Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
CacheDrone

Challenge Caches - updated

Recommended Posts

Challenge caches, being a sub-set of the Mystery/Puzzle/Unknown Cache type (depending on what you call them) were updated today and as I understand it there are some questions.

 

As far as I know and how the Ontario reviewers understand it is that we will be applying the updated language for any new reviews of unpublished listings only. Already existing challenge caches are grandfathered, as is the standard procedure with other updates. While some may point to the removal of Additional Logging Requirement (ALR) based caches, and their conversion back in 2009, that was an exceptional case. Groundspeak, with the exception of the ALR based caches, uses the grandfathered approach.

 

Examples include

} Moving Caches - existing are grandfathered, no new ones allowed

} Virtual Caches - existing ones remain, no new ones allowed

} Locationless Caches - were closed to new ones, logged until the concept was transferred to Waymarking.com

} Re-dating a certain cache

} Email coordinates (aka DeLorme and Quad Challenges) - existing ones remain, no new ones allowed

} Certain listings that are mislabeled by cache type

} others I'm not going to point out cause I know you people {kidding, mostly... }

None of these can be made today...

 

So getting back to challenge caches, those that were published before today that were based on dates, averages, percentages, et. al., are grandfathered and those CO's have every right to, and should, continue to maintain the same rigorous checking that they always have to ensure validation of "Found It" logs. Bogus logs that do not meet the criteria should be deleted once the person claiming the find cannot provide the proof.

 

New challenge caches will follow the guidelines as available as of today's update.

 

:cool: CD

 

link to announcement

Edited by CacheDrone

Share this post


Link to post

Challenge caches, being a sub-set of the Mystery/Puzzle/Unknown Cache type (depending on what you call them) were updated today and as I understand it there are some questions.

 

As far as I know and how the Ontario reviewers understand it is that we will be applying the updated language for any new reviews of unpublished listings only. Already existing challenge caches are grandfathered, as is the standard procedure with other updates. While some may point to the removal of Additional Logging Requirement (ALR) based caches, and their conversion back in 2009, that was an exceptional case. Groundspeak, with the exception of the ALR based caches, uses the grandfathered approach.

 

Examples include

} Moving Caches - existing are grandfathered, no new ones allowed

} Virtual Caches - existing ones remain, no new ones allowed

} Locationless Caches - were closed to new ones, logged until the concept was transferred to Waymarking.com

} Re-dating a certain cache

} Email coordinates (aka DeLorme and Quad Challenges) - existing ones remain, no new ones allowed

} Certain listings that are mislabeled by cache type

} others I'm not going to point out cause I know you people {kidding, mostly... }

None of these can be made today...

 

So getting back to challenge caches, those that were published before today that were based on dates, averages, percentages, et. al., are grandfathered and those CO's have every right to, and should, continue to maintain the same rigorous checking that they always have to ensure validation of "Found It" logs. Bogus logs that do not meet the criteria should be deleted once the person claiming the find cannot provide the proof.

 

New challenge caches will follow the guidelines as available as of today's update.

 

:cool: CD

 

link to announcement

 

Some of the new language does not seem well thought out. Example: "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers." Wheelchair users are a segment of geocachers; must challenges now all be T1? Seriously, just as some caches will not be attainable by cachers who have physical limitations (like the ability to hike up a mountain), or economic limitations like the ability to travel, the same would naturally be true of some challenge caches and this should not be considered a bug.

 

Likewise, restrictions based on found date were often used to level the playing field, so that experienced cachers would not instantly qualify and newbies would have a shot at qualifying first. If the intent was to avoid having a challenge cache that could never be found by a cacher starting this year, then narrower language should have been used to achieve this goal. Elimination of all date-found rules means that in many cases, newer cachers generally will not be able to compete, though they would be eligible for the challenge eventually.

 

"Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'" would appear to eliminate challenges based on finding caches on their anniversaries of publication. Is that intended?

Share this post


Link to post

I think the removal of the date-found-after ALR reduces the 'competitive' aspect of the cache find. That is, if the reasoning for having found-after is to level the playing field, that implies veteran cachers are competing with newbie cachers for the quicker finds.

 

Ultimately, I believe they're saying that if a challenge is a challenge, then what does it matter when the cacher fulfilled the challenge? Have you completed the challenge? Great, log the find. Found-after only levels the playing field for the actual finding of the challenge's physical cache - who will find it first, as of its publishing (or previous date)?

 

Essentially they're knocking out "who can accomplish this first" challenges (and "if you've already done it, you have to do it again")

That seems to be the point I'm understanding from that wording change. They want challenges to remain as personal and as individual an accomplishment as possible. If they don't officially recognize FTFs on regular caches, why would they allow challenge requirements and imply that they support competitive accomplishments between cachers?

 

(not saying I agree or disagree, that's just how I'm understanding this particular wording change)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I think the removal of the date-found-after ALR reduces the 'competitive' aspect of the cache find. That is, if the reasoning for having found-after is to level the playing field, that implies veteran cachers are competing with newbie cachers for the quicker finds.

 

That's the way I see it too.

 

Personally, I always felt the attempts at leveling the playing field worked too much in favor of new cachers -- the veterans have found the majority of close-by caches and have to travel much further to complete a challenge cache whereas the new cachers have a wide range of caches to choose from locally.

 

As someone who doesn't give a rat's behind who finds a cache first I don't really care. If the goal is to complete the challenge requirements then it shouldn't matter if you qualified for it five years ago.

Share this post


Link to post

The example they gave in the knowledge book is a terrible one. Finding a percentage of a certain cache does NOT have to change one's caching habits or experiences. If 10% have to be attend logs then 90% can be anything else. If you want to get it as soon as possible, yes you'd have to drop everything else, but if the cacher added more events, then they could get there eventually. EVERY challenge affects the cacher's habits to some extent...or else it wouldn't be a challenge. Good luck Mr Drone, because The new wordings have holes large enough to drive a truck through. I look forward to seeing just what kinds of challenges will be published. Suddenly I am out of ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
restrictions based on found date were often used to level the playing field

 

There is no such thing as leveling the playing field in challenge caches, probably not even in the game at all. It is simply not possible.

 

Finding a percentage of a certain cache does NOT have to change one's caching habits or experiences. If 10% have to be attend logs then 90% can be anything else. If you want to get it as soon as possible, yes you'd have to drop everything else, but if the cacher added more events, then they could get there eventually. EVERY challenge affects the cacher's habits to some extent

 

You have answered yourself.

 

Good luck Mr Drone, because The new wordings have holes large enough to drive a truck through.

 

CacheDrone (my reviewer account) did not write the update.

 

If the goal is to complete the challenge requirements then it shouldn't matter if you qualified for it five years ago.

 

Exactly

 

From my understanding, challenge caches should be about "Do this" instead of "Do this and not that". Once I am told that logging something prevents or reduces my progress towards completion of a challenge cache, that would make the challenge cache component invalid. What they are trying to avoid are challenge caches like these...

 

} Cannot have over 100 Multi-Caches found

} Must have a uninterrupted find streak of 2 or more Traditional Caches (yes, I'm serious)

} 1% or more of your finds must have the Scuba attribute

 

B) BQ

Share this post


Link to post

The example they gave in the knowledge book is a terrible one. Finding a percentage of a certain cache does NOT have to change one's caching habits or experiences. If 10% have to be attend logs then 90% can be anything else. If you want to get it as soon as possible, yes you'd have to drop everything else, but if the cacher added more events, then they could get there eventually. EVERY challenge affects the cacher's habits to some extent...or else it wouldn't be a challenge. Good luck Mr Drone, because The new wordings have holes large enough to drive a truck through. I look forward to seeing just what kinds of challenges will be published. Suddenly I am out of ideas.

 

I don't agree with you that all challenges "change the way I cache." Meeting the requirements of a Monthly Fizzy may cause me to think "I have to cache on March 7th" but there was nothing that said I would not have previously cached on that day anyway. You specifically have the ROT challenges which to meet the requirements I have to have x% of Unknown cache type. My current number of caches found today is 2067, I have 66 current Unknown finds. To meet the criteria of the challenge I would have to find somewhere near 140 Unknown caches without finding any other type of caches or attending events. That would have an big affect on my caching habits, based on the 60 caches I find a month I would have to for at least the next 3 months not find any other caches than unknowns. I say at least because I think I would be finding a lot let caches overall. For example I just ran out at lunch and grabbed a guardrail (my bad :unsure: ) but now I would be spending my time finding the fewer unknowns around. So the Rot challenges most definitely change the way you cache.

 

Saying that when I saw these two Rot caches come out I did two things. Thought, "I hate unknowns and puzzles, not good at them don't enjoy them. Guess I won't be getting this one." And moved on to the other thousands of caches in my area. But to KDot's credit I actually started to look at the unknowns more and try to figure them out. Now I work with statistics everyday so there is no way I have a belief I will ever meet his challenge but hey I can trick myself into doing some Unknowns to try and get away from so many LPC's. And that is a good thing.

Edited by ToonAl

Share this post


Link to post

I don't agree with you that all challenges "change the way I cache."

Certainly not all challenges change the way I cache. For many of them, I had completed the requirements before I was even aware of the cache. I simply had to find the physical cache, like I would a traditional.

 

But accepting some challenges certainly will cause some people to change their caching style or habits. How much change will be involved depends on the specific challenge and the specific geocacher.

 

Some geocachers completed the ROT challenge without changing the way they cached at all. For others, it will require a huge change. Finding caches on 100 consecutive days would require many people to change their caching style. The same applies to finding 8 different icons in a single day.

 

It will be interesting to see how strictly Groundspeak reviewers interpret this new challenge cache guideline:

 

If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, such as avoiding a particular cache type to attain a specific percentage or average, the cache will not be published.
Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

The example they gave in the knowledge book is a terrible one. Finding a percentage of a certain cache does NOT have to change one's caching habits or experiences. If 10% have to be attend logs then 90% can be anything else. If you want to get it as soon as possible, yes you'd have to drop everything else, but if the cacher added more events, then they could get there eventually. EVERY challenge affects the cacher's habits to some extent...or else it wouldn't be a challenge. Good luck Mr Drone, because The new wordings have holes large enough to drive a truck through. I look forward to seeing just what kinds of challenges will be published. Suddenly I am out of ideas.

 

Someone with 10,000 finds would have to log 1,000 events before they resumed their normal caching routine. That could take a long time.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm likely in the minority, but my preference would be to do away with Challenge caches altogether. With all due respect to some of the fine ones out there that I've enjoyed or worked on, I, personally, wouldn't miss any of them at all, and would enjoy being able to log a cache as found once I've actually found it and signed myself in.

 

I think they would probably work better as part of Challenges, where other cachers lay down goals for the community at large and cachers interested in persuing one of those goals receives some sort of badge or whatever for that accomplished goal. There'd be no physical cache for the qualifying cacher to claim afterward, just the recognition of the badge (perhaps a unique badge for each one?).

 

I use personal goals just like many others, but I just don't see a need to be able to claim a smiley for having accomplished them. Don't get me wrong, as a guy who enjoys all facets of caching, including finding as many as I can, the idea of getting an easy smiley is totally fine by me, but really isn't necessary in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm... challenges aren't supposed to change a cacher's geocaching behaviour? That doesn't bode well for my The 1.9 D & T Average Challenge cache. Yet those who have completed this challenge have had nothing but positive comments about how it has affected their caching behaviour.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm... challenges aren't supposed to change a cacher's geocaching behaviour? That doesn't bode well for my The 1.9 D & T Average Challenge cache. Yet those who have completed this challenge have had nothing but positive comments about how it has affected their caching behaviour.

...but...but...think of all those poor < 1.9D/T caches that are being passed by! :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I'm likely in the minority, but my preference would be to do away with Challenge caches altogether. With all due respect to some of the fine ones out there that I've enjoyed or worked on, I, personally, wouldn't miss any of them at all, and would enjoy being able to log a cache as found once I've actually found it and signed myself in.

 

I think they would probably work better as part of Challenges, where other cachers lay down goals for the community at large and cachers interested in persuing one of those goals receives some sort of badge or whatever for that accomplished goal. There'd be no physical cache for the qualifying cacher to claim afterward, just the recognition of the badge (perhaps a unique badge for each one?).

 

I use personal goals just like many others, but I just don't see a need to be able to claim a smiley for having accomplished them. Don't get me wrong, as a guy who enjoys all facets of caching, including finding as many as I can, the idea of getting an easy smiley is totally fine by me, but really isn't necessary in my opinion.

 

I don't know if you are in the minority Dr.House but for me personally I have made 2012 a year of challenge caching. It has greatly enhanced my caching experience so far and I've found almost as many caches as I did in my first blissful year of caching. Maybe my interest went down for a while, maybe I felt the majority of caches were just there to be 'numbers' and that wasn't good enough to keep my interest. I find having a goal keeps me in a game which I enjoy, keeps me active and social.

In the past I have not been much of a puzzle solver...well we have a local puzzle challenge called 'The Unknown Baker's Dozen Challenge' GC2WFZ6 and it has become an obsession of mine. To date, I have solved around a hundred local puzzles. They are all different and very interesting and keeping me interested for the moment....

BUT

1) at least one of the caches on the day you find the puzzle caches must have at least a difficulty of three stars....

I find this rather subjective. I have done 1.5-2 difficulty puzzles that I felt were much more difficult and were therefore not graded properly...AND I have done 4+ difficulty puzzles that obviously, if I can do them they are not graded properly either.

