Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
KRON family

Returning of webcam caches

Recommended Posts

Just now, I had typed up a response to irisisleuk's question about requiring photos, but I've deleted all that. There just isn't any point continuing the discussion in this topic. Any sincere discussion will just get buried in between dozens and dozens of useless posts. It's clear that there are some experienced cachers that wanted to post their viewpoints on webcam caches, but I don't blame them for not wanting to post here.

 

Congratulations to all those Czechs that have made useless posts here, you shot yourself in the foot and have effectively killed any possible useful discussion.

 

To any mod that's still hanging around: Can we just lock this topic and start a new one that isn't afflicted by this plague? This is like a DDoS attack! :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Just now, I had typed (...) This is like a DDoS attack! :laughing:

 

I cannot say that we didn't try to stop that, but their keyboards and "copy+past" skills are stronger than our arguments :D

 

Btw it's not only hard to discuss but also follow the line of topic, when between every two "real" arguments are two "I agree" posts...

Edited by puczmeloun

Share this post


Link to post

To any mod that's still hanging around: Can we just lock this topic and start a new one that isn't afflicted by this plague? This is like a DDoS attack! :laughing:

No, it isn't DDoS attack. This is only possible way, how GS can hear what wants a lot of players. And you want to silence them?

If you want to discuss, you can also start new topic, and let this topic.

Yes, everyone can discuss instead of copying the consent. Everyone in his native language. Would you start speaking in Czech? It think not. Your intolerance towards people which can't speak English is really big.

Share this post


Link to post

To any mod that's still hanging around: Can we just lock this topic and start a new one that isn't afflicted by this plague? This is like a DDoS attack! :laughing:

No, it isn't DDoS attack. This is only possible way, how GS can hear what wants a lot of players. And you want to silence them?

If you want to discuss, you can also start new topic, and let this topic.

Yes, everyone can discuss instead of copying the consent. Everyone in his native language. Would you start speaking in Czech? It think not. Your intolerance towards people which can't speak English is really big.

 

Sorry Tiskaři, but do you really think, that something change, when even 100 cachers send the same post? Do you think, that after this GS will say "hell yes, so many Czechs want webcams, so let's return them"? Do you read this official forum regularly? This is not opinion poll, this is discussion forum, from which GS could (not must or have to) take some ideas for further web development. I don't say that this is the best way and it's really pity that there's no more "Feedback Forum", but now it's based on quality of arguments, not quantity... (And of course how we know from Challenge example, unfortunately even the quality of the arguments sometimes does not work :( )

Share this post


Link to post

To any mod that's still hanging around: Can we just lock this topic and start a new one that isn't afflicted by this plague? This is like a DDoS attack! :laughing:

No, it isn't DDoS attack. This is only possible way, how GS can hear what wants a lot of players. And you want to silence them?

No, this is not the only possible way. If you browse through the rest of this Feature Discussion and Suggestion forum, you'll see that people are discussing the positives and negatives of each suggestion. Some of us have been attempting to have such a discussion here, but we keep getting drowned out by a bunch of "I agree" posts that don't contribute anything to the discussion. Even an experienced reviewer has refused to join the discussion due to the methods being used. If you want Groundspeak to consider your suggestion, both yourself and others need to tell them why they should consider it, and that doesn't mean getting a bunch of people to add what is effectively a "+1" post. If language is preventing you or others from participating here, you could discuss it in your native language in your forums, then get someone who can also speak English to bring a summary of your arguments/concerns/ideas to the discussion over here.

 

Your intolerance towards people which can't speak English is really big.

My intolerance has absolutely nothing to do with languages or nationalities. I would be saying exactly the same thing if some of my fellow English-speaking Canadians were doing what Czechs have been doing in this case. My intolerance is based solely on the method being used.

Share this post


Link to post

I, too, would like to see the return of webcams. We've done a few that we had a great time with and we'd like to do more.

 

I don't see all the problems thatothers have identified. Well, OK, I see their point, but I just don't see them as that big of problem. If webcams are allowed I would suspect far more would get reported with NA's or NM's when they were not working than are now simply because owners and finders are trying to preserve them at all cost.

 

What I REALLY don't get are all the folks that say webcams and virts should not count as finds. Especially those that have some in their find list. If you REALLY believe this, change your finds to notes. It will lend you a bit of credibility.

 

But really, why does it matter? You don't want them in your count? Don't find them. Wanna get them off your list Ignore them. Wanna find them without counting? Go to Waymarking and list them there or visit them if they are listed already.

 

Or are you a believer in "true" caches? Fine...for YOU. But again, give yourselves some credibility and in addition to the virts and webcams, let's see you remove your finds for aarthcaches and any events (regular, CITO, or mega) where you did not have to use your GPS to find a container that contained the log for the event.

 

In any case, why force your way on everyone else? There are multiple ways to deal with caches you don't want to count as a find, but not so much the other way.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps those of us interested in a discussion can revive the older Bring Back Webcam Caches thread, and leave this thread in place to collect the +1 spam from the Czech forum.

Excellent idea! If anyone wants to seriously discuss the pros and cons of bringing webcam caches back, we'll be over here.

Share this post


Link to post

I did see one webcam cache where the actual webcam has been down for years, and the cache listing encouraged people to take a photo at GZ and log a find accordingly. Now archived of course.

Maybe we could ask for reason. If you archived traditional cache, you can hidden new. It is no problem. But if you archieved webcam cache you will never have new. And this could be the reason why owner did everything for not to archive this webcame cache and for her function.

(...)

 

Good point. And, of course, a webcam cache whose webcam isn't there any longer needs to be archived (by the owner, first of all, or by a reviewer if the owner fails to do so).

 

As a pre-condition to bringing back webcam caches, maybe we should try to think up a simple way to alert the reviewers to missing webcams.

 

With a traditional cache whose container is missing, you soon get a string of DNF and NA logs (at least where I live). I suppose this is then called to the attention of a reviewer in some way, who will take the usual steps (contact the owner via the logs, disable the cache, archive it if all else fails).

 

With webcam caches, that does not always seem to be the case. From the examples in this thread I get the impression that some people will post and accept cheat logs on no-longer-existent webcam caches. Maybe a simple, more or less automatic way could be found to alert reviewers to logs and caches like this.

 

Of course, the better way would be for the community to handle it by posting NA logs for webcam caches without a webcam.

 

Kind regards - T.-Y.

Share this post


Link to post

(...), maybe we should try to think up a simple way to alert the reviewers to missing webcams.

 

May be something like this:

 

  • The owner states the webcam's URL in the cache listing - not just the site, but the filename of the actual picture that's being updated by the webcam.
  • GS has some kind of "monitoring database" for these webcam pictures. Before publishing the webcam cache, the reviewer puts the URL into this database. (Or even better: the CO can do it herself/himself.)
  • This "monitoring database" does nothing all dy but monitor if the picture is being updated regularily. If the picture freezes or becomes unavailable, the reviewer gets a note.

 

... though I don't know if this is still "simple"! ;-)

 

Kind regards

T.-Y.

Share this post


Link to post

(...) But since it's hard to carry on a conversation amid all the "I agree" posts, I'm checking out of this discussion.

 

I agree with Keystone.

 

Now, come on, is that really enogh to annoy you?

I just flip over it. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

There is a webcam cache near me, i quite liked doing that one.

 

More of this type i would welcome happily :)

Share this post


Link to post

Challenges are going to retire, so I have an idea. What about returning of webcam caches?

 

A very good idea, I'd say. I even own(ed) a webcam challenge - which is now going under with the rest, of course.

yes I agree with tiskar94, I love webcam. So When the webcam come again ??

Share this post


Link to post

Dear colleagues,

Challenges are going to retire, so I have an idea. What about returning of webcam caches?

Grandfathered types of caches were replaced by challenges.

Because challenges are gone now, there is time to bring webcam caches back to geocaching.com.

With webcam caches you can experience the fun, you need GPS to arrival at the right place. And there is not too much webcams that can cause a webcam caches plague.

Who has not like webcam caches, it is certainly a reasonable man and can ignore it.

If you agree with idea "Bring webcam caches back to geocaching.com", please, reply to this post.

Thank you.

 

I'd like to see webcam caches available again.

 

It seems to me that the powers that be got rid of virtuals and introduced Waymarking, then got rid of locationless and webcams and introduced challenges.

 

Now that Waymarking seems to be little more than "every branch of Charbucks", "every branch of McDonalds" and so on, and challenges seem to have been dumped as so few people were interested, why not roll back to something that worked?

 

I propose webcams are returned, Waymarking is abandoned and some form of virtual caches are reintroduced. It seems to me they used to work but the powers that be decided to fix it even though it wasn't broke. Now it's broke, so why not fix it by putting back what worked?

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's safe to say that after so many years, and such an adamant stance by Groundspeak that this is extremely unlikely to happen, and that no amount of "piling on" or "+1" will make it happen.

 

For a short while we used the Feedback site, where ideas were voted up based on popularity. Bringing back virtuals and webcams were among the top suggestions before the Feedback site was taken down.

 

But if it makes you feel better to say "me too", have fun.

Share this post


Link to post

OK then, to the various people who have bombed this thread wanting webcams back, can you respond to any of the points raised in this thread as to why webcams aren't a good idea?

 

-They're catered for on Waymarking.com

>>> Does anybody use this site? I've been using GC since 2004 and never even bothered to log in to it, nor do I intend to. It can join challenges on the scrap heap as far as I am concerned

-They're open to abuse from people who log photos and not actual photos.

>>> How does this differ from the numerous people that log physical caches in rather dubious circumstances? I am very aware of "teams" that go out, split up, do say 20 caches each and log everybody else in. I don't see anybody suggesting Traditionals get archived because of this?

-The cache owner isn't in control of the webcam and therefore can't maintain the cache completely.

>>> Not strictly true, I have done Webcams where the camera is pointing out of somebodies window in a city centre (or center if you're in the US). But this is a generally fair point. However how many people have only hidden caches on land they privately own, unless you have, you are not in complete control of the cache either?

-Many other arguments raised on the hundreds of threads prior to this one.

>>> You will have to elaborate if you want an answer on that

 

Saying 'because we want them' is all very well, but we want lots of things we can't have for many practical reasons.

>>> Can't see why they have been treated differently from any other cache type as the same arguments apply to all of these too.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's safe to say that after so many years, and such an adamant stance by Groundspeak that this is extremely unlikely to happen, and that no amount of "piling on" or "+1" will make it happen.

 

For a short while we used the Feedback site, where ideas were voted up based on popularity. Bringing back virtuals and webcams were among the top suggestions before the Feedback site was taken down.

 

But if it makes you feel better to say "me too", have fun.

 

I find this post rather sad. I visited HQ just over a year ago, and GS were bemoaning the poor quality of recent cache hides. At the same time they mentioned that the top three countries in terms of cache hiding were: US, Germany, Czech Rep (in that order) and that the quality of caches placed in the latter two were vastly superior to those placed in the US (lamppost caches anybody?). They wanted to understand how they could learn from these two countries as to how to improve cache hides in other countries.

 

Now fast forward to the forums a year or so later. We find out that there was a feedback site that was busy requesting Virtuals and Webcam caches return. Not the answer GS wanted? Let's close it down then. Get lots of feedback from German and Czech cachers (mostly Czech I grant you) on a forum - the very people GS want to learn from, and what is the party line? Essentially, we're still not going to listen to you. For all those who criticise the +1ing going on, don't forget that neither Germany nor the Czech Rep have English as their mother tongue, so forum posters from these countries will find it much harder to argue as coherently as those of us that do.

 

I should point out I am not from the US, nor from Germany, nor from Czech Rep, so have no axe to grind for any of them. If I had to classify the quality of recent hides in my own country, I would say it is probably akin with those in the US. Whilst there aren't lamppost skirts here to lift up and hide caches under, we do have a plague of nanos being hidden here. Give me a virtual/webcam any day over a nano or a lamppost cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I find this post rather sad. I visited HQ just over a year ago, and GS were bemoaning the poor quality of recent cache hides. At the same time they mentioned that the top three countries in terms of cache hiding were: US, Germany, Czech Rep (in that order) and that the quality of caches placed in the latter two were vastly superior to those placed in the US (lamppost caches anybody?). They wanted to understand how they could learn from these two countries as to how to improve cache hides in other countries.

I find this post rather sad. Would Groundspeak HQ care to share how they determine cache quality? Just what about German and the Czech caches makes them vastly superior?

 

I hope this is not the case any you are reporting on something a few lackeys said that is not official policy or you misunderstood what you heard.

 

I've no doubt that some people at Groundspeak have personally caching preference and may feel that based on the caches in Germany and the Czech Republic that they have head about, they feel these are more enjoyable than some caches they have seen recently in Seattle.

 

To make the jump that Germans and Czechs are better able to define what is a "good" cache than anyone else is absurd. The fact that a few Czechs have posted here that they would like to see webcams come back, does not make a webcam any better than an LPC.

 

Location is only one aspect that might be considered when defining cache quality. While most webcams are pointed as some interesting landmark or view, there is nothing intrinsic that webcams always take you to some place interesting. Many of the parking lots that are the poster child for "bad" caches have security cameras and more and more have these cameras available 24/7 via some internet URL.

Share this post


Link to post

I visited HQ just over a year ago, and GS were bemoaning the poor quality of recent cache hides. At the same time they mentioned that the top three countries in terms of cache hiding were: US, Germany, Czech Rep (in that order) and that the quality of caches placed in the latter two were vastly superior to those placed in the US (lamppost caches anybody?). They wanted to understand how they could learn from these two countries as to how to improve cache hides in other countries.

 

In my opinion it is dangerous and questionable to base a judgement about cache quality in a whole country on having visited a few selected caches which obtained many favourites. Moreover, one needs to take into account that many of the adventurous caches in countries like Germany, Austria and the Czech republic are illegaly placed and with no permission. While the majority of cachers in the aforementioned countries tend to favourite such caches, cachers in the US and also the UK are much more willing to post needs archived logs for such caches (when being locals and knowing the local laws).

Due to the extreme growth rate of geocaching, the number of lame caches which are just there to increase find counters increase in all countries with many cachers.

 

For all those who criticise the +1ing going on, don't forget that neither Germany nor the Czech Rep have English as their mother tongue, so forum posters from these countries will find it much harder to argue as coherently as those of us that do.

 

Nobody here expects perfect English. After several years of English at school, one can be expected to be able to do more than copy and paste - otherwise the education system has failed. Of course it will take more effort for most than writing in their own language. The main point is however that what the majority of the Czech participants did in the discussion around webcams is to be seen as spam. It adds nothing to the discussion.

 

I'm from Austria, a country which can be compared to Germany as geocaching is regarded, and I do not think that webcam caches contribute to reduce the number of lame caches. Forbidding power trails would have a much larger effect in my opinion.

 

I should point out I am not from the US, nor from Germany, nor from Czech Rep, so have no axe to grind for any of them. If I had to classify the quality of recent hides in my own country, I would say it is probably akin with those in the US. Whilst there aren't lamppost skirts here to lift up and hide caches under, we do have a plague of nanos being hidden here. Give me a virtual/webcam any day over a nano or a lamppost cache.

 

I guess you have not found enough caches in Germany and the Czech republic to be able to judge that what you refer to as cache quality is higher there than in the UK. Nanos and tossed away film cans are a plague in Germany as well.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's safe to say that after so many years, and such an adamant stance by Groundspeak that this is extremely unlikely to happen, and that no amount of "piling on" or "+1" will make it happen.

 

For a short while we used the Feedback site, where ideas were voted up based on popularity. Bringing back virtuals and webcams were among the top suggestions before the Feedback site was taken down.

 

But if it makes you feel better to say "me too", have fun.

 

I find this post rather sad. I visited HQ just over a year ago, and GS were bemoaning the poor quality of recent cache hides. At the same time they mentioned that the top three countries in terms of cache hiding were: US, Germany, Czech Rep (in that order) and that the quality of caches placed in the latter two were vastly superior to those placed in the US (lamppost caches anybody?). They wanted to understand how they could learn from these two countries as to how to improve cache hides in other countries.

 

In the UK forum there's been a lot of discussion about the declining quality of hides. As people have said when the issue of a minimum find count before hiding comes up we don't want someone to have a really novel idea but have to hold it until they find 50 wet film pots behind signs only to then abandon their inventive idea and hide another film pot behind a sign.

 

In urban areas it's more unlikely that anything larger than a nano or a keysafe will survive for any length of time so the inevitable result is a proliferation of micros and nanos. A virtual or a webcam cache can provide a bit of variety and represent a cache that can still be found even if it's a gloriously sunny day and the crowds of muggles are out in force. For many months in the past I'd all but given up on geocaching having had yet another day of caching in town where it seemed every cache was a film pot under a park bench and every park bench was occupied with muggles.

 

Now fast forward to the forums a year or so later. We find out that there was a feedback site that was busy requesting Virtuals and Webcam caches return. Not the answer GS wanted? Let's close it down then. Get lots of feedback from German and Czech cachers (mostly Czech I grant you) on a forum - the very people GS want to learn from, and what is the party line? Essentially, we're still not going to listen to you. For all those who criticise the +1ing going on, don't forget that neither Germany nor the Czech Rep have English as their mother tongue, so forum posters from these countries will find it much harder to argue as coherently as those of us that do.

 

I'm really puzzled just what Groundspeak think is going to happen. Another thread on here has been running for over a year with almost universal support, and the feedback from the powers that be was nothing more than "there's no commitment to do this, so nothing we can say to update you". Is that really the best they can do after 12 months? If there isn't going to be some sense of what will be done and what won't be done there's no point having this forum at all.

 

I should point out I am not from the US, nor from Germany, nor from Czech Rep, so have no axe to grind for any of them. If I had to classify the quality of recent hides in my own country, I would say it is probably akin with those in the US. Whilst there aren't lamppost skirts here to lift up and hide caches under, we do have a plague of nanos being hidden here. Give me a virtual/webcam any day over a nano or a lamppost cache.

 

Comparing the UK to the US is probably no more relevant than comparing urban to rural areas. When I'm in rural parts of the US I've found some really good caches that involved a good walk, awesome views, a decent sized container well hidden - all the usual things that tick the boxes. In more urban parts of the US it's the usual clutch of film pots and keysafes and nanos, and that's not even talking about the biggest cities. In that regard it's much like the UK - in London most of what's out there is film pots and smaller but once you get out of town there's a much broader selection of hides.

Share this post


Link to post

How would bringing back webcams improve the quality of caches? This is quite the tangent for this topic. If you have a feature or suggestion that would improve the "quality" of caches (however you define that), please make a separate topic. Otherwise, maybe we should get back to "+1 I agree".

 

My comment was solely based on the facts of the Feedback site, and my observation that no amount of +1 or petitioning seems to be bringing about the return of webcams.

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post

How would bringing back webcams improve the quality of caches? This is quite the tangent for this topic. If you have a feature or suggestion that would improve the "quality" of caches (however you define that), please make a separate topic. Otherwise, maybe we should get back to "+1 I agree".

 

My comment was solely based on the facts of the Feedback site, and my observation that no amount of +1 or petitioning seems to be bringing about the return of webcams.

 

Webcams would provide an opportunity to cache in urban areas in ways that don't involve wet film pots under benches and behind signs. They would add a bit of variety to a game that can otherwise get pretty mundane in the city.

Share this post


Link to post

Just being sure...

 

Variety=quality?

Having no log book=quality?

 

If you want variety, have the webcam as an optional component to a well-maintained cache.

Share this post


Link to post

If cache owners do their job and delete fake logs what is the problem? Caches that don't get maintained should be archived. Their is no reason why webcams should not be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post

If cache owners do their job and delete fake logs what is the problem? Caches that don't get maintained should be archived. Their is no reason why webcams should not be allowed.

Except that Groundspeak has determined that, with the exception of Earthcaches and events, geocaches listed on their site have a container and logbook. Sounds like a reason to me.

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post

Just being sure...

 

Variety=quality?

Having no log book=quality?

 

If you want variety, have the webcam as an optional component to a well-maintained cache.

 

Variety = a change from endless film pots and nanos in urban areas. To me that would make caching more enjoyable, and therefore raise the quality of the experience.

 

Log book - frankly I don't care if there's a book to sign or not, especially when "log book" means "soggy partially disintegrated strip of paper that's impossible to sign". The presence or otherwise of a log book has nothing to do with the quality of the experience.

 

What's the downside to bringing back webcam caches? Presumably the code still exists to support them since some of them are still around and if people dislike them they are easy to ignore because they've got a handy icon to show what they are.

Share this post


Link to post

If cache owners do their job and delete fake logs what is the problem? Caches that don't get maintained should be archived. Their is no reason why webcams should not be allowed.

Except that Groundspeak has determined that, with the exception of Earthcaches and events, geocaches listed on their site have a container and logbook. Sounds like a reason to me.

 

I thought the point of this forum was to discuss features and make suggestions. So some of us are making a suggestion, namely that "with the exception of earthcaches and events" be changed to "with the exception of earthcaches, events and webcams".

 

If the answer to suggestions is going to end up as little more than "Groundspeak has determined that..." then there's no point in asking us, the paying customers, what we think in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post

Just being sure...

 

Variety=quality?

Having no log book=quality?

 

If you want variety, have the webcam as an optional component to a well-maintained cache.

 

But that's not what the OP has asked for. When considering variety and quality, the suggestion isn't to improve the variety and quality of the existing allowable cache types. Adding another cache type increases the variety of the types of caches one can find when playing the game called geocaching. The "no log book" argument is a red herring. If you want to argue that cache types such as the remaining virtual caches, events, and web caches are inferior or are not "real caches" because they don't have a physical log, that seems like a topic for another thread.

Share this post


Link to post

But that's not what the OP has asked for. When considering variety and quality, the suggestion isn't to improve the variety and quality of the existing allowable cache types. Adding another cache type increases the variety of the types of caches one can find when playing the game called geocaching. The "no log book" argument is a red herring. If you want to argue that cache types such as the remaining virtual caches, events, and web caches are inferior or are not "real caches" because they don't have a physical log, that seems like a topic for another thread.

I'm not sure the "no log book" is entirely a red herring.

 

When Geocaching.com started TPTB made a decision to actively support variety and encourage new ideas. While Dave Ulmers's hidden box was a great idea, perhaps other GPS games could be incorporated in the new sport. Certainly they could contribute to the growth of the game as they provided alternatives for where a physical cache couldn't be placed.

 

Over time these varieties have become less important. People have found ways to hide smaller containers and other alternatives like multicaches provide ways to include cacheless locations that lead to a final physical cache. While there are some areas where you can't put a physical cache, it isn't clear that caches are needed in these areas, even if some of these areas are more "interesting" than the typical place physical caches are hidden.

 

Containerless caches also tend to have issues with couch potato logs. A physical log book means there is generally evidence that the person actually found the cache. While webcams have pictures and virtual caches have pictures or answers, these have proven to be poor indicators as whether someone found the cache or not. Of course, since the find count is not a score, you can always argue that we just ignore the bogus finds and let the people who enjoy these alternatives log them. TPTB want to present geocaching as a physical activity and when large numbers are posting finds on containerless caches without doing the work that becomes a problem.

 

Given the issues, TPTB have made a decision to simplify the game and use the container and log definition. I believe they realize that the other types of caches (webcams and virtuals) are popular for a significant group. They are struggling to find ways to allow these but keep them separate from the core caches. Perhaps they are not listening closely enough to what people have suggested as their attempts so far have not been very successful. Or perhaps people are not understanding the rationale for Groundspeak's decision so they are not making any suggestions which Groundspeak is willing to implement.

Share this post


Link to post

If cache owners do their job and delete fake logs what is the problem? Caches that don't get maintained should be archived. Their is no reason why webcams should not be allowed.

Except that Groundspeak has determined that, with the exception of Earthcaches and events, geocaches listed on their site have a container and logbook. Sounds like a reason to me.

 

I thought the point of this forum was to discuss features and make suggestions. So some of us are making a suggestion, namely that "with the exception of earthcaches and events" be changed to "with the exception of earthcaches, events and webcams".

 

If the answer to suggestions is going to end up as little more than "Groundspeak has determined that..." then there's no point in asking us, the paying customers, what we think in the first place.

Yep...the purpose of this Forum is to suggest and discuss features to the site...the problem with this thread...this thread is mainly a collection of users posting "Agree"..."Good Idea"..."Yes"...

.

.

.

Little to do with the actual discussion of the (and a bit of a stretch based on how the thread was started) idea at hand...

 

I am actually surprised this thread hasn't been moved into Geocaching Topics yet...and out of the Features Forum...either way...the thread "as is" is a dead topic...

Share this post


Link to post

But that's not what the OP has asked for. When considering variety and quality, the suggestion isn't to improve the variety and quality of the existing allowable cache types. Adding another cache type increases the variety of the types of caches one can find when playing the game called geocaching. The "no log book" argument is a red herring. If you want to argue that cache types such as the remaining virtual caches, events, and web caches are inferior or are not "real caches" because they don't have a physical log, that seems like a topic for another thread.

I'm not sure the "no log book" is entirely a red herring.

 

When Geocaching.com started TPTB made a decision to actively support variety and encourage new ideas. While

 

Containerless caches also tend to have issues with couch potato logs. A physical log book means there is generally evidence that the person actually found the cache. While webcams have pictures and virtual caches have pictures or answers, these have proven to be poor indicators as whether someone found the cache or not. Of course, since the find count is not a score, you can always argue that we just ignore the bogus finds and let the people who enjoy these alternatives log them. TPTB want to present geocaching as a physical activity and when large numbers are posting finds on containerless caches without doing the work that becomes a problem.

 

Given the issues, TPTB have made a decision to simplify the game and use the container and log definition.

 

...

 

Let's look at the container and log definition.

 

In section II.1.3

 

Geocache Contents

 

Geocache containers include a logsheet or logbook.

 

For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit.

 

It states that for all *physical caches* there must be some sort of log sheet. That, to me, recognizes the fact that GS still lists non-physical caches such as the grandfathered virtual and webcam caches, and that a log book/sheet isn't required for those cache types. The guideline, as it exists today is appropriate for the types of caches we're currently allowed to submit, and provides an exemption for those that own non-physical caches. If GS did bring back webcam caches, at least that portion of the guidelines would still be applicable.

 

I agree, that the lack of a log book has been problematic for ensuring that a person has found the cache. Again, I look to the guidelines in section II.1.2 where it states:

 

Geocache Maintenance

 

Owner is responsible for geocache listing maintenance.

 

As the owner of your cache listing, your responsibility includes quality control of all posts to the cache listing. Delete any logs that appear to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic or otherwise inappropriate.

 

That does not provide an exemption for non-physical caches. Cache owners of virtual or webcam caches are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the listing, no matter what method of log verification is used.

As someone else suggested, part of the problem with bogus logs on grandfathered types such as virtuals and webcams might be attributed to a reluctance in cachers in submitting a N/A log on those cache types. If webcams were reinstated as a valid cache type for new submissions, that reluctance might not be as common and webcam cache owners would still be responsible for deleting bogus logs.

Share this post


Link to post

Yep...the purpose of this Forum is to suggest and discuss features to the site...the problem with this thread...this thread is mainly a collection of users posting "Agree"..."Good Idea"..."Yes"...

Nice to see someone typed my response before I had to.

 

If there were a thread here where someone suggested Groundspeak should allow the creation of new APE caches, that merely had 3 pages of "+1" or "I agree", my answer would be pretty much the same.

Edited by Markwell

Share this post


Link to post

Yep...the purpose of this Forum is to suggest and discuss features to the site...the problem with this thread...this thread is mainly a collection of users posting "Agree"..."Good Idea"..."Yes"...

Yes.

25% posts: "+1", "agree", ...

next 25% posts: "I hate agree post", "problem is with +1 posts", ...

I dont know what is better.

 

Of course, since the find count is not a score, you can always argue that we just ignore the bogus finds and let the people who enjoy these alternatives log them.

What would anybody had from that? Why would anyone do bogus logs?

Because special cache type? When you return webcam caches, it will not be special.

Because they want deceive? They can log any cache (type) which they didn't find.

Of course, you can't find them in logbook (if you will check it). But - if cache was stolen, you will not delete all logs I think...

Share this post


Link to post

If cache owners do their job and delete fake logs what is the problem? Caches that don't get maintained should be archived. Their is no reason why webcams should not be allowed.

Except that Groundspeak has determined that, with the exception of Earthcaches and events, geocaches listed on their site have a container and logbook. Sounds like a reason to me.

 

I thought the point of this forum was to discuss features and make suggestions. So some of us are making a suggestion, namely that "with the exception of earthcaches and events" be changed to "with the exception of earthcaches, events and webcams".

 

If the answer to suggestions is going to end up as little more than "Groundspeak has determined that..." then there's no point in asking us, the paying customers, what we think in the first place.

Yep...the purpose of this Forum is to suggest and discuss features to the site...the problem with this thread...this thread is mainly a collection of users posting "Agree"..."Good Idea"..."Yes"...

.

.

.

Little to do with the actual discussion of the (and a bit of a stretch based on how the thread was started) idea at hand...

 

I am actually surprised this thread hasn't been moved into Geocaching Topics yet...and out of the Features Forum...either way...the thread "as is" is a dead topic...

 

Perhaps a lot of people merely want to express their agreement (or disagreement, either is fine) without writing an extended tome about why they agree.

 

An obvious problem with using a forum like this to discuss suggestions is that it seems only a small minority of geocachers use the forums at all so the results will inevitably be from a self-selected subgroup of geocachers. That said a post that says nothing more than "+1" still shows another geocacher, perhaps another paying customer, liking an idea. As such it's better than no post at all.

Share this post


Link to post

Put a little thought and effort into it, and you could make a webcam cache.

 

(1) Set up a webcam of your own

(2) Install or create some image recognition software on it

(3) Require people to go to the webcam and hold up a sign with a QR code or something else that could be manipulated digitally

(4) Have your webcam recognize the QR code, and when present change the image on the webcam to display for 1 minute the coordinates of the cache located nearby

 

There you have it. A cool webcam cache, that still requires a physical visit to the cache (for most, unless you get lucky), still has a physical cache, and meets all regulations on this site.

 

I might just do this ... wonder if it has been done before?

Share this post


Link to post

But that's not what the OP has asked for. When considering variety and quality, the suggestion isn't to improve the variety and quality of the existing allowable cache types. Adding another cache type increases the variety of the types of caches one can find when playing the game called geocaching. The "no log book" argument is a red herring. If you want to argue that cache types such as the remaining virtual caches, events, and web caches are inferior or are not "real caches" because they don't have a physical log, that seems like a topic for another thread.

I'm not sure the "no log book" is entirely a red herring.

 

When Geocaching.com started TPTB made a decision to actively support variety and encourage new ideas. While Dave Ulmers's hidden box was a great idea, perhaps other GPS games could be incorporated in the new sport. Certainly they could contribute to the growth of the game as they provided alternatives for where a physical cache couldn't be placed.

 

Over time these varieties have become less important. People have found ways to hide smaller containers and other alternatives like multicaches provide ways to include cacheless locations that lead to a final physical cache. While there are some areas where you can't put a physical cache, it isn't clear that caches are needed in these areas, even if some of these areas are more "interesting" than the typical place physical caches are hidden.

 

Containerless caches also tend to have issues with couch potato logs. A physical log book means there is generally evidence that the person actually found the cache. While webcams have pictures and virtual caches have pictures or answers, these have proven to be poor indicators as whether someone found the cache or not. Of course, since the find count is not a score, you can always argue that we just ignore the bogus finds and let the people who enjoy these alternatives log them. TPTB want to present geocaching as a physical activity and when large numbers are posting finds on containerless caches without doing the work that becomes a problem.

 

Given the issues, TPTB have made a decision to simplify the game and use the container and log definition. I believe they realize that the other types of caches (webcams and virtuals) are popular for a significant group. They are struggling to find ways to allow these but keep them separate from the core caches. Perhaps they are not listening closely enough to what people have suggested as their attempts so far have not been very successful. Or perhaps people are not understanding the rationale for Groundspeak's decision so they are not making any suggestions which Groundspeak is willing to implement.

 

The issue of whether an area needs a cache is something of a red herring. No area "needs" a cache and to be honest I'd rather see more virtuals and earthcaches in areas of beauty where physical caches are prohibited (examples that spring to mind are the Great Smoky Mountains and the Royal Parks in London). In theory it might be possible to create a multicache using natural features with a physical container outside the prohibited area but that means either monstrous treks from start to finish in large areas and issues with cache saturation in the areas surrounding the prohibited areas.

 

We don't need virtual caches in beautiful areas but neither do we need endless wet film pots behind signs. The way the rules are constructed at the moment provides ever-more opportunities to hide a film pot behind a sign and ever-fewer opportunities to spot that breathtaking view in the middle of somewhere like the Smokies and put a virtual cache there.

 

Promoting geocaching as a physical activity is great. It's a much more physical activity to hike four miles along a trail to find a waterfall in order to log the virtual than it is to drive to the fast food joint and pick up the nano hidden behind the crash barrier.

 

Bogus logs will always be with us. A cache with no log book might be fraudulently claimed by someone who knows a bit about the area, someone with a bit of time to spare hunting the answers on Google, or someone who just logs it anyway (maybe with a vague comment like "answers to follow") and hopes the CO doesn't realise they never got the answers. Likewise a physical cache with a log book can be claimed by someone who asked a friend to sign it for them, someone who stood on the ground while someone else climbed the 100' tree, or someone who just claimed it anyway saying they didn't have a pen. Since there are no prizes for getting a high find count I think making decisions on the basis of whether someone can cheat is utterly pointless.

 

I really don't see why virtuals and webcams have to be separate from "core caches". Virtuals don't have to have the same proximity restrictions, the total number of finds people chalk up doesn't make any difference to anything (and the people who want nothing more than lots of smiley faces are just going to do power trails, while the people who want to find the ammo can miles away from anywhere in the woods won't care so much about the find count). What makes little sense to me is why Groundspeak are apparently ignoring the wishes of a significant group of their paying customers when simply putting virtuals and webcams back would have no effect on physical caches, the existing infrastructure already allows them to be filtered out in pocket queries, and so it looks like it would be an easy win with few if any downsides. The existing infrastructure already caters for the removal of caches owned by inactive cachers through the Needs Archived log, and a virtual cache placed and subsequently abandoned by its owner doesn't create geolitter.

 

I see what you mean about TPTB making a decision. It would be nice to get some useful feedback from Groundspeak as to what their reasoning is - at present it seems this forum is a place where people make suggestions and Groundspeak ignore them. A little bit of time from Groundspeak to indicate why decisions have been made (if it's already been said, then putting it in a sticky thread so it's clearly visible would help) would be useful so we could at least understand their thinking. Likewise when suggestions are made it would be useful to get some feedback as to whether it's likely to be done and if so what sort of timeframe can be expected before implementation.

Share this post


Link to post

 

2006. Everything can be changed.

Virtual caches also "never ever will be on site". Geocaching Challenges came last year, replacement for virtuals following the request of users. This month were Geocaching Challenges deleted, because "certain ideas don't catch on as we had hoped". Geocaching Challenges were more popular than Waymarking in the Czech Republic. So who knows, when will be deleted Waymarking....

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

×
×
  • Create New...