Will Groundspeak ever introduce paperless logging?

[+colleda]

46 minutes ago, EggsTheBest said:

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

Yes, usually when on holidays. Normal caching at home with GPS? No. I assume you are referring to virtuals that have a photo requirement. If the photo requirement can't be met there are plenty of other caches to find. You don't have to find them all.

[+HunterandSamuel]

1 hour ago, EggsTheBest said:

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

I agree. I have never met a cacher in my area that doesn't use a cell. 

[+colleda]

8 minutes ago, HunterandSamuel said:

I agree. I have never met a cacher in my area that doesn't use a cell. 

It may be the case in your neck of the woods but not the rest of the world. In my experience most cachers I come across "in the field" are using GPSrs (by a small margin). Like many in these forums my caching experience is worldwide.

[+HunterandSamuel]

1 minute ago, colleda said:

It may be the case in your neck of the woods but not the rest of the world. In my experience most cachers I come across "in the field" are using GPSrs (by a small margin). Like many in these forums my caching experience is worldwide.

Sure but I said in my area.  GPS is also used on a cell. 

[+mustakorppi]

25 minutes ago, colleda said:

In my experience most cachers I come across "in the field" are using GPSrs (by a small margin). 

How many of those don’t actually have a phone with them at all though? Even feature phones and dumb phones tend to have a camera. I’d have to go back at least 15 years for my last phone that didn’t. 
 

Back on topic, those ideologically opposed to phones could get a dedicated barcode scanner and we could have dozens of threads about how scanners have a much better battery life than phones, and are more rugged and not affected by bright sunlight...
 

 

[+BethDaddyKaty]

1 hour ago, elyob said:

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. 

The thing is, most people do. Much the same as, with respect, my disability (car crash vs drunk driver) makes it very difficult to sign logs, especially nano logs. But I make the effort, because that's the rule for that type of cache,  and because it cheeses me off when people put stickers/stamps over 5+ space of a nano log because I know it is creating more work for a CO who has sized the boxes for a reason.

 

This would be an *option* for a cache, much as people can make caches PMO essentially excluding casual caches or poor people. If a cacher makes a D5/T5 cache, it excludes some people. If a cacher makes a D1/T1 cache, some cachers won't be interested. AFAIK there isn't a rule that caches need to be equally accessibly to everyone, just that they are marked accordingly so that people who don't want to find that sort of cache don't seek it.

 

As for QR codes not being readable... GS have considerably more resources than MZ and the like, and I don't doubt they have the technical resources to make it work.

 

The issue I always have with paper logs is if you have the log in your hand but it's physically too damaged/full to sign... is that still a find? I think most would say yes, but there is some sort f ideological idea thst you can't find a cache without writing your name somewhere.

Edited January 6, 2020 by daddybeth

[+hal-an-tow]

2 hours ago, EggsTheBest said:

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

I've carried a camera with me everywhere it is possible ( excepting , for e.g., music gigs where photography is not allowed) since ... ooh, 1982. Currently a DSLR unless conditions are going to be particularly wet/challenging, then I take a totally waterproof little action cam. in an underwater housing.

 

 

 

[+fizzymagic]

10 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

 

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). 

 

That may be true for you, but it's not for the majority of geocachers with whom I interact.  There are a few who see it as some kind of competition but they are in the minority.  Just because you view it as being all about the numbers doesn't mean everyone does.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

2 hours ago, EggsTheBest said:

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

 

Many do.   Some also consider not finding every cache to be a viable option.  

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, EggsTheBest said:

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

Of course I bring my camera. The whole world doesn't exist around their smart phone.

Polaroid...are you being funny? That long ago stopped production. (Back in the long past I won an international competition taking a polaroid photograph.)

Then when someone has taken their polariod photograph are you inferring they post the photograph print to geocaching to pin to their log (with an actual pin, as a polaroid is an actual physical photograph.)

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, HunterandSamuel said:

Sure but I said in my area.  GPS is also used on a cell. 

Since Geocaching is a game played worldwide, Groundspeak is most likely not going to implement a feature that only works in your area.  When I went to Kenya last summer I didn't have cell access for 10 days, and for 3 days had no internet access at all.  

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, daddybeth said:

The issue I always have with paper logs is if you have the log in your hand but it's physically too damaged/full to sign... is that still a find? I think most would say yes, but there is some sort f ideological idea thst you can't find a cache without writing your name somewhere.

 

The guidelines state that one can log the cache online if the physical log has been signed.  If a log is to physically damaged/full to sign, I'd simply make a mark of some kind and call it a signature.  The guidelines don't require that a signature be legible and a CO that lets a log sheet get a state where it's not signable they're unlikely going to dispute whether or not the log sheet was signed. 

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, mustakorppi said:

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

Yes, and I can't find some of those caches. I have an old phone and I have not yet succeeded in getting Wherigo to load for instance, although I managed to get Lab Caches to load. (I don't like to throw working things out and add to the piles of waste; ewaste in this case.) I have logged some Wherigo caches, but only when caching with other people who have Wherigo on their phone, although I have noticed some of them struggle with the program too. I don't usually have data turned on on my phone, as mostly this has no interest for me. Why do I want to be checking my phone all day and ignoring what's around me, like so many people I see! I would rather look at the scenery; admire that little piece of street art, than have my face glued to the phone, as people tend too who can't think beyond the phone. I turn data on only occasionally, when I do really need to check something.

[+MNTA]

16 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

Of course I bring my camera. The whole world doesn't exist around their smart phone.

Polaroid...are you being funny? That long ago stopped production. (Back in the long past I won an international competition taking a polaroid photograph.)

Then when someone has taken their polariod photograph are you inferring they post the photograph print to geocaching to pin to their log (with an actual pin, as a polaroid is an actual physical photograph.)

Saw a Polaroid camera either at Target or Best Buy while Christmas shopping. I kept walking.

[+MNTA]

7 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

 

The guidelines state that one can log the cache online if the physical log has been signed.  If a log is to physically damaged/full to sign, I'd simply make a mark of some kind and call it a signature.  The guidelines don't require that a signature be legible and a CO that lets a log sheet get a state where it's not signable they're unlikely going to dispute whether or not the log sheet was signed. 

 

So when the CO deletes your log how do you prove you signed it? Or marked it?  Take a picture of the log and your mark?

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, MNTA said:

Saw a Polaroid camera either at Target or Best Buy while Christmas shopping. I kept walking.

I thought they were gone as the company filed for bankruptcy. However there apparently have been buy outs, but it seems like to me a dying fish gasping for air. And not the original company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Corporation

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, elyob said:

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. 

Guessing here. This is happening possibly because of the age of the programmers. They are glued to their smart phone and so think everyone else is. (Added: And everyone else is irrelevant and will be dead soon.)

Edited January 7, 2020 by Goldenwattle

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, MNTA said:

 

So when the CO deletes your log how do you prove you signed it? Or marked it?  Take a picture of the log and your mark?

I did take a photograph the day I signed with charcoal. One of the very few times I forgot a pen, but there was charcoal nearby from a previous bushfire, so I used this to sign. However, although I signed the log as per the rules, charcoal can rub off, so I also took a photograph of my signature and posted that along with my log. If I think (for whatever reason) my signature might ever be in doubt, yes I take a photograph and post that. Took a photograph of a log once too when I knew the history of the CO in deleting logs.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

14 minutes ago, MNTA said:

 

So when the CO deletes your log how do you prove you signed it? Or marked it?  Take a picture of the log and your mark?

 

In my 13 years playing the game I've never had a found it log deleted (had a couple of DNF logs deleted though).  If a CO wants to be a %$&^*# about it I really don't care if my find count is decremented by one.  

[+mustakorppi]

51 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Since Geocaching is a game played worldwide, Groundspeak is most likely not going to implement a feature that only works in your area.  When I went to Kenya last summer I didn't have cell access for 10 days, and for 3 days had no internet access at all.  

Are we talking about the same Groundspeak that’s busy making Adventure Labs a thing? Let alone historical features like NGS Benchmarks, or the three cache types only available around HQ.

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

So when the CO deletes your log how do you prove you signed it? Or marked it?  Take a picture of the log and your mark?

 

If a CO doesn't want my logs I can stop posting them.

[+mustakorppi]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I don't usually have data turned on on my phone, as mostly this has no interest for me. Why do I want to be checking my phone all day and ignoring what's around me, like so many people I see! I would rather look at the scenery; admire that little piece of street art, than have my face glued to the phone, as people tend too who can't think beyond the phone. I turn data on only occasionally, when I do really need to check something.

The OP’s suggestion was that a CO could hide a special cache type that contains a QR code instead of a logbook. Logging such a cache wouldn’t strictly even require a smart phone, let alone mobile data. Of course a smartphone is the most commonly available TOTT that could do it.
 

I have to wonder how this thread would have turned out if Garmin had even one model with a barcode scanner instead of Chirp though.
 

[+IceColdUK]

1 hour ago, Goldenwattle said:

I thought they were gone as the company filed for bankruptcy. However there apparently have been buy outs, but it seems like to me a dying fish gasping for air. And not the original company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaroid_Corporation

My son bought his girlfriend one for Christmas.  Digital photos can of course be printed out, but they rarely are, hence a new market for the Polaroid.  (Not great for caching though!)

[+Korichnovui]

2 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

I have logged some Wherigo caches, but only when caching with other people who have Wherigo on their phone, although I have noticed some of them struggle with the program too. 

yes, doing 1 Wherigo was enough for me! I also have a sort of goal to try to create as many different kinds of caches as I can, so I did look into making a Wherigo, but decided not to pursue it.

[+Korichnovui]

Also 2 of my kids have “polaroids” they’re trendy again, probably for the reason stated above

 

 

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, mustakorppi said:

The OP’s suggestion was that a CO could hide a special cache type that contains a QR code instead of a logbook. Logging such a cache wouldn’t strictly even require a smart phone, let alone mobile data. Of course a smartphone is the most commonly available TOTT that could do it.
 

I have to wonder how this thread would have turned out if Garmin had even one model with a barcode scanner instead of Chirp though.
 

I don't know how many chirp caches there are, but I have only found a few. I have been tempted to publish one though as revenge against all those caches that need a smart phone .

I was walking through the camp site of a MEGA a year ago and suddenly the chirp on my Garmin activated and started to bring through a message. I got excited  and though maybe there was a hidden cache, but then the message stopped and never completed . I walked around but I couldn't get the chirp to activate again. No-one else I spoke to knew anything about this, so I wonder what happened then.

[+fizzymagic]

1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

The OP’s suggestion was that a CO could hide a special cache type that contains a QR code instead of a logbook. Logging such a cache wouldn’t strictly even require a smart phone, let alone mobile data.

 

Heck, it doesn't even require visiting the cache!

[+barefootjeff]

9 hours ago, EggsTheBest said:

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

 

I've just returned home from doing a new virtual near Newcastle and yes, I lugged along my DSLR the whole way to take the required photos of myself at the various waypoints. It has a 20-second self-timer compared to the 10-second one on my phone, giving me more time to get into position, and is easier to sit in place than trying to balance the phone on its edge. Its optical zoom is also handy sometimes.

[+barefootjeff]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

So when the CO deletes your log how do you prove you signed it? Or marked it?  Take a picture of the log and your mark?

 

My logs are generally pretty detailed, describing my trek to GZ, any problems I had reaching the cache and usually mention that I signed the log. Often I'll include photos taken along the way or of the scenery near GZ (without giving any spoilers away). Sometimes I'll take a photo of my signature in the log, but usually that's only if there's something special about it (a good-sized logbook with lots of interesting comments from other finders perhaps) or if it's a FTF or milestone. I've never had anyone question any of my logs but, should a CO delete one, I'd put my case before appeals and let them decide who's telling the truth. I suspect in such a case the onus would be more on the CO to justify his or her claim that I didn't sign the log rather than the other way around.

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, barefootjeff said:

I suspect in such a case the onus would be more on the CO to justify his or her claim that I didn't sign the log rather than the other way around.

Yes, they should need to supply a photograph of all the log and first ask the person in question to point out their signature to them. Give them a chance, because some logs are hard to decipher, and the CO could have missed seeing it. I missed spotting someone's signature once and the person pointed it out to me and that was cleared up. (Please write your logs legibly.) The CO shouldn't delete a log without notifying the person first to ask about the missing log.

Exception; where enquires have been asked about missing logs on other caches and the person never responded. Then I just delete.

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, NYPaddleCacher said:

Since Geocaching is a game played worldwide, Groundspeak is most likely not going to implement a feature that only works in your area.  When I went to Kenya last summer I didn't have cell access for 10 days, and for 3 days had no internet access at all.  

I've often been to places with no phone coverage; both here in Australia and overseas. Or at least where I can't access it. The GPS batteries last a lot longer too and can swapped out for fresh.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Goldenwattle

[+barefootjeff]

10 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

I've often been to places with no phone coverage; both here in Australia and overseas. Or at least where I can't access it. The GPS batteries last a lot longer too and can swapped out for fresh.

 

Lord Howe Island has no phone coverage by design. The first time I was there, the resort's internet access was out too and even when it started working on the last day of my stay, it was very slow and unreliable so I had to do all my logging when I got home.

[+Mausebiber]

If I open a cache container and the paper is wet, I probably can still write on it somehow, and if this is not possible, I have the option to add a piece of paper with my name on it.
If I open a cache container and the QR code was taken out by someone, then I didn’t find the cache.

I prefer the first option.

 

Maybe printed QR code isn’t the solution, maybe other technics would work better, but I support the idea of paperless caching.

 

[+BethDaddyKaty]

To people saying they could fake a log, of course they could, but it would require someone to go round collecting the QR codes, and someone to then go to the extra effort of scanning them.

 

Or they could just search for an inactive cache user and log a dozen in the same time.

 

So I don't think it would be any more open to abuse than people can currently. Ultimately a CO could ask the cacher about the location/hide if they suspected a fake log.

[+Mausebiber]

6 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

So I don't think it would be any more open to abuse than people can currently. Ultimately a CO could ask the cacher about the location/hide if they suspected a fake log.

 

As discussed before, the CO has no way of validating a log if there is not anything left in the cache like a signature, or anything similar which proves that you were at the cache.

NO, really not, you don't want to give the CO the power to delete log entries just because you didn't answer his question.  We have this with Earthcache and this is very often a nightmare.

 

[+arisoft]

16 minutes ago, daddybeth said:

To people saying they could fake a log, of course they could, but it would require someone to go round collecting the QR codes, and someone to then go to the extra effort of scanning them.

 

It requires only one player to scan the code and there are plenty of players who are willing to participate this activity. Then you will say, that it doesn't matter if some players are cheating, because they are cheating only themselfs. You are right - it doesn't matter at all - but the hobby needs some level of credibility. We behave as it matters, even though it does not matter.

[+Goldenwattle]

Just now, daddybeth said:

To people saying they could fake a log, of course they could, but it would require someone to go round collecting the QR codes, and someone to then go to the extra effort of scanning them.

And then post them on facebook, along with TB codes...

[+BethDaddyKaty]

Yep, but as I said the system operates on trust currently. As I said, it is trivial to find a CO who isn't active and log all their caches. Pointless, but easy.

 

With QR codes if they are leaked it would be relatively easy for a CO to replace the QR code if they wanted to.

 

Its not a perfect system, but the system is already imperfect.

[+hal-an-tow]

13 hours ago, MNTA said:

 

So when the CO deletes your log how do you prove you signed it? Or marked it?  Take a picture of the log and your mark?

Ive had one log deleted by a CO, who objected to me mentioning that caches are not actually allowed on roundabouts ( traffic islands/gyratory systems or whatever your local name is for interchanges with circular patches of ground entirely surrounded by a road , and with no pedestrian route across it) but speculating that the reviewer missed that detail as evidently it was a new road feature for a brand new housing estate, so probably did not show on google sat. view yet. I had an annoyed message from the CO too, who denied the hide was against the rules (which it unequivocally is in the UK).

 

I did not engage with the CO, it seemed unlikely to be a worthwhile effort, but appealed , and my log was reinstated with no question, but deleting my reference to the inappropriate location . HQ said the matter of the GZ being against the rules would be considered, but last time I looked, the cache was still there.

 

So, with no photographic evidence of my signature on the log, my find was reinstated.

[+HunterandSamuel]

14 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

Since Geocaching is a game played worldwide, Groundspeak is most likely not going to implement a feature that only works in your area.  When I went to Kenya last summer I didn't have cell access for 10 days, and for 3 days had no internet access at all.  

I am not requesting that Groundspeak implement a feature that only works in my area.

[+hal-an-tow]

3 hours ago, daddybeth said:

To people saying they could fake a log, of course they could, but it would require someone to go round collecting the QR codes, and someone to then go to the extra effort of scanning them.

 

The thousands of TBs that are dishonestly 'discovered' from afar because someone spent time and effort digitizing a list of codes seen on photos or event lists, or someone came up with a random code generator and logged the 'hits' suggest that plenty of dishonest folk would be perfectly happy to generate and log thousands of QR codes for thousands of bogus finds too.

 

Signing the physical paper log is

a) verifiable by the CO when they do their maintenance visits

b) impossible to automate and perform in bulk whilst sat on the sofa many miles from GZ to grossly inflate a statistic

 

Geocaching is a hobby, signing the log inside a container is the sole criterion for a successful hunt . 

 

If Groundspeak go down the automated, always connected, must have a 'phone signal, virtual/adventure lab/barcode , must have the proprietary app route that seems popular with people who want easy urban and suburban caches for the numbers, then they will lose the big caches in wild places , you know, ones where the cache setters place proper boxes in interesting locations  (and in my experience of 10 years of hunting, over 50 events attended and a good, friendly relationship with a lot of the COs I respect for setting this kind of cache, the majority of them use a GPS rather than a 'phone. )

 

I've said it before: I predict that geocaching (Groundspeak geocaching) will pursue the urban option at its peril, because the aspirational caches, the wilderness adventures, the distant travel expeditions, the overcoming of difficult terrain, the stuff of great stories (and hopefully, great logs) are what sells this as a hobby . Those caches are not going to have an anything 'G' signal available: you'll be lucky if you can get a simple text message through in an emergency, and only an idiot would fail to bring a map and compass along as a backup for the  GPS.

 

Lose those figurehead caches, and admit that 99% of what most folk will find is not the wonderful cache of the week but a micro, probably roadside and not in a lovely spot, and the game is much harder to sell *. Unless of course, it really IS 'all about the numbers'.

If Groundspeak wants to make it all about the numbers, I'm confident that those interesting, challenging , great caches will head to other listing sites, where quality can be prized above quantity, setters get some small return for the effort of cache placing, in the form of appreciative logs, and cacher's interests outweigh the profit motive.

 

 

 

 

* It's analogous to the way SUVs are advertised in the UK, being driven on rocky mountain tracks by beautiful people heading for a hang gliding adventure or something. Buy one ! Buy into the glamour and adventure ! Then drive your pretend 4x4 (most are 2WD lookalikes)  to ferry the kids to school, and to go to the supermarket for the weekly shop ...

 

 

 

[+bflentje]

On 1/5/2020 at 5:55 PM, daddybeth said:

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

 

 

I don't cache with a smartphone. And if i am forced to give up my GPS for smartphone usage, then I will commit geo-cide.

[+L0ne.R]

48 minutes ago, bflentje said:

 

I don't cache with a smartphone. And if i am forced to give up my GPS for smartphone usage, then I will commit geo-cide.

 

You don't carry a smartphone with you when you geocache? 

I'm so stuck to mine I don't think I'd go caching without it, even if I had my Garmin GPS with me. I consider it a safety device. Even in remote areas. I've seen those movies where the guy is lost in the middle of nowhere but manages to get a signal on a hillside to call for help. 

 

I haven't used my Garmin 62s in years. The maps are outdated, I don't know if I want to deal with the hassle of downloading to it.  I do most of my geocaching on the fly now and love the access to updated maps and to up-to-the-minute listings and logs.  

 

I usually take a photo of the cache I find and often things I find interesting along the way. I'd rather not deal with an additional unnecessary camera for snapshots and documenting. 

 

I probably should carry both a smartphone and GPS for safety and backup though. 

[+dprovan]

52 minutes ago, bflentje said:

I don't cache with a smartphone. And if i am forced to give up my GPS for smartphone usage, then I will commit geo-cide.

Don't look at wherigos or adventure labs, then. And if the OP gets his new type, don't look at those, either.

 

Personally, I don't see much merit to the suggestion of a new QR-code cache type, but I don't think smartphone dependence it a big argument against it since we're already decided that's OK when limited to special cache types.

 

14 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

15 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

The OP’s suggestion was that a CO could hide a special cache type that contains a QR code instead of a logbook. Logging such a cache wouldn’t strictly even require a smart phone, let alone mobile data.

Heck, it doesn't even require visiting the cache!

When just musing about the idea without actually thinking through how it would work in practice, people start thinking we'll snap a picture, then supply it as proof in a later step. Once we go through the pitfalls, we'll realize it only works if the system confirms that the person taking the picture is in the right place at the time the picture is taken. Once we do that, not only have we locked down the smartphone and connectivity question, we've also just reinvented the wheel. Each of us can either withdraw in horror or go to that other place and play that other game.

 

If we don't confirm where the picture is being taken, we haven't actually fixed any of the problems the suggestion claims to fix. The physical log plays a very real role in geocaching. Any proposal to get around failed logs must replace that role, not merely subvert it.

[+MartyBartfast]

2 hours ago, dprovan said:

Personally, I don't see much merit to the suggestion of a new QR-code cache type, but I don't think smartphone dependence it a big argument against it since we're already decided that's OK when limited to special cache types.

 

I have no aversion to smartphone use, I've used one as my primary device for about 2 years and rarely dig out my Etrex these days.

I would say that those caches which currently require the use of a phone, i.e. Wherigo's and Adventure Labs, and those for which a smartphone is almost (but not quite) a requirement, i.e. virtuals and Earthcaches (for photos), are fundamentally unique cache types and are very different to regular cache types (Trads/Multis/Puzzles etc.) so the smartphone aspect is genuinely bringing something to the game for these types. The changes proposed by the OP would  NOT  be fundamentally different to regular caches, they are the same in every respect other than instead of a paper log there's a QR code. So if there was to be a cache type for those caches with a QR code would there just be one QRCache type, which would have to cater for Trad style and Multi style etc., or would there be a QRTrad type and a QRMulti type etc.?

 

I suppose one alternative would be to introduce an attribute for QR code cache which could be assigned to any cache which has a QR code rather than a log, but then we all know attributes are often incorrectly attributed to caches so I think that would create issues in itself.

 

To sum up my view, I don't think there's a problem which MUST be fixed here, and I in any case don't think this proposal will address any of the  problems with the current system effectively, but it will introduce a new set of problems. I also don't think this feature would justify creation of a new cache type(s), so when all is said and done I think it's better to carry on as we are.

 

 

 

 

[+Aguila317]

GC69NXP 

 

Waste of time going to this one with just a smartphone. Some of the locals don't even have mains electricity!

[+BethDaddyKaty]

1 minute ago, Aguila317 said:

GC69NXP 

 

Waste of time going to this one with just a smartphone. Some of the locals don't even have mains electricity!

I think all modern apps now save as a draft feature if there is no phone signal, and then upload when there is signal. Worth saying all QR codes are is a way of encoding some text. They don't compare images, like a barcode either the code will be read or it won't. So there is no possibility that you would scan the code and find it doesn't match up on return.

 

Although, as I have said, at least in the UK 95%+ caches will have mobile reception. For very remote caches it would be highly sensible to use a paper log.

[+dprovan]

4 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

I suppose one alternative would be to introduce an attribute for QR code cache which could be assigned to any cache which has a QR code rather than a log, but then we all know attributes are often incorrectly attributed to caches so I think that would create issues in itself.

Although I concede it wasn't obvious from the opening post, my conclusion from subsequent discussion is that the proposal was for a completely different type, just like wherigos. That might be somewhat wishful thinking in that the proposal makes no sense at all to me if it's a modification to how traditional caches are handled no matter how you flag the difference.

 

4 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

To sum up my view, I don't think there's a problem which MUST be fixed here, and I in any case don't think this proposal will address any of the  problems with the current system effectively, but it will introduce a new set of problems. I also don't think this feature would justify creation of a new cache type(s), so when all is said and done I think it's better to carry on as we are.

Yes, I agree with you.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

4 hours ago, MartyBartfast said:

I suppose one alternative would be to introduce an attribute for QR code cache which could be assigned to any cache which has a QR code rather than a log, but then we all know attributes are often incorrectly attributed to caches so I think that would create issues in itself.

 

To sum up my view, I don't think there's a problem which MUST be fixed here, and I in any case don't think this proposal will address any of the  problems with the current system effectively, but it will introduce a new set of problems. I also don't think this feature would justify creation of a new cache type(s), so when all is said and done I think it's better to carry on as we are.

I also don't think that it's a solution in search of a problem.

 

So far the discussion is based on the assumption that reading a QR code would be a replacement for a physical log.   So what if a CO could add a QR code as an alternative way to log a cache (but a physical log sheet would still be required).   There's code out there that will dynamically generate a QR code for a unique URL.  GS could add something for a CO to use to generate the QR code image, and it would be there choice if they wanted to accept a QR code scan in lieu of a signed physical log *or* a signing of the physical log as evidence that the cache was found.  It wouldn't prevent someone from photographing QR codes in caches then selling a bundle of them on e-bay (and they could sell the same bundle multiple times) but it would be a way to build out infrastructure for digital logging without impacting those that would rather sign log sheets.  

[+barefootjeff]

26 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

So far the discussion is based on the assumption that reading a QR code would be a replacement for a physical log.   So what if a CO could add a QR code as an alternative way to log a cache (but a physical log sheet would still be required).   There's code out there that will dynamically generate a QR code for a unique URL.  GS could add something for a CO to use to generate the QR code image, and it would be there choice if they wanted to accept a QR code scan in lieu of a signed physical log *or* a signing of the physical log as evidence that the cache was found.  It wouldn't prevent someone from photographing QR codes in caches then selling a bundle of them on e-bay (and they could sell the same bundle multiple times) but it would be a way to build out infrastructure for digital logging without impacting those that would rather sign log sheets. 

 

Hmm, my immediate thought is that, with the physical log signing, the CO has the logbook as evidence if they suspect armchair logging is happening. But if a CO suspects copied QR codes, what recourse would they have?