When will drone caches be allowed?

[+elrojo14]

The wife got me a Parrot Bebop 2 for Christmas and I have been using it for Geocaching quite a bit. I use it to document finds and Geocaching takes me out to some nice places to fly. I even found a missing boat today that I was using as a container that floated away!

 

So I wanted to make a multi-cache that required a drone to find the numbers to the coordinates, but the local reviewer said there has been a stop on all drone caches while legal reviews drones and Geocaching. Just an FYI for yall and if things change hopefully we can get a lackey update here. What a bummer. I was looking forward to doing some fun things with it.

[+on4bam]

So I wanted to make a multi-cache that required a drone to find the numbers to the coordinates, but the local reviewer said there has been a stop on all drone caches while legal reviews drones and Geocaching.

 

It will certainly be a regional thing. While more complicated than this, drones can only be flown with a proper license (depending on class it costs $$$ or better €€€ here). Then there are restrictions where it's allowed to fly (distance to airports, military installations, power plants...you name it) and allowed height. Then there's privacy laws also (not flying over/near private property). Since different countries have or will have different laws you don't want this can of worms opened.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Where I live in FL, drones are banned in all county and municipal parks except by special permission. They're also banned throughout the state in state parks. Legal drone use is so restrictive that designing a cache that makes use of one seems like a bad idea.

 

Drones are neat, but too many drone operators are irresponsible. As drones get cheaper the problem will probably only get worse.

[+Touchstone]

Hmmm....my sense is never. FAQ link for reference, just to demonstrate how complex the issue is, and how impossible it would be for Groundspeak to assure regulators that people are in compliance with current law:

 

https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/

[+cerberus1]

After realizing a friend left for an extreme cache in Maryland without me, and knowing that it isn't usually done solo (for safety), I seriously thought of using a helicopter at the time for access.

There weren't many at that time that had the ability to grab objects, so that'd have to wait a while.

 

Now that drones are everywhere, and some companies have options to lift heavy objects, it caught my attention again.

But as others have said, there's so many new laws on these (still relatively new) things, it'd be tough to tell if they'd even be allowed there now anyway.

 

Guess it's time to buy some new rope...

[Pup Patrol]

And for the Canadians:

 

Flying your drone safely and legally

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/flying-drone-safely-legally.html

 

No drone zones

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/opssvs/no-drone-zones.html

 

Foreign operators

 

Foreign operators may only fly a UAV in Canada with an approved SFOC. Before you apply, you must already be allowed to use the drone for the same purpose in your home country. Include your country’s approval or authorization as part of your SFOC application.

 

B.

[+Team DEMP]

I'm not sure that GC needs to be carry the burden of rules around drones. It's a tool that the operator/cacher should take responsibility for just as a cacher is responsible for driving an automobile, using kayak, climbing a tree, etc. There are no "restrictions" that GC needs to impose on drivers or kayakers, etc. Whether you use a drone to get coords at the top of a tree/cliff or you climb/repel, the operator understands and assumes the risk and does so in accordance with the rules/regulations of their country/state/area. Why force GC to do anything different from drones?

[+elrojo14]

Hmmm....my sense is never. FAQ link for reference, just to demonstrate how complex the issue is, and how impossible it would be for Groundspeak to assure regulators that people are in compliance with current law:

 

https://www.faa.gov/uas/faqs/

 

It really isn't that complex. If within 5 miles of an airport, you just need to notify the airport and the tower (if they have one). If your drone is over weight, then it needs to be registered. And my idea was not to lift anything, just view clues to find a multi. And I would design the cache page to be fully inform pilots of FAA and local laws so there would be zero excuses.

 

At what point is Groundspeak liable? If you know a cache is in a location that you must drive to retrieve it, are we worried about whether drivers are properly licensed and know all of the rules of the road?

 

I'm not sure that GC needs to be carry the burden of rules around drones. It's a tool that the operator/cacher should take responsibility for just as a cacher is responsible for driving an automobile, using kayak, climbing a tree, etc. There are no "restrictions" that GC needs to impose on drivers or kayakers, etc. Whether you use a drone to get coords at the top of a tree/cliff or you climb/repel, the operator understands and assumes the risk and does so in accordance with the rules/regulations of their country/state/area. Why force GC to do anything different from drones?

 

You were typing as I was too! Exactly.

Edited January 30, 2017 by elrojo14

[+on4bam]

It really isn't that complex. If within 5 miles of an airport, you just need to notify the airport and the tower (if they have one). If your drone is over weight, then it needs to be registered. And my idea was not to lift anything, just view clues to find a multi. And I would design the cache page to be fully inform pilots of FAA and local laws so there would be zero excuses.

