Challenge Caches updated 3/12/12

[+OHail]

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

 

I've seen that on several challenge caches. The challenge cache owner requested the bookmark list remain active for three months on most of those. After that, it could be deleted.

 

There are some challenge caches where the lists could be combined. For example, if a state has an Alphabet and an Alphanumeric cache challenge, one could use the same bookmark list though the CO of the Alphabet challenge cache does not need the numeric caches. So far, I have not heard of any negative feedback from anyone. The same could be done with Fizzy (well rounded cacher), Busy Day, various consecutive day with finds streak challenge caches in different locales, provided the caches meet the other qualifiers of each challenge cache.

[+addisonbr]

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).

I currently do Option Two, by necessity. But usually the bookmark list I'm deleting isn't something that has outlived its usefulness as a long-ago-completed-challenge, but something else that is interesting to me. I don't currently have any challenge BM's, but I'm at my 40-list limit... I had to delete one the other day.

 

Yes, this is a first-world problem.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

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?

 

There have been exceptions to the Bookmark List requirement, but not many (1 or 2), but there have only been a very small number requested (2 or 3). Everyone who legitimately completed the challenge has been able to log it. In the case of a DeLorme, what matters is the location of the caches in the list, not the list itself (unlike an Alphabet Challenge). For me to navigate through a list of caches, grab the coordinates, and then plug them into my map would be very tedious. To scan a list of caches and make sure there are 26 that start with each letter on the alphabet is much easier.

 

I do not list "exceptions" because I got tired of people asking for them (for other previous requirements). Everyone's case was "special", so they deserved to have the rules bent. It got to be very annoying, especially when a cacher would give me grief.

 

So, if someone were to ask for some other way to do the verification, I would look at the reason it wa sbeing requested, and make a case by case determination. In the listing I even offer to bring the cache out of the woods to make it A Terrain 1 for those that cannot physically make it into the woods to sign it.

[+Totem Clan]

I think everyone is reading way too much into this.

[+M 5]

"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."

 

The above addition is absolutely absurd. How is any cache other than a 1/1 not exclusionary to someone? Also, any challenge cache that you just routinely stumble upon with normal caching, is probably not much of a challenge to begin with. There may be a few exceptions, but not many. It's all about choices. If I see a challenge, i.e. a specific D/T average or all counties in a state, and I decide to go for it, then I make a choice to go for those caches. If you choose to do thounsands of powertrail caches and can't qualify for an average D/T then you traded thousands for 1 or 2 caches. Sounds fine to me.

[+Lil Devil]

How is any cache other than a 1/1 not exclusionary to someone?

 

Any cache is findable by anyone, given enough desire.

[+M 5]

How is any cache other than a 1/1 not exclusionary to someone?

 

Any cache is findable by anyone, given enough desire.

 

but they would have to "alter their caching style or habits", which makes it unaccetable according to the new rules/guidelines, whatever

[+CanadianRockies]

but they would have to "alter their caching style or habits", which makes it unaccetable according to the new rules/guidelines, whatever

I agree the wording of that phrase is bad. If Groundspeak doesn't revise this revision, then I'm hoping the volunteer reviewers will interpret that section more sensibly than it is written.

Edited March 15, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+niraD]

but they would have to "alter their caching style or habits", which makes it unaccetable according to the new rules/guidelines, whatever

I agree the wording of that phrase is bad. If Groundspeak doesn't revise this revision, then I'm hoping the volunteer reviewers will interpret that section more sensibly than it is written.

Yeah, interpreted too strictly, any challenge that requires me to find even a single cache that I wouldn't have found otherwise has required me to "alter" my caching style/habits.

 

I think this guideline is intended to expand upon the prohibition of challenges based on "non-accomplishments". For example, some might look at an average difficulty+terrain > 4.0 as an indication that someone has found a lot of high-terrain and/or high-difficulty caches. However, it is also an indication that someone has not found as many low-terrain, low-difficulty caches, and that is a "non-accomplishment".

[+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.

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

Thanks, that's what I meant. That'll teach me to type before ingesting my morning coffee.

[+rosebud55112]

Does "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers" mean that challenge caches cannot be PMO? Or does the backdoor method of logging mean that they are not specifically excluded. I'd think that most non-member cachers neither know how to backdoor log a PMO cache, or even know that there might be one just down the street from them. It is hard to argue that you are not excluded from something when you don't even know it exists.

