southdeltan

I obviously need to flesh this out a bit, but I figured there'd be a bit more interest in this one. Several of my physical caches are blues related (I live in the MS Delta) and they've all been very popular. I'm still trying to grasp this concept of waymarks, but as soon as I do I'll edit my proposal. sd

You can't delete finds, but you can delete online logs These aren't finds, they're visits - and you obviously had no contact (I too would probably count email and/or phone contact with the person since you can guide them in that manner). I'd probably do the same as you're going to do tho... and wait til the beta period is over and send them an email. Is there a "note" function on Waymarking? I haven't attempted to log any yet. sd

Logging a cache and finding a cache are two different things. One can find it and never bother with silly rules, because it can then go on your ignore list. Exactly. You can prevent me from logging online, but what are you going to do, go find the log and rip my nameout? Not that it will change the fact that I found it. These aren't finding requirements, they're online logging requirements. It's not about smilies, it's about having my geo-history in one easy to access location. If I find something, I want to be able to record it. sd

Absolutely. When it was suggested we were like OMG, like this could totally be a waymark category. I bet you were excited to see the suggestion. Great work guys (let me sneak that in among the suggestions, questions and COMPLAINTS about Waymarking). sd editted to insert imprtant information that was implied but not clarified... (or something like that)

I understand the difference. But, as I mentioned in another thread I would love to have all of my personal geo-information located on one page. Benchmarks aren't little boxes with trinkets, they're metal discs (or antennas, or church steeples, or, or, or) yet they're listed on the same page (but NOT counted in the total number of cache finds). I have no problem with them not counting as CACHE finds, I never thought locationless caches should have been counted. I supposed I won't mind not being able to log virtuals (where I personally noted some fine differences between locationless and virtual caches). I, like many others, will probably want to participate in geocaching, benchmarking and/or Waymarking. It'd be great if all of my Groundspeak data was in one spot. I know I'm not alone in feeling this way. It may not be problematic for some to visit multiple pages (and I use problematic in a very large and vague manner) but it is for others - I would hope that people wouldn't underestimate the inconvienance some will experience. I do understand some of the reasons Waymarking.com is a seperate site (different concept, beta project, etc) but I think in the long run confusion will occur no matter what you do - but people will figure it out eventually. When they do, many will want to participate and they'll want one "profile"/"stats" page. sd

Is this the real-world implementation of the Adopt a Newbie Scheme? suggestion? (duh) Just curious, it seems to handle the job very well. The two "visits" on the The Leprechauns waymark seem a bit strange. Are those test posts? I'm not sure that those 2 people (this is based on the logs) bet with Lep. I'd assume one would log a "visit" when you actually had a "guided tour" ? Is that how it works? Is there even a need for a "visit" in this category? Also, what if the same person visits more than once? (some of this might be better answered in the Waymarking forum). Either way, this looks very awesome sd

I still can't imagine why people care so much about FTF's. Big deal. Hell, you don't even know if you ARE the FTF because some people don't log in logbooks, much less online. I personally MUCH prefer a cache that's been around the block, if you know what I mean. On a seperate, but related note - logging requirements (not FINDING requirements, those are the things you do to make the cache hard to find... like hiding it well or making sure the puzzle is hard enough) are assanine. sd

For reference, TPTB have said repeatedly that people will NEVER be able to see who is watching one of their caches - and I beleive they're eventually going to remove the watch-count all together. My problem is when my PM money is used to develop useless things like this cache-notification email. The caches are already posted to the website as they are listed and you can view these in several locations (the state page shows the 10 newest caches, the search for geocaches by state page that shows the complete list of active caches, and by setting up a PQ of "new" caches.) I'll never use this feature and am disappointed that my money was used to develop it. sd

I don't think it's a terrible idea, for the reasons Ibycus has outlined. I also like Jeremy's suggestion. This would be akin to: Category Proposal: Illegal Dump Sites. Lets' mark them so we can help the authorities do something about them...... That's the idea anyways.... sd

Waymarks related to blues music. Musician graves and childhood homes. Famous bars, juke-joints and other venues. sd

I'm not sure I follow you. Hung up?? Benchmarking is a seperate activity but my benchmark "find" totals are listed beside my geocache "find" totals. I like it like that, and would hope that my waymark "visits" would be on the same page. I like having all of my data in one spot. I'd think it would be easy enough to put that all in one location while differentiating the seperate geo-activities. I think it would be good for Waymarking. I've noticed several locals already dismissing it because it's a seperate website. sd

They aren't but you can go through the exercise to see if you can refine your idea. Ok, one more question: If I submit one of these "unofficial" proposals - and am the first person to submit it - will I be the person who gets to "manage" it when you do start taking applications? Sorry if that's a silly question - I'm just trying to be 100% sure. sd

They were moved to a new area after that post. I also made a note at the top of this one so folks were clear that we were not accepting new ones at this time. I am truly confused about this.... There is a seperate forum for "Category Proposals". The sticky post at the top says that you're not accepting submissions.... If not, why have a seperate forum?? I'm really confused. I have a few ideas and I'd like to submit them so I can manage them if accepted, but I don't want to waste my time if they're not being accepted.... What's going on - I'm really confused. sd

