Challenge Cache conundrum

[+barefootjeff]

When sussing out a possible location for a new cache that offers stunning views and natural features at the end of a fairly tough T4 hike, I got the idea of working in the physical challenges it presents into a Challenge Cache, with a set of "qualities" the seeker must demonstrate through their finds to qualify. This is what I've come up with so far:

 

 

What bothers me is that this might be overly complicated, as all the other post-moratorium challenges I've looked at just have a single criterion for their qualification. The numbers I've set for each of the attributes reflect the relative availability of caches with those attributes in the local area (Significant Hike attribute caches are much rarer than Scenic View ones), while at the same time striking a balance between those in the community who already qualify and those who are within reasonable striking distance. The challenge cache Help Centre page says:

 

• The challenge requirements should be simple, and easy to explain, follow and document. A long list of rules or restrictions may prevent publication.

 

so I'm really not sure whether this would be considered "simple and easy to explain, follow and document" or "a long list of rules or restrictions". Any thoughts?

[+usyoopers]

I'm kinda hoping you are kidding.....

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

What bothers me is that this might be overly complicated, as all the other post-moratorium challenges I've looked at just have a single criterion for their qualification.

 

Some simple requirements that are easy to explain and understand should not be a problem. There is no strickt numbers of how many requirements you may list. It depends how complicate each of them are to explain.

[+thebruce0]

I have no problem with the challenge, I've always been up for this type. But, I think it could be seen as borderline bookkeeping. Mainly because the amounts are different, so you have multiple qualifiers to track.

For example, as opposed to "Have 100 finds with both the Significant Hike and Difficult Climbing attributes."

Mixing in a specific terrain rating as a qualifier will also probably take it a step farther from being published.

 

I'd recommend your best action, because it could be quite regionally applicable, would be to ask your local reviewer if it's allowed, or what change you could make to have the concept approved (what sort of challenge would be allowed that can emphasize nemophilism?)

It may well be publishable; I wouldn't be surprised if others exist out there. Alas, no precedent is a downer if the reviewer denies it of course.

Edited September 18, 2019 by thebruce0

[+icezebra11]

I would think this will (and IMO, should) be an acceptable challenge cache.  Each of the five requirements are independent, simple statistics which are easily verifiable with Project-GC.  If you are able to show there are a reasonable number of cachers in your area that qualify, I would hope your reviewer would publish it.  (I really dislike this "newish" requirement.)

 

BTW, I qualify so please place the cache here in Colorado so I have a chance to make the hike, enjoy the view, sign the log, and get the smilie.   And I'll volunteer to maintain it for you! ?

[+The Leprechauns]

I like this challenge idea a lot (perhaps because I easily qualify for it)!  The conditions are logically related to a central theme.  You would run afoul of the "overly complicated" guideline if you insisted that all of the caches must have been hidden on an odd numbered calendar date, in a month that doesn't end in "R," and only in states that have the word "South" in their name.

[+dprovan]

It looks fine to me. My only reaction is that any one of those requirements would make a good challenge cache, so putting them all together seems like overkill. If I knew you better, I'd try to talk you into doing 5 different wonderful challenge caches about those attributes instead of just the one. But if you're going to do just the one, and you really think the final location is good enough for that challenge, I think it sounds great. I doubt I'd satisfy the requirements, but I might be closer if I lived in your neck of the woods.

[+schmittfamily]

Having a challenge cache that specifically requires you to find caches with "Hazard" attributes seems weird to me.

I would suggest staying in the "Conditions" category. 

IE -  "difficult climbing" instead of "falling rocks" and "watch for livestock" instead of "dangerous animals".   

 

(BTW - I am guessing you meant "4 terrain or higher" rather than just "4 terrain")

 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by schmittfamily

[+Max and 99]

I think it's a great idea for a Challenge cache! Just one comment: it's a shame that 4 T counts, but not harder 5 T caches.

[+on4bam]

Like it but it seems very hard for visitors/tourists. I just have 18 "dangerous animals" attribute finds, half of them in OZ and the ones in Belgium seem "strange" to say the least as we don't have really dangerous animals (angry dogs , ticks not counted). Same goes for "falling rocks", half of them in Oz and NZ.

