Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
alsterdrache

Icon for Challenge Geocaches

Recommended Posts

However, still against the ability to log a physical cache in any other case, this is an ALR. This all just goes in a huge circle then, and I keep spinning and landing on a different thing I find to be the best answer...anyone else?

Not me. I just keep reading this thread completely astonished by the stupidity exhibited. People are really working hard here to make problems. It's pretty clear that we have an extension of the "cache cop" mentality extended to cache types: "How can I get a certain cache type that I don't personally like eliminated?"

 

The whole pretense that there is some kind of legitimate issue that needs to be considered is not only absurd, but disingenuous.

 

How about letting people enjoy challenge caches have their fun? Is that really too much to ask? Is it really so hard to watch other people enjoy something you don't?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand why finding a cache container should automatically entitle someone to log a "Found It." If that container is a traditional cache and you sign the log, then I think Groundspeak says you're entitled to claim that smiley. But if that container is a challenge cache, then you aren't entitled to claim a smiley unless you also complete the challenge requirements; challenge caches are different than traditionals. If I wished I could claim 10 smileys for the 10 containers I found while completing a single multi-cache, then does that mean I'm entitled to do so? To me, there needs to be some basis to justify the entitlement.

 

With all of the mixed up quoting in this thread, I'm amazed that I was able to yank this one out, but I think that it describes exactly how I feel about this whole issue. The only "problem" that I see are people that feel that they are entitled to log a cache that they don't really deserve to log. It's really quite simple.

 

A particular cache is based on completing a specific Geocaching related task. Until you do so, you are not entitled to log it as found online. Some people see this as a problem. It's not! It's the way that the particular cache is defined in the guidelines. The only problem that I see goes to the OP's point. A Challenge cache stands alone from any other cache and it deserves to have it's own type and icon.

Share this post


Link to post

However, still against the ability to log a physical cache in any other case, this is an ALR. This all just goes in a huge circle then, and I keep spinning and landing on a different thing I find to be the best answer...anyone else?

Not me. I just keep reading this thread completely astonished by the stupidity exhibited.

 

Thank God! I thought I was all alone here.

 

And we wonder why Groundspeak probably ignore most threads in this forum...

Share this post


Link to post

How about letting people enjoy challenge caches have their fun? Is that really too much to ask? Is it really so hard to watch other people enjoy something you don't?

Of course the same was said about virtual caches, webcams, and general ALRs. Just because there are people who enjoy some kind of cache doesn't mean the cache doesn't cause some issues for Groundspeak and for reviewers.

 

For some reason, TPTB have decided that they need to restrict challenges. They've added statements about them being attainable by and appealing to a reasonable number of geocachers. They've also told challenge creators to avoid undue restrictions. They've forbidden certain aspects of geocaching (such as cache ownership, DNFs, and FTFs) from being part of the challenge. There must be a reason for this - after all if you didn't want to do a challenge based the number of FTFs you have, you could ignore it and let those who enjoy FTF have their fun.

 

In addition these guidelines are subject to interpretation. Just what is a reasonable number of geocachers? Just what is an undue restriction?

 

I think the ideas here are not people looking for ways to get a cache type they don't enjoy eliminated. I think people are floating ideas for ways to change challenge caches to avoid having to deal with guidelines that seem inconsistent with the reason some people believe ALRs were banned.

 

I personally don't believe that TPTB ever intended that signing of a physical log book was identical (for physical caches) with the ability to log a 'Found' online. But TPTB choose to add a phrase to the guidelines to which they quickly found they had to make an exception. I'm not surprised that some people find any restriction on when they can log Found once they have sign the physical log as something that shouldn't be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post

There didn't used to be anything about ALRs in the guidelines. Then there was. Then there was something about challenge caches. The root of all of this is still how to remove the "ALR" from the conversation altogether. That would be to allow a signature on a logbook to be a find for that cache.

There didn't used to be multi-caches, but then there was. I don't see change as necessarily a bad thing. In the case of challenge caches, I'm glad Groundspeak made this change so I now have the opportunity to enjoy this different kind of experience...if I so desire. To me, wanting to remove ALRs simply because they are different from what geocaching once was makes no more sense than wanting to get rid of multi-caches simply because they are different than geocaching used to be.

Straw man.

Hardly. I addressed your argument head-on.

 

You argue that we should remove ALRs because, once upon a time, there was no mention of them in the guidelines. I show that such an argument is silly (or at least inconsistent). If you apply that same logic, then we should remove multi-caches (and Unknowns, events, letterbox-hybrids, etc.) because, once upon a time, there was no mention of them in the guidelines either.

Share this post


Link to post

3) Add a new Challenge Completed Log type (in addition to Found It log)

There is one problem with this. A "finder" doesn't find the same cache as a "Challenge Completed finder" does. Many of the Challenges have D/T that involves the challenge, without doing the challenge the "finder" doesn't really earn that D/T rating for a find. How do we solve this problem?

Share this post


Link to post

In addition these guidelines are subject to interpretation. Just what is a reasonable number of geocachers? Just what is an undue restriction?

 

Questions like that only appeal to those who are trying to get hard-and-fast rules, and who believe that if there can't be hard-and-fast rules then the whole thing should be eliminated.

 

I have bemoaned the lack of common sense applied to geocaching these days; your post here is an excellent example of the problem.

 

This entire ridiculous thread is about people (including you) who appear to be adamantly opposed to the whole notion of common sense. With exactly zero evidence that a cache type is causing problems, you invent complicated and cumbersome "solutions" so that nobody has to ever use any actual judgment.

 

It's ridiculous, and it is (sorry for my bluntness) stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
...having to deal with guidelines that seem inconsistent with the reason some people believe ALRs were banned.

 

This. This is the whole reason the concept of challenge caches seems absurd to me. The logic that was used in banning ALRs were: "Some people abused ALRs, so we have to ban them all." So some good ALRs got thrown out (as in a baby with the bathwater).

 

..but then, okay well not all ALRs are banned, since challenge caches are okay.

 

That's my only objection. These ALRs have to go bye-bye -- because of some bad ALRs, we therefore had to get rid of all ALRs. But then challenge ALRs are okay, so obviously not all ALRs had to be removed. How can you say "these ALRs" have to die because all ALRs had to die, and then turn around and allow a certain subset of ALRs?

 

It's like someone who loves cauliflower, and when some green beans poisoned people and they decide they have to ban all vegetables, so the person who loves cauliflower understands why they had to ban all vegetables. But then they turn around and let carrots have an exemption. That would not make sense to the person who loves cauliflower who was told they had to ban it simply because they were banning all vegetables.

 

And some people don't consider that an illogical double-standard?

 

I don't totally hate the idea of challenge caches, but I feel that in an environment where we were told that all ALRs (even good ones, because of abuse and possible abuse) have no place in the game, that logically they shouldn't be permitted. It's a double-edged sword. If you want to give some CO the power to say who can and can't log their cache, I think to be fair that should be extended to all CO, or none. If a CO can't disallow someone who didn't complete their puzzle fairly to log their cache, I don't think it is fair to tell someone else that they can't log a cache that they have signed the log for because they didn't jump through some other hoop.

 

Offer those hoop jumpers a "challenge completed" or an "achievement badge" or give it it's own icon, fine..whatever. But don't change the basic definition of what a find is for some circumstances and not for others.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

In addition these guidelines are subject to interpretation. Just what is a reasonable number of geocachers? Just what is an undue restriction?

 

Questions like that only appeal to those who are trying to get hard-and-fast rules, and who believe that if there can't be hard-and-fast rules then the whole thing should be eliminated.

Yet the fact remains that one of the reasons virtual caches were grandfathered was the "wow" requirement. The reviewers got tired of having to decided what was "wow". Seemed like they could use common sense to determine "wow".

 

I suspect the the issues of counting a reasonable number of geocachers or deciding what restriction are undue have not risen to the issues with "wow". There are far fewer challenges getting submitted, and in all likelihood all but a very few are reasonable to reviewers.

 

However, I get notification for unknown caches, and I have seen quite a few challenges get published and retracted. I suspect that reviewers do have some trouble deciding what challenges are okay and which aren't.

 

I agree that much of this thread is silly. As Don_J pointed out it should be fairly easy to grasp the idea of an ALR and know that means you can't post a Found log till you both find the challenge cache and complete the challenge requirements. And if that concept is difficult than you can think of the online Found log as the online Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley log and shouldn't have a problem with it.

Share this post


Link to post

Round and round we go.

There is a problem.

There isn't a problem.

It's absurd to love challenge caches.

People are stupid for complaining about challenge caches.

 

Can we stop with the name calling and insults?

 

Objectively, there are two ways many people play. On one side are people who consider Challenge Caches a hindrance to the geocaching experience, and want to log physical caches they "find" online as a "find". On the other side are people who feel that Challenge Caches enhance the whole experience, and that a "find" online may constitute anything above and beyond a physical "find".

So.

Is there a middle ground?

Or are we doomed to bickering and fighting about the what "real" geocaching is or should be?

Because if the latter, then this thread should be locked. (Now that's a thread-killer. =P)

 

Can't we work through this? Can't we all just get along and try to help each other have a better geocaching experience overall?

C'mon, let's hug it out... :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
...having to deal with guidelines that seem inconsistent with the reason some people believe ALRs were banned.

