Jump to content

Return of challenge caches


Recommended Posts

Here's the important difference between challenge vs non-challenge caches: the challenge caches can't be logged unless you qualify.

 

Tree climber? Find a nimble friend. Evil nano? Gatherer sharp-eyed patient help. On a mountain? Hire a professional guide or a helicopter. Hard puzzle? Brute force the checker, rule out proximity, puzzle solving groups, etc. Another finder could even take you right to the cache.

 

Probably close to 99% of non-challenge caches could be logged by 99% of cachers with the right help. Yet you could potentially find a trail of 100 challenge caches without being able to log a Find on most of them.

Sounds like a personal problem!

 

Matters not that power trail microspew is taking over the landscape. It's what's pushed and is what's selling these days. But then we see an example like the one above, showing a little trail of CCs and now the world is lost. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

One challenge that remained unfound for ages including finding three caches in 24 hours in 3 different time zones on three continents. It was a micro in a prime location. :blink:

 

This is a great example of the kind of trash that has passed for a challenge cache in the past.

 

No doubt the CO will protest that after all the effort taken to qualify, the finder will be grateful for a nice, easy find with little effort but personally I say the opposite is true - if you expect me to pull my tripes out to qualify for your challenge - hide a cache that's worth my effort. Try to claim that I had a fantastic experience because of your challenge cache and therefore it matters not that yours is a tube the size of a gnat's nethers with a mouldy scrap of paper in it, thrown in a ditch at the side of the road and it'll be quite obvious that you're delusional :laughing:

Link to comment

Can we hear more about this story? Does this kind of thing happen often?

"Often" is kind of a relative term, but here is one local example:

Wait, that's an example of a problem you think needs solved?? "Relative", indeed: that series is wildly popular. Let's just look at the 4 northern most:

 

We need more problems like this.

 

I've even found a couple further south myself. (As a "newbie" before I'd been caching a year, by the way.) If you're trying to convince me GS is trying to solve a serious problem with run away challenge caches, you just completely blew it. Is that really the best you can do?

Link to comment

I had to laugh when I saw the example given for a challenge trail that was a problem. We walked it several years ago and at the time we qualified for maybe 25-33% of the ones we signed. We went back later and signed a few more; in the meantime we started qualifying for more of them. It's been fun just to keep them in the back of our minds that we will eventually qualify for all of them or maybe not. They're all doable by regular cachers who love this activity.

I'm also confused by cachers who want to get every cache in their world and therefore would easily qualify for just about every "title word" cache that exists so they should love them. Crazy challenge trails like "get 100,000 caches, get 75,000 caches, etc" shouldn't be allowed by reviewers unless placed in very unusual locations not likely to be wanted by other CO's.

Link to comment
Maybe "thebruce0" was intimidated by difficult caches when he was a newbie

dry.gif

No.

 

My first challenge cache was Tequila's 81 Proof, and I traveled far and wide to complete it 15 months after I began caching, with the help and comaraderie of numerous friends made because of it, since I didn't have the necessary personal transport to do it myself. And that's why I'll always defend Challenge Caches is a Good Thing for geocaching, newbies and veterans alike.

 

Per the original quote, I interpreted "intimidated by" as relevant to "appealing to". No, I do not recall the survey literally asking new geocachers if they were explicitly "intimidated" by difficult challenge caches. So, per dprovan's quote: "I'm wondering what method GS used to determine that newcomers would be intimidated by impossible challenges", I'd like to know where Groundspeak said part of the reasoning for the guidelines was because new geocachers were literally "intimidated" by difficult challenges. That is, that newcomers may take a step back from geocaching because of difficult challenges, as opposed to simply ignoring them (for the time being), which seems to be a distinction being made here.

 

I don't think even Groundspeak really believes newcomers are intimidated by extremely difficult caches. They allowed the cache on the International Space Station because of the positive public relations it might generate -- not because they wanted to scare people away from geocaching.

Agreed.

 

The "gotta get em all" mentality is a big part of the problem. It should be easy to ignore a cache but because many people they think they deserve to find every one, they complain about those that are too difficult and beyond their reach. Doesn't matter what kind of cache it is, they want it gone if it takes too much effort to get. Because challenge and puzzle caches usually require more steps for completion, they are the main scapegoats.

Yep. =/

Link to comment

Wait, that's an example of a problem you think needs solved??

No. You sound pretty defensive.

I really don't know how to respond to that, but I gather you don't want to talk about the example you presented, so I'll forget about it.

 

OK, so I'm back to wanting to here the story about the example Keystone mentioned where a series of impossible challenge caches were placed to keep an area off limits to geocaching.

Link to comment

So, per dprovan's quote: "I'm wondering what method GS used to determine that newcomers would be intimidated by impossible challenges", I'd like to know where Groundspeak said part of the reasoning for the guidelines was because new geocachers were literally "intimidated" by difficult challenges.

