TeamRJMK

A "geocache" is a waymark with a container and log book - right?

(regarding BBB cache logs showing up at the 'Bash) Looked like there was a cacher from AZ who couldn't log the caches because someone took the logs.... (edit to remove the name of the cache...)

Just throwing something out here... Is the real issue related to "rating" or is it related to "identifying"? In other words, if there was a good/reliable way to choose caches that were your favorite type (kid friendly, nice walk/hike, quick find, muggle-free, challenging urban, cool container, whatever...) would it be ok if they weren't "rated" per se? I looked at the attributes & they are a good start but they have a couple of problems: they aren't used on all caches & they aren't complete enough to allow people to identify their favorite type of cache. The distance/terrain/container/type ratings are great but they too don't always provide enough information to help pick your favorite type of cache. How about a system that allowed the person logging the geocache to click boxes to identify whether it is a good choice for particular types of hunts? It wouldn't REALLY be a rating system but it would be a way to let the community offer advice about particular geocaches.... Some possibilities for checkboxes: * kid friendly * quick find * nice walk/hike (paired with terrain rating for sorting particular types) * recommended for visitors etc (see thread for more suggestions about favorite different types...) If you go one step further & allow loggers (not just owners) the chance to recommend attributes, that might help as well. An alternative solution that should not require major software changes would be to review the current attributes & add the missing ones followed by a public relations campaign by forum members and local geocaching groups to get owners to update their attributes accurately/completely. (This may require changing the current 10 attribute maximum.) (If people like this option, the next step would be a thread to help identify the missing attributes & urge Groundspeak to make updates.) So, if a cache were recommended as a "quick find" or "nice walk" or "kid friendlY", would you care if it didn't have an alternative rating system? J

I'm sure this has been brought up before but I would like to see a local individual/organization establish one (or more) bookmarks of good caches for the area. For example: GGA-best visitor caches, GGA-best hiking caches, GGA-best kids caches ... etc. Put a link to the bookmarks in the regional forums (like the links to the local organizations). It isn't a perfect answer but it is a way to accomplish the goal within the current system... I know there will be politics over the choosing but there will be similar politics in any system. J

Hi Groundspeak, I think that some categories could use the ability to have waymark visitors provide searchable/sortable/rankable information based on their visit. A good example is in the restaurants/food establishments category. I would like to see the option to list a rating for several variables: * overall (you can do this now I think) * food quality * service quality * atmosphere * health score (this would be the posted score at the time of the visit) (I'm assuming that anything put into a "variable" category will eventually be available for searching and sorting.) I think that it might make sense to have a set of "food establishment" standard variables but if not, allow the category owners a way to add variables for the waymark visitors to complete (optional or not) when they visit. I think this would add a great deal of usefulness to the Waymarking data. Thanks, ~J of TeamRJMK~

I think that the goal of "supurb" steak houses is great but (like others) don't quite see how to distinguish from "average" steakhouses. My first thought was using the big restaurant guides (Fodor's, Michelin, etc) to provide a more objective discrimination. Unfortunately, they exclude many good places (simply because they aren't reviewed) and people who are looking for their recommendations can purchase the guide to get it. Then I though about making a distinction for "chain" type places vs. smaller places to distinguish between Outback and a local good place.... but there are good chains that should probably be included. Here's my best idea so far.... Waymarking offers a "rate this waymark" category. How about setting up a "steakhouses" category for all steakhouses and asking each visitor to rate their overall experience. Eventually the best (for the area) will pop to the top of the ratings... not perfect but might be a way to accomplish what you are trying to accomplish. (I don't know if there is a way to have multiple ratings to distinguish between food/atmosphere/value though.) If you add variables for chain name, then eventually you may be able to sort out the chains you like or don't like from the listing. (I'm assuming that there will be a "sort on variable" option at some point....) I'm assuming the eventual goal is to be able to answer "what's a good steakhouse within 10 miles of my hotel" or something like that. ~J of TeamRJMK~

Please don't get offended but I voted "no" to your category. I think the category description is great & is worthy of being a category but it doesn't match the category name. Your description focused on Native American artifacts but the title is something that doesn't distinguish between geographical areas. I think you should consider expanding your description to include items found worldwide. (or if you really want to focus on American, then change the title to reflect that.) I do think the idea is worthy & would really like you to resubmit it if it doesn't pass this round of peer review. I believe that there are other categories that have undergone revisions and have been successful the second time around. ~J of TeamRJMK~

How about allowing travel bugs to be logged through waymarks?

