Jump to content

Challenges - did they pass the test?


Recommended Posts

Challenges went through an adjustment and were brought back on line in May of last year. The prevailing thought was that they were going to be evaluated to see if they will continue AND if they could possibly become their own type. As we approach the anniversary, I am wondering if they passed the litmus test and if there is any chance they will be separated from all of the other puzzle types with their own icon.

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment

Inasmuchas there haven't been any new challenge caches published in my area (30 mile radius) since the moratorium was lifted, it's really difficult to answer this question......

 

I really think this new system has killed challenge caches. Now we just work off the grandfathered ones, just like virtual caches.

Just judging from a few Archived ones in your area, I don't get the impression that it's the change in the requirements so much, as a lack of will to submit them.

Edited by Touchstone
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Inasmuchas there haven't been any new challenge caches published in my area (30 mile radius) since the moratorium was lifted, it's really difficult to answer this question......

 

I really think this new system has killed challenge caches. Now we just work off the grandfathered ones, just like virtual caches.

Just judging from a few Archived ones in your area, I don't get the impression that it's the change in the requirements so much, as a lack of will to submit them.

A lack of will? What the heck does that mean? No one's interested in them any more because there are so few options and no room for innovation. It's not a lack of will, it's just a lack of point.

 

Anyway, to answer the OP's question, there have been a few published in my area, but certainly not enough for anyone to worry about giving them their own type or icon or anything. So the "problem" of them being confused with puzzle caches has been neatly solved by making their population insignificant.

Link to comment

Eleven new ones locally. So they seem to have passed muster. They are interesting, but perhaps bland? They have to meet the mechanization of Project.GC. Nothing imaginative is permitted. I qualify for nine of the eleven. I have not found caches in four countries (and never will). I doubt that I will ever attend 150 events plus two Megas and two CITOs. The COs have put some imagination into these. But it still mechanized sorting. (And one CO mentioned that he will probably not hide any more because of arguments with cachers as to whether they qualify.)

I'm working on an old one that requires fifty cache finds with food in the name. The mechanized sorter cannot handle that, which may be just as well. I did one that required twelve animal names that went on Noah's ark. I really don't think dolphins or mosquitoes went on Noah's Ark.

So, it has become a new, blander, series. And eliminated new off-the-wall ones like so many of the older ones. But, interestingly enough, there are still many variations available.

Link to comment

This is pure speculation, as I don't know since when it's there.

But, when you look into the source code of a cache page you find the category "ChallengesCompleted" in the area where the number of finds of a logger is displayed. I haven't seen any cachers yet, where the count is something different than 0.

So maybe they get an extra count?

Link to comment

This is pure speculation, as I don't know since when it's there.

But, when you look into the source code of a cache page you find the category "ChallengesCompleted" in the area where the number of finds of a logger is displayed. I haven't seen any cachers yet, where the count is something different than 0.

So maybe they get an extra count?

 

I wonder/think that is leftover from the short-lived 'Challenges' we had a couple years ago? As I recall, those numbers appeared as statistic briefly.

 

But, if we do go with a special designation for challenge caches, then this might be a place where we can add a statistic.

Link to comment

Eleven new ones locally. So they seem to have passed muster. They are interesting, but perhaps bland? They have to meet the mechanization of Project.GC. Nothing imaginative is permitted. I qualify for nine of the eleven. I have not found caches in four countries (and never will). I doubt that I will ever attend 150 events plus two Megas and two CITOs. The COs have put some imagination into these. But it still mechanized sorting. (And one CO mentioned that he will probably not hide any more because of arguments with cachers as to whether they qualify.)

I'm working on an old one that requires fifty cache finds with food in the name. The mechanized sorter cannot handle that, which may be just as well. I did one that required twelve animal names that went on Noah's ark. I really don't think dolphins or mosquitoes went on Noah's Ark.

So, it has become a new, blander, series. And eliminated new off-the-wall ones like so many of the older ones. But, interestingly enough, there are still many variations available.

 

Is the mechanized sorter you're referring to the project gc page?

Link to comment

Inasmuchas there haven't been any new challenge caches published in my area (30 mile radius) since the moratorium was lifted, it's really difficult to answer this question......

 

I really think this new system has killed challenge caches. Now we just work off the grandfathered ones, just like virtual caches.

