Puzzle cache found without solving puzzle

[+narcissa]

I have cache that involves finding physical puzzle pieces that need to be collected in order to find the final cache: https://coord.info/GC25ZEM

 

I’ve made it as accessible as possible, and always happy to provide clues when asked.

 

At the weekend it was "found" without any of the pieces being found.

 

Apparently the guy downloaded a photo of a successful find from the cache’s gallery and used the geo-data embedded in the jpeg to calculate the location. Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

 

Would it be possible for the web site to strip all uploaded images of their metadata in order to stop this being possible?

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

https://coord.info/GC25ZEM

 

Bugblatter

 

Write note

02/04/2017

 

Going to have check the validity of that last 'find'. It’s impossible to solve this puzzle without finding each individual puzzle piece hidden around the reservoir… will check the log for the last signature in the book.

 

Well...has the cache owner gone back and checked the log book?

 

B.

 

Who knows. But I can almost certainly assure you, given the roster in this thread, that someone has gone and sent vicious private messages to the unsuspecting cacher who posted the spoiler and the enterprising shortcut taker who triggered the complaint. I wouldn't be surprised to see their logs disappear because of the abuse. That is how these things tend to go.

Edited February 9, 2017 by narcissa

[+Team Microdot]

Who knows. But I can almost certainly assure you, given the roster in this thread, that someone has gone and sent vicious private messages to the unsuspecting cacher who posted the spoiler and the enterprising shortcut taker who triggered the complaint. I wouldn't be surprised to see their logs disappear because of the abuse. That is how these things tend to go.

 

Almost certainly assure us based on what evidence?

 

None I suspect.

[+Team DEMP]

 

Who knows. But I can almost certainly assure you, given the roster in this thread, that someone has gone and sent vicious private messages to the unsuspecting cacher who posted the spoiler and the enterprising shortcut taker who triggered the complaint. I wouldn't be surprised to see their logs disappear because of the abuse. That is how these things tend to go.

 

Mind boggling that a poster who derails threads accusing the original poster of calling out others now blatantly & completely without basis accuses posters of malicious and vicious attacks on others. I hope the forum moderators take action against this poster!

[cezanne]

So permission for the cache is predicated on a factor you can't control,

 

In the scenario I sketched a friend is involved and not a formal authority. Moreover, there exists control in the sense that if the cache happens to receive more visitors than are welcome, the cache will get archived (which is the solution also for all other issues that might arise and cannot be predicted right from the beginning but also cannot be excluded).

 

I'm glad that still caches get hidden although there never can be a guarantee that no issues can arise.

 

I see no reason to welcome weaknesses of the system that can cause the end of caches that would have continued to please the target audience for a much longer time.

 

and the final is easily accessible even though it's meant to be a long walk. Seems like a design issue more than anything.

 

Not every long walk leads into wilderness and most geocachers do not live in wilderness.

Many European long distance hiking trails link destinations which are not hard to reach in themselves. The idea of walking say from Vienna to Nice in France is not that Nice is in the wilderness and cannot be reached without starting to walk in Vienna.

 

While I expected you to come along with the design issue argument, it's fortunately not you who decides on which design cache hiders out there decide to choose for their caches.

I'm grateful to those out there who still dare to hide complex caches that go beyond a park and grab traditional. I cannot go out and find caches without others being willing to put out these caches and keep them. I do not expect these hiders to have supernatural abilities and to cope with every possible source of issue and disappointment. Putting out caches is often an experiment. It is in my interest to try to argue for an environment which provides a better success chance for these experiments instead of just arguing that everything can go wrong in the worst case and then ending up with no caches at all I would enjoy. You accuse others of negativity but in my understanding your approach is more negative than what you accuse of being negative. Just for the sake of completeness, I assure you that I did not contact anyone involved in the case which caused this thread and I would not be surprised if noone else took any action in this regard.

[+narcissa]

So permission for the cache is predicated on a factor you can't control,

 

In the scenario I sketched a friend is involved and not a formal authority. Moreover, there exists control in the sense that if the cache happens to receive more visitors than are welcome, the cache will get archived (which is the solution also for all other issues that might arise and cannot be predicted right from the beginning but also cannot be excluded).

 

I'm glad that still caches get hidden although there never can be a guarantee that no issues can arise.

 

I see no reason to welcome weaknesses of the system that can cause the end of caches that would have continued to please the target audience for a much longer time.

 

and the final is easily accessible even though it's meant to be a long walk. Seems like a design issue more than anything.

 

Not every long walk leads into wilderness and most geocachers do not live in wilderness.

Many European long distance hiking trails link destinations which are not hard to reach in themselves. The idea of walking say from Vienna to Nice in France is not that Nice is in the wilderness and cannot be reached without starting to walk in Vienna.

 

While I expected you to come along with the design issue argument, it's fortunately not you who decides on which design cache hiders out there decide to choose for their caches.

I'm grateful to those out there who still dare to hide complex caches that go beyond a park and grab traditional. I cannot go out and find caches without others being willing to put out these caches and keep them. I do not expect these hiders to have supernatural abilities and to cope with every possible source of issue and disappointment. Putting out caches is often an experiment. It is in my interest to try to argue for an environment which provides a better success chance for these experiments instead of just arguing that everything can go wrong in the worst case and then ending up with no caches at all I would enjoy. You accuse others of negativity but in my understanding your approach is more negative than what you accuse of being negative. Just for the sake of completeness, I assure you that I did not contact anyone involved in the case which caused this thread and I would not be surprised if noone else took any action in this regard.

 

My point is that if the cache owner's main concern is to extremely limit the number of people finding a cache, that is something that should be addressed in the design.

 

I don't think cache owners should stop putting out cool caches. I think they should accept the possibility that some people are primarily concerned about the find itself, and learn to manage their reactions to that, and take appropriate steps to mitigate the most obvious opportunities for shenanigans.

 

For us, the most disappointing thing that other geocachers do is send mean private messages or post angry notes to cache pages because a cache is too hard. They don't want to ask for help, they just don't want the cache to exist. I'd much rather these people get the coordinates from someone and clear it off their map without another word about it. We're not going to stop devising caches over it, because the caches are worthwhile to own for the pleasure we had in creating them, and the enjoyment we get from the logs when people do follow the torturous journey to the end.

 

It would be a real shame if a cache owner with a very successful cache - 51 finds and 23 favourite points looks pretty good to me - can't see beyond one silly find he/she doesn't like. And that's ultimately my point, most of the time. The forum mob gets so bogged down in being angry about people occasionally doing hamfisted things, and totally overlooks that this game is actually really great, and most of the people in it are pretty great too.

Edited February 9, 2017 by narcissa

[cezanne]

My point is that if the cache owner's main concern is to extremely limit the number of people finding a cache, that is something that should be addressed in the design.

 

I nowhere said that the main concern in the sketched scenario is to extremely limit the number of people finding the cache.

It rather runs like this: One has an idea for a cache which targets to a certain not large group and then chooses a setup taking into account all available information with the main intent to please those for whom the cache has been hidden. A hideout of the described manner can well turn out to be the best solution in the considered setting and if not many visits are to be expected, then why not try whether it works?

If in the end the concept does not work out, it's unfortunate. We will never be able to avoid such situations but I see no reason for welcoming if weaknesses in the system of the cache platform

lead to failures or make them much more likely.

 

I repeated many times that it is not about blaming the persons who post geotagged photos (very often they do it without being aware of it and feel very bad when they learn what happened) and it is also not blaming the cachers who exploit exif data. I just wished that Groundspeak would choose a different approach how to handle photos uploaded to logs. I also wished that Groundspeak would not allow powertrails despite knowing that there is no hope that they will change their stance.

[+narcissa]

My point is that if the cache owner's main concern is to extremely limit the number of people finding a cache, that is something that should be addressed in the design.

 

I nowhere said that the main concern in the sketched scenario is to extremely limit the number of people finding the cache.

It rather runs like this: One has an idea for a cache which targets to a certain not large group and then chooses a setup taking into account all available information with the main intent to please those for whom the cache has been hidden. A hideout of the described manner can well turn out to be the best solution in the considered setting and if not many visits are to be expected, then why not try whether it works?

If in the end the concept does not work out, it's unfortunate. We will never be able to avoid such situations but I see no reason for welcoming if weaknesses in the system of the cache platform

lead to failures or make them much more likely.

 

I repeated many times that it is not about blaming the persons who post geotagged photos (very often they do it without being aware of it and feel very bad when they learn what happened) and it is also not blaming the cachers who exploit exif data. I just wished that Groundspeak would choose a different approach how to handle photos uploaded to logs. I also wished that Groundspeak would not allow powertrails despite knowing that there is no hope that they will change their stance.

 

If most people find it the way the cache owner intended, and a couple of people find it another way, is it a failure?

[ohgood]

man if this new hack hits social media...

millions of people are going Google what Geo caching is, install an app, leave work early today, hike to the final waypoints, and in the process ruin the puzzles forever!

 

OK, maybe ten people?

 

OK really, maybe three, in a couple of weekends from now, if they remember.

 

I think I must be missing your point

 

 

for all the hand wringing and arguing in this thread, you won't see tons of people clamoring for geotagged photos of puzzle caches.

 

it's really not that big of a deal.

[cezanne]

 

If most people find it the way the cache owner intended, and a couple of people find it another way, is it a failure?

 

No but in real cases at least in my area it would be the big majority of finders who happen to go to the final coordinates once they got leaked including quite a number of cachers who then would write in the log how much they regret that the coordinates got leaked and how much more they would have enjoyed the cache in its original form. Understand it or not - that's how it works here.

The logs of the type which have been common before the coordinates became known would be then about 1 out of 100.

 

It does not make a difference whether a cache gets 20 visits in 3 years or say 28 visits but it makes a huge difference whether it gets 20 visits or 300 (not unrealistic if for example a cache series exists in the general area):

 

A while ago a finder posted a geotagged photo for a cache of mine and I did not notice it. I soon got an e-mail by another cacher who asked me to do him a favour (yes, that was the chosen formulation) and to delete the photo.

[+narcissa]

 

If most people find it the way the cache owner intended, and a couple of people find it another way, is it a failure?

 

No but in real cases at least in my area it would be the big majority of finders who happen to go to the final coordinates once they got leaked including quite a number of cachers who then would write in the log how much they regret that the coordinates got leaked and how much more they would have enjoyed the cache in its original form. Understand it or not - that's how it works here.

The logs of the type which have been common before the coordinates became known would be then about 1 out of 100.

 

It does not make a difference whether a cache gets 20 visits in 3 years or say 28 visits but it makes a huge difference whether it gets 20 visits or 300 (not unrealistic if for example a cache series exists in the general area):

 

A while ago a finder posted a geotagged photo for a cache of mine and I did not notice it. I soon got an e-mail by another cacher who asked me to do him a favour (yes, that was the chosen formulation) and to delete the photo.

 

It just seems like it's ultimately a case of a bad geocaching culture. Even if there was no EXIF data to worry about, it sounds like the coordinates would get leaked anyway. Then what? How can we possibly expect Groundspeak to stop all the different ways people share or leak coordinates? I doubt they're ever going to give people more control when it comes to deleting finds they don't like, because that just results in more work and complaining for them to deal with.

[cezanne]

 

It just seems like it's ultimately a case of a bad geocaching culture. Even if there was no EXIF data to worry about, it sounds like the coordinates would get leaked anyway.

 

For some types of puzzle caches, yes quite likely. For the type of multi cache I mentioned, no typically not.

 

How can we possibly expect Groundspeak to stop all the different ways people share or leak coordinates?

 

No, not even when it were possible which is not the case.

 

 

However if people intentionally share final coordinates, they know what they do. If those many cachers out there who have no idea about what their picture files container happen to post things they are not even aware of, there is a much stronger argument for an action.

 

I doubt they're ever going to give people more control when it comes to deleting finds they don't like, because that just results in more work and complaining for them to deal with.

 

That's completely different issue and I never ever would ask or recommend them to do that (it would have many unfortunate side effects). Stripping off cache coordinates from photos posted on cache logs is a whole different story.

[+Team Microdot]

dup

Edited February 9, 2017 by Team Microdot

[+Team Microdot]

man if this new hack hits social media...

millions of people are going Google what Geo caching is, install an app, leave work early today, hike to the final waypoints, and in the process ruin the puzzles forever!

 

OK, maybe ten people?

 

OK really, maybe three, in a couple of weekends from now, if they remember.

 

I think I must be missing your point

 

 

 

for all the hand wringing and arguing in this thread, you won't see tons of people clamoring for geotagged photos of puzzle caches.

 

it's really not that big of a deal.

 

Why bother to post at all then? (Just out of idle curiosity)

[+narcissa]

 

It just seems like it's ultimately a case of a bad geocaching culture. Even if there was no EXIF data to worry about, it sounds like the coordinates would get leaked anyway.

 

For some types of puzzle caches, yes quite likely. For the type of multi cache I mentioned, no typically not.

 

How can we possibly expect Groundspeak to stop all the different ways people share or leak coordinates?

 

No, not even when it were possible which is not the case.

 

 

However if people intentionally share final coordinates, they know what they do. If those many cachers out there who have no idea about what their picture files container happen to post things they are not even aware of, there is a much stronger argument for an action.

 

I doubt they're ever going to give people more control when it comes to deleting finds they don't like, because that just results in more work and complaining for them to deal with.

 

That's completely different issue and I never ever would ask or recommend them to do that (it would have many unfortunate side effects). Stripping off cache coordinates from photos posted on cache logs is a whole different story.

 

But it's never just one thing. So Groundspeak strips the EXIF data, no harm, no foul. What's the next thing? There's always something. People are always going to share coordinates, solve caches with friends, find caches by accident, put coordinates on websites, brute force puzzles in ways they weren't meant to be solved, and so on.

 

Instead of running around trying to plug all the holes, it would be nice to see some positive suggestions for improving the culture that currently rewards this sort of thing instead of just people stomping their feet because they can't control really predictable behaviour. A big reason why I shrug this stuff off is that paying attention to it just validates it. If I scrutinize someone else's logs and criticize someone else's finds, I am placing value on those finds. Someone else's find should really have no value at all.

 

In isolation, my finds have more value to me when I had to work for them, or when the experience was really great. I don't need to compare myself with anyone, and nobody else can remove that value from me.

[+on4bam]

Instead of running around trying to plug all the holes, it would be nice to see some positive suggestions for improving the culture that currently rewards this sort of thing instead of just people stomping their feet because they can't control really predictable behaviour.

 

Maybe it would be a step in the right direction if people would stop saying that it's OK to cut corners and that it's just a signed log that is important.

As always, it's about ethics. But then again, if you see what kind of language even public figures get away with it's no surprise things are evolving the way they are.

[+narcissa]

Instead of running around trying to plug all the holes, it would be nice to see some positive suggestions for improving the culture that currently rewards this sort of thing instead of just people stomping their feet because they can't control really predictable behaviour.

 

Maybe it would be a step in the right direction if people would stop saying that it's OK to cut corners and that it's just a signed log that is important.

As always, it's about ethics. But then again, if you see what kind of language even public figures get away with it's no surprise things are evolving the way they are.

 

According to the guidelines, the signed log is what constitutes a find. That's the baseline fact that we have to deal with.

 

The relative value of a find is totally subjective. People behave in the way that you refer to as "cutting corners" because they feel a sense of reward or validation by increasing their find count in comparison to others.

 

I choose to shrug it off because:

 

1. The guidelines say it's okay, and I can't change that so there's no sense in being a fluster about it.

2. I don't place value on other people's finds. Nothing is being taken from me. A geocache isn't pie.

 

I think more people would apply best practices if:

 

1. Geocaching.com focused on bringing people into the game in a way that better reinforced the shared values and experiences that have made the game worthwhile for almost 17 years.

2. People stopped validating pointless competition, numbers geocaching, souvenirs, and statistics by constantly fussing about these aspects of the game.

[ohgood]

man if this new hack hits social media...

millions of people are going Google what Geo caching is, install an app, leave work early today, hike to the final waypoints, and in the process ruin the puzzles forever!

 

OK, maybe ten people?

 

OK really, maybe three, in a couple of weekends from now, if they remember.

 

I think I must be missing your point

 

 

 

for all the hand wringing and arguing in this thread, you won't see tons of people clamoring for geotagged photos of puzzle caches.

 

it's really not that big of a deal.

 

Why bother to post at all then? (Just out of idle curiosity)

 

look at the arguments here. they go on and on.

 

it doesn't appear that anyone has stopped and thought for a second "hey, will this ever really impact caches?"

 

my guesstimating comes up with :

no, it will not impact caches at all.

[+Team DEMP]

 

But it's never just one thing. So Groundspeak strips the EXIF data, no harm, no foul. What's the next thing? There's always something. People are always going to share coordinates, solve caches with friends, find caches by accident, put coordinates on websites, brute force puzzles in ways they weren't meant to be solved, and so on.

 

 

Your suggestion is if everything can't be done, nothing should be done? Knowingly or unknowingly, a poster included the final coordinates in their log. The original poster did nothing but ask for thoughts on the site stripping out the answer that is included with the picture.

 

How did this turn into solving world hunger or must there be a plan to solve world hunger before we address a very manageable and controlled situation?

Your comments throughout the thread are creating situations that have nothing to do with the poster. Start your own thread since you are bringing up what constitutes a find which isn't this thread!

 

 

[cezanne]

it doesn't appear that anyone has stopped and thought for a second "hey, will this ever really impact caches?"

 

my guesstimating comes up with :

no, it will not impact caches at all.

 

I know that it does impact caches as in contrast to you I'm familiar with a number of such cases in my area and many more in other areas. It even has happened that cache owners unintentionally uploaded spoiler pictures with exif data but in that case of course it's the cache owner who caused the problem.

 

It seems that some people have learnt about exif data in this thread for the first time, but it's not surprising that they might come up with different conclusions than those for which the exif stuff is something they have come across many times before.

 

Why do you think that project-gc built in a premium feature to notify cache owners if there were not many cache owners out there who are concerned for good reasons?

[+Team DEMP]

it doesn't appear that anyone has stopped and thought for a second "hey, will this ever really impact caches?"

 

On the GS forums, there are individuals who feel:

 

1) Nothing should be done... ever

2) If it doesn't impact them, the suggestion is invalid

3) No one should care what any other cacher does and they will be the defender of all those that can't defend themselves

4) Provide valuable insight and responses

 

Often the same individual is 1, 2 & 3 in the same or different threads as it suits them.

 

As for me, I feel something should be done by GS but as I posted early on, that's like waiting to win the lottery. The original poster should just delete the image. But we should still, as a community, lobby to have that info removed where it shouldn't be exposed. If you don't care, don't post. But if you don't care, don't tell others they shouldn't either.

 

 

[+Team Microdot]

man if this new hack hits social media...

millions of people are going Google what Geo caching is, install an app, leave work early today, hike to the final waypoints, and in the process ruin the puzzles forever!

 

OK, maybe ten people?

No

OK really, maybe three, in a couple of weekends from now, if they remember.

 

I think I must be missing your point

 

 

 

for all the hand wringing and arguing in this thread, you won't see tons of people clamoring for geotagged photos of puzzle caches.

 

it's really not that big of a deal.

 

Why bother to post at all then? (Just out of idle curiosity)

 

look at the arguments here. they go on and on.

 

it doesn't appear that anyone has stopped and thought for a second "hey, will this ever really impact caches?"

 

my guesstimating comes up with :

no, it will not impact caches at all.

 

Your guestimating is wrong.

[+dprovan]

I don't see it as much of a loss.

Ah, I see. Everything's about what you consider a loss. No wonder you don't want the CO to express an opinion.

 

I just don't see the value in being suspicious and hateful. There is no benefit to treating other geocachers so badly.

I really don't understand why you think saying "you didn't solve my puzzle" is hateful.

[+narcissa]

man if this new hack hits social media...

millions of people are going Google what Geo caching is, install an app, leave work early today, hike to the final waypoints, and in the process ruin the puzzles forever!

 

OK, maybe ten people?

 

OK really, maybe three, in a couple of weekends from now, if they remember.

 

I think I must be missing your point

 

 

 

for all the hand wringing and arguing in this thread, you won't see tons of people clamoring for geotagged photos of puzzle caches.

 

it's really not that big of a deal.

 

Why bother to post at all then? (Just out of idle curiosity)

 

look at the arguments here. they go on and on.

 

it doesn't appear that anyone has stopped and thought for a second "hey, will this ever really impact caches?"

 

my guesstimating comes up with :

no, it will not impact caches at all.

 

Yeah, whether it's stripped or not stripped doesn't matter at all, really. If they get around to doing it, it will temporarily appease a few cache owners who are bothered by the idea of this particular leak, and that's about it. Someone who is motivated enough to get the cache this way will eventually find another easy way. People who really liked having that data on their uploaded pics will post their pics elsewhere. Meh.

[+narcissa]

I don't see it as much of a loss.

Ah, I see. Everything's about what you consider a loss. No wonder you don't want the CO to express an opinion.

 

I just don't see the value in being suspicious and hateful. There is no benefit to treating other geocachers so badly.

I really don't understand why you think saying "you didn't solve my puzzle" is hateful.

 

I have never told anyone that they shouldn't comment or post in the forum. The forum wouldn't be interesting if people didn't post and comment. Perhaps you've confused some of the text somewhere. It does get a bit jumbled up when users get creative with the quoting.

 

I'm not sure who used which words, but calling fellow geocachers things like slimy, or weirdly intimating that they're physically disabled (as though there's something wrong with that) does seem needlessly antagonistic when all someone did was find a cache.

[+Team DEMP]

I'm not sure who used which words, but calling fellow geocachers things like slimy, or weirdly intimating that they're physically disabled (as though there's something wrong with that) does seem needlessly antagonistic when all someone did was find a cache.

 

Here's where you did it....

No matter what you do, people will always find clever lame ways to circumvent puzzles.

 

This covers the practice better.

 

I don't agree that using that kind of language makes anything better, though it is illuminating.

 

Definition of lame includes:

 

weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy:

a lame excuse.

 

 

[+dprovan]

I have never told anyone that they shouldn't comment or post in the forum.

We're talking about in a log, not in the forum.

 

I'm not sure who used which words, but calling fellow geocachers things like slimy, or weirdly intimating that they're physically disabled (as though there's something wrong with that) does seem needlessly antagonistic when all someone did was find a cache.

"Slimy"? I don't think we're participating in the same conversation here. I used the word "slimy" in an entirely different context. (That actually makes a lot of sense: a lot of what you're saying in this thread is consistent with scanning the posts for specific words, taking them out of context, and then declaring them offensive.)

[+JL_HSTRE]

Puzzles are often found by cachers in ways other than intended by the CO, including a solver and non-solver caching together. The only real form of puzzle solving cheating IMO is being given the answers via something like a solved puzzles list.

 

That said, while I think the photo data exploit is fair game I would also support Groundspeak implementing a method to scrub the data from log photos not posted by the CO.

[+narcissa]

I have never told anyone that they shouldn't comment or post in the forum.

We're talking about in a log, not in the forum.

 

I'm not sure who used which words, but calling fellow geocachers things like slimy, or weirdly intimating that they're physically disabled (as though there's something wrong with that) does seem needlessly antagonistic when all someone did was find a cache.

"Slimy"? I don't think we're participating in the same conversation here. I used the word "slimy" in an entirely different context. (That actually makes a lot of sense: a lot of what you're saying in this thread is consistent with scanning the posts for specific words, taking them out of context, and then declaring them offensive.)

 

What do you mean? If the "opinion" is "I'm deleting your log because I don't like it," I don't support that. I just want them to act in accordance with the current guidelines. A cache owner's personal feelings are not interesting to me.

 

It appears that "slimy" was used to refer to people sharing coordinates. While I understand that some forum users have strong emotional reactions to that, again, the name calling just seems needless and I don't think it does anything to encourage best practices. It just perpetuates an attitude of suspicion and malice toward fellow geocachers.

[+dprovan]

What do you mean? If the "opinion" is "I'm deleting your log because I don't like it," I don't support that.

Definitely not the same conversation. I've lost count of the number of times in this thread alone that I've agreed that the log should not and cannot be deleted.

[+narcissa]

What do you mean? If the "opinion" is "I'm deleting your log because I don't like it," I don't support that.

Definitely not the same conversation. I've lost count of the number of times in this thread alone that I've agreed that the log should not and cannot be deleted.

 

Okay. Individual users are just words on the left that I generally don't look at.

 

It is definitely not my opinion that other people can't have an opinion. It is often my opinion that other people's opinions are wrong, or expressed poorly. I can understand the confusion.

[+on4bam]

Okay. Individual users are just words on the left that I generally don't look at.

 

It is definitely not my opinion that other people can't have an opinion. It is often my opinion that other people's opinions are wrong, or expressed poorly. I can understand the confusion.

 

It's all clear to me now.

[+Team DEMP]

Okay. Individual users are just words on the left that I generally don't look at.

 

It is definitely not my opinion that other people can't have an opinion. It is often my opinion that other people's opinions are wrong, or expressed poorly. I can understand the confusion.

 

It's all clear to me now.

 

Really just unbelievable!

[+narcissa]

Okay. Individual users are just words on the left that I generally don't look at.

 

It is definitely not my opinion that other people can't have an opinion. It is often my opinion that other people's opinions are wrong, or expressed poorly. I can understand the confusion.

 

It's all clear to me now.

 

I'm glad someone is.

 

I'm still not totally clear on why "learn to manage your disappointment and don't be so nasty to fellow geocachers" is such a controversial opinion, but I think many forum users get hung up on the source, rather than the content.

[+dprovan]

Okay. Individual users are just words on the left that I generally don't look at.

Well, arguing against an individual without recognizing their position is not really much of an excuse in general, but in this specific case, not an excuse at all: I don't think anyone anywhere in this conversation has argued that the logs can be deleted, so it's immaterial that you don't recognize me specifically as explicitly declaring myself against deletion. In fact, you often fight this fight here in the forums, and it's rare anyone in any of the conversations has argued for deletion of logs when the geocaching rules have been followed. That's simply not the issue being discussed.

[+dprovan]

I'm still not totally clear on why "learn to manage your disappointment and don't be so nasty to fellow geocachers" is such a controversial opinion, but I think many forum users get hung up on the source, rather than the content.

I agree completely that people should manage their disappointment and not be nasty. But your position would be better characterized as suppressing disappointment by not expressing it, and that expressing negative opinions about anyone's actions is nasty.

[+Team Microdot]

I'm still not totally clear on why "learn to manage your disappointment and don't be so nasty to fellow geocachers" is such a controversial opinion, but I think many forum users get hung up on the source, rather than the content.

I agree completely that people should manage their disappointment and not be nasty. But your position would be better characterized as suppressing disappointment by not expressing it, and that expressing negative opinions about anyone's actions is nasty.

 

Nail on the head there.

 

If those urges could be suppressed, along with the urge to blow the discussion off course with deliberately emotionally charged and irrelevant tangents, it might actually stand a chance of moving forward. But of course this isn't news.

[+narcissa]

Okay. Individual users are just words on the left that I generally don't look at.

Well, arguing against an individual without recognizing their position is not really much of an excuse in general, but in this specific case, not an excuse at all: I don't think anyone anywhere in this conversation has argued that the logs can be deleted, so it's immaterial that you don't recognize me specifically as explicitly declaring myself against deletion. In fact, you often fight this fight here in the forums, and it's rare anyone in any of the conversations has argued for deletion of logs when the geocaching rules have been followed. That's simply not the issue being discussed.

 

I think there has been some loss of fidelity due to some of the creative quoting. I don't have any interest in individual forum users.

 

To go back to the material point:

 

1. Someone found the cache using unconventional means, oh well, it happens, no need to go off on people for it.

 

2. The proposed solution of stripping EXIF data is pretty benign, but unlikely to solve the larger issue people are sad about.

[+Team Microdot]

Okay. Individual users are just words on the left that I generally don't look at.

Well, arguing against an individual without recognizing their position is not really much of an excuse in general, but in this specific case, not an excuse at all: I don't think anyone anywhere in this conversation has argued that the logs can be deleted, so it's immaterial that you don't recognize me specifically as explicitly declaring myself against deletion. In fact, you often fight this fight here in the forums, and it's rare anyone in any of the conversations has argued for deletion of logs when the geocaching rules have been followed. That's simply not the issue being discussed.

 

I think there has been some loss of fidelity due to some of the creative quoting. I don't have any interest in individual forum users.

 

 

Translation: I said this but now realise that I backed myself into a corner so I'm going to about turn and try to pretend it never happened.

[+narcissa]

I'm still not totally clear on why "learn to manage your disappointment and don't be so nasty to fellow geocachers" is such a controversial opinion, but I think many forum users get hung up on the source, rather than the content.

I agree completely that people should manage their disappointment and not be nasty. But your position would be better characterized as suppressing disappointment by not expressing it, and that expressing negative opinions about anyone's actions is nasty.

 

My position is that expressing that disappointment by lashing out at other geocachers:

 

1. Is unlikely to change their behaviour or promote best practices.

2. Validates disappointing behaviour by placing artificial value on finds.

3. Puts other geocachers at risk of hurtful and false accusations.

4. Condones an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust.

5. Undermines the success of the cache and the achievement of the geocachers who found it as intended.

 

I'd rather let 100 geocachers get away with mild shenanigans on a cache than accidentally accuse someone of something they didn't do, just because I was too quick on the trigger.

 

So by all means, strip the EXIF data, but let's not pretend that it's going to have much impact at all. People are still going to have to come around to the understanding that this goes on. They can quit the game in disgust, or think positively and appreciate that many geocachers still do enjoy solving puzzles and trekking out the old fashioned way. It's actually a really great game with great people when you look past the occasional nuisance things.

[+TriciaG]

Well, lookie there! The geocaching app I use recently updated. I don't know if it's from this recent update or not, but I just noticed it:

 

When you go to the photos in logs, if there's EXIF data for the image, there's a little "navigate" icon so you can navigate to the waypoint in the photo's EXIF data!

 

I'm not joking! I just noticed it today.

[cezanne]

Well, lookie there! The geocaching app I use recently updated. I don't know if it's from this recent update or not, but I just noticed it:

 

When you go to the photos in logs, if there's EXIF data for the image, there's a little "navigate" icon so you can navigate to the waypoint in the photo's EXIF data!

 

I'm not joking! I just noticed it today.

 

There are also a couple of other tools that people use that will them end up with the coordinates even if they do not plan to do so. That's another drawback and another reason why it really would make sense that

Groundspeak stripped off coordinate data from log photos.

[cezanne]

So by all means, strip the EXIF data, but let's not pretend that it's going to have much impact at all.

 

I do think that it would have quite some impact.

 

(1) It would reduce the work of cache owners who wish to react when geotagged photos are uploaded and then do not need to check each uploaded photo.

 

(2) It would avoid that cachers who do not know about geotagging upload spoilers without intending to do so. I have informed a couple of cachers over the years

what happened to them (in a polite manner) and almost all of them were deeply embarassed and some disappointed that there was no warning coming from the site (after all it is a geocaching site and not a photo collection site).

 

(3) As smartphones become more and more common, geotagged photos become more and more common - the knowledge of people about this type of things does however by far not increase at the same speed.

 

While the coordinate sharing business is dominated by people who argue that everyone can cache as they like the typical poster of geotagged photos is not doing so intentionally. There is a much higher potential out there for posting geotagged photos than for entering final coordinates in data bases or public lists. There is a much higher ethical barrier for the latter.

 

(4) If the coordinate data are stripped off it also protects those cachers who use add-ons or apps that show coordinates in photos accidentally come across the coordinates of a cache they just looked at.

 

Another difference to the coordinate sharing business is that stripping off coordinate data from uploaded log photos is something which is easy to do and not subjective and up to debate.

[ohgood]

it doesn't appear that anyone has stopped and thought for a second "hey, will this ever really impact caches?"

 

On the GS forums, there are individuals who feel:

 

1) Nothing should be done... ever

2) If it doesn't impact them, the suggestion is invalid

3) No one should care what any other cacher does and they will be the defender of all those that can't defend themselves

4) Provide valuable insight and responses

 

Often the same individual is 1, 2 & 3 in the same or different threads as it suits them.

 

As for me, I feel something should be done by GS but as I posted early on, that's like waiting to win the lottery. The original poster should just delete the image. But we should still, as a community, lobby to have that info removed where it shouldn't be exposed. If you don't care, don't post. But if you don't care, don't tell others they shouldn't either.

 

You contradicted yourself by telling me what I should do, but said that I shouldn't to people what to do. Odd, but I'm OK with it, since I'm not telling anyone what to do.

 

The post of mine you quoted only asked a question. I'm pretty good at questions. Here's another one:

 

Do you realize geotagged photos have been around since at least 2002 (according to Wikipedia) And the game survived in spite of tagged photos for the last fifteen years ?

 

Have you considered the impact that geotags will have today vs fifteen years ago, to geocaching ?

Edited February 9, 2017 by ohgood

[+Team Microdot]

Do you realize geotagged photos have been around since at least 2002 (according to Wikipedia) And the game survived in spite of tagged photos for the last fifteen years ?

 

Yes.

 

And your point is?

[ohgood]

Well, lookie there! The geocaching app I use recently updated. I don't know if it's from this recent update or not, but I just noticed it:

 

When you go to the photos in logs, if there's EXIF data for the image, there's a little "navigate" icon so you can navigate to the waypoint in the photo's EXIF data!

 

I'm not joking! I just noticed it today.

 

Well that's nifty. I'll have to update and see how it works. That could really make caching easier, just upload a tagged photo, and BAM! it's pretty much self explanatory.

 

Can stand alone GPS units handle navigating to geotagged photos?

[ohgood]

Do you realize geotagged photos have been around since at least 2002 (according to Wikipedia) And the game survived in spite of tagged photos for the last fifteen years ?

 

Yes.

 

And your point is?

 

You missed the second question after that.

[+Team Microdot]

Do you realize geotagged photos have been around since at least 2002 (according to Wikipedia) And the game survived in spite of tagged photos for the last fifteen years ?

 

Yes.

 

And your point is?

 

You missed the second question after that.

 

No - I didn't.

 

Nor do questions make points.

 

What was your point?

Edited February 9, 2017 by Team Microdot

[ohgood]

lol! thanks man that was an epic laugh :-)

[cezanne]

 

Do you realize geotagged photos have been around since at least 2002 (according to Wikipedia)

 

Do you have any idea how many photos uploaded to cache pages back then were geotagged and how many among those were unintentionally geotagged?

 

I have never encountered a problem with geotagged photos at my caches in the first couple of years. The advent of smartphones (and in particular

the Iphone) has changed a lot.

 

When I started to cache I did not even own a digital camera and had to wait for photos to get developed to be able to scan them.

[+Team Microdot]

lol! thanks man that was an epic laugh :-)

 

Did you have a point?

 

If you did I'd like to hear it.