Increasingly difficult to create good caches

[+Motorcycledude]

If feel that new rules and tweaks to already existing rules are making it increasingly difficult to create good caches. There are a number of rules where I feel the rule does not contribute in any way at all, or is contradicted by other rules in similar circumstances. IMHO a rule should be added only when it is really needed for some specific reason.

 

To mention a couple of examples:

 

* It has now become very hard to create good challenge caches since we are no longer allowed to use "proof" that is not built in on geocaching.com. One could argue that for instance demanding that someone is using GSAK and findstatgen limits the possibility to log that specific cache for people who are not. But how is that in any way different from a mystery cache that requires for instance photoshop to be solved? Or a cache that requires climbing gear? Not all caches are for everyone.

 

* Multis. It has previously been possible to put for instance a metal badge with numbers on closer than 161m from an existing cache. Now all of a sudden this can only be done with special permission. In what way does geocaching benefit from that I cannot put a metal badge 20 meters up on a vertical cliff when there is already a traditional below it? There is no risk to confuse the two. The offer two completely different kinds of experiencing the site and the hobby. In denying permission for this geocachers are deprived of one of these and IMHO for the gain of absolutely nothing.

 

I would love to hear Groundspeak's stand on this. Please note that this is not an attack on anybody. I just feel that some rules have not been thought out properly and this could easily be changed. I certainly do not hold this against reviewers. They are only doing as they are instructed to.

 

Both the above are examples of rules where nothing is gained and creativity is restrained.

[+StarBrand]

If feel that new rules and tweaks to already existing rules are making it increasingly difficult to create good caches. There are a number of rules where I feel the rule does not contribute in any way at all, or is contradicted by other rules in similar circumstances. IMHO a rule should be added only when it is really needed for some specific reason.

 

To mention a couple of examples:

 

* It has now become very hard to create good challenge caches since we are no longer allowed to use "proof" that is not built in on geocaching.com. One could argue that for instance demanding that someone is using GSAK and findstatgen limits the possibility to log that specific cache for people who are not. But how is that in any way different from a mystery cache that requires for instance photoshop to be solved? Or a cache that requires climbing gear? Not all caches are for everyone.

 

* Multis. It has previously been possible to put for instance a metal badge with numbers on closer than 161m from an existing cache. Now all of a sudden this can only be done with special permission. In what way does geocaching benefit from that I cannot put a metal badge 20 meters up on a vertical cliff when there is already a traditional below it? There is no risk to confuse the two. The offer two completely different kinds of experiencing the site and the hobby. In denying permission for this geocachers are deprived of one of these and IMHO for the gain of absolutely nothing.

 

I would love to hear Groundspeak's stand on this. Please note that this is not an attack on anybody. I just feel that some rules have not been thought out properly and this could easily be changed. I certainly do not hold this against reviewers. They are only doing as they are instructed to.

 

Both the above are examples of rules where nothing is gained and creativity is restrained.

 

I don't think that anything has really changed with multi's (that I am aware of) - any physical stage has for a very long time had to follow the saturation guidelines. Badges certainly sound like a physical cache to me.

 

As for challenge caches. I think they were getting out of line - a bit over the top and too restrictive - I am glad for the new language to somewhat restrict new ones. It certainly gives the reviewers much more guidence to be consistent about new challenge caches.

[+niraD]

If feel that new rules and tweaks to already existing rules are making it increasingly difficult to create good caches.

I don't. But I may define "good caches" rather differently than you do.

 

* It has now become very hard to create good challenge caches since we are no longer allowed to use "proof" that is not built in on geocaching.com.

I don't really think challenge caches are the right way tool for the job anyway, so I may be the wrong person to judge this. But I think completing the challenge should be the hard part, not figuring out whether you've completed the challenge. If you can't assemble a bookmark list of qualifying caches by hand, then maybe the challenge cache has become more about the rules and less about the challenge itself. Sure, tools can make it easier, but that should be up to the individual.

 

Puzzles can require running software (e.g., a graphics application), but they cannot require running specific software (e.g., Adobe Photoshop). A high-terrain cache can require special equipment to complete safely (e.g., climbing gear), but it cannot require a specific brand of equipment (e.g., a Black Diamond harness). Likewise, running software can make it easier to track one's completion of a challenge, but a challenge cannot require running specific software (e.g., GSAK, or a specific GSAK macro). See the difference?

 

* Multis. It has previously been possible to put for instance a metal badge with numbers on closer than 161m from an existing cache.

As far as I'm concerned, non-virtual stages of a multi-cache have counted against the saturation guideline "forever", because the guidelines have been like that since I started geocaching. I've been geocaching longer than you have. But maybe I'm just missing your point...

[Keystone]

I am not seeing a feature suggestion. The listing guidelines aren't a "feature." Moving to Geocaching Topics forum.

[+lamoracke]

* It has now become very hard to create good challenge caches since we are no longer allowed to use "proof" that is not built in on geocaching.com. One could argue that for instance demanding that someone is using GSAK and findstatgen limits the possibility to log that specific cache for people who are not. But how is that in any way different from a mystery cache that requires for instance photoshop to be solved? Or a cache that requires climbing gear? Not all caches are for everyone.

 

Just created a challenge today on Geocaching.com. I agree with you in part. I think its okay to allow GSAK to make it easier or cooler to showcase your criteria, but not everyone is a GSAK addict. I think to require GSAK is not a good idea. However, I think its a bit unfair to not allow the CO to make mention of GSAK without an exception. Personally when I have a challenge that can utilize GSAK easier, I volunteer to do the GSAK work for them, for instance, off their bookmark lists.

 

Anyway, I am allowed to use GSAK in my profile and I have used its stats to showcase my criteria on a number of challenges. However, I think one can make a cool challenge still today without requiring GSAK. My last 4 challenges I think are good, Islands, Parks, Thomas Guide for a county, and now Oldies but Goodies. None of them require you to use GSAK, nor do I need to mention GSAK in the description (well, I think I did on one of them, but it was a fyi). However, I do use GSAK behind the scenes to make it easier for me to maintain them.

[+Motorcycledude]

 

I don't think that anything has really changed with multi's (that I am aware of) - any physical stage has for a very long time had to follow the saturation guidelines. Badges certainly sound like a physical cache to me.

 

As for challenge caches. I think they were getting out of line - a bit over the top and too restrictive - I am glad for the new language to somewhat restrict new ones. It certainly gives the reviewers much more guidence to be consistent about new challenge caches.

 

As for multis - then they did not enforce the rules before. And so what - in what way does geocaching benefit from that rule?

 

When it comes to challenge caches I strongly dosagree with you. And the result can easily be seen here in Sweden now - from quite a lot of challenge cacges being published to hardly any at all.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Motorcycledude

[jholly]

 

I don't think that anything has really changed with multi's (that I am aware of) - any physical stage has for a very long time had to follow the saturation guidelines. Badges certainly sound like a physical cache to me.

 

As for challenge caches. I think they were getting out of line - a bit over the top and too restrictive - I am glad for the new language to somewhat restrict new ones. It certainly gives the reviewers much more guidence to be consistent about new challenge caches.

 

As for multis - then they did not inforce the rules before. And so what - in what way does geocaching benefit from that rule?

 

When it comes to challenge caches I strongly dosagree with you. And the result can easily be seen here in Sweden now - from quite a lot of challenge cacges being published to hardly any at all.

Perhaps your confusing the saturation rules for a multi. Any physical stage of a multi needs to observe the 0.1 mile rule with regard to other caches. The stages of a multi are not under any restriction as to saturation. You can have your stages 20 feet apart if you like. Far as I know it always has been that way when the saturation rule came into play.

[+Motorcycledude]

I don't really think challenge caches are the right way tool for the job anyway, so I may be the wrong person to judge this. But I think completing the challenge should be the hard part, not figuring out whether you've completed the challenge. If you can't assemble a bookmark list of qualifying caches by hand, then maybe the challenge cache has become more about the rules and less about the challenge itself. Sure, tools can make it easier, but that should be up to the individual.

 

The effect of that is that you can only create challenge caches that involve a very low number of caches. You cannot for instance create one where you have to log 500 caches in a certain region/county/municipality etc. This is hardly a complicated challenge, but one which is now in effect impossible.

 

Puzzles can require running software (e.g., a graphics application), but they cannot require running specific software (e.g., Adobe Photoshop). A high-terrain cache can require special equipment to complete safely (e.g., climbing gear), but it cannot require a specific brand of equipment (e.g., a Black Diamond harness). Likewise, running software can make it easier to track one's completion of a challenge, but a challenge cannot require running specific software (e.g., GSAK, or a specific GSAK macro). See the difference?

 

No, since there are both caches that require a specific software and on the other hand there are also alternatives to GSAK.

 

As far as I'm concerned, non-virtual stages of a multi-cache have counted against the saturation guideline "forever", because the guidelines have been like that since I started geocaching. I've been geocaching longer than you have. But maybe I'm just missing your point...

 

I myself have a cache with a non-virtual stage about 10 meters from a trad. I have also logged lots of others. And yes, I have listed the waypoint.

 

And yes you are missing the point. The point is not about if or how long that has been a rule. The point is what good does the rule do? Is it improving geocaching or does it stand in the way of good caches? If there is absolutely no risk of mistaking the two and if they offer two distinctively diffefent caching experiences - in what way does the rule improve geocaching?

Edited August 16, 2012 by Motorcycledude

[+The A-Team]

The effect of that is that you can only create challenge caches that involve a very low number of caches. You cannot for instance create one where you have to log 500 caches in a certain region/county/municipality etc. This is hardly a complicated challenge, but one which is now in effect impossible.

Not true. See my second newest hide, placed under the current challenge cache guidelines. It requires finding all the caches in any one of the municipalities in this area. In discussions with the local reviewers, they had absolutely no problem with it.

[cezanne]

 

I myself have a cache with a non-virtual stage about 10 meters from a trad. I have also logged lots of others. And yes, I have listed the waypoint.

 

You listed it as stage of a multi cache and not as question to answer? If so, then your local reviewers acted differently than in all other places I have ever heard of.

 

Many annoying situations can be created by allowing physical multi cache stages that close to the hideout of other caches. One can e.g. find the finals of long multi caches or mysteries by coincidence. One cannot confuse them, but end up with a cheap log for a difficult cache and that's certainly not what the hider of the other cache will want to have.

 

And yes you are missing the point. The point is not about if or how long that has been a rule. The point is what good does the rule do? Is it improving geocaching or does it stand in the way of good caches? If there is absolutely no risk of mistaking the two and if they offer two distinctively diffefent caching experiences - in what way does the rule improve geocaching?

 

See what I wrote above.

 

Cezanne

[+niraD]

I myself have a cache with a non-virtual stage about 10 meters from a trad.

Okay, let's assume your physical stage can't be confused with the traditional cache. Should someone else be allowed to place another physical stage of a multi-cache at the same location? At what point do you think it becomes a problem to have multiple physical stages at the same location?

 

But the goal of the saturation guideline isn't just to avoid confusion. The goal is to encourage cache owners to find new locations that don't have caches, rather than hiding more caches in areas that already have plenty.

[+Ike 13]

Nope I disagree.

 

Have challenges changed? Yes a little but you still can put together a good one. I think the new rules make them a lot better. The knowledgebook does not ban using GSAk it simply states:

The requirements for meeting the challenge should be succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document.

You are correct you cannot require someone to use GSAK to document, but it can be an option.

[+Motorcycledude]

Okay, let's assume your physical stage can't be confused with the traditional cache. Should someone else be allowed to place another physical stage of a multi-cache at the same location?

 

Of course not.

 

At what point do you think it becomes a problem to have multiple physical stages at the same location?

 

When they can be confused.

 

But the goal of the saturation guideline isn't just to avoid confusion. The goal is to encourage cache owners to find new locations that don't have caches, rather than hiding more caches in areas that already have plenty.

 

Yeah you are right. Otherwise people would start putting 1300 micro traditionals 161 meters apart along a road in, let's say, the middle of the Nevada desert and we wouldn't want to see that happen...

[+niraD]

At what point do you think it becomes a problem to have multiple physical stages at the same location?

When they can be confused.

And how does a volunteer reviewer determine this?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Hmm... I've never had a problem creating (what I think are) good caches.

I read the guiidelines, check for nearby caches, find a good spot, and I'm all set. So I don't understand your problem.

[+terrkan78]

<snip>

The point is not about if or how long that has been a rule. The point is what good does the rule do? Is it improving geocaching or does it stand in the way of good caches? If there is absolutely no risk of mistaking the two and if they offer two distinctively diffefent caching experiences - in what way does the rule improve geocaching?

Good question. I agree that arbitrary rules are never a good thing. I suppose the only way to answer the question, though, is to understand the rationale behind the rule, the history of why it became a rule in the first place. Those are things that I myself can't speak to. I can only speculate...but what fun is a forum if you can't speculate?

 

1. If a business wanted to promote geocaching, then spreading it far and wide is a plus. Without the saturation rules it wouldn't spread as far or wide. If this indeed played into the rationale behind the rule, then the rule doesn't do squat for the sport/hobby of geocaching, but it might do something for the business venture.

 

2. Perhaps an early geocacher placed a cache in a prime spot. Beautiful view, great hike, ammo can, all the bells and whistles, and then along came Mr. Interloper who stuck a crummy cache 100 ft. away. I could see that generating some angst and fists pounding on the table, demanding for rules to stop this sort of "intrusion." With this rationale in mind, arguably the rule does do something to protect the prime real estate of hiders who've already claimed it. Doesn't do squat for the newcomers.

