Webcams Going The Way Of Virtuals?

[+BadAndy]

I submitted a webcam cache today, it was denied and permanantly archived. Heres the pertinant portion of the denial email.

 

"Unfortunately, due to too many blurry,

impossible-to-recognize-individuals webcams, geocaching.com is requiring that any new submissions be capable of close-range images. That means most webcams on buildings and along highways are unlikely to qualify."

 

and heres my pic.

 

 

I do wish they'd actually post these changes to guidelines before they start using them.

[+TEAM 360]

The quality of that pic looks good to me, in fact it looks better than most of the shots I have seen on cam caches....

[+hedberg]

In Sweden isn't it legal to publish webcam pictures on the internet where you can identify the person on the pics. Try to combine that with GC.com regulations

[Keystone]

I do wish they'd actually post these changes to guidelines before they start using them.

Sorry if seven months advance notice was insufficient for you.

[+BadAndy]

I've seen more than a few webcam caches go up in the past 7 months that were much less focused and zoomed out than mine.

 

Thats part of the problem, the subjectivity. Is my pic acceptable? I'm prepared to post examples of recently approved webcams that you can barely make out if the subject is even human.

[+SixDogTeam]

From reading various topics in these forums, one comes to the conclusion that there is quite a difference in interpretation of the rules and a degree of strictness or laxity among different approvers. But it's because it's so subjective. On the whole, our feeling is that most approvers are fair and honest, and if they err in favor of more strict adherence to rules that are designed to preserve the sport, then that's not necessarily a bad thing. We also believe that the forums are the LAST place to air these differences, and only if the preceived wrong is flagrant and all other means to resolve the dispute have been attempted.

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

I've seen more than a few webcam caches go up in the past 7 months that were much less focused and zoomed out than mine.

 

Thats part of the problem, the subjectivity. Is my pic acceptable? I'm prepared to post examples of recently approved webcams that you can barely make out if the subject is even human.

Subjectivity is the are where things can break down. It might be helpful, even to the approvers, to post examples of recently approved webcam caches.

[+bigredmed]

I do wish they'd actually post these changes to guidelines before they start using them.

Sorry if seven months advance notice was insufficient for you.

KA, were these changes ever publicized? I don't recall hearing about them.

[Swagger]

KA, were these changes ever publicized? I don't recall hearing about them.

As frustrating as it can be, they don't have to publicize changes to the guidelines or the website's TOS. It's your responsibility to check for changes, not theirs to notify you of them.

[Keystone]

In November 2003, the most recent changes to the wording of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines were noted in one of the weekly new caches mailing that goes out on Thursdays to everyone who signs up to receive those e-mails. If you don't receive those, I'd encourage you to sign up for them by checking the box on your account details page.

 

Other ways that the current guidelines are brought to a geocacher's attention include the links to them in forum threads like this one, and when the geocacher submits a new cache (there is a link to the Guidelines on the hide a cache page, as well as a box to check at the bottom of the submission page, certifying that the guidelines and the site terms of use have been read - complete with another set of links to both those pages).

 

Finally I would note that the November 2003 update for the most part simply memorialized what the reviewers were already doing - it was important to update the Guidelines so that the written rules matched how the caches were being reviewed. There were a few changes that eased up on the prior guidelines, such as the three-month presumption for a cache not being "temporary."

[+hedberg]

I can't remember the exact date, but november sounds very good (just as KA says) - I tried to list a new webcam cache, and erik88l-r asked me to provide close-up photos showing how I look with the webcam, so he could determine if the quality was good enough or not. And I don't think that after that, no new webcam caches were approved in our country. (Due to it is illegal to publish photos on the internet from webcams, where you can identify a person on the pic).

