Return of challenge caches

[+narcissa]

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.

 

All this demonstrates is that treating geocache placements like some sort of case law is an exercise in futility. There have always been differences between reviewers. Work with your reviewer to get your challenge caxhe published.

[+Baad Daata]

Virtuals had much more substance than challenges.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Challenge caches have been effectively eliminated for my area. No new challenge caches within 30 miles of home since the moratorium was lifted. Most likely because all of the "standard" ones are already in place (i.e. Jasmer, D/T matrix in many forms).

 

Creative ones using the title have been eliminated, most likely because of the open versus closed list issue that would be needed by the checker to work properly. Perhaps they may revisit the issue in a while (not holding breath here).

[+Team Hugs]

Virtuals had much more substance than challenges.

 

Depends on which virtuals and which challenges, I suspect.

[+YukonShadow]

I seem to remember that Groundspeak said they'd review their new Challenge cache rules after a year and see if they should remain. So I'm putting my two cents in again for the return of title word challenges. Most of the cachers I talk to at events miss them and want them back (but then again we all wanted Virtuals returned as well). Since they were stopped, we've had only a few new challenge caches created in our area and they don't interest me at all just like a lot of puzzle caches don't appeal to me. With GSAK it is easy to see if you qualify and even their new system works on some of them as well. I just don't understand why anyone thinks it makes Geocaching better to take away caches that brought so much fun to so many of us while keeping a lot of caches that many people will never attempt. I don't care if ones I can't/won't do exist so why take away ones I prefer?

[+Gill & Tony]

I seem to remember that Groundspeak said they'd review their new Challenge cache rules after a year and see if they should remain. So I'm putting my two cents in again for the return of title word challenges. Most of the cachers I talk to at events miss them and want them back (but then again we all wanted Virtuals returned as well). Since they were stopped, we've had only a few new challenge caches created in our area and they don't interest me at all just like a lot of puzzle caches don't appeal to me. With GSAK it is easy to see if you qualify and even their new system works on some of them as well. I just don't understand why anyone thinks it makes Geocaching better to take away caches that brought so much fun to so many of us while keeping a lot of caches that many people will never attempt. I don't care if ones I can't/won't do exist so why take away ones I prefer?

I could not have said it better.

[+on4bam]

The few challenges that have been published since the ban all seem to be "plain vanilla". Nothing creative but just "have xx finds with yy characteristic, click here to see if you qualify...". Of course, xx and yy can't be too difficult because otherwise not enough people qualify and we can't have that. It would be too... challenging...

[+redsox_mark]

I think the need for a challenge checker is putting people off. And they don't understand what is possible. So they look to see what other new challenges have been published and reuse those ideas, knowing that they will be allowed.

[+dprovan]

I think the need for a challenge checker is putting people off. And they don't understand what is possible. So they look to see what other new challenges have been published and reuse those ideas, knowing that they will be allowed.

This whole thread has been about what's possible with a checker. We went over it with a fine tooth comb. It's what's allowed that's boring. There are lots and lots of interesting things that could be checked with a checker, but they've been banned.

[+redsox_mark]

I think the need for a challenge checker is putting people off. And they don't understand what is possible. So they look to see what other new challenges have been published and reuse those ideas, knowing that they will be allowed.

This whole thread has been about what's possible with a checker. We went over it with a fine tooth comb. It's what's allowed that's boring. There are lots and lots of interesting things that could be checked with a checker, but they've been banned.

 

Yes, but that is us, we know a lot due to this discussion. I know when I talk to less enlightened cachers who are interested in setting challenges, it is the combination of the rules and concern about what a checker can do. So they base their new challenges on what has been done before, as that is the only thing they can be sure is allowed. They don't want the hassle of being turned down by their reviewer, or being told a checker isn't possible for their idea.

[cezanne]

 

Yes, but that is us, we know a lot due to this discussion. I know when I talk to less enlightened cachers who are interested in setting challenges, it is the combination of the rules and concern about what a checker can do.

 

The result is however the same. Regardless of whether it is "us" or the "less enlightened cachers", mainly boring challenge caches remain as the other ones are not allowed.

