Jump to content

southdeltan

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    1326
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by southdeltan

  1. There are 10's of thousands of people in the greater NO region that depend on public transportation and lack a way to evacuate. The Superdome has been converted into a shelter as it is built above sea level (not that it will matter during the storm surge, but afterwards most of NO will be submerged as it is below sea level) and was designed to withstand hurricane force winds (not that it's ever been tested). At this point, however - if you're not out by now - it's pretty much too late. The vast majority of geocaches in the area will likely be wiped out - but that's the least of their problems. The LA Geocachers website has been eerily quiet for the past 2 days ---- This storm is projected to be as bad as Camille, but larger in size. The picture posted above of the apartments doesn't begin to tell the destruction that Camille did to the area. If you have ever been to the MS gulfcoast to the beach - you were on the largest manmade beach in the world. Camille washed the natural beach away. Hundreds of people were killed and the population in NO and along the MS Gulfcoast is much larger than in 1969. It appears that a direct hit on NO might not be the worst thing that can happen - if it's slightly to the east - hitting Lake Ponchatrain and wiping out the levees there - the city will be flooded for many weeks, if not months. It is projected that the power grid will be wiped out as well. sd
  2. If they're not out by now, I'm afraid they probably won't be able to get out. Traffic is moving at about 3mph out of the city and they will probably be closing the interstates very shortly. The scariest thing is there is another tropical depression forming now (#13) which is projected to be named within 2 days (whatever the L name is). sd
  3. It seems that the manager of the new waymark category is a Groundspeak Administrator. (Their profile implies this). I didn't notice that the person had owned a locationless (I checked their GC.com profile stats) so I'm guessing that this is one of those test categories that administrators are getting to add in. It seems so far that the existing waymark categories are either transferred virtuals or new "test" categories by admin (such as Bootron's infamous McDonald's category). I may be wrong and if so I'm sure I'll be corrected shortly :> sd
  4. Heh. Whatever. You don't anything about me - but please keep making assumptions. You have no idea what I expect to get out of Waymarking - but I can tell you that so far with my first waymark it really seems to be EXACTLY what I was looking for and the answer to all of the reasons I didn't log locationless caches. It's clear they are different. If you read what I said - I clearly used the word LIKE. I didn't say it was the same thing, I said it was similar. You know what... it is. If the use of analogies is a sign of a lack of understanding - you need to tell Jeremy he truly doesn't understand Waymarking (he uses analogies too): Here's a Jeremy quote from the "Can travel bugs" thread: Here's a Jeremy quote from the "Many people liked locationless caches" thread: "About the numbers" sounds like there will be a "score" of some type. Seems like a game to me. Here's another quote from Bootron in from the "Many people liked..." thread: And - most importantly something Bootron posted in this very thread: It will be a game and more. It seems to me that you're mad because somebody rained on your parade and you didn't get to record a waymark. Don't rain on my parade and tell me I can't approach this activity with FUN on my mind. If I wanted to mindlessly enter coordinates and other information - I'd get a job working for a directory of some sort. To paraphrase a few wise geocachers "You waymark the way you want to, I'll waymark the way I want". sd
  5. Waymarking is not a game. You're mistaking this for geocaching.com. Waymarking is more of a travel/vacation assistant. I'm sorry, but as far as I am concerned this IS a game. I am not confusing anything with geocaching.com. I'm offended by the insinuation that I can't tell the difference. It's very obvious - geocaching is finding a container with a log. Waymarking is listing waymarks and visiting waymarks. A category is like a "locationless". A waymark is like a virtual. The person who lists it basically is FTF. Anybody who logs a visit is basically logging a find on a virtual. Listing a waymark is very much like a FTF in my opinion. All of the people pissing and moaning that the unique nature of locationless caches (all of the hard work they did to log a unique "find" is gone) are missing out on the fact that the person who lists the waymark pretty much has the FTF and the people who log visits (just like logging a find on a virtual) are getting to participate in a way they didn't in the past. For a travel or vacation guide - get a map, a phonebook, or a tourguide. Jeremy, Bootron, and others have gone so far as to say that Groundspeak is approaching this like a game (but more than just a game). I won't markwell you - but do a search. The best part is there WILL be statistics - which I know will piss all of the "anti-stats" folks off - even if it ends up being opt-out/opt-in. I know some people lack the self control to ignore what they don't like. You can use this however you want to - for me (and MANY MANY others) it will be a game. I bought the GPS for fun, not for travel. I am very happy that, as far as I can tell, I am the first person to have listed a waymark in my state. As hard as people try to seperate geocaching from Waymarking - it's very obvious that Waymarking has its routes in geocaching. They're not the same but the similarities are striking. So are the differences. While I am totally against LOGGING requirements for geocaches (that have nothing to do with actually finding the cache) I totally support listing requirements for waymarks and for waymark-visits. Anyways - it's a game to me and that's how I WILL approach it. I'm sorry if that annoys you. sd
  6. I don't think the requirements are dumb at all. This is a game. Listing a waymark is like a FTF. I think you should have to visit the location AFTER the waymark category was created - and will treat any waymark categories I end up managing in that manner. It just so happened that the Minor League BallPark category popped up the very day I was taking my daughter to a game for her birthday. I would have been upset if I had went to list the waymark and somebody who had visited the place years ago (of course, it would have been months in this case - new ballpark) had listed it. I have never logged a locationless "cache" but I thought it was a sort of honor thing about only logging "finds" on caches after the "cache" was created. sd
  7. It's strange that DD hasn't replied. He's been active on the MSGA forums and had his recording eq set up at the last MS event (last weekend) to record a podcast. I'll see if I can get ahold of him later this afternoon. sd
  8. How much bandwith are you talking about? What is your current cost? How much will an upgrade cost? I ask because there are lots of state/local groups out there with experience and somebody can probably help you find a good deal. There are also probably better ways to make a profit than "reselling" GC.com products. People would probably be more willing to purchase "local" merchandise than slightly inflated GC.com merchandise (of course, if GC.com cut you a deal it might work out but I don't know if that's likely for a variety of reasons). sd
  9. Do some searches on Beaufort county. Some people there got upset about geocaches in cemetaries and now the SC House has passed an anti-geocaching bill. If I'm correct it's waiting for the next term to go to the Senate for debate. I'm not sure what type of public land the Trust contains, but some land will possibly be off limits if this bill becomes law. I think it's silly - but it's happened. That's why the approvers there are very picky about caches (they don't want anything else to happen that may upset people and cause more problems). sd
  10. Somebody did already ask about event caches. Here's a link to Jeremy's post. sd
  11. I think event caches and CITO's may remain on GC.com. I think I saw a post by Jeremy stating that. Both have physical logsheets (at least every one I've ever been to has) so that does set them apart from a locationless or virtual - even though they are typically easy to find and temporary caches. Good question. Let me poke about and see if I can find that post. sd
  12. Well that's interesting. I haven't attempted to log any visits - since there aren't very many waymarks recorded in my state (the one I've submitted may well be the first in the state). I personally would want all of the "visit" logs on any waymarks "recorded" under one of my categories to have the same requirements. Hopefully there will be a way to implement this. It shouldn't be that difficult to put another option in the category creation process that says "All visits must meet recording guidelines" or "Waymarkers my create their own guidelines" or any other viable options people may think up. sd
  13. This is addressed in the FAQ. I think there have been a few posts as well that also say only PMs will be able to CREATE categories. I'm guessing that the forum for suggestions will be a PM only forum. sd
  14. Hrm.. that's interesting. I assumed that the requirements for visiting a waymark were the same for "listing" it. I thought the only difference was that if I'm the first person, I get to list it (seems to be a competition in the making, instead of FTF it'll be who listed the waymark). I assumed that people that visited it after me would be required to follow the same requirement (in the case of the one waymark I've listed so far, to post a picture at the location with the gps and provide coordinates). Can someone give an example of where you'd have different requirements that those needed to "list" a waymark? sd (going back to re-read this thread as well..., lots of interesting stuff in here)
  15. I haven't seen the other thread so I may be stating the obvious that has been discussed to death already but the potential for fraud is enormous. Numbers are going to be high. I do a 50 mile loop and bag 50 waymarks. I then log them in order so that I cut a circumference of the circle for each log. I could take a 2 hour trip and turn it into over 800 miles of travel. Requiring me to go "home" first just increases my distance. Worse yet, as discussed in another thread, the current rules don't require a visit in many cases. I could sit here at the computer and "travel" 10,000 miles in the next hour and my logs could comply with all of the currently written rules. Actually, I thought the idea was posted in THIS thread, but after reading this post from GlobalRat - I realize I misunderstood what was suggested: Regardless, this inspired my idea. Anyways, I do not understand your objections. What do you mean, numbers are going to be too high? To high for what? This isn't a competition - it's a way for me to keep track of my personal mileage while I visit/log waymarks. People already do this with travelbugs (it's a common practice for people to have "personal" tbs that never leave their possession). I also think you have misunderstood my suggestion about "going home". I'd think, if this feature was implemented - that after you log a waymark visit you'd get an option that says: "Would you like to log another waymark visit? Y/N". If chose no, it'd automatically reset your location to home and calculate the mileage. I guess some people like to dwell on the negative - but almost every geocacher I've met is honest. Regardless of what you do, people will find some way to "cheat" but I honestly don't know how this would hurt anybody - you don't win any rewards for having the most waymark visits. I also think you're talking about the People->Internet->Blog waymarks. I just checked those out - and I don't see a place to put a waypoint. I don't know that these do or would count with distance - or that it even matters. As someone with a small amount of programming ability, I know that it would be incedental to program it so that waymarks not requiring coordinates wouldn't count in distance calculations. Of course, all of this is rather pointless because there is so much more important stuff that needs to take place. sd
  16. I think FtMgAl's suggest of a "visit" log for TBs might be a possible solution. Then again, it adds another dimension to the already confusing TB world, and NevaP does have a good point. --- On a seperate note, I like the idea that somebody had of keeping track of the mileage of the user. Lets say I have my home coordinates created. It'd be neat to track MY mileage from home to the waymark - to the next waymark - etc. You could even have an feature that would allow you to go from waymark back to home if you returned home before listing/logging the next waymark. So - I find my first waymark and it's 50 miles away. I track the mileage from home -> wm -> home and I'm at 100 miles. Then - If I visited 2 (or more) waymarks before coming home it could track home -> waymark > waymark > home. (You'd need some manual step to return home before visiting another waymark. Perhaps by default you could leave your "location" at the waymark until you return home or visit another waymark). sd
  17. I agree, this needs to be changed. For example: Directory Home -> Places -> Resturaunts (70) -> So, I'm thinking there are 70 things directly under resturaunt - but there aren't, there (currently) are 2: McDonald's and Classic BBQ & Sandwich Joints. McD's has 54 waymarks. BBQ/Sandwich has 16 waymarks. It seems that Resturaunts would say (2). or - perhaps better yet: (2/70) or (2:70) or something. Of course, that could be a bigger problem if there end up being sub-sub-subcategories. sd
  18. I understand how the filter works (even if I don't understand the terminology just yet). Here's what I was trying to explain: I was trying to use the search (filter, oops) to see if there were any categories that had waymarks near that zipcode (I may be mistaken, but it seems that if there is a category showing up in that area then obviously there are waymarks within that area and I can search within categories at that point). When I did - it showed that particular waymark even though it said Presently there are no waymarks in the area you selected on the bottom of the waymark page. I wouldn't think that it would return that. I submitted my waymark visit, then after it said that the waymark had been submitted I clicked on home then attempted to use the filter. That's when the waymark came up. If a waymark hasn't been approved, it shouldn't cause a category to show up in the filter. Anyways, it only did that AFTER I submitted the waymark visit. It's not showing in a new search in a new window of IE. I'll log a fake visit (then delete) on another waymark to see if I can duplicate this bug. Also, I'm not sure if this is a seperate bug or what - but I cut the filter off and then clicked on home and the url still looks like this: http://www.Waymarking.com/?f=-1&DCTGUID=1f...68cb06&ls=39159 instead of just http://www.Waymarking.com. I'm not sure why that waymark category is still sticking to the url. I'm using IE 6.0.2800.1106. ----- I'm a bit lost on this - why would I search for waymarks that I had posted? I can access that in my profile page (or my memory). My goal was to see if other people had logged waymarks in an area. I'm guessing that many people who search for waymarks won't care as much about categories - they'll just be curious what is available in a particular area. I'd want to filter out categories by zipcode (or county or waypoint, or whatever) to see what had already been posted so I could decide if I wanted to visit - or maybe to just see what's going on in an area. I was pretty sure I understood what the location filter was for (still seems like a search to me). If a waymark has been logged, then the category will pop up in the filter... at least that's what I thought. ----- On a seperate note - I'm not sure if I like or dislike that the location filter stays on when I revert to the HOME page of Waymarking. What's the purpose of this? It does seem cumbersome to do it this way. My logic (and I'll admit it's based on the GC.com webpage but I bet this will confuse others) is that clicking on home resets everything - and should clear any filters and/or searches. At the very least, when you return to the home page - the option to filter another zipcode should be on the page without having to turn the filter off. If I filter one zipcode and then decide I want to filter another, I have to turn the filter off to start over - why not say: Present location code: XXXXX Search by: Postal_code/origin Advanced Search Postal Lookup Instead of just "Turn filter off". sd
