Moratorium update

[+Team Microdot]

Also, after the moratorium, theoretically there will be a cache property that identifies challenge caches, so hopefully they open that to the API, in which case checkers will be able to explicitly identify challenge caches (instead of missing some that may or may not match the Unknown+"Challenge" title requirement).

You have inside information?

No. See bold.

There easily may not be. Hopefully there will be.

That is to say, after all this, I hope that the only change is not merely the addition of the checker rule to the concept of challenge caches.

 

Ah - just the way you worded it made it sound more of a will be than a could be or even a might be or I hope there will be.

 

So the truth remains that none of us has a clue

[+CanadianRockies]

Just because a checker doesn't exist for an old challenge does not mean that one can't be written for a new challenge that copies or mimics the old one. It also does not mean that they actually can write one for one of the older ones that they're hoping to copy or mimic either. It goes both ways.

Just to be clear about this issue...

 

It should be noted that while some checker-less old challenge caches can have checkers written for them (or for future versions of them), this doesn't apply to all checker-less old challenge caches. For example, a meta-challenge (find 100 challenge caches), is very unlikely to ever have a checker written for it.

However, if you define a challenge cache as one that has the word challenge in the title, then there is already a checker that can do that. In fact, there is even a challenge of that nature in my area, and it has a checker tagged to it on project-gc (but it is not on the cache page at this point).

Also, after the moratorium, theoretically there will be a cache property that identifies challenge caches, so hopefully they open that to the API, in which case checkers will be able to explicitly identify challenge caches (instead of missing some that may or may not match the Unknown+"Challenge" title requirement).

Theoretically, Groundspeak might create a challenge cache type or attribute. Theoretically, Groundspeak might even require owners of all existing and archived challenge caches to change their cache type or add this attribute. Theoretically, Groundspeak lackeys or volunteers might change the cache type/attribute if the current challenge cache owners neglect to do this or are no longer active. Then, someone might be able to create a true post-moratorium meta-challenge cache. But, as I noted above, that's very unlikely.

[+thebruce0]

Yes. Many things can happen in theory. I was only commenting on a direct possibility given what we know. Since we know that moving forward challenge caches will exist, and since we know the reviewers have a definition by which to determine that a cache is a challenge cache and thus will require a challenge checker, I think it's much more feasible to discuss the possibillity, the hope, that there is and will be a metric that may be opened to the API. It wasn't a far-reaching comment, it was a logical extension expressed as a possibility and hope, at worst a request. No need to go all ad absurdum.

Edited May 13, 2016 by thebruce0

[+Team Microdot]

Yes. Many things can happen in theory. I was only commenting on a direct possibility given what we know. Since we know that moving forward challenge caches will exist, and since we know the reviewers have a definition by which to determine that a cache is a challenge cache and thus will require a challenge checker, I think it's much more feasible to discuss the possibillity, the hope, that there is and will be a metric that may be opened to the API. It wasn't a far-reaching comment, it was a logical extension expressed as a possibility and hope, at worst a request. No need to go all ad absurdum.

 

Accepting of course that of course there are a myriad other possibilities - even given what we know and that qualifying possibility with direct doesn't lend it any more credence.

[+thebruce0]

 

I'm going geocaching. Bye.

[+Team Microdot]

 

I'm going geocaching. Bye.

 

Bye - have fun!

[+CanadianRockies]

It should be noted that while some checker-less old challenge caches can have checkers written for them (or for future versions of them), this doesn't apply to all checker-less old challenge caches. For example, a meta-challenge (find 100 challenge caches), is very unlikely to ever have a checker written for it.

However, if you define a challenge cache as one that has the word challenge in the title, then there is already a checker that can do that. In fact, there is even a challenge of that nature in my area, and it has a checker tagged to it on project-gc (but it is not on the cache page at this point).

Also, after the moratorium, theoretically there will be a cache property that identifies challenge caches, so hopefully they open that to the API, in which case checkers will be able to explicitly identify challenge caches (instead of missing some that may or may not match the Unknown+"Challenge" title requirement).

