Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Rathergohiking

It is time. BRING BACK WEB CAMS in a limited way

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

Yes, a trail camera might work. It will have to have a fixed location, because the cache listing requires a specific location. 

The mega webcam cache type has rules already? :)Ok, draw an x in the sand and tell the head organiser to stand on it. Hoist it up a tree or hide it in a lamp post, a bunch of geocachers can surely figure it out.

 

Quote

Someone has to setup and pay the cellular bill

There may be regional differences at play here, but where I live someone would just grab a prepaid sim card with more than enough bandwidth at capped at €1 per day the next time they buy groceries.

 

Quote

Don't forget, you are talking about the reputation of a mega/giga event. That will require a monitoring system to make sure that it is working the entire time.

If your event otherwise has a professional-level online presence that is working the entire time, I don't understand how figuring out a webcam would be an issue. This isn't exactly breaking new ground.

 

What I'm describing is a reasonably rugged low-tech, low-bandwidth set up that requires very little technical expertise and resources to provide very basic webcam functionality. It uses hardware that the event organization has a reasonable chance of already having (or being able to borrow) and software that the organization is probably already using for the event site. For trail cam-specific maintenance, you put some spare batteries in the head organiser's pocket and tell them to check the blog every now and then. If your event organization has more resources, then obviously this can be improved upon. Instead of sending emails to post blog entries, you could find a device that can upload photos it takes to ftp or it's own image hosting service. Bet there's an app for that too.

 

Quote

As blog by e-mail with wordpress creates an entry for every e-mail, for a 12 hour event, you are talking about 720 entries to look through for the one containing you. And, this goes against the spirit of a webcam cache, in that a webcam cache required some kind of timing (or coordination) to get the correct picture. To mimic this would require some kind of auto-delete function for the blog.

So you set up auto-delete or you have the head organiser kill time by deleting old posts while they're standing on the x with the camera. The latter approach  is more palatable if we're literally on a 2G trail cam set up like I described, where I'd probably set it up to be more like 1 pic per 5-10 minutes just to make sure it can finish the upload before taking another image. This is still a lot better than some existing webcam caches.

 

Quote

To get better control over advertising on the page, you may need to go to a business class wordpress account, which will set you back $300/yr. Don't want inappropriate advertising surrounding your webcam images.

Your mega event probably wants to have a site with no inappropriate ads anyway, you don't need a business account just to be ad-free at wordpress.com, you don't need to host your wordpress site at wordpress.com, and we can just switch from wordpress to something else like drupal.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

I'm confused by your two ideas here.  Your first makes sense, although to some extent I disagree.  Virtuals are being placed where ordinary caches could go and others are close as well.  In and of itself, that doesn't mean that the location isn't worth a virtual.  Your next point, about placing a virtual in Normanton seems to be the exact type of virtual you are complaining about.  Saturation is NOT an issue in the area so a regular ordinary cache would be just fine being placed there.  You, personally, wouldn't be able to place a regular cache there unless you could show that maintenance from a proxy could be feasible, so the virtual makes sense.  What would you think of your virtual if a new cacher in the area started placing caches all around your virtual location?

 

As to the OP, I'm not sure where I fall on this continuum.  I like looking for webcams and have done quite a few since I'm fortunate enough to be able to travel but I'm not 100% sure they would be worth being brought back either.  

The chance that a geocacher will move to the area I mentioned is very unlikely, so if I were able to place a Virtual there I don't expect it to be suddenly crowded around with caches. If that ever happened in years to come, well the Virtual is there and why archive it?

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/2/2019 at 4:22 PM, cerberus1 said:

 

Maybe it's just my little area, but a bunch feel the new virtuals aren't the same as the original ones that were scarce.   Rarity is the draw.

I'd feel the same if "new" webcams came out.  Rarity gone, no longer a big deal, and still the same ol' issues.

 - There is already a web cam category in Waymarking...

 

 

 

For the same technical challenges experienced with many Webcam Caches, the Web Cameras Waymarking category is terrible for bogus visits.  However, there are many waymarkers who enjoy creating/posting Web Camera waymarks.

  • Love 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 12/5/2019 at 10:25 PM, barefootjeff said:

The real question is whether there's any demand for them. The one in Victoria, published in 2005, has only had 278 finds.


To be fair, that is on the top of one of the state's highest and snowiest mountains, far from large population centres. (And only a few dozen of those logs predate 2010 -- where reliance on a separate party capturing the image often gets a mention.)

Not entirely sure how accessible GCC1EC is -- on an island in South Australia -- but it seems to get some 3-9 logs each month these days. Way more than any of my own caches. :)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, BendSinister said:

Not entirely sure how accessible GCC1EC is -- on an island in South Australia -- but it seems to get some 3-9 logs each month these days. Way more than any of my own caches.

 

Yes it's on an island but it's connected to the mainland by a 500-metre long bridge and if you're not up to the walk you can ride the horse-drawn tram! It's not far from Adelaide (the capital of South Australia) yet it's only had 494 finds in nearly 17 years (average 29 finds per year). Okay, a bit more popular than most of my hides, but mine don't have the rarity of being only one of four in the whole country. Is it enough interest to warrant reintroducing that cache type?

Edited by barefootjeff

Share this post


Link to post

It would be great if the powers that be could post an answer to the basic question on this thread. Bring back web cams in a limited way....or not????  Hoping for an affirmative answer, would be great for the hobby in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Is it enough interest to warrant reintroducing that cache type?


I'm quite agnostic -- I've never logged one of these and have no particular plans to do so. But my interest has been piqued!

 

I think we need to distinguish between early 'finds' and later 'finds' when gauging current demand. There were apparently technical impediments that made logging a webcam cache more challenging for most in the noughties. Early logs seem to allude to it constantly. And it's probably one reason* why maybe half of 'finds' of surviving webcams were logged in the last five years.


Might be worth looking at this relatively recent history. Logs on the current Australian webcam caches over the last 5 years only:
 

GCHFT6 - 332 (of 667 over lifetime) - 66 per year - 41st most logged in SA

GCM9G1 - 256 (of 472 over lifetime) - 51 per year - 98th most logged in SA

GCC1EC - 234 (of 503 over lifetime) - 47 per year - 133rd most logged in SA

GCMJ2J - 184 (of 278 over lifetime) - 37 per year - 1564th most logged in Vic
 

So they're generally pretty popular caches, except for the first example used. :)


* another being the decline in the total number of webcams, making these surviving ones more 'valuable' to stats fans, of course. Likely a massive distorting factor.

 

Edited by BendSinister

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Rathergohiking said:

It would be great if the powers that be could post an answer to the basic question on this thread. Bring back web cams in a limited way....or not????  Hoping for an affirmative answer, would be great for the hobby in my opinion. 

Get in line. I've been waiting many months for a response about AR caches. :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...