[+redsox_mark]

 

Yes, but that is us, we know a lot due to this discussion. I know when I talk to less enlightened cachers who are interested in setting challenges, it is the combination of the rules and concern about what a checker can do.

 

The result is however the same. Regardless of whether it is "us" or the "less enlightened cachers", mainly boring challenge caches remain as the other ones are not allowed.

 

True.

[+narcissa]

Overall, the new rules seem to have succeeded in eliminating the problems that were happening in our area. I realize those issues aren't universal, but many of the challenge caches being published before the moratorium were deliberately designed to exclude specific groups of cachers, and in some cases, specific individual cachers. That has stopped.

 

That being said, I wouldn't be disappointed if they reevaluated where things stand and made some adjustments to allow a little more flexibility and creativity. There have been a lot of comments about the new challenge caches being boring. It just seems like a very difficult task when there is that small element in the game that will jump on any loophole in order to satisfy an impulse to exclude others by any means possible.

 

I've always felt that it was a bit of a shame that challenges got so intertwined with actual geocaches as a way of denoting completion. The most satisfying challenge I ever did was one set up by a local geocacher who created a web page with a leaderboard. For a long time, it was something that many cachers in the community would get excited about. There was no cache at the end, just the satisfaction of knowing you'd accomplished something.

 

I think this would be a better model for people who genuinely want to challenge each other, but it seems like nobody's interested if they can't chalk up another unknown cache find when they're finished. It's too bad, because this model, where challenges are just operated privately by people who are enthusiastic about geocaching, means that there are no guideline hoops to jump through because the challenge isn't tied to a specific cache at the end. It means endless creativity, but no official recognition with some sort of profile statistic.

[+pingurus]

It came to my mind that it was said that after a year there was the possibility of the creation of a new cache type. Any news on this?

[Keystone]

I've not seen any behind the scenes discussions about giving Challenge Caches their own cache type. (There might be discussions underway at HQ, but nothing's been shared yet with the Community Volunteer Reviewers.)

 

Perhaps that's because it's late February, and it won't be until late May when a year will have elapsed since the moratorium was lifted.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Overall, the new rules seem to have succeeded in eliminating the problems that were happening in our area. I realize those issues aren't universal, but many of the challenge caches being published before the moratorium were deliberately designed to exclude specific groups of cachers, and in some cases, specific individual cachers. That has stopped.

 

That being said, I wouldn't be disappointed if they reevaluated where things stand and made some adjustments to allow a little more flexibility and creativity. There have been a lot of comments about the new challenge caches being boring. It just seems like a very difficult task when there is that small element in the game that will jump on any loophole in order to satisfy an impulse to exclude others by any means possible.

 

The new challenges caches that I've seen are actual challenges. Find lonely caches (points for length of time). Find caches with over 1000 favorite points in North Jersey.

Sort through your found list for 26 foods in a cache name is not especially challenging. And, no. Dolphins are not food!

I don't consider the new ones boring, and they are actually challenges. Of course, as an old timer, I have already found caches hidden on every day of the year. But for the challenge cache hider, it was a challenge to find the final two so he qualified, and could hide the cache.

[+YukonShadow]

It seems to me that the problem Narcissi had in her area should have been handled by the reviewers not allowing those caches once that had been brought to their attention. I don't find searching for 26 different foods to be boring but a challenge not only to see if I have them but to go out and complete the list. This makes me look and discover a lot of caches I might not have bothered with before. All types of "title word" challenges gave me more fun than just a routine cache outing. We've been caching since 2001 and I found it a refreshing new slant on looking for caches. And again, I ask why does it bother other cachers if we have this type of challenge while there are thousands out there that aren't "title word" challenges?

[+dprovan]

Sort through your found list for 26 foods in a cache name is not especially challenging.

I've never seen a challenge cache like that. The ones I've seen always say to find 26 food caches. Sure, you can meet the challenge without any effort by sorting through your found list, but that's only because of an earlier rule that prevented the challenge cache owner from saying "starting now". But you're free to ignore that and tackle the actual challenge by going out and finding 26 more food caches.

[+narcissa]

Overall, the new rules seem to have succeeded in eliminating the problems that were happening in our area. I realize those issues aren't universal, but many of the challenge caches being published before the moratorium were deliberately designed to exclude specific groups of cachers, and in some cases, specific individual cachers. That has stopped.

 

That being said, I wouldn't be disappointed if they reevaluated where things stand and made some adjustments to allow a little more flexibility and creativity. There have been a lot of comments about the new challenge caches being boring. It just seems like a very difficult task when there is that small element in the game that will jump on any loophole in order to satisfy an impulse to exclude others by any means possible.

 

The new challenges caches that I've seen are actual challenges. Find lonely caches (points for length of time). Find caches with over 1000 favorite points in North Jersey.

Sort through your found list for 26 foods in a cache name is not especially challenging. And, no. Dolphins are not food!

I don't consider the new ones boring, and they are actually challenges. Of course, as an old timer, I have already found caches hidden on every day of the year. But for the challenge cache hider, it was a challenge to find the final two so he qualified, and could hide the cache.

 

I haven't looked at the challenges because it's not a cache type that interests me, but I have noticed many voices in the forum lamenting a lack of creativity. YMMV, whatever.

[+narcissa]

It seems to me that the problem Narcissi had in her area should have been handled by the reviewers not allowing those caches once that had been brought to their attention. I don't find searching for 26 different foods to be boring but a challenge not only to see if I have them but to go out and complete the list. This makes me look and discover a lot of caches I might not have bothered with before. All types of "title word" challenges gave me more fun than just a routine cache outing. We've been caching since 2001 and I found it a refreshing new slant on looking for caches. And again, I ask why does it bother other cachers if we have this type of challenge while there are thousands out there that aren't "title word" challenges?

 

I did not mention a food challenge, yukonshadi.

 

The problem I actually mentioned seemed to cause reviewers a lot of difficulty because they were trying to stop it from happening, but they can only decline publication if a cache violates the guidelines.

 

The burden on reviewers is what led to the moratorium, bringing it all back to square one. This is all very challenge cache moratorium 101, so now that we're all caught up, let's move on.

 

Two years later, we have what we have. It is working to eliminate the original issues, but some people think the new challenge caches are boring. Can that be addressed with small adjustments? Can we have a productive discussion about tweaking the existing system without going back two years every time it comes up?

[cezanne]

Two years later, we have what we have. It is working to eliminate the original issues, but some people think the new challenge caches are boring. Can that be addressed with small adjustments? Can we have a productive discussion about tweaking the existing system without going back two years every time it comes up?

 

I do not think that not prohibiting challenge caches like 360 degree challenge caches or challenge caches that require a single cache find on February 29 did actually cause real headaches to the reviewers.

 

In theory one could discuss about adjustments however most of the discussions here just led to the addition of additional rules. So the message was rather to not talk too much about details and hope that one or the other non standard challenge will get through.

 

What happened in this forum with regard to challenge caches did not give me the feeling that HQ has some interest in trying to make challenge caches a bit more attractive while (understandedly) trying not to put additional burden on the reviewers. As those who liked challenge caches did that for different reasons (and the same applies to those who did not like them) it could not lead to a result making many happy that GS tried to take together all the concerns that have been mentioned. Some want them to be easy, some want them to be challenging, some hate if finding out whether one qualifies or what one still needs to do is tiresome while others enjoy the cache selection process and potentially required creativity. Etc

[+narcissa]

Two years later, we have what we have. It is working to eliminate the original issues, but some people think the new challenge caches are boring. Can that be addressed with small adjustments? Can we have a productive discussion about tweaking the existing system without going back two years every time it comes up?

 

I do not think that not prohibiting challenge caches like 360 degree challenge caches or challenge caches that require a single cache find on February 29 did actually cause real headaches to the reviewers.

 

In theory one could discuss about adjustments however most of the discussions here just led to the addition of additional rules. So the message was rather to not talk too much about details and hope that one or the other non standard challenge will get through.

 

What happened in this forum with regard to challenge caches did not give me the feeling that HQ has some interest in trying to make challenge caches a bit more attractive while (understandedly) trying not to put additional burden on the reviewers. As those who liked challenge caches did that for different reasons (and the same applies to those who did not like them) it could not lead to a result making many happy that GS tried to take together all the concerns that have been mentioned. Some want them to be easy, some want them to be challenging, some hate if finding out whether one qualifies or what one still needs to do is tiresome while others enjoy the cache selection process and potentially required creativity. Etc

 

So I take that as a no, we can't discuss how to proceed, and we have to stick to complaining about the moratorium that happened about two years ago now.

[cezanne]

So I take that as a no, we can't discuss how to proceed, and we have to stick to complaining about the moratorium that happened about two years ago now.

 

For a discussion on how to possibly adapt things we would need participants from all involved parties and this is not the case here. We could potentially have such a discussion and it might be helpful to have one, but it would require GS to participate.

[+Team DEMP]

I find challenge caches any excellent way to seek caches I might not normally go after our in areas I might not normally target. On my last jaunt to Florida I specifically targeted some caches just because I didn't have them readily available in New Jersey and some of the caches were excellent.

The only frustrating piece I feel is a challenge or even presentation of something which no longer exists such as say a L&F cache. If I happened not to find one when they were available or for those that started after they were no longer available, it's unobtainable. Not that I filled out all the cache attributes yet but when I do, that one will never be able to be logged, staring at me until the end.

The more challenges the better as far as I'm concerned.

[+Team Microdot]

Here we go again

[+narcissa]

So I take that as a no, we can't discuss how to proceed, and we have to stick to complaining about the moratorium that happened about two years ago now.

 

For a discussion on how to possibly adapt things we would need participants from all involved parties and this is not the case here. We could potentially have such a discussion and it might be helpful to have one, but it would require GS to participate.

 

 

I don't need GS to be involved in order to chat in the forum about possible ways to make challenge caches less boring for the people complaining they are boring.

[cezanne]

I don't need GS to be involved in order to chat in the forum about possible ways to make challenge caches less boring for the people complaining they are boring.

 

Neither do I but we had this disussion at lengths. The question is not how to make challenge caches less boring for those who regard the majority of the new ones as boring but

rather whether there is something possible that GS would be willing to do.

[+Team DEMP]

I haven't looked at the challenges because it's not a cache type that interests me

 

So why 4 comments in the past day on a topic that doesn't interest you where others that are interested are constructively discussing the topic?

[+narcissa]

I don't need GS to be involved in order to chat in the forum about possible ways to make challenge caches less boring for the people complaining they are boring.

 

Neither do I but we had this disussion at lengths. The question is not how to make challenge caches less boring for those who regard the majority of the new ones as boring but

rather whether there is something possible that GS would be willing to do.

 

I don't really see what the harm is in bandying about ideas now that things have settled down a bit. The issues that led to the moratorium and the new rules seem to be under control, so what adjustments can be made to alleviate the new complaint that challenge caches are too boring now?

 

I'm glad they've solved the problems that were occurring, but I don't think it needed to be entirely at the expense of all creativity and enjoyment that some people were getting from them. I see a lot of comments indicating that for many people, that's exactly what has happened.

 

I'm not convinced that GS is resistant to new ideas, as long as they don't unearth the original problems. The problem with the forum is that it likes to suggest ideas that mainly consist of burdening the reviewers or massively overhauling the website, which is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen most of the time.

Edited February 22, 2017 by narcissa

[cezanne]

The problem with the forum is that it likes to suggest ideas that mainly consist of burdening the reviewers or massively overhauling the website, which is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen most of the time.

 

Actually many of the ideas brought along by cachers like CanadianRockies, theBruce and others in the early phase of the new rules seemed very much in the spirit of coming along with ideas for challenges they regarded as interesting and within the new guidelines but with each idea or attempt, the rules got further narrowed down (that happened back then sometimes several times a day). I still do not think that the majority of these restrictions took place due to the reviewer burden and they also would not have required any update of the site at all. 360° challenges, Delorme challenges and many more are now forbidden as well and I do not think that those caused major problems to reviewers.

