Jump to content

Return of challenge caches


Recommended Posts

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.

 

No, I'm saying that we don't use that field if we have access to better information (i.e. map information for that country).

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.

 

Not really. The authors of various caches will be fooling people by stating that their caches are in states/counties where they aren't and the checker will call them on it. (In most cases where there's a discrepancy.)

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.

 

The challenge cache itself can't be held accountable - the people involved are accountable - but there are undoubtedly caches out there which were placed specifically and only to ease qualification and those caches and even the areas they are placed in frequently suffer as a result of that.

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.

 

No, I'm saying that we don't use that field if we have access to better information (i.e. map information for that country).

 

If Project-GC has access to that field, then can a CCO request that the geocache listing's State field is used instead of map data?

Link to comment

The excitement is palpable... <_<

 

What did you expect? In my opinion, the new guidelines are determined to end up with mainly boring challenge caches.

 

Honestly...that's exactly what I expected. Once I'd seen they had done away with the name-based challenges, I knew that spelled the end of any challenge cache that I would even bother trying to qualify for.

Link to comment
Error As a non-paying user you are only allowed 10 checker runs per day.

 

Holy Moly.

We had to pay an additional amount when we want to check more than 10 challenges per day. Is GS really aware of this limit?

 

Hans

Link to comment
Error As a non-paying user you are only allowed 10 checker runs per day.

 

Holy Moly.

We had to pay an additional amount when we want to check more than 10 challenges per day. Is GS really aware of this limit?

 

Hans

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

Link to comment
Error As a non-paying user you are only allowed 10 checker runs per day.

 

Holy Moly.

We had to pay an additional amount when we want to check more than 10 challenges per day. Is GS really aware of this limit?

 

Hans

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

Actually, not me. But maybe another one?

 

Hans

Link to comment
Error As a non-paying user you are only allowed 10 checker runs per day.

 

Holy Moly.

We had to pay an additional amount when we want to check more than 10 challenges per day. Is GS really aware of this limit?

 

Hans

 

Strictly speaking I would say that given the new model i.e. challenges must have linked checkers - and the fact the PGC has acces to your stats - you shouldn't need to run checkers at all - PGC should be able to keep an eye on things and just send you an email list every so-often of the challenge caches you qualify for :ph34r:

 

If you also just sign the log on every challenge cache you walk by while you're out, all that remains is just to log them online when the email tells you that you qualify.

 

Hassle-free challenge caching B)

Link to comment
Error As a non-paying user you are only allowed 10 checker runs per day.

 

Holy Moly.

We had to pay an additional amount when we want to check more than 10 challenges per day. Is GS really aware of this limit?

 

Hans

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

When you happen to be working towards more than ten challenges concurrently and want to check your progress perhaps? :unsure:

Link to comment
Error As a non-paying user you are only allowed 10 checker runs per day.

 

Holy Moly.

We had to pay an additional amount when we want to check more than 10 challenges per day. Is GS really aware of this limit?

 

Hans

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

When you happen to be working towards more than ten challenges concurrently and want to check your progress perhaps? :unsure:

 

Hate to state the obvious here...but how about just waiting until the next day? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Error As a non-paying user you are only allowed 10 checker runs per day.

 

Holy Moly.

We had to pay an additional amount when we want to check more than 10 challenges per day. Is GS really aware of this limit?

 

Hans

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

When you happen to be working towards more than ten challenges concurrently and want to check your progress perhaps? :unsure:

 

Hate to state the obvious here...but how about just waiting until the next day? :rolleyes:

 

Because I prefer to check all the challenge caches I'm working toward in a single session and then get on with the rest of my life, rather than having to schedule multiple check-in times and keep tabs on which challenges I've checked and which challenges I've not checked from day to day?

 

Oh yeah - :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Error As a non-paying user you are only allowed 10 checker runs per day.

 

Holy Moly.

We had to pay an additional amount when we want to check more than 10 challenges per day. Is GS really aware of this limit?

 

Hans

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

When you happen to be working towards more than ten challenges concurrently and want to check your progress perhaps? :unsure:

 

Hate to state the obvious here...but how about just waiting until the next day? :rolleyes:

 

Because I prefer to check all the challenge caches I'm working toward in a single session and then get on with the rest of my life, rather than having to schedule multiple check-in times and keep tabs on which challenges I've checked and which challenges I've not checked from day to day?

 

Oh yeah - :rolleyes:

 

Of course. Then feel free to spend the extra money for the convenience.

Link to comment
Error As a non-paying user you are only allowed 10 checker runs per day.

 

Holy Moly.

We had to pay an additional amount when we want to check more than 10 challenges per day. Is GS really aware of this limit?

