Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Bucky & McGee

Challenge Cache Rule Change Needed

Recommended Posts

Having never placed a Challenge Cache before, I made my first attempt (GC505D0, Archived). It was denied, because it required that finders own a minimum of 150 caches before they could sign the log.

 

As explained in the geocaching.com Knowledge Books 1.18.7 (Additional Points to Consider) regarding Challenge Caches: "Challenge geocaches may not require the publication or ownership of a geocache or waymark as a challenge criteria; challenge geocaches must be achievable by those who do not own geocaches or waymarks."

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

 

I believe that the intent is to NOT limit access to caches for ALL users. What immediately seems contrary to that concept is the "Premium Members Only" caches. This requires extra payment to Groundspeak before we may access those caches, so those who don't pay are locked out of those caches.

 

The very idea of "Challenge" is that you may accept the challenge or walk away...your choice. The cache I proposed is very achievable by any and all players (I have done it), if they choose to accept the CHALLENGE. As we all well know, there would be no Geocaching without caches being placed. We need to encourage cachers to do their share in populating the game! The challenge that I submitted could be just the kick in the pants that some folks need.

 

I would like to see Rule 1.18.7 removed or rewritten to allow challenges that require evidence of cache ownership.

 

Russ....Bucky & McGee

Share this post


Link to post

I vote to keep it as is. This slippery slope can lead to all kinds of preconditions for finding a cache. I guess this would be a PLR (Pre Logging Requiremnt)

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree with your proposal. This would encourage (some) people to hide caches that they have no intention to maintain, are poorly placed if even placed at all, etc, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree with your proposal. This would encourage (some) people to hide caches that they have no intention to maintain, are poorly placed if even placed at all, etc, etc.

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post

Agreeing with Beach_hut in agreeing with funkymunkyzone. While I'm at it, I'll agree with Walts Hunting, too.

Share this post


Link to post

Agreeing with Beach_hut in agreeing with funkymunkyzone. While I'm at it, I'll agree with Walts Hunting, too.

 

I'll agree with them, and with Isonzo Karst.

Share this post


Link to post

The restriction on caches that require placement/ownership cache to log a find predates challenges. As I recall it even predates the short period of time when ALR caches were explicitly allowed.

 

In the early days of geocaching, when many cachers were looking for ways to encourage more hides, the concept of a breeder cache was developed. This would be a large cache with many small containers. Cachers would be asked to take a cache and hide it. In some cases the cache page would state that in order to log a find you had to take a cache and hide it.

 

Fairly early on, TPTB decided that you could not require someone to hide a cache in order to log a find. The rationale was that cache ownership is a special responsibility that not everyone is prepared to take on. The concern was that in order to get the smiley, cachers who were unprepared or unwillingly to accept the responsibilities of ownership would hide a cache and then abandon it.

 

When ALR were officially recognized, and later with challenges, this rule was continued, even though both ALRs and Challenges recognized that you don't have to log every cache and if there was an ALR or Challenge you didn't want to do, you would know in advance and could simply choose not to log that cache online.

 

I suppose, given the attempt by Groundspeak to encourage ways to thank people for hiding caches, it might make sense to have challenge cache as a thank you gift to people who have hidden more than 150 caches. You'd probably get a number of people who would object to setting the number that high, as encouraging the type of cache hider who hides mediocre caches or who hides far more caches than they are able to maintain. I will point out that there are many hiders with 150 or more hides who are known for consistently hiding above average caches, so I'm not sure if you can argue that there is some number of hides that is too big. However, the easiest for Groundspeak is to maintain the old rule and simple not allow cache ownership to ever be a requirement for logging a find on a cache. If you wish to thank the hiders your area maybe it would be a better idea to organize a Maker Madness event in their honor.

Share this post


Link to post
I would like to see Rule 1.18.7 removed or rewritten to allow challenges that require evidence of cache ownership.
One of the things I appreciate about Groundspeak is that they avoid promoting cache ownership among those who are not ready to own and maintain caches for the long term. They don't publish challenge caches that require cache ownership. They don't publish seed caches or other caches that require (or strongly encourage) the placement of new caches. They don't offer sweepstakes entries or geocoins or other prizes based on the number of caches people list on the site.

 

So no, I don't want this restriction on challenge caches removed.

Share this post


Link to post

I bumped into this rule when I created my first challenge, but I have come around to seeing the rule as doing more good than harm. Sure it prevents certain kinds of challenges that might be good, but it also prevents some really terrible challenge ideas from occurring. I know of one cacher who wanted to publish a "Lamest Geocache Challenge" where one requirement was to hide your own really lame cache. I know it was mostly a joke and the cacher was trying to be funny (and poke fun at lame caches), but I mostly saw it as encouraging bad behavior . I mean, encouraging people to create bad cache experiences?.... huh.gif a purposeful degradation of this game. I'm glad things like this are not permitted, and if it means some good challenge ideas get canned too, so be it. There are lot's of other good ways to celebrate those who hide caches, as this Months Maker Madness theme highlights.

Share this post


Link to post

No thanks. We have enough stuff placed "just because".

The guideline has been used to deny challenges like "Own at least 5 caches with a total of 50 favorite points between them" or "Own a cache with 100 favorite points".

