StagsRoar

You as the group leader can fix both of these. It looks like when an edit was done to the one in Afghanistan that the East coordinate got changed to West, just change it from W to E and resave and it will be where it belongs. For the one stuck in group vote, just visit your Inukshuks group page and it will get freed up automatically. Cheers Bruce - got the Servicemans thing sorted - I don't know why the coordinates were changed. Regarding the Inukshuks stuck in the vote _ went to the groups page and i still can't see them. They are two Waymarks submitted by Benchmark blaster and i seem to recall them being sent to group vote becuase i had questions about them. Oh ok - I think i got the Inukshuks in question - found them in my recent activity section. i'll tell blaster that the group voted against them.

You as the group leader can fix both of these. It looks like when an edit was done to the one in Afghanistan that the East coordinate got changed to West, just change it from W to E and resave and it will be where it belongs. For the one stuck in group vote, just visit your Inukshuks group page and it will get freed up automatically. Cheers Bruce - got the Servicemans thing sorted - I don't know why the coordinates were changed. Regarding the Inukshuks stuck in the vote _ went to the groups page and i still can't see them. They are two Waymarks submitted by Benchmark blaster and i seem to recall them being sent to group vote becuase i had questions about them.

This waymark: http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6HM_Servicemens_Memorial was placed at Khandahar, Afghanistan at the Canadian Military base. It coridantes and map placement were accurate and has been for some time - for whatever reason now it is showing on the map as being in Bermuda. Why is this and could it please be corrected back to its original position?? Also Inukshuks has a waymkr submitted that appears to be "stuck" in the group vote section and I can't find it to remove it. The submitter is wondering where his waymark is.

I'd kinda like to see the option of being able to upload a GPX to be associated with a particular Waymark. This sort of thing would be most helpful for the likes of Long Distance Hiking Trails, Scenic Hikes and even Back Country Shelters where a GPX file could be added to show access. Wonder if the Groundspeak team could consider this. Any thoughts???

For my part I was actually wondering about that original question to! I would he quite happy to link from Facebook to Waymarking!

Take a look on Youtube at this following link if you were interested in the Garmin Nuvi vehicle GPS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUKyqquHPwk

If you read properly what I initially said and then what you repeated in the quote - THE DENY/APPROVAL OPTION IS MISSING!!!!

"cough"

I think I have it sussed - i needed to be checking the day! I don't think I was doing that. Many thanks DNA

Many thanks for the reply. But i am still a bit confused as I have tried to run other pocket queries from caches I have not found yet it still does not send me the Zip file - I wonder what I am doing wrong! I shall have to have another go at it.

Having decided to go paperless and invest in a PDA I have downloaded Cachemate to it and have GSAK on the computer. It took me a little while to figure out that I wasn't getting cache descriptions by just downloading caches straight off the site - I assume that is normal. I thought I would do the pocket query thing (having never done it before) and successfully downloaded all the caches I had already found - just as a trial. My problem now is when i want to down load some unfound caches in a certain area it does not email me the zip file but rather just tells me they have been generated and I can review them and thats about it - No Zip file is sent to me on the choosen caches. My confusion is this: in one place I see it says that Pocket queries can only be downloaded once every 7 days yet it also says they can be run each day in another part - I'm kind of confused how this works. Does it mean that because I did that 'trial go' a couple of days ago that I am now stuffed for the next week before I can get anymore sent to me and if I do a few more at the end of the week then am I unable to do anymore for another 7 days. Seems a bit of a protracted effort if that is the case. I was hoping to get a few caches from about 4 or 5 different areas before the next 2 weeks as I was going travelling at that time and wanted to do a few. Am I doing something wrong here? Also: am I doing something incorrect when downloading caches to GSAK (not pocket queries) and trying to put them onto cachemate and having no descriptions of previous logs showing or is that how that works also - they have to be pocket queries before cachemate or GSAK will show all the details. Appreciate any help and explanations on this one!

These are 2 waymarks that terrydad sent to me and as he has rightly stated I cannot find the options to now approve them. I have received notification of them yet when i open them up the Approve / Deny option is missing. Someone want to help up out here!

But if your computer crashes you won't be logging any waymark in any case - whats the options: Waymarking via text message because our computers broke. Thats just life. If your bike has a flat you can't ride it either - whether it feels right or not. To request a photo is the perogative of the managing team - if you don't like it then stay away from that category - it all boils down to choice!

I think this was suggested once gefore many moons ago but I don't think it was ever followed through - go for it, I'll help support it as well. You would need to think about what you want in a National Park though because some are huge - I would think that you would need to be requesting the entry points to various national parks (gates and roads) thereby actually allowing several waymarks for any given national park that has more than one point of entry. Create the group!

I'll accept travellers checks or money oders if ya want to leave them. Gift certs would be ok as long as they have a value >$50=00 and not at a local florist or something stupid.

Here is what should be the opening image on a Tim Hortons webpage.

