Return of challenge caches

[+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.

 

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.

 

Oh, great.That's what I thought. So, if I finish the Pennsylvania All Counties Challenge, I have to wait a day or a day-and-a-half to get verification? Or drive back (373 miles) another time? Rather discouraging. It still hasn't updated two of the nine counties I found caches in last weekend.

[+MartyBartfast]

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.

 

Oh, great.That's what I thought. So, if I finish the Pennsylvania All Counties Challenge, I have to wait a day or a day-and-a-half to get verification? Or drive back (373 miles) another time? Rather discouraging. It still hasn't updated two of the nine counties I found caches in last weekend.

 

You can manually force it to update your data, quote from http://project-gc.com/Home/FAQ#552906412

 

If your finds seems to be out of sync, you can use our self-support system to tell the system to go through your data. You find it by clicking the orange support button that are available in the top right on most pages.

 

But you can only do this once a week.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Oh, great.That's what I thought. So, if I finish the Pennsylvania All Counties Challenge, I have to wait a day or a day-and-a-half to get verification? Or drive back (373 miles) another time? Rather discouraging. It still hasn't updated two of the nine counties I found caches in last weekend.

 

GC10YN8 Pennsylvania All Counties Challenge - You sign the log whenever that's convenient for you.

Cache is at coords. You do NOT have to use project-gc, that's an option. A nice option, as I expect it will output what you need for your log.

I think you might want to be cautious about rule #3, though...

[RuideAlmeida]

I think you might want to be cautious about rule #3, though...

 

Saved by the #10.

[+OReviewer]

Oh, great.That's what I thought. So, if I finish the Pennsylvania All Counties Challenge, I have to wait a day or a day-and-a-half to get verification? Or drive back (373 miles) another time? Rather discouraging. It still hasn't updated two of the nine counties I found caches in last weekend.

As pointed out, it is at the posted coordinates. That said, even before that, when it wasn't, if people were anywhere near close and requested the coordinates, we provided them.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As pointed out, it is at the posted coordinates. That said, even before that, when it wasn't, if people were anywhere near close and requested the coordinates, we provided them.

 

Ah, Okay. Thanks. Fifteen counties to go!

[+Cachedaug]

Dear Geocaching: You've effectively removed challenge caches for good. You took a very fun part of the geocaching experience and got rid of it. Since removing the moratorium, I've only seen 1 new challenge cache. VERY VERY disappointed in the outcome. I know you can do better than this.

[+Touchstone]

Dear Geocaching: You've effectively removed challenge caches for good. You took a very fun part of the geocaching experience and got rid of it. Since removing the moratorium, I've only seen 1 new challenge cache. VERY VERY disappointed in the outcome. I know you can do better than this.

You could try submitting some of your own ideas. Maybe there just isn't much interest for them in your area.

[+Mudfrog]

Dear Geocaching: You've effectively removed challenge caches for good. You took a very fun part of the geocaching experience and got rid of it. Since removing the moratorium, I've only seen 1 new challenge cache. VERY VERY disappointed in the outcome. I know you can do better than this.

You could try submitting some of your own ideas. Maybe there just isn't much interest for them in your area.

 

I'm figuring that interest was lost when the new changes for CCs came out. I know i'm no longer interested in trying to place one. And now that i think of it, i haven't seen one come out since the moratorium was lifted.

[+dprovan]

I'm figuring that interest was lost when the new changes for CCs came out. I know i'm no longer interested in trying to place one. And now that i think of it, i haven't seen one come out since the moratorium was lifted.

Before the moratorium, most of the challenges in my area were reasonable, with only a few that were out of reach of anyone except power cachers. As it happens, just a couple of minutes ago I saw one of the first new era challenge caches come out in my area, and it is in the running for the most impossible challenge I've seen. It requires two caches, one cache above the Arctic Circle and the other one near the Antarctic Circle. (Apparently making the southern limit the Antarctic Circle itself would be unreasonable...)

 

As always, I don't mind the crazy challenge -- made possible thanks to the fact that there are a handful of globetrotting geocachers in my area that have been geocaching on Antarctica -- but I do find it amusing that the first new challenge cache I've seen since all the clamping down to avoid ridiculous challenges is one of the most ridiculous I've seen yet. But it's easy to write a challenge checker for, so it's OK!

[+pinkunicorn]

Dear Geocaching: You've effectively removed challenge caches for good. You took a very fun part of the geocaching experience and got rid of it. Since removing the moratorium, I've only seen 1 new challenge cache. VERY VERY disappointed in the outcome. I know you can do better than this.

 

Just for the record: your opinion differs wildly from mine. From my point of view, challenge caches are better now than before the moratorium. (My local area (10 km radius or so) has seen at least 10 new challenges under the new rules.)

