narcissa

OK, so I'm not really big on puzzles, but isn't that risk part of the fun in going for them. Personally, no. A couple of years ago I did a puzzle which required you to use an Ottendorf cipher key from the page listing to find numbers on a memorial to derive a set of coordinates. I "solved" puzzle then navigated to the coordinates about 1/4 of a mile from the memorial only to find that they would have taken me 200' from shore into a large river. That location was about 25 miles from home and it was several months before I was able to visit that area again, and by then the cache was archived. Driving 50 miles round trip to search an area where there isn't a cache isn't my idea of fun. That could happen with any cache, regardless of type. My boyfriend once walked 18km for a DNF. It happens.

Wrong.

Why do you care enough about the way other people play the game to waste your time doing this sort of thing?

OK, then would you buy a "Mosquitos were too thick" button? Fine. But I also want a "There was a sketchy-looking muggle staring at me from his truck" button, and "Didn't bring appropriate footwear" button.

This is a terrible idea.

This is a terrible idea.

Again, sounds great. Again, too bad the site is cluttered and difficult to use. Additionally, too bad Waymarking has been further tainted by your inexplicably hostile behaviour. Sheesh.

It's something I'll look at once in a while when I'm running my stats, but I don't put much effort into it. The caches around here that require the full matrix also have date limitations and I just can't be bothered to keep track.

Trading isn't mandatory - if you don't have anything to trade, or don't want to trade, it's okay to simply sign the log.

OMG guys, Britney Murphy DIED

I think these power trails are appalling. Groundspeak is going in a bad direction by allowing this.

Sounds great. Too bad the site is cluttered and annoying to use.

"Why can't we have Virtuals anymore?" "Because, Waymarking."

Rest stop geocaches are an incentive for me to stop and step inside visitor centres where I can find brochures about area attractions. I can think of many museums, campgrounds, and other sites that I found out about because I was already stopping at a visitor centre to get a cache.

If you read the thread a little more carefully, you'll see that several people have addressed the shortcomings in a fairly comprehensive manner. I've been using Geocaching.com for several years, but when I go over to Waymarking, the site seems cluttered and difficult to use. I have no motivation to learn how to use the site and I'm just not interested in logging visits on an entirely different system. If it was somehow more integrated with Geocaching.com, or worked more similarly to Geocaching.com, I might have more interest.

Okay fine... but also fix the Waymarking site so it doesn't suck.

And some of my favorite physical caches have done the same thing. I don't get your point. I don't have brain damage, so when I go to find a physical cache, it's not a surprise to find a container with a logbook. When I go to find a virtual, it's often unclear what I'm looking for until I get there, and I enjoy that mystery. That's my point. Is there a point to you attacking me for making a perfectly innocuous comment about caches I like?

This has to be a troll. Nobody can be this clueless. Can they?

My favourite virtual caches have been ones where the description is a little vague or mysterious, and then the location is a bit of a surprise. I found many virtual caches last summer and found some very memorable virtual caches in Gettysburg, PA, Washington, DC, and Savannah, GA.

If you think it's a waste of breath, you don't need to participate in the discussion. By the length of this thread, it would seem that some people still have thoughts to share on the subject.

OMG Michael Jackson died!

There's a series in Frisco, Texas that also takes you on a tour of many of the sculptures in that town. But they did it with actual caches. The only reason I can think of for wanting to do the same thing as virtuals, is that it lets you be a lazy cache owner. There are some places where you just can't place a cache, either because there's nowhere to hide it, or because it's not allowed. In my area, we often use monuments and other objects in multi-caches - instead of hiding caches or tags, cachers use something from the monument to figure out the next step. This is a good way to get people to notice these monuments, and it's a good way to geocache in spots where hiding a container simply isn't an option. Calling cachers "lazy" for coming up with different solutions seems rather unnecessary, to me. What is with all the name-calling?

Have you READ the guidelines? It doesn't look like it. I think this thread needs to be shut down.

Well at least I've accomplished something today. No harm intended. Take a few Excedrin and post again tomorrow. I already said I don't care if people don't like Waymarking...That is fine I even get that, as I mentioned above, that it isn't for everyone. Just like lamp post caches aren't for everyone. You give good clear reasons for not liking it and that I can respect. The "its all McDonalds" or "There is nothing interesting there that is as good as a virtual" type statements that are simply not true. I often run up against attitudes of superiority concerning Waymarking. Each time in essence I am being told that I am wrong for liking the past time. How far would I get using the same comments about caching that have been said attacking waymarkers and Waymarking in this thread? People in this thread were saying that Waymarking is lame. You came in and attacked people for "griping" instead of just outlining why you like Waymarking.

Sounds like the makings of a ponzi scheme to me.