Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Jeremy

Read Me First!

Recommended Posts

I added a response to the benchmarking section. The short answer is that benchmarking will not be moved to the new site until the functionality on the site allows it to happen.

Share this post


Link to post

I have read (somewhere) that all cache categories that do not have an actual log sheet in it will be moved to Waymarking sometime in the future. Will this include webcam caches? (Or did I answer my own question with the beginning statement??) <_<:anitongue:

Share this post


Link to post
There already is a Waymark Catagory for WEBCAMS, under Surveillance (A Catagory in 'Things')

 

WEBCAMS - by Jeremy

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Very cool, thanks! I didn't spot that category...Still trying to navigate in the Waymarking site. :)

Share this post


Link to post
If you have to transfer the Dash for Cache locationless cache to Waymarking.com, I think I have a solution for it.

 

1) You manage your category of something like "changing locations". (Im sure you can be more creative than I am in naming it.) Getting it accepted shouldnt be hard with the 225 plus members watching that cache currently.

 

2) You alone manage all listings in that category. Each listing would then be your current targets. When you retire a target, you archive the listing.

I think this is a bad idea. If something is worth Waymarking it shouldn't be archived if it still exists.

 

The "Dash for Cache" locationless had some interesting tasks. But I don't like the time restriction, it's unnecessary.

 

Cornix

IF there were no time restraints, it wouldn't be a "DASH" for cache, now would it?

Share this post


Link to post

Sure there can be time constraints. You can specify that only the first 10 visits will count before it is archived, or just that it will be archived in 10 days. Then you can archive the waymark. You have that option on the waymark listing, just like you can temporarily disable the waymark listing too. (Look under edit, at the bottom you can archive the waymark.)

Share this post


Link to post

OK! Sounds like it has potential, but every link I click to try and go through the process seems to be inactive. How do I get into setting one up? Same problem seems to exist when I try and search for Waymarking activity near my home.

Edited by Northern Eagle

Share this post


Link to post

Northern Eagle, and maybe lots of others...

 

There are probably no WAYMARKS near your house because no one has set any up yet.

 

I have been in here for two or three weeks, and placed 7 or so... but there are none around me either.

 

The game, hobby, sport or whatever you want to think of it as, has just started.

 

Expect some around you as people start figuring it out.

 

All I can suggest, is that a lot of the questions, concerns and ideas are there in the forums... read a lot and it will make sense.

 

If I can do it, anyone can.

 

And in this game... it is for everyone.

 

:ph34r: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Moved this post to "Do You Want All Finds Listed In One Account?" in the forum section. [501 Gang]

Edited by 501_Gang

Share this post


Link to post

I just checked out the Waymarking website and the first thing that came to mind is...WOW....that's going to be a huge database...I can think of lots of possible "categories" in the local area. With geocaching being worldwide, Jeremy and the rest at Groundspeak are you ready??? Just a thought. Susan55115 :D

Share this post


Link to post

Our database locally has over 4,000,000 waymarks listed and it runs quite well. The site should scale well for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm still fairly new to Geocaching, but as a premium member I feel as though I should have a voice.

 

I do see the advantages of moving locationless caches out since they technically do not qualify as a traditional cache. In the same breath it was nice to have such a variety of things to go after and a diversity of ways to log finds, now we are limited to just caches. Don't get me wrong, I am excited to see a site devoted to Waymarking, I have seen many interesting sites while I have enjoyed geocaching.

 

My only problem is the more I read the more I can already see it spiraling out of control. Who really wants to go on a tour of Mcdonald's restaurants? Why would I come here to do that when all I have to do is go to mcdonalds.com? I saw a post of someone who stumbled across a gentlemen's club (which was never addressed). Yes there are filters, but you're going to alienate people real fast (those paying premium members). I can see this site going so commercialized that it will be rendered useless (unless you're shopping for something), it's just going to turn into the yellow pages.

 

There is always good and bad with every change, but for geocachers it seems more bad than good.

 

Are these sites going to be integrated? If I find a cache will it tell me there are waymarks near it (like benchmarks) or vice versa, or are we going to be a "geocacher" OR a "Waymarker"?

Edited by bp_guy

Share this post


Link to post

Are there not rules in geocaching about "Commercial Caches"? I always thought so, and would assume the same rule would apply here. I think being allowed to waymark comercial enterprises will lead to inapproriate motivations for the game. What's to prevent me from doing a waymark catagory for "Hand Made Furniture Built By Northern Eagle"?

