Restricted caches

[4wheelin_fool]

I'm not a fan of challenge caches and I do not seek them. I do own one which is incredibly unpopular and I've considered archiving it. However there appears to be a significant portion of the community that enjoys them. If you don't like them don't do them.

 

I do agree with Toz to a point. You find a cache you should be able to log a find and to have to go through hoops to be eligible to log a find on a cache you found is not in the spirit of geocaching. I wouldn't mind a distinct category for challenge caches where it would be possible to withhold the coordinates until someone has completed the challenge.

 

I don't like this ethic that makes a found it log a reward. A found it log should not be a reward, award, commodity or anything else, it should only be a statement of fact.

 

People are able to bypass puzzles by not solving them, and find multis by just getting the final cords from someone, but does that imply that they should automatically be entitled to be able to do the same for challenges? The only difference is that you have the final coords already, but you have to show your work. Just because someone is physically able to find them, doesn't mean that they should be entitled to log it. They should have ignored it to begin with.

 

A "found it" log is a reward whether you like it or not. If it wasn't, then nobody would mind posting notes that they found it, rather than using the "found" log. The same exact message is communicated with both log types, and the way that the early logs were displayed in 2000. I'm certain that someone could have fun traveling to ground zero at every cache site and never find anything, but making the find is a reward to most.

[+CanadianRockies]

The FIND log is being used for something beyond the original idea.

That ship sailed a long time ago. The original idea was to find a cache container. There is no container to be "found" at events, EarthCaches, virtuals, or WebCams. Welcome to Geocaching 2.0.

[+Beach_hut]

Absolutely any cacher is able to go out and meet the qualification for any challenge cache, just by finding caches.

 

A person in a wheelchair may not be able to meet the D/T Grid challenges.

 

OK, Fair point. Sorry, I'd not considered that

[+L0ne.R]

Just because someone is physically able to find them, doesn't mean that they should be entitled to log it. They should have ignored it to begin with......A "found it" log is a reward whether you like it or not. If it wasn't, then nobody would mind posting notes that they found it, rather than using the "found" log.

 

Maybe GS could make it easier for those of us who do not want a 'reward smiley' but still want a complete record of what we've found and also have those finds viewable on the map. Provide several map-viewable Ignore Lists:

• one for people who find challenges and use Write Note instead of Found It, because they don't meet the requirements,
• one for people who would prefer to use the Write Note instead of the Found It option when they find caches,
• and one for caches that you don't want to or are unable to find (tree climbing, someone's front lawn, scuba, etc.).

Currently everything gets lumped into one big Ignore List (if you want to get the caches off the map for easy filtering).

 

It would be less complicated if GS left the smiley as a way of tracking what you found and a way of filtering out those finds when searching for more caches to hunt. Challenge caches play into the 'smiley-as-reward' game and the numbers game.

[+L0ne.R]

Just read this on the "When a CO changes the D/T on a cache" topic:

 

I don't like the "I don't care" attitude either, but the more times I read you say that the only reason someone may have found my cache was because of the D/T combo, not because it's a good cache, not for the hike, or for the view, or for the adventure, but only because of the the listed D/T, I'm wondering if I really should care.

 

It seems that I do own a cache with a rare D/T. I didn't know this until you posted the link to the Project-GC site, and I certainly didn't rate it that way to help anyone fill a grid.

 

Challenge caches change the value of a cache - making it a numbers commodity. It was bad enough when COs placed lame caches with the only intended reward being a smiley, now COs are placing caches for the sole reason to meet a challenge (caches whose titles start with X). Finders go looking for caches with the only intention of filling a grid. Sometimes it even becomes drudgery - it's day 200, their sick and it's raining but they must go find a cache. Before challenges, a finder may have set a personal goal for themselves, now it's a contest to win a smiley.

[+The Jester]

Challenge caches change the value of a cache - making it a numbers commodity. It was bad enough when COs placed lame caches with the only intended reward being a smiley, now COs are placing caches for the sole reason to meet a challenge (caches whose titles start with X). Finders go looking for caches with the only intention of filling a grid. Sometimes it even becomes drudgery - it's day 200, their sick and it's raining but they must go find a cache. Before challenges, a finder may have set a personal goal for themselves, now it's a contest to win a smiley.

Maybe, maybe not. What about someone's streak that is longer than any Challenge Cache requirements?

 

Besides, it's still "setting a personal goal" to accomplish the Challenge requirements. All that's changed (for some people) is the motivation for the personal goal (which for some reason irritates you).

[+The Jester]

I'm not a fan of challenge caches and I do not seek them. I do own one which is incredibly unpopular and I've considered archiving it. However there appears to be a significant portion of the community that enjoys them. If you don't like them don't do them.

 

I do agree with Toz to a point. You find a cache you should be able to log a find and to have to go through hoops to be eligible to log a find on a cache you found is not in the spirit of geocaching. I wouldn't mind a distinct category for challenge caches where it would be possible to withhold the coordinates until someone has completed the challenge.

 

I don't like this ethic that makes a found it log a reward. A found it log should not be a reward, award, commodity or anything else, it should only be a statement of fact.

