[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

Thank you team tisri for your criticism. Since this is a Feature Discussion and Suggestion forum, I just wanted to share an idea.

 

Nobody said it was considered "lots of people". But relatively speaking more people here seem to think it's a bad idea than a good idea. If you want to speculate what the people who haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other think go ahead, but don't be surprised if others speculate differently. Well you did, "If lots of people think something is a bad idea and few people think it's a good idea, that's a start" The "More people here" you are referring to, it's just this thread right? the dozen or so people out of how many cachers? Thats like taking a survey from 15 people in a 100,000 population city and calling a decision.

 

Here's a radical idea. How about looking at how your proposed solution will improve the game in practical ways? By providing another option for the CO. If the CO doesn't want it, like yourself, you don't check the box. Choice. Kind of like you can choose to make a multi-cache or traditional cache right now.... choice. If you don't like verified caches, you just filter it out so you don't even see them. Like some people filter out puzzle caches or multi-caches right now.

 

Seriously, what will this idea achieve? Redundant, see above.

 

Adding another way to verify a find introduces more development work for the sake of saving people writing on a log book. In other words it creates work for no benefit - if people can't be bothered to sign a log they don't get a find. Statement. Noted.

 

It won't resolve any arguments over who got FTF unless there's another code to take away. Multiple ways of logging a cache just muddy the water. You will be able to filter out these types of caches so you won't even see them in your list. Kind of like blocking channels on your cable box. So it won't even affect you as you would most certainly filter them out and won't even see them. I don't get how there will be an argument over FTF when it goes to the first to physically log, then log it online using the verification code? or Smartphone if one has it. There would only be 1 way of logging a cache so I don't know how to answer your question.

 

If there's a log book the first person to write in the log book is the FTF. If there's a log book and a barcode to scan then the first person to write in the book will claim FTF and the first person to scan the barcode will also claim FTF. If the person scans the code, then he must sign the book also per Geocaching rules. Log the find in the logbook. Regarding FTF, I was only saying that because someone could see a new cache pop up and just hit "Found It" to claim FTF as it is right now. If the CO never routinely verifies the logbook as I'm sure most CO's don't... it won't be caught.

 

Who gets to be the referee when the inevitable squabbles break out over who was really first? How is the current system set up when there is a dispute over a log that wasn't signed but claimed online? The First to Log the find in the book and log it online gets it? No Brainer?

 

Having a barcode won't provide any extra proof that someone was even there so it still won't provide a validated find. At present I can find a cache and write your name in it and tell you at the end of the day which caches you found. With barcodes I can send you a list of the caches you found with their validation codes so you know which verified finds you can log. So it doesn't improve anything there. True amongst friends, but that can happen now anyway with the logging as you described. But it will make it much more difficult. If you wanted to claim one of my caches that I enabled as Verify code, how would you get the code if none of your friends have found it? Of of your friends would have to go find it then distribute it out to his friends. The circle is very small. Plus I maintenance my caches often so that would be caught the traditional way anyway.

 

The only thing I can see it does provide is a way for people to log a find with even less effort than it presently takes, With Drive up, find and go caches around everywhere, how would it be less effort? In my area, there are caches just strung out one after another for the sole purpose of quick, easy, effortless way to rack up finds already. Are you opposed to those too? Stop roadside drive up caches?

 

and frankly I don't want to see the game moving towards a smartphone-based activity Not a smartphone based activity so I have no answer. Many times it has been mentioned a smartphone is not needed.

 

where the idea is just to beep a code and move on fast. If we're going to do that we might as well just upload a GPX track log to a site and let it automatically write "TFTC" against any cache if we passed within about 50 feet of it. Redundant again so I'll copy and paste: With Drive up, find and go caches around everywhere, how would it be less effort? In my area, there are caches just strung out one after another for the sole purpose of quick, easy, effortless way to rack up finds already. Are you opposed to those too? Stop roadside drive up caches?

 

So now you've got some constructive criticism, I'd be interested in what benefits you think a barcode would actually offer. Redundant again, see second answer towards the top.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

If geocaching is a game, what does it matter if people are visiting the caches or not? They're simply cheating themselves by not being able to enjoy the experience of finding the cache. Also, isn't the log kinda made to keep people from cheating? You could always go and check the log to see if it has been signed. Some people don't have smartphones, so how would they be able to log a verify found?

 

You obviously haven't read the posts above, again... If people don't have a smart phone they can use a code they copy from the container when they log the find on their computer. And if they choose not to participate that's up to them. Kind of like some people skip Premium only caches because they don't have a premium account. Or they skip night caches because they don't have a flashlight

 

And about cheating, you contradicted yourself so I have no answer for your statement/question. You said what does it matter if people are visiting caches, yet there is a logbook logging rule. If it didn't matter you wouldn't have to log the find in the cache. Lol.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

 

If lots of people think something is a bad idea and few people think it's a good idea, that's a start. Sometimes the majority is wrong (large numbers usually think so right after an election, whoever gets elected). When there's little to no obvious benefit to an idea and multiple reasons to dislike the idea that, to me, is also a good sign it's not a very good one.

 

How does it prove the FTF, unless the idea is that the FTF takes it away? If they took it away what's to stop them sending it to a friend and both claiming joint FTF? And besides, why should Groundspeak be interested in changing the entire game in order to support an unofficial game-within-a-game? Even if they did, now you're saying you need two codes or QR codes stuck inside every cache to prove FTF? Good luck getting that into a nano. Even if it's in a film pot it's easy to see how someone who doesn't log every cache within a microsecond of finding it could take a code home only to find the piece of paper disintegrated or got wet or some such, so they still couldn't log it.

 

If people want to bicker over who got FTF let them bicker, it's not Groundspeak's job to referee silly disputes. Maybe the owner could rule on who they consider to be FTF, maybe if they really can't agree both people claiming it would just continue to claim it. It's not like anybody checks how many FTFs someone has. Usually it's pretty easy, whoever signed the log first got FTF. If there are multiple ways of logging that actually makes it harder to determine who was there first.

 

I hardly think this is considered "lots of people". There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of cachers, maybe even millions of people who knows. And a dozen people all of the sudden become lots of people? I thought this was a forum where we can bounce around ideas. I know people hate change, and their way is usually the "best" way. But can't we just give constructive criticism?

 

Cheating will become rampant. Since we are all now speculating I guess... What if, what if, what if... we can "what if" all we want. There will always be a small percentage of bad apples. Why aren't people going around destroying caches, etc. You guys make it sound like cheating will become rampant and out of control. All of the sudden, everyone will pass around codes and cheat... lol

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

And how would you enforce that?

 

How are invalid caches enforced now? LOL... The majority of cachers are honest and good people, who will report invalid caches such as no log book, no container, etc... No different that current system? you are funny... good one...

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

Thanks for the stimulating conversations everyone. Like I said, I've been caching for over a decade but haven't been on the forums for awhile.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

I've done many park n' grabs, but in each case, I retrieved a container, pulled out the log and put ink on it, and then put the container back. If bar codes were allowed, cache owners would start putting them on the outside of the container, then start putting them on the outside of the hiding spot. At some point, you are no longer geocaching. Where do you draw the line? I believe that if you are simply pulling up to a lamp post and scanning a label on the cover, you are no longer geocaching. Even with all of the shenanigans played on the power trails, the cachers still interact with the cache and the logsheet. If we lose that interaction completely, we're no longer geocaching. That game is currently being played on a competing website.

 

Ugh... for the umpteenth time, thats not what I suggested. You would still need a traditional cache container and log sheet.

 

I understand that it is not what you are suggesting. Unfortunately, I fear that this would be the ultimate result of what you are suggesting.

 

Then those caches without containers or logbook would be archived and taken offline.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

Ok, so how about a QR code that opens a text log with additional hints or a secret message? Like a Chirp without having to have a certain Garmin GPSr? If you don't want to use the QR code for the secret message, then don't. Just log the find the traditional way and be done. But, if you "want" scan the QR code and get a clue to continue on?

 

Where would this QR code be in relation to the cache? Somewhere on the way between the parking spot and the cache? In which case, I would be interested to see whether a reviewer would require you to call it a multi. And keep in mind that a QR code would be thought of as a physical element and proximity guidelines would apply. (As they're written now, anyway.)

 

How about if a QR code would be inside a cache container. Maybe a small container containing the QR code and log book. SO the person finding it would find the first cache container with coordinates. Then, sign the logbook and scan the qr code which pops up as a text with the next clue or coordinates.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

I've done many park n' grabs, but in each case, I retrieved a container, pulled out the log and put ink on it, and then put the container back. If bar codes were allowed, cache owners would start putting them on the outside of the container, then start putting them on the outside of the hiding spot. At some point, you are no longer geocaching. Where do you draw the line? I believe that if you are simply pulling up to a lamp post and scanning a label on the cover, you are no longer geocaching. Even with all of the shenanigans played on the power trails, the cachers still interact with the cache and the logsheet. If we lose that interaction completely, we're no longer geocaching. That game is currently being played on a competing website.

 

Ugh... for the umpteenth time, thats not what I suggested. You would still need a traditional cache container and log sheet.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

 

Writing down the code doesn't prove anything, just as I can sign a physical log for a friend who wasn't there I can write down the code and give it to a friend who wasn't there.

 

 

I think this point is the deal-breaker. This idea doesn't give any more security, for want of a better word, than what we already have in terms of proving whether they found the cache or not. There's already an industry in bogus TB code logging, (I'm told there are loads of them on websites) it will only be a matter of time before one develops around this.

 

What it will do is create more conflicts between cache owners with control issues and the finders that they believe may be cheating. Logs will be deleted, finders with appeal to Groundspeak and the Lackeys will have to sort it all out, wasting valuable time that could be used creating hamster videos. Groundspeak is not going to let that happen. Their motto is to make better mistakes, not repeat the same ones.

 

Having the code is not required to log a find. Plus, a CO can claim a find is a cheat already. Why isn't it a problem now? I do get your point, so how about just using a QR code to reveal a secret message if the finder so chooses?

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

Exactly. It makes caches even more about scoring a quick smiley. I also play the other QR game and rarely does anyone leave a comment. It's about scanning and moving on to the next one. All about the points. That's fine if that's what the game is all about from the onset. Let's not continue to move geocaching in that direction.

 

And what's wrong with that besides you don't like it? maybe there are others who like that style?

 

So I know some people here make reasons like "It'll encourage grab and go caching". So what? There are caches already like that, a dozen caches lined up for grab and go style caching and some even state in the description its made just for grab and go style. What about those?

 

Should there be no choice by the cache owner how he wants to set it up? Only your way?

 

Because it's not geocaching. There is already a smartphone game where you simply scan codes and get points for doing so. If that is the game that you want to play, then go ahead and play it, but it makes no sense to turn this game into it.

 

Did you not read what I wrote?

There are caches already like that, a dozen caches lined up for grab and go style caching and some even state in the description its made just for grab and go style. What about those?

There are grab and go caches on Geocaching.com right now. And no smartphone required so it wouldn't be a smartphone game.

 

I think alot of people who have been caching for a long time have participated in a grab and go cache at some point already anyway. Where you can drive up close to it, find it, log it and go.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

Ok, so how about a QR code that opens a text log with additional hints or a secret message? Like a Chirp without having to have a certain Garmin GPSr? If you don't want to use the QR code for the secret message, then don't. Just log the find the traditional way and be done. But, if you "want" scan the QR code and get a clue to continue on?

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

What are the chances that there will be good cell phone reception deep into the woods or at the mountain peak?

 

You can already add your own QR Code to your own cache hide which points to the login page. I'm guessing you want to tie the QR code to the location, so that someone must be within 30 feet of the cache to be able to log the find.

 

And I'm also guessing that you don't want to provide a logbook. The QR code is the cache. If GS implemented this then eventually a container cache will become quite rare because they will be forced out by all the QR code hides. It's much easier and costs almost nothing to hide a QR code then it is to hide a container. We already know that the proliferation of micros/nanos are tied to the easy-factor.

 

Why not place a MZ on the mountain peak? There's already a site for that.

 

What are the chances that there will be good cell phone reception deep into the woods or at the mountain peak?

Good point... lol...

 

You can already add your own QR Code to your own cache hide which points to the login page. I'm guessing you want to tie the QR code to the location, so that someone must be within 30 feet of the cache to be able to log the find.

Kind of, yeah. Like a Chirp.

 

And I'm also guessing that you don't want to provide a logbook. The QR code is the cache.

No, not what I'm saying. Logbook will be there. I am not saying make a QR code cache. Include it in the cache for people who "choose" to scan it. If they don't want to they don't have to.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

Exactly. It makes caches even more about scoring a quick smiley. I also play the other QR game and rarely does anyone leave a comment. It's about scanning and moving on to the next one. All about the points. That's fine if that's what the game is all about from the onset. Let's not continue to move geocaching in that direction.

 

And what's wrong with that besides you don't like it? maybe there are others who like that style?

 

So I know some people here make reasons like "It'll encourage grab and go caching". So what? There are caches already like that, a dozen caches lined up for grab and go style caching and some even state in the description its made just for grab and go style. What about those?

 

Should there be no choice by the cache owner how he wants to set it up? Only your way?

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

It doesn't require a smartphone. You can also write down the code (numbers) and enter it on a computer during the regular logging. No smartphone required, so I don't get what you are saying. If one has a smartphone I can be used to scan, if not it still works.

 

"Luckily, your idea will never happen"

And you deal in absolutes. Only Sith deals in absolutes. Lol. Like I mentioned before, a verification key caching game already exists on geocaching.com called Wherigo so... Uhm...

 

"It was just a mission statement"! Lol. Man you guys are so closed minded to ideas. Like talkig to a bunch of Sith's. haha.

 

Wherigo caches exist in two different web spaces, geocaching.com and Wherigo.com. The only thing necessary to log the cache on geocaching.com is to find the cache and sign the log. On my one and only Wherigo find, I never logged onto Wherigo.com and entered any code.

 

As far as absolutes, I simply don't think that Groundspeak is going to re-define Geocaching. I have to correct myself from earlier in that except for "Challenge Caches", caches can be logged as found if the cache is found and the only verification that a cache owner can require is a signature/mark on the log sheet. They learned from the past that requiring anything more, especially code words creates all kinds of problems.

 

It's not so much that we are closed minded, it's more that we are attuned to the history and see no reason to repeat the things that did not work.

 

Finally, someone with some good info and conversation other than "I hate it" attitude. thank you... lol, you say "WE" are attuned to the history.... some of the people responding negatively don't know about the history of Geocaching like you and I do looking at their registration dates. I agree with you that Geocaching should not repeat things that didn't work. I've been Caching for over a decade and been on Geocaching since 2003. I've literally have found hundreds if not into the 1000's range of caches.

 

If someone doesn't like a certain attribute, either filter it out or just skip it? Kind of a no brainer no?

 

Reminds me of the people who watch TV and complain the whole time the show is inappropriate or offensive or not good. I'ts called choice? skip it? lol...

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

 

Writing down the code doesn't prove anything, just as I can sign a physical log for a friend who wasn't there I can write down the code and give it to a friend who wasn't there.

 

I'm not closed to new ideas, I just call out what I believe to be bad ideas when I see them.

 

Your idea of a "bad idea" is different from mine or someone elses... so who is right?

 

It proves the FTF. How do you get the code from a friend for the FTF? hmmm...

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

It doesn't require a smartphone. You can also write down the code (numbers) and enter it on a computer during the regular logging. No smartphone required, so I don't get what you are saying. If one has a smartphone I can be used to scan, if not it still works.

 

"Luckily, your idea will never happen"

And you deal in absolutes. Only Sith deals in absolutes. Lol. Like I mentioned before, a verification key caching game already exists on geocaching.com called Wherigo so... Uhm...

 

"It was just a mission statement"! Lol. Man you guys are so closed minded to ideas. Like talkig to a bunch of Sith's. haha.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

As others have pointed out, scanning the QR code doesn't really verify anything, except that I somehow obtained a copy of the QR code. It's really the same thing as keyword caches (which were abandoned years ago), only more high tech.

 

I can totally see myself hiding a cache somewhere crazy like San Gorgonio Peak at over 12,000ft here in San Bernardino County, or a difficult night hike deep into the woods. And making it available to log a "find" only with the verification code or barcode scan.

So now, in addition to finding the cache that you hid "somewhere crazy", finders also need to copy the verification code or photograph the QR code? That sounds like an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR, also abandoned, although only a few years ago).

 

As a cache owner, I'd be concerned that those who want "verified" finds would pressure me to add a meaningless code to my caches.

 

As a cache seeker, I'd be concerned that those who want "verified" finds would pressure the owners of caches I like, and that some of those caches would be archived by owners who got fed up with the pressure to add a meaningless code to their caches.

 

I really don't see an upside here...

 

Upside is choice, like Premium caches option. If someone doesn't like the conditions of a cache, they just don't go find it. If they don't want to obtain the verification code from the cache to log it, it's their choice.. don't do the cache?

 

And not ALL caches will require this... I was just suggesting making a checkbox to enable it if the CO chooses?

 

As a cache owner, if you are concerned DON'T enable that option. Why would you be pressured to do anything? Do what you want.

 

As a cache seeker, if you are concerned DON'T go seek that cache.

 

Don't we all scroll through and reject some caches that don't appeal to us already? Some cache seekers don't want to go caching at night... but night caches exist because it's the choice of the cache owner. Some people don't want to go hiking into the woods 4 miles but there exists caches like that because it's the cache owner's choice. Not everyone has the same likes and dislikes. My suggestion was just to add another option, not a mandatory thing. Just an option like Multi-Caches or Puzzle Caches. Some like puzzles, some don't.

 

No one is pro-choice here? Just your way or the highway? lol...

 

Wherigo is a verification key system and promoted by Geocaching already.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

 

If a basic member knows a premium member that will give him the coordinates to one of my PMO caches, then he is more than welcome to go find it and log it online. The only reason that I have PMO caches is to protect them from the attention deficient, instant gratification smartphone cachers. Instant barcode logging just feeds that mentality. This isn't the checkout at the supermarket. Slow down and enjoy the game instead of trying to find ways to change it.

 

Take it a step further, and it is certain to happen, people will simply be sticking bar codes to lamp post covers and not even bothering to stick the cheep rusty container inside. There is already a game for that and with exception of them using the word on their website, it has nothing to do with geocaching.

 

You might like to take it slow and enjoy the game, but some might not. Maybe some like the drive up, find and go style. Which way is right? Your way? There is no right or wrong way to go caching, to each his own? But having the options to design a cache to a person's liking and specification is what I was saying. Some might not think Premium only caches are right, or night caches are for them, etc etc.

 

I'm not trying to change anything except add another option for Cache Owners, same as the option to make it available to premium Members only (is it pay or you can't play or what? lol). Some caches are designed for the instant gratification of driving right up to it, finding it and bamn... you are off...Reject those who design a cache that way because thats not how the game is supposed to be played according to you?

 

And virtual caches already exist. That's not what I was suggesting.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

HA!... It works. I used QR Scanner for iPhone and it worked.. Now I have to generate some codes and tape it to the inside lids of my caches... haha..

 

Thanks for the tip.

 

But a verification code I would still use for the reason I stated in the previous post...

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

...but a signature log won't scan and launch the cache page in the phone app making it easy for people to log finds on the go?

QR codes will already do this. All a CO has to do is make a QR code of the URL of the "Log a visit" page of their cache and put it in the cache. I haven't done this for any of my caches, but I did for a couple of my TBs. Scanning the QR code attached to those TBs takes the user straight to the TB's page so they can log a retrieve, discover, etc.

 

Good idea!..

 

Testing a link to this topic:

 

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

While we may have technology now to verify finds, for many the question is "why?".

 

Hey you signed up a couple weeks before I did back in 2003! lol... you beat me by a hair!

 

Well, why would anyone just make a cache available to Premium Members only? Or make a night cache for finding at nights only? I think it's just an option for the CO? If someone hides a cache at the top of a 12,000ft peak somewhere remote and wanted to verify the FTF or something? I know codes can be distributed but would verify FTF at least. And make it difficult for the casual "cheater".

 

So with that same mentality, why make a "Premium Only" cache? a Basic Member can just have a Premium member look up Premium Member only caches and distribute those around. Why even have that option then? Just gives us more choices as the CO.

 

I can totally see myself hiding a cache somewhere crazy like San Gorgonio Peak at over 12,000ft here in San Bernardino County, or a difficult night hike deep into the woods. And making it available to log a "find" only with the verification code or barcode scan.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

Is this the same suggestion as all the other “barcode verification” suggestions: “A way to prove I found it”? If not, why in the example would you "Verify Found" only 6 of 19 caches?

 

Because as I stated, the system wasn't in place the first 19 I found.

Do you doubt you've found those 6 caches?

 

The reason I asked "Is this the same suggestion as all the other “barcode verification” suggestions: “A way to prove I found it”?", is that's important to the idea. If you can claim a find, "Prove It", by scanning a barcode or typing a number, all you need is the number (or a barcode). You don't need to have found the cache. This means it's an extra step, but does NOT mean the cacher found the cache. That's what the signature might show (among other things), without needing barcodes.

 

The 19/6 thing was an example I just conjured up for a visual.

 

True, but a signature log won't scan and launch the cache page in the phone app making it easy for people to log finds on the go? Kind of like the Amazon app, first page there is a "Scan" button. Press it, scan and it shows you results. So easy to use at stores. Geocaching app menu page has "scan", press the button, scan, log and done.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

Is this the same suggestion as all the other “barcode verification” suggestions: “A way to prove I found it”? If not, why in the example would you "Verify Found" only 6 of 19 caches?

 

Because the system wasn't in place the first 19 I found.

[Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.]

I haven't been on this forum for years, such hostility geez. Lol. It was just a thought. I just thought it would be easier for me to just launch the App, scan the barcode and it opens up the cache and logs it, type a log and hit save.

 

All your points are valid. Cheating is still possible but much less accesible as just clicking "found it" as it is now. Maybe make it able to change the code as often as I want, just hit re-generate code and then take the code up to my cache and replace it once a week, month, or whenever I fee like it.

 

It was just a thought I had while driving today! Lol

[How do I change Premium Member cache to public?]

Thank you all for your help! How do I find a local cache reviewer?