Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
alsterdrache

Icon for Challenge Geocaches

Recommended Posts

Groundspeak needs to explain the rationale behind the logging requirements changes and why they excepted challenges.

 

No, they do not.

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.

Wait...the world didn't end when a challenge Unknown cache owner didn't delete the logs of those who did not complete the challenge?

 

This brings up a point worth revisiting:

It really doesn't matter, especially against the guidelines, if someone logs a find on a physical, challenge-Unknown cache without completing the challenge--so long as the owner doesn't care to delete a log for a person who signed the logbook. It's when the cache owners wield the log-deletion sword of reconciliation that we see "problems".

 

So, when a challenge cache is hidden by a challenge-cacher for challenge cachers, and they do wield their guideline-supported reconciliation sword of cache log and challenge-completion that we see these caches might benefit from a new type--or at least a new log type.

 

At least that's how I see it...

Share this post


Link to post
Groundspeak needs to explain the rationale behind the logging requirements changes and why they excepted challenges.

 

No, they do not.

No, they don't. But it would be nice if they did, if not just for toz. Amiright? :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post
Groundspeak needs to explain the rationale behind the logging requirements changes and why they excepted challenges.

 

No, they do not.

No, they don't. But it would be nice if they did, if not just for toz. Amiright? :anicute:

 

Nope. It would be a complete waste of time and resources for gc.com to grant any attention at all to this ridiculous made-up "problem" that you folks have invented. It would only serve to encourage you.

 

Next I am sure we'll have a 100-post thread on how gc.com has not adequately defined what they mean by "signing the log" in the guidelines. Does using a stamp count? How about stickers? Should each individual geocacher sign the log in their own handwriting? Can they share a pen or pencil with other cahers? These are clearly important areas of ambiguity in the guidelines and gc.com owes us an explanation of exactly what is meant.

Share this post


Link to post

This brings up a point worth revisiting:

It really doesn't matter, especially against the guidelines, if someone logs a find on a physical, challenge-Unknown cache without completing the challenge--so long as the owner doesn't care to delete a log for a person who signed the logbook. It's when the cache owners wield the log-deletion sword of reconciliation that we see "problems".

That's an interesting point. Really, a challenge CO doesn't have to confirm the Finder's stats... if someone who doesn't care about challenges wants to log it found, currently they could in essence attempt to convince the CO to let the Find stand if they only find the physical cache. But, that could just open the door for more arguments and cases taken to TPTB if the challenge CO demands ALR completion; especially if one person is 'allowed' their Find w/o qualifying and another person isn't (favouritism). That could get messy, especially among the more competitive-minded cachers.

 

Your suggestion of a sort of CO confirmation or flag on the log saying the challenge qualification is verified is intriguing...

 

In a way, it's converting a Found log from its current default implication of "Challenge Qualified" (wherein a CO would delete it if not) to simply "Physically Found" but also flagged "Qualification Unverified". The CO, on verifying the finder stats (as should be their current standard process) would then flag the Found log's qualification as "Verified". In any other case, it really just means the cache was physically found (as with any other Unknown cache).

That would allow physical Finds on challenges w/o qualification, still allow the CO to decide whether a log stays or goes, and provides a more tangible challenge statistic.

 

Of course this would still require more development resources for reporting these found+qualified log stats, on top of adding that 'qualified' property and challenge-listing type flag... but every suggestion so far has its pros and cons, and requires development resources (except of course for 'do nothing') :P

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I mostly read the forums for amusement and entertainment. It is rare that I get really worked up by a thread.

 

This one is different. It has made me very, very angry. I have lost all respect for at least one participant who I previously thought was an entertaining and occasionally thoughtful poster.

 

Why?

 

Because the people on this thread are actively trying to figure out how to ruin challenge caches for me.

 

Why do people have to try to destroy things others enjoy? Why can't they just let well enough alone and leave me to enjoy my style of caching in peace? I don't try to get power trails banned. I don't try to insist that letterbox hybrids get eliminated if they don't have stamps in them. I don't try to have the phrase "first to find" banned from the website.

 

So why are these people so intent on making my caching experience worse? I don't know. I am genuinely puzzled that they feel it is worth their time and energy to ruin something for me. It's probably about control; perhaps some people insist that their need for order and control is more important than other peoples' enjoyment.

 

One poster asked why we can't get along. It's simple: I have no desire to come to a mutual understanding with someone who is trying to ruin my caching experience. It's like asking me to "get along" with people who come and rob my house.

 

In the past, every single attempt to "fix" so-called problems like the ones being discussed here has been a complete disaster. Waymarking and Geocaching challenges stand out as particularly salient examples.

 

I really enjoy challenge caches. The idea that I cannot log them until I complete the challenge makes them feel like a real challenge. I choose challenges that I think are interesting, and that can lead me to new ways to enjoy caching. For example, a challenge called "The Dirty Dozen," which required finding 12 caches that had been unfound for a year or more, got me into looking for lonely caches. I have since discovered that lonely caches are really fun; there is a thrill in being the first person in a couple of years to sign a logbook.

 

If the challenge requirement had not been there to log the cache, I would never have done it. Some stupid "challenge completed" log type would not attract me. It's the notion that the cache is unattainable until the challenge is complete that makes the whole thing work.

 

So this thread really angers me. Most of the participants are trying to devise ways to ruin geocaching challenges. Their actions here are completely destructive; they are not amusing in the least. I would use stronger language but the forum guidelines prohibit.

Share this post


Link to post

I mostly read the forums for amusement and entertainment. It is rare that I get really worked up by a thread.

 

This one is different. It has made me very, very angry. I have lost all respect for at least one participant who I previously thought was an entertaining and occasionally thoughtful poster.

 

<snip>

 

So this thread really angers me. Most of the participants are trying to devise ways to ruin geocaching challenges. Their actions here are completely destructive; they are not amusing in the least. I would use stronger language but the forum guidelines prohibit.

If you're getting angry, I'd suggest stepping out of the room for a while.

 

I can speak for myself in that I'm here participating in a conversation. I think others are doing the same. I don't think more than a glimmer that Groundspeak will take up this thread as an example of anything other than 5 people batting around ideas and arguing a bit.

 

I'm just here to talk it out, and learn more about what others think of the game and what's going on within it. I'm certainly not here trying to change anything--rather just to see what others are thinking, and try to fit the way I cache into the arguments presented herein. It's interesting to me, but no reason for me to get angry.

 

The vast majority of feedback in this thread is supporting the existence of challenge Unknown caches. So, you can still hide and find them as much as you want. Nothing we're discussing here is taking that much away from you in the least.

Share this post


Link to post

The vast majority of feedback in this thread is supporting the existence of challenge Unknown caches. So, you can still hide and find them as much as you want. Nothing we're discussing here is taking that much away from you in the least.

Exactly this.

 

I certainly do not want challenge caches to go away, let alone change in such a significant way to what we already have that the experience dramatically changes for me.

But I find some of the developmental ideas in here proposed to improve the general experience for as many people as possible as a positive thing. Ultimately, it's not us that need to be convinced anyway. And I still think that the 'issue' is not significant enough (yet?) that Groundspeak will make any kind of major change to our 'tried and true' challenge caching fun. Plus, cache type, attribute, additional find log property, whatever - I don't think any of these would have any kind of significant impact on what I enjoy about challenge caches.

Personally, as long I can still locate challenge caches, analyze my stats, determine qualifications, and keep track of caches in light of existing challenges (eg qualifiers and active goals), then who cares if there's a thread discussing changes?

I'm a programmer. I love this. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I mostly read the forums for amusement and entertainment. It is rare that I get really worked up by a thread.

 

This one is different. It has made me very, very angry. I have lost all respect for at least one participant who I previously thought was an entertaining and occasionally thoughtful poster.

 

Why?

 

Because the people on this thread are actively trying to figure out how to ruin challenge caches for me.

 

Why do people have to try to destroy things others enjoy? Why can't they just let well enough alone and leave me to enjoy my style of caching in peace? I don't try to get power trails banned. I don't try to insist that letterbox hybrids get eliminated if they don't have stamps in them. I don't try to have the phrase "first to find" banned from the website.

 

So why are these people so intent on making my caching experience worse? I don't know. I am genuinely puzzled that they feel it is worth their time and energy to ruin something for me. It's probably about control; perhaps some people insist that their need for order and control is more important than other peoples' enjoyment.

 

One poster asked why we can't get along. It's simple: I have no desire to come to a mutual understanding with someone who is trying to ruin my caching experience. It's like asking me to "get along" with people who come and rob my house.

 

In the past, every single attempt to "fix" so-called problems like the ones being discussed here has been a complete disaster. Waymarking and Geocaching challenges stand out as particularly salient examples.

 

I really enjoy challenge caches. The idea that I cannot log them until I complete the challenge makes them feel like a real challenge. I choose challenges that I think are interesting, and that can lead me to new ways to enjoy caching. For example, a challenge called "The Dirty Dozen," which required finding 12 caches that had been unfound for a year or more, got me into looking for lonely caches. I have since discovered that lonely caches are really fun; there is a thrill in being the first person in a couple of years to sign a logbook.

 

If the challenge requirement had not been there to log the cache, I would never have done it. Some stupid "challenge completed" log type would not attract me. It's the notion that the cache is unattainable until the challenge is complete that makes the whole thing work.

 

So this thread really angers me. Most of the participants are trying to devise ways to ruin geocaching challenges. Their actions here are completely destructive; they are not amusing in the least. I would use stronger language but the forum guidelines prohibit.

