Can Challenge Caches be based on the number of hides a cacher has placed? Or are they only based on hides?

[+edexter]

Do the rules allow a challenge cache based on the number or types of caches a cacher has placed, rather than found?  Are they specifically barred?

I see that rule 2.12.8 disallows " challenges specifically excluding any segment of cachers"  and a cacher who hasn't placed any caches would be excluded, but this same rule actually applies to all challenge caches by definition, so...Seems like this might be a very simple  way to encourage cache placement by folks who haven't.

edexter

[Rock Chalk]

Challenge caches based on cache ownership are a no-go. See 10. Source of Criteria:

•  Requiring cachers to own a cache.

[+barefootjeff]

3 hours ago, edexter said:

Seems like this might be a very simple  way to encourage cache placement by folks who haven't.

 

If the only reason for someone to hide a cache is to qualify for a challenge (or even get a souvenir), it's not likely to be a very good cache.

[+thebruce0]

Challenge caches have been deemed to be only based on additive statistics attained during regular geocaching activities. That can makes them kind of bland, but makes them more generally accessible, less complex, less confusing, less "gameable", etc.

[+edexter]

Yes, of course, Barefoot Jeff is correct, if the only reason you place a cache is to qualify for a challenge, it's not likely to be a very good cache...And thanks to Rock Chalk for directing me to the criteria section which makes my question moot (already ruled out).  

It's clear the game depends on caches being placed.  I see many ways in which the game has changed over the years to encourage numerous finds, and also encourage the placement of easy to find caches:  Park & Grabs, power trails, micros, etc.     Could anyone direct my attention to any similar incentive the game structure provides that encourages the systematic placement of Quality Caches aside from Favorite Points?

 

[+The A-Team]

1 hour ago, edexter said:

Could anyone direct my attention to any similar incentive the game structure provides that encourages the systematic placement of Quality Caches aside from Favorite Points?

 

FPs are probably the most direct. Those also indirectly lead to other benefits. For example, I seem to recall that receiving a bunch of FPs on your hides was a data point used in awarding Virtual Rewards.

 

You also had to hide at least one cache and host an event in 2024 in order to be eligible for receiving a Community Celebration Event for this year.

 

There have been a number of souvenirs awarded for hiding a cache: an annual hider one since 2022, the 3 million cache milestone in 2017, and this year's Blue Switch Day hider.

 

I feel like there have been other examples, but those are the ones I can think of right away.

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, edexter said:

It's clear the game depends on caches being placed.  I see many ways in which the game has changed over the years to encourage numerous finds, and also encourage the placement of easy to find caches:  Park & Grabs, power trails, micros, etc.     Could anyone direct my attention to any similar incentive the game structure provides that encourages the systematic placement of Quality Caches aside from Favorite Points?

 

The selection criteria for the various virtual rewards were meant to focus on quality hides although that's a difficult thing to measure. From what I've seen locally, those who received the rewards were generally well regarded in the community for putting out good quality hides, so it seemed to work reasonably well.

 

I think creating good quality caches is something that has to come from the heart. From concept, planning, construction and deployment to publication and ongoing maintenance, it all takes time and commitment and is not the sort of thing that's likely to be incentivised by a souvenir or whatever. The reward is in the satisfaction of a job well done and from the logs that come in afterwards. The best quality caches rarely get TFTC logs, they're usually much more like this:

 

 

Sadly, though, these days the non-trivial hides generally get few finds as most players are only interested in boosting their smiley count with trails of P&Gs, filling their grid with rare D/T combinations or even collecting Treasures. At the time the Virtual Rewards 4.0 eligibility criterion was published (four FPs on a cache published in 2023), I'd already qualified on one of my hides, but this year I'd be struggling, not because this year's published hides aren't getting any FPs, they're just not getting many finders once FTF honours are claimed:

• GCB19H6 (2/2.5 regular multi published in January) 1 FP from 6 finds
• GCB3489 (2/4 regular mystery published in February) 2 FPs from 2 finds
• GCB5Y4Z (3/2.5 small traditional published in April) 1 FP from 3 finds
• GCB6TVF (2.5/3.5 regular multi published in May) 1 FP from 1 find

By contrast, a nearby trail of P&G micros published in March has already had dozens of finders on each, although only one has received an FP.

 

Of course "quality" is something that's in the eye of the beholder, and far be it for me to say that any of my hides offer a better quality experience than those trails of micros. All I can do is place robust containers in interesting locations with a themed story on the cache page, and do my best to ensure that in one, two, five or ten years time, anyone doing them will find the cache in good condition with a dry clean logbook to sign. If someone placing trails of P&G micros also uses robust containers and makes sure they stay in good condition then great, even if they don't get any FPs. I'd much rather that than just empty space on the map. But when the log turns into this just two months after publication, well...

 

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Not unless you live in Indiana.

 

Yes, those are older challenges. For reference, I was told in early 2008 that you couldn't require someone to hide a cache for a challenge.

 

Kind of ironic that Groundspeak encourages people to hide caches just to get a souvenir...

Edited Tuesday at 06:24 AM by Corp Of Discovery

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, Corp Of Discovery said:

For reference, I was told in early 2008 that you couldn't require someone to hide a cache for a challenge.

 

Kind of ironic that Groundspeak encourages people to hide caches just to get a souvenir...

I don't think hiding a cache for any reward should be allowed. We want people who are prepared to maintain their caches and to place good caches, not people who put any sort of cache out just to get rewards (and then likely ignore it).

[+arisoft]

25 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't think hiding a cache for any reward should be allowed.

 

HQ has already changed this pinciple by rewarding hiders with a special souvenir. 

[+niraD]

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

HQ has already changed this pinciple by rewarding hiders with a special souvenir. 

[+baer2006]

13 hours ago, arisoft said:

HQ has already changed this pinciple by rewarding hiders with a special souvenir. 

This has led to a few less-than-stellar hides in my area in the last months, where the CO states explicitly in the listing that they were only hiding the cache for the souvenir. But given the number of active cachers here, the amount is absolutely negligible. Given the usual "rush" for other souvenirs, I would have expected more of these "just for the stats" hides.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 6/10/2025 at 3:28 AM, Goldenwattle said:

I don't think hiding a cache for any reward should be allowed. We want people who are prepared to maintain their caches and to place good caches, not people who put any sort of cache out just to get rewards (and then likely ignore it).

 

This describes most Boy Scout and Girl hides. They place one or more caches to earn a merit badge then usually abandon it.

[+JL_HSTRE]

On 6/3/2025 at 5:31 PM, edexter said:

It's clear the game depends on caches being placed.  I see many ways in which the game has changed over the years to encourage numerous finds, and also encourage the placement of easy to find caches:  Park & Grabs, power trails, micros, etc.     Could anyone direct my attention to any similar incentive the game structure provides that encourages the systematic placement of Quality Caches aside from Favorite Points?

 

What incentive could Groundspeak give, especially that the COs of such hides would care about?

[+barefootjeff]

On 6/11/2025 at 7:40 AM, baer2006 said:

This has led to a few less-than-stellar hides in my area in the last months, where the CO states explicitly in the listing that they were only hiding the cache for the souvenir. But given the number of active cachers here, the amount is absolutely negligible. Given the usual "rush" for other souvenirs, I would have expected more of these "just for the stats" hides.

 

I was expecting to see a flurry of mediocre hides last month just for the Blue Switch Hider sourvenir, but that didn't really happen around here. There were two blue-themed caches published in the Newcastle area, both well-constructed field puzzles that I enjoyed. As for me, in late April I had an idea for a new cache, bought what I needed for it, put it together, placed it and hit submit before realising that if I'd waited another week I could have gotten the souvenir for it. Rather than cancel the submission, though, I started pondering another hide, using an idea I'd had simmering on the back burner for some time and going out to explore a headland that had been recently opened up following the archival of a couple of old caches. Everything fell into place and that 3-stage 2.5/3.5 multi was published in mid May, getting me the souvenir. How stellar it is remains to be seen, as it's only had one finder (and an FP) in the month since then, but it took considerable time and effort putting together the themed waypoint objects and final and is something I would have done eventually regardless of any souvenir on offer. 

[+edexter]

In response to my question about Geocaching not encouraging the placement of quality caches, JL_HSTRE wondered "What incentive could Groundspeak give, especially that the COs of such hides would care about?"  Well, basically anything that encouraged, rewarded, highlighted or recognized a Quality Cache.  The first step would be to imagine that such a thing exists.  The next would be to describe it.  The third would be to recognize it in a systemtic way.  The fourth would be imagine that it would be good for the game to promote a quality experience when one exists.  In my experience, most folks who seek a quality cache want to be able to distinguish between a roadside bison and a hike in the woods  without running a half dozen filtered searches. 

My defination of a Quality Cache might differ from yours, and there are clearly differing ways in which something could be considered Quality, but the idea is to attempt to distinguish between The Good and the Usual for those times when one might want to do The Good.  The Game does not seem to make any serious attempt to highlight the "better than average" cache other than Favorite Points and I believe this is something that could be improved.  The fact that roughly half of caches have 1 or no FP is telling.  Why not at least have a designation of "Pretty Good Cache" that would include "Has a waterproof container, a dry log.and pencil, CO does periodic maintenance, requires a walk and a GPS to find, and is in an interesting location worth visiting in it's own right?"  

There is a place for quality and quantity in the game structure.  Basically what I am wondering is why is there no apparent effort to focus on promoting Quality?  Folks who already place Quality Caches do so with no particular incentive from the Game structure.  We all want folks to enjoy the experience of caching.  Highlighting the best stuff would do that, I believe.

[+barefootjeff]

31 minutes ago, edexter said:

Why not at least have a designation of "Pretty Good Cache" that would include "Has a waterproof container, a dry log.and pencil, CO does periodic maintenance, requires a walk and a GPS to find, and is in an interesting location worth visiting in it's own right?"  

 

Just curious, who would set this "pretty good cache" designation? Not the CO, I assume, otherwise the game board would be full of pretty good caches. If it's something finders can set, would there not then be pressure from some COs to "encourage" finders to set it? Even perhaps deleting logs of those who didn't set the "pretty good cache", so that their "pretty good cache" score stays high?

 

It's also a pretty subjective thing. You suggested "Has a waterproof container, a dry log.and pencil, CO does periodic maintenance, requires a walk and a GPS to find, and is in an interesting location worth visiting in it's own right" but caches around here that fulfil all those things rarely get any finds, as most players just want lots of quick and easy roadside smileys. Take GCAB2PJ for example, a 1.5/3 traditional placed at a scenic vantage point overlooking Brisbane Water and just a few kilometres from the heart of Gosford city. The container is a rugged Duratech ABS instrument case tucked into a protected hiding place under a rock ledge, it has a good-sized hard-cover logbook and a pencil, and getting there entails a moderate walk along a fire trail through the forest. Okay, I haven't done any maintenance on it but only because it hasn't needed any, it's not the sort of cache that's going to need constant care and attention.

 

 

It's had a grand total of five finds in the two years since it was published, the last over a year ago, so clearly not the sort of cache that most players around here want to spend their precious caching time doing. Is it a "pretty good cache" or just clutter on the map? I suspect, for most players, it's the latter.

 

For those rare cachers who might want to do caches like this, there's plenty of searchable stuff on the cache page that can help identify them. Terrain rating, container size and attributes such as the hiking distance ( < 1km, 1-10km or >10km), scenic view, takes more than/less than an hour, etc. We all have different ideas of what makes a "pretty good cache", that's one of the great things about the game, and I don't think a single indicator would be of much help.

 

 

[+The_Jumping_Pig]

2 hours ago, edexter said:

Why not at least have a designation of "Pretty Good Cache" that would include "Has a waterproof container, a dry log.and pencil, CO does periodic maintenance, requires a walk and a GPS to find, and is in an interesting location worth visiting in it's own right?"  

Yep, the reviewers can check this off as they're visiting every cache site before publication.

Edited 12 hours ago by The_Jumping_Pig