Leap-Frog caches
Eric O'Connor
This is my latest cache project.
Feedback most welcome.
Two containers... two logbooks.. The current coordinates are those last listed
on the web site...
The frog is either a ceramic frog with enough room for paper and pens, or a
standard cache with a frog sticker. (Or "Frog" written on the side if I get
lazy)
When the first person finds the cache they move the actual cache to a new
location and leave the "frog" behind, with the coordinates to the new spot
written inside (round trip to the frog). The next finder finds the frog, and if
48 hours have passed (enough time to log the new coords on the web log) the frog
finder moves it to the actual cache and moves the cache...
I've duplicated much of the information in both the frog and the cache.
My thinking was: just in case someone finds one with only the coordinates to go
by, they'll know what's up.
-----------------------------------------------
You've found the cache!
This is the cache in my leapfrog cache.
If you're the first finder than there is a "frog" located in this cache as well.
If you're in a sporting mood, and are planning on logging this cache on the web
site. (You can email the coords to me (er...@waypoints.org) if you'd rather not
post them.)
Write the current time in the "frog" and leave the frog where
the cache was originally found. Hide the cache itself a reasonable walking
distance. It's up to you to decide what's reasonable. (at least 50 yards/meters
please )
Take some mental notes (digital photos a plus) of where you've hidden the cache.
Try to grab accurate coordinates, take a second to jot these down in the cache
logbook in case the frog winds up missing. Give people some clues to work with,
even if it's an easy find so that plundered caches can be reasonably identified.
Try to avoid creating a social trail if you can, the tall brown grass is every
bit as effective as a neon sign at pointing towards a cache.
If you're not the first finder, you probably know what's up.. the cache itself
was most likely found via the frog. If the coordinates you used brought you to
the cache itself, you'll need to grab the frog. Check the logbook in the cache
for the previous coordinates.
If more than 48 hours have passed, (or these coordinates were already listed on
the site) feel free to leap the cache to a new spot after moving the frog to
this one.
Please post the new coordinates within 48 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've found the Frog!
This is the frog in my leapfrog cache.
If you're the first finder than this was located in the cache itself.
If you're not the first finder the cache has been moved.
Below is a list of who moved it and when....
Look for the latest time and if more than 48 hours have passed feel free to
carry the frog with you.
When you find the cache itself, leave this frog in it's place,
write down the time you moved the cache (in case other geocachers
are ten minutes behind you) and place the cache in a new spot nearby.
Hide the cache itself a reasonable walking distance.
It's up to you to decide what's reasonable. (at least 50 yards/meters please)
Be sure and carefully mark a waypoint for the new cache location.
Take some mental notes (digital photos a plus) of where you've hidden the cache.
Try to avoid creating a social trail if you can, the tall brown grass is every
bit as effective as a neon sign at pointing towards a cache.
Return to where you left the frog and write these coordinates down.
Please post the new coordinates on the geocaching.com web site log within 48
hours.
You can email them to me (er...@waypoints.org) if you'd rather not post them.
Name ____________________
Time frog was nabbed _____:____
Date _____/_____/ 200____
The new coordinates for the cache itself.
N 37° _____ . ________
W 122° _____ . ________
(WGS-84)
Marty Fouts
it's a recipe for pissing people off.
there are about nine ways it can go wrong, and they're all easy.
Eric O'Connor
>it's a recipe for pissing people off.
I love you too Marty
Eric O'Connor
>The person who finds the frog and moves it up to the cache, will cause the
>posted coordinates to be wrong, at least until the person can get back to a
>computer and update the listing with new coordinates. A second cacher could tear
>up the site in between, not knowing it's been moved. And the first cacher might
>forget or get confused or whatever and not update the cache listing at all.
That's exactly the reason why I said 48 hours.
I can log a cache from anywhere in the world (almost) within 12.
I even word it in such a way that people understand that moving the thing is an
obligation that they're undertaking.
I'll give them an option not to move, mostly the coordinates will point to the
cache itself if this is played correctly.
Marty Fouts
OK. So I was wrong to think you really wanted feedback when you said
you wanted feedback.
My mistake.
But you did write
>> Feedback most welcome.
So, since the feedback was too terse, here are the details:
>> Two containers... two logbooks.. The current coordinates are those
>> last listed on the web site...
Until the first person moves either container. At which point, you've
got people going to the wrong site looking for a container.
>> When the first person finds the cache they move the actual cache to a new
>> location and leave the "frog" behind, with the coordinates to the new spot
>> written inside (round trip to the frog).
