Past Find D/T changed yesterday, D/T grid now incomplete

[+Colonial Cats]

 

Bottom line, change the rating on a rare combo, you will impact people, some negatively but since you sony care it really is a moot point.

 

Good for you that you choose to seek caches specifically because of their D/T ratings rather than the fun element but that is not my problem as a cache owner.

 

I choose to find caches for many reasons one of which was D/T ratings. In the last year I have travelled 10s of thousands of miles working on the Jasmer challenge, I do this because I choose to because I have fun.

 

I am not the only one that has found caches strictly for the D/T combo, good for you that you don't care.

I have changed my D/T ratings in the past due to changing conditions, finders comments and to try to be more accurate. It is not the COs responsibility to cater to how finders are playing the game. Get over it and move on.

[team tisri]

There would be no twisting of knickers if the programmers understood (and dealt with) the temporal anomaly created by linking current conditions with a past event.

 

The cache has a certain D/T at the time and date at which it was logged. This may or may not relate to the current D/T, and the log should reflect that, by embedding the D/T in it.

 

It's not rocket surgery.

 

The only reason for that is to cater to the D/T grid obsessed folks...those who participate in a side game that Groundspeak is under no obligation to support or endorse. It's on thing if folks want to use the stats GS provides to compete with each other...it's another thing entirely is Groundspeak starts changing the rules of the game to suit those who do.

If they ever did, I'd be tempted to change the D's and T's on a daily basis just to make it unpredictable for folks.

 

In fairness I suppose there is a reasonable argument that if Groundspeak provide the information they can hardly be surprised if people create challenges based on that information and that changing the information can cause issues, particularly with rare combinations.

[+frinklabs]

There would be no twisting of knickers if the programmers understood (and dealt with) the temporal anomaly created by linking current conditions with a past event.

 

The cache has a certain D/T at the time and date at which it was logged. This may or may not relate to the current D/T, and the log should reflect that, by embedding the D/T in it.

 

It's not rocket surgery.

 

The only reason for that is to cater to the D/T grid obsessed folks...those who participate in a side game that Groundspeak is under no obligation to support or endorse. It's on thing if folks want to use the stats GS provides to compete with each other...it's another thing entirely is Groundspeak starts changing the rules of the game to suit those who do.

If they ever did, I'd be tempted to change the D's and T's on a daily basis just to make it unpredictable for folks.

 

In fairness I suppose there is a reasonable argument that if Groundspeak provide the information they can hardly be surprised if people create challenges based on that information and that changing the information can cause issues, particularly with rare combinations.

 

RE: the bolded-by-me part: I used to contemplate being willfully vindictive to spoil others' fun. Then I grew up.

 

Meanwhile, since the found-it log is only to show that the cache was found, and the date is included to cater to the date grid-obsessed folks, why not remove that information? Probably the publish date should be removed as well, since it is only relevant to the Jasmer grid-obsessed folks.

 

On a more positive, unrelated note, Happy Canada Day!

 

[+NeverSummer]

 

I too wish that we as owners could change the cache type as needed. I can think of many instances where it could be helpful, but I suppose certain cache types need to be re-reviewed if they are changed. For example, if you change an Unknown written as a puzzle to a Traditional, it should be easy enough. But to change a Traditional to an Unknown or a Multi would require some review for proximity, etc.'

 

 

You can't make that change. A type change would have to be made by a reviewer and would probably be denied since it is a ne cache experience.

I know.

I'm saying it would be nice, in some cases. Thus the "I wish" statement, and other explanation after that.

[+J Grouchy]

RE: the bolded-by-me part: I used to contemplate being willfully vindictive to spoil others' fun. Then I grew up.

 

Meanwhile, since the found-it log is only to show that the cache was found, and the date is included to cater to the date grid-obsessed folks, why not remove that information? Probably the publish date should be removed as well, since it is only relevant to the Jasmer grid-obsessed folks.

 

Vindictive? Who said anything about revenge?

I just think it's foolish and unrealistic for folks to rely on the D/T ratings to be static...and even more foolish for those people to expect cache owners to potentially falsify the information about the cache for their benefit.

