| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Arcticabn
Past MnGCA Board
Joined: 30 Nov 2003
Posts: 1846
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:52 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3DQEC
Here is a challenge cache that my son created. It took several tries to before he got it approved. But in it he provides several examples of how to demonstrate proof that does not necessarily rely on 3rd party software such as GSAK or it's macros.
_________________
Airborne All the Way! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pfalstad
Geocacher
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 963
Location: Edina
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arcticabn wrote: |
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3DQEC
Here is a challenge cache that my son created. It took several tries to before he got it approved. But in it he provides several examples of how to demonstrate proof that does not necessarily rely on 3rd party software such as GSAK or it's macros. |
Nice one! I qualify!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5597
Location: north of Duluth
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| swfan wrote: |
| I understand were your comming from. I see both sides of the argument. I'm sure someone could come up with a dozen reasons to have it the way it was and someone else could come up with a dozen reasons the other way. |
Over time I've come to think the same things - I see both sides of the argument.
I've also come to realize, for good or for bad, that Groundspeak has shaped the game that we play. Some will say it's for the good, some will say it's for the bad. I think in the end it's a little of both: we have some guidelines that have been very helpful to the sport, such as saturation guidelines, guidelines dealing with how you hide a cache and what's in it (things that landowners appreciate such as burying, family friendly, etc).
There's certainly also things in the guidelines that we (and I) don't understand the reasoning for, but I'm willing to take the good with the bad for the overall health of the game.
_________________
Hmm... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WestSideDaddy
MnGCA Board
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Posts: 545
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pear Head wrote: |
| swfan wrote: |
| I understand were your comming from. I see both sides of the argument. I'm sure someone could come up with a dozen reasons to have it the way it was and someone else could come up with a dozen reasons the other way. |
Over time I've come to think the same things - I see both sides of the argument.
I've also come to realize, for good or for bad, that Groundspeak has shaped the game that we play. Some will say it's for the good, some will say it's for the bad. I think in the end it's a little of both: we have some guidelines that have been very helpful to the sport, such as saturation guidelines, guidelines dealing with how you hide a cache and what's in it (things that landowners appreciate such as burying, family friendly, etc).
There's certainly also things in the guidelines that we (and I) don't understand the reasoning for, but I'm willing to take the good with the bad for the overall health of the game. |
That's the part I don't understand. Should we (the players and customers) have some direct method to change and shape the guidelines? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pear Head
Past MnGCA President
Joined: 04 Apr 2004
Posts: 5597
Location: north of Duluth
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| WestSideDaddy wrote: |
| That's the part I don't understand. Should we (the players and customers) have some direct method to change and shape the guidelines? |
I think we probably do - it's through our contact with them, be it in the forums, contacting them directly, etc. I don't think you can make it more direct than that without creating chaos.
Until you talk to them it's hard to say that they don't listen. After you talk to them then it's easier. Sort of like your Congressman - he/she doesn't know what you want until you tell them. After that they hopefully assemble the majority opinion and work towards that.
_________________
Hmm... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moe the Sleaze
Geocacher
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 1130
Location: Champlin, MN
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
From what I have seen, Groundspeak has never changed the guidelines arbitrarily. Every change or addition has been the result of land management concerns or cachers pushing the current guidelines to absurdity.
The above doesn't necessarily mean I personally agree with each and every guideline.
_________________
"Hi, I'm Moe, or as the women know me - Hey! You in the bushes."
-Moe, The Simpsons |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bflentje
Geocacher
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 3655
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pfalstad wrote: |
| swfan wrote: |
| pfalstad wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Challenge caches cannot include restrictions based on 'date found'; caches found before the challenge cache publication date can count towards the achievement of the challenge. |
WOO HOO!!!!  No more challenges that say, "to make a level playing field for everyone, I'm going to force more experienced cachers to drive 80 miles to find qualifying caches they haven't already found." |
Isn't part of the point of doing challenges to go out and find more caches? How is it fun to do a challenge that you don't have to do anything for? It doesn't seem very satisfying to me. |
Well, ok, but maybe I'm not completely finished with the challenge. The example I'm thinking of is when the Geo-Stalker series came out and he said that some % of the caches had to be found after the date the challenge was published. I had just finished finding almost all of Paklid's caches shortly before that, no small feat, so I was quite annoyed that I wouldn't be able to stalk Paklid (since I didn't have enough unfound caches left to meet the requirement). I assure you, knowing that I had found most of the caches before the cutoff date would definitely not have reduced my fun and satisfaction in completing the challenge, had that requirement not been there.
Another thing that I don't care for is the "find some number of ultra-rare caches or combinations of caches in one day". This actually has nothing to do with the "date found" restriction, but it's related because I can't use caches I already found, unless I happened to do it right the first time by chance. I still have unfound virtuals lying around that I haven't gotten because I'm saving them in case another "find X icons in one day plus one more icon type that was just created" challenge comes out.
So yeah, I still enjoy the challenges that have me go out and find more caches, but the challenges that make me repeat work I've already done, or that cause me avoid caches so that I can find them on the correct day, those I don't enjoy so much. |
+1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rosebud55112
Geocacher
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers" mean PMO challenges are not allowed? I would think that most regular members don't know of or understand the backdoor method of logging PMO caches, and since GS doesn't even tell those members about the existence of the cache, its hard to argue that those members are not excluded in a significant manner.
Its sorta like the government only telling members of one party when Election Day is. I'd argue the members of the other party are disenfranchised. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bflentje
Geocacher
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 3655
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rosebud55112 wrote: |
Does "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers" mean PMO challenges are not allowed? I would think that most regular members don't know of or understand the backdoor method of logging PMO caches, and since GS doesn't even tell those members about the existence of the cache, its hard to argue that those members are not excluded in a significant manner.
Its sorta like the government only telling members of one party when Election Day is. I'd argue the members of the other party are disenfranchised. |
Sorry, but we should keep this on course. The PMO issue has been discussed ad nausium. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pfalstad
Geocacher
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 963
Location: Edina
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rosebud55112 wrote: |
Does "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers" mean PMO challenges are not allowed? I would think that most regular members don't know of or understand the backdoor method of logging PMO caches, and since GS doesn't even tell those members about the existence of the cache, its hard to argue that those members are not excluded in a significant manner.
Its sorta like the government only telling members of one party when Election Day is. I'd argue the members of the other party are disenfranchised. |
You make a good argument, but I'm guessing Groundspeak doesn't care. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rosebud55112
Geocacher
Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bflentje wrote: |
| rosebud55112 wrote: |
Does "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers" mean PMO challenges are not allowed? I would think that most regular members don't know of or understand the backdoor method of logging PMO caches, and since GS doesn't even tell those members about the existence of the cache, its hard to argue that those members are not excluded in a significant manner.
Its sorta like the government only telling members of one party when Election Day is. I'd argue the members of the other party are disenfranchised. |
Sorry, but we should keep this on course. The PMO issue has been discussed ad nausium. |
I'm not trying to push this into a PMO discussion. I'm just wondering whether challenge caches can be PMOs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bflentje
Geocacher
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 3655
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rosebud55112 wrote: |
| bflentje wrote: |
| rosebud55112 wrote: |
Does "A challenge cache may not specifically exclude any segment of geocachers" mean PMO challenges are not allowed? I would think that most regular members don't know of or understand the backdoor method of logging PMO caches, and since GS doesn't even tell those members about the existence of the cache, its hard to argue that those members are not excluded in a significant manner.
Its sorta like the government only telling members of one party when Election Day is. I'd argue the members of the other party are disenfranchised. |
Sorry, but we should keep this on course. The PMO issue has been discussed ad nausium. |
I'm not trying to push this into a PMO discussion. I'm just wondering whether challenge caches can be PMOs. |
I understand. The answer is yes, challenges can be PMO as far as I know, and for better or for worse. I think all physical caches can be PMO. Virtuals such as Earthcaches and events, no PMO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bflentje
Geocacher
Joined: 29 May 2006
Posts: 3655
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's amazing, all of the struggles I see our local cachers going through in trying to publish a challenge that is considered reasonable. Here's a classic inconsistency in the guidelines and just ticks me off.
If this is any more reasonable than some of the challenges that have been turned down..
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3H33W |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KRedEP
Geocacher
Joined: 03 Aug 2007
Posts: 713
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Wow! This one won't be on my caching radar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
King Boreas
Geocacher
Joined: 16 Dec 2002
Posts: 2350
Location: Exploring Minnesota
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bflentje wrote: |
It's amazing, all of the struggles I see our local cachers going through in trying to publish a challenge that is considered reasonable. Here's a classic inconsistency in the guidelines and just ticks me off.
If this is any more reasonable than some of the challenges that have been turned down..
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC3H33W |
That guy ignores "Needs Archived" notes for months. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
User list
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
