Revisiting the container

[AngryBirds]

Some ideas that crossed my mind about Landowner Permissions and containers ...

When there is a problem with a container (and not about our behaviour as cachers), it seems to be mainly because it is seen as litter or considered a security risk. What about if we used an item that is not hollow, with official Geocaching markings and a unique ID. In the same way we buy a Groundspeak tag for a TB, we could also purchase this type of cache from them. This item could be handled in the same way we record a discovered TB. Instead of signing the log, you could take note of*the unique ID and log that on the website as a find ... no more damp logs [:P].

Because it is not hollow (like a small ingot or coin?), it would not be seen as a security risk. If those items were identical in color and shape, the authorities could recognize them more easily when they are found. The official look of the item would also make it less likely to be seen as litter, no moldy or smelly content to put off a landowner or muggle.

This is not something we would use routinely. I see that as a tool to negotiate an agreement with a private MLO or a government body not too keen on the traditional container. I understand that a solid item would make it impossible to swap items or move TBs. At the end, when geocaching clashes with the muggle world, I would rather have this option then face a ban on physical caches.

I realize that this post should be on Groundspeak website as it is in fact a new type of cache. I am more interested to know the opinion of an experienced GAGB member, who faced a situation involving a container problem with a MLO. Would the use of a standardized and solid item help to negotiate an agreement or avoid a total ban on physical caches?

[Bear and Ragged]

Wanna swap numbers of the caches I've found, with the numbers of the caches you've found?

Can't see Groundspeak going for it.
No log to sign.
If there's no log to sign, it's not a Geocache.

(Yes, Earthcaches have no log to sign, but they didn't do well on Waymarking, and they are sponsored by an outside body!)

[AngryBirds]

Why do I have the impression your numbers are in the 1000s? And no, I am very happy with our finds, loads of laughing children and fun family time memories ... there is no way I would trade that!

I was thinking about the Royal Parks when I wrote this post, would they have been more receptive, if they would have been offered another type of physical container?

It would make sense for Grounspeak to offer alternatives, rather then having to refuse the publication of a physical cache because a landowner is put off by the traditional container.

[Palujia]

Being a bit of a devil's advocate - I know of several caches with no log to sign - one in Cheddar George, and one in the Great Tythe Barn at Great Coxwell - also the one at the top of Snowdon So I can see the point that Angrybirds is making - special caches for special places ?

[Mrs Blorenge]

Being a bit of a devil's advocate - I know of several caches with no log to sign - one in Cheddar George, and one in the Great Tythe Barn at Great Coxwell - also the one at the top of Snowdon So I can see the point that Angrybirds is making - special caches for special places ?

If these are physical caches (i.e. not Virtuals or Earthcaches) listed on Geocaching.com then they should have a log of some discription. If new cachers find these caches it gives the idea that it's OK not to have a logbook/log strip in a physical cache - I suggest you bring such caches to the attention of a reviewer.

From Groundspeak's Cache Listing Guidelines:

"For all physical caches, there must be a logbook, scroll or other type of log for geocachers to record their visit."

Some other listing sites such as Opencaching allow the logging of caches by using a 'password' that may be found at the cache location.

[AngryBirds]

I understand that all physical caches must have at least a container and a log that can be signed. I am also aware of the danger of cheating, if you do not have*a log to sign. Personnaly, I admit that I will never double check the logs in my own caches to find a*cheater, I have better things to do. If it is the only reason why we have to sign a log, then it seems to be a sad one.

My main concern is to avoid a ban and to have the right tools to ask for a ban to be reviewed. We have talented GAGB leaders/members, capable of bringing important agreements or saving bad situations ... but I do not think it is enough by itself.

Geocaching is completely dependant on the good will of landowners. While most seem happy with our tupperwares and micros, maybe others would like something more "formal". Why not offer an alternative when agreements do not go our way? It does not seem right to give cheaters legitimacy, by blocking logless caches.

I was reading a post yesterday about UK trigs vs US survey markers, why not make the geocaching experience wholesome by allowing innovation, rather then relegating logless caches to Waymarking? I hope Geocaching is not aiming at only pleasing the number seekers, that is not my cup of tea?

[Bear and Ragged]

Why do I have the impression your numbers are in the 1000s? And no, I am very happy with our finds, loads of laughing children and fun family time memories ... there is no way I would trade that!

I was thinking about the Royal Parks when I wrote this post, would they have been more receptive, if they would have been offered another type of physical container?

It would make sense for Grounspeak to offer alternatives, rather then having to refuse the publication of a physical cache because a landowner is put off by the traditional container.

Any way of 'logging' a cache, without signing a log is open to abuse...
If it's a 'Unique ID number' there's nothing stopping cachers from writing it down, and swapping numbers with other cachers/listing on a website so others can claim a find, without going to the cache.

Well known as 'Armchair Caching' very popular amongst the Ger.... who try to log the old Virtual caches -For the Numbers- without ever getting anywhere near the cache.