BIT Caches (aka QR Code Caches)

[Papa Bear_Left]

So, the difference between a BITcache and a standard GA cache with a QR for verification of the find is that the site would auto-authenticate the QR codeword?

Sounds worthwhile, just to avoid the hassle of needing to email the owner for permission to log, or having the codeword written into logs by the chronically clueless.

It also means that app creators could automate the logging procedure (assuming the GCA API is up to it), rather than finders needing to record the QR plaintext and type it in again to the site.


For me, the other major advantage is that it would allow me to filter this sort of not-really-a-cache listing out before I wasted any time on them...

[caughtatwork]

So, the difference between a BITcache and a standard GA cache with a QR for verification of the find is that the site would auto-authenticate the QR codeword?

Sounds worthwhile, just to avoid the hassle of needing to email the owner for permission to log, or having the codeword written into logs by the chronically clueless.

It also means that app creators could automate the logging procedure (assuming the GCA API is up to it), rather than finders needing to record the QR plaintext and type it in again to the site.


For me, the other major advantage is that it would allow me to filter this sort of not-really-a-cache listing out before I wasted any time on them...

It could indeed auto-authenticate the codeword. It could be built into the string that is encoded. Apart from a specific app (which I have no talent at), it could be as simple as http://geocaching.com.au/my/log/new/ga4434/codeword and as long as the codeword is valid, enter your log and hit "log". Or it could be encoded in a different manner. Or lots of things apart from having a dedicated app. And yes, filters in the My Query would mean you could exclude these from any GPX files you want.

[pwags]

As the owner of a "codeword" cache on GCA (http://geocaching.com.au/cache/ga2500), I have to agree that they make life very easy for the CO. The system automatically verifies that the finder has actually found the "cache".

I like the idea of QR caches. I've found a few Munzees, and agree with Zalgariath that they are a better option than an eclipse tin for inner-city areas.

One vote from me for the new cache type!

[Zalgariath]

As far as saturation goes we already have the simplest cache type possible... the Virtual Cache. No effort required if you dont want to, and possible to be put anywhere. Like Virtuals, while there is a risk people could go silly with QR Caches you actaully have to go to a bit of effort to get one out, and unlike virtuals as they are a physical cache in a manner of speaking, so if they do get muggled, they can be archived as they will clock up DNFs... unlike Virts.

Virts havent killed the game, and I like >90% them I have found, So I think QR Caches would be the same.

And as PBL said, like Trigs / Virtuals / Puzzles / Nanos / whatever ... you can filter them out of your queries if you dont want them

[PesceVerde]

Is collecting ecodes, geocaching?

It may be a neat 'new' tech/hobby, but is it a new cache type? No.

[CraigRat]

Is collecting ecodes, geocaching?

It may be a neat 'new' tech/hobby, but is it a new cache type? No.

To me it's more of a valid cache type than a locationless or a virtual as there's something physically in place.

[fluffyfish]

I think a QR cache will be a useful addition. Get the code to point to the found log. No need to get complicated with passwords, etc. GCA's power is it simplicity. If the cache owner suspects something suss, they can investigate. There is nothing to stop someone logging a find on a cache now, except for the threat the cache owner might investigate.

Disadvantage is the need for a smart phone. But even then, if you could log a find if you find it and log it via the website. In my current "QR" cache, I ask the finders without a smart phone to post a photo of the QR code. Never had an issue with false finds on GCA caches.

[caughtatwork]

I think a QR cache will be a useful addition. Get the code to point to the found log. No need to get complicated with passwords, etc. GCA's power is it simplicity. If the cache owner suspects something suss, they can investigate. There is nothing to stop someone logging a find on a cache now, except for the threat the cache owner might investigate.

Disadvantage is the need for a smart phone. But even then, if you could log a find if you find it and log it via the website. In my current "QR" cache, I ask the finders without a smart phone to post a photo of the QR code. Never had an issue with false finds on GCA caches.

That's what the codeword would be for. Want to log manually, at home, note the codeword as your "proof"* Want to log via your smartphone, the QR would have the codeword built in.

*Proof that can be emailed around, yes, yes nothing is perfect, I know.

[rinsemesocks]

I say go for a new cache type. I have a munzie account but have never logged or found one as I much prefer to cache when I get the chance.

So what is the harm.

[gmj3191]

It seems like a direct parallel to beacon caches.
Other technology which is peripheral to the core business of geocaching.

Everybody who geocaches has GPS technology be it smartphone or GPS.
Some have beacon capability.
Some have QR code capability.

In the gc.com context I think they would treat them as Multi or Mystery caches, but let them have a QR attribute. That has worked well for gc.com beacon caches.
In the GCA context, I guess that means we give them their own type.

There are currently only 23 available gc.com caches with a beacon in Australia so that hasn't exactly been a big issue.
There is 1 (one) GCA beacon cache.

QR codes have a lot of advantages over beacons however so they might become a bigger player.