[FEATURE] Replace Challenge Caches with Achievements

[cezanne]

 

Others have created challenges that are overly burdensome and clearly set up to exclude geocachers rather than to encourage and challenge them.

 

For me the difference between the these two options is more or less philosophical and also applies to many caches that are no challenge caches.

I do not hide caches to encourage the visit of simply everyone. Each of my caches has a target audience and the same is true for climbing caches and

many other caches.

 

Many caches are hidden at a location with a high terrain rating to reduce the traffic to the location and not to challenge anyone.

In my opinion, that's ok and quite normal. I do not would want Groundspeak interfere - I do not think that a cache needs to be inviting for everyone.

 

Cezanne

[team tisri]

So the guidelines point out that owners of Challenge caches have been granted an exception that allows them to delete logs of people who have found the cache and signed the log. I believe that team tisri's point is that the exemption may feel strange to someone who has accidentally stumbled upon the cache and signed the log. If they had found a puzzle or the final of a multi cache, it is generally felt that they can log the find online if they have signed the log. Similarly, if a basic member finds a PMO cache, and they know about the "backdoor", they can log it as found.

 

It's easy to understand the argument that if you know the cache is a challenge cache and yet you choose to go find it even though you haven't yet compeleted the challenge, then it should come as no suprise that the cache owner can delete your find log. This same argument was used for ALRs in general. Intially this resulted in the guideline that enforceable ALRs be listed as Mystery/Unknown type. But even when people supposedly knew that the cache had an ALR, there were complaints.

 

I believe TPTB felt that geocaching related accomplishments were worthy of an exception. But what happened is that, just like ALRs, a few cache owners have created challenges that are subject to disputes. Some owners seem to feel the need to delete logs over minor technicalities. Others have created challenges that are overly burdensome and clearly set up to exclude geocachers rather than to encourage and challenge them. The guidelines have already been changed a few times to try and eliminate the worst offenders. The debate may not be settled over whether there can be guidelines that define challenges in such a way that the exception is deserved. But in any case, using a different method to track geocaching challenges that doesn't rely on exceptions would certainly seem worth exploring.

 

That's about the size of it.

 

I remember when a caching friend of mine was over from the US. He really wanted to get an international FTF while he was in the UK. I met him in London and while he was on his way to meet me he spotted what he thought would be a good hiding spot. He had no sign of a cache being there but took a look and pulled out a geocache. So he signed the (blank) log and asked me which cache it was, but I had no record of it either. A friendly reviewer confirmed it was in his queue waiting to be published, and four days later it was published.

 

So my friend found a cache before it was published, logged his find online and got to feel smug. It would seem rather unfair, for want of a better word, for his find to not count just because whoever put it there had decided it was a "challenge" cache.

 

I'd be more in favour of relaxing the rules on sharing pocket queries so that premium members could share their own My Finds queries (even if a cut down version were produced for sharing purposes) and then groups of cachers could devise their own leader boards, achievement lists, or whatever else they wanted based on whatever criteria they wanted. If they wanted to have a category where people scored points for caches with the names of farmyard animals in the titles they could, they could argue over whether "cowering in fear" counts as a score of "cow" or not internally (or whatever other disputes arose over things that counted on a technicality). In the meantime people could log any physical cache based on whether they actually found it, with the challenge aspect left optional as a suggestion for a game within a game.

[cezanne]

 

So my friend found a cache before it was published, logged his find online and got to feel smug. It would seem rather unfair, for want of a better word, for his find to not count just because whoever put it there had decided it was a "challenge" cache.

 

Actually, personally I would not feel happy with finding a difficult puzzle cache or long multi cache in that manner and would just log a note until I filled in what I skipped accidentically. I'm aware that as a cache owner I need to let such find it logs stand, but I'm not happy at all with such logs. So this is matter of one's attitude towards geocaching and not a matter of challenge caches.

For me geocaching is mainly about the activity before finding the cache container and not about signing logbooks.

 

Cezanne

[team tisri]

 

So my friend found a cache before it was published, logged his find online and got to feel smug. It would seem rather unfair, for want of a better word, for his find to not count just because whoever put it there had decided it was a "challenge" cache.

 

Actually, personally I would not feel happy with finding a difficult puzzle cache or long multi cache in that manner and would just log a note until I filled in what I skipped accidentically. I'm aware that as a cache owner I need to let such find it logs stand, but I'm not happy at all with such logs. So this is matter of one's attitude towards geocaching and not a matter of challenge caches.

For me geocaching is mainly about the activity before finding the cache container and not about signing logbooks.

 

Cezanne

 

Up to a point I agree with you. If a cache is at the top of a tall tree there's little point in having someone climb the tree and write my name on it (or throw it down so I can sign it) - it might increase my find count but denies me the enjoyment (!) of climbing the tree for myself.

 

Where puzzles are concerned I'm interested in solving the puzzle by whatever means it takes. Sometimes that means following the thought process the setter intended, other times it means brute-forcing a puzzle, sometimes it involves lateral thinking and so on. I recently solved a series of puzzles that used similar clues, and having established some possible values Google Maps helped determine which was most likely to minimise the number of attempts to feed to the geochecker.

 

If I found the final of a puzzle by chance I'd argue that's as much of an achievement as solving the puzzle and finding the cache based on knowing where it was, not least because it involves a find with no information at all even if it were based primarily on luck.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

As I see it, the only real purpose of a challenge cache is as a form of acknowledgement that you've met the criteria.

 

In my eyes, another purpose is to restrict the set of finders to a smaller preselected group.

 

 

I suppose that is a possibility but I just can't imagine that too many challenge cache creators do it for that reason. I suspect that most challenge cache owners create them, because they want to own a challenge cache.

 

There is nothing stopping someone from finding a challenge cache even if the haven't met the criteria of the challenge.

 

Most cachers are not willing to invest a lot of effort if they know that they will not receive a smiley.

 

Cezanne

 

It's hard to argue with that but I would suggest that in content of challenge caches that it's mostly about completing the challenge, and finding the cache is just an obligatory step necessary to get "credit" for completing the challenge. I can't imagine that most people that have put in the effort to complete the Jasmar challenge really care all that much if their find count increments by one because they went and found a cache associated with the challenge.

[cezanne]

Most cachers are not willing to invest a lot of effort if they know that they will not receive a smiley.

 

It's hard to argue with that but I would suggest that in content of challenge caches that it's mostly about completing the challenge, and finding the cache is just an obligatory step necessary to get "credit" for completing the challenge. I can't imagine that most people that have put in the effort to complete the Jasmar challenge really care all that much if their find count increments by one because they went and found a cache associated with the challenge.

 

My comment was neither with respect to a specific type of challenge cache nor was it from the point of view of why cachers visit challenge caches. What I tried to say with the quoted statement is that restricting the traffic for a cache by means of a challenge cache works out as only very few will visit a challenge cache if they cannot log a find. That's a completely different type of statement than what you talk about.

 

Cezanne

[+L0ne.R]

Others have created challenges that are overly burdensome and clearly set up to exclude geocachers rather than to encourage and challenge them.

 

For me the difference between the these two options is more or less philosophical and also applies to many caches that are no challenge caches.

I do not hide caches to encourage the visit of simply everyone. Each of my caches has a target audience and the same is true for climbing caches and

many other caches.

 

Many caches are hidden at a location with a high terrain rating to reduce the traffic to the location and not to challenge anyone.

In my opinion, that's ok and quite normal. I do not would want Groundspeak interfere - I do not think that a cache needs to be inviting for everyone.

 

Cezanne

 

But the difference in this case is, if I can get the T5 cache in my hands I can log the cache (then again group cachers often get one person to climb the tree and he/she signs for the group (or he brings the log to them) and they all log a find, but that's another issue). If I find the Challenge cache, the best I can do is post a note. I can't put the cache on my list of found caches.

[cezanne]

Others have created challenges that are overly burdensome and clearly set up to exclude geocachers rather than to encourage and challenge them.

 

For me the difference between the these two options is more or less philosophical and also applies to many caches that are no challenge caches.

I do not hide caches to encourage the visit of simply everyone. Each of my caches has a target audience and the same is true for climbing caches and

many other caches.

 

Many caches are hidden at a location with a high terrain rating to reduce the traffic to the location and not to challenge anyone.

In my opinion, that's ok and quite normal. I do not would want Groundspeak interfere - I do not think that a cache needs to be inviting for everyone. When I referred to "difference" above I meant the difference between the two options of exclusion and encouragement.

 

Cezanne

 

But the difference in this case is, if I can get the T5 cache in my hands I can log the cache (then again group cachers often get one person to climb the tree and he/she signs for the group (or he brings the log to them) and they all log a find, but that's another issue). If I find the Challenge cache, the best I can do is post a note. I can't put the cache on my list of found caches.

 

I do not see a difference with respect to what the hider had in mind. Many caches are hidden with the clear intent to exclude certain groups and are not meant as encouragement for cachers coming from the wrong group. My stress was not on the logging rules. When I referred to "difference" above I meant the difference between the two options of exclusion and encouragement.

 

Cezanne

Edited February 5, 2013 by cezanne

[cezanne]

double post - sorry

Edited February 5, 2013 by cezanne

[team tisri]

I do not see a difference with respect to what the hider had in mind. Many caches are hidden with the clear intent to exclude certain groups and are not meant as encouragement for cachers coming from the wrong group. My stress was not on the logging rules. When I referred to "difference" above I meant the difference between the two options of exclusion and encouragement.

 

Cezanne

 

If you're talking about high terrain caches excluding certain groups then you've arguably got a point although I don't think it's helpful to talk about "excluding" anyone. A cache that's intended for people who like to abseil might be regarded as excluding those who don't like to abseil, those who don't have a harness and ropes, those who have mobility issues that prevent abseiling and so on, but to point at more physically demanding caches and claim they are placed purely to exclude people isn't really helpful.

 

Using the same reasoning we could say that any cache placed higher than about 4' off the ground is done to exclude wheelchair users, or a cache in an area predominantly populated by one ethnic group is done to exclude othe ethnic groups, and so on.

[cezanne]

I do not see a difference with respect to what the hider had in mind. Many caches are hidden with the clear intent to exclude certain groups and are not meant as encouragement for cachers coming from the wrong group. My stress was not on the logging rules. When I referred to "difference" above I meant the difference between the two options of exclusion and encouragement.

 

Cezanne

 

If you're talking about high terrain caches excluding certain groups then you've arguably got a point although I don't think it's helpful to talk about "excluding" anyone. A cache that's intended for people who like to abseil might be regarded as excluding those who don't like to abseil, those who don't have a harness and ropes, those who have mobility issues that prevent abseiling and so on, but to point at more physically demanding caches and claim they are placed purely to exclude people isn't really helpful.

 

No, I was not talking about such caches where most probably the hider himself enjoys this type of activity and wants to share this experience with others who like such activities and have the appropriate abilities.

 

What I had in mind is using difficult puzzles and/or hideouts in difficult terrain to reduce the traffic to a cache and thus to deliberately exclude certain groups and not as a matter of fact like in your example. I need to admit, for example, that I'm guilty of having used more challenging questions than I would have done 10 years ago and an exclusively English cache description for my ?-cache that I have hidden in 2011 to exclude certain groups of cachers from the cache in order to avoid issues or at least reduce the probability that issues with that cache arise. Back in 2003 my cache would have been designed quite differently, but at that time the community was very small and predominanly consisted of cachers I knew personally and could rely on the fact that they would behave properly something which is not true any longer.

 

 

Cezanne

[team tisri]

I do not see a difference with respect to what the hider had in mind. Many caches are hidden with the clear intent to exclude certain groups and are not meant as encouragement for cachers coming from the wrong group. My stress was not on the logging rules. When I referred to "difference" above I meant the difference between the two options of exclusion and encouragement.

 

Cezanne

 

If you're talking about high terrain caches excluding certain groups then you've arguably got a point although I don't think it's helpful to talk about "excluding" anyone. A cache that's intended for people who like to abseil might be regarded as excluding those who don't like to abseil, those who don't have a harness and ropes, those who have mobility issues that prevent abseiling and so on, but to point at more physically demanding caches and claim they are placed purely to exclude people isn't really helpful.

 

No, I was not talking about such caches where most probably the hider himself enjoys this type of activity and wants to share this experience with others who like such activities and have the appropriate abilities.

 

What I had in mind is using difficult puzzles and/or hideouts in difficult terrain to reduce the traffic to a cache and thus to deliberately exclude certain groups and not as a matter of fact like in your example. I need to admit, for example, that I'm guilty of having used more challenging questions than I would have done 10 years ago and an exclusively English cache description for my ?-cache that I have hidden in 2011 to exclude certain groups of cachers from the cache in order to avoid issues or at least reduce the probability that issues with that cache arise. Back in 2003 my cache would have been designed quite differently, but at that time the community was very small and predominanly consisted of cachers I knew personally and could rely on the fact that they would behave properly something which is not true any longer.