[+dprovan]

Just for the record: your opinion differs wildly from mine. From my point of view, challenge caches are better now than before the moratorium. (My local area (10 km radius or so) has seen at least 10 new challenges under the new rules.)

I'd love to hear the details of what problems you had with challenge caches in your area before the moratorium and why the new ones are better.

[cezanne]

From my point of view, challenge caches are better now than before the moratorium. (My local area (10 km radius or so) has seen at least 10 new challenges under the new rules.)

 

So apparently you are interested into the type of challenge caches that I find boring. The old rules did not outrule what's allowed now but they allowed challenge caches which are not any longer allowed. What remained are mainly 0815 boring standard numbers oriented challenge caches (like grid filling, streaks without additional constraints, find x traditionals etc). The challenge caches I find appealing are special ones, not mainstream ones.

[+AnnaMoritz]

From my point of view, challenge caches are better now than before the moratorium. (My local area (10 km radius or so) has seen at least 10 new challenges under the new rules.)

 

So apparently you are interested into the type of challenge caches that I find boring. The old rules did not outrule what's allowed now but they allowed challenge caches which are not any longer allowed. What remained are mainly 0815 boring standard numbers oriented challenge caches (like grid filling, streaks without additional constraints, find x traditionals etc). The challenge caches I find appealing are special ones, not mainstream ones.

 

In Austria there are only 4 new (2016) challenges at the moment, not quite that gorgeous (still I would visit almost all challenges I fulfill the requirements if the caches are in/on my way)

 

found 50 caches that sum up 25000 favourite points

found 200 T5

found 1000 micros

found 15 challenge caches that have challenge in their title

Edited July 11, 2016 by AnnaMoritz

[+Team Microdot]

 

In Austria there are only 4 new (2016) challenges at the moment, not quite that gorgeous (still I would visit almost all challenges I fulfill the requirements if the caches are in/on my way)

 

found 50 caches that sum up 25000 favourite points

found 200 T5

found 1000 micros

found 15 challenge caches that have challenge in their title

 

All incredibly imaginative and spectacularly rewarding

[+AnnaMoritz]

I'm figuring that interest was lost when the new changes for CCs came out. I know i'm no longer interested in trying to place one. And now that i think of it, i haven't seen one come out since the moratorium was lifted.

Before the moratorium, most of the challenges in my area were reasonable, with only a few that were out of reach of anyone except power cachers. As it happens, just a couple of minutes ago I saw one of the first new era challenge caches come out in my area, and it is in the running for the most impossible challenge I've seen. It requires two caches, one cache above the Arctic Circle and the other one near the Antarctic Circle. (Apparently making the southern limit the Antarctic Circle itself would be unreasonable...)

 

As always, I don't mind the crazy challenge -- made possible thanks to the fact that there are a handful of globetrotting geocachers in my area that have been geocaching on Antarctica -- but I do find it amusing that the first new challenge cache I've seen since all the clamping down to avoid ridiculous challenges is one of the most ridiculous I've seen yet. But it's easy to write a challenge checker for, so it's OK!

 

Maybe the days for such challenges like GC6N632 (1 with latitude >= 66.5 and 1 with latitude <= -64) are over, at least it seems that some reviewers don't allow restrictions by longitude or latitude any more (with the argument "acceptable: "Challenge cache criteria may be based upon these geographic areas: countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent)."

 

Until today I was convinced 'may be based on these areas' is opposed to 'not acceptable' areas defined by 'mapped polygons' and (geographic) regions like 'Alps' 'Sahara' 'Himalaya' 'catchment area of river Danube', not that this means 'no longitude/latitude based challenges'.

 

That would also be the end of 'one in each quadrant' 'every degree (in a country)' 'four continents' (well, you could say 'one in these countries and one in these countries'), Delorme

 

Why not sweep also 'one of the x northest/S/W/E caches in x', 360° in x, 'in (min) distance (rings) from x' 'compass rose of types' on that occasion?

 

Next would be restricting challenges that include some of the 'time based' restrictions like in 'first cache per type within x', 'x caches from owners that joined the game before x', 'x oldest in y' 'found on cache birthday' 'find a 1/1 on 1/1'

 

Remains 'find x of y (in z)', 'fill your grid x times with y (in z)', 'fill your (find/placed/..) calendar x times with y (in z)' besides 'x caches with x favourites', 'simple streak' and other 'incredibly imaginative and spectacularly rewarding' things that badges may be better suited for than ALRs on caches that have 'challenge' in title.

