Return of challenge caches

[+Touchstone]

Why should anyone care...

That does beg the question nicely.

How does asking the question beg the question? Really, I expect better of you. Just answer the question if you have an answer. Don't pretend I'm being illogical to ask.

Sorry dprovan. Just my impression of the disconnect of the drama going on with this thread and what I see occurring in the *real* world. Seems like the vast majority of the community has hailed the return of Challenges with a great big "meh". Although I do hear through the grapevine that things are a bit more lively over at PGC as people request Checkers and such, so maybe I'm just blithely unaware of the backstory going on.

 

It would be interesting if Groundspeak gave a kind of progress report at some point to give their impression on how things are working out from their point of view.

[+coachstahly]

I see two new Jasmer challenges and a 20x Fizzy challenge published, all three of which certainly push the boundaries and limits of the subjective guidelines. The majority of the rest of the challenges aren't overly difficult, with the exception of a couple non-traditional Fizzy challenges.

[+Team Microdot]

Two new challenges published in my part of the world in the past day or two - one which requires having found caches in ten countries, one which requires having found caches on three continents (if memory serves).

 

Someone actually posted a NA on the first one for being exclusionary. It has since been two or three times by individuals who already qualified.

[+Touchstone]

One Challenge in my area. Had a Find the same day it was Published. I suspect, like Wherigo's, the PGCC kind of slows down new submissions due to the "cost" of getting the Checker assembled.

[+colleda]

This thread is becoming a lot like many (most) of the challenges we don't attempt. So much reading that, after a while, it makes your head hurt trying to work out what's what and what's not.

[Keystone]

This thread is becoming a lot like many (most) of the challenges we don't attempt. So much reading that, after a while, it makes your head hurt trying to work out what's what and what's not.

I agree. A number of tangential posts have been pruned from the thread.

[cezanne]

The only type of challenge caches that appeal to me are those for which one can qualify by focussing on caches one likes to visit and would have enjoyed anyhow.

 

Unfortunately most such challenge cache have become impossible to implement by the new guidelines. By prohibiting the usage of the cache name, GS not only has excluded challenges where e.g. one needed to find 100 caches with an animal in the name, but they also removed the option to select for example caches that have a word like "Orientierungslauf" (German word for orienteering as a sports discipline) in the title. together with the fact that PCG checkers cannot be based on the cache description text and do not have access to the logs (problem for lonely caches), mainly statistics related challenges remain that inherently have the property that their main focus is numbers (not necessarily in the sense of powercaching of course). For example, the month of mystery cache challenge will people make visit mystery caches they do not like - a challenge cache that would restrict itself just to a certain type of puzzle or a certain type of multi cache (e.g. hiking caches of length >20km) would be much more interesting for me.

 

So far the examples of newly published challenges that have been posted here almost exclusively were challenges of the type which did not restrict to a very special type of cache. If more attributes were avaialble, this might help a bit to alleviate things (not only for challenge caches).

 

Am I right in guessing that it is quite unlikely that additional attributes (for example >20km, orienteering cache, cemetery cache etc) will be added?

[+Touchstone]

A couple of thoughts come to mind to overcome the name restriction that you can pass along to the User you're writing on behalf of:

 

1. I would assume that cache design dependent on orienteering would have to be submitted as a Multi or Puzzle.

 

2. Although there are only three distance related Attributes, perhaps a combination of Terrain, a disabled "Takes Less than an Hour" and the >10KM Attribute would give a closer approximation of the distance characteristics that you friend is seeking.

 

3. It appears from one of the above posts that Elevation is allowed, so maybe there is a way to narrow the field to those orienteering caches that are above or below a certain elevation threshold.

 

It seems as though a Checker could be built for those individual points, but I'm not sure about combining various aspects. Something that would have to answered by one of the Checker Authors.

[cezanne]

A couple of thoughts come to mind to overcome the name restriction that you can pass along to the User you're writing on behalf of:

 

I did not write on behalf of someone. I just provided an example of a challenge cache I find attractive to work on and also attractive to own.

Moreover, my goal was to shed light on an aspect of the guideline change which has not been discussed in this thread so far.

 

1. I would assume that cache design dependent on orienteering would have to be submitted as a Multi or Puzzle.

 

Yes, typically they are multi caches.

 

2. Although there are only three distance related Attributes, perhaps a combination of Terrain, a disabled "Takes Less than an Hour" and the >10KM Attribute would give a closer approximation of the distance characteristics that you friend is seeking.

 

The >20km distance was another aspect, not related to orienteering caches.