 

I'm still not sure quite how a difficult puzzle excludes people other than in the sense it excludes those who can't solve or don't like solving difficult puzzles.

 

Even many years ago (certainly as far back as 2004-5 and maybe earlier) there were issues in some areas of people creating caching accounts purely to find where geocaches were so they could be removed and destroyed. The potential issue of bored teenagers finding a box near their drinking den in the woods and throwing it in the river has existed since long before then.

 

Just as difficult terrain appeals to some people so a difficult puzzle appeals to others. In general I'm not one for difficult puzzles but must admit to feeling a certain sense of victory when a puzzle I've fought with for a while finally gives up its secret. It's not unheard of for me to make a 20-30 mile round trip on the bike to find a puzzle cache I was particularly pleased to have solved.

[cezanne]

I'm still not sure quite how a difficult puzzle excludes people other than in the sense it excludes those who can't solve or don't like solving difficult puzzles.

 

I fully agree with you on this. The point I was trying to make is that sometimes a difficult puzzle is included into a cache to primarily exclude those who can't solve it and only on the second level to appeal to those who can solve it. The same can be true for hideouts in difficult terrain. This does not mean that it applies to all difficult puzzle caches and all high terrain caches.

 

Even many years ago (certainly as far back as 2004-5 and maybe earlier) there were issues in some areas of people creating caching accounts purely to find where geocaches were so they could be removed and destroyed. The potential issue of bored teenagers finding a box near their drinking den in the woods and throwing it in the river has existed since long before then.

 

Again I agree. What I had in mind was however issues like troubles with residents, authorities etc If 5 cachers happen to appear at a location over the period of one year, the probability that issues will arise is much lower than if 20 cachers show up per weekend. It might not make a difference for caches which are hidden with permission, but I hardly know such caches in my country (almost all I know are at best relying on the idea of adequate permission that a cache at a location which can be freely entered is ok).

 

Cezanne

[Keystone]

As a reviewer, I had an interest in seeing what the community thought about having pre-set "achievements" instead of challenge caches. I may have been in favor of this idea. But, the discussion has ranged so far off topic that I am no longer going to follow this thread.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

As a reviewer, I had an interest in seeing what the community thought about having pre-set "achievements" instead of challenge caches. I may have been in favor of this idea. But, the discussion has ranged so far off topic that I am no longer going to follow this thread.

 

That's too bad because I'd really like to hear input from a reviewer. I've already attempted to steer the discussion back to the original topic once but it got derailed again.

 

Would it help if a moderator asked people to stay on topic?

 

Once again, the topic of this thread is to discuss an option of having some sort of achievement "award" such as a virtual badge (similar to a souvenir) instead of the current practices of allowing someone to post a found it log on a cache after they have met the criteria for a challenge.

[+StarBrand]

As a reviewer, I had an interest in seeing what the community thought about having pre-set "achievements" instead of challenge caches. I may have been in favor of this idea. But, the discussion has ranged so far off topic that I am no longer going to follow this thread.

Sad - I think the idea has some merit but the side issues are getting all of the attention.

 

I think this is a very good idea so long as the Achievment is owned by individual cachers and awarded by them when the criteria is met.

[+niraD]

I think this is a very good idea so long as the Achievment is owned by individual cachers and awarded by them when the criteria is met.

I think there could be two sets of Achievements.

 

The first set could be automatically awarded based on statistics, milestones, etc. For example, completing your difficulty-terrain grid, completing your 366-day grid, or completing a streak of a certain number of days could automatically award you the corresponding Achievement.

 

The second set of Achievements could be owned by individual geocachers. I'm not sure it's a good idea to wait for the Achievement owner to actively award the Achievement though. I think it would work better if it worked the way geocaches work: the person completing the Achievement could log their completion, and the owner could delete bogus logs.

[cezanne]

Would it help if a moderator asked people to stay on topic?

 

Once again, the topic of this thread is to discuss an option of having some sort of achievement "award" such as a virtual badge (similar to a souvenir) instead of the current practices of allowing someone to post a found it log on a cache after they have met the criteria for a challenge.

 

Actually, I guess the issue here is that different people have a different opinion what's on-topic with respect to this thread.

My key message is that regardless of whether a cache is a challenge cache or not, I appreciate the aspect that one can add elements to a cache to reduce traffic and to exclude certain group of cachers. I do not mind if an achievement system is added to the system, but I do not want to replace it the current challenges caches and even less I want to be bound to a philosophy that asks me to hide caches to encourage others regardless of who the other is. It can be enjoying for a hider from time to time to e.g. come up with a puzzle that deals with a topic that makes it unreachable for say 98% of the cachers. It is not necessarily the case that someone welcomes any additional visitor.

 

I still feel that this sort of comment is right at the heart of this thread as your suggestion reads in my understanding as a suggestion to replace challenge caches and not to add an additional level and keep challenge caches as they are right now.

 

Any bit of freedom that remains at the cachers and is not delegated to Groundspeak, is something I appreciate. I woulde have stayed away from your thread at all if you had not suggested replacing the current system by something new, but just had suggested the introduction of an additional element.

 

It was not at all my intent to scare anyone away from this thread. Probably you should have said from the beginning that your interest is something different than what the title suggests. You rather seem to have expected a brainstorming session where people who are positive or indifferent with respect to your suggestion take part and come up with constructive suggestions on how such a system could look like and be implemented. Am I right that this was your main intention? In that case, of course someone who is entirely negative about your approach will be an ideal participant in this thread, except maybe by just voicing a short "No".

 

If I happened to hide a challenge cache, I first would search for criteria that only a certain group (my target group) satisfies and then hide my cache. My goal would not to reward anyone for meeting the requirements by a cache and even less to motivate someone to fulfill the criteria. In this light, it should be very obvious why I do not like the idea of an achievement system that is not linked to hiding a cache.

 

Cezanne

Edited February 6, 2013 by cezanne

[team tisri]

I think this is a very good idea so long as the Achievment is owned by individual cachers and awarded by them when the criteria is met.

 

OK, back on topic.

 

If Groundspeak can come up with a way to let cachers set up achievements for themselves and implement the awarding of those achievements I think it could be a good idea. I'd expect to see some form of reviewing process so that achievements were something worthy of note and not just "find this new 5/5 cache I hid".

 

I'm not sure it's technically feasible to set something up so that individual cachers can define an award, but I'd be interested to hear of any way it can be done. Things like "fill 20% of the D/T grid", "fill 40% of the D/T grid" etc could be graded awards (I think it's badgegen that does something similar?)