And the statement of fact on a challenge cache is that you completed the challenge.

Of course, were challenges handled a different way than using a cache, there would still be a statement of fact that you completed the challenge. What happens now is that the there is a statement of fact that you found the cache and were able to demonstrate that you completed the challenge at some point in time. The FIND log is being used for something beyond the original idea.

 

Here's a little history:

 

The original challenges were puzzle caches - you completed the Delorme or similar challenge and you emailed the "proof" to the cache owner to get the coordinates. Now, this was done at a time when ALRs were allowed, so I suppose if you found the cache by accident or went with someone else who had gotten the coordinated, the owner could delete your log. But my guess is that many owners of these challenges would have allowed logs by people who hadn't completed the challenge but who had found the cache.

 

These original challenges also has some issues, due to the emailing for the coordinates (and in the case of Delorme - they were commercial). So they required an exception to be approved and the number of these caches was kept small.

 

Later, ALR caches were subject to special rules. ALR caches had to use the unknown type. Only then could cache owners enforce these restrictions. In keeping with the new treatment of ALR, the reviewers started treating challenges as a type of ALR. To avoid the need to email for the coordinates, the caches had to be at the posted coordinated (or at least determinable from the information on the cache page).

 

The number of challenges skyrocketed, as they were easily approved under this new model. Only a few rules were in place - such as not having challenges based on caches placed or on the number of DNFs posted.

 

The new model has a flaw, IMO, which is the same flaw as all ALR caches. Cache owners could arbitrarily delete logs by not accepting the "proof" that the challenge or other ALR was done. Challenges based on common statistics were less likely to have this problem as the statistic became the "proof", but there are still plenty of challenges that are somewhat capricious and subject to interpretation.

 

When other ALRs were banned because they were being abused, TPTB made the decision to exempt geocaching related challenges. However, they quickly realize that then need a tighter definition of what a geocaching related challenge id. They came up with one of the more complicated sets of guidelines in the hopes of preventing challenges from becoming too capricious. In the eyes of some these guideline (particularly the one that challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on date found) are seen as making some caches very easy for cachers with high find counts, while requiring new cachers to spend months or years to achieve the same goal.

 

I have nothing against a challenge being unfair, although others might. I do find the argument that this unfairness is "fair" a bit of a stretch.

It's not "easier" for long time cachers - they had to "spend months or years" to get there also, it's just they've done it earlier. Once that new cacher finishes the requirements, he's in the same catagory as the long time cacher - they've both done the work in the past.

[+CanadianRockies]

Some challenge caches also are easier to accomplish if you're a less experienced geocacher. For example, it would be difficult for me to complete a 365-consecutive-day challenge, since I've found the vast majority of the caches in my area. For a newer geocacher, not as difficult.

[+L0ne.R]

I'm not a fan of challenge caches and I do not seek them. I do own one which is incredibly unpopular and I've considered archiving it. However there appears to be a significant portion of the community that enjoys them. If you don't like them don't do them.

 

I do agree with Toz to a point. You find a cache you should be able to log a find and to have to go through hoops to be eligible to log a find on a cache you found is not in the spirit of geocaching. I wouldn't mind a distinct category for challenge caches where it would be possible to withhold the coordinates until someone has completed the challenge.

 

I don't like this ethic that makes a found it log a reward. A found it log should not be a reward, award, commodity or anything else, it should only be a statement of fact.

And the statement of fact on a challenge cache is that you completed the challenge.

Of course, were challenges handled a different way than using a cache, there would still be a statement of fact that you completed the challenge. What happens now is that the there is a statement of fact that you found the cache and were able to demonstrate that you completed the challenge at some point in time. The FIND log is being used for something beyond the original idea.

 

Here's a little history:

 

The original challenges were puzzle caches - you completed the Delorme or similar challenge and you emailed the "proof" to the cache owner to get the coordinates. Now, this was done at a time when ALRs were allowed, so I suppose if you found the cache by accident or went with someone else who had gotten the coordinated, the owner could delete your log. But my guess is that many owners of these challenges would have allowed logs by people who hadn't completed the challenge but who had found the cache.

 

These original challenges also has some issues, due to the emailing for the coordinates (and in the case of Delorme - they were commercial). So they required an exception to be approved and the number of these caches was kept small.

 

Later, ALR caches were subject to special rules. ALR caches had to use the unknown type. Only then could cache owners enforce these restrictions. In keeping with the new treatment of ALR, the reviewers started treating challenges as a type of ALR. To avoid the need to email for the coordinates, the caches had to be at the posted coordinated (or at least determinable from the information on the cache page).

 

The number of challenges skyrocketed, as they were easily approved under this new model. Only a few rules were in place - such as not having challenges based on caches placed or on the number of DNFs posted.

 

The new model has a flaw, IMO, which is the same flaw as all ALR caches. Cache owners could arbitrarily delete logs by not accepting the "proof" that the challenge or other ALR was done. Challenges based on common statistics were less likely to have this problem as the statistic became the "proof", but there are still plenty of challenges that are somewhat capricious and subject to interpretation.