  19. It isn't silly. I'm a bit conflicted with this one. First, I can understand the excitement over waymarks and I'd want to propose an idea I thought was cool. However it isn't formally announced so it isn't really fair to the folks that don't know about it now. Also, if we indicate we aren't accepting new proposals and you propose one, how should we deal with that? Any suggestions? My original thought was to lock all the threads when we are ready to accept proposals, and allow new ones at a certain time. First come, first served. We'd announce the time so everyone knows beforehand to start discussing it. I think that creating the seperate forum for proposals and NOT locking it to prevent new posts after your "We are not accepting proposals" thread was opening a can of worms. I understand that people kept proposing ideas in the Getting Started forum - but it seems a few still are - even hijacking bug, help, and idea threads that have nothing to do with category proposal. So... now that has been done, you have several options: 1. You can lock the new forum from new posts and lock all of the active threads. That'll be timeconsuming to say the least. Then you'll just have to lock every thread that is a proposal in the "Getting Started with WM" forum (because people might post there and it's also obvious some people don't read everything before posting). You'd probably have to moderate people that post ideas in individual threads.. Then you could allow new ones to be posted and only pay attention to those. 2. You could lock all of the threads, prevent any new posts, then unlock them all when you are allowing new posts. (Still gonna be a landrush with people "bumping" their threads up). 3. You could just go with what's already here (I'll admit this is a bit selfish since I jumped the gun to, in the confussion on this...). As soon as the current locationless get moved over, you could slowly start with some of the current proposals (possibly based on post count as a way to check them out... a lot of activity either means it's a popular idea or an unpopular one - should be easy enough to figure out). I know the last solution ( #3 ) may not be fair to those that aren't aware of WMing - but I'd wager most of the forum regulars are aware of the game and usually those people weigh in heavily on Groundspeak policy. Besides, life's not fair. More importantly - it's probably better to work out the bugs in the process with a smaller group. Do you really want to wait until you tell EVERYBODY about the website to start working out new categories? It's confusing now - think about the extra problems with extra people. I'd think using this beta period to do all of the beta testing would be a good idea. Those are just a few ideas that popped into my head... and they're not well formed necessarily. I'm sure some other people have suggestions. I do think that would be a bad idea to lock the threads (or delete them, but I don't think that's truly an option you'd consider) then tell people to start over.... you're likely to have more complaints from people who have submitted than from people who didn't know about Waymarking. I'm honestly torn. On one hand you did clearly say "no new submissions". On the other hand, you allowed people to start doing it. A seperate forum that people could post to was a bit confusing... especially after the initial rush of people posting... it became one of those "Is that admin message up to date or not... did they change their mind somewhere and not post it here??" situations. sd
  20. I'm not sure if there is already a running thread for bug reports (I don't know if you guys want them together or in seperate threads...) but here is a bug I just experienced. I visited a potentical waymark location for the following waymark category: Places -> Buildings -> Stadiums -> Minor League Baseball Stadiums. I just logged the waymark visit and am waiting for approval. I decided to do a few searches in major population centers in my state to see if there have been any waymarks visited in Mississippi. I clocked on the Home-> link. The first place I tried was the Jackson metro area (the area where the park I visited is located). When I entered the zipcode, it kept sending me back to the Minor League Baseball Stadium waymark. At the bottom it said (in red) "No waymarks visits listed" (or something like that). So... I tried a different zipcode that was more than 10 miles away from the park (more like 50 miles away) and it still pointed me back to that page. I tried a few more then realized that this was being tagged onto the end of all of the url's: ?f=-1&DCTGUID=1f22a1db-db07-4303-b9d3-cef2ce68cb06 When I clicked on the "home" link it took me to: http://www.Waymarking.com/?f=-1&DCTGUID=1f...d3-cef2ce68cb06 Anyways, I haven't tried to submit another waymark to duplicate this but I thought I'd let you know. sd
  21. Agreed. I don't see a lot of complaining in the last 5 logs (I didn't expand) but it'd be interesting to hear what other geocachers who attended the event thought about it. sd
  22. I personally have no problem with Groundspeak approving "commercial" caches. I would hope, however, that there was a disclaimer somewhere on the cache page that the cache may be commercial in nature. "Groundspeak is aware of the commercial nature of this cache and/or event and it has been approved with special permission". I'd be pretty pissed if I showed up to what was in fact a product pitch (I don't have the necessary info to decide if that was in fact the case in this situation). In this case I'd expect it to be a class, not a showcase of one particular gps brand/model. (Of course, this could be a fine line... they could have just picked whatever gps they were most familiar with... then again - if it was "the Magellan Explorist is THE model to have. You will ALWAY find what you're looking for. It's superior for geocaching activites. Buy one now for 3 easy payments of $29.99" I would be pissed). sd
  23. Probably because it's Friday evening and the people that know the answers to that (admin) are no longer at work. sd
  24. Leps, I sent you an email (I can't recall if to the unofficial or official email you have, you know what I mean) about MS Historic Markers. Should I post a proposal, or post to this one, or what? I'd love to manage the MS markers. sd
×
×
  • Create New...