Talk about a burr in one's saddle.

 

If you'd paid attention, you'd find that I've mostly agreed with you on this thread. There isn't the major problem with challenges being an exception to the general logging requirements for physical caches as some people seem to believe.

 

If you have any reason to lose all respect for me, it would be that I have posted some things in this thread to egg on those who are asking for all these changes. You might want to accuse me of trolling.

 

Perhaps the problem began when I responded to a suggestion for a special log for those who compelete the challenge requirement but don't find the cache with the commment of why not just have this log and get rid of the found log altogether.

 

From a previous thread on this topic, you've explained to me that the idea isn't to reward people who have met the challenge with a smiley or a souvenir badge, but with a cache to find. Since the online log is really a WIGAS log, I'm not sure I follow. I have found (and logged with a note) several challenge caches. So it seems there isn't a way from preventing someone from finding the cache; only a way to keep them from logging as 'Found'.

 

However, it is clear that for the majority of geocachers, something is missing if you don't get to log the find online. That smiley is enough of an incentive to get people to do the challenge, and that is after all what the challenge cache owner really wants. It seems very likely that the desire of the smiley is what makes challenges successful. For someone like me, for whom the Found log is nothing but a WIGAS log, I may have a diffent opinion of challenges than most. If the challenge is interesting to me, I probably would set it as goal whether or not there was cache to find. If the challenge is something I've already done or would do any way, I'm probably going to log it 'Found' when I find the cache. If the challenge doesn't interest me or it's too much trouble to post the documenation I've done it, I'm either going to ignore the cache or, if I want to find it, I will post a note. Since I don't have any vested interest in either seeing challenges remain as it or in seeing them replaced by something else, I pretty much enjoy seeing the lively debate. Every time guidelines have changed in the past, there is a group who can complain that geocaching has been ruined by the change. This is why TPTB are reluctant to make changes. I wouldn't worry that challenges are going to be banned. But if you are concerned so much by that the suggestion made in this thread might actually be implemented, I have to wonder if you don't have some questions yourself about the issues that have been brought up.

Share this post


Link to post

IIRC, the thread began with the notion that Challenge Caches should have a their own icon, be separated from Mystery/Unknown caches, and/or have a distinctive attribute, seemingly to make it more convenient to separate them from the other Mystery/Unknown type of cache. It later devolved into eliminating the challenge caches or new logging requirements, discussions about the discussion, .......and more.

 

If we go back to ONLY the idea of a separate cache type with its own icon for a challenge cache type, how can it be a negative thing? Those, like fizzymagic, who really enjoy the challenges will be able to search for that cache type more easily. Anyone who doesn't like them will be easily able to skip the challenges.

 

Win-win for everyone, except maybe for the programmers.

Share this post


Link to post

Right, it started with one proposed solution, discussion about its pros and cons, then spawned other suggestions that attempted to address the cons. It evolved and/or devolved from there. Every suggestion has its cons.

Share this post


Link to post

 

For example, a challenge called "The Dirty Dozen," which required finding 12 caches that had been unfound for a year or more, got me into looking for lonely caches. I have since discovered that lonely caches are really fun; there is a thrill in being the first person in a couple of years to sign a logbook.

 

There is a challenge cache once in a while that I like and your example is one of them. However, a few months ago a fellow Austrian cacher got a challenge cache rejected that required less than finding 12 caches that had been unfound for a year and his challenge got rejected and lost also at appeals.

 

Most of the challenge caches that get through in my country are challenges that appear pretty stupid to me. That does not mean that I'm in favor of taking challenge caches away. It just means that the current guidelines have a clear bias towards what the masses like.

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

There is a challenge cache once in a while that I like and your example is one of them. However, a few months ago a fellow Austrian cacher got a challenge cache rejected that required less than finding 12 caches that had been unfound for a year and his challenge got rejected and lost also at appeals.

What, exactly, was the challenge? I don't quite understand the italicized above.

 

Most of the challenge caches that get through in my country are challenges that appear pretty stupid to me. That does not mean that I'm in favor of taking challenge caches away. It just means that the current guidelines have a clear bias towards what the masses like.

The only real guidelines for publishing are these:

All challenge geocaches must be in the affirmative and require that something be accomplished. Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that there are sufficient available geocaches to meet the challenge at the time of publication. Reviewers may ask the geocache owner to demonstrate that they have previously met the challenge and/or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so

...

A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. A challenge geocache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers. If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, such as avoiding a particular geocache type to attain a specific percentage or average, the geocache will not be published.

...

The requirements for meeting the challenge should be succinct and easy to explain, follow, and document. A lengthy list of "rules" would be sufficient reason for a challenge geocache to not be published.

If it wasn't published, it probably didn't meet that standard. Unfortunately yes sometimes reviewer judgements can differ from region to region... if you think the reviewer is in error, you can take it to appeals. But the above are the guidelines that are supposed to be applicable worldwide. :unsure:

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Way I see it...the whole notion of having a physical cache at all is kind of pointless when it comes to challenges. Challenges are practically begging to be counted as some variation on a virtual. The act of qualifying oneself for the challenge requirement involves logging caches. The act of searching and doing the research needed to find caches to find in pursuit of the challenge requirement involves a lot of time on the Geocaching site and running PQs. The act of compiling your own stats and recording the data necessary to prove a qualification involves a lot of time on the Geocaching site and using tools such as GSAK. To me, all that alone ought to be enough to claim the "find" or get the +1. Having to go find a match-tube in a guardrail after all that work just seems kind of silly...

 

Honestly, I have no problem with challenges existing. My concern is that they are counted and categorized like any other cache, but are not at all like just any other cache. They haven't really been treated properly and I think this is what a lot of folks are getting at. Why SHOULDN'T you get some better recognition for completing a challenge? Instead, they are relegated to the endless march of the "my finds" list, slowly getting buried under all the other traditionals and unknowns. I would think having their own category, their own icon, some way of differentiating them in the stats would be a better treatment. Instead, there's all this talk about attributes and leaving it just the way it is. Neither of those is enough if you actually are interested in pursuing challenges.

 

Lots of disparaging folks who are interested in stats and counts, but isn't that really all challenges are about? Challenges are ALL about stats and counts...so why not make them stand out and be what they are instead of just another +1 in the '?' column?

Edited by J Grouchy

Share this post


Link to post

If it wasn't published, it probably didn't meet that standard. Unfortunately yes sometimes reviewer judgements can differ from region to region... if you think the reviewer is in error, you can take it to appeals. But the above are the guidelines that are supposed to be applicable worldwide. :unsure:

 

No, I do not think that it could be called an error of the reviewer. The change in what the reviewers are told to take into account when publishing challenge caches is however something I regard as error.

Almost all caches that I like do not appeal to a large number of geocachers.

 

It is quite likely that the Dirty 13 cache mentioned above would not be published nowadays. The focus on the preferences of the masses ruins a lot for minorities.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

If it wasn't published, it probably didn't meet that standard. Unfortunately yes sometimes reviewer judgements can differ from region to region... if you think the reviewer is in error, you can take it to appeals. But the above are the guidelines that are supposed to be applicable worldwide. :unsure:

No, I do not think that it could be called an error of the reviewer. The change in what the reviewers are told to take into account when publishing challenge caches is however something I regard as error.

Almost all caches that I like do not appeal to a large number of geocachers.

 

It is quite likely that the Dirty 13 cache mentioned above would not be published nowadays. The focus on the preferences of the masses ruins a lot for minorities.

First, what was the actual challenge? I'd like to know... (especially as it relates to that relatively common 'lonely-cache' challenge idea)

 

Second, yes, if you feel the reviewer didn't follow the guidelines as listed, then appeals would effectively decide if their judgement call was an 'error'.

Anyhow, this is why it's not up to us to decide if a challenge is 'good enough', because our own caching styles and communities are vastly different. So the judgement is left to the reviewer who may/should have a better idea of the region in which they're reviewing.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

First, what was the actual challenge? I'd like to know... (especially as it relates to that relatively common 'lonely-cache' challenge idea)

 

The challenge asked for 13 caches that have been unfound by 300 days. The cacher who submitted the challenge provided facts like the huge number of available caches in his area and also provided a

number of cachers already qualifying.

 

The challenge got turned down and one of the arguments in the appeal process was "that in order to complete the challenge, geocachers would have to "compete" to find the oldest unfound caches. Once they have been found, they no longer help geocachers qualify for this challenge. This means that only a few "select" geocachers would be able to log this challenge as found - that wouldn't be a reasonable enough number of finds to justify publication of this cache."

 

The fact that there are way more lonely caches than cachers who want to go for such caches has been ignored.

What's definitely true is that such a challenge would not appeal to more than a handful cachers per year, but that's true for almost every cache I enjoy.

 

 

Anyhow, this is why it's not up to us to decide if a challenge is 'good enough', because our own caching styles and communities are vastly different. So the judgement is left to the reviewer who may/should have a better idea of the region in which they're reviewing.

 

I do not think that the problem was caused by the region. The challenge was submitted in Upper Austria in a mountain region where not many only Austrian lonely caches are available, but where also many such caches in e.g. nearby Germany are available. The argument was a general killer argument.

 

The error in my opinion is ask for a substantial number of cachers interested into a cache as this strongly favours the preferences of the masses.

 

 

Cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

The challenge asked for 13 caches that have been unfound by 300 days. The cacher who submitted the challenge provided facts like the huge number of available caches in his area and also provided a number of cachers already qualifying.