I was just responding to you:

 

As mentioned elsewhere, newcomers to the hobby shouldn't be intimidated by challenges that may take years to accomplish; that's not the feel Groundspeak wants to promote in geocaching, even if we feel that's really what gives a challenge its value in completing.

I just trusted you, so I didn't look up where the idea came from. My point is that there's no evidence that newcomers are intimidated. If you agree, we can both work to stamp out the idea instead of basing our arguments on it.

Link to comment

From the blog post, we have:

 

Challenges cannot be based on these listing elements: cache titles, cache owner names, GC Codes, or listing text. This would include such challenges as “Find a cache for every letter of the alphabet” or “Find caches with the Periodic Table symbol in the GC code.” They generally reward database management, rather than geocaching achievement. More importantly, they often lead people to place caches whose titles start with a certain letter or contain a specific word, only to help people qualify for challenges.

So right off this is puzzling, since neither rewarding database management nor encouraging people to place caches were listed as problems that led to the moratorium, the survey, or the announced changes. There's simply no justification for this change based on the statement of work. The database management "problem" is simply getting rid of a feature that people that don't like challenge caches cite as a reason. We can tell it's people that don't like challenge caches because all challenge caches reward database management, so anyone that thinks that's a problem wouldn't do them.

 

And the idea that encouraging new caches is a bad thing is ludicrous. You can only even understand why anyone would say such a thing when you know that the real issue is simply bad caches, which are being blamed on challenge caches even though the COs planting the bad caches are the clearly the only ones we can blame.

 

What makes the statement about rewarding database management particularly baffling is that there's a long standing rule against setting a start date, a rule specifically designed to prevent a CO from making a cache that's anything but database management. So we now have one rule making sure challenge caches don't reward database management and a second rule that insists all challenge caches allow database management. I'm trying really hard to be open minded, but when I see this, I can't help but think that challenge caches aren't being given much of a chance.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

You're free to believe that, of course. Since I wrote the checker it can confidently say that this is not the case, though. Project-GC gives me a list of the souvenirs you have earned (in the form av souvenir IDs) and I can then work with that to figure out if the number of type of souvenirs for the user is sufficient.

 

So this checker is easy to cheat then?

 

You can log a cache that qualifies you for a souvenir, get that souvenir, remove the log and still have that souvenir in the eyes of the checker, yes. There are lots of ways to cheat in geocaching for those that are so inclined, just like there is in solitaire. So?

 

Many of the ways to cheat are at least readily detectable by COs and finders. No name on the log means you didn't find it. Scuba attribute on a dry land cache = bogus. Terrain rating of 5 on a cache that rates a 3 at best and so on.

 

COs can, and do, place disclaimers in challenge requirements that indicate that "liar's caches" and the like will not be allowed for fulfilling a Fizzy for example. If Groundspeak decides that a checker is the "be all and end all" then there will be a proliferation of bogus cache elements to allow cachers to fulfill challenge requirements in addition to the problem of bogus logging for souvenirs.

Link to comment

What makes the statement about rewarding database management particularly baffling is that there's a long standing rule against setting a start date, a rule specifically designed to prevent a CO from making a cache that's anything but database management. So we now have one rule making sure challenge caches don't reward database management and a second rule that insists all challenge caches allow database management. I'm trying really hard to be open minded, but when I see this, I can't help but think that challenge caches aren't being given much of a chance.

Thanks for putting into words the nagging feeling that has been itching the back of my brain since the new challenges framework was announced.

 

I suspect things might have gotten a bit rushed at Groundspeak when they realized the one-year "deadline" was coming up and a new challenge framework hadn't been fully thought out yet. They might have ended up making some decisions more from the gut rather than from careful contemplation. And when it came time to justify those decisions, again not as much thought went into the explanations as should have.

 

This also might explain why Groundspeak didn't realize they were applying a double standard when they justified the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline with the "almost a private cache" rationale.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

And the idea that encouraging new caches is a bad thing is ludicrous. You can only even understand why anyone would say such a thing when you know that the real issue is simply bad caches, which are being blamed on challenge caches even though the COs planting the bad caches are the clearly the only ones we can blame.

 

Actually the issue of requiring a new cache placement as part of a Challenge actually began with one of those Coin challenges several years ago. If I remember correctly, there was a long laundry list of requirements, placing a cache being just one of several requirements in order to have the distinguished honor of purchasing some distinctive coin. The issues that surrounded that offsite challenge resulted in some crossover concern with GC Challenges.

 

If you want to blame someone, you should direct the blame in the correct direction.