 

It would be nice in its own right also regardless of challenge caches, as the filtering w.r.t >10km is quite coarse.

 

3. It appears from one of the above posts that Elevation is allowed, so maybe there is a way to narrow the field to those orienteering caches that are above or below a certain elevation threshold.

 

That might be doable but would not help.

 

What one would end up with are >99% non orienteering caches.

 

Even when the cache name could be used, there would be many outliers but not that many to turn the result completely useless.

[+Touchstone]

I did not write on behalf of someone.

 

My mistake. For the group of individuals in your Community for whom you post on behalf of, you could also pass along the following idea. For most of the orienteering type Listings in my area, they tend to be a fairly high Difficulty level, so that might be another parameter that could be used to exploit the limitations that you enumerated.

 

I know of one series of orienteering Listings that require projections using a fairly specialized unit of measure used by the Forestry Industry. Most of those Listings are either 4-5 Stars in Difficulty. The projections also tend to be fairly long in distance, but the result can be narrowed by the clues, stating how far off trail the Finals are.

[cezanne]

I know of one series of orienteering Listings that require projections using a fairly specialized unit of measure used by the Forestry Industry. Most of those Listings are either 4-5 Stars in Difficulty. The projections also tend to be fairly long in distance, but the result can be narrowed by the clues, stating how far off trail the Finals are.

 

I guess we have two different types of caches in mind.

 

What I'm talking about are caches like this one

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6EYDM_orientieren-im-weitental?guid=b96a3c74-f2b9-4e4f-812f-3a7e1d13c84a

The description is in German only but have a look at the map. One needs to find all control points shown on the map and the final is then visited via GPS and coordinates.

 

I know that such caches exist in several countries - it's not a regional type of thing.

[+Touchstone]

I know of one series of orienteering Listings that require projections using a fairly specialized unit of measure used by the Forestry Industry. Most of those Listings are either 4-5 Stars in Difficulty. The projections also tend to be fairly long in distance, but the result can be narrowed by the clues, stating how far off trail the Finals are.

 

I guess we have two different types of caches in mind.

 

What I'm talking about are caches like this one

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC6EYDM_orientieren-im-weitental?guid=b96a3c74-f2b9-4e4f-812f-3a7e1d13c84a

The description is in German only but have a look at the map. One needs to find all control points shown on the map and the final is then visited via GPS and coordinates.

 

I know that such caches exist in several countries - it's not a regional type of thing.

That's a bit more specialized than what I'm used to seeing. Most of the courses I've run across in my area are temporary, and not permanent installations like the example you've shown. Many of the orienteering and the slightly newer sport of Rogaining, tend to set up in parks, and dismantle the course after the event is concluded.

 

That being said, I'd probably approach the problem by looking at the target Listings that I'd like to include in a Challenge and then see what common elements are on each page. Something like GSAK might be required to sort through the various permutations (I'm not sure a PQ would be flexible enough). I think in the end, such a Challenge would be more clearly defined than relying on a word in the Title or Description, which history has shown, is prone to abuse.

 

After that little exercise, I would go to PGC to see if Checker is possible or not.

[cezanne]

That's a bit more specialized than what I'm used to seeing. Most of the courses I've run across in my area are temporary,

 

Those exist of course, too.

 

and not permanent installations like the example you've shown.

 

There are even caches out there where the cache owner built and set up the markers.

 

That being said, I'd probably approach the problem by looking at the target Listings that I'd like to include in a Challenge and then see what common elements are on each page. Something like GSAK might be required to sort through the various permutations (I'm not sure a PQ would be flexible enough). I think in the end, such a Challenge would be more clearly defined than relying on a word in the Title or Description, which history has shown, is prone to abuse.

 

I did not mean to rely exclusively on a word in the title and description, but in the absence of an attribute it could have been

an additional criterion which would have helped very much to narrow down the selection.

The typical attributes amnd D/T settings of such caches are typically not different from normal multi caches in forest areas.

I'd rather risk some rare cases of abuse than rely on the currently existing attributes only and end up with something which comprises much more caches than any form of abuse ever could lead to.

 

Moreover, orienteering caches are just one example of a more general type of thing I tried to address.

[+dprovan]

Just my impression of the disconnect of the drama going on with this thread and what I see occurring in the *real* world.

I'm not really seeing any drama in the conversations here unless you consider all dissension to be drama.

 

Seems like the vast majority of the community has hailed the return of Challenges with a great big "meh".

