Challenge cache ideas that seem good but don't get past the reviewer

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

- Must be finished in a limited time, no more than a month. (Long-time challenges are bad and tend to make cachers give up the hobby after finally fulfilling them!)

 

I'm not sure about this point. The most enjoyable challenge I've completed was GC6QQPE which requires 24 finds on caches with a 2/4 D/T rating. When it was published in 2016 I only had 4 qualifying finds (I'd been caching for just over 3 years at that point) and I was still in full-time work so I could only go out caching on weekends and holidays. It took me just on a year to qualify, but that was a great year of planning trips away where I could slowly build up my qualifying finds, and in the process it took me to some truly awesome caches that I'd have been unlikely to have done if not for the challenge.

 

Earlier this year the CO of that one published a sequel that requires 42 2/4 finds (I currently have 32) but they have to include 4 from each of 4 Australian states plus 2 from outside Australia. So far all my 2/4 finds have been within New South Wales, so in the coming year (weather permitting, this year has been one of almost constant rain and floods) I'm hoping to do a few interstate driving trips and then revisit New Zealand to nab the last two - hopefully by then air fares to NZ will be back down to pre-COVID levels.

 

For me at least, the best challenges are those that take time to chip away at and in the process take me to some pretty rewarding caches. My own two challenges (GC952YF and GC8DQXK) are in the same vein, focusing on the more remote higher terrain caches that each take time to complete. I've spoken to a few newer cachers at events who've said they're enjoying slowly working towards qualifying for them because it's taking them to some amazing places. Conversely, a long-time numbers cacher who only does low D/T power trails and the like is unlikely to make much of a dent in the qualifications for them, nor would they be interested in visiting the remote spots I've put the actual caches in.

[+niraD]

17 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

For me at least, the best challenges are those that take time to chip away at and in the process take me to some pretty rewarding caches.

The challenge caches that I've actively worked on the most have been this type of challenge cache. Of course, I didn't qualify for either before we moved out of the area, so I probably won't log either at this point.

 

I did get a one-year streak challenge cache, but I was already almost done with a one-year streak when I checked to see whether it would qualify me for any nearby challenge caches. Although I did save a bunch of puzzle finals for the last month of my one-year streak, so I could qualify for a "puzzling month" streak challenge cache. But that really wasn't that much extra work, compared to the streak itself.

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, Ragnemalm said:

I am totally against the challenge rules. The current challenges are horrible. They are mainly a tool for experienced caches to intimidate the newcomers. New challenge: Old cachers fulfill it immedialtely and it is just another petling. New cachers can not fulfill it withing a year or even five! They are not challenges! A challenge is something you accept and try to fulfill within a limited time.

 

Here's one horrible challenge (GC91D9H) that one of my friends published earlier this year, requiring 55 finds on caches within the Central Coast local government area with a terrain rating of 3.5 or higher. There are currently 87 qualifying caches so it's not particularly difficult for someone to qualify if they live nearby and have a mind to, although you don't knock off a dozen T3.5+ caches in a day so it'll take a fair bit of time and effort. Not everything has to be easy. Since I live in the LGA and had been caching for nine years , I already qualified by a good margin, and it'd be even easier for anyone else as I own eleven of the qualifying caches, but even so it prompted me to reflect on those qualifying finds, look back over my logs and put together a bunch of photos from what I thought were the most awesome.

 

That challenge even inspired the game I came up with for the Community Celebration event I hosted yesterday, where I provided photos from ten "Classic Central Coast Caches" and a list of their names the participants had to match to the photos. From what I saw, those attending had great fun doing it and hopefully it'll inspire a few to go out and try some of those hides.

 

 

All but one of those hides were placed over ten years ago, the oldest in April 2001 (one of the earliest caches on the Central Coast) and are some of the best of what the coast has to offer. Maybe I should create a Classic Central Coast Caches challenge for higher terrain caches that are more than ten years old, but that would probably run afoul of this requirement:

 

But maybe cache age rather than a "particular date" would be okay, I guess I should run it by my reviewer sometime.

[+Goldenwattle]

23 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Here's one horrible challenge (GC91D9H) that one of my friends published earlier this year, requiring 55 finds on caches within the Central Coast local government area with a terrain rating of 3.5 or higher. There are currently 87 qualifying caches so it's not particularly difficult for someone to qualify if they live nearby and have a mind to, although you don't knock off a dozen T3.5+ caches in a day so it'll take a fair bit of time and effort. Not everything has to be easy. Since I live in the LGA and had been caching for nine years , I already qualified by a good margin, and it'd be even easier for anyone else as I own eleven of the qualifying caches, but even so it prompted me to reflect on those qualifying finds, look back over my logs and put together a bunch of photos from what I thought were the most awesome.