 

The rule is not in place to prevent "lame" caches but because TPTB have decided that a person's decision to become a cache owner (or take on additional cache ownership) should not be influenced by a requirement to log another cache.

 

I believe that the intent is to NOT limit access to caches for ALL users.

 

This is not the intent of this rule, or of most of the rules associated with Challenge caches. The restriction on challenge caches are primarily meant to ensure that challenges are truly geocaching related and that they will be enjoyable (though possibly still difficult) for those that attempt them.

 

TPTB recognize that a challenge may in fact be challenging. The guideline state that "Reviewers may ask the geocache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so." There is probably an issue with the wording "substantial number" as some reviewers seem to interpret it too strictly, but it seems that many of these challenges are approved on appeal. The reason why "A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers" is to prevent ridiculous challenges that are limited to only a few individuals.

Share this post


Link to post

The reason why "A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers" is to prevent ridiculous challenges that are limited to only a few individuals.

Unlike, for example, a traditional cache on the ISS... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with everyone except the OP :)

 

However, such a challenge does exist in Denmark (we found it last year)

 

Challenge: Own 5 Active Cache Types (GC2HW60)

 

M

 

Someone will have to come up with the date the "new" challenge guidelines were released, as that one is definitely Grandfathered, and would not be published today. So to is the "log more than 100 DNF's" Challenge I found a few hundred miles from home earlier this month, which was published in 2007, if I remember correctly.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Someone will have to come up with the date the "new" challenge guidelines were released, as that one is definitely Grandfathered, and would not be published today.

 

It's all down to individual reviewers. A cacher local to me in the UK listed a similar challenge in August 2009 (long before that Danish cache and long before guideline changes) and it was rejected.

 

M

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad that there's a regulation of this nature on challenges. Having a challenge that requires a cacher to place 150 caches is just asking for more crap power trails.

Share this post


Link to post

Having never placed a Challenge Cache before, I made my first attempt (GC505D0, Archived). It was denied, because it required that finders own a minimum of 150 caches before they could sign the log.

 

As explained in the geocaching.com Knowledge Books 1.18.7 (Additional Points to Consider) regarding Challenge Caches: "Challenge geocaches may not require the publication or ownership of a geocache or waymark as a challenge criteria; challenge geocaches must be achievable by those who do not own geocaches or waymarks."

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

 

I believe that the intent is to NOT limit access to caches for ALL users. What immediately seems contrary to that concept is the "Premium Members Only" caches. This requires extra payment to Groundspeak before we may access those caches, so those who don't pay are locked out of those caches.

 

The very idea of "Challenge" is that you may accept the challenge or walk away...your choice. The cache I proposed is very achievable by any and all players (I have done it), if they choose to accept the CHALLENGE. As we all well know, there would be no Geocaching without caches being placed. We need to encourage cachers to do their share in populating the game! The challenge that I submitted could be just the kick in the pants that some folks need.

 

I would like to see Rule 1.18.7 removed or rewritten to allow challenges that require evidence of cache ownership.

 

Russ....Bucky & McGee

 

Not good. The last thing we need is ever-more unmaintained caches that were only placed to gain a smiley.

 

I can picture it now, someone places 150 D5 ghost puzzle caches that never existed, claims their challenge, posts a periodic "owner maintenance" when the number of DNFs builds up, claims the challenge, then archives their caches on the basis they generate so many DNFs and they're sick of going out checking everything is OK. In the meantime people waste time and money trying to solve puzzles and visiting areas for caches that were never even there.

Share this post


Link to post

I concur. With pretty much everyone who's replied, save the OP. :anibad:

 

Also, the ISS is an exception granted by Groundspeak. You can't argue with exceptions. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I vote to keep it as is. This slippery slope can lead to all kinds of preconditions for finding a cache. I guess this would be a PLR (Pre Logging Requiremnt)

 

This. SOOOOOO much this. I don't like seeing new cachers with 3 or 4 finds placing lousy caches on private property (without permission) because "it seems like fun". Or someone hiding 10 or 20 throwaway P&Gs, then never logging into the site again. This would only encourage more of that.

Edited by Team Monkeyboy

Share this post


Link to post

Actually Groundspeak have a precedent, if that is the right word. There used to be an FTF challenge series where then FTF of a cache was "cursed" until they laid a new cache, and on that cache they would then challenge the FTF to place yet another cache continuing the series.

This is no longer permitted, because, as some above have said, some people are not ready to place a cache, do not want to, and should not feel they are under obligation to do so.

 

I don't like the idea of any cache encouraging the hiding of additional caches.

Share this post


Link to post

...a thank you gift to people who have hidden more than 150 caches...You'd probably get a number of people who would object to setting the number that high, as encouraging the type of cache hider who hides mediocre caches or who hides far more caches than they are able to maintain.

 

I agree and would add, it could encourage power trails and the take over a whole trail system. This is especially bothersome in already dense areas, when you contemplate hiding a cache on a new trail and then a few weeks later someone swoops in a takes over the whole trail with a dozen or more caches. I know, I know....first come first served, but rewarding people for oversaturating an area is not good for the game in my opinion.

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×