Unholy hybrids: Bonus & challenge, and bonus & Wherigo. Can they be done?

[+CheekyBrit]

OK, here's the plan.

I've got a series of geocaches following the plot of a movie. Each one thus far is individually available but are more fun in a sequence; no bonus caches yet so no daisy chain issues.

QUESTION 1:
The next one in the series is to have a Wherigo cartridge. I was hoping to use the previous one as a bonus cache with mission critical information on the side of it. The stage supporting the bonus cache has the final container of a sith wayfinder so you can see the importance of using what you find there for the next one. 

The rules state these clashing concepts:
2.5 Wherigo Caches can have different designs that overlap with other cache types. If a cache uses a Wherigo cartridge, it is considered a Wherigo cache.
2.17. A bonus cache is a MYSTERY CACHE for which you have to find clues in other caches.

So if someone tried to build a bonus cache with a Wherigo cartridge, the type would both have to be a mystery and have to be a Wherigo. Does that mean you need to just not build such a hybrid?
Should it be a Wherigo? Should it be a mystery? I truly don't know. No photos yet, prototype needs work.


QUESTION 2:

Can you have a challenge cache be a bonus cache? The posted coordinates have to be known as per challenge rules, sure, but perhaps there is a padlock code you need. I'm guessing this is a hard pass, but worth an ask. Again, this would have to be a 'no daisy chain' situation.

[+palmetto]

Question 1.

If a cache uses a Wherigo cartridge, it is considered a Wherigo cache.

It's a simple statement, and true. Once a cart is used, it's a Wherigo.

 

Question 2

Challenge as bonus.

No. Because it means that to find the challenge you must find  specific other cache(s),  expressly forbidden by the challenge guidelines. See point 11.

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=206#specificLists

 

Edited October 13, 2022 by palmetto

[+Hügh]

2 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

Can you have a challenge cache be a bonus cache? The posted coordinates have to be known as per challenge rules, sure, but perhaps there is a padlock code you need. I'm guessing this is a hard pass, but worth an ask. Again, this would have to be a 'no daisy chain' situation.

 

I have seen Challenges that require you to solve a puzzle on the cache page to determine an lock combination. That, I think, is allowed. Not sure how that works with Bonus caches, though. I guess you could technically pick or brute-force the combination, so, you might be able to argue that it is possible to open the cache without finding the series.

 

1 hour ago, palmetto said:

No. Because it means that to find the challenge you must find  specific other cache(s),  expressly forbidden by the challenge guidelines. See point 11.

 

Those guidelines apply to the Challenge portion only, not to the finding portion. Also, as pointed out above, you technically don't need to find the series; you can open and sign the cache without breaking the ToS (getting the combo from a friend) or damaging the container.

 

1 hour ago, palmetto said:

Question 1.

If a cache uses a Wherigo cartridge, it is considered a Wherigo cache.

It's a simple statement, and true. Once a cart is used, it's a Wherigo.

 

According to CacheDrone, Bonus/Challenge trumps Wherigo, although I personally disagree a bit with that.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Hügh

[Keystone]

Let's play a game.  It's called "Make the Reviewer's head explode."

 

I'll start:  Put a letterboxing stamp in the bonus cache that uses a Wherigo cartridge.

[+Hügh]

4 minutes ago, Keystone said:

Put a letterboxing stamp in the bonus cache that uses a Wherigo cartridge.

 

...also, there's multiple physical stages with info for the cartridge. And, the final is a gadget cache requiring special tools/equipment.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Hügh

[+niraD]

"Mystery/Puzzle Caches often become the staging ground for new and unique geocaches that do not fit in another category."

[+Gill & Tony]

6 hours ago, Keystone said:

Let's play a game.  It's called "Make the Reviewer's head explode."

 

I'll start:  Put a letterboxing stamp in the bonus cache that uses a Wherigo cartridge.

And you have to solve a puzzle to know which cartridge to download 

[+thebruce0]

6 hours ago, Gill & Tony said:

And you have to solve a puzzle to know which cartridge to download 

Nah that's like multiple choice, just try each until one is right. Instead, you have to solve a puzzle to decrypt an obfuscated URL that leads to the cartridge. Always a 404 unless you get the solution 100% correct. 

