challenge criteria

[+Deepdiggingmole]

If the criteria of a challenge cache becomes impossible to achieve or eventually breaches criteria guidelines
for example
'Find X number of caches in the county of'
and (A) due to dwindling numbers (archived caches etc)  X becomes 100% of the number of caches in that county (breaching 12. All or Percentage of caches in the guidelines) 
or (B) even falls below it (thus making it impossible to actually achieve the target figure)  
Does the CO have to consider dropping the value of X or is the cache no longer allowable and has to be archived - using A and B as separate scenarios 
 

Also - Does finding a significantly high %age of caches in a county breach 12. All or Percentage of caches anyway ?

[+Touchstone]

2 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

If the criteria of a challenge cache becomes impossible to achieve or eventually breaches criteria guidelines
for example
'Find X number of caches in the county of'
and (A) due to dwindling numbers (archived caches etc)  X becomes 100% of the number of caches in that county (breaching 12. All or Percentage of caches in the guidelines) 
or (B) even falls below it (thus making it impossible to actually achieve the target figure)  
Does the CO have to consider dropping the value of X or is the cache no longer allowable and has to be archived - using A and B as separate scenarios 
 

Also - Does finding a significantly high %age of caches in a county breach 12. All or Percentage of caches anyway ?

Rather than dropping the value of X in your first question, I think it's best to Archive the Listing, since it is no longer achievable.  To adjust the X in your examples, sounds a bit unfair to those individuals that have completed the Challenge as originally intended.

 

Regarding your second question, the way I read the Help Center guidance, ANY percentage is not allowed, regardless of it's high or low.  The Challenge must be based on some "reasonable" discrete number, not a percentage.

[+barefootjeff]

The challenge guidelines say:

 

Quote

• Challenge caches need to be attainable at any time.

• Requiring caches to be found in earlier years, as it is not attainable by someone new to the game.

 

So I wonder if a challenge that was compliant at the time of publication would be grandfathered in if it slips out of compliance through no fault of its own.

 

One solution could be for the challenge cache CO to hide a bunch of new caches in its catchment area to make up the loss and restore balance to the Force.

[+DerDiedler]

Do we have a actual case here or are you just thinking of a hypothetic scenario?

In case of a case I´d like to have a glance at the listing, just out of curiosity

Edited November 11, 2019 by DerDiedler

[+Deepdiggingmole]

 

3 hours ago, DerDiedler said:

Do we have a actual case here or are you just thinking of a hypothetic scenario?

In case of a case I´d like to have a glance at the listing, just out of curiosity

I do have a cache in mind - it is not hypothetic - I am not going to name names at this point - thank you
 

Regarding the guidelines - the case I have in mind - it doesn't specifically say find X% of caches in this county - however the figure it does say now exceeds the number that are currently in that county - i.e it states find X number of caches and now there are currently only X-1 number of caches. 

This cache is post moratorium so not considered 'grandfathered' - I accept that at the time of publishing the may have been more caches available - however I do not believe that it was a significant number more to take it out of the high %age bracket. 

 

9 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

One solution could be for the challenge cache CO to hide a bunch of new caches in its catchment area to make up the loss and restore balance to the Force

Even then a few more caches to make the number of caches available would equal 'X + a few more' but still the required number is a high %age of the amount available 

 

Despite the challenge not saying find Y% -  doesn't the numbers involved mean it breaches the %age guideline

 

[+arisoft]

21 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Does the CO have to consider dropping the value of X or is the cache no longer allowable and has to be archived - using A and B as separate scenarios

 

I don't know any guideline saying that the CO must adjust the challenge afterwards, but I know that in some cases, challenge requirements have been adjusted. For example, when more virtual caches appeared the number of required virtual caches increased. It is one option.

 

Let's consider what options we have if the CO will not change the requirement.

a) A new geocacher can not log the cache because it is impossible

b) Nobody can log the cache because it is archived

When the number of caches is decreasing it is highly possible that there will be no new cache at the same place. Generally, I feel that option a is better in this case.

[+dprovan]

On 11/10/2019 at 5:41 AM, Deepdiggingmole said:

Does the CO have to consider dropping the value of X or is the cache no longer allowable and has to be archived - using A and B as separate scenarios

Well, no, obviously the CO doesn't have to consider dropping the value because he can always simply archive the cache.

 

And, in fact, I'd claim it would be wrong for the CO to drop the number since dropping the number makes the challenge a different challenge and, hence, the cache a different cache. I have no idea what GS might think about it, but if GS can't keep themselves from stepping in at all, I'd prefer GS do just the opposite of what you suggest: forbid the CO from changing the number instead of requiring them to change the number.

 

But I see no reason to force the CO to do anything. The challenge is not currently achievable, but that doesn't mean no one has achieved it, and they are free to sign the log at any time.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

And, in fact, I'd claim it would be wrong for the CO to drop the number since dropping the number makes the challenge a different challenge and, hence, the cache a different cache. I have no idea what GS might think about it, but if GS can't keep themselves from stepping in at all, I'd prefer GS do just the opposite of what you suggest: forbid the CO from changing the number instead of requiring them to change the number.

 

Yes, changing the number would also require changing the checker, and one of the things the reviewer did with my challenge caches was check the checker, so it really does become a different challenge.

 

1 hour ago, dprovan said:

But I see no reason to force the CO to do anything. The challenge is not currently achievable, but that doesn't mean no one has achieved it, and they are free to sign the log at any time.

 

There's also no reason why it couldn't become achievable again in the future if the number of caches in the county increases. It only takes one prolific cache-setter to move there to do that.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

Two points regarding the OP particular scenario:

• The challenge is only unobtainable to a person that has never cached in the county. There may be cachers where this challenge could still be met. 
• External factors could make the challenge criteria obtainable by any cacher in the future, if new caches are added to the county.

IMO, based on this, the challenge cache is still viable, and its status should not be changed.

 

A slightly different scenario is where a challenge becomes unobtainable (again, only to new cachers) and adding new caches will not change that. The Jasmer challenge is one such example. At some time, we will have a month where there are no active caches. IMO, no new full Jasmer challenges should be allowed to be created after that. But, the existing challenge caches are still obtainable to some, and therefore should remain. 

 

Interestingly, I don't see anything in the challenge cache guidelines that explicitly requires that the challenge be obtainable by new and/or future cachers. It's only kind of implied. I do see where the CO must show that they have completed the challenge, and potentially provide a list of cachers that have already met the challenge criteria. 

 

As for guideline 12, a discrete number is publishable, while a percentage is not. The only critieria is that the discrete number is 'reasonable'. I think the reasoning on not allowing percentage challenges is that a discrete number is much easier to arbitrate, and there is less paperwork for the cacher. A percentage is a constantly moving target. What if cacher does not get around to logging and running the challenge checker immediately? What if they wait a month, and during that month a number of new caches are published, causing them to miss the percentage calculation when they log online? It doesn't even have to be a long time, it could be a few minutes. Say, during the trip to the challenge cache. You think you met all the requirements, then at the last second you find out you no longer do.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

Interestingly, I don't see anything in the challenge cache guidelines that explicitly requires that the challenge be obtainable by new and/or future cachers. It's only kind of implied. I do see where the CO must show that they have completed the challenge, and potentially provide a list of cachers that have already met the challenge criteria.

 

Under 8. Attainable it says in the Not Acceptable column:

 

Requiring caches to be found in earlier years, as it is not attainable by someone new to the game.

 

If it's not acceptable to have a challenge not attainable by someone new to the game, then I think it can be inferred that challenges must be attainable by newcomers. What's unclear is whether this continues to apply after the date of publication.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

3 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Under 8. Attainable it says in the Not Acceptable column:

 

Requiring caches to be found in earlier years, as it is not attainable by someone new to the game.

 

If it's not acceptable to have a challenge not attainable by someone new to the game, then I think it can be inferred that challenges must be attainable by newcomers. What's unclear is whether this continues to apply after the date of publication.

Exactly, to me this guideline infers that challenge caches must be obtainable by newcomers. But, this guideline does not explicitly come out and state that all challenge criteria must be attainable by newcomers (at the time of publication.) My reading of this guideline is you cannot state that you must have found a cache on any specific date in the past.

[+mustakorppi]

8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

What's unclear is whether this continues to apply after the date of publication.

