Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
beny258

Challenge cache type

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, The Jester said:

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?

 

I was referring to the challenge Goldenwattle mentioned that required finding a cache in each Australian state. Someone who has to regularly travel to all the state capitals for work would be able to do this quite easily as they wouldn't have to pay for the travel or devote any significant leisure time to the challenge. Trying to factor in driving or public transport into the terrain rating opens a can of worms because everyone's circumstances will be different and it takes away an important aspect of the terrain rating which is as a guide to the amount of physical effort needed to get from where you leave that mode of transport to when you arrive at the cache. That's particularly important for someone with limited agility.

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post

Tough question.  We did an Earthcache that required visiting two sites in each of five areas in New Jersey.  Finishing it off too  two days, and 400 miles of driving.  Rated 5/5.  (Of course, we did get stuck in the sand, and fortunately, someone pushed us out.)

Whereas, the New Jersey County Challenge took as much driving, but is only a 2.5/3.  The NJ DeLorme Challenge was also only a 2.5/3.  900 miles of driving in seven days.

Was working on the Pennsylvania County and DeLorme Challenges.  Would probably only take three or four days to finish them off.  They're rated 5/2.5 and 5/4.  Would probably only take a week to finish them off, but I'm sot sure I'm into that kind of a trip anymore.  (Though a reviewer did offer to hike with me to one of them...)

I am considering the local Jasmer Challenge.  That would require a trip to Michigan.  But my sister and I called that off due to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Share this post


Link to post

As I mentioned, the challenge example I gave is only rated 1.5D&T, where 5D&T would be more realistic. The cache is very well hidden, so that alone pushes up the D rating above 1.5. However I don't believe the CO will ever fix this, as there are non-qualifying finds and the CO has never deleted them. They also rate most of their caches 1.5/1.5.

Share this post


Link to post

Since I'm the official self proclaimed off topic thread announcer, I might as well give the latest report on this thread! It appears to have gone from another challenge cache type request thread, to a tutorial on how to rate the D/T on your caches! Incredible!:D

  • Upvote 2
  • Surprised 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, TmdAndGG said:

Since I'm the official self proclaimed off topic thread announcer, I might as well give the latest report on this thread! It appears to have gone from another challenge cache type request thread, to a tutorial on how to rate the D/T on your caches! Incredible!:D

At least it was still talking about challenge caches, now how to rate them.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/12/2020 at 2:48 AM, dprovan said:

That's my point: your argument is that ASRs are inherently bad,

 

When did I argue that ALRs are "inherently bad"?  That discussion was about how can challenge caches be improved, always has been.

 

On 7/12/2020 at 2:48 AM, dprovan said:

to make that argument you have to eliminate the other caches that have ASLs by arbitrarily eliminating the caches without physical containers.

 

No. The other non-physical cache types do not have ALRs.  The tasks for logging a find online is defined by the cache type.  Of all the things to be debating, I wouldn't think the very definition of the ALR would be one. It's a known singular exception to the base rules for the cache type - all other logging requirements are defined by the type.  Physical cache types all share the same requirement - sign the log (regardless of how you got there) to log it online EXCEPT for challenge caches with the Additional Logging Requirement.

 

On 7/12/2020 at 2:48 AM, dprovan said:

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.

 

I'm growing tired of people putting words in the mouths of others who simply want to explore better ways to do things. Not once did anyone say the new feature suggestion is the "only legitimate way to look at this," as explained over, and over, and over again. Move past it. Please.

 

 

On 7/11/2020 at 11:30 PM, The Jester said:

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.

 

The general consensus (and typical recommendation) is to the consider the D the amount of brainwork needed to determine the location of the cache/log, and the terrain the amount of physical labour/braun to arrive at the location of the cache coordinates.  That's why there's the inconsistency with challenge cache qualification - qualifying doesn't have to do with the geocache container but rather the additional tasks required, so the D (and occasionally the T) get conflated and often the CO decides to clarify in the geocache description if the difficulty of the cache doesn't feel similar to the effort of qualifying (as demonstrated in recent comments here).

Solving a puzzle isn't an ALR, but it is reflected in the D for the task intended to determine the cache location; field puzzle, the D to access the log; camouflage, the D to identify the container; etc. If you don't get any of those (as intended), you can't even sign the log - and that's the requirement for logging online. Challenge cache? You can do all that, sign the log, but still not be able to log online, because it's an exception.

