TeamRJMK

How about a web site update to provide a different category of finds? Call it "other" (or something more creative). This category could be used to allow people to "count" finds like * temporary caches found at events * finds deleted by cache owners * individual waypoints of a multi-cache * finds from those "other" sites * anything the person wants to count as a "find" * virtuals visited but logging criteria not met, etc. A way to optionally tie these logs/finds back to specific geocaches would be nice. This would provide a mechanism for geocaching.com to reflect the individual's perception of their "true" overall find count. (Rather than having to maintain the information elsewhere.) Finds in this category would be reported separately from the others rather than lumped with the rest of the geocache finds. This would allow for people to choose whether they wanted to include them with their "total find count" or not. Just an idea.

(note: playgrounds were also proposed by The 3 Team in this thread: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=120117 dated Jan 21, 2006. Since there has been no activity on that thread since Jan 21, I am going ahead with a proposal for this category. If The 3 Team would like to share ownership, please let me know...) Please provide comments on this proposed Waymark Category. I'm particularly interested in other ideas of information to request either in the description or variables information fields. I have a USA perspective so assistance making this applicable internationally is also encouraged. I want this to end up with enough information so someone from outside the area can determine which (if any) are good candidates for visiting. Thanks! ~J of TeamRJMK~ ---------------------------------------- Name: Playgrounds Heirarchy: Places / Sports and Recreation Quick Description: Playgrounds open to the general public. Detailed Description: A "Playground" consists of an area containing equipment designed for children to play on or in. It typically includes items like slides, swings, sandboxes and monkey bars. Proposed playgrounds may be small or large, intended for toddlers or older kids or anything in between. This category includes all playgrounds open to the general public including ones located in parks and businesses. Playgrounds intended for use by a specific audience only (for example residents of a particular area) should not be included. Playgrounds in schoolyards should NOT be submitted unless they are open to the general public, including non-residents. Instructions for Placing Waymarks into this Category: Post a description of the playground including as much information as possible to help a visitor determine whether it is a place they would like to visit. Typical information to include would be types of equipment available, playground size, general ages supported and available amenities like adult seating, restrooms, picnic areas, etc. The "Special" variable is intended to help mark the playgrounds that are particularly nice for the area and well suited for outside visitors. This may include things like a unique type of equipment, large size, particularly nice amenities or anything that would cause you to highly recommend visiting this playground over the neighboring playgrounds. Playgrounds associated with businesses or private individuals may be submitted as Waymarks as long as the business information is clearly disclosed and the playground is open to the general public. For example, a playground inside a fast food restaurant may be submitted but a playground at a daycare center that is used only for children in their care may not. A picture including the playground equipment is required for creating a Waymark in this category. Instructions for Logging Waymarks of this Category: Variables: Owner Information - Public/Business/Other: Fee: Hours: Restrooms Available: Separate Toddler area: Special:

Please provide your thoughts on this description for this proposed Waymark Category. I'd like to include information about places that historically used to have locks/planes/lifts but can remove these references if they are determined to be outside of the guidelines for waymarks. Thanks, ~J of TeamRJMK~ -------------------------------------------------------------------- Name: Waterway Locks, Planes and Lifts Heirarchy: Places/Transportation Quick Description: List examples of locks, planes, lifts and other methods to move boats between different elevations. Detailed Description: It is common for bodies of water to be at different elevations. Waterways connecting these bodies of water and rapids in a river are typical examples of places that cause problems for boats attempting to navigate this elevation difference. This category is for listing locks, planes, lifts and other examples of solutions to this problem. Thank you to CacheNCarryMA for posting a link to the Falkirk Wheel which was the impetus for starting this category and to cache_test_dummies for helping expand and refine the category information. Instructions for Placing Waymarks into this Category: Find a lock, plane, lift or other method for moving boats between different elevations. Post a description along with capacity, historical information and pictures if available. Locks, planes and lifts proposed as Waymarks may be currently active, in existence but not active, or purely historical and no longer in existence. Waymarks for items that no longer exist should reference the physical location where they once stood. A single canal may have several sets of locks. Each set may be listed as a different waymark. For example, individual waymarks may be listed for the Gatun Locks, Pedro Miguel locks and Miraflores locks on the Panama Canal. “Waterway Name” is the name of the waterway – for example, Erie Canal. “Type” should be “lock”, “lift”, “plane” or “other.” “Date Opened” is when it was first opened to transporting boats (if known) or construction date. “Elevation Difference” is the distance boats are raised or lowered. (Please include the units used for this – “feet” or “meters.”) “Site still exists” indicates that the lock, lift or plane or some remnant still remains. “Active/Inactive” should indicate whether it is still used to move boats. “Web Site” should be used to provide a link to more information if it is available. Instructions for Logging Waymarks of this Category: Logs marked as “visits” should be made after physically visiting the waymark location. Include a picture taken during the visit. Notes may be logged by individuals who have visited the web site or looked at the online information and would like to provide comments or feedback on the waymark. Variables: Waterway Name: Type: Date Opened: Elevation Difference: Site Still Exists: Active/Inactive: Web Site:

