Why do we use log books?

[fancachtic]

I am new to Geocaching.

Ignorance is bliss. Apologies in advance.

It seems a pain to fill out a log book.

Most people these days use a SmartPhone or similar.

It seems that the log book is a way of proving you were there.

If the QR code took you to a unique URL on the Geocaching website the same result could be produced.

What am I missing?

[+kunarion]

I am new to Geocaching.

Ignorance is bliss. Apologies in advance.

It seems a pain to fill out a log book.

Most people these days use a SmartPhone or similar.

It seems that the log book is a way of proving you were there.

If the QR code took you to a unique URL on the Geocaching website the same result could be produced.

What am I missing?

You can visit interesting places without signing anything, or without searching for an actual container. Use the coords, and see a new place. But the log book originally was for people to write a cool story of their cache adventure, even draw a nice picture, and it's ideal for when you wish to write something that can't be in the online log (descriptions of the exact hiding spot, etc.). Some Cache Owners retrieve a full log book and keep it to read, so I write something cool as a "thank you" to the person maintaining a great cache. Most cachers now abbreviate the log to just their initials, because, as you mentioned, writing is more work.

 

If you sign the log at my cache, I can verify you were there, found it, and opened the container. If it were just a "QR Code", I won't know what you found, which makes things harder if I need to figure out if there's a problem with the cache.

Edited September 7, 2013 by kunarion

[+uxorious]

I am new to Geocaching.

Ignorance is bliss. Apologies in advance.

It seems a pain to fill out a log book.

Most people these days use a SmartPhone or similar.

It seems that the log book is a way of proving you were there.

If the QR code took you to a unique URL on the Geocaching website the same result could be produced.

What am I missing?

 

How about the fact that many people do not use smart phones and have no interest in QR codes.

 

It must be a real pain to take a pencil and write your name and date in the log book.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Pretty much, you are right, to prove you were AT the cache.

 

In case you hadn't thought of it... there are a lot of people (including geocachers) that don't know what a QR code is... and probably many, many more that don't care what one is...

 

Logbook.... yeah, that sounds like a good tradition.

 

And here I thought that Brits were good on tradition. Learn sumtin' new every day.

Edited September 7, 2013 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+flgAZ]

QR codes are static. Somebody would collect lists of QR's and post them somewhere and a subset would armchair find them. If there was someway to generate a unique code for the time and date then maybe, but why reinvent the wheel? I like that my personal geocaching name is physically written in the logbooks of caches all over North America.

[+kunarion]

I like that my personal geocaching name is physically written in the logbooks of caches all over North America.

But let's say you meet your favorite celebrity, and have an autograph book. Wouldn't it be easier if you just have a QR code on the cover and have them scan it? Just think of all the time that saves.

Edited September 7, 2013 by kunarion

[fancachtic]

I prefer paperback as it goes

Long live the logbook.

Thank you everyone.

[+ChileHead]

I am new to Geocaching.

Ignorance is bliss. Apologies in advance.

It seems a pain to fill out a log book.

Most people these days use a SmartPhone or similar.

It seems that the log book is a way of proving you were there.

If the QR code took you to a unique URL on the Geocaching website the same result could be produced.

What am I missing?

 

Many - not most - people cache with a smart phone.

 

Not all areas have cell coverage. In fact, I'd say that some of the best areas to geocache don't have cell coverage, so a smart phone does you no good to log there on the spot. You'd have to save the QR for off line logging.

 

A smart phone is not appropriate for many caches - at least most of the ones I want to do. It's not rugged, waterproof, or has the battery life and stamina I expect out of my hand held. I'm not going to go geocaching with my phone in a kayak, not in the snow, not in the rain, not with a fox in a box either.

[Pup Patrol]

I am new to Geocaching.

Ignorance is bliss. Apologies in advance.

It seems a pain to fill out a log book.

Most people these days use a SmartPhone or similar.

It seems that the log book is a way of proving you were there.

If the QR code took you to a unique URL on the Geocaching website the same result could be produced.

What am I missing?

 

I guess your first problem is that you assume "most" people use a smartphone.

 

We don't have a smartphone. The only thing we use to go geocaching is our...gps!

 

Without a logbook in the cache, there's no way for the cache owner to verify that we found their cache. This is the way the game started, and I'm happy for it to stay that way.

 

I don't like all this push to turn geocaching into phonecaching. It's very annoying to try to take it away from its original form.

 

I carry a mechanical pencil, a pen and a marker on every cache hunt. It's not hard to do.

 

To me, phonecaching and QR codes, etc, are a different game than geocaching. We're not the least interested in playing those games.

 

And, yes, we check the logbook of our caches against the online logs to verify that people have actually found our cache.

 

 

B.

[+kunarion]

And, yes, we check the logbook of our caches against the online logs to verify that people have actually found our cache.

That's a very good idea. A few weeks ago, one of my caches recently was signed by someone who lives and caches in Europe. They logged my cache, and it's the only one they've done in the USA. And they logged caches in Europe on the days before and after. If it had not been physically signed, I never would have believed they actually found it.

[+T.D.M.22]

I am new to Geocaching.

Ignorance is bliss. Apologies in advance.

It seems a pain to fill out a log book.

Most people these days use a SmartPhone or similar.

It seems that the log book is a way of proving you were there.

If the QR code took you to a unique URL on the Geocaching website the same result could be produced.

What am I missing?