 

While that may be true where you live it's certainly not true here.

Unless a drone is a toy (1Kg max) you can only fly on private property (your own or where you have permission). A second class needs a license, registration, insurance and fly no closer than 30m to "objects". You also need to keep a logbook.

 

Remember that geocaching is a global activity.

[+elrojo14]

It really isn't that complex. If within 5 miles of an airport, you just need to notify the airport and the tower (if they have one). If your drone is over weight, then it needs to be registered. And my idea was not to lift anything, just view clues to find a multi. And I would design the cache page to be fully inform pilots of FAA and local laws so there would be zero excuses.

 

While that may be true where you live it's certainly not true here.

Unless a drone is a toy (1Kg max) you can only fly on private property (your own or where you have permission). A second class needs a license, registration, insurance and fly no closer than 30m to "objects". You also need to keep a logbook.

 

Remember that geocaching is a global activity.

 

And that is fine. What are your rules for driving? For being out past curfew? Who can own a cell phone? And on and on. Stating, "Please follow all local laws when Geocaching." pretty much takes care of that. And then local reviewers just need to be aware of their drone rules, which should be easy to figure out if you put it back on the cache owners to prove what they want to do is legal and safe.

[+on4bam]

And that is fine. What are your rules for driving? For being out past curfew? Who can own a cell phone? And on and on. Stating, "Please follow all local laws when Geocaching." pretty much takes care of that. And then local reviewers just need to be aware of their drone rules, which should be easy to figure out if you put it back on the cache owners to prove what they want to do is legal and safe.

 

Curfew?

 

I doubt GC will be willing to get into reviewing a cache that "needs" a drone.

You could always try getting a cache published that can be done without a drone and then mention that to access a certain WP "using a drone may make it easier to get the information". That way it's the cacher's responsibility to make sure they are within the law. A bit like "boat required" when you can just walk to a cache during extreme drought.

[+tomfuller & Quill]

Considering the fact that Groundspeak is in Seattle and that drones have run into the Space Needle more than once, I'm guessing it isn't going to happen.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It really isn't that complex. If within 5 miles of an airport, you just need to notify the airport and the tower (if they have one). If your drone is over weight, then it needs to be registered. And my idea was not to lift anything, just view clues to find a multi. And I would design the cache page to be fully inform pilots of FAA and local laws so there would be zero excuses.

 

While that may be true where you live it's certainly not true here.

Unless a drone is a toy (1Kg max) you can only fly on private property (your own or where you have permission). A second class needs a license, registration, insurance and fly no closer than 30m to "objects". You also need to keep a logbook.

 

Remember that geocaching is a global activity.

 

And that is fine. What are your rules for driving? For being out past curfew? Who can own a cell phone? And on and on. Stating, "Please follow all local laws when Geocaching." pretty much takes care of that. And then local reviewers just need to be aware of their drone rules, which should be easy to figure out if you put it back on the cache owners to prove what they want to do is legal and safe.

 

It seems to me, that this post answers your original questions. Groundspeak doesn't make rules for driving or whether geocachers need be home before the street lights go on. It doesn't need to make any special rules regarding drones either. The "Please follow all local laws when Geocaching." rule covers it. If you or someone else wants to create a cache that requires a drone to read a set of coordinates or grab a container, then "requires special equipment" and a T5 rating would apply. If I don't have a drone, but have a Jetpack, can I still find your cache?

I wonder if anyone has tried to find this one with a drone?

[+GeoTrekker26]

And that is fine. What are your rules for driving? For being out past curfew? Who can own a cell phone? And on and on. Stating, "Please follow all local laws when Geocaching." pretty much takes care of that. And then local reviewers just need to be aware of their drone rules, which should be easy to figure out if you put it back on the cache owners to prove what they want to do is legal and safe.

 

GS has demonstrated concern for caches that might disturb others, causing some to be removed and adding extra steps before publishing others. While lawfully driving or canoeing is unlikely to draw negative attention, the same cannot be said of drones buzzing overhead.

[+Touchstone]

I think that Groundspeak doesn't want to be in the position of appearing to "approve" of this concept on the website. What people do on their own is up to them. If a listing *requires* a drone, I can understand their hesitation to go down that route.

[+Mudfrog]

I'm not sure that GC needs to be carry the burden of rules around drones. It's a tool that the operator/cacher should take responsibility for just as a cacher is responsible for driving an automobile, using kayak, climbing a tree, etc. There are no "restrictions" that GC needs to impose on drivers or kayakers, etc. Whether you use a drone to get coords at the top of a tree/cliff or you climb/repel, the operator understands and assumes the risk and does so in accordance with the rules/regulations of their country/state/area. Why force GC to do anything different from drones?