 

Hans

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

When you happen to be working towards more than ten challenges concurrently and want to check your progress perhaps? :unsure:

 

Hate to state the obvious here...but how about just waiting until the next day? :rolleyes:

 

Because I prefer to check all the challenge caches I'm working toward in a single session and then get on with the rest of my life, rather than having to schedule multiple check-in times and keep tabs on which challenges I've checked and which challenges I've not checked from day to day?

 

Oh yeah - :rolleyes:

 

Of course. Then feel free to spend the extra money for the convenience.

 

No need - I actually complete very few challenge caches - tend to ignore them in fact :)

Link to comment

 

Strictly speaking I would say that given the new model i.e. challenges must have linked checkers - and the fact the PGC has acces to your stats - you shouldn't need to run checkers at all - PGC should be able to keep an eye on things and just send you an email list every so-often of the challenge caches you qualify for :ph34r:

 

 

I believe there is a utility for PGC premium members where you can click a "show me all the challenges I've qualified for" link, not sure whether you can get it to email you periodically with that info though.

Link to comment
Error As a non-paying user you are only allowed 10 checker runs per day.

 

Holy Moly.

We had to pay an additional amount when we want to check more than 10 challenges per day. Is GS really aware of this limit?

 

Hans

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

When you happen to be working towards more than ten challenges concurrently and want to check your progress perhaps? :unsure:

 

Hate to state the obvious here...but how about just waiting until the next day? :rolleyes:

 

Because I prefer to check all the challenge caches I'm working toward in a single session and then get on with the rest of my life, rather than having to schedule multiple check-in times and keep tabs on which challenges I've checked and which challenges I've not checked from day to day?

 

Oh yeah - :rolleyes:

 

Of course. Then feel free to spend the extra money for the convenience.

 

No need - I actually complete very few challenge caches - tend to ignore them in fact :)

 

Well...my comment applies to anyone, really. The number of folks who 1) actually WANT to check more than 10 challenges in a single day and 2) cannot wait until the next day to check 11-20 is probably low enough that I don't think anyone wants to hear complaining about an additional charge for the convenience.

Link to comment

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."

Every challenge is "capable of being attained". Otherwise it would be impossible. Reviewers are not merely judging if a challenge is "impossible".

Reviewers judge whether it's reasonably attainable. And that is regionally subjective.

 

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.

Well, you see, that is exactly what our Ontario reviewers are requiring. A list of 10 users who already qualify, in addition to the CO who must already qualify. And that is their bar for "reasonably attainable" in our region.

 

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.

Sure. That's Alberta. Here, now, if you submit that challenge, it won't be published unless you can list 10 users plus yourself, in Ontario, who already qualify.

 

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.

...It's much easier/quicker for a user with many thousands of finds to qualify for a positive/additive challenge than it is for a user with 100 finds. Simple.

No, it's not whether a challenge is merely "attainable", but what the reviewers judge as "reasonably attainable".

And this is not me agreeing with the reviewers' bar in Ontario, just explaining how the guideline is being interpreted by our reviewers.

 

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.

Perhaps there is some ambiguity, but I think the controversy is in the fact that the ambiguity is being lumped into that "reasonably attainable" clause which may differ subjectively region by region. They don't have to abide by a universal standard for "reasonable", yet a reviewer could judge a very hard challenge (which isn't impossible) as valid and publish it, while in other region that may not be so.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
Error As a non-paying user you are only allowed 10 checker runs per day.

 

Holy Moly.

We had to pay an additional amount when we want to check more than 10 challenges per day. Is GS really aware of this limit?

 

Hans

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

When you happen to be working towards more than ten challenges concurrently and want to check your progress perhaps? :unsure:

 

Hate to state the obvious here...but how about just waiting until the next day? :rolleyes:

 

Because I prefer to check all the challenge caches I'm working toward in a single session and then get on with the rest of my life, rather than having to schedule multiple check-in times and keep tabs on which challenges I've checked and which challenges I've not checked from day to day?

 

Oh yeah - :rolleyes:

 

Of course. Then feel free to spend the extra money for the convenience.

 

No need - I actually complete very few challenge caches - tend to ignore them in fact :)

 

Well...my comment applies to anyone, really. The number of folks who 1) actually WANT to check more than 10 challenges in a single day and 2) cannot wait until the next day to check 11-20 is probably low enough that I don't think anyone wants to hear complaining about an additional charge for the convenience.

 

Oh.

 

I thought the issue was that your imagination was severely limited but it's actually that you class another poster highlighting a limitation for the benefit of others as complaining and something you don't think anyone wants to hear.

 

Got it <_<

Link to comment

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

No, I'm saying that we don't use that field if we have access to better information (i.e. map information for that country).

Ah, ok. So what happens in disputes if a user finds a cache listed in a particular state/country, but the coordinate data returns a different result? I guess if someone doesn't relent then it would go to the reviewer or appeals, if the challenge doesn't explicitly state that location is calculated by coordinates, not listed location.