Link to comment

I've been watching these forums about challenge caches closely since the moratorium but I am not sure if this has already been covered. After the new framework was announced, I applied at Project GC for a checker for a challenge I had been wanting to do for ages (and only recently qualified for myself). The process was pretty easy, the volunteers helped me straighten out a few details and then made the checker for me. The checker works well but it has one little issue. It seems that Project GC relies on map data to determine the state in which a cache is located, even though the COs have listed the state themselves. As a result, a cache that I am using to qualify for the challenge is listed as being in the wrong state (NSW) on Project GC but the right state (ACT) on geocaching.com. Expanding on this, I found a further 60 caches that fall into this criteria in my state. This seems to effect state-based challenges (as far as I have tested since yesterday :P ) as some of the caches have listed coordinates that are well out of the state but have GZs that are very much inside state boundaries.

 

My question is, what happens when the cache information on Project GC does not match that on geocaching.com? This isn't a criticism of Project GC (I'm really thankful for their help as I don't know much code beyond very basic python), I am just interested in the wider implications. As a result, I wouldn't be able to publish the cache straight away with the new guidelines (I have gotten in contact with my reviewer so this isn't about my cache, rather other similar scenarios).

 

Also, thanks for bringing challenges back! I'm happy to try and work with the new guidelines to produce some interesting and fun challenges! Sorry if this has already been brought up and discussed, with more than 20 pages of posts on both forums, I'm sure it can be forgiven if I have overlooked previous discussion...

 

The short answer is that if the map data says that the cache is in one state and the cache page says the cache is in another state, then the checker will rely on what the map data says. The position that is used is the posted coordinates; they are the only thing that the checker system has access to.

 

In somewhat more detail: this is a question that comes to Project-GC regularly so I have researched a number of cases using various map sites. Almost always, it turns out that what is on the cache page does not correspond to what OpenStreetMap, Google Maps and various other sources say. I'm not saying that these sources are infallible, but my sense is that in most cases where there is a discrepancy like this, the cache owner is simply wrong. Mostly I think this happens due to someone placing a cache on a state border road sign or equivalent, thinking that it will be placed exactly on the border. My experience is that such signs are placed where suitable, near the border.

 

That said, Project-GC will of course update its map data now and then. For most countries we use map data from OpenStreetMap though there are exceptions; some countries post official map data that is free to use. Regardless of where the data comes from, map data is living since administrative borders change and measuring methods become better. Do report problematic map data to Project-GC and we can check if there is a better set available and update. Or even better, *first* make sure that OpenStreetMap has correctly updated data and *then* notify Project-GC. Then not only our maps will be better, but also the maps used be lots of people for various purposes (I use OpenStreetMaps in my GPS both for geocaching and driving).

Link to comment

The short answer is that if the map data says that the cache is in one state and the cache page says the cache is in another state, then the checker will rely on what the map data says. The position that is used is the posted coordinates; they are the only thing that the checker system has access to.

The only problem I see with this is that the only readily accessible bit of info users have access to is the State field in the listing. They could run calculations on the GPS coordinates and come up with a physical location based on their border data, but there's no guarantee that will match PGC's. The only universal bit of data everyone can rely on equally for the same results (even if the location isn't actually correct) is the listing's State/Province field.

 

You're saying PGC doesn't have access to that field? That seems odd.

Link to comment

The short answer is that if the map data says that the cache is in one state and the cache page says the cache is in another state, then the checker will rely on what the map data says. The position that is used is the posted coordinates; they are the only thing that the checker system has access to.

The only problem I see with this is that the only readily accessible bit of info users have access to is the State field in the listing. They could run calculations on the GPS coordinates and come up with a physical location based on their border data, but there's no guarantee that will match PGC's. The only universal bit of data everyone can rely on equally for the same results (even if the location isn't actually correct) is the listing's State/Province field.

 

You're saying PGC doesn't have access to that field? That seems odd.

 

As the State and Country ID fields are standard fields in a geocache listing I don't see how they would not be available. It sounds like project GC checkers may not be using the value for that field (which the CO chooses ) but instead are using the lat/long coordinates to reverse geocode a place name. As you suggest, in the context of a geocacher trying to complete a challenge based on a State, it's easiest for the cacher to just look at the field (even if it's wrong) to determine if any specific cache meets the criteria for the challenge.

 

Of course, this wouldn't been an issue if the cache submission form used reverse geocoding on the coordinates to set the State/Country ID instead of allowing the CO to enter the value, but that's not how it works.

Edited by NYPaddleCacher
Link to comment

Exactly. So the problem is that a user will be required to rely on PGC for locating qualifying caches as well as determining qualification, if the checker is only PGC.

 

All other sources have access to the state field, so ideally the checkers should at least allow for use of that field, not the calculated location based on border data. I'm willing to bet that GC.com's profile statistics are also making use of the State field, not the coordinate location.

