Will Groundspeak ever introduce paperless logging?

[+BethDaddyKaty]

I appreciate this may raise strong opinions but... isn't it time Groundspeak offered the option of a category for paperless caches?

 

This would be where there is a container with a QR code, which needs to be scanned to log the find.

 

To me this would solve two key issues.

 

Firstly, the paper log is always going to be the weak point of a cache. Yes, you can use waterproof paper, but if they get wet you can't write on them. Paperless caches would be much more durable and wouldn't end up a black mouldy mess like many around here (wet part of the world) are.

 

Secondly, it would allow nano caches not to use those annoying rolls which take five minutes to roll up.

 

Also, for the purists, it would only allow logs if you physically find the container, not if you see the container, are in the location the container is, are sitting at home logging finds...

 

I appreciate the objection is not everyone uses a smartphone. Perhaps I am more forgetful than most but I am much more likely to forget a pen or do a cache on impulse without a pen than not have my phone with me. If you are doing a long day caching powerbanks are inexpensive and would let you cache for a week without needing to be near a power socket.

 

If they are created as a different category than those who don't want to find them, don't have a smartphone or whatever could easily avoid them, and COs would have the choice to make a traditional cache with a paper log like before.

 

I would say I think they should still require a container to make a cache, not like the games where you can just stick stickers on anything.

 

Heresy perhaps. The reason I suggest it is that I love the really old historical caches. However, unless you buy an ammo box and find a big enough place to hide it in this part of the world it's very unlikely any cache will survive 15 years+ with a paper log at least in the original container. A QR code on a plastic tag though could well be around well after most of us are long gone and still be a serviceable cache.

 

Only thoughts... please don't just down my throat, this isn't to REPLACE traditional caches.

[+thomfre]

You are describing a different game, that already exists. If you want to play ****ee, you can play that

[+BethDaddyKaty]

No I'm not. I'm talking about QR codes as logs INSIDE caches.

 

A form of caching closer to traditional caching than, say, a ghost cache because it requires a  physical container to be placed.

 

So you would always have to open a container of some kind to access the QR code, you couldn't just scan something you can see in the street.

 

The QR code replaces the log, not the cache.

[+MartyBartfast]

11 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

Firstly, the paper log is always going to be the weak point of a cache. Yes, you can use waterproof paper, but if they get wet you can't write on them. Paperless caches would be much more durable and wouldn't end up a black mouldy mess like many around here (wet part of the world) are.

But then the paper QR code will become the weak point, it will probably get wet and the ink will probably bleed and even if it dries up again it will most likely be unreadable.

 

14 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

Also, for the purists, it would only allow logs if you physically find the container,...

Or if someone shares the QR codes, and then there is NO way for the CO to verify the cacher ever found their cache if they want to.

 

3 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

No I'm not. I'm talking about QR codes as logs INSIDE caches.

 But then what is the point of the container? Particularly micros where you would still have to unroll the QR code to scan it, and roll it up again to put it back, that stress will soon distress the paper/card to the point where it will not be readable - so more maintenance visits required.

 

 

It's been suggested many times, most people don't think it's a good idea.

[+niraD]

16 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

Firstly, the paper log is always going to be the weak point of a cache. Yes, you can use waterproof paper, but if they get wet you can't write on them. Paperless caches would be much more durable and wouldn't end up a black mouldy mess like many around here (wet part of the world) are.

How do you protect the QR code from becoming a black mouldy mess?

 

16 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

Secondly, it would allow nano caches not to use those annoying rolls which take five minutes to roll up.

I'm assuming that you're exaggerating. I don't think it's ever taken me anywhere near 5 minutes to roll the log for a nano-cache. (It's taken me 5 minutes to find a nano-cache that I've accidentally dropped on the ground, but that's different.)

 

16 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

I appreciate the objection is not everyone uses a smartphone.

FWIW, today Wherigo Caches are done mostly with smartphones, but when they were originally introduced, they were done with high-end handheld GPS receivers.

[+MartyBartfast]

This is a genuine question as I really don't know, but would it be possible to create a QR code to fit in one of these?

