+Rebore Posted November 24, 2017 Share Posted November 24, 2017 11 hours ago, Gill & Tony said: Why should Alamogul not be allowed to publish a "Find 175,000 caches" challenge? Nobody else is likely to ever achieve it, but why does that matter? Considering the ISS cache and others owned by LordBritish, that's a fair question. Quote Link to comment
+frinklabs Posted November 24, 2017 Share Posted November 24, 2017 1 hour ago, Gill & Tony said: Please explain how the existence of your challenge stars would eliminate these restrictions. By letting the CO rate the difficulty of the Challenge, the onus on having to qualitatively assess its viability based on information provided by the CO is removed from the reviewer. Like the D and T ratings. Imagine if the reviewers were asked to accept/reject submissions based on the assumption that a "reasonable" number of cachers had to be able to find that evil hide or achieve that tree climb? Quote Link to comment
+NYPaddleCacher Posted November 24, 2017 Share Posted November 24, 2017 14 hours ago, on4bam said: A challenge to having found caches in xx countries would be easy if near an airport for instance (Found one near CPH, Copenhagen, where you needed 20 countries) but near impossible if placed in a farmland area with no tourism. There is another find caches in N countries (Challenge: 25 Countries - De Berejstes Klub) challenge cache in Copenhagen. It's not near the airport, but it's only a 15 minute train ride from the airport then a 10 minute walk. I don't think a challenge cache like that necessarily needs to be an airport, but that it's located in a city where a lot of geocachers might travel (which typically means it's got an international airport). I actually got my 25th country that morning by taking the train over to Malmo, Sweden (i wish I could have spent more time there), then changing trains back at the airport to downtown Copenhagen. Although I've found a few caches close to the airport while traveling, only in a few cases were they the only caches I found in the country. I, have, however found quite a few by using public ground transportation from the airport. Quote Link to comment
+Gill & Tony Posted November 24, 2017 Share Posted November 24, 2017 8 hours ago, frinklabs said: By letting the CO rate the difficulty of the Challenge, the onus on having to qualitatively assess its viability based on information provided by the CO is removed from the reviewer. Like the D and T ratings. Imagine if the reviewers were asked to accept/reject submissions based on the assumption that a "reasonable" number of cachers had to be able to find that evil hide or achieve that tree climb? Under the current system, the CO does rate the difficulty of the challenge. What is the difference? The required checker also rates the difficulty based on the number of people who qualify. Why add another layer of complexity? Quote Link to comment
+Team Hugs Posted November 24, 2017 Share Posted November 24, 2017 On 11/21/2017 at 5:30 PM, on4bam said: There T5/4.5/4 caches I think of as " rude intrusions taking up room on the map" as I will never do them. Are they next to go? If they're honestly T4+ caches, then I'm not sure that they qualify as "intrusions", as any other cache placed there would likely also be a T4+. They're only taking up space on the map for other T4+ caches. Quote Link to comment
+Rebore Posted November 24, 2017 Share Posted November 24, 2017 15 minutes ago, Team Hugs said: If they're honestly T4+ caches, then I'm not sure that they qualify as "intrusions", as any other cache placed there would likely also be a T4+. They're only taking up space on the map for other T4+ caches. I don't get that. You can place a cache 3m up a tree or at the base. One is T4 or T4.5, the other one is T1.5, the coordinates are the same. Quote Link to comment
+Gill & Tony Posted November 24, 2017 Share Posted November 24, 2017 14 minutes ago, Team Hugs said: If they're honestly T4+ caches, then I'm not sure that they qualify as "intrusions", as any other cache placed there would likely also be a T4+. They're only taking up space on the map for other T4+ caches. I don't think that is necessarily so. A cache placed up a tree or half way up a cliff is taking up space around the base of the tree or the base of the cliff. Quote Link to comment
+Gill & Tony Posted November 24, 2017 Share Posted November 24, 2017 (edited) Here's a thought. New challenge caches are required to have a challenge checker. The challenge checker has a difficulty rating expressed as a percentage. This rating is calculated based on the number of people who have qualified for the challenge. Would it make sense to assume that any challenge rated below (say) 75% is deemed to be appealing so there is no need to provide a list of people? Edited November 24, 2017 by Gill & Tony Quote Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted November 24, 2017 Share Posted November 24, 2017 6 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said: Here's a thought. New challenge caches are required to have a challenge checker. The challenge checker has a difficulty rating expressed as a percentage. This rating is calculated based on the number of people who have qualified for the challenge. Would it make sense to assume that any challenge rated below (say) 75% is deemed to be appealing so there is no need to provide a list of people? Good idea, but the checker rating is only calculated after the cache has been published and typically takes a few weeks to collect enough data for it to display anything. Quote Link to comment
+Gill & Tony Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 3 hours ago, barefootjeff said: Good idea, but the checker rating is only calculated after the cache has been published and typically takes a few weeks to collect enough data for it to display anything. Ah!. I hadn't realised that. Maybe, if the idea was adopted, Project-GC could be persuaded to do a first-pass analysis as part of the checker build. Quote Link to comment
+frinklabs Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 7 hours ago, Gill & Tony said: 16 hours ago, frinklabs said: By letting the CO rate the difficulty of the Challenge, the onus on having to qualitatively assess its viability based on information provided by the CO is removed from the reviewer. Like the D and T ratings. Imagine if the reviewers were asked to accept/reject submissions based on the assumption that a "reasonable" number of cachers had to be able to find that evil hide or achieve that tree climb? Under the current system, the CO does rate the difficulty of the challenge. What is the difference? The required checker also rates the difficulty based on the number of people who qualify. Why add another layer of complexity? A cache's D rating is supposed to be for the difficulty of the hide. The layer of complexity already exists and the extant system does not accommodate it. Challenges are the only exception to the ALR rule. That ALR should have a metric (and its own log type). Quote Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, frinklabs said: A cache's D rating is supposed to be for the difficulty of the hide. The layer of complexity already exists and the extant system does not accommodate it. Challenges are the only exception to the ALR rule. That ALR should have a metric (and its own log type). Actually, the Help Centre says: Quote We recommend that the difficulty rating be based on the challenge, the terrain rating on the challenge cache location. (new 2016) Edited November 25, 2017 by barefootjeff Quote Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 1 hour ago, frinklabs said: A cache's D rating is supposed to be for the difficulty of the hide. Just Plain Wrong. The new Hiding guidelines do not mention difficulty or terrain rating, but the Help Center article does. It states that the difficulty should be based on: Quote Effort needed to solve and find the cache and logbook at GZ. Clearly, puzzle cache difficulties are to be based on the difficulty of the puzzle, and D for traditionals on the difficulty of finding the cache container. Since a challenge cache is a variant of a mystery or puzzle cache, the D rating should be based upon the difficulty of meeting the challenge requirements. Now, there is an ongoing argument about the terrain ratings for challenge caches. Maybe that is what you were thinking of. That issue is less clearly-defined. Quote Link to comment
+WarNinjas Posted November 25, 2017 Share Posted November 25, 2017 40 minutes ago, fizzymagic said: the D rating should be based upon the difficulty of meeting the challenge requirements. This is true unless the hide is more difficult then the challenge. Not to long ago I made Wherigo and I didn't mean for the hide to be difficult. Or the Wherigo. Turns out the hide is for some reason almost impossible to find. Even though I say where to look in the cartridge. I hated to do it but I had to up the D rating. I don't want people to think the Wherigo is going to be difficult but the hide needed the D to be upgraded. Now I need to go replace the hide so it is easier to find and then I might make the same hide somewhere else with a high D rating as it is obviously crazy hard to find. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.