 

Also then, does this essentially indicate that those who think PMO caches are elitist have GS on their side?

[+Keith Watson]

Does "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers" mean that challenge caches cannot be PMO? Or does the backdoor method of logging mean that they are not specifically excluded. I'd think that most non-member cachers neither know how to backdoor log a PMO cache, or even know that there might be one just down the street from them. It is hard to argue that you are not excluded from something when you don't even know it exists.

 

Also then, does this essentially indicate that those who think PMO caches are elitist have GS on their side?

 

Now that is an interesting question. Theoretically premium members may have a broader selection of caches to choose from to complete a challenge. And challenges that have an ALR that excludes caches published after the challenge has been published, non premium members would have to potentially log more miles to complete the requirements. This can become worse as qualifying caches are archived.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Keith Watson

[+Hemlock]

Does "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers" mean that challenge caches cannot be PMO?

I've always used the logic that if a Challenge Cache owner requires a Bookmark List as proof of qualification, then the Challenge Cache itself must be PMO because only PMs can create Bookmark Lists.

 

I see no reason to change that logic with the new guidelines.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

Agreed. Sometimes It seems like sometimes the "challenge" is for the CO to see if they can create the most difficult challenge possible rather than create a challenge that others might enjoy completing. The same seems to happen for puzzle caches and traditional caches.

[+thebruce0]

That's why the reviewers make a judgement call, based on whether the CO has completed it, can complete it, or if it's reasonable to complete by a sizable segment of other geocachers.

Chances are, if the CO has completed it, then it will be published, whether you or others think it's ridiculously hard or not. If the CO felt that their experience was rewarding and fun, then really they have that right to publish the challenge, as hard as it might be, so that others could be led to have a similar experience - if they so choose to take up the challenge.

 

Difficulty of a challenge is completely subjective, once it's proven to be feasibly completed, and the reviewer approves it. That really is the point they're trying to get across. Once it's published, it's passed that stage and approved, and anyone that thinks it's ridiculously hard can simply ignore it.

 

We should be able to trust that the reviewers can tell if a CO is just trying to publish a challenge "to see if they can create the most difficult challenge possible rather than create a challenge that others might enjoy completing". And so if it's published, they don't see it that way, even if you or I do.

[+tozainamboku]

We should be able to trust that the reviewers can tell if a CO is just trying to publish a challenge "to see if they can create the most difficult challenge possible rather than create a challenge that others might enjoy completing". And so if it's published, they don't see it that way, even if you or I do.

I trusted the reviewers to tell if a virtual cache was "wow" or not.

[+lamoracke]

We should be able to trust that the reviewers can tell if a CO is just trying to publish a challenge "to see if they can create the most difficult challenge possible rather than create a challenge that others might enjoy completing". And so if it's published, they don't see it that way, even if you or I do.

I trusted the reviewers to tell if a virtual cache was "wow" or not.

 

like this one?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=363e9959-c9e2-4bed-9ece-9a83758af7e2

 

Where an ordinary person was born (albeit cute and am sure very important to the CO, but to finders, an unknown person with no historical significance) and you get a claim to find with #s on a fire hydrant.

 

I agree we see mostly the best ones, but there are sure exceptions out there. Personally there are so few virtual caches, I was happy to log this one, but obviously one is not learning much with this particular virtual.

 

As far as challenge caches go, have heard some crazy ones thought out loud by friends, so am sure some crazy ones get suggested here too. I do wonder how many "challenge caches" attempt to get published we do not see. For instance, a friend of mine got over 100 caches on 2/29 so thought, why not make a challenge to find 100+ caches on 2/29 in their grid (course listed after the fact as he/she came up with this afterwards).

Edited March 17, 2012 by lamoracke

[+The Jester]

We should be able to trust that the reviewers can tell if a CO is just trying to publish a challenge "to see if they can create the most difficult challenge possible rather than create a challenge that others might enjoy completing". And so if it's published, they don't see it that way, even if you or I do.

I trusted the reviewers to tell if a virtual cache was "wow" or not.

 

like this one?

 

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=363e9959-c9e2-4bed-9ece-9a83758af7e2

 

Where an ordinary person was born (albeit cute and am sure very important to the CO, but to finders, an unknown person with no historical significance) and you get a claim to find with #s on a fire hydrant.