 

We can see the issue that a new challenge cache type doesn't address this, given all the back and forth about 'proper' ways to rate the D/T of a challenge cache.  So, a new cache type solves some issues, but is doesn't touch some others.

(and no, that is not saying it's not a "legitimate" solution, it just leaves some known complaints outstanding; that's all)

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:
On 7/11/2020 at 11:48 PM, dprovan said:

That's my point: your argument is that ASRs are inherently bad,

 

When did I argue that ALRs are "inherently bad"?  That discussion was about how can challenge caches be improved, always has been.

Yes, you've never used the words "ALR's are inherently bad".  But the way you hammer the point of the CC's ALR as an exception implies that it is something to be fixed, or, in other words, a "bad thing". 

 

Case in point:

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

 

On 7/11/2020 at 8:30 PM, The Jester said:

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.

 

The general consensus (and typical recommendation) is to the consider the D the amount of brainwork needed to determine the location of the cache/log, and the terrain the amount of physical labour/braun to arrive at the location of the cache coordinates.  That's why there's the inconsistency with challenge cache qualification - qualifying doesn't have to do with the geocache container but rather the additional tasks required, so the D (and occasionally the T) get conflated and often the CO decides to clarify in the geocache description if the difficulty of the cache doesn't feel similar to the effort of qualifying (as demonstrated in recent comments here).

Solving a puzzle isn't an ALR, but it is reflected in the D for the task intended to determine the cache location; field puzzle, the D to access the log; camouflage, the D to identify the container; etc. If you don't get any of those (as intended), you can't even sign the log - and that's the requirement for logging online. Challenge cache? You can do all that, sign the log, but still not be able to log online, because it's an exception.

Here you took comments about rating a CC and twisted it into another "rant" about the "exception".  What I said has nothing to do with logging, but you needed to hammer the point "but still not be able to log online, because it's an exception".

 

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

The tasks for logging a find online is defined by the cache type.  Of all the things to be debating, I wouldn't think the very definition of the ALR would be one. It's a known singular exception to the base rules for the cache type - all other logging requirements are defined by the type.  Physical cache types all share the same requirement - sign the log (regardless of how you got there) to log it online EXCEPT for challenge caches with the Additional Logging Requirement.

Yes, "The tasks for logging a find online is defined by the cache type."  Puzzle Caches, Virtual caches, Multi Caches, Events, Wherigo's, Challenge Caches and Earthcaches are types, physical caches are a group of cache types to set them apart from non-physical types.  They share some things, but not all things.  So stating that one type within the group is different is irrelevant.  "The tasks for logging a find online is defined by the cache type."    Part of the definition of a Challenge Cache is it has an ALR.  It's not a "bad thing", it is a different thing.  But not something that needs to be corrected.

 

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, The Jester said:

"The tasks for logging a find online is defined by the cache type."    Part of the definition of a Challenge Cache is it has an ALR.


If Challenges has their own type, wouldn't documenting your qualification simply be ‘a task for logging online defined by the cache type’, and no longer an exceptional ALR?  Problem solved!

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:


If Challenges has their own type, wouldn't documenting your qualification simply be ‘a task for logging online defined by the cache type’, and no longer an exceptional ALR?  Problem solved!

 

This kind of documenting is only part of some old challenges. No documenting is required for any new challenges. Only additional part is that the player meets the requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Yes, you've never used the words "ALR's are inherently bad".  But the way you hammer the point of the CC's ALR as an exception implies that it is something to be fixed, or, in other words, a "bad thing". 

 

No, I never said "something to be fixed" or even implied "a bad thing".  Can be Improved != Is bad.  You are the one inferring negativity from my comments. Hammering that qualification ALR is an exception is hammering a nail in the rightful place. Because that's literally exactly what it is.

 

58 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Here you took comments about rating a CC and twisted it into another "rant" about the "exception".  What I said has nothing to do with logging, but you needed to hammer the point "but still not be able to log online, because it's an exception".

 

I was explaining why puzzles are not an analog to challenge qualification when it comes to ratings or logging. The only "rant" coming from me is the growing annoyance with assumptions about my motives and the words I'm typing.  What I said is literally true: "If you don't get any of those as intended [cache location/field puzzle/camouflage], you can't even sign the log - and that's the requirement for logging online. Challenge cache? You can do all that, sign the log, but still not be able to log online, because it's an exception."

