Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
beny258

Challenge cache type

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I really don't expect much to change with challenge caches. Their efforts are more towards Adventure Labs, souvenir promotions, and likely some other very significant changes for the upcoming generation; more digital location-based style aspects to the hobby and whatnot.  I think they settled on a kind of middle ground for the new guidelines to assuage significant complaints, at least for a longer term. CC's have a strong, but kind of a niche, portion of the community as a whole.

A Yes or a No after 4 yrs would be nice from Groundspeak but they are not known to communicate with their community.

 

I am afraid of how that digital turn will destroy this game like it did with the QR-base game that you are getting most of your points now just by being a passenger in a car....

 

There were reasons that virtual cache got banned but Groundspeak seems to have forgotten them with the introduction of adventure labs...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

No, they just don't like that they have to qualify for an additional logging requirement in order to log that the geocache was found. It's an inconsistency in definition due to the ALR exception. I haven't seen anyone say the "guidelines are wrong". They understand the concept of the ALR. They don't like that the Find doesn't actually mean Found when it comes to a challenge cache.

I guess I'm still missing the point. "Find" doesn't actually mean "Found" in an EarthCache, either. The only difference is that you can sign the log of a challenge cache. If the problem is that they don't like the fact that after they sign the challenge cache they can't claim the find, then the solution seems obvious: don't sign the challenge cache.

 

48 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Sure, that's an option, but it's no longer a Challenge Cache. We have a few of those 'unchallenges' around here as well.

Don't you get the sense that your argument's a little week when you find yourself saying, Yes, I can do exactly what I want, I just can't call it what I want to call it.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, dprovan said:

The only difference is that you can sign the log of a challenge cache. If the problem is that they don't like the fact that after they sign the challenge cache they can't claim the find, then the solution seems obvious: don't sign the challenge cache.

It's fine to sign a challenge cache log (I do), but don't claim a find until you qualify (I don't). I log a note and say I will log a find when and if I qualify.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I guess I'm still missing the point. "Find" doesn't actually mean "Found" in an EarthCache, either.

It's not a physical geocache. The argument is for physical geocaches.

 

2 minutes ago, dprovan said:

If the problem is that they don't like the fact that after they sign the challenge cache they can't claim the find, then the solution seems obvious: don't sign the challenge cache.

Already went over this. "Deal with it" isn't a productive discussion. Yes, ignoring challenge caches or not logging challenge caches is a workaround, and it's the way it has to be in the current system. The intent is to see if there's a better way. They won't just be okay with "well then you can't find challenge caches" - the point is they can physically find challenge caches, but the ALR prohibits them from logging them as found like every other physical cache type. This is why the discussion goes around in circles - the same points being raised because "don't change a thing" isn't a productive solution in a discussion exploring options for a better way.

 

11 minutes ago, dprovan said:

Don't you get the sense that your argument's a little week when you find yourself saying, Yes, I can do exactly what I want, I just can't call it what I want to call it.

That's not what I said, and that's not what is wanted.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

I am afraid of how that digital turn will destroy this game like it did with the QR-base game that you are getting most of your points now just by being a passenger in a car....

Adventure Labs are a digital side-game right now, and seem to be doing okay. :P

 

13 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

There were reasons that virtual cache got banned but Groundspeak seems to have forgotten them with the introduction of adventure labs...

But they were reintroduced because enough people wanted to see them again. (not that that's the case with an evolution in the challenge caching aspect of the hobby)

 

"Digital" is the way everything is going these days. Personally I don't think Geocaching should focus on "digital" - they have the physical container hunt market cornered. Focus on that, keep that the identity of geocaching. It's lasted 20 years. Every time they've tried their hand at digital-only aspects to the game (which don't enhance the physical aspect) they tend to not be nearly as successful.  Anyway that's entirely unrelated.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

It's not a physical geocache. The argument is for physical geocaches.

 

It's similar. You can't log an EC or Virtual without qualifying (send answers) even if you were there (and even post a picture to prove you were there).

Which brings me back to what I wrote earlier, entitlement....  If people would get that +1 without qualifying what's next? Log that EC or Virtual as found because you don't care to answer the questions?

Why is it so hard to skip logging online if you don't (yet) qualify? Have I missed something and is there a monetary award for every +1 I haven't heard of?

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, on4bam said:

It's similar.

It's not the argument, and it's not the issue.

If all other physical cache types can be logged as found once signed, why can I not do the same for this physical cache? Non-physical caches are not in the discussion and they are not related - those types are defined by what must be done. They do not have ALRs. This is about the only ALR in the system of geocaching. And it's on a physical cache.

 

37 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Why is it so hard to skip logging online if you don't (yet) qualify? Have I missed something and is there a monetary award for every +1 I haven't heard of?

I don't know. Why do many people complain about or critique something they don't like when there are workarounds, or offer suggestions to improve something in a direction they think can be beneficial?

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Unchallenges provide no incentive except for those who are hardline Challenge-oriented.

--

My question is, why would an optional-challenge in the new system - which still provides incentive - be "less enjoyable"?  Do you enjoy the challenge? Or do you want a tangible incentive for completing it?  As a cache finder, you get the challenge recognition for completion. As a cache owner, you can provide a challenge for people who enjoy challenges, OR be a hardline CO who requires qualification for those who value the Find and the Smiley more.

 

 

The "new system" provides the same incentive as your "Unchallenges" - it's optional.  So there is less incentive to do the Challenge.  And that's why I don't believe "stars" are a better way.

 

If I understand the "stars" CO's can still make the Challenge mandatory, but doesn't that not answer the objection to CC's?  Those still wouldn't be "Findable" by the "we want to Find any physical cache" crowd.

 

If they want to be able to filter out those CC's that they can't sign, wouldn't an icon for CC's do the same?

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The Jester said:

The "new system" provides the same incentive as your "Unchallenges" - it's optional.  So there is less incentive to do the Challenge.

 

No. Unchallenges are not challenge caches, and they have no metric to identify a completed challenge. A challenge task that is not required in order to log the find does provide incentive in this new system, to "earn" the challenge rating, just like you "earn" the difficulty rating and the terrain rating when you log the find for the geocache.

 

5 minutes ago, The Jester said:

If I understand the "stars" CO's can still make the Challenge mandatory, but doesn't that not answer the objection to CC's?  Those still wouldn't be "Findable" by the "we want to Find any physical cache" crowd.

