Jump to content

WEBCAM CACHES


Desertal

Recommended Posts

Webcam Cache

These are geocaches that use existing web cameras that monitor various areas like parks or business complexes. The idea is to get yourself in front of the camera and save a screen capture from the website where the camera is displayed in order to log a find. New webcam geocaches can be found in the Web Camera category on Waymarking.com.

 

Wondering why these caches have been put in the LEGACY CACHES category?

 

They are such fun to do and not many around.

would like to hear your comments.

  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 2
Link to comment

There are only 4 Webcams in Australia, and three of those are in South Australia; two in walking distance of each other. The other one is in Victoria. Very hard to log one for some geocachers, unless they are willing to travel thousands of kms.

After being a geocacher for many years I finally logged those in SA; a 'mere'😜 1,151 km drive from where I live. I still have the closer one in Victoria to log. That one is 'just' over 400kms away.

It's been said that no more are to published. However, if there are ever a limited number of new ones published, rather than allow anyone to have a Webcam, no matter where they live, (using my country as an example to explain this) it would be better to give them to people in states and territories, Queensland, Western Australia, Northern Territory, Tasmania, NSW, where there are no Webcams. In other words maybe a Webcam per state without one. Otherwise if say first in gets gets a Webcam, the first in could be from SA, where there are already 3 Webcams, and the rest of Australia might still have none. A Webcam per state here, would then give us (with existing ones) nine or ten Webcams (if the ACT got one too).

No need to flood the place with them, just a few more would give more people a chance to log at least one. Give them to the first well established cacher to apply from each state or territory (continuing with local example), who has already found and logged a webcam, so they know what they are about.

Edited by Goldenwattle
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Desertal said:

They are such fun to do and not many around.

 

There were a lot of problems while cacher posting pictures taken from cellular phones or other cameras and NOT from the web-cam. 

Groundspeak received a lot of complains every day from users where the log-entry was deleted from web-cam owners.

Webcam cache were banned from being published because cacher who logged were not following very easy guidelines.

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Some webcams photographs need a lot of trust from the CO that the person in the photograph is who the logger says it is. My first webcam photograph. I can assure you that arrowed spot is me. However it also could be anyone. But then again, even if I had been recognisable, unless the CO knows me, how would they know it was me.  I think though, that there are so many people who like their photograph to be displayed, chances are it would actually be the person in the photograph. (The white spot on my head is a hat.)

image.thumb.jpeg.5ba00cfaae2b629656418cfced40ced6.jpeg

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

Any virtual cache is sort of a tangent from where the game started, which was finding a physical cache, signing the log, and replacing the cache.

 

Virtuals, earthcaches, webcams, and adventure labs fit this category.

 

As for webcams, I agree with what's already stated about them having problems.  I found one in Florida where you were supposed to be on the beach on the east coast as the sun rose over the ocean behind you (I think it was called "Rise and Shine"), but people were finding it whenever, and CO was deleting logs, and people were complaining, so the CO archived the cache.  I guess they can be a problem.  Sounds like virtuals were a problem at one point which is why they stopped publishing those, until recently and just in controlled batches.

  • Helpful 4
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Mausebiber said:

There were a lot of problems while cacher posting pictures taken from cellular phones or other cameras and NOT from the web-cam. 

Actually, webcam caches (and virtual caches) were grandfathered in 2005. The first iphone was two years after that. Some people might have been posting photos from other cameras, but I didn't hear anything about it being a significant issue with webcam caches until much later, when most people had cameras (smartphones) in their pockets.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Desertal said:

Webcam Cache

Wondering why these caches have been put in the LEGACY CACHES category?

 

IIRC, like Locationless caches, webcams simply didn't fit into the original concept of geocaching, a container with a log to sign.

I have a friend who's a CO of one, and maintaining it (online logs) could be a daily thing with all the selfies and other fake loggers.

  • Upvote 2
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

I think also a lot of times the webcams were down, so people couldn't do the logging correctly.   And even when they worked, it was tricky to get someone at a computer to do the capture of you in the frame.   They were grandfathered (legacy), no new ones will be published.  They are too challenging, confusing, and confrontational between webcam owners, loggers, and HQ doesn't want to be a mediator.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
9 hours ago, fuzziebear3 said:

And even when they worked, it was tricky to get someone at a computer to do the capture of you in the frame.

Technically, you didn't need to coordinate with anyone else. I did my first 2 webcam caches solo by running a script on my home computer, saving a copies of the webcam image more frequently than the webcam image was updated. Then I chose the best of the images and posted that with my log. Since then, I've used a smartphone to capture the image, but that works only when you have an internet connection.

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

If webcams were to be allowed again (and, I'm not advocating for this), I think they should be what I will call 'true webcams'. A lot of webcam caches piggyback on someone else's webcam, such as a highway department webcam. Their purpose is not to be a webcam cache, they are used to monitor highway conditions. A 'true webcam' would be one placed by the cache owner, with the primary purpose of being a webcam cache.

 

I'm really against using highway department webcams as webcam caches. They are on focused on highways, so to get in the picture, you will need to stop alongside said highway. Generally, there will be some kind of building, usually for a generator and weather station. So, stopped in a turnout, next to a government installation. Surely, that wouldn't draw law enforcement's attention.

 

Try to safely get in this webcam frame. (This has not been cropped. But, full disclosure, it is cherry picked. There happen to be two other views at this particular location.)

US 95: Marsh Hill: Pavement

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:
20 hours ago, niraD said:

Technically, you didn't need to coordinate with anyone else. I did my first 2 webcam caches solo by running a script on my home computer, saving a copies of the webcam image more frequently than the webcam image was updated.

And how many people would know how to do that? Very few.

 

niraD DID say "technically", and I agree, it is a techy nerd solution!

 

I remember our son calling us, or arranging for us to be at our computer at certain times to grab a screen shot of him at a webcam - before we were geocachers but we knew all about it due to his interest.  With cell phones and internet available, webcams are still doable, but not the same challenge they were 15-20 years ago.  I haven't done any, but have assisted our son with a few over the years!

  • Upvote 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Not many webcams around! I have only done x2 in more than 10 years caching but what fun we had! Could be limited with strick publishing rules to premium members only. Works well with screenshot on smart phone with data.

Maybe Groundspeak HQ can review again.

Thanks for all the interesting replies and comments thus far

Link to comment

I'd love to see more webcams, but I understand why they're so difficult to keep when enforcing the simple guidelines is a hassle. I've never logged one, but I might just walk a few kilometres into NY state to get one next year. It'd save me money when compared to taking a train to the next nearest webcam, which while in my own country, is still a good couple hours away.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I happen to like webcam caches very much.  Because they are not being replaced I go out of my way to find them when I travel.  I have found 9 this year I think in the following states:  Alabama, Tennessee, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa.  At one webcam cache in Iowa I was just finishing up when another cacher drove in and it was a Michigan cacher that I knew.  What a coincidence.  

 

Sad to see them disappear.

Link to comment
On 10/20/2022 at 9:33 AM, Desertal said:

Not many webcams around! I have only done x2 in more than 10 years caching but what fun we had! Could be limited with strick publishing rules to premium members only. Works well with screenshot on smart phone with data.

 

Nowadays, I can imagine a more sophisticated solution. No data needed, no smart phone needed. I will give an example from one cache in Czechia.

You get to the coordinates, find the camera. You press the button and record the log.

image.png.88a4804bb71f4f82d7948da5da351d74.png

And hide the cache. And where's my log? On the YouTube channel of this cache.

I think it would be really great to bring back the Webcam icon for this kind of cache. Because this really has nothing to do with the Waymark category of webcams.

 

But of course I can imagine other game innovations.
- notifications to the official app, within a radius of your current location
- trackables with NFC stickers for faster logging
- virtual locationless caches playable in virtual reality

- be able to use current location or select location on satellite map, when hiding geocaches; not just gps coordinates
and so on. I hope we will see some innovations this year.

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 2
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 10/17/2022 at 10:36 AM, Mausebiber said:

There were a lot of problems while cacher posting pictures taken from cellular phones or other cameras and NOT from the web-cam. 

Groundspeak received a lot of complains every day from users where the log-entry was deleted from web-cam owners.

Webcam cache were banned from being published because cacher who logged were not following very easy guidelines.

 

As a webcam cache owner I fully agree with this statement. However while for a long time if there was an issue with the webcam and you didn't get an image a selfie was allowed as long as the webcam page was also added (showing the issue) - it was considered that that was no different to finding a sodden logsheet that could not be signed and taking a picture of that 
As long as NM logs were added to highlight the issue to the CO
I saw no problem with this - however when selfies were taken because a cacher couldn't be bothered to wait for the time lag (which varied with every webcam) then that was taking the mickey and log deleted.
In time when the ruling about no selfies, full stop, was brought in this was how it was and most webcam caches had this added to the description. Unfortunately it is not always the fault of the cacher who is going against that ruling - I had noted many COs allowed (and still do) selfies after this ruling came in and that doesn't help the cause in retaining what there is left of this rare icon

  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

However while for a long time if there was an issue with the webcam and you didn't get an image a selfie was allowed as long as the webcam page was also added (showing the issue)

 

I've been a Reviewer since 2003 and I've never heard this rule.  The problem of selfies was one reason why webcam caches were grandfathered.

 

Can you please cite to the source of this rule? 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Keystone said:

I've been a Reviewer since 2003 and I've never heard this rule.  The problem of selfies was one reason why webcam caches were grandfathered.

 

Can you please cite to the source of this rule? 

No rule, didn't say it was a rule - it was a rule of thumb as they say and what many, if not most of the webcam COs went with (until the ruling was brought out and made very clear by HQ a few years ago) It wasn't written anywhere but was what most COs went with
You say selfies was the reason webcam caches was grandfathered - I find that annoyingly frustrating as it was not made clear to Webcam cache owners prior to that in an attempt to make sure they were kept alive and I do not recall being advised NOT to accept selfies back in 2007 when the grandfathering occurred. As a CO of 2 webcams - I had no idea that you could not allow selfies back then - I was aware that the criteria was to get an image from the webcam footage and that had to be uploaded - but the selfies were for those few annoying occasions when the webcam went down - which was no fault of the attending cacher 

  • Funny 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
On 10/17/2022 at 3:25 PM, cerberus1 said:

I have a friend who's a CO of one, and maintaining it (online logs) could be a daily thing with all the selfies and other fake loggers

Interesting that this is a comment about webcam caches - though true, and I appreciate the OP is about webcams, but surely you have similar hassles with all the other cache types. Not signing the logs, pictures of containers instead of signing, forgot my pen. found logs with the log 'didn't find it' 
I have had more hassle with a trail of trads in the last couple of years than I have with my webcam cache and haven't had a selfie on the webcam in about 4 years 

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

but the selfies were for those few annoying occasions when the webcam went down - which was no fault of the attending cacher 

When a physical cache is missing, it's also not the fault of the cacher, but it's still a DNF. "Found it" logs like "No container, but I found the hiding place" are frowned upon for good reason.

 

I think the root cause for logging selfies at a non-functional webcam (instead of logging a DNF or nothing at all) is the "rare icon". I know people who simply don't accept not "finding" a webcam cache, because the find count on them is so hard to increase. Some years ago, a webcam cache in my wider homezone was archived - it had been offline for a long time, there was effectively no way that it would return, and cachers were logging with selfies. Then one cacher came along, logged an NA, and the cache was first disabled and later archived (and locked) by a reviewer. And man, that NA logger was verbally crucified between the NA and the archival!! Like "How dare you!?!", "The rare icon!!", "There are hardly webcams left!" etc. In the end, it boils down to an issue about the beloved ;) caching stats.

 

Before the "Virtual Awards", it was a similar thing with virtuals. Very rare, and each archival was accompanied by some whining. But with the new virtuals, I have the feeling that the cache type is regarded a bit more like a "normal" type. People don't go out of their way to find one. I know there have been suggestions in the community, that GS should do something similar for webcams ("Webcam Award"). If I had any say in this ;) , I'd say "Why not, but only with the strict rule, that the webcam must be under control of the CO".

 

  • Upvote 2
  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

with the strict rule, that the webcam must be under control of the CO"

An interesting consideration - and while I acknowledge many webcam COs had a handle of what was going on with their cache, many didn't. I guess it came down to how lucky you were with having a good rapport with the webcam owner / operator. I don't think it would be necessary to 'own' the webcam as is suggested but ensure from the get-go that the camera and its controllers were on board with their images being used and that the images can quickly be recified if the system went down. I was lucky that with both of mine if the cameras went down a quick phone call and the system would be re-booted immediately.
Though I can see myself arguing for the self owned webcams since GDPR will play a big part when linking in with systems which show public areas (as many do) 

1 hour ago, baer2006 said:

When a physical cache is missing, it's also not the fault of the cacher, but it's still a DNF. "Found it" logs like "No container, but I found the hiding place" are frowned upon for good reason.

Not arguing about the physical cache missing issue - though many COs do give the go ahead for a log if a cacher contacts them and gives enough details that they are convinced the cache has gone missing. 
Where you have 'cache is missing but I was at the right place so i'll log it anyway' and 'cache is too high, but I can see it so I'll log it' goes on and the CO does nothing about this - for me this abuse of the one fundamental rule by finder (no signee, no findee') and lack of CO management is no different to the selfies on webcam caches issue - but this breaching of the signing rule goes on a lot more than cachers let on, but we wont see any of the physical caches being grandfathered
and equally COs who check on signatures and challenge non-signers get just as much abuse

'this is supposed to be fun', 'lighten up' 'its only a game, not a competition'
I always message cachers before deletion consideration and this was one reply 
 "Thanks ddm, obvious you don’t want people to find your caches if they don’t have any writing implements - shame you’ll miss out many cachers looking for your caches I will delete both and make sure we don’t do any more of yours. Best regards" 
They weren't interested in the rules or the advice given 
 

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 1/4/2023 at 4:58 PM, baer2006 said:

If I had any say in this ;) , I'd say "Why not, but only with the strict rule, that the webcam must be under control of the CO".

 

 

On 1/4/2023 at 7:07 PM, Deepdiggingmole said:

An interesting consideration - and while I acknowledge many webcam COs had a handle of what was going on with their cache, many didn't. I guess it came down to how lucky you were with having a good rapport with the webcam owner / operator. I don't think it would be necessary to 'own' the webcam as is suggested but ensure from the get-go that the camera and its controllers were on board with their images being used and that the images can quickly be recified if the system went down. I was lucky that with both of mine if the cameras went down a quick phone call and the system would be re-booted immediately.

 

How about allowing webcam caches under the control of or in conjunction with organisations such as tourist boards and tourist information centres? Quite a few of which seem to operate webcams anyway and orgs like this have already been involved in geotrails and other forms of geocaching.

Perhaps put a few simple rules in place such as using a webcam of sufficient quality and location to allow recognisable photos to be captured (no "I'm that small blob in the distance" logs) and ensuring the webcam can be accessed for free 24/7 and doesn't involve paying an entry fee.

  • Funny 2
Link to comment
41 minutes ago, vw_k said:

How about allowing webcam caches under the control of or in conjunction with organisations such as tourist boards and tourist information centres? Quite a few of which seem to operate webcams anyway and orgs like this have already been involved in geotrails and other forms of geocaching.

Perhaps put a few simple rules in place such as using a webcam of sufficient quality and location to allow recognisable photos to be captured (no "I'm that small blob in the distance" logs) and ensuring the webcam can be accessed for free 24/7 and doesn't involve paying an entry fee.

 

I am of the impression that about 9 times out of 10 physical caches placed by organizations are not actively cared for. I can't imagine the rate of policing Webcam photo logs would be any better.

 

Webcams that can be accessed after dark aren't necessarily showing areas lighted well enough for a decent photo after dark.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, vw_k said:

Perhaps put a few simple rules in place such as using a webcam of sufficient quality and location to allow recognisable photos to be captured (no "I'm that small blob in the distance" logs) and ensuring the webcam can be accessed for free 24/7 and doesn't involve paying an entry fee.

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

I can't imagine the rate of policing Webcam photo logs would be any better.

If we have rules, they would need to be enforced. And if the rules are not followed, then we may require police to police the policers. 

 

IMO, too much manpower for a particular kind of cache. Every log having to be reviewed by the CO, and the team that makes sure the CO is doing the job properly. And both receiving flak for log deletions.

 

Link to comment
On 1/5/2023 at 8:07 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

I am of the impression that about 9 times out of 10 physical caches placed by organizations are not actively cared for. I can't imagine the rate of policing Webcam photo logs would be any better.

 

Webcams that can be accessed after dark aren't necessarily showing areas lighted well enough for a decent photo after dark.

I was lucky the 2 organisations I that owned the cameras i used for mine were very good - policing webcam photo logs is down to the CO and I think the quote you were referring to here wasn't suggesting those organisations be the CO but simply using their webcams - though I don't disagree that when non-caching organisations become COs as part of a promotion the CO responsibilities are not very good 

Link to comment
On 1/5/2023 at 9:43 PM, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

IMO, too much manpower for a particular kind of cache. Every log having to be reviewed by the CO, and the team that makes sure the CO is doing the job properly. And both receiving flak for log deletions

I have found managing a webcam cache much easier than a physical cache. 
Webcam cache - Maintenance done with a simple phone call (webcam down, call the owner) - spurious images (they happen) easy to spot if you regularly check. 
Puzzle cache (example) - Maintenance means a trip out to the cache location to see if it does need replacing - and potentially back a second time if you have to replace the homemade cache that has disappeared. 
and as per guidelines 

The webcam log requires an image - if there isnt one, log gets deleted - no issue. 
Physical cache requires a signature - no signature (which more often requires a trip out to check) log should be deleted (extenuating circs aside) - I have had far more flack dealing with this issue than anything involving the webcam - one reply I got when the logger said they hadn't signed the logsheet "Thanks ddm, obvious you don’t want people to find your caches if they don’t have any writing implements shame you’ll miss out many cachers looking for your caches. I will delete both and make sure we don’t do any more of yours. Best regards" H'm....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

one reply I got when the logger said they hadn't signed the logsheet "Thanks ddm, obvious you don’t want people to find your caches if they don’t have any writing implements shame you’ll miss out many cachers looking for your caches. I will delete both and make sure we don’t do any more of yours. Best regards" H'm....

Your cache will be better off if they give it a wide berth:antenna:

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

one reply I got when the logger said they hadn't signed the logsheet "Thanks ddm, obvious you don’t want people to find your caches if they don’t have any writing implements shame you’ll miss out many cachers looking for your caches. I will delete both and make sure we don’t do any more of yours. Best regards" H'm....

:D

We got a NM on an ammo can once, and the "finder" wrote that there was no pen/pencil in the container so couldn't sign the log.  :laughing:

Not sure where they get the idea, it should be common sense that if the requirements are to sign the log, you bring a pen or pencil.

Every time we did maintenance all pens, pencils, and sharpeners would be "missing", so someone realized they'll need one later.

Most if not all swag would be gone too, so take replaced trade, and revealed a sad example of "entitled" people today...

We finally stopped feeding the community and wrote on the cache pages why.  

 

  • Helpful 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
7 hours ago, cerberus1 said:

Not sure where they get the idea, it should be common sense that if the requirements are to sign the log, you bring a pen or pencil.

The very first cache I found I had my own pen. If I hadn't I would have gone home and got a pen. (Being my first cache, it was close to home.) Even for my first I didn't have that entitled attitude. No one told me I needed a pen, because then I had never met another geocacher. It was obvious I had to bring a pen to sign the log.

I carry two pens, although once that wasn't enough. I was on a cruise and we had a day in Cairns, so I went geocaching (I had done the normal tourist things on other visits). The pen I was using ran out of ink. No problem and I pulled out my second pen. Half a signature later and it also ran out of ink. I went and searched and found a place to buy a new pen. Tourist place; there was bound to be a souvenir shop selling pens with Cairns all over it. There was.

None of my caches have pens or pencils, except for one, which I seem to recall someone writing they left one in it, as it was missing one. Nice gesture, but wasted in my opinion, as people can bring their own pens. I prefer to leave other stuff behind in caches. Still getting rid of some inherited jewelry and other small trinkets such as fridge magnets, for instance.

Edited by Goldenwattle
Link to comment
21 minutes ago, Goldenwattle said:

None of my caches have pens or pencils, except for one, which I seem to recall someone writing they left one in it, as it was missing one. Nice gesture, but wasted in my opinion, as people can bring their own pens. I prefer to leave other stuff behind in caches. Still getting rid of some inherited jewelry and other small trinkets such as fridge magnets, for instance.

 

All my caches have pencils in them, as they're often a long hike back to the car if you get to GZ and discover you've lost your pen or it doesn't work, and typically an even longer drive to find somewhere that sells pens. I've only had the pencil go missing on two or three occasions, one of those where the finder said in their log that they dropped it off the ledge the cache was on and couldn't find it. I bought a box of 50 golf pencils from Officeworks for a few dollars and they last a long time.

 

A few times I've reached GZ only to discover I didn't have anything to write with, usually because I didn't have my regular caching backpack which has an inbuilt pencil case filled with all manner of writing sticks. For urban caches, I've gone off to find a pen shop, but for remote hides I've had to resort to twigs or gum nuts to sign the log. Most recently, on an urban hide I visited after attending an event, I didn't have my backpack but grabbed the pen I keep in the glovebox. Upon reaching the cache, I discovered it didn't work as the ball was clogged up from a soggy log I'd previously signed, but luckily the CO (lee737) had put a micro pencil inside his micro container. When I got back home, I was able to unclog the pen and got it working again but it would have been difficult to do in the field, particularly as it was raining at the time.

Link to comment
On 10/17/2022 at 7:40 AM, Goldenwattle said:

There are only 4 Webcams in Australia, and three of those are in South Australia; two in walking distance of each other. The other one is in Victoria. Very hard to log one for some geocachers, unless they are willing to travel thousands of kms.

After being a geocacher for many years I finally logged those in SA; a mere 1,151 km drive from where I live. I still have the closer one in Victoria to log. That one is just over 400kms away.

It's been said that no more are to published. However, if there are ever a limited number of new ones published, rather than allow anyone to have a Webcam, no matter where they live, (using my country as an example to explain this) it would be better to give them to people in states and territories, Queensland, Western Australia, Northern Territory, Tasmania, NSW, where there are no Webcams. In other words maybe a Webcam per state without one. Otherwise if say first in gets gets a Webcam, the first in could be from SA, where there are already 3 Webcams, and the rest of Australia might still have none. A Webcam per state here, would then give us (with existing ones) nine or ten Webcams (if the ACT got one too).

No need to flood the place with them, just a few more would give more people a chance to log at least one. Give them to the first well established cacher to apply from each state or territory (continuing with local example), who has already found and logged a webcam, so they know what they are about.

I did the webcam - Spirit of the Skier  - it was a 6 hour round trip on very bendy roads last November, it was well worth the trip and these types are getting rare, this one was archived a few days ago in the UK – GCQZCN

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 1/14/2023 at 6:52 AM, Clongo_Rongo said:

I did the webcam - Spirit of the Skier  - it was a 6 hour round trip on very bendy roads last November, it was well worth the trip and these types are getting rare, this one was archived a few days ago in the UK – GCQZCN

Yes, it's worth the trip. This just reminded me of the one near Bright in Victoria (if it's still there), because I have a trip planned to Bright, for other reasons; finding a cache for an altitude between 1,501m to 1,750m, and another council area. For challenges. Must add that Webcam and then I will have found all four Webcams in Australia.

 

Added: Now I see that the one I thought was in Bright, is at Mt Buller. The one you mentioned; Spirit of the Skier. 

Edited by Goldenwattle
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

Yes, it's worth the trip. This just reminded me of the one near Bright in Victoria (if it's still there), because I have a trip planned to Bright, for other reasons; finding a cache for an altitude between 1,501m to 1,750m, and another council area. For challenges. Must add that Webcam and then I will have found all four Webcams in Australia.

 

i can only find 3 in Australia

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
On 1/13/2023 at 7:47 PM, Goldenwattle said:

Yes, it's worth the trip. This just reminded me of the one near Bright in Victoria (if it's still there), because I have a trip planned to Bright, for other reasons; finding a cache for an altitude between 1,501m to 1,750m, and another council area. For challenges. Must add that Webcam and then I will have found all four Webcams in Australia.

 

Come visit my Webcam.  Oh.  It's at 1900 m, on Mount Washington, New Hampshire.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Harry Dolphin said:

 

Come visit my Webcam.  Oh.  It's at 1900 m, on Mount Washington, New Hampshire.

:) Yes, that would fill the 1751 to 2000m cache I need to find also for a challenge. Pity yours is so far. I have the lower altitudes (including below sea level) plus 2001m to 2500m. Signed the log.  Just need two more altitudes to log a find.

Link to comment

There is a laundry list of serious issues that come up with webcams and any time one runs into issues it is likely doomed to be archived. It's sad, but I get it.
Some off the top of my head:

  • Webcams set up with advertisements specifically in line of sight
  • Infringing privacy
  • Any that can see windows of private domiciles
  • Unprotected servers that could be compromised for the host, cache owner, or Groundspeak.
     

I really want webcams to be brought back and for a while I tried to build one, pressing HQ for a price tag that I could pay for an exception. It was a NO.

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
On 2/27/2023 at 10:42 PM, Pork King said:

The point I was making is, because I chose to enforce the logging requirements, now I must continue to strictly enforce the logging requirements or it will just cause a bigger headache for me.  I've threatened to archive it several times, but the local community always urges me to keep it going.  It's the last one for hundreds of miles, so it's sort of a geocaching draw to the area.  Many cachers traveling to large events take hours' long detours just to log it, and if they dont do it right, well then I have to face their wrath.

 

I appreciate your efforts to keep this going and to enforce logs.

 

I enjoyed doing this one, even though looking back at my log, one of my arms was off for my phoon.

 

(Ten years later, it appears from my log on the WV webcam that my phoon technique still needs refining. I didn't get it right in New Jersey, either. Sigh. I have several webcams in mind for my summer road trip, I'll try to get my backhand game squared away by then.)

Link to comment
On 2/28/2023 at 3:42 AM, Pork King said:

As the owner of a listing of a currently operating webcam cache, if given the chance to do another, I would NOT.

 

They are a pain to keep the logs maintained.  I've seen several, like the one mentioned above, that have devolved into selfies and random pictures taken at GZ when the camera is down that eventually get the webcam archived, so I take great pains to ensure the legitimacy of the logs of mine so it doesn't meet this same fate.  I require a specific pose on the camera (or another means if ID worked out with me beforehand in cases of physical limitations) to ensure that the person is a geocacher, and not some rando just wanting to see themselves on camera (it's a popular webcam on a college campus).  I do tend to get a lot of cachers (even in at least one instance a GS Lackey) that do not do the pose.  I always send a note as soon as I see the log telling them the log does not meet the requirements and will be deleted.  A few times i can tell the log is obviously fake, but most of the time, it does look like it may be a cacher too embarrassed or lazy to pose, but for consistency, i require the pose.  What happens next, is almost every single time, the disgruntled cacher will dig through the hundreds of pictures on the page, saying "what about this one you didnt enforce?  what about THIS one??"  Like, that happens with suprising regularity.  They then threaten to escalate to GS, and so far, GS has sided with me every time.

 

The point I was making is, because I chose to enforce the logging requirements, now I must continue to strictly enforce the logging requirements or it will just cause a bigger headache for me.  I've threatened to archive it several times, but the local community always urges me to keep it going.  It's the last one for hundreds of miles, so it's sort of a geocaching draw to the area.  Many cachers traveling to large events take hours' long detours just to log it, and if they dont do it right, well then I have to face their wrath.

 

I can absolutely see GS's reluctance to reinstate them, even on a limited basis.

I can echo everything that has been said here - even down to the pose issue - From very early on I required cachers to put their arms in the air on both my webcams - at one point I was advised by HQ that this was an ALR - I argued with them and put a very long email to them explaining the rationale behind this requirement - I didn't hear anything for a while but then noted they had changed the guidelines to include 'The CO may require you to do a specific pose' - essentially this going back on their original ALR statement. Whether this was due to my discussion with them or following several cacher owners saying the same thing, However I do not delete if the pose hasn't been done - generally it is obvious if they are cachers (with my webcam - I won't say thats the case with all) but it does make it easier if they have their arms in the air 

  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Deepdiggingmole said:

I can echo everything that has been said here - even down to the pose issue - From very early on I required cachers to put their arms in the air on both my webcams - at one point I was advised by HQ that this was an ALR - I argued with them and put a very long email to them explaining the rationale behind this requirement - I didn't hear anything for a while but then noted they had changed the guidelines to include 'The CO may require you to do a specific pose' - essentially this going back on their original ALR statement. Whether this was due to my discussion with them or following several cacher owners saying the same thing, However I do not delete if the pose hasn't been done - generally it is obvious if they are cachers (with my webcam - I won't say thats the case with all) but it does make it easier if they have their arms in the air 

I have done Webcam photos where I was so small, it would be difficult to see if my arms were in the air. Besides, how can I take a photograph with my hands in the air. I'm struggling with this enough already.

Edited by Goldenwattle
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...
×
×
  • Create New...