Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
thebruce0

Challenge Cache Ideas

Recommended Posts

Continents. ?allowed. Not on the whitelist unless you enumerate all the countries on the continent.

 

That'd make Antarctica a tad difficult since there are no countries in that continent.

 

"Antarctica" should be excluded in any challenge cache requirement in my opinion.

 

What I'd like to do is a "Create your own challenge" cache. But I don't know how to do a Project-GC checker code.

 

What are the rules for your Create Your Own Challenge?

 

I was wondering that myself. I have no clue what that means..

Share this post


Link to post

Continents. ?allowed. Not on the whitelist unless you enumerate all the countries on the continent.

 

That'd make Antarctica a tad difficult since there are no countries in that continent.

 

"Antarctica" should be excluded in any challenge cache requirement in my opinion.

 

What I'd like to do is a "Create your own challenge" cache. But I don't know how to do a Project-GC checker code.

 

What are the rules for your Create Your Own Challenge?

 

I was wondering that myself. I have no clue what that means..

Maybe it's something like you see in some fitness apps. Set a goal in your profile to work for, whether it's some Delorme idea, highest caches, fill the D/T grid. Nothing really stopping somebody from doing that sort of thing, and has been going on for years, but maybe they mean something a bit more formal, like get a certificate or medal at the end.

 

It's kind of humorous regarding the Antarctica question, as this was previously answered with the Bi-Polar concept, which in essence was approved, merely for the lack of finding enough local Users that have achieved it (Item 8 in the Help Center article). I mean, if folks who spend a great deal of their time commenting in this thread can't keep things straight, I can only imagine how hard it is for the Reviewers :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Continents. ?allowed. Not on the whitelist unless you enumerate all the countries on the continent.

 

That'd make Antarctica a tad difficult since there are no countries in that continent.

 

"Antarctica" should be excluded in any challenge cache requirement in my opinion.

 

What I'd like to do is a "Create your own challenge" cache. But I don't know how to do a Project-GC checker code.

 

What are the rules for your Create Your Own Challenge?

 

I was wondering that myself. I have no clue what that means..

Maybe it's something like you see in some fitness apps. Set a goal in your profile to work for, whether it's some Delorme idea, highest caches, fill the D/T grid. Nothing really stopping somebody from doing that sort of thing, and has been going on for years, but maybe they mean something a bit more formal, like get a certificate or medal at the end.

 

It's kind of humorous regarding the Antarctica question, as this was previously answered with the Bi-Polar concept, which in essence was approved, merely for the lack of finding enough local Users that have achieved it (Item 8 in the Help Center article). I mean, if folks who spend a great deal of their time commenting in this thread can't keep things straight, I can only imagine how hard it is for the Reviewers :laughing:

 

I meant to say this was a "choose" your own challenge not create.

Share this post


Link to post

"Antarctica" should be excluded in any challenge cache requirement in my opinion.

Why? You might not want to find an Antarctica cache, but a reasonable number of other geocachers already might have enjoyed doing this or might enjoy setting such a goal. Why deprive them of this potential source of happiness?

 

I suspect this kind of attitude had a big effect on the challenge cache guideline changes. Some people complained about spelling challenges, so Groundspeak eliminated them. Others complained about the effort they expended to prove they had met certain challenges, so Groundspeak now requires challenge checkers. Streaking geocachers complained about long streak challenges, so Groundspeak imposed a 365-day limit on them.

 

Nobody is holding a gun to the head of any of these folks. Nobody is forcing them to complete challenges they don't enjoy. There are plenty of challenge caches that I simply choose to ignore. No big deal.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
A circle is not a polygon. The arctic circle is a circle. Therefore, the arctic circle is not a polygon.

 

If you start expanding the definition of "polygon" to include non-polygons like circles, then what is to guarantee that points are not considered "polygons"?

Oh I agree, but I thought we were past that, since neither is a latitude nor a longitude a polygon. Thus, it's a given that "user-defined polygon" has indeed been expanded and the clause is no longer referring explicitly to a point-by-point boundary definition; and so just as lat/lon is no longer allowed, same argument goes for the arctic circle. But, those are different arguments than the comment made about confluence being a "point", which isn't a polygon, nor a boundary, and potentially being published because it's "a recognized post-moratorium challenge type"...

 

User-defined pattern: Not allowed.

User-defined polygon: Not allowed.

County (3rd party polygon definition): Allowed, exception.

State (text): Allowed.

Country (text): Allowed.

Lat/Lon (numeric, boundary, not County/State/Country): Not allowed.

Arctic circle (eq lat boundary, see above)

Confluence (point coordinate): Allowed?

 

Technically a County could either be a 3rd party polygon or "text" depending on the source data. "Textual" representations of a point defined with lat/long coordinates can be looked up using a data source such as geonames. Any service which does reverse geocoding will allow one to use a set of lat/long coordinates to derive a place name.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I suspect this kind of attitude had a big effect on the challenge cache guideline changes. Some people complained about spelling challenges, so Groundspeak eliminated them. Others complained about the effort they expended to prove they had met certain challenges, so Groundspeak now requires challenge checkers. Streaking geocachers complained about long streak challenges, so Groundspeak imposed a 365-day limit on them.

I think by this point it's no longer necessary to merely suspect this effect. Despite the original justification of reviewing overhead for all the changes, 90% of the new rules are directly targeting various classes of challenge caches. To support that claim you only have to look at the guideline that, out of the blue, declares "bookkeeping" something that must be prevented. And in all the discussion we've had in the forums, the only people that see these changes as a positive -- as opposed to a necessary evil -- always end up proving their point by listing all the challenge cache types that they didn't like that are no longer possible, completely ignoring how many other people enjoyed such challenges.

 

I assume those are the people Rock Chalk is talking to when he said in that podcast that he's hearing nothing but positive feedback about the changes. It was disappointing to realize from the beginning that such negative input was being given so much emphasis, but it's even sadder that it's now being taken as proof that everyone's happy with the changes.

Share this post


Link to post

Technically a County could either be a 3rd party polygon or "text" depending on the source data. "Textual" representations of a point defined with lat/long coordinates can be looked up using a data source such as geonames. Any service which does reverse geocoding will allow one to use a set of lat/long coordinates to derive a place name.

Right, but at some point there's a polygon to check against, and it's not stored at Groundspeak.

 

Now for lat/lon, you could say that the mere check of a latitude coordinate above or below a major degree is a type of simplified location/polygon check, the only difference is it's not based on points like a polygon. It's not coord-bound-by-points-ABC, but coord-bound-by-max-min. But that's really pushing the polygon limit on numerical comparisons. =/

Share this post


Link to post

Technically a County could either be a 3rd party polygon or "text" depending on the source data. "Textual" representations of a point defined with lat/long coordinates can be looked up using a data source such as geonames. Any service which does reverse geocoding will allow one to use a set of lat/long coordinates to derive a place name.

