Jump to content

Find a cache with Technology


pictom

Recommended Posts

Two cachers who live far from one another but work on caches together . . . let's say they work on puzzle caches together.

 

One cacher (Let's call this person GZX)invites the other cacher (Let's call this person FND'r) to find a cache by use of two smart phones that have video call capabilities. GZX uses the camera to show the FND'r what is around and the GPS distance.

 

FND'r--miles away--directs GZX to move the camera. The camera are the eyes of FND'r miles away. GZX listens and does as FND'r ask.

 

FND'r manages to find the cache using their own eyes (via live video feed) and instruction they provide to GZX. GZX now signs the paper log using FND'rs screen name.

 

Is this a fair option for FND'r to log a find online?

 

WHY? I'm sure you are going to ask why. There are several reasons why this might be done. Perhaps it's a particularly hard cache to find. Maybe it was a puzzle they both worked on and the local cacher never would have solved it on their own. Maybe cacher GZX published the cache and wants their friend FND'r to find it (not asking for a FTF log here).

 

Thanks for your feedback!

Link to comment

Two cachers who live far from one another but work on caches together . . . let's say they work on puzzle caches together.

 

One cacher (Let's call this person GZX)invites the other cacher (Let's call this person FND'r) to find a cache by use of two smart phones that have video call capabilities. GZX uses the camera to show the FND'r what is around and the GPS distance.

 

FND'r--miles away--directs GZX to move the camera. The camera are the eyes of FND'r miles away. GZX listens and does as FND'r ask.

 

FND'r manages to find the cache using their own eyes (via live video feed) and instruction they provide to GZX. GZX now signs the paper log using FND'rs screen name.

 

Is this a fair option for FND'r to log a find online?

 

WHY? I'm sure you are going to ask why. There are several reasons why this might be done. Perhaps it's a particularly hard cache to find. Maybe it was a puzzle they both worked on and the local cacher never would have solved it on their own. Maybe cacher GZX published the cache and wants their friend FND'r to find it (not asking for a FTF log here).

 

Thanks for your feedback!

 

I spent over a month working on a puzzle, collaborating with someone else before we finally solved it. He lived a hundred miles or so from the actual cache, went and found it, and posted a found it log. The final is about 700 miles from where I live, and since I haven't found the cache, I haven't posted a found it log.

 

While you *can* post a found it log on a cache you didn't actually find, it's up to the cache owner whether or not the log will be deleted. The opinions of those of us reading the forum are irrelevant.

Link to comment

. . . a bit cheesy . . .

I had to look up Cheesy. Since this in no way taste or smells like cheese you must mean "Cheap, unpleasant, or blatantly inauthentic" (that the web's definition, not mine).

It may be inauthentic in the manner that that is not how it is normally done but it's a game based on technology and this would be incorporating more technology.

Link to comment

Remote presence works fine for business meetings, medical diagnosis/treatment, and education. I don't see why it couldn't work for geocaching too.

 

I've logged finds for caches that I never actually touched; someone else in the group signed my name (or a shared team name) on my behalf. The question really comes down to whether FND'r and the CO consider FND'r to have been involved in what is essentially another group find.

Link to comment

While you *can* post a found it log on a cache you didn't actually find, it's up to the cache owner whether or not the log will be deleted. The opinions of those of us reading the forum are irrelevant.

The opinions of those of us reading the forum are NOT irrelevant.

 

We are not talking about a cache you didn't actually find. We are talking about a cache in which you found by directing a live video feed. It is my understanding that a name must be signed on the paper log. I did one multi-state multi-cache in which you formed a team and one person from the South state found a cache and send the numbers to the person in the North state. The person in the North state added all team members names to the log and send numbers to the cacher in the South state. The South state person then found the "final" and signed all names on the paper log. The rule for this cache was your name had to be on both paper logs.

I realize this is different but if signing the name on a log is what qualifies as a find then I can see where this would be acceptable.

 

Now having said that, let's assume the CO is okay with this method--of a puzzle cache like you spoke of--in which persons of two different locations SOLVED the puzzle together.

 

It's also a method in which a person who is not able to get to the final to participate. i.e. a wheelchair bound cacher who does all but walk the last twenty yards to the cache. Their partner has camera and they both look for the cache.

 

I don't see this as something a cacher will be doing every day but an option for working hard on a puzzle. Keep in mind I am stating the FND'r has to locate the cache in the live video feed.

Link to comment
. . . someone else in the group signed my name (or a shared team name) on my behalf . . .

 

Yes, I had not thought of this but I know of a group that goes out once a month. Anywhere from ten to thirty cachers show up for the hike. When the first person finds the cache they continue to pretend to look for it and a minute later will say "Huckle Buckle" to alert everyone the cache is there and to keep looking. Each subsequent seeker then says "Huckle Buckle" as they spot the cache.

 

IF everyone has not found it, they are heavily nudged to it. Finally the cache is found by all and one person signs the name for the group. Not every name of all cachers is on the paper log but in their online log, they state they signed as a group.

Link to comment

Isn't the trip the reason for the cache?

Not necessarily. That's the great thing about geocaching. You give and take from it what you wish.

I know a cacher who did not have the ability to get out much but they loved solving geocaching puzzles. It was a brain exercise more than anything.

I also know cachers who just want a FTF. Then there are those who DO want a trip to a new location. It's a mixed bag of why we do what we do.

Link to comment

... I did one multi-state multi-cache in which you formed a team and one person from the South state found a cache and send the numbers to the person in the North state....

 

Actually I did a similar series involving caches in 5 countries and everyone on the team logged all the caches even though each of us only found the one in our own city. So in both situations the COs were happy for it to be done that way and the finders were happy for it to be done that way and that's all that matters really. In your 'remote viewing' scenario again if the CO is happy with it and the finder(s) are happy with it then it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

 

Wait a day or so and there will be someone along to say no you MUST NOT do it, it's cheating/unfair/dishonest; but it's got nothing to do with them (or the rest of us).

Link to comment
In your 'remote viewing' scenario again if the CO is happy with it and the finder(s) are happy with it then it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

Thank you. I see a lot where the smiley has only to do with the CO. It's just a matter of if the CO knows the details.

I can see this working on several caches but I did have one specific cache in mind and the CO is okay with it.

Link to comment

...if signing the name on a log is what qualifies as a find then I can see where this would be acceptable.

Personally, I don't feel that a signature is the only thing that qualifies it as a find. My presence is another factor that needs to be satisfied before I'll claim a find. If I'm not physically there at GZ or in very close proximity, I haven't found the cache. I've done several cooperation-style caches where you find part of the coordinates, then need to swap partial coordinates with someone else in a distant land. In none of them did I ever consider logging the counterpart cache simply because I had helped someone else find it.

 

However, my personal opinion doesn't apply to others. If someone wants to do it as you've described, then they can go ahead and do it. I certainly won't be doing it, though.

Link to comment

My views about not being present at the cache site are fairly close to Groundspeak lackey MissJenn's. She was directing her comments to armchair logging of virtual caches, but I think the basic philosophy also applies to traditionals as well:

 

What's a couch potato log?

The term couch potato log refers to logging a virtual cache even though you never actually visited the location. Instead, you found out the answer to the verification question through internet research or other means.

 

What's wrong with that?

 

Well, it was never intended that way. Virtual caches are like physical caches, just without the box. You are supposed to actually visit the location, find any verification info there and then log your find online.

 

Not actually visiting the location is considered as cheating by most geocachers.

I think not visiting the site is cheesy. I wouldn't do it. And if I was aware of it happening on one of my caches, then I would delete any such "Found it" smiley as bogus.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

I'll start by agreeing with the consensus that if the CO says, "No," then the answer's no.

 

As to whether you should feel good about it, I'd just say don't over do it. Solving puzzles with a friend is fun, so I wouldn't consider it wasted if I didn't actually get to claim the find. I'd just save it for the day I go visit my friend, if ever, and not particularly worry about whether I'll ever get to it.

 

But if there is a special justification to do this once in a while, like if it was a particularly hard puzzle that you really enjoyed solving together, then I'd understand asking the CO for permission to "go with" your friend virtually to make the find.

 

On the other hand, if you do it for a bunch of random puzzles, then I'll start to think you're getting cheesy.

Link to comment

Agree with Walts. I've introduced a Finnish colleague to GC - his town seems quite rich in caches. He went out looking for two having only ever found one cache when over at our UK office - and failed x2. I went to Google Maps and Streetview and said "did you try looking in those stones at the base of that wall?" and bingo I'd found the cache for him from 2000 miles away. It would never have occurred to me to log a find though! Now we're at a conference in Vegas and finding a few together!

Link to comment

I'll start by agreeing with the consensus that if the CO says, "No," then the answer's no.

 

But if there is a special justification to do this once in a while . . .

Agreed. CO makes final decision. Once in a while--but I have no problem with handicapped person using this method to feel more involved.

 

It's simple. No sign log, no log find

Signature on log as group effort. Small group of two cachers with smartphones.

 

Unusual situation that I'd never thought of.

Technology will make all kinds of things possible. Prior to 1991 we would not have thought of this thing called geocaching.

Link to comment

I used Google Earth to zoom in on the actual cache location.

Now I'm logging my 'find'.

 

Does that seem OK?

I used some 'additional technology'. :ph34r:

 

I was thinking of the same scenario. There have been a few threads here about caches that were visible in google street view. Of course, the difference is that someone has actually put the "finders" name in the log book.

 

I agree with a few points of view that have been expressed here. What I posted early was clarified by Martybartfast: that if it's okay with the CO, and it's okay with those posting the found it log, it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks.

 

On the other hand, having others say what they think about this method does have some validity, and might even sway the opinion of those posting the found it logs regarding whether they personally feel it's okay.

 

Personally, I wouldn't post a found it log in this scenario, because like someone else mentioned I feel my presence at the cache is a necessary criteria for considering it a find, and even more so, as niraD suggests in situations where you're out caching with someone and you're standing nearby as they put your name on the log sheet.

 

I also agree with the suggestion that frequency matters. If over the course of a few thousand finds, some sort of creative finding methodology is employeed on a few caches, I just don't consider it that important if it amounts to a insignificant increase to ones total find count. On the other hand, teaming up with 5-6 geoachers from around the world and having each of them put all our names in the log book for every find we all make, to me, makes a mockery of what finding a geocaching is all about.

 

Bottom line, do whatever your conscience tells you is right. As long as the CO agrees, it's all good.

Link to comment

. . . a bit cheesy . . .

I had to look up Cheesy. Since this in no way taste or smells like cheese you must mean "Cheap, unpleasant, or blatantly inauthentic" (that the web's definition, not mine).

It may be inauthentic in the manner that that is not how it is normally done but it's a game based on technology and this would be incorporating more technology.

 

I think it's missing the point of geocaching, which is using technology to get outdoors and do something.

Link to comment

I'm one who needs to at least be in the presence of a cache when it is found before i claim a find on it. Therefore, i wouldn't consider logging a find on a cache that i only visited through use of someone else's phone. While there are a variety of ways to geocache, this is one that i don't feel would be keeping with the true spirit of the hobby. More importantly, at least for me, is that it could potentially mess up my stats, which i do try to keep accurate. I don't want to log a cache in another state or country then have it show up in my stats if i never actually visited that state or country.

Link to comment

The other night, I was bored and couldn't find anything to watch on Hulu, so I ended up watching this South Park episode where Randy buys a defunct Blockbuster and won't let Stan go trick or treating with the other guys because he thinks he needs help running the store. So they rig up an iPad on a skateboard and take him trick or treating on Facetime. Long story short, Stan ends up getting kidnapped and tortured by some criminal types and even ends up in the hospital, all through Facetime on the iPad. Haha. So now we have geocaching through Facetime, haha.

 

I must admit, it sounds like a creative idea. Perhaps it's missing the point of geocaching, to some extent. I don't think I'd log a find in that manner, but as a cache owner, I don't think I'd delete a log either. I guess it might depend on the situation. But sounds like this hypothetical group is working as a team and having fun, so good for them, I guess.

 

(On a side note, if I ever get into some serious accident or health issue that lays me up in a hospital for weeks or months, I hope I'd have a friend that was cool enough to Skype me in on a few caching adventures or events. But whether I'd log that as a find... we'll leave that judgement call for if/when I'm ever in that sitation.) So many things are situation-dependent. They seem all cut and dry until you start thinking about what-ifs.

Link to comment

Technology allows me to bring every imaginable type of donut to my desktop, but that's not the same thing as eating a donut.

It also allows me to bring every imaginable type of book to my desktop...

 

That doesn't mean you've been to every library.

 

Seeing a picture of Mona Lisa on your laptop is not the same as standing in front of it at the Louvre.

Edited by GOF and Bacall
Link to comment

I agree with the cheesy comment. If you don't go to the cache location you have not completed the cache.

 

Okay, now we need to define "go to the cache location". Standing next to someone holding the cache at the spot in which it was found would probably meet anyone's definition. Standing at the base of a tree and watching someone 30' up in the tree sign the your name on the log starts to stretch the definition. Driving a vehicle, then stopping so that someone can run 100-200' out into the desert might also stretch the definition. Sitting in your living room and watching someone sign the log on a cache 100 miles way via facetime stretches it even further.

Link to comment

I know a cacher who did not have the ability to get out much but they loved solving geocaching puzzles. It was a brain exercise more than anything.

 

Ah -- but did they claim a find on any of these caches? I'm guessing not.

 

From the homepage:

 

Geocaching is a free real-world outdoor treasure hunt.

 

Emphasis mine. Geocaching is about more than telecommuting. It's technology AND the outdoors.

Link to comment

Thing is, from a cacher's point of view, we all look at our scores differently don't we? There are people who will not go to a cache that's too close to houses even though they've found it. I'm not big on virtuals - am in Vegas this week and have logged 4 but to me they don't really have the same interest as trads / mysteries. Walked 2 miles before breakfast this morning to visit 2 trads including the only one I'd found in town suitable for dropping off a TB - this is geocaching for me. My "score" is 166 so I can't get excited about 200 or 250 just yet. Back home I'll go for a Sunday walk and will be just as happy if OS Junior and I find 1 cache or 9. And as for the famous route 66 picking up obvious boxes every 0.1 mile - what's the point in that? I don't understand that.

Link to comment

Seeing a picture of Mona Lisa on your laptop is not the same as standing in front of it at the Louvre.

No, but it's a lot closer to it than seeing a donut on your laptop screen is to eating a donut.

 

The question, in case you're still missing it, it whether virtually finding a puzzle cache as described is more like your donut example or more like my book example. And my point was that it's nothing like the donut example, but rather more like a book (or Mona Lisa) example: perhaps not as good, but a reasonably suitable stand-in if the physical is not available.

Link to comment

...ok - I will compare finding a Geocache remotely via video link is akin to experiencing a hurricane via a friend's iphone feed in his front yard at the moment the eyewall passes overhead while you are sitting next to a warm log fire in a cozy log cabin in Northern Montana. It just isn't the same. :ph34r:

Link to comment

There might be several reasons why the remote finder is unable to get outside to do 'real' geocaching, but as the cache was physically found and signed by the team, then I don't see any difference between this and a regular team of geocachers working together.

If the remote cacher was claiming a find without the log being physically found and signed, then it's no different to googlemaps caching and wrong to log on the web site.

Link to comment

There might be several reasons why the remote finder is unable to get outside to do 'real' geocaching, but as the cache was physically found and signed by the team, then I don't see any difference between this and a regular team of geocachers working together.

If the remote cacher was claiming a find without the log being physically found and signed, then it's no different to googlemaps caching and wrong to log on the web site.

 

Um, he's not at GZ, he's not anywhere near GZ, I don't see any difference between armchair logging and that is frowned upon and people have their accounts locked for doing it. Like I said, I'd delete the log in a heartbeat.

Link to comment

Thanks everyone for their feedback. I have come to find that Geocaching has no set rules but almost every geocacher I have gone caching with has their own set of rules and thinks if it's not my way then it's wrong.

 

I generally cache in very small groups for the simple reason that larger groups tend to have many sets of eyes but not everyone actually gets to find the cache but rather be told where it is. And try caching with a ten year old who has found a cache two months ago and now the two of you are together. Their body language gives it away if they don't outright tell you "not over there."

 

The thing to my senerio that some posters here seem to be missing is that the FND'r IS looking for and finding the cache by using their own eyes and instructing the "cameraman".

 

I used Google Earth to zoom in on the actual cache location.

Not the same. You only think you found it but don't know for sure unless someone verifies it for you. As stated, the FND'r is actually looking for the cache remotely.

 

As I CO I'd delete your log in a heartbeat.

I'd never delete a log because you play differently than I do. The rules fairly state you sign the log. I've never had a problem when caching in a group that one person signs as a group. So consider the two cachers to be a group and one signs for both of them. Now they've met all the requirements of the cache.

 

. . . it could potentially mess up my stats, which i do try to keep accurate. I don't want to log a cache in another state or country then have it show up in my stats if i never actually visited that state or country.

Good point for a cache in another state or country. The FND'r could find the cache but log as a note.

 

. . . But sounds like this hypothetical group is working as a team and having fun, so good for them, I guess.

 

(On a side note, if I ever get into some serious accident or health issue that lays me up in a hospital for weeks or months, I hope I'd have a friend that was cool enough to Skype me in on a few caching adventures or events. But whether I'd log that as a find... we'll leave that judgement call for if/when I'm ever in that situation.) So many things are situation-dependent. They seem all cut and dry until you start thinking about what-ifs.

Thanks and interesting scenario. I think if I were in that situtation, I'd open a second account and probably would log the finds if I felt I actually found them on the phone.

Link to comment

Standing next to someone holding the cache at the spot in which it was found would probably meet anyone's definition . . . Sitting in your living room and watching someone sign the log on a cache 100 miles way via facetime stretches it even further.

Actually, in this scenario, the person standing next to someone has not necessarly actualy found the log but was present. The person via "facetime" HAS found the log through their directing the camera and actions of the cameraperson.

 

I know a cacher who did not have the ability to get out much but they loved solving geocaching puzzles. It was a brain exercise more than anything.

Ah -- but did they claim a find on any of these caches? I'm guessing not.

You are correct. They did not log it as found until they were able to get out a few months later and find it.

 

Geocaching is a free real-world outdoor treasure hunt.

Emphasis mine. Geocaching is about more than telecommuting. It's technology AND the outdoors.

Who said anything about them being indoors? LOL. The FND'r can be outside if that seems to be the issue . . . just at a different location in the world.

 

...ok - I will compare finding a Geocache remotely via video link is akin to experiencing a hurricane via a friend's iphone feed in his front yard at the moment the eyewall passes overhead while you are sitting next to a warm log fire in a cozy log cabin in Northern Montana. It just isn't the same. :ph34r:

No, it isn't the same but it's a lot more exciting than watching a video on YouTube because you are there in real time and neither of you know what may happen next. Not sure how exciting the eye would be passing over as that is the calm part of the storm but awesome that their phone is charged up and they have a network connection.

 

There might be several reasons why the remote finder is unable to get outside to do 'real' geocaching, but as the cache was physically found and signed by the team, then I don't see any difference between this and a regular team of geocachers working together.

If the remote cacher was claiming a find without the log being physically found and signed, then it's no different to googlemaps caching and wrong to log on the web site.

Good point.

 

Thanks again everyone, I appreciate the feedback on this new twist.

Does anyone know if anyone has ever done this before?

Link to comment

As I CO I'd delete your log in a heartbeat.

I'd never delete a log because you play differently than I do. The rules fairly state you sign the log. I've never had a problem when caching in a group that one person signs as a group. So consider the two cachers to be a group and one signs for both of them. Now they've met all the requirements of the cache.

and interesting scenario. I think if I were in that situtation, I'd open a second account and probably would log the finds if I felt I actually found them on the phone.

 

If you posted what you did in your log then I'd know you didn't sign the log and in fact were armchair logging and it would be my right to delete your log.

 

I was in Vegas recently and a friend asked me to sign him into a cache he found several months before but had no pen and the fallout for him from the local community was quite harsh, just bear in find what kind of fallout you may receive from locals in your area.

 

I've also noticed in life when someone argues loudly then usually they know they are wrong in the first place.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

Thanks again everyone, I appreciate the feedback on this new twist.

Does anyone know if anyone has ever done this before?

 

I have used face time to help someone find a cache I have already found and joked about doing what you want to do but never have nor never will do it.

Link to comment
Um, he's not at GZ, he's not anywhere near GZ,
This morning, I wasn't in Cambridge, MA. I wasn't anywhere near Cambridge, MA. Yet I met with coworkers who are located in Cambridge, MA, as I do almost every workday morning.

 

I don't see any difference between armchair logging and that is frowned upon
I see a big difference between armchair logging and participating in a geocache search via some sort of telepresence system. But let's try a thought experiment. Which of these situations do you consider acceptable or unacceptable? Why do you draw the line where you do?

 

(1) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and retrieves/replaces the cache with his hands.

(2) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled mechanically.

(3) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled electronically.

(4) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and directs another geocacher to retrieve/replace the cache.

(5) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and retrieves/replaces the cache with his hands.

(6) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled mechanically.

(7) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled electronically.

(8) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and directs another geocacher to retrieve/replace the cache.

Link to comment
Um, he's not at GZ, he's not anywhere near GZ,
This morning, I wasn't in Cambridge, MA. I wasn't anywhere near Cambridge, MA. Yet I met with coworkers who are located in Cambridge, MA, as I do almost every workday morning.

 

I don't see any difference between armchair logging and that is frowned upon
I see a big difference between armchair logging and participating in a geocache search via some sort of telepresence system. But let's try a thought experiment. Which of these situations do you consider acceptable or unacceptable? Why do you draw the line where you do?

 

(1) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and retrieves/replaces the cache with his hands.

(2) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled mechanically.

(3) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled electronically.

(4) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and directs another geocacher to retrieve/replace the cache.

(5) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and retrieves/replaces the cache with his hands.

(6) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled mechanically.

(7) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled electronically.

(8) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and directs another geocacher to retrieve/replace the cache.

 

Based on that direct line of sight is the limit.

 

Lets try this, if you were the cacher in all those scenarios and I deleted your log and you complained to GS explaining the exact situation, which of those logs do you think would be reinstated?

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment
But let's try a thought experiment. Which of these situations do you consider acceptable or unacceptable? Why do you draw the line where you do?

 

(1) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and retrieves/replaces the cache with his hands.

(2) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled mechanically.

(3) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled electronically.

(4) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and directs another geocacher to retrieve/replace the cache.

(5) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and retrieves/replaces the cache with his hands.

(6) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled mechanically.

(7) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled electronically.

(8) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and directs another geocacher to retrieve/replace the cache.

Based on that direct line of sight is the limit.
So as I understand it, even when FND'r retrieves/replaces the cache with his hands, with a tool controlled mechanically, or with a tool controlled electronically, you consider viewing the cache in an electronic display to be a deal breaker. Is that correct?

 

Lets try this, if you were the cacher in all those scenarios and I deleted your log and you complained to GS explaining the exact situation, which of those logs do you think would be reinstated?
I think scenario 8 could go either way, but I'm pretty confident that the log would be reinstated in the other scenarios.
Link to comment
But let's try a thought experiment. Which of these situations do you consider acceptable or unacceptable? Why do you draw the line where you do?

 

(1) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and retrieves/replaces the cache with his hands.

(2) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled mechanically.

(3) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled electronically.

(4) FND'r sees the cache in a direct line of sight, and directs another geocacher to retrieve/replace the cache.

(5) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and retrieves/replaces the cache with his hands.

(6) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled mechanically.

(7) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and retrieves/replaces the cache with a tool controlled electronically.

(8) FND'r sees the cache in an electronic display, and directs another geocacher to retrieve/replace the cache.

Based on that direct line of sight is the limit.
So as I understand it, even when FND'r retrieves/replaces the cache with his hands, with a tool controlled mechanically, or with a tool controlled electronically, you consider viewing the cache in an electronic display to be a deal breaker. Is that correct?

 

Lets try this, if you were the cacher in all those scenarios and I deleted your log and you complained to GS explaining the exact situation, which of those logs do you think would be reinstated?
I think scenario 8 could go either way, but I'm pretty confident that the log would be reinstated in the other scenarios.

 

Actually I quit reading at electronic display.

 

If you look at the geothermal vent cache you'd have to use a tool at GZ to retrieve it, that is the spirit of that cache. You can create scenarios that push the borders and every person will have their own sense of whether it is right or wrong.

 

What the co is proposing IMHO is just plain wrong and I see it as armchair logging. What's to stop someone from logging thousands of finds all over the world that way? Would GS allow that?

 

I guess the bottom line would be if it was contested would GS let te log stand.

Link to comment

Obviously youre ok with the op doing this but would you be ok with 2 people on video conference with the finder logging the cache? How about 20 people, how about a group of thousanda finding 100s of logs a day all over the world?

 

Let it go once and you'll never know how it will be abused.

 

I don't know what else to say, it's just wrong.

Edited by Roman!
Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...