Jump to content

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


Rathergohiking
Followers 3

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.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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. :)

Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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
Link to comment
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:

Link to comment
4 hours ago, BendSinister said:

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.

 

By way of comparison, I've just looked at the 85 Virtual Rewards 2.0 caches that have been published so far in Australia. In the six months or less that they've been out there, they've amassed a total of 4767 finds, making an average of 56 per cache. The first one of those hidden (GC8913A) already has 272 finds, almost as much as the Victorian webcam over its entire lifetime. Yet virtuals now have nothing like the rarity of webcams and for many, especially those in the bigger cities, the novelty will have well and truly worn off.

Edited by barefootjeff
Link to comment
5 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

The first one of those hidden (GC8913A) already has 272 finds, almost as much as the Victorian webcam over its entire lifetime.

 

To be fair, that was published on the eave (literally) of a Mega held within walking distance. All but the last two logs arose from a captive audience in the space of that week. It's a little cruel to compare that to a cache that will typically have required a long drive and possibly snow chains. :)

But yeah, these vestigial webcams are seemingly not as popular as the average virtual at present. I guess I'm not sure why one needs so rigid a yardstick. Some webcams in culturally significant, accessible locations in large cities get vast numbers of visits (eg. GC6F12 ) and demand could hardly be argued to be negligible overall. Seemingly not orders of magnitude less. (Likely greater demand than for new non-challenge mysteries of D > 3.0, at least. LOL.)

 

 

Edited by BendSinister
Link to comment
17 hours 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. 

An answer from Groundspeak? ???????

 

Been months I am waiting for why challenge caches are not their own type of cache.

Link to comment
On 12/14/2019 at 6:49 AM, 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. 

 

Such things are normally not answered in individual forum posts, but by big announcements.

 

As of right now (specifically, 17 December 2019, at 1320 CET or so), only one grandfathered cache type has been brought back: the virtual cache.  There's been no indication that webcams are on a similar path back from the dustbin of history.

 

I enjoy webcam caches when I can get them, but I think I enjoy them more given their relative scarcity and the fact that they're not as much of a pain in the fourth point of contact to log anymore.  I only got a few webcam caches for the first several years we cached because my wife was not super interested in dealing with the machinations of having to capture an image on the computer while she and I wrangled on the phone where I should be standing.  "Is that you by the bench?"  "No, I'm over by the table."  "The camera can't see you, go by that bench.  No, not that bench, the other bench!"  "This bench?"  "OK, I got you, but that's the last one I'm doing for a while."

 

edit: I had some inside baseball and intentionally omitted the locationless cache that published today.  So that's two.  A good argument for bringing back the third?  Maybe.  But I doubt it.

Edited by hzoi
  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

IMO, webcams should only be brought back if there was a new rule - you gotta own and be able to maintain the webcam yourself, just like any other geocache.  Biggest PITA with existing webcams is when they go down and no one, including the CO, has any idea when it will come back up.

Why should webcam caches be treated differently from other caches? I don't own any of the locations where my caches have been located. It is enough to have permission.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, niraD said:

Why should webcam caches be treated differently from other caches? I don't own any of the locations where my caches have been located. It is enough to have permission.

You own the caches and can perform maintenance when required.  You don't require a landowner or anyone else to do that maintenance for you.

 

So, precisely:

4 hours ago, niraD said:

Why should webcam caches be treated differently from other caches?

 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

You own the caches and can perform maintenance when required.  You don't require a landowner or anyone else to do that maintenance for you.

As long as permission is still granted to the area.  I've seen caches inside closed fire zones, no maintenance could be done, and nobody may know when the area will open (often, around here, a forest fire isn't "dead" until the first snow - then the caches are buried by that white stuff and who knows when the road will open again). 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

You own the caches and can perform maintenance when required.  You don't require a landowner or anyone else to do that maintenance for you.

I still don't own the location. My first cache was archived when the location was destroyed, and the owner of the property (the city) decided not to repair/replace it. Another cache of mine was disabled for months because construction blocked access, and construction delays dragged on and on, and then the location changed (even though I was told it wouldn't change) and I had to redesign my cache.

 

The same can happen to any cache, no matter how much the CO can maintain the container, camouflage, etc. that make up the cache.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, The Jester said:

As long as permission is still granted to the area.  I've seen caches inside closed fire zones, no maintenance could be done, and nobody may know when the area will open (often, around here, a forest fire isn't "dead" until the first snow - then the caches are buried by that white stuff and who knows when the road will open again). 

 

1 hour ago, niraD said:

I still don't own the location. My first cache was archived when the location was destroyed, and the owner of the property (the city) decided not to repair/replace it. Another cache of mine was disabled for months because construction blocked access, and construction delays dragged on and on, and then the location changed (even though I was told it wouldn't change) and I had to redesign my cache.

 

The same can happen to any cache, no matter how much the CO can maintain the container, camouflage, etc. that make up the cache.

 

I think you're both missing the point just a little bit.

 

With your physical caches, if you have a problem with the cache itself - the container, the logbook, etc - you are responsible for maintaining it, and if you can't, then it gets archived.

 

With a webcam, the *whole cache* belongs to someone else and you can't maintain it. Ever.  (And please note, I didn't say you had to own the location where the webcam is, just the webcam itself.)

 

Otherwise, if you want webcams to be the same as all other caches, lets just lower the CO maintenance requirements for all caches down to the level of webcams...  just refuse to maintain your other caches...

 

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, funkymunkyzone said:

With a webcam, the *whole cache* belongs to someone else and you can't maintain it. Ever. 

So doesn't that put them in the same category as Virtuals or Earthcaches? Where the CO doesn't own the statue/building they have to be photographed at, or the rock they have to examine, etc. And if anything happens to those items the cache might become invalid and the CO can't do anything to maintain it.

 

 

 

 

  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
1 minute ago, MartyBartfast said:

So doesn't that put them in the same category as Virtuals or Earthcaches? Where the CO doesn't own the statue/building they have to be photographed at, or the rock they have to examine, etc. And if anything happens to those items the cache might become invalid and the CO can't do anything to maintain it.

 

Yes (sort of), except that statues, buildings, mountains, glaciers, waterfalls, etc don't often have things happening to them, and if they do - guess what happens... the cache page gets modified or archived.  I have archived a couple of my earthcaches because the landscape has changed and it no longer works.

Link to comment

A webcam is a  like complex gadget cache, it's really not like a  virt or earthcache.

That's why I suggested back on page that perhaps they could return as entirely owned by CO.  Camera, location, owner maintains web hosting.

 

I don't like that idea  as i think on it more.  The one I've seen of that type is a webcam on the front porch of a residence. As a webcam, it's been consistently working for a long time.

As a location, meh. With the current ease of logging webcams using smartphones, it's really nothing like webcams once were. I think that's what you'd get mostly with webcam as owned by CO. Functioning, uninteresting gadget cache.  Stand in front of camera in residential area, link to hosting site, screen capture phone, log.

 

Conversely, I think the possibility of bringing them back as optional temps around Megas has some promise.   As much as GeocachingHQ wants to promote Megas, seems possible.

It creates considerable pressure on Mega event hosts to work out the actual doing of it, and be really really sure it's working.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2
Link to comment
10 hours ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Otherwise, if you want webcams to be the same as all other caches, lets just lower the CO maintenance requirements for all caches down to the level of webcams...  just refuse to maintain your other caches...

 

The point you're missing, is there aren't any cache types "the same as all other caches" - every cache type has it's own issues with maintenance, often outside the control of the CO. 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 12/27/2019 at 12:53 AM, funkymunkyzone said:

IMO, webcams should only be brought back if there was a new rule - you gotta own and be able to maintain the webcam yourself, just like any other geocache.  Biggest PITA with existing webcams is when they go down and no one, including the CO, has any idea when it will come back up.

 

I think just the opposite. IMO webcams should not be created just for geocache. That's actually kind of creepy, setting up your own cam just to spy on fellow cachers. 

Also, like many others I don't see a problem if the webcam is under someone else's control than CO. Many mysteries rely on internet links or information that become inaccessible, pictures go missing or someone removes that vital clue from wikipedia. Eventually, someone notices, the CO disables the cache and fixes the link or the cache goes bye-bye. The usual way.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, papu66 said:

 

I think just the opposite. IMO webcams should not be created just for geocache. That's actually kind of creepy, setting up your own cam just to spy on fellow cachers. 

 

How can it be spying (watching unknown to the subject) when you are inviting others to get in the picture?  Now a webcam that's covering another type of cache could be considered spying.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, The Jester said:

How can it be spying (watching unknown to the subject) when you are inviting others to get in the picture?  Now a webcam that's covering another type of cache could be considered spying.

OK, spying on muggles then. I don't know the approprate word for use with geocachers.

Link to comment
On 12/28/2019 at 11:11 PM, papu66 said:

 

I think just the opposite. IMO webcams should not be created just for geocache. That's actually kind of creepy, setting up your own cam just to spy on fellow cachers. 

Also, like many others I don't see a problem if the webcam is under someone else's control than CO. Many mysteries rely on internet links or information that become inaccessible, pictures go missing or someone removes that vital clue from wikipedia. Eventually, someone notices, the CO disables the cache and fixes the link or the cache goes bye-bye. The usual way.

Just going around in circles now.  You just contradicted you're own point about control - "the CO disables the cache and fixes the link or the cache goes bye-bye" except not with webcams because the CO can't fix it...

Link to comment
1 hour ago, funkymunkyzone said:

Just going around in circles now.  You just contradicted you're own point about control - "the CO disables the cache and fixes the link or the cache goes bye-bye" except not with webcams because the CO can't fix it...

Of course CO can fix the link on his own cache page, why not?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, papu66 said:

Of course CO can fix the link on his own cache page, why not?

 

What's wrong with a webcam cache page isn't usually a just broken link, it's a broken webcam. Which the CO cannot fix.  If the webcam still exists on a new host, new URL, sure CO can find that  and fix the page. But that's not the usual case.  The cam is broken, moved, shut down, or the hosting isn't being paid for, and it's just dead.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment
6 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

 

What's wrong with a webcam cache page isn't usually a just broken link, it's a broken webcam. Which the CO cannot fix.  If the webcam still exists on a new host, new URL, sure CO can find that  and fix the page. But that's not the usual case.  The cam is broken, moved, shut down, or the hosting isn't being paid for, and it's just dead.

Yes, I suppose that's why there is so few left. If the webcam is removed and CO can't find another camera close bye, of course it has to be archives. My logic says that this should be argument in favor of placing new webcam caches, not against.

I have to say I have found only two webcam caches. Both have run long time without problems. GCQDYF has 1811 "finds" and only 8 DNF, Disabled three times and the CO could fix the link or find replacing camera. GC3156 has 1861 "finds" and only 5 DNF. This too has a broken URL in description but also a working one. Based on these two I assumed that CO may need to update the links from time to time.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Isonzo Karst said:

 

What's wrong with a webcam cache page isn't usually a just broken link, it's a broken webcam. Which the CO cannot fix.  If the webcam still exists on a new host, new URL, sure CO can find that  and fix the page. But that's not the usual case.  The cam is broken, moved, shut down, or the hosting isn't being paid for, and it's just dead.

Precisely.

 

1 hour ago, papu66 said:

If the webcam is removed and CO can't find another camera close bye, of course it has to be archives.

Except that's not allowed with webcams, and to be fair, it probably shouldn't - I mean, if a cache goes missing, you can't log a find just because you signed the log on another one in the same city.  At least I figure that's more or less the justification.

