Challenge Caches updated 3/12/12

[+South Lyon Trekkers]

I skimmed through the comments and saw only a brief mention of this and I don't know if this was a recent addition or not.

 

"Challenge caches relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published."

 

Geocaching.com has no way to verify county and Delorme challenges. Thus, county and Delorme challenges are not acceptable. While I realize just about every state, if not all, have these challenges established. If that were to change, a new one could not be created.

 

I have not seen the Help section before on Challenges caches. I have had not need to look and the Help section has been pretty bad. There are a lot of rules for challenge caches listed there. I understand why for many of them, but it is still a whole lot of micromanagement. There is a reason for the Ignore button. A challenge cache that a cacher does not want to attempt can be ignored.

 

Furthermore, the Challenges app and the Wherigos could be considered "third-party" apps or, better yet, third party devices. A smart-phone is essentially needed for either.

 

Geocaching.com sorely lacks consistency and efficacy and it is not just this issue.

[+Dame Deco]

Since FTF isn't anything official anyway--the CO could give out 2 FTF's, one for the challenge done before and one for after the published date. Heck an experienced cacher could go for both!

[+addisonbr]

"Challenge caches relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published."

 

Geocaching.com has no way to verify county and Delorme challenges. Thus, county and Delorme challenges are not acceptable. While I realize just about every state, if not all, have these challenges established. If that were to change, a new one could not be created.

Sure they could. The CO simply can't *require* that third-party software be used to verify the completion. In other words, you can't list a DeLorme cache and require GSAK output to prove completion.

 

What you can do is list a DeLorme cache and allow cachers to list the completed caches in their log, to create an annotated bookmark list with completed caches, etc. You just can't require GSAK or other third party software to be the only route to completion.

 

Furthermore, the Challenges app and the Wherigos could be considered "third-party" apps

I'm fairly certain Groundspeak would not consider software owned by Groundspeak as third-party.

[+Dr. House]

"Challenge caches relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published."

 

Geocaching.com has no way to verify county and Delorme challenges. Thus, county and Delorme challenges are not acceptable. While I realize just about every state, if not all, have these challenges established. If that were to change, a new one could not be created.

Sure they could. The CO simply can't *require* that third-party software be used to verify the completion. In other words, you can't list a DeLorme cache and require GSAK output to prove completion.

 

What you can do is list a DeLorme cache and allow cachers to list the completed caches in their log, to create an annotated bookmark list with completed caches, etc. You just can't require GSAK or other third party software to be the only route to completion.

 

 

I have to agree with SLT's interpretation of this section of the guidelines. Since there is currently nothing on Geocaching.com to verify that the qualifications have been completed (ie. "A cache in Niagara County, New York" or "this cache shows up on page 34 of NY Delorme") I can't see how a CO could accurately verify that this could be completed now without the use of a program or document from a source other than this website.

[+tozainamboku]

As someone who has objected to the use of caches to present challenges, I find the changes in the guidelines perplexing. They do address some of the issues I have had with particular challenges, so there may be fewer new challenges that I simply don't want to do. But when I have objected that a particular challenge isn't going to make me change the way I enjoy caching, the general response has been "so don't do that challenge". I've pretty much accepted that a challenge that asks me to do something I don't think I would enjoy can be ignored. Or I can find the cache and log a note (and know that my find count is really one greater than than what the statistics show and that I've actually cached on a particular date, even if the stats say differently).

 

I'd wager that the changes are due to volunteer reviewers tired of some of the sillier challenges that were being proposed. The old guidelines may have given some control, but in many instances a silly challenge would be allowed or be borderline and the reviewer felt they had no choice but to publish it.

 

The new guidelines seem vaguely reminiscent of the virtual cache "wow" requirement. "A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers. 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."

 

My prediction is that we are going to have the forums full of "Why wasn't my challenge published". And particularly ones like "The reviewer in California published one just like this, so why won't Keystone publish my version in Pennsylvania?". Rather than having to meet a subjective view as to whether this appeals to a reasonable number of geocachers and doesn't require someone to change their geocaching habits, TPTB may eventually realize that cache logging requirements are not a good way to put forward a challenge. Instead create a separate way to put forward challenges and then allow people to post when they accomplish them. They can be as silly as you want because people with either ignore them all or pick the challenges that look interesting. Another option is to just have the TPTB implement "souvenirs" for accomplishment can be determined directly from the statistics page - simply add badges to the statistics page. (And since there is already a way to hide certain sections of the statistics, an iconoclast like me hopes to be able to hide these badges).