I wonder if a reviewer would consider the checker "broken" if the challenge isn't clear on whether coordinates or State field are used to determin qualification? CO'd likely just change the description to be specific, otherwise might have to retag the challenge potentially with a different script in favour of the cacher, lest it become "subject to archival". hm

 

The excitement is palpable... dry.gif

What did you expect? In my opinion, the new guidelines are determined to end up with mainly boring challenge caches.

Actually I have a series of unique challenges in the works - at least I couldn't find a checker that would handle it (I wrote a SQL script that would though). So the concept was approved. They're perhaps easy for someone with 10,000+ finds who may already qualify (still no guarantee), but at least it's a type of challenge that, well at least I, would love to take on and work towards, needing a bit of research for target-finding, and not based on text. :) Also not ridiculously hard or easy, and potentially taking some time to get through.

So we'll see. Still only 2 new challenge caches published in Ontario. Wonder what's taking so long :laughing:

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment
Error As a non-paying user you are only allowed 10 checker runs per day.

 

Holy Moly.

We had to pay an additional amount when we want to check more than 10 challenges per day. Is GS really aware of this limit?

 

Hans

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

When you happen to be working towards more than ten challenges concurrently and want to check your progress perhaps? :unsure:

 

Hate to state the obvious here...but how about just waiting until the next day? :rolleyes:

 

Because I prefer to check all the challenge caches I'm working toward in a single session and then get on with the rest of my life, rather than having to schedule multiple check-in times and keep tabs on which challenges I've checked and which challenges I've not checked from day to day?

 

Oh yeah - :rolleyes:

 

Of course. Then feel free to spend the extra money for the convenience.

 

No need - I actually complete very few challenge caches - tend to ignore them in fact :)

 

Well...my comment applies to anyone, really. The number of folks who 1) actually WANT to check more than 10 challenges in a single day and 2) cannot wait until the next day to check 11-20 is probably low enough that I don't think anyone wants to hear complaining about an additional charge for the convenience.

 

Oh.

 

I thought the issue was that your imagination was severely limited but it's actually that you class another poster highlighting a limitation for the benefit of others as complaining and something you don't think anyone wants to hear.

 

Got it <_<

 

My imagination is fine, thanks for caring. The problem I have is with anyone so limited they cannot "get on with the rest of their life" after ten checks, putting aside that immensely valuable ten to twenty minutes of their life until the next day to check the next ten challenges. If their time is so incredibly valuable...well, they certainly have enough money to put towards assisting the owners of the Project GC site in servicing their very important needs.

Link to comment

My imagination is fine, thanks for caring. The problem I have is with anyone so limited they cannot "get on with the rest of their life" after ten checks, putting aside that immensely valuable ten to twenty minutes of their life until the next day to check the next ten challenges. If their time is so incredibly valuable...well, they certainly have enough money to put towards assisting the owners of the Project GC site in servicing their very important needs.

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

So now you can imagine a realistic scenario where one might :)

 

You're welcome :D

Link to comment

So what happens in disputes if a user finds a cache listed in a particular state/country, but the coordinate data returns a different result? I guess if someone doesn't relent then it would go to the reviewer or appeals, if the challenge doesn't explicitly state that location is calculated by coordinates, not listed location.

I wonder if a reviewer would consider the checker "broken" if the challenge isn't clear on whether coordinates or State field are used to determin qualification? CO'd likely just change the description to be specific, otherwise might have to retag the challenge potentially with a different script in favour of the cacher, lest it become "subject to archival". hm

 

I believe that new challenge caches will have to be formulated clearly and then the checker can exactly check what's stated. In case of counties and similar entitites and states for countries with no subdivision on gc.com, there is however only the option to use coordinates anyhow. For the old challenge caches it's irrelevant anyway as they do not need to have checkers.

 

What I wonder about however is whether challenge caches that require e.g. a cache in each county of country X will still be allowed. Those definitely can have PGC checkers (for countries where PCG has polgon data available)

but the information is not really information available on gc.com. With a strict interpretation even Delorme like challenges would be excluded.

 

 

Actually I have a series of unique challenges in the works - at least I couldn't find a checker that would handle it (I wrote a SQL script that would though). So the concept was approved. They're perhaps easy for someone with 10,000+ finds who may already qualify (still no guarantee), but at least it's a type of challenge that, well at least I, would love to take on and work towards, needing a bit of research for target-finding, and not based on text. :)

 

I cannot say something about your idea as you did not tell us anything about it, however as I wrote mainly boring challenge caches, a few challenge caches that are not boring would not falsify my statement.

