D/T Grid art

[+Deepdiggingmole]

Hi
I have recently come across this expression relating to challenges and more the fact that HQ have put a halt on challenges where 'grid art' is apparent.

Please can someone explain which guideline this is against ?
I would have thought (for example) finding 17 caches that happen to be the DT values that make the two diagonals completely satisfy.....
...... 5. Standard for criteria
* Challenge criteria must be positive and require that a geocaching goal be achieved.
* The challenge requirements should be simple, and easy to explain, follow and document. A
* 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.

Why is having all 81 squares allowed but having fewer squares to fill whether it makes a line, up or along or diagonally is not - surely completing your full grid could be considered 'grid art' just the same as filling 17 squares that happen to make the shape of an 'X'

Why have HQ said 'no' to these ?

thank you

[+JL_HSTRE]

To fill your grid is a postive action; it doesn't require skipping any caches.

 

To make your grid form an X, O, or whatever requires skipping caches with certain D/T combinations that don't meet the criteria otherwise the shape wont be visible. 

[+Goldenwattle]

6 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

To fill your grid is a postive action; it doesn't require skipping any caches.

 

To make your grid form an X, O, or whatever requires skipping caches with certain D/T combinations that don't meet the criteria otherwise the shape wont be visible. 

That's not how I interpreted what was said. I thought it was meant that only certain squares needed to be filled. That doesn't mean the others need to be skipped.

[+niraD]

I think it's related to the way spell-a-word challenges aren't allowed any more, and user-defined region challenges aren't allowed any more, and so on. The don't want challenge cache owners making up random challenges.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 2/9/2020 at 8:46 AM, Goldenwattle said:

That's not how I interpreted what was said. I thought it was meant that only certain squares needed to be filled. That doesn't mean the others need to be skipped.

 

In which case why not just make it a normal D/T grid challenge? The number of people who get an X without a full grid are probably few and far between. 

[+thebruce0]

Depending on the 'shape', it depends on your wording. That 'user defined region' was the primary clause for denying a set of a challenges I wanted to put out pre-moratorium. Whether it's a count of caches in a lat/lon degree (that's now an allowable region) or creating a 'shape' in the DT grid -- the only regions allowable for selection are as small as counties, to state/province and country.

 

I say wording, because one challenge was acceptable - one that called to find totals for caches where the D+T added to each value. Visually the qualifying values look like a star (or diamond), so I depicted them that way (2=1+1, 2.5=1.5+1 and 1+1.5, etc 10 is the bulge with the most DT combos).  But as long as it even looked like a star, it was declined.  But I reworked it to be more about the math and less about the shape, which was allowable.

I also had an idea to create a shape of your highest-found caches on your DT grid, like your top 10% caches should show a shape, eg. Of course that was declined. The old challenges would have allowed it.

 

It's SO wonky this user-defined region clause.  But you can't emphasis an "X" on the DT grid, because as mentioned above, it does require holding off finding non-qualifying caches in order to find qualifying caches. Or another way to put it, you can 'unqualify' yourself if you find the wrong caches.  That mechanic is no longer allowed.  You can require quantities of certain values, because that's additive and not user-defined region based. (though I'm still baffled why coord degrees are considered user-defined, but whatev)

 

So yeah, that clause has been around since just before the moratorium.  Just have to find some other way to be creative in challenge cache ideas =/

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 2/9/2020 at 1:39 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

To fill your grid is a postive action; it doesn't require skipping any caches.

 

To make your grid form an X, O, or whatever requires skipping caches with certain D/T combinations that don't meet the criteria otherwise the shape wont be visible. 

OK - I think you are confusing where you would see the 'X' on your grid - this is NOT on your stats page on GC - to do that is very restricting, as you would have to miss out certain DT in order to attain that - no this is what you get on your checker output
I think the issue regarding skipping caches is completely irrelevant - you do not have to skip squares on your grid in order to make the shape when you have completed the checker and the checker output shows the required result which happens to be (for example an 'X')

The fact that you have found other caches with other DT around those required will not affect this output / result as they will not appear on the resulting image 

 

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

In which case why not just make it a normal D/T grid challenge? The number of people who get an X without a full grid are probably few and far between

Because to complete a normal grid requires finding 81 caches - to complete an 'X' (as in the example) requires only 17 - thus an easier challenge as fewer caches required - but as with many challenges you are not being told NOT to find any other DT in the meantime - in fact anyone who wants to aim for their full grid could be encouraged to do so and on their way they will qualify for the 'X' challenge 

 

This would be no different to for example  - 'Find 100 Trads' and then the harder challenge 'find 1000 Trads' - and then (one that I have found) 'find 10,000 trads'

You are not being told you can not find any other type in the meantime 

 

Edited February 10, 2020 by Deepdiggingmole
spelling correction

[+thebruce0]

Ok I see what you're proposing. You might get away with it if you describe it as having found at least 1 cache of every DT combo where D=T, and D+T=6.  But depending on your region, I'd think the difficulty rating would be extremely low unless it's near impossible to reasonable complete a fizzy in some region.  If that's allowable (rather than explaining it as an "X" on the DT grid) you might be able to require a higher minimum count as well.

 

To wit, we have a couple of 'four corners' challenges, for having at least 30 or at least 50 finds in each corner of the grid (1/5, 5/1, 1/1, 5/5).

Who knows. It's up to reviewer interpretation. You might get away with describing it as an X on the grid. If not, I'd go with the math perspective. (they might also require you disclaim that you can have any number of finds in the other DT spots, so it doesn't even sound exclusive to other DTs)

Edited February 10, 2020 by thebruce0

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 2/9/2020 at 4:01 PM, niraD said:

I think it's related to the way spell-a-word challenges aren't allowed any more, and user-defined region challenges aren't allowed any more, and so on. The don't want challenge cache owners making up random challenges.

 

I understand the two examples - but do not see how find a specific number of caches within your DT grid couldn't be allowed if, complete your DT grid is ! surely on the way to completing your DT you would fulfil the smaller challenge !

[+thebruce0]

I actually kind of like the minimum finds in the X idea. I might pass it by my reviewer, considering the 'four in the corner' challenges were approved. It could be hugging the line though, and at least in my region, going with the math perspective might be more successful.

[+Deepdiggingmole]

Thanks for all the replies - however my OP question "Please can someone explain which guideline this is against ?" has not been answered as yet 

 

thank you

[+thebruce0]

I think the problem is that you haven't explained a specific problem, only an expression you're unclear on.

 

Has a specific challenge cache idea been denied? It's hard to tell from your original post if you're looking for an opinion, or an explanation.

 

Now that you've explained in more detail what an example challenge is, can you say that that is precisely what you've submitted for review, and it was declined? And that the reason you were given was that "grid art" is not allowed?

 

If so, then the reason is 'user defined regions' (or patterns or shapes) are not allowed. If you want clarity on that point, you should talk to your reviewer.

 

Beyond that, you could only try making adjustments as described in this thread.

Edited February 10, 2020 by thebruce0

[+Deepdiggingmole]

17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I think the problem is that you haven't explained a specific problem, only an expression you're unclear on.

 

Has a specific challenge cache idea been denied? It's hard to tell from your original post if you're looking for an opinion, or an explanation.

 

Now that you've explained in more detail what an example challenge is, can you say that that is precisely what you've submitted for review, and it was declined? And that the reason you were given was that "grid art" is not allowed?

 

If so, then the reason is 'user defined regions' (or patterns or shapes) are not allowed. If you want clarity on that point, you should talk to your reviewer.

 

Beyond that, you could only try making adjustments as described in this thread.

Sorry - I thought there was an example in the OP (read 17 caches making an 'X' shape on the DT grid) - maybe that wasn't clear enough 

 

OK for example - 17 caches making an 'X' shape on the DT grid

 

Also you keep referring to the expression 'user-defined regions' - I regularly refer to the guidelines for challenge cahes in the help page to get an understanding of these in order to assist others in clarification - however neither of the expression Grid Art or user-defined region are used in the guidelines and I can find nothing there that resembles what either of these mean 

 

You also made mention of counties and areas when referring to user defined region (this would make sense as the only reference to 'user-defined.......' in the guideline is user defined polygon which is with reference to 'area' 
10. Source of criteria - 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.

but this bears no connection to the DT grid or restrictions on same 

 

The reason for the original OP was understanding what is meant by Grid Art (i.e is it patterns in the DT grid) - This has now been clarified
and where in the guidelines does it refer to this not being allowed - this has not been clarified 
Also does this mean the same for the calendar grid - again there is no mention of this in the guidelines

 

 

Edited February 11, 2020 by Deepdiggingmole
spelling corrections

[+IceColdUK]

Hi DDM,

 

I've never come across the term 'grid art' before.  The only mention I've found on the forums is in a post from Keystone, two and a half years ago:

  

On 8/10/2017 at 8:17 PM, Keystone said:

Creating grid art patterns isn't really a geocaching-related accomplishment.

 

 

That said, I've seen plenty of challenges (probably pre-moratorium) similar to what you're describing, e.g.:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5EHW4_d-t-diagonals-challenge

 

Post-moratorium, I've seen challenges that require you to fill half or three quarters of your D/T grid, but without being prescriptive in any way, e.g.:

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC767N5_1-2-letterbox-hybrid-dt-challenge-cache

 

So it seems you can create a "1/5th grid challenge" (81/5 rounds up to 17), but you can no longer specify which 17.

 

17 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Has a specific challenge cache idea been denied? It's hard to tell from your original post if you're looking for an opinion, or an explanation.

 

It would be interesting to know.  Is this a hypothetical discussion, or has the idea actually been rejected?

[Keystone]

Thanks for taking the time to look up my old posts on the subject of "grid art."  They are still a valid summary of the instructions given to Community Volunteer Reviewers.  Finding an otherwise random combo of caches because they form a pretty picture on a Fizzy Grid or Calendar Grid is not a geocaching accomplishment.

[+Deepdiggingmole]

2 hours ago, Keystone said:

Finding an otherwise random combo of caches because they form a pretty picture on a Fizzy Grid or Calendar Grid is not a geocaching accomplishment.

 

Finding 17 caches (or a multiple thereof) that happen to be specific DT (so not random) is not a geocaching accomplishment. 
but finding 50 Trads is (and this could be defined as more random) 

 

Surely finding any number of caches whether they make a shape on your DT or calendar grid or not is a geocaching accomplishment !!

but which of the challenge cache guidelines does this breach please ?

Edited February 11, 2020 by Deepdiggingmole

[+Deepdiggingmole]

2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

It would be interesting to know.  Is this a hypothetical discussion, or has the idea actually been rejected?

 

This is hypothetical on my part - I am not seeking to creating a challenge myself in this regard - I have however seen the phrase used on Project GC where a request for a challenge checker was put in, the checker was made but a comment regarding the fact that a reviewer may reject the idea due to it being grid art was added 
I had never heard the term or been aware this was a restriction - and when I reviewed the challenge cache guidelines (as I do often) I could not see which of the guidelines this idea breached - but in addition (as in the OP) felt that the concept fitted the positive guideline of standard for criteria

[+Deepdiggingmole]

2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

Hi DDM,

 

I've never come across the term 'grid art' before.  The only mention I've found on the forums is in a post from Keystone, two and a half years ago:

 

No, nor had I - it came up in a discussion on project GC where this concept was requested for a challenge and the term 'grid art' was used in that convo. 

 

I am still waiting for someone to tell me which guideline this breaches 


 

[Keystone]

2 hours ago, Keystone said:

Thanks for taking the time to look up my old posts on the subject of "grid art."  They are still a valid summary of the instructions given to Community Volunteer Reviewers.  Finding an otherwise random combo of caches because they form a pretty picture on a Fizzy Grid or Calendar Grid is not a geocaching accomplishment.

If my prior post was unclear, I apologize.  I thought I'd made sure to use wording found in the public-facing challenge cache guidance.  The exact words are "require that a geocaching goal must be achieved."

Edited February 11, 2020 by Keystone

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Surely finding any number of caches whether they make a shape on your DT or calendar grid or not is a geocaching accomplishment !!

The number of caches is fine. The shape on your D/T or calendar grid is not. I thought that had been made pretty clear.

 

1 hour ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

but which of the challenge cache guidelines does this breach please ?

Well, the Challenge caches page does include the following:

 

Quote

From the Geocaching.com Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines:

 

Please be advised that there is no precedent for placing geocaches.

 

and

 

At times a geocache may meet the requirements for publication on the site but the reviewers, as experienced geocachers, may see additional concerns not listed in these guidelines that you as a geocache placer may not have noticed. The reviewer may bring these additional concerns to your attention and offer suggestions so that the geocache can be published.

 

[+Touchstone]

Considering where the sophomoric humor of some geo art projects have been taken that I've read about, it's not surprising that HQ would put the brakes on grid art.

[+thebruce0]

5 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Also you keep referring to the expression 'user-defined regions' - I regularly refer to the guidelines for challenge cahes in the help page to get an understanding of these in order to assist others in clarification - however neither of the expression Grid Art or user-defined region are used in the guidelines and I can find nothing there that resembles what either of these mean

 

5 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

the only reference to 'user-defined.......' in the guideline is user defined polygon which is with reference to 'area' 
10. Source of criteria - 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.

but this bears no connection to the DT grid or restrictions on same 

 

The key point is "user-defined" (I know you latched on to 'geocraphic' as the context for that clause though). Anything other than what's HQ-defined.

On the DT grid, an explicit shape is a "user defined region".  There's also a bookkeeping aspect which I've been cited. Having to keep track of numerous components of a challenge - the fewer the better; a challenge with 3 simplistically defined parameters (x Traditions, y Mysteries, z Multis, for example, or 400 of each D rating, or 30 finds in each corner) is easier than a list of specific matches (all the 15 DT combos required to form this specific shape). A user-defined shape means a list of very specific qualifiers, or a detailed description of qualification 'region', and having to seek out specific qualifiers and keep track of what you've got.  That's why I suggested how you describe the challenge could make a HUGE difference. Instead of saying "form an X of a certain number of finds", have a quick math checker that can determine qualification.

 

This is not me saying I'm a fan of decisions based on "user-defined" and "bookkeeping" clauses, but these are what I have been told as reasons ideas like yours are declined.

I'm just passing on what I know from experience, whether in agreement or not.

 

Honestly I could potentially see the challenge idea you cited as allowed if worded acceptably in my province. We already have SO many very similar. As long as it doesn't look like a 'pattern' or 'shape' and isn't too difficult to keep track of (bookkeeping), I think my reviewers may allow it.

 

Again though, I'd suggest you talk to your reviewer to find out what they think of the challenge. That's the best way to find out what would be allowed and not, before putting in too much work only to be declined.

Edited February 11, 2020 by thebruce0

[+Deepdiggingmole]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

3 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

Surely finding any number of caches whether they make a shape on your DT or calendar grid or not is a geocaching accomplishment !!

The number of caches is fine. The shape on your D/T or calendar grid is not. I thought that had been made pretty clear.

 

I accept what has been said and I understand it completely

 

However based on what has been said here

the number of caches is not a problem - if it doesn't make a shape on the DT grid it would be acceptable, but if it does it is not 

 

so it has nothing to do with geocaching accomplishment - someone somewhere decided they don't like pretty patterns 

[+Touchstone]

Pretty patterns?  Sounds like a Wow Factor now. Wasn’t that pretty much killed off with Virtuals v.1?

[+thebruce0]

40 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

someone somewhere decided they don't like pretty patterns 

 

Along with the wow factor Touchstone mentioned, the subjective nature of the idea of 'user defined' boundaries makes reviewing and maintenance a relative PITA. Even if some were gems and quality, the rest was enough for HQ to draw the line. It sucks. I loved the creative freedom we had to make fun challenges that aren't merely statistical accomplishments. But that's the way the cookie crumbled.

[+Deepdiggingmole]

5 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

the subjective nature of the idea of 'user defined' boundaries makes reviewing and maintenance a relative PITA

 

I am confused by this - what has maintenance got to do with one challenge cache ?

The pretty pattern I was referring to is not geoart created by 2 dozen caches looking like the face of a cat - but the requirement for a challenge ??

[+thebruce0]

Remember this was before checkers. The more complex a challenge is to check and verify logs, the more often people will log without actually qualifying and lazy COs will let it go. That's one factor in 'maintenance'.  The point is that in general, it's more work all around.

I don't feel that's a problem, that was why they are "challenge" caches - it requires work. But the point from HQ was they wanted them to be easier, simpler, quicker, yet still able to be challenging. So they cut of the "creative" freedom (read: complexity) in favour of additive, simpler challenges to own, maintain, review, and qualify. I'm not arguing I like it completely, I'm just arguing my understanding of their reasoning.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

To me, creating an arbitrary pattern (make an X, make a circle, etc.) in the D/T grid is not a geocaching accomplishment. However, finding a cache for each difficulty, and a cache for each terrain, is. That could be some kind of 'well rounded cacher' challenge. To me, if you can make a statement about a cacher or their style of caching (well rounded cacher, well traveled cacher, etc.), it would be a geocaching accomplishment, otherwise it is not. (Think BadgeGen.)

[+thebruce0]

Right, it's a shift in the definition of a "challenge cache" from "a cache owner who puts out a challenge for geocachers to complete in order to be allowed to log the cache found", to "a geocaching-related challenge that a cache owner has already qualified along with a handful of others which is accessible and doable by a regionally reasonable set of people determined by the region's reviewers, which the owner believes would be fun for people to do*"

* the latter reason may vary

 

They used to be creative challenges that weren't 100% geocaching-related (shapes and patterns and themes could theoretically be most anything) and could be fun because of the theme.  Now, 'creative challenges' are simply statistical combinations someone hasn't thought of yet, and usually only people who have an enormous cache-finding history already qualify for.

