Moratorium update

[+pinkunicorn]

That differs considerably from what you originally wrote though.

 

I'm not sure I agree, but hey, English is not my first language.

[+thebruce0]

The example I gave or find 10 cemetery caches (you can make a very precise definition what is meant in a certain case with it without making this checkable by project GC with the current data) is a checkable by a human.

Not verifiable, was not publishable. What is "in a cemetery"? How would you, as a CO, truly know that a cache was "in a cemetery", without visiting every single qualifying cache yourself? No, it's subjective, and you have to subjectively make a judgement call (even looking at coordinates on a map is not foolproof).

 

What I meant is that the current data does not even allow to check automatically if someone has logged the required minimum number of caches that are designed to be 20km hiking caches and where this information can be found in the cache description.

For a scuba cache or tree climbing cache or difficult 5* puzzle, we cannot ensure either that everyone met the accomplishment, but there are attributes or the D-rating that can be used. For a hike with a certain length there is only the <1km, 1-10km and >10km range and for height meters there is nothing at all.

As I mentioned earlier, it's the wording of the challenge that is important. "Dive for 10 scuba caches" is not verifiable or valid. "Find 10 caches with the scuba attribute" is, even if it means they didn't dive. "Find 10 caches requiring >20km hikes" is not verifiable or valid. "Find 20 caches with the >10km attribute" is, even if it means they didn't hike >10km for each cache.

That's the way challenge caches were pre-end-moratorium, and it sounds that that is the way they'll still be moving forward.

 

Then change my word from qualifiable to verifiable. My point remains - the CO has to be able to look and see by cache properties, profile properties - somewhere where the recorded data can prove that qualification is valid. And in theory, yes, if a human can simply look at data that's reported and presented to them, then a checker can retrieve that data and check automatically. "In theory" - GS of course has to allow that data to be retrieved by the checker.

No, not even in theory as if the length is only mentioned somewhere in the text and can be in many different languages at arbitrary positions, there is no chance at all to handle this automatically. There could also be sentences at the beginning saying "From the parking lot a 5km tarmac walk waits for you before the ascent to the summit starts". There is no chance at all to extract the length without human intelligence and there are many other cases like that.

You missed the point - a human looking at a cache and trusting that the description is accurate that a cache is over 20km hike, is not the same a human verifying that the cache is indeed over 20km hike. A human CO who approves the cache has made a subjective judgement call. Of course a script cannot do that. And that challenge wouldn't have (shouldn't have) been published, because it's not objectively verifiable.

 

I used the example "do x hiking caches of length >y" - I did not write "hike >y km".

Nitpicking; doesn't change anything about the point as above.

 

As explained above, my case would be checkable by a parser only if Groundspeak allowed a field where the cache owners can enter the length (which of course could be faked as any attribute can get faked, but that's not what I'm talking about).

Right, so make that a feature suggestion. I'm guessing it would not be considered because, well that's what the hike size attributes are meant to accomplish on a less specific level.

[+thebruce0]

Perhaps on running the checker and being qualified a unique code would be generated that can be verified by the CO at PGC. ...but then it would probably also be desireable to have a record of which caches and which properties were checked, stored with that code, so that the evidence is recorded about what was actually qualified at that recorded check, if things have changed with the challenge since.

ick it's messy.

The way I read it, the checker informs the finder if he qualifies for the challenge - period. But it is then up to the finder to 'prove' to the CO his qualifications. So if the challenge says 'post a bookmark of your qualifing caches' the checker would let you know that you have them, may help with the list, but the finder must still post the bookmark.

 

It's like the puzzle checkers, they verify you have the right co-ords, but don't do anything about finding/logging the puzzle cache. So a CC hunter will know if he's qualified (at least to the accruacy of the checker) but must still find, sign, 'prove' to the CO (by whatever means they want - list in log, bookmark, stat page, picture of chart, etc.) and log online.

 

I don't see any requirement that the finder has to use the checker, they may know by other means they've qualified, but they still have to 'show their work' (as teachers used to tell us) to log the CC.

Right, almost exactly the same as using PGC output. Here though the CO could use the verification code, for lack of better term, received by the finder, to verify and view the data as at the date of qualification. A screenshot or custom text can be edited. Results and qualification confirmation directly from PGC that remains in place over time (despite potential script changes) would have to be stored and retrievable. But that level of verification, as I omomatopoeia'd, is icky.

 

Alternatively, PGC could just store that the user had run the checker and qualified on a certain date. The CO could look it up, but wouldn't be able to compare the data with the requirements at the time. That level seems more akin to what Groundspeak might theoretically implement.

 

Actually, I just saw in the PGC forums that such a checker has been requested a few times. The community could not create a checker though, because "A checker can only examine your logs, so cannot see the last log" and "Checkers has no access to other logs on the cache.". Guess that's something to consider for future challenges, unless Groundspeak enables PGC to see more data when building checkers.

Yeah I think PGC would need to request the recent log history (or gpx) of caches at that point to verify the last found date. That's an API function, but it's not related to a user's Find history.

 

Authors, is there a way for PGC to have a checker script retrieve a cache's GPX? Other apps do via API (they must if they are caching apps), but maybe there's some class of API that PGC is using like a User Finds context, and they can't be downloading unfound caches' log histories, only basic listing data? *shrug*

 

The example I gave or find 10 cemetery caches (you can make a very precise definition what is meant in a certain case with it without making this checkable by project GC with the current data) is a checkable by a human.

