Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
_Shaddow_

Washington's Highest Caches Challenge

Recommended Posts

I'm planning on bring back the Washington's Highest Caches Challenge originally posted by and with the blessing of Moun10Bike. It'll generally be very similar though with a few slight rule changes, a new cache location and a new cache listing. I don't have an exact time frame yet but will look to have it going before the snow melts off giving access to the lower of the required high caches.

 

The cache will be here Washington's Highest Caches Challenge but the link will not work until the cache is published.

 

In the original challenge, I understand that there was an issue with caches dropping off the list as newer ones were placed causing them be removed from participants stats. My main change in the new listing will be to avoid that by allowing finds to stand if the cache was on the list at the time it was found.

 

Do you think that would address the issue fairly?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm planning on bring back the Washington's Highest Caches Challenge originally posted by and with the blessing of Moun10Bike. It'll generally be very similar though with a few slight rule changes, a new cache location and a new cache listing. I don't have an exact time frame yet but will look to have it going before the snow melts off giving access to the lower of the required high caches.

 

The cache will be here Washington's Highest Caches Challenge but the link will not work until the cache is published.

 

In the original challenge, I understand that there was an issue with caches dropping off the list as newer ones were placed causing them be removed from participants stats. My main change in the new listing will be to avoid that by allowing finds to stand if the cache was on the list at the time it was found.

 

Do you think that would address the issue fairly?

 

Sounds good. Will old finds count? I've found some of the highest ones and was dissapointed when this challenge was ended.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm planning on bring back the Washington's Highest Caches Challenge originally posted by and with the blessing of Moun10Bike. It'll generally be very similar though with a few slight rule changes, a new cache location and a new cache listing. I don't have an exact time frame yet but will look to have it going before the snow melts off giving access to the lower of the required high caches.

 

The cache will be here Washington's Highest Caches Challenge but the link will not work until the cache is published.

 

In the original challenge, I understand that there was an issue with caches dropping off the list as newer ones were placed causing them be removed from participants stats. My main change in the new listing will be to avoid that by allowing finds to stand if the cache was on the list at the time it was found.

 

Do you think that would address the issue fairly?

 

Sounds good. Will old finds count? I've found some of the highest ones and was dissapointed when this challenge was ended.

 

If you have found a cache on the initial list for this new challenge, they are good. If you mean finds that were good for the original challenge at the time is was archived but many have since fallen off the list, I haven't given it any thought until now.

 

My first thoughts are that I'd like to see people get credit for their previous hard work though on the other hand would like to give new participants a level playing field

Share this post


Link to post

A quick review indicates that in the top 100 caches, 34 have been placed since the original challenge was archived on 5/30/08. Not sure yet how many have been knocked off the list yet, could be up to 34

Share this post


Link to post

Nevermind. Turns out I just wasn't logged in....

Edited by JesandTodd

Share this post


Link to post

If you have found a cache on the initial list for this new challenge, they are good. If you mean finds that were good for the original challenge at the time is was archived but many have since fallen off the list, I haven't given it any thought until now.

 

My first thoughts are that I'd like to see people get credit for their previous hard work though on the other hand would like to give new participants a level playing field

The challenge guidelines changed recently. The wording could be better, but it seems to say that you can't allow people to use archived finds, but you can allow existing finds. in fact, it looks like you must allow existing finds to count if those caches are part of your challenge.

 

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

 

We are very happy, maybe even deliriously happy, to see you doing this.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Why overcomplicate things with a "moving target" of caches? Why not pick the whatever number of highest caches you want, use the lowest elevation of those as the 'base' and the current number as the find count needed (100 finds above 6208, I think is the current). Then any new ones just widen the list.

Share this post


Link to post

If you have found a cache on the initial list for this new challenge, they are good. If you mean finds that were good for the original challenge at the time is was archived but many have since fallen off the list, I haven't given it any thought until now.