No surprise, since there's really not much left to challenge caches to get excited about. And the changes themselves aren't really significant, just more of the same: more restrictions, more hoops to jump through, and yet the "reasonably attainable" clause that leaves the reviewers making subjective decisions which might be contested.

 

It would be interesting if Groundspeak gave a kind of progress report at some point to give their impression on how things are working out from their point of view.

I don't think a progress report would be interesting, myself. I'm assuming things are tied down enough that there won't be much trouble, but if there is trouble, that just means we'll lose challenge caches altogether. Either way, I can't think of any reason I'd learn anything from hearing the details.

[+Harry Dolphin]

My sister wants to set up a Challenge Cache for finds in all the counties in her state. How does she go about getting a challenger checker for that?

[cezanne]

My sister wants to set up a Challenge Cache for finds in all the counties in her state. How does she go about getting a challenger checker for that?

 

By creating a post here

http://project-gc.com/forum/list?8

(read the "read first post" is recommended)

Edited June 7, 2016 by cezanne

[+gpsblake]

Like I said, the easiest way to solve this once and for all is to make a different icon for challenge caches. This would do three things.

 

1) Would make it much easier for those who want to find challenges in their area to do so.

2) When's the last time geocaching came out with a new official category of cache? Makes things more exciting. Could make it retroactive

3) Enables those who DON'T WANT TO BOTHER with them to ignore them easily.

 

Simple isn't it?

[+pinkunicorn]

Like I said, the easiest way to solve this once and for all is to make a different icon for challenge caches. This would do three things.

 

1) Would make it much easier for those who want to find challenges in their area to do so.

2) When's the last time geocaching came out with a new official category of cache? Makes things more exciting. Could make it retroactive

3) Enables those who DON'T WANT TO BOTHER with them to ignore them easily.

 

Simple isn't it?

 

The last time there was a new icon was 2014 (Giga-event).

 

Making challenges their own type for new caches would be easy but changing all the existing ones is not trivial. Someone needs to check each cache with "challenge" (including spelling variations) in the name to see if it's actually that kind of challenge. Then there are caches that are challenges that don't have "challenge" in the name. Not to mention that retroactively changing the type of thousands of caches definitely will mess with a lot of people's statistics. I'm sure that would destroy my completed mystery-only calendar, for instance. Not that I would mind terribly (I can fix that later), but people with a myst streak may be more upset. On the other hand, it would also give me an extra type on my day with the most types logged.

[+Touchstone]

Like I said, the easiest way to solve this once and for all is to make a different icon for challenge caches. This would do three things.

 

1) Would make it much easier for those who want to find challenges in their area to do so.

2) When's the last time geocaching came out with a new official category of cache? Makes things more exciting. Could make it retroactive

3) Enables those who DON'T WANT TO BOTHER with them to ignore them easily.

 

Simple isn't it?

Not as simple as reading the official statement:

 

The idea of a challenge cache icon or attribute earned significant support from the community. We agree there are a lot of good reasons to implement one. However, we want to confirm that the new framework will reduce the problems which led to the moratorium. It wouldn’t make sense to engineer a new icon or attribute only to lose it if challenge caches don’t work out. We’re going to give it a year or so, and then re-evaluate the situation. If we find that things are going well, then we will strongly consider adding a new icon or attribute for challenge caches.

 

I think they got the message loud and clear.

[cezanne]

Apparently as of June 23 some additional restrictions have been added to the challenge cache guidelines. User defined polygons (excludes Delorme and many other challenge ideas) and cache type restrictions in streak caches (e.g. a month of mystery, two weeks of multi caches) are not allowed any longer (at least according to the knowledge book article - what reviewers allow in some regions of the world is another issue as there even exist new FTF challenge caches).

 

Why hasn't the change be announced?

[+Touchstone]

I would imagine it's difficult even in the Reviewing Community to keep everyone on the same page. If you see such outliers getting Published, I'm sure it would be appreciated giving a heads up to Groundspeak and the local Reviewer. The logical question to taking such action would be, is that playing the "Cache Police"? IMO, No, it's making an effort to get everyone on the same page so this process works, for the benefit of the Community.

 

As far as communication goes, you said the Help Center article was updated with new restrictions? To me that is a very logical place to communicate such changes. If I'm putting together ANY type of cache, the Help Center is often the FIRST place I go, to get the latest guidance.

 

If you're suggesting that the Forum or a Newsletter is more appropriate, that would be a bit further down my list of places to go, as such things are seemingly temporary and get lost in the shuffle of things.

