Jump to content

New Cache type idea


phatdawg

Recommended Posts

I sent this idea to Groundspeak and they said to bring it up here. Here goes:

 

To whom it may concern at Groundspeak:

 

I was wondering to myself what direction GC'ing will move in in the future. Here is my idea. It seems kind of redundant to sign a log both in the cache and online (I rarely read the cache container logs). So why not have a cache container or object that just has a unique number or code on the outside (or inside) of it? When the finder goes to log the cache there is a screening process similar to the coordinate checker on a puzzle cache. If the right code or number is entered when you log your visit to GC.com, the "find" is allowed.

 

Let me know if this is a good idea or if it has already been discussed.

 

Mike in Eureka CA.

Link to post
I sent this idea to Groundspeak and they said to bring it up here. Here goes:

 

To whom it may concern at Groundspeak:

 

I was wondering to myself what direction GC'ing will move in in the future. Here is my idea. It seems kind of redundant to sign a log both in the cache and online (I rarely read the cache container logs). So why not have a cache container or object that just has a unique number or code on the outside (or inside) of it? When the finder goes to log the cache there is a screening process similar to the coordinate checker on a puzzle cache. If the right code or number is entered when you log your visit to GC.com, the "find" is allowed.

 

Let me know if this is a good idea or if it has already been discussed.

 

Mike in Eureka CA.

Terracaching gives you the option of doing this for virtuals. I like the idea, but I'll be surprised if they do it.
Link to post

So instead of writing your name in the physical log you would write the unique number down on a notepad or enter it into your GPS or PDA? I don't see a savings in any way. I also see that this could be another way for armchair loggers to spread false logs. I would vote for keeping the existing system.

Link to post

So instead of writing your name in the physical log you would write the unique number down on a notepad or enter it into your GPS or PDA? I don't see a savings in any way. I also see that this could be another way for armchair loggers to spread false logs. I would vote for keeping the existing system.

 

No. You would not write anything in the cache log. It could be a solid object. There is a number on it. You write that number when you log the find. If the number is correct you get the find. The number you write is not displayed to others; just like a current mystery cache. I'm not saying get rid of the current system. This would just be a new type of cache to do.

Link to post

So instead of writing your name in the physical log you would write the unique number down on a notepad or enter it into your GPS or PDA? I don't see a savings in any way. I also see that this could be another way for armchair loggers to spread false logs. I would vote for keeping the existing system.

 

No. You would not write anything in the cache log. It could be a solid object. There is a number on it. You write that number when you log the find. If the number is correct you get the find. The number you write is not displayed to others; just like a current mystery cache. I'm not saying get rid of the current system. This would just be a new type of cache to do.

I understand that you would not write anything in the cache log but you would still need to record the code somewhere. How is writing a code to take with you any better than writing your name in the physical log book? How does that eliminate any redundancy?

 

Your idea for a number to record sounds like the tracking numbers used for travel bugs and geocoins. Those get shared and people log bogus finds of the trackables. I would expect the same thing to happen with codes for logging caches. Cachers can already log bogus finds on caches. At least with the current system the cache owner has a way to verify the online logs if they want to.

Link to post
I also see that this could be another way for armchair loggers to spread false logs.
Why should armchair loggers deprive honest people of new fun ways to hunt? The owner could periodically change the code if they suspected something. Edited by TrailGators
Link to post

Mike

 

Your idea is not new. It is called a code word cache. As stated by others, some of the other Geocache listing sites have this capability. You can do something like that here by making your cache a Mystery/Unknown type and giving it an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR) that the finder email you the code. There still has to be a physical log you can sign in the cache. There used to be caches that had only a codeword and no physical log. Apparently there were problems with people getting the codeword from a friend or even guessing the codeword and using that to claim they found caches. And other cases where the person found the cache and forgot the codeword and still wanted to log it. In the end Groundspeak decided that only a name written in the physical logbook in the cache would verify that someone actually visited the cache site. The guidelines now specifically state that all caches must have a log book.

Link to post

I'm not quite sure how the present system prevents arm chair logging unless the CO goes and retrieves the logs and compares them with online logs and deletes what can not be verified. There are a whole lot of issues there. At least there is some way to do a bit of auditing. But, using a tracking number has problems also. Once that number gets out there is no way you can possibly verify I find. And what happens if the tracking number gets out? Take a look at the travel bug TBKFF4. I would put the number here, but the mod would get miffed and edit it out. But not to worry, take a look at the gallery and you will be able to get the number. That little duck has traveled over 70,000 miles. And I suspect most of them are bogus. That little sucker was wandering all over the US while he was tucked safely in my bag. No, leave it as it is today, find the cache, take out the logbook and sign it. Log at home when you feel like it.

 

Edit: and for the grandfathered virtual caches, where am I suppose to find this number? You might also want to think how this is going to work with Earthcaches. Where would I get the number for an Earthcache? If the Earthcache is setup right it is a bit harder to arm chair log, but it can be done.

 

Jim

Edited by jholly
Link to post

The ultimate answer:

 

One of those RSA key's that change numbers every 30 seconds, most people have seen them by now.

 

Attatch the key to the cache, cacher finds cache, notes the time and makes note of the current number.

 

Each number can only be logged once, and it has to match the date/time of the log.

Link to post
I also see that this could be another way for armchair loggers to spread false logs.
Why should armchair loggers deprive honest people of new fun ways to hunt? The owner could periodically change the code if they suspected something.

I don't see how this is suggesting a new and fun way to hunt. I agree that armchair cachers should not deprive other cachers of having new and fun ways to hunt. Throw out that part of my post. How would this be new and fun for you?

Link to post

The ultimate answer:

 

One of those RSA key's that change numbers every 30 seconds, most people have seen them by now.

 

Attatch the key to the cache, cacher finds cache, notes the time and makes note of the current number.

 

Each number can only be logged once, and it has to match the date/time of the log.

Hehehe, that would last a long time on a Gladware container. :)

Link to post
I also see that this could be another way for armchair loggers to spread false logs.
Why should armchair loggers deprive honest people of new fun ways to hunt? The owner could periodically change the code if they suspected something.

I don't see how this is suggesting a new and fun way to hunt. I agree that armchair cachers should not deprive other cachers of having new and fun ways to hunt. Throw out that part of my post. How would this be new and fun for you?

The biggest way it would be new and fun is that it would open up caching to many areas that won't support a typical container. We are pretty much there with nanos except with this idea you don't have to get a tweezers out to extract the log and then sign your initials. You could hunt for a clever magnets or whatever with a code on it. To me it is fun entering a secret code on the site to log a find. Edited by TrailGators
Link to post
I also see that this could be another way for armchair loggers to spread false logs.
Why should armchair loggers deprive honest people of new fun ways to hunt? The owner could periodically change the code if they suspected something.

I don't see how this is suggesting a new and fun way to hunt. I agree that armchair cachers should not deprive other cachers of having new and fun ways to hunt. Throw out that part of my post. How would this be new and fun for you?

The biggest way it would be new and fun is that it would open up caching to many areas that won't support a typical container. We are pretty much there with nanos except with this idea you don't have to get a tweezers out to extract the log and then sign your initials. You could hunt for a clever magnets or whatever with a code on it. To me it is fun entering a secret code on the site to log a find.

Makes sense.

Link to post

RSA key

Hehehe, that would last a long time on a Gladware container. :)

Verisign makes a waterproof one, but I think it would be pretty easy to make the regular key ring (not the card) waterproof.

Sure, but what about the Gladware container?

Link to post

I can see two races happening with this system.. one to FTF the cache.. and one to race back to your computer to log in the FTF since there is not log to sign :) the guys with the laptop modem will definately have an edge.. IAmGMan

Link to post
One of those RSA key's that change numbers every 30 seconds, most people have seen them by now.

 

Attatch the key to the cache, cacher finds cache, notes the time and makes note of the current number.

 

Each number can only be logged once, and it has to match the date/time of the log.

Yeah, that'll work for small groups, and if people remember to write down the number / date time. And it'll get rid of nano caches :)

 

I've heard of groups of over 10 cachers going around trying to find the most caches possible. That's not going to sit around very well with them if they need to wait 5 minutes or more for everyone to be able to "sign the log". And if two person happened to get the same number, there's going to be some unhappy logs.

 

I can think of a RFID + encryption system with each cacher required to carry a RFID reader. Reader sends geocacher ID to tag, tag signs it with its key and returns result to reader. Technically, it would be secure, fast, does not require cache to have a battery (which probably raise red flags with the bomb squad folks), and if you put the tag in a mylar bag, it cannot be read until cache is opened. Disadvantage, of course, is requiring a reader for every cacher, and a tag (or more - in case it gets muggled or damaged) for every cache. So it'll be less popular than a Wherigo cache.

Edited by Chrysalides
Link to post

I was wondering to myself what direction GC'ing will move in in the future. Here is my idea. It seems kind of redundant to sign a log both in the cache and online (I rarely read the cache container logs). So why not have a cache container or object that just has a unique number or code on the outside (or inside) of it? When the finder goes to log the cache there is a screening process similar to the coordinate checker on a puzzle cache. If the right code or number is entered when you log your visit to GC.com, the "find" is allowed.

 

Those are code-word caches. They used to be allowed, a long time ago. They're not anymore, so there's you indication of direction.

 

Personally, I don't want to have to keep track of random numbers and caches, just so I can log them. So thumbs down for me.

Link to post

I can think of a RFID + encryption system with each cacher required to carry a RFID reader. Reader sends geocacher ID to tag, tag signs it with its key and returns result to reader.

Except that RFID readers are in the hundreds of dollars, aren't really "field tough", and the tags don't have processing power, so they can't "sign" data, they can only return data thats already stored in them (their "ID"), so you still have the problem of once one person gets the key, it can be shared and everyone has it.

 

RSA keys can be bought for $5 and don't have much more than a watch battery in them (in fact, the current designs really intend on replacing the key, not replacing the battery).

 

Using RSA keys doesn't require the cacher carry any extra equipment, beyond an accurate time source, which they probably already have (their gps receiver) and something to take notes.

 

30 seconds to wait for a key change isn't that long, with a group, by the time the cacher gets the key in their hand, writes it down on their PDA or notepad, then hands it off, its probably been 30 seconds.

Link to post

I'm not much concerned with arm chair logging, but code # only caches really start to skirt into two troublesome areas.

 

1) find an object with any existing numbers or letters on it, submit as cache. It's virt, but because there is a number or letter combo, your codeword cache type makes it possible to submit the thing as a cache

 

2) find a spot for your "cache" -> graffiti a letter or number code there, submit; or a step up from graffiti, but still lame, write it on a piece of tape.

 

When codeword caches were being published I saw both #1 and #2.

Forcing the cache owner to place something that's got a log seems hugely more desirable to me.

 

I can just see a code caches for a long string of power poles..... nothing there, but get the first 6 digits of the serial number and log your smiley.

 

As noted, you CAN ask a cacher to email you a codeword from your log if you desire (ie, you are untrusting and not inclined to check the log yourself). This is an additional logging requirement and puts your hide into the Mystery category (so cachers read the page and notice that they're supposed to get codeword).

Link to post
I'm not much concerned with arm chair logging, but code # only caches really start to skirt into two troublesome areas.

 

1) find an object with any existing numbers or letters on it, submit as cache. It's virt, but because there is a number or letter combo, your codeword cache type makes it possible to submit the thing as a cache

 

2) find a spot for your "cache" -> graffiti a letter or number code there, submit; or a step up from graffiti, but still lame, write it on a piece of tape.

