Jump to content

Code required to log a cache

JGeo

By JGeo
in Website

Followers 0

Recommended Posts

JGeo

+JGeo

Posted
Posted

For trackable items, there is a tag id code required to be able to log them. Is'n it strange that this is not (optionally) required for geocaches themselves? I want to make sure that my cache is found by someone, before s/he can log it, by providing a code in the cache container, by which, and only by which, the finder is able to log the cache on internet. Of course, I can go and check the logbook, but an "electronic check" would be preferred. This could be made optional, to allow for the 'classic' logging without verification. Do you agree? I suggested this to Groundspeak, but they would like to see a public discussion first.

Link to comment
Shilo

+Shilo

Posted
Posted
Do you agree?
I do not. It's been discussed plenty of times before. It's not a good idea--mainly because the "proof" can be given by a friend, or spread around via email, so it "proves" nothing.

 

Looking at it that way, the same holds true for TB's and geocoins as people can e-mail and copy tracking codes.

There are going to be bad apples in everything we do so there is not a *fool* proof method to anything.

Link to comment
Mopar

+Mopar

Posted
Posted (edited)
Do you agree?
I do not. It's been discussed plenty of times before. It's not a good idea--mainly because the "proof" can be given by a friend, or spread around via email, so it "proves" nothing.

 

Looking at it that way, the same holds true for TB's and geocoins as people can e-mail and copy tracking codes.

And they already do that all the time. There are also websites that list the solutions to puzzle caches and virtuals. So, adding this option really does nothing to prove a person was at the cache, makes more work for the cache finders and would require GC.com to rebuild the database of every cache ever listed. Sounds like a lot of time, money and hassle for something that still wouldn't prove anything. It's generally accepted that the only thing you need to do when you find a cache is sign the log. If I signed the log, didn't I find the cache? If I forgot to write down a secret code, or wrote it down wrong, does that somehow negate the fact that I found the cache and signed the log? What if I found the cache and signed the log but I don't log online? Didn't I still find the cache? Are you gonna rip my page out of the logbook because I didnt log online and enter a code?

If you like the idea so much you can always put it on your own caches as an additional logging requirement. Just be certain to change the cache type to puzzle to reflect that fact.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment
Renegade Knight

+Renegade Knight

Posted
Posted

I think it's a valid alternative to a log book. Especially in micro caches.

 

It's not without problems. My main gripe would be driving 200 miles only to get home and find out that I mis-wrote the code and can't log the find.

 

Even thought I think it's a valid alternate, I don't think it should replace log books.

Link to comment
mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted (edited)
My main gripe would be driving 200 miles only to get home and find out that I mis-wrote the code and can't log the find.

I am slightly dyslexic. I have to be very careful writing down stuff. I have transposed cache ID's when writing info in my Palm before, since I log finds in order and use the scribble pad in my PDA as my record as I go around caches during the day.

 

Heaven help me if I have to write a code down to log a find on every cache. :unsure::o

 

(Edited, since I did not spell dyslexic right. I can't spell either. <_< )

Edited by mtn-man
Link to comment
ke6n

+ke6n

Posted
Posted

This could be made optional, to allow for the 'classic' logging without verification. Do you agree? I suggested this to Groundspeak, but they would like to see a public discussion first.

I'm of the opinion that an option for micros, as an alternative to a log book that is too small (think about those little magnetic nano flasher dealies), a code would be nice to allow the cache to be logged. Yes, there are dishonest people with no integrity who will share and use shared codes, but then they have to live with themselves.

 

So, requirement no, option yes.

 

Ken

Link to comment
BlueDeuce

+BlueDeuce

Posted
Posted (edited)

This could be made optional, to allow for the 'classic' logging without verification. Do you agree? I suggested this to Groundspeak, but they would like to see a public discussion first.

I'm of the opinion that an option for micros, as an alternative to a log book that is too small (think about those little magnetic nano flasher dealies), a code would be nice to allow the cache to be logged. Yes, there are dishonest people with no integrity who will share and use shared codes, but then they have to live with themselves.

 

So, requirement no, option yes.

 

Ken

 

If you don't need a logbook, what would you need a container for?