 

The challenge got turned down and one of the arguments in the appeal process was "that in order to complete the challenge, geocachers would have to "compete" to find the oldest unfound caches. Once they have been found, they no longer help geocachers qualify for this challenge. This means that only a few "select" geocachers would be able to log this challenge as found - that wouldn't be a reasonable enough number of finds to justify publication of this cache."

Ahhh, yes. Ok. Yes I believe that regulation has come up around here as well. We do have lonely cache challenges in this area, but I don't recall seeing any published recently, and it may well be because of this. It also relates to the 'additive' concept - that qualifying caches can become non-qualifying caches by the posting of a log, which as you quoted, can encourage a competitive behaviour. In theory, if two people went out and found all the lonely caches, then the challenge wouldn't be completable until an arbitrary amount of time when select caches remain unfound (effectively forcing people not to find them, who want to qualify for the challenge).

 

That regulation wasn't put in place for the 'appeal to a substantial number of cachers' or 'preference for the masses', but rather that it is pretty much fundamentally not an 'additive' challenge concept. It's great for making sure caches are found and remain findable over long periods of time, but otherwise it wouldn't be accepted.

 

I do not think that the problem was caused by the region. The challenge was submitted in Upper Austria in a mountain region where not many only Austrian lonely caches are available, but where also many such caches in e.g. nearby Germany are available. The argument was a general killer argument.

If it was a great challenge for just your region, they probably asked themselves whether it's worth giving an exception for your area, or whether to remain consistent... maybe not, I dunno. :) but I'd guess that for the most part, lonely cache challenges aren't published at any more (depending on the reviewer), or at least as much as they used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
It's probably about control; perhaps some people insist that their need for order and control is more important than other peoples' enjoyment.

 

It seems that this argument is the very thing of which you accuse others of. Challenge cachers need for control is more important then other peoples' enjoyment of finding caches and to keep an accurate record of their finds. It goes both ways - I want to control my find list and you want to control my find list. bad_boy_animated.gif

 

It seems that challenge cache owners and those who are heavily into competition can't compete properly if they can't control other people's finds. By denying a cacher a find, it somehow legitimizes their proficiency (but says more about their luck in life to have the time, money, and health to find as many caches as they want to). Have your challenges, but please don't turn Found logs into a reward. Let them be a form of tracking what we've found. Not a reward to bestow upon dominant geocachers.

 

Share this post


Link to post

That regulation wasn't put in place for the 'appeal to a substantial number of cachers' or 'preference for the masses', but rather that it is pretty much fundamentally not an 'additive' challenge concept. It's great for making sure caches are found and remain findable over long periods of time, but otherwise it wouldn't be accepted.

I'm not sure what you mean by "additive" challenge. I'm pretty sure the issue is this guideline

A challenge geocache should recognize the completion of a personal achievement, rather than the winner of a competition. For example, a challenge geocache based on "First to Finds" is a competition between geocachers, and is therefore not publishable.

The reviewer probably feels that if there are limited number of caches that haven't been found is some number of days that it becomes a competition between cachers as to who finds these. Even if there are plenty of unfound caches to go around, there is still a competition for who is first to log each of these caches. A cacher could make plans to go out and find unfound caches, then when they go to look find that someone has decided to find these same caches and has beaten them to it. Even worse if that finder is behind in logging finds. Sounds like just the kind of problem that fizzymagic dislikes about FTF.

 

Kind of ironic that someone at Groundspeak saw a potential problem and decided to have a guideline that may forbid a cache that fizzymagic points to as a reason he likes challenges. Good thing they don't have to explain their rationale. :mellow:

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post

Toz, by 'additive', I mean the concept just as you described - that in the context of 'lonely' cache competition, if one person finds it, it's no longer a qualifying cache for other people. In a sense, it's been 'removed' from one user's list of qualifying caches by the action of another cacher, promoting a competitive mindset.

In another context, additive applies to the idea of average stats; the possibility of 'unqualifying' oneself by caching normally and altering your average below qualification, as opposed to racking up a sum towards a target level. The former ('average' challenges) are no longer allowed either. I think Groundspeak is generally going for the 'additive' idea in challenge caches in every aspect now. No competition, no unintentional unqualifying, foundationally equal opportunity/potential for all (or reasonable number of) cachers, given enough time.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Oh...im the fellow austrian Cacher Cezanne mentioned :)

 

 

If it was a great challenge for just your region, they probably asked themselves whether it's worth giving an exception for your area, or whether to remain consistent... maybe not, I dunno. :) but I'd guess that for the most part, lonely cache challenges aren't published at any more (depending on the reviewer), or at least as much as they used to be.

 

This request was after publishing of a forgotten Cache in Oregon ...not so far from Seattle :)

 

Final Conclusion From a request to appeals (February):

Hi Klaus,

Thanks for your questions. From the Guidelines:

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches.This means that the past publication of a similar geocache in and of itself is not avalid justification for the publication of a new geocache. If a geocache has >been published and violates any guidelines listed below, you are encouraged to report it. However, if the

geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfatheredand allowed to stand as is.

The Appeals Team has decided that the decision regarding this challenge idea is final.

---------------

My reply:

So thats why i asked. Maybe future publications (after 10/13 in my case) of a similiar Cache (like the Oregonexample of 02/14) indicates that there was a change in the decision :)

(So i have to ask again if such a Challenge appears somewhere/sometimes in the future:))

 

>The Appeals Team has decided that the decision regarding this challenge idea is final.

That answer clarify more. So it depends only of the like or dislike of the local reviewers - if they didnt like such idea..then they advise to appeals.

 

A List of some challenges of this style sortable by date :)

Share this post


Link to post

Unfortunately yes, if a reviewer makes a judgement call (and these can be vastly different from reviewer to reviewer or region to region), unless they are blatantly breaking a guideline in their decision, appeals will (generally) side with them. It sucks sometimes. =/ Especially when someone else gets approval for something from a reviewer that you're denied from a different reviewer. I feel your pain, and it's one of the few drawbacks of the reviewing system as it's evolved over the last few years; but it's not restricted to challenge caches. If you're really polite, you might be able to convince the reviewer to give you any tips as to why they decided to deny it (though be satisfied with 'because I said so', as painful an answer as that is). *shrug*

Share this post


Link to post

Way I see it...the whole notion of having a physical cache at all is kind of pointless when it comes to challenges. Challenges are practically begging to be counted as some variation on a virtual. The act of qualifying oneself for the challenge requirement involves logging caches. The act of searching and doing the research needed to find caches to find in pursuit of the challenge requirement involves a lot of time on the Geocaching site and running PQs. The act of compiling your own stats and recording the data necessary to prove a qualification involves a lot of time on the Geocaching site and using tools such as GSAK. To me, all that alone ought to be enough to claim the "find" or get the +1. Having to go find a match-tube in a guardrail after all that work just seems kind of silly...

 

Makes me wonder how it would be received if challenge Unknown caches were treated like "bonus" Unknowns. In this case, one could count the completion of the challenge as a first "Found it" log type, and finding the container itself as a second "Found it" log type.

 

If I were to create a cache like that, how long do you think it would take for it to be reported, or for people to take the "double logging" of that cache to the forums to moan on about? :surprise::anibad:

 

If you put in the work to find all of the challenge requirements (caches), you've done just that much work. High fives! Let's get you that "+1" of some kind (WIGAS/Found it/"Challenge Completed" log)! And, what's that? You also found the container at the coordinates provided? High fives! Let's get you that "+1" log of some kind!

 

This in itself makes me wonder if a new cache type might be the way to go. It takes all the pressure off for this cache type to have to "fit" in with the other physical cache types out there. It is different from the rest for many reasons, and it would be nice to "collect" some record other than the "?" icon to track how many of them were challenges.

 

Hmmmmm...

Edited by NeverSummer

Share this post


Link to post

Makes me wonder how it would be received if challenge Unknown caches were treated like "bonus" Unknowns. In this case, one could count the completion of the challenge as a first "Found it" log type, and finding the container itself as a second "Found it" log type.

Groundspeak doesn't seem to object to cache owners allowing multiple finds for caches, whether they are challenge caches, traditionals, events, etc. Heck, if a challenge cache is a tough one, then why not appease "geocachers" with three smileys...or four...or 31 (as is the case with this one)?

Share this post


Link to post

It also relates to the 'additive' concept - that qualifying caches can become non-qualifying caches by the posting of a log, which as you quoted, can encourage a competitive behaviour.

Let's see, you are jumping on me for using "breeds" when talking about different types (see the small 'T'?) of Unknown Caches (a Type of cache - see the large 'T'? - also called 'Mystery Caches' or 'Puzzle Caches' (after the most common type (small 't') of Unkown Caches)). But then you come up with a term like "additive" and expect everyone to understand/accept/use that term. Hmmm... anyone else see any irony here?

 

Breeds - by The Jester

 

Within the Type of Cache called "Unknown" there are different subsets:

Challenge Caches

Puzzle Caches

Beacon Caches

Bonus Caches

To help keep them apart, instead of using Type and type (easy to confuse), I thought using Type and breeds would make it easier understand. It's like cats, they are all Cats, but there are breeds of cats that look/act different. I'm so sorry to use a term the "isn't defined" in the guidelines.

 

As to all subsets/types/breeds being handled the same, there's more to 'handling' the cache than the website. The seeker has to handle them differently also. Puzzle caches (generally) have to be solved before they can be hunted. Bonus caches need the series done first, numbers/clues collected before they are hunted. Field puzzles can be loaded an gone for without (much) prep. Challenge caches need to have the qualifications done before hand. Why is that so hard to do/understand? Most Unknown caches need special handling before they are hunted. That's the reason for the Type - stop! this is a different cache, read the page before blindly going for the cache.

 

On the discussion about whether there's a "problem" or not. Thebruce0 keeps saying because the thread was started there is a problem. But that doesn't really hold true, there are some who preceive a problem ("I want to be able to log a cache at the listed co-ords but I can't 'cause it's a Challenge Cache") but that's not a problem with the cache, but with the cacher. So when someone says "there's no problem" and "that's a solution looking for a problem" they are looking at the cache not the cacher. I see it as similar to someone who might say "I see flashing yellow lights at intersections that allow me to drive right thru. At other intersections I see red flashing lights that don't allow me to drive right thru. They are both flashing lights, so why can't I drive right thru both?" Followed by people coming up with convoluted ways so those who want to drive right thru both can do so. (It's an analogy, folks! I'm not implying guideline equal law, or that there's any "life and death" aspects to caching as driving thru blindly thru intersections have. So pleae, don't argue about that.)

Share this post


Link to post

It also relates to the 'additive' concept - that qualifying caches can become non-qualifying caches by the posting of a log, which as you quoted, can encourage a competitive behaviour.

Let's see, you are jumping on me for using "breeds" when talking about different types (see the small 'T'?) of Unknown Caches (a Type of cache - see the large 'T'? - also called 'Mystery Caches' or 'Puzzle Caches' (after the most common type (small 't') of Unkown Caches)). But then you come up with a term like "additive" and expect everyone to understand/accept/use that term. Hmmm... anyone else see any irony here?

Let me quote for you:

Challenge geocaches vary in scope and format. All challenge geocaches must be in the affirmative and require that something be accomplished. Challenge cache owners must demonstrate that there are sufficient available geocaches to meet the challenge at the time of publication.

My error for using "additive" instead of "affirmative". I will no longer use "additive".

The point is the same. It has been stressed by reviewers in exchanges I've had with them, about what qualifies for valid challenges - what are allowed and what are disallowed - based on this "affirmative" concept.

There is zero irony here, and is supported by the 'non-competitive' ideal.

 

Breeds are your term.

An Unknown cache is an Unknown cache, a label interchangeable with Mystery, both labels referring to the same "Type" (capital T) of geocache listing (sometimes, though not as much any more, even called "Offset" caches). No guidelines treat any other sub-type 'breeds' differently for posting a Find log, except for Challenge Caches being the sole exception to any and all physical geocache Types. "Unknown" and "Mystery" are fundamentally, and functionally, the same thing.

When creating a listing, yes there are different requirements depending on what needs to be done to determine those offset coordinates. But this line of discussion spawned from logging finds, not rules for creating caches. When Finding caches (aka, posting the WIGAS log), there is no distinction between Unknown and Mystery.

 

As to all subsets/types/breeds being handled the same, there's more to 'handling' the cache than the website.

Arbitrary. It's not Groundspeak if it's not the website. Feel free to comment about how you or anyone else may treat different 'types' of Unknown caches. But if there's a dispute about a Find log, the basic rule is still the same: Name in logbook = Smiley on web.

 

Puzzle caches (generally) have to be solved before they can be hunted.

No they don't.

As long as someone has the final coordinates - whether they solved it, brute forced it, "cheated", used a PAF, or got the coordinates from the CO, or for whatever reason - may hunt the final container. Name in logbook = Smiley on web.

 

Bonus caches need the series done first, numbers/clues collected before they are hunted.

No they don't.

As long as someone has the final coordinates - whether they found each cache beforehand, "cheated", used a PAF, or got the coordinates from the CO, or for whatever reason - may hunt the final container. Name in logbook = Smiley on web.

 

Field puzzles can be loaded an gone for without (much) prep.

Sure. But if the log book can't be signed without solving the field puzzle (such as a locked box), then of course someone (not necessarily each person wanting to log the find) needs to solve the puzzle to access the logbook. Or the CO could do it for a group if they want. Or the last person could leave the puzzle solved for the next visitor(s). But: Name in logbook = Smiley on web.

 

Challenge caches need to have the qualifications done before hand.

Technically, no they don't. Not before a person finds the physical cache. One can sign the log sheet and then do the work necessary to qualify, though all must be done before being allowed to claim a Smiley on the web.

 

Why is that so hard to do/understand? Most Unknown caches need special handling before they are hunted. That's the reason for the Type - stop! this is a different cache, read the page before blindly going for the cache.

Yes. All Unknowns need to be read to understand what is intended to be done, at some point, by someone, in order to locate the container (retrieve the coordinates). Sometimes these are also considered "Offset" caches - because there was (initially) intended to be nothing at the posted coordinates - ie, don't go to the posted coordinates, because nothing is there! (that was even a required statement on the cache listing). This is also why "Liar" caches (one of such 'breeds') were allowed to be at posted coordinates (an offset of "0"); because the disclaimer ('not at posted') was also a lie. But other than challenge caches, ALL of these "t"ypes of caches only require your name in the physical logbook in order to log the find online. Name in the physical logbook = Smiley on the web. Challenge Caches require finding the physical cache AND completing the task. Name in logbook + task complete = Smiley on the web.

 

Bare summary for you -

All physical caches: Name in logbook = Smiley on the web.

Sole exception - Challenges: Name in logbook + task complete = Smiley on the web.

No 'breeds'.

 

But that doesn't really hold true, there are some who preceive a problem ("I want to be able to log a cache at the listed co-ords but I can't 'cause it's a Challenge Cache") but that's not a problem with the cache, but with the cacher.

I agree - It is a problem.

No one said it's a problem "with the cache". Speaking for myself, my intent for commenting and discussing this problem (to you it's perceived, to them it's real) was to explore potential ways to solve it, or just address it. By whatever means are feasible, or could be determined as feasible. Many changes to geocaching over the years were done not because of problems "with the cache", but from ideas on how to improve the game for cachers, generally requiring updates and additions to site functionality. That's the evolution of the game.

As I've repeatedly said, I love challenge caches. I'm generally (99%?) happy with them. I'd personally love to see a little more native support for the concept, and/or better options for filtering and searching them. But that's a minimal hope on my part. I'll still be perfectly content if things remain as they are. Doesn't stop me from attempting to discuss with others in an effort to address a problem some have with this element of the geocaching pastime.

Share this post


Link to post

It also relates to the 'additive' concept - that qualifying caches can become non-qualifying caches by the posting of a log, which as you quoted, can encourage a competitive behaviour.

Let's see, you are jumping on me for using "breeds" when talking about different types (see the small 'T'?) of Unknown Caches (a Type of cache - see the large 'T'? - also called 'Mystery Caches' or 'Puzzle Caches' (after the most common type (small 't') of Unkown Caches)). But then you come up with a term like "additive" and expect everyone to understand/accept/use that term. Hmmm... anyone else see any irony here?

I had written something along this line when I posted a few posts up. But then decided it was better to just say that I didn't understand what was meant by additive

 

First let me say that between breed and additive, I like breed better - even though it sounds like caches are dogs. Some reviewers may be dogs but I'm not sure I'm ready to say that some cache types are dogs.

 

I'm not sure there is a problem that needs to be fixed by cachers inventing new terms. Additive and breed were used because the guidelines have ended up a jumbled mess that is hard to discuss without a few definitions.

 

There are guidelines that apply to all geocaches listed on Geocaching.com. Then there guidelines that apply only to physical caches. Beyond these there are special guidelines for the different cache types. When you get to the Mystery/Unknown type there are again more gudelines that apply to particular kinds of caches that are list as mystery unknown. The Jester is suggesting the word "breed" be used for these different kinds of mystery unknown caches. It may not be a bad term, since there is a possibility for an Unknown cache to be a mutt, with a mix of characteristics that involve the guidelines for several "breeds" (for example a beacon, puzzle, challenge cache).

 

The guidelines are not necessarily additive. The guidelines for logging of challenge caches overrides the general guideline for logging physical caches. It may be that there is an issue since the usual case as you go from the general to the more specific is that guidelines are additive. When a specific guideline overrules a general guideline it is harder to follow (or at least to understand the rationale for the more general guideline). In fact this is such a difficult concept to get ones arms around, that TPTB actually say that Challenges are an exception to the guidelines for logging physical caches when they give the general guidelines for logging physical caches.

 

It may be that I'm still not following what thebruce0 means when he says additive. He seems to be using it to provide a rationale for the guidelines that restrict what a challenge cache may ask you to do. The example of the lonely cache was that the list of caches that qualify is affected by other cachers finding these caches (perhaps adding restrictions on the qualifier) He then goes on to apply this to a challenge to find a certain percentage of caches of a certain type, as that meant that you must not only find qualifying caches but you must refrain from finding (or at least logging) not qualifying caches.

 

Since TPTB don't share their rationale, I'm not sure that is useful to try to explain why certain "sub-breeds" of challenges are not allowed with a single word. I tend to believe the reason for the guidelines has to do with challenges being created which could have unintended negative consequences for geocaching regardless if there was a reasonable number of cachers that the challenge appealed to. There is no doubt a reasonable number of cachers for whom the idea of finding lonely caches is appealing. Yet TPTB (or at least some reviewers), find the idea that cachers might end up racing each other for a cache, or might delay finding a cache so it will qualify for the challenge, as an undesirable side effect.

 

On the discussion about whether there's a "problem" or not. Thebruce0 keeps saying because the thread was started there is a problem. But that doesn't really hold true, there are some who preceive a problem ("I want to be able to log a cache at the listed co-ords but I can't 'cause it's a Challenge Cache") but that's not a problem with the cache, but with the cacher.

The OP's problem is a real problem, though perhaps not one that is all that important. Right now there is no way to get a list of Unknown caches that are of the challenge "breed", or to get a list of Unknown caches that are not of the challenge "breed". It may be difficult to resolve this due to the fact that we can have "mutts". It is also the case that there aren't all that many Unknown caches is any given area, and since you need to read the cache page for an Unknown cache in any case (either to find out the requirements for a challenge or to solve the puzzle if it's a puzzle cache), you can just get the list of Unknown caches and read the cache page to see if it's a challenge or a puzzle (or a challenge-puzzle hybrid).

 

It's too easy to dismiss the cachers who have a problem with existence of challenges or with the specifics of any of the guidelines governing challenges, as being the ones who have a problem. Certainly the current guidelines allow challenges and it seems unlikely that this will change. But TPTB make guidelines changes all the time for various reasons, so discussing guidelines and proposing changes seems to be always on topic.

 

As to the main complaint that challenges allow an exception to the general rule that you can log your online "Found" when you have signed the physical cache log, I am serious when I say the solution here is to call the online log what it is - a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log. Of course for me this is not a problem because I've been calling the online find log something like this for many years. My guess is that there is not going to be any change to what the log is called, and instead TPTB will continue allow the definition of an online "Found" to be different for certain "breeds" of cache.

 

As to specific issues with other guidelines for challenge caches, I suspect that the conversation will continue. People will submit a lonely cache challenge, or a 14x fizzy challenge, or something else, and have it rejected by their reviewer. That will lead to threads in the forum of "Why was my idea for a challenge rejected, when there is another challenge just like it somewhere else". Inevitably this will lead to stricter guidelines with less room for reviewer discretion and fewer challenges being published.

Share this post


Link to post

toz, you probably wrote your reply as I wrote mine. Please read mine, just above. I'm no longer using "additive", though the concept, the intention I wrote, regardless of the word, is the same. Groundspeak used the word "affirmative", and it is regarding the idea that in order to qualify for a challenge, the task must be one that stacks upwards, which implies you cannot 'unqualify' (averages, percentages), competing will not remove qualifying caches (lonely caches, though I think this is a grey one even by Groundspeak more heavily left to reviewer judgement), and you can't encourage a style of caching that causes people to purposefully not find caches (consecutive identical finds, averages, percents, etc). Challenges must be affirmative - one step closer to qualifying is always one step closer to qualifying, and a qualifying cache will always be a qualifying cache. Think "positive" in every way.

(This is also based on my conversations with reviewers discussing this specific challenge cache mechanic now in place)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

toz, you probably wrote your reply as I wrote mine. Please read mine, just above. I'm no longer using "additive", though the concept, the intention I wrote, regardless of the word, is the same. Groundspeak used the word "affirmative", and it is regarding the idea that in order to qualify for a challenge, the task must be one that stacks upwards, which implies you cannot 'unqualify' (averages, percentages), competing will not remove qualifying caches (lonely caches, though I think this is a grey one even by Groundspeak more heavily left to reviewer judgement), and you can't encourage a style of caching that causes people to purposefully not find caches (consecutive identical finds, averages, percents, etc). Challenges must be affirmative - one step closer to qualifying is always one step closer to qualifying, and a qualifying cache will always be a qualifying cache. Think "positive" in every way.

You're probably reading too much into the affirmative guideline. Certainly it is referenced in the section that says the challenge must be for a personal achievement and not for the winner of a competition. But I doubt it means that challenges are always positive stacking - i.e. that once you find a cache that counts for the the challenge, you're always one step closer to completing the challenge.

 

Take for example a fizzy challenge. You find a rare combination that fills in a cell in your grid. Later the CO decides the cache was rated wrong. What happens to your count then?

 

We could take this "affirmative" bit to the extreme and say that a fizzy challenge is not allowed since the D/T can be changed. More likely we would say that the you can count the cache based on the D/T when you found it. But that has a problem, because the challenge owner will have trouble verifying what the D/T was when the cache was found. Most likely is that anyone who wants to own a fizzy challenge has to clearly state what they will do in this situation. Hopefully, they will say that they will take the word of the cacher that the cache had the D/T at the time it was found.

 

I believe that the original concept of a challenge being a geocaching accomplishment was too broad. People were submitting challenges for logging DNFs, posting in the forums, not caching for some number of days, caching only in months with the letter R, etc. IMO, this guideline is simply meant to limit what is a geocaching related challenge.

 

Other guidelines are meant to restrict challenges that are unduly burdensome. Asking a cacher with a lot of finds to have a certain percentage of events, might be an undue burden, in that they would either have attend an inordinate amount of events or would have to stop finding anything but events for some extended period. I don't believe the guidelines prevent streaks or finding multiple icons in a day or any other affirmative accomplishment.

 

The statement that 'If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, such as avoiding a particular geocache type to attain a specific percentage or average, the geocache will not be published' is absurd in that almost any challenge would not be allowed. My style is to cache locally only on the weekends. Any challenge requiring travel forces me to alter my style and habits. Clearly TPTB did not intend to limit challenges that require some travel. Similarly, the whole purpose of a challenge is to encourage people to try something they might otherwise have have not tried. Surely the idea is to get people to alter their geocaching style and habits at least for as long as it takes to accomplish the challenge.

 

It would be much better to explain that requiring someone to stop finding a particular type of cache or to alter their habits for an unreasonable length of time is an undue burden that could prevent a challenge from being published.

Share this post


Link to post

You're probably reading too much into the affirmative guideline. Certainly it is referenced in the section that says the challenge must be for a personal achievement and not for the winner of a competition. But I doubt it means that challenges are always positive stacking - i.e. that once you find a cache that counts for the the challenge, you're always one step closer to completing the challenge.

This was specifically based on conversations with reviewers, explaining their decisions regarding challenge caches. To me, their words are reflected in the wording of the guidelines. "Affirmative" very clearly describes that concept of what sorts of challenges are (generally) accepted (save exceptions granted by individual reviewer judgement - as always).

 

Take for example a fizzy challenge. You find a rare combination that fills in a cell in your grid. Later the CO decides the cache was rated wrong. What happens to your count then?

That's not a problem with the CO's challenge definition. That's always been a problem with any challenge, and is strictly unavoidable, as long as the challenge is based on cache career statistics. This is one reason why the challenge should be verifiable as of the Find log date (or the finder should provide evidence of qualification along with the claimed qualification log to make verification easier).

 

We could take this "affirmative" bit to the extreme and say that a fizzy challenge is not allowed since the D/T can be changed.

That's not competitive caching (finding). If that happens to a cache you used as qualification, then if purposefully screwing over someone's qualification attempt, it's an inter-person dispute that could be taken to appeals; if due to an adjustment made completely independent of any knowledge of challenges, then it's an unfortunate effect of challenges in general (any stat can be altered at any time changing your statistical history), and could also be considered an issue to be taken up between cacher and CO(s). But again, it's not a problem with the challenge itself.

 

More likely we would say that the you can count the cache based on the D/T when you found it. But that has a problem, because the challenge owner will have trouble verifying what the D/T was when the cache was found.

That's why it's typically verified when you post your WIGAS on the challenge cache itself (or note with qualifications).

 

I believe that the original concept of a challenge being a geocaching accomplishment was too broad. People were submitting challenges for logging DNFs, posting in the forums, not caching for some number of days, caching only in months with the letter R, etc. IMO, this guideline is simply meant to limit what is a geocaching related challenge.

Partly so it can remaining specific to the act of geocaching (finding), and partly to reduce disputes that can't be verified or refuted. Challenges based on statistics are verifiable at any point in time; thus, the best time is when the cacher is claiming the qualification. Some COs will allow pre-qualification (qualify and post a note with proof, then you can simply log it found physically later for the full WIGAS, even if you no longer qualify - an issue that should be reduced now with the "affirmative" ideal)

 

Other guidelines are meant to restrict challenges that are unduly burdensome. Asking a cacher with a lot of finds to have a certain percentage of events, might be an undue burden, in that they would either have attend an inordinate amount of events or would have to stop finding anything but events for some extended period.

Yep, and that's a whole other aspect of challenges they've attempted to be more 'friendly' :)

 

I don't believe the guidelines prevent streaks or finding multiple icons in a day or any other affirmative accomplishment.

Right

 

The statement that 'If a geocacher is required to alter their caching style or habits, such as avoiding a particular geocache type to attain a specific percentage or average, the geocache will not be published' is absurd in that almost any challenge would not be allowed.

Howso? That's the difference between a challenge that you can potentially "unqualify" for if you maintain a caching style (dropping below a percentage type, eg), versus caching as you always do (save caching more towards a certain goal, finding a target quantity, eg)

 

Whether you're 45% or 55% and working to log a 50% Traditional challenge, if you start finding anything other than traditionals, your percentage goes down.