[+addisonbr]

I have to agree with SLT's interpretation of this section of the guidelines. Since there is currently nothing on Geocaching.com to verify that the qualifications have been completed (ie. "A cache in Niagara County, New York" or "this cache shows up on page 34 of NY Delorme") I can't see how a CO could accurately verify that this could be completed now without the use of a program or document from a source other than this website.

Well, you could simply ask cachers to:

 

- List the qualifying caches in their log

- Create a bookmark list

- Send you a list of caches in email

 

The new guidelines prohibit none of that. And you could then either take their word for it, check them by hand, or if you are really concerned that someone is pulling a fast one on you, you could always use GSAK on your own dime to verify.

 

The point is you can no longer require the *cacher* to use third-party software. But if you don't trust them and you want to plug the waypoints into GSAK yourself, of course there's nothing that prohibits you as a CO exhibiting that level of fastidiousness.

 

But it's flat-out false to suggest that the new guideline prohibits DeLorme challenges.

[+lamoracke]

I do not think it would be inaccurate for someone to just list their county challenges in a bookmark list. The CO could use GSAK behind the scenes if they like, but I think a simple eye test is good enough for government's work for a statewide county challenge.

 

At some point Groundspeak is just going to have to bite the bullet and realize GSAK is not going away any day soon. Ebay eventually bought Paypal, GS either needs to buy them or be partners with them because too many folks rely on it.

[+Dr. House]

I have to agree with SLT's interpretation of this section of the guidelines. Since there is currently nothing on Geocaching.com to verify that the qualifications have been completed (ie. "A cache in Niagara County, New York" or "this cache shows up on page 34 of NY Delorme") I can't see how a CO could accurately verify that this could be completed now without the use of a program or document from a source other than this website.

Well, you could simply ask cachers to:

 

- List the qualifying caches in their log

- Create a bookmark list

- Send you a list of caches in email

 

The new guidelines prohibit none of that. And you could then either take their word for it, check them by hand, or if you are really concerned that someone is pulling a fast one on you, you could always use GSAK on your own dime to verify.

 

The point is you can no longer require the *cacher* to use third-party software. But if you don't trust them and you want to plug the waypoints into GSAK yourself, of course there's nothing that prohibits you as a CO exhibiting that level of fastidiousness.

 

But it's flat-out false to suggest that the new guideline prohibits DeLorme challenges.

 

For now, I think I'm going to have to politely disagree until some clarification is handed down.

 

Yes, a finder of any Challenge cache has all of the same means to provide some sort of list to the CO of that cache. We agree on this, since clearly this behaviour will need to continue for existing Challenge caches.

 

The point where I don't believe that a new DeLorme/County challenge can pass the reviewer queue is this one, in the new guideline verbiage:

 

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.

 

This leads me to believe that the notion that it would be OK to simply take a cacher at their word that they've met your requirements will not be sufficient to get your new DeLorme (or similar) published since there's nothing currently available on the geocaching website to definitively verify how you will measure that claim. In my interpretation, a new challenge cache based on finding a cache in all US states is publishable (we can obtain a list of caches from the finder and verify that they do, in fact, have them all) whereas a new Challenge cache that requires a cacher to find a cache in every page of New York DeLorme would not fly because there isn't anything currently available on the Geocaching.com website that defines these boundaries. Since it isn't available on the website currently, you would be relying solely on third-party software (maps, GSAK, etc.) for verification purposes, which seems to be addressed as a no-no by the second sentence.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think they're fascinating challenge caches and I'd love to hear from Sandy or another Lackey that I'm off-base on this one, but as I read it, they're grandfathered also.

[+niraD]

In my interpretation, a new challenge cache based on finding a cache in all US states is publishable (we can obtain a list of caches from the finder and verify that they do, in fact, have them all) whereas a new Challenge cache that requires a cacher to find a cache in every page of New York DeLorme would not fly because there isn't anything currently available on the Geocaching.com website that defines these boundaries. Since it isn't available on the website currently, you would be relying solely on third-party software (maps, GSAK, etc.) for verification purposes, which seems to be addressed as a no-no by the second sentence.

If the challenge cache itself specifies the boundaries of the various regions (USGS map quadrangles, DeLorme map pages, whatever), then to verify the requirements, you'd need only the coordinates of each cache. That is provided by the geocaching.com site.

 

Does anything change if the challenge cache specifies some other source (not software, but a reference source) to define the boundaries of the various regions?

