thebruce0

Which... seems to be the point of this experiment... so...

Also, not sure if you skipped or didn't see my inquiry, but I was wondering what it is Groundspeak is referring to when they say they'll eventually have Lab Caches more built in to profile stats? Does that mean that the 'lab cache' concept itself will become trackable in user profile stats moreso than just as a find count increment, but somehow incorporated into geocache property statistics? Just wondering, if so, how that'll happen? Would the lab cache listing still not have any standard properties, or will they be given things like difficulty and terrain for the creators to define? I think the thing is, at this point, you could take any classification of statistic that encompasses you're entire find count, and break it down. Whether the DT (every row/column summed = find count) or cache type (total = find count), etc... How would "Lab Caches" fit into that structure? Or is structure going to change to make room for the 'Lab Cache' type? (am I/are we misunderstanding, those of us who think that the intention is that lab caches will remain distinct from standard geocaches and it's actually the experiments that were implied to potentially become official geocaches?)

the "heart string" I would say is a key element in people's creativity! Emotion, wanting to do something special for someone, originality, uniqueness... by marketing it as an opportunity for this type of creativity, I think they stand a very good chance of seeing what people are capable of creating; whether in a short time or a longer term (by end of Feb) creation process... --- Just to re-iterate my tldr from earlier:

hm. I don't think they'd be looking explicitly for objective evaluations of specific caches. I think they'd welcome both objective evaluations and subjective opinions of caches that were set up for ourselves by someone else, as well opinions (they're never objective ) about the "I <3 Geocaching" concept as whole... The way they're promoting this really seems to pulling on the 'heart strings' of people to do something special for someone special. So, really, I'd think any feedback (that is constructive - positive or negative, objective evaluations or opinions) would be welcome.

But the "Mystery Cache" is a standard cache type, stored in a very different system than Labs, and also has a well-fleshed out guideline 'book' that helps determine what values should be stored for all the standard geocache listing properties. Lab caches do not. Fundamentally, lab caches are quite different than standard geocaches. I know all that... that's why I was asking for clarification as to 1) whether they were actually referring to the experiment currently being performed as becoming an official type in the future, or 2) if significant overhauls to the profile and statistics system would be implemented in order to treat "Lab Caches" (explicitly) as on par with standard geocaches (this is where I think they should not be, should be kept segregated, for various reasons; and I'm sure others disagree with me ) The game beta testing analogy was yours not mine. My point was, using the game beta testing example, if the example game player kept stats on the games they played, I agree it would be invalid to count the beta testing of game XYZ as playing the resulting released game XYZ as they may be very different, but it is *not* invalid for the player to count the number of times he has played 'generic beta test game'... But yeah it's not a very good analogy to begin with... ;-) Oh I know the analogy was mine; you expanded on it, so I responded to the expansion ;P. If the player kept their own stats, then they can do whatever they want with their own stats... as it stands, we're talking Groundspeak's implementation of stats tracking using their own data. In that case, the player is able to track 'generic beta test game' - that's the Lab Cache find count. And I'm fully on board with that. I still don't yet see a problem with the analogy I was getting that sense... I was just hoping for clarification on a couple of points (from tptb). Exactly. And yeah, in this forum the general understanding about Lab Caches may be more accurate, but I've seen plenty of comments and rants and raves out in the wild internets on blogs and soc.med that don't seem to grasp the 'experiment' nature of the Lab Cache entity, not that, for example, ALL Lab Caches EVER are and will only be defined by the "I <3 Geocaching" concept or the "temporary" caches tested at mega events. I've seen plenty of people thinking that "temporary cache" IS exactly what the Lab Cache is; when no, it just happened that the experiment at the time was about event-based temporary caches (which happened to coincide with the nature of the lab cache which is temporary) yaddayadda... My only point: I don't think it's necessarily clear to the layperson that the "Lab Cache" is fundamentally an experimental 'thing', and not inherently some kind of test cache type that will become an official "Lab Cache" geocache listing type (at least if Groundspeak keeps it as what I believe it was intended to be - a sandboxed container entity in which to try out dynamic and varying ideas, quite different than a standard geocache, technically speaking) *shrug*

Lab caches may be experimental, but they are geocaches. I think you're right about there being some confusion but I see less of that here in this thread than out there in the real world when discussing with other cachers IRL. Lab caches are most analagous to ? caches - you may have found a whole bunch of ? caches but they will likely be a variety of different things. Some may be sudoku puzzles, others may be field puzzles, others may be challenge caches. I don't think I was clear enough - yes the experience of finding a lab cache can be analogous to any standard geocache (depending on the guidelines set out for the current experiment), but technically they are very much not a "geocache" as the website treats geocaches. This is what I think people are getting confused by. They see "Lab Cache" and equate it, generally, with whatever the current experiment is, rather than the fact that they're each more like a record of a single participation in a dynamically formed cache concept that isn't tracked any more on the site than the fact that you entered the correct code on its listing. Jayme (I think) and the I <3 Geocaching FAQ have both stated that they will be included in stats at some point int he future and Jayme explained why they currently aren't in an earlier post in this topic. This is another thing I believe needs to be cleared up. My understanding is that Lab Caches themselves won't (can't) be integrated any more than they are currently, unless they make some fundamental changes to how lab caches work. The way I understood Jayme was that the I <3 Geocaching concept that's being experimented within this series of lab caches may become an official cache type at some point in the future. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Perhaps some clarity on that would be useful, Jayme? I mostly agree, but it was a choice by Groundspeak to make them add to a cacher's find count, so I'm happy to read that they intend to fix up the stats that relate/contribute to the find count also. I'm leaning the opposite way. The fact that Lab Caches are fundamentally different than standard geocaches is a Good Thing, given that they are intended to be temporary framework in which ideas can be tested. And because of that, they should be handled differently in profile stats. But that's just my opinion and preference The cache concepts being experimented may well become official caches. In those cases, they should most definitely be treated on the same par as the current set of standard geocache types. Right, and I think that's a cause for confusion, as referenced without qualification. A lot of the time it sounds like finding Lab Caches is fun in its own right (on par with standard caches) -- when it's the current experiment, the current type of lab cache that they're meaning. At least that's how I'm understanding their intention with the "Lab Cache" addition to geocaching.com. Yes, but (and this is also in response to your points about why they should not be counted as a geocache find) a game player can still count the number of times they have beta tested a game (any game). And, when they were beta testing a game, they can say they were "playing a game" - not necessarily the same game ultimately released, but a game nonetheless. Where? Where is any person's global stats of game beta testing stored? If at all, it would be in a system designed by the creators of a series of games (franchise, eg) as a way to 'reward' their loyal beta tester. In this case, that's analogous the +1 find count. It seems there's no lasting 'reward' for creating one, at this point only finding one. (I wouldn't mind seeing a record of number of Lab Caches created though ) And just like a beta tester can say they were "playing a game", of course a geocacher can say they were "geocaching". Saying something is different than keeping a record of it Now, the beta tester couldn't say they were playing "Game XYZ" - because they weren't, they were playing the "Game XYZ Beta", which could be very very different than the final product (and potentially even have no inherent record of them being a beta tester). As cachers, we have the opportunity to 'beta test' a cache concept, and that 'find' participation is recorded in the awarding of a +1 Find count. Otherwise, what we're doing is 'Finding' (and creating) a 'beta' version of a concept cache within the container that is what Groundspeak refers to as the "Lab Cache". See, the other problem is, what if Groundspeak wants to beta test a very very different technical type of cache? They have the system set up to track activity with the temporal and flexible Lab Cache functionality - but if they make huge changes to how it works just for this particular experiment, then what does anyone's past "12 Lab Caches Found" actually represent? Not the current cache concept, that's for sure. That stat doesn't record what they actually found, what type of experiment they completed - only that they participated in the testing of a new cache concept via the Lab Cache 'type'. What they actually found may never see the light of day; OTOH, it might be the Next Big Thing. Either way, what they found as recorded was a "success" in completing an arbitrary process designed to test a concept. That's the Lab Cache.

I still don't understand how this is one lab cache that a premium member can create will add to the problem. If someone is inclined to damage property or vandalise something for a cache - any cache - then they will do it anyway. This new lab cache is not going to encourage someone to vandalise something in the name of geocaching, who wouldn't otherwise vandalise something. That means that for responsible geocachers, it's status quo, and for a small minority who vandalise and damage things already, they still can. If not with a lab cache, then with an ordinary cache. All that said, it would proabbly not hurt for Groundspeak to add a few extra words to the FAQ. I can grok the concern that this format of one-time finds on a lab cache technically removes any inherent repercussions from breaking placement guidelines (reports from other users, archival, disabling, etc), and agree that Groundspeak encouraging cachers to adhere to (general0 placement guidelines - that is, respect nature, respect property, in short - would be a Good Thing. I think just 'local laws apply' is too vague. Nonetheless, regardless of what they say, the nature of the lab cache and logging seems to present opportunity for someone to take advantage of the lack of accountability to do something they couldn't otherwise "get away with" in a standard cache. Even though, those are likely the kinds of people who'd probably do it anyway. *shrug*

Man... always new drama with Lab Cache announcements... So much has gone down in this thread; here are some of my thoughts on points that have been raised (sometimes repeatedly) (or just skip to the TLDR at the bottom ) --re: "The Lab Cache" I think one of the major issues is the confusion about what lab caches actually are. Here is my understanding: The Lab Cache is the lowest common denominator - a 'container' if you will - in which ideas and experiments can take place, without being bound by 'statistics' and standard cache properties, only suggested themes (no log, no properties, just a code and validation of success). For this reason (as well as the technical limitations explained earlier in the thread) they aren't (cannot) be included in the standard geocaching stats. Additionally, having no online log makes a significant difference in how generation of its stats happen. Consider: when you download "My Finds", you're not downloading cache listings, you're downloading all your logs which are tied to, and thus pull, their associated caches' details. In the end the result may be the same, but the process for pulling that information is very different. This is why Geocaching Challenges were different, and Benchmarks, as far as my knowledge, have been programmed (a long time ago) as a workaround to this 'standard' geocaching log process, or at least a leftover that's been tweaked to continue working. What we're Finding at any point (whether during mega event lab period or this "I <3 Geocaching" period) is not "A Lab Cache" -- what we're find is a variant of an experimental cache idea that is being classified as a "Lab Cache". The Mega Event lab caches aren't the exact same thing as the I <3 Geocaching lab caches. I do think though, ideally, whenever Groundspeak talks about finding a 'lab cache' they should qualify that you're not "findind a geocache" - you're helping with an experimental idea, and your ability to Find, and success in Finding a particular Lab Cache (which may or may not be physical) is rewarded by an increase in your find count. But you didn't find a geocache. Think of it like beta testing. If you're a beta tester, you might join and play a game - it's not the final version, and that version may end up very different than what you played. You might even still need to purchase the full game afterwards. If you're a beta tester, you're partaking in a sandboxed 'experiment' from which the creators are able to parse response and feedback and decide how to move forward, and even how to treat their beta testers. When you partake in the 'lab cache' experiment, you're not finding a geocache, you're being a part of a process that is intended to gauge response and success for an idea that doesn't yet have a final structure. IF Groundspeak feels a particular experiment was a success, there's a greater chance that its concept may become an official geocache type (or some other form) in the future - once all the other hurdles (described earlier in the thread) are overcome. Our "Lab Cache" statistics aren't (shouldn't) be considered on par with finding official/standard geocaches. They are more like our statistics in helping shape the geocaching pastime as a whole. --re: Stats As far as the end result is concerned, I think I'm likely more inclined to favour the idea that lab cache 'finds' be counted in stats similar to Benchmarks, as mentioned earlier in the thread. But I don't know how technically feasible that is. --re: Code swapping So two premium members create an IHG lab cache for each other and can then both get the Lab Cache icon. ... well, so what? They can only create one (part of this experiment), so they're limiting what they can create. BUT, if the reason they did it is for the lab cache icon, that will be part of the result analysis Groundspeak takes into consideration. Then they can decide how much weight to place on that decision of those players. It's no one's loss except the cachers' themselves (not being able to create any more). Yet they still get 'rewarded' by a +1 find for contributing to the experiment. Obviously Groundspeak is more interested in uses that are more creative, out of the box, technical, endearing, challenging -- AND those that are less successful, or which fail, for whatever reason -- so they can amass all that data and decide how to proceed with the concept they were testing. That is precisely what the 'Lab Cache' concept was created for. --re: "special person" If you don't find one, that doesn't mean you're not special. That was clearly not Groundspeak saying 'you're not special if you don't find one'. That was Groundspeak talking to anyone who creates one, the one to decide who is 'special' to them. And that is part of the I <3 Geocaching experiment. Perhaps it's more of a social analysis than geocaching-specific, but it's a theme that someone can make use of -- just like the idea of making a smartphone-specific lab cache (are you not special now if you don't have a smartphone to do the lab cache?) Ultimately only the person who creates this IHG lab cache is the one who decides who is "special", to them. Groundspeak is not restricting who can find one. Not directly. -------- tl;dr: 1) Lab Caches technically aren't "geocaches" themselves. They are experiments that reward those who contribute and 'Find' one a +1 to their findcount. I think too many people think "Lab Caches" are all the same type of thing (equivalent to standard physical/virtual geocaches), even across different experiment periods, thus some of the confusion. 2) Being a formless data 'container', the way they exist in the database is fundamentally different than standard geocaches and finds (logs) and so can't be simply included in profile statistics without enormous work 2b) They don't have properties and rules because those are presented in the form of themes and guidelines for the experiment being done; this is also a reason why they are only available temporarily, since different experiments may require different 'container' programming (like multiple code 'finds' vs one-time finds). 3) I think having Lab Caches displayed and function in the profile similar to Benchmark finds would be more favourable, and likely less controversial 4) Finding a lab cache does not make you a "special person" to Groundspeak. In this experiment, they make you a "special person" to the one who gave you the link to their I <3 Geocaching Lab Cache link. 5) Code swapping may well happen -- but so what? It's a valid sample case in the context of this lab cache experiment. Those people consider each other "special" enough to not actually do anything except take a code and enter it online for an icon in their profile. 6) Groundspeak should put more emphasis on the point that Lab Cache is not a standard geocache, and that at any particular time a new experiment is being run, the current "Lab Cache" you may find may actually be completely different (practically speaking) than any previous Lab Cache you may have found. People are 'finding' (participating in) experiments. 7) Like beta testing a game, the option to partake (the creation portion of the experiment) is not open to everyone. To 'make the cut' as a participant in that element of the experiment you need to be a Premium Member. That is not a "gift", it's a right afforded by being a paying member. Even then, anyone can find one of these lab caches and 'earn' a +1 Find. Why would anyone want to find an experiment? Well if you don't, then don't. If you do, do. Simple as that. Be a beta tester and find [anyone can], or create [paying members only] - but realize that you're not buying the full release of the game, you're helping forge the final release through constructive (positive or critical) feedback. And Groundspeak has decided that our contribution (as finders) will be rewarded with 1 more find count. Don't like it? Don't find it, or delete it (they've provided instructions for how to do so)

The problem is, the OP question is not specific enough, and so is prime debate material Can a smartphone replace a dedicated GPS? What models? In what use context? Qualify any answer with that, and chances are the thread will find answers. Otherwise it's all butts "but... but... but..."

In some places, Google Maps are at least as accurate as a good GPS receiver. In other places, the calibration of Google Maps can be off by 100ft (30m) or more, or the highest zoom level available can be low enough to severely limit its effectiveness, or both. An easy quick test is to view a nearby segment of road in Hybrid mode, and see how well the road line aligns with the satellite shot. There's much less margin for error in the roadmap tiles than there is in imagery alignment. If you view an intersection, you'll see just how far off the sat tiles likely are in that region.

Well I think the problem is, if the Wherigo doesn't provide a destination GPS to navigate too, then it's effectively become a puzzle cache (though you're using the cartridge to get needed information). in the context of a proper Wherigo that provides a destination waypoint for the cache and/or a zone, the coordinates would need to be provided somehow. I have done some where the final cache coordinates are simply provided in a plain text message, but again they're in the cartridge. If simply providing a puzzle with empty number slots you need to fill, but not providing some method of verification, I'd worry that the player might get a wrong answer and get frustrated if they go on a wild goose chase. But I guess that more depends on the 'puzzle' itself and how obvious the correct answers are Anyway, point being, there are obviously ways to make hacking and/or cheating more difficult but how much effort is protection worth? *shrug*

Actually satellite imagery can be off in more rural areas... I most often use hybrid view, which shows the road lines with the imagery, and outside the city quite often the roads aren't in sync - and if I let the gps settle, the map road lines are more precise than the satellite imagery. You should be able to find this occurring if you view some close tiles even just in google maps on the web. Here's an example - I wager if you were to go to the intersection and stand on the eastern corner, your gps would place you in the middle of the intersection according to the imagery, but properly placed on the road map. Best practice is to look around in hybrid mode for roads and see if the imagery is in line. If not, adjust your cache search accordingly

Heeeey! Now there's a Clan reply I can (mostly) get on board with And after you use it an amount of time, that is simply how you use it. Thus the perception - I have the way I use my device. So, I don't need added durability, so buying a handheld GPSr for durability is a non-issue. You have the way you use your device. So, buying a smartphone as a replacement would mean a noticeable reduction in durability, and the feeling that the smartphone is "fragile". Different direction, different personal use contexts. IF I wanted to do more things and I were more concerned about what my smartphone could handle, then I might consider a more durable device. Until that point, durability of the smartphone is not even a matter of better or worse, it's a non-issue, in my case. (for example) - the reason it's good to know your own intended uses, to determine which device is best for you. (as opposed to blanket statements like "get a handheld because it's more durable!") I agree. Blanket statements regarding any emerging and evolving technology are usually conversation fail points. However, the current state of affairs is such that certain generalizations can still be made. For instance: ... Yes! In those cases, there are plenty of smartphone owners who acknowledge and admit (especially in this thread!) that of course the bare-bones state of handhelds designed for durability, battery life, and gps accuracy, are better than 'smartphones'. No one disputes that (well, mostly). It's when that argument is pulled into the context of geocaching that the lines between camps are magnified. Based on some reports I've read in the forum, there are most certainly some "fragile" handhelds, and surprisingly so. But again, the audiophile analogy. Sure, a durable case may not be as rugged as a designed-tough handheld in extreme cases, but... when you get the case, will you use it to a point it (likely) indicates it can't handle? Or past whatever you've read other people experienced it can't handle? That's also part of preparation. Whether it's your device or whatever accessories you buy, know what it can handle. If I bought a 'light' armor case for mine, I may feel that I don't have to be as "tender" with it, but I wouldn't presume it's so tough I could drive over it. That is to say, if I knew I was prone to dropping my phone from my pocket, I might invest in a light case. If I was worried about dropping it in the water while out canoeing, I might buy a waterproof case. You know... that also helps make the argument that the smartphone's durability (or basic lack of) is beneficial as it's far more flexible in that case Maybe I want a highly capable, yet considered "fragile" device for which I can swap out protection specific to any short-term use! Correction: Not the "best" smartphone vs the "cheapest" handheld. Most top-line smartphones rival above average handhelds for accuracy. At least as reported by people in these forums. And also by my own experiences in caching groups, every time (and I'm not exaggerating) we arrive at gz, when people are staring at their GPSs, they are all wandering sometimes up to 30-40 or more feet trying to pinpoint gz, calling out their distances; and no amount of info is sufficient to determine the actual GPS location. And more often than not, I've found my phone to be within that group, if not one of the closest to gz. Of course that entirely depends on how accurate the posted coords are in the first place. But the accuracy comparison as slight between "best smartphone" and "cheapest dedicated" is not correct, and at best misleading. At the very least, it would be better stated as "best smartphone" and "average dedicated".

Oh, Clan. Here we go again. In its bare state, a smartphone (unqualified by brand) has a wide variety of fragility. That is a fact. Demonstrated by various "smartphone" models incapable of surviving a drop and shattering, to for example, my own first hand experience of my 4S going through a series of common damaging scenarios in its life, including more extreme environments while caching, and I'm still using it just fine. "Fragile" is vague, and only relevant depending on what context in which you make use of the device. China is "fragile" when you're boxing it to move house. It's not as "fragile" when you've placed it in your cabinet or are setting out dinner on it. That is to say, how you treat it depends on context, regardless of its base fragility. Heck, the Nalgene controversy! Oh no! It's not that durable because I drove over it with my truck and it shattered! ... ... The way I use my device, I don't need to treat it as 'fragile'. So a more durable device to me is irrelevant. The way a GPSr owner likely uses their device, they would be almost guaranteed to consider a smartphone 'fragile', because they're used to using the device in ways a smartphone may not withstand. That is what I meant by perception, and why the debate will never end. Being used to my smartphone, a more durable outdoors handheld GPSr would be needlessly durable for my use and taste. I see no personal benefit to using a GPSr, in my case, for additional durability. Someone else may see added value in a more durable device. That's great. But the way I see it, that level of durability is achievable with my device, were I to desire to add that level of protection. So the 'added' durability of the other device is a non-issue. For me. Everyone has different use scenarios, and so everyone's experience will be different regarding various devices. The only productive discussion that can be had is that which objectively describes how a device was used and how well it fared, so people can better decide which device is best for themselves. We agree that dedicated handheld GPSrs - designed for accuracy and designed for durability from the start - will withstand more than a smartphone when compared bare-bones. Your experiences (or your daughter's) with your devices do not speak for everyone, as valid as they are, since other people have had vastly different experiences. My point is and has always been simply - you prepare to use your device as you see fit, for your own uses. Share your experience, but don't make blanket judgements based on that - let other people decide for themselves. (side thought; based on browsing of similar device threads recently in this forum, it seems like there are more smartphone advocates now on the 'decide for yourselves' side of the fence, but more handheld advocates on the 'mine is better than yours' side of the fence) I would stop buying otterbox cases Or, teach her how to take better care of her phone(s)! Seriously. If your daughter has gone through numerous phones, all dead from irreparable damage while within highly durable otterbox cases, I do not think the problem is the case, let alone the smartphone... o_O Oh stop it... I think there may only be one or two people in this thread who've said anything close to the point that smartphones could potentially out-perform dedicated GPSrs in GPS accuracy, technologically speaking. Practically, in the context of geocaching, and as testified so many many times in these very threads, mid to high-end smartphones perform more than sufficiently, technologically, for getting to, and for determining, geocache coordinates, in a wide variety of non-urban, more extreme environments; and sometimes unexpectedly better than dedicated GPSr counterparts. The user factor is the most significant issue with coordinate determination in this context, not the technology. These days, comparing any above average GPS-capable device for geocaching is like comparing two brands of high end audio systems for living room use. You'd need to be an audiophile to pick out any difference in quality anyway. And with GPS's, the difference in accuracy in the context of geocaching is (technologically) virtually irrelevant (and don't quote me out of context - that applies to upper end GPS capable devices, smartphones included, not any smartphone). /soapbox (I should just purchase a soapbox and live on it)

So, are you trying to say... we shouldn't suggest people create more 101-type events? Are you saying... we shouldn't request required email validation? ...simply because some people may not care to attend such events, or some people may intentionally not reply to email? If not, what are you trying to say with your response then? We know these suggestions aren't guaranteed solutions to the problem(s). But they are certainly top of the list for dealing with a huge portion of the 'problem' crowd. There will always be people who find a way to make things worse for everyone else. It's inevitable. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can to reduce that happening.

Keep in mind, the vast majority of cachers wouldn't consider hacking the cartridge, let alone be capable of doing so. It's really only the fringe tech-savvy engineering-minded cheaters and/or curious who might entertain the idea. There are tools that make it easy, and of those who might consider hacking, only another fraction of those might attempt it manually beyond pre-designed tools. But I think generally people know that 'hacking' a Wherigo takes the fun out of doing it, of course! Personally, I'd say don't worry about hacking if the Wherigo is easy, quick, or entertaining, or you don't really know of any cheaters or techie brainiac geocachers in the area.

Exactly. However, I doubt GS would entertain listing non-geocaching events within the app or via the website. They've already set up the method to host such events - Event caches. And so we come back to discussing a way for Groundspeak to promote events for beginners and new players. Perhaps a 'Beginner friendly' attribute for events would help filter out the crazy events, and provide a way for them to be shown more prominently in the app (not just considered a basic geocache in the limited search). Just a thought. There's no real reason for them to promote external events anyway. If someone's creating an 'geocaching 101' type event, they should most definitely be encouraged to create it as a geocaching Event listing! Then the word can be spread and beginners encouraged to come out. Personally, I think more veterans should get on board and host more introductory geocaching events. We already have a couple of somewhat regular 101 type events each year in the southern Ontario region, but it seems like there are other very large regions in the world where this sort of thing doesn't happen. Why not make it happen more?

Ranger Fox covered a lot... The problem is, if you have the final of anything stored anywhere in the cartridge - encrypted or not - it can be reverse engineered. I have a programmer friend who knew this, and created his Wherigo with an inline LUA script that would execute; but the text was highly encrypted mathematically, knowing that a decompiler could easily extract the text. He also included a number of red herrings. The problem was that the iOS Wherigo player can't run inline script; it doesn't have that capability. So my only option was to go for the hack. I got to the point of seeing the execution process, spotting the red herrings, and this big block of encrypted text. I ended up reverse-engineering the decryption algorithm in order to retrieve the original LUA script, and thus locate the final. He was on board with that, as it was interesting for both of us to see the machine language version of his mathematical encryption algorithm. My decryption wasn't perfect, but it was enough to calculate the final coordinates. So yeah, anything can hacked in the Wherigo cartridge, if it exists in the cartridge. Even if there's any kind of "checker" algorithm - one can decompile it and then test any numbers one wishes until success. My thoughts for making something virtually unhackable (it's never unhackable, since it's really a matter of how determined a hacker is to be successful ) are this... Similar to Ranger's idea, encode a message using some encryption technique (for example, vigenere), but do not include the key or any checker in the script. Merely ask for a word or phrase, which would be used as the decryption key. If the user is presented with gibberish, then it's incorrect. Once they've provided the correct answer, the solution will be clear. The only problem with this is that a hacker will be presented with another decryption step if they locate the cipher text in the cartridge. But at least the solution isn't attainable simply by decompiling the cartridge. Even so, any form of key-based encryption could be used, if the decryption key is based on input from a text field. You could go one step further and do the inline LUA script, but perhaps base64 encode the script first, THEN apply the key-encryption to that text That would make it MUCH harder for a web-based vigenere cracker tool to guess a solution if based on english language. A hacker could deduce that if the cipher decodes to base64, then only certain characters would be valid at the beginning, but you could include a set of commented gibberish at the beginning of the LUA script to throw even that off... Ok so I'm really thinking out loud now, haha. But you get the point - being a self-contained 'program', in a sense, if the answer is in any way verifiable in the self-contained cartridge, then it's much more easily hacked. The question ultimately is - how much work is it worth to make it harder for 'cheaters' to 'cheat'? Especially if, as Ranger said, the easiest way to 'cheat' is to call someone for the final. (personally, I find reverse engineering to be highly enlightening, so I'd likely go through great lengths to make something hard to hack, sort of a favour to those whom I know would enjoy the challenge ) Most would not bother and just go for the experience you intended them to have by actually playing the Wherigo

See, this is where you're stating your own experience and opinion as if it's universal. It's not. Yes, I for one do cache in all sorts of unfavourable weather, and my smartphone is and has been just fine, thank you. Once again, if you are prepared, as anyone with an electronic device should and will be, for whatever they know their device isn't optimal to handle, then there is no issue. A "waterproof GPSr" will of course by default be better suited to fend off rain and ground water. A "protected smartphone" (ie with waterproof casing), or even a regular one that the owner cradles protectively in the rain, will be just as suited for caching without issue. Also, My iPhone(s) have been in the rain, splattered with drops, and been just fine. I can't say it enough - it's surprisingly resilient. It's statements like the bolded above that start debates, because it's based on presumptions and opinions. Now, if you don't want to use your smartphone in the rain, then that's your choice; it's perfectly legitimate and most likely safer, depending on the brand, even if not adequately protected. But to say that a "smartphone is fine if you only cache in favourable weather" makes so many presumptions both about the hardware and about the user (and what constitutes "favourable" ). Use what you like, use what you prefer, know its limits, and protect it accordingly -- whatever device you use.

Put it this way: You use your device to the capability you recognize in it. If you're used to a GPSr, then a smartphone is "fragile". If you're used to a smartphone, then a GPSr is excessively durable. That is to say, and I likely speak for most any smartphone user, we wouldn't put our bare device on the roof of our truck; or leave it on the roof of a vehicle traveling 35mph; or affix it to the handlebar of a motorcycle; or leave it somewhere to be run over by a truck; or carry it unprotected or unattached while adventuring in a lagoon; or or or... of course accidents can still happen; they can still happen to GPSrs too. One may say that the GPSr has a default advantage in being able to do those things. Others may say that a couple of minor additions to preparedness and those things are perfectly within feasible capabilities of a smartphone as well. Point being, there is zero reason to claim that one's own experiences speak for everyone, or an entire device class's usability. Use the device you have, to the ability for which it's built, and if you want to do more with it, prepare for that level of use by getting whatever is necessary to do so. If you don't want to, then get a device that is better suited to what you want to do. Simple as that. Smartphones, recent models especially, are completely capable of geocaching and placing caches -- when used and read properly -- as much as any GPSr. And that said, most any top end GPSr would and should have faster and/or more accurate GPS capabilities (which wouldn't necessarily benefit it in the geocaching context compared to the above smartphone(s)) because they are dedicated to such technology. But it will be inevitable when practically and technologically speaking, there will be no other reason than personal preference to favour a dedicated GPSr over a high-tech smartphone, once one considers whatever level of protection one desires for one's own use of their device of choice.

toz, I was in agreement with your comment; maybe sarcasm would have been a better word than snark

The blade on my Victorinox Swiss Army Knife has a better blade than most pocket knives. In fact the cork screw works better than most of the standalone corkscrews I have purchased. It may be that sometimes compromises are made when functionality is included in a multifunction device, but this is far from being a given. A high end home entertainment system is likely to have better TV components than the best standalone television. butbut... you still haven't provided an actual demonstration of this situation being true. Therefore your argument is irrelevant. /snark (sorry, I've been hit by that response before; regardless of how feasible or likely a set of events is - no specific example? No valid point made, apparently ) but anyway...

Really? In every thread about smartphones/gps's complaining about battery life I've commented about AA battery packs for smartphones, and downspoke single-use phone-specific batteries you need a plug to recharge - not optimal for geocaching, really only for emergency short-term backup. You can get a AA pack as cheap as under $20, and use whatever batteries you have, typically getting a full phone charge off 4 AA's. They now exist for most any major mobile device (Apple, Android, BB, Windows) Battery life for a smartphone is not an issue, if you're prepared. (If you have a handheld, you carry a handful of full AA's; if you have a smartphone, you carry a battery pack and... a handful of AA's). ETA: Now if you're stating about the hardware basics - then yes, of course, the GSPr that natively uses AA's is 'better' for battery on extended use than any smartphone which uses a proprietary battery. Nonetheless, practical use? Still a non-issue once you include owner preparedness for the concern of battery life. And actually on that basis, the smartphone is better: * the GPSr doesn't work until you use AA's. * the smartphone uses its own battery until you plop in some AA's.

Welcome to the forums. Welcome to the forums. Well, actually this one was is going pretty slow compared to some others, except for the occasional bump. Welcome to the forums. Well, no website update related to it yet, and no direct response regarding any work being done right now, or whether it's in the queue for the future. Which it might be. Welcome to the forums. No harm discussing. But if there are other threads discussing a topic (almost guaranteed), better to provide links to them. ETA: Not being facetious, just chuckling with you at the truth of the matter.

And well, there's a difference between offering your own experiences into the conversation, and presuming your experiences speak for the subject in general. That's why "smartphone vs gps "debates get so much action - people want to claim that one is better than the other just based on their own experience. On the contrary, what we should learn from the discussions is that it all depends on what you're looking for and how you intend to, and end up, using your device(s). That's the beauty of the device landscape. Lots of choice. And as long as the devices meet some arbitrary 'standard' (here, being able to find geocaches wherever one tends to search, and if one starts hiding, being able to place with acceptably accurate coordinates), then debates shouldn't be about which device is "better", but analyzing their strengths and weaknesses so people can feel better informed about which they feel is a better fit for them. Though that minimal capability standard is somewhat subjective, above and beyond that - everyone's experiences may be completely different with whatever their device is, so generalization is a PITA.