If The Coin -is- The Cache?

[+az_pistolero]

I'm considering a location for a cache that would be paperless. Instead, the visitor would "grab" the number from the permanently affixed TB # . Of course, it'd have to be put back into the cache again. Logs on the cache site are welcome, but allowed only if the TB is also grabbed.

 

Has this been tried?

 

The only downside I can see is if GC might get hung up in the situation that someone "grabs" the tag # and doesn't replace it -- is someone else permitted to grab the TB #?

 

I'm leaning against using a coin, since that might "leak."

[+The Leprechauns]

I don't think this would work within the context of the current guidelines and terms of use. Between the cache listing guidelines' prohibition of codeword caches and the site's policy regarding virtual travel bug logs, I think your idea is an uphill battle. Caches need logbooks of some type. The issue is whether the travel bug log is sufficient as a cache log.

[+RockyRaab]

I would think that the only permissible use of such an item would be as one leg of a multicache. Have the next leg's location imprinted on a dog tag and then permanently affix the tag to a non-living support.

 

But code caches are verboten.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Combine it with Waymarking. Use the tb as the confirmation for proof of visit for a waymark.

[+Prime Suspect]

From the Guidelines:

 

A container with just an object or codeword for verification, and no logbook, generally, does not qualify as a traditional cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

Like PrimeSuspect has noted. This is a variation of a code word micro. It's not approvable on this site. If you introduce a log book you should be able to get it approved. There isn't a restriction on code words as a means of verification of a find (though I'm aware it's been an issue) when there is also a log.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+headybrew]

Try it at "that other site". Code word functionality is welcomed, and even integrated right into the websites functionality.

Edited May 3, 2006 by headybrew

[+The Leprechauns]

Maybe a codeword cache would garner more than the average of about two finds for every Arizona cache listed over there. Who knows.

 

Or, the OP could follow RK's suggestion on how to make the cache guidelines-compliant, list it here, and enjoy a steady stream of "found it!" logs.

[+headybrew]

Maybe a codeword cache would garner more than the average of about two finds for every Arizona cache listed over there. Who knows.

 

Or, the OP could follow RK's suggestion on how to make the cache guidelines-compliant, list it here, and enjoy a steady stream of "found it!" logs.

 

It's all a choice. Your last couple of posts in response to mine make it seem that you are offended if I suggest that there are alternatives. Why this brand name loyalty? It's a great sport. Play on every playing field that there is available.

 

It's all good.

[+The Leprechauns]

Nope, I'm not offended at all. Even when you post elsewhere to characterize my post as "petty" when I am actually just stating facts. My primary goal in posting to a thread like this one is to assist the OP or others who may be reading. If he wants to check out the other listing service as a solution to the cache he wants to list, that's fine, but I believe it relevant for him to know that he can expect, on average, a total of two finds on his cache. So that is why I posted a reply.

 

I don't need another playing field if the other game offers nothing that I am interested in, and having looked at the offerings in my area, that is the conclusion I reached. There are plenty of caches to find here that I haven't found yet, but which I'd like to find in the future. I'm likewise not motivated to list a cache elsewhere because I'm happy with the listing standards here. Those standards screen out hides like micros outside of post offices or caches hidden on highway bridges, which belong in the "bad ideas for caches" thread. So the owners of those caches list them on the other site. Fine. Have fun with that.

[Jeremy]

Maybe a codeword cache would garner more than the average of about two finds for every Arizona cache listed over there. Who knows.

 

Or, the OP could follow RK's suggestion on how to make the cache guidelines-compliant, list it here, and enjoy a steady stream of "found it!" logs.

 

It's all a choice. Your last couple of posts in response to mine make it seem that you are offended if I suggest that there are alternatives. Why this brand name loyalty? It's a great sport. Play on every playing field that there is available.

 

It's all good.

 

Sounds like you have a personal problem. Personal problems are best handled by private mail.

[+carleenp]

I'm considering a location for a cache that would be paperless. Instead, the visitor would "grab" the number from the permanently affixed TB # . Of course, it'd have to be put back into the cache again. Logs on the cache site are welcome, but allowed only if the TB is also grabbed.

 

Has this been tried?

 

The only downside I can see is if GC might get hung up in the situation that someone "grabs" the tag # and doesn't replace it -- is someone else permitted to grab the TB #?

 

I'm leaning against using a coin, since that might "leak."

 

You need a container and logbook. Something you could do is have a TB that has the coords to a physical cache attached to it and ask that the TB travel around, but not out of, the area. Then when people get the TB, they can go find the cache and log it . So you would make the TB and also a cache page. Those caches can be fun, but a caveat is that they can present some annoying maintenance issues for the owner. If the TB goes missing, it has to be replaced and TBs like to go missing. We had one here that required finding two TBs. People liked it, but the owner archived after he got tired of replacing the TBs a few times.

[+headybrew]

I'm considering a location for a cache that would be paperless. Instead, the visitor would "grab" the number from the permanently affixed TB # . Of course, it'd have to be put back into the cache again. Logs on the cache site are welcome, but allowed only if the TB is also grabbed.

 

Has this been tried?

 

The only downside I can see is if GC might get hung up in the situation that someone "grabs" the tag # and doesn't replace it -- is someone else permitted to grab the TB #?

 

I'm leaning against using a coin, since that might "leak."

 

You need a container and logbook. Something you could do is have a TB that has the coords to a physical cache attached to it and ask that the TB travel around, but not out of, the area. Then when people get the TB, they can go find the cache and log it . So you would make the TB and also a cache page. Those caches can be fun, but a caveat is that they can present some annoying maintenance issues for the owner. If the TB goes missing, it has to be replaced and TBs like to go missing. We had one here that required finding two TBs. People liked it, but the owner archived after he got tired of replacing the TBs a few times.

 

That's why it would be really nice if this site would allow confirmation codes to log caches. It would be so much easier to be creative. So why not allow it?

[Jeremy]

 

That's why it would be really nice if this site would allow confirmation codes to log caches. It would be so much easier to be creative. So why not allow it?

 

There's been a field in the database since the site was created to accomodate confirmation codes. However I decided early on that it was a stupid idea.

 

Ok, perhaps stupid is a bit harsh but the idea of a confirmation code creates the idea that you don't trust geocachers to saying they found a cache or not. Also the management of these codes would be a nightmare - cheat sites would crop up, codes could be lost, etc. It's similiar to one of those "jumping through hoops" topics going on in the Geocaching.com Web forum to get your find.

 

Ultimately the owner of the listing, if inclined, can look through the logs in their own cache and archive the finds that don't show up in the log entry. Otherwise there's no reason why anyone has to police finds.

 

Tags are often used in multicaches to get you to the final location. The container, however, is the ultimate final for a cache - not just a tag attached to something.

[Jeremy]

It would be so much easier to be creative.

 

I'll pull this one out separately. Why would this make people more creative if the final location was a tag? It seems like a multi or puzzle where a tag is part of the journey would be more creative than finding a tag and being done with it.

[+The Leprechauns]

For several years, codeword caches *were* allowed here. Some of them were cool, arguably. Others were not, clearly. ("Find the sneaker in the woods, and to get credit for this cache, send an e-mail telling me what brand it is.") As the site grew, there were enough of the "sneaker in the woods" variety that people complained. Loudly. Enough so that the guidelines were modified to require a logbook. Not a huge restriction, considering how easy it is to put a scroll in a Mr. Magneto, or a spiral-bound note pad in an ammo box.

 

I'd rather see creativity expressed through good hiding places and good camoflage jobs. Having found the evil container in the evil hiding place, sitting at my computer to send an e-mail with a code adds nothing for me, creativity-wise.

[+headybrew]

I appreciate that the two of you don't like code words, but I have noticed a number of caches where you have to email something to the hider before you can log it. (No, I don't have examples at hand at the moment...) So obviously there is a demand. Why not let those who do want to use them have an automated way to do it.

 

Expecting cheat sites to pop up, is just another way of not trusting the cacher. It's entirely possible that they would pop up. But it's still better than nothing.

 

As for complaints about too many sneaker-in-the woods caches, did you get more complaints about that then we currently hear about micros?

[Jeremy]

If you're promoting the idea you aren't doing a very good job.

[+headybrew]

If you're promoting the idea you aren't doing a very good job.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I do wish they were available. I'd be more likely to hide a difficult cache on this site if they existed. I've found that it's easier to hide hike-in-the mountain or off-road-vehicle caches than it is to hide urban caches. But if I'm going to go that far to hide it, I'd like to know that the loggers actually did go there. And it's hard to go back after every find and check the log.

 

In what way am I not "doing a very good job"?

[+Cornerstone4]

I'm considering a location for a cache that would be paperless. Instead, the visitor would "grab" the number from the permanently affixed TB # . Of course, it'd have to be put back into the cache again. Logs on the cache site are welcome, but allowed only if the TB is also grabbed.

 

Has this been tried?

 

The only downside I can see is if GC might get hung up in the situation that someone "grabs" the tag # and doesn't replace it -- is someone else permitted to grab the TB #?

 

I'm leaning against using a coin, since that might "leak."

 

You need a container and logbook. Something you could do is have a TB that has the coords to a physical cache attached to it and ask that the TB travel around, but not out of, the area. Then when people get the TB, they can go find the cache and log it . So you would make the TB and also a cache page. Those caches can be fun, but a caveat is that they can present some annoying maintenance issues for the owner. If the TB goes missing, it has to be replaced and TBs like to go missing. We had one here that required finding two TBs. People liked it, but the owner archived after he got tired of replacing the TBs a few times.

 

I just found a cache on our recent trip to WA that had no logbook...the cache was too small. There was a word written that you had to email the owner to log the find. I thought it was a good idea, but is this actually an unacceptable cache set up?

 

(Just want to clear it up, since I was thinking of doing something similar.)

[+The Leprechauns]

I just found a cache on our recent trip to WA that had no logbook...the cache was too small. There was a word written that you had to email the owner to log the find. I thought it was a good idea, but is this actually an unacceptable cache set up?

 

(Just want to clear it up, since I was thinking of doing something similar.)

Yes, it is clearly contrary to current guidelines, so don't waste time trying. However if the cache you found predated the ban on codeword caches, it is grandfathered, so don't worry about it.

 

Curious when you say "too small." Smaller than a flat surface magnet with the log on the back? I found one of those on *my* trip to Washington. Smaller than the evil Mr. Magneto? Smaller than the vile little vials that are a quarter of an inch in diameter?

Edited May 4, 2006 by The Leprechauns

[+Cornerstone4]

I just found a cache on our recent trip to WA that had no logbook...the cache was too small. There was a word written that you had to email the owner to log the find. I thought it was a good idea, but is this actually an unacceptable cache set up?

 

(Just want to clear it up, since I was thinking of doing something similar.)

Yes, it is clearly contrary to current guidelines, so don't waste time trying. However if the cache you found predated the ban on codeword caches, it is grandfathered, so don't worry about it.

 

Curious when you say "too small." Smaller than a flat surface magnet with the log on the back? I found one of those on *my* trip to Washington. Smaller than the evil Mr. Magneto? Smaller than the vile little vials that are a quarter of an inch in diameter?

 

It wasn't a container per se. It more of a fake bolt with the word on it. It was within a mile of the event we were at...which reminds me, I will send you the pic of us if you didn't get one with your camera!

 

I didn't bother checking to see how old it was...and since I was caching with a WA approver, I would assume it would be addressed if there was an issue!

 

It wasn't something I was set on doing anyway, so it's not an issue. I though it was unique, but to be honest, I don't really want the added burden of the extra emails to verify the word!

 

Thanks for the feedback.

[+The Leprechauns]

It wasn't a container per se. It more of a fake bolt with the word on it. It was within a mile of the event we were at...which reminds me, I will send you the pic of us if you didn't get one with your camera!

 

I didn't bother checking to see how old it was...and since I was caching with a WA approver, I would assume it would be addressed if there was an issue!

 

It wasn't something I was set on doing anyway, so it's not an issue. I though it was unique, but to be honest, I don't really want the added burden of the extra emails to verify the word!

 

Thanks for the feedback.

It *did* get addressed. The cache was disabled until it was fixed. The owner didn't want to have a bajillion logs on a nanocache because it was so close to the event, and he temporarily converted it to a codeword. Not a huge sin, to be sure -- and I had the pleasure of spending time with that cache owner so I know there was no evil intent.

 

Sometimes it stinks being a cache reviewer and seeing stuff you'd rather not see, and hearing about stuff you'd rather not hear! A few times I put my fingers in my ears and said "la la la la" really loud until people got the message.

[+Renegade Knight]

... I put my fingers in my ears and said "la la la la" really loud until people got the message.

 

That was the codeword. You can log.

Edited May 4, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[Jeremy]

If you're promoting the idea you aren't doing a very good job.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

In what way am I not "doing a very good job"?

 

I mean you're trying to promote a concept a lot of people would prefer not to have, but you're too lazy to look up examples of creative caches that would require a code to log it. You failed to respond to the question of what a creative cache would be, by the way, which I can only guess is evasion because you don't have a good creative idea that would need a codeword to prove a find.

 

The only arguments that you have so far is "why not?" and "I don't trust other geocachers," which doesn't fit any litmus test for why such a feature would be added. It should have some noticeable benefit to create a hoop for people to jump through in order to log a cache.

[+headybrew]

If you're promoting the idea you aren't doing a very good job.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

In what way am I not "doing a very good job"?

 

I mean you're trying to promote a concept a lot of people would prefer not to have, but you're too lazy to look up examples of creative caches that would require a code to log it. You failed to respond to the question of what a creative cache would be, by the way, which I can only guess is evasion because you don't have a good creative idea that would need a codeword to prove a find.

 

The only arguments that you have so far is "why not?" and "I don't trust other geocachers," which doesn't fit any litmus test for why such a feature would be added. It should have some noticeable benefit to create a hoop for people to jump through in order to log a cache.

 

It surprises me, Jeremy, that in the position you are in, you choose to be so combative. Challenging me to go research and come up with creative hides that use it, etc is mostly a distraction. And "why not" is a perfectly valid question. The existence of "mail me something" caches proves there is a demand.

 

You mention that "a lot" of people don't want them. Well, much like micros, if they don't like codeword caches, "Just don't hunt them". I can't help but suspect that your motivation for not wanting them is far less democratic than you imply. There seems to be this idea that a cache is not a cache unless it has 2 things:

1) a container and 2) a log book. (Notably room for swag is not on the list). This rigidity of thought strikes me as the motivation, more so than a democratic decision made by "a lot" of people.

 

Why not allow a little room for people to breathe? Other than grandfatherd caches, there is nothing left on this site now, but listings for ... 1)containers, with 2)log books. period. Swag is tolerated so long as it fits a certain set of guidelines.

 

Loosening the rigidity of your thoughts on this would be to YOUR advantage. Don't you think you'd get a higher percentage of people to pay for premium memberships if you offered more people the things that they want?

[Jeremy]

If you're promoting the idea you aren't doing a very good job.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

 

In what way am I not "doing a very good job"?

 

I mean you're trying to promote a concept a lot of people would prefer not to have, but you're too lazy to look up examples of creative caches that would require a code to log it. You failed to respond to the question of what a creative cache would be, by the way, which I can only guess is evasion because you don't have a good creative idea that would need a codeword to prove a find.

 

The only arguments that you have so far is "why not?" and "I don't trust other geocachers," which doesn't fit any litmus test for why such a feature would be added. It should have some noticeable benefit to create a hoop for people to jump through in order to log a cache.

 

It surprises me, Jeremy, that in the position you are in, you choose to be so combative. Challenging me to go research and come up with creative hides that use it, etc is mostly a distraction. And "why not" is a perfectly valid question. The existence of "mail me something" caches proves there is a demand.

 

 

Actually I'm trying to challenge you to come up with a better reason then because someone else wanted it too. If that were the case we'd be chasing all sorts of ideas because of a small group of individuals wanted something. What I'd like to see is for you to put some more thought into your reasonings behind a concept. Instead you're diverting the subject to something personal.

 

You don't have a reason behind having codewords required for caches. This "combative" response you speak of is merely a voice of experience. If you can't come up with a creative reason for a feature after claiming there is one, maybe there isn't one. Take some time and do some research to come up with some real reasons for fellow geocachers to jump through your hoops. What's the benefit? Explain it to me.

[Jeremy]

Moving this to Geocaching.com Web forum since this has turned into a feature request.

[+Renegade Knight]

Most virtuals were codeword caches that used the natural enviornment.

 

The only difference between that and what's being debated is the placment of an object which adds a better find element relative to most virtuals.

 

Since micro logs are difficult at best to actually sign there is probably room for codewords in the world of geocaching. Overall I'd rather find a box. Signign a log vs. a code word is sixes for me. Unless I miscopy the code. Then it would be annoying.

[+headybrew]

It would make micros much easier to place if they didn't have to have a log in them.

Its much easier than checking the log for hides that are at the end of a long hike.

Some people just plain like it.

It can be used as the answer to a puzzle in a puzzle cache.

It solves the problem of too many logs on a micro log sheet during a nearby caching event.

It helps prevent "cheating", which some people do care about.

It's easy for you to do.

The people who don't like them can just choose not to seek them.

The people who do like them will be more likely to pay you $3/month.

 

Now: your turn. Why must there be a log?

[+carleenp]

 

I do wish they were available. I'd be more likely to hide a difficult cache on this site if they existed. I've found that it's easier to hide hike-in-the mountain or off-road-vehicle caches than it is to hide urban caches. But if I'm going to go that far to hide it, I'd like to know that the loggers actually did go there. And it's hard to go back after every find and check the log.

 

You don't have to check after each found log. If really concerned, you could go once in awhile and check and delete logs accordingly. If it is a great hike, you also won't mind making it again from time to time will you? With my rural caches I get there a decent amount of time just through joining friends who go to seek them. And I like making the hike over and over. That is why I put a cache there! Plus, maybe I am naive, but in my area fake logs just don't tend to happen much and the trust factor is high. I also just like to plain trust people.

 

I suppose you could also do a container with a log book and yet also an email code. I have personally tended to be put off by those though and ignored them unless something jumped out at me to make the extra hoop to jump through seem worthwhile. But I certainly can't speak for others there. Some/many maybe wouldn't mind.

 

One more thought. Why, if it was allowed, put a codeword cache out after a hike? Perhaps it is silly, but I know that I really like that satisfaction of a full size container with trade items and a log book at the end of such things. It gives that satisfaction that the owner cared enough to put all that into it and the satisfaction of finding something substantial at the end. I haven't educated myself well on how the ratings on TC works, but I woud guess that if I found a rural hike codeword cache on there that I would rate it low because I would rather have a log to sign and things to trade etc, although I would give credit in the log for a good area/hike. So, OK, it is not allowed here and is there. Does it still make it good/best? And if really worried, then why not just list there and be happy? Personally, I just happily follow the rules an not get anquished over them and know that there are reasons for the rules here and respect them. I also think that a majority would prefer a nice contianer and log book at the end of a hike regardless of where it is listed.

 

Why not be remembered for the cool rural hike cache with a nice container and log over the hike to find a code word regardless of where it is listed?

[Jeremy]

 

...

 

Now: your turn. Why must there be a log?

 

Why are you evading my question? You indicated there were caches that were creative because they required a code word for verification. What are they? And what is the benefit for making geocachers jump through hoops like requiring codewords?

[+carleenp]

It would make micros much easier to place if they didn't have to have a log in them.

Its much easier than checking the log for hides that are at the end of a long hike.

Some people just plain like it.

It can be used as the answer to a puzzle in a puzzle cache.

It solves the problem of too many logs on a micro log sheet during a nearby caching event.

It helps prevent "cheating", which some people do care about.

It's easy for you to do.

The people who don't like them can just choose not to seek them.

The people who do like them will be more likely to pay you $3/month.

 

Now: your turn. Why must there be a log?

 

In order from the list above:

 

It is not hard to put a log in a micro.

Lazy owner. If you can't get back there, a cache should not be placed there (plus see previous post).

Owners more than finders.

Puzzles normally require a solve just to get the coordinates.

Lazy owner again.

Cheating is actually rare and a non-lazy owner can still check (see previous post)

Lazy owner again

True

I doubt that would make a difference, people join for pocket queries etc, not code words.

[+headybrew]

 

...

 

Now: your turn. Why must there be a log?

 

Why are you evading my question? You indicated there were caches that were creative because they required a code word for verification. What are they? And what is the benefit for making geocachers jump through hoops like requiring codewords?

 

Jeremy, you are being difficult for no reason. The original subject of this topic gives you the example that you are looking for. I gave you a bunch of perfectly valid reasons. What more of an answer do you want?

 

I repeat. your turn. Why must there be a log?

Not that I'm against logs, but it's a rhetorical question. They are often the hardest to answer.

[Jeremy]

I give up. There is no sense continuing this since you continue to evade my initial question. When you come up with good reasons why it would benefit geocachers to jump through hoops, and indicate what examples you know about but cannot seem to find at the moment, we can pick this up. Feel free to PM me when you have a response. Closing the thread.