 

When other ALRs were banned because they were being abused, TPTB made the decision to exempt geocaching related challenges. However, they quickly realize that then need a tighter definition of what a geocaching related challenge id. They came up with one of the more complicated sets of guidelines in the hopes of preventing challenges from becoming too capricious. In the eyes of some these guideline (particularly the one that challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on date found) are seen as making some caches very easy for cachers with high find counts, while requiring new cachers to spend months or years to achieve the same goal.

 

I have nothing against a challenge being unfair, although others might. I do find the argument that this unfairness is "fair" a bit of a stretch.

It's not "easier" for long time cachers - they had to "spend months or years" to get there also, it's just they've done it earlier. Once that new cacher finishes the requirements, he's in the same catagory as the long time cacher - they've both done the work in the past.

 

The long time cacher didn't have to try to reach that goal. It happened naturally without much planning. The new cacher has to make more of an effort, invest more time and money and likely will need to fill the grid quicker, because there's no guarantee the challenge cache will still exist once the new cacher finally reaches the goal.

[+CanadianRockies]

The long time cacher didn't have to try to reach that goal. It happened naturally without much planning. The new cacher has to make more of an effort, invest more time and money and likely will need to fill the grid quicker, because there's no guarantee the challenge cache will still exist once the new cacher finally reaches the goal.

Like many others that I've seen, all my challenge caches allow geocachers to sign the cache's physical log at any time. I just don't allow people to log an online "Found It" until they also complete the challenge's requirements.

 

Once they sign the physical log, therefore, they don't have to worry about the cache being archived before they have time to complete those requirements. They can still claim their online smiley even if the cache itself has been archived.

[+L0ne.R]

The long time cacher didn't have to try to reach that goal. It happened naturally without much planning. The new cacher has to make more of an effort, invest more time and money and likely will need to fill the grid quicker, because there's no guarantee the challenge cache will still exist once the new cacher finally reaches the goal.

Like many others that I've seen, all my challenge caches allow geocachers to sign the cache's physical log at any time. I just don't allow people to log an online "Found It" until they also complete the challenge's requirements.

 

Once they sign the physical log, therefore, they don't have to worry about the cache being archived before they have time to complete those requirements. They can still claim their online smiley even if the cache itself has been archived.

 

Interesting, I hadn't considered that approach.

 

It could be possible then to post a Note on the cache (use the note as a placeholder (without finding the cache)), then take a couple of years to fill the grid. In the meantime the cache has been archived, but can be logged as a find when the grid is complete.

Another reason why I'd like to see a badge-system, because the cache is not the point of the game, the grid is.

[+Don_J]

The long time cacher didn't have to try to reach that goal. It happened naturally without much planning. The new cacher has to make more of an effort, invest more time and money and likely will need to fill the grid quicker, because there's no guarantee the challenge cache will still exist once the new cacher finally reaches the goal.

Like many others that I've seen, all my challenge caches allow geocachers to sign the cache's physical log at any time. I just don't allow people to log an online "Found It" until they also complete the challenge's requirements.

 

Once they sign the physical log, therefore, they don't have to worry about the cache being archived before they have time to complete those requirements. They can still claim their online smiley even if the cache itself has been archived.

 

Personally, I think that Challenge cache should either be eliminated or upgraded to a new cache type. Anyone would be allowed to find and log a find on this new cache type, just like any other cache. When the cache owner looks at the list of logs, he would have a checkbox next to them for "Completed". He checks the box for those that have also completed the challenge and a completed icon is added to the log that the rest of us see. Additionally, these can be tallied on our public profiles, Caches Found, Trackables Logged, Challenge Caches Completed.

 

I think that something like this would satisfy both sides of the argument.

[+Don_J]

The long time cacher didn't have to try to reach that goal. It happened naturally without much planning. The new cacher has to make more of an effort, invest more time and money and likely will need to fill the grid quicker, because there's no guarantee the challenge cache will still exist once the new cacher finally reaches the goal.

Like many others that I've seen, all my challenge caches allow geocachers to sign the cache's physical log at any time. I just don't allow people to log an online "Found It" until they also complete the challenge's requirements.

 

Once they sign the physical log, therefore, they don't have to worry about the cache being archived before they have time to complete those requirements. They can still claim their online smiley even if the cache itself has been archived.

 

Interesting, I hadn't considered that approach.

 

It could be possible then to post a Note on the cache (use the note as a placeholder (without finding the cache)), then take a couple of years to fill the grid. In the meantime the cache has been archived, but can be logged as a find when the grid is complete.

Another reason why I'd like to see a badge-system, because the cache is not the point of the game, the grid is.

 

Ah, but using this logic, puzzle caches should be converted as well as with the vast majority, the point is to solve the puzzle and the cache itself is secondary, sometimes almost insignificant.

[+hzoi]

I look at (some) challenge caches as adding an extra element that can keep geocaching fresh for people who have been at it for a while. So for that reason, I don't necessarily object to them not being immediately accessible to everyone. Life is not like third grade soccer. Not everyone needs to get a trophy.

