QR and Bar Codes

[Andronicus]

Its called a BOOKMARK in your browser. Scan the QR. It opens the log page. Bookmark it. Put your phone in your pocket and move on.

Later when you have time to deal with it, return to the bookmark logs and write your nice lengthy logs.

AKA field notes.

AKA offline logs.

AKA logging from a smartphone app

AKA writing the GC code on a piece of paper.

ie, of what benefit or new use would it be, other than just being another way to do what most people do already?

 

Honestly, I am more interested in them for geocoins and TBs than actual cache logs......There is NO downside to putting them on tracables. None.

That I can agree with

[Team Soupbones]

The problem is that scanning a QR code only verifies that one has scanned a QR code. But it would be easy to photograph QR codes and distribute them to friends or a network of armchair loggers. The app could improve this authentication method a bit by checking the device's GPS coordinates at the time of the scanning to confirm the user is within a certain distance of the cache's coordinates. But spoofing a device's current GPS coordinates isn't that difficult.

You've just described Munzee.

Yep. The same problem applies to Munzee, too.

 

As well, I just realized how easy it would be to set up a spoiler website with QR code photos.

 

How easy is it to just log a cache now and say you found it, after all, do you go back and double check that everyone who posted a log has signed the log book? No, didn't think so. As for a web site with QR codes, the Geocaching app would require your GPS to show you are at the location of the logs QR, so unless your going to drag a laptop with all the QR codes to each GZ then this won't work.

As stated, you can spoof a Geo location on smart phones, but most people don't know how to do this, and even then the cheats would still have to go look up the locations of the caches so as to add the coordinated to their phone. In the end they are only cheating themselves. I don't think their are huge amounts of cheaters in geocaching anyway. What's the point?

If your worried about cheating anyway, you only have ot take a look around here on these forums and on YouTube to see enough spoilers out there..

 

Oh and as for those who keep saying the QR code will take you ot the Geocaches URL, it wont do this. In the app it would display the cache details bases on the special QR codes data number only. No URLs of web browser needed, so no chance of virus or nasty's....

[+Chrysalides]

OK, you guys, now you killed the thread by mentioning the dreaded M word

 

First of all, conformation is quick and easy. This is beauty of QR codes. Press a button, the scanner starts up, you point it at the code on the front of the log book, or in the cache lid, or where ever and it reads it. This could then send the special authentication code of the cache, along with your user name as a find. Lastly it could pop up a box to either add in a default log message (TFTC for example) or type in your own log. This could then send it straight to the site, or if there is no Internet access store it till it is, and push it to the net when back in range of Internet access.

 

Yes, that's exactly how I envision how it would work, if implemented.

 

It is also the way of the modern world. Take modern warehouses for example. Gone are the days of stock controllers hand writing everything, and fork lift drivers writing down their dispatch movements. Now they use bar codes and hand held scanners that relay all stock movements back to the network.

 

Actually, RFID is the smarter choice for this application, but I'm wandering off topic.

 

Anyone I think who doesn't see this as a good thing, and a step in the right direction is probably a bit behind the times I think.

 

Oh boy I'm not going to get into this one.

 

But you did not address my main point, in that adding a verification component does not add anything to the game.

 

I totally agree that having an optional QR can make it more convenient for some cachers.

 

You also agree that existing methods of logging must not go away. Some people don't have smartphones. Some people don't want them. Some people don't want to cache with their smartphones.

 

If that is the case, there is no point in adding a verification component to the QR code. It will not prevent false logging.

 

If a verification component is not needed, then you don't need Groundspeak participation, since you can already generate a QR code with the URL of the logging page.

 

Groundspeak would not even have to require it to be a component, just make it an option. Add it to all caches so only owners can see it. Make it up to them if they want to add 'Quick Log' to their caches. I think you would be surprised how many would start using it.

 

But as I mentioned a few posts ago, you don't need QR to have a "quick log" option (and I would guess that Groundspeak doesn't really want to do a "quick log" option, either because they're opposed to it, or because they feel that many of their strongest supporters are against it).

 

If I'm caching with the Groundspeak app, Groundspeak can add a "quick log" option very easily without adding QR if they want to. So can any geocaching app (they can add "TFTC" to the logging text if they log using the API if empty logs is not allowed).

 

In this case, requiring QR for quick logging is counter-productive and is an extra step.

 

Now, I think it would be nice, if I'm viewing my owned caches, that there is an option to generate a QR straight from that page. But I think I can do that with a Greasemonkey script (that other site has a user developed GM script that does just that).

 

So, after all that long rambling :

 

1) QR tags in cache is a nice convenience that we can add without Groundspeak doing anything.

 

2) QR verification is an unnecessary step that doesn't add anything extra without changing the game at a fundamental level which will lead to open revolt, torches and pitchforks.

 

3) Quick logging, if desired, can be added without QR codes.

 

Is there an advantage of adding QR code that requires Groundspeak to implement something extra on their side that I missed?

[+Castle Mischief]

Is there an advantage of adding QR code that requires Groundspeak to implement something extra on their side that I missed?

 

...a QR code Souvenir?

[Andronicus]

or

Edited March 29, 2012 by Andronicus

[+thebruce0]

Oh and as for those who keep saying the QR code will take you ot the Geocaches URL, it wont do this. In the app it would display the cache details bases on the special QR codes data number only. No URLs of web browser needed, so no chance of virus or nasty's....

Oh the QR could easily be a URL. The app can easily verify if the url is trusted, and say whether it's a valid geocaching qr code. Munzee does this already. No worries about malware if you're using the official app. If you choose to use your own qr scanner, then you should really already have it set to simply show you the decoded qr content rather then automatically navigating to the url if it is one. Just like tinyurl.com allows previewing the destination url before going straight to it.

 

But in the official app? If it's programmed to only accept valid urls, then they can make the QRs decode to whatever they want. And really, a benefit to the QR is that it can be scanned by anyone, with or without the app, meaning non-players should ideally be presented with something interesting - like, say, the web page of whatever it is they just found which would know if the person is browsing from the official app or not and treat the user accordingly (*ahem* just like munzee QRs)

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Here's how I'd do it.

 

So, right now the mobile app has the ability to capture a field note. As a mechanism for "quick logging" we can find a cache, sign the log, click on a button the upload a field note, type in a short string (even "F" for found) it, and go onto the next cacche. Then once we get home in front of a real computer, go to the site and click on Access Field Notes to get a list of caches found that day. Using that list one can quickly post found it logs.

 

Suppose that the app included a QR code reader. I use a QR code reader called BeeTagg on my iPhone. When it scans a code it gives me four options: Open Link (it displays the url as well), Show Url, Copy Url, Send Url (ie as an email message), and "Save". Suppose the geocaching app worked the same way but had these two options: Open Link, Save as a Field Note.

 

If one want to post a log while in the field the link could go directly to the "log your visit" page for the cache you just found. The Save as a Field Note would essentially just add the link as a Field Note. Then when you got home, you could use the "Access Field Note" link to quickly log all the caches found (that had not yet been logged online).

 

In order to facilitate the use of a QR code scan in lieu of a physical signature on a log sheet some sort of mechanism for notifying a cache owner that one of their QR codes for a specific cache has been scanned by a specific user would have to be implemented. Using something like a "View QR code scan log" link exposed the the cache owner would be preferable to an email message for every scan.

 

QR code scanning as a logging mechanism would also require the ability for the cache owner to generate a QR code on a cache that they own. There are numerous libraries available for doing that. I'm a developer on a semantic web application that essentially creates a unique (but not real friendly looking) URI for every "person" in the system. There's a link on every persons profile page that can be used to generate a QR code. When I attended the annual conference for that application last August (along with about 250 other people) I went to my user profile and generated a QR code, printed it out, and attached it to my conference badge. I don't recall passing out a single business card but several people scanned my name badge and walked away with a link to a digital equivalent of a business card (but contained a lot more information).

[+thebruce0]

Indeed, QRs can be very helpful in the proper contexts. How you described it is how I'd implement them as well, as an optional feature.

 

Now, I could easily see there still be an uproar that QR logging would make finding caches that much more boring, since one of the best things many enjoy about caching is seeing all the marks (signatures, stamps, stickers, etc) from previous finders. Imagine a cache after a year having been found 150 times, but only seeing oh 10 signatures in the logbook (fresh logbooks excepted). Doesn't have that same 'cool' factor, and can potentially bump geocaching out of that realm of "outdoors nature activity" with a splash of real world community to "location-based technology game" with a splash of virtual community.

Of course, whether that's bad or good all depends on your opinion about the game and hobby, and the progression of technology and culture...

 

just sayin'

 

I personally think it's a neat idea, but I can see why GS would likely not implement that, for possibly similar reasons to those I mentioned above. IMO, let the techie games have their techie games (I still love'em!) but leave geocaching to its own predominantly natural realm - that's what attracts people, even if those people pine for more and more techie features over time

 

I love my smartphone, and I'm glad I got into geocaching to pull me away from my extremely technologically saturated life... but other games satisfy that technology desire. Geocaching is a hobby I love for its ability to get me thinking away from technology, relatively speaking.

(also, I realize I'm making a mountain out of a mole-hole, heh)

Edited March 29, 2012 by thebruce0

[+Chrysalides]

Ah, scanning QR in lieu of signing the logbook... I did not consider that one.

 

I suspect there will be much resistance to this one. Yeah, this will definitely require Groundspeak implement something at their end. Anything else without support from their end is going to be unwieldy. I don't have much confidence in GS supporting this though.

[+CanadianRockies]

QR codes certainly have the advantage of convenience when authenticating a find. But they generally wouldn't be as reliable as signing a physical log (which certainly isn't a perfect system, either).

How easy is it to just log a cache now and say you found it, after all, do you go back and double check that everyone who posted a log has signed the log book? No, didn't think so.

I didn't claim signing a log was the perfect verification system; indeed, I specifically said it wasn't perfect. My claim was that signing a log generally is a more reliable verification method than QR codes.

 

As for a web site with QR codes, the Geocaching app would require your GPS to show you are at the location of the logs QR, so unless your going to drag a laptop with all the QR codes to each GZ then this won't work.

Or you could spoof the coordinates.

 

As stated, you can spoof a Geo location on smart phones, but most people don't know how to do this...

Most people don't know how to do this because they don't want to cheat. Most people who wanted to cheat could figure out how to do this.

 

...and even then the cheats would still have to go look up the locations of the caches so as to add the coordinated to their phone.

Or the spoiler website could display the cache locations beside the QR code photos.

 

In the end they are only cheating themselves. I don't think their are huge amounts of cheaters in geocaching anyway. What's the point?

I don't understand the point, but for whatever reason there are plenty of cheaters out there (even if they are only cheating themselves). Just take a look at how many people cheat on the geocaching challenges, even though they don't generate smileys and they have at least a primitive verification system. Then imagine how many cheaters there would be if QR codes allowed you to get smileys with an easily spoofed verification system.

[Team Soupbones]

At the end of the day there is little you can do to stop people cheating anyway, so why worry about the technicalities to much. In any system you will always get people who want to find a way to beat it. In this game they are only cheating themselves, and not really enjoying the game as it should. I would not worry about that personally. They cheat now, and if there were QR codes, they would cheat then. You can make it more of a hassle with the need to be at the cache site and have the coordinates coming from the devices GPS, but as this can be cheated as well you will never stop it. You just make it more of a hassle.

 

I do agree that signing a log book is a more reliable method, but only if its checked upon, which it usually isn't, so makes them the same in the end.

As for QR code logging would make it more boring, there is still nothing stopping people leaving stickers, marks and trinkets in a cache. So this would not change. And people need to stop going on about back lashes, as if this ever was implemented, it would not totally replace the current system, but run in parallel, so if people didn't want to use it, as CO or finders then they don't. Its the 'cool tech' factor you need to consider here as a way of attracting those people who would not bother caching but if they could scan codes they find in caches they might see this as something to try. This is what I am trying to get at in the end. Make it have a more modern high tech edge and get those techno geeks off their computer chairs and out into the forest finding caches.

 

NY Paddlecachers idea is good, but in the end its flaw is simply that you need to go home and convert all these field notes into found logs. This is effectively double handling, so the QR logging concept is quicker and more 'user friendly'.

I got into this whole thought process from the Munzee concept, but I see this as a bit boring, chasing down a sticker of a QR code on a pole somewhere. To me this is very boring compared to geocaching, and Geocaching should never become this. You still need the hide/puzzle/treasure hunt factor there.

I just think the concept of QR coes to verify hides as well as to assist in hiding a cache saves a lot of time and mucking around, which is one thing that does annoy me about Geocaching. Put it down to the old 'there is to much paper work, or Red Tape if you like ( specially in regards to hiding ).

To me signing a log is just a name and date on most caches, nothing special. I enjoy reading the log posts on the Geocache site, but log posts is something I would rather do later on. But I would like to verify my cache find then and there, and move on to the next one. Time and date stamped even, so you can tell how much you missed that last cacher by. That to me would make the game faster, smoother and less time hanging around a cache. Specially if in a high muggle area.

Edited March 30, 2012 by soupbones

[+thebruce0]

Its the 'cool tech' factor you need to consider here as a way of attracting those people who would not bother caching but if they could scan codes they find in caches they might see this as something to try. This is what I am trying to get at in the end. Make it have a more modern high tech edge and get those techno geeks off their computer chairs and out into the forest finding caches.

It's unbelievable how many 'techno geeks' have started geocaching because of the already heavy technology factor and fun in getting out into nature with your handheld device. I don't see "oh, I can quick log a cache with a QR" being a huge draw to get more techno geeks away from the computer. And I am one.

 

NY Paddlecachers idea is good, but in the end its flaw is simply that you need to go home and convert all these field notes into found logs. This is effectively double handling, so the QR logging concept is quicker and more 'user friendly'.

I used to log manually. I now log by field note. I would not want to auto-log with QR codes. Simply put. Not because of user friendliness, but because of the effect it has on the fun of the logging aspect of the hobby. Even while that is a factor, it has nothing to with simplicity or user-friendliness.

 

I got into this whole thought process from the Munzee concept, but I see this as a bit boring, chasing down a sticker of a QR code on a pole somewhere. To me this is very boring compared to geocaching, and Geocaching should never become this. You still need the hide/puzzle/treasure hunt factor there.

Very much agreed. Munzee is different from geocaching, and should stay that way, for the good of both hobbies.

 

I just think the concept of QR coes to verify hides as well as to assist in hiding a cache saves a lot of time and mucking around, which is one thing that does annoy me about Geocaching.

I think that's a side-effect of munzee. I've never seen any time wasted in geocaching, for verifiying or hiding caches. Every step makes logical sense, and a decent balance between fairness and simplicity. Being a CO shouldn't be as "easy" as finding caches - it's a bigger responsibility, and so should require more investment. (my issue the review process are a different beast, however).

QR codes can't assist in hiding a cache in any way. And QRs are about as reliable a verification system as signing a physical log.

IF qr codes are implemented as a logging mechanism, the owner should most certainly be allowed to decide if it's an available logging method for their caches. And if so, it'll invite a whole crowd of people saying geocaching is behind the times because these old fogies won't let them log a cache with their QR scanner.

Srsly, in my opinion implementing QR logging into caching will be inviting a whole mess load of conflict and controversy that will take people away from simply going out for a hunt, signing a logsheet, and completing the online log for the smiley if they wish.

 

Put it down to the old 'there is to much paper work, or Red Tape if you like ( specially in regards to hiding ).

I don't see that in the slightest.

 

But I would like to verify my cache find then and there, and move on to the next one. Time and date stamped even, so you can tell how much you missed that last cacher by. That to me would make the game faster, smoother and less time hanging around a cache. Specially if in a high muggle area.

Sure, I agree. But only if it posts a field note to fill in later online. Otherwise, just use the post find log from the app itself. If you scan a QR code, requiring additional actions (like typing out your log) makes it redundant and unnecessary. But allowing auto-finding with no content is a Bad Thing.

 

I can support: QR Code -> Field Note

I can't support: QR Code -> Find Log

because

QR Code -> Find Log (empty) is Bad

QR Code -> Find Log (require text) is redundant because the smartphone apps already do this, just without the QR code. And if you want the QR code to save yourself two taps on the phone, well, I'm not with you with that as a solid reason for implementing QRs.

 

Side note:

I love QR codes.

I also love http://wtfqrcodes.com

 

Implement them properly, and implement them for good reason.

[+niraD]

NY Paddlecachers idea is good, but in the end its flaw is simply that you need to go home and convert all these field notes into found logs. This is effectively double handling, so the QR logging concept is quicker and more 'user friendly'.

Those of us who use field notes consider the "double handling" a feature, not a bug. I don't want to take the time to write a decent log on my mobile device. I'll jot down a few shorthand notes to myself on my mobile device, and later I can write a decent log when I have a real keyboard.

 

I just think the concept of QR coes to verify hides as well as to assist in hiding a cache saves a lot of time and mucking around, which is one thing that does annoy me about Geocaching.

FWIW, QR codes to verify finds is just a variation on keyword caches. Those were tried early in the history of geocaching, but are no longer allowed.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

NY Paddlecachers idea is good, but in the end its flaw is simply that you need to go home and convert all these field notes into found logs. This is effectively double handling, so the QR logging concept is quicker and more 'user friendly'.

Those of us who use field notes consider the "double handling" a feature, not a bug. I don't want to take the time to write a decent log on my mobile device. I'll jot down a few shorthand notes to myself on my mobile device, and later I can write a decent log when I have a real keyboard.

 

That's just how I envisioned it working. Although I have occasionally written a log in the field, I mostly have used it just to keep track of the caches I've found instead of writing down the GC # or cache name in a note pad with something I might want to include in the online line (i.e. log was wet). A QR code scan, automatically posted as a field note, would serve that purpose.

[+Chrysalides]

QR code -> Find log has one use though. On the rare occasion that I FTF a cache, I'd log a very short "Found It, more to come" in the field, for others to see, and fill out the log when I get home.

 

Of course, since I average 1 FTF every few months, it is hardly a burden for me to log this through some other means, but others may be more active in the FTF game.

 

Anyway, regarding QR codes in caches, I came across a rather interesting QR code on the woot t-shirt forums a while ago. QR codes look a bit like the cover of a composition book, why not use the QR code on the cover of a logbook?

 

 

Note : This QR will point to Woot's t-shirt site. I'm not endorsing their product, just that this is what the creator of this QR code did, and I'm presenting it as an example.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Chrysalides

[+DragonsWest]

Ah, scanning QR in lieu of signing the logbook... I did not consider that one.

 

I suspect there will be much resistance to this one. Yeah, this will definitely require Groundspeak implement something at their end. Anything else without support from their end is going to be unwieldy. I don't have much confidence in GS supporting this though.

 

In the log book ...

Scan this code for "TFTC"

Scan this code for "I really liked this cache! Thanks for placing it!"

Scan this code for "This was a really fun cache and I highly recommend it to other cachers, it gets a favorite point from me!"

Scan this code for "I violated park rules, was met by the police and had my leg gnawed by a roving rabid dog. I'm onna way to the hospital and then jail."

[+niraD]

Those of us who use field notes consider the "double handling" a feature, not a bug. I don't want to take the time to write a decent log on my mobile device. I'll jot down a few shorthand notes to myself on my mobile device, and later I can write a decent log when I have a real keyboard.

That's just how I envisioned it working. Although I have occasionally written a log in the field, I mostly have used it just to keep track of the caches I've found instead of writing down the GC # or cache name in a note pad with something I might want to include in the online line (i.e. log was wet). A QR code scan, automatically posted as a field note, would serve that purpose.

I just don't see how a QR code would help me log field notes. I've already got my smartphone app viewing the cache that I just found, so posting a field note is easy--just a couple clicks. Even if I don't have my smartphone app viewing the cache that I just found, it will be at the top of the "nearest caches" list--just a couple more clicks. With a QR code, I still need a few clicks, plus I need to point the camera to properly frame the QR code. And if the QR code doesn't work, then I still need to post the field note the normal way.

[+niraD]

In the log book ...

Scan this code for "TFTC"

This has potential. I could provide a QR code and claim that it posts a "TFTC" log, but in actuality it posts three paragraphs of glowing praise.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Ah, scanning QR in lieu of signing the logbook... I did not consider that one.

 

I suspect there will be much resistance to this one. Yeah, this will definitely require Groundspeak implement something at their end. Anything else without support from their end is going to be unwieldy. I don't have much confidence in GS supporting this though.

 

In the log book ...

Scan this code for "TFTC"

Scan this code for "I really liked this cache! Thanks for placing it!"

Scan this code for "This was a really fun cache and I highly recommend it to other cachers, it gets a favorite point from me!"

 

 

Scanning that last could also automatically give it a favorite vote.

 

How about,

 

Scan this code if the cache needs maintenance.

[+thebruce0]

Auto-populating the log text is an interesting twist...

However it would only go to the web page form, not auto-submit the log, so you wouldn't be able to trick someone into thinking it's posting a "TFTC" when it's actually glowing praise.

 

It would be possible though to create a redirect url which could provide custom log text any time the qr is scanned. Pull randomly from a list of possible log texts, include a timestamp, etc. You wouldn't be able to include gc user information (like the account name, for instance) since that's only available to scripts loaded from geocaching.com, and cookies from gc.com would not be available to your redirect url either. So you'd be able to dynamically create a log text, but only with what would be available to everyone.

 

Hm... As more of a practical option, say you wanted to test people's smartphone GPS at gz. You could have the QR jump to a link that would access the in-browser gps features and append that to the log text before redirecting to the post field note url. The user would likely have to allow the browser access to the GPS data when it's requested, but that would save the person time from looking up the gps coordinates and saving it in a note.

QR -> custom script URL -> redirect + custom text generated from mobile browser -> post geocaching.com field note URL

 

Reminder: say no to QR automated find logs!

[+5g]

There was a nice multi-cache here called "matrix code" that used QR codes at each stage. Each QR gave coords to next step. http://coord.info/GC2R3HF

[Team Soupbones]

 

Scanning that last could also automatically give it a favorite vote.

 

How about,

 

Scan this code if the cache needs maintenance.

 

Great to see people thinking outside the square and not shooting this down, because it involves change, and many people don't like change ( This is why the US still uses the imperial measurement system that most countries ditched over 40 years ago)

There are probably a tonne of uses for QR codes. I intend to add a couple to my next couple of hides> They are probably going to be difficulty 4 hides, so I will include red herrings with a QR code for the hint instead of having it on the cache page in that lame coded form they still use. I never saw a point of having the hint coded when you can click a button to decode it. I suppose people who don't want to see the hint only see a mix of letters. Just as easy to hit a button and have the hint appear.

So in future I will drop the hint in a QR code. So no smart phone with a scanner, then the cache remains hint less for you.....

I hope Ground Speak do implement some sort of QR code into the game, despite so called backlash. I still can't see why there would be backlash. Long as its done in parellel and to a same standard as the current system, then why the backlash? If you don't like it, don't use it. Cache the original way. Simple as that.

Anyway, thats my 2c for now.....

Edited April 1, 2012 by soupbones

[+Chrysalides]

Great to see people thinking outside the square and not shooting this down, because it involves change, and many people don't like change ( This is why the US still uses the imperial measurement system that most countries ditched over 40 years ago)

Heh, I've used that same argument many times myself.

 

I like an optional approach. Making it optional to sign a logbook if you scan the QR is an alternative I would go for.

 

1. QR does NOT mean that logbook is not required. It is only offered in addition to a physical log

2. User can either scan QR, sign logbook, or both

3. QR is optional, and CO can choose not to put QR on cache

4. Scanning the QR would either post a field note, or log.

 

There is one problem : posting a photo of the cache with the QR could lead to a lot of fake loggings. The CO would need to be vigilant about photos on their cache page.

 

I hope Ground Speak do implement some sort of QR code into the game, despite so called backlash. I still can't see why there would be backlash. Long as its done in parellel and to a same standard as the current system, then why the backlash? If you don't like it, don't use it. Cache the original way. Simple as that.

Also check out the thread about QR challenges. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=292888

 

Make it optional, and at the discretion of the CO, and I don't see why there would be a backlash either. But never underestimate the wrath of people who are resistant to change Something about "The End Of Geocaching As We Know It" TEOGAWKI... hmm, catchy...

 

Judging from how receptive Groundspeak has been to user feedback in the past, my money is on them ignoring this suggestion. If you're going to propose this in a thread (or by emailing contact@geocaching.com) and need support you can count on mine.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Chrysalides

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Scanning that last could also automatically give it a favorite vote.

 

How about,

 

Scan this code if the cache needs maintenance.

 

Great to see people thinking outside the square and not shooting this down, because it involves change, and many people don't like change ( This is why the US still uses the imperial measurement system that most countries ditched over 40 years ago)

There are probably a tonne of uses for QR codes. I intend to add a couple to my next couple of hides> They are probably going to be difficulty 4 hides, so I will include red herrings with a QR code for the hint instead of having it on the cache page in that lame coded form they still use. I never saw a point of having the hint coded when you can click a button to decode it. I suppose people who don't want to see the hint only see a mix of letters. Just as easy to hit a button and have the hint appear.

 

I wouldn't call the encryption method for hints "lame" because it's not intended to be some sort of difficult cipher that has to be solved to get the hint. As you suggest, it's just a simple method for "hiding" the hint so that it doesn't become a spoiler for those that would rather try and find the cache without a hint. A simple rot13 cipher serves that purpose, and the advantage of using rot13 is that it does *not* require clicking on a button to decode it. a "pocket in the field decoder" can be made simply by writing down the alphabet with the letters shifted 13 places in a line below it.

