Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
thebruce0

Challenge Cache Ideas

Recommended Posts

I don't believe Groundspeak partners, like Project-GC, actually have access to a geocacher's home coordinates.

pgc has access to the home coordinates entered at gc.com. Of course not the real ones.

I know their challenge checkers don't have access to home coordinates. I just assumed PGC in general didn't either.

 

But they do assign geocachers to specific countries and states/provinces/regions. I think they do this based on where a geocacher has registered the most finds.

Yes, they use different methods than the entered home coordinates to assign cachers to areas.

Why would they use something else to determine a cacher's home area?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe Groundspeak partners, like Project-GC, actually have access to a geocacher's home coordinates.

pgc has access to the home coordinates entered at gc.com. Of course not the real ones.

I know their challenge checkers don't have access to home coordinates. I just assumed PGC in general didn't either.

 

pgc shows your home coordinates to you for your statistics if you are logged in like geocaching.com shows them to you.

 

Others see:

Nearest cache found: -

Furthest cache found: -

 

But they do assign geocachers to specific countries and states/provinces/regions. I think they do this based on where a geocacher has registered the most finds.

Yes, they use different methods than the entered home coordinates to assign cachers to areas.

Why would they use something else to determine a cacher's home area?

 

Because a lot of people write there anything they want (like universe or Marcha Orientalis) or nothing at all? Also other sites determine your place (city/country - until you ask to overwrite it if they got it wrong) from where you first appeared and/or where the majority of your (perhaps with more weight on the last x months etc.) actions took place.

 

Sometimes one can notice this for example if you look at one of the 'top x something in country' and a name you never ever saw before is suddenly in Top25.

Edited by AnnaMoritz

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe Groundspeak partners, like Project-GC, actually have access to a geocacher's home coordinates.

pgc has access to the home coordinates entered at gc.com. Of course not the real ones.

I know their challenge checkers don't have access to home coordinates. I just assumed PGC in general didn't either.

pgc shows your home coordinates to you for your statistics if you are logged in like geocaching.com shows them to you.

 

Others see:

Nearest cache found: -

Furthest cache found: -

So, Groundspeak won't display your nearest/farthest caches from home (presumably because of privacy concerns), but they will share your home coordinates with third parties and allow them to display your nearest/farthest caches from home. That seems rather odd.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't believe Groundspeak partners, like Project-GC, actually have access to a geocacher's home coordinates.

pgc has access to the home coordinates entered at gc.com. Of course not the real ones.

I know their challenge checkers don't have access to home coordinates. I just assumed PGC in general didn't either.

pgc shows your home coordinates to you for your statistics if you are logged in like geocaching.com shows them to you.

 

Others see:

Nearest cache found: -

Furthest cache found: -

So, Groundspeak won't display your nearest/farthest caches from home (presumably because of privacy concerns), but they will share your home coordinates with third parties and allow them to display your nearest/farthest caches from home. That seems rather odd.

 

Sorry, that was imprecise: It doesn't show you your coordinates, but has to have access to them (using it for you only) to determine nearest and furthest cache:

 

Nearest cache found: xxx, GCxxx Austria

Furthest cache found: 1,xxx.77 km, Improvisado #6 Montjuïc - Estadi Olimpic, GC24868 Spain

Edited by AnnaMoritz

Share this post


Link to post

I was hoping there might have been a way of generating the list before going to all the effort of setting up the cache page and having a checker created, particularly as it'd be handy to see how many qualifiers there are when deciding how high to set the bar (I've found 13 "more than 1 hour" caches myself, but I don't know how typical that would be).

 

I find it amazing that apparently so few cachers in your area have found such caches. I thought a moment about setting up a challenge cache asking for a higher number of multi caches with the >10km attribute, no motorbikes allowed attribute and T-rating at least 3*. It would not be an issue to have enough qualifyiing cachers but it would also include some caches I do not want to have there and exclude some I'd like to have there. It would be easier if there were further distance related attributes >20km, >40km etc or even a length field.

 

As your challenge cache is regarded, the >1 hour might be misleading. I typically do not set the >1 hour where it's obvious, e.g. when I use the >10km attribute (and/or the significant hike attribute) for a hiking cache. I use the >1 hour attribute mainly in an urban setting when it is not clear from the beginning that my cache needs more time than the average cache nearby.

