Benchmarks -- Which Site?

[+NomadVW 0]

Sounds like you're suggesting a complete removal of the non-searched for benchmarks from the NGS database from the GC.com files.

 

At this point, the NGS database is 10 years old and even _they_ have updated since then. The advantage of either moving it to Waymarking is the ability to now log newer PIDs or benchmarks of non-NGS origin. The US still has the full NGS database they can search at whim - and some places in the rest of the world have similar, though less than comparable, databases to work on.

 

Some would say this would cause a search twice. For example, if I was going to hunt the BMs in San Diego county, I'd dload the datasheets through the NGS database, then come back to the GC/WM site to see if any of the BMs I'm going to look for have been listed as found/not found. (ideally through a pocket query... oh, did I just ask for pocket queries for BMs? There's something that's been asked for a bunch and could've been done while coding wm.com) But this is what we do to search for BMs now, because after we search the NGS datasheets, we have to figure out if the BM is even listed here.

 

VW

 

As a non-sequitur, it does seem odd to me that locationless move cause there's no "box" at the end to open and sign, but benchmarks stay... because.. well.. it's convenient.

[Jeremy 4]

As a non-sequitur, it does seem odd to me that locationless move cause there's no "box" at the end to open and sign, but benchmarks stay... because.. well.. it's convenient.

You'll want to read this recent post which addresses this.

[+Bambi&Thumper 0]

You'll want to read this recent post which addresses this.

 

That's a really good post, explaining a lot of the rationale behind the advent of Waymarking. It still doesn't explain why virtual/earth caches have to go completely from GeoCaching.com...

 

Edited September 28, 2005 by Bambi&Thumper

[+NomadVW 0]

As a non-sequitur, it does seem odd to me that locationless move cause there's no "box" at the end to open and sign, but benchmarks stay... because.. well.. it's convenient.

You'll want to read this recent post which addresses this.

Same goes for benchmarking features - which is why they aren't over on Waymarking.com either. However new waymark categories that mirror some features (such as UK Benchmarks) are on Waymarking.com.

 

It doesn't really "answer" why benchmarks didn't move. It says there are "features" that exist that make it non-movable. Only two features exist for benchmarks. Downloadable LOC files, and the outdated NGS database. However, I'd say there are features on GC.com that make locationless's non-movable - like... pocket queries for example, which we're now completely without. In fact, as far as I can tell, we're completely lacking downloadable coordinates completely for the time being.

 

This isn't an anti-Waymarking post. I'm slowly but surely wrapping my mind around the WM.com concept. This is a ... "benchmarks should move too" post. If GC.com is going to be for boxes with a log, then benchmarks simply don't belong there. I understand that benchmarking is a little different in the setup already on GC.com, so an immediate move might not be practical. However, at some point, current trends continuing, GC.com should be for geocaches, which benchmarks are not.

 

I'm not a jump-up-and-down avid benchmarker, though that may have more to do with the fact I can't log any benchmarks I find in Japan.

 

VW

[Jeremy 4]

It doesn't really "answer" why benchmarks didn't move. It says there are "features" that exist that make it non-movable. Only two features exist for benchmarks. Downloadable LOC files, and the outdated NGS database. However, I'd say there are features on GC.com that make locationless's non-movable - like... pocket queries for example, which we're now completely without. In fact, as far as I can tell, we're completely lacking downloadable coordinates completely for the time being.

I have been assuming that people are reading the Read Me First post pinned to the top of this forum, well, first. If you do know which features on geocaching.com/mark are unavailable on Waymarking.com then you probably aren't an avid benchmarking user. But you can agree simply by viewing the benchmarking section that the results page has some features that is unavailable on Waymarking.com.

 

But I get your thinly veiled snide remarks about benchmarking. We're well aware that features are lacking for benchmarking. We're also actively working to set up a better codebase that can add functionality for benchmarking as well as anything else under the Waymarking umbrella. The very existence of Waymarking means we're serious about bringing these features to all waymarks - and benchmarking will eventually be a waymark category.

 

This is a ... "benchmarks should move too" post. If GC.com is going to be for boxes with a log, then benchmarks simply don't belong there. I understand that benchmarking is a little different in the setup already on GC.com, so an immediate move might not be practical. However, at some point, current trends continuing, GC.com should be for geocaches, which benchmarks are not.

 

Look, you really need to thoroughly read the posts I make about such things. They will be moved to Waymarking.com when the features are available which is in the Read Me First post.

 

I'm not a jump-up-and-down avid benchmarker, though that may have more to do with the fact I can't log any benchmarks I find in Japan.

 

Well you're in luck. At Waymarking.com we'll allow new categories like Japan-based benchmarks so you can play. Isn't Waymarking great?

[+Kidatheart 0]

I am not a die hard benchmarker but I am happy to see that benchmarks are not moving and that they are being allowed in the Waymarking. I like the feature of being able to go after a cache and a benchmark and the system is currently set up to allow me to do both when I am planning my route. I hope that when Waymarking is more advanced that the benchmarking remains in both so all sides win. If it cannot, I hope that it stays with the caches to allow ease of searching for combining a cache and a benchmark. I know that alot of people are not happy and any change is hard, same problem at work, but things seem to be going in a proper direction. I hope that the input from those interested to put there 2 cents worth forward is considered. now I go back to .

[+catcher24 0]

I read most of the posts here before, and have reread most of them now. To me, the big bonus in putting benchmarks at Waymarking.com is the ability to list those benchmarks NOT FOUND in the NGS database. I am aware of several within my own county, and found one in an adjoining county last week. It would be nice to be able to list these as waymarks, so others could find them if desired (one is in a very neat location on the stone "apron" of our county courthouse. Others here, including BDT, have mentioned this. I look forward to when this will be happening.

[Jeremy 4]

We should work out the category for those kinds of Benchmarks. I suggest some kind of US Recovered Benchmarks category. Would anyone want to put that in the proposal directory?

[+Black Dog Trackers 0]

Jeremy -

 

I proposed a non-NGS benchmarks category back in August here.. I am interested in being a category manager of it.

[Jeremy 4]

Try bumping it and fleshing it out more. Waymarking is no longer called waypointing, for example

[+Black Dog Trackers 0]

I did bump it up. Sorry about the mixup in the words Waymarking vs. waypointing. I'm not certain what 'fleshing it out' means or is for, but I wrote some more about it when I bumped it. Certainly people who hunt benchmarks regularly know all about the non-NGS markers since we answer questions about them in new topics created by someone who found one 2 or 3 times a week. After a hundred or more requests in the benchmarking forum we've developed the phrase "there are gazillions of other markers out there".

Edited November 16, 2005 by Black Dog Trackers

[Jeremy 4]

To give something flesh is to add enough details to make the idea more solid. In other words, by adding variables and a good description and name for the category. I'll pick it up over in the other topic. Thanks for bumping it.