Just judging from a few Archived ones in your area, I don't get the impression that it's the change in the requirements so much, as a lack of will to submit them.

A lack of will? What the heck does that mean? No one's interested in them any more because there are so few options and no room for innovation. It's not a lack of will, it's just a lack of point.

 

Anyway, to answer the OP's question, there have been a few published in my area, but certainly not enough for anyone to worry about giving them their own type or icon or anything. So the "problem" of them being confused with puzzle caches has been neatly solved by making their population insignificant.

 

I hope you were just exaggerating for effect when you said "No one's" interested in challenges anymore, because there have been several new ones in this area since the changes. And plenty of newer cachers are still having fun working toward the old calendar, counties, Fizzy, Jasmer, DeLorme etc. challenges. Not everyone needs to have "50 shades of challenges" to enjoy this side game. TPTB just can't please everyone.

You have a point when you say there is less room for innovation, but those days are gone and we have to move on. I'm hoping it won't take long before some of the more imaginative among us come up with new ides that are within the guidelines.

I'm still up in the air about a separate icon - plenty of grandfathered challenges are still around and I'd like to see some differentiation on the map when I look for caches in a new area. The new requirement of having the word "Challenge" in the title almost seems like a first step towards this goal.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I have the entire catalogue of Challenges in Ontario bookmark listed and am actively (though not necessarily primarily) working through all them. I'll occasionally go through the list and update my current status for each so I know how close I am to qualifying for them.

 

Most of them I may never actually go and find in order to Log. But my list of qualified challenges is slowly growing. I find them great and fun, even if their creativeness is restricted by the new guidelines. There's enough variety with the hundreds in Ontario (plus the pre-moratorium) that there's always something to aim for and consider during outings.

 

I might encourage people with no/few challenges near them to expand your radius - look for challenges you may not get to physically any time soon in your whole state/province/country, and just take them on as personal goals. Add'em to a list and put a note with them so you know if you do ever travel nearby, that's a cache you can actually find and log :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Inasmuchas there haven't been any new challenge caches published in my area (30 mile radius) since the moratorium was lifted, it's really difficult to answer this question......

 

I really think this new system has killed challenge caches. Now we just work off the grandfathered ones, just like virtual caches.

Just judging from a few Archived ones in your area, I don't get the impression that it's the change in the requirements so much, as a lack of will to submit them.

A lack of will? What the heck does that mean? No one's interested in them any more because there are so few options and no room for innovation. It's not a lack of will, it's just a lack of point.

 

Anyway, to answer the OP's question, there have been a few published in my area, but certainly not enough for anyone to worry about giving them their own type or icon or anything. So the "problem" of them being confused with puzzle caches has been neatly solved by making their population insignificant.

 

I hope you were just exaggerating for effect when you said "No one's" interested in challenges anymore, because there have been several new ones in this area since the changes. And plenty of newer cachers are still having fun working toward the old calendar, counties, Fizzy, Jasmer, DeLorme etc. challenges. Not everyone needs to have "50 shades of challenges" to enjoy this side game. TPTB just can't please everyone.

You have a point when you say there is less room for innovation, but those days are gone and we have to move on. I'm hoping it won't take long before some of the more imaginative among us come up with new ides that are within the guidelines.

I'm still up in the air about a separate icon - plenty of grandfathered challenges are still around and I'd like to see some differentiation on the map when I look for caches in a new area. The new requirement of having the word "Challenge" in the title almost seems like a first step towards this goal.

 

I, too, used to filter out mystery caches. I'm more interested in going out and caching than agonizing over what a picture is and how to turn it into coords. I'm not talking down to folks that live to do mysteries. I'm just saying that's not for me. I did over 40 years in IT, having to figure out why things didn't work. The old noggin is tired of figuring that stuff out. I'd rather go for some grunt n grope in the woods. :P

 

However, when I discovered challenges it added a bit more fun to caching for me. Gives me a goal. There's a challenge that requires finding a cache in the 48 CONUS states that kept me up all night thinking about the road trip from hell. Very exciting - I will never do it in one trip but I've since hit KY, TN and NC. I need a few dozen caches in both OH and PA to qualify for another one.

