TheBeanTeam
-
Posts
495 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TheBeanTeam
-
-
2) It's less obvious what Waymarks you've visited already. Where are my big red checkmarks? Where are my smiley faces on the map? Where are my totals for how many I've visited broken down by category?
The red checks are there. May not as big as those on the geocaching site but they are to the left of any that you have visited. They will look like
Also to see how many you have posted or visited by category go to your profile (My Page) then go to tab label Waymark lists. Then it will list each category you have visited or posted waymarks in and how many. If you click the number listed it will filter to those waymarks.
Bruce beat me to the same reply....but I have graphics.
-
I have already submitted by first Waymark (and had it approved): an Army Corps of Engineers benchmark I came across. I'll probably try to add a few more around town.
Why did you list a benchmark as a waymark instead of listing it as a benchmark on the site designed for that purpose (http://www.geocaching.com/mark/default.aspx)?
Edit to add: And why is Groundspeak allowing benchmarks to be listed as waymarks when they have a perfectly good benchmarking site with ~734K benchmarks listed. Does this signal a move to incorporate benchmarking into Waymarking? If not then benchmarkers now have to search and post on two sites?
As another poster indicated the benchmarks listed here are only NGS marks. It is a static list that is now out of date, and it cannot be added to. Benchmarkers would love to see it updated. That being the case there are literally thousands (hundreds of thousands) of marks that are not in the database here at geocaching.com and therefore they are not recorded. The most oft asked question in the benchmark forums is "I found a benchmark why isn't it listed?". When the benchmarks category was started at Waymarking it was to compliment the out of date geocaching site not replace it.
-
I know it has been reported by others but thought I would add my name to the list of odd returns with the single cache from a distant location.
This one has a single archived cache in Japan.
-
Same error here.
Same error here as well. When you use the back button it goes back to the "active pocket query" page and not the new "ready for download page" that brought me to the error.
-
...if the target of the virtual cache is no longer there?
or if the virtual cache has been abandoned by its creator and it isn't being maintained.
-
......I do not care to see this happen (for a number of reasons).....
StarBrand,
I would be interested in your viewpoints. If you do not wish to air them publicly and are willing to share them PM me.
Just curious because I think it would be a good change. I would like an alternate viewpoint without the drama that goes with the topic.
-
I've long maintained that simply displaying the Waymarking stats over here would likely put a big dent in the number of "Restore Virtual" threads.
ya aint the only one convinced.
I have maintained the same since the inception of Waymarking.
regarding the mention of the Waymarking forums by the OP. The Waymarking forums were also spun off into a new forum of their own at a place called the Groundspeak Portal. The last discussion in the Waymarking section of this forum was held in 2006.
-
Got mine for the weekend but was to busy to really peruse it.
Since I said I had been waiting I thought I'd better indicate that I had at least received it.
I think the cover was fine and the story that went with it appropriate for the magazine.
Thanks FTF Mag.
-
Geocaching buddy who lives down the street from me got his new mag 4 days ago.....I'm still waiting....and waiting....
Well its good to know I am not the only one waiting.
-
I would be happy just with a one FREE month...
Some Delorme PN40 bundles have a certificate for one month free in them.
I'll sell my "free month" certificate for 4 bucks.
.....joking.
-
Is there a way to get the benchmark files in .gpx form?
Yes, an older post in the read me first thread touches on it in the County Downloads section.
There is an updated or alternative version of this concept in a utility developed by "foxtrot x-ray" that performs the same service. NGS»GPX
It is the one I use.
Hope this helps.
-
Our family is fairly new to geocaching and for now we're just using the Geomate Jr. until we can figure out what GPSr we want. Do you have any good recommendations for caches in the Bend area for cachers with kids? We can probably do shorter hikes (1 mile or so), but longer hikes may be a bit much on the little ones.
Many thanks!
You may get some responses here but I would suggest that you ask the same question in the
www.oregongeocaching.com forums. This group is made up of primarily folks from Central Oregon.
Edit to add: Welcome to geocaching.
-
I had one on the Willamette River near in Eugene, Oregon that washed away in flood conditions. Several months after the high water was long gone I got an email that a non-cacher and his daughter who had cached once with a group had found it while fishing many miles downriver. I arranged to pick it up replaced the cache which was none the worse for wear despite its flood induced journey.
-
If TPTB could come up with a PQ that was category specific, I think it would work.
I could set my PQ to limit results to only those categories that appeal to me.
I don't know if this is even possible, but it sure sounds good in theory.
IAWTC.
In theory yes. With the filters already set in place using the search engine it should be able to return the PQ results you want. How many are willing to sort through the 900+ categories to find what they want. That remains to be seen and why I think it has the potential for further complaints.
I hope I am wrong, but I don't see the PQ as being the big fix that many seem to envision.
Up until recently the focus appeared to be the creation categories and waymarks to build a visitable database. Waymark creation has seen many updates over the past years/months that has focused on improving that experience. Since that is my primary interest in Waymarking I am thankful for that.
The many calls for PQ's here and at the Groundspeak Portal seems to indicate that the tide is turning and people are now calling for a valid and easy way to visit the locations.
-
I'm pretty sure I remember a while ago, Groundspeak saying that they planned on making pocket queries available for Waymarking. Not sure when, though, hopefully soon.
Personally I don't think PQ integration will help much. In fact I foresee complaints about them.
Why? because there are so many waymarks that just won't appeal to geocachers in general that will show up in the PQ and clutter their results. Rather than take the time to filter what they are interested in, I think most will give up on a Waymarking PQ because it will be inconvenient to include. I hope I am wrong.
Give me the PQ and let me worry about the sorting. It took me a while, but I settled on a sort criteria for caches. I'm sure I could do the same for Waymarks.
I have no problems sorting either but I don't think that just by adding PQ's to Waymarking there will be a sudden acceptance of them. Integration of the profiles would go much further to foster acceptance than PQ's I think.
Don't get me wrong. I would love a PQ feature because what we currently have is nearly useless. Loc. file downloads and the GPX lite files are better than nothing but on a trip south I found out that without the information of a true GPX file, the downloads are shall I say.....lacking.
-
I'm pretty sure I remember a while ago, Groundspeak saying that they planned on making pocket queries available for Waymarking. Not sure when, though, hopefully soon.
Personally I don't think PQ integration will help much. In fact I foresee complaints about them.
Why? because there are so many waymarks that just won't appeal to geocachers in general that will show up in the PQ and clutter their results. Rather than take the time to filter what they are interested in, I think most will give up on a Waymarking PQ because it will be inconvenient to include. I hope I am wrong.
-
Not directed at quoted poster necessarily but people fret over arm-chair caching on Virtual caches, but can't you pretty much log all Waypoints without going to the place? I logged one today just to see.
In general we frown on armchair visits as much at Waymarking.com as we do here on geocaching.com. When someone has a pattern of fake logs, eventually someone will report it and that user will have finds deleted.
the visit requirements are set by the people who created the category to start with. It is up to the waymark owner to police his own listings. Some are rigid some not. I know of one waymarker that creates additional requirements for each of their waymarks that go beyond the category requirements. That user is very strict about visits to their waymarks and will delete visits quickly. I am more lenient. As long as a visitor doesn't leave the equivalent to a TNLN type log I lean toward just leaving it alone, but I have deleted visits.
Edit to add:
I just checked out the visit you made. That category doesn't list any additional visit requirements. If I got your visit on one of my waymarks I would let it stand as you wrote it. Since you said you visited it I would take you at your word. Are you saying here that you didn't actually ever visit it?
-
THE ASTORIA RIVERFRONT CACHE is a favorite of ours and a twist that is not seen often.
Another good one in Florence is Democracy Under Pressure
Neither of these are hikes on beaches but both are memorable.
If you are interested in a short hike, history, a little bushwhacking, and an additional benchmark find near a geocache I'll put in a plug for my just south of Florence. Siltcoos Lookout Tower
If you hike on in and have a small tent there is first come first served lakeside camping at the end of Siltcoos Lake Trail that goes part of the way to this cache.
-
I added a checkbox to the page to turn off the automatic refresh of the maps when you pan them. This is probably what broke his grease monkey script.
-Raine
Thanks for letting us know.
-
A virtual located at the same location has 18 visits. Now lets subtract armchair visits to this waymark. Logs with no photos 8 (which is a requirement to log it according to the description), one from 1954? come on.......
In the case of the Waymark you linked, the location has existed for over a hundred years! People have been visiting the area and meeting the requirements of the Waymark for over a hundred years. However, a Waymark listing for the location wasn't published until 200?. Why wouldn't it be acceptable for someone, who has fulfilled the requirements, to log a visit and backdate it to when they visited? It is acceptable. It may be looked at (by some) as bad form, but it is acceptable. Personally, I kinda think it is bad form. I went on vacation to Washington D.C. in 1994. If I wanted, I'm sure I could dig up a photo of myself at the monuments to verify my visit, but I made the personal decision to only log a visit on Waymarks that I visited after I signed up on Waymarking.com.......
This has been debated at length elsewhere early in the Waymarking forums at the bottom of this forum.
Visiting prior to the creation of a waymark is fine in my opinion (though I haven't done so myself).
That said, I actually encourage "retro-visits" to my waymarks. Unlike geocaches which have a start point when listed on geocaching.com, a waymarks start point is not when the coordinates are published. There is a whole history of the location that occurred before the location was published as a waymark.
Lets say there is a waymark for some feature of the Seattle World Fair in the 1960's. The feature was waymarked in 200? but XYZ was there . If they have a story or photos of their visit I would love to see them.
One waymark I remember seeing but can't find features a location that has a changing of the guard. A retro-visit dating to the 90's on that waymark is from a soldier (including pictures) who actually served at that location. A great and appropriate retro-visit in my way of thinking.
Anyhow I don't think an artificial published date for the start of a waymark should be applied to something that has a history beyond that published date nor do I feel it is bad form for someone to post a visit if they actually visited the location.
Edit to add:
Oh yes. here is an item of interest. Waymarks can be visited more than once. I can post as many visits to a waymark as I want.
Don't worry though. The visit count doesn't go up with additional visits. It only reflects the first one in the visit count unlike the multiple finds on one cache that cause consternation here on occasion.
-
The only solution there is to make a series of virtual steps in a multi leading to a physical final outside the conservancy. Of course, as the cache owner you could opt to allow 'find' logs for each virtual step. Purists on here would not like it, but it's your cache.
Some argue that they won't get a virtual icon. True, but it's not about icons, it's about neat places where physical caches might not be desirable.
Now see, I can't understand the "icon" reasoning either.
If you want the icon then do a virt and get the icon, each virt after that "for the icon" is pointless.
Like a geocoin, you could find 20 "MIGO Summer Geocoins 2007" but your only going to get 1 icon.
The problem for some is that they can only get the Ghost icon in one column and not two. This bothers some for some reason.
-
How about because benchmarks are tracked but are not counted with the caches.
Benchmarks are liken to virtual caches and actually are tracked but unlike the Virt they are not counted with real caches.
I've been thinking, why not include Waymark finds on the GC public profile, but don't let it add to your total finds, like benchmarks. I enjoy finding benchmarks and like seeing a tally of what and how many I've found. And I don't mind at all that they don't add to my total finds. Including Waymark finds, in a sense, make them "mean" something, since everyone only cares about their public profile on GC. The icon can even be the WM logo.
That makes too much sense. Great idea though.
There are several of us waymarkers/geocachers who have advocated something like this for years as well.
-
Check out the Best Kept Secrets Category.
Thanks, that provided another example.
Virtual Caches I can sort by distance, Waymarks don't have that either.
Actually you can sort by distance several ways.
The easiest way is to move the map on the page to an are you want to search and then select search from the maps center.
Another way is to go to any existing waymark page and select the link that says "Nearest Waymarks" if you ignore categories and departments that you are not interested in the results will only show items you have not ignored.
On the home page if you select the Additional Search Options link it allows you to create custom saved searches based on criteria you determine. As far as I can tell there are no limits on your personal saved searches. Each of these searches return sorted by distance. This search also gives you the opportunity to search based on coordinates if you wish.
There are other searches that are based on location as well. They can be done on all categories or a specific category. The search features are actually much more powerful than those here at GC.com. I hope someday that geocaching can benefit from the search tools found on Waymarking.com. There really are more options than I can list here. All will return results that sort by distance.
Here is the basic search filter page and its options....
....not proselytizing just clarifying a misconception.
-
For those that are fans of Waymarking, I have a question. Right now Premium membership is free on Waymarking if you are a Premium member of Geocaching.com. Would you be willing to continue to support Waymarking if you had to pay $30/yr for it as well?
I also wonder how many Premium members the Waymarking site has that are not geocachers, or in other words how many Premium members just paid for Waymarking.
I would. In fact I wasn't a premium member until just before Waymarking went live. Since locationless caches were locked and those were the ones I enjoyed most I became a premium member at that time to look into Waymarking when it went live. Initially it was only open to premium members back in its beta days.
Now that I see and have experienced the benefits of a premium membership here on GC.com wish I had earlier but if I had to choose I would continue Waymarking and let my geocaching membership lapse.
I don't know how many premium members have paid just for Waymarking. I know of a few but most are (I think) either active geocachers like I am or are former geocachers.
My Carbon Footprint
in General geocaching topics
Posted
Yes, Thank you Dave.
I think that you are a visionary and knew this would grow but did you expect the idea to grow to such a scale? What do you think about the fact that your first hide has become sort of a mecca where pilgrimages actually take place.