FtMgAl

Simply renewing your membership, or even logging onto the site, should effectively be a "YO!" If you haven't renewed, or logged on in a few months, then maybe I can agree with something automated happening. Seems reasonable. Unfortunately people aren't always reasonable. I was all ready to agree with you but then I just had to look up one of the lost caches. Last find July 3, 2003. 13 DNFs and notes asking for the owner to fix the problems such as the coordinates were 40 feet out in the water. The last note from the owner was in May of 2004 saying the cache had been replaced and coordinates updated. Still no has found it. Searchers have only complained of snakes and alligators and cactus. So when was the last time the owner logged onto the site? Thursday, June 09, 2005. About 6 weeks. Wouldn't trigger your "few months" yet. So I kept digging. Looking at forum messages it seems the owner may now be in Iraq. Ok, extenuating circumstances. But is this a good reason for people to still see a cache that may or may not be there? If it weren't rated a difficulty 5 I would have no doubt it is gone but as a 5??? I don't know so I'm certainly not going to post a Should Be Archived. Yet others are wandering out there unprepared (according to their logs) for a cache that by all rights shouldn't be there any more. So here is my next proposal iteration. 1. Computerize asking owners to periodically verify interest. Any response ends questioning until the next period. (If this guy isn't getting his email then should he be responsible for a cache?) 2. On no response to several attempts, automatically make it unavailable (the system allows you to log unavailable caches) and place it in a public adoption list. 3. If someone qualified (using current criteria for qualified) wants to adopt, give it to them with the stipulation that if the original owner ever wants it back they get it back. First come/first served on who adopts if there are multiple requests. 4. Manually look at the adoption list for any that have been there 3 months. Do the research as I did and either archive or bump back to the top of the adoption list. The cache maintains it's "temporarily unavailable" status as long as it is on the adoption list. The only issue I have left is that publicly stating adoption status is an open invitation to mischief at the cache if it does still exist. But I think that is a lesser of evils for a cache that the owner isn't caring for. If you are going to Iraq maybe you should grab your container and disable the cache. At least post a note on the cache page that says not to go out there because it isn't there until you get back even though it may be. Edit: Oh yes, this is Waymarking, isn't it. Well all of my comments should apply just as well to waymark guides and category managers.

Agree. Save the bandwidth.

Ok, I finally finished cleaning mine up. Here is a typical example. I hope my manager bootron doesn't object to my stealing his copy and adding some of my own. I also included a note on multiple logging which is supposedly going to be allowed.

I could live with WhackMark. On the other hand, for a lame Waymark, how about we honor the French for their persistent rejection of anything associated with American commercialism or language. How about le mark? Or would it be l'mark?

We were moving so fast those first couple of days it was hard to keep up. I vote yes also. Isn't that the way most trees with numbers of limbs work - the current display counts the branches and not the twigs? One of these days we might have only 169 McDonalds - 50 states and 119 foreign countries.

I almost asked for a test waymark so we could figure out how things worked without bothering guides (is that the correct term? ) but then realized I could visit/log my own waymark and then just delete it. I would get any email notification and I am good at ignoring email. So I created a test log on a waymark that hadn't been approved yet and got what I needed. When I went to delete it there was no edit button in the options! I could View the log but there was no option to edit it. No "options" box at all. My one hour was ticking away before "test" went into the permanent record for all posterity to see once the waymark was approved. Not being one afraid of making a fool of themselves twice in the same way, I went to an approved waymark and created a test log. Viewed it and the edit option was there with other options in the box on the right. Deleted it and it was gone. Whew!!! Wandered around a while looking for other ways to get to the first log. Found there was an option on the waymark page (as well as on the gallery page) for View Logs For This Waymark. Went there and the log was there with an edit button that worked! It's gone and now the only ones who will ever know are those who read this posting.

Many of them DO have requirements. Most I have found are a photo. Many do NOT. Waymarks are being created just like a cache log. "I was here first." No thought was given to the fact that others would log a visit. I am very guilty of that. I am done with forums for a while I go revise all of my waymarks to require a photo (and post my own photos more visibly to set a good example).

