Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 7
thebruce0

Challenge Cache Ideas

Recommended Posts

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.

But where should the line be drawn? That's the problem. When I think it through, I realize that any line would be entirely arbitrary, so where it's drawn is just a reflection of the tastes of the person drawing the line, not any actual consideration of value.

 

I think what we're seeing demonstrates the problem. The people drawing the line at GS don't appear to have any personal interest in challenge caches, they're just trying to keep them -- ostensibly -- because they know there are geocachers that like them. So there's nothing stopping that arbitrary line from being moved towards more restrictions anytime anyone comes up with any reason that anything about challenge caches should be considered undesirable. So we end up with few allowed challenge possibilities just to make sure it's impossible to create a challenge cache that no one can satisfy. A classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

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.

What's wrong with novelty? I really don't care that there are caches I'll never get whether they're challenge caches or not.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Maybe things are different in New York, but in areas where I've geocached I haven't seen many nearly impossible challenge caches. The problem with trying to draw a line to exclude all the nearly impossible caches is that the line is also likely to include some extremely difficult caches that truly inspire geocachers. For me, having a few nearly impossible caches that might never be found is a small price to pay for also preserving extremely inspirational caches that might bring joy to people.

 

I can always add the nearly impossible caches to my "Ignore List." I'd like to be able to add the extremely inspirational caches to my "Bucket List."

 

ETA: I did a quick check. There are 166 Unknown-type caches in New York State that have the word "challenge" in their titles. All 166 of these have been found at least once.

 

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 agree that you can't create a guideline that excludes extremely difficult "show off" caches while preserving extremely difficult inspirational caches. Unlike you, I'd prefer a guideline that didn't exclude either rather than one that excludes both.

 

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.

I didn't miss your point; I skipped it because I didn't think you were serious. Yes, if there was only a single 1,000-day streak cache in the world, then it would be extremely-extremely difficult to complete that challenge and sign that log. But in addition to extremely-extremely difficult challenge caches, I'm also in favor of challenge caches that are merely extremely difficult, such as a 1,000-day streak cache located only 1,500 miles away. I'm in favor of challenge caches that span a wide range of difficulties. Different strokes for different folks.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with trying to draw a line to exclude all the nearly impossible caches is that the line is also likely to include some extremely difficult caches that truly inspire geocachers.

Well, what we're actually seeing in practice is that trying to draw a line to exclude all the nearly impossible caches also excludes caches that aren't difficult at all.

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with trying to draw a line to exclude all the nearly impossible caches is that the line is also likely to include some extremely difficult caches that truly inspire geocachers.

Well, what we're actually seeing in practice is that trying to draw a line to exclude all the nearly impossible caches also excludes caches that aren't difficult at all.

And sometimes the guidelines appear to exclude easier caches while allowing harder ones. The 81-day Fizzy "streak" challenge that I'm pondering appears to be permitted by the current guidelines, even though it would be a difficult challenge in my locality. But the guidelines' prohibition of time-limited challenges would prevent me from creating an easier challenge that requires people to fill a complete Fizzy grid over a one year period.

 

Certain people dislike having to find 100 caches in a single day, so Groundspeak prohibits all time-limited challenges...even those that require finding 10 caches over the course of an entire year. Go figure.

Share this post


Link to post

Progress!

Sadly, I've had to move on from latitude/longitude and patterns and such, but my challenge series is now adjusted and set to publish as soon as I place the physical containers.

Share this post


Link to post

Progress!

Sadly, I've had to move on from latitude/longitude and patterns and such, but my challenge series is now adjusted and set to publish as soon as I place the physical containers.

 

I will be excited to see them. Dogged persistence paid off

Share this post


Link to post

Progress!

Sadly, I've had to move on from latitude/longitude and patterns and such, but my challenge series is now adjusted and set to publish as soon as I place the physical containers.

 

I will be excited to see them. Dogged persistence paid off

 

To follow up, they've finally been published: [map]

Had a bit of proximity to deal with but wanted to get the whole set published together.

And it comes with a bonus puzzle :)

 

Also, the V2 bookmark list for Ontario Challenge Caches is now up to 55. It's growing quickly...

Share this post


Link to post

Here's another good idea published in the UK - the challenge itself is straight forward, but they added the creative part as an optional task (GC6KTF3)

 

- Find a cache in 10 different countries, then optionally use the first letters of those countries and spell a word for Scrabble points.

Not so easy for those who don't live near lots of countries you can practically drive to. I can drive to Canada and Mexico. That's it. Can't afford to fly to another country. I recently backed out of a Brazil trip.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting. So the old style challenge is an optional part. I could see a willing CO keeping a list of those who meet the optional challenge as part of the description for all to see. Or you just claim it in the logs like the past.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's another good idea published in the UK - the challenge itself is straight forward, but they added the creative part as an optional task (GC6KTF3)

 

- Find a cache in 10 different countries, then optionally use the first letters of those countries and spell a word for Scrabble points.

Not so easy for those who don't live near lots of countries you can practically drive to. I can drive to Canada and Mexico. That's it. Can't afford to fly to another country. I recently backed out of a Brazil trip.

 

You might want to look closer at some of the airfares available. For example, I've seen air fares to Iceland (I may be going in November) for much less than it would cost me to fly to Seattle. Note that the cache listed is in the UK, where it *is* much easier to find caches in 10 or countries. There are lots of challenges that require long streaks, or a high number of different types of caches found in a day that someone living in cache sparse area would not find easy either, but someone living in a cache dense area could do fairly easily. I also live in the U.S. where one can only drive to two other countries (and ironically, I haven't found a cache in one of them) but have found caches in 24 countries and am way down the list in number countries in which one has found a cache.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if there are far more cachers in Europe that have found 10 or more cachers than there are that qualify for a double or triple Jasmer.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I surrendered and sort of worked around the no-spell limitation with https://coord.info/GC6V4NC.

 

Nothing excitIng here but I did opt to suggest optional challenges in the description, something suggested here.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak recently published a challenge cache, entitled "Challenge: Far away" (GC6V1QW), which requires (according to Google Translate) you to "have found a cache of more than 10,101 km from home."

 

The Help Center states: "The challenge checker must verify that a player does or does not qualify to log a challenge cache as found." But the challenge checker for the above challenge notes that it: "Only works for cache[r]s that have logged in on project-gc.com and have set homecoordinates. Else the checker will result in 'Failed to execute script' error."

 

Did this challenge manage to slip through the reviewing cracks? Or has Groundspeak decided to change its challenge guidelines?

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak recently published a challenge cache, entitled "Challenge: Far away" (GC6V1QW), which requires (according to Google Translate) you to "have found a cache of more than 10,101 km from home."

 

The Help Center states: "The challenge checker must verify that a player does or does not qualify to log a challenge cache as found." But the challenge checker for the above challenge notes that it: "Only works for cache[r]s that have logged in on project-gc.com and have set homecoordinates. Else the checker will result in 'Failed to execute script' error."

 

Did this challenge manage to slip through the reviewing cracks? Or has Groundspeak decided to change its challenge guidelines?

I doubt they changed anything. Guessing it's just another case of not being consistent with their own guidelines.

Edited by Mudfrog

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak recently published a challenge cache, entitled "Challenge: Far away" (GC6V1QW), which requires (according to Google Translate) you to "have found a cache of more than 10,101 km from home."

 

The Help Center states: "The challenge checker must verify that a player does or does not qualify to log a challenge cache as found." But the challenge checker for the above challenge notes that it: "Only works for cache[r]s that have logged in on project-gc.com and have set homecoordinates. Else the checker will result in 'Failed to execute script' error."

 

Did this challenge manage to slip through the reviewing cracks? Or has Groundspeak decided to change its challenge guidelines?

I doubt they changed anything. Guessing it's just another case of not being consistent with their own guidelines.

It also isn't very consistent with Groundspeak's commitment to keeping their members' home coordinates "totally private." Totally private...unless you want to claim certain challenge caches.

Share this post


Link to post

The Help Center states: "The challenge checker must verify that a player does or does not qualify to log a challenge cache as found." But the challenge checker for the above challenge notes that it: "Only works for cache[r]s that have logged in on project-gc.com and have set homecoordinates. Else the checker will result in 'Failed to execute script' error."

 

So? The checker works doesn't it.

Don't see a problem with that.

BTW, D5 seems a bit over the top for this challenge, D4 may be more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post

The Help Center states: "The challenge checker must verify that a player does or does not qualify to log a challenge cache as found." [Emphasis added] But the challenge checker for the above challenge notes that it: "Only works for cache[r]s that have logged in on project-gc.com and have set homecoordinates. Else the checker will result in 'Failed to execute script' error."

So? The checker works doesn't it.

Don't see a problem with that.

According to the guidelines, the checker must return either a "does" or "does not" qualify (see bolded text). "Error" isn't one of the options permitted by the challenge cache guidelines, so NO the checker doesn't work as it is supposed to work.

Share this post


Link to post

Groundspeak recently published a challenge cache, entitled "Challenge: Far away" (GC6V1QW), which requires (according to Google Translate) you to "have found a cache of more than 10,101 km from home."

 

The Help Center states: "The challenge checker must verify that a player does or does not qualify to log a challenge cache as found." But the challenge checker for the above challenge notes that it: "Only works for cache[r]s that have logged in on project-gc.com and have set homecoordinates. Else the checker will result in 'Failed to execute script' error."

 

Did this challenge manage to slip through the reviewing cracks? Or has Groundspeak decided to change its challenge guidelines?

I guess the challenge managed to slip through the reviewing cracks. It has now been unpublished.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the challenge managed to slip through the reviewing cracks. It has now been unpublished.