 

In all of New South Wales there are 187 caches with the "takes more than 1 hour" attribute and within 50km of home there are 40, 6 of which are mine. As you say, there are no doubt many that would take more than an hour but don't have the attribute, it's the same with any attribute really, but a lot of those that do lead a lonely existence (just a handful of finds in a year) so I'd like to do my small bit to entice a few more to try the longer caches.

Share this post


Link to post

The only challenges published recently near me are just for the rich people who can afford to go on holiday all over the world. It's a farce that Groundspeak banned time based challenges saying they were unattainable. I'll say it's a lot easier finding 10 virtual caches in a day than find caches on three continents 😡

 

There are also a lot of cachers that go out caching every day in order to maintain their find a cache a day streak. I would imagine that it they didn't do that they'd save enough money on gas for a bit of travel. For someone living in Europe it's relatively easy to travel to three continents and with 44 countries it's a lot easier to do find caches in N countries in Europe than someone in the U.S. I suspect that I would have to drive further to find 10 virtuals here than driving to 6 countries in Europe. I'm not rich by any means but I've found caches in 10 countries in Europe (24 total on 4 continents) but not while on holiday. I'm paid to travel for work and I believe that I've *earned* that benefit.

 

Would be fine if you live in Europe, but try living in Australia - it's a long way from anywhere!

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't count on degrees any more, who knows whether there will be a new "not acceptable" for angles. Sticking to the explicitly allowed counties/regions seems more promising.

 

Neither would I, but the answer might be interesting anyhow to understand what the rules actually are.

 

The latest Cache-A-Maniacs podcast feature Rock Chalk who works at HQ and had a fair bit to do with the challenge guideline changes (at least it sounds that way). His comments on various restrictions and what is allowed and not was informative. Too bad the BiPolar didn't make it to the question list. This page has a link to the MP3 of the show.

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't count on degrees any more, who knows whether there will be a new "not acceptable" for angles. Sticking to the explicitly allowed counties/regions seems more promising.

Neither would I, but the answer might be interesting anyhow to understand what the rules actually are.

The latest Cache-A-Maniacs podcast feature Rock Chalk who works at HQ and had a fair bit to do with the challenge guideline changes (at least it sounds that way). His comments on various restrictions and what is allowed and not was informative. Too bad the BiPolar didn't make it to the question list. This page has a link to the MP3 of the show.

And Rock Chalk did indicate that the 360-degree challenges are no longer acceptable because they involve user-defined polygons.

Share this post


Link to post
And Rock Chalk did indicate that the 360-degree challenges are no longer acceptable because they involve user-defined polygons.

 

Which I suppose is true for completely incorrect definitions of the word "polygon."

 

I'm puzzled because it seems like HQ went to a lot of trouble just to kill challenges.

Share this post


Link to post
And Rock Chalk did indicate that the 360-degree challenges are no longer acceptable because they involve user-defined polygons.

 

Which I suppose is true for completely incorrect definitions of the word "polygon."

 

I'm puzzled because it seems like HQ went to a lot of trouble just to kill challenges.

 

It would have been simpler to say the only closed boundaries defining an area for challenge caches are country, region/state, county.

Share this post


Link to post

The only challenges published recently near me are just for the rich people who can afford to go on holiday all over the world. It's a farce that Groundspeak banned time based challenges saying they were unattainable. I'll say it's a lot easier finding 10 virtual caches in a day than find caches on three continents 😡

In Australia the only cluster of 10 virtuals is near Melbourne. There are actually 11 but one is based on Xmas lights and is temp disabled 11 months of the year. Since I've already done 2 of them, getting 10 in a day means flying to Las Vegas (or somewhere similar). On the other hand there are cheap family package tours from Sydney to Bali (Asia) or Disneyland (North America) so caching in 3 continents isn't that expensive. Just one family holiday a year.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm puzzled because it seems like HQ went to a lot of trouble just to kill challenges.

During a 5 June 2016 Podcacher interview (starting at about 21:15), Rock Chalk indicated that Groundspeak wants to create some sort of badge-type (maybe) achievement recognition system. (He hopes it comes sooner rather than later, but it's not imminent.) Rock Chalk also believes that once geocaching.com does a better job of recognizing achievements, then perhaps challenges wouldn't be as necessary as they are now.