 

They tried it - virtuals.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment
BlueDeuce

+BlueDeuce

Posted
Posted
Do you agree?
I do not. It's been discussed plenty of times before. It's not a good idea--mainly because the "proof" can be given by a friend, or spread around via email, so it "proves" nothing.

 

Looking at it that way, the same holds true for TB's and geocoins as people can e-mail and copy tracking codes.

There are going to be bad apples in everything we do so there is not a *fool* proof method to anything.

 

Sharing tracking codes will get the bug locked down.

Link to comment
Lil Devil

+Lil Devil

Posted
Posted

This suggestion seems to be based on the idea that people might cheat and log a cache that they didn't really find. The typical response to that is, so what? There is no award for finding caches, so who is really cheated?

 

The entire activity is based on trust. I see no reason to change that.

Link to comment
Mopar

+Mopar

Posted
Posted

Well, the interesting thing here is it's been tried already.

They were called code word caches. They didn't work.

As a matter of fact, they were one of the reasons the requirement to have a log to sign exists in the first place.

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted (edited)

It works for virtuals on the other listing site. If you like that kind of stuff it's over there. I like the idea because I don't cheat and it gives me something to search for at the scenic spot. I messed up one time and wrote the code down wrong. So I emailed the cache owner with what I had and he gave me the correct code. He was a cool dude! That's why I love the honor system. I could care less if other people lie and cheat. That's their problem and it's not a good reason to not implement something. :unsure:

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment
mtn-man

+mtn-man

Posted
Posted

I suppose the key here goes back to the old thing about who owns the site. That would be Jeremy. He likes a container and a logbook on this site. Codeword caches have been discussed before. I would doubt he would go back to allowing codeword caches again.

 

Just to revisit an old topic where he was involved, I will link to his first relevant post and opinion.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2190813

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
I suppose the key here goes back to the old thing about who owns the site. That would be Jeremy. He likes a container and a logbook on this site. Codeword caches have been discussed before. I would doubt he would go back to allowing codeword caches again.

 

Just to revisit an old topic where he was involved, I will link to his first relevant post and opinion.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2190813

In my mind, the code had nothing to do with not trusting people. It had more to do with searching for something with a virtual. Since new virtuaIs are banned on GC.com then there is no point to having a code.
Link to comment
dirtisgood

+dirtisgood

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hard enough writing down the cache code number to log it as a find. At least I can remember a name sometimes if I forget that.

 

Besides, just how small do you think an evil nano hider could write that code down on a grain of rice hidden in a sagebrush or pinecone? That would just be torture. It's bad enough that I have to carry tweezers, I don't want a jeweler's loupe in my bag.

Edited by dirtisgood
Link to comment
BlueDeuce

+BlueDeuce

Posted
Posted (edited)
The main part of the post for me was the last line...
The container, however, is the ultimate final for a cache - not just a tag attached to something.
Do you think Jeremy ever dreamed of the ultimate final being an LPC at Wal-Mart? I have a final in Moab, Utah overlooking the convergence the Green and Colorado rivers....

 

Yes, I think he did.

 

Did he want them? I don't know. Maybe.

Edited by BlueDeuce
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
The main part of the post for me was the last line...
The container, however, is the ultimate final for a cache - not just a tag attached to something.
Do you think Jeremy ever dreamed of the ultimate final being an LPC at Wal-Mart?

 

Yes, I think he did.

 

Did he want them? I don't know. Maybe.

I don't think so. I've read paasages where he even said that geocaching used to be about location.... :unsure: Anyhow, virtuals still fit that but now they are waymarks...
Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

...If you don't need a logbook, what would you need a container for? ...

 

Swag.

 

In my worldview micro's did not impove with the requirement of a log book. They got less interesting due to less or no swag.

 

Of course back then, they didn't have logs or codes. Just micro swag.

Yea and what about nanos? A code may make sense for those. You can't even fully sign those...
Link to comment
ke6n

+ke6n

Posted
Posted

Yea and what about nanos? A code may make sense for those. You can't even fully sign those...

Oh, but you can't do that! If you suggest such a thing, like I did above a little ways where it might make sense for nanos, someone out of the blue pops up and calls the nano-cache something it isn't and kills the thoughtfull discussion.

Link to comment
xplorer7

+xplorer7

Posted
Posted

It seems like a needless hassle to me.

 

1) If the ID code goes missing you can't log (maybe someone had a momentary brain glitch and pocketed it, instead of putting it back in the cache).

 

2) It would be just plain annoying to miss seeing about the ID code logging requirement in the cache description, and not see an ID tag hiding in a big container of swag.

 

Not to mention what's already been brought up:

 

3) Transcription errors preventing you from logging.

 

4) Forgetting to copy the ID code, especially if the cache is hard to return to.

 

Besides, it's not going to ruin my life if it's not slightly more difficult for some bozo without a life to dishonestly boost his numbers.

Link to comment
crawil

crawil

Posted
Posted

I once ran across a nano without a log but instead contained a note asking the finder to send an email to xxxxx@xyz.com and then to log it online. Isn't this kind of the same thing as a required code?

 

Is this against the guidelines if there is no physical log? We were thinking of doing the same type of hide, but if we need a physical log . . .

Link to comment
Mopar

+Mopar

Posted
Posted

I once ran across a nano without a log but instead contained a note asking the finder to send an email to xxxxx@xyz.com and then to log it online. Isn't this kind of the same thing as a required code?

 

Is this against the guidelines if there is no physical log? We were thinking of doing the same type of hide, but if we need a physical log . . .

Unless it's fairly old, yes it's against the guidelines.

Link to comment
Miragee

+Miragee

Posted
Posted

At that "other" site, some of the caches require a "Confirmation Code." However, these are challenging caches that might take an entire day to hike to.

 

Writing down one code after a day of hiking to one cache might be okay, but I found 41 Geocaches in one day on a "cache run." I cannot imagine dealing with that many codes, or even half that many. faint.gif

 

Also, as a cache owner, I don't want to impose that on cachers, or have to field their emails when they tell me they have forgotten the code . . . :D

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted
At that "other" site, some of the caches require a "Confirmation Code." However, these are challenging caches that might take an entire day to hike to.

 

Writing down one code after a day of hiking to one cache might be okay, but I found 41 Geocaches in one day on a "cache run." I cannot imagine dealing with that many codes, or even half that many. faint.gif

 

Also, as a cache owner, I don't want to impose that on cachers, or have to field their emails when they tell me they have forgotten the code . . . :huh:

Yes the code needs to be applied to the right kind of cache. I would not recommend codes on GC.com. It would turn into a mess.
Link to comment
Hiking Cockroachess

+Hiking Cockroachess

Posted
Posted

The whole idea of a "code" for logging sounds like micro-management to me. Too much work and effort to implement, when there are other things that Groundspeak could be doing that would be more productive. Geocaching (to me) is a game based on trust. Having a code would remove that element and make it less of a game as well. The cheaters will still share the codes and work their way around it...and let's face it, they are only cheating themselves.

Link to comment
briansnat

+briansnat

Posted
Posted

For trackable items, there is a tag id code required to be able to log them. Is'n it strange that this is not (optionally) required for geocaches themselves? I want to make sure that my cache is found by someone, before s/he can log it, by providing a code in the cache container, by which, and only by which, the finder is able to log the cache on internet. Of course, I can go and check the logbook, but an "electronic check" would be preferred. This could be made optional, to allow for the 'classic' logging without verification. Do you agree? I suggested this to Groundspeak, but they would like to see a public discussion first.

 

If you would like to require a code for your caches, in addition to the logbook, there is nothing keeping you from doing it.

Link to comment
TrailGators

+TrailGators

Posted
Posted

For trackable items, there is a tag id code required to be able to log them. Is'n it strange that this is not (optionally) required for geocaches themselves? I want to make sure that my cache is found by someone, before s/he can log it, by providing a code in the cache container, by which, and only by which, the finder is able to log the cache on internet. Of course, I can go and check the logbook, but an "electronic check" would be preferred. This could be made optional, to allow for the 'classic' logging without verification. Do you agree? I suggested this to Groundspeak, but they would like to see a public discussion first.

 

If you would like to require a code for your caches, in addition to the logbook, there is nothing keeping you from doing it.

Good point. :D
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...