 

[+thebruce0]

I like region-locked challenges (qualify within a county/state/country).  Those certainly aren't disallowed though they're easy for visitors/travelers. On one hand it encourages "tourism" (heh), on the other hand it gives locals more reason to get out locally.  Presuming the challenge can be qualified in said region

 

It can give a fresh challenge to common themes too. Fizzy grid? No problem. Fizzy only in your own county?  That's a different story... (assuming of course sufficient caches of all 81 DTs are available)

[+frostengel]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

so I'm really not sure whether this would be considered "simple and easy to explain, follow and document"

 

Long story short: I think this is abolutely simple to understand. Go on! :-)

[+thebruce0]

1 minute ago, frostengel said:

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

so I'm really not sure whether this would be considered "simple and easy to explain, follow and document"

 

Long story short: I think this is abolutely simple to understand. Go on! :-)

 

Funnily enough, I used that same argument close to when the moratorium was lifted, when getting used to the new rules. Especially now that the checker will do all the work for you. But that didn't satisfy the 'bookkeeping' aspect which is more about determining what to find that leads towards qualification. How much 'bookkeeping' does one need to do in order to find and keep track of qualified aspects?  In my experience, that's a judgment made by the reviewer, and we have the option to make a defense.

In this particular case, I think the qualifications aren't "simple"  but definitely not "complicated". And remember that reviewers tend to judge in favour of the lowest common denomator, status quo and such. No matter how mnuch I defended my idea as simple, the reviewer couldn't be convinced.

 

Anyway, point, in this case, it'll probably be heavily dependent on the reviewer's judgment, despite us here thinking it's easy

[+on4bam]

People who think this is complicated should just keep to P&G's

Even without a checker it's no problem to see if you qualify. Making a cache like this a challenge at least gives people something more than a plain traditional and have them put some effort into the hobby. No need to offer everything on a silver platter.

 

[+thebruce0]

Totally agreed.

But often my opinions have not been shared by reviewers   Just sayin'. We can often pile on in agreement in the forum, and still be in contradiction to a reviewer's judgment. So I'd still say - ask your reviewer.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

I think it's a great idea for a Challenge cache! Just one comment: it's a shame that 4 T counts, but not harder 5 T caches.

FWIW, my experience is that T4 caches are harder than T5 caches (assuming that you have the special equipment that triggers the T5 rating).

[+arisoft]

18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Just sayin'. We can often pile on in agreement in the forum, and still be in contradiction to a reviewer's judgment. So I'd still say - ask your reviewer.

 

What comes to challenges not even reviewers share the same opinion. One may pass the plan and another denies.

[+niraD]

30 minutes ago, arisoft said:

What comes to challenges not even reviewers share the same opinion. One may pass the plan and another denies.

And while some of that comes down to differences between volunteer reviewers, some of it comes down to regional differences.

 

Also, some volunteer reviewers are dogs.

[+thebruce0]

33 minutes ago, niraD said:

1 hour ago, Max and 99 said:

I think it's a great idea for a Challenge cache! Just one comment: it's a shame that 4 T counts, but not harder 5 T caches.

FWIW, my experience is that T4 caches are harder than T5 caches (assuming that you have the special equipment that triggers the T5 rating).

 

Yeah.  For the purposes of this challenge's theme, I might leave out T5 (could be much easier just by finding those questionably difficult equipment-T5 caches), but make the challenge T4 or 4.5

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I think it's a great idea for a Challenge cache! Just one comment: it's a shame that 4 T counts, but not harder 5 T caches.

 

I think I understand your original thinking.    Similar to lugging rope bags with all the "JIC..." stuff and need to use most. 

 - But I can take a kayak across a small pond for a 5T...      

A 4 or 4.5T on the other hand,  means I'm probably busting my can a bit.  

[+cerberus1]

I have to admit, this is probably the only "challenge" I've heard mention of that I'd look forward to doing.   

 - The final being a "4T with a view" the draw for something I'd do anyway.   Multiple requirements on one cache almost a given.

But patches, gum, and medication needed just for the trip there.  

 

We got burned by a few COs for other hides now.   Take months to complete, and find a pill bottle in a parking lot.  Anticlimactic...

 - So I'd like to see it clear the final jives with the challenge. 

[+coachstahly]

I like this idea but as Bruce mentions, run it past your reviewer.  What we think is really irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.  That being said, I like this idea.

 

As to the individual parts and the challenge in its entirety, I'd be interested to see if I qualified.  I have the 4 T covered.  

 

Without access to GSAK, I don't know if I meet the other qualifiers.  I'd be shocked if I met the falling rocks/cliffs as I live in a mostly flat state.  I've been fortunate enough to travel to places with places like that but have no idea if I'd meet that one.  

 

Indiana also doesn't have much in the way of dangerous animals, unless you count the occasional trash panda or squirrel being rabid.  We also have the brown recluse spider but I'm not really sure it would be classified as a dangerous animal.  Same goes for ticks.  We've got lots of mosquitoes that carry some viruses as well.  Farther south we have the occasional poisonous snake and, even rarer, the bear or mountain lion that makes an appearance in our southern state forests and parks.  Do leeches count?

 

I think I'd be short on the endurance one as well, as I've done quite a bit of hiking but not many caches that are isolated enough to be listed as significant in nature.

 

Again, Indiana is relatively flat, particularly where I live, so our scenic views are typically limited to corn fields or soybean fields on the horizon, with a beautiful sunset.  There are a few places I've been to that would meet this one but I have no idea if I've found enough caches with that attribute.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

In my area, it is rare that we see a challenge cache where the requirements are related to the cache itself. While it's not to be found in the challenge cache guidelines, I would hope that the reviewer would give you style points. You have a cache with a set of requirements that highlight just what it will take to get to this cache. The overly complicated decision is a subjective one, unless the reviewers have been given specific instructions that we are unaware off. If it is a subjective decision, the fact that your requirements are directly related to the cache should be a point in your favor.

 

Reminds me of my time in Boy Scouts. In order to go on the annual 50 mile backpack trip, you had to have done at least two of the four 20 mile preparatory hikes.  

 

[+barefootjeff]

Thanks everyone for your feedback. Yes, I will run it past my reviewer in the coming days.

 

7 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I think it's a great idea for a Challenge cache! Just one comment: it's a shame that 4 T counts, but not harder 5 T caches.

 

I thought about making it T4 or higher, but this area has lots of waterways so most of the T5s are kayak caches which are irrelevant to the nature of this particular challenge cache, and many of the T4.5s are "easy T5s" (a paddle of just a couple of hundred metres) rather than "hard T4s". Looking at my own 13 T4.5 finds, 8 of those were in the hard T4 camp while the other 5, most of which are in the local waterways around here, are easy T5s. There are 75 T4s within 50km of my proposed cache and 194 within 100km so there are plenty of those to choose from to make up the number.

 

7 hours ago, schmittfamily said:

Having a challenge cache that specifically requires you to find caches with "Hazard" attributes seems weird to me.

I would suggest staying in the "Conditions" category. 

IE -  "difficult climbing" instead of "falling rocks" and "watch for livestock" instead of "dangerous animals".

 

I included those hazard ones because those are hazards this particular cache has, and I suppose part of my motivation is to draw attention to these attributes. Around here, the Difficult Climbing attribute is generally only used on mountaineering-style caches that fall just short of needing the Climbing Equipment attribute. This cache doesn't fall into that category - its T4 rating comes from being a long hard slog up a very steep hill and some rock-hopping around the top. Likewise with Watch for Livestock, around here livestock is only generally found on farms which are private property where there's unlikely to caches. I've only found 9 with that attribute and I suspect some of those were facetious or part of a puzzle.

 

7 hours ago, on4bam said:

Like it but it seems very hard for visitors/tourists. I just have 18 "dangerous animals" attribute finds, half of them in OZ and the ones in Belgium seem "strange" to say the least as we don't have really dangerous animals (angry dogs , ticks not counted). Same goes for "falling rocks", half of them in Oz and NZ.