 

Or in other words: "I can solve a listing puzzle, go there and finally spot the hidden container, figure out a field puzzle to access the log, and then sign the log. But if it's a challenge cache, I still need to qualify because it's an exception to the guidelines for the Unknown [physical] cache."

 

Infer negativity from that all you want, but it doesn't change the fact of the statement. You could accept that and love it, or accept that and hate it. It's merely a factual statement about the process of logging challenge caches vs other physical cache types.

 

 

58 minutes ago, The Jester said:

Yes, "The tasks for logging a find online is defined by the cache type."  Puzzle Caches, Virtual caches, Multi Caches, Events, Wherigo's, Challenge Caches and Earthcaches are types, physical caches are a group of cache types to set them apart from non-physical types.  They share some things, but not all things.  So stating that one type within the group is different is irrelevant.  "The tasks for logging a find online is defined by the cache type."    Part of the definition of a Challenge Cache is it has an ALR.  It's not a "bad thing", it is a different thing.  But not something that needs to be corrected.

*sigh*

(non-physical) Virtual: Visit gz, Perform the required task - log as found.

(non-physical) Earthcache: Visit gz, Perform the required task - log as found.

(physical) Traditional: Name in logbook, log as found.

(physical) Multi: Name in logbook, log as found.

(physical) Wherigo: Name in logbook, log as found.

(physical) Unknown: Name in logbook, log as found --- except: Challenge cache? Provide additional proof of qualification, then log as found.

 

Of course a 'physical cache type' isn't a "Cache Type" - the point being made is that all the physical cache types share the same basic requirement: Name in logbook to log as found. A Challenge Cache (which is not a Cache Type) is an exception to the Unknown Cache Type (ie, physical) which now requires proof of an Additional Logging Requirement -- then it can be logged as found.

I don't know how this concept can be explained any clearer. I can't imagine you don't grasp it.  There is no implication from the above that the ALR is "a bad thing". It is what it is. Everyone likes and dislikes different aspects to this hobby. Nowhere have I been saying such an aspect is "bad" or "needs fixing" - I've always been clear, or attempted to be clear, that these recurring complaints in forum posts and various other social media locations about challenge caches raise issues that prompt (at least for some people) a desire to discuss ways to improve this aspect of the hobby (note: those complaints may be negative, but I'm here to discuss improvements).  If you want to infer that those of us discussing this actually mean that we think it's somehow "bad" the way it is - well, can't stop you. But absolutely guaranteed that is not what I am saying, so please stop twisting my words and implying that it is.

 

Moving on...

 

 

 

31 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

If Challenges has their own type, wouldn't documenting your qualification simply be ‘a task for logging online defined by the cache type’, and no longer an exceptional ALR?  Problem solved!

 

Yep, that's why it's one way to move forward :) but that doesn't solve the ratings issue that's been discussed for the last page here amongst other places. 

The way I see it, a new cache type, or a new attribute, both address the filtering and searching concerns but miss out on addressing the unclear ratings.

 

I suppose IF the only request from the OP is to improve searching, then a new type or attribute would suffice. Attribute would certainly be the easiest to implement. But the ratings would still be muddied =/

Edited by thebruce0
typos

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, arisoft said:
27 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:


If Challenges has their own type, wouldn't documenting your qualification simply be ‘a task for logging online defined by the cache type’, and no longer an exceptional ALR?  Problem solved!

 

This kind of documenting is only part of some old challenges. No documenting is required for any new challenges. Only additional part is that the player meets the requirements.

 

Right, the documentation is really a technicality, but it's a courtesy to the CO who may not have a membership at PGC to run the checker without limits on every new user who logs the challenge.

 

Nonetheless, qualification is required as an ALR, and I think IceColdUK was just saying that if Challenge Caches were a tangible official Cache Type of its own, then the qualification requirement would be part of the type definition, rather than an exception to the Unknown Cache Type definition.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Nowhere have I been saying such an aspect is "bad" or "needs fixing"

 

a desire to discuss ways to improve this aspect of the hobby

 

 

I'm sorry, but when I read "ways to improve" that sounds like "fixing" something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Our business is doing well. Now what can we do to improve it and do even better going forward?