 

The problem I see is that Groundspeak is a US company and so will inevitably tend to look at things like state-related challenges. In the meantime geocaching is a global pastime so it's eminently reasonable that there are going to be cachers out there who will expect to see things like local grid-based achievements (e.g. caching in 20% of UK counties, 40% of UK counties etc).

 

Somehow I can't see Groundspeak allocating the resources to set up achievements based on counties, districts etc for every country where there are active geocachers.

[+tozainamboku]

Somehow I can't see Groundspeak allocating the resources to set up achievements based on counties, districts etc for every country where there are active geocachers.

One implementation would require hardly any work. Keep the challenges listed just like they are now as in the geocache database but with a new cache type. Like events (and EarthCaches ) there would be nothing to find. Instead of logging "Found" you'd log "Challenge Completed" (you could even have a "Challenge Accepted" log type for letting the challenge owner know that you are working on a challenge. The guidelines for logging a challenge complete would require a list of your qualifying finds or if its something that can be gleaned from the official stats page perhaps just a link to that page. AFAIAC, the challenge complete log could even count in your finds.

 

The main issue would be what the coordinates mean for a challenge cache. If the challenge is meant to be local, the coordinates might help to find the challenges in the area. But what about challenges that can be global - like filling in the D/T grid? My guess is that some easier challenges will have thousands of finds if you allow global logging.

 

The other option (perhaps even simpler) would be to resurrect the defunct Challenges. Make these geocaching related. The worldwide challenges would be used for global challenges and perhaps Groundspeak will want to limit these. Local would just have bogus coordinates so people could find nearby challenges.

Edited February 7, 2013 by tozainamboku

[+frinklabs]

I like this idea:

 

One implementation would require hardly any work. Keep the challenges listed just like they are now as in the geocache database but with a new cache type. Like events (and EarthCaches ) there would be nothing to find. Instead of logging "Found" you'd log "Challenge Completed" (you could even have a "Challenge Accepted" log type for letting the challenge owner know that you are working on a challenge. The guidelines for logging a challenge complete would require a list of your qualifying finds or if its something that can be gleaned from the official stats page perhaps just a link to that page. AFAIAC, the challenge complete log could even count in your finds.

 

The main issue would be what the coordinates mean for a challenge cache. If the challenge is meant to be local, the coordinates might help to find the challenges in the area. But what about challenges that can be global - like filling in the D/T grid? My guess is that some easier challenges will have thousands of finds if you allow global logging.

 

The coordinates should still point to a final container, where you sign a log book. This way, the global challenges will have only as many finds as logged by those able to get to the container, and addition of it to your own find count will be legitimate.

 

Part of the satisfaction of completing a challenge is that final trek to GZ and search, recalling what you had to do to get there. Yummy!

 

It would be cool if they could add a component to the new cache type that would be a lot like a properly-constructed PQ interface. Either a pseudo-sql "advanced" interface or a graphical tree structure "basic" interface that would allow parameters for achievement to be set.

 

These would be checked against the logger's finds when they submit their CC (Challenge Completed) log.

 

Numerically-quantified challenges, like filling a grid, could include in the CA (Challenge Accepted) log a percentage to completion portion that would dynamically update as its poster completed the requirements.

[team tisri]

Somehow I can't see Groundspeak allocating the resources to set up achievements based on counties, districts etc for every country where there are active geocachers.

One implementation would require hardly any work. Keep the challenges listed just like they are now as in the geocache database but with a new cache type. Like events (and EarthCaches ) there would be nothing to find. Instead of logging "Found" you'd log "Challenge Completed" (you could even have a "Challenge Accepted" log type for letting the challenge owner know that you are working on a challenge. The guidelines for logging a challenge complete would require a list of your qualifying finds or if its something that can be gleaned from the official stats page perhaps just a link to that page. AFAIAC, the challenge complete log could even count in your finds.

 

The main issue would be what the coordinates mean for a challenge cache. If the challenge is meant to be local, the coordinates might help to find the challenges in the area. But what about challenges that can be global - like filling in the D/T grid? My guess is that some easier challenges will have thousands of finds if you allow global logging.

 

The other option (perhaps even simpler) would be to resurrect the defunct Challenges. Make these geocaching related. The worldwide challenges would be used for global challenges and perhaps Groundspeak will want to limit these. Local would just have bogus coordinates so people could find nearby challenges.

 

If there's nothing to sign it's not likely to happen. Groundspeak seem resolute in their determination not to bring back virtuals or webcams, apparently because there's no container. Even though the vast majority of COs don't seem to check their physical log books against the cache page it seems TPTB won't do anything unless there's a physical log book that can be verified.

 

Earthcaches seem, as far as I can tell, to be an exception made because of commercial sponsorship. Perhaps if you wanted to offer some commercial sponsorship for the idea it would fly. Much as I dislike being so cynical it does increasingly seem that Groundspeak are more about commercial sponsors getting what they want and making sure every single thing a cacher does gets spammed to their twitface page and less about encouraging people to "go outside and do something".

 

It's a shame because if challenges had been set up with this kind of thing in mind instead of stupid stuff like kissing frogs they might have worked a lot better than they did. If there were global challenges like "resuscitate a cache (also two caches, three caches, whatever) that hasn't been found in a year" as well as challenges with varying levels of locality like "find a cache in every US state", "find a cache in every county in the UK" or "find a cache in every London borough" they could have been so much more interesting.

Edited February 7, 2013 by team tisri

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Bumping this thread because there was a similar suggestion in the General Topics forum and I had posting a link to this thread there.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Put me down for those who would prefer Achievements on my profile stats to Challenge Caches.

 

I say this as someone who has done several challenge caches, is working toward others, and keeps a bookmark list of challenges I may qualify for in the future. I know some (most?) people hate the bookkeeping, but I don't mind that. Some are probably too narrow, but I haven't noticed an issue with this in my area. So why replace them? (And by replace I assume existing ones will be grandfathered and future publication simply prohibited.)

 

1) They are the only exception to the ALR ban. They are the only cache type where you can sign the physical log but not log the cache online.

 

2) They are about the only mystery cache located at the posted coordinates.

 

3) Rating them is odd. Most Challenge Cache hides are 4/4 or higher because of the difficulty of the challenge whereas the hide is only a 1.5/1.5 or similiarly easy. Yes, puzzle caches have a similiar issue but for puzzles it only applies to the Difficulty not Terrain and usually the inflation isn't as bad (1.5/1.5 hide listed as a 3/1.5 or 2/1.5).

 

4) Challenge Caches are dead ringers for Achievements which are huge these days in pretty much every online game. When Souvenirs came out I expected they were the beginning of phasing out Challenge Caches.

 

5) Every time a Challenge Cache is submitted, the Reviewer has to consider whether a similiar challenge cache exists in the same region, whether the challenge is too narrow, etc. Essentially it requires a bunch of extra time and attention from the Reviewer. If Achievements were processed by Groundspeak there would be a central person(s) deciding which ones to release.

 

6) In theory, most Challenge Caches require the CO to check a bunch of logs to verify the challenge was really met. The cachers usually have to do a bunch of bookkeeping not only to figure out their progress but to prove they meet the challenge. Much of this could be automated by the website; it might even encourage more use of Attributes.

[cezanne]

2) They are about the only mystery cache located at the posted coordinates.

 

3) Rating them is odd. Most Challenge Cache hides are 4/4 or higher because of the difficulty of the challenge whereas the hide is only a 1.5/1.5 or similiarly easy. Yes, puzzle caches have a similiar issue but for puzzles it only applies to the Difficulty not Terrain and usually the inflation isn't as bad (1.5/1.5 hide listed as a 3/1.5 or 2/1.5).

 

 

Not necessarily. See for example

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=467968dc-2c61-4203-85ea-3f18a1abf83d

There a puzzle has to be solved first and this puzzle contributes considerably to the D-rating. The T-rating is 1.5 and again appropriate.

Not every challenge cache is a traditional with an ALR.

 

BTW: The cache above is also a prime example for a challenge cache that would become completely boring in my eyes if turned into an achievement. I like to read the individual logs and see where cachers most of whom I know have been to. I would not be interested at all in looking at people's profiles or look through a long list of achievers from all over the country or even all over Europe or all over the world.

 

Moreover, I enjoyed solving the puzzle and visiting the cache (motivation for two bicycle trips) even though I probably will never end up with meeting the challenge criteria. With the ALR this cache stays something special, without the ALR it would be turned in one of those caches which are visited by hardly everyone and where hardly any logs tell anything of interest (that's like for travellers where people do not even read any longer for what the owner asks for).

 

I have a clear preference for keeping challenge caches and rather would like to see the guidelines extended instead of the other way round. Achievements have nothing at all to offer for me.

 

Cezanne

Edited February 26, 2013 by cezanne

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2) They are about the only mystery cache located at the posted coordinates.

 

3) Rating them is odd. Most Challenge Cache hides are 4/4 or higher because of the difficulty of the challenge whereas the hide is only a 1.5/1.5 or similiarly easy. Yes, puzzle caches have a similiar issue but for puzzles it only applies to the Difficulty not Terrain and usually the inflation isn't as bad (1.5/1.5 hide listed as a 3/1.5 or 2/1.5).

 

 

Not necessarily. See for example

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=467968dc-2c61-4203-85ea-3f18a1abf83d

There a puzzle has to be solved first and this puzzle contributes considerably to the D-rating. The T-rating is 1.5 and again appropriate.

Not every challenge cache is a traditional with an ALR.

There are always going to be exceptions but there is nothing inherent about challenges that makes them any better than any other cache. For every creative cache like the one you described there are probably dozens of run-of-the-mill challenge caches.

 

 

BTW: The cache above is also a prime example for a challenge cache that would become completely boring in my eyes if turned into an achievement. I like to read the individual logs and see where cachers most of whom I know have been to. I would not be interested at all in looking at people's profiles or look through a long list of achievers from all over the country or even all over Europe or all over the world.

 

I agree that reading the logs of those that have completed a challenge could be interesting. One way to achieve this would be for GS to have a notification mechanism when sent an email message to someone when the challenge was completed (i.e. they have found caches in all the countries bordering Austria). Then it would be up to the geocacher to claim the achievement by going to page which had a form element which could be used to optionally enter comments describing their in experience in completing the achievement. Such a mechanism would also serve the purposes of allowing someone to "opt out" of achievements either by not claiming an achievement or some sort of check box in their profile pages that indicates that they don't want to receive achievement notifications.

[cezanne]

There are always going to be exceptions but there is nothing inherent about challenges that makes them any better than any other cache. For every creative cache like the one you described there are probably dozens of run-of-the-mill challenge caches.

 

In Austria there is none such run-of-the mill one that I'm aware of and personally I do not care that much in that respect about what happens in North America. All too often the guidelines are centred around what is relevant for the US anyway.

 

I agree that reading the logs of those that have completed a challenge could be interesting. One way to achieve this would be for GS to have a notification mechanism when sent an email message to someone when the challenge was completed (i.e. they have found caches in all the countries bordering Austria). Then it would be up to the geocacher to claim the achievement by going to page which had a form element which could be used to optionally enter comments describing their in experience in completing the achievement. Such a mechanism would also serve the purposes of allowing someone to "opt out" of achievements either by not claiming an achievement or some sort of check box in their profile pages that indicates that they don't want to receive achievement notifications.

 

I'd still prefer to read only the logs of those who happened to be in the area and this visited the cache physically.

Of course, others will have other preferences and what you suggest is certainly an idea that could appeal to a certain audience, but not really to me.

 

Moreover, I have mentioned before that I somehow like the concept of caches that cannot be logged as find by everyone. This provides some cachers with a learning experience.

 

Cezanne

[team tisri]

Put me down for those who would prefer Achievements on my profile stats to Challenge Caches.

 

I say this as someone who has done several challenge caches, is working toward others, and keeps a bookmark list of challenges I may qualify for in the future. I know some (most?) people hate the bookkeeping, but I don't mind that. Some are probably too narrow, but I haven't noticed an issue with this in my area. So why replace them? (And by replace I assume existing ones will be grandfathered and future publication simply prohibited.)

 

1) They are the only exception to the ALR ban. They are the only cache type where you can sign the physical log but not log the cache online.

 

2) They are about the only mystery cache located at the posted coordinates.

 

3) Rating them is odd. Most Challenge Cache hides are 4/4 or higher because of the difficulty of the challenge whereas the hide is only a 1.5/1.5 or similiarly easy. Yes, puzzle caches have a similiar issue but for puzzles it only applies to the Difficulty not Terrain and usually the inflation isn't as bad (1.5/1.5 hide listed as a 3/1.5 or 2/1.5).

 

4) Challenge Caches are dead ringers for Achievements which are huge these days in pretty much every online game. When Souvenirs came out I expected they were the beginning of phasing out Challenge Caches.

 

5) Every time a Challenge Cache is submitted, the Reviewer has to consider whether a similiar challenge cache exists in the same region, whether the challenge is too narrow, etc. Essentially it requires a bunch of extra time and attention from the Reviewer. If Achievements were processed by Groundspeak there would be a central person(s) deciding which ones to release.

