Challenges

[Jeremy]

No more or less than any puzzle does. So if this is the argument for the elimination of challenge caches, perhaps there should also be an examination of the puzzle cache category too? And shall we also bring EC's back into the discussion, or just stay focused on challenge caches?

ow ow ow ow ow ow

Thanks! Basically +∞

What does any cache without a cache have to do with geocaching?

I cant believe that I didn't see that as soon as I saw this.

I see that you don't see the difference. Completing the challenge doesn't solve the location for the cache. It is just some arbitrary hoop you make a geocacher jump through for you to give them the coordinates of the cache listing. The location of the cache has no relation to the challenge.

SO solving the "what ever a CO wants" for an EC or VC doesn't solve the location...It is just some arbitrary hoop you make a geocacher jump through for you to allow them a I went to your spot I mean found it on the cache listing.

The lack of a cache forces them to have no more relation to caching than the next rock, statue or lamp post that I can get a set of coords for.

Now I really wanna see how challenges are going to work because so far, from all the speculation the seem even more vaporous then the "Don't have a cache" cache types.

 

I didn't understand any of this.

[+tozainamboku]

The primary issue is the confusion between finding a geocache and logging an online find on Geocaching.com

 

I believe that geocaching involves going out and finding geocaches (perferably using GPS as an integral part of the hunt). The online log is simple a function of the geocaching website that allows someone to record that they have found the cache and to share their experience with the community.

 

ALRs, including challenge caches, subvert the purpose of the online log. They make the online log the goal, not finding the cache, not even doing the challenge.

 

A cache owner can put all kinds of hoops before finding the cache without changing the purpose of the online found log. The guidelines are even written to allow making cachers go through hoops to sign the physical log book. But only in the case of challenge caches are cache owners able to subvert the basic meaning of the online found it log and use it to enforce a challenge.

 

The original Delorme and county challenges did not have this problem. In order to get the coordinates you had to email the cache owner with proof that you did the challenge. But emailing someone for coordinates has its own problems, so Groundspeak was reluctant to extend this to other challenges.

 

The ALR guideline change also created another problem. It says that once the physical log is signed you can log the find online. Previously, if a cacher were to brute force a puzzle or find the cache by accident, a cache owner might delete the find because the finder didn't solve the puzzle as intended. Under the new guidelines, it appears that a puzzle cache owner can no longer make the online log dependent on actually solving a puzzle. IMO, this is a good thing. I know that some puzzle owners (particularly some Europeans) don't think this. They feel the puzzle theme is a very important part of their cache and those who don't do the puzzle have not just cheated themselves but have cheated the owner and everyone who did do the puzzle. I'll chalk this up to some cultural difference.

 

It is perhaps this cultural gap that is making it hard to explain that challenges could be better handled as a separate reward from logging a find. Separating the challenge from a particular cache means there is nothing extra to find. When you complete the challenge you can provide the proof to the challenge owner and get credit. While there may be some challenge caches out there where the cache theme is related to the challenge, for the most part challenge caches have nothing to do with the challenge itself. It really should be simple in these cases to separate the challenge and have it exist without a cache to find. Even in the themed cache, it seems that you can allow everyone who finds the cache to log it and simply give credit to those who met the associated challenge some other way.

[+Too Tall John]

No more or less than any puzzle does. So if this is the argument for the elimination of challenge caches, perhaps there should also be an examination of the puzzle cache category too? And shall we also bring EC's back into the discussion, or just stay focused on challenge caches?

ow ow ow ow ow ow

Thanks! Basically +∞

What does any cache without a cache have to do with geocaching?

I cant believe that I didn't see that as soon as I saw this.

I see that you don't see the difference. Completing the challenge doesn't solve the location for the cache. It is just some arbitrary hoop you make a geocacher jump through for you to give them the coordinates of the cache listing. The location of the cache has no relation to the challenge.

SO solving the "what ever a CO wants" for an EC or VC doesn't solve the location...It is just some arbitrary hoop you make a geocacher jump through for you to allow them a I went to your spot I mean found it on the cache listing.

The lack of a cache forces them to have no more relation to caching than the next rock, statue or lamp post that I can get a set of coords for.

Now I really wanna see how challenges are going to work because so far, from all the speculation the seem even more vaporous then the "Don't have a cache" cache types.

I didn't understand any of this.

Whew... I thought I was the only one.

 

Reading it again, I think the most important part is...

Now I really wanna see how challenges are going to work because so far, from all the speculation the seem even more vaporous then the "Don't have a cache" cache types.

...for which the answer is "Of course it's vaporous, it's all based on speculation!"

 

Until you spill the beans, which I suspect won't happen until the official unveiling, the speculation will continue.