 

That said...I think many of the challenge caches I have seen lately are inane, or at least overly arcane. There are enough out there with different obscure requirements that the "find 200 caches that start with the letter F" quote above is pretty accurate. If the only challenge a cache presents is that I have to spend 15 minutes wrangling with our found caches database on GSAK before I can go log it, I don't really care. (Especially since many of them seem to end up being ho-hum parking lot hides.)

 

The ones that are more geographic in nature still interest me, like DeLorme and county challenges. Many of the rest, I find I just don't care about them.

 

I don't want challenge caches to be categorically abolished, because I would not like for the few that appear to be actually interesting to be thrown out with the lot of them. I would, however, like for cache owners to try to make them interesting.

 

Of course, the same could be said for any other category of cache. We should not kill off the micro category just because 90% of them appear to reside only in guardrails and lampskirts.

[+L0ne.R]

The long time cacher didn't have to try to reach that goal. It happened naturally without much planning. The new cacher has to make more of an effort, invest more time and money and likely will need to fill the grid quicker, because there's no guarantee the challenge cache will still exist once the new cacher finally reaches the goal.

Like many others that I've seen, all my challenge caches allow geocachers to sign the cache's physical log at any time. I just don't allow people to log an online "Found It" until they also complete the challenge's requirements.

 

Once they sign the physical log, therefore, they don't have to worry about the cache being archived before they have time to complete those requirements. They can still claim their online smiley even if the cache itself has been archived.

 

Interesting, I hadn't considered that approach.

 

It could be possible then to post a Note on the cache (use the note as a placeholder (without finding the cache)), then take a couple of years to fill the grid. In the meantime the cache has been archived, but can be logged as a find when the grid is complete.

Another reason why I'd like to see a badge-system, because the cache is not the point of the game, the grid is.

 

Ah, but using this logic, puzzle caches should be converted as well as with the vast majority, the point is to solve the puzzle and the cache itself is secondary, sometimes almost insignificant.

 

That bothers me too. This is a geocaching site first, not a puzzle site first. The emphasis should be on the final product, the geocache. But yes, there are plenty of puzzle owners that insist that the puzzle is what matters, the cache is just something they're forced to do to list the puzzle on this site. And there are plenty of COs that insist the smiley is the all-important aspect of the game, not the geocache. And now, with challenge caches, stats are the all important aspect of the game, not the geocache.

[+cerberus1]

That bothers me too. This is a geocaching site first, not a puzzle site first. The emphasis should be on the final product, the geocache. But yes, there are plenty of puzzle owners that insist that the puzzle is what matters, the cache is just something they're forced to do to list the puzzle on this site. And there are plenty of COs that insist the smiley is the all-important aspect of the game, not the geocache. And now, with challenge caches, stats are the all important aspect of the game, not the geocache.

When I first started it was because Groundspeak noted, " The Language of Location", "Explore the World" and "Discover new Destinations" in their spiel.

Location was the key in keeping me interested.

If it was only a container, a cache, found every .1 in every parking lot in the World, I never would have stayed.

I've been to some awesome spots and never found the container.

- That was fine by me, as I did get to see the location it presented.

[+L0ne.R]

That bothers me too. This is a geocaching site first, not a puzzle site first. The emphasis should be on the final product, the geocache. But yes, there are plenty of puzzle owners that insist that the puzzle is what matters, the cache is just something they're forced to do to list the puzzle on this site. And there are plenty of COs that insist the smiley is the all-important aspect of the game, not the geocache. And now, with challenge caches, stats are the all important aspect of the game, not the geocache.

When I first started it was because Groundspeak noted, " The Language of Location", "Explore the World" and "Discover new Destinations" in their spiel.

Location was the key in keeping me interested.

If it was only a container, a cache, found every .1 in every parking lot in the World, I never would have stayed.

I've been to some awesome spots and never found the container.

- That was fine by me, as I did get to see the location it presented.

 

It needs to start with a quality geocache then layer on all the other qualities. Bring someone to a quality location without the geocache would make it a waymark. But I agree that quality-cache and quality-location go hand-in-hand. A lot of puzzle caches including challenges have very little to do with cache and location quality -- it's about brain teasers, smileys, and statistics with the cache taking a back seat.

Edited April 5, 2013 by L0ne R

[GOF and Bacall]

That bothers me too. This is a geocaching site first, not a puzzle site first. The emphasis should be on the final product, the geocache. But yes, there are plenty of puzzle owners that insist that the puzzle is what matters, the cache is just something they're forced to do to list the puzzle on this site. And there are plenty of COs that insist the smiley is the all-important aspect of the game, not the geocache. And now, with challenge caches, stats are the all important aspect of the game, not the geocache.

When I first started it was because Groundspeak noted, " The Language of Location", "Explore the World" and "Discover new Destinations" in their spiel.

Location was the key in keeping me interested.

If it was only a container, a cache, found every .1 in every parking lot in the World, I never would have stayed.

I've been to some awesome spots and never found the container.

- That was fine by me, as I did get to see the location it presented.

 

It needs to start with a quality geocache then layer on all the other qualities. Bring someone to a quality location without the geocache would make it a waymark. But I agree that quality-cache and quality-location go hand-in-hand. A lot of puzzle caches including challenges have very little to do with cache and location quality -- it's about brain teasers, smileys, and statistics with the cache taking a back seat.