I think this is going to be a turnoff for some people. I, and many others, like to have all of my relevant geo-related information in one spot. Currently, I can look and see everything I have found, hidden, or attended in one spot. While I don't think that the waymarks should count as a total, I do think they should be displayed in the same location - just like benchmarks are. I'm still way behind on figuring all of this out - so I can't comment on it much more than that. I just know that most people I know like all of their info in one location. While Waymarking may not be Geocaching - it's still Groundspeak. ---- It seems that very few people I have talked to (locally) understand much about this. Aside from "I don't understand" the only specific comment I've seen is "It looks like they're splitting it into something else, and I don't like that". So, my suggestion: Put the Waymark totals on the "profile" page with everything else - or make a "Groundspeak Profile" with everything on it. sd

Groundspeak: Subversively promoting religion masquerading as science. 'Nuff said. sd

No. Everyone of my rural caches is in areas where the Louisiana Black Bear population is on the rise. There are also alligators in the area and, GASP, large fields of poison ivy. If you are concerned, post a disclaimer on your page in the description of the cache. I do, just to let people know. Black bears have a rather large range and they are not going to stay in a "monitoring area". They, like all animals, do not heed property boundaries. If there are bears in the area they will move around a lot and you're likely to see them just about anywhere you go. They tend to avoid people anyway. sd

No. Thats pretty cruel man. It doesn't matter how remote your caches are, you never know who or what may move them. There have been reports of animals destroying caches in remote areas due to the container having a scent. Just because you think there is nothing wrong, doesn't mean that something didn't happen. The rules say you must check your cache periodically, if you can't do that then the cache shouldn't be there. Like Ju66l3r mentioned, we all need to do our part to make sure the game stays fun and up to date. Thoughts like "the cache is so remote there can't possibly be anything wrong with it" are more of a hinderance than they are helpful. The "guidelines" say you must check on your cache. They do NOT say you must post status reports. If there is nothing wrong with the cache, there is no reason to post a note. If I check on it and it's not there, of course I'll either archive it, replace it or disable it until I can. I think I understand where RK is coming from and I agree with it. As an active cache owner - I would think a bit of trust should be placed on the owner. In this case the cache owner is inactive and that does change it - but I'd look for it before passing judgement. Honestly though, I don't see why you're concerned about this. It isn't your duty to check on somebody elses cache and if you don't want to look for this one - just put it on your IGNORE list. Otherwise go look for it. If you don't find it, post a dnf then post a sba. sd

Large fields of poison ivy are extremely common in the Mississippi Delta. In the Delta National Forest and various NWRs and state WMAs it is often one of the dominant understory plants. Any cache hidden in a non-urban (heh, even the "cities" in the delta are rural) area will definetly have poison ivy around it. Virginia Creeper isn't that common here. sd

I personally think the "tick" attribute should be changed to an arthropod attribute, or something representing ticks, flies, mosquitos, chiggers and similar organisms. In my area, there's a month or 2 when we DON'T have mosquitos, and some years they are about year round. We don't really have much of a tick population, but we have a very healthy mosquito population. sd

You must have missed Briansnat's post: Yea, it's easy to ignore them. The next thing you know, there aren't any to find because that's all that's being hidden. I recall somebody mentioned that they didn't think there were more micros being hidden - there were more of ALL caches. That may be true, but there is a higher percentage of NEW caches in many areas that are micros. Yea, there are more caches, but you'd probably find all of the older (regular sized) caches and the majority of new caches are ones you don't like. New people come in, see micros - and they copy what they find. We had a problem here with people writing short logs because they'd read so many short logs on "average" caches they thought it was poor form to write anything more than a sentence on any cache. People copy what they see. In many areas - it's POORLY hidden micros in BORING areas. As for the OP - I keep seeing more people come around to beat the same horse I (and many others) learned to stop beating a while back, and instead just slowly stop caching. I hope you don't end up going down the same road we are... (in otherwords, it's a rather depressed "I told you so".) sd

Well, the numbers don't seem to be going down yet. That's an increase of approximately 30% in about a week. I wonder if they'll go down next week? sd

I think that's the dumbest reason... 90+% of the caches that go missing are either muggled or weathered.... Neither of which will making them members only prohibit. I didn't say that MO caches were designed to prevent caches from "going missing". I said they were designed to prevent them from being STOLEN. There is a huge difference. Of course most caches that disappear aren't targetted by cache thieves - but there are more than a few documented cases of thieves systematically stealing caches in areas. If you do a search, you can find several discussions of MO caches and cache theft. The most recent wasn't that long ago. INSERTED: Post by Jeremy about MO caches and cache theft. I think EraSeek is onto something, btw. sd

J - any chance you'd share the peak numbers for most logs during a day and/or 3 day period? as well as most logs by different account holders? sd

Instead of trading barbs (which do appear to be bordering on violating forum rules), why not have somebody who lives near sholmes take on a pure numbers run. I'm sure a few hours would remove any doubts. sd