Clarification on Challenges

[+NeverSummer]

They encourage cachers to treat good caches like they don't matter on an individual basis.

 

"Good" is subjective. For some cachers, individual caches don't matter very much. That's just a reality of the game. It's not reasonable to expect every finder to treat your cache like a super special snowflake.

 

It's not about my super special cache, it's about being forced into the numbers game. I feel very strongly that the game is devolving and challenge caches are the tipping point. I don't want to contribute to a cache type that promotes quantity over quality. But my caches are forced to participate in the challenge game and contribute to the degradation of a game I loved.

 

A find is a find is a find.*

Fixed it for ya.

 

*Unless it's a "Challenge Cache container"...

[+L0ne.R]

They encourage cachers to treat good caches like they don't matter on an individual basis.

 

"Good" is subjective. For some cachers, individual caches don't matter very much. That's just a reality of the game. It's not reasonable to expect every finder to treat your cache like a super special snowflake.

 

It's not about my super special cache, it's about being forced into the numbers game. I feel very strongly that the game is devolving and challenge caches are the tipping point. I don't want to contribute to a cache type that promotes quantity over quality. But my caches are forced to participate in the challenge game and contribute to the degradation of a game I loved.

 

A find is a find is a find.*

Fixed it for ya.

 

*Unless it's a "Challenge Cache container"...

 

It's ironic that the thing that exalts the numbers game is the only thing you can't count as a find if you find it.

[+redsox_mark]

 

It's not about my super special cache, it's about being forced into the numbers game. I feel very strongly that the game is devolving and challenge caches are the tipping point. I don't want to contribute to a cache type that promotes quantity over quality. But my caches are forced to participate in the challenge game and contribute to the degradation of a game I loved.

 

I agree that caching has become more numbers oriented for many. And by that I mean, cachers prefer to find lots of caches. A single cache which takes a half a day to hike to (regardless of cache type) won't get many finds. A series of 30 which can be found in that same half a day will.

 

But I don't see challenge caches as the cause of that, or even encouraging it (for the most part). A VERY small minority of the ones I've done involve needing to find a lot of caches in a short time. Most are about finding a specific "class" of caches, e.g.

 

- Covering different map segments

- Specific D/T ratings

- By different cache owners

- Hidden on different dates

- Contains "rock" or "cat" or whatever in the title

- etc

 

Some challenges are purely number based, but I see these more as ways to celebrate a milestone. E.g. a challenge which says you need 5000 finds. I don't think anyone suddenly changes their caching style and becomes numbers based because of such a challenge. But if they are on 4950 finds, they will keep this in mind for when they get 5000.

 

If one is concerned about the numbers focus, I think having a power trail built near your cache is far worse than having people seek out your cache due to a challenge.

 

I was thinking.. if I find "your" cache (I'm talking in general here), there can be lots of reasons why I chose it:

 

- It could be that I targeted your cache. It was recommended, I liked the look of it, etc.

- It could that I targeted a different cache in the area, and found yours too as it was nearby.

- It could be I chose a general area as it looked a nice walk and had a number of caches - I had not specifically targeted any specific ones as a priority.

- etc

 

And yes, it also could be that your cache helps me with a challenge, as it has the right D/T rating, is the right age, has "cat" in the title, etc

 

Whatever reason I chose to look for your cache, I will tell you about my experience in my log. If I loved it, I will tell you so, and why. The fact that it helps me with a challenge is just a bonus. And I find most cachers do the same.

[+blackdog7]

It's ironic that the thing that exalts the numbers game is the only thing you can't count as a find if you find it.

 

I get that you loathe the numbers game, but it seems that you're still refusing to accept that Challenge-type caches don't exist simply to motivate high number finds. There are dozens in Alabama which require finding only a hand full of caches and not even on the same day.

 

Why is it so unfair for some people to enjoy a part of the game that you don't care about?

[+blackdog7]

It's ironic that the thing that exalts the numbers game is the only thing you can't count as a find if you find it.

 

I get that you loathe the numbers game, but it seems that you're still refusing to accept that Challenge-type caches don't exist simply to motivate high number finds. There are dozens in Alabama which require finding only a hand full of caches and not even on the same day.

 

Why is it so unfair for some people to enjoy a part of the game that you don't care about?

 

For example, these 'numbers based' Challenges you've found:

 

GC3P070 - Finding 20 caches.

GC3VBKA - Finding 50 caches.

GC49YYB - Finding 100 caches.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It's ironic that the thing that exalts the numbers game is the only thing you can't count as a find if you find it.

 

I get that you loathe the numbers game, but it seems that you're still refusing to accept that Challenge-type caches don't exist simply to motivate high number finds. There are dozens in Alabama which require finding only a hand full of caches and not even on the same day.

 

Why is it so unfair for some people to enjoy a part of the game that you don't care about?

 

For example, these 'numbers based' Challenges you've found:

 

GC3P070 - Finding 20 caches.

GC3VBKA - Finding 50 caches.

GC49YYB - Finding 100 caches.

 

I don't see those as Challenges as much as they are "achievements" that, for those that already have a large number of founds would already qualify. For that last one, the fewest number of finds for those that qualified was 2041 and that was for a user that has only been caching since 2012 which tells me that they are probably motivated by a a high number of finds.

 

Those with find counts over 5000 will have already have qualified for a lot of "challenge" caches, thus allowing them to get finds on caches that those that are not driven by a high find count can't log. Of course when the cache has logs, as does the Finding 100 caches in cemetary cach, like "Found it today, log is soaked." followed by an owner maintenance log that doesn't say anything about replacing the log, but threatens deleting logs from some that have allegedly not completed the challenge.