I can see the issue about getting too many repeat notices. Ideally, the community would learn to look and not submit a new log if one had been done recently. I believe that if this is implemented, it should NOT be kept as a "stat" because people keeping count would cause way too many logs.... Alternatively, maybe a choice can be made to "opt out" of receiving these logs. Here's my example: I currently have a bug that was reported missing about two weeks ago in the regular log. The previous visitor was there about 3 weeks ago. I just noticed the messages today while randomly checking on my bug. Now, this bug has been mistaken for a trade item before and my guess is that is what has happened here. My plan is to try to track it down with the previous visitors but it would have been easier to do if I had received an email two weeks ago letting me know that it was missing. I've seen messages in the forums about "why don't they mark the bug missing" when the logs repeatedly indicate that it is no longer there. I believe that the main reason is that the owner just doesn't realize what has happened. I can see both sides. I still think it would be nice to have but will go along with the community... ~J of TeamRJMK~

I suggest a new log type - Travel Bug Check. (or Travel Bug Inventory?) Here's how it would work: * someone visits a cache and checks on the travel bugs while there * they write a "Travel Bug Check Log" listing which bugs were there or missing (vs. the listed bugs in a cache) * emails are sent to the normal people (cache owner and watch list) and to all owners of travel bugs listed in the cache * status logs are placed on the TB page so anyone watching the TB gets the message as well This would be an easy way to notify TB owners about how their bugs are doing during their visit without the logger having to go and click through to each one individually. This would be particularly useful when reporting a TB is missing. I could see "hotel" owners offering to do this every couple of weeks or so as a courtesy to their guests.... It wouldn't notify a bug owner if it was in the cache but not on the page... maybe an extra place to list the additional secret codes to send the message? Thanks for the consideration, ~J of TeamRJMK~

OK, one more message and I'll stop... The link to this was originally posted in the Off Topic forum, What is It? Thread, page 153, by CacheNCarryMA. (I don't know how to put in a direct link, sorry) I don't know if they have any Waymark ownership desires but want to make sure they get credit for introducing the picture to the forums. Thanks, J

I wonder if it would be ok to ask for linked video clips? Seeing the equipment in action on the active sites would be nice. J

Sounds good to me. I've always been fascinated by how locks work but never realized that these other types of things were even out there. I'm ok with including all of them. (oops, got sidetracked googling "canal inclined plane") I really like your variable list. I think the elevation difference and the year built are going to be fascinating. Thanks for taking this one to the next step. J

I saw this really cool boat lift referenced in the Off Topic / What is It thread. (Sorry for not posting a link back to the original poster...) I think a waymark category of boat lifts would be really nice to go browse. Anyone want to champion this one? http://www.thefalkirkwheel.co.uk/index.asp?tm=35