 

A pain to fill out the logbook? After you've hiked 3 miles on a mountain, solved a cryptic puzzle, or find one of those stupid micro's in a spruce tree, you can't even sign you name? You get to pick your name when you sign up, so if you have a long name, that's your fault.(You can change it, or abbreviate it if you so feel)

 

As for the QR code- If you've ever heard of munzee, it's a game where you have to find QR codes. If I want to scan a QR code, I'll do that. And the other thing is, there's nothing preventing me from taking a picture of a QR code, and emailing it to all 5 million geocachers(except for lack of time to do so)

 

What are you missing? Well the very first geocache was placed and the guy put the co-ords on an online forum, and challenged people to find it. The logbook was proof they found it. This was before geocaching.com. Before QR codes where anywhere near popular, before they where used by the public. Even before smartphones. It's how the game was started.

 

Sure there is an easier, fool proof way, but you take away the logbook, and you take away part of the game. Hockey, and soccer(American) would be easier if there where no goalies. Football(Canadian/American) and rugby would be easier if there was no contact. It's not about it being easy, and if that's what you want, why even bother going out to find a cache?

[HappyHikerTx]

I have to agree with the previous posts. I think that an actual log book is an essential part of the geocaching experience. I very much enjoy having a physical paper log that you can feel and touch and look through. I always look to see what people have written. I am still a newbie and I only caching using my phone, but I love love love the fact that you can look and see who has visited the cache before. I, too, carry various writing utensils when caching. It is not hard to sign the log or make your mark on the cache log. I have tried the Munzee game where you scan the code with your phone to log your find and I'm here to tell ya, it has a completely different feel! Some people may be into that, but its a different game altogether. And I have found that it is not for me. I second what was said above...Long live the logbook!!

 

Happy Hunting

HappyHikerTx

[+dprovan]

I can't really imagine what you're thinking when you say signing a logbook is a pain compared to pulling out a smartphone and using it to deal with a QR code, since the latter seems like a way bigger pain to me. But if your heart is set on it, you might want to search the web to see if, just maybe, someone's already thought of that idea.

[fancachtic]

Thank you everyone, a lot of interesting and thoughtful opinions there. And having just placed yesterday our first cache with the kids (they helped, I didn't put them in the cache we can start to appreciate revisiting it to see what people have written. I agree it is 'more real' (tangible) having people place their mark, carrying a pencil is easy -- our first cache actually contains a pencil and sharpener.

 

Several of your replies have inspired me to ensure our next cache contains a large enough log book to allow for more than just initials/time/date. Searching caches in our area most are Micro size so we shall address that

 

Thank you again everyone

 

Happy hunting,

Glen, Max, Oliver, Lindsay

[+DonB]

I am new to Geocaching.

Ignorance is bliss. Apologies in advance.

It seems a pain to fill out a log book.

Most people these days use a SmartPhone or similar.

It seems that the log book is a way of proving you were there.

If the QR code took you to a unique URL on the Geocaching website the same result could be produced.

What am I missing?

I guess I'm not most people, I don't use a smart phone, I use my phone to make and receive calls. I have several computers if I want to play on the net.

[the3gmen]

I am new to Geocaching.

Ignorance is bliss. Apologies in advance.

It seems a pain to fill out a log book.

Most people these days use a SmartPhone or similar.

It seems that the log book is a way of proving you were there.

If the QR code took you to a unique URL on the Geocaching website the same result could be produced.

What am I missing?

....

As for the QR code- If you've ever heard of munzee, it's a game where you have to find QR codes. If I want to scan a QR code, I'll do that. And the other thing is, there's nothing preventing me from taking a picture of a QR code, and emailing it to all 5 million geocachers(except for lack of time to do so)

...

 

You are right that with munzee, there's nothing preventing me from taking a picture of a QR code, and emailing it to all 5 million geocachers. But there is something preventing them from logging it as a find. The gps of the smartphone that is taking the picture needs to indicate that they are withing a certain distance of the actual coordinates that are registered to the QR code.

 

But I agree, a physical log book is the only way to go.

[+Glenn]

I am new to Geocaching.

Ignorance is bliss. Apologies in advance.

It seems a pain to fill out a log book.

Most people these days use a SmartPhone or similar.

It seems that the log book is a way of proving you were there.

If the QR code took you to a unique URL on the Geocaching website the same result could be produced.

What am I missing?

....

As for the QR code- If you've ever heard of munzee, it's a game where you have to find QR codes. If I want to scan a QR code, I'll do that. And the other thing is, there's nothing preventing me from taking a picture of a QR code, and emailing it to all 5 million geocachers(except for lack of time to do so)

...

 

You are right that with munzee, there's nothing preventing me from taking a picture of a QR code, and emailing it to all 5 million geocachers. But there is something preventing them from logging it as a find. The gps of the smartphone that is taking the picture needs to indicate that they are withing a certain distance of the actual coordinates that are registered to the QR code.

 

But I agree, a physical log book is the only way to go.

 

That method isn't full-proof either. There are apps for most smart phones that can simulate a GPS. Simply turn off the GPS on the phone and run the app. You can make the phone "believe" that it is anywhere in the world you want. People have been using this method to "cheat" at foursquare ever since foursquare started.

[+u1bd2005]

I like that my personal geocaching name is physically written in the logbooks of caches all over North America.

But let's say you meet your favorite celebrity, and have an autograph book. Wouldn't it be easier if you just have a QR code on the cover and have them scan it? Just think of all the time that saves.

 

No, the QR code would need to be on he celebrity and you would have to scan it, it'd be you meeting the celeb not the other way around.

 

Now, money-making venture, lets open a tattoo shop and convince all celebs to come on board with the idea

 

I can just picture it now, some celeb hunter running after a celeb and taking a picture of a QR code on his... arm

 

Pretty cool idea actually, think it'll get patent approved?

