Challenges - did they pass the test?

[+CanadianRockies]

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.

I guess it depends on your definition of "arbitrary." Here's a Minnesota "Good Samaritan" challenge that I'm in the middle of completing. Its requirement: "Cache Assistance 12 Pack is 12 Minnesota caches which received assistance from YOU.... Assistance can be demonstrated many ways. Co-host an Event, voluntarily provide maintenance, recognition for a cache series or location, etc."

[+dprovan]

I guess it depends on your definition of "arbitrary." Here's a Minnesota "Good Samaritan" challenge that I'm in the middle of completing. Its requirement: "Cache Assistance 12 Pack is 12 Minnesota caches which received assistance from YOU.... Assistance can be demonstrated many ways. Co-host an Event, voluntarily provide maintenance, recognition for a cache series or location, etc."

Yeah, the rules were tightened up a few years after that. 2012 or 13, I think. My impression was that GS decided to act against people getting around the no ALR rule by phrasing ALRs as if they were challenges.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

That's only a reduction of the number of *new* challenges caches. The guidelines did not eliminate any existing challenge caches.

[+dprovan]

That's only a reduction of the number of *new* challenges caches. The guidelines did not eliminate any existing challenge caches.

I've already found all the challenge caches in my area that I can meet, so they have nothing to do with evaluating whether this is a reduction.

[+L0ne.R]

That's only a reduction of the number of *new* challenges caches. The guidelines did not eliminate any existing challenge caches.

I've already found all the challenge caches in my area that I can meet, so they have nothing to do with evaluating whether this is a reduction.

 

Since expanding your horizons and travelling is a large part of the appeal of challenge caches, come up to Ontario, Canada. We have about 600 challenge caches. Bruce0 continues to hide them so you'll even have some fairly new ones to try.

[+hzoi]

Here's a Minnesota "Good Samaritan" challenge that I'm in the middle of completing. Its requirement: "Cache Assistance 12 Pack is 12 Minnesota caches which received assistance from YOU.... Assistance can be demonstrated many ways. Co-host an Event, voluntarily provide maintenance, recognition for a cache series or location, etc."

That seems a bit of a conflict of interest. Hidden by the CO with a billion hides, who would need the services of a small army to maintain all of their own hides if they didn't get help from "good samaritans."

[+WearyTraveler]

Here's a Minnesota "Good Samaritan" challenge that I'm in the middle of completing. Its requirement: "Cache Assistance 12 Pack is 12 Minnesota caches which received assistance from YOU.... Assistance can be demonstrated many ways. Co-host an Event, voluntarily provide maintenance, recognition for a cache series or location, etc."

That seems a bit of a conflict of interest. Hidden by the CO with a billion hides, who would need the services of a small army to maintain all of their own hides if they didn't get help from "good samaritans."

 

Good catch! Well, at least he's trying to get his caches maintained...

[+dprovan]

Since expanding your horizons and travelling is a large part of the appeal of challenge caches, come up to Ontario, Canada. We have about 600 challenge caches. Bruce0 continues to hide them so you'll even have some fairly new ones to try.

Whatever. The fact that there are other ways to satisfy my desired for challenge caches doesn't change the fact that they've been reduced.

 

And, again, to go back to my hypothetical that you ignored: if they stopped publishing any geocache, me telling you it's OK because there are still plenty here in California wouldn't give you any solace.

[+humboldt flier]

Since expanding your horizons and travelling is a large part of the appeal of challenge caches, come up to Ontario, Canada. We have about 600 challenge caches. Bruce0 continues to hide them so you'll even have some fairly new ones to try.

Whatever. The fact that there are other ways to satisfy my desired for challenge caches doesn't change the fact that they've been reduced.

 

And, again, to go back to my hypothetical that you ignored: if they stopped publishing any geocache, me telling you it's OK because there are still plenty here in California wouldn't give you any solace.

 

AMEN TO THAT:

 

Wanted to place a triple Jasper Challenge >>> no longer allowed.

 

Friend wanted to expand on the U.S.A. Interstate Highway Challenges >>> no longer allowed.

 

Not all cachers play in their OWN backyards and we are "frosted" over the tightened / arbitrary decisions.

 

BUT HEY ... "those with the gold makes the rules". Short-sighted cretins like me will pay their premium fees, sit on the sidelines and pout.

 

Thanks a lot Groundspeak. pout, pout, pout.

[+Team Microdot]

Here's a Minnesota "Good Samaritan" challenge that I'm in the middle of completing. Its requirement: "Cache Assistance 12 Pack is 12 Minnesota caches which received assistance from YOU.... Assistance can be demonstrated many ways. Co-host an Event, voluntarily provide maintenance, recognition for a cache series or location, etc."

That seems a bit of a conflict of interest. Hidden by the CO with a billion hides, who would need the services of a small army to maintain all of their own hides if they didn't get help from "good samaritans."

 

Good catch! Well, at least he's trying to get his caches maintained...

 

Almost 5000 caches owned

 

And the reviewers accepted that he had a genuine and realistic maintenance plan in place for all 5000?

[+WearyTraveler]

Here's a Minnesota "Good Samaritan" challenge that I'm in the middle of completing. Its requirement: "Cache Assistance 12 Pack is 12 Minnesota caches which received assistance from YOU.... Assistance can be demonstrated many ways. Co-host an Event, voluntarily provide maintenance, recognition for a cache series or location, etc."

That seems a bit of a conflict of interest. Hidden by the CO with a billion hides, who would need the services of a small army to maintain all of their own hides if they didn't get help from "good samaritans."

 

Good catch! Well, at least he's trying to get his caches maintained...

 

Almost 5000 caches owned

 

And the reviewers accepted that he had a genuine and realistic maintenance plan in place for all 5000?

I personally can't imagine how he can watch, let alone maintain that many caches. An initial thought was that maybe he's a long haul trucker or some other road warrior. But if that's the case, he wouldn't have time to read find emails let alone repair them.

 

How does he continue to get them approved?

 

Have you seen any that need OM?

[+Team Microdot]

Here's a Minnesota "Good Samaritan" challenge that I'm in the middle of completing. Its requirement: "Cache Assistance 12 Pack is 12 Minnesota caches which received assistance from YOU.... Assistance can be demonstrated many ways. Co-host an Event, voluntarily provide maintenance, recognition for a cache series or location, etc."

That seems a bit of a conflict of interest. Hidden by the CO with a billion hides, who would need the services of a small army to maintain all of their own hides if they didn't get help from "good samaritans."

 

Good catch! Well, at least he's trying to get his caches maintained...

 

Almost 5000 caches owned

 

And the reviewers accepted that he had a genuine and realistic maintenance plan in place for all 5000?

I personally can't imagine how he can watch, let alone maintain that many caches. An initial thought was that maybe he's a long haul trucker or some other road warrior. But if that's the case, he wouldn't have time to read find emails let alone repair them.

 

How does he continue to get them approved?

 

Have you seen any that need OM?

 

Based on a quick scan through a dozen or so examples the guy doesn't maintain anything.

 

Anything that needed maintenance of any kind was simply archived.

[+L0ne.R]

1495314461[/url]' post='5656572']

1495143118[/url]' post='5656215']

1495132763[/url]' post='5656160']

1495062407[/url]' post='5655916']

Here's a Minnesota "Good Samaritan" challenge that I'm in the middle of completing. Its requirement: "Cache Assistance 12 Pack is 12 Minnesota caches which received assistance from YOU.... Assistance can be demonstrated many ways. Co-host an Event, voluntarily provide maintenance, recognition for a cache series or location, etc."

That seems a bit of a conflict of interest. Hidden by the CO with a billion hides, who would need the services of a small army to maintain all of their own hides if they didn't get help from "good samaritans."

 

Good catch! Well, at least he's trying to get his caches maintained...

 

Almost 5000 caches owned

 

And the reviewers accepted that he had a genuine and realistic maintenance plan in place for all 5000?

 

It's just nuts. And says a lot about what caching has become without adequate parameters around cache ownership.

The way he worded his description to underhandedly get around telling people to go maintain abandoned caches (nudge nudge wink wink -- his 1000s of caches too). Ugggghhh. I wonder if he added "Assistance can be demonstrated many ways...voluntarily provide maintenance, recognition for a cache series", after publication. Numbers hounds have done such a deservice.

Edited May 20, 2017 by L0ne.R

[Keystone]

As a reminder, this thread is about whether challenge caches will get their own icon. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

[+WearyTraveler]

As a reminder, this thread is about whether challenge caches will get their own icon. Please stay on topic. Thanks.

 

OK - will they?

 

Personally, I like CCs and it'd be nice to see the icon on a map. However, unless GS retroactively goes out and changes all those "?" to the new icon, it'd be hard to determine CC from mystery.

 

My vote - sure...

 

But if not, I'll continue to search by the "challenge" title and the "?"

 

Either way, they turn into a smiley once found.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Unless GC loosens up the criteria to allow the use of the cache name or other fields, then I don't think there will be enough caches created to warrant a separate icon. We've had only two published since the moratorium. That's in a radius of 30 miles with thousands of caches. That's hardly enough to create an icon for them. Retroactively reassigning challenge caches to this new icon would be darn near impossible given that the word challenge in the title doesn't guarantee that it is, indeed, a challenge.

 

"Challenge" in the title is enough to be able to filter for them (or filter them out).

 

So, my vote is no (for now).

[+WearyTraveler]

I've been trying to find a cache listing for a specific challenge cache. I've tried searching by "lonely" and "resurrection" but can't locate the listing.

 

It was a challenge to find:

1 cache that hasn't been found in 3 years, or

2 caches that hasn't been found in 2 years, or

3 caches that hasn't been found in 1 year

 

Does anyone have a way to search for them other than the new search filters?

 

Thanks!

 

Found it...

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC3ADPJ_the-lonely-cache-challenge

Edited May 22, 2017 by WearyTraveler

[+frinklabs]

There should be no icon for Challenge caches.

 

Use the extant icons but with badging.

 

Here's an image I created for the [FEATURE] Challenge Stars thread, showing how the map filter might work:

 

[+niraD]

There should be no icon for Challenge caches.

 

Use the extant icons but with badging.

The problem is that this "badging" requires a completely new system. A new cache type or a new attribute would use the existing systems supported by geocaching.com without requiring a new system of any kind.

[+frinklabs]

There should be no icon for Challenge caches.

 

Use the extant icons but with badging.

The problem is that this "badging" requires a completely new system. A new cache type or a new attribute would use the existing systems supported by geocaching.com without requiring a new system of any kind.

 

If they are not going to introduce a new system for Challenges then for sure an attribute is the path of least resistance.

 

This will enable inclusive or exclusive filtering on the map and PQs, which has been requested.

 

It does not address other issues that have been raised, which is why I proposed a new system in the [FEATURE] Challenge Stars thread (from where that image originated).

[+hzoi]

There should be no icon for Challenge caches.

 

Use the extant icons but with badging.

The problem is that this "badging" requires a completely new system. A new cache type or a new attribute would use the existing systems supported by geocaching.com without requiring a new system of any kind.

 

If they are not going to introduce a new system for Challenges then for sure an attribute is the path of least resistance.

 

This will enable inclusive or exclusive filtering on the map and PQs, which has been requested.

 

It does not address other issues that have been raised, which is why I proposed a new system in the [FEATURE] Challenge Stars thread (from where that image originated).

[+DragonsWest]

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

 

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.

 

Could you be more discriminating? It sounds like you just described about half the caches I've seen in some urban environments - Come To San Francisco, Enjoy the View (when fog allows), Partake of culinary delights, Find the evil nano at the store front (mean search time 55 minutes.)

 

Soggy paper doesn't require a small cache either, I've found many sodden bits in all sizes of cache - rather less than enjoyable, but some people must be born with all thumbs (or reassembled that way by an Igor) and can't master the art of container closing.