Theoretically, Groundspeak might create a challenge cache type or attribute. Theoretically, Groundspeak might even require owners of all existing and archived challenge caches to change their cache type or add this attribute. Theoretically, Groundspeak lackeys or volunteers might change the cache type/attribute if the current challenge cache owners neglect to do this or are no longer active. Then, someone might be able to create a true post-moratorium meta-challenge cache. But, as I noted above, that's very unlikely.

Yes. Many things can happen in theory. I was only commenting on a direct possibility given what we know. Since we know that moving forward challenge caches will exist, and since we know the reviewers have a definition by which to determine that a cache is a challenge cache and thus will require a challenge checker, I think it's much more feasible to discuss the possibillity, the hope, that there is and will be a metric that may be opened to the API. It wasn't a far-reaching comment, it was a logical extension expressed as a possibility and hope, at worst a request. No need to go all ad absurdum.

Goundspeak needs to go to these kinds of extremes if checkers are likely to be developed for a true post-moratorium meta-challenge. That's why I said it would be very unlikely to happen.

Edited May 14, 2016 by CanadianRockies

[+coachstahly]

Singling out old challenges without a checker has the same value as singling out new challenges that are also without checkers,

 

My bold.

 

The point is that there is an inequality here - they are not the same so they don't have the same value.

 

An old challenge (of type X) without a checker = YES

 

A new challenge (of type X) without a checker = NO

 

What does YES and NO relate to? Whether or not it's been published? What's the inequality you're referring to?

[+Team Microdot]

Singling out old challenges without a checker has the same value as singling out new challenges that are also without checkers,

 

My bold.

 

The point is that there is an inequality here - they are not the same so they don't have the same value.

 

An old challenge (of type X) without a checker = YES

 

A new challenge (of type X) without a checker = NO

 

What does YES and NO relate to? Whether or not it's been published? What's the inequality you're referring to?

 

YES = allowed to be.

 

NO = not allowed to be.

[+jellis]

We’ve just now posted an update about the Challenge Cache Moratorium in the Announcements section (link).

 

The text of the announcement is below.

 

****************

 

Geocaching HQ is nearly ready to announce the end of the moratorium on "challenge cache" submissions. However, a few details remain to be addressed. We will complete the process and present an updated framework for challenge caches within the next few weeks.

 

In the meantime, we want to share a few details about one key aspect of the new framework. All future challenge caches must include a web-based challenge checker. At this time, Project-GC is the only website approved to host challenge checkers.

 

This is one of the changes we’re implementing based on feedback from community surveys. We hope that challenge checkers will make it easier for players to determine their qualifications for challenge caches. Additional details are available in this Project-GC FAQ.

 

When the complete framework for challenge caches is ready, we will share that information via the Geocaching newsletter and blog. Thank you for your patience!

Any news or did I miss something?

[+ShopCrazy]

Groundspeak, 13 months and counting on a a one year moratorium. 1 announcement. You stated in the announcement that you needed a couple more weeks to implement the new challenge cache framework. Let's get a move on, you owe your paying members more than this.

Edited May 22, 2016 by ShopCrazy

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Groundspeak, 13 months and counting on a a one year moratorium. 1 announcement. You stated in the announcement that you needed a couple more weeks to implement the new challenge cache framework. Let's get a move on, you owe your paying members more than this.

 

Frankly, I would prefer to wait until their implementation is "production ready" rather than rush to have a new framework implemented that is half baked.

 

 

[+on4bam]

Frankly, I would prefer to wait until their implementation is "production ready" rather than rush to have a new framework implemented that is half baked.

 

13 months is not "rushing"

 

It's once again lack of communication. BTW, should "half baked" not be (tm by GS)? (MC comes to mind)

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Frankly, I would prefer to wait until their implementation is "production ready" rather than rush to have a new framework implemented that is half baked.

 

13 months is not "rushing"

 

It's once again lack of communication. BTW, should "half baked" not be (tm by GS)? (MC comes to mind)

 

We have no idea how much time they allowed to gather requirements for how the new framework would be implemented. There were numerous threads here with all sorts of suggestions for how challenge cache might work after the moratorium. Some even suggested that at the end of the moratorium that all existing challenge caches be grandfathered and no new ones should be allowed. We have already seen from the announcement regarding the use of challenge checkers that, at least that part of the new framework is not without issues. The end of the moratorium does not mean that we'll have a new framework that is going to satisfy everyone and it's not going back to the way that it was before the moratorium.