 

I suspect new challenge caches eventually will be replaced by an automated achievement system (probably similar to Project-GC's badge system). Most likely, that's a major reason for requiring all new challenge caches to be supported by an automated challenge checker. Once a broad-ranging achievement system is operational, it likely will duplicate (from Groundspeak's perspective) many of the post-moratorium challenge caches. So, why would Groundspeak want to continue with the hassles of reviewing and responding to appeals caused by new challenge caches? At this point, I'm just hoping all existing challenge caches won't get archived.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is the official response to my question on challenges o spell a word with geographic names where you hav found caches.

 

"After discussions here at HQ and with the reviewer community, it has been determined that your challenge idea would not represent a geocaching achievement.

 

Finding caches in four states or countries or counties is potentially a geocaching achievement. However, the opionion here is that requiring those states or countries or counties to have names that begin with specific letters is more a matter of bookkeeping than an achievement. Therefore, the idea would not be publishable as a challenge cache.

 

I'm sorry we don't have better news, but we do appreciate you writing to request guidance on the issue."

 

I guess I don't understand bookkeeping in the sense GS means it. There would be a checker so the users need keep no records or do bookkeeping. If and when they qualify PGC's map would point out they were qualified at a glance. The script would tell you specifically which parts were not qualified so again no bookkeeping by the user.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder how long it will be until GS drops challenges all together. I already wrote it during the moratorium, the decision seems to have been made and with tighter restrictions and awarding souvenirs/badges it won't be long.

Share this post


Link to post

There would be a checker so the users need keep no records or do bookkeeping. If and when they qualify PGC's map would point out they were qualified at a glance. The script would tell you specifically which parts were not qualified so again no bookkeeping by the user.

 

Probably worth remembering at this point that the PGC was a solution to one of the more requested features during the Input phase. It does not follow that people MUST use it, it's merely an option available, that Groundspeak decided to use a third party, rather than developing in house.

 

If folks prefer NOT using the PGC (for reasons I can't fathom), it once again becomes a bookkeeping exercise.

Share this post


Link to post

There would be a checker so the users need keep no records or do bookkeeping. If and when they qualify PGC's map would point out they were qualified at a glance. The script would tell you specifically which parts were not qualified so again no bookkeeping by the user.

 

Probably worth remembering at this point that the PGC was a solution to one of the more requested features during the Input phase. It does not follow that people MUST use it, it's merely an option available, that Groundspeak decided to use a third party, rather than developing in house.

 

If folks prefer NOT using the PGC (for reasons I can't fathom), it once again becomes a bookkeeping exercise.

 

The listing challenge description must link to an approved checker and currently PGC is the only game in town.

Share this post


Link to post

There would be a checker so the users need keep no records or do bookkeeping. If and when they qualify PGC's map would point out they were qualified at a glance. The script would tell you specifically which parts were not qualified so again no bookkeeping by the user.

 

Probably worth remembering at this point that the PGC was a solution to one of the more requested features during the Input phase. It does not follow that people MUST use it, it's merely an option available, that Groundspeak decided to use a third party, rather than developing in house.

 

If folks prefer NOT using the PGC (for reasons I can't fathom), it once again becomes a bookkeeping exercise.

 

The listing challenge description must link to an approved checker and currently PGC is the only game in town.

I agree. It is a requirement for submission, but it is NOT a requirement to log a Find. People are still allowed to use various manual methods if they so choose.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is the official response to my question on challenges o spell a word with geographic names where you hav found caches.

 

"After discussions here at HQ and with the reviewer community, it has been determined that your challenge idea would not represent a geocaching achievement.

 

Finding caches in four states or countries or counties is potentially a geocaching achievement. However, the opionion here is that requiring those states or countries or counties to have names that begin with specific letters is more a matter of bookkeeping than an achievement. Therefore, the idea would not be publishable as a challenge cache.

 

I'm sorry we don't have better news, but we do appreciate you writing to request guidance on the issue."

 

I guess I don't understand bookkeeping in the sense GS means it. There would be a checker so the users need keep no records or do bookkeeping. If and when they qualify PGC's map would point out they were qualified at a glance. The script would tell you specifically which parts were not qualified so again no bookkeeping by the user.

