kit_williams

As you say there is no search feautre for bookmarks and this would help. However, having looked at a few bookmarks that I've seen tagged in forums it could be hard to find those that are walks. There would therefore need to be a sub categories in the search - e.g walk, drive by on a spceificed route, locationless, difficult etc etc. I agree with your point about power caching, but as I said previously I am more into the walk with caching rather than caching being the sole purpose of the walk. 25 mile hikes to find 100 caches is not my thing!

Thanks MrsB. No, I am not kit williams. I thought it was a humorous , but strangely not many people remember the hare and the fiasco it turned into. A friend of mine knows Kit Williams and told me that he regrets ever having the idea of turning a treasure hunt into a book. It caused him no end of grief. Re my post on Walks. I like a simple life and it seems to me that accessing Cache Series/Walks easiliy through the geocaching.com search function is not difficult. Neither is enabling users to upload Series they have created themselves from disparate caches. However, there does not seem to be much enthusiasm for this. Maybe I am missing something. Is it because it would make geocaching too easy as it would encourage users to go for the simple caching option instead of having to sit down with mapping software and work out series/routes/walkds/trails from scratch? Anyway it seems that boxhunting may be launching this kind of thing in the near future. It could also be a natural extension for a site like walkingworld.com.

Yes, it would be good if Series creators did this, but most don't. In terms of my terminology if I want to go for a walk in say Windsor Park I can see that there is a circular caching Series devised by Lord of the Caches. Series = Walk + Caching. Series = Route = Trail. Lord of the Caches has defined this Series as a circular walk. How do I find it on geocaching.com. I can't because it is not bookmarked. What terms would I use for a pocket query. If I search for Windsor Park, I get a lot of random caches. Depengin on the naming protocol used I may bre able to work out which ones are part of a Series and possibly a circular or linear walk. Wouldn't it be simpler to have a search option for Series together with a means by which when a cache Series is uploaded the individual caches are linked/cross referenced. To answer Starbrand's question, a walk may be both A & B. The A option is usually the Series. Can be anywhere town or country. The hard work linking the series together and by determining your "path" has already been done for you for the Series creator. B is where a cacher has created a cache Series themselves as a walk linking together unconnected caches. What I am suggesting here is that users can upload these Series and share with others. I hope this makes sense. There seems to be others ex geocaching.com who are working on this idea as for the time poor it means you can download a Cache Series and hey presto off you go. You are ready to rock and roll without having to spend hours working out which caches to target and plan a route in order to do so.

Fantastic. Nearly what I am after, but I think geocaching.com could do this automatically if hiders identified a series as a walk when submitting and in the search function you could request individual series only. Using google maps if you wanted to add caches unconnected to the seies you cold do this quite as well. Personally I think the attribute should be walks with any number of caches. Thanks for letting me know about this.

Fantastic. This is just what I am after. I started a thread in the Groundspeak Forum to see if we could get "geocaching walks" on the search page, but I guess it would need a new category for hiders to classify them as walks as well as individual caches. A progression of this would be for users to upload the walks they have created from unlinked caches. I am new to caching but it seems our cousins across the pond may do more drive by caching than we do. There is a new Windsor Park walk. A Right Royal Cache GC1NEKT. Personally, I think the attribute should be that it is a walk, not necessarily the number of caches to be discovered..................

Thanks but I think we may be talking at cross purposes. Walks already exist on the site, but they lack visibility. For example, Snuffling Around Satwell. It is not allocated to a route and I do not think that identifying it as an attribute of a route helps. Much quicker and easier to have a database of walks. Starbrand, Have just had a look at the A1 route in the UK. Problem is that it just a list loads of geocaches along the route in, what seems, random order. Within the long listing, there are cache series which are walks. I'd just like to see the walks pulled out as walks for those of us who like caching on foot. Cheers.

Thanks but I think we may be talking at cross purposes. Walks already exist on the site, but they lack visibility. For example, Snuffling Around Satwell. It is not allocated to a route and I do not think that identifying it as an attribute of a route helps. Much quicker and easier to have a database of walks.

I am relatively new to geocaching so forgive me if this is covered elsewhere. My preference is to go on walks and geocache at the same time. Yes, ideally one would use mapping aoftware to plan and map your own geocaching walk (trail), but this takes time. However, on geocaching.com cache hiders already create geocaching but it is not easy to identify them. So my suggestion is a tick box for hiders of caches to identify that it is part of walk and for there to be a search feature on the site for walks. There is a feature for routes, but this is geared to driving routes not walks or trials - they are miles and miles. A further development of this could be for those who create geocaching walks themselves i.e by mapping currently uinconnected caches that are not part of a series into a walk. Maybe, they could share these with other site users by uploading a GPX/LOC file. This is then also made available from geocaching.com. In the UK a couple of people have tried to develop this already see geohike Boxhunting and cachewalkers Cachewalkers , but it seemsto me that this would be much better developed by the geocaching community. What does everyone think?