[knowschad]

No more or less than any puzzle does. So if this is the argument for the elimination of challenge caches, perhaps there should also be an examination of the puzzle cache category too? And shall we also bring EC's back into the discussion, or just stay focused on challenge caches?

ow ow ow ow ow ow

Thanks! Basically +∞

What does any cache without a cache have to do with geocaching?

I cant believe that I didn't see that as soon as I saw this.

I see that you don't see the difference. Completing the challenge doesn't solve the location for the cache. It is just some arbitrary hoop you make a geocacher jump through for you to give them the coordinates of the cache listing. The location of the cache has no relation to the challenge.

SO solving the "what ever a CO wants" for an EC or VC doesn't solve the location...It is just some arbitrary hoop you make a geocacher jump through for you to allow them a I went to your spot I mean found it on the cache listing.

The lack of a cache forces them to have no more relation to caching than the next rock, statue or lamp post that I can get a set of coords for.

Now I really wanna see how challenges are going to work because so far, from all the speculation the seem even more vaporous then the "Don't have a cache" cache types.

I didn't understand any of this.

Whew... I thought I was the only one.

 

Reading it again, I think the most important part is...

Now I really wanna see how challenges are going to work because so far, from all the speculation the seem even more vaporous then the "Don't have a cache" cache types.

...for which the answer is "Of course it's vaporous, it's all based on speculation!"

 

Until you spill the beans, which I suspect won't happen until the official unveiling, the speculation will continue.

 

It would help if folks would use the term "container" rather than "cache" when referring to the physical cache. I found it very confusing to read, "a cache without a cache". Bad enough that we have the double meaning of "challenge" going on here.

[+Keith Watson]

SO solving the "what ever a CO wants" for an EC or VC doesn't solve the location...It is just some arbitrary hoop you make a geocacher jump through for you to allow them a I went to your spot I mean found it on the cache listing.

The lack of a cache forces them to have no more relation to caching than the next rock, statue or lamp post that I can get a set of coords for.

 

For virtual caches, the hoops are to prove you were there and not armchair caching. Groundspeak required this when I submitted my virtual.

 

For earth caches, the same applies for the proof you were there. They are also a little different because they are meant to teach you something while you are there. My kids and wife love to going to them.

[+dfx]

It would help if folks would use the term "container" rather than "cache" when referring to the physical cache. I found it very confusing to read, "a cache without a cache". Bad enough that we have the double meaning of "challenge" going on here.

 

It's not a cache without a container. You could say non-cache to those, well, non-cache things. Or you could say (gasp) "virtual" cache.

[knowschad]

It would help if folks would use the term "container" rather than "cache" when referring to the physical cache. I found it very confusing to read, "a cache without a cache". Bad enough that we have the double meaning of "challenge" going on here.

 

It's not a cache without a container. You could say non-cache to those, well, non-cache things. Or you could say (gasp) "virtual" cache.

A cache without a container is a cache without a container. It isn't a non-cache. What does it mean then, in the context of this thread, when referring to "a cache without a cache"?

[+Flintstone5611]

It's not a cache without a container. You could say non-cache to those, well, non-cache things. Or you could say (gasp) "virtual" cache.

 

 

Come what may it will be interesting to see what this new development will be. I am having a blast lurking around reading these forums, I can't wait until we have something new, fresh and different to complain about.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Flintstone5611

[+dfx]

A cache without a container is a cache without a container. It isn't a non-cache. What does it mean then, in the context of this thread, when referring to "a cache without a cache"?

 

It doesn't mean anything, because you can't have a cache without a cache. The container is the cache. If there's no container, there's no cache.

[+Too Tall John]

A cache without a container is a cache without a container. It isn't a non-cache. What does it mean then, in the context of this thread, when referring to "a cache without a cache"?

It doesn't mean anything, because you can't have a cache without a cache. The container is the cache. If there's no container, there's no cache.

Not according to Geocaching.com's guide lines.

[+dfx]

Not according to Geocaching.com's guide lines.

 

Yeah, I know. So?

[Pup Patrol]

Not according to Geocaching.com's guide lines.

 

Yeah, I know. So?

 

I see what you did there, dfx.

 

Y'all gonna keep this thread alive until the release of the details of the new "challenges" at the Block Party next weekend?

Edited August 11, 2011 by Pup Patrol

[+Too Tall John]

It doesn't mean anything, because you can't have a cache without a cache. The container is the cache. If there's no container, there's no cache.

Not according to Geocaching.com's guidelines.

Yeah, I know. So?

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

[+dfx]

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?

[knowschad]

A cache without a container is a cache without a container. It isn't a non-cache. What does it mean then, in the context of this thread, when referring to "a cache without a cache"?

 

It doesn't mean anything, because you can't have a cache without a cache. The container is the cache. If there's no container, there's no cache.