 

"Half baked" isn't a term that would be exclusive to GS. It's a term I've seen frequently used whenever a software application is released before it's been sufficiently tested.

 

 

[+ChileHead]

Frankly, I would prefer to wait until their implementation is "production ready" rather than rush to have a new framework implemented that is half baked.

 

13 months is not "rushing"

 

It's once again lack of communication. BTW, should "half baked" not be (tm by GS)? (MC comes to mind)

 

Lack of communication? Did you forget who started this thread right at the 1 year mark to give an update?

 

Rock Chalk said they were finishing up and had a few more weeks. If it's another few weeks to get it right, then it's right to do so.

 

I don't expect to get daily updates as part of their scrum stand-up. How often does Apple give updates on their product development during development?

[+on4bam]

Lack of communication? Did you forget who started this thread right at the 1 year mark to give an update?

 

That must have been right after I posted in the CC thread that one year had passed.

 

Rock Chalk said they were finishing up and had a few more weeks. If it's another few weeks to get it right, then it's right to do so.

 

I don't expect to get daily updates as part of their scrum stand-up. How often does Apple give updates on their product development during development?

 

I expect a one year moratorium to end after a year. Silly me

I also wouldn't compare GS to Apple.

[+Touchstone]

I expect a one year moratorium to end after a year. Silly me

 

Couple of ways to interpret it in my mind. The 1 year deadline could be a simple thumbs up/thumbs down on whether Challenges continue on the site. It seems as though they met that deadline given that sort of interpretation.

 

I'm not sure how much communication you desire. Some folks are needier than others I guess

[+ShopCrazy]

I expect a one year moratorium to end after a year. Silly me

 

Couple of ways to interpret it in my mind. The 1 year deadline could be a simple thumbs up/thumbs down on whether Challenges continue on the site. It seems as though they met that deadline given that sort of interpretation.

 

I'm not sure how much communication you desire. Some folks are needier than others I guess

 

I love how someone expressing their opinion in forums needs to be viewed as an opportunity to attack by those with a different view. Personally, a set deadline as the 1 year moratorium was, should have been resolved in the specified timeline. If not Groundspeak should be informing their customers what the delay is and what their plans are. From what I have seen we have only had one update in a month, I do not believe that that is improving their reputation. I do not believe that is needy. Personally "within the next few weeks" is not a timeline, especially when we have crossed the one month treshhold.

[+Touchstone]

I expect a one year moratorium to end after a year. Silly me

 

Couple of ways to interpret it in my mind. The 1 year deadline could be a simple thumbs up/thumbs down on whether Challenges continue on the site. It seems as though they met that deadline given that sort of interpretation.

 

I'm not sure how much communication you desire. Some folks are needier than others I guess

 

I love how someone expressing their opinion in forums needs to be viewed as an opportunity to attack by those with a different view. Personally, a set deadline as the 1 year moratorium was, should have been resolved in the specified timeline. If not Groundspeak should be informing their customers what the delay is and what their plans are. From what I have seen we have only had one update in a month, I do not believe that that is improving their reputation. I do not believe that is needy. Personally "within the next few weeks" is not a timeline, especially when we have crossed the one month treshhold.

Not intended as an "attack" in this post or any other post of mine, but I am truly mystified by your response. Groundspeak met the one year deadline from my perspective, of answering the broad question of, "should Challenges continue on the website?" If they are asking for a bit more patience to resolve some of the previous issues, and to integrate input from the Community, I'm not sure I see an issue?

 

I really have no issue with Challenges returning.

[+ChileHead]

Lack of communication? Did you forget who started this thread right at the 1 year mark to give an update?

 

That must have been right after I posted in the CC thread that one year had passed.

 

That's it. After your post an emergency meeting at Groundspeak was called. "'on4bam' posted they need a status, stat!" So the founders and all free lackeys had a pow-wow so they could quickly put together a rushed statement in the hopes of satisfying on4bam.