 

I'd think that if the CO required calculated location by coordinate, not the state field, that could open the door for arguments if the CO has a different border data set than the user trying to qualify with a contested cache location.

The listing's State is universally accessible.

Link to comment
And the idea that encouraging new caches is a bad thing is ludicrous.
If someone isn't ready to own/maintain a cache for the long term, then yes, encouraging them to place a new cache is a bad thing.

We aren't talking about a challenge forcing someone to hide a cache. We're talking about people that have decided to hide a cache of their own volition, but are inspired by a local challenge cache to start the name with a "Z".

Link to comment
And the idea that encouraging new caches is a bad thing is ludicrous.
If someone isn't ready to own/maintain a cache for the long term, then yes, encouraging them to place a new cache is a bad thing.

We aren't talking about a challenge forcing someone to hide a cache. We're talking about people that have decided to hide a cache of their own volition, but are inspired by a local challenge cache to start the name with a "Z".

 

In reality, we all know that these challenges sometimes result in people placing poorly-planned caches to help each other qualify for challenges. There's enough "inspiration" for bad caches without this alphabet challenge silliness adding to the problem.

Link to comment
In reality, we all know that these challenges sometimes result in people placing poorly-planned caches to help each other qualify for challenges. There's enough "inspiration" for bad caches without this alphabet challenge silliness adding to the problem.
+1
Link to comment

The listing's State is universally accessible.

 

Yes, but then at least striking misclassifications should be dealt with. Right now there exist caches for which the state/country information is simply wrong and it's not a borderline case.

Like a cache that is located >10km from the border to country X, but is listed for country X.

Link to comment

[...]

Like a cache that is located >10km from the border to country X, but is listed for country X.

 

Write a NM log.

 

 

Certainly not. First it will typically not change anything, second, that's not my task.

PCG's solution of computing the state/country seems however more intelligent than using the state/country field when assuming the status quo.

Link to comment

[...]

Certainly not. First it will typically not change anything, second, that's not my task.

No, the CO might change the coutry. Then you should stop needless complaining.

PCG's solution of computing the state/country seems however more intelligent than using the state/country field when assuming the status quo.

It's PGC. Just for the records.

 

Hans

Link to comment

Certainly not. First it will typically not change anything, second, that's not my task.

PCG's solution of computing the state/country seems however more intelligent than using the state/country field when assuming the status quo.

 

You missed the point that it's not about having "correct" data. In some cases there are reasons why that state field needs to be custom. There is no way to determine if that field is "correct" or not. There are two 'valid' pieces of info: The State field, and the physical location of the posted coordinates. The former is "as is", the latter needs to be tested against a custom dataset for border lines. The latter is not consistent and requires using the same datasets. PGC has its own. GSAK users may have their own. There is no guarantee the one user's results will be the same as another user's. There is, however, when everyone uses the Groundspeak provided data set - the State field. Despite whether it is considered correct or not.

 

Having a correct State field is a different issue, which clearly GS doesn't want to deal with, because they offer the field as a custom input, not determined by coordinates. So they have their reasons.

 

And so, I'm surprised if PGC doesn't have access to the State field in their challenge checking capabilities, since that is the one universal value that all checkers should be able to use equally and users should be able to use in order to locate qualifying caches, and avoid disputes due to different border datasets.

 

PGC's solution test if a posted coordinate is located in their border dataset - not whether a Listing is posted in a certain Country. Those are two things being checked. So, the challenge in question needs to be clear about which value is required to qualify, because they will not always be the same. And that's the problem.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

[...]

Certainly not. First it will typically not change anything, second, that's not my task.

No, the CO might change the coutry. Then you should stop needless complaining.

 

I did not complain, just stated what I think should be done. I'm not interested into this boring sort of challenge caches anyway.

If the CO intentionally provides wrong data, they hardly will change the data if someone writes a NM log.

 

PCG's solution of computing the state/country seems however more intelligent than using the state/country field when assuming the status quo.

It's PGC. Just for the records.

 

It was a simple typo, as your coutry above. Not really worth to be mentioned.

Let's come back to the main topic.

Link to comment

And so, I'm surprised if PGC doesn't have access to the State field in their challenge checking capabilities, since that is the one universal value that all checkers should be able to use equally and users should be able to use in order to locate qualifying caches, and avoid disputes due to different border datasets.

 

I think that PGC has access to the country/state data on gc.com, but in order to provide more reasonable statistics (which is what their main goal is and not challenge checkers) they decide to use what can be computed and use these data to populate their own database and the statistics that are based on the database. It does not make sense to count a cache for Italy that is very far from the border. GS might not want to interfere, but the solution of PGC seems more reasonable to me when it comes to statistics pages.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

I think that PGC has access to the country/state data on gc.com, but in order to provide more reasonable statistics (which is what their main goal is and not challenge checkers) they decide to use what can be computed and use these data to populate their own database and the statistics that are based on the database. It does not make sense to count a cache for Italy that is very far from the border. GS might not want to interfere, but the solution of PGC seems more reasonable to me when it comes to statistics pages.