No... not in the case of virtuals or Earth Caches. In those situations, the "cache" is the cache page, the GC# if you will. The container is the physical part of other cache types, and I think that by referring to them as such, that this discussion will be much easier to follow.

[+dfx]

No... not in the case of virtuals or Earth Caches. In those situations, the "cache" is the cache page, the GC# if you will. The container is the physical part of other cache types, and I think that by referring to them as such, that this discussion will be much easier to follow.

I think it's even easier to say cache if you mean cache, and say cache page or cache listing if you mean the page or the listing. Because then you can have a listing without a cache, which makes a lot of sense, and is exactly what virtuals are.

Edited August 11, 2011 by dfx

[knowschad]

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?

Look... all I am doing is trying to make this discussion less confusing. For the purposes of this discussion, my definition of a cache is a cache page or a waypoint#. Something that I can log online. A "container" is something that contains a physical log... something that has already been defined by Groundspeak when they decided to not allow flat magnetic vinyl "caches" because they did not have a "container".

 

You're a smart guy, and I know that you already knew what I meant, so what is the reason that you feel the need to obfuscate this?

[+Flintstone5611]

obfuscate

 

Very nice term.

[+dfx]

You're a smart guy, and I know that you already knew what I meant, so what is the reason that you feel the need to obfuscate this?

 

I'm trying to do the opposite, I'm trying to clear things up. There's still lots of people around (just see a few posts above) who don't understand the difference between a cache and a cache listing. That's why you found the statement "cache without a cache" so confusing. One refers to the cache, the other to the listing. When you go to hide and list a cache, there's two steps: hide the cache, and create the listing. And not hide the container and the create the cache. Or is it?

[+Too Tall John]

It doesn't mean anything, because you can't have a cache without a cache. The container is the cache. If there's no container, there's no cache.

Not according to Geocaching.com's guidelines.

Yeah, I know. So?

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?

Since we are talking about the definition of a cache listed on gc.com, I'm happy to follow the definitions that they set forth. Your definition is in direct opposition to at least two of their definitions:

Virtual Cache: A Virtual Cache is about discovering a location rather than a container. The requirements for logging a Virtual Cache vary—you may be required to answer a question about the location, take a picture, complete a task, etc. In any case, you must visit the coordinates before you can post your log.

EarthCache: An EarthCache is a special place that people can visit to learn about a unique geoscience feature of our Earth. EarthCache pages include a set of educational notes along with cache coordinates. Visitors to EarthCaches can see how our planet has been shaped by geological processes, how we manage its resources and how scientists gather evidence to learn about the Earth.

[+Too Tall John]

You're a smart guy, and I know that you already knew what I meant, so what is the reason that you feel the need to obfuscate this?

I'm trying to do the opposite, I'm trying to clear things up.

I'm going to stop you right there. If you are trying to clear things up, why don't you say what you mean to say instead of making posts that show you are making little effort to make your point clear?

Not according to Geocaching.com's guide lines.

Yeah, I know. So?

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?

Being obtuse is the opposite of trying to clear things up.

[+tozainamboku]

The primary issue is the confusion between finding a geocache and logging an online find on Geocaching.com

I guess I was wrong.

[+dfx]

The primary issue is the confusion between finding a geocache and logging an online find on Geocaching.com

I guess I was wrong.

No, you're quite right, because the underlying issue is the same. Confusion between cache and listing. If you think that cache = listing, then finding the cache = logging a find. In this context, ALRs make sense, virtuals make sense and earthcaches make sense. But if you think that cache = container and listing = web page, both being separate entities, then logging a find merely becomes a statement of a physical fact. In that context, ALRs don't make sense, and virtuals and earthcaches make sense only if you accept the fact that they're listings for things that aren't caches.

[+t4e]

A cache without a container is a cache without a container. It isn't a non-cache. What does it mean then, in the context of this thread, when referring to "a cache without a cache"?

 

It doesn't mean anything, because you can't have a cache without a cache. The container is the cache. If there's no container, there's no cache.

No... not in the case of virtuals or Earth Caches. In those situations, the "cache" is the cache page, the GC# if you will. The container is the physical part of other cache types, and I think that by referring to them as such, that this discussion will be much easier to follow.

 

so by that theory armchair logging on virtuals and Earthcaches should be allowed because i found the listing

[+cx1]

... something that has already been defined by Groundspeak when they decided to not allow flat magnetic vinyl "caches" because they did not have a "container".

 

/sidetrack on

 

Is that in the guidelines? I have found several caches like that. Not using them to show they are ok to do but to explain why I did not think they were a problem.

In the several I have seen the log was 'contained' between the magnet and the metal structure and attached to the magnet. So one would need to 'open' it (remove the magnet 'lid' from the metal structure 'base')to get to the log.

