+pocketpupsnet Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 I think the option to include paperless logging for cache containers would be a great idea. If we can log a coin or tb, why not have a serial code for our caches that are good for only logging a cache? The cache owner would label the container with the serial code and the cacher would have to find the cache in order to get the logging code. I think there are strict copyrights on scanning barcodes, but it would also be very cool to also print a barcode on the label so us tech geeks can scan the data when visiting a cache. There are MANY pros and cons I suppose but as a cache hider it would mean that any container could be used without the need for cramming paper into a bison tube or replacing logs even when the cache has tons of positive logs that the cache is fine. I know many people like to log the cache in the field, but then we come back and log them again online. Quote Link to comment
+The Jester Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 This has been done before - called a "code word cache" - but TPTB have declared that all caches must have a log book/sheet. So learn to write very, very small for those nanos. Quote Link to comment
+pocketpupsnet Posted May 30, 2007 Author Share Posted May 30, 2007 (edited) I need to learn how to write? I have some geocaches under my belt. I would very much welcome the OPTION to not include a log book. It seems everytime I try to contribute someone always has a "debbie downer" message. geez! I think the option to include paperless logging for cache containers would be a great idea. If we can log a coin or tb, why not have a serial code for our caches that are good for only logging a cache? The cache owner would label the container with the serial code and the cacher would have to find the cache in order to get the logging code. I think there are strict copyrights on scanning barcodes, but it would also be very cool to also print a barcode on the label so us tech geeks can scan the data when visiting a cache. There are MANY pros and cons I suppose but as a cache hider it would mean that any container could be used without the need for cramming paper into a bison tube or replacing logs even when the cache has tons of positive logs that the cache is fine. I know many people like to log the cache in the field, but then we come back and log them again online. Edited May 30, 2007 by pocketpupsnet Quote Link to comment
+Miragee Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 No thanks . . . I have quite a few caches hidden already and have absolutely no idea how you would implement such a thing. Confirmation codes work on Terracaching, but that is a much smaller caching community, and if someone forgets the code , it is not too burdensome for the cache owner to reply to the infrequent email requesting the code. Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 No thanks . . . I have quite a few caches hidden already and have absolutely no idea how you would implement such a thing. Confirmation codes work on Terracaching, but that is a much smaller caching community, and if someone forgets the code , it is not too burdensome for the cache owner to reply to the infrequent email requesting the code. I agree. It has to be built into the site. It works well on TC. Quote Link to comment
+pocketpupsnet Posted May 30, 2007 Author Share Posted May 30, 2007 (edited) Well if a cacher selects the Options to use PAPERLESS.. no code, no cache. Learning to write has it's advantages... it is just an idea. I guess everyone loves stuffin bison tubes as much as I do! If you have an option to have a puzzle cache where someone can require you to solve or a virtual cache where you have to email the owner the quote off a statue.. I don't see why a cache owner would not be at an advantage if they had the option to go paperless. It would allow for some additionally challenging cache containers and low maintenance, less container waste in the field. No thanks . . . I have quite a few caches hidden already and have absolutely no idea how you would implement such a thing. Confirmation codes work on Terracaching, but that is a much smaller caching community, and if someone forgets the code , it is not too burdensome for the cache owner to reply to the infrequent email requesting the code. Edited May 30, 2007 by pocketpupsnet Quote Link to comment
+pocketpupsnet Posted May 30, 2007 Author Share Posted May 30, 2007 I never used Terra caching... But I am glad they do it. I should give it a try sometime. Thanks all, goodnight. No thanks . . . I have quite a few caches hidden already and have absolutely no idea how you would implement such a thing. Confirmation codes work on Terracaching, but that is a much smaller caching community, and if someone forgets the code , it is not too burdensome for the cache owner to reply to the infrequent email requesting the code. I agree. It has to be built into the site. It works well on TC. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Back in the day I had a few micro's with No log. I liked the lack of a log just fine. This site though has since decided that even Micro's need a log. The vast majority of folks seem to want a log in the cache. Quote Link to comment
+The Herd Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 What is to keep those "arm chair loggers" from just sharing that code amongst themselves though? There would be no way to verify the finds. While I agree that sometimes on micro runs, the logging can get a bit tedious, I don't complain, I just use the opportunity to remind myself that this is the reason I am out here! If it is gonna be a high numbers day, we usually just print out stickers. It takes the logging from 3.2 seconds per cache, down to about 2.2 seconds. Think of all the time we are saving! Quote Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Welcome to www.get_a_caches-codeword.cheat .....it would happen. Quote Link to comment
