Caching with a trail camera

[+escomag]

I have one of those trail cameras that hunters use to see whether deer or other game are using a trail. The camera takes pictures when anything disturbs the sensor, at night with a flash. It is designed to be chained to a tree to prevent theft.

I have been considering setting it up on a cache, and then posting pictures of the cachers(or other wildlife) that I might get a picture of. Do you think cachers would be offended by the invasion of privacy, or like to see themselves making the find?

 

Thanks

[+Ambient_Skater]

Depends entirely on the cacher. I think it's a great idea. There'll be plenty of people who don't, though.

[+Caped Crusader]

I've been thinking of doing the same thing. I think it would be ok if you put a disclaimer on the cache page. I would also respect the cachers wishes to not have their pics posted if they ask.

[+popokiiti]

Just let 'em know up front that there is a camera that will take their picture. Put that at the beginning of the description. Then no-one will be caught out picking their nose or scratching their derriere! (You hope.)

[+mpilchfamily]

Yes, be sure to let people know its there. For one it gives them a chance to pose for the pic. Most importantly there are many that won't want there picture taken and posted.

[+G & C]

I would moon your camera. It's just what I do.

 

But it would be awesome.

[+Towcester Pirates]

this sounds like a great idea

 

just curious - is there a delay on the snap being taken from when the cacher(s) triggers the camera? will it take more than one picture if the cacher(s) take a while to locate the cache?

 

i agree a disclaimer on teh cache page would be good. let people opt out of their pictures being published as well would be polite. I would include a note in the cache to tell people they can pose for a picture etc if they want!

[+Minimike2]

With the number of caches that are muggled, stolen and/or destroyed, what makes you think the trail camera will survive for long?

[+power69]

With the number of caches that are muggled, stolen and/or destroyed, what makes you think the trail camera will survive for long?

it won't last unless locked down somehow.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

A trail camera might have been useful for the "weird adventure" that sword fern just posted.

[+Chokecherry]

I agree with the disclaimer and ability for people finding the cache to opt out of having their pictures posted. I would not like to have someone take my picture and post it online without my permission.

[+worstcaster]

Sounds cool, but make sure you secure it very well with a lock. There is a reason you can find so many cheap on ebay! I would recommend engraving your name, address, and phone # in multiple places on the interior and exterior case. This will lower the resale value.

 

The cameras can be a lot of fun. Some tips for placement.

 

1) Place facing north/south not east/west. Direct prolonged sunshine can cause the camera to take pictures, since it is an heat senor that triggers the camera.

 

2) Find an animal trail and place the camera facing down the trail. There is a slight delay in the camera firing and if you are shooting cross trail you might not get a picture of the animal/cacher or just catch part of them.

 

3) Remember your will have to periodically change the batteries.

 

Here are a couple pictures I took with my camera.

 

 

 

 

 

[+hawkeyetob]

I would echo the full disclaimer part in the description but possibly for a different reason.

 

We geocache as a family. Although we take plenty of pictures for our use, we do not post pictures of our children online.

A number of earthcaches want a picture of you with your gps. For those, it's a parent only photo op.

 

Not saying don't use your trail cam, but just adding the children component for your consideration.

 

Happy Geocaching! - hawkeyetob

[+A & J Tooling]

Do it. I'm planning the same thing. I've seen more cameras then caches so I ain't the only one wanting to do it. Maybe we can get a subforum opened with pictures of people looking in the wrong places...

[+Mushroom finder]

Here's an idea, why not make the trail cam itself the cache? Instead of looking for a traditional cache, finders would be looking for the camera and instead of signing a paper log they would be required to pose with a piece of paper with their geocaching handle on it. The trail cam will record the time and date stamp. Doing it this way, people will know ahead of time that they are going to be photographed and instead of getting pics of their backsides as they bend over to pick up the cache, you'll get pics of them smiling as they peer into the camera. If they don't want their identity revealed you can photoshop a black bar over their face before you post the pics.

 

Another thing that would be fun is to make it part of a multi cache. Hack the unit so that instead of activating the camera it would activate a voice recording that revealed the true coordinates.

[+Manville Possum]

I would moon your camera. It's just what I do.

 

But it would be awesome.

I caught a muggler peeing in the weeds once on my trail cam. Not a pretty site. But, yes. I would moon your camera too.

[+worstcaster]

Here's an idea, why not make the trail cam itself the cache? Instead of looking for a traditional cache, finders would be looking for the camera and instead of signing a paper log they would be required to pose with a piece of paper with their geocaching handle on it. The trail cam will record the time and date stamp. Doing it this way, people will know ahead of time that they are going to be photographed and instead of getting pics of their backsides as they bend over to pick up the cache, you'll get pics of them smiling as they peer into the camera. If they don't want their identity revealed you can photoshop a black bar over their face before you post the pics.

 

Cool idea, but I think that would be considered an "Additional Logging Requirement" by the guidelines.

[GOF and Bacall]

Here's an idea, why not make the trail cam itself the cache? Instead of looking for a traditional cache, finders would be looking for the camera and instead of signing a paper log they would be required to pose with a piece of paper with their geocaching handle on it. The trail cam will record the time and date stamp. Doing it this way, people will know ahead of time that they are going to be photographed and instead of getting pics of their backsides as they bend over to pick up the cache, you'll get pics of them smiling as they peer into the camera. If they don't want their identity revealed you can photoshop a black bar over their face before you post the pics.

 

Cool idea, but I think that would be considered an "Additional Logging Requirement" by the guidelines.

 

Hang a bison tube on the camera and make the picture an ALM. Alternate Logging Method.

[mtbikernate]

I know a guy who found the trail cameras of a friend's master's research. he mooned the camera, but I don't think it got a picture of it because I don't recall my friend ever saying anything about it.

 

If you see one of these, chances are your picture has already been taken...then you have to contend with a delay between the next shot. Sometimes that delay can be only a minute...sometimes up to an hour. It depends on the camera settings.

 

From one of mine:

 

birds at the water garden by mtbikernate, on Flickr

 

Red Fox by mtbikernate, on Flickr

 

I've had cameras tampered with and stolen (I have two of my own and used 62 of them for my research) and you absolutely have to lock them down (and in some cases, use a second lock to lock the control panel closed). Sometimes even then people won't respect your equipment and they will try to smash your camera just to be destructive. Hiding a camera can be more challenging than hiding a geocache, but sometimes that works. I've seen where researchers hid the camera (from the wildlife) inside piles of rocks and stuff. Sometimes it helps discourage people from stealing your cameras if you make official-looking durable stickers that claim there is a GPS tracking device on the camera (because frankly, most people won't know any better) but nothing will be 100%. If you put cameras where people go and they can see them, some people will mess with them with malicious intent.

[+hzoi]

Here's an idea, why not make the trail cam itself the cache? Instead of looking for a traditional cache, finders would be looking for the camera and instead of signing a paper log they would be required to pose with a piece of paper with their geocaching handle on it. The trail cam will record the time and date stamp. Doing it this way, people will know ahead of time that they are going to be photographed and instead of getting pics of their backsides as they bend over to pick up the cache, you'll get pics of them smiling as they peer into the camera. If they don't want their identity revealed you can photoshop a black bar over their face before you post the pics.

 

Sounds like a webcam cache, with less work. Not sure it would get past a reviewer. But if you made it part of a cache that otherwise abided by the guidelines, might work.

[+Coldgears]

I would echo the full disclaimer part in the description but possibly for a different reason.

 

We geocache as a family. Although we take plenty of pictures for our use, we do not post pictures of our children online.

A number of earthcaches want a picture of you with your gps. For those, it's a parent only photo op.

 

Not saying don't use your trail cam, but just adding the children component for your consideration.

 

Happy Geocaching! - hawkeyetob

May I ask why you don't post pictures of your children? It just seems so out of the norm, considering how many pictures there are (There was at least a couple hundred pictures of children (2-8 years old) that were on the front page, and pretty much everytime I look at the photo gallery of a cache, there is a child 2 - 8 year old in it. I really can't see a reason why you *wouldn't*.

[+ARHogFanz]

I'm not Hawkeyetob but I'll tell you why I'm very careful about posting pictures of my children online - pervs & pedophiles. There is plenty of software that allows you to find out where a picture was taken and other info. It's not hard these days to locate someone, whether they want to be found or not. Yes, I post pics of my 3 teens on FB but restrict those pictures to friends only.

 

As to the topic at hand - I love the idea of the camera as long as there's a disclaimer up front. Go for it!

[+mpilchfamily]

I'm not Hawkeyetob but I'll tell you why I'm very careful about posting pictures of my children online - pervs & pedophiles. There is plenty of software that allows you to find out where a picture was taken and other info. It's not hard these days to locate someone, whether they want to be found or not. Yes, I post pics of my 3 teens on FB but restrict those pictures to friends only.

 

As to the topic at hand - I love the idea of the camera as long as there's a disclaimer up front. Go for it!

Its only recently that my wife has posted pics of our kids. But she is strict about not posting there names. We also don't use a digital camera with GPSr in it. Don't want any geotags on our pics.

[+Rifleman68]

maybe not post them, but send the pic to there Email?

[+dfx]

There is plenty of software that allows you to find out where a picture was taken and other info.

Only if the file actually includes that info. It's up to you to strip it out.

 

Yes, I post pics of my 3 teens on FB but restrict those pictures to friends only.

How many "friends" do you have? Do you actually know all of them?

[+Coldgears]

I'm not Hawkeyetob but I'll tell you why I'm very careful about posting pictures of my children online - pervs & pedophiles. There is plenty of software that allows you to find out where a picture was taken and other info. It's not hard these days to locate someone, whether they want to be found or not. Yes, I post pics of my 3 teens on FB but restrict those pictures to friends only.

 

As to the topic at hand - I love the idea of the camera as long as there's a disclaimer up front. Go for it!

This is the ridiculous things that make me wonder what people are thinking. First of all, it's MUCH more viable for the "perv / pedophile" in question to just walk / drive around to find a child he wants to "prey" on. Why would anyone spend all the time that your would need to find this person, and secondly, you don't need, "Software" to find this. It's called EXIF data, and it's used primarily to give people information about the photo E.G. what type of camera, the lens, ECT. Thirdly, just erase the location on the EXIF data, really is not hard, and if you can't do that load up the picture on window's media player press the, "print screen" button, copy/paste into paint, crop the image, and it's EXIF free. Another thing I don't get is that if you think anyone can just be a pedophile, why do you bother to take them out of the house? If said Pedophile is close enough to drive to said house, to prey on said person, then said pedophile could just as likely see said child in said neighborhood. Hell, forget about school too, you better homeschool them, many schools post pictures of children in classroom settings, let's hope they don't prey on EVERYONE IN THE DANG SCHOOL! Heck, with all these people posting all these children online, is there a single child who HASN'T been pedophiled yet? I mean, as soon as you post a picture online a pedophile is going to hunt down said child right?

 

I have to admit, pedophiles and pervs aren't the brightest of folks. You know, with the spending hundreds of hours hunting down a single child with the LIMITED information of EXIF data on a picture. If I was a PEDO, I'd just drive around town until I found someone to prey on then follow them home. Apparently the "smart" way NEVER happens, because you probably bring them out to the grocery store.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Coldgears

[+Ambient_Skater]

^What Coldgears said

 

While it's conceivable that a predator could find a photo of your kids, extract the EXIF metadata which may or may not have been saved with--and if so, preserved by the image hosting site-- it in the first place, and hunt you down, it's more likely they're just gonna stake out their local school. I can still understand why you still may not want to post photos of your kids online, since there's no way of knowing who'll end up seeing them.

Edited May 21, 2011 by Ambient_Skater

[+GeoGeeBee]

^^What Coldgears and Ambient Skater said.

 

Plus, on top of all that, why would a pedophile be searching through photos posted on the logs of geocaches? Aren't there a lot of websites where the perv could find a more target-rich environment? If I wanted to search through a bunch of photographs, I think I'd start with Picasa or Flickr instead of gc.

[+mpilchfamily]

^^What Coldgears and Ambient Skater said.

 

Plus, on top of all that, why would a pedophile be searching through photos posted on the logs of geocaches? Aren't there a lot of websites where the perv could find a more target-rich environment? If I wanted to search through a bunch of photographs, I think I'd start with Picasa or Flickr instead of gc.

They wouldn't be trolling through here but through image searches on the major search engines. Wherever the photos may be stored and whatever site they are posted on have the Search engine "crawlers" going through the site daily. Looking for key terms, images and videos that can be used to help improve a search. So if its posted here it can be found in a simple Google or Bing image search.

 

Tonight one of the local news stations is doing a report about pedophiles getting too much info off facebook.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

Tonight one of the local news stations is doing a report about pedophiles getting too much info off facebook.

Yeah, it's May. In the USA TV business, May is "sweeps," one of the four times each year that Nielsen measures audiences nationwide. TV stations all over the country are turning over sensationalist rocks to see what crawls out. Any scary headline that they can tout to get you to tune in, they'll use it in May. The madness ends Wednesday and they'll go back to their normal responsible reporting. Until July... and November... and February.

[+CanadianRockies]

I like the idea, but if I was doing it then I'd go with "opt in" instead of "opt out." It requires extra effort, but, as you noted, some people might feel this is an invasion of their privacy. Why create hard feelings?

 

From a legal perspective, you're probably okay posting pictures of people if they are taken in a public place (although there are exceptions). From a pragmatic perspective, however, some people likely will get upset. Just ask the people working on the Google Street View project.

[+zoltig]

I like the idea, but if I was doing it then I'd go with "opt in" instead of "opt out." It requires extra effort, but, as you noted, some people might feel this is an invasion of their privacy. Why create hard feelings?

 

From a legal perspective, you're probably okay posting pictures of people if they are taken in a public place (although there are exceptions). From a pragmatic perspective, however, some people likely will get upset. Just ask the people working on the Google Street View project.

 

Faces on Street View are obscured to protect privacy of people.

[+CanadianRockies]

From a pragmatic perspective, however, some people likely will get upset. Just ask the people working on the Google Street View project.

Faces on Street View are obscured to protect privacy of people.

My point, exactly. People complained. Google obscured the faces.

[+Chrysalides]

This is the ridiculous things that make me wonder what people are thinking.

Ah, yes, a favorite past-time : telling others how they should raise / protect their kids.

 

If they prefer not to post photos of their kids, leave them alone. If you want to post photos of your kids (when you have them), by all means go ahead.

[+hzoi]

From a pragmatic perspective, however, some people likely will get upset. Just ask the people working on the Google Street View project.

Faces on Street View are obscured to protect privacy of people.

My point, exactly. People complained. Google obscured the faces.

 

Different situation. In the US, you have no right to privacy in public. My understanding is that Google made a blanket rule because the laws are different in other countries. But even in the US there's an argument that could be made that Google, a for-profit company, was using people's likenesses for commercial purposes without permission.

 

I don't think a cache that incorporates a trail camera triggers the same legal arguments or objections that Google Street View does. But it's obviously outside of some folks' comfort zones. If the trail camera aspect is listed on the cache page, then those who aren't interested in having their picture taken can opt out of looking for the cache, or wear a mask or whatever it is that camera shy people have to do to accomodate themselves.

[+CanadianRockies]

From a pragmatic perspective, however, some people likely will get upset. Just ask the people working on the Google Street View project.

Faces on Street View are obscured to protect privacy of people.

My point, exactly. People complained. Google obscured the faces.

Different situation. In the US, you have no right to privacy in public. My understanding is that Google made a blanket rule because the laws are different in other countries.

Yes, I realize this type of cache probably is legal within the United States, and I noted that in my earlier post. I doubt Google decided to have a blanket rule to obscure faces in every country simply because privacy laws differ across countries. My understanding is that showing faces was an international public relations disaster. They obscured U.S. faces because many Americans were upset with the practice even if it likely was legal.

[+Towcester Pirates]

From a pragmatic perspective, however, some people likely will get upset. Just ask the people working on the Google Street View project.

Faces on Street View are obscured to protect privacy of people.

My point, exactly. People complained. Google obscured the faces.

Different situation. In the US, you have no right to privacy in public. My understanding is that Google made a blanket rule because the laws are different in other countries.

Yes, I realize this type of cache probably is legal within the United States, and I noted that in my earlier post. I doubt Google decided to have a blanket rule to obscure faces in every country simply because privacy laws differ across countries. My understanding is that showing faces was an international public relations disaster. They obscured U.S. faces because many Americans were upset with the practice even if it likely was legal.

 

the difference wit this idea and google street view would be that in the cache page it would notify you of the camera taking pictures. you yourself then OPT OUT of looking for the cache if you dont want your photo taken. simples.