 

Many cachers who made an effort in the early phase to discuss issues here have given up. The experience that discussing details here rather leads to further restrictions than to a possible less strict set of rules did not help in this process. When you need to fear that the situation will even become worse, you will think very carefully what to discuss about and what to suggest.

[+narcissa]

The problem with the forum is that it likes to suggest ideas that mainly consist of burdening the reviewers or massively overhauling the website, which is exactly the opposite of what needs to happen most of the time.

 

Actually many of the ideas brought along by cachers like CanadianRockies, theBruce and others in the early phase of the new rules seemed very much in the spirit of coming along with ideas for challenges they regarded as interesting and within the new guidelines but with each idea or attempt, the rules got further narrowed down (that happened back then sometimes several times a day). I still do not think that the majority of these restrictions took place due to the reviewer burden and they also would not have required any update of the site at all. 360° challenges, Delorme challenges and many more are now forbidden as well and I do not think that those caused major problems to reviewers.

 

Many cachers who made an effort in the early phase to discuss issues here have given up. The experience that discussing details here rather leads to further restrictions than to a possible less strict set of rules did not help in this process. When you need to fear that the situation will even become worse, you will think very carefully what to discuss about and what to suggest.

 

I'm curious to know why you think Groundspeak has been dishonest in their explanations for the decisions that have been made.

 

I think it's hard to appreciate the volume of conflicting, highly emotional feedback they've had from different directions on this issue. It's been my impression that they are genuinely working to come to a compromise that is as good as it possibly can be.

 

Do you really think they just decided to stomp all over challenge caches for no reason, knowing the outcry they'd get?

[cezanne]

I'm curious to know why you think Groundspeak has been dishonest in their explanations for the decisions that have been made.

 

I do not think that they have been dishonest in what has been communicated so there is nothing to explain.

 

Do you really think they just decided to stomp all over challenge caches for no reason, knowing the outcry they'd get?

 

No, I do not think so.

 

Keep in mind however that I was not referring to the changes of the rules in comparison to before the moratorium.

I refer to later changes that happened on a nearly daily basis for a while and without any comments, explanations etc

 

There has been some a discussion process in earlier phases involving Groundspeaks but not so much in the phase after the return of challenge caches.

Edited February 22, 2017 by cezanne

[+YukonShadow]

Sort through your found list for 26 foods in a cache name is not especially challenging.

I've never seen a challenge cache like that. The ones I've seen always say to find 26 food caches. Sure, you can meet the challenge without any effort by sorting through your found list, but that's only because of an earlier rule that prevented the challenge cache owner from saying "starting now". But you're free to ignore that and tackle the actual challenge by going out and finding 26 more food caches.

 

Obviously I was referring to what Harry Dolphin said not you, Narcissa.

[+dprovan]

Do you really think they just decided to stomp all over challenge caches for no reason, knowing the outcry they'd get?

It wasn't for no reason, it was because they didn't like them. And it was inadvertent, not malice of forethought, but they slanted the polls to confirm their prejudice. They didn't ban them entirely because of the outcry they'd get, but they did ban any kind of challenge that anyone said they didn't like.

 

And while I believe they thought they were being fair and compromising, almost no new challenges have been published in my area since they were brought back, so for whatever reason, the rule changes killed a type of cache that was popular here.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

We have only one new challenge cache within 30 miles of home coordinates. It's a Jasmer Challenge that has be published multiple times. I do not qualify for it and probably never will (missing most of year 2000).

 

I really do miss the name-based challenges as they prompted me to go for caches that I probably wouldn't have selected (primarily due to terrain issues). And I don't mind doing database searches to determine qualification. Some were actually quite interesting. And you never know how much effort was done by the CO to make a good physical cache. Sometimes you are surprised.

 

I understand the problem with geocheckers and name-based challenges. The set of correct answers has to be defined and not open. State names or state capitals is a finite set. Names of flowers or foods is not (unless you create a HUGE list of foods/flowers and constantly add to it as new foods are proposed). So, bring back challenges that require a closed set and continue to ban open set challenges. At least some would be better than the current NONE.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Cache O'Plenty

[+niraD]

Since we seem to be rehashing enjoyable challenge types that are now grandfathered (existing ones can continue, but no new ones are allowed)...