 

My first thoughts are that I'd like to see people get credit for their previous hard work though on the other hand would like to give new participants a level playing field

The challenge guidelines changed recently. The wording could be better, but it seems to say that you can't allow people to use archived finds, but you can allow existing finds. in fact, it looks like you must allow existing finds to count if those caches are part of your challenge.

 

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

 

We are very happy, maybe even deliriously happy, to see you doing this.

 

I got hit by those a little bit when publishing my new mountain Cougar Mt Blackout. I agree the wording could be better and for this one I could read it to mean that requiring the future finding of archived caches is not acceptable but allowing past finds on archived caches as a bonus might pass muster. Somewhat of a gray line, it would probably all come down to the personal feelings of the reviewer.

 

And just checking the old bookmark list, which contains 96 caches, only 5 have been archived, and the highest of those is at 7,166'. We're not talking a large effect here, unless of course someone had been claiming all 5 of those. Not sure about the other 4 missing from the bookmark list and don't know that I would ever be able to determine which ones they were.

Share this post


Link to post

Why overcomplicate things with a "moving target" of caches? Why not pick the whatever number of highest caches you want, use the lowest elevation of those as the 'base' and the current number as the find count needed (100 finds above 6208, I think is the current). Then any new ones just widen the list.

 

I'm all for making things easier but want to keep to the original as much as possible.

 

And maybe splitting hairs here but the title word 'highest' means a short list starting from the top down. Changing the challenge to any caches above a given line would be a better fit with the word 'higher.'

Share this post


Link to post

I forget to add a link to the original forum topic, it's here --> http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=162980&st=0

 

And for clarity, the original cache is here --> Washington's Highest Caches Challenge (Original) http://coord.info/GC14EX0

 

The new cache is here (but won't be available until published) --> Washington's Highest Caches Challenge

Share this post


Link to post

Why overcomplicate things with a "moving target" of caches? Why not pick the whatever number of highest caches you want, use the lowest elevation of those as the 'base' and the current number as the find count needed (100 finds above 6208, I think is the current). Then any new ones just widen the list.

 

Keeping it simple sounds good. Are any of the caches in the Olympics still on the list?

Share this post


Link to post

If this goes well, he might list the Washington Furthest Underwater Cache Challenge.

 

(edited to fix a grammar)

Edited by lamoracke

Share this post


Link to post

_Shaddow_

 

I was wondering what happened with this one? Are you still planning to go ahead with this cache? It looks like another good one and we are the proud owners of ONE of the top 100 highest caches!

 

I'm not trying to be pushy or anything--I was just wondering if you had decided to abandon the idea of reviving this cache?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, still very serious about reposting. I've been busy and distracted with other things including other cache challenge ideas.

 

Right now I'm trying to decide where to place this one: in general area -Seattle area, west Cascades, east Cascades (as originally placed); whether to make it a drive up or hike; place it low or high in elevation.

 

In the meantime, feel free to hunt high ones since they will count when the time comes. If you want a list of the current ones, I can provide that, though some on the bottom might drop off before it's posted

Share this post


Link to post

Right now I'm trying to decide where to place this one: in general area -Seattle area, west Cascades, east Cascades (as originally placed); whether to make it a drive up or hike; place it low or high in elevation.

 

In my opinion, the final to a challenge cache should stay in the spirit of the challenge itself. One of our first challenge caches was the Washington Century Challenge. After finding 100 starts worth of caches in a day, having the final be a tiny specimen tube under a rock was quite a disappointment. Most recently I signed the Hike 100 Miles Challenge which is a road side park and grab, another big disappointment after all of that work.

 

Those of us willing to climb to the top of Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams (I sure hope that melts out soon) to log the top 5 caches should have no reservations about one more good hike to log a satisfying final for the challenge. East or West side doesn't matter just don't place it in town.

Share this post


Link to post

Right now I'm trying to decide where to place this one: in general area -Seattle area, west Cascades, east Cascades (as originally placed); whether to make it a drive up or hike; place it low or high in elevation.