I was thinking the same thing. We supposedly have to let a reviewer know that we have permission from a land owner before hiding a cache. Just like land permission, it's on the cache owner to make sure his drone idea is ok.

 

While that may be true where you live it's certainly not true here.

Unless a drone is a toy (1Kg max) you can only fly on private property (your own or where you have permission). A second class needs a license, registration, insurance and fly no closer than 30m to "objects". You also need to keep a logbook.

 

Remember that geocaching is a global activity.

 

A cache owner needs to study up on the rules/guidelines regarding drone flying for the area they intend to place a cache. It's his responsibility to make sure that drone usage is ok to find his cache, that it doesn't go against local laws or GS guidelines.

[+Manville Possum]

Wow. Drone required caches? Way too many legal issues IMO.

[+cerberus1]

I wonder if anyone has tried to find this one with a drone?

That's the one I was planning for, but my friend's schedule couldn't wait, and he did it solo on 9/07.

Not sure I'd do it solo...

Vinnie did remark that it might be accessed by "a manned helicopter or a small remote-controlled unmanned helicopter, or perhaps by dirigible or a person wearing a jetpack".

Edited January 30, 2017 by cerberus1

[+JohnCNA]

I think that Groundspeak doesn't want to be in the position of appearing to "approve" of this concept on the website. What people do on their own is up to them. If a listing *requires* a drone, I can understand their hesitation to go down that route.

 

This cache was placed by drone and has been attempted by drones. A drone might be the most logical tool to use, but there's no stopping someone with a helicopter or cherry-picker.

[Keystone]

I think that Groundspeak doesn't want to be in the position of appearing to "approve" of this concept on the website. What people do on their own is up to them. If a listing *requires* a drone, I can understand their hesitation to go down that route.

 

This cache was placed by drone and has been attempted by drones. A drone might be the most logical tool to use, but there's no stopping someone with a helicopter or cherry-picker.

The linked cache was published in 2014, well before Geocaching HQ asked all Community Volunteer Reviewers in 2015 to not publish caches involving the use of drones.

 

I think the newest logs on the linked cache illustrate why that decision was taken.

 

I'm not aware of any update on the prior guidance from Geocaching HQ.

[+Manville Possum]

A drone might be the most logical tool to use, but there's no stopping someone with a helicopter or cherry-picker.[/size]

 

Or a chainsaw.

[+elrojo14]

It really isn't that complex. If within 5 miles of an airport, you just need to notify the airport and the tower (if they have one). If your drone is over weight, then it needs to be registered. And my idea was not to lift anything, just view clues to find a multi. And I would design the cache page to be fully inform pilots of FAA and local laws so there would be zero excuses.

 

While that may be true where you live it's certainly not true here.

Unless a drone is a toy (1Kg max) you can only fly on private property (your own or where you have permission). A second class needs a license, registration, insurance and fly no closer than 30m to "objects". You also need to keep a logbook.

 

Remember that geocaching is a global activity.

 

And that is fine. What are your rules for driving? For being out past curfew? Who can own a cell phone? And on and on. Stating, "Please follow all local laws when Geocaching." pretty much takes care of that. And then local reviewers just need to be aware of their drone rules, which should be easy to figure out if you put it back on the cache owners to prove what they want to do is legal and safe.

 

It seems to me, that this post answers your original questions. Groundspeak doesn't make rules for driving or whether geocachers need be home before the street lights go on. It doesn't need to make any special rules regarding drones either. The "Please follow all local laws when Geocaching." rule covers it. If you or someone else wants to create a cache that requires a drone to read a set of coordinates or grab a container, then "requires special equipment" and a T5 rating would apply. If I don't have a drone, but have a Jetpack, can I still find your cache?

Except Groundspeak has stated no drone caches.

[+J Grouchy]

I wonder if anyone has tried to find this one with a drone?

 

Anyone call that CO out on his ALR?

 

FIND LOG REQUIREMENTS: Due to the extreme nature of this cache, signing the log, while being one necessary condition to claim a find, is not a sufficient condition alone to claim a find, and rather, here are the full requirements for claiming a valid find and for logging a find online:

To claim a find for this cache, you must find the cache atop the pylon, sign the logbook, record the code number to be found in the logbook, return the cache and its attached anchor weights to its rightful place atop the pylon, log the find online on the cache listing page, and send us the code number found in the log book via private email or via PM. Failure to adhere to any of these conditions, and particularly, failure to return the cache (along with its attached weights) to its spot atop the pylon, will result in disqualification of any related find claim and removal of such online find claim from the cache listing page.

[+The A-Team]

I wonder if anyone has tried to find this one with a drone?

Anyone call that CO out on his ALR?