 

I'm not going to claim that it's unfair to cachers with low find counts, or that challenges caches only exist to motivate numbers cachers. Often it seems that some challenge caches exists only to see who can create a challenge for which the fewest people will qualify, or with the most absurd criteria. Then there is absurdity of caches created specifically to allow people to complete challenges. The cache doesn't seem to exist to bring people to an interesting location, use a creative container or hide style. Instead, if the title includes words that will satisify one or more challenges, oddly enough, some people think that's a good reason for placing a cache.

 

The simple fact is every cache takes up real estate where another type of cache could be replaced. When fads such as the challenge cache craze, or power trails, or saturating areas with caches with words that start with the letter R and a number become popular, it starts taking up a lot of real estate that those that just want to find (or hide) a cache that people are going to enjoy finding (not just logging) can't use.

 

 

[+L0ne.R]

It's ironic that the thing that exalts the numbers game is the only thing you can't count as a find if you find it.

 

I get that you loathe the numbers game, but it seems that you're still refusing to accept that Challenge-type caches don't exist simply to motivate high number finds. There are dozens in Alabama which require finding only a hand full of caches and not even on the same day.

 

Why is it so unfair for some people to enjoy a part of the game that you don't care about?

 

For example, these 'numbers based' Challenges you've found:

 

GC3P070 - Finding 20 caches.

GC3VBKA - Finding 50 caches.

GC49YYB - Finding 100 caches.

 

I don't see those as Challenges as much as they are "achievements" that, for those that already have a large number of founds would already qualify. For that last one, the fewest number of finds for those that qualified was 2041 and that was for a user that has only been caching since 2012 which tells me that they are probably motivated by a a high number of finds.

 

Those with find counts over 5000 will have already have qualified for a lot of "challenge" caches, thus allowing them to get finds on caches that those that are not driven by a high find count can't log. Of course when the cache has logs, as does the Finding 100 caches in cemetary cach, like "Found it today, log is soaked." followed by an owner maintenance log that doesn't say anything about replacing the log, but threatens deleting logs from some that have allegedly not completed the challenge.

 

I'm not going to claim that it's unfair to cachers with low find counts, or that challenges caches only exist to motivate numbers cachers. Often it seems that some challenge caches exists only to see who can create a challenge for which the fewest people will qualify, or with the most absurd criteria. Then there is absurdity of caches created specifically to allow people to complete challenges. The cache doesn't seem to exist to bring people to an interesting location, use a creative container or hide style. Instead, if the title includes words that will satisify one or more challenges, oddly enough, some people think that's a good reason for placing a cache.

 

The simple fact is every cache takes up real estate where another type of cache could be replaced. When fads such as the challenge cache craze, or power trails, or saturating areas with caches with words that start with the letter R and a number become popular, it starts taking up a lot of real estate that those that just want to find (or hide) a cache that people are going to enjoy finding (not just logging) can't use.

 

 

Well said. In Ontario there are almost 700 challenge caches and the numbers keep growing. Near me there are 3 power trails of challenge caches. As a 13 year avid geocacher but not a numbers geocacher I qualify for only a small percentage of those challenges. Not that I care, except that they encourage people to find caches not for their individual intrinsic value but instead to qualify for their 'super special snowflake' challenge cache.

[+blackdog7]

So this boils down to a debate over semantics and people being upset that others don't play the game the way they do. Is that about right?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

So this boils down to a debate over semantics and people being upset that others don't play the game the way they do. Is that about right?

 

No. The oft quoted "you can play the game how you want to play it" might be a nice sentiment but the fact is that there are a lot of ways people are playing the game that have a negative impact on the enjoyment of how others want to play the game.

 

When someone creates a power trail of 80 challenge caches, that power trail is saturating an area to the point that it's impossible to play the game in that area without completing those challenges.

 

If a few puzzle cache fanatics try to one up each other by creating the largest number of difficult puzzle caches it not only impacts that have no interest in doing puzzle caches, but it forces a cache hider to solve those puzzles (or more likely get the solutions using a PAF network) just so they know whether know whether or not the spot they picked for their clever traditional doesn't have proximity issues.

 

Every nano cache stuck on a sign in the parking lot of a trail head blocks someone from creating a larger cache, possibly with a scenic overlook, up to 528' up the trail from the parking lot.

 

When someone writes "we can all play the game how we want" it sometimes means "I'll play the game the way want". I long as it makes me happy I don't care if how i play the game reduces the enjoyment of others.

[+blackdog7]

So this boils down to a debate over semantics and people being upset that others don't play the game the way they do. Is that about right?

 

No. The oft quoted "you can play the game how you want to play it" might be a nice sentiment but the fact is that there are a lot of ways people are playing the game that have a negative impact on the enjoyment of how others want to play the game.

 

When someone creates a power trail of 80 challenge caches, that power trail is saturating an area to the point that it's impossible to play the game in that area without completing those challenges.

 

If a few puzzle cache fanatics try to one up each other by creating the largest number of difficult puzzle caches it not only impacts that have no interest in doing puzzle caches, but it forces a cache hider to solve those puzzles (or more likely get the solutions using a PAF network) just so they know whether know whether or not the spot they picked for their clever traditional doesn't have proximity issues.

 

Every nano cache stuck on a sign in the parking lot of a trail head blocks someone from creating a larger cache, possibly with a scenic overlook, up to 528' up the trail from the parking lot.

 

When someone writes "we can all play the game how we want" it sometimes means "I'll play the game the way want". I long as it makes me happy I don't care if how i play the game reduces the enjoyment of others.

 

Sounds to me like your method of playing the game could reduce the enjoyment that I receive from it, but you've been a member since early 2007 and I've only been a member since late 2009, so your enjoyment outranks mine?

 

EDIT: 'reduces' changed to 'could reduce'

Edited February 26, 2015 by blackdog7

[+blackdog7]

When someone creates a power trail of 80 challenge caches, that power trail is saturating an area to the point that it's impossible to play the game in that area without completing those challenges.

 

Why not just log a note and keep a spreadsheet of the notes you've logged. I mean, it's only about the find for you guys, not the 'numbers' so you shouldn't need the smiley...correct?