Edited September 8, 2013 by u1bd2005

[+bTruck]

There are many "couch loggers"- people who will claim to have found caches but never actually do. Having an onsite log is a great way to verify whether someone has in fact found the cache.

 

There's also a rush that's involved with retrieving, logging and replacing containers that are in high muggle areas.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I am new to Geocaching.

Ignorance is bliss. Apologies in advance.

It seems a pain to fill out a log book.

Most people these days use a SmartPhone or similar.

It seems that the log book is a way of proving you were there.

If the QR code took you to a unique URL on the Geocaching website the same result could be produced.

What am I missing?

I guess I'm not most people, I don't use a smart phone, I use my phone to make and receive calls. I have several computers if I want to play on the net.

 

My phone isn't very smart. It would take a very long cord to get it to a geocache! (But, hey! I still pay for dial service.)

I think that the point is that this game/hobby/endeavor is based on using a GPS to get to the cache location. Find cache. Sign log. Log on-line. Get a smiley. That is the basis. Users of other (or no) equipment are welcomed to participate, and have fun. Just do not try to force those of us using the basic premise to get smart phones, QR Readers or chips embedded in our heads.

Find cache. Sign log. Log on-line. Get smiley.

If you want to do it a different way, you are welcomed to do so. But I shall continue to: Find Cache. Sign Log. Log on-line. Get smiley. That is what it is all about.

[+L0ne.R]

My worry about a QR code "logbook" is they would morph into QR-tag-only caches. Swag size containers are a rare commodity. Give people an even cheaper, easier method to hide caches and QR-tag-only caches would push out the few larger caches.

[the3gmen]

My worry about a QR code "logbook" is they would morph into QR-tag-only caches. Swag size containers are a rare commodity. Give people an even cheaper, easier method to hide caches and QR-tag-only caches would push out the few larger caches.

 

As as mentioned earlier this already exists. It's called munzee.

 

It's interesting but no where near as fun as geocaching.

[+StripyJules]

I agree the 'M'-word QR thing is a totally different game (tried once, didn't like). But I do wish geocachers who use smartphones wouldn't get constantly beaten up in these forums.

 

Not everybody has room (or funds) in their lives for yet another piece of technological kit and many people would never have discovered and enjoyed geocaching without a smartphone and its accompanying app. Not everybody wants or is able to go for 5/5s up mountains or deep in the wilderness in which case a smartphone does just fine. In the case of areas with poor mobile signal coverage - of which there are many, even in the little UK - you store the cache details and maps before you go; the phone doesn't need network to receive GPS signal. I also have OS maps (1:50,000 and 1:25,000) stored on mine and can overlay cache locations onto those.

 

Yes, phones have their limitations. Those who can and who want to avoid these limitations can get a dedicated GPS receiver. Those who don't can still play the game with a smartphone, which is a 'GPS enabled device'. With 850-odd finds between us my partner and I have just placed our first two hides, with another under construction. We found that with care we got good accuracy with our phones for the co-ordinates: but we haven't done wilderness 5/5s. No complaints from finders (or DNFers) yet.

 

Someone asked not be 'forced' into using a smartphone. Why should smartphone users be 'forced' into using a dedicated GPSr? It's almost like the last taboo, or something: all over the forum people say 'play the game your way': unless you happen to be a phone-cacher in which case you're somehow not considered a 'proper' geocacher.

 

The Membership fee is the same whatever device you use...

 

Not one of my logs is just 'TFTC'.

[+DonB]

I agree the 'M'-word QR thing is a totally different game (tried once, didn't like). But I do wish geocachers who use smartphones wouldn't get constantly beaten up in these forums.

 

Not everybody has room (or funds) in their lives for yet another piece of technological kit and many people would never have discovered and enjoyed geocaching without a smartphone and its accompanying app. Not everybody wants or is able to go for 5/5s up mountains or deep in the wilderness in which case a smartphone does just fine. In the case of areas with poor mobile signal coverage - of which there are many, even in the little UK - you store the cache details and maps before you go; the phone doesn't need network to receive GPS signal. I also have OS maps (1:50,000 and 1:25,000) stored on mine and can overlay cache locations onto those.

 

Yes, phones have their limitations. Those who can and who want to avoid these limitations can get a dedicated GPS receiver. Those who don't can still play the game with a smartphone, which is a 'GPS enabled device'. With 850-odd finds between us my partner and I have just placed our first two hides, with another under construction. We found that with care we got good accuracy with our phones for the co-ordinates: but we haven't done wilderness 5/5s. No complaints from finders (or DNFers) yet.

 

Someone asked not be 'forced' into using a smartphone. Why should smartphone users be 'forced' into using a dedicated GPSr? It's almost like the last taboo, or something: all over the forum people say 'play the game your way': unless you happen to be a phone-cacher in which case you're somehow not considered a 'proper' geocacher.

 

The Membership fee is the same whatever device you use...

 

Not one of my logs is just 'TFTC'.

As Harry Dolphin posted, use whatever you want, just don't try and change geocaching to suit the smartphone users, just because some people are too lazy to sign a log book and can't wait until they get home to log their caches. You say many smartphone users can't afford another piece of equipment to geocache, it costs me about $55.00 a month for my two phones. How much a month does it cost you for your smartphone with a data plan?

[+StripyJules]

I'm not trying to change anything. I like my caching just the way it is. As I imagine do you. At no point have I suggested that the game should be changed to suit smartphone users better (actually can't think of any way it even could be). That wasn't my beef.