I'm sorry but I just have trouble understanding the mentality that would leave a TB at a Virtual. Where do you put it? Just hide it somewhere? How could you think someone would find it? It was Oscar Wilde who said "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life." At first I thought automation could solve this problem. Since you can't drop a TB at a waymark (the dropdown list has only visit and note available), no one could get confused. No,wait, they left it before they came back from vacation and started logging where they had been for the past two weeks. Stupidity is far more powerful the even the smartest computer program. I'm guessing that people will lose TBs at a waymarks no matter what we do. Is there any record of a TB being left at a Benchmark? I really like the visit idea for GC but I have been converted and no longer like the idea of TB's going to Waymarks.

I haven't seen the other thread so I may be stating the obvious that has been discussed to death already but the potential for fraud is enormous. Numbers are going to be high. I do a 50 mile loop and bag 50 waymarks. I then log them in order so that I cut a circumference of the circle for each log. I could take a 2 hour trip and turn it into over 800 miles of travel. Requiring me to go "home" first just increases my distance. Worse yet, as discussed in another thread, the current rules don't require a visit in many cases. I could sit here at the computer and "travel" 10,000 miles in the next hour and my logs could comply with all of the currently written rules.

I like: 1. Manager 2. Guide 3. Visitor (indicating you have to "visit" ) Wayfinder instead of cacher. And from the thread I am closing in favor of this one plus some new thoughts: WayMac - lame waymark. FTV - First To Visit TFTW - Thanks for the waymark. TPPS - Took picture/posted same. And you have to keep Markwell and standardize it so that one of these days I might have a chance of being immortalized as in "That's such a FtMgAl posting!"

What a fabulous idea. Maybe a thread called Terminology???? WHAT! You expect me to go back 3 whole days?! That's like so ANCIENT!!! Hey, everyone, been there, done that. Closing the thread. Go visit Lep.

I might go along with leaving it that way on the GC side even though it doesn't seem to get done very often. Once the cache is logged, most don't come back. "Not my problem." "Don't want to get involved." "Get a life! Read old logs?" No one is going to see a "Needs Adopting" note on a cache they did a year ago. It would have to be flagged on the cache search page like a jeep. But I expect hundreds of thousands of waymarks at the rate they are going. Even if they were reported that's a lot of manpower for reviews. So what is wrong with automating the process? You get an automatic renewal notice when your membership is about to expire. It would be the same for waymarks and categories that you own. Respond with a click on the email and you get another 3 months or year or whatever. You're still around and active. Don't respond and you get another email. Then another. Finally a notice that if you don't respond your "property" will be put up for adoption. Once an entry goes into the adoption queue it then has a limited life there. When that expires, THEN, a human is notified (or is reviewing the listing) that the property is abandoned and should be disposed of because no one wants it. If the human decides it really does need to be saved even though no one cares, then maybe that human can give it a life extension on the adoption list. Even if a property is on the adoption list, it is still active (unless that would attract false reports... hmmmm...). I'm not saying we automatically kill your baby when it gets 1 year old. I'm just saying if your baby is left on the church steps we don't just keep walking past it every Sunday morning until it grows up and hurts someone. And we let a machine do the grunt work of sifting through tens of thousands of babies to check where their parent is. Computer calls out your name - you yell "YO!" - computer moves on.

The horror! Did I say that? What was I thinking?