 

I hope you're happy, especially since it's a cache 1000's of kilometers from where you are. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the challenge managed to slip through the reviewing cracks. It has now been unpublished.

 

I hope you're happy, especially since it's a cache 1000's of kilometers from where you are. :mad:

 

Why the drama? Such challenges weren't allowed for quite a few years, at least not everywhere, altough in the guidelines there is only 'Challenge owners will need to make sure that cachers can show that they have completed the cache requirements without compromising their privacy' which includes not being forced to show home coordinates to everyone or the challenge cache owner. It seems that GS now suggests to set home coordinates to a spot you can reach within a few minutes.

 

Of course project-gc's own statistics pages and GSAK and others can show 'furthest cache found (from home): x,xxx.xx km' for your username if you gave authorisation to access home coordinates on geocaching.com and if you have home coordinates set there. But does not show that information to anybody else if you don't publish it yourself.

 

So 'must come from information broadly available on Geocaching.com such as on the statistics page, cache placement dates, types, attributes, souvenirs, etc. ... must be verifiable through information on Geocaching.com.' seems not to be fulfilled.

 

Project-gc has in their 'read-first' section: 'The checkers does not have access to the user's home coordinates. Challenges are not allowed to be based upon them either, and haven't been allowed to for several years. This is a matter of integrity.' and the owner of the challenge in question was advised to ask a reviewer first whether it is allowed before using the checker based on project-gc statistics.

 

But there are enough challenges that require 'a cache (at least) x km from this given point', for example the header coordinates or 'find two caches that are (at least) x km apart.'

 

The challenge can be rewritten to something that is allowed anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

Why the drama? Such challenges weren't allowed for quite a few years, at least not everywhere, altough in the guidelines there is only 'Challenge owners will need to make sure that cachers can show that they have completed the cache requirements without compromising their privacy' which includes not being forced to show home coordinates to everyone or the challenge cache owner. It seems that GS now suggests to set home coordinates to a spot you can reach within a few minutes.

 

Of course project-gc's own statistics pages and GSAK and others can show 'furthest cache found (from home): x,xxx.xx km' for your username if you gave authorisation to access home coordinates on geocaching.com and if you have home coordinates set there. But does not show that information to anybody else if you don't publish it yourself.

 

So 'must come from information broadly available on Geocaching.com such as on the statistics page, cache placement dates, types, attributes, souvenirs, etc. ... must be verifiable through information on Geocaching.com.' seems not to be fulfilled.

 

Project-gc has in their 'read-first' section: 'The checkers does not have access to the user's home coordinates. Challenges are not allowed to be based upon them either, and haven't been allowed to for several years. This is a matter of integrity.' and the owner of the challenge in question was advised to ask a reviewer first whether it is allowed before using the checker based on project-gc statistics.

 

But there are enough challenges that require 'a cache (at least) x km from this given point', for example the header coordinates or 'find two caches that are (at least) x km apart.'

 

The challenge can be rewritten to something that is allowed anyway.

 

If fail to see why someone half around the world feels it's necessary to attract attention to this challenge. All a potential finder for this cache has to do is set home coordinates and the needed info is available on the statistics page making it "verifiable through information on Geocaching.com". If a cacher is not willing to make this info available so be it, but hiding statistics and then claiming it can't be verified if someone qualifies is questionable at the very least.

 

I see this as yet another instance of GS trying to discourage challenges and going for the lowest common denominator.

Share this post


Link to post

It is not about hiding statistics at all. Home coordinates are not shown to others even if you have statistics enabled, only to yourself.

 

GS choose not to show home coordinates to others than the user, also not to the checker system. And challenge checkers should work also if you are not the user who wants to show requirements are fulfilled.

 

I've already logged such a challenge, a very old one. There the owner asked to mail gc-codes if one doesn't want to sent a screenshot of the statistics (which IS different if I look to what he sees) as dictance is shown only to the user, not to all others.

 

But I don't see the reason for such a challenge, you can make it 'at least x km from here' which won't make too much difference for local geocachers or make it 'two caches at least x km apart' which also would bring similar results for most cachers having found a cache near home. Only the 'I have found only one x/2 from home in this direction and one x/2 from in the other direction' would fail the original idea.

 

Discouraging challenges seems to be the goal in many quite questionalbe ways since opening for new challenge caches again, but this particular one was a no-go in most areas also before the moratorium.

 

Edit: Home coordinates can be set to whatever you want for the purpose of fulfilling a challenge, so 'Find farthest from home' is an arbritary number, for others also not related to a certain cache as only distance is given, whereas distance between two find or dstance from a given point is not that easy altered.

Edited by AnnaMoritz

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the challenge managed to slip through the reviewing cracks. It has now been unpublished.

 

I hope you're happy, especially since it's a cache 1000's of kilometers from where you are. :mad:

I don't understand this attitude. Doesn't matter where the cache is located or how far away from a person who notices the discrepancy. If the cache doesn't meet guidelines, then it needs to be dealt with.

 

But i do agree with you 100% that GS has screwed up challenge caches. There were a small handful of entitled people that whined about caches that were too hard for them and that they didn't think it was fair they couldn't get the smilies for them. They complained to their reviewers and GS about this unfairness. To make this handful happy, GS came out with the ridiculous guidelines we have today.

 

CCs were some of my favorite caches to find and to place. As it is now, count me out for trying to place any new ones.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the challenge managed to slip through the reviewing cracks. It has now been unpublished.

I hope you're happy, especially since it's a cache 1000's of kilometers from where you are. :mad:

I'm quite happy to hold Groundspeak to their privacy commitments.

Share this post


Link to post

guh, I'm hoping this thread doesn't turn into a resource for caches to be archived for having broken guidelines for whatever reason. Can we keep it to challenge ideas without necessarily naming GC's directly? If someone has a problem with a specific GC and thinks it should be unpublished then perhaps send the info to the local or publishing reviewer, and in here just talk indirectly about the challenge content... maybeplz? unsure.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the challenge managed to slip through the reviewing cracks. It has now been unpublished.

I hope you're happy, especially since it's a cache 1000's of kilometers from where you are. :mad:

I don't understand this attitude. Doesn't matter where the cache is located or how far away from a person who notices the discrepancy. If the cache doesn't meet guidelines, then it needs to be dealt with.

I'm not on4bam, but here's how I interpreted this comment: GS is being very sticky about challenges, as if trying to quash anything that makes them interesting. This challenge was approved, so one might suspect it was because a reviewer quietly acted reasonably, although it's also possible the reviewer just hasn't gotten the word yet. But now that it's been brought into the limelight, the people behind the attempt to kill challenge caches saw it and insisted it be retracted.

Share this post


Link to post

guh, I'm hoping this thread doesn't turn into a resource for caches to be archived for having broken guidelines for whatever reason. Can we keep it to challenge ideas without necessarily naming GC's directly? If someone has a problem with a specific GC and thinks it should be unpublished then perhaps send the info to the local or publishing reviewer, and in here just talk indirectly about the challenge content... maybeplz? unsure.gif

Why should people privately contact reviewers about problematic challenge content rather than openly discuss them on this forum? I thought the purpose of this particular thread was to inform people about which challenge cache ideas are and are not allowed. From your opening post:

 

With the new and still-evolving Challenge Cache Guidelines, I thought it might be helpful to have a thread in which we can share our experiences with what challenge ideas have been allowed, what have been denied (and why), and what is or may actually be possible. [Emphasis added.]

And you do realize, of course, that Groundspeak doesn't need the names of specific challenge caches to track down which are being indirectly discussed on this thread. I know you realize this, because you said as much in Post #45:

 

Well heck, apparently you can indirectly mention that a challenge idea exists and somehow it'll get tracked down (as noted in this thread) :P.

Then again, it's certainly not hard to pull a daily list of worldwide challenge caches and find it easily and quickly, since they're published so rarely.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

I guess the challenge managed to slip through the reviewing cracks. It has now been unpublished.

I hope you're happy, especially since it's a cache 1000's of kilometers from where you are. :mad:

I don't understand this attitude. Doesn't matter where the cache is located or how far away from a person who notices the discrepancy. If the cache doesn't meet guidelines, then it needs to be dealt with.

I'm not on4bam, but here's how I interpreted this comment: GS is being very sticky about challenges, as if trying to quash anything that makes them interesting. This challenge was approved, so one might suspect it was because a reviewer quietly acted reasonably, although it's also possible the reviewer just hasn't gotten the word yet. But now that it's been brought into the limelight, the people behind the attempt to kill challenge caches saw it and insisted it be retracted.

And boy do i agree as well,, That GS and others, seem to want to quash the creative, interesting, and fun things challenge caches could provide. I don't understand this at all. :blink:

 

But, i also don't think it's right to have caches published that go against guidelines. The guidelines may suck right now but they are in place, and until they change, the publishment of caches needs to be consistent by meeting them.

Edited by Mudfrog

Share this post


Link to post

And you do realize, of course, that Groundspeak doesn't need the names of specific challenge caches to track down which are being indirectly discussed on this thread. I know you realize this, because you said as much in Post #45:

 

They don't but I don't think we should go point out the any problems. On any given cacheday I'm sure to see guideline violations but I'll never go that far to attract attention to them. For a safety issue I might contact the CO but that's about it and then only for caches I have visited, never for a cache half around the world.

Share this post


Link to post

And you do realize, of course, that Groundspeak doesn't need the names of specific challenge caches to track down which are being indirectly discussed on this thread. I know you realize this, because you said as much in Post #45:

They don't but I don't think we should go point out the any problems. On any given cacheday I'm sure to see guideline violations but I'll never go that far to attract attention to them. For a safety issue I might contact the CO but that's about it and then only for caches I have visited, never for a cache half around the world.

So, if you report a safety issue to the CO and they ignore the issue, then I guess you'd just leave it at that.

