Jump to content

Moratorium update


Recommended Posts

Eventually, I might be able to run a suite of challenge checkers on another geocacher and be able to see almost all of the information that that geocacher currently is hiding on their GS Statistics Page and Project-GC Profile Stats.

 

By looking at their list of finds, you can do that faster and more easily in many cases.

Moreover, the many stats and ranking lists of project gc provide a lot of information anyway. Take e.g. longest streak - of course those who block their individual stat page, are still displayed in the diverse ranking lists of project gc.

Link to comment

...I need more coffee. The small quote thread didn't include the part about desktop vs mobile software for checkers. Getting the thread strands mixed up. :laughing:

 

While I realise that the urge to simply disagree with me may be high

You're wrong on the internet.

 

Ah - that explains it :)

 

I did wonder if the cheese had slid off your cracker when I read it :lol:

Link to comment

Eventually, I might be able to run a suite of challenge checkers on another geocacher and be able to see almost all of the information that that geocacher currently is hiding on their GS Statistics Page and Project-GC Profile Stats.

By looking at their list of finds, you can do that faster and more easily in many cases.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're saying here. Are you talking about going to another geocacher's GS Profile page, clicking on their "Geocaches" tab, and clicking on the "All Geocache Finds" link? That shows me all their finds, but it doesn't show me their statistics (except for a "Cache Types" table along the way). I suppose there might be some program out there that I could feed all that information into and generate the statistics, but that probably would be much slower and harder.

 

Moreover, the many stats and ranking lists of project gc provide a lot of information anyway. Take e.g. longest streak - of course those who block their individual stat page, are still displayed in the diverse ranking lists of project gc.

Yes, but it's often hard to find information for specific individuals, especially if their longest streak (for example) is something like 10 days long.

Link to comment

Yes, but it's often hard to find information for specific individuals, especially if their longest streak (for example) is something like 10 days long.

 

PCG offers a stat compare function for paying members which allows to compare much more than challenge checkers can provide you with. I was amazed when I was shown that it displays.

PCG even has a point system where many types of usages, including challenge checkers and other features, provides you with points and badges based on these points.

It's a very competitive site.

 

One can discuss about these aspects, but I would not use the term privacy as the data is available anyhow to anyone - it's only a matter of having more or less work for processing them.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Some reviewers have given us a little more insight into the actual problems, so I'd like to talk about those issues.

 

These are in response to my comment to a list ChileHead gave as examples that would be eliminated by requiring a checker. My comment was that they seemed so obvious that a reviewer would spot the problem immediately and take almost no time sending a response. So I'm commenting in the context of requirements that all rational parties -- specifically the reviewer and the person handling appeals -- would immediately see are untenable. I think these cases should be quickly handled at the expense of friendliness since the implication from ChileHead is that these types of requirements are the bulk of the problem.

 

It could be that the bulk of the problem are examples more subtle than this, but I don't know whether that's true, so I can't comment on that.

 

That is rarely how it goes. It starts that way, and then turns into a lot of email back and forth. Often followed by appeals.

When it becomes a back and forth, I think you've gone past reviewing into tutoring. That's great for other types of caches, but, as you've discovered, it doesn't scale for challenge caches. For challenge caches, the rejection letter should point to the guidelines and some places to get help. That's essentially what the checker requirement has done: force CCOs to go to project-gc for help. I suggest instead of requiring a checker and pushing it all on project-gc, the guidelines be more open: still including project-gc as an option since a checker can help sort out problems and otherwise bring clarity, but also having a new GS forum where new challenge cache ideas are discussed, including requirements that can't be confirmed by a checker, but are nevertheless sufficiently verifiable.

 

This helps you reduce the workload even on challenge caches that can be checked with a checker but are otherwise problematic in a way that would still lead to that same back and forth.

 

Why? How often do people appeal such obvious problems?

ROFL! The fact that this thread has reached 11 pages should be evidence that it's a lot.

Can you point to a post where anyone's pushing for caches with obvious problems? I think the issues being discussed in these now 13 pages are entirely different.

 

Seriously, you'd be surprised how often cache owners ignore the guidelines and say "But it's a great cache. Can you make an exception?"

I'm sure people ask for exceptions for all kinds of caches, so I assume GS is already prepared to handle the ones that simply appeal a clear cut reviewer decision. If not, here's the key: Send back "No, I can't make an exception."

 

I don't know how fast you can type a response, but 20 seconds? I just checked, and I can average about 50 words per minute. So tell me, would you be satisfied with a 20 second response from Appeals, amounting to about 15-20 words in length? Just a wild guess, but I think most people would consider that rather abrupt, if not downright rude. Of course, if everyone was as congenial as you, and just accepted a two letter response of "NO", then it would go much faster.

I don't know what would satisfy me since I would never submit a challenge cache involving finding caches with my dog, let alone appeal its rejection. I've read the guidelines. So I'm not too concerned about how satisfied someone is when they violate the guidelines then appeal after the submission is rejected for that reason. And I don't think you should be too concerned, either, and I certainly don't think it's worth you spending more that 20 seconds on it.

 

Sure, they might consider it abrupt and even rude, but it's kinda rude to submit a challenge cache without reading the guidelines. How pleasant can you be? And, after all, won't they consider it just as abrupt and rude if, instead of saying "that requirement can't be confirmed, go here for help", you say, "you don't have a checker, go here for help"?

 

If they don't accept a no, then they simply need to be straightened out about that. The challenge cache is no longer the issue. I'm sure this already happens for other types of caches, and I'm sure it will continue to happen all the time for people that don't want to have a checker.