 

In my opinion, the final to a challenge cache should stay in the spirit of the challenge itself. One of our first challenge caches was the Washington Century Challenge. After finding 100 starts worth of caches in a day, having the final be a tiny specimen tube under a rock was quite a disappointment. Most recently I signed the Hike 100 Miles Challenge which is a road side park and grab, another big disappointment after all of that work.

 

Those of us willing to climb to the top of Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams (I sure hope that melts out soon) to log the top 5 caches should have no reservations about one more good hike to log a satisfying final for the challenge. East or West side doesn't matter just don't place it in town.

Well there goes my idea of a rusty mint tin under a bug infested lamp skirt in the middle a parking lot. :lol:

 

I agree, keeping with the spirit is important. Therefore, it needs to be relatively high. Though this is not necessarily a hikers challenge as many of the caches are nearly drive up. It may even be possible to complete this without any major hikes, I'm not sure at this point. So I think access to the final will not be a hard hike.

Share this post


Link to post

Right now I'm trying to decide where to place this one: in general area -Seattle area, west Cascades, east Cascades (as originally placed); whether to make it a drive up or hike; place it low or high in elevation.

 

In my opinion, the final to a challenge cache should stay in the spirit of the challenge itself. One of our first challenge caches was the Washington Century Challenge. After finding 100 starts worth of caches in a day, having the final be a tiny specimen tube under a rock was quite a disappointment. Most recently I signed the Hike 100 Miles Challenge which is a road side park and grab, another big disappointment after all of that work.

 

Those of us willing to climb to the top of Mt. Rainier and Mt. Adams (I sure hope that melts out soon) to log the top 5 caches should have no reservations about one more good hike to log a satisfying final for the challenge. East or West side doesn't matter just don't place it in town.

 

In all fairness, there is another 100 Stars challenge and its in Paradise Valley Conservation Area, a nice place to cache in and was listed before that one.

 

I totally agree, a challenge cache is much more fun for me if its in a nice spot, at least a small and if its in a spot related to the challenge, even better.

 

My rockhound challenge is near a large rock, my parks challenge is in Discovery, my island challenge is on an island...the geology challenge is in a nice place for fossils, and many others are in nice places too, but a few, well, are not so much.

 

Course, sometimes a challenge can be in too tough a place. The 200 day streak challenge is next to a swamp and you get very wet finding that and can be denied depending on the time of year. I did not think you needed to cache in a swamp as a reward for finishing 200 days, but that is me. I am not saying its a horrible spot, but that is a tough place to get a cache as a celebration of finishing a streak. I know in Oregon, the challenge for getting x # of second to finds is 50 feet up a tree, so that seemed a bit odd.

Edited by lamoracke

Share this post


Link to post

As requested via a personal email, here's the list of the top 100 has I currently have it.

 

Note that the elevations are not exact but what is determined by a GSAK macro. BTW: you might wonder if I plan to update them to exact and the answer is no, it's too much work. BUT, if someone wanted to take that on, I'd be more than willing to use the results.

 

Also note that some of the lower ones may fall off of the list before it becomes official.

 

EDITED (about five minutes after posting): accidentally included two out of state caches which have been remove from the list

 

