Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17
Geocaching HQ

Pause on New Challenge Caches

Recommended Posts

I haven't placed one for a while, but I believe COs are still required to disclaim in the description if the cache "is not at the posted coordinates".

In my area this never has been required and is still not required. It's fully up to the cache owner what to write.

Well then. *shrug*. Might be another inconsistency in the review process.

 

Wouldn't you get the same "colorful comments from cachers who think the listing is inaccurate to the experience" if that CC requiring 10 5/5's is rated 1/1?

Only if it were listed as a standard Unknown, not a Challenge Cache :P Right now, there's no way to tell the difference, and that's a bigger problem which I think would be assuaged, at least to some degree, by separating the challenge task difficulty from the D and T of locating and signing the physical geocache.

 

The way to tell the difference is to read the cache description just in the same way as for telling the difference between a 4/4 multi caches with 30 stages of 4/4 rating each and one with a single 4/4 stage and 29 1/1 stages (including the final).

...:blink:

The way I tell the difference is cache type. A multi could could be any number of stages from 2 and up. So could an unknown, but an unknown isn't required to have a task/container at posted. A multi that's rated 4/4 I would expect to hit that rating at some point if not throughout the entire experience of locating the final container, were I to do it as intended -- if I were to skip all the multi-stages except for the final, I would not expect to hit a 4/4 rating just finding the final container, though I still may. And the same goes for an Unknown comprised of multiple stages.

 

But I'm not talking about an Unknown with multiple stages. I'm talking about a series of caches, where the final (aka bonus) is a distinct listing. No other cache in the series, regardless of cache type, can be required to be found before logging the final as found. So a bonus (as I describe) rated 4/4, I would expect as I described just above.

 

I would however take issue if an owner rated the distinct Unknown "bonus" cache as a 5/5, when itself it would be a 1/1, merely because the rest of the caches the CO hopes you would find first (to get necessary information) were 5/5's. In a way, that could be an example of the challenge cache issue - and I would think that some (not all) reviewers might catch that. Not sure how they might judge the rating (if at all). Because yes, technically it's difficult to find all the other caches as intended in order to get the info for the 'bonus' cache location.

To my knowledge, series bonus caches hvaen't been without their reviewing difficulties just for that reason. By what standard should the CO rate the series final where the intent is to get info from the other caches in the series first?

 

If you think about it, the task required is not to find the other caches, it's technically to find the hidden information that happens to be inside other physical caches. So the rating for the series final would be based on finding those bits of information, directly. In that case, you are "earning" the rated D and T, up to twice per cache, because you either find the series caches as well as the hidden info, or you've already found the cache but you need to go back to get the hidden info.

 

Anyway, point is, A series bonus cache is still technically its own listing, and cannot require "Finds" on any other caches, and the D and T should be rated for the tasks required to collect the information in order to locate its container as intended. That's not how one would describe the D/T/tasks required for locating the container for a challenge cache. Qualification is an ALR, an additional task required for posting a Find log, and the D (and/or T) aren't related to just the finding, but also the qualifying.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know about it being a "requirement"...but it's standard practice here. One condition our reviewer DID set on publication is if the posted coordinates are located on something like a major highway, railway, etc. (federal or otherwise 'sensitive' lands), we specifically need to explain that people are not to look for the cache at the posted coordinates.

 

We don't need to do here but there is a lot of cultural difference when it comes to these topics between a country like mine and the US.

 

I have found more than one cache where finding the cache requires crossing active railway tracks (though typically not lines with a lot of train traffic but still).

Where the coordinates of a mystery point to is something hardly anyone cares about though some cachers mention that nothing can be found at the header coordinates to avoid unnecessary traffic for difficult mysteries where some cachers might think that maybe something is hidden at the header coordinates that could help them (there exist such caches).

 

If in Europe a cacher would end up in the middle of a major highway, the typical reaction would be that only them are to be blamed for being so stupid.

 

This post is in dire need of some clarification.

 

There is nothing in the guidelines about a cache which requires crossing active railway tracks nor is there anything related to whether it's safe to do so. It's all about RR property lines. As an example, the first cache I tried to place was in a frequently used small park next our local lake. The only way to access the park (other than by boat) is to take a short gravel driveway off a man road, across some active RR tracks, and into a parking area. The published coordinates I submitted were about 70 feet from the closest point on the RR and my listing was rejected to to a "proximity to RR tracks" guideline. Although the parking area was closer than 70 feet, technically the RR company owns the right-of-way or easement within a specific distance on both sides of the tracks. In order to simplify the reviewers job any time a cache appears to be within 80' or so (keep in mind that the accuracy of coordinates might actually mean the cache is much closer) of a RR line they're going to ask questions, because technically it could mean the cache is on private property (owned by the RR) and that the RR companies may even have their own police that can arrest anyone for trespassing on their land.