I have also seen a similar construction of a blank metal switch plate with magnets in the corners which will hold it to a metal object and a log sheet sandwiched in a baggy between them. Are those also against the same 'container' guideline or does the use of a baggy allow them to be 'containers'?

 

/sidetrack off

[cezanne]

When you go to hide and list a cache, there's two steps: hide the cache, and create the listing. And not hide the container and the create the cache. Or is it?

 

Actually, for me the cache is neither the same as the cache listing nor as the cache container at the end.

If I am planning and implementing a cache, I invest a lot of work and time in setting up the route and deciding about the stages (many of them being virtual stages).

When I thank the hider in a log for his/her cache I am not thinking him/her explicitely for the container (and even less for the listing), but for my whole experience from the start towards the end (back to the starting point - so the container is never the end, not even for traditionals). For me the term cache also includes the way to the cache container(s) or whatever is to be found. In this concept, EC fits into well as it is not the container which alone defines a cache for me.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 11, 2011 by cezanne

[+dfx]

Is that in the guidelines?

 

I don't think it's spelled out anywhere, but I do remember this being addressed in the forums somewhere. Not that I can give any references right now, just going by what I think I remember I've read somewhere.

Not that I think those kind of "caches" are problematic, but I can see the point and it's the same issue: container = cache. Magnetic vinyl strip = not a container = not a cache. Virtual = no container = no cache.

[+dfx]

If I am planning and implementing a cache, I invest a lot of work and time in setting up the route and deciding about the stages (many of them being virtual stages).

When I thank the hider in a log for his/her cache I am not thinking him/her explicitely for the container (and even less for the listing), but for my whole experience from the start towards the end (back to the starting point - so the container is never the end, not even for traditionals). For me the term cache also includes the way to the cache container(s) or whatever is to be found.

 

I understand all that. The way to and from the cache is part of the physical location (and also depends on your own location, obviously). The whole setup of a multi, everything that's required to get to the final cache in the end, is either part of the listing, or consists of other containers that were put out (or both). But this brings us back to the point Jeremy and others have made earlier: If you've found the cache, the final cache, somehow, no matter how, you still found the cache, right? Even if you didn't take the route that was intended by the CO, even if you didn't go through all the steps, even if you've found it just by accident and weren't even looking for it. You still found the cache. It's a fact you can't deny, you can't say that they didn't do what they were supposed to be doing and so they didn't find the cache.

 

So yeah, when you say "I'm going for that cache", "thanks for the cache", "that's a great cache" or whatever, you obviously imply to mean everything that's required to get to the actual cache including the whole setup, but that's just a figure of speech. The cache is still just the cache. If you've found it, you've found it. That's where the whole ALR issue came from: if somebody found the cache, then the CO can't really say "no you didn't, because you didn't do this or that". It just doesn't make sense to deny a fact like that.

 

That's also where the difference between puzzle cache and challenge cache mentioned earlier comes from: Solving the puzzle is required to find the cache even if the puzzle itself is completely unrelated, unless you manage to find the cache somehow else of course. In both cases you've found the cache, no problem. But the challenge requirements are not required to find the cache. You can still find it, because you know where it is. It's just an arbitrary set of rules that lets the CO deny somebody's log, it has nothing to do with being able to find the cache or not.

Edited August 11, 2011 by dfx

[cezanne]

If I am planning and implementing a cache, I invest a lot of work and time in setting up the route and deciding about the stages (many of them being virtual stages).

When I thank the hider in a log for his/her cache I am not thinking him/her explicitely for the container (and even less for the listing), but for my whole experience from the start towards the end (back to the starting point - so the container is never the end, not even for traditionals). For me the term cache also includes the way to the cache container(s) or whatever is to be found.

 

I understand all that. The way to and from the cache is part of the physical location (and also depends on your own location, obviously). The whole setup of a multi, everything that's required to get to the final cache in the end, is either part of the listing, or consists of other containers that were put out (or both). But this brings us back to the point Jeremy and others have made earlier: If you've found the cache, the final cache, somehow, no matter how, you still found the cache, right?

 

Things are a bit more complicated for me. I'd rather say that I am entitled by the guidelines to write a "found it" log (provided I logged the cache in the log book). I have found some cache containers which I could not reach however. When I was there together with someone else, my alias sometimes can be found in the log book, but I usually do not log such caches as "found it" (personal decision). On the other hand, there are caches where the container in the end has been found by someone else and I still log a "found it" log. For me the "found it" log is rather something like "successfully finished the cache".

I furthermore avoid to accompany others to ? caches I have not yet solved - I do not feel this to be ok (again I do not mind about ho others are handling this).