 

This region doesn't get many tourists other than the occasional day visitor from Sydney or Newcastle (the adjoining regions). I had thought about restricting it to caches within Australia (which I did on my other challenge cache GC752YF) but thought that might be a bit tough on anyone who's done a fair bit of caching across the pond in New Zealand. The Dangerous Animals and Cliffs/Falling Rocks are two of the easier ones to get around here as just about every bushland cache in this region has those attributes. Within 50km of my proposed cache, there are 527 caches with the Dangerous Animals attribute and 256 with the Cliffs/Falling Rocks one.

 

3 hours ago, coachstahly said:

Without access to GSAK, I don't know if I meet the other qualifiers.  I'd be shocked if I met the falling rocks/cliffs as I live in a mostly flat state.  I've been fortunate enough to travel to places with places like that but have no idea if I'd meet that one.

 

If you go to My Profile Stats on Project GC, right down the bottom it shows how many caches you've found with each attribute.

 

[+K13]

In Australia, I'd presume that EVERY cache had the Dangerous Animals attribute!

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

I have to admit, this is probably the only "challenge" I've heard mention of that I'd look forward to doing.   

 - The final being a "4T with a view" the draw for something I'd do anyway.   Multiple requirements on one cache almost a given.

But patches, gum, and medication needed just for the trip there.  

 

This is some of the view from near GZ, looking down over Woy Woy Bay with Broken Bay, Lion Island and the headlands on Sydney's northern beaches in the distance.

 

 

Just below the cliff-tops are a series of enormous wind-eroded honeycombed caves, which is where the container will be placed. The photos I took when I was up there don't do them justice but here's a sample.

 

 

The location is inside Brisbane Water National Park so I'm currently going through the approval process with them. I really wanted something a bit more than just a traditional for this spot, hence the idea for the challenge.

[+colleda]

9 hours ago, dprovan said:

It looks fine to me. My only reaction is that any one of those requirements would make a good challenge cache, so putting them all together seems like overkill. If I knew you better, I'd try to talk you into doing 5 different wonderful challenge caches about those attributes instead of just the one. But if you're going to do just the one, and you really think the final location is good enough for that challenge, I think it sounds great. I doubt I'd satisfy the requirements, but I might be closer if I lived in your neck of the woods.

I like your thinking here. There are plenty of scenic places and wonderful forest areas in Jeff's area to have a cache for each attribute related to the attributes. Now where were those ancient Wollomi Pines found , Jeff?

[+VAVAPAM]

This. Sounds. Awesome! 

 

As far as difficulty:  It seems well laid out/organized.  I didn't find it confusing in the least to figure out how to qualify.  The main difficulty I can see is for Basic Members who don't have access to Pocket Queries (how can they find these caches without reading each listing?) ... or those who don't know how to use that tool.  Since proximity is usually my biggest limiting factor, thus the main criterion I use in PQs, I actually had to go look to see if I could create a PQ limited by attribute(s).  Yesss!  Whether this gets published or not (and I sincerely hope it does), I've already learned from it.  (GS might actually appreciate the unintentional highlight of that added PM benefit.  )

 

Something I like about Challenges is the different perspective it can give to caching.  "Caching with a purpose" ...  "caching with a focus" ... sort of.  I would love hunting every one of the caches required to qualify, even if I never get to actually get there and sign that log.  In fact, I'm going to do that anyway.  Downloading the PQs to GSAK now.  Cool!

 

Crossing my fingers for you, BFJ!

Edited September 19, 2019 by VAVAPAM
Thought nemophilist was somebody that like a certain fish in a kids' movie!

[+fizzymagic]

Seems like a great challenge cache to me.  Of course, like Lep, I qualify, so maybe that colors my judgment!

[+K13]

I don't currently qualify and, due to my location, may never, but I love this Challenge.

[+The Jester]

4 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Seems like a great challenge cache to me.  Of course, like Lep, I qualify, so maybe that colors my judgment!

I also qualify, and it wasn't as hard to check that (using GSAK) so my first impression of too much bookkeeping was false.  I do like that the theme and hide are linked.