Also, there are plenty of puzzle caches graded below three stars, enough to complete this challenge for someone like me....

2)you must not find any other caches on the day you go out to find your puzzle caches for the challenge. This definitely is a negative restriction, one that would be frowned upon by Groundspeak.

 

 

All that said, I'm not a big believer in having too many rules . There is such a thing as 'over policing' and I believe Groundspeak is guilty of it. I feel like they really want to kill any fun that is left in the game.

 

In Calgary, we have two remaining 'traveling caches' that are grandfathered. One is a traditional, one is a multi. They are super popular and most cachers love having them around. They bring FUN into the game. And I know it isn't just because they are the only ones left, Geocaching Australia still allows all of the grandfathered caches that Groundspeak have disallowed. It's because they know how to have FUN. They have traveling cache races (most recent ones have been gnome and frog themed) that are hugely popular.

 

We also have a traveling 'virtual' Brass Cap Cache, that is super popular with some people..though I know it has changed their caching habits, lol!

There are several local geocaching challenge caches and judging from the response they've had with the local group...they are also FUN!

The local virtuals also get logged quite frequently. By locals and visitors alike, because they are often in interesting places and teach something about the area.

 

At a local mega event, I had the chance to have brekkie with a Groundspeak Lackey. I asked if GS would be bringing back any of the grandfathered types and he just rolled his eyes and sighed and said 'no, we get asked that all the time' (or something similar, I was at the time quite starstruck, lol) and now I think well, duh! of COURSE you get asked that all the time, it's because people WANT them back!

Edited by gardengorilla

Share this post


Link to post

I'm likely in the minority, but my preference would be to do away with Challenge caches altogether. With all due respect to some of the fine ones out there that I've enjoyed or worked on, I, personally, wouldn't miss any of them at all, and would enjoy being able to log a cache as found once I've actually found it and signed myself in.

 

I think they would probably work better as part of Challenges, where other cachers lay down goals for the community at large and cachers interested in persuing one of those goals receives some sort of badge or whatever for that accomplished goal. There'd be no physical cache for the qualifying cacher to claim afterward, just the recognition of the badge (perhaps a unique badge for each one?).

 

I use personal goals just like many others, but I just don't see a need to be able to claim a smiley for having accomplished them. Don't get me wrong, as a guy who enjoys all facets of caching, including finding as many as I can, the idea of getting an easy smiley is totally fine by me, but really isn't necessary in my opinion.

 

I'm much in agreement. I enjoyed the challenges before when they were just personal challenges. But now there are just so many caches around that can't be found because they have such onerous requirements. It does seem like their time has come and gone and they would be better served in another manner.

 

Like posted above, challenges helped renew my interest in caching, but that soon waned as the stacks and stacks of rules and challenge directed finds soon went from making caching more interesting, to making it even less fun than before.

Edited by ertyu

Share this post


Link to post

I enjoyed the challenges before when they were just personal challenges. But now there are just so many caches around that can't be found because they have such onerous requirements. It does seem like their time has come and gone and they would be better served in another manner.

If I see a challenge cache that doesn't interest me or that I cannot complete, I simply ignore it.

 

Similarly, there are some 5-star terrain caches on tops of mountains that I'll never be able to find. Still, I'm glad these tough caches exist for others to enjoy.

 

I guess I'm fortunate that I don't feel the need to find every cache out there.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I'm fortunate that I don't feel the need to find every cache out there.

If only more people felt that way.

 

Seems that sentiment is less popular among the more veteran cachers... there are a huge variety of caches out there today, and people jumping into the hobby now are more used to the selection and the variety - whether within reach or not. But it seems like people who reminisce about the old days tend to be the ones more likely to complain about caching different than they loved back then, whether in caching style, location, density, or actual hide methods.

There is an ignore button, and filtering options... imo, as long as the majority of users aren't ignoring a majority of caches, I think it's (generally) a good thing - find a balance, provide a system that affords the most enjoyment for the most people, within the parameters of the game Groundspeak wants to define via this website. And for existing users, just go out and hide the type of caches you like to find.

*shrug*

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I guess I'm fortunate that I don't feel the need to find every cache out there.

If only more people felt that way.

 

Seems that sentiment is less popular among the more veteran cachers... there are a huge variety of caches out there today, and people jumping into the hobby now are more used to the selection and the variety - whether within reach or not. But it seems like people who reminisce about the old days tend to be the ones more likely to complain about caching different than they loved back then, whether in caching style, location, density, or actual hide methods.

