Challenges

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Just as long as we agree that your definition of a cache doesn't line up with reality. . .

Well, what's your definition of a cache then?

 

Like many words in the English language you can't provide a distinct definition of a word without knowing the context. For example, consider the word "bridge". Without a context many might thing of a bridge as "a structure spanning and providing passage over a gap or barrier, such as a river or roadway." However, bridge is also used when promoting reconciliation between two different groups of people. It's used to define a passage in music as well as the name of a card game. In this case, bridge can be used to define both a physical object or a virtual concept.

 

In the context of geocaching, "cache" is a shortened version of "geocache" and perhaps if everyone used geocache instead of the shortened version the context would be clear and there would be less confusion, because in the context of geocaching there can be physical and virtual geocaches.

[+Tequila]

No offense, but are you people ALL lawyers???

 

I suspect they might all be long lost relatives of Rod Serling.

[+Keith Watson]

I ran across an EarthCache where the CO was still deleting log for not posting photos. When taken to task for this violation, the CO added an alternative requiring a long essay. That did not go over well, I suspect. The EC has been archived by the CO.

 

I had an issue where the guidelines for Earth Caches had changed and an Earth Cache I had found had not been updated to the new guidelines when a group of us found it. The owner then changed the requirement for their Earth Cache after we had visited it and demanded I fulfill the new requirements. A few emails to a reviewer and Groundspeak go that sorted out.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

This may have been posted already, if so I missed it. A Groundspeak teaser about Challenges...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i2DOZo_67U

[+dfx]

In the context of geocaching, "cache" is a shortened version of "geocache" and perhaps if everyone used geocache instead of the shortened version the context would be clear and there would be less confusion, because in the context of geocaching there can be physical and virtual geocaches.

 

Whether you say "cache" or "geocache" doesn't make a difference. As you may know, "cache" can indeed refer to non-physical things. Your PC has a cache, your browser has a cache, your OS has a cache. They all refer to non-physical objects.

 

But let's take a look at the context of geocaching. I'm sure you know how it all started, right? Some guy named Dave had the idea to take a container, put some stuff in it and a logbook, hide it somewhere, take the coordinates of it and publish those coordinates. Others then could use those coordinates to find the container. Quite simple, yes? So there's two core components here: the container and the coordinates (and maybe the fact that the coordinates are published).

 

People liked that idea and wanted to do the same thing, so they had to come up with a name for it. Originally the name "GPS Stash Hunt" was suggested and used for a while, or "gpsstashing" because activities commonly end in -ing, but eventually, some people felt that "stash" had a negative ring to it and suggested to use "cache" instead (if you look at the window title of http://www.geocaching.com/ it still says "GPS Cache Hunt"). The "GPS" part was then replaced with "geo" (for GEOgraphical location) and the term geocaching was born.

 

So geocaching = container + coordinates (and maybe publication). It's a made-up term that refers to exactly this, because that's how it was created. Now remove either one of those components. How can that still be geocaching? If you have a container but no coordinates, it's not geocaching right? The guidelines even say so, and correctly so. But why is the opposite not true? How is that possible?

 

Sure, you can make a listing for an "imaginary" geocache. Virtual, you may say. But that means exactly that: it's not really there. So there's no geocache there, just a listing.

Edited August 12, 2011 by dfx

[cezanne]

Some guy named Dave had the idea to take a container, put some stuff in it and a logbook, hide it somewhere, take the coordinates of it and publish those coordinates.

...................

 

So geocaching = container + coordinates (and maybe publication). It's a made-up term that refers to exactly this, because that's how it was created. Now remove either one of those components. How can that still be geocaching? If you have a container but no coordinates, it's not geocaching right? The guidelines even say so, and correctly so. But why is the opposite not true? How is that possible?

 

What Dave Ulmer has hidden is what is now known as traditional (geo)cache. In the same way you could argue that nanos are no caches because Ulmer used a bucket with swag. There are different cache types and virtual caches have been introduced quite early, even before cache types like multi caches and mystery caches.

 

Sure, you can make a listing for an "imaginary" geocache. Virtual, you may say. But that means exactly that: it's not really there. So there's no geocache there, just a listing.

 

I do not agree. The difference between (1) a multi cache with 24 virtual intermediary stages that lead through a city and a final with a film canister at the end to and (2) a virtual cache with the same 24 virtual stages and a final procedure to verify the visit is smaller than between Ulmer's cache and the multi cache with the 25 stages just mentioned.