 

There is also a T=3.5* cache in my area where I have a clear idea where the final is hidden, but I do not go there to look for the final as I do not dare to go for Stage 1 (too difficult terrain for me there and on the way to the final from that direction) because I do not feel that is appropriate to attack that cache in this manner. The same is true for the long distance hiking cache Graz-Mariazell. I might once visit the final, but I will never log a "found it" since I am not able to do the walk in the intended way as a long distance hike and not breacking it up over years. Certainly the owners of these caches would accept "found it" logs from me - it is me who feels that they are not appropriate.

 

Even if you didn't take the route that was intended by the CO, even if you didn't go through all the steps, even if you've found it just by accident and weren't even looking for it. You still found the cache. It's a fact you can't deny, you can't say that they didn't do what they were supposed to be doing and so they didn't find the cache.

 

I'd rather call it "I found the final container".

 

So yeah, when you say "I'm going for that cache", "thanks for the cache", "that's a great cache" or whatever, you obviously imply to mean everything that's required to get to the actual cache including the whole setup, but that's just a figure of speech.

 

No, for me it is not a figure of speech, but I agree that is quite subjective and there are no arguments for claiming that my approach is correct and yours is wrong.

 

The cache is still just the cache. If you've found it, you've found it. That's where the whole ALR issue came from: if somebody found the cache, then the CO can't really say "no you didn't, because you didn't do this or that". It just doesn't make sense to deny a fact like that.

 

I would prefer a different name for "found it" logs anyway. I know that this will never happen. I just mention it to explain my way of thinking about the topic.

 

That's also where the difference between puzzle cache and challenge cache mentioned earlier comes from: Solving the puzzle is required to find the cache even if the puzzle itself is completely unrelated, unless you manage to find the cache somehow else of course. In both cases you've found the cache, no problem. But the challenge requirements are not required to find the cache. You can still find it, because you know where it is. It's just an arbitrary set of rules that lets the CO deny somebody's log, it has nothing to do with being able to find the cache or not.

 

I agree. That's why I mentioned earlier in the discussion that I feel that the discussion is not so much about the location aspect of challenges, but rather about ALRs.

 

Cezanne

Edited August 11, 2011 by cezanne

[knowschad]

You're a smart guy, and I know that you already knew what I meant, so what is the reason that you feel the need to obfuscate this?

 

I'm trying to do the opposite, I'm trying to clear things up. There's still lots of people around (just see a few posts above) who don't understand the difference between a cache and a cache listing. That's why you found the statement "cache without a cache" so confusing. One refers to the cache, the other to the listing. When you go to hide and list a cache, there's two steps: hide the cache, and create the listing. And not hide the container and the create the cache. Or is it?

 

I hide the container and create the cache listing.

 

Yes, the container is also a physical cache, but using that word, rather than "container" is adding to the difficulty of discussing this, IMO. I'm just offering a suggestion that I think will make this a little easier to follow. But I don't want to take this any further off-topic than I already have, so if you find my little suggestion helpful, good. Otherwise, no matter.

[+Vater_Araignee]

It doesn't mean anything, because you can't have a cache without a cache. The container is the cache. If there's no container, there's no cache.

Not according to Geocaching.com's guidelines.

Yeah, I know. So?

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

What GS says is the definition and reality are two different thing, so maybe you should be saying...

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

But then again you used the unsure emoticon so you probably knew that even if it was only subconscious. I prefer to not attempt to change definitions.

 

My "cache without a cache" statement was to point out the absurdity of calling anything a cache that does not have a cache. It is as simple as that. A location has nothing to do with a cache unless there is a cache at that location. A bolder is not a cache. A statue is not a cache.

 

Wait for it...

 

A cache listing that lists a bolder is not a cache listing. A cache listing that lists a statue is not a cache listing. This mean that they are not geocaches, they are some other location based game being misrepresented as geocaches by a set of guidelines and mindsets that refuse to acknowledge the TRUE definition of a word.

 

Definition of CACHE

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

b : a secure place of storage

2 : something hidden or stored in a cache

 

You can read that definition a million times and Virts and Earths will never fit it.

 

This means that the activities that one has to perform in order to claim a found it in Jeremy's words "doesn't solve the location for the cache. It is just some arbitrary hoop you make a geocacher jump through" Then to make matters worse they end up getting an increment that claims they found something when what they did was show up and do some task/s.

At least a challenge cache is required to have a cache.

Are the "Geocaching Challenges" going to and with a cache or be another grievous misrepresentation? One can hope even wile doubting.

[Jeremy]

 

Definition of CACHE

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

b : a secure place of storage

2 : something hidden or stored in a cache

 

You can read that definition a million times and Virts and Earths will never fit it.

 

 

The definition of a cache is irrelevant to the discussion of challenge caches.

 

However you define a cache, it is the challenge + cache which is the problem. A challenge is great, a cache is great, but forcing someone to accomplish some challenge for the privilege of getting the coordinates of a cache from the cache owner is not great.

 

It is akin to the Goonies having to ask permission from One Eyed Willie to find his treasure instead of following the clues and solving puzzles to find it. A cache should be set up so everything is available for the geocacher to figure out the puzzle and/or follow the GPS to the cache on their own, not prove their worth to a geocacher to get the permission to find and/or log it.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Jeremy
clarification

[I!]

A challenge is great, ...

... but normally requires a listing to explain it, right?

 

Challenges won't be cache listings. You mean the CO won't have flexibility to design a nice HTML listing (as a "cache" or whatever) for this new concept? So they'll appear on the site in some basic, stripped-down, form like ... benchmarks?

[+hzoi]

The only hoop I hate having to do is getting my picture with my GPS on a earth cache. My Gps is actually a camera so I have to carry both and sometimes that is a pain. I don't see the point when your picture is still in front of whatever earth someone wanted you to see.

 

Earthcache logging guidelines have been changed. You cannot be required to post a photo of yourself nor of your GPS to log a visit to an Earthcache.

 

True enough -- the guidelines were changed on 1 January 2011, and the change was retroactively applied. Unfortunately, there was no official notice made of the change, so most earth caches that had a mandatory photo requirement before the change, still do today.

[+Flintstone5611]

True enough -- the guidelines were changed on 1 January 2011, and the change was retroactively applied. Unfortunately, there was no official notice made of the change, so most earth caches that had a mandatory photo requirement before the change, still do today.

 

They may ask for it, but it isn't necessary to provide. So it may appear mandatory but it isn't.

[+fizzymagic]

A cache should be set up so everything is available for the geocacher to figure out the puzzle and/or follow the GPS to the cache on their own, not prove their worth to a geocacher to get the permission to find and/or log it.

 

+1 Amen. That captures exactly the difference between puzzle/challenge caches and ALR caches. For the former, the puzzle or challenge is a natural part of the entire adventure, while for the latter it's a hoop to jump through.

[+nikcap]

In theory, I like challenge caches, but some are just plain tedious, borderline impossible for the average player or ended with an uninspired LPC.

There are many very cool virtuals, but there are also a lot of ho-hum one out there too.

ALR could be fun, but some were just goofy, tedious or not a very interesting.

 

Challenges (as can be deciphered here and from other sources) sound very cool and may bring together the best of challenge caches, virtuals and ALR. I'm very excited to see them become available.

With that said, I have no doubts in the "talents" of some cachers to find ways to "lame" them out. Regardless, I'm still pretty excited for their arrival.

[+Harry Dolphin]

True enough -- the guidelines were changed on 1 January 2011, and the change was retroactively applied. Unfortunately, there was no official notice made of the change, so most earth caches that had a mandatory photo requirement before the change, still do today.

 

They may ask for it, but it isn't necessary to provide. So it may appear mandatory but it isn't.

 

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.

[+Manville Possum]

 

Definition of CACHE

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

b : a secure place of storage

2 : something hidden or stored in a cache

 

You can read that definition a million times and Virts and Earths will never fit it.

 

 

The definition of a cache is irrelevant to the discussion of challenge caches.

 

However you define a cache, it is the challenge + cache which is the problem. A challenge is great, a cache is great, but forcing someone to accomplish some challenge for the privilege of getting the coordinates of a cache from the cache owner is not great.

 

It is akin to the Goonies having to ask permission from One Eyed Willie to find his treasure instead of following the clues and solving puzzles to find it. A cache should be set up so everything is available for the geocacher to figure out the puzzle and/or follow the GPS to the cache on their own, not prove their worth to a geocacher to get the permission to find and/or log it.

Well we love Virtuals, EarthCaches, Waymarks and Benchmarks. I try to avoid all the One Eyed Willies and Back Brake Billies out there. I don't like EarthCaches that you have to have the CO approve before you can post your find. I still think the new Virtuals will be cool, and Challanges may take the place of Scavanger Hunts on the Waymarking site.

[knowschad]

Definition of CACHE

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

b : a secure place of storage

2 : something hidden or stored in a cache

 

You can read that definition a million times and Virts and Earths will never fit it.

 

 

The definition of a cache is irrelevant to the discussion of challenge caches.

 

However you define a cache, it is the challenge + cache which is the problem. A challenge is great, a cache is great, but forcing someone to accomplish some challenge for the privilege of getting the coordinates of a cache from the cache owner is not great.

 

It is akin to the Goonies having to ask permission from One Eyed Willie to find his treasure instead of following the clues and solving puzzles to find it. A cache should be set up so everything is available for the geocacher to figure out the puzzle and/or follow the GPS to the cache on their own, not prove their worth to a geocacher to get the permission to find and/or log it.

 

If I'm following you right, you ARE referring to "challenge caches" (using the contemporary definition), I found over 100 caches in one day. King Boreas has a cache that I can log if I have met that challenge. I have, but I have not yet made it over to his part of town to log that one cache.

 

Am I even warm? (Please... this is a question for Jeremy. I hope no others chime in to cloud the issue)

[+The Jester]

A cache listing that lists a bolder is not a cache listing. A cache listing that lists a statue is not a cache listing. This mean that they are not geocaches, they are some other location based game being misrepresented as geocaches by a set of guidelines and mindsets that refuse to acknowledge the TRUE definition of a word.

 

Definition of CACHE

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

b : a secure place of storage

2 : something hidden or stored in a cache

 

You can read that definition a million times and Virts and Earths will never fit it.

You are arguing apple and oranges. That's the definition of a "cache" but not of a "geocache". Even though we use the word "cache" we are using the short version of "geocache". Virtuals and Earthcaches have been included in the definition of "geocache" - true they are not "caches", but they are "geocaches".

[+Flintstone5611]

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.

 

Yeah there has been quite a fracas when it comes to that issue. It is difficult to stick to your guns when you don't have any real ownership for the listing. It seems to be a bit of a non-issue in the long run. If you have something picture worthy at your EC, people are usually glad to post anyway. Thankfully with the example you mentioned, it only resulted in an archival of an EC it could have gone so much worse.

 

Sorry for the sidebar.

 

Challenges Rule, Challenges stink!

[+dfx]

You are arguing apple and oranges. That's the definition of a "cache" but not of a "geocache". Even though we use the word "cache" we are using the short version of "geocache". Virtuals and Earthcaches have been included in the definition of "geocache" - true they are not "caches", but they are "geocaches".

 

Nice try. Yeah, we use "cache" as a short for "geocache", so they're both the same thing. The original point stands: no container, no (geo)cache, because the container is the (geo)cache.

 

Why is it so hard to accept that not everything gc.com lists is a (geo)cache? They list chiefly caches, yeah, but not exclusively. Why do people have a problem with that? (not with the fact that they do - but with accepting that fact)

Edited August 12, 2011 by dfx

[+Too Tall John]

What GS says is the definition and reality are two different thing, so maybe you should be saying...

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

But then again you used the unsure emoticon so you probably knew that even if it was only subconscious. I prefer to not attempt to change definitions.

 

My "cache without a cache" statement was to point out the absurdity of calling anything a cache that does not have a cache. It is as simple as that. A location has nothing to do with a cache unless there is a cache at that location. A bolder is not a cache. A statue is not a cache.

 

Wait for it...

 

A cache listing that lists a bolder is not a cache listing. A cache listing that lists a statue is not a cache listing. This mean that they are not geocaches, they are some other location based game being misrepresented as geocaches by a set of guidelines and mindsets that refuse to acknowledge the TRUE definition of a word.

 

Definition of CACHE

1 a : a hiding place especially for concealing and preserving provisions or implements

b : a secure place of storage

2 : something hidden or stored in a cache

 

You can read that definition a million times and Virts and Earths will never fit it.

 

This means that the activities that one has to perform in order to claim a found it in Jeremy's words "doesn't solve the location for the cache. It is just some arbitrary hoop you make a geocacher jump through" Then to make matters worse they end up getting an increment that claims they found something when what they did was show up and do some task/s.

At least a challenge cache is required to have a cache.

Are the "Geocaching Challenges" going to and with a cache or be another grievous misrepresentation? One can hope even wile doubting.

In the context of this thread, my definition of cache has more to do with geocaching and the definitions used by cachers rather than what you can find in the dictionary. So, in the reality of this thread, it is your definition that doesn't agree with the reality of the discussion. Perhaps The Jester said it better:

You are arguing apple and oranges. That's the definition of a "cache" but not of a "geocache". Even though we use the word "cache" we are using the short version of "geocache". Virtuals and Earthcaches have been included in the definition of "geocache" - true they are not "caches", but they are "geocaches".

We are, after all, just trying to define what it is we're talking about in the context of the new "Challenges." Your splitting hairs is just leaving more of a mess to deal with rather than clearing things up.

Yes, the container is also a physical cache, but using that word, rather than "container" is adding to the difficulty of discussing this, IMO.

[+tozainamboku]

You are arguing apple and oranges. That's the definition of a "cache" but not of a "geocache". Even though we use the word "cache" we are using the short version of "geocache". Virtuals and Earthcaches have been included in the definition of "geocache" - true they are not "caches", but they are "geocaches".