 

If you're going to use a QR code as a red herring, here's an idea. QR codes can contain several times of data, including binary. Thus, you could create a QR code which contained an image of a QR code...

 

I've used QR codes in a number of practical applications. Last year I gave a keynote speech at a conference which included numerous screen shots of web sites and references to various technologies. I've given presentations at a lot of different conferences/symposium/workshops and one of the most common questions I hear is "can we get a copy of your powerpoint". So for my keynote speech the last slide had a large QR code which pointed to a web site page that included all the links for sites I mentioned as well as a link to a copy of the presentation.

 

 

So in future I will drop the hint in a QR code. So no smart phone with a scanner, then the cache remains hint less for you.....

 

I don't quite see what purpose you're trying to serve by restricting the number of people that will be able to find your cache. Put up too many arbitrary barriers and you may find that a lot of geocachers will start systematically ignoring your caches.

[+Andromeda321]

For those interested, there is a geocache near me that requires you to use QR coedes to make the find- http://coord.info/GC273XG (PM only tho, so if you can't see it it's basically a cache where you have to scan the QR codes to know the next stage of the multi)

 

Haven't done it yet cause it'll take a long while, but shows that some people are using them.

[+niraD]

I never saw a point of having the hint coded when you can click a button to decode it. I suppose people who don't want to see the hint only see a mix of letters. Just as easy to hit a button and have the hint appear.

Exactly. The point of using rot13 is (and always has been) that it is easy to decrypt by hand, trivial to decrypt automatically, and yet hard to read in its encrypted form. Once someone chooses to read the hint (or an off-color joke, or the spoiler to a movie, or whatever), it is easy for them to do so. Until they choose to read it, it is hard for them to read accidentally.

[Team Soupbones]

So in future I will drop the hint in a QR code. So no smart phone with a scanner, then the cache remains hint less for you.....

 

I don't quite see what purpose you're trying to serve by restricting the number of people that will be able to find your cache. Put up too many arbitrary barriers and you may find that a lot of geocachers will start systematically ignoring your caches.

 

As I am in Australia, and the amount of active smartphone users is huge. Most adults have one, lots of children old enough have them, and a large number of the senior population even have them. I forget the per capita rate but its huge here. Most cacher's in my area from what I am aware use smart phones for caching. Sure there are guys that use a hand held GPS as well, but they still carry a smartphone regardless, so it won't restrict many people at all. If someone doesn't have a smartphone that's ok, they just won't get the hint. I won't put the hint up on the cache page anyway, so they won't know any different. If they see the QR code and other cachers tell them what it is and for, that might even encourage them to get a smart phone, being that they are a minority, and most people they know have them for sure.

It won't mean they can't find the cache, just means it will be a touch harder for them.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

So in future I will drop the hint in a QR code. So no smart phone with a scanner, then the cache remains hint less for you.....

 

I don't quite see what purpose you're trying to serve by restricting the number of people that will be able to find your cache. Put up too many arbitrary barriers and you may find that a lot of geocachers will start systematically ignoring your caches.

 

As I am in Australia, and the amount of active smartphone users is huge. Most adults have one, lots of children old enough have them, and a large number of the senior population even have them. I forget the per capita rate but its huge here. Most cacher's in my area from what I am aware use smart phones for caching. Sure there are guys that use a hand held GPS as well, but they still carry a smartphone regardless, so it won't restrict many people at all. If someone doesn't have a smartphone that's ok, they just won't get the hint. I won't put the hint up on the cache page anyway, so they won't know any different. If they see the QR code and other cachers tell them what it is and for, that might even encourage them to get a smart phone, being that they are a minority, and most people they know have them for sure.

 

Awhile back a colleague (I work in a large university library) requested a meeting with me to talk about QR codes. She wanted to do a pilot project to "test the waters" and see if people would use them if she put up a few around the library next to some of the exhibits. My response to her was that they would probably not yet used much unless they became ubiquitous around the library. If patrons (and most do have a smart phone) saw QR codes everywhere they looked they'd be far more likely to download a QR code reader than if there just a few about. They certainly are for more common than just a few years ago. Every time my 8 year old son sees one he asks to use my iPhone to decode it.

 

Worldwide, smart phones are still in the minority. According to this article, smart phones still only have 27% of the total mobile phone market. Australia is high on the list of countries with smart phone penetration but it's still only 47%, though I suspect that the percentage of geocachers that have a smart phone is higher.

 

It won't mean they can't find the cache, just means it will be a touch harder for them.

 

Which leads to the question; why do you want to make it harder for those that are not using a specific technology to find your caches?

[Team Soupbones]

Your thinking glass half empty.. I'm thinking glass half full. The cache will be rated at the difficulty of not using the hint. So im not deliberately making it harder for those without a QR code reader on a smartphone, but making it easier for those that discover it and do use the QR code. The code won't be necessary, but an extra lucky dip surprise in a red herring if you find it. Nothing on the cache page is going suggest the hint. So if they work it out and scan the code, then they strike it lucky. A bonus, but not necessary to find the cache...

[Andronicus]

[+Chrysalides]

I couldn't decode this one on my phone - I think messing up one of the corner squares is a no-no. The first one is nice.

[Team Soupbones]

 

Nice. Had a friend scan this off the image after downloading, but it worked fine off the web page. QR codes are very simple to make. For android there are even apps that allow you to make them right on the phone.

[Andronicus]

I couldn't decode this one on my phone - I think messing up one of the corner squares is a no-no. The first one is nice.

Well, I will admit that that one is one of the harder ones to scan. However, i-nigma will scan it. I had to move my phone fairly far away, making the QR fairly small, to get it to scan. It just is text "Chrysalides".

 

Edit: The built in scanner in Windows Phone scanned it as well. Again, had to move away from the QR to make it small. It is probably not a good idea to make a code that is that hard to scan if you are wanting lots of scans. Most people will likely give up after 2 or 3 seconds.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Andronicus

[+power69]

I couldn't decode this one on my phone - I think messing up one of the corner squares is a no-no. The first one is nice.

the squares are knowns, they can be fixed with a image editor.

[+Chrysalides]

the squares are knowns, they can be fixed with a image editor.

I think that kinds of defeats the purpose of a QR code

 

A feature of QR is the error correction built in, so that you can insert graphics into it and it will still scan. But Andronicus is right. If I back off far enough, and wait for about 10 seconds, my reader did eventually figure out what it is.

[+power69]

the squares are knowns, they can be fixed with a image editor.

I think that kinds of defeats the purpose of a QR code

Well some of us that aren't getting gouged by A T & T for a smartphone plan, the online decrypters fail and need rebuilding somewhat.

my phone only makes phone calls

[GOF and Bacall]

I couldn't decode this one on my phone - I think messing up one of the corner squares is a no-no. The first one is nice.

Well, I will admit that that one is one of the harder ones to scan. However, i-nigma will scan it. I had to move my phone fairly far away, making the QR fairly small, to get it to scan. It just is text "Chrysalides".

 

Edit: The built in scanner in Windows Phone scanned it as well. Again, had to move away from the QR to make it small. It is probably not a good idea to make a code that is that hard to scan if you are wanting lots of scans. Most people will likely give up after 2 or 3 seconds.

 

I-nigma on my iphone won't read it.

[+Chrysalides]

Well some of us that aren't getting gouged by A T & T for a smartphone plan, the online decrypters fail and need rebuilding somewhat.

my phone only makes phone calls

I prefer to pay up-front for my phone, avoid contracts, and go with a pre-paid plan. Works out to be cheaper in the long run too.

[+GeoBain]

I couldn't decode this one on my phone - I think messing up one of the corner squares is a no-no. The first one is nice.

Well, I will admit that that one is one of the harder ones to scan. However, i-nigma will scan it. I had to move my phone fairly far away, making the QR fairly small, to get it to scan. It just is text "Chrysalides".

 

Edit: The built in scanner in Windows Phone scanned it as well. Again, had to move away from the QR to make it small. It is probably not a good idea to make a code that is that hard to scan if you are wanting lots of scans. Most people will likely give up after 2 or 3 seconds.

 

I-nigma on my iphone won't read it.

 

Try pulling your phone back slowly from the page. Mine read it at about 16" from the screen.

[GOF and Bacall]

I couldn't decode this one on my phone - I think messing up one of the corner squares is a no-no. The first one is nice.

Well, I will admit that that one is one of the harder ones to scan. However, i-nigma will scan it. I had to move my phone fairly far away, making the QR fairly small, to get it to scan. It just is text "Chrysalides".

 

Edit: The built in scanner in Windows Phone scanned it as well. Again, had to move away from the QR to make it small. It is probably not a good idea to make a code that is that hard to scan if you are wanting lots of scans. Most people will likely give up after 2 or 3 seconds.

 

I-nigma on my iphone won't read it.

 

Try pulling your phone back slowly from the page. Mine read it at about 16" from the screen.

 

Did that. Timed out with no results.

[+power69]

Well some of us that aren't getting gouged by A T & T for a smartphone plan, the online decrypters fail and need rebuilding somewhat.

my phone only makes phone calls

I prefer to pay up-front for my phone, avoid contracts, and go with a pre-paid plan. Works out to be cheaper in the long run too.

thats what i have. a nokia 6010 basic phone.

let the others pay USF and all those other unfees.

[+cerberus1]

Even with my limited knowledge of this stuff, I was able to scan everything but the Tshirt within seconds on a Windows phone.

Fun, but I wouldn't want to use it as a replacement to a log.

 

I can see a new QR cache type though, made for power trails and C&Ds, where "TFTC" is the most you'll get on an online log anyway.

Look at logs after stickers have peeled away (and floated around GZ) and stamp smudges seep through the rest of the log.

With many of these "power" cachers using stampers and stickers, it may be a cleaner alternative.

 

Still challenge-free (where it's possible this code thing may end up).

I'll stick to longer hikes and higher terrains and remain a bit wordy on both the hide's and online log.

For me, caching's to get away from the quick-paced "modern" world we've become and for a while, get back to a simpler (and quieter) time.

- If that makes me appear "behind the times" to a few people who don't get it, tough.

[GOF and Bacall]

Even with my limited knowledge of this stuff, I was able to scan everything but the Tshirt within seconds on a Windows phone.

Fun, but I wouldn't want to use it as a replacement to a log.

 

I can see a new QR cache type though, made for power trails and C&Ds, where "TFTC" is the most you'll get on an online log anyway.

Look at logs after stickers have peeled away (and floated around GZ) and stamp smudges seep through the rest of the log.

With many of these "power" cachers using stampers and stickers, it may be a cleaner alternative.

 

Still challenge-free (where it's possible this code thing may end up).

I'll stick to longer hikes and higher terrains and remain a bit wordy on both the hide's and online log.

For me, caching's to get away from the quick-paced "modern" world we've become and for a while, get back to a simpler (and quieter) time.

- If that makes me appear "behind the times" to a few people who don't get it, tough.

 

If you're looking to get away from the fast paced "modern" world perhaps letterboxing is more for you?

[+GeoBain]

I couldn't decode this one on my phone - I think messing up one of the corner squares is a no-no. The first one is nice.

Well, I will admit that that one is one of the harder ones to scan. However, i-nigma will scan it. I had to move my phone fairly far away, making the QR fairly small, to get it to scan. It just is text "Chrysalides".

 

Edit: The built in scanner in Windows Phone scanned it as well. Again, had to move away from the QR to make it small. It is probably not a good idea to make a code that is that hard to scan if you are wanting lots of scans. Most people will likely give up after 2 or 3 seconds.

 

I-nigma on my iphone won't read it.

 

Try pulling your phone back slowly from the page. Mine read it at about 16" from the screen.

 

Did that. Timed out with no results.

 

Start it at 16" and try again. It works great for me.

[+cerberus1]

 

If you're looking to get away from the fast paced "modern" world perhaps letterboxing is more for you?

 

Thanks !

Haven't spotted any with 4-5 equivalent difficulty/terrain in my area, but I'll keep an eye out.

[+randycoxclemson]

Do you see ways in which QR and Bar codes can be integrated into geocaching, and if so how?

I see no way it would be useful for me.

 

I have never even touched a smart phone, much less owned one.

 

I would really, really hate it if there were ever a cache that required me to have one of those iBaubles around to scan something (yeah, I know now that there is an entire site/game devoted to this notion that all geocachers own smart phones).

[Team Soupbones]

Well I have implemented a cache now for about a month, which can either be a traditional cache, or a as I have been told, it could be classed as a puzzle cache? Why you ask? Well the cache, being extremely well concealed could be hard to find by some of the newer cachers. So to help them out, there is a nearby Red Herring, heavily camouflaged, but it contains a tool and it also contains a card with a picture of a Red Herring Fish talking, and the speech bubble has a QR code in it, which simply gives a good clue as to the caches location. Mind you there is a double wammy to the answer to the clue, but those that were stumped and then found the red herring eneded up finding the cache. And it seems the more experienced cachers now and then find the cache straight up.

Either way, despite me not being 100% happy with its location ( its not in the usual interesting locations I like to put caches ) this one works well and I have already had a couple of private emails saying what a good idea it is.

At the end of the day the cache can be found with or without using a cellphone Qr code reader, but if you have one it's a slight advantage. There is only a suggestion of the fact a cellphone might help in the caches hint.

The cache has been thought out to be findable both of these ways so not to disadvantage those older school cachers who don't have to use their mobile phone caching.

I say this is proof that QR codes can be used in caching, as long as its not the mainstay for finding the cache.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I couldn't decode this one on my phone - I think messing up one of the corner squares is a no-no. The first one is nice.

Well, I will admit that that one is one of the harder ones to scan. However, i-nigma will scan it. I had to move my phone fairly far away, making the QR fairly small, to get it to scan. It just is text "Chrysalides".

 

Edit: The built in scanner in Windows Phone scanned it as well. Again, had to move away from the QR to make it small. It is probably not a good idea to make a code that is that hard to scan if you are wanting lots of scans. Most people will likely give up after 2 or 3 seconds.

 

I-nigma on my iphone won't read it.

 

Try pulling your phone back slowly from the page. Mine read it at about 16" from the screen.

 

Did that. Timed out with no results.

 

Start it at 16" and try again. It works great for me.

Quoted so the image keeps shrinking and you can move your iphone a little closer

 

I have QuickMark as my QR reader on my phone and it scans the image fine.

[GOF and Bacall]

I couldn't decode this one on my phone - I think messing up one of the corner squares is a no-no. The first one is nice.

Well, I will admit that that one is one of the harder ones to scan. However, i-nigma will scan it. I had to move my phone fairly far away, making the QR fairly small, to get it to scan. It just is text "Chrysalides".

 

Edit: The built in scanner in Windows Phone scanned it as well. Again, had to move away from the QR to make it small. It is probably not a good idea to make a code that is that hard to scan if you are wanting lots of scans. Most people will likely give up after 2 or 3 seconds.

 

I-nigma on my iphone won't read it.

 

Try pulling your phone back slowly from the page. Mine read it at about 16" from the screen.

 

Did that. Timed out with no results.

 

Start it at 16" and try again. It works great for me.

Quoted so the image keeps shrinking and you can move your iphone a little closer

 

I have QuickMark as my QR reader on my phone and it scans the image fine.

 

Last time I looked at this thread I couldn't scan this no matter how hard I tried. Closer, farther, sideways, up-side-down, nothing worked. Today I just wave the scanner in the general direction and "BING!" there it is!