Don't get me wrong, there are still great challenges and I love challenge caching. But the creative of olde has been lost since the shift in the definition of "challenge" and what's allowable.

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, Touchstone said:

Pretty patterns?  Sounds like a Wow Factor now. Wasn’t that pretty much killed off with Virtuals v.1?

[+hzoi]

I logged a couple grid art challenges last fall, because I happened to be in the area.  I didn't feel they were much of a geocaching goal or accomplishment.

 

 

 

No clue as to why A and R were important.  Unless maybe it was actually R and A, and the CO is an Egyptian sun priest.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

edit: ok, apparently they have several challenge series around grid art, spelling out the cache type: TRADI, Wherigo, etc.  So, not a priest of Ra.  At least I've solved that.

Edited February 12, 2020 by hzoi

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 2/12/2020 at 2:27 PM, hzoi said:

I didn't feel they were much of a geocaching goal or accomplishment

For a new cacher working their way towards easy and then harder challenges anything like these are a goal to work towards, and an accomplishment once done.
Getting to this point then puts them nearer the 81 grid too, if they haven't completed that.
You may well feel that neither of these are challenging enough as you may have completed your grid  - so you qualified already, but just because you have exceeded that target does not mean it is a challenging goal to another cacher. 
You have to find 60 caches (in the example of 'A')  - yet there are challenges where you have to find (for example) 50 caches with 'Dogs Allowed' attribute - is that any more of an accomplishment - if so why - there are 10 less caches to find. You are not restricted to finding just caches fitting those grid squares or indeed finding only caches with specific attributes 

 

[+Deepdiggingmole]

On 2/11/2020 at 6:26 PM, thebruce0 said:

The more complex a challenge is to check and verify logs, the more often people will log without actually qualifying and lazy COs will let it go. That's one factor in 'maintenance'

Though I see where you are comong from and acknowledge what you have said - I know that happens now - even WITH checkers

 

I feel the reverse has happened - with older challenges COs were more vigilant and did do more checking, now with checkers many COs take it as read that if a found is claimed the finder must qualify and don't bother checking - to a degree with regard to checking qualification -  though the process is much easier, having a checker has made COs lazier.
(IMHO) 
I came across a challenge very recently where the found had been logged and the cacher was no way near qualifying, hadn't even supplied the usual 'I did the Project GC thing etc etc'  - and the CO has done nothing about it 

[+Touchstone]

3 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

I came across a challenge very recently where the found had been logged and the cacher was no way near qualifying, hadn't even supplied the usual 'I did the Project GC thing etc etc'  - and the CO has done nothing about it 

Sounds like an unmaintained Challenge Listing, which renders it irrelevant.  CO's are obliged to maintain the cache as well as the Listing page when they take on the responsibility of submitting a Listing.  When they are no longer able or willing to do one or the other, it's time to remove the Listing from the active database.

 

A similar issue came up with an image hosting site that made a handful of Puzzle Listings unsolvable.  Some of those Listing pages were eventually Archived for non maintenance of the Listing page.

 

I would likewise submit, that once the spirit of the Challenge is no longer adhered to, it's time to Archive the Listing.

[+thebruce0]

On 2/15/2020 at 9:18 AM, Deepdiggingmole said:

with older challenges COs were more vigilant and did do more checking, now with checkers many COs take it as read that if a found is claimed the finder must qualify and don't bother checking

 

Project-GC's browser addon includes a feature that shows a summary of people who've logged but don't seem to currently qualify. That should make it easier for a CO quickly determine if there's a logging issue. I see many challenges with growing lists of these non-qualified users (in some cases for whatever reason the list may be inaccurate though as a user might have qualified in the past, or there's a hitch in the script, or the CO has determined that the user has qualified despite the checker saying no, etc).  But for anyone with that feature, users can be rechecked so it's no secret who's logging finds without qualifying, and as Touchstone said, if the CO is allowing illegitimate logs on challenge caches by people who don't qualify, it could be seen as non-maintenance and be subject to archival.

[+Deepdiggingmole]

So - in light of all the above  - Why does this get published ?

https://coord.info/GC9195M

 

 

[+K13]

54 minutes ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

So - in light of all the above  - Why does this get published ?

https://coord.info/GC9195M

 

 

Who knows, but that listing does reference another similar challenge from 2017.