 

In Norway we have several existing challenges requiring various numbers of caches related to churches. And they all have checkers, like this one: http://project-gc.co...ges/GC5CRAC/907

I made that checker, and the way it works is that it simply checks for words like "kirke" (Norwegian for church), "church" etc in the cache name. To get new caches like this published, it's as easy as just requiring xx number of finds of caches containing the word "church" in the name.

 

My checker is generic, and the same checker is already used for other caches, like xx number of bridges, xx number of TB-hotels etc.

Right, so in that case wording of the challenge is important. "Find 40 caches placed at churches" isn't verifiable. "Find 40 caches with 'Church' in the name" is. Same with challenges like library caches - a friend wanted to publish a challenge to find those, but wasn't allowed because there's no way to verfiy "caches in libraries". She could have made it a title-word checker, but she wasn't satisfied that it would sufficiently accomplish her purpose (finding caches actually in libraries) so she just made it a traditional and encouraged people to treat it like a challenge (like the "unchallenge" idea others are doing). Same goes for cemetery caches. Without a quantifiable property, a challenge may be considered invalid. Change it up a bit, even if it's not exactly what you hope people would accomplish, and it can become valid.

 

 

I rather fear that they will only allow challenges which are so simple that the checker will be realiable anyway (as reliable as it can in the sense that it will always have to rely on gc.com data and not the reality). Right now we also have complex caches and some checkers are only an attempt to help cachers and everyone knows that they are not perfect.

I don't see that 'requiring a checker' in any way means that only simple challenges will be allowed.

If you can write a complex script to verify a complex challenge, then you're good to go. If the script, of course, is not complete and only a start to verification, then that's not a valid checker script.

[+Team Microdot]

That differs considerably from what you originally wrote though.

 

I'm not sure I agree, but hey, English is not my first language.

 

I'm absolutely certain that it differs cosiderably.

 

Not wanting something to happen is very different from actively trying to prevent it - in any language.

[+narcissa]

It would be great if there was a "no challenge" attribute that removed a cache from being counted.

 

I see a challenge "find xx caches with the no challenge attribute"

 

[+bflentje]

It would be great if there was a "no challenge" attribute that removed a cache from being counted.

 

Why would you care? If somebody bothers you to add an attribute or something, feel free to ignore them. I can't imagine the number of people emailing cache owners to add something to their cache page will be significant.

 

I just can't believe that someone is such a whiner that he cared so much about his cache not being involved in challenges that he archived the cache. For me, that doesn't even compute.

[+elrojo14]

So I submitted my most intense challenge to PGC to see if they could do it. I am a little dismayed at the responses that went completely over my head. I don't know if any one is going to make one for me or if I am going to have to learn the code to figure it out.

 

http://project-gc.com/qa/?qa=10119/someone-help-with-checkers-caches-within-distance-challenges&show=10134#c10134

 

Truly great challenges that inspire you might very well be a thing of the past with this new requirement. Personally, I am not hopeful for the future of challenges. Especially given Groundspeak had 1 year to get this ironed out and here we are on Year+1Day without a resolution.

 

Challenges drive my caching. See my profile for my list of goals around some truly great challenge caches. http://www.elrojo14.com

 

That great challenges will no longer drive me to go on wonderful cache runs is kind of sad.

[+TerraViators]

I don't even know what Project GC is. I suspect there are a lot of cachers who don't, either.

Will there just be a link (like Geochecker) on the challenge cache page that allows a cacher to see if they qualify?

 

We love challenge caches, but aren't all that tech savvy. If we have to learn a new program to log challenge caches, it will be hard for us.

Yes, it is a link to the checker. See one of my challenge caches here as an example.

[+MartyBartfast]

So I submitted my most intense challenge to PGC to see if they could do it. I am a little dismayed at the responses that went completely over my head. I don't know if any one is going to make one for me or if I am going to have to learn the code to figure it out.

 

http://project-gc.com/qa/?qa=10119/someone-help-with-checkers-caches-within-distance-challenges&show=10134#c10134

 

Truly great challenges that inspire you might very well be a thing of the past with this new requirement. Personally, I am not hopeful for the future of challenges. Especially given Groundspeak had 1 year to get this ironed out and here we are on Year+1Day without a resolution.

 

Challenges drive my caching. See my profile for my list of goals around some truly great challenge caches. http://www.elrojo14.com

 

That great challenges will no longer drive me to go on wonderful cache runs is kind of sad.

 

Well the responses clearly say it's possible to write a checker for it, but because your criteria are very complex then it will need a lot of work to setup. I would expect that it would be up to you to do that work (i.e. you have to supply the areas for all 142 monuments within which a find has to be made to qualify).

 

To be honest, they look so fiddly to work out whether or not I would qualify that I wouldn't consider doing them if they didn't have a checker. I don't want to trawl through a list of 142 locations and work out whether my finds are within some random variable distance of each.

[+Touchstone]

It's not only about adding/removing attributes. For example, if one owns a cache with a D/T combination that is rare but does not want the cache to be overrun by people not interested into the cache the only other option is not change to D/T rating but that then also inconvenience cachers with a real interest into the cache.