 

"Improving" something does not mean said thing was "broken" or "worse" or "bad". It simply means improving.

Someone can think the current state is bad, or good, and in either case, still desire for improvement.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

"Improving" something does not mean said thing was "broken" or "worse" or "bad". It simply means improving.

Someone can think the current state is bad, or good, and in either case, still desire for improvement.

 

An improvement, by definition - "Make or become better" or "achieve or produce something better than"  - implies that something is "worse than" since the desire is to make it "better than".  The "worse than", in this case, is the ALR.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

 

An improvement, by definition - "Make or become better" or "achieve or produce something better than"  - implies that something is "worse than" since the desire is to make it "better than".  The "worse than", in this case, is the ALR.


A contrary example: 😉

 

Bolt improved upon his second 100 m world record of 9.69 with 9.58 seconds in 2009 – the biggest improvement since the start of electronic timing.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usain_Bolt

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

Quote

No. Un-challenges 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 guess what I'm failing to see is why the un-challenge cache reward metric is somehow intrinsically worse than the challenge star metric?

 

  • In both scenarios you can log the cache as found as soon as you sign the log. 
  • In both scenarios the challenge is separated from the smiley
  • In both cases the cacher has the opportunity to ignore the challenge if they so wish
  • In both cases the hider has the opportunity to create an optional challenge for people to complete

The only real difference I see is how the metric is tracked: Stars or a completion list on the cache page.

 

Quote

No matter what the final results are, somebody is going to have to "suck it up and deal with it". 

 

I tend to think of this in a legal sense (Hzoi will probably jump in here and correct me). It feels as though the precedent has been set by the higher court (Groundspeak) in allowing Challenge Caches to exist in their current form as an ALR. Yes they are an exception to the standard physical cache model, but one which has existed for many years and without a compelling reason to overturn the system the precedent should stand.

 

I've seen a lot of arguments in here about why the system should be changed in one way or another, but none of them seem to really justify the overhaul that would be required. Challenge caches are simply different. The argument has been postulated here that "all other physical caches don't require an ALR" and I agree that's an accurate statement. The rules for them are different, but different doesn't mean bad; it just means different. I don't think we should attempt to homogenize geocaching anymore than it already is.

 

I'm open to differing opinions, but based on what I've read in this thread and in the original thread about challenge stars, I'm sticking with stare decisis: let the caches stand. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

His new time was "better than" his old time, which was "worse than" the new record time.

In which case, you're using the word "worse" in a way that doesn't imply that anything needs "fixing".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, niraD said:

In which case, you're using the word "worse" in a way that doesn't imply that anything needs "fixing".

 

This isn't about fixing; it's about improving.  Bruce specifically states that it isn't "broken", which doesn't imply it needs fixing but he also states that it's not a case of "worse" or "bad".  I don't have a problem with "bad" (although I think those that dislike challenges specifically due to the required ALR do) but I do with "worse".  This suggestion, in his view, is just an improvement, not a fix of a broken system or a needed tweak to something that's bad.  As defined, an improvement implies a better than/worse than comparison.  "New and improved" implies that the original version is "older and worse" than the new one.

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

His new time was "better than" his old time, which was "worse than" the new record time.

It was not "worse than". It was simply not as good as the new time.

If I buy a new car of the same make/model does that mean the old one was worse. No. It was just not as good as.

  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/13/2020 at 4:08 PM, thebruce0 said:

"Improving" something does not mean said thing was "broken" or "worse" or "bad". It simply means improving.

I'm not sure how we got off on this definitional tangent, but I think the alternatives that allow finds on challenge caches without meeting the challenge would be worse. I do not think they would be, in any sense, improvements. I don't really care and don't think it matters if both or either of us are implying worse is the same as broken. The problem here is that we simply disagree which rules would make the game better.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry I haven't been responding in this topic but I kinda forgot about it and I haven't got any e-mail notifications (and I haven't read all the replies, I'm sorry, but I tried to read at least most of them). Anyway, some of you wrote that challenge attribute would be better. I disagree, attributes shouldn't be bound to a single cache type. Like you have tree climbing attribute, but any cache type could have that attribute, but attribute "challange cache" would be just for mystery caches. I would expect that power trail should be an attribute, since there aren't only traditional cache power trails. Some one also wrote that there are many challenge caches in his region. I think that's just local problem.