Even if PGC's solution (using coordinates to determine country/state) seems more reasonable to you for statistics pages, that isn't the topic being discussed here.

 

The problem is that all or many of PGC's challenge checkers also use coordinates to determine country/state. And for challenge checkers, that can be a major problem, since most people who are attempting to complete a challenge probably will be using the country/state data from caches' listing pages. (That's the data Groundspeak's searches and Pocket Queries use.)

 

As a result, the challenge checker might generate false negatives (assuming the challenge cache owner permits the use of listing page country/state data). The new Challenge cache guidelines require: "The challenge checker must verify that a player does or does not qualify to log a challenge cache as found." And Challenge caches with checkers that don't function properly are subject to archival.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Did we ever learn whether Project-GC attempts to keep their own database of geocacher finds (which is, more-or-less, kept in sync with Groundspeak's)? Or do PGC's challenge checkers issue individual requests for Groundspeak's data via the API?

 

If PGC has their own database, then perhaps that database stores only coordinate-computed country/state data and doesn't have additional fields for the listing page's country/state. But if the PGC database has both coordinate-computed and listing page country/state data, then it shouldn't be too hard for a challenge checker to use the listing page country/state data, if that's what the Challenge cache owner requests.

Link to comment

If PGC has their own database,

 

Yes, they definitely have their own database. They also a state division for countries which not have one (Slovenia being one example of a country with a relatively large number of caches) and have offered it for countries which now have a division on gc.com but which did not have it right from the start. I also think that in some countries where states have been introduced at a later stage not all old caches got assigned to states - some have empty entries and others have wrong entries. In some countries someone took care of the data, but not in all.

Link to comment

Even if PGC's solution (using coordinates to determine country/state) seems more reasonable to you for statistics pages, that isn't the topic being discussed here.

 

The problem is that all or many of PGC's challenge checkers also use coordinates to determine country/state. And for challenge checkers, that can be a major problem, since most people who are attempting to complete a challenge probably will be using the country/state data from caches' listing pages. (That's the data Groundspeak's searches and Pocket Queries use.)

 

It might become an issue for the new challenge caches. It was not an issue for the old ones as there challenge checkers were nothing compulsory. The new guidelines are known only since a few days.

 

On a related matter, I guess that with the new rules probably challenge caches that are based on a finer subdivision than the one present on gc.com might not be allowed any longer though of course a PGC checker could be written (or is already available).

 

So then this raises the question where to draw the line. For which data use coordinate based methods (counties are e.g. not present on gc.com) and for which use data provided by the gc.com site directly? If one uses two different appriaches, one can get weird results. A cache could be in county A of country B while listed in country C on gc.com.

Link to comment

In reality, we all know that these challenges sometimes result in people placing poorly-planned caches to help each other qualify for challenges. There's enough "inspiration" for bad caches without this alphabet challenge silliness adding to the problem.

No, we don't all know that. I don't recall seeing it even once, but if I did, I'd blame it on the CO, not the challenge cache. If someone hid a bad cache in a new park, would you blame it on the park?

Link to comment

Certainly not. First it will typically not change anything, second, that's not my task.

PCG's solution of computing the state/country seems however more intelligent than using the state/country field when assuming the status quo.

 

You missed the point that it's not about having "correct" data. In some cases there are reasons why that state field needs to be custom. There is no way to determine if that field is "correct" or not. There are two 'valid' pieces of info: The State field, and the physical location of the posted coordinates. The former is "as is", the latter needs to be tested against a custom dataset for border lines. The latter is not consistent and requires using the same datasets. PGC has its own. GSAK users may have their own. There is no guarantee the one user's results will be the same as another user's. There is, however, when everyone uses the Groundspeak provided data set - the State field. Despite whether it is considered correct or not.

 

Having a correct State field is a different issue, which clearly GS doesn't want to deal with, because they offer the field as a custom input, not determined by coordinates. So they have their reasons.

 

And so, I'm surprised if PGC doesn't have access to the State field in their challenge checking capabilities, since that is the one universal value that all checkers should be able to use equally and users should be able to use in order to locate qualifying caches, and avoid disputes due to different border datasets.

 

PGC's solution test if a posted coordinate is located in their border dataset - not whether a Listing is posted in a certain Country. Those are two things being checked. So, the challenge in question needs to be clear about which value is required to qualify, because they will not always be the same. And that's the problem.

 

I'd be surprised of PGC tested coordinates against boundary data. To do that they'd essentially have to have shapefile data for every country and first level administrative region in the world. It would be a lot easier to call a service which will reverse geocode coordinates to a place name, which includes the country, state, and even city names. Here's an example that uses openstreetmap.org

 

http://nominatim.openstreetmap.org/reverse?format=json&lat=54.9824031826&lon=9.2833114795&zoom=18&addressdetails=1

 

 

Link to comment

In reality, we all know that these challenges sometimes result in people placing poorly-planned caches to help each other qualify for challenges. There's enough "inspiration" for bad caches without this alphabet challenge silliness adding to the problem.

No, we don't all know that. I don't recall seeing it even once, but if I did, I'd blame it on the CO, not the challenge cache. If someone hid a bad cache in a new park, would you blame it on the park?

 

Only if the park didn't immediately eject the cache... oh... wait... it can't... in fact the park can't take any action because it's not a living, thinking organism - so applying blame to something which lacks the basic capacity to take an action is - complete nonsense. So that doesn't really work as an argument. Derp!

Link to comment

So, I asked a CCO if there would be a challenge checker. It's there! So I clicked on the link, and it brought me to this page:

 

8e403899-43a4-41fa-a5a6-660c8fd1bfff.png?rnd=0.91063

 

It appears to be written in English, but to me, it is gibberish. I may be a senior dolphin. I am not a computer programmer. How am I supposed to use this page to see how far along I am with the Challenge Cache? I am completely lost here. Definitely not user friendly. It might as well be written in Klingon.

Link to comment

So, I asked a CCO if there would be a challenge checker. It's there! So I clicked on the link, and it brought me to this page:

 

8e403899-43a4-41fa-a5a6-660c8fd1bfff.png?rnd=0.91063

 

It appears to be written in English, but to me, it is gibberish. I may be a senior dolphin. I am not a computer programmer. How am I supposed to use this page to see how far along I am with the Challenge Cache? I am completely lost here. Definitely not user friendly. It might as well be written in Klingon.

 

 

That looks like the landing page where you end up after authenticating yourself to PGC. If you are already authenticated and click on the link to the checker, you should land on a less-complicated page like this:

 

9ef11847-a925-418b-b5de-1517590af384.png

 

That is the result of this link: http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC5GTNY

Link to comment

In reality, we all know that these challenges sometimes result in people placing poorly-planned caches to help each other qualify for challenges. There's enough "inspiration" for bad caches without this alphabet challenge silliness adding to the problem.

No, we don't all know that. I don't recall seeing it even once, but if I did, I'd blame it on the CO, not the challenge cache. If someone hid a bad cache in a new park, would you blame it on the park?

Only if the park didn't immediately eject the cache... oh... wait... it can't... in fact the park can't take any action because it's not a living, thinking organism - so applying blame to something which lacks the basic capacity to take an action is - complete nonsense. So that doesn't really work as an argument. Derp!

I assume you're saying that by way of agreeing with me that the challenge cache can't possibly be to blame.

Link to comment

So, I asked a CCO if there would be a challenge checker. It's there! So I clicked on the link, and it brought me to this page:

 

8e403899-43a4-41fa-a5a6-660c8fd1bfff.png?rnd=0.91063

 

It appears to be written in English, but to me, it is gibberish. I may be a senior dolphin. I am not a computer programmer. How am I supposed to use this page to see how far along I am with the Challenge Cache? I am completely lost here. Definitely not user friendly. It might as well be written in Klingon.

 

 

That looks like the landing page where you end up after authenticating yourself to PGC. If you are already authenticated and click on the link to the checker, you should land on a less-complicated page like this:

 

9ef11847-a925-418b-b5de-1517590af384.png

 

That is the result of this link: http://project-gc.co...llenges/GC5GTNY

 

That's a bit better but is that last sentence really useful? It just comes across as someone trying to show off their technical knowledge; "a more correct way to do it would be to use Vincenty's formula, but it's very cpu heavy to use." Does anyone actually care what Vincenty's formula is? It's a challenge checker, not an academic research paper.

 

 

Link to comment

My point is that there's no evidence that newcomers are intimidated. If you agree, we can both work to stamp out the idea instead of basing our arguments on it.

I assume you're saying that by way of agreeing with me that the challenge cache can't possibly be to blame.

You've been knocking them outta the park recently.

Link to comment

So, I asked a CCO if there would be a challenge checker. It's there! So I clicked on the link, and it brought me to this page:

 

8e403899-43a4-41fa-a5a6-660c8fd1bfff.png?rnd=0.91063

 

It appears to be written in English, but to me, it is gibberish. I may be a senior dolphin. I am not a computer programmer. How am I supposed to use this page to see how far along I am with the Challenge Cache? I am completely lost here. Definitely not user friendly. It might as well be written in Klingon.

