Jump to content

Requiring a code to log a geocache


Recommended Posts

This has probably been asked before, but didnt know what to look for.

 

What are the communities' thought on requiring a code to log a geocache as found?

So when you place a geocache you can choose to protect the logs with a code which you put in the container then.

 

It's not watertight of course, but it would reduce armchair logging I'd say

Link to comment

This has been suggested a number of times, either having some sort of code written on the log book, or else a barcode in the manner of the game which must not be named. 

 

The threads usually end up with the majority concluding that either it's addressing a "problem" which isn't really a problem, or it's not a guaranteed solution so wouldn't fix the "problem" anyway.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

You cannot require a code to be emailed to you. That's an ALR (additional logging requirement), and prohibited, twice within the guidelines.

https://www.geocaching.com/play/guidelines#physicalcaches

For physical caches other than challenge caches, any additional logging requirement (ALR) beyond finding the cache and signing the log must be optional.

 

Also here, contact - under accessible

No contact required

  • Caches cannot require geocachers to contact the cache owner or anyone else.

 

Edited to add that codeword caches were common when I started caching. For some reason, on micro caches more often than regular (small as a size did not exist).  They were a nuisance and did nothing for nobody - you had to keep track of words, which became illegible as logs got wet. And I found two "caches" where the "cache" was only graffiti on a public structure, listed as Traditional caches. One was the word, "waypoint" in indelible ink on    a guardrail, and the other some other graffiti (possibly preexisting) on a bridge abutment. 

 

If you think armchair logging is bad now, imagine pages of codewords being passed around.  With COs no longer feeling any pressure to maintain a signable log, or check it. 

Edited by Isonzo Karst
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment

The best way to prevent arm chair logging is placing caches you can easily maintain, and if you suspect an arm chair logger, go out and check the paper logbook in the cache.  

 

I have people in my area that carry micro's around with them, if they can't find the cache they drop one and log the cache as found.  I've literally found their dropped caches on the same tree as the actual cache.  This person has very high cache count, but their numbers are no longer valid to me when I look at that persons stats.  I'll never make a big deal out of it, to each their own, I just cache my way let others do their own thing.

 

I got caught up in what was the right way to do things when several members of our local group were doing stupid things.  It caused too much stress, even easier than verifying physical logs is to just cache your own way and not worry about the others.  If thats what it takes for them to have fun, so be it.  But I can say I've put eyeballs on every physical cache that I've logged.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, The Leprechauns said:

I feel that the proposal for a "cache code" would inconvenience the innocent without deterring the guilty.  There are adequate means in place already, namely, the Cache Owner checks the physical log if they so desire.

 

Yeah, I'm an honest logger, but I wouldn't bother with putting in a code.

 

There's an infamous cache near me - which has never been found - that "requires" a verification code.  I would report it for such a requirement being against guidelines, but that would only encourage the CO, who already has a questionable reputation.

 

(ahem...the gc code is 'twenty-four karat minnesota'...ahem)

 

 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, TeamPintenWippers said:

This has probably been asked before, but didnt know what to look for.

 

What are the communities' thought on requiring a code to log a geocache as found?

So when you place a geocache you can choose to protect the logs with a code which you put in the container then.

 

It's not watertight of course, but it would reduce armchair logging I'd say

 

I see you've found a few trackables, and own a couple.     :)

Ever notice a ton of "Discover" logs on trackables, often after an event ? 

 - That's done with maybe one person sharing a code with another.  Eventually one copies a list of trackable codes they've received from others, until hundreds are logging that they "Discovered" a trackable they've never seen by that code.. 

 

If a CO believes they have someone "armchair" logging their cache, they can go and see if that signature's on the log.  Simple.

 

 

  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I agree with The Leprechauns:

 

8 hours ago, The Leprechauns said:

I feel that the proposal for a "cache code" would inconvenience the innocent without deterring the guilty.  There are adequate means in place already, namely, the Cache Owner checks the physical log if they so desire.

 

I've done code word and stamp required caches as part of various GeoTours. Lots of extra paperwork. With these caches, a GeoCoin was on the line, so I was willing to do the paperwork. I never had missing code words, but I have run into missing stamps. Lots of hassle to people that play by the rules to prevent a few bad actors. Not worth it in my mind for non-GeoTour caches.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

I've done code word and stamp required caches as part of various GeoTours. Lots of extra paperwork. With these caches, a GeoCoin was on the line, so I was willing to do the paperwork. I never had missing code words, but I have run into missing stamps. Lots of hassle to people that play by the rules to prevent a few bad actors. Not worth it in my mind for non-GeoTour caches.

 

Agreed.  I've dabbled in a few geotours from time to time.  For most, I didn't stay in the area long enough to take a serious stab at a coin, so I didn't bother keeping track of code words.  I did start to track the code words for a local geotour when we moved back to Virginia, but then I heard they had run out of coins years ago and stopped writing down the codes.

 

(For the record, just to differentiate geotours from what was proposed by the OP, for geotours, the code words still aren't required as proof to log the caches themselves, only to redeem the bonus geocoin or other prize.)

Link to comment
On 14.5.2018 at 2:24 PM, TeamPintenWippers said:

What are the communities' thought on requiring a code to log a geocache as found?

So when you place a geocache you can choose to protect the logs with a code which you put in the container then.

 

I have seen many caches which match with this description. The cache is locked using a combination lock. You need the code to open the container and access the logbook to log it as found. This is an allowed way to protect the logs with a code.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I have seen many caches which match with this description. The cache is locked using a combination lock. You need the code to open the container and access the logbook to log it as found. This is an allowed way to protect the logs with a code.

 

Requiring a code to sign the logsheet in the field is a field puzzle.

Requiring a code to log the find online is futile nuisance.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:
7 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Requiring a code to sign the logsheet in the field is a field puzzle.

Requiring a code to log the find online is futile nuisance.

 

They are equally futile.

 

One is a common practice, where 'code' can be replaced by any localized task or puzzle to access the physical logbook/sheet.

The other is a technicality that adds a task to recording the act of the find, logging it, online, after the fact; effectively an ALR.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

 

One is a common practice, where 'code' can be replaced by any localized task or puzzle to access the physical logbook/sheet.

The other is a technicality that adds a task to recording the act of the find, logging it, online, after the fact; effectively an ALR.

 

Agreed - and those are different points entirely.

 

Both are equally futile.

Link to comment

oooookay, whatev, as usual, the point is clear. I would not classify a field puzzle as a futile nuisance, certainly not in the same way as a code-locked listing for posting an online Find log.  Different kinds of futile at best. One is geocaching (even in a group someone still has to solve it, unless you choose to smash it, in which case any field puzzle is futile), the other is not geocaching (cache has already been found/signed, and codes can be easily passed around en masse). One is allowed (field puzzle), the other is not (ALR).

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

oooookay, whatev, as usual, the point is clear. I would not classify a field puzzle as a futile nuisance, certainly not in the same way as a code-locked listing for posting an online Find log.  Different kinds of futile at best. One is geocaching (even in a group someone still has to solve it, unless you choose to smash it, in which case any field puzzle is futile), the other is not geocaching (cache has already been found/signed, and codes can be easily passed around en masse). One is allowed (field puzzle), the other is not (ALR).

 

I freely admit to having no clue whatsoever just how many different kinds of futile there are but requiring a code to sign the logsheet and requiring a code to log the find online are futile in precisely the same way.

 

Just as codes can easily be passed around en-masse, so can field puzzle solutions. This is why those two things are equally futile.

 

In fact the only field puzzle I've EVER come across that forced each vistor, or at least one member of each group to solve it in order to get at the log was a clear perspex box which could only be unlocked by guiding a ball bearing through the maze contained within to a position which allowed the lock to be actuated. Every other field puzzle I've ever seen was one where the solution could be passed around en-masse.

 

As far as nuisance goes I'd say that field puzzles are at least equal and probably more of a nuisance than grabbing a code out of the cache.

 

Ergo I have to diasgree with the idea that:

 

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Requiring a code to sign the logsheet in the field is a field puzzle.

Requiring a code to log the find online is futile nuisance.

 

Incidentally - in a scenario where I have to solve a puzzle at home to get the combination for the padlock on the cache - is that still a field puzzle, given that I'm just opening the cache rather than solving a puzzle in the field?

 

 

Link to comment

Okay, I have no desire to have a lengthy needlessly detailed debate about this with you.

Yes, there is a VERY VERY VERY clear difference in geocaching between solving a field puzzle of which there are endless varieties in order to sign a geocache's logsheet, and a digital confirmation code to log that accomplishment on the online listing, for the exact reasons I explained above.

Don't really care that you disagree any more, don't care if you don't think it's needless. Made my point, walking away.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Okay, I have no desire to have a lengthy needlessly detailed debate about this with you.

Yes, there is a VERY VERY VERY clear difference in geocaching between solving a field puzzle of which there are endless varieties in order to sign a geocache's logsheet, and a digital confirmation code to log that accomplishment on the online listing, for the exact reasons I explained above.

Don't really care that you disagree any more, don't care if you don't think it's needless. Made my point, walking away.

 

I'm not disagreeing that those two things are different - that's plain for anyone to see.

 

I'm disagreeing with the idea that those two things are futile in differing degrees and the inference that either is superior to the other in the given context.

 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Team Microdot said:

Just as codes can easily be passed around en-masse, so can field puzzle solutions. This is why those two things are equally futile.

 

Your analyze do not cover all possible situations - only most of them. :) ( = not equal)

 

For example: Think about a situation where CO may change the code every day manually or the process is fully automated and every time you open the cache you need a new code.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

Your analyze do not cover all possible situations - only most of them. :) ( = not equal)

 

For example: Think about a situation where CO may change the code every day manually or the process is fully automated and every time you open the cache you need a new code.

 

You're right - there are probably many, many possibilities neither of us have considered. Perhaps it would be fun to make a list of them?

 

Which code are you referring to? A code in a cache or a code related to a field puzzle?

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Which code are you referring to? A code in a cache or a code related to a field puzzle?

 

I am mostly referring to the code you need to get access to the logbook to sign it. One practical solution could be a field puzzle you have to solve to get the code before you can open the container. The CO can change the puzzle and the lock combination any time without warning. Sharing the outdated solution is pointless.

 

I have an on-line field puzzle which brings you to the cache using your smartphone as a GPSr. Once it happened that the original cache environment was destroyed and I had to move the cache. It is so fun to see DNFs from players who have not even tried so solve the puzzle to locate the cache. :)

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I am mostly referring to the code you need to get access to the logbook to sign it. One practical solution could be a field puzzle you have to solve to get the code before you can open the container. The CO can change the puzzle and the lock combination any time without warning. Sharing the outdated solution is pointless.

 

And in the scenario where a code is required to log the cach online the code could also be changed any time.

 

Ergo the two scenarios are still equally futile.

Link to comment
19 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

And in the scenario where a code is required to log the cach online the code could also be changed any time.

 

If you mean that the order of the events, signing the log and solving the puzzle, has no effect to the futility you may be right but there is no point to solve any puzzle after you have signed the log.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, arisoft said:
34 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

And in the scenario where a code is required to log the cach online the code could also be changed any time.

 

If you mean that the order of the events, signing the log and solving the puzzle, has no effect to the futility you may be right but there is no point to solve any puzzle after you have signed the log.

 

My original point was more to do with another poster making an apples for oranges comparison which falsely implied that one thing was somehow better than the other. In fairness I hadn't expected to still be trying to explain it this many posts on.

Link to comment
33 minutes ago, badlands said:

Lab caches for example require a code.

 

Yeah, and lab caches aren't standard geocache listings. Those were built on the whole premise of discovering a code in order to record the completion. It's a minimalist experimental container set as a final step for a customized experience that may not otherwise fit in a standard geocache listing type (most often as temporary puzzles/games/tasks)

 

43 minutes ago, badlands said:

Should Earth caches and Virtual caches be set up the same way?

 

Well regular geocache listings (all standard types) have requirements that must be met first in order to be allowed to log the find online. ie, meet the requirement, and your find is valid for logging online - can't be deleted by the CO.

 

It would be interesting if HQ were to expand those requirements for non-logsheet cache types, but really all it's doing is adding an extra impersonal hurdle to overcome. Right now log validation is by human CO judgement. Requirement validation will never be fully automated (leave that to munzee which uses location-based locking via qr code scanning), so they won't remove the requirement to send answers to the CO. If they build in the requirement to also provide an unlock code, how would that improve the process?  They certainly won't add code unlocking for physical logsheet caches, since the requirement to log online is merely to sign the logsheet, otherwise it becomes an ALR.

 

Resourceful COs can make field puzzles tricky enough to provide the same code-validation process before signing the logsheet - whether it's in a field puzzle to access the sheet or a listing puzzle that provides coordinates to the location of the logsheet... (even if it is technically just a form that prompts 'enter the code here' to get the answer)  So this issue really only comes into play after the logsheet has been signed and the user wants to log online - thus, an ALR.  Or, whether it's part of the virtual logging requirement, which becomes an extra hurdle beyond human validation of submitted answers.

 

                    [---------- Requirement to log the find ---------]
Read listing  ---->  Yadda yadda  ---->  Sign logsheet / Send answers  ---->  Log activity online
Automated code      |                  |                             |       |
context would be:   ^-- Field puzzle --^                             ^- ALR -^

Challenge caches are the exception to the ALR rule by requiring statistical qualification on top of logsheet signing.

For virtual caches the best place would be:

                    [--------- Requirement to log the find -------]
Read listing  ---->  Yadda yadda  ---->  Send answers + CODE INPUT  ---->  Log activity online

I just don't think HQ would see that code validation as a feasible mechanism to construct for the website.

I really can't see any where HQ would find a spot to willingly implement code-validation on any current standard geocache type (labs excepted), physical or virtual, and really would be more of a nuisance than anything.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

For virtual caches the best place would be:


                    [--------- Requirement to log the find -------]
Read listing  ---->  Yadda yadda  ---->  Send answers + CODE INPUT  ---->  Log activity online

 

Currently a virtual cache is basically Read listing --> Go to location to obtain answers --> Send Answers and log activity online

 

Basically,  the answers are a "code" that is sent to the CO to confirm that one has visited the site (because their isn't a physical log book).   Typically the answers are sent via email or the message center, and even in the case of a cache type which allows the use of a code, GS never thought it was worth implementing something specifically  for sending the "code".  

 

A Wherigo or Intercache is an example of a cache type where one must obtain a code (or answer), then input the code in an application, in order to proceed.   I don't see that entering a code for a unique cache type is an issue because that's just part of what makes them unique.   I would not, however, condone the use of condone as a mandatory step for traditional caches.   Just signing the log book then logging ones experience online is, "traditionally" (see what I did there?) , how one has recorded their experience for traditional caches since the beginning of the game.  

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:
54 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

For virtual caches the best place would be:



                    [--------- Requirement to log the find -------]
Read listing  ---->  Yadda yadda  ---->  Send answers + CODE INPUT  ---->  Log activity online

 

Currently a virtual cache is basically Read listing --> Go to location to obtain answers --> Send Answers and log activity online

 

Basically,  the answers are a "code" that is sent to the CO to confirm that one has visited the site (because their isn't a physical log book).   Typically the answers are sent via email or the message center, and even in the case of a cache type which allows the use of a code, GS never thought it was worth implementing something specifically  for sending the "code".  

 

Exactly, the question is whether this automated entry is something worth creating. I don't think it is, not on top of sending in answers.

 

9 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

A Wherigo or Intercache is an example of a cache type where one must obtain a code (or answer), then input the code in an application, in order to proceed.

 

But again, this all happens before the signing of the logsheet, so it's part of the process of finding the cache. You haven't yet completed the requirement to log the find online (which is only to sign the physical logsheet). An automated code entry is part of the 'field puzzle' aspect to the cache.

 

10 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I would not, however, condone the use of condone as a mandatory step for traditional caches.   Just signing the log book then logging ones experience online is, "traditionally" (see what I did there?) , how one has recorded their experience for traditional caches since the beginning of the game.  

 

Precisely. Adding the automated code requirement after signing the log sheet is an additional logging requirement since you already qualify for logging it online.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

I really can't see any where HQ would find a spot to willingly implement code-validation on any current standard geocache type

 

I can see but this will not happen. HQ could sell OTP devices for COs who are willing to create a cache without logsheet.

otp.jpg

Caches with OTP could be logged only by entering the correct code No logsheet needed because the code verifies the visit.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, arisoft said:

 

I can see but this will not happen. HQ could sell OTP devices for COs who are willing to create a cache without logsheet.

otp.jpg

Caches with OTP could be logged only by entering the correct code No logsheet needed because the code verifies the visit.

 

Wouldn't there need to be a corresponding mechanism to confirm that the OTP was a specific value at a specific point in time? How would this work.

 

2FA mechanisms, for example, usually work in realtime and so this sort of setup would require the finder to log the cache immediately?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Team Microdot said:

How would this work.

 

If you want to use a time specific protocol you have to add the time of your visit vith the code (nice addition, by the way). But there are many alternatives without this requirement. A professional programmer can easily develop a such method.

 

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

If you want to use a time specific protocol you have to add the time of your visit vith the code (nice addition, by the way). But there are many alternatives without this requirement. A professional programmer can easily develop a such method.

 

 

Then what's to stop me getting a code off someone else and logging it with them?

Link to comment
Just now, Team Microdot said:

Then what's to stop me getting a code off someone else and logging it with them?

 

Code works only once. Of course you could wait and save many codes at once but you can not share them to public effectively. The idea for the CO is to create a cache without logbook.

Link to comment
30 minutes ago, arisoft said:
36 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Then what's to stop me getting a code off someone else and logging it with them?

 

Code works only once. Of course you could wait and save many codes at once but you can not share them to public effectively. The idea for the CO is to create a cache without logbook.

 

Interesting concept.

 

One code per geocaching account wishing to log presumably.

 

Who would verify the code?

 

What stops me sharing the codes effectively?

 

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

Who would verify the code?

 

Groundspeak, when you post a log. They would also sell those devices for good profit.

 

4 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

What stops me sharing the codes effectively?

 

You wouldn't stay at the cache and copy new codes for other players who do not ever thank you for your effort. You could save some of them for later use but you could also sign those nicknames in the logbook if there would be a logbook.

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Groundspeak, when you post a log. They would also sell those devices for good profit.

 

 

You wouldn't stay at the cache and copy new codes for other players who do not ever thank you for your effort. You could save some of them for later use but you could also sign those nicknames in the logbook if there would be a logbook.

 

I highly doubt Groundspeak would sell those devices for good profit. I think that's nothing more than a pipe dream. Who would pay for this fundamentally flawed system?

 

So there's nothing stopping me sharing those codes effectively. That's what I thought.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I highly doubt Groundspeak would sell those devices for good profit.

 

I made the same assumption in my first message that this will not happen. With good profit or not.

 

14 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

So there's nothing stopping me sharing those codes effectively. That's what I thought.

 

Only if you have nothing else to do than wait for new codes. I think you wouldn't bother to waste your life.

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

I made the same assumption in my first message that this will not happen. With good profit or not.

 

 

Only if you have nothing else to do than wait for new codes. I think you wouldn't bother to waste your life.

 

There already exist social media groups full of people only too happy to waste their life solving puzzles for people who can't be bothered. They do this for zero reward already.

 

I see no reason therefore why these codes wouldn't be handed out via simar mechanisms.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I see no reason therefore why these codes wouldn't be handed out via simar mechanisms.

 

If you are willing to stay on the cache and share the current code forever you could do that also with the normal logbook and sign everyone who asks you to do so. You could also stay on some virtual cache and send new photos for everyone who is asking. So you think that someone is already sharing photos from virtual caches on demand? Or took many photos to be shared to social media for helping to log the cache?

Edited by arisoft
Link to comment
1 minute ago, arisoft said:

 

If you are willing to stay on the cache and share the current code forever you could do that also with the normal logbook and sign everyone who asks you to do so. You could also stay on some virtual cache and send new photos for everyone who is asking. So you think that someone is already sharing photos from virtual caches on demand?

 

Let's try to stick to the plot here.

 

I've made no mention of virtual caches so I've no idea why you would try to bring that into the discussion.

 

It's a big problem here in these forums that people seem unable or unwilling to stick to the specific point being discussed which leads to threads becoming pointless - literally.

 

In your earlier post you stated that your proposed system does not use a time specific protocol so the idea that I need to stay on the cache and share the current code forever has no basis in truth.

 

I could just gather a bunch of codes every once in a while and hand them out whenever - trade them in the same way puzzle cache coordinates are traded today.

Link to comment

As I have posted before, I designed a puzzle cache where you can tell if  the person actually solved the puzzle.  Not a required element of the log, but if you don't include it people will naturally assume you did not.

 

Just this week a local hider hid a cache based on blockchain, which gave me an idea of how you could use blockchain's "proof of work" to verify that you accomplished some task prior to logging the cache.  Of course it would have to be optional, but once again peoples' assumptions can be leveraged...

 

So combine those and you can come up with a system where finders can prove that they found the cache when they said they did.  It involves using one of those RSA tokens (or something equivalent you made yourself) that gives you a 6-digit number that changes every few seconds.  Have each finder include the number shown on the token when they found the cache, and ask that each finder use a unique number (it only takes a few seconds to wait for the next one).  Then have a link to a web page that can tell whether that number was displayed on that date or not.  Voila!  People who include a valid number were at the cache, and people who don't..  well, people will make assumptions.

 

All of this must be optional, of course, but it would work.

 

Requiring people to enter a code to log a cache is a poor idea, though.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

Requiring people to enter a code to log a cache is a poor idea, though.

Yep.

 

And the rest, while neat, is much too complex for, I would argue, the vast majority of the worldwide layperson geocaching community who just want to find a container, trade trinkets, and drop a signature. As an optional task, perhaps, if the reviewer accepts it as a puzzle style hurdle to solve in order to sign the logbook.  Other than that, my guess is it just won't fly.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, arisoft said:

If you are willing to stay on the cache and share the current code forever you could do that also with the normal logbook and sign everyone who asks you to do so.

If I go caching with a group, then how long would we have to wait before everyone gets a unique code?

 

At some point, it might be easier to take the electronic device with us, and record new codes while we hike. We'll return the device on the way back to the trailhead, honest.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, niraD said:

If I go caching with a group, then how long would we have to wait before everyone gets a unique code?

 

Maybe too long. The problem is not abuse but impracticality. This works better with difficult puzzle caches where it is just right that the one who has solved the puzzle can post a find and others should be happy with a note :)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...