Right, but at some point there's a polygon to check against, and it's not stored at Groundspeak.

 

Now for lat/lon, you could say that the mere check of a latitude coordinate above or below a major degree is a type of simplified location/polygon check, the only difference is it's not based on points like a polygon. It's not coord-bound-by-points-ABC, but coord-bound-by-max-min. But that's really pushing the polygon limit on numerical comparisons. =/

 

I was pleased to meet geobun at an event today. She has not given up on Bipolar Challenge. Stay tuned.

Share this post


Link to post

From another thread:

 

I've seen requests for web site enhancements that will help facilitate the completion of challenge caches. They're *challenge caches*. A "challenge" implies that it's not necessarily going to be *easy*.

I think the challenge cache guidelines definitely are pushing in the direction of easier challenges. A few years ago, the brakes were applied with the adoption of a guideline that all challenges must be attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. The most recent guideline changes state that even that isn't easy enough in certain cases.

 

Even if a reasonable number of geocachers could attain a streak longer than a year, Groundspeak deemed that challenging geocachers to do this is too hard. Streak challenges are now capped at 365 days...and one find per day...with no restrictions on the types of caches.

 

Is finding 10 caches in a single week too much of a strain? It's not a problem any longer. Challenge caches can no longer be time limited.

 

Even if a reasonable number of geocachers have completely filled their "Finds for Each Day of the Year" calendars, Groundspeak seems to believe that requiring a find for Feb. 29 is too hard since some geocachers might need up to four years to qualify for such a challenge. There appears to be a new hidden guideline that forbids challenge caches from requiring a find on a Leap Day.

 

Don't want to solve a puzzle to determine a challenge cache's final coordinates? Let's require all challenge caches to be at their posted coordinates (or as a visible additional waypoint).

 

Even if lots of geocachers already have found 10 percent of the virtual caches in your state/province/region, don't even think about creating a new challenge cache that has such a requirement.

 

Some people don't want to make the effort needed to verify that they have completed a challenge cache. All new challenge caches must be accompanied by an automated challenge checker, so you can simply click your mouse to determine if you qualify.

 

Even with those easy checkers, is it still too much bookkeeping for you to remember which letters you need in order to find cache titles that begin with every letter of the alphabet? Let's get rid of any challenge caches that are based on cache titles (or cache owners, GC Codes, publishing Reviewers, or listing text).

Share this post


Link to post

From another thread:

 

I've seen requests for web site enhancements that will help facilitate the completion of challenge caches. They're *challenge caches*. A "challenge" implies that it's not necessarily going to be *easy*.

I think the challenge cache guidelines definitely are pushing in the direction of easier challenges. A few years ago, the brakes were applied with the adoption of a guideline that all challenges must be attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers. The most recent guideline changes state that even that isn't easy enough in certain cases.

 

Even if a reasonable number of geocachers could attain a streak longer than a year, Groundspeak deemed that challenging geocachers to do this is too hard. Streak challenges are now capped at 365 days...and one find per day...with no restrictions on the types of caches.

 

Is finding 10 caches in a single week too much of a strain? It's not a problem any longer. Challenge caches can no longer be time limited.

 

Even if a reasonable number of geocachers have completely filled their "Finds for Each Day of the Year" calendars, Groundspeak seems to believe that requiring a find for Feb. 29 is too hard since some geocachers might need up to four years to qualify for such a challenge. There appears to be a new hidden guideline that forbids challenge caches from requiring a find on a Leap Day.

 

Don't want to solve a puzzle to determine a challenge cache's final coordinates? Let's require all challenge caches to be at their posted coordinates (or as a visible additional waypoint).

 

Even if lots of geocachers already have found 10 percent of the virtual caches in your state/province/region, don't even think about creating a new challenge cache that has such a requirement.

 

Some people don't want to make the effort needed to verify that they have completed a challenge cache. All new challenge caches must be accompanied by an automated challenge checker, so you can simply click your mouse to determine if you qualify.

 

Even with those easy checkers, is it still too much bookkeeping for you to remember which letters you need in order to find cache titles that begin with every letter of the alphabet? Let's get rid of any challenge caches that are based on cache titles (or cache owners, GC Codes, publishing Reviewers, or listing text).

 

GS's desire to make all challenges less challenging has successfully squelched the Bi-Polar Challenge too. All criteria were met, except there were only 6 locals cachers that I could find who already completed the challenge and GS requested that I find 10. I may resort to Plan B and publish two Polar Challenges. What do you all think?

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if you could publish the two separately, then publish a 'bonus' cache :)

Well, you could actually... if not as a challenge, you could make it a puzzle requiring getting the coords from the challenges (which of course means they don't have to qualify for both to find the final). But it probably wouldn't fly to have it a 'challenge' requiring finding the other two first. The standard Unknown puzzle variant may be the closest you'd get.

 

You could add recognition on the bonus cache for people who have found/qualified for both polar challenges though!

Polar challenge N and S hold the lat and lon coords for the bonus non-challenge cache, which recognizes people who've qualified for both challenges. That can work.

Share this post


Link to post

GS's desire to make all challenges less challenging has successfully squelched the Bi-Polar Challenge too. All criteria were met, except there were only 6 locals cachers that I could find who already completed the challenge and GS requested that I find 10.

You got further than I expected. At least the Bi-Polar Challenge seems acceptable in theory. It failed the reasonably attainable guideline but appears to have gotten around the user-defined polygon guideline.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if you could publish the two separately, then publish a 'bonus' cache :)

Well, you could actually... if not as a challenge, you could make it a puzzle requiring getting the coords from the challenges (which of course means they don't have to qualify for both to find the final). But it probably wouldn't fly to have it a 'challenge' requiring finding the other two first. The standard Unknown puzzle variant may be the closest you'd get.

 

You could add recognition on the bonus cache for people who have found/qualified for both polar challenges though!

Polar challenge N and S hold the lat and lon coords for the bonus non-challenge cache, which recognizes people who've qualified for both challenges. That can work.

 

I like the idea of a "Bonus" cache after completing the two Polar challenges. Using the non-challenge Mystery/Puzzle type makes the most sense since it won't be restricted by difficulty. But it will take some thinking to come up with a "legal" puzzle that screens out people who have not visited the Poles. Alternately, if I publish the two Polar Challenges, it may suss out enough Bi-Polars to meet the accessibility requirement. B)

Share this post


Link to post

GS's desire to make all challenges less challenging has successfully squelched the Bi-Polar Challenge too. All criteria were met, except there were only 6 locals cachers that I could find who already completed the challenge and GS requested that I find 10.