 

If they don't want people to log their cache then I'd say that they need to seriously reconsider if they should indeed be hiding caches. If you put out caches, they are for everyone (unless they are premium caches, obviously).

 

Are you suggesting that a cacher who has a particular target audience in mind when placing a cache is unfit to be a cache owner?

Not how i read that comment at all. I agree with the statement. If a cache owner doesn't want people to log a find on their cache, they might be unfit to be a cache owner.

 

Really?

 

And who will be the arbiter of that?

Pretty much Groundspeak if log deletion is involved. I'm not sure what kind of scenario you are envisioning. Other than PM restrictions, I'm pretty firmly in the camp that caches should be available to all and not restricted to some subgroup.

[+Team Microdot]

It's not only about adding/removing attributes. For example, if one owns a cache with a D/T combination that is rare but does not want the cache to be overrun by people not interested into the cache the only other option is not change to D/T rating but that then also inconvenience cachers with a real interest into the cache.

 

If they don't want people to log their cache then I'd say that they need to seriously reconsider if they should indeed be hiding caches. If you put out caches, they are for everyone (unless they are premium caches, obviously).

 

Are you suggesting that a cacher who has a particular target audience in mind when placing a cache is unfit to be a cache owner?

Not how i read that comment at all. I agree with the statement. If a cache owner doesn't want people to log a find on their cache, they might be unfit to be a cache owner.

 

Really?

 

And who will be the arbiter of that?

Pretty much Groundspeak if log deletion is involved. I'm not sure what kind of scenario you are envisioning. Other than PM restrictions, I'm pretty firmly in the camp that caches should be available to all and not restricted to some subgroup.

 

The point raised concerned the fitness of an individual to be a cache owner - nothing to do with log deletion.

 

It was the old 'your taste doesn't fit the point I'm trying to make so I'm going to dismiss your personal preference by suggesting that you're not right for cache ownership' line.

[+coachstahly]

It's not only about adding/removing attributes. For example, if one owns a cache with a D/T combination that is rare but does not want the cache to be overrun by people not interested into the cache the only other option is not change to D/T rating but that then also inconvenience cachers with a real interest into the cache.

 

If they don't want people to log their cache then I'd say that they need to seriously reconsider if they should indeed be hiding caches. If you put out caches, they are for everyone (unless they are premium caches, obviously).

 

Are you suggesting that a cacher who has a particular target audience in mind when placing a cache is unfit to be a cache owner?

Not how i read that comment at all. I agree with the statement. If a cache owner doesn't want people to log a find on their cache, they might be unfit to be a cache owner.

 

Really?

 

And who will be the arbiter of that?

 

I'm prefacing this comment with the understanding that I'm talking about non-premium caches. It's understood that premium caches can only be found by premium members (although there is a backdoor) so it's a way to limit those attempting to find your cache.

 

I'm not sure why there's an "argument' here. Once a cache is published, regardless of whom its intended target audience might be, ANYONE can find it if they'd like. I can't control who finds my caches or why they find my caches. We're not allowed to pick and choose who we want to find our caches. It doesn't work that way. We have our intended audiences (mine is multi lovers who enjoy a challenge) but I understand that they're not the only ones who can try to find this cache. If I didn't want someone to find my cache, then I probably shouldn't have put it out there in the first place.

[+fuzziebear3]

Hey, I want to give a shout out to ShammyLevva and pinkunicorn!

 

I think the work that has been done on the checkers is great, and want to that you for your efforts.

Also for joining us here in the forum and helping to ease us into our new requirements so that we can have challenges again.

[+L0ne.R]

For those of you who are worried about cachers asking you about your cache attributes to satisfy a challenge, you have three options.

 

1. Ignore such requests. Just don't even acknowledge or answer them.

 

2. Put a disclaimer at the bottom of your caches, "Cache attributes are final. Do not contact me to ask to change them because I don't care about the challenge you are working on. Thank you."

 

3. Both 1 and 2 combined.

 

There are already challenges based on various cache attributes, plus D/T ratings. I don't know whether cachers currently get inundated by requests to change the attributes/ratings or not, but I don't see why requiring a challenge checker would suddenly change that.

 

Yes, I don't think there'd be much of a change. I'm in a CC dense area. About 400 within 2 hours driving distance from me. Lots of attribute-style CCs. As a cache owner I've never been asked to add or remove attributes. But I did have an eyebrow raised for not making one of my caches that included a handcarved stamp, a letterbox hybrid. I listed it as a traditional and cross posted it on the AQ site for letterboxers who cared for the stamp part of the game. I also got a reaction from a letterbox CC owner when I archived all of my letterbox hybrids. But never any issues with my attributes.

[+Team Microdot]

[

 

I'm not sure why there's an "argument' here. Once a cache is published, regardless of whom its intended target audience might be, ANYONE can find it if they'd like. I can't control who finds my caches or why they find my caches. We're not allowed to pick and choose who we want to find our caches. It doesn't work that way. We have our intended audiences (mine is multi lovers who enjoy a challenge) but I understand that they're not the only ones who can try to find this cache. If I didn't want someone to find my cache, then I probably shouldn't have put it out there in the first place.

 

No argument - just rejection of the idea that having a preference on who finds your caches renders you somehow inappropriate as a cache owner.