 

I do not feel that this should exclude things like Drive-In theatres. They are a rare thing these days. Or single screen theatres over 50 years old. There is some sence of history in these places. But Japanese restaurants? McDonalds?

 

Northern Eagle, aka VA3IPC, aka Ian

Share this post


Link to post
What's to prevent me from doing a waymark catagory for "Hand Made Furniture Built By Northern Eagle"?

If there's enough interest in such a category, why not? We're currently working through the process of new categories so any suggestions would be helpful in the waymark category creation thread.

 

As you already indicated, there's no real way to draw the line. You enjoy drive-in locations and some people like seeing pictures of different McDonalds locations. It's just a category you can ignore or not depending on your particular interests.

 

Personally I don't care if I know where octagonal buildings are, but if they came up in a local search I would find it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post

Have to agree with BP Guy and Northern Eagle. I can see the possibility for real abuse when commercial sites are allowed. I agree that the site could simply become a yellow pages type directory. Those really interested in decent waypoints (what used to be locationless or virtual caches) will give up, not wanting to wade through all the other commercial garbage to find something good. I would hate to see that happen, because this site has a lot of potential, but with a McDonald's category and gentlemen's clubs category, it's already well on the way there.

 

I understand your argument in favor, Jeremy. And of course you have to defend the site, having put a lot of work into it.But you said if you found an octagonal building listed in an area you happen to be in, you would be interested. Would you be as interested in another McD's? I doubt it. Perhaps now would be the time to eliminate commercial establishments. Much easier to do during beta than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Have to agree with BP Guy and Northern Eagle. I can see the possibility for real abuse when commercial sites are allowed.

Explain the abuse that would occur.

 

I agree that the site could simply become a yellow pages type directory. Those really interested in decent waypoints (what used to be locationless or virtual caches) will give up, not wanting to wade through all the other commercial garbage to find something good.

 

Like drive-ins? Those kinds of commercial garbage? What about a tubing company for floating down the river on a warm Sunday. Is that commercial garbage?

 

I would hate to see that happen, because this site has a lot of potential, but with a McDonald's category and gentlemen's clubs category, it's already well on the way there.

 

That's a very chicken little attitude.

 

I understand your argument in favor, Jeremy. And of course you have to defend the site, having put a lot of work into it.

 

I'm not trying to defend it as much as offer you a big picture view of it. I disagree that it will be filled with "those kinds of commercial garbage." It's a very narrow view of the Waymarking site and what it will do.

 

But you said if you found an octagonal building listed in an area you happen to be in, you would be interested.

 

Yes. Like "oh look, an octagonal building."

 

Would you be as interested in another McD's? I doubt it.

 

Yes. I would actually. Especially if I was hungry.

 

Perhaps now would be the time to eliminate commercial establishments. Much easier to do during beta than later.

 

Perhaps not. You need to do a better job of defining what a commercial establishment is. Is a maze a commercial establishment? How about a Zoo, or amusement park, or factory tour, or karaoke bar, or berry picking or... well, anything that may sell something but is particularly interesting to one person or another.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, if it's a link you need:McDonald's Restaurant Locator

 

There are over 30,000 plus McDonalds across the globe, then we'll have to do all of the other fast food, sit down, etc. Then of course we're going to have to list all the coffee houses across the planet (Starbucks, sure you're familiar with these, Jeremy). Why stop there? We'll need to find a place to get batteries! (Wal-Mart Store Locator, many of these stores may contain a subway or McDonalds!). Heck, we might as well do gas stations to, then we can post the gas prices like the other web sties do....kidding here.

 

I'll be more than happy to do the homework to find all the store locator websites for all the folks who are looking for their favorite restaurant. Oh yeah, can't forget this one... Tim Horton's Locator for those folks pushing for a Tim Horton's subcat.

 

I just don't see the point in putting these commercial sites in here, what is the true purpose of putting these locations here? Who hasn't seen a McDonalds before? If you drive straight far enough you will eventually see one (OK, not a real valid argument, but true!). Many GPS units can locate these places for you (granted only by major freeways). Is putting every place of business here really worth it? I'm all for looking for old drive-ins, crazy octogonal buildings. These are things we don't see everyday and are not cookie cut and stamped out all over the country side.

 

It just seems to be a waste of resources. Granted, the question would be; where do you start and where do you end? When it comes to commercial loactions I think it best we keep it out of things that are franchised or in every town in America and abroad, things that do not have web sites with store locators!

 

I see your intent for us to establish a definition of "commercial establishment". I AM in favor of places that are not franchised in multiple states, large corporations, etc. I do like the "Classic BBQ & Sandwich Joints" subcategory (no chain restaurants). If you open the flood gates prepare to get wet.

 

I hope you are listening to us....

 

Is that too chicken little to ask?

Share this post


Link to post

I hope you are listening to us....

 

Is that too chicken little to ask?

Have you actually seen how the popularity filter works? Have you noticed that mcdonalds is nowhere to be found unless you show 100% of the categories? I posit that they all have a right to be there.

 

If I wasn't fine getting wet I wouldn't keep creating these problems for myself.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, I have noticed the filter. The popularity aspect has me a bit confused. It seems to me that you would potentially miss something you would actually like by using the filter in different searches, since we all like different things. Granted, the default is at 100%

 

The pop-up help box states "The default setting is 100. A threshold of 0 will display all waymark categories. The higher the number, the more selective the filter". If McDonalds has a "100%" most popular rating and the other two categories are 50%, why does McDonalds disappear when my popularity filter goes to 90% and the others are still visible?

 

I'm sure I'm missing the simple point with this but I would really like to understand it in full detail.

 

Glad to see you're not afraid of the water!

Share this post


Link to post

The documentation is out of date. We went from numbering to percentages. The default now, I believe, is to show 70% of the waymarks by order of the most popular. 10% shows the top 10% rated categories, while 100% shows all of them.

 

I'll make a note to fix the documentation to reflect the changes. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a big difference between what many people are saying about "commercial" locations... and "soliciting" at those locations.

 

Waymarking is more about catologuing locations.... it only stands to reason that numerous locations will be of a commercial nature.

 

That does not mean that you visiting them requires an incurement of expenses.

 

Everyone keeps using the McDonald's whipping post.... here is my side on that

 

You don't have to buy anything to log a visit! I have a McD's Waymark... I chose the specific location due to the nature of the site/construction.... no where does it say on mine that you MUST eat there. Drive by, take a picture (if you want)

 

Heck I don't care, as long as you read the story about MY WAYMARK, you can log it.

 

I agree with Jeremy in that there are numerous items that have NO interest to me in Waymarking... but if I see one, I will log it.... because I am more aware of my surroundings.

 

It's just a glorified Car Rally/Treasure Hunt or similar term.... it is not being set up as a Economy Rejuvenator.

 

;) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Waymarking is more about catologuing locations.... it only stands to reason that numerous locations will be of a commercial nature.

 

My whole point is, why do we need to see every McDonalds, Burger king, Wendy's, etc. when these locations are readily available at locators on their particular home web sites?

 

Everyone keeps using the McDonald's whipping post.... here is my side on that

 

You don't have to buy anything to log a visit!  I have a McD's Waymark... I chose the specific location due to the nature of the site/construction.... no where does it say on mine that you MUST eat there.  Drive by, take a picture (if you want)

 

Heck I don't care, as long as you read the story about MY WAYMARK, you can log it.

 

I'm using McDonalds because that is the chain restaurant represented in the directory, don't take it personal. I did read your waymark and did like the story behind it, it's a mere 163 miles (Cromes) away from me, maybe I'll visit it when I get up there again. There is already another waymark for McDonalds that is less than 5 miles from me (shudder). I understand that we don't have to eat here, or buy things at these locations, my point is I don't like the thought of this site turning into the yellow pages. Simply put.

 

It's just a glorified Car Rally/Treasure Hunt or similar term.... it is not being set up as a Economy Rejuvenator.

 

Clever. Maybe you guys could team up with Mc...err, sorry, Taco Bell, or Starbucks or someone else who could sponsor the site and give you a listing of places that sold Geocaching.com t-shirts, just an idea if we're looking to spur the economy.

 

- - -

 

Anyway, thank you Jeremy for explaining that for me, it makes perfect sense. I do believe that percentages will be the way to go, especially when taking votes into consideration (I voted down McD's btw, sorry BQ).

