Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Over21uk

Selective Geocaching

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, I've been in touch with the feedback guys / gals at geocaching.com and they suggested posting my comments on here.

What I wanted to make a point about is selective geocaching. This is where anyone can place a cache but make the cache only findable by a "selective" amount of people. Ill drop in some examples below.

 

Examples -

 

To find and log this cache you must live within 10 miles of this cache.

To find and log this cache you must be over the age of 65.

To find and log this cache you must have previously found 100 caches in a single day.

 

These are just a few examples of selective caching, the list could be limitless.

 

Now I for one, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, believe that all caches should be able to be found by anyone who wishes to go out and find it. In the 3 examples above, they all can be found by everyone, but the "majority" are never going to log and find caches like or similar to this. I could move within 10 miles of the cache, in 19 years ill be 65 and could I find 100 caches in a single day ? It's not impossible but highly improbable seeing as the best I've ever done in a day is 30.

 

What I'm interested in is what others think about selective caching ? Should the guidelines contain references about this ?

If it can't be found by the "majority" should it then not meet the guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

Should the guidelines contain references about this ?

The guidelines most certainly cover this. Those are called "Additional Logging Requirements" or ALRs. ALRs, with the exception of Challenge caches, are forbidden and are not grandfathered.

 

Are those examples you listed actually being used on real-life caches? If so, those caches are very much in violation of the guidelines and the owners cannot enforce those ALRs. If a cache owner deleted a log based on one of those criteria not being met, they would be in the wrong and the logger could appeal to Groundspeak and have their log restored.

 

Note, however, that the last one (find 100 in a day) could be listed as a Challenge cache. In that case, an owner can enforce that requirement and delete logs of cachers who haven't met it.

Share this post


Link to post

ALR. Additional Logging Requiremets.

Nope. Geocaching is open to all; not just those over 65, or those living within 10 mlies. Setting such requirements is an ALR, and should not be permitted.

Share this post


Link to post

In some way - some of the challenge caches are in and of themselves "ALR" caches and some of the older ones have such restrictions but I do not think that a new challenge cache could get away with imposing such restrictions. Certainly all the other cache types should be generally findable by anybody with the proper skill sets to grab them - I think the guidelines make that clear enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Should the guidelines contain references about this ?
The guidelines DO contain references to this.

 

Your first two examples (live within 10 miles, be over age 65) are examples of Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs), and they are not allowed. See Logging of All Physical Geocaches in the guidelines.

 

Your third example (have previously found 100 caches in a single day) is an example of a Challenge Cache. There is a separate page in the Help Center with specific guidelines about Challenge Caches, including what kinds of requirements are acceptable and and what kinds are unacceptable.

 

If it can't be found by the "majority" should it then not meet the guidelines.
There are plenty of caches that cannot be found by the "majority". The description of 4-star terrain is "Experienced outdoor enthusiasts only". That excludes a lot of people.

 

Except for Challenge Caches, once a cache has been found and the physical log signed, it can be logged online. And for Challenge Caches, the issue of what makes a reasonable challenge has been debated before. Here's a recent thread, for example:

Challenge Cache question

Share this post


Link to post

You can do that. You can do anything you want with a geocache. But TPTB(geocaching.com) Decided that this is their website and to use it you use their rules, and as others have said geocaches should be open to all. So if you want to do something different you can, just can't put them on this website.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi everyone, I've been in touch with the feedback guys / gals at geocaching.com and they suggested posting my comments on here.

What I wanted to make a point about is selective geocaching. This is where anyone can place a cache but make the cache only findable by a "selective" amount of people. Ill drop in some examples below.

 

Examples -

 

To find and log this cache you must live within 10 miles of this cache.

To find and log this cache you must be over the age of 65.

To find and log this cache you must have previously found 100 caches in a single day.

 

These are just a few examples of selective caching, the list could be limitless.

 

Now I for one, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, believe that all caches should be able to be found by anyone who wishes to go out and find it. In the 3 examples above, they all can be found by everyone, but the "majority" are never going to log and find caches like or similar to this. I could move within 10 miles of the cache, in 19 years ill be 65 and could I find 100 caches in a single day ? It's not impossible but highly improbable seeing as the best I've ever done in a day is 30.

 

What I'm interested in is what others think about selective caching ? Should the guidelines contain references about this ?

If it can't be found by the "majority" should it then not meet the guidelines.

 

To find and log this cache you must be anyone but Over21uk.

 

Something about that just doesn't sound right. Geocaches listed on the site are open to anyone that has the ability to go and find them.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi everyone, I've been in touch with the feedback guys / gals at geocaching.com and they suggested posting my comments on here.

What I wanted to make a point about is selective geocaching. This is where anyone can place a cache but make the cache only findable by a "selective" amount of people. Ill drop in some examples below.

 

Examples -

 

To find and log this cache you must live within 10 miles of this cache.

To find and log this cache you must be over the age of 65.

To find and log this cache you must have previously found 100 caches in a single day.

 

These are just a few examples of selective caching, the list could be limitless.

 

Now I for one, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, believe that all caches should be able to be found by anyone who wishes to go out and find it. In the 3 examples above, they all can be found by everyone, but the "majority" are never going to log and find caches like or similar to this. I could move within 10 miles of the cache, in 19 years ill be 65 and could I find 100 caches in a single day ? It's not impossible but highly improbable seeing as the best I've ever done in a day is 30.

 

What I'm interested in is what others think about selective caching ? Should the guidelines contain references about this ?

If it can't be found by the "majority" should it then not meet the guidelines.