You got further than I expected. At least the Bi-Polar Challenge seems acceptable in theory. It failed the reasonably attainable guideline but appears to have gotten around the user-defined polygon guideline.

 

It was easy to change the requirements from latitude to country/county/region. What wasn't so easy was finding people who have completed the challenge. I realize it's a difficult one to complete, but what's a challenge for, anyway? :P

 

I hope GS continues to revisit the challenge cache requirements and tweak them as needed. Latitude and longitude are not user defined polygons. They're geometric lines and planes forming the backbone of GPS navigation, and the foundation of geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

Latitude and longitude are not user defined polygons. They're geometric lines and planes forming the backbone of GPS navigation, and the foundation of geocaching.

Of course you're making plenty of sense, but in the context of challenge caches, you're still splitting hairs (although apparently a hair GS is splitting, too): saying "only caches above N degrees north" is not really any different from "only caches on this side of this line, and that side of that line, and...". It's not significantly more interesting that people use geometric lines for things other than geocaching than that people use park boundaries for things other than geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if you could publish the two separately, then publish a 'bonus' cache :)

Well, you could actually... if not as a challenge, you could make it a puzzle requiring getting the coords from the challenges (which of course means they don't have to qualify for both to find the final). But it probably wouldn't fly to have it a 'challenge' requiring finding the other two first. The standard Unknown puzzle variant may be the closest you'd get.

 

You could add recognition on the bonus cache for people who have found/qualified for both polar challenges though!

Polar challenge N and S hold the lat and lon coords for the bonus non-challenge cache, which recognizes people who've qualified for both challenges. That can work.

 

I like the idea of a "Bonus" cache after completing the two Polar challenges. Using the non-challenge Mystery/Puzzle type makes the most sense since it won't be restricted by difficulty. But it will take some thinking to come up with a "legal" puzzle that screens out people who have not visited the Poles. Alternately, if I publish the two Polar Challenges, it may suss out enough Bi-Polars to meet the accessibility requirement. B)

 

Going with two Poles as separate challenges might gain the attention to get the numbers up for Bi-polar. I'm sure I can qual the Arctic circle end of the Earth

Edited by rragan

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak seems intent on keeping streak challenges as vanilla as possible: no longer than 365 days, no more than one find per day, and no restrictions on cache types. I wonder if Groundspeak would publish the following challenge or if it would cause yet another "loophole" to be closed:

 

Challenge: Find at least one cache per day for nine consecutive days, where a different difficulty rating is represented on each of those nine days. For example:

  • Aug. 1 - D2.0
  • Aug. 2 - D1.5
  • Aug. 3 - D3.5
  • Aug. 4 - D1.0
  • Aug. 5 - D5.0
  • Aug. 6 - D4.5
  • Aug. 7 - D3.0
  • Aug. 8 - D2.5
  • Aug. 9 - D4.0

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak seems intent on keeping streak challenges as vanilla as possible: no longer than 365 days, no more than one find per day, and no restrictions on cache types. I wonder if Groundspeak would publish the following challenge or if it would cause yet another "loophole" to be closed

 

Save the current guidelines, last update June 29 and hurry up before it will be

 

"Specifying cache type(s), DT, size and everything else you might think of or find count (above one per day) required during a streak. (new 2016)"

 

If you are fast enough you might get away like the still active new 2016 30 day Unknown cache streak including all of D1-D5, at least for the D.

Share this post


Link to post

I took the tour of Geocaching HQ yesterday and in the presentation the presenter asked what their favorite cache type was. Answers were:

 

- Web cam

- Virtual 2x

- Challenge 2x

- Earth cache

- Gadget cache

 

Interesting that so many like the discontinued and restricted cache types.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Interesting that so many like the discontinued and restricted cache types.

Off topic but not at all surprised. Limited available cache types are always the fav... with the exception of WIG but I think that's more to the extra hassle for non-techies.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak seems intent on keeping streak challenges as vanilla as possible: no longer than 365 days, no more than one find per day, and no restrictions on cache types. I wonder if Groundspeak would publish the following challenge or if it would cause yet another "loophole" to be closed.

Save the current guidelines, last update June 29 and hurry up before it will be

 

"Specifying cache type(s), DT, size and everything else you might think of or find count (above one per day) required during a streak. (new 2016)"

 

If you are fast enough you might get away like the still active new 2016 30 day Unknown cache streak including all of D1-D5, at least for the D.

I already have a pre-moratorium challenge cache that is similar to this one (and a terrain-ratings streak challenge as well).

 

But I'm considering creating an 81-day streak challenge that requires filling in the entire Fizzy matrix. First, though, I'd have to complete that challenge myself. Second, I'd have to convince our reviewer that enough local geocachers also would be interested in and capable of completing such a challenge. (Fortunately, our reviewer doesn't require that a certain number of local geocachers pre-qualify.)

 

Then there's the whole issue of whether Groundspeak would consider my idea a "loophole" challenge.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd have to convince our reviewer that enough local geocachers also would be interested in and capable of completing such a challenge. (Fortunately, our reviewer doesn't require that a certain number of local geocachers pre-qualify.)

 

*interest* does not appear to have any bearing on the issue of "attainable". I agree that the attainable portion of the requirements are a bit vague, and probably varies from one area to the next, depending on the number of geocachers in your area, but 10 seems to be a number that gets bantered around in the more populated areas where there are a large number of geocachers to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd have to convince our reviewer that enough local geocachers also would be interested in and capable of completing such a challenge. (Fortunately, our reviewer doesn't require that a certain number of local geocachers pre-qualify.)

*interest* does not appear to have any bearing on the issue of "attainable".

The precise wording is: "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers." (Emphasis added.)

 

I agree that the attainable portion of the requirements are a bit vague, and probably varies from one area to the next, depending on the number of geocachers in your area, but 10 seems to be a number that gets bantered around in the more populated areas where there are a large number of geocachers to choose from.

That's why I'm glad I live in an area where we don't have to have a specific number of people pre-qualify for our proposed challenge caches. I seriously doubt that an 81-day Fizzy streak challenge would be completed accidentally, even by big-number local geocachers. And I doubt I could persuade many local geocachers to make the considerable effort needed to pre-qualify for this challenge simply in hopes that enough others also will pre-qualify. But having an existing challenge cache can act as a seed that grows interest in challenging challenges.

 

Back in 2011, I created a very difficult challenge to find caches in all of Alberta's counties. Since then, only three people have completed it. I'd be surprised if any of those three would have agreed to pre-qualify for this challenge. But as word spreads about how satisfying this challenge is to complete, more and more people have told me that they are working towards finishing it. It's these kinds of difficult but satisfying challenges that have been wiped out in many areas by the adoption of pre-qualification policies.

