Log deletion for challenge caches

[+Triple_P]

If someone (who is not the cache owner)  doesn't post their qualifications on a challenge cache with their found it log, and they have never posted their qualifications prior, but they log it as found, and they do qualify, is the absence of posting their qualifications grounds for deleting their found it log? To clarify, the challenge cache does have a checker. 

[+Max and 99]

11 minutes ago, Triple_P said:

If someone (who is not the cache owner)  doesn't post their qualifications on a challenge cache with their found it log, and they have never posted their qualifications prior, but they log it as found, and they do qualify, is the absence of posting their qualifications grounds for deleting their found it log? To clarify, the challenge cache does have a checker. 

Is this the information you are looking for? 

 

• For cache pages published after April 21, 2015 with a challenge checker, the owner can confirm the finder's qualification with the checker when the cache is logged as found. No further documentation is required from the finder.

 

 

[+Team Canary]

Nope. The CO's job to check if they qualify or not before deletion.

 

Nothing worse than reading lists of caches in a log.

[+arisoft]

11 hours ago, Team Canary said:

Nothing worse than reading lists of caches in a log.

 

It is very easy to fabricate a false proof for a challenge. It is better to check from the checker.

[+Triple_P]

17 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Is this the information you are looking for? 

 

• For cache pages published after April 21, 2015 with a challenge checker, the owner can confirm the finder's qualification with the checker when the cache is logged as found. No further documentation is required from the finder.

I wonder why the burden of proof comes down to the cache owner. I already qualify for my own challenge, so why should I have to look into if someone else qualifies or not. It shouldn't be up to me to show that someone else qualifies for the challenge. I can see how using the checker as a back up, might be a good solution if the CO doesn't think that a particular finder qualifies. 

I wonder why no proof is necessary in found it logs, what's the point of a challenge cache if proof isn't needed?

17 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

 

 

[+SW00P]

What's the point of a checker if someone has to post the qualifying criteria? 

 

 

[+igator210]

16 hours ago, Team Canary said:

Nothing worse than reading lists of caches in a log.

I usually try and post my list of qualifying caches. Why? Because COs might change things like size or D/T rating. I've had a few challenges I qualify at one point and then in the future I don't. Since you can't "lock" or qualifications, the closest thing you can do is post the list.

Edited April 29 by igator210

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, Triple_P said:

I wonder why no proof is necessary in found it logs, what's the point of a challenge cache if proof isn't needed?

 

The idea is to qualify. There are some occasions when you have to proof that you qualify, for example, when the checker gives negative result because of changes in cache attributes that are required to qualify.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, Triple_P said:

I wonder why no proof is necessary in found it logs, what's the point of a challenge cache if proof isn't needed?

 

For post-moratorium challenges, which must have a Project GC checker, that checker is the definitive arbiter on whether or not a player qualifies and it can just as easily be run by the CO as by the player themselves. The checker does provide a qualification summary in the Example Log box which most players around here (including me) usually copy into their find log as a courtesy, but it's not required to do so. For example:

 

[+Triple_P]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

 

For post-moratorium challenges, which must have a Project GC checker, that checker is the definitive arbiter on whether or not a player qualifies and it can just as easily be run by the CO as by the player themselves. The checker does provide a qualification summary in the Example Log box which most players around here (including me) usually copy into their find log as a courtesy, but it's not required to do so. For example:

 

I understand that it acts as an arbitrator and makes the lives of the reviewers significantly easier, but posting your proof of qualifying statistics should be mandatory by the person who is looking to find it. I don't think it's right to have a challenge cache, that has a checker, and the person doesn't post their qualifications, either before they find it, or with their found it log. That burden shouldn't fall on the cache owner. I know I already qualify for the challenge, I'm the person who hid the cache. The CO has to qualify for their own challenge to get it published. 

 

I'm grateful for those who use common courtesy and post their qualifications either in a note before they find it, or with their found it log. 

[+barefootjeff]

2 minutes ago, Triple_P said:

I don't think it's right to have a challenge cache, that has a checker, and the person doesn't post their qualifications, either before they find it, or with their found it log. That burden shouldn't fall on the cache owner. I know I already qualify for the challenge, I'm the person who hid the cache.