+rdaines Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 If going paperless is to save trees then using a PDA for cache descriptions works but just how much paper would be saved in paperless log caches? Not much I wager. Quote Link to comment
+TheAlabamaRambler Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 At every event there is someone, often several, passing around a printed list of TBs and Geocoins saying "Here, you can log these!" The same thing would happen with codes. Quote Link to comment
+Renegade Knight Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Come to think of it, these logless caches did exist. They were called Virtual Caches. Quote Link to comment
+TrailGators Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 At every event there is someone, often several, passing around a printed list of TBs and Geocoins saying "Here, you can log these!" The same thing would happen with codes. You don't see a difference there? You look at and hold coins and bugs at an event and then later "discover" the ones you looked at by putting check marks next to them on a handy print-out. -- VERSUS -- You get a print out of cache codes at an event from some dishonest person.You have never visited any of these caches and yet you decide to log them. To me it is all about the honor system. If people are going to cheat they will find a way regardless of what you do. I've logged code caches on TC and would never dream of logging one that I had not found. Quote Link to comment
+Miragee Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 (edited) I think TAR was talking about people who hand you the printed list of the coin codes when the coins are nowhere in sight. I had someone offer me a paper like that before the Temecula Event. When I declined, he acted like there was something wrong with me -- that I didn't want the icon, even though I never saw the coin . . . Edited May 31, 2007 by Miragee Quote Link to comment
Birdbath Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Being fairly new to geocaching, I wonder how many cache owners actually check the written logs against what is logged on-line? It appears to me that one could log all the finds you want from your lazyboy, and unless the cache owners audit the logs nobody would be the wiser. Apparently for some people, a high "found" count is all that matters, regardless how they get the count. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 (edited) I don't see why a cache owner would not be at an advantage if they had the option to go paperless. It would allow for some additionally challenging cache containers and low maintenance, less container waste in the field. Sounds like little more than a way for the owner to shirk his responsibility to maintain his caches. Come to think of it, these logless caches did exist. They were called Virtual Caches. That is what these things wind up being. Essentially virtual caches, but for the interesting object at the end. I've logged code caches on TC and would never dream of logging one that I had not found. Don't think for a minute that there aren't people out there who will do in a hearbeat what you wouldn't dream of doing. (does that make sense? } Edited May 31, 2007 by briansnat Quote Link to comment
+SeventhSon Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 What is to keep those "arm chair loggers" from just sharing that code amongst themselves though? There would be no way to verify the finds. While I agree that sometimes on micro runs, the logging can get a bit tedious, I don't complain, I just use the opportunity to remind myself that this is the reason I am out here! If it is gonna be a high numbers day, we usually just print out stickers. It takes the logging from 3.2 seconds per cache, down to about 2.2 seconds. Think of all the time we are saving! What's to keep others from signing someone else's name in the logbook, or sharing stickers? From an actual log: I must confess, I had a little help with this one, offered to sign him in as FTF but he wants to find it for himself. Quote Link to comment
+Isonzo Karst Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Codeword caches allowed the cache placer to sight any object (tennis shoe in a bush, turtle shell, bobber hung up in a tree - all ACTUAL examples) and call it a cache. Just waypoint it, and ask the cacher to tell you what's there. These exciting cache examples and many others like them more or less killed the whole codeword concept. The "container+log=cache" requirement creates a minimum expectation of effort on the part of the cache placer. I suppose a container+log and/or printed barcode? would also. But you'd need another layer of technology there. Allowing someone to just sharpie a "serial code" onto any object (which is what would happen) would be a step backwards, in my opinion. Personally I'm not concerned at all about cheating, but I sure don't want to carry a barcode reader..... Quote Link to comment
+simplyred Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 Part of the fun is reading the log book, gives you a good break, especially on the hikes and hill climbs. Let's leave things alone, if you don't want to log, don't. That's the beauty of this game, you play and do what you like, while the next guy does what he likes. Quote Link to comment
+village-idiot Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 Here's an idea - give the geocacher the code and have them put only that on the logbook then put any comments can be logged into the web site. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.