Size Changes

February 1

I've recently been filling my 365 calendars with different sizes... other, large, not chosen, virtual, small, etc. and have recently noticed that several of the "Not Chosen" finds have been changed to other. Which messes up my calendar, but in reality, means I drove 35 miles in a direction I wouldn't have needed to if I was just going to get an Other. I've contacted the CO's and they've stated they haven't changed the size type but have updated the cache page. Does that mean with any change to the cache page, the size is then being updated to Other if it was previously Not Chosen? How can this craziness be stopped?!! It is messing with everyone's stats!! I have over 62 Not Chosen finds that have changed. There are several Challenges out that require a Not Chosen find. Why is the Not Chosen being phased out?

3k · February 1

It seems like the API started treating Not Chosen as Other awhile ago.

IMO, Not Chosen should never have been a size choice, except perhaps as the only size for Events. Since the logbook can't be required Events should be size Virtual.

Also, all Earthcaches should have aways been size Virtual.

6.1k · February 2

17 hours ago, JenOvations said:

Does that mean with any change to the cache page, the size is then being updated to Other if it was previously Not Chosen?

Yes.

The Not Chosen option was removed quite a few years ago, and at that point any edits to a cache page which had it would automatically be changed to "Other", if you search the forums there are discussions about it.

Last year I was caching in a new area and there was a challenge to find 7 sizes in a day, I knew I qualified because I'd done a similar challenge years ago but when I went to check my qualification I only 6 in a day, after a bit of research I found one had changed from Not Chosen to Other.

February 2

Just as a little reminder: The Cachesize should not be for any statistic purpose (or not primaly) but to show the most accurate way possible what cachers are looking for when searching.

There are various options why a Cache can have a different size then before (Location has changed, cache ist now placed slightly elsewhere etc) and when I am being honest, your statistic is not important for me as a Cacheowner. I care much more about a correct way of describing the size for future visitors, and "Not choosen" is Not as accurate as "other".

Edited February 2 by Kurise

11.2k · February 2

On 2/1/2024 at 8:34 AM, JenOvations said:

I've recently been filling my 365 calendars with different sizes... other, large, not chosen, virtual, small, etc. and have recently noticed that several of the "Not Chosen" finds have been changed to other. Which messes up my calendar, but in reality, means I drove 35 miles in a direction I wouldn't have needed to if I was just going to get an Other. I've contacted the CO's and they've stated they haven't changed the size type but have updated the cache page. Does that mean with any change to the cache page, the size is then being updated to Other if it was previously Not Chosen? How can this craziness be stopped?!! It is messing with everyone's stats!! I have over 62 Not Chosen finds that have changed. There are several Challenges out that require a Not Chosen find. Why is the Not Chosen being phased out?

Similarly, in a sense, to the Geotour attribute removed from the geocaches after a tour ends. You may qualify for a challenge with those attributes one day and then not qualify the next because of the change.

February 2

On 2/1/2024 at 9:34 AM, JenOvations said:

I've recently been filling my 365 calendars with different sizes... other, large, not chosen, virtual, small, etc. and have recently noticed that several of the "Not Chosen" finds have been changed to other. Which messes up my calendar, but in reality, means I drove 35 miles in a direction I wouldn't have needed to if I was just going to get an Other. I've contacted the CO's and they've stated they haven't changed the size type but have updated the cache page. Does that mean with any change to the cache page, the size is then being updated to Other if it was previously Not Chosen? How can this craziness be stopped?!! It is messing with everyone's stats!! I have over 62 Not Chosen finds that have changed. There are several Challenges out that require a Not Chosen find. Why is the Not Chosen being phased out?

This is why I stopped working on my size calendars. Too frustrating to keep losing days. I focus on type calendars now.

1.1k · February 2

When we first found Mingo, GC30, 21 years ago it was a 5 gallon bucket buried in the dirt next to a fence post. A few years later we were coming thru the area with my son who wanted to log Mingo. Then it was a bison tube and the 5 gallon bucket had been removed. It's now showing Mingo as a large cache.

Sizes change. And that is very common when someone does a throwdown such as an ammo can replaced by a pill bottle.

6.8k · February 2

9 hours ago, Kurise said:

Just as a little reminder: The Cachesize should not be for any statistic purpose (or not primaly) but to show the most accurate way possible what cachers are looking for when searching.

Yes. A 2006 cache I adopted in 2018 was originally a small, but it had gone missing at the time of the adoption and I replaced it in a slightly different spot with a regular. That hide proved a bit problematic, though, with the container lid cracking under the weight of its covering rock, so I changed it to a lower profile version, making it a small again. There have been other occasions when I've had to change the container as my original choice didn't work as well as I'd hoped, and those might also have involved switching between small and regular or vice versa. Smalls and regulars are the most common container sizes around here, outnumbering micros by a good margin, so hopefully those changes didn't mess with anyone's challenge qualifications.