There is an ignore button, and filtering options... imo, as long as the majority of users aren't ignoring a majority of caches, I think it's (generally) a good thing - find a balance, provide a system that affords the most enjoyment for the most people, within the parameters of the game Groundspeak wants to define via this website. And for existing users, just go out and hide the type of caches you like to find.

*shrug*

 

I'm a veteran cacher, and although I still fondly remember the caches that were around when I was starting out, I do enjoy the variety of caches that I can choose to look for. Personally, I find that going after the same types of caches time after time can get pretty boring, however nice the scenery. Some days I want to find a long string of caches on a power trail, or 10 caches along a 5km stretch of the Bruce. Sometimes all I have the time or energy for is a few LPC's. Sometimes I plan several caching trips to target caches for a challenge I'm working on, and other times I might want to find a variety of icons in one day. Although I do not feel the need to find every cache out there, I tend to like most, and will go after as many of those as I can.

 

Actually the main problem I had with the evolution of the game was accepting the use of smartphones/iPads/auto GPS as an 'alternative' to a handheld GPS'r. :huh:

Edited by hikerT

Share this post


Link to post

Seems that sentiment is less popular among the more veteran cachers... there are a huge variety of caches out there today, and people jumping into the hobby now are more used to the selection and the variety - whether within reach or not. But it seems like people who reminisce about the old days tend to be the ones more likely to complain about caching different than they loved back then, whether in caching style, location, density, or actual hide methods.

There is an ignore button, and filtering options... imo, as long as the majority of users aren't ignoring a majority of caches, I think it's (generally) a good thing - find a balance, provide a system that affords the most enjoyment for the most people, within the parameters of the game Groundspeak wants to define via this website. And for existing users, just go out and hide the type of caches you like to find.

*shrug*

 

Agreed. Lately, very few things irk me more than being berated with the notion that one's own preferential caching habits are the proper way to cache. Seems to me that there's room for all cachers in this game, not just those who perceive themselves as somehow "better" than others due to their style of caching.

Share this post


Link to post

Lately, very few things irk me more than being berated with the notion that one's own preferential caching habits are the proper way to cache. Seems to me that there's room for all cachers in this game, not just those who perceive themselves as somehow "better" than others due to their style of caching.

 

Well said, there is no one way or style of playing the game that is "better" than another, in general. There is only what you enjoy, that's all that matters. And if you're enjoying it, and people says that you're doing it "wrong", then shame on them.

 

What we enjoy doing is not for everyone, but we try hard to experience everyone else's pleasure. We try not to comment on anything too negatively, in logs or in the forums, and most of the time we succeed. For example, we do not see how [cache experience deleted] can be enjoyable, but we've never tried it, so we're gonna give it a go, if not this weekend then very soon. Only then can we have an opinion that is valid. Who knows? Could be epic! If not we won't be posting for everyone to hear that it stunk or that it was unfair, we promise.

 

But I will say this in regard to challenges; we have very, very, VERY much enjoyed challenge caches that would no longer be published, but we understand and respect the change in guidelines. Many good points have been stated pro and con, and some actually in a civil manner!

 

We've completed several challenges, some of which others have been critical of because of statistical and/or date requirements, and it makes me sad that anyone would be angry at the challenge's existence. One of our favourite all-time caches is "Tequila 81 Proof" and it is very, very, very unlikely we will qualify for it anytime soon, and that unfound cache so close to our home is not ticking us off in the least. We also quite admire the "Ironman" style challenges, *especially* because it is something that we could NEVER EVER qualify for, it just won't happen. We actually derive some enjoyment out of the experiences of others, whether it is the completion of a challenge, or a hike that is 5 or 20km longer than we could ever do, or the log associated with an urban cache where the finder was thrilled to death (I've seen them, maybe even written one or two - don't tell me it doesn't happen!)

 

There are so many challenges that have been grandfathered that if you still wanna shoot for them, as long as they're maintained, they'll always be there! (I think). There are still many out there that we will personally be looking to log.

 

Everyone, just play to be happy, do it the way you want (well, within reason), and try to appreciate everyone who does it differently. Count numbers, don't count numbers, selectively count numbers, just enjoy and you don't need to justify. Don't change the way you have fun, not for anyone. (Except your spouse, of course).

Share this post


Link to post

I'm wondering if I could get some clarification on how the Canadian VR's will be interpreting one part of this revised guideline?