 

In the case of other "sensitive" areas such as major highways, or bridges, on may of the major highways its' not legal to stop on the side on the side of a highway unless it's an emergency and for bridges the concern is that someone seen poking around a bridge over a major transportation route might be suspicious enough to warrant shutting down a major artery until it's determine that it isn't someone that is *intentionally* trying to disrupt the transportation flow.

 

I've encountered puzzle caches with published coordinates in where a cache would not be allowed or may be impractical such as one with red herring coordinates on the 50 yard line of a NFL stadium. Using published coordinates in a location such as the middle of a highway or directly on a set of RR tracks is just bad form. We've got a 2 miles radius from the actual location of the cache and there should be some place where one can set the published coordinates that wouldn't cause any issues, even for those that can't seem to use a little common sense.

 

I have no idea what this has to do with a pause on New Challenge caches but I thought the information regarding the RR tracks needed clarification.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

But I'm not talking about an Unknown with multiple stages. I'm talking about a series of caches, where the final (aka bonus) is a distinct listing. No other cache in the series, regardless of cache type, can be required to be found before logging the final as found. So a bonus (as I describe) rated 4/4, I would expect as I described just above.

 

I used the multi example and others because you insisted on the aspect when a find log can be deleted and there is hardly a case where this can be done as only a signature in the log plays a role and nothing else.

 

I would however take issue if an owner rated the distinct Unknown "bonus" cache as a 5/5, when itself it would be a 1/1, merely because the rest of the caches the CO hopes you would find first (to get necessary information) were 5/5's. I

 

Actually, in my opinion the rating system does not work properly for such cases. However you do it you will make someone unhappy. For those who cannot do T=5* caches it's quite annoying too if they get offered many T=1* caches that they do not need to look at.

 

If you think about it, the task required is not to find the other caches, it's technically to find the hidden information that happens to be inside other physical caches. So the rating for the series final would be based on finding those bits of information, directly. In that case, you are "earning" the rated D and T, up to twice per cache, because you either find the series caches as well as the hidden info, or you've already found the cache but you need to go back to get the hidden info.

 

Of course if you see it as an award system where you earn something, that's true. If you see it as minimum requirement you need to be able to cope with to manage a cache, then one ends up with a completely different result.

 

Anyway, point is, A series bonus cache is still technically its own listing, and cannot require "Finds" on any other caches, and the D and T should be rated for the tasks required to collect the information in order to locate its container as intended. That's not how one would describe the D/T/tasks required for locating the container for a challenge cache. Qualification is an ALR, an additional task required for posting a Find log, and the D (and/or T) aren't related to just the finding, but also the qualifying.

 

Many cachers are only interested into the rating of what needs to be done to result in a legitimate find log not one where cheating is involved.

Share this post


Link to post

But I'm not talking about an Unknown with multiple stages. I'm talking about a series of caches, where the final (aka bonus) is a distinct listing. No other cache in the series, regardless of cache type, can be required to be found before logging the final as found. So a bonus (as I describe) rated 4/4, I would expect as I described just above.

I used the multi example and others because you insisted on the aspect when a find log can be deleted and there is hardly a case where this can be done as only a signature in the log plays a role and nothing else.

I don't know how that's relevant, as a multi-cache has nothing to do with find logs being deleted because other caches have not been found.

 

I would however take issue if an owner rated the distinct Unknown "bonus" cache as a 5/5, when itself it would be a 1/1, merely because the rest of the caches the CO hopes you would find first (to get necessary information) were 5/5's. I

Actually, in my opinion the rating system does not work properly for such cases. However you do it you will make someone unhappy. For those who cannot do T=5* caches it's quite annoying too if they get offered many T=1* caches that they do not need to look at.

I agree in spirit, but not because it "makes someone unhappy", rather because of the points I mentioned in my previous comment (by what standard are D and T rated for a bonus cache in a series - not by other caches' ratings, but by the task required to gather the information that happens to be hidden within those containers)

 

If you think about it, the task required is not to find the other caches, it's technically to find the hidden information that happens to be inside other physical caches. So the rating for the series final would be based on finding those bits of information, directly. In that case, you are "earning" the rated D and T, up to twice per cache, because you either find the series caches as well as the hidden info, or you've already found the cache but you need to go back to get the hidden info.