 

 

That looks like the landing page where you end up after authenticating yourself to PGC. If you are already authenticated and click on the link to the checker, you should land on a less-complicated page like this:

 

9ef11847-a925-418b-b5de-1517590af384.png

 

That is the result of this link: http://project-gc.co...llenges/GC5GTNY

 

That's a bit better but is that last sentence really useful? It just comes across as someone trying to show off their technical knowledge; "a more correct way to do it would be to use Vincenty's formula, but it's very cpu heavy to use." Does anyone actually care what Vincenty's formula is? It's a challenge checker, not an academic research paper.

 

Bad example.

 

How about this?

 

5225683a-bf61-489f-9315-c3218cbd669e.png

Link to comment

That looks like the landing page where you end up after authenticating yourself to PGC. If you are already authenticated and click on the link to the checker, you should land on a less-complicated page like this:

 

9ef11847-a925-418b-b5de-1517590af384.png

 

That is the result of this link: http://project-gc.com/Challenges/GC5GTNY

 

Perhaps it was a working progress. The second time I tried, it listed caches that fulfilled the requirements. But was blank under "List of missing 'requirements'":

And it says that I have 40 required caches, when I have 43. The list is in no order that I can discern. It's not alphabetical. It's not by date found. It's random. Makes it very tough to figure which three are not listed. And how would I argue that I have found those three?

Sorry that I am not a geeky dolphin. But this is not user friendly.

Link to comment

In reality, we all know that these challenges sometimes result in people placing poorly-planned caches to help each other qualify for challenges. There's enough "inspiration" for bad caches without this alphabet challenge silliness adding to the problem.

No, we don't all know that. I don't recall seeing it even once, but if I did, I'd blame it on the CO, not the challenge cache. If someone hid a bad cache in a new park, would you blame it on the park?

 

So good caches are "inspired" by the challenge but bad caches are the CO's fault. Yeah, okay.

Link to comment

So, per dprovan's quote: "I'm wondering what method GS used to determine that newcomers would be intimidated by impossible challenges", I'd like to know where Groundspeak said part of the reasoning for the guidelines was because new geocachers were literally "intimidated" by difficult challenges.

I was just responding to you:

 

As mentioned elsewhere, newcomers to the hobby shouldn't be intimidated by challenges that may take years to accomplish; that's not the feel Groundspeak wants to promote in geocaching, even if we feel that's really what gives a challenge its value in completing.

I just trusted you, so I didn't look up where the idea came from. My point is that there's no evidence that newcomers are intimidated. If you agree, we can both work to stamp out the idea instead of basing our arguments on it.

ah, so we were saying the same thing, as I wasn't literally distinguishing "intimidated by" from "unappealing to", since no, I don't think either of us believe there's evidence that newcomers are literally "intimidated" by difficult challenges. I'll cede that "intimidated" was not the best word to use; it was not used elsewhere in this thread prior to my post. Perhaps I remembered a comment along that line from another thread. Who knows. I was referring to the sentiment that newcomers would not like, rather possibly hate, the existence of challenge caches which they may never find, or feel that qualification is so far in the future that they'd just ignore them in frustration. ie, in reference to Groundspeak's "must be appealing to" clause.

 

I'd be surprised of PGC tested coordinates against boundary data. To do that they'd essentially have to have shapefile data for every country and first level administrative region in the world. It would be a lot easier to call a service which will reverse geocode coordinates to a place name, which includes the country, state, and even city names. Here's an example that uses openstreetmap.org

This began by a comment from I believe it was pinkunicorn saying that at least some checkers don't use the State field, and verify country/state location by coordinates. So yep, PGC checkers can use coordinates. Which prompted the question - does PGC have access to the State field, or are they effectively forced to calculate location by border datasets? Haven't seen a response to that yet. :P

 

Actually, you replied to the very comment I describe above:

 

The short answer is that if the map data says that the cache is in one state and the cache page says the cache is in another state, then the checker will rely on what the map data says. The position that is used is the posted coordinates; they are the only thing that the checker system has access to.

The only problem I see with this is that the only readily accessible bit of info users have access to is the State field in the listing. They could run calculations on the GPS coordinates and come up with a physical location based on their border data, but there's no guarantee that will match PGC's. The only universal bit of data everyone can rely on equally for the same results (even if the location isn't actually correct) is the listing's State/Province field.

 

You're saying PGC doesn't have access to that field? That seems odd.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

So, per dprovan's quote: "I'm wondering what method GS used to determine that newcomers would be intimidated by impossible challenges", I'd like to know where Groundspeak said part of the reasoning for the guidelines was because new geocachers were literally "intimidated" by difficult challenges.

I was just responding to you:

 

As mentioned elsewhere, newcomers to the hobby shouldn't be intimidated by challenges that may take years to accomplish; that's not the feel Groundspeak wants to promote in geocaching, even if we feel that's really what gives a challenge its value in completing.