I don't agree that this is the argument that has been discussed here. It may be what you think has been discussed but it is not what I believe the rest of the thread is discussing. I've been lurking in the forums for a while now & I just don't see people arguing that we should put geocaches in the middle of fragile environments. Rather, what I see is people asking why geocaches should be banned completely on any land managed by group xxx when there are a lot of areas within that property that are NOT fragile. Are you saying that all portions of all NPS managed properties are fragile environments? J

Just a twist on some ideas already posted: Regular members and premium members could generate a code that could be logged like the initial suggestion. - this would mean something like "I met so-and-so"... Premium members can have additional codes - for example, a premium member could create the "Bingo" game mentioned earlier for an event and have a code to hand out for people who complete the activity. If you just meet this person and don't do bingo, you can log the regular code. If you do the bingo, you can log both.... like mentioned earlier, a note could be automatically placed associated with the code to say something like "completed bingo at xxx event" .... Set it up so premium members could have 5 or 10 codes simultaneously... ------------ other $$ ideas: * one icon/stat for meeting non-premium members * one icon/stat for meeting premium members * sell special icons to groups/individuals ~J of TeamRJMK~

I think someone mentioned it already (as a "top 10% list" but another option is talking with your local group (or local to the area you are visiting) and see if anyone has bookmarks of cool caches. I think lots of people/groups are developing lists of good caches for visitors to the area (and for finding caches along the highway). Also, if there is a cache you like, check to see if it is listed on any bookmarks. Then use that bookmark list to find others. J

(note: it is highly doubtful that I would ever try to complete for this record) Here's my 2 cents on the situation- I think it is generally accepted that numbers runs are fun. I think that having "bragging rights" is pretty cool and is perfectly acceptable. I think that having "comparable" records runs is valuable & would make the bragging rights more meaningful. I suspect that Groundspeak has no desire to "regulate" records runs. Right now, a team finding 300 caches following "Lep's" rules would not receive any bragging rights because they didn't find as many as the DRR team. Valid arguments could be made that they SHOULD receive bragging rights because they beat the previous attempts using those rules. So, I think that it makes sense for people (like CoD) to propose run rules and create a standard to use for the run. I think it makes sense for other people to propose their version of the run rules & create a standard they would like to see. These standards can be different. The records run announcement and results would reference the rules version being used & would stand separately. Bragging rights would occur for each standard. We could have the "single person" record holder, the "purists" record, the "DRR-style" record.... That way people could go after the record that matched their style & everyone would be very clear about what the numbers really mean. The community could choose which records rules to embrace and applaud. (Note, this was not intended to address the "defacement" issue - that should be addressed separately.) J

I can see value in logging something to help track what you have found and keep a record of your finds. If people want a way to log temporary event caches and caches brought to share, here's an idea - TB's now have a "discovered" option to distinguish "finds" at events from "finds" in the wild. How about adding the same log type to caches and event caches? If an event has temporary caches, people could log multiple "discovered" logs on the event cache page. If someone brings a cache to an event, they would temporarily disable it and instruct people to log "discovered" logs, not "found it" logs. (Another way to share caches at events would be to attach a TB tag & have people log it as a TB at the event, not a cache.) I don't know about pocket caches - why not use travel bugs instead? That seems to be more applicable. J

You know, if you created the category & people marked the beaches, it would help people who DIDN'T want to visit the beaches by knowing that they are "clothing optional" before they visit. I could see value in that. ~J of TeamRJMK~ --> no desire to visit the beaches but think it is a valid category & will help as officer to get the category started if you like. (send an invite)

Hello, Following is a list of the current variables for the Public Playgrounds category: ------------ * Park Entrance - optional - additional coordinates * Hours of Operation - not optional - start time/finish time * Seasonal? - not optional - checkbox * Restrooms Available - optional - checkbox * Recommended for Travelers? - optional - checkbox * Business? - optional - checkbox * Entrance Fee - optional - textbox accepting currency * Playground Owned/Managed by - not optional - multi-line textbox * Playground web page - optional - web address or URL -------------- Here are some proposed changes: ---------- Frivlas suggested that we change the "Hours of Operation" to a text box to allow things like "dawn to dusk" or other ways to note that the times change during the year. -------------- I've noticed that several playgrounds are designed to be "accessible." Should we add a check box to include this information? --------------- My original idea for the "recommended for travelers" variable was to distinguish those specific playgrounds that would be worth visiting while traveling through the area (good rest stop places). I think at this point it is confusing and not necessary since the descriptions have enough info for people to decide. Should we get rid of it? --------------- Do we need to change/get rid of/add any variables? How about the types or whether they are optional? I'd prefer to give this a good look-see and make any changes all at once rather than doing each one at a time... So, what do you think? ~J of TeamRJMK~

I, too, have noticed a general trend towards "adult" language on the site. My preference would be for geocaching (and Waymarking) to be "family friendly" sites. As a customer and a Mom, you bet that I am watching how these types of issues are handled by Groundspeak. Their decisions will make a difference in how much access my children obtain to the site and printed cache listings. (And my decision will in turn, have an influence in the likelihood of them becoming Groundspeak customers) I personally do not appreciate having to tolerate "crude" language in order to enjoy such a wonderful, healthful activity. There ARE ALTERNATIVES that will get me and my family outside - I just happen to like this one and would prefer to stay here. Yes, I could "just ignore it" but why should I have to when it does nothing to benefit geocaching? Groundspeak has a choice - I hope it chooses family friendly. Just my opinion. ~J of TeamRJMK~

Maybe add something like: 'Approvals may be done by the first officer who gets a chance, in order to get submitted waymarks approved in a timely manner.' I like adding the aspect of "first officer who gets a chance." If I understand you correctly, your point is that people are choosing to become officers in so many categories that they don't have time to help manage those categories so the leaders should do the managing instead of the people who volunteered to be officers to help manage the category. Hmmmmm. Encouraging others to approve waymarks and trying to define a group management philosophy is not because I'm trying to reduce my workload. (Just approving the waymarks would be easier and quicker than trying to define a management philosophy.) I've pushed the group management philosophy because this category is too important and too universal to become the "TeamRJMK view of what is right or wrong about playgrounds." I prefer that officers in Public Playgrounds have an interest in specifically managing our category. THAT DOES NOT MEAN that in order to be an officer you have to approve waymarks or have to spend a lot of time. It DOES mean that I would prefer that you are at least care about making PUBLIC PLAYGROUNDS a great category. Based on that understanding, why wouldn't we encourage everyone to participate? (Thanks for your thoughts Jake39 - I like to see differing opinions, they frequently teach me things.)

Yep - especially if you help make it better!

Hello All (especially officers of the Public Playgrounds group), I've been very interested in the Group Dynamics ... Thread talking about how the leaders and officers manage their waymark category. Basically, there are leaders who want to approve ALL the waymarks in their category and only want the officers to jump in when they aren't available. On the other side are leaders who want the group to jump right in and keep things moving. I think that having a leader with one opinion and an officer with the opposite opinion can be frustrating to both sides. So.... here's my first take at writing down a management policy for OUR group and category: ----------------------- Waymark Management Policy: All officers may approve waymarks that meet the requirements. There is no need to give the leader a chance to approve them first. If you see a waymark that appears to be approved in error, please send a message to the officer approving the waymark and give him/her the chance to explain or work with the waymark owner to resolve the issue. If you see a waymark that needs changes prior to approval and you send an email to the waymark submitter, please send an email to the group letting us know so we don't innundate the waymark submitter. If you see something amiss or have a suggestion for improvement, please send it to the officers for discussion. Decisions will be made as much as possible by consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, the leader will make the final decision. Welcome to OUR group and waymark category! ----------------- Please offer your opinions and suggestions. I'm curious about your opinion on the decision reaching method - I also considered simple majority rule but know that sometimes, that isn't the best method for making group decisions. What do you think? (Even though final decisions about our policy will be made by Public Playground officers, I'm very interested in comments, suggestions and opinions from the rest if the community as well - please jump right in!.) Thanks~ ~J of TeamRJMK~

My personal opinion is that both methods are ok but I think this will become a source of hurt feelings and misunderstandings if an officer who assumes one thing joins a group with a leader who assumes the opposite. Maybe we should start a practice of including the management policies in the group description information. If this makes sense to others as well, maybe TPTB could add a spot for it. ~J of TeamRJMK~

I think the idea of visiting the waymark is distinct and that the owner SHOULD mark the visit as well. Now here's another question <ducking as I ask> Should you log a "visit" for each visit you make. In Jeremy's example above where you visit a place occasionally, shouldn't you log a "visit" each time? This is very different from the Geocaching model but my sense is that it is intended to be very different and that yes, you SHOULD log a visit each time - you visited, didn't you? (Now what this implies is that if you want to have "competitive stats", they should not necessarily be "# of visits" but "# of distinct waymarks visited" which will be two different things.) <ducking for real this time> ~J of TeamRJMK~ edit: fixing the weirdness introduced by quick editing in the original...

The following is my opinion and may not match anyone elses... I think that "Puerto Rico Waymarks" is too broad. The Waymarking site will make it pretty obvious which waymarks are in Puerto Rico based on the maps and searching from a location criteria. It sounds like you really want to do something more specific to show visitors where to visit. More like "Tourist Stops in Puerto Rico" or "Visit Puerto Rico - Don't Miss This" or "Tour Puerto Rico" (or something like that). If you don't want to list the primary "tourist spots" that are already well publicized elsewhere, you could have something like "Experience the other Puerto Rico" or something that alludes to a "not the standard" quality. As far as meeting global critera - we already have a lot of groups focusing on local historical markers so I don't think that a Puerto Rico specific visitor category should be a problem. I think this sounds like a great category. Be sure to publish a link to your group when you set it up. ~J of TeamRJMK~

I'm "Leader" on two categories but would like the officers as a group to manage and "own" them. I have specifically NOT approved some of the waymarks so others would be able to jump in and get involved. We've had a couple of waymarks approved without all the requirements but the ensuing discussion has been good for the group. So I guess that qualifies as one vote for sharing the management duties. ~J of TeamRJMK~

May I suggest: A drop-down list variable for "type" (If you can't decide all the types up front, I believe some categories are using a list with an "other" option and a box to enter the "other" category. They then use this info to update the list manually as necessary with additional options.) A variable for the year (or variables for a range of years) - I wouldn't necessarily require choosing a group of years - my guess is that at some point eventually, the Waymarking site will allow sorting by variables which would give you what you want. I'm not familiar with LDS sites in particular, but suggest that a geographical variable isn't needed. The Waymarking site will have coordinates that you can easily use to search by geography. a variable to indicate if the site is restricted to LDS members or open to the public. (For example, as an LDS outsider, I would love to know if a LDS canning facility is available to use and my aunt has used LDS geneological research facilities.) (oops, I just re-read part of your proposal and saw "historical" listed - is it your intention to include these types of places?) The "Mormon Memorabilia" name makes me think about artifacts or relics, not sites. You may want to change it to something that reflects locations rather than objects. You should decide whether to include just historical items or whether to include current items & have that reflected in the name. (Mormon Historical Sites vs. Mormon Sites or something like that) Anyhow, just a couple more things to consider from an outsider's perspective. As far as pictures, I like them. There is a discussion thread going about alternatives. My personal view is that in general, waymarks should end up with pictures but I don't care whether logs have them. If the person submitting the waymark doesn't have a camera, then maybe you can workout a deal where the waymark requests that the first couple of visitors submit pictures that can be added to the waymark description later. I think you have a good category & should get your group and category description going. I'd vote "yes" in the peer-review stage with the info you already have. ~J of TeamRJMK~

Respectfully Lord Elwood, This is the only waymark in the Category that should be grandfsthered in "Harold H. Higashihara Park - Hawai'i ' Since that time we have been requiring Photos be submitted. This waymark "Blue Hill Town Park" we are discussing was approved during the email debacle thing, and emails back and forth to one another where not working, Team RJMK had attempted to ask us of our thoughts on this waymark before it was approved and then shortly thereafter Jeremy approved it before getting our emails. Now that it is approved, I strongly feel that our team leader should politely email them and give them a deadline to add the photograph, if they do not do this I vote to delete the waymark. furthermore, if the officers do not all agree I believe the majority should rule. Just wanted to add that I have been sending emails to submitters asking for pictures since this category was initially created - prior to group management. No waymarks have been allowed to stand without pictures - the Hawai'i waymark has pictures embedded within the waymark itself. Both Jake39 and I sent emails (or attempted to send emails) to Maine Gnomes requesting a picture prior to the waymark being approved. (mine was sent on 4/14, jake39's on 4/15) I think the waymark was approved on 4/18 or so. J