Icon for Challenge Geocaches

9.1k · April 10, 2014

Well, that's my point.. I can find them physically... it's just a shame that my smiley count doesn't equal my correct amount of finds, but rather it is a score that is a sum of how many finds I have of caches that I happen to be qualified for, plus how many virtuals, plus how many events, etc. that winds up being a rather meaningless number showing under your name by your logs.

Well that's quite subjective. And if that is what you want the finds to mean, then that's of course your opinion. I hate debating opinions. But there's a difference between saying "this is what they are" and "this is what I would like them to be". I'm fine disagreeing on the latter, and I think that's what most people in this thread are fine with as well -- which is when the discussion can focus on how to make things nicer for everyone instead of who's right and who's wrong.

But the fact is, the "Found it" log on gc.com does mean all of those things.

The argument is that because a Find on gc.com includes so many different aspects of geocaching rather than just the physical name on a physical log sheet found in a physical geocache, then Challenge Caches are 100% a legitimate geocaching experience - the ALR is another classification of the "Find". Dislike of challenge caches (to the degree of wanting them gone) provides grounds to defend that opinion of any other non-physical geocaching "Find" class of listing. Which of course seems far too extreme given the state of Groundspeak's geocaching game (which is not competitive by nature, just as solitaire is a game).

But I don't doubt there are people who would prefer that Groundspeak stick to simply listing physical geocaches, and that the Find count merely reflect such physical finds. I wouldn't be in support of that though; but that, as they say, is just my opinion.

If someone (for this argument, let's assume someone not a geocacher who you're explaining geoaching to) asks you how many finds you have and you answer ("well, I have 271 smileys, which includes 240 traditional caches I have found, plus 12 multi-caches, 16 events I've gone to, 2 webcam caches and 1 Earthcache, but it doesn't include 3 challenge caches that I have logged as a note, but can't 'count' because I haven't completed the requirements of." "Uh, okay, well, how many caches have you actually found?" "255"

Yes and no. Yes, because all of that for me is part of the geocaching experience, so that would be how I'd break it down if they asked. But no, I'd first answer (..uh what's 271+240+12+16+2+1?) I'd answer 542, because that is how many finds I have. If they then asked how many physical caches I found, I'd break out the number of physical caches.

But in all of that, my enthusiasm and excitement about the geocaching experience - not just the physical containers - would be apparent. I wouldn't make it sound complicated by implying that somehow all these numbers are so confusing and complex. They're not. It's all part of the fun!

When you think of how many finds you have do you think of the smiley score, or the actual number of caches that you have found? Which do you think of when you're thinking of milestones?

Finds, of course. Because physical caches are only one aspect of geocaching.

To enthusiastically criticize people who value the smiley whatever it means, while asserting you don't care about smileys, does not computer.

That's my point, I do care about them, but I'd care a lot more if they were an accurate reflection of my amount of finds.

I can grok that! (if 'accurate' and 'finds' are defined as physical caches)

I'm a little baffled that there is so much opposition to these ideas.

Same here.

Ok wait, wait. What ideas exactly are being opposed?

Speaking for myself, the only thing I opposed is the idea that challenge caches are not part of the geocaching experience and that they are in any way a downfall of the pastime. But that's my opinion, and others have different opinions. So that's fine.

I don't really see anything other things being "opposed", just discussion about various ways that challenges can be better implemented to serve the community, composed of such differing opinions.

By the previous sentence: "Suggestion are being made here of ways to continue using caches to recognize geocaching accomplishments without need to use ALRs for logging finds." -- I know I don't oppose that (and my input in the thread addressed ways of recognizing challenge completion without affecting the find count), and I don't think anyone else was opposing that either. So what, L0ne.R, were you agreeing with when you said "same here"? Because otherwise we agree... :blink:

I don't think anyone has asserted that ALRs (as an addition to physical geocache listings) must remain.

This discussion is confusing.

Edited April 10, 2014 by thebruce0

7.5k · April 10, 2014

If you don't care about smiley count, and only care about finding caches, then why would you care if you can't log it found online?

I can answer that for me.....

On the GC site, I like keeping an accurate record of the caches I've found.

I like to filter out the caches I've found when looking for caches I want to find.

On the map I like to see the smiley faces of the caches I've found compared to the caches I haven't found.

On the map I like to toggle the Filter>My Finds option to get a better picture of what I have found vs what I haven't found.

And every few months I like run a PQ of the caches I've found.

If smileys no longer mean 'these are the caches I've found' and rather 'these are competitive game pieces' or 'this is my score', than keep the smileys but give those of us who don't care to compete, a new way/icon for keeping track of our actual finds.

Your points are all the exact same for me too... once we at least clarify what is meant in #1:

1. What do you consider "found"? Physically found? Or logged as found on gc.com?

For me....both - physically found, then a record of that find kept on the GC site.

2. You can do that, by what gc.com considers a "found" cache online.

By what GC currently considers a find, I cannot filter out the caches I've found.

3.7k · April 10, 2014

All this argument does for me is reaffirm my belief that Challenges out to be broken out altogether...perhaps onto a new site or just a new portion of the GC site. It would tie into the GC stats for each user, but would not show up on the Geocaching map, be confused with mystery or puzzle caches, or make anyone feel that finding the physical cache can't count as a find because of whatever ALR the owner set up.

At least then I wouldn't have to get my hopes up when I get a notification only to get it dashed when I see it's only boo2931's new "centuple fizzy challenge" or whatever he comes out with next...

Edited April 10, 2014 by J Grouchy

7.5k · April 10, 2014

I'm a little baffled that there is so much opposition to these ideas.

Same here.

Ok wait, wait. What ideas exactly are being opposed?

This discussion is confusing.

Having 2 different ways of logging a challenge. A Find/Smiley for those who find the physical cache. A 'Challenge Accomplished' for those who meet the requirements of the challenge.

I don't think you were opposed to this idea. But if you are, it would be interesting to hear why.

8k · April 10, 2014

If you don't care about smiley counts and merely want to find caches for the joy of finding caches or exploring locations, then to not seek it merely because you won't get a smiley for it on the website seems ludicrous as well.

Does not compute.

If you don't care about smiley count, and only care about finding caches, then why would you care if you can't log it found online?

I can answer that for me.....

On the GC site, I like keeping an accurate record of the caches I've found.

I like to filter out the caches I've found when looking for caches I want to find.

On the map I like to see the smiley faces of the caches I've found compared to the caches I haven't found.

On the map I like to toggle the Filter>My Finds option to get a better picture of what I have found vs what I haven't found.

And every few months I like run a PQ of the caches I've found.

If smileys no longer mean 'these are the caches I've found' and rather 'these are competitive game pieces' or 'this is my score', than keep the smileys but give those of us who don't care to compete, a new way/icon for keeping track of our actual finds.

I once suggested that geocaching.com separate the find log (and the find count / smiley scoring system) from the booking keeping of caches I've "found" (according to my definition) which I want to exclude from searches or pocket queries, or from showing on my map (or show as smiley face), or be included in the MyFinds query).

Let users check a box that markes a cach cache as completed or found, that is used for all of those functions. Let cache owners have all kinds of silly ALRs for deleting online logs. The online logs (IMO) are not the score anyhow. You can post the number of online found logs someone has but that has little to do with the number of caches they have found.

5.6k · April 10, 2014

Don't think I don't think challenge caches should exist. If you like doing them, then great. If you feel the need to validate your accomplishments with another find, then that's great for you. Just don't tell the rest of us what caches we are and aren't allowed to find because of unrelated accomplishments that we have or haven't completed yet.

Do you see the irony of complaining about being told how to play the game (fulfill challenge requirements before logging) while telling them how to play the game? Your whole attitude reeks of entitlement - I want to find the caches I want to find, no matter what anyone else likes/wants. If you want your stats to reflect only those caches you consider 'proper' than you can do that by not paying any attention to the those caches you don't like. There are so many caches available, why get heartburn over that very small percent that are Challenge Caches?

9.1k · April 10, 2014

2. You can do that, by what gc.com considers a "found" cache online.

By what GC currently considers a find, I cannot filter out the caches I've found.

In what area of the site? The map allows you to hide caches you've found.

Or are you saying you want to filter out any physical caches you've found but can't (yet) log online?

In the latter case, this is why I have bookmark lists for challenge purposes.

* Found but not qualified (as soon as I qualify I can log them Found)

* Qualified but not found (as soon as I physically find it I can log it Found)

* Nearing completion (I just use this to remind me of goals I want to focus on when searching for caches to find )

Now I use geosphere, so I typically highlight anything of high importance (target challenges and caches to find towards qualifications), which helps with that additional filtering goal. But if I sign the log of a cache I'm not yet qualified for, I post a note like it were itself find log, then I either add a personal note for quick reference, or add an ignore in Geosphere so it doesn't show in my 'findable' search results.

Since, for me, this case doesn't happen all too often and my app helps with the organization, it's not such a big deal. But I certainly agree that this post demonstrates a lot of the confusion with terminologies (eg, physical finds vs find logs online), and the capability of distinguishing between found caches (of any type) and physical-found caches with ALRs that don't yet allow the Find log online. Which is why I'm all for discussion of improving this aspect of geocaching (while against removal of it entirely)

Ok wait, wait. What ideas exactly are being opposed?