 

I just get fed up with smartphone users being spoken to and treated differently just because they use a smartphone. Any question from anyone with a smartphone is usually started or finished with something about getting a dedicated GPSr. Sometimes, it's bordering on the patronising.

 

And then the money thing comes out. As I also said, mostly you don't need a data connection to cache. To log the cache, yes but you don't have to do that then and there. Wait till you have WiFi or do it when you get home. My smartphone runs at around £10 a month; sometimes £15 if I make a lot of calls. That includes my data (I have never gone over my data allowance) and texts. The phone is of course used for other things as well, as are the OS maps stored on it; they ran at about £6 for the licence to use them if I remember rightly. The app which uses the maps is free and can also record and measure your track.

 

The point is: when I discovered geocaching, I already had the phone. Therefore my outlay to start off with was pretty low; add in the membership/app and it's still pretty good value for someone on a low income. Perhaps I should explain the 'funds' angle better: the sort of GPSr I could afford would be unlikely, given the sort of caching I do, to give me much better results than I already get. So to me, it's not worth the spend. I would rather put it towards the fuel needed to go caching which in the UK at the moment is by far the biggest outlay. It's a choice.

 

There are some smartphone cachers who are pains in the a; I should think there are an equal number of dedicated GPSr users

being equally painful.

 

It's just you don't get the smartphone users saying 'OMG you use a GPSr? Get with the programme!' or claiming that GPSr users (who we are told are in the majority) are 'ruining' geocaching as is said about smartphone users, though I've yet to find out quite how.

[+J Grouchy]

How about the fact that many people do not use smart phones and have no interest in QR codes.

 

Or the fact that probably MOST people who DO have smartphones have no interest in QR codes...

 

I'm not trying to change anything. I like my caching just the way it is. As I imagine do you. At no point have I suggested that the game should be changed to suit smartphone users better (actually can't think of any way it even could be). That wasn't my beef.

 

I just get fed up with smartphone users being spoken to and treated differently just because they use a smartphone. Any question from anyone with a smartphone is usually started or finished with something about getting a dedicated GPSr. Sometimes, it's bordering on the patronising.

 

And then the money thing comes out. As I also said, mostly you don't need a data connection to cache. To log the cache, yes but you don't have to do that then and there. Wait till you have WiFi or do it when you get home. My smartphone runs at around £10 a month; sometimes £15 if I make a lot of calls. That includes my data (I have never gone over my data allowance) and texts. The phone is of course used for other things as well, as are the OS maps stored on it; they ran at about £6 for the licence to use them if I remember rightly. The app which uses the maps is free and can also record and measure your track.

 

The point is: when I discovered geocaching, I already had the phone. Therefore my outlay to start off with was pretty low; add in the membership/app and it's still pretty good value for someone on a low income. Perhaps I should explain the 'funds' angle better: the sort of GPSr I could afford would be unlikely, given the sort of caching I do, to give me much better results than I already get. So to me, it's not worth the spend. I would rather put it towards the fuel needed to go caching which in the UK at the moment is by far the biggest outlay. It's a choice.

 

There are some smartphone cachers who are pains in the a; I should think there are an equal number of dedicated GPSr users

being equally painful.

 

It's just you don't get the smartphone users saying 'OMG you use a GPSr? Get with the programme!' or claiming that GPSr users (who we are told are in the majority) are 'ruining' geocaching as is said about smartphone users, though I've yet to find out quite how.

 

Yeah...fellow smartphone cacher here. I get what you're saying. One other thing about the GPSrs that I've been resisting is matter of getting caches to the device itself, and online logging. One of the most awesome features of any of the apps on the smartphones is the fact that it updates every time you open it. No need to set up pocket queries, hook your phone to the computer, download, etc. I'm not even sure how logging is done with one of these things...I'm assuming folks who use them wait until they are on a computer to log them on the website. Personally, I love being able to log right there at the site while the find is still fresh in my mind. Once in a while if there is a longer story to tell, I'll wait until I'm home and type it up on the computer, but I usually write my logs immediately after having found the cache. We're already on track for a convergence of sorts - smartphones getting better GPS receivers while GPSrs get better wireless connectivity and the features of smartphones (like the recent Monterra device). I figure even if I end up getting a GPSr, I will still bring my smartphone along to pull up the cache and log on site. As it is, though, I do well enough with what I have and I do resent hearing the somewhat condescending remarks from die-hard GPSr users. Like you said, they always show up in a smartphone discussion...just like Mac users always come in to make snarky comments in a PC tech support discussion.

Edited September 9, 2013 by J Grouchy

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Seems to be a rather substantial highjacking here....

[+Panther&Pine]

Seems to be a rather substantial highjacking here....

We could always get naked and run around screaming till a mod notices.

 

 

 

Really, please don't, I'm kidding and one nude cacher is enough.

[Ranger Fox]

For examples of what logs books used to be, look at the Geocaching Heritage Project.

 

I miss the days when, after finding the cache, you could sit on a nearby log, thumb through and read stories from others who visited the location, and add something thoughtful and meaningful of your own to the log book. In my area, the importance of writing something in log books seemed to decline around the end of 2006. This was replaced with the sentiment that fewer people read the books, so anything of value should be placed online for the wider audience. And for a few years, you did get some quality logs online. Around 2010 or 2011, even that seemed to be fading. I still try to keep vigil, refusing to use copy and paste logs except when out on power trails. With the geocaching labs stuff, I'm absolutely appalled the practice of logging anything has been completely removed. I wonder if this is what we're coming to and despair. At least logs do serve one good purpose: they prove you were there. For park and grabs, it doesn't matter, but it certainly does for caches that are still challenging.