 

Back on topic... I understand how some geocachers are reluctant to get involved with any challenge guideline violations. I also understand those who want to see challenge guidelines more uniformly applied. Personally, I fall somewhere in the middle.

 

On the one hand, I think some of Groundspeak's challenge guidelines can't be justified. I know of several new challenge caches that violate Groundspeak's sillier guidelines, and I've remained silent about them. If enough Volunteer Reviewers publish enough reasonable but "unpublishable" challenge caches and they continue to exist, then perhaps Groundspeak might reconsider some of those "bad" guidelines sometime in the future.

 

On the other hand, I don't have any problem encouraging Groundspeak to get rid of challenge caches that violate their commitment to member privacy (even if those members are thousands of kilometres away).

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

Why should people privately contact reviewers about problematic challenge content rather than openly discuss them on this forum? I thought the purpose of this particular thread was to inform people about which challenge cache ideas are and are not allowed.

 

...Surely you understand the spirit of my concern?

Instead of this thread becoming an infamous source for "problem" GCs which 'happen' to get archived after being 'discussed'... We can discuss ideas, even in detail, without tattling directly on other caches. Name your own GCs if you wish. And yes of course GS can still locate specific problem caches on their own. If someone wants to tattle, let them tattle where it counts and matters most - directly with to the people who do something about it. As the OP I'd love it if we can keep this thread positive and productive. And of course I have no direct control over what gets commented or not, it's merely a plea, for the love of God, let's try to keep this a nice thread! Please? ph34r.giflaughing.gif

 

You know, like those other "don't do this" type of threads that ask people not to name GCs. Only this is about Challenge ideas.

Share this post


Link to post

So, if you report a safety issue to the CO and they ignore the issue, then I guess you'd just leave it at that.

 

Yup.

Share this post


Link to post

On the other hand, I don't have any problem encouraging Groundspeak to get rid of challenge caches that violate their commitment to member privacy (even if those members are thousands of kilometres away).

But let's keep in mind that it's the guidelines themselves that force someone to reveal their location in order to claim the find. If the challenge checker weren't required, the CO could publish this challenge cache and just trust that people claiming the find weren't lying about it.

 

And I'm mentioning that because this isn't just a specific case: the challenge cache guidelines are almost all aimed at enforcing other challenge cache guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post

Why should people privately contact reviewers about problematic challenge content rather than openly discuss them on this forum? I thought the purpose of this particular thread was to inform people about which challenge cache ideas are and are not allowed.

...Surely you understand the spirit of my concern?

I'm not sure that I do. Apparently, you consider it "tattling" if someone mentions a questionable challenge cache by name and Groundspeak can identify it in one minute, but it's fine to discuss a nameless challenge cache in detail because that might mean Groundspeak spends two minutes identifying the cache.

 

The end result is going to be the same. If Groundspeak doesn't like the challenge, then they'll archive it. If you don't want to risk having a questionable challenge cache archived, then don't mention that cache in these forums, either by name or by concept. As I mentioned earlier, I've refrained from discussing certain challenge caches for exactly that reason.

 

Instead of this thread becoming an infamous source for "problem" GCs which 'happen' to get archived after being 'discussed'... We can discuss ideas, even in detail, without tattling directly on other caches.

But if you discuss the challenge cache idea, even without going into detail, Groundspeak will archive that new challenge cache if they consider it to violate their guidelines, and this thread will still be an infamous source for "problem" GCs that get archived after being discussed. Omitting the cache name won't stop that from happening.

 

And yes of course GS can still locate specific problem caches on their own. If someone wants to tattle, let them tattle where it counts and matters most - directly with to the people who do something about it.

But simply discussing a "problem" challenge cache idea (as you suggest) is "tattling." Groundspeak will use that information to archive the "problem" challenge cache.

 

As the OP I'd love it if we can keep this thread positive and productive.

Then the solution is to not discuss any challenge cache ideas that might conceivably violate any of Groundspeak's challenge cache guidelines, at least if there are any new challenge caches that use those ideas.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

So, if you report a safety issue to the CO and they ignore the issue, then I guess you'd just leave it at that.

Yup.

But at least you'll defend to the death my right to mention a safety issue to a Volunteer Reviewer or to Groundspeak...and perhaps save a life.

Share this post


Link to post

So, if you report a safety issue to the CO and they ignore the issue, then I guess you'd just leave it at that.

Yup.

But at least you'll defend to the death my right to mention a safety issue to a Volunteer Reviewer or to Groundspeak...and perhaps save a life.

 

Opinions != ratting out and I wouldn't rate a guideline infringement a life threatening situation.

Liked my blog? :ph34r:

Edited by on4bam

Share this post


Link to post

So, if you report a safety issue to the CO and they ignore the issue, then I guess you'd just leave it at that.

Yup.

But at least you'll defend to the death my right to mention a safety issue to a Volunteer Reviewer or to Groundspeak...and perhaps save a life.