 

That challenge even inspired the game I came up with for the Community Celebration event I hosted yesterday, where I provided photos from ten "Classic Central Coast Caches" and a list of their names the participants had to match to the photos. From what I saw, those attending had great fun doing it and hopefully it'll inspire a few to go out and try some of those hides.

 

 

All but one of those hides were placed over ten years ago, the oldest in April 2001 (one of the earliest caches on the Central Coast) and are some of the best of what the coast has to offer. Maybe I should create a Classic Central Coast Caches challenge for higher terrain caches that are more than ten years old, but that would probably run afoul of this requirement:

 

But maybe cache age rather than a "particular date" would be okay, I guess I should run it by my reviewer sometime.

If people have found some of those years ago, they might have trouble remembering which was which. Expect messages asking for help with a list of caches they have found and wanting to know if any of those are represented by the photographs...as it was so long ago and now they are unsure.

[+Goldenwattle]

I am hoping to find a cache in December I need for a challenge. It's the ONLY cache in Australia which qualifies for one part of a challenge. 

[+barefootjeff]

25 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

If people have found some of those years ago, they might have trouble remembering which was which. Expect messages asking for help with a list of caches they have found and wanting to know if any of those are represented by the photographs...as it was so long ago and now they are unsure.

 

The matching names to photos was just a game for yesterday's event. Any challenge that eventuates wouldn't require any matching to photos.

 

Edit to add: What I'm thinking for the Classic Central Coast Caches challenge is something like "find ten terrain-3 or higher caches in the Central Coast LGA that are more than ten years old" but I'm not sure if that would be acceptable.

Edited November 28, 2022 by barefootjeff

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

That challenge even inspired the game I came up with for the Community Celebration event I hosted yesterday, where I provided photos from ten "Classic Central Coast Caches" and a list of their names the participants had to match to the photos. From what I saw, those attending had great fun doing it and hopefully it'll inspire a few to go out and try some of those hides.

 

I just received this in an Attended log from the event, so maybe I hit the mark with at least one attendee:

 

Quote

Lovely location for the event, thanks for securing the table and organising the little game. I haven't found a single of the old caches on the list as I am not local and they all require a bit of effort! However seeing them all made me want to find them, maybe I need to spend a couple nights in the area in the future.

 

[+fizzymagic]

On 12/24/2020 at 2:34 AM, Harry Dolphin said:

Hmm...  I ran the checker.  I've found over 250 caches that qualify!

Neener, neener.  I have over 1100.

[+Gill & Tony]

On 11/28/2022 at 12:37 AM, Ragnemalm said:

 

Lonely Cache challenges are the best challenges of all! They encourage finding old caches, which often leads you to nice, off.trail places. It will give the CO of a rarely found cache more finds. There are some variations of it, like finding a number of caches in one week with 2000 "lonely days" or finding 3 of the 10 "most lonely".

 

I see absolutely no problem with this as a challenge. It is fun, it is challenging, and it is good for CO and thereby for the whole community. I have logged a few of its kind and I have always finished them in one single day.

 

I don't know if Project-GC can make a checker but technically it is possible to make one.

My son has 3 (pre-moratorium) lonely cache challenges - 5, 15 and 50 years, based on minimum 183 days - and there is a checker for them.  the checker allows multiple finds on the same day, so if you are 2nd to find on the day it still allows it.

 

Unfortunately, having completed his 100 years he submitted the 100-year challenge which was rejected under the new rules.

[+dprovan]

On 11/27/2022 at 5:46 AM, Ragnemalm said:

- Must be actively accepted at a certain time.

...

- Anything you did before accepting the challenge does not count.

I see what you're saying, but I don't think this is an interesting approach. I think the only thing you're really interested in is that nothing done before the cache is published can be used to meet the challenge. The only other effect would be that someone only discovering the challenge years after it was published would not be able to use caches between the two times, but this seems to me just a childish "nah-nah, you didn't see my cache when it was published" type of concern. I'm actually fine with the idea of limiting the challenge to caches published after the challen, but it's really clear GS will never go for that.

 

On 11/27/2022 at 5:46 AM, Ragnemalm said:

- Must be finished in a limited time, no more than a month. (Long-time challenges are bad and tend to make cachers give up the hobby after finally fulfilling them!)

I'm a little confused because that parenthesis seems to intend to limit challenges to things that can be done in a month, but I see no reason to think the stated restriction will accomplish that. Indeed, I think it will be more common for caches that can't be accomplished in a month without a herculean effort, and I'm not particularly interested in promoting that.

 

On the other end, sometimes I see a challenge and complete it right away, but other times I see it and start towards it but get distracted by other things, like life. So I'd be annoying if I was prevented from completing a challenge because I took too long. Some challenges I work on for years in the background.

 

On 11/27/2022 at 5:46 AM, Ragnemalm said:

Does not require a log in a physical cache.

To me, this is the bottom line: you want to challenge people, but not really with a geocache. It strikes me that you're wedging in the idea of challenging geocachers into geocaching even when what you want to do doesn't really fit. I think you could accomplish the same thing by having a geocache that explains the challenge, but then have the list of people accomplishing the challenge just be a list in the geocache description not related to any kind of find log. Given what you're saying, the geocache itself might have nothing at all to do with the challenge expect insofar as it presents the challenge in a place geocachers will be able to find it and where -- optionally -- they can declare their completion of the challenge by finding the cache and logging a find. But they could also just log a note if they don't want to find the physical cache.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, Gill & Tony said:

My son has 3 (pre-moratorium) lonely cache challenges - 5, 15 and 50 years, based on minimum 183 days - and there is a checker for them. 

What are the GC numbers please?

[+Gill & Tony]

10 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

What are the GC numbers please?

GC57Z2N; GC47J4N; GC45RN3

 

Enjoy 

[+Goldenwattle]

30 minutes ago, Gill & Tony said:

GC57Z2N; GC47J4N; GC45RN3

 

Enjoy 

Thanks. I have already found the first two. The fifty one I logged in 2017. Only the five year one to log. Having qualified for the others, obviously I qualify for that one 

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

I'm actually fine with the idea of limiting the challenge to caches published after the challen, but it's really clear GS will never go for that.

 

Limiting challenges to caches found after publication would pretty much rule me out of any along the 100km strip of coastline where I've done most of my caching, unless they were absurdly trivial (like just find a dozen caches and even then I'd probably struggle to complete it in a month). For example, the one I mentioned earlier (GC91D9H) that requires 55 T3.5+ caches in the Central Coast LGA would be essentially unachievable in the rest of my lifetime as there are only 17 qualifying caches I haven't found and new ones that aren't mine are pretty rare these days.

 

The whole point of Ragnemalm's proposal seems to be to make challenges appealing to raw beginners, but most raw beginners I've encountered (including me nine years ago) have focused mainly on easier traditionals before gradually moving on to more advanced cache types like multis, ECs and mysteries as experience is gained. Challenges seem more suitable to those cachers who have been in the game a good while and are looking for something extra to spark their interest. I'd been caching for over two years before attempting my first challenge and that was a pretty easy one, requiring 15 caches with the Medium hike attribute. I've still only done 12 challenges as there aren't many around here. Incidently, looking back through my logs, it took me eighteen months of caching to rack up 15 medium hike cache finds, so limiting the qualifying period to one month would have ruled even the raw-beginner-me out.

Edited November 29, 2022 by barefootjeff

[+Goldenwattle]

46 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Limiting challenges to caches found after publication would pretty much rule me out of any along the 100km strip of coastline where I've done most of my caching, unless they were absurdly trivial (like just find a dozen caches and even then I'd probably struggle to complete it in a month). For example, the one I mentioned earlier (GC91D9H) that requires 55 T3.5+ caches in the Central Coast LGA would be essentially unachievable in the rest of my lifetime as there are only 17 qualifying caches I haven't found and new ones that aren't mine are pretty rare these days.

 

The whole point of Ragnemalm's proposal seems to be to make challenges appealing to raw beginners, but most raw beginners I've encountered (including me nine years ago) have focused mainly on easier traditionals before gradually moving on to more advanced cache types like multis, ECs and mysteries as experience is gained. Challenges seem more suitable to those cachers who have been in the game a good while and are looking for something extra to spark their interest. I'd been caching for over two years before attempting my first challenge and that was a pretty easy one, requiring 15 caches with the Medium hike attribute. I've still only done 12 challenges as there aren't many around here. Incidently, looking back through my logs, it took me eighteen months of caching to rack up 15 medium hike cache finds, so limiting the qualifying period to one month would have ruled even the raw-beginner-me out.

Agree strongly. It would rule out many long term cachers who have already found the qualifying caches. Terrible idea; restricting the challenges only to beginners. For instance, I hope to find a cache soon to help with a challenge, but it's the ONLY cache of that type in Australia. If someone set that challenge after I had found that cache and only allowed caches found after the publication of the challenge, I would not be able to log the challenge, unless I got on a plane and flew overseas. Extremely restricting only allowing caches found after the challenge is set. But play with beginners, who might not last long enough in the game to meet the challenge if you like. The rest of us can just ignore the challenge. (Unless the challenge is so basic; such as find 100 traditional caches, that's it's not really a challenge.)

 

 

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

9 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Unless the challenge is so basic; such as find 100 traditional caches, that's it's not really a challenge.

 

It would be for me, especially if it was time-limited. It's taken me 18 months to find my last 100 traditionals and, with the ever-diminishing supply of unfound caches, it'll likely take considerably longer to find the next hundred.

[+dprovan]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The whole point of Ragnemalm's proposal seems to be to make challenges appealing to raw beginners, but most raw beginners I've encountered (including me nine years ago) have focused mainly on easier traditionals before gradually moving on to more advanced cache types like multis, ECs and mysteries as experience is gained.

No, his idea is for people to do the challenge consciously, not just claiming it based on finds made before the challenge even existed. I don't think he has any interest at all in appealing to beginners.

[+barefootjeff]

7 minutes ago, dprovan said:

No, his idea is for people to do the challenge consciously, not just claiming it based on finds made before the challenge even existed. I don't think he has any interest at all in appealing to beginners.

 

Maybe I'm misconstruing, but he did say "The current challenges are horrible. They are mainly a tool for experienced caches to intimidate the newcomers. New challenge: Old cachers fulfill it immedialtely and it is just another petling. New cachers can not fulfill it withing a year or even five!" and then, a bit later on, "That's what I call a challenge! Beginner friendly, does not give you a long-time stress, can not be pre-fulfilled." There seems to be a lot of emphasis on beginners.

[+barefootjeff]

On 11/28/2022 at 12:46 AM, Ragnemalm said:

The current challenges are horrible. They are mainly a tool for experienced caches to intimidate the newcomers.

 

I really should respond to this too. Even when I was a raw beginner, I never felt intimidated by experienced cachers pre-qualifying for challenges, in fact I'd probably never even heard of challenges until one of my friends published one (the medium hike one I mentioned earlier). For that I did prequalify, but only by a few months, and of the 12 challenges I've completed, I didn't prequalify for 5 of them and had extra work to do to get over the line, something I enjoyed on all of them because in every instance the caches I needed were fun ones that I probably wouldn't have otherwise noticed.

 

In particular, for the D2/T4 challenge I mentioned earlier, I only had 4 qualifying finds from the 24 needed at the time it was published and it took me a year to get those other 20, most of which were pretty awesome caches, and I in no way felt intimidated by those who'd logged finds before me because they'd prequalified. They still had to make the effort to get to those 24 D2/T4 caches which weren't any easier just because they'd found them before the challenge was published, so it wasn't a free ride for them.

 

There's another challenge by the same CO, called the Scenic Adventurer Challenge (GC5KEY1), which requires 40 finds on T4+ caches with the Scenic View, Difficult Climb and Cliffs/Falling Rocks attributes. At the time it was published in 2015, I had just one qualifying find but it's a challenge that's always been sitting there out the corner of my eye waiting for the far-off day when I might qualify. My qualifying count is now up to 21 so past halfway but, having just turned 68, I'm not sure whether I'll have enough active years left in me to get there or to even reach the physical cache (a T4.5 with all those attributes) if I do. In nearly eight years, that challenge has had six finders and none pre-qualified, although the FTF had 37 of the 40 needed and went out on a quick dash to get the remaining three before doing the gruelling hike to GZ. Am I intimidated by any of them? No way, I'm in awe, absolute awe, of those six who've both qualified and made the find. If I ever need inspiration, I'll go to that cache page and read their logs, just as I did when psyching myself up for the T4.5 I did for my 1000th find in 2019.

 

If challenges like these are horrible, I'd hate to imagine what the "good" ones would be like, but if they'd require being fulfilled from just a month of finds I doubt I'd have any interest in them.

 

 

[+Gill & Tony]

In central Florida, near the wonderfully named Yeehaw Junction is a power trail of (approximately 165) challenge caches.  I discovered this several months before my trip to Florida and set about qualifying for as many as I could.  My favourite was the Alphabetical Order challenge.  Find a cache whose name begins with "A".  At least one day later find one beginning with "B" all the way up to "Z".  I was up to about "L" when I discovered the challenge.  Lots of planning went into my next several caching trips.  The only "X" cache within a few hundred kilometres was "Xenia Onatopp", one of a series based on James Bond characters.  This was a short detour on my way to Sydney airport for another trip.  I DNFed it!

 

Fortunately my son created a puzzle cache - "X marks the spot" - not far from home and I got the "X" with an FTF.  I finally completed the challenge a week or so before departure and finally claimed 33 of the challenges.

 

The series is a great collection of challenges, many of which, including my favourite, would no longer be allowed.

 

[+dprovan]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe I'm misconstruing, but he did say "The current challenges are horrible. They are mainly a tool for experienced caches to intimidate the newcomers. New challenge: Old cachers fulfill it immedialtely and it is just another petling. New cachers can not fulfill it withing a year or even five!" and then, a bit later on, "That's what I call a challenge! Beginner friendly, does not give you a long-time stress, can not be pre-fulfilled." There seems to be a lot of emphasis on beginners.

I suppose I could be wrong, but I took that as meaning he wanted to invent challenges that appealed to everyone equally, not challenges that would attract newbies specifically. After all, the things he's suggesting don't change the experience for newbies at all, they just make the challenges seem more fair to someone that hasn't already found thousands of caches.

[+dprovan]

33 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I really should respond to this too. Even when I was a raw beginner, I never felt intimidated by experienced cachers pre-qualifying for challenges, in fact I'd probably never even heard of challenges until one of my friends published one (the medium hike one I mentioned earlier).

Yeah, I agree with you about that. That's one one the reasons I didn't seriously think he was interested in newbies: he was just using them as an easy way to talk about the perceived unfairness of challenges that allow history even though the newbies themselves wouldn't notice it.

[+barefootjeff]

20 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Yeah, I agree with you about that. That's one one the reasons I didn't seriously think he was interested in newbies: he was just using them as an easy way to talk about the perceived unfairness of challenges that allow history even though the newbies themselves wouldn't notice it.

 

For any challenge that has a limited pool of qualifying caches, not allowing history would put experienced cachers at a considerable disadvantage, even in some cases preventing them from ever qualifying.

[+HuggableHamster]

15 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

GC57Z2N; GC47J4N; GC45RN3

 

Enjoy 

Oooh those are great!  I am very pleased to qualify for the 50years (helped in part by a very difficult letterbox on Guernsey - we were second to find after 6 or 7 years… it was very tricky!:
 

 

11 hours ago, dprovan said:

No, his idea is for people to do the challenge consciously, not just claiming it based on finds made before the challenge even existed. I don't think he has any interest at all in appealing to beginners.

For me (and I know many will disagree) what I like about being able to sign challenges before you complete them is how intentional it makes it.  That said most of the challenges I completed before I signed them were things I knew were or could be challenges so was consciously working towards, a notable exception being https://coord.info/GC7KPY1 which is just delightfully silly.  
 

On a similar note, one challenge I know is grandfathered is https://coord.info/GC34MFG which was a really good challenge, inspired us to do a bit of a car based power-trail (I don’t own a car so this was different to my usual adventures) and gave me an extra push to get out on those dreich January days and fill in the calendar gaps!

 

I find the challenge cache guidelines hard to work out so I’m not sure it would even be allowed now, but one of my favourite challenges was https://coord.info/GC4R8ZT which required just the right amount of planning to achieve, I was up to about step 6 before I found it which made it feel very achievable, and the actual requirements were hard but realistic.

[+Goldenwattle]

On 11/28/2022 at 12:46 AM, Ragnemalm said:

They are mainly a tool for experienced caches to intimidate the newcomers.

Rubbish. As a beginner I never felt intimidated. As with most beginners it also was awhile before I even knew about challenges, and when I found them, I still was not intimated by those who were qualified. There are all levels of caches, so there are some already that beginners won't have too much difficulty fulfilling. Catering for beginners, you could possibly make it impossible for some experienced finders to ever qualify, as they have already found the qualifying caches. It seems, whether intentional or not, you propose to cater for beginners, and ignore the more experienced finders, ie, for a subset of geocachers, not everyone. The difference is that now even beginners, if they stick around long enough, have the chance to qualify for challenges, while you are preposing to likely exclude a section of geocachers (those with many finds) from ever being able to fulfill the challenge, unless extremely basic challengers, as they found those caches ages ago.

(Naturally not everyone with ever be able to qualify for all challenges. Often ones with high terrain ratings. However, this is because of a lack of say physical ability of the individual, rather than a lack of caches left to find, as those with many finds might now face.)

Challenges should not exclude people, especially those who have supported the game for years.

[+barefootjeff]

5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

(Naturally not everyone with ever be able to qualify for all challenges. Often ones with high terrain ratings. However, this is because of a lack of say physical ability of the individual, rather than a lack of caches left to find, as those with many finds might now face.)

 

For me, any challenge that requires a sustained high find rate (more than a handful of caches a month) is going to be out of reach because this region just doesn't have enough caches. My longest streak ever is 7 days, which was for the Streak Week promotion in 2019, and even that was tough-going as it rained on several of the days and five of the caches I did required travel outside my region. This month, which was fairly typical, I made seven finds on four caching days (four of those caches were in Sydney, the other three were new ones published locally) and attended one event (my own). I'm not going to qualify for any numbers challenge with a find rate like that!

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

For me, any challenge that...

 

Challenges will vary from region to region. It's almost certain that a challenge that "requires a sustained find rate of more than a handful of caches a month" would not be permitted to be published in your region because it's not feasible.

Likewise, while my area has a great number of high find rate hiders, I visited Vegas and when out to finish the ET highway series we came across some challenges that were through the roof in find counts, and the easy version was more like the hard version were it my region. Like, 30,000 finds for bronze?

 

It's not fair for you to compare your own stats and ability to complete challenges that are far more common in regions where such challenges make sense (are feasible). In your region, the numbers of such a challenge could be a fraction the size and be just as, if not more difficult than the version in my region for example. It's not about the numbers, it's about the actual challenge of completing it in the region in which it's posted. 

 

Yep, that means if you travel to Vegas or Ontario you may not be able to sign and log 90% of the challenges. But likewise, if we were to have a caching career limited exclusively to your region we'd have just as much difficulty as you qualifying for similar (but numbered differently) challenges posted in your region.

 

"Challenges" themselves aren't for the elitist. It only seems that way when people coming from a region with high activity visit other regions with low activity and easily qualify for all of those challenges. But that's only an issue if you find it to be a competition. That's why I tell people just starting out, or in slower regions, don't look at our find counts or our fizzy loops - it's easy to get those numbers here. Finding 10,000 here is easy - but finding 1,000 in your region could be much more impressive.

 

You really can't compare stats across regions.  People who travel a lot have it better, statistically, because of course their stats will be much more well-rounded to qualify for a wider variety of regional "accomplishments" they may encounter from region to region.

 

I signed a challenge in BC to find I think it was 100 caches with different wine types in the titles. It's the one cache in a geoart series of challenges I didn't qualify for. And I think the only place to qualify is IN B.C.  I don't blame challenge caches for being unfair to me; it's just another one of those things that at the moment can only be done in one region. Maybe in the future someone will provide qualifiers in my region -- and in maybe in the future more cachers will appear in yours to increase its community activity.

 

Nonetheless, in regions like Vegas, Texas, Ontario, there still need to be cache owners who are willing to put out [relatively] "easy" challenges, accomplishment challenges, to give newcomers something more timely to aim for, rather than only to always look years down the line for qualifying. And I know that Ontario's challenges for the most part keep getting harder and harder as the top tier cachers, who keep increasing their own stats, place challenges for other top tier people to aim for. 

 

But ya know what? I still work towards them, because I love having goals, even if they're a year or two down the line from qualifying. But that's just me...

[+barefootjeff]

29 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

It's not fair for you to compare your own stats and ability to complete challenges that are far more common in regions where such challenges make sense (are feasible). In your region, the numbers of such a challenge could be a fraction the size and be just as, if not more difficult than the version in my region for example. It's not about the numbers, it's about the actual challenge of completing it in the region in which it's posted.

 

Hang on, what have I said that's unfair? I'm not the one claiming to be intimidated by anyone's challenge achievements or insisting that the rules be changed, quite the opposite. All I've said in this thread is that Ragnemalm's proposed rule changes (no previously found caches allowed and one month to complete the challenge) would be problematic for anyone with a limited pool of unfound qualifying caches, and I've also disputed their claim that ALL post-moratorium challenges are horrible. How is that being unfair?

[+Hügh]

38 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

And I think the only place to qualify is IN B.C.

 

 

Teehee.

 

Funnily enough, Ontario apparently accounts for 62% of Canadian wine production... we need to get ourselves a bigger wine geo-art setup over here!

[+thebruce0]

8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

Hang on, what have I said that's unfair?

 

When you said this:

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

For me, any challenge that requires a sustained high find rate (more than a handful of caches a month) is going to be out of reach because this region just doesn't have enough caches.

 

If you weren't saying it's a "bad" thing that such a challenge cache posted in another region (for which the challenge is reasonable) is out of reach to you in this region, then okay. But it's very easy to infer from this statement that it's unfair to you that such a challenge [in that region] is out of reach because it's too hard for you to qualify in your region.

 

My follow was in regards to this:

4 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I'm not going to qualify for any numbers challenge with a find rate like that!

 

But you can qualify for any numbers challenge in your own region that is published because it's been deemed reasonable and doable in your region. And such a challenge may as much an accomplishment as a challenge that 10x more in quantity in some other region. If not more so.

Edited November 30, 2022 by thebruce0

[+thebruce0]

3 minutes ago, Hügh said:

Funnily enough, Ontario apparently accounts for 62% of Canadian wine production... we need to get ourselves a bigger wine geo-art setup over here!

YES! If only so I can qualify for that stupid challenge and finish the geoart lol

[+barefootjeff]

13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If you weren't saying it's a "bad" thing that such a challenge cache posted in another region (for which the challenge is reasonable) is out of reach to you in this region, then okay. But it's very easy to infer from this statement that it's unfair to you that such a challenge [in that region] is out of reach because it's too hard for you to qualify in your region.

 

All I was doing was giving my own take on Goldenwattle's "Naturally not everyone with ever be able to qualify for all challenges". She mentioned physical limitations on higher terrain challenges, I just added the find-rate limitations that my area has. I agree with her! I wasn't saying anything good or bad about challenges in other regions. Please read my posts earlier in this thread, I'm not the antagonist here.

Edited November 30, 2022 by barefootjeff

[+Rustynails]

Challenge caches that require enormous amounts of cash to complete. Fair or Unfair?   

[+thebruce0]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I wasn't saying anything good or bad about challenges in other regions. Please read my posts earlier in this thread, I'm not the antagonist here.

Already ready all the comments to this point - but I guess that was the problem; it's hard to keep track of who said what  So consider my recent comments to you then instead referring to the 'royal you' instead of you specifically and taking points out of context for royalty  (you'd earlier specifically expressed the opposite if what I was implying you meant).  I still stand by the greater points I was making (which it seems you agree), but yes you (specifically) weren't making an example against harder challenge caches. But, I did remember it wasn't you (specifically) who called them elitist; unfortunately that was my brain grouping all the counter comments together. 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by thebruce0

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, Rustynails said:

Challenge caches that require enormous amounts of cash to complete. Fair or Unfair? 

 

Ooh that's entirely subjective.

Requiring finding geocaches that require cash shouldn't be allowable as those shouldn't be published (apart from whatever is deemed a reasonable essential access fee like provincial/state parks, as opposed to business entry fees like theme parks).

There's no requirement that every challenge be at most only "reasonably expensive" to complete. Caches that require traveling may be "cheap" to some and expensive to others. While caches that are all local may still be expensive to some. Most geocaching is expensive of time and effort, as well as money. You don't have to find them all. And if a challenge seems to 'expensive' to complete, you could still just find the cache and sign it, for that fun, without ever qualifying for the challenge or logging it found online.

And, disallowing a challenge that seems 'unfair' to one person may itself be 'unfair' to another person for whom the challenge seems 'fair'.

 

I think "fair" and "unfair" tend to imply competition in comparing to others. So it's not fruitful to the community to describe geocaches (challenges or otherwise) in those terms.

 

That's why we say geocaching is "free" 

 

Edited November 30, 2022 by thebruce0

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, Rustynails said:

Challenge caches that require enormous amounts of cash to complete. Fair or Unfair?   

What do you mean by "enormous amounts of cash to complete"? Do you mean entry fees? I believe they aren't allowed now. Or the cost of travel? The last one is subjective, as some people might not travel long distances for a cache, but be travelling anyway. Here in Australia some people think nothing of driving long distances (1,000s of kms) and they cache along the way. Without caching, they would still be doing the long drives. Mainly thinking of grey nomads. Retired people who spend months on the road every year, and some who even take to the road for years. They drive all over Australia. Almost 60,000 on the road last census. Add to that plus there are people who stay with friends and in motels. People in countries that don't travel so much might think this decadent, while people in countries that travel more, would think differently about this.

You need to be clearer what you meant. Plus distances don't always need a car. I cycled when younger long distance. What about people who can't cycle. Fair or unfair?

If you are going to argue about this, equally I could say what about those caches that require people to be very physically able; ie young. They are discriminatory too. Plus what about the handicapped. It's a slippery slope to start saying things like this.

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, Rustynails said:

Challenge caches that require enormous amounts of cash to complete. Fair or Unfair?   

 

There's a challenge cache nearby that requires 5 D5/T5 finds in 5 different countries, which caused quite a bit of consternation in the local community, particularly as at the time it was published (February 2021), no international travel was allowed because of COVID. It's since had two finders plus another who posted the checker's output showing they qualified but they've yet to visit the physical cache. I guess for someone who does a lot of international travel in their work, it wouldn't be expensive, and the CO qualifies but I know he doesn't live in a mansion at the top of the hill. If I was 20 years younger and still working it'd probably be one I'd have a go at, but instead I'll just look at the logs occasionally for a bit of inspiration and amusement. Its existence doesn't bother me in the slightest but I've seen some at recent events who've got quite worked up about it.

 

I agree with thebruce0 that fairness isn't really something I'd associate with challenges, or any cache for that matter. There'll always be caches that are easy for some but difficult or impossible for others, and how easy or difficult a cache is for someone else doesn't affect my enjoyment of it. I just do the caches that interest me, ignore the ones that don't and admire those who achieve great caching feats that are way beyond my meagre abilities.

[+Rustynails]

7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

What do you mean by "enormous amounts of cash to complete"? Do you mean entry fees? I believe they aren't allowed now. Or the cost of travel? The last one is subjective, as some people might not travel long distances for a cache, but be travelling anyway. Here in Australia some people think nothing of driving long distances (1,000s of kms) and they cache along the way. Without caching, they would still be doing the long drives. Mainly thinking of grey nomads. Retired people who spend months on the road every year, and some who even take to the road for years. They drive all over Australia. Almost 60,000 on the road last census. Add to that plus there are people who stay with friends and in motels. People in countries that don't travel so much might think this decadent, while people in countries that travel more, would think differently about this.

You need to be clearer what you meant. Plus distances don't always need a car. I cycled when younger long distance. What about people who can't cycle. Fair or unfair?

If you are going to argue about this, equally I could say what about those caches that require people to be very physically able; ie young. They are discriminatory too. Plus what about the handicapped. It's a slippery slope to start saying things like this.

Example: Find caches in 25 different countries. Airfare, hotel etc.  

[+Gill & Tony]

37 minutes ago, Rustynails said:

Example: Find caches in 25 different countries. Airfare, hotel etc.  

Easy.  

 

I travelled to around 25 countries before I started caching and have since found caches in 42.  Plus three countries (Hong Kong, Brunei, Bosnia and Herzegovina) where I visited post caching and didn't find any caches.

 

Additional cost for caching beyond regular travel costs, negligible except for one exorbitant taxi fare for getting to a cache in Fiji.

 

Why is it more unfair that I can afford, and enjoy, travelling; than the fact that I am not physically capable of high terrain caches and will never fill my Fizzy?

 

[+MNTA]

Easy solution "ignore list" If you don't want to do them or can't do them. No one forces anyone to do a challenge let alone a LPC, but we have them both.

 

There are challenges I will never qualify for and that is ok. There are also challenges that I never thought I'd qualify for which due to circumstances I can do.

 

But showing consternation on a challenge that is difficult seems like entitlement to be able to get them all. Which is impossible. Personally I want more difficult challenges as it gives me something to work on.

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, Rustynails said:

Example: Find caches in 25 different countries. Airfare, hotel etc.  

Reasonable. See nothing wrong with it. I only have 16 countries, but it's a challenge to work to, to get the 25. The other challenge of course, is that the cache must be visited*. I visited many other countries before I found geocaching though. I didn't have much money then. Stayed in hostels, slept on the floor of a boat rather than get a room, slept in train seats travelling overnight rather than the expense of a sleeper or hotel. Cycled from country to country to keep it cheap. People can travel without being rich. Also, for young people there are working holidays. Travel is not just for the rich, as least from western countries. People in Europe would find this much easier then me here in Australia, but so what, that's fine.

* Rather like a challenge here in Australia to visit every Australian state in one year and find a cache in each. The cache is in the Northern Territory and I live in the ACT, several thousand kms away. But I managed it. I was certainly not rich, and mostly slept in my car to manage it.

[+niraD]

14 hours ago, Rustynails said:

Fair or Unfair?   

With apologies to William Goldman (author of The Princess Bride):

 

Life is unfair, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

On 11/29/2022 at 10:32 AM, HuggableHamster said:

Oooh those are great!  I am very pleased to qualify for the 50years (helped in part by a very difficult letterbox on Guernsey - we were second to find after 6 or 7 years… it was very tricky!:
 

 

For me (and I know many will disagree) what I like about being able to sign challenges before you complete them is how intentional it makes it.  That said most of the challenges I completed before I signed them were things I knew were or could be challenges so was consciously working towards, a notable exception being https://coord.info/GC7KPY1 which is just delightfully silly.  
 

On a similar note, one challenge I know is grandfathered is https://coord.info/GC34MFG which was a really good challenge, inspired us to do a bit of a car based power-trail (I don’t own a car so this was different to my usual adventures) and gave me an extra push to get out on those dreich January days and fill in the calendar gaps!

 

I find the challenge cache guidelines hard to work out so I’m not sure it would even be allowed now, but one of my favourite challenges was https://coord.info/GC4R8ZT which required just the right amount of planning to achieve, I was up to about step 6 before I found it which made it feel very achievable, and the actual requirements were hard but realistic.

That last one, GC4R8ZT, seems interesting, but I can't get the checker to work for me.

[+mustakorppi]

2 hours ago, Corp Of Discovery said:

That last one, GC4R8ZT, seems interesting, but I can't get the checker to work for me.

Starting from step 6 you'd need to have found specific caches in the UK so the checker isn't much fun for everyone else.