 

When codeword caches were being published I saw both #1 and #2.

Forcing the cache owner to place something that's got a log seems hugely more desirable to me.

 

I can just see a code caches for a long string of power poles..... nothing there, but get the first 6 digits of the serial number and log your smiley.

 

As noted, you CAN ask a cacher to email you a codeword from your log if you desire (ie, you are untrusting and not inclined to check the log yourself). This is an additional logging requirement and puts your hide into the Mystery category (so cachers read the page and notice that they're supposed to get codeword).

I thought the OP was talking about an object. They would have to mandate that you hide an object to find. I would hate to see people use a piece of tape or something stupid like that but I think you're right that it would happen. Edited by TrailGators
Link to post

On a long driving trip, I stopped and visited one of my older caches that is way out in the middle of freaking nowhere, to check on it. The logbook was 3/4 full, and since I don't get out there very often, I went ahead and swapped it out with a fresh book. When I got home, just for fun I compared the written logs with the online logs. What I found is a very large number of logs that were in the book, but not made online. A few of them were from muggles who discovered the cache, but most of them were cachers. Most of them wrote whole paragraphs in the book about their experience.

 

Interestingly, even those that do log online, still wrote paragraphs in the book, which were different than what they logged online.

 

If we only had codeword caches, as you suggest, I would have missed out on reading many of these logs.

 

I vote for the status quo.

Link to post

I was wondering to myself what direction GC'ing will move in in the future. Here is my idea. It seems kind of redundant to sign a log both in the cache and online (I rarely read the cache container logs). So why not have a cache container or object that just has a unique number or code on the outside (or inside) of it? When the finder goes to log the cache there is a screening process similar to the coordinate checker on a puzzle cache. If the right code or number is entered when you log your visit to GC.com, the "find" is allowed.

 

Those are code-word caches. They used to be allowed, a long time ago. They're not anymore, so there's you indication of direction.

 

Personally, I don't want to have to keep track of random numbers and caches, just so I can log them. So thumbs down for me.

Yeah...I gotta agree here...not only would one need to keep track of caches found in an outing (ok...I know, not that difficult)...but then we would also have to keep track of codes/numbers and not get them mixed up...

 

I cache to relax and get away from "it all"...I don't cache because I want more work...and really this idea sounds like more work than anythings else...

 

As an owner...I would want an "Opt Out" option for caches I hide...I don't want to keep track of extra codes there either...just let me place a cache and let others find it...nothing special is needed...

Link to post

I sent this idea to Groundspeak and they said to bring it up here. Here goes:

 

To whom it may concern at Groundspeak:

 

I was wondering to myself what direction GC'ing will move in in the future. Here is my idea. It seems kind of redundant to sign a log both in the cache and online (I rarely read the cache container logs). So why not have a cache container or object that just has a unique number or code on the outside (or inside) of it? When the finder goes to log the cache there is a screening process similar to the coordinate checker on a puzzle cache. If the right code or number is entered when you log your visit to GC.com, the "find" is allowed.

 

Let me know if this is a good idea or if it has already been discussed.

 

Mike in Eureka CA.

 

So when you are out on the hunt if you transpose the numbers or just plain write them down wrong you don't get the find??? :) I don't think I would vote for that.

Link to post

I was wondering to myself what direction GC'ing will move in in the future. Here is my idea. It seems kind of redundant to sign a log both in the cache and online (I rarely read the cache container logs). So why not have a cache container or object that just has a unique number or code on the outside (or inside) of it? When the finder goes to log the cache there is a screening process similar to the coordinate checker on a puzzle cache. If the right code or number is entered when you log your visit to GC.com, the "find" is allowed.

 

Those are code-word caches. They used to be allowed, a long time ago. They're not anymore, so there's you indication of direction.

 

Personally, I don't want to have to keep track of random numbers and caches, just so I can log them. So thumbs down for me.