 

10 seconds assumes the only thing you are looking at is the Challenge portion of the Listing. Chances are, there are more issues besides the Challenge portion. ...

Yes, I am speaking only about the parts that are specific to challenge caches since, after all, we're talking about the problems with challenge caches.

 

... I often had to refer to the Help Center article (and will probably do so in the future), just to make sure I wasn't missing something. ...

Could you explain this more? This thread is about the requirement for a checker, so are you talking about worrying about missing something concerning verification? Or are you talking about more complex issues that wouldn't be solved by requiring a checker anyway?

 

... As far as "stock answer's" go, if it's not a Proximity issue and a handful of common pitfalls, the vast majority of my notes are specifically crafted for each Listing. 10 seconds? Not even close :huh:

The stated problem is that challenge caches take too much reviewer time, so adding a personal touch seems an inappropriate excess in the case of an obvious challenge verification failure. It goes without saying that detailed explanations are much appreciated, but in the case of a verification problem, it immediately crosses the line into tutoring which, as I explained earlier in this note, is a bottomless pit for challenge caches that should be pushed off to other places. After all, with the new guidelines, if the cache doesn't have a checker, that's exactly what you're going to do, anyway, isn't it? What specific crafting can you use when rejecting a listing that lacks a checker?

 

Have you ever worked any kind of customer support? People would appeal the laws of nature if they only know where to send the complaint to.

Perhaps this attitude is part of the problem: this isn't a customer support issue. This is a club member violating the rules, and then complaining when they're caught.

Link to comment
One can discuss about these aspects, but I would not use the term privacy as the data is available anyhow to anyone - it's only a matter of having more or less work for processing them.

 

A similar term would be obfuscation.

Everything needed is technically publicly accessible, but is 'hidden', whether by lack of direct reference or by requiring an unreasonable amount of work to an average person. Dissuade accessing the data by placing numerous hurdles. (right down to the system administration level - if a smart hacker tries to gain access to a server, it essentially becomes a song and dance between the system administrator keeping a step ahead of the hacker)

 

When it comes to legitimate security, obfuscation is not secure at all. All it takes is one person willing to do all the work to create a tool that automates that process.

 

For GC, the amount of work necessary to get an accurate representation of a single user's caching-career statistics using only their publicly visible Find logs is pretty significant. You could download their finds page by page from their summary view, or you could query (excluding archived) caches found by them then parse out the Find logs.

So the question is, is it feasible? To the average person, not likely. Nor likely to most people. It would take some breed of stalker to want that sort of access.

 

..especially if said cacher realizes that "privacy" in the context of geocaching finds is really not privacy at all. Personal account info is private. But Finds history? It's just harder to be analyzed if you lock it down and keep the stats hidden.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

For GC, the amount of work necessary to get an accurate representation of a single user's caching-career statistics using only their publicly visible Find logs is pretty significant. You could download their finds page by page from their summary view, or you could query (excluding archived) caches found by them then parse out the Find logs.

So the question is, is it feasible? To the average person, not likely. Nor likely to most people. It would take some breed of stalker to want that sort of access.

 

..especially if said cacher realizes that "privacy" in the context of geocaching finds is really not privacy at all. Personal account info is private. But Finds history? It's just harder to be analyzed if you lock it down and keep the stats hidden.

As geocaching.com already has a published API available to retrive all logs for a given user, the work needed to get a complete list of what, when and where you have cached is pretty easy to obtain. There is at least one Gsak macro available where the only thing you need to do is to install this macro and then type in a nickname.

 

Not saying that this kind of privacy is not an important thing, but as GC already is exposing this kind of data, there will be nothing new here for the average Joe Stalker.

Link to comment

As geocaching.com already has a published API available to retrive all logs for a given user, the work needed to get a complete list of what, when and where you have cached is pretty easy to obtain. There is at least one Gsak macro available where the only thing you need to do is to install this macro and then type in a nickname.

 

Not saying that this kind of privacy is not an important thing, but as GC already is exposing this kind of data, there will be nothing new here for the average Joe Stalker.

Right, and thus: cachers should realize "that 'privacy' in the context of geocaching finds is really not privacy at all. Personal account info is private. But Finds history? It's just harder to be analyzed if you lock it down and keep the stats hidden."

 

Does the API allow returning find logs for another user on archived caches? The API search (as mentioned above) can retrieve all caches found by a user, but unless I'm mistaken, that's not an exhaustive list as it doesn't include archivals. Not the same a MyFinds PQ, for example.

Link to comment

-- GSAK requires a Windows machine, which is not available to Mac users.

Don't see how this is relevant that is like saying you can't have QR codes because I don't have a smart phone or you can't have Chirps because not everyone can find them. I can't find caches up a tree because I can't climb them should they all be banned? In any case I believe you can run GSAK on a MAC with a windows emulator.

 

Monopolies are very bad and I think proven not to work. Variety seems a good idea to me so why not allow GSAK which makes some checking easier.

 

I suggest The fundamental issue here is that not everyone has to be able to find every cache which seems to be forgotten quite often.

The PGC checker requirement is about whether someone can hide a challenge cache, not about whether someone can find a challenge cache. If a cacher wants to use GSAK to determine whether they've qualified for a challenge, then they can still do that. Heck, if someone just 'knows' they qualify for a challenge (ie, a cacher has 1000 finds and the challenge is for 200 finds), then they can probably just log the challenge as 'Found It' without running a checker at all. Of course, we still don't know the full scope of the new CC rules. Maybe CC finder will be 'required' to run the PGC checker before logging a find, or maybe the PGC checker will output some 'proof' that the CC finder has to include in their find log. We won't know that for a few weeks.

 

But if a cacher wants to hide a challenge cache, then they need to ensure there is a widely available resource to verify a cacher's qualifications toward that challenge. It seems apparent that GS wants to make challenge caches more available to a wider range of cachers, so I don't foresee them allowing checkers that require PM status (mygeocachingprofile.com) or Windows capabiliies (GSAK, whether through having a Windows machine or having some technical way to run Windows on a Mac).

 

If MyGeocachingProfile and GSAK are additional options as checkers I don't see how those constraints are an issue. While GSAK is a windows application it also has web website that could host checkers. Both are official geocaching partners with access to the API and both could provide an additional service (hosting challenge checkers) independent of their existing services.

The original question was:

Does this mean they won't allow MyGeocachingProfile or GSAK Macros?

My interpretation of that question was about the near-future. About what the current checker announcement includes. Could there be other options for permissable checkers in the future? I'm sure there will be. But the current announcement is that PGC is the only option.

 

------------------------------------------------

As a footnote, I am not a fan of the challenge checker requirement and opposed such an idea back in December. I also agree that "not everyone has to be able to find every cache".

I made this comment several pages ago:

"If cachers couldn't figure out whether or not they qualified for a challenge, then they should've just not logged the challenge. Reminds me of the 'participation trophy' mentality."

Edited by noncentric
Link to comment

Does the API allow returning find logs for another user on archived caches? The API search (as mentioned above) can retrieve all caches found by a user, but unless I'm mistaken, that's not an exhaustive list as it doesn't include archivals. Not the same a MyFinds PQ, for example.

The PGC checkers will show another user's finds on caches that are now archived. It will also show my own finds on caches that are now archived.

Link to comment

Does the API allow returning find logs for another user on archived caches? The API search (as mentioned above) can retrieve all caches found by a user, but unless I'm mistaken, that's not an exhaustive list as it doesn't include archivals. Not the same a MyFinds PQ, for example.

All logs is available this way, not only finds, but also NM, NA, DNF's, notes, will attends and whatnot. And also for archived caches.

Link to comment

Interesting. So PGC does have direct and immedaite access to every single log of any log type posted by any user on gc.com? (the results of which are visible to any person who creates and/or executes a script that retrieves that info for any other user?)

 

ETA: admittedly, this is getting off topic from challenge checking to privacy settings =P

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Interesting. So PGC does have direct and immedaite access to every single log of any log type posted by any user on gc.com? (the results of which are visible to any person who creates and/or executes a script that retrieves that info for any other user?)

 

ETA: admittedly, this is getting off topic from challenge checking to privacy settings =P

 

Technically no. Project-GC does have access to the vast majority of the database, but it isn't 100%. Benchmarks, Waymarks and Lab Caches are not available. That is where at least streaks and milestone checkers won't match what is displayed in a users profile on the Groundspeak website.

Link to comment

Interesting. So PGC does have direct and immedaite access to every single log of any log type posted by any user on gc.com? (the results of which are visible to any person who creates and/or executes a script that retrieves that info for any other user?)

 

ETA: admittedly, this is getting off topic from challenge checking to privacy settings =P

 

Technically no. Project-GC does have access to the vast majority of the database, but it isn't 100%. Benchmarks, Waymarks and Lab Caches are not available. That is where at least streaks and milestone checkers won't match what is displayed in a users profile on the Groundspeak website.

Not to mention, even total find count won't match for someone that has any Lab Cache finds. As someone that likes things to match, this really bothers me. <_<

 

Regarding PGC and privacy, Cacher-1 cannot run a check for Cacher-2 that references Cacher-2's home coordinates. That might eliminate another category of challenges.

 

Even when looking at Profile Stats on PGC, what is shown to Cacher-1 for Cacher-1 is different than what is shown to Cacher-1 for Cacher-2. For example, I can see my own stats for degrees from home and distance from home, but if I enter another cacher's username then those stats do not appear for me.

Link to comment

If I created a challenge cache to "find 10 caches that have the word 'cemetery' in the title", that is something that is very easy to design: If [Title] Like "Cemetery" Then Acceptable. A perfect use of a checker to scan the database quickly. But, what if the title has "Cematery" or "Cemetary" or some other spelling mistake. The query would skip over those, even though they should be acceptable. GSAK lets me manually flag those caches, throw them into my log and I can add a footnote explaining the spelling mistakes, that someone else made.

 

It would be just as easy for the checker writer to include such caches as well. Either simply counted as part of the result or as a side note to people who technically don't qualify using correct spelling: "Here are a couple more caches that seem meant to qualify you, perhaps you can use them as well if the CO permits?"

Link to comment

Some reviewers have given us a little more insight into the actual problems, so I'd like to talk about those issues.

 

These are in response to my comment to a list ChileHead gave as examples that would be eliminated by requiring a checker. My comment was that they seemed so obvious that a reviewer would spot the problem immediately and take almost no time sending a response. So I'm commenting in the context of requirements that all rational parties -- specifically the reviewer and the person handling appeals -- would immediately see are untenable. I think these cases should be quickly handled at the expense of friendliness since the implication from ChileHead is that these types of requirements are the bulk of the problem.

 

It could be that the bulk of the problem are examples more subtle than this, but I don't know whether that's true, so I can't comment on that.

 

That is rarely how it goes. It starts that way, and then turns into a lot of email back and forth. Often followed by appeals.

When it becomes a back and forth, I think you've gone past reviewing into tutoring. That's great for other types of caches, but, as you've discovered, it doesn't scale for challenge caches. For challenge caches, the rejection letter should point to the guidelines and some places to get help. That's essentially what the checker requirement has done: force CCOs to go to project-gc for help. I suggest instead of requiring a checker and pushing it all on project-gc, the guidelines be more open: still including project-gc as an option since a checker can help sort out problems and otherwise bring clarity, but also having a new GS forum where new challenge cache ideas are discussed, including requirements that can't be confirmed by a checker, but are nevertheless sufficiently verifiable.

 

This helps you reduce the workload even on challenge caches that can be checked with a checker but are otherwise problematic in a way that would still lead to that same back and forth.

 

Why? How often do people appeal such obvious problems?

ROFL! The fact that this thread has reached 11 pages should be evidence that it's a lot.

Can you point to a post where anyone's pushing for caches with obvious problems? I think the issues being discussed in these now 13 pages are entirely different.

 

Seriously, you'd be surprised how often cache owners ignore the guidelines and say "But it's a great cache. Can you make an exception?"

I'm sure people ask for exceptions for all kinds of caches, so I assume GS is already prepared to handle the ones that simply appeal a clear cut reviewer decision. If not, here's the key: Send back "No, I can't make an exception."

 

I don't know how fast you can type a response, but 20 seconds? I just checked, and I can average about 50 words per minute. So tell me, would you be satisfied with a 20 second response from Appeals, amounting to about 15-20 words in length? Just a wild guess, but I think most people would consider that rather abrupt, if not downright rude. Of course, if everyone was as congenial as you, and just accepted a two letter response of "NO", then it would go much faster.

I don't know what would satisfy me since I would never submit a challenge cache involving finding caches with my dog, let alone appeal its rejection. I've read the guidelines. So I'm not too concerned about how satisfied someone is when they violate the guidelines then appeal after the submission is rejected for that reason. And I don't think you should be too concerned, either, and I certainly don't think it's worth you spending more that 20 seconds on it.

 

Sure, they might consider it abrupt and even rude, but it's kinda rude to submit a challenge cache without reading the guidelines. How pleasant can you be? And, after all, won't they consider it just as abrupt and rude if, instead of saying "that requirement can't be confirmed, go here for help", you say, "you don't have a checker, go here for help"?

 

If they don't accept a no, then they simply need to be straightened out about that. The challenge cache is no longer the issue. I'm sure this already happens for other types of caches, and I'm sure it will continue to happen all the time for people that don't want to have a checker.

 

10 seconds assumes the only thing you are looking at is the Challenge portion of the Listing. Chances are, there are more issues besides the Challenge portion. ...

Yes, I am speaking only about the parts that are specific to challenge caches since, after all, we're talking about the problems with challenge caches.

 

... I often had to refer to the Help Center article (and will probably do so in the future), just to make sure I wasn't missing something. ...

Could you explain this more? This thread is about the requirement for a checker, so are you talking about worrying about missing something concerning verification? Or are you talking about more complex issues that wouldn't be solved by requiring a checker anyway?

 

... As far as "stock answer's" go, if it's not a Proximity issue and a handful of common pitfalls, the vast majority of my notes are specifically crafted for each Listing. 10 seconds? Not even close :huh:

The stated problem is that challenge caches take too much reviewer time, so adding a personal touch seems an inappropriate excess in the case of an obvious challenge verification failure. It goes without saying that detailed explanations are much appreciated, but in the case of a verification problem, it immediately crosses the line into tutoring which, as I explained earlier in this note, is a bottomless pit for challenge caches that should be pushed off to other places. After all, with the new guidelines, if the cache doesn't have a checker, that's exactly what you're going to do, anyway, isn't it? What specific crafting can you use when rejecting a listing that lacks a checker?

 

Have you ever worked any kind of customer support? People would appeal the laws of nature if they only know where to send the complaint to.

Perhaps this attitude is part of the problem: this isn't a customer support issue. This is a club member violating the rules, and then complaining when they're caught.

I'm sorry, but I've reached my character limit on this thread. Hopefully, my brief response will suffice as acknowledgement of your concerns and suggestions. Thank you for your input.

Link to comment
Does the API allow returning find logs for another user on archived caches? The API search (as mentioned above) can retrieve all caches found by a user, but unless I'm mistaken, that's not an exhaustive list as it doesn't include archivals. Not the same a MyFinds PQ, for example.

As others have said, the API will return logs on archived caches. Not only that, but if I specifically ask for them, the API will also return logs that have been archived. Nothing is sacred. :ninja:

Link to comment

I'd be more interested in seeing what sorts of challenges that currently exist can't have checkers written for them, and what would have to change either on the GC side or on the project-gc side to make the viable.

There are some challenges, like the Oldies Challenge Cache, that require geocachers to find the oldest cache in a number of jurisdictions. Does the Groundspeak API provide Project-GC with a reasonably efficient way to automatically determine which currently active cache has the oldest "Date Placed" in a particular state (1 point), country (2 points), and world (3 points)? Based on one paragraph in that challenge cache's description, it sounds like even humans have a difficult time agreeing on the oldest active caches in certain jurisdiction(s) (e.g., Ohio, U.S.A.).

 

The above challenge also allows you to count an archived cache if it was the oldest active cache in that jurisdiction on the date you found it. Does the Groundspeak API also provide a reasonable way to determine if a specified cache was the oldest active cache on a specified date (e.g., the date the geocacher found that cache)?

 

If either of these issues is problematic for checkers, then this could be another situation where an amendable list might be needed for a checker to be written. I'm unsure how much work would be involved in keeping such a list current.

