LonelyCache

I wonder, out loud, here if this new endeavor can/should make a distinction between "lonely" and "Backcountry".

I know they can be one-in-the-same...but I'm sensing a HUGE increase in near-impossible puzzle caches with the roll-out of this project.
I do love puzzle caches...but would rather spend more time out in the world than on my computer. A hard puzzle makes a cache lonely,
a hard hike/bike/4WD/remote location makes a cache backcountry. These are two VERY different animals...and not really the same game.

The simple distinction would be to create SEPARATE point totals and leader boards for the puzzles vs. all other cache types...I know there are
back country puzzles, but they are the minority. If a CO wanted to they could convert their BC puzzles to traditional/multis to keep their points
on the BC owner boards.

With puzzles there is easy and ample opportunity for manipulating the points...not so much w/ BC caches. I would see the BC only pts. and boards
as more in line with that the DGP initially intended itself to be, and why I got so engrossed into it.

I'm sure there are huge blind-spots in my thinking...so I'd like to hear other opinions and insights on such a proposal.

Birddroppings wrote:The simple distinction would be to create SEPARATE point totals and leader boards for the puzzles vs. all other cache types...I know there are back country puzzles, but they are the minority.

If I understand right, DGP originally did not discriminate between puzzles, challenges, and more traditional backcountry hides. Eventually it was broken off into separate leader boards and "perfect hand" lists, as well as combined rankings for each geographic division. I think this is great. More work for the administrators, but I think most people would agree that this is would be much better than only a single leader board per geographic area, or excluding Unknown type caches altogether. Like I warned on the DGP discussion, the first product we see is going to be lacking in a lot of the features we liked in DGP.

Birddroppings wrote:If a CO wanted to they could convert their BC puzzles to traditional/multis to keep their points on the BC owner boards.

My understanding is that this is not true. A user is not allowed to change the cache type, and even though a reviewer could, s/he would probably prefer the cache be archived and re-published as a traditional or multi.

What I'm envisioning, and perhaps this should be in the Leader Boards forum, is to have a leader board for every different cache type and then a best all around geocacher leader board. So I see the distinction being by cache type, not by puzzle then everything else or backcountry and not backcountry. So I see the following leader boards:

• Best All Around Geocacher
• Best Traditional Geocacher
• Best Unknown Geocacher (Unknown cache type, not unknown cacher )
• Best Multi-Cache Geocacher
• Best Virtual Geocacher (No, I don't mean arm chair cachers )
• Best Earth Cache Geocacher
• Best Letterbox Hybrid Geocacher
• Best Wherigo Geocacher (Not sure if there are enough to warrant a leader board)
• Best Web Cam Geocacher (Will not have a leader board since there are too few)

Can we have a Best Micro Cacher too? Or are we afraid the tiny little guy could be carried away by pack rats? Just teasin'.

Corfman Clan wrote:What I'm envisioning, and perhaps this should be in the Leader Boards forum, is to have a leader board for every different cache type and then a best all around geocacher leader board. So I see the distinction being by cache type, not by puzzle then everything else or backcountry and not backcountry. So I see the following leader boards:

• Best All Around Geocacher
• Best Traditional Geocacher
• Best Unknown Geocacher (Unknown cache type, not unknown cacher )
• Best Multi-Cache Geocacher
• Best Virtual Geocacher (No, I don't mean arm chair cachers )
• Best Earth Cache Geocacher
• Best Letterbox Hybrid Geocacher
• Best Wherigo Geocacher (Not sure if there are enough to warrant a leader board)
• Best Web Cam Geocacher (Will not have a leader board since there are too few)

I like these ideas. I also like the idea of distinguishing between puzzle caches, backcountry, and challenge caches.

Opjim wrote:

Corfman Clan wrote:What I'm envisioning, and perhaps this should be in the Leader Boards forum, is to have a leader board for every different cache type and then a best all around geocacher leader board. So I see the distinction being by cache type, not by puzzle then everything else or backcountry and not backcountry. So I see the following leader boards:

• Best All Around Geocacher
• Best Traditional Geocacher
• Best Unknown Geocacher (Unknown cache type, not unknown cacher )
• Best Multi-Cache Geocacher
• Best Virtual Geocacher (No, I don't mean arm chair cachers )
• Best Earth Cache Geocacher
• Best Letterbox Hybrid Geocacher
• Best Wherigo Geocacher (Not sure if there are enough to warrant a leader board)
• Best Web Cam Geocacher (Will not have a leader board since there are too few)

I like these ideas. I also like the idea of distinguishing between puzzle caches, backcountry, and challenge caches.

The problem is that there isn't a great definition of "backcountry". Some may claim N miles from point X, some may vary definitions. Some may say "no cache within X feet", someone could go plant a cache nearby to defeat the categorization, etc.

What we're looking into is essentially leaderboards by cache type. Points are calculated in a way to reward rarely found caches. That is very easy to define and hard to defeat. Hard puzzles by nature will be rarely found. Very physically remote caches will also by nature be rarely found. Multis by nature will likely be more rarely found than traditionals, etc.

WRT "challenge caches", once again - hard to define. Surely I don't believe you mean the new "challenge" that Groundspeak added. You're most likely referring to "find a cache in 30 states" type of a challege (usually 'unknown' although could be any type). Since there is no official "type" for challenge caches, it falls to social norms & conventions. We aren't likely to be successful convincing every CO out there to include some keyword of keyphrase in their description to label it predictably as a challenge cache. So for these, I believe the only sane choice is to have those be counted by type just like every other cache.

The issues around "impossible puzzles" are actually exactly the same as with "impossible caches" in general. You could easily make multis which prove impossible. You could make tranditionals which are in practice - impossible (or nearly so). I think the ideas thrown around about not counting caches until they are actually found at least once (or twice?) helps with those 'impossible' issues.

--Redfist

My only heartburn with the "find it once or twice before points are awarded idea" has to do with the caches that have co-hider(s) logging as a finder(s). This will create an unfair situation and/or it will encourage all caches to have co-hiders logging finds.

Redfist wrote: The problem is that there isn't a great definition of "backcountry". Some may claim N miles from point X, some may vary definitions. Some may say "no cache within X feet", someone could go plant a cache nearby to defeat the categorization, etc.

What we're looking into is essentially leaderboards by cache type. Points are calculated in a way to reward rarely found caches. That is very easy to define and hard to defeat. Hard puzzles by nature will be rarely found. Very physically remote caches will also by nature be rarely found. Multis by nature will likely be more rarely found than traditionals, etc.

WRT "challenge caches", once again - hard to define. Surely I don't believe you mean the new "challenge" that Groundspeak added. You're most likely referring to "find a cache in 30 states" type of a challege (usually 'unknown' although could be any type). Since there is no official "type" for challenge caches, it falls to social norms & conventions. We aren't likely to be successful convincing every CO out there to include some keyword of keyphrase in their description to label it predictably as a challenge cache. So for these, I believe the only sane choice is to have those be counted by type just like every other cache.

The issues around "impossible puzzles" are actually exactly the same as with "impossible caches" in general. You could easily make multis which prove impossible. You could make tranditionals which are in practice - impossible (or nearly so). I think the ideas thrown around about not counting caches until they are actually found at least once (or twice?) helps with those 'impossible' issues.

--Redfist

Regarding Challenge caches: yes, I mean the "find a cache in 50 states" type of cache. I realize that it will be hard to distinguish the two. Technically, GS requires that a challenge cache have the word "challenge" as part of the title, if that would help. Another option is to give the CO the option to distinguish what type: DGP had the option to define what type of cache it was, although this won't be in the raw data that GS gives us. You LCP administrators will have to decide if either of these options are practical or not. If they are, thank you! If not, we understand: we're just happy to have something that will fill our need for a system other than total find count that is available from GS. Bottom line, these are wishes, but I like the rankings based on cache type. Please don't interpret my asking for the sun as ingratitude for what is being done.
No matter what you do, some people will try to beat the systems: impossible caches go in this category. I agree that requiring a cache be found once or twice in order to have points is a good way to do this.

I was never clear on what a backcountry cache was either, except that it wasn't a park and grab from a paved road. Lonely is probably a better term.

Technically, GS requires that a challenge cache have the word "challenge" as part of the title

This is true now, but there are a lot of Challenges that were put out before this requirement was implemented, so not ALL challenges have this word in the title.