cache log ID

[+The Trekbuddies]

A thought we have had is to give a cache a log id, a number given when the listing is published which is used to log the cache , this would save having to have a log in a nano, just the log id would be needed as proof of the find, this could be rolled out to all caches, this would cut down on maintanance replacing tiny full logs, any thoughts?

[knowschad]

You just reinvented an old idea that was banned quite some time ago, I'm afraid. Besides, you know as well as I do that sooner or later, some clown would be having the number engraved in nano-sized numbers.

[+The Trekbuddies]

You just reinvented an old idea that was banned quite some time ago, I'm afraid. Besides, you know as well as I do that sooner or later, some clown would be having the number engraved in nano-sized numbers.

why was the idea banned?

[+secretagentbill]

What would prevent bulk-emailing the code to all of one's friends resulting in fake logs?

[knowschad]

You just reinvented an old idea that was banned quite some time ago, I'm afraid. Besides, you know as well as I do that sooner or later, some clown would be having the number engraved in nano-sized numbers.

why was the idea banned?

Somebody else may have to help me out with more specific details, but I believe the essence is this, from the guidelines: For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

[+briansnat]

You just reinvented an old idea that was banned quite some time ago, I'm afraid. Besides, you know as well as I do that sooner or later, some clown would be having the number engraved in nano-sized numbers.

why was the idea banned?

 

Codeword caches were banned a long time ago. They were essentially virtuals without the supposedly interesting associated subject matter.

 

For a time some people used a log AND a codeword to meet the log requirement in the guidelines, but that went by the wayside when additional logging requirements were banned.

[+narcissa]

Nanos aren't an official cache size anyway. They're just small micros.

[+9Key]

this would cut down on maintanance replacing tiny full logs, any thoughts?

Wouldn't the solution be to not hide nanos if you don't like maintaining them?

[+StarBrand]

Let me intoduce you to my new website: www.NanoCacheCodes.com -

[+Isonzo Karst]

When codeword caches were being published I found one that was the word, "waypoint" written on a guardrail.

 

I found one that was some graffiti (pre-existing, I hope) on a bridge. You were asked to email the naughty word. Hard to distinguish the naughty from the obscene and assorted racial slurs.

 

The need for a "container and a log" limits the lower size of caches now. If it were just a code word, or numbers, things could get truly ridiculous.

[+tozainamboku]

The need for a "container and a log" limits the lower size of caches now. If it were just a code word, or numbers, things could get truly ridiculous.

I don't think this is really an issue. Every codeword cache I found was far bigger than a nano. Of course there were those where there was no cache - just some graffiti or other markings that I was asked to report on - but these were all on objects much larger than a nano and the writting was usually pretty big as well.

 

The requirement for a container and a log is meant to insure that the cache owner has hidden something to find and where I can leave some confirmation that I indeed found it (by signing the log). Code word caches would lead to more couch potato logging where someone gets the codeword from a friend or figures it out some other way. It would also lead to a lot more conflict where a cache owner deletes a legitimate found log because the finder didn't remember the codeword exactly. The log in the cache is something everyone who finds the cache can see, and while it comes down to the cache owner deciding if the online log is legitimate, there are some checks in that others can look in the log and see if an owner is deleting legitimate finds or possibly allowing bogus finds. (I personally don't think a find is bogus if someone forgot to bring a pencil or has some other excuse for not signing a log. But if a person is logging a lot of couch potato logs, their name will be missing from a lot more than a few caches.)

 

Finally, use of codeword caches as way to avoid maintenance means your are probably not willing to maintain your cache for other reasons as well.

 

this would cut down on maintanance replacing tiny full logs, any thoughts?

Wouldn't the solution be to not hide nanos if you don't like maintaining them?

[+The VanDucks]

But wouldn't we all miss that panicky feeling of trying to roll up the tiny little log and squeeeeeeze it back into the bison before the muggles notice what you're doing?

[+The Trekbuddies]

What would prevent bulk-emailing the code to all of one's friends resulting in fake logs?

what prevents all my friends just logging one as found now , nothing , we have caches and i dont bother checking the log books to varify all the logs

and by code word i mean a number you have to submit to log the same as a TB , also just because the log sheet has to be small does not mean the cache is small (please don't ask me to explain)

Edited February 26, 2010 by The Trekbuddies

[+Too Tall John]

. . .we have caches and i dont bother checking the log books to varify all the logs

You should. From the Guidelines:

Cache Maintenance

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically...

You might, also, want to try a spellchecker.

[+The Trekbuddies]

. . .we have caches and i dont bother checking the log books to varify all the logs

You should. From the Guidelines:

Cache Maintenance

The cache owner will assume all responsibility of their cache listings.The responsibility of your listing includes quality control of posts to the cache page. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off topic, or not within the stated requirements.

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically...

You might, also, want to try a spellchecker.

our caches are checked very often and are of a good quality , as for quality controll that is in the eye of the beholder!

[+t4e]

But wouldn't we all miss that panicky feeling of trying to roll up the tiny little log and squeeeeeeze it back into the bison before the muggles notice what you're doing?

 

add to that at -20C

[+NeecesandNephews]

this would cut down on maintanance replacing tiny full logs, any thoughts?

 

 

we have caches and i dont bother checking the log books to varify all the logs

 

 

our caches are checked very often and are of a good quality , as for quality controll that is in the eye of the beholder!

 

 

Ok this is confusing!!!! If you are checking the caches "very often" why is it an issue to replace logs??? I'm just askin.

 

If you are troubled by replacing logs in nanos ,don't you imagine the people who find them have the same problem you do??

 

I have to echo 9key... why hide them??

[knowschad]

But wouldn't we all miss that panicky feeling of trying to roll up the tiny little log and squeeeeeeze it back into the bison before the muggles notice what you're doing?

Nawww... they always think I'm just rolling a booger between my fingers.

[Mr.Yuck]

Let me intoduce you to my new website: www.NanoCacheCodes.com -

 

Implying that people would publish the codes on the internet, and there would be all kinds of armchair logs? I'd agree with that.

 

Me, I'm still waiting for micros to be moved to their own website, www.microcaching.com. And since I support nano as a new cache size, we might as well have www.nanocaching.com as well.

[4wheelin_fool]

A thought we have had is to give a cache a log id, a number given when the listing is published which is used to log the cache , this would save having to have a log in a nano, just the log id would be needed as proof of the find, this could be rolled out to all caches, this would cut down on maintanance replacing tiny full logs, any thoughts?

 

Lists of cache codes would be distributed at events, and proof of finding the cache would be similar to discovering coins you never saw.

[+eagsc7]

Let me intoduce you to my new website: www.NanoCacheCodes.com -

 

Implying that people would publish the codes on the internet, and there would be all kinds of armchair logs? I'd agree with that.

 

Me, I'm still waiting for micros to be moved to their own website, www.microcaching.com. And since I support nano as a new cache size, we might as well have www.nanocaching.com as well.

 

DON'T GIVE Groundspeak THE IDEA! They already took away 2 GREAT cache types(Virtuals, and Webcams) and moved them to another site...

 

The Steaks