 

The only challenge cache in my country which has been published so far (25000 FPs with 50 caches) is boring in my eyes.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

My imagination is fine, thanks for caring. The problem I have is with anyone so limited they cannot "get on with the rest of their life" after ten checks, putting aside that immensely valuable ten to twenty minutes of their life until the next day to check the next ten challenges. If their time is so incredibly valuable...well, they certainly have enough money to put towards assisting the owners of the Project GC site in servicing their very important needs.

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

So now you can imagine a realistic scenario where one might :)

 

You're welcome :D

 

You don't seem to get it.

 

I said "realistic" scenario.

Link to comment

My imagination is fine, thanks for caring. The problem I have is with anyone so limited they cannot "get on with the rest of their life" after ten checks, putting aside that immensely valuable ten to twenty minutes of their life until the next day to check the next ten challenges. If their time is so incredibly valuable...well, they certainly have enough money to put towards assisting the owners of the Project GC site in servicing their very important needs.

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

So now you can imagine a realistic scenario where one might :)

 

You're welcome :D

 

You don't seem to get it.

 

I said "realistic" scenario.

 

You think the scenario I described is unrealistic?

 

It might be but the idea that nobody who is a fan of challenge caches is concurrently working toward more than ten challenges sounds more unrealistic to me.

 

Whenever I have worked toward challenges - which is admittedly not much - I have tried to make sure that the caches I find satisfy the requirements of as many challenges as possible - because, as you know, my time is precious and petrol very expensive in the UK. And I'm not even a fan of challenge caches!

 

Of course people are free to dash back-and-forth across the country at great expense, working on one challenge cache at a time if they like - but if someone with a fairly elementary level of imagination should encourage them toward economies of scale, I'd say that would be a good thing all round.

Link to comment

I believe that new challenge caches will have to be formulated clearly and then the checker can exactly check what's stated. In case of counties and similar entitites and states for countries with no subdivision on gc.com, there is however only the option to use coordinates anyhow. For the old challenge caches it's irrelevant anyway as they do not need to have checkers.

...yes, counties have no other data field, those weren't in question, just the Country and State.

 

What I wonder about however is whether challenge caches that require e.g. a cache in each county of country X will still be allowed. Those definitely can have PGC checkers (for countries where PCG has polgon data available)

but the information is not really information available on gc.com. With a strict interpretation even Delorme like challenges would be excluded.

If the only change is the the challenge is required to have a checker, but not that the user must prove qualification by that checker, then county challenges may still exist as they did previously; as long as the user provides the list of caches and which counties they're in, and the CO can decide if they qualify (either manually or by the checker, but if the latter, then the cacher had better have used the checker themselves to test their qualification)

 

I cannot say something about your idea as you did not tell us anything about it, however as I wrote mainly boring challenge caches, a few challenge caches that are not boring would not falsify my statement.

 

The only challenge cache in my country which has been published so far (25000 FPs with 50 caches) is boring in my eyes.

I didn't say boring caches wouldn't ever be published, I was just offering a counter to the implication that with the new guidelines only boring caches would be published (You: "In my opinion, the new guidelines are determined to end up with mainly boring challenge caches."). Maybe mine will also be boring in your eyes. I'd wager that there will be people, however (not necesarily you), who are already so bothered by the new guidelines that no new challenge will be sufficiently "interesting".

To that, well, *shrug*.

Link to comment

I believe that new challenge caches will have to be formulated clearly and then the checker can exactly check what's stated. In case of counties and similar entitites and states for countries with no subdivision on gc.com, there is however only the option to use coordinates anyhow. For the old challenge caches it's irrelevant anyway as they do not need to have checkers.

...yes, counties have no other data field, those weren't in question, just the Country and State.

 

State is also not available for all countries on gc.com. Moreover what happens if when using the county level one gets county A of country B while gc.com lists the cache for country C?

 

Challenge caches will have to mention what is relevant: The location of the header coordinates, the entry in a field on gc.com or whatever.

 

If the only change is the the challenge is required to have a checker, but not that the user must prove qualification by that checker, then county challenges may still exist as they did previously; as long as the user provides the list of caches and which counties they're in, and the CO can decide if they qualify (either manually or by the checker, but if the latter, then the cacher had better have used the checker themselves to test their qualification)

 

There have been more changes than only requiring a checker. Point 4 of the guidelines reads

 

Challenge cache criteria

 

must come from information broadly available on Geocaching.com such as on the statistics page, cache placement dates, types, attributes, souvenirs, etc.

must be verifiable through information on Geocaching.com.

 

This can be interpreted in different manners. One could argue that county data can be verified indirectly from the coordinates which are present on gc.com but the formulation is not clear.

(For example, one cannot verify a Delorme cache only by data from gc.com.)