 

 

I expect a one year moratorium to end after a year. Silly me

I also wouldn't compare GS to Apple.

 

Status was given after a year, I think that's fair. And no, you can't compare GS to Apple. GS doesn't have the resources to make date commitments to an ill defined product.

[+on4bam]

That's it. After your post an emergency meeting at Groundspeak was called. "'on4bam' posted they need a status, stat!" So the founders and all free lackeys had a pow-wow so they could quickly put together a rushed statement in the hopes of satisfying on4bam.

 

This would have been funny if it wasn't so sad.

[+Mudfrog]

I expect a one year moratorium to end after a year. Silly me

 

Couple of ways to interpret it in my mind. The 1 year deadline could be a simple thumbs up/thumbs down on whether Challenges continue on the site. It seems as though they met that deadline given that sort of interpretation.

 

I'm not sure how much communication you desire. Some folks are needier than others I guess

 

I love how someone expressing their opinion in forums needs to be viewed as an opportunity to attack by those with a different view. Personally, a set deadline as the 1 year moratorium was, should have been resolved in the specified timeline. If not Groundspeak should be informing their customers what the delay is and what their plans are. From what I have seen we have only had one update in a month, I do not believe that that is improving their reputation. I do not believe that is needy. Personally "within the next few weeks" is not a timeline, especially when we have crossed the one month treshhold.

Not intended as an "attack" in this post or any other post of mine, but I am truly mystified by your response. Groundspeak met the one year deadline from my perspective, of answering the broad question of, "should Challenges continue on the website?" If they are asking for a bit more patience to resolve some of the previous issues, and to integrate input from the Community, I'm not sure I see an issue?

 

I really have no issue with Challenges returning.

There are some on here that have just gotten used to how Groundspeak works. They know that GS rarely acknowledges its customers ideas and if they do, it takes them forever to actually initiate it. They also know that customers complaints usually go unanswered and communication is lacking. This is business as usual for GS and some seem to want to defend it.

 

A year is plenty of time to resolve this so i figure it was probably pushed to the back burner and barely even addressed during this time.

[+Touchstone]

You mean acknowledgement like this?

 

This is one of the changes we’re implementing based on feedback from community surveys.

 

Or did you want to be singled out for recognition?

 

A year is plenty of time to resolve this so i figure it was probably pushed to the back burner and barely even addressed during this time.

 

Well, I think you're wrong on that point, but I respect your right to think that.

[+niraD]

That's it. After your post an emergency meeting at Groundspeak was called. "'on4bam' posted they need a status, stat!" So the founders and all free lackeys had a pow-wow so they could quickly put together a rushed statement in the hopes of satisfying on4bam.

This would have been funny if it wasn't so sad.

Well, I thought it was pretty funny...

[+Mudfrog]

You mean acknowledgement like this?

 

This is one of the changes we’re implementing based on feedback from community surveys.

 

Or did you want to be singled out for recognition?

 

A year is plenty of time to resolve this so i figure it was probably pushed to the back burner and barely even addressed during this time.

 

Well, I think you're wrong on that point, but I respect your right to think that.

Ok, acknowledgement, but not much information. Reading between the lines, all i got from that post was that Groundspeak is making it harder for CCs to be published. I'm not sure what you're implying with the "recognition" statement.

 

Have to ask, why don't you think a year is long enough to come up with a solution to this?

[+niraD]

Have to ask, why don't you think a year is long enough to come up with a solution to this?

That depends entirely upon the solution.

 

Grandfathering the existing challenge caches and banning new ones would have taken a few days, just to update the various online content.

 

But they're probably doing something more involved than that. And of course, they probably spent a fair bit of time figuring out what exactly that would be. And of course, they've got a lot of other (more important) things to deal with when it comes to running the site.

[+ChileHead]

Reading between the lines, all i got from that post was that Groundspeak is making it harder for CCs to be published.

 

Harder? Not sure I agree with that. The strategy will make it easier in some ways as there will be less grey areas - I hope! - on what makes an acceptable challenge. There will be more work to get a checker written, unless there is already a generic one. But there should be less back and forth with the reviewer and appeals when a challenge cache isn't deemed appropriate.

 

Have to ask, why don't you think a year is long enough to come up with a solution to this?

 

I would not assume that there was some poor guy at HQ toiling away for the past year on a solution. I'm sure it was a background activity along with everything else. As with any business, there are always tasks on the backlog that need to get done. Add the challenge into that list, prioritize it against all the other items, and it probably didn't make it to #1.

[+dprovan]

I expect a one year moratorium to end after a year. Silly me

Yeah, it is pretty silly. When I heard "moratorium", I thought they meant a moratorium on thinking about it. Now that the year has past and there still seems to be support for challenge caches, they'll start planning changes. I figure we're already ahead of the game because they've floated an idea already (ignoring that the idea is a step backwards).

[+Touchstone]

I expect a one year moratorium to end after a year. Silly me

Yeah, it is pretty silly. When I heard "moratorium", I thought they meant a moratorium on thinking about it. Now that the year has past and there still seems to be support for challenge caches, they'll start planning changes. I figure we're already ahead of the game because they've floated an idea already (ignoring that the idea is a step backwards).

Could've been worse. The could have instituted a "wow factor" on Challenges instead of the PGC Checker

[+bflentje]

That's it. After your post an emergency meeting at Groundspeak was called. "'on4bam' posted they need a status, stat!" So the founders and all free lackeys had a pow-wow so they could quickly put together a rushed statement in the hopes of satisfying on4bam.

 

This would have been funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

Nevermind.

Edited May 23, 2016 by bflentje

[+noncentric]

But they're probably doing something more involved than that. And of course, they probably spent a fair bit of time figuring out what exactly that would be. And of course, they've got a lot of other (more important) things to deal with when it comes to running the site.

 

I would not assume that there was some poor guy at HQ toiling away for the past year on a solution. I'm sure it was a background activity along with everything else. As with any business, there are always tasks on the backlog that need to get done. Add the challenge into that list, prioritize it against all the other items, and it probably didn't make it to #1.

 

It's been more than a year, without any resolution about Challenge Caches. I understand that maybe it ended up taking more time than they anticipated. It happens.

 

However, I would hope that the initial 1-year timeframe was not an arbitrary decision and that TPTB had a plan with milestone dates, rather than just saying "we'll put it on the to-do list and hope that we can get around to it in a year". I'd like to imagine that TPTB considered other projects and to-do list items when deciding that 1 year would be the appropriate timeframe.

 

"Underpromise, overdeliver" is a common saying in the land around the Lilypad.

 

ETA: As I re-read my post, I realize my point might've come across wrong. The point of my post was that I don't agree with some of niraD's and ChileHead's posts. I've now bolded those parts, which make it sound like CC's were just something TPTB would get around to when they had time and we didn't get a resolution after 1 year because they got busy with other things. I don't agree with that. I'm pretty sure CC's were intended to be resolved within the 1 year timeframe and the date wasn't met because it turned out to be more complicated than anticipated, not because other aspects of the site got in the way and pushed CC's to the background.

Edited May 23, 2016 by noncentric

[+Team Hugs]

Folks ... I think the most that Groundspeak can be found guilty of is an over-ambitious view of how long their processes take.

 

Remember ... just after the moratorium was announced, Groundspeak started a thread over in the "User Insights" forum, asking questions about challenge caches. After they closed the thread in mid-May, they said they'd publish a survey to get more user feedback, after they had a chance to process the information in the thread. They said to expect the survey "in the coming weeks". It took six months for Groundspeak to post the survey.

 

Now, on the anniversary of the moratorium, Groundspeak announced that an end to the moratorium was coming, but the final details still would require "a few weeks". Okay, we're a month out and counting. That seems consistent.

 

I work in an industry (software development) where people are notoriously horrible about predicting how long it will take to perform any particular task. I'm certainly not going to point fingers at anyone else who's bad at predicting how long it will take for the next feature to be released.