 

Specifically, I wonder how new county-type Challenge caches (similar to Juicepig's "Yours To Discover" or some of my own "OCD" caches, or perhaps even a DeLorme style Challenge cache) will be handled going forward? When I read the portion of the guideline How will you know when the challenge cache requirements have been met?, I get stuck on this text:

 

Importantly, cache owners must consider how they will substantiate claims that the cache requirements have been met. The challenge criteria on the cache page must reflect this consideration, and must be verifiable through information on the Geocaching.com website. Challenge caches relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published.

 

As I read it, since nowhere on the cache listings currently lists the counties in which a particular cache is located, a new Challenge cache requiring this sort of information to substantiate its completion would be pushed back to the CO and not published since it will solely require the use of third party software to determine the counties.

 

Correct? Maybe I'm off-base?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm wondering if I could get some clarification on how the Canadian VR's will be interpreting one part of this revised guideline?

 

Specifically, I wonder how new county-type Challenge caches (similar to Juicepig's "Yours To Discover" or some of my own "OCD" caches, or perhaps even a DeLorme style Challenge cache) will be handled going forward? When I read the portion of the guideline How will you know when the challenge cache requirements have been met?, I get stuck on this text:

 

Importantly, cache owners must consider how they will substantiate claims that the cache requirements have been met. The challenge criteria on the cache page must reflect this consideration, and must be verifiable through information on the Geocaching.com website. Challenge caches relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published.

 

As I read it, since nowhere on the cache listings currently lists the counties in which a particular cache is located, a new Challenge cache requiring this sort of information to substantiate its completion would be pushed back to the CO and not published since it will solely require the use of third party software to determine the counties.

 

Correct? Maybe I'm off-base?

 

Well, I am not a VR but you don't *have* to use software to verify that. A paper map will suffice, would it not? This type of challenge falls easily into the personal goal vs being competitive type so ... I hope they would publish it.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm wondering if I could get some clarification on how the Canadian VR's will be interpreting one part of this revised guideline?

 

Specifically, I wonder how new county-type Challenge caches (similar to Juicepig's "Yours To Discover" or some of my own "OCD" caches, or perhaps even a DeLorme style Challenge cache) will be handled going forward? When I read the portion of the guideline How will you know when the challenge cache requirements have been met?, I get stuck on this text:

 

Importantly, cache owners must consider how they will substantiate claims that the cache requirements have been met. The challenge criteria on the cache page must reflect this consideration, and must be verifiable through information on the Geocaching.com website. Challenge caches relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published.

 

As I read it, since nowhere on the cache listings currently lists the counties in which a particular cache is located, a new Challenge cache requiring this sort of information to substantiate its completion would be pushed back to the CO and not published since it will solely require the use of third party software to determine the counties.

 

Correct? Maybe I'm off-base?

 

Well, I am not a VR but you don't *have* to use software to verify that. A paper map will suffice, would it not? This type of challenge falls easily into the personal goal vs being competitive type so ... I hope they would publish it.

 

Since that paper map would appear to be from a third party, I read it as though it would not suffice since it is not something verifiable via Geocaching.com.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm wondering if I could get some clarification on how the Canadian VR's will be interpreting one part of this revised guideline?

 

Specifically, I wonder how new county-type Challenge caches (similar to Juicepig's "Yours To Discover" or some of my own "OCD" caches, or perhaps even a DeLorme style Challenge cache) will be handled going forward? When I read the portion of the guideline How will you know when the challenge cache requirements have been met?, I get stuck on this text:

 

Importantly, cache owners must consider how they will substantiate claims that the cache requirements have been met. The challenge criteria on the cache page must reflect this consideration, and must be verifiable through information on the Geocaching.com website. Challenge caches relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published.

 

As I read it, since nowhere on the cache listings currently lists the counties in which a particular cache is located, a new Challenge cache requiring this sort of information to substantiate its completion would be pushed back to the CO and not published since it will solely require the use of third party software to determine the counties.

 

Correct? Maybe I'm off-base?

 

Well, I am not a VR but you don't *have* to use software to verify that. A paper map will suffice, would it not? This type of challenge falls easily into the personal goal vs being competitive type so ... I hope they would publish it.

 

Since that paper map would appear to be from a third party, I read it as though it would not suffice since it is not something verifiable via Geocaching.com.

 

I think the key word "software" is important there. The spirit of the requirement seems to be more about preventing things like GSAK macros or some other piece of software being used that could cause issues (ie malware) for people. But you are correct it could also read that everything has to be verifiable solely using resources on geocaching.com. The other side of the coin is the resources on geocaching.com include OpenStreetMaps which may contain or be edited to contain county data.

Share this post


Link to post

The other side of the coin is the resources on geocaching.com include OpenStreetMaps which may contain or be edited to contain county data.

 

I'd thought of that, and in theory that makes sense to me for the most part, but I wanted to ensure this was the answer. Many counties currently don't have this information at hand via OSM (the Kenora/Rainy River boundary in Ontario is non-existent, for example and I'm sure there are others) and as such it would seem to me that you couldn't, therefore, substantiate your qualifications via the website consistently until such information was available across the board.

Share this post


Link to post

The other side of the coin is the resources on geocaching.com include OpenStreetMaps which may contain or be edited to contain county data.

 

I'd thought of that, and in theory that makes sense to me for the most part, but I wanted to ensure this was the answer. Many counties currently don't have this information at hand via OSM (the Kenora/Rainy River boundary in Ontario is non-existent, for example and I'm sure there are others) and as such it would seem to me that you couldn't, therefore, substantiate your qualifications via the website consistently until such information was available across the board.

 

Yup. Simple. Tell the would-be CO to update OpenStreetMap then resubmit smile.gif

The current OSM map puts Peel Region in the middle of Milton, so yep they need edits around here. Worldwide though the data is likely better in other places.

Share this post


Link to post

The other side of the coin is the resources on geocaching.com include OpenStreetMaps which may contain or be edited to contain county data.

 

I'd thought of that, and in theory that makes sense to me for the most part, but I wanted to ensure this was the answer. Many counties currently don't have this information at hand via OSM (the Kenora/Rainy River boundary in Ontario is non-existent, for example and I'm sure there are others) and as such it would seem to me that you couldn't, therefore, substantiate your qualifications via the website consistently until such information was available across the board.

 

Yup. Simple. Tell the would-be CO to update OpenStreetMap then resubmit smile.gif

The current OSM map puts Peel Region in the middle of Milton, so yep they need edits around here. Worldwide though the data is likely better in other places.

 

Haha.. yep. And since it's simpler to change items on these OSM maps, I think I just might change the boundary line for Oxford west 2km to suit my needs. :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

Dr. House (or others that may be bored)

 

Using ONLY the geocaching.com website, PROVE to me that "Deer Bait" GC2B4 is in the Niagara Region. And in grade 4 style, "Show Your Work" :laughing:

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

Dr. House (or others that may be bored)

 

Using ONLY the geocaching.com website, PROVE to me that "Deer Bait" GC2B4 is in the Niagara Region. And in grade 4 style, "Show Your Work" :laughing:

 

:cool: CD

 

Go to geocaching maps beta.

Find Deer Bait on the map.

Switch map type using control in top right to "My Topo"

Zoom out until NR Can Topo maps are displayed with County Boundarys.

 

Only issue with that is the maps are pre-amalgamation so it displays as "Welland County" not "Niagara Region".

 

6f31e181-72e7-4066-a6bd-9742dab57090.png?rnd=0.9861698

 

Share this post


Link to post

Well, the topo overlay on the geocaching map does show municipal and county boundaries, although in some cases outdated. (sorry, I'm not showing my work, I got through grade four because of my great smile ... So I have attempted your challenge but cannot log the find :lol: ).

 

Having said that, I get a headache looking for county boundaries on mytopo. It's a struggle to find which gray line is for a county and which is for a township that was amalgamated into something else years ago. And because the map overlay is an image, close calls could be questioned. It would be tough for a CO to rely on this for EXACT verification.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, the topo overlay on the geocaching map does show municipal and county boundaries, although in some cases outdated. (sorry, I'm not showing my work, I got through grade four because of my great smile ... So I have attempted your challenge but cannot log the find :lol: ).

 

Having said that, I get a headache looking for county boundaries on mytopo. It's a struggle to find which gray line is for a county and which is for a township that was amalgamated into something else years ago. And because the map overlay is an image, close calls could be questioned. It would be tough for a CO to rely on this for EXACT verification.

 

You can zoom out to get the county name, then switch to OpenStreetMaps and zoom back in for exact boundary, which is shown but not labelled.

Me, I'd tend to use another tool *cough*GSAK*cough* but in the *technically it can be done bucket* we may have a loophole here which may allow a county challenge to be published.

 

As for Thunder Stealing, sorry, I just found the challenge to be a fun activity smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

As for Thunder Stealing, sorry, I just found the challenge to be a fun activity smile.gif

 

And you showed your work! Too bad that the data in mytopo is a little out of date. They obviously don't update as often as the Ontario Trails Project.

 

And I'm having fun too!

Share this post


Link to post

As for Thunder Stealing, sorry, I just found the challenge to be a fun activity smile.gif

 

And you showed your work! Too bad that the data in mytopo is a little out of date. They obviously don't update as often as the Ontario Trails Project.