 

 

I didn't say boring caches wouldn't ever be published, I was just offering a counter to the implication that with the new guidelines only boring caches would be published (You: "In my opinion, the new guidelines are determined to end up with mainly boring challenge caches."). Maybe mine will also be boring in your eyes.

 

There is a difference between mainly and only.

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

My imagination is fine, thanks for caring. The problem I have is with anyone so limited they cannot "get on with the rest of their life" after ten checks, putting aside that immensely valuable ten to twenty minutes of their life until the next day to check the next ten challenges. If their time is so incredibly valuable...well, they certainly have enough money to put towards assisting the owners of the Project GC site in servicing their very important needs.

 

Do you really NEED to check more than ten per day? I can't honestly imagine a realistic scenario where one might...

 

So now you can imagine a realistic scenario where one might :)

 

You're welcome :D

 

You don't seem to get it.

 

I said "realistic" scenario.

 

You think the scenario I described is unrealistic?

 

It might be but the idea that nobody who is a fan of challenge caches is concurrently working toward more than ten challenges sounds more unrealistic to me.

 

Whenever I have worked toward challenges - which is admittedly not much - I have tried to make sure that the caches I find satisfy the requirements of as many challenges as possible - because, as you know, my time is precious and petrol very expensive in the UK. And I'm not even a fan of challenge caches!

 

Of course people are free to dash back-and-forth across the country at great expense, working on one challenge cache at a time if they like - but if someone with a fairly elementary level of imagination should encourage them toward economies of scale, I'd say that would be a good thing all round.

 

And so they can't plan to check all the challenges over the course of two or three days?

 

The entire point is that anyone who complains about having to contribute some money to the developer of a highly trafficked site (now even more-so since challenges will now require checkers) is being a bit unrealistic themselves. And yes, it IS unrealistic to be checking more than ten challenges and be upset that they may be expected to pony up some extra dough since they may be contributing to a higher demand being put on the servers.

Link to comment

And so they can't plan to check all the challenges over the course of two or three days?

 

Sigh. Yeah - let's pencil in three times over the next three days to check 10 challenges at a time. Sure. Forget the fact that it's Friday and I've just been invited on a caching trip way outside my usual radius :(

 

Let's not worry that I might qualify today and not qualify tomorrow because my entire qualification rests on a number of variables which can shift from moment to moment for all sorts of reasons.

 

But most of all, let's jump on anyone who dares to make us aware that there's an issue here and choices to be made - because information is a bad thing :ph34r:

 

The entire point is that anyone who complains about having to contribute some money to the developer of a highly trafficked site (now even more-so since challenges will now require checkers) is being a bit unrealistic themselves. And yes, it IS unrealistic to be checking more than ten challenges and be upset that they may be expected to pony up some extra dough since they may be contributing to a higher demand being put on the servers.

 

I don't remember taking issue with the idea of people contributing some money for an enhanced service. Nor did I detect complaint in the post which gave rise to this little side discussion.

Link to comment

I believe that new challenge caches will have to be formulated clearly and then the checker can exactly check what's stated. In case of counties and similar entitites and states for countries with no subdivision on gc.com, there is however only the option to use coordinates anyhow. For the old challenge caches it's irrelevant anyway as they do not need to have checkers.

...yes, counties have no other data field, those weren't in question, just the Country and State.

State is also not available for all countries on gc.com. Moreover what happens if when using the county level one gets county A of country B while gc.com lists the cache for country C?

If the cache owner has not listed a State value, then obviously that field can't be used to check if the cache qualifies for a challenge requiring a State field value. Not sure what point you're trying to raise. We're discussing the use of the State and Country fields vs Posted Coordinates for challenge caches and which fields are available to the checker.

It apepars they all are, so the CCO should make it clear which field is to be used for qualifying for their particular challenge.

 

"Challenge caches will have to mention what is relevant: The location of the header coordinates, the entry in a field on gc.com or whatever."

 

Exactly.

 

If the only change is the the challenge is required to have a checker, but not that the user must prove qualification by that checker, then county challenges may still exist as they did previously; as long as the user provides the list of caches and which counties they're in, and the CO can decide if they qualify (either manually or by the checker, but if the latter, then the cacher had better have used the checker themselves to test their qualification)

 

There have been more changes than only requiring a checker. Point 4 of the guidelines reads

Yes, again, all of the above is available for the checker. But that's not relevant about what is required to be provided in order to qualify.

I understand your point: Is qualifying for a county based on needing only coordinates that are interpreted by the CO/cacher, or is county-based challenge disallowed because the County itself is not an available data point available in Groundspeak data. So sure, a different question to discuss would be if county-based challenges are allowed based on the interpretation of that guideline. BUT that guideline was there before the moratorium and we had county-based challenges. That guideline isn't new.

