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

[+Cacheism 500 2]

   I wanted to do one where you have to first find two trads within 60 seconds of one another on foot and upload 'proof.' (161 metres minimum distance, achievable if you leg it!) 

 

  Anyone else had any good but unpublishable ideas? 

[+niraD 3308]

[+L0ne.R 1854]

Find 10 letterbox hybrid geocaches which have handcarved stamps. Photo proof of the stamp in your letterbox logbook and your trailname signature and date on the cache's logbook page. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by L0ne.R

[+WarNinjas 49]

Both are great ideas but I can see the problems with them.

[+niraD 3308]

I think it's a shame that location-based challenges like those using USGS quadrangles are no longer publishable.

[+dprovan 1565]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

I think it's a shame that location-based challenges like those using USGS quadrangles are no longer publishable.

Yes, I agree. If we're talking about ideas that were previously publishable, there are lots of examples. My favorite challenge is still the one that challenged me to go an entire month and only find a single cache. I understand why GS decided to forbid anything like that (long before the complete overhaul), but it struck me as perfect, a true challenge. I was definitely itching to get back to caching by the last week of my month off, so I really felt like I accomplished something when I could claim that one.

Of ideas that are now forbidden but for no good reason, I really liked the 360° challenge: you have to find 360 caches, one in each degree wedge coming out from GZ. There's even a really cool project-gc checker for that one that's not only clear about which directions need work, it even provides a way to look at which unfound caches are in any given wedge. Alas, no longer allowed for the same utterly arbitrary reason that quadrangles are no longer allowed.

[+thebruce0 2489]

We have a 360 in Ontario as well, and in a central location which is so far away and in a cache average-density area it takes a weekend just to get a few wedges .  I'm almost done, but it's going to take a full road trip day to get my last few degrees. I love those because they take planning to optimize!  (and it seems like challenges requiring 'planning' is generally less acceptable now as it can discourage casual caching, or something like that )

[+niraD 3308]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

Of ideas that are now forbidden but for no good reason, I really liked the 360° challenge: you have to find 360 caches, one in each degree wedge coming out from GZ.

I thought the concept for the bi-polar challenge was brilliant: Find one cache above the arctic circle, and one cache below the antarctic circle. Alas, that location-based challenge is also prohibited now.

[+Nomex 94]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

I thought the concept for the bi-polar challenge was brilliant: Find one cache above the arctic circle, and one cache below the antarctic circle. Alas, that location-based challenge is also prohibited now.

Just a clarification, the concept was not prohibited. The CO was unable to find enough local cachers that had already completed it (e.g. local = the entire State) 

[+niraD 3308]

1 hour ago, Nomex said:

2 hours ago, niraD said:

I thought the concept for the bi-polar challenge was brilliant: Find one cache above the arctic circle, and one cache below the antarctic circle. Alas, that location-based challenge is also prohibited now.

Just a clarification, the concept was not prohibited. The CO was unable to find enough local cachers that had already completed it (e.g. local = the entire State) 

My mistake. I was under the impression that it violated the current prohibition on "Challenges based on geographic areas other than countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent). For example, user-defined mapping polygons, latitude/longitude, radius, etc."

For a challenge like this, I wonder whether it would make sense to count local cachers who were one cache away from completing the challenge. That is, to count local cachers who had a cache above the arctic circle, or a cache below the antarctic circle, and therefore needed only one more cache for the other half of the challenge.

And for the record, I have no expectation that I would ever be able to complete this challenge myself. I just think it's the kind of simple, clear location-based challenge that should be created.

[+M 5 8]

3 hours ago, Nomex said:

Just a clarification, the concept was not prohibited. The CO was unable to find enough local cachers that had already completed it (e.g. local = the entire State) 

The rules don't say that ANY local cachers have to have completed it, except for the CO themselves. This made up rule by some reviewers is one of my many issues with the new version of challenge caches. In the sections I copied and pasted below. One section says "attainable" and the other says "obtainable" Nowhere does it say that they have to have already completed it.

 

 

• A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify.                     
• AND ALSO

• 2.14. Challenge cache subjectivity

  Challenge caches are sometimes difficult to review for publication due to the subjectivity involved. Meaning, one person’s opinion can differ from another’s, which can cause issues in the review process. One of the major goals of the 2016 guideline update for challenge caches was to reduce some of that subjectivity. However, we can’t completely remove subjectivity from the process. For example:

  “A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers. Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify.”