 

FIND LOG REQUIREMENTS: Due to the extreme nature of this cache, signing the log, while being one necessary condition to claim a find, is not a sufficient condition alone to claim a find, and rather, here are the full requirements for claiming a valid find and for logging a find online:

To claim a find for this cache, you must find the cache atop the pylon, sign the logbook, record the code number to be found in the logbook, return the cache and its attached anchor weights to its rightful place atop the pylon, log the find online on the cache listing page, and send us the code number found in the log book via private email or via PM. Failure to adhere to any of these conditions, and particularly, failure to return the cache (along with its attached weights) to its spot atop the pylon, will result in disqualification of any related find claim and removal of such online find claim from the cache listing page.

At first I thought they might have added that text just to make the description longer and that they wouldn't actually enforce it, but then I saw this in one of the CO's notes:

...Reminder: cache MUST be replaced in its proper place on top of the pillar for finds to be valid...

Sure sounds like an ALR to me.

 

The other cache that was mentioned earlier seems to be subject to ALRs as well:

...I deleted this log because the finder was not able to put the cache back exactly as he found it.

It sounds like both COs didn't adequately consider the methods finders might use to get to the log.

[+niraD]

At first I thought they might have added that text just to make the description longer and that they wouldn't actually enforce it, but then I saw this in one of the CO's notes:

...Reminder: cache MUST be replaced in its proper place on top of the pillar for finds to be valid...

Sure sounds like an ALR to me.

 

The other cache that was mentioned earlier seems to be subject to ALRs as well:

...I deleted this log because the finder was not able to put the cache back exactly as he found it.

It sounds like both COs didn't adequately consider the methods finders might use to get to the log.

It's bad enough that people use the three cache monte and don't bother returning geocaches to their original locations.

 

Now, if the owner of a challenging geocache insists that finders actually return it to its original location, then that's considered an ALR.

 

I guess it's time to update the Geocaching 101 page and remove the "return the geocache to its original location" bit.

[+Zaise]

I don't think drones and geocaching really mix in the sense you want it to. There's too much of a risk of people who don't know how to use a drone messing up and possibly hurting people. I'm a decent drone flyer and it took my about 30 hours of training to get good enough at it to fly it confidently.

 

Also, drones can be cost prohibitive, especially if you want people to use ones with live feed back to their remotes/phones.

[+The A-Team]

At first I thought they might have added that text just to make the description longer and that they wouldn't actually enforce it, but then I saw this in one of the CO's notes:

...Reminder: cache MUST be replaced in its proper place on top of the pillar for finds to be valid...

Sure sounds like an ALR to me.

 

The other cache that was mentioned earlier seems to be subject to ALRs as well:

...I deleted this log because the finder was not able to put the cache back exactly as he found it.

It sounds like both COs didn't adequately consider the methods finders might use to get to the log.

It's bad enough that people use the three cache monte and don't bother returning geocaches to their original locations.

 

Now, if the owner of a challenging geocache insists that finders actually return it to its original location, then that's considered an ALR.

 

I guess it's time to update the Geocaching 101 page and remove the "return the geocache to its original location" bit.

Don't get me wrong; like you, I feel that caches should always be returned to where you retrieved them from. It's just that "the letter of the law" doesn't require that the container be returned (Guidelines - III-1.):

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional.

Cue the debate surrounding what's meant by "finding the cache" in this context.

[+The A-Team]

I don't think drones and geocaching really mix in the sense you want it to. There's too much of a risk of people who don't know how to use a drone messing up and possibly hurting people. I'm a decent drone flyer and it took my about 30 hours of training to get good enough at it to fly it confidently.

I'd think the problems are less about the possibility of direct harm or damage, but rather the perception of muggles. I can see the first line of the news article now...

Local law enforcement authorities were called out to [insert name of park here] yesterday after several concerned citizens reported seeing a drone placing an object on top of [insert tall object here].

[+Team DEMP]

I don't think drones and geocaching really mix in the sense you want it to. There's too much of a risk of people who don't know how to use a drone messing up and possibly hurting people. I'm a decent drone flyer and it took my about 30 hours of training to get good enough at it to fly it confidently.

 

Also, drones can be cost prohibitive, especially if you want people to use ones with live feed back to their remotes/phones.

 

Couldn't the same be said for a cache that requires scuba gear? It can be dangerous, requires hours of practice, certification, etc and be cost prohibitive? Yet there are caches that, if attempted, require scuba experience and equipment.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

It really isn't that complex. If within 5 miles of an airport, you just need to notify the airport and the tower (if they have one). If your drone is over weight, then it needs to be registered. And my idea was not to lift anything, just view clues to find a multi. And I would design the cache page to be fully inform pilots of FAA and local laws so there would be zero excuses.

 

While that may be true where you live it's certainly not true here.

Unless a drone is a toy (1Kg max) you can only fly on private property (your own or where you have permission). A second class needs a license, registration, insurance and fly no closer than 30m to "objects". You also need to keep a logbook.

 

Remember that geocaching is a global activity.

 

And that is fine. What are your rules for driving? For being out past curfew? Who can own a cell phone? And on and on. Stating, "Please follow all local laws when Geocaching." pretty much takes care of that. And then local reviewers just need to be aware of their drone rules, which should be easy to figure out if you put it back on the cache owners to prove what they want to do is legal and safe.

 

It seems to me, that this post answers your original questions. Groundspeak doesn't make rules for driving or whether geocachers need be home before the street lights go on. It doesn't need to make any special rules regarding drones either. The "Please follow all local laws when Geocaching." rule covers it. If you or someone else wants to create a cache that requires a drone to read a set of coordinates or grab a container, then "requires special equipment" and a T5 rating would apply. If I don't have a drone, but have a Jetpack, can I still find your cache?

Except Groundspeak has stated no drone caches.

 

Okay, I must have missed that memo. Where does GS state that drones can't be used to place a cache?

 

 

[cezanne]

Okay, I must have missed that memo. Where does GS state that drones can't be used to place a cache?

 

Are you a reviewer? I guess the issue is that there is a lot of guidance that the reviewers receive that "normal" cachers do not get to see (whether that's a good thing or not is a different matter).

 

Drones might also be used just to obtain information needed to find a cache at another location (typically then drones are not the only conceivable approach) - for that purpose toy drones often will suffice. Then differentiating will be even harder.

[+redsox_mark]

The "memo" was referred to in Post 20

 

It is guidance given to Community Volunteer Reviewers in 2015.

 

it says caches "involving the use of drones." won't be published. I guess if someone hid it with a drone, but the cache page doesn't mention this and a drone isn't required to find it, that would be published (as the reviewer would not know about the drone usage).

Edited January 31, 2017 by redsox_mark

[+NYPaddleCacher]

The "memo" was referred to in Post 20

 

It is guidance given to Community Volunteer Reviewers in 2015.

 

it says caches "involving the use of drones." won't be published. I guess if someone hid it with a drone, but the cache page doesn't mention this and a drone isn't required to find it, that would be published (as the reviewer would not know about the drone usage).

 

I saw the "memo" in Post 20, and I guess I assumed that if GS changed their policy on how a cache could be hidden that they'd tell it's users rather than have them try to submit a listing only to be told by their reviewer that it violated a guideline that only reviewers knew about.

 

I have on several occasions suggested that a forum section be set up similar to the Release Notes section which describes changes that have been made to the web site or mobile app, but for announcing changes to the guidelines or policy GS has made. Instead, we only find out about these changes in post #20 in a thread in Geocaching Topics.

[+Touchstone]

The "memo" was referred to in Post 20

 

It is guidance given to Community Volunteer Reviewers in 2015.

 

it says caches "involving the use of drones." won't be published. I guess if someone hid it with a drone, but the cache page doesn't mention this and a drone isn't required to find it, that would be published (as the reviewer would not know about the drone usage).

 

I saw the "memo" in Post 20, and I guess I assumed that if GS changed their policy on how a cache could be hidden that they'd tell it's users rather than have them try to submit a listing only to be told by their reviewer that it violated a guideline that only reviewers knew about.

 

I have on several occasions suggested that a forum section be set up similar to the Release Notes section which describes changes that have been made to the web site or mobile app, but for announcing changes to the guidelines or policy GS has made. Instead, we only find out about these changes in post #20 in a thread in Geocaching Topics.

Here ya go:

 

If your geocache does not adhere to all of our guidelines and applicable regional policies, it may be placed on hold, temporarily disabled or permanently archived.

 

And...

 

All local laws and documented land management policies apply.

 

This refers to both the placement of the geocache and the journey required to reach it. Geocachers must not be required to cross any land with "No Trespassing" signs, or locally-defined markers that prohibit access.

 

But it might be easier just to subscribe to this page:

 

https://www.federalregister.gov/

 

As well as any applicable State or Regional authority page that posts changes, additions, and amendments to relevant local laws.

 

All kidding aside, I'm not opposed to the idea to adding such a section to the Public Wiki that has been mentioned before, that has regional/local regulations and laws posted. In all honesty, I think the drone debate is only going to get worse (talking about the general public now), because darnit!, people have a tendency not to be able to play nice with their toys, and then the neighbors pull out their shotguns and start shooting them out of the sky (thinking of one relatively recent incident).

[cezanne]

and then the neighbors pull out their shotguns and start shooting them out of the sky (thinking of one relatively recent incident).

 

That can hardly serve as argument for the whole world.

[+J Grouchy]

I wonder if anyone has tried to find this one with a drone?

Anyone call that CO out on his ALR?

 

FIND LOG REQUIREMENTS: Due to the extreme nature of this cache, signing the log, while being one necessary condition to claim a find, is not a sufficient condition alone to claim a find, and rather, here are the full requirements for claiming a valid find and for logging a find online:

To claim a find for this cache, you must find the cache atop the pylon, sign the logbook, record the code number to be found in the logbook, return the cache and its attached anchor weights to its rightful place atop the pylon, log the find online on the cache listing page, and send us the code number found in the log book via private email or via PM. Failure to adhere to any of these conditions, and particularly, failure to return the cache (along with its attached weights) to its spot atop the pylon, will result in disqualification of any related find claim and removal of such online find claim from the cache listing page.

At first I thought they might have added that text just to make the description longer

 

Not possible.

Reading through, it's like he just restated the same stuff three or four times. The "impossible" part of that cache is having the patience to read through all that nonsense. It's just a cache on a high pylon. No need for so much drama.

 

As for the "code" ALR...I'd be interested in grabbing that cache and intentionally NOT sending a code just so I could call him out on it when he tried to delete my find.

[+Touchstone]

and then the neighbors pull out their shotguns and start shooting them out of the sky (thinking of one relatively recent incident).

 

That can hardly serve as argument for the whole world.

It's amusing how you pull out the most irrelevant portion of my statement to state a non sequitur

[cezanne]

and then the neighbors pull out their shotguns and start shooting them out of the sky (thinking of one relatively recent incident).

 

That can hardly serve as argument for the whole world.

It's amusing how you pull out the most irrelevant portion of my statement to state a non sequitur

 

Actually the rest of your post was about regional/local issues that are handled anyway by the "all local laws apply" part of the guidelines which is present since many years. Apparently however GS has sent out a memo

to the reviewers worldwide that drone caches are not feasible. That is neither covered by the "all local laws apply" part nor are arguments like what you refer to as most irrelevant part of your post essential when it comes to discussing the issue on a worldwide scale.

 

By the way: I would not categorize the risk of being involved in an incident with guns as irrelevant to the issue, I just do not think that this is a globally valid argument.

Edited January 31, 2017 by cezanne

[+narcissa]

I don't think drones and geocaching really mix in the sense you want it to. There's too much of a risk of people who don't know how to use a drone messing up and possibly hurting people. I'm a decent drone flyer and it took my about 30 hours of training to get good enough at it to fly it confidently.

 

Also, drones can be cost prohibitive, especially if you want people to use ones with live feed back to their remotes/phones.

 

Couldn't the same be said for a cache that requires scuba gear? It can be dangerous, requires hours of practice, certification, etc and be cost prohibitive? Yet there are caches that, if attempted, require scuba experience and equipment.

 

Adding to what the other person said, the same things can also be said about caches in deep wilderness, caches on mountains, and caches in exotic tourist locales. Geocaching in any serious way can be said to be "cost prohibitive" for some people, given the investment in equipment, time, and transportation required. These are not good reasons to restrict or ban certain types of caches. Not all caches are for all people.

 

Drones are a hot topic right now because of the possibility for public nuisance, and various legal restrictions / concerns that vary widely by jurisdiction. The concept of drone caches is really cool, and maybe there are ways to develop a good framework for allowing drone caches in the game, but it's something that needs careful consideration. Not because some people can't afford drones, but because geocaching doesn't need to get pulled into the overblown negative publicity that will certainly follow if a geocacher flies a drone too close to a commercial aircraft or accidentally pesters a naked lady sunbathing in her backyard.

Edited January 31, 2017 by narcissa

[+narcissa]

Now, if the owner of a challenging geocache insists that finders actually return it to its original location, then that's considered an ALR.

 

If by "insists" you mean "punitively deletes logs," then that is a textbook ALR.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Now, if the owner of a challenging geocache insists that finders actually return it to its original location, then that's considered an ALR.

 

If by "insists" you mean "punitively deletes logs," then that is a textbook ALR.

 

Seems to me that there is a conflict in the guidelines.

 

In the Geocaching 101 page under "How the game is played" we see:

 

At its simplest level, geocaching requires these 8 steps:

 

• Register for a free Basic Membership.
• Visit the "Hide & Seek a Cache" page.
• Enter your postal code and click "search."
• Choose any geocache from the list and click on its name.
• Enter the coordinates of the geocache into your GPS Device.
• Use your GPS device to assist you in finding the hidden geocache.
• Sign the logbook and return the geocache to its original location.
• Share your geocaching stories and photos online.

