honymand

I agree that pictures are very helpful, but you can't upload a picture to the category gallery until after the category has been approved! Or I have missed something? I understand that you can do it via HTML, but the category description does not have a nice feature for inserting pictures as the editor in these forums. Rather you'd have to place the picture elsewhere and link to it via HTML, so knowledge of HTML syntax seems to be required. Seems there are two things which should be implemented - Category links to discussions during peer review - Pictures in non-approved categories And both can be remedied via HTML!

Thank you tozainamboku for clarifying and telling the whole story, but there are a few errors when it comes to Waymarking. If I create a waymark and add a category with subcategories I get this message: You must continue selecting categories until you reach the deepest subcategory. So if I select "Nature", then "Plants" I have to select either "Carnivorous plants", "Flower fields" or "Gardens" - no other options. And as this is a very short list of very specific sites there is no way I could for instance register a location of say orchids without first having a new category approved. And that is a problem - as soon as you add a few subcategories you effectively rule out everything else in the parent category! And about creating new categories that's not at all easy - at least not anymore - I've had two suggestions rejected, and on grounds that fit on already existing categories.

Point taken - so I can only hope they'll be willing to make changes to the way Waymarking categories are defined.

Thank you, but what I am looking for is not so much the ability to create a route for myself, but to create a route to share with others in the same way as I can create lists. A little like lists which can be shown on the map with connected lines (and intermediate points). It's all about sharing the experience :-)

I read that link, but in my humble opinion it basically states that: We asked people with knowledge of geology to review caches about geology. I fully understand that it would be odd to ask people of the United States Geological Society to review caches relating to zoology, but it beckons the question - Isn't there a Society of Zoology - Have they been asked to review Zoocaches? - Did they say no, ok, nothing to do about that then... But I bet they weren't ever asked. It is very clear that the limitation to earth sciences was chosen willfully - I just don't see why this limitation is in place! OK, I see why it is in place for Earthcaches, but why isn't there a Zoocaches type (for instance)? Best regards, Hans Olav

It would be nice if you could define a route by selecting a list of caches, waymarks and custom coordinates. It should be possible to view the route on a map (just connecting the points by straight lines...) and make a route public. This way you can set up a nice walk (as a service to other cachers). http://www.everytrail.com has something vaguely similar but a lot of it doesn't work (since they were purchased by TripAdvisor), and anyway the Everytrail site does not involve anything with caches. What I am looking for is in fact quite a bit simpler than the Everytrail site - just a list of caches, waymarks and custom coordinates - and then view that on a map and share with others. Best regards, Hans Olav PS: If someone is ín doubt whether this suggestion is at all OK please visit the previous post: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=324249&st=0&p=5404032&fromsearch=1entry5404032

Hi, I can't know it of course, but I'd think that quite a lot of geocachers are happy with and even interested in nature. However, registering a site of botanical, zoological or ecological interest can be quite difficult, and for each feature introduced which may possibly allow this some limitations are also imposed which makes it in fact not possible. I realize there is nothing in the rules to prevent you from placing a regular cache, but then there are lots of reasons anyway why you may not. First of all it may be prohibited or simply unwise for conservancy reasons to place a physical cache, or no proper hiding place may be available or another cache may already be too close - but a cache with a completely different purpose. Then you could make an "unknown" cache leading the geocacher to the area but with the physical placed somewhere else. And this is possible of course, but you don't avoid making it more difficult for the finder and you have to invent some kind of puzzle which may (depending on your skills as riddler...) appear out of place. Example: I can easily create caches that lead people to visit different species of trees in order to learn about trees. If the locality near one beech is unavailable or impractical I find myself another beech. But I cannot easily create caches that lead people to visit specific trees, such as very large or old specimens. If the locality near the oldest tree in Denmark is unavailable or impractical, I just can't find another oldest tree! Then there are/were the different kinds of non-physical caches or waymarks. 1) Old virtual caches: Yes, I can see why they've been grandfathered. No rules really - means chaos, also they were to some degree disregarded by cachers. 2) Earthcaches: That is a good idea, but you have to ask yourself - why aren't they just waymarks? And another question: Why only geology? I know for a fact that there are earthcaches around which cover sites primarily of ecological importance, but making a geology-centered description made them accepted anyway. Make no mistake: I'd like to keep the earthcaches, but broaden the accepted types of sites so people don't have to tweak their description. 3) Challenges: Replaced virtual caches and were quickly turned into waymarks. I do think they had some merit. Not as popular as caches, but not completely disregarded either. 4) Waymarks: The rule that you must select a category at the lowest level causes havoc in some cases. Look that the two categories "Natural Lakes" and "Plants" which are two very broad categories. Natural Lakes have no subcategories which means you can waymark Lake Huron or any local lake. Plants on the other hand have subcategories which means that lots of botical interesting sites cannot be registered as waymarks unless they are gardens, flower fields or house carnivorous plants - that seems to me as a pretty random collection. Waymarks WOULD be a great thing it you could either register on diffrerent levels of categories or it was easier to create new categories (I don't really get the voting system - in the end people will vote with their feet, if no one really registers any waymarks or nobody finds them - then and only then can a category be declared void). What I am hoping for here is one of two 1) Broaden the criteria for earthcaches, at least to include also sites of general ecological importance 2) Make it easier to register plant/animal/ecology centered waymarks - one way or another Best regards, Hans Olav

