A challenge cache is not just for Christmas?

[+Team Microdot]

To the best of my knowledge, guidelines relating to cache permanence state that caches should be placed with a minimum life expectancy of three months.

 

These days there seem to be lots of challenge caches around which will typically require considerable periods of time to qualify for and probably - for the average cacher - much longer than the three month minimum.

 

Even after a challenge cache has existed for the three month minimum, different cachers may embark on the path to qualification at any point in time during the life of said cache so...

 

Should challenge cache owners be expected to keep their challenge caches alive for longer than the three month minimum? And should it turn out that a CO wants to archive a challenge cache, does there need to be some sort of formal procedure that they should undertake so as to minimise time wasted by those working toward qualification?

 

Edit to correc spelling - doh!

Edited March 15, 2015 by Team Microdot

[+Touchstone]

Should challenge cache owners be expected to keep their challenge caches alive for longer than the three month minimum? And should it turn out that a CO wants to archive a challenge cache, does there need to be some sort of formal procedure that they should undertake so as to minimise time wasted by those working toward qualification?

 

Considering the last Guideline update resulted in three threads that ran on for multiple pages and rants, I'm not sure that's a great idea

 

Besides, there's already an adequate mechanism in place to deal with these sorts of issues. It's called the Ignore button.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Should challenge cache owners be expected to keep their challenge caches alive for longer than the three month minimum? And should it turn out that a CO wants to archive a challenge cache, does there need to be some sort of formal procedure that they should undertake so as to minimise time wasted by those working toward qualification?

 

Considering the last Guideline update resulted in three threads that ran on for multiple pages and rants, I'm not sure that's a great idea

 

Besides, there's already an adequate mechanism in place to deal with these sorts of issues. It's called the Ignore button.

 

No. it's not adequate. The ignore button doesn't remove the listing and allow caches that someone that doesn't want to do challenges to find caches in those places. The ignore button doesn't stop notifications from being sent my email inbox for caches I have not intention on finding. The ignore button doesn't change the local caching behavior and treat the game as a competition.

 

The ignore button works about as well as "ignoring" music of a genre you don't like when it's being played by a neighbor at a high volume.

 

 

[+Touchstone]

No. it's not adequate.

 

I understand your frustration. Any suggestions?

 

I agree it would be annoying to be working on a Challenge and then have the rug pulled out from under you by having it Archived, but it seems like *forcing* people to keep a Listing active will merely provoke cache owners to abandon them when they no longer wish to maintain them. The end result will be that a Reviewer will have to step in and Archive it anyway. Seems like a zero sum game to me.

[+K13]

My suggestion would be to make Challenge Caches a separate cache type with a new icon and move all older ones to that category. That way, I can exclude them from maps, PQ, Notifications, etc. They will still take real estate from caches I prefer, but so do insanely difficult puzzles.

[Keystone]

Not a week goes by when I don't archive at least a few caches due to abandonment/lack of owner maintenance. So, I was curious, and searched my thousands of "Archive" logs for cache names that included the word "Challenge." I have archived a grand total of one published challenge cache since 2003. It was a challenge requiring the finder to have at least 99 finds. I don't recall an outcry from the community when it went away. For that matter, I don't recall any outcry when an owner archived their own challenge. In my experience, challenge cache owners understand that their cache should remain available for the long term. I know that's the case for the three challenges that I own.

 

Perhaps this is a solution in search of a problem?

[+Team Hugs]

Okay, I'll bite ...

 

Microdot, is it possible that you're not really talking about a general principle here, but a very specific challenge cache in your area? You've got so much detail in your scenario that I can't help feeling like there's more to this story than meets the eye ...

[+NanCycle]

Not a week goes by when I don't archive at least a few caches due to abandonment/lack of owner maintenance. So, I was curious, and searched my thousands of "Archive" logs for cache names that included the word "Challenge." I have archived a grand total of one published challenge cache since 2003. It was a challenge requiring the finder to have at least 99 finds. I don't recall an outcry from the community when it went away. For that matter, I don't recall any outcry when an owner archived their own challenge. In my experience, challenge cache owners understand that their cache should remain available for the long term. I know that's the case for the three challenges that I own.

 

Perhaps this is a solution in search of a problem?