Share this post


Link to post

To me often pondering whether it is realistic that a challenge is attainable by looking at the requirements and looking who might be on the way or willing to go seems more target-aimed than demanding that 10 geocachers already have met the requirement.

 

Why? For some challenges no one except the challenge owner thought about that goal, even if it is perfectly doable and fun.

 

For example to have a 31 day mystery streak (no longer an acceptable challenge). When GC5MN7H was published in 2015 only one single local cacher claimed to have fulfilled the requirements without aiming at it. Now this cache is at 131 finders and 65 Favorite Points, seems to be a success.

 

Or GC6GEZ0 'find 5 Confluence Caches in 3 Counties' published 12 days ago. I'm curious whether there will be a single local cacher besides the owner that really fulfilled the requirement already before knowing about the challenge. The challenge is attainable, you can choose any 3 from quite a few in Austria and there are at least 2 quite near in neighboring countries, therefore enough caches that are reachable quite easily from where the challenge is. Plus there are enough local geocachers that travel to other countries with more prominent Confluence Caches.

 

But it is very unlikely that any random local geocacher already has found the less than 100km away N49 E16 GC1DVRM 'Nejhezci souradnice na Znojemsku' in Czech Republic as this is not an area where you would go as a typical geocaching foreigner. Well, maybe you want to see this region because the villages around are where your ancestors came from.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the thing about easy-but-new: If it's easy and (believed to be) fun, then it shouldn't be a problem in the slightest to get people to pre-qualify in order to publish. That's no different than publishing knowing that 100 people alreayd pre-qualify. The only difference is the CO is asking a favour :P

 

Now, a much harder and/or lengthy challenge might be far more inconvenient to ask people to pre-qualify. But that goes back into the realm of reviewers judging if it's 'reasonably appealing and attainable'.

 

I'd have no problem, presuming I came up with a cool new challenge idea, asking some people to pre-qualify for a challenge idea and hold off on the publish... at worst, it would help me determine if the challenge is actually appealing, since I'd likely first ask people who I felt would be most interested in qualifying, and if they don't want to, then it may not really be all that appealing.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's the thing about easy-but-new: If it's easy and (believed to be) fun, then it shouldn't be a problem in the slightest to get people to pre-qualify in order to publish. That's no different than publishing knowing that 100 people alreayd pre-qualify. The only difference is the CO is asking a favour :P

 

Now, a much harder and/or lengthy challenge might be far more inconvenient to ask people to pre-qualify. But that goes back into the realm of reviewers judging if it's 'reasonably appealing and attainable'.

 

I'd have no problem, presuming I came up with a cool new challenge idea, asking some people to pre-qualify for a challenge idea and hold off on the publish... at worst, it would help me determine if the challenge is actually appealing, since I'd likely first ask people who I felt would be most interested in qualifying, and if they don't want to, then it may not really be all that appealing.

Or it might be appealing but they are busy doing other things. Or it might be appealing to several people, but you just don't have any idea who they are. Or it might be appealing if there was a known reward but less appealing if the reward is hypothetical. Or it might be appealing once people read the logs of those who have completed it before them. Or it might be appealing but the cache owner doesn't want to go to the bother of organizing a bunch of pre-qualifiers.

 

There are lots of reasons why cool, new challenge ideas might never see the light of day under the pre-qualification regime.

Share this post


Link to post

A new "Fill the Finds Calendar" challenge cache was published, and it appears to require geocachers to find two caches on Leap Days. Perhaps Groundspeak has relaxed its hidden guideline that prohibited challenges from finding caches on Leap Day.

Share this post


Link to post

A new "Fill the Finds Calendar" challenge cache was published, and it appears to require geocachers to find two caches on Leap Days. Perhaps Groundspeak has relaxed its hidden guideline that prohibited challenges from finding caches on Leap Day.

If it were by date placed, I could see it being published. But it's by date found, and we've seen denials on that even if it's not a streak. The cache doesn't explicitly state Feb29 is required, though the image indicates it.

Hopefully they have loosened on the 2/29 thing.

Share this post


Link to post

There are a lot of challenges that would be appealing to me, but depending on the difficulty or time/expense involved, I wouldn't go to the trouble of trying to prequalify. I don't really feel like going to the trouble if it's possible the challenge will be arbitrarily deemed unpublishable. I'm sure a lot of other people would feel the same way.

 

I think if I ever try to publish any sort of challenge cache, I'm probably just going to go with a traditional cache type unchallenge like what someone said they did during the moratorium. Then I can just ignore most of the restrictive guidelines and people can decide for themselves if the bookkeeping/extra work is worth it. I do like the challenge checker requirement though, since that can be helpful for a lot of people and would probably include that.

Share this post


Link to post

A new "Fill the Finds Calendar" challenge cache was published, and it appears to require geocachers to find two caches on Leap Days. Perhaps Groundspeak has relaxed its hidden guideline that prohibited challenges from finding caches on Leap Day.

If it were by date placed, I could see it being published. But it's by date found, and we've seen denials on that even if it's not a streak. The cache doesn't explicitly state Feb29 is required, though the image indicates it.

Hopefully they have loosened on the 2/29 thing.

 

It was just disabled because of the 2/29 thing. :(

Share this post


Link to post

A new "Fill the Finds Calendar" challenge cache was published, and it appears to require geocachers to find two caches on Leap Days. Perhaps Groundspeak has relaxed its hidden guideline that prohibited challenges from finding caches on Leap Day.

If it were by date placed, I could see it being published. But it's by date found, and we've seen denials on that even if it's not a streak. The cache doesn't explicitly state Feb29 is required, though the image indicates it.

Hopefully they have loosened on the 2/29 thing.

It was just disabled because of the 2/29 thing. :(

Norway's 19 geocachers with the most finds all have found caches on 366 days of the year, so it seems pretty clear that the "Fill the Finds Calendar" challenge was attainable by a reasonable number of local geocachers.

 

But Groundspeak appears to believe that certain kinds of challenges should be even easier than the "reasonably attainable" standard. In this instant gratification world, we shouldn't force people to wait up to four years to successfully complete a challenge. That would be too...well...challenging.

Share this post


Link to post

A new "Fill the Finds Calendar" challenge cache was published, and it appears to require geocachers to find two caches on Leap Days. Perhaps Groundspeak has relaxed its hidden guideline that prohibited challenges from finding caches on Leap Day.

If it were by date placed, I could see it being published. But it's by date found, and we've seen denials on that even if it's not a streak. The cache doesn't explicitly state Feb29 is required, though the image indicates it.