 

That's right. But it's compromise. If they're all locked in, nothing changes. If they're all optional, no owners who want to require qualification for the find can do so.  The compromise allows both to exist. No solution is perfect, as said above.  But anyway, this optional-challenge thing is just one aspect to the proposal; if it's not feasible and challenge qualification should be locked to all the caches, so be it. The point is that the proposed feature allows for them to be decoupled if desired easily.

 

6 minutes ago, The Jester said:

If they want to be able to filter out those CC's that they can't sign, wouldn't an icon for CC's do the same?

 

I don't want to get into the pros/cons of a cache type again, because that's certainly been discussed in the other thread. And once again, filtering out challenges would hide optional challenges and challenge caches that require qualification.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Already went over this. "Deal with it" isn't a productive discussion. Yes, ignoring challenge caches or not logging challenge caches is a workaround, and it's the way it has to be in the current system. The intent is to see if there's a better way. They won't just be okay with "well then you can't find challenge caches" - the point is they can physically find challenge caches, but the ALR prohibits them from logging them as found like every other physical cache type. This is why the discussion goes around in circles - the same points being raised because "don't change a thing" isn't a productive solution in a discussion exploring options for a better way.

 

By dismissing "that's the way it is" you limit the discussion.  What if the current way is the "better way"?  I can already hear you saying "that's not the solution."  Again, limiting the discussion.  I'm in the camp of "add an icon" for CC's while leaving the ALR in place.  I've been thru the discussion about "stars" and say "that's not the solution."  So why am I "dismissive" and you are not?  (Oh, that's right, the first person to place a negative label on the other camp "wins")

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

If all other physical cache types can be logged as found once signed, why can I not do the same for this physical cache?

 

 

Because it's a challenge cache.  Says it right there in the name.  The fact that you are unwilling to read or do a simple string match does not make it my problem, no matter how much you want it to be.

 

Challenges caches are marked as the "Unknown" type, which, to people with a functioning central nervous system, means "read the description."  Thus, there is no possible confusion about finding the physical cache and signing the log.

 

The problems with a retroactive change to the system are manifold and since the system works fine as is.

 

This discussion is absurd.  I suppose that's the point of the forums, but they have declined precipitously of late.

Edited by fizzymagic
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

No. Unchallenges are not challenge caches, and they have no metric to identify a completed challenge. A challenge task that is not required in order to log the find does provide incentive in this new system, to "earn" the challenge rating, just like you "earn" the difficulty rating and the terrain rating when you log the find for the geocache.

 

I never said they were CC's, just that optional Challenges - whether on a Unchallenge or a "stars" Challenge - have the same low incentive.  And unchallenges do have a metric to ID the completed challenge - the 'honor roll' on the cache page.

 

And I disagree that D/T ratings are "earned".  They are part of every cache, while "Challenge Stars" would be part of only CC's.  There is no stat for the number of D stars or T stars "earned" (yes, I know there are some CC's that use that metric, but they aren't stats).   And what would the total number of Challenge Stars show/mean?  It would be like the Find count, did they get them on 'easy' CC's (like finds on a PT), a mix of CC's, or all 'hard' CC's?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

My question is, why would an optional-challenge in the new system - which still provides incentive - be "less enjoyable"?  Do you enjoy the challenge? Or do you want a tangible incentive for completing it?  As a cache finder, you get the challenge recognition for completion. As a cache owner, you can provide a challenge for people who enjoy challenges, OR be a hardline CO who requires qualification for those who value the Find and the Smiley more.

 

I'll start with my CO perspective as that's a bit more objective. I've only hidden two challenge caches and neither are what might be called mainstream challenges, so I can't speak for everyone or even a majority on this, but this is how I see it. A strong motivation for me in creating those two caches as challenge caches rather than traditionals, multis or puzzles was to provide some incentive for people to go out and find classes of caches that get few finds. My Slow Cooked Aussie Challenge requires finds on caches with the Takes more than an Hour attribute and I think this paragraph from the cache description sums up my feelings on this nicely:

 

In this age of instant gratification, one might easily think that geocaching is all about the quick smiley, be it power trails, park-and-grab or that bison on a fencepost. But not everything's like that, there are still some caches that take time to savour like a slow-cooked winter meal. Stroll along the track, climb that hill, listen to the birds, soak up the views, find those far-flung waypoints and take heaps of photos.

 

My other one, The Nemophilist Challenge, is about encouraging finds on those caches that are physically more challenging and, often as a result, more rewarding than, say, a P&G. The T4s, the Significant Hikes, the Cliffs/Falling Rocks and Dangerous Animals to be wary of and admire along the way and those Scenic Views to awe are what make those caches memorable experiences. Again to quote from the description:

 

“Are you looking for a challenge?” asked the big hairy haunter-of-the-woods who'd suddenly appeared on the track. “If so, I'll guide you through the forest to my home, which is at the listed coordinates, but as the journey is something of a nemophilist's delight, you must demonstrate you have the necessary qualities in order to log an online find.

 

The Slow Cooked one has had some success with that goal, with a few people mentioning that they're been doing and enjoying some of those longer caches in order to qualify for the challenge. The Nemophilist not so much, as its only two finds were from prequalifiers in the first week after publication, but it's had a rough start with the fires that raged over the summer and then the COVID lockdowns and restrictions. Time will tell I suppose. But those motivations would be essentially lost if completing the challenge requirements became optional.

 

From my finder's perspective, I tried to explain my feelings on that in an earlier post, with the allure of difficult challenges being something like a siren's subliminal beckoning. The all-or-nothing aspect of the challenge cache - you have to complete both tasks to convert that beckoning siren on the map into a yellow smiley - is for me is a strong psychological motivation. I'm not in it for the numbers or to collect icons, I'm in it for the sense of achievement in having to overcome all the obstacles the CO put in front of me. Getting one credit for signing the logbook and another one for fulfilling the challenge requirements lessens that all-or-nothing experience. I might still make the effort to satisfy the qualifications as well as visit GZ and sign the logbook, but I'm not sure it'd give me that same sense of achievement if they became separate tasks each with their own reward.

 

Yes, challenge caches are the odd man out, being the only physical cache with an ALR, but is being different necessarily a bad thing? Isn't variety the spice of life? Apart from people not being able to get a smiley without doing more than just signing the logbook, what other drawbacks are there of having that unique ALR requirement for challenge caches?

 

 

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Currently: Create a challenge cache. Rate the D and T. Explain if there's a discrepancy with the D* because of the challenge difficulty.


Can I suggest a simpler solution to this issue? Project GC automatically generate a challenge difficulty rating which appears in the checker:

 

image.png.1bb3ac8fb7092a87f715aeb13ab34c0f.png

 

Why not use that to rate the challenge difficulty and leave the cache page D-rating for the physical cache's concealment difficulty? As it stands, I have great difficulty (pardon the pun) setting a D rating for my challenges as they're going to be very difficult for some cachers, especially newbies, but are likely to be a piece of cake for long-time players with oodles of qualifying finds under their belt. Sure I have a good feeling for what might be a D1 or a D5 challenge, but ranking all those half-stars in between is a real challenge with no guidance at all in the Help Centre. Project GC's generated number is probably a much better guide to the actual difficulty of a challenge than any finger-in-the-air rating I'm likely to come up with prior to publication.

 

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling
  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

It would be nice if, like other unknown types, the coordinates for challenges were hidden by default. Challenge caches are now required to include a checker to validate the user's qualifications. Why not rig that checker to return true coordinates on a successful check, but keep them hidden on a failed one? 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

 

29 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:
9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Currently: Create a challenge cache. Rate the D and T. Explain if there's a discrepancy with the D* because of the challenge difficulty.


Can I suggest a simpler solution to this issue? Project GC automatically generate a challenge difficulty rating which appears in the checker:

image.png.1bb3ac8fb7092a87f715aeb13ab34c0f.png

 

Why not use that to rate the challenge difficulty and leave the cache page D-rating for the physical cache's concealment difficulty? As it stands, I have great difficulty (pardon the pun) setting a D rating for my challenges as they're going to be very difficult for some cachers, especially newbies, but are likely to be a piece of cake for long-time players with oodles of qualifying finds under their belt. Sure I have a good feeling for what might be a D1 or a D5 challenge, but ranking all those half-stars in between is a real challenge with no guidance at all in the Help Centre. Project GC's generated number is probably a much better guide to the actual difficulty of a challenge than any finger-in-the-air rating I'm likely to come up with prior to publication.

 

Thank you for this comment. I don't think the auto-generated challenge difficulty has been raised as a point yet.

Here's a couple factors that comes to mind though:

* It's auto-generated and adjusted over time as people check

* It's not set by the cache owner

* If making no changes but pointing to that number, cache owners may be publishing 1/1 challenge caches (for eg) for highly advanced/difficult challenges with no immediate or relatively accurate rating as to its challenge difficulty.

(PS the PGC difficulty rating would be a great point to include in the challenge stars thread; I don't believe it was made there)

 

 

 

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

By dismissing "that's the way it is" you limit the discussion.

Who dismissed it?  Everyone has admitted that is one solution. It's a do nothing solution. It doesn't further the discussion at all.

 

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

What if the current way is the "better way"?  I can already hear you saying "that's not the solution."  Again, limiting the discussion.

lol! Asking for discussion and input to provide a better way is limiting the discussion? But saying "that's the way it is" isn't?  My gosh...

 

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

I've been thru the discussion about "stars" and say "that's not the solution."  So why am I "dismissive" and you are not?  (Oh, that's right, the first person to place a negative label on the other camp "wins")

This isn't a competition! Actively trying to end discussion is not contributing to the discussion. "That's the way it is" is a dead end. It's already been recognized as a solution. So if you don't want to see any other solution explored, then so be it - but you're not furthering the discussion by insisting that there is no other way.

 

1 hour ago, fizzymagic said:

Challenges caches are marked as the "Unknown" type, which, to people with a functioning central nervous system, means "read the description."  Thus, there is no possible confusion about finding the physical cache and signing the log.

There is a dislike for the fact that there is an additional logging requirement to finding and signing the physical cache. THAT is why the discussion went further than "suck it up".

 

1 hour ago, fizzymagic said:

The problems with a retroactive change to the system are manifold and since the system works fine as is.

I don't disagree.

 

1 hour ago, fizzymagic said:

This discussion is absurd.

I don't disagree.

 

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

I never said they were CC's, just that optional Challenges - whether on a Unchallenge or a "stars" Challenge - have the same low incentive.

Okay, so you value the finality of the FIND more than any other option. That's your opinion, good to know. As I said earlier, there has been no survey and no test scenario to find out how something like that would be adopted, let alone worldwide. You know how many new features went through 'negative press' and are pretty much accepted in the system now?  Incentive comes in many forms. Some people like, some people dislike. Part of the discussion is attempting to gauge options for how something "new" may or may not be accepted. And we all know the forums are probably NOT the best place to get an accurate reading on any new ideas on a large scale.....

 

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

And unchallenges do have a metric to ID the completed challenge - the 'honor roll' on the cache page.

Entirely arbitrary and manual.

 

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

And I disagree that D/T ratings are "earned".

That's why it's in quotes. For lack of a better term. "Earned" as in compiled into your statistics.

 

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

They are part of every cache, while "Challenge Stars" would be part of only CC's.

Precisely.

 

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

There is no stat for the number of D stars or T stars "earned" (yes, I know there are some CC's that use that metric, but they aren't stats).

Uh yeah there is. Ever see your DT grid? Total D? Total T?  That is a metric and a stat.

 

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

And what would the total number of Challenge Stars show/mean?

Exactly what the D stars and T stars show/mean - What they are defined to measure. Thus the metric. 

 

1 hour ago, The Jester said:

It would be like the Find count, did they get them on 'easy' CC's (like finds on a PT), a mix of CC's, or all 'hard' CC's?

Once again, since stars (D/T/C) are linked to their caches, it's easy to parse stats to find all of that if one desires. We have a D/T grid to give a general overview of all D/T stars. A total C* is a distinct, clear metric of challenges completed - which can be broken down in more ways if desired because the statistics are there. D and T can be uniformly applicable to finding the cache with no mixing up of challenge difficulty in the D.

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

But those motivations would be essentially lost if completing the challenge requirements became optional.

So here's the question: What do you believe other people's motivations are for completing the challenge cache? Right now, it's the Find, because you have you qualify to log it found. What we're proposing is that for those people who love challenges, the incentive is in a challenge-specific metric. That said, as a CO, you could still lock the qualification to the Find. But if C*'s exist, then the incentive for doing the challenge isn't lost, it's just in earning/acquiring the star difficulty for the challenge. The motivation is still there. 

 

29 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

From my finder's perspective, I tried to explain my feelings on that in an earlier post, with the allure of difficult challenges being something like a siren's subliminal beckoning. The all-or-nothing aspect of the challenge cache - you have to complete both tasks to convert that beckoning siren on the map into a yellow smiley - is for me is a strong psychological motivation.

