BethDaddyKaty

Simple thing to do would be allow a thirty day period before a cache is archived for someone to ask to be cache guardian. Taken on the basis it's a caretaker position that gives them CO privileges, but the actual CO can claim it back at any stage. That way notable caches can be preserved the online listing can be properly updated but there are not the issues people fret about with someone else taking ownership of a 10 year old plastic container.

I think all modern apps now save as a draft feature if there is no phone signal, and then upload when there is signal. Worth saying all QR codes are is a way of encoding some text. They don't compare images, like a barcode either the code will be read or it won't. So there is no possibility that you would scan the code and find it doesn't match up on return. Although, as I have said, at least in the UK 95%+ caches will have mobile reception. For very remote caches it would be highly sensible to use a paper log.

Yep, but as I said the system operates on trust currently. As I said, it is trivial to find a CO who isn't active and log all their caches. Pointless, but easy. With QR codes if they are leaked it would be relatively easy for a CO to replace the QR code if they wanted to. Its not a perfect system, but the system is already imperfect.

To people saying they could fake a log, of course they could, but it would require someone to go round collecting the QR codes, and someone to then go to the extra effort of scanning them. Or they could just search for an inactive cache user and log a dozen in the same time. So I don't think it would be any more open to abuse than people can currently. Ultimately a CO could ask the cacher about the location/hide if they suspected a fake log.

There almost need to be an unwritten rule that most log container without shelter must have a compressible seal. Otherwise the laws of thermodynamics mean that at some stages of the year, it won't be watertight. IMO, it also provides tactile feedback to cachers that the log is sealed. As Lone R have said, even if your intended container doesn't have it, it's trivially easy/cheap to retrofit it.

The thing is, most people do. Much the same as, with respect, my disability (car crash vs drunk driver) makes it very difficult to sign logs, especially nano logs. But I make the effort, because that's the rule for that type of cache, and because it cheeses me off when people put stickers/stamps over 5+ space of a nano log because I know it is creating more work for a CO who has sized the boxes for a reason. This would be an *option* for a cache, much as people can make caches PMO essentially excluding casual caches or poor people. If a cacher makes a D5/T5 cache, it excludes some people. If a cacher makes a D1/T1 cache, some cachers won't be interested. AFAIK there isn't a rule that caches need to be equally accessibly to everyone, just that they are marked accordingly so that people who don't want to find that sort of cache don't seek it. As for QR codes not being readable... GS have considerably more resources than MZ and the like, and I don't doubt they have the technical resources to make it work. The issue I always have with paper logs is if you have the log in your hand but it's physically too damaged/full to sign... is that still a find? I think most would say yes, but there is some sort f ideological idea thst you can't find a cache without writing your name somewhere.

So the CO has the right to choose who is FTF? Um... okay. Like some really wanky birthday party where you fix all the games so your kid wins?

Without seeing a photo it's a bit difficult to imagine but you have move the ball bearing back through the maze to the starting point? Could be sceptical but I'm not sure everyone will do that. It would almost be better to have the bearing fall out at the end, then drill a hole and make a simple non-return value with some sheet plastic at the start so cachers can just push the ball bearing back into the start.

Without getting tedious, again different. I'm suggesting a different type of caches, not QR codes as an alternative log within a traditional cache. No, like any other cache you log without internet connection you scan the code and it is stored by the phone. When you're back online the QR code is checked and the log posted for the time the code is scanned. For nanos you would just fold the code in four and roll. As I said, if any around the folds are damaged there is enough redundancy to successfully read. If nano owners prefer a paper log, they have that option as it is still the defacto cache. To be clear, I'm not saying it would work in every conceivable location, just as the current cache types don't work in every conceivable location. I'm talking about having it as an option.

I think your main problem is the requirement for people to put it back together rather than the placement itself. There are loads of cool puzzles I've thought of doing, but the difficult bit is always in finding something that can be put back together quickly, simply and often. If it took you two days to relock it and has an easily lost part then even the most well intentioned cachers probably won't relock it for you.

Different, I'm not suggesting using QR codes in places caches can't be placed. I'm talking about using QR codes as an alternative log within a cache, not as a cache in it's own right.

Which is fair enough, although hopefully that person would not claim to be FTF any more than families around here where the kids have separate accounts could claim a FTF because their parent told them about a new cache they placed.

If someone wants to fake logs, they could do so on a traditional thousands of times without needing to scan QR codes as I guess most owners don't verify logs. If it was a big problem GS could easily introduce some sort of reputation system as I mentioned previously, although as I said I don't think it would be a huge problem as someone bouncing round the country scanning QR codes isn't going to be believeable. QR codes would mandate the cacher to log the finds in real time, with real gaps between them, beyond the patience of most FB cachers.

I would imagine most COs would laminate the QR in some way, print them on waterproof paper or the websites that sell nanos would print the QR code onto tags. QR codes actually have an insane amount of redundancy, normally 15% can be unreadable but Type H can be 30%. So there would be more chance of a readable QR code than an unusuable log. As for smaller... minimum recommended QR code size is 3.5cm. Always easier to fit something the size of a postage stamp into a small space than a rolled log.

No I'm not. I'm talking about QR codes as logs INSIDE caches. A form of caching closer to traditional caching than, say, a ghost cache because it requires a physical container to be placed. So you would always have to open a container of some kind to access the QR code, you couldn't just scan something you can see in the street. The QR code replaces the log, not the cache.

I would say the difference is that the caches have still been *published* in some form that was available for general dissemination. As with logging on more than one caching site I think that is fine. It's the CO's decision how they want to publish the cache, not Groundspeaks. The only provisos to that opinion would be It has to be published in the sense that it is available to multiple people beyond the CO's control, e.g. everyone at an event, and The obvious technical requirement of it meeting a reviewers approval for it to be logged on this website. My objection would be if the CO chose who at an event he gave the list to rather than making it available to all, because then the cache has not really been "published".

I appreciate this may raise strong opinions but... isn't it time Groundspeak offered the option of a category for paperless caches? This would be where there is a container with a QR code, which needs to be scanned to log the find. To me this would solve two key issues. Firstly, the paper log is always going to be the weak point of a cache. Yes, you can use waterproof paper, but if they get wet you can't write on them. Paperless caches would be much more durable and wouldn't end up a black mouldy mess like many around here (wet part of the world) are. Secondly, it would allow nano caches not to use those annoying rolls which take five minutes to roll up. Also, for the purists, it would only allow logs if you physically find the container, not if you see the container, are in the location the container is, are sitting at home logging finds... I appreciate the objection is not everyone uses a smartphone. Perhaps I am more forgetful than most but I am much more likely to forget a pen or do a cache on impulse without a pen than not have my phone with me. If you are doing a long day caching powerbanks are inexpensive and would let you cache for a week without needing to be near a power socket. If they are created as a different category than those who don't want to find them, don't have a smartphone or whatever could easily avoid them, and COs would have the choice to make a traditional cache with a paper log like before. I would say I think they should still require a container to make a cache, not like the games where you can just stick stickers on anything. Heresy perhaps. The reason I suggest it is that I love the really old historical caches. However, unless you buy an ammo box and find a big enough place to hide it in this part of the world it's very unlikely any cache will survive 15 years+ with a paper log at least in the original container. A QR code on a plastic tag though could well be around well after most of us are long gone and still be a serviceable cache. Only thoughts... please don't just down my throat, this isn't to REPLACE traditional caches.

Slightly off topic but most of my smaller caches are medical sample containers. Obviously time will tell but they've submerged one flood submerged in river water relatively unscathed. My thinking is they're designed to be used, abused and then put through hospital pod systems. Now, if you get a leak in a hospital pod system you are in all sorts of trouble so they are hopefully designed with some allowance for deterioration. So they have compressible seals, aluminium screw tops and they're dirt cheap. Even on my larger caches I put the log into a specimen pot inside. Will have to report back.in ten years although, of course, the best seal only works if people close it properly!

So they're not actually FTF the geocache then, they're just signing the log when it is placed.

Hmm, you're right, I take that back. I'm an opencache member but I never realise they are titled Geocaches. So the only reason no-one else can start a Geocache website listing Geocaches is because GS control the database and API. Really interesting. I did know in the early days the trademark application for geocache was abandoned because the (then) owner got loads of stick.

The cookies are as they sound. Cookies are a way for websites to identify you personally - or at least computer or phone, which in the case of your phone is as good as you. Functional are ones that provide function to you - e.g. saving your login so you don't have to login each time. Analytical are ones that provide function to the website owner - e.g. letting them link the pages you visit and when. Advertising are ones that provide functions to advertisers - e.g. if you look at buying shoes on Amazon, you will likely see adverts for shoes. The reason in general cookies are receiving more attention in the past is that the web is increasingly linked, and greater processing has allowed people to build up incredibly detailed profiles of website users. That information could be very powerful - they could probably make a good guess at whether you are a safe driver, or whether you are living a healthy life style, which your insurers would love to know. Remember, the reason companies like Google are immensely rich is because they are using this data already to target you personally, rather than people like you as advertisers would have done in the past. So although it is a boring, technical issue, it can have big consequences, and is worth looking into the various privacy extensions and the like you can get.

I know there are various other websites, I understand they keep the swear filter on the forum busy However, IMO they are not claiming to list geocaches. They are claiming their own names. Obviously GS cannot claim finding things with GPS, the US has been using explosives to do it for decades. If there is no need for review then logically I could go out with someone else who caches. Place a cache. They could then immediately find and sign it because it has become a geocache the moment I have decided where to place it. That, to me, makes little sense. I thought FTF was FTF the geocache. If you don't count publication as the date it becomes a geocache, I don't really know what point you would choose. Certainly it is a cache before then, but of course, most will have a geocaching-branded log or use the work "geocache" within the cache somewhere.

I would be reticent to use them because they say they have steam vents in the clips. If things can get out, then they can get in.

If you are having to ask the question then IMO no. As others have said remote snow exploration is dangerous. Only you know your capabilities. Deciding you are capable because of a forum or messages would be insane.

They own the term "geocaching" in the sense they own the trademark. Don't get me wrong, I have said before I would much prefer it to be open/non-profit. But IMO most people would see a geocache as something that has been reviewed by a reviewer authorised by Groundspeak. I don't doubt if you placed a few dozen caches and called them geocaches then no-one would care, but I bet if you started listing thousands of geocaches not linked to Groundspeak they would kick off.