Edited July 11, 2016 by AnnaMoritz

[+MartyBartfast]

 

found 15 challenge caches that have challenge in their title

 

I thought challenges based on the cache titles were nolonger allowed

[+Team Microdot]

 

found 15 challenge caches that have challenge in their title

 

I thought challenges based on the cache titles were nolonger allowed

 

Correct

 

Except then they are allowed

[+AnnaMoritz]

 

found 15 challenge caches that have challenge in their title

 

I thought challenges based on the cache titles were nolonger allowed

 

There is another 2016 challenge of that type in another country, just 100 instead of 15 caches. Maybe the word challenge in title is considered as a substitute for the long discussed but not implemented allowed criteria 'cache type ' or 'attribute' = 'challenge'.

Edited July 11, 2016 by AnnaMoritz

[cezanne]

 

found 15 challenge caches that have challenge in their title

 

I thought challenges based on the cache titles were nolonger allowed

 

Like in many other cases it depends on the reviewers (challenge caches, event caches, commercial guideline, mysteries with no coordinates provided etc).

[+ODragon]

found 15 challenge caches that have challenge in their title

Archived now. What's the 100 one so HQ can archive that one also?

[+on4bam]

found 15 challenge caches that have challenge in their title

Archived now. What's the 100 one so HQ can archive that one also?

 

I'm sure some enjoy having these challenges (or any other cache for that matter) archived.

[+Team Microdot]

found 15 challenge caches that have challenge in their title

Archived now. What's the 100 one so HQ can archive that one also?

 

I'm sure some enjoy having these challenges (or any other cache for that matter) archived.

 

I enjoy the wailing and moaning that seems to follow the enormous loss of a plastic box with a piece of paper in it...

[+bflentje]

From my point of view, challenge caches are better now than before the moratorium. (My local area (10 km radius or so) has seen at least 10 new challenges under the new rules.)

 

So apparently you are interested into the type of challenge caches that I find boring. The old rules did not outrule what's allowed now but they allowed challenge caches which are not any longer allowed. What remained are mainly 0815 boring standard numbers oriented challenge caches (like grid filling, streaks without additional constraints, find x traditionals etc). The challenge caches I find appealing are special ones, not mainstream ones.

 

In Austria there are only 4 new (2016) challenges at the moment, not quite that gorgeous (still I would visit almost all challenges I fulfill the requirements if the caches are in/on my way)

 

found 50 caches that sum up 25000 favourite points

found 200 T5

found 1000 micros

found 15 challenge caches that have challenge in their title

 

I thought challenge requirements no longer allowed "name" types of challenges. I must have missed a change.

[+bflentje]

From my point of view, challenge caches are better now than before the moratorium. (My local area (10 km radius or so) has seen at least 10 new challenges under the new rules.)

 

So apparently you are interested into the type of challenge caches that I find boring. The old rules did not outrule what's allowed now but they allowed challenge caches which are not any longer allowed. What remained are mainly 0815 boring standard numbers oriented challenge caches (like grid filling, streaks without additional constraints, find x traditionals etc). The challenge caches I find appealing are special ones, not mainstream ones.

 

In Austria there are only 4 new (2016) challenges at the moment, not quite that gorgeous (still I would visit almost all challenges I fulfill the requirements if the caches are in/on my way)

 

found 50 caches that sum up 25000 favourite points

found 200 T5

found 1000 micros

found 15 challenge caches that have challenge in their title

 

I thought challenge requirements no longer allowed "name" types of challenges. I must have missed a change.

 

nevermind.

[+AnnaMoritz]

@ODragon: Shouldn't it be reviewers task to check before publish whether a cache has acceptable requirements according to the actual guidelines?

 

Now a very high percentage of questionable wishes seems to be detected anyway already in the process of obtaining a checker and is kept away from reviewers workload as the checker request is cancelled. I suppose when access to scripting and tagging is opened (and already now as people can simply clone tags also from grandfathered challenges that wouldn't be allowed now) more cases will slip through the preselection at project-gc (no checker if not acceptable according to guidelines) than now as for many no more acceptable requirements there are existing checkers and working tags that are easy to understand.

 

Every PM can easily look for new (interesting, incredibly imaginative and spectacularly rewarding) challenges all over the world.

 

How? Now every challenge needs the word challenge in title and a checker. The checker script name (if english) combined with the given tags should reveal also the real theme of the most obscured challenge title with cloudy cache description text in languages you are not even able to name from looking at the listing.

 

One simple way is: New Search, in first box enter 0,-105 for the Americas, 0,75 for the rest of the world, add filters 'geocache type' = 'Mystery' and 'Geocache Name Contains' = 'challenge' and on top left 'Searching near 0,-105' 9000km / 11000km for 0,75. Sort by placed date, put first 1000 on list, create pocket query and view results.

