Jump to content

Verification Rules.


Recommended Posts

The category manager has the option of reviewing all newly submitted waymarks, or auto-approving any that are submitted. It will be up to the manager to ensure the quality of their category since the community will be taking this in to account when upgrading or downgrading the category.

 

Since the accuracy of the listing is more important, we shouldn't be concerned if Wayne Waymarker did not actually visit the location.

Link to comment
Since the accuracy of the listing is more important, we shouldn't be concerned if Wayne Waymarker did not actually visit the location.

Then I don't really get what this is for. Are we just building an online directory? What good is it going to be? How is this a replacement for virts?

 

I just don't get it.

 

~CR again.

Edited by Sissy-n-CR
Link to comment
Since the accuracy of the listing is more important, we shouldn't be concerned if Wayne Waymarker did not actually visit the location.

Then I don't really get what this is for. Are we just building an online directory? What good is it going to be? How is this a replacement for virts?

 

I just don't get it.

 

~CR again.

Hear, Hear. Build up a database, but please keep the "spirit" of geocaching in Waymarking. It ain't bust.

Link to comment

It's not geocaching. It's a separate site. I even hope it catches on with GPS users who have no interest in bushwacking through the swamp to find an ammo box.

 

Embracing the Waymarking concept requires a paradigm shift; one that is not necessarily focused on "find counts" and "verification requirements." Some will think it cool to have a set of "Yellow Pages" that are indexed by GPS coordinates. Some will find it fun to visit the odd places that are highlighted by waymark categories. History buffs will enjoy visiting historic markers and monuments that routinely got turned down when submitted as virtual caches. Roadtripping geocachers without a POI database in their GPS will appreciate knowing where the nearest McDonald's or brewpub or internet hotspot is located. And so on.

 

Others will not see the point in Waymarking at all, and will stick with finding geocaches under the combination of listing site guidelines and community ethics that have developed over the past five years. That is cool, too. The activities can peacefully coexist. I don't much care for benchmarking, but I know that others love this activity and I am glad to see them getting outdoors with their GPS and having fun. Benchmarks, like Waymarks, don't affect one's geocache "find count." (In fact, benchmarking will ultimately benefit greatly from the Waymarking structure, I predict....)

Link to comment
How is this a replacement for virts?

 

I just don't get it.

It's a 4 level concept:

 

- main categories

- subcategories (= locationless caches)

- waymarks (= virtual caches)

- logs

 

The manager of a subcategory (for example 'Lighthouses') is responsible for approving new waymarks ('The old Lighthouse at Land's End') in their domain. The owner of a waymark can control the logs of visitors to that waymark. So I guess it's up to them to ask for some kind of proof.

 

Cornix

Link to comment

I think the new system is more within the spirit of geocaching actually. Today if I see a locationless for unique mailboxes or places on the national historic register(for example), I find one and post the coordinates and pictures, etc. with my find. Other people have done so, too, but that ends the hunt for me, since most of the locationless you can only post one find for. Under the new system, each time someone posts a target they've found, I have the opportunity to go and find the same target using their coordinates. It encourages users to go out and find the locations (the essence of geocaching), whereas the old system allowed one (usually) and that was it.

 

Not to mention, many of the locationless allowed only one log for each location. So if the only example I found was already posted by another user, I was left SOL, perhaps for good, or until I could travel great distances. For example, suppose every minor league ballpark within 300 miles of me had already been claimed. The game ends for me unless I am willing and able (able being key) to travel 5 hours away to log one. With the new system, each target is initiated only once, but I am free to visit all the different targets and be credited with my visit.

 

It's all about the hunt afterall, isn't it? I think the new system will promote the hunt for these thousands of time better than the existing one.

Link to comment
...The manager of a subcategory (for example 'Lighthouses') is responsible for approving new waymarks ('The old Lighthouse at Land's End') in their domain. The owner of a waymark can control the logs of visitors to that waymark. So I guess it's up to them to ask for some kind of proof.

 

Cornix

Ok, this makes a little sence. Locationless caches are found, then in turn a specific location becomes a virtual cache.

 

Lep is right. It's a shift in the way of looking at them. It also looks like a shift in the way owners can creativly put together a cache and the way finders participate. Which reinforces that it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Link to comment
...It encourages users to go out and find the locations (the essence of geocaching), whereas the old system allowed one (usually) and that was it. ...

That was a GC.com rule. When I did my locationless I was asked by the approver to change it to one find per location. The truth was I really didn't care if a local found it and then another one. The point was to have people find the locationless cache.

 

The same problem could be solved by not showing where others finds on a locationless are at until after you logged it.

 

I like the concept of approving a log. It's less stress than deleting a find.

 

I'm unclear on one ponit though. Is a locationless find now automaticly a virtual cache with an owner and now logable, or is it closer to waypoint.org where anyone can look it up and go there and it really doesn't matter because there really is no owner and nothing special to find?

Link to comment

Don't get me wrong, I really like the site and the idea behind it, as I stated in other posts. I also take the point about the ability to log the same site by more than one user, this is a much needed change.

 

I'm just worried about some people (and there will be those) who really abuse the system in their quest for numbers, for whatever motivation, and the attitude by GS that they are more concerned about the database accuracy than the sport, if you like, niggles at me. But as already stated this ISN'T geoaching.com, so maybe my niggle is "apples and oranges". If they drop meaningful "finds" then maybe they'll lose the motivation for a lot of the initial site users (their exisiting client base, at the moment).

 

It's not a grudge, it's just a feeling, that if they have a number system they should probably use it on a level playing field. For instance, the ability to log a find by just visiting (or not) a website (see People/Internet/Bloggers). I have full confidence in GS to make it work.

 

Anyway, I do like it and can't wait to see how it works out.

Edited by maingray
Link to comment

Just a comment that this made me think of. We should be fairly careful as a community not to accidentally 'pirate' the waypoint database from Mapsource.

 

If I were looking for a McDonalds to waymark, I should actually visit that McDonalds, and get coordinates, otherwise you're stealing someone else's data which I'm pretty sure will go against whatever ToS the Geocoding site that you're using has set up...

Link to comment
Just a comment that this made me think of. We should be fairly careful as a community not to accidentally 'pirate' the waypoint database from Mapsource. ...

Some waypoint databases are public, some are donated to the public even if privatly maintained. And some are limited use etc.

 

Starting with a set of waypoitns and having people report what's there is another variation of the game. Think in terms of the Degree confluence project, but maybe a "mystery vitual" varitiation. You can do the same with the USGS landmarks etc.

 

This is an idea I've been kicking around.

Link to comment
Benchmarks, like Waymarks, don't affect one's geocache "find count."  (In fact, benchmarking will ultimately benefit greatly from the Waymarking structure, I predict....)

Its as you say, that benchmarks aren't counted in the geocache count, though I like that the find count is on the same page. I'm curious, though, why you say that you feel that benchmarking will ultimately benefit from the Waymarking structure.

 

Is this in terms of how the database is set up? Search features? Or in a completely different website? Or do you mean that you feel that more people may try benchmarking as an activity?

 

Mostly just curious, since I don't see any connection between the two (just like I don't see any between geocaching and benchmarking, except that they both can be done with a GPSr). I'm sure that very few of the folks that exclusively benchmark are even aware of this Waymarking website.

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...