 

I agree we see mostly the best ones, but there are sure exceptions out there. Personally there are so few virtual caches, I was happy to log this one, but obviously one is not learning much with this particular virtual.

That one was placed before the "Wow" factor was added.

[+steben6]

Outside the caching world, a challenge usually refers to a future event, in my opinion. If at today's staff meeting, my boss challenges us to treat our customers with respect and fulfill our orders gracefully, she won't be thrilled if I say "Did that yesterday. Think I'll pass on it today."

 

 

I am a huge fan of challenge caches. Just love them! I love all the requirements except the one that allows pre-publication finds to count. I like the cache publication date to be the start date to make the challenge fair to everyone. I REALLY disagree with the logic on this new requirement.

We are also huge fans of challenge caches. I guess I don't understand how eliminating "found date" requirements is unfair to anyone? The fact that somebody else has already completed the requirements for a challenge doesn't dilute their accomplishment. The only small plus for the "found date" requirement is leveling the playing field only for the FTF. It has absolutely nothing to do with the personal accomplishment of having completed the challenge. Are you going to NOT attempt a challenge if you don't have a chance at FTF? Since FTF is just a side game and not recognized or supported by GS (and lots of other cachers, for that matter), the change to the challenge caches really DOES level the playing field for anybody who completes the challenge, whether veteran or newbie.

 

Believe me, I am also a fan of FTFs, and have gone for our fair share of them. I just disgree that the new challenge requirement has any impact whatsoever on the "fairness" of completing and logging a challenge cache. You either qualify for the challenge or you don't, regardless of when you qualified. Challenge caches are meant to reward an accomplishment, not a competition.

[+CanadianRockies]

The only small plus for the "found date" requirement is leveling the playing field only for the FTF. It has absolutely nothing to do with the personal accomplishment of having completed the challenge.

Most challenge caches that we've completed can be divided into two categories.

 

One group can be defined as "milestones." These include finding 1,000 caches, finding 100 virtuals, and finding 15 caches with "bridge" in their titles. We didn't have to go out of our way to accomplish these challenges. They just came during the natural course of geocaching.

 

The other group can be defined as "goal-oriented." These include finding a cache on every day of the calendar, finding caches in 60 Alberta parks, and finding seven multi-caches in one day. We have to make a special effort (sometimes a long, sustained effort) to accomplish these types of challenges.

 

For us, the goal-oriented challenges almost always are the most satisfying ones. When we create challenge caches, we try to encourage people to have similar experiences. Using a "found date" requirement is one way that challenge cache owners can make it more likely that their challenges will be "goal-oriented" rather than "milestone."

 

For example, we created an Alphanumeric Title challenge cache (GC26KAB). Without a "date found" requirement, many experienced caches already would have met the requirement without even trying. With the "date found" requirement, some veterans will take their time and complete the challenge in the natural course of geocaching. Other veterans, however, will make a goal-oriented effort to complete it in a relatively short period of time.

Edited March 17, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+lamoracke]

finding 100 letterboxes challenge went way out of my way for that accomplishment. The 4 or 5 of us in WA state who have 100 LBHs had to drive all over the place to get them. Definitely would not have happened if I was not making that a goal. Finding 100 counties is going to take me way out of my way to get them. Same with some other such milestones. I consider those out of my way challenges, though, I know what you mean in distinction. You were referring to ones that were not defined by sheer numbers, like getting certain historical ones, or special stuff in a given day. I tried to classify my Washington Bookmark challenge list by type. I had 6 types, but none of them are classified by finds before or after publication. I imagine different folks would classify them in different categories.

Edited March 17, 2012 by lamoracke

[+CanadianRockies]

finding 100 letterboxes challenge went way out of my way for that accomplishment.

A challenge cache could be a "milestone" accomplishment for some geocachers and a "goal oriented" accomplishment for others. We already had 137 virtuals under our belt when we encountered a Challenge of the Century: Virtuals cache. So it was a "milestone" challenge for us. Someone with 50 virtual finds might decide to make this same challenge a goal-oriented one. Yet another person with 50 virtual finds might decide to let nature take its course and complete this challenge more slowly -- as a milestone.

 

I tried to classify my Washington Bookmark challenge list by type. I had 6 types, but none of them are classified by finds before or after publication. I imagine different folks would classify them in different categories.