 

A listing is just some text - it does not correspond to an activity. Going out and visit the 24 stages is a real activity and not something imaginary or virtual in your interpretation of the word (personally, I prefer the term containerless cache to virtual cache anyway). It is the activity that plays the essential role and not the listing.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 12, 2011 by cezanne

[knowschad]

Some guy named Dave had the idea to take a container, put some stuff in it and a logbook, hide it somewhere, take the coordinates of it and publish those coordinates.

...................

 

So geocaching = container + coordinates (and maybe publication). It's a made-up term that refers to exactly this, because that's how it was created. Now remove either one of those components. How can that still be geocaching? If you have a container but no coordinates, it's not geocaching right? The guidelines even say so, and correctly so. But why is the opposite not true? How is that possible?

 

What Dave Ulmer has hidden is what is now known as traditional (geo)cache. In the same way you could argue that nanos are no caches because Ulmer used a bucket with swag. There are different cache types and virtual caches have been introduced quite early, even before cache types like multi caches and mystery caches.

 

Cezanne

+1

 

What is the point of this discussion?

[+dfx]

What Dave Ulmer has hidden is what is now known as traditional (geo)cache. In the same way you could argue that nanos are no caches because Ulmer used a bucket with swag. There are different cache types and virtual caches have been introduced quite early, even before cache types like multi caches and mystery caches.

Actually I'm quite aware of the argument that nanos and micros are not caches, and I partly agree with it. I'm not saying that they're not caches, but I can fully see their point.

Multis and mysteries are still the same concept: container + coordinates. They just add a few other elements to the whole thing, but the core concept stays the same, container and coordinates. A virtual on the other hand doesn't add anything, it removes one of the core elements.

 

What is the point of this discussion?

Well, the consensus here seems to be "they call it cache, so it's a cache". Me personally, I like to think for myself, and I think everyone else should also. Why is a virtual listing on gc.com a cache, but the identical listing on Waymarking isn't? It makes no sense, and so far the only argument brought up was "because they say so". But if that's good enough for you, fine, for me it sure as heck isn't.

[knowschad]

What is the point of this discussion?

Well, the consensus here seems to be "they call it cache, so it's a cache". Me personally, I like to think for myself, and I think everyone else should also. Why is a virtual listing on gc.com a cache, but the identical listing on Waymarking isn't? It makes no sense, and so far the only argument brought up was "because they say so". But if that's good enough for you, fine, for me it sure as heck isn't.

Well, until, for the purposes of this thread (discussing the "new virtuals" or "challenges"), we can agree on semantics, this thread is going to continue to be very confusing. Just for this discussion, can you all get on the same page, even if you chose to use the terms differently elsewhere in your lives?

[cezanne]

Well, the consensus here seems to be "they call it cache, so it's a cache". Me personally, I like to think for myself, and I think everyone else should also.

 

This somehow gets more and more off-topic, but let me reply nevertheless. I do not think that virtual caches are caches because anyone else is saying so and I prefer to think for myself like you do.

 

Why is a virtual listing on gc.com a cache, but the identical listing on Waymarking isn't? It makes no sense, and so far the only argument brought up was "because they say so".

 

Actually, my virtual cache would have no chance at all on Waymarking. My last cache could also make up a decent virtual cache by dropping the container. Both caches (or whatever term you might prefer) are certainly not waymarks. The term geocache comes much, much closer than the term waymark.

 

You should have learnt from many discussions that many geocachers think that Waymarking is very different from their idea about virtual caches. I feel that Waymarking is more about classifying objects and locations and does not involve the activity aspect that I enjoy the most in geocaching.

 

Cezanne

[+dfx]

Well, until, for the purposes of this thread (discussing the "new virtuals" or "challenges"), we can agree on semantics, this thread is going to continue to be very confusing. Just for this discussion, can you all get on the same page, even if you chose to use the terms differently elsewhere in your lives?

 

Well, since people seem to think that "cache" can be made to mean pretty much anything, I'd say the only way to avoid ambiguity is to not use that word at all any more. So on one hand you'd have containers (maybe we should call them stashes again?), and on the other hand you'd have just locations, or maybe other objects at those locations. And the listings for them would be listings. Would that work for you?