 

This. This is the whole reason the concept of challenge caches seems absurd to me. The logic that was used in banning ALRs were: "Some people abused ALRs, so we have to ban them all." So some good ALRs got thrown out (as in a baby with the bathwater).

 

..but then, okay well not all ALRs are banned, since challenge caches are okay.

 

That's my only objection. These ALRs have to go bye-bye -- because of some bad ALRs, we therefore had to get rid of all ALRs. But then challenge ALRs are okay, so obviously not all ALRs had to be removed. How can you say "these ALRs" have to die because all ALRs had to die, and then turn around and allow a certain subset of ALRs?

 

It's like someone who loves cauliflower, and when some green beans poisoned people and they decide they have to ban all vegetables, so the person who loves cauliflower understands why they had to ban all vegetables. But then they turn around and let carrots have an exemption. That would not make sense to the person who loves cauliflower who was told they had to ban it simply because they were banning all vegetables.

 

And some people don't consider that an illogical double-standard?

 

I don't totally hate the idea of challenge caches, but I feel that in an environment where we were told that all ALRs (even good ones, because of abuse and possible abuse) have no place in the game, that logically they shouldn't be permitted. It's a double-edged sword. If you want to give some CO the power to say who can and can't log their cache, I think to be fair that should be extended to all CO, or none. If a CO can't disallow someone who didn't complete their puzzle fairly to log their cache, I don't think it is fair to tell someone else that they can't log a cache that they have signed the log for because they didn't jump through some other hoop.

 

Offer those hoop jumpers a "challenge completed" or an "achievement badge" or give it it's own icon, fine..whatever. But don't change the basic definition of what a find is for some circumstances and not for others.

I was around for the discussion about ALR banning. It was pointed out by the PTB that the challenge wasn't something you had to do after signing a log (as ALR's were defined) but something you did prior to finding the cache, so it isn't an ALR.

Share this post


Link to post

I was around for the discussion about ALR banning. It was pointed out by the PTB that the challenge wasn't something you had to do after signing a log (as ALR's were defined) but something you did prior to finding the cache, so it isn't an ALR.

 

Well, okay, that's a logical distinction. And if that's the logic used (pre-ALRs = okay, after the fact ALRs=not okay) then preventing people from cheating on puzzles to get to a cache would be a pre-finding cache ALR and thus okay. (I know, but not if you are banning all ALRs.)

 

There is a big difference between requiring finders to not cheat to get a cache, and requiring them to send a photo of themselves at the cache site.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post
...having to deal with guidelines that seem inconsistent with the reason some people believe ALRs were banned.

 

This. This is the whole reason the concept of challenge caches seems absurd to me. The logic that was used in banning ALRs were: "Some people abused ALRs, so we have to ban them all." So some good ALRs got thrown out (as in a baby with the bathwater).

 

..but then, okay well not all ALRs are banned, since challenge caches are okay.

 

That's my only objection. These ALRs have to go bye-bye -- because of some bad ALRs, we therefore had to get rid of all ALRs. But then challenge ALRs are okay, so obviously not all ALRs had to be removed. How can you say "these ALRs" have to die because all ALRs had to die, and then turn around and allow a certain subset of ALRs?

 

It's like someone who loves cauliflower, and when some green beans poisoned people and they decide they have to ban all vegetables, so the person who loves cauliflower understands why they had to ban all vegetables. But then they turn around and let carrots have an exemption. That would not make sense to the person who loves cauliflower who was told they had to ban it simply because they were banning all vegetables.

 

And some people don't consider that an illogical double-standard?

 

I don't totally hate the idea of challenge caches, but I feel that in an environment where we were told that all ALRs (even good ones, because of abuse and possible abuse) have no place in the game, that logically they shouldn't be permitted. It's a double-edged sword. If you want to give some CO the power to say who can and can't log their cache, I think to be fair that should be extended to all CO, or none. If a CO can't disallow someone who didn't complete their puzzle fairly to log their cache, I don't think it is fair to tell someone else that they can't log a cache that they have signed the log for because they didn't jump through some other hoop.

 

Offer those hoop jumpers a "challenge completed" or an "achievement badge" or give it it's own icon, fine..whatever. But don't change the basic definition of what a find is for some circumstances and not for others.

 

I think that you missed the point that most of the Additional Logging Requirements of the ALR caches had nothing to do with Geocaching. Take a picture of you standing on your head, or doing a yoga pose, or wearing a dress that is in the cache, or with the Groucho Marx glasses, etc. Groundspeak got rid of that and created a situation where the only ALR allowed is to make you complete a Geocaching based challenge.

 

I kind of understand the entitlement issue as I had no desire to have to put on a Donald Duck hat and take a picture of myself just to get log a cache online, but I handled it by simply skipping that particular cache and going on to the next one. I do the same thing with a challenge cache where I have no hope of completing the challenge. Once I learned that I didn't have to find every cache, the entire game changed for me.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I agree that "doing a yoga pose, or wearing a dress that is in the cache, or with the Groucho Marx glasses" shouldn't be permitted either. But what would have been wrong with disallowing those caches by the reviewer not approving them on the basis that that is a non-related to Geocaching ALR instead of outright banning of all ALRs. If the guideline was "any non-Geocache achievement wouldn't be approved by reviewers" that would be a sensible guideline.

 

And okay, I realize that perhaps my argument here is straying from the original question which was debating whether a different icon for challenge caches would be useful. But at the heart of my argument is how can you logically say it's okay to restrict challenge caches from being logged by people who have not met qualifications set by a cache owner in some circumstances (the qualifications are a quantifiable positive Geocache related achievement) yet not in others (the qualification is at the CO's discretion you didn't cheat to get the solution to a puzzle, for instance).

 

Surely we can agree that cheating to solve a puzzle is a lot similar to signing a challenge cache you haven't qualified for, and both of those instances are a long way off from, "take a picture of yourself in a tutu at the cache site to get credit."

 

And maybe my argument is simplistic in that it boils down to: "Those people can blatantly cheat on puzzles and still get their smiley, and the community is okay with that, so I should be able to 'cheat' on challenge caches and get a smiley there, too. They signed the log, and, they say, that's all that matters."

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post
at the heart of my argument is how can you logically say it's okay to restrict challenge caches from being logged by people who have not met qualifications set by a cache owner in some circumstances (the qualifications are a quantifiable positive Geocache related achievement) yet not in others (the qualification is at the CO's discretion you didn't cheat to get the solution to a puzzle, for instance).

Because Groundspeak said so :P No really, that distinction is why geocaching-based challenges are allowable ALRs. Geocaching-related, and verifiable (unlike puzzle solving)

 

Surely we can agree that cheating to solve a puzzle is a lot similar to signing a challenge cache you haven't qualified for, and both of those instances are a long way off from, "take a picture of yourself in a tutu at the cache site to get credit."

Cheating to solve a puzzle is fundamentally not like signing a challenge cache you haven't qualified for.

A challenge cache is (should be) at the posted coordinates. You know where the cache is.

A puzzle cache is not. You (or someone) needs to solve the puzzle or attain the coordinates in some manner before being even able to physically sign the log. A challenge cache you can just walk up to and sign. So the fundamental difference is that you must attain coordinates from a puzzle cache before signing the log (and then logging it found online), whereas you can physically sign the log of a challenge cache but can't log it found online until the challenge is complete. Fundamental difference; whether the challenge is intended to be done before finding the cache or can be done after. Same can't be said of puzzle caches.

 

When logging a cache found:

* If you cheat to find a puzzle cache, you have no obligation to solve the puzzle after the fact.

* If you don't qualify for a challenge but find its cache, you do have an obligation to complete the challenge.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Can't we work through this? Can't we all just get along and try to help each other have a better geocaching experience overall?

C'mon, let's hug it out... :laughing:

Those supporting the challenge idea don't see a need for a change because you can easily ignore challenges if you want the Found to just mean you signed the log.

 

I still think the WIGAS log is the compromise position that works best. But it seems that calling the online Find log what it really is, is something neither side is ready to accept.

 

I was around for the discussion about ALR banning. It was pointed out by the PTB that the challenge wasn't something you had to do after signing a log (as ALR's were defined) but something you did prior to finding the cache, so it isn't an ALR.

I do recall some people making this distinction. I don't like it very much, for a number of reasons.

  1. There were non-geocaching-related ALRs that read more like qualification to find the cache. While many were asking you to do a task after finding the cache or when posting your log, some required you to do something before you found the cache. Often these were more controversial and were often seen as promoting an agenda or discriminatory.
  2. Once the coordinates are listed nothing actually stops someone from finding the cache. The challenge becomes a requirement for posting a Found log, not something you need to do before finding the cache. In fact, the common practice is that one can find the cache prior to completing the challenge and delay the Found log until the challenge is met.
  3. The ALR rules prevent a puzzle owner from requiring you solve a puzzle before you can find it. There were puzzle owners who would delete logs of someone who stumbled on a puzzle accidentally or even of some who tagged along with someone who solved the puzzle. If challenge are allowed because you're supposed to do them before you look for a cache, then so should a requirement that you solve the puzzle first.

 

My guess is that challenges were exempted for other reasons.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I agree that "doing a yoga pose, or wearing a dress that is in the cache, or with the Groucho Marx glasses" shouldn't be permitted either. But what would have been wrong with disallowing those caches by the reviewer not approving them on the basis that that is a non-related to Geocaching ALR instead of outright banning of all ALRs. If the guideline was "any non-Geocache achievement wouldn't be approved by reviewers" that would be a sensible guideline.