 

[+barefootjeff]

Thanks everyone. I've just sent an email to my reviewer so it's now wait-and-see.

[+DerDiedler]

I like your chellange! It´s easy to understand, easy to check but not to easy to qulify.

I would qualify if I were not living in central europe where dangerous animals are not realy a thing. The most dangerous creatures in Germany ar Tick´s, and they have a extra attribute

[+NYPaddleCacher]

21 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I think it's a great idea for a Challenge cache! Just one comment: it's a shame that 4 T counts, but not harder 5 T caches.

 

Maybe because 5T caches are often not harder than 4T caches, but just require "special equipment" which might be nothing more than an inflatable pool toy.  

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

I like your chellange! It´s easy to understand, easy to check but not to easy to qulify.

I would qualify if I were not living in central europe where dangerous animals are not realy a thing. The most dangerous creatures in Germany ar Tick´s, and they have a extra attribute

 

Well barefootjeff is in Australia where pretty much every cache would have a dangerous animals attribute

[+on4bam]

We only have found 4 T5 caches. 1 was just a buried box, for one we had to "climb" a steep concrete slope (45°) underneath a bridge, one could be logged from the safety of a tourboat and another (virtual) we could just walk to after a floatplane dropped us off at Fort Jefferson, Dry Tortugas, FL. Real T value would have been T1.5 and T3.5/4 for the one under the bridge.

The T4.5 caches we found most of the time were trees where you could just step up from branch to branch, we never climbed using special equipment.

Some caches have a higher T rating because of the distance (long hike, bike ride). In any case, we avoid climbing but not physical effort although both are given higher T ratings.

 

 

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

The T4.5 caches we found most of the time were trees where you could just step up from branch to branch, we never climbed using special equipment.

 

Yep, part of gauging the T is knowing the CO.  I mean, if it takes the world for a CO to place the cache and rates it a T4, should they be forced to make it a T1.5 because others can do it easily? Probably a good discussion (and I'm sure it's been had elsewhere in forum before, probably enthusiastically :P). But yeah, knowing the CO helps understand what the DT might constitute.  And why caching in a new area can end up pretty frustrating if the local community opinions of DT are out of whack with your own

[+DerDiedler]

17 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Probably a good discussion

This discussion came up yesterday, but unfortunately the thread was closed. I also would like to talk about false or odd ratings.

For reference:

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by DerDiedler

[+coachstahly]

I do qualify but wonder at some of the attributes being so high, based on where I live.  Obviously, without knowing which caches have which attributes, I'd still be very surprised if all 578 dangerous animals caches were in areas with dangerous animals.  The same goes for the over 1100 caches I've found with apparently scenic views.  The fallen rocks/cliffs seems more in line with my expectations with 56.  My significant hikes one also seems a bit high to me (95), considering I've been on lots of long hikes but they've had multiple caches along the way, making the hike significant, but not significant for a single cache to cache visit.  Perhaps they meant that the hike from the parking to that particular cache was significant?  It just doesn't seem that way when you do quite a few along the way, even though it might be upwards of 5 - 8 miles total.

 

15 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

 

 

That looks awesome and would also be a great EC.

Edited September 19, 2019 by coachstahly

[+hzoi]

1 hour ago, DerDiedler said:

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Probably a good discussion

This discussion came up yesterday, but unfortunately the thread was closed. I also would like to talk about false or odd ratings.

For reference:

 

Discussing false ratings in a forum post is absolutely up for discussion, and has been discussed many times.  Without getting into details, that's not all that was happening with that particular discussion, which is why that particular thread was closed.  

[+DerDiedler]

17 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Without getting into details, that's not all that was happening with that particular discussion, which is why that particular thread was closed.  

That´s what I thought. I am not blaming anybody, just saying.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

Discussing false ratings in a forum post is absolutely up for discussion, and has been discussed many times.  Without getting into details, that's not all that was happening with that particular discussion, which is why that particular thread was closed.  

And I don't think it's really on-topic here either. It's time for a new thread if you want to discuss inaccurate difficulty/terrain ratings.

[+barefootjeff]

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Thanks everyone. I've just sent an email to my reviewer so it's now wait-and-see.

 

He came back with "I would first check to see if the required checker code can be written" so I put a request up on the PGC request forum and within 15 minutes had a working checker (it's just a tag for their generic Multiple Test Checker). It still doesn't answer my question about that specific guideline but I suppose the fact that the PGC generic checkers are already geared up to handle this sort of thing ought to mean it shouldn't be considered to be too convoluted. Unless I hear anything more back, I guess I'll just press on with it and see what happens when I submit it - I still have to get through the formal approval process with National Parks which will probably take a couple of months if everything gets the green light.

[+barefootjeff]

14 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

I like your chellange! It´s easy to understand, easy to check but not to easy to qulify.

I would qualify if I were not living in central europe where dangerous animals are not realy a thing. The most dangerous creatures in Germany ar Tick´s, and they have a extra attribute

 

Funny, I always imagined Europe to be teaming with packs of wolves waiting to devour wayward children. A quick search found this so perhaps it's not so much of a problem for cachers these days:

 

Quote

Whilst packs of marauding man-eating wolves are thankfully a thing of the past in Europe it is no coincidence that the big bad wolf is the stuff of fairy tale horror. Between 1362 and 1918, in France alone, there were nearly 7,600 documented cases of people being killed by wolves. In Asia wolves have been responsible for more attacks than other large mammals combined. These figures dropped dramatically over the 20th century but serve to illustrate the potential of these animals to kill.

In present day Europe the biggest risk of attack exists in the Baltic states such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. It seems wolf bites are not uncommon but there are no reports of recent fatalities. Generally wolves seek to avoid human contact and even when this occurs they are usually not confrontational. One exception to this rule are rabid wolves; just the idea of that gives me the fear.

Wolf attacks are also pretty unpleasant by all accounts. They target the weakest, most vulnerable which usually means children, followed by women. Once the prey is brought down the wolves tear open the body cavity and go straight for the internal organs.

 

Even so, it makes our drop bears and bunyips sound pretty tame.

[+The Leprechauns]

My unexpected encounter with a drop bear in Buladelah State Forest was nothing short of terrifying.  It's a memory of my 2016 Australia trip that I'd prefer to erase.  Just your post has triggered me.

 

Back on topic, please follow up once you've finalized an acceptable challenge design.  I may adapt it for use here in Pennsylvania, with the possible addition of the "Hunting Allowed" attribute.

 

Come to think of it, if hunting were allowed on protected lands in New South Wales, perhaps that would solve your drop bear problem, leading to increased tourism and a revival of the caching scene in your home area.

[+fizzymagic]

21 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:

My unexpected encounter with a drop bear in Buladelah State Forest was nothing short of terrifying.  It's a memory of my 2016 Australia trip that I'd prefer to erase.  Just your post has triggered me.

 

Are you 100% sure it wasn't a drop hamster?

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I suppose the fact that the PGC generic checkers are already geared up to handle this sort of thing ought to mean it shouldn't be considered to be too convoluted.

Yeah I've come up with challenges that can be easily PGC-checked, but disallowed.   But we all know being checkable doesn't make it allowable, heh

[+cerberus1]

18 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

The most dangerous creatures in Germany ar Tick´s, and they have a extra attribute

 

Okay...OT...  But things sure have changed.    

Mid seventies, I was on a motobecane moped, and chased all the way from Hardheim to Wertheim by a huge boar.  

I didn't think any critter hated people that much... 

We didn't have sorta-smart phones then, so no one knew about my problem until I hit the gate - literally.     

[+NYPaddleCacher]

7 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Okay...OT...  But things sure have changed.    

Mid seventies, I was on a motobecane moped, and chased all the way from Hardheim to Wertheim by a huge boar.  

I didn't think any critter hated people that much... 

We didn't have sorta-smart phones then, so no one knew about my problem until I hit the gate - literally.     

 

Are you sure that it didn't hate mopeds?

[+colleda]

13 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

Are you sure that it didn't hate mopeds?

Only Motobecanes?