You can't log this cache until you did 'X'

[+KatnissRue]

If I may, I have a question about a puzzle idea.

 

I didn't want to be an annoyance to the average cacher (Because I'm not an uber one either), but what would you say to the requirement to finding the puzzle being finding five caches? Nothing more than that. Would that appeal to you, or no?

 

Again, sorry for being off topic. I was just curious and I haven't quite figured out how to navigate the forums yet.

[+Panther&Pine]

If I may, I have a question about a puzzle idea.

 

I didn't want to be an annoyance to the average cacher (Because I'm not an uber one either), but what would you say to the requirement to finding the puzzle being finding five caches? Nothing more than that. Would that appeal to you, or no?

 

Again, sorry for being off topic. I was just curious and I haven't quite figured out how to navigate the forums yet.

Like five specific caches? Not a challenge cache. Find the five oldest actve caches in the county. Challenge cache.

Find these five caches to get a bit of the coords for the final? Puzzle cache often called a bonus cache.

[+NeverSummer]

Edit: This was in response to post #100 on the last page...

 

I'm reading through the linked thread from start to finish, and it is reminding me of when I read it the first time. (It's really interesting to see where people's opinions have evolved...)

 

Anyhow, I don't think we're in disagreement here over the basics. Just want to be clear on that.

 

Where we might disagree is if one idea or another might work or shouldn't be considered at all, etc.

 

I do think that it isn't a huge leap to put "challenge caches" into their own type with a new icon. I think the clarity of having them lumped into the other physical caches and their guidelines is confusing and slightly contradictory. Now, where we can debate is over the physical versus non-physical nature of a "challenge cache". The challenge is really apart from any location. "Proving" you've completed a challenge is no different than sending answers for a Virtual or Earthcache.

 

If people really want to fight for a physical cache type for "challenge caches" to become "Challenge Caches", so be it. At a minimum they need some legitimacy, and that starts with taking them out of the Unknown/Puzzle cache type. I'd argue that a "Challenge Cache" would be best as a non-physical cache, but I'll leave that to TPTB to decide on.

 

I really do think that "challenge caches" are a good part of the game. I do also think that many have gotten out of hand. I also think that seeing examples from the lower 48 of challenge power trails and location saturation are unfortunate for the overall community aspect of the game (have some self control, people!)

 

I know that "challenges" have been a part of the game for a long time. One of my proudest moments was when I was able to log a cache that required a certain higher number of Mystery/Unknown finds (I can't recall how many...)--something I had really enjoyed taking part in with my community and the fun puzzle masters in my neighborhood. When I found that cache, it was memorable and notable for me, and for that I'm thankful. I know many others feel the same way about completing a Delorme or Fizzy.

 

But the range of crazy on some of these challenges is not unlike the weirdness from how ALRs got crazy. I do think that creating a new cache type for "Challenge Caches" would give the opportunity to keep around that part of the game, while giving an area for Groundspeak to refine the guidelines for that cache apart from other physical caches.

 

Physical caches have a pretty easily defined bottom line, and there shouldn't be an asterisk: If you have found that cache, you have found that cache. (I know this may remind toz of that other thread and their objections, but that's not the point I'm trying to lead them to.) Physical caches can be apart from all other "requirements" and "hoops" that exist with caches such as Wherigo, Virtual, Earthcaches, and their ilk. It sure would do away with much of the ability to grumble about them when you can all-out ignore them, or the flip of the coin where one can search for them specifically in a PQ or map.

 

Without ALRs or other "experiments" like "challenge caches", the "?" cache type really is just for puzzles. There isn't much room anymore for trying out something that pushes the envelope. I'd love to hear about the other caches that are listed as "?", but aren't a "challenge cache", "puzzle", or bonus cache...I can't think of the last time I encountered a new oddity in that cache type. Night caches are really multis, and could then be asked to create under that cache type from now on, e.g.

 

It's like designing a historical statement of the game. Groundspeak's Geocaching.com is a place where "geo stashes" found a home online. The idea was, historically, to find a container (stash/cache) at a set of coordinates, find it using a GPS device, and then letting others know you've found it (logging online). That lives on in the gameplay via caches like Traditionals, and with slight variations in caches like Multi-caches and Puzzles. Other cache types came along, but the idea is the same: create location-based experiences involving the game of geocaching. Earthcaches, Event Caches, CITO Caches, etc. all build on the same idea of using a GPS to play the game. The "home" for the more traditional version of the game lives on in the physical cache types of "Traditional", "Multicache", and "Unknown/Puzzle". The variations on the game are still found in the remaining Virtuals and Webcams, Earthcaches, Events, Megas, Gigas, CITOs, and "challenge caches".

 

The only thing is that "challenge caches" aren't yet apart from the other types that have evolved to have slightly more clarity of meaning. Once they are moved into their own cache type, there is more clarity for the "?" cache type, and more room for improvement on gameplay with the ability to search for "challenge caches" on their own via PQ and maps.

 

I'm sure there will be much continued grumbling, but really, isn't it more helpful to have seen ALRs go away, and then to see challenges eventually see the legitimacy they deserve apart from other more "traditional" types of physical geocaches?

Edited September 24, 2014 by NeverSummer

[+NeverSummer]

I just had to repost this quote:

Quite a lot of proposed solutions for various issues in the game contain statements like "one could have simply written requirements". The problem is that when thousands of cache placers start to push the envelope, with the force of those written requirements behind them, the reviewers end up having to publish large numbers of caches best described as "piles of carp".

 

This seems to be the prediction coming true, if the other threads voicing frustration with "challenge caches" are any sign.

 

_________

 

In addition, there seemed to be a lot of sentiment from Reviewers and other PTB that the idea that people would be losing out on a part of the game they liked was just too bad. If someone liked to jump through the hoops, they still could, but cache owners could not require it. The same could easily be said about completing a challenge when put against the guidelines for physical caches--if someone wants to do the challenge to get the smiley from that physical cache, they are welcome to. But, if someone finds that cache and doesn't complete the challenge, they owner can't delete the find.

 

That was really the message I took out of the new guidelines at that time, and why I feel how I do today. Now that challenge caches are coming to a head with some "piles of carp" and complaints from users, I feel like it is hard not to relate the same things said about ALRs going away to the current climate with "challenge caches". But, rather than doing away with "challenge caches", there is an opportunity to save what people like about them, and do away with the parts that make for the carp.

 

The eventuality is that challenge caches are going to hit a wall. Those new, crazier designs are going to mean more work for Reviewers to filter them for "wow", etc.

 

And, I really think that this post was interesting, toz:

I personally cringe at the way Rockin Roddy puts his argument. It is makes it sounds like any cache that has you do something he doesn't enjoy should be banned. However, I changed my attitude about this guideline change by looking at his argument with a slightly different perspective. Yes you can avoid doing any cache if it requires you to do something you are not comfortable doing. You can even "find" an ALR cache if you want and simply log it with a note instead of a "Found It" log if you don't want to be "forced" to do the requirement. So why not have ALRs? My take is that it makes the "Found It" log into the goal of geocaching. This is a misguided interpretation of geocaching. The point of geocaching is to find the cache, make a trade if you want, and sign the log. Online logging shouldn't even factor into it. The online log should be for reporting your find to the cache owner and the community and for your own use in keeping track of the caches you have found. Placing obstacles like a puzzle or a physical challenge to reach the cache are part of the game in that these occur as part of the hunt to find the cache. Even a challenge cache can be interpreted as requiring you to meet the challenge before you go to find the challenge cache. Placing a obstacle in the way of logging the cache online is something completely different. This now becomes a test of what a person is willing to do to log the cache online. If I didn't want to do the ALR, I would have found the cache and posted a note saying "I found this cache and I'm logging a find on one of my own caches so my number will be right ". However, there were many ALRs which I found were fun to do. I didn't mind posting my log in haiku or a picture of myself at the cache wearing a funny hat. So I wound up actually doing the ALRs on the ones I found. That only supported those cache owners who were deleting logs of people who FOUND their cache and simply wanted to keep track of their find using the method the website provides: logging a find online. An optional request instead of an ALR is something that is a lot more fun - particularly for the cache owner who doesn't have to feel like a meanie taking away someone's smiley. Sure, they might be disappointed that some choose not to do the optional request, but they will be rewarded knowing that the people who did do the request, did so because they found it was fun and enhanced the experience of finding the cache and not because they were unwilling to pass on the smiley.

 

Really, the situation is the same: The game is more about adding more smileys, and less about the basics of the game. So long as that motivates the membership to grow, it's likely the way Groundspeak will take their decisions. So, I'd think that a new shiny icon for a challenge cache would certainly draw more people in as a way to brag even more about their caching exploits!

[+fizzymagic]

This seems to be the prediction coming true, if the other threads voicing frustration with "challenge caches" are any sign.

 

They are not. Those threads are dominated by a very small cadre of cachers who jump on them all. They have various different apparent motivations for posting; some just want to figure out how to make other people miserable, others, like several in this thread, are just using it as an excuse to trumpet their moral superiority.

 

Really, the situation is the same: The game is more about adding more smileys, and less about the basics of the game.

 

Ah, yes, the moral superiority position.

 

With all due respect, I propose that you have no special insight into the "basics of the game." We could possibly discuss that to some advantage, but not in this context.

[team tisri]

I think the "test period" is over, and they have shown how "challenge caches" can be positive, geocaching related, etc, while allowing a type of ALR to exist. Now I, and others, think it is time for more legitimacy to this good idea. This isn't a "better mistake tomorrow", rather this is a good idea and opportunity to build more substance and consistency into the game.

 

"Challenge caches" really should either be a "locationless" type of non-physical cache, a located and coordinate-based non-physical cache, or a new system of rating/award attached to existing physical caches that does not limit a "find" on that physical container.

 

Reintroducing challenges as a locationless type is an interesting idea.

 

It would mean challenge caches were essentially global (rather than having local caches with identical or near-identical goals), which would also mean that anyone wanting to create a new challenge would need to go through the existing ones and make sure they weren't duplicating. That alone would slow the flow of them over time. Requiring the name of the cache to make clear what the challenge was would also be helpful, so if you had a challenge that required you to find 100 puzzle caches it would be called "Find 100 Puzzles" or some such.

 

It would also mean that people could place as many challenges as they wanted without taking up space that could be used by other caches. Where areas like rails-to-trails are concerned it often seems a shame that places that could host relatively easy caches for beginners get saturated with far more demanding caches.

[cezanne]

 

It would mean challenge caches were essentially global (rather than having local caches with identical or near-identical goals), which would also mean that anyone wanting to create a new challenge would need to go through the existing ones and make sure they weren't duplicating.

 

It would also mean that the big majority of those who like challenge caches at the moment, would instantly lose their interest when you take away the physical element. The badge collecting group is a different target group.

 

It would also mean that people could place as many challenges as they wanted without taking up space that could be used by other caches. Where areas like rails-to-trails are concerned it often seems a shame that places that could host relatively easy caches for beginners get saturated with far more demanding caches.

 

Challenge caches like puzzle caches work fine because they have a physical element. In areas with high cache density (and in other saturation is not an issue) there are enough caches for beginners that they can find up to the point where they are no beginners any more. A beginner does not need to clear out his/her home region.

[+redsox_mark]

If I may, I have a question about a puzzle idea.

 

I didn't want to be an annoyance to the average cacher (Because I'm not an uber one either), but what would you say to the requirement to finding the puzzle being finding five caches? Nothing more than that. Would that appeal to you, or no?

 

Again, sorry for being off topic. I was just curious and I haven't quite figured out how to navigate the forums yet.

 

Do you mean the challenge criteria is simply 5 finds (of any caches)? I.e. one must have a find count of 5 or more?

 

I don't believe there any rule against it- the challenge is certainly achievable. Though it is so trivial that most cachers will already qualify, and new cachers will be able to qualify easily.

 

The challenge itself would not appeal to me as such as it is so trivial... but if the cache looked to be in a good location I would happily find it.

[+DanOCan]

Sadly, this game has become more about instant gratification and one-upping other geocachers ( place a bigger power trail, find more caches, pat ones self on the back for all challenges complete that others have not) than any concern about a splintering of the community.

That is the key right there.

 

Why hide one cache along a nice trail and let others fill it in naturally over time with a variety of caches when you can saturate the whole thing yourself? Get your number of hides up as high as you can and earn "respect" from the local community. It's called giving back, right?

 

Why focus only on finding caches you enjoy when you can find every cache in your area? Must get the number of Finds up, otherwise your local community will think less of you.

 

You've accomplished some sort of awesome caching accomplishment? Better create a challenge cache for it so others can see that you're the world's greatest geocacher.

 

If you were to search back through the forums, there was a time when I argued against hiding people's numbers when the idea was discussed. Now I think it would be a very positive step for the game. Of course, I don't think we'll ever see that happen. The numbers game appeals to a large group of people, which drives revenue for Groundspeak. Hey, that's fair -- they're a for-profit company, not a charity.

 

I guess to bring myself back on topic, if I was King of Groundspeak for a day my first two acts would be:

 

- Increasing the saturation distance and/or bringing back the "Don't hide a cache every 528ft just because you can" clause in the guidelines.

 

- Remove challenge caches as the exception to the ALR rule

[+DanOCan]

The issue with puzzle caches is that there does not exist a reasonable way of proofing that one has solved the puzzle while for challenge caches there exist objective rules provided in the cache description for what is needed for qualification.

So I'd rather say that logs for puzzle caches stand if the log book is signed because there is no other practicable way to go and not because the intent is that everyone can log finds for such caches. The same holds true for challenge caches. Their idea is not to provide a find for everyone decoupled from meeting the requirement.

That is the best argument I have heard for why challenge caches should have an exception to the guidelines for logging physical caches. It's still not enough to get me to change my mind that they shouldn't have an exception, but at least it's a logical argument and one I understand.

[Pup Patrol]

If I may, I have a question about a puzzle idea.

 

I didn't want to be an annoyance to the average cacher (Because I'm not an uber one either), but what would you say to the requirement to finding the puzzle being finding five caches? Nothing more than that. Would that appeal to you, or no?

 

Again, sorry for being off topic. I was just curious and I haven't quite figured out how to navigate the forums yet.

 

What is usually done is that codes or parts of coordinates are in each traditional cache. The "final" is classified as an Unknown (?) cache.

 

The problem that comes up is when the traditionals containing the codes or parts of coordinates go missing or archived.

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache → Review Process: Hiding a Geocache →

1.18. Mystery/Puzzle

See the section "Bonus Caches":

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=277

 

B.

[+GeoBain]

Wrong thread. Ignore.

Edited September 24, 2014 by GeoBain

[+DanOCan]

It does away however with an essential attraction for challenge caches.

ALRs have been abolished because the requirements that were asked for got out of control and were often not geocaching related. I see no essential problem with allowing special types of requirements as it is the case now for challenge caches except the consistency issue.

We're seeing the same thing happen now to challenge caches that happened to ALRs and, before that, Virtual caches.

 

They start out as a neat idea and with the best of intentions, but as people start trying to "one up" each other they just get more and more absurd. That puts Groundspeak (more specifically, their volunteer reviewers) into a situation where they need to make tough judgement calls about the "quality" of the cache.

 

The "Wow factor" equivalent for challenge caches:

 

- Must appeal to, and be obtainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers

- May not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers

- Will not be published if a geocacher is required to alter his/her caching style or habits

- A lengthy list of "rules" would be sufficient reason for a challenge cache to not be published

- Must avoid undue restrictions

- Not based on non-accomplishments

- Needs unique requirements if submitted within an area where a similar challenge exists

 

We could start forum topics about almost any one of those items and never reach a consensus.

 

Examples:

If someone has a challenge cache published and no one finds it after some period of time, can we assume it's either not obtainable or appealing to a reasonable number of cachers and therefore automatically be Archived?

 

Define what constitutes a "lengthy" list of rules.

 

How do you tell if two similar challenges are considered in the same area?

 

To me, we've seen this scenario play out in the past (the aforementioned Virtuals and ALRs) and history has shown it isn't a tenable situation in the long term. We've seen a ban on all new Virtuals. We've seen ALRs made optional. I think those of us who are asking questions and raising concerns about challenge caches are simply trying to find a way that will work in the long run.

[+dprovan]

Sadly, this game has become more about instant gratification and one-upping other geocachers ( place a bigger power trail, find more caches, pat ones self on the back for all challenges complete that others have not) than any concern about a splintering of the community.

That is the key right there.

 

Why hide one cache along a nice trail and let others fill it in naturally over time with a variety of caches when you can saturate the whole thing yourself?

I'm really sorry things are so bad in your area, but I see no trend in either of these directions. Sure, there are always times in any sport where someone tries to top what's been done before, but in my area that's a rare anomaly, and it's normally something you wouldn't mind like making a trickier hide than has ever been done before or a more technically complicated hide than has ever been done before. And yes, not too far away there are some power trails of google search puzzles and some other high density series that don't interest me. But from looking at my area, it would be absurd to say instant gratification or numbers or a desire for saturation is ruining the game and need to be eliminated.

 

I guess to bring myself back on topic, if I was King of Groundspeak for a day my first two acts would be:

- Increasing the saturation distance and/or bringing back the "Don't hide a cache every 528ft just because you can" clause in the guidelines.

- Remove challenge caches as the exception to the ALR rule

Remind me not to kill anyone higher up in the line of succession.

[+DanOCan]

I'm really sorry things are so bad in your area, but I see no trend in either of these directions. Sure, there are always times in any sport where someone tries to top what's been done before, but in my area that's a rare anomaly, and it's normally something you wouldn't mind like making a trickier hide than has ever been done before or a more technically complicated hide than has ever been done before. And yes, not too far away there are some power trails of google search puzzles and some other high density series that don't interest me. But from looking at my area, it would be absurd to say instant gratification or numbers or a desire for saturation is ruining the game and need to be eliminated.

Stay sharp. I remember a time not long ago when I would read about power trails and challenge caches and think "Huh? Never seen anything like that around here." It seems like certain areas take longer than others to adopt these things. I imagine it's probably related to the density of geocachers in a region.

[+L0ne.R]

Sadly, this game has become more about instant gratification and one-upping other geocachers ( place a bigger power trail, find more caches, pat ones self on the back for all challenges complete that others have not) than any concern about a splintering of the community.

That is the key right there.

 

Why hide one cache along a nice trail and let others fill it in naturally over time with a variety of caches when you can saturate the whole thing yourself? Get your number of hides up as high as you can and earn "respect" from the local community. It's called giving back, right?

 

 

^^^ This. Giving back, yeah right. Numbers, numbers, numbers. And so many who plant for the numbers abandon what they place because they place way more then they can handle. But the numbers community could care less if what they find is a moldy tattered scratch paper in a key holder among dozens or hundreds of other moldy scratch paper key safes, pill bottles, film canisters and cracked disposable containers. As long as they get the smiley, the actual geocaching experience is peripheral. To top things off the numbers crowd has usurped the purpose of the find count. <sigh>

Edited September 24, 2014 by L0ne.R

[+DanOCan]

Those threads are dominated by a very small cadre of cachers who jump on them all.

Some cachers are canaries; some cachers are coal miners. There's a lot of value in having both.

[cezanne]

To top things off the numbers crowd has usurped the purpose of the find count.

 

I guess the purpose of the find count is not the same for everyone. I never ever had an issue with logging notes for caches where I felt that I did not deserve a "found it" log

this was way before challenge caches existed. There are many different ways to deal with sorting out caches you have not visited and they have been mentioned in these forums

many times.

 

There exist indeed many lame challenge caches (as many lame caches of every type), but why does your geocaching experience get any better if you can log a "found it" for a lame and badly maintained challenge cacge than if you can log a note? I still do not understand this. I'm frustrated by the effects of number caching too, but I just do not get why you think that being allowed to log "found it" logs for the challenge power trails you described in a way that let them appear as very unattractive caches makes anything better for you with regard to the overall geocaching experience. For numbers people it of course makes a difference whether they invest time into a cache which does not increase their find count, but for you it should not make a difference.

[+NeverSummer]

 

It would mean challenge caches were essentially global (rather than having local caches with identical or near-identical goals), which would also mean that anyone wanting to create a new challenge would need to go through the existing ones and make sure they weren't duplicating.

 

It would also mean that the big majority of those who like challenge caches at the moment, would instantly lose their interest when you take away the physical element. The badge collecting group is a different target group.

Not if I also placed a traditional cache and said it was for people to log in addition to logging the related "challenge". But the difference is, I wouldn't make that cache exclusive--anyone can log a find on it, but I'd welcome the completers of said challenge to come on by and log a find.

 

Right? Wouldn't that be the same, except for the exclusivity of it all? The extra bonus would be the smiley for completing the challenge for those who complete it. If it is a physical cache they want, they can go find that honorary cache if they so choose.

 

I've seen too many pill bottles at rest areas or parking lots to think that the physical geocache reward is anything more than just another smiley, albeit an exclusive one.

[+NeverSummer]

Ah, yes, the moral superiority position.

 

With all due respect, I propose that you have no special insight into the "basics of the game." We could possibly discuss that to some advantage, but not in this context.

I think the "moral superiority" position is more akin to restricting who can find a physical geocache. I really don't think I'm very far off to say the basics of the game are to find a container at some coordinates and then let people know you've found it online.

Edited September 24, 2014 by NeverSummer

[cezanne]

It would also mean that the big majority of those who like challenge caches at the moment, would instantly lose their interest when you take away the physical element. The badge collecting group is a different target group.

Not if I also placed a traditional cache and said it was for people to log in addition to logging the related "challenge". But the difference is, I wouldn't make that cache exclusive--anyone can log a find on it, but I'd welcome the completers of said challenge to come on by and log a find.

 

Even then it would ruin the enjoyment of many who like challenge caches, but team tisri's suggestion did not include a physical element anyway.

 

Wouldn't that be the same, except for the exclusivity of it all? The extra bonus would be the smiley for completing the challenge for those who complete it.

 

It would add an additional score which is not attractive for the real fans of challenge caches. You want to shift the reward from one score that is important for some to another one that

will be of importance for a different audience and for a much smaller one.

 

 

I've seen too many pill bottles at rest areas or parking lots to think that the physical geocache reward is anything more than just another smiley, albeit an exclusive one.

 

The exclusivity plays certainly a role.

 

I instantly would lose the interest into my caches if a greater number of cachers cheated on them and would archive them right away.

Many challenge owners think the same way. Regardless of whether they hide their cache at a great spot or a boring one and regardless whether they use an ammo can or a pill bottle,

most of the challenge caches are hidden for a good reason and not to provide another find for everyone. Yes, I know that this introduces inconsistencies into the concept of what's a find, but

this does not change the major reasons why challenge caches are hidden/liked by some cachers.

 

Cezanne

[+NeverSummer]

 

Wouldn't that be the same, except for the exclusivity of it all? The extra bonus would be the smiley for completing the challenge for those who complete it.

 

It would add an additional score which is not attractive for the real fans of challenge caches. You want to shift the reward from one score that is important for some to another one that will be of importance for a different audience and for a much smaller one.

You speak for all real "challenge cache" fans?

 

If it isn't about the "score", what does a physical cache matter at all? Isn't the assumption that the motivation must be about either the 1. exclusivity of it all, or 2. just being able to say you've completed that challenge? If #1, then the way they are handled should be changed. If #2, then there is no reason to stand in the way of a change.

 

DanOCan described things in a way I couldn't when looking over history. I'd have to say that Virtuals and ALRs met a demise that their "real fans" found very, very disappointing. I'd hate to see that happen to "challenge caches", and I'm sure you would too. That's why we're discussing a way for them to continue in a way that 1. works against the guidelines, 2. provides clarity to challenge caches in general, 3. provides more clarity to the game in general, 3. continues to honor those that have gone to great lengths in their caching careers to meet that challenge.

 

 

I've seen too many pill bottles at rest areas or parking lots to think that the physical geocache reward is anything more than just another smiley, albeit an exclusive one.

 

The exclusivity plays certainly a role.

 

I instantly would lose the interest into my caches if a greater number of cachers cheated on them and would archive them right away.

Many challenge owners think the same way. Regardless of whether they hide their cache at a great spot or a boring one and regardless whether they use an ammo can or a pill bottle,

most of the challenge caches are hidden for a good reason and not to provide another find for everyone. Yes, I know that this introduces inconsistencies into the concept of what's a find, but

this does not change the major reasons why challenge caches are hidden/liked by some cachers.

 

Cezanne

I can't see how exclusivity can win out in this game, especially based on how Groundspeak has been very deliberate to not close back doors on Basic Members, and to find ways to not shut any front doors that would restrict the game to new members. "Challenge caches" are that one way, and I think that Groundspeak has an issue on their hands. And, rather than doing away with them entirely--as they have done with "real fan" ideas like Locationless, Virtuals, WebCams, and ALRs, I'd like to see them live on.

 

I'd rather see more consistency about what constitutes a find on a physical cache, and also find a way to keep Challenges around, wouldn't you?

[cezanne]

You speak for all real "challenge cache" fans?

 

No, and I would not call myself a fan of challenge caches. However all real fans of challenge caches I have ever come across (in real life and in forums) match the pattern I described.

 

If it isn't about the "score", what does a physical cache matter at all? Isn't the assumption that the motivation must be about either the 1. exclusivity of it all, or 2. just being able to say you've completed that challenge? If #1, then the way they are handled should be changed. If #2, then there is no reason to stand in the way of a change.

 

It's a mixture of exclusivity and the influence on the only score that is is accepted by more than a marginal group. Any attempt to introduce additional scores will fail for that very reason.

The way to go (if anything is done at all) would rather to introduce a separate log type for those who only sign the log book of a challenge cache, but do not qualify. This log type should not

increase the find count.

 

DanOCan described things in a way I couldn't when looking over history. I'd have to say that Virtuals and ALRs met a demise that their "real fans" found very, very disappointing.

I'd hate to see that happen to "challenge caches", and I'm sure you would too.

 

Personally, I could live with the death of challenge caches, but would regard it as unfair to those who really enjoy them.

As virtuals and ALRs are regarded, they have not been abolished because many fans found them disappointing, but because they caused many problems to Groundspeak and the reviewers.

This does not see to be the case for challenge caches on a comparable scale. I'd guess that the reviewers have to reject much more caches because people do not take care of the simplest facts in the

guidelines than due to weird challenge cache submissions. In my perception, it has never played an essential role for Groundspeak whether the community is happy with a cache type.

I've certainly seen more complaints about power trails than about challenge caches and yet they are there and mainly because it got too tiresome for the reviewers to handle this issue.

 

 

 

I can't see how exclusivity can win out in this game, especially based on how Groundspeak has been very deliberate to not close back doors on Basic Members, and to find ways to not shut any front doors that would restrict the game to new members. "Challenge caches" are that one way, and I think that Groundspeak has an issue on their hands. And, rather than doing away with them entirely--as they have done with "real fan" ideas like Locationless, Virtuals, WebCams, and ALRs, I'd like to see them live on.

 

There is a difference between closing the door and not allowing found it logs unless certain requirements are met.

 

I'd rather see more consistency about what constitutes a find on a physical cache, and also find a way to keep Challenges around, wouldn't you?

 

I think that the two goals are conflicting. One either would make challenge caches inattractive for the majority of those who enjoy them now or would have to stick with a system that does not

offer a uniform concept of a find. You can have only one of those at the same time in my opinion and it's a choice what one prefers.

 

 

Cezanne

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

The way to go (if anything is done at all) would rather to introduce a separate log type for those who only sign the log book of a challenge cache, but do not qualify. This log type should not increase the find count.

 

Like a "Note"?

[cezanne]

The way to go (if anything is done at all) would rather to introduce a separate log type for those who only sign the log book of a challenge cache, but do not qualify. This log type should not increase the find count.

 

Like a "Note"?

 

Personally, I'm perfectly happy with a note (that's why I wrote "if anything is done at all"). But apparently some cachers are not and indeed writing notes has the disadvantage that it is not possible to distinguish between unvisited caches and visited ones directly on gc.com.

[+narcissa]

I think people should just accept that challenge caches are the one big exception to the whole ALR thing, and stop obsessing about it.

 

No matter what, there will always be (subjectively) lame caches hidden in places that we wish we could use for (subjectively) good caches. Them's the breaks.

[+NeverSummer]

The way to go (if anything is done at all) would rather to introduce a separate log type for those who only sign the log book of a challenge cache, but do not qualify. This log type should not increase the find count.

 

Like a "Note"?

Right?

 

But the issue is still that a physical cache was found, and logbook signed. It's the challenge completion that is the outlier for the "Found it" log, not the finding of that cache. If anything, there should be an additional log type created for "Challenge Completed".

 

Or...This is where a new cache type with its own guidelines would be perfect. Leave "challenge caches" as they are, but pull them out of the Mystery/Puzzle type to create a Challenge Cache type. There would be far less confusion, and more clarity about the guidelines for finding and logging a physical geocache of types Traditional, Multi, and Mystery/Puzzle.

 

I think this is the best case scenario for those couple folks here who are continuing to say they need to be left "as is".

 

On a spectrum of "Leave them" to "Archive them all, never to be seen again!", I'd put myself closer to the "Leave them" side than you make me out to be. I'm trying to look at this as a way to create the common ground of the Venn Diagram we could draw up on the subject. I think that common ground is to pull out "challenge caches" to be their own type...and I'd personally take it a bit further and say I feel that a non-physical cache type is best-suited for "challenge caches" due to the communication with owners about qualification (See Virtuals and Earthcaches), and the ability to review caches more efficiently as they won't have the same proximity issues, and how the Reviewers and staff can have more control over creation of and updates to the related guidelines for that new cache type if there isn't a physical container to muddle the "find it, sign it, log it" guideline for other physical caches.

[+NeverSummer]

I think people should just accept that challenge caches are the one big exception to the whole ALR thing, and stop obsessing about it.

 

No matter what, there will always be (subjectively) lame caches hidden in places that we wish we could use for (subjectively) good caches. Them's the breaks.

Except it is much easier to ignore the caches one does not like if it were its own type within maps and lists. One may like other styles of Mystery/Puzzle, but not "challenge caches". As they proliferate within the Mystery/Puzzle cache type, it becomes increasingly difficult to ignore them (both mentally and electronically).

 

I'd like to be able to use the tools provided by Groundspeak (maps, PQs, and the like) to search easily for "challenge caches" in my area. I can't and won't use GSAK, and a keyword search is not nearly advanced enough a search for what I'm talking about.

 

Speaking of...when's the last time you saw an ALR cache with something other than "please take a photo and post it if you like"? Making ALRs optional essentially killed them. I don't hear many folks (myself included) who were "ALR fans" complaining about the lack of ALR caches today. I do think that we would have a very, very large and vocal group complaining today if "challenge caches" were not still allowed 5 years later. This is why they remained from that "optional" ALR edit to the guidelines.

 

But the fact remains that the game has evolved, and I think that "challenge caches" should gain some legitimacy, and also be a better refined cache type for it. If we don't have conversations about how to keep "challenge caches" around in a way that makes sense to all (read: most) involved, there may be a day where we all "remember when..." is in our conversations about completing a "challenge cache". (This isn't meant to read as a doomsday prediction! I digress.)

 

____

 

There are clearly people here who are fine with the "asterisk" in the guidelines about what constitutes a "find" on a physical cache. I can't say that I am, and it's more about clarity for new users and compartmentalizing for efficiency for everyone than it is about any dislike for "challenge caches" in general.

 

I'd argue that it would be simple enough to edit guidelines to say that, for cache types Traditional, Multi, Letterbox Hybrid, and Mystery/Puzzle, log a "Found it" online when the cache is found and logbook signed. For Earthcaches and "Challenge Caches", there are requirements that must be completed to log your "Found it" online. This applies also for remaining grandfathered cache types of Virtuals and WebCams. (I'd add Wherigo in there somewhere, but I know some owners require a cartridge completion code, and others do not. So...yeah, that's another topic...) By creating the new cache type "Challenge Cache", you also have more room for editing specific guidelines for that cache type as time goes on. At least Groundspeak will have put a line in the sand about the "basics" of the game.

 

The "core" cache types will always be part of the game, but the other "non-core" parts may not be (see Virtuals, Locationless, WebCams, Challenges, etc). And the constant I think we can apply for those "core" cache types is that they were created over time to support the general gameplay that people find a container hidden at coordinates and log the find online. Because Groundspeak has decided to make "find counts" public, and to also record each "Found it" as another tick on the counter, the version of "stash hunting" we play here is, by nature, scored. There may be no finish line, but the idea that a higher number means you're better than someone else is woven into the fabric of gameplay whether we like it or not, or can admit it or not.

 

So if a "find" on those core types is another tick on the find counter, we will have to address what it means to be able to log another "find" to up our numbers. And, so long as there is an asterisk within the guidelines for what constitutes a find on a physical cache, it muddies the water of why one "find" is, and another isn't. So, if we break "challenge caches" out from the umbrella of Mystery/Puzzle, they can be apart from that whole mess and still be an integral part of the game.

 

Another rambling post. Hooray...

Edited September 24, 2014 by NeverSummer

[cezanne]

[ Leave "challenge caches" as they are, but pull them out of the Mystery/Puzzle type to create a Challenge Cache type. There would be far less confusion, and more clarity about the guidelines for finding and logging a physical geocache of types Traditional, Multi, and Mystery/Puzzle.

 

I guess that the big majority of cachers have no objections against a separate type and it has often been demanded. The problem is just that it's Groundspeak who decides what is going to be implemented and not the community of cachers.

[+frinklabs]

The problem is just that it's Groundspeak who decides what is going to be implemented and not the community of cachers.

 

This is so distressingly true.

 

Conspicuously and painfully absent from any of these discussions is any feedback from TPTB.

 

Much of the angsty back-and-forth and spinning-of-wheels could be avoided if someone from The Team were to add a single not-a-snowball's-chance-in-hell-will-this-be-implemented reply.

[+L0ne.R]

The way to go (if anything is done at all) would rather to introduce a separate log type for those who only sign the log book of a challenge cache, but do not qualify. This log type should not increase the find count.

 

Like a "Note"?

 

Personally, I'm perfectly happy with a note (that's why I wrote "if anything is done at all"). But apparently some cachers are not and indeed writing notes has the disadvantage that it is not possible to distinguish between unvisited caches and visited ones directly on gc.com.

 

Correct....I'm happy with a note if we could have a new note type that takes the cache off the map and on to our list of finds. Hmmm, this new note type might even have other advantages too.

[+The A-Team]

...I'd add Wherigo in there somewhere, but I know some owners require a cartridge completion code, and others do not. So...yeah, that's another topic...

To clarify, Wherigos are just another physical cache type. There are no separate logging guidelines for the Wherigo cache type, so the standard physical cache logging guideline applies. Requiring a completion code (and enforcing by log deletion) would be an ALR and isn't allowed under the current guidelines.

[+lamoracke]

...I'd add Wherigo in there somewhere, but I know some owners require a cartridge completion code, and others do not. So...yeah, that's another topic...

To clarify, Wherigos are just another physical cache type. There are no separate logging guidelines for the Wherigo cache type, so the standard physical cache logging guideline applies. Requiring a completion code (and enforcing by log deletion) would be an ALR and isn't allowed under the current guidelines.

 

A completion code for a Wherigo is what is needed to log them on Wherigo.com, however, I gave up trying to do those long ago, they never worked for me. Have done over 50 Wherigos, have yet to have an owner even ask about the completion code, nor even mention it whatsoever, as far as Geocaching.com goes.

Edited September 24, 2014 by lamoracke

[+NeverSummer]

...I'd add Wherigo in there somewhere, but I know some owners require a cartridge completion code, and others do not. So...yeah, that's another topic...

To clarify, Wherigos are just another physical cache type. There are no separate logging guidelines for the Wherigo cache type, so the standard physical cache logging guideline applies. Requiring a completion code (and enforcing by log deletion) would be an ALR and isn't allowed under the current guidelines.

Thanks. I couldn't remember where they washed out from the ALRs and the whole completion code thing.

[+NeverSummer]

The problem is just that it's Groundspeak who decides what is going to be implemented and not the community of cachers.

 

This is so distressingly true.

 

Conspicuously and painfully absent from any of these discussions is any feedback from TPTB.

 

Much of the angsty back-and-forth and spinning-of-wheels could be avoided if someone from The Team were to add a single not-a-snowball's-chance-in-hell-will-this-be-implemented reply.

And the ALR thread linked above went 24 pages--24 pages!, and MissJenn checked in from time to time. Granted, she started that thread, but at least we felt "they were watching". I know that we have seen some attempts at communicating that they are watching from Moun10bike and JaymeH in other threads. But it has been some time since I've seen anyone else drop by.

 

So, as an aside before returning to the regularly scheduled programming... If there isn't much replying going on in the Website topic, and we've not seen anyone from the Lilypad chime in for ages in the "Geocaching Topics" topic, where are they listening? Facebook? Twitter? Earplugs?

 

I'm all ears to hear "why not" from the Lilypad about breaking "challenge caches" out of the Mystery/Puzzle umbrella.

[+fizzymagic]

I'm all ears to hear "why not" from the Lilypad about breaking "challenge caches" out of the Mystery/Puzzle umbrella.

 

While I am sure you want official response, it seems to me quite obvious that the so-called "solutions" bantered about in this thread are so self-evidently unserious and so mind-numbingly... well, let' be kind and say unworkable... that I doubt any response is warranted.

 

What people in this thread are asking Groundspeak to do is to reclassify thousands of caches and do massive database changes for some elusive "consistency" that has no value at all.

 

It's pretty obvious that the real objection to challenge caches is that they make clearing out a radius (or other similar goals) more difficult for the OCD among us, only nobody wants to admit that so they make up other justifications.

 

Unfortunately, it appears that those with a compulsion to find every cache in their town or area or whatever are so obsessed that it never occurs to them that other people may enjoy things the way they are.

 

Personally, I don't care if challenge caches get a different icon or whatever. My worry is that all the concern trolling going on here is for a deeper purpose: to somehow eliminate or neuter geocaching challenge caches altogether. I've outlined the evidence for that worry before; it's not worth reiterating.

[+Roman!]

I'm all ears to hear "why not" from the Lilypad about breaking "challenge caches" out of the Mystery/Puzzle umbrella.

 

While I am sure you want official response, it seems to me quite obvious that the so-called "solutions" bantered about in this thread are so self-evidently unserious and so mind-numbingly... well, let' be kind and say unworkable... that I doubt any response is warranted.

 

What people in this thread are asking Groundspeak to do is to reclassify thousands of caches and do massive database changes for some elusive "consistency" that has no value at all.

 

It's pretty obvious that the real objection to challenge caches is that they make clearing out a radius (or other similar goals) more difficult for the OCD among us, only nobody wants to admit that so they make up other justifications.

 

Unfortunately, it appears that those with a compulsion to find every cache in their town or area or whatever are so obsessed that it never occurs to them that other people may enjoy things the way they are.

 

Personally, I don't care if challenge caches get a different icon or whatever. My worry is that all the concern trolling going on here is for a deeper purpose: to somehow eliminate or neuter geocaching challenge caches altogether. I've outlined the evidence for that worry before; it's not worth reiterating.

 

As someone liking challenge caches and agreeing with you I'd still like to see challenges have their own icon, they have been around long enough, there's enough of them and they are distinctive enough to warrant the icon.

 

It would also make it easier for me to filter out those pesky puzzle caches.

[+fuzziebear3]

Yep, call me status quo --- I am perfectly happy with them lumped in the 'mystery' cache type. I don't particularly like the challenge stars, partial logging, whatever else ideas that have been bantered about.

[+jellis]

Not in favor of them myself. Mostly because to me they encourage the numbers game. They are also very exclusionary, almost thumbing their nose at people who don't have the time, money, health and support to go uber caching.

Eventually you can qualify for them if you keep caching. It's not always easy to be a numbers cacher. I have seen many number cachers who don't qualify for them. Just because they have the numbers doesn't mean they qualify. If they do many PTs of trads well they may not have enough of other types of caches or ones with certain title names. One problem I have with them are the revenge challenges. Someone will put one out so others don't easily qualify for and then those others will put out more difficult ones and so on. Oh and not only to qualify for the Challenge but to get the cache too. Seems there has been a rash of hiding ones high up in the trees so you have to walk a trail carrying a ladder and a 20ft pole. There are many I will never qualify for but I still think it is fun because it helps me find caches I would not have gone to before. Like the original Fizzy Challenge or our Nor-Cal Challenge.

[cezanne]

One problem I have with them are the revenge challenges. Someone will put one out so others don't easily qualify for and then those others will put out more difficult ones and so on. Oh and not only to qualify for the Challenge but to get the cache too. Seems there has been a rash of hiding ones high up in the trees so you have to walk a trail carrying a ladder and a 20ft pole.

 

In my area there is not a single challenge where tree climbing caches are needed and yet there exist tons of them and they are far more challenging that those that can be done by a ladder and a pole.

They need to be done with big shots for launching the rope, ropes, climbing gear etc

[team tisri]

 

It would mean challenge caches were essentially global (rather than having local caches with identical or near-identical goals), which would also mean that anyone wanting to create a new challenge would need to go through the existing ones and make sure they weren't duplicating.

 

It would also mean that the big majority of those who like challenge caches at the moment, would instantly lose their interest when you take away the physical element. The badge collecting group is a different target group.

Not if I also placed a traditional cache and said it was for people to log in addition to logging the related "challenge". But the difference is, I wouldn't make that cache exclusive--anyone can log a find on it, but I'd welcome the completers of said challenge to come on by and log a find.

 

Right? Wouldn't that be the same, except for the exclusivity of it all? The extra bonus would be the smiley for completing the challenge for those who complete it. If it is a physical cache they want, they can go find that honorary cache if they so choose.

 

I've seen too many pill bottles at rest areas or parking lots to think that the physical geocache reward is anything more than just another smiley, albeit an exclusive one.

 

That's pretty much my thought.

 

When finding a box hidden in the woods is there really any additional enjoyment to be gained knowing that other people can't claim a gold star on a web site just because they didn't perform some arbitrary caching beforehand?

 

If you complete the challenge you get to tick a box. If you find a hidden box you get to tick a box. Why is it necessary to complete both to tick one box? The locationless aspect means people can aim for the challenges if they so choose, and people who find the hidden boxes get to sign the log book and claim a find. Of the challenge caches I've done the fact my prior caching activity met some mostly arbitrary criteria didn't cause me to like the caches any more or any less, and where challenges are particularly interesting it seems a shame when they are geographically restricted.

 

I particularly enjoyed the resuscitator cache. Finding the cache itself was much like finding any other cache, but finding a cache that hadn't been found for a year or more was the interesting part. Why shouldn't someone get a badge for resuscitating a cache (and maybe multiple badges, or a badge with a counter in it, or whatever) regardless of whether or not there happens to be a resuscitator challenge cache near where they live?

[cezanne]

 

I particularly enjoyed the resuscitator cache. Finding the cache itself was much like finding any other cache, but finding a cache that hadn't been found for a year or more was the interesting part. Why shouldn't someone get a badge for resuscitating a cache (and maybe multiple badges, or a badge with a counter in it, or whatever) regardless of whether or not there happens to be a resuscitator challenge cache near where they live?

 

I would not mind at all if such badges existed.

 

If I were however the owner of a challenge cache that I had hidden to encourage visits to a certain class of caches, the idea would be to hide the cache mainly for this group and not for everyone who wants an additional find. The same is true if I hide a puzzle cache - I hide it for those who solve the puzzle.

 

In any case, in your example I'd prefer to report in a cache log about the story of finding a lonesome cache and why I liked this special experience to claiming a badge of no value to me with no option to write a log and read the logs of others and see how they chose to qualify.

[team tisri]

 

I particularly enjoyed the resuscitator cache. Finding the cache itself was much like finding any other cache, but finding a cache that hadn't been found for a year or more was the interesting part. Why shouldn't someone get a badge for resuscitating a cache (and maybe multiple badges, or a badge with a counter in it, or whatever) regardless of whether or not there happens to be a resuscitator challenge cache near where they live?

 

I would not mind at all if such badges existed.

 

If I were however the owner of a challenge cache that I had hidden to encourage visits to a certain class of caches, the idea would be to hide the cache mainly for this group and not for everyone who wants an additional find. The same is true if I hide a puzzle cache - I hide it for those who solve the puzzle.

 

It makes sense to me for caches to be hidden to be found. If you hide a traditional you're basically saying "here it is, come and find it". It might be as simple as a film pot behind a post, it might be in some hugely improbable location, but on reading the cache page you know where it is. If you hide a multi/puzzle/Wherigo etc you're basically saying "it's somewhere near here, figure out where it is and come find it". What's the point of saying "it's right here, but you can't have it because you didn't find some other arbitrary combination of other caches"?

 

If you're encouraging only certain people to find it, place something to encourage those people. If you're trying to reduce the traffic to the cache to avoid it being muggled, a cache type that tells the seeker exactly where it is doesn't seem like a good way of doing it. If that's the aim then place a regular puzzle. Unless the idea is to use the challenge as a way of doing something like hiding the cache from intro app users, where the "challenge" is to find a cache before you find this one or something equally trivial, I don't understand why you'd do that. And if you're trying to hide the cache from intro app users you might as well make it a puzzle where the text says something like "543.21 100W 654.32 21N" and the cache is called "Backwards".

 

In any case, in your example I'd prefer to report in a cache log about the story of finding a lonesome cache and why I liked this special experience to claiming a badge of no value to me with no option to write a log and read the logs of others and see how they chose to qualify.

 

The badges as a side game, rather than challenge caches, could easily encourage people to complete the challenge and then write a few words about how they completed it. The challenges would be centralised so people could see comments from worldwide cachers regarding how they found their 100th puzzle, or finally completed the D/T grid, or whatever else. In the meantime the existing challenges could be turned into traditionals, since that's essentially what they are.

[+NeverSummer]

I'm all ears to hear "why not" from the Lilypad about breaking "challenge caches" out of the Mystery/Puzzle umbrella.

 

While I am sure you want official response, it seems to me quite obvious that the so-called "solutions" bantered about in this thread are so self-evidently unserious and so mind-numbingly... well, let' be kind and say unworkable... that I doubt any response is warranted.

 

What people in this thread are asking Groundspeak to do is to reclassify thousands of caches and do massive database changes for some elusive "consistency" that has no value at all.

 

It's pretty obvious that the real objection to challenge caches is that they make clearing out a radius (or other similar goals) more difficult for the OCD among us, only nobody wants to admit that so they make up other justifications.

Note even close. But, I can't say I am surprised that you keep wording things they way you do; they're all personal "best guesses" from your paradigm, projected onto those you disagree with regardless of actual reasoning. But hey, that's your prerogative.

 

Unfortunately, it appears that those with a compulsion to find every cache in their town or area or whatever are so obsessed that it never occurs to them that other people may enjoy things the way they are.

 

Personally, I don't care if challenge caches get a different icon or whatever. My worry is that all the concern trolling going on here is for a deeper purpose: to somehow eliminate or neuter geocaching challenge caches altogether. I've outlined the evidence for that worry before; it's not worth reiterating.

Since you quoted me, I can only assume you're directing that toward me. And I can't be more clear than I have been in my descriptions and posts of the fact that I like challenges, I want them to stay around, and I also see an opportunity for improvement that is hard to ignore against history and the guidelines as many interpret them.

 

I don't expect a "formal statement" from Groundspeak, but people like you and I have wondered aloud many times if they're listening. Sometimes they come back to say something, and sometimes they don't. So, one may wonder--even aloud--if they are listening. It's a harmless question to ask, and you're making this all out to be far more serious than it is. Speaking of concern trolling...

 

You're speaking your personal feelings loud and proud, and that is supposed to make the rest of us see it as truth? Not a chance. Same goes for me and my opinions. However, I try to base my opinions on the guidelines and the historical record of the game, not on personal feelings or sentimentality.

[cezanne]

It makes sense to me for caches to be hidden to be found. If you hide a traditional you're basically saying "here it is, come and find it". It might be as simple as a film pot behind a post, it might be in some hugely improbable location, but on reading the cache page you know where it is. If you hide a multi/puzzle/Wherigo etc you're basically saying "it's somewhere near here, figure out where it is and come find it". What's the point of saying "it's right here, but you can't have it because you didn't find some other arbitrary combination of other caches"?

 

First, if I ever happen to hide a challenge cache, it would not be a traditional. The three challenge caches (one now archived) in my region aren't traditionals either.

 

If you're encouraging only certain people to find it, place something to encourage those people.

 

That's often not possible with a single cache. Say I want to encourage people to cover 300 km with 20 multi caches (example from Germany where this exists), I cannot do that by hiding one such cache.

 

If you're trying to reduce the traffic to the cache to avoid it being muggled, a cache type that tells the seeker exactly where it is doesn't seem like a good way of doing it.

 

If I ever want to reduce the traffic to a cache, it never is due to muggle issues. Moreover, I already mentioned that challenge caches are not necessarily traditionals, they can be multi caches, mysteries etc.

 

 

The badges as a side game, rather than challenge caches, could easily encourage people to complete the challenge and then write a few words about how they completed it. The challenges would be centralised so people could see comments from worldwide cachers regarding how they found their 100th puzzle, or finally completed the D/T grid, or whatever else.

 

Yes, but this is not what I'm interested into in this context. It's the regional focus that attracts me. I would not be interested to learn who others managed to find a multi cache in each county of their state/country. That's of interest for me only in my own region and nowhere else where I neither know the cachers nor the caches.

 

In the meantime the existing challenges could be turned into traditionals, since that's essentially what they are.

 

Definitely not. They are caches with the only allowed form of ALR.

[team tisri]

It makes sense to me for caches to be hidden to be found. If you hide a traditional you're basically saying "here it is, come and find it". It might be as simple as a film pot behind a post, it might be in some hugely improbable location, but on reading the cache page you know where it is. If you hide a multi/puzzle/Wherigo etc you're basically saying "it's somewhere near here, figure out where it is and come find it". What's the point of saying "it's right here, but you can't have it because you didn't find some other arbitrary combination of other caches"?

 

First, if I ever happen to hide a challenge cache, it would not be a traditional. The three challenge caches (one now archived) in my region aren't traditionals either.

 

Maybe people near you are more inventive. Every single challenge cache I've seen so far is at the posted coordinates. So basically they are traditionals with an ALR.

 

If you're encouraging only certain people to find it, place something to encourage those people.

 

That's often not possible with a single cache. Say I want to encourage people to cover 300 km with 20 multi caches (example from Germany where this exists), I cannot do that by hiding one such cache.

 

The solution is in the problem description there. When I said "place something to encourage those people" I think it's pretty clear that if you want to encourage people to cover 300km on a caching run you hide whatever will encourage them to do it, whether it's 30 multis covering 10km each or 1800 film pots behind signs exactly 160m apart.

 

If you're trying to reduce the traffic to the cache to avoid it being muggled, a cache type that tells the seeker exactly where it is doesn't seem like a good way of doing it.

 

If I ever want to reduce the traffic to a cache, it never is due to muggle issues. Moreover, I already mentioned that challenge caches are not necessarily traditionals, they can be multi caches, mysteries etc.

 

Sure they can, but what's the point of having the prequalifying criteria? Why not have a multi or a mystery cache that you can just go and claim without having to find puzzle caches on every date that represents a prime number or some such?

 

The badges as a side game, rather than challenge caches, could easily encourage people to complete the challenge and then write a few words about how they completed it. The challenges would be centralised so people could see comments from worldwide cachers regarding how they found their 100th puzzle, or finally completed the D/T grid, or whatever else.

 

Yes, but this is not what I'm interested into in this context. It's the regional focus that attracts me. I would not be interested to learn who others managed to find a multi cache in each county of their state/country. That's of interest for me only in my own region and nowhere else where I neither know the cachers nor the caches.

 

So create a challenge/badge/achievement/whatever-else-it-gets-called for people to find a multi in every county of your state/country? If people can confirm achievement and award the badges they can be as specific as the creator desires. Is the achievement of finding a multi in every county any greater for finding a challenge cache at the end of it, or any lesser for not finding the challenge? If as a visitor to your country I managed to find a multi in every county what's wrong with granting the associated badge regardless of whether I found a challenge cache (which could easily be a cache at the posted coordinates) associated with it?

 

In the meantime the existing challenges could be turned into traditionals, since that's essentially what they are.

 

Definitely not. They are caches with the only allowed form of ALR.

 

I think that much is clear. I still don't see any good reason why an ALR is a good thing.

[+sbell111]

"I also agree that the "challenge cache" is an abused form of the former ALR, or "additional logging requirements." It makes very little sense to restrict a cache find in this way, especially since a geocacher can accomplish many of the tasks on the opposite side of the world but could never find this particular cache. This needs to be dealt with ..."

[cezanne]

Maybe people near you are more inventive. Every single challenge cache I've seen so far is at the posted coordinates. So basically they are traditionals with an ALR.

 

I would not say more inventive. Multi stage and puzzle caches are simply more common around here in general. That's also one of the reasons why many cachers in this forum have problems to understand many of my comments and arguments when it comes to more complex caches and things like that.

 

 

The solution is in the problem description there. When I said "place something to encourage those people" I think it's pretty clear that if you want to encourage people to cover 300km on a caching run you hide whatever will encourage them to do it, whether it's 30 multis covering 10km each or 1800 film pots behind signs exactly 160m apart.

 

The idea is not encourage them to go for a cache run, but to go for 20 hikes, each taking a few hours.

It would take hiding 20 caches and not a single one to do that and moreover by placing a challenge cache in a densely populated area, it lies in the area of more cachers who wish to clear out their area.

 

By setting up a challenge of the described manner, it both encourages some cachers to go for hiking caches which they would not have visited otherwise and it might encourage others to hide rather a hiking multi cache instead of a series of ten traditionals along a hiking trail.

The cache in Germany I have in mind works well.

 

Sure they can, but what's the point of having the prequalifying criteria? Why not have a multi or a mystery cache that you can just go and claim without having to find puzzle caches on every date that represents a prime number or some such?

 

There are other types of ALRs too apart from such rather arbitrary number related ones.

 

The hiking cache example above is one example. Another one would be to visit a certain number of summit caches over 2000 m etc. While I'm not interested to increase the number of caches whose name starts with a Z, an increase in the number of summit caches in my area is something I'd certainly would welcome and I cannot maintain such caches and so I could contribute only indirectly to an increase in their number and to an increased popularity (just an example).

 

 

So create a challenge/badge/achievement/whatever-else-it-gets-called for people to find a multi in every county of your state/country?

 

I still would prefer the way via challenge caches as I would not take the time to follow logs for badges even if they existed. This would be something outside of the usual logs for caches for which I have means to follow them.

I never even would notice that someone has completed such a task, the same as for the challenges which failed.

 

 

I think that much is clear. I still don't see any good reason why an ALR is a good thing.

 

That's of course something one can disagree on. I think that controlled ALRs are ok.

Edited September 26, 2014 by cezanne

[+GeoBain]

"I also agree that the "challenge cache" is an abused form of the former ALR, or "additional logging requirements." It makes very little sense to restrict a cache find in this way, especially since a geocacher can accomplish many of the tasks on the opposite side of the world but could never find this particular cache. This needs to be dealt with ..."

 

In some ways they are worse than regular ALRs. At least taking a photo or wearing a funny hat was fun.

Edited September 26, 2014 by GeoBain

[+Roman!]

Seems signing the log is an ALR.