss the FTF, still get a smiley though.

Miss the Lonely cache qualifier, still get a geocache visit.

 

This is not about FTF being fair. This is about a lonely cache challenge being fair.

Edited August 3, 2011 by Keith Watson

[+dfx]

Same as the FTF game.

Miss the FTF, still get a smiley though.

 

Which is why it has been stated that FTF-based challenge caches usually don't get published.

[+northernpenguin]

Ok, I'll bite. How is this cache unfair to everyone?

 

Everyone has a chance to visit a lonely cache. Someone else might beat you to a specific lonely cache, but you both had equal opportunity to visit that cache. It's not like there is some secret group of caches being reserved for one group of cachers ....

 

Please demonstrate how one group of cachers is getting an upper hand here.

 

Nothing to do with one group of cachers getting an upper hand at all.

 

Two cachers live side by side. 1 km away is a traditional cache. Both decide they want to find it on their own and they do. Each cacher only had to travel 1 km to get the cache. Now both cachers want to pursue a lonely cache challenge. 1 km away is a qualifying cache. The next qualifying cache is 20 km away. One cacher gets the cache 1 km away. This means the second cacher has to travel 20 km to get a qualifying cache. Now compound that with the 1 km cache being a lamp skirt micro and the 20 km cache is a three day canoe trip. Clearly there is a gap forming of the work involved for both cachers to qualify for the lonely cache challenge.

 

By that logic all geocaches are unfair because of the distance to them. You could argue that GCG4RN - Algonguin Western Uplands is not fair to cachers who do not own a car (except that there IS a shuttle bus service there in the summer).

 

There are lonely caches all over the Province of Ontario. Literally hundreds of them.

 

Not the same thing, not even close unless Algonguin Western Uplands is one of the lonely caches. At least in a fizzy type challenge, everyone can use the same cache provided they don't get archived or disqualified for some other reason. A lonely cache blocks a cache from being used again until the minimum time has passed. If I wanted to be a jerk, I could go out and visit everyone lonely cache I could with in a 200 km radius just to make everyone else go further to try and complete the challenge and not even visit the challenge cache itself. I have neither them time nor the inclination to do that, but the fact remains that one person can affect how other complete the challenge.

 

A player sabotaging others is hardly new. Look at what happened at Mono Cliffs. You could spend all your time running around hitting Lonely Caches (which still gives the net positive I mentioned earlier, reactivating a dormant cache) or you could just spend all your time vandalizing the Challenge cache. There is no Guideline or Rule that can be written to prevent a player being a jerk about things.

 

So, I'm not going to buy your argument that the challenge itself is unfair. All lonely caches are still available to the first person willing to visit them. The challenge allows lonely caches from around the world. So if all the lonely caches in Ontario get visited, those that want to complete the challenge will go to New York, Quebec, or wait 6 months.

[+northernpenguin]

Same as the FTF game.

Miss the FTF, still get a smiley though.

 

Which is why it has been stated that FTF-based challenge caches usually don't get published.

 

One bit of difference between FTF and Lonely Cache.

The lonely cache can revert to lonely if it isn't visited again after 6 months. FTF occurs once.

 

My point was that the availability of a lonely cache is no more or no less fair than FTF is. The cache is there, it's available, it goes to the first person to get off the couch and visit it.

Showing up second and yelling "Not Fair! I was so going to get that one!" is not going to change how fair it was in the first place.

[+Tequila]

The ability to find most challenge caches can be affected by the actions of others.

 

Every time a cache owner archives a scarce icon (Wherigo, virtual, earthcache, etc.) it affects the ability to find a large number of different icons in a single day. It may mean someone has to travel an extra 200 meters but their ability has been affected.

 

Every time a cache owner archives a unique D/T combo, it affects the ability to complete a D/T grid challenge.

 

The oldest cache bingo challenge is affected every time one of the oldest caches is archived. The group of 25 caches changes but the newest addition may be considerably more difficult to reach/find thereby affecting the ability of others to complete the bingo challenge.

 

The Back to School challenge was affected when someone changed the name of a cache to start with the number "0" thereby making it easier for some cachers to complete the challenge.

 

etc. etc. etc.

[+dfx]

The ability to find most challenge caches can be affected by the actions of others.

The guideline reads "An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers". I'd say "other cachers" only means "other cache finders", not "cache owners". Otherwise, pretty much all challenge caches would be invalid, as they obviously depend on caches, which only exist by cache owners placing them.

[+northernpenguin]

The ability to find most challenge caches can be affected by the actions of others.

The guideline reads "An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers". I'd say "other cachers" only means "other cache finders", not "cache owners". Otherwise, pretty much all challenge caches would be invalid, as they obviously depend on caches, which only exist by cache owners placing them.

 

I've already pointed out that the guideline says SHOULD, not MUST. That means it's a recommendation, not a firm rule.