 

Besides, I can offer another scenario against using cell phones to verify your find: the desert. You don't have a cell signal, so you can't pull caches. You don't have as good GPS signal with the phone. It's slower to mark a cache as found using a cell phone than a GPSr. Your phone's battery life pales in comparison to a handheld GPSr. A damaged log sheet can be replaced and the cache marked as found; a damaged QR paper cannot.

 

Heck, there are even some people on Wherigo that don't like my idea of killing Garmin's Wherigo Player in favor of going the smartphone route. Just imagine the number of people you'd affect with geocaching.

 

(Run around screaming as long as you want. It's not my forum and I skip over those posts.)

[+L0ne.R]

For examples of what logs books used to be, look at the Geocaching Heritage Project.

 

I miss the days when, after finding the cache, you could sit on a nearby log, thumb through and read stories from others who visited the location, and add something thoughtful and meaningful of your own to the log book. In my area, the importance of writing something in log books seemed to decline around the end of 2006. This was replaced with the sentiment that fewer people read the books, so anything of value should be placed online for the wider audience. And for a few years, you did get some quality logs online. Around 2010 or 2011, even that seemed to be fading. I still try to keep vigil, refusing to use copy and paste logs except when out on power trails. With the geocaching labs stuff, I'm absolutely appalled the practice of logging anything has been completely removed. I wonder if this is what we're coming to and despair. At least logs do serve one good purpose: they prove you were there. For park and grabs, it doesn't matter, but it certainly does for caches that are still challenging.

 

Well said.

 

There's not only a demise of the physical logbook entry (as well as the online entry) but a demise of the physical logbook. It all began around the time that micros became popular. Soon logbooks became rare and more and more logsheets showed up in all cache sizes (not just micros). Many COs complained that people were using up too much space on their logsheets and it bothered them that they had to visit the container to add a new logsheet. I would think that many COs would welcome a virtual logbook but I don't think it would be good for the game. Swag-size caches would become quite rare if physical logs were optional and idle COs would have less reason to maintain their caches.

[+MountainWoods]

...

I don't like all this push to turn geocaching into phonecaching. It's very annoying to try to take it away from its original form.

 

I carry a mechanical pencil, a pen and a marker on every cache hunt. It's not hard to do.

 

...

Yeah. Aside from the fact that I don't have a smart phone, you're always going to have great cache areas that do not have cell service, because it is line-of-sight. Just look at some of the beautiful Ozarks areas around where I live. Great for caches. But you'd have to have a tower on every ridge (millions of 'em) to have cell phone service everywhere.

[+TriciaG]

For the hundredth time - you do NOT need cell service to cache on a smartphone. All you need are GPS satellites in orbit and a decent connection to the sky.

 

We were caching on a smartphone that wasn't connected to cell service at all - no SIM card (the cell phone's "brains" for phone service on any cell phone, smart or dumb). It wasn't really a phone at that point; just a small computer with a touchscreen that could pick up GPS signals.

 

Yeah, it goes crazy in deeper canopies. No, it doesn't suck the battery terribly if you're not online (we've never cached for more than a few hours a day, though). Yes, I feel the snobbery in SOME posts that belittle smartphone geocachers. Just like many other things, don't belittle it if you haven't experienced it.

 

</rant>

 

[Edited for grammar]

Edited September 9, 2013 by TriciaG

[+StripyJules]

Seems to be a rather substantial highjacking here....

 

But valid for balance, given the usual anti-smartphone-cacher vibe.

[Ranger Fox]

For the hundredth time - you do NOT need cell service to cache on a smartphone. All you need are GPS satellites in orbit and a decent connection to the sky.

I would like to point out I am aware of this. However, my understanding of this post is to use QR codes and cache like Munzee. It's my understanding you need to scan the QR code within the cache's location and have a cell signal for verification. I am not aware if there is some mechanism within the app to store the QR code's resolved text and GPS coordinates for later submission to the site.

 

Now, geocaching as it currently is, I know you don't need a cell signal for that, anyway. You cache a PQ on the app and feed off that while you're in the field. Field note and log creation is also stored within the app until the user decides to send these entries when signal is established.

 

This is my anti-smartphone cacher vibe: placing caches that are hidden (as opposed to ones that are so obvious all you'd need is Google's satellite maps to find it). As a cache finder, I demand precision in the posted coordinates--especially as the difficulty level or number of potential targets rises. For people finding caches, I don't care what you use as long as you don't put a maintenance log on my cache because your cell phone has you fifty feet away from my cache and you can't find it. (And the new breed of cacher in my area can't seem to find any cache if it's not obvious or there isn't a hint telling them precisely where it is.) Anyway, the device you use to find caches is no business of mine.

[+TriciaG]

I would like to point out I am aware of this. However, my understanding of this post is to use QR codes and cache like Munzee.

I read MountainWoods' post as not referring to scanning QR codes but to caching as it is currently done. If QR caching is what he/she meant, I apologize for my rant.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Seems to be a rather substantial highjacking here....

 

But valid for balance, given the usual anti-smartphone-cacher vibe.

I agree, that there appears to be anti-phone tones here... but the thread is/was about logbooks and their use, not phones or GPSr units.

You may very well have a point, worthy of its own thread. Highjacking a thread about something else and run it off-topic is, well... sort of like taking a clear mountain stream and filling it with mud.

 

Oh well, I feel it is plenty off-course as it is... judging from the other two responses posted whilst I typed. Go ahead and mud the water some more.

[+fbingha]

Yet, this thread is directly in regards to phones. If the question is "Why don't we throw away logbooks and use QR codes instead", then that applies to smartphones.