Hi, and thanks for all your answers. First of all I'll give an example of what I am after. Take a look at waymark http://coord.info/WMJCFG - it is uncategorized but should be viewable. And please feel free to suggest another category if you can think of one that fits. About geography: I completely agree that a global category is what we want, and that was in my original group description before someone wrote "we can't have that, because in some countries there are forest bogs and ponds everywhere". But how else to deal with stuff which is common in some places and rare in others ? About recreated: Again I'd much rather be without it, and again decided to include it to limit the category. By the way I agree that "restored" is probably better if at all. About description: Yes, I'll have to work with that - I get it now. Both about size/type of water and degree of "forestness". By the way, what do you think would be the most relevant and interesting? - Forest bogs and ponds: Doesn't cover larger lakes or larger areas at all, and doesn't have to be restored. My favorite, but then there is the problem that in some countries they are everywhere - Restored Forest bogs and ponds: Like above but have to be restored. - Restored Forest wetland areas: Have to be restored but size doesn't matter. My second, because why limit on size. A very large restored area is just the more impressive and interesting I think. Best regards, Hans Olav

Reading through the peer review comments there seems to be three main problems raised by the community. 1) Some claim that it wasn't discussed in the forums, but in fact it was. Only it was discussed almost a year before I put it to vote. OK, that is my mistake and I'll certainly improve on that the next time :-) 2) The second problem relates to geographical location. Actually my original description of the category was not with "recreated" nor "western europe" in the description. It was simple named "Forst bogs and ponds". However, in the forum, one person pointed out that this matched huge areas of Canada and Siberia and probably also other places, and that hence this was not really acceptable. Thats why I added the "Recreated" and "Western Europe" - but actually I'd rather not. However, we can boil down that problem. In my country (Denmark) forest bogs are relatively rare (and new, almost all were removed via drainage in the 50's and 60's). In next door Sweden they are abundant. So how to deal with that in the description - something common in one country may be rare in another. 3) Finally, and this is my biggest problem. Many say that the description is bad, vague, unclear etc. so I understand that his really must be the case. But I need some help here, suggestions, examples, ideas, references that will help me to improve. Best regards, Hans Olav

This is a the description copied from the category - comments are to follow in next post (posting this because some on this suggested this had potential, but the description needed to be improved) Description: A forest wetland area basically is just what it says: A bog, mire or similar inside a forest. Many have been lost due to drainage, but now nature is being restored. Expanded Description: Forest wetland areas have become rare in Western Europe since the 1950'es where modern forestry and with that, drainage, took over much of the west-european forest area. This in the end lead to monocultures without any meadows, bogs or ponds inside the forest. But now that is changing again. Focus is on recreating natural forests, both for environmental and recreative purposes. This category is for Waymarking recreated forest bogs and ponds, a special and rare biotope in western Europe, often home to rare mosses and ferns. Instructions for Posting a Recreated Forest Wetland Areas Waymark: Describe the area and provide at least one, preferably two photos. Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category: Describe the current state of the wetland area and/or provide a photo.

Hi fi67, Thank you very much for your information. Can I press you to be a little more specific on the "Recreated Forest Wetland Areas" comments - I'd like to improve the description... Best regards, Hans Olav

Lycopods are clubmosses, firmosses, quillworts and similar plants - often desscribed as "fern allies" they are an intermediate group between proper mosses and proper vascular plants. The category of course must be provided with some relevant sample pictures such as this one: and of course to log it a picture must be uploaded (much as with the carnivorous plant category). And while they are indeed rare outside the tropics they are by no means limited geographically; the only areas where they don't occur are in very arid areas - both hot and cold. The only continent where they are not found is Antarctica, and for instance they are not found in Sahara nor in the permanently iced interior of Greenland. And one question from myself: Would it be OK with a category for both existing and fossil finds of lycopods ? I find it one of the intriguing facets that they span such an immense period of time (400 million years). Best regards, Hans Olav