[+mustakorppi]

20 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Nah that's like multiple choice, just try each until one is right. Instead, you have to solve a puzzle to decrypt an obfuscated URL that leads to the cartridge. Always a 404 unless you get the solution 100% correct. 

Can't this be solved as a multiple choice too, if that's easier than decrypting the URL? The cartridge must be hosted on Wherigo.com.

Edited October 14, 2022 by mustakorppi

[+thebruce0]

1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

Can't this be solved as a multiple choice too, if that's easier than decrypting the URL? The cartridge must be hosted on Wherigo.com.

Multiple choice is easy. This is for unholy 

[+CheekyBrit]

I love how the internet allows for absurdly niche topic discussion. Gentlemen, Ladies, thank you for taking this idea and running with it. My reviewer will be so glad I'm not doing any of these combinations, just thinking about them.

Just like my challenge of challenges that are themselves challenges of challenges idea. A meta meta challenge that just doesn't work. You could do one layer - require X challenge attributes..... but I don't know how to add a layer. I definitely don't know how to add a letterbox stamp and Wherigo cartridge using munzee stages, open geocaching stages, and all as a bonus of a series of T1 wheelchair accessible scuba caches.

[Keystone]

On 11/27/2022 at 12:33 AM, CheekyBrit said:

a series of T1 wheelchair accessible scuba caches

[+hzoi]

On 11/27/2022 at 12:33 AM, CheekyBrit said:

Wherigo cartridge using m***** stages

 

We...don't do that here. That's not so much unholy as heretic.

Edited November 30, 2022 by hzoi

[+niraD]

38 minutes ago, hzoi said:

On 11/27/2022 at 12:33 AM, CheekyBrit said:

Wherigo cartridge using m***** stages

We...don't do that here. That's not so much unholy as heretic.

We don't talk about Mm-mm, no, no, no!
We don't talk about Mm-mm!

 

Grew to live in fear of Mm-mm being mentioned here

Newbies post, thread is toast, moderators near

I associate Mm-mm with the sound of locking threads (click, click, click)

...

[+thebruce0]

mmm mu mu... muhmmm m-m-m-mmmuhhuuhhhhhhhh nope

[+CheekyBrit]

I have another unholy union of themes that keeps running through my head: a challenge of challenges of challenges. I doubt it is publishable but I gotta share the idea:
 

A string of challenges where they qualify the next one in the sequence but they bear super rare features so it essentially becomes a bonus cache string of challenges.
EG:
Challenge one: Find at least 5 challenge caches in each of 5 states. This cache itself is in a nordic center and requires XC skis.

Challenge two: Find challenge caches of at least 40 different D/Ts. This cache itself is in a nordic center and requires XC skis.

Challenge three: Find at least 2 caches with both the 'requires XC skis' and the 'challenge' attributes. This cache itself is underwater, requiring scuba equipment

 

Challenge four: Find at least 5 challenge caches at each of 5 different sizes (micro, small, regular, large, other, not chosen). This cache itself is in a tree and requires tree climbing.
Challenge five: Find challenge caches that were hidden on at least 100 different days of the year. This cache itself is in a tree and requires tree climbing.
Challenge six: Find at least 2 caches with both the 'tree climbing' and challenge' attributes. This cache itself is underwater, requiring scuba equipment

 

Challenge seven: Find at least 2 caches that have both the 'requires scuba equipment' and 'challenge' attributes.

The issues with this could be: 
My reviewer's head exploding... again. Sorry.
There not being enough qualifying caches in the nearby area, so I'd need to hide a bunch of each type

There not being enough people that qualify for each challenge. So I'd need to build them in layers, 1, 2, 4, and 5 first and once friends/others find them, move on to phase 2 (3 and 6).

 

 

1____3__

2__/        \

                  7

4____6__/

5__/

[Keystone]

22 hours ago, CheekyBrit said:

I doubt it is publishable ...

The issues with this could be: 
My reviewer's head exploding... again. Sorry.
There not being enough qualifying caches in the nearby area, so I'd need to hide a bunch of each type

 

This seems like a bookkeeping exercise rather than a true geocaching achievement.  Also, I'd be surprised if there were enough qualifying caches nearby, and that a sufficient number of local geocachers (including yourself) were qualified or were close to qualifying.  As a rule of thumb, if you need to hide a bunch of caches so that people can qualify for the challenge, it's time to ask if it's just an engineered exercise rather than a true challenge.  And, there is also the challenge cache guideline saying that challenges can't rely on a specific list of eligible caches.  If you hid all the qualifying caches, that could be an issue.

 

As for making your reviewer's head explode, it's wise from time to time for challenge cache creators to revisit the Geocaching Blog Post that announced the end of the challenge cache moratorium in 2016.  Quoting from that post:

 

Quote

[C]hallenge cache owners are integral to the success of this framework. It’s important that they work within these guidelines in order to reduce the burden that reviewers felt prior to the moratorium. If after a period of evaluation we find that a lot of the pre-moratorium issues are still causing problems, then we’ll know that this new framework isn’t the answer. We don’t have a backup plan. The only remaining option would be to not permit challenge caches as they currently exist.

 

If a challenge cache creator feels that their idea would increase the burden that reviewers felt prior to the moratorium, it probably does.  "Don't be that guy" who triggers further changes to the challenge cache guidelines, like "no more challenges based on attributes" or "no more new challenge caches."

[+hzoi]

On 1/13/2023 at 2:40 PM, CheekyBrit said:

Challenge one: Find at least 5 challenge caches in each of 5 states. This cache itself is in a nordic center and requires XC skis.

Challenge two: Find challenge caches of at least 40 different D/Ts. This cache itself is in a nordic center and requires XC skis.

 

That'd be a neat trick if cross-country skis were required all year round. But since I've done nice summer walks on trails that require skis in the winter, I'd just wait until it was nice out and then take a walk.

 

On 1/13/2023 at 2:40 PM, CheekyBrit said:

Challenge three: Find at least 2 caches with both the 'requires XC skis' and the 'challenge' attributes. This cache itself is underwater, requiring scuba equipment

Challenge four: Find at least 5 challenge caches at each of 5 different sizes (micro, small, regular, large, other, not chosen). This cache itself is in a tree and requires tree climbing.
Challenge five: Find challenge caches that were hidden on at least 100 different days of the year. This cache itself is in a tree and requires tree climbing.
Challenge six: Find at least 2 caches with both the 'tree climbing' and challenge' attributes. This cache itself is underwater, requiring scuba equipment

 

If any of these did get published, you'd start to see abuse of attributes, where other folks would throw inapplicable attributes onto challenge caches just so they'd qualify.

 

These ideas are not as bad of an idea as, say, logging DNF on a challenge cache you haven't even looked for, because that's just a supremely terrible idea. But I don't think they're practicable.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

These ideas are not as bad of an idea as, say, logging DNF on a challenge cache you haven't even looked for, because that's just a supremely terrible idea.

Just a quibble: That poster said he posted a DNF log when he found the container and signed the log, but wasn't allowed to log a Find because he hadn't completed the challenge requirements.

[+hzoi]

5 minutes ago, niraD said:

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

These ideas are not as bad of an idea as, say, logging DNF on a challenge cache you haven't even looked for, because that's just a supremely terrible idea.

Just a quibble: That poster said he posted a DNF log when he found the container and signed the log, but wasn't allowed to log a Find because he hadn't completed the challenge requirements.

You're right, and that's even worse.

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, hzoi said:

3 hours ago, niraD said:

4 hours ago, hzoi said:

These ideas are not as bad of an idea as, say, logging DNF on a challenge cache you haven't even looked for, because that's just a supremely terrible idea.

Just a quibble: That poster said he posted a DNF log when he found the container and signed the log, but wasn't allowed to log a Find because he hadn't completed the challenge requirements.

You're right, and that's even worse.

Worse in what way? To me, logging a DNF for a cache that you haven't even searched for is pointless. But for a cache that you've searched for, but for some reason can't log a Find for, it makes sense to log a DNF.

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, niraD said:

But for a cache that you've searched for, but for some reason can't log a Find for, it makes sense to log a DNF.

 

enh, this would launch into semantics about what a "Find" and "DNF" means in the context of a challenge cache, where there is no in-between log (found-but-not-qualified) other than a Note. Probably a different thread.

[+hzoi]

On 1/18/2023 at 6:45 PM, niraD said:

On 1/18/2023 at 3:41 PM, hzoi said:

On 1/18/2023 at 3:36 PM, niraD said:

On 1/18/2023 at 2:25 PM, hzoi said:

These ideas are not as bad of an idea as, say, logging DNF on a challenge cache you haven't even looked for, because that's just a supremely terrible idea.

Just a quibble: That poster said he posted a DNF log when he found the container and signed the log, but wasn't allowed to log a Find because he hadn't completed the challenge requirements.

You're right, and that's even worse.

Expand  

Worse in what way? To me, logging a DNF for a cache that you haven't even searched for is pointless. But for a cache that you've searched for, but for some reason can't log a Find for, it makes sense to log a DNF.

 

Dude. Give me a break.

 

You know how challenge caches work. That guy knows how challenge caches work. This is not some bizarre situation where the log is encased in ice.

 

You also conveniently omit the parts in between searching for the cache, and logging it online...THE PARTS WHERE YOU (1) FOUND THE CACHE AND (2) SIGNED THE LOG.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, hzoi said:

You also conveniently omit the parts in between searching for the cache, and logging it online...THE PARTS WHERE YOU (1) FOUND THE CACHE AND (2) SIGNED THE LOG.

Right. And if it were any other type of cache, then I'd log a Find.

 

But challenge caches are Special™. I'm not allowed to log a Find until I do something else: AND (3) COMPLETE THE CHALLENGE REQUIREMENTS.

 

Personally, I avoid the situation described in the linked thread by always completing the challenge requirements before I locate the container and sign the log. Yes, Groundspeak says that seekers can locate the container and sign the log before they complete the challenge requirements, but that creates logical inconsistencies that I'd rather avoid.

 

And yes, in the Help Center article Log types, Groundspeak says that a Note should be used when you've located the container and signed the log for "a challenge cache, but you haven’t completed all the challenge tasks yet."

 

But I can see the argument for logging a DNF instead. If you look at the result of searching for a cache as a dichotomy (you log either a Find or a DNF), then what do you do when you search for a cache but cannot log a Find? If your options are a Find or a DNF, then you log a DNF.

 

Personally, I think the Find or DNF dichotomy is a little simplistic for anything but a traditional cache. For example, I have spread out the stages of multi-caches over days/weeks, and in some cases I posted Notes to record my progress through the stages. But I can see the argument for someone who does hold to the Find or DNF dichotomy.

 

But this is getting off topic here. Further discussion belongs in the linked thread, where it is on topic.

[+thebruce0]

29 minutes ago, niraD said:

And yes, in the Help Center article Log types, Groundspeak says that a Note should be used when you've located the container and signed the log for "a challenge cache, but you haven’t completed all the challenge tasks yet."

 

But I can see the argument for logging a DNF instead. If you look at the result of searching for a cache as a dichotomy (you log either a Find or a DNF), then what do you do when you search for a cache but cannot log a Find? If your options are a Find or a DNF, then you log a DNF.

 

Personally, I think the Find or DNF dichotomy is a little simplistic for anything but a traditional cache.

 

Exactly. It's not a traditional cache. It's a challenge cache. Therefore there is no log to represent found-but-not-qualified. And so Note, as you say, is the way to go, if you want. A DNF implies "did not find". A DNF on a challenge cache implies the cache was not found. A Note is far more accurate and relevant to what's implied by the log type. Especially including the text that goes along with the type.

I don't see any decent argument for logging a DNF on a challenge cache you found but don't yet qualify for. A Note, or even no log, would be more applicable.