Need new "Verified found" option. A Physical barcode.

[+NimravusHSSR]

Some other caching sites offer a Verification system for found caches. Meaning the owner has the option to put a barcode and/or Verification Code. When someone finds the cache, they scan it with their phone or enter the verification code when they log the find.

 

It would be great if Geocaching.com would have this system. Maybe have 2 different finds. The traditional where someone can just log the find likes its always been done and a "Verified Found". The Verified Found count would be a separate counter something like this:

 

NimravusHSSR

Found: (19)

Verified Found: (6)

[+cerberus1]

If you could already log a "Found", what would be the incentive to have a separate "Verified Found"?

- Seems redundant.

 

Many have their count "verified" through the system, by how many they've found with how many are "distinct".

 

Luckily this one isn't like some other caching sites.

- The reason so many others wish to copy it.

[+T.D.M.22]

And what's to stop me from taking a picture of said barcode and passing it around to the 100 people at the event the next day?

 

It sounds like an un-named QR code game. If I want to play that game it will, but if I want to geocache, i expect to find a geocache.

[+kunarion]

Is this the same suggestion as all the other “barcode verification” suggestions: “A way to prove I found it”? If not, why in the example would you "Verify Found" only 6 of 19 caches?

Edited April 14, 2013 by kunarion

[+fitbobcat]

I think that this would just be a pain in the donkey. What about the log.

[+NimravusHSSR]

I haven't been on this forum for years, such hostility geez. Lol. It was just a thought. I just thought it would be easier for me to just launch the App, scan the barcode and it opens up the cache and logs it, type a log and hit save.

 

All your points are valid. Cheating is still possible but much less accesible as just clicking "found it" as it is now. Maybe make it able to change the code as often as I want, just hit re-generate code and then take the code up to my cache and replace it once a week, month, or whenever I fee like it.

 

It was just a thought I had while driving today! Lol

[+NimravusHSSR]

Is this the same suggestion as all the other “barcode verification” suggestions: “A way to prove I found it”? If not, why in the example would you "Verify Found" only 6 of 19 caches?

 

Because the system wasn't in place the first 19 I found.

Edited April 14, 2013 by NimravusHSSR

[+kunarion]

Is this the same suggestion as all the other barcode verification suggestions: A way to prove I found it? If not, why in the example would you "Verify Found" only 6 of 19 caches?

 

Because as I stated, the system wasn't in place the first 19 I found.

Do you doubt you've found those 6 caches?

 

The reason I asked "Is this the same suggestion as all the other barcode verification suggestions: A way to prove I found it?", is that's important to the idea. If you can claim a find, "Prove It", by scanning a barcode or typing a number, all you need is the number (or a barcode). You don't need to have found the cache. This means it's an extra step, but does NOT mean the cacher found the cache. That's what the signature might show (among other things), without needing barcodes.

Edited April 14, 2013 by kunarion

[+NimravusHSSR]

Is this the same suggestion as all the other “barcode verification” suggestions: “A way to prove I found it”? If not, why in the example would you "Verify Found" only 6 of 19 caches?

 

Because as I stated, the system wasn't in place the first 19 I found.

Do you doubt you've found those 6 caches?

 

The reason I asked "Is this the same suggestion as all the other “barcode verification” suggestions: “A way to prove I found it”?", is that's important to the idea. If you can claim a find, "Prove It", by scanning a barcode or typing a number, all you need is the number (or a barcode). You don't need to have found the cache. This means it's an extra step, but does NOT mean the cacher found the cache. That's what the signature might show (among other things), without needing barcodes.

 

The 19/6 thing was an example I just conjured up for a visual.

 

True, but a signature log won't scan and launch the cache page in the phone app making it easy for people to log finds on the go? Kind of like the Amazon app, first page there is a "Scan" button. Press it, scan and it shows you results. So easy to use at stores. Geocaching app menu page has "scan", press the button, scan, log and done.

Edited April 14, 2013 by NimravusHSSR

[+wmpastor]

What's next? Iris recognition?

 

<<< blinking irises

[+The A-Team]

...but a signature log won't scan and launch the cache page in the phone app making it easy for people to log finds on the go?

QR codes will already do this. All a CO has to do is make a QR code of the URL of the "Log a visit" page of their cache and put it in the cache. I haven't done this for any of my caches, but I did for a couple of my TBs. Scanning the QR code attached to those TBs takes the user straight to the TB's page so they can log a retrieve, discover, etc.

[+kunarion]

but a signature log won't scan and launch the cache page in the phone app making it easy for people to log finds on the go? Kind of like the Amazon app, first page there is a "Scan" button. Press it, scan and it shows you results. So easy to use at stores. Geocaching app menu page has "scan", press the button, scan, log and done.

If you're using the app to find a cache, you have the log available on that screen, no scan needed. If you're not using the App, you'd need different barcodes for different purposes. It could be to get the cache number of a container you stumble upon, not to log the find, and certainly not always some secret "verification" code unrelated to the cache number. So the format of any barcode idea needs to be carefully considered.

 

If it's something like a 500 cache power trail, it might be handy, just to keep them all organized. If you can fit a barcode on a Micro. That extra step might add time to each cache, unless they use only the barcode. Those guys tend to be in a hurry.

 

The thing is, you can stick a barcode on your caches today. Whatever the plan is, people could set it up and show us all how it's done. Everything but the actual two different scores can be done right now, if it's useful.

Edited April 14, 2013 by kunarion

[+tozainamboku]

I haven't been on this forum for years, such hostility geez. Lol. It was just a thought. I just thought it would be easier for me to just launch the App, scan the barcode and it opens up the cache and logs it, type a log and hit save.

 

All your points are valid. Cheating is still possible but much less accesible as just clicking "found it" as it is now. Maybe make it able to change the code as often as I want, just hit re-generate code and then take the code up to my cache and replace it once a week, month, or whenever I fee like it.

 

It was just a thought I had while driving today! Lol

When geocaching was started, the internet was in its infancy. Cell phones were for making phone calls (Well there was SMS but texting wasn't a verb yet). The game was started by posting the coordinates in something called a news group (an early form of Twitter). The idea was to go out and look for the cache using something called a dedicated GPS unit. This unit had no connectivity. It simply relied on the signals from GPS satellites to compute its position. The inventor of the game simply asked for people to write something in the log when they found the cache. There was no concept of a score. Within a few months, the Geocaching.com website was set up. Now people had the ability to post about their adventures online and share them with other geocachers.

 

Of course, in the internet world, that meant that someone could simply post online without actually finding the cache.

 

From that first bogus found log, the forums have been filled with suggestions on ways to verify a cache find. Many people have predicted the demise of geocaching if nothing was done about this.

 

Perhaps in this day and age where everyone has a smartphone, we finally have the technology to fix this old problem of geocaching. Clearly other games that use QR codes and location information from the phone, and we see how other games define their goals in these technological terms to prevent most rampant cheating. I can see the appeal to those used to social media games where scores get posted and twitted about. In this world a game that use a score validated by technology has more cred than one based on an honor system.

 

My guess is that some of the negative responses you are getting in the forum come from old timers who have lived for a long time with the knowledge that geocaching find counts can't be relied on and that Found it logs need to be read with caution. For many, realizing that you can never be sure of what you will find when you search and not caring what anyone's smiley count is it part of the charm of the game. While we may have technology now to verify finds, for many the question is "why?".

[+kunarion]

What's next? Iris recognition?

 

<<< blinking irises

This cache find verification idea uses nose prints. OK, the OP didn't suggest that, I did. But in many sci-fi stories, the bad guys use other people's eyeballs in the iris scanner. So irises are no good. It's gotta be nose prints.

[+NimravusHSSR]

While we may have technology now to verify finds, for many the question is "why?".

 

Hey you signed up a couple weeks before I did back in 2003! lol... you beat me by a hair!

 

Well, why would anyone just make a cache available to Premium Members only? Or make a night cache for finding at nights only? I think it's just an option for the CO? If someone hides a cache at the top of a 12,000ft peak somewhere remote and wanted to verify the FTF or something? I know codes can be distributed but would verify FTF at least. And make it difficult for the casual "cheater".

 

So with that same mentality, why make a "Premium Only" cache? a Basic Member can just have a Premium member look up Premium Member only caches and distribute those around. Why even have that option then? Just gives us more choices as the CO.

 

I can totally see myself hiding a cache somewhere crazy like San Gorgonio Peak at over 12,000ft here in San Bernardino County, or a difficult night hike deep into the woods. And making it available to log a "find" only with the verification code or barcode scan.

Edited April 14, 2013 by NimravusHSSR

[+NimravusHSSR]

...but a signature log won't scan and launch the cache page in the phone app making it easy for people to log finds on the go?

QR codes will already do this. All a CO has to do is make a QR code of the URL of the "Log a visit" page of their cache and put it in the cache. I haven't done this for any of my caches, but I did for a couple of my TBs. Scanning the QR code attached to those TBs takes the user straight to the TB's page so they can log a retrieve, discover, etc.

 

Good idea!..

 

Testing a link to this topic:

 

[+NimravusHSSR]

HA!... It works. I used QR Scanner for iPhone and it worked.. Now I have to generate some codes and tape it to the inside lids of my caches... haha..

 

Thanks for the tip.

 

But a verification code I would still use for the reason I stated in the previous post...

Edited April 14, 2013 by NimravusHSSR

[+Don_J]

While we may have technology now to verify finds, for many the question is "why?".

 

Hey you signed up a couple weeks before I did back in 2003! lol... you beat me by a hair!

 

Well, why would anyone just make a cache available to Premium Members only? Or make a night cache for finding at nights only? I think it's just an option for the CO? If someone hides a cache at the top of a 12,000ft peak somewhere remote and wanted to verify the FTF or something? I know codes can be distributed but would verify FTF at least. And make it difficult for the casual "cheater".

 

So with that same mentality, why make a "Premium Only" cache? a Basic Member can just have a Premium member look up Premium Member only caches and distribute those around. Why even have that option then? Just gives us more choices as the CO.

 

I can totally see myself hiding a cache somewhere crazy like San Gorgonio Peak at over 12,000ft here in San Bernardino County, or a difficult night hike deep into the woods. And making it available to log a "find" only with the verification code or barcode scan.

 

If a basic member knows a premium member that will give him the coordinates to one of my PMO caches, then he is more than welcome to go find it and log it online. The only reason that I have PMO caches is to protect them from the attention deficient, instant gratification smartphone cachers. Instant barcode logging just feeds that mentality. This isn't the checkout at the supermarket. Slow down and enjoy the game instead of trying to find ways to change it.

 

Take it a step further, and it is certain to happen, people will simply be sticking bar codes to lamp post covers and not even bothering to stick the cheep rusty container inside. There is already a game for that and with exception of them using the word on their website, it has nothing to do with geocaching.

[+NimravusHSSR]

 

If a basic member knows a premium member that will give him the coordinates to one of my PMO caches, then he is more than welcome to go find it and log it online. The only reason that I have PMO caches is to protect them from the attention deficient, instant gratification smartphone cachers. Instant barcode logging just feeds that mentality. This isn't the checkout at the supermarket. Slow down and enjoy the game instead of trying to find ways to change it.

 

Take it a step further, and it is certain to happen, people will simply be sticking bar codes to lamp post covers and not even bothering to stick the cheep rusty container inside. There is already a game for that and with exception of them using the word on their website, it has nothing to do with geocaching.

 

You might like to take it slow and enjoy the game, but some might not. Maybe some like the drive up, find and go style. Which way is right? Your way? There is no right or wrong way to go caching, to each his own? But having the options to design a cache to a person's liking and specification is what I was saying. Some might not think Premium only caches are right, or night caches are for them, etc etc.

 

I'm not trying to change anything except add another option for Cache Owners, same as the option to make it available to premium Members only (is it pay or you can't play or what? lol). Some caches are designed for the instant gratification of driving right up to it, finding it and bamn... you are off...Reject those who design a cache that way because thats not how the game is supposed to be played according to you?

 

And virtual caches already exist. That's not what I was suggesting.

Edited April 14, 2013 by NimravusHSSR

[+niraD]

As others have pointed out, scanning the QR code doesn't really verify anything, except that I somehow obtained a copy of the QR code. It's really the same thing as keyword caches (which were abandoned years ago), only more high tech.

 

I can totally see myself hiding a cache somewhere crazy like San Gorgonio Peak at over 12,000ft here in San Bernardino County, or a difficult night hike deep into the woods. And making it available to log a "find" only with the verification code or barcode scan.

So now, in addition to finding the cache that you hid "somewhere crazy", finders also need to copy the verification code or photograph the QR code? That sounds like an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR, also abandoned, although only a few years ago).

 

As a cache owner, I'd be concerned that those who want "verified" finds would pressure me to add a meaningless code to my caches.

 

As a cache seeker, I'd be concerned that those who want "verified" finds would pressure the owners of caches I like, and that some of those caches would be archived by owners who got fed up with the pressure to add a meaningless code to their caches.

 

I really don't see an upside here...

[+NimravusHSSR]

As others have pointed out, scanning the QR code doesn't really verify anything, except that I somehow obtained a copy of the QR code. It's really the same thing as keyword caches (which were abandoned years ago), only more high tech.

 

I can totally see myself hiding a cache somewhere crazy like San Gorgonio Peak at over 12,000ft here in San Bernardino County, or a difficult night hike deep into the woods. And making it available to log a "find" only with the verification code or barcode scan.

So now, in addition to finding the cache that you hid "somewhere crazy", finders also need to copy the verification code or photograph the QR code? That sounds like an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR, also abandoned, although only a few years ago).

 

As a cache owner, I'd be concerned that those who want "verified" finds would pressure me to add a meaningless code to my caches.

 

As a cache seeker, I'd be concerned that those who want "verified" finds would pressure the owners of caches I like, and that some of those caches would be archived by owners who got fed up with the pressure to add a meaningless code to their caches.

 

I really don't see an upside here...

 

Upside is choice, like Premium caches option. If someone doesn't like the conditions of a cache, they just don't go find it. If they don't want to obtain the verification code from the cache to log it, it's their choice.. don't do the cache?

 

And not ALL caches will require this... I was just suggesting making a checkbox to enable it if the CO chooses?

 

As a cache owner, if you are concerned DON'T enable that option. Why would you be pressured to do anything? Do what you want.

 

As a cache seeker, if you are concerned DON'T go seek that cache.

 

Don't we all scroll through and reject some caches that don't appeal to us already? Some cache seekers don't want to go caching at night... but night caches exist because it's the choice of the cache owner. Some people don't want to go hiking into the woods 4 miles but there exists caches like that because it's the cache owner's choice. Not everyone has the same likes and dislikes. My suggestion was just to add another option, not a mandatory thing. Just an option like Multi-Caches or Puzzle Caches. Some like puzzles, some don't.

 

No one is pro-choice here? Just your way or the highway? lol...

 

Wherigo is a verification key system and promoted by Geocaching already.

Edited April 14, 2013 by NimravusHSSR

[+Don_J]

As others have pointed out, scanning the QR code doesn't really verify anything, except that I somehow obtained a copy of the QR code. It's really the same thing as keyword caches (which were abandoned years ago), only more high tech.

 

I can totally see myself hiding a cache somewhere crazy like San Gorgonio Peak at over 12,000ft here in San Bernardino County, or a difficult night hike deep into the woods. And making it available to log a "find" only with the verification code or barcode scan.

So now, in addition to finding the cache that you hid "somewhere crazy", finders also need to copy the verification code or photograph the QR code? That sounds like an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR, also abandoned, although only a few years ago).

 

As a cache owner, I'd be concerned that those who want "verified" finds would pressure me to add a meaningless code to my caches.

 

As a cache seeker, I'd be concerned that those who want "verified" finds would pressure the owners of caches I like, and that some of those caches would be archived by owners who got fed up with the pressure to add a meaningless code to their caches.

 

I really don't see an upside here...

 

Upside is choice, like Premium caches option. If someone doesn't like the conditions of a cache, they just don't go find it. If they don't want to obtain the verification code from the cache to log it, it's their choice.. don't do the cache?

 

And not ALL caches will require this... I was just suggesting making a checkbox to enable it if the CO chooses?

 

As a cache owner, if you are concerned DON'T enable that option. Why would you be pressured to do anything? Do what you want.

 

As a cache seeker, if you are concerned DON'T go seek that cache.

 

Don't we all scroll through and reject some caches that don't appeal to us already? Some cache seekers don't want to go caching at night... but night caches exist because it's the choice of the cache owner. Some people don't want to go hiking into the woods 4 miles but there exists caches like that because it's the cache owner's choice. Not everyone has the same likes and dislikes. My suggestion was just to add another option, not a mandatory thing. Just an option like Multi-Caches or Puzzle Caches. Some like puzzles, some don't.

 

No one is pro-choice here? Just your way or the highway? lol...

 

Wherigo is a verification key system and promoted by Geocaching already.

 

Luckily, your idea will never happen. This isn't a smartphone game and while it may happen at some point that there are caches that you can only find with a smartphone, it not likely that Groundspeak will ever forbid someone from logging a cache that they have found simply because they don't have a smartphone. One fundamental concept of this game is if you found it, you can log it. Groundspeak abolished codeword caches years ago and I don't see them re-instituting them in the form of a bar-code.

[+NimravusHSSR]

It doesn't require a smartphone. You can also write down the code (numbers) and enter it on a computer during the regular logging. No smartphone required, so I don't get what you are saying. If one has a smartphone I can be used to scan, if not it still works.

 

"Luckily, your idea will never happen"

And you deal in absolutes. Only Sith deals in absolutes. Lol. Like I mentioned before, a verification key caching game already exists on geocaching.com called Wherigo so... Uhm...

 

"It was just a mission statement"! Lol. Man you guys are so closed minded to ideas. Like talkig to a bunch of Sith's. haha.

[team tisri]

It doesn't require a smartphone. You can also write down the code (numbers) and enter it on a computer during the regular logging. No smartphone required, so I don't get what you are saying. If one has a smartphone I can be used to scan, if not it still works.

 

"Luckily, your idea will never happen"

And you deal in absolutes. Only Sith deals in absolutes. Lol. Like I mentioned before, a verification key caching game already exists on geocaching.com called Wherigo so... Uhm...

 

"It was just a mission statement"! Lol. Man you guys are so closed minded to ideas. Like talkig to a bunch of Sith's. haha.

 

Writing down the code doesn't prove anything, just as I can sign a physical log for a friend who wasn't there I can write down the code and give it to a friend who wasn't there.

 

I'm not closed to new ideas, I just call out what I believe to be bad ideas when I see them.

[team tisri]

As others have pointed out, scanning the QR code doesn't really verify anything, except that I somehow obtained a copy of the QR code. It's really the same thing as keyword caches (which were abandoned years ago), only more high tech.

 

I can totally see myself hiding a cache somewhere crazy like San Gorgonio Peak at over 12,000ft here in San Bernardino County, or a difficult night hike deep into the woods. And making it available to log a "find" only with the verification code or barcode scan.

So now, in addition to finding the cache that you hid "somewhere crazy", finders also need to copy the verification code or photograph the QR code? That sounds like an Additional Logging Requirement (ALR, also abandoned, although only a few years ago).

 

As a cache owner, I'd be concerned that those who want "verified" finds would pressure me to add a meaningless code to my caches.

 

As a cache seeker, I'd be concerned that those who want "verified" finds would pressure the owners of caches I like, and that some of those caches would be archived by owners who got fed up with the pressure to add a meaningless code to their caches.

 

I really don't see an upside here...

 

Upside is choice, like Premium caches option. If someone doesn't like the conditions of a cache, they just don't go find it. If they don't want to obtain the verification code from the cache to log it, it's their choice.. don't do the cache?

 

And not ALL caches will require this... I was just suggesting making a checkbox to enable it if the CO chooses?

 

As a cache owner, if you are concerned DON'T enable that option. Why would you be pressured to do anything? Do what you want.

 

As a cache seeker, if you are concerned DON'T go seek that cache.

 

Don't we all scroll through and reject some caches that don't appeal to us already? Some cache seekers don't want to go caching at night... but night caches exist because it's the choice of the cache owner. Some people don't want to go hiking into the woods 4 miles but there exists caches like that because it's the cache owner's choice. Not everyone has the same likes and dislikes. My suggestion was just to add another option, not a mandatory thing. Just an option like Multi-Caches or Puzzle Caches. Some like puzzles, some don't.

 

No one is pro-choice here? Just your way or the highway? lol...

 

Wherigo is a verification key system and promoted by Geocaching already.

 

The choice here isn't an upside.

 

I don't like caches at the top of tall trees because I'm too fat to climb tall trees. So if I see a cache at the top of a tall tree I ignore it. I don't have a problem with caches at the top of tall trees because lots of people aren't as fat as I am and like climbing trees to find caches. The same applies to abseiling caches, scuba caches etc.

 

If I see a fiendish puzzle I'll tend to ignore the cache because the kind of puzzle that's impossible unless you happen to spot the (sometimes tenuous) link between what's given and what isn't is the kind of puzzle that frustrates me intensely. But other people like difficult puzzles, so I have no issue with them.

 

Adding an option to require people to verify their find is nothing to do with a different cache experience, it just throws another obstacle in the way for the sake of it. It achieves no more than a cache that Magellan GPS owners were excluded from finding - for all one might argue that if they didn't want to buy a Garmin they could just ignore the cache the obvious counterargument is to ask what benefit it offers to require them to use a different brand of GPS.

 

Why not have a dieter's cache, where anyone over 250lbs in weight is prohibited from logging it? Hey, if they don't like the conditions they can lose some weight or ignore the cache, right?

[+larryc43230]

Luckily, your idea will never happen. This isn't a smartphone game and while it may happen at some point that there are caches that you can only find with a smartphone, it not likely that Groundspeak will ever forbid someone from logging a cache that they have found simply because they don't have a smartphone.

It's happening here already (if this recently-published puzzle cache is any indication):

 

Smartphone Required....

 

--Larry

[+L0ne.R]

While we may have technology now to verify finds, for many the question is "why?".

 

Hey you signed up a couple weeks before I did back in 2003! lol... you beat me by a hair!

 

Well, why would anyone just make a cache available to Premium Members only? Or make a night cache for finding at nights only? I think it's just an option for the CO? If someone hides a cache at the top of a 12,000ft peak somewhere remote and wanted to verify the FTF or something? I know codes can be distributed but would verify FTF at least. And make it difficult for the casual "cheater".

 

So with that same mentality, why make a "Premium Only" cache? a Basic Member can just have a Premium member look up Premium Member only caches and distribute those around. Why even have that option then? Just gives us more choices as the CO.

 

I can totally see myself hiding a cache somewhere crazy like San Gorgonio Peak at over 12,000ft here in San Bernardino County, or a difficult night hike deep into the woods. And making it available to log a "find" only with the verification code or barcode scan.

 

If a basic member knows a premium member that will give him the coordinates to one of my PMO caches, then he is more than welcome to go find it and log it online. The only reason that I have PMO caches is to protect them from the attention deficient, instant gratification smartphone cachers. Instant barcode logging just feeds that mentality. This isn't the checkout at the supermarket. Slow down and enjoy the game instead of trying to find ways to change it.

 

Take it a step further, and it is certain to happen, people will simply be sticking bar codes to lamp post covers and not even bothering to stick the cheep rusty container inside. There is already a game for that and with exception of them using the word on their website, it has nothing to do with geocaching.

 

Exactly. It makes caches even more about scoring a quick smiley. I also play the other QR game and rarely does anyone leave a comment. It's about scanning and moving on to the next one. All about the points. That's fine if that's what the game is all about from the onset. Let's not continue to move geocaching in that direction.

[+Don_J]

It doesn't require a smartphone. You can also write down the code (numbers) and enter it on a computer during the regular logging. No smartphone required, so I don't get what you are saying. If one has a smartphone I can be used to scan, if not it still works.

 

"Luckily, your idea will never happen"

And you deal in absolutes. Only Sith deals in absolutes. Lol. Like I mentioned before, a verification key caching game already exists on geocaching.com called Wherigo so... Uhm...

 

"It was just a mission statement"! Lol. Man you guys are so closed minded to ideas. Like talkig to a bunch of Sith's. haha.

 

Wherigo caches exist in two different web spaces, geocaching.com and Wherigo.com. The only thing necessary to log the cache on geocaching.com is to find the cache and sign the log. On my one and only Wherigo find, I never logged onto Wherigo.com and entered any code.

 

As far as absolutes, I simply don't think that Groundspeak is going to re-define Geocaching. I have to correct myself from earlier in that except for "Challenge Caches", caches can be logged as found if the cache is found and the only verification that a cache owner can require is a signature/mark on the log sheet. They learned from the past that requiring anything more, especially code words creates all kinds of problems.

 

It's not so much that we are closed minded, it's more that we are attuned to the history and see no reason to repeat the things that did not work.

[+Don_J]

Luckily, your idea will never happen. This isn't a smartphone game and while it may happen at some point that there are caches that you can only find with a smartphone, it not likely that Groundspeak will ever forbid someone from logging a cache that they have found simply because they don't have a smartphone.

It's happening here already (if this recently-published puzzle cache is any indication):

 

Smartphone Required....

 

--Larry

 

Interesting. I'm curious as to why a smartphone is required, but I guess that answer would reveal the puzzle. Unless it is the newest technology, which is not in all smartphones, you could probably complete it with a lap top or tablet, camera and maybe multiple trips.

[+NimravusHSSR]

 

Writing down the code doesn't prove anything, just as I can sign a physical log for a friend who wasn't there I can write down the code and give it to a friend who wasn't there.

 

I'm not closed to new ideas, I just call out what I believe to be bad ideas when I see them.

 

Your idea of a "bad idea" is different from mine or someone elses... so who is right?

 

It proves the FTF. How do you get the code from a friend for the FTF? hmmm...

Edited April 14, 2013 by NimravusHSSR

[+NimravusHSSR]

It doesn't require a smartphone. You can also write down the code (numbers) and enter it on a computer during the regular logging. No smartphone required, so I don't get what you are saying. If one has a smartphone I can be used to scan, if not it still works.

 

"Luckily, your idea will never happen"

And you deal in absolutes. Only Sith deals in absolutes. Lol. Like I mentioned before, a verification key caching game already exists on geocaching.com called Wherigo so... Uhm...

 

"It was just a mission statement"! Lol. Man you guys are so closed minded to ideas. Like talkig to a bunch of Sith's. haha.

 

Wherigo caches exist in two different web spaces, geocaching.com and Wherigo.com. The only thing necessary to log the cache on geocaching.com is to find the cache and sign the log. On my one and only Wherigo find, I never logged onto Wherigo.com and entered any code.

 

As far as absolutes, I simply don't think that Groundspeak is going to re-define Geocaching. I have to correct myself from earlier in that except for "Challenge Caches", caches can be logged as found if the cache is found and the only verification that a cache owner can require is a signature/mark on the log sheet. They learned from the past that requiring anything more, especially code words creates all kinds of problems.

 

It's not so much that we are closed minded, it's more that we are attuned to the history and see no reason to repeat the things that did not work.

 

Finally, someone with some good info and conversation other than "I hate it" attitude. thank you... lol, you say "WE" are attuned to the history.... some of the people responding negatively don't know about the history of Geocaching like you and I do looking at their registration dates. I agree with you that Geocaching should not repeat things that didn't work. I've been Caching for over a decade and been on Geocaching since 2003. I've literally have found hundreds if not into the 1000's range of caches.

 

If someone doesn't like a certain attribute, either filter it out or just skip it? Kind of a no brainer no?

 

Reminds me of the people who watch TV and complain the whole time the show is inappropriate or offensive or not good. I'ts called choice? skip it? lol...

Edited April 14, 2013 by NimravusHSSR

[+Beach_hut]

It's happening here already (if this recently-published puzzle cache is any indication):

 

Smartphone Required....

 

--Larry

 

The cache page mentions any apps needed are free? I thought caches weren't allowed to require you to download executable programs?

Edited April 14, 2013 by Beach_hut

[+NimravusHSSR]

Exactly. It makes caches even more about scoring a quick smiley. I also play the other QR game and rarely does anyone leave a comment. It's about scanning and moving on to the next one. All about the points. That's fine if that's what the game is all about from the onset. Let's not continue to move geocaching in that direction.

 

And what's wrong with that besides you don't like it? maybe there are others who like that style?

 

So I know some people here make reasons like "It'll encourage grab and go caching". So what? There are caches already like that, a dozen caches lined up for grab and go style caching and some even state in the description its made just for grab and go style. What about those?

 

Should there be no choice by the cache owner how he wants to set it up? Only your way?

[+Beach_hut]

 

Writing down the code doesn't prove anything, just as I can sign a physical log for a friend who wasn't there I can write down the code and give it to a friend who wasn't there.

 

 

I think this point is the deal-breaker. This idea doesn't give any more security, for want of a better word, than what we already have in terms of proving whether they found the cache or not. There's already an industry in bogus TB code logging, (I'm told there are loads of them on websites) it will only be a matter of time before one develops around this.

[+NimravusHSSR]

What are the chances that there will be good cell phone reception deep into the woods or at the mountain peak?

 

You can already add your own QR Code to your own cache hide which points to the login page. I'm guessing you want to tie the QR code to the location, so that someone must be within 30 feet of the cache to be able to log the find.

 

And I'm also guessing that you don't want to provide a logbook. The QR code is the cache. If GS implemented this then eventually a container cache will become quite rare because they will be forced out by all the QR code hides. It's much easier and costs almost nothing to hide a QR code then it is to hide a container. We already know that the proliferation of micros/nanos are tied to the easy-factor.

 

Why not place a MZ on the mountain peak? There's already a site for that.

 

What are the chances that there will be good cell phone reception deep into the woods or at the mountain peak?

Good point... lol...

 

You can already add your own QR Code to your own cache hide which points to the login page. I'm guessing you want to tie the QR code to the location, so that someone must be within 30 feet of the cache to be able to log the find.

Kind of, yeah. Like a Chirp.

 

And I'm also guessing that you don't want to provide a logbook. The QR code is the cache.

No, not what I'm saying. Logbook will be there. I am not saying make a QR code cache. Include it in the cache for people who "choose" to scan it. If they don't want to they don't have to.

[+Beach_hut]

It proves the FTF. How do you get the code from a friend for the FTF? hmmm...

 

A new cache gets published. Several people go and find it at once. One of them obviously gets FTF. But since they all read the code from the cache, how do you prove when they come to log it who found it first? They don't necessarily log it in the same order they found it...

[+BlueDeuce]

Some other caching sites offer a Verification system for found caches. Meaning the owner has the option to put a barcode and/or Verification Code. When someone finds the cache, they scan it with their phone or enter the verification code when they log the find.

 

It would be great if Geocaching.com would have this system. Maybe have 2 different finds. The traditional where someone can just log the find likes its always been done and a "Verified Found". The Verified Found count would be a separate counter something like this:

 

NimravusHSSR

Found: (19)

Verified Found: (6)

 

Wrong approach. Think placement not verify. (e.g. Wherigo, Chirp)

[+Don_J]

Exactly. It makes caches even more about scoring a quick smiley. I also play the other QR game and rarely does anyone leave a comment. It's about scanning and moving on to the next one. All about the points. That's fine if that's what the game is all about from the onset. Let's not continue to move geocaching in that direction.

 

And what's wrong with that besides you don't like it? maybe there are others who like that style?

 

So I know some people here make reasons like "It'll encourage grab and go caching". So what? There are caches already like that, a dozen caches lined up for grab and go style caching and some even state in the description its made just for grab and go style. What about those?

 

Should there be no choice by the cache owner how he wants to set it up? Only your way?

 

Because it's not geocaching. There is already a smartphone game where you simply scan codes and get points for doing so. If that is the game that you want to play, then go ahead and play it, but it makes no sense to turn this game into it.

[+NimravusHSSR]

Ok, so how about a QR code that opens a text log with additional hints or a secret message? Like a Chirp without having to have a certain Garmin GPSr? If you don't want to use the QR code for the secret message, then don't. Just log the find the traditional way and be done. But, if you "want" scan the QR code and get a clue to continue on?

[+Don_J]

 

Writing down the code doesn't prove anything, just as I can sign a physical log for a friend who wasn't there I can write down the code and give it to a friend who wasn't there.

 

 

I think this point is the deal-breaker. This idea doesn't give any more security, for want of a better word, than what we already have in terms of proving whether they found the cache or not. There's already an industry in bogus TB code logging, (I'm told there are loads of them on websites) it will only be a matter of time before one develops around this.

 

What it will do is create more conflicts between cache owners with control issues and the finders that they believe may be cheating. Logs will be deleted, finders with appeal to Groundspeak and the Lackeys will have to sort it all out, wasting valuable time that could be used creating hamster videos. Groundspeak is not going to let that happen. Their motto is to make better mistakes, not repeat the same ones.

[+NimravusHSSR]

Exactly. It makes caches even more about scoring a quick smiley. I also play the other QR game and rarely does anyone leave a comment. It's about scanning and moving on to the next one. All about the points. That's fine if that's what the game is all about from the onset. Let's not continue to move geocaching in that direction.

 

And what's wrong with that besides you don't like it? maybe there are others who like that style?

 

So I know some people here make reasons like "It'll encourage grab and go caching". So what? There are caches already like that, a dozen caches lined up for grab and go style caching and some even state in the description its made just for grab and go style. What about those?

 

Should there be no choice by the cache owner how he wants to set it up? Only your way?

 

Because it's not geocaching. There is already a smartphone game where you simply scan codes and get points for doing so. If that is the game that you want to play, then go ahead and play it, but it makes no sense to turn this game into it.

 

Did you not read what I wrote?

There are caches already like that, a dozen caches lined up for grab and go style caching and some even state in the description its made just for grab and go style. What about those?

There are grab and go caches on Geocaching.com right now. And no smartphone required so it wouldn't be a smartphone game.

 

I think alot of people who have been caching for a long time have participated in a grab and go cache at some point already anyway. Where you can drive up close to it, find it, log it and go.

[+NimravusHSSR]

 

Writing down the code doesn't prove anything, just as I can sign a physical log for a friend who wasn't there I can write down the code and give it to a friend who wasn't there.

 

 

I think this point is the deal-breaker. This idea doesn't give any more security, for want of a better word, than what we already have in terms of proving whether they found the cache or not. There's already an industry in bogus TB code logging, (I'm told there are loads of them on websites) it will only be a matter of time before one develops around this.

 

What it will do is create more conflicts between cache owners with control issues and the finders that they believe may be cheating. Logs will be deleted, finders with appeal to Groundspeak and the Lackeys will have to sort it all out, wasting valuable time that could be used creating hamster videos. Groundspeak is not going to let that happen. Their motto is to make better mistakes, not repeat the same ones.

 

Having the code is not required to log a find. Plus, a CO can claim a find is a cheat already. Why isn't it a problem now? I do get your point, so how about just using a QR code to reveal a secret message if the finder so chooses?

[+Don_J]

Exactly. It makes caches even more about scoring a quick smiley. I also play the other QR game and rarely does anyone leave a comment. It's about scanning and moving on to the next one. All about the points. That's fine if that's what the game is all about from the onset. Let's not continue to move geocaching in that direction.

 

And what's wrong with that besides you don't like it? maybe there are others who like that style?

 

So I know some people here make reasons like "It'll encourage grab and go caching". So what? There are caches already like that, a dozen caches lined up for grab and go style caching and some even state in the description its made just for grab and go style. What about those?

 

Should there be no choice by the cache owner how he wants to set it up? Only your way?

 

Because it's not geocaching. There is already a smartphone game where you simply scan codes and get points for doing so. If that is the game that you want to play, then go ahead and play it, but it makes no sense to turn this game into it.

 

Did you not read what I wrote?

There are caches already like that, a dozen caches lined up for grab and go style caching and some even state in the description its made just for grab and go style. What about those?

There are grab and go caches on Geocaching.com right now. And no smartphone required so it wouldn't be a smartphone game.

 

I think alot of people who have been caching for a long time have participated in a grab and go cache at some point already anyway. Where you can drive up close to it, find it, log it and go.

 

I've done many park n' grabs, but in each case, I retrieved a container, pulled out the log and put ink on it, and then put the container back. If bar codes were allowed, cache owners would start putting them on the outside of the container, then start putting them on the outside of the hiding spot. At some point, you are no longer geocaching. Where do you draw the line? I believe that if you are simply pulling up to a lamp post and scanning a label on the cover, you are no longer geocaching. Even with all of the shenanigans played on the power trails, the cachers still interact with the cache and the logsheet. If we lose that interaction completely, we're no longer geocaching. That game is currently being played on a competing website.

[+NimravusHSSR]

I've done many park n' grabs, but in each case, I retrieved a container, pulled out the log and put ink on it, and then put the container back. If bar codes were allowed, cache owners would start putting them on the outside of the container, then start putting them on the outside of the hiding spot. At some point, you are no longer geocaching. Where do you draw the line? I believe that if you are simply pulling up to a lamp post and scanning a label on the cover, you are no longer geocaching. Even with all of the shenanigans played on the power trails, the cachers still interact with the cache and the logsheet. If we lose that interaction completely, we're no longer geocaching. That game is currently being played on a competing website.

 

Ugh... for the umpteenth time, thats not what I suggested. You would still need a traditional cache container and log sheet.

[+Beach_hut]

Ok, so how about a QR code that opens a text log with additional hints or a secret message? Like a Chirp without having to have a certain Garmin GPSr? If you don't want to use the QR code for the secret message, then don't. Just log the find the traditional way and be done. But, if you "want" scan the QR code and get a clue to continue on?

 

Where would this QR code be in relation to the cache? Somewhere on the way between the parking spot and the cache? In which case, I would be interested to see whether a reviewer would require you to call it a multi. And keep in mind that a QR code would be thought of as a physical element and proximity guidelines would apply. (As they're written now, anyway.)

[+Don_J]

I've done many park n' grabs, but in each case, I retrieved a container, pulled out the log and put ink on it, and then put the container back. If bar codes were allowed, cache owners would start putting them on the outside of the container, then start putting them on the outside of the hiding spot. At some point, you are no longer geocaching. Where do you draw the line? I believe that if you are simply pulling up to a lamp post and scanning a label on the cover, you are no longer geocaching. Even with all of the shenanigans played on the power trails, the cachers still interact with the cache and the logsheet. If we lose that interaction completely, we're no longer geocaching. That game is currently being played on a competing website.

 

Ugh... for the umpteenth time, thats not what I suggested. You would still need a traditional cache container and log sheet.

 

I understand that it is not what you are suggesting. Unfortunately, I fear that this would be the ultimate result of what you are suggesting.

[+NimravusHSSR]

Ok, so how about a QR code that opens a text log with additional hints or a secret message? Like a Chirp without having to have a certain Garmin GPSr? If you don't want to use the QR code for the secret message, then don't. Just log the find the traditional way and be done. But, if you "want" scan the QR code and get a clue to continue on?

 

Where would this QR code be in relation to the cache? Somewhere on the way between the parking spot and the cache? In which case, I would be interested to see whether a reviewer would require you to call it a multi. And keep in mind that a QR code would be thought of as a physical element and proximity guidelines would apply. (As they're written now, anyway.)

 

How about if a QR code would be inside a cache container. Maybe a small container containing the QR code and log book. SO the person finding it would find the first cache container with coordinates. Then, sign the logbook and scan the qr code which pops up as a text with the next clue or coordinates.

Edited April 14, 2013 by NimravusHSSR

[+NimravusHSSR]

I've done many park n' grabs, but in each case, I retrieved a container, pulled out the log and put ink on it, and then put the container back. If bar codes were allowed, cache owners would start putting them on the outside of the container, then start putting them on the outside of the hiding spot. At some point, you are no longer geocaching. Where do you draw the line? I believe that if you are simply pulling up to a lamp post and scanning a label on the cover, you are no longer geocaching. Even with all of the shenanigans played on the power trails, the cachers still interact with the cache and the logsheet. If we lose that interaction completely, we're no longer geocaching. That game is currently being played on a competing website.

 

Ugh... for the umpteenth time, thats not what I suggested. You would still need a traditional cache container and log sheet.

 

I understand that it is not what you are suggesting. Unfortunately, I fear that this would be the ultimate result of what you are suggesting.

 

Then those caches without containers or logbook would be archived and taken offline.

[+NimravusHSSR]

Thanks for the stimulating conversations everyone. Like I said, I've been caching for over a decade but haven't been on the forums for awhile.

[+tozainamboku]

I think I have a better idea what the OP is asking for. It has been asked for many times over the last 10 years and either turned down or ignored by TPTB.

 

As I mentioned earlier, when Geocaching.com provided the ability to log finds online, there was immediately an issue with what are now called bogus logs - someone posting a found log online who didn't find the cache.

 

Groundspeak's response was to make cache owners responsible for the online logs posted to their cache pages. Logs that appeared to be bogus, counterfeit, off-topic, or not meeting requirements were to be deleted.

 

When people asked how to tell if a found log was bogus, Groundspeak said they could look at the physical log book and whether or not it was signed.

 

This caused a problem for people who had caches that were difficult to get to. These caches were not found often and it was too much of a burden for the owners of these caches to check physical logs for each find. Some owners of these high terrain caches would put a code word in the cache and ask finders to email them the code word as condition of logging a find.

 

For a number of years, Groundspeak was OK with this solution. So long as there was still a log book to sign, the cache owner could have additional requirements for logging the cache, including having verification codes.

 

However,I think this verification code idea never had that much support from Groundspeak. The preference was for owners of remote caches to trust that these caches were being found by people who logged them as found. But if someone were to post finds on a number of high terrain caches on one day and it was obvious that no one could have been to these cache on the same day, the owners could delete the logs that appeared to be bogus. Then if the finder could present the code word as proof they had been to the cache, the cache owner could accept this in lieu of needing to check the log book.

 

When Groundspeak decided to change the guidelines to prohibit ALRs for logging finds, a number of owners of high terrain caches complained that they lost this method of verifying finds. TPTB response was they didn't see it as a problem. True fake finds are generally easy to spot. It is extremely rare, if not unheard of, for someone to post a single fake log on a high terrain cache.

 

Given Groundspeak's long time view that additional verification for online finds is not necessary, some have requested a special log or cache type for verified finds. The proposal is usually that the cache can be logged online just like any other cache, but if the finder can also report the secret code, they would get a gold star or some other acknowledgement that this is a verified find. I can't recall if a Groundspeak lackey has ever responded to a request like this. My impression is that they would see this as an unnecessary complication to the game.