 

At the moment not too much to flip through till you reach placed dates before 2015 (assuming everything placed before 2015 was published before the moratorium, only the most smart owners choose their placed date earlier and manage to have gccodes before gc5...., now we are at gc6.....).

 

Depending on your preferences then express regret over recent developments and restrictions when seeing challenges of your preferred types you even fulfill the requirements are/were possible only where you never will be able to make it to the area and are not possible near you or not any more. Or that little appreciated types of challenge still seem possible despite the guidelines.

 

A lot of pre-moratorium challenges by the way had absurd ALRs.

 

From this angle of view I appreciate that now 'finding all caches of an owner' 'xxxx in a day' and 'design that limits or punishes any element of finding caches' like '50 Unknown in a row, only FTF for other types allowed in between' or 'find exactly 1 ?, next day 2 Multis, next day 3 Tradis etc.' is no more allowed. But I'm sorry that D+T > 4 or Traditonals <50% is seen as punishing power cachers for their habits. You are not punished for finding a certain cache like in the previous examples, simply find also more of the others (of course only in areas with many non traditionals).

 

Challenges in the Americas

Challenges in rest of world

[+dprovan]

I'm figuring that interest was lost when the new changes for CCs came out. I know i'm no longer interested in trying to place one. And now that i think of it, i haven't seen one come out since the moratorium was lifted.

Before the moratorium, most of the challenges in my area were reasonable, with only a few that were out of reach of anyone except power cachers. As it happens, just a couple of minutes ago I saw one of the first new era challenge caches come out in my area, and it is in the running for the most impossible challenge I've seen. It requires two caches, one cache above the Arctic Circle and the other one near the Antarctic Circle. (Apparently making the southern limit the Antarctic Circle itself would be unreasonable...)

 

As always, I don't mind the crazy challenge -- made possible thanks to the fact that there are a handful of globetrotting geocachers in my area that have been geocaching on Antarctica -- but I do find it amusing that the first new challenge cache I've seen since all the clamping down to avoid ridiculous challenges is one of the most ridiculous I've seen yet. But it's easy to write a challenge checker for, so it's OK!

Maybe the days for such challenges like GC6N632 (1 with latitude >= 66.5 and 1 with latitude <= -64) are over, at least it seems that some reviewers don't allow restrictions by longitude or latitude any more (with the argument "acceptable: "Challenge cache criteria may be based upon these geographic areas: countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent)."

Yeah, that's the cache I was talking about, and I was astonished to see that publishing it turned out to be a mistake, but not because it had a ridiculously limited appeal, oh, no, but because of another new restriction of no apparent advantage (unless you consider having even fewer challenge caches an advantage). That just makes it all the funnier.

[+pinkunicorn]

Just for the record: your opinion differs wildly from mine. From my point of view, challenge caches are better now than before the moratorium. (My local area (10 km radius or so) has seen at least 10 new challenges under the new rules.)

I'd love to hear the details of what problems you had with challenge caches in your area before the moratorium and why the new ones are better.

 

Good changes:

 

- Rush challenges are no longer allowed since (in retrospect) they're not good for the game.

 

- The various word challenges don't appear any more. Going through thousands of finds to find random bits of cache titles that can qualify as animals or whatever has nothing to do with geocaching.

 

- Trackables, benchmarks and waymarks are not valid qualifiers.

 

On the negative side, it's a pity that custom polygons are not allowed. I can see why it's done (to not get challenges that require you to log specific cache series to qualify) but it also disallows good challenges like DeLorme or logging in x number of national parks.

[cezanne]

Good changes:

 

- The various word challenges don't appear any more. Going through thousands of finds to find random bits of cache titles that can qualify as animals or whatever has nothing to do with geocaching.

 

How many challenge caches of that type did you have in your area? If it was just a small number, then why not allow those who enjoy such caches to keep enjoying them?

 

What's the definition of geocaching? There are puzzle caches and in my opinion some of the word challenges are like solving a puzzle which is enjoyable to many cachers and is part of puzzle caches and thus geocaching.

 

While geocaching for me is mainly a physical activity, I need to say that going through my minds and letting memories come back is more geocaching related and in particular much more rewarding and less frustrating for me than e.g. visiting a powertrail of 50 caches.

 

The point with such and other challenge caches is that noone is forced to visit the caches and noone is forced to check whether they qualify. You are also not forced to solve a puzzle for a puzzle cache - do it if you want and stay away otherwise.

 

If we forbid everything that someone does not like, nothing remains.

 

On the negative side, it's a pity that custom polygons are not allowed. I can see why it's done (to not get challenges that require you to log specific cache series to qualify) but it also disallows good challenges like DeLorme or logging in x number of national parks.