Hopefully they have loosened on the 2/29 thing.

It was just disabled because of the 2/29 thing. :(

Norway's 19 geocachers with the most finds all have found caches on 366 days of the year, so it seems pretty clear that the "Fill the Finds Calendar" challenge was attainable by a reasonable number of local geocachers.

 

But Groundspeak appears to believe that certain kinds of challenges should be even easier than the "reasonably attainable" standard. In this instant gratification world, we shouldn't force people to wait up to four years to successfully complete a challenge. That would be too...well...challenging.

 

Looking at the Top Finders list for Norway on Project-GC it lists that top 10000 finders (#10000 has 79 finds, so there is more than that). The top 19 finders would represent .19% of the total number of cachers in Norway. It seems to me that there is a pretty broad range between a challenge attainable by .19% of all cachers in the country and instant gratification for all. To me, "reasonably attainable" would mean that a much larger percentage than 2% of the cachers in the area will be able to find it, and instant gratification would man a qualifying percentage close to 100%.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
But Groundspeak appears to believe that certain kinds of challenges should be even easier than the "reasonably attainable" standard. In this instant gratification world, we shouldn't force people to wait up to four years to successfully complete a challenge. That would be too...well...challenging.

I would say for many, waiting even a year is too challenging. For that reason, I have no issue with keeping out Leap Year. To me, it doesn't make sense to hold up however many people that are trying to complete a challenge that requires that date. Most challenges, if you are waiting, it is because you have to wait (IE streak or at most one year if you find the challenge the day after you didn't get a cache) or you can afford (time/money/health/safety) to complete them. Leap Day doesn't really fit either of those to me; that day is like the exception to the exception.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Looking at the Top Finders list for Norway on Project-GC it lists that top 10000 finders (#10000 has 79 finds, so there is more than that). The top 19 finders would represent .19% of the total number of cachers in Norway.

 

Wait, the message was not that only the 19 top finders fulfill the challenge, just that these fulfill the requirements.

 

To me, "reasonably attainable" would mean that a much larger percentage than 2% of the cachers in the area will be able to find it, and instant gratification would man a qualifying percentage close to 100%.

 

Actually most in Norway can find it - they just need to stay into geocaching long enough. Instant gratification comes from the requirement that one could not maeke cachers wait until the next leap year which will certainly arrive earlier than most cachers will be able to fulfill some challenges which are published.

Share this post


Link to post

Norway's 19 geocachers with the most finds all have found caches on 366 days of the year, so it seems pretty clear that the "Fill the Finds Calendar" challenge was attainable by a reasonable number of local geocachers.

 

But Groundspeak appears to believe that certain kinds of challenges should be even easier than the "reasonably attainable" standard. In this instant gratification world, we shouldn't force people to wait up to four years to successfully complete a challenge. That would be too...well...challenging.

Looking at the Top Finders list for Norway on Project-GC it lists that top 10000 finders (#10000 has 79 finds, so there is more than that). The top 19 finders would represent .19% of the total number of cachers in Norway. It seems to me that there is a pretty broad range between a challenge attainable by .19% of all cachers in the country and instant gratification for all. To me, "reasonably attainable" would mean that a much larger percentage than 2% of the cachers in the area will be able to find it, and instant gratification would man a qualifying percentage close to 100%.

I only looked at Norway's top 20 most prolific finders and saw that the first 19 of them already had completely filled in their 366-day calendars for finds. If someone wants to look at Norway's top 10,000 finders, I'm sure they would find many more examples of completely filled calendars.

 

You might feel that for a challenge cache to be attainable by a "reasonable" number of geocachers it should be findable by far more than 2% of the local geocachers, but Groundspeak reviewers seem to have opinions that differ from yours. In Florida, reviewers apparently set "reasonable" to mean that at least 10 of that state's geocachers (9,435 have 79+ finds) have pre-qualified. That's less than 0.11 percent of that state's geocachers. Similarly, Ontario reviewers expect at least 10 of that province's geocachers (9,163 have 79+ finds) to have pre-qualified. That's also less than 0.11 percent of that province's geocachers.

 

I stopped counting after seeing that at least 19 of Norway's geocachers have pre-qualified because I was pretty sure that number would meet any "attainable by a reasonable number of [local] geocachers" standard that the local reviewers were likely to impose.

 

As for my "instant gratification" comment, I didn't mean to suggest that Groundspeak now expects nearly all geocachers to be able to complete all challenges. My comment was in reference to views of many people in today's world that if a goal isn't "instantly" achievable, then it isn't worth pursuing. I fear that's a path Groundspeak might be walking:

 

  • Requiring a Finds Calendar to be completely filled for 366 days might delay a geocacher's gratification for up to four years, so let's ban those kinds of challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.
     
  • Some geocachers don't enjoy streak challenges that last longer than 365 days, so let's ban those kinds of challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.
     
  • Some geocachers don't want to deal with the stress of finding 10 caches in a single day, so let's ban time-limited challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.
     
  • Some geocachers don't want the hassle of remembering which letters they're missing in "alphabetical" challenges, so let's ban challenges that use cache titles, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.

As you noted in another thread:

 

They're *challenge caches*. A "challenge" implies that it's not necessarily going to be *easy*.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post
Requiring a Finds Calendar to be completely filled for 366 days might delay a geocacher's gratification for up to four years, so let's ban those kinds of challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.

hm. It may be that "reasonably appealing and attainable" is a latter requirement. If a hard challenge rule is that Feb 29th cannot be required for a find date, then even if 50% of local cachers pre-qualify, they'd deny it. That, at least, is the logic I'm seeing behind them now disabling that challenge. Perhaps the local reviewer felt it was reasonable first and published it because it's perfectly reasonable there. ...but I think it's pretty clear that these challenge threads are being watched, and there might be higher level individual/team taking action if something is brought to their attention. Like a supreme court ruling =P *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Requiring a Finds Calendar to be completely filled for 366 days might delay a geocacher's gratification for up to four years, so let's ban those kinds of challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.

hm. It may be that "reasonably appealing and attainable" is a latter requirement. If a hard challenge rule is that Feb 29th cannot be required for a find date, then even if 50% of local cachers pre-qualify, they'd deny it. That, at least, is the logic I'm seeing behind them now disabling that challenge. Perhaps the local reviewer felt it was reasonable first and published it because it's perfectly reasonable there. ...but I think it's pretty clear that these challenge threads are being watched, and there might be higher level individual/team taking action if something is brought to their attention. Like a supreme court ruling =P *sigh*

Yes, that's what I suspect is happening as well. As I noted in Post #232, "Groundspeak appears to believe that certain kinds of challenges should be even easier than the "reasonably attainable" standard." The Leap Day challenges probably is one of these kinds of challenges, even if Groundspeak hasn't made it explicit in their publicly-viewable challenge cache guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

Norway's 19 geocachers with the most finds all have found caches on 366 days of the year, so it seems pretty clear that the "Fill the Finds Calendar" challenge was attainable by a reasonable number of local geocachers.