Edited August 12, 2011 by dfx

[knowschad]

Well, until, for the purposes of this thread (discussing the "new virtuals" or "challenges"), we can agree on semantics, this thread is going to continue to be very confusing. Just for this discussion, can you all get on the same page, even if you chose to use the terms differently elsewhere in your lives?

 

Well, since people seem to think that "cache" can be made to mean pretty much anything, I'd say the only way to avoid ambiguity is to not use that word at all any more. So on one hand you'd have containers (maybe we should call them stashes again?), and on the other hand you'd have just locations, or maybe other objects at those locations. And the listings for them would be listings. Would that work for you?

 

That is pretty much what I have been saying since page 5.

 

A traditional is a cache (or geocache... same thing, for our purposes) with a container. A virtual is a cache without a container. What is so confusing about that?

[+dfx]

A traditional is a cache (or geocache... same thing, for our purposes) with a container. A virtual is a cache without a container. What is so confusing about that?

Because the cache is the container, so when you have no container, you have no cache. Is also what I said before.

[cezanne]

Well, until, for the purposes of this thread (discussing the "new virtuals" or "challenges"), we can agree on semantics, this thread is going to continue to be very confusing. Just for this discussion, can you all get on the same page, even if you chose to use the terms differently elsewhere in your lives?

 

Well, since people seem to think that "cache" can be made to mean pretty much anything, I'd say the only way to avoid ambiguity is to not use that word at all any more. So on one hand you'd have containers (maybe we should call them stashes again?), and on the other hand you'd have just locations, or maybe other objects at those locations. And the listings for them would be listings. Would that work for you?

 

Not for me, not even when putting aside caches without containers.

 

Have a look at this cache (I know you can read the German text)

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=dc8e2869-d48d-4aa9-b608-b1794c9e405c

It would be absurd, unfair and ridiculous to identify this cache with the container at the end. All what is important and makes up the unique experience of this cache happens before finding and logging the container. Removing the container would still leave the unique experience that people enjoy while removing the part before finding the container would turn the cache into a boring urban micro of which already too many exist. It seems that for you only the components listing and cache container exist. For this cache it is neither the listing nor the container what really makes the cache special. You miss the activity part inbetween. So which notion would you use to refer to that activity part? It's not about locations and waypoints - it's about a nice way of learning (in this case).

 

BTW to return to the topic of this thread: I'd really welcome if the new challenge caches would allow to build experiences of the above type without a container. From all what has been said in this thread, I conclude that my hope will not be fulfilled. The new challenge most probably will be something that appeals to people with a very different idea of geocaching than my own.

What has been mentioned up to now very much sounds like a kind of game - likely with some time factor involved.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 12, 2011 by cezanne

[knowschad]

A traditional is a cache (or geocache... same thing, for our purposes) with a container. A virtual is a cache without a container. What is so confusing about that?

Because the cache is the container, so when you have no container, you have no cache. Is also what I said before.

 

You are being impossible!

 

For the sake of this argument, a container is the physical device that holds the paper log. The geocache is a listing that may, or may not have a physical container and paper log to sign. Forget about any tradtional use of the word cache... that only confuses the issue. "Cache" as we use it today is just a shortened form of the word, "geocache".

[+Too Tall John]

So, from the posted video, I'm gathering that there will be at least two different kinds of Challenges: Photo Challenges and Action Challenges. There's little patches & everything! I'm wondering if the third patch in the video (the guy in the cape) is a patch that covers challenges in general, or if there's at least a third type of challenge...

[+dfx]

For the sake of this argument, a container is the physical device that holds the paper log. The geocache is a listing that may, or may not have a physical container and paper log to sign. Forget about any tradtional use of the word cache... that only confuses the issue. "Cache" as we use it today is just a shortened form of the word, "geocache".

 

That's exactly where I disagree. Geocache is just the geocache, the cache, the stash, the container. You're talking about the writeup, the setup, the listing. When you have one container hidden away somewhere, and a listing on gc.com that has this container's coordinates and no other steps (a traditional cache), while on another listing site you have a 20-stage multi that eventually leads to the same container in the end, is that two different geocaches? No, it's the same geocache, but two different setups, two different listings. If you go through one listing site and find that container, you can also go to the other listing site and say "found it" (assuming you know that it's actually the same container). At least that's how I see it. This is also what Jeremy meant when he said that any challenge requirements on a cache are not relevant to finding the cache: they're not part of the geocache, they're part of the setup, the listing. The difference to a multi or mystery is that in those cases, you have to go through the whole setup as created by the CO to find the cache in the end, while on an ALR cache you don't. That's why ALRs don't make sense: they're just an arbitrary part of the listing and not relevant to actually finding the cache.

 

And since we can't agree on what a cache is and your issue is confusion within the discussion, my proposal was to not say "cache" any more. Say container, listing, location, setup, logging tasks, whatever. All those are pretty unambiguous.

[+Keith Watson]

Geocaching Dotmcom twitter posted something about a sneak peek but the link doesn't work. Anyone one what the correct link is?

[+Manville Possum]

For the sake of this argument, a container is the physical device that holds the paper log. The geocache is a listing that may, or may not have a physical container and paper log to sign. Forget about any tradtional use of the word cache... that only confuses the issue. "Cache" as we use it today is just a shortened form of the word, "geocache".

 

That's exactly where I disagree. Geocache is just the geocache, the cache, the stash, the container. You're talking about the writeup, the setup, the listing. When you have one container hidden away somewhere, and a listing on gc.com that has this container's coordinates and no other steps (a traditional cache), while on another listing site you have a 20-stage multi that eventually leads to the same container in the end, is that two different geocaches? No, it's the same geocache, but two different setups, two different listings. If you go through one listing site and find that container, you can also go to the other listing site and say "found it" (assuming you know that it's actually the same container). At least that's how I see it. This is also what Jeremy meant when he said that any challenge requirements on a cache are not relevant to finding the cache: they're not part of the geocache, they're part of the setup, the listing. The difference to a multi or mystery is that in those cases, you have to go through the whole setup as created by the CO to find the cache in the end, while on an ALR cache you don't. That's why ALRs don't make sense: they're just an arbitrary part of the listing and not relevant to actually finding the cache.

 

And since we can't agree on what a cache is and your issue is confusion within the discussion, my proposal was to not say "cache" any more. Say container, listing, location, setup, logging tasks, whatever. All those are pretty unambiguous.

If it will help you feel better, I call all of my virtuals listings. They are not caches, but places to visit. Now get GSA to call their registered trademark EarthCaches something else because they are not caches. They are not a container that has a log to sign. However a port-o-let IS a container that has paper in it, and most I see people have signed inside. These MUST be really BIG geocaches then. The discription fits.

[+dfx]

If it will help you feel better, I call all of my virtuals listings. They are not caches, but places to visit. Now get GSA to call their registered trademark EarthCaches something else because they are not caches. They are not a container that has a log to sign. However a port-o-let IS a container that has paper in it, and most I see people have signed inside. These MUST be really BIG geocaches then. The discription fits.

 

Personally I have no problem with EarthCaches being called EarthCaches. I see it as a name, a proper noun. EarthCaches are EarthCaches - they're not caches, but EarthCaches. Just like a Ford Mustang is not a wild horse, but a car. It's a confusing choice of name and I can't say that I like it for that reason, but it is just a name.

 

Now about your idea, take coordinates and list it, voila, geocache

[cb82]

Geocaching Dotmcom twitter posted something about a sneak peek but the link doesn't work. Anyone one what the correct link is?

 

This - Link

[Pup Patrol]

Geocaching Dotmcom twitter posted something about a sneak peek but the link doesn't work. Anyone one what the correct link is?

 

Post #254:

 

This may have been posted already, if so I missed it. A Groundspeak teaser about Challenges...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i2DOZo_67U

 

uh-oh, this thread is getting dangerously close to being on-topic!

Edited August 12, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+Manville Possum]

If it will help you feel better, I call all of my virtuals listings. They are not caches, but places to visit. Now get GSA to call their registered trademark EarthCaches something else because they are not caches. They are not a container that has a log to sign. However a port-o-let IS a container that has paper in it, and most I see people have signed inside. These MUST be really BIG geocaches then. The discription fits.

 

Personally I have no problem with EarthCaches being called EarthCaches. I see it as a name, a proper noun. EarthCaches are EarthCaches - they're not caches, but EarthCaches. Just like a Ford Mustang is not a wild horse, but a car. It's a confusing choice of name and I can't say that I like it for that reason, but it is just a name.

 

Now about your idea, take coordinates and list it, voila, geocache

Well Port-O-Lets normally are signed and dated by someone, even if it is just the maintiance log sheet. Sometimes it has been a challange for me to reach one to "log" it, and FTF is really something to be excited about. Kinda like new cache with new log vs old cache with wet log that can not be used. I always carry extra log sheets in my pack just in case. I'm gonna check Waymarking first, quite sure there is already a category for Port-O-Lets or at least there should be with all the other stuff listed there. I may not like the new challange listings as well as I do my waymarks and virtuals that I have listed, but I'm holding off until I know more. I have a EC that we are working on which can also be waymarked or maybe used as a challange because it is a heck of a hike to reach.

[cezanne]

 

Personally I have no problem with EarthCaches being called EarthCaches. I see it as a name, a proper noun. EarthCaches are EarthCaches - they're not caches, but EarthCaches. Just like a Ford Mustang is not a wild horse, but a car. It's a confusing choice of name and I can't say that I like it for that reason, but it is just a name.

 

 

Still offtopic, but I'd like to know which name you would propose. For me Earthcaches are in any case closer to geocaches than to waymarks. BTW: I wonder why you could not regard virtual caches similar to Earthcaches - just as a separate category.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

 

uh-oh, this thread is getting dangerously close to being on-topic!

 

Not really as the video contains zero information.

 

Cezanne

[+lookout.]

Bickering over the rules of a cache "find" was never the intent of Geocaching.com. There's no prize, no leaderboard, and no trophy, so there's no reason to get your knickers in a twist about anyone else's definition of a find.

 

what if i got a trophy as swag....

 

if what i imagine in my head what the new "virtuals" are going to be, it sounds like a lot of fun... and most likely there will be geocaches nearby to find anyways -> take a picture next to the eiffel tower, im sure there is already a geocache right there too.

 

but as some have already said, it won't really take off until they "count" somehow, maybe a third rating on our profiles [finds/hides/"new virtuals"]!

[+dfx]

but as some have already said, it won't really take off until they "count" somehow, maybe a third rating on our profiles [finds/hides/"new virtuals"]!

 

(Unfortunately) is has been said that they will count towards your find count (does that make them geocaches? ). With no review process in place, people can (and probably will) create hundreds or thousands of them. From the information available so far, I'd estimate that the number and density of those "challenges" will quickly surpass the number and density of caches. The find count will become even more meaningless than it already is.

[+lookout.]

but as some have already said, it won't really take off until they "count" somehow, maybe a third rating on our profiles [finds/hides/"new virtuals"]!

 

(Unfortunately) is has been said that they will count towards your find count (does that make them geocaches? ). With no review process in place, people can (and probably will) create hundreds or thousands of them. From the information available so far, I'd estimate that the number and density of those "challenges" will quickly surpass the number and density of caches. The find count will become even more meaningless than it already is.

 

i read in the other topic that only premium members will submit at first... maxing out at 1 per day, and once they are happy with the system to then open the flood gates.... so at first it won't be too bad

[Jeremy]

but as some have already said, it won't really take off until they "count" somehow, maybe a third rating on our profiles [finds/hides/"new virtuals"]!

 

(Unfortunately) is has been said that they will count towards your find count (does that make them geocaches? ). With no review process in place, people can (and probably will) create hundreds or thousands of them. From the information available so far, I'd estimate that the number and density of those "challenges" will quickly surpass the number and density of caches. The find count will become even more meaningless than it already is.

 

i read in the other topic that only premium members will submit at first... maxing out at 1 per day, and once they are happy with the system to then open the flood gates.... so at first it won't be too bad

 

We're not opening the flood gates unless it makes sense to do so.

[+lookout.]

but as some have already said, it won't really take off until they "count" somehow, maybe a third rating on our profiles [finds/hides/"new virtuals"]!

 

(Unfortunately) is has been said that they will count towards your find count (does that make them geocaches? ). With no review process in place, people can (and probably will) create hundreds or thousands of them. From the information available so far, I'd estimate that the number and density of those "challenges" will quickly surpass the number and density of caches. The find count will become even more meaningless than it already is.

 

i read in the other topic that only premium members will submit at first... maxing out at 1 per day, and once they are happy with the system to then open the flood gates.... so at first it won't be too bad

 

We're not opening the flood gates unless it makes sense to do so.

 

i am very positive of that. i can just imagine everyone just submitting garbage, with a few gems, if thats the case, i would suppose that it will be a while, with the max submission being increased, before it "really" comes out, but who knows, maybe it will work perfectly *crosses fingers, but knows it won't happen*

[+lookout.]

i like the new logs in the staging server with the pictures and everything... can't wait until they roll out some of the new features...!

[Pup Patrol]

 

uh-oh, this thread is getting dangerously close to being on-topic!

 

Not really as the video contains zero information.

 

Cezanne

 

 

Since when did "on topic" mean "informative"?

 

On topic, as in the original topic of this thread:

 

Looks like they are making progress on the new challenge concept -

 

[+Manville Possum]

 

Personally I have no problem with EarthCaches being called EarthCaches. I see it as a name, a proper noun. EarthCaches are EarthCaches - they're not caches, but EarthCaches. Just like a Ford Mustang is not a wild horse, but a car. It's a confusing choice of name and I can't say that I like it for that reason, but it is just a name.

 

 

Still offtopic, but I'd like to know which name you would propose. For me Earthcaches are in any case closer to geocaches than to waymarks. BTW: I wonder why you could not regard virtual caches similar to Earthcaches - just as a separate category.

 

Cezanne

And I have EarthCaches that are also my listed Waymarks, and one of my EC's is listed as a Virtual on another geocaching site. I just use the term listings, because they are not geocaches.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Well, until, for the purposes of this thread (discussing the "new virtuals" or "challenges"), we can agree on semantics, this thread is going to continue to be very confusing. Just for this discussion, can you all get on the same page, even if you chose to use the terms differently elsewhere in your lives?

 

Well, since people seem to think that "cache" can be made to mean pretty much anything, I'd say the only way to avoid ambiguity is to not use that word at all any more. So on one hand you'd have containers (maybe we should call them stashes again?), and on the other hand you'd have just locations, or maybe other objects at those locations. And the listings for them would be listings. Would that work for you?

 

That is pretty much what I have been saying since page 5.

 

A traditional is a cache (or geocache... same thing, for our purposes) with a container. A virtual is a cache without a container. What is so confusing about that?

 

Aw, KC. They're having so much fun splitting hairs to the infinitesimal with meaningless blather that is so far off topic that OT would reject it. Rather like having the Greeks from the north end of town chatting with the hispanics downtown, with neither understanding the other's language. With the Italians from the east of town translating. Why are you trying to spoil their fun?

The topic is 'Challenge caches - the new version'. Will I have to ride a paper airplane? Will any corn maze qualify? If I don't have SCUBA gear, can I just hold my breath?

More importantly, just what is it that Ground Speak is attempting to do here?!? Inquiring dolphins want to know!

[+Dr. House]

From what I graft from the video and some of the discussion going on in this thread, I have a few questions in my head that will likely be answered over the coming weeks:

 

1. It seems as though a photo challenge requires you to go to a specific location and take a picture of yourself standing at that location. If so, is Waymarking finished? Could a person translate their WMs to photo challenges on GC.com or is this something already in the works, since they seem particularly similar at first glance?

 

2. Along the same vein, if a person is required to take a photo of themself at GZ to get credit for a photo challenge, why remove the photo requirement from EarthCaches?

 

3. Is an "Action" challenge similar to the current "Challenge" Caches, minus the container? Does a Reviewer manage the verbiage contained in the "Action" text using the current guidelines?

 

4. Some folks have mentioned that these count for smileys. If this is true, would that mean that WMs will also generate smileys? That would seem to be quite the boost for that game if this were true.

Edited August 13, 2011 by Dr. House

[cezanne]

 

And I have EarthCaches that are also my listed Waymarks, and one of my EC's is listed as a Virtual on another geocaching site. I just use the term listings, because they are not geocaches.

 

I do not think that listing is a term fitting what I have in mind. Take a description of a hiking tour in a guide book. That's comparable to a listing. The cache-like activity is to walk along the trail, prove it and report about your experiences. Another cache-related activity would be to solve some tasks along the way (like in a scavenger hunt). In this manner one can also implement hiking tours where the followed route is not known in advance and allow for a surprise factor.

 

The term listing is not fitting for this setting. Along the same line, I regard an EC as the learning activity. I do know that there exists a category for EC on Waymarking, but that does not mean that they really fit there.