 

We are trying to find ways to step around the law, but still fulfill the GC.com requirements

 

Such as there must be "members only" cache, and the address to the webcam are not allowed to be revealed to the public. Therefor should only a few persons know about it. perhaps with password protection, and the codes were written on the Members Only cache description. And stating on the cache page "By using these codes do you agree that photos of yourself will be taken and published on the internet". Something like that

[+CrimsonWrath]

Woah, this is pretty scary. Someone goes through all the effort of setting up a webcam cache:

• Camera
  
• Location
  
• Internet access
  
• Web space
  

All that preparation and then the cache gets denied? I can see a virtual getting shut down in that manner, there was likely less time or expense taken to set that up, but webcam caches are not cheap. I just hope the issues can be worked out between the reviewer and the submitter. If I find an opportunity to set up a webcam cache, I'll be much more hesitant.

[+Mopar]

Woah, this is pretty scary.  Someone goes through all the effort of setting up a webcam cache:

• 
   
   
  
• Camera
   
   
  
• Location
   
   
  
• Internet access
   
   
  
• Web space
   
   
  

All that preparation and then the cache gets denied?  I can see a virtual getting shut down in that manner, there was likely less time or expense taken to set that up, but webcam caches are not cheap.  I just hope the issues can be worked out between the reviewer and the submitter.  If I find an opportunity to set up a webcam cache, I'll be much more hesitant.

Webcam caches are rarely set up by the hider. They are usually someone elses webcam they are using. Of the few I've seen, the "hider" wasn't even local, they just searched out the internet for webcams, and submitted them as caches without even visiting the location. I suppose that's one reason why the guidelines were tightened up on them last year.

A few examples (not picking on anyone, just searched local webcam caches):

He has 15 webcam caches all over the world, none of which he owns. I guess the vacation and maintaining rules don't apply to webcams, because he got one approved less then 2 months ago 3000 miles from home. Especially funny since the hider is rather infamous around here for not maintaining the caches he has.

This cacher has 10 more.

 

*[EDIT to add examples]

Edited June 7, 2004 by Mopar

[+TeamK-9]

Woah, this is pretty scary. Someone goes through all the effort of setting up a webcam cache:

• Camera
  
• Location
  
• Internet access
  
• Web space
  

All that preparation and then the cache gets denied? I can see a virtual getting shut down in that manner, there was likely less time or expense taken to set that up, but webcam caches are not cheap. I just hope the issues can be worked out between the reviewer and the submitter. If I find an opportunity to set up a webcam cache, I'll be much more hesitant.

The fact is, most people don't put up their own web cams for these caches, they just link to ones for other websites...

 

Or at least that's how it is around here..

[+Renegade Knight]

Webcam rules are still badly defined. I see nothing wrong with doing something like hold up your Geocaching name on a sign to get the find, but that's not the rules.

 

What they really need is a rule that says "The persons head must be XX pixels wide" for this cache to be approved. While it's a suck rule it's a little closer to definitive than "non fuzzy"

 

There is another local webcam I'd like to submit but just havne't gotten around to it. It lets you zoom the camera and point it where you want it to go. With what appears to be a tighter rule now I'm not sure it's approvable.

 

Do does a webacm block a virtual?

[+blazerfan]

Of all the cache types I have found the two webcam caches rank among my favorites... they take planning and coorination... and are often not that easy to fake. There are only a handful of webcam caches in Oregon and I hope to find a couple more when I get the chance. Maybe they were a problem somewhere else... it is a shame that another cache type has fallen to regulation. While they may still be allowed technically this rule on picture quality would have eliminated all of the webcam caches that I know of. Locationless, virtuals, and now webcams, I can live without new ones and maybe they were getting a little out of control. I just wonder where the regulations will end. Will I have to send a picture of my stamp to get a letterbox hybrid approved only to have it rejected because the stamp isn't unique enough?

 

I'm not complaining... I think approvers do a good job... I just have to wonder where the game is heading. I guess we'll find out

[Find Now, Log Later?]

A few examples (not picking on anyone, just searched local webcam caches):

He has 15 webcam caches all over the world, none of which he owns. I guess the vacation and maintaining rules don't apply to webcams, because he got one approved less then 2 months ago 3000 miles from home. Especially funny since the hider is rather infamous around here for not maintaining the caches he has.

We're glad that, as usual, you have taken the "high road."