 

But Groundspeak appears to believe that certain kinds of challenges should be even easier than the "reasonably attainable" standard. In this instant gratification world, we shouldn't force people to wait up to four years to successfully complete a challenge. That would be too...well...challenging.

Looking at the Top Finders list for Norway on Project-GC it lists that top 10000 finders (#10000 has 79 finds, so there is more than that). The top 19 finders would represent .19% of the total number of cachers in Norway. It seems to me that there is a pretty broad range between a challenge attainable by .19% of all cachers in the country and instant gratification for all. To me, "reasonably attainable" would mean that a much larger percentage than 2% of the cachers in the area will be able to find it, and instant gratification would man a qualifying percentage close to 100%.

I only looked at Norway's top 20 most prolific finders and saw that the first 19 of them already had completely filled in their 366-day calendars for finds. If someone wants to look at Norway's top 10,000 finders, I'm sure they would find many more examples of completely filled calendars.

 

You might feel that for a challenge cache to be attainable by a "reasonable" number of geocachers it should be findable by far more than 2% of the local geocachers, but Groundspeak reviewers seem to have opinions that differ from yours. In Florida, reviewers apparently set "reasonable" to mean that at least 10 of that state's geocachers (9,435 have 79+ finds) have pre-qualified. That's less than 0.11 percent of that state's geocachers. Similarly, Ontario reviewers expect at least 10 of that province's geocachers (9,163 have 79+ finds) to have pre-qualified. That's also less than 0.11 percent of that province's geocachers.

 

I stopped counting after seeing that at least 19 of Norway's geocachers have pre-qualified because I was pretty sure that number would meet any "attainable by a reasonable number of [local] geocachers" standard that the local reviewers were likely to impose.

 

As for my "instant gratification" comment, I didn't mean to suggest that Groundspeak now expects nearly all geocachers to be able to complete all challenges. My comment was in reference to views of many people in today's world that if a goal isn't "instantly" achievable, then it isn't worth pursuing. I fear that's a path Groundspeak might be walking:

 

  • Requiring a Finds Calendar to be completely filled for 366 days might delay a geocacher's gratification for up to four years, so let's ban those kinds of challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.
  • Some geocachers don't enjoy streak challenges that last longer than 365 days, so let's ban those kinds of challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.
  • Some geocachers don't want to deal with the stress of finding 10 caches in a single day, so let's ban time-limited challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.
  • Some geocachers don't want the hassle of remembering which letters they're missing in "alphabetical" challenges, so let's ban challenges that use cache titles, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.

As you noted in another thread:

 

They're *challenge caches*. A "challenge" implies that it's not necessarily going to be *easy*.

 

Yes, I wrote that and also think there has been a general trend for instant gratification and entitlement such that there is an expectation that every cache should be easy. My point is that instant gratification and entitlement are a long way from challenge caches that are only attainable by a tiny fraction of the geocaching population. Before the moratorium it sometimes seemed like some challenges were created as if it was a contest to see who could create something that excluded as many geocachers as possible.

 

I have no issues with creating caches that are difficult to find, or challenges with criteria that is hard to achieve, but at some point it just looks like an exercise in exclusivity that allows the uber elite to be able to pat themselves on the back for being better than everyone else. I just don't seen the benefit to the game in creating a cache that is more of a novelty (hello ISS cache) than anything else, especially if it involves changes to the guidelines.

 

I will also note that there are 10's if not 100's of challenge caches which pre-exist the moratorium and new rules, some of them extremely difficult. For example, there's a "Find a cache 1000 days in a row" challenge in Sweden that was placed before the moratorium. With the guideline change, no *new* cache a day streaks more than 365 day are allowed. If you're going to argue that GS should allow new challenges which are only attainable by a tiny fraction of the geocaching population, then it seems to me that the existence of a challenge that might require traveling thousands of miles to find the container would provided a very difficult challenge as well. Do we really need a "Find a cache 1004 days in a row" challenge in every city?

 

For those that want to do extremely difficult challenge caches, there are plenty of them already available and the travel involved to get to them can be considered part of the challenge.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Norway's 19 geocachers with the most finds all have found caches on 366 days of the year, so it seems pretty clear that the "Fill the Finds Calendar" challenge was attainable by a reasonable number of local geocachers.

 

But Groundspeak appears to believe that certain kinds of challenges should be even easier than the "reasonably attainable" standard. In this instant gratification world, we shouldn't force people to wait up to four years to successfully complete a challenge. That would be too...well...challenging.

Looking at the Top Finders list for Norway on Project-GC it lists that top 10000 finders (#10000 has 79 finds, so there is more than that). The top 19 finders would represent .19% of the total number of cachers in Norway. It seems to me that there is a pretty broad range between a challenge attainable by .19% of all cachers in the country and instant gratification for all. To me, "reasonably attainable" would mean that a much larger percentage than 2% of the cachers in the area will be able to find it, and instant gratification would man a qualifying percentage close to 100%.

I only looked at Norway's top 20 most prolific finders and saw that the first 19 of them already had completely filled in their 366-day calendars for finds. If someone wants to look at Norway's top 10,000 finders, I'm sure they would find many more examples of completely filled calendars.

 

You might feel that for a challenge cache to be attainable by a "reasonable" number of geocachers it should be findable by far more than 2% of the local geocachers, but Groundspeak reviewers seem to have opinions that differ from yours. In Florida, reviewers apparently set "reasonable" to mean that at least 10 of that state's geocachers (9,435 have 79+ finds) have pre-qualified. That's less than 0.11 percent of that state's geocachers. Similarly, Ontario reviewers expect at least 10 of that province's geocachers (9,163 have 79+ finds) to have pre-qualified. That's also less than 0.11 percent of that province's geocachers.

 

I stopped counting after seeing that at least 19 of Norway's geocachers have pre-qualified because I was pretty sure that number would meet any "attainable by a reasonable number of [local] geocachers" standard that the local reviewers were likely to impose.

 

As for my "instant gratification" comment, I didn't mean to suggest that Groundspeak now expects nearly all geocachers to be able to complete all challenges. My comment was in reference to views of many people in today's world that if a goal isn't "instantly" achievable, then it isn't worth pursuing. I fear that's a path Groundspeak might be walking:

 

  • Requiring a Finds Calendar to be completely filled for 366 days might delay a geocacher's gratification for up to four years, so let's ban those kinds of challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.
  • Some geocachers don't enjoy streak challenges that last longer than 365 days, so let's ban those kinds of challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.
  • Some geocachers don't want to deal with the stress of finding 10 caches in a single day, so let's ban time-limited challenges, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.
  • Some geocachers don't want the hassle of remembering which letters they're missing in "alphabetical" challenges, so let's ban challenges that use cache titles, even if they're attainable by a reasonable number of geocachers.

