Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by RakeInTheCache

  1. 21 hours ago, razalas said:

    The Ancient Aqueducts category it's working without any problems and not abandoned. There should be no intervention in a category unless it's abandoned and not working, this is a line that should not be crossed.


    I would have to respectfully disagree.  According to Waymarking rules, categories must have at least 3 officers.   I think counting inactive officers in that minimum may be respecting the letter of the rule but is really going against the spirit of the hobby and the way it was intended to work.

    • Upvote 1
  2. 9 hours ago, T0SHEA said:



    This is an ongoing problem that is discussed many times on the forums, without any "real" solutions.

    1. Enrollment is off 

    2. Reluctance to install new officers

    3. Inactive leaders unwilling to resign and select a new leader.

    4. Unfortunately several waymarkers have died and are still officers (some of which are in inactive categories)

    5, Some leaders/officers are either unable or are no longer involved with Waymarking which brings us back to no. 3




    I was just going to mention the problem of Ancient Aqueducts. All the above is true except there is one active officer who is approving all the waymarks.  This is a disaster waiting to happen as there is no failsafe to keep this category from falling into complete neglect.  I sent an e-mail to the inactive leader to request that Enrollment be turned on.  Of course, after lots of experience, I have absolutely no hope that the leader will remotely consider my plea. I would like to ask wayfrog to look at this and consider working to force enrollment to be on.  Fortunately, there is hope to rescue dying categories, but most often not without the intervention of wayfrog.


  3. Carnivorous Plant Localities is seemlingly now in an abandonned state as wayfrog has been approving the more recent submissions.  I have requested wayfrog to bump me up to an officier so we can get some vote action going to bring new life to the officer group.  Do let me know if you are interested in becoming an officer in this category.

  4. On 4/11/2021 at 11:36 AM, RakeInTheCache said:

    BTW it looks like Wayfrog approved a bunch of my waymarks in the Skyscraper category.  I did sent an e-mail to members of the group volunteering to be an officer but received no reply.  Maybe I will send an e-mail to wayfrog to make me an officer.

    I thought Wayfrog had called a vote in the Skyscraper category many days ago to promote me to officer but no news back.  In additional I have a waymark sitting in the Carousels category.  Another distressed category...

  5. 4 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

    Can you explain to me how to respond or participate?


    I do not find the photos posted on this waymark on the internet, and therefore have no proof that they do not belong to the waymarker.  I don't feel like I can act without proof. I did find another waymark posted by the same person who took a copy/paste of google earth as a photo. I declined this one requesting an original photo be submitted.

  6. 3 hours ago, wayfrog said:

     send a message via the Core group if there are important things to know for other Waymarkers. Thanks! 

    I sent the messge to the Core group, but given Groundspeak's history of e-mail problems (especially group e-mail distribution) I can't be sure if the members received it.  Will continue to monitor...

    • Surprised 1
  7. 2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

    The photos on the waymark show the watermark name of <snip>. Any professional photographer should understand better than most the importance of copyrighted material. 

    If the lodge's website used <snip> words, then that's up to her to deal with. 

    The waymarker claims to be the <snip> in question.  Could it be true?

  8. Hello,


    An anonymous player sent an edit review for this waymark <snip> with the remarks " Not only is this a copyrighted photo, but the description is a copyrighted material from the lodge's website, with no credit given. Officers were warned about this waymarker."


    Firstly, using edit review to get this message across is very strange.  I'm not aware that I've received any e-mails as an officer.


    Second, the Waymarker in question has been a member of Groundspeak for a long time.  True not a very avid waymarker and the geocaching photos seem to be limited to a very small period.


    Anyone want to tackle this mystery.  Can anyone vouch for this Waymarker?  What do you think about this waymark?  And if this is not a legitimate waymark, why suddenly this suspicious activity now?


    Could this be related to the post from Scroogiel?


    By the way, it appears that when the waymarker submitted this they added the comment "The photographs were taken by me <snip> (name filtered to respect personal data)


    Thanks for your help.


    • Funny 1
    • Surprised 1
  • Create New...