 

If people use the term geocache just meaning the container, then in any case one needs a term for the activity I talked about above. I have always thought of the activity being the cache and that's why in my concept, both caches with a container at the end and without one fit. I would not mind to use another term, but this other term cannot be listing.

 

As the new challenges are regarded,

I fear that they will not allow for what I regard as cache-like activity. Taking photos in any case is more Waymarking like (or locationsless like) and the fact that there will be no listings for the new challenges seems to indicate that they will not offer a possibility to implement the type of virtual cache I would have liked. (For example, caches on history, botany, ecology or art topics).

 

Cezanne

Edited August 13, 2011 by cezanne

[+Manville Possum]

In this manner one can also implement hiking tours where the followed route is not known in advance and allow for a surprise factor

 

I would likely pass up some good whatever you want to call them. Anytime that we hike I like to know what to be prepared for. We hike some back country and what may take some a few hours may take us longer with kids in tow. The unknown just don't interest me if I have to study the area with a map to even have some idea of what I'm seeking.

[cezanne]

In this manner one can also implement hiking tours where the followed route is not known in advance and allow for a surprise factor

 

I would likely pass up some good whatever you want to call them. Anytime that we hike I like to know what to be prepared for. We hike some back country and what may take some a few hours may take us longer with kids in tow. The unknown just don't interest me if I have to study the area with a map to even have some idea of what I'm seeking.

 

Offtopic:

I am aware of the advantages and disadvantages. There exist many multi caches around here where the destination/route is not known in advance (the length of the trail or some estimate for the required time might be given however). So this surprise factor is available in caches which end with containers. There are areas where one does not want to hide a container and there a virtual implementation might be preferable. I did not say that the surprise factor is a required element - I just mentioned it as an option.

 

I used the hiking examples to try to explain what I mean with the activity part and that a listing is not an activity. That was the key part of my post.

 

Cezanne

[+frogcooke]

Speaking of challenges, newbie question here:

Where would one look to find challenges in their area?

 

Was out yesterday caching and saw a premium challenge cache pop up on the map, and was wondering where i might check out some challenge type ones(non prem) to see what they involve.

[+dfx]

Speaking of challenges, newbie question here:

Where would one look to find challenges in their area?

 

Was out yesterday caching and saw a premium challenge cache pop up on the map, and was wondering where i might check out some challenge type ones(non prem) to see what they involve.

 

Assuming you're talking about challenge caches (as opposed to the new "challenges", which are unrelated): All challenge caches are listed as mystery caches and should have "challenge" in their name, so look for that. I've looked in your area, and the only non-PM challenge cache I could find is this: http://coord.info/GC2KAF5

[+frogcooke]

Speaking of challenges, newbie question here:

Where would one look to find challenges in their area?

 

Was out yesterday caching and saw a premium challenge cache pop up on the map, and was wondering where i might check out some challenge type ones(non prem) to see what they involve.

 

Assuming you're talking about challenge caches (as opposed to the new "challenges", which are unrelated): All challenge caches are listed as mystery caches and should have "challenge" in their name, so look for that. I've looked in your area, and the only non-PM challenge cache I could find is this: http://coord.info/GC2KAF5

Yeah thats what i was referring to. Thanks

[+Too Tall John]

Speaking of challenges, newbie question here:

Where would one look to find challenges in their area?

 

Was out yesterday caching and saw a premium challenge cache pop up on the map, and was wondering where i might check out some challenge type ones(non prem) to see what they involve.

Assuming you're talking about challenge caches (as opposed to the new "challenges", which are unrelated): All challenge caches are listed as mystery caches and should have "challenge" in their name, so look for that. I've looked in your area, and the only non-PM challenge cache I could find is this: http://coord.info/GC2KAF5

Limiting your search to caches with "challenge" in the name will skip over quite a few challenge caches. Frogcooke, you might check out this bookmark.

[+t4e]

Limiting your search to caches with "challenge" in the name will skip over quite a few challenge caches. Frogcooke, you might check out this bookmark.

 

how is that when all "challenges" must have the word "challenge" in the title?...unless is misspelled

[+Flintstone5611]

how is that when all "challenges" must have the word "challenge" in the title?...unless is misspelled

 

I never knew that. Is that in the guidelines? I haven't placed a challenge cache so it just never occurred to me.