As you noted in another thread:

 

They're *challenge caches*. A "challenge" implies that it's not necessarily going to be *easy*.

 

Yes, I wrote that and also think there has been a general trend for instant gratification and entitlement such that there is an expectation that every cache should be easy. My point is that instant gratification and entitlement are a long way from challenge caches that are only attainable by a tiny fraction of the geocaching population. Before the moratorium it sometimes seemed like some challenges were created as if it was a contest to see who could create something that excluded as many geocachers as possible.

 

I have no issues with creating caches that are difficult to find, or challenges with criteria that is hard to achieve, but at some point it just looks like an exercise in exclusivity that allows the uber elite to be able to pat themselves on the back for being better than everyone else. I just don't seen the benefit to the game in creating a cache that is more of a novelty (hello ISS cache) than anything else, especially if it involves changes to the guidelines.

 

I will also note that there are 10's if not 100's of challenge caches which pre-exist the moratorium and new rules, some of them extremely difficult. For example, there's a "Find a cache 1000 days in a row" challenge in Sweden that was placed before the moratorium. With the guideline change, no *new* cache a day streaks more than 365 day are allowed. If you're going to argue that GS should allow new challenges which are only attainable by a tiny fraction of the geocaching population, then it seems to me that the existence of a challenge that might require traveling thousands of miles to find the container would provided a very difficult challenge as well. Do we really need a "Find a cache 1004 days in a row" challenge in every city?

 

For those that want to do extremely difficult challenge caches, there are plenty of them already available and the travel involved to get to them can be considered part of the challenge.

 

Fair enough but they will slowly die out like aging webcams and virtuals. Still maybe one of them will be the next APE.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Fair enough but they will slowly die out like aging webcams and virtuals. Still maybe one of them will be the next APE.

 

Virtual and Webcam caches have been grandfathered for a long time (from what I can find Virtual caches were grandfathered in 2004) but there are still plenty around. According to the main search page there are 3776 Virtual caches still available in the U.S. and 137 webcam caches. Although they're not exactly extinct they're still rare enough that many geocachers will seek them out specifically because they are not common. Geocachers will spend thousands of dollars and travel thousands of miles to seek out rare caches such as the last remaining APE cache, Groundspeak HQ, Mingo or the oldest unfound cache (the trip report about 4lb Walleye fascinated many here for about two weeks). If GS *does* decide to ban all new challenge caches (and grandfathers any existing ones) there are still over 10,000 puzzle caches with "Challenge" in the title in the U.S. and they'll become more desirable, especially if a unique icon were created.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

Fair enough but they will slowly die out like aging webcams and virtuals. Still maybe one of them will be the next APE.

 

Virtual and Webcam caches have been grandfathered for a long time (from what I can find Virtual caches were grandfathered in 2004) but there are still plenty around. According to the main search page there are 3776 Virtual caches still available in the U.S. and 137 webcam caches. Although they're not exactly extinct they're still rare enough that many geocachers will seek them out specifically because they are not common. Geocachers will spend thousands of dollars and travel thousands of miles to seek out rare caches such as the last remaining APE cache, Groundspeak HQ, Mingo or the oldest unfound cache (the trip report about 4lb Walleye fascinated many here for about two weeks). If GS *does* decide to ban all new challenge caches (and grandfathers any existing ones) there are still over 10,000 puzzle caches with "Challenge" in the title in the U.S. and they'll become more desirable, especially if a unique icon were created.

point taken. Old style challenges are not an endangered species and unlikely to become one. When I get home from my road trip I shall bow to the " make it easy so I can feel the joy of achieving a challenge" and put out an easy challenge under the new guidelines although 200 miles of travel might make it hard to meet the reasonably attainable rule. We will see.

Share this post


Link to post

Fair enough but they will slowly die out like aging webcams and virtuals. Still maybe one of them will be the next APE.

 

Virtual and Webcam caches have been grandfathered for a long time (from what I can find Virtual caches were grandfathered in 2004) but there are still plenty around. According to the main search page there are 3776 Virtual caches still available in the U.S. and 137 webcam caches. Although they're not exactly extinct they're still rare enough that many geocachers will seek them out specifically because they are not common. Geocachers will spend thousands of dollars and travel thousands of miles to seek out rare caches such as the last remaining APE cache, Groundspeak HQ, Mingo or the oldest unfound cache (the trip report about 4lb Walleye fascinated many here for about two weeks). If GS *does* decide to ban all new challenge caches (and grandfathers any existing ones) there are still over 10,000 puzzle caches with "Challenge" in the title in the U.S. and they'll become more desirable, especially if a unique icon were created.

point taken. Old style challenges are not an endangered species and unlikely to become one. When I get home from my road trip I shall bow to the " make it easy so I can feel the joy of achieving a challenge" and put out an easy challenge under the new guidelines although 200 miles of travel might make it hard to meet the reasonably attainable rule. We will see.

 

If you're looking for cachers that pre-qualify, over 21% of my finds are on caches more than 250 miles from home. Over 13% of them are over 1000 miles away.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

My point is that instant gratification and entitlement are a long way from challenge caches that are only attainable by a tiny fraction of the geocaching population.

Yes, pre-moratorium, some challenge caches were very difficult, some were moderately difficult, some were moderately easy, and some were very easy. Just like some traditional caches are very difficult, moderately difficult, moderately easy, and very easy. One of the things I really like about geocaching is that it has different things that appeal to different people...or even to the same person at different times.

 

Before the moratorium it sometimes seemed like some challenges were created as if it was a contest to see who could create something that excluded as many geocachers as possible.

I've placed a very difficult challenge cache. Not because I wanted to exclude as many geocachers as possible but because I hoped it might inspire others to also enjoy traveling across the wonderful province of Alberta. It seems to be having that effect. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons why people place very difficult challenges, but I doubt that the main reason is to exclude finders. It might appear that way to some, just as a traditional cache placed on top of a very high mountain might appear to some that its purpose is to exclude finders.

 

I will also note that there are 10's if not 100's of challenge caches which pre-exist the moratorium and new rules, some of them extremely difficult. For example, there's a "Find a cache 1000 days in a row" challenge in Sweden that was placed before the moratorium.