I’m not sure how I feel about enforcement after publication, but if it did apply I think it’s fundamental enough that it should also apply to grandfathered challenges (where it obviously currently doesn’t). 

[+TheVoytekBear]

I'd argue the challenge is still attainable becasue you can still have events and CITOs. Some challenges require x number of events and they are valid even if there is no event published in the area at given time.

Edited November 16, 2019 by TheVoytekBear

[+thebruce0]

In other situations, I've seen a CO announce that a challenge cache will be archived in a month or two, so if you qualify, better get over to sign it before it's archived, since it's no longer attainable. As a CO you have the option to leave it available for people to sign, but weigh in the fact that (as it stands) no new cachers will be able to qualify. All it's there for now are cachers who've already qualified. How long do you want to leave that active, or perhaps hoping that it will again become attainable at some point in the future?

I don't think there's any reason HQ would step in to say the cache must be archived because it's no longer attainable. But you might get a nudge from a reviewer or two to perhaps do something about it...

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 11/16/2019 at 7:08 PM, TheVoytekBear said:

I'd argue the challenge is still attainable becasue you can still have events and CITOs. Some challenges require x number of events and they are valid even if there is no event published in the area at given time.

 

The attainable rule says "Challenge caches need to be attainable at any time" - events and CITOs are not there all the time and only available on one day - yes if you happen to be around and can attend then job done, but unlike a trad they are not attainable at ANY time 

 

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

The attainable rule says "Challenge caches need to be attainable at any time" - events and CITOs are not there all the time and only available on one day - yes if you happen to be around and can attend then job done, but unlike a trad they are not attainable at ANY time 

 

Events and Citos are attainable any time you host a one.

 

 

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 11/24/2019 at 9:12 PM, arisoft said:

 

Events and Citos are attainable any time you host a one.

 

 

Stretching it a bit I feel
There are no events around me for a couple of weeks so I'll get one published - oh! hang on it won't be possible to do it in less that two weeks - so no events for 2 weeks - ANYTIME not 
 

[+hal-an-tow]

On 11/24/2019 at 1:19 PM, Deepdiggingmole said:

 

The attainable rule says "Challenge caches need to be attainable at any time" - events and CITOs are not there all the time and only available on one day - yes if you happen to be around and can attend then job done, but unlike a trad they are not attainable at ANY time 

 

So are you suggesting that there will never be any event at anytime in the future that you could attend ? Would you also rail against challenges set for a number of souvenirs ? After all, they are only available for certain periods, not 'ANY time', and you can't even set any yourself to help folk fulfill the challenge.

 

The guidelines for 'attainable' say

• Challenge caches need to be attainable at any time.

• Requiring caches to be found in earlier years, as it is not attainable by someone new to the game.

Which makes it clear that 'attainable at any time' means not limited to a specific time period in the past, rather than 'anyone must be able  to go out today and qualify'.

 

Then in 'source of criteria' it says

Challenge cache criteria must be based upon caches with the seeker’s logs: Found it!, Attended, Webcam Photo Taken.

 

Challenge caches , according to the guidelines, 'encourage geocachers to set and achieve fun goals' . Not everyone has the same idea of what constitutes fun. If someone doesn't enjoy events, or high terrain caches, or find streaks , or  indeed challenge caches, then they can leave them for those who do, and ignore them, who is hurt ?

 

 

[+bflentje]

On 11/29/2019 at 5:47 AM, Deepdiggingmole said:

Stretching it a bit I feel
There are no events around me for a couple of weeks so I'll get one published - oh! hang on it won't be possible to do it in less that two weeks - so no events for 2 weeks - ANYTIME not 
 

 

Plan ahead.

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 11/29/2019 at 3:49 PM, hal-an-tow said:

So are you suggesting that there will never be any event at anytime in the future that you could attend ? Would you also rail against challenges set for a number of souvenirs ? After all, they are only available for certain periods, not 'ANY time', and you can't even set any yourself to help folk fulfill the challenge.

 

The guidelines for 'attainable' say

• Challenge caches need to be attainable at any time.

• Requiring caches to be found in earlier years, as it is not attainable by someone new to the game.

Which makes it clear that 'attainable at any time' means not limited to a specific time period in the past, rather than 'anyone must be able  to go out today and qualify'.

 

Then in 'source of criteria' it says

Challenge cache criteria must be based upon caches with the seeker’s logs: Found it!, Attended, Webcam Photo Taken.

 

Challenge caches , according to the guidelines, 'encourage geocachers to set and achieve fun goals' . Not everyone has the same idea of what constitutes fun. If someone doesn't enjoy events, or high terrain caches, or find streaks , or  indeed challenge caches, then they can leave them for those who do, and ignore them, who is hurt ?

 

 

Hal-an-tow
I agree with your argument here is saying - I was quoting this as it was quoted to me by a reviewer, I personally don't agree with it - I have had a couple of challenge ideas turned down due to one of the criteria involved being a mega event. Now I know you are going to argue that Mega events are 'rarer' due to the what they are - however based on what you have said, they are available, albeit maybe not next week maybe, but there will be one that you can probably attend in the next year or so.
It annoyed me further that this argument was used yet the same reviewer had allowed a challenge where just 2 megas were required one in a different country ! - now the next one available in the same country of that challenge wasn't for another 10 months after that challenge was published.
I also know that you are not supposed to cite one challenge criteria as an argument for getting yours published - but there has to be uniformity surely
When it comes to 'time in the future' in which you can attain the qualifying criteria - how long should that be 
Well, of course, any time !! so why does not having a mega event for the next 10 months matter, why should this prevent challenges being published - there are challenges as examples requiring you to find 20,000 caches or 10,000 micros - both achievable but for the majority of cachers probably not for 10 years or longer 

However the point of the OP was - if the criteria of a challenge is such that it is now impossible to qualify - what is the CO to do 

can you rely on the possibility of future caches being published - should you - if they don't - what happens 
amend or archive

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 12/2/2019 at 1:40 AM, bflentje said:

 

Plan ahead.

The point here is and the OP was - what happens if the available number of caches falls below the required criteria 

This is not my challenge - I could hold an event in order to get me one more towards the target but that does not mean the amount of available caches is sufficient at all times 
Surely availability has to be about caches that are there for more than 30 minutes 

[+arisoft]

4 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

I have had a couple of challenge ideas turned down due to one of the criteria involved being a mega event.

 

If you have good reasons to disagree with your local reviewer you can always appeal. I know one case where appealing sorted out this "attainable at any time" problem.

[+barefootjeff]

This scenario might soon become a reality here. From the discussions on one of the local FB groups, it appears a number of caches have already been lost to the fires that have been ravaging the east coast of Australia over the last couple of months, and with large fire fronts now edging closer to the more populous coastal regions that's only going to get worse. Even those caches that survive the fires might be inaccessible for months or even years as many forest roads and trails will be closed due to falling trees and damaged bridges. By the time this summer is over, all that might be left in this state could be urban micros, Earthcaches and virtuals, and those tougher challenges that rely on higher T-rated caches might well become unachievable, especially if they have locality constraints as well.

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by barefootjeff

[+Clongo_Rongo]

This is my personal view,

its getting to the point where its not worth the effort to even submit a new challenge quest ?

But the limited amount of old caches should make you want to find them,

but I seem to be told as there are not enough old caches to be found, so you cannot get  to set a quest to find them ?

 

I thought if some said 'you can log 6 or 7 caches  year 2000 that can be logged without the need to spend more than a day trip to find them' 

then you find them, then set a challenge to do the same, you are refused as 1 per country is not sited as plenty, so not acceptable 

 

I just think that this is a challenge worth getting and the time and effort to complete it would be very pleasing

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

15 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

This is my personal view,

its getting to the point where its not worth the effort to even submit a new challenge quest ?

But the limited amount of old caches should make you want to find them,

but I seem to be told as there are not enough old caches to be found, so you cannot get  to set a quest to find them ?

 

I thought if some said 'you can log 6 or 7 caches  year 2000 that can be logged without the need to spend more than a day trip to find them' 

then you find them, then set a challenge to do the same, you are refused as 1 per country is not sited as plenty, so not acceptable 

 

I just think that this is a challenge worth getting and the time and effort to complete it would be very pleasing

 

 

 

I don't think travel time as such is an issue as there have been challenges published recently here that require finding caches in all Australian states. From one side of the country to the other is a five hour flight or five day drive so not something you could do in a day trip.