 

To find and log this cache you must be anyone but Over21uk.

 

Something about that just doesn't sound right. Geocaches listed on the site are open to anyone that has the ability to go and find them.

 

Hey Don-J did you read all of my post ?

Is says "I'm interested in what others think about selective caching." What it doesn't say is let's be rude to Over21uk and let's put something quite the opposite and make him feel stupid.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm against it, so I'm glad there's already restrictions against it. Some challenge caches cross the line, in my opinion, and that used to annoy me a little, but I can accept such cases as quirky matters of taste rather than something I'd want to prevent, so I think the current rules are fine.

Share this post


Link to post

Blunt maybe, but I read it as making a point.

"Selective" sounds a lot like exclusive to me and I could see (like Don's post) how the system would/could be abused.

When this first came out yesterday, the first thing I thought of was how others would figure a way to use it to exclude all but their friends.

- One of the many reasons (as others have said) that additional logging requirments are no longer allowed.

Share this post


Link to post

If you look at the 3rd example, which is the must have 100 finds in a single day. To me this is an ALR. It's an addition requirement to be able to log the cache disguised as a challenge cache. This is a true cache that was published this week. Now I'm not against challenges, there's some great challenge caches about. There's ones that let you go at your own pace to achieve the requirement. What I'm trying to distinguish is between the challenge and the selective. The selective if bringing in the ALR through the so called "back door" disguised as a challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

I see where you are going with this. Yes, by current guidelines, these ideas are not allowed, but what I think you were after was a discussion about what could be done, to make something more interesting etc...

 

I would like to see things such as this and other (perhaps limited or restricted) ALR's to be allowed, perhaps as a different cache type, just for regular caches, with certain requirements. One that I would like to see perhaps is a cache where something like taking a photo, and posting it are a requirement, as I think that adds to the interest of the page.

 

Will it ever fly, or be implemented by TPTB, probably not, but a healthy discussion never hurt.

 

Thoughts on that?

Share this post


Link to post

To meet your requirements then all caches would have to be available to the lowest common denominator. No puzzle caches as they all are ALRs as you have to solve a puzzle or meet a challenge before you can log a find. The D/T cannot be any higher than 1/1 or maybe 1.5/1.5 because wheelchair bound cachers can't get to higher ones. If your request is taken to its logical end you will destroy geocaching.

I am no "experienced outdoor person" but I have gotten to 4 and above terrains and I am 65. I views those as challenges to me to figure out how to get them.

I do agree that requirements such as age or distance from cache or anything that has nothing to do with geocaching should be illegal.

My caching motto is "No unfound cache by me will be left behind."

Share this post


Link to post

I see where you are going with this. Yes, by current guidelines, these ideas are not allowed, but what I think you were after was a discussion about what could be done, to make something more interesting etc...

 

I would like to see things such as this and other (perhaps limited or restricted) ALR's to be allowed, perhaps as a different cache type, just for regular caches, with certain requirements. One that I would like to see perhaps is a cache where something like taking a photo, and posting it are a requirement, as I think that adds to the interest of the page.

 

Will it ever fly, or be implemented by TPTB, probably not, but a healthy discussion never hurt.

 

Thoughts on that?

If you look at your example as a challenge, would the majority be able to log it ? Probably yes. Looking at the 100 caches challenge would the majority be able to log that ? Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not happy about ALRs in whatever form they take ("selective", "alr", "challenge"). I don't mind if they are suggestions but anyone can go find the cache and log the find. I like the idea that's been thrown around that finders who meet the requirements of a challenge would get a badge for that achievement.

Share this post


Link to post

To meet your requirements then all caches would have to be available to the lowest common denominator. No puzzle caches as they all are ALRs as you have to solve a puzzle or meet a challenge before you can log a find. The D/T cannot be any higher than 1/1 or maybe 1.5/1.5 because wheelchair bound cachers can't get to higher ones. If your request is taken to its logical end you will destroy geocaching.

I am no "experienced outdoor person" but I have gotten to 4 and above terrains and I am 65. I views those as challenges to me to figure out how to get them.

I do agree that requirements such as age or distance from cache or anything that has nothing to do with geocaching should be illegal.

My caching motto is "No unfound cache by me will be left behind."

That's taking it to the extreme, that's why I put in "the majority".

If it can be found by the majority then then the majority wins. This is the case with most things in the world.

Share this post


Link to post

It's an interesting topic discussing where we draw the line. It's just that I believe the line has been drawn already, but the back door is still open.

Share this post


Link to post

I see where you are going with this. Yes, by current guidelines, these ideas are not allowed, but what I think you were after was a discussion about what could be done, to make something more interesting etc...

 

I would like to see things such as this and other (perhaps limited or restricted) ALR's to be allowed, perhaps as a different cache type, just for regular caches, with certain requirements. One that I would like to see perhaps is a cache where something like taking a photo, and posting it are a requirement, as I think that adds to the interest of the page.

 

Will it ever fly, or be implemented by TPTB, probably not, but a healthy discussion never hurt.

 

Thoughts on that?

If you look at your example as a challenge, would the majority be able to log it ? Probably yes. Looking at the 100 caches challenge would the majority be able to log that ? Probably not.

I disagree with you about the 100 caches challenge. I bet the majority can log that. The question is do they want to do that not can they do that. I did a 100 challenges in a day and it took me, alone, about 5 hours. I could have done it sooner if it wasn't raining so hard and if the caches were closer together. Not everyone wants these challenges, for me it and the D/T grid gives me something to shoot for besides just finding caches. I also met the 366 days in the row challenge as well and that is much much tougher than 100 in a day.

Share this post


Link to post

I see where you are going with this. Yes, by current guidelines, these ideas are not allowed, but what I think you were after was a discussion about what could be done, to make something more interesting etc...

 

I would like to see things such as this and other (perhaps limited or restricted) ALR's to be allowed, perhaps as a different cache type, just for regular caches, with certain requirements. One that I would like to see perhaps is a cache where something like taking a photo, and posting it are a requirement, as I think that adds to the interest of the page.

 

Will it ever fly, or be implemented by TPTB, probably not, but a healthy discussion never hurt.

 

Thoughts on that?

If you look at your example as a challenge, would the majority be able to log it ? Probably yes. Looking at the 100 caches challenge would the majority be able to log that ? Probably not.

I disagree with you about the 100 caches challenge. I bet the majority can log that. The question is do they want to do that not can they do that. I did a 100 challenges in a day and it took me, alone, about 5 hours. I could have done it sooner if it wasn't raining so hard and if the caches were closer together. Not everyone wants these challenges, for me it and the D/T grid gives me something to shoot for besides just finding caches. I also met the 366 days in the row challenge as well and that is much much tougher than 100 in a day.

I bet the majority could move within ten miles if a cache if that was the requirement. Its a thin line of can I, or do I want to or will I ever !!!

Share this post


Link to post

I see where you are going with this. Yes, by current guidelines, these ideas are not allowed, but what I think you were after was a discussion about what could be done, to make something more interesting etc...

 

I would like to see things such as this and other (perhaps limited or restricted) ALR's to be allowed, perhaps as a different cache type, just for regular caches, with certain requirements. One that I would like to see perhaps is a cache where something like taking a photo, and posting it are a requirement, as I think that adds to the interest of the page.

 

Will it ever fly, or be implemented by TPTB, probably not, but a healthy discussion never hurt.

 

Thoughts on that?

If you look at your example as a challenge, would the majority be able to log it ? Probably yes. Looking at the 100 caches challenge would the majority be able to log that ? Probably not.

I disagree with you about the 100 caches challenge. I bet the majority can log that. The question is do they want to do that not can they do that. I did a 100 challenges in a day and it took me, alone, about 5 hours. I could have done it sooner if it wasn't raining so hard and if the caches were closer together. Not everyone wants these challenges, for me it and the D/T grid gives me something to shoot for besides just finding caches. I also met the 366 days in the row challenge as well and that is much much tougher than 100 in a day.

I bet the majority could move within ten miles if a cache if that was the requirement. Its a thin line of can I, or do I want to or will I ever !!!

So then who decides if the majority can do it? How does one define majority? I think you are confusing can with want to.

Edited by mimandpap

Share this post


Link to post

Now I for one, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, believe that all caches should be able to be found by anyone who wishes to go out and find it.

 

No, I do not agree at all. You exclude difficult puzzle caches, hard terrain caches and many others in this manner.

For example, a puzzle cache with an advanced topic from say nuclear physics that can be solved only by a handful cachers within a whole country is

perfectly ok for me. (No, I'm not a physicist and I just would ignore such a cache.)

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

That's taking it to the extreme, that's why I put in "the majority".

If it can be found by the majority then then the majority wins. This is the case with most things in the world.

If caches had to be available to the majority, that would eliminate many caches that require specialized skills, like the following:

-Scuba caches

-Mountain climbing/rapelling/abseiling

-Specialized-skill puzzles (eg. there's a puzzle near me that requires knowledge of calculus)

Personally, I don't see any reason why these aren't okay.

 

As for where to draw the line, it's what the intention of the requirement is. Your first two examples are requirements solely to exclude cachers. There's no accomplishment, no goal to attain, just a restriction. Challenge caches, as defined by the guidelines, must be based on some kind of accomplishment or achievement.

Share this post


Link to post

That's taking it to the extreme, that's why I put in "the majority".

If it can be found by the majority then then the majority wins. This is the case with most things in the world.

If caches had to be available to the majority, that would eliminate many caches that require specialized skills, like the following:

-Scuba caches

-Mountain climbing/rapelling/abseiling

-Specialized-skill puzzles (eg. there's a puzzle near me that requires knowledge of calculus)

Personally, I don't see any reason why these aren't okay.

 

As for where to draw the line, it's what the intention of the requirement is. Your first two examples are requirements solely to exclude cachers. There's no accomplishment, no goal to attain, just a restriction. Challenge caches, as defined by the guidelines, must be based on some kind of accomplishment or achievement.

I like the way you put it. Caches with restrictions shouldn't be allowed. But all caches with a goal or accomplishment should be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post

That's taking it to the extreme, that's why I put in "the majority".

If it can be found by the majority then then the majority wins. This is the case with most things in the world.

If caches had to be available to the majority, that would eliminate many caches that require specialized skills, like the following:

-Scuba caches

-Mountain climbing/rapelling/abseiling

-Specialized-skill puzzles (eg. there's a puzzle near me that requires knowledge of calculus)

Personally, I don't see any reason why these aren't okay.

 

As for where to draw the line, it's what the intention of the requirement is. Your first two examples are requirements solely to exclude cachers. There's no accomplishment, no goal to attain, just a restriction. Challenge caches, as defined by the guidelines, must be based on some kind of accomplishment or achievement.

Your missing the point. If its underwater, on the side of a mountain or even in space, there is no ALR to go get it.

How many geocachers go out in a group and let's say the cache is 30ft up a tree. How many of the group climb the tree to log it ?