[+dprovan]

Well said. In Ontario there are almost 700 challenge caches and the numbers keep growing. Near me there are 3 power trails of challenge caches. As a 13 year avid geocacher but not a numbers geocacher I qualify for only a small percentage of those challenges. Not that I care, except that they encourage people to find caches not for their individual intrinsic value but instead to qualify for their 'super special snowflake' challenge cache.

I agree it's sad you have so many drek challenge caches near you, but it's those challenge caches that encourage number grubbing, it's not challenge caches in general.

[+L0ne.R]

When someone creates a power trail of 80 challenge caches, that power trail is saturating an area to the point that it's impossible to play the game in that area without completing those challenges.

 

Why not just log a note and keep a spreadsheet of the notes you've logged. I mean, it's only about the find for you guys, not the 'numbers' so you shouldn't need the smiley...correct?

 

Because it's unfair those of us who find a challenge cache but can't add it to our found list. We can't use the site's features as they were meant to be used. In particular the map feature - I often use the map to see what I have found and what I haven't found. I toggle 'My Finds' on and off. I can't do that with Notes. It took away cachers' ability to keep an accurate handy record of how many caches they actually found, they are treated like a second class geocacher because they don't have the luxury of caching everyday, or travelling beyond perhaps a few counties.

 

Challenge caches take something away from people. It takes away their ability to accurately record their finds. It divides cachers into have and have not in an in-your-face way. It's a taunting, boastful way to play.

 

But that's minor compared to the effect it has had on the way people find and log caches. There's been a significant degradation in some areas since power trails and challenge caches became the norm.

 

No worries though for those who love numbers games like challenge caches and power trails, I doubt challenge caches (and power trails) will go away. But at least discussing the cons of challenge caches is food for thought.

 

 

[+blackdog7]

Because it's unfair those of us who find a challenge cache but can't add it to our found list. We can't use the site's features as they were meant to be used. In particular the map feature - I often use the map to see what I have found and what I haven't found. I toggle 'My Finds' on and off. I can't do that with Notes. It took away cachers' ability to keep an accurate handy record of how many caches they actually found, they are treated like a second class geocacher because they don't have the luxury of caching everyday, or travelling beyond perhaps a few counties.

 

Why not use the ignore feature?

 

I don't like Traditional caches or lamposts, so I toggle off Traditionals and ignore lamposts when I encounter them.

 

Challenge caches take something away from people. It takes away their ability to accurately record their finds. It divides cachers into have and have not in an in-your-face way. It's a taunting, boastful way to play.

 

Your personal opinion. Again, ignore the cache.

 

Removing Challenge caches would take away something from those who enjoy challenges. Perhaps a new icon would be a good idea.

 

But that's minor compared to the effect it has had on the way people find and log caches. There's been a significant degradation in some areas since power trails and challenge caches became the norm.

 

A blanket assumption. There are plenty of us who still write detailed and meaningful logs. Plenty of us also ignore power trails.

 

The addition of Challenges in my area has inspired a great number of new Multi, Letterbox and Puzzle caches.

 

No worries though for those who love numbers games like challenge caches and power trails, I doubt challenge caches (and power trails) will go away. But at least discussing the cons of challenge caches is food for thought.

 

You're probably correct here. Considering the popularity of both Power Trails and Challenges, I don't see Groundspeak removing them anytime soon.

Edited February 26, 2015 by blackdog7

[+narcissa]

Well said. In Ontario there are almost 700 challenge caches and the numbers keep growing. Near me there are 3 power trails of challenge caches. As a 13 year avid geocacher but not a numbers geocacher I qualify for only a small percentage of those challenges. Not that I care, except that they encourage people to find caches not for their individual intrinsic value but instead to qualify for their 'super special snowflake' challenge cache.

 

Why does it matter *why* someone finds a cache?

 

The only real positive I've seen out of "challenge" caches is that some of them encourage people to find a wider variety of caches.

 

It just goes to show that nobody can do anything right. No matter how you play this game, someone's going to have a hissy fit and take their ball and go home because your log wasn't long enough, or your log was too long, or you left the wrong swag, or you didn't leave swag at all, or now, you didn't have a good enough reason for finding a cache.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Why does it matter *why* someone finds a cache?

 

 

Exactly what I was trying to say, but said much more succinctly.

 

There are lots of reasons why someone may choose to find your cache, that don't relate to your cache specifically.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Challenge caches take something away from people. It takes away their ability to accurately record their finds. It divides cachers into have and have not in an in-your-face way. It's a taunting, boastful way to play.

 

But that's minor compared to the effect it has had on the way people find and log caches. There's been a significant degradation in some areas since power trails and challenge caches became the norm.

 

No worries though for those who love numbers games like challenge caches and power trails, I doubt challenge caches (and power trails) will go away. But at least discussing the cons of challenge caches is food for thought.

 

Any type of cache takes up real estate and impacts what other caches can be hidden. In my area there has been a recent trend of hiding more and more difficult tree climbing caches. I'm afraid of heights and clumsy, I can't do these.

 

On the finding side, I accept challenge caches are unique in that you can physically find it but only log online if you qualify. Which is why I think a separate cache type would be good. But that's another debate.

 

I still think the numbers issue is much more about power trails - I see now we are talking about power trails of challenge caches.

 

As a cache owner: If someone selects my cache as one they want to find because it helps them with a challenge, that's great. They have chosen to find my cache. I find with the logs that they are extra appreciative of this; not only do they find my cache but it helps them with something else.

 

Now, if I place a cache in the middle of nowhere... and later a 100 cache power trail is built around my cache, that is more of an issue. Especially if my cache is a Traditional, finders may not even notice that mine is not part of the power trail. So I may get the same cut and paste logs as the power trail. Nothing I can do about that, but this seems more of an issue. If my cache isn't a Traditional, then finders should notice it (they would have to solve the puzzle etc).. but the fact that they are logging 101 caches that day may effect the logs I get.

 

So yes, numbers impact logs. If a cacher found 101 caches in a day, and yours was one, you will likely get a shorter log than if they only found 1 cache (yours) that day. But I don't think the existence of challenge caches is the problem.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

When someone creates a power trail of 80 challenge caches, that power trail is saturating an area to the point that it's impossible to play the game in that area without completing those challenges.

 

Why not just log a note and keep a spreadsheet of the notes you've logged. I mean, it's only about the find for you guys, not the 'numbers' so you shouldn't need the smiley...correct?

 

If you looked at my profile it should be pretty obvious that it's not about the numbers for me. I only have a little over 1200 finds since 2007 and the first 1000 I did in the first three years caching. The last time I found more caches in a single year than you have in the first two months of 2015 was in 2009. However, when I discuss a certain aspect of this game I don't do it from the perspective of how it impacts me, personally. I try to look at the bigger pictures and consider how some trends and fads impact geocachers and the game in general.

 

[+blackdog7]

I mean, it's only about the find for you guys, not the 'numbers' so you shouldn't need the smiley...correct?

 

That was sarcasm. I have no doubt you're not a 'numbers guy'. To a certain extent, I wouldn't classify myself as a numbers cacher either.

 

If you looked at my profile it should be pretty obvious that it's not about the numbers for me. I only have a little over 1200 finds since 2007 and the first 1000 I did in the first three years caching. The last time I found more caches in a single year than you have in the first two months of 2015 was in 2009. However, when I discuss a certain aspect of this game I don't do it from the perspective of how it impacts me, personally. I try to look at the bigger pictures and consider how some trends and fads impact geocachers and the game in general.

 

I don't have a problem with you having and expressing your own opinion, I'm just taking the opportunity to voice my disagreement. I do, however, think you guys are taking the stance that your version of cache finding and hiding is somehow superior to those around you. Like I said earlier, I think the beautiful thing about this game is that we can modify it to fit our personal preferences.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I don't have a problem with you having and expressing your own opinion, I'm just taking the opportunity to voice my disagreement. I do, however, think you guys are taking the stance that your version of cache finding and hiding is somehow superior to those around you. Like I said earlier, I think the beautiful thing about this game is that we can modify it to fit our personal preferences.

 

I don't have a problem with someone modifying the game to fit their personal preference, up to the point that it negatively impacts the enjoyment for those that choose not to play the game in that manner.

 

 

 

[+blackdog7]

 

I don't have a problem with you having and expressing your own opinion, I'm just taking the opportunity to voice my disagreement. I do, however, think you guys are taking the stance that your version of cache finding and hiding is somehow superior to those around you. Like I said earlier, I think the beautiful thing about this game is that we can modify it to fit our personal preferences.

 

I don't have a problem with someone modifying the game to fit their personal preference, up to the point that it negatively impacts the enjoyment for those that choose not to play the game in that manner.

 

Agreed. Hopefully Groundspeak will step in if and when something like that ever happens.

[+narcissa]

 

I don't have a problem with you having and expressing your own opinion, I'm just taking the opportunity to voice my disagreement. I do, however, think you guys are taking the stance that your version of cache finding and hiding is somehow superior to those around you. Like I said earlier, I think the beautiful thing about this game is that we can modify it to fit our personal preferences.

 

I don't have a problem with someone modifying the game to fit their personal preference, up to the point that it negatively impacts the enjoyment for those that choose not to play the game in that manner.

 

Agreed. Hopefully Groundspeak will step in if and when something like that ever happens.

 

This is how I feel too, in theory, but I find it a little harder to agree with all the alleged negative impacts that are being claimed.

 

Real impacts are things like:

 

- Damage or degradation to caches because of careless people

- Throw-downs

- Log abuse, like false logs or deliberately rude logs

- Unreasonable demands and complaints related to pointless statistics like D/T rating or FTF

- Swag items that damage the cache or harm cachers

 

Things that might bother people on an individual pet-peeve basis but are not actually negative impacts outside of your own imagination:

 

- Pretty much anything else to do with swag

- Anything to do with favourite points

- Too many people finding a cache

- Not enough people finding a cache

- People finding a cache in a group

- Logs that use too many words and aren't personally relevant to the cache owner

- Logs that don't use enough words to thank the cache owner

- People finding a cache for the wrong reason

[+funkymunkyzone]

Because it's unfair those of us who find a challenge cache but can't add it to our found list.

But you know what a challenge cache is, and you know what the requirement is for finding, or more accurately logging, it. You knew before you went out to find it that it was a waste of time to do so, if logging it online was your end goal, and yet you did it anyway. How is that anyone's fault but your own.

We can't use the site's features as they were meant to be used.

Actually, challenge caches are part of the "rules" and part of the site's features as they are now and how they are "meant to be" right now.

Edited February 26, 2015 by funkymunkyzone

[+funkymunkyzone]

So yes, numbers impact logs. If a cacher found 101 caches in a day, and yours was one, you will likely get a shorter log than if they only found 1 cache (yours) that day. But I don't think the existence of challenge caches is the problem.

 

100% agree with the last sentence here. I know from my personal experience, as a reasonably keen challenge cache finder (although one who can easily and readily judge a challenge that I don't care to complete and therefore ignores it), my biggest days of caching had absolutely nothing to do with any challenge caches.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

I don't have a problem with you having and expressing your own opinion, I'm just taking the opportunity to voice my disagreement. I do, however, think you guys are taking the stance that your version of cache finding and hiding is somehow superior to those around you. Like I said earlier, I think the beautiful thing about this game is that we can modify it to fit our personal preferences.

 

I don't have a problem with someone modifying the game to fit their personal preference, up to the point that it negatively impacts the enjoyment for those that choose not to play the game in that manner.

 

Agreed. Hopefully Groundspeak will step in if and when something like that ever happens.

 

This is how I feel too, in theory, but I find it a little harder to agree with all the alleged negative impacts that are being claimed.

 

Excuse me but who are are you to decide what should and shouldn't impact the enjoyment of someone else?

 

Awhile back I read a log from someone that said they were planning a 75-80 cache geo-art made up of puzzle caches with published coordinates located in the south end of the lake. Now I live in a fairly small town so if that was geo-art created (thankfully, it wasn't) anyone living in this town, whether they liked puzzle caches or not, would have to solve 75-80 puzzles to determine whether a cache they want to place had proximity issues. Maybe the existence of 70-80 nano caches stuck on street signs all over town doesn't bother you but because narcissa states that 70-80 nano caches on street signs doesn't both her, nobody else should be bothered about having to jump through hopes just to place an ammo can in a wooded area near one of those caches.

 

That's not your decision to make.

 

 

 

[+funkymunkyzone]

 

I don't have a problem with you having and expressing your own opinion, I'm just taking the opportunity to voice my disagreement. I do, however, think you guys are taking the stance that your version of cache finding and hiding is somehow superior to those around you. Like I said earlier, I think the beautiful thing about this game is that we can modify it to fit our personal preferences.

 

I don't have a problem with someone modifying the game to fit their personal preference, up to the point that it negatively impacts the enjoyment for those that choose not to play the game in that manner.

 

Agreed. Hopefully Groundspeak will step in if and when something like that ever happens.

 

This is how I feel too, in theory, but I find it a little harder to agree with all the alleged negative impacts that are being claimed.

 

Excuse me but who are are you to decide what should and shouldn't impact the enjoyment of someone else?

 

But.... ditto? Who are you to decide? I believe narcissa was offering her opinion, just as you do below:

 

Awhile back I read a log from someone that said they were planning a 75-80 cache geo-art made up of puzzle caches with published coordinates located in the south end of the lake. Now I live in a fairly small town so if that was geo-art created (thankfully, it wasn't) anyone living in this town, whether they liked puzzle caches or not, would have to solve 75-80 puzzles to determine whether a cache they want to place had proximity issues.

 

That seems rather dramatic. I would say "or they can simply submit their proposed cache coordinates and let a reviewer tell them if that spot is ok... you know, like everyone does everywhere else in the world". Nowhere in the world is anyone guaranteed their cache will be published due to a range of potential issues, one of them being proximity to a physical stage or the final cache of a mystery, multi, Wherigo...

 

Maybe the existence of 70-80 nano caches stuck on street signs all over town doesn't bother you but because narcissa states that 70-80 nano caches on street signs doesn't both her, nobody else should be bothered about having to jump through hopes just to place an ammo can in a wooded area near one of those caches.

 

Or everyone should accept that we're all playing a game together and while the world is our playing field, there's only one field and lots and lots of players, and that kinda means that cache hiding sports are first-come-first-served. If you're too late to hide a cache in a certain spot then whining about it won't help, and if you're going to feel aggrieved by that, then you're only ruining your own enjoyment of the game. To suggest that someone else hid some caches and that has negatively impacted your enjoyment of the game shows a gross misunderstanding of the game and in my opinion, a good dose of selfishness.

[+blackdog7]

This is how I feel too, in theory, but I find it a little harder to agree with all the alleged negative impacts that are being claimed.

 

Real impacts are things like:

 

- Damage or degradation to caches because of careless people

- Throw-downs

- Log abuse, like false logs or deliberately rude logs

- Unreasonable demands and complaints related to pointless statistics like D/T rating or FTF

- Swag items that damage the cache or harm cachers

 

Things that might bother people on an individual pet-peeve basis but are not actually negative impacts outside of your own imagination:

 

- Pretty much anything else to do with swag

- Anything to do with favourite points

- Too many people finding a cache

- Not enough people finding a cache

- People finding a cache in a group

- Logs that use too many words and aren't personally relevant to the cache owner

- Logs that don't use enough words to thank the cache owner

- People finding a cache for the wrong reason

 

Obviously reasonable.

 

I think I'm in agreement with you here, but to clarify: Do you not like Challenges based on the D/T grid?

[+blackdog7]

Excuse me but who are are you to decide what should and shouldn't impact the enjoyment of someone else?

 

Is it safe to assume you don't realize how hypocritical you sound here?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Excuse me but who are are you to decide what should and shouldn't impact the enjoyment of someone else?

 

Is it safe to assume you don't realize how hypocritical you sound here?

 

No, I don't think anyone should think that they can dictate to another person how that person should feel. That includes me, and guess what? I'm not doing that.

[+CanadianRockies]

Challenge caches take something away from people. It takes away their ability to accurately record their finds. It divides cachers into have and have not in an in-your-face way. It's a taunting, boastful way to play.

That's certainly one way to look at challenges. They divide cachers in the same way SCUBA caches divide divers from non-divers. Cliff caches separate those who can repel from those who can't. Some geocachers have boats and/or ATVs; some don't. Some can climb high trees or mountains, while others are more grounded in cities. There are those who solve tricky puzzles and those who don't.

 

You can look at all those different kinds of caches as taking away from groups of geocachers, or you can look at them as providing different kinds of enjoyment to people who have differing preferences. I guess I'm more of a glass-half-full kind of person. Vive la différence!

Edited February 27, 2015 by CanadianRockies

[+niraD]

Challenge caches take something away from people. It takes away their ability to accurately record their finds. It divides cachers into have and have not in an in-your-face way. It's a taunting, boastful way to play.

That's certainly one way to look at challenges. They divide cachers in the same way SCUBA caches divide divers from non-divers. Cliff caches separate those who can repel from those who can't. Some geocachers have boats and/or ATVs; some don't. Some can climb high trees or mountains, while others are more grounded in cities. There are those who solve tricky puzzles and those who don't.

I don't think they divide geocachers in quite the same way. With scuba caches or cliff caches or boat caches or tree caches or puzzle caches or pretty much any physical cache other than challenge caches, if I can sign the log, then I can post a Find log online. Challenge caches break that.

 

And that's the point L0ne.R is making.

Edited February 27, 2015 by niraD

[+L0ne.R]

Challenge caches take something away from people. It takes away their ability to accurately record their finds. It divides cachers into have and have not in an in-your-face way. It's a taunting, boastful way to play.

That's certainly one way to look at challenges. They divide cachers in the same way SCUBA caches divide divers from non-divers. Cliff caches separate those who can repel from those who can't. Some geocachers have boats and/or ATVs; some don't. Some can climb high trees or mountains, while others are more grounded in cities. There are those who solve tricky puzzles and those who don't.

I don't think they divide geocachers in quite the same way. With scuba caches or cliff caches or boat caches or tree caches or puzzle caches or pretty much any physical cache other than challenge caches, if I can sign the log, then I can post a Find log online. Challenge caches break that.

 

And that's the point L0ne.R is making.

 

Exactly, but challenge cache owners always retort with CR's argument that cc's are the same as difficult caches. They aren't.

And one thing the other difficult caches tend not to do is breed an overabundance of the same, or encourage caching for the numbers, or consequently motivate cachers to treat other people's hides like they are another notch on the belt towards the covetted challenge prize.

[+CanadianRockies]

Challenge caches take something away from people. It takes away their ability to accurately record their finds. It divides cachers into have and have not in an in-your-face way. It's a taunting, boastful way to play.

That's certainly one way to look at challenges. They divide cachers in the same way SCUBA caches divide divers from non-divers. Cliff caches separate those who can repel from those who can't. Some geocachers have boats and/or ATVs; some don't. Some can climb high trees or mountains, while others are more grounded in cities. There are those who solve tricky puzzles and those who don't.

I don't think they divide geocachers in quite the same way. With scuba caches or cliff caches or boat caches or tree caches or puzzle caches or pretty much any physical cache other than challenge caches, if I can sign the log, then I can post a Find log online. Challenge caches break that.

 

And that's the point L0ne.R is making.

No, that was one of the points L0ne.R was making. My comments applied to the other point L0ne.R was making, which was that challenges divide cachers.

 

L0ne.R's first point (about not being able to log online "Found its") has been repeatedly addressed. Most recently was funkymunkyzone's direct response:

 

But you know what a challenge cache is, and you know what the requirement is for finding, or more accurately logging, it. You knew before you went out to find it that it was a waste of time to do so, if logging it online was your end goal, and yet you did it anyway. How is that anyone's fault but your own.

[+CanadianRockies]

Exactly, but challenge cache owners always retort with CR's argument that cc's are the same as difficult caches. They aren't.

Of course they are different. That was MY point. Challenges appeal to people with different preferences, just like SCUBA, cliff, boat, ATV, tree, mountain, and puzzle caches appeal to people with different preferences. I rejoice in the diverse experiences geocaching offers. Again, vive la différence!

[+L0ne.R]

Challenge caches take something away from people. It takes away their ability to accurately record their finds. It divides cachers into have and have not in an in-your-face way. It's a taunting, boastful way to play.

That's certainly one way to look at challenges. They divide cachers in the same way SCUBA caches divide divers from non-divers. Cliff caches separate those who can repel from those who can't. Some geocachers have boats and/or ATVs; some don't. Some can climb high trees or mountains, while others are more grounded in cities. There are those who solve tricky puzzles and those who don't.

I don't think they divide geocachers in quite the same way. With scuba caches or cliff caches or boat caches or tree caches or puzzle caches or pretty much any physical cache other than challenge caches, if I can sign the log, then I can post a Find log online. Challenge caches break that.

 

And that's the point L0ne.R is making.

No, that was one of the points L0ne.R was making. My comments applied to the other point L0ne.R was making, which was that challenges divide cachers.

 

L0ne.R's first point (about not being able to log online "Found its") has been repeatedly addressed. Most recently was funkymunkyzone's direct response:

 

But you know what a challenge cache is, and you know what the requirement is for finding, or more accurately logging, it. You knew before you went out to find it that it was a waste of time to do so, if logging it online was your end goal, and yet you did it anyway. How is that anyone's fault but your own.

 

I personally do restrain myself from finding cc's that I don't qualify for. But if you are walking right by one, or with friends who qualify I can see searching for it and adding a note. You hide something that you would prefer casual geocachers not find and if they do you will treat this sub-group unfairly (as enforced by Groundspeak) by not giving the equal opportunity to use the site's features as they were originally intended to be used - to record finds and filter out those finds.

[+CanadianRockies]

And one thing the other difficult caches tend not to do is breed an overabundance of the same, or encourage caching for the numbers, or consequently motivate cachers to treat other people's hides like they are another notch on the belt towards the covetted challenge prize.

You complained earlier that there are almost 700 challenge caches in Ontario. What you neglected to mention was that there are almost 45,000 total caches in the province. Perhaps you view less than 2 percent as an "overabundance" because most challenge caches aren't your cup of tea. Others, however, might be pleased that these challenge caches add another dimension to geocaching and hope that even more get created.

 

I suppose a few people who don't care for multi-caches might think Ontario's 2,049 multis are a couple thousand too many, but I suspect most folks who dislike multis tolerate (or even appreciate) that different people have different preferences when it comes to geocaching.

Edited February 27, 2015 by CanadianRockies

[+CanadianRockies]

I personally do restrain myself from finding cc's that I don't qualify for. But if you are walking right by one, or with friends who qualify I can see searching for it and adding a note.

Nothing prevents you from doing that. I often do the same thing.

 

You hide something that you would prefer casual geocachers not find and if they do you will treat this sub-group unfairly (as enforced by Groundspeak) by not giving the equal opportunity to use the site's features as they were originally intended to be used - to record finds and filter out those finds.

The site's features originally didn't include multi-caches, puzzles, Wherigos, and a whole slew of other things that they now include. Things evolve. Change isn't automatically bad.

 

But the site still allows one to record finds and filter out those finds. It's just that your definition of a "find" differs from Groundspeak's. No matter how Groundspeak defines "finds," some people will always disagree with that definition.

[+L0ne.R]

I personally do restrain myself from finding cc's that I don't qualify for. But if you are walking right by one, or with friends who qualify I can see searching for it and adding a note.

Nothing prevents you from doing that. I often do the same thing.

 

You hide something that you would prefer casual geocachers not find and if they do you will treat this sub-group unfairly (as enforced by Groundspeak) by not giving the equal opportunity to use the site's features as they were originally intended to be used - to record finds and filter out those finds.

The site's features originally didn't include multi-caches, puzzles, Wherigos, and a whole slew of other things that they now include. Things evolve. Change isn't automatically bad.

 

Multis, puzzles, whereigos by their nature aren't automatically bad. It's the nature of cc's that make them boastful and numbers-encouraging, which isn't typical of other non-traditional caches.

 

But the site still allows one to record finds and filter out those finds. It's just that your definition of a "find" differs from Groundspeak's. No matter how Groundspeak defines "finds," some people will always disagree with that definition.

 

From the Help Center:

 

3.1. How do I find the geocache and what should I do once I've found it?

There are many things to know about searching for a geocache. For instance, did you know that there is a slight "error" to every GPS device due to technological limitations? Your device can get you close to the cache, but there are a number of things to consider as you get closer to the cache location.

 

When you find the cache, sign the logbook and return it to the cache. You can take an item from the cache if you like - just make sure to leave something of equal or greater value in its place. When you are finished, put the cache back exactly as you found it, even if you think you see a better spot for it. Please do not move a cache from its original location. If you feel that it may not be located in the correct location, please email the cache owner directly or post a log on the cache listing page, notifying the owner of your concern. Cache owners are responsible for maintaining their cache placements.

 

Finally, visit the cache page to log your find and share your experience with others!

 

6.3. Glossary of Geocaching Terms

Find Count - The number of geocaches a player has found.

 

Learn How to Log Your Find

 

 

Finding Geocaches

 

How do I log my find?

 

Instructions for logging a "Found It" are located here. If you need to post another type of log, such as a "Didn't find it" or a Note, the same instructions apply, with one small change; instead of choosing "Found It" in the drop-down menu, you would choose the applicable log type.

 

 

 

[Keystone]

Ooh! We're quoting stuff. Such fun. Let me join that party.

 

Logging of All Physical Geocaches.

 

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

 

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

 

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish such tasks.

 

Edit to add: These logging guidelines control over help center articles, videos, etc., which will be more general in order to guide newbies.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Keystone

[+L0ne.R]

Ooh! We're quoting stuff. Such fun. Let me join that party.

 

Logging of All Physical Geocaches.

 

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

 

An exception is Challenge Caches, which may only be logged online after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented to the cache owner as per instructions on the published listing. Other than documenting a Challenge Cache, physical caches cannot require geocachers to contact anyone.

 

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional. Cache finders can choose whether or not to attempt or accomplish such tasks.

 

Edit to add: These logging guidelines control over help center articles, videos, etc., which will be more general in order to guide newbies.

 

Why would Groundspeak hide that under Geocaching Listing Requirements?

I know the rules, I've read them in every cc listed but found it interesting that nowhere in the Help Center does it mention the cc exception.

[+CanadianRockies]

Multis, puzzles, whereigos by their nature aren't automatically bad. It's the nature of cc's that make them boastful and numbers-encouraging, which isn't typical of other non-traditional caches.

Challenge caches aren't automatically bad either. It's not their nature that makes them boastful and numbers-encouraging. That's your personal view of them. My personal view of challenges is that they encourage individuals to experience geocaching in new and enjoyable ways that they might not otherwise have considered. I see that as a positive feature.

 

There's a huge diversity of challenges. Some might encourage number caching, but many (e.g., Jasmer and Fizzy) focus on a few time-consuming caches that are the antithesis of number caching.

 

I hear more geocachers "boast" about finding a cache atop of a high mountain than I do about someone logging a challenge for finding 100 traditionals. That doesn't stop me from appreciating mountain caches. I'm glad people are passionate about their preferences and experience joy from them, even if I don't always share those preferences.

 

But the site still allows one to record finds and filter out those finds. It's just that your definition of a "find" differs from Groundspeak's. No matter how Groundspeak defines "finds," some people will always disagree with that definition.

From the Help Center:

 

3.1. How do I find the geocache and what should I do once I've found it?

There are many things to know about searching for a geocache. For instance, did you know that there is a slight "error" to every GPS device due to technological limitations? Your device can get you close to the cache, but there are a number of things to consider as you get closer to the cache location.

 

When you find the cache, sign the logbook and return it to the cache. You can take an item from the cache if you like - just make sure to leave something of equal or greater value in its place. When you are finished, put the cache back exactly as you found it, even if you think you see a better spot for it. Please do not move a cache from its original location. If you feel that it may not be located in the correct location, please email the cache owner directly or post a log on the cache listing page, notifying the owner of your concern. Cache owners are responsible for maintaining their cache placements.

 

Finally, visit the cache page to log your find and share your experience with others!

That's the simplistic introduction to searching for a geocache. I'm pretty sure you know it's not Groundspeak's much broader definition of a "find." For example, it completely omits how one finds an EarthCache. Or a virtual cache. Or a challenge cache.

 

6.3. Glossary of Geocaching Terms

Find Count - The number of geocaches a player has found.

That "find" count includes Groundspeak's broad definition of "found." For example, it includes the number of events a player has attended. And the number of webcam photos taken. And the number of lab cache codes entered. And the number of challenge caches a player has both qualified for and signed. But you already know that, don't you?

Edited February 27, 2015 by CanadianRockies

[Keystone]

Why would Groundspeak hide that under Geocaching Listing Requirements?

I know the rules, I've read them in every cc listed but found it interesting that nowhere in the Help Center does it mention the cc exception.

I guess it all depends on which Help Center articles you read.

[+L0ne.R]

Why would Groundspeak hide that under Geocaching Listing Requirements?

I know the rules, I've read them in every cc listed but found it interesting that nowhere in the Help Center does it mention the cc exception.

I guess it all depends on which Help Center articles you read.

 

IMO if Groundspeak has changed the meaning of 'Find' it should be up front and center where newbies don't have to dig deep into the site for it.

[Keystone]

I would think that newbies aren't immediately focusing on Fizzy and Jasmer challenges in their first weeks using the website and/or mobile apps. To the extent that they do become interested quickly in challenge caches, I would hope that said newbies would input "challenge" in the Help Center's search box.

 

The first article that pops up is the challenge cache article I linked to in my prior post.

 

The second article returned in the search results is this one about log deletions, which references the challenge cache owner's right to delete online logs if the finder hasn't completed the challenge requirements.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Multis, puzzles, whereigos by their nature aren't automatically bad. It's the nature of cc's that make them boastful and numbers-encouraging, which isn't typical of other non-traditional caches.

Challenge caches aren't automatically bad either. It's not their nature that makes them boastful and numbers-encouraging. That's your personal view of them. My personal view of challenges is that they encourage individuals to experience geocaching in new and enjoyable ways that they might not otherwise have considered. I see that as a positive feature.

 

That's a lofty goal but more often than not I see challenges as: they allow individuals that have a lot of experience with geocaching in a variety of ways the opportunity log caches that those without much experience can't.

 

In other words, a lot, if not most challenges are not challenges as much as they are achievements.

 

 

[+GeoTrekker26]

I guess it all depends on which Help Center articles you read.

Which really means that GS needs to overhaul the guidelines and Help Center into a well indexed, unified reference source. I note that your link is about placing a cache yet this thread is currently about logging a find. That is not a reflection on your post, rather it points out the difficulty a user encounters trying to find information. In the past I have tried to find details about a topic and gave up because it wasn't obvious where to look and my searches weren't getting me there.

[+narcissa]

I think I'm in agreement with you here, but to clarify: Do you not like Challenges based on the D/T grid?

 

I have no opinion of those challenges. Cache owners are under no obligation to maintain a specific D/T rating because it affects someone else's grid.

[+narcissa]

 

I don't have a problem with you having and expressing your own opinion, I'm just taking the opportunity to voice my disagreement. I do, however, think you guys are taking the stance that your version of cache finding and hiding is somehow superior to those around you. Like I said earlier, I think the beautiful thing about this game is that we can modify it to fit our personal preferences.

 

I don't have a problem with someone modifying the game to fit their personal preference, up to the point that it negatively impacts the enjoyment for those that choose not to play the game in that manner.

 

Agreed. Hopefully Groundspeak will step in if and when something like that ever happens.

 

This is how I feel too, in theory, but I find it a little harder to agree with all the alleged negative impacts that are being claimed.

 

Excuse me but who are are you to decide what should and shouldn't impact the enjoyment of someone else?

 

Awhile back I read a log from someone that said they were planning a 75-80 cache geo-art made up of puzzle caches with published coordinates located in the south end of the lake. Now I live in a fairly small town so if that was geo-art created (thankfully, it wasn't) anyone living in this town, whether they liked puzzle caches or not, would have to solve 75-80 puzzles to determine whether a cache they want to place had proximity issues. Maybe the existence of 70-80 nano caches stuck on street signs all over town doesn't bother you but because narcissa states that 70-80 nano caches on street signs doesn't both her, nobody else should be bothered about having to jump through hopes just to place an ammo can in a wooded area near one of those caches.

 

That's not your decision to make.

 

Thank you for reminding me that "Too many people are placing caches so I can't place one myself" is another ridiculous complaint that I left off the list.

[+L0ne.R]

 

I don't have a problem with you having and expressing your own opinion, I'm just taking the opportunity to voice my disagreement. I do, however, think you guys are taking the stance that your version of cache finding and hiding is somehow superior to those around you. Like I said earlier, I think the beautiful thing about this game is that we can modify it to fit our personal preferences.

 

I don't have a problem with someone modifying the game to fit their personal preference, up to the point that it negatively impacts the enjoyment for those that choose not to play the game in that manner.

 

Agreed. Hopefully Groundspeak will step in if and when something like that ever happens.

 

This is how I feel too, in theory, but I find it a little harder to agree with all the alleged negative impacts that are being claimed.

 

Excuse me but who are are you to decide what should and shouldn't impact the enjoyment of someone else?

 

Awhile back I read a log from someone that said they were planning a 75-80 cache geo-art made up of puzzle caches with published coordinates located in the south end of the lake. Now I live in a fairly small town so if that was geo-art created (thankfully, it wasn't) anyone living in this town, whether they liked puzzle caches or not, would have to solve 75-80 puzzles to determine whether a cache they want to place had proximity issues. Maybe the existence of 70-80 nano caches stuck on street signs all over town doesn't bother you but because narcissa states that 70-80 nano caches on street signs doesn't both her, nobody else should be bothered about having to jump through hopes just to place an ammo can in a wooded area near one of those caches.

 

That's not your decision to make.

 

Thank you for reminding me that "Too many people are placing caches so I can't place one myself" is another ridiculous complaint that I left off the list.

 

Such a tough-luck attitude.

I prefer NYPC's compassion.

[+niraD]

Thank you for reminding me that "Too many people are placing caches so I can't place one myself" is another ridiculous complaint that I left off the list.

Such a tough-luck attitude.

I prefer NYPC's compassion.

Yeah, I remember when there was an ethic for cache owners to leave room for other caches, and not to hog all the available space.