Code Elevation Waypoint Name County

GCPZBX 14201 Rainier Summit Earthcache Pierce

GC1EZ3Y 12289 Caitlyn's Cache 5.5 Mount Adams Yakima

GC8D7C 12247 Mt. Adams View Yakima

GC1192 10064 Banana Slugs & High Places Pierce

GCA69 10052 Top o' the field Pierce

GC15JAP 8215 No Lamps Up Here! Okanogan

GC15N0R 7977 Little Tiffany Mountain Okanogan

GC33ECE 7958 In Between Tiffers Okanogan

GCX7TH 7887 Chopaka Mtn Okanogan

GC15PJK 7853 Old Baldy Okanogan

GC16NB3 7745 South Navarre Peak- final assault Chelan

GC1G5BY 7702 Tensegrity on Liberty Chelan

GCXZAF 7627 Aix & Pains Yakima

GCGQYN 7500 Ben Dreams of Kona Yakima

GCGK6Y 7421 DEW Line Okanogan

GCCF4 7405 12 Birds at the Dome Pierce

GC1ERYP 7325 Gypsy Peak Pend Oreille

GCQ0Q9 7302 Abercrombie Mtn. Stevens

GC1W8GF 7282 Point Sherrie Chelan

GC1EDKX 7260 Mt Bonaparte Fire Lookout Okanogan

GC1FPWH 7256 Tamarack Peak Whatcom

GC79AD 7227 Butte of a View Okanogan

GCY2R3 7175 Stormy Mountain Chelan

GC1FZET 7139 Kettle Crest Quest 2- Copper Butte Ferry

GCYXCQ 7136 Nelson Ridge Yakima

GC1YNEV 7037 Eye On The Prize Whatcom

GCGMXH 6968 O DARLAND Yakima

GC2CANN 6929 5 Mountains Yakima

GC2CBNN 6882 Hidden Lake Lookout Skagit

GCB67 6880 Above the Clouds Skamania

GC1YNH3 6879 A Snap-py Cache Okanogan

GC1F7W3 6877 A Dynamic Earth Skamania

GC1XNHW 6866 Crystal Mtn Lookout Pierce

GC1E08T 6862 wapaloosie Ferry

GCQ00K 6862 Cutthroat Cache Okanogan

GC92DC 6855 A Beautiful View Kittitas

GCGQ2F 6837 Lightnin' Bill Okanogan

GC160JX 6836 Corral Butte Okanogan

GC1ZB02 6827 360 Cache Stevens

GC2F3TA 6818 Rock On Dude! Chelan

GCJX5H 6817 Salmo Mountain Lookout Pend Oreille

GC15DME 6816 Shellrock Peak Yakima

GC92CC 6805 Elk View Kittitas

GCGY9W 6786 Maple Pass Loop Trail Cache Chelan

GCPHB6 6783 Big Hill Lookout Site Chelan

GC2DCDB 6782 Hail Columbia Ferry

GCKB5G 6781 Three Fingers Lookout Snohomish

GCWNKM 6770 Are You Hungry? Okanogan

GC320H8 6738 PCT South: Valley View Okanogan

GCPCVZ 6731 Wenatchee Mountain Cache Chelan

GCH3JR 6681 Marmot Pass via the Big Quilcene Trail Jefferson

GC15Q5T 6646 Chopaka View Okanogan

GCP6K1 6628 Hot Brakes! Lookout! Chelan

GCK28R 6626 McNeil Peak Yakima

GCPHBE 6615 Junior Point Lookout Site Chelan

GCPCVE 6611 Naneum Point Look Out Site Kittitas

GC1F5BB 6573 Border vUe Chelan

GC1CE35 6573 Rocky Peak Chelan

GC1VM77 6547 South of Cutthroat Peak Cache Chelan

GC16ABG 6542 Mission Peak Trail Chelan

GC1JR6X 6542 270 Cache Stevens

GC33X8A 6520 Kettle Crest Trail - Barnaby Buttes Ferry

GC15671 6474 As far as I care to go!!! Yakima

GC1WA54 6474 A Hell Roaring Good Time Yakima

GC16094 6471 Esmeralda View Kittitas

GC1EX4X 6459 Naneum Ridge Views Kittitas

GC174G7 6458 Larch Meadow Chelan

GCK020 6448 Goat Peak Yakima

GC1XE1M 6436 The First Morning Kittitas

GC36GKF 6425 Davis Peak Fire Tower Kittitas

GCC532 6420 Altitude is Your Friend! Chelan

GC1CE5G 6412 Baldy Mtn Chelan

GC2DY09 6395 Jolly Mountain Lookout Kittitas

GCMWTT 6392 Tyler Peak Clallam

GCJXZ3 6373 Wolf Pack Yakima

GC33KK3 6369 Clover springs view point Yakima

GC16A9M 6360 On Tudle's Pond Chelan

GCK40X 6359 Renegade Rendezvous #05 Clover Springs Yakima

GC13PFK 6352 Diamond Peak L.O. site Garfield

GCXV6A 6335 Sourdough Gap Yakima

GC158D 6333 Zi Iob Snohomish

GCGA1N 6331 Lion Rock Kittitas

GCKGKE 6327 Tumac Yakima

GC2DG88 6325 Dad's Sullivan Mountain Lookout Pend Oreille