 

How many here would prefer that their caches be found by people who enjoy them and / or re-hide them properly, for example?

[Keystone]

Let's stick to discussing challenge caches and the announcement about the Project-GC challenge checker requirement. Thanks!

[cezanne]

Not verifiable, was not publishable. What is "in a cemetery"? How would you, as a CO, truly know that a cache was "in a cemetery", without visiting every single qualifying cache yourself? No, it's subjective, and you have to subjectively make a judgement call (even looking at coordinates on a map is not foolproof).

 

Allowing all caches that mention in the description that a cemetery is visited is not any more subjective than if one would allow all caches that carry a (hypothetical - as it does not yet exist) cemetery attribute. Trust will always be needed.

 

What I tried to focus on is that a human being does not need to rely on information being offered at a certain well-defined spot - like it is the case for an attribute or for the D/T rating.

A human being also could extract the T rating from the text.

 

As I mentioned earlier, it's the wording of the challenge that is important. "Dive for 10 scuba caches" is not verifiable or valid. "Find 10 caches with the scuba attribute" is, even if it means they didn't dive. "Find 10 caches requiring >20km hikes" is not verifiable or valid. "Find 20 caches with the >10km attribute" is, even if it means they didn't hike >10km for each cache.

 

Find 10 caches where the cache description mentions that a >20km hike is involved is verifiable, but not by project-gc.

 

You missed the point - a human looking at a cache and trusting that the description is accurate that a cache is over 20km hike, is not the same a human verifying that the cache is indeed over 20km hike.

 

Of course not. I never said so.

 

A human CO who approves the cache has made a subjective judgement call. Of course a script cannot do that. And that challenge wouldn't have (shouldn't have) been published, because it's not objectively verifiable.

 

If you insist on it you could fix this by choosing the formulation "Find at least 10 caches where the cache description mentions that a hike of length >20km is involved". That's exactly the same type of thing as find 10 caches with the scuba attribute. In both cases the information can be false.

 

Right, so make that a feature suggestion. I'm guessing it would not be considered because, well that's what the hike size attributes are meant to accomplish on a less specific level.

 

It often has been argued that >10km is not really a helpful dinstinction as there is such a huge variety. 10km is a something doable in less than 3 hours and long distance hiking caches are multi day endeavours.

 

I'm used to the situation that feature suggestions that I find worthwhile are not implemented anyway (the most important one for which I ever tried to fight was and still is the wish to allow for the separation of language versions - it has been first asked for in 2003). So I do not have the slightest hope that anything will be changed to allow at least a few of those challenge caches I would like to see.

Edited April 22, 2016 by cezanne

[+J Grouchy]

Oh boy. I think all this goes to show that, as it stands right now, Groundspeak really hasn't helped themselves much in reducing the potential for disputes. Perhaps there are other aspects to the change they have not explained that takes care of these issues...but on the surface it does not look like anything has really changed much. It's like they suddenly decided every mystery cache has to have a geochecker. It may have helped reduce a small percentage of disputes or questions about final coordinates, but it certainly has not eliminated them...and it certainly doesn't look like the end result of a full year of deliberations.

[+MartyBartfast]

Oh boy. I think all this goes to show that, as it stands right now, Groundspeak really hasn't helped themselves much in reducing the potential for disputes.

 

But to be fair we're all jumping the gun and speculating about what might be, based on half the story, just so we can have a good old "discussion".

[cezanne]

Oh boy. I think all this goes to show that, as it stands right now, Groundspeak really hasn't helped themselves much in reducing the potential for disputes.

 

But to be fair we're all jumping the gun and speculating about what might be, based on half the story, just so we can have a good old "discussion".

 

I think with a bit of simplification there are only two options: A large restriction of what is publishable and how the verification will work or a more flexible system with still many debates (or of course no new challenge caches at all). If I had to choose I rather want to have no future challenge caches than the large restriction that eliminates all what I found interesting about challenge caches.

[+Team Microdot]

Oh boy. I think all this goes to show that, as it stands right now, Groundspeak really hasn't helped themselves much in reducing the potential for disputes.

 

But to be fair we're all jumping the gun and speculating about what might be, based on half the story, just so we can have a good old "discussion".

 

By design perhaps?

[+dprovan]

How is that verifiable? It's not. It's entirely subjective and up to personal judgement and integrity (Cacher: "yes, I hiked 20km and didn't just go to the final with coordinates I was given", CO: "Yes, this cache hike is actually 20km, and cannot be done in <2km by knowing where the final is", etc).

What's wrong with a CO depending on the seeker's integrity? That bothers me about the checker requirement: it prevents a CO from having a challenge cache with a requirement that only the seeker can verify, and then trusting seekers when they say they have. When I point to a list of caches that could reasonably result in hiking 20km and then say I hiked 20km to get them, it seems almost offensive to me that you or GS would step in and demand that the CO not believe me.

 

One of my absolute favorite challenge caches required me to visit 50 different parks or hiking trails maintained by the regional park district. The requirement is concrete, and it's straightforward for the CO to confirm that the 50 finds I list satisfy the requirement. So that one doesn't even require trust, but it would be utterly impossible to write a checker for it.

[Keystone]

Not every challenge cache seeker has your level of integrity.

Not every challenge cache owner has your level of flexibility and understanding.

Not every challenge cache that can't be automated with an online checker is as appealing as the regional parks and trails challenge is to you.

[+pinkunicorn]

How is that verifiable? It's not. It's entirely subjective and up to personal judgement and integrity (Cacher: "yes, I hiked 20km and didn't just go to the final with coordinates I was given", CO: "Yes, this cache hike is actually 20km, and cannot be done in <2km by knowing where the final is", etc).

What's wrong with a CO depending on the seeker's integrity? That bothers me about the checker requirement: it prevents a CO from having a challenge cache with a requirement that only the seeker can verify, and then trusting seekers when they say they have. When I point to a list of caches that could reasonably result in hiking 20km and then say I hiked 20km to get them, it seems almost offensive to me that you or GS would step in and demand that the CO not believe me.

 

One of my absolute favorite challenge caches required me to visit 50 different parks or hiking trails maintained by the regional park district. The requirement is concrete, and it's straightforward for the CO to confirm that the 50 finds I list satisfy the requirement. So that one doesn't even require trust, but it would be utterly impossible to write a checker for it.

 

Actually no, in two different ways.

 

Having a challenge requirement that is "straightforward for the CO to confirm" does not mean that it would be enjoyable or even feasible in the long run for a CO to check the cache pages of each cache of a 50-cache list for each logger.

 

However, since you said regional, I assume you are talking about only parks within a reasonably limited area. It is possible to write a checker for that, as long as you supply map definitions of the parks (polygons defining the parks geographically). I have seen a checker for a challenge that required X number of finds within nature reserves located in the Swedish region of Stockholm. That sounds like pretty much like the same thing.

[+MartyBartfast]

If I had to choose I rather want to have no future challenge caches than the large restriction that eliminates all what I found interesting about challenge caches.

 

Why?

No challenges mean : You don't get your favourite kind of challenge, and others who have different tastes don't get their kind of challenge.

Challenges with restrictions mean: You don't get your kind of challenge, but others who have different tastes do get their kind of challenge.

 

In both cases you don't get your challenges, but you seem to be saying that if you don't get it your way then you want to spoil the enjoyment of others because you somehow feel the challenges they are interested in are somehow unworthy.

 

Anyway I don't necessarily agree that it will be a "large" restriction. As I said above we're all speculating about what might be before we have all the details.

[cezanne]

Not every challenge cache that can't be automated with an online checker is as appealing as the regional parks and trails challenge is to you.

 

Of course each of us (dprovan, you, me etc) have our own preferences. However the favourite challenge caches for some of us are among those that cannot be checked automatically with the data that is available.

Allowing challenges which are not checkable by an online checker will let me end up with challenges which I do not like, but also with a few that I like. If only those are allowed in the future that can be automatically checked, then I left with zero challenge caches that appeal to me.

[+elrojo14]

So I submitted my most intense challenge to PGC to see if they could do it. I am a little dismayed at the responses that went completely over my head. I don't know if any one is going to make one for me or if I am going to have to learn the code to figure it out.

 

http://project-gc.com/qa/?qa=10119/someone-help-with-checkers-caches-within-distance-challenges&show=10134#c10134

 

Truly great challenges that inspire you might very well be a thing of the past with this new requirement. Personally, I am not hopeful for the future of challenges. Especially given Groundspeak had 1 year to get this ironed out and here we are on Year+1Day without a resolution.

 

Challenges drive my caching. See my profile for my list of goals around some truly great challenge caches. http://www.elrojo14.com

 

That great challenges will no longer drive me to go on wonderful cache runs is kind of sad.

 

Well the responses clearly say it's possible to write a checker for it, but because your criteria are very complex then it will need a lot of work to setup. I would expect that it would be up to you to do that work (i.e. you have to supply the areas for all 142 monuments within which a find has to be made to qualify).

 

To be honest, they look so fiddly to work out whether or not I would qualify that I wouldn't consider doing them if they didn't have a checker. I don't want to trawl through a list of 142 locations and work out whether my finds are within some random variable distance of each.

You will never qualify for it if you just relied on a checker. The entire idea of the challenge is to go out and find these National Historic Landmarks. You will not find these 142 landmarks by randomly finding caches. It takes planning and knowing what you are going after to complete it.

 

And it isn't for everyone. That a cacher looks at it and says it is too much work is fine by me. That is why it is a 5/5. It isn't for everyone.

 

That a quality challenge like this that encourages you to go out and see the history and cool places in your own state wouldn't be publishable without some complex checker doesn't seem right to me. A checker that isn't going to help you finish the challenge at all because you are going to be best served to make bookmark lists of the spots you still need to find.

 

It is like we are trying to make challenges easier so anyone can find them with minimal effort.

 

All the while Groundspeak really isn't doing anything to solve the problem.

 

One of the major issues I see is how do you limit the number of common challenge types? Do we really need 25 challenges that are the exact same in a state or county? How do we limit that?

 

Will we get a new icon that will allow the true challenge haters to plain ignore them and eliminate so much of the griping?

 

They took a whole year to not resolve anything. They just told us we need to all be Lua experts now or have to rely on Lua experts that want to sit and argue with you about your challenge and whether it is doable or not to make a checker for it.

 

Color me unimpressed. Yet, Groundspeak knows they have me over a barrel. I won't cancel my premium membership or stop teaching a Geocaching summer school class over their lack of service to what many of us here consider a very fun aspect of their product. Basically taking a year off to have no solution should be unacceptable. Yet, here we are.

[+dprovan]

Not every challenge cache seeker has your level of integrity.

Not every challenge cache owner has your level of flexibility and understanding.

Not every challenge cache that can't be automated with an online checker is as appealing as the regional parks and trails challenge is to you.

Yes, but the point is that the checker requirement prevents those things, things I consider quite laudable. This isn't just abstract: there are many challenge caches in my area that work like this, and I've seen no evidence that they've caused anyone any problem. So it's not just me personally that has that level of integrity, flexibility, and understanding, it's my community. Yet we are now prevented from playing that way.

[+CanadianRockies]

For reference, this is your original argument:

 

Exactly. Before the moratorium, challenges would only be approved if they could be verified quantifiably. So a vague "night cache" challenge with no actual parameters to check would not have been published. A night cache challenge would need to have stated that you must find caches with the specific attributes. So nothing there will change. Challenges alreayd had to be qualifiable to be published. If it's quantifiable, a checker can do it automatically, once programmed to do so. [emphasis added]

You make it sound so easy. If a challenge cache would be published pre-moratorium, then it can be verified by the Project GC checker and hence can be published post-moratorium. But that's a silly notion. I couldn't publish my lonely challenge cache post-moratorium, because Project GC checkers cannot access all the Groundspeak log files. Nor could my meta-challenge to find 100+ challenge caches be published post-moratorium, because Groundspeak doesn't have a "Challenge" cache type or attribute that it retroactively enforces.

 

So, you seem to have changed your argument:

 

Challenges already had to be qualifiable to be published. If it's quantifiable, a checker can do it automatically, once programmed to do so.

This is incorrect. Challenge caches already had to be "verifiable" -- not "qualifiable/quantifiable." And just because something can be verified by a human doesn't mean that it can be verified by a Project GC checker.

Then change my word from qualifiable to verifiable. My point remains - the CO has to be able to look and see by cache properties, profile properties - somewhere where the recorded data can prove that qualification is valid. And in theory, yes, if a human can simply look at data that's reported and presented to them, then a checker can retrieve that data and check automatically. "In theory" - GS of course has to allow that data to be retrieved by the checker.

In theory, I could publish my lonely challenge post-moratorium, as long as Groundspeak changed its API (which it might be willing to do). In theory, I could publish my meta-challenge post-moratorium, as long as Groundspeak added a "Challenge" cache type or attribute and retroactively enforced it, including for all archived challenge caches (which it almost certainly will not do). But please note that your original comment "So nothing there will change" is incorrect. Something will have to change.

[+dprovan]

Having a challenge requirement that is "straightforward for the CO to confirm" does not mean that it would be enjoyable or even feasible in the long run for a CO to check the cache pages of each cache of a 50-cache list for each logger.

Why should this concern us? What bad thing happens if the CO stops confirming the requirements?

[cezanne]

If I had to choose I rather want to have no future challenge caches than the large restriction that eliminates all what I found interesting about challenge caches.

 

Why?

No challenges mean : You don't get your favourite kind of challenge, and others who have different tastes don't get their kind of challenge.

Challenges with restrictions mean: You don't get your kind of challenge, but others who have different tastes do get their kind of challenge.

 

In both cases you don't get your challenges, but you seem to be saying that if you don't get it your way then you want to spoil the enjoyment of others because you somehow feel the challenges they are interested in are somehow unworthy.

 

The reason is simple: The pure existence of challenge caches brings along many drawbacks and creates harm - if I might at least encounter something interesting from time to time it is is easier to live with the drawbacks of challenge caches.

 

Anyway I don't necessarily agree that it will be a "large" restriction. As I said above we're all speculating about what might be before we have all the details.

 

It will be a large restriction from my point of view regardless of the details.

 

Another challenge cache that cannot be automatically checked but can be checked very easily by a human being is "find x orienteering caches" (in the sense that an orienteering map is used a major tool for the cache - but this of course can be made more precise in the requirement description).

[Keystone]

That a quality challenge like this that encourages you to go out and see the history and cool places in your own state wouldn't be publishable without some complex checker doesn't seem right to me. A checker that isn't going to help you finish the challenge at all because you are going to be best served to make bookmark lists of the spots you still need to find.

Without a checker, a challenge like this is awfully hard to review, and differences of opinion regarding the achievability of the requirements generally or the fulfillment of the requirements by an individual finder generate a high volume of appeals.

 

All the while Groundspeak really isn't doing anything to solve the problem. ... They took a whole year to not resolve anything.

Adding the checker requirement solves one part of the problem, though not in a way that will please everyone. The rest of the new challenge cache strategy is architected (I'm familiar with it) but the details won't be fully built out for a few more weeks. That is a far cry from not doing anything, and the hope is that the new strategy will go a long way in resolving the problems with challenge caches that led to the moratorium. As a participant in the discussions behind the scenes and as a survey taker, I am familiar with the many hours of hard work that have been put in over the past year.

 

You will probably like some of the guidance that hasn't been announced yet, and dislike other aspects -- just as we're seeing in this discussion focused on challenge checkers. That's the nature of compromise solutions to problems. Compare this process with what happened to other problems that weren't addressed promptly and systemically, like virtual caches.