[Keystone]

I would point to the arrangements made with Project-GC, the User Insight forum topic and the user survey on Survey Monkey as good examples of public-facing interim milestones. There were many more such interim milestones that the public doesn't see. A few of these slid past the one-year anniversary of the moratorium, and work has occurred fast and furious to wrap up those remaining tasks since the last official announcement from HQ.

[BlueRajah]

If someone tells me a project will take a year, I don't expect 365 days. I expect about a year. If they announced the moratorium being over at the end of this month, when people ask how long the moratorium lasted, cachers won't say thirteen months or 57 weeks, they will say a year.

 

Start complaining when it is 16 months or more. Sheesh people getting all uptight, especially when some progress is being made, and Groundspeak is sharing some ideas and concepts. They could have just kept quiet and said something when they were done.

[+noncentric]

Added an ETA to my earlier post. I think my initial reply wasn't as clear as I had intended.

[+narcissa]

If someone tells me a project will take a year, I don't expect 365 days. I expect about a year. If they announced the moratorium being over at the end of this month, when people ask how long the moratorium lasted, cachers won't say thirteen months or 57 weeks, they will say a year.

 

Start complaining when it is 16 months or more. Sheesh people getting all uptight, especially when some progress is being made, and Groundspeak is sharing some ideas and concepts. They could have just kept quiet and said something when they were done.

 

For that matter they could have just banned them. The complaining would have mostly died out by now. No good deed goes unpunished.

[+dprovan]

It's been more than a year, without any resolution about Challenge Caches.

Are you sure the resolution isn't already in place?

[+noncentric]

It's been more than a year, without any resolution about Challenge Caches.

Are you sure the resolution isn't already in place?

It's been more than a year, without any resolution about Challenge Caches announced.

[+ODragon]

It's been more than a year, without any resolution about Challenge Caches announced.

It was announced that they would be coming back, that's pretty big since it could have gone the other way.

[+noncentric]

It's been more than a year, without any resolution about Challenge Caches announced.

It was announced that they would be coming back, that's pretty big since it could have gone the other way.

The announcement they made said CC's would be coming back, and I'm glad CC's won't disappear altogether.

 

However, the full resolution has not been announced. It seems that pre-moratorium CC's will be grandfathered, but that hasn't been announced. There are plenty of things about CC's that might be affected by new guidelines. Having challenge checkers was not the only feedback from cachers during the Insights thread, so I think many cachers believe there will be other guideline changes that we'll find out about when the full resolution is publicly announced.

 

As I stated, if it's taking more time than they anticipated, then ok. Underestimating how long something takes to be implemented is understandable.

[+coachstahly]

One year of announcement and release notes since the moratorium was announced and I see server maintenance, message center updates/improvements, bug resolutions, security improvements, log change from HTML to markdown (with a conversion tool), home page changes, App renaming/rebranding/restructuring, and search updates.

 

I'm sure there's quite a bit more behind the scenes that we don't know about (as well as the day to day functions), but I have to agree with those who are giving Groundspeak grief over the fact that the year has passed, a few weeks more were needed, and we're still in the dark about this with the exception that we know they're still around (kind of) and that we'll need a checker to publish any new challenge cache in the future.

 

I'm not in the "need it right now" camp, but this hasn't been handled as well as it could have been. It took 7 months to get a survey out to its customers after the moratorium was announced, which was itself open for almost a month. That left them roughly 4 months to incorporate the feedback and then to see how much of it was feasible on the programming end. It's no wonder they need more time.

[+firennice]

This is not Google. There is a finite amount of resources and programmers. I bet if it was announced tomorrow someone would still find a way to complain about how long it took. When someone says a project will be a year out, do you expect 365 days, An announcement at 8460 hours? I don't think anyone does. They told us a month ago that it would be. They did give a heads up a month ago that it would be a few more weeks.

 

Geocaching HQ is nearly ready to announce the end of the moratorium on "challenge cache" submissions. However, a few details remain to be addressed. We will complete the process and present an updated framework for challenge caches within the next few weeks.

 

I would say it has been handled very well. they reviewed in house, they took comments, reviewed some more, a survey, compiled that, then discussed with reviewers and lackeys, now finalizing things. Sorry with a limited number of programmers I would say they are doing very well.