I personally tried using the argument that you're not restricting a caching style, you're merely encouraging a more structured, target-oriented caching style. But no matter how it's worded, you still have to alter your caching style in such a way that if you pass a cache that you would otherwise seek, but now it can take you further from your goal (a discouragement), it's not "affirmative". You have this element of "I can't find this cache, or it'll take me longer to qualify (or unqualify me)"

They don't want those kinds of challenges (any more).

 

My style is to cache locally only on the weekends. Any challenge requiring travel forces me to alter my style and habits. Clearly TPTB did not intend to limit challenges that require some travel.

Right. But requiring travel (which is not a challenge requirement, just a regional side-effect; or covered by 'findable by a reasonable number of cachers' reviewer judgement) doesn't take you away from qualification. It doesn't present you the encourage to not cache as you normally would in order to continue to move towards qualification. Being unable to travel a distance to get a cache towards qualification isn't restrictive, not per the challenge. Also, any life event might lead you to a place where you could get a qualifying cache; or someone might publish a cache that becomes a qualifier. None of these fundamentally, by challenge definition, take you further away from qualification.

 

Similarly, the whole purpose of a challenge is to encourage people to try something they might otherwise have have not tried. Surely the idea is to get people to alter their geocaching style and habits at least for as long as it takes to accomplish the challenge.

Right. In an affirmative way.

Trust me, I've been on the side of the fence against this challenge guideline :P But logically I can understand why they decided to go this way.

 

It would be much better to explain that requiring someone to stop finding a particular type of cache or to alter their habits for an unreasonable length of time is an undue burden that could prevent a challenge from being published.

I believe they attempted to cover that entire concept with the "affirmative" challenge ideal. Perhaps it could be worded longer, better described, defined... but then a whole lot of guidelines could use that type of TLC :) (I wouldn't be against it, I'm just trying to help describe what affirmative means in the context of challenge caching -- as I was informed by reviewers, and as succinctly written in the guidelines)

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not so sure that in the example of fizzy challenges with changed D/T ratings, that "taking the cachers word for it" would pass the litmus test - after all, verifiability is the reason that challenges are permitted when other ALRs aren't. If that is allowed to stand, then that whole argument is moot.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that for many reasons, a different icon (not attribute) for a challenge cache is a needed addition. Last time I posted this thought, received the same reply as in this one "Jeremy doesn't want it." Can only hope that someday he will change his mind.

Share this post


Link to post
I agree that for many reasons, a different icon (not attribute) for a challenge cache is a needed addition. Last time I posted this thought, received the same reply as in this one "Jeremy doesn't want it." Can only hope that someday he will change his mind.
I hope something changes. I think challenge caches have grown beyond their incubation period in the "staging ground" of the mystery/puzzle cache type.

 

I personally think they make more sense as some sort of an online badge, independent of a physical cache. But if the majority of their fans think they work better as a physical cache with a geocaching-related ALR, then that's fine too.

 

And I think they are different enough from other varieties of caches that they deserve their own type, like Wherigo caches or EarthCaches. But if TPTB or their fans think they should have an attribute instead, like Night Caches or Field Puzzles, then that's fine too. But there really should be some way by now to distinguish them from all the other mystery/puzzle caches out there.

Share this post


Link to post

But if TPTB or their fans think they should have an attribute instead, like Night Caches or Field Puzzles, then that's fine too. But there really should be some way by now to distinguish them from all the other mystery/puzzle caches out there.

 

I just don't think an attribute is enough. How is that really any better than requiring the CO to put the word "challenge" in the name of the cache? Yeah yeah...I know the PQ angle and all. But there are plenty of us that rarely - if ever - use PQs and would rather have an easy way of distinguishing challenges from unknowns.

Share this post


Link to post

But if TPTB or their fans think they should have an attribute instead, like Night Caches or Field Puzzles, then that's fine too. But there really should be some way by now to distinguish them from all the other mystery/puzzle caches out there.

 

I just don't think an attribute is enough. How is that really any better than requiring the CO to put the word "challenge" in the name of the cache? Yeah yeah...I know the PQ angle and all. But there are plenty of us that rarely - if ever - use PQs and would rather have an easy way of distinguishing challenges from unknowns.

 

And there are plenty of hiders that do not use attributes at all or intentionally misuse them. I've started phasing out the use of attributes in my PQs because they simply cannot be trusted.

Share this post


Link to post

On the other side of this challenge cache issue, I've been waiting a month for the CO to approve my Bookmark List that was posted with a log note and then I posted another log note two weeks later when I found the cache and signed the paper log while on vacation. CO was fairly specific about not logging the cache online until their approval was given so I'm still waiting. The CO logs onto GC.com almost every day so it's not as if they are inactive. What's a fair time to wait?

Share this post


Link to post

On the other side of this challenge cache issue, I've been waiting a month for the CO to approve my Bookmark List that was posted with a log note and then I posted another log note two weeks later when I found the cache and signed the paper log while on vacation. CO was fairly specific about not logging the cache online until their approval was given so I'm still waiting. The CO logs onto GC.com almost every day so it's not as if they are inactive. What's a fair time to wait?

I can understand why a CO who might not want to verify a bookmark list until after the cache's paper log is signed. Not everyone who uploads their qualifying caches will get around to signing the physical log.

 

But two weeks after signing the physical log is a fair time to wait. If I were you, then I'd probably send the CO an email reminding them that you're waiting for approval. If they didn't respond to that email, then I'd go ahead and log the find.

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't wait at all ... I sent you my list and met your requirements, I signed the cache, and I'm logging my find. All three of those would likely happen on the same day for me. I don't expect the CO to jump, and if he never does, it is nothing to me. He can let me know if there is a problem, otherwise, my log will stand. I treat Earthcaches the same way.

Share this post


Link to post

Agreed. I'd log it found. You've done everything required. He wouldn't have a leg to stand on to defend deletion of your log if you've found the cache and sent in the qualifications. You can't be held accountable for the order in which he validates your find. That's on him...

Share this post


Link to post

It should work like Earthcaches. Go ahead and log at the same time that you send your proof. It's the owner's responsibility to maintain the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

One problem with challenge cache logging is that it can mess up stats.

 

Example. I own a challenge cache. Someone on a holiday from overseas finds the cache, signs the log and posts a write note. They qualify for the challenge some time later, by which time they are back home. They have two choices

 

1. Convert the write note to a found, which alters all their subsequent milestones

2. Add a new find log which shows up as a trip across the world and messes up their total cache-to-cache mileage.

 

One solution would be a qualified log which would count as a find (assuming there was a write log for the cache) but which would be locationless.

 

I recently visited GCHQ and, when they found I was from Australia they spent a lot of time picking my brain for caching ideas. My two top points were to fix the lab cache fiasco and to split mystery caches into three separate types

 

1. Challenge caches. There is no mystery. You know what you have to do and you know where they are. Mystery is a nonsense place to put them.

2. Puzzle caches. Defined as needing to solve some sort of puzzle to obtain the coordinates and the puzzle can be solved without visiting the site (usually at home in front of a computer)

3. There are a few mystery caches where you have to visit the site to calculate the coordinates. These should be converted to multi's.

 

They seemed receptive to the ideas, but who knows if anything will happen.

Share this post


Link to post

It should work like Earthcaches. Go ahead and log at the same time that you send your proof. It's the owner's responsibility to maintain the cache.

Except when one's answers are incorrect. Then you shouldn't be logging your find. It starts to create issues when an owner has to delete logs because someone logs an Earthcache without their answers being correct, and then not taking the time to correct them. That's the cache owner's responsibility, and each case is different.

 

I've asked people to email first and wait for me to confirm before logging (a couple of my Earthcaches are more in depth and difficult, so it takes time to help someone if they don't answer correctly), and I have a pretty strict 24-48 hour window I've set for myself to respond. I'm at about 99% on that response rate. But, without fail, I've had people log the cache without providing answers, or by providing answers that show they didn't undertake the measurements or other tasks set out in the Earthcache description. Then, when I ask them to change their log to a note and correct their answers, it gets heated because some feel entitled to the find no matter what. And that's not how it works...

 

Same goes for Challenges. But the big, fat difference is a physical cache at the coordinates. I still stand by that a cache container found, no matter the means, is a cache found. A "Found it" log should stand, and there should be a different measure altogether for completing the associated challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

One problem with challenge cache logging is that it can mess up stats.

 

Example. I own a challenge cache. Someone on a holiday from overseas finds the cache, signs the log and posts a write note. They qualify for the challenge some time later, by which time they are back home. They have two choices

 

1. Convert the write note to a found, which alters all their subsequent milestones

2. Add a new find log which shows up as a trip across the world and messes up their total cache-to-cache mileage.

 

One solution would be a qualified log which would count as a find (assuming there was a write log for the cache) but which would be locationless.

 

I recently visited GCHQ and, when they found I was from Australia they spent a lot of time picking my brain for caching ideas. My two top points were to fix the lab cache fiasco and to split mystery caches into three separate types

 

1. Challenge caches. There is no mystery. You know what you have to do and you know where they are. Mystery is a nonsense place to put them.

2. Puzzle caches. Defined as needing to solve some sort of puzzle to obtain the coordinates and the puzzle can be solved without visiting the site (usually at home in front of a computer)

3. There are a few mystery caches where you have to visit the site to calculate the coordinates. These should be converted to multi's.

 

They seemed receptive to the ideas, but who knows if anything will happen.

This is where less is more (less change is more helpful)...

