If I Understand This Right...

[+Bear Paughs]

I'm still not clear on how a lot of this works, but this is my impression of how "locationless" is different now:

 

* On the new site, a locationless is posted and, as with the old system, users post finds and include the coordinates of the location they are submitting with any other pertinent information and photos, etc. to meet the requirements for the category.

 

* These entries create further waymarks within that category that other users can go and find.

 

* So, rather than being able to log a find once for the unique entry you've submitted, you may also go and log a find for other entries from other users.

 

Do I have this right? For example, using the McDonald's restaurant example that is on there now, let's say that I posted a particular McDonalds and so do 50 other people (x 1000, for a category like that!). Now if I "find" the same McDonalds that someone else has posted as their entry, I can log that one, too?

 

If this is the case, I think it is pretty cool and way-way-way better than the old locationless. I've logged a few of those, and I've pretty much been content to find my unique location to enter. Even though others have I'm sure submitted really cool locations as well, there wasn't much to motivate me to search their locations out. The new system (again, if I have this right) would encourage me to do just that.

 

Can someone confirm this is the way this is supposed to work?

[+geognerd]

This could be complex to implement, but would eliminate double-posting of locations. Each McDonald's has a store number right? So here's the possibly complex part. If someone wants to post a McDonald's location, they could be required to enter the store's number. So if someone else tries to enter store number 553, and it already exists, the new location posting won't be allowed. I don't know how much work this would take on the waypointing.com database. But this would require the creation of a field on the submission page where you enter the unique ID. The same could go for any other location with a unique identifier.

[+WildGooseChase]

Bear Paughs: I think you've got it. You don't log a find for your McDonald's. You create a waymark (think cache) and others log it as a find when they go there.

 

If you parallel it to gc.com it you'll see that each log on gc.com for a locationless is now the same as a waymark on wm.com, except each logged waymark is now a "cache" that can be logged by others.

 

geognerd: That's getting way too complicated. They already have a system to see if a waymark has been taken:

 

How do I find out if my waymark has already been submitted?

 

When you submit a new waymark you’ll be shown a list of all waymarks within a one mile radius of the coordinates you entered. You’ll need to review this list to make sure your waymark is not already listed.

[+Renegade Knight]

Looks like the primary issue with locationless was solved. Virtuals never had the problem.

 

Cacheless caches fit two main catagories.

 

"Using something existing in the envronment"

 

and

 

"Something is out there, go find it and tell me where".

 

The concepts are different. Though they can both lead to the same object while giving a differnet experience. "Find a USGS benchmark and tell me where it's at", is differnet from "Find this historic benchmark located at these coordinates and prove you were there".

 

It will be interesting to see how this implementation works from others trying to solve the same problems.

Edited August 16, 2005 by Renegade Knight

[+WascoZooKeeper]

This could be complex to implement, but would eliminate double-posting of locations.  Each McDonald's has a store number right?  So here's the possibly complex part.  If someone wants to post a McDonald's location, they could be required to enter the store's number.  So if someone else tries to enter store number 553, and it already exists, the new location posting won't be allowed.  I don't know how much work this would take on the waypointing.com database.  But this would require the creation of a field on the submission page where you enter the unique ID.  The same could go for any other location with a unique identifier.

When you post a waymark, if there is an existing waymark of the same type within 1 mile of the location you specify, you are asked to confirm that the new one you are listing is, in fact, a new and distinct location from the existing one.

 

Does that solve the problem you're referring to?

 

Edit: Yeah. What WGC said.

Edited August 16, 2005 by WascoZooKeeper

[+geognerd]

Yeah, I suppose that solves the problem WZK. I'm sure some dupes will still make it in because someone may not realize they're listing the same site, but that's no biggie since we geocachers seem good at policing ourselves.

[+WascoZooKeeper]

Yeah, I suppose that solves the problem WZK. I'm sure some dupes will still make it in because someone may not realize they're listing the same site, but that's no biggie since we geocachers seem good at policing ourselves.

A place like Starbuck's could be a problem . . . . there could be 10 or more of them within a 1-mile radius.

 

[+Cornix]

Cacheless caches fit two main catagories.

 

"Using something existing in the envronment"

...

Can you give an example of that category? I've never seen this type of lc.

 

Cornix

[+Renegade Knight]

Cacheless caches fit two main catagories.

 

"Using something existing in the envronment"

...

Can you give an example of that category? I've never seen this type of lc.

 

Cornix

It's not so much the locationless as it is cacheless. Benchmarks, Webcams, and Virtuals fit the catagory. They are allready there, the location is known. The hunts are different for each though.