 

Of course people could always just complain to make themselves feel better. Kind of like I am doing about the people complaining.

[+CanadianRockies]

I work in an industry (software development) where people are notoriously horrible about predicting how long it will take to perform any particular task. I'm certainly not going to point fingers at anyone else who's bad at predicting how long it will take for the next feature to be released.

 

That left them roughly 4 months to incorporate the feedback and then to see how much of it was feasible on the programming end. It's no wonder they need more time.

 

This is not Google. There is a finite amount of resources and programmers....

 

Sorry with a limited number of programmers I would say they are doing very well.

Several people seem to have implied that a significant programming effort is involved in reopening challenge caches. Did I miss an announcement?

 

A Project-GC challenge checker will be required for new challenges, but Project-GC already has that code in place.

 

There has been hopeful speculation that Groundspeak might finally create a new cache type or attribute for challenge caches, but--if true--that should be a relatively minor tweak to the code that they have performed multiple times before.

 

There also has been speculation (especially in regards to Lab Caches) that Groundspeak might revise their API to expose more of their database to third-party developers (e.g., Project-GC), but I haven't seen any hint from Groundspeak that they plan to do this. In fact, one person involved in the new challenges effort specifically indicated that Lab Caches will not be exposed to Project-GC challenge checkers.

 

The only thing I've heard from Groundspeak is that a Project-GC checker will be required for new challenges and some of the challenge cache guidelines will be changed.

[+niraD]

Several people seem to have implied that a significant programming effort is involved in reopening challenge caches. Did I miss an announcement?

You mean the original post that started this thread? The one that refers to "an updated framework", details that "remain to be addressed", the checker requirement being only "one key aspect" of the new framework, etc.?

[+CanadianRockies]

Several people seem to have implied that a significant programming effort is involved in reopening challenge caches. Did I miss an announcement?

You mean the original post that started this thread? The one that refers to "an updated framework", details that "remain to be addressed", the checker requirement being only "one key aspect" of the new framework, etc.?

Does "an updated framework" imply a significant programming effort? Wouldn't changes to Groundspeak's challenge cache guidelines be "an updated framework?"

[+Team Microdot]

Several people seem to have implied that a significant programming effort is involved in reopening challenge caches. Did I miss an announcement?

You mean the original post that started this thread? The one that refers to "an updated framework", details that "remain to be addressed", the checker requirement being only "one key aspect" of the new framework, etc.?

Does "an updated framework" imply a significant programming effort? Wouldn't changes to Groundspeak's challenge cache guidelines be "an updated framework?"

 

+1

[+niraD]

Does "an updated framework" imply a significant programming effort? Wouldn't changes to Groundspeak's challenge cache guidelines be "an updated framework?"

My software development bias may be showing, but when I read "an updated framework", I assumed that there was software infrastructure that needed to be written and/or rewritten. So yes, I expect it to require a significant programming effort.

[+ArtieD]

Any clue when the total roll out of the new challenges will come? It was supposed to be a year...

[+niraD]

Any clue when the total roll out of the new challenges will come? It was supposed to be a year...

From the original post that started this thread on 21 April 2016:

 

"We will complete the process and present an updated framework for challenge caches within the next few weeks."

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Does "an updated framework" imply a significant programming effort? Wouldn't changes to Groundspeak's challenge cache guidelines be "an updated framework?"

My software development bias may be showing, but when I read "an updated framework", I assumed that there was software infrastructure that needed to be written and/or rewritten. So yes, I expect it to require a significant programming effort.

 

I have a software development bias as well but, "an updated framework" could be pretty broad.

 

It will almost certainly included changes to the guidelines but could also include:

 

A form element in the submission form which has a link to the mandatory challenge checker (that would not only provide a reviewer information need to confirm that an appropriate checkers exists, but a cacher owner could use it to validate that the finder completed the criteria.)

 

A field in the database for persisting the link to the challenge checker.

 

An attribute which indicates that the "unknown" cache is a challenge cache.

 

A new cache type.

 

At the end of the day, we really have no idea what "an updated framework" entails and it most certainly might require a significant amount of programming.