Of course if you see it as an award system where you earn something, that's true. If you see it as minimum requirement you need to be able to cope with to manage a cache, then one ends up with a completely different result.

No, and I've seen others describe it this way - not about earning stars, but "earning" as in what the D and T directly describe. If you do a 5T cache, it's "earned" the 5T. If a challenge cache is rated 5T but is actually 1T, then you don't "earn" (experience) its 5T by finding the challenge cache - you've already earned it by finding the actual 5T prior. You don't have to do that 5T ratingtwice, only once.

It has nothing to do with numbers and pride and collecting stars, just about what the rating actually describes.

 

Many cachers are only interested into the rating of what needs to be done to result in a legitimate find log not one where cheating is involved.

 

Yep, sure. But that's precisely what we're discussing. For physical caches, it's presumed that the ratings are for finding the cache [as intended]. Challenge caches are an exception because the D and T take into account the ALR which no other physical cache is allowed to have. So there is most certainly a difference of opinion as to what the D and T actually describe when it pertains to a geocache listing on gc.com.

 

If challenge caches are the exception, then D and T are for locating and signing the loghseet in the physical cache represented by the listing (the only rule by which a FInd log can be deleted if broken)

If challenge caches are the new norm, then D and T are for all tasks required in order to claim and log the find online (including ALRs) per the cache listing.

So which is it? That's the question. Currently, it's the former.

:drama:

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

But I'm not talking about an Unknown with multiple stages. I'm talking about a series of caches, where the final (aka bonus) is a distinct listing. No other cache in the series, regardless of cache type, can be required to be found before logging the final as found. So a bonus (as I describe) rated 4/4, I would expect as I described just above.

I used the multi example and others because you insisted on the aspect when a find log can be deleted and there is hardly a case where this can be done as only a signature in the log plays a role and nothing else.

I don't know how that's relevant, as a multi-cache has nothing to do with find logs being deleted because other caches have not been found.

 

It's relevant because in an earlier post your reasoning was that for challenge caches it cannot be required that the qualifications are met. The same is true for puzzle caches (solving the puzzle), multi caches (visiting the stages). So that's why I raised the point that following your reasoning strictly you would end up with rating just the final container as when the log is signed, the find counts.

I think however that the fact that a find counts is not what's essential for a cache and its rating.

 

I agree in spirit, but not because it "makes someone unhappy", rather because of the points I mentioned in my previous comment (by what standard are D and T rated for a bonus cache in a series -

not by other caches' ratings, but by the task required to gather the information that happens to be hidden within those containers)

 

Again, the ratings are not a score to be earned for everyone.

 

Many cachers are only interested into the rating of what needs to be done to result in a legitimate find log not one where cheating is involved.

 

Yep, sure. But that's precisely what we're discussing. For physical caches, it's presumed that the ratings are for finding the cache [as intended]. Challenge caches are an exception because the D and T take into account the ALR which no other physical cache is allowed to have. So there is most certainly a difference of opinion as to what the D and T actually describe when it pertains to a geocache listing on gc.com.

 

The majority of cachers I know who are not into climbing would be upset about a T=1* bonus cache for T=5* tree climbing caches. If that case is rare, it's not an issue. If it's frequent in an area it gets very annoying and it then is not any different than for challenge caches, perhaps even worse as in the case of a challenge cache it might that you could least go to the cache and search for it and log it in the log book if the coordinates are given. This is not true for the bonus cache.

 

If someone excludes caches they cannot manage, they feel annoyed by being explicitely being presented with them.

That's why I think in both this cache and also for challenge caches the issue is just that two ratings are not sufficient if you want to cast the situation into numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
It's relevant because in an earlier post your reasoning was that for challenge caches it cannot be required that the qualifications are met.

... uh, no, I never said that. For challenge caches the requirement IS, and must be that the qualifications are met -- that is the ALR. I would never have said otherwise, because that is how things currently are.

 

The same is true for puzzle caches (solving the puzzle), multi caches (visiting the stages).

I've gone into this numerous times before, and repeated it above. For physical caches the properties of the listing are for the intended experience of locating the geocache and signing the logbook:

- Solving a puzzle is the CO's intended method for determining the location of the geocache.

- Visiting multiple stages [of a single listing] is the CO's intended method for determining the location of the geocache.

- Qualifying for a challenge is completely irrelevant for determining the location of the geocache or signing its logbook. It is only relevant for claiming the Find online.

 

So that's why I raised the point that following your reasoning strictly you would end up with rating just the final container as when the log is signed, the find counts. I think however that the fact that a find counts is not what's essential for a cache and its rating.

This is why I continually include "intended" - because nothing else can be verified or policed by reviewers, they can't decide what the CO intends and whether the ratings are accurate for that, they can only check the listing against objective standard rules/laws to determine if it can be published (and offer suggestions by their individual judgements if they feel there is or could be a problem). The CO decides on the properties for their listing, and to a reasonable degree the reviewer is able to approve and publish said listing. I think it's quite obvious that when you view a listing, everything you read is based on the CO's intended experience.

Otherwise, if CO's are required to rate everything with the lowest common denominator (ie those who don't get their name in the logsheet the intended manner) they'd all be 1/1's since you could just sit in your car. Or couch log from home. Hey, as long as your name is in the logbook...

No, the cache details describe, at the very least, always, the intended experience the CO has created in order to locate the cache and sign the logbook (since the latter is the only rule enforceable by the CO for denying the claim to a Find on a physical cache).

 

I agree in spirit, but not because it "makes someone unhappy", rather because of the points I mentioned in my previous comment (by what standard are D and T rated for a bonus cache in a series - not by other caches' ratings, but by the task required to gather the information that happens to be hidden within those containers)

Again, the ratings are not a score to be earned for everyone.

... *sigh*

I never said otherwise, and I don't know that response is relevant to what you quoted.

 

Yep, sure. But that's precisely what we're discussing. For physical caches, it's presumed that the ratings are for finding the cache [as intended]. Challenge caches are an exception because the D and T take into account the ALR which no other physical cache is allowed to have. So there is most certainly a difference of opinion as to what the D and T actually describe when it pertains to a geocache listing on gc.com.

The majority of cachers I know who are not into climbing would be upset about a T=1* bonus cache for T=5* tree climbing caches. If that case is rare, it's not an issue. If it's frequent in an area it gets very annoying and it then is not any different than for challenge caches, perhaps even worse as in the case of a challenge cache it might that you could least go to the cache and search for it and log it in the log book if the coordinates are given. This is not true for the bonus cache.

Yes it is. If you have the coordinates for a bonus cache (remember, this is a series final cache with its own distinct listing) you can indeed log it found if your name is in the logbook, despite not having found the other caches in the series. The CO cannot delete your Find log if you have not found the other cache listings in the series.

 

PS, I would also be annoyed at a T1 tree climb, or a T5 treeclimb a reasonable number of people can do without special equipment. Because both those cases are against guideline requirements.

Share this post


Link to post

 

PS, I would also be annoyed at a T1 tree climb, or a T5 treeclimb a reasonable number of people can do without special equipment. Because both those cases are against guideline requirements.

 

Yes, and that's why actually is lacking is an additional rating for situations like bonus caches, independently of the existence of challenge caches.

 

If one needs to cope with T=5* to obtain the coordinates for a cache (say 40m up a tree with no branches), this should be reflected somewhere and those who decide that they do not want to get caches listed as a search result they cannot do have a valid point in my opinion. Their annoyance is because it personally concern and affects them - not just due to some guidelines some of which make not much sense anyway.

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know about it being a "requirement"...but it's standard practice here. One condition our reviewer DID set on publication is if the posted coordinates are located on something like a major highway, railway, etc. (federal or otherwise 'sensitive' lands), we specifically need to explain that people are not to look for the cache at the posted coordinates.

 

We don't need to do here but there is a lot of cultural difference when it comes to these topics between a country like mine and the US.

 

....

 

If in Europe a cacher would end up in the middle of a major highway, the typical reaction would be that only them are to be blamed for being so stupid.

 

Take a look at this one...

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, and that's why actually is lacking is an additional rating for situations like bonus caches, independently of the existence of challenge caches.

 

If one needs to cope with T=5* to obtain the coordinates for a cache (say 40m up a tree with no branches), this should be reflected somewhere and those who decide that they do not want to get caches listed as a search result they cannot do have a valid point in my opinion. Their annoyance is because it personally concern and affects them - not just due to some guidelines some of which make not much sense anyway.

I agree.

 

However, if the series final cache ("bonus") is itself a 1T but requires gathering info from other 5T caches, then technically the intended experience towards signing its logbook is in fact T5 - the pieces of information are hidden in locations that require a ladder to retrieve (just like a puzzle might require specialized knowledge). Yes, you can get that info without doing the intended task, but we aren't rating caches for lowest common denominator. If a cacher wants to make a 5T a 1T by getting the coordinates not the intended way, they can do that (it's not objectively cheating - it's allowable, just unethical by many cachers' standards), and log it online and the CO cannot delete their log.