 

I'd like to see some sort of reasonable compromise that allows at least some location-based challenges that use boundaries other than the countries and states/provinces recognized by the geocaching.com server.

 

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.

[+Mudfrog]

Do you really think they just decided to stomp all over challenge caches for no reason, knowing the outcry they'd get?

Unfortunately, Groundspeak has developed a reputation for doing things that cause outcry from the geocaching community. The killing of challenge caches was yet another bad decision on their part. It's sad but it's not surprising.

[+narcissa]

Do you really think they just decided to stomp all over challenge caches for no reason, knowing the outcry they'd get?

Unfortunately, Groundspeak has developed a reputation for doing things that cause outcry from the geocaching community. The killing of challenge caches was yet another bad decision on their part. It's sad but it's not surprising.

 

So you think it was for no reason then? Just for the lols?

[+Mudfrog]

Do you really think they just decided to stomp all over challenge caches for no reason, knowing the outcry they'd get?

Unfortunately, Groundspeak has developed a reputation for doing things that cause outcry from the geocaching community. The killing of challenge caches was yet another bad decision on their part. It's sad but it's not surprising.

 

So you think it was for no reason then? Just for the lols?

I know that a reason(s) was/were stated. The main, people causing headaches for reviewers. Imo, reviewers shouldn't have had to put up with those entitled people that cried because they were denied a find or who thought a challenge was unfair. Reviewers shouldn't have had to ascertain whether a challenge cache was too tough for the masses. Just like a tough traditional that only a few cachers in the world might be able to complete,,, as long as the challenge cache meets current guidelines, then publish it.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Mudfrog

[+cerberus1]

Do you really think they just decided to stomp all over challenge caches for no reason, knowing the outcry they'd get?

Unfortunately, Groundspeak has developed a reputation for doing things that cause outcry from the geocaching community. The killing of challenge caches was yet another bad decision on their part. It's sad but it's not surprising.

 

So you think it was for no reason then? Just for the lols?

I know that a reason(s) was/were stated. The main, people causing headaches for reviewers. Imo, reviewers shouldn't have had to put up with those entitled people that cried because they were denied a find or who thought a challenge was unfair. Reviewers shouldn't have had to ascertain whether a challenge cache was too tough for the masses. Just like a tough traditional that only a few cachers in the world might be able to complete,,, as long as the challenge cache meets current guidelines, then publish it.

You sure?

Maybe I read it wrong in a thread almost two years ago on this subject, but I really thought a Reviewer said it was " on the new cache submission side and not on the deleted find side", as in this post.

To me, that says COs, not entitled denied finders crying...

Please explain where you found a Reviewer or Lackey said otherwise.

Thanks.

[+Mudfrog]

Do you really think they just decided to stomp all over challenge caches for no reason, knowing the outcry they'd get?

Unfortunately, Groundspeak has developed a reputation for doing things that cause outcry from the geocaching community. The killing of challenge caches was yet another bad decision on their part. It's sad but it's not surprising.

 

So you think it was for no reason then? Just for the lols?

I know that a reason(s) was/were stated. The main, people causing headaches for reviewers. Imo, reviewers shouldn't have had to put up with those entitled people that cried because they were denied a find or who thought a challenge was unfair. Reviewers shouldn't have had to ascertain whether a challenge cache was too tough for the masses. Just like a tough traditional that only a few cachers in the world might be able to complete,,, as long as the challenge cache meets current guidelines, then publish it.

You sure?

Maybe I read it wrong in a thread almost two years ago on this subject, but I really thought a Reviewer said it was " on the new cache submission side and not on the deleted find side", as in this post.

To me, that says COs, not entitled denied finders crying...

Please explain where you found a Reviewer or Lackey said otherwise.

Thanks.

I'm sure you are right, that most of the headaches were on the publishing side. A lot of this came from the extra work Groundspeak required reviewers to put in during the publishing process. I'd imagine this was an attempt to try and appease cachers that complained about some of the more difficult challenge caches. I'm pretty sure i also read that some of the headaches came from cachers after their find logs had been deleted.