The milestone/goal-oriented distinction can't really be assigned to a given challenge cache because different people will approach it differently.

Edited March 18, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+thebruce0]

For us, the goal-oriented challenges almost always are the most satisfying ones. When we create challenge caches, we try to encourage people to have similar experiences. Using a "found date" requirement is one way that challenge cache owners can make it more likely that their challenges will be "goal-oriented" rather than "milestone."

I completely agree, and I favour goal-oriented over milestone... however, goal-oriented is a personal challenge then. The flipside to the coin is that you're not giving the cacher the choice to take on the challenge as a goal- or milestone- oriented challenge. You're forcing every cacher to make it a goal, else they can't sign it. Now, personally, I don't see the problem with that, as there is an Ignore feature. However, the found-after-date is, technically, exclusionary in that it forces that lack of choices. We can still encourage cachers to set a personal goal and shoot to complete the challenge from a specific date; but allow people, if they want, to complete the challenge if they already did complete it long ago, without realizing it.

 

The latter, I know, dilutes the "challenge" by nature - it wasn't a challenge then; it happened naturally without knowing. But what are ye gonna go?

Provide a challenge, to complete an accomplishment; don't require a date, but encourage people to do it after a specific date, intentionally, even if they've already done it. Heck, even reward those two types of completions differently. First to complete before and first after the date. *shrug*

[+CanadianRockies]

For us, the goal-oriented challenges almost always are the most satisfying ones. When we create challenge caches, we try to encourage people to have similar experiences. Using a "found date" requirement is one way that challenge cache owners can make it more likely that their challenges will be "goal-oriented" rather than "milestone."

I completely agree, and I favour goal-oriented over milestone... however, goal-oriented is a personal challenge then. The flipside to the coin is that you're not giving the cacher the choice to take on the challenge as a goal- or milestone- oriented challenge. You're forcing every cacher to make it a goal, else they can't sign it. Now, personally, I don't see the problem with that, as there is an Ignore feature. However, the found-after-date is, technically, exclusionary in that it forces that lack of choices. We can still encourage cachers to set a personal goal and shoot to complete the challenge from a specific date; but allow people, if they want, to complete the challenge if they already did complete it long ago, without realizing it.

If I put a traditional cache at the end of a 5-kilometre hike up a mountain instead of at the trailhead, then I'm also forcing every cacher to make that climb if they want to sign that log book. I have no problem with trailhead hides. I also have no problem with mountain top hides that remove the option of not doing the hike. It all depends on what the purpose of the hide is.

Edited March 18, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+thebruce0]

If I put a traditional cache at the end of a 5-kilometre hike up a mountain instead of at the trailhead, then I'm also forcing every cacher to make that climb if they want to sign that log book. I have no problem with trailhead hides. I also have no problem with mountain top hides that remove the option of not doing the hike. It all depends on what the purpose of the hide is.

Right, but I believe the argument would be that there's nothing exclusive to your cache listing (not native to geocaching.com) that would be stopping them from going to log it. With a challenge cache, however, you're forcing an arbitrary limit on cachers as to who is "allowed" to log it (disallowing anyone who may have already done it, without doing it again). There is a difference...

 

Again, I do also favour goal-oriented challenges, and encouraging others to set and complete goals, but there's a difference between achieving an accomplishment, and forcing all cachers to a personal goal of doing it after a certain date, even if done before. Groundspeak is favouring the former, not the latter, with the changes to the wording. That's how I'm reading it.

[+CanadianRockies]

If I put a traditional cache at the end of a 5-kilometre hike up a mountain instead of at the trailhead, then I'm also forcing every cacher to make that climb if they want to sign that log book. I have no problem with trailhead hides. I also have no problem with mountain top hides that remove the option of not doing the hike. It all depends on what the purpose of the hide is.

Right, but I believe the argument would be that there's nothing exclusive to your cache listing (not native to geocaching.com) that would be stopping them from going to log it. With a challenge cache, however, you're forcing an arbitrary limit on cachers as to who is "allowed" to log it (disallowing anyone who may have already done it, without doing it again). There is a difference...

I guess I'm just not understanding what you're saying.