Longwinded diatribe follows: Executive summary - there is a difference between spirit of the game and rules of the game. Oh I totally agree that it violates the spirit of the game. I am appalled that you can post a waymark without visiting it but thems the rules. I am just pointing out that the CURRENT rules of the game make it far too easy to just sit at the computer for a few hours and LEGALLY "visit" places thousands of miles away. Yes, it is early in the game. I hope the rules are tightened considerably to what we both recognize is the "spirit" of the game. But I believe that discussion was held in the first few days and I got the impression there was a lot of desire from TPTB for lightly controlled anarchy. I rather quickly came to the conclusion that these are entirely different games. GC demands that you visit sites although, in the final analysis, it is up to the cache owner to enforce that requirement. In WM the rules start off much looser so that more things will fit and this has quickly lead to a gross violation of the spirit of visiting a mark. If the published rules for the category and the published rules for the waymark neither require a visit, what are we to expect? So let's assume this will all straighten itself out in the next few weeks or months. I know when I created my waymarks I treated them more as a cache log than a virtual cache. I took no thought to any special rules I wanted for people to follow to log a visit. Last night I got introduced to a waymark category with what I believe are rules that will lead to a mess but I could comply so I did. I had hoped to research and post several other waymarks in that category but now I've put them down on the list. The category owner is the boss or everyone wanting to create a waymark and the waymark owner is the boss of everyone wanting to post a log. I believe that is the way it should be. I will be editing all my waymarks to set some reasonable rules as any locationless owner would. Hopefully this is all just growing pains and every category owner and waymarker will review their rules for logging and then enforce them. I have never logged a BM (though I have found many) because I consider the logs there as not meeting my standards for rigor. Why bother. The fun is in the hunt, not the numbers. I don't need to log BMs and they don't need my logs. Seems like a fair balance. I might start doing BMs if they were moved here with strict rules for logging. Then again, I might still enjoy the hunt more than the numbers and hassle of logging. As it stands today I believe I could "legally" log several UK Trigpoints. People are creating Waymarks like they logged a locationless and there are no rules prohibiting logging a "virtual visit" other than what we know is the correct "spirit of the game". If that situation continues then I might gladly make numbers as my version of the game. And I can understand why many BMer would be very opposed to their activity being moved over here because the spirit might be the same on both sides but the rules are not. BTW, that is a very good description of why locationless will be better over here. I did locationless early in my adventure but once they are done... Why bother visiting one that someone else has already logged unless it is a real WOW? Over here I can do the same one you just did and we both get the same enjoyment. If you're ever in the neighborhood, stop by and I'll take you down the street for some fries and we can both log it.

And a very good job you will do I am sure. Uh, I thought that is what I was trying to do. I saw your link on the glossary page to tell TPTB about new glossary terms with email but didn't want to bother you with my personal preferences. I could see emailing suggestions would end up with lots of duplication and opposing ideas. I thought a thread at this point might lead to some early consensus. IMHO there is already a lot of this going on in various threads. Putting it all in one place might make it easier to manage. So what does everyone think about TFTW? Should it be TFTWM? TNLNSL doesn't apply but will TP suffice?

Why? Please explain the difference between finding a benchmark on Waymarking.com or on geocaching.com. As I said earlier today in a different thread, commited geocachers will look down on waymarkers (and maybe vice versa). I asked you a very specific question. Explain the difference between finding a benchmark on geocaching.com and Waymarking.com. Remove all the touchy feely "look down" stuff and answer the question. First, I wasn't the one you asked. I just barged uninvited into the conversation. But my answer is simple. Waymarking does not require going anywhere. I can legally log waymarks and never leave my nice air conditioned room. I did that earlier this morning here. The category says "Instructions for logging waymarks of this category: No log instructions provided." The owner says in the logging rules "Go ahead! Waymarking is just for fun, no rules! But if you see something funny, try to capture it and post it for everyone to see!" I believe I met all the requirements without breaking a sweat. You are supposed to at least visit the area of a BM. I was told last year that I could use a pair of binoculars to see something that looked about right to verify I was there (I can provide a link if needed) and there is some rigor in the BM community that just sitting at home writing logs isn't good enough. "Real" geocaches have a log to sign (virtuals and locationless are gone from there and are over here now, right?). So, BMers think they are closer to GCers because they at least require you to get off your tush and go somewhere. WMers don't absolutely require that. Yes, if and when the BM category is finalized the rules could be even more strict here than they currently are on GC. Personally I would strongly encourage that. Digital cameras are getting inexpensive enough that BMs should require a picture, IMHO. But as it stands today, I can easily see that many BMers don't want their "caches" moved over here where all the lazy rabble are being sent. (No, I don't believe WMers are lazy rabble).