We all know that 1 climbs it and they all log it. If your out with someone who has had 100 finds in a day it doesn't give you the right to log it. That's the ALR.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd just like to mention puzzle caches. Just because we couldn't solve the puzzle, having the answer doesn't stop us from logging it. Ill be the 1st to admit I'm no brain box with degrees in astro physics but with a little help from here and there I can sometimes solve the puzzles.

I don't know who coined the phrase, but "it's only easy if you know the answer"

Share this post


Link to post
If you look at the 3rd example, which is the must have 100 finds in a single day. To me this is an ALR. It's an addition requirement to be able to log the cache disguised as a challenge cache. This is a true cache that was published this week. Now I'm not against challenges, there's some great challenge caches about. There's ones that let you go at your own pace to achieve the requirement. What I'm trying to distinguish is between the challenge and the selective. The selective if bringing in the ALR through the so called "back door" disguised as a challenge.
Is it just the time limit you object to? Is requiring 100 finds okay, but requiring 100 finds in a single day not okay?

 

That isn't where Groundspeak has drawn the line for challenge caches. The "100 finds in a single day" challenge meets their requirements. It doesn't require a specific list of caches or disallow past finds from counting. There are enough qualifying caches around for people to complete the challenge. It isn't based on non-accomplishments, and it doesn't require people to refrain from finding other caches. It's a personal accomplishment, not a matter of winning a competition. And so on.

 

As I've said elsewhere, I'd just as soon see challenge caches replaced with some sort of online badge system. But if a Fizzy Challenge or Alphabet Challenge or Streak Challenge is based on a valid "geocaching-related qualification", then I think a 100 Caches in a Day Challenge is too.

Share this post


Link to post

Your missing the point.

I guess I am. After reading your posts again, I think you're saying the Challenge caches should be eliminated because they contain ALRs. Is this a correct interpretation of your mindset? If so, you're not alone. I think I'm in the same camp as niraD, in that Challenge caches could go away and be replaced with an official badge or other accomplishment-recognition system.

Share this post


Link to post
If you look at the 3rd example, which is the must have 100 finds in a single day. To me this is an ALR. It's an addition requirement to be able to log the cache disguised as a challenge cache. This is a true cache that was published this week. Now I'm not against challenges, there's some great challenge caches about. There's ones that let you go at your own pace to achieve the requirement. What I'm trying to distinguish is between the challenge and the selective. The selective if bringing in the ALR through the so called "back door" disguised as a challenge.
Is it just the time limit you object to? Is requiring 100 finds okay, but requiring 100 finds in a single day not okay?

 

That isn't where Groundspeak has drawn the line for challenge caches. The "100 finds in a single day" challenge meets their requirements. It doesn't require a specific list of caches or disallow past finds from counting. There are enough qualifying caches around for people to complete the challenge. It isn't based on non-accomplishments, and it doesn't require people to refrain from finding other caches. It's a personal accomplishment, not a matter of winning a competition. And so on.

 

As I've said elsewhere, I'd just as soon see challenge caches replaced with some sort of online badge system. But if a Fizzy Challenge or Alphabet Challenge or Streak Challenge is based on a valid "geocaching-related qualification", then I think a 100 Caches in a Day Challenge is too.

I agree with you 100%. I too would like to see these replaced with something like an online badge. If the time limit was a month or even a year, I'd be able to do the challenge BUT, my views would still be the same. It's not my personal ignorance just because I cannot achieve its goal, but more of a shout on behalf all the other geocachers that saw the cache and thought "I've no chance at that one".

Share this post


Link to post

Your missing the point.

I guess I am. After reading your posts again, I think you're saying the Challenge caches should be eliminated because they contain ALRs. Is this a correct interpretation of your mindset? If so, you're not alone. I think I'm in the same camp as niraD, in that Challenge caches could go away and be replaced with an official badge or other accomplishment-recognition system.

Now we're both as they say "singing from the same hymn sheet"

Share this post


Link to post
It's not my personal ignorance just because I cannot achieve its goal, but more of a shout on behalf all the other geocachers that saw the cache and thought "I've no chance at that one".
That's what the ignore list is for. The only caches on my ignore list are challenge caches within my "blast radius" that I don't expect to ever complete.

 

But Groundspeak's criteria for challenge caches in not whether a majority of geocachers can complete it, but whether "a substantial number" of geocachers can complete it.

Share this post


Link to post

I see where you are going with this. Yes, by current guidelines, these ideas are not allowed, but what I think you were after was a discussion about what could be done, to make something more interesting etc...

 

I would like to see things such as this and other (perhaps limited or restricted) ALR's to be allowed, perhaps as a different cache type, just for regular caches, with certain requirements. One that I would like to see perhaps is a cache where something like taking a photo, and posting it are a requirement, as I think that adds to the interest of the page.

 

Will it ever fly, or be implemented by TPTB, probably not, but a healthy discussion never hurt.

 

Thoughts on that?

If you look at your example as a challenge, would the majority be able to log it ? Probably yes. Looking at the 100 caches challenge would the majority be able to log that ? Probably not.

I disagree with you about the 100 caches challenge. I bet the majority can log that. The question is do they want to do that not can they do that. I did a 100 challenges in a day and it took me, alone, about 5 hours. I could have done it sooner if it wasn't raining so hard and if the caches were closer together. Not everyone wants these challenges, for me it and the D/T grid gives me something to shoot for besides just finding caches. I also met the 366 days in the row challenge as well and that is much much tougher than 100 in a day.

I bet the majority could move within ten miles if a cache if that was the requirement. Its a thin line of can I, or do I want to or will I ever !!!