[cezanne]

If you're suggesting that the Forum or a Newsletter is more appropriate, that would be a bit further down my list of places to go, as such things are seemingly temporary and get lost in the shuffle of things.

 

Of course the change needs to be made in the knowledge book article but it would make sense in my opinion to announce it also somewhere else. What about those who started to work on a challenge cache based on the new guidelines announced quite recently? Will they recheck the article they read constantly? If not, they might realize too late to have invested work in vain.

Edited June 26, 2016 by cezanne

[+AnnaMoritz]

It would be helpful if new restrictions would have a date in the list in the challenge cache section, not only '(new 2016)' to distinguish them from the '(new 2016)' from May. When the new guidelines were announced there was no indication that there will be further restrictions every time a new case pops up like 'only all cachetypes allowed for streaks', 'no mapped polygons' (aside from county - which relies on polygons as county is no property listed at geocaching.com, not sure what counts for states and countries at the moment - polygons or listing entries).

 

Of course not announcing changes before they become valid is reasonable to avoid further submissions of then not acceptable challenges, but indicating the changes afterwards in a more apparent way than the 'Last Updated: June 23, 2016' line would help.

 

The new guidelines were published a month ago and it seemed like 'that are the new guidelines and we watch how challenges are working and after one year we evaluate', not like 'whenever new questions arise we change the guidelines to avoid whatever'.

[+Touchstone]

If you're suggesting that the Forum or a Newsletter is more appropriate, that would be a bit further down my list of places to go, as such things are seemingly temporary and get lost in the shuffle of things.

 

Of course the change needs to be made in the knowledge book article but it would make sense in my opinion to announce it also somewhere else. What about those who started to work on a challenge cache based on the new guidelines announced quite recently? Will they recheck the article they read constantly? If not, they might realize too late to have invested work in vain.

If it was a concept that wasn't clearly spelled out in the article as Allowed, then yes, constant referral to the article prior to submission would apply. In reality, I suspect that any concept outside the parameters of the HC article will get discussed internally amongst the Reviewing Community to assure that some consistency is applied. Seems like a reasonable conclusion that any new concept that a consensus couldn't be reached would be forwarded to Appeals for clarification. It's not so much "whatever/whenever" approach, as it is a process of continuous quality improvement, like you'd see in the manufacturing and business sector.

[+AnnaMoritz]

Searching for post-moratorium-challenges brings up interesting requirements, maybe include them in the table as acceptable, if such requirements are still allowed everywhere or clarify that such requirements are not acceptable any more.

 

Old Timer: Country (Silver) - RM Challenge #142 'find the oldest active cache in each of five countries' and others with similar requirements like 15/20 oldest including oldest

100% Caches from Owner Challenge 'This is a Challenge cache requiring you to have found 100% of a cacher’s active hidden caches. The cacher must have 25 or more caches.'

50 Over 500m Ear Popping Elevation Challenge 'Found at least 50 caches whose elevation level is 500m or higher' (that information is -like county- not available on geocaching.com, but easy to obtain)

Challenge: Die fette 200 - FTF 200 FTF (well, this is admittedly already stated in the guidelines)

[+baer2006]

Challenge: Die fette 200 - FTF 200 FTF (well, this is admittedly already stated in the guidelines)

I'm really baffled that this one was published . FTF-based challenges were already forbidden by the "old" guidelines, and this hasn't changed in the new ones. They are explicitly listed as "Not acceptable", and the item is not marked with "(new 2016)".

 

If the cache were in my homezone I might have logged NA just out of curiosity to see what the reviewer has to say

[+fizzymagic]

I am pretty disappointed so far. Project-GC is not allowing new people to write challenge checkers, so there is no way to see what is possible.

 

I thought there was some coordination between gc.com and Project-GC to make this work?

[+AnnaMoritz]

I am pretty disappointed so far. Project-GC is not allowing new people to write challenge checkers, so there is no way to see what is possible.

 

Is there really no way to see what's possible in principle?

 

There is sort of a changing list what's allowed and a list of available LUA-functions and the list of available API functions from PGC towards the LUA Sandbox and planned API methods (like 'last log before user', for lonely cache questions).

 

For example the most important GetFinds with possible fields (gccode, cache_id, cache_name, type, difficulty, terrain, size, owner_id, placed_by, latitude, longitude, elevation, hidden, last_publish_date, country, region, county, archived, disabled, premium, attributes_set, attributes_unset, last_find_date, last_archive_date, num_finds, latest_logs, favorite_points, favorite_points_pct, favorite_points_wilson, last_cache_harvest, last_log_harvest, log_id, visitdate, length, words, ftf, cache_description) and possible filters (country, region, county, minVisitDate, maxVisitDate, minHiddenDate, maxHiddenDate, gccodes, types, sizes, difficulties, terrains, radius etc.)

 

There is more information available than might be allowed for using for challenge requirements at the moment like cache_name, favorite_points_pct, lenght, words, ftf, cache_description and on the other side other fields that don't come from geocaching.com like county and elevation but are allowed criteria.

 

Other functions are DistanceHaversine DistanceVincenty GetAttributeList GetBookmarklist GetFavorites GetHides GetMembershipCreatedDate GetSouvenirs GetJsonData that might be used for challenge criteria.

I wonder whether one can use challenge criteria based on GetNumCachesInArea (you could use it for find all/ a percentage of all in .. listed as not acceptable) GetNumTrackablesDiscovered (Trackables not allowed for new challenges) GetOldestCaches (find the oldest ...) GetPublishers (challenge based on published by is not allowed)?

 

There are already more than 700 active scripts, for most of them you can view/download the source for reference and show the used tags for existing checkers.

 

New checker requests and whether they seem to be allowed by guidelines, have to be modified and whether they are possible with existing scripts or need new scripts/new methods or not possible with available data at the moment.

 

Besides challenges with most simple (to tag, not to fulfill) requirements (x finds, x days streak, x small, x with attribute y, x Dy/Tz/DT ab/range D and T, x souvenirs) recent new challenges ask for Jasmer or parts like 100 months in 2001-2011; x-times DT matrix, also combined with cachetype; cachetypes and minimum per cachtype, x finds attibute a, y with b, z with c; x finds with minimum y favorite points, x finds in y, x cachetypes in y countries - also with every country needs other cachetype; x finds, but only a certain number of finds per county/region/country count (list); 1 find (published) on same calendar day as your MembershipCreatedDate, x finds on holidays (list); x finds on Monday etc., 1 find in every county, 3 cachetypes on 333 calender days, 1 find in four continents (list), distance cache-to-cache min. x, find 2 caches x km apart, 50 finds above 500m, min 90° between two caches, find a cache in 25 of 50 countries, find caches on both sides of a line and then other challenges that seem no longer possible.

 

I suppose if you ask for a checker and include the necessary tags for an existing script or present an improvement for an existing script or an idea for a new script yourself then your contribution won't be rejected even before new taggers/script writers are accepted.

Edited June 27, 2016 by AnnaMoritz

[+Mudfrog]

I would imagine it's difficult even in the Reviewing Community to keep everyone on the same page.

Not sure why that would be. Besides reviewers having their own forum, surely GS has every email address or other ways of contacting every volunteer out there. There's no reason for reviewers not to be on the same page.

[Keystone]

I would imagine it's difficult even in the Reviewing Community to keep everyone on the same page.

Not sure why that would be. Besides reviewers having their own forum, surely GS has every email address or other ways of contacting every volunteer out there. There's no reason for reviewers not to be on the same page.

Those communications are certainly taking place on a continuous basis since the return of Challenge Caches -- both in daily reviewer forum conversations and in periodic email communications from Geocaching HQ to all reviewers.

 

Getting every person to read and understand the communications is a separate question - especially if one factors in the fact that English is a second or third language for many reviewers.

 

I always point to consistency hurdles like this when people say "there should be more reviewers, like one for every city." It is hard enough to keep all the cats herded through the lightning storm as it is, particularly when keeping in mind that many reviewers are dogs.

[+Mudfrog]

I am pretty disappointed so far. Project-GC is not allowing new people to write challenge checkers, so there is no way to see what is possible.

 

I thought there was some coordination between gc.com and Project-GC to make this work?

Disappointed here as well, not only for the reason you stated, but for others as well. My motivation to hide any caches is non existent at this time. Seems like GC.com's goal is to encourage simple traditionals. Yes, some creativity can still be found but taking away cache types that people enjoy, not just CCs, then coming back with "new and improved", tying everyone's hands with so many new guidelines makes it not worthwhile.

[cezanne]

Getting every person to read and understand the communications is a separate question - especially if one factors in the fact that English is a second or third language for many reviewers.

 

I always point to consistency hurdles like this when people say "there should be more reviewers, like one for every city." It is hard enough to keep all the cats herded through the lightning storm as it is, particularly when keeping in mind that many reviewers are dogs.