Share this post


Link to post
Everyone keeps using the McDonald's whipping post.... here is my side on that

 

You don't have to buy anything to log a visit! I have a McD's Waymark... I chose the specific location due to the nature of the site/construction.... no where does it say on mine that you MUST eat there. Drive by, take a picture (if you want)

 

Heck I don't care, as long as you read the story about MY WAYMARK, you can log it.

 

The category owner has specified this.

 

Instructions for logging waymarks of this category:

To log this "WayMac", you must have eaten at this particular location. Please enter the items you ordered from this visit in the log description.

 

In my profession of pharmacy, where state law and federal law conflict, the stricter law applies. Im guessing that the same applies to Waymarking, (only without the harsh penalties of my profession.) Presumably the category owner's stricter requirement overrules your lack of requirement. I believe the category owner's logging requirement will show up when you attempt to log the waymark.

Share this post


Link to post
Explain the abuse that would occur.

 

I believe BP has done a creditable job. But if you don't think listings of all McDonald's, Burger Kings, Starbucks, Taco Bells, ad infinitum wouldn't constitute abuse, then we differ in our definition. And as BP has pointed out, it is required to eat at the one McD's to log it. How do we know the placer has no interest in that establishment? If I have 10 or 20 McD's, I'll list them all and make it mandatory to purchase a meal to log it. Stupid example? Perhaps. But if you can't see any possibility for abuse, you're really not looking.

 

Like drive-ins? Those kinds of commercial garbage? What about a tubing company for floating down the river on a warm Sunday. Is that commercial garbage?

 

No. You make a good point. I would most likely draw the line at chain/franchise type restaurants. Driveins are not normally listed in mapping programs (like Mapsend), and are a dying breed. They are actually unusual in this day and age.

 

That's a very chicken little attitude.

 

No, it isn't. It is trying to prevent what could become a large problem before you open the site to ALL gc.com members. It's called planning ahead where I come from. Anyway, after 32 years in my current job which involves dealing with problems on an everyday basis, I try to avoid them when a little planning can do so.

 

I'm not trying to defend it as much as offer you a big picture view of it. I disagree that it will be filled with "those kinds of commercial garbage." It's a very narrow view of the Waymarking site and what it will do.

 

I understand you are trying to offer the big picture view. What I'm trying to make you understand is that I and at least a few other PM's don't like this big picture view of the site. We would like to keep chain/franchise type locations off of the site. If you can lead me to a local Mexican, Italian, Chinese restaurant that you're familiar with, great. Or a tubing location, as you mentioned previously, wonderful. But if I want a McD's, BK, Pizza Hut, etc, all I have to do is find a main intersection, and it will be there. No direction or info required.

 

Yes. Like "oh look, an octagonal building."

 

At least octagonal buildings have some historic and/or architectural interest and are unusual. It's better, IMHO, than "Oh, look, another Mickey D's!".

 

Yes. I would actually. Especially if I was hungry.

 

Then all you need do is what I said above. Look for a main interesection. You'll find your Mickey D's or BK. As for me, I would rather find the local restaurant that someone had pointed me to.

 

Perhaps not. You need to do a better job of defining what a commercial establishment is. Is a maze a commercial establishment? How about a Zoo, or amusement park, or factory tour, or karaoke bar, or berry picking or... well, anything that may sell something but is particularly interesting to one person or another.

 

As mentioned previously, I would draw the line at chain/franchise type locations. That's my definition for your purposes.

 

You also question BP about usage of the filter. I agree with him. I tried the filter, and some of the things that interest me disappear below 80%. I think that would occur in a lot of instances, so I don't really see that as a viable alternative. Actually, I have started listing those categories that are interesting to me as Favorites, so I can simply go there. Is there a limit to how many favorites can be listed? Having unlimited favorites might be the best way around this problem - if I see a category I like, I list it under favorites.

 

In conclusion, let me simply say that you have asked for input. I though you wanted opinions and viewpoints in an attempt to make this a grat site. I tried to give my opinion and got flamed for it. I don't know if it's because the category was proposed by a beta tester and is already listed so you don't want to delete it now, or what. I will continue to monitor the thread, but have learned to only offer an opinion when it agrees with yours.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you catcher 24, and I believe the term that would apply here would be "flame-broiled".

 

Anyway, Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking brought up the point that the requirement is that you have to eat in the establishment. Yes, the requiremnent does state:

 

Log Instructions:

To log this "WayMac", you must have eaten at this particular location. Please enter the items you ordered from this visit in the log description.

 

Sounds to me that someone is gaining (or will gain) from this. I guess since I'm a shareholder of Wal-Mart stores, Inc. I'm going to start listing all of the Wal-marts throughout the country (since many have interesting architecture, as well as McDonalds housed inside!) and maybe I can increase my stock. Maybe (since I'm a premium member) I'll run that category and require everyone to have a $30 purchase or more (since that is about average per transaction per store) and put up a copy of their receipt as proof. Hmm, I think I've stumbled on something here.....enough debate, I'm all for Capitalism!

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it's going to happen eventually. They've already allowed McDonalds, which is a mass marketed food service giant, they will have to allow the retail giant in on this.

 

I would rather not see it happen, but it seems that Waymarking is all about finding what you want without boundaries, so I'm willing to jump in on it and get my money's worth.

Share this post


Link to post

I saw that it was a "requirement" to post a list of what you ate there, for the McDonald's Catagory.

 

I'm not in favour of that, and I also think that a list that said "I didn't eat there, because I didn't want to" or whatever should count.

 

I understand that Bootron was trying to be creative, and it was a new idea (Waymarking) at the time... but I think the intention was for people to be aware of where the McDonald's are located, and to get people to visit the spot.

 

I won't delete a log on mine if someone doesn't eat there... I see it as MY Waymark, not Bootron's. However, if Bootron decides to Archive mine because I am not following his guideline then I will respect it.

 

I'll probably argue it too.

 

But in the end, does it really make a difference if some ate there or not? I think the Visit is sufficient.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Glad you feel that way. I think it's kind of a steep requirement. I would not actually make people buy things in the retail/food places, that stinks of for-profit.

 

I'm sure that the requirement will change before the site goes "public".

 

I saw a post that Jeremy wrote that they were adding a check box for photo requirements. While not everyone owns a digital camera I think it's a sufficient idea, though how many photos of a McDonalds can you take?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm so excited! I got my first waymarker! I found a McDonalds in Euclid, Ohio!.

 

OK, so it was the only thing within a few hundred miles of me and I wanted to test things out. The map and coords were WAAY off, the map shows the wrong city and is a few miles from the restaurant.

 

Seemed like a lot of stuff to go through to go get some late night tenders....

Share this post


Link to post

Some comments and conerns and suggestions:

 

I generally like the idea of a Waymarking website as a potential way to enhance virtual caches, add additional interesting categories/sites to visit, etc. I use the word "potential" in the previous sentence because the devil is in the details; and many of the concerns I've read seem legit to me and should be addressed (or at least considered). So, let me make some recommendations or suggestions...

 

1. Searching. It would be nice to have some consistency between the new waymarks and existing caches in the sense that when I do a search from either site ... (let's say everything within 100 mi from point X), I get a consolidated list of "hits"--both filtered waymarks and caches. Maybe the consolidated view is a premium feature.

 

2. Filtering. How well filtering is implemented will make or break waymarks. I suggest maybe looking at a service like StumbleUpon (http://www.stumbleupon.com/) which makes selecting "interest categories" a pretty easy chore. For example, I have no interest in seeing anything related to fast food (usually) and would probably screen these out by default. However, once in awhile... On the other hand, I would be interested, by default, in seeing "ruins" or other (to me) interesting places.

 

3. Taboo. I'm not in general favor of censoring categories; however you MUST have an enforceable policy to prohibit access to various categories by minors or others. Since this is intended as an international website, you need to consider what's legal in one country or state may not be legal in another. In some countries prostitution is legal, so there's probably nothing wrong with a caegory of "brothels." But can or should you prohibit access by someone from a country where prostitituion is illegal? There are lots of issues here: having lists of bars that serve users that are under 21 may not be appropriate for a 19 year old in a bordering area. Again, I'm not an advocate of censoring content as long as its been thought through.

 

4. Logs and Stats. Part of the fun of geocaching (and I include Virtual caches here) is the ability to "log finds." Now, I haven't racked up that many finds yet, but having a way to see your stats is a positive motivator. I've read that keeping logs and stats may be an optional feature (by a category owner?). I think it would be in the best interest of the "sport" if logging were included as a basic capability. Again, you can allow premium members see a consolidated list; otherwise they're separate lists.

 

5. GPX. I think I read that waymarks may adopt or propose a different XML implementation. As someone who has been involved with software standards for many years, let me suggest that any new standard "grandfather" existing protocols (i.e.., a waymark can be communicated in the new scheme of things via GPX so exisiting products do not break); and the new standard be implemented as optional tags and that this standard applies to caches as well as waymarks (the "optional tags" part keeps exisiting products happy (if they did their job right), and allows future products to manage waymarks and caches using a consistent protocol).

 

Hal

Edited by zenner

Share this post


Link to post

Kinda confused. So does posting a waymark find count as a cache find, I am assuming not. Since it is a completely seperate deal kinda like the other cache websites or letterboxing. I always liked virtuals and locationless caches more than a micro in a bush.

 

I realize I am not among the powers that be so my input means little. But I still don't understand how Waymarking is the solution to locationless and virtual geocaches. Keyword is geocache A solution to me would be to keep them in some form on Geocaching.com. rather than create a whole new system. Oh well that's my two cents. I'm sure I am in the minority opinion here so, you can flame me now if you wish.

Edited by fresgo

Share this post


Link to post
Posted by Fresco:

I always liked virtuals and locationless caches more than a micro in a bush.

 

Agree 100%. I'm a member of Northwest Pennsylvania Geocachers (NWPA), and on the bulletin board most members are opposed to Waymarking; they prefer micros. Most took a quick look at the site and ecided it wasn't for them. I seem to be the exception. I would rather go to one good virtual, showing me something I would have never ween otherwise, than find a dozen micros in bushes, or stuck to the back of a sign, etc. I see lots of potential here (although I'm still opposed to franchises, but if that's what someone wants, so be it) for some great "virtuals", although they won't be that here. I'm looking forward to seeing some of the places suggested.

 

I'm sure I am in the minority opinion here so, you can flame me now if you wish.

 

Don't worry. I think Jeremy used up most of the propane on me and BP a few posts back!! :)

Share this post


Link to post
I'm a member of Northwest Pennsylvania Geocachers (NWPA), and on the bulletin board most members are opposed to Waymarking; they prefer micros.

Any word yet from the Northwest Pennsylvania Waymarking Association (NPWA)? Perhaps they'd have a different view. :)

 

Most took a quick look at the site and [d]ecided it wasn't for them.

Oh, maybe that's the reason. I'm not sure a 'quick look' is enough to see what Waymarking really has to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Most took a quick look at the site and [d]ecided it wasn't for them.

Oh, maybe that's the reason. I'm not sure a 'quick look' is enough to see what Waymarking really has to offer.

I can't stress enough how true this is, at least for me. The reason why I'm pro-Waymarking is due in large part to my learning how the site works during the "alpha testing" which began in July. (Imagine seeing the site with NO categories, just a USGS placenames database....) It took a month of playing around with category creation, waymark creation, and waymark logging before I "got it." Give the site some time, especially after new categories start getting added. The "starter" categories are just that.

Share this post


Link to post

It does take a while to get a feel for what Waymarking is. If you come here looking only for a replacement for locationless and virtual caches you will find some of the features and categories confusing. You may have preconceptions on how locationless and virtuals should work based on your experience at geocaching.com and not see right away how the flexibility of Waymarking could be used to accomplish some or all of the same things.

 

I am sure some people would prefer a simple straightforward concept like geocaching - hide a container, post coordinates, someone finds it. However, locationless and even virtuals are not that simple. I don't think there is one right way to do locationless caches or one right way to do virtuals. Waymarking looks like it may be flexible enough to support many different interpretations. It may even be flexible enough to support new games that haven't been invented yet.

Share this post


Link to post
I realize I am not among the powers that be so my input means little. But I still don't understand how Waymarking is the solution to locationless and virtual geocaches. Keyword is geocache A solution to me would be to keep them in some form on Geocaching.com. rather than create a whole new system. Oh well that's my two cents. I'm sure I am in the minority opinion here so, you can flame me now if you wish.

 

We agree with you!

 

We like GeoCaching as it is - Earth/webcam/reverse and in particular virtual caches, all serve a perpose. Removing all these facilities from GeoCaching.com is only going to upset lots of people.

 

For example, we've been planning a set of caches around the compass points of our county and in some of the places we won't be able to place real caches and planned to place virtual ones. Does this change mean we won't be able to do this? We always felt that GeoCaching was a very inclusive positive activity, but to us, this sounds like a negative step for GeoCaching.com :blink: .

 

For what it's worth we expect people will fall into three camps - WayMarkers, GeoCachers and WayMarkingGeoCachers! Personally, from what we've heard so far, we suspect we'll be GeoCachers only because for us the fun is in finding an interesting place (with or without a box), and by removing virtual and earth caches etc. from GeoCaching.com this aspect of the game will be removed for us. This is not to say that we've made up our minds, it's just our current opinion based on what we've seen so far.

 

Just for the record, we think GeoCaching should include forward caches (i.e. those where a cache is set and you have to find it) and continue pretty much as it is, letting Waymarking evolve without sabotaging GeoCaching on the way!

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, from what we've heard so far, we suspect we'll be GeoCachers only because for us the fun is in finding an interesting place (with or without a box), and by removing virtual and earth caches etc. from GeoCaching.com this aspect of the game will be removed for us.

No offense, but your logic escapes me on this.

 

If you like the virtuals and earthcache types of caches, why wouldnt you want to use Waymarking? Those types are there on Waymarking. It is just a different name is all. Some slightly different rules to it but you have your virtual and your earthcaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Benchmarks are staying put.

 

How are you justifying that statement? I see no reason that they should stay on Geocaching.com, if anything they should never have existed there in the first place.

 

Benchmarks are Virtuals without the WOW. The only redeeming feature of a Benchmark is the challenge to locate. I've located a few, didn't like it, and deleted my finds. They are far too mundane and would be much better suited to Waymarking.

 

As for Bambi&Thumper

For example, we've been planning a set of caches around the compass points of our county and in some of the places we won't be able to place real caches and planned to place virtual ones. Does this change mean we won't be able to do this? We always felt that GeoCaching was a very inclusive positive activity, but to us, this sounds like a negative step for GeoCaching.com

 

Unless your local reviewer is different from the rest, you would have had a very difficult time placing and getting approval for any Virtual Caches. You would have been told the same rhetoric that we've heard for years "Why can't you use the location as the start of a Multi? Why can't you place a Micro there?"... The rational behind the Micro mentality I don't agree with, but using the Virtual location as part of an Offset style of Multi-Cache is preferable and more suited to Geocaching.

 

From my position, a Multi that uses information obtained at Virtual-esque sites is far better than a Virtual on its own.

 

:blink: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Benchmarks are staying put.

 

How are you justifying that statement? I see no reason that they should stay on Geocaching.com, if anything they should never have existed there in the first place.

I think this statement probably just meant that Jeremy has said in the first post in this thread that for now, benchmarks are staying on GC.com:

 

What about Benchmarking? Will it be moved to Waymarking.com?

 

No. At least not in the near term. There is too much functionality that would be lost by moving over benchmarking to Waymarking.com at this time. However there will be some benchmarking categories available to allow the reporting of benchmarks that are not in the official NGS database, such as UK Trigpoints or even benchmarks that were just missed by the NGS but found by waymarkers.

 

In the long term the technology behind benchmarking, geocaching and Waymarking will be more or less the same and these features will be shared. However benchmarking has always been its own section and will remain on geocaching.com for a while - at least until the functionality on Waymarking.com warrants it being moved to the new site.

 

edit: fixed quote

Edited by cache_test_dummies

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks... info overload and a lack of interest in those had me forget that.

 

I hope the Benchmark hunters get to keep enjoying their hobby through whatever site they have, be it Geocaching or if it one day moves to Waymarking.

 

Maybe if the ones around here counted I could get more excited about them... haven't had much luck with them on trips to the USA

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just going to site aside and see what happens here, but I think that with all the confusion Waymarking may need to be nuked and restarted. I put in two Ideas I had been waiting years to add as a "Locationless Cache", It appears I'm already too late here at Waymarking also :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, from what we've heard so far, we suspect we'll be GeoCachers only because for us the fun is in finding an interesting place (with or without a box), and by removing virtual and earth caches etc. from GeoCaching.com this aspect of the game will be removed for us.

No offense, but your logic escapes me on this.

 

If you like the virtuals and earthcache types of caches, why wouldnt you want to use Waymarking? Those types are there on Waymarking. It is just a different name is all. Some slightly different rules to it but you have your virtual and your earthcaches.

 

None Taken!