[+CanadianRockies]

Allowing challenges which are not checkable by an online checker will let me end up with challenges which I do not like, but also with a few that I like. If only those are allowed in the future that can be automatically checked, then I left with zero challenge caches that appeal to me.

Didn't you once say that this kind of challenge appeals to you? I don't think it would be terribly hard to automatically check this type.

[+J Grouchy]

Oh boy. I think all this goes to show that, as it stands right now, Groundspeak really hasn't helped themselves much in reducing the potential for disputes.

 

But to be fair we're all jumping the gun and speculating about what might be, based on half the story, just so we can have a good old "discussion".

 

Well, I DID qualify my statement in different ways...

By only announcing the challenge checker part, they've put that out there as the most important change/new requirement. Whether it truly is or not, that's all we have to go on and it's clearly not adequate to help eliminate disputes over qualifications. I do hope they have made a change to either the TYPEs or the ATTRIBUTES to better distinguish challenge caches from the rest.

[cezanne]

Allowing challenges which are not checkable by an online checker will let me end up with challenges which I do not like, but also with a few that I like. If only those are allowed in the future that can be automatically checked, then I left with zero challenge caches that appeal to me.

Didn't you once say that this kind of challenge appeals to you? I don't think it would be terribly hard to automatically check this type.

 

I do not know as I cannot see it and I cannot recall it by the name. In any case even for situations where a checker can be implemented by spending a lot of time, I do not think that it is worth. use computers where they are superior and use humans where they are superior.

 

This whole idea of searching automatically for which challenge caches one would possible qualify vs. actively selecting one and trying to achieve is something that does not match with my understanding of challenge caches. I prefer challenges where I usually can very easily say just by relying on my memory how far I got.

[+MartyBartfast]

Allowing challenges which are not checkable by an online checker will let me end up with challenges which I do not like, but also with a few that I like. If only those are allowed in the future that can be automatically checked, then I left with zero challenge caches that appeal to me.

Didn't you once say that this kind of challenge appeals to you? I don't think it would be terribly hard to automatically check this type.

And indeed there already are checkers for the Soup Challenges, which this one is the "Bonus" for.

[+MartyBartfast]

 

You will never qualify for it if you just relied on a checker. The entire idea of the challenge is to go out and find these National Historic Landmarks. You will not find these 142 landmarks by randomly finding caches.

 

That's a fair point, I hadn't looked at all the requirements in any detail, however checkers are also able to say "You don't qualify this because you have only fulfilled 97 out of 142 criteria, you still need to find number 3, 5, 8, 94, etc... " and thereby help people who are working towards it.

[Keystone]

The thing on that "Soup" challenge that I found most interesting was this statement by the CO:

 

This series is plagued by time thieves who either think the qualification criteria and logging requirements do not apply to them, or think that I might want to trawl their data myself. They do and I don't. So any logs which do not fulfil the logging requirements clearly specified on the cache page will be deleted without warning. I was planning to archive all 85 of my challenges due to how grumpy this is making me, but I know the majority are those that undertake the challenges in the spirit in which they are set and find and log them with integrity. I'm not an unreasonable person, so if you are travelling or unable to provide the details of your Found It claim when you log, just put a note in your log telling me when to check back, or contact me via my profile. Otherwise, expect to find your log zapped. And lastly thank you to all who show interest in my challenges and log them properly - it's much appreciated.

With a challenge checker requirement, the CO needs only to visit Project-GC, input the finder's name into the Checker that's tagged for their challenge cache, and get a yes/no answer. That result ought to be preferable for challenge cache fans, as opposed to a CO archiving all 85 of their existing challenge caches. But in return for the ease of verification, any new challenges that can't be automated by a Project-GC checker cannot be published. Oh well. That's called a compromise, right?

[+igator210]

Please lets keep the discussion on the viability of checkers, not if you like or dislike certain challenges. One is a technical discussion, the other is a subjective discussion that just goes around in circles.

 

A few of the points brought up are:

 

Lonely caches... checkers can't read additional logs

Attribute caches... checkers are only as good as what other CO's provide

Cache title caches... checkers are only as good as what other CO's provide

Statistical caches... Lab caches, benchmarks and waymarks can't be accounted for

Area caches... how will the polygon checkers be set up.

 

Am I missing any broad category?

 

The one area that I personally will have a problem with under this new guideline are Lab Caches. They clearly count in certain stats by Groundspeak, but Project-GC won't have access to them.

Edited April 22, 2016 by igator210

[cezanne]

But in return for the ease of verification, any new challenges that can't be automated by a Project-GC checker cannot be published. Oh well. That's called a compromise, right?

 

It's obvious that compromises are necessary.

 

The real issue is that so many challenges are not checkable by an automated project-gc checker because the data is not available on gc.com or not available to project-gc and not because such checkers are not possible at all. For example, if we had a length field or at least far more distance related attributes, the condition x hiking multi caches with length >y would be checkable.

If there existed attributes for cemetery caches, orienteering caches, challenge caches, history caches etc, a lot of other types of challenge caches became checkable which cannot be handled now.

If project-gc had access to all logs, they could check for lonely caches etc

[Keystone]

The one area that I personally will have a problem with under this new guideline are Lab Caches. They clearly count in certain stats by Groundspeak, but Project-GC won't have access to them.

Which is fine, since lab caches could not form the basis for a challenge cache under the old guidelines either.

 

Earlier in the thread there were a few good posts pointing out that a lab cache not being counted could have other consequences for otherwise valid challenges, like messing up milestones or leaving a gap in a streak if a lab cache was the geocacher's only find for that day. Oh well. Challenge cache hiders and seekers will need to ignore lab caches.

[+Sol seaker]

I wonder about location based challenges.

 

Personally, I am very much not fond of statistic based challenges.

 

To me the best challenges are location based, which is what the game was originally intended for anyway.

 

So for instance, the best challenge I've ever found by far is Lamoracke's Washington State Island Hopping Challenge, in which you find caches on something like 25 islands in Washington State. I'd love to do a challenge like that for California.

 

I went to some of the most amazing places because of that challenge.

 

To me that's the sign of a good challenge.

 

Have I ever said, "I went to the most amazing places to find all those caches beginning with letters of the alphabet" or "went to the most amazing places in my head as I sat at my desk and went through statistics to see if I qualified for that cache" No. It just doesn't happen.

 

Some people like them, I know, and that's fine.

 

But what about those of us that like the location based ones too? Can those be covered here?

 

I think those are the best. Are still going to be able to have them?

[+MartyBartfast]

To me the best challenges are location based, which is what the game was originally intended for anyway.

 

So for instance, the best challenge I've ever found by far is Lamoracke's Washington State Island Hopping Challenge, in which you find caches on something like 25 islands in Washington State. I'd love to do a challenge like that for California.

 

I went to some of the most amazing places because of that challenge.

 

...

 

I think those are the best. Are still going to be able to have them?

 

Well from what I've read on Project-GC checker code already exists which could do this, all that would be required would be for someone to define the polygons for the 25 islands, and then the checker will be ready for it.

[cezanne]

Please lets keep the discussion on the viability of checkers, not if you like or dislike certain challenges. One is a technical discussion, the other is a subjective discussion that just goes around in circles.

 

Not everyone is interested into the technical aspect - I'm a human being and not a computer. Moreover you ignore the fact that the fact that information like the length of a cache, elevation gain, what kind of attractions it offers (except for ECs) and many other information is not available at a specific location of the cache page and so cannot be checked for automatically though the information is present.

 

If I'm doing e.g. long distance hking multi caches of length >50km, I do not need a checker to remember which and how many of them I did. Each of them is so special that I will not forget them ever in my life.

Edited April 22, 2016 by cezanne

[cezanne]

Well from what I've read on Project-GC checker code already exists which could do this, all that would be required would be for someone to define the polygons for the 25 islands, and then the checker will be ready for it.

 

Quite a waste of time as it is so easy for a human being to know whether you have been on a certain island or not.

[+MartyBartfast]

Well from what I've read on Project-GC checker code already exists which could do this, all that would be required would be for someone to define the polygons for the 25 islands, and then the checker will be ready for it.

 

Quite a waste of time as it is so easy for a human being to know whether you have been on a certain island or not.

Not at all, to check if a finder is qualified the CO would need to

 

Either

1 look through a list of 25 caches, openning them all up on a map, to see if they covered on all the 25 islands

Or

2 click one link which says "MartyBartfast qualified for this cace on April 1st with these finds ...."

 

2 takes less than a second, 1 takes god knows how long.

Edited April 22, 2016 by MartyBartfast

[cezanne]

Not at all, to check if a finder is qualified the CO would need to

Either

 

1 look through a list of 25 caches, openning them all up on a map, to see if they covered on all the 25 islands

Or

2 click one link which says "MartyBartfast qualified for this cace on April 1st with these finds ...."

 

2 takes less than 1 second, 1 takes god knows how long.

 

I meant setting up the polygon data. I do not need to look through a list of caches to know whether I have been at certain islands.

 

Each cache owner should be free to decide how they wish to check whether someone qualifies.

[+pinkunicorn]

Each cache owner should be free to decide how they wish to check whether someone qualifies.

 

And indeed they will be. No one will be forcing anyone to use the checker system. What is the new thing here is that it will be mandatory to offer every cacher the choice whether to check if they are qualified manually or automatically - without being technical enough to set up GSAK to do this, assuming there is a GSAK script available and it can be found. My experience is that challenge caches seldom if ever link to GSAK macros, and finding one yourself involves sifting through the GSAK forum for something that may possibly fit. In contrast, future challenges will have a link to the checker directly on the page that only needs to be clicked (and if you install the Project-GC browser extension, existing checkers will be linked on the cache page even for old challenges).

[cezanne]

Each cache owner should be free to decide how they wish to check whether someone qualifies.

 

And indeed they will be. No one will be forcing anyone to use the checker system.

 

But apparently only challenge caches will be published that can be checked automatically with the available data, and that excludes many interesting challenge caches.

[+dprovan]

Either

1 look through a list of 25 caches, openning them all up on a map, to see if they covered on all the 25 islands

Or

2 click one link which says "MartyBartfast qualified for this cace on April 1st with these finds ...."

 

2 takes less than a second, 1 takes god knows how long.

I would estimate #1 would take about 5 minutes, max. If the CO's willing, what do you -- and everyone else in the world -- care whether that's how they do it?