So then who decides if the majority can do it? How does one define majority? I think you are confusing can with want to.

 

It doesn't really matter of a majority could do it. For those that happen to live within reasonable proximity to a power trail or in a cache dense area, finding 100 in a day is not that difficult. On the other hand, there are dozens of countries that don't have 100 caches available to find in the entire country. Although the burden of proof is upon the person submitting the challenge cache can be completed by a reasonable number of people, the reviewers decision is going to be based upon whether or not the challenge is reasonable in the area where the challenge cache is located.

Share this post


Link to post

When ALRs were banned there was some discussion on what constitutes and ALR.

 

If there is some requirement you need to meet to go and find the cache, this is not an ALR.

 

If there is some requirement you need to meet to log the find online after you have found the cache cache then it is an ALR.

 

So a cache that requires you to climb a tree or to scuba dive to get to this is not an ALR. Similary if you need to solve a puzzle (or find someone who has solved it and is willing to share the answer with you) it is not an ALR. There was a cache on Mt. Athos in Greece. Women are not permitted on Mt. Athos, but this is not a ALR.

 

However another cache that allows only men who were fathers to log online was an ALR. Women and men without children could find the cache and sign the log, so they should be allowed to log it online. Similarly if a women snuck onto Mt. Athos and signed the log, she must be allowed to log it online.

 

The issue that is left is that geocaching related challenges are an exception to the ALR rule. Some people who own challenges view them as prerequisite; they want you to have accomplished something before you even look for the cache. However, since the coordinates are available for a challenge cache, anyone can go find it and sign the log; the challenge is simply an ALR that denies someone the online smiley.

 

Overtime TPTB have put restriction on the challenges that pretty much address many the OPs concerns. These are listed here. However, there are many grandfathered challenges that seem a little ridiculous in how they restrict the online line.

 

I question whether the online log should ever be treated as a reward. Challenges only make sense if the smiley you get for an online log is some sort of reward. To me, the find count is not the score. My online logs are for sharing my geocaching experience. I would like them to be able to track the caches I have found. I find challenges stupid since they now imply there is a reward where I don't see one. When I find a challenge cache that I don't qualify for I simply log it as a note on geocaching.com and mark it found in my GSAK database. I did the same thing in the ALR era when there was an ALR I didn't care to do. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post

Your missing the point.

I guess I am. After reading your posts again, I think you're saying the Challenge caches should be eliminated because they contain ALRs. Is this a correct interpretation of your mindset? If so, you're not alone. I think I'm in the same camp as niraD, in that Challenge caches could go away and be replaced with an official badge or other accomplishment-recognition system.

 

The issue with an official badge is that you'd either end up with an enormous list of badges (much like the way trackables started out as a novelty and now have a proliferation of icons, most of which can only be found by attending events and discovering someone else's entire collection), or you'd end up with a limited list that was of little interest.

 

A while back I did a challenge cache where the qualifying requirement was to find caches in something like 160 squares of a particular OS grid. The CO even pointed at a GSAK macro to process your finds to see if you qualified or not. Something like that seems to make sense because for all someone could make a bunch of bogus Found logs sooner or later some of them would be deleted.

 

Caches that require someone to cache at particular times seem to merely invite cheating. Where there are virtual caches who knows what day I actually found it - if a challenge cache needs me to find caches on 20 consecutive days it's easy enough to find 20 virtuals, find the information for each of them, then claim one a day for 20 days and qualify for the challenge. Where physical caches are concerned it's easy enough to sign it with the previous date, or just sign the log without a date so you can claim it any time within a few days either way if needs be, or whatever.

 

That said even a "100 caches in a day" challenge would almost encourage cheating if someone made it to 99 but DNF-ed the 100th cache, it would be easy to see why they might find a cache the following day and claim they "found it on their way home as they needed a 100th find" or some such.

 

One challenge concept I do like is the resuscitator caches, where to qualify you have to find a cache that hasn't been found for a year or more. It's interesting to see how few caches meet the criteria, so it's quite a tough challenge to complete. Most of the caches that haven't been found in a year are either hard climbs or hard puzzles.

Share this post


Link to post
The issue with an official badge is that you'd either end up with an enormous list of badges (much like the way trackables started out as a novelty and now have a proliferation of icons, most of which can only be found by attending events and discovering someone else's entire collection), or you'd end up with a limited list that was of little interest.
My bet is that we'd end up with an enormous list of badges. And Groundspeak has already demonstrated that they can create a completely new system to support a new virtual side-game called "Challenges". ;)

 

And maybe the new challenge badges could be categorized, and there could be different default icons for streak badges, for statistics badges, for milestone badges, for county badges, for map grid badges, etc.

Edited by niraD

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure that Groundspeak could come up with a 25 x 25 grid or any other number they wanted to for a grid that would award an icon / badge. Then you could submit a cache that would qualify towards one of the icons / badges. This way, anybody could go out and find a cache and if they chose to, could carry on with the challenge to receive the award. If they chose not to carry on and get rewarded with the challenge, then the cache would just be logged as another 😄found it.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi everyone, I've been in touch with the feedback guys / gals at geocaching.com and they suggested posting my comments on here.

What I wanted to make a point about is selective geocaching. This is where anyone can place a cache but make the cache only findable by a "selective" amount of people. Ill drop in some examples below.

 

Examples -

 

To find and log this cache you must live within 10 miles of this cache.

To find and log this cache you must be over the age of 65.

To find and log this cache you must have previously found 100 caches in a single day.