Yeah...I gotta agree here...not only would one need to keep track of caches found in an outing (ok...I know, not that difficult)...but then we would also have to keep track of codes/numbers and not get them mixed up...

 

I cache to relax and get away from "it all"...I don't cache because I want more work...and really this idea sounds like more work than anythings else...

 

As an owner...I would want an "Opt Out" option for caches I hide...I don't want to keep track of extra codes there either...just let me place a cache and let others find it...nothing special is needed...

The real question should really be: Is a code cache a viable new type of cache that could be created for those that would enjoy that type of cache? Nobody is forcing anyone to look for anything. It's easy to opt out of cache types we don't prefer like mystery caches, virtuals, etc. So you would just filter out code caches if you don't like them...

Link to post

What I found is a very large number of logs that were in the book, but not made online. A few of them were from muggles who discovered the cache, but most of them were cachers.

If they didn't log online then they aren't really geocaching, are they? The rules say

1. If you take something from the cache, leave something of equal or greater value.

2. Write about your find in the cache logbook.

3. Log your experience at www.geocaching.com.

They did #2 but not #3, so they didn't follow the rules. You should do what I do when I find a geocacher has written in the physical logbook and didn't log online. I cross out their name in the log book. :laughing:

Link to post

I was wondering to myself what direction GC'ing will move in in the future. Here is my idea. It seems kind of redundant to sign a log both in the cache and online (I rarely read the cache container logs). So why not have a cache container or object that just has a unique number or code on the outside (or inside) of it? When the finder goes to log the cache there is a screening process similar to the coordinate checker on a puzzle cache. If the right code or number is entered when you log your visit to GC.com, the "find" is allowed.

 

Those are code-word caches. They used to be allowed, a long time ago. They're not anymore, so there's you indication of direction.

 

Personally, I don't want to have to keep track of random numbers and caches, just so I can log them. So thumbs down for me.

Yeah...I gotta agree here...not only would one need to keep track of caches found in an outing (ok...I know, not that difficult)...but then we would also have to keep track of codes/numbers and not get them mixed up...

 

I cache to relax and get away from "it all"...I don't cache because I want more work...and really this idea sounds like more work than anythings else...

 

As an owner...I would want an "Opt Out" option for caches I hide...I don't want to keep track of extra codes there either...just let me place a cache and let others find it...nothing special is needed...

The real question should really be: Is a code cache a viable new type of cache that could be created for those that would enjoy that type of cache? Nobody is forcing anyone to look for anything. It's easy to opt out of cache types we don't prefer like mystery caches, virtuals, etc. So you would just filter out code caches if you don't like them...

True...talking cache types...yeah, that would be fine...I guess I was making an unconscious connection to similar threads where it was proposed as something for all caches...opps...

Link to post

I was wondering to myself what direction GC'ing will move in in the future. Here is my idea. It seems kind of redundant to sign a log both in the cache and online (I rarely read the cache container logs). So why not have a cache container or object that just has a unique number or code on the outside (or inside) of it? When the finder goes to log the cache there is a screening process similar to the coordinate checker on a puzzle cache. If the right code or number is entered when you log your visit to GC.com, the "find" is allowed.

 

Those are code-word caches. They used to be allowed, a long time ago. They're not anymore, so there's you indication of direction.

 

Personally, I don't want to have to keep track of random numbers and caches, just so I can log them. So thumbs down for me.

Yeah...I gotta agree here...not only would one need to keep track of caches found in an outing (ok...I know, not that difficult)...but then we would also have to keep track of codes/numbers and not get them mixed up...

 

I cache to relax and get away from "it all"...I don't cache because I want more work...and really this idea sounds like more work than anythings else...

 

As an owner...I would want an "Opt Out" option for caches I hide...I don't want to keep track of extra codes there either...just let me place a cache and let others find it...nothing special is needed...

The real question should really be: Is a code cache a viable new type of cache that could be created for those that would enjoy that type of cache? Nobody is forcing anyone to look for anything. It's easy to opt out of cache types we don't prefer like mystery caches, virtuals, etc. So you would just filter out code caches if you don't like them...