[+Dr. House]

In my interpretation, a new challenge cache based on finding a cache in all US states is publishable (we can obtain a list of caches from the finder and verify that they do, in fact, have them all) whereas a new Challenge cache that requires a cacher to find a cache in every page of New York DeLorme would not fly because there isn't anything currently available on the Geocaching.com website that defines these boundaries. Since it isn't available on the website currently, you would be relying solely on third-party software (maps, GSAK, etc.) for verification purposes, which seems to be addressed as a no-no by the second sentence.

 

If the challenge cache itself specifies the boundaries of the various regions (USGS map quadrangles, DeLorme map pages, whatever), then to verify the requirements, you'd need only the coordinates of each cache. That is provided by the geocaching.com site.

 

Does anything change if the challenge cache specifies some other source (not software, but a reference source) to define the boundaries of the various regions?

 

As I read it, yes, since nowhere on this website, given the static posted co-ords, tells that Challenge cache finder or owner which page, county, component of that Challenge cache is satisfied.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I skimmed through the comments and saw only a brief mention of this and I don't know if this was a recent addition or not.

 

"Challenge caches relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published."

 

Geocaching.com has no way to verify county and Delorme challenges. Thus, county and Delorme challenges are not acceptable....

 

Hello South Lyon Trekkers - in the U.S. Mapquest maps indicate county boundaries. These are linked on every cache page.

It's quite possible to verify counties from the cache page. It may certainly be more of an issue elsewhere.

Re DeLorme, going back to the first DeLorme Challenge, Bryan Roth (one of Groundspeak's owners) decided to let this product be used in this way and worked with DeLorme on it. There's a blanket exception for the use of Delorme mapping for challenges. For many places where the DeLorme Challenges currently exist, someone has created gpx files of the page boundaries, so that seekers don't need to purchase anything from Delorme.

 

Furthermore, the Challenges app and the Wherigos could be considered "third-party" apps or, better yet, third party devices. A smart-phone is essentially needed for either.

 

 

Wherigo is Groundspeak's own product. It's not "third party". I run it on an old PDA that I bought for $30 with bluetooth gps that I bought for $25. I run it on my laptop and my computer. My husband's Oregon gps runs it. I don't own a smart phone.

 

From the guidelines, "A device that can play Wherigo is not considered special equipment."

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=308#Wherigo

[+Dame Deco]

The counties cached in also comes up in the "my profile" etc. that's linked to geocaching.com. The counties are tiny and in red, mind you, but if someone has cached in all the counties in a state, it can be there to see in anyone's profile using a geocaching.com service. mygeocachingprofile.com

Edited March 14, 2012 by Dame Deco

[+DanOCan]

The least angsty way is what the revision in the guidelines has adopted. Visiting a cache that I have already done just to satisfy an arbitrary date requirement would cause me a lot of angst, since I abhor waste and useless gestures.

I'm with you. Also, as a CO if I started to see a lot of people posting Notes on my caches saying "Revisited for purposes of such-and-such challenge cache" I'd be sorely tempted to delete them or archive the listing. It cvan be annoying enough seeing all the caches "littered" with public Bookmark listings so challenge cache owners can verify requirements.

[+addisonbr]

I'm with you. Also, as a CO if I started to see a lot of people posting Notes on my caches saying "Revisited for purposes of such-and-such challenge cache" I'd be sorely tempted to delete them or archive the listing. It cvan be annoying enough seeing all the caches "littered" with public Bookmark listings so challenge cache owners can verify requirements.

I actually like it when people revisit my caches, but I can understand folks who don't.

 

Do you also get irritated at Notes that are left when people exchange bugs at caches they've already visited? I get dozens of those a year, if not more.

 

(I do agree with you about public bookmark listings. I'd prefer for those to be shared but not public.)

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

In my interpretation, a new challenge cache based on finding a cache in all US states is publishable (we can obtain a list of caches from the finder and verify that they do, in fact, have them all) whereas a new Challenge cache that requires a cacher to find a cache in every page of New York DeLorme would not fly because there isn't anything currently available on the Geocaching.com website that defines these boundaries. Since it isn't available on the website currently, you would be relying solely on third-party software (maps, GSAK, etc.) for verification purposes, which seems to be addressed as a no-no by the second sentence.

If the challenge cache itself specifies the boundaries of the various regions (USGS map quadrangles, DeLorme map pages, whatever), then to verify the requirements, you'd need only the coordinates of each cache. That is provided by the geocaching.com site.

 

That is what I did for hte Little rhody DeLorme Challenge (since I knew not everyone buys the almanac). I provided a PDF worksheet with the coordinates of the opposite corners of each page. A quick visual check for the cacher and they can determine if they are set for a given page.