 

These are just a few examples of selective caching, the list could be limitless.

 

Now I for one, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, believe that all caches should be able to be found by anyone who wishes to go out and find it. In the 3 examples above, they all can be found by everyone, but the "majority" are never going to log and find caches like or similar to this. I could move within 10 miles of the cache, in 19 years ill be 65 and could I find 100 caches in a single day ? It's not impossible but highly improbable seeing as the best I've ever done in a day is 30.

 

What I'm interested in is what others think about selective caching ? Should the guidelines contain references about this ?

If it can't be found by the "majority" should it then not meet the guidelines.

 

To find and log this cache you must be anyone but Over21uk.

 

Something about that just doesn't sound right. Geocaches listed on the site are open to anyone that has the ability to go and find them.

 

Hey Don-J did you read all of my post ?

Is says "I'm interested in what others think about selective caching." What it doesn't say is let's be rude to Over21uk and let's put something quite the opposite and make him feel stupid.

 

I'm sorry if you though I was being rude. It was the furthest thing from my intention. I wanted to prove a point, and apparently I did. How would you feel if you were not allowed to find a cache because of some exclusion that was set by the cache owner?

 

You call it selective, I call it exclusionary. If allowed, what would be an acceptable exclusion? Your first two examples make it sound like you don't want young people from out of town looking for your caches. I am fairly certain that this is not what you meant, but that is the way that it looks.

Share this post


Link to post

I see where you are going with this. Yes, by current guidelines, these ideas are not allowed, but what I think you were after was a discussion about what could be done, to make something more interesting etc...

 

I would like to see things such as this and other (perhaps limited or restricted) ALR's to be allowed, perhaps as a different cache type, just for regular caches, with certain requirements. One that I would like to see perhaps is a cache where something like taking a photo, and posting it are a requirement, as I think that adds to the interest of the page.

 

Will it ever fly, or be implemented by TPTB, probably not, but a healthy discussion never hurt.

 

Thoughts on that?

If you look at your example as a challenge, would the majority be able to log it ? Probably yes. Looking at the 100 caches challenge would the majority be able to log that ? Probably not.

I disagree with you about the 100 caches challenge. I bet the majority can log that. The question is do they want to do that not can they do that. I did a 100 challenges in a day and it took me, alone, about 5 hours. I could have done it sooner if it wasn't raining so hard and if the caches were closer together. Not everyone wants these challenges, for me it and the D/T grid gives me something to shoot for besides just finding caches. I also met the 366 days in the row challenge as well and that is much much tougher than 100 in a day.

I bet the majority could move within ten miles if a cache if that was the requirement. Its a thin line of can I, or do I want to or will I ever !!!

 

To be honest. I'm totally lost as to what you are trying to accomplish, but let me point something out. Groundspeak allows you to place a cache and require people to complete a geocaching related accomplishment as a prerequisite to finding it. Finding 100 caches in a day is a geocaching related accomplishment. Where I live or how old I am is not a geocaching related accomplishment. In fact, it's not really your business to know the area that I live in or how old I am, unless I choose to tell you.

 

History has shown that if this were to be allowed, it would be abused. People would use it to exclude classes of people or to promote political and social agendas. (In order to find this cache, you must take public transit to work more than ten times in a month)

Share this post


Link to post

Hi everyone, I've been in touch with the feedback guys / gals at geocaching.com and they suggested posting my comments on here.

What I wanted to make a point about is selective geocaching. This is where anyone can place a cache but make the cache only findable by a "selective" amount of people. Ill drop in some examples below.

 

Examples -

 

To find and log this cache you must live within 10 miles of this cache.

To find and log this cache you must be over the age of 65.

To find and log this cache you must have previously found 100 caches in a single day.

 

These are just a few examples of selective caching, the list could be limitless.

 

Now I for one, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, believe that all caches should be able to be found by anyone who wishes to go out and find it. In the 3 examples above, they all can be found by everyone, but the "majority" are never going to log and find caches like or similar to this. I could move within 10 miles of the cache, in 19 years ill be 65 and could I find 100 caches in a single day ? It's not impossible but highly improbable seeing as the best I've ever done in a day is 30.

 

What I'm interested in is what others think about selective caching ? Should the guidelines contain references about this ?

If it can't be found by the "majority" should it then not meet the guidelines.

 

To find and log this cache you must be anyone but Over21uk.

 

Something about that just doesn't sound right. Geocaches listed on the site are open to anyone that has the ability to go and find them.

 

Hey Don-J did you read all of my post ?

Is says "I'm interested in what others think about selective caching." What it doesn't say is let's be rude to Over21uk and let's put something quite the opposite and make him feel stupid.

 

I'm sorry if you though I was being rude. It was the furthest thing from my intention. I wanted to prove a point, and apparently I did. How would you feel if you were not allowed to find a cache because of some exclusion that was set by the cache owner?

 

You call it selective, I call it exclusionary. If allowed, what would be an acceptable exclusion? Your first two examples make it sound like you don't want young people from out of town looking for your caches. I am fairly certain that this is not what you meant, but that is the way that it looks.

I gave these examples purely as examples of what selective caching could be based on. The 3rd example is a true cache that I believe is no different to the 1st 2. Like I have said, its not that I cannot complete this but its s back door way of putting in an ALR. I think I have manged to get my point across and I'm not alone in my thinking. You last statement hits the nail right on the head. There will be a lot of people who can complete a challenge set by a cache owner but let's not forget all the ones that connot. There will always be a cache similar to these which when set it will be in the thinking of the owner "we'll I've managed it" but not realising that this is a game/hobby for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post

Why would anyone want to place a cache & limit those able to log the find to certain groups??? If the idea is that the cache has a theme, then work that into the design, description, location, etc. The limits in the initial question won't fly.

Share this post


Link to post

 

One challenge concept I do like is the resuscitator caches, where to qualify you have to find a cache that hasn't been found for a year or more. It's interesting to see how few caches meet the criteria, so it's quite a tough challenge to complete. Most of the caches that haven't been found in a year are either hard climbs or hard puzzles.

 

I've seen challenges like mentioned before and wondered how something like that would work in my area. I haven't looked at local listings in awhile to see if there any "lonely" caches nearby but it would seem to me that if a challenge like this were created that there may be a few caches that had not been found in a year, but once the challenge had been in places for a few months,someone would likely have to have to travel quite a distance to find a lonely cache because all of the caches that had not been found in a year within close proximity of the challenge would have been by those attempting to complete the challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

You call it selective, I call it exclusionary.

That's a good way to explain it.

 

Examples -

 

To find and log this cache you must live within 10 miles of this cache.

To find and log this cache you must be over the age of 65.

To find and log this cache you must have previously found 100 caches in a single day.

I gave these examples purely as examples of what selective caching could be based on. The 3rd example is a true cache that I believe is no different to the 1st 2.

The difference is that the third example is based on a geocaching accomplishment. The first two simply exclude people based on characteristics they have unrelated to geocaching. The distinction seems quite clear to me, and I find it a perfectly reasonable division between acceptable and unacceptable ALRs. I can understand arguing against the 3rd example because some cachers will never meet the geocaching requirement, even though I don't agree with that position, but I don't think it's valid to argue that there's no logical difference between the three examples.

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen challenges like mentioned before and wondered how something like that would work in my area. I haven't looked at local listings in awhile to see if there any "lonely" caches nearby but it would seem to me that if a challenge like this were created that there may be a few caches that had not been found in a year, but once the challenge had been in places for a few months,someone would likely have to have to travel quite a distance to find a lonely cache because all of the caches that had not been found in a year within close proximity of the challenge would have been by those attempting to complete the challenge.

I know what you mean, and I wondered about that myself. The neglected cache challenges opened up a really interesting aspect of caching to me, and I really got into tracking down unvisited caches and continue to do it long after I've satisfied the requirements for a few of these in my area. And I'm not the worst: I've noticed a few cachers that have gotten downright rabid about finding old caches.

 

You'd think that cause a problem regarding satisfying those challenges, but I haven't seen it. For one thing, time marches on, so every month a few more caches become neglected that weren't when the last person was working on the challenge. I was amused to notice that one of the caches I found to satisfy the neglected for a year challenge was recently found again after the cache had been neglected for another year.

 

Another thing is that most neglected caches are out of the way to begin with: the reason they're neglected is that anyone would already have to go a long way to get them, so there's not really as much differential as you might expect between driving to the cache and driving to the cache because it's neglected.

 

So from what I've seen, it's all good. The best part is renewed interest in some puzzle caches. I've seen many puzzle caches that were neglected because all the puzzle pros found them right away but no one since has stepped up to look at them. With these challenges, there's a lot more motive to pull them out and give them new life.

Share this post


Link to post

You call it selective, I call it exclusionary.

That's a good way to explain it.

 

Examples -

 

To find and log this cache you must live within 10 miles of this cache.

To find and log this cache you must be over the age of 65.

To find and log this cache you must have previously found 100 caches in a single day.

I gave these examples purely as examples of what selective caching could be based on. The 3rd example is a true cache that I believe is no different to the 1st 2.

The difference is that the third example is based on a geocaching accomplishment. The first two simply exclude people based on characteristics they have unrelated to geocaching. The distinction seems quite clear to me, and I find it a perfectly reasonable division between acceptable and unacceptable ALRs. I can understand arguing against the 3rd example because some cachers will never meet the geocaching requirement, even though I don't agree with that position, but I don't think it's valid to argue that there's no logical difference between the three examples.

I understand what you mean but ALR's now have to optional. You shouldn't have to do something to find and log a cache. It may be an accomplishment to find 100 caches in a single day but its also an accomplishment to have found 5000 but that would stop all the new cachers and a good amount of long term cahers from being able to complete it too. There should be nothing to stop you logging a cache once you have found it. But with the challenges, there is. This is why they stopped ALR's.

Share this post


Link to post

You call it selective, I call it exclusionary.

That's a good way to explain it.

 

Examples -

 

To find and log this cache you must live within 10 miles of this cache.

To find and log this cache you must be over the age of 65.

To find and log this cache you must have previously found 100 caches in a single day.

I gave these examples purely as examples of what selective caching could be based on. The 3rd example is a true cache that I believe is no different to the 1st 2.

The difference is that the third example is based on a geocaching accomplishment. The first two simply exclude people based on characteristics they have unrelated to geocaching. The distinction seems quite clear to me, and I find it a perfectly reasonable division between acceptable and unacceptable ALRs. I can understand arguing against the 3rd example because some cachers will never meet the geocaching requirement, even though I don't agree with that position, but I don't think it's valid to argue that there's no logical difference between the three examples.

I understand what you mean but ALR's now have to optional. You shouldn't have to do something to find and log a cache. It may be an accomplishment to find 100 caches in a single day but its also an accomplishment to have found 5000 but that would stop all the new cachers and a good amount of long term cahers from being able to complete it too. There should be nothing to stop you logging a cache once you have found it. But with the challenges, there is. This is why they stopped ALR's.