[+dfx]

how is that when all "challenges" must have the word "challenge" in the title?...unless is misspelled

 

I never knew that. Is that in the guidelines? I haven't placed a challenge cache so it just never occurred to me.

 

Yup: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

[+Flintstone5611]

how is that when all "challenges" must have the word "challenge" in the title?...unless is misspelled

 

I never knew that. Is that in the guidelines? I haven't placed a challenge cache so it just never occurred to me.

 

Yup: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=206

 

I never realized the mandatory placement of the term, that is interesting.

 

I have been laughing myself silly with all this garbage rhetoric about the definition of a "geocache" and never thought I would learn a single new thing from it all. Besides the fact that people love to argue about decisions out of there control.

[+tozainamboku]

Getting back on topic. It's fun to speculate what sort of challenges there will be. It appears that the plan is for two types of challenges: photos and actions. But there is no further detail about what will be allowed.

 

Are photos going to be limited to a simple photo of the location like some Waymarking categories prefer. Or will they be more along the lines of many virtual caches and require the cacher or GPSr or both to be in the picture (as proof you were there). Or will they be more like the photos in some ALRs where you need to post a picture of yourself at the site wearing a funny hat or planking?

 

What are the actions? Must they be related to site? Do you answer a question like the old virtuals or demonstrate you've learned something like an EarthCache? Or can they be like an ALR? You have to write your log in haiku or use only acronyms? Perhaps they can be a geocaching related task, like finding all 81 combinations of difficulty and terrain, or finding a cache whose name is evocative of the location of the challenge (e.g. find a cache with tower in the name in order to log your visit to the Eiffel Tower challenge). And if these are are allowed, could you have a challenge to hide cache in order to log the challenge? Hiding caches is specifically not permitted as part of challenge for a challenge cache.

 

Groundspeak may have though of all this already and have guidelines in place and a way to enforce them. The say that challenges won't be reviewed like caches but they certainly have considered that some may be inappropriate and they have thought of a way to deal with these. Or we may just be waiting for a disaster.

[+Chokecherry]

Either way I cannot wait for the angst that will certainly follow on the forums about logging requirements. And the subsequent angst with earth cachers if you can make someone take a picture of themselves or unit as a logging requirement for these but not earth caches.

[I!]

... if you can make someone take a picture of themselves ...

I'm fairly confident GS wouldn't allow Challenge owners to demand that invasion of privacy.

 

My bugbear: Challenges not being presented as listings. Really? Really?

[+Manville Possum]

Getting back on topic. It's fun to speculate what sort of challenges there will be. It appears that the plan is for two types of challenges: photos and actions. But there is no further detail about what will be allowed.

 

Are photos going to be limited to a simple photo of the location like some Waymarking categories prefer. Or will they be more along the lines of many virtual caches and require the cacher or GPSr or both to be in the picture (as proof you were there). Or will they be more like the photos in some ALRs where you need to post a picture of yourself at the site wearing a funny hat or planking?

 

What are the actions? Must they be related to site? Do you answer a question like the old virtuals or demonstrate you've learned something like an EarthCache? Or can they be like an ALR? You have to write your log in haiku or use only acronyms? Perhaps they can be a geocaching related task, like finding all 81 combinations of difficulty and terrain, or finding a cache whose name is evocative of the location of the challenge (e.g. find a cache with tower in the name in order to log your visit to the Eiffel Tower challenge). And if these are are allowed, could you have a challenge to hide cache in order to log the challenge? Hiding caches is specifically not permitted as part of challenge for a challenge cache.

 

Groundspeak may have though of all this already and have guidelines in place and a way to enforce them. The say that challenges won't be reviewed like caches but they certainly have considered that some may be inappropriate and they have thought of a way to deal with these. Or we may just be waiting for a disaster.

Not really on topic, but a finder uploaded a photo of them "planking" near one of my son's EarthCaches. We had no idea what planking was, but knew the log was slick. I like to upload photos, but meeting a CO's demand for a face or some of the other things that are ALR here now are likely to stay ALR. I think the new virtuals will be cool or they would just have been intergrated to the Waymarking site which I also use. Waymarkers are afraid that the new virt's will be the end of the site, which may be true. We may just have to move our waymarks here and call them challange caches. I think the new virt's will be similar to the scavanger hunts on Waymarking.