 

Apart from the fact that there are many more negative aspects, there would exist many other options to deal with this issue.

Human intellegence is available to say no to very strange polygons that are abusing the option to use polygons and allow polygons for areas that are natural and where the polygons are just the tool to allow an automatic checker.

I do not need polygons to define e.g. the Alps.

 

What you have not answered is what kind of challenge caches have appeared in your area that you enjoy?

Do you enjoy challenge caches as badge kind aechievements? If so, then I understand that you are happy with the new rules.

 

For those who rather appreciated some challenge caches as being out of the box and not a badge like certificate for having achieved something without having known the challenge requirements, the situation is very unfortunate.

[+on4bam]

Good changes:

 

- The various word challenges don't appear any more. Going through thousands of finds to find random bits of cache titles that can qualify as animals or whatever has nothing to do with geocaching.

 

I consider that a very bad change. As a GSAK user going through all my finds isn't a big deal anyway.

 

As for "nothing to do with geocaching" that goes for 99% of mysteries unless you consider a jigsaw puzzle, sudoku... geocaching related.

[+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.

I bet Nick Fury would recognize this decision, and then elect to ignore it.

 

Alas, the rest of us do not have The Avengers on our side.

[+dprovan]

Good changes:

 

- Rush challenges are no longer allowed since (in retrospect) they're not good for the game.

I'm not sure what you mean by "rush challenges", so it might well be a restriction I'd consider reasonable (though likely still undesirable to me, I'm guessing), but the limit could have been added at any time, so I don't consider it a reasonable example of the kind of change that came out of this huge shake up of challenge caches.

 

- The various word challenges don't appear any more. Going through thousands of finds to find random bits of cache titles that can qualify as animals or whatever has nothing to do with geocaching.

I'm not sure why these bothered you before, but if you don't like doing them as database searches, then don't do them like database searches: take them at face value and go out to make new finds to satisfy the challenge. I'm too lazy to do that, but, at the same time, I remember fondly when I had few enough finds that that was the only way I could achieve such a challenge.

 

- Trackables, benchmarks and waymarks are not valid qualifiers.

Meh. I don't mind those being restricted -- although I'd rather they were allowed -- but, again, I can't imagine why it would cause you enough grief to justify preventing people that enjoy them from having them.

 

So to sum up: the problems you used to have were that there were challenges you didn't like, so you think it's a good thing they've been eliminated even though that means people that used to enjoy them now can't. At least you're honest about it. As more and more restrictions are added, it becomes clearer and clearer that this is exactly the "problem" that GS is "fixing" even though they keep claiming the only problem is the overhead of reviewing them.

 

On the negative side, it's a pity that custom polygons are not allowed. I can see why it's done (to not get challenges that require you to log specific cache series to qualify) but it also disallows good challenges like DeLorme or logging in x number of national parks.

To rephrase this more completely and accurately: the negative side is that GS now feels they can add any restriction they want. There's simply no way the cache we're discussing on the other thread -- the one limited by the arctic circle -- could be limiting the caches to a "specific cache series", yet this obscure problem (already solved because there's a specific restriction against it that should be applied even if someone tries to use a polygon to get around it) has generated a "solution" that wipes out all manner of challenges with no such isseue.

[+Touchstone]

I'm not sure what you mean by "rush challenges",..

I think this is referring to the so called "busy day" Challenges, in which you try and collect a certain number of cache types in a specified period of time (typically a day).

Edited July 12, 2016 by Touchstone

[+dprovan]

I'm not sure what you mean by "rush challenges",..

I think this is referring to the so called "busy day" Challenges, in which you try and collect a certain number of cache types in a specified period of time (typically a day).

That was my guess, too, and that's a good example of a restriction that has a justification, so it doesn't bother me, even though I, personally, don't understand why GS would bother.

[+Touchstone]

I'm not sure what you mean by "rush challenges",..

I think this is referring to the so called "busy day" Challenges, in which you try and collect a certain number of cache types in a specified period of time (typically a day).

That was my guess, too, and that's a good example of a restriction that has a justification, so it doesn't bother me, even though I, personally, don't understand why GS would bother.

In my best Rod Serling voice...Imagine if you will, a group of cachers trying to complete a busy day challenge. They need an Event and a CITO to complete the challenge. They find both, and spend less than five minutes at each. The Hosts are upset at this type of behavior and delete their attended logs. The group protests to Groundspeak.....

[+niraD]

In my best Rod Serling voice...Imagine if you will, a group of cachers trying to complete a busy day challenge. They need an Event and a CITO to complete the challenge. They find both, and spend less than five minutes at each. The Hosts are upset at this type of behavior and delete their attended logs. The group protests to Groundspeak.....