 

6) In theory, most Challenge Caches require the CO to check a bunch of logs to verify the challenge was really met. The cachers usually have to do a bunch of bookkeeping not only to figure out their progress but to prove they meet the challenge. Much of this could be automated by the website; it might even encourage more use of Attributes.

 

Some interesting ideas here. I think if someone wanted to post their own achievement they would have to verify that people claiming it had actually qualified, expecting the web site to validate achievements would mean one of the lackeys would have to code some pretty bizarre requirements.

 

It would mean that we'd only need one "resuscitator" achievement, for example, and that it could be claimed multiple times if someone resuscitated more than one cache (my count is three so far). If someone created an achievement that was too easy they'd end up buried in verification which would lead to the achievement being archived if they couldn't keep on top of it, which would represent an incentive to make the achievement something worth achieving. It would also mean that people who had completed the qualification for a achievement could claim it, whereas now if they qualify for a challenge but live 458 miles away from it the chances are they'll never actually claim it.

 

Maybe some basic concepts could be automated, such as "find 100 puzzle caches", "find 500 puzzle caches", "find a cache in 5 different countries" etc, kind of like the BadgeGen scripts, and others could be set for owner verification (like one I found recently that required the finder to have previously found 25 caches from the UK's SideTracked series).

Edited February 26, 2013 by team tisri

[AZcachemeister]

The numbers freak in me says: 'If I can qualify for the same challenge in 27 states/areas/regions, I want the opportunity to go out and get those 27 smileies!'

 

The couch potato in me says: 'Once I have qualified, I shouldn't have to go out AGAIN and find an actual container.'

 

Geocaching is about going out into the world, finding containers and (in my world) signing the log.

 

I could see 'Challenge Badges' being an adjunct to my statistics page, but not a total replacement for challenge caches.

[team tisri]

The numbers freak in me says: 'If I can qualify for the same challenge in 27 states/areas/regions, I want the opportunity to go out and get those 27 smileies!'

 

The couch potato in me says: 'Once I have qualified, I shouldn't have to go out AGAIN and find an actual container.'

 

Geocaching is about going out into the world, finding containers and (in my world) signing the log.

 

I could see 'Challenge Badges' being an adjunct to my statistics page, but not a total replacement for challenge caches.

 

I see where you're coming from.

 

I also like the idea of qualifying for an unusual and interesting challenge/achievement (or whatever we want to call it) even if the guy that thought of it is based in Oregon. It's unlikely I'm going to be in Oregon any time soon since I live in England, but if their idea piques my interest to the point I go out and do what is needed to qualify it would be nice to earn the tag.

 

That said I could always write something on my profile to show the challenge and the evidence I'd completed it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Put me down for those who would prefer Achievements on my profile stats to Challenge Caches.

 

I say this as someone who has done several challenge caches, is working toward others, and keeps a bookmark list of challenges I may qualify for in the future. I know some (most?) people hate the bookkeeping, but I don't mind that. Some are probably too narrow, but I haven't noticed an issue with this in my area. So why replace them? (And by replace I assume existing ones will be grandfathered and future publication simply prohibited.)

 

1) They are the only exception to the ALR ban. They are the only cache type where you can sign the physical log but not log the cache online.

 

2) They are about the only mystery cache located at the posted coordinates.

 

3) Rating them is odd. Most Challenge Cache hides are 4/4 or higher because of the difficulty of the challenge whereas the hide is only a 1.5/1.5 or similiarly easy. Yes, puzzle caches have a similiar issue but for puzzles it only applies to the Difficulty not Terrain and usually the inflation isn't as bad (1.5/1.5 hide listed as a 3/1.5 or 2/1.5).

 

4) Challenge Caches are dead ringers for Achievements which are huge these days in pretty much every online game. When Souvenirs came out I expected they were the beginning of phasing out Challenge Caches.

 

5) Every time a Challenge Cache is submitted, the Reviewer has to consider whether a similiar challenge cache exists in the same region, whether the challenge is too narrow, etc. Essentially it requires a bunch of extra time and attention from the Reviewer. If Achievements were processed by Groundspeak there would be a central person(s) deciding which ones to release.

 

6) In theory, most Challenge Caches require the CO to check a bunch of logs to verify the challenge was really met. The cachers usually have to do a bunch of bookkeeping not only to figure out their progress but to prove they meet the challenge. Much of this could be automated by the website; it might even encourage more use of Attributes.

 

Some interesting ideas here. I think if someone wanted to post their own achievement they would have to verify that people claiming it had actually qualified, expecting the web site to validate achievements would mean one of the lackeys would have to code some pretty bizarre requirements.

 

It would mean that we'd only need one "resuscitator" achievement, for example, and that it could be claimed multiple times if someone resuscitated more than one cache (my count is three so far). If someone created an achievement that was too easy they'd end up buried in verification which would lead to the achievement being archived if they couldn't keep on top of it, which would represent an incentive to make the achievement something worth achieving. It would also mean that people who had completed the qualification for a achievement could claim it, whereas now if they qualify for a challenge but live 458 miles away from it the chances are they'll never actually claim it.

 

Maybe some basic concepts could be automated, such as "find 100 puzzle caches", "find 500 puzzle caches", "find a cache in 5 different countries" etc, kind of like the BadgeGen scripts, and others could be set for owner verification (like one I found recently that required the finder to have previously found 25 caches from the UK's SideTracked series).

 

You elaborate on several things I agree with.

 

If some sort of achievement system were to be implemented there could basically be two types; one that Groundspeak creates which could could automated based on an examination of user "found it/attended" logs, and as you suggest it would be similar to badgegen, except that a geocacher wouldn't have to cut-n-paste code into their profile. Instead, every profile could have an "achievements" tab on their profile where the badges would automatically show up or after the user has "claimed".

 

User created achievements would be a lot more difficult. First of all, I can't see users creating the artwork, though, through some sort of approval process that might be possible. User created achievements also has the same "review" issues that exist now with the only difference that those that complete the criteria would get a badge instead of having to find a cache to "claim" the achievement.

 

I also see the issue of completing the criteria for a challenge but not being able to get "credit" for it because there isn't a challenge cache anywhere nearby which use that criteria. The popularity of challenge caches seems to be very much a regional thing. In some areas there are lots of them for every possible permutation that someone come up with and even mini power trails of challenge caches. In other places, they haven't caught on at all so even thought I could qualify 3 times over for a "find a cache in 5 different countries" I'm not going to get credit for meeting that criteria because challenges caches are almost non-existent in my area and I have no idea where the closest "find caches in 5 countries" might be (I think there's one in Arizona, but that's 2000 miles from where I live.

 

As far as the "I want to keep challenge caches because geocaching is about getting outdoors" argument goes, as I see it, qualifying for the challenge provides significant opportunity to get outdoors and the challenge cache is just one additional opportunity, that compared to what one might have to accomplish to complete the criteria is only a slight bump in the amount of time one has already spent outdoors.

 

Something about qualifying for a challenge then finding 27 different challenges that were created with the exact same criteria just doesn't feel right to me.

[cezanne]

 

Something about qualifying for a challenge then finding 27 different challenges that were created with the exact same criteria just doesn't feel right to me.

 

When looked upon from an achievement/encouragement point of view, definitely not. From the point of view of that one belongs to a group who is eligible for a find log for those 27 caches, I do not agree. That's the point I tried to made already at the very beginning when you and Keystone apparently considered what I wrote as offtopic.

 

Cezanne

[+hzoi]

Well, I have to admit, my frame of reference has changed on this topic. A little.

 

We just don't have many challenge caches around here. We do have a couple non-geographic ones; one asks you to find a total of thirty caches, three of different tpes hidden by ten different cache oners, another is a challenge for a 366 day streak, another relates to animal themed caches.

 

We recently rolled through Florida and will be traveling through Arizona next month, and I see how there are a kajillion challenge caches out there now -- find different sizes in one day, find x number of each size, find 11 1/1 caches on the 1st, 11th, 21st, or 31st, etc. So I can appreciate your ennui when it comes to the explosion of challenge caches.

 

That said, there are still enough worthwhile ones out there that I have no desire to see them go to some other system. I don't think the solution is relying on Groundspeak to make one more systematic change that I doubt would be satisfactorily implemented -- and to any elves who take offense at that, sorry, guys, but need I remind you of challenges or Wherigo?

 

I feel I can rely on my own good judgment to separate the wheat from the chaff. And therefore I still disagree with this idea.

[AZcachemeister]

 

Something about qualifying for a challenge then finding 27 different challenges that were created with the exact same criteria just doesn't feel right to me.

 

Just the same as finding 27 caches hidden in old tree stumps.

You've seen one tree stump, you've seen them all...why even bother logging it?

 

Each CO will almost certainly have used a different hide technique. And (with any luck) you might get to visit 27 nice locations as well.

[+Der Wald-Pirat]

With that in mind I'm going to formally suggest a "Feature" which eliminates Challenge Caches and that GS implement, as a replacement, some sort of achievement/badge/souvenir system.

 

Extremely stupid idea!

Badges are nonsense. I don't want nor need any badges. Badges can go to hell.

 

Some challenge cache requirements need years to fulfill them. Killing challenges while a lot of people are halfway or almost through to fulfill a challenge there want to log or, worse, place, will piss off all these people extremely!

[+Semper Questio]

With that in mind I'm going to formally suggest a "Feature" which eliminates Challenge Caches and that GS implement, as a replacement, some sort of achievement/badge/souvenir system.

 

Extremely stupid idea!

Badges are nonsense. I don't want nor need any badges. Badges can go to hell.

 

Some challenge cache requirements need years to fulfill them. Killing challenges while a lot of people are halfway or almost through to fulfill a challenge there want to log or, worse, place, will piss off all these people extremely!

 

Don't hold back, DWP! Tell us how you REALLY feel!

 

I've been thinking about this since this thread started and I gotta go with either leaving them as they are. However, I would like to see them as a their own type.

[+L0ne.R]

With that in mind I'm going to formally suggest a "Feature" which eliminates Challenge Caches and that GS implement, as a replacement, some sort of achievement/badge/souvenir system.

 

Extremely stupid idea!

Badges are nonsense. I don't want nor need any badges. Badges can go to hell.

 

Some challenge cache requirements need years to fulfill them. Killing challenges while a lot of people are halfway or almost through to fulfill a challenge there want to log or, worse, place, will piss off all these people extremely!

 

Keep them, but everyone gets to log them. If they find them and sign them, they get to claim a find. Those that fulfill the challenge grid know they accomplished the challenge. If they want further recognition the CO or finder can create a bookmark list, or maybe Groundspeak can come up with some special Challenge bookmark list.

Edited May 24, 2013 by L0ne R

[+NYPaddleCacher]

With that in mind I'm going to formally suggest a "Feature" which eliminates Challenge Caches and that GS implement, as a replacement, some sort of achievement/badge/souvenir system.

 

Extremely stupid idea!

Badges are nonsense. I don't want nor need any badges. Badges can go to hell.

 

Some challenge cache requirements need years to fulfill them. Killing challenges while a lot of people are halfway or almost through to fulfill a challenge there want to log or, worse, place, will piss off all these people extremely!

 

That's a bit of a knee jerk reaction. If you had read more of the thread you'd see that I wasn't proposing abolishing the challenge itself but just the reward for completing the challenge. If someone is going to spend years completing a challenge then a single additional find (and the smiley face that comes with it) isn't much of a reward either.

 

 

[cezanne]

If you had read more of the thread you'd see that I wasn't proposing abolishing the challenge itself but just the reward for completing the challenge. If someone is going to spend years completing a challenge then a single additional find (and the smiley face that comes with it) isn't much of a reward either.

 

I guess it depends on the point of view of that person. Being able to find a cache that only very few are able to log as found it certainly provides many with a quite different feeling of accomplishment than if obtaining a badge for their profile.

First, the cache version includes the aspect that others can't do that and second, it is more visible locally who has accomplished a challenge and how few/many. This is not true for the type of system you suggested in the starting post (even if augmented with a system to search for all who completed a certain challenge which will never be implemented for the badge like system as it would be quite costly with respect to server load) one could not obtain the same local effect. I'm aware of quite a number of physically demanding caches the description of which contains texts like that the demands are quite high, but those who finish the cache successfully can be proud to have managed something only few can manage. For some challenges this or something similar is certainly part of what is viewed as reward.

 

It's not the single smiley face, but often the smiley face for a cache for which only few can log a find that makes the difference.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Der Wald-Pirat]

I'm not sure it's technically feasible to set something up so that individual cachers can define an award, but I'd be interested to hear of any way it can be done.

 

This is already done.

All badges you can get today are from private sites:

Most famous are http://www.badgegen.com/badges.html

But there are others like at http://www.mygeocachingprofile.com/.

 

http://www.geosociety.org/earthcache/ecMasters.htm

 

Anyone can create all sorts of badges. I did so too:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3H4XK

 

Just put them in your profile.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

It's not the single smiley face, but often the smiley face for a cache for which only few can log a find that makes the difference.

 

Cezannen

 

And I don't see that any different than getting an achievement badge that few can acquire unless they've completed a challenge, and in the cache of a achievement badge it could show up on a separate tab (i.e. like souvenirs) instead of being buried among hundreds or thousands of found it logs. For example, on my souvenirs page I've got souvenirs for countries on four continents, probably not something that many other can claim, let alone easily show just by looking at that one page. Whether achievement badges are on a separate page or combined with souvenirs, it would provide a place to showcase significant accomplishments like completing fizzy challenges, jasmer challenges and many others.

 

 

[+tozainamboku]

 

It's not the single smiley face, but often the smiley face for a cache for which only few can log a find that makes the difference.

 

Cezannen

 

And I don't see that any different than getting an achievement badge that few can acquire unless they've completed a challenge, and in the cache of a achievement badge it could show up on a separate tab (i.e. like souvenirs) instead of being buried among hundreds or thousands of found it logs. For example, on my souvenirs page I've got souvenirs for countries on four continents, probably not something that many other can claim, let alone easily show just by looking at that one page. Whether achievement badges are on a separate page or combined with souvenirs, it would provide a place to showcase significant accomplishments like completing fizzy challenges, jasmer challenges and many others.

But there is a difference. Some geocachers feel that the smiley for a a find has some intrinsic value. It is for this reason that "cheaters" create bogus online logs and also the reason that Groundspeak tells cache owners to delete bogus logs. When ALR caches were allowed, people would to compete to come up with the most far fetched ALF, just to see what others would be willing to do to get the smiley.

 

Of course people could ask you things to get an challenge completed "point" in the now defunct geocaching challenges, but that just didn't carry the value of being able to log a geocache smiley.

 

Sadly this is life. There are those for whom the smiley you get with an online log has some value that is more than the value of a souvenir, badge, or challenge complete. Whenever I post that there is no requirement to sign the physical log in order to log online, it sets off alarms. People see the requirement to sign a physical paper as the "gold" standard that guarantees the value of their log. A log by someone who found the same cache but who forgot a pen, would devalue the logs of someone who signed. If an online log is just a way to share you found the cache and it doesn't have any value, then of course badges or souvenirs for completing a challenge would be a better solution. But so long as the online log and the smiley have some value then you can't replace challenge caches with a prize of lesser value.

 

I can find a cache (and even sign the physical book) but, if it's a challenge cache I now have to do the challenge to use a Found It log online. In some cases I have done the challenge and I will log a find instead of writing a note. What I would like to do is to make it clear that I did not do the challenge to "earn" that smiley. I am simply taking advantage of the cache owners "rules" to log the find I think I should have gotten for finding the cache. When I haven't done the challenge I write a note to indicate I've found the cache, since the cache owner would delete my find log.

[+redants]

Random throw-out: I thought that when Challenges were retired they could improve the Waymarking site. I don't Waymark myself, because the site layout puts me off. I think that because they had time to make Challenges, they could improve WM.com

[cezanne]

 

And I don't see that any different than getting an achievement badge that few can acquire unless they've completed a challenge, and in the cache of a achievement badge it could show up on a separate tab (i.e. like souvenirs) instead of being buried among hundreds or thousands of found it logs.

 

Your hypotheses are not matching the reality very well, at least not in Europe. The existing challenge caches with requirements that are not easy to meet do not have hundreds or thousands of logs, but rather get less than 20 logs per year, often much less and almost all of them come from cachers who live in the area. So on the one hand this provides much more visibility for those who have accomplished something than their profile pages would be able to provide (and moreover, everyone can add to one's profile whatever one wants anyway which includes badges of all sorts) and on the other hand it also includes a factor of exclusitivity: others who have not met the requirement cannot log a found it.

 

 

For example, on my souvenirs page I've got souvenirs for countries on four continents, probably not something that many other can claim, let alone easily show just by looking at that one page.

 

Right, but one needs to look at your page and most cachers in my area are not interested what a cacher in the US has accomplished, but rather have an interest into the group of local cachers.

 

Whether achievement badges are on a separate page or combined with souvenirs, it would provide a place to showcase significant accomplishments like completing fizzy challenges, jasmer challenges and many others.

 

If that is the main intent, then I agree. For many this is however not the main intent.

 

Consider a cache like that one - I know it's a Wherigo and not a challenge cache, but I point to it to explain what I think is part of the spirit of some challenge caches

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=623385ca-fe29-422d-be5f-5bdbad41a5c2

 

The idea here is not to motivate cachers to go for a run or try to improve their performance, it is simply to be very exclusive and to provide a show board for those few who manage to run the demanding course fast enough.

(Comment: I'm not a fan of this cache.) Those who are able to meet the requirements, will be visible to the whole local community as the cache is watched (not necessarily by the Groundspeak function watch) by many cachers, even from other regions of the country.

A badge would never accomplish that. Moreover, a badge would not be able to exclude the majority of cachers from a cache, which in my understanding is part of the attractivity of challenge caches to some cachers and this aspect is apparently overlooked by you since it does not fit into your type of thinking.

 

Cezanne

Edited May 26, 2013 by cezanne

[team tisri]

I'm not sure it's technically feasible to set something up so that individual cachers can define an award, but I'd be interested to hear of any way it can be done.

 

This is already done.

All badges you can get today are from private sites:

Most famous are http://www.badgegen.com/badges.html

But there are others like at http://www.mygeocachingprofile.com/.

 

http://www.geosociety.org/earthcache/ecMasters.htm

 

Anyone can create all sorts of badges. I did so too:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3H4XK

 

Just put them in your profile.

 

I was thinking in terms of ways to define the badges that don't involve ever-more third party web sites, addons, scripts etc.

 

Does badgegen or mygeocachingprofile allow me to set up my own challenges, or am I stuck with the criteria they have implemented? If the latter then it doesn't actually address letting individual cachers define awards unless they want to create the infrastructure around processing other peoples' My Finds query (which only applies to premium members, thereby excluding basic members from the entire scheme), or setting something up that will only apply to themselves (which is pointless if the idea is to encourage other people to attempt them).

 

If we can't set up things for ourselves centrally we might as well just have a forum post that says "hey everyone, let's all try and find a cache with lots of Z's in the name" and we can all post which cache we found that qualified.

 

If people are just going to create stuff to put in their own profile it becomes pointless, I'll just go and create a graphic that says I'm the best cacher that has ever lived and ever will live, and then gloat about being better than everyone else. At least until someone else creates a graphic that says they're a better cacher than I am, and then I'll have to create a graphic that says I'm better than they are, and so on.

Edited May 28, 2013 by team tisri