Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8
Warturtle

Munzee: Tie in to Geocaching?

179 posts in this topic

The thing is... how would the app work in places with no cell phone signal? It seems like my favorite caches are WAY the heck out in no man's land... so this probably won't be for me. Unless GPSrs start being compatible, that is... and with only 720 players I just don't see that happening any time soon (I could be wrong).

You don't need service to scan a qr code. If for some reason your phone didn't work at all, you could always take a picture of it and scan it later, but as stated before, you don't need any bars to scan a qr code.

 

This is not true for munzee. With munzee, you *do* need data plan coverage at the site of the munzee QR code. When you scan the munzee code, the munzee app sends the QR code AND your *current* GPS fix to the server and you must be near the published location or the log attempt fails. You would not be able to snap a pic at the site, go home, and then rescan the pic.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It ought not be a secret that Groundspeak's listing site cannot be used to promote other listing sites. There is a long history of analogous rulings. If it were a secret, Graculus and I would not have posted.

 

If you'd like a source in the listing guidelines, see the section about Commercial Caches/ Caches That Solicit. This guideline applies regardless of whether the other listing site is for-profit or non-profit.

 

What I meant was the fact that the site is seen as a competing site. Since it's not listing geocaches, it's not as obvious as you claim it is. If it was that obvious to begin with, then Groundspeak wouldn't have needed to give "guidance" on that matter, now would it? And it was "secret" until somebody asked, and now it's only spelled out in the forums, nowhere else. It would be much easier if every time Groundspeak sent out such a memo to all reviewers, it would also go on some public website where COs can see it as well. Saves them the trouble of having to ask, and the trouble of having a listing rejected if they don't ask.

Edited by dfx
0

Share this post


Link to post

It ought not be a secret that Groundspeak's listing site cannot be used to promote other listing sites. There is a long history of analogous rulings. If it were a secret, Graculus and I would not have posted.

 

If you'd like a source in the listing guidelines, see the section about Commercial Caches/ Caches That Solicit. This guideline applies regardless of whether the other listing site is for-profit or non-profit.

 

What I meant was the fact that the site is seen as a competing site. Since it's not listing geocaches, it's not as obvious as you claim it is. If it was that obvious to begin with, then Groundspeak wouldn't have needed to give "guidance" on that matter, now would it? And it was "secret" until somebody asked, and now it's only spelled out in the forums, nowhere else. It would be much easier if every time Groundspeak sent out such a memo to all reviewers, it would also go on some public website where COs can see it as well. Saves them the trouble of having to ask, and the trouble of having a listing rejected if they don't ask.

 

I don't understand what is unclear or "secret"? Competing or not it is against the guidelines to use a cache listing as an advertisement for anything but that cache.

0

Share this post


Link to post
I don't understand what is unclear or "secret"? Competing or not it is against the guidelines to use a cache listing as an advertisement for anything but that cache.

If that's how it is, then I can't put a link to any other website on any listing. Not wikipedia, not Google, not Geochecker. It doesn't quite seem to work like that.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Here's my scattered thoughts in no particular order, having played a little munzee now:

 

  1. It does have some possible tie-ins to geocaching, such as an optional find verification, but that also causes problems. Since the demise of ALRs in 2009, the generally accepted rule has been "if your name is in the logbook, it's a find." Let CO's start deleting logs because there's no QR scan and all hell's gonna break loose.
  2. I have already seen another problem with munzees being placed in a new cache. By the nature of the way you deploy a munzee, if you place a new munzee in a new cache, the munzee will be published immediately, and the cache will take 0.5 to 3 days to get through review. I have seen two munzees come out now well before the publication of the cache they were in, and in fact, one of these caches was denied. In the long term, if there's going to be a tie-in, there's going to have to be some linkage between the sites for co-publication.
  3. The munzees have to be affixed to something findable. Unlike a cache that can be very well concealed, the coords on the munzee site are just not tight enough, so they have to be affixed to beacon that is obvious enough. A 50 foot radius might get you close enough to a sign post to know where you're going, but that same radius in woods would be a real problem. That means there's going to be a huge incentive to attache them to caches, and that means we better start thinking about how they fit in here.
  4. The concept has a LONG way to go. Today you just scan and get a find count. No logging, there's nothing at all except score. There's a HUGE segment of the caching population that this will appeal to. There should be no flaming or contempt between camps--the unbelievable popularity of geocaching owes itself to BOTH the competitive spirit of the number hunters AND the quality-over-quantity folks.
  5. I am not sure how munzee really evolves into its own place in the universe. It seems like an adjuct to Waymarking, with some difficult tie-ins to geocaching (see 1 and 2 above)... And I am not sure how it ever establishes its own identity separate from Waymarking.