 

Suppose I had created a "Find 100 Letterbox-Hybrids" challenge and required that all these finds be made after Jan. 1, 2012. This doesn't exclude anybody from logging it, as long as they are willing to fulfill the requirements. It might take veteran cachers longer to complete, but there aren't any cachers out there who couldn't complete it (except cachers with certain physical or financial limitations). I'm not disallowing anyone who already has found 100 letterbox-hybrids; I'm just requiring them to find 100 more.

 

I don't see how that would be any different than, say, hiding a second cache on top of a mountain and requiring people to hike 5-kilometres to find it. Those cachers who already found that first mountain-top hide aren't excluded from finding the nearby hide, but they do have to climb the mountain again.

Edited March 18, 2012 by CanadianRockies

[+niraD]

I don't see how that would be any different than, say, hiding a second cache on top of a mountain and requiring people to hike 5-kilometres to find it. Those cachers who already found that first mountain-top hide aren't excluded from finding the nearby hide, but they do have to climb the mountain again.

FWIW, I look at it as a KISS issue. It's easy for me to go to my stats page and verify whether I've completed my difficulty–terrain grid. It's harder for me to determine whether I've completed my difficulty–terrain grid, excluding caches found before a certain date, or after a certain date, or between two dates.

 

Of course, the guidelines only restrict requirements based on the find date. There are other challenges that have requirements based on the date the cache was hidden, which is just as difficult to process as the find date, so maybe the KISS issue isn't the real reason.

[+Keith Watson]

Restricting caches by the date they were published creates a challenge that changes the effort to complete over time. I wouldn't say it becomes any more or less difficult. It will require more traveling as time goes by though. This is caused by qualifying caches being archived over time. This favors caches that start on the challenge over caches who start later or have no choice in when they start the challenge because that could be based on when they started caching. The challenge becomes less about getting the required caches and more about who is willing to travel farther to get a cache that qualifies for the publish before restriction.

[+SwineFlew]

There is a new challenge my area and I am trying to understand the new guideline rules.

 

The cache in question is: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3EGVQ

 

Is that challenge forcing solely on third-party software for verification????

 

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. Cache owners will need to ensure that geocachers can verify that they have completed the cache requirements without compromising their privacy.

[+The Jester]

There is a new challenge my area and I am trying to understand the new guideline rules.

 

The cache in question is: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3EGVQ

 

Is that challenge forcing solely on third-party software for verification????

 

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. Cache owners will need to ensure that geocachers can verify that they have completed the cache requirements without compromising their privacy.

No forcing that I can see. The CO gives one way and then says there are other ways, but leaves those up to the finder.

[+lamoracke]

There is a new challenge my area and I am trying to understand the new guideline rules.

 

The cache in question is: http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3EGVQ

 

Is that challenge forcing solely on third-party software for verification????

 

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. Cache owners will need to ensure that geocachers can verify that they have completed the cache requirements without compromising their privacy.

No forcing that I can see. The CO gives one way and then says there are other ways, but leaves those up to the finder.

 

Agree, however, there is a some inconsistency among reviewers with GSAK references. They obviously do not have a clear message in their sources as some reviewers will flat out not allow even referencing GSAK whereas this one did.

Edited March 20, 2012 by lamoracke

[+SwineFlew]

Look like the reviewer doesnt know the new rules errr... guideline.

 

http://coord.info/GC3EGVF

 

A Challenge cache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically:

 

Challenge caches based on a specific list of caches, such as caches placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published.

Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; caches found before the challenge cache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

Edited March 20, 2012 by SwineFlew

[+M 5]

There are no rules, only guidelines

[+The Jester]

Look like the reviewer doesnt know the new rules errr... guideline.

 

http://coord.info/GC3EGVF

 

A Challenge cache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically:

 

Challenge caches based on a specific list of caches, such as caches placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published.

Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; caches found before the challenge cache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

That challenge doesn't specify a list of caches, you can pick anyone who has hidden more than 100 caches and find them. That guideline is to stop the 'Find 40 or more caches hidden by The Jester' type "challenges".

[AZcachemeister]

Look like the reviewer doesnt know the new rules errr... guideline.

 

http://coord.info/GC3EGVF

 

A Challenge cache must avoid undue restrictions. Specifically:

 

Challenge caches based on a specific list of caches, such as caches placed by a specific person or group, will generally not be published.

Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; caches found before the challenge cache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge.

 

Since they don't give you a 'specific list' I don't see the problem there.