 

ETA: Here's a similar but simpler challenge cache: Calgary's Oldest Caches Challenge. If I specify a polygon area, can Groundspeak's API determine the 54 oldest active caches within that polygon? Or would the checker need a manually amendable list of the oldest caches?

 

ETA: And another: Challenge: Oldest Caches.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Checking for oldest cache in ...

 

To me this calls for a list gccode, start-date, end-date that is provided by the owner and a clear definition what counts at oldest cache in .. at a certain date.

 

Hidden dates can be changed. Owners were able to delete archive-logs. Some caches were un-archived after long time. Some caches might have been disabled for months or years (yes, this happens), so one would think the next cache should qualify, but only during that period ...

 

And a definition what is (not) a qualfying find like online logging of then missing or archived caches, logging with a date before the date that is shown in 'member since' (maybe allow if the account is stated where a new account was split off) ...

Link to comment

Now I maybe changing the subject but I think I am still on topic. Wasn't one of the other minor issues were that the CO can not deny someone signing the logsheet and posting a note on the cache page prior to completing the challenge as long as they don't log a find on it?

I myself haven't ran into any but I know others have gotten messages saying they can't sign the logsheet or post a note that they signed it. That they have to complete the challenge first before finding the cache.

Edited by jellis
Link to comment

I'd be more interested in seeing what sorts of challenges that currently exist can't have checkers written for them, and what would have to change either on the GC side or on the project-gc side to make the viable.

There are some challenges, like the Oldies Challenge Cache, that require geocachers to find the oldest cache in a number of jurisdictions. Does the Groundspeak API provide Project-GC with a reasonably efficient way to automatically determine which currently active cache has the oldest "Date Placed" in a particular state (1 point), country (2 points), and world (3 points)? Based on one paragraph in that challenge cache's description, it sounds like even humans have a difficult time agreeing on the oldest active caches in certain jurisdiction(s) (e.g., Ohio, U.S.A.).

 

The above challenge also allows you to count an archived cache if it was the oldest active cache in that jurisdiction on the date you found it. Does the Groundspeak API also provide a reasonable way to determine if a specified cache was the oldest active cache on a specified date (e.g., the date the geocacher found that cache)?

 

If either of these issues is problematic for checkers, then this could be another situation where an amendable list might be needed for a checker to be written. I'm unsure how much work would be involved in keeping such a list current.

 

ETA: Here's a similar but simpler challenge cache: Calgary's Oldest Caches Challenge. If I specify a polygon area, can Groundspeak's API determine the 54 oldest active caches within that polygon? Or would the checker need a manually amendable list of the oldest caches?

 

ETA: And another: Challenge: Oldest Caches.

Aren't there some caches with bogus start dates when they change the dates that it was placed? I did a search once for oldest caches and had some hits on ones that clearly were bogus by looking at the publish date and the real old ones don't have publish dates.

Link to comment

Now I maybe changing the subject but I think I am still on topic. Wasn't one of the other minor issues were that the CO can not deny someone signing the logsheet and posting a note on the cache page prior to completing the challenge as long as they don't log a find on it?

I myself haven't ran into any but I know others have gotten messages saying they can't sign the logsheet or post a note that they signed it. That they have to complete the challenge first before finding the cache.

 

From the guidelines:

Geocachers may sign a challenge cache's physical log at any time. However, the challenge cache may be logged as found online only after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented.

 

This is, obviously, from the pre-moratorium guidelines.

Link to comment
Does this mean they won't allow MyGeocachingProfile or GSAK Macros?
From the original announcement (emphasis mine):

 

"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."

 

My interpretation of this is that MyGeocachingProfile, as a web-based service, could possibly host the required challenge checkers at some point in the future. However, at this time, it is not an approved website for hosting the required challenge checkers.

 

And GSAK, which is not a web-based service, cannot host the required challenge checkers.

 

Of course, if someone wants to provide additional challenge checkers beyond the required one(s), then I would expect that would be allowed. But at this time, the required challenge checker must be hosted on Project-GC.

 

Also, I would expect the Listing Guidelines for All Geocaches to remain in effect, specifically:

 

"Geocache listings that require additional website registration, installs or downloads are generally not publishable."

 

That also makes it unlikely that GSAK could be used for the required challenge checker.

Link to comment

Now I maybe changing the subject but I think I am still on topic. Wasn't one of the other minor issues were that the CO can not deny someone signing the logsheet and posting a note on the cache page prior to completing the challenge as long as they don't log a find on it?

I myself haven't ran into any but I know others have gotten messages saying they can't sign the logsheet or post a note that they signed it. That they have to complete the challenge first before finding the cache.

 

The pre-moratorium challenge cache guidelines stated that:

12. Geocachers may sign a challenge cache's physical log at any time. However, the challenge cache may be logged as found online only after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented.

IIRC, the only challenges that could have the 'no pre-signing' rule would be those that were published prior to 3/12/2012. I suppose it's possible that the as-of-yet announced challenge cache guidelines would mandate that pre-signing must be allowed on ALL challenges, even the grandfathered ones. Not sure if that will happen or not, but I'm sure pre-signing will still have to be allowed on any post-moratorium challenge caches.

Link to comment

Not sure if that will happen or not, but I'm sure pre-signing will still have to be allowed on any post-moratorium challenge caches.

 

It's not only about the order. There have been some challenge cache owners out there who wanted to forbid cachers who have not qualified to visit their caches and document this by a note.

