Jump to content

Backwards Charlie from Austin

+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Backwards Charlie from Austin

  1. You've hit on a problem that I have commented on before; namely, that the present process of setting up of categories is such a random, scatter-shot process, that there are large uncategorized gaps into which many potential waymarks fall. A taxonomy of waymarks needs to be set up so every potential waymark has a category it fits into.
  2. OpinioNate's math in his previous example implies that he is putting a limit of three (3) categories of which you can be Group Leader.
  3. Ferreter5, I gather that you are only interested in traditionals, multis, and mysteries (TM&M) since those are the only kinds of caches that can be added to gc.com. If you also like doing any of the other types of caches that do not have a physical cache container or a physical logbook, then you need to visit wm.com where they are now housed. TPTB seem to have decided to split geocaching into two areas, those that fit the TM&M model stay on gc.com, while those that do not move to the new wm.com site. At wm.com they are developing (slowly, V E R Y slowly) a new model for better handling all the non-TM&M type caches. This thread is about possible new features for event caches. Event caches hardly fit the TM&M model now, with any of the new proposed features they would be even harder to shoehorn into the TM&M model. Thus, it makes sense to move event caches to wm.com where a more flexible cache model is hopefully going to be available one of these days. I am not aware of any event cache organizer that has denied a waymarker access to the event. Of course I also am not aware of any pure waymarkers. It seems that all the people that post to the waymark forums are like me, geocachers that also like some of the non TM&M type caches that are now on wm.com.
  4. I agree with JDandDD in asking what's the point of Waymarking if all it's going to be is databases of 'locationless' caches? I am interested in Waymarking because this is where 'virtuals' got shunted to. But except for historical markers, 'virtuals' seem to be treated as the b*st*rd child in the family.
  5. I agree with Lil Devil that events should move to Waymarking. Waymarking is supposed to handle all the other special situations such as virtuals and locationless that require different handling than traditional caches.
  6. Without downloadable co-ordinates trying to find waymarks is a hassle. The three physical waymarks that I have logged visits to where all local locations that I knew of and didn't need my GPSr to find. But having to hand load co-ordinates into my GPSr is no fun, so for now I do not look for waymarks on any of my trips.
  7. Don't pay any attention to this response. It is a computer geek thing to always use the scientific notations for multiples of 0's. K = Kilo = 1,000 M = Mega = 1,000,000 G = Giga = 1,000,000,000 If you want to claim to be computer literate then you need to know these geeky things!
  8. What I do when I come across a cache that needs maintenance and I have the proper supplies, is I do the maintenance and then e-mail the cache owner. Most of the time the cache owner will reply with his thanks. If I get a nasty from the owner instead, then I remember the owner's name and the next time I run across one of his caches that needs maintenance I wil leave it alone and log an SBA.
  9. The sender of that mysterious e-mail was one of the many that do not engage their brains before they hit their Send keys. Is the message one is about to send a reply to another message and that message is included? Or is this message a stand-alone message with reference(s) to other correspondence not included? In the former case the context of the included message explains the reply. In the later case the lack of included context means the sender must explain what they are referring to. From your comments, the message you got is not an example of the former case, but an example of what can go wrong in the later case when incomplete context is included.
  10. Now you know something about this co-worker that can be useful to you; namely, you can not trust anything he says. And don't share any of your good ideas with him, he probably will go to the boss claiming he thought it up.
  11. You must not be a Harry Potter fan. Muggles are the people that don't do magic in the Harry Potter series, and for us they are the people that don't do geocaching.
  12. I agree with you about this. That is why I offered my suggested templates so the category owners can put all the required logging information together in a simple format on the category pages.
  13. Standardization can be achieved if TPTB would create templates for category owners to use. From the confusing logging instructions that I see on many category pages, there are many category owners that do not even understand the difference between logging the creation of a new waymark and the logging of a visit to an existing waymark. A template for the creation of a new waymark could be as such: 1. Co-ordinates 2. Photo requirements, if any 3. Attributes, if any A template for the visit to an existing waymark could be as such: 1. Date and time of visit 2. What you saw, or did, or bought there, etc. (as with Virtual Caches) 3. Photo requirements, if any I am sure others can improve on these suggested templates.
  14. I have had several occations where I did not sign the log but counted it as a cache. In each case I e-mailed the cache owner and told them of the circumstances why I did not sign the cache. If the owner e-mailed me back saying that's not good enough, then I would delete the find. So far none of the cache owners has objected. One cache owner e-mailed me that somebody must have placed the cache in the wrong place since where I described seeing it and being unable to reach it was not where it was supposed to be. But since my description of the cache container was correct he did not object to my logging it as a find. And he thanked me for letting him know about the misplaced cache.
  15. I like the idea of a hiking trails category. There are a lot of hiking trails in Texas and surrounding areas I would like to waymark when this category gets created.
  16. Somebody has to be the owner of the waymark so they can archive it when it no longer exists. For example, there was a McD's in town that was turned into a pile of rubble the last time I went by. If it had been waymarked, the owner would now need to archive it since it no longer a McD. I am sure waymarkers will be just as unhappy looking for abondoned waymarks as geocachers are unhappy looking for abondoned geocaches.
  17. Jake, I still don't know where you are getting your numbers from. I just checked the Drudge Report a few minutes ago and it is still showing only nine (9) logged visits.
  18. Jeremy, You are entitled to your opinion and I will fight to the death for you to be able to express it. From your letter to Mr. Muro I think you are sincere in your beliefs. However, many of us were raised in different cultural environments with different beliefs as to what is and is not proper respect for the departed. I have no problem with flowers on graves. Some others object to anything but religious symbols. Others may have no problem with teddy bears and other warm fuzzies. I think this is an area it is best to error on the side of caution since many people are offended by seeing various things on what they consider sacred ground.
  19. Jake39 gave me the link to the Drudge Report category. I saw nine (9) visits for that category. I do not understand how he claims that there were 30 visits and 5 logs for that category.
  20. I am very disapointed with the statement that Waymarking is not a taxonomy. IMHO if Waymarking is to catch on with non LC types it needs to be a taxonomy. As long as Waymarking limits itself only to odd-ball categories it will only appeal to the LC crowd. Many of us know of statues in our area that may be of interest to others and would like to waymark them. But under the current regime, unless the statue falls in an odd-ball category such as insect statue, it cannot be waymarked. The promise of eventually having broader categories seems to be a bone thrown by the LC crowd to us non LCers to keep us interested in Waymarking.
  21. Jeremy, As a veteran I agree with Mr. Muro. Anything other than flowers on a gravestone or on the grave itself is in poor taste.
  22. I know of a place where a wood carver has some of his works on display. Every time I go by I notice that what is on display changes depending on what he has carved but not sold yet. Would this count in your category? Or are you only wanting sites with a carving on permanent display? Also, are you including both chainsaw carvings and wood chisel carvings? Also, representative carvings or abstract carvings? Just a few of the variables you need to consider.
  23. Jake39, you have me confused. What do you mean by a "visit" and what do you mean by a "log?" How can you know somebody visited a waymark if they didn't log their visit? If you had given the categories and waymark codes for your examples I could have gone and seen what is entered there and have an idea of what you are talking about. IMHO log is a poor choice of a word to use with waymarks. The recording of a new waymark and the recording of a visit to an existing waymark can both be called logging in geocache terms. In waymark-speak, these two distinct operations need distinct terms that cannot be confused by geocachers. Remember, many waymarkers are current or former geocachers!
  24. I agree wholeheartedly with your suggestion that categories should have a Misc subcategory. In several posts on other topics I have suggested that the category schema is incomplete without an Other subcategory to complete the coverage of a category. But since I have heard nothing for or against my suggestion maybe taxonomy is too esoteric for waymarkers to comprehend. Perchance with your example, it will be clearer to others what needs to be done.
  • Create New...