 

Excuse me while I sneeze ... B*L*SH*T .... ah, I feel better now.

[+Mopar]

We're glad that, as usual, you have taken the "high road."

 

Excuse me while I sneeze ... B*L*SH*T .... ah, I feel better now.

Gesundheit.

[+hydee]

BadAndy,

 

I checked out your Webcam Cache.

 

I submitted a webcam cache today, it was denied and permanantly archived. Heres the pertinant portion of the denial email.

 

"Unfortunately, due to too many blurry,

impossible-to-recognize-individuals webcams, geocaching.com is requiring that any new submissions be capable of close-range images. That means most webcams on buildings and along highways are unlikely to qualify."

 

The image you posted here is the best of the 4 from the cache page, the other 3 are unrecognizable. Nothing is "permanatly archived", I would suggest sending and email to the reviewer and working this one out.

[+BadAndy]

BadAndy,

 

I checked out your Webcam Cache.

 

I submitted a webcam cache today, it was denied and permanantly archived. Heres the pertinant portion of the denial email.

 

"Unfortunately, due to too many blurry,

impossible-to-recognize-individuals webcams, geocaching.com is requiring that any new submissions be capable of close-range images. That means most webcams on buildings and along highways are unlikely to qualify."

 

The image you posted here is the best of the 4 from the cache page, the other 3 are unrecognizable. Nothing is "permanatly archived", I would suggest sending and email to the reviewer and working this one out.

Hydee,

 

The denial email subject line reads, "permanantly archived" as well as in the text of the email. If it had read something like "there is a problem with your submission" or something more palatable, instead of "permanantly archived", it would have led me to believe there was something that could be worked out. I emailed the approver last night, have'nt heard back yet.

 

This webcam has zoom capabilities, and I could probably get better images if the sun wasn't shining right in the lens. The rejection email sounded so final and came from "noreply@geocaching.com" that it pretty much just pissed me off, like I had broken some rule, or offended a "power hungry lackey" somewhere and this was my punishment.

 

I've always played within the rules, and I try to "be nice" in the forums. I've supported gc.com both financially and socially. To have a cache that I honestly thought was a no brainer get rejected in such an offhand manner offended me.

 

There is a 5th photo I posed for as a joke to my brother who was operating the cam that I didn't include in the submission. It was much more clear, so clear you can almost make out the pimple on my butt. I would provide it as proof that the cam is suitable...but I'd likely get my first warning meter hit.

[+wimseyguy]

There is a 5th photo I posed for as a joke to my brother who was operating the cam that I didn't include in the submission. It was much more clear, so clear you can almost make out the pimple on my butt. I would provide it as proof that the cam is suitable...but I'd likely get my first warning meter hit.

Oooh I double do dare ya to post that pic here.

I would much rather do an educational LC like find a house designed by _____ (insert famous architect here), or find a Zippy's Roadside attraction, (again requiring some internet research) than any Webcam pic.

Can you see me now? lamelamelame

off soapbox

What I love about geocaching is there is something for all types of cachers out there.

What I don't love about geocaching.com is the narrowing of that bandwidth.

[+BadAndy]

There is another local webcam I'd like to submit but just havne't gotten around to it. It lets you zoom the camera and point it where you want it to go. With what appears to be a tighter rule now I'm not sure it's approvable.

 

I'm pretty sure that the webcam I submitted is the same one you're talking about RK.

 

Dibs!

[+mtn-man]

This webcam has zoom capabilities, and I could probably get better images if the sun wasn't shining right in the lens.

Looking at the webcam, your photo at the top of the page is as zoomed in as it can get.

 

http://www.journalnet.com/webcam/

[+wildearth2001]

There is another local webcam I'd like to submit but just havne't gotten around to it.  It lets you zoom the camera and point it where you want it to go.  With what appears to be a tighter rule now I'm not sure it's approvable.

 

I'm pretty sure that the webcam I submitted is the same one you're talking about RK.