 

Challenge caches expand my goals. They're only one cache, so theyre not a "add to my numbers" thing as much as it goads me into getting out there and exploring further. Don't get me wrong, I do like getting find counts... :P

 

While I'd love to see challenge caches get their own icon (I want virtuals to come back too - ain't happening) I'm happy with requiring the ? And "challenge" in the name. Allows me to sort n filter.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

The new requirement of having the word "Challenge" in the title almost seems like a first step towards this goal.

Just an FYI that having 'challenge' in the title is not a "new" requirement - if you define "new" as being post-moratorium. It has been a requirement of CC's since at least 2011.

Link to comment

The new requirement of having the word "Challenge" in the title almost seems like a first step towards this goal.

Just an FYI that having 'challenge' in the title is not a "new" requirement - if you define "new" as being post-moratorium. It has been a requirement of CC's since at least 2011.

 

And as far as I know, there has never been a requirement that if a cache has Challenge in the title that it must be a challenge cache.

 

 

Link to comment

The new requirement of having the word "Challenge" in the title almost seems like a first step towards this goal.

Just an FYI that having 'challenge' in the title is not a "new" requirement - if you define "new" as being post-moratorium. It has been a requirement of CC's since at least 2011.

 

And as far as I know, there has never been a requirement that if a cache has Challenge in the title that it must be a challenge cache.

 

That would indeed make it harder to prepare a convincing case for a separate icon.

Ah well, I've so far muddled through without such an icon, so it's no further burden to continue thusly.

Link to comment

The new requirement of having the word "Challenge" in the title almost seems like a first step towards this goal.

Just an FYI that having 'challenge' in the title is not a "new" requirement - if you define "new" as being post-moratorium. It has been a requirement of CC's since at least 2011.

 

And as far as I know, there has never been a requirement that if a cache has Challenge in the title that it must be a challenge cache.

 

That's why when I'm planning, I create a list and add the challenges to the list. I manually weed out any non challenge caches with challenge in the title. But that's very few, as the only false positives would be mystery caches with challenge in the title...

 

I have 2 lists - challenge caches and challenge caches that I qualify for.

Link to comment

I'm just grateful that the new rules have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the amount of new challenge caches being published. I've only seen a handful publish in the last year or so. They have been effectively reigned in and I for one am happy about that.

 

Amen to that B)

 

When I look at a challenge that requires me to sit cramped in a car all day, burning enough fossil fuel to power a small sun and in turn rewards me with a soggy piece of paper in a nano tube the size of a gnat's genitals in a pointless location I'm glad the tide was turned. B)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I'm just grateful that the new rules have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the amount of new challenge caches being published. I've only seen a handful publish in the last year or so. They have been effectively reigned in and I for one am happy about that.

 

Amen to that B)

 

When I look at a challenge that requires me to sit cramped in a car all day, burning enough fossil fuel to power a small sun and in turn rewards me with a soggy piece of paper in a nano tube the size of a gnat's genitals in a pointless location I'm glad the tide was turned. B)

 

+3

 

In my area we had/have (I haven't looked in a while to see if they still exist) power trails of challenge caches. Find 50 caches with the 'tree climbing' attribute, find 50 caches with the 'not tree climbing' attribute, find 50 caches with each attribute. No challenge for the cache owner....back then they didn't even have to qualify....just drop a pill bottle and saturate a rail-to-trail for miles. No maintenance required either.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I'm just grateful that the new rules have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the amount of new challenge caches being published. I've only seen a handful publish in the last year or so. They have been effectively reigned in and I for one am happy about that.

Gee, good for you. Yes, they killed challenge caches. One less fun kind of cache in my area, but as long as you're happy...

 

In my area we had/have (I haven't looked in a while to see if they still exist) power trails of challenge caches. Find 50 caches with the 'tree climbing' attribute, find 50 caches with the 'not tree climbing' attribute, find 50 caches with each attribute. No challenge for the cache owner....back then they didn't even have to qualify....just drop a pill bottle and saturate a rail-to-trail for miles. No maintenance required either.

I'm sorry you had one or more irresponsible COs in your area that got enamored with challenge caches and used them to inflict their otherwise unrelated deficiencies on you. I wish you'd have punished those COs instead of punishing all the challenge cache lovers in my area where we had no such problems. We do still have a few challenge cache series, but they're out of the way and are maintained as well as any other cache. Blame your COs for their failings, don't blame the cache type.

 

(Alamogul plants challenge caches in my area, so whether to CO has to qualify or not means nothing to me.)

Link to comment

I'm just grateful that the new rules have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the amount of new challenge caches being published. I've only seen a handful publish in the last year or so. They have been effectively reigned in and I for one am happy about that.

Gee, good for you. Yes, they killed challenge caches. One less fun kind of cache in my area, but as long as you're happy...

 

 

Why is everything an argument for you? I mean, it's pretty clear from my statement that I was speaking only for myself. I made no comment that could be interpreted as reveling in the displeasure of others, yet you evidently felt compelled to reply with snark and rudeness.

Link to comment

I'm just grateful that the new rules have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the amount of new challenge caches being published. I've only seen a handful publish in the last year or so. They have been effectively reigned in and I for one am happy about that.

 

Amen to that B)

 

When I look at a challenge that requires me to sit cramped in a car all day, burning enough fossil fuel to power a small sun and in turn rewards me with a soggy piece of paper in a nano tube the size of a gnat's genitals in a pointless location I'm glad the tide was turned. B)

 

Except that challenges have always been optional. But thanks for applying your unwanted philosophies upon the majority.. which welcomes challenges.

Link to comment

I'm just grateful that the new rules have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the amount of new challenge caches being published. I've only seen a handful publish in the last year or so. They have been effectively reigned in and I for one am happy about that.

 

Amen to that B)

 

When I look at a challenge that requires me to sit cramped in a car all day, burning enough fossil fuel to power a small sun and in turn rewards me with a soggy piece of paper in a nano tube the size of a gnat's genitals in a pointless location I'm glad the tide was turned. B)

 

Except that challenges have always been optional. But thanks for applying your unwanted philosophies upon the majority.. which welcomes challenges.

 

"applying your unwanted philosophies upon the majority"?

 

Whaaaa?

 

That doesn't even make sense. We're merely expressing our own opinions, that we are pleased with the reduction in publication of new challenges. None of us expressed a desire to eliminate existing challenges or prevent more from being published altogether. I'm sorry that you have decided to somehow play victim, but that's certainly all from your own imagination.

Link to comment

Why is everything an argument for you? I mean, it's pretty clear from my statement that I was speaking only for myself.

My point is that you're only thinking of yourself.

 

That's quite a leap. So now it's selfish and vain to express a personal opinion. Please...express your own displeasure or happiness. I won't judge you.

Link to comment

Why is everything an argument for you? I mean, it's pretty clear from my statement that I was speaking only for myself.

My point is that you're only thinking of yourself.

 

It sure felt like the opposite when challenge owners tried to exclude more and more people as the challenge passion gained momentum. They were only thinking of those who were high-numbers, grid-filler cachers.

Or using it as a way to brag about their own "accomplishments".

They were pushing the game further and further away from it's pastime origins towards a mostly competitive game.

 

They encouraged people to find and treat good caches simply for their value as a grid-filler, and use them for the ultimate goal--the challenge cache.

 

As a cache owner I'm glad to no longer get monthly: "Went geocaching with cache-name-of-the-day group. 20 of us went out to find 50 non-trads in a day to qualify for CG's non-trad challenge [a bison tube on a fence]. We surpassed our goal by 5 caches. A thank you to our host for supplying the final coordinates and coffee." The cache I spent a month making, $25 in materials, and that I check on twice a year to make sure it's in great shape, is worth less then a bison tube on a fence that took the owner 2 minutes to place, 15cents each for a bulk box of bisons from China, and 5 minutes to write-up and post. Then I could look forward to an email box full of 19 more almost exact cut n paste GSAK style logs over the course of a week.

 

But as noted, I'm thinking only of myself. The challenge seekers and owners are the magnanimous cachers. It's a shame that more communities didn't get the opportunity to experience what my area experienced.

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

It sure felt like the opposite when challenge owners tried to exclude more and more people as the challenge passion gained momentum. They were only thinking of those who were high-numbers, grid-filler cachers.

Or using it as a way to brag about their own "accomplishments".

They were pushing the game further and further away from it's pastime origins towards a mostly competitive game.

 

They encouraged people to find and treat good caches simply for their value as a grid-filler, and use them for the ultimate goal--the challenge cache.

 

As a cache owner I'm glad to no longer get monthly: "Went geocaching with cache-name-of-the-day group. 20 of us went out to find 50 non-trads in a day to qualify for CG's non-trad challenge [a bison tube on a fence]. We surpassed our goal by 5 caches. A thank you to our host for supplying the final coordinates and coffee." The cache I spent a month making, $25 in materials, and that I check on twice a year to make sure it's in great shape, is worth less then a bison tube on a fence that took the owner 2 minutes to place, 15cents each for a bulk box of bisons from China, and 5 minutes to write-up and post. Then I could look forward to an email box full of 19 more almost exact cut n paste GSAK style logs over the course of a week.

 

But as noted, I'm thinking only of myself. The challenge seekers and owners are the magnanimous cachers. It's a shame that more communities didn't get the opportunity to experience what my area experienced.

That's not the fault of the challenge cache 'type' itself. Not all CC's were just about the numbers. There were some that were about silly things like animal names or colors or whatever, and some that had very reasonable criteria.

 

Your example cache log says more about the cache finders than the CC they were trying to qualify for. And you shouldn't value your cache based on what those cache finders wrote about it, when there are likely other cache finders that sought out your cache and wrote complimentary things about it - yet wouldn't even bother searching for a bison on a fence. Of course, we don't really know about your cache hides (OT).

 

I looked, on the map, at the long runs and clusters of CC's in Ontario. There are some long stretches of what look to be walking/biking trails that are full of CC's. It also looks like a fair number of those CC's have 'difficult' criteria. I can see how that could be frustrating to cachers in the area. OTOH, I don't support the idea that global rules should be enacted to address local problems.

 

There are 3 runs of CC's in all of Washington state, and only 1 is on a trail that would get regular visitors. The other 2 runs are along quiet roads in the outskirts that are unlikely to have 'regular' caches placed there. Other CC's in the state are spaced out. The same thing in Oregon - 3 runs, 1 on a 'trail', 2 along lonely roads. Both the WA and OR runs that are along walking/biking trails have pretty easy requirements, not what I would call 'competitive'. Find 25 caches with "rock" in the cache name, or "trail" in the cache name, or fill 9/81 of the fizzy grid.

 

Are some CC's bad? I would opine "yes"

Are all CC's bad? I would opine "no"

Are some swag size caches bad? "yes"

Are all swag size caches bad? "no"

 

ETA: Just noticed that almost an entire paragraph was cut when I posted earlier, so tried to recreate it.

Edited by noncentric
Link to comment

 

As a cache owner I'm glad to no longer get monthly: "Went geocaching with cache-name-of-the-day group. 20 of us went out to find 50 non-trads in a day to qualify for CG's non-trad challenge [a bison tube on a fence]. We surpassed our goal by 5 caches. A thank you to our host for supplying the final coordinates and coffee." The cache I spent a month making, $25 in materials, and that I check on twice a year to make sure it's in great shape, is worth less then a bison tube on a fence that took the owner 2 minutes to place, 15cents each for a bulk box of bisons from China, and 5 minutes to write-up and post. Then I could look forward to an email box full of 19 more almost exact cut n paste GSAK style logs over the course of a week.

 

 

I don't see it that way. Yes, there's a problem in your scenario. But it's not you, your cache, or the CC requiring whatever requirement it's asking for.

It's the group of idiots piled into a car on their quest.

 

Your cache is still a great cache (I'm ASSuming).

Sure - the CC is asking for a difficult challenge in order to qualify. But hey, it's something for cachers who are looking for more than a challenge...

 

But those guys on the cache run are the ones putting in the obnoxious c&p log.

 

I've "found" a few CCs - yes one was 100 in a day, but the others were distance, country, altitude, or some such... one I did required 2 caches in 2 states in one day, 100 miles apart. I thought that was pretty cool, and it didn't result in the log you referred to.

 

One that took be a while required me to find 15 caches with 15, 25 and 50 watchers in order to qualify. That made me do a heck of a lot of research _and_ visit a lot of neat caches. After doing all that, I relish the thought of finding an easy cache the size of a gnat's nuts in a GR... :P

 

Not all CCs are "let's [find] a boatload of caches in a day" types. Some require a lot of work, finding great caches, and result in some great log entries.

 

Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out that CCs, by themselves, aren't a bad thing.

Edited by Keystone
potty language removed by moderator. Don't use potty language.
Link to comment

I can only speak for the CCs in the WV / NoVA area close to me. But I've yet to see a PT or GA made up of CCs. The most I've seen was about 10 on an old service road. The next largest group is 5-6 not far from Richmond VA. The rest that I've seen are onsey twosey. And most of these are GRC type placements. Hardly an epidemic.

 

And as I said in a couple of other posts, many require a more difficult requirement than x number of caches in a single day.

 

There's one that requires me to find a cache that is active and hasn't been found for 3 years. I've located the lonely cache and will make the trek to find it in 2 weeks. Then I have to go find the gnat's nut sized pill bottle and claim that find...

 

And bottom line, if you don't like CCs, don't look for them. B) Their numbers are way below the others out there.

Link to comment

I'm just grateful that the new rules have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the amount of new challenge caches being published. I've only seen a handful publish in the last year or so. They have been effectively reigned in and I for one am happy about that.

 

Amen to that B)

 

When I look at a challenge that requires me to sit cramped in a car all day, burning enough fossil fuel to power a small sun and in turn rewards me with a soggy piece of paper in a nano tube the size of a gnat's genitals in a pointless location I'm glad the tide was turned. B)

I'm confused. Why does the existence of a cache listing require you to do anything? Why does it make you glad that the enjoyment of other people has been reduced?

Link to comment

An attribute would make it possible to filter for challenges. In PQs alrwady now and in the new search it maybe wouldn't make too much difference implementing 'challenge' as cachetype or as attribute. Search filter attributes is overdue anyway.

 

A forced change of the cachetype of existing challenge caches after publish seems unfair to me, both to owners and previous finders.

 

No one can now go back in time two years to find another Unknown Cache for that day when the only Unknown Cache (fitting the requirement Unknown Cache) of that day was a challenge that now gets relabeled to another cachtype.

 

Or make all related challenges and statistics that accepted 'all Unknowns' before to accept 'Unknowns and previous Unknowns now relabeled as Challenges' instead after forced relabeling of challenges.

 

Or make the new cachetype compulsory only for new challenges and let existing challenges grandfathered as cachetype Unknown.

Link to comment

It sure felt like the opposite when challenge owners tried to exclude more and more people as the challenge passion gained momentum. They were only thinking of those who were high-numbers, grid-filler cachers.

I'm not a high number grid filler, and there are many challenge caches I cannot achieve. That has nothing to do with my passion for challenge caches.

 

Besides, next you're going to tell me that caches requiring mountain climbing skills should not be allowed. There's nothing wrong nor exclusionary about having caches that don't appeal to everyone.

Link to comment

Let me give you an analogy.

 

I am 69, have a heart condition and would never be described as more than moderately fit. I will never attempt a true T4.5 cache. The thought of hiking 3 days, sleeping in a tent, a cave or a sleeping bag under the stars makes me want to roll my eyes. I regard all T4.5 caches as a waste of space in the database.

 

However, if there was a move to restrict the types of high-terrain caches which could be listed, I would oppose any such restriction (except for legal or ethical reasons) because other folk like them. When I look at a cache which requires me to hike through a mosquito-infested swamp being snapped at by crocodiles and sucked by leeches and ticks for 3 days just so I can find an ammo can in a pointless location, I don't want it to be killed, just because I don't want to do it. I'm sure that there are some folk who would love to attempt it.

 

When I look at a challenge that requires me to sit cramped in a car all day, burning enough fossil fuel to power a small sun and in turn rewards me with a soggy piece of paper in a nano tube the size of a gnat's genitals in a pointless location, I don't want it to be killed, just because I don't want to do it. I'm sure that there are some folk who would love to attempt it.

Link to comment

Well said. Different strokes for different folks.

 

Most challenge caches in our area are really traditional with and easy requirement to meet. Nothing wrong with that. Some of the arguments above are about bad caches, not really about challenge caches. You can find a traditional that is a soggy piece of paper in a nano.

 

My only gripe is that high D rating challenges are effectively banned.

Link to comment

I'm just grateful that the new rules have SIGNIFICANTLY reduced the amount of new challenge caches being published. I've only seen a handful publish in the last year or so. They have been effectively reigned in and I for one am happy about that.

 

Amen to that B)

 

When I look at a challenge that requires me to sit cramped in a car all day, burning enough fossil fuel to power a small sun and in turn rewards me with a soggy piece of paper in a nano tube the size of a gnat's genitals in a pointless location I'm glad the tide was turned. B)

I'm confused. Why does the existence of a cache listing require you to do anything?

 

Don't be confused - I'm obviously speaking of the qualification requirements.

 

Why does it make you glad that the enjoyment of other people has been reduced?

 

I don't know that the enjoyment of other people has or has not been reduced. Therefore I'm neither happy nor sad at that prospect.

Link to comment

I don't know that the enjoyment of other people has or has not been reduced. Therefore I'm neither happy nor sad at that prospect.

So many people have said, in this and other threads, that they are disappointed at the way challenge caches have been restricted. That aspects of this game which they enjoy have been eliminated. Are you really so insensitive that you don't realise that their enjoyment has been reduced?

Link to comment

I don't know that the enjoyment of other people has or has not been reduced. Therefore I'm neither happy nor sad at that prospect.

So many people have said, in this and other threads, that they are disappointed at the way challenge caches have been restricted. That aspects of this game which they enjoy have been eliminated. Are you really so insensitive that you don't realise that their enjoyment has been reduced?

 

To be honest I don't engage in hand-wringing about it.

 

Nor do I expect anyone else to wring their hands in sorrow at ways in which my enjoyment of geocaching may or may not have been reduced.

 

Of course we could all invest more time in sorrowful hand-wringing of you'd prefer?

 

I doubt it will gain much traction though.

 

ETA - you should also note that the comment I made, the one you seem to have taken issue with, related to one particular example and not to challenge caches as a whole or the myriad ways people might feel sad about them.

Edited by Team Microdot
Link to comment

I don't know that the enjoyment of other people has or has not been reduced. Therefore I'm neither happy nor sad at that prospect.

So many people have said, in this and other threads, that they are disappointed at the way challenge caches have been restricted. That aspects of this game which they enjoy have been eliminated. Are you really so insensitive that you don't realise that their enjoyment has been reduced?

 

The change in the guidelines for challenge caches did not eliminate any existing challenge caches. It only limited the types of *additional* challenge caches that can be published. That's not a reduction.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I don't know that the enjoyment of other people has or has not been reduced. Therefore I'm neither happy nor sad at that prospect.

So many people have said, in this and other threads, that they are disappointed at the way challenge caches have been restricted. That aspects of this game which they enjoy have been eliminated. Are you really so insensitive that you don't realise that their enjoyment has been reduced?

 

The change in the guidelines for challenge caches did not eliminate any existing challenge caches. It only limited the types of *additional* challenge caches that can be published. That's not a reduction.

But as grandfathered challenge caches of types no longer permitted become archived, they can no longer be replaced with challenges of that type. That is a reduction.

Link to comment

I don't know that the enjoyment of other people has or has not been reduced. Therefore I'm neither happy nor sad at that prospect.

So many people have said, in this and other threads, that they are disappointed at the way challenge caches have been restricted. That aspects of this game which they enjoy have been eliminated. Are you really so insensitive that you don't realise that their enjoyment has been reduced?

 

The change in the guidelines for challenge caches did not eliminate any existing challenge caches. It only limited the types of *additional* challenge caches that can be published. That's not a reduction.

But as grandfathered challenge caches of types no longer permitted become archived, they can no longer be replaced with challenges of that type. That is a reduction.

 

Why would they ever be archived?

 

If they are so blindingly popular and bring so much enjoyment to so many people between them they should be able to keep them alive forever B)

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

I don't know that the enjoyment of other people has or has not been reduced. Therefore I'm neither happy nor sad at that prospect.

So many people have said, in this and other threads, that they are disappointed at the way challenge caches have been restricted. That aspects of this game which they enjoy have been eliminated. Are you really so insensitive that you don't realise that their enjoyment has been reduced?

 

The change in the guidelines for challenge caches did not eliminate any existing challenge caches. It only limited the types of *additional* challenge caches that can be published. That's not a reduction.

But as grandfathered challenge caches of types no longer permitted become archived, they can no longer be replaced with challenges of that type. That is a reduction.

 

Why would they ever be archived?

 

If they are so blindingly popular and bring so much enjoyment to so many people between them they should be able to keep them alive forever B)

 

And if the container goes missing, the CC can be kept alive with a throwdown!!!

 

How about a CC with a requirement to have thrown down 50 caches? :laughing:

Link to comment

On a more serious note, I wonder if we would be allowed to create one with the requirement to have done x number of Good Samaritan things like replacing logbooks, baggies, containers (for found broken containers) etc... just spitballing...

 

Maybe GS could create a new FM (Finder Maintenance) log type?

 

Any reviewers out there care to weigh in?

Link to comment

On a more serious note, I wonder if we would be allowed to create one with the requirement to have done x number of Good Samaritan things like replacing logbooks, baggies, containers (for found broken containers) etc... just spitballing...

The short answer: No.

 

The longer answer: New challenge caches must be verifiable with an automated challenge checker, which cannot check log text for Good Samaritan actions.

Link to comment

On a more serious note, I wonder if we would be allowed to create one with the requirement to have done x number of Good Samaritan things like replacing logbooks, baggies, containers (for found broken containers) etc... just spitballing...

The short answer: No.

 

The longer answer: New challenge caches must be verifiable with an automated challenge checker, which cannot check log text for Good Samaritan actions.

 

Except if "GS could create a new FM (Finder Maintenance) log type"..

Then a checker could check how many FM logs had been done.

But it won't happen.

Link to comment

And if the container goes missing, the CC can be kept alive with a throwdown!!!

 

How about a CC with a requirement to have thrown down 50 caches? :laughing:

Then file the appropriate NM log once the throwdown is dropped, especially if you found the original CC and know what it's supposed to be.

 

They've certainly slowed down to a trickle since the moratorium was lifted. While some of them were certainly silly, others challenged me to cache in a manner I wasn't accustomed to, which was great. I went from a mostly traditional type of cacher to a more non-traditional cacher due to challenges. They've helped me become the type of cacher I am now. I still work on qualifying for the ones I don't currently qualify for, but not as actively as I once used to. That also has slowed down my caching, even though I've never really been a numbers type of guy.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment

The change in the guidelines for challenge caches did not eliminate any existing challenge caches. It only limited the types of *additional* challenge caches that can be published. That's not a reduction.

Before the moratorium, there were probably an average of about 20 challenge caches published a week in the San Francisco Bay area. After the changes, there's probably no more than one or two a month. That's a reduction.

 

OK, OK, I just made up those numbers, but they're close enough to make my point. But if you reject my numbers, let's try a hypothetical. Let's imagine that GS stops publishing traditional caches. All we have now are the existing traditional caches. Not a reduction?

Link to comment

On a more serious note, I wonder if we would be allowed to create one with the requirement to have done x number of Good Samaritan things like replacing logbooks, baggies, containers (for found broken containers) etc... just spitballing...

The short answer: No.

 

The longer answer: New challenge caches must be verifiable with an automated challenge checker, which cannot check log text for Good Samaritan actions.

I don't think challenge caches have ever been allowed to be based on arbitrary actions. Certainly anything like that was ruled out long before the moratorium and the subsequent addition of the verification requirement.

Link to comment

Challenges - did they pass the test? For certain groups of geocachers certainly not. Otherwise it wouldn't happen that someone openly calls one of the challenges "racists' cache" in a log around here. 'Racist' because the owner is perceived as unduly excluding geocachers and doing evil in not wanting geocachers log their challenge cache as found online if not having completed the challenge requirements.

 

Good for Groundspeak as the rule-makers for challenges, who made them geocaches with ALRs, that only the owners are addressed like this. :cool:

 

I wonder if there could be challenges that help preventing such troubles by having an OR requirement like, let's say 'fill your calendar with finds of Unknown Caches OR please log the cache online without fulfilling the requirements if you need/want to, but don't ruin the fun of others', the second implemented in the challenge checker as 'have one find' or as a defined and expandable list of geocachers that are known to be/declared themselves as opposed to challenges.

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...