 

Was the entire point of this thread simply that you believe that the current Challenge Caches are exclusionary in nature?

Share this post


Link to post

You call it selective, I call it exclusionary.

That's a good way to explain it.

 

Examples -

 

To find and log this cache you must live within 10 miles of this cache.

To find and log this cache you must be over the age of 65.

To find and log this cache you must have previously found 100 caches in a single day.

I gave these examples purely as examples of what selective caching could be based on. The 3rd example is a true cache that I believe is no different to the 1st 2.

The difference is that the third example is based on a geocaching accomplishment. The first two simply exclude people based on characteristics they have unrelated to geocaching. The distinction seems quite clear to me, and I find it a perfectly reasonable division between acceptable and unacceptable ALRs. I can understand arguing against the 3rd example because some cachers will never meet the geocaching requirement, even though I don't agree with that position, but I don't think it's valid to argue that there's no logical difference between the three examples.

I understand what you mean but ALR's now have to optional. You shouldn't have to do something to find and log a cache. It may be an accomplishment to find 100 caches in a single day but its also an accomplishment to have found 5000 but that would stop all the new cachers and a good amount of long term cahers from being able to complete it too. There should be nothing to stop you logging a cache once you have found it. But with the challenges, there is. This is why they stopped ALR's.

 

Was the entire point of this thread simply that you believe that the current Challenge Caches are exclusionary in nature?

The point of the thread was to see I other geocachers felt the same way as I do. I asked for their opinions on this and from what I have read, I'm not alone.

Share this post


Link to post

You call it selective, I call it exclusionary.

That's a good way to explain it.

 

Examples -

 

To find and log this cache you must live within 10 miles of this cache.

To find and log this cache you must be over the age of 65.

To find and log this cache you must have previously found 100 caches in a single day.

I gave these examples purely as examples of what selective caching could be based on. The 3rd example is a true cache that I believe is no different to the 1st 2.

The difference is that the third example is based on a geocaching accomplishment. The first two simply exclude people based on characteristics they have unrelated to geocaching. The distinction seems quite clear to me, and I find it a perfectly reasonable division between acceptable and unacceptable ALRs. I can understand arguing against the 3rd example because some cachers will never meet the geocaching requirement, even though I don't agree with that position, but I don't think it's valid to argue that there's no logical difference between the three examples.

I understand what you mean but ALR's now have to optional. You shouldn't have to do something to find and log a cache. It may be an accomplishment to find 100 caches in a single day but its also an accomplishment to have found 5000 but that would stop all the new cachers and a good amount of long term cahers from being able to complete it too. There should be nothing to stop you logging a cache once you have found it. But with the challenges, there is. This is why they stopped ALR's.

 

Was the entire point of this thread simply that you believe that the current Challenge Caches are exclusionary in nature?

The point of the thread was to see I other geocachers felt the same way as I do. I asked for their opinions on this and from what I have read, I'm not alone.

 

I'm still not clear how you feel about what. From what I can decipher, you made a feature request for a feature that you don't really want. If it was simple commentary/opinion of the state of challenge caches, perhaps the General Topics forum may have been more appropriate.

 

Or, do you really want the ability to place a cache and says that it can only be logged by people that have six toes on each feet?

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen challenges like mentioned before and wondered how something like that would work in my area. I haven't looked at local listings in awhile to see if there any "lonely" caches nearby but it would seem to me that if a challenge like this were created that there may be a few caches that had not been found in a year, but once the challenge had been in places for a few months,someone would likely have to have to travel quite a distance to find a lonely cache because all of the caches that had not been found in a year within close proximity of the challenge would have been by those attempting to complete the challenge.

I know what you mean, and I wondered about that myself. The neglected cache challenges opened up a really interesting aspect of caching to me, and I really got into tracking down unvisited caches and continue to do it long after I've satisfied the requirements for a few of these in my area. And I'm not the worst: I've noticed a few cachers that have gotten downright rabid about finding old caches.

 

You'd think that cause a problem regarding satisfying those challenges, but I haven't seen it. For one thing, time marches on, so every month a few more caches become neglected that weren't when the last person was working on the challenge. I was amused to notice that one of the caches I found to satisfy the neglected for a year challenge was recently found again after the cache had been neglected for another year.

 

Another thing is that most neglected caches are out of the way to begin with: the reason they're neglected is that anyone would already have to go a long way to get them, so there's not really as much differential as you might expect between driving to the cache and driving to the cache because it's neglected.

 

So from what I've seen, it's all good. The best part is renewed interest in some puzzle caches. I've seen many puzzle caches that were neglected because all the puzzle pros found them right away but no one since has stepped up to look at them. With these challenges, there's a lot more motive to pull them out and give them new life.

 

I had to take a look at GSAK to see what lonely caches were available in my standard 50 sq. mile PQ. I had to scroll down quite a bit before I could find one that was not a puzzle or multi. I think the closest cache that would qualify me for a challenge like this is about 30 miles away. I only know of 2 challenge caches within 25 miles or so. One of them is to find a cache in each of 8 specific gorges in the area and the other was to find one of the pre-2003 caches (I had satisfied both when they were published). I have no idea where the nearest fizzy, delorme, lonely cache, a-z challenge or any of the other various challenges that seem to be common elsewhere is located. I certainly haven't noticed any that come up in my standard 50 mile radius query.

Share this post


Link to post

I have nothing against challenge caches, but the examples the opening poster mentions are not challenges.

These are forbidden by current rules as they should be.

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 3

×
×
  • Create New...