Locationless chaches - Taking pics!

1.1k · January 1, 2003

I have been doing a lot of thinking about locationless caches and some of the requirements that the creaters of these caches require. Maybe some have been discussed already and if they have been, then I missed them, but here are some of my opinions...

One thing I would like to see changed is the requirement for a photo to be taken of the location found in the locationless cache (usually the require a photo of the location with the GPS or a team member). I am sure that many people do not have a digitial camera (or even a scanner). Although I have logged a few locationless caches and have taken pictures, I have found several more that would qualify, but because I do not have a digital camera and do not take my video camera with me always on cache hunts, I simply can not log them. When taking pics, I use my 10 year old video camera to take pictures and then transfer them to my PC using the TV Tuner on my video card of the computer. I really prefer not to take my video camera with me, as it just weighs down my backpack when caching.

So I guess my point is that technically I did visit the location, found out information about it, recorded the coordinates on my GPS...shouldn't that be enough to log my find on the web site? I think a picture should be optional and not mandatory in order to log my find. After all, when finding Traditional caches, all you have to do is visit the location and find the container and that is it.

If someone logs a find and says that it is awesome and a must see, then I would rather go and find it for myself and be amazed than have it spoiled by seeing a picture of it before hand.

Also some people might say that they might try to forge a locationless cache find, but it is just as easy to forge any sort of cache find. If someone is that desperate just to report a find that they didn't visit, so be it.

Another item I would like see changed:

--Let people log a duplicate find (most state that they do not allow this right now...but there are some that let more than one people find the same location)...why not allow more than one people to log it, as they did visit it...more than one people may log a traditional cache and I don't see much difference in that. Afterall, in the guidelines for locationless caches, it does say that the cache topic/locations should be so interesting and unique that it would want someone to go out of their way to find the item of the locationless cache. For example I was going to go visit a location from a locationless cache one day that I knew about, only to find that someone had logged that very location the day before I was going to visit it.

Anyways, those are just some of my current thoughts and they might change when I read what others have to say, but I am curious to know how others feel...sorry for the long post.

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

January 1, 2003

I think there are now rules for Locationless caches that require a picture and coordinates to be posted by the finder. I agree with you that not all locationless caches should have to require the pictures, etc. There are still people on the site that would love to find a locationless cache, but don't have a digital camera or scanner, or maybe aren't experienced in using them to get pictures uploaded here.

Of course you can now get a digital camera for under $50, so almost anyone can get one now (as long as their computer has the right connection.)

So many people on this site don't like the locationless caches that I doubt we'll see these rules change--that and the fact that many are also seriously bothered by the chance of somebody cheating and creating false logs for their caches.

[Yes, I've seen this discussed before. I imagine someone will have links to previous topics by the time I get on here tomorrow.]

38.2k · January 2, 2003

If you don't have access to a digitial camera or scanner, then don't do locationless caches. I don't have scuba gear, so I don't do scuba caches and I don't have a boat, so I don't do island caches.

"It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues" - Abraham Lincoln

January 2, 2003

There are a million photos available on the net. If you don't have the equipment or gumption to go find the actual nonlocation then just sit at home on your computer and scan through webshots, yahoo photos or whatever else you can find and post it as a find. Post any coordinates you want nobody will ever check.As it was pointed out in another post, "It's all about the numbers". Instead of looking for locationless caches, just find someone with 400-500 finds and go to there log list. Usually pretty interesting reading. I just read one guys page that showed he'd found caches in NE., Ca., VA. and New South Wales all in the same day. Man, now that's caching.

The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

January 2, 2003

I don't have a digital camera or scanner because our antique computer isn't equipped to accept one, but this hasn't stopped me from doing a few locationless caches. I'm on the fence about the picture issue. The need for photographic evidence of your visit to a locationless is understandable - its comparable to signing the logbook or trading at a physical cache. I can also understand the requirement of some locationless caches that you & your GPS be in the photo as further evidence that you really visited the location.

My inconveniences begin here: I have to shoot a whole roll of 35mm film and get it processed onto a CD to be able to get pics up online. By the time I've done this process a few times I could have bought one or two cheap digital cameras. Additionally, I end up with a pricy group of photos that I can't use for their artistic merit because there's somebody with a bad hair day and a GPS standing in all the pics. I prefer just to take a nice, postcardy type photo that still might look nice in an album.

OK that's starting to sound like a rant but I'm just really looking forward to a change in this current situation. I was more excited about getting a dig. camer until my folks got one and its software disabled their computer - its still in the shop over a week now.

______________________________________________________________________

Remember that happiness is a way of travel, not a destination. - Roy M. Goodman

January 2, 2003

It's really up to the cache owner to make the cache rules and approve the find. Try asking them beforehand if you can log it without a photo.

I personally don't care what everyone else does. If someone wants to pump up their ego with a hundred fake finds, let them, it's no skin off of my behind.

All of my finds are legit, I know it and it's my concience keeping me honest. I want a true record of what I accomplished.

Mickey

Max Entropy

More than just a name, a lifestyle.

January 2, 2003

Ditto the above

I'm a man and I can change if I have to,I guess.

1.1k · January 3, 2003

I agree with the last few posts too, if someone wants to artificially up their ratings, let them, they are only lying to themselves (they have to be pretty desperate to log a fake find...and have way too much time on their hands). Plus it seems that it would be even easier to post a fake log on a traditional cache, than it is on a locationless cache. Afterall, how many cache owners actually compare the physical log to the online log.

Thanks for the suggestion about e-mailing the cache owner if they will acept a log without a pic.

Ok, who rated this post a 1? Probably someone who likes to post fake finds. I think I had some very valid points about photos should not be required (optional) and that duplicate finds should be allowed. Afterall, why would I visit a location if I am not allowed to log it, unless it is something really worthwhile that would interest me...odds are it's not.

I guess I look at it is one of the purposes of geocaching is to get people out to visit there places, but with pics required, they can just look at the pics and hence not be as inclined to visit it, and if you are not allowed to log it again, why visit it too? So in a way, both restrictions are hindering more cachers to get out and visit these locationlesses.

For many people, part of geocaching is a personal numbers game to see how many caches they can find and log...otherwise why would many of us do 4 or 5 a day instead of just enjoying the area around 1 cache?

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

20.7k · January 3, 2003

I believe that pics should be required. The pic requirement does serve to minimize (while completely do away with) cheating.

As for cheating not being a concern, I believe that this is incorrect. Since individual locations can only be logged once for locationless caches, a person who fraudulently logs a find enjoins all others from appropriately logging the location.

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

20.7k · January 3, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by res2100:...
I guess I look at it is one of the purposes of geocaching is to get people out to visit there places, but with pics required, they can just look at the pics and hence not be as inclined to visit it, and if you are not allowed to log it again, why visit it too? So in a way, both restrictions are hindering more cachers to get out and visit these locationlesses...

I disagree that the 'one log' requirement hinders cachers from visiting the site. It would hinder one who's sole interest is to boost his/her find count. It would not hinder one who has an interest in the object at issue. For instance, if I was interested in carillons, it would interest me that, as logged on the appropriate cache page, Nashville is home to three of these. I could then visit the three locations and marvel at the magnificent instruments.

If a cacher believes that the location is one that should be viewed by all, all he/she needs to do is create a virtual cache (or hide a box and make it a 'regular' cache).

Whenever I feel blue, I start breathing again.

1.1k · January 3, 2003

But that was my 2nd point that we should allow individual locations to be logged more than once...why not? As I said, if I decide to visit a location that has already been logged...I in essance did find it and hence should be allowed to log it. As a result then, if someone does log a fake find, their fake find would just be insignificant.

As for your other comment, sure if I had an interest in a topic, I would visit it (logging or not)...but in reality people just want to log it as a find also...otherwise why bother logging it at all or why even keep track of stats.

Couple other points, in the past couple days I have found a couple of locationless caches (the Water Towers and the new LAME Stone Wall caches), but since I did not have a camera, I could not take a pic of it and hence log it. I would really like to log it and I did find it and I have the coordindates...but alas the CURRENT rules say I can't without a pic.

In all honestly I would just like to have these locationless (most (not all) are pretty lame! and not coffee table book material as they should be) and virtuals done away with and not included on the site or in the stats, but currently they are.

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

1.6k · January 3, 2003

Locationless caches should be separate game. Taking pictures of the local dairy queen is not what this is supposed to be about. Whether or not someone else has taken one before you is a minor issue. The point of this game (as I see it) is to go find someplace and the something that some other user has taken the time and trouble to hide, not just snap a pic of the nearest skate park. Its about challenging yourself to find something and about challenging yourself to hide caches in creative manners that make for the enjoyment of others.

The way I could see this working is if Geocaching were to start lending our services to other groups to find all the * parks in the country and then list the names and coordinates so that the data could be given to the other group. Otherwise yawn.

By appointment to the Court of HRM Queen Mikki I.

1.4k · January 3, 2003

The point of photos for locationless caches is verification. For most physical caches, the logbook is the verification. Most virtuals require some sort of "password." If there is some other way to "verify" the cacher found the locationless cache, it should be acceptable. The problem is, what would the verification be, if not a photo?

2.7k · January 3, 2003

I agree with Bigredmed...locationless caches really should be moved to another count category like benchmarks.

Geocaching to me is getting out and going to the coords posted to find something wether it be a box or some interesting item that you need to answer a question about.

January 4, 2003

Digital cameras are dirt cheap now. I got one for $30 at walmart. I gave it to my daughter for geocaching.

1.1k · January 5, 2003

$30 for a CHEAP digital camera...Well I guess you get what you pay for. I actually do have a cheap one and it is not compatible with Windows 2000 or Windows XP...unfortunately those are the only 2 operating systems I have on my 2 PCs. The quality is also CHEAP and half the time you can't make out what is in the background. Hence I use my video camera to take pics, but like I said, I just don't feel like lugging around a video camera everywhere.

As for the topic of verification and using pics...what about just finding out posting the coordinates, shouldn't that be good enough? I wouldn't haven't gotten the coordinates unless I actually visited the location. As for traditional caches where the log book is the verification...a lot of micros do not have logs, some people do not have the opportunity to write in the log due to high traffic in the area, and I bet that noone (ok maybe 1%) of cache hiders actually compare the log book to the online log.

I feel that if someone has that much time on their hands and wants to go to the trouble fo logging a fake find, let them...they are just fooling themselves and not hurting anyone else.

I just want the opportunity to log a find for a location that I actually DID find.

http://ca.geocities.com/rsab2100/pond.html

January 5, 2003

..

[This message was edited by MaxEntropy on January 05, 2003 at 09:00 PM.]

January 5, 2003

I've been having a lot of fun doing the locationless caches. I'll admit that the first few were like shooting fish in a barrel. But once I ran out of the easy ones, it became more of a search. I gave my kid a copy of Buxley's list and it gives them something to do in the car. i just have to put up with occasional cries of "DAD, DAD, DAD, A Yellow Jeep!" or "DAD, DAD, DAD, a totem pole, DAD!"

Anything that keeps them busy in the car is OK with me.

Mickey

Max Entropy

More than just a name, a lifestyle.

January 6, 2003

Why the heck do people talk so up-tight, close-minded, and opinionated on these forums?

It's truly sad.

Virtuals are just another ''flavor'' of geocaching. Properly set up and executed, they

bring you to really cool places that you would never know about otherwise. So you don't own

a digital camera---most film processors will burn your film pictures onto a CD for you.

Many locationless caches are cool simply because it OPENS your eyes to the world around you a bit more.

Log a Lion---Now everywhere you go, you notice cool lion sculptures.

How Vane is It?---Now you start noticing unusual windvanes all over town.

Torpedos Away---You locate a very interesting memorial to those who served aboard subs and are now on ''eternal patrol''.

Just have fun with it. Life is too short to bicker on what is legitimate ''fun'' and what is not.

One man's junk is another man's treasure.

If you don't have something contructive to say...

Ok. That's enough rant...

Just everybody shut up and go find a cache of your liking

2.6k · January 6, 2003

$30 cheap camera would work fine for locationless and since the photo is just for verification, you just need to recognize the object, and the traditional gps in the photo.

But with locationless, I'm also in the camp that says you would allow more than one find at each locationless. I've actually state that you can find my locationless more than once on my pages but the admins have asked me to remove those parts before approval.

I think it goes against the spirit of the game not to give people find credit for visiting a place more than once. But I digress....

Pictures are needed.

And I do check my micros logs against the online logs.

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

January 6, 2003

What is the point of cheating if there is no prize to win???

2.6k · January 6, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by IGPoobah:
What is the point of cheating if there is no prize to win???

We're you here for this thread?

http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=4440945135&p=1

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

January 6, 2003

Not unless it was less than 2 days ago I just recieved my Etrex on Saturday. So yeah, I'm new. I thought maybe I had missed the part about a 'winner' or something. Started to get confused as to whether this was just fun or an actual GAME, where there is some sort of winner or prize or something. So I see that anyone who fakes finds must be some sort of world-class loser or is trying to bump numbers in order to compensate for a lack of something else. If you're gonna cheat, cheat at something that has some kind of use, like Poker or even bingo. And I though I had no life.

1.4k · January 7, 2003

Over the past few days I've taken good look at locationless caches and have made a few observations:

DIFFICULTY RATINGS:

The Locationless caches that I looked at had difficulty ratings between 1 to 5 stars. How could a locationless cache that requires a picture of a happy face on the side of a barn rate a difficulty of 3.5? Standing on a country road and pushing your finger on a button can't be THAT hard. One cache had a difficulty of 5 -- although this HOT DOG might require some investigative effort to locate, I don't think it rates up there with the more difficult and aptly rated WATCHER'S POINT OF VIEW.

Fortunately, only a couple that I saw rated Terrain more than 1 star.

My suggestion: Difficulty ratings should to be ignored for the most part -- what's easy in one location could be impossible in another. Reading the description is a better way of determining how much effort is necessary in your part of the world.

----------

REQUIREMENTS:

Why do the owners of locationless caches post requirements when a great deal of the time, it appears that they ignore their own conditions? I did however, see one cache owner who posted a message about people submitting for a find without fully meeting the requirements for the Remote AV8R cache. It sums it up pretty good.

My suggestion: Cache qualifications are too lax. Owners need to disqualify those who don't meet the criteria.

----------

HONESTY AND FAIR PLAY:

I've seen a few caches where the same cacher has logged more than one find. One cacher had logged the find four times with four different photo locations! In most cases this wouldn't matter much but in the case of most locationless caches, it may be denying some else to log a cache. The rules state clearly "one find per cacher, each find can be logged only once". There are many things that there are only a limited number of in any area, i.e., lighthouses.

My suggestion: There needs to be a bit more honesty required on the part of the cacher. Read the requirements. Carefully. And don't log a find if you haven't completed all the requirements of the owner. If you don't agree with the owners requirements then don't play the cache.

Bear in mind also that the cache owner can be easily overwhelmed by incomplete logs -- having to inform cachers that their log is denied takes considerable time and can be monotonous if every application is a waste of effort. If it becomes too consuming to maintain the cache the owner might archive the cache, or worse yet, stop posting them altogether.

----------

There have been recent comments in other discussions that some of the reviewers are expressing an aversion towards virtual and locationless caches. Take a look at it from their perspective; it's a bit of a grey area and for the time being it's going to be difficult for them to make decisions that are gong to make everyone happy. It's going to take time to produce a set of guidelines that satisfy each element of locationless caching but it will come (and perhaps locationless caches could be logged separately from physical caches). Be careful not to suggest locationless caches asking for the absurd -- it would be silly to populate the playing field with caches that are trying to locate every city that has the letter 'S' in it's name. Use some common sense when designing a virtual cache. It'll help the reviewers arduous task to be a lot easier.

I also had a very positive observation... there's getting to be quite a photographic resource of interesting and specific (if not somewhat, oddball) items -- where else can you find pictures of Round Barns?

Overall, I'm still convinced that locationless caches are fun and worthwhile to do. In fact, I think the possiblities for creating interesting, educational, and entertaining hunts is phenomenal. Incorporating the usefulness of the web as an investigative tool into a virtual has the potential of be very stimulating.

Give Locationless caches a chance to evolve -- we're just scratching the surface of possiblities.

-----

[This message was edited by Jomarac5 on January 07, 2003 at 12:20 PM.]

Locationless chaches - Taking pics!

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation