Posts posted by caderoux
Be sure to load PQs into GSAK on a regular basis (I assume you are deleting your PQs after loading into GSAK using the automatic email reading feature, so you'll never be loading old PQs, anyway). This ensures that your cache "last updated date" is constantly moving forward on the caches which you ARE getting.
However, unless you plan on dumping your GSAK database every time (not really advisable, as you would lose archived caches which you've found or any caches you've found which you may not be receiving since they came in on PQs which you made for road trips), that's NOT going to be enough.
In order to ensure that the old cache information is not visible or downloaded to your GPS, you need to set up your GSAK filter to EXCLUDE caches which have not had an update in, say, the last week. Later if you wish, you can invert that filter and look at the caches you aren't getting updates for and get the individual GPX files for the archived caches or just mark them archived in GSAK.
Yes, wife thinks I spend too much time geocaching. Even before she got pregnant it was too much for her to go out for hours at a time. She would get bored and sit in the car and read a book.
However, baby is due very soon. Once she's old enough, I will have programmed her:
Sydney: Mooooom. Can we go caching today?
Chrissie: Go ask your father.
Cade: Alllllright. See you later, honey.
Could be a waymark - movies featuring geocaching, books featuring geocaching, TV episodes featuring geocaching...
I think maybe a sibling category to this one:
A Waymarking category of Suprise or Mystery would seem to be exactly what you want if you don't give any real clues about the real destination.
If you were to get all waymarks in an area in all categories you would still get these.
No one can say a virt is a good substitute for a physical.
Well, not and know what the heck they are talking about.
I can...and do...
As far as I can see the "virtual problem" was only really a US phenomina. In the UK most of the virtuals I have visited have been much better than the nearby physicals.
If waypoint rating is so great and helps us eliminate pointless waypoints - why not just introduce it on GC.com and leave the virts and locationless there?
There's more to Waymarking than just the rating system. (I'm not sure the rating system IS going to work on WM.com. Remember TPTB here claimed a rating system would never work on gc.com because all caches would end up tending to the average - I'm not sure what won them over).
Regardless of whether you think virtuals and locationlesses should have been opened up from the unusable guidelines on gc.com to every burger chain and lamppost, Waymarking's style would still be a better way to handle the virts and locationless in a more tightly-controlled quality-oriented environment.
Because there are now three levels (categories, waymarks, visits), it opens up locationlesses which were hard to participate in (FTF gets the waymark, STF gets a visit) and also helps the owners to ensure that people comply with the guidelines.
It also categorizes the locationlesses so they are easier to hunt if that's your thing.
And waymarks which are closer to the virtual cache-style also get categorized, so you can do just the kinds of virtuals which interest you.
The fact that account management is split accross the two sites, will, I hope be rectified.
And this is exactly one reason why a time/date feature would be useful. If you could set the time/date up to, say, 30 days in advance, you could place your cache well ahead of time, submit it for approval, it could be approved but then not active until the date you specified, whether your reviewer was away or not at the time wouldn't be relevant. I know I've requested a couple caches to be approved on a specific day, but that all hinges on whether the approver is available on that day and remembers to do the approval. As someone earlier mentioned, a time limit could be established to prevent "squatting", say a month, since a lot of event caches are done that far in advance.
Why would you make me wait thirty days to find your cache?
It could be a seasonal cache that you want timed to appear before Halloween or whatever. You want to do the work and make sure it will be approved in time but not too early. If you wait too late, the approver may not get to it.
Of course, you can already do all this via email with the approver - the suggestion is a way to free the approver from having to wait to approve it.
On a separate yet related note, we're thinking of having a newbie day in City Park where newbie cachers could come and get help and then go out with chaperones on cache hunts.
It was these dodgy "visit"s to Leprechauns' waymark which got me worried about being able to control visits to my own tour guide listing.
Great idea to increase UI richness.
But implementation issues probably mean it won't be available here any time soon:
In a traditional page generation architecture (as gc.com currently uses) this would mean ALL that data (even 50 characters per cache adds up) shipped out to the browser. So the total page load gives an overall less-responsive system.
In an AJAX-style architecture (probably a long ways off for gc.com) where a user-dependent event triggers an asynchronous call to the server for additional information, the page load overhead goes away, but the delay before the tooltip to get the information increases. This can be done gradually in the background like Google Maps does to improve the responsiveness.
Is a waymark owner able to invalidate logs.
For instance, if someone logs my Tour Guide waymark, but they never got any guidance, or it was clearly invalid, can I delete their log or change it to a note?
Or is only the category owner able to do this?