It's not a dumb question, it's more like a good point. Actually waymark categories are like locationless caches, while waymarks are virtuals. And no, it doesn't make much sense for a travel bug to be dropped off at a virtual. That's generally the point I'm making - it is a Bad Idea to allow Travel Bugs to move from waymark to waymark. Another type of tracker should be in place for that, but we need to go through the baby steps as we implement the Waymarking site. Looks like you have some pretty firm opinions on the subject but always being one to put my 2 cents on the counter long after the barkeep has said last call... Create a new entry on the TB log page for Visited. Visited is only available for users who have Retrieved or Grabbed which will be from a real cache. Visited adds miles but doesn't change current location (in the users hands). That might actually reduce the server load of people dropping and picking TBs right back up just to log miles. I know, lots of programming required and server traffic between sites but HEY! Buy a new server and hire a programmer! What do you think I paid you $30 for?

Why? Please explain the difference between finding a benchmark on Waymarking.com or on geocaching.com. As I said earlier today in a different thread, commited geocachers will look down on waymarkers (and maybe vice versa). The statement that it doesn't take any skill to log waymarks is true for most of those posted already but very false for a few. Finding BMs can be much easier than finding a cache or much harder depending on the criteria used for validating a find. Pertending that we have 3 sites already, GC requires signing a physical log at the mark. BM requires little for verification of the mark except other people invalidating your log by saying "It isn't there". WM requires nothing for many of the current marks. Those who enjoy each of the games are going to think their rules are better. BMers want to believe they are more like GCers than WMers. Personally I think at this point that they are right. So my suggestion is, leave BMs alone until you move them to their own site. Don't create strife by changing their rules twice.

Can I spitball outside the box? How about not worrying about totals and just post all of the statistics? Remove the "found" from Geocaching logs and replace it with a direct link to the posters statistics page. On that page list every category of find and hide grouped by site (GC, WM and BM). Then either remove all the totals entirely or subtotal everything on each site. Get Groundspeak out of the decision process of what to include and what not to include. Total all or nothing but provide all of the statistics so anyone can see exactly where the numbers come from. And as long as I'm ruffling feathers, get rid of the code that eliminates zero's from the statistics page. Fix the format and put zeros where there are no matches. I would imagine there are lots of newbies who don't know what a Project APE Cache is? If it was a zero on your statistics page it would be another challenge to conquer. HEY! Another game! Filling in all the numbers!

Being a new game there are a lot of new terms that need inventing. There is a glossary but, IMHO, it does not yet include the breadth of terms that are used in Geocaching. For example, in GC we have McToys and over here I used the term WayMac and some couldn't figure out what I meant. In GC we have FTF. I just claimed a FTL in a log. (I also used NFL - Newbie's First Log but I don't expect that one to catch on. ) Terms have been discussed in many threads but I thought a single thread to present just terminology might be helpful. A place you could Markwell the discussion that resulted in the language that you use. Any ideas for terms that aren't in the glossary yet but that would help a newbie understand what is going on faster? Or that would help stabilize the language being used?

I'm not sure how to interpret that ... are you saying the numbers on geocaching.com will go away, or that the Waymarking.com will have a similar numbers system as geocaching.com? It took years for people to get into the 5,000 to 10,000 finds range on geocaching.com. I think it will be mere months before people reach those kinds of numbers on Waymarking.com. In a year or two, the numbers on geocaching.com will seem trivial by comparison. Are you folks falling into the same rut not recognizing that Waymarking is NOT Geocaching? Yes, 1000 logs here will be comparatively easy. But isn't that like saying that accumulating 30 college credits is easier than climbing 30 14ers? It's a different game. Sorry, Jeremy. You are right that Waymarking is about the numbers but Geocaching is also about the numbers to many people and that won't change. Committed Geocachers will consider high number Waymarkers as people who can't find caches (unless they also have a high number of cache finds). To someone who has climbed a 14er, someone saying they walked to the post office 12 times last month isn't all that impressive. My ace beats your pocket full of acorns. They are different games!

That would be silly. What if the category is volcanoes, or gravestones, or rocks that look like animals. It's unlikely that they went away as a result of Hurricane Ivan. Individual volcanoes can change. Some gravestones can be removed or, more likely, become off limits because of increased traffic. Rocks that look like animals can find themselves in an area that also becomes off limits. A McDonald's might burn down and a hungry family finds themselves at a vacant lot because the owner wasn't around any more to archive the waymark. The point isn't whether or not the waymark changes but what do we do when the owner no longer cares what is happening and what people are doing because of their original ownership. Waymark owners need to stay involved to protect the public. In one of my examples we now have people trudging into a snake infested swamp for nothing. Ok, reading the logs would solve the problem after a few people posted their problems (such as the several logs on one where a guard was calling the police to have "trespassers" arrested). But why not go one step farther and require owners to care about their waymarks? And if it is important for waymark owners to care, it is even more important for category owners to care. We also have the logging problem. Last month we had a 6 year old kid log 1100 caches in a week. All with the same "Did this one a while ago." posted on the current date. Any attentive owner would delete it but many of those logs are still there as posted. (Turns out the kid might actually have done all those since after deleting the log on mine, Mom put it back with an older date and, checking the paper log, sure enough, she had been there on that day.) Anyone who wants to scam the system can now look up that kids finds and any that have the right date range indicating the log was not deleted can feel free to log the cache with a good probability the owner isn't going to check. If a waymark has no active owner, don't the logs end up being more of a post whatever you want forum? Wouldn't requiring the owner to refresh the waymark occasionally be a first step in keeping the logs honest? And if it is important to maintain the integrity of waymark logs, isn't even more important to maintain the category integrity? Finally, automatically generating an adoption message for orphan waymarks (and caches) seems a simple process and a good way to increase quality. Categories are an extension of the same problem. ESPECIALLY the categories that are set up to not require any verification before listing.

There are some that are in public areas that are still secret. I know of some in Dinosaur National Park that the rangers will never tell you about but, if you describe them, the rangers know exactly what you are talking about. They are just off a well traveled trail but not obvious to the casual passerby. They are kept secret simply by not being published as an attraction. Zion National Park publishes many of their petroglyphs but they also have some that are fragile so they just don't say anything about them. You can find them though without breaking any park rules. Publicly "out" them here with multiple sightings and it could be a problem.

Nice idea too. Like bird sanctuaries and wildlife sanctuaries. And those roadside areas in the Northeast where the road salt runoff attracts in moose. And the sod farms and waste water treatment plants that attract in shorebirds in late summer and early fall. I think this is a TERRIBLE idea!!! Fish are attracted to the inlet and outlet circulating water of all operating power plants. I have seen the water surface black and boiling with so many catfish that not another could get in the channel. You are encouraging people to give coordinates of crib houses which are one of the most secure facilities of any thermal power plant. A terrorist would love to know where these are located since even a large piece of plastic dropped in the right place can totally disable the entire plant. TERRIBLE IDEA!!!!! And for the sarcastically impaired - It's a good idea but potentially huge.

A mystery cache (and multi's) already requires the actually finally location for approval. That should preclude a new MC inside the distance limit. Unfortunately no record seems to be kept of this location since I have seen a new regular cache get approved later well within the limit (200 feet on flat terrain, no streams, in fact just on the other side of the trail). Rather than create a whole new system on a website never designed to solve this problem, how about we fix that problem with a spreadsheet that approvers get with real coordinates and a few macros for checking distances and doing routine Modify/Add/Delete functions? Next, so that finders can find mystery caches and not walk up to the Camp David Gatehouse staring at their GPS because they solved the puzzle wrong. How about puzzle cache owners solve that problem themselves with their own web site. It is easy and free to set a small one up. Create a couple of subdirectories and a page using the name of the finally coordinates. Then create a "home page" that says "enter the URL www.geocities.com\myanswer\xxxxxxx\xxxxxxx\right.html" in your Address box. They do that and they either get the page that says they have correctly solved the puzzle or they get a 404 error message. You also explain 404 errors on the home page. You have two good issues that need to be solved. IMHO they can both be solved far easier without involving Waymarking.