 

3. Personally, I think the "you-might-mix-up-the-caches-were-it-not-for-the-saturation-rule" argument is weak. The distance could be lowered to 100 ft and still they wouldn't get mixed up. I don't imagine this has much bearing on the rationale for the rule.

 

4. I suspect the bring-people-to-someplace-they've-not-been-to-before rationale had some bearing on the rule: "This park already has X number of caches. It doesn't need another one. Instead take people someplace new, someplace they wouldn't have gone to otherwise. Don't keep taking them back to the same old park." Arguably that indeed does do something for the sport/hobby of geocaching - it keeps the "exploration" factor alive by potentially bringing you to new places you've never been.

 

I'm sure there's more.

[+Motorcycledude]

Hmm... I've never had a problem creating (what I think are) good caches.

I read the guiidelines, check for nearby caches, find a good spot, and I'm all set. So I don't understand your problem.

 

My problem is a find good spots - and can't use them.

 

And most likely we define "good cache" differently. Though there are caches that are very good just because the place is beautiful or the container is sneaky I usually prefer something a bit more challenging.

[+Motorcycledude]

 

24. I suspect the bring-people-to-someplace-they've-not-been-to-before rationale had some bearing on the rule: "This park already has X number of caches. It doesn't need another one. Instead take people someplace new, someplace they wouldn't have gone to otherwise. Don't keep taking them back to the same old park." Arguably that indeed does do something for the sport/hobby of geocaching - it keeps the "exploration" factor alive by potentially bringing you to new places you've never been.

 

I'm sure there's more.

 

So why did they decide to start allowing powertrails? That is an example of a very good rule that instead was taken away.

 

To get back to the original issue - a rule that prevents me from placing a cache that offers a totally different experience of a location than the already existing cache is a bad rule. Why? Because it deprives geocachers of a good experience for a gain of absolutely nothing.

[cezanne]

Hmm... I've never had a problem creating (what I think are) good caches.

I read the guiidelines, check for nearby caches, find a good spot, and I'm all set. So I don't understand your problem.

 

My problem is a find good spots - and can't use them.

 

And most likely we define "good cache" differently. Though there are caches that are very good just because the place is beautiful or the container is sneaky I usually prefer something a bit more challenging.

 

I think that every two cachers define "good cache" differently. What is good for one group is really bad for another group and vice versa. So I guess that you did not choose your title in an optimal way.

 

While there will be certainly cachers who would appreciate the cache you had in mind, there will be others for whom the location itself is of prime importance and they prefer caches that bring them to new places.

 

Cezanne

[Chino1130]

Hmm... I've never had a problem creating (what I think are) good caches.

I read the guiidelines, check for nearby caches, find a good spot, and I'm all set. So I don't understand your problem.

 

My problem is a find good spots - and can't use them.

 

And most likely we define "good cache" differently. Though there are caches that are very good just because the place is beautiful or the container is sneaky I usually prefer something a bit more challenging.

 

That's the problem I had when hiding mine. 2 locations were denied because I was only 450 feet always from a 3mm film container with a soaked log, and placed by the dozens by people who were visiting from Massachusetts (i live in CT). Their caches are now slowly getting shut down here and there because everyone starts calling for maintenance and the COs live too far away and don't bother replying. I say they should all be disabled so that people that actually live in our state can have some fun. Not to mention that they are all at Dunkin Donuts and either under a lamp skirt or in a bush that will tear up your arm.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Chino1130

[+Don_J]

Nope I disagree.

 

Have challenges changed? Yes a little but you still can put together a good one. I think the new rules make them a lot better. The knowledgebook does not ban using GSAk it simply states:

The requirements for meeting the challenge should be succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document.

You are correct you cannot require someone to use GSAK to document, but it can be an option.

 

If, for example, a challenge cache requires the finder to provide a list of 500 caches, then they should be allowed to submit it in any readable way that they choose. If they want to hand type it, that's on them. If they want to click a couple of buttons in GSAK and the owner accepts that, good. Requiring that the finder download and possibly learn a program that they may not be familiar with is what isn't allowed. If the only reason for this is so the owner can easily verify the list, then I think that the owner may have control issues and probably isn't suited to cache ownership.

[+niraD]

So why did they decide to start allowing powertrails?

You aren't the first to ask that question. But even modern numbers run tails like the ET Highway trail have to observe the 528ft/161m saturation guideline. Otherwise there would be 20,000 or more fungible film canisters (instead of only 2000) in the Nevada desert.

for a gain of absolutely nothing.

Where you see "absolutely nothing" gained, some of us see the benefits of the saturation guideline encouraging caches in new locations and limiting the number of caches in existing locations.

 

I was only 450 feet always from a 3mm film container with a soaked log,

Wow. I'd love to see a 3mm film canister...

 

SICNR