Some power cachers just have stickers and stick them on the outside of the film can. :rolleyes::(:rolleyes:
Or, do they like they are doing on the Alien Highway series. Bring along some film cans with logs already signed in them, and just replace the caches as you go. :eek:
Really, this part of this discussion deserves it's own thread. There is a fine line between what is a new aspect of the game and what would be more suitable for a new, similar game.
The RFID is very susceptible to interference. If the activation area were limited to just inches it would not work as they are set up right now. They are way too easy to destroy too. I found this out the hard way a few times.
Although it sounds like it might make my job easier in some ways I have deleted a few logs on the SMR and informed the cachers that they had recorded finds on the wrong caches. I do look them over. The on line logs are better.
I just completed the 2001 challenge. I concentrate on the 2002 and 2003 caches when I go out now. Not too many micros in that group. Again you make this as exciting, interesting, and fun as you want. It is all in your personal point of view. If you don't like micros and that is your focus the game will be soured for you. If you think there are too many caches again that's on you.
99.9 percent of caches have brought me to places I would not have gone to or found with out some one putting a cache there. They have all been fun because I like it that way.
Except for the nano's. They should be banned.
It is great to be taken to these places that you would not have gone, like you say E. and the game is whatever you make it. I don't mean to complain as it can be played however we choose to play and filter out just what you want to find. Some great spots for sure! I would never have traveled the stud mill unless you gave me a reason and it was a lovely day.
This thought actually crossed my mind when Ben and I first started caching.
If a device like that existed, I would want it to also allow me to write a log and have it automatically uploaded to gc.com. It wouldn't be that huge of a leap to go from using some sort of device for logging physical caches to also logging online and it would get rid of the current redundancy (signing the physical and online logs).
However, I worry if it got that simple people would be less motivated to write actual logs and we'll see more "Sent from my blah blah device" messages without much content. I think that's bound to happen anyway even with the current technology, so I don't think it should stop progress, but I do think it is something worth thinking about. When Ben and I first started caching we didn't see the value in writing a great log but now that we have met more cachers we understand that a nice online log is basically a way of thanking the CO... and being able to point a device at the cache and have it all taken care of would probably make it easier to forget that.
Google introduced a new feature rich cellphone Google Nexus S
It can also read RFID tags, see? I told you.