I know, I tried with a repost... Maybe I'm using the wrong language.
Here's a bump:
The current system only shows the "fill factor" in the tree, but nothing about the richness of the tree.
It think it should give more indication of what is underneath. Even once the waymarks start to fill up, the current numbers will only give you raw weight, not relative density.
Perhaps it could display (n/m) where n is the number of waymarks and m is the number of categories underneath.
I would like to be the Head Waynker in Charge of the Popeye's category as soon as it is created.
I'd also like one to be the HWiC for Bud's Broiler and Ted's Frostop categories as soon as they're up, too.
On a related note - when you have small regional or limited chains, it might be useful to have these in a sub category to stop them for spreading the hierarchy too wide.
In case you didn't know, New Orleans has a lot of restaurants, and I love to eat at as many as I can and let people know which ones to try first - but categories are supposed to cross geographic boundaries.
Would a question Waymarking.com be intended to answer be "Give me a list of top-rated restaurants in this area?"
Ditto - but no one else seemed to feel the same way: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=105955
I could find 50-100 close to home in a single day if I was just starting today, but not now that I've found them all...
It takes trips to other dense area to get that many hunts.
Of course some of these people have more virtuals and locationless alone than I have total caches.
like I said, there has to be a requirement to verify a visit. If not, I could get thousands of #s (ex- all the McDs and Subways in the world) without moving. It makes the one that people do go to "worthless".
Also the categories will have to be restricted- if not, how about bathrooms I have used?
I think the verification is up to the category owner. They can require that and police it if they desire. If they don't, then OK. People might put less faith in accuracy or something then. Since it isn't really the same as cache finds, I'm not sure it matters unless it leads to inaccurate information? What I did with my categories is ask for GPS coordinates since I figure getting them will help with accuracy (although I suppose they could use mapping software to get them). My main concern is accuracy to find the object/place/thing with my categories. Others might feel differently with theirs and want verification. They can require that.
Is verification of visits up to the category owner or the waymark owner?
The general rule (not hard and fast, 'cuz it varied by owner) for most locationless was that a particular locationless could only be logged once (by anyone). In the new scheme, that person becomes the owner of the waymark, but other people can still visit that waymark.
As I believe Jeremy said, this opens up the locationless activity with more supply, since anyone can visit them. For instance, some locationlesses effectively got closed because the N instances of that item were all logged, and no one else could log as a find, and gc.com doesn't let you track distinct notes etc.
Obviously there are now two levels of stats - you own some waymarks (kind of like FTF), and you can also visit others. So whenever numbers are released, you have more types of numbers.
I find it really interesting to see how this pans out. There is obviously a lot of jockeying for how the site will be used, and people will have agendas as to how they think it should develop, kind of like gc.com which was experimental for a while, but basically solidified on the "physical caches are the basis for the activity" line and the traditional arguments about caches without logs or with verification codes, etc, etc.
One interesting thing which I'm not sure about is whether owners of a waymark can delete logs of visitors or specify restrictions on how a visit is confirmed.
As far as my original question, does anyone see merit in showing any measure of the underlying category structure at the top level in addition to just it's current utilization?
The wording on this email I just received appears incorrect:
N O Cace tour Inbox
noreply@Waymarking.com to me
More options 7:28 am (2 hours ago)
This is an automated message from Waymarking.com
My brother just moved there last month. I'll be sure to look you up when I schedule a visit.
To respond to this message from caderoux, use the following link:
I don't think the counts are wrong; they ARE correct counts of waymarks, the (0) just seems to indicate there are no categories underneath, when there _are_ categories, just no waymarks. So it's really 0 waymarks in 2 categories.
Well Super Size Me.
There are few things as sickening as letting our society swell up and explode on the fatty portions served up by Mr. Ronald McDonald, yet that is one of the first categories of waymarks.
If we're mapping locations as mundane as McDonalds, I assume we'll have Walgreen's, too (more useful) and supermarkets and dry cleaners and public restrooms and chinese restaurants and sandwich counters. And gun stores, too please.
Why exactly would we exclude some legal businesses?
(Strip clubs are family friendly - your money goes to support their kids, you know.)
I'm excitedly waiting for the debates to start where something is no longer true to the basis of the activity and yet another site has to be set up. ;-)
End Of Geocaching?
in Getting Started with Waymarking (Read-Only)
Ahhh, the abstraction, just think about it - all GPS-based games ever invented or yet to be invented can become categories under Waymarking.com.
And then geodashing, letterboxing, benchmarking, bookcrossing, degree confluence, and everything else can be unified by the One Ring (I mean Groundspeak).