 

Or maybe the problem exists elsewhere, but not in your territory. IDK, just saying; haven't noticed it being a problem in my caching area.

[+L0ne.R]

Not a week goes by when I don't archive at least a few caches due to abandonment/lack of owner maintenance. So, I was curious, and searched my thousands of "Archive" logs for cache names that included the word "Challenge." I have archived a grand total of one published challenge cache since 2003. It was a challenge requiring the finder to have at least 99 finds. I don't recall an outcry from the community when it went away. For that matter, I don't recall any outcry when an owner archived their own challenge. In my experience, challenge cache owners understand that their cache should remain available for the long term. I know that's the case for the three challenges that I own.

 

Perhaps this is a solution in search of a problem?

 

Or maybe the problem exists elsewhere, but not in your territory. IDK, just saying; haven't noticed it being a problem in my caching area.

 

Team Microdot is in the UK, so it may be more of an issue there.

I'm in Ontario, Canada where there are power trails of challenge caches. About 500 CCs within driving distance of me. So it could be an issue to some CC enthusiasts.

 

It's yet another problem to add to all the cons about challenge caches (some outlined by NYPC) are a problem. I hope that as the cons keep adding up, that Groundspeak will grandfather CCs.

 

I don't see how GS could enforce a longer permanence standard for CCs. The 3 month guideline isn't enforceable. If there were say a one year minimum life expectancy for CCs, what's to stop a cache owner from archiving at 6 months?

Edited March 15, 2015 by L0ne.R

[+Team Microdot]

Okay, I'll bite ...

 

Microdot, is it possible that you're not really talking about a general principle here, but a very specific challenge cache in your area? You've got so much detail in your scenario that I can't help feeling like there's more to this story than meets the eye ...

 

No bait involved. No need to bite. No juicy story. Situation normal.

[+fizzymagic]

Perhaps this is a solution in search of a problem?

 

I would venture, rather, that it is a rant in search of a target.

[Keystone]

So let's assume that veteran Geocacher Y owns the only Fizzy Challenge, Jasmer Challenge and 366 day Streak Challenge in State X. Geocacher Y commits geocide and archives all his caches.

 

How long do you think it would be before State X had a new Fizzy Challenge, Jasmer Challenge and 366 day Streak Challenge?

[+cheetahspots]

For most challenges, can't you make the find, post a field note, and change it to a "find" when you meet the requirements? That's the way it's done here. You can still log a find for an achieved cache, can't you? In this case, you would be editing it.

[+Team Microdot]

So let's assume that veteran Geocacher Y owns the only Fizzy Challenge, Jasmer Challenge and 366 day Streak Challenge in State X. Geocacher Y commits geocide and archives all his caches.

 

How long do you think it would be before State X had a new Fizzy Challenge, Jasmer Challenge and 366 day Streak Challenge?

 

I've no idea. I try to resist wild speculation / finger in the wind guesses.

 

Having had a quick browse of such challenges this morning - just to make sure I knew what they were, I made the following observations:

 

1. Those classic types of challenge are ten-a-penny, so the loss of one or two probably wouldn't be a big issue for people working toward qualifying for them - there's lots to choose from with the exact same qualifying criteria.

 

2. Today's challenge cache pool seems to have lots more challenges with increasingly specific and diverse qualification requirements, meaning that each one is probably a lot rarer than the types mentioned above - so it's not so easy to transfer one's qualification to the next nearest ten-a-penny challenge with the same requirements - meaning greater potential for wasted effort?

[+Isonzo Karst]

Should challenge cache owners be expected to keep their challenge caches alive for longer than the three month minimum? And should it turn out that a CO wants to archive a challenge cache, does there need to be some sort of formal procedure that they should undertake so as to minimise time wasted by those working toward qualification?

 

As a matter of etiquette, I'd say yes, challenge cache owners ought to be trying to keep the cache going as long as they reasonably can. As far as I can tell, that is what's happening.

 

As far "some sort of formal procedure", no. There's no procedure enforcement once a cache is published in any case. And no point in creating unenforceable rules about cache permanence, particularly attached only to one subset of one cache type.

 

In Florida, a cacher who owned several challenges geocided, the locals placed new challenges with the same requirements PDQ.