 

I don't think you can have a decent cache without a decent location. I don't expect every cache to bring me to a spectacular location. But it would be nice if it wasn't in a sea of blacktop and shopping carts. There are many millions of miles of trails, bike paths, and many more hectares of park land. Countless locations of historic or cultural significance. Why people like to play in a filth parking lot is a mystery to me.

[+tozainamboku]

When I first started it was because Groundspeak noted, " The Language of Location", "Explore the World" and "Discover new Destinations" in their spiel.

Location was the key in keeping me interested.

If it was only a container, a cache, found every .1 in every parking lot in the World, I never would have stayed.

I've been to some awesome spots and never found the container.

- That was fine by me, as I did get to see the location it presented.

Aha. The great schism of geocaching. Is it about the location or about the geocache?

 

If was just about the location, Waymarking should be be a lot more popular. Even if Waymarking includes categories like Starbucks and McDonalds, it should be easy enough for people to avoid these and look for just the categories they feel are "worthy". This seems to be a clear indication that finding a geocache is an important part of what makes geocaching popular.

 

While getting a smiley when you log your find online is important to some people, it isn't clear that it is as important. Many people never log their finds online. Some will not bother logging caches in parking lots or ones they don't consider unworthy.

 

To bring this back on topic, that raises the question of what is the point of placing a geocache that can only be logged online if you complete some challenge? This seems to appeal only to people who want to view the smiley as a reward. The cacher who completes the challenge is the rewarded by allowing them to log a find on this cache online. A cacher who completes the challenge but doesn't care to find this cache, or perhaps to log it online, does not get any reward. If a cacher doesn't complete the challenge, or doesn't want to provide the proof-of-completion, finds the cache, he is denied the use the online Found It log to record this.

 

I see no reason why challenges need to be implemented by hiding caches that can only be logged when you have completed the challenge. Long ago, in the days before Delorme and county challenges, a local cacher had a cache to recognize anyone who had 1000 finds. In those days having 1000 finds was rare and took years to achieve. You didn't have to find the cache to be recoginized - he simply added the name of any local cacher who had 1000 finds to the cache page - and you didn't have to have 1000 finds to log the cache. Is there a reason for needing more than this?

[+hzoi]

Aha. The great schism of geocaching. Is it about the location or about the geocache?

 

[+CanadianRockies]

To bring this back on topic, that raises the question of what is the point of placing a geocache that can only be logged online if you complete some challenge? This seems to appeal only to people who want to view the smiley as a reward. The cacher who completes the challenge is the rewarded by allowing them to log a find on this cache online. A cacher who completes the challenge but doesn't care to find this cache, or perhaps to log it online, does not get any reward. If a cacher doesn't complete the challenge, or doesn't want to provide the proof-of-completion, finds the cache, he is denied the use the online Found It log to record this.

This sounds a lot like what happens with EarthCaches, too. And WebCams. And many virtual caches. In all those cases, you have to do something other than find a container in order to log an online smiley.

 

It also sounds similar to puzzle caches, mult-caches, and Wherigoes. Sure, you could learn the coordinates of the final cache from a friend, but the intent of these types of caches is to complete a challenge that involves more than just going to a set of coordinates and finding a container.

 

Personally, I like the diverse range of geocaches that is available to me.

Edited April 5, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[Clan Riffster]

Absolutely any cacher is able to go out and meet the qualification for any challenge cache, just by finding caches.

 

A person in a wheelchair may not be able to meet the D/T Grid challenges.

 

OK, Fair point. Sorry, I'd not considered that

BBWolfs comment was both irrelivent and nonsensical. No need to apologize.

Your original statement was correct.

[AZcachemeister]

it should be easy enough for people to avoid these and look for just the categories caches they feel are "worthy".

 

I altered the above quote a bit.

 

THIS is the reason I have consistently championed the implementation of a full-on rating system.

 

If you wanted to find caches that were nothing more than another smilie on your list, you could.

If you wanted to find caches with a little more 'substance' to them, you could.

If you wanted to find only the best 'top of the line' caches in an area, you could. (Highly favorited caches do tend to fall in this category.)

 

Personally, I think there is something wrong with a system that has only two categories:

'The best'

and

'all the rest'

[+fizzymagic]

<long philosophical rant snipped>

 

I see no reason why challenges need to be implemented by hiding caches that can only be logged when you have completed the challenge.

 

Short answer: because so far the alternatives have not worked.

 

Why do you insist that there be a satisfactory "reason" for everything -- something that makes sense to you? Why do you find it so difficult to accept that some things just work and others don't?

 

I can see that you have been frustrated that ideas that you thought should work did not catch on. Instead of looking at reality on the ground and trying to understand, you instead have invented a moral reason for the failure: cachers are hungry for smileys and not for the "pure" experience, so they don't do the morally correct thing and endorse {waymarks, challenges} instead of what they actually like.

 

The first rule of science is that reality is not required to conform to our theories. That holds true for geocaching as well. Waymarks were a flop with cachers. Likewise Challenges (the non-cache kind). Challenge caches, on the other hand, have been a success.

 

Those are all facts. Trying to change reality to fit your oddly moralistic preferences is not going to work.

 

Insisting on major changes to how something like challenge caches work in order to make them more philosophically pleasing to you tends to be counterproductive. After all, your track record has not been so good, has it? According to you, Waymarks should have been wildly successful. So should Challenges.

 

You are not alone in your dislike of certain aspects of caching, BTW. I strongly dislike power trails, and I wish they would go away. But they are popular, and that's a fact. They are not going away. Rather than bemoan that, and constantly lecture everyone about why they should not like power trails, I accept that they are here to stay.

 

I try to find clever ways to keep them from affecting my caching experience, and I will support changes to the site to make it easier for me to filter them out.

 

I just don't think that there is anything positive to be gained by these long lectures about how we are supposed to enjoy caching.

[4wheelin_fool]

I suppose Puzzles and Multis could be treated the same as Challenges. The final coordinates could be posted at the top of the page, but seekers would have to show proof that they solved the puzzle by e-mailing the owner on how it was done, or post a picture of themselves at each stage of the multi. However, there would be those who would want to simply show up at ground zero, smoke a blunt and dance nekkid with flowers in their hair without signing the log, or showing any proof whatsoever, and then castigate the nefarious Puritans for harshing their mellow with extra requirements.

Edited April 6, 2013 by 4wheelin_fool

[AZcachemeister]

Going out today to grab the FTF on a challenge cache!

We won't have a blunt to smoke, but we just might dance nekkid with flowers in our hair.

I hope nobody harshes our mellow.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I would say the majority of cachers don't care about Challenge Caches, but only because Challenge Caches are another kind of non-Traditional cache. They ignore everything that isn't a Traditional because they take too much time, require too much work, feel too much like homework, etc. Or they're new and simply confused by or afraid of something more complicated than "the cache is at the posted coordinates".

 

Cachers who do like Challenge Caches are in a small but happy minority. Same for Puzzles or Earthcaches or Wherigos. I think the folks who fall into the hole in between (care about non-Traditionals, but are unable/unwilling to meet the requirements for whatever reason) are a small minority, even smaller than those who love Challenges.

 

While I don't like the weird exception nature of Challenge Caches (the only kind you can find but not always log), they are neither numerous enough nor is their limitation fundamentally different enough from Chirps, Wherigos, tree climbers, kayak caches, scuba caches, or puzzles to make them a serious hindrance to other cachers.

 

Challenge caches change the value of a cache - making it a numbers commodity.

 

Perhaps, but Challenge Caches also motivate people to seek caches they normally might not. Encouraging them to expand their caching experience (such as going after some harder caches to fill their D/T grid) is a good thing IMO.

 

Another reason why I'd like to see a badge-system, because the cache is not the point of the game, the grid is.

 

+1

 

If was just about the location, Waymarking should be be a lot more popular. Even if Waymarking includes categories like Starbucks and McDonalds, it should be easy enough for people to avoid these and look for just the categories they feel are "worthy". This seems to be a clear indication that finding a geocache is an important part of what makes geocaching popular.

 

I think you underestimate the laziness of people doing homework to filter out categories they don't want. And even if you do filter out the stuff you deem as junk, the lack of PQs makes loading Waymarks a slower process than geocaches.

 

The need to upload photos on every Waymark visited gets tedious and the photos usually adds nothing to the experience of others.

 

Waymarks usually bring you to urban settings, not rural ones. The "out in the woods" aspect is a big part of geocaching for a significant portion of the community.

 

While the location usually matters more than the container, some great creativity has been show in hides and containers. Even those who care alot about the location can appreciate that creativity.

[+MKFmly]

Cachers geocache, for a variety of reasons and motivations. Trying to pigeon hole and restrict cachers to one single motivator, and then making assessments (and often value judgements) from that single perspective is simplistic, inaccurate, and absurd. Motivations for all cachers vary along a spectrum, drift and change over time, and are more complex and coupled than "it’s all about the smiley" or "it’s not about the numbers".

 

That bothers me too. This is a geocaching site first, not a puzzle site first. The emphasis should be on the final product, the geocache… And now, with challenge caches, stats are the all important aspect of the game, not the geocache.

 

Geocaching is a journey; from initial research (PQ’s) or serendipity (Geocaching live app), to the trip to the cache, to the hunt at ground zero, the eventual find (or not), signing the log book (or not), and recording your adventure (and/or achievement) online.

 

A geocache is simply a destination, a means to and end and not the end itself. Elevating this “final product” to the pinnacle is not the essence of geocaching and to focus on it exclusively is detrimental to the game (although quite popular in the forums).

 

There are many paths that lead to a geocache. Arguably, for some the physical path is the primary reward as is the experience to getting to ground zero. For some the technological path (Wherigo, intercache, chirp, etc.) is the primary reward. For others the mental path (puzzle solving, letterbox, and multiple waypoints) is the primary reward. For some it is the social interaction (family fun) or the meditator (solace, stress reliever) that is the primary reward. For others it is the collection of experiences and achievements that is the primary reward. The beauty of Geocaching is any one cache offers a variety of these paths.