True...talking cache types...yeah, that would be fine...I guess I was making an unconscious connection to similar threads where it was proposed as something for all caches...oops...

No problem. I would object if that were the case. I honestly think variety is a good thing for the game. I know I get tired of hunting for the same old thing. It's nice when there is something new as long as it isn't a piece of tape stuck to a wall. :laughing:

Link to post

They did #2 but not #3, so they didn't follow the rules. You should do what I do when I find a geocacher has written in the physical logbook and didn't log online. I cross out their name in the log book. :P

What about the opposite, if they did #3 but not #2? Would you delete their log? :laughing: I've never policed my caches, and some have been muggled so it would be impossible.

Link to post

I sent this idea to Groundspeak and they said to bring it up here. Here goes:

 

To whom it may concern at Groundspeak:

 

I was wondering to myself what direction GC'ing will move in in the future. Here is my idea. It seems kind of redundant to sign a log both in the cache and online (I rarely read the cache container logs). So why not have a cache container or object that just has a unique number or code on the outside (or inside) of it? When the finder goes to log the cache there is a screening process similar to the coordinate checker on a puzzle cache. If the right code or number is entered when you log your visit to GC.com, the "find" is allowed.

 

Let me know if this is a good idea or if it has already been discussed.

 

Mike in Eureka CA.

 

So when you are out on the hunt if you transpose the numbers or just plain write them down wrong you don't get the find??? :laughing: I don't think I would vote for that.

That would be me...I have a mild form of dyslexia. Numbers are the thing I am most likely to reverse, followed closely by any two consonants placed next to each other (especially b & l--words like able give me a lot of trouble, and cause me to have to stop and write them very carefully and deliberately).

 

And as others have said, it really isn't a new idea.

 

I am always curious when I see someone say they were directed to post a topic like this on the forums.

Link to post
I see an opportunity here: www.ListOfCacheCodes.com

So let's kill every idea that might result in cheating. Sorry, but it seems like we are letting a small minority wreck the fun for a lot of honest people.

 

Anyhow, I suggested earlier that the cache owner of this new type of cache can easily change the code periodically, the same way that we maintain a physical cache when the logbook gets wet or whatever.

Link to post

The ultimate answer:

 

One of those RSA key's that change numbers every 30 seconds, most people have seen them by now.

 

Attatch the key to the cache, cacher finds cache, notes the time and makes note of the current number.

 

Each number can only be logged once, and it has to match the date/time of the log.

 

NOPE! That's not what I suggested.

Link to post

I was wondering to myself what direction GC'ing will move in in the future. Here is my idea. It seems kind of redundant to sign a log both in the cache and online (I rarely read the cache container logs). So why not have a cache container or object that just has a unique number or code on the outside (or inside) of it? When the finder goes to log the cache there is a screening process similar to the coordinate checker on a puzzle cache. If the right code or number is entered when you log your visit to GC.com, the "find" is allowed.

 

Those are code-word caches. They used to be allowed, a long time ago. They're not anymore, so there's you indication of direction.

 

Personally, I don't want to have to keep track of random numbers and caches, just so I can log them. So thumbs down for me.

Yeah...I gotta agree here...not only would one need to keep track of caches found in an outing (ok...I know, not that difficult)...but then we would also have to keep track of codes/numbers and not get them mixed up...

 

I cache to relax and get away from "it all"...I don't cache because I want more work...and really this idea sounds like more work than anythings else...

 

As an owner...I would want an "Opt Out" option for caches I hide...I don't want to keep track of extra codes there either...just let me place a cache and let others find it...nothing special is needed...

The real question should really be: Is a code cache a viable new type of cache that could be created for those that would enjoy that type of cache? Nobody is forcing anyone to look for anything. It's easy to opt out of cache types we don't prefer like mystery caches, virtuals, etc. So you would just filter out code caches if you don't like them...

 

Well said, Thank you! I don't much care for Virts. Therefore I don't have them in my PQ's and dont look for them. The same could apply here. If you can't write down a few numbers/letters mybe this would not work for you and you should not hunt em.

:laughing:

Link to post
I also see that this could be another way for armchair loggers to spread false logs.
Why should armchair loggers deprive honest people of new fun ways to hunt? The owner could periodically change the code if they suspected something.

I don't see how this is suggesting a new and fun way to hunt. I agree that armchair cachers should not deprive other cachers of having new and fun ways to hunt. Throw out that part of my post. How would this be new and fun for you?

 

Just think of the new types of containers you could use. Just get some kind of engraving tool.

 

I also get back to not enjoying the writing in the log. I am usually in such a hurry to scrible in my name that I don't want to take the time to read the other logs (this could comprimise the cache if a muggle sees) :P . I DO enjoy reading the online logs in the comfort of my home or car.

:laughing:

Link to post
the same way that we maintain a physical cache when the logbook gets wet or whatever.

Oh yea - that happens. :P

:laughing: If that was the criteria we wouldn't have any caches. It is like herding cats to get some people to maintain their caches... Edited by TrailGators
Link to post
I also see that this could be another way for armchair loggers to spread false logs.
Why should armchair loggers deprive honest people of new fun ways to hunt? The owner could periodically change the code if they suspected something.

I don't see how this is suggesting a new and fun way to hunt. I agree that armchair cachers should not deprive other cachers of having new and fun ways to hunt. Throw out that part of my post. How would this be new and fun for you?

 

Just think of the new types of containers you could use. Just get some kind of engraving tool.

 

I also get back to not enjoying the writing in the log. I am usually in such a hurry to scrible in my name that I don't want to take the time to read the other logs (this could comprimise the cache if a muggle sees) :o . I DO enjoy reading the online logs in the comfort of my home or car.

:P

I don't understand this post or your post just before this one. You don't want to have to simply write your caching name in a log but you are happy to write down a code from a container to use when posting your online log? :laughing:

 

I rarely write much more than my name in the physical log either. But I almost always write something specific to the cache and/or the hunt in my online log.

 

Your OP was about the redundancy of signing your name in the physical log and then posting the online log. I still don't understand how the idea of writing down a code when you are at the cache makes for any less writing or saves any time. Different? Maybe. Better because it eliminates some redundancy? I don't see it.

Link to post
I also see that this could be another way for armchair loggers to spread false logs.
Why should armchair loggers deprive honest people of new fun ways to hunt? The owner could periodically change the code if they suspected something.

I don't see how this is suggesting a new and fun way to hunt. I agree that armchair cachers should not deprive other cachers of having new and fun ways to hunt. Throw out that part of my post. How would this be new and fun for you?

 

Just think of the new types of containers you could use. Just get some kind of engraving tool.

 

I also get back to not enjoying the writing in the log. I am usually in such a hurry to scrible in my name that I don't want to take the time to read the other logs (this could comprimise the cache if a muggle sees) :D . I DO enjoy reading the online logs in the comfort of my home or car.

;)

I don't understand this post or your post just before this one. You don't want to have to simply write your caching name in a log but you are happy to write down a code from a container to use when posting your online log? :anibad:

 

I rarely write much more than my name in the physical log either. But I almost always write something specific to the cache and/or the hunt in my online log.

 

Your OP was about the redundancy of signing your name in the physical log and then posting the online log. I still don't understand how the idea of writing down a code when you are at the cache makes for any less writing or saves any time. Different? Maybe. Better because it eliminates some redundancy? I don't see it.

 

BUMP.

 

Just in case there is some interest in this idea. You could just rename the waypoint name in your GPSr and put the cache code (code written on container).

 

This would just be a differant type of cache...not all caches.

 

There is a trend in my area to place micros. This cache type would make the micro game more interesting. Think of all the different types of hides you could come up with.

 

Comments?

Link to post

BUMP.

 

Just in case there is some interest in this idea. You could just rename the waypoint name in your GPSr and put the cache code (code written on container).

 

This would just be a differant type of cache...not all caches.

 

There is a trend in my area to place micros. This cache type would make the micro game more interesting. Think of all the different types of hides you could come up with.

 

Comments?

Apparently the only person interested in the idea is you as this had died a peaceful death until you resurrected it. OK, maybe 2-3 seemed interested, but a lot more didn't like the idea and I'm not fond of it either.

 

No thanks.

Link to post

All of this will be resolved when v2.0 Geocaching is finally set free on us.

This will coincide with the release of the (still top-secret) Garmin Utah, which will have a built in 4-D holographic bar-code scanner, WI-FI, Bluetooth, cellular, and satellite phone communication capabilities.

 

When you are out-and-about, the Garmin Utah will be in constant contact with the Geocaching website, and will alert you when you get within a user-selectable proximity to a cache...even if the cache were just published only moments ago.

Cache details will be downloaded to your unit at the press of a button, or automatically downloaded if that option has been selected. Of course, caches no longer within another user-selectable range will automatically be deleted from the Utah's memory to save space in the 3TB memory capacity...just to be safe.

Cache owners will be issued a unique 4-D holographic bar-code sticker (VERY tiny, and actually more of a micro-dot, like in the old spy movies) to affix inside their cache. In this new order, the nano/blinkie container (with room for actual paper!) will become a 'regular' size container.

A finder will merely use the Utah's scanning capability to scan the bar-code dot, and thus enable logging the find via an auto speech-to-text capability. Your dictation will instantly be logged as your find on that cache, and the time will also be recorded for angst-free FTF verification.

Naturally, your FTF will instantly be transmitted to all other Utah users enroute to that cache. They can decide to continue on, or perhaps divert to another potential FTF in the area.

 

All this will eliminate several of the current issues difficulties with Geocaching as we know it today (for Utah owners at least).

No more stress over those 'didn't have a pen' logs.

No more slow/late/unreceived PQ problems.

No more TN/LN/SL TFTC logs.

No more occult hands reaching down from anywhere, to do anything.

No more smartphone browser compatibility issues.

No more Garmin Communicator download problems.

No more 'couldn't sign the totally soaked logbook' problems.

No more 'tried for the FTF but so-and-so got it two days ago' concerns.

 

Future development plans call for a cache-owner settable proximity detector (a device in the cache will detect YOU!), and the possibility to enable 'close enough for Geocaching' found logs.

 

Of course all us old-school boys will still have to remember to bring a pen to sign the log, we will still have to take notes about the cache and our trades, we will still have to actually TYPE OUT all our thoughts on a crusty old keyboard, and we will still rely on our signature in the log to prove we visited the cache.

Link to post

BUMP.

 

Just in case there is some interest in this idea. You could just rename the waypoint name in your GPSr and put the cache code (code written on container).

 

This would just be a differant type of cache...not all caches.

 

There is a trend in my area to place micros. This cache type would make the micro game more interesting. Think of all the different types of hides you could come up with.

 

Comments?

 

I like the idea, it will save a ton more time than even you have indicated.

 

Instead of having to use up gas and time running around, I just can go to an even or two every month and while enjoying ice cream or something else just pass around the codes and collect the smiley.

 

Count me in. GC, please implement this ASAP.

Link to post
Let me know if this is a good idea or if it has already been discussed.

It has been discussed several times. Didn't like it then. Still don't like it.

 

I have to agree with the questioning of the savings involved. You still have to write down the code. Why not just write down your name in the logbook?

 

Personally, I think the best form strong verification is a photo. You can require a photo of the cacher or his avatar. It would be an ALR, though. Also, the person or avatar would have to be in the setting and not simply an object held out in front of the photo taker. (Photoshopping deterrent.)

 

Me, I like signing the logbook as a basic form letting folks you were there.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...