[+tozainamboku]

RE: the bolded-by-me part: I used to contemplate being willfully vindictive to spoil others' fun. Then I grew up.

 

Meanwhile, since the found-it log is only to show that the cache was found, and the date is included to cater to the date grid-obsessed folks, why not remove that information? Probably the publish date should be removed as well, since it is only relevant to the Jasmer grid-obsessed folks.

 

Vindictive? Who said anything about revenge?

I just think it's foolish and unrealistic for folks to rely on the D/T ratings to be static...and even more foolish for those people to expect cache owners to potentially falsify the information about the cache for their benefit.

On the other hand it would be foolish and unrelistic to change your D/T rating everyday just because you can .

 

I might accept that a cache owner wants to change D/T from summer to winter to account for differences in the cache. I don't see it as reasonable for a cache owner to check the weather report everyday and set the D/T accordingly. These numbers are suppose to give finders a rough idea of what to expect. They aren't expected to be precise. Those people trying to fill in a grid have a reasonable expectation that D/T changes are rare, though I agree they shouldn't be surprised when they do happen.

Edited July 1, 2014 by tozainamboku

[+TopShelfRob]

Related question... if there is a cache that is a 2/2 in the winter and due to trail overgrowth is about a 2/3.5 in the summer, can I find it twice and cross two squares off of my grid?

[team tisri]

Related question... if there is a cache that is a 2/2 in the winter and due to trail overgrowth is about a 2/3.5 in the summer, can I find it twice and cross two squares off of my grid?

 

With the current system only the most recent rating counts. Under the assorted proposals to log the historic values of D/T, or to log the D/T within your Find log, yes you could. Or you could create a sock puppet basic account, create a 5/5 puzzle, and then find it 81 times using your main account while shifting the D/T to cover all possible combinations. If people started logging DNFs against it, that's the time to archive it saying it must have been muggled. And the beauty of the cheat is that you can do it from your armchair, since nobody would need to know that the cache never existed in the first place.

[+Walts Hunting]

Related question... if there is a cache that is a 2/2 in the winter and due to trail overgrowth is about a 2/3.5 in the summer, can I find it twice and cross two squares off of my grid?

On the GS website you will get current d/t. If you use gsak you can lock it at whatever d/t you want and subsequent PQ loads will not change it. I don't know if you could log it as two separate ones though. Then you can generate your stats via macro and post them although that is a lot of work for one cache issue when project-GC will dynamically displayall your stats with no work.

[+The Leprechauns]

This happened to me yesterday. The owner of a 3.5 / 5.0 cache increased the difficulty rating for their boat-only cache up to 4.5 stars, because of the amount of lily pads and other vegetation that has grown in the area over the years. I found the cache many years ago by borrowing a boat. The owner posted a note explaining their reasoning and I respect their right to keep the ratings accurate without regard for the challenge cache sub-game.

 

Now, ordinarily, I'm always happy when a CO ups the stars after I've found their cache - it makes me look more awesome than I actually am. But in this case, I've lost the only 3.5 / 5.0 cache in my grid, and I already had a 4.5 / 5.0 cache. So, it looks like I need to seek out another 3.5 / 5.0 cache. Gee, doesn't that suck? I have to go find a fun, challenging cache. I just scouted one out that's less than a half hour from home, and which attracts lots of favorite points.

 

Having read this discussion, I was well-prepared when I discovered the new "hole" in my D/T grid last evening. The funny thing is, I went to that page in my statistics because I spent the day yesterday finding an awesome cache to fill in the rare and coveted 5.0 / 4.5 slot in my grid. When I went to admire my grid with just two remaining unfound slots, I was instead surprised to still see three -- one of which used to be filled!

 

A few years ago, I found a terrain 5 cache on an island by walking to it at a time when the lake had been drained for dredging. When the lake was re-filled with water, the owner restored the five star terrain rating. It was no more than 2.5 stars when I found it. Anyways, that cache fills a slot in my grid that maybe I don't deserve. So I now consider my "grid karma" to be in balance.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This happened to me yesterday. The owner of a 3.5 / 5.0 cache increased the difficulty rating for their boat-only cache up to 4.5 stars, because of the amount of lily pads and other vegetation that has grown in the area over the years.

 

Why did the CO increase the D rating when it was the terrain that had become more difficult?

 

 

[+dprovan]

The cache has a certain D/T at the time and date at which it was logged. This may or may not relate to the current D/T, and the log should reflect that, by embedding the D/T in it.

There are two cases. The case you are thinking of is the one in which the D/T is changed to reflect a change in the cache. The other case is where the D/T is changed because it was wrong at the time and date you found the cache. Your solution is just as wrong for the second case as the current behavior is wrong for the case you're thinking of.

[+tozainamboku]

This happened to me yesterday. The owner of a 3.5 / 5.0 cache increased the difficulty rating for their boat-only cache up to 4.5 stars, because of the amount of lily pads and other vegetation that has grown in the area over the years.

 

Why did the CO increase the D rating when it was the terrain that had become more difficult?

Because the terrain doesn't go higher than 5.0

[+NYPaddleCacher]

This happened to me yesterday. The owner of a 3.5 / 5.0 cache increased the difficulty rating for their boat-only cache up to 4.5 stars, because of the amount of lily pads and other vegetation that has grown in the area over the years.

 

Why did the CO increase the D rating when it was the terrain that had become more difficult?

Because the terrain doesn't go higher than 5.0

 

IMHO, increasing the difficulty rating because the terrain is already at 5.0 is a misuse of the difficulty rating. I always assume that the difficulty rating reflects how hard it is to find the cache once at ground zero.

 

 

[+frinklabs]

The cache has a certain D/T at the time and date at which it was logged. This may or may not relate to the current D/T, and the log should reflect that, by embedding the D/T in it.

There are two cases. The case you are thinking of is the one in which the D/T is changed to reflect a change in the cache. The other case is where the D/T is changed because it was wrong at the time and date you found the cache. Your solution is just as wrong for the second case as the current behavior is wrong for the case you're thinking of.

 

Of the two stated cases, would it be fair to say that the former occurs far more frequently than the latter?

[+briansnat]

This happened to me yesterday. The owner of a 3.5 / 5.0 cache increased the difficulty rating for their boat-only cache up to 4.5 stars, because of the amount of lily pads and other vegetation that has grown in the area over the years.

 

Why did the CO increase the D rating when it was the terrain that had become more difficult?

Because the terrain doesn't go higher than 5.0

 

IMHO, increasing the difficulty rating because the terrain is already at 5.0 is a misuse of the difficulty rating. I always assume that the difficulty rating reflects how hard it is to find the cache once at ground zero.

 

I'm with you. Increasing the difficulty because it's harder to get there?

[+dprovan]

The cache has a certain D/T at the time and date at which it was logged. This may or may not relate to the current D/T, and the log should reflect that, by embedding the D/T in it.

There are two cases. The case you are thinking of is the one in which the D/T is changed to reflect a change in the cache. The other case is where the D/T is changed because it was wrong at the time and date you found the cache. Your solution is just as wrong for the second case as the current behavior is wrong for the case you're thinking of.

Of the two stated cases, would it be fair to say that the former occurs far more frequently than the latter?

No, my experience says just the opposite. I've rarely seen a cache rating changed because the cache changed. Changing the ratings in reaction to feedback is fairly common, though.

[+MartyBartfast]

There is a cache owner in Northern England who has caches in the mountains and he increases the D/T rating of his caches over the winter and reduces them in the summer so that the rating reflects the reality of the hunt.

[+The Leprechauns]

This happened to me yesterday. The owner of a 3.5 / 5.0 cache increased the difficulty rating for their boat-only cache up to 4.5 stars, because of the amount of lily pads and other vegetation that has grown in the area over the years. I found the cache many years ago by borrowing a boat. The owner posted a note explaining their reasoning and I respect their right to keep the ratings accurate without regard for the challenge cache sub-game.

 

Now, ordinarily, I'm always happy when a CO ups the stars after I've found their cache - it makes me look more awesome than I actually am. But in this case, I've lost the only 3.5 / 5.0 cache in my grid, and I already had a 4.5 / 5.0 cache. So, it looks like I need to seek out another 3.5 / 5.0 cache. Gee, doesn't that suck? I have to go find a fun, challenging cache. I just scouted one out that's less than a half hour from home, and which attracts lots of favorite points.

 

Having read this discussion, I was well-prepared when I discovered the new "hole" in my D/T grid last evening. The funny thing is, I went to that page in my statistics because I spent the day yesterday finding an awesome cache to fill in the rare and coveted 5.0 / 4.5 slot in my grid. When I went to admire my grid with just two remaining unfound slots, I was instead surprised to still see three -- one of which used to be filled!

 

A few years ago, I found a terrain 5 cache on an island by walking to it at a time when the lake had been drained for dredging. When the lake was re-filled with water, the owner restored the five star terrain rating. It was no more than 2.5 stars when I found it. Anyways, that cache fills a slot in my grid that maybe I don't deserve. So I now consider my "grid karma" to be in balance.

Bumping this thread because it happened AGAIN. And on the seventh day of the month, no less.

 

In July, I thought I went from three missing grids down to two after finding a 5.0 / 4.5 cache, but when I got home, I discovered that my only 3.5 / 5.0 cache got re-rated as a 4.5 / 5.0 cache on that same day. So, still three missing grids.

 

Yesterday, I thought I went from three missing grids down to two after finding a 2.0 / 5.0 cache, but when I got home, I discovered that my only 1.5 / 4.5 cache got re-rated as a 1.5 / 1.5 cache on that same day. So, still three missing grids.

 

From this, I've concluded that (1) I should not try to fill missing D/T grids on the seventh day of any month, and (2) God does not want me to complete the Fizzy Challenge.

Edited September 8, 2014 by The Leprechauns

[+edscott]

The difficulty and terrain of a particular spot may change over time. The original evaluation of the difficulty and terrain may have been inconsistent with the local norms. Getting it right is more important than side games centered on someone's personal statistics.

[+L0ne.R]

This happened to me yesterday. The owner of a 3.5 / 5.0 cache increased the difficulty rating for their boat-only cache up to 4.5 stars, because of the amount of lily pads and other vegetation that has grown in the area over the years. I found the cache many years ago by borrowing a boat. The owner posted a note explaining their reasoning and I respect their right to keep the ratings accurate without regard for the challenge cache sub-game.

 

Now, ordinarily, I'm always happy when a CO ups the stars after I've found their cache - it makes me look more awesome than I actually am. But in this case, I've lost the only 3.5 / 5.0 cache in my grid, and I already had a 4.5 / 5.0 cache. So, it looks like I need to seek out another 3.5 / 5.0 cache. Gee, doesn't that suck? I have to go find a fun, challenging cache. I just scouted one out that's less than a half hour from home, and which attracts lots of favorite points.

 

Having read this discussion, I was well-prepared when I discovered the new "hole" in my D/T grid last evening. The funny thing is, I went to that page in my statistics because I spent the day yesterday finding an awesome cache to fill in the rare and coveted 5.0 / 4.5 slot in my grid. When I went to admire my grid with just two remaining unfound slots, I was instead surprised to still see three -- one of which used to be filled!

 

A few years ago, I found a terrain 5 cache on an island by walking to it at a time when the lake had been drained for dredging. When the lake was re-filled with water, the owner restored the five star terrain rating. It was no more than 2.5 stars when I found it. Anyways, that cache fills a slot in my grid that maybe I don't deserve. So I now consider my "grid karma" to be in balance.

Bumping this thread because it happened AGAIN. And on the seventh day of the month, no less.

 

In July, I thought I went from three missing grids down to two after finding a 5.0 / 4.5 cache, but when I got home, I discovered that my only 3.5 / 5.0 cache got re-rated as a 4.5 / 5.0 cache on that same day. So, still three missing grids.

 

Yesterday, I thought I went from three missing grids down to two after finding a 2.0 / 5.0 cache, but when I got home, I discovered that my only 1.5 / 4.5 cache got re-rated as a 1.5 / 1.5 cache on that same day. So, still three missing grids.

 

From this, I've concluded that (1) I should not try to fill missing D/T grids on the seventh day of any month, and (2) God does not want me to complete the Fizzy Challenge.

 

What's the story behind the 1.5/4.5 >> 1.5/1.5? Did the tree fall? Was the original terrain rating highly over-rated?

[+The Leprechauns]

The difficulty and terrain of a particular spot may change over time. The original evaluation of the difficulty and terrain may have been inconsistent with the local norms. Getting it right is more important than side games centered on someone's personal statistics.

I agree completely, as stated in my post back in July. My reasons for bumping this thread are (1) to highlight the amazing coincidence of having two owner rating adjustments occur on the very same days when I chose to find two other D/T combinations missing from my grid, and (2) to poke fun at my own geocaching bad luck. For more on that second point, read on!

 

What's the story behind the 1.5/4.5 >> 1.5/1.5? Did the tree fall? Was the original terrain rating highly over-rated?

A fabulous nature preserve near my home was largely undeveloped, with just a single loop trail through the extremely dense forest and steep hills. The cache owner placed a cache that required 200 feet of hand-over-hand climbing up a slippery shale slope from that one main trail. An exhausting climb with some risk of falling, but not something requiring climbing ropes or other technical gear to merit a five-star rating. Other CO's hid caches along the trail, leading the finder to the access point where the uphill bushwack begins.

 

But recently, a local hiking and mountain biking club has been working with the land trust who owns the preserve, to develop a more complete trail network. One of the new trails follows the top of the ridge, parallel to the main trail down in the valley. The new trail passes within 40 feet of the cache, and it's level all the way from the parking lot. Thus, a true T 4.5 was transformed into a true T 1.5, courtesy of the nice new trail. Continue on the new trail past that cache, and switchbacks will take the hiker back down into the valley so they can hunt all the other caches.

 

The punchline? Last summer, I followed my GPS to the 2/2 and 1.5/2.5 caches placed along the main trail, then did the bushwack to the T4.5 cache as originally intended. I did not discover the new trail until I topped out from my half-hour climb up the shale cliff. I earned those terrain stars, but only because I failed to notice the new, easy route from the same parking lot.

 

If there's a way to make a cache more difficult, I am sure to find that way!

[team tisri]

A fabulous nature preserve near my home was largely undeveloped, with just a single loop trail through the extremely dense forest and steep hills. The cache owner placed a cache that required 200 feet of hand-over-hand climbing up a slippery shale slope from that one main trail. An exhausting climb with some risk of falling, but not something requiring climbing ropes or other technical gear to merit a five-star rating. Other CO's hid caches along the trail, leading the finder to the access point where the uphill bushwack begins.

 

But recently, a local hiking and mountain biking club has been working with the land trust who owns the preserve, to develop a more complete trail network. One of the new trails follows the top of the ridge, parallel to the main trail down in the valley. The new trail passes within 40 feet of the cache, and it's level all the way from the parking lot. Thus, a true T 4.5 was transformed into a true T 1.5, courtesy of the nice new trail. Continue on the new trail past that cache, and switchbacks will take the hiker back down into the valley so they can hunt all the other caches.

 

The punchline? Last summer, I followed my GPS to the 2/2 and 1.5/2.5 caches placed along the main trail, then did the bushwack to the T4.5 cache as originally intended. I did not discover the new trail until I topped out from my half-hour climb up the shale cliff. I earned those terrain stars, but only because I failed to notice the new, easy route from the same parking lot.

 

If there's a way to make a cache more difficult, I am sure to find that way!

 

Years ago I found a cache. There was no sign of roads or paths on the map on my GPS so I followed what there was. What there was consisted of half a mile of thick mud followed by trying to figure out how to get over a six foot chicken wire fence. I found the cache wondering how it could possibly justify being D1/T1.5, and then walked back to the car using the level tarmac path that had been laid since my map was produced (it was T1.5 because it was at ground level and therefore difficult to access for a wheelchair user)