 

It only takes a few seconds for the CO to run the checker on the person logging it (not on themselves, obviously), much less time than for the finder to list all their qualifying finds if that's a large number, like the most recent challenge I completed that requires 75 finds with the "Boat Required" attribute. Listing all those would not only be time-consuming, it'd also make my log (and all the other logs) extremely long for anyone looking at the cache's find history. The sample log output from the checker doesn't prove anything since that's just a bit of text that could be easily edited by someone trying to fudge it, but if the CO has any doubts they can just copy and paste the finder's name into the checker's Profile Name field and be sure either way.

[+Triple_P]

The amount of time it takes to run a checker is the same for the person showing their qualifications and the cache owner. All either party has to do is hit the run checker button and it propergates the results. Imagine for a second if your challenge cache had 100 found it logs, and 75 of those found it logs never posted their qualifications. As the CO, you now have to run all 75 of those to make sure that each person actually qualifies. That's so time consuming. If all 75 finders had posted their qualifications, you would never have to run that checker because they already did it for you. 

 

The burden of proof should be on the finder not the CO. 

[+TheLimeCat]

28 minutes ago, Triple_P said:

The amount of time it takes to run a checker is the same for the person showing their qualifications and the cache owner. All either party has to do is hit the run checker button and it propergates the results. Imagine for a second if your challenge cache had 100 found it logs, and 75 of those found it logs never posted their qualifications. As the CO, you now have to run all 75 of those to make sure that each person actually qualifies. That's so time consuming. If all 75 finders had posted their qualifications, you would never have to run that checker because they already did it for you. 

 

The burden of proof should be on the finder not the CO. 

You'd still have to read each log to ensure that they really do qualify. That, and challenge logs tend to get cluttered with useless stats that can easily be grabbed with two clicks and some typing. I own a challenge cache and have had to delete a few logs. Usually, it is obvious at first glance when a person doesn't meet the requirements. If someone is clever enough to intentionally leave out qualifying info in their log so they can claim a find, they'd arguably be clever enough to fake that info, at which point you'd need the checker anyway. 

[+GerandKat]

4 hours ago, Triple_P said:

The burden of proof should be on the finder not the CO. 

The Geocaching HQ and the guidelines say it's the other way around:

For cache pages published after April 21, 2015 with a challenge checker, the owner can confirm the finder's qualification with the checker when the cache is logged as found. No further documentation is required from the finder.

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

 

 

 

[+Triple_P]

4 hours ago, GerandKat said:

The Geocaching HQ and the guidelines say it's the other way around:

For cache pages published after April 21, 2015 with a challenge checker, the owner can confirm the finder's qualification with the checker when the cache is logged as found. No further documentation is required from the finder.

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

 

I'm aware that the burden of proof falls on the CO. I'm making the case that it should be the other way around. 

Edited April 30 by Keystone
moved reply outside of quote

[+Triple_P]

8 hours ago, TheLimeCat said:

You'd still have to read each log to ensure that they really do qualify. That, and challenge logs tend to get cluttered with useless stats that can easily be grabbed with two clicks and some typing. I own a challenge cache and have had to delete a few logs. Usually, it is obvious at first glance when a person doesn't meet the requirements. If someone is clever enough to intentionally leave out qualifying info in their log so they can claim a find, they'd arguably be clever enough to fake that info, at which point you'd need the checker anyway. 

You deleted logs probably because they didn't qualify. I wanted to delete logs when people don't post their qualifications. Unfortunately for me, the guidelines say that providing qualifying proof isn't needed to log a find. Which morphs the conversation into, why have a checker then? The answer to that question is that the checker acts as an arbitrator and keeps people out of HQ's hair and keeps the reviewers out of the conversation. From all these back and forth, logging your qualifying stats is more of a common courtesy than anything else. I'm grateful for those who post their qualifications, even though I know now, it's not necessary to claim a find. 

[+Mausebiber]

13 hours ago, Triple_P said:

As the CO, you now have to run all 75 of those to make sure that each person actually qualifies. That's so time consuming.

You can complain about the guidelines for 20 more postings, it certainly won't change anything.

As a cache owner, you have to check whether the cacher meets the requirements, and you have to check whether everyone who has logged online is actually in the logbook.

If all of this is too much work for you, if this takes too much of your time, then you should consider archiving the cache.

[+Triple_P]

I'm not archiving the cache. The forums is the place for stuff like this. People have lots of different opinions on topics, and this was one that I was inquisitive about. The beauty is that I can post unti I'm yellow in the face. We can have a discussion like adults here and your most welcome to chime in at any point. I'm grateful for your response. 

 

You're suppose to do a lot of things in geocaching. It's a rare person who goes out, checks all the signatures of all their caches and then compares the online logs to the electronic logs. I'm one of the few cache owners who do that. Most people cannot be bothered. 

[+TeamRabbitRun]

38 minutes ago, Triple_P said:

I'm not archiving the cache. The forums is the place for stuff like this. People have lots of different opinions on topics, and this was one that I was inquisitive about. The beauty is that I can post unti I'm yellow in the face. We can have a discussion like adults here and your most welcome to chime in at any point. I'm grateful for your response. 

 

You're suppose to do a lot of things in geocaching. It's a rare person who goes out, checks all the signatures of all their caches and then compares the online logs to the electronic logs. I'm one of the few cache owners who do that. Most people cannot be bothered. 

 

So, you think that every log should have that of 100 qualifying caches?

What does that do to caches downloaded to GPSRs or PhoneCachers scrolling through all that in the field?

[+Triple_P]

11 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

So, you think that every log should have that of 100 qualifying caches?

What does that do to caches downloaded to GPSRs or PhoneCachers scrolling through all that in the field?

Can you rephrase your question, I'm have trouble understanding what you're asking. 

[+schmittfamily]

I would like to ask the reverse question.
Can a cache owner change a note on challenge cache into a found it log?

 

We have non-trivial challenge cache and there have been people writing notes that they have signed the log and will log a found it when they check if they qualify.   

I can run the checker and see if they qualify or not.    

Right now I know of three cachers that signed the log last July, were qualified when they signed the log,  but only 1 submitted a found it log (in October).   

I suppose I could message the other two and see what is up.     

 

[+TeamRabbitRun]

43 minutes ago, Triple_P said:

Can you rephrase your question, I'm have trouble understanding what you're asking. 

 

Sure - If I'm in the field on my phone and I want to look at previous logs, it would be tough if I had to scroll through everyone's 100-line-long list of other caches.

 

Sorry, I see that I left the word "list" out of my first sentence.

[+Max and 99]

16 minutes ago, schmittfamily said:

Can a cache owner change a note on challenge cache into a found it log?

Absolutely not.

[+Triple_P]

29 minutes ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

Sure - If I'm in the field on my phone and I want to look at previous logs, it would be tough if I had to scroll through everyone's 100-line-long list of other caches.

 

Sorry, I see that I left the word "list" out of my first sentence.

I can see how scrolling through all that fluff might be painful. The length of the notes or found it log depends on how much the checker is checking for. For one of mine, it's a short list. Also, cachers can simply use the standard sentence from project-gc without the specific caches that meet the requirement of the challenge. For Jasmer challenges, I'll often use a photo of my calendar. 

 

The other piece of this is how much you type for your found it log. Also, does it include your requirements or not within that found it log. Are your requirements in a separate note from months or years ago? The complete other side is you never post your requirements because it's not required anyways 🤣

[+MNTA]

If the CO is uninterested in checking their own caches results maybe they should come up with a better challenge. I can see how finding 1000  caches with the telephone nearby attribute is a bit uninteresting.

 

My two active challenges both have maps coming out of the checkers, I love seeing where finders have travelled. 

[+TeamRabbitRun]

1 hour ago, Triple_P said:

I can see how scrolling through all that fluff might be painful. The length of the notes or found it log depends on how much the checker is checking for. For one of mine, it's a short list. Also, cachers can simply use the standard sentence from project-gc without the specific caches that meet the requirement of the challenge. For Jasmer challenges, I'll often use a photo of my calendar. 

 

The other piece of this is how much you type for your found it log. Also, does it include your requirements or not within that found it log. Are your requirements in a separate note from months or years ago? The complete other side is you never post your requirements because it's not required anyways 🤣

 

Well, as I typed my comment it occurred to me that I normally write LONG logs, so maybe I'M the problem I'm writing about!