 

I don't think anyone has an inherent bias against the smartphone. The bias comes from those who play for a few days with the free smartphone app, compromise our hides and take our trackables for long term vacations.

[+StripyJules]

Seems to be a rather substantial highjacking here....

 

But valid for balance, given the usual anti-smartphone-cacher vibe.

I agree, that there appears to be anti-phone tones here... but the thread is/was about logbooks and their use, not phones or GPSr units.

You may very well have a point, worthy of its own thread. Highjacking a thread about something else and run it off-topic is, well... sort of like taking a clear mountain stream and filling it with mud.

 

Oh well, I feel it is plenty off-course as it is... judging from the other two responses posted whilst I typed. Go ahead and mud the water some more.

 

I was responding to comments on the subject already made by others. It's kind of what happens, on forums. Not seeing the same mud you are.

[+Glenn]

 

I just get fed up with smartphone users being spoken to and treated differently just because they use a smartphone. Any question from anyone with a smartphone is usually started or finished with something about getting a dedicated GPSr. Sometimes, it's bordering on the patronising.

 

 

I don't think smartphone users are being treated differently. What I see happening is smartphone users asking how to use their smartphone to do things that can either only be done with a GPS or is done better or easier with a GPS.

[+SirDonB]

Thank you everyone, a lot of interesting and thoughtful opinions there. And having just placed yesterday our first cache with the kids (they helped, I didn't put them in the cache we can start to appreciate revisiting it to see what people have written. I agree it is 'more real' (tangible) having people place their mark, carrying a pencil is easy -- our first cache actually contains a pencil and sharpener.

 

Several of your replies have inspired me to ensure our next cache contains a large enough log book to allow for more than just initials/time/date. Searching caches in our area most are Micro size so we shall address that

 

Thank you again everyone

 

Happy hunting,

Glen, Max, Oliver, Lindsay

 

Yes, my area has an abundance of small and micro caches as well as nanos. And as much as I dislike looking for a 35mm fill can in the woods, I still go out and sign the log. I am glad that you have taken what others have written as constructive criticism and not attacks on you for asking. I myself never thought of hiding a cache with any other way to log it on site other than with a physical log book. Though my first cache itself is no better than those I dislike, I still hid it in an easy spot to be found and to be maintained.

 

Keep in mind that even with a larger log book, you are likely to get only names and dates with a chance of fun entertaining logs. But it would be those few logs that could make it worth the effort for you.

 

Good luck with your future hides. And like has been said, there is an alternative it the QR code hunting is your thing.

[+SirDonB]

How about the fact that many people do not use smart phones and have no interest in QR codes.

 

Or the fact that probably MOST people who DO have smartphones have no interest in QR codes...

 

I'm not trying to change anything. I like my caching just the way it is. As I imagine do you. At no point have I suggested that the game should be changed to suit smartphone users better (actually can't think of any way it even could be). That wasn't my beef.

 

I just get fed up with smartphone users being spoken to and treated differently just because they use a smartphone. Any question from anyone with a smartphone is usually started or finished with something about getting a dedicated GPSr. Sometimes, it's bordering on the patronising.

 

And then the money thing comes out. As I also said, mostly you don't need a data connection to cache. To log the cache, yes but you don't have to do that then and there. Wait till you have WiFi or do it when you get home. My smartphone runs at around £10 a month; sometimes £15 if I make a lot of calls. That includes my data (I have never gone over my data allowance) and texts. The phone is of course used for other things as well, as are the OS maps stored on it; they ran at about £6 for the licence to use them if I remember rightly. The app which uses the maps is free and can also record and measure your track.

 

The point is: when I discovered geocaching, I already had the phone. Therefore my outlay to start off with was pretty low; add in the membership/app and it's still pretty good value for someone on a low income. Perhaps I should explain the 'funds' angle better: the sort of GPSr I could afford would be unlikely, given the sort of caching I do, to give me much better results than I already get. So to me, it's not worth the spend. I would rather put it towards the fuel needed to go caching which in the UK at the moment is by far the biggest outlay. It's a choice.

 

There are some smartphone cachers who are pains in the a; I should think there are an equal number of dedicated GPSr users

being equally painful.

 

It's just you don't get the smartphone users saying 'OMG you use a GPSr? Get with the programme!' or claiming that GPSr users (who we are told are in the majority) are 'ruining' geocaching as is said about smartphone users, though I've yet to find out quite how.

 

Yeah...fellow smartphone cacher here. I get what you're saying. One other thing about the GPSrs that I've been resisting is matter of getting caches to the device itself, and online logging. One of the most awesome features of any of the apps on the smartphones is the fact that it updates every time you open it. No need to set up pocket queries, hook your phone to the computer, download, etc. I'm not even sure how logging is done with one of these things...I'm assuming folks who use them wait until they are on a computer to log them on the website. Personally, I love being able to log right there at the site while the find is still fresh in my mind. Once in a while if there is a longer story to tell, I'll wait until I'm home and type it up on the computer, but I usually write my logs immediately after having found the cache. We're already on track for a convergence of sorts - smartphones getting better GPS receivers while GPSrs get better wireless connectivity and the features of smartphones (like the recent Monterra device). I figure even if I end up getting a GPSr, I will still bring my smartphone along to pull up the cache and log on site. As it is, though, I do well enough with what I have and I do resent hearing the somewhat condescending remarks from die-hard GPSr users. Like you said, they always show up in a smartphone discussion...just like Mac users always come in to make snarky comments in a PC tech support discussion.

 

I am a fellow smartphone cacher as well... and like you longer logs I wait till I can get on the comp at home to log. Most of the time I wait till I am at home anyway to log my finds through my phone unless I happen to be FTF on a cache. FTF cases I log as soon as I am back to my geomobile before I leave my parking area.