 

Dibs!

there is one in flaggstaff az that is exaclty like that which is already a cache, its cool to wait untill passing period at the uiniversity and then zoom into people really close, I got flashed a couple times because I jerked the camera around and they reallized I was looking at them

[+BadAndy]

This webcam has zoom capabilities, and I could probably get better images if the sun wasn't shining right in the lens.

Looking at the webcam, your photo at the top of the page is as zoomed in as it can get.

 

http://www.journalnet.com/webcam/

Actually, that photo is about 75% zoomed. When the sun is setting the glare on the dome causes the cam to focus on the glass housing instead of the subject when you are fully zoomed.

[+BadAndy]

This webcam has zoom capabilities, and I could probably get better images if the sun wasn't shining right in the lens.

Looking at the webcam, your photo at the top of the page is as zoomed in as it can get.

 

http://www.journalnet.com/webcam/

Actually, that photo is about 75% zoomed. When the sun is setting the glare on the dome causes the cam to focus on the glass housing instead of the subject when you are fully zoomed.

Or not. Since I was'nt the operator it's hard to tell.

[ju66l3r]

I'm not sure what the "blurriness" of the webcam picture matters so long as there is a requirement for unique identification. In other words, who cares if you can see their face if the picture requests a specific sign to be printed out and held at the cache cam. If I am told to hold a sheet of paper that says I AM A GEOCACHER or I AM JU66L3R! and the demo shot shows that it can be read, then who cares what my face looks like or how clear the tree is behind me? For example, one cache in Boston requires that you stand "akimbo". Nobody randomly stands in front of a webcam akimbo, so it's a very telling sign that you were geocaching that day. As long as the cache owner is reviewing the photos to check for duplicates, where is the issue?

 

Is the worry that someone will mail a pic of themselves at the webcam a second time to someone else and let them claim the cache even though they hadn't been there?? If so, doesn't this go back to the "only cheating themselves" argument that is put out by the administration on so many other issues of "cheating" that don't involve actual rules violations?

[+Renegade Knight]

There is another local webcam I'd like to submit but just havne't gotten around to it.  It lets you zoom the camera and point it where you want it to go.  With what appears to be a tighter rule now I'm not sure it's approvable.

 

I'm pretty sure that the webcam I submitted is the same one you're talking about RK.

 

Dibs!

Dude! That's my webcam you dadgum interloper!

 

It should be approvable. The zoom works well enough. The catch is you can't control the zoom people will use but that same "problem" exists for any cache that has a background you can be in. "I'm by that tree, the one second to the right at the very back, you know the three that is 6 pixels tall? Well I'm two of those pixels."

Edited June 7, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+MT Fellwalker]

This webcam has zoom capabilities, and I could probably get better images if the sun wasn't shining right in the lens. The rejection email sounded so final and came from "noreply@geocaching.com" that it pretty much just pissed me off, like I had broken some rule, or offended a "power hungry lackey" somewhere and this was my punishment.

 

Dude, all posted logs you receive via e-mail come from 'noreply@'. It's how the system works.

 

For what it's worth, you haven't offended me, even now. You just need to submit caches I can approve under geocaching.com guidelines. The more caches the better. But I do have a job to do, and it doesn't involve rubber stamping submissions. If it did, they'd replace me with a chimp (which some folks would no doubt think would be an improvement).

 

When I'm reviewing webcams, all I have to go on is what's provided. It's not like my horde of minions are free to run out and stand on street corners while I play with the controls. I need them to continue collecting ammo cans so I can finish building my geocache mansion. (Not sure where they are getting them, but there's been a real influx recently...)

 

If you really feel the need, send me a copy of that pimple picture to demostrate what's possible with this camera. If it's as clear as you say there will be no problem approving the cache, and I promise it won't show up on sleazy porn site. I sell to only the most reputable dealers of erotica...

[+BadAndy]

While this topic has brought out some good points regarding fuzzy guidelines, I started it during a rare temper tantrum on my part. I should have consulted my approver and just worked it out. It was the first time I had been denied. What I've learned is, approvers are people too and compromise is always possible.

 

Cache on brother, cache on.