 

Interesting. So "find caches in 4 states" and "find caches in all 50 states" are allowed, but not 4 states to spell a specific word.

 

I guess by "bookkeeping" they mean the following: For a cacher who has cached in > 4 states, it becomes a "bookkeeping" exercise to check if they already qualify. And it will be random luck if they already qualify for not. Though of course the more states they have, the greater the chance they already qualify. I think that is the principle; and it doesn't matter how easy or difficult the "bookkeeping" is.

Share this post


Link to post

I really do want to grok bookkeeping so I sent this follow up hoping for clarity.

 

"Thanks for the response. I'm still trying to get a sense of what constitutes bookkeeping. In the past users had to do bookkeeping with GSAK or other tools, poring over all their finds to see if they qualified a challenge. I agree this was tedious and is not geocaching. Fast forward to now. Challenges require a checker so all I or the CO needs to do is run it to see if I qualify. No bookkeeping on anyone's part. If I don't qualify one might argue I must go figure out what I'm missing and bookkeeping rears its head. A good checker will tell me what I am missing and most do even now so I don't need to work to figure it out.

 

Playing a little gedanken experiment, consider a challenge of "Find 4 or more California caches such that you get at least one each in Lake, Orange, Ventura, and El Dorado counties". You suggest this is potentially an achievement but finding caches in California counties that spell LOVE is not an achievement.

 

The county list form is slightly more constrained since there are three counties starting with L and only 1 each for OVE but they are two ways of expressing the same thing. The spelling expression of the county list is simpler to express and just seems to add more of a spirit of fun to the challenge. Of course, I did not choose a word containing an S because the corresponding list of San/Santa counties in California is huge so enumerating them and then adding constraints to only find one from each letter set quickly fails the "too complicated to describe" guideline whereas the spell SANTA is easy to say and grasp.

 

I was hoping that this style of challenge would retain a little of the enjoyment people had for the spelling challenges but remove any way to game the system as geographic names are not under user control. "

 

Stay tuned.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, and trying to defend a specific theme or word or goal won't be all that helpful because if the concept as a whole could potentially allow for much more complex, convolution submissions, then it's seen as another form of 'wow factor' judgement concern. Why allow "love" and not "floxinoxinihilipilification"? It's like the intent to reduce to the lowest common denominator, or at least the lowest amount of effort deemed acceptable to the team. Any kind of spelling challenge would open the door for that. Same issue as with pattern matching, and user-defined polygons. (still don't see how lat/lon fits in, but whatev). On that point, I can sort of understand. Unfortunately it really, really, cripples creativity and uniqueness. :(

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, and trying to defend a specific theme or word or goal won't be all that helpful because if the concept as a whole could potentially allow for much more complex, convolution submissions, then it's seen as another form of 'wow factor' judgement concern. Why allow "love" and not "floxinoxinihilipilification"? It's like the intent to reduce to the lowest common denominator, or at least the lowest amount of effort deemed acceptable to the team. Any kind of spelling challenge would open the door for that. Same issue as with pattern matching, and user-defined polygons. (still don't see how lat/lon fits in, but whatev). On that point, I can sort of understand. Unfortunately it really, really, cripples creativity and uniqueness. :(

 

*Tongue in Cheek* Allow only 4 letter words. Heh.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, and trying to defend a specific theme or word or goal won't be all that helpful because if the concept as a whole could potentially allow for much more complex, convolution submissions, then it's seen as another form of 'wow factor' judgement concern. Why allow "love" and not "floxinoxinihilipilification"? It's like the intent to reduce to the lowest common denominator, or at least the lowest amount of effort deemed acceptable to the team. Any kind of spelling challenge would open the door for that. Same issue as with pattern matching, and user-defined polygons. (still don't see how lat/lon fits in, but whatev). On that point, I can sort of understand. Unfortunately it really, really, cripples creativity and uniqueness. :(

 

+1

 

It appears that rather than try to make a judgement on whether a challenge caches is "too complex" or meets some standard of "book keeping" that's its easier just to white list certain types (e.g. a list of counties, states, or counties) and reject anything else.