[Clan Riffster]

I'll add my name to the slowly growing list of folks who are glad to see these new guidelines. I wish they were applied retroactively, rather than letting non-guideline compliant challenges be grandfathered. But this is their sandbox. They get to make the rules. I've seen so many challenges where the write up was a glaring advertisement for how much of a control freak the cache owner was. So many challenges have been published that had the needle in a haystack feel, ("Ooh! I got an idea for a dang near impossible challenge!"), in that they were created with the only goal as being to see how hard the owner could make the challenge. Some folks really enjoy facing such challenges, and I have nothing but kudos for them, but I am not one of them. I prefer to keep this hobby stress free.

 

I see some of that mentality showing up here in the form of protests.

A few folks are having their ability to control every single aspect of their cache taken away.

Since that kinda flows with my Dudeism mindset, I gotta say, I like it.

 

A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers. 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.

 

Hopefully, they'll get a wordsmith to play with this one between now and the next revision. I know Groundspeak has really embraced the P&G power trail crowd, but I hope this guideline doesn't mean what it says. As mentioned, Handicachers are a segment of geocachers. Taken in its strict interpretation, that would mean any challenge which could not be fulfilled using wheelchair friendly caches would not be published. Maybe reword the first sentence? Maybe add a third sentence? I don't think the wording of the second sentence is strong enough to offset the wording of the first, if Groundspeak is not wanting to exclude anything above a T-1 from challenges.

[+addisonbr]

I've seen so many challenges where the write up was a glaring advertisement for how much of a control freak the cache owner was. So many challenges have been published that had the needle in a haystack feel, ("Ooh! I got an idea for a dang near impossible challenge!"), in that they were created with the only goal as being to see how hard the owner could make the challenge.

I've noticed that trend as well. In the last two or three years sometimes a CO will accomplish something really obscure, and then turn right around and post a challenge based on that.

[+The Jester]

A challenge cache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers. 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.

 

Hopefully, they'll get a wordsmith to play with this one between now and the next revision. I know Groundspeak has really embraced the P&G power trail crowd, but I hope this guideline doesn't mean what it says. As mentioned, Handicachers are a segment of geocachers. Taken in its strict interpretation, that would mean any challenge which could not be fulfilled using wheelchair friendly caches would not be published. Maybe reword the first sentence? Maybe add a third sentence? I don't think the wording of the second sentence is strong enough to offset the wording of the first, if Groundspeak is not wanting to exclude anything above a T-1 from challenges.

I think most of the people who are objecting to this section is missing the word "specifically". The 81-chart challenges don't specifically exclude anybody (i.e.. handicachers), there are lot of fully abled cachers who can't handle the higher terrain caches (it also brings to mind the climber, who's legs were paralyzed in a fall, later climbed El Cap using some special equipment he made).

[+The red-haired witch]

I think most of the people who are objecting to this section is missing the word "specifically". The 81-chart challenges don't specifically exclude anybody (i.e.. handicachers), there are lot of fully abled cachers who can't handle the higher terrain caches (it also brings to mind the climber, who's legs were paralyzed in a fall, later climbed El Cap using some special equipment he made).

 

I agree.

 

By specifically exclude, I believe the guidelines mean that a challenge including things like "you have to be a charter members" or "you have to be a woman" or "you have to be less than 18 years old" won't be published.

 

Asking for people to find specific types of caches is not the same as specifically excluding a segement of geocachers. Sure, some specific caches could be impossible for some individuals, but a challenge cannot be based on a specific list of caches. And you could always team up with someone else to help you solve some high difficulty puzzles or to help you get up some mountains. I've also found terrain 5 caches that a paraplegic could find, using a kayak.

[+CanadianRockies]

I've seen so many challenges where the write up was a glaring advertisement for how much of a control freak the cache owner was. So many challenges have been published that had the needle in a haystack feel, ("Ooh! I got an idea for a dang near impossible challenge!"), in that they were created with the only goal as being to see how hard the owner could make the challenge.

I've noticed that trend as well. In the last two or three years sometimes a CO will accomplish something really obscure, and then turn right around and post a challenge based on that.

When a cache gets placed on the International Space Station, Groundspeak publicizes it. There are caches placed deep in the oceans, high atop mountains, on huge icefields, and in dense jungles that few (if any) geocachers will ever find. There are extreme "needle in a haystack" traditionals and incredibly tricky puzzle caches.

 

I might not be interested in seeking all these types of caches, but I'm glad they exist for other geocachers to enjoy. Vive la différence. Fortunately, I don't feel the need to find every cache. I can ignore those that are too difficult for me or aren't fun.

 

Personally, I enjoy challenge caches that are...well...challenging. Many of my most memorable challenge completions are the most difficult ones.

[Clan Riffster]

I've seen so many challenges where the write up was a glaring advertisement for how much of a control freak the cache owner was. So many challenges have been published that had the needle in a haystack feel, ("Ooh! I got an idea for a dang near impossible challenge!"), in that they were created with the only goal as being to see how hard the owner could make the challenge.

I've noticed that trend as well. In the last two or three years sometimes a CO will accomplish something really obscure, and then turn right around and post a challenge based on that.

When a cache gets placed on the International Space Station, Groundspeak publicizes it. There are caches placed deep in the oceans, high atop mountains, on huge icefields, and in dense jungles that few (if any) geocachers will ever find. There are extreme "needle in a haystack" traditionals and incredibly tricky puzzle caches.

 

I might not be interested in seeking all these types of caches, but I'm glad they exist for other geocachers to enjoy. Vive la différence. Fortunately, I don't feel the need to find every cache. I can ignore those that are too difficult for me or aren't fun.

 

Personally, I enjoy challenge caches that are...well...challenging. Many of my most memorable challenge completions are the most difficult ones.

Not arguing any of that. I could create a 10 stage multi by getting one of those guys who paint Chinese glyphs on grains of rice to paint sets of coordinates on grains of sand. Then drop those grains of sand along a 20 mile stretch of beach. Technically, it could be found... eventually. Some would even call such a cache 'challenging'. I would just call it annoying. Different strokes for different folks, I reckon. I see deliberately overly complex challenge caches in the same light.

[+DragonsWest]

I pick and choose which challenges I'm going to complete (usually idenfied by ones I'm already somewhere along the path, so it's just more planning and work to finish it off.) I'm a bit perlexed by the changes, feeling in some ways Groundpeak is watering down what we can get published. Some are understandable changes, but if a state doesn't already have a DeLorme Challenge, how are they going to get one, as the DeLorme pages are certainly not part of a cache page, unless the CO elects to add to the listing.

 

I think it would be a good idea for more members of the Frog (head Frog included) to get out and try some of the existing Challenges, before making it more difficult to place them.

 

The thrill of completing a challenge can be quite exhillerating (like when I completed the SF Bay Area Quads challenge,) considering a lot of effort and some expense goes into completing these - they are purely the choice of the Geocacher to pursue.

[+JL_HSTRE]

"Challenge caches relying solely on third-party software for verification will not be published."

 

Geocaching.com has no way to verify county and Delorme challenges. Thus, county and Delorme challenges are not acceptable. While I realize just about every state, if not all, have these challenges established. If that were to change, a new one could not be created.

 

Didn't Groundspeak buy MyGeocachingProfile.com (which does have county maps and DeLorme maps)? That could be a way to circumvent the 3rd party requirement.

 

But on county/DeLorme challenges the people logging them post a Bookmark list for verification so it would be a non-issue? How the CO verifies the required Bookmark list is up to them.

Edited March 14, 2012 by Joshism

[+CanadianRockies]

But on county/DeLorme challenges the people logging them post a Bookmark list for verification so it would be a non-issue? How the CO verifies the required Bookmark list is up to them.

Not according to the revised guidelines:

 

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.

I'm not sure why Groundspeak wants the CO to be able to verify via geocaching.com, but they apparently do.

Edited March 14, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[Clan Riffster]

I'm thinking, if the finder included a bookmark list, the owner would be able to verify that the challenge has been met using nothing but the GC maps. Sure, it might take a while, but it's doable. For instance, a challenge requiring a find in each county of a particular state could be verified by clicking on each cache in the bookmark list, then clicking on the map. Verifying a challenge requiring a find on each possible D/T sequence would be a simple but time consuming task. Verifying a Delorme challenge would be a simple but time consuming matter of checking the coords of each cache in a bookmark list to ensure they fall within a certain grid. All done using nothing but Groundspeak software.

[+The Jester]

But on county/DeLorme challenges the people logging them post a Bookmark list for verification so it would be a non-issue? How the CO verifies the required Bookmark list is up to them.

Not according to the revised guidelines:

 

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.

I'm not sure why Groundspeak wants the CO to be able to verify via geocaching.com, but they apparently do.

Again the arguement is missing the word "solely". Once a list of caches (GPX, Bookmark, test list, etc.) is supplied, there are many ways the Challenge CO can verify the claim - and no way for anyone to check which method the CO uses. But to require a screenshot of (say) GSAK FSG output, requires the finder to use a specific 3d party software. That's what's forbidden. To claim that GC.com is forbidding the use of third party software by CO's is, IMO, BS. It would be like saying that means you can't email the CO info with anything but the GC email system.

[Clan Riffster]

Jester, I like your take on this. I read it as Groundspeak saying a CO must be able to utilize Groundspeak software to verify that the finds qualify for the challenge, if that's the method they choose. I don't read it as a CO must use Groundspeak software in exclusion to other software available, should they choose to use other methods.

[+Lil Devil]

Again the arguement is missing the word "solely". Once a list of caches (GPX, Bookmark, test list, etc.) is supplied, there are many ways the Challenge CO can verify the claim - and no way for anyone to check which method the CO uses. But to require a screenshot of (say) GSAK FSG output, requires the finder to use a specific 3d party software. That's what's forbidden.

Finally a voice of reason.

[+CanadianRockies]

But on county/DeLorme challenges the people logging them post a Bookmark list for verification so it would be a non-issue? How the CO verifies the required Bookmark list is up to them.

Not according to the revised guidelines:

 

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.

I'm not sure why Groundspeak wants the CO to be able to verify via geocaching.com, but they apparently do.

Again the arguement is missing the word "solely". Once a list of caches (GPX, Bookmark, test list, etc.) is supplied, there are many ways the Challenge CO can verify the claim - and no way for anyone to check which method the CO uses. But to require a screenshot of (say) GSAK FSG output, requires the finder to use a specific 3d party software. That's what's forbidden. To claim that GC.com is forbidding the use of third party software by CO's is, IMO, BS. It would be like saying that means you can't email the CO info with anything but the GC email system.

I'm not claiming that Groundspeak is forbidding the use of 3rd party software by COs. I'm saying the revised guidelines require that the COs be able to verify via geocaching.com.

 

According to my reading of the new guidelines, I can no longer create a challenge cache that requires people to find 30 caches that are located within a kilometre of a Canada Geodetic Survey Marker.

[Clan Riffster]

Why not? If you supply the coordinates of said marker(s), wouldn't you be able to look at the coordinates of the submitted finds to see how far away they are from the marker(s)? Sure, it'll mean a lot more work than using third party software, but it's still possible. Unless you don't supply the coordinates. Then the seeker would need to rely on another website to begin your hypothetical challenge.

[+Dr. House]

According to my reading of the new guidelines, I can no longer create a challenge cache that requires people to find 30 caches that are located within a kilometre of a Canada Geodetic Survey Marker.

 

I think you could do this provided the Marker was available as a listing on Waymarking.com, or co-ords were provided to that Marker in the listing. A potential finder or CO could then use the "find geocaches by co-ords" function to output a list of caches within whatever distance you'd specify.

 

What I don't think would be published is a hypothetical challenge requiring that you find 1 Canada Geodetic Survey Marker in 10 separate counties/regions. There's just nothing on geocaching.com that provides that information consistently to verify.

 

This question does seem to be gaining some traction, so it would be interesting to have a Lackey's guidance on this point.

[+The Jester]

I'm not claiming that Groundspeak is forbidding the use of 3rd party software by COs. I'm saying the revised guidelines require that the COs be able to verify via geocaching.com.

 

According to my reading of the new guidelines, I can no longer create a challenge cache that requires people to find 30 caches that are located within a kilometre of a Canada Geodetic Survey Marker.

Explain to me how the heck anyone is going to know what you (the CO) use to verify a claim? I'm assuming the Challenge asks for a file list of some sort.

 

I have a Challenge (Washington History Challenge) that you don't have to send me any info on what caches you've found, I monitor the caches/logs and can see who has how many found. Would like to tell me how I do that? What I use? Yes, I do use third party software (try doing it without), but it's not required anywhere in the Challenge. And it uses data from GC.com.

[+CanadianRockies]

I'm not claiming that Groundspeak is forbidding the use of 3rd party software by COs. I'm saying the revised guidelines require that the COs be able to verify via geocaching.com.

 

According to my reading of the new guidelines, I can no longer create a challenge cache that requires people to find 30 caches that are located within a kilometre of a Canada Geodetic Survey Marker.

Explain to me how the heck anyone is going to know what you (the CO) use to verify a claim? I'm assuming the Challenge asks for a file list of some sort.

Again, I'm not saying the cache owner has to use geocaching.com to verify the claim. They can use anything they like. I'm saying the revised guidelines appear to require that the cache owner must BE ABLE TO verify the finders' claims via geocaching.com.

 

If you're unable to explain to a Groundspeak reviewer how you COULD verify the claims via geocaching.com, then they might not publish your challenge cache.

[+Dr. House]

Explain to me how the heck anyone is going to know what you (the CO) use to verify a claim? I'm assuming the Challenge asks for a file list of some sort.