 

And I'm having fun too!

 

Yeah. Now if Groundspeak still linked to Google it would be dirt simple. If you allow *one* little jump you can get the current boundaries from Google Maps. You can start with the link from the cache page, then simply Google the County Name.

 

090a816a-029e-4d9b-99fc-3aeab6c65492.png

 

Share this post


Link to post

As for Thunder Stealing, sorry, I just found the challenge to be a fun activity smile.gif

 

And you showed your work! Too bad that the data in mytopo is a little out of date. They obviously don't update as often as the Ontario Trails Project.

 

And I'm having fun too!

 

Now I do need to point out that's a CANADA problem for the maps. You *can* fix it if you are determined.

Put OpenCycleMap as the map type and look at the USA. You see county names and boundaries, which means Groundspeak WILL display the county names if you put the county name data/boundaries into the OpenStreetMap project.

It's just a bit of front end work for the would-be Cache Owner, if the above does not meet the VR approval here that is.

Share this post


Link to post

As for Thunder Stealing, sorry, I just found the challenge to be a fun activity smile.gif

 

And you showed your work! Too bad that the data in mytopo is a little out of date. They obviously don't update as often as the Ontario Trails Project.

 

And I'm having fun too!

 

Now I do need to point out that's a CANADA problem for the maps. You *can* fix it if you are determined.

Put OpenCycleMap as the map type and look at the USA. You see county names and boundaries, which means Groundspeak WILL display the county names if you put the county name data/boundaries into the OpenStreetMap project.

It's just a bit of front end work for the would-be Cache Owner, if the above does not meet the VR approval here that is.

 

That's interesting. I have county and municipal data that I use at work and that is freely available and accurate, well I think both are true. I have never contributed to OSM. Maybe I should start.

 

This is forking into the map propeller head forum. I wish there was one. Interested to see if this works from a VR point of view re Dr House's original question. I'm not sure if it works for me yet.

Share this post


Link to post

Dr. House (or others that may be bored)

 

Using ONLY the geocaching.com website, PROVE to me that "Deer Bait" GC2B4 is in the Niagara Region. And in grade 4 style, "Show Your Work" :laughing:

 

:cool: CD

 

Awesome. That was helpful.

Share this post


Link to post

Dr. House (or others that may be bored)

 

Using ONLY the geocaching.com website, PROVE to me that "Deer Bait" GC2B4 is in the Niagara Region. And in grade 4 style, "Show Your Work" :laughing:

 

:cool: CD

 

Interesting, CD. Although the mad mapper came up with the whole Topo map idea. Welland County? I'm 48, and I never heard it called that! Of course I'm American, but very near by.

 

So here's one, CD. What about Jasmer's or Mini-Jasmer's? Can they be determined only using Geocaching.com? Ironically enough, I placed a 2002 mini one a month ago, before the new guidelines, and I have 3 sitting in the woods I was finally going to submit together this weekend, after the change.

Share this post


Link to post

 

So here's one, CD. What about Jasmer's or Mini-Jasmer's? Can they be determined only using Geocaching.com? Ironically enough, I placed a 2002 mini one a month ago, before the new guidelines, and I have 3 sitting in the woods I was finally going to submit together this weekend, after the change.

 

Well normally I would send you over to Sapience Trek or NYAdmin but since we have those here too :anibad:

 

It is perfectly fine to use a third party solution to provide the proof to yourself. And then turn around and say here is the geocaching.com verification for the Cache Owner.

 

So let's use the JASMER example that you raised, since my player account has done it. Off the top of my head I couldn't possibly tell you what cache placed in Feb 2001 I found. And it would be painful to sift through all of my almost 4000 finds to figure it out. So in comes a third party piece of software, let's say GSAK, which tells me that I found GC1FD - Jusef's Cache. Then I could turn around and say that cache counts for my Feb 2001 requirement using just the link to the cache page. As far as the CO is concerned I gave proof from data available from the geocaching.com website.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

Dr. House (or others that may be bored)

 

Using ONLY the geocaching.com website, PROVE to me that "Deer Bait" GC2B4 is in the Niagara Region. And in grade 4 style, "Show Your Work" :laughing:

 

:cool: CD

 

Awesome. That was helpful.

 

If it was, cool. If not, please let me know so we can keep trying to find an answer. Also please remember that we are not trying to find ways to deny new challenge caches, just trying to keep the focus on the right aspects of the game. Those being the geocaching.com site and trying to not restrict (certain) people.

 

:cool: CD

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...