[+cerberus1]

14 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

I appreciate this may raise strong opinions but... isn't it time Groundspeak offered the option of a category for paperless caches?

This would be where there is a container with a QR code, which needs to be scanned to log the find.

 

To me this would solve two key issues.

Firstly, the paper log is always going to be the weak point of a cache. Yes, you can use waterproof paper, but if they get wet you can't write on them. Paperless caches would be much more durable and wouldn't end up a black mouldy mess like many around here (wet part of the world) are.

Secondly, it would allow nano caches not to use those annoying rolls which take five minutes to roll up.

 

Also, for the purists, it would only allow logs if you physically find the container, not if you see the container, are in the location the container is, are sitting at home logging finds...

 

I appreciate the objection is not everyone uses a smartphone.

 

This is asked for every once in a while.   There's  already is a "game" similar.  

For a couple years we were finding the (expletives deleted...) codes on caches.  Some two or three.

"Paper" is another way to coax a CO to maintain their cache.   

I never saw the sense in nanos.  Seems like creativity in hiding even a bison would be less of a hassle.  Just easy to hide I guess.

There's at least six people today complaining about some creep logging thousands of trackable codes, and most are now on faceboook.

 - What do you think will happen to that qr code ?  

I can't see replacing something in the hobby because someone chooses odd containers.

I believe there's a lot more people who still use GPSrs than some realize...

[+IceColdUK]

5 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

24 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

Also, for the purists, it would only allow logs if you physically find the container,...

Or if someone shares the QR codes, and then there is NO way for the CO to verify the cacher ever found their cache if they want to.

This is the killer.  Just seen a post on FB about a page sharing almost 8000 Trackable codes.  The same would happen inevitably with QR codes for cache logging.

[+BethDaddyKaty]

6 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

But then the paper QR code will become the weak point, it will probably get wet and the ink will probably bleed and even if it dries up again it will most likely be unreadable.

 

Or if someone shares the QR codes, and then there is NO way for the CO to verify the cacher ever found their cache if they want to.

 

 But then what is the point of the container? Particularly micros where you would still have to unroll the QR code to scan it, and roll it up again to put it back, that stress will soon distress the paper/card to the point where it will not be readable - so more maintenance visits required.

 

 

It's been suggested many times, most people don't think it's a good idea.

I would imagine most COs would laminate the QR in some way, print them on waterproof paper or the websites that sell nanos would print the QR code onto tags.

 

QR codes actually have an insane amount of redundancy, normally 15% can be unreadable but Type H can be 30%. So there would be more chance of a readable QR code than an unusuable log.

 

As for smaller... minimum recommended QR code size is 3.5cm. Always easier to fit something the size of a postage stamp into a small space than a rolled log.

[+BethDaddyKaty]

1 minute ago, IceColdUK said:

This is the killer.  Just seen a post on FB about a page sharing almost 8000 Trackable codes.  The same would happen inevitably with QR codes for cache logging.

If someone wants to fake logs, they could do so on a traditional thousands of times without needing to scan QR codes as I guess most owners don't verify logs.

 

If it was a big problem GS could easily introduce some sort of reputation system as I mentioned previously, although as I said I don't think it would be a huge problem as someone bouncing round the country scanning QR codes isn't going to be believeable. QR codes would mandate the cacher to log the finds in real time, with real gaps between them, beyond the patience of most FB cachers.

[+kunarion]

Here's one of the previous threads about it:  https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/307949-barcode-cache-type-use-smart-phone-qr-reader-ap/

[+BethDaddyKaty]

2 minutes ago, kunarion said:

Here's one of the previous threads about it:  https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/307949-barcode-cache-type-use-smart-phone-qr-reader-ap/

Different, I'm not suggesting using QR codes in places caches can't be placed. I'm talking about using QR codes as an alternative log within a cache, not as a cache in it's own right.

[+kunarion]

1 minute ago, daddybeth said:

Different, I'm not suggesting using QR codes in places caches can't be placed. I'm talking about using QR codes as an alternative log within a cache, not as a cache in it's own right.

 

Ah, like this:  https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/317986-logging-with-qr-codes/

[+MartyBartfast]

 

34 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

Secondly, it would allow nano caches not to use those annoying rolls which take five minutes to roll up.

7 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

As for smaller... minimum recommended QR code size is 3.5cm.

So it wouldn't address the issue of nano caches because a 3.5cm QR code won't fit in a nano container.

 

4 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

QR codes would mandate the cacher to log the finds in real time,

So can only be placed in a place with  a reliable phone signal, what if you place it where EE have good coverage, but I come along on O2 and can't get a signal - I'm gonna be pretty p'd off particularly if I've made an effort to go out up on the hills to grab it.

[+cerberus1]

We check the logs on higher terrain hides. 

Someone hanging off rope, I'm not expecting them to write a story, but I do like to see that sig there...

[+BethDaddyKaty]

5 minutes ago, kunarion said:

 

Ah, like this:  https://forums.geocaching.com/GC/index.php?/topic/317986-logging-with-qr-codes/

Without getting tedious, again different. I'm suggesting a different type of caches, not QR codes as an alternative log within a traditional cache.

 

5 minutes ago, MartyBartfast said:

 

So it wouldn't address the issue of nano caches because a 3.5cm QR code won't fit in a nano container.

 

So can only be placed in a place with  a reliable phone signal, what if you place it where EE have good coverage, but I come along on O2 and can't get a signal - I'm gonna be pretty p'd off particularly if I've made an effort to go out up on the hills to grab it.

No, like any other cache you log without internet connection you scan the code and it is stored by the phone. When you're back online the QR code is checked and the log posted for the time the code is scanned.

 

For nanos you would just fold the code in four and roll. As I said, if any around the folds are damaged there is enough redundancy to successfully read. If nano owners prefer a paper log, they have that option as it is still the defacto cache.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying it would work in every conceivable location, just as the current cache types don't work in every conceivable location. I'm talking about having it as an option.

[+The Jester]

This is just another type of "code word" cache - which was tried and banned years ago. 

 

Besides, it would require a different cache type (like Wherigo's) because you are requiring the finder to have the equipment to read QR codes.  And "most cachers have a cell phone" isn't everybody, but everybody can carry a scribble stick (I have a small pen that fits in my wallet but no phone that can read QR codes).

 

[+MNTA]

One thing I've learned through my life is that change will and has to happen. I lost my best job ever because the boss did not want to grow and change. I'd be sad if geocaching would follow the same trend. With that said to the purists there is nothing preventing you from using your hand held gpsr and punching in lat long in by hand. Every app or web update the complaints flow.

 

To answer the original question. I believe GS is already trying to do this with the adventure lab caches, since this has not been integrated into the main app not sure what the plans are for this. 

 

Everyone has fixated on the QR codes. Can folks please think outside the box. It's kind of a a broken record to shoot down any new ideas but there are also so many complaints about the way things are today. Think about it signing a physical log is no proof of actually finding the cache. Cache owner can delete the entry, has not happened to me but I hear of problems here. If the container goes missing you have no proof. Also we hear of the dreaded arm chair logger. Didn't you know I've found a cache in Antartica, no a change would show no I have not travelled anywhere near there. 

 

So some possible idea please be kind only thinking out loud. Also realize that mechanisms to grandfather the old ways would need to be thought of.

1) Take a picture of the log, do not share the log with all finders in case of spoilers

2) Use gps proximity to prove being within a few feet of the cache location at least. 

3) QR codes is not a bad idea waterproof stickers for rainy areas.

4) Code or phrase attached to cache and entered by the finder. Though complaints of a web page of code words is a real possibility.

 

Personally I'm a fan of integrating GPS proximity into the game as to me it's a natural extension of the technology.   QR stickers would also help with physical proof, maybe somehow require using the camera rather than a code to foil the cheater.

 

I'd be a fan of GS merging the technology with the database listing better. As a statistics geek there seems like so many possibilities could exist here. 

 

[+kunarion]

5 minutes ago, MNTA said:

4) Code or phrase attached to cache and entered by the finder. Though complaints of a web page of code words is a real possibility.

 

Do I (Cache Owner) get to change the code?  I might go change it when I do cache maintenance.  Then someone has to go find the cache again to keep the list up to date.

 

Another idea is that I go and check the paper log and delete armchair logs.  But that's not as cool as the QR code game.

[+Wacka]

I nave done the other game. There are a lot  them that are unscanable because of fading or the code degrading with the elements.

[+barefootjeff]

4 hours ago, daddybeth said:

Yes, you can use waterproof paper, but if they get wet you can't write on them.

 

You reckon? I just performed the experiment, taking a sheet of "Tradie" brand waterproof stone paper, left it soaking in a bucket of water for a few minutes, then wrote on it with a pencil and a ballpoint pen.

 

 

It seems to work here...

[+cerberus1]

13 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

It seems to work here...

 

Yeah...  

Can't tell you how many times we went to a cache and simply gave the log a wipe, and it was good again.

Leave it for someone else and split.   At least some managed to mention it in a log, most don't...

[+cerberus1]

 Maybe it's just me, but I'd really like all the basic functions we've lost the past week to work right now before we look to add more "stuff".

Thanks...

[+colleda]

I haven't noticed any loss of basic function. Still been able to find, log, maintain, create and submit two new caches, archive a couple of old ones, adjust coordinates etc.. Maybe it's just you. . Cheer up.

[+cerberus1]

1 minute ago, colleda said:

I haven't noticed any loss of basic function. Still been able to find, log, maintain, create and submit two new caches, archive a couple of old ones, adjust coordinates etc.. Maybe it's just you. . Cheer up.

 

You're not getting any of the issues here ?     

Talk locally shows I'm not the only one who's got most of 'em. 

I can log, but then I have to click on the cache link from the blank log page, and refresh before I get back to the cache page (to see if my log's even there).

[+colleda]

11 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

 

You're not getting any of the issues here ?     

Talk locally shows I'm not the only one who's got most of 'em. 

I can log, but then I have to click on the cache link from the blank log page, and refresh before I get back to the cache page (to see if my log's even there).

Nope, haven't had anything like that. The only thing different with my set up, for the last week, is my modem died 29/12 (waiting for replacement) and I'm using my Surface 3 through my Android phone hot spot. Normally I would be using my, at the moment inoperative, desktop.

[+barefootjeff]

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

2) Use gps proximity to prove being within a few feet of the cache location at least. 

 

For a start, GPS won't get you within "a few feet" as its accuracy is about 3 metres under ideal conditions and typically more like 5 or 6, plus whatever error there is in the cache's position. For some of my caches, and many of the more challenging ones I've done, getting within 5 metres of it proves nothing other than you've managed to walk the distance. Take my most recent cache for example (GC8DQXK), where just standing on top of the easily-accessed rock shelf will get you right to GZ according to your GPSr, but the cache isn't up there, you have to find a way down and then around into the cave underneath the rock, which is where it gets its 4 terrain stars from.

 

If the game were reduced to just get within a few metres of GZ and earn a smiley, it would lose a lot of its attraction for people like me. Signing the log is a bit like scoring a try in rugby - it's not enough to just get the ball over the line, you have to place it on the ground without dropping it.

 

No-one's mentioned it yet, but from what I've read, Adventure Labs are kind of heading in the direction you want, aren't they? They use geolocation and questions to answer to prove you got there, but even that's being spoofed by some.

[+colleda]

29 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

For a start, GPS won't get you within "a few feet" as its accuracy is about 3 metres under ideal conditions and typically more like 5 or 6, plus whatever error there is in the cache's position. For some of my caches, and many of the more challenging ones I've done, getting within 5 metres of it proves nothing other than you've managed to walk the distance. Take my most recent cache for example (GC8DQXK), where just standing on top of the easily-accessed rock shelf will get you right to GZ according to your GPSr, but the cache isn't up there, you have to find a way down and then around into the cave underneath the rock, which is where it gets its 4 terrain stars from.

 

If the game were reduced to just get within a few metres of GZ and earn a smiley, it would lose a lot of its attraction for people like me. Signing the log is a bit like scoring a try in rugby - it's not enough to just get the ball over the line, you have to place it on the ground without dropping it.

 

No-one's mentioned it yet, but from what I've read, Adventure Labs are kind of heading in the direction you want, aren't they? They use geolocation and questions to answer to prove you got there, but even that's being spoofed by some.

You are quite correct Jeff.

Yesterday I tried taking fresh coordinates for one of my caches as quite a few searchers were having problems locating it. It is under thick, high, tree cover. Using my Garmin Etrex set to waypoint averaging it took 5+ minutes to end up with coordinates with a possible 10 metre error. So much for a few feet.

[+fizzymagic]

6 hours ago, daddybeth said:

I would imagine most COs would laminate the QR in some way, print them on waterproof paper or the websites that sell nanos would print the QR code onto tags.

 

QR codes actually have an insane amount of redundancy, normally 15% can be unreadable but Type H can be 30%. So there would be more chance of a readable QR code than an unusuable log.

 

As for smaller... minimum recommended QR code size is 3.5cm. Always easier to fit something the size of a postage stamp into a small space than a rolled log.

 

I guess I don't understand.  You seem to think that a QR code is equivalent to a signature on a log.  Unfortunately, not the case.  QR codes can be copied and distributed.  I imagine you think there is some cryptographic protocol that could prevent that.  Sorry.  No can do.

 

Or perhaps you imagine that there is some way to combine the QR code with a smartphone's current location to ensure that the person using the QR code is at the location of the cache.  Of course, you still  need that cryptographic protocol for when the phone has no connectivity at the cache site, but even so, once again, it's absolutely trivial to circumvent.  Again, no can do.

 

Or maybe you haven't actually thought about the implementation details and expect that some other technological magic will make QR codes magically secure so that reading them is limited to the person looking into the container.   Maybe quantum something?  Interesting.  As it happens, I happen to know a great deal about that subject. You'd need a source of single entangled photons; it could probably be made to work for a few hundred thousand dollars per cache, and a few tens of thousand dollars per GPS receiver.  Plus the infrastructure requirements at HQ.

 

Sorry, but, as with voting, paper is best.

[+papu66]

7 hours ago, MNTA said:

Personally I'm a fan of integrating GPS proximity into the game as to me it's a natural extension of the technology.   

 

Yes, this would speed up the process of doing a power trail. Lots of gasoline saved because no need to stop for logging 

[+MartyBartfast]

7 hours ago, MNTA said:

Personally I'm a fan of integrating GPS proximity into the game as to me it's a natural extension of the technology.

Then it becomes only a game for people with a smartphone (and a data signal), as an old fashioned GPS couldn't be integrated, neither could those who do it with a map and compass.

[+Goldenwattle]

10 hours ago, daddybeth said:

I appreciate this may raise strong opinions but... isn't it time Groundspeak offered the option of a category for paperless caches?

 

This would be where there is a container with a QR code, which needs to be scanned to log the find.

 

To me this would solve two key issues.

 

Firstly, the paper log is always going to be the weak point of a cache. Yes, you can use waterproof paper, but if they get wet you can't write on them. Paperless caches would be much more durable and wouldn't end up a black mouldy mess like many around here (wet part of the world) are.

 

Secondly, it would allow nano caches not to use those annoying rolls which take five minutes to roll up.

 

Also, for the purists, it would only allow logs if you physically find the container, not if you see the container, are in the location the container is, are sitting at home logging finds...

 

I appreciate the objection is not everyone uses a smartphone. Perhaps I am more forgetful than most but I am much more likely to forget a pen or do a cache on impulse without a pen than not have my phone with me. If you are doing a long day caching powerbanks are inexpensive and would let you cache for a week without needing to be near a power socket.

 

If they are created as a different category than those who don't want to find them, don't have a smartphone or whatever could easily avoid them, and COs would have the choice to make a traditional cache with a paper log like before.

 

I would say I think they should still require a container to make a cache, not like the games where you can just stick stickers on anything.

 

Heresy perhaps. The reason I suggest it is that I love the really old historical caches. However, unless you buy an ammo box and find a big enough place to hide it in this part of the world it's very unlikely any cache will survive 15 years+ with a paper log at least in the original container. A QR code on a plastic tag though could well be around well after most of us are long gone and still be a serviceable cache.

 

Only thoughts... please don't just down my throat, this isn't to REPLACE traditional caches.

NO, NO & NO, Horrible idea. Not everyone caches with a smart phone and it is very easy to remember your pen. If you can remember your smart phone, you can remember a pen. Selective memory. Hate the idea. It would not be geocaching. It sounds like you have come to the wrong game.

[+L0ne.R]

15 hours ago, daddybeth said:

No I'm not. I'm talking about QR codes as logs INSIDE caches.

 

A form of caching closer to traditional caching than, say, a ghost cache because it requires a  physical container to be placed.

 

So you would always have to open a container of some kind to access the QR code, you couldn't just scan something you can see in the street.

 

The QR code replaces the log, not the cache.

 

Make it even simpler. No QR codes are needed. Your app can recognize when you are within about 200m of GZ then automatically log the find. The container could be optional. If there’s a container there you look for it. If you are happy to get just a smiley, you move on to the next one. 

Edited January 6, 2020 by L0ne.R
typo

[+Aguila317]

NO!! 

 

I would be looking for a different hobby if this idea was adopted. 

 

:-(( 

[+L0ne.R]

6 minutes ago, Aguila317 said:

NO!! 

 

I would be looking for a different hobby if this idea was adopted. 

 

:-(( 

 

A lot has changed since I started. I would have described geocaching as a recreational activity and hobby back when I first started. But now I'd call it more of a game. It's mostly about numbers now. Adding a new app-game-type to the database might get GCHQ more players. People seem to prefer a points-based game. The app would allow for quicker numbers collection. It may also make those numbers more accurate since the person (well, their smartphone) has to be at the location (less faking/cheating). 

[+JL_HSTRE]

Assuming a certain other game doesn't have any legal rights to a QR-code GPS scavenger hunt, I would think that in the nearly decade that zee other game as been around the folks at Groundspeak would have had a serious discussion about whether to implement such an obvious feature as QR codes, either a cache type or alternative/additional logging system. That they haven't even tried it out like they have augmented reality caches strongly suggests they see no real benefit to bringing it into geocaching and have no intention of ever doing so.

[+MartyBartfast]

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

You’re app can recognize when you are within about 200m of GZ then automatically log the find

You mean like a virtual M...zee   , where I believe you can rack up finds just by walking past the zone? That was one of many things which put me off that game.

[+Oxford Stone]

You're making me wonder how many maintenance trips I need to do this year...

One will be to a cache which may or may not have survived recent floods. I was surprised to get a Found log on it recently just saying "G". Looked up the "cacher" and they'd logged 20 puzzle caches the same way for the same day, but at least one pre-dates the proximity rule on puzzles and is several miles away. Chances of logs beige genuine = 0 so I alerted the local FB group and many of these logs will have been deleted. Only time I've had an obvious fake log on one of my caches though.

I had to smile at the "how long does it take to roll up a nano log?" discussion. Local to me (and daddybeth) is a one-armed cacher who dreads nanos and bisons more than tree climbs! (Look at my "Thames Path - Floodproof" for his selfie 20 feet up the tree. I think he has a chin-to-shoulder technique for unscrewing the containers. Rolling the papers back up must take him forever.

 

[+EggsTheBest]

Well, virtual and adventure lab caches are completely paperless.  

[+Lynx Humble]

2 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

You mean like a virtual M...zee   , where I believe you can rack up finds just by walking past the zone? That was one of many things which put me off that game.

Yeah that game became so ridiculous when they introduced those virtual at every 100 ft. I do 98% of my points that way now just by car or walking on the sidewalk... That why I don't play that game much anymore.

 

I hope geocaching doesn't steer too much that way.

[+cerberus1]

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

...That they haven't even tried it out like they have augmented reality caches strongly suggests they see no real benefit to bringing it into geocaching and have no intention of ever doing so.

 

 The closest so far is  QR Travel Bugs in the store.  

 - But we have found a couple of multis now with QR codes at stages.  Rare time I'm bringing a sorta-smart phone in the woods with me...

