Many People Liked Locationless Caches

August 17, 2005

For years Geocaching has been saying that there was a moratorium on new Locationless caches. Existing locationless caches were grandfathered in.

Now you've come up with a way to do away with Locationless caches altogether. It is veiled in the new guise of Waymarking, but it will become as seperate from caches as a benchmark- maybe even more so, since benchmarks are counted on your cache tally. I don't like it, and neither will the 35 watchers of my Locationless cache either.

4.8k · August 17, 2005

Why does counting on the cache tally matter so much? A locationless really never was a cache. With this, there is flexibility to create a system that can take people to many interesting things and allow people to include interesting things. I guess I don't feel the need for a cross-over cache find smilie for logging or adding a waymark. My interest in doing so is the reward.

Edited August 17, 2005 by carleenp

24.7k · August 17, 2005

...A locationless really never was a cache. With this, there is flexibility to create a system that can take people to many interesting things and allow people to include interesting things....

There is a difference between waypoint.org advanced and locationless/virtual caches. If Waymarking is nothing more than waypoint.org advanced it's not the same.

It's important to recognize why a virtual and why a locationless were fun to do and capture that with the new format. If you get more people than before to enjoy it you have a winner. If more people don't like it than before it's time to scrap the idea and try again.

This is a beta test. Alas I have to wait until they open it up to non premimum members to check it out.

August 17, 2005

I like it. I think it only EXPANDS the hunt for the locationless. Rather than only being motivated to find one location that meets the requirements, I'm encouraged to actually look through the other logs and search out those locations, too. It's far more interactive and interesting than locationless today. My feeling is that most people do the locationless today to log another smilie and they happen to meet the requirements. If they do it not for the smilie, but truly out of great interest in the subject of the locationless, well, they should be running to embrace the new Waymarking site, because it allows them the chance to broaden their hunt for these locations.

I don't understand all the pushback, frankly. I see many reasons why Waymarking is a good thing. None why it isn't. The biggest complaints I see are that the current locationless/virtual/earthcache owners are saying that the Waymarking targets aren't unique enough, and that the point of these types is in the hunt, that it doesn't matter if there's a cache or not.

To the first complaint about waymarks not being unique enough -- that's really up to the category owners now, isn't it? They will be as unique and exciting and robust as the community will put forth. Waymark category owners still have the ability to define the requirements for logging a visit, so there isn't any lessening of the difficulty or excitement of the hunt. Sure, there will other categories that will be of less interest to some users and there is an element of creating an online database of sorts at work here (which some people do think is cool, others do not), but filtering will help a user to avoid those things they personally don't care about and to let the cream rise to the top.

To the second complaint saying that these are caches -- that it's about the hunt, etc., not the container and logbook at the end.... well, that exactly the point. The only thing that really has to differentiate Benchmarking and Waypointing is the existence of a physical cache. Waymarking, like Geocaching, will be about the hunt, too, but there will be more flexibility in the requirements, which is understandable as, unlike Geocaching, saturation isn't really an issue since there are no physical caches.

I think nearly all of the complaints I've seen have been from the owners of the virtual/earth/locationless caches. They somehow feel as though their caches are being downgraded in some manner by becoming a part of the new concept of Waymarking. This isn't a downgrade -- it's very simply a differentiation between what has a container and logbook, and what does not. I feel they should look instead upon this as an opportunity to be a great contributor to the activity of hunting using GPS and even being in on the ground floor of the new concept.

The other complaints are from those people who are icon-hounds (not saying there's anything wrong with that -- I definitely want to collect icons, too)who are concerned about losing their icons, because they feel it is some sort of status symbol. Get over it, you'll still have your icons for the logs you've already submitted, they won't go away. And now there will be a whole other type of stat you can track.

The fact is, both geocaching and waypointing are all about the hunt. You may want to call it a "cache" even without a log book, but it's not really that. It is a journey, hopefully an interesting and special one, and there is no reason why calling it a waymark and managing and tracking them separately from geocaches makes it any less special.

24.7k · August 17, 2005

Bear Paughs, how many of these waypointings have you found? How many do you own now? That's a lot of speculation. Maybe you will be right. I don't know one way or the other.

20.7k · August 18, 2005

I like it. I think it only EXPANDS the hunt for the locationless. Rather than only being motivated to find one location that meets the requirements, I'm encouraged to actually look through the other logs and search out those locations, too. ... BLAH, BLAH, BLAH

I really agree with the start of Bear Paughs post. After reading the first three sentences, however, I glanced at how much there still was of it and skipped over it. Did I miss anything? <_<

BTW, I agreed to have my LC, 'For the Love of the Game', archived and added to WM.com.

Edited August 18, 2005 by sbell111

August 18, 2005

That's a lot of speculation.

"Rather than only being motivated to find one location that meets the requirements, I'm encouraged to actually look through the other logs and search out those locations, too. It's far more interactive and interesting than locationless today."

[is this what you're referring to? I don't see much other speculation in my post.] If this is what you're referring to, then you're right, it is speculation at this point. The site isn't exactly functioning yet (what is is on a limited basis) so time will tell, of course. But it certainly isn't any less interactive or interesting than the current system.

I have already logged visits to a few waymarks. I look forward to when the new categories are added and the site is fully functioning so that the fun can begin.

9.4k · August 18, 2005

Renegade Knight isn't a Premium Member so he really doesn't know a whole lot about the Waymarking site. I think this category must have been transferred from another area.

4.8k · August 18, 2005

I like it. I think it only EXPANDS the hunt for the locationless. Rather than only being motivated to find one location that meets the requirements, I'm encouraged to actually look through the other logs and search out those locations, too. It's far more interactive and interesting than locationless today. My feeling is that most people do the locationless today to log another smilie and they happen to meet the requirements. If they do it not for the smilie, but truly out of great interest in the subject of the locationless, well, they should be running to embrace the new Waymarking site, because it allows them the chance to broaden their hunt for these locations.

The expansion of it is what I really like about it. A person can not just add a waymark to a category, but others can then log that waymark. The potential for information is great there. For example, I own the brewpubs category because I love brewpub beer. Through that category, people add waymarks which gives locations. Then people might visit those waymarks and log more information. So if I travel and want to find good brewpubs, I can filter for the area, read the logs, and have info on what is the best to visit. I am pleasently surprised to see that the category already has a good number of waymarks entered.

It is funny. I was never really into locationless caches and such, but I really like the potential utility of the new site and plan to participate much more with it than I ever did with locationless and virtuals.

Edited August 18, 2005 by carleenp

August 18, 2005

I am pleasently surprised to see that the category already has a good number of waymarks entered.

Can't wait to get to my favorite BP soon so I can add it to your category, CarleenP. Your's will probably become my favorite...

4.8k · August 18, 2005

I am pleasently surprised to see that the category already has a good number of waymarks entered.

Can't wait to get to my favorite BP soon so I can add it to your category, CarleenP. Your's will probably become my favorite...

Mmmmmm beer!

2k · August 18, 2005

I am not trying to add fuel to the fire, but I think losing the Virtuals will be a HUGE mistake. I have not had a chance to do alot, but I have done enough to know that my family enjoys them, and we love learning about where they take us too. At least keep the Virtuals.

August 18, 2005

I am not trying to add fuel to the fire, but I think losing the Virtuals will be a HUGE mistake. I have not had a chance to do alot, but I have done enough to know that my family enjoys them, and we love learning about where they take us too. At least keep the Virtuals.

They will exist, just as waymarks.

9.4k · August 18, 2005

At least keep the Virtuals.

Thanks for the response. So I can understand you better, what do you mean by this? I mean "keep the virtuals." I need to know more specfics since it is well known that the current virtual process is considered flawed by many. What is your criteria for a virtual cache?

1.7k · August 18, 2005

After spending a couple of days exploring the site, and thinking about what I like in locationless and virtual caches, here are some concerns I have.

1) How can I find the things Im interested in without having to wade through all the "junk" categories that I cant stand, like McDonalds. If I have to wade through those each time, it will take away my enjoyment of it. Im a bit worried that the fun things will be lost with all the yellow page listings. Using the popularity filter isnt a viable option for me. I might not see a lesser rated category that I would like.

(This part edited in later:

I figured out how to use favorites on the new site. How many favorites can I have? I like this feature. Thank you!

End edited part.)

2) I liked the thrill of the hunt with locationless and virtual caches. There was an excitement to finally finding that gargoyle, or arriving at the virtual site to see what the fuss was about. While people may like things like McDonalds, really the thrill is lacking for me with that category.

Im going to try and post a few waymark listings later today and play around with it. Im more than willing to take a wait and see attitude with this new site. I hope the thrill of virtual and locationless caches doesnt get lost.

(I dont mean to pick on the McDonalds category. It just happens to represent what I do not find interesting.)

Edited August 18, 2005 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

3.8k · August 18, 2005

I am not trying to add fuel to the fire, but I think losing the Virtuals will be a HUGE mistake. I have not had a chance to do alot, but I have done enough to know that my family enjoys them, and we love learning about where they take us too. At least keep the Virtuals.

They will exist, just as waymarks.

But what about the people who own virtuals and earthcaches, that don't want to be a part of Waymarking. It doesn't matter if they still exist, they won't to the owner, if they don't like the concept of Waymarking, but have still gone to a lot of trouble setting up that particular type of cache just to see it being moved to something they don't want to have a part of.

I own 2 virtuals and 2 earthcaches, 3 of which a lot of hours of work and organisation went into, I DO NOT want to see them leave GC.com. Regardless of how they are viewed now, they were viewed as caches when I made them so they should stay as such.

August 18, 2005

But what about the people who own virtuals and earthcaches, that don't want to be a part of Waymarking. It doesn't matter if they still exist, they won't to the owner, if they don't like the concept of Waymarking, but have still gone to a lot of trouble setting up that particular type of cache just to see it being moved to something they don't want to have a part of.

I own 2 virtuals and 2 earthcaches, 3 of which a lot of hours of work and organisation went into, I DO NOT want to see them leave GC.com. Regardless of how they are viewed now, they were viewed as caches when I made them so they should stay as such.

I think nearly all of the complaints I've seen have been from the owners of the virtual/earth/locationless caches. They somehow feel as though their caches are being downgraded in some manner by becoming a part of the new concept of Waymarking. This isn't a downgrade -- it's very simply a differentiation between what has a container and logbook, and what does not.

The fact is, both geocaching and waypointing are all about the hunt. You may want to call it a "cache" even without a log book, but it's not really that. It is a journey, hopefully an interesting and special one, and there is no reason why calling it a waymark and managing and tracking them separately from geocaches makes it any less special.

August 18, 2005

... I own the brewpubs category because I love brewpub beer.

Me too!!! I usually go to realbeer dot com before I travel to look up local pubs. Now I may have a more up-to-date source and coordinates as well.

It is funny. I was never really into locationless caches and such, but I really like the potential utility of the new site and plan to participate much more with it than I ever did with locationless and virtuals.

I feel exactly the same way about this. I tried locationless and it wasn't for me. Nothing against it though. I see this type of listing service having much more potential as a tool for finding things of interest to a given individual.

I do think a lot of the locationless fans will be disappointed because these finds will not add to their geocaching dot com find count.

Time will tell how successful this is or isn't - but keep adding those brewpubs! :blink:

August 18, 2005

I'm one who likes locationless caches but has great concerns about Waymarking. From what I can see so far, it does seem like Waymarking cheapens the 'find': there does not appear to be any requirement to prove in any way that you were there. I didn't want ot mess up my account by logging fake visits to see whether that is, in fact, thae case...

I guess I'm proud of the fact that I hiked all the way in to Devil's Soup Bowl so I could get a photo in there & a log new type of cache. And I was excited about finding a little airport that nobody had logged yet for the AV8R locationless cache. But now... you could just log anything, with no proof, no nothing... It just cheapens the whole thing. [Feel free to slap me around if I'm missing some requirement to prove you were really there or that a waymark really exists.]

I have huge concerns about opening up the logs to anybody. There are already people who think it's fun to make false logs of TBs by looking at photos that include the TB tag. Now you're giving them the ability to log beautiful overlooks, cool fountains, statues, museums -- that don't exist.

Just last night, there was a local TV report on gasprices.com (something like that), where people were logging low-low-low gas prices at gas stations that didn't exist. Haha funny to make people drive to places that don't exist, right? So if part of the idea for Waymarking is to make a sort of index of places to visit when you're on vacation, what's to keep some doofus from posting a lot of false/random junk??

I just don't see a lot of checks & balances on this. At least with GC locationless caches and virtuals, the cache owner (usually) required some sort of 'proof.' It didn't stop fakes from showing up, I'm sure, but it was at least one check on the process, and I don't see that on Waymarking at all.

I really don't mean to be a naysayer; I just have some real trouble imagining this being a useful tool when there are so many jerks in this world.

August 18, 2005

From what I can see so far, it does seem like Waymarking cheapens the 'find': there does not appear to be any requirement to prove in any way that you were there. I didn't want ot mess up my account by logging fake visits to see whether that is, in fact, thae case...

I guess I'm proud of the fact that I hiked all the way in to Devil's Soup Bowl so I could get a photo in there & a log new type of cache. And I was excited about finding a little airport that nobody had logged yet for the AV8R locationless cache. But now... you could just log anything, with no proof, no nothing... It just cheapens the whole thing.

I agree with you about all the jerks in the world (just look at the jeep threads in the Travel Bug forum to get an idea of how rampant they are HERE). But there will be checks and balances in place to some extent. It is up to the individual category owner to define the requirements for logging a visit. Some categories may not have stringent, or even any, requirements (like a McDonalds category for example.) But for other categories there will still be requirements of photos, descriptions, anything the category owner wants basically.

It's really up to us, the community, to make these targets as interesting as we can to preserve the intention of locationless and virtual in the first place. [That doesn't mean there isn't room for the more mundane (in one's own opinion) categories.] If the category owners are diligent, then the logging visits to places not visited shouldn't be a big issue.

August 18, 2005

I love virtual caches. I thought they were fun, and in the case of some of the locationless caches especially, very educational for those of us with kids. My 3 year old not only knows the US Flag now, because of hunting for one for a locationless, but also started noticing other flags, and now knows our state flag, the Canadian flag, the diver down flag, and the Oregon flag. It has opened up conversation with my 6 year old neice about POW/MIAs, and public art, just to name a few. I never saw the issue with them. If you didn't care for them, then don't do them. I have not been on the new waymarketing site, so I speak to that. I just think it may be a mistake to get rid of a very fun and interesting part of the game. A prime example of this would be the Dash for Cache locationless. What a great concept!

Just my two cents...

2.1k · August 18, 2005

At least keep the Virtuals.

Thanks for the response. So I can understand you better, what do you mean by this? I mean "keep the virtuals." I need to know more specfics since it is well known that the current virtual process is considered flawed by many. What is your criteria for a virtual cache?

Well, my personal feeling would be to keep the locationlesses, and virtuals that are on the system right now. Then those who want to say "Screw Waymarking, I'm a geocacher" are free to do so.

I like locationlesses as they stand right now. And virtuals can be fun too (although I've done very few of them).

What about this as a solution:

1. Keep most/all of the locationless/virtual caches listed on gc.com (assuming the owners of said caches want them to be there). There really aren' t that many, and people have been enjoying that game as it stood for quite some time now. Don't *make* them play a different game (and Waymarking really is very different).

2. Don't list any new locationlesses. This is part of the fun of locationless caches. You're looking for something very unique. I know these can be listed alongside the waymarks, but as some have said, it kind of cheapens things when you can drive down an average street and visit 20 waymarks.

3. As far as virtuals go, anything that is really region specific, with a big "wow" factor, that you wouldn't see a similar thing in a dozen different locations is fine for a virtual cache. Kind of an 'elite' waymark. This would of course effectively rule out just about every virtual cache out there. But on denying the listing, I'd imagine reviewers could suggest an appropriate waymark category, and if it doesn't fit there for whatever reason, the submitter could argue that point, and why their 'x' didn't fit with the other 'x'. This would help to crystalize the 'wow' factor on a given cache. For example, someone wants to list a war memorial on gc.com as a virtual. Reviewer says, "No there are thousands of war memorials across the country". Cacher comes back and says, no my memorial is special for whatever reason of huge local importance and gives a big long story and some history and, and, and**. Then either the cacher convinces the reviewer that this deserves special treatment, or no, its still not good enough.

Another option is to have the top x% of waymarks in a region be given the opportunity to create virtual caches out of them (the actual waymark, not the category). This would rule out some of the subjectivity of the 'wow' factor.

**note, I don't know what exactly would make it special enough, as I'm not familiar with enough war memorials to know which ones are 'special' and which aren't. As a rough example, I think there is a street in Canada somewhere, where a huge percentage of the male youth were wiped out in the second world war (much much higher than average, basically they put them all together there in one group that got more or less wiped out), but the people there also received a huge number of medals for valour and bravery and all kinds of things (I think it was the Victoria Cross or something, I really high honour, I'm remembering back to one of those "A part of our heritage" Commercials here). Maybe a statue or something commemorating them, which is of high local importance, would be worth while as a virtual (maybe not too).

9.4k · August 18, 2005

I guess I'm proud of the fact that I hiked all the way in to Devil's Soup Bowl so I could get a photo in there & a log new type of cache. And I was excited about finding a little airport that nobody had logged yet for the AV8R locationless cache. But now... you could just log anything, with no proof, no nothing...

Untrue. The waymark category owner decides whether the person needs to have a picture of them dancing a jig there, or just a photo.

August 18, 2005

just started doing locationless and virtuals last week after finally being able to get a camera and we have enjoyed the heck out of them. there are so many i still want to see, in their current format and design, will make attempts to get to the ones we've wanted to do for so long. hope the antietam virtuals remain until we can get there. my hope and wish would be that the current virtual and locationless caches could remain were they are on gc.com. dont see the need to change what is already there. allow waymark to proceed as a new entity. all of this in my honest opinion, a little disappointed, julia

August 18, 2005

Well, I did a bit of a poke around on Waymarking a few hours ago, before I posted my original message, and I didn't see any photos on any of the subcategories I wandered into. One of the subs I looked at was 'fountains.' So, I guess I could describe some lollapalooza of a fountain and give coordinates at McDonald's, (or whatever) and urge everyone to go visit it because it is SO AWESOME D00D!

Oh, I'm just having an attitude problem, and showing off my cynical streak. I know, it's still in beta, and eventually all those Structures/Fountains will have photos even though there is neither a rule requiring them nor, in fact, any place to put a photo. (I put my own fountain photo under "Web link")

Still feeling cynical but willing to watch how this evolves. Just wish it didn't have to evolve into the mundane (the fountain I logged is really nothing special, just a fountain I happened to have a photo & coordinates for, so I could see the beta process.)

1.2k · August 18, 2005

Poor, poor substitute for locationless/ virtual caching. Thanks for the efforts but you should go back to the drawing board. Much too much room for comercial take-over.

P.S. I never really understood what you guys have against virtuals and/or locationless caching. :blink:

Edited August 18, 2005 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

August 18, 2005

Poor, poor substitute for locationless/ virtual caching. Thanks for the efforts but you should go back to the drawing board. Much too much room for comercial take-over.
P.S. I never really understood what you guys have against virtuals and/or locationless caching.

I completely agree. What the heck was wrong with virtuals in the first place? I love them!

1.2k · August 18, 2005

By the way, the current totals of posts are: Favor changes 5, Do not favor changes 13, Neutral 8. Not a very good start. :blink:

P.S. I had to interpolate some posts and sort the "Brew people"

August 18, 2005

Since we don't care about stats, then each person decides what to include in their user profile.

Include benchmarks...... NO

Include locationless..... YES

Include virtuals...... YES

Include Eathcaches.... NO

Voila'. Problem solved.

9.4k · August 18, 2005

By the way, the current totals of posts are: Favor changes 5, Do not favor changes 13, Neutral 8. Not a very good start.
P.S. I had to interpolate some posts and sort the "Brew people"

You failed to mention 162 waymark category proposals in 2 days without any formal announcement of the site. But hey, who's counting right?

Oh right. You are. Poorly.

2.1k · August 18, 2005

P.S. I never really understood what you guys have against virtuals and/or locationless caching.

Very simple, organization.

You let one person say their statue is worthy of a virtual, and all of a sudden every statue needs a virtual. Not really bad in and of itself, but what happens if you're looking for a statue? How do you find it? You've got to sort throgh 'creative' cache names to try to find the statue you're looking for.

Same with locationlesses. Someone thinks it would be cool to have all the locations of interesting mailboxes, and all of a sudden, you've got a huge database, but what if you want to go and look at one of these? How do you find them? It doesn't work.

Most of the problem people seem to be having is that there are just too many categories. Too many 'low quality' locations. But this is exactly what people were complaining about with virtuals, "I can't get my virt approved because it doesn't meet the 'wow' factor." But the wow factor is subjective. So we take the 'wow' out of it, and let people find what they want. What you get instead is people finding what they want to find (and people want to find just about everything). So people complain that it 'cheapens' the experience. What they are looking for is lumped in with all kinds of 'lame' categories like all the McDonalds locations, or Public Toilets.

This is why I personally would keep