I can see both sides of the fence with this issue - but in light of Americas paranoia - albeit real or perceived, I think that this is one of those playing 'with Fire Issues'. If some nutter was to go and do something stupid with a Nuclear Plant or even attempt to - I'm quite sure when DHS is looking at the contributing/enticement factors then Groundspeak could take a hard hit over it as much as any other site such as Google Earth. But we can sit and watch snails whizz by and say "what if" till the second coming. But for myself - I say stay away & err on the side of caution. Besides - what in hell is so attractive & facinating about a Nuclear Power Plant that it needs to be waymarked in anycase. Why don't we also set up a category for Toxic Waste sites so we can all go get our picture taken and record the coordinates of 245D, PBC or enriched uranium Garbage heap. That way when we start to have babies with an eye in the centre of their head or 3 arms and a butt hole on it's left big toe - we can all know what coordinates it all originated from.

I want to clarify something here without turning this into a bitch session and I am thinking that Renegade knight has kind of jumped from 1st gear into 5th without looking at what I have previously said. I did acknowledge that people do have different writing skills and I made no suggestion that I was seeking out the works of Tolkien when asking for a waymark description. But in view of the waymark I was questioning it had NO Description other than to say it took 45 mins. And like I said - because I didn't elaborate in the details about wanting it XXX amount of words long, but I did ask that there be some description - maybe if it comes down to it I should stipulate a description criteria but I think that is going a bit over the edge personally. I guess I kind of hoped that people who have done Scenic Hikes and wanted to make a waymark for it would also want to put a little bit more effort into the waymark creation rather than just having the coordinates , a nondescript picture and nothing else. If people want to see an example of what I am looking for in the category they really only need to look at previously submitted ones - in particular the ones I myself have submitted, to see the types of detail and the sorts of pictures that may fulfill the categories requirements. It does ask specifically for a picture of one of at least something of the attracting feature/s of the Scenic Hike as well. I never intended to slap anybody down as was written - in rejecting waymark/s I have always given reasonable rationale for doing so and have suggested what they might do to beef it up a bit more but the particular one I had in mind when writting this in the first place, came back as shonky as it was when I first sent it back to "Return to sender". And clearly as I stated originally - I did not want to be a bit of a "Richard Cranium" to anybody in dealing with this issue which is why I brought this to the forums for suggestion in the first place. But in the end - If it isn't liked it will be bounced. Thats the perogative of those that run categories and who have ideas as to how they want their categories to be presented.

I did actually send a group email from the category to the category managers about this issue (you included) but never got any feed back - maybe the email didn't go through. Thats kind of why I brought it to this forum but I definitely sought opinion of the other managers first which was my preference as if I am to reject or turf out any waymarks then i would surely want them in agreement with it. I am a bit split on issue number #2 with regards to what your saying as well as what Blue Quaser is saying and I think they are both valid points and I appreciate the thoughts!

I need some opinion here and hope that other category managers and leaders can give me some advise here on a couple of issues I have. 1/ Waymarks that are submitted to a category but are pretty cheaply done in terms of time and effort put into them. Now the problem is what may be little to no effort for one might well be a huge effort to another. But when you are trying to keep a reasonably high standard of presentation for waymarks submitted to your category that are just plain bland and non-descript. An example is my scenic hikes category - I had one submitted recently called Appalachian Trails and all it was was the coordinates , a statement saying it took 45 mins and a pic of running water that could have been a Sewer runoff in New Dehli for all it showed. I dissaproved the Waymark and told the submitter that it was a photo of nothing really and then asked if they would like to resubmit it with a more evident photo and it would be good if they could give a little more description. Well it came back a day or 2 later with a different photo of a shelter (and thats it) and no description as in the first time it was submitted. So my dilemma is: How far can you go in dissapproving a submission without seeming like a "Richard Cranium" ? And how much ground have I got to dissapprove a submission if I did not specify in the details that it must have a description of no less than 300 words or whatever? Other category owners must understand this dilemma. Also 2/ What have other mangers done with categories that they have adopted that have waymarks in them that are previously approved and yet did not meet the details/criteria before the adoption - In other words waymarks that were just let in because the previous category owner obviously couldn't have cared less. Have we grounds to turn around and expel those as well? Would appreciate some feedback here!

Thats looks so cooool! I wouldn't have considered things like that with satellite Imagery.

Can Groundspeak do something about the issue of who has approved waymarks? I have several categories that I lead and it is in reference to the Adopted categories I have acquired that I refer to (and I'm assuming this isn't only mine it's happening to), and I have these categories on Auto-approve - but when a waymark is submitted and approved it comes up as being approved by the previous owners who no longer have diddly to do with it. Could this not be changed to Approved By @#$% Managers - when it is auto-approved. Also - thanks to Groundspeak for all the stuff they are doing with both the Geocaching and the Waymarking Updates & Improvements etc.

Its an entirely different game - or is that not obvious enough. Yes they both use GPS units and they are both administered by Groundspeak but the concept and aims are entirely different. Caching and Waymarking were not separated at all - they were never created together, they're milestones apart in objectives, format and rule. I really don't see the point of the original question!!

Hey Aushiker - this cracks me up - but the general population of the North (& South) American continents have no clue as to what a dunny is! LOL A few do but most don't. The jokes on us Kiwis and Aussies matey!

I'm not sure that Pubs and Inns have been formally listed yet April as i think Adopt me needs to be dropped yet and a regular member has yet to be promoted. Correct me if I'm wrong!