Re: Recently archived challenge...

http://coord.info/GCA2MD0

This challenge that was recently published in my area, and I found it. When I found it, unbeknownst to me, it had been disabled (but, the cache was in fine shape). This challenge has now been archived. The reviewer who archived it wrote:

"Archiving as it is (more!) apparent that this Challenge isn't actually Guidelines compliant (oops) as it is based on geographic areas other than countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent). Thanks to <CO> for being so understanding at my Publish-oops and suggesting an Archive is a workable resolution option."

To me, this is an *extremely* narrow interpretation of rule #10's point: "Challenges based on geographic areas other than countries, states/provinces, counties (or their local equivalent). Examples: user-defined mapping polygons, latitude/longitude, radius, etc." I wouldn't count the distance between finds as a 'geographic area' - it's a distance. Regardless, in this interpretation, ANY challenge that uses distances between finds would be disallowed - for example, cache-to-cache distance challenges (eg. to-the-moon challenge), chain challenges, NSEW area challenges, etc. etc. I have one such challenge myself, that would assuredly not be allowed under this interpretation (but was published within the last year).

Does anybody know if this is an "activist reviewer", or official Groundspeak policy - and if there's somebody at HQ we can ask for clarification? I'm assuming the former, because it would be a little sad if we lost all challenges based on distances... but if so, it would be nice to know so we don't keep making checkers for them.

Thanks,
bmuzzin

It's a radius. You log one cache and then have to log an other cache outside of the specified radius. The easiest way to get an answer from Geocaching HQ is to make an appeal, but you'd need a relevant challenge for this or let the CO do it. You could try asking the appeals-team a general question based on "need to know due to beeing a script writer".

"Chain challenges" and "NSEW area challenges" are already not allowed so there's no change there.

Well, I suppose that's a reasonable interpretation of the rule. It's a little frustrating that the rules are so restrictive, as it allows for very little creativity in the challenges that can be made. Makes me wish I was living in the old wild west of challenges... Those checkers are sure more fun to write.

I understand the reasoning for some of the rules, but this one in particular seems silly - you can require someone to find caches in 100 countries, but not 100km apart. This confusion is compounded by the fact that many challenges requiring some distance between finds do get published (apparently in error of the reviewers).

I agree here with how restricted challenges have become - it is evident that they have simply become number crunchers and there is very little room for 'creativity'
My experience is that HQ allows 'interpretation' (a phrase used in the guidelines) being left to the regions reviewers and that can vary from country to country.

I disagree about there not being any creativity allowed. If anything, constraints can increase the creativity needed. Take, for example, Dr Seuss' "Green Eggs and Ham", which was written with a vocabulary of 50 words.