Improvement proposal: digital logging of geocaches instead of on paper

[FDor]

On 2/10/2024 at 7:56 PM, Keystone said:

The log photos that you posted looked dry, neat and easily verifiable by a cache owner.  If you found one that was unsignable, wet and falling apart, you can log "Owner Attention Requested."

 

Here is a photo of the one cache I found and logged yesterday. Need I say more?

[+lee737]

1 minute ago, FDor said:

 

Here is a photo of the one cache I found and logged yesterday. Need I say more?

 

 

OK - but now, under a proposed codeword system - you'll need to try and decipher the word, chosen and handwritten, at times by a child, on non-waterproof paper, in water soluble pen.... and if you don't get the code you cannot log the cache, as the owner dropped a few caches and lost interest.

 

[+arisoft]

On 2/13/2024 at 1:22 PM, FDor said:

Need I say more?

 

Yes you do. Instead of posting OAR, your Found it log states "Found it,TftC!". That means that everything is fine and you are happy with the experience. I guess it's not what you thought.

Edited February 20 by arisoft

[+Crow-T-Robot]

On 2/11/2024 at 4:54 PM, MartyBartfast said:

One that could see its whole core product eroded to the point where it's nolonger viable.
 

• How much would a one time token cost? I'm guessing somewhere around £20, so how many cachers would be prepared to pay that for each hide.
• How many caches are big enough to take one of the tokens? All the nanos would have to go (no bad thing some would say), would they fit in a 35mm film pot? maybe, maybe not. But a significant proportion of caches would nolonger be viable.
• How often would they be stolen because they look kinda cool, or the finder has a beef with the CO, or the finder just thinks it's another swap.
• Caches go missing, at the moment that's the cost of the container and a bit of paper, but with a token it's much more expensive to lose a cache.
• How weather proof are they? I guess they could be made 100% waterproof so this should't be too much of a problem.
• How long do the batteries last? All the tokens I've used over the years are sealed units so when the battery goes the whole thing has to be replaced, so it's an ongoing cost for the CO, if they have replaceable batteries then they become susceptible to water ingress and have a reduced lifetime due to weather.
  
  IMO these factors would massively reduce the number off caches out there if tokens were required, and  would fall below the critical mass required to bring in the number of players required to keep Groundspeak in profit, so I don't see Groundspeak being so keen on the idea of tokens in caches.
  
  If tokens were not required but were optional then I can't see many cachers taking them up for the same reasons, somewhat  like Chirps were a bit of a novelty but never really took off. At least with a Chirp they could be hidden in order to discourage theft and they didn't have to be in the cache.
  
   

All good points.

 

One thing that I can't quite grasp (and it may just be because I don't use or understand the technology at play here) but how would the logging page be able to verify the codeword that token generates is legitimate? If Groundspeak decided to use codewords/numbers for logging purposes, I assume that code would be generated at the time of the cache page creation and tied forever with that geocache, the same way the GC# is. With an offline token, that randomizes the codes, how would any online database be able to verify the code? This token would be spitting out random codes every time a button is pressed. I'm not sure how, when you typed one of those codes into a logging page field, that GC's database would be able to reach back and verify that, yes, this is the code that was generated when this cache was found. 

[+niraD]

14 minutes ago, Crow-T-Robot said:

One thing that I can't quite grasp (and it may just be because I don't use or understand the technology at play here) but how would the logging page be able to verify the codeword that token generates is legitimate? If Groundspeak decided to use codewords/numbers for logging purposes, I assume that code would be generated at the time of the cache page creation and tied forever with that geocache, the same way the GC# is. With an offline token, that randomizes the codes, how would any online database be able to verify the code? This token would be spitting out random codes every time a button is pressed. I'm not sure how, when you typed one of those codes into a logging page field, that GC's database would be able to reach back and verify that, yes, this is the code that was generated when this cache was found. 

I used to use an electronic token to access my employer's computer systems remotely. (Today, such things are done with smartphone apps, but this was a while ago.) The electronic token would spit out a number every minute. Whatever hash generated the number was known to the authentication system, so it could tell whether the code entered really came from the electronic token.

 

The trick is remembering all the numbers that would have been generated by the electronic token for the last few weeks, to give finders time to log the cache online. There are about 10k minutes in a week, so if the electronic token generates a different number every minute, then nearly every possible 4-digit code would have appeared at some point during the past week. So the code would have to be longer than 4 digits to have any value. And there are a lot of people (myself included) who often take more than a week to post online logs.

[+arisoft]

28 minutes ago, Crow-T-Robot said:

how would any online database be able to verify the code?

 

It is using an algorithm that can separate valid codes from not valid codes. Every token generates different series of codes that the algorithm can verify. The algorithm can tell when the codeword was displayed on the token.

[+arisoft]

15 minutes ago, niraD said:

And there are a lot of people (myself included) who often take more than a week to post online logs.

 

No problem, because the code lets you post your log only the date you found the cache, regardless when you finally decide to post it.

There is no time-out for the code, because it is always valid only the date you saw it. Let's call this an additional security feature of the token.

[+thebruce0]

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

No problem, because the code lets you post your log only the date you found the cache, regardless when you finally decide to post it.

There is no time-out for the code, because it is always valid only the date you saw it. Let's call this an additional security feature of the token.

Yeah.... no.

Not so much a security feature as a sufficiently annoying requirement that would become a game-killer.

Won't happen.

[+JL_HSTRE]

2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Yeah.... no.

Not so much a security feature as a sufficiently annoying requirement that would become a game-killer.

Won't happen.

 

If you can back-log the date that wouldn't be too bad.

 

However, I have a feeling most of the people who log weeks or months later don't keep close track of their exact find date.

[FDor]

On 2/12/2024 at 9:20 AM, lee737 said:

Welcome. The caches you are seeing are a small part of the game.... avoid them when you can - head out into the bush/forest/desert - whereever the ammo tins reside -

 

That is indeed a beautiful cache! Thanks for your suggestion to look for the larger caches instead of the small ones.

 

I admit, I have only scored 50 caches but they were all small or very small. I am now on holiday on Madeira (Portuguese island of 740 km2 in the Atlantic Ocean) and I just checked: of the 1375 caches on Madeira, 82 are regular and 4 are large, so that is only 6%.

[+barefootjeff]

13 hours ago, FDor said:

Here is a photo of the one cache I found and logged yesterday. Need I say more?

 

On Monday I did 11 kayaking caches along a tidal creek. All but one were micros (3D-printed containers with Rite-in-the-rain logs), the other similar but just big enough to make it a Small. I was lucky that the tide was fairly high at the time I was there and I was able to reach most of them while seated in the kayak, but two required getting out, climbing onto rocks or a thick tree branch, and extracting the log from the hanging container at, for me, was pretty much full stretch. I had my pen in the small waist-band bag I use when kayaking and it was fairly easy to just pull that out with one hand while holding the log and container lid in the other, but on one (a challenge cache) I wanted to take a photo of my signature in the log as well. That was quite a juggling act and in the process I dropped my pen in the water (thankfully it floated and still worked afterwards).

 

So I'm trying to imagine how that would work if each cache had a code word or number as well. That would have required taking a photo at each cache and I'm not sure I could have managed that without dropping my phone in the water at some point. Some caches are really best kept low-tech, particularly as replacing a drowned pen is a lot easier and cheaper than replacing a drowned phone.

Edited February 14 by barefootjeff

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

However, I have a feeling most of the people who log weeks or months later don't keep close track of their exact find date.

I don't keep track of my exact find date. But my field notes drafts do keep track of my exact find date.

[+CAVinoGal]

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

12 hours ago, arisoft said:

No problem, because the code lets you post your log only the date you found the cache, regardless when you finally decide to post it.

There is no time-out for the code, because it is always valid only the date you saw it. Let's call this an additional security feature of the token.

Yeah.... no.

Not so much a security feature as a sufficiently annoying requirement that would become a game-killer.

Won't happen.

 

OK, all this talk of codes and tokens just screams ALR! ALR! to me so I don't see it happening either.  And I don't see a need for it.  I've only been geocaching since 2017, but the simplicity of finding a cache, signing the physcial log (or sending answers for ECs and Virtuals) then logging a "Found it!" online and sharing the story of the find seems to work just fine.  Yes, there are "cheaters", and unmaintained caches, but that has always been part of the game.  Adding more to being able to log a find doesn't seem (to me) to be the way to improve the game.

[+barefootjeff]

49 minutes ago, CAVinoGal said:

Yes, there are "cheaters", and unmaintained caches, but that has always been part of the game.  Adding more to being able to log a find doesn't seem (to me) to be the way to improve the game.

 

Exactly. No matter what "innovations" they might come up with, they'll never be able to guarantee that every cache is a good experience for every searcher. There'll always be damaged caches, inactive or inattentive COs, throw-downers and armchair loggers, and as long as they don't become the dominant experience, I think the best approach is still being vigilent in logging OARs and RARs on those problem caches encountered. A lot of the suggestions that keep coming up in the forums, such as codewords, geofencing, mandatory annual (or even quarterly) owner visits with OM logs or mandatory archival after five years or whatever, risk killing the goose that laid the golden egg by wiping out all the really amazing experiences and leaving just a sea of urban micros that will still get soggy and tattered logs every time it rains.

 

In a recent podcast about Missing DNFs, they said their study revealed that as many as one in five caches were missing or unfindable. That's sounds pretty horrible until you turn it around and see it's saying that at least 80% of caches were fine. To me, that sounds pretty good. If people were proactive in logging OARs and RARs on those 20% of problem caches, that percentage would probably be a lot lower.

Edited February 14 by barefootjeff

[+Goldenwattle]

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

mandatory archival after five years or whatever, risk killing the goose that laid the golden egg by wiping out all the really amazing experiences and leaving just a sea of urban micros that will still get soggy and tattered logs every time it rains.

And the countryside littered with abandoned archived caches.

 

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

mandatory annual (or even quarterly) owner visits

If I had to do an OM that often I'm archiving many of my caches. I am making that comment and I DO regularly check my caches. To see how often I checked; 142 OM against 3 NM logs on my caches. And two of those NM were on a problematic cache, now archived. I put it at the base of a tree. The tree was removed. I found the cache and moved it to another tree. It was cut down. Moved it to another tree. Same thing happened...again. Moved it under a small bush. Someone dumped a load of rubbish on top of the bush and my cache. Archived!!! Was over this cache ...

 

2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

In a recent podcast about Missing DNFs, they said their study revealed that as many as one in five caches were missing or unfindable. That's sounds pretty horrible until you turn it around and see it's saying that at least 80% of caches were fine. To me, that sounds pretty good. If people were proactive in logging OARs and RARs on those 20% of problem caches, that percentage would probably be a lot lower.

[+Goldenwattle]

16 hours ago, FDor said:

 

Here is a photo of the one cache I found and logged yesterday. Need I say more?

You needed to mention the state of the log, and possible make an Owner Attention log. As your log stands now, the log seems okay to those reading that. How will the CO know the log needs attention if people don't mention this in their log? You are new to the game, so understandable you didn't know this, but next time you will know to do this.

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

So I'm trying to imagine how that would work if each cache had a code word or number as well. That would have required taking a photo at each cache and I'm not sure I could have managed that without dropping my phone in the water at some point. Some caches are really best kept low-tech, particularly as replacing a drowned pen is a lot easier and cheaper than replacing a drowned phone.

 

You could use a notebook. Writing down the code in your water resistant notebook is similar process than signing the logbook. Instead of writing date and your nickname you write date and the token code. You are not supposed to drown the physical logbook either.

 

 

6 hours ago, CAVinoGal said:

OK, all this talk of codes and tokens just screams ALR! ALR! to me so I don't see it happening either.  And I don't see a need for it.

 

Token cache works similar way as virtuals or earth caches where you are supposed to take notes and later use this as a proof. It is true that you don't need them but some cache owners may consider them more practical than logbooks and pay for this service.

[+Goldenwattle]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

You could use a notebook. Writing down the code

And write the wrong numbers. Then you can't log it.

 

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

Token cache works similar way as virtuals or earth caches where you are supposed to take notes and later use this as a proof.

No comparison to writing down the wrong number.

[+Sottiwotti]

A lot of newbies already struggle with: Find the cache --> sign the logbook --> place the cache back the way you found it. If a new step would be introduced (a code), I think that would be a recipe for more chaos.

[+thebruce0]

17 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

If you can back-log the date that wouldn't be too bad.

 

However, I have a feeling most of the people who log weeks or months later don't keep close track of their exact find date.

 

Phones or GPSrs, everyone I know who doesn't log right away has something - a draft or a flag on the device - that they set when they find it. Offline. Chance they'll log them all when they get home? 50/50 at best. I regularly hold drafts for a few days these days unless I feel the urge to post them or have an imminent immediate reason to (like ftf logs). I don't know anyone who tries to mentally "remember" which cache they found, let alone that and forget the date they found it.

 

 

Side note: I feel like sometimes there's a bit of cross-talk about the term 'date you found it'. Sometimes I see questions about whether you should 'log the cache the date you found it'. Some people interpret that as referring to the value of the date field on the log, and some interpret it as when you physically post the find log to the listing.  I think the vast majority of cachers make sure the Date of the Found It is accurate the date it was found, even if they post the log on a different date. But I think there are some who do have a personal ethic of posting their Finds on the same date they actually found the cache (thus the Date Found value is implied accurate). But there is no rule/guideline saying that the Found It log must be posted on the same date as the log was signed nor the same date in the Date Found value; but it is good practice to date the Found It for the date it was actually signed, regardless of when you post the log to the listing.

[+Goldenwattle]

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Phones or GPSrs, everyone I know who doesn't log right away has something - a draft or a flag on the device - that they set when they find it. Offline. Chance they'll log them all when they get home? 50/50 at best. I regularly hold drafts for a few days these days unless I feel the urge to post them or have an imminent immediate reason to (like ftf logs). I don't know anyone who tries to mentally "remember" which cache they found, let alone that and forget the date they found it.

I write notes in the field on paper. Then log when I get back. A few times I haven't had internet for several days, so I will type my logs into a word document while the cache is still fresh in my mind. Also put any photographs through Photoshop to prepare them. Then when days later I get sufficient internet, logging is simply copy and paste. Quick.

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Side note: I feel like sometimes there's a bit of cross-talk about the term 'date you found it'.

I log for the day I found the cache.

[+thebruce0]

14 hours ago, Goldenwattle said:

On 2/14/2024 at 9:38 AM, thebruce0 said:

Side note: I feel like sometimes there's a bit of cross-talk about the term 'date you found it'.

I log for the day I found the cache.

 

Yes, this is the correct practice, even if you log the cache [post the log] many days later. That's where occasionally there's confusion  - 'log date' sometimes is used to refer to the date on the log, and the date the log is saved to the listing.

Date on the online log ~ should be date the cache was found

Date the online log is saved to the listing ~ not required to be done on the same date it was found.

[FDor]

On 2/14/2024 at 4:16 AM, Goldenwattle said:

You needed to mention the state of the log, and possible make an Owner Attention log. As your log stands now, the log seems okay to those reading that. How will the CO know the log needs attention if people don't mention this in their log? You are new to the game, so understandable you didn't know this, but next time you will know to do this.

 

On 2/13/2024 at 11:29 AM, arisoft said:

Yes you do. Instead of posting OAR, you Found it log states "Found it,TftC!". That means that everything is fine and you are happy with the experience. I guess it's not what you thought.

 

I followed your suggestions and added the "NM" to my log. By the way, none of the five geocachers after me have a "NM" listed, but perhaps the logbook has already been replaced in the meantime?

[+thebruce0]

Just now, FDor said:

I followed your suggestions and added the "NM" to my log. By the way, none of the five geocachers after me have a "NM" listed, but perhaps the logbook has already been replaced in the meantime?

We can't control what other geocachers do. Not everyone 'likes' to post NM/OAR. They are good to post if you feel the owner should tend to the cache. It's more annoying when no one posts one on a cache that clearly needs one, leading to a sub-par geocache find.  So, yep, good that you added the maintenance log if you deemed it necessary.

[+The_Jumping_Pig]

21 hours ago, FDor said:

 

 

I followed your suggestions and added the "NM" to my log. By the way, none of the five geocachers after me have a "NM" listed, but perhaps the logbook has already been replaced in the meantime?

I'll bet you it hasn't, unfortunately.

The log you looked at wasn't in terrible conditition -- could've been better, could've been worse. It still seemed to be relatively easy to sign.

When to and when to not post a NM/OAR is a very debated topic. Some don't log it for destroyed containers, and some log it when they just can't find the cache. I think it's good to be somewhere in the middle. If I find a cache whose log isn't in the best condition, but it's not a low-quality hide that honestly should go, I'll probably just include it in my log (adding log wet or smth) instead of posting an NM. When I had 40 finds, I got messaged by a CO who was annoyed that I put a NM on their cache despite it not being watertight and soaked. There's always going to be those people who don't want any red marks on their hides, but you have to do it sometimes.

[+barefootjeff]

5 hours ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

When I had 40 finds, I got messaged by a CO who was annoyed that I put a NM on their cache despite it not being watertight and soaked. There's always going to be those people who don't want any red marks on their hides, but you have to do it sometimes.

 

If someone doesn't want any red marks on their hides, they should provide good quality fit-for-purpose caches and and carry out whatever maintenance is needed to keep them that way. Anyone who bites the head off a finder, especially a newbie, for trying to be helpful and give them a heads-up about a problem, really shouldn't be a CO.

 

5 hours ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

If I find a cache whose log isn't in the best condition, but it's not a low-quality hide that honestly should go, I'll probably just include it in my log (adding log wet or smth) instead of posting an NM.

 

If it's one of my caches, I'd much prefer an NM/OAR about any problem no matter how minor. I got caught out badly on one of my hides a few years back when someone vaguely mentioned an issue near the end of their long log and I didn't twig to it at the time. It was only when a friend mentioned it a month later that I realised there was a problem so immediately dashed out there to fix it. If they'd logged an NM, it would have been much harder for me to miss. I want to be made aware of any problems with my caches and the red flag the NM/OAR puts up is the best way to ensure I won't overlook it or forget if I become distracted.

 

An NM/OAR isn't a request for a cache to be archived and I think it's a shame that it's being turned into that.