February 6

Changes to caches are totally reasonable to reflect an updated status. I had to change a rare DT to a less special one and could easily contact all the finders. The majority of them drove a long way to find that DT so I archived it and republished under the new DT for the new spot. That wasn't bad with less than 50 finders. But you get an oldie that has hundreds or even thousands of finds and there is no way you can pull that off. And just archiving and republishing is a hard decision for oldies. I don't have an answer either way for that scenario, just helping to muddy the water playing devil's advocate both sides. Sorry.

March 4

I never understood why the database-tag for a foundlog just seems to contain only date and time, instead of containing date, time, D/T, Size and cachetype...

Because: Yes, changes happen, but do this changes relate the circumstances under which somebody found a cache?

NO!

But only date and time will stay safe? If I climbed a 20 meter high tree to log a cache, the memory of climbing will certainly not be lost, but my difficulty in logging the cache will be degraded if the owner changes it from a T5 to a T1 because the tree has been cut down in the meantime and the cache is now down on the ground.

So changing elementary parts of a cache should not be allowed (Irritating: I always thought it wasn't allowed to do so, because I know some caches which were archived due to elementary changes) and the cache would have to be re-published as a reload....

Or the cache could be changed, but every Found remains as it was.

YMHO

2.9k · March 4

1 hour ago, Hidden Legends said:

I never understood why the database-tag for a foundlog just seems to contain only date and time, instead of containing date, time, D/T, Size and cachetype...

You forgot the cache name, but these are only hints, not collectible items. Some players record these details in the found it log if they really need this information.

15.3k · March 4

5 hours ago, Hidden Legends said:

But only date and time will stay safe? If I climbed a 20 meter high tree to log a cache, the memory of climbing will certainly not be lost, but my difficulty in logging the cache will be degraded if the owner changes it from a T5 to a T1 because the tree has been cut down in the meantime and the cache is now down on the ground.

The difficulty, terrain, and size ratings of a cache are not points to be scored by finders, or prizes to be won by finders. They are tools for the CO to communicate the general nature of the geocache experience with potential seekers.

5 hours ago, Hidden Legends said:

So changing elementary parts of a cache should not be allowed

So, what is an "elementary part of a cache"?

If the point of my cache is the view, then changing the size of the container is not changing an elementary part of the cache. If the point of my cache is the historic location, then changing the difficulty rating is not changing an elementary part of the cache. If the point of my cache is the public sculpture, then changing the terrain rating is not changing an elementary part of the cache.

IMHO, it's up to the CO to decide when a change affects an elementary part of the cache. If finders want to play a side game based on difficulty, terrain, or size ratings (or anything else), then that is on them. The CO shouldn't be prevented from maintaining the cache, which includes updating the cache page if conditions or coordinates change.

March 6

On 3/4/2024 at 3:04 PM, niraD said:

The difficulty, terrain, and size ratings of a cache are not points to be scored by finders, or prizes to be won by finders. They are tools for the CO to communicate the general nature of the geocache experience with potential seekers.

Not everyone shares your opinion. I tend to agree with @Hidden Legends

Ran into this problem a while back. A cacher from your old stomping grounds had several challenge caches along Mines Road Livermore area. They archived most of their caches, and then deleted all the descriptions and even the title of the cache so now it comes up as "Archived Challenge" fortunately they did not change the D/T and the logs have links to project-gc checkers. The good news is other catchers have hidden their own challenges hope to revisit someday. Changes can and do happen. This may not have been malicious but what is preventing that from happening nothing. Individual cacher motivations differ greatly that is what is great about this hobby.

Hypothetically, I manage to climb one of the nearby mountain peaks and qualify for a virtual cache. One is D/T 1/5 another 4.5/4.5. Then later the CO gets annoyed and decides to change it to a 1/1 heck yeah I'd be ticked off. BTW I'm never going to do either of these. At the time of the find I earned the stars.

13.7k · March 6

On 3/4/2024 at 6:04 PM, niraD said:

The difficulty, terrain, and size ratings of a cache are not points to be scored by finders, or prizes to be won by finders.

They are tools for the CO to communicate the general nature of the geocache experience with potential seekers.

Yep. It's right in our guidelines.

Another's extreme example would usually be archived by a CO here, as a "5" tree cache now on the ground isn't close to the same cache anymore.

15.3k · March 6

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

Another's extreme example would usually be archived by a CO here, as a "5" tree cache now on the ground isn't close to the same cache anymore.

To be honest, I would expect an elevated cache to be archived when replaced by a ground-level cache. If it's in a tree (whether the CO intends seekers to climb the tree or to retrieve the cache with a tool), then it seems the point of the cache is that it's in a tree. If the point were something else (the location, the hike, the history, whatever), then the cache wouldn't be in the tree in the first place.

But ultimately, it's up to the CO what the point of the cache is, and what changes affect "an elementary part of the cache".

6.8k · March 7

3 hours ago, MNTA said:

Hypothetically, I manage to climb one of the nearby mountain peaks and qualify for a virtual cache. One is D/T 1/5 another 4.5/4.5. Then later the CO gets annoyed and decides to change it to a 1/1 heck yeah I'd be ticked off. BTW I'm never going to do either of these. At the time of the find I earned the stars.

I don't think anyone here is supporting a scenario like that when a vindictive CO changes what was an accurate D/T rating to 1/1 out of spite. But terrain changes can occur over time that can make a cache harder or easier to reach, for example permanent road or trail closures, and I think it's better if the cache's ratings are adjusted to reflect that. Likewise for size if the original container proved problematic and the new one is smaller or larger than it. But such scenarios are fairly rare, most caches just stay the same as they were when they were published.

I'm slowly working towards a challenge cache that requires 40 finds with a terrain rating of 4 or higher as well as the Difficult Climb, Scenic View and Cliffs/Falling Rocks attributes. I currently have 24 so still a long way to go, and if at some point a qualifier drops off because of a T-rating or attribute change, well, that's life and I'll just have to find another to make up for it. But it's just as likely a previously non-qualifying find might qualify due to it's T rating being raised to 4 or higher or an additional attribute added. On another challenge I did that requred 24 2/4 caches, a few of my qualifiers were a lot easier than I'd expect for a T4 and a few were a fair bit tougher, but that's just the nature of the game and you can't expect everything to be perfect.

March 9

On 3/5/2024 at 12:04 AM, niraD said:

The difficulty, terrain, and size ratings of a cache are not points to be scored by finders, or prizes to be won by finders. They are tools for the CO to communicate the general nature of the geocache experience with potential seekers.

...

IMHO, it's up to the CO to decide when a change affects an elementary part of the cache. If finders want to play a side game based on difficulty, terrain, or size ratings (or anything else), then that is on them. The CO shouldn't be prevented from maintaining the cache, which includes updating the cache page if conditions or coordinates change.

So why there are so many tools and statistics provided for this side game? Because many of us play this "side" game and for most players it is a part of the game according to discussions I was part of at events. Not for anyone with the same importance but they are a part.

I don't disagree with you about the fact that at first this ratings are an information for the seeker provided by the CO. And that for sure he has the right to change it. But if he changes an elementary part of the cache (and I'm citating yourself, that it could also be elementary which Terrain it has), why should this change have influences to my log?

On 3/6/2024 at 11:34 PM, niraD said:

To be honest, I would expect an elevated cache to be archived when replaced by a ground-level cache. If it's in a tree (whether the CO intends seekers to climb the tree or to retrieve the cache with a tool), then it seems the point of the cache is that it's in a tree. If the point were something else (the location, the hike, the history, whatever), then the cache wouldn't be in the tree in the first place.

But ultimately, it's up to the CO what the point of the cache is, and what changes affect "an elementary part of the cache".

My Post wasn't about (if you see the whole post and not just the part you citated) cutting Owners rights to change the Cache ("Yes, changes happen..."), it was on how the changes should have influences on regarding my find later.

Does regarding my find as a D5/T5 as it was, when I found it, change the (now D1/T1) cache and the find for the next seeker and the Owner? I don't think so! Does it relativate my memories/ my fun finding it: No it doesn't!

But it does (and nothing more is my point) make me find another cache with this D/T rating or whatever for another challenge that I want to fulfill. IF my log is changed to the new Cache ratings.

So, why don't safe the circumstances under which I found the cache and fix them as they were? As said in my last sentence that you don't quoted:

On 3/4/2024 at 6:08 PM, Hidden Legends said:

Or the cache could be changed, but every Found remains as it was.

13.7k · March 9

8 hours ago, Hidden Legends said:

So why there are so many tools and statistics provided for this side game? Because many of us play this "side" game and for most players it is a part of the game according to discussions I was part of at events.

I guess it starts with whether you consider this a hobby or a "game"... Games need points to continue play, and stats I guess gives one "points".

Most of the "many tools" are on third-party sites, but yeah, we noticed that "friends" and other add-ons later made it competition here...

We joined because it was an outdoors location hobby, the "Language of Location", and enhanced our other outdoor hobbies.

- Confusing to people who see all the variations in a search online today (with any mention of "treasure hunt" the worst...), and now many finally say "Geocaching is the real-world adventure..." or "Geocaching is an outdoor recreational activity".

