USB key as a logbook

[+niraD]

Right before the guideline text you quoted is the following statement:

 

In the interest of file security, caches that require the installing or running of data and/or executables will likely not be published. The use of memory sticks and similar devices is not permitted either.

""And that's...the rest of the story."

 

Thanks, Keystone.

[+heathtree]

Right before the guideline text you quoted is the following statement:

 

In the interest of file security, caches that require the installing or running of data and/or executables will likely not be published. The use of memory sticks and similar devices is not permitted either.

 

I think the "no memory sticks" statement is pretty clear.

 

Let us know how you make out with your appeal.

 

I am not sure how I missed that. I read those guidelines a dozen times. You are absolutely correct.

 

If those are the rules, then those are the rules. I can admit it when I'm wrong. I won't pursue this any further. Thanks everyone for your interest.

[+The Real Boudica.]

Well done, I have never understood why people are often so reluctant to admit they were wrong when challenged, and I am not being sarcastic, many on these forums seem unable to understand mistakes are made/when they should give up .

 

I haven't hid any caches yet, I am sure will, but part of the reason is because the KB and guidelines seem to need fine toothcombing to ensure they are completely understood, I have to do enough of that for work. Carry on thinking up different ideas for caches.

[+TheNinjaJedi]

Even though this cache was not allowed I am very happy there are cachers out there like Heathtree who take the time to think up new ideas for hides. I enjoy finding a 35mm film container as much as the next guy, don't get me wrong, but I LOVE finding something new and interesting.

 

Well done sir!

[+Viajero Perdido]

Sounds like Groundspeak makes subtle changes to the rules from time to time.

 

I never noticed the bit about .TXT and .PDF files being OK with a disclaimer. That part surprises me. TXT files are utterly harmless, but PDF files are dangerous and belong in the same untouchable category as executables (EXE).

[+niraD]

Yes, plain text files are utterly harmless to browsers that treat them as plain text files. But a certain browser-like OS component has been known to ignore file types (it's not a bug, it's a "feature"), and can be tricked into treating plain text files as something else.

[AZcachemeister]

As a follow-up to my previous post, (if you want to do something unusual) use an old Palm unit as the 'log device'.

The really old ones use regular batteries that can easily be changed out while in the field.

Something so ancient would be less likely to be stolen (traded out).

You could probably get one for less than $20 off eBay.

Of course you would need a larger container that was absolutely waterproof.

Also, clear instructions (on the cache page and inside the container) as to how to 'sign' the log.

[+Sol seaker]

I still think this is a permissible cache, and will be lodging an appeal to get it re-instated.

It probably isn't a permissible cache. Once you could have all sorts of crazy logging methods. Shortly after hiding the first geocache (which had a log book to write in), Dave Ulmer starting hiding caches that contained only password that allowed you to log onto his computer and swap music files instead of using a log book and swag. I think he was trying to create some sort of online log so that the community could see who had found what caches. There was already a lot of push back by those who wanted to "keep it simple" and stick to signing their name in a log book or on a log sheet. Over the years other tried other approaches: code words, cameras in the cache, various electronic devices. But there was always push back from a segment of the community that wanted to stick to traditions. Some even taking the position that you can't find something unless you can sign your name on some paper left inside the cache.

 

Over the years Groundspeak has added rules mostly to satisfy these cachers. Code word caches were banned, physical caches were required to have logs to sign, virtual caches were grandfathered, cache owners were forbidden from enforcing logging requirements once the physical log book was signed.

 

Instead of viewing caching as fun game with creative ideas for caches than involved code words or adding to a USB stick, TPTB have chosen to cater to the players who insist on the need for specific rules defining the meaning of find that must be met to log a find online. Fortunately, if you want to have fun you can still place other logging methods in the cache so long as these are optional, and as cache owner you are still not required to delete online finds just because someone didn't sign the log. But you have to cater to the puritans and give them the paper log to sign. They won't know what to do if they find some other find verification method (or no method at all).

 

uh oh. You used the "P" word. Now it's all downhill from here.

 

I like creative caches, and I applaud the cache owner for stepping outside the box and trying something different.

 

But I do understand the rules on this.

The fact is you've got to draw the line somewhere. If they didn't, this could get quite out of hand.

There are a lot of good ideas that don't have paper logs in them, and there are a whole lot of bad ideas out there too.

I could see finding ten caches in one day and only being able to sign one of them because of all the different creative methods. And while I really enjoy finding tough caches, I could see where this being a family friendly game, soon it would not be.

You'd have a lot of crying children because they couldn't sign the 9 out of 10 caches that they found.

It could get out-of-hand. I can see that.

[+dakboy]

Sounds like Groundspeak makes subtle changes to the rules from time to time.

 

I never noticed the bit about .TXT and .PDF files being OK with a disclaimer. That part surprises me. TXT files are utterly harmless, but PDF files are dangerous and belong in the same untouchable category as executables (EXE).

If people are wondering why, it's because PDFs can in fact be used to distribute malware.

Edited November 19, 2011 by dakboy

[+Cableguy]

If the cache has been archived because of the guidelines then almost all of the find logs should be deleted as well as nobody has signed a logbook (electronic or pen).

I am surprised that nobody is commenting on the fact that people are signing a find on a cache that is not valid and has been archived and on top of that they know that theres no logbook to sign because they disclosed that on their logs and even post pictures of empty containers!...

 

It really is all about numbers with caching these days...

 

I had the FTF on this cache, I didn't sign the log, I "inputed" my typed signature and saved. Perfectly fine for me to log as found. But it's not about the numbers, right?

I liked the cache. Nice to see an idea that's out of the box. The CO did make every effort to comply with the rules. It was a Premium Member Only cache. Difficulty level was there. Tool attribute was there. The cache type should have been Unknown.

 

I do agree with one poster, the stick will get taken apart again.

[+jellis]

The question seems moot, as the cache has been archived because the logbook was a USB drive.

Sometimes posting about questionable will get the attention of Lackeys and reviewers. It is archived though two cachers logged it after the fact.

[+jellis]

Right before the guideline text you quoted is the following statement:

 

In the interest of file security, caches that require the installing or running of data and/or executables will likely not be published. The use of memory sticks and similar devices is not permitted either.

 

The problem is cachers who either don't read the quidelines or ignore them. If the CO also does'nt inform the reviewers, and it to slip pass.

Another problem I keep seeing is the cachers whether they are experienced or newbies knowingly say in their logs "creative" "great cache" and do nothing and then someone thinks it's okay and they do it and so on.

But hey who likes a "cache police" ?

[+jellis]

Sounds like Groundspeak makes subtle changes to the rules from time to time.

 

I never noticed the bit about .TXT and .PDF files being OK with a disclaimer. That part surprises me. TXT files are utterly harmless, but PDF files are dangerous and belong in the same untouchable category as executables (EXE).

If people are wondering why, it's because PDFs can in fact be used to distribute malware.

You have to keep reading the guidelines. They make changes and they don't inform you. They also don't say when the changes were made, so only they know if the cache was approved before or after the changes.

Edited November 19, 2011 by jellis

[+GeoBain]

I don't know what the big deal is. That's what Sharpies are for. If you want to plug an unknown thumb drive into your computer and risk a virus, I say go for it. If not, you can still sign the logbook with a sharpie. Win-win for everyone!

[+BlueDeuce]

I don't know what the big deal is. That's what Sharpies are for. If you want to plug an unknown thumb drive into your computer and risk a virus, I say go for it. If not, you can still sign the logbook with a sharpie. Win-win for everyone!

 

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up. Are we now to supporting paper logbooks AND memory sticks?

[+GeoBain]

I don't know what the big deal is. That's what Sharpies are for. If you want to plug an unknown thumb drive into your computer and risk a virus, I say go for it. If not, you can still sign the logbook with a sharpie. Win-win for everyone!

 

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up. Are we now to supporting paper logbooks AND memory sticks?

 

No. Memory sticks are against the rules. But I was musing that you could still sign a thumb drive if you have a Sharpie or even better, a paint pen.

[+BlueDeuce]

I don't know what the big deal is. That's what Sharpies are for. If you want to plug an unknown thumb drive into your computer and risk a virus, I say go for it. If not, you can still sign the logbook with a sharpie. Win-win for everyone!

 

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up. Are we now to supporting paper logbooks AND memory sticks?

 

No. Memory sticks are against the rules. But I was musing that you could still sign a thumb drive if you have a Sharpie or even better, a paint pen.

 

Ah. I still admit to poor writing skills regardless.

[+Sky King 36]

I carry a fine point Sharpie marker in my caching bag. I think I would have just signed the side of the flash drive with it.

 

People are funny. At work, right after the memo comes out reminding people not to dress quite so casually... the next day a woman shows up wearing only leggings and nothing over them, and someone else wears flip-flops. There's the guy in shorts, the woman with the insane cleavage... It all comes out the day after the memo because people just have this innate need to test limits. The day after you do diversity training, there's always ten guys who have to resurrect their ancient sexist or racist joke. And so it is with caching. You read the guidelines and the "intent" of the guidelines seems so blatantly obvious. Sure, if you want to create artificial grey areas by carefully word-smithing each and every sentence looking for loopholes, you will certainly succeed. But there's a certain intellectual dishonesty in pretending the intent isn't obvious. If you read the guidelines looking for consistency, you will find it. If you read them looking for loopholes to exploit, you will find them too.

[+The_Incredibles_]

Kudos to the CO for trying something different. I have been caught before by certain guidelines, even though I read through them several times.

 

I don't agree with the reviewer for archiving your cache immediately. That was brutal, IMHO. They should have given you the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to replace with a paper log.

[+Cpt.Blackbeard]

Kudos to the CO for trying something different. I have been caught before by certain guidelines, even though I read through them several times.

 

I don't agree with the reviewer for archiving your cache immediately. That was brutal, IMHO. They should have given you the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to replace with a paper log.

If he modifies the cache to meet the guidelines he can ask for the cache to be unarchived with a good chance they will.

[+BlueDeuce]

... the next day a woman shows up wearing only leggings and nothing over them...

 

[+lepervier]

I think this was a great and creative idea.

 

I honnestly don't understand why geocachers complain about this. If you can't log because you don't have a laptop, how is it different from not having scuba gear to get an underwater cache? There are a lot of caches I can't get because I don't have the skills or equipment, but I will never complain about these caches.

 

About viruses: there are IMHO a lot more risks in emails, spams, phishing attempts, websites we browse, files we download, etc... than in a USB drive used by a few hundreds geocachers; taking into account that any geocacher who would detect a virus (with antivirus), would report it in the logs so that it can be cleaned up, or would clean it up directly.

If we can't have a USB drive because of a potential harmful Virus for our computer, then why do we allow caches for which we may die in attempting them (most of Terrain 5 caches, but also some Terrain 1 next to high traffic roads, etc...)?

 

Nobody is forced to do all caches. If you don't like the idea for whatever reason, don't go for it and look for the next easy one. But please, let other people enjoy geocaching in a different way. We all enjoy different type of caches. Some of us go only for D5 or T5, some go only for D1/T1, some go for numbers, some are happy to hike for 2 days to get only 1 cache. We should encourage creativity, not kill it.

If all geocaches are the same, this will be very boring very soon.

 

I never take my laptop when I go geocaching; but if I were planning to get this one, I would have taken my laptop and gladly inserted the USB drive in it. The cache description was very clear.

I fully understand that this is against the geocaching.com rules and therefore I understand why it has been archived. I wish the guidelines were not that strict (and sometimes old-fashioned). I suppose that the person who destroyed the USB drive to find a paper logbook did not read the cache description. Is that normal, according to the GC rules, not to read the cache description? We can go on forever with rules.

 

I hope CO will keep motivation up to prepare other creative caches.

[+larryc43230]

I think this was a great and creative idea.

I agree it's a creative idea. Just against the guidelines and potentially hazardous to your PC.

 

I honnestly don't understand why geocachers complain about this. If you can't log because you don't have a laptop, how is it different from not having scuba gear to get an underwater cache? There are a lot of caches I can't get because I don't have the skills or equipment, but I will never complain about these caches.

Caches requiring SCUBA gear are indicated as such on the cache page, and are by definition 5-star terrain caches. The cache in question had no mention of the USB "logging" requirement, other than requiring a "special tool". As a result, a cacher who doesn't happen to carry a laptop or other device around with him would have wasted his time finding the cache. That would have included me. If such a cache were to be allowed, I would vote, strongly, to require that the logging requirement be included in the cache description, so I would know not to waste my time.

 

About viruses: there are IMHO a lot more risks in emails, spams, phishing attempts, websites we browse, files we download, etc... than in a USB drive used by a few hundreds geocachers; taking into account that any geocacher who would detect a virus (with antivirus), would report it in the logs so that it can be cleaned up, or would clean it up directly.

We will agree to disagree here. I know a whole lot of people, far too many, I'm afraid, whose PCs are infected all the time with viruses because they don't bother or don't know enough to keep their virus definitions up to date. These are the same people whose PCs are infected with malware that turns their PCs into spam-generators which spew out malicious e-mails without the PC owner even knowing it's happening. In my experience, geocachers are no more (or less) savvy when it comes to preventing virus and malware infections than the general population.

 

If we can't have a USB drive because of a potential harmful Virus for our computer, then why do we allow caches for which we may die in attempting them (most of Terrain 5 caches, but also some Terrain 1 next to high traffic roads, etc...)?

I can see a tall tree, or a cliff, or deep water, or traffic hazards. It is my choice as a cacher whether or not the risk involved is worth the smiley, and whether I'm up to the task. I can't see a malware or virus infection on a USB drive before I stick the thing into my laptop and find out the hard way.

 

Nobody is forced to do all caches. If you don't like the idea for whatever reason, don't go for it and look for the next easy one.

At the risk of repeating myself, if the cache description had mentioned the USB-drive logging requirement, I might agree with you, but there was no such mention. I would have had no way to make the choice as to whether to look for that cache, since that information was hidden.

 

I never take my laptop when I go geocaching; but if I were planning to get this one, I would have taken my laptop and gladly inserted the USB drive in it. The cache description was very clear.

No, it wasn't. To quote from the cache page itself, "For most caches, you find the container, take out your pen and sign the log. However, this is not most caches. Yes, you will find a container. And yes, you will find a logbook. But you will not be able to sign it with a pen. You will need to bring a special tool with you in order to sign the log. In fact, it might be very close to you right now while you're reading this." Yes, the cache title is a hint, but it should have been specifically stated that the cacher would be required to bring a laptop or other device that can read a USB drive.

 

I fully understand that this is against the geocaching.com rules and therefore I understand why it has been archived. I wish the guidelines were not that strict (and sometimes old-fashioned). I suppose that the person who destroyed the USB drive to find a paper logbook did not read the cache description. Is that normal, according to the GC rules, not to read the cache description? We can go on forever with rules.

The "GC rules", actually guidelines, do not include any requirement that anyone read a cache description. I know a whole lot of cachers who pride themselves on never reading cache descriptions, because they believe it's some sort of cheating. They just plug in the coordinates and go. More power to them. And there's no "rule" against it. And I would guess that this style of cacher would be rather irritated when confronted with a USB drive and no log sheet to sign.

 

I hope CO will keep motivation up to prepare other creative caches.

I'll agree with you on this point.

 

--Larry

[+Viajero Perdido]

Yes, plain text files are utterly harmless to browsers that treat them as plain text files. But a certain browser-like OS component has been known to ignore file types (it's not a bug, it's a "feature"), and can be tricked into treating plain text files as something else.

Gah, you're right.

 

I'd forgotten most people still use Windows.

 

Okay, even TXT files aren't safe.

[+frinklabs]

Has anyone set up a cache where, in addition to the requisite paper logbook, there is the ability to send via Bluetooth a text and/or picture log into it?

[+Ambient_Skater]

Has anyone set up a cache where, in addition to the requisite paper logbook, there is the ability to send via Bluetooth a text and/or picture log into it?

That sounds like it would require a lot more hardware and configuring than a USB stick.

[+larryc43230]

For anyone still thinking that a USB key (flash drive) would be a cool replacement for a log book, you might want to read this first. Especially the first paragraph.

 

Is Your Flash Drive Infected?

 

--Larry

[+Manville Possum]

I have saw listings on another geocaching site that call them dead drops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_drop I'm with Larry on this topic. Those things could be a real nasty.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I just want to know where to get one of those nifty needle usb's shown in the link on larry's post!!!

[+larryc43230]

I just want to know where to get one of those nifty needle usb's shown in the link on larry's post!!!

I wondered that myself. Those would make a very cool Christmas gift for a techie with a sense of humor.

 

--Larry

[+W4G_SOTAGoat]

I'd put it in my tablet.

[+Validar]

I carry my pen testing netbook in my vehicle, so access wouldn't have been a problem. I wouldn't hesitate to access the device either as my system doesn't have an OS on the hard drive, I boot from a USB drive. Granted most cachers wouldn't have this equipment with them.

 

This hobby/game is based on newer technology, it only makes sense that it should embrace more technology. That said though, it would need a new category so that it would be excluded from traditional caches.