Edited by Sky King 36
0

Share this post


Link to post

GOF is thinking much more clearly since I gave him an attitude adjustment at GeoWoodstock.

 

That reminds me -- I need to clean the soot off my car battery terminals.

 

33494778.jpg

 

So, that's what happened!! He hasn't been anywhere near as much fun since GeoWoodstock!

0

Share this post


Link to post
I don't understand what is unclear or "secret"? Competing or not it is against the guidelines to use a cache listing as an advertisement for anything but that cache.

If that's how it is, then I can't put a link to any other website on any listing. Not wikipedia, not Google, not Geochecker. It doesn't quite seem to work like that.

 

Big difference between reference materials and advertising. If you can't figure out where your link is going to fall in this spectrum you can always ask.

0

Share this post


Link to post
I don't understand what is unclear or "secret"? Competing or not it is against the guidelines to use a cache listing as an advertisement for anything but that cache.

If that's how it is, then I can't put a link to any other website on any listing. Not wikipedia, not Google, not Geochecker. It doesn't quite seem to work like that.

 

Big difference between reference materials and advertising. If you can't figure out where your link is going to fall in this spectrum you can always ask.

 

Which is exactly the point (not that I agree that it's advertising, but whatever). If it's already been decided that munzee references aren't allowed, and all reviewers have been told so, why not make that information public somewhere? Instead of requiring COs to ask every time, or have their listing rejected?

Edited by dfx
0

Share this post


Link to post
I don't understand what is unclear or "secret"? Competing or not it is against the guidelines to use a cache listing as an advertisement for anything but that cache.

If that's how it is, then I can't put a link to any other website on any listing. Not wikipedia, not Google, not Geochecker. It doesn't quite seem to work like that.

 

Big difference between reference materials and advertising. If you can't figure out where your link is going to fall in this spectrum you can always ask.

 

Which is exactly the point (not that I agree that it's advertising, but whatever). If it's already been decided that munzee references aren't allowed, and all reviewers have been told so, why not make that information public somewhere? Instead of requiring COs to ask every time, or have their listing rejected?

 

Because the reviewers hold some faith in humanity and the ability for most cachers to possess a modicum of common sense?

0

Share this post


Link to post

The concept has a LONG way to go. Today you just scan and get a find count. No logging, there's nothing at all except score. There's a HUGE segment of the caching population that this will appeal to. There should be no flaming or contempt between camps--the unbelievable popularity of geocaching owes itself to BOTH the competitive spirit of the number hunters AND the quality-over-quantity folks.

 

Couldn't disagree more about your "HUGE segment of the caching population that this will appeal to" statement. On the contrary, the "number hunters", almost always premium members for life, are a miniscule portion of the Geocaching populace. Take a look at any 8 or more year old cache with hundreds of find logs, and tell me what percentage of them are from number hunters. They just have a high profile, well, because they're number hunters. :)

 

I'm totally confused by that whole statement anyways. I'm a quality over quantity guy. Why wouldn't there be grumbling by me over the "all about the numbers" concept here? Essentially, all Munzee logs are blank logs, which hasn't gone over too well in the Geocaching world with people like me. Unless your saying there would be no grumbling, because people like me would never play Munzee (if that's what you call doing it). :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post

I think that the real issue here, is that this is not the same across the board. Letterboxes are fully accepted on geocaching.com, why can't Munzee's be?

 

Keystone sums it up well and his answer carries a lot more weight than mine, but here's my response anyway. :P

 

Letterboxing itself was around long before Geocaching and a different sort of game. In a true letterbox the focus is on the use of clues and GPS doesn't really play a factor. (Not true of the letterbox hybrid caches on this site, but that's why their only "hybrids".)

 

This other site is essentially "Geocaching using a QR code and smartphone instead of a logbook to prove your visit." This other site wants to be "the next step" in Geocaching. Helping out someone who wants to take over your business model is generally not a great idea.

 

Some aspects sound interesting. The combiination of QR code and GPS location from a smartphone should really cut down on bogus logs, at least until someone finds a way to hack the system for purposes of running up their numbers. And, given how running up numbers has become such a big part of Geocaching, I can see where having integrated leaderboards and levels would appeal to a large segment of the caching population. And, factor in the exploding smartphone market and how the game is designed for smartphone users...

 

I'll be curious to see if this other site takes off and forces Groundspeak to adapt at all. It might take ahile, but... :drama:

 

I think you are missing the point. It is ok to incorporate letterbox type clues in addition to your GPS coordinates. You just can't advertise one of the letterboxing sites (Atlas Quest for example) on your cache page. Likewise you can us a QR code as an element of your cache. However, you can not advertise Munzee.

So is this enforced? If I hid a letterbox hybrid could I post "For more information on letterboxing see www.atlasquest.com or www.letterboxing.org"?

Perhaps I can only link to approved resources?

 

It seems if I put a QR code in my cache I should be able to tell people that the QR code is a game piece for another game, just like a stamp is there for letterboxers. The question is just how much information about munzee can I give? I can explain letterboxing though perhaps not link to a letterboxing site. Could I explain that the QR code works with a smartphone app that can read this code and record your find on a website which Groundspeak says I cannot name?

 

Ok, I checked the cache I found last Sunday and see that is precisely what is allowed.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Because the reviewers hold some faith in humanity and the ability for most cachers to possess a modicum of common sense?

 

Well, we know where that usually gets them.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This other site is essentially "Geocaching using a QR code and smartphone instead of a logbook to prove your visit." This other site wants to be "the next step" in Geocaching. Helping out someone who wants to take over your business model is generally not a great idea.

Seems more like Waymarking with QR codes to me.

It depends. The way I could see an interest in Munzee taking hold for me would be containers hidden just like Geocaches except there is a QR code instead of a logbook.

 

If people are just going to laminate tags and attach them to things then I agree with you.

Edited by DanOCan
0

Share this post


Link to post

Munzees lack creativity?

 

One on my favorite things about geocaching is writing logs. I love the quick logging of the Munzee too though.

Edited by SeekerOfTheWay
0

Share this post


Link to post

Munzees lack creativity?

 

One on my favorite things about geocaching is writing logs. I love the quick logging of the Munzee too though.

 

Wow! html in their Descriptions. You're right, that is astonishing :rolleyes::laughing:

Edited by Touchstone
0

Share this post


Link to post

Munzees lack creativity?

 

One on my favorite things about geocaching is writing logs. I love the quick logging of the Munzee too though.

I don't understand what makes a tree climbing munzee creative. It may be more "fun" for those who enjoy physical challenges, but fun and creativity aren't the same thing. Also I don't follow what the incentive is to hiding a munzee like this. I thought you scored points not just for finding munzees but for every time a munzee you hid is found. Why would you hide a munzee that few people would find?

 

I guess for some "it's not about the numbers", but it sure seems that website is set up to promote the competition. It has leader boards and I suppose since you log the find using the app there will be less angst by munzee puritans about cheaters.

 

I see their future more as a competitor to Foursquare than to Geocaching. Put munzees in businesses and get paid by the business based on the number of visitors it brings in.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Munzees lack creativity?

 

One on my favorite things about geocaching is writing logs. I love the quick logging of the Munzee too though.

I don't understand what makes a tree climbing munzee creative. It may be more "fun" for those who enjoy physical challenges, but fun and creativity aren't the same thing. Also I don't follow what the incentive is to hiding a munzee like this. I thought you scored points not just for finding munzees but for every time a munzee you hid is found. Why would you hide a munzee that few people would find?

 

I guess for some "it's not about the numbers", but it sure seems that website is set up to promote the competition. It has leader boards and I suppose since you log the find using the app there will be less angst by munzee puritans about cheaters.

 

I see their future more as a competitor to Foursquare than to Geocaching. Put munzees in businesses and get paid by the business based on the number of visitors it brings in.

 

Oh, OK, nice points. I was a little confused in an earlier post about the "Puritans" not liking it, but I see you're talking about how there can be no cheating, which is probably what the guy I was quoting was referring to. Not that I think cheating in Geocaching is a major issue, in the grand scheme of things.

 

Competition with Foursquare? I don't see it. I'm an obnoxious old school geocacher, but yet a Foursquare addict. I don't know who is behind this whole Munzee thing, but it's obviously a Geocacher(s), as they appear to be going out of their way on the website to tout it as "taking Geocaching to the next level". :huh:

 

EDIT: P.S. all they have to do is buy a few banner ads, and they'd be welcomed with open arms. Same thing with Pathtags. Still wondering why the use of the words "wheresgeorge" or "travelertags" were never banned on Geocaching.com, but of course Geocaching was much smaller then, and they weren't considered a threat. :o

Edited by Mr.Yuck
0

Share this post


Link to post
Still wondering why the use of the words "wheresgeorge" or "travelertags" were never banned on Geocaching.com, but of course Geocaching was much smaller then, and they weren't considered a threat. :o

Where's George tracks paper currency based on their serial numbers and has never had anything remotely to do with geocaching.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Still wondering why the use of the words "wheresgeorge" or "travelertags" were never banned on Geocaching.com, but of course Geocaching was much smaller then, and they weren't considered a threat. :o

Where's George tracks paper currency based on their serial numbers and has never had anything remotely to do with geocaching.

 

It was once very popular to put them in Geocaches, mention in your cache log that you put them in a Geocache, or put on your cache page that you started out the cache with Wheregeorges, and even link to their website, both in a cache log or on a cache page. No one ever wanted to ban them. :unsure:

 

True, they never touted themselves on their website as "taking geocaching to the next level" like Munzee.com does. But that's only because the creator is obviously a Geocacher. Foursquare never touted themselves as taking Geocaching to the next level, did they? :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Still wondering why the use of the words "wheresgeorge" or "travelertags" were never banned on Geocaching.com, but of course Geocaching was much smaller then, and they weren't considered a threat. :o

Where's George tracks paper currency based on their serial numbers and has never had anything remotely to do with geocaching.

Where's George bills were being used as kind of trackable. People put Where's George bills in their caches and tracked their movement from cache to cache. Where's George didn't like this because this was not a "natural" movement of currency. The idea with Where's George was to track how currency moved around in normal circulation. Where's George bills were in caches they tended to be logged on every move, so these began to count for a significant number of logs and it skewed the results from what was considered "natural" circulation. From Groundspeak's side there was concern that people used Where's George instead of purchasing a trackable from Geocaching.com; but this was never as big a deal as was the issue the Where's George side had. Where's George bills can go in caches, but there is a gentleman's agreement not to use them as trackables. If you find a Where's George bill in a cache, go ahead and log it, but then spend it instead of just moving it to another cache.

 

There is little doubt in my mind that Groundspeak enforces the commericial guidelines differently for companies they see as competitors than for some company that has no relationship to geocaching. And differently for companies that advertise with Groundspeak from those that don't. Being that Groundspeak is a business, that makes sense. But it still comes across as inconsistent for the average geocacher trying to figure out what they can or cannot put on their cache page.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Munzee will never be a tie in until they support all different smartphones.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm writing once again to confirm that Munzees cannot be mentioned on Geocaching.com cache listings. Whether an owner chooses to include a Munzee in their cache or near their cache is up to that owner, so long as the presence of the Munzee is not highlighted on the listing page.

 

The Groundspeak Forums are not the proper place to promote or discuss Munzees qua Munzees. The Munzee website has its own discussion forums for that purpose.

 

Are there any other questions about the relationship between Munzees and Geocaching.com caches? I will leave this thread open for that purpose and that purpose only.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The Groundspeak Forums are not the proper place to promote or discuss Munzees qua Munzees. The Munzee website has its own discussion forums for that purpose.

 

Are there any other questions about the relationship between Munzees and Geocaching.com caches? I will leave this thread open for that purpose and that purpose only.

So I take it we can't discuss whether munzees appeal more to geocachers or to waymarkers (or for that matter to Foursquare users). Or why munzees will never be as popular as geocaching? Or whether non-geocachers may confuse munzees with geocaching and give geocaching a black eye the first time the bomb squad blows up a munzee?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm writing once again to confirm that Munzees cannot be mentioned on Geocaching.com cache listings. Whether an owner chooses to include a Munzee in their cache or near their cache is up to that owner, so long as the presence of the Munzee is not highlighted on the listing page.

 

The Groundspeak Forums are not the proper place to promote or discuss Munzees qua Munzees. The Munzee website has its own discussion forums for that purpose.

 

Are there any other questions about the relationship between Munzees and Geocaching.com caches? I will leave this thread open for that purpose and that purpose only.

 

OK, a hider drops a munzee in their brand new cache, doesn't say a darn thing about it on the cache page, but several of the finders mention capturing the munzee in their find log, even thanking them for the munzee. Is this OK? I assume and hope so, because I've seen it several times.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Saying in a log that a munzee was captured is analogous to saying in a log that you left a pathtag as a trade item. Logs are not cache descriptions.

 

There is an exception, of course, for situations such as where a geocacher posts an advertisement with a hyperlink as part of every log they leave on any cache they visit.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm thinking about doing this, I'm just a little nervous about if it could get hacked and everybody gets their cell info and stuff revealed. Is that possible?

0

Share this post


Link to post

That would be a good question to ask in the other website's user forum.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The promotion of yet another site by one of the moving forces behind it provides a good opportunity for me to bring this thread to a close.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 8