 

So, once again, if as they were previously, cachers only need to provide a list of caches in the required counties, and the CO needs to verify. But, if there is now a checker, well, see my previous comment about the CO options.

 

If it has changed, and county-based challenges are no longer allowed, or must be presented in some different manner, that would be interesting to have confirmed and explained.

 

I didn't say boring caches wouldn't ever be published, I was just offering a counter to the implication that with the new guidelines only boring caches would be published (You: "In my opinion, the new guidelines are determined to end up with mainly boring challenge caches."). Maybe mine will also be boring in your eyes.

 

There is a difference between mainly and only.

Ok, I'll give you that. =P

Link to comment

Let's not worry that I might qualify today and not qualify tomorrow because my entire qualification rests on a number of variables which can shift from moment to moment for all sorts of reasons.

Hm. If that's the case, I'd wager the challenge would not be allowed. They must be positive/additive, which typically means that you shouldn't be able to "unqualify" (to take a step back while geocahcing normally, or 'not' cache in order to move towards qualification). Can you cite an example of a challenge that exists where this would be the case? (I know of many types) We may quickly be able to determine if that particular one would be allowed under the new guidelines.

Link to comment

Let's not worry that I might qualify today and not qualify tomorrow because my entire qualification rests on a number of variables which can shift from moment to moment for all sorts of reasons.

Hm. If that's the case, I'd wager the challenge would not be allowed. They must be positive/additive, which typically means that you shouldn't be able to "unqualify" (to take a step back while geocahcing normally, or 'not' cache in order to move towards qualification). Can you cite an example of a challenge that exists where this would be the case? (I know of many types) We may quickly be able to determine if that particular one would be allowed under the new guidelines.

 

Well the simplest one that springs to mind is a challenge based on the D/T grid where CO's might change D/T any time they choose.

 

If I'm on the threshold, so to speak, a single change could break my qualification.

Link to comment

Well the simplest one that springs to mind is a challenge based on the D/T grid where CO's might change D/T any time they choose.

 

If I'm on the threshold, so to speak, a single change could break my qualification.

Oh that type of unqualify. Then yes, I agree :laughing:

(with the concern of losing qualifiers though, not on the subject of having to wait until the next day to check more challenges, sorry)

Link to comment

Let's not worry that I might qualify today and not qualify tomorrow because my entire qualification rests on a number of variables which can shift from moment to moment for all sorts of reasons.

Hm. If that's the case, I'd wager the challenge would not be allowed. They must be positive/additive, which typically means that you shouldn't be able to "unqualify" (to take a step back while geocahcing normally, or 'not' cache in order to move towards qualification). Can you cite an example of a challenge that exists where this would be the case? (I know of many types) We may quickly be able to determine if that particular one would be allowed under the new guidelines.

 

Well the simplest one that springs to mind is a challenge based on the D/T grid where CO's might change D/T any time they choose.

 

If I'm on the threshold, so to speak, a single change could break my qualification.

 

 

That's not something that can be controlled by finders' geocaching habits; it is out of their hands what the CO does behind their backs.

 

The example that came to my mind was a challenge based on your centroid:

 

Cache Centroid Challenge

Link to comment

Let's not worry that I might qualify today and not qualify tomorrow because my entire qualification rests on a number of variables which can shift from moment to moment for all sorts of reasons.

Hm. If that's the case, I'd wager the challenge would not be allowed. They must be positive/additive, which typically means that you shouldn't be able to "unqualify" (to take a step back while geocahcing normally, or 'not' cache in order to move towards qualification). Can you cite an example of a challenge that exists where this would be the case? (I know of many types) We may quickly be able to determine if that particular one would be allowed under the new guidelines.

 

Well the simplest one that springs to mind is a challenge based on the D/T grid where CO's might change D/T any time they choose.

 

If I'm on the threshold, so to speak, a single change could break my qualification.

 

That's not something that can be controlled by finders' geocaching habits; it is out of their hands what the CO does behind their backs.

 

The example that came to my mind was a challenge based on your centroid:

 

Cache Centroid Challenge

 

Correct - so having to spread my checking over muultiple days adds a layer of complexity and uncertainty that I need to be aware of and also could probably do without.

Link to comment

Well the simplest one that springs to mind is a challenge based on the D/T grid where CO's might change D/T any time they choose.

 

If I'm on the threshold, so to speak, a single change could break my qualification.

Oh that type of unqualify. Then yes, I agree :laughing:

(with the concern of losing qualifiers though, not on the subject of having to wait until the next day to check more challenges, sorry)

 

We don't need to agree on the subject of having to wait until the next day to check more challenges - so you don't need to be sorry :)

 

I highly doubt it will ever affect me - I was merely illustrating for those who couldn't imagine such a scenario that it's a very real possibility for ardent challenge fans.