GC1EE15 6301 Mt. Hall Summit Cache Pend Oreille

GC1532M 6294 Ironstone Mountain Trail Yakima

GC14D8 6277 Windy Pass Cache Okanogan

GCGTN5 6271 You Can See For Ever Kittitas

GCKDQF 6261 Harts Pass Whatcom

GC16NB9 6257 Nelson Butte Lookout Chelan

GCG8CZ 6254 Snoqualmie Mountain King

GC15EC8 6250 Wild View Yakima

GC16WM7 6246 Thank Your Lucky Stars Kittitas

GCYQDR 6227 Lookout at Table Rock Columbia

GC1D80K 6215 Wedge Mountain Chelan

GC14RV0 6211 Mission's Backside Kittitas

GC1G5HX 6211 Pneumatic Donkey Whatcom

GC15EF9 6208 Elk and Lion Kittitas

GCXRN4 6202 Snagglepuss Kittitas

GC1VYF7 6198 Misery Drift Inn Garfield

Edited by _Shaddow_

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for posting that.

 

I was surprised at how few of these we've actually found.

 

We have a long way to go.

Share this post


Link to post

Good news, I recently got some other geocaching items out of the way so can start giving this a little more time. Also, just noticed that today is 4 years to the day of the archiving of the first cache!

 

Here's a comparision of the current set of highest caches versus the original set at the time of archiving. A lot has changed with a total of 34 caches getting dropped off of the list: 32 dropped and 2 archived.

 

Highest caches compare 5/20/12

 

As a reminder, I plan to have finds 'sticky' both for the current cache and the status when the other was archived. By sticky I mean that if you find a cache that was on the Top 100 list at the time then it always counts even if it's archived or dropped due to a superseding placement(s).

Edited by _Shaddow_

Share this post


Link to post

Note that the numbers for the original list in the comparison file don't add up to 100 (62 remain, 34 removed). That's because I'm going from a PQ of the bookmark list on the original cache and it contains only 96 entries.

Share this post


Link to post

 

As a reminder, I plan to have finds 'sticky' both for the current cache and the status when the other was archived. By sticky I mean that if you find a cache that was on the Top 100 list at the time then it always counts even if it's archived or dropped due to a superseding placement(s).

 

 

Okay, just trying to clarify..

 

So the list is really a top 134 currently--not a top 100? We are able to count any caches that are on the current top 100 list as well as any of the 34 that dropped off the old list? And over time the list of eligible caches will only grow as more and more caches get pushed off the list?

Share this post


Link to post

 

As a reminder, I plan to have finds 'sticky' both for the current cache and the status when the other was archived. By sticky I mean that if you find a cache that was on the Top 100 list at the time then it always counts even if it's archived or dropped due to a superseding placement(s).

 

 

Okay, just trying to clarify..

 

So the list is really a top 134 currently--not a top 100? We are able to count any caches that are on the current top 100 list as well as any of the 34 that dropped off the old list? And over time the list of eligible caches will only grow as more and more caches get pushed off the list?

 

No of course not; the list is the current top 100, always just 100

 

But that is a moving target since new higher caches are sometimes placed and in the original cache people were losing a lot of hard earned elevation as the list changed.