Hi, Under the category Nature/Plants we find only a few subcategories, so this is an attempt to add at least one more subcategory here. Lycopods in the broad sense is the oldest extant group of vascular plants at around 410 million years old, their heyday was in the Carboniferous so much of the coal we dig up today is from this group of plants. But today they are rare, and in addition they are easily overlooked, they don't have beautiful flowers, they are not grown as crops and actually they are rarely grown at all because outside the tropics the are quite hard to grow. Please let me know what you think? I relealise that lycopods (clubmosses, firmosses, quillworts, etc) are not very well known but in my opinion that it exactly what makes them eligible as a category - while for instance a grass category might not be relevant. I've created a group already - please join of you're interested. Best regards, Hans Olav

Hi, I've created a new category: Recreated Forest Wetland Areas It's current status is listed as: >>>>>>>>>>>> Category Status: Your group's category, Recreated Forest Wetland Areas has been sent to peer review. It will be reviewed by the Waymarking community until 7/24/2014. 1. Create/Edit Your Category V 2. Add Category Variables (recommended) V 3. Call for Officer Vote on Category V 4. Call for Peer Review on Category V 5. Activate Category (make it visible in the directory) <<<<<<<<<<<< So apparently the peer review is done, but no conclusion is listed even though we are way past 7/24. 1-4 has a red checkmark, but if I click on the link 5 nothing happens (and a quick peek in the HTML sourcecode reveals that the link is disabled). So something needs to be done - but I have no clue as to WHAT ?

That you can define a route by selecting a list of caches, waymarks and custom coordinates. It should be possible to view the route on a map (just connecting the points by straight lines...) and make a route public. This way you can set up a nice walk (as a service to other cachers). http://www.everytrail.com has something vaguely similar but a lot of it doesn't work (since they were purchased by TripAdvisor), and anyway the Everytrail site does not involve anything with caches. What I am looking for is in fact quite a bit simpler than the Everytrail site - just a list of caches, waymarks and custom coordinates - and then view that on a map and share with others.

Hi guys, Thanks for the reply and sorry for not returning sooner. But I probably need some help to nail a description. When I see it I'm not in doubt - is it just a watery depression, a bog or mire or a proper pond or lake. Perpetually wet is clearly a requirement (except for the aforementioned drought). Maybe the precise requirement is that it should by so large, deep or watery that it clearly alters the vegetation. Either by having its own isolated wetland vegetation or at least by denying the growth of non-wetland vegetation within the area in question. This should rule out meadows for instance. Alternatively specify Natura 2000 nature types. That would make the definition very precise but maybe to hard to use for people wanting to post. Artificial creations are OK as long as they are naturalized. From Marsh/Dense emergent on this picture: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/USGS_image_cropped.jpg. I am also considering: - An upper size limit. If sufficiently large it is not really "in a forest" more like "next to a forest". - I'm interested in West European conditions. Does it make sense? You could argue that Finland is one big forest bog. Same goes for large parts of Russia. But in Western Europe it is indeed rare. Best regards, Hans Olav

Hi, I'm quite new to this (except registering a few waymarks). I've created a new group and obviously I wan't to recruit some more for the group which shares this interest (if any...) Forest bogs and ponds So whats the proper way to go about ? Best regards, Hans Olav

No, I don't consider the foretrex a wristwratch. Hans Olav

Hi, I am looking for a good GPS wristwatch. There are many available, and I already have a really cheap one - which is really s***ty, but it's hard to actually see if a given watch has the necessary features. I am looking for a watch which can - display time with digits 24h (I guess most can - but not all, I know that) - possibility of transfering waypoints via bluetooth (or similar simple mainstream technology) - being able to actually see current coordinates in the display (all the Garmin watches AFAIK fail this requirement) - easy to store a new waypoint (on my current cheap-s*** watch this is really complicated like hold 2 buttons to shift to wayopoint mode, then hold button 3 for 4 seconds to store (obviously the buttons are really small and hard so holding a button pressed for 4 seconds is really hard)) - when selecting to navigate to a waypoint the watch should display direction with an arrow and distance - km should be available) A lot? No, I don't think so. All these requirements are basically simple... Regards, Hans Olav

Hi, Would it be OK to create a cache with the sole purpose of "Launching" a TB, then when the TB is gone, take the cache offline again. Is that allowed ? Best regards, Hans Olav

Hi, I'd like to create a photo cache - a cache where there is no physical cache, but the finder has to take (and upload) a photo of the area while standing at the cache coordinates. Is it possible? If yes, then how ? I guess it was possible with the old virtual caches, but can this be made as a challenge cache (it's not a very hard challenge but still does require finding the right place, taking the photo and uploading). Or can it be made as a puzzle? Well, it is not really a puzzle. You might call it a challenge, only it's not very hard. Best regards, Hans Olav

Hi, Forgive me if this is not a valid question in this forum, but can anyone recommend a place with good GPS blogs. I want to create my own (which is not directly about geocaching although a few subjects will be related). Regards, Hans Olav