 

 

Please understand, this is exactly what they did by banning ALR caches except for Challenge caches that met a specific set of guidelines. The point is not having our volunteer reviewers tasked with deciding what is a worthy non geocaching related ALR and what isn't. They went down this road when Virtuals got out of hand.

Share this post


Link to post
at the heart of my argument is how can you logically say it's okay to restrict challenge caches from being logged by people who have not met qualifications set by a cache owner in some circumstances (the qualifications are a quantifiable positive Geocache related achievement) yet not in others (the qualification is at the CO's discretion you didn't cheat to get the solution to a puzzle, for instance).

Because Groundspeak said so :P No really, that distinction is why geocaching-based challenges are allowable ALRs. Geocaching-related, and verifiable (unlike puzzle solving)

 

Surely we can agree that cheating to solve a puzzle is a lot similar to signing a challenge cache you haven't qualified for, and both of those instances are a long way off from, "take a picture of yourself in a tutu at the cache site to get credit."

Cheating to solve a puzzle is fundamentally not like signing a challenge cache you haven't qualified for.

A challenge cache is (should be) at the posted coordinates. You know where the cache is.

A puzzle cache is not. You (or someone) needs to solve the puzzle or attain the coordinates in some manner before being even able to physically sign the log. A challenge cache you can just walk up to and sign. So the fundamental difference is that you must attain coordinates from a puzzle cache before signing the log (and then logging it found online), whereas you can physically sign the log of a challenge cache but can't log it found online until the challenge is complete. Fundamental difference; whether the challenge is intended to be done before finding the cache or can be done after. Same can't be said of puzzle caches.

 

When logging a cache found:

* If you cheat to find a puzzle cache, you have no obligation to solve the puzzle after the fact.

* If you don't qualify for a challenge but find its cache, you do have an obligation to complete the challenge.

 

Everything you just said is true.... But why is there no obligation to solve a puzzle? Because the community doesn't give a crap if people cheat to get the answers. It renders the integrity of all puzzle caches meaningless, if people can openly share solutions. "Try to solve it, but if you can't just call someone or go on Facebook and get the answers, it's all right, we all do it!"

 

So why should the integrity of challenge caches be any different? Both are about the experience the CO is trying to provide for seekers.

 

Yeah, I get it... it is "verifiable"... I'd say leave that up to the CO how he wants to verify that you didn't cheat on his puzzle. If he couldn't prove it you cheated, then don't let him delete a find. But someone who has blatantly cheated, let the CO decide.

 

And maybe some puzzle CO don't care, fine, leave it up to them if they want to delete cheaters. But don't be so hard-line on challenge caches can only be "found" by people who have completed the challenge when puzzle cheaters are allowed to excuse their cheating by saying "hey I signed the log - that's all that matters" -- Clearly, as this thread indicates, 'finding the log' certainly isn't all that matters.

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I agree that "doing a yoga pose, or wearing a dress that is in the cache, or with the Groucho Marx glasses" shouldn't be permitted either. But what would have been wrong with disallowing those caches by the reviewer not approving them on the basis that that is a non-related to Geocaching ALR instead of outright banning of all ALRs. If the guideline was "any non-Geocache achievement wouldn't be approved by reviewers" that would be a sensible guideline.

 

 

Please understand, this is exactly what they did by banning ALR caches except for Challenge caches that met a specific set of guidelines. The point is not having our volunteer reviewers tasked with deciding what is a worthy non geocaching related ALR and what isn't. They went down this road when Virtuals got out of hand.

 

Well, I'm sure it's not easy to draw a line in the sand such as this in a way that would please everybody.

Share this post


Link to post

Because Groundspeak said so :P No really, that distinction is why geocaching-based challenges are allowable ALRs. Geocaching-related, and verifiable (unlike puzzle solving)

I think this is the closest to answer why challenges were exempted. Because they are limited to geocaching related accomplishments that can easily be verified base on a persons list of found caches, they are not subject to the sort of abuse that was seen with general ALRs. A few additional requirements that were later added to ensure that they appeal to a reasonable number of geocachers and don't have undue restriction that would make it hard or impossible for a specific group of geocachers, ensures they are even less likely to cause an issue.

 

Certainly many general ALRs appealed to a reasonable number of geocahers and weren't burdensome to complete, but the reviewers likely could not come to an agreement on how to state this in a guideline. Because challenges were geocaching related and because the challenge owners has to state how they would verify compliance, the reviewers are willing to take on the subjective part of the guidelines. It is likely they reject very few challenge because of subjective requirements. Though we have seen some threads complaining of reviewers asking for proof that several cachers in a area have either completed the challenge or could easily complete it.

Share this post


Link to post

Because Groundspeak said so :P No really, that distinction is why geocaching-based challenges are allowable ALRs. Geocaching-related, and verifiable (unlike puzzle solving)

I think this is the closest to answer why challenges were exempted. Because they are limited to geocaching related accomplishments that can easily be verified base on a persons list of found caches, they are not subject to the sort of abuse that was seen with general ALRs. A few additional requirements that were later added to ensure that they appeal to a reasonable number of geocachers and don't have undue restriction that would make it hard or impossible for a specific group of geocachers, ensures they are even less likely to cause an issue.

 

Certainly many general ALRs appealed to a reasonable number of geocahers and weren't burdensome to complete, but the reviewers likely could not come to an agreement on how to state this in a guideline. Because challenges were geocaching related and because the challenge owners has to state how they would verify compliance, the reviewers are willing to take on the subjective part of the guidelines. It is likely they reject very few challenge because of subjective requirements. Though we have seen some threads complaining of reviewers asking for proof that several cachers in a area have either completed the challenge or could easily complete it.

 

All right, I guess I can understand the logic and the differences here.

 

But I still think my cauliflower analogy was spot on to the flaw in the logic. :)

Edited by TopShelfRob

Share this post


Link to post

3) Add a new Challenge Completed Log type (in addition to Found It log)

There is one problem with this. A "finder" doesn't find the same cache as a "Challenge Completed finder" does. Many of the Challenges have D/T that involves the challenge, without doing the challenge the "finder" doesn't really earn that D/T rating for a find. How do we solve this problem?

 

This is a big reason that I don't like challenge caches - they change the intended use of the D/T rating and turn it into a collector's item.

Share this post


Link to post

Can we stop with the name calling and insults?

You mean like calling some arguments "thread killers" and saying "they just really suck?" Sure.

 

Objectively, there are two ways many people play. On one side are people who consider Challenge Caches a hindrance to the geocaching experience, and want to log physical caches they "find" online as a "find". On the other side are people who feel that Challenge Caches enhance the whole experience, and that a "find" online may constitute anything above and beyond a physical "find".

So.

Is there a middle ground?

Sometimes there's a middle ground. With the problem of filtering challenge caches from the other Unknown caches, for example, I think a new "challenge" attribute is a good middle ground between creating a whole new Challenge Cache type and doing nothing. It addresses most aspects of a legitimate problem without having a major impact on geocachers or Groundspeak.

 

There's a difference between compromise and appeasement. In the filter situation, there's a legitimate concern to be addressed. I haven't seen a good reason why logs for challenge caches should be split into "Found It" and "Completed Requirements." Simply easing someone's ability to rack up smileys isn't a valid justification for change. Most multi-caches are greater hindrances than most traditionals. So what? They're intended to require additional effort. D5/T5s are greater hinderances than D1/T1s. Do you really want all caches to be easy? Yes, challenge caches require more work than simply finding the container. They are intended to. That's what makes them challenge caches. Geocaching shouldn't be a race to the lowest common denominator.

 

Or are we doomed to bickering and fighting about the what "real" geocaching is or should be?

Having certain standards isn't a bad thing. I, for one, think "geocaching" has limits beyond which the term becomes meaningless. For some people, sitting on a sofa and taking a picture of themselves kissing a frog might be fun, but it isn't "real" geocaching in my book. Similarly, sitting on a sofa and logging a "Found It" on a "virtual" challenge cache that doesn't require me to go to a specific location also fails to qualify as "geocaching." Again, geocaching shouldn't be a race to the lowest common denominator.

 

Because if the latter, then this thread should be locked. (Now that's a thread-killer. =P)

Why? Because it goes in a direction you don't like? A strict moderator might steer this thread back to a discussion about adding a new icon for challenge caches. But if you're going to allow discussion of "virtual" challenge caches, then questioning whether such caches are "real" geocaches seems legitimate to me.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

The ALR rules prevent a puzzle owner from requiring you solve a puzzle before you can find it. There were puzzle owners who would delete logs of someone who stumbled on a puzzle accidentally or even of some who tagged along with someone who solved the puzzle. If challenge are allowed because you're supposed to do them before you look for a cache, then so should a requirement that you solve the puzzle first.

But the "geocaching related" aspect of Challenge Caches doesn't hold with puzzle caches. As to "stumbled on the cache", that's harder to hold to when the cache is at the listed co-ords, compared to multi-cache finals and puzzle caches.

Share this post


Link to post

The ALR rules prevent a puzzle owner from requiring you solve a puzzle before you can find it. There were puzzle owners who would delete logs of someone who stumbled on a puzzle accidentally or even of some who tagged along with someone who solved the puzzle. If challenge are allowed because you're supposed to do them before you look for a cache, then so should a requirement that you solve the puzzle first.