 

Now I am probably one of the exceptions to the phone caching, but my phone was built and designed with the outdoors in mind. As such it is waterproof, drop proof, dust proof, etc. I love my phone and my only complaint is with the GPS, in thicker canopy it does not pick up the satellite signal as well and is all over the place. I have seen an updated version of my phone and I will be getting it, cant't wait to see if the GPS has gotten better with it. Either way, I think I am gonna get a GPSr for backup to the phone or when I know there is a chance of thick canopy. Most of my caches I have found so far have been within a few miles of my home. I am also one of those caches whom caches once in a while. I make finds every few days or so, so my phone being my primary has been ok for me so far. It has been hit or miss so far, more hit than miss, but a few PM the CO to assist in making the find when I wasn't sure if it was my phone (20%) or me (80%).

 

As to the the original topic... no I do not think QR codes would make it easier to log, in fact I think it could make it harder in some cases. As I see it, most cachers may have both a smartphone and GPSr, but use the GPSr as their primary means of finding the cache. Some like me have only the smartphone.

[colefish]

Some people like to have stamps in their logbooks so when they replace the logbook, they have something cool to look at.

Edited September 19, 2013 by colefish

[+The Laird of Balmalcolm]

Interesting, I do remember years ago when I did "letterboxing on dartmoor" and other places in the world.

Object of the game was to locate a hidden box, use the stamp that was in the box to mark your own logbook and there was a logbook in the box for the finder to leave their own personal mark (stamp).

That was it. nice and easy. we used a map no GPSr or Smartphone.

How we jumped up and down and shouted at the way we thought Geocaching was going to spoil our game.

GPSr units - NO need to be able to read a map then. All the skill gone forever .... and loads of other comments at local walking clubs.

After a while "we" started to like this new game and enjoyed not only going to the top of hills and mountains to claim a cache but walking on short and long trails and even parks in the city.

Well, now I see other Geocachers doing the same thing with others who are trying to evolve Geocaching.

How a person maps, finds and logs a cache is up to the individual and if a person is willing to cheat then they are only cheating themselves. And need to get a life.

For Geocaching to evolve it will have to move over to QR codes in time the only thing stopping them is that they have built a "wall" between Geocaching and Munzee that needs to be pulled down.

How many times have you found a cache with a soggy logbook. Honestly, how many have you changed for the cache owner?

I have closed down caches because of continue logs saying logbook - wet - missing no pencil ect.

How many times have you seen no comments left in a cache. We even get a . as a log.

QR codes can be used with a phone to log your find as well as a logbook.

You don't need a phone signal. I spent a week in Gran Canaria with no signal on my phone and managed to capture Munzees into my offline Q.

When I had WiFi all my finds were logged as well as my comments to the owner.

 

Time to move with the times with an open mind.

 

The Laird

[+T.D.M.22]

To quote Professor Umbridge- ...progress for progresses sake must be discouraged...

 

To change just because we can is not right. There have been many changes, and none of them just because. Your Munzees worked offline? You don't need a GPS for letterboxing? Those things are not geocaching. I can skate, but that doesn't mean I have to try to incorporate it into a geocache, and encourage others to do the same.

 

As you do the Munzee thing, you will know that it is not perfect. The system can be cheated. And we all know how many geocaches have wet logbooks- if we integrate QR codes, do you think they'll do any better? Sure it might be faster- but this isn't NASCAR. And what about micros? Sure it could be an optional way to log, but that technology is being used. Scan the code, be taken to the cache page. But when we require the QR codes, or even use the massively, is it still geocaching, or is it Munzee?

 

Geocaching is at the very basic- Find it. Sign it. Log it. When we start requiring all this new stuff, more can go wrong. The QR is wet and in-scannable. The system is down, so I have to come back to get it.

Or with the way it is- the logbook is wet. I can attempt to sign it. Take a picture of it. Put a new log in it. Website down? Log it tomorrow, no need to go back.

[+T.D.M.22]

Oh- and explain to me how my GPS is supposed to read a QR? Currently I think there is only one that runs on Android, and has a camera. It's $600 I believe. So how can I go geocaching with my sub $100 etrex, if the only way to log it is with a QR code?

[+The Laird of Balmalcolm]

Oh- and explain to me how my GPS is supposed to read a QR? Currently I think there is only one that runs on Android, and has a camera. It's $600 I believe. So how can I go geocaching with my sub $100 etrex, if the only way to log it is with a QR code?

 

Well, I did not expect a reply so soon.

May I remind you that a few years ago we in Geocaching did not agree with people using phones with an App to Geocache yet as time progressed even Geocaching.com decided they had to provide an App.

To leave the game as it was would leave it open to other games taking over.

Geocaching.com has agreed that the player can log a find when on site using a smart phone or continue to log when back home as it started. -- thats progress.

To have the ability to log using a QR code (smart phone) or as you do now is called progress and as long as both options are available to the user no one will loss out.

The reason I support this idea is that I was against the idea of using a phone to Geocache as I have a GPSr. Time has caught up with me and I use my phone more times than my GPSr,

Please don't sit back and accept thing as they are, we are all in a changing world and we all see things deferently. I started off by learning how to map read, I moved on to a GPSr now I sometimes use a phone to get a location.

I still log my visits in the logbook and online. I also try to help by doing a bit of maintenance where and when required.

It will happen the question is when !

[+ngrrfan]

Oh- and explain to me how my GPS is supposed to read a QR? Currently I think there is only one that runs on Android, and has a camera. It's $600 I believe. So how can I go geocaching with my sub $100 etrex, if the only way to log it is with a QR code?

Geocaching.com has agreed that the player can log a find when on site using a smart phone or continue to log when back home as it started. -- thats progress.

How do you arrive at this conclusion?

 

The site has no idea where you are when you log a cache online. All it knows is that you are coming in via an ip address, for all it knows I may have my laptop at the cache site and logging from it, not my phone. Having the ability to log a cache online while at the cache site, and GS not saying that you can or can't doesn't mean they agree to it. It just means they be turning a blind eye to it until it needs to be addressed, in their opinion.

[+L0ne.R]

Oh- and explain to me how my GPS is supposed to read a QR? Currently I think there is only one that runs on Android, and has a camera. It's $600 I believe. So how can I go geocaching with my sub $100 etrex, if the only way to log it is with a QR code?

 

Well, I did not expect a reply so soon.

May I remind you that a few years ago we in Geocaching did not agree with people using phones with an App to Geocache yet as time progressed even Geocaching.com decided they had to provide an App.

To leave the game as it was would leave it open to other games taking over.

Geocaching.com has agreed that the player can log a find when on site using a smart phone or continue to log when back home as it started. -- thats progress.

To have the ability to log using a QR code (smart phone) or as you do now is called progress and as long as both options are available to the user no one will loss out.

The reason I support this idea is that I was against the idea of using a phone to Geocache as I have a GPSr. Time has caught up with me and I use my phone more times than my GPSr,

Please don't sit back and accept thing as they are, we are all in a changing world and we all see things deferently. I started off by learning how to map read, I moved on to a GPSr now I sometimes use a phone to get a location.

I still log my visits in the logbook and online. I also try to help by doing a bit of maintenance where and when required.

It will happen the question is when !

 

If Groundspeak introduces yet another method to make online comments obsolete and if most of the online comments become some automated reply "Joe Cacher found your cache using the GC QR code", I for one would stop hiding caches. Where is the incentive to hide caches? Where is the incentive to maintain caches? What we may be left with is lowest denominator COs whose only incentive is the smiley count. COs who invest a lot in the game and whose only reward is the online comments, may fizzle out. It's been proven via the MZ site that QR codes result in very few online logs and those that use the comments feature generally write "Found it".

Edited December 20, 2013 by L0ne R

[+baack40]

I am new to Geocaching.

Ignorance is bliss. Apologies in advance.

It seems a pain to fill out a log book.

Most people these days use a SmartPhone or similar.

It seems that the log book is a way of proving you were there.

If the QR code took you to a unique URL on the Geocaching website the same result could be produced.

What am I missing?

I guess I'm not most people, I don't use a smart phone, I use my phone to make and receive calls. I have several computers if I want to play on the net.

 

My phone isn't very smart. It would take a very long cord to get it to a geocache! (But, hey! I still pay for dial service.)

I think that the point is that this game/hobby/endeavor is based on using a GPS to get to the cache location. Find cache. Sign log. Log on-line. Get a smiley. That is the basis. Users of other (or no) equipment are welcomed to participate, and have fun. Just do not try to force those of us using the basic premise to get smart phones, QR Readers or chips embedded in our heads.

Find cache. Sign log. Log on-line. Get smiley.

If you want to do it a different way, you are welcomed to do so. But I shall continue to: Find Cache. Sign Log. Log on-line. Get smiley. That is what it is all about.

Oh my so very well said. It seems that geocaching is leaning towards smartphones and I for one thinks it takes away from the game. It has become TFTC is the standard log on caches as it "Takes too long" to write more. Grrrrr. Puzzles being created that you have to have a smart phone to solve. The site seems to be spending more time on solving smartphone problems than working on problems with the site itself. I too like "the old fashioned way" of caching. Loading the gps going to gz, finding the cache without the satellite views to tell me which tree its in, putting my signature on that log sheet, going home and going on site to write my logs for the day.

[+niraD]

Well, I did not expect a reply so soon.

No one expects the Spanish Inq... er, um, ah... nevermind.

 

May I remind you that a few years ago we in Geocaching did not agree with people using phones with an App to Geocache yet as time progressed even Geocaching.com decided they had to provide an App.

Who is this "we in Geocaching" you speak of?

 

I remember complaints about caches hidden with poor coordinates, which were often attributed to phones with poor GPS systems, to phones using non-GPS location services, and/or to users who didn't know how to get accurate coordinates using their phones. I don't remember anyone saying that no one should use an app for geocaching. And for the record, some of us were using geocaching apps before smartphones existed. (Remember Palm PDAs?)

 

But that's beside the point. A phone app has a lot of advantages for many geocachers (I use one for most of my geocaching), and doesn't change the basic nature of the game (find the container, sign the log, put it back). BUT, what advantages does logging with a QR code have over physical logs?

 

If I've used my app to navigate to GZ, then once I find the cache, I can already post an online log or a field note with a few taps of the screen. Could a QR code make that any easier?

 

To leave the game as it was would leave it open to other games taking over.

That's okay with me.

 

Letterboxing is still about finding the container using clues, stamping your personal log with the letterbox stamp, stamping the letterbox log with your personal stamp, and putting it back. Geocaching is still about finding the container using GPS coordinates, signing the log, and putting it back. Munzee is still about finding QR codes and scanning them.

 

There is no need for these games to merge, or for one to become more like the other. Just as there is no need for hockey to become more like baseball, or for baseball to become more like golf.

 

To have the ability to log using a QR code (smart phone) or as you do now is called progress

Why? What advantages does logging with a QR code have over physical logs?