Link to comment

I understand your point: Is qualifying for a county based on needing only coordinates that are interpreted by the CO/cacher, or is county-based challenge disallowed because the County itself is not an available data point available in Groundspeak data. So sure, a different question to discuss would be if county-based challenges are allowed based on the interpretation of that guideline. BUT that guideline was there before the moratorium and we had county-based challenges. That guideline isn't new.

 

Are you sure that point 4 of the guideline I cited above is not new? My recollection matches with what I found below

 

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.

Not really. The authors of various caches will be fooling people by stating that their caches are in states/counties where they aren't and the checker will call them on it. (In most cases where there's a discrepancy.)

Groundspeak might be able to crack down of cache owners who specify inaccurate country/state information, but Challenge cache owners...not so much.

 

Suppose I'm working on a challenge to find 10 caches in 10 countries. I've already met that requirement for nine countries, and now I'm in a new country. I don't have much time to geocache, but I manage to find 10 caches in this new country. When I get home, I run my finds through the challenge checker, and it tells me I only found 9 caches in the new country (because of a discrepancy between one listing page's country and Project-GC's coordinate-computed country). I don't care which method is more accurate. I relied on a Groundspeak Pocket Query to tell me which caches count for which country, and I think that should be good enough, so I appeal my denied "Found it" to Groundspeak.

 

Isn't that exactly the kind of situation that Groundspeak is hoping to avoid by requiring challenge checkers? As a Challenge cache owner, I don't really care whether Groundspeak's country or Project-GC's country is more accurate. I'm more than willing to cut the finder some slack and allow them to use either method, but I'm worried that Groundspeak might archive my Challenge cache if it has a checker that doesn't work properly.

Link to comment

The challenge cache itself can't be held accountable - the people involved are accountable - but there are undoubtedly caches out there which were placed specifically and only to ease qualification and those caches and even the areas they are placed in frequently suffer as a result of that.

Nope, sorry, I find it very easy to doubt. I've seen a few caches planted to help with a challenge qualification, but none of the ones I've found were for that purpose to the exclusion of all else. All were reasonable hides with decent containers, all well within the normal standards for my area. If anything, I'd say such caches tend to be a little better. Perhaps you could show me an area suffering such a scourge.

 

If there's a place where such caches made an area actually suffer, I'd be wondering why the CO is ignoring the suffering he's caused. That would true whether the CO planted them to help with challenges or had some other reason to plant caches that make the area suffer. It seems like a local matter.

Link to comment

I understand your point: Is qualifying for a county based on needing only coordinates that are interpreted by the CO/cacher, or is county-based challenge disallowed because the County itself is not an available data point available in Groundspeak data. So sure, a different question to discuss would be if county-based challenges are allowed based on the interpretation of that guideline. BUT that guideline was there before the moratorium and we had county-based challenges. That guideline isn't new.

 

Are you sure that point 4 of the guideline I cited above is not new? My recollection matches with what I found below

 

 

Well, I don't know why the data source isn't shown there, but specifically recall that it was a requirement pre-moratorium, that data for challenges be attainable from GC Finds data. Maybe that was one of those 'unwritten rules' people complained about so much. But then I don't really know of any challenge caches with qualification that can't be determined from the Finds history and lsiting data... for counties, it was coordinates and the CO made the call as to whether the provided proof was valid. So the question now is how checkers play into that with coordinate/border analysis (especially pertaining to potentially contradictory State/Country fields).

 

Since, again, it's not written that users are required to use the checker's output as proof, only that the listing has the checker. My guess is if the CO says that you must place the checker's output (PGC or otherwise) as the only acceptable proof, then that would be allowable; in which case, any location-based challenges would be allowed. However, if Groundspeak doesn't allow challenges requiring 3rd party website use to qualify (or whatever the wording is), then we go back to the previous point; users can submit whatever documentation of the proof they desire, and the CO has to judge if it's valid qualification, despite the existence of the checker.

 

...then we move into the realm of appeals where a user might complain that their qualifications match the listing and are valid, but the CO has judged it not qualified because the checker returns a fail. I'd think that that situation would be pretty rare at this point though.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I relied on a Groundspeak Pocket Query to tell me which caches count for which country, and I think that should be good enough, so I appeal my denied "Found it" to Groundspeak.

I find it sad to think that there's a CCO that wouldn't accept that explanation, let alone that it would be so normal you don't even consider the possibility of making that case in the found log, and the CCO accepting the 10th cache without comment. That's what I'd expect to happen in my area.

 

Isn't that exactly the kind of situation that Groundspeak is hoping to avoid by requiring challenge checkers?

No, it's not. By all accounts, appeals by rejected finders was not a significant issue. Checkers were added to simplify the review process by forcing the requirements to be demonstratively concrete.

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.

 

No, I'm saying that we don't use that field if we have access to better information (i.e. map information for that country).

 

While using coordinates to derive a value for a State may be more accurate I would not consider it to be "better". Someone working on a challenge which requires one to find a cache in a specific State isn't going to be selecting caches which may qualify for a challenge using map information or reverse geocoding. They're just going to look at the State field for the cache listing. The cache submission process doesn't use map information or reverse geocoding services to set the State field. A Challenge Checker should not be using a different method, even it *is* more accurate.

Link to comment

Well, I don't know why the data source isn't shown there, but specifically recall that it was a requirement pre-moratorium, that data for challenges be attainable from GC Finds data. Maybe that was one of those 'unwritten rules' people complained about so much.

 

If it was an unwritten rule before, then the guidelines have changed.

 

However you seem to refer only to verification while the new guidelines in point 4 also refer to challenge criteria and not only to the verification aspect (which is relevant in its own right). Let me quote again

 

Challenge cache criteria

 

must come from information broadly available on Geocaching.com such as on the statistics page, cache placement dates, types, attributes, souvenirs, etc.

 

While GS apparently wanted to arrive at rules that lead to a smaller number of debates, I think that clear and unambigious rules look differently. The quote above is extremely fuzzy.

Link to comment

The challenge cache itself can't be held accountable - the people involved are accountable - but there are undoubtedly caches out there which were placed specifically and only to ease qualification and those caches and even the areas they are placed in frequently suffer as a result of that.

Nope, sorry, I find it very easy to doubt. I've seen a few caches planted to help with a challenge qualification, but none of the ones I've found were for that purpose to the exclusion of all else. All were reasonable hides with decent containers, all well within the normal standards for my area. If anything, I'd say such caches tend to be a little better. Perhaps you could show me an area suffering such a scourge.

 

If there's a place where such caches made an area actually suffer, I'd be wondering why the CO is ignoring the suffering he's caused. That would true whether the CO planted them to help with challenges or had some other reason to plant caches that make the area suffer. It seems like a local matter.

 

You're sorry that you find it easy to doubt? Don't be - it's very easy to doubt anything you choose. It's also very easy to look around you and claim that because it isn't happening where you are, it isn't happening anywhere and I've even heard it said that ignorance is bliss.

 

I am happy that you live in caching Utopia - if only your utopian outlook could magically spread to all parts of the world everything would be raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens :)

 

Sure it's a local matter - local to everywhere that it happens.

 

I too wonder why some CO's ignore the suffering they cause - perhaps they are blissfully unaware of it, believing all is Utopian.

Link to comment

The challenge cache itself can't be held accountable - the people involved are accountable - but there are undoubtedly caches out there which were placed specifically and only to ease qualification and those caches and even the areas they are placed in frequently suffer as a result of that.

Nope, sorry, I find it very easy to doubt. I've seen a few caches planted to help with a challenge qualification, but none of the ones I've found were for that purpose to the exclusion of all else. All were reasonable hides with decent containers, all well within the normal standards for my area. If anything, I'd say such caches tend to be a little better. Perhaps you could show me an area suffering such a scourge.

 

If there's a place where such caches made an area actually suffer, I'd be wondering why the CO is ignoring the suffering he's caused. That would true whether the CO planted them to help with challenges or had some other reason to plant caches that make the area suffer. It seems like a local matter.

 

You're sorry that you find it easy to doubt? Don't be - it's very easy to doubt anything you choose. It's also very easy to look around you and claim that because it isn't happening where you are, it isn't happening anywhere and I've even heard it said that ignorance is bliss.

 

I am happy that you live in caching Utopia - if only your utopian outlook could magically spread to all parts of the world everything would be raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens :)

 

Sure it's a local matter - local to everywhere that it happens.

 

I too wonder why some CO's ignore the suffering they cause - perhaps they are blissfully unaware of it, believing all is Utopian.

 

 

The question stands

 

Perhaps you could show me an area suffering such a scourge.

 

Where is this dystopia?

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.

The month of unknown caches challenge and its cousins are some of the few challenges that don't really lend themselves to "database management." Nearly everyone needs to make a conscious effort going forward if they hope to qualify. Very few people would qualify for it accidentally. If these kinds of challenges get wiped out by local interpretations of "attainable," then that will be a real shame.

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.

No, I'm saying that we don't use that field if we have access to better information (i.e. map information for that country).

I can see Project-GC making those kinds of decisions (i.e., which data is "better") for developing their own statistics pages. But what if a Challenge cache owner requests that the associated challenge checker use the Groundspeak listing page country and state data? Will the challenge checker coder insist on using the coordinate-computed country and state? If a Challenge cache owner has Project-GC checker-writing privileges, then can they opt to write their own checker that uses listing page country/state data?

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...