  This guideline aims to ensure that a challenge cache is obtainable by a reasonable number of players. If only a few people can find and log a challenge cache, then it’s almost like a private cache. (And private caches aren’t permitted on the website.)  The “reasonable number” of cachers must reside in the area where your cache is placed.

[+Nomex 94]

2 hours ago, niraD said:

My mistake. I was under the impression that it violated the current prohibition on "Challenges based on geographic areas other than countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent). For example, user-defined mapping polygons, latitude/longitude, radius, etc."

For a challenge like this, I wonder whether it would make sense to count local cachers who were one cache away from completing the challenge. That is, to count local cachers who had a cache above the arctic circle, or a cache below the antarctic circle, and therefore needed only one more cache for the other half of the challenge.

And for the record, I have no expectation that I would ever be able to complete this challenge myself. I just think it's the kind of simple, clear location-based challenge that should be created.

You are correct niraD.  The first iteration of the Listing was rejected based on the latitude/longitude restriction.   The CO adjusted the Listing on the second go round of the submission so that the latitude restriction was removed, and replaced with (I believe) a variety of geographic and political boundaries which was approved at the time. If memory serves me correctly, the CO was only able to come up with 7 cachers that passed the Checker.  Maybe 3-4 of those were "local" (+/-  400 miles or so).

Contrary to M 5's assertion, I did not "make up" this "rule".  It predates the prohibition by several years.  Seriously, if you can't find 10 cachers in a State of almost 40 million citizens, that sounds like the definition of a "Private Cache" to me.

[+Mudfrog 590]

Quote

Seriously, if you can't find 10 cachers in a State of almost 40 million citizens, that sounds like the definition of a "Private Cache" to me.

I've never heard that terminology used to describe a tough cache. I have to ask, why does it matter if only one out of a billion cachers in the world can meet the challenge? If the cache owner doesn't mind his cache being lonely, then why should anyone else? A CO should be able to make his cache as challenging as he sees fit.

[+Isonzo Karst 937]

11 hours ago, M 5 said:

Your reviewer may ask for a list of cachers from your area who qualify.”

I'm lost here, M 5 writes, "made up rule by some reviewers", while directly quoting the language (GeocachingHQ's language) of the rule? ....area cachers who qualify....

 

[+arisoft 824]

11 hours ago, Nomex said:

Contrary to M 5's assertion, I did not "make up" this "rule".  It predates the prohibition by several years.  Seriously, if you can't find 10 cachers in a State of almost 40 million citizens, that sounds like the definition of a "Private Cache" to me.

This is just totally wrong. At first it is not based on guidelines. I am sure that there were enough time to consider this "rule" while moratorium, but not a word can be found from guidelines that someone else than the CO should be qualified before publishing. And secondary, you can not validate the appealing nor attainability from numbers of qualified playerd before they did not even know about the challenge.

One reason for moratorium was increasing number of similar copycat challenges. Current interpretation to publish only already qualified challenges has lead back to increasing  number of copycat challenges. My opinion is that number of qualified players only do not indicate anything about appealing. There must be better means for that.

[+M 5 8]

3 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

I'm lost here, M 5 writes, "made up rule by some reviewers", while directly quoting the language (GeocachingHQ's language) of the rule? ....area cachers who qualify....

 

OK.......? Now show me where it in the guidelines it says the number of cachers that have to prequalify. I saw that line. It makes no sense with the rest of the guidelines

[Keystone 3458]

The guideline provision supporting a reviewer asking for a list of area cachers who qualify has already been quoted in a prior post by M 5.

The topic of this thread is challenge cache ideas that people like, but which can't be published.  The tangent about the guideline provision has been answered, and is ended.  Let's get back on topic, thanks.

[+niraD 3308]

15 hours ago, Nomex said:

The first iteration of the Listing was rejected based on the latitude/longitude restriction.   The CO adjusted the Listing on the second go round of the submission so that the latitude restriction was removed, and replaced with (I believe) a variety of geographic and political boundaries which was approved at the time.

That is unfortunate. The original design using the arctic and antarctic circles is clean and elegant. The workaround using geographic/political boundaries seems clunky in comparison.

[+JL_HSTRE 583]

On 2/23/2018 at 5:22 PM, Cacheism 500 said:

   I wanted to do one where you have to first find two trads within 60 seconds of one another on foot and upload 'proof.' (161 metres minimum distance, achievable if you leg it!) 

This seems exactly the kind of thing that the Challenge Cache Guidelines are not only intended to prevent, but should prevent.

How could this even be satisfactorily proven? It seems like something from a brainstorming session on how to make a convoluted Challenge.

[+JL_HSTRE 583]

On 2/23/2018 at 5:22 PM, Cacheism 500 said:

Anyone else had any good but unpublishable ideas? 

Parks-related challenges are no longer allowed. I own an older one requiring Finds on at least 1 cache in 50 out of Florida 170 state parks, nearly all of which have at least one active cache. Only 23 qualifying Finds in 4 years. I also considered but never created a challenge requiring a certain number of finds within a single county's county & municipal parks.

Challenges requiring N Finds at historical markers. Or forts, lighthouses, statues, etc. I can certainly see that potentially turning into a race to the bottom (find 50 caches in fast food parking lots!).

Delorme challenges are no more I'm pretty sure. While there is some overlap with county challenges, Delorme tends to be more difficult, especially on less rectangular states and/or states with large counties.

[+Isonzo Karst 937]

The Lonely Cache Challenge (in some areas, Resuscitation) - typically find of a cache that hasn't been found in a year, sometimes more. Or sometimes less - as 4 finds of caches that haven't been found in 6 months, for instance (more suited to large urban areas). 

This one gets messy , example: cache unfound a year, on one day  5 cachers in two different groups find it - group 1 signs at noon, and group 2, not knowing about group 1, signs at 2pm - did they all find a lonely cache? did only  members of group 1, maybe one 1 member of group 1? . Not all areas have enough caches to support this.

A project gc checker can't be written for this,  so no Lonely challenges. 

The people that this appeals to tend to do it with or without challenge log to sign. But that's true of a lot of caching goals.

[+baer2006 792]

34 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

The Lonely Cache Challenge (in some areas, Resuscitation) - typically find of a cache that hasn't been found in a year, sometimes more. Or sometimes less - as 4 finds of caches that haven't been found in 6 months, for instance (more suited to large urban areas). 

This one gets messy , example: cache unfound a year, on one day  5 cachers in two different groups find it - group 1 signs at noon, and group 2, not knowing about group 1, signs at 2pm - did they all find a lonely cache? did only  members of group 1, maybe one 1 member of group 1? . Not all areas have enough caches to support this.

In my view, all in group one fulfill the challenge. But when group 2 opens the logbook to sign, they know that they have been beaten by 2 hours. So "no goal" for group 2 ... which would almost certainly a big show stopper for the day .

34 minutes ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Not all areas have enough caches to support this.

Which is exactly the reason why I was never a fan of Lonely Cache Challenges. It can quickly degenerate into a competition, just like "FTF races".

[+JL_HSTRE 583]

1 hour ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Not all areas have enough caches to support this.

Florida's Lonely Caches are scattered pretty good around the state and represent about 2% of active caches. Given the geographic distribution I would think that was fairly typical.

Edited February 26, 2018 by JL_HSTRE

[+JL_HSTRE 583]

40 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Which is exactly the reason why I was never a fan of Lonely Cache Challenges. It can quickly degenerate into a competition, just like "FTF races".

Everything can degenerate into a competition.

If there was no FTF craze/incentive new caches would still be found simply because they are new.

Lonely caches challenges encourage people to seek caches that would otherwise go unfound. However, it can encourage throwdowns to replace a long unfound cache that should probably be archived rather than replaced. The people leaving a throwdown for a lonely cache are going to leave them for non-lonely caches too though.

[+J Grouchy 742]

On 2/24/2018 at 0:23 PM, dprovan said:

My favorite challenge is still the one that challenged me to go an entire month and only find a single cache. I understand why GS decided to forbid anything like that (long before the complete overhaul), but it struck me as perfect, a true challenge. I was definitely itching to get back to caching by the last week of my month off, so I really felt like I accomplished something when I could claim that one.

At least two big problems with something like that.  The obvious, that it requires you NOT to log other caches...but also the fact that it's super easy to cheat on, meaning you could easily keep going out and finding caches and just wait to log them until your month is up.  Maybe the challenge is finding people who would actually be honest about it...?

[+NYPaddleCacher 1832]

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

3 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Not all areas have enough caches to support this.

Florida's Lonely Caches are scattered pretty good around the state and represent about 2% of active caches. Given the geographic distribution I would think that was fairly typical.

Think globally.  In terms of the number of geocaches, Florida has the 3rd most number of caches by state in the country which has the most geocaches.  Project-gc indicates that there are 43,029 geocaches in the state.  Of the 254 "official" countries in which there is at least 1 geocache, only 12 of them have more than Florida in the entire country.   Only 30 countries have more caches than can be found within 30 miles of Tampa.  Florida is not typical.  

[+dprovan 1565]

2 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

On 2/24/2018 at 9:23 AM, dprovan said:

My favorite challenge is still the one that challenged me to go an entire month and only find a single cache. I understand why GS decided to forbid anything like that (long before the complete overhaul), but it struck me as perfect, a true challenge. I was definitely itching to get back to caching by the last week of my month off, so I really felt like I accomplished something when I could claim that one.

At least two big problems with something like that.  The obvious, that it requires you NOT to log other caches...but also the fact that it's super easy to cheat on, meaning you could easily keep going out and finding caches and just wait to log them until your month is up.  Maybe the challenge is finding people who would actually be honest about it...?

Yes, as I said, I understand why GS will flat out reject any challenge that in any way requires someone to not geocache. After all, that's contrary to their interests no matter how interesting it might be to the person it would challenge. To me, though, it was a great thing to be challenged to do, even more interesting than being challenged to the opposite: finding at least one cache every day for a month.

As to cheating, that's the part of the whole challenge cache discussion I've never understood. I can only just barely imagine someone being so pathetic that they'd need to lie in order to claim a find, but I can't even imagine anyone being upset about someone else lying to claim a challenge. If I even noticed, all I'd feel is pity. But that kind of thing never happens around here, except maybe by newbies that no one's paying attention to.

[+J Grouchy 742]

18 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I can't even imagine anyone being upset about someone else lying to claim a challenge. If I even noticed, all I'd feel is pity. But that kind of thing never happens around here, except maybe by newbies that no one's paying attention to.

Well, it's like this:  if I went to the trouble of setting up a specific task or challenge with a specific set of rules or requirements, then I can see being at least a little disappointed if people find ways around performing the tasks or fulfilling the challenge as intended.  I can't say whether I would get to full-blown "upset", but the entire point of setting something like that up is to have folks achieve it in a certain way or, at the very least, achieve it honestly. 

[+rosebud55112 25]

I’ve got a couple of examples of Challenge caches that I discussed with my reviewers and had declined.  Although I was a little upset at the times, I’m now thankful that the reviewers spared me from the record-keeping that would have been required on my part.

1.  The New Year’s Resolution Challenge-Find this cache and log it (make the resolution), then find and log a cache for each of the following 31 days (complete the resolution).  My original idea required the finder to actually log finds on each of the following 31 days- and I thought I’d follow along and make sure that the actual posting dates matched the find dates and extended for the 31 consecutive days afterward.  Now I look back and imagine what a nightmare that would be to have to follow up on that, and remove finds if someone missed a day.

2. The Lottery Challenge- Find a cache with posted coordinates after the decimal point matched the daily Lottery numbers.  Minnesota (and a lot of other states) had (has?) a daily lottery where three numbers, each in the range of 0-9, were picked.  So if the 2/26/18 winning numbers were 4-5-4, then if you found a cache at N XX XX.XXX W XX XX.454 today, you would qualify.  Another one that would be a pain for me to verify, as well as some logistics issues for cachers.

Both of these were proposed many years ago, I think even before the changes that took place in early 2013.  I’m very glad that my local reviewers convinced me I didn’t really want to do these.

Edited February 26, 2018 by rosebud55112

[+Harry Dolphin 1168]

10 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

The Lonely Cache Challenge (in some areas, Resuscitation) - typically find of a cache that hasn't been found in a year, sometimes more. Or sometimes less - as 4 finds of caches that haven't been found in 6 months, for instance (more suited to large urban areas). 

This one gets messy , example: cache unfound a year, on one day  5 cachers in two different groups find it - group 1 signs at noon, and group 2, not knowing about group 1, signs at 2pm - did they all find a lonely cache? did only  members of group 1, maybe one 1 member of group 1? . Not all areas have enough caches to support this.

A project gc checker can't be written for this,  so no Lonely challenges. 

The people that this appeals to tend to do it with or without challenge log to sign. But that's true of a lot of caching goals.

Sad that new challenges of this sort cannot be published.  Oh, well.  I have logged one or two.  But, as you say, some of us love Blue Caches!  Since I started keeping a list of Blue Cache finds, I am up to 68.  Some of them not found in four years!  And many of them have become blue since my find!  I guess some of us like hiking to geocaches.  On the other fin, someone just removed a number of my caches from the blue list!

[+dprovan 1565]

6 hours ago, J Grouchy said:

Well, it's like this:  if I went to the trouble of setting up a specific task or challenge with a specific set of rules or requirements, then I can see being at least a little disappointed if people find ways around performing the tasks or fulfilling the challenge as intended.  I can't say whether I would get to full-blown "upset", but the entire point of setting something like that up is to have folks achieve it in a certain way or, at the very least, achieve it honestly. 

I can see disappointment, but only disappointment that the seeker failed. I'd just feel sorry for them if they also lied about failing, but I'd fully expect some people not to be able to meet the requirements just like some people wouldn't be able to climb a tree if I put up a tree hide.

But by "upset", I mean the experience either as the CO or as another finder is diminished by someone lying about achieving a challenge. As the CO, I still made a good challenge. As a seeker, I still achieved or am working on the challenge. In any case, those accomplishments are no less significant because someone claimed a find when they don't deserve it. The closest I can see to upset is the CO getting exasperated by how often he has to delete bogus logs, but that's a problem for any kind of cache.

[+MartyBartfast 798]

9 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

Sad that new challenges of this sort cannot be published.  Oh, well.  I have logged one or two.  But, as you say, some of us love Blue Caches!  Since I started keeping a list of Blue Cache finds, I am up to 68.  Some of them not found in four years!  And many of them have become blue since my find!  I guess some of us like hiking to geocaches.  On the other fin, someone just removed a number of my caches from the blue list!

 

https://coord.info/GC6K641  is a variation on that theme, published after the moratorium. It's not about finding a cache which hasn't been found for a year, but finding 12  caches whose average time between finds is more than 100 days. 

[+JL_HSTRE 583]

19 hours ago, dprovan said:

I can't even imagine anyone being upset about someone else lying to claim a challenge.

Dishonesty should not be tolerated or condoned. Nobody who cheats at geocaching only cheats at geocaching.

[+baer2006 792]

2 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Dishonesty should not be tolerated or condoned. Nobody who cheats at geocaching only cheats at geocaching.

Probably everybody cheats at something, and geocaching is way down on a list ordered by severity or importance. People cheating (and being proud of it!) on things like, say, highway speeding or tax evasion - that's a problem. Anyway, that's hopelessly off-topic here - sorry.

[+dprovan 1565]

9 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Dishonesty should not be tolerated or condoned. Nobody who cheats at geocaching only cheats at geocaching.

What a cute thing to say. It's hard for me to imagine what it must be like to hang around someone that gets upset about every white lie he hears and wants to punish anyone that tells a white lie on spec.

[+dprovan 1565]

12 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

https://coord.info/GC6K641  is a variation on that theme, published after the moratorium. It's not about finding a cache which hasn't been found for a year, but finding 12  caches whose average time between finds is more than 100 days. 

Hey, cool idea. It's nothing like a lonely cache challenge, but it does emphasize the same kinds of caches. But I don't think many of the lonely caches I've found would qualify, since I think most of my lonely caches were found many times when they were first published, but they're lonely because all the locals have all found them long before I got there.

[+Harry Dolphin 1168]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

Hey, cool idea. It's nothing like a lonely cache challenge, but it does emphasize the same kinds of caches. But I don't think many of the lonely caches I've found would qualify, since I think most of my lonely caches were found many times when they were first published, but they're lonely because all the locals have all found them long before I got there.

Ran the checker.  I have 139 cache finds that qualify.   

[+K13 1038]

I ran the checker. 4 of my qualifiers are 100.xxx days. One is exactly 100 days.

This challenge would encourage solo caching, over going as a group. If there were a group of us caching, those 5 finds would only count if I was the first of the group to log the find and run the checker.

[+bflentje 430]

On 2/24/2018 at 3:13 PM, Nomex said:

Just a clarification, the concept was not prohibited. The CO was unable to find enough local cachers that had already completed it (e.g. local = the entire State) 

Too bad. It sounds challenging to me.

[+WarNinjas 49]

3 hours ago, bflentje said:

Too bad. It sounds challenging to me.

Nomex is a awesome reviewer.  If he can publish it he will.  This came up with a challenge I made up years ago.  I was able to come up with cachers who could complete it and he published it.  Other times he can't.  He has always been fair and helpful to get my caches published.

One time I was struggling with a Wherigo. I kept getting blocked by puzzle finals. I must have messaged him 20 times.  He was always nice and responded quickly.  I am sure it had to be annoying but he never let on and soon had my cache published!

[+arisoft 824]

3 hours ago, WarNinjas said:

Nomex is a awesome reviewer.  If he can publish it he will.  This came up with a challenge I made up years ago.  I was able to come up with cachers who could complete it and he published it.  Other times he can't.  He has always been fair and helpful to get my caches published.

This kind of concept I would like to see more widely. Let the geocachers decide what is appealing to them. Instead of requiring arbitrary number of already qualified geocachers you could require arbitrary number of geocachers who support the idea.

[+redsox_mark 168]

On 2/27/2018 at 8:05 AM, MartyBartfast said:

 

https://coord.info/GC6K641  is a variation on that theme, published after the moratorium. It's not about finding a cache which hasn't been found for a year, but finding 12  caches whose average time between finds is more than 100 days. 

That one is interesting, as you could qualify at some point, then later no longer qualify if some of the caches get more finds close together, dropping their average.   I can't think of  many challenges like that, where the actions of others can remove your qualification once you have already obtained it.. but I'm sure there are others.   It's one where you might want to write note showing your qualification if you can't attempt to find the cache right away. 

I've got over 50 so I am probably safe. 

[+AnnaMoritz 70]

1 hour ago, redsox_mark said:

That one is interesting, as you could qualify at some point, then later no longer qualify if some of the caches get more finds close together, dropping their average.   I can't think of  many challenges like that, where the actions of others can remove your qualification once you have already obtained it.. but I'm sure there are others.   It's one where you might want to write note showing your qualification if you can't attempt to find the cache right away. 

If you don't habe plenty qualifying caches you can easily no longer qualify for certain challenges due to changes after you found a cache

D

T

size

cache type (with help of reviewer) 

coordinates moved (resulting in another degree for 360° challenges, another county/state, different elevation)

hidden date

country/state (there was a sweep done once for caches with "wrong" states when state field was filled for all caches)

counties are merged or divided or with new boundaries

cache gets retracted

cache names get altered

attributes change ..

For Jasmer you quickly no longer qualify if you don't have found a cache placed in current month

To me "the challenge cache may be logged as found online only after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented" is somewhat vague, in combination with "the owner can confirm the finder's qualification with the checker when the cache is logged as found. No further documentation is required from the finder." to me it suggests the qualification must be met (having signed the logbook) AT the time of logging a find online. Otherwise the challenge owner can't confirm whether the challenge criteria is met. Also if someone logs a find months/years later it is difficult to prove the challenge criteria was met back then, challenge checkers can only show what is now.

 

[+redsox_mark 168]

20 minutes ago, AnnaMoritz said:

If you don't habe plenty qualifying caches you can easily no longer qualify for certain challenges due to changes after you found a cache

Thanks, you are right, there are lots of things which can change.    Though most of those things don't change very much.   With this specific Lonely Cache challenge,  it can change just by cachers finding some of the caches on my list.    It just struck me as unusual in that regard.

[+The A-Team 1861]

On ‎3‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 3:35 AM, AnnaMoritz said:

To me "the challenge cache may be logged as found online only after the log is signed and the challenge tasks have been met and documented" is somewhat vague, in combination with "the owner can confirm the finder's qualification with the checker when the cache is logged as found. No further documentation is required from the finder." to me it suggests the qualification must be met (having signed the logbook) AT the time of logging a find online. Otherwise the challenge owner can't confirm whether the challenge criteria is met. Also if someone logs a find months/years later it is difficult to prove the challenge criteria was met back then, challenge checkers can only show what is now.

I'm not quite sure what exactly it is that you find vague. The wording is actually very clear in this case. There are two criteria for logging a challenge cache as a find online:

1. Sign the physical logbook
2. Meet the challenge's requirements

Once both of these have been met, you can log it as a find online. If either of these hasn't been met, it shouldn't be logged as a find. At the time that the find is logged, that's when the owner will confirm that both criteria have been met. It doesn't matter if someone met the requirements years earlier; if they don't meet the requirements at the time they logged the find, then their find isn't considered valid.

[+STNolan 196]

On 2/26/2018 at 7:06 AM, Isonzo Karst said:

The Lonely Cache Challenge (in some areas, Resuscitation) - typically find of a cache that hasn't been found in a year, sometimes more. Or sometimes less - as 4 finds of caches that haven't been found in 6 months, for instance (more suited to large urban areas). 

This one gets messy , example: cache unfound a year, on one day  5 cachers in two different groups find it - group 1 signs at noon, and group 2, not knowing about group 1, signs at 2pm - did they all find a lonely cache? did only  members of group 1, maybe one 1 member of group 1? . Not all areas have enough caches to support this.

A project gc checker can't be written for this,  so no Lonely challenges. 

The people that this appeals to tend to do it with or without challenge log to sign. But that's true of a lot of caching goals.

 

I'm curious - now that (two years later) project-gc has produced a Checker that works on lonely challenge caches would they still be prohibited?

I understand there may still be some issues surrounding the "multiple finds on the same day" issue, but based on the criterion found in the guidelines for challenge caches, I don't see anything that would specifically prohibit lonely caches... or am I wrong on that front?

 

On 2/24/2018 at 3:12 PM, niraD said:

I thought the concept for the bi-polar challenge was brilliant: Find one cache above the arctic circle, and one cache below the Antarctic circle. Alas, that location-based challenge is also prohibited now.

Sadly I also attempted to create this challenge (I had divvied it up into 3 separate caches - South of the Antarctic, North of the Arctic and Both) in the pre-moratorium era (around 2014) but was denied due to the "low likelihood that anyone would be able to qualify for the caches" or something of that nature. Sad but I've since moved on. 

 

 

 

My apologies for dredging up a two-year old thread, but given recent developments in Project-GC Checkers I was hoping someone might be able to answer the "why" since the previous rationale always seemed to be based on "because you can't design a checker for it."

[+niraD 3308]

58 minutes ago, STNolan said:

I understand there may still be some issues surrounding the "multiple finds on the same day" issue, but based on the criterion found in the guidelines for challenge caches, I don't see anything that would specifically prohibit lonely caches... or am I wrong on that front?

I didn't think that the lack of a checker was the issue. I thought the race/competition between geocachers was the issue.

[Keystone 3458]

7 minutes ago, niraD said:

I didn't think that the lack of a checker was the issue. I thought the race/competition between geocachers was the issue.

 

That's correct.  For this reason, "Lonely Cache Challenges" still are not being published.  Even if there is no outrigh "competition," qualifying is dependent on the action (or inaction) of other geocachers.

 

In contrast, the recent introduction of the new "Challenge Cache" attribute meant that challenge caches based on that attribute CAN now once again be published.  Before this change, a checker could only check against the cache name for the word "Challenge," which isn't allowed.

 

My player account hid Challenge Cache Challenges immediately after this. 

[+barefootjeff 3838]

37 minutes ago, Keystone said:

 

That's correct.  For this reason, "Lonely Cache Challenges" still are not being published.  Even if there is no outrigh "competition," qualifying is dependent on the action (or inaction) of other geocachers.

 

In contrast, the recent introduction of the new "Challenge Cache" attribute meant that challenge caches based on that attribute CAN now once again be published.  Before this change, a checker could only check against the cache name for the word "Challenge," which isn't allowed.

 

My player account hid Challenge Cache Challenges immediately after this. 

 

I'm curious, then, because there's a mystery cache with Challenge in the title and a Project-GC challenge checker requiring finds on five caches that have been unfound for 365+ days. It was published today but it doesn't have the Challenge Cache attribute (or any attributes at all for that matter).

So is it a challenge cache or just a mystery with an unenforcable ALR?

Edited November 6, 2020 by barefootjeff

[+humboldt flier 76]

On 2/23/2018 at 2:27 PM, niraD said:

Yepper time to sit back and watch the fur fly.