Requiring that they make two trips to the first container rather than
one. Thus doubling the opportunity for social trails at the first
container.
Also, thus, creating a time-window in which people who came after them
expecting to find the first container get to be disappointed, since
they now don't know where the first container is.
Unless, of course, they think they've got the first container and take
the second one by mistake, thus leaving 0 containers for whomever
comes next.
>> The next finder finds the frog, and if 48 hours have passed (enough
>> time to log the new coords on the web log) the frog finder moves it
>> to the actual cache and moves the cache...
Well, of course, the *new* finder has the frog and the 3rd person to
the original site doesn't get either the frog or the first
container. Meanwhile, who knows if the person with the second
container will ever be able to find where the clever person put the
first container.
And, of course, 48 hours isn't a reasonable amount of time for logging
caches. People on vacation might require up to two weeks before they
get home and get around to logging their finds, for instance.
>> I've duplicated much of the information in both the frog and the
>> cache. My thinking was: just in case someone finds one with only
>> the coordinates to go by, they'll know what's up.
I think, that you're creating chaos. You've got at least 9 ways that
it can go wrong, and at least two windows in which anyone who shows up
to one of the cache sites is going to be disappointed because they
were expecting something to be there and it's not.
Eric O'Connor
Marty wrote:
>OK. So I was wrong to think you really wanted feedback when you said
>you wanted feedback.
well I'd say that
>it's a recipe for pissing people off.
>there are about nine ways it can go wrong, and they're all easy.
wasn't so much feedback as much it was a way for you to vent.
>My mistake.
Apology accepted and I'm impressed that you've taken time to list your concerns.
They are appreciated.
>>> Two containers... two logbooks.. The current coordinates are those
>>> last listed on the web site...
>
>Until the first person moves either container. At which point, you've
>got people going to the wrong site looking for a container.
They find the frog instead of the cache.
>Requiring that they make two trips to the first container rather than
>one. Thus doubling the opportunity for social trails at the first
>container.
Social trails by a few people rather than dozens though.
And the subsequent trails lead people to the frog, which isn't the cache so
hiding it well isn't as important.
>Also, thus, creating a time-window in which people who came after them
>expecting to find the first container get to be disappointed, since
>they now don't know where the first container is.
I ask people to write the time that they moved the cache "In case other
geocachers are ten minutes behind you"
>Unless, of course, they think they've got the first container and take
>the second one by mistake, thus leaving 0 containers for whomever
>comes next.
Both containers are properly labeled as being exactly what they are.
>Well, of course, the *new* finder has the frog and the 3rd person to
>the original site doesn't get either the frog or the first
>container.
If it's within 48 hours the frog will still be there. That's the reason for the
delay and the reason I stress that only those willing to log should move the
cache.
>Meanwhile, who knows if the person with the second
>container will ever be able to find where the clever person put the
>first container.
Finding caches can be a challenge, we all have to accept that.
>And, of course, 48 hours isn't a reasonable amount of time for logging
>caches. People on vacation might require up to two weeks before they
>get home and get around to logging their finds, for instance.
Then they clearly shouldn't move the cache unless they're willing to spend $2 in
a cyber cafe or five minutes in the library. I ask people not to move unless
they can log within 48 hours. That's exactly why I did that.
>I think, that you're creating chaos. You've got at least 9 ways that
>it can go wrong, and at least two windows in which anyone who shows up
>to one of the cache sites is going to be disappointed because they
>were expecting something to be there and it's not.
Thank you for clearly stating your concerns, that's much more along the lines of
what I was asking for.
As far as chaos, I don't see it. People screw up and caches get plundered, but
with just the tiniest attention to detail this is a no-brainer.
The round trip to the frog can be 200' if they don't feel like walking far.
They can just log it like a normal cache if they don't wish to move it at all.
Marty Fouts
Eric O'Connor <er...@waypoints.org> writes:
> Marty wrote:
>
> >OK. So I was wrong to think you really wanted feedback when you
> >said you wanted feedback.
>
>
> well I'd say that
>
> >it's a recipe for pissing people off.
> >there are about nine ways it can go wrong, and they're all easy.
>
> wasn't so much feedback as much it was a way for you to vent.
well, you'd be wrong.
>
>
> >My mistake.
>
> Apology accepted and I'm impressed that you've taken time to list
> your concerns. They are appreciated.
Read it again. It's only two words, and it ain't an apology.
> >>> Two containers... two logbooks.. The current coordinates are
> >>> those last listed on the web site...
> >
> >Until the first person moves either container. At which point, you've
> >got people going to the wrong site looking for a container.
>
> They find the frog instead of the cache.
yup. and if they wanted to find the container they'd be unhappy.
> >Requiring that they make two trips to the first container rather
> >than one. Thus doubling the opportunity for social trails at the
> >first container.
>
> Social trails by a few people rather than dozens though. And the
> subsequent trails lead people to the frog, which isn't the cache so
> hiding it well isn't as important.
It takes *1* person to make a social trail.
and you're wrong. hiding it well is just as important, unless you want
the frog plundered as well.
> >Also, thus, creating a time-window in which people who came after
> >them expecting to find the first container get to be disappointed,
> >since they now don't know where the first container is.
>
> I ask people to write the time that they moved the cache "In case
> other geocachers are ten minutes behind you"
Doesn't much matter if you were 2 minutes late or 2 days late. they
missed what they were looking for and now they have to wait.
> >Unless, of course, they think they've got the first container and
> >take the second one by mistake, thus leaving 0 containers for
> >whomever comes next.
>
> Both containers are properly labeled as being exactly what they are.
just like travel bugs.
> >Well, of course, the *new* finder has the frog and the 3rd person
> >to the original site doesn't get either the frog or the first
> >container.
>
> If it's within 48 hours the frog will still be there. That's the
> reason for the delay and the reason I stress that only those willing
> to log should move the cache.
just like travel bugs.
> >Meanwhile, who knows if the person with the second container will
> >ever be able to find where the clever person put the first
> >container.
>
> Finding caches can be a challenge, we all have to accept that.
remember that when someone sticks your frog container in a 5/5.
> >And, of course, 48 hours isn't a reasonable amount of time for
> >logging caches. People on vacation might require up to two weeks
> >before they get home and get around to logging their finds, for
> >instance.
>
> Then they clearly shouldn't move the cache unless they're willing to
> spend $2 in a cyber cafe or five minutes in the library. I ask
> people not to move unless they can log within 48 hours. That's
> exactly why I did that.
and you'll get as much respect as travel bugs do.
> >I think, that you're creating chaos. You've got at least 9 ways
> >that it can go wrong, and at least two windows in which anyone who
> >shows up to one of the cache sites is going to be disappointed
> >because they were expecting something to be there and it's not.
>
> Thank you for clearly stating your concerns, that's much more along
> the lines of what I was asking for.
too bad you're too busy refuting them to try to understand them.
> As far as chaos, I don't see it. People screw up and caches get
> plundered, but with just the tiniest attention to detail this is a
> no-brainer.
just like travel bugs.
> The round trip to the frog can be 200' if they don't feel like
> walking far. They can just log it like a normal cache if they don't
> wish to move it at all.
or they take it home with them, planning on going out tomorrow to
rehide it, but they get distracted and don't get back to it for four
months.
it's an idea that's more likely to fail than to work.
in the computer business we call such ideas 'fragile'.
it would need more work than it's worth to make it robust.
Marty Fouts
"Scout" <gc_s...@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Marty Fouts" <usenet_p...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:uptw33...@yahoo.com...
> > Read it again. It's only two words, and it ain't an apology.
>
> Who plundered your cache today? Lighten up.
Sheesh. look who's talking.
> I have doubts about Eric's idea, also. But I think the idea of a
> moving cache is a worthy innovation. He ought to try his idea, see
> how it works, and improve it, if necessary.
There are plenty of moving caches already in existence. The only
"innovation" Eric introduced is a lot of opportunities for things to
go wrong -- and he didn't even get the principle of leap-frogging,
since if it were leap-frog caches, then, once the first one had moved,
they should never be in the same position again.
> Your comparisons to hitchhikers is apt. The hitchhiker concept has
> some basic flaws, too, but it hasn't stopped Jeremy Irish from
> turning it into a widespread business ($5.99 per Travel Bug (TM)
> plus shipping and handling, soon to be $1.99 for just an emailed
> serial number).
'widespread business'? 'soon to be'? you wouldn't, by any chance,
have any actual evidence to support these claims?
> Eric's Leap-Frog caches might have risks and might be able to be
> improved after a few tests to get the bugs out (pun intended). I say
> go for it.
And it might be a lame waste of time, for reasons I've pointed out. It
has all the hallmarks of an overly-complex and overly-fragile
approach, but, by all means, if Eric wants to give it a try, let him.