I'd prefer that caches are maintained. That means being sure their D/T and size remains accurate as well.

Most of us have seen terrain changes when revisiting an area. I don't believe "most" members play just for stats....

Edited March 9 by cerberus1
addification

6.8k · March 9

8 hours ago, Hidden Legends said:

So, why don't safe the circumstances under which I found the cache and fix them as they were?

I can't imagine that being easy to implement. First up, every Found log would need additional storage fields to capture a snapshot of the cache's D/T ratings, size, attributes and whatever else might be used for challenge caches and statistics tables, or alternatively add a timestamped history of all such changes to each cache page, then those challenge checkers and statistics tables would need to be modified to use that information instead of the cache's current state. It sounds like a mammoth undertaking with lots of opportunities for inadvertently breaking stuff.

I'll also throw in a counter-example. Back in 2017, I created a challenge cache requiring 20 finds with the Takes more than an hour attribute. Upon seeing that, a few COs around this area added that attribute to their hides that actually took well over an hour to complete but hadn't previously had the attribute set. Would it be fair to those who found those caches prior to the attribute being added to not have them count as qualifying finds? Sometimes, in fact probably half the time on average, changes to a cache's ratings and attributes can work in favour of those statistics-chasers.

March 9

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

I can't imagine that being easy to implement. First up, every Found log would need additional storage fields to capture a snapshot of the cache's D/T ratings, size, attributes and whatever else might be used for challenge caches and statistics tables, or alternatively add a timestamped history of all such changes to each cache page, then those challenge checkers and statistics tables would need to be modified to use that information instead of the cache's current state. It sounds like a mammoth undertaking with lots of opportunities for inadvertently breaking stuff.

So what?

You identified some of the changes needed. There are probably more. No one said that it would be easy. But with software if you can think of an algorithm you can code it. Again it might not be easy but thats why software developers get paid the big bucks to do if the powers that be decide it should be done. I also believe it could be done as an add-on to existing functionality. So as to not break anything . A data-mining program could be developed to populate the new data structures with the data from the time of the find. Then over time checkers and stats could be modified to query the new data switching to a more correct system.

These forums love to kill off ideas early in their inception because that was not the way it was in 2000 or it might be difficult. Well I believe the OP has found a flaw in the original methodology probably because no one thought that something like this would be done let alone people would care. Well some folks do and it does happen.

Also GS could prevent such updates. Just like distance moved they could detect major changes in the caches stats and then suggest that a new listing be done. This may be an easier solution to the same problem.

15.3k · March 10

11 hours ago, Hidden Legends said:

for most players it is a part of the game according to discussions I was part of at events.

According to the latest stats I saw, most geocachers have fewer than 100 finds. (Maybe it was fewer than 50 finds, but I know it was fewer than 100 finds.)

Anyway, the point is that most geocachers are NOT the high find count types who discuss stats and challenges at events. Anyone discussing such things at an event is almost certainly a few standard deviations away from the average geocacher.

When I've introduced newbies to geocaching, I tell them that terrain tells them how hard it is to get to the cache location, difficulty is how hard it is to find and retrieve the container once they're at the cache location, and size is a rough description of how big the container is. Period. These ratings are a basic part of a geocache description, and they need to be accurate. Don't break them for the sake of a side game.

Edited March 10 by niraD
correct terminology

6.8k · March 10

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

You identified some of the changes needed. There are probably more. No one said that it would be easy. But with software if you can think of an algorithm you can code it. Again it might not be easy but thats why software developers get paid the big bucks to do if the powers that be decide it should be done. I also believe it could be done as an add-on to existing functionality. So as to not break anything . A data-mining program could be developed to populate the new data structures with the data from the time of the find.

Personally, I'd rather those highly paid developers (?) spend more of their limited time addressing the backlog of bugs in the existing code. There's an almost unlimited list of things that could be done, but with limited resources it'll always boil down to priorities based on cost versus benefit and I'd think this would rank pretty low on that.

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

Also GS could prevent such updates. Just like distance moved they could detect major changes in the caches stats and then suggest that a new listing be done. This may be an easier solution to the same problem.

But really, how often does that happen? People keep quoting 5/5s being changed to 1/1s but is that a common occurence where you are? In any case, for grid-filling challenges it doesn't have to be a major change, just half a star on D or T will move it into a different grid square. If I change a 1.5/1.5 into a 2/1.5 because people were finding it harder than I'd envisaged, those earlier finders will end up with one less 1.5/1.5 in their stats and one more 2/1.5 than they previously had, and they'd probably be happy with that unless they were specifically chasing 1.5/1.5s. Anyway, in that scenario at least, the 2/1.5 probably better reflects the experience they'd had at the time they did it.

Size Changes

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation