TheBeanTeam
+Premium Members-
Posts
495 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by TheBeanTeam
-
Not sure that's true, Toz. It seems that whenever the topic comes up, folks who love virts are the loudest detractors of WMs. I fall into that category. I'd love for Waymarking to go away and for virtuals and webcams to come back. But then I figured no one that matters is listening so I ignore the topic. Funny, I find that many of the waymarkers are folks who loved virts and locationless caches and waymark as a result of that connection to them. My love was locationless caches and that is why I waymark. I was a geocacher first and now I waymark. They do not have to be mutually exclusive activities. Virtuals didn't fit and had their problems. Locationless caches were broken and had their problems Waymarking addressed those issues.
-
Yes it is destroyed. If you do report it with photos to Deb I have read of cases where she has given permission for it to be kept. Of course I would keep the permission for record that you didn't steal the thing if she does think it appropriate for you to keep.
-
I just played with this a bit and can only say that this is an outstanding and very useful script. Many thanks.
-
Photos/Images of bad cache containers
TheBeanTeam replied to L0ne.R's topic in General geocaching topics
A cardboard Tootsie Roll Bank with the coin slot duct taped closed. Located in bushes right next to a mill race pond. -
And are these reasons you mention backed by your own personal experience with the site or simply based on what others here in the forums say? Just wondering, because many of the reasons (not all, some valid points have been made) but many of the reasons stated are misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what Waymarking is and the way the site functions. If someone really tried it beyond a cursory look and found it to much for them to handle then OK, but if we are just holding to the party line without real investigation......
-
I just did a search of San Diego and there are 3829 waymarks within 100 miles. Of the first 200 locations I found about 5 (give or take) that were fast food and very few stacked locations. Add the Chinese food joints and the location that was featured in the tv show Diners Drive Ins and Dives and you had around ten-fifteen commercial listings out of the first 200. Oh and don't forget the three 7-11's. There's the noise that most people claim to not like in Waymarking. The murals (69 locations), Artistically Painted Utility Boxes (35 locations), National Register of Historic Places (50 locations) and most of the other locations found in the San Diego area are not found on my GPSr unless I add them to my unit with the help of Waymarking.com and GSAK. As an example of the WM's in the area, 2 and sometimes 3 entries for the same thing. That's clutter. The obvious disregard for the standard "no commercial endorsements" even has special icons for the different food chains. So Waymarking is not held to this, yet also run by Groundspeak? Out of the query you mention above, the following are included: 24 7-11's, 75 McDonalds, 46 Target Stores, 40 Post Offices, 18 WalMart's, 26 Jack in the Box's, etc etc etc. OOOH! 55 payphones!! Chaff! Yep some are chaff.....in your opinion. Someone very wise said leave the chaff with the wheat and let the reapers sort it out...... Love those filters. With the help of someone else (read I am not smart enough on my own) here are some statistics for the nearest 50 miles. "...here are the stats for a 50 mile radius. Total Waymarks 1541 Business 270 18% Culture 223 14% Technology 204 13% History 200 13% Monuments 119 8% Buildings 109 7% Structures 98 6% The other 21% are spread across there remaining 8 departments" This means that 82% are not McDonalds (or any other commercial type waymark) but the way some talk its the other way around. Actually 18% for all commercial categories is high. Most areas are under 10%. For some reason in your area there is a higher percentage of commercial waymarks. Usually the history category is the highest in percentages. Personally I do not like/prefer the commercial cats either but think that they do have a place in the scheme of things.
-
I appreciate the honest well thought out replies. Many of the criticisms are indeed issues that have and are being discussed by waymarkers all of the time in the Waymarking forums. Unfortunately it is what it is but thankfully the site is improved all of the time. It could be massive amounts of filtering or it could be easy. You can ignore entire "departments" of categories with one click. So if you wanted to ignore every commercial category that can be done easily. If you like that one particular category for that one particular ice cream chain (or whatever) then you would indeed have to go in and ignore each of the categories individually. I tried a variation of this approach using the variables in my earliest waymark categories. It was ignored by other waymarkers and after two years I removed the option because in that time I think only one person took advantage of the option to create a waymark that offered an option for a virtual type question and answer. When I included the virtual question option in one category I even had one person threaten to quite the group because "Waymarking is not geocaching" and didn't think it was right to try to integrate them. The PQ idea and a field specific criteria for a virtual type visit might work but I for one would hate to get a PQ filled with commercial type locations as virts.
-
I think Earthcaches are an exception only because they had a sponsor and a program outside of geocaching. They don't really belong on geocaching.com in my opinion since they have no container. They did move for a time but I think the unique agreement between the two groups brought them back here. Each category is created by individual waymarkers who had an interest in that category. The category is created with its own guidelines so each category may be different. You have to look at each category to see what is required for posting a waymark to that particular cat. Some are difficult some are easy. Many are mundane categories but some are fascinating to track and follow. Mostly the requirements are as below but many grow beyond this. 1) accurate coords 2) 1 or two photos of the location (but not always) 3) Some cats require a GPSr photo 4) Rarely a verification or proof question...(most of these have been abandoned over the years) Visit requirements vary from category to category as well since they are user generated. The category goes through a peer review process and a final approval from Groundspeak before it goes live.
-
I just did a search of San Diego and there are 3829 waymarks within 100 miles. Of the first 200 locations I found about 5 (give or take) that were fast food and very few stacked locations. Add the Chinese food joints and the location that was featured in the tv show Diners Drive Ins and Dives and you had around ten-fifteen commercial listings out of the first 200. Oh and don't forget the three 7-11's. There's the noise that most people claim to not like in Waymarking. The murals (69 locations), Artistically Painted Utility Boxes (35 locations), National Register of Historic Places (50 locations) and most of the other locations found in the San Diego area are not found on my GPSr unless I add them to my unit with the help of Waymarking.com and GSAK.
-
Little survey about Geocaching
TheBeanTeam replied to MatthiasFromMarburg's topic in General geocaching topics
I had several "since never" answers too but just left those unchecked altogether. Seemed to work. -
I just had a flurry of PQ's delivered to my inbox for a total of 13 for today. BONUS....not. These are multiples of my five PQ's for the day. Thought someone at GS might want to know.
-
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?
-
A false impression is still false even if you don't think it is. For example it is my impression that you simply like being contentious. It may be correct but maybe not. If you do not simply "like being contentious", my impression is false and not..."not false". First I am preaching and next I am gloating. Your twisting of my intent and reading into my posts things that are not there are not worth my time. Take the last word and prove my impression wrong if you can.
-
I love virtuals too. Did all I could and I am happy the granfathered ones are still here. They became a problem with absentee owners not responding to their own verification requests. Armchair logging became a problem on others when those creators moved on as well. Just like preaching is easier than accepting that some of us don't like Waymarking and never will? Preachy....Hmm. Didn't mean it to be but there is no choir here. Usually I preach to the choir. I don't care if people don't like it but I do care when it is portrayed in a way that is false. Most who denigrate Waymarking haven't bothered to really try it. If you have tried and don't like it I have no problem with that. I admit it isn't for everyone. If Waymarking had a from the get go we most likely wouldn't have threads like this.
-
Because waymarks are the new virtuals. Groundspeak didn't eliminate virtuals, they created a whole new website for them, gave cacher's greater flexibility to create and maintain them, and allowed cachers to determine what is interesting enough to be a waymark. If cachers think that waymarks are lame then it's the fault of the cachers who created them. When and if they ever include nearby of waymarks in geocache PQs I will look at it again. To my mind the failure to do this is Waymarking's biggest fail. I really don't see any similarities. Maybe that's why Waymarking's prospects have been so dismal. There are a lot of similarities. Each category is like a reverse cache or locationless. You have an assigment to find one and give its coordinates. The difference is it now becomes a place that can be visited. The old locationless idea took those spots out of play. The waymark is basically a virtual cache...a visitable location that has no container. The one difference is that in most waymarks there isn't verification question to be answered but you still have to provide a "proof photo" in most cases just like many virtuals. Some points about various comments in the thread. Waymarking in general - I have been Waymarking since day 1. Loved locationless and virtuals but both were broken on Geocaching.com. They needed to move. I do agree that the site needs more integration with the stats. From its inception the site has had updates making it easier to navigate. In the last year I have seen Waymarking really start to pick up with a lot of new users. Oh and they have a search feature that is really useful with all kinds of cool filters and features. Wow factor - If you don't like certain types of listings and they do not wow you you can ignore specific categories and entire category departments. In essence you can create a site for yourself that would only return items that WOW you personally. So if you are only interested in lead ponies ignore everything else and you only get lead ponies. Don't like the commercial categories. Ignore...poof, gone. Only like the photo goals in the games category. Ignore all the rest...poof, gone. Inaccurate information in a listing - If you find something that is glaring mistake you have the ability to edit it. Yes, any user can update a listing, a newer feature. What happens is that it goes back to the review process and the category reviewers make a determination if the edit is appropriate based on your input and comments regarding the proposed edit. Waymarking is (Dismal, suuuuks, skidmarking) If it is wrong for you as a user, you can fix it , adjust it to your specific standards, and learn a lot about the surrounding world or you can gripe about it. Griping is easier I suppose. Yes, there is a learning curve and if you approach it with a cache box mentality you will not get it. I have chosen to think outside the ammo box and have found Waymarking to be very fun and a perfect replacement for the locationless caches and virtuals that didn't really fit here from the beginning.
-
Earthcaches shouldn't be allowed at places with existing caches
TheBeanTeam replied to Laird McKai's topic in EarthCaches
What? You obviously don't understand the "sense and reason" for EarthCaches. Please go to EarthCache.org! The .1 mile wasn't good enough? You want it to be a whole MILE? How about 1.00 feet? We don't think you will find much sympathy to your thesis here. Perhaps the Waymarking folks will be more willing to agree? Most folks here have developed or at least found multiple ECs and have been more than willing to share the sites. Nope the Waymarking folks won't agree. We have absolutely no proximity guidelines in Waymarking. In Waymarking the only limitation is that it not already be listed in the particular category it is being submitted to. There are many locations that have multiple marks at the same location each featuring and highlighting a different aspect of the location. Proximity for physical caches is fine. An EC is not a physical cache and I think the right choice was made when the limitation was removed. -
Wonderful Congratulations Wonder what the next goal will be? Okiebryan obviously has the drive to succeed at whatever he wishes.
-
There was an interesting quiz type tread that included a question about the geographic center of Oregon. It had a very interesting method for determining the center. Be sure to scroll on down for another method that was discussed.
-
Yes, it has been slow lately. sign up for the forum and drop a note and it will add a bit of life. (gotcache.com Moderator)
-
Here are a few found by Volcanoguy. NY0629 Waymarking NY0629 Geocaching NZ0860 Waymarking NZ0860 Geocaching PB0231 Waymarking PB0231 Geocaching PB0225 - USCGS V 62 Waymarking PB0225 - USCGS V 62 Geocaching PB0218 - USGS M315 Waymarking PB0218 - USGS M315 Geocaching A different agency but made of the same stuff it looks like. None of these are listed in the Geocaching database. USDA FS 4256 USFS L 1929 USFS J USFS F1 USFS F4 USFS 5 USGS F8 USGS F10 USDA FS C-1 USFS A1 G USFS 6 USFS 7 USFS 8 USFS 6A USFS SS 2 And this is just the start. He has many more featured but I am out of time. Edit to fix links
-
Great now I have to add another item to my benchmarking kit. Anyhow, I did find another in Cottage Grove OR. 640=B 11 I have several others that are not from the same era that are gold in appearance but this one was pressure washed for sure based on earlier photos from previous finders. I suspect another gold one in my gallery was cleaned during bridge restoration but this one in Bend also looks bright and has for years based on the photos from 2002 until now. It is the same style as the other. As an interesting side note all of the Lane County Public Works disks that I have found do not appear to patina over the years. I have found many and not one appears to have discolored. Oh and here is another bright gold one in McMinnville.....but it isn't what were looking for I don't think.
-
Great article on Aich's metal Hologragh. Here are my finds that I remember QE0492 in Dallas Oregon RB0493 in Pendleton Oregon RD0847 Another that Mega Scooter found before someone. Seems to be a theme here. This one in McMinnville Oregon. edit to fix links and add another photo
-
why is everyone so against FTFs and being competive? its kinda part of the fun seeing if you can get there first... I think here in these forums there are some who would be against the name no matter what it was. On to the magazine. Got my copy. No gold trackable for me but..... Pleasantly surprised. Enjoyed the articles very much. I do have some constructive criticisms that I would like to share with the publisher and some ideas. Ckpetrus, What would be the best way to do this?
-
Eastern Oregon Cachers frequent this forum. There are other forums and groups in the state as well.
-
Actually it is the secret issue survey boots that make the difference.