[+cerberus1]

1 hour ago, EggsTheBest said:

Well, virtual and adventure lab caches are completely paperless.  

 

Really ?   

Most Virtuals we've seen require some sorta info needed, and us GPSr users ... the memory probably isn't gonna last the next two caches and a trip to the car. 

 

"The requirements for logging a Virtual Cache vary. You may be required to answer a question about the location, take a picture, complete a task, etc. In any case, you must visit the coordinates before you can post your log."   

[+mustakorppi]

7 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

NO, NO & NO, Horrible idea. Not everyone caches with a smart phone and it is very easy to remember your pen. If you can remember your smart phone, you can remember a pen. Selective memory. Hate the idea. It would not be geocaching. It sounds like you have come to the wrong game.

 

7 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

Then it becomes only a game for people with a smartphone (and a data signal), as an old fashioned GPS couldn't be integrated, neither could those who do it with a map and compass.

We already have cache types that require you to take photos, we have a cache type that requires either a smart phone or very specific out of production gps, and we have attributes to indicate a need for all kinds of equipment besides basic navigation gear and a pen. No one is saying get rid of trads.

 

That said, I don’t really see the case for QR code in logging. Seems like requiring a photo log (of a thing in the container, if you want to have a container) solves the issue with paper just as well, but is way less susceptible to mass-spoofing than a qr code. 

[+CAVinoGal]

18 hours ago, daddybeth said:

isn't it time Groundspeak offered the option of a category for paperless caches?

The option is already there - the new Adventure labs are paperless - get close to the location for each stage, phone buzzes or signals you are in the zone, check the question and look for the answer, type it in, and you automatically get a +1 added to your Find count.  Depending on how close the stages are, you can pick up 5 smilies without signing a thing.  We've done 3 nearby, will probably do a 4th today while we're in the neighborhood, but I'm not finding them as satisfying as a "regular" geocache.

 

Much more satisfying (for me) is solving a puzzle, hiking along a trail, finding a container and adding my signature to the logsheet.

 

QR codes can be too easily shared, and although not quite the same, there is that other game that uses them.  Why confuse the issue?

[+Harry Dolphin]

1 hour ago, cerberus1 said:

 - But we have found a couple of multis now with QR codes at stages.  Rare time I'm bringing a sorta-smart phone in the woods with me...

 

Yeah.  Took me five trips for a QR multi.  Take picture, go home, uncode the QR, then return for the next stage.  Repeat.

[+EggsTheBest]

3 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Really ?   

Most Virtuals we've seen require some sorta info needed, and us GPSr users ... the memory probably isn't gonna last the next two caches and a trip to the car. 

 

"The requirements for logging a Virtual Cache vary. You may be required to answer a question about the location, take a picture, complete a task, etc. In any case, you must visit the coordinates before you can post your log."   

All of these tasks - writing notes, taking a picture - can be done using a phone. No paper required.  

[+cerberus1]

3 minutes ago, EggsTheBest said:

All of these tasks - writing notes, taking a picture - can be done using a phone. No paper required.  

 

Another who just assumes all people use phones...

[+EggsTheBest]

1 minute ago, cerberus1 said:

 

Another who just assumes all people use phones...

How do complete tasks that require taking a picture? Do you bring polaroid/DSLR camera? Serious question

[+cerberus1]

Just now, EggsTheBest said:

How do complete tasks that require taking a picture? Do you bring polaroid/DSLR camera? Serious question

 

A point n shoot that's always in my little camera bag. 

That tiny camera bag is also my bushcraft bag, smaller than most pockets of these "combat ready" packs we're seeing a lot of today.    

I also enter caches manually, with notes , sometimes hints, and what odd things happen during the day, entered on a small RIR notepad, or mini composition book.

There's more than a few I've met on the trail who didn't think anyone else cached like that, when they show similar.   

[+elyob]

The OP is yet another justification for carrying a smart phone into the forest.  Can't geocaching continue without becoming more and more tethered to the smart phone?  Groundspeak is certainly pushing us in the direction of smart-phone dependency.  The two nearest adventure labs not only required that I have a smart phone, they also required that I pay for data usage. 

Edited January 6, 2020 by elyob