 

That's all pretty weak to use as an argument against challenges anyway. One of the finest challenges I was taken on the journey was by far the greater reward. (Truly awful that location based challenges were barred, because that challenge was based upon USGS quadrangles, where are pretty neat and easy to write checkers for.)

[+redsox_mark]

 

That's all pretty weak to use as an argument against challenges anyway. One of the finest challenges I was taken on the journey was by far the greater reward. (Truly awful that location based challenges were barred, because that challenge was based upon USGS quadrangles, where are pretty neat and easy to write checkers for.)

 

It's been debated before, but I agree. The main problem with the new challenge guidelines I see is they are needlessly restrictive. Especially not allowing "Challenges based on geographic areas other than countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent)."

 

You can publish a challenge which requires one to find caches in all 50 states, but not based on USGS quadrangles. Why? Geocaching is about finding things and location, and maps I see as part of it. To me a challenge based on coordinates or commonly used maps is more in the spirit of geocaching than political boundaries.

[+Team Microdot]

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

 

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.

 

Could you be more discriminating? It sounds like you just described about half the caches I've seen in some urban environments - Come To San Francisco, Enjoy the View (when fog allows), Partake of culinary delights, Find the evil nano at the store front (mean search time 55 minutes.)

 

Soggy paper doesn't require a small cache either, I've found many sodden bits in all sizes of cache - rather less than enjoyable, but some people must be born with all thumbs (or reassembled that way by an Igor) and can't master the art of container closing.

 

That's all pretty weak to use as an argument against challenges anyway. One of the finest challenges I was taken on the journey was by far the greater reward. (Truly awful that location based challenges were barred, because that challenge was based upon USGS quadrangles, where are pretty neat and easy to write checkers for.)

 

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

[+thebruce0]

You can publish a challenge which requires one to find caches in all 50 states, but not based on USGS quadrangles. Why? Geocaching is about finding things and location, and maps I see as part of it. To me a challenge based on coordinates or commonly used maps is more in the spirit of geocaching than political boundaries.

My best understanding of that is that lines and coordinates are relatively arbitrary - that is, much less defined and easier to create user-defined shapes and patterns, which they've already chosen to deny (a decision I'm not a fan of either). But at least, the country/state/county boundary is both specific, more 'chaotic' in shape (harder to make patterns), and there's far fewer options towards shapes and patterns too.

So the next question is, why deny arbitrarily defined shapes as challenge goals? There's an answer for that too, which I can understand, I just hate it

You can choose specific counties in which to accomplish statistical goals though. But you can't choose specific GPS minutes in which to accomplish statistical goals. (and as the reason I'd point to the problem that with the latter it's easier to 'list' matches that form a pattern). And patterns also applies to DT grid - you can require amounts of the grid, but you can't require certain DT spots to qualify that depict any form or shape.

[+redsox_mark]

My best understanding of that is that lines and coordinates are relatively arbitrary - that is, much less defined and easier to create user-defined shapes and patterns, which they've already chosen to deny (a decision I'm not a fan of either). But at least, the country/state/county boundary is both specific, more 'chaotic' in shape (harder to make patterns), and there's far fewer options towards shapes and patterns too.

So the next question is, why deny arbitrarily defined shapes as challenge goals? There's an answer for that too, which I can understand, I just hate it

You can choose specific counties in which to accomplish statistical goals though. But you can't choose specific GPS minutes in which to accomplish statistical goals. (and as the reason I'd point to the problem that with the latter it's easier to 'list' matches that form a pattern). And patterns also applies to DT grid - you can require amounts of the grid, but you can't require certain DT spots to qualify that depict any form or shape.

 

I guess the fear is if they allow "arbitrary" coordinate ranges, COs will do something they don't want?

 

In the UK, we have a set of detailed maps which cover the whole country. Many UK cachers use these maps when geocaching. There are some challenge caches based on finding a number of caches on different cells of this map, e.g. Explorer 156 Challenge

I really enjoy these. But they only got set for a few different maps; and now new ones are not allowed.

[+DragonsWest]

 

That's all pretty weak to use as an argument against challenges anyway. One of the finest challenges I was taken on the journey was by far the greater reward. (Truly awful that location based challenges were barred, because that challenge was based upon USGS quadrangles, where are pretty neat and easy to write checkers for.)

 

It's been debated before, but I agree. The main problem with the new challenge guidelines I see is they are needlessly restrictive. Especially not allowing "Challenges based on geographic areas other than countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent)."

 

You can publish a challenge which requires one to find caches in all 50 states, but not based on USGS quadrangles. Why? Geocaching is about finding things and location, and maps I see as part of it. To me a challenge based on coordinates or commonly used maps is more in the spirit of geocaching than political boundaries.

 

Which really is the shame as USGS quads probably predate some of our more recent states. I've completed two of these so far, one I've since adopted, and found them to be, if not in the present spirit of the game, so noble it should be - forced me out of my comfort zone to explore the wider areas surrounding me. Adventure! Thrills! A sense of accomplishment! Experience! They were most definitely awesome in a world where awesome has become severely diluted with overuse to describe modest improvement over the humdrum. Gone now, like so many other good things.

 

 

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

 

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.

 

Could you be more discriminating? It sounds like you just described about half the caches I've seen in some urban environments - Come To San Francisco, Enjoy the View (when fog allows), Partake of culinary delights, Find the evil nano at the store front (mean search time 55 minutes.)

 

Soggy paper doesn't require a small cache either, I've found many sodden bits in all sizes of cache - rather less than enjoyable, but some people must be born with all thumbs (or reassembled that way by an Igor) and can't master the art of container closing.

 

That's all pretty weak to use as an argument against challenges anyway. One of the finest challenges I was taken on the journey was by far the greater reward. (Truly awful that location based challenges were barred, because that challenge was based upon USGS quadrangles, where are pretty neat and easy to write checkers for.)

 

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

 

Sorry for using so many big words. Your accord with not wishing to experience cramped rides, petrol use, nanos and soggy logs as a end to a challenge (which must have been forced upon you in a most cruel way) sounded to me like an average day of caching in a city or pretty much anywhere. Perhaps you should consider fighting back against the dark forces which sentence you to resolve any more challenges.

 

 

 

You can publish a challenge which requires one to find caches in all 50 states, but not based on USGS quadrangles. Why? Geocaching is about finding things and location, and maps I see as part of it. To me a challenge based on coordinates or commonly used maps is more in the spirit of geocaching than political boundaries.

My best understanding of that is that lines and coordinates are relatively arbitrary - that is, much less defined and easier to create user-defined shapes and patterns, which they've already chosen to deny (a decision I'm not a fan of either). But at least, the country/state/county boundary is both specific, more 'chaotic' in shape (harder to make patterns), and there's far fewer options towards shapes and patterns too.

So the next question is, why deny arbitrarily defined shapes as challenge goals? There's an answer for that too, which I can understand, I just hate it

You can choose specific counties in which to accomplish statistical goals though. But you can't choose specific GPS minutes in which to accomplish statistical goals. (and as the reason I'd point to the problem that with the latter it's easier to 'list' matches that form a pattern). And patterns also applies to DT grid - you can require amounts of the grid, but you can't require certain DT spots to qualify that depict any form or shape.

 

As stated above, the USGS quads are long established and are quite far from arbitrary, there are other grids used in surveying work, which are widely available in terms of determining if you have found a cache within. I'd like these to come back.

 

In my humble opinion the eagerness of some to place crappy challenges (very bizarre rules regarding mixes of things, some quite unreasonable in the amount of time necessary to determine full compliance with) swung like a political pendulum from one extreme to the other, wiping out some very good challenges.

 

Reconsidering some of this action is worthwhile. As with Micro Dot above, those who do not wish to pursue these types don't need to gnaw their leg off to escape them, but simply ignore them.

 

At least two local cachers have made finds with the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle, kudos to them, but one who attempted to publish a challenge for a mere two finds, one in each circle, was denied. To me the challenge wasn't extreme, it was the denial of placing it. You accomplish that and you should get a geocoin or such, heck I'd pay for the geocoin medals if it were my challenge!

[+Team Microdot]

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

 

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.

 

Could you be more discriminating? It sounds like you just described about half the caches I've seen in some urban environments - Come To San Francisco, Enjoy the View (when fog allows), Partake of culinary delights, Find the evil nano at the store front (mean search time 55 minutes.)

 

Soggy paper doesn't require a small cache either, I've found many sodden bits in all sizes of cache - rather less than enjoyable, but some people must be born with all thumbs (or reassembled that way by an Igor) and can't master the art of container closing.

 

That's all pretty weak to use as an argument against challenges anyway. One of the finest challenges I was taken on the journey was by far the greater reward. (Truly awful that location based challenges were barred, because that challenge was based upon USGS quadrangles, where are pretty neat and easy to write checkers for.)

 

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.

 

Sorry for using so many big words. Your accord with not wishing to experience cramped rides, petrol use, nanos and soggy logs as a end to a challenge (which must have been forced upon you in a most cruel way) sounded to me like an average day of caching in a city or pretty much anywhere. Perhaps you should consider fighting back against the dark forces which sentence you to resolve any more challenges.

 

Ouch - cutting remarks - I'm reeling - just give me a moment to get my breath back

[+thebruce0]

As stated above, the USGS quads are long established and are quite far from arbitrary, there are other grids used in surveying work, which are widely available in terms of determining if you have found a cache within. I'd like these to come back.

I understand the structure of USGS, but as I described, they're seen as arbitrary as Degree/Minute separations are.

 

In my humble opinion the eagerness of some to place crappy challenges (very bizarre rules regarding mixes of things, some quite unreasonable in the amount of time necessary to determine full compliance with) swung like a political pendulum from one extreme to the other, wiping out some very good challenges.

I'd agree - to have the freedom of creativity in challenge creation, there's also the option to 'spam' (for lack of a better term) with noise challenge ideas amongst the signal. Not wanting to put more subjective judgement on the shoulders of reviewers, they opted to implement stricter rules that removed a lot of flexibility for creativity. It's a shame, imo. Understandable, imo, but a shame.

 

Reconsidering some of this action is worthwhile. As with Micro Dot above, those who do not wish to pursue these types don't need to gnaw their leg off to escape them, but simply ignore them.

Easier said than done Most everything that's been removed or restricted over the years has been a matter of "ignore it if you don't like it", until the problems outweigh the benefits, then those who can live with it (or enjoy it) get the short end of the stick when those who can't, or who cause the problems, get their way. Grandfathering is a middle ground, until even that becomes more of a burden to maintain in HQ's eyes. The moratorium came about because grandfathering wasn't so simple, and the problems with the challenge concept were deemed to outweigh their benefits, so they had to take some time to compose a solution. Many of us who love challenges aren't fully satisfied with the result, but still glad at least something is still around.

[+DragonsWest]

As stated above, the USGS quads are long established and are quite far from arbitrary, there are other grids used in surveying work, which are widely available in terms of determining if you have found a cache within. I'd like these to come back.

I understand the structure of USGS, but as I described, they're seen as arbitrary as Degree/Minute separations are.

 

In my humble opinion the eagerness of some to place crappy challenges (very bizarre rules regarding mixes of things, some quite unreasonable in the amount of time necessary to determine full compliance with) swung like a political pendulum from one extreme to the other, wiping out some very good challenges.

I'd agree - to have the freedom of creativity in challenge creation, there's also the option to 'spam' (for lack of a better term) with noise challenge ideas amongst the signal. Not wanting to put more subjective judgement on the shoulders of reviewers, they opted to implement stricter rules that removed a lot of flexibility for creativity. It's a shame, imo. Understandable, imo, but a shame.

 

Reconsidering some of this action is worthwhile. As with Micro Dot above, those who do not wish to pursue these types don't need to gnaw their leg off to escape them, but simply ignore them.

Easier said than done Most everything that's been removed or restricted over the years has been a matter of "ignore it if you don't like it", until the problems outweigh the benefits, then those who can live with it (or enjoy it) get the short end of the stick when those who can't, or who cause the problems, get their way. Grandfathering is a middle ground, until even that becomes more of a burden to maintain in HQ's eyes. The moratorium came about because grandfathering wasn't so simple, and the problems with the challenge concept were deemed to outweigh their benefits, so they had to take some time to compose a solution. Many of us who love challenges aren't fully satisfied with the result, but still glad at least something is still around.

 

I'm certainly glad the existing challenges still exist, even the "creative" ones. But in time they will, as with many types within the game, become fewer.

 

As the game is very volunteer dependent, I wonder why HQ does not call for a show of hands of people who would volunteer to take over the work of vetting types of caches which are contentious. That which is a bother to HQ doesn't require their constant intervention, they need to delegate.

Edited May 25, 2017 by DragonsWest

[+NYPaddleCacher]

You can publish a challenge which requires one to find caches in all 50 states, but not based on USGS quadrangles. Why? Geocaching is about finding things and location, and maps I see as part of it. To me a challenge based on coordinates or commonly used maps is more in the spirit of geocaching than political boundaries.

My best understanding of that is that lines and coordinates are relatively arbitrary - that is, much less defined and easier to create user-defined shapes and patterns, which they've already chosen to deny (a decision I'm not a fan of either). But at least, the country/state/county boundary is both specific, more 'chaotic' in shape (harder to make patterns), and there's far fewer options towards shapes and patterns too.

 

I assumed that regions such as USGS quadrangles could not be used for challenges was due to the requirement that challenge caches had to be based upon "information broadly available from geocaching.com". Every cache has a country and stateID (even when the first level administration region is called something else) which makes it easy to determine if a caches is in a specific country or region without looking at boundaries. For some reason, GS allowed challenge caches based on "counties" (or their equivalent) even though geocaching.com does not have county data. However, a PGC challenge checker can use other data sources, and use the Lat/Long coordinates to determine the "county" using reverse geocoding. For example, given a set of Lat/Long coordinates, the Geonames API can be used to find many different types of features (counties, cites, postal codes, etc). Creating a challenge checker which checks a users finds to determine if, for example, there finds in 10 specified postal codes is no more difficult than finding 10 caches in 10 different counties.

 

 

[+DragonsWest]

You can publish a challenge which requires one to find caches in all 50 states, but not based on USGS quadrangles. Why? Geocaching is about finding things and location, and maps I see as part of it. To me a challenge based on coordinates or commonly used maps is more in the spirit of geocaching than political boundaries.

My best understanding of that is that lines and coordinates are relatively arbitrary - that is, much less defined and easier to create user-defined shapes and patterns, which they've already chosen to deny (a decision I'm not a fan of either). But at least, the country/state/county boundary is both specific, more 'chaotic' in shape (harder to make patterns), and there's far fewer options towards shapes and patterns too.

 

I assumed that regions such as USGS quadrangles could not be used for challenges was due to the requirement that challenge caches had to be based upon "information broadly available from geocaching.com". Every cache has a country and stateID (even when the first level administration region is called something else) which makes it easy to determine if a caches is in a specific country or region without looking at boundaries. For some reason, GS allowed challenge caches based on "counties" (or their equivalent) even though geocaching.com does not have county data. However, a PGC challenge checker can use other data sources, and use the Lat/Long coordinates to determine the "county" using reverse geocoding. For example, given a set of Lat/Long coordinates, the Geonames API can be used to find many different types of features (counties, cites, postal codes, etc). Creating a challenge checker which checks a users finds to determine if, for example, there finds in 10 specified postal codes is no more difficult than finding 10 caches in 10 different counties.

 

A bit ago I was examining the cache page of one of my few unfound caches and realized something had vanished in the past - there were other coordinate systems, quite a laundry list of them, which I do not see anymore. Am I staring at it and can't see it (like some 1* caches) or did they remove that feature entirely? I think it may have included information which would have been very useful in making a location based challenge - but it appears to be gone.

[+thebruce0]

Right, the Counties vs Minutes comes to the point I included eariler about the more chaotic nature of the border and larger regions likely being the reasoning. It's harder to create 'patterns' with counties and there are far fewer than the grid-based blocks of coordinate boundaries, so even though both can be checked by PGC, they're only allowing counties. *shrug*

[+CachingCubmaster]

There should be no icon for Challenge caches.

 

Use the extant icons but with badging.

The problem is that this "badging" requires a completely new system. A new cache type or a new attribute would use the existing systems supported by geocaching.com without requiring a new system of any kind.

 

If they are not going to introduce a new system for Challenges then for sure an attribute is the path of least resistance.

 

This will enable inclusive or exclusive filtering on the map and PQs, which has been requested.

 

It does not address other issues that have been raised, which is why I proposed a new system in the [FEATURE] Challenge Stars thread (from where that image originated).

 

Wow...brought "Bob On the FOB" into play.

[+Team Microdot]

Reconsidering some of this action is worthwhile. As with Micro Dot above, those who do not wish to pursue these types don't need to gnaw their leg off to escape them, but simply ignore them.

 

Of course! Because my simple expression of dislike of a particular type of cache means that I absolutely MUST be gnawing my leg off in rage to avoid them, doesn't it?

 

In my humble opinion the eagerness of some to place crappy challenges (very bizarre rules regarding mixes of things, some quite unreasonable in the amount of time necessary to determine full compliance with) swung like a political pendulum from one extreme to the other, wiping out some very good challenges.

 

It's good that you feel able to acknowledge your dislike of some types of cache here - even to describe them in such strong terms as very bizarrerules, quite unreasonable and crappy, and I hope that doesn't mean you're gnawing your leg off rather than just ignoring them

 

It's good to talk

[+barefootjeff]

I was surprised to see that, since the moratorium's end, only three new challenge caches have been published in NSW. Across all of Australia it's a bit better with 79 (assuming all mysteries with "challenge" in the title are challenges) but these are mostly batches of them in Victoria, Queensland and the ACT. That said, I'm currently working on one of my own, requiring twenty finds with the "takes more than 1 hour" attribute and the cache itself at the end of a 2 hour hike at a very scenic location, if National Parks approves it (I do have a fall-back at a slightly less scenic location if it gets the thumbs down).

 

I'm not sure whether their scarcity here means they've passed the test - there's hardly been enough, especially in NSW, to overload the reviewers - or if that'll just be an excuse to unceremoniously discontinue them due to lack of popularity.

[+DragonsWest]

I was surprised to see that, since the moratorium's end, only three new challenge caches have been published in NSW. Across all of Australia it's a bit better with 79 (assuming all mysteries with "challenge" in the title are challenges) but these are mostly batches of them in Victoria, Queensland and the ACT. That said, I'm currently working on one of my own, requiring twenty finds with the "takes more than 1 hour" attribute and the cache itself at the end of a 2 hour hike at a very scenic location, if National Parks approves it (I do have a fall-back at a slightly less scenic location if it gets the thumbs down).

 

I'm not sure whether their scarcity here means they've passed the test - there's hardly been enough, especially in NSW, to overload the reviewers - or if that'll just be an excuse to unceremoniously discontinue them due to lack of popularity.

 

I think my reluctance to add any more challenges is due in part to having to work out a Challenge Checker. I'm also rather good with only holding two (one adopted) as I don't feel like filling the world with challenges. If I thought of a good one I just might reconsider that, but at present my 200 mile radius seems to have enough.

 

I'm only working on the BIG challenges (original Fizzy, Golden State DeLorme, Northern California DeLorme, Southern California DeLorme, California counties, Nevada DeLorme and Nevada counties.) There are some others I qualify for, but as it's hard to spot Challenges from the forest of Unknowns I may be missing on some.

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

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.

 

For several years the TXGA put on an event called the Texas Challenge. The "Texas Challenge" part has been grandfathered in as long as a word such as "Festival" or "Event" is added to the title of all future events in the series. I believe all reviewers are now also requiring any new cache that is not a challenge cache with the word "Challenge" in the title to either take out the word "Challenge" or add explanatory words to the title so the cache will not be confused with a challenge cache.

Edited May 26, 2017 by Backwards Charlie from Austin

[+barefootjeff]

I was surprised to see that, since the moratorium's end, only three new challenge caches have been published in NSW. Across all of Australia it's a bit better with 79 (assuming all mysteries with "challenge" in the title are challenges) but these are mostly batches of them in Victoria, Queensland and the ACT. That said, I'm currently working on one of my own, requiring twenty finds with the "takes more than 1 hour" attribute and the cache itself at the end of a 2 hour hike at a very scenic location, if National Parks approves it (I do have a fall-back at a slightly less scenic location if it gets the thumbs down).

 

I'm not sure whether their scarcity here means they've passed the test - there's hardly been enough, especially in NSW, to overload the reviewers - or if that'll just be an excuse to unceremoniously discontinue them due to lack of popularity.

 

I think my reluctance to add any more challenges is due in part to having to work out a Challenge Checker. I'm also rather good with only holding two (one adopted) as I don't feel like filling the world with challenges. If I thought of a good one I just might reconsider that, but at present my 200 mile radius seems to have enough.

 

I'm only working on the BIG challenges (original Fizzy, Golden State DeLorme, Northern California DeLorme, Southern California DeLorme, California counties, Nevada DeLorme and Nevada counties.) There are some others I qualify for, but as it's hard to spot Challenges from the forest of Unknowns I may be missing on some.

For mine the checker was the easiest part. I just posted my requirement on the project-gc checker request forum and within a few hours I had it, although in my case all they had to do was set up a script with the appropriate parameters for use with one of their existing checkers. If only dealing with the National Parks and Wildlife Service was that easy!

[+AnnaMoritz]

 

I think my reluctance to add any more challenges is due in part to having to work out a Challenge Checker. I'm also rather good with only holding two (one adopted) as I don't feel like filling the world with challenges. If I thought of a good one I just might reconsider that, but at present my 200 mile radius seems to have enough.

 

I'm only working on the BIG challenges (original Fizzy, Golden State DeLorme, Northern California DeLorme, Southern California DeLorme, California counties, Nevada DeLorme and Nevada counties.) There are some others I qualify for, but as it's hard to spot Challenges from the forest of Unknowns I may be missing on some.

 

The ~ 43 new challenges (out of maybe 750-850 total) up to 200 miles from your last hidden cache fall in categories where challenge checkers have been available for a while.

 

Looking for them doesn't seem too difficult to me at all. New search, starting point (GCCode, home coordinates etc.), '200 miles', Type Unknown (no need to look at Events or other cache types than Unknown), Geocache Name contains 'challenge', sort by placed date, newest up.

 

Plus there is a map (for members) at project-gc, where you can select country, state and 'only challenge caches with checker', 'exclude disabled', 'exclude archived', 'exclude not fulfilled' and the map shows the result for your username. Example:

 

 

By the way the criteria for new challenges in that region don't seem to be of much variety if you can reduce it to

 

x finds (of cache type y)

x finds for y cache types

x finds (of cache type y) in given county/state/country

x finds (of cache type y) in z counties/states/countries (z depending on 'weight' of state)

x finds with attribute y

 

favorites: x caches with at least y favorites

favorites: finds with least sum x favorites points

 

height: x finds over height y

 

calendar: fill it with finds (of cachetype x)

calendar: fill x (contiguous) days with finds (of cachetype x)

calendar: x finds on weekday y

 

streak: x days

 

Jasmer: x% of all placed months

 

D/T grid filled + bingo style 9 cache types in row/colums/diagonal

 

To me it seems only for 'finds in x contiguous counties' the checker seems not to be very 'old' and only USA and Canada are 'ready' without further input.

[+redsox_mark]

 

I assumed that regions such as USGS quadrangles could not be used for challenges was due to the requirement that challenge caches had to be based upon "information broadly available from geocaching.com". Every cache has a country and stateID (even when the first level administration region is called something else) which makes it easy to determine if a caches is in a specific country or region without looking at boundaries. For some reason, GS allowed challenge caches based on "counties" (or their equivalent) even though geocaching.com does not have county data. However, a PGC challenge checker can use other data sources, and use the Lat/Long coordinates to determine the "county" using reverse geocoding. For example, given a set of Lat/Long coordinates, the Geonames API can be used to find many different types of features (counties, cites, postal codes, etc). Creating a challenge checker which checks a users finds to determine if, for example, there finds in 10 specified postal codes is no more difficult than finding 10 caches in 10 different counties.

 

I don't think that requirement means no other data can be used. An example, caches of the type elevation: x finds over elevation y are allowed. The elevation data I don't believe is stored in geocaching.com. But it is OK as the elevation data for a location is freely available.

The issue is Groundspeak decided to make a specific restriction about user defined areas.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Right, the Counties vs Minutes comes to the point I included eariler about the more chaotic nature of the border and larger regions likely being the reasoning. It's harder to create 'patterns' with counties and there are far fewer than the grid-based blocks of coordinate boundaries, so even though both can be checked by PGC, they're only allowing counties. *shrug*

 

In the case of counties, at least in the U.S. there is a standard convention for identifying every county called a FIPS code. The FIPS code is a five digit code with the first two identifying the state, and three digits for the country. For example, the county FIPS code fore Broward county in Florida is 12011. The U.S. census bureau uses these FIPS codes. Furthermore, there is readily available GIS data which identifies polygons (as Shapefiles) which allows one to programmatically derive which FIPS code or county a set of lat/long coordinate implies. There is no particular reason why some other dataset (e.g. quadrants) can't be used for georeferencing a point.

 

That suggests to me that the limitation of region based challenges to country, state, or counties (or their equivalents) is unnecessary as every challenge must have a checker. If a PGC (or other) can be written which uses available information from geocaching.com to derive some set of features, that should be enough. That would allow greater flexibility for COs to create a challenge, as long as a checker can be created using *any* available data to validate whether a finder qualifies for the criteria.

[+redsox_mark]

 

In the case of counties, at least in the U.S. there is a standard convention for identifying every county called a FIPS code. The FIPS code is a five digit code with the first two identifying the state, and three digits for the country. For example, the county FIPS code fore Broward county in Florida is 12011. The U.S. census bureau uses these FIPS codes. Furthermore, there is readily available GIS data which identifies polygons (as Shapefiles) which allows one to programmatically derive which FIPS code or county a set of lat/long coordinate implies. There is no particular reason why some other dataset (e.g. quadrants) can't be used for georeferencing a point.

 

That suggests to me that the limitation of region based challenges to country, state, or counties (or their equivalents) is unnecessary as every challenge must have a checker. If a PGC (or other) can be written which uses available information from geocaching.com to derive some set of features, that should be enough. That would allow greater flexibility for COs to create a challenge, as long as a checker can be created using *any* available data to validate whether a finder qualifies for the criteria.

 

Agree. But for some reason Groundspeak feels they have to restrict this.

 

In the UK, "counties" cause more confusion. As not every town is in a county. We have counties, and we have "unitary authorities". And they change a lot. I live in the city of Bath which is in "Bath and Northeast Somerset", which is a unitary authority. Next to me is Bristol, another one. Project-GC has a list of what it counts as a "county". It counts Bristol separately, but counts where I am as part of the country of Somerset (which it isn't, even if it has it in the name). Unless you are talking about "historical counties" or "ceremonial counties", in which case Bath is in Somerset. It doesn't matter as at least there is a definitive list, but this specific definition of a county is ONLY in Project-GC. So it seems ironic that county is allowed, but squares on a map (which is much more definitive) is not.

[+thebruce0]

Right, the Counties vs Minutes comes to the point I included eariler about the more chaotic nature of the border and larger regions likely being the reasoning. It's harder to create 'patterns' with counties and there are far fewer than the grid-based blocks of coordinate boundaries, so even though both can be checked by PGC, they're only allowing counties. *shrug*

 

In the case of counties, at least in the U.S. there is a standard convention for identifying every county called a FIPS code. The FIPS code is a five digit code with the first two identifying the state, and three digits for the country. For example, the county FIPS code fore Broward county in Florida is 12011. The U.S. census bureau uses these FIPS codes. Furthermore, there is readily available GIS data which identifies polygons (as Shapefiles) which allows one to programmatically derive which FIPS code or county a set of lat/long coordinate implies. There is no particular reason why some other dataset (e.g. quadrants) can't be used for georeferencing a point.

 

That suggests to me that the limitation of region based challenges to country, state, or counties (or their equivalents) is unnecessary as every challenge must have a checker. If a PGC (or other) can be written which uses available information from geocaching.com to derive some set of features, that should be enough. That would allow greater flexibility for COs to create a challenge, as long as a checker can be created using *any* available data to validate whether a finder qualifies for the criteria.

Yes but that's why I said it's likely more about the ability to create patterns (user-defined 'regions') from the existing regions, not merely the availability of the data to the checker. There are a number of metrics that PGC can check, but that alone isn't enough to allow as a challenge parameter. Counties seems to be the closest non-GC 'region' they will allow, and my guess is because the sizes and borders are (literally) all over the map, and not structured (such as a grid) or arbitrarily small sizes.

Heck I think even DeLorme is even off the table now; and I'm sure there was discussion about that somewhere else in the forums long ago...

[+thebruce0]

In the UK, "counties" cause more confusion. As not every town is in a county. We have counties, and we have "unitary authorities". And they change a lot. I live in the city of Bath which is in "Bath and Northeast Somerset", which is a unitary authority. Next to me is Bristol, another one. Project-GC has a list of what it counts as a "county". It counts Bristol separately, but counts where I am as part of the country of Somerset (which it isn't, even if it has it in the name). Unless you are talking about "historical counties" or "ceremonial counties", in which case Bath is in Somerset. It doesn't matter as at least there is a definitive list, but this specific definition of a county is ONLY in Project-GC. So it seems ironic that county is allowed, but squares on a map (which is much more definitive) is not.

Fascinating.

Hm, maybe they just wanted to provide one more smaller region-scale for people to use, while not jumping straight into any structured coordinate grid. And "Counties" seemed to be a universally acceptable term for it, despite there being some complexity in some countries; but if PGC could 'manage' it, then they can run with it.

Edited May 26, 2017 by thebruce0

[+CanadianRockies]

Yes but that's why I said it's likely more about the ability to create patterns (user-defined 'regions') from the existing regions, not merely the availability of the data to the checker.

But why would Groundspeak care one whit about the ability to create patterns? Are they afraid a challenge cache creator will spell out an obscene word? I think most Volunteer Reviewers are quite capable of detecting undesired patterns (or archiving those that are brought to their attention).

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Right, the Counties vs Minutes comes to the point I included eariler about the more chaotic nature of the border and larger regions likely being the reasoning. It's harder to create 'patterns' with counties and there are far fewer than the grid-based blocks of coordinate boundaries, so even though both can be checked by PGC, they're only allowing counties. *shrug*

 

In the case of counties, at least in the U.S. there is a standard convention for identifying every county called a FIPS code. The FIPS code is a five digit code with the first two identifying the state, and three digits for the country. For example, the county FIPS code fore Broward county in Florida is 12011. The U.S. census bureau uses these FIPS codes. Furthermore, there is readily available GIS data which identifies polygons (as Shapefiles) which allows one to programmatically derive which FIPS code or county a set of lat/long coordinate implies. There is no particular reason why some other dataset (e.g. quadrants) can't be used for georeferencing a point.

 

That suggests to me that the limitation of region based challenges to country, state, or counties (or their equivalents) is unnecessary as every challenge must have a checker. If a PGC (or other) can be written which uses available information from geocaching.com to derive some set of features, that should be enough. That would allow greater flexibility for COs to create a challenge, as long as a checker can be created using *any* available data to validate whether a finder qualifies for the criteria.

Yes but that's why I said it's likely more about the ability to create patterns (user-defined 'regions') from the existing regions, not merely the availability of the data to the checker. There are a number of metrics that PGC can check, but that alone isn't enough to allow as a challenge parameter. Counties seems to be the closest non-GC 'region' they will allow, and my guess is because the sizes and borders are (literally) all over the map, and not structured (such as a grid) or arbitrarily small sizes.

Heck I think even DeLorme is even off the table now; and I'm sure there was discussion about that somewhere else in the forums long ago...

 

As I see it, the complaint is that GS has stifled creativity for challenge caches by imposing various restrictions, one being that region based souvenirs are limited to country/states/counties. If that restriction was changed to regions which can be derived using information from geocaching.com (lat/long coordinates, country/state IDs) and publicly available data, that could open up a variety of challenge caches. I can understand why user-defined regions could not be used as that would lead to absurd challenges such as "find a cache within 4.2km of each of this list of caches". "User-defined regions" is just too nebulous. Using publicly available data one could create a challenge to find a cache in each of a cities public parks because it uses easily accessible public data.

 

 

[+thebruce0]

Yes but that's why I said it's likely more about the ability to create patterns (user-defined 'regions') from the existing regions, not merely the availability of the data to the checker.

But why would Groundspeak care one whit about the ability to create patterns? Are they afraid a challenge cache creator will spell out an obscene word? I think most Volunteer Reviewers are quite capable of detecting undesired patterns (or archiving those that are brought to their attention).

I don't know. That was a huge debate during and after the moratorium. I'm well aware of the annoyance of the restriction on user-defined regions. I'm just saying, my understanding is that counties as a region is the closest they're willing to get to non-GC-defined regions and borders because of that arbitrary pattern/shape clause.

[+thebruce0]

As I see it, the complaint is that GS has stifled creativity for challenge caches by imposing various restrictions, one being that region based souvenirs are limited to country/states/counties. If that restriction was changed to regions which can be derived using information from geocaching.com (lat/long coordinates, country/state IDs) and publicly available data, that could open up a variety of challenge caches. I can understand why user-defined regions could not be used as that would lead to absurd challenges such as "find a cache within 4.2km of each of this list of caches". "User-defined regions" is just too nebulous. Using publicly available data one could create a challenge to find a cache in each of a cities public parks because it uses easily accessible public data.

I agree. However it's very easy to create 'patterns' from smaller structured regions.

The "user defined region" includes shapes and/or patterns using them, not necessarily just a single externally defined region boundary. Creating a user-defined boundary that the HQ deems too arbitrary is not allowed.

Post-moratorium, I'd tried to publish PGC-checkable challenges (scripts even verified) based on completing certain grid patterns and/or shapes (both complex and simple) in the DT grid, the lat/lon grid, and the year grids - none were allowed. But you can make challenges that are on the less-pattern-like end of the spectrum, such as some amount of a grid, or even/odd matching. But I think even lines across a grid are now disallowed (perhaps depending on wording). I barely got D+T rules published, because depicting resulting diagonal line matches was too pattern-like; I adjusted it to D+T qualifiers by column and even had to adjust the instructions so the diagram didn't look like a 'star' (parallelogram), even though it was just a list of D+Ts with qualifying combos.

 

Basically, "patterns" and "shapes" are very tightly judged now as arbitary user-defined regions. It's hard to make those out of county borders (or the next-below-province equivalent). It's not hard to make those using coordinate grid systems.

[+niraD]

Basically, "patterns" and "shapes" are very tightly judged now as arbitary user-defined regions. It's hard to make those out of county borders (or the next-below-province equivalent). It's not hard to make those using coordinate grid systems.

There are a number of states (e.g., Iowa, Kansas) where county lines are almost laid out in rectangular grids. Or where there are enough counties that it doesn't matter what shape they are. Creating "patterns" and "shapes" from counties in those states is just as easy as creating "patterns" and "shapes" from USGS quadrangles, pages in the DeLorme books, or other regions used by now-grandfathered location-based challenge caches.

 

Were challenge caches like the Bay Area Quadrangle Challenge or the many DeLorme challenges really causing problems? Or are they really getting swept up in a misdirected attempt to block challenge caches based on "patterns" and "shapes"?