 

The smiley is rarely or never the raison d'être for geocachers or geocaching. The “found it” logs are simply an online continuous record of your adventure(s). You get to write own “Geocaching Adventures” first hand, by choosing the paths to your destinations. How can it get any better than that?

 

To allow others to narrow motivations and limit and choose paths and destinations (based on their own motivators), is not keeping within the spirit of Geocaching.

 

Challenge caches offer an opportunity (not a requirement) to challenge yourself, to keep the game fresh, and to gain experiences that you may want to try, to explore caches (and areas) you may not have considered or encountered before to further author your own Geocaching Adventure.

[+cheech gang]

I think MKFmly stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night!

[+MountainWoods]

...

 

Waymarks usually bring you to urban settings, not rural ones. The "out in the woods" aspect is a big part of geocaching for a significant portion of the community.

...

You obviously haven't looked at my Waymarking footprint. Most of my Waymarks are out in the country. It's all a matter of what the Waymarker's priorities are: city versus country.

 

BTW, uploading a photo for a waymark that I found (usually in the country) is a lot easier than standing around staring for 30 minutes (being eaten by bugs) for a cache that may not even be there any more. I'll continue to do the geocaching in the cool weather and Waymarking in the warm. It's a preference.

 

I see a lot of misrepresentation of Waymarking in the geocaching forums.

[+FiveEyes]

I don't see any problem with there being geocaches out there that are too difficult for me in one way or another, though there is one type of hypothetical problem that I think is more relevant: and that relates to the proximity restrictions on geocaches. THis is a hypothetical issue for me at this point as I haven't seen it to be a real problem: but I would dislike it if a lot of physical space for potentially hiding (and finding) geocaches in my area were taken up by someone or some people planting rather difficult geocaches that end up being essentially inaccessible to many folks. It would not be those geocaches themselves I would object to, but the fact that they were taking up a lot of what might, in some areas, be a diminishing amount of available geocaching space.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't see any problem with there being geocaches out there that are too difficult for me in one way or another, though there is one type of hypothetical problem that I think is more relevant: and that relates to the proximity restrictions on geocaches. THis is a hypothetical issue for me at this point as I haven't seen it to be a real problem: but I would dislike it if a lot of physical space for potentially hiding (and finding) geocaches in my area were taken up by someone or some people planting rather difficult geocaches that end up being essentially inaccessible to many folks. It would not be those geocaches themselves I would object to, but the fact that they were taking up a lot of what might, in some areas, be a diminishing amount of available geocaching space.

I think this is the first time I've seen an argument against placing quality caches.

Generally, here in the forums, the arguments are reversed. Someone will place a crappy container, in an uninspired location, with a painfully pathetic write up, "This is my furst cashe. Hope U like it!", effectively blocking the really kewl location a few hundred feet away.

[+uxorious]

I don't see any problem with there being geocaches out there that are too difficult for me in one way or another, though there is one type of hypothetical problem that I think is more relevant: and that relates to the proximity restrictions on geocaches. THis is a hypothetical issue for me at this point as I haven't seen it to be a real problem: but I would dislike it if a lot of physical space for potentially hiding (and finding) geocaches in my area were taken up by someone or some people planting rather difficult geocaches that end up being essentially inaccessible to many folks. It would not be those geocaches themselves I would object to, but the fact that they were taking up a lot of what might, in some areas, be a diminishing amount of available geocaching space.

I think this is the first time I've seen an argument against placing quality caches.

Generally, here in the forums, the arguments are reversed. Someone will place a crappy container, in an uninspired location, with a painfully pathetic write up, "This is my furst cashe. Hope U like it!", effectively blocking the really kewl location a few hundred feet away.

 

How is this an argument against placing quality caches? Do you really believe, just because it is a puzzle, it is somehow going to be a quality hide?

 

I haven't done a lot of puzzles, I really don't care for them. (glad they are available for those that want them thou.) But in my experience, a puzzle hide can lead to a crappy container or location, as easily as a traditional hide will. It can also lead to a great hide, and great container. Being a puzzle or multi doesn't make the end much different.

 

I know of a great spot in a remote park, not well known, I would love to bring people to see. However, the final to a puzzle is down near the bend in the river.

 

Without having found it, I am sure it is a quality hide. (the person who hid it has hidden several of my favorite finds.) However, if I ever find out where it is, and can find a spot far enough away, and still be down in the area, I will hide a traditional cache. I don't think any of my caches are crappy hides. They are all ammo cans or lock n locks, and nicely hidden.

 

Please note, this is not an argument against any type of cache. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of assuming one type of cache will lead to a better final than another type.

[+suchanana]

Two things attracted me to geocaching:1. exercise - hiking on trails and the woods to get to a cache 2. I can make this hobby into what ever I want it to be without any expectations by others.Yet on the forum I see discussion after discussion about people complaining about a particular type of cache.I just wonder why they don't just create their hobby and not include whatever type of cache they don't like.Having a variety of caches keeps it interesting and challenging to me.All caches have restrictions, even a 1/1 traditional requires you to find it before you can log it.My motto is no unfound cache by me will be left behind and that includes challenges.

well said mimandpap...my motto is geocaching ROCKS and is very seldom dull...Life is still an adventure...