 

D/T rating of challenge caches is also strange, I don't know what D1 challenge would look like... Maybe "find at least one geocache"?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, beny258 said:

D/T rating of challenge caches is also strange, I don't know what D1 challenge would look like... Maybe "find at least one geocache"?

 

The Found Cache Challenge

 

The long list of requirements for this one are:

1. To log a find on this challenge cache, you must find at least ONE geocache.
2. All rules, guidelines and conditions for logging a cache find on Geocaching.com apply
3. You must have been alive at the time you found your qualifying cache. No zombie cachers allowed. If in doubt, please visit a doctor.
4. For the purpose of verifying your cache find, your qualifying cache must be located on planet earth. Any cache found on any other planet is not allowed.
5. Caches found prior to the published date of The Found Cache Challenge are allowed. So are caches published after it.
6. All qualifying cache finds must be active at the time of your find. Eg. The cache can't have been archived when you found it.
7. Your qualifying cache find must have a published date on it.
8. Your qualifying cache find must have at least one attribute listed on it.
9. Your qualifying cache find must have a hidden date on it.

10. Finding this cache does not count towards your qualifying cache find. That would be too easy.
11. Sign the log book at the listed coordinates.
12. To verify your claim for this challenge cache, your 'found' log must include your qualifying cache find. Any 'Found' logs that do not comply with the rules and requirements or that do not provide a qualifying cache will be deleted.

Edited by barefootjeff
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The Found Cache Challenge

 

The long list of requirements for this one are:

1. To log a find on this challenge cache, you must find at least ONE geocache.
2. All rules, guidelines and conditions for logging a cache find on Geocaching.com apply
3. You must have been alive at the time you found your qualifying cache. No zombie cachers allowed. If in doubt, please visit a doctor.
4. For the purpose of verifying your cache find, your qualifying cache must be located on planet earth. Any cache found on any other planet is not allowed.
5. Caches found prior to the published date of The Found Cache Challenge are allowed. So are caches published after it.
6. All qualifying cache finds must be active at the time of your find. Eg. The cache can't have been archived when you found it.
7. Your qualifying cache find must have a published date on it.
8. Your qualifying cache find must have at least one attribute listed on it.
9. Your qualifying cache find must have a hidden date on it.

10. Finding this cache does not count towards your qualifying cache find. That would be too easy.
11. Sign the log book at the listed coordinates.
12. To verify your claim for this challenge cache, your 'found' log must include your qualifying cache find. Any 'Found' logs that do not comply with the rules and requirements or that do not provide a qualifying cache will be deleted.

 

 

I have been thinking about hiding this type of challenge for some time. This one though is probably funnier. Thanks for sharing!

 

But this find is not just for any cache you must have an attribute set. That might up the difficulty  bit. lol

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The Found Cache Challenge

 

The long list of requirements for this one are:

1. To log a find on this challenge cache, you must find at least ONE geocache.
2. All rules, guidelines and conditions for logging a cache find on Geocaching.com apply
3. You must have been alive at the time you found your qualifying cache. No zombie cachers allowed. If in doubt, please visit a doctor.
4. For the purpose of verifying your cache find, your qualifying cache must be located on planet earth. Any cache found on any other planet is not allowed.
5. Caches found prior to the published date of The Found Cache Challenge are allowed. So are caches published after it.
6. All qualifying cache finds must be active at the time of your find. Eg. The cache can't have been archived when you found it.
7. Your qualifying cache find must have a published date on it.
8. Your qualifying cache find must have at least one attribute listed on it.
9. Your qualifying cache find must have a hidden date on it.

10. Finding this cache does not count towards your qualifying cache find. That would be too easy.
11. Sign the log book at the listed coordinates.
12. To verify your claim for this challenge cache, your 'found' log must include your qualifying cache find. Any 'Found' logs that do not comply with the rules and requirements or that do not provide a qualifying cache will be deleted.