 

In the new cache, as the original, for a cache to qualify towards your elevation requirements, you must find it while it's on the top 100 list. But in my new cache, then that amount of elevation is locked in for you. In other words, you don't have to worry about losing your hard earned elevation if one of your found caches drops off the list or gets archived; it's 'locked in' or 'sticky' for you.

Share this post


Link to post

 

As a reminder, I plan to have finds 'sticky' both for the current cache and the status when the other was archived. By sticky I mean that if you find a cache that was on the Top 100 list at the time then it always counts even if it's archived or dropped due to a superseding placement(s).

 

 

Okay, just trying to clarify..

 

So the list is really a top 134 currently--not a top 100? We are able to count any caches that are on the current top 100 list as well as any of the 34 that dropped off the old list? And over time the list of eligible caches will only grow as more and more caches get pushed off the list?

 

No of course not; the list is the current top 100, always just 100

 

But that is a moving target since new higher caches are sometimes placed and in the original cache people were losing a lot of hard earned elevation as the list changed.

 

In the new cache, as the original, for a cache to qualify towards your elevation requirements, you must find it while it's on the top 100 list. But in my new cache, then that amount of elevation is locked in for you. In other words, you don't have to worry about losing your hard earned elevation if one of your found caches drops off the list or gets archived; it's 'locked in' or 'sticky' for you.

It still sound pretty complicated. Every person trying for the challenge will have their own list - depending on when they started. So, if I've found 15 of the 34 that's dropped off the list (I have no idea what number I've personally found, this just an example) then I'll only have to find 85 from the current list, even if some of those also drop off (after I've found them, of course)? Sound like a nightmare of tracking for you. I still think my previous idea would be easier - pick an elevation and find 100 above it. But it's you cache, good luck with the paperwork.

Edited by The Jester

Share this post


Link to post

It still sound pretty complicated. Every person trying for the challenge will have their own list - depending on when they started. So, if I've found 15 of the 34 that's dropped off the list (I have no idea what number I've personally found, this just an example) then I'll only have to find 85 from the current list, even if some of those also drop off (after I've found them, of course)? Sound like a nightmare of tracking for you. I still think my previous idea would be easier - pick an elevation and find 100 above it. But it's you cache, good luck with the paperwork.

What's so complicated about it? It's not rocket science. :laughing:

 

Note that the original and this cache are not based on getting the top 100, or any set number, but a combination of caches such that the total elevation above sea level is above a set number, in the original cache that number was 350,000 feet, which worked out to getting about 1/2 of the caches on the list. Read: 1/2 the effort, since you could get fewer higher (harder) ones or more lower (easier) ones. I see no reason to adjust that original number even though that number is no longer directly related to the average cache elevation, which continues to rise over time as new higher caches are added. The reasoning being, though you need less of them to complete the challenge, that the new higher caches are harder to get to. Those two contradictory changes should keep things evened out over time.

 

Here's the problem with your idea: Say you care to toss out an elevation number, a line in the sand. It would seem at first glance that there is no reason that your line in the sand would be any more or less fair, logical or fun over any other arbitrary ones. The real issue is on the other side of the coin; it's about the caches that whatever elevation you choose would exclude by as little as a single foot. Very few, if any, people will be happy with your particular choice. Dealing with that issue and the related unhappy people sounds like the real nightmare to me. Besides then it would be the Washington Higher Caches, not Highest.

 

Yes, everyone will have their own list. That's the very point that changes the challenge from frustration to fun.

 

BTW The only people that would start with something are the people who participated in the original challenge. I didn't see your name on there so you'd be starting with zero. The reasoning for that is they put in some hard work to find those caches and I believe they should be able to keep the fruits of their labor. I may make the sticky rule retroactive to any cache that they found but later dropped off the list (before the original was archived) if I can find a reasonable way to do so. I think just going by their old logs would work but I haven't thought it all the way through yet.

Edited by _Shaddow_

Share this post


Link to post

Wow! I'm wondering if you can come out with a slightly more difficult challenge? ;)

 

I agree that it's somewhat complicated. Is the 350k elevation still the goal?

Share this post


Link to post

Wow! I'm wondering if you can come out with a slightly more difficult challenge? ;)

 

I agree that it's somewhat complicated. Is the 350k elevation still the goal?

 

Lol, now now iPhone pHanatic everyone here doesn't know our recent history of banter :D

 

Did'ga read my post? ;)

Share this post


Link to post

It still sound pretty complicated. Every person trying for the challenge will have their own list - depending on when they started. So, if I've found 15 of the 34 that's dropped off the list (I have no idea what number I've personally found, this just an example) then I'll only have to find 85 from the current list, even if some of those also drop off (after I've found them, of course)? Sound like a nightmare of tracking for you. I still think my previous idea would be easier - pick an elevation and find 100 above it. But it's you cache, good luck with the paperwork.

What's so complicated about it? It's not rocket science. :laughing:

 

Note that the original and this cache are not based on getting the top 100, or any set number, but a combination of caches such that the total elevation above sea level is above a set number, in the original cache that number was 350,000 feet, which worked out to getting about 1/2 of the caches on the list. Read: 1/2 the effort, since you could get fewer higher (harder) ones or more lower (easier) ones. I see no reason to adjust that original number even though that number is no longer directly related to the average cache elevation, which continues to rise over time as new higher caches are added. The reasoning being, though you need less of them to complete the challenge, that the new higher caches are harder to get to. Those two contradictory changes should keep things evened out over time.

 

Here's the problem with your idea: Say you care to toss out an elevation number, a line in the sand. It would seem at first glance that there is no reason that your line in the sand would be any more or less fair, logical or fun over any other arbitrary ones. The real issue is on the other side of the coin; it's about the caches that whatever elevation you choose would exclude by as little as a single foot. Very few, if any, people will be happy with your particular choice. Dealing with that issue and the related unhappy people sounds like the real nightmare to me. Besides then it would be the Washington Higher Caches, not Highest.

 

Yes, everyone will have their own list. That's the very point that changes the challenge from frustration to fun.

 

BTW The only people that would start with something are the people who participated in the original challenge. I didn't see your name on there so you'd be starting with zero. The reasoning for that is they put in some hard work to find those caches and I believe they should be able to keep the fruits of their labor. I may make the sticky rule retroactive to any cache that they found but later dropped off the list (before the original was archived) if I can find a reasonable way to do so. I think just going by their old logs would work but I haven't thought it all the way through yet.

Sorry, I guess I not understanding what the challenge is. The orginial is unpublished so I can't look at that and was going by what was talked about here. Is it about finding the highest caches or the amount of elevation gained? I thought you had an elevation challenge already? Just put me down as confused.

Share this post


Link to post

It still sound pretty complicated. Every person trying for the challenge will have their own list - depending on when they started. So, if I've found 15 of the 34 that's dropped off the list (I have no idea what number I've personally found, this just an example) then I'll only have to find 85 from the current list, even if some of those also drop off (after I've found them, of course)? Sound like a nightmare of tracking for you. I still think my previous idea would be easier - pick an elevation and find 100 above it. But it's you cache, good luck with the paperwork.

What's so complicated about it? It's not rocket science. :laughing:

 

Note that the original and this cache are not based on getting the top 100, or any set number, but a combination of caches such that the total elevation above sea level is above a set number, in the original cache that number was 350,000 feet, which worked out to getting about 1/2 of the caches on the list. Read: 1/2 the effort, since you could get fewer higher (harder) ones or more lower (easier) ones. I see no reason to adjust that original number even though that number is no longer directly related to the average cache elevation, which continues to rise over time as new higher caches are added. The reasoning being, though you need less of them to complete the challenge, that the new higher caches are harder to get to. Those two contradictory changes should keep things evened out over time.

 

Here's the problem with your idea: Say you care to toss out an elevation number, a line in the sand. It would seem at first glance that there is no reason that your line in the sand would be any more or less fair, logical or fun over any other arbitrary ones. The real issue is on the other side of the coin; it's about the caches that whatever elevation you choose would exclude by as little as a single foot. Very few, if any, people will be happy with your particular choice. Dealing with that issue and the related unhappy people sounds like the real nightmare to me. Besides then it would be the Washington Higher Caches, not Highest.

 

Yes, everyone will have their own list. That's the very point that changes the challenge from frustration to fun.

 

BTW The only people that would start with something are the people who participated in the original challenge. I didn't see your name on there so you'd be starting with zero. The reasoning for that is they put in some hard work to find those caches and I believe they should be able to keep the fruits of their labor. I may make the sticky rule retroactive to any cache that they found but later dropped off the list (before the original was archived) if I can find a reasonable way to do so. I think just going by their old logs would work but I haven't thought it all the way through yet.

Sorry, I guess I not understanding what the challenge is. The orginial is unpublished so I can't look at that and was going by what was talked about here. Is it about finding the highest caches or the amount of elevation gained? I thought you had an elevation challenge already? Just put me down as confused.

 

post #2 should clear things up. The first link there will take you to the original cache.

 

There are links to my cache which isn't published yet, but those aren't the right ones. They were added so that when the cache publishes the first posts will point to the cache and make it easier to navigate; this topic will be the location for discussion into the future.

Share this post


Link to post

BTW The only people that would start with something are the people who participated in the original challenge. I didn't see your name on there so you'd be starting with zero. The reasoning for that is they put in some hard work to find those caches and I believe they should be able to keep the fruits of their labor. I may make the sticky rule retroactive to any cache that they found but later dropped off the list (before the original was archived) if I can find a reasonable way to do so. I think just going by their old logs would work but I haven't thought it all the way through yet.

I'm not so sure you can do that under the current guidelines for challenge caches. You would not be allowed to say some of The Jester's previous finds don't count because he was not participating in the old challenge, but those same caches could count for people who were participating. The qualifying caches have to be available to everyone and can't be restricted by date, or at least that's the way I read it. I guess we'll find out when you get the challenge published.

Share this post


Link to post

BTW The only people that would start with something are the people who participated in the original challenge. I didn't see your name on there so you'd be starting with zero. The reasoning for that is they put in some hard work to find those caches and I believe they should be able to keep the fruits of their labor. I may make the sticky rule retroactive to any cache that they found but later dropped off the list (before the original was archived) if I can find a reasonable way to do so. I think just going by their old logs would work but I haven't thought it all the way through yet.

I'm not so sure you can do that under the current guidelines for challenge caches. You would not be allowed to say some of The Jester's previous finds don't count because he was not participating in the old challenge, but those same caches could count for people who were participating. The qualifying caches have to be available to everyone and can't be restricted by date, or at least that's the way I read it. I guess we'll find out when you get the challenge published.

 

I agree that it's a bit of a gray area. I'm not restricting Jester or anyone else, if they have found any on the current list, they count. I would only be giving partial credit to those who found caches under the original list, and only for those caches that have since dropped of the list. I'm not requiring something that could have only happened in the past, which would be against the guidelines. I think it's ok, and yes, we will find out.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey, I was wondering if anything ever happened to this idea. The link doesn't work, and while I started geocaching long after the original challenge was archived, it would be really cool to see this come back.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, KeetnaWilson said:

Hey, I was wondering if anything ever happened to this idea. The link doesn't work, and while I started geocaching long after the original challenge was archived, it would be really cool to see this come back.

 

I'm guessing not.  Challenges cannot be based on finding a specific list of caches under the revised challenge cache guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...