Likewise. For me though, it's because that's the only option in the current system. As I keep saying, I'm fine with it as is. BUT, I can see more motivation for those who love challenges if there's a fun metric to show the breakdown of challenges I've completed. Along with the system that accomplishes that, numerous other issues with the challenge cache system are addressed (as mentioned repeatedly throughout). Again, if you want to keep the Find as the ultimate incentive, that can still be done. The proposed system allows for the option to decouple the challenge if it's deemed a feasible option to incorporate.

 

I admire and love your passion for the challenge. I already qualify for the nemophilist challenge, but it's an awesome idea, and it's spawned not from mere statistical accomplishments, but based on having a set of (hopefully) wonderful experiences! There need to be more challenges like that (relative to the region in which they're published of course; I think the raw properties of yours would be relatively simple around here given purely to how many listings are published that are qualifiers). Likewise, I've seen challenges rated 'easy' in the description while traveling that make me gawk, merely because the local cache landscape is so different in other regions.  I am all for creative challenges that encourage experiences, moreso than mere numbers. So props for your challenge caches!

 

---

 

Look, all of this star stuff is in that other thread. It's been rehashed over and over. As I said near the beginning - a thread like this tends to end up with the same people debating, or arguing, over age-old points.  This topic was about the challenge cache type. The challenge stars thread is about that feature proposal, and it incorporated suggestions, comments, and complaints most commonly raised in numerous other threads over the years. So it's not a duplicate thread to this one. When it got to the point of talking C*'s here it was because we linked to that thread due to the fact that the points being raised have already been discussed. Even to the point of suggesting a sort of phased roll out, if I recall.

 

Can I suggest that further discussion of challenge stars - for those who actually want to discuss them - continue in that thread, and leave this thread to the challenge cache type? And if you don't care about challenge stars, either voice your distaste for the idea in that thread, or don't.  But don't be surprised if comments in this thread about the type suggestion are responded to with links to posts in that thread which address them so as to minimize redundancy.

 

I would love to see something new brought to the table instead of this meta bickering and "just accept it the way it is." 

And, I'm freaking hot because my AC at home is broken and we've had a 10-day streak of 30+C and my fingers are melting over this keyboard. :ph34r::blink:

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

There is a dislike for the fact that there is an additional logging requirement to finding and signing the physical cache. THAT is why the discussion went further than "suck it up".

 

Just how widespread is this dislike? I certainly haven't encountered any of that sentiment here. From the cachers I've met and from the discussions I've read in the various FB groups here, people either enjoy challenges or ignore them, or in my case a bit of both - I enjoy the ones I have a chance of qualifying for but simply ignore the ones like long streaks that I have no hope of completing. I've yet to hear anyone say "I wish I could just claim a smiley on that challenge cache without having to do the qualification." Is the amount of discontent really enough to justify all the work of implementing the Challenge Stars concept?

 

12 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I admire and love your passion for the challenge. I already qualify for the nemophilist challenge, but it's an awesome idea, and it's spawned not from mere statistical accomplishments, but based on having a set of (hopefully) wonderful experiences! There need to be more challenges like that (relative to the region in which they're published of course; I think the raw properties of yours would be relatively simple around here given purely to how many listings are published that are qualifiers). Likewise, I've seen challenges rated 'easy' in the description while traveling that make me gawk, merely because the local cache landscape is so different in other regions.  I am all for creative challenges that encourage experiences, moreso than mere numbers. So props for your challenge caches!

 

Thanks and I'm glad you like them, but had the challenge side of those caches been optional, I'm not sure I would have bothered going through all the extra work of making them challenge caches. Those two were probably the most time-consuming caches I've made. Slow Cooked took some three months from the time I created the cache page to its publication; firstly it's in a national park so I had to jump through all the bureaucratic hoops of getting that approved thus I wanted the end result to be something special, something more than just a traditional, and its location being a long time-consuming hike from anywhere suggested the theme for the challenge. Then there was all the extra paperwork of compiling a list of prequalifiers and deciding where to set the bar to make it achievable but challenging for the "average" cacher in my region (if there is such a thing). Finally getting it reviewed took almost two weeks, not because there were any issues with it but because our regular reviewer was on leave and the interstate one kept pushing it to the bottom of the queue because challenge caches take a long time to review and he had a backlog of traditionals, multis and puzzles to get through first. Nemophilist took a couple of months to come up with and refine the concept, with some concern over whether it would even be publishable, then all the data compilation to set the bars for the various qualification elements to make it challenging but achievable for the community here, plus the effort in finding a location, not just for the container but for the challenging hike to it, that dovetailed so nicely with the theme when my initial choice got bogged down in bureaucracy and had to be cast aside.

 

What makes those two feel worthwhile to me as challenge caches are the logs like this one: "The qualifying caches for this challenge are generally the best ones around, and make for great days with family and friends too." As a traditional with an optional challenge star, I doubt I'd have got that, instead there'd likely be bunches of these:

 

image.png.004a9771eaa7b09015775292d2bcea1b.png

 

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

This isn't a competition! Actively trying to end discussion is not contributing to the discussion. "That's the way it is" is a dead end. It's already been recognized as a solution. So if you don't want to see any other solution explored, then so be it - but you're not furthering the discussion by insisting that there is no other way.

 

I'm not "actively trying to end discussion" on a possible better way.  I'm just saying "stars" is not the better way.  An insistence that "stars" is the better/best way is just as ending of the discussion - "nothing more needs being said, this is the solution".  As you keep skipping over, I have been thru the whole discussion of "stars" and after consideration I don't believe it to be a good solution.  I don't think the current situation is the best either.  I think a new icon would be better.

 

No matter what the final results are, somebody is going to have to "suck it up and deal with it".  Currently, it's the "I want to log all physical caches" camp.  If 'stars' are implemented, I'll have to.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

7 hours ago, The Jester said:

There is no stat for the number of D stars or T stars "earned" (yes, I know there are some CC's that use that metric, but they aren't stats).

Uh yeah there is. Ever see your DT grid? Total D? Total T?  That is a metric and a stat.

Uh, no.  The grid shows the count of how many caches have X number of D or T stars.  But no total of those stars.  I've found 35 caches with T5, but nowhere does it show that I've gotten 175 T stars on those caches.

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Just how widespread is this dislike? I certainly haven't encountered any of that sentiment here. From the cachers I've met and from the discussions I've read in the various FB groups here, people either enjoy challenges or ignore them, or in my case a bit of both - I enjoy the ones I have a chance of qualifying for but simply ignore the ones like long streaks that I have no hope of completing. I've yet to hear anyone say "I wish I could just claim a smiley on that challenge cache without having to do the qualification." Is the amount of discontent really enough to justify all the work of implementing the Challenge Stars concept?


^ This, plus it would be nice to be able to distinguish them without having to search by name.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, The Jester said:

somebody is going to have to "suck it up and deal with it".  Currently, it's the "I want to log all physical caches" camp

I'm glad it's that way. Oh wait, no one actively participating in this thread has admitted to being part of the "I want to log all physical caches" camp. I guess we automatically win.

Edited by TmdAndGG

Share this post


Link to post

I've been following this thread on and off, so haven't read every reply, but just thought I'd throw in my twopenn'orth, which is broadly shared by most cachers I know reasonably well.

 

I'm fine with not being able to log caches that I've found but not qualified for, so I don't see the need for the challenge stars mechanism which would allow me to claim all the finds separately to the challenge requirement.

 

I just want to be able to easily filter Challenges, either to search them out to check my qualification, or to exclude them as a category on certain occasions, there is no mechanism to do this at the moment so I would like to see one of:

  1. Give them their own cache type and icon - makes it easier to spot them on the map, and more obvious to see in PQs and lists. There are a number of downsides to this, not least of which would be that retrospectively changing existing challenges  type would mess up people's stats, but "grandfathering" them would leave a mess of existing caches. This might be partly solved by making Challenges a sub category of Mysteries in much the same way as Megas/Gigas/CITOs are sub categories of Events. This could also create some problems with the GPX schema, and third party apps.
  2. Create a  Challenge attribute, which would be compulsory in the same way as the Challenge Checker is. this could be retrospectively added to existing challenges (may not be straightforward but it could be achieved with  a reasonable degree of accuracy). I can't see any downside to this, and it would be a reasonable compromise IMO.

     

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

2 hours ago, IceColdUK said:

it would be nice to be able to distinguish them without having to search by name.

Hey, that's handled in the proposed feature! *points to thread* ;P

 

 

8 hours ago, The Jester said:

I have been thru the whole discussion of "stars" and after consideration I don't believe it to be a good solution.  I don't think the current situation is the best either.  I think a new icon would be better.

I do believe you've read that whole thread. Your opinions have been recognized. And it's absolutely fine that you don't like the idea. I've never said otherwise. A new icon would address some issues that have been raised about challenge caches, but it's not without its own issues - it has been recognized as a solution. The challenge rating/stars idea came about as a way to address those concerns and the myriad of others that have also been raised. That's why it's a feature suggestion, and not a small one. Do we need to reiterate all the proposed ideas for adjustments to challenge caches in an effort to make them better?

* change nothing (doesn't make them better but it's one option)

* new icon

* new attribute

* challenge rating/stars

I really don't want to iterate through all of the complaints with the current system that led to the molding of the challenge rating concept. They're in that thread.

I'm not against the challenge cache type, but I recognize that it has its issues and doesn't address others. Maybe there needs to be a comparison table.

 

8 hours ago, The Jester said:

No matter what the final results are, somebody is going to have to "suck it up and deal with it".  Currently, it's the "I want to log all physical caches" camp.  If 'stars' are implemented, I'll have to.

On that we agree.

I'm fine as is. And I'd be fine with any adjustment that adds to the usability of challenge caches. Primarily the issues of filtering and identifying.

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

Create a  Challenge attribute, which would be compulsory in the same way as the Challenge Checker is. this could be retrospectively added to existing challenges (may not be straightforward but it could be achieved with  a reasonable degree of accuracy). I can't see any downside to this, and it would be a reasonable compromise IMO.

 

^ This.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

A challenge attribute would be interesting, but to me the only benefit would be to allow challenges to utilize the challenge attribute. Hey I'd definitely go find these challenges might even hide one. I'm a challenge addict.

 

I don't buy previous arguments about hiding challenge caches is more difficult. It's kind of implied, if you like challenge you do this extra work. I've done it myself.

 

It is no different than a person that hides a prefab in a guardrail versus someone who builds a complex 3d printed puzzle cache. It is either something you want to do or not. There are easy ways out or go the extra effort. 

 

As for the rules I do wish some of the rules would be relaxed like names. Let's be fair the rules were coming into play because they were out of control. Some of the rules like streak duration and blackout were starting to become problems that even long time caters have trouble meeting. I have signed some I probably will never do. I personally don't like anything that changes my behavior. Oh I HAVE to go out today, I HAVE to keep that streak alive. I can ONLY find three today and four tomorrow. 

 

I did a 100 in a day challenge back in January and hated it. By the end I was so tired and lost the enjoyment. That triggered me to go for 1000 in a year as hey I was 1/10 of the way already. Today I am at 746/1000 and I will finish this baring some unforeseen problem, but I am already tired of it kind of forcing me to go out and find a cache or two or ten. 

 

I remember day 424 of my caching streak I decided to not continue as it had become a chore and not fun. A huge burden was lifted from my shoulders.

 

I'm of the opinion now challenges should be achievable by as many people as possible. They should be a challenge but not impossible. My two owned challenges unfortunately don't cover this as they both require a lot of travel which is something I personally like to do but a lot of folks don't.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

I've been following this thread on and off, so haven't read every reply, but just thought I'd throw in my twopenn'orth, which is broadly shared by most cachers I know reasonably well.

 

I'm fine with not being able to log caches that I've found but not qualified for, so I don't see the need for the challenge stars mechanism which would allow me to claim all the finds separately to the challenge requirement.

 

I just want to be able to easily filter Challenges, either to search them out to check my qualification, or to exclude them as a category on certain occasions, there is no mechanism to do this at the moment so I would like to see one of:

  1. Give them their own cache type and icon - makes it easier to spot them on the map, and more obvious to see in PQs and lists. There are a number of downsides to this, not least of which would be that retrospectively changing existing challenges  type would mess up people's stats, but "grandfathering" them would leave a mess of existing caches. This might be partly solved by making Challenges a sub category of Mysteries in much the same way as Megas/Gigas/CITOs are sub categories of Events. This could also create some problems with the GPX schema, and third party apps.
  2. Create a  Challenge attribute, which would be compulsory in the same way as the Challenge Checker is. this could be retrospectively added to existing challenges (may not be straightforward but it could be achieved with  a reasonable degree of accuracy). I can't see any downside to this, and it would be a reasonable compromise IMO.

     

 

An attribute isn't as easily searched on line or on a GPSr.  That's the only real downside I see to attributes.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, The Jester said:

An attribute isn't as easily searched on line or on a GPSr.  That's the only real downside I see to attributes.

 

Yep, I get that. I suppose because I do all my selection/filtering/choosing before sending them to the GPS  that's not too much of a problem for me.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 

I'm of the opinion now challenges should be achievable by as many people as possible. They should be a challenge but not impossible. My two owned challenges unfortunately don't cover this as they both require a lot of travel which is something I personally like to do but a lot of folks don't.

 

 

I can see that, but also like the fact that there are Challenges that actually challenge people.  Just for example, the Triple Jasmer - it takes planning, work and travel to accomplish with only 4 caches from Aug 2000 left in the world (Utah, Michigan, Georgia, Sweden).  About a year ago I did some checking and only about 35 qualified in the States (I compared all three of the Aug 2000 caches in the States to see how many had found all three - I know at least three locally that do).  Pretty low numbers, and a CC for it would mean most would have to travel for it (but they are already travelers).  But I suspect more would try to qualify if it were available.  I don't think we should deny things because "a lot of folks don't like...". 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

 

Yep, I get that. I suppose because I do all my selection/filtering/choosing before sending them to the GPS  that's not too much of a problem for me.

Agreed.  I do most of my selecting and all in GSAK, but it's still hard to find CC's on the GPSr when traveling - 'Gee, do I turn left or right ahead since we have time getting to ...' (our route is seldom fixed getting from point A to B, occasionally it's taken extra days to get there as the route changes due to 'distractions' along the way).

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Jester said:

An attribute isn't as easily searched on line or on a GPSr.  That's the only real downside I see to attributes.

 

100% agree have to use PQ

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MNTA said:

I'm of the opinion now challenges should be achievable by as many people as possible. They should be a challenge but not impossible. My two owned challenges unfortunately don't cover this as they both require a lot of travel which is something I personally like to do but a lot of folks don't.

 

I think there's room in the game for the full range of challenge difficulty, just as there's room for all the other different cache types and difficulty/terrain ratings. The Scenic Adventurer Challenge is a difficult challenge for most cachers, requiring 40 finds on caches that are T4 or higher and have all of the Scenic View, Difficult Climbing and Cliffs/Falling Rocks attributes. In the five and a half years since its publication it's only had 6 finders. I only have 15 qualifying finds so far and will struggle to qualify before I become too old to do so. Yet that cache has acquired a legendary status in the community and is often discussed at events when the subject of great caches to aspire to comes up.

 

Anyway, what harm is it doing? Those that aren't interested can just ignore it and, with the nearest other cache over 3km away, it's not like the physical container is blocking anyone else's hide. Even those in the have to find them all camp would probably baulk at its T4.5 hike to GZ.

 

My own two challenges are aimed at the middle ground in the community here, yet for some they're a piece of cake whereas for others they're as good as unachievable. Compare these two checker outputs on my Nemophilist challenge for two people in the local community each with about a thousand finds:

image.png.90769fa27fe3862dd2e92cd7a7666af9.png

image.png.f9e285eae0ce61cf66eb9eb34a9839e3.png

For one, it's an easy pre-qualify with at least double the requirement for each element of the challenge, but for the other, with eight years in the game, it'll be nigh on impossible unless they get a sudden urge to switch from predominantly P&Gs to high-terrain caches.

Share this post


Link to post

So here's the still outstanding question: How does a new type or attribute address the issue of Difficulty being related to the cache itself, or to the challenge task? I think the obvious answer is it doesn't, so more relevant would be, does that matter? Because right now, yeah, there are plenty of challenge caches where the "actual" cache difficulty is (perhaps) disclaimed in the description; or vice versa.  I can't count how many 1/1 challenge caches I've logged as LPCs that were actually rated 5/5 in the listing because of the extreme challenge.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

So here's the still outstanding question: How does a new type or attribute address the issue of Difficulty being related to the cache itself, or to the challenge task? I think the obvious answer is it doesn't, so more relevant would be, does that matter? Because right now, yeah, there are plenty of challenge caches where the "actual" cache difficulty is (perhaps) disclaimed in the description; or vice versa.  I can't count how many 1/1 challenge caches I've logged as LPCs that were actually rated 5/5 in the listing because of the extreme challenge.

I'm not sure it matters.  The same thing happens with puzzle caches.  Is the puzzle or find that should drive the D rating.  But I've used the D/T of the challenge for the listed ratings myself - and adjusted it as conditions changed.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

So here's the still outstanding question: How does a new type or attribute address the issue of Difficulty being related to the cache itself, or to the challenge task? I think the obvious answer is it doesn't, so more relevant would be, does that matter? Because right now, yeah, there are plenty of challenge caches where the "actual" cache difficulty is (perhaps) disclaimed in the description; or vice versa.  I can't count how many 1/1 challenge caches I've logged as LPCs that were actually rated 5/5 in the listing because of the extreme challenge.

 

I've never really got my head around rating the difficulty of a challenge anyway. For example, a 28-day streak around here would be dead easy for a newcomer as most of their local hides would still be unfound, but for the seasoned cacher next door who's cleared most of them out, it would be very difficult without heaps of traveling. I rated my two a D3 since they're somewhere in between really easy and really hard, but how you're supposed to resolve it any finer and have it mean anything is beyond me.

 

To me it makes sense that the terrain rating should be that of the physical cache, since for the most common sorts of challenges (streaks, calendar-filling, grid-filling and numbers of particular cache types) the terrain rating of the qualifying caches could be anything. For those I've seen where a specific terrain rating is required, usually the cache itself has the same rating so it fits the theme.

Share this post


Link to post
53 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

To me it makes sense that the terrain rating should be that of the physical cache, since for the most common sorts of challenges (streaks, calendar-filling, grid-filling and numbers of particular cache types) the terrain rating of the qualifying caches could be anything. For those I've seen where a specific terrain rating is required, usually the cache itself has the same rating so it fits the theme.

 

To me terrain rating never have made sense. 

 

For Traditional a T2 is a hike of less than 2 miles, T3 is maybe 2 miles on varied terrain, T4 may be strenuous and include significant distance.

 

So a challenge that requires driving over 1000 miles  but is hidden as a LPC is a T1. It is probably correct to assume no one is going to do this in one outing but it is still quite strenuous. The guidelines that it should be in the difficulty never sat well with me. Most challenges I currently have working on require serious travel to accomplish why is not a car considered specialized equipment. I need 30+ "End of the Road" caches not going to find them all in my immediate area. My Jasmer grid open space is closest found in Utah. A streak of a year is going to cause you to travel near on a 1000 miles assuming you have not cleared out the easy nearby ones.

 

A prolific hider in my current area used to use T ratings for his multi caches to indicate how much driving was required, a T4 was probably 600 miles as it was assumed the person would have to return to the area the start of the multi was. He had a T5 with the final 2000 miles away. Specialized equipment airplane? My favorite of this was a D/T 1.5/5.0 - Stage1 found that Stage 2 was 4 hours north. Few weeks later was visiting my parents an hour away so made the find and stopped by GCHQ great day. Four hours back home. The following weekend my father came down and we had a four hour drive south and got a FTF. So in this case 17 hours in the car. 

 

I wish distance in a car would apply to the terrain rating for non-traditional caches.

 

Wish me luck tomorrow going for D/T 2.5/5.0 oldie GC48B hope to canoe there.   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Re, what should Challenge caches be rated; I do think this Challenge cache I completed is rather underrated for a challenge - 1.5D&T.

"The cache is at the posted co-ordinates but to log this cache you must have logged a cache in every Australian state and mainland territory in a calendar year. Eg. Qld, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, SA, WA, ACT and of course the NT."

I drove over 12,000kms and caught an overnight ferry to Tasmania (and back again) to complete a 1.5D cache. Even only taking finding the cache into consideration, it's not a 1.5D. Very well hidden and I almost had a DNF. I think closer to 5D&T would be closer. At the minimum to complete this Challenge requires a boat or a plane, to get to Tasmania, so specialised equipment.

 

Edited by Goldenwattle

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, MNTA said:

So a challenge that requires driving over 1000 miles  but is hidden as a LPC is a T1. It is probably correct to assume no one is going to do this in one outing but it is still quite strenuous.

I have known someone to do just that to get a FTF. About 700kms drive to Melbourne, then a plane flight to Tasmania and then another drive of 300 plus kms. All up, over 1,500kms one way. And then they had to return home.

But mostly longer caches are done in several outings. I have done some very long, cross country multi caches and I did some in several outings and others on one outing, but with overnight stays.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Re, what should Challenge caches be rated; I do think this Challenge cache I completed is rather underrated for a challenge - 1.5D&T.

"The cache is at the posted co-ordinates but to log this cache you must have logged a cache in every Australian state and mainland territory in a calendar year. Eg. Qld, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, SA, WA, ACT and of course the NT."

I drove over 12,000kms and caught an overnight ferry to Tasmania (and back again) to complete a 1.5D cache. Even only taking finding the cache into consideration, it's not a 1.5D. Very well hidden and I almost had a DNF. I think closer to 5D&T would be closer. At the minimum to complete this Challenge requires a boat or a plane, to get to Tasmania, so specialised equipment.

 

Agree 5/5

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, MNTA said:

I wish distance in a car would apply to the terrain rating for non-traditional caches.

 

I'm glad it doesn't. I have elderly friends who are fairly physically limited these days so they rely on T rating to decide whether to attempt a cache and generally ignore anything T3 or higher. But they're quite happy to go driving interstate, when the borders are open anyway. In another decade I'll be in my mid 70s and probably in the same boat.

 

For me, the terrain rating has always meant the amount of physical exertion needed to reach the cache. Driving is not physical exertion. My mother was still driving in her 80s when she could hardly walk on level ground.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, barefootjeff said:

 

I'm glad it doesn't. I have elderly friends who are fairly physically limited these days so they rely on T rating to decide whether to attempt a cache and generally ignore anything T3 or higher. But they're quite happy to go driving interstate, when the borders are open anyway. In another decade I'll be in my mid 70s and probably in the same boat.

 

For me, the terrain rating has always meant the amount of physical exertion needed to reach the cache. Driving is not physical exertion. My mother was still driving in her 80s when she could hardly walk on level ground.

 

Pre-Current rules a 5/5 challenge cache would have the comment Hide is more of 1.5/1.5

 

An example find 100 D1 caches rated 1.0/5.0

 

Here's a challenge that I hope is easy and fun. To qualify, you must find at least 100 caches of any type with a difficulty (not terrain) rating of 1-star.

Past cache finds count. You can sign the cache logbook anytime, but you may only log this as a "Find" once you qualify.

You can use the Project-GC checker below to see if you qualify, but there's no need to provide proof in your log. I'll either use your profile statistics or the checker to see if you qualify.

The published terrain rating is based on the travel you'll do to accumulate 100 1-star-difficulty caches. The actual terrain rating for the cache is 1.5.

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, MNTA said:

The published terrain rating is based on the travel you'll do to accumulate 100 1-star-difficulty caches. The actual terrain rating for the cache is 1.5.

 

 

How does the CO know how much traveling someone will have to do? They could have a D1 power trail starting at their doorstep.

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Re, what should Challenge caches be rated; I do think this Challenge cache I completed is rather underrated for a challenge - 1.5D&T.

"The cache is at the posted co-ordinates but to log this cache you must have logged a cache in every Australian state and mainland territory in a calendar year. Eg. Qld, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, SA, WA, ACT and of course the NT."

I drove over 12,000kms and caught an overnight ferry to Tasmania (and back again) to complete a 1.5D cache. Even only taking finding the cache into consideration, it's not a 1.5D. Very well hidden and I almost had a DNF. I think closer to 5D&T would be closer.

 

 

What about someone whose work regularly takes them to all the state and territory capitals? A sales rep, perhaps. They would be able to easily qualify with very little cache-related travel.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

What about someone whose work regularly takes them to all the state and territory capitals? A sales rep, perhaps. They would be able to easily qualify with very little cache-related travel.

I don't think a sales rep would be common, or if any of the finders and qualifiers so far are a sales rep. Many I am guessing would be grey nomads..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/10/2020 at 7:57 AM, thebruce0 said:

It's not a physical geocache. The argument is for physical geocaches.

That's my point: your argument is that ASRs are inherently bad, but to make that argument you have to eliminate the other caches that have ASLs by arbitrarily eliminating the caches without physical containers. The makes it obvious -- to most of us -- that your argument isn't the ironclad logical argument you think it is. It's just your preference. Nothing wrong with having and expressing an opinion or pushing for an idea you like, but I, for one, have gotten tired of your attitude that yours is the only legitimate way to look at this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't think a sales rep would be common, or if any of the finders and qualifiers so far are a sales rep. Many I am guessing would be grey nomads..

 

They would likely still be grey nomading whether they were working on the challenge cache or not, so I don't think it's reasonable to attribute all their travel distance to it. My own work as an electronics engineer was largely based in the Sydney office but I still did a fair bit of work travel attending trade shows, visiting customers and suppliers, etc. I didn't get to Hobart or Perth, but there were a fair number of trips to Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Driving is not physical exertion.

I try and tell that to my sore, tired body after a 400 mile (~650 km) day, but it won't listen and still gives me grief about the abuse.  I think I'd rather hike for those hours, at least the joints are flexible afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
55 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

They would likely still be grey nomading whether they were working on the challenge cache or not, so I don't think it's reasonable to attribute all their travel distance to it. My own work as an electronics engineer was largely based in the Sydney office but I still did a fair bit of work travel attending trade shows, visiting customers and suppliers, etc. I didn't get to Hobart or Perth, but there were a fair number of trips to Melbourne, Brisbane and Adelaide.

The trip to Tasmania though needs to be planned and booked. In my case when I did that challenge, I had an event on in Darwin and decided to drive there from Canberra and cache on the way. That took in ACT, NSW, Victoria, SA, NT and Queensland. I did make a special side trip of over 1,000kms to Kununurra WA, just for this challenge. Also, after I got home, a month or so later, I then made an extra trip of just under 700kms (one way) to Melbourne and then the over 400km ferry trip to Tasmania, just for this challenge.

I doubt there would be many people who could visit every state and territory in one calendar year, just by chance to be able to qualify for this challenge. Some might get several states and territories, but I imagine then a special effort would need to be made to visit the remainder in that year. As I had to do for WA and Tasmania.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

What about someone whose work regularly takes them to all the state and territory capitals? A sales rep, perhaps. They would be able to easily qualify with very little cache-related travel.

Cache-related travel?  How the heck to you work that out?  I do a lot of caching while traveling - sometimes the trips are cache driven (like the one where the route took us to the oldest cache of each state we passed thru and ended at GeoWoodstock), other times  for other reasons (last year I drove down to California and then across the country to attend a couple trailer owner rallies - we're Regional Directors - about 5000 miles one way).  Does finding caches along the way make it 'cache-related' when the reason for the trip had nothing to do with caching?  And does it really matter if the reason you qualified for the Challenge to find a cache on each coast (GC8M7M2) was you were there for work, you still had to do the traveling. 

Share this post


Link to post

Over here the general consensus  seems to be :

D=The difficulty of satisfying the challenge criteria, in the same way that the D rating for puzzle caches reflects the difficulty of the puzzle. So "have found at least 20 caches"=D1; "have found at least 20,000 caches"=D5

T=The terrain rating for the Challenge cache hide, so if the challenge was to find 100 caches up trees, but the container is an LPC then it's still a T1;

 

This is also how I view it, but not everyone follows that theory and as always D&T are largely subjective and based on the CO's own world view. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Cache-related travel?  How the heck to you work that out?  I do a lot of caching while traveling - sometimes the trips are cache driven (like the one where the route took us to the oldest cache of each state we passed thru and ended at GeoWoodstock), other times  for other reasons (last year I drove down to California and then across the country to attend a couple trailer owner rallies - we're Regional Directors - about 5000 miles one way).  Does finding caches along the way make it 'cache-related' when the reason for the trip had nothing to do with caching?  And does it really matter if the reason you qualified for the Challenge to find a cache on each coast (GC8M7M2) was you were there for work, you still had to do the traveling. 

 

There are about a dozen caches on Lord Howe Island, 600km off the east coast of Australia. Should they all be T5 because the only way of getting there is by aeroplane or boat? And if they were, how would you then distinguish, say, GC443QR, which is hidden at ground level about five metres from the road, from GC5KCMB which is a climb of 430 metres up a mountain from the nearest road?

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Over here the general consensus  seems to be :

D=The difficulty of satisfying the challenge criteria, in the same way that the D rating for puzzle caches reflects the difficulty of the puzzle. So "have found at least 20 caches"=D1; "have found at least 20,000 caches"=D5

T=The terrain rating for the Challenge cache hide, so if the challenge was to find 100 caches up trees, but the container is an LPC then it's still a T1;

 

This is also how I view it, but not everyone follows that theory and as always D&T are largely subjective and based on the CO's own world view. 

 

This is actually the way it's stated in the Help Centre:

 

Quote

We recommend that the difficulty rating be based on the challenge, the terrain rating on the challenge cache location.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

There are about a dozen caches on Lord Howe Island, 600km off the east coast of Australia. Should they all be T5 because the only way of getting there is by aeroplane or boat? And if they were, how would you then distinguish, say, GC443QR, which is hidden at ground level about five metres from the road, from GC5KCMB which is a climb of 430 metres up a mountain from the nearest road?

I was trying to figure out how "cache-related travel" figured into the example of Goldenwattle vs. the 'Sales Rep'.  I don't see any difference between traveling XX distance for work & then finding a cache and traveling that same distance to find the cache.  There used to be an Earthcache on top of Mt Rainier (14,410 foot volcano) - does the climber who went up for the mountain climb and then walked a few feet over to the vents to answer the questions any different than the cacher who scaled the mountain just to get that cache?  Did one have a T1.5 stroll, the other a T5 approach?

 

Islands are an interesting question.  First, is the island inhabited with public access (there are a few islands around Puget Sound that have residents, but access is by private boat)?  If so, then rate it by "normal" standards.  If not then it's a mixed bag.  Power Island in Michigan has the oldest cache in the state, rated at T1 (of course, this was before we really had ratings).  There are a number of other caches with T ratings from 3 to 5 - should they all be T5 because a boat is needed? Hmm...  Answer this, say you kayak out to a small island off the coast, at the landing beach is one cache, the other is placed on the cliff face above the water.  Both require the kayak to get to, by the guidelines both should be rated T5, but one also requires climbing (a double T5?) - different ratings?  Then compare both of those to the boating cache on a small inland lake (flat water) - again a T5 by guideline - are any two the same ease of access?  Do we need to break apart T5 ratings?  That could lead to mass confusion. 

 

The same thing happened to rock climbing.  Originally, class 5 (coincidence of numbering) climbs were broken into 5.0 (simple) to 5.9 (hardest).  Then someone free climbed something harder then a 5.9 (aid climbing, class 6, was used before for those climbs), so 5.10 was added (instead of re-rating all existing climbs).  Then 5.11, 5.12, up to 5.15 (I'm not sure if 5.16 is added, there have been discussions).  But even that wasn't good enough, so the upper levels were broken into four subsets (a, b, c, d), so now we can have a climb rated at 5.15b.  Confusing, isn't it?  I don't think we really want to go that direction with cache ratings.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8

×
×
  • Create New...