Granite of StoneSoup

BlueDeuce, I totally respect your opinion. In fact, I am sure that there are a number of people like yourself that won’t see any value in these maps. However, there are a significant number of people that feel differently and want GPS info for these parks as evidenced by postings in this and other groups. As to the appropriateness of the post, I didn’t initiate this thread. I responded to others that specifically mentioned StoneMaps in order to clarify previous posts and to provide additional, relevant information. The remarks were on topic, and I also stated right up front my affiliation with the company so that readers will be aware of any potential bias. I know that different people have different views. That is what makes this world great – everyone is different. No hard feelings.

Hello, I work with StoneMaps and would be happy to answer specific questions about these maps. First, let me comment on the previous posts. It is true that StoneMaps has very detailed maps of the Orlando amusement parks including Walt Disney World, Universal Studios, Universal's Islands of Adventure, and Sea World. These maps include much more detail than any other source because they were created by actually visiting the park and surveying the data. The attractions are all marked at the either the entrance point or the location where FastPasses are available. They also include the location of the restrooms - far more than can be found on the printed park maps. The maps are compatible with Mapsource viewing software, so you can see where you are during the day and then relive your day by viewing your tracks on your computer. The philosophy of StoneMaps is that they want everyone with a GPS to be able to use their maps, so they price them accordingly. For example, the Walt Disney World "Park Hopper" maps (Animal Kingdom, Magic Kingdom, Epcot, MGM Studios, and the roads in and around these parks) all together are priced at only $14.95. Anyone that has visited WDW will recognize that this is an immense amount of data. Hopefully, this price is low enough to save people the hassle of trying to create their own maps. http://www.stonemaps.com/catalog/index.php http://www.stonemaps.com/catalog/florida-r...-maps-c-26.html To clarify, the StoneMaps GPS maps are more than a collection of waypoints. They are full featured base maps which means that as you visit the park, your tracks and waypoints are recorded separately from the map. You can make tracks and waypoint to your hearts content and you won't mess up the map. Geocachers will especially appreciate this since they can upload waypoints before their visit and they don't get mixed up with any of the map data. At this time, StoneMaps only supports Garmin GPS units, but if enough people suggest other units, I know they will try to find a way to convert the data. Every GPS solution has a unique format for their maps which makes it difficult to support multiple brands of units. You can offer suggestions for support of other GPS brands, or even request a map be created for your favorite recreation area at: http://www.stonemaps.com/smfeedback.php If you are new to bringing your GPS to an amusement park, you may want to read the Case Study of using GPS at Disneyland: http://www.stonemaps.com/case_disneyland.htm There are also GPS maps available for Disneyland and California Adventure if you happen to be visiting on the west coast. If you like to ski, check out the Utah ski resort GPS maps. I know that some people like to play with waypoints, formats, and such and I say more power to them. However, we hope that we are able to offer a simple solution to those that want to make the most of their time and just focus on the fun after spending tons of money on a WDW vacation. If you have further questions, please feel free to either post a reply or contact me directly through my Profile.

Jake, Thanks for the reply. I can see why a log entry would require a photo for verification that you actually visited the waymark. However, I really hope that a photo is not a requirement to create a waymark. I have collected coordinates of many resorts over the years, but I don't have photos of me at the resort. If we look at past history, a photo wasn't a requirement to create a virtual cache at geocaching.com. If I were to upload a photo, it would probably be a panoramic view of the resort rather than my ugly mug. IMHO, photos should be encouraged, but not be a new requirement to create a waymark.

Here is Jake's reply: Hello, Don't worry about the ticket prices. Describe some of the items you posted for me, under "Long Desription". Access to the resort, not particular to the entrance. In your case answer all as yes. (will clarify soon) Some qestions were not submitted by me, so I have no control over them. The only thing you need though is a picture of your GPS @ a sign showing the resort name.

Currently, the following fields are presented when you attempt to log a Ski Resort waymark. ----- Nickname Coordinates Country State/Province Short Description: Long Description: Skiing (yes/no) Snowboarding (yes/no) Snowmobiling (yes/no) Cross-Country Skiing (yes/no) Cost of lift ticket: Access to area by ROAD (yes/no) Access to area by TRAIN (yes/no) Access to area by PLANE (yes/no) Type of Facility: (selection) Dates of Operation Website URL WEB-CAM URL ------ This is what I wrote to Jake: ---- Cost of Lift Ticket: At most ski resorts, there are many different types of lift tickets (child, half-day, season, interconnect, nordic, etc.) - each with different prices. For example, see Alta's page: http://www.alta.com/pages/tickets.php You may just want to leave this field out for now. The info can be found on the resort web site. Access to area: Does this mean that access terminates at the resort? For example, most people fly into Salt Lake City and then take a car/bus/shuttle for 40 minutes to the ski resorts. Does "access by plane" mean that there is an airport on the resort property? You may want to clarify what these fields mean. Dates of Operation: These dates fluctuate each year. Many Utah resorts were scheduled to open last week, but we are still waiting for the first big snow storm so many have delayed until next week or the following week. Last year, Snowbird was scheduled to close in May, but because there was so much snow, they actually closed after July 4th!! You may just want to leave this field out for now. The info can be found on the resort web site.

I attempted to log a Ski Resort Waymark and gave some feedback to Jake about the experience. For the benefit of others, I will append that feedback here (see the following posts). I think that it would be best to have this discussion in the forum rather than simply between Jake and I.

I was mostly thinking of generic "cool places" that people would want to visit at a ski resort, but you bring up a good point. A unique feature of a ski resort is that visitors must have a certain level of expertice to go to certain parts of the resort. Thus there are "green circle" beginner runs, "blue square" intermediate runs, and "black diamond" expert runs. Based on your feedback, I think it would be important to also include a field to record the difficulty of the waypoint in terms that a skiier would understand. If I am involved in creating this category, I'll be sure to add that field. Good input!

Jake, Thanks for your reply. I evidently didn't express myself well. I wasn't suggesting that we put street addresses in the cache (waypoint) information. I was just trying to show why such waypoints would be usefull. If there are waypoints for ski resorts, then I can find the waypoint coordinates and put them in my GPS so I can then find the ski resort. Without waypoints for ski resorts, it is more difficult to find a resort that you have never visited before because many ski resorts don't have street addresses per se. In short, I agree with you. Ski resort waypoints are important and street addresses are not necessary and shouldn't be included in the waypoint info.

Wow, I was just about to propose this category! Great minds think alike. With the snow starting to fall, I have been thinking about how to create a Ski Resort category for the past couple of weeks. I think that I would like to create at least three categories under ski resorts: Ski Resorts >> Ticket Booths (the official on-site location of the ski resort) Ski Resorts >> Discount Lift Passes (places to purchase discount lift tickets in town) Ski Resorts >> Places of Interest (remarkable locations on the mountain) Ski Resorts >> Ticket Booths: Most of the ski resorts that I have been to do not have street addresses that my GPS can locate. This category will have the locations of the place to purchase tickets at the ski resort. This serves as the “official” location of the ski resort and helps us to actually find the resort. Fields to include are: Location (Lat/Lon); Description; Photo (optional); Alpine skiing available (yes/no); Snowboarding available (yes/no); and Nordic skiing available (yes/no). Ski Resorts >> Discount Lift Passes: You can usually save some money on lift tickets if you happen to know where to go to buy them. Locals know where, but visitors have a hard time finding these places. Be it a supermarket, sporting goods store, or ski rental location, having the coordinates will help all of us save some money. Fields to include are: Location (Lat/Lon); Description; and List of resort names for which tickets are available with discount price of ticket and expiration date. Ski Resorts >> Places of interest: After you get to the mountain, you may very well want to share places of interest within the resort boundaries. Examples include that secret ski run, or ski lodge with an interesting piece of ski history, or a back-country ski access gate. Fields to include are: Location (Lat/Lon); Description; and Photo (optional). What do you think?

Jeremy asked me to post this question in this group, so here goes. The question to be answered is whether a Waymark category can exist under more than one heading? Here is the situation that led to this question. One of our members has created a great website of Disney survey benchmarks. I downloaded them when I went to Walt Disney World and had fun seeing them as I walked around the park to the various attractions. Many others have also had similar experiences. I have been thinking about proposing a group for Amusement Parks. I have the coordinates of a number of the major parks and there are also a number of virtual caches in geocaching.com that are focused around fun sites in and around amusement parks. I have spoken with a number of people that really enjoy downloading all the "virtual" caches for an amusement park and then bringing their GPS to find new, fun bits of location trivia. I would think that a person visiting Walt Disney World will very likely want to download all of the Waymarks within the park - including benchmarks. However, a person collecting benchmarks will probably think to look first under the Benchmarks category. Both will likely want to find the same information. Example: Places >> Amusement Parks >> Walt Disney World >> WDW Benchmarks Things >> Benchmarks >> WDW Benchmarks I think that it would be ideal to have Waymark categories appear in multiple places at Waymarking.com without having to duplicate the information and logs. Can this be done?

Jeremy, Patty is a great choice to head up the Disney Benchmarks group. I have long admired her site as well. This discussion has brought up a question in my mind that you should be able to answer. I have been thinking about proposing a group for Amusement Parks. I have the coordinates of a number of the major parks and in the past have found it difficult to locate them by address - at least an address that a GPS can us to plan a road trip. There are also a number of virtual caches in geocaching.com that are focused around fun sites in and around amusement parks. I have spoken with a number of people that really enjoy downloading all the "virtual" caches for an amusement park and then bringing their GPS to find new, fun bits of location trivia. So, here is the question. Can a Waymark category exist under more than one heading? Example: Places >> Amusement Parks >> Walt Disney World >> WDW Benchmarks Things >> Benchmarks >> WDW Benchmarks A person visiting Walt Disney World will very likely want to download all the Waymarks within the park - including benchmarks. A person collecting benchmarks will probably think to look first under the Benchmarks category first. Both will likely want to find the same information. What do you think?

If this category gets approved, I would love to have facts about SCUBA diving these wrecks included. Perhaps a subcategory for SCUBA accessible wrecks. Important information (besides the location) would be: * Depth (Ocean floor and top of wreck) * Ave. water temperature * Current (Strong, Mild, None) * Places to anchor (eg. anchor to white buoy which is tied to wreck tower) * In-tact vs. all over the ocean floor * Any perceived dangers * Cool things you can see (eg. large fish, lobster, captains bunk room) * Historical facts (always make the dives better)