I don't know if this thread is going to be treated like a "poll" to gauge geocachers thoughts. (& if it did, I'm not sure that I've found enough to earn an opinion...) Others have said this better but I want to include my opinion here as well. I think that cemeteries, graves and headstones are places and things that are very emotional topics for people. Whenever I hear about something involving a cemetery, I do have to stop and think about how my 85 year old Aunt would react if it were my Grandparent's grave and cemetery that was involved. I think it is only common courtesy to have respect for the relatives of the dead and to treat their resting places accordingly. Just to let you know my position, I do believe that we have the right (both moral and legal) to be in a public cemetery. even if we are carrying a GPS. I think that appropriate caches are possible on cemetery grounds. I think that some cache locations should not be chosen because they are too close to the graves and would be seen as being disrespectful. I think that encouraging visitors to read the headstones is goodness and a great part of a multi-cache. This particular case is discussing a national veteran's cemetery. I haven't visited many but I have seen pictures. One of the images that really has an impact on me personally is seeing all the clean markers, lined up in rows that go on (unfortunatly) what seems like forever. The uniformity of the headstones adds to that impact for me. I believe this is by design and I can understand if someone finds it offensive to see pictures of "things" placed on top of the headstones. I think if the person in charge of maintaining these cemeteries (and thus the assigned representative for the property owner) asks us to stop posting pictures of headstones in these cemeteries with objects on top, that we should do so. An argument has been presented that he does not have the legal right to make us do so so we shouldn't have to. I'm not a lawyer so I won't address that side of this. I will say, however, that there are many things that people do every day becuase they are common courtesies. Some examples might be using words like please and thank you, letting someone merge into the lane in front of you instead of speeding up to close the gap just because you can, holding the door for the old lady with the walker to go through first... as far as I know, you don't HAVE to do any of these things & you won't be arrested if you don't. Now, I don't believe we should have laws telling you that you have to do these things but I do believe that the world is a much better place for the people who do. My vote is for adding a note to the site saying something to the effect that the Department of Veterans Affairs has asked us not to post pictures containing objects resting on headstones. Out of respect for their position, we will remove pictures taken in National Military Cemeteries containing objects resting on the headstones. Do we "HAVE" to? No. Should we? Yes. Just my opinion, ~J of TeamRJMK~ (edited to change "a" to "e" in Cemetery...)

Here, in Gwinnett County, Georgia, USA, they provide a score up to 100%. I'm not sure what the cutoff is for allowing a restaurant to remain open. I think it is 70%. The are talking about moving to an ABC system where you could have A+ or B- types of scores. (I like the numbers better....) There's a noticable difference in places that consistenty maintain a 98-100% rating and those that consistently maintain an 80-85% rating. (It's all about the management/owner's priorities.) (and places in the 70's talk about rat droppings, roaches and keeping freezers too warm.) I spoke with a county inspector last summer. He said that he recommended eating only at places that score 90 or better. I figure he ought to know! I understand that different areas have different systems for reviewing health and sanitary conditions. I also understand that there are different standards around the world as to what is acceptable and what is not. How about if restaurant category owners encourage waymark loggers to include the current health score in their log? I agree that it would be very difficult for the waymark owner to maintain the current score since it will change over time. (Of course, in the perfect world, the waymark owner would create a link to the online score database that would automatically populate the current information into the waymark description......) I think this should just be an option - not a mandatory requirement for logging. If there is a way to have a special field that could then sort, that would be really nice but I understand if it isn't easy enough to do. Each area should use whatever system they have locally - whether "green" or numbers or letters. (yes, that means that only local sorts on this make sense...) If there isn't a local ranking system or if the local system is just "we close them if they don't meet x standard," then the local community could decide what rankings make sense or just encourage comments about sanitation. Basically, if I'm looking for a new chinese buffet or steak house or a cool "hole-in-the wall" Italian restaurant or even a (gasp) McDonalds, I'd like to have the information to know that the one over here has a low score so I'd be better off going to that one over there.... By the way, I LOVE the review idea. That would really be useful! Thanks! J

I don't know what the customs are in other locations, but here, the county health department issues each restaurant a "score" based on sanitation inspection results. I use this score to help double check whether I want to eat in a particular location. I suggest that waymarks for restaurant related categories be encouraged to include the current health score. ~J of TeamRJMK~

Love the idea.... I would particularly like it if it could be used while on a trip for a good stop-off for the kids to stretch their legs. (Fact is, I was REALLY hoping that it and a bunch of other Waymarking categories would have been put in place prior to our 1500 mile trip in December but hopefully next time... <grin>) My preference would be for all playgrounds listed to be accessible to anyone so you don't have to worry about pulling up to one that is in a daycare or something. I would prefer to see all the playgrounds listed with variables to distinguish whether it is a particular nice one or not... (rather than just listing the super-duper spectacular ones.) Maybe ratings based on size and condition and "fun factor" to help distinguish? It would probably be helpful to have a variable for target age group. Some playgrounds have equipment for toddlers & a lot don't. Likewise, some have only smaller, toddler oriented equipment. (I'm not sure if this would be better as an "age" or "equipment type" variable.) I don't care about the materials being used so much. Just my opinion. ~J of TeamRJMK~ Playgrounds

OK, I'm lost. How does this tell you where the cache is? And how is it different from some of the traditional caches I've seen that have enough information in the description or title to find without a GPS -or- even looking at a map?

My vote may not count because we haven't found very many caches but here goes with a couple of thoughts and a vote. It appears to me that the coordinates are integral to this cache. If you did not have them, you would not be able to go to google/mapquest/etc to figure out that this is in fact, a library. (The cache description did not give a building name or mention that it is a library.) I did not note what the hider intended as a terrain listing but based on the information provided, I'm assuming it is intended to be a "true" terrain 1 cache. (fully wheelchair accessible). Hiding a micro outside in a place that will not be muggled is very likely to require placement in a location that is not easily wheelchair accessible and thus bump the terrain listing. (If this library is anything like mine, "muggles' here include young teens/tweens waiting outside for their parents to pick them up so finding a convenient muggle-free area might be particularly difficult.) In addition, adding an outside micro or other type of outside step would change this from a cache that could be done in any type of weather conditions. In my opinion, both of these change the nature/character of the cache. I understand that many think this change would be for the better because it makes the cache more difficult but having a particular difficulty level is NOT a requirement for placing a cache. I agree with those who do not see a difference between this cache and one specifying the entrance of a cave or other location that does not have gps reception. My vote is that this cache should be approved under the current guidelines. ~J of TeamRJMK~ ... now returing to lurker mode...

Thank you. Those sound great. J

Hi, I'm looking for some family-friendly caches along the I-20 corridor from AL to Dallas (Eastbound or Westbound). I was wondering if anyone has any already bookmarked or if I just need to go looking through the list from scratch. THANKS! J

I'm still pretty new but it seems like the suggestion previously mentioned by dkwolf might be a good way to handle tornado / fire / earthquake / flood / hurricane / terrorism types of events: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...dpost&p=1679735 If searchable, it would make it a lot easier for local cachers to see which ones had been checked on and which ones hadn't. It would provide a visible mechanism for the locals to report on caches that they don't own (and thus can't disable). It would reduce the likelihood of the situation mentioned previously by nushikitty: The caches wouldn't be disabled or archived, just flagged as --possibly-- having a problem. Seems like it would help with the anxiety all around. Obviously, the caches are very low on a priority list in this type of situation, but anything that helps bring --normality-- (is that the right word?) back to life can help in the recovery process. It may be that once the immediate situation is handled, people are safe and the basic necessities of life are there, taking a break to cache might help some of the stress. Being able to go hunt some "known ok" caches might be just what the doctor ordered. Just my opinion, ~J of TeamRJMK~ (My thoughts are with everyone suffering from Katrina. Please know that there are folks still watching the news, worrying about y'all and trying to help out.)

My heart goes out to everyone impacted by this disaster. Here is a site with additional pictures taken by NOAA: http://ngs.woc.noaa.gov/katrina/KATRINA0000.HTM ~J of TeamRJMK~

I would like to see listings for playgrounds. Is this a "Good Idea" or not given that it is kid/youth related? (If it is a "Good Idea" and moves forward, I am willing to give ownership of the category to whoever wants it - post a message in the thread, first-come, first-serve.) ~J of TeamRJMK~ Edited to add: Name: Public Playgrounds * playgrounds accessible to the public only (Thanks KKTH3) * The listing should include (at least) * hours available * restrooms available

Thank you. Mine was set to end with the %by for some reason. That fixed it. I appreciate the quick reply. J of TeamRJMK

Hi, I am using the File/Print/Condensed HTML option to print details about the caches. It may be there but I can't seem to find the Difficulty/Terrain information in the resulting descriptions. Am I just missing something? (Yes, I know that using a PDA is "THE WAY" to go - will get there eventually. Also, I have been printing a "grid" for cross-referencing the D/T info so I can carry it.) Thanks, J