 

There is a webcam in NZ that is owned by the CO, and points out the window of his office.  The few times it has been down, the CO has pretty promptly got it back up and running.  If webcams were to exist, this in my opinion, is the ideal scenario.  And if not this, then at least a webcam where the CO can demonstrate they have direct ability to maintain the webcam (eg they are the technician that looks after the webcam for whoever owns it, etc).

 

Anyway, happy new year everyone! :)

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 12/27/2019 at 10:30 AM, hostanut said:

That is NOT true......

https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=51&pgid=296 includes:

4.3. EarthCache logging tasks
Acceptable logging tasks:

Asking geocachers to provide a photo of themselves or a personal item to prove they visited the site. 

 

This logging task was done away with years ago, but I guess they decided to bring back.

Link to comment

I for one thoroughly enjoyed all the webcam caches I've done regardless of stats or the rarity. If they came back, those that don't like it could just not do them - much like terrain 5 caches, if you don't like them, don't do them. We all play the game differently.
I agree, if brought back, webcams should be done on a case by case basis to ensure they'd be sustainable, good quality caches.

 

To be honest, if there was an option to donate $xxx a price tag to place a new grandfathered cache, like an individual webcam I'd do it. I'd gladly pay a few hundred dollars for a chance at placing a new webcam. I recognize it takes a fair amount of HQ's effort to handle new grandfathered caches compared to regular caches.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
20 minutes ago, CheekyBrit said:

I agree, if brought back, webcams should be done on a case by case basis to ensure they'd be sustainable, good quality caches.

Yes, the "Wow!" Factor was tried with Virtuals on their long slow descent to grandfathering, but the idea was not sustainable, nor consistent within the Reviewing Community, which was much smaller then, compared to today.

33 minutes ago, CheekyBrit said:

To be honest, if there was an option to donate $xxx a price tag to place a new grandfathered cache, like an individual webcam I'd do it.

It's not likely that a few hundred dollars will cover the cost of Developer time to implement a custom job like you propose.  If you have some money to burn, you might consider putting together a Geo Tour:

 

https://www.geocaching.com/travel/

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I love webcam caches. They might be my favorite type. I would love to see an opt in Webcam redux like Virtual 2.0. It would be awesome. And by doing that, you refresh the board a bit and then when a webcam is  broken, you just recommend it be archived. They don't retain as much scarcity so losing one wouldn't be as big a deal. 

 

I still don't understand why some people don't want to see them come back. Like any other cache out there, if it isn't your cup of tea, simply don't find it. It shouldn't matter to you if they come back if you aren't going to find them anyway. It is this same attitude that ruined challenge caches. If I see a stupid challenge cache, I simply don't find it. That question mark in a sea of smilies is not a threat to my existence. A new webcam cache will not harm you. 

 

Bring them back! 

 

Although I have been publishing UnWebcam caches too. 

 

https://coord.info/GC7QP3Q

https://coord.info/GC7Q5HY

https://coord.info/GC7Q5G8

https://coord.info/GC7PW75

  • Upvote 2
  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 12/1/2019 at 9:43 PM, Rathergohiking said:

Time to have new web cam caches. It has been done with virtuals, similarly with the evolution of lab caches. Limited amount of hiders resulting in above average quality. WHY NOT WEBCAMS??

 

What Its time to HAVE is a geocaching app that teaches newcomers how to use DNF and NM properly instead of hiding it from them like they don't exist.

  • Upvote 4
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Rathergohiking said:

I recently published https://coord.info/GC937GT “Almost a Web Cam”. I guess this is the closest to a web cam right now. Notice no complaints about it so far....


Still wish web cams could come back, would add another fun dimension to geocaching, in my humble opinion. 

With all privacy concern it will never happens so forget about it.

  • Funny 1
Link to comment

I respectively disagree. There is no compelling reason NOT to bring back web cams, IMO. To your point, we should also disallow and delete all uploaded photos for existing web cams as well??  Ridiculous IMO. Let’s take a step further and disallow uploading any photos for any icon type and delete all existing photos while we are at it. 
 

You can take each icon on geocaching.com and argue all day about pros and cons and likely end up with only traditional ones at the end of the day. 
 

Further, if Web Cams are so evil why have they only discontinued publishing new ones while grandfathering existing ones? Should we not archive all existing ones including all uploaded photos due to privacy concerns??

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Rathergohiking said:

I recently published https://coord.info/GC937GT “Almost a Web Cam”. I guess this is the closest to a web cam right now. Notice no complaints about it so far....


Still wish web cams could come back, would add another fun dimension to geocaching, in my humble opinion. 

 

I think that that cache you've made is a great idea and as everyone can see people go with it posting their webphotos ;)

 

18 minutes ago, Lynx Humble said:

With all privacy concern it will never happens so forget about it.

 

Can you explain how you see it? I can't imagine any privacy issues here. Most of the time you can't be identified with the low quality camera and even if, you can always cover yourself up.

Taking photos at all is still valid for virtual caches though.

 

The main reason for webcams to be archived is the progress in technology, where now you can take photo of yourself operating a smartphone, when previously the main idea was different.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, sernikk said:

Taking photos at all is still valid for virtual caches though.

 

The main reason for webcams to be archived is the progress in technology, where now you can take photo of yourself operating a smartphone, when previously the main idea was different.

For a virtual and earthcache the picture showing you is only OPTIONAL. The only requirement is the picture show something that belong to you.

 

The other big issues with webcam is 90% of the time the cache owner doesn't even have any control on the operation of the webcam. 

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, Rathergohiking said:

I respectively disagree. There is no compelling reason NOT to bring back web cams, IMO. To your point, we should also disallow and delete all uploaded photos for existing web cams as well??  Ridiculous IMO. Let’s take a step further and disallow uploading any photos for any icon type and delete all existing photos while we are at it. 
 

You can take each icon on geocaching.com and argue all day about pros and cons and likely end up with only traditional ones at the end of the day. 
 

Further, if Web Cams are so evil why have they only discontinued publishing new ones while grandfathering existing ones? Should we not archive all existing ones including all uploaded photos due to privacy concerns??

Groundspeak direction currently is at the end of the day only Adventure Labs will remain.

 

They stripped so much statistics from it to be almost totally anonymous and are suggesting us to archive our less find/loved cache.

 

I guess Groundspeak didn't archived all of them not to repeat the locationless cache debacle. If Groundspeak wish webcam cache to stay they wouldn't had banned adoptions or moving them to an another working webcam if there are issue with the current one. Doing that they are hoping they will slowly dissapear from the map.

 

So there are 0 chance they will be back ever.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Rathergohiking said:

Further, if Web Cams are so evil why have they only discontinued publishing new ones while grandfathering existing ones?

Should we not archive all existing ones including all uploaded photos due to privacy concerns??

 

"Privacy" concerns are an issue when someone doesn't want their likeness online.  The people logging webcams do that willingly.  :)

The Help Center says, "Only logs with a screenshot from the webcam feed are acceptable."  

I feel unlike locationless, that was canned in it's entirety (no longer considered "Geocaching"), webcams remain until they become an issue.

 The site says, "Even grandfathered caches should continue to be good examples of geocaching.

They will continue to exist as long as their owners continue to maintain them and they don’t cause problems in the community.

Grandfathered caches that cause problems or are no longer supported by Geocaching HQ are eligible to be archived regardless of their grandfathered status. "  

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, MNTA said:

 

Hopefully it is a nice vacation spot.

Until recently the state border was closed between it and me.  Only a day's driving, if I didn't want to stop for caches :laughing:. However, most travelling for the next 6 to 12 months will be difficult for me, as I am looking after a sick family member. Grounded!

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...