 

I'm 100% sure that it's not due to language issues that the FTF challenge cache (not a new rule!) mentioned above got published, and I also do not think that it's a consistency issue as I'm sure that the second reviewer for the concerned country would have published it too.

 

I agree however that there are more subtle cases where it's often up to interpretation which is not surprising as some parts of the challenge cache rules are not clearly formulated. For example, I would not have understand the old version in the way that a month of mystery challenges are not allowed any longer and also the new requirement that user defined polygons are forbidden was surprising to me (and I guess not only to me as many people discussed challenge checkers based on such polygons).

Edited June 27, 2016 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

I am pretty disappointed so far. Project-GC is not allowing new people to write challenge checkers, so there is no way to see what is possible.

 

I thought there was some coordination between gc.com and Project-GC to make this work?

Disappointed here as well, not only for the reason you stated, but for others as well. My motivation to hide any caches is non existent at this time. Seems like GC.com's goal is to encourage simple traditionals. Yes, some creativity can still be found but taking away cache types that people enjoy, not just CCs, then coming back with "new and improved", tying everyone's hands with so many new guidelines makes it not worthwhile.

 

I still see lots of room for creativity beyond simple traditionals and simple traditionals with complex challenge requirements.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

I find it interesting that administrative boundaries (user defined polygons) are not allowed in challenge caches, except for county, state and country. I would be curious why they don't allow other administrative boundaries. After all, what is the slogan, "The Language of Location"? It seems counter-intuitive to disallow some location based challenge caches in a location based hobby.

 

So, no challenges like find 5 caches in Idaho State Parks, or find 10 Earth Caches inside US National Parks. Polygons for both of these administrative regions are readily available.

[Rock Chalk]

I would be curious why they don't allow other administrative boundaries. After all, what is the slogan, "The Language of Location"? It seems counter-intuitive to disallow some location based challenge caches in a location based hobby.

 

 

User-generated polygons are not verifiable on Geocaching.com, which puts them in conflict with 4. Source of Criteria. There are a few exceptions to that guideline (eg. permitting counties), but generally the criteria has to be verifiable on the website.

[+niraD]

User-generated polygons are not verifiable on Geocaching.com, which puts them in conflict with 4. Source of Criteria. There are a few exceptions to that guideline (eg. permitting counties), but generally the criteria has to be verifiable on the website.

What about very simple polygons, like USGS map quadrangles?

 

For example, a USGS 7.5 minute map quadrangle might include everything between N 37° 37.500 and N 37° 45.000, and between W 122° 15.000 and W 122° 22.500.

[+fizzymagic]

Is there really no way to see what's possible in principle?

 

There wasn't until you posted that URL, which I was unable to find on the PGC site.

 

BTW the links you provided to the forums are quite useful, as the forum is not referenced anywhere on the PGC site I could find.

 

There is sort of a changing list what's allowed and a list of available LUA-functions and the list of available API functions from PGC towards the LUA Sandbox and planned API methods (like 'last log before user', for lonely cache questions).

 

That "last log before user" is not adequate for lonely cache finds, for a variety of reasons. It's a good example of why these things need to be developed with a larger community.

 

In addition, as you probably know well, having access to API documentation is a very different thing from having access to an API.

 

OBTW, I'm not going to be asking for checkers. If I can't code them myself I won't be placing any. I suspect that many others feel the same way I do.

Edited June 28, 2016 by fizzymagic

[+AnnaMoritz]

That "last log before user" is not adequate for lonely cache finds, for a variety of reasons. It's a good example of why these things need to be developed with a larger community.

 

In addition, as you probably know well, having access to API documentation is a very different thing from having access to an API.

 

OBTW, I'm not going to be asking for checkers. If I can't code them myself I won't be placing any. I suspect that many others feel the same way I do.

 

Last log before user would be the headline, of course there would be more in it than the literally last log before use. I won't create a challenge - in my country lonely cache challenges weren't allowed even before the moratorium, but allowed in a neighbouring country 35 miles away - and considering what people do for challenges it doesn't look like a good idea anyway, but even if the API and the methods are good not all of the questions could be answered in a way that would satisfy me.

 

In addition I would think as soon as a 'reliable' checker is available the idea can be found on the right side of the table what is acceptable, one entry below FTF, so I wouldn't waste any energy on it.

 

Of course there is a difference if you only can look from the outside. But maybe the playground isn't too big anyway to bother and dream of fantastic challenge ideas considering that it has to be simple, easy to unterstand, appealing to a broad audience ..... and there is the ever growing list of what is not acceptable for a challenge.

 

10000 traditionals, 100 T5, full matrix, 25 countries, full calendar, a steak without further restrictions, easy to unterstand, easy to tag and positive achievements, appeals to the masses.

 

Looking at the challenge checker requests and some discussions to me it doesn't seem a bad idea not letting everybody make their own checker or tag one. Of course, until the access will be opened, bad luck for the 2% that would be capable of bringing additional useful input.

 

But a lot of now acceptable (and some no more allowed) ideas are already covered by existing scripts, maybe more than one might think.

[cezanne]

Of course there is a difference if you only can look from the outside. But maybe the playground isn't too big anyway to bother and dream of fantastic challenge ideas considering that it has to be simple, easy to unterstand, appealing to a broad audience ..... and there is the ever growing list of what is not acceptable for a challenge.

 

10000 traditionals, 100 T5, full matrix, 25 countries, full calendar, a steak without further restrictions, easy to unterstand, easy to tag and positive achievements, appeals to the masses.

 

Yes, I also think that what is left is extremely restricted and will be even further restricted each time someone comes along with an out of the box idea.

 

 

Looking at the challenge checker requests and some discussions to me it doesn't seem a bad idea not letting everybody make their own checker or tag one. Of course, until the access will be opened, bad luck for the 2% that would be capable of bringing additional useful input.

 

Again I agree, however fizzymagic is not "everybody" and he should be well known in the community (for fizzycalc and other contributions) and PGC could definitely open access to such people.

 

However, it appears that the main restrictions do not come from the checker requirement (which was what I initially thought before seeing the new guidelines for challenge caches), but from Groundspeak's concept.

 

Also with regard to lonely caches, it seems that Groundspeak's challenge policy is the real obstacle and not what project-gc is able to achieve or will be able to achieve in the future. The polygon checking procedure is a good illustrative example.

Edited June 28, 2016 by cezanne

[cezanne]

User-generated polygons are not verifiable on Geocaching.com, which puts them in conflict with 4. Source of Criteria. There are a few exceptions to that guideline (eg. permitting counties), but generally the criteria has to be verifiable on the website.

 

So does this then also mean that challenge caches based on elevation data (not available on gc.com, but on project gc) will not be allowed any longer? (Some have been published after the moratorium.)

If they are possible, how should cachers know which exceptions to "verifiable on the website" are allowed and which not (except allowing counties).

 

What about challenge caches where you have to find the closest cache to your caching centroid?

 

Personally, I also have some issues to understand the role of a checker if everything is verifiable directly on gc.om anyway. It's then at best a tool to reduce the work, nothing more and does not allow for more interesting uses of the checker tool.

[+Touchstone]

Question:

 

So does this then also mean that challenge caches based on elevation data?

 

Answer:

 

Some have been published after the moratorium.

 

Prima facie!

[+AnnaMoritz]

User-generated polygons are not verifiable on Geocaching.com, which puts them in conflict with 4. Source of Criteria. There are a few exceptions to that guideline (eg. permitting counties), but generally the criteria has to be verifiable on the website.

What about very simple polygons, like USGS map quadrangles?

 

For example, a USGS 7.5 minute map quadrangle might include everything between N 37° 37.500 and N 37° 45.000, and between W 122° 15.000 and W 122° 22.500.

 

One would think that doesn't need user generated polygons, only a simple test whether a cache is between N1 and N2 and W1 and W2 and this information is also obvious from the cache page (for verifying on geocaching.com).

 

You could also argue that Delorme pages are not 'user generated' polygons but (very simplified idea as there is more to check) lon lat confined parts of a state.

 

The are challenges like 'find a cache in every quadrant (NW, NE, SW, SE from N/S=0 W/E=0' 'between W/E x and W/E y (and N/S a and N/S b ), every degree(minute)' '360° one cache in every degree from starting point'

 

Most borders of national parks are not user mapped, but more or less 'official' polygons that come from authorities, like swiss national park

 

Proving on geocaching.com that two caches are x-y km apart should be easy with the new search (for PM) - enter one gccode - add filter - enter name of second cache - enter max distance - sort - the result shows distance between caches (at least if you didn't change the coordinates) if geocaching.com has the same way to determine distance as project-gc.

 

Building regions or alike from the allowed counties doesn't seem very useful to me as often there would be something missing or too much covered. There are ready polygons for a lot of them like Wienerwald, Schladminger Tauern or Bodensee (for water-caches, lake at border Germany, Austria, Switzerland)

[cezanne]

Question:

 

So does this then also mean that challenge caches based on elevation data?

 

Answer:

 

Some have been published after the moratorium.

 

Prima facie!

 

Not really as the rule set got updated on June 23.

 

It would be helpful to understand which of the challenge caches that got published within the last weeks are not ok any longer (or probably have never been ok in the minds of GS but this was not even understood by some reviewers).

[+Touchstone]

It would be helpful to understand which of the challenge caches that got published within the last weeks are not ok any longer (or probably have never been ok in the minds of GS but this was not even understood by some reviewers).

 

Maybe this portion of the Guidelines will help resolve this conflict for you...

 

Geocaching is a constantly changing and evolving activity and as a result these guidelines are subject to change.

 

As the famous Greek philosopher once stated, "the only thing that's constant is change".

[cezanne]

It would be helpful to understand which of the challenge caches that got published within the last weeks are not ok any longer (or probably have never been ok in the minds of GS but this was not even understood by some reviewers).

 

Maybe this portion of the Guidelines will help resolve this conflict for you...

 

I did not write about a conflict. I wrote that it would be helpful to understand.

 

Look e.g. through the list of challenge caches on bruce0's bookmark list.

 

It cannot be the optimal solution that every cacher has to try out what gets through and even when have to worry that a cache once published could soon become archived.

[+Touchstone]

I wrote that it would be helpful to understand.

 

Sorry. My bad. Fixed:

 

It would be helpful to understand which of the challenge caches that got published within the last weeks are not ok any longer (or probably have never been ok in the minds of GS but this was not even understood by some reviewers).

 

Maybe this portion of the Guidelines will help resolve this conflict for you understand...

 

Geocaching is a constantly changing and evolving activity and as a result these guidelines are subject to change.

 

As the famous Greek philosopher once stated, "the only thing that's constant is change".

 

It cannot be the optimal solution that every cacher has to try out what gets through and even when have to worry that a cache once published could soon become archived.

 

Hopefully Archiving a Published Challenge is not the first solution (although one example discussed seems somewhat likely to me). Pretty simple solution however:

 

1. Challenge Listing concept listed as Acceptable in HC article: submit for Publication

 

2. Challenge Listing concept not listed as Acceptable: submit and take your chances/or not.

 

The first scenario doesn't worry me so much. The second scenario is kind of interesting as it may result in further clarification for future submissions.

 

Onward and upward!

Edited June 28, 2016 by Touchstone

[+AnnaMoritz]

Look e.g. through the list of challenge caches on bruce0's bookmark list.

If I were a challenge owner I really would hope that changes of guidelines are marked with a date, as the guidelines also state "However, if the geocache was placed prior to the date when a guideline was issued or updated, the geocache is likely to be grandfathered and allowed to stand as is." and my cache hopefully doesn't get archived if it was published before that change with then acceptable requirements (and not published by mistake despite rules that weren't acceptable also before).

 

Too bad that Ontario is 7000 km away and it is not very likely that I would be able to get there in time to log the most appealing challenge I read about where I also fulfill the requirements.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The Challenge Checkers seem to be pretty slow. I logged my finds a few hours ago. They show on my profile. But when I just ran the Checkers, several caches are missing. I double checked, and I have the right counties and DeLorme squares, but they show as missing. And not being a member, I cannot check for another week! There is something wrong here.

[+AnnaMoritz]

The Challenge Checkers seem to be pretty slow. I logged my finds a few hours ago. They show on my profile. But when I just ran the Checkers, several caches are missing. I double checked, and I have the right counties and DeLorme squares, but they show as missing. And not being a member, I cannot check for another week! There is something wrong here.

 

From their FAQ:

 

I just logged some geocaches online which should make me fulfill a challenge. But it doesn't. Why?

 

Project-GC's data isn't real-time data. Normally, your new logs will exist in Project-GC within 24-36 hours. For more details, see How up-to-date is the data?

[+narcissa]

The Challenge Checkers seem to be pretty slow. I logged my finds a few hours ago. They show on my profile. But when I just ran the Checkers, several caches are missing. I double checked, and I have the right counties and DeLorme squares, but they show as missing. And not being a member, I cannot check for another week! There is something wrong here.

 

From their FAQ:

 

I just logged some geocaches online which should make me fulfill a challenge. But it doesn't. Why?

 

Project-GC's data isn't real-time data. Normally, your new logs will exist in Project-GC within 24-36 hours. For more details, see How up-to-date is the data?

 

Ugh. I was sort of starting to become interested in challenge caches but I really don't want to deal with some 3rd party site that takes days to be updated. What a hassle.