Link to comment

Some of my favourite challenge caches have been thematic (25 Christmas words), letter-based (first letter of caches spelling out a phrase) or map-based (caches in X squares on walking map number X) - none of these are going to be possible and it will all be down to number crunching. To improve what exactly? Big thumbs down from me.

 

Certainly some won't be possible; others will need to be based on a list (e.g the Christmas words).

 

If for the X squares on a walking map you mean the Explorer challenges, they are already possible via a checker. E.g. http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC45EC2/

Link to comment

Not sure if that will happen or not, but I'm sure pre-signing will still have to be allowed on any post-moratorium challenge caches.

 

It's not only about the order. There have been some challenge cache owners out there who wanted to forbid cachers who have not qualified to visit their caches and document this by a note.

Then maybe that guideline will be re-written to clarify the order and what the CC CO can/cannot allow. If not for all challenge caches, then at least for the post-moratorium challenge caches.

Link to comment
Does this mean they won't allow MyGeocachingProfile or GSAK Macros?
From the original announcement (emphasis mine):

 

"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."

 

My interpretation of this is that MyGeocachingProfile, as a web-based service, could possibly host the required challenge checkers at some point in the future. However, at this time, it is not an approved website for hosting the required challenge checkers.

 

And GSAK, which is not a web-based service, cannot host the required challenge checkers.

 

Of course, if someone wants to provide additional challenge checkers beyond the required one(s), then I would expect that would be allowed. But at this time, the required challenge checker must be hosted on Project-GC.

 

Also, I would expect the Listing Guidelines for All Geocaches to remain in effect, specifically:

 

"Geocache listings that require additional website registration, installs or downloads are generally not publishable."

 

That also makes it unlikely that GSAK could be used for the required challenge checker.

 

Not to be pedantic but while gsak.exe is a native application, gsak.net is a web application (at least the GSAK forum section is). If they had the blessing from GS, they could add checkers to the gsak.net web site.

 

 

Link to comment

Some of my favourite challenge caches have been thematic (25 Christmas words), letter-based (first letter of caches spelling out a phrase) or map-based (caches in X squares on walking map number X) - none of these are going to be possible and it will all be down to number crunching. To improve what exactly? Big thumbs down from me.

 

Certainly some won't be possible; others will need to be based on a list (e.g the Christmas words).

 

If for the X squares on a walking map you mean the Explorer challenges, they are already possible via a checker. E.g. http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC45EC2/

 

Yes those are the map ones I meant - I'd used http://www.cgtk.co.uk/ and even helped him set one up - that's good then (the map of my home area is not yet covered)

Link to comment

Project-GC does have access to the vast majority of the database, but it isn't 100%. Benchmarks, Waymarks and Lab Caches are not available. That is where at least streaks and milestone checkers won't match what is displayed in a users profile on the Groundspeak website.

Project-GC seems to have access to a geocacher's Souvenirs and Trackables data. So, I'm guessing they also have access to the Gallery data. But my quick Project-GC search for "gallery," "photo," and "picture" in Canadian and U.S. checkers resulted in no checkers.

 

If Gallery data isn't available, then new challenges like 500 Photos Challenge, Picture This! Challenge, and Gallery Challenge won't be possible in the future.

Link to comment

Project-GC seems to have access to a geocacher's Souvenirs and Trackables data. So, I'm guessing they also have access to the Gallery data. But my quick Project-GC search for "gallery," "photo," and "picture" in Canadian and U.S. checkers resulted in no checkers.

 

If Gallery data isn't available, then new challenges like 500 Photos Challenge, Picture This! Challenge, and Gallery Challenge won't be possible in the future.

 

Project-gc includes a badge for the number of uploaded gallery photos. So they apparently have the number of photos.

Link to comment
Not sure if that will happen or not, but I'm sure pre-signing will still have to be allowed on any post-moratorium challenge caches.

 

Implementation of the Challenge Stars feature would negate this as an issue.

 

 

Not to be pedantic but while gsak.exe is a native application, gsak.net is a web application (at least the GSAK forum section is). If they had the blessing from GS, they could add checkers to the gsak.net web site.

 

Or, move GSAK to the GS servers: [FEATURE] Hosted GSAK

Link to comment

In regards to pre-signing, geocachers are allowed to pre-sign ALL challenge caches, old and new. According to Rock Chalk (a Groundspeak lackey), in a different thread:

 

But it should be noted that older challenge caches were grandfathered in and can still prohibit pre-signing. (At least that's my understanding.)

I can see how there might be some confusion on that. But being grandfathered only means that a challenge cache with qualifying requirements that wouldn't be permitted today may still exist if published before 3/12/12. COs cannot prohibit "pre-signing" of any challenge cache, no matter when it was published. [emphasis added]

Link to comment
Not to be pedantic but while gsak.exe is a native application, gsak.net is a web application (at least the GSAK forum section is). If they had the blessing from GS, they could add checkers to the gsak.net web site.

Totally different animals.

 

The GSAK native application has access to all of the geocache data that you have downloaded to your computer. The GSAK website does not have this data.

 

The Project GC site has been building it's database for years and now has a fairly complete database of caches, and many but not all of the logs. Another website could certainly enter the arena, but it will take a while to build it's database to a useful level.

Link to comment

The Project GC site has been building it's database for years and now has a fairly complete database of caches, and many but not all of the logs. Another website could certainly enter the arena, but it will take a while to build it's database to a useful level.

 

I'm not entirely sure this is correct. Maybe I missed something, but I thought Project-GC read the files off of the Groundspeak servers. I didn't think they actually downloaded all the information to their own servers.

Link to comment

Project-GC does have access to the vast majority of the database, but it isn't 100%. Benchmarks, Waymarks and Lab Caches are not available. That is where at least streaks and milestone checkers won't match what is displayed in a users profile on the Groundspeak website.

Project-GC seems to have access to a geocacher's Souvenirs and Trackables data. So, I'm guessing they also have access to the Gallery data. But my quick Project-GC search for "gallery," "photo," and "picture" in Canadian and U.S. checkers resulted in no checkers.

 

If Gallery data isn't available, then new challenges like 500 Photos Challenge, Picture This! Challenge, and Gallery Challenge won't be possible in the future.

 

And where is this a geocaching-related challenge?

Link to comment

I have looked all over the PGC website, and looked at a number of the checker scripts. However, I could not find any documentation on the objects available to script writers, nor could I find any documentation on what was and was not allowed in a tag. In addition, the majority of the scripts that I looked at had no internal documentation.

 

This concerns me going forward. When PGC was just a really nice stats system, a lack of readily accessible documentation was not a big deal. But now, PGC will be playing a more significant role with respect to geocaching. As it stands right now, I don't see the documentation that would allow me to easily determine if a checker would work for my (hypothetical) challenge cache. I also don't see the documentation to make it easy to write a tag. In a past life, I was a computer programmer, LUA coding does not look terribly difficult. However, if this lack of documentation makes it hard for me, imagine how hard it makes it for a CCO without programming experience. I know that my hypothetical CCO can get on the forums and ask, but that may take some time. I would hope that PGC would up its game to make checkers and tags a bit more transparent. I would also hope that script writers would add a bit more documentation, especially about the names and allowed values for any parameters that are required in the tags. I'm hoping that all of this is available, and that I can't see it because I'm not permitted to submit scripts and tags.

Link to comment

I don't see a problem with the process of publishing a challenge cache being less accessible. Part of the benefit is that while there's less 'traffic' as it were, there's also more effort. Less review, more intent. Since the moratorium that seemed to be the first and foremost concern from TPTB. It shouldn't be as easy to publish a challenge cache as it is a traditional. Just like an Earthcache requires a whole lot of effort (relatively speaking).

Link to comment

Project-GC does have access to the vast majority of the database, but it isn't 100%. Benchmarks, Waymarks and Lab Caches are not available. That is where at least streaks and milestone checkers won't match what is displayed in a users profile on the Groundspeak website.

Project-GC seems to have access to a geocacher's Souvenirs and Trackables data. So, I'm guessing they also have access to the Gallery data. But my quick Project-GC search for "gallery," "photo," and "picture" in Canadian and U.S. checkers resulted in no checkers.

 

If Gallery data isn't available, then new challenges like 500 Photos Challenge, Picture This! Challenge, and Gallery Challenge won't be possible in the future.

And where is this a geocaching-related challenge?

The Gallery pages are part of geocachers' GS Profile pages. Most geocachers use their Gallery pages to upload mostly geocaching-related images. I'd say Galleries generally are as much geocaching-related as Souvenirs and Trackables. Reviewers, at least, seem to agree with that notion as they have published multiple Gallery-related challenge caches.

Link to comment

I don't see a problem with the process of publishing a challenge cache being less accessible. Part of the benefit is that while there's less 'traffic' as it were, there's also more effort. Less review, more intent. Since the moratorium that seemed to be the first and foremost concern from TPTB. It shouldn't be as easy to publish a challenge cache as it is a traditional. Just like an Earthcache requires a whole lot of effort (relatively speaking).

 

I completely agree. There has been a lot of discussion here about mandatory challenge checkers but I don't think I've seen anything about *why* GS has decided to require a challenge checker. What problem is it specifically trying to solve?

 

We've been told that one of the major reasons for the moratorium was the disproportionate amount of time reviewers had to spend on challenge caches and the number of appeals related to CC's. Will the requirement of a challenge checker solve (or at least significantly reduce this problem?). Time will tell, but it's almost certainly going to reduce the number of Challenge Caches that can be published simply because some of them might be so complex that a checker can not easily be written.

 

Personally, I see the reduction of unnecessarily complex challenge caches as a good thing, but I fear that instead we'll see more nearly identical variations on challenges just so that some can become challenge cache owners. If there is a "Find 20 caches with a 4.5/2 D/T rating" do we really need a "Find 22 caches with a 4.5/2 rating".

 

Don't create a Challenge Cache every 600' just because you can.

 

 

 

Link to comment
And where is this a geocaching-related challenge?

I'd like to know how a word-based challenge is geocaching related?

 

It is geocaching related in the sense that one needs to go out and find geocaches to qualify. For trackable challenges and gallery challenges this is not the case.

Geocaching can either mean the actual activity or the site of Groundspeak. Personally, I think that the real intent of the "geocaching related" in the guidelines was only to get rid of arbitrary additional logging requirements like wearing a funny hat and taking a picture and not really to only award geocaching related achievements.

 

I observed that in North America there seem to be both very easy and very hard challenge caches while most challenge caches I have seen in continental Europe require a lot of caching and or at least power days or a lot of travelling.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I don't see a problem with the process of publishing a challenge cache being less accessible. Part of the benefit is that while there's less 'traffic' as it were, there's also more effort. Less review, more intent. Since the moratorium that seemed to be the first and foremost concern from TPTB. It shouldn't be as easy to publish a challenge cache as it is a traditional. Just like an Earthcache requires a whole lot of effort (relatively speaking).

 

I completely agree. There has been a lot of discussion here about mandatory challenge checkers but I don't think I've seen anything about *why* GS has decided to require a challenge checker. What problem is it specifically trying to solve? We've been told that one of the major reasons for the moratorium was the disproportionate amount of time reviewers had to spend on challenge caches and the number of appeals related to CC's. Will the requirement of a challenge checker solve (or at least significantly reduce this problem?). Time will tell, but it's almost certainly going to reduce the number of Challenge Caches that can be published simply because some of them might be so complex that a checker can not easily be written.

Exactly, requiring a checker reduces the reviewer load. No checker? No continue until there is. Can't get/make a checker? Not allowed. No more back and forth about what is feasible as a challenge. To me that's a quick and dirty new addition to the process which does directly affect the primary concern they had.

 

Personally, I see the reduction of unnecessarily complex challenge caches as a good thing, but I fear that instead we'll see more nearly identical variations on challenges just so that some can become challenge cache owners. If there is a "Find 20 caches with a 4.5/2 D/T rating" do we really need a "Find 22 caches with a 4.5/2 rating".

 

Don't create a Challenge Cache every 600' just because you can.

However, we can, and we do. And if we don't want to find them, we don't have to. If/when oversaturation of simple/duplicate challenges becomes a clear and present problem, GS will likely address it, and if we ever get 81 challenges 161m apart to find 20 for every DT combo, the reviewer(s) will be making a judgement call at that time. *shrug*

Link to comment

I don't see a problem with the process of publishing a challenge cache being less accessible. Part of the benefit is that while there's less 'traffic' as it were, there's also more effort. Less review, more intent. Since the moratorium that seemed to be the first and foremost concern from TPTB. It shouldn't be as easy to publish a challenge cache as it is a traditional. Just like an Earthcache requires a whole lot of effort (relatively speaking).

I agree with you completely, but I suspect we reach different conclusions. You're saying this by way of justifying forcing a CCO to go to project-gc and figure out how to get a checker. But my thinking is that this means the reviewers and GS are free to be a little short with people submitting challenge caches when it's clear they just don't know what they're doing. I think "you don't know enough" is just as reasonable a response as "you don't have a checker", although "it doesn't look like you know enough, but if you provide a checker, I'll be more inclined to change my mind" would be even better.

Link to comment

I agree with you completely, but I suspect we reach different conclusions. You're saying this by way of justifying forcing a CCO to go to project-gc and figure out how to get a checker. But my thinking is that this means the reviewers and GS are free to be a little short with people submitting challenge caches when it's clear they just don't know what they're doing. I think "you don't know enough" is just as reasonable a response as "you don't have a checker", although "it doesn't look like you know enough, but if you provide a checker, I'll be more inclined to change my mind" would be even better.

I guess it depends on how much we trust the reviewers to be reasonable judges :) it's all speculation at this point; but strictly speaking, it'll take a load off the top of reviewer publishing work. Is that lesser load reasonable? Dunno... :ph34r:

Link to comment

I have looked all over the PGC website, and looked at a number of the checker scripts. However, I could not find any documentation on the objects available to script writers, nor could I find any documentation on what was and was not allowed in a tag. In addition, the majority of the scripts that I looked at had no internal documentation.

 

This concerns me going forward. When PGC was just a really nice stats system, a lack of readily accessible documentation was not a big deal. But now, PGC will be playing a more significant role with respect to geocaching. As it stands right now, I don't see the documentation that would allow me to easily determine if a checker would work for my (hypothetical) challenge cache. I also don't see the documentation to make it easy to write a tag. In a past life, I was a computer programmer, LUA coding does not look terribly difficult. However, if this lack of documentation makes it hard for me, imagine how hard it makes it for a CCO without programming experience. I know that my hypothetical CCO can get on the forums and ask, but that may take some time. I would hope that PGC would up its game to make checkers and tags a bit more transparent. I would also hope that script writers would add a bit more documentation, especially about the names and allowed values for any parameters that are required in the tags. I'm hoping that all of this is available, and that I can't see it because I'm not permitted to submit scripts and tags.

 

There is documentation both about the standard Lua functions that are available and the PGC-added Lua functions to get att geocaching data. This documentation is only visible if you have the checker-writer privileges, though. There is also a forum for checker writers.

Link to comment

I have looked all over the PGC website, and looked at a number of the checker scripts. However, I could not find any documentation on the objects available to script writers, nor could I find any documentation on what was and was not allowed in a tag. In addition, the majority of the scripts that I looked at had no internal documentation.

 

This concerns me going forward. When PGC was just a really nice stats system, a lack of readily accessible documentation was not a big deal. But now, PGC will be playing a more significant role with respect to geocaching. As it stands right now, I don't see the documentation that would allow me to easily determine if a checker would work for my (hypothetical) challenge cache. I also don't see the documentation to make it easy to write a tag. In a past life, I was a computer programmer, LUA coding does not look terribly difficult. However, if this lack of documentation makes it hard for me, imagine how hard it makes it for a CCO without programming experience. I know that my hypothetical CCO can get on the forums and ask, but that may take some time. I would hope that PGC would up its game to make checkers and tags a bit more transparent. I would also hope that script writers would add a bit more documentation, especially about the names and allowed values for any parameters that are required in the tags. I'm hoping that all of this is available, and that I can't see it because I'm not permitted to submit scripts and tags.

 

There is documentation both about the standard Lua functions that are available and the PGC-added Lua functions to get att geocaching data. This documentation is only visible if you have the checker-writer privileges, though. There is also a forum for checker writers.

That's what I thought, thanks for confirming it. I would lobby for releasing the documentation to all, it would give a CCO creator the option to directly research whether or not a checker would meet their needs.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...