I just trusted you, so I didn't look up where the idea came from. My point is that there's no evidence that newcomers are intimidated. If you agree, we can both work to stamp out the idea instead of basing our arguments on it.

ah, so we were saying the same thing, as I wasn't literally distinguishing "intimidated by" from "unappealing to", since no, I don't think either of us believe there's evidence that newcomers are literally "intimidated" by difficult challenges. I'll cede that "intimidated" was not the best word to use; it was not used elsewhere in this thread prior to my post. Perhaps I remembered a comment along that line from another thread. Who knows. I was referring to the sentiment that newcomers would not like, rather possibly hate, the existence of challenge caches which they may never find, or feel that qualification is so far in the future that they'd just ignore them in frustration. ie, in reference to Groundspeak's "must be appealing to" clause.

I suppose some novice geocachers might dislike difficult Challenge caches, but I suspect these same difficult challenges also intrigue some newcomers. That certainly was the case with me, and it sounds like it might have been with you as well.

 

Fortunately, the "needs to appeal to" clause doesn't require all newbies to like Challenge caches. It only requires that a Challenge cache appeal to "a reasonable number" of cachers (and this "reasonable number" doesn't even have to come from the ranks of new cachers). According to the guidelines:

 

A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Yep.

 

So we have "must appeal to a reasonable number" and regional interpretations of what being "attainable by a reasonable number" means. In Ontario, it means at least 10 other Ontario geocachers including the CO must have already qualified. That was an explicit requirement of the two currently published challenge caches in Ontario. The latter is moreso influenced by the less experienced, as it's much easier for a veteran to come up with a challenge that may be far beyond the reach of the less experienced. It's all connected.

Link to comment

So we have "must appeal to a reasonable number" and regional interpretations of what being "attainable by a reasonable number" means. In Ontario, it means at least 10 other Ontario geocachers including the CO must have already qualified. That was an explicit requirement of the two currently published challenge caches in Ontario. The latter is moreso influenced by the less experienced, as it's much easier for a veteran to come up with a challenge that may be far beyond the reach of the less experienced. It's all connected.

First, I'm glad I live in Alberta, where our Volunteer Reviewers seem to interpret "attainable" more in its dictionary sense of "capable of being attained." If the guideline had said that the submitted Challenge cache must have been "attained" by a reasonable number of cachers, then I might understand a requirement that at least 10 folks already had qualified.

 

I go back to our "A Month of Unknowns Challenge," where we probably were the only area geocachers who already had found a month's worth of daily Unknown-type cache finds. But such a challenge is "attainable" by lots of geocachers, if they make a determined effort to complete it.

 

Second, how does Ontario's "10 folks already must have qualified" rule have anything to do with less experienced geocachers? Do two of the 10 pre-qualifiers have to have been members for less than a year? Can't all 10 pre-qualifiers have been members since 2001? You're seeing connections that elude me.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

So good caches are "inspired" by the challenge but bad caches are the CO's fault. Yeah, okay.

Caches might be inspired by the challenge just as they could be inspired by a new park or by a GS blog entry. None of those things would cause the caches to be bad. The CO's in charge of the quality, and if he's going to plant a bad cache, he's going to do it no matter what inspired him.

Link to comment

I was referring to the sentiment that newcomers would not like, rather possibly hate, the existence of challenge caches which they may never find, or feel that qualification is so far in the future that they'd just ignore them in frustration. ie, in reference to Groundspeak's "must be appealing to" clause.

I've seen no evidence of that, either, so I'm willing to change my question to "I'm wondering what method GS used to determine that newcomers would not like, rather possibly hate, the existence of challenges caches which they may never find." I already said that wasn't how I felt about them, and I gave an example of one that seemed impossible yet turned out to be a real joy for me to show that my experience was quite the opposite.

 

Besides, even if there were some evidence that newbies hated some class of caches that other people like, I'd say that argues for education about the diversity of possible geocaching experiences, not rushing to eliminate anything newbies could be shown statistically not to like.

Link to comment

I go back to our "A Month of Unknowns Challenge," where we probably were the only area geocachers who already had found a month's worth of daily Unknown-type cache finds. But such a challenge is "attainable" by lots of geocachers, if they make a determined effort to complete it.

I think the month of unknown caches challenge is an excellent one to ponder. It's an excellent challenge (very popular in my area), so if it's forbidden, I would consider that clear evidence that the restrictions go overboard. In any case, the fact that I can't tell from the guidelines whether it should be forbidden suggests some ambiguity that needs to be cleaned up. Does the challenge merely need to be "attainable", or will the CO have to supply "a list of cachers from your area who qualify"? The line in the guidelines says both.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...