However, in the Logging Guidelines section of the "Geocaching Listing Requirements/Guidelines" page we see:

Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed.

...

For physical caches all logging requirements beyond finding the cache and signing the log are considered additional logging requirements (ALRs) and must be optional.

 

In todays episode of "Find the Loophole in the Geocaching Guidelines", our contestant from Canada points out that the only Guideline for logging online as "Found" is that the physical log has been signed.

 

We don't even have to sign the log ourselves, find the container or return it to it's original location, or even visit the location of the cache.

 

Edited January 31, 2017 by NYPaddleCacher

[+kunarion]

In todays episode of "Find the Loophole in the Geocaching Guidelines", our contestant from Canada points out that the only Guideline for logging online as "Found" is that the physical log has been signed.

I would prefer that finders mention when they can't return the cache to its spot. I usually learn it's in the wrong place, after a bunch more finds when somebody notices it's nothing like the cache description and says so in a log. But I've never deleted a "Found It" log just because it's not back in place. If I did, way more than half of the Find logs on my caches should be deleted.

 

And many of those weren't even found by drone!

[+J Grouchy]

In todays episode of "Find the Loophole in the Geocaching Guidelines", our contestant from Canada points out that the only Guideline for logging online as "Found" is that the physical log has been signed.

I would prefer that finders mention when they can't return the cache to its spot. I usually learn it's in the wrong place, after a bunch more finds when somebody notices it's nothing like the cache description and says so in a log. But I've never deleted a "Found It" log just because it's not back in place. If I did, way more than half of the Find logs on my caches should be deleted.

 

And many of those weren't even found by drone!

 

In one rather embarrassing incident, I ripped my pants attempting to return a cache to its high-up perch. I was unsuccessful and had to leave it on the ground nearby. I said so in my log and the CO was understanding.

 

But yeah, while it would be irritating if someone didn't return it (especially in the case of the 100 foot pylon), it's clearly not a justifiable reason for deleting a found it log.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In todays episode of "Find the Loophole in the Geocaching Guidelines", our contestant from Canada points out that the only Guideline for logging online as "Found" is that the physical log has been signed.

I would prefer that finders mention when they can't return the cache to its spot. I usually learn it's in the wrong place, after a bunch more finds when somebody notices it's nothing like the cache description and says so in a log. But I've never deleted a "Found It" log just because it's not back in place. If I did, way more than half of the Find logs on my caches should be deleted.

 

And many of those weren't even found by drone!

 

In the good old days, when a cacher found the contain in a spot "off" from the published coordinates, they'd post the lat/long coordinates where they actually found it. On one of my caches the cache was, at some point *not* returned to it's original location, and there were a bunch of logs from people that still managed to find it. Several of the logs mention that the coordinates are off by 100' but not a single one of them has provided lat/long coordinates where they found it.

 

Cache drift happens. Sometimes people cache as a group, and the person that finds the container signs the log and passes it onto someone else in the group, and the last person to sign replaces the container where they *think* it was found. Sometimes a muggle finds a cache and leaves it out in the open. The next cacher to come along "re-hides" it where they *think* the cache was originally hidden. Sometimes geocachers hide it "better" than where they found it.

 

The intent of the "return the geocache to its original location." is so that those subsequently looking for the cache will find it in the same place where the CO hid it.

 

Unfortunately, geocaching has become a game for many where the only thing that matters is that they get credit for "finding a cache" in the form of an increment of their find count. If there is a loophole that can be compromised that will allow them to shave off a few seconds in between their "finds" they'll do it. If a CO can't delete their log because they brought a pre-signed container and replaced the original (three cache monty) they'll do it. If they can manage to get their name on the log sheet (even if it's placed there by someone on their "team" on a cache they never even saw) they'll gladly post the found it log, and justify to themselves that they "found the cache" because a CO can't delete their log if it has their name on the log sheet.

 

It's absurd and a mockery of the game as it was originally intended.

 

 

[+dprovan]

As for the "code" ALR...I'd be interested in grabbing that cache and intentionally NOT sending a code just so I could call him out on it when he tried to delete my find.

This is what I find so obnoxious about the ALR debate. I understand completely why GS forbids ALRs, and I support that decision entirely, but it seems so lame to use that as an excuse to stick it to a CO that has a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting to discourage people from faking finds on his cache. Yeah, it's true, he'd have trouble enforcing that requirement, but if you can actually meet such a simple, easily demonstrated requirement, why wouldn't you? It's like having a friend suggest you bring a 6 pack when you come over to watch the game, and you responding by saying, "I won't, and you can't make me."

Edited January 31, 2017 by dprovan

[+kunarion]

As for the "code" ALR...I'd be interested in grabbing that cache and intentionally NOT sending a code just so I could call him out on it when he tried to delete my find.

This is what I find so obnoxious about the ALR debate. I understand completely why GS forbids ALRs, and I support that decision entirely, but it seems so lame to use that as an excuse to stick it to a CO that has a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting to discourage people from faking finds on his cache. Yeah, it's true, he'd have trouble enforcing that requirement, but if you can actually meet such a simple, easily demonstrated requirement, why wouldn't you? It's like having a friend suggest you bring a 6 pack when you come over to watch the game, and you responding by saying, "I won't, and you can't make me."

That would not work where I live. On the simplest puzzle, cachers reveal all. The whole point of placing it was there's a mild mystery to solve, yet the logs are all about how they didn't expect the cool unique cache, completely compromised in the Find log. Oh, yeah, "also the code is '2114'. TFTC!". OK, they fail to mention that the container is now in the middle of the lawn. But they tell everything else.

Edited January 31, 2017 by kunarion

[+J Grouchy]

As for the "code" ALR...I'd be interested in grabbing that cache and intentionally NOT sending a code just so I could call him out on it when he tried to delete my find.

This is what I find so obnoxious about the ALR debate. I understand completely why GS forbids ALRs, and I support that decision entirely, but it seems so lame to use that as an excuse to stick it to a CO that has a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting to discourage people from faking finds on his cache. Yeah, it's true, he'd have trouble enforcing that requirement, but if you can actually meet such a simple, easily demonstrated requirement, why wouldn't you? It's like having a friend suggest you bring a 6 pack when you come over to watch the game, and you responding by saying, "I won't, and you can't make me."

 

You seem to have a compulsive need to comment on every comment I make, so perhaps you have no room to say such things.

 

My comment was made half in jest, yet you appear to be offended by the very idea of anyone taking issue with unenforceable rules a CO makes up. Perhaps you yourself ought to lighten up...just a bit.

Edited January 31, 2017 by J Grouchy

[+narcissa]

I would prefer that finders mention when they can't return the cache to its spot. I usually learn it's in the wrong place, after a bunch more finds when somebody notices it's nothing like the cache description and says so in a log. But I've never deleted a "Found It" log just because it's not back in place. If I did, way more than half of the Find logs on my caches should be deleted.

 

And many of those weren't even found by drone!

 

Yeah, it's a nuisance when it happens, and I wouldn't be surprised if a drone cache was more prone to cache migration than other caches.

 

Lots of cache pages have exhortations and instructions for replacing the cache as found. Nothing wrong with that, but if the cache design is extremely finicky, the cache owner should expect to perform maintenance more frequently regardless of the best intentions and efforts of finders. Deleting logs over it pushes it from "reasonable request" to the troubled "ALR" territory. This is a needless mistake on the part of the cache owner.

 

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the drama when these caches get NA'd by a forum lurker now that they've been outed. Don't link to actual cache pages, people. Just don't.

[+dprovan]

My comment was made half in jest, yet you appear to be offended by the very idea of anyone taking issue with unenforceable rules a CO makes up. Perhaps you yourself ought to lighten up...just a bit.

Your only half serious remark was based on the idea that you are in combat with the CO and must deflect his demands even when you can easily comply. I don't consider that funny. I see that kind of attitude in the forums all the time, so once in a while I try to remind people that the CO is your friend, not your enemy.

 

Offended? No, I said this particular action would be lame. Kinda the opposite of taking it seriously.

[+dprovan]

Lots of cache pages have exhortations and instructions for replacing the cache as found. Nothing wrong with that, but if the cache design is extremely finicky, the cache owner should expect to perform maintenance more frequently regardless of the best intentions and efforts of finders. Deleting logs over it pushes it from "reasonable request" to the troubled "ALR" territory.

I agree that deleting a log because of a failure to return the cache would be troubling, so let's agree that's not a good idea.

 

But on the other hand, getting a difficult to reach cache and then not returning it is not that much different than, say, finding a cache and then destroying the container. If someone found a cache, signed the log, and then burned the container, one could just as well say that the CO requiring that the cache not be burned is an ALR, so deleting the offending party's find log would not be allowed. Obviously there's a difference in degree -- GS would step in in the latter case, for example -- but, at the same time, I can understand the CO wanting to take action against someone who intentionally retrieved the cache in a way that would force the CO to do a maintenance visit to return it to the correct location. And I can certainly understand why a CO would threaten to delete those people's logs even though they wouldn't actually do it because it would be against the rules.