And there are 42 Swedish geocachers who have found caches on at least 1,000 consecutive days. That's 42 more people than have found this Swedish mystery cache. That's 41 more people than have found this Swedish SCUBA cache. That's 39 more people than have found this Swedish multi-cache. But Groundspeak doesn't bother to impose difficulty guidelines on any of these kinds of caches. Indeed, as you noted, Groundspeak often celebrates these extremely difficult non-challenge caches.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

I have no issues with creating caches that are difficult to find, or challenges with criteria that is hard to achieve, but at some point it just looks like an exercise in exclusivity that allows the uber elite to be able to pat themselves on the back for being better than everyone else.

Personally, I have no issues with the uber elite being able to pat themselves on the back. And that's not just theoretical: there's a significant uber elite in my local community, and they've been patting themselves on the back with challenge caches like that for as long as I've been geocaching. Like most people, I'll never be able to meet those challenges, but that doesn't bother me a bit. I was willing to live with them before, and I'd certainly prefer having more of them to avoid having so many restrictions on challenge caches that it's impossible to write any challenge cache that actually challenges anyone.

 

I find it amusing that this anti-uber elite stance is being laid over the existing challenge cache rules that favored the uber elite by not allowing start dates on challenges. I'm not privy to why that earlier rule was put in place, but I always assumed it was because some of the uber elite objected to the possibility of challenge caches that couldn't be satisfied with their deep databases. Now the total result is like conflicting polarizing filters: half the challenges are not allowed because they favor uber elite, and the other half are not allowed because they don't favor uber elite.

Share this post


Link to post

hm.

I wonder if we can refocus discussion to the intended topic of coming up with challenge ideas (even if it means fewer posts); we're kind of heading back into territory covered by other threads (discussing the concept of challenge caches and theorizing reasoning for rules)...

Just a gentle nudge /:)

Share this post


Link to post

hm.

I wonder if we can refocus discussion to the intended topic of coming up with challenge ideas (even if it means fewer posts); we're kind of heading back into territory covered by other threads (discussing the concept of challenge caches and theorizing reasoning for rules)...

Just a gentle nudge /:)

We could got back to talking about new ideas for challenge caches, but no one seems able to come up with any. The one or two that people suggested, which everyone seemed to think were good, have been rejected. That's why we stopped talking about them and started talking about why new ideas are not possible.

Share this post


Link to post

hm.

I wonder if we can refocus discussion to the intended topic of coming up with challenge ideas (even if it means fewer posts); we're kind of heading back into territory covered by other threads (discussing the concept of challenge caches and theorizing reasoning for rules)...

Just a gentle nudge /:)

We could got back to talking about new ideas for challenge caches, but no one seems able to come up with any. The one or two that people suggested, which everyone seemed to think were good, have been rejected. That's why we stopped talking about them and started talking about why new ideas are not possible.

 

My dull boring challenge will be The SANTA Challenge.

Find 5 caches of any type in all Calfornia counties with Santa in their name.

If that fails, it will be find 5 caches in each of Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and Santa Clara county

Share this post


Link to post

hm.

I wonder if we can refocus discussion to the intended topic of coming up with challenge ideas (even if it means fewer posts); we're kind of heading back into territory covered by other threads (discussing the concept of challenge caches and theorizing reasoning for rules)...

Just a gentle nudge /:)

We could got back to talking about new ideas for challenge caches, but no one seems able to come up with any. The one or two that people suggested, which everyone seemed to think were good, have been rejected. That's why we stopped talking about them and started talking about why new ideas are not possible.

 

My dull boring challenge will be The SANTA Challenge.

Find 5 caches of any type in all Calfornia counties with Santa in their name.

If that fails, it will be find 5 caches in each of Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz and Santa Clara county

 

Santa Clara is also a city. I lived within a few blocks of its border for several years. You could also add Santa Rosa, except we can't have challenges based on city polygons.

Share this post


Link to post

My point is that instant gratification and entitlement are a long way from challenge caches that are only attainable by a tiny fraction of the geocaching population.

Yes, pre-moratorium, some challenge caches were very difficult, some were moderately difficult, some were moderately easy, and some were very easy. Just like some traditional caches are very difficult, moderately difficult, moderately easy, and very easy. One of the things I really like about geocaching is that it has different things that appeal to different people...or even to the same person at different times.

 

There is nothing wrong with variety and having caches which appeal to different people. I think that at some point a line should be drawn. When a cache appeals to such a tiny fraction of the number of geocachers in an area I see it more as a novelty than anything else.

 

Before the moratorium it sometimes seemed like some challenges were created as if it was a contest to see who could create something that excluded as many geocachers as possible.

I've placed a very difficult challenge cache. Not because I wanted to exclude as many geocachers as possible but because I hoped it might inspire others to also enjoy traveling across the wonderful province of Alberta. It seems to be having that effect. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons why people place very difficult challenges, but I doubt that the main reason is to exclude finders. It might appear that way to some, just as a traditional cache placed on top of a very high mountain might appear to some that its purpose is to exclude finders.

 

An all-counties challenge, even in a province as large as Alberta is probably quite difficult but still has the appeal for anyone that would like to see all parts of the province. Personally I like challenges which require one to get out and see other parts of the world outside their local geocaching area. I am not, of course, suggesting that the only reason that someone will create a extremely difficult is to be exclusionary. I just don't see how guidelines could be constructed which would allow COs to created extremely difficult challenges for other reasons while at the same time excluding challenge that are intentionally exclusionary so that the CO can post on the forums: "Look at me. I created the world most difficult challenge". I feels the same way about someone that creates a "worlds most difficult puzzle cache" or "worlds longest multi cache" or worlds largest haystack with a needle in it. I just don't think that hiding a cache should be turned into a contest.

 

 

I will also note that there are 10's if not 100's of challenge caches which pre-exist the moratorium and new rules, some of them extremely difficult. For example, there's a "Find a cache 1000 days in a row" challenge in Sweden that was placed before the moratorium.

And there are 42 Swedish geocachers who have found caches on at least 1,000 consecutive days. That's 42 more people than have found this Swedish mystery cache. That's 41 more people than have found this Swedish SCUBA cache. That's 39 more people than have found this Swedish multi-cache. But Groundspeak doesn't bother to impose difficulty guidelines on any of these kinds of caches. Indeed, as you noted, Groundspeak often celebrates these extremely difficult non-challenge caches.

 

I think you completely missed the point. If the only "find a cache 1000 days in a row" challenge was in Sweden, part of the difficulty of being able to post a Found it would be traveling to Sweden to find the cache. If the guidelines were relaxed such that anyone in the world could place a "find a cache 1000 days in a row" the the difficulty of completing such a challenge would be reduced. By banning any new difficult and unique challenges of this type it will become and more difficult to complete a challenge of that type.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×