Yeah, reminds me of a souvenir-inspired event I attended a while back. I attended a midnight event (12:01 - 12:31 AM) to get the souvenir. Just as our event was breaking up, a group shows up. They were trying to log as many of these souvenir-inspired events as possible that day, starting with another midnight event about 25-minutes away ("Hi! Bye!"), then our midnight event ("Hi! Bye!"), and then more than a dozen other events scattered around the bay area, including multiple lunch events ("Hi! Bye! Hi! Bye! Hi! Bye!") and multiple dinner events ("Hi! Bye! Hi! Bye! Hi! Bye! Hi! Bye! Hi! Bye!").

 

There's already enough motivation for such silliness without "busy day" and other "rush" challenges encouraging it more.

[cezanne]

There's already enough motivation for such silliness without "busy day" and other "rush" challenges encouraging it more.

 

Yes, but the old challenge caches are there anyway and the same is true for badges related to "busy days".

 

So while it might make sense to not allow new such challenge caches, they will not eliminate the potential for what touchstone mentioned.

 

Moreover, many sources of such silliness (to use your works) are directly motivated by actions taken by Groundspeak.

[+niraD]

Moreover, many sources of such silliness (to use your works) are directly motivated by actions taken by Groundspeak.

Oh, absolutely. I don't see any indication that date-based Souvenirs are going to stop, and that's all that was necessary to inspire a flood of "get today's souvenir" events, and then a "gotta get 'em all" mentality took over from there. No challenges were required.

[+dprovan]

In my best Rod Serling voice...Imagine if you will, a group of cachers trying to complete a busy day challenge. They need an Event and a CITO to complete the challenge. They find both, and spend less than five minutes at each. The Hosts are upset at this type of behavior and delete their attended logs. The group protests to Groundspeak.....

The Horrors! Obviously we must stop this scourge. Those people -- who, notice, aren't breaking a single rule with or without the challenge cache restriction -- must be stopped! Otherwise, we might have to deal with event owners who think they can make up their own attendance requirements.

 

If you seriously think this is a problem, the solution is to let event owners set a minimum attendance time, thus solving the problem in general rather than preventing this one cause of the problem in a way that also prevents other challenges with no such problems while continuing to allow plenty of other reasons for minimal attendance (see below).

 

Yeah, reminds me of a souvenir-inspired event I attended a while back. I attended a midnight event (12:01 - 12:31 AM) to get the souvenir. Just as our event was breaking up, a group shows up. They were trying to log as many of these souvenir-inspired events as possible that day, starting with another midnight event about 25-minutes away ("Hi! Bye!"), then our midnight event ("Hi! Bye!"), and then more than a dozen other events scattered around the bay area, including multiple lunch events ("Hi! Bye! Hi! Bye! Hi! Bye!") and multiple dinner events ("Hi! Bye! Hi! Bye! Hi! Bye! Hi! Bye! Hi! Bye!").

 

There's already enough motivation for such silliness without "busy day" and other "rush" challenges encouraging it more.

A good example since they weren't motivated by a rush challenge cache or any other concrete reward -- they already had the souvenir, after all -- so prohibiting rush challenges does absolutely nothing to prevent that from happening. On the other hand, the event you're talking about was scheduled and attended by everyone else for no reason other than to get a souvenir, so I have a hard time understanding by what measure you consider that motive laudable while seeing attending it briefly for a rush challenge antisocial.

 

This is also a good example because you make it sound like a terrible problem, but I can't see a single person hurt by it.

 

I'm amused by the fact that I find myself defending this kind of challenge even though I myself have no interest in them. I'd rather see a simple and honest arbitrary justification -- "we don't like them" -- then these supposed problem statements that never seem to hold water.

[+niraD]

On the other hand, the event you're talking about was scheduled and attended by everyone else for no reason other than to get a souvenir, so I have a hard time understanding by what measure you consider that motive laudable while seeing attending it briefly for a rush challenge antisocial.

Yes, the event was scheduled then so attendees could get the Souvenir. And most of the attendees were there to get the Souvenir. (For many of us, it really was the most convenient event of the day.)

 

But we did attend the event. We met. We socialized. We enjoyed coffee/donuts together. We laughed at the absurdity of talking about geocaching at such a late hour.

 

But I think there's a difference between scheduling/attending an event for a silly reason (Pi Day, Intergalactic Geocaching Day, Leap Day, whatever) and stepping in the door, saying "Hi! Bye!" and then claiming the +1 for the event.

 

This is also a good example because you make it sound like a terrible problem, but I can't see a single person hurt by it.

Sorry. I'm not saying it's a terrible problem, or that anyone is really hurt by it. It's more of a rolling-my-eyes comment on caches and events becoming just another notch on someone's stats page, rather than things to be valued for their own sake.

 

Oh, yeah...

[+Harry Dolphin]

Good changes:

 

- The various word challenges don't appear any more. Going through thousands of finds to find random bits of cache titles that can qualify as animals or whatever has nothing to do with geocaching.

 

I consider that a very bad change. As a GSAK user going through all my finds isn't a big deal anyway.

 

As for "nothing to do with geocaching" that goes for 99% of mysteries unless you consider a jigsaw puzzle, sudoku... geocaching related.

 

Ah! Now I got it. Anything the challenge checker creators cannot create (even though they said they could) "has nothing to do with geocaching"! Wow! What a cheap cop out?

[+Touchstone]

The Horrors! Obviously we must stop this scourge. Those people -- who, notice, aren't breaking a single rule with or without the challenge cache restriction -- must be stopped! Otherwise, we might have to deal with event owners who think they can make up their own attendance requirements.

 

Yes and no. On the Event example, my general opinion is meh. People do that sort of thing, and that's their issue, not mine.

 

On the CITO example, there are potential consequences. The CITO's I've held in Yosemite, the NPS has made it increasingly clear that participation is Mandatory. You could call it, the price of admission (Gate Pass into the Park, and free campsite for two nights...around $80 if someone had to shell it out on their own). Geocachers have been a great crowd, and eager to work, but some non-Geocaching groups have not been invited back over the issue.

 

Similarly, other Park Agencies have to fork up overtime pay to have staff attend and supervise these things. Seems kind of tacky to show up briefly for the icon after the Parks put in the effort and resources.

[+dprovan]

On the CITO example, there are potential consequences. The CITO's I've held in Yosemite, the NPS has made it increasingly clear that participation is Mandatory.

Your case argues for a minimum attendance time for CITO events, or even allowing the EO require attendance for the entire scheduled event. But it's not an argument against rush challenges, since rush challenges are not even close to being the only reason people might shortchange CITO events.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

I just checked on how many new challenge caches have been published in my area since the moratorium was lifted. Zero. None. And that covers an area of a 30 mile radius (that's 12,246 square miles, if my math is right. And that is with no restrictions for D/T. Only search criteria was the word "Challenge" in the title.

 

Question now is "why"? My guess is the restriction that the Cache Name cannot be used is the culprit. We have many (pre-moratorium) that are Jasmer based and DeLorme based but no one wants to put any more of those out. We even have JasmerX2 and JasmerX3 where you have to have completed the grid multiple times. The the vast majority were creative, word based challenges. Yes, there are your usual extreme challenges (3 States of GeoArt, Noah's Ark, etc) but for the most part they were rather straight forward and easy to document.

 

To be honest, I do have over 18,000 finds so that gives me a great starting source and I qualify for many almost outright. If I don't qualify, I usually don't have to find many more. That helps me select target caches in my area that has a balance of over 6,000 unfound caches (same area as above). There are 5280 active caches I've already found in that 30 mile circle with a T rating of 2.5or less. That's aver 11,000 caches available in the area. I also admit I use GSAK and the Name Search function is one of the best. You can search for any string you want and it'll search within strings on the fly. I realize that someone without database skills is at a disadvantage here, but that's no different than I am when it comes to puzzle caches.

 

I enjoy them more than many of the puzzle caches that area out there that require skills that I just don't have. How you can look a string of numbers and somehow know that they are Dewey decimal codes for books with numbers in their titles. Or they are player numbers that were once playing for the Yankees and you have to somehow know that the number you are looking for is the finaly digit of their rookie year? Or how about the ones that are narrative stories and you somehow have to know to use the third letter of every five letter word in the story.

 

I do not anticipate very many challenge caches coming our way within the near future. What does everyone else foresee?

Edited July 14, 2016 by Cache O'Plenty

[cezanne]

I'm puzzled by this statement in the new challenge cache guidelines

Challenges specifically excluding any segment of cachers.

 

In my understanding most non-trivial challenge caches (as all other caches as well) exclude some segment of cachers.

It's pretty obvious that find 30 caches with the scuba attribute excludes many cachers, but I do not see this as an issue.

 

I guess that the statement above is not meant to exclude e.g. scuba challenge caches, however the statement is a good example of the fuzziness of the new rules (depite their being so restricted)

so that different people can interpret them completely differently.

 

What about a challenge of the type find 250 caches with the dogs not allowed attribute?

Edited July 15, 2016 by cezanne

[+palmetto]

Challenges specifically excluding any segment of cachers.

 

It's an old statement. In previous iterations of the Challenges article, it was under:

What makes an acceptable challenge geocache?

 

A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. A challenge geocache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.

 

---

It's never caused any problems in any review or appeal I know about.

 

It means that your challenge cannot call out, "only cachers based in Austria", "only cachers with children", "only cachers who are members of This Facebook Group", etc. This stuff show up (rarely) and can quickly be rejected. In terms of challenges that are physically too demanding, or expensive, it's just like the rest of caching. You may not be able to, but someone can.

 

What about a challenge of the type find 250 caches with the dogs not allowed attribute?

 

Seems like a non-sequitur to the rest of your post?

 

Mmm, if I saw this, I'd start with available caches, and show me who qualifies. I wouldn't really expect much trouble on either count, not in my area. This might well vary locally. In my review area, many public areas restrict dogs.

[+palmetto]

I may have missed the intended humor in the "dogs not allowed attribute" question, given the number of reviewers who are dogs.

But like T4 caches that will very likely exclude the wheelchair bound, this is a condition created by the world, not by the cache owner.

[cezanne]

Challenges specifically excluding any segment of cachers.

 

It's an old statement. In previous iterations of the Challenges article, it was under:

What makes an acceptable challenge geocache?

 

A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. A challenge geocache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.

 

Thanks for the clarification. The statement however is now at an isolated position not like above and I still think that it is an unfortunately formulated statement as other parts of the rules too.

 

It's one thing what the rules try to say and another what they say.

 

While in the example I used it might never have caused an issue, we currently see many examples of statements that can and are interpreted differently (e.g. the one about user-defined polygons - most cachers never would have assumed that something which is neither a polygon nor a union of polygons - not even in a projected map is included too, and even less if it is not user-defined, as the Alps).

 

 

What about a challenge of the type find 250 caches with the dogs not allowed attribute?

 

Seems like a non-sequitur to the rest of your post?

 

Mmm, if I saw this, I'd start with available caches, and show me who qualifies. I wouldn't really expect much trouble on either count, not in my area. This might well vary locally. In my review area, many public areas restrict dogs.

 

In my area too. It was not about the number 250 - it's pretty clear that needs to match the area and other challenge cache rules.

 

The point I tried to make is that of course such a cache like the scuba cache excludes cachers.

 

The apparent meaning of the statement I asked about is however that the description of the challenge cache cannot include a statement that only a specific group of cachers is allowed to do the cache. That's not the same as what the statement is saying.

Edited July 15, 2016 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

Challenges specifically excluding any segment of cachers.

 

It's an old statement. In previous iterations of the Challenges article, it was under:

What makes an acceptable challenge geocache?

 

A challenge geocache needs to appeal to, and be attainable by, a reasonable number of geocachers. A challenge geocache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers.

 

Thanks for the clarification. The statement however is now at an isolated position not like above and I still think that it is an unfortunately formulated statement as other parts of the rules too.

 

It's one thing what the rules try to say and another what they say.

 

While in the example I used it might never have caused an issue, we currently see many examples of statements that can and are interpreted differently (e.g. the one about user-defined polygons - most cachers never would have assumed that something which is neither a polygon nor a union of polygons - not even in a projected map is included too, and even less if it is not user-defined, as the Alps).

 

 

What about a challenge of the type find 250 caches with the dogs not allowed attribute?

 

Seems like a non-sequitur to the rest of your post?

 

Mmm, if I saw this, I'd start with available caches, and show me who qualifies. I wouldn't really expect much trouble on either count, not in my area. This might well vary locally. In my review area, many public areas restrict dogs.

 

In my area too. It was not about the number 250 - it's pretty clear that needs to match the area and other challenge cache rules.

 

The point I tried to make is that of course such a cache like the scuba cache excludes cachers.

 

The apparent meaning of the statement I asked about is however that the description of the challenge cache cannot include a statement that only a specific group of cachers is allowed to do the cache. That's not the same as what the statement is saying.

 

Requiring special equipment or skills is not the same thing as defining an arbitrary group of people who are "allowed" to find a cache.

[cezanne]

Requiring special equipment or skills is not the same thing as defining an arbitrary group of people who are "allowed" to find a cache.

 

Of course it is not the same, but note that the statement "excluding any segment of cachers" is not saying how the exclusion is done.

The statement about the non-exclusion can only be properly understood when having additional knowledge but not solely on what the statement says.

 

I used that statement just as an example for many statements in the challenge cache guidelines that can be interpreted in different ways.

 

The relatively high number of challenge caches that are in violation with the new rules that have been published after the end of the moratorium (in particular in Europe) seems to demonstrate that also some reviewers have a hard time to understand the exact meaning and use their personal interpretation.