But the "geocaching related" aspect of Challenge Caches doesn't hold with puzzle caches. As to "stumbled on the cache", that's harder to hold to when the cache is at the listed co-ords, compared to multi-cache finals and puzzle caches.

You can wave a magic wand and claim that by being related to geocaching you can suddenly be allowed to delete logs you don't like. I'm just saying I don't buy the distinction that was made between ALRs that you do after you find the cache and ALRs that are qualifications for who should even look for a cache.

 

There are many puzzles that are geocaching related. For example there are puzzles based on triangulation that explain how GPS works and there are puzzles based on knowing the handles of local cachers and finding the dates when they found particular caches. And of course there's the puzzle type most closely related to the challenge - a bonus cache where you find the pieces of the puzzle in some series of geocaches. A cacher owner cannot restrict the Found log to those who have solved the puzzles as intended.

 

Forget "stumbled upon". If cacher A solves a puzzle and then takes his friend cacher B to find the cache, nobody thinks that cacher B doesn't qualify to log the find. But if cacher A completes a challenges and takes his friend along to find the challenge cache, it's a whole other story.

 

I like that people who enjoy challenges in their present form seem to have such a drive to defend them that they want to invent a world where the differences between challenges and every other kind of physical cache are "logical". The fact is that challenge caches are an exception.

 

All we can do is speculate about the reason there is an exception for challenge caches. I like idea that because the challenges are geocaching related and they can be verified using the list of found caches from the finder, they tend to avoid the problems of generic ALRs. The additional guidelines that have been added for challenge caches address the few remaining issues. And while some of these guidelines are subjective, the subjectivity is more to provide a tool for reviewers. A reviewer is only going ask about a reasonable number of geocachers if there is something odd about the challenge that makes it appear to be exclusive of certain cachers or meant to reward a specific cacher.

Share this post


Link to post

You can wave a magic wand and claim that by being related to geocaching you can suddenly be allowed to delete logs you don't like.

There's that saddle burr again. You're the only one that keeps mentioning log deletions.

 

BTW, a magic wand doesn't work that way - as a magician (35+ years full time) I should know. :rolleyes:

 

I'm just saying I don't buy the distinction that was made between ALRs that you do after you find the cache and ALRs that are qualifications for who should even look for a cache.

Buy it or don't, it's the way it is.

 

There are many puzzles that are geocaching related. For example there are puzzles based on triangulation that explain how GPS works and there are puzzles based on knowing the handles of local cachers and finding the dates when they found particular caches. And of course there's the puzzle type most closely related to the challenge - a bonus cache where you find the pieces of the puzzle in some series of geocaches. A cacher owner cannot restrict the Found log to those who have solved the puzzles as intended.

But puzzle solving in itself isn't "geocache related" in the same way Challange Cache requirements are. And a bonus cache isn't a 'puzzle cache' it's a Mystery cache (yeah, the share the same icon, but are different breeds of caches).

 

Forget "stumbled upon". If cacher A solves a puzzle and then takes his friend cacher B to find the cache, nobody thinks that cacher B doesn't qualify to log the find. But if cacher A completes a challenges and takes his friend along to find the challenge cache, it's a whole other story.

Yep, handled differently because they are different breeds of cache.

 

I like that people who enjoy challenges in their present form seem to have such a drive to defend them that they want to invent a world where the differences between challenges and every other kind of physical cache are "logical". The fact is that challenge caches are an exception.

And then there are those who want to invent a world where differences shouldn't/can't exist. "If it's at the listed co-ords I should be able to log a find on it, no matter what!" just doesn't exist in the world of GS guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
I like that people who enjoy challenges in their present form seem to have such a drive to defend them that they want to invent a world where the differences between challenges and every other kind of physical cache are "logical". The fact is that challenge caches are an exception.

And then there are those who want to invent a world where differences shouldn't/can't exist. "If it's at the listed co-ords I should be able to log a find on it, no matter what!" just doesn't exist in the world of GS guidelines.

Certainly the guidelines specifically call out challenges cache as exception to the statement that physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed. And then go on and give the guidelines for logging of challenge caches.

 

However I have always expressed my opinion the the guidelines for logging are unenforceable except by the cache owner deleting logs. We all know that people will log finds on physical caches where they didn't find a cache. Maybe they left a replacement, maybe they just posted a picture to show what they found at ground zero. People who I have referred to as puritans often get their knicker is a twist about cache owners allowing such logs to remain. After all, the guidelines are being violated, putting the whole game in jeopardy.

 

The real difference between challenge cache and most physical caches, is that challenge cache owner have to be willing to delete logs. This is not a burr under my saddle. Even on challenge caches, some people will log a find where the didn't meet the guideline for logging a challenge cache. Whether this is someone who didn't do the challenge, but signed the log in the cache, or they thought they did the challenge but the documentation they have provided indicates they fell a little short, challenge cache owners must be willing to delete these find if they believe in the challenge cache guidelines.

 

I'm not opposed to cache owners deleting logs that they are entitled to delete under the guidelines. The puritans will insist that guideline require this of cache owners. But for many owners of traditional caches, the idea of playing log cop doesn't even appeal to them. Sure, Groundspeak may occasionally archive a cache, if the owner has essentially made it into a virtual by announcing on the cache page that you don't have to sign the log. But in general TPTB leaves it up to cache owners whether they want to enforce the logging guidelines or not. The main use of the guidelines is to limit when the cache owner can delete logs.

 

What we have seen is that over the years the "Found" log has been turned into the "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log. When the "Found" log was an informal mechanism for sharing your experience at the cache, a cacher could decide if they had found the cache and this was the appropriate log to use. Sure, the website gave some instructions that the common practice was to sign the physical log when you found the cache, but they (and most cache owners) recognized that sometime the log is wet or missing, or the cacher forgot a pen. Most cache owners accept this.

 

But puritans wanted to police the online log and have the ability to delete logs that didn't meet their standard of a find. So TPTB gave the power to delete logs to the cache owner. A side effect of this was the invention of the ALR. the "Found" log had become the "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log. Within a few months of when I started geocaching, I realize the there would be cache owners who had different ideas of what finding a geocache meant. So I'm pretty comfortable if someone asks me to change a "Found" log to a note or even to a DNF, even though I think I've found something. I'll also put the cache on the ignore list so I won't find it again. I keep track of my finds using GSAK. And I keep track of my WIGAS logs on Geocaching.com. But I know of others that go beyond what I do, and don't even post online logs anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Everything you just said is true.... But why is there no obligation to solve a puzzle? Because the community doesn't give a crap if people cheat to get the answers. It renders the integrity of all puzzle caches meaningless, if people can openly share solutions. "Try to solve it, but if you can't just call someone or go on Facebook and get the answers, it's all right, we all do it!"

Nono, the primary reason is that no one can verify that a person has actually solved a cache. There is zero way to verify except by trusting someone's word. There are plenty of community who do care that people solve puzzles and not just call around for all the answers. Whether people care isn't the issue. Whether it's verifiable (and thus grounds for taking a dispute to a higher power) is.

 

Puzzle solving is like the general non-geocaching-related ALR. Far too prone to abuse, subjective judgements, and not explicitly verifiable.

I think this is the closest to answer why challenges were exempted. Because they are limited to geocaching related accomplishments that can easily be verified base on a persons list of found caches, they are not subject to the sort of abuse that was seen with general ALRs.

 

----

> Can we stop with the name calling and insults?

 

You mean like calling some arguments "thread killers" and saying "they just really suck?" Sure.

1. That wasn't name-calling (you know, like a general 'astonished by the stupidity exhibited'). And, would you not agree that indeed thread-killers just really suck?

2. I wasn't calling out 'some arguments', I was calling out statements that deny discussion about the topic, rather than addressing the topic productively. Not arguments, but a denial that there is an argument. those suck.

3. A comment like "I [don't think anything/think something] should change because..." isn't the same as "People who [think/don't think] there's an issue are stupid."

 

Sometimes there's a middle ground. With...

That whole segment was more like it! :ph34r:

 

> Because if the latter [bickering and fighting about the what "real" geocaching is or should be], then this thread should be locked. (Now that's a thread-killer. =P)

 

Why? Because it goes in a direction you don't like? A strict moderator might steer this thread back to a discussion about adding a new icon for challenge caches. But if you're going to allow discussion of "virtual" challenge caches, then questioning whether such caches are "real" geocaches seems legitimate to me.

Hey now, you just addressed that point productively. The only direction I don't like in a thread is one prompted by people who want to end discussion with a wave of the hand like a problem does exist, and/or insults people, directly and blatantly, for disagreeing with them on that. I have zero problem with someone disagreeing with me (or anyone else), if it's productive to the conversation! sheesh.

 

And "questioning whether ["virtual" challenge caches] are "real" geocaches" was not what I said was a thread-killer. Don't frame the argument. One proposed solution is to make a new challenge cache type. Whether it's physical or virtual was never a point (that I saw at least) and is an interesting one (but goes back to instituting virtual caches, though restricted to verifiable statistics for qualification, yet with nothing specific to the posted location). The discussion-killer was effectively "challenge caching is not "real" geocaching, so there is no problem here to address". That's a no-true-scotsman non-argument that makes anyone who wants to find solutions out to be wasting their time. In a discussion thread. To discuss the topic.

 

I like that people who enjoy challenges in their present form seem to have such a drive to defend them that they want to invent a world where the differences between challenges and every other kind of physical cache are "logical". The fact is that challenge caches are an exception.

Indeed. That is what makes them unique at the moment. They are an exception, because it's the only currently allowable form of ALR on a physical cache. Which is why the issue isn't really about "challenge caches", it boils down to a strong dislike of the concept of the ALR on a physical cache - for those who want to log a physical cache as "found". While other cache types (concepts) are very easily distinguished, the 'exception' for challenges comes only in the form of having "challenge" in the title.

 

Forget "stumbled upon". If cacher A solves a puzzle and then takes his friend cacher B to find the cache, nobody thinks that cacher B doesn't qualify to log the find. But if cacher A completes a challenges and takes his friend along to find the challenge cache, it's a whole other story.

Yep, handled differently because they are different breeds of cache.

...

But puzzle solving in itself isn't "geocache related" in the same way Challange Cache requirements are. And a bonus cache isn't a 'puzzle cache' it's a Mystery cache (yeah, the share the same icon, but are different breeds of caches).

There's no definition of "breed" in the guidelines. That's a new term you're inventing here. :P

Regardless of "Unknown" or "Mystery", if one finds the physical cache and puts their name it, they can log it found online. The exception being challenge caches will have an "additional logging requirement" - The very definition and ruleset that provides the CO authority to delete a find log if they determine by objectively verifiable methods that the cacher has not qualified.

 

And then there are those who want to invent a world where differences shouldn't/can't exist. "If it's at the listed co-ords I should be able to log a find on it, no matter what!" just doesn't exist in the world of GS guidelines.

Agreed.

Only on the basis that challenge caches and their logging requirements exist. The "standard" seems to be that for all physical cache types, if you sign the log, you can log it found. Challenges are the exception. But that's a matter of interpretation. The "standard" only exists by majority appeal. Technically, there are merely a number of physical cache types (which includes challenges), all of which, save one, share identical logging requirements. I would say that the people you describe hold fast to the "standard", whereas most of here hold to the point that challenges are "just another type" of cache. Groundspeak is effectively keeping silent on it, having addressed it sufficiently (so far) by allowing challenges with the one requirement that they are distinguishable by "challenge" in the title.

 

I often refer to challenge caches as an exception, but really only in light of the ALR. I'm all for this discussion because I don't believe that having "challenge" in the title is the best distinction. I don't know if there's currently a better proposed solution or one of the existing ones could be improved, but I do think it's up to Groundspeak to decide and that they are watching this discussion (when it's productive) to gauge if it's worth addressing. At the moment I don't think the issue is big enough to warrant a significant developmental update. But that doesn't change the fact that I'd love to see some kind of update to better distinguish these caches from others :)

 

ETA: I can't remember if there's a distinction for series final Unknowns where a find log can be deleted by the CO if the stats show they haven't found the other caches in a series... I don't think there is, but I don't remember =P If so, then it's technically another exception, since completing the series is in practice then identical to a 'challenge' requirement.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Hi guys,

 

today, we had a nice, cozy, outdoor Maker Madness theme event in Hamburg, Germany. Our topic was "Challenge Geocaches." Almost all participants agreed on the proposal that they should become a sub-category of Mystery Geocaches and deserve their own icon. I know that this has been up before but there is no reason not to post it again here ...

 

And this is the petition: http://imgcdn.geocac...4a9da93a855.jpg

 

Cheers, alsterdrache

 

Back to the OP. That group of cachers want to institute a category separate for Challenge caches. From the viewpoint of us cachers, I see this to be a winning thing. Those who love Challenges can easily identify them. Those who want to avoid Challenges can easily do so. Two subsets of cachers are happy. Those who are ambivalent will not factor into this matter.

From the viewpoint of Groundspeak, there are several issues with which to contend. The programming resources to expend on this issue. What to do with the current \Challenges/how to transfer them to the new category? What should the new cache type's icon look like?

 

Do any of us really expect Groundspeak to spend the resources necessary to answer this request? I suggested the icon of the cacher jumping through the flaming hoop to address one of these issues, but it will not likely be needed, as this entire suggested topic is not likely on the To Do List at headquarters.....and probably never will be.

Share this post


Link to post

 

There's no definition of "breed" in the guidelines. That's a new term you're inventing here. :P

Regardless of terminology, when TPTB decided to restrict that ability to have generic ALRs, they extended the guidelines for when you could log a find to physical caches. (There were already guidelines for virtual and webcam caches). And at that same time they announce that the new guideline didn't appply to geocaching realated challenges. SInce that time, the wording has change again, so they explicitly give guideline for logging online finds for challenges.

 

Of courser there are different ways to view the guidelines for logging an online Find. These could simple be restrictions on what logs cache owners can delete. But clearly if you want to be the owner of a challenge cache, you might read the guidelines as saying it's against the rules to log a Find on challenge cache if you haven't completed the challenge (and have no problem deleting logs that break the rules).

 

When I posted a few days ago that the online found should be renamed the "Woohoo! I'm gettting another smiley" log, I was serious. Rather than arguing over the meaning of finding a physical geocache, if you accept that the online log has nothing to do with finding caches and that rules and guidelines for a WIGAS log can be different for different "breeds" of geocaches.

 

ETA: I can't remember if there's a distinction for series final Unknowns where a find log can be deleted by the CO if the stats show they haven't found the other caches in a series... I don't think there is, but I don't remember =P If so, then it's technically another exception, since completing the series is in practice then identical to a 'challenge' requirement.

I hope not. I have found several bonus caches without finding the entire series. Often there is enough information in the series that you can miss one or two caches and still be able to figure out where the bonus cache is. Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

There's no definition of "breed" in the guidelines. That's a new term you're [The Jester] inventing here. :P

Regardless of terminology, when...

<snip>

...if you accept that the online log has nothing to do with finding caches and that rules and guidelines for a WIGAS log can be different for different "breeds" of geocaches.

Well, my point to The Jester was addressing "Mystery" being a different "breed" of cache than "Unknown"... which it's not. (where you're referring to different types of caches, with different rules/guidelines for the "Find").

An Unknown (aka Mystery) is an Unknown (aka Mystery). It was rather in context of the ability to sign the 'bonus' cache (aka series final) without finding the rest in the series, compared to signing the final of a puzzle cache without solving the puzzle.

 

Unknowns are all physical caches where the posted coordinates may or may not be the location of the physical cache (it is offset), and something must be done either prior to locating the cache (ie have the solution to a puzzle) or before being able to log it Found [WIGAS] online (ie challenge qualification).

Unless 'breed' was referring to the entirely arbitrary common styles of Unknowns (series final, puzzle, liar, challenge, etc)... nonetheless, "Mystery" and "Unknown" are not different 'breeds'. They are the same type of cache; the two terms are just interchangeable, and likely used in language depending on context.

Now, regionally speaking, maybe some communities have chosen to refer to certain implementations of a single Cache Type as one or the other... Beyond the cache type, people may have various pet names for styles of caches *shrug*. But officially, they are one and the same.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Can we stop with the name calling and insults?

You mean like calling some arguments "thread killers" and saying "they just really suck?" Sure.

1. That wasn't name-calling (you know, like a general 'astonished by the stupidity exhibited'). And, would you not agree that indeed thread-killers just really suck?

You apparently interpret your "really suck" comment as a statement of fact. Regardless of whether or not it's a fact, I interpreted you as expressing your view in an insulting manner. Just like someone who labels a solution as "stupid" might consider it to be a fact while you apparently interpreted it to be insulting regardless of its accuracy. Hence: pot, kettle, black.

 

Because if the latter [bickering and fighting about the what "real" geocaching is or should be], then this thread should be locked. (Now that's a thread-killer. =P)

Why? Because it goes in a direction you don't like? A strict moderator might steer this thread back to a discussion about adding a new icon for challenge caches. But if you're going to allow discussion of "virtual" challenge caches, then questioning whether such caches are "real" geocaches seems legitimate to me.

Hey now, you just addressed that point productively. The only direction I don't like in a thread is one prompted by people who want to end discussion with a wave of the hand like a problem does [not] exist, and/or insults people, directly and blatantly, for disagreeing with them on that.

Again, you might not like it that people question whether a problem exists, but that's a legitimate point of discussion. If no problem exists, then you've got yourself "a solution in search of a problem." That doesn't necessarily end the discussion. In fact, it encourages you to explain just exactly what it is you want to "fix." So far, I haven't seen a valid problem that would be solved by splitting a challenge cache "Found It" into a "Found It" and a "Challenge Completed." Your "hinderance" problem certainly wasn't a valid problem as far as I can see.

 

And "questioning whether ["virtual" challenge caches] are "real" geocaches" was not what I said was a thread-killer. Don't frame the argument. One proposed solution is to make a new challenge cache type. Whether it's physical or virtual was never a point (that I saw at least) and is an interesting one (but goes back to instituting virtual caches, though restricted to verifiable statistics for qualification, yet with nothing specific to the posted location). The discussion-killer was effectively "challenge caching is not "real" geocaching, so there is no problem here to address".

Who made that above, bolded argument? Please be specific, because I can't find it expressed anywhere in this thread. The only time I saw a suggestion that something wasn't "real" geocaching was when I made that comment regarding NeverSummer's idea of a "virtual" challenge cache in Post #173.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

However, still against the ability to log a physical cache in any other case, this is an ALR. This all just goes in a huge circle then, and I keep spinning and landing on a different thing I find to be the best answer...anyone else?

Not me. I just keep reading this thread completely astonished by the stupidity exhibited. People are really working hard here to make problems. It's pretty clear that we have an extension of the "cache cop" mentality extended to cache types: "How can I get a certain cache type that I don't personally like eliminated?"

 

The whole pretense that there is some kind of legitimate issue that needs to be considered is not only absurd, but disingenuous.

 

How about letting people enjoy challenge caches have their fun? Is that really too much to ask? Is it really so hard to watch other people enjoy something you don't?

Is this directed at me, directly?

 

If so, you're off target. I'm not against challenge Unknown caches in the least. I like them, and think they are a very interesting part of the game. What I have a hard time with is how they "fit" according to the guidelines (aside, of course from the exemption language added to the guidelines...which of course renders my question moot to some...)

 

But here's the thing. I'm just wondering how this all lines up with how ALRs went away. I really think that the best way to deal with the many sides of this issue would be to consider a new cache type.

 

But how then does Groundspeak address the many different ways people create challenges to complete? Well, I think the way it's being done so far is working just fine. It would add some work to the system to integrate a new cache type, but that's been done before and can be done again.

 

Anyway, I'm not set on either side, and I hardly think the discussion, or my participation in it, is classified as exhibiting "stupidity".

 

There didn't used to be anything about ALRs in the guidelines. Then there was. Then there was something about challenge caches. The root of all of this is still how to remove the "ALR" from the conversation altogether. That would be to allow a signature on a logbook to be a find for that cache.

There didn't used to be multi-caches, but then there was. I don't see change as necessarily a bad thing. In the case of challenge caches, I'm glad Groundspeak made this change so I now have the opportunity to enjoy this different kind of experience...if I so desire. To me, wanting to remove ALRs simply because they are different from what geocaching once was makes no more sense than wanting to get rid of multi-caches simply because they are different than geocaching used to be.

Straw man.

Hardly. I addressed your argument head-on.

 

You argue that we should remove ALRs because, once upon a time, there was no mention of them in the guidelines. I show that such an argument is silly (or at least inconsistent). If you apply that same logic, then we should remove multi-caches (and Unknowns, events, letterbox-hybrids, etc.) because, once upon a time, there was no mention of them in the guidelines either.

In fact, that's not at all what I said or am saying. In fact, the argument you're beginning with the above quote is not what you, yourself, said above.

 

I'm not, in fact, arguing in any way that challenge caches should be removed. I simply think that we can have a productive discussion about how the guidelines and history can mesh better to address the concerns some have with challenges existing at all, or that they may not be able to sign a physical cache to log another "Found it".

 

But that's neither here nor there. I'm not "against" Unknown challnege caches in the least. I'm just trying to follow the rationale used by TPTB when it comes to how ALRs came and went, logging of phyisical caches is handled, and what the guidelines do to adjust for the existence of a challenge-related ALR.

 

If memory serves, part of the downfall of the "rub your belly on camera while standing on your head reciting the alphabet backwards" ALRs was that people were frustrated that a name on a logbook somehow meant they still could not log a find--owners would delete them.

 

I'd have to search, but I believe we had some "powers that are" here talking about why ALRs went against the foundational aspects of finding any physical cache and signing a logbook. I remember this, because I was in the group that had been communicating with local Reviewers about making some ALR caches, but they were rather simple pseudo-challenges not unlike what we see today. They were not allowed to be created and/or reviewed for publication; they were killed during the Me-Reviewer email research phase because of the "signing the logbook is the paramount aspect of physical cache finding..."

 

That's where I'm coming from, and it might not have been the experience of others here in this thread. So, I'm speaking in terms of what I experienced and therefore understand to be the reasoning and process for/against ALRs historically.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, my point to The Jester was addressing "Mystery" being a different "breed" of cache than "Unknown"... which it's not. (where you're referring to different types of caches, with different rules/guidelines for the "Find").

Where the heck did I say that? I was talking about Challenge Caches vs. Puzzle Caches vs. other Mystery caches. They share an icon but are different 'breeds' - they are handled differently. I mean a cat is a cat is a cat, but a Maine Coon likes to play with water while others avoid it like the plague.

Share this post


Link to post

Wherein CanadianRockies and I wax meta, and continue to exchange comments about the discussion itself, rather than the thread's topic directly...

(skip this comment if you want to retain your sanity :P)

 

> "would you not agree that indeed thread-killers just really suck?"

"You apparently interpret your "really suck" comment as a statement of fact."

Umm... so, would you not agree that thread-killing comments just really suck?

That's not objective. That's clearly a question for a subjective opinion about thread-killing comments. So, do you think they really suck, when trying to have a productive discussion? (the implication being that thread-killing comments are, objectively, anti-productive-discussion)

 

"I interpreted you as expressing your view in an insulting manner. Just like someone who labels a solution as "stupid" might consider it to be a fact while you apparently interpreted it to be insulting regardless of its accuracy."

I really don't care if someone thinks an idea is 'stupid'. Sure, it can be taken as an indirect insult (ie you are stupid vs your idea is stupid), but it's more insulting when there's no reason given, or an opinion is expressed as the be-all and end-all of a conversation. Just-so statements, insulting or not, are not discussion-friendly. Even so, insults themselves just really suck. Can we not have a productive discussion without insult? Is that too much to ask? No, disagreeing is not an insult. And being constructively critical is not an insult (though it could be inferred as such, especially if laced with inflamatory words like "stupid").

And for the record, as I recall, your comments were not what I was speaking against; you've been explaining your position and reasoning, and as far as I can remember have avoided loaded words. Others have not.

 

"Again, you might not like it that people question whether a problem exists, but that's a legitimate point of discussion."

Again. I don't mind if someone constructively gives a reason as to why they believe a problem doesn't exist. But the fact that there is a discussion means there IS a problem. It's not enough to say "there isn't a problem - if you have a problem then suck it up".

And don't look for quotes; it's the sentiment, which has been clearly expressed a couple of times in the thread (either direction). And that's all I'm speaking against.

 

* "I just keep reading this thread completely astonished by the stupidity exhibited."

* "Thank God! I thought I was all alone here. And we wonder why Groundspeak probably ignore most threads in this forum... "

* "you...appear to be adamantly opposed to the whole notion of common sense"

* "Well you can keep track of the "Woohoo! That's another smiley for me"s -- I'll keep track of my actual finds."

 

Compare:

"This falls into the category, 'Not every cache is for every cacher!' and they shouldn't be. We all play differently, that should be respected."

with

"At the heart of this game it is about finding caches. The rest of it is just people telling other people how they should play the game."

It's like...

A says: I don't like this mechanic!

B replies: Ok, here's a possible middle ground...

C states: Nope, it's not a problem, nothing needs to be done.

A repeats: Well I still don't like this...

B: Ok, here's another possible answer...

C: Nope, there is no problem.

B: Well, here's a better idea improving on a past suggestion...

C: Nope, because it's not an issue.

B: Why not?

C: Because it's stupid to think there is a problem.

etc...

Discussion-killer. De-railing at best.

 

"If no problem exists, then you've got yourself 'a solution in search of a problem.' That doesn't necessarily end the discussion. In fact, it encourages you to explain just exactly what it is you want to 'fix.'"

Circles. The thread started with the problem. There is a problem. It's pointless to say "there is no problem", and then request people explain just what it is they want to 'fix'. They already did! Discussion-killer by dancing in circles.

 

"So far, I haven't seen a valid problem that would be solved by..."

The solution, amongst many, was presented in response to the OP, who raised the question re the problem - a "valid problem" to the people who recognize it as a problem. So what's an "invalid problem"? "Your problem is not a problem"? Discussion-killer by hand-waving.

 

Per one of the proposed solutions recognizing the existence of a problem, here's a great discussion-prompting response:

"The entire converstation is predicated on the confusion between finding a geocache with logging it 'Found' online. Simply call the online log something other than 'Found' and the problem goes away."

 

> "The discussion-killer was effectively "challenge caching is not "real" geocaching, so there is no problem here to address"."

"Who made that above, bolded argument? Please be specific, because I can't find it expressed anywhere in this thread."

If you look at my comment in context, it was directed towards the argument about what constitutes a "Find" in geocaching, thus whether a "Challenge Cache" found physically = "Found it!" online, or not. The point being - some people consider it one thing, other people consider it something else. That argument will go around in circles. So instead of arguing opinions pointlessly, is there a possible solution?

 

You said:

"I think The Jester is questioning whether challenge caches even need to be improved, which is a valid point to raise in this discussion."

And it is. When it's discussed. And it has been. That point (that no change is needed) is in that list of suggestions I posted earlier (and will post below). Because some comments actually discussed why, respectably (including yours). As I said, I'm not against differing opinions and viewpoints - I just prefer to see thread content that encourages discussion, not insinuates subjective insults against people who think differently. There's a lot of emotion in this thread as if people's own way of playing is the 'right' or 'better' way. There is ZERO harm in discussing ways to alleviate disagreements and perceived issues. But simply dismissing any disagreement is not a productive response.

That's akin to someone commenting on a blog post for no other reason than to criticize the people who are commenting on it, prompting others to reply that if they don't like it they can just ignore it and not comment in it. It derails on-topic discussion (like you and I are doing).

 

And by the way, from the looks of it, you and I are in agreement on most, if not all, points here. (except of course this meta strand). Let me be clear: I'm fine with Challenge Caches the way they are, just as I believe you are. But I do see room for improvement, and recognize the validity of concerns raised by some regarding the challenge caching process, and see this thread as a discussion about "how can challenge caches be improved for all?"

 

----

 

I think the ideas here are not people looking for ways to get a cache type they don't enjoy eliminated. I think people are floating ideas for ways to change challenge caches to avoid having to deal with guidelines that seem inconsistent with the reason some people believe ALRs were banned.
The only "problem" that I see are people that feel that they are entitled to log a cache that they don't really deserve to log. It's really quite simple. A particular cache is based on completing a specific Geocaching related task. Until you do so, you are not entitled to log it as found online. Some people see this as a problem. It's not! It's the way that the particular cache is defined in the guidelines. The only problem that I see goes to the OP's point. A Challenge cache stands alone from any other cache and it deserves to have it's own type and icon.

This.

There is a problem.

And ways to address it are suggested.

 

Here are the suggestions again that, if I recall correctly, have all been proposed and discussed; reasoned to varying degrees:

 

1) Remove ALRs on physical caches altogether (no more Unknown challenge caches)

2a) Institute a new Challenge Cache Type.

2b) Institute a new Challenge/Qualification Required attribute.

2c) Add a new "Challenge" toggle option to the creation of an Unknown cache type.

3) Add a new Challenge Completed Log type (in addition to Found It log)

4) Add an additional property for the Found It log that marks the cache's challenge complete

5) Add a cache-level property that is managed apart from physical cache logs to store users' challenge-specific data

6) Do absolutely Nothing.

7) Rename the Found log to "Woohoo! I got another smiley" (WIGAS) (in concept: remove confusion between a physical "find" vs online "find" log not representing only physical finds)

Share this post


Link to post

Well, my point to The Jester was addressing "Mystery" being a different "breed" of cache than "Unknown"... which it's not. (where you're referring to different types of caches, with different rules/guidelines for the "Find").

Where the heck did I say that? I was talking about Challenge Caches vs. Puzzle Caches vs. other Mystery caches. They share an icon but are different 'breeds' - they are handled differently. I mean a cat is a cat is a cat, but a Maine Coon likes to play with water while others avoid it like the plague.

 

You just said it: "Challenge Caches vs. Puzzle Caches vs. other Mystery caches...are different 'breeds' - they are handled differently"

But they're not handled differently.

They are all listed as Unknown/Mystery cache types. All are fundamentally treated the same for logging Finds - save for challenge caches. "Breed" is an arbitrary term you're using to distinguish the content of the listing and the process to determine the cache location. There is no difference according to Groundspeak, whether it's a listing puzzle or a series final or a field puzzle or a liar cache or what have you. The only differences between "Found it" log-posting rules are found between cache Types, with the exception of Challenge Cache Unknowns due to the ALR. As the challenge cache is still a physical cache, and it doesn't fit under other physical cache types, it must be published as an Unknown (aka Mystery).

So, one of the questions is, is that sufficient reason to distinguish Challenge Caches as a new Type (of physical cache)? And might Groundspeak agree? (probably not, since they still haven't done anything and the new challenge cache type idea was proposed long ago :))

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

 

You just said it: "Challenge Caches vs. Puzzle Caches vs. other Mystery caches...are different 'breeds' - they are handled differently"

But they're not handled differently.

They are all listed as Unknown/Mystery cache types. All are fundamentally treated the same for logging Finds - save for challenge caches.

You are confusing cache types and cache logging requirements.

 

The Unknown cache type a catchall for several styles of hides. These include puzzle caches, bonus caches, challenge caches, beacon caches, and other types of caches that don't fit one of the other caches types.

 

Outside of cache types there are logging requirements for caches. They fall into logging requirments for physical caches and logging requirements for non-physical cache types. For the non-physical cache types TPTB have chosen to list logging requirements separately for each cache type. Of course the list is imcomplete with no requirements given for logging CITO-events, GPS Adventure Maze, or Geocaching HQs. The fact that no requirements are given for GPS Adventure Maze or Geocaching HQ may indicate that logging requirements are in reality the guidelines for when the cache owner may delete a Found log.

 

For physical cache types, TPTB have chosen to list logging requirements as a single section. It begins with a statement that applies to all physical caches, and then immediately describes an exception to this statement - namely challenge caches.

 

One argument that might be made for the OPs request to list challenge caches as their own type (remember the OP?) is that it would remove the confusion. The guidelines for logging physical geocaches could then be split into the guidelines for logging Challenge caches and the guidelines for logging all other physical caches.

Share this post


Link to post
You are confusing cache types and cache logging requirements.

 

The Unknown cache type a catchall for several styles of hides. These include puzzle caches, bonus caches, challenge caches, beacon caches, and other types of caches that don't fit one of the other caches types.

 

Outside of cache types there are logging requirements for caches. They fall into logging requirments for physical caches and logging requirements for non-physical cache types. For the non-physical cache types TPTB have chosen to list logging requirements separately for each cache type. Of course the list is imcomplete with no requirements given for logging CITO-events, GPS Adventure Maze, or Geocaching HQs. The fact that no requirements are given for GPS Adventure Maze or Geocaching HQ may indicate that logging requirements are in reality the guidelines for when the cache owner may delete a Found log.

 

For physical cache types, TPTB have chosen to list logging requirements as a single section. It begins with a statement that applies to all physical caches, and then immediately describes an exception to this statement - namely challenge caches.

Not sure what we're disagreeing on, unless it's semantics...

 

Physical cache types = Traditional, Multi, Unknown, Letterbox Hybrid, Wherigo, APE

 

Cache type Find/WIGAS logging requirements:

(non-physical)

Earthcache - perform CO-posed task (or answer questions, ideally having visited the site) for CO confirmation

Virtual - perform CO-posed task (or answer questions, ideally having visited the site) for CO confirmation

Webcam - post requested photo (unique type of 'find' log)

Event (all types) - be present at the event (logbook signature no longer required, afaik)

(physical)

Traditional - signature in logbook

Multi - signature in logbook

Letterbox Hybrid - signature in logbook

Wherigo - signature in logbook

Unknown - signature in logbook (exception: Challenge cache ALR)

 

There's no definition for 'breed', for other styles of Unknown caches (ie Jester's use of 'breed' intending to distinguish between 'Unknown' and 'Mystery')

 

One argument that might be made for the OPs request to list challenge caches as their own type (remember the OP?) is that it would remove the confusion. The guidelines for logging physical geocaches could then be split into the guidelines for logging Challenge caches and the guidelines for logging all other physical caches.

Yep, completely agreed that it is a suggested solution. :) (I've given my own thoughts on the proposition elsewhere in the thread)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

There didn't used to be anything about ALRs in the guidelines. Then there was. Then there was something about challenge caches. The root of all of this is still how to remove the "ALR" from the conversation altogether. That would be to allow a signature on a logbook to be a find for that cache.

There didn't used to be multi-caches, but then there was. I don't see change as necessarily a bad thing. In the case of challenge caches, I'm glad Groundspeak made this change so I now have the opportunity to enjoy this different kind of experience...if I so desire. To me, wanting to remove ALRs simply because they are different from what geocaching once was makes no more sense than wanting to get rid of multi-caches simply because they are different than geocaching used to be.

Straw man.

Hardly. I addressed your argument head-on.

 

You argue that we should remove ALRs because, once upon a time, there was no mention of them in the guidelines. I show that such an argument is silly (or at least inconsistent). If you apply that same logic, then we should remove multi-caches (and Unknowns, events, letterbox-hybrids, etc.) because, once upon a time, there was no mention of them in the guidelines either.

In fact, that's not at all what I said or am saying. In fact, the argument you're beginning with the above quote is not what you, yourself, said above.

What I said above is simply a restatement of my original comment, but hopefully using clearer words and sentences. I'm sorry my original comment was confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
> "would you not agree that indeed thread-killers just really suck?"

"You apparently interpret your "really suck" comment as a statement of fact."

Umm... so, would you not agree that thread-killing comments just really suck?

To specifically answer your question, "No." (Or, more grammatically correct, "Yes, I would not agree.") It's unlikely that I'd say any comments "just really suck," since that comes across to me as an unproductive insult.

 

More generally, I reject your premise that there have been any thread-killing comments posted in this thread. It's hard to imagine how any comment could kill any thread. You seem to be "seeing monsters under the bed." If you imagine that a comment is "thread-killing," then try this: take a couple deep breaths, ignore the comment, and continue discussing the topic. Imaginary monster is slayed. Judging from the 200+ posts on this topic, I'd say your fears have more than been disproved. Sleep easy tonight.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post
"I interpreted you as expressing your view in an insulting manner. Just like someone who labels a solution as "stupid" might consider it to be a fact while you apparently interpreted it to be insulting regardless of its accuracy."

I really don't care if someone thinks an idea is 'stupid'. Sure, it can be taken as an indirect insult (ie you are stupid vs your idea is stupid), but it's more insulting when there's no reason given, or an opinion is expressed as the be-all and end-all of a conversation.

But a reason was given, and no opinion is the "be-all and end-all" of a conversation unless you give it that power.

 

Here's the comment you seem to be objecting to in its full context. Read it again and see if you can see the reasons given:

 

In addition these guidelines are subject to interpretation. Just what is a reasonable number of geocachers? Just what is an undue restriction?

Questions like that only appeal to those who are trying to get hard-and-fast rules, and who believe that if there can't be hard-and-fast rules then the whole thing should be eliminated.