[+Triple_P]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

If the CO is uninterested in checking their own caches results maybe they should come up with a better challenge. I can see how finding 1000  caches with the telephone nearby attribute is a bit uninteresting.

 

My two active challenges both have maps coming out of the checkers, I love seeing where finders have travelled. 

To your point, I can see how a challenge like that might be "uninteresting." A challenge checker for something like that would simply be the photo of the attribute plus the number of finds that go with that attribute. 

I'm not bored by my challenges, in fact, I pride myself on unique and interesting challenges that often challenge cachers with thousands of finds to qualify. 

As you know, from reading all these posts, I'd rather the burden of proof be on the person trying to qualify than the CO checking their stats for them. I'm aware that it's the opposite, but to me it's silly that statistics never have to be posted and that the checker is simply for arbitration purposes to free up the reviewers and HQ. This is only the case for challenges published after the moratorium was lifted. 

[+Triple_P]

3 hours ago, schmittfamily said:

I would like to ask the reverse question.
Can a cache owner change a note on challenge cache into a found it log?

 

We have non-trivial challenge cache and there have been people writing notes that they have signed the log and will log a found it when they check if they qualify.   

I can run the checker and see if they qualify or not.    

Right now I know of three cachers that signed the log last July, were qualified when they signed the log,  but only 1 submitted a found it log (in October).   

I suppose I could message the other two and see what is up.     

 

You can't change their note. They have to do it on their end. You could delete their note, but I'm not sure what purpose that would serve, as they aren't breaking any of the rules, so log deletion is not the way to go. You would probably have to reach out personally and wait for them to switch it over to a found it log. 

[+arisoft]

8 hours ago, Triple_P said:

I wanted to delete logs when people don't post their qualifications.

 

8 hours ago, Triple_P said:

The answer to that question is that the checker acts as an arbitrator and keeps people out of HQ's hair and keeps the reviewers out of the conversation.

 

Reviewers don't review found it logs, so they are already out of the question. HQ will reinstate log if you delete it without a proper reason. You are correct that the checker acts as an arbitrator. It is the only proof you can ask in your challenge description. Anything else is an ALR and not allowed. Is this something you didn't know before publishing a challenge?

[+Bear and Ragged]

4 hours ago, TeamRabbitRun said:

 

So, you think that every log should have that of 100 qualifying caches?

What does that do to caches downloaded to GPSRs or PhoneCachers scrolling through all that in the field?

 

If you know it's a Challenge cache, you will be expecting long Found It logs. No?

Challenge caches are rather easy(ish!) on their own (the d/t is usually from the caches found to qualify) and logs rarely contain much information, other than how the cacher completed the caches to qualify for the challenge...

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, Bear and Ragged said:

Challenge caches are rather easy(ish!) on their own

 

Someone should tell that to the challenge creators around here. Of the 16 I've completed, half are themselves terrain 4 or higher, requiring boats, long ladders, tree climbing or long tough hikes to reach. For my own challenges, and in many of the others locally, the challenge cache is an embodiment of the qualities needed in the qualifying caches, so if the challenge is about finding caches with the Difficult Climb attribute, the challenge cache itself will be a difficult climb.

Edited April 30 by barefootjeff

[+Hügh]

20 hours ago, Triple_P said:

As the CO, you now have to run all 75 of those to make sure that each person actually qualifies. That's so time consuming. If all 75 finders had posted their qualifications, you would never have to run that checker because they already did it for you. 

If you install the Project-GC user script, it’ll display a blurb with all non-qualifying loggers at the top of the page. It’s using cached data, but it’ll reduce the number you have to check manually from 75 down to 2 or 3. 

(I’ll add a screenshot once I’m back at the computer.)

[+Triple_P]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

 

Reviewers don't review found it logs, so they are already out of the question. HQ will reinstate log if you delete it without a proper reason. You are correct that the checker acts as an arbitrator. It is the only proof you can ask in your challenge description. Anything else is an ALR and not allowed. Is this something you didn't know before publishing a challenge?

Anything else is an ALR and not allowed. Is this something you didn't know before publishing a challenge?

 

I know about Alternative Logging Requirements. Is posting your qualifications considered a Alternative Logging Requirement?

[+Triple_P]

2 hours ago, Bear and Ragged said:

 

If you know it's a Challenge cache, you will be expecting long Found It logs. No?

Challenge caches are rather easy(ish!) on their own (the d/t is usually from the caches found to qualify) and logs rarely contain much information, other than how the cacher completed the caches to qualify for the challenge...

I'm never expecting long found it logs, that seems like a lost art these days. 

 

There's quite a few challenge caches in Kentucky where you're going to hike 1.25 miles from the nearest parking just to reach ground zero, so while LPC'S are preferred, other more strenuous challenge caches do exist. 

[+Triple_P]

I'm very grateful to all participants in this forum. Everyone who posted added to the discussion or moved it forward in one way or another. There were lots of probing questions that were answered by myself and others alike. Your passion and knowledge of geocaching is appreciated. 

 

My original post question has been answered multiple times over, and I'm excited that I learned a thing or two. I now know that logging your qualifications for a challenge cache is not required for challenge caches post moratorium. I now know I cannot delete someone's log for not posting their qualifications. Do I agree with this, no. Can I accept it, yes. 

 

I also now know the burden of proof falls on the cache owner to check if the looker qualifies or not. Do I agree with this, no. Can I accept it, yes. Why? A vast majority of challenge cache loggers will post their qualifications for you, as a common courtesy. I'm eternally grateful for those loggers who are adding their qualifications for me. Will I publish more challenge caches in the future? Yes! I love challenge caches because it's [usually] an easy way to grab rare D/T ratings for fizzy loops or other goals geocachers are working on. 

 

Thanks everyone!

 

Triple_P. 

[+barefootjeff]

24 minutes ago, Triple_P said:

There's quite a few challenge caches in Kentucky where you're going to hike 1.25 miles from the nearest parking just to reach ground zero, so while LPC'S are preferred, other more strenuous challenge caches do exist. 

 

Sorry, but I had to chuckle when I read that. Last week I did a routine visit to one of my challenge caches (GC752YF), mainly to swap over the cache information card to show the new expiry date for its national park permission. It was a 10km return hike, with a total elevation change along the way of 620 metres, and took me about 4 hours to complete. There are a couple of alternative routes that are a bit longer but with less elevation change, but I wanted to check on another cache near my starting point. The challenge is about finding caches with the Takes more than an hour attribute, so this one certainly is an embodiment of that theme. The cache itself is also the antithesis of an LPC, being a regular-sized stainless steel cookpot hiding in a sandstone cave at the top of the mountain:

 

 

It's had 21 finds over the almost seven years it's been out there, but in that time I've had to query and ultimately delete a few logs from people who just found the physical cache while hiking past but were nowhere near qualifying. Checking the finders' qualifications is a part of my job as CO, just like occasionally checking on the cache itself (and a whole lot easier!). Even if someone has included the checker text with their log, I'll still run the checker myself if I'm at all unsure as it's too easy to just copy that text from another log.

[+Goldenwattle]

3 hours ago, Triple_P said:

There's quite a few challenge caches in Kentucky where you're going to hike 1.25 miles from the nearest parking just to reach ground zero

What does ground zero mean? Is that the start of the hike, or GZ?

[+Triple_P]

Ground zero is where the posted coordinates are. 

[+Triple_P]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Sorry, but I had to chuckle when I read that. Last week I did a routine visit to one of my challenge caches (GC752YF), mainly to swap over the cache information card to show the new expiry date for its national park permission. It was a 10km return hike, with a total elevation change along the way of 620 metres, and took me about 4 hours to complete. There are a couple of alternative routes that are a bit longer but with less elevation change, but I wanted to check on another cache near my starting point. The challenge is about finding caches with the Takes more than an hour attribute, so this one certainly is an embodiment of that theme. The cache itself is also the antithesis of an LPC, being a regular-sized stainless steel cookpot hiding in a sandstone cave at the top of the mountain:

 

 

It's had 21 finds over the almost seven years it's been out there, but in that time I've had to query and ultimately delete a few logs from people who just found the physical cache while hiking past but were nowhere near qualifying. Checking the finders' qualifications is a part of my job as CO, just like occasionally checking on the cache itself (and a whole lot easier!). Even if someone has included the checker text with their log, I'll still run the checker myself if I'm at all unsure as it's too easy to just copy that text from another log.

Look there's always something bigger, badder and more adventurous out there than exhibit A, you know. If I ever come to Australia, I'll do this cache as a day hike!

[+Goldenwattle]

8 minutes ago, Triple_P said:

Ground zero is where the posted coordinates are. 

Thank you for explaining. I thought you meant GZ, but wasn't sure. Are you saying 1.23 miles (2kms) is a challenge? On my recent holidays I walked from 5 to 11 kms each day to geocache. I am just about to drag myself away from this computer and take a walk to replace a wet lot on one of my caches and the walk is further than 2kms. (But too short a distance to bother to get the car out.)

 

There's quite a few challenge caches in Kentucky where you're going to hike 1.25 miles from the nearest parking just to reach ground zero

 

 

[+barefootjeff]

26 minutes ago, Triple_P said:

Look there's always something bigger, badder and more adventurous out there than exhibit A, you know.

 

Yep, I present to you Exhibit B, GC5KEY1 which requires 40 finds each being terrain 4 or higher and with the Scenic View, Difficult Climb and Cliffs/Falling Rocks attributes. The cache itself has a terrain 4.5 rating, along with those three attributes. Getting to the container requires some pretty serious rock scrambling, by all accounts, and it's not surprising that in nearly ten years it's only had seven finds (with seven FPs, of course). This photo, from the cache page, is of the CO on his way to placing it:

 

 

So far in eleven years of caching I have 27 qualifying finds, so it's likely that by the time I qualify I'll be too old to get to GZ, but it's still one I aspire to do someday. If my group of caching friends decides to attempt it, I'll tag along just to get my signature in the logbook even if I'm still well short of qualifying.

[+Triple_P]

13 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Thank you for explaining. I thought you meant GZ, but wasn't sure. Are you saying 1.23 miles (2kms) is a challenge? On my recent holidays I walked from 5 to 11 kms each day to geocache. I am just about to drag myself away from this computer and take a walk to replace a wet lot on one of my caches and the walk is further than 2kms. (But too short a distance to bother to get the car out.)

 

There's quite a few challenge caches in Kentucky where you're going to hike 1.25 miles from the nearest parking just to reach ground zero

 

 

Two things: ground zero and GZ are interchangeable. Second, 1.25 miles is a longer distance to hike just to arrive at your first challenge cache. Compare that to a LPC where you jump in and out and are done. 

[+Hügh]

18 hours ago, Hügh said:

(I’ll add a screenshot once I’m back at the computer.)

 

Specifically...

 

 

...and then beside "Found it" logs...

 

[+Goldenwattle]

10 hours ago, Triple_P said:

Two things: ground zero and GZ are interchangeable. Second, 1.25 miles is a longer distance to hike just to arrive at your first challenge cache. Compare that to a LPC where you jump in and out and are done. 

1.25 'miles' is a walk in the park. Gees, I walk further than that to the supermarket. 

 

LPC? A power trail? Not my thing. A good walk to sightsee and cache is far more fun. Or a cycle. Exception, power trails along cycle paths are fun, hopefully with a good café along the way with nice tables.

[+ecanderson]

On 4/30/2024 at 8:46 PM, Triple_P said:

Ground zero is where the posted coordinates are. 

I've always hated that use/definition of that expression - geocaching uses it in the absolutely reverse sense of that of any other context.  I don't know if Groundspeak promulgated it or whether it just caught on in the community on its own, but it was unfortunate.

 

A quick analogy:  You can program whatever coordinates into a guided projectile that you like.  Where it actually LANDS and goes BOOM is "ground zero", irrespective of the intended coordinates.  Similarly, caches aren't always placed exactly at the posted coordinates, but where they can be found is really "ground zero".

 

[+Triple_P]

On 5/1/2024 at 11:04 PM, Goldenwattle said:

1.25 'miles' is a walk in the park. Gees, I walk further than that to the supermarket. 

 

LPC? A power trail? Not my thing. A good walk to sightsee and cache is far more fun. Or a cycle. Exception, power trails along cycle paths are fun, hopefully with a good café along the way with nice tables.

1.25 miles is only a walk in the park if you don't have multiple sclerosis or are severely out if shape. In perfect healthy conditions, for most people it's an easier walk, but what the terrain is and elevation play a factor. Example: hiking 1.25 miles at 17,000 ft over a rough boulder field would be brutal for most individuals. Or hiking 1.25 miles in -15° weather with knee deep snow and 20mph wind gusts, probably isn't ideal. There's countless examples that could come to mind to make the situation more challenging. 

[+Goldenwattle]

4 hours ago, Triple_P said:

1.25 miles is only a walk in the park if you don't have multiple sclerosis or are severely out if shape. In perfect healthy conditions, for most people it's an easier walk, but what the terrain is and elevation play a factor. Example: hiking 1.25 miles at 17,000 ft over a rough boulder field would be brutal for most individuals. Or hiking 1.25 miles in -15° weather with knee deep snow and 20mph wind gusts, probably isn't ideal. There's countless examples that could come to mind to make the situation more challenging. 

I'm sorry if you have multiple sclerosis; that would make it difficult. And yes then 2kms (even 1 km) could be hard, or impossible.

 

"severely out if shape" though with no reason (handicapped*, sick) to be, is no excuse. That's self imposed. I say to them, get out of the car.

 

* Although that doesn't stop everyone. There was a woman where I worked who needed crutches to walk, but rode her bike to work. Parked the bike, lifted her crutches off it and used them to walk into work. Not the only handicapped person I have known who rode a bike.

Edited May 3 by Goldenwattle

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, ecanderson said:

I've always hated that use/definition of that expression - geocaching uses it in the absolutely reverse sense of that of any other context.  I don't know if Groundspeak promulgated it or whether it just caught on in the community on its own, but it was unfortunate.

 

A quick analogy:  You can program whatever coordinates into a guided projectile that you like.  Where it actually LANDS and goes BOOM is "ground zero", irrespective of the intended coordinates.  Similarly, caches aren't always placed exactly at the posted coordinates, but where they can be found is really "ground zero".

On the other hand, if you think of the search itself as an explosion (which is an accurate description of some "scorched earth" search styles), then GZ is where the search strikes.

[+Goldenwattle]

8 hours ago, ecanderson said:

I've always hated that use/definition of that expression - geocaching uses it in the absolutely reverse sense of that of any other context.  I don't know if Groundspeak promulgated it or whether it just caught on in the community on its own, but it was unfortunate.

 

A quick analogy:  You can program whatever coordinates into a guided projectile that you like.  Where it actually LANDS and goes BOOM is "ground zero", irrespective of the intended coordinates.  Similarly, caches aren't always placed exactly at the posted coordinates, but where they can be found is really "ground zero".

 

I had not heard it used for geocaching until here, so likely a regional thing.

[+Triple_P]

6 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I'm sorry if you have multiple sclerosis; that would make it difficult. And yes then 2kms (even 1 km) could be hard, or impossible.

 

"severely out if shape" though with no reason (handicapped*, sick) to be, is no excuse. That's self imposed. I say to them, get out of the car.

 

* Although that doesn't stop everyone. There was a woman where I worked who needed crutches to walk, but rode her bike to work. Parked the bike, lifted her crutches off it and used them to walk into work. Not the only handicapped person I have known who rode a bike.

The beauty about geocaching is that it has something for everyone. If you want extreme adventure, you go after hiking, climbing, caving, mining, rapelling or other big adventurous hides. If you're limited mobility, you can do park and grabs, even if it's not your (your personally) thing, it might be someone else's. Your 7 mile hike, for one find, counts just as much as my light post find in the parking lot. You "earned" your find and put more blood sweat and tears into yours, while I went 5 ft and found my cache. In the books, it's 1 find for you and 1 find for me. Your big adventure doesn't supersede my lpc because it's collectively one find for each. 

 

I'm a balanced cacher, so I go for everything. One day I won't have the gift of mobility and I won't be able to do those big adventure hides, so I'm doing as much now as I can. Once did a 25.2 mile day hike for 1 cache!