OTOH, providing evidence on you profile page for total number of caches found (owned by one user) would require use of a GSAK macro or a third party site.

I posted the following note on the cache page...let's see what happens next.

 

I qualify for this cache two or three times over.

The new guidelines state this should be verifiable by info available on the Geocaching.com site, so I am not going to run my 'My Finds' PQ through any stat-generation site or use a GSAK macro to upload additional stats to my profile page. It is up to you, the challenge creator, to verify my qualification.

I'll be posting my find on my next visit to Oregon (hopefully) sometime over the next year.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I don't understand how you've come to the conclusion that the guideline change means that you don't have provide any verification?

 

That challenge says that your qualifying finds should be on your profile. So they should.

 

Whether or not you use GSAK to get them is your decision, and not the cache owner's.

 

If this were my challenge, I'd do nothing about your note on the cache. When you log a find, I'd check your profile for the qualifying list: if it's there, great. If it's not, it's Log Deletion time.

[+niraD]

OTOH, providing evidence on you profile page for total number of caches found (owned by one user) would require use of a GSAK macro or a third party site.

Why? I was able to verify that I've found 21 of a friend's 328 caches without a third-party app or site.

[+Corfman Clan]

Since they don't give you a 'specific list' I don't see the problem there.

OTOH, providing evidence on you profile page for total number of caches found (owned by one user) would require use of a GSAK macro or a third party site.

I posted the following note on the cache page...let's see what happens next.

I disagree. For example, you could easily enough create a bookmark list of the caches you are using to qualify for the challenge. Now, if you use GSAK, it would be a lot simpler and quicker to add the caches to said bookmark list.

[+lamoracke]

 

http://coord.info/GC3EGVF

 

 

well, I agree the new guidelines make this challenge a bit unclear what to do. The CO provides no guidance on the cache page of how to prove your finds. Probably wishes could say use GSAK but perhaps can't, who knows. Says the qualifications have to be on your profile, but what about a bookmark list?

 

The first finder at least said who they used to complete the challenge, but if I were the CO, there is no way one can prove they have completed the challenge without seeing a bookmark list or seeing a GSAK thing in one's profile. To be honest, that would not be the most fun bookmark list to create either. Some bookmark lists are fun to do, this one would not be, at least for me. So, perhaps its just an honor based challenge based on a brief scan of a CO to see they have a lot of hides or who knows what.

 

However, that one prior and first note from one of our forum folks is not helping the situation either IMHO. Sounds like is trying to make a point about the challenge guidelines difficulty but if I were the CO, would not have appreciated that note.

Edited March 21, 2012 by lamoracke

[+Isonzo Karst]

The Logging of All Physical Caches section has not changed, it still reads, "...Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the challenge requirements have been met and documented to the cache owner's satisfaction. "

 

That the Help Center article now says that relying solely on third party software is out, doesn't mean that challenge cache finders no longer have to "document to the cache owner's satifaction". It does mean that the cache owner can not ask you to have some specific stats program badge on your profile.

 

GSAK will often streamline finding challenge worthy caches considerably. But you do have an online list of all the caches you've found on Geocaching.com. Pawing through them for some challenge dictated specifics would certainly be time consuming, but not impossible. Some, like placed date, will sort right on the website.

[+Keith Watson]

If some one logs a find on a challenge cache they should believe they have completed the challenge. That should involve knowing what caches they have found that qualify. All they have to do is provide a list of GC codes. It would then be up to the cache owner to verify the list however way they wish. Some times figuring out if you qualify for a challenge can be just as much of a challenge as the finding the caches to qualify.

[AZcachemeister]

OTOH, providing evidence on you profile page for total number of caches found (owned by one user) would require use of a GSAK macro or a third party site.

Why? I was able to verify that I've found 21 of a friend's 328 caches without a third-party app or site.

 

Since they don't give you a 'specific list' I don't see the problem there.

OTOH, providing evidence on you profile page for total number of caches found (owned by one user) would require use of a GSAK macro or a third party site.

I posted the following note on the cache page...let's see what happens next.

I disagree. For example, you could easily enough create a bookmark list of the caches you are using to qualify for the challenge. Now, if you use GSAK, it would be a lot simpler and quicker to add the caches to said bookmark list.

 

A Bookmark list isn't 'on my profile page'. Someone can get to it via my profile page, which may be what they are asking for. But, bookmark lists are only available to Premium Members, and the cache isn't PMO.

[+Corfman Clan]

A Bookmark list isn't 'on my profile page'. Someone can get to it via my profile page, which may be what they are asking for. But, bookmark lists are only available to Premium Members, and the cache isn't PMO.

Actually, I believe it is, under the "Lists" tab. I consider all the tabs: Profile, Geocaches, Challenges, etc., part of the profile page.

 

Also, using a bookmark list is just one way. Anyone could also just list the caches on the editable part of his/her profile too (under the Profile tab). Personally, I wouldn't want to do that.

 

But now we're just picking nits...

[+ColoradoTrekker]

It's still not the change that I have been hoping for. Why can't they just make challenge caches their own category (like multis or virtuals)? This would allow those of us who don't want to do challenges to filter them out. It's not that I don't like some of the challenges, it's just that the majority of the challenges in my area are in "Challenge Alley" which is along a stretch of 65 MPH highway. There's no way that I want to stop along there with my kids to look for a cache, so I try to ignore them. It would be a whole lot easier to ignore them if I could filter on them...

[+lamoracke]

It's still not the change that I have been hoping for. Why can't they just make challenge caches their own category (like multis or virtuals)? This would allow those of us who don't want to do challenges to filter them out. It's not that I don't like some of the challenges, it's just that the majority of the challenges in my area are in "Challenge Alley" which is along a stretch of 65 MPH highway. There's no way that I want to stop along there with my kids to look for a cache, so I try to ignore them. It would be a whole lot easier to ignore them if I could filter on them...

 

do not think this will ever happen but who knows. Have talked to Jeremy face to face about that and lets just say he was not receptive about that idea.

 

Over time I have realized it would be very tough to implement anyway, you would have to go into all the existing caches and change their icons and before that you would have to establish a clear set of rules of what a challenge truly is (as opposed to a series).

 

Still, if there was a will to do it, would love to help create the definition and even volunteer time to fix them if there was a process to do so.

[cezanne]

Over time I have realized it would be very tough to implement anyway, you would have to go into all the existing caches and change their icons and before that you would have to establish a clear set of rules of what a challenge truly is (as opposed to a series).

 

Still, if there was a will to do it, would love to help create the definition and even volunteer time to fix them if there was a process to do so.

 

I do not agree. I think that the definition is very simple as challenge caches are the only physical caches that allow for ALRs. Series do not involve ALRs. Even in the case of a bonus cache, I can go ahead and log it when I find it regardless of whether I have found some other caches before.

 

The process of changing the cache type could also be quite simple. I'm sure that one could capture the big majority of challenge caches by some bookmark lists that

could be sent to Groundspeak. Typically challenge caches are known to someone, so it is not necessary to look into all caches to identify them.

If really some challenge caches remain unidentified, their type could be changed later if someone minds the old cache type.

 

Cezanne

[+Keith Watson]

I agree that challenge caches are nothing more than physical caches with ALR's on them. I accept that the ALR is required but only as far as the purpose of the cache. If it is to find 100 caches in a day or find all 81 difficulty terrain combinations then that should be required and nothing more. Adding extra qualifications such as date found or only allowing caches place before a date should be excluded from the ALR exemption. I believe these extra qualifiers push challenge caches down the road that caused the ALR's from other caches to be removed. This allows cache owners to force caches to perform as the cache owner wishes behind the basic purpose of the challenge cache. Trimming some of the ALR's was a start. I think they could go further.

 

I don't think a new cache type is needed for filtering purposes. Perhaps a new attribute can be created and that can be used to filter pocket queries. This would allow people to exclude challenge caches if they wish or look for only challenge caches.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Keith Watson

[+thebruce0]

As mentioned earlier (or the other thread?) the found-after ALR provides a different type of challenge. Not a better or worse one, strictly speaking - that's entirely subjective. But there are many reasons why a found-after date is favoured by many, and detested by many.

 

And, as per the new rules, found-after is no longer allowed, which pushes challenge caches more towards the "if you've achieved this" challenge, rather than the "actively dedicate yourself to completing this" challenge. In so many words...

 

I like both types of challenges, and I think there is a place for both. However, as of the date of these guideline updates for challenge caches, only the former is now allowed. That's fine by me. I'm glad the latter is grandfathered.