 

I have bemoaned the lack of common sense applied to geocaching these days; your post here is an excellent example of the problem.

 

This entire ridiculous thread is about people (including you) who appear to be adamantly opposed to the whole notion of common sense. With exactly zero evidence that a cache type is causing problems, you invent complicated and cumbersome "solutions" so that nobody has to ever use any actual judgment.

 

It's ridiculous, and it is (sorry for my bluntness) stupid.

Share this post


Link to post

C'mon. It's not just about reasons. Yes, there may be reasons. But how they're spoken is important too.

Look, can you not understand the spirit of what I'm trying to say? It's very easy to make the same points without using loaded terms and phrases that imply derogatory or inflamatory sentiments. It is possible to disagree and provide reasons respectably and productively.

The forums are a hotbed for emotional comments and debates. That's why people talk about avoiding the forums altogether. Because it gets ridiculous and tiring sometimes to some people. We all love geocaching; it's a pastime that's personal to all of us.

So let's discuss. Constructively criticize. Not shut down discussion. Not insult people who think differently. (or derail threads by discussing the act of discussing!)

Please, let us be done with the meta strand and just agree to encourage the thread to remain a respectful discussion. For the most part, it has been.

Share this post


Link to post

"If no problem exists, then you've got yourself 'a solution in search of a problem.' That doesn't necessarily end the discussion. In fact, it encourages you to explain just exactly what it is you want to 'fix.'"

Circles. The thread started with the problem. There is a problem. It's pointless to say "there is no problem", and then request people explain just what it is they want to 'fix'. They already did! Discussion-killer by dancing in circles.

Yes, as I've already pointed out, this thread indeed started with a discussion about a legitimate problem. Namely, that there isn't an easy method to filter challenge caches from other Unknown cache types. Two solutions were offered to that specific problem: a new icon for challenge caches and a new "challenge" attribute.

 

"So far, I haven't seen a valid problem that would be solved by..." splitting a challenge cache "Found It" into a "Found It" and a "Challenge Completed."

The solution, amongst many, was presented in response to the OP, who raised the question re the problem - a "valid problem" to the people who recognize it as a problem.

I noticed you conveniently deleted the key portion of my comment, so I added it back and bolded it.

 

Yes, the filtering problem is indeed a valid problem, and it was addressed by both the icon and attribute solutions. But, despite your deletion, my point remains. I have yet to see anybody articulate a valid problem that is addressed by splitting a challenge cache "Found It" into a "Found It" and a "Challenge Completed." That "solution" doesn't address the valid filtering problem. It addresses something else. It's just unclear what that something else might be.

 

Your suggestion remains a "solution in search of a problem"...no matter how much you choose to ignore that little inconvenience.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

I feel challenge caches have grown enough and are popular enough to warrant their own type or at the very least their own attribute to make it easier to search for them or omit them, as one sees fit.

 

Personally I vote for a new type.

Edited by Roman!

Share this post


Link to post

At first, you objected to the name calling and insults:

 

Can we stop with the name calling and insults?

When it was point out that you engaged in the same behavior, you modified your stance. It then became about making insults without giving any reasons for them:

 

I really don't care if someone thinks an idea is 'stupid'. Sure, it can be taken as an indirect insult (ie you are stupid vs your idea is stupid), but it's more insulting when there's no reason given, or an opinion is expressed as the be-all and end-all of a conversation.

When the comment you found objectionable was restored to its full context (complete with reasons), suddenly it became about how those reasons are given:

 

C'mon. It's not just about reasons. Yes, there may be reasons. But how they're spoken is important too.

Look, can you not understand the spirit of what I'm trying to say? It's very easy to make the same points without using loaded terms and phrases that imply derogatory or inflamatory sentiments. It is possible to disagree and provide reasons respectably and productively.

If you're concerned about the tone of this discussion, then I suggest you look in a mirror. Using tactics like calling arguments "thread killing" and saying "they just really suck" isn't a respectable and productive method of discussion. It's just a poor attempt to steer the conversation away from a direction you don't like.

 

Nobody is clamoring to end this discussion. Indeed, you're the only one who has even hinted that this thread perhaps should be locked.

 

As someone who claims to want to engage in a constructive discourse, please give even one logical reason why challenge cache logs should be split into "Found It" logs and "Challenge Completed" logs. Even just one. Please.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, honestly CanadianRockies, I'm done with this meta strand. I didn't even read the rest of the responses. It's pointless and it's just you and I. My only request is to keep the discussion in this thread productive and respectful. That's it. Now let's try to encourage it to that end.

Share this post


Link to post

If Challenge Caches get split off into a new type (a good idea) I am wondering if there's also potential to create an enhanced Found It log?

 

Specifically, it would be a negative-option log. The finder posts it like a note, but it doesn't get converted to a Found It until the CO clicks some sort of approval button.

 

The approval would be given by the CO if they are satisfied that the requirements of the challenge have been met.

 

If not approved, the log could stay as a note.

 

I suggest this after seeing a challenge cache where users were logging finds without completing the requirements and the CO wasn't deleting them.

 

Further, the process could be automated, where the CO could apply an SQL-like requirement at publication, that would allow auto-approval if the parameters are met. This would work for challenges like Fizzys and Jasmers.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, the filtering problem is indeed a valid problem, and it was addressed by both the icon and attribute solutions. But, despite your deletion, my point remains. I have yet to see anybody articulate a valid problem that is addressed by splitting a challenge cache "Found It" into a "Found It" and a "Challenge Completed." That "solution" doesn't address the valid filtering problem. It addresses something else. It's just unclear what that something else might be.

You choose not recognize that some people have a problem with the Found log being uses as prize for completing a challenge, particularly given how they understand the reasons for the ban and nullification of general ALRs.

 

I contend that had ALRs never been allowed and if that cache owners, when told to delete bogus logs, we told that this power was limited, that Challenge caches as we know them today would not have been created. Yes, there were a few challenges cache listed where you had to email the cache owner for the final coordinates that did not not depend on ALRs. But it isn't clear that if only these challenges existed, that the cache owner could delete the log of someone who didn't complete the challenge but managed to get the final coordinates some other way.

 

There are many alternatives for recognizing geocaching related goals beside hiding a cache that can only be logged by someone who has met the goal. Had ALRs and the prior exception to the email rule never existed, geocachers would likely have used these other alternatives to challenge others with geocaching related goals.

 

Now, I will admit, that this problem is not a particularly serious problem. There are always going to be specific caches that either won't appeal to some segment of geocachers or will be beyond the capability of some segment of geocachers to complete. Nobody needs to find every cache and people can go on with their lives despite there being caches they can never find. Even those who decide that despite not qualifying for challenge they will look for the cache at the posted coordinates, if they view the online Found log as really a WIGAS log, then they would simply not log the WIGAS online.

 

I also believe that it makes no sense to rewrite history. Challenges did develop from the mail-in for coordinates to the ALR method as this was easier to implement and avoid the problem of cache owners not responding to email in a timely fashion. I strongly suspect that the real reasons for forbidding ALRs had little to do with most of the challenges that had been submitted during the ALR period. The additional limitations on challenges put in place by TPTB, are currently enough to allow reviewers to deny any questionable challenges. But I think if you are going to address the concerns of those who do have an issue with there being an exception to the ALR guideline, it is not enough to say "There is not a problem because challenges are specifically called out as an exception". Groundspeak needs to explain the rationale behind the logging requirements changes and why they excepted challenges.

Share this post


Link to post

There are many alternatives for recognizing geocaching related goals beside hiding a cache that can only be logged by someone who has met the goal. Had ALRs and the prior exception to the email rule never existed, geocachers would likely have used these other alternatives to challenge others with geocaching related goals.

Right, and really these other methods already exist. With customizable profile content, plenty of sites offer 'badges' and 'medals' for various common achievements... I think the thing specifically makes challenge caches distinct from these types of accomplishment recognitions are the fact that they are tied to a physical cache and location; it's just that the physical cache and location don't need to be relevant to the challenge in the slightest, and the ratings may reflect either the challenge or the cache or a mix of both.

 

I honestly don't think a solution that doesn't include the location-specific element of the 'challenge caches' is a viable solution, simply because, really, it's already been done (either Geocaching Challenges or customized profile badges). There could just perhaps be a better way of... I guess framing the challenge cache concept. *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post

 

Can't we work through this? Can't we all just get along and try to help each other have a better geocaching experience overall?

C'mon, let's hug it out... :laughing:

 

Okay, group hug everyone

 

group-cat-hug.jpg

 

 

I did some ALR's before they were outlawed and they were getting pretty stupid.

 

"Dress up in the dress-up clothes in the cache box and take a picture with the camera in the box. The photo will be posted on the cache page." Yeah, I don't think so.

There were weird hats, wigs, glasses, fake noses and beards in the box. There were really starting to be some really bad ones. People seemed to be taking joy in making people into fools.

 

It was time to stop.

 

Challenge caches are different.

They are a caching goal, not a challenge in seeing how stupid you can make people act at your beckoning.

 

I did an amazing challenge cache that took me to something like 23 islands in WA state. I went some incredibly amazing places I never would have gone to.

 

I am so grateful for that challenge. It increased my life experience and the quality of my life.

 

and THAT is what caching should be about.

 

Do we outlaw certain types of caches just because some people don't like them?

 

I vote YES for challenge cache icons.

Edited by Sol seaker

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 6

×