Aside from that one geocide, I've not seen many challenges archived by owners or admins. I recall only one archive by a cacher who owns many, tends to place power trails of them, mostly pretty basic.

[+GeoLog81]

Should challenge cache owners be expected to keep their challenge caches alive for longer than the three month minimum? And should it turn out that a CO wants to archive a challenge cache, does there need to be some sort of formal procedure that they should undertake so as to minimise time wasted by those working toward qualification?

 

Honestly, what do you want to do on the challenge cache (or any other cache) that got archived too soon? Log NA so that it goes archived? (no sarcasm, through)

 

There are some situations that justify immediate archival of any cache, for example you've chosen the 'ideal, muggle-free place' only to learn the next day it's the party area of lokal junkies. Or you relocate and can't maintanance your caches any moment longer.

 

If the challenge is interesting, than probably someone will make it somewhere soon. Or you can create it. If it's some nonsense, like "log 40 T2 caches which name starts with "V" within 24 hours", than you've lost your time fulfilling it anyway...

 

In any time, if you considered the time you spent on geocaching "wasted" only because you haven't got a smiley, it's probably time to re-think what you're doing.

[+coachstahly]

I tend to find that challenge cache COs are the ones that tend to have the most invested in geocaching, meaning that they're probably not going anywhere anytime soon. At least here, we have to show that a "significant" number of local cachers have to qualify or it's deemed not publishable by our reviewers.

[+Team Microdot]

Honestly, what do you want to do on the challenge cache (or any other cache) that got archived too soon? Log NA so that it goes archived? (no sarcasm, through)

 

I don't want to do anything. I asked an open question just because I'm interested in hearing the views of others I wouldn't waste my time logging NA on a cache that was already archived though. If I found myself doing that sort of thing I'd probably think it was time to rethink what I was doing.

 

In any time, if you considered the time you spent on geocaching "wasted" only because you haven't got a smiley, it's probably time to re-think what you're doing.

 

See above...

[+r.e.s.t.seekers]

I placed a Challenge cache (move/discover at least 42 trackables) to get more geocachers to notice the tags and coins. I've had fun qualifying and finding many Challenge caches, some got us to get to different states or concentrate on benchmarks or something else different for us. It wasn't until I saw a cache (gone when I finally qualified) that required 100 dnf's that I began logging my dnf's. I guess my point is that I enjoy the Challenge caches.

 

We travelled over 400 miles to another state and found a cache in each of the DeLorme pages. We spent several hours (the latter half in a thunderstorm) getting to the DeLorme Challenge cache to sign the log. By the time we got back home, the DeLorme Challenge cache had been archived. A request that we could log it was denied by the cache owner. It was a while before a new DeLorme Challenge cache was placed and even longer before we could return to find the new one. It did put a damper on our experience. The silver lining was that we also returned to a dnf in the state and had success and it was a very good cache. It is overall a lovely and friendly state.

 

I feel that three months is a short time for any cache. But there are so many reasons why a cache might be archived that no guidelines could help some.

[+The Magna Defender]

I know of a challenge cache that required a time period of 321 consecutive days to qualify for it. That was prematurely archived just as soon as a few of us were on the eve of qualifying.

 

GC4ZHEG

[+CanadianRockies]

I know of a challenge cache that required a time period of 321 consecutive days to qualify for it. That was prematurely archived just as soon as a few of us were on the eve of qualifying.

 

GC4ZHEG

That's one reason I sometimes pre-sign challenge caches. That said, it would have been nice if the cache owner had warned people that the cache was going to be archived.

[+briansnat]

No. it's not adequate.

 

I understand your frustration. Any suggestions?

 

I agree it would be annoying to be working on a Challenge and then have the rug pulled out from under you by having it Archived, but it seems like *forcing* people to keep a Listing active will merely provoke cache owners to abandon them when they no longer wish to maintain them. The end result will be that a Reviewer will have to step in and Archive it anyway. Seems like a zero sum game to me.

 

Any time you hunt a cache, there is a chance it is gone. Sometimes it was archived between the time you ran your PQ and headed out after it. If you choose to involve yourself in a challenge that may take months to complete, that's the chance you take. If its not being there when you've completed the challenge is a huge concern, find it first and log a note, then log the find when you've completed the challenge. You can still log an archived cache. Only the most anal COs will delete that sort of find.