 

This is different than a 5/5 challenge cache where the cache itself may be a 1/1, and can be found and signed as a 1/1 -- it just can't be logged online until the ALR, the actual challenge qualification, is complete and verifiable.

 

So again, there is a difference between series finals ("bonus caches") and Challenge Caches.

 

That looks like loads of fun!

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

 

I have seen caches like that also in other places. It does not contradict however anything I have written above.

It could be that some US reviewers would require specific guidance on how to get to the cache which would harm the cache ultimately in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

So again, there is a difference between series finals ("bonus caches") and Challenge Caches.

 

But why did you then write that you would object against a T5 rating for a bonus cache for a series with t5 caches, but where the bonus is at T1.

By the way, when I talk about T5 climbing caches, I'm not talking about caches reachable by a ladder but where you need real tree climbing equipment, experience and the required physical ability (e.g. for a cache 40m a tree, that's something the large majority of cachers cannot cope with).

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

So again, there is a difference between series finals ("bonus caches") and Challenge Caches.

 

But why did you then write that you would object against a T5 rating for a bonus cache for a series with t5 caches, but where the bonus is at T1.

Try to distinguish the physical act of signing a logsheet vs locating where the logsheet is hidden.

The physical container where the "bonus" cache is hidden could be under a rock next to the sidewalk. But in order to determine where its location is, the intended experience is to climb T5 trees to retrieve information (which happen to be hidden in other cache containers also listed on gc.com - thus the "series")

That "bonus" cache should be listed as a T5.

 

What I did say is this: "I would also be annoyed at a T1 tree climb, or a T5 treeclimb a reasonable number of people can do without special equipment."

A T5 bonus cache placed alongside a sidewalk which still requires (intended to require) special equipment to retrieve information to locate it should still be rated T5.

 

By the way, when I talk about T5 climbing caches, I'm not talking about caches reachable by a ladder but where you need real tree climbing equipment, experience and the required physical ability (e.g. for a cache 40m a tree, that's something the large majority of cachers cannot cope with).

Ok, sure. Same goes for a ladder tho. Whether it's climbing gear or a ladder, generally COs will rate it T5. But that detail isn't really relevant here as we're just dancing around the concept of the T5. Make it a boat instead of a tree climb, or mountain climbing gear, scuba gear, whatever, same effect.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

So again, there is a difference between series finals ("bonus caches") and Challenge Caches.

 

But why did you then write that you would object against a T5 rating for a bonus cache for a series with t5 caches, but where the bonus is at T1.

Try to distinguish the physical act of signing a logsheet vs locating where the logsheet is hidden.

The physical container where the "bonus" cache is hidden could be under a rock next to the sidewalk. But in order to determine where its location is, the intended experience is to climb T5 trees to retrieve information (which happen to be hidden in other cache containers also listed on gc.com - thus the "series")

That "bonus" cache should be listed as a T5.

 

Sorry, I misunderstood you. I understood that you belong to those (who exist) that claim that such a bonus should not be listed as T5.

 

What I did say is this: "I would also be annoyed at a T1 tree climb, or a T5 treeclimb a reasonable number of people can do without special equipment."

A T5 bonus cache placed alongside a sidewalk which still requires (intended to require) special equipment to retrieve information to locate it should still be rated T5.

 

I did not get that part before your last post. That explained the back and forth.

 

Ok, sure. Same goes for a ladder tho. Whether it's climbing gear or a ladder, generally COs will rate it T5. But that detail isn't really relevant here as we're just dancing around the concept of the T5. Make it a boat instead of a tree climb, or mountain climbing gear, scuba gear, whatever, same effect.

 

There are some differences as there are T5 caches that require something many people will never manage regardless of their will and ability to invest a lot of time, money etc

There are harmless T5 where you just need the right tool and then they are (relatively) easy and there are T5 caches that are really very challenging. That's one of the issues with the silly idea of the T rating scale which does not behave like the D scale which would have made more sense (but of course it is too late to change that now).

Share this post


Link to post

 

I have seen caches like that also in other places. It does not contradict however anything I have written above.

It could be that some US reviewers would require specific guidance on how to get to the cache which would harm the cache ultimately in my opinion.

 

Probably a good thing that I wasn't trying to contradict you in any way.

Share this post


Link to post

Originally it was announced there would be a one year moratorium as of April 21, 2015. Because that is twenty days from now (and nothing B) to do with me having a perfect site picked out for a new challenge cache), are there any updates about the moratorium?

Share this post


Link to post

Today is day 1 after the moratorium ended so let's have it. What was decided?

Share this post


Link to post

Today is day 1 after the moratorium ended so let's have it. What was decided?

 

A one year moratorium doesn't mean that after exact 365 days there will be an announcement. I could be another month or so before they public say anything

Share this post


Link to post

Today is day 1 after the moratorium ended so let's have it. What was decided?

 

A one year moratorium doesn't mean that after exact 365 days there will be an announcement. I could be another month or so before they public say anything

 

The moratorium ended, hence CC's could again be published. If not it would have been a 13 month moratorium, right?

It's not like there wasn't enough time to "think long and hard" ©from another thread :ph34r:

 

BTW, it's 366 days :lol:

Edited by on4bam

Share this post


Link to post

Today is day 1 after the moratorium ended so let's have it. What was decided?

 

You tell 'em, O4B!!

Share this post


Link to post

Today is day 1 after the moratorium ended so let's have it. What was decided?

 

You tell 'em, O4B!!

 

I think a valid question, can we submit challenges now on the notion that they'll get published?

Share this post


Link to post

Today is day 1 after the moratorium ended so let's have it. What was decided?

 

A one year moratorium doesn't mean that after exact 365 days there will be an announcement. I could be another month or so before they public say anything

 

The moratorium ended, hence CC's could again be published. If not it would have been a 13 month moratorium, right?

It's not like there wasn't enough time to "think long and hard" ©from another thread :ph34r:

 

BTW, it's 366 days :lol:

 

I fully expect that people will start submitting listings for new challenge caches if there's no word from Groundspeak on this. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already done do.

Share this post


Link to post

I fully expect that people will start submitting listings for new challenge caches if there's no word from Groundspeak on this. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already done do.

 

Of course, but what, if anything, will have changed. Unless GS wants people to work on challengecaches and then refuse publishing them because of changes that were not made public.

Share this post


Link to post

Today is day 1 after the moratorium ended so let's have it. What was decided?

 

A one year moratorium doesn't mean that after exact 365 days there will be an announcement. I could be another month or so before they public say anything

 

The moratorium ended, hence CC's could again be published. If not it would have been a 13 month moratorium, right?

It's not like there wasn't enough time to "think long and hard" ©from another thread :ph34r:

 

BTW, it's 366 days :lol:

 

I fully expect that people will start submitting listings for new challenge caches if there's no word from Groundspeak on this. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already done do.

 

A couple of days after the moratorium was announced I suggested that it would been better if GS called it an indefinite suspension.

 

I fully expect that people will start submitting listings for new challenge caches if there's no word from Groundspeak on this. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already done do.

Wait. Are you saying the the cache submission forms would have allowed a challenge cache to be submitted during the moratorium? If so, I wonder how many were submitted over the last year.

 

Did anyone actually expect that at the end of 1 year that reviewers would just start publishing challenge cache submissions as if the moratorium never happened? I expect that we'll get some sort of announcement regarding how challenge caches will be handled going forward.

Share this post


Link to post

I fully expect that people will start submitting listings for new challenge caches if there's no word from Groundspeak on this. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already done do.

Wait. Are you saying the the cache submission forms would have allowed a challenge cache to be submitted during the moratorium? If so, I wonder how many were submitted over the last year.

 

Did anyone actually expect that at the end of 1 year that reviewers would just start publishing challenge cache submissions as if the moratorium never happened? I expect that we'll get some sort of announcement regarding how challenge caches will be handled going forward.

There were relatively few challenge submissions over the past year. As it's an advanced cache concept, most fans of hiding challenge caches were aware of the moratorium. Most submissions would have been in the early weeks/months from folks who hadn't heard the news yet.

 

I personally haven't seen any new submissions this week in anticipation of a "moratorium expiration" but I am aware of people making inquiries of their local reviewer. We should wait for the official announcement.

Share this post


Link to post

I fully expect that people will start submitting listings for new challenge caches if there's no word from Groundspeak on this. I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already done do.

 

Of course, but what, if anything, will have changed. Unless GS wants people to work on challengecaches and then refuse publishing them because of changes that were not made public.

 

I don't think they'll publish them without coming out with some sort of new policy. But I do expect people will try!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 17

×
×
  • Create New...