"?" caches are for "Mystery/Unknown". That should remain. The only change is that they should have thought through their support for "Challenge" caches by having them be apart from other caches. It really should have been launched as another cache type. But, because of the precedent (I thought no previous cache is a precedent for another!), "Challenge" caches were categorized as "Mystery/Unknown". Now we're stuck with it that way, unless they fix it. And they should.

 

If you find a container, you should get to include it in a find count. Earthcaches, Virtuals, Events, CITO events, etc are different altogether, and therefore get their own guidelines and method for logging a find. "Challenge" caches should be the same--a challenge completed should be apart from the physical container caches of Traditional, Multi, Letterbox Hybrid, and Mystery/Unknown.

 

This is where they got the "Challenge" thing wrong. It should have been where they played the "Challenge cache" game. Easy enough to implement, and simple enough to record. The problem with "Challenges" was that they got silly (and borderline stupid) with what you did and where. When it comes to a real Groundspeak "location-based challenges" in the Geocaching realm (not Waymarking; not Wherigo, etc), it should be tied to things you accomplish at coordinates and with other geocaches (all types, and their related properties and attributes). That would do away with the silliness that came at the end of Virtuals, and at the end of "Challenges". If they re-did "Challenges" as "Geocache Challenges", it could be the same guidelines for "Challenge Caches", but with their own stat and own type. That way a physical cache is a cache that can be logged without an ALR. (Earthcaches are already exempted for reasons that should be obvious for why they can exist and have an "ALR".)

 

Bottom line is, for consistency and ease of implementing their own guidelines, a physical cache found and logbook signed should be a "Found it". Owners shouldn't be able to delete that find just because I didn't jump through their hoop. That's not what geocaches were. (Forgive the soapbox...I digress...) Caches with any kind of other ALR have either been removed, or given their own type (Earthcaches, e.g.). It's really time for "Challenge Caches" to just become "Geocache Challenges".

 

Anyway, personally, I'd rather be able to find caches and then log a Challenge when I complete it, all while keep track of the stat apart from the other cache types. Meaning, I'd rather complete a "Challenge Cache" and see it recorded on my account differently than just becoming another "?" find.

Edited by NeverSummer

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with most of what you say, but just because you find a container doesn't mean you should be able to log a find.

 

I see challenges as more like a multi than a traditional.

 

With a multi you might have to find (at least) one container for which you can't log a find. You have to complete all stages of a multi to claim the find. You have to complete both stages of a challenge before claiming the find.

 

The only difference is that if you stumble upon the container you can pretend you did the multi, you can't pretend you completed the challenge.

 

Whether you should claim the find for a multi you didn't complete is entirely up to the catcher concerned. Isn't a challenge just a verifiable multi?

 

I recently did an earthcache, but didn't have time to get all the required answers. I logged a DNF. I found the "container" but didn't complete the requirements. If I had logged a find I would expect the CO to delete the log.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with most of what you say, but just because you find a container doesn't mean you should be able to log a find.

 

I see challenges as more like a multi than a traditional.

 

With a multi you might have to find (at least) one container for which you can't log a find. You have to complete all stages of a multi to claim the find. You have to complete both stages of a challenge before claiming the find.

No you don't. If I stumble upon, or brute force find a final for a multi or a puzzle, I've still found the cache. That's been stated here and elsewhere as a main difference between the ALR of a "Challenge cache" and other physical caches.

 

The only difference is that if you stumble upon the container you can pretend you did the multi, you can't pretend you completed the challenge.

 

Whether you should claim the find for a multi you didn't complete is entirely up to the catcher concerned. Isn't a challenge just a verifiable multi?

No, it's a physical Traditional cache with a Groundspeak-supported and -guided ALR.

 

I recently did an earthcache, but didn't have time to get all the required answers. I logged a DNF. I found the "container" but didn't complete the requirements. If I had logged a find I would expect the CO to delete the log.

Well, there is no container (I'm not trying to be obtuse), so you didn't find the cache. Using an Earthcache::Challenge comparison is like Apples::Automatic Transmissions. You MUST complete logging tasks for the Earthcache to log it.

 

Whereas, right now, "Challenge caches" are an Unknown/Mystery physical cache. Because of that, they should be able to be logged as found so long as you find the container and sign the logbook.

 

Until Groundspeak sets the "Challenge" apart from all physical caches (ala the Earthcache, Event, e.g.), we're therefore comparing Apples::Apples. Therefore, one should be able to log a find if one finds the physical cache and signs the log. "Challenge caches" remaining as Unknown/Mystery caches only makes for confusion, distraction, and inconsistency. Think of how a newbie must feel. Thankfully, many of us here on the forums have been at this for many years and understand the game better than the new members likely do. For the sake of streamlining and creating consistency and clarity, "Challenge caches" should be created as a type or "accomplishment" statistically recorded process unto themselves.

Share this post


Link to post

When a cache-owner creates a multi-cache (s)he is defining the way the cache should be attempted. Go here, do something, go there and find a container. With, optionally, one or more extra steps in the middle. If you find the container for the last stage of a multi without performing the previous steps you haven't, in my opinion, found the cache because you haven't completed all the prerequisites. You have found the container. Whether you want to log that as found is entirely up to you. With one notable exception, I haven't and won't.

 

Comparing a challenge to an earthcache is more like comparing a Cox's Orange Pippin with a Bramley. In both cases you have to perform 2 steps: i) go somewhere and ii) complete a task. Only then can you claim the find. One difference is that one has a container and a log, the other doesn't. Another difference is that the task is conducted at the site for one, elsewhere for the other. You can't claim an earthcache just by looking up info on the net without going to the site. You can't claim a challenge without completing the requirements.

 

I can't follow your logic that because a challenge is a physical cache you should be able to log it as found without completing the ALR. The first paragraph of the Groundspeak help page on Challenge Caches reads

 

A challenge geocache requires that geocachers meet a geocaching-related qualification or series of tasks before the challenge cache can be logged. Waymarking, Benchmarking, and Wherigo-related tasks also qualify. The additional qualification or geocaching-related tasks are considered the basis of a challenge geocache, rather than Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs).

 

That first sentence says it all. If the CO wanted people to claim a find just by finding the container he would have made the cache a traditional.

 

I agree that Challenges should be made a separate type of cache and I stressed that at a recent visit to GCHQ. Unfortunately I don't think it will happen. Until then, we have to live with the rules as they stand and those are clear.

Share this post


Link to post

When a cache-owner creates a multi-cache (s)he is defining the way the cache should be attempted. Go here, do something, go there and find a container. With, optionally, one or more extra steps in the middle. If you find the container for the last stage of a multi without performing the previous steps you haven't, in my opinion, found the cache because you haven't completed all the prerequisites. You have found the container. Whether you want to log that as found is entirely up to you. With one notable exception, I haven't and won't.

 

Comparing a challenge to an earthcache is more like comparing a Cox's Orange Pippin with a Bramley. In both cases you have to perform 2 steps: i) go somewhere and ii) complete a task. Only then can you claim the find. One difference is that one has a container and a log, the other doesn't. Another difference is that the task is conducted at the site for one, elsewhere for the other. You can't claim an earthcache just by looking up info on the net without going to the site. You can't claim a challenge without completing the requirements.

 

I can't follow your logic that because a challenge is a physical cache you should be able to log it as found without completing the ALR. The first paragraph of the Groundspeak help page on Challenge Caches reads

 

A challenge geocache requires that geocachers meet a geocaching-related qualification or series of tasks before the challenge cache can be logged. Waymarking, Benchmarking, and Wherigo-related tasks also qualify. The additional qualification or geocaching-related tasks are considered the basis of a challenge geocache, rather than Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs).

 

That first sentence says it all. If the CO wanted people to claim a find just by finding the container he would have made the cache a traditional.

 

I agree that Challenges should be made a separate type of cache and I stressed that at a recent visit to GCHQ. Unfortunately I don't think it will happen. Until then, we have to live with the rules as they stand and those are clear.

Sigh...

 

Earthcaches have no physical logbook or cache container. Apple.

 

"Challenge caches" have a physical logbook and container. Automatic transmission.

 

Traditional, Multi-, Letterbox Hybrid, Mystery/Unknown*, Wherigo caches have a physical logbook and container. Manual transmissions (some 3-on-the-tree, some 4spd overdrive, others 6-speed sequential)

 

*"Challenge caches" are currently held under the Mystery/Unknown subset of physical geocache types.

 

Because of the unique nature of the Groundspeak endorsed and condoned ALR of a "challenge cache", they are more easily categorized as outside of the other physical cache types--which only are guided in logging a "Found it" without deletion by having found the container, and having signed the logbook. You see, why confuse things with the ALR found within the other, more straightforward physical geocache types, when "geocache" types such as Earthcaches with "ALRs" are their own type as well?

 

When a cache-owner creates a multi-cache (s)he is defining the way the cache should be attempted. Go here, do something, go there and find a container. With, optionally, one or more extra steps in the middle. If you find the container for the last stage of a multi without performing the previous steps you haven't, in my opinion, found the cache because you haven't completed all the prerequisites. You have found the container. Whether you want to log that as found is entirely up to you. With one notable exception, I haven't and won't.

You're stating a personal preference, outside of the guidelines of the game. You're welcome to do as you say, and not log unless you've solved the puzzle of a puzzle-style Mystery/Unknown, or found every stage of a Multi-cache. But the guidelines and common practice of Groundspeak and Volunteer Reviewers is to allow a "brute force" or "accidental" find of a final for a Multi-cache or puzzle-style Mystery/Unknown to be logged as "Found" if the container was found, and the logbook signed. This is supported by many, many appeals, discussions, and overt guidelines.

