Find a cache with Technology

[+cx1]

 

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?

 

Actually I have no issue with the bit in bold at all.

It would not cause me to frown in the slightest. I normally use the last two logs to decide if I want to attempt a cache. If someone sneaks in a predated log four or five logs back I will probably never see it.

 

I do feel that there is a vast difference between someone who sees a cache (either at the site or via a live video feed) and can accurately convey the cache condition versus a typical armchair logger who has no idea if the cache is there or not. I do not feel they can be considered close to the same thing. Some people in this thread are tying to portray them as being the same and I don't see how they are. One is an informed assessment and the other is a blind guess.

 

As far as what Groundspeak does or does not do is not for me to speculate upon. They are far from consistent enough for me to be able to judge their motivations.

[+cx1]

 

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?

 

Hmm, lets see.

 

First there is a large difference between the words require and request. They are closer to antonyms then synonyms in this context.

 

Secondly my cache idea does not suggest or demand that the finder perform an illegal act whereas yours does.

 

I'd say mine would be accepted and published quite easily by a local reviewer. Your idea, not so much.

[+ShaunEM]

Log a note.. it's just like a found it log, without the found it physically requirement.

 

I have a puzzle cache I have solved that has a log it requirement, I don't plan on ever doing those requirements, but I can still go find that cache and leave a note on it, which I plan to do.

 

Honestly caching teams do what you have done all the time, so I wouldn't feel too bad about it. It is just a game. Make sure your log says clearly what you are doing as if the cache is muggled, your found it confuses that fact.

 

Shaun

[AZcachemeister]

I would consider the possible validity of a log being signed on behalf of someone who is totally disabled (as in Stephen Hawking disabled) who directed someone else to the cache by a remote video camera feed.

 

THAT would be cool.

[+niraD]

I would consider the possible validity of a log being signed on behalf of someone who is totally disabled (as in Stephen Hawking disabled) who directed someone else to the cache by a remote video camera feed.

 

THAT would be cool.

That would be cool, in more than one way. I think it would also be cool if someone used a geocaching-capable mobile telepresence device, something like a bomb-disposal robot except designed to allow the operator to remotely identify, retrieve, open, log, close, and replace geocaches.

[AZcachemeister]

...a bomb-disposal robot except designed to allow the operator to remotely identify, retrieve, open, log, close, and replace geocaches.

 

The kind that are deployed by the silent black helicopters?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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]

 

I think I'm going to "go" online and then "go" to the website where geocaches are listed, "go" to the "log your visit" page and post some found it logs.

[+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]

 

I think I'm going to "go" online and then "go" to the website where geocaches are listed, "go" to the "log your visit" page and post some found it logs.

You're going everywhere but "here" (i.e., the posted coordinates).

[+RobDJr]

I would consider the possible validity of a log being signed on behalf of someone who is totally disabled (as in Stephen Hawking disabled) who directed someone else to the cache by a remote video camera feed.

 

THAT would be cool.

 

I was thinking along the same lines. I know some people who would very much enjoy caching but cannot due to physical limitations. Their lives would be immeasurably enriched by the ability to be part of that, and I would have no issue participating in that directly, or bending the rules for them.

 

This is not something I would do as a general rule, however. The only other situation I would have no issue seeing it allowed, really, is for a team find on very difficult puzzles if the CO approves (call it "owners choice"). But for "normal" everyday caching, it just subverts the spirit of geocaching.

 

Personally I wouldn't do this sort of thing except as a way to help someone who otherwise would never be able to enjoy the experience of caching. I have, on a few occasions, helped friends find caches they couldn't find (that I myself had never found), by having them describe what they saw and making suggestions about where to look. On the few rare times that it actually worked, I did not feel the slightest need to log a find, or even a note. If I had been able to actually see the area and direct them, it would have been easier and more fun, but I still wouldn't have thought of saying I found it.

 

Although I am sure that a compelling argument could be made that the fact that the remote searcher is an active participant rather than a passive observer is a key difference, the sad thing is that this sort of practice is too easy to abuse, and there are people out there who would happily do so.

[+StarBrand]

I have it on rather good authority that certain folks at HQ feels that in general you have to be there and be able to touch the cache with your own hand if you want to log it. Just how you got it to touch it on scene is a matter of debate but you gotta be there.

[+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.
   

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."

 

I'm guessing MissJenn is getting more surprised every day!

[+wmpastor]

I have it on rather good authority that certain folks at HQ feels that in general you have to be there and be able to touch the cache with your own hand if you want to log it. Just how you got it to touch it on scene is a matter of debate but you gotta be there.

 

I have it on good authority too - earlier in this thread.

[+briansnat]

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.

 

I recall one person here recently bragging that she was able to keep a consecutive days of finds streak alive by "attending" an event via Skype. She attended that event like I attended the Superbowl. If someone wants to pretend that he found a cache or attended an event, that is usually between the cache owner and the pretender, but the whole concept seems plainly dishonest to me.

[+Hakliva]

I think that everybody plays the game in their own way.

If the CO is okay with it, and nothing is specifically said to be against it in the rules, then who cares...let them do it... i dont think it is harming anyone, and as previously stated... everyone plays the game in their own way...