Barcode cache type? Use smart phone QR reader ap

[+Rathergohiking]

I think Groundspeak should create another iconic cache type – use a QR reader with a smart phone in order to log a cache. With this type of cache, Groundspeak could partner (and restrict distribution to)with state and federal parks, historical places, etc. because the barcode could be attached just about anywhere. For example, Imagine being able to log a cache at an overlook to the Grand Canyon because there is a barcode on the trail sign, or log a find at the Museum of Natural History in Chicago, etc. Would be great for urban areas too.

 

Barcodes could be manufactured with quality plastic, so they would last a long time and not be as prone to be muggled. Perhaps geocaching.com could buy a company like Munzee.com, that already has something similar?

 

Your thoughts??

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Your thoughts??

 

If GC.com becomes another Munzee, I'm outta' here. Barcodes would become the new micro. They would dominate the field in terms of numbers. I don't have/want a smartphone or other barcode reader. I don't want to find a cache that contains nothing.

[+Pink Paisley]

PLEASE NO!

 

We used to have virtuals. Pretty much the same thing but not dependent on getting a signal, having the right OS on your phone, having reliable software that you have to update on a regular basis, only available to smartphone users.

 

And if stuck on information boards permission becomes more important than the ubiquitous nano stuck underneath.

 

There would be hundreds of the things - effortless throw away caches - the countryside would be filled up with them round here in no time using up all available space for 'proper' caches. Hung in trees, nailed to fences, stuck under bridges.

 

The power trail and film cannister are killing off multis round here. Nobody seems to bother if effort is required any more. This idea would be another nail in the coffin.

 

No. I don't think so thanks.

 

Sorry to sit on the fence.

 

PP.

[+geodarts]

There have been proposals to integrate QR codes but as far as I know the closest that Groundspeak got to doing anything with qr codes was through the old "challenges." Just as well. There are other games if you like to scan codes. Personally, I would rather not see a bar code on a trail sign at the grand canyon.

[+the4dirtydogs]

I think this is a great idea. This could be like a new virtual that you had to scan to be able to log the cache.

[+Pink Paisley]

But it wouldn't be like a virtual would it? Virtuals had something of interest at the location.

 

Bar codes would end up being scattered around indiscriminately at every turn of a footpath or behind every traffic light junction box.

 

PP.

[+the4dirtydogs]

But it wouldn't be like a virtual would it? Virtuals had something of interest at the location.

 

Bar codes would end up being scattered around indiscriminately at every turn of a footpath or behind every traffic light junction box.

 

PP.

nobody said that you had to go out and find them. I still think this would be a fun idea to have these QR codes as the new virtuals.

[+Pink Paisley]

Indeed nobody would force anybody to go look. However, space is becoming tight in many places and there would be no escape.

 

A Munzee by any other name is a Munzee.

 

The two can co-exhist in the same space. There's no need to steal their turf.

 

PP.

[+MartyBartfast]

PLEASE NO!

 

+1

 

If you want to do the pointless QR code thing then go to the "M" site, there are thousands of them over there.

[+L0ne.R]

However, space is becoming tight in many places and there would be no escape.

 

The two can co-exist in the same space. There's no need to steal their turf.

 

PP.

 

I play the M game too and I think Pink Paisley is right. If QR-code-only caches existed they would likely block out swag size caches everywhere, including forests and other remote areas.

[+J Grouchy]

I think this is a great idea. This could be like a new virtual that you had to scan to be able to log the cache.

 

I AM opposed to QR codes BEING the cache. Not only is it that idea kind of boring because there is nothing to open and hide stuff in...but also because it involves stickers and the like which, to me, involve defacing of property and the general uglification of the surroundings.

 

I am NOT opposed to QR code logging. To me, that seems like a good confirmation of a find. Not any sort of requirement, but maybe a "verified log" tag on an online log sheet posting.

[+Rathergohiking]

What if the distribution of the bar codes were limited and only available to qualified sponsors? For example the Louisiana Park Service is issued bar codes for placement in state parks. In other words, the general public would not be able to order a barcode reader - that would go a long way to controlling cache placement , quality control, and make the barcode unique.

 

It could be a great place to get a cache where previously it was previously impossible to hide a cache. Also, the sponsor could provide a lot of positive exposure for geocaching.

Edited February 26, 2013 by rathergohiking

[+DragonsWest]

I'll remain uncommitted on this.

 

But some consideration - Geocaching is being overrun with fire-and-forget caches, convenience food or candy containers, mini-ziploc bags with camo tape on them, pill bottles, etc. Now, some people are actually maintaining theirs, others, where I direct attention to, have no interest in and you have doubtless been finding some of these along the way.

 

Back when I started playing, in 2003, the idea of something other than a durable and large container was fairly unheard of. Now we have magnetic strips, blinkies and film cans by the tens of thousands out there.

 

So before immediately condemning the idea of a QR label, consider the only real difference between them and the low end of the cache container quality spectrum is signing a log, which is required for all but Virtuals and Earthcaches.

 

Could be done and again the game would be evolving, though bear in mind you can't leave anything in certain wilderness areas or national parks, so the aren't filling a gap of any kind.

[+Rathergohiking]

To further my example of Louisiana Park Service, suppose they placed a barcode on a trail sign. It could be screwed on to the sign and be the size of a postage stamp. That would be minimally invasive and trash free. Virtually anyone who is not a cacher would even notice it. If they did and had a smart phone, then they would me introduced to geocaching.

 

The key to this in my opinion would be to limit the distribution of the barcodes to state parks, historical societies other similar organizations.

 

To really understand this, you need to visit Munzee.com and look at the quality of the barcodes they have for sale.

Edited February 27, 2013 by rathergohiking

[+St.Matthew]

I dabbled in that other game, and I vote NO!

 

Please no, keep these games seperate.

[+Walts Hunting]

I think I will,go with the current policy of requiring a container and a log to sign. I recently placed a cache that requires a android phone with NFC chip to get the coordinates but it takes you to a actual cache.

[+cerberus1]

We did a multi cache that had a QR code near a stage of a multi.

Apparently the stage went missing enough that it was a "back up" (affixed to an old rail).

Sure enough, we got to that spot and it was missing.

Used the code and completed the hide. That was fun.

 

- What isn't fun is the three that are affixed to shelves in our local library. Really?

This is such a great spot that three of you had to leave them there?

 

We were fly fishing last Fall and noticed a (of course) light pole that had six attached to it in a fly shop parking lot.

Six different games, or did six people think that light pole is awesome?

 

Edited to add... I understand there's a difference between a stage for a hide and this "other game" that's being played.

It's the "other game" I'm not too thrilled with.

If there's a vote, I vote nay.

Edited February 27, 2013 by cerberus1

[+T.D.M.22]

Kinda like a Munzee?? While I-and many others-do both, they are not the same thing. Using a QR code in a puzzle is one thing, but using it as a cache?? It has nothing to do with geocaching. If you want to do it join Munzee. This is Geocaching-we do not have to do everything out there.

 

Edit to add there are ways of cheating...and it takes special software to prevent that cheating-All the QR code does is take you to a webpage, so it would have to be incorporated into the app and a bunch of other stuff. At Munzee they have done some things to prevent cheating, and yet people can still get through it. I don't think it is a good idea.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Keystone
Link removed

[Keystone]

The topic is QR codes as a logging method and/or cache type. Please confine yourselves to that discussion. Some off topic material and links were removed.

 

When posting, please keep in mind the difference between analogizing to another game/listing service vs. promoting/linking to another game/listing service. Thanks.

[+ngrrfan]

Your thoughts??

Part of geocaching is signing the log at a cache. If I recall correctly, it is in the guidelines that you do so. So how do you propose to have a QR code sticker as a cache? Where is the physical log to sign?

[+Manville Possum]

Your thoughts??

Part of geocaching is signing the log at a cache. If I recall correctly, it is in the guidelines that you do so. So how do you propose to have a QR code sticker as a cache? Where is the physical log to sign?

I'm aware of the GPS units that are compatable with QR codes that gives the CO proof of visit, and I have the same concerns as you about QR codes and physical logs. I don't like the idea and would not want to see them here as a logging option. The OP's idea is nothing new to geocaching, but as I see it, a already failed idea by another company.

[team tisri]

Barcodes could be manufactured with quality plastic, so they would last a long time and not be as prone to be muggled. Perhaps geocaching.com could buy a company like Munzee.com, that already has something similar?

 

Your thoughts??

 

Terrible idea.

 

If we can't have virtuals because there's nothing to sign, if we can't have webcams because there's nothing to sign, then we can't have QR caches because there's nothing to sign.

 

Part of the point of hiding a cache is to choose a location that's less likely to be muggled and a container that's likely to last. We have enough issues already with new cachers thinking this is a cool game and hiding a junky takeaway container only to decide it's not such a cool game and abandon their excuse for a cache until it either disappears or disintegrates and is archived by a reviewer for non-maintenance.

 

I instinctively dislike making the game more exclusive of those who don't happen to own a particular piece of technology.

 

I dislike the idea of having caches that can be placed with minimal thought and less maintenance and which will inevitably end up springing up in all sorts of unimaginative locations

 

I don't like ideas that seem to point towards ever-more dumbing down of the game. Part of caching is finding the container - if hidden containers are no longer required and we end up with QR codes stuck all over the place the concept of actually finding something goes by the wayside.

 

If someone has to scan a QR code to log their find why not just ask them to submit a GPX track log to show they were in the general area and not bother defacing posts and signs?

[+JL_HSTRE]

I think QR codes are useful for verification, but I don't want caching to turn into Munzees or TC tags.

[+Bartians]

Bad idea. In my smaller town, we're already running out of spots to place a cache. The uninspiring bison tube in a tree is bad enough. We need more quality caches. Caches that take a while to dream up and put a real smile on your face.

[+J Grouchy]

I recently placed a cache that requires a android phone with NFC chip to get the coordinates but it takes you to a actual cache.

 

There was debate about this in another thread...so this one got approved? To me it seems like a difficult sell because of the potential for using it for advertising or nefarious purposes.

Same with QR codes, I suppose. Is there a way the QR codes could be "hijacked" to direct a device to a site with a virus?

[+frinklabs]

Is there a way the QR codes could be "hijacked" to direct a device to a site with a virus?

 

Yes. I would not trust any QR code as far as I could spit a live rat:

 

http://qrworld.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/qr-codes-viruses-should-we-panic/

 

http://mashable.com/2011/10/20/qr-code-security-threat/

 

http://www.androidpolice.com/2011/09/30/be-careful-where-you-stick-your-camera-some-qr-codes-are-dirty/

 

http://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2012/06/12/bob-rankin-can-qr-codes-spread-computer-viruses/

[+Mrdlg2u]

"QR codes cannot be viruses!

A virus must be a part of an executable – meaning a part of an app that runs on your mobile device. QR codes have no executable data encoded in, and even if they contained machines instructions for some devices – no QR code reader is capable of executing them. So one thing must be stated clear – QR codes cannot be viruses.

At the worst case they can point to a URL that will suggest you to download an app that if you choose to download it ..."

 

My thought is that it should be offered as a choice...

Sign the log book or scan the code. This leaves no one out, and if you don't want to use the new tech, you just ignore it. But who could ever not want "new tech".

I use a magnetic compass and a slide rule, along with my paper map, for all my finds.

 

I can't get over how much geocachers dislike QR codes...

maybe its because there are only 5 QR codes within 50 miles of me, 3 are mine.

 

Later,

MrDLG2u

 

[+hzoi]

I think Groundspeak should create another iconic cache type – use a QR reader with a smart phone in order to log a cache.

 

 

Imagine being able to log a cache at an overlook to the Grand Canyon because there is a barcode on the trail sign, or log a find at the Museum of Natural History in Chicago, etc.

 

I would rather imagine someone working with the National Park Service to set up an earthcache at the Grand Canyon. It's not that hard, I'm about to get two earthcaches approved by the NPS. There are only a few in the park, I am willing to bet there are plenty of areas in the canyon that could be featured in an earthcache.

 

As far as a cache in a museum -- the whole point of geocaching is using GPS technology to find things. How exactly does one do that indoors? This isn't Foursquare, this is about finding things.

[+Manville Possum]

I think QR codes are useful for verification

My concern is that if the QR code can be used for verifacation, then why have a physical log or bother signing it? Another thing is that for geocachers like myself that don't use a smart phone or a compatable GPS unit (and they aren't cheap)we are excluded from that part of the game like we are now with Chirp wireless becons. Even with PMO listings, basic members still have a way of logging them. So from the OP's idea, would it make the company more $'s or just exclude more members?

[+Fiver1]

I vote against QR code geocaching. What's wrong with what we have now? I keep seeing threads concerning new cache types, changes to how things are done, new regulations or restrictions, etc....

 

I've enjoyed the plain old vanilla geocaching as it has been since day one. Someone places a cache, someone else uses a piece of electronic gear to go find it. I ask, "What's wrong with that?" Why change things if they still work as intended?

 

I guess I'm just old fashioned, but I like things the way they are.

[+frinklabs]

I can't get over how much geocachers dislike QR codes...

 

My dislike of QR codes stems not from geocaching but from my job. As an IT person, they are a hassle. Users at my work were trying to include them as part of their email signature. On the face of it, this is stupid. Why would you scan an image on the screen to get information that you already have in the email? More pointedly, they were wondering why recipients of their emails were complaining that messages were being flagged as having malicious content.

 

Meanwhile, I am glad that the suggestion has been made here. This means it will very likely never be implemented.

[team tisri]

I can't get over how much geocachers dislike QR codes...

 

My dislike of QR codes stems not from geocaching but from my job. As an IT person, they are a hassle. Users at my work were trying to include them as part of their email signature. On the face of it, this is stupid. Why would you scan an image on the screen to get information that you already have in the email? More pointedly, they were wondering why recipients of their emails were complaining that messages were being flagged as having malicious content.

 

Meanwhile, I am glad that the suggestion has been made here. This means it will very likely never be implemented.

 

I think this is a good point. So many people see the latest technology and find a way to shoehorn it into an activity, as opposed to looking how it can add value to a process.

 

I like technology but hate technology for its own sake. Technology used well makes life easier, more enjoyable and whatnot. Technology used for its own sake usually just means yet another device needs to be used to achieve the same thing that used to be done without another doodad.

[+Mrdlg2u]

I can't get over how much geocachers dislike QR codes...

 

My dislike of QR codes stems not from geocaching but from my job. As an IT person, they are a hassle. Users at my work were trying to include them as part of their email signature. On the face of it, this is stupid. Why would you scan an image on the screen to get information that you already have in the email? More pointedly, they were wondering why recipients of their emails were complaining that messages were being flagged as having malicious content.

 

Meanwhile, I am glad that the suggestion has been made here. This means it will very likely never be implemented.

 

I think this is a good point. So many people see the latest technology and find a way to shoehorn it into an activity, as opposed to looking how it can add value to a process.

 

I like technology but hate technology for its own sake. Technology used well makes life easier, more enjoyable and whatnot. Technology used for its own sake usually just means yet another device needs to be used to achieve the same thing that used to be done without another doodad.

I belong to a few different forums, for my other hobbies, and this is a complaint of many people. "Don"t push your new technology on everyone, we like it the way it is"

I also don't like "technology for its own sake". But, If it is just put in as an option. How can that hurt??

There are a host of good reasons to have an option to the log book.

We are using a great piece of technology to make the find... then try to wright on a wet log book with a broken pencil. (please don't miss my point by telling me to bring my own pencil.)

 

I don't think a QR code should replace anything. But it could be used with the cache. My kids will not care about the QR code, they want to put there names in the log and trade a toy. But, when I am going out to get a couple of finds during my lunch hour, I want to make the find and move on.

 

Later,

MrDLG2u

[team tisri]

I can't get over how much geocachers dislike QR codes...

 

My dislike of QR codes stems not from geocaching but from my job. As an IT person, they are a hassle. Users at my work were trying to include them as part of their email signature. On the face of it, this is stupid. Why would you scan an image on the screen to get information that you already have in the email? More pointedly, they were wondering why recipients of their emails were complaining that messages were being flagged as having malicious content.

 

Meanwhile, I am glad that the suggestion has been made here. This means it will very likely never be implemented.

 

I think this is a good point. So many people see the latest technology and find a way to shoehorn it into an activity, as opposed to looking how it can add value to a process.

 

I like technology but hate technology for its own sake. Technology used well makes life easier, more enjoyable and whatnot. Technology used for its own sake usually just means yet another device needs to be used to achieve the same thing that used to be done without another doodad.

I belong to a few different forums, for my other hobbies, and this is a complaint of many people. "Don"t push your new technology on everyone, we like it the way it is"

I also don't like "technology for its own sake". But, If it is just put in as an option. How can that hurt??

There are a host of good reasons to have an option to the log book.

We are using a great piece of technology to make the find... then try to wright on a wet log book with a broken pencil. (please don't miss my point by telling me to bring my own pencil.)

 

I don't think a QR code should replace anything. But it could be used with the cache. My kids will not care about the QR code, they want to put there names in the log and trade a toy. But, when I am going out to get a couple of finds during my lunch hour, I want to make the find and move on.

 

Later,

MrDLG2u

 

When technology provides another option I have no problem with it at all, to object to such a thing would seem petty in the extreme. It would effectively be saying that I not only want my caching experience preserved but I want it imposed upon everybody else.

 

I would want the FTF to be confirmed by who wrote in the book first. Otherwise I can see arguments over who was FTF when one person logged a cache via the QR code while another had written in the book and both claimed to have been there first.

 

The original proposal involved having a barcode type of cache, i.e. a cache that was a barcode or QR code or some such and nothing more. So while it makes no odds to me whether there's a QR code inside a cache or not the last thing I want is endless caches popping up that are nothing more than a QR code.

 

That leads on to a discussion about exclusivity. A cache at the top of a tall tree excludes people like me on the basis I'm too fat to climb trees. But I could always learn to climb, I could always lose weight, and if I were to find a way to get to the top of the tree I'd have the chance to enjoy the views I can't get from the ground. Likewise caches part way down cliff faces that require climbing or abseiling exclude me, as do scuba caches and the like. But all those locations combine caching with another hobby. A cache that is a QR code or NFC tag or some such may start out as a clever idea but sooner or later has a depressing tendency to revert to the lowest common denominator so instead of a wet film pot behind a sign we'd see a wet QR code stuck to the sign.

 

If there's a degree of cost and effort involved people think twice about putting out a cache. If you can buy or print a QR code for pennies, there's no time cost and no monetary cost to creating it and no need to ever maintain it, it seems almost certain there will be a proliferation of them. Then geocaching will most likely revert to a game that just involves running around with a cellphone scanning QR codes every 200 yards.

[+L0ne.R]

But, when I am going out to get a couple of finds during my lunch hour, I want to make the find and move on.

 

I hide M's. About 90% of finders scan and go, no comments, except by the old timer geocachers who know how much comments are appreciated. But that's the M game. It's about points. I'd like to think that geocaching is more then points/smileys. But it's gradually going that way. QR code logbooks would speed it along that path.

 

Caches started off swag size with a logbook, not logsheet. Then micros came along. Logsheets became the norm, even in large caches. Cache owners wanted people to conserve space, often printing a table with 200 tiny cells on the sheet - just enough for initials and a date. Soon that became the norm for many caches. Then acronym-only physical logs became the online log norm even for good caches. QR code logs would lead to fewer and fewer online logs until no comments becomes the norm.

Edited March 1, 2013 by L0ne R

[+Team Bostradamus]

Kinda weird, I made a post about this "M" game and another cache based game a week or so ago to see if anyone played(just to see what's out there) and a moderator removed it with the quickness...

The way I see this idea, if you don't like GR games, don't play... just like if you don't like nanos, don't look for them.

It's not like you'll go out there and "SURPRISE, it's a barcode!!"

I wouldn't go after them, but to each their own, right?

[+TomToad]

I think the OP has a great idea. Such a great idea that there is already at least 2 sites devoted to just that type of game. No need to bring it here to Geocaching.com. You don't see Snopes posting recipes, or the NFL posting baseball stats. Just because something is a good idea, doesn't mean it needs to be here.

 

As for using it as an alternative way to log a cache, no. It will create even more lazy cache owners than we already have. "X posted a Needs Maintenance on A Cache: The logbook is thoroughly soaked!" "Y Performed Maintenance on A Cache: I don't need to drive 1/2 miles to Walmart to replace the log every time it gets wet! Just log it with the barcode instead."

[+DonB]

Your thoughts??

 

If GC.com becomes another Munzee, I'm outta' here. Barcodes would become the new micro. They would dominate the field in terms of numbers. I don't have/want a smartphone or other barcode reader. I don't want to find a cache that contains nothing.

+1 I could tell you what to do with your smart phones but the moderators wouldn't like it.

[+hzoi]

I Believe This Line of conversation will be short-lived if it continues to focus on competing games rather than adding a new feature to geocaching.

 

Pretty sure I saw a moderator indicate that above.

 

(That is all.)

[+L0ne.R]

I think QR codes could be a nice addition to Waymarking. Virtual QR code "logbooks" might be an incentive to visit waymarks. They could operate the same way virtual Ms currently do. You still have to visit a location (within x number of feet) for the "logbook" to activate on your cell phone. Then you log it and leave a comment (perhaps even upload a photo).

[+Mrdlg2u]

Your thoughts??

 

If GC.com becomes another Munzee, I'm outta' here. Barcodes would become the new micro. They would dominate the field in terms of numbers. I don't have/want a smartphone or other barcode reader. I don't want to find a cache that contains nothing.

+1 I could tell you what to do with your smart phones but the moderators wouldn't like it.

Why be like that?? these are just ideas and options to a great game.

 

Later,

MrDLG2u

[+Mrdlg2u]

I really like Geocaching. There are a bunch of different types of caches. There are some I just ignore.

The QR codes could be added as an option and the game would go on as before... If you don't like scanning, ignore it.

If you use your smart phone to find caches and log caches, it would be a nice option.

 

Later,

MrDLG2u

[+Rathergohiking]

Everyone seems to miss my point -LIMIT the distribution to such organaczations as historical societies, state parks, etc. Those special places you go to where geocachers are either limited or not allowed at all. Make it a "rare" icon. If it is something that will morph into something like a LPC on every corner I would be totally against it. I guess I should have made that clearer when I started this thread.

[team tisri]

Everyone seems to miss my point -LIMIT the distribution to such organaczations as historical societies, state parks, etc. Those special places you go to where geocachers are either limited or not allowed at all. Make it a "rare" icon. If it is something that will morph into something like a LPC on every corner I would be totally against it. I guess I should have made that clearer when I started this thread.

 

I'd still rather see the old fashioned virtual cache coming back to do that. A virtual cache encourages the visitor to go find some information, take in the history, enjoy the view, whatever. A QR code on a post could end up encouraging the visitor to scan the code and move on.

 

Having them heavily limited is all well and good but still means that only those with the appropriate hardware can then take in the cache at the historical monument or whatever. By the time we end up with a Blackberry app, an Android app, an iPhone app, a Windows Mobile app, all to capture and log this barcode in their own way, it still excludes people who cache with a GPS unit when a simple "how tall is the monument?" type question would do the exact same thing.

[+eagsc7]

+1 for new RESTRICTED Cache type. This would be QR Codes to log the cache within otherwise restricted areas(National Parks). these would be coordinated between the local geocachers, the park, and Groundspeak. Groundspeak makes a form that the geocacher prints off and takes to the park for cache approval. Once park approves, a GC Code and QR Barcode is created. The cacher goes back to the park, and depending on how the park wants the code displayed(either paper Laminated, Sticker, or TB Style tag) they coorinate to have the QR Code made. IF TB styled tag or sticker, cacher could contact Groundspeak to have it made.

 

The Steaks

[+geodarts]

+1 for new RESTRICTED Cache type. This would be QR Codes to log the cache within otherwise restricted areas(National Parks). these would be coordinated between the local geocachers, the park, and Groundspeak. Groundspeak makes a form that the geocacher prints off and takes to the park for cache approval. Once park approves, a GC Code and QR Barcode is created. . . .

 

It may not be so easy. It was even difficult to convince many parks to accept earthcaches. It took me six months to get the first one approved at the Grand Canyon. It took even longer for Yosemite to approve the first one. The manager of federal lands in my area told me he would be never approve physical containers and I doubt he would see much difference with QR codes. But at the same time, who is to say what is restricted? Some national parks in the US have begun to accept physical containers.

 

In the end, perhaps, it comes down to what is appropriate for an area. The state parks where I live are generally open to caching within certain limits (even if they are routinely disregarded by Groundspeak), but have designated certain areas allowing only virtuals. QR codes would still present many of the problems associated with physical caches and I would not want to see them on trail signs, historical markers, or other things.

 

As others have said, I am not sure what QR codes could do that a virtual would not - and virtuals would not be hampered by network reception issues. If Groundspeak wanted to extend this game into restricted areas, as they once did, virtuals provide a means to do so that would not require parks to change their rules. I stood at a virtual on the edge of a 3000 foot overlook, 60 miles from anywhere. Would a QR code have worked there? I did a virtual at an old structure on a granite rock down a little used trail. I would not have wanted that area disturbed with a physical cache - would it have been any better to find a QR code - where the only options would have been on a rock, tree, or beam? What do QR codes really offer as a way of taking this game into restricted areas?

Edited March 3, 2013 by geodarts

[team tisri]

As others have said, I am not sure what QR codes could do that a virtual would not - and virtuals would not be hampered by network reception issues. If Groundspeak wanted to extend this game into restricted areas, as they once did, virtuals provide a means to do so that would not require parks to change their rules. I stood at a virtual on the edge of a 3000 foot overlook, 60 miles from anywhere. Would a QR code have worked there? I did a virtual at an old structure on a granite rock down a little used trail. I would not have wanted that area disturbed with a physical cache - would it have been any better to find a QR code - where the only options would have been on a rock, tree, or beam? What do QR codes really offer as a way of taking this game into restricted areas?

 

The QR code would still work as the phone could verify its location based on GPS and the camera within the phone would still work.

 

As you say there's little a QR code could do that a question about the view couldn't do, except of course exclude people who don't happen to have the right brand of smartphone. Oh yes, and the chance to disintegrate because the owner figured a QR doesn't need any maintenance.

 

This just seems like another way to solve a problem that would be better solved by allowing virtuals, even if under tight control. Breathtaking vistas make sense, branches of McDonalds less so. There would be an inevitable process of determining where the line between the extremes needed to be drawn but the same would apply whatever alternative to a physical box is proposed.

 

At least branches of McDonalds have no geological interest so we won't see earthcaches popping up all over the place.

[+vw_k]

If a physical cache isn't allowed somewhere then I'd rather see an Earthcache placed there with co-operation from the relevant authorities, or perhaps another kind of educational "virtual" be introduced for locations with historical or cultural importance.

 

I really don't see what the fun is of finding a QR code and scanning it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

If a physical cache isn't allowed somewhere then I'd rather see an Earthcache placed there with co-operation from the relevant authorities, or perhaps another kind of educational "virtual" be introduced for locations with historical or cultural importance.

 

I really don't see what the fun is of finding a QR code and scanning it.

 

I agree. On the other hand, placing a QR code in plain sight (i.e. on the outside of a lamp post skirt) doesn't take any imagination but with a little creativity, finding an scanning a QR code a bit of a challenge Ii.e. on the top of a lamp post).

[+TomToad]

I don't think QR codes will add anything to geocaching, but probably make things worse. Imagine you spend a great deal of time making a geocache, with a big container full of swag, getting proper permissions, etc... and find that when you go to submit it, someone hid a QR code on a lamppost 200 feet away. We already have issues with micros getting in the way of better caches. Because QR codes require even less effort than tossing a film can, you can bet there'll be even a bigger problem with QR. Some might say that the solution is to allow QR codes only in certain locations, like historical, or otherwise some significant location where a physical container will be difficult or impossible. That sounds a lot like the WOW factor that was tried with virtuals. It didn't work then and it most likely wont work with QR codes either. If Groundspeak does decide it wants to try the QR route, they should create another site for it, like they did when they tried challenges, or maybe it could be integrated into Waymarking.