[+Tequila]

The ability to find most challenge caches can be affected by the actions of others.

The guideline reads "An individual's attempt to complete a challenge should be independent of the actions of other cachers". I'd say "other cachers" only means "other cache finders", not "cache owners". Otherwise, pretty much all challenge caches would be invalid, as they obviously depend on caches, which only exist by cache owners placing them.

 

I've already pointed out that the guideline says SHOULD, not MUST. That means it's a recommendation, not a firm rule.

 

My point exactly. Hence no need for the angst.

[+dfx]

I've already pointed out that the guideline says SHOULD, not MUST. That means it's a recommendation, not a firm rule.

 

(Not sure how that's relevant to my reply, but ok:)

 

Of course. Everything in the guidelines is vague. Everything is "should", "may", "generally", "usually" and "likely". Almost nothing reads "must" or "must not". It's quite convenient, really.

[+Keith Watson]

A player sabotaging others is hardly new. Look at what happened at Mono Cliffs. You could spend all your time running around hitting Lonely Caches (which still gives the net positive I mentioned earlier, reactivating a dormant cache) or you could just spend all your time vandalizing the Challenge cache. There is no Guideline or Rule that can be written to prevent a player being a jerk about things.

 

So, I'm not going to buy your argument that the challenge itself is unfair. All lonely caches are still available to the first person willing to visit them. The challenge allows lonely caches from around the world. So if all the lonely caches in Ontario get visited, those that want to complete the challenge will go to New York, Quebec, or wait 6 months.

 

Here is the beauty of it. You don't have to vandalize anything, just find caches. Every time you find a qualifying one, you take that away from others. Nothing anyone can do to punish you for that.

 

Back to the original post of this regarding bogus logs I believe it was. By the argument that there are plenty of caches around to use then bogus logs on qualifying caches should not present a problem at all. If I post bogus logs on every qualifying cache with in 200 km of my house I am not hurting anyone. Seekers will have to assume they are real and head somewhere else. Doesn't sound fair to me. But then again, as I sad, it is only my opinion.

[+northernpenguin]

 

Here is the beauty of it. You don't have to vandalize anything, just find caches. Every time you find a qualifying one, you take that away from others. Nothing anyone can do to punish you for that.

 

 

.... and that makes the challenge no more or no less fair than before you found the caches.

 

If you want to start writing bogus logs all over the place, that's your prerogative. Your credibility will be shot all to hell unless you use a sock puppet account.

We've seen bogus log bots before, and those accounts tend to get locked/logs deleted eventually. That is still being a jerk and if you have it in your head you are going to ruin other people's fun, there will be no stopping you. But you could be just as damaging on any other challenge cache.

 

If you wanted to hurt 81 proof there's about two or three caches you could harass into the CO's archiving them, thus making it required to drive much, much farther.

If you wanted to hurt a player doing the ironman challenge you could follow them around and rub their name out of the logbooks they sign.

 

Jerks exist. Bogus logs exist.

Cameras and logbook pages solve the second problem. Not sure how a civilized person deals with the former problem, other than to not give them the spotlight they crave.

[+Keith Watson]

 

Here is the beauty of it. You don't have to vandalize anything, just find caches. Every time you find a qualifying one, you take that away from others. Nothing anyone can do to punish you for that.

 

 

.... and that makes the challenge no more or no less fair than before you found the caches.

 

If you want to start writing bogus logs all over the place, that's your prerogative. Your credibility will be shot all to hell unless you use a sock puppet account.

We've seen bogus log bots before, and those accounts tend to get locked/logs deleted eventually. That is still being a jerk and if you have it in your head you are going to ruin other people's fun, there will be no stopping you. But you could be just as damaging on any other challenge cache.

 

If you wanted to hurt 81 proof there's about two or three caches you could harass into the CO's archiving them, thus making it required to drive much, much farther.

If you wanted to hurt a player doing the ironman challenge you could follow them around and rub their name out of the logbooks they sign.

 

Jerks exist. Bogus logs exist.

Cameras and logbook pages solve the second problem. Not sure how a civilized person deals with the former problem, other than to not give them the spotlight they crave.

 

I guess you just don;t get it. Oh well. I understand it and I am not the only one. I just pointed out a simple way how it is unfair and you point out what seems to me to be unrelated and a little extreme.

 

I'll just add that to my mental list of caches that I won't be finding for a while. I don't use ignore lists because nobody yet has come up with a valid reason why I would use an ignore list.

[+thebruce0]

I've already pointed out that the guideline says SHOULD, not MUST. That means it's a recommendation, not a firm rule.

 

(Not sure how that's relevant to my reply, but ok:)

 

Of course. Everything in the guidelines is vague. Everything is "should", "may", "generally", "usually" and "likely". Almost nothing reads "must" or "must not". It's quite convenient, really.

I wish that would apply to unarchiving a cache for the purpose adoption... *cough*