Having 2 different ways of logging a challenge. A Find/Smiley for those who find the physical cache. A 'Challenge Accomplished' for those who meet the requirements of the challenge.

I don't think you were opposed to this idea. But if you are, it would be interesting to hear why.

So are you opposed to that idea or for it? I'm presuming you're for it...

My previous post on the log type idea was just me thinking through it all. The main issue I saw with having the new log type was keeping the log history consistent. If the physical cache find log is deleted, will it delete the challenge completed log as well? Will the CO need to delete both? Are the two types independent of each other (then extends to the definition of 'completing' a challenge cache in worldwide context)? What if they're vastly different dates (whole lot of searching to deal with them both)? Should the challenge log only be postable if there's already a find log?

My answer to all that then (though I doubt I was the first to suggest it) was to tie the two accomplishments at the hip with the addition of the checkbox with the find log as a 'challenge completed' flag, working in the same manner as the additional coordinates option.

CanadianRockies had a good response to that:

Many people like to find and sign the physical logbooks for challenge caches even before they complete the requirements. They will log an online "Note" indicating that they have done so. Once they complete the requirements, they will go back and log an online "Found It."

Using your system, they would log an online "Found It" when they initially find and sign the physical logbook. If they eventually complete the challenge requirements, then they would have to log another online "Found It" so they can check the box that indicates they have completed the requirements. Hopefully, most will remember to go back and delete their duplicate "Found It" logs, which, of course, will generate plenty of unnecessary email for the cache owners. Sounds to me like a rather awkward method of implementation.

The concern, as I interpret it, is that it the suggestion doesn't reduce the amount of work for people who do challenges.

Current process:

* I find the cache, I (can) log a note.

* I complete the challenge, then I log a find.

Logging process under suggested change:

* I find the cache, I log a find (Qualified unchecked)

* I complete the challenge, then A] I log a new find with Qualified checked and delete the previous find, or B] I edit my previous find and check Qualified

The latter adds a third step (deletion or editing of previous).

But then I went into another idea, wherein the "challenge completed" is a listing level flag that can be toggled and untoggled at any point. GPX files would incorporate that piece of data in the same manner it incorporates the personal note, and stats would take that property into consideration on the listing level when compared to the existence of a Find log.

So once again I fall back to "I can't think of an elegant solution" (than the current system) But those were my two best propositions... *shrug*

ETA: On the listing level, if you check Qualified, then you could also be presented a date field for the record. Corrected coordinates then works in this similar manner.

Edited April 10, 2014 by thebruce0

3.1k · April 10, 2014

If someone (for this argument, let's assume someone not a geocacher who you're explaining geoaching to) asks you how many finds you have and you answer ("well, I have 271 smileys, which includes 240 traditional caches I have found, plus 12 multi-caches, 16 events I've gone to, 2 webcam caches and 1 Earthcache, but it doesn't include 3 challenge caches that I have logged as a note, but can't 'count' because I haven't completed the requirements of." "Uh, okay, well, how many caches have you actually found?" "255"

Are you sure you actually "found" just 255? For many of the multi-caches that I've found, I actually found more than one hidden container along the way. If you want to be literal about your "finds," then perhaps you should be literal.

What if you "find" a cache hidden high in a tree but don't climb that tree or sign the log? Shouldn't that be a "find" as well? What if you return to a cache you found previously to place a travel bug inside it? Shouldn't that count as another "find?" What if you're geocaching with a friend and that friend actually discovers the hidden cache? Is that a "find" for you, too?

When Groundspeak refers to a "find," they aren't being as literal as you are. They sometimes use "find" as a shorthand to mean things other than literally "finding" physical caches.

5.6k · April 10, 2014

Let cache owners have all kinds of silly ALRs for deleting online logs.

You really have a burr under your saddle about the "threat" of log deletions, don't you? It seems in your view, that is the only reason CO's might add requirements to a cache. You do realize that the "threat" exists on all caches, don't you?

6.8k · April 10, 2014

Well, regardless of that, a find is a find, whether you've cheated on a puzzle cache or you've "found" a challenge cache you don't qualify for. It's still a piece of tupperware, bison tube or ammo can that has been found. At the heart of this game it is about finding caches. The rest of it is just people telling other people how they should play the game.

Do you really think that finding physical caches is the most important aspect regardless of the caused effects?

For example, I regard it as respectless to cheat on a puzzle cache. Along a similar line, I have logged only notes for a number of caches I have found and signed the log book, but could not retrieve the container without help. Moreover, I have found caches that are not listed at gc.com. The find count has no specific meaning for me and I would not be able to tell my exact number of finds shown on gc.com without looking it up.

I have not hidden a single of my caches for those for whom it is about primarily searching and finding tupperware.

I cannot delete legitimate found it logs, but I can archive my caches whenever I want. My mystery caches are there for specific reasons and not to offer one more container for those who simply love to search for tupperware.

I'm not a fan of most challenge caches, but I respect that there are there with the same idea of not simply offering another cache to be logged as found it by those for whom this is the only concern.

An award system could work for those for whom challenge caches are only about getting an award if they meet certain requirements, but it does not work at all for those who use the challenge requirements in a similar way as puzzles to somehow select a target audience for their cache and limit the traffic in a reasonable way.

Edited April 10, 2014 by cezanne

3.1k · April 10, 2014

Maybe that's just it...

Someone asked me what the difference is between finding an Earthcache and finding a challenge Unknown cache, when the owners of the listings can delete incomplete logging tasks at will. The difference is that an Unknown is a physical type of cache. There is a logbook to sign.

Therein is, I think, why the idea of two log types for challenge Unknown caches would be something to consider. So long as there is a physical log to sign, that is what Groundspeak has stated before equals a find. So that is why there is much bellyaching about not being able to log a cache that is at the listed coordinates, and that you have signed the logbook of. Really all that challange Unknown has become is an ALR traditional.

The alternative would be to make a "Challenge" cache type, and make it be a non-physical cache type. But so long as people want to tie a cache container and logbook to a challenge and use the Unknown cache type, it is still a cache with a log that can be signed not unlike any other physical cache--where a signature on the logbook equals a "find" or "smilie".

Earthcaches are apart from any other cache because of how the requirements are set out. There is some wiggle room, but the cache type itself has extensive, and rather clear rules for creation and what constitutes a "find" on that "virtial" (non-physical) geocache. In that sense, Earthcaches are not "geocaches" per se. But so far challenge Unknown caches are because they have a location with a container and a logbook. Complete the task and sgn the logbook, and you are "allowed" to log the find online. That's an ALR.

Now, if we apply the same to the new "Challenge" non-physical cache type idea, that enforcement is much more straight forward because we've taken away the common thread of all physical geocaches--hide it, find it, sign it, log online. It may be philosophical to some, but that really is the hard fact of what the difference is between something like an Earthcache with its "ALR" and a challenge Unknown with its "ALR". Containers and logbooks...

So, either a new log type for challenge Unknowns, a new "virtual" cache type called "Challenge", or they are done away with because of the ALR aspect. To me that's what it comes down to.

For me, and the way I cache, I think the new log type is best. One can log the physical caches that are out there without fear of deletion. It clarifies the guidelines about a signature on a logbook equalling a find for all physical caches. And it also provides a way for any cacher to also log that they have completed a challenge, and records that stat on your "finds" column on your public profile.

3.7k · April 10, 2014

I would think the two-log idea would necessitate having a different cache type. Just like event caches have a "Will Attend" log and an "Attended" log. Just associating these with the '?' caches wouldn't work since then you'd have this additional log type associated with puzzle caches. There is technically no "requirement" to solve the actual puzzle on a cache...only, as with traditionals, finding the container and signing the log is necessary. How you got there isn't important since requiring an explanation of a solution would be an ALR.

5k · April 10, 2014

Go find all the physical caches you want. No one will stop you!

Well, that's my point.. I can find them physically... it's just a shame that my smiley count doesn't equal my correct amount of finds, but rather it is a score that is a sum of how many finds I have of caches that I happen to be qualified for, plus how many virtuals, plus how many events, etc. that winds up being a rather meaningless number showing under your name by your logs.

If someone (for this argument, let's assume someone not a geocacher who you're explaining geoaching to) asks you how many finds you have and you answer ("well, I have 271 smileys, which includes 240 traditional caches I have found, plus 12 multi-caches, 16 events I've gone to, 2 webcam caches and 1 Earthcache, but it doesn't include 3 challenge caches that I have logged as a note, but can't 'count' because I haven't completed the requirements of." "Uh, okay, well, how many caches have you actually found?" "255"

When you think of how many finds you have do you think of the smiley score, or the actual number of caches that you have found? Which do you think of when you're thinking of milestones?

To enthusiastically criticize people who value the smiley whatever it means, while asserting you don't care about smileys, does not computer.

That's my point, I do care about them, but I'd care a lot more if they were an accurate reflection of my amount of finds.

Seriously? I found and signed the log on an unpublished cache that I stumbled upon. Years later, it still hasn't been published so I can't log it and get my smiley. What should I do? Obsess over it until I go crazy, or just realize it's part of the game?

If this bothers you so much, don't go looking for the challenge caches until you are qualified. It's really that simple.

Trying to follow this thread is crazy. So much effort trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

3.7k · April 10, 2014

Seriously? I found and signed the log on an unpublished cache that I stumbled upon. Years later, it still hasn't been published so I can't log it and get my smiley. What should I do? Obsess over it until I go crazy, or just realize it's part of the game?

If this bothers you so much, don't go looking for the challenge caches until you are qualified. It's really that simple.

Trying to follow this thread is crazy. So much effort trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

You're right. We shouldn't even categorize caches...they should all just be a vanilla "geocache". None of this silly "traditional", "unknown", "virtual", "multicache" nonsense. Just ignore the ones you don't want to find and move on!

6.8k · April 10, 2014

For me, and the way I cache, I think the new log type is best. One can log the physical caches that are out there without fear of deletion. It clarifies the guidelines about a signature on a logbook equalling a find for all physical caches. And it also provides a way for any cacher to also log that they have completed a challenge, and records that stat on your "finds" column on your public profile.

I I were the owner of a challenge cache where the coordinates point to the cache, I then would immediately archive my cache as then it would become a simple traditional which I never would have decided to hide right away. My area of easy maintenance does not allow for traditionals that involve a long hike that cannot be avoided and I never ever would want to own a mass cache.

Cezanne

7.5k · April 10, 2014

Seriously? I found and signed the log on an unpublished cache that I stumbled upon. Years later, it still hasn't been published so I can't log it and get my smiley. What should I do? Obsess over it until I go crazy, or just realize it's part of the game?

An unpublished cache is not part of the game and not part of the database. You don't need to filter it out. It does not show up on the map. Another example, if I find a letterbox that's not listed on GC, I don't expect it to be listed on the GC site. And I don't expect to record my AtlasQuest letterbox finds on the GC site. But if someone lists it on GC and I find it, I expect to be able to include it in my list of found caches.

Edited April 10, 2014 by L0ne.R

8k · April 10, 2014

Don't think I don't think challenge caches should exist. If you like doing them, then great. If you feel the need to validate your accomplishments with another find, then that's great for you. Just don't tell the rest of us what caches we are and aren't allowed to find because of unrelated accomplishments that we have or haven't completed yet.

Do you see the irony of complaining about being told how to play the game (fulfill challenge requirements before logging) while telling them how to play the game? Your whole attitude reeks of entitlement - I want to find the caches I want to find, no matter what anyone else likes/wants. If you want your stats to reflect only those caches you consider 'proper' than you can do that by not paying any attention to the those caches you don't like. There are so many caches available, why get heartburn over that very small percent that are Challenge Caches?

The argument that you can ignore caches you don't like or don't agree with the requirements for logging only goes so far.

I personally have a hard time ignoring a cache that is right in front of me and will pick it up an sign the log. Unlike TopShelfRob, I have no problem logging these caches on line with a note and have done so. If is so happens that I meet the requirements the cache owner has put out for logging with a Found log, and it isn't too great an effort to provide whatever the cache owner wants as evidence, I will log it as with Found. I may go on and complain of why I think the requirement is silly or unfair, but I do accept that the guidelines as they stand today allow the cache owner to have an ALR for using the Found log.

Some cache owners believe the guidelines allow them to tell me I should ignore the cache altogether. So far no one has deleted any of my Founds or Notes, but I have received complaints that if I don't like the requirements, I shouldn't have looked in the first place. I'm waiting for a Note or a Found to be deleted, because I'm interested in what Groundspeak's response will be.

Let cache owners have all kinds of silly ALRs for deleting online logs.

You really have a burr under your saddle about the "threat" of log deletions, don't you? It seems in your view, that is the only reason CO's might add requirements to a cache. You do realize that the "threat" exists on all caches, don't you?

I had to go back and look what you were refering to since you quoted me out of context. I made that statement in the context of describing the difference between finding a cache and using an online Found log. If a cache owner wants to delete my online found log (or tells me that I can't use an online found log in the first place), then I was saying that by separating the online found log from the Geoaching.com functionality that allows one to remove found caches from searches or from appearing on maps, it wouldn't matter that some owner arbitrarily decided to delete found logs. The cache would remained marked as 'found' for the purposes of the functionality of the website/api.

Owners of caches with ALRs have long claimed that the additional requirements are not meant to arbitrarily allow them to delete Found logs. They claim these are only meant to add some fun or challenge to the cache the goes beyond the basic finding and signing a logbook (like puzzle cache owners saying that making people solve a puzzle to get the coordinates adds to the challenge of those caches). Yet there were cases of ALRs that were written to be so unclear and subject to interpretation that a cache owner could basically decide whose Found logs were OK and whose were deleted. They were part of the reason for the change that abolished generic ALRs. I agree that Geocaching Challenges (at least ones that meet the current restrictions) are unlikely to be so unclear that they are used in this way. In fact, as I've stated elsewhere, in my experience, challenge cache owners are willing to be quite liberal in accepting proof of challenges being completed, particularly if their original requirements weren't clear.

Edited April 10, 2014 by tozainamboku

3.1k · April 10, 2014

Owners of caches with ALRs have long claimed that the additional requirements are not meant to arbitrarily allow them to delete Found logs. They claim these are only meant to add some fun or challenge to the cache the goes beyond the basic finding and signing a logbook (like puzzle cache owners saying that making people solve a puzzle to get the coordinates adds to the challenge of those caches). Yet there were cases of ALRs that were written to be so unclear and subject to interpretation that a cache owner could basically decide whose Found logs were OK and whose were deleted. They were part of the reason for the change that abolished generic ALRs. I agree that Geocaching Challenges (at least ones that meet the current restrictions) are unlikely to be so unclear that they are used in this way. In fact, as I've stated elsewhere, in my experience, challenge cache owners are willing to be quite liberal in accepting proof of challenges being completed, particularly if their original requirements weren't clear.

So, even as this is true, what would happen to a cacher who logs a find on a challenge Unknown cache because they found the container at the posted coordiates and signed the logbook?

It's the side-game subculture that dictates that they shouldn't log it as "found" on geocaching.com, but that isn't supported by the guidelines as a case where someone should not log a find online. I don't think that challenges are evil or should be ignored when I say that it is a "side-game".

So, when that cache's owner deletes that cacher's found it log online, what then?

This is where I'm still trying to get my head around the ALR of a physical cache, but the intent of the "challenge cache". If the "challenge cache" is a physical container, it should be able to be found and logged if the cache is found and the logbook signed--just like any other physical cache.

But, if the "challenge" cache is a virtual (small "v") cache, then all you have to do is provide the required validation for the completion (not unlike an Earthcache...) and log the "find" of that "challenge" online. No need for a container.

One could put a container at the coordinates for an Earthcache, but surely they wouldn't accept a signature on a logbook as an alternative for answering the questions about earth science? Because then all that cache has become is a traditional with an ALR.

Edited April 10, 2014 by NeverSummer

9.1k · April 10, 2014

Coming back to the new log type, as I described in previous comments, it's not such a 'simple' addition.

You have to determine if the challenge-complete log is only valid if there is also a Find log.

If not:

* People will start posting challenge completed logs worldwide for any challenge they qualify even though they haven't found the cache.

If yes:

* Deletion of the Find log (by any user) necessitates automated deletion of the Completed log as well

* Completing a challenge means posting two logs - both a Find and a Complete.

Neither of these options have easy implementations or consequences to deal with.

Not to mention to changes to the GPX schema, along with additional API data.

So once again I come back to the cache listing-level property for completed challenges (plus date) that would work very much like corrected coordinates. But it also comes with its own issues. Does the challenge cache CO have a right to deny challenge completion attempts?

If not:

* People could flag any challenge as complete (presuming they've found the cache) so it appears in their profile - and not actually have to complete anything because it's not verified. Challenges become an effectively meaningless statistic.

If yes:

* Users marking a challenge complete will need to provide proof in some manner - like Earthcaches via email? like standard logs by posting a note?

* The CO will need an additional interface to deny completion status to any users (similar to the widget that display users who've favorited a cache, perhaps?)

* Should the CO see only the list of Found+Completed users, or any user who has marked their challenge Completed? (the latter could lead to disgruntled player spam)

This method would still require a bit of GPX schema alteration to provide the data (cache-specific Completed properties [date, flag] for the finders' GPX's, or for COs a new data set containing references to all users who've marked it complete)

April 10, 2014

Coming back to the new log type, as I described in previous comments, it's not such a 'simple' addition.

You have to determine if the challenge-complete log is only valid if there is also a Find log.

If not:

* People will start posting challenge completed logs worldwide for any challenge they qualify even though they haven't found the cache.

If yes:

* Deletion of the Find log (by any user) necessitates automated deletion of the Completed log as well

* Completing a challenge means posting two logs - both a Find and a Complete.

Neither of these options have easy implementations or consequences to deal with.

Not to mention to changes to the GPX schema, along with additional API data.

So once again I come back to the cache listing-level property for completed challenges (plus date) that would work very much like corrected coordinates. But it also comes with its own issues. Does the challenge cache CO have a right to deny challenge completion attempts?

If not:

* People could flag any challenge as complete (presuming they've found the cache) so it appears in their profile - and not actually have to complete anything because it's not verified. Challenges become an effectively meaningless statistic.

If yes:

* Users marking a challenge complete will need to provide proof in some manner - like Earthcaches via email? like standard logs by posting a note?

* The CO will need an additional interface to deny completion status to any users (similar to the widget that display users who've favorited a cache, perhaps?)

* Should the CO see only the list of Found+Completed users, or any user who has marked their challenge Completed? (the latter could lead to disgruntled player spam)

This method would still require a bit of GPX schema alteration to provide the data (cache-specific Completed properties [date, flag] for the finders' GPX's, or for COs a new data set containing references to all users who've marked it complete)

But how would verification for 'completed challenge' in this example be any different from verification of a qualified 'find' now?

9.1k · April 10, 2014

You know, I think I'm favouring more now the cache-level flag for challenge completion, rather than a new log type. If the new properties include a Date and a Comment (like the personal note, currently), then that provides all the info needed for the CO to verify any completion when it's posted.

I sort of see it working (basically) like this...

Finder:

1) I find cache A. I log it found.

2) At my desktop, I find out I don't yet qualify. I leave the cache for later, but it counts in my Find stats (not my Challenge stats)

2b) Occasionally I can check my profile for my list of found/not-qualified caches so I can plan trips to caches I need.

3) New challenge published, I qualify! I flag this cache ( as Completed right now, storing a date and the qualifications. (this is not yet visible to the CO though).

3b) Occasionally I can check my profile for not-found/qualified caches so I can plan trips to visit them, find them and sign their logs.

4) Eventually I find cache B - I log my find online, and mention that the qualifications have (already) been sent.

5) A few days later, I qualify for cache A. Having already posted my Find log, I go to the listing and store my qualification date and proof, which the CO can now verify.

Done!

* If I download MyFinds PQ (or use the Live API), each cache includes my Find Logs (as usual), as well as a new set of data for each Challenge cache including whether I've marked it Complete, with the date and additional comment.

* If I want, I can parse my challenge stats to provide all 4 sets of data - found/not-qualified, not-found/qualified, not-found/not-qualified, qualified+found. If not, I can just ignore it all.

* My Find statistics remains unaffected, but now I can include "actually finds" on physical challenge caches as if they were basically traditionals; much like I can still log a find on a puzzle cache I located but I didn't actually solve.

Owner:

1) User A finds my challenge cache, posts a find log. Ok, now as usual if I want I can verify by checking its logsheet for a signature, or not.

2) (I don't see this action at all) User B flags my cache as completed and saves all the qualification info for his own records.

3) User B finds my challenge cache and signs the log, then posts a find log indicating the challenge is complete. I view my cache listing and check for posted qualifications. B's looks good, I leave it as is. Congrats, B.

4) User A eventually returns and flags my cache as completed, and posts his qualification info. I view my cache listing and check - but A has missed something and doesn't qualify (yet?). As CO I can either contact the user and tell them, and/or like deleting a find log, manually unflag their Completed status on my cache.

Done!

* If I download My Owned caches as a PQ (or via Live API), each cache now includes a new property being the number of Challenge Completed entries. (not a catalogue of all entries since that could be bulky over time like logs)

* If I want to see individual challenge completed entries outside the website, I'll need to use the API to request them. (I'm going on the basis that that's much easier than finding a way to feasibly include that new/'extra' data in the current GPX format)

---

As a finder or an owner, I have access to enough information to parse my own "Challenge caching" statistics if I want to display them. And it would be entirely in additional to 'standard' geocaching career - whether finding physical caches (traditional/multi/unknown/letterbox), or webcams, virtuals, earthcaches, events, etc.

The challenges become entirely an add-on to the current experience. Not without some programming, but it keeps the challenges tied to the fundamental activity of geocaching, while keeping a "Find" and "Find", and providing a basic platform for ALR caches (in case it ever goes beyond Challenge Caches )

ETA:

The one other addition was as an owner when creating an Unknown cache, the option to flag it as a challenge cache (to enable all the other features mentioned above), otherwise it would remain just a standard Unknown cache as currently.

Edited April 10, 2014 by thebruce0

9.1k · April 10, 2014

In that implementation, if you don't care about challenge caches at all, then there's no change to your experience on gc.com except that you can now log challenge caches found.

If you care about Challenge caches, then (at least in my opinion) this opens a whole new challenge-dedicated experience for gc.com and makes it that much more fun and usable

Edited April 10, 2014 by thebruce0

3.1k · April 10, 2014

So, even as this is true, what would happen to a cacher who logs a find on a challenge Unknown cache because they found the container at the posted coordiates and signed the logbook?

If the "finder" hadn't completed the challenge requirements, then I think most challenge cache owners would delete the "find" and (hopefully) send a polite email to the "finder" explaining that they cannot log a "Found It" until they also complete the requirements. That's what I would do (and have done).

It's the side-game subculture that dictates that they shouldn't log it as "found" on geocaching.com, but that isn't supported by the guidelines as a case where someone should not log a find online.

Actually, the guidelines clearly spell out the logging requirements for challenge caches. For example, see III.1.

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing.

Also, see II.2.3.

A challenge cache is a variation of a puzzle cache that enhances the geocaching experience. It will typically require the cacher to meet a reasonable and positive Geocaching-, Waymarking- or Wherigo-related qualification.

So, when that cache's owner deletes that cacher's found it log online, what then?

If the finder believes they actually have completed the challenge requirements and signed the challenge's physical log, then they can explain the situation to Groundspeak. If Groundspeak agrees with the finder, then they will reinstate the finder's "Found It" and explain to the cache owner that it is a legitimate find and should not be deleted again. If Groundspeak disagrees with the finder, they will explain why the find is not legitimate and tell the finder not to log a new find until they have met the requirements and signed the physical log.

This is where I'm still trying to get my head around the ALR of a physical cache, but the intent of the "challenge cache". If the "challenge cache" is a physical container, it should be able to be found and logged if the cache is found and the logbook signed--just like any other physical cache.

Since a "multi-cache" is a physical container, shouldn't it be located at the posted coordinates like the original traditional cache? Of course not. Geocaching has evolved beyond traditional caches. Not being at the posted coordinates doesn't delegitimize multi-caches (or puzzles, letterbox-hybrids, and Wherigos). Nor does having an ALR delegitimize challenge caches. It's just the way geocaching has evolved at Groundspeak.

But, if the "challenge" cache is a virtual (small "v") cache, then all you have to do is provide the required validation for the completion (not unlike an Earthcache...) and log the "find" of that "challenge" online. No need for a container.

For me, that would delegitimize challenge caches. All non-lab geocache types require that you go to a specified location. Being able to log a "Found It" for a challenge cache from my couch would be no more "geocaching" than sitting on a sofa and taking a picture of myself kissing a frog.

One could put a container at the coordinates for an Earthcache, but surely they wouldn't accept a signature on a logbook as an alternative for answering the questions about earth science? Because then all that cache has become is a traditional with an ALR.

I think most people would find physical EarthCaches to be an acceptable ALR. I believe the main reason EarthCaches do not have containers is that many of them are located in sensitive environments or in parks that do not allow the placement of physical containers.

9.1k · April 10, 2014

One could put a container at the coordinates for an Earthcache, but surely they wouldn't accept a signature on a logbook as an alternative for answering the questions about earth science? Because then all that cache has become is a traditional with an ALR.

I think most people would find physical EarthCaches to be an acceptable ALR. I believe the main reason EarthCaches do not have containers is that many of them are located in sensitive environments or in parks that do not allow the placement of physical containers.

I wonder if Groundspeak would actually allow that? If appropriate permission were granted, could you publish an Earthcache that requires the user to sign a physical logbook? I know there was the point that you could log an earthcache found as long as you've been to the location at some point and can answer the needed questions (which is really the intent of the earthcache), so requiring a logsheet signature might actually make it too strict... interesting query though.

Hm, I wonder if they'd allow it if signing a log was an alternative option to some other EC logging requirement.

8k · April 10, 2014

:rolleyes:

I'm thinking that this is much simpler.

Rename the online "Found It" log to the "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log. Change section III of the guidelines as follows:

For all physical caches, except challenge caches, you may log a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log once you have signed the physical log in the cache. If you are unable to sign the physical log because it is missing or too wet or you forgot a pen; you may log a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log only if the cache owner allows this.

For challenge caches, you may log a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log, if you have met the qualifications for logging a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log for a physical cache and have completed the challenge as specified on the cache page.

For virtual caches, webcam caches, and EarthCaches you may log a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log after you have visited the cache location and met any requirements specified on the cache page. For webcam caches you must capture a photo using the webcam referenced on the cache page to document your visit.

For event caches, you may log a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log, if you attended the event. Just showing up and interacting with other cachers is enough to qualify as attended. The cache owner may have logbook to sign, or have activities associated with the event, but they cannot require signing the log or participating in activities in order to log a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log.

April 10, 2014

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

6.1k · April 11, 2014

I'll admit to not reading this thread, but I think that Challenges should be limited to a list of the 40 most popular, and then give them a unique icon. All of the others could be grandfathered with the existing puzzle icons, but they should stop listing any more silly variations. A new challenge should be debated on its merits, then allowed to be cross listed in other areas.

5.6k · April 11, 2014

I personally have a hard time ignoring a cache that is right in front of me and will pick it up an sign the log. Unlike TopShelfRob, I have no problem logging these caches on line with a note and have done so. If is so happens that I meet the requirements the cache owner has put out for logging with a Found log, and it isn't too great an effort to provide whatever the cache owner wants as evidence, I will log it as with Found. I may go on and complain of why I think the requirement is silly or unfair, but I do accept that the guidelines as they stand today allow the cache owner to have an ALR for using the Found log.

And I have no trouble not finding caches I don't qualify for - they aren't loaded onto the GPSr & I don't go to GZ and look for them - so simple. Whether it's a Challenge Cache I haven't (or won't) complete the requirements for, or a puzzle I haven't solved, if it's not loaded I don't "miss" it. There are so many other caches I can look for/find, that there are some I can't doesn't cause a blink.

5.6k · April 11, 2014

In that implementation, if you don't care about challenge caches at all, then there's no change to your experience on gc.com except that you can now log challenge caches found.

Why do you have to find/log them? If you don't care about them, leave 'em be. It's pure entitlement to demand that things be changed so you can log them without fulfilling the requirements.

If you care about Challenge caches, then (at least in my opinion) this opens a whole new challenge-dedicated experience for gc.com and makes it that much more fun and usable

Challenge Caches as they are gives me this "whole new challenge-dedicated experience" already, nothing new has been added, except more work for Groundspeak to program, and make work for the owner of the Challenge Cache.

5k · April 11, 2014

Seriously? I found and signed the log on an unpublished cache that I stumbled upon. Years later, it still hasn't been published so I can't log it and get my smiley. What should I do? Obsess over it until I go crazy, or just realize it's part of the game?

An unpublished cache is not part of the game and not part of the database. You don't need to filter it out. It does not show up on the map. Another example, if I find a letterbox that's not listed on GC, I don't expect it to be listed on the GC site. And I don't expect to record my AtlasQuest letterbox finds on the GC site. But if someone lists it on GC and I find it, I expect to be able to include it in my list of found caches.

I wasn't addressing that. I was addressing the fact that it's no big deal that I found a cache that I couldn't log online, and I have no need to obsess over the fact that I may have found more caches than my smiley count indicates.

9.1k · April 11, 2014

In that implementation, if you don't care about challenge caches at all, then there's no change to your experience on gc.com except that you can now log challenge caches found.

Why do you have to find/log them? If you don't care about them, leave 'em be. It's pure entitlement to demand that things be changed so you can log them without fulfilling the requirements.

*sigh* that's a non-point in a discussion about how they can be improved.

I love challenges. I don't care if they stay the same. I'm trying to be productive in how the experience can be improved for those who don't.

I was addressing the points raised repeatedly about being able to log challenge caches - which are essentially physical caches with an ALR - as found without having to worry about the challenge at all; because a "find" is a "find" and ALRs change the game.

Also, it provides additional functionality for those who do enjoy challenge caches.

Yes. You don't have to log them. But that a thread killer, not a discussion topic.

If you care about Challenge caches, then (at least in my opinion) this opens a whole new challenge-dedicated experience for gc.com and makes it that much more fun and usable

Challenge Caches as they are gives me this "whole new challenge-dedicated experience" already, nothing new has been added, except more work for Groundspeak to program, and make work for the owner of the Challenge Cache.

Or you know, we can discuss ideas we think can help improve the experience, and Groundspeak can choose to listen and be inspired or let us yammer on.

I for one like productive and interesting and enlightening discussion.

3.1k · April 11, 2014

Why do you have to find/log them? If you don't care about them, leave 'em be. It's pure entitlement to demand that things be changed so you can log them without fulfilling the requirements.

*sigh* that's a non-point in a discussion about how they can be improved.

I love challenges. I don't care if they stay the same. I'm trying to be productive in how the experience can be improved for those who don't.

I think The Jester is questioning whether challenge caches even need to be improved, which is a valid point to raise in this discussion. I have similar questions myself. If there is little or no need to improve challenge caches, then I think Groundspeak's programming resources can be better spent on the many more important issues that clearly need improvement.

I was addressing the points raised repeatedly about being able to log challenge caches - which are essentially physical caches with an ALR - as found without having to worry about the challenge at all; because a "find" is a "find" and ALRs change the game.

Yes, the challenge requirements are ALRs and that makes challenge caches different than traditional caches. I think that's a good thing, just like multi-caches are different than puzzle caches, which are different than Wherigos, etc.

No, if you only find the challenge cache container and don't fulfill the challenge requirements, then you don't get to log a "Found It." That's clearly spelled out in the guidelines. Just like you don't get to log a "Found It" for simply going to the posted coordinates of an EarthCache without sending in appropriate answers. Just like you don't get to log 10 "Found Its" if you find 10 containers along a single multi-cache.

9.1k · April 11, 2014

Yes, those points were made and addressed repeatedly throughout this thread.

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

Need? No. But the discussion is how. They can be improved. So, I, and others, decided to discuss the how, not the "do they need". Challenges are, quite obviously, a tacked-on ability that CO's have, in the form of ALRs.

Simply saying "they don't need to be improved" is a discussion-killer. (or enthusiastic debate starter)

They don't need to be improved. Can they? Yes. Here are some possible ways...

Edited April 11, 2014 by thebruce0

8k · April 11, 2014

I personally have a hard time ignoring a cache that is right in front of me and will pick it up an sign the log. Unlike TopShelfRob, I have no problem logging these caches on line with a note and have done so. If is so happens that I meet the requirements the cache owner has put out for logging with a Found log, and it isn't too great an effort to provide whatever the cache owner wants as evidence, I will log it as with Found. I may go on and complain of why I think the requirement is silly or unfair, but I do accept that the guidelines as they stand today allow the cache owner to have an ALR for using the Found log.

And I have no trouble not finding caches I don't qualify for - they aren't loaded onto the GPSr & I don't go to GZ and look for them - so simple. Whether it's a Challenge Cache I haven't (or won't) complete the requirements for, or a puzzle I haven't solved, if it's not loaded I don't "miss" it. There are so many other caches I can look for/find, that there are some I can't doesn't cause a blink.

Sure one can look at the cache pages (particularly if it is listed as an Unknown type), and decide if you don't qualify for the "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley log", and then consciously decide to not look for this physical cache. I have no problem with people who want to do this.

What I find objectionable is being told that one must ignore caches if you don't qualify for a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log. I am quite willing to post a note if I don't qualify for a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log. If I qualify for a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log and it isn't too much work to provide the list of caches that qualify me, I'm also willing to log a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log.

I know many cachers who choose to not log a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log for every cache they find, even when thereis no ALR. While you need to find a cache to log a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log (at least for certain types of cahces), you do not need to log a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log in order to find a cache.

5.6k · April 11, 2014

What I find objectionable is being told that one must ignore caches if you don't qualify for a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log. I am quite willing to post a note if I don't qualify for a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log. If I qualify for a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log and it isn't too much work to provide the list of caches that qualify me, I'm also willing to log a "Woohoo! I'm getting another smiley" log.

No one is saying you, personally, must ignore them, you have a great attitude about dealing with them. But those that exhibite their entitlement by claiming they have to be able to log a find on them are being told the best way for them to deal with those caches are to ignore (not just the GC ignore function) those caches.

5.6k · April 11, 2014

In that implementation, if you don't care about challenge caches at all, then there's no change to your experience on gc.com except that you can now log challenge caches found.

Why do you have to find/log them? If you don't care about them, leave 'em be. It's pure entitlement to demand that things be changed so you can log them without fulfilling the requirements.

*sigh* that's a non-point in a discussion about how they can be improved.

I love challenges. I don't care if they stay the same. I'm trying to be productive in how the experience can be improved for those who don't.

I was addressing the points raised repeatedly about being able to log challenge caches - which are essentially physical caches with an ALR - as found without having to worry about the challenge at all; because a "find" is a "find" and ALRs change the game.

Also, it provides additional functionality for those who do enjoy challenge caches.

Yes. You don't have to log them. But that a thread killer, not a discussion topic.

Yes, ALR's do change the game - which is the point of Challenge Caches, to be different from trad caches, just as every other form of caches changed the game from trad caches. Why not start a thread about making Puzzle Caches loggable by anyone, not just those who like solving puzzles? It's the same concept.

I also don't see where your "solution" provides any additional functionality to us who enjoy Challenge Caches (both as finders and owners). We can log them and show our qulifications to do so now.

If you care about Challenge caches, then (at least in my opinion) this opens a whole new challenge-dedicated experience for gc.com and makes it that much more fun and usable

Challenge Caches as they are gives me this "whole new challenge-dedicated experience" already, nothing new has been added, except more work for Groundspeak to program, and make work for the owner of the Challenge Cache.

Or you know, we can discuss ideas we think can help improve the experience, and Groundspeak can choose to listen and be inspired or let us yammer on.

I for one like productive and interesting and enlightening discussion.

I don't see your "solution" as productive, interesting or an improvement. But if I can't disagree with you, that's a discussion killer also.

Your "solution" is more work for Groundspeak just to satisfy a very small group who insist that they get to log Challenge Caches without doing the challenge - Challenge Caches exist to 'challenge' us to do more than just find one cache. It makes a lot more work for Challenge Cache owners to keep track of two different types of finders. I suppose I could add another section to my Challenge Cache, which I'd title "Cheaters" or "The Entitlement Club", for those who never send in their qualifications.

3.1k · April 11, 2014

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

Need? No. But the discussion is how. They can be improved. So, I, and others, decided to discuss the how, not the "do they need".

And you're free to have that discussion. But that doesn't preclude a further discussion of whether there's any reason to improve challenge caches in the first place. You don't get to dictate the terms of discussion on this thread.

If there's no reason to improve challenge caches, then suggestions for improving them are merely solutions in search of a problem. And that's a legitimate point to raise.

9.1k · April 11, 2014

Yes, ALR's do change the game - which is the point of Challenge Caches, to be different from trad caches, just as every other form of caches changed the game from trad caches. Why not start a thread about making Puzzle Caches loggable by anyone, not just those who like solving puzzles? It's the same concept.

1. Let me be absolutely clear: I have no problem with Challenge Caches the way they are right now. I'm fine with them. I love them. I'm an active challenge cacher.

2. Puzzle caches can be logged by anyone, not just those who like solving puzzles. It's not the same concept. But feel free to start a thread about it if you want.

I also don't see where your "solution" provides any additional functionality to us who enjoy Challenge Caches (both as finders and owners). We can log them and show our qulifications to do so now.

1. Let me be absolutely clear: The system as it currently exists is enough for those of us who enjoy Challenge Caches to enjoy Challenge Caching (both as finders and owners).

2. My "solution" is but one (not unique) proposal that is not perfect and not ideal, but it is a suggestion based on my experience as a very active challenge cacher, with additional features that automate much of the tasks and strategies I employ in challenge caching, both as a finder and as an owner.

3. Objectively, it does add functionality to the system in the area of Challenge Caching. But for personal strategies, of course it may merely move functionality from manual stats parsing and cache tracking to automated via the website. If you still want to do it manually, nothing would change for you.

I don't see your "solution" as productive, interesting or an improvement. But if I can't disagree with you, that's a discussion killer also.

1. Let me be absolutely clear: My "solution" is but one suggestion of many being tossed about in this thread, in an effort to improve - for other people, to find some middle ground, if it even exists - the geocaching experience, whether it includes challenge caching or not.

2. Many opinions differ, whether it be about what the problem is, how to solve the problem, or whether there even is a problem. I cannot guarantee that any suggestion I (or anyone else makes) will be considered by any person as "productive", "interesting", or "an improvement". But I can hope that suggestions spawn more discussion, instead of simple negativity and discussion-killing statements that problems (which clearly exist) don't exist.

3. Feel free to disagree with me. Respectfully, let's discuss why.

Your "solution" is more work for Groundspeak just to satisfy a very small group who insist that they get to log Challenge Caches without doing the challenge - Challenge Caches exist to 'challenge' us to do more than just find one cache. It makes a lot more work for Challenge Cache owners to keep track of two different types of finders. I suppose I could add another section to my Challenge Cache, which I'd title "Cheaters" or "The Entitlement Club", for those who never send in their qualifications.

1. Let me be absolutely clear: My "solution" is not perfect and not ideal, let alone very little development work on Groundspeak's part (as I repeatedly conceded), but it is an attempt to find some form of middle ground, to appease prolific challenge cachers as well as 'purist' physical cachers, and anyone in between.

2. My "solution" may not be preferred by a vast majority of forum/thread users, perhaps even only me, who knows. But it is just a suggestion, amongst others posted here, in the hopes of spawning more discussion and problem-solving, rather than discussion-killing statements.

3. Any proposed solution will necessarily be intended to appease the non-challenge cacher and the work they do to 'endure' this ALR affliction on geocaching (sarcasm), and attempt to spread it more evenly across the community. Appease those who with challenges didn't exist, while putting a tiny bit of extra weight on the shoulders of challenge cache owners. And, in my suggestion, the additional work from Groundspeak would provide a more explicit and official platform by which challenge caches can be maintained, stats analyzed, and results streamlined - which, in my opinion, is a great addition to the site, of no impact to those who don't care, but of course also at the cost of development time on Groundspeak's part. It is not perfect, it is not ideal, it is just a suggestion.

* "discussion-killing" comments are perfectly allowable in the spirit of discussion forums; I have no authority to tell anyone not to post them. They just really suck when they are repeatedly raised in a discussion that is trying to address the problem.

Finally, in fear of my point-form exasperated wordiness that isn't directly on-topic threatening to be a discussion-killer itself, I'm going to (attempt to) from now on only comment with productive points addressing the topic of the thread, instead of defending the discussion itself

ETA:

Need? No. But the discussion is how. They can be improved. So, I, and others, decided to discuss the how, not the "do they need".

And you're free to have that discussion. But that doesn't preclude a further discussion of whether there's any reason to improve challenge caches in the first place. You don't get to dictate the terms of discussion on this thread.

If there's no reason to improve challenge caches, then suggestions for improving them are merely solutions in search of a problem. And that's a legitimate point to raise.

See my 2nd last point above.

We, as challenge cachers, may not believe there is "reason to improve", but clearly there those who dislike challenges - heck the thread title itself prompts the discussion of how to "improve" challenge caching. So there is a discussion. Thus, it sucks when people repeatedly say there is no discussion to be had.

But anyway...

Edited April 11, 2014 by thebruce0

8k · April 11, 2014

Yes, ALR's do change the game - which is the point of Challenge Caches, to be different from trad caches, just as every other form of caches changed the game from trad caches. Why not start a thread about making Puzzle Caches loggable by anyone, not just those who like solving puzzles? It's the same concept.

Sure. ALRs (other than challenges) were very popular among cache owners as way of making their caches standout as different. And for many kinds of ALRs, the majority of cachers found that the extra tasks they were being asked to do enhanced the experience and were enjoyable.

Yet TPTB found that a few abusives ALR cache owners ruined the game for a substatial number of geocachers. They created totally useless and silly ALRs or even asked people to do things that were questionable - legally, ethically, or simple for their effect on people's perception of geocaching.

When they decided to not just ban new ALRs but to render all existing ALRs void, they made an exception for geocaching related challenges. My guess is that they found geocaching challenge were not abused as often as other types of ALRs and since the tasks you were asked to do were directly related to geocaching they were more likely to appeal to geocachers and be enjoyable.

Yet within a short time they had to add a page of restrictions on what was an acceptable challenge cache. It seems that simply limiting ALR to a geocaching related task was not sufficient to prevent abuse.

It may be that with the current restrictions, challenge caches are under control. That abusive cache owners and undue restrictions can be dealt with when they come up.

Making rules and then making exceptions to them without discussing the rationale results in a lot of confusion.

When the banning of ALRs was being discussed, many people felt that ALRs were different than puzzle caches or caches requiring special equipment. They argued that these other restrictions occur before you could find the cache and sign the log. ALRs, they said, occur after you have found the cache, or at least independently of finding the cache. This idea was reinforced by the wording of the guideline that was added to make non-challenge ALRs void: "Physical caches can be logged online as 'Found' once the physical log has been signed". I don't believe that this was the reason for banning ALRs. But for those who do, the exemption for Challenge caches makes no sense.

There are a number of proposals to rework challenges caches so that they don't need to be an exception to the rules for logging of physical caches. Arguing that since Groundspeak says they are an exception there is no need to make any changes isn't going to change anyone's mind. Perhaps if a Groundspeak lackey provided the rationale for making challenges an exception, people would accept it. However I think that some people would still want to be able to mark in some way that the have found a cache and signed the log, even if they do not qualify to post a WIGAS log online.

Edited April 11, 2014 by tozainamboku

3.1k · April 11, 2014

"discussion-killing" comments are perfectly allowable in the spirit of discussion forums; I have no authority to tell anyone not to post them. They just really suck when they are repeatedly raised in a discussion that is trying to address the problem.

Pointing out that your suggestion is a solution in search of a problem isn't a "thread-killing comment." In fact, it fosters further discussion about what exactly you hope to "fix." Ironically, labeling comments as "thread-killing" and claiming "they just really suck" comes across as an attempt to discourage further discussion along those lines.

3.1k · April 11, 2014

Coming back to the new log type, as I described in previous comments, it's not such a 'simple' addition.

You have to determine if the challenge-complete log is only valid if there is also a Find log.

If not:

* People will start posting challenge completed logs worldwide for any challenge they qualify even though they haven't found the cache.

If yes:

* Deletion of the Find log (by any user) necessitates automated deletion of the Completed log as well

* Completing a challenge means posting two logs - both a Find and a Complete.

Neither of these options have easy implementations or consequences to deal with.

Not to mention to changes to the GPX schema, along with additional API data.

So once again I come back to the cache listing-level property for completed challenges (plus date) that would work very much like corrected coordinates. But it also comes with its own issues. Does the challenge cache CO have a right to deny challenge completion attempts?

If not:

* People could flag any challenge as complete (presuming they've found the cache) so it appears in their profile - and not actually have to complete anything because it's not verified. Challenges become an effectively meaningless statistic.

If yes:

* Users marking a challenge complete will need to provide proof in some manner - like Earthcaches via email? like standard logs by posting a note?

* The CO will need an additional interface to deny completion status to any users (similar to the widget that display users who've favorited a cache, perhaps?)

* Should the CO see only the list of Found+Completed users, or any user who has marked their challenge Completed? (the latter could lead to disgruntled player spam)

This method would still require a bit of GPX schema alteration to provide the data (cache-specific Completed properties [date, flag] for the finders' GPX's, or for COs a new data set containing references to all users who've marked it complete)

But how would verification for 'completed challenge' in this example be any different from verification of a qualified 'find' now?

This.

If a person armchair-logged a Challenge "around the world", they can't log it as such, because their name is not also on the logbook. It's not an idea to have one or the other--it's an idea to have a "Found it" and a "Found it, Challenge Completed".

And, if someone logs the find, and then compeletes the challenge, they have 2 choices. They can continue to do the "note" log thing, or they can put in the time to properly edit their older "Found it" log to reflect the log type change.

Again, see Earthcache vs challenge Unknown cache for how ALRs relate to logging. If not this alternate log idea (which would be admittedly cumbersome to integrate), then we have to consider a "virtual" cache type like Earthcaches for challenges to become "Challenges" on geocaching.com

3.1k · April 11, 2014

So, even as this is true, what would happen to a cacher who logs a find on a challenge Unknown cache because they found the container at the posted coordiates and signed the logbook?

If the "finder" hadn't completed the challenge requirements, then I think most challenge cache owners would delete the "find" and (hopefully) send a polite email to the "finder" explaining that they cannot log a "Found It" until they also complete the requirements. That's what I would do (and have done).

It's the side-game subculture that dictates that they shouldn't log it as "found" on geocaching.com, but that isn't supported by the guidelines as a case where someone should not log a find online.

Actually, the guidelines clearly spell out the logging requirements for challenge caches. For example, see III.1.

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing.

Also, see II.2.3.

A challenge cache is a variation of a puzzle cache that enhances the geocaching experience. It will typically require the cacher to meet a reasonable and positive Geocaching-, Waymarking- or Wherigo-related qualification.

So, when that cache's owner deletes that cacher's found it log online, what then?

If the finder believes they actually have completed the challenge requirements and signed the challenge's physical log, then they can explain the situation to Groundspeak. If Groundspeak agrees with the finder, then they will reinstate the finder's "Found It" and explain to the cache owner that it is a legitimate find and should not be deleted again. If Groundspeak disagrees with the finder, they will explain why the find is not legitimate and tell the finder not to log a new find until they have met the requirements and signed the physical log.

This is where I'm still trying to get my head around the ALR of a physical cache, but the intent of the "challenge cache". If the "challenge cache" is a physical container, it should be able to be found and logged if the cache is found and the logbook signed--just like any other physical cache.

Since a "multi-cache" is a physical container, shouldn't it be located at the posted coordinates like the original traditional cache? Of course not. Geocaching has evolved beyond traditional caches. Not being at the posted coordinates doesn't delegitimize multi-caches (or puzzles, letterbox-hybrids, and Wherigos). Nor does having an ALR delegitimize challenge caches. It's just the way geocaching has evolved at Groundspeak.

But, if the "challenge" cache is a virtual (small "v") cache, then all you have to do is provide the required validation for the completion (not unlike an Earthcache...) and log the "find" of that "challenge" online. No need for a container.

For me, that would delegitimize challenge caches. All non-lab geocache types require that you go to a specified location. Being able to log a "Found It" for a challenge cache from my couch would be no more "geocaching" than sitting on a sofa and taking a picture of myself kissing a frog.

One could put a container at the coordinates for an Earthcache, but surely they wouldn't accept a signature on a logbook as an alternative for answering the questions about earth science? Because then all that cache has become is a traditional with an ALR.

I think most people would find physical EarthCaches to be an acceptable ALR. I believe the main reason EarthCaches do not have containers is that many of them are located in sensitive environments or in parks that do not allow the placement of physical containers.

You know, I never had a reason to pay close enough attention to those guidelines until this topic came up. Thanks for posting them in context.

All of that makes me feel like the "challenge" cache language was an awkward insertion of how to allow ALRs. I think it could be tweaked so that the guidelines are simplified then, in light of how it applies here.

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

The alternatives are still, as I mention above, to create a new "virtual" cache type, or to amend the method of logging like I or thebruce0 have been talking about. That way we address what is a valid concern from people about logging a cache container they have found, while maintaining legitamacy within the guidelines and challenge cache gameplay many still enjoy.

So, how to get around that pesky "virtual" idea, where a virtual "Challenge cache" type would be lame--no reason to visit the site if all you have to do is prove you meet the criteria. So then, it's also about finding a container and being "allowed" to log the cache once you've completed the alternative logging requirements for that challenge. That's a nice feeling, no doubt--add in the likely increase in D of the D/T combo, and you're doubly rewarded if you're a stat monger like many of us are. Another "difficult" cache under our belt! Huzzah!

So what I'm thinking of is a way to keep the common thread of the game, remove the ALR from the game completely (aside the obvious for Earthcaches), and let people log the containers they have found. If they are stat-centric folks or enjoy the challenge of a "challenge", then they can still get that thrill.

I'm guessing, however, if you take away the necessary hurdles and barricades in your way to log a challenge to be allowed to log a "found it" on that container, that the shine of the whole idea would be much more dull. "Just another cache" we'll say...

But you know, so long as most challenge caches are micros under a bush in a parking lot, the thrill really is about completing the challenge tasks, isnt' it? Without the ALR, that cache is just a boring park-and-grab.

"Ok, so put the final in an ammo can at the overlook of a beautiful hike!" Well, kiss the visit count goodbye, as challenge caches are already exclusive with finds, and then we can add the additional longer hike to get it, which we all know amounts to an additional reduction in finds.

So...le sigh. Is there nothing we can do to solve this problem?

Then tell me, what is the thing all challenge caches and those who actively seek them have in common?

9.1k · April 11, 2014

Pointing out that your suggestion is a solution in search of a problem isn't a "thread-killing comment."

I was not speaking against criticism of solutions. I was saying "xyz suggestion is pointless because there is no problem" is discussion-killing. I'm perfectly fine with people thinking any suggestion I make isn't perfect or even good. I said it myself. But why is what I'd like to know, productively, to help move the discussion along and formulate other ideas within the thread.

Maybe there's some hair-splitting going on here... Thinking about it, "a solution in search of a problem" could be interpreted as discussion-killing, if it thereby implies the entire thread is pointless. The solutions presented are addressing the original concern. If they are all "solutions in search of a problem", then yes, discussion-killing.

Ironically, labeling comments as "thread-killing" and claiming "they just really suck" comes across as an attempt to discourage further discussion along those lines.

Well yes, I would hope claiming that discussion-killing comments "just really suck" would discourage further discussion-killing comments.

----

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

The alternatives are still, as I mention above, to create a new "virtual" cache type, or to amend the method of logging like I or thebruce0 have been talking about. That way we address what is a valid concern from people about logging a cache container they have found, while maintaining legitamacy within the guidelines and challenge cache gameplay many still enjoy.

Yeah, as I recall there are a few solutions so far proposed in this thread...

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

2) Institute a new Challenge Cache Type.

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

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

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

6) Do absolutely Nothing.

Each of these raises problems of their own, with various levels of programmatic implementation and development work on the part of Groundspeak.

Based on what I think is the main issue raised:

* Being unable to log a physical challenge cache found online when the cache is "found", logbook is signed (ie ALR on a physical cache)

These are some of the issues that first come to mind with the above points:

1) No more challenges. Not fun for people who like challenge caching.

2) Probably the most intuitive/tried-and-true solution (new cache type), but a significant change to the geocaching repertoire. Doesn't directly address the issue.

3) I believe this may cause the cache log history maintenance to become more problematic. But issue resolved.

4) Shifts around the amount of work instead of actually reducing it (editing/deleting previous 'find' logs). But issue resolved.

5) Heavier front-end website programming and features to develop on Groundspeak's end. But issue resolved.

6) Of course. But then there's no discussion. Doesn't address the issue.

Maybe there are more solutions in this thread, did I miss any? I know there are more issues than what's listed

But you know, so long as most challenge caches are micros under a bush in a parking lot, the thrill really is about completing the challenge tasks, isnt' it? Without the ALR, that cache is just a boring park-and-grab.

Hm. Most challenge caches I know of (in Ontario) aren't park'n'grabs... the better ones I've seen are physical caches placed either in the theme of its challenge, or just as a good cache in and of itself. Nonetheless, a 'good cache' as a challenge final gets into subjective territory again, and comes back to that 'wow' factor for published. IMO, if you place a challenge cache, the physical container placement should be just as flexible as any other physical cache type... as great as it is to complete challenge caches with a bang, as it were.

"Ok, so put the final in an ammo can at the overlook of a beautiful hike!" Well, kiss the visit count goodbye, as challenge caches are already exclusive with finds, and then we can add the additional longer hike to get it, which we all know amounts to an additional reduction in finds."

Exactly... it's easier for people to justify attempting to complete a challenge if they know they have a good chance at actually getting the physical cache. (myself, I've bookmarked challenges I know I'll never physically visit, but its proposed challenge is still interesting or fun, so I may still attempt it; but that's just me)

I think a good challenge cache final is a decent container on a good forest trail. Not a park'n'grab, but nothing extreme that might dissuade someone from trying to complete the challenge; what most cachers might consider a 'nice hide'. But again, the placement isn't something that could be controlled... that just goes back to the 'quality hide' debate again...

Edited April 11, 2014 by thebruce0

8k · April 11, 2014

Yeah, as I recall there are a few solutions so far proposed in this thread...

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

2) Institute a new Challenge Cache Type.

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

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

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

6) Do absolutely Nothing.

You forgot

7) Rename the Found log to "Woohoo! I got another smiley" (WIGAS)

though admitedly it isn't all that different from 6.

And while the name may smack of sarcasm, I'm putting this forward as a serious suggestion. The entire converstation is predicated on the confusion between finding a geocache with logging it 'Found' online. Simply call the online log something other than 'Found' and the problem goes away.

Edited April 11, 2014 by tozainamboku

3.1k · April 11, 2014

Actually, the guidelines clearly spell out the logging requirements for challenge caches. For example, see III.1.

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing.

All of that makes me feel like the "challenge" cache language was an awkward insertion of how to allow ALRs. I think it could be tweaked so that the guidelines are simplified then, in light of how it applies here.

When multi-caches were created, Groundspeak had to add language to describe this new type of cache, too. The same thing with events, letterbox hybrids, Wherigos, etc. While this added additional sentences to the guidelines, I think the extra diversity that was incorporated into geocaching was well worth that small price.

Besides, I think the alterations thebruce0 and you are proposing would be more complicated for users to understand than the existing system.

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

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

The alternatives are still, as I mention above, to create a new "virtual" cache type, or to amend the method of logging like I or thebruce0 have been talking about. That way we address what is a valid concern from people about logging a cache container they have found, while maintaining legitamacy within the guidelines and challenge cache gameplay many still enjoy.

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

So what I'm thinking of is a way to keep the common thread of the game, remove the ALR from the game completely (aside the obvious for Earthcaches), and let people log the containers they have found.

If you're going to remove ALRs from the game, why make an exception for EarthCaches? By the way, webcam caches and most virtuals also have ALRs. Should they be exempt, too? If so, then why? If preverving a common thread of the game is important, then we could eliminate everything but traditionals. After all, everything else differs from them in some way. But then geocaching would be a lot less interesting to me.

So...le sigh. Is there nothing we can do to solve this problem?

What exactly is the problem that you're trying to fix? One problem with challenge caches is that they can be hard to filter from the other Unknown caches. The OP suggested creating a new icon for challenge caches. Others have recommended adding a "challenge" attribute instead. Neither of these solutions would require too much effort by Groundspeak, and they would fix a well identified (albeit not huge) problem.

3.1k · April 11, 2014

Yeah, as I recall there are a few solutions so far proposed in this thread...

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

2) Institute a new Challenge Cache Type.

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

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

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

6) Do absolutely Nothing.

You forgot

7) Rename the Found log to "Woohoo! I got another smiley" (WIGAS)

though admitedly it isn't all that different from 6.

And while the name may smack of sarcasm, I'm putting this forward as a serious suggestion. The entire converstation is predicated on the confusion between finding a geocache with logging it 'Found' online. Simply call the online log something other than 'Found' and the problem goes away.

Sadly, it probably would go a long way towards solving the "problem" that several people brought up: "I 'found' a container, so I'm entitled to log a 'Found It.'"

But I still think either Solution #2 or (preferably) Solution #8 (add a new "challenge" attribute) would help with the legitimate problem of needing a better way to filter challenge caches from other types of Unknown caches.

Edited April 11, 2014 by CanadianRockies

3.1k · April 11, 2014

All of that makes me feel like the "challenge" cache language was an awkward insertion of how to allow ALRs. I think it could be tweaked so that the guidelines are simplified then, in light of how it applies here.

When multi-caches were created, Groundspeak had to add language to describe this new type of cache, too. The same thing with events, letterbox hybrids, Wherigos, etc. While this added additional sentences to the guidelines, I think the extra diversity that was incorporated into geocaching was well worth that small price.

Besides, I think the alterations thebruce0 and you are proposing would be more complicated for users to understand than the existing system.

Yes, but look at when the multi-cache was created. And the fact that it is a cache type unto itself. You're ignoring the common thread for all physical caches (other than those with an ALR) that once a container is found and a log signed, it is a find. And you're taking me slightly out of context here...

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

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

Straw man.

The alternatives are still, as I mention above, to create a new "virtual" cache type, or to amend the method of logging like I or thebruce0 have been talking about. That way we address what is a valid concern from people about logging a cache container they have found, while maintaining legitamacy within the guidelines and challenge cache gameplay many still enjoy.

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

ALRs were banned, no? But Unknown "challenge" caches were "introduced" and written into the guidelines as an exception to the ban.

Your Multi arguement is a straw man. If there isn't a logbook in a physical stage, you didn't find the Multi-cache's logbook. That's the point. You find a physical cache, sign the logbook, and you're set. You can't compare the grandfathered webcams and virtuals into this either--there is no container.

So what I'm thinking of is a way to keep the common thread of the game, remove the ALR from the game completely (aside the obvious for Earthcaches), and let people log the containers they have found.

If you're going to remove ALRs from the game, why make an exception for EarthCaches? By the way, webcam caches and most virtuals also have ALRs. Should they be exempt, too? If so, then why? If preverving a common thread of the game is important, then we could eliminate everything but traditionals. After all, everything else differs from them in some way. But then geocaching would be a lot less interesting to me.

Because Earthcaches are virtual. They are also a different thing altogether from "traditional" geocaching. It's an ongoing promotion that is location-based.

No need to "eliminate all but traditionals" because the guidelines still support that they can exist, but that a find of the container and signature on the log is a find. It's simple, but somehow you're missing it after each time someone posts this fact.

So...le sigh. Is there nothing we can do to solve this problem?

What exactly is the problem that you're trying to fix? One problem with challenge caches is that they can be hard to filter from the other Unknown caches. The OP suggested creating a new icon for challenge caches. Others have recommended adding a "challenge" attribute instead. Neither of these solutions would require too much effort by Groundspeak, and they would fix a well identified (albeit not huge) problem.

Haha...yeah. I was using "le sigh" as a silly little joke. I was being sarcastic...and we all know how that comes through these forums. :laughing: :anicute:

Anyway, none of those solutions approaches the issue that a physical cache can be logged without an ALR. I would lean toward a new cache type over an attribute if it comes to searching and weeding out certain cache types. That way they could deal with the ALR aspect by creating a new type and breaking off its own description and specific guidelines apart from Unknowns or other physical caches.

9.1k · April 12, 2014

So based on that list, the new attribute would slip in as say 2b, for enabling challenge-related updates. 2a/b would be what enables the functionality of #3-5.

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

2a) Institute a new Challenge Cache Type.

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

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

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

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

6) Do absolutely Nothing.

7) Rename the Found log to "Woohoo! I got another smiley" (WIGAS)

The issues with the attribute though include the fact that now the Challenge attribute has to be made only available for Unknowns.

Unless of course the solution allows for qualifications being tied to any cache type... :blink:

Is there any other attribute that is restricted from certain cache types being created? If not, then it's programming to allow dynamic attribute selection, and more schema updates.

Edited April 12, 2014 by thebruce0

3.1k · April 12, 2014

So based on that list, the new attribute would slip in as say 2b, for enabling challenge-related updates. 2a/b would be what enables the functionality of #3-5.

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

2a) Institute a new Challenge Cache Type.

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

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

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

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

6) Do absolutely Nothing.

7) Rename the Found log to "Woohoo! I got another smiley" (WIGAS)

The issues with the attribute though include the fact that now the Challenge attribute has to be made only available for Unknowns.

Unless of course the solution allows for qualifications being tied to any cache type...

Is there any other attribute that is restricted from certain cache types being created? If not, then it's programming to allow dynamic attribute selection, and more schema updates.

We can always think about just seeing auto-generated souvenirs for completing certain "challenges". Take the "top 20" challenge ideas and make them into souvenirs that can be earned. It's like the BadgeGen stuff, but Groundspeak branded.

Really, isn't that a third of the reasoning behind challenge caches? 1 part location-based activity: "for the geocaching", 1 part to say you achieved something, and 1 part to log another smilie?

Take away the physical cache, and you take away one cache that is completly exclusive on the criteria as created by the cache owner? It takes away some of the "I did it!", and for some the "I did it, and you didn't!" if there is no longer a container to log into... :laughing: (I kid, I kid...)

But seriously, if a virtual were to be created that allowed a specific "Challenge Compelted" stat, what's that taking away from the joy of the challenge cache in the first place? It's the fact that after you complete the challenge, you can go out and find the cache.

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

9.1k · April 12, 2014

Take away the physical cache, and you take away one cache that is completly exclusive on the criteria as created by the cache owner? It takes away some of the "I did it!", and for some the "I did it, and you didn't!" if there is no longer a container to log into... (I kid, I kid...)

But seriously, if a virtual were to be created that allowed a specific "Challenge Compelted" stat, what's that taking away from the joy of the challenge cache in the first place? It's the fact that after you complete the challenge, you can go out and find the cache.

But what do you find? There's no physical cache. Just a virtual waypoint. You've completed the ALR. So, what else do you need to do?

The thing is,challenge caches, to stay challenge caches, need to have a physical, location-based component, otherwise it's right back to Geocaching Challenges. That really is thing that makes Challenge Caches as we have now distinct from other caches. Physical cache + objectively verifiable geocaching-related ALR.

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

Yup. I'm pretty sure there's no one-size-fits-all solution...

Personally, my only real hope is that Groundspeak will at least decide on some manner to better distinguish challenge caches. That's about it, for me at least. Having "challenge" in the cache name is a start, but there are grandfathered challenges w/o "challenge" and I've even seen a couple recently published (after 2012) without "challenge" in the title.

Icon for Challenge Geocaches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment