Find a cache with Technology

[+CanadianRockies]

I'd never delete a log because you play differently than I do.

So, if I log "Found it" on all your caches while thousands of miles away, you wouldn't delete my logs?

 

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.

What if one person is at the cache location and signs the name(s) of one (or 100) other geocachers, none of whom are on site either physically or electronically? Would you delete any of those names, assuming they admitted they had done this?

[+hzoi]

pictom, I'm not going to lose sleep regardless, but you're not convincing me. And I have a feeling that you wouldn't have asked this question in the first place if you were actually convinced you were in the right.

 

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

 

I would agree.

 

I'll also add this little gem from the weekly newsletter, someone else broguht it up in another thread today and I think it's apropos.

 

Become a Geocaching Star in 5 Steps

 

The basics of geocaching are inspiring in their simplicity. A geocacher hides a geocache and challenges others to find it. That's it. And it's easy to unlock the joy of geocaching when you discover clever hides and share the adventure with good friends. Becoming a great geocacher is all about remembering the little things. If you follow these five quick steps every time you geocache, you'll be ready for geocaching stardom.

 

1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook. Always pack a pen to make sure you're ready to sign your Geocaching username, the date, and leave a note.

 

Pretty clear language. Not "your buddy needs to sign the logbook on your behalf," not "you can telecommute to the cache," but you need to have a pen handy to sign it your dadgum self.

 

But I tell you what -- try it, and be explicit in your log that you literally phoned it in. Make sure you get your log deleted, and then appeal it to Groundspeak. And then you'll have your official answer. (Hint: I predict that it will not go as well as you hope.)

[+Roman!]

I'd never delete a log because you play differently than I do.

So, if I log "Found it" on all your caches while thousands of miles away, you wouldn't delete my logs?

 

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.

What if one person is at the cache location and signs the name(s) of one (or 100) other geocachers, none of whom are on site either physically or electronically? Would you delete any of those names, assuming they admitted they had done this?

 

pictom, I'm not going to lose sleep regardless, but you're not convincing me. And I have a feeling that you wouldn't have asked this question in the first place if you were actually convinced you were in the right.

 

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

 

I would agree.

 

I'll also add this little gem from the weekly newsletter, someone else broguht it up in another thread today and I think it's apropos.

 

Become a Geocaching Star in 5 Steps

 

The basics of geocaching are inspiring in their simplicity. A geocacher hides a geocache and challenges others to find it. That's it. And it's easy to unlock the joy of geocaching when you discover clever hides and share the adventure with good friends. Becoming a great geocacher is all about remembering the little things. If you follow these five quick steps every time you geocache, you'll be ready for geocaching stardom.

 

1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook. Always pack a pen to make sure you're ready to sign your Geocaching username, the date, and leave a note.

 

Pretty clear language. Not "your buddy needs to sign the logbook on your behalf," not "you can telecommute to the cache," but you need to have a pen handy to sign it your dadgum self.

 

But I tell you what -- try it, and be explicit in your log that you literally phoned it in. Make sure you get your log deleted, and then appeal it to Groundspeak. And then you'll have your official answer. (Hint: I predict that it will not go as well as you hope.)

 

Glad to see some people agree, the idea of this thread really irks me because if this was allowed the abuse that followed would turn Geocaching into a joke.

[+niraD]

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?

I think the main thing stopping someone from logging thousands of finds all over the world that way is the lack of people willing to function as a human telepresence system (carrying the camera and following the instructions from FND'r). Well, that and the lack of geocaching-capable electronic telepresence systems.

 

But if someone like Sheldon Cooper built a geocaching-capable Shelbot, and used it to find, retrieve, sign, and replace one of my geocaches, then I wouldn't delete the online log. And that's pretty close to the situation described by the OP.

 

Would GS allow that?

 

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

I've followed similar logic in gimmick car rallyes, one of my other hobbies. When confronted by an ambiguous gimmick, sometimes I ask myself which way I'd rather write a protest if the rallyemaster's official interpretation differs from my own.

 

But I do that only when the situation is ambiguous.

[+Roman!]

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?

I think the main thing stopping someone from logging thousands of finds all over the world that way is the lack of people willing to function as a human telepresence system (carrying the camera and following the instructions from FND'r). Well, that and the lack of geocaching-capable electronic telepresence systems.

 

But if someone like Sheldon Cooper built a geocaching-capable Shelbot, and used it to find, retrieve, sign, and replace one of my geocaches, then I wouldn't delete the online log. And that's pretty close to the situation described by the OP.

 

Would GS allow that?

 

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

I've followed similar logic in gimmick car rallyes, one of my other hobbies. When confronted by an ambiguous gimmick, sometimes I ask myself which way I'd rather write a protest if the rallyemaster's official interpretation differs from my own.

 

But I do that only when the situation is ambiguous.

 

I'd consider it my duty to delete the log because by allowing this to stand we'd be setting a precedent and is this where geocaching should be going? Turning into an online game? I thought the idea was to get out and find something, but then again that's why I hate puzzle caches that keep people in front of the computer solving them, but that's another thread;)

Edited February 7, 2013 by Roman!

[+niraD]

I'll also add this little gem from the weekly newsletter, someone else broguht it up in another thread today and I think it's apropos.

 

Become a Geocaching Star in 5 Steps

 

The basics of geocaching are inspiring in their simplicity. A geocacher hides a geocache and challenges others to find it. That's it. And it's easy to unlock the joy of geocaching when you discover clever hides and share the adventure with good friends. Becoming a great geocacher is all about remembering the little things. If you follow these five quick steps every time you geocache, you'll be ready for geocaching stardom.

 

1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook. Always pack a pen to make sure you're ready to sign your Geocaching username, the date, and leave a note.

 

Pretty clear language. Not "your buddy needs to sign the logbook on your behalf," not "you can telecommute to the cache," but you need to have a pen handy to sign it your dadgum self.

I know a couple people who play this way, who sign their geocaching name on every log "their own dadgum self". Most are content to let a buddy sign on their bahalf, or to sign an informal team name for the group, or to let a buddy sign an informal team name for the group.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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 happen to agree with you, but if the person posting the log decided to dispute it, they could escalate it to appeals@Groundspeak.com, who be the final arbiter.

 

 

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.

 

A few years ago I found a cache about a 1/3 of a mile from where I parked and after opening the cache realized that I had left my pen in the car. I broke off a little stick, rubbed it into some mud (the cache was very close to a pond), and signed the log that way. I mentioned how I signed the logsheet in my online found it log, and the next person that found it traced over the faint muddy NYPC with a pen (without my asking).

 

 

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

 

I wouldn't say that he's "wrong" as much as it looks like a lot of effort is being spent convincing himself that he's right.

[+The A-Team]

(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.

^That's where I'd draw it, too.

To me, geocaching is about visiting locations in person. In my mind, that means your physical presence. I don't care whether you use a grabber to retrieve the container, a bomb-disposal robot, or a buddy*, but you need to be there in physical body.

 

Those are my .02

 

*Except in cases like a cache up a tree where the difficulty in retrieving the container is part of the CO's intended finding experience, in which case my line would move up one rung.

[+CanadianRockies]

I see a big difference between armchair logging and participating in a geocache search via some sort of telepresence system.

I like the way you stated things a few years ago:

 

Posting a Found log is (implicitly or explicitly) a claim that you went to the coordinates and found the cache. In the case of a virtual cache, "found the cache" means that you took a photo, wrote down some information, or did whatever else the virtual cache owner requires for verification. But a Found log is (implicitly or explicitly) a claim to have Been There, Done That.

 

If you haven't Been There (armchair logging), then the claim is a lie. A small lie in the grand scheme of things, to be sure, but it is a lie. Some of us still care about such things.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I think this is a pretty cool idea to use the camera to help out on a find. I would let a found it log stand on any of my caches.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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'm just finishing up the first phase of a project where the other developers are in Rome, Italy and Bangkok, Thailand. Through the use of Skype and video conferencing we actually came up with a pretty impressive pilot system which I demonstrated this afternoon via a video conference call with some people in Washington, DC.

 

Later in the thread Roman! wrote:

 

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.

 

I've bolded what I think is the most important piece of information in this discussion. When someone places a cache in a stump on the ground, it's still in the spirit of the cache if more than one person is physically present and looking for it, one of them spots the contain and writes the names of everyone looking for it. For a cache 30' up in a tree, I"m pretty sure that the CO intends, in the spirit of the cache, that anyone that posts a found it log, has actually climbed the tree and signed the logsheet themselves (although we know this rarely happens). In the scenario the OP describes, the CO may or may *not* feel that it's in the spirit of the cache to "find" the cache using a remote electronic display.

[+niraD]

I see a big difference between armchair logging and participating in a geocache search via some sort of telepresence system.

I like the way you stated things a few years ago:

 

Posting a Found log is (implicitly or explicitly) a claim that you went to the coordinates and found the cache. In the case of a virtual cache, "found the cache" means that you took a photo, wrote down some information, or did whatever else the virtual cache owner requires for verification. But a Found log is (implicitly or explicitly) a claim to have Been There, Done That.

 

If you haven't Been There (armchair logging), then the claim is a lie. A small lie in the grand scheme of things, to be sure, but it is a lie. Some of us still care about such things.

Well there's a blast from the past.

 

In this case, the question is whether "Been There, Done That" applies when someone is using a telepresence system. I'm not convinced that the situation is as unambiguous as some are arguing it is.

[+The A-Team]

In this case, the question is whether "Been There, Done That" applies when someone is using a telepresence system. I'm not convinced that the situation is as unambiguous as some are arguing it is.

I agree that it certainly isn't unambiguous. While I wouldn't use the proposed method myself, I also wouldn't delete logs that used it (unless it was abused and used frequently), but I'll still look at them a bit funny and talk about "that guy using that odd method" at events.

[+Roman!]

In this case, the question is whether "Been There, Done That" applies when someone is using a telepresence system. I'm not convinced that the situation is as unambiguous as some are arguing it is.

I agree that it certainly isn't unambiguous. While I wouldn't use the proposed method myself, I also wouldn't delete logs that used it (unless it was abused and used frequently), but I'll still look at them a bit funny and talk about "that guy using that odd method" at events.

 

If its ok once or once in a while why is it not ok all the time?

[+frinklabs]

In this case, the question is whether "Been There, Done That" applies when someone is using a telepresence system. I'm not convinced that the situation is as unambiguous as some are arguing it is.

I agree that it certainly isn't unambiguous. While I wouldn't use the proposed method myself, I also wouldn't delete logs that used it (unless it was abused and used frequently), but I'll still look at them a bit funny and talk about "that guy using that odd method" at events.

 

All things being equal, you might end up looking at his telepresence hardware.

 

On that note, I'd accept a log on a cache from a completely autonomous telepresence device, like a remote-controlled dextrous robot.

[+The A-Team]

I agree that it certainly isn't unambiguous. While I wouldn't use the proposed method myself, I also wouldn't delete logs that used it (unless it was abused and used frequently), but I'll still look at them a bit funny and talk about "that guy using that odd method" at events.

If its ok once or once in a while why is it not ok all the time?

To be honest, I can't give you a specific reason. It's just the way it feels to me.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In this case, the question is whether "Been There, Done That" applies when someone is using a telepresence system. I'm not convinced that the situation is as unambiguous as some are arguing it is.

I agree that it certainly isn't unambiguous. While I wouldn't use the proposed method myself, I also wouldn't delete logs that used it (unless it was abused and used frequently), but I'll still look at them a bit funny and talk about "that guy using that odd method" at events.

 

If its ok once or once in a while why is it not ok all the time?

 

I suppose for the same reason that it's okay to have a glass of wine with dinner once a week, but not okay to drink a 12 pack of beer and a half a bottle of vodka every day.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I still think that the underlying premise of this whole geocaching thing is to physically be there. Proxy "being there" just doesn't feel right to me.

 

Some might embrace the proxy concept, Groundspeak and some COs might allow it, but I hope it doesn't become a big part of geocaching.

[+cx1]

 

Glad to see some people agree, the idea of this thread really irks me because if this was allowed the abuse that followed would turn Geocaching into a joke.

 

Because finding boxes in the woods that might have some toys in them is some serious business.

 

I always wonder about those who leap up and shout "I'll delete your log" if it is just that little scrap of imagined power that prompts one to even put out a cache. As if by golly if you couldn't delete logs well then you would just not play at all.

 

Anyway I think I am going to put out a cache that specifically requests that people actually find it via a video link of some sort. Something along the lines of once within 25 feet of the coordinates then all movement must be guided directly by the remote viewer. The video operator could even wear a blindfold. The viewer could be in the car, or at the trail head or even at home. Just as long as they specifically did not have a direct line of sight to the cache area other then the video link.

 

Of course I would not delete their log if they found it in a more traditional fashion. That would be an ALR.

Some people just don't have access to the needed video technology. And some people just always cache alone. And some people will only do what they want anyway so why should I get all upset about it

 

I think it would be quite difficult to find a cache by this method for several reasons.

 

You would have a very limited field of view. Instructing the video operator for each little pan left or right and up and down could take a very long time to get even a sense of the area.

 

You depth of field would be compromised. Is that a small rock far away or is it a large one that is quite close.

 

Each potential item of camouflage would need to be examined at the specific request of the remote viewer.

 

Not only would the remote viewer need to guide the camera they would also need to guide the movements of the operator(don't forget the operator can't see).

 

It really could be a fun cache.

 

Just try doing a few simple tasks around the house while only using the camera of your phone for your vision. It is really not as easy as it may first appear.

 

The way the OP describes it I would say it is a far cry from an armchair log. It could possibly be more difficult and more fun to find a cache that way then to actually be on site. So who is missing out on what exactly?

 

Very interesting idea.

[+CanadianRockies]

I still think that the underlying premise of this whole geocaching thing is to physically be there. Proxy "being there" just doesn't feel right to me.

 

Some might embrace the proxy concept, Groundspeak and some COs might allow it, but I hope it doesn't become a big part of geocaching.

If a CO deleted this type of smiley for being bogus, then I suspect Groundspeak would not reinstate it on appeal.

 

According to MissJenn:

 

Stating that you must visit the location is not necessary as this is an implicit requirement

And that wasn't just her personal opinion. She followed up with this:

 

I am officially speaking on behalf of Groundspeak.

Edited February 8, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+Roman!]

 

Glad to see some people agree, the idea of this thread really irks me because if this was allowed the abuse that followed would turn Geocaching into a joke.

 

Because finding boxes in the woods that might have some toys in them is some serious business.

 

I always wonder about those who leap up and shout "I'll delete your log" if it is just that little scrap of imagined power that prompts one to even put out a cache. As if by golly if you couldn't delete logs well then you would just not play at all.

 

Anyway I think I am going to put out a cache that specifically requests that people actually find it via a video link of some sort. Something along the lines of once within 25 feet of the coordinates then all movement must be guided directly by the remote viewer. The video operator could even wear a blindfold. The viewer could be in the car, or at the trail head or even at home. Just as long as they specifically did not have a direct line of sight to the cache area other then the video link.

 

Of course I would not delete their log if they found it in a more traditional fashion. That would be an ALR.

Some people just don't have access to the needed video technology. And some people just always cache alone. And some people will only do what they want anyway so why should I get all upset about it

 

I think it would be quite difficult to find a cache by this method for several reasons.

 

You would have a very limited field of view. Instructing the video operator for each little pan left or right and up and down could take a very long time to get even a sense of the area.

 

You depth of field would be compromised. Is that a small rock far away or is it a large one that is quite close.

 

Each potential item of camouflage would need to be examined at the specific request of the remote viewer.

 

Not only would the remote viewer need to guide the camera they would also need to guide the movements of the operator(don't forget the operator can't see).

 

It really could be a fun cache.

 

Just try doing a few simple tasks around the house while only using the camera of your phone for your vision. It is really not as easy as it may first appear.

 

The way the OP describes it I would say it is a far cry from an armchair log. It could possibly be more difficult and more fun to find a cache that way then to actually be on site. So who is missing out on what exactly?

 

Very interesting idea.

 

As I've stated if Groundspeak allowed this once it would lead to abuse. Soon as you say it's ok to log a find from the comfort of your own home geocaching as we know it is done for and it becomes one big joke. So yes, as a CO it's your responsibility to delete this log to preserve some integrity in this game. It is far from some power thing.

 

Anyways, read the post above mine, seems the official answer is that this type of logging is not acceptable.

Edited February 8, 2013 by Roman!

[+niraD]

According to MissJenn:

 

Stating that you must visit the location is not necessary as this is an implicit requirement

Interesting. Assuming that this implicit "must visit the location" requirement precludes the use of telepresence systems, I wonder how far cache owners can take it.

 

Let's say there's an elevated cache (up a tree or pole or cliff or whatever), and the CO intended seekers to retrieve the cache by climbing.

 

Let's say that a geocacher called reenignE builds a cache retrieval/replacement tool, uses the tool to retrieve the cache, signs the log, and uses the tool to replace the cache as found. Can the CO claim that reenignE failed to "visit the location" by remaining safely at ground level rather than climbing?

 

Does the answer change if reenignE builds a more complicated tool and uses it to open the cache in place, sign the log remotely, and then close the cache in place? Does it matter whether reenignE uses this more complicated tool via a direct line of sight, or via an electronic display?

 

Does it matter whether reenignE uses either tool from the base of the tree or pole or cliff or whatever, or from 50ft away? from 500ft away? from 1mi away?

[+Roman!]

In this case, the question is whether "Been There, Done That" applies when someone is using a telepresence system. I'm not convinced that the situation is as unambiguous as some are arguing it is.

I agree that it certainly isn't unambiguous. While I wouldn't use the proposed method myself, I also wouldn't delete logs that used it (unless it was abused and used frequently), but I'll still look at them a bit funny and talk about "that guy using that odd method" at events.

 

If its ok once or once in a while why is it not ok all the time?

 

I suppose for the same reason that it's okay to have a glass of wine with dinner once a week, but not okay to drink a 12 pack of beer and a half a bottle of vodka every day.

 

Yeah, apart from health issues or possible death you picked a perfect analogy and proved my point wrong.

 

I'm gonna try that next time I get caught speeding as I only speed once in a blue moon and that's when I'm going for an FTF but that's best saved for another thread.

[+Roman!]

According to MissJenn:

 

Stating that you must visit the location is not necessary as this is an implicit requirement

Interesting. Assuming that this implicit "must visit the location" requirement precludes the use of telepresence systems, I wonder how far cache owners can take it.

 

Let's say there's an elevated cache (up a tree or pole or cliff or whatever), and the CO intended seekers to retrieve the cache by climbing.

 

Let's say that a geocacher called reenignE builds a cache retrieval/replacement tool, uses the tool to retrieve the cache, signs the log, and uses the tool to replace the cache as found. Can the CO claim that reenignE failed to "visit the location" by remaining safely at ground level rather than climbing?

 

Does the answer change if reenignE builds a more complicated tool and uses it to open the cache in place, sign the log remotely, and then close the cache in place? Does it matter whether reenignE uses this more complicated tool via a direct line of sight, or via an electronic display?

 

Does it matter whether reenignE uses either tool from the base of the tree or pole or cliff or whatever, or from 50ft away? from 500ft away? from 1mi away?

 

You could keep up with your "is this OK" argument and justify pretty much anything, even armchair logging. Some things are just wrong, maybe you can't exactly define why they are wrong or at what point they crossed the line, you just know and I know this is wrong.

 

We are not debating whether each of the 1000s of scenarios you could invent are right or wrong, the question is if what the OP intends to do is right or wrong so in your opinion is it?

 

Now let me also ask you, would you be OK if geocaching got to the point where more than half of all logs were via some proxy method by a person miles or even thousands of miles from GZ? I wouldn't, I'd think it turned into a joke. There still needs to be some rules and structure. Would you be comfortable knowing what you'd be opening the door to if you had the power to make what the OP is suggesting acceptable?

Edited February 8, 2013 by Roman!

[+cx1]

 

Anyways, read the post above mine, seems the official answer is that this type of logging is not acceptable.

 

Read my sig line, her boss may not agree.

[+Roman!]

 

Anyways, read the post above mine, seems the official answer is that this type of logging is not acceptable.

 

Read my sig line, her boss may not agree.

 

So why exactly do they ban accounts for armchair logging then?

[+Roman!]

I'm going to place a cache in my front yard, I will then invite cachers from all over the word to contact me via some kind of video feed or anther when they are at a cache location near their home. I will then show them my cache, they will show me theirs. I will log them in on my cache, they will log me in where they are. I will have countless caches, states, countries logged, I will be the world greatest cacher.

[+cx1]

 

Now let me also ask you, would you be OK if geocaching got to the point where more than half of all logs were via some proxy method by a person miles or even thousands of miles from GZ? I wouldn't, I'd think it turned into a joke.

Why let what other do effect the way you feel about your own personal accomplishments?

 

Other then potential maintenance issues going unreported(which with an actual team member at the cache site this is really no issue) what really do fake or bogus logs from virtual team mates do to damage your experience of finding a cache. Team A logs a 'fake' find and 3 real finds because of their one virtual member who was there via Skype, Teams b-y all log fake finds and real finds consisting of the team members who were on site and those who were at home. Here you come as person Z, enjoying being outside and find the cache without problems and the cache is in good shape. How are you harmed by those fake logs? Did you burn less calories doing the hike? Did the sun suddenly not shine as bright?

Or say all those logs were real and genuine. Every single team member caressed the log with their own little hands. And you don't find the cache. Is the overall experience specifically for you better because the previous logs were real?

 

If a person wants to claim a find from 1000 miles away and they got their name on the log sheet via a team member who was actually at the cache then what difference should it make to you or me or anyone really? It doesn't effect my found count. It doesn't effect your found count. You don't win anything if your find count is higher then mine or theirs do you?

So what if one member of a caching team is there virtually instead of physically? At least someone was there. The person with the camera was at the cache. This is nothing like armchair logging where a person claims a find with absolutely no idea if the cache is there or not.

[+cx1]

I'm going to place a cache in my front yard, I will then invite cachers from all over the word to contact me via some kind of video feed or anther when they are at a cache location near their home. I will then show them my cache, they will show me theirs. I will log them in on my cache, they will log me in where they are. I will have countless caches, states, countries logged, I will be the world greatest cacher.

And that will not effect how I feel about my own personal accomplishments in geocaching at all.

All my finds will mean exactly the same to me after you do that then they did before.

You found a 5/5 in Tibet,a 4.5/3.5 in Wales and grabbed a virtual in Maui all on the same day? Whoopie doo. I'm not looking at your stats anyway so how would I know and why should I care? They are your numbers not mine.

 

I could be called the worlds worst cacher, but if I'm having fun it's all good.

 

I don't see how worrying about how other people log is fun.

[+Roman!]

 

Now let me also ask you, would you be OK if geocaching got to the point where more than half of all logs were via some proxy method by a person miles or even thousands of miles from GZ? I wouldn't, I'd think it turned into a joke.

Why let what other do effect the way you feel about your own personal accomplishments?

 

Other then potential maintenance issues going unreported(which with an actual team member at the cache site this is really no issue) what really do fake or bogus logs from virtual team mates do to damage your experience of finding a cache. Team A logs a 'fake' find and 3 real finds because of their one virtual member who was there via Skype, Teams b-y all log fake finds and real finds consisting of the team members who were on site and those who were at home. Here you come as person Z, enjoying being outside and find the cache without problems and the cache is in good shape. How are you harmed by those fake logs? Did you burn less calories doing the hike? Did the sun suddenly not shine as bright?

Or say all those logs were real and genuine. Every single team member caressed the log with their own little hands. And you don't find the cache. Is the overall experience specifically for you better because the previous logs were real?

 

If a person wants to claim a find from 1000 miles away and they got their name on the log sheet via a team member who was actually at the cache then what difference should it make to you or me or anyone really? It doesn't effect my found count. It doesn't effect your found count. You don't win anything if your find count is higher then mine or theirs do you?

So what if one member of a caching team is there virtually instead of physically? At least someone was there. The person with the camera was at the cache. This is nothing like armchair logging where a person claims a find with absolutely no idea if the cache is there or not.

 

Because if a precedent is set that it is ok to log a cache from miles away it will lead to rampant abuse and render Geocaching pointless.

 

There needs to be some basic rules and they need to be upheld as much as possible.

 

If I found my caches being logged this way and I couldn't delete the logs I'd archive them all and never place another again as I'm sure many others would too..

 

I don't care about people cheating, that's their thing, I do care about GS accepting and supporting it, that would be the end of Geocaching. They can never take away the right of the CO to delete any log if they have proof the person did not sign the log.

[+CanadianRockies]

I think another MissJenn comment probably is called for at this point:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

[+The A-Team]

Because if a precedent is set that it is ok to log a cache from miles away it will lead to rampant abuse and render Geocaching pointless.

I think you're really overestimating how much this practice would be used. See cx1's post above. It would be very difficult and impractical to use frequently. I certainly don't think that allowing these finds would end geocaching as we know it. There are already tons of people armchair logging caches, and the game seems to be surviving just fine...

[+Roman!]

I think another MissJenn comment probably is called for at this point:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

 

+1

 

On that note I leave this thread, For some reason i am reminded by some of these posters here of women that send marriage proposals to convicted killers in jail, that's my analogy.

[+CanadianRockies]

If a person wants to claim a find from 1000 miles away and they got their name on the log sheet via a team member who was actually at the cache then what difference should it make to you or me or anyone really? It doesn't effect my found count. It doesn't effect your found count. You don't win anything if your find count is higher then mine or theirs do you?

 

So what if one member of a caching team is there virtually instead of physically? At least someone was there. The person with the camera was at the cache. This is nothing like armchair logging where a person claims a find with absolutely no idea if the cache is there or not.

I find it interesting that you feel the need to distinguish this type of telepresence "find" from an armchair "find."

 

If someone armchair "finds" a cache and courteously predates their log to a time before the last find log, then their action also doesn't effect your found count. Yet you, like many other geocachers (including me) and Groundspeak, seem to frown upon this type of behavior. Why? Why do you think Groundspeak has archived some caches whose owners regularly fail to delete such bogus finds? Why do you think Groundspeak bans geocachers who use bots to log bogus finds?

Edited February 8, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+dprovan]

If its ok once or once in a while why is it not ok all the time?

I was thinking of once or once in a while being OK because of an extraordinary justification, in this case celebrating a particularly interesting puzzle with a local friend. If it were done more often, then it becomes clear that it's being done not because of some special condition, but rather just to be able to count another find.

[+Don_J]

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.

 

That's just more evidence that solving puzzles isn't geocaching, especially if you're not even going out and visiting the cache. Your example "cacher" could just as easily buy a puzzle book from the local drugstore to occupy his time. "Caching" involves going out and finding caches, plain and simple. Watching someone else find a cache through his phone is not caching.

[+Don_J]

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.

 

In my opinion, 5-8 depends solely on FND'r's proximity to the cache. If he's at GZ using his electronic display and tool, not a problem. If he's in the next state, I'm not buying it. I've deleted one Found It log out of about 6500, but if this came up, I'd more than seriously consider it. It simply doesn't pass my smell test.

[+Don_J]

I'll also add this little gem from the weekly newsletter, someone else broguht it up in another thread today and I think it's apropos.

 

Become a Geocaching Star in 5 Steps

 

The basics of geocaching are inspiring in their simplicity. A geocacher hides a geocache and challenges others to find it. That's it. And it's easy to unlock the joy of geocaching when you discover clever hides and share the adventure with good friends. Becoming a great geocacher is all about remembering the little things. If you follow these five quick steps every time you geocache, you'll be ready for geocaching stardom.

 

1) Bring a Pen - There are few rules in the game. But one rule is that you need to sign the logbook. Always pack a pen to make sure you're ready to sign your Geocaching username, the date, and leave a note.

 

Pretty clear language. Not "your buddy needs to sign the logbook on your behalf," not "you can telecommute to the cache," but you need to have a pen handy to sign it your dadgum self.

I know a couple people who play this way, who sign their geocaching name on every log "their own dadgum self". Most are content to let a buddy sign on their bahalf, or to sign an informal team name for the group, or to let a buddy sign an informal team name for the group.

 

We do this all the time, but we are all physically present at the location of the cache. Last Sunday, I got separated from the group so instead of trying to catch up, I stopped and found each cache myself, even though the group name had been added to the logs ten minutes earlier. It was the right thing to do. I could have simply hiked on by each cache and no one would be the wiser, but again, it was the right thing to do.

[+Don_J]

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'm just finishing up the first phase of a project where the other developers are in Rome, Italy and Bangkok, Thailand. Through the use of Skype and video conferencing we actually came up with a pretty impressive pilot system which I demonstrated this afternoon via a video conference call with some people in Washington, DC.

 

Later in the thread Roman! wrote:

 

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.

 

I've bolded what I think is the most important piece of information in this discussion. When someone places a cache in a stump on the ground, it's still in the spirit of the cache if more than one person is physically present and looking for it, one of them spots the contain and writes the names of everyone looking for it. For a cache 30' up in a tree, I"m pretty sure that the CO intends, in the spirit of the cache, that anyone that posts a found it log, has actually climbed the tree and signed the logsheet themselves (although we know this rarely happens). In the scenario the OP describes, the CO may or may *not* feel that it's in the spirit of the cache to "find" the cache using a remote electronic display.

 

All that is well and fine, but our "spirit of the cache" has to fall within the guidelines of the site that is listing it. I could create a puzzle cache and tell people that the "spirit of the cache" is that they could log it online as soon as they solve it. They don't have to visit, they don't have to locate the container and they don't have to sign the log. How long after TPTB find out about that until it's archived and locked?

 

Some people decide that the spirit of the cache is to see the view so when their container goes missing they tell people to post a picture of the view with their Found It logs. How long before those get archived when the reviewers or lackeys find out what's going on?

 

A few months back, the spirit of someone's caches was to sign a bunch of wooden stakes stuck in the ground. Remember what happened with that?

 

We all have this idea that we can play the game our own way, but that doesn't mean that we can reinvent and redefine the most basic elements of it, find a cache, sign the log, tell about your experience online.

[+Don_J]

 

Glad to see some people agree, the idea of this thread really irks me because if this was allowed the abuse that followed would turn Geocaching into a joke.

 

Because finding boxes in the woods that might have some toys in them is some serious business.

 

I always wonder about those who leap up and shout "I'll delete your log" if it is just that little scrap of imagined power that prompts one to even put out a cache. As if by golly if you couldn't delete logs well then you would just not play at all.

 

Anyway I think I am going to put out a cache that specifically requests that people actually find it via a video link of some sort.

 

And at the same time, I'll hide one across the street from the Police station and require all finders to be totally naked. Which one do think will get published first?

[+OZ2CPU]

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

 

it can be signed by YOU in own person,

it can be signed by a friend,

or a remote controlled friend,

or a remote controlled robot,

 

all is legal.. but is it fun ?

is it outdoor game ? as geocaching is supposed to be too ?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In this case, the question is whether "Been There, Done That" applies when someone is using a telepresence system. I'm not convinced that the situation is as unambiguous as some are arguing it is.

I agree that it certainly isn't unambiguous. While I wouldn't use the proposed method myself, I also wouldn't delete logs that used it (unless it was abused and used frequently), but I'll still look at them a bit funny and talk about "that guy using that odd method" at events.

 

If its ok once or once in a while why is it not ok all the time?

 

I suppose for the same reason that it's okay to have a glass of wine with dinner once a week, but not okay to drink a 12 pack of beer and a half a bottle of vodka every day.

 

Yeah, apart from health issues or possible death you picked a perfect analogy and proved my point wrong.

 

I'm gonna try that next time I get caught speeding as I only speed once in a blue moon and that's when I'm going for an FTF but that's best saved for another thread.

 

If you want to you speeding as an analogy I'm fine with that. Using speeding as analogy, if it's okay to drive 5mph over the speed limit, then it's okay to drive 20mph over the speed limit. I was once told by a local traffic cop that he won't normally write a ticket if someone is 5mph over the limit, because they might not have been paying close attention to their speedometer. He said that he'll give an additional 5mph allowance for vehicle differences (accuracy of the speedometer, different tires, etc). 15mph over the limit and he will write a ticket every time. If you want to drive 20mph over the speed limit once or twice there's a fair chance you won't get caught. If you do it every day, you're likely going to get a ticket.

Edited February 8, 2013 by NYPaddleCacher

[+wmpastor]

I think another MissJenn comment probably is called for at this point:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

 

The official stated view of Groundspeak is that physical presence at the cache is required to log the find. That seems to be the end of the debate. It's consistent with the spirit of the game. Of course, if someone was "virtually present" at the find via a video feed, it seems perfectly correct to post a note about that experience. That is part of the history of the cacher & the cache. It might also make for interesting reading.

[+hzoi]

I think another MissJenn comment probably is called for at this point:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

 

No, no, no. Surely there must be a loophole somewhere.

[vagabond]

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.

None of the above the log was never signed

[+niraD]

I think another MissJenn comment probably is called for at this point:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

No, no, no. Surely there must be a loophole somewhere.

Sure there is. What does "go" mean? Does the meaning of "go" include the use of telepresence systems?

 

How's that for a loophole?

[+The A-Team]

I think another MissJenn comment probably is called for at this point:

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

No, no, no. Surely there must be a loophole somewhere.

Sure there is. What does "go" mean? Does the meaning of "go" include the use of telepresence systems?

How's that for a loophole?

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

[+CanadianRockies]

I think another MissJenn comment probably is called for at this point:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

No, no, no. Surely there must be a loophole somewhere.

Sure there is. What does "go" mean? Does the meaning of "go" include the use of telepresence systems?

 

How's that for a loophole?

When you combine "go" with "you," then I think it's pretty clear that you don't go to the cache site if you merely see it via a cell phone. You see an image of it, but you don't go to it. Your friend's cell phone goes to the site, but you don't.

 

I watched several lunar landings via television. That doesn't mean I went to the moon. This isn't rocket science, folks. [groan]

Edited February 8, 2013 by CanadianRockies

[+bflentje]

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

 

me too.

[+Don_J]

I think another MissJenn comment probably is called for at this point:

 

I remain surprised at how complicated some people think this issue is. It's not complicated.

1. Coordinates are posted.
   
2. You go here.
   

No, no, no. Surely there must be a loophole somewhere.

Sure there is. What does "go" mean? Does the meaning of "go" include the use of telepresence systems?

 

How's that for a loophole?

 

I just hiked the Bright Angel Trail all the way to the bottom of the Grand Canyon using Google's new Trail View. It would be silly to tell all my friends that I was at the Grand Canyon today, because I WASN'T. When I Skype with my nieces in Atlanta, I go to my living room in Chatsworth CA, I don't actually go to Atlanta. When you start to redefine normal everyday words as your argument, you've pretty much lost that argument at that point.