 

Once a VR looks over your new Challenge cache listing pre-publication, if they can't see a means to verify that you or a finder will be able to substantiate that the requirements of your challenge have been completed by using only the tools provided at Geocaching.com, I'm guessing they'll ask you. As I read it, if you say that you'll be using something other than Geocaching.com website provided statistics or geographical information, your listing would be pushed back to you to work on further.

 

Previously listed Challenge caches would be allowed to continue as you describe as it pertains to demonstrating qualifications.

[+CanadianRockies]

According to my reading of the new guidelines, I can no longer create a challenge cache that requires people to find 30 caches that are located within a kilometre of a Canada Geodetic Survey Marker.

I think you could do this provided the Marker was available as a listing on Waymarking.com, or co-ords were provided to that Marker in the listing. A potential finder or CO could then use the "find geocaches by co-ords" function to output a list of caches within whatever distance you'd specify.

I didn't explain that very well. The hypothetical challenge would require 30 finds that are located within a kilometre of any Canada Geodetic Survey Marker.

[+tozainamboku]

Finally a voice of reason.

It doesn't matter how many people are reasonable and understand the the issue isn't going to other sites to determine the specifics of a challenge or whether the cache owner can use some tool to verify the list provided by the finder. People will parse and interpret the guidelines to advance their own agendas. Reviewers' decisions will be challenged and a lot of people will be unhappy.

 

The guideline causing all the debate reads a lot like the puzzle cache guideline that "The information needed to solve a puzzle cache (sometimes called a mystery cache) must be available to the general community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page." and the guideline "Geocache listings that require additional website registration, installs or downloads are generally not publishable."

 

The challenge cache guideline simply clarifies that same guidelines that apply to other caches also apply to challenge caches. If only the no ALR guideline were to apply to challenge caches, then I would be happy.

Edited March 15, 2012 by tozainamboku

[+The Jester]

Explain to me how the heck anyone is going to know what you (the CO) use to verify a claim? I'm assuming the Challenge asks for a file list of some sort.

 

Once a VR looks over your new Challenge cache listing pre-publication, if they can't see a means to verify that you or a finder will be able to substantiate that the requirements of your challenge have been completed by using only the tools provided at Geocaching.com, I'm guessing they'll ask you. As I read it, if you say that you'll be using something other than Geocaching.com website provided statistics or geographical information, your listing would be pushed back to you to work on further.

 

Previously listed Challenge caches would be allowed to continue as you describe as it pertains to demonstrating qualifications.

What I would use is the "geographical information" found on each and every cache page - the listed co-ords. With that information alone I can determine where the cache is and if it qualifies for the challenge. How I determine that is up to me, the CO.

[+The Jester]

People will parse and interpret the guidelines to advance their own agendas.

Oh, that is very clear. I've noticed some very anti-GC.com bias in many of these threads. I think of it as the Chicken Little view - "GC.com is making the sky fall!"

[+DanOCan]

Interesting -- the way I read the guideline was a limitation on how the cache owner can request the information from cache seekers. You can't require them to send you a GSAK database of their qualifying finds, for example.

 

I don't honestly see how this puts any limitations on the tools a CO uses for verifying the claims -- since Groundspeak wouldn't have any way to know that.

 

Using the above GSAK example, the CO can't ask you to send them a database, but as a CO you could certain take a bookmark list from the seeker and import it into GSAK to verify your claims.

[+Totem Clan]

Interesting -- the way I read the guideline was a limitation on how the cache owner can request the information from cache seekers. You can't require them to send you a GSAK database of their qualifying finds, for example.

 

I don't honestly see how this puts any limitations on the tools a CO uses for verifying the claims -- since Groundspeak wouldn't have any way to know that.

 

Using the above GSAK example, the CO can't ask you to send them a database, but as a CO you could certain take a bookmark list from the seeker and import it into GSAK to verify your claims.

I would say the CO can't require a GSAK list.

[+ngrrfan]

Interesting -- the way I read the guideline was a limitation on how the cache owner can request the information from cache seekers. You can't require them to send you a GSAK database of their qualifying finds, for example.

 

I don't honestly see how this puts any limitations on the tools a CO uses for verifying the claims -- since Groundspeak wouldn't have any way to know that.

 

Using the above GSAK example, the CO can't ask you to send them a database, but as a CO you could certain take a bookmark list from the seeker and import it into GSAK to verify your claims.

I'm going to pop in here and say..... We are only allowed a certain number of bookmark lists. Why should I give up one of those "list spaces" just so a CO can verify I met their challenge?

 

IMHO, this leaves two options:

A) as a CO if you want to verify that I've met your requirement(s) you can look at my whole list of Finds and figure it out for yourself, or

as a CO you can accept any form that I provide as proof that I've met the requirement(s)

 

I think that option "B" above is going to be the choice of most people.

[+addisonbr]

I'm going to pop in here and say..... We are only allowed a certain number of bookmark lists. Why should I give up one of those "list spaces" just so a CO can verify I met their challenge?

 

IMHO, this leaves two options:

A) as a CO if you want to verify that I've met your requirement(s) you can look at my whole list of Finds and figure it out for yourself, or

B ) as a CO you can accept any form that I provide as proof that I've met the requirement(s)

 

I think that option "B" above is going to be the choice of most people.

I'm at my limit myself; I repeatedly have to delete bookmark lists so that I can start new ones.

 

I'd hope that a CO would allow me to submit an emailed list of the caches to qualify, or list them in my log, as opposed to requiring a bookmark list.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

I'm going to pop in here and say..... We are only allowed a certain number of bookmark lists. Why should I give up one of those "list spaces" just so a CO can verify I met their challenge?

 

IMHO, this leaves two options:

A) as a CO if you want to verify that I've met your requirement(s) you can look at my whole list of Finds and figure it out for yourself, or

B ) as a CO you can accept any form that I provide as proof that I've met the requirement(s)

 

I think that option "B" above is going to be the choice of most people.

I'm at my limit myself; I repeatedly have to delete bookmark lists so that I can start new ones.

 

I'd hope that a CO would allow me to submit an emailed list of the caches to qualify, or list them in my log, as opposed to requiring a bookmark list.

 

I am going to be a dissenting voice, as an owner of a DeLorme challenge. I take the bookmark list, create a PQ, and load it into my DeLorme maps, and quickly verify each page is covered. I am not going to take an email, and enter the coordinates for the caches manually, for the relatively large number of people who complete it.

[knowschad]

Since FTF isn't anything official anyway--the CO could give out 2 FTF's, one for the challenge done before and one for after the published date. Heck an experienced cacher could go for both!

 

Since this is the 2nd time this has been mentioned, I feel the need to say that cache owner does not "award" or "give out" FTFs.

[+thebruce0]

Another option could be to ask the challenge completer to create a bookmark list of their finds temporarily, so you can create the PQ and download them for your own records and for verification. Then the user can delete the bookmark list. It's more work over all I think, but it's one of the quickest, and easiest way for both parties to have verified the explicit list of qualifying caches. Presuming both parties are willing to cooperate on that level

[knowschad]

If a challenge cache is submitted within an area where a similar challenge cache already exists, then it will need to have a unique list of qualifying criteria (geocaches, waymarks, etc.).

Am I the only one that sees this as being a huge headache for the reviewers? Even moreso when a temporary reviewer is helping out a local reviewer. First, how is "an area" defined, but more importantly, who is going to go through all other caches in that area to see if there is already something similar?

 

 

(Personally, I would be thrilled to see this entire category of caches go the way of virtuals, but I realize that I am in the minority.)

[BlueRajah]

Interesting -- the way I read the guideline was a limitation on how the cache owner can request the information from cache seekers. You can't require them to send you a GSAK database of their qualifying finds, for example.

 

We have a winner!!

[+lamoracke]

yes, I agree the 40 bookmark limitation is annoying but you can do 2 things to get around this.

 

One, combine bookmark lists. I have combined my statewide county challenges into one and I would combine my 4 Thomas Guide county challenges if I took the time. I combined my color challenges into one and then added the holiday challenge into it. Thus, I have like 5 challenges in one bookmark list for example.

 

Two, delete bookmark lists. I have kept the ones I enjoy most but once enough time has past on a challenge that you have found, you can probably delete the bookmark list. I deleted the least exciting ones (ie one where I had to show all my earth cache finds, well, duh, that is easy enough to see without a list so that one went bye bye).

[+thebruce0]

Or, if you somehow may need to retain proof, convert the bookmark list to a PQ, save it locally, then delete the list. If the challenge owner confronts you, send them the PQ.

[+addisonbr]

I am going to be a dissenting voice, as an owner of a DeLorme challenge. I take the bookmark list, create a PQ, and load it into my DeLorme maps, and quickly verify each page is covered. I am not going to take an email, and enter the coordinates for the caches manually, for the relatively large number of people who complete it.

Interesting, and politely stated. Does that mean that your challenge is effectively a PMO cache?

 

Are there no compromises you would allow, no communication from a cacher that might indicate successful navigation of the challenge other than a bookmark list?