Opinions != ratting out and I wouldn't rate a guideline infringement a life threatening situation.

Some geocaching safety issues might well be life threatening...in my opinion. And I'd go ahead and pass my concerns along to a reviewer/Groundspeak, even if it means you consider that to be "ratting out."

 

Back on topic... In my opinion, challenge caches that violate Groundspeak's privacy commitments also should be brought to Groundspeak's attention.

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

As the OP I'd love it if we can keep this thread positive and productive.

Then the solution is to not discuss any challenge cache ideas that might conceivably violate any of Groundspeak's challenge cache guidelines, at least if there are any new challenge caches that use those ideas.

No, the solution is just to discuss with common sense, on topic, and sheesh, treat the thread just like other threads that may talk about issues and concerns without naming specific caches. Yes there may be collateral damage through discussion, but my hope for the discussion is not to become a thread where people keep bringing up and naming GC's that seem to break the guidelines. Take that to reviewers, there's no relevant reason to the discussion to call them out specifically here, just like in other similar threads. Can we all please, I beg, just get back on topic now and continue to discuss challenge ideas?!?! signalmad.gif

 

--------

 

Back on topic:

 

Regarding the now-archived challenge, pre-moratorium there were rules about home location privacy as well, as mentioned. I had contemplated a challenge of the same style years ago but decided to change it to an artbirary source point rather than the user's actual 'Home' location. So it's odd that that one would have been approved under the new guidelines.

 

I guess since 'Home' technically can be anywhere in the world depending on the user, then using that as a center point itself is entirely arbitrary, which leaves only the privacy concern. Thus, may as well make the challenge center point any chosen location. Who knows, the user's chosen location might be someone else's home :P.

 

There are plenty of distance-band challenges that use the challenge cache's posted coordinates as the center point, so that's certainly doable.

 

My variation was on the archery theme - pick a bullseye cache and then find caches in various distance bands from center.

Is it possible for PGC checkers to take an input GC or coordinate value? That could be invaluable for a challenge like that which requires a custom center point.

 

Another variation along the lines of target practice was to collect points for distance between two caches in a single day - greater distance = greater points. There are challenges to find caches X kms apart in a day (great for overseas travelers for instance), but collecting say 50 pairs of caches that are 100km apart in single day periods could be another beast :)

... hmm... *runs off to script a GSAK stat checker*

Share this post


Link to post

Some geocaching safety issues might well be life threatening...in my opinion. And I'd go ahead and pass my concerns along to a reviewer/Groundspeak, even if it means you consider that to be "ratting out."

 

Back on topic... In my opinion, challenge caches that violate Groundspeak's privacy commitments also should be brought to Groundspeak's attention.

 

Again, the "ratting out" (probably to strong an expression but it's all I can think about) was meant for the distance challenge. No need to suddenly get into life threatening situations.

 

No one is forced to disclose their location, in fact you can set your location to whatever you want so you're not disclosing anything if you don't want to. If you really don't want to disclose your location don't do the challenge but then again that may prove to difficult for some as they want to log them all (and that's what started it all, logging without qualifying).

 

Few new challenges have been published since the moratorium ended, some where unpublished/archived soon after publishing because people pointing them out and just about none of the ones that were allowed appeal to me because they are not "challenging" at all.

Share this post


Link to post

Cool. For fun, for anyone curious about their stats, here's a SQL I just whipped up for use in GSAK SQLite that lists your max distances traveled in single dates between two caches. With almost 10k finds it takes 15-20 seconds to run on my machine.

select x1.f FoundDate, round(max(g_distance(x1.lat,x1.lon,x2.lat,x2.lon, 'K')),2) Dist, x1.code GC1, x1.lat Lat1, x1.lon Lon1, x2.code GC2, x2.lat Lat2, x2.lon Lon2 from (select foundbymedate f, latitude lat, longitude lon, code from caches c inner join (select Foundbymedate d from caches group by foundbymedate having count(*)>1) fbm on f=d) x1 cross join (select foundbymedate f, latitude lat, longitude lon, code from caches c inner join (select Foundbymedate d from caches group by foundbymedate having count(*)>1) fbm on f=d) x2 on x1.f=x2.f where x1.lat<>x2.lat and x1.lon<>x2.lon group by x1.f order by Dist desc

Share this post


Link to post

Cool. For fun, for anyone curious about their stats, here's a SQL I just whipped up for use in GSAK SQLite that lists your max distances traveled in single dates between two caches. With almost 10k finds it takes 15-20 seconds to run on my machine.

I've got 8 GB of RAM on my laptop; I ended up with an out of memory error running the query.

Share this post


Link to post

There are plenty of distance-band challenges that use the challenge cache's posted coordinates as the center point, so that's certainly doable.

Interesting. I would have thought the logic would call for those to be denied since they're effectively just arbitrary polygons no different than the Arctic Circle challenge cache we discussed being rejected.

Share this post


Link to post

Cool. For fun, for anyone curious about their stats, here's a SQL I just whipped up for use in GSAK SQLite that lists your max distances traveled in single dates between two caches. With almost 10k finds it takes 15-20 seconds to run on my machine.

I've got 8 GB of RAM on my laptop; I ended up with an out of memory error running the query.

Hmm... It ignores days with only 1 find. I've got 1088 caching days. Maybe you have more caching days with >2 finds; that could bump the processing geometrically. Still, should take that long. It runs on all the caches in the selected database btw - so if you have a separate database containing only your found caches, use that.

 

There are plenty of distance-band challenges that use the challenge cache's posted coordinates as the center point, so that's certainly doable.

Interesting. I would have thought the logic would call for those to be denied since they're effectively just arbitrary polygons no different than the Arctic Circle challenge cache we discussed being rejected.

Good point, don't know if any have been published since the moratorium. They were allowed pre. I haven't seen any in Ontario since, at least...

Share this post


Link to post

As the OP I'd love it if we can keep this thread positive and productive.

Then the solution is to not discuss any challenge cache ideas that might conceivably violate any of Groundspeak's challenge cache guidelines, at least if there are any new challenge caches that use those ideas.

No, the solution is just to discuss with common sense, on topic, and sheesh, treat the thread just like other threads that may talk about issues and concerns without naming specific caches. Yes there may be collateral damage through discussion, but my hope for the discussion is not to become a thread where people keep bringing up and naming GC's that seem to break the guidelines. Take that to reviewers, there's no relevant reason to the discussion to call them out specifically here, just like in other similar threads. [Emphasis in original.]

If you apply a little common sense, then you should quickly realize there are numerous relevant reasons for naming specific challenge caches.

 

For example, the cache I recently mentioned was written in Spanish, which I don't understand very well. Although Google Translate indicated that the cache required one to "have found a cache of more than 10,101 km from home," we all know Google Translate can sometimes seriously misinterpret passages. I wanted people to be able to refer to the cache in question so that they didn't have to rely on Google Translate.

 

Someone else might come across another challenge cache that requires people to find 100 caches on a single day, which would seem to contradict Groundspeak's "time-limited" guideline. An examination of the actual challenge cache, however, might indicate that the listing page later clarifies that the "single day" refers to a single day of the 366-day Finds Calendar on your Profile page's Statistics page (i.e., years are irrelevant).

 

Another person might come across a challenge cache that requires a 1,000-day consecutive finding streak, despite Groundspeak's 365-day limit on such challenges. A closer inspection of the actual listing page might reveal that this particular challenge was published in 2014, before the new limit was imposed.

 

But I'm still not sure why you're so fixated on omitting challenge cache names. There will be "collateral damage" to questionable challenge caches even if the cache names are absent from the discussion (and the loss of all the benefits that could entail). As you noted earlier, "it's certainly not hard [for Groundspeak] to pull a daily list of worldwide challenge caches and find it easily and quickly, since they're published so rarely."

 

So I stand by my original point. If you don't want to risk Groundspeak archiving questionable challenge caches, then don't mention them on these forums, either by name or by concept. I've refrained from doing so on several occasions.

 

Another variation along the lines of target practice was to collect points for distance between two caches in a single day - greater distance = greater points. There are challenges to find caches X kms apart in a day (great for overseas travelers for instance), but collecting say 50 pairs of caches that are 100km apart in single day periods could be another beast :)

... hmm... *runs off to script a GSAK stat checker*

The "find caches X kms apart in a day" challenges likely were published before the new guidelines took effect. Now, requiring people to find two caches on a single day violates the "time-limited" guideline (see #9). Your variations also would run afoul of that same guideline. Seriously, requiring the finding of two caches in a single day (i.e., 24-hour day), is against the new challenge cache guidelines. :rolleyes:

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post
There will be "collateral damage" to questionable challenge caches even if the cache names are absent from the discussion (and the loss of all the benefits that could entail).

 

Exactly. Which is why I am not participating in the discussion.

 

It's kind of sad that we are not free to discuss ideas here, but that is life.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a distinction between discussing an idea for a challenge cache versus a specific instance of a challenge. No specific cache is at risk by discussing an idea although I suppose it might cause GS to jump in and ban the idea if it was otherwise not covered.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a distinction between discussing an idea for a challenge cache versus a specific instance of a challenge. No specific cache is at risk by discussing an idea although I suppose it might cause GS to jump in and ban the idea if it was otherwise not covered.

But if a recently published challenge cache is what prompts the discussion of a challenge cache idea, then don't be surprised if that newly published cache gets archived.

 

Suppose I had omitted any reference to a specific challenge cache and had simply said, "It appears Groundspeak now allows challenge caches to require that geocachers provide their home coordinates." Do you really think Groundspeak wouldn't have found that specific challenge cache and archived it? As thebruce0 once noted, "it's certainly not hard [for Groundspeak] to pull a daily list of worldwide challenge caches and find it easily and quickly, since they're published so rarely."

Edited by CanadianRockies

Share this post


Link to post

[Off topic]

 

For example...Someone else might...Another person might....

Exceptions are exceptions. You clearly understand the point of the concern and request.

 

But I'm still not sure why you're so fixated on omitting challenge cache names.

*headdesk* Common sense. If the spirit of the thread is challenge ideas, and the intent is positive (whether about ideas that work or ideas that don't) - then discuss away! If the intent is to point a finger at specific challenge listings that should not have been published - send that to the reviewer. It's really a simple request. What is your goal in the comment you post? I have zero problem with well-intended discussion about challenge ideas. If that's the case for participants, then this thread won't become known as a collection of challenge-caches-that-happen-to-have-been-archived-after-being-called-out.

 

There will be "collateral damage" to questionable challenge caches even if the cache names are absent from the discussion (and the loss of all the benefits that could entail).

Exactly. Which is why I am not participating in the discussion.

It's kind of sad that we are not free to discuss ideas here, but that is life.

Oh come on, don't be like that (unless all you want to do is call out problem caches so they might get archived instead of going through proper channels). Of course I'm not the forum police. I would like the thread I started to be a place to discuss challenge cache ideas. Whether or not individual listings can be identified from the discussion isn't the primary concern - the concern is that the thread does not become a gutter for complaints about caches-that-should-not-be that get quickly archived - just like other similar discussion threads. Interpret that in practice however you will, but citing GCs as "problem caches" is the quickest way to get them archived - so send that to a reviewer if that's your intent. BUT DISCUSS IDEAS HERE - WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T. PLEASE. If that's still not understood, model discourse after this thread, for one.

 

There is a distinction between discussing an idea for a challenge cache versus a specific instance of a challenge. No specific cache is at risk by discussing an idea although I suppose it might cause GS to jump in and ban the idea if it was otherwise not covered.

Exactly.

 

Now can this line end here? Please?

 

-------

[On topic]

 

The "find caches X kms apart in a day" challenges likely were published before the new guidelines took effect. Now, requiring people to find two caches on a single day violates the "time-limited" guideline (see #9). Your variations also would run afoul of that same guideline. Seriously, requiring the finding of two caches in a single day (i.e., 24-hour day), is against the new challenge cache guidelines. :rolleyes:

 

Good point, the single-day time requirement wouldn't be allowed. I may ask a local reviewer to verify that interpretation (ie, if 2 finds for distance in one day qualifies as a "Busy Day" infraction) out of curiosity.

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
There will be "collateral damage" to questionable challenge caches even if the cache names are absent from the discussion (and the loss of all the benefits that could entail).

Exactly. Which is why I am not participating in the discussion.

It's kind of sad that we are not free to discuss ideas here, but that is life.

Oh come on, don't be like that (unless all you want to do is call out problem caches so they might get archived instead of going through proper channels). Of course I'm not the forum police. I would like the thread I started to be a place to discuss challenge cache ideas.

 

You are not the problem. Others, who will use the discussion as a way to try to get new ideas banned as quickly as they come up, are.

 

Given the new rules, anything but the most anodyne challenge could be brought to the attention of TPTB and some excuse made to have it archived. This thread contains more than one example of exactly this behavior. It's kind of like the notion that Federal law has become so complex that everyone unknowingly commits a felony every day. The challenge cache rules seem to be structured in such a way that it is possible to find a pretext to archive or forbid any remotely interesting challenge. Since removing interesting challenges appears to be the main goal of TPTB, this thread will inadvertently give them more ammunition.

 

Once again, it's not you. It's them.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not a huge fan of challenge caches. I have only two bookmark lists for my own challenge cache progress (one completed, one still in progress). But both of those bookmark lists are for concepts that are now prohibited, so I have to agree with fizzymagic.

 

The trend is toward banning anything but the most anodyne (Google to the rescue) challenges. The challenge cache restrictions now ban location-based challenges like DeLorme challenges or quad challenges or bi-polar challenges, and ban non-generic streak challenges like puzzling month challenges or regular week challenges, and ban listing trivia challenges (e.g., titles, owners, GC codes, publishing reviewers, listing text) except for a few specific cases (e.g., difficulty, terrain, placed date).

 

Given this trend, it is perfectly reasonable to avoid discussing the few "more creative" challenge cache criteria that might remain in a forum that is operated by (and likely monitored by) TPTB.

Share this post


Link to post

No one is forcing anyone to discuss anything. So if you don't want to, that's just fine... those of us that would like to discuss challenge cache ideas can still do so, just please leave the intent to archive caches at the door (send it to reviewers), and realize that discussing uncertain challenge cache ideas may have collateral effects.

 

The intent here is to discuss ways to work within the guidelines (what works and doesn't, for better or worse), not complain about or criticize the guidelines (there are other threads for that - and I'm all for having a place to do that; just, please, not here? mebbe? prettyplease? #happyplace?).

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...