Multi Listing Waymarks

[+BayouBug]

How is anyone going to manage a category listing where someone might submit the same location more than once, ie McDonalds, since this was the first waymark? In the past you had to read all the logs to see if you were the only one to log the location coords. I don't want to see 5 listing for the same Burger place. I suppose this will be left up to the catergory manager, but after 3000 how are you going to sort through them?

 

Will waymarks be mapped as to thier location like geocaches? This could eliminate that problem.

 

Personally, I think Waymarking is a grand idea. I believe that it will truly make traveling to different locations more profitable to a persons particular interest.

 

Waymarking has my vote.

[+ibycus]

If you post a waymark within 1mi of another in the same category, you get a warning, and it asks you if you'd like to log the other waymark instead.

[+BayouBug]

I don't think that is feasible depending on the category. Let's say parks. In some cities there are parks less than a mile from each other. It's like cemeteries, I have seen those less than a mile apart. You just can't set up a 1 mile fence. Maybe a 150ft. fence.

 

Will each category have its own icon to identify it from the others?

[+ibycus]

Given that those, I assume are seperate questions, I'll answer them both as best I can.

 

1. The 1 mile fence: You can still submit a waymark, even if it is within a mile of another one. No problem there. You just get a warning about it.

2. Icons: according to another post by Jeremy (about timeline of the conversion) if the existing icons don't fit, new ones will be added.

[Jeremy]

I don't think that is feasible depending on the category. Let's say parks. In some cities there are parks less than a mile from each other. It's like cemeteries, I have seen those less than a mile apart. You just can't set up a 1 mile fence. Maybe a 150ft. fence.

The waymark category manager's responsibility is to ensure there are no duplicates. The mile fence is just a quick check. You hope that people make the effort to look to see if the listing is there anyway, but laziness often prevails.

 

Will each category have its own icon to identify it from the others?

 

Some categories with similar themes may have similar icons. So no. Not all listings will have different icons.

[+BayouBug]

The mile fence is just a quick check. You hope that people make the effort to look to see if the listing is there anyway, but laziness often prevails.

 

I'm afraid that laziness will prevail, especially when the doors open. You will have the running of the FTP (First To Post).

 

Will each Waymark be mapped like a cache?

[Jeremy]

Yes. We do plan to map categories once we get more waymarks.

 

We have also considered Google Maps but we will far exceed the 50,000 maps allocation they offer to web sites, and I don't really want to know how much they charge for high-volume sites. We looked at the Google search appliance and they really stick it to you. Then you have to add on the map data licensing from 3rd party providers.

 

Additionally they don't allow showing maps for sites you charge for. We'd have to wait to launch this to all members before we could integrate Google maps.

[+BayouBug]

Yes. We do plan to map categories once we get more waymarks.

 

We have also considered Google Maps but we will far exceed the 50,000 maps allocation they offer to web sites, and I don't really want to know how much they charge for high-volume sites. We looked at the Google search appliance and they really stick it to you. Then you have to add on the map data licensing from 3rd party providers.

 

Additionally they don't allow showing maps for sites you charge for. We'd have to wait to launch this to all members before we could integrate Google maps.

Why not use the same mapping software that's in use now? It seems to work well. If you are a PM then you get the functionality of all the bells and whistles.

 

I would really like to see a campaigne for more PM. The cost of running a growing site can really hit the pockets. I know you're trying to make it for everyone, but this hobby has turned into a sport and most people will be willing to pay to play. That's just my feelings about it. Jeremy, you shouldn't have to pay the way for others. I will always be a PM no matter what and I know that there are others who feel the same way. I would just like to see more PMs.

 

Thanks for letting the PM's have the hand in putting the Waymarks together.

[Jeremy]

Why not use the same mapping software that's in use now?

We will. I alluded to that in the first sentence.

[Jeremy]

I would really like to see a campaigne for more PM. The cost of running a growing site can really hit the pockets.

We're continuing to work on new features with geocaching to campaign for new members. Many similar features (Pocket Queries, etc) will be provided as part of a PM with Waymarking as well. We do, however, consider this project to be in its infancy (in fact, a preemie, since many here are not current locationless owners). We'll be ok.

[+BayouBug]

I would really like to see a campaigne for more PM. The cost of running a growing site can really hit the pockets.

We're continuing to work on new features with geocaching to campaign for new members. Many similar features (Pocket Queries, etc) will be provided as part of a PM with Waymarking as well.

I read from a few different State forums on the subject of PM. A lot of the talk says that it's not really worth paying just to get PQs. The word is that there are not enough PM features to warrent a PM. That's just what I have read. I would like to see more benefits for PMs. That could encourage others to buy in if they knew they were missing out on some really cool features. Just my ideas. I hope that you don't mind.

[Jeremy]

Just my ideas. I hope that you don't mind.

Not at all. I welcome new ideas. If you know of any ideas that folks are willing to pay for I'd be interested in hearing those too. We do, however, give quite a bit out for free which is sufficient for most geocachers.

[+sbell111]

Note to self: BayouBug must be punished.

 

Just kidding.

[+BayouBug]

Just my ideas. I hope that you don't mind.

Not at all. I welcome new ideas. If you know of any ideas that folks are willing to pay for I'd be interested in hearing those too. We do, however, give quite a bit out for free which is sufficient for most geocachers.

I think that the filters should be a PM bonus. I would even say that the LOC file along with the GPX file should be PM features. People are going paperless because of these features. If you keep them on the paper then they might think twice. I'm not trying to force people to pay nor do I want to sideline peoples fun. I feel that if they are serious about playing then they should be willing to pay the annual fee.

 

I have noticed that many start out playing the game then fall away after they log a few. It seems that many make it to 50 (give or take some both ways) then stop. I hate going to a location to find that the owner of a cache has never gone back to check on his/her cache. It takes many DNF's and owner needs to visit before they even decide to go and check on it if they do that.

 

Maybe you could limit the number of hides or Waymarks to so many before you have to pay. I think 4-5 hides for free then you have to sign up and pay the fee.

Edited August 18, 2005 by BayouBug

[+BayouBug]

I don't think too many are going to subscribe to these ideas.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Just my ideas. I hope that you don't mind.

Not at all. I welcome new ideas. If you know of any ideas that folks are willing to pay for I'd be interested in hearing those too. We do, however, give quite a bit out for free which is sufficient for most geocachers.

Here is an idea for geocaching that I would love to see as a premium member.

 

We dont use pocket queries. (Shock!) When we search for caches, we often just hit "find nearest caches" on a cache page, or just look at our state's listings to see what has come up. I would love to be able to ignore certain caches without having to use advanced search or pocket queries. Since Im probably the only one wanting this, Im guessing it doesnt stand much chance of being done. It would make me happy though. Please consider it?

[Jeremy]

I would love to be able to ignore certain caches without having to use advanced search or pocket queries. Since Im probably the only one wanting this, Im guessing it doesnt stand much chance of being done. It would make me happy though. Please consider it?

Is this a Geocaching.com feature request? If so it should be in the forum related to Geocaching. However a short answer is that this is already available. Filtering out your finds from the advanced search page will also filter out your ignored listings.

[+ibycus]

I don't think too many are going to subscribe to these ideas.

Taking features away from people is never going to make you popular, and will probably never be seen in a positive light. But adding more features, and saying you have to pay for them, well thats OK.

 

Personally I'd like to see Shape File Downloads (on Waymarking and GC.com), that would make it easier to load stuff in to a non-GPS based mapping package.