Quite funny!  But #7 does limit it somewhat - all caches have a Hidden Date, but not all have a Published Date as shown by a Published log. ;):D

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

The Found Cache Challenge

 

The long list of requirements for this one are:

1. To log a find on this challenge cache, you must find at least ONE geocache.
2. All rules, guidelines and conditions for logging a cache find on Geocaching.com apply
3. You must have been alive at the time you found your qualifying cache. No zombie cachers allowed. If in doubt, please visit a doctor.
4. For the purpose of verifying your cache find, your qualifying cache must be located on planet earth. Any cache found on any other planet is not allowed.
5. Caches found prior to the published date of The Found Cache Challenge are allowed. So are caches published after it.
6. All qualifying cache finds must be active at the time of your find. Eg. The cache can't have been archived when you found it.
7. Your qualifying cache find must have a published date on it.
8. Your qualifying cache find must have at least one attribute listed on it.
9. Your qualifying cache find must have a hidden date on it.

10. Finding this cache does not count towards your qualifying cache find. That would be too easy.
11. Sign the log book at the listed coordinates.
12. To verify your claim for this challenge cache, your 'found' log must include your qualifying cache find. Any 'Found' logs that do not comply with the rules and requirements or that do not provide a qualifying cache will be deleted.

There should be one last one:

Your qualifying cache find must have been hidden on or after the date 5/2/2000.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MNTA said:

But this find is not just for any cache you must have an attribute set

As far as I know, every cache must have at least one attribute.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, beny258 said:

As far as I know, every cache must have at least one attribute.

 

As far as I know, you're wrong B)

 

There are plenty of caches without any attributes.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, beny258 said:

As far as I know, every cache must have at least one attribute.

That's wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally for me, when I go caching attributes are irrelevant, because they don't show up on my Garmin, so they are not that important for me, although as they are in front of me when I am publishing a cache, I do add some to my caches.

As I can't see them, most of the time,  I tend to forget attributes exist.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Personally for me, when I go caching attributes are irrelevant, because they don't show up on my Garmin, so they are not that important for me, although as they are in front of me when I am publishing a cache, I do add some to my caches.

As I can't see them, most of the time,  I tend to forget attributes exist.

Not sure why attributes don't show on your Garmin. They show on my Etrex 20.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, colleda said:

Not sure why attributes don't show on your Garmin. They show on my Etrex 20.

Not on my Etrex 30. I have been told by some where they see them and then I have checked and I still don't see them. But really, I can't be bothered by them, as I have never found them that useful. D/T mean more to me.

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Not on my Etrex 30. I have been told by some where they see them and then I have checked and I still don't see them. But really, I can't be bothered by them, as I have never found them that useful. D/T mean more to me.

They are listed in writing after Show Description.

 

e 20 atts.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, colleda said:

Not sure why attributes don't show on your Garmin. They show on my Etrex 20.

 

Didn't this come up before? Isn't that text of the attributes added by GSAK? I don't see anything like that on my Oregon 700 with gpx files downloaded directly from the cache page or in PQs.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Didn't this come up before? Isn't that text of the attributes added by GSAK? I don't see anything like that on my Oregon 700 with gpx files downloaded directly from the cache page or in PQs.

It did and I explained then that I didn't see the attributes. I load Pocket Queries or caches individually (such as solved puzzles).

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Didn't this come up before? Isn't that text of the attributes added by GSAK? I don't see anything like that on my Oregon 700 with gpx files downloaded directly from the cache page or in PQs.

Old timers strikes again Jeff, it was mentioned before.  I load my PQs straight to GSAK and load my Etrex from there. I'm surprised that they, the attributes, are not included when loading GPX files they way you and GW do it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, colleda said:

I'm surprised that they, the attributes, are not included when loading GPX

Attributes are just not part of GPX files from Groundspeak. What's not there could not appear. No surprise at all.

Share this post


Link to post

 

49 minutes ago, HHL said:
5 hours ago, colleda said:

I'm surprised that they, the attributes, are not included when loading GPX

Attributes are just not part of GPX files from Groundspeak. What's not there could not appear. No surprise at all.

 

 

Attributes are in the GPX schema at least for v1.0.1, maybe it's not in v1.0? and are included in the GPX file download:
 

From https://coord.info/GC7BGT1

martyn@fedora:~/Downloads$ egrep attribute GC7BGT1.gpx 
      <Groundspeak:attributes>
        <Groundspeak:attribute id="13" inc="1">Available at all times</Groundspeak:attribute>
        <Groundspeak:attribute id="32" inc="1">Bicycles</Groundspeak:attribute>
        <Groundspeak:attribute id="25" inc="1">Parking available</Groundspeak:attribute>
        <Groundspeak:attribute id="37" inc="1">Horses</Groundspeak:attribute>
        <Groundspeak:attribute id="53" inc="1">Park and Grab</Groundspeak:attribute>
      </Groundspeak:attributes>

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

Attributes are in the GPX schema at least for v1.0.1, maybe it's not in v1.0?

Just checked and yes they're in v1.01, but not in v1.0

 

You can set the GPX schema version in your profile preferences here: https://www.geocaching.com/account/settings/preferences

 

Edited by MartyBartfast
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

10. Finding this cache does not count towards your qualifying cache find. That would be too easy.

I had to chuckle on that condition :) .

In my area there is a challenge cache, where you have to find at least 200 caches for each D-rating (i.e. 200x D1, 200x D1.5, etc.). The challenge cache itself was rated D5, and before finding it, I had exactly 199 D5 finds in my stats (all other D-ratings were above 200). I logged it as a find online, and then added a screen shot of my D/T grid as proof that I fulfilled the requirements. A wrote a tongue-in-cheek remark in my log about self-fulfilling challenges, so the CO knew what was going on - they didn't object :) .

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, HHL said:

That's wrong.

I thought I read it somewhere but apparently I didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

Attributes are in the GPX schema at least for v1.0.1

Ah, yes. I forget the 1.01 version. Sorry for the noise.

I mingled attributes with favorites. :rolleyes: A senior moment, I guess.

 

Hans

Edited by HHL

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/14/2020 at 12:04 PM, STNolan said:

I guess what I'm failing to see is why the un-challenge cache reward metric is somehow intrinsically worse than the challenge star metric?

  • In both scenarios you can log the cache as found as soon as you sign the log. 
  • In both scenarios the challenge is separated from the smiley
  • In both cases the cacher has the opportunity to ignore the challenge if they so wish
  • In both cases the hider has the opportunity to create an optional challenge for people to complete

 

Answering re: the star mechanic in the relevant thread. But for a new cache type, if the 'reward' for an unchallenge being the smiley+fun-of-completion is sufficient, then a new cache type won't address that either.

 

 

On 7/14/2020 at 12:04 PM, STNolan said:

I've seen a lot of arguments in here about why the system should be changed in one way or another,

 

Minor quibble: Apart from the OP, I don't believe I've seen "a lot arguments" from anyone here arguing the system "should" be changed. While referring to others' quibbles with the current system who may think so themselves, the arguments here are (hopefully) looking for ways on how the system could be improved upon by addressing others' concerns.  (I for one have never said the system "should" be changed)

 

 

On 7/15/2020 at 4:19 PM, niraD said:
On 7/15/2020 at 3:19 PM, beny258 said:

As far as I know, every cache must have at least one attribute.

That's news to me. Here are a couple with no attributes. I just scanned a handful of caches that I've found and... tada!

 

And, I know in Ontario we do have a challenge for finding caches with no attributes. So... :P

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Minor quibble: Apart from the OP, I don't believe I've seen "a lot arguments" from anyone here arguing the system "should" be changed. While referring to others' quibbles with the current system who may think so themselves, the arguments here are (hopefully) looking for ways on how the system could be improved upon by addressing others' concerns.  (I for one have never said the system "should" be changed)

I've seen an argument in here so far for an addition of a challenge attribute, the addition of a challenge cache icon and the challenge cache star system. So far I'm not sure if any of those three have made a case for changing the system. At this point I'm more inclined to leave things as they are.

 

Full disclosure I opened this thread first vice the stars thread so I'm responding here first. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Minor quibble: Apart from the OP, I don't believe I've seen "a lot arguments" from anyone here arguing the system "should" be changed. While referring to others' quibbles with the current system who may think so themselves, the arguments here are (hopefully) looking for ways on how the system could be improved upon by addressing others' concerns.  (I for one have never said the system "should" be changed)

 

Just a suggestion: maybe if you spent a teeny bit less time on the forums discussing how the system could be changed, people would not come to the (natural, IMO) conclusion that you want the system changed.

 

28 of your last 30 posts have been about changes to the geocaching web site.  For someone who doesn't think anything needs to be changed, you sure do like to talk about it.  A LOT.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2

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...