 

Nice try. Yeah, we use "cache" as a short for "geocache", so they're both the same thing. The original point stands: no container, no (geo)cache, because the container is the (geo)cache.

 

Why is it so hard to accept that not everything gc.com lists is a (geo)cache? They list chiefly caches, yeah, but not exclusively. Why do people have a problem with that? (not with the fact that they do - but with accepting that fact)

physical geocaches have a container. I thought there was a statement in the guidelines that addressed this, but is seems that now they simply use the terms physical geocache and physical element as if they are understood and need no additional definition. That leaves room on geocaching.com for other entities, some of which are called geocaches. In any event, the other types are referred to as geocache types (including various types of event caches along with EarthCaches and grandfathered virtual caches and webcam caches). So based on this, anything listed on geocaching.com is a geocache. However benchmarks are not geocaches and neither are waymarks, so there is always the possibility to add things that aren't geocaches. It is also possible to create geocache types that are not found. Events for example are Attended, and webcam caches have a Photo Taken. I suppose, that it would also be feasible to declare that certain geocache types won't count in your find count.

 

The new virtual replacement challenges may be a new geocache type or may be something different. The existing challenge caches are the mystery/unknown geocache type with an additional logging requirement that have been given an exemption to the general rule for logging physical geocaches that prohibits ALRs.

[I!]

The original point stands: no container, no (geo)cache, because the container is the (geo)cache.

Local to this site and associated Groundspeak stuff, "geocaches" are http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx.

 

If you're determined to have "(geo)cache" only mean "container" then perhaps you'd better raise a Feedback item to have large swathes of text on geocaching.com rewritten.

[cezanne]

You are arguing apple and oranges. That's the definition of a "cache" but not of a "geocache". Even though we use the word "cache" we are using the short version of "geocache". Virtuals and Earthcaches have been included in the definition of "geocache" - true they are not "caches", but they are "geocaches".

 

Nice try. Yeah, we use "cache" as a short for "geocache", so they're both the same thing. The original point stands: no container, no (geo)cache, because the container is the (geo)cache.

 

Why is it so hard to accept that not everything gc.com lists is a (geo)cache? They list chiefly caches, yeah, but not exclusively. Why do people have a problem with that? (not with the fact that they do - but with accepting that fact)

 

I do not regard events (at least most of them) as geocaches, so my understanding of the word geocache is not linked to what gc.com lists.

I have never ever associated geocache with the container at the end and will never do so. For me there exist both containerless geocaches and geocaches with at least one associated container. For me geocaching is somehow a project related activity based on locations and not just logging a container. When I started geocaching, virtuals were still around on gc.com and they still exist on other databases some of which I am using as well. What you call geocache always has been a physical geocache for me, i.e. just a subset of the class of geocaches.

 

Cezanne

[cezanne]

 

The definition of a cache is irrelevant to the discussion of challenge caches.

 

However you define a cache, it is the challenge + cache which is the problem. A challenge is great, a cache is great, but forcing someone to accomplish some challenge for the privilege of getting the coordinates of a cache from the cache owner is not great.

 

I think that this depends on one's personal preferences. While I have never been a fan of strange ARLs where one has to perform some strange, absurd things, I feel that is unfortunate that it is not possible to couple a cache with a challenge directly related to that cache. Let me provide you with an example: There are caches that are designed to be visited by bicycles (not mountain bikes and thus the route leads along roads where cars and motor bicycles can drive as well). It would be very nice if there would exist some way to limit the visits to those coming by bicycle. If all others would not be allowed to log a legitimate find because they did not meet the intended challenge, then one could hide such caches without having a terrible bad conscience to create so much extra motorized traffic. I hardly know any cacher who will drive 80 and more km just to achieve a "note".

 

I do not regard such requirements as additional hoops someone has to jump through. The whole idea of such a cache is to do it by bicycle. Without the bicycle trip this is a different cache. At this point I think that the definition of a cache also plays into this discussion. For someone who regards the cache only as the container, everything else as going in some arbitrary way to the container, find it and write a log entry is a what you refer as hoops, for someone who regards a cache as the whole activity, the situation will be different as only in the case when a bike tour is done by bike the intent behind such a cache is met.

 

I doubt that the new challenge cache project will be useful to implement caches of the above type. Also the current challenge caches cannot be used to that end.

From what you write I somehow get the feeling that when you write you like challenges, you have different sorts of challenges in mind than I do. My idea of a challenge is not related to any sort of computer games.

 

What I tried to say above is that while you seem to object against the coupling of cache and challenge in one concept (not in the manner of today's challenges where the challenge is not related to the specific cache under consideration, but to previously visited caches), I'd like to have a concept uniting caches and challenges.

 

 

Cezanne

[Trader Rick & Rosie]

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

[+Flintstone5611]

Lawyers don't work this hard for free!