 

No matter what you say, it isn't apples to apples. Earthcaches are non-physical geocaches with alternate logging requirements (ALRs). Traditional, Multi, Mystery/Unknown, Wherigo, and Letterbox Hybrids are all physical geocaches--listed (shown) or unlisted (hidden) coordinates with a container and logbook, where one can log a find once the container is found and logbook is signed. "Challenge caches" are an exception to the ALR-ban that happened before you started geocaching.

 

ALRs used to be on all sorts of caches, and they were disallowed from future publication, and existing caches archived by Volunteer Reviewers unless the listing was edited to remove all ALR references. The only surviving version of the ALR was a "challenge" cache, wherein a user was to undertake a specific, positive, location-based, geocaching-related task to receive permission to log the cache online.

 

Also, "Challenges" were created...and failed. They had the fatal flaw of no Review, non-specific (and oftentimes unappreciated) tasks to log them online. They did, at first, count toward your online "Found it" total. Then they were set apart from that geocache find total. Then they were unceremoniously removed from all memory on the website and all player accounts. (I feel like "The Giver" right now...)

 

So, you see, where Groundspeak made a mistake "yesterday", they can make their "better mistake" today by swinging "challenge caches" into Challenge Caches, and removing the qualifying language from the Mystery/Unknown geocache type description and guidelines. Not unlike how Earthcaches are run under their own type because of their geology-specific themes, third-party development and regulation, and ALR online logging processes, "challenge caches" could (and IMO should) be put into a category unto themselves.

 

You see, it all comes back to online logs and the common thread of this "game" we play. If you find a physical container and logbook, and sign that logbook, you should be able to log that cache online. Those cache types where that much isn't common (apples to transmissions), the cache type is apart from the others in icon, description, and guidelines.

 

Comparing a challenge to an earthcache is more like comparing a Cox's Orange Pippin with a Bramley. In both cases you have to perform 2 steps: i) go somewhere and ii) complete a task. Only then can you claim the find. One difference is that one has a container and a log, the other doesn't.

So now I'll bring it back to this statement. Yes, in the way you describe it, they are apart only in the finite genetics of the apple. Color, aroma, firmness, growth rate, season of flowering, etc all might be different, but at least you know its an apple when you bite into it.

 

But then you must admit that these 2 apples are thereby like comparing apples to the orange that is physical geocaching: Traditional, Multi, Wherigo, Letterbox Hybrid, and even the Mystery/Unknown. All fruits, sure, but the idea that you can log a physical cache you have found and signed the logbook of is where we have a departure from the Mystery/Unknown cache type.

 

But let's revisit this tidbit:

You can't claim a challenge without completing the requirements.

 

Aha. Yes. I'll give you this. (I know you likely meant it as "challenge cache", but you've illustrated my points beautifully. Thank you.) You may not have completed the listed challenge set out in that physical geocache's description, but you can find and log the physical cache and log.

 

This is where an idea of having "challenges" come back as a "virtual" type of cache would work. Not unlike the mistake that was "Challenges", and not unlike the Virtual caches of yore, the new type of "geocaching challenge" would capture your completion of any geocacher-designed geocaching-related challenge (Fizzy challenge, e.g.), and not muddle the water with it being a physical geocache that you're not allowed to "find".

 

Imagine a separate cache type where there is no cache, but there is a challenge to complete. Or imagine a new cache type where there is a physical cache, but you may log that find when you find the container, yet you can also check a box that you have completed the challenge--and that completion is added to your "finds" total, and recorded in stats as a separate type of "find".

 

A challenge geocache requires that geocachers meet a geocaching-related qualification or series of tasks before the challenge cache can be logged. Waymarking, Benchmarking, and Wherigo-related tasks also qualify. The additional qualification or geocaching-related tasks are considered the basis of a challenge geocache, rather than Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs).

 

That first sentence says it all. If the CO wanted people to claim a find just by finding the container he would have made the cache a traditional.

<_< Sure, as it stands now, why not say that. But the thing is, regardless of what "the CO wanted", there is a physical geocache that can be found...but not without the owner's permission.

 

Then you add in the inconsistent nature of humanity, where a CO may not actually check the requirements on their challenge cache, but another owner is quite studious. And then you can have instances where the owner doesn't get to checking the completion for days, weeks, or months. As a finder, this creates much consternation in a game that should otherwise be as straight forward as Groundspeak has claimed it to be: Find it, sign it, log it online. That is geocaching at its core.

 

So the "problem" is that these challenges should be apart from Mystery/Unknown caches. Period. Why not? There is no reason why this couldn't be done in a heartbeat with a little lead time to make a new icon and add the code for an additional cache type in the submission forms. (add another blank for the new icon and type selection, and that's about it. The guidelines already exist, and the code can be mirrored from other caches for how it collates in stats and such.)

 

The additional argument that I make (and as much that sets us apart in our opinions) is that challenges should be apart from physical geocaching altogether. So long as there is a physical container and log, it should be loggable regardless of the owner's desire to have a geocache-related challenge of an ALR. If an owner wants to set up a challenge that is based on a positive geocaching accomplishment or difficult set of circumstances, so be it. But if there is a container and a log, it should be loggable online when the logbook is signed. This is fundamental to the game, and the only common core with all physical caches since this game was "invented" by his holiness Dave Ulmer, and adopted by the programming gurus and visionaries at what we now call Groundspeak.

 

Lastly, what you're failing to see in the foundation of my opinion is here:

If the CO wanted people to claim a find just by finding the container he would have made the cache a traditional.

No. They can place a Mystery/Unknown as they did. But the guidelines shouldn't have an asterisk for the Mystery/Unknown type. This is where confusion for newbies comes in; this is where confusion over the foundational principles of the game get muddled; this is where the game should be more clear.

 

Physical geocaches were "invented" for Groundspeak on the basis of the "find it, sign it, log it" mantra. That much should remain true, especially as it was a primary point Groundspeak made when doing away with ALRs. That aspect of the game should be more consistently held by Groundspeak. Otherwise, we're just witnessing their apathy about how they present themselves to members. There would be a whole lot less consternation about Groundspeak, "challenge caches", and other changes made (seemingly willy-nilly) without consistency. If ALRs were done away with because of (among other things) the fact that physical caches should not have restrictions on logging them online once they are found (Premium Member Only caches still loggable by non-members "loophole", e.g.), Groundspeak should remain consistent and remove ALRs altogether from the physical geocache realm.

 

We can still have challenge geocaches, but they shouldn't be lumped in with the other physical geocaches--which Groundspeak once said should be loggable online by all who find the container and sign the log when they did away with ALRs and maintained their opinion about the loophole for non-PMs to log PMO caches, and when they talk about how they developed the Intro App to allow people to access cache listings for free...on and on. You see, they argue for their actions about all physical caches being open to be logged by all when they find it and sign the logbook...except when they talk about this much-loved aspect of the game called "challenge geocaches".

 

You see, I'm all for keeping challenge caches around. I'm just not in the camp that thinks inconsistency is acceptable. I think Groundspeak can easily address this fact, and make all camps happy. I think challenge caches are what that much-maligned mistake "Challenges" should have been all along. I also think that my favorite ALR caches I did back in the day were the ones that are more in line with the current "challenge caches" we have now. (Log only after you've found 100 Mystery/Unknown caches by CharlieWhiskey, e.g.) I think it is time for Groundspeak to acknowledge how the game can be organized as physical geocaches and non-physical geocaches. So long as Earthcaches are around, and the remaining Virtuals are able to stay unarchived, they have an opportunity to grow the game in a direction that makes sense, demonstrates consistency in their decisions and reasons provided for some historic decisions, and only provides more clarity to an already cumbersome game for newbies to get their head around.

Share this post


Link to post

Firstly, thanks for the history lesson. As you say, a lot happened before I started caching, some of which I knew but a lot of what you wrote was new to me. In particular, I wasn't aware of the history allowing brute force claims of multi's. I'll take note of that for the future.

 

Second, we are in complete agreement that Challenge Caches should have their own type. On another thread I took that one step further and suggested that they should have two new log types: a "Discovered" log which would be the same as a find log except that it wouldn't increment the find count and a "Qualified" log, which would be locationless. When both logs have been submitted the find count would be incremented, the find date would be based on the later log and distances would be based on the "Discovered" log. I appreciate that this would cause a bit of a problem for API-based applications like GSAK, but nothing that couldn't be programmed for.

 

If I understand what you are suggesting, you believe that the challenge should become a separate virtual cache type loggable upon completion of the challenge. That sounds good. So if there are several current Challenge Caches, all requiring the same criteria, would they still remain as they are or would they become a single "virtual challenge"?

 

I recently did the "Alaska, Washington State and Western Canada" holiday and visited GCHQ. When they found I was from Australia two Lackeys took me aside and spent an hour or so picking my brains on what I thought of caching and how I would change it. Moving Challenges and Puzzles into their own cache type was #2 on my list, behind fixing up the Log Cache fiasco. I just wish I had had this thread before I went so I would have a better grasp of the history. I'm sure I would have made a more convincing argument.

 

However, we are playing today - not in our ideal world - so we have to accept that we shouldn't log Challenge Caches until we have completed the challenge aspect. I know that CO's are of variable quality, just like caches, but that doesn't change the rules as they are today.

 

Again, thanks for taking the time to educate me.

 

Cheers

 

Tony

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

×