Adventure Lab Caches

[+IceColdUK]

9 minutes ago, Team KarlZink said:

If the community think, that the physical presence at the coordinates is a condition for logging, then one should first communicate this clearly. 

 

Surely, it has to be assumed that physical presence is required?  I thought the idea of a lab cache is to present some experimental idea to the community.  The one’s I have done all required your presence.  Of course, the codes could be shared, but does anybody using them truly believe that they have legitimately ‘found’ the lab cache?  I think not!

[+niraD]

6 hours ago, -Mark- said:

3. Forget about lab caches.

4 hours ago, igator210 said:

If you don't think they are geocaches, don't do them?

Yep. That's worked for me so far.

[Keystone]

2 minutes ago, IceColdUK said:

 

Surely, it has to be assumed that physical presence is required?  I thought the idea of a lab cache is to present some experimental idea to the community.  The one’s I have done all required your presence.  Of course, the codes could be shared, but does anybody using them truly believe that they have legitimately ‘found’ the lab cache?  I think not!

 

I don't even think an assumption is necessary.  The quoted guidance begins with the words "The finder..."  The logic fails there.  You have to find something, in the real world.  Sharing codes on the internet isn't "finding" anything.  It's just annoying to ethical geocachers and to the people who spend time and effort constructing lab cache/ Adventure Lab experiences.  See, for example, Ahern Clan's posts earlier in this thread.

[Moun10Bike]

27 minutes ago, Team KarlZink said:

The terms "fake-logging" and "cheating" already bother me in this matter.
Since 2013/2014 when the first lab caches saw the light of day, these "Guidelines" applied in the form of FAQs: https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2013/08/geocaching-labs-faq/
There reads, among other things: "The finder just needs to discover a code to unlock the find." "... there are no special logging requirements other than entering the find code." and so on.
The fact that there is a need to visit the coordinates physically, is not named there.
Therefore, the possibility of logging has been used by many since then, without having been on site. I know some geocachers who still do this. They are all very active geocachers and cache owners. The possibility of logging lab caches is definitely not considered a rule violation.
Since you can not get country souvenirs or difficulty and terrain ratings for labcaches, you can not compare them to classic geocaching. Therefore you can also not set the same standards.
If the community think, that the physical presence at the coordinates is a condition for logging, then one should first communicate this clearly. It should also be clarified, how the previous logs of labcaches are evaluated and how it should be handled.

 

Geocaching and this site have always been about location and visiting coordinates. I'm not sure how you can justify that just because a 5-year-old blog post doesn't explicitly mention visiting the site that that is somehow license to buck the accepted way of caching. Besides, the Help Center explicitly cites the need to visit the site: https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=127&pgid=510 : "To log a Lab Cache, finders are required to visit the location, discover the find code, and then enter the code to mark the cache as found."

[+Team KarlZink]

["This form of lab cache lives on the web, can be be used privately, and has no special logging requirements other than entering the find code."]

[Moun10Bike]

1 minute ago, Team KarlZink said:

["This form of lab cache lives on the web, can be be used privately, and has no special logging requirements other than entering the find code."]

 

From that same 2013 blog post: "These mostly work the same as regular geocaches: navigate to the location, find the cache and sign the logbook."

[+Team KarlZink]

"These mostly work the same..." - not ever. 

[+arisoft]

40 minutes ago, Team KarlZink said:

If the community think, that the physical presence at the coordinates is a condition for logging, then one should first communicate this clearly. It should also be clarified, how the previous logs of labcaches are evaluated and how it should be handled.

 

 

Quote

 

3.1. Log types

Found It

You can log caches online as "Found" after you visited the coordinates and signed the logbook.

 

 

For me this is quite clear. If you log found it for a lab cache you must visit the coordinates.

 

[+Team KarlZink]

This formulation was chosen much later in the Help Center - difficult to decide what is now. Are there any subsequent rule changes?
I visited a few mega events myself and found lab caches for which no coordinates were given - this was not absolutely necessary in the lab builder.

[+arisoft]

5 minutes ago, Team KarlZink said:

This formulation was chosen much later in the Help Center - difficult to decide what is now. Are there any subsequent rule changes?
I visited a few mega events myself and found lab caches for which no coordinates were given - this was not absolutely necessary in the lab builder.

 

You found the loophole

Another one is the fact thet the log type is not "Found it". Acatually, there is no log type at all for Lab Caches.

 

Lab cache codes spreads as fast as final coordinates of puzzle caches. There is no fake log but fake solution.

 

[+HHL]

30 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Lab cache codes spreads as fast as final coordinates of puzzle caches.

And don't forget TB code lists for the discover honks.

Edited February 26, 2019 by HHL

[+thebruce0]

Before puzzles come into the argument - you can find a geocache that's at the end of a puzzle cache. So it's not "cheating" to log a puzzle cache as found without solving the puzzle (by whatever means that happens).  The wording is clear that navigating, visiting, something related to the cache (even lab cache) is part of the intention. The mechanism exists to log a lab cache without doing anything related to the lab cache, but that doesn't mean it's not cheating, because the intent is officlally expressed.  The mechanism exists for someone to log a puzzle found without solving the puzzle but that doesn't mean it is cheating, because the intent of the cache is officially expressed (by the website authority HQ, not the CO) that finding and signing the logsheet is the intent. That's why couch-caching can be thwarted by demonstrated that it has occurred, but not finding caches without solving puzzles; And so likewise couch-logging Lab caches is explicitly against the intended process of Lab caches.

 

Only problem is it's harder to thwart couched Lab caches - there's no CO able to check a logsheet. Thus why they're moving to an app-exlucisve platform. Still not impossible to spoof, but much harder for the average joe; and it's making the intent of the Lab cache even more clear: Go there. Do the task. Enter the code.

 

If it's not cheating just because you can do it, then I fear for this world.

 

(I've had similar discussions around video games, and whether or in what contexts making use of known exploits and/or bugs is considered "cheating")

Edited February 26, 2019 by thebruce0

[+arisoft]

35 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Only problem is it's harder to thwart couched Lab caches - there's no CO able to check a logsheet. Thus why they're moving to an app-exlucisve platform. Still not impossible to spoof, but much harder for the average joe; and it's making the intent of the Lab cache even more clear: Go there. Do the task. Enter the code.

 

This makes this intention more interesting for me. They are trying to solve the same problem which is worrying almost every multi- and puzzle cache owner. How to enforce the adventure they have created with effort.

 

On 2/18/2019 at 10:41 PM, Bryan said:

So, today we have a limited test where a few hundred geocachers and a number of geocaching organizations are being provided with access to the builder to create some test adventures. While some great new experiences have been created, we still have the issue of fake logging through the responsive web player (and possibly also through the use of GPS spoofing). Despite that fact that the fake logging is not new, it remains understandably objectionable to Adventure Lab creators. Although we planned to eventually retire the responsive web player without a specific end-date in mind, information gathered during this testing phase leads us to believe that expediting the retirement and better addressing fake logging are more important priorities to be addressed soon.

 

As you see, the problem is called "fake logging" even the the real problem is missing/skipped experience. I would like to see the same effort used for solving the same problem with real caches.

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, Team KarlZink said:

The terms "fake-logging" and "cheating" already bother me in this matter.
Since 2013/2014 when the first lab caches saw the light of day, these "Guidelines" applied in the form of FAQs: https://www.geocaching.com/blog/2013/08/geocaching-labs-faq/
There reads, among other things: "The finder just needs to discover a code to unlock the find." "... there are no special logging requirements other than entering the find code." and so on.
The fact that there is a need to visit the coordinates physically, is not named there.
Therefore, the possibility of logging has been used by many since then, without having been on site. I know some geocachers who still do this. They are all very active geocachers and cache owners. The possibility of logging lab caches is definitely not considered a rule violation.
Since you can not get country souvenirs or difficulty and terrain ratings for labcaches, you can not compare them to classic geocaching. Therefore you can also not set the same standards.
If the community think, that the physical presence at the coordinates is a condition for logging, then one should first communicate this clearly. It should also be clarified, how the previous logs of labcaches are evaluated and how it should be handled.

I find it a bit sad, when cachers are analyzing guidelines word-by-word like lawyers to find loopholes to justify a behavior, which is clearly against the spirit of these guidelines. As others have pointed out, lab caches were never meant as "armchair smileys", and no amount of cherry-picking phrases from blog posts or whatever will change this.

 

Creators of Adventure Labs put effort into it, trying to guide cachers to interesting locations which are in one way or another not well suited for normal caches. Therefore, even if there are logical loopholes in the guidelines, it's an insult to the lab cache owner to regard their cache as nothing more than an easy way to increase your smiley count from your couch. And openly distributing lab cache codes on the internet (Facebook etc.) is just rude. There is no rule or guideline against being rude, but any decent person should really think twice about it. I don't know what irks me more - the open cheating in geocaching, or the lame attempts to justify it.

[+HHL]

2 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

. I don't know what irks me more - the open cheating in geocaching, or the lame attempts to justify it.

Fat +1

[+Team KarlZink]

I do not want to justify anything. I understand that it is considered as legitimate. I just want to show that there are reasons that are understandable.

[+barefootjeff]

49 minutes ago, arisoft said:

This makes this intention more interesting for me. They are trying to solve the same problem which is worrying almost every multi- and puzzle cache owner. How to enforce the adventure they have created with effort.

 

I must be the odd CO out, then, as I have no desire to enforce anything with my multis and puzzles, other than to expect the finder to sign the logbook. The multi or puzzle I've created is one way to reach that goal, but it's not the only way. On one of my multis I had someone get approximate GZ coordinates from EXIF data accidently included in someone's log photo then brute-force the checker until finally (after over 100 attempts) getting the green light - I thought it amusing as they'd spent two weeks doing that to bypass the easy part of the cache but still had the T4 climb, bush-bash and rock-hopping to reach the logbook. Likewise my most recent puzzle has only had four finders, two of which didn't solve the puzzle but did a painstaking search of an area where they thought the cache might be and eventually found it. I'm happy that they found it; it doesn't bother me in the slightest that they did so without solving the puzzle. What I do find a tad disappointing though is that, in the year since publication, another six people actually solved that puzzle but haven't been interested enough to complete the find.

[+arisoft]

21 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

spirit of these guidelines

 

This is very intrigue subject. Some backgroud information about the spirit may have leaked from many changes in the guidelines and the way they are put in effect. For me, the spirit seems to be only about gainning number of finds. I can not see anything which improves the player's opportunity to have the experience created by the CO.

 

 

[+arisoft]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

What I do find a tad disappointing though is that, in the year since publication, another six people actually solved that puzzle but haven't been interested enough to complete the find.

 

Maybe they didn't solve the puzzle at all. It is quite usual to check coordinates which are in circulation. it may look like solving but actually the cache is like any traditional cache in this case.

[+barefootjeff]

11 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

Maybe they didn't solve the puzzle at all. It is quite usual to check coordinates which are in circulation. it may look like solving but actually the cache is like any traditional cache in this case.

 

Perhaps, but even so I'd have thought they'd have had some motivation for going to the trouble of putting those coordinates into the checker but presumably lost interest when they saw where it was. That's the slightly disappointing thing for me as I put a lot of effort into finding interesting places for my caches. Still, it's been a brute of a summer so I still hold some hope that maybe one or two will make the effort to go out there in the cooler months.

[Keystone]

Let's stick to discussing Adventure Labs in this thread.  Brute forcing puzzle caches / multi-caches would be an interesting subject for a separate thread.

[Frau Potter]

In the Geocache hiding guidelines, we link to this Help Center article about Lab Caches.

 

Yesterday (February 25, 2019) we updated the text in to clarify the rules for logging Adventure Labs. The text says, “To log a Lab Cache, finders are required to visit the location, discover the find code, and then enter the code to mark the cache as found.” This language is similar to what we have added to the guidelines for physical caches and Event Caches over the past few years.

 

We have received feedback from past and current Adventure creators that they are very frustrated with users who log their experience, but have not visited the Locations they set up. With the most recent launch to geocaching organizations and opt-in participants, we felt that it was a good time to clarify the expectations. There are no plans to punish geocachers for past “couch logging” of Lab Caches. However, we may take disciplinary action against accounts if the behavior continues in the future.

[+kapitaenchaos]

I'm a little confused now. how does someone  come to the idea that labcache are geocache? in the official description of Groundspeak it says: "To play, use the Geocaching app and / or a GPS device to navigate to cleverly hidden containers called geocaches." Thus, a labcache can not be a geocache, because

1. I can not use it with the geocaching app and can't  be found with the GPS.

2. there is no hidden container.

 

Thus, the whole discussion is unnecessary. According to the definition of Groundspeak, labcache are not a geocache and therefore it is questionable whether the same rules apply as for geocaches. also in the statistics labcache have a special position, no country points (if I go there or should travel then there should also be a country point) no D / T rating, and above all no can.

 

The summer hole will not be ready for a few months. why discuss it now? just set up correct, understandable rules for everyone and it's good.

[+K13]

19 minutes ago, kapitaenchaos said:

I'm a little confused now. how does someone  come to the idea that labcache are geocache? in the official description of Groundspeak it says: "To play, use the Geocaching app and / or a GPS device to navigate to cleverly hidden containers called geocaches." Thus, a labcache can not be a geocache, because

1. I can not use it with the geocaching app and can't  be found with the GPS.

2. there is no hidden container.

 

Thus, the whole discussion is unnecessary. According to the definition of Groundspeak, labcache are not a geocache and therefore it is questionable whether the same rules apply as for geocaches. also in the statistics labcache have a special position, no country points (if I go there or should travel then there should also be a country point) no D / T rating, and above all no can.

 

The summer hole will not be ready for a few months. why discuss it now? just set up correct, understandable rules for everyone and it's good.

Consider the Virtual caches, Webcam caches, and Earthcaches? All these are valid goecache types which do not have a container. These, along with Lab caches are geocaches by the definition used by Groundspeak. It is their game and they make the decisions regarding what is a geocache - even if their descriptions on different pages of the website seem to differ.

[Keystone]

34 minutes ago, kapitaenchaos said:

I'm a little confused now. how does someone  come to the idea that labcache are geocache? in the official description of Groundspeak it says: "To play, use the Geocaching app and / or a GPS device to navigate to cleverly hidden containers called geocaches." Thus, a labcache can not be a geocache, because

1. I can not use it with the geocaching app and can't  be found with the GPS.

2. there is no hidden container.

 

Thus, the whole discussion is unnecessary. According to the definition of Groundspeak, labcache are not a geocache and therefore it is questionable whether the same rules apply as for geocaches. also in the statistics labcache have a special position, no country points (if I go there or should travel then there should also be a country point) no D / T rating, and above all no can.

 

 

This is wrong, and I hope that -- by reading this discussion -- you will change your ways and stop doing what you've been doing.  If not, I hope that the retirement of the web player achieves the same result.

 

I have found plenty of lab caches with containers.  But you wouldn't know - you just log the codes, you don't actually visit them.

[+Team KarlZink]

Thank you for clarifying the facts for the future - so that the misunderstanding has now been dispelled.

 

With the introduction of the new Adventure Lab App and the planned shutdown of the WebPlayers open questions arise for me:

 

1. If no data reception is available at the location of an adventure, the labcache can not be logged as intended. Can this problem be solved? The owners of Adventures also have different network providers.

 

2. At labs.geocaching.com/logs I currently find an overview of the labcaches I've logged. Will this page be available even after the WebPlayers shutdown?
(This currently also allows me to download GPX files for GSAK)

 

Thanks for the feedback!

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, Team KarlZink said:

1. If no data reception is available at the location of an adventure, the labcache can not be logged as intended. Can this problem be solved? The owners of Adventures also have different network providers.

 

It is a similar case as a missing traditional cache container. The problem is that you can not post DNF, NM, NA or even a Note. Maybe you can contact the owner if there is a link.

 

11 hours ago, Frau Potter said:

This language is similar to what we have added to the guidelines for physical caches and Event Caches over the past few years.

 

" To log a Lab Cache, finders are required to visit the location, discover the find code, and then enter the code to mark the cache as found. "

 

I could't immediatelly find anything like

 

" To log a Wherigo Cache, finders are required to download the Wherigo casette, visit the presented locations, and then sign the logbook to mark the cache as found. "

 

I guess that you have received feedback from past and current Wherigo creators that they are very frustrated with users who log their experience, but have not visited the Locations they set up. I must confess that I am one of those users because I am not instructed to do more than sign the logbook.

Edited February 27, 2019 by arisoft

[+Isonzo Karst]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

" To log a Lab Cache, finders are required to visit the location, discover the find code, and then enter the code to mark the cache as found. "

 

I could't immediatelly find anything like

 

" To log a Wherigo Cache, finders are required to download the Wherigo casette, visit the presented locations, and then sign the logbook to mark the cache as found. "

 

The logging of caches info is scattered. The bulk of it resides in article 3.1 Log Types

Physical caches, the requirement is sign log = log find. Nothing about how you arrived at the final. You can't find anything about running the cart for a Wherigo, because as a physical cache, the CO is limited to verifying signatures.  

EVENTS: Attended is defined as "once you have attended the event" (I think at one time, this read as "physically attended", but no longer).

Challenge caches are not mentioned in that article.  They are mentioned as an exception in another article in that chapter 3.3 Additional logging requirements (ALR) 

3.1 Log types  links to additional articles:

Webcams 2.9 with  instructions to visit the coords and take photo with the associated webcam

Log an EarthCache or a Virtual Cache 3.6  Read the cache page to learn the logging requirements....Once you send your answers, you may log your find online before hearing back from the cache owner. Nothing about visiting (and apparently EarthCache owners may not specify send answers first). 

2.6 Lab Caches visit the location, discover the find code, and then enter the code to mark the cache as found <new

 

edit links

 

 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Isonzo Karst

[+thebruce0]

Yep, the only requirement in writing for physical caches is to have your name signed in the logbook to log a Found It online. And even then 'name' is whatever you are claiming to be caching under for that find - personal, gc name, or a group name, all allowable, and it doesn't have to be physically written by your own hand. The spirit of the 'finding' is clear here - you've gone there and sufficiently 'found' the geocache. No strict requirements for tasks to complete before doing so, or how the signing is done.

The only exception to this process is Challenge Caches which have the Additional Logging Requirement of also qualifying for a statistical accomplishment before posting the Found It log.

 

Lab Caches have no physical/verifiable component. Except now the app does have a universal measure that can automatically enforce a requirement of spirit of the lab cache experience - go to the location.  And since that's now an explicit and enforceable element of completing a lab cache, circumventing the location based element by spoofing can be addressed with consequential action, at the very least revoking their 'find'.  Just as with physical caches someone couch logging but not having their name in the logsheet can (and should) have their log  removed by the CO or HQ.

 

Verifiability. Puzzle completion can't be explicitly verified. Multi-stage visitation can't be explicitly verified. Date of visiting a location can't be explicitly verified.   Challenge statistical qualification can be verified. Name written on a logsheet can be verified. Now, lab cache completion on location can be verified.

Can the verifications be spoofed/tricked? Sure. But at that point it's clear that a universal active rule or metric is being broken, and can be addressed.   And if it's grey, HQ can judge case by case (of course they want to avoid that as much as possible!)

[+baer2006]

1 hour ago, Isonzo Karst said:

Log an EarthCache or a Virtual Cache 3.6  Read the cache page to learn the logging requirements....Once you send your answers, you may log your find online before hearing back from the cache owner. Nothing about visiting (and apparently EarthCache owners may not specify send answers first). 

(Emphasis by me)

That's exactly what I meant above by saying "... cachers are analyzing guidelines word-by-word like lawyers to find loopholes ..."   . Yes, the EC and VC logging guidelines don't mention explicitly that you have to visit the location. But we're playing geocaching here, a location(!) based outdoor game! Is there really anyone, who seriously thinks that a visit of an EC/VC location is not a requirement for logging a find? And to get back on topic , the same was always true for lab caches as well (even before the recent explicit clarification).

[+IceColdUK]

11 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

we're playing geocaching here, a location(!) based outdoor game! Is there really anyone, who seriously thinks that a visit of an EC/VC location is not a requirement for logging a find? And to get back on topic , the same was always true for lab caches as well

 

Absolutely!  Armchair logging is never legitimate.

Edited February 27, 2019 by IceColdUK

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The spirit of the 'finding' is clear here

 

You call this a spirit... for me it is the minimum requirement to keep your "Found It" safe - not the spirit at any level. This is important - there was nothing about the spirit until these Adventures seems to require more spirit than ordinary caches. For me the spirit is something different than rules.

[+K13]

6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

 

You call this a spirit... for me it is the minimum requirement to keep your "Found It" safe - not the spirit at any level. This is important - there was nothing about the spirit until these Adventures seems to require more spirit than ordinary caches. For me the spirit is something different than rules.

 

Replace the word 'intent' where that person wrote 'spirit'. In this context, these words have the same meaning.

[+thebruce0]

4 minutes ago, arisoft said:

4 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The spirit of the 'finding' is clear here

 

You call this a spirit... for me it is the minimum requirement to keep your "Found It" safe - not the spirit at any level. This is important - there was nothing about the spirit until these Adventures seems to require more spirit than ordinary caches. For me the spirit is something different than rules.

 

Not sure what you're disagreeing with. I said the spirit is going and finding. Yes, the minimum requirement to keep your log safe is having your name in the logsheet. The minimum requirement for getting a +1 on a lab cache is sending the code.  The spirit (intent) of geocaching is going, doing, finding, signing. That's more than the minimum requirement of just name-in-log. Now, the minimum requirement for Lab caches is going and doing and claiming the code. Because it's the mobile app, not the webpage, it's clear that the spirit and intent of lab caches is now in line with its minimum requirement.  Can't say the same for physical geocaches where the intent is impossible to enforce within reason.

[+arisoft]

31 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Not sure what you're disagreeing with.

 

I may not disagree. You understand that spirit or intent is not recorded in the guidelines but the guidelines are used to create the spirit. There is more than one kind of spirit for this reason. For me the spirit in the current guidelines is to get signed as many log books as you can for any means you can. For many players this seems to be the reality. Why only Adventure Lab builders need a different spirit? I am sure that many cache owners (excluding barefootjeff) are not satisfied with this spirit I presented.

Edited February 27, 2019 by arisoft

[+K13]

The spirit or intent is there in everything that Geocaching is, whether specified in the guidelines or not.  The legalistic reading of certain parts of the guidelines merely digs the hole deeper, away from the inferred meaning of a find.

[+arisoft]

1 minute ago, K13 said:

The spirit or intent is there in everything that Geocaching is, whether specified in the guidelines or not.  The legalistic reading of certain parts of the guidelines merely digs the hole deeper, away from the inferred meaning of a find.

 

I deeply agree with you. Do you think that it could be bad idea to open this spirit more in the guidelines? The spirit of finding Adventure Lab caches is a good start.

[+K13]

I think it is there, even in the name - geocaching. The name implies that there is something that you must go out to find. Getting the code for a special geocache from another player, or having someone write your name in the logbook are only two methods of cheating the intent of the game.

I see that the guidelines are being made more specific to this point. It is sad to me that there needed to be a specific statement in the guidelines that states one must physically visit the site of the geocache they are logging. That seems to be the entire point of the game - "Go to the location."

[+arisoft]

2 minutes ago, K13 said:

It is sad to me that there needed to be a specific statement in the guidelines that states one must physically visit the site of the geocache they are logging.

 

I don't know when this rule have been added to the guidelines but I have logged some caches when not visiting the coordinates. Some caches were in the owner's pocket at an event. Some of them were CITO caches which I signed before the cache was even hidden somewhere. I didn't know this rule when this happened. I thought that I only need to sign the log to earn a find.

 

Do you know that it is quite common that multi-caches have been visited only at the final waypoint. Is this the right spirit?

[Frau Potter]

11 hours ago, Team KarlZink said:

Thank you for clarifying the facts for the future - so that the misunderstanding has now been dispelled.

 

With the introduction of the new Adventure Lab App and the planned shutdown of the WebPlayers open questions arise for me:

 

1. If no data reception is available at the location of an adventure, the labcache can not be logged as intended. Can this problem be solved? The owners of Adventures also have different network providers.

 

2. At labs.geocaching.com/logs I currently find an overview of the labcaches I've logged. Will this page be available even after the WebPlayers shutdown?
(This currently also allows me to download GPX files for GSAK)

 

Thanks for the feedback!

 

1. We are advising the creators of Adventures to set up their locations only where there is cell phone reception. In addition, each creator can now choose a maximum logging radius for each location (we're referring to this as "geofencing"). This can set at a reasonable distance so that participants may log from a WiFi location some distance away if they don't have data but were able to follow along with another person who did have data.

 

2. The plan is to leave the labs.geocaching.com/logs page, so users can still see their logs, but each Adventure will no longer link to the web player. The "Download as GPX" functionality is slated for retirement. 

 

[+igator210]

39 minutes ago, Frau Potter said:

2. The plan is to leave the labs.geocaching.com/logs page, so users can still see their logs, but each Adventure will no longer link to the web player. The "Download as GPX" functionality is slated for retirement. 

 

 

While Groundspeak probably doesn't have an incentive to provide a downloadable file of Lab Cache finds, I'm sure people would appreciate some sort of file for offline statistical purposes.

I personal have used the trick of changing the lab cache URL from " Details" to "DetailsAsGPX" and will miss this when it goes away.

Edited February 27, 2019 by igator210

[+thebruce0]

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

I have logged some caches when not visiting the coordinates. Some caches were in the owner's pocket at an event.

 

If that was the manner the owner intended you to experience that geocache, then you're following the spirit of game.

 

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

Some of them were CITO caches which I signed before the cache was even hidden somewhere.

 

I don't know what a "CITO cache" is as you're implying it's a physical container, not an event. But if it's a container, and you signed it before it was hidden in its place and logged it found that way, then I'd say that not in the 'spirit' of geocaching, but that's just my opinion since the CO allowed you to do it (even though the intent was eventually to find it as a normal geocache at its hidden location) so the only person youy're "cheating" is yourself by missing out on that experience. That may not bother you. And that's why it's not breaking any rule; it's allowable. Likely frowned upon, and some reviewers might raise a flag against the CO if they do that sort of thing regularly, but there's no rule against it. Your name is in the logsheet. That's the requirement. But arguably I'd say it's not in the spirit.

 

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

I thought that I only need to sign the log to earn a find.

 

You do. That's the guideline which the CO can enforce by verifying names in the logsheet, if they wish.

Though technically you don't have to sign the log to earn the find; but someone does need to put the name you're caching under on the log. That's the legalistic reading of the guidelines. The spirit of the find is that you are the one to find and sign the cache the way the cache owner intended.

 

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

Do you know that it is quite common that multi-caches have been visited only at the final waypoint. Is this the right spirit?

 

Yes. I know it's quite common. Especially in my region where people hand out coordinates willy nilly. And no, it's not in the right spirit. But it's allowable according to guideline requirements.

 

But again, with all of these caches, there is a cache owner who can verify logs and ensure people are doing the minimum requirements; it's impossible to enforce the 'spirit' of the find, that every person found it the way the owner intended.

 

Lab caches are entirely automated. So when the web player was active, there was no automated verification that a person who logs the code is actually at the lab cache location let alone did the entire lab cache as intended - which was obviously the spirit of the lab cache experience (go there and do that to log it). Now that they are moving to app only, that spirit of the experience can be better enforced in an automated manner by verifying the device location, since there's no active owner checking logs.

[+p0cy]

Some interesting discussion in this thread. Let’s continue to argue.

1. HQ want to fight “virtual” logging on ALC. Fine. Solution: suppress ALC and allow again virtual caches. Then, you can ask for ALR proving that you’ve been at the cache location.

2. How will HG prevent people attending mega event to share codes of ALC ? Curious to read about that. Or maybe it is not a problem.

3. Offer better experience with the ALC app. Very questionable affirmation. ALC is “go somewhere, find a code, enter code in the app. Final dot”. Virtual (or even Wherigo) is “go somewhere, answer (a) question(s), fulfill eventual ALR, share experience with other fellow geocachers (log), share pictures, give feedback to CO”. My answer is: much better experience with virtual caches.

4. Allow for indoor geocaching. Once upon a time, geocaching was about getting outdoor…

5. Allow for temporary caches. Once upon a time, all caches had to be permanent… Quite frustrating (already for mega, tomorrow for every ALC) to not have the opportunity to experience the ALC because you cannot go to a specific place in a (very) limited timeframe.

6. Allow for caches allowed to a limited audience (school,…) Once upon a time caches were for every geocacher… Will HQ allow me to create 10 ALC just for a few friends of mine at my birthday ? How HQ will allow the creation of ALC beyond the current test period ? Will it be for paying organizations only ? Will each geocacher receive a quota of ALC ?

7. Why did HQ decide to retire virtual caches ?

8. In its fight for “fake” logging, if HQ wants to be both the judge, the police officer and the executioner, will the alleged perpetrators be entitled to a fair trial? Or will the almighty HQ ban them or punish them as in any good dictatorship? And is it worth it ? What kind of evidence will the suspects have to produce in order not to incur a sentence?

Let’s not stretch the definition of geocaching to point that you cannot recognize the original game.

[+arisoft]

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 it's impossible to enforce the 'spirit' of the find, that every person found it the way the owner intended.

 

I was waiting for this argument. There is also no unbreakable way to enforce the spirit of an Adventure Lab, but it is still possible to express the spirit in the guidelines as it is done now. Same way all other cache types could have this spirit written in the guidelines despite the fact that it can not be enforced.

[+baer2006]

8 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

14 hours ago, arisoft said:

I have logged some caches when not visiting the coordinates. Some caches were in the owner's pocket at an event.

 

If that was the manner the owner intended you to experience that geocache, then you're following the spirit of game.

I know it's off-topic (sorry!), but just for the record: There are cache listings, which have been archived by GS because the owner carried the container to events and allowed find logs of event attendees.

[+hal-an-tow]

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

If that was the manner the owner intended you to experience that geocache, then you're following the spirit of game.

 

Nicely put, and I completely agree .

 

The cache owner sets a cache for you to have a specific experience. If you somehow circumvent that experience you are not following the spirit of the cache, or giving the owner due respect. Not keeping sight of this might be the reason for the marked decline in new caches we have seen over the last year in the UK, it certainly has caused several setters I know personally to give up hiding new ones.

 

The problem is that the spirit of the game is something that comes from the thinking individual considering their own values alongside knowing the mores of their community .If you don't give it any thought, or your community ( perhaps a facebook group with a focus on streaks/grid filling/numbers for high status) seems authoritative and has a skewed view, it's likely you will accept the idea that as long as you followed the rules, who cares about the spirit.

 

Doubly problematic with these adventure lab caches, as it seems they have a creator rather than an owner, with no ability to archive logs which may be within the rules but are utterly against the spirit of the game. Yes, no-one is truly hurt by a spurious log, but if creating one of these new caches is inviting hundreds of such logs, as reported by Ahem Clan earlier in this thread, why bother taking the time and effort to create a really good one that leads folk (in theory) to beautiful or interesting places ?

 

To imagine that retiring a web option will stop that activity against the spirit of caching is to hugely underestimate the effort some people will take to subvert the game . 'Phone locations can be spoofed, passwords can be passed around, apps can be built, whole websites can (and will) be dedicated to getting around the problem of having to go and do the cache yourself.  Until by some miracle people stop asking themselves 'Can I?' (that's the rules) without following it up with 'Should I?'(that's the spirit) . The only way to keep the spirit at least partly alive is to have a physical container at the end with a log to sign, and a C.O. with control over it who can remove the most egregious online logs if they wish ..

 

All in all, better to just build a Wherigo. Excuse me, I have an idea ,  must go out and take my GPS for a walk round a local park  ...

 

[+p0cy]

40 minutes ago, hal-an-tow said:

 The only way to keep the spirit at least partly alive is to have a physical container at the end with a log to sign, and a C.O. with control over it who can remove the most egregious online logs if they wish ..

 

All in all, better to just build a Wherigo. Excuse me, I have an idea ,  must go out and take my GPS for a walk round a local park  ...

 

I agree.

And now, I have to find some tupperwares in the woods :-)

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 2/26/2019 at 12:50 PM, Keystone said:

 

I don't even think an assumption is necessary.  The quoted guidance begins with the words "The finder..."  The logic fails there.  You have to find something, in the real world.  Sharing codes on the internet isn't "finding" anything.  It's just annoying to ethical geocachers and to the people who spend time and effort constructing lab cache/ Adventure Lab experiences.  See, for example, Ahern Clan's posts earlier in this thread.

 

And in this case, "finding something" doesn't mean finding a loophole that allows one to get credit for finding a geocache without actually finding the geocache.

[+igator210]

6 hours ago, p0cy said:

Once upon a time

 

Once upon a time, Kodak was the largest employer in my city with over 60,000 people employed locally. But because they decided not to evolve as time marched along, they now employee around 1,000 locally. Kodak invented the digital camera, but stuck to film.

Is all change good? no. But just because a company did something once upon a time, doesn't mean they can't do something new now.

Groundspeak isn't forcing anyone to do the AL Caches. They can be skipped. There are plenty of Traditional caches in the world.

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, baer2006 said:

12 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

17 hours ago, arisoft said:

I have logged some caches when not visiting the coordinates. Some caches were in the owner's pocket at an event.

 

If that was the manner the owner intended you to experience that geocache, then you're following the spirit of game.

I know it's off-topic (sorry!), but just for the record: There are cache listings, which have been archived by GS because the owner carried the container to events and allowed find logs of event attendees.

 

Yes, and moving caches are also no longer allowed. COs who try to skirt the guidelines for requirements of owning a geocache risk action by HQ. But if a CO has a cache in his pocket at an event, HQ can't "verify" it if no one says anything. It still happens. So yes, it's not in the 'spirit' of owning a geocache (ie, what explicitly written and implied in the guidelines). And since the guidelines state what form geocaches must take, then if it's discovered the CO is moving his cache around and letting people sign it - well, expect repercussion. Just as with any CO that skirts a guideline while trying not to be caught.

Reviewers are cracking down on COs who also "permit" find logs on caches that are missing.  eg, someone posts "couldn't find it, asked the CO, confirmed it's missing, CO allowed me log it found" -- this is also against the spirit of geocaching (and it produces a log history that implies an incorrect cache state) so reviewers are being allowed to take action against COs who demonstrate ongoing practice of this.

 

The point is, I think, that if you break a guideline, you can earn consequences. If you break the spirit, then you may get away with it for a while, but at some point you will draw the attention of HQ and have to deal with consequences.  eg, couch loggers aren't breaking a "rule" if their name is in a logsheet. But if they show repeated efforts to claim finds on caches they didn't visit, they will be dealt with, just as a CO who repeatedly allows false finds.

 

Lab caches could be logged remotely. But there was no real way to verify the breaking of any rule, let alone spirit, and guidelines are much less strict/detailed compared to physical/virtual geocaches, so the next/first step HQ did was to thwart the ease of remote logging by enforcing the mobile app.  People who continue to make efforts to skirt the 'spirit' of the lab cache are now more obviously breaking a 'rule' of the lab cache and can be dealt with quicker .

 

Edited February 28, 2019 by thebruce0