 

Maybe we've got this wrong, but the way we see GeoCaching is as hunting for places of interest - ie forward lookup. The way we see Waymarking is as a scavenger hunting ie "reverse lookup". In addition, we kinda feel that there are going to be so many hits that we'd then find it difficult to find the "virtual caches" that would interest us.

 

Correct us if we're wrong but the idea is that someone sets a category, people find "caches" that fit in that category (as per Reverse Caches) then these become "Virtual Caches" that people can hunt for. To us this just sounds very complicated at the moment, compared with the simplicity of GeoCaching.

 

Now, unlike many people here, we don't have a problem with the money thing, if that's what TPTB want to try, that's fine by us and we don't have any real objection to some of our fee going towards that. Lets face it gc.com is an excellent site as it is and very good value for money. Our only objection is that we see that removing "caches without a logbook" from gc.com is an effort to make wm.com appeal to more people while risking detracting from gc.com. We haven't seen anything that suggests that this is not the case. Thus far, all what we've seen suggests that we'll try Waymarking and find it's not for us (no problem there, each to their own), but we're objecting to what we see as a retrogade step for gc.com. :D

Share this post


Link to post

As for Bambi&Thumper

For example, we've been planning a set of caches around the compass points of our county and in some of the places we won't be able to place real caches and planned to place virtual ones. Does this change mean we won't be able to do this? We always felt that GeoCaching was a very inclusive positive activity, but to us, this sounds like a negative step for GeoCaching.com

 

Unless your local reviewer is different from the rest, you would have had a very difficult time placing and getting approval for any Virtual Caches. You would have been told the same rhetoric that we've heard for years "Why can't you use the location as the start of a Multi? Why can't you place a Micro there?"... The rational behind the Micro mentality I don't agree with, but using the Virtual location as part of an Offset style of Multi-Cache is preferable and more suited to Geocaching.

 

Firstly, we didn't know that virtual caches were being discouraged and but for wondering what Waymarking was all about, would only have found out after we'd done all the hard work and had it rejected :D

 

Secondly, we thought about use the location as the start of a Multi, but given that the separate parts of the "multi" would be spread over a large area (some 50+ miles between them), we thought separating it into 4 caches with a final cache that connected the series would be a better idea. In addition, the only people who'd find it in a search would be those searching near the final cache. We thought that separate caches would be the best option all round. :lol:

 

From my position, a Multi that uses information obtained at Virtual-esque sites is far better than a Virtual on its own.

 

Actually, we agree, mostly, but we've been to a couple of virtuals that were really nice in their own right. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Firstly, we didn't know that virtual caches were being discouraged and but for wondering what Waymarking was all about, would only have found out after we'd done all the hard work and had it rejected

 

That is how I found out, and then spent a few weeks arguing with my "Friendly Neighbourhood Reviewer", then ultimately made it a Micro Cache.

 

I have a Virtual now, and it took months and months of debate, between myself, the reviewer, other reviewers. It was a painful and often very frustrating on both ends. And this happened when Virtuals were strongly discouraged and had a very big justifications for being listed.

 

I swore after I got it, I would never even try again. To be honest... I wanted to own the Icon.

 

But luckily here, Virtuals can flourish, under the name of Waymark.

 

A rose by any other name... right??

 

So, since you've asked... others have expressed it very well, and I will copy what they have said

 

Waymark Catagory Manager = Locationless Cache Owner + Approver of Listings

Waymark Catagory = Locationless Cache

Waymark Listing = Virtual Cache Owner

Waymark Visitor = Virtual Cache Finder/Logger

 

The only difference is that Waymarks do not require the huge WOW Factor that Virtuals did. Waymarks can be pretty much anything that fits the Catagory. As new Catagories are created, new Waymarks will be listed. This also means that existing Virtual Caches will eventually have a place in a Catagory.

 

Finally, it seems to come down to that Geocaching.com is for the physical and hidden containers, whereas Waymarking is fof the points of interest and tourist sites.

 

As an example...

in Canada for 2003 - 25 Virtuals were listed

in Canada for 2004 - 4 Virtuals were listed

in Canada for 2005 - 1 Virtual was listed, however it is a very old cache that the owner keeps changing the date of Placement on.

 

So, the last Virtual that was approved and listed in all of Canada was listed on 21 JUL 04. Funny... it seems to be mine...

 

:rolleyes: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

×
×
  • Create New...