 

At the end of the day, trying to remove all subjective judgements stifles creativity.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Playing a little gedanken experiment, consider a challenge of "Find 4 or more California caches such that you get at least one each in Lake, Orange, Ventura, and El Dorado counties". You suggest this is potentially an achievement but finding caches in California counties that spell LOVE is not an achievement.

On the positive side, I think you probably have come up with a solution to your problem.

 

Create a challenge cache that requires geocachers to find four California caches. One cache must be in Lake, Lassen, OR Los Angeles counties. Three caches must be in Orange, Ventura, AND El Dorado counties. I think that's simple enough to pass the "easy to explain, follow and document" guideline.

 

You could name your cache as "The LOVE Challenge" or something like that. Of course, doing so risks the possibility that Groundspeak might realize this is a loophole challenge, which might encourage similar but more complicated word-spelling caches. To minimize the number of subjective decisions reviewers have to make, Groundspeak might shut down any kind of spelling challenge, regardless of whether they technically meet the guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

At the end of the day, trying to remove all subjective judgements stifles creativity.

But more importantly, making a base requirement something fundamentally subjective, like "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers," and then insisting on purely objective criteria is logically impossible. One might even start wondering whether failure is the goal.

 

Unfortunately, at this point it's clear that several of these both arbitrary and nonsensical concepts have lodged in GS's collected skull and will never be dislodged. "A geocaching activity" is something more specific than finding geocaches. "Bookkeeping" is inherently bad and must not be allowed...except when it's required. And behind them all is the fundamental idea that if anyone can imagine something used badly, then it makes perfect sense to forbid the hundreds of reasonable uses of it just to avoid having to make and defend a judgement call if anyone gets around to doing that bad thing.

 

Of course, I've almost given up pointing out that there's not really any justification for the starting point: that the process must not allow any bad challenge caches. With most caches, "good" and "bad" are left to the community to determine, but with challenge caches, the power structure must control that subjective call. That's not viable even before we realize that at GS, spelling "xylophone" is a bad challenge cache prima facie.

Share this post


Link to post

On the positive side, I think you probably have come up with a solution to your problem.

 

Create a challenge cache that requires geocachers to find four California caches. One cache must be in Lake, Lassen, OR Los Angeles counties. Three caches must be in Orange, Ventura, AND El Dorado counties. I think that's simple enough to pass the "easy to explain, follow and document" guideline.

Clearly they're no more likely to approve a challenge requiring counties which "just happen" to start with "L" while rejecting a challenge that simply states that you need to find any county starting with "L". I don't think there's any doubt of that even before observing that in the name of this pliable and arbitrary concept, "geocaching goal", they've driven us from an exquisitely simple way of expressing the challenge to one that, even in my opinion, could rationally be rejected using the "too complicated" criteria.

 

You could name your cache as "The LOVE Challenge" or something like that. Of course, doing so risks the possibility that Groundspeak might realize this is a loophole challenge, which might encourage similar but more complicated word-spelling caches. To minimize the number of subjective decisions reviewers have to make, Groundspeak might shut down any kind of spelling challenge, regardless of whether they technically meet the guidelines.

Well, first of all, I don't think you recognize that they've already shutdown any kind of spelling challenge. There was a tiny reason to think they might allow spelling in some corner case, but I read their response to rragan as declaring the decision that trying to spell something automatically makes a challenge about something other than "geocaching goals".

 

And in the broader sense, even if you could somehow get around the guidelines, couldn't they just say that the title "The LOVE Challenge" alone makes the challenge about something other than achieving a geocaching goal? I don't see that as a significant stretch beyond their current logic.

Share this post


Link to post

*hulksmash*

*headdesk*

*brainsizzle*

*KHAAAAN!*

 

Well now apparently counting latitudes or longitudes, allowed worldwide, is also off the table (eg, "have 5 longitudes with 100+ finds"). I had a couple of approved challenges based on that framework which I continued on to others based on their approval; lots of work; now to find that they've all been denied because of the geographic region clause. Thus it seems indeed that no limiting factor of any form can refer to anything but County, Province, Country.

Coordinates? Nope.

:signalviolin:

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

*hulksmash*

*headdesk*

*brainsizzle*

*KHAAAAN!*

 

Well now apparently counting latitudes or longitudes, allowed worldwide, is also off the table (eg, "have 5 longitudes with 100+ finds"). I had a couple of approved challenges based on that framework which I continued on to others based on their approval; lots of work; now to find that they've all been denied because of the geographic region clause. Thus it seems indeed that no limiting factor of any form can refer to anything but County, Province, Country.

Coordinates? Nope.

:signalviolin:

 

Ironic that a game based on latitude and longitude forbids using them.

Share this post


Link to post
Ironic that a game based on latitude and longitude forbids using them.
Didn't Groundspeak once say something about the "language of location" in their mission statement, or in their catchphrase, or something?

 

I tried visiting Groundspeak.com to double-check, but it redirected me to geocaching.com/jobs/ instead.

 

I guess it's a good thing that the Bay Area quad challenge is grandfathered.

 

And at least they aren't trying to take out an alien portal in Manhattan by launching a nuclear missile.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess it's a good thing that the Bay Area quad challenge is grandfathered.

You'd think the fact that this perfect example of a challenge cache with a very pure geocaching goal is now forbidden would raise a huge red flag telling GS that something's wrong here, but they've managed to work themselves into a state where not only does it make sense to them, they think it's desirable.

Share this post


Link to post
I guess it's a good thing that the Bay Area quad challenge is grandfathered.
You'd think the fact that this perfect example of a challenge cache with a very pure geocaching goal is now forbidden would raise a huge red flag telling GS that something's wrong here, but they've managed to work themselves into a state where not only does it make sense to them, they think it's desirable.
#include <nick_fury_quote.txt>

Share this post


Link to post

I guess it's a good thing that the Bay Area quad challenge is grandfathered.

You'd think the fact that this perfect example of a challenge cache with a very pure geocaching goal is now forbidden would raise a huge red flag telling GS that something's wrong here, but they've managed to work themselves into a state where not only does it make sense to them, they think it's desirable.

 

I agree. Map grid based challenges are some of my favorites. And what can be more geocaching related than finding caches in different locations on a map?

 

We have several (grandfathered) challenges in the UK like this, here is one. Even has a Project-GC Geochecker.

 

Very sad if these are no longer allowed.

Share this post


Link to post

*hulksmash*

*headdesk*

*brainsizzle*

*KHAAAAN!*

 

Well now apparently counting latitudes or longitudes, allowed worldwide, is also off the table (eg, "have 5 longitudes with 100+ finds"). I had a couple of approved challenges based on that framework which I continued on to others based on their approval; lots of work; now to find that they've all been denied because of the geographic region clause. Thus it seems indeed that no limiting factor of any form can refer to anything but County, Province, Country.

Coordinates? Nope.

:signalviolin:

Ironic that a game based on latitude and longitude forbids using them.

I hesitate to mention this (since it potentially might lead to archival), but at least one reviewer is allowing confluence points to be used in challenge caches. A degree confluence point is the intersection of an integer latitude and an integer longitude (i.e., the minutes portion of both are 00.000').

 

The challenge requires geocachers to find five caches located at degree confluence points. The five caches must be spread across at least three countries.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if that skirts the 'polygon' thing though. Technically, there is no polygon at all, more like target spots (and presumably arbitrary distance, closest cache to a confluence point?)

As opposed to a line of latitude would have a specific upper and lower boundary.

It would be the difference between a "boundary" clause and a "coordinate" clause.

Share this post


Link to post

I wonder if that skirts the 'polygon' thing though. Technically, there is no polygon at all, more like target spots (and presumably arbitrary distance, closest cache to a confluence point?)

As opposed to a line of latitude would have a specific upper and lower boundary.

It would be the difference between a "boundary" clause and a "coordinate" clause.

No, it isn't the closest cache to a confluence point; the posted coordinates for each found cache must be a degree confluence point (e.g., N51 00.000 W113 00.000).

 

Technically, these "points" are actually small polygons, since Groundspeak's posted coordinates are only accurate to a thousandth of of minute. Thus the above cache actually could be hidden anywhere in the "rectangle" delimited by N51 00.0005 W113 00.0005 and N50 59.9995 W112 59.9995.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd certainly publish a confluence challenge because it was a recognized pre-moratorium challenge type, and I'm not aware of any interpretive problems (other than "are there enough qualifiers?" if you asked for 25 confluence caches). I enjoyed finding one such pre-moratorium confluence challenge myself.

 

Points are not polygons. Now, if you said "find confluence caches that form a square of four adjacent confluences," that's getting polygonish.

 

On an unrelated note, yesterday I logged my first Jasmer Challenge under my player account. (I say that to remind everyone that there are Reviewers (AND Lackeys, like Rock Chalk) who actually enjoy finding challenge caches.)

Share this post


Link to post
I'd certainly publish a confluence challenge because it was a recognized pre-moratorium challenge type, and I'm not aware of any interpretive problems (other than "are there enough qualifiers?" if you asked for 25 confluence caches). I enjoyed finding one such pre-moratorium confluence challenge myself.

(bolded) That can be said about quite a number of very beloved challenge types that are no longer allowed. So you would "publish a confluence challenge" because of that? Somehow I doubt it - you'd publish it because of your statements that follow, about pinpoint coordinates not being a polygon, thus not breaking any current guideline restriction =P

Share this post


Link to post

Both are valid reasons. Continue dissecting them, by all means. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

"because it was a recognized pre-moratorium challenge type" wouldn't be a defensible reason to publish a challenge. At least from the standpoint of one of us towards a reviewer. If it breaks a guideline, it won't be published. If it breaks no guideline and satisfies the requirements, then it should be published. Any reviewer publishing merely because it was recognized pre-moratorium mwy well invite some undue attention to their judgement...

 

Can you edify us and give an example of a challenge type you would publish, merely "because it was a recognized pre-moratorium challenge type" (since we're in a thread discussing challenge cache ideas ;))? Degree confluence doesn't count - you explain it also as having not broken the polygon rule, thus it's already publishable (whether or not it's recognized pre-moratorium).

/me loves dissecting :anibad:

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
Points are not polygons.
Are you sure?

 

Because I would have thought "above the arctic circle" didn't involve any polygons either, but apparently Groundspeak disagrees.

 

#include <nick_fury_quote.txt>

Share this post


Link to post
Points are not polygons.
Are you sure?

 

Because I would have thought "above the arctic circle" didn't involve any polygons either, but apparently Groundspeak disagrees.

Not sure what you mean by that. The arctic circle isn't a point, it's a boundary excluding anything to its south. :huh:

This is running with their intent of "polygon" to mean "boundary".

 

Really, "user-defined polygon" should be changed if they want to be understandable and whitelist only County, State, and Country.

Share this post


Link to post
Points are not polygons.
Are you sure?

 

Because I would have thought "above the arctic circle" didn't involve any polygons either, but apparently Groundspeak disagrees.

Not sure what you mean by that. The arctic circle isn't a point, it's a boundary excluding anything to its south. :huh:

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"?

 

#include <nick_fury_quote.txt>

Edited by niraD

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?

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

Points are not polygons. Now, if you said "find confluence caches that form a square of four adjacent confluences," that's getting polygonish.

Doesn't it bother you that there's no practical reason to differentiate them?

 

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"?

Actually, it would be illogical not to consider a point a polygon since a point is just a circle with radius zero. Only someone rejecting the guideline in favor of common sense would say otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post

This is why I don't think the issue is about polygons - or at least, that was originally the intent but they realized the underlying issue was boundaries, which is why they're now quoting the whitelist of recognized geographic boundaries. Latitude and longitude aren't polygons - challenge based on those would be numerical, a lookup for an integer field just as State and Country are lookups for text fields, not polygons. So the issue is not "user-defined polygons", the issue is arbitrary boundaries that are not recognized or excepted (ie Counties). That means no latitude or longitude challenges. So the question remains - are coordinate point requirements to be considered "boundaries" and also disallowed?

Personally I wouldn't think so because they can be anywhere over the world; it's a different type of boundary, as in a limiting location factor as opposed to an enclosed shape. So either "boundary" would need to be more tightly 'defined' like polygon was, or use of coordinates would explicitly need to be stated as the reason for challenge denial. It's getting messy. I dunno.

 

I don't think confluence challenges would be denied, but I wouldn't be surprised if they end up so.

 

...(or will they be allowed because it's a recognized pre-moratorium challenge type? :P a reasoning which could open another can of worms for reviewers)

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

GS lists Antarctica as a country on their statistics pages. If in doubt, look at my statistics, specifically the maps page.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7

×
×
  • Create New...