 

to JustJackMN i suggest you put out your easy challenge, then sit back and relish in the joy of all those who complete it, especially those with the lowest finds count stats...

[+FiveEyes]

I don't see any problem with there being geocaches out there that are too difficult for me in one way or another, though there is one type of hypothetical problem that I think is more relevant: and that relates to the proximity restrictions on geocaches. THis is a hypothetical issue for me at this point as I haven't seen it to be a real problem: but I would dislike it if a lot of physical space for potentially hiding (and finding) geocaches in my area were taken up by someone or some people planting rather difficult geocaches that end up being essentially inaccessible to many folks. It would not be those geocaches themselves I would object to, but the fact that they were taking up a lot of what might, in some areas, be a diminishing amount of available geocaching space.

I think this is the first time I've seen an argument against placing quality caches.

Generally, here in the forums, the arguments are reversed. Someone will place a crappy container, in an uninspired location, with a painfully pathetic write up, "This is my furst cashe. Hope U like it!", effectively blocking the really kewl location a few hundred feet away.

 

I wasn't addressing the issue of quality/non-quality hides, but rather accessibility. An example; there are some puzzle caches that people do, that are pretty much impossible for anyone who isn't capable of writing computer code to solve very difficult ciphers. Another example: there are some "challenge" caches that are rather inaccessible in their lofty requirements, and may simply be means of flaunting one's wealth, since the non-wealthy among us don't have money or time to be able to find geocaches in all 50 states and every European country (as an example hypothetical challenge), or to travel around the world finding 200 caches that have the word "skeleton" in the cache name (another hypothetical example). Again, hypothetically (I've never seen this actually done: it's not a real problem, only a hypothetical one) if someone were to plant 50 of these in a local park, thus blocking out others from hiding/finding in a large area, that would be something I'd find annoying.

[Clan Riffster]

I don't see any problem with there being geocaches out there that are too difficult for me in one way or another, though there is one type of hypothetical problem that I think is more relevant: and that relates to the proximity restrictions on geocaches. THis is a hypothetical issue for me at this point as I haven't seen it to be a real problem: but I would dislike it if a lot of physical space for potentially hiding (and finding) geocaches in my area were taken up by someone or some people planting rather difficult geocaches that end up being essentially inaccessible to many folks. It would not be those geocaches themselves I would object to, but the fact that they were taking up a lot of what might, in some areas, be a diminishing amount of available geocaching space.

I think this is the first time I've seen an argument against placing quality caches.

Generally, here in the forums, the arguments are reversed. Someone will place a crappy container, in an uninspired location, with a painfully pathetic write up, "This is my furst cashe. Hope U like it!", effectively blocking the really kewl location a few hundred feet away.

 

How is this an argument against placing quality caches? Do you really believe, just because it is a puzzle, it is somehow going to be a quality hide?

How did you extrapolate a cache type out of either his, or my post? As far as I can tell, even upon reading it again, neither of us so much as hinted that we were talking about puzzles. Perhaps my reading comprehension is flawed? My assumption was that FiveEyes was discussing caches which he could not do, for one reason or another. Way up a tree and scared of heights? Way up a cliff, and lacks repelling experience? On an island and lacks a boat? Deep under water and lacks SCUBA equipment? Incredibly challenging hide but lacks patience and/or experience? Whatever the case may be.

 

As to quality, assuming a good container is used, this falls directly to my personal preferences, as most discussions regarding quality caches must. Because this is my opinion, I get to decide, (for me), where that line lies. In my opinion, an ammo can, 50' up a tree, overlooking an uninhibited canyon, with a waterfall at the end, trumps a preform placed under a Burger King hedge 300' away. Just because there are some folks who cannot make such an ascent, does not mean it is of less quality, to me. Given two similar caches, I suspect that the ratio of favorite points would be significantly greater for the former, than for the latter.

[+uxorious]

How did you extrapolate a cache type out of either his, or my post? As far as I can tell, even upon reading it again, neither of us so much as hinted that we were talking about puzzles. Perhaps my reading comprehension is flawed? My assumption was that FiveEyes was discussing caches which he could not do, for one reason or another. Way up a tree and scared of heights? Way up a cliff, and lacks repelling experience? On an island and lacks a boat? Deep under water and lacks SCUBA equipment? Incredibly challenging hide but lacks patience and/or experience? Whatever the case may be.

 

 

This is one of the biggest problems I have with the forums. It is easy to misunderstand what someone is trying to get across, and easy to be misunderstood.

 

I guess because the original post was about challenge caches, and several others about puzzles, I assumed you were talking about them. (that's what happens when you assume. )

 

I agree the type of caches you were referring to, have a higher chance of being a better cache. (Thou not all of them end in a good cache.)

 

It doesn't change the fact that caches of any type not everyone can find, will sometimes take up a spot that might otherwise be a WOW spot for a traditional. There's nothing that can, or should be done about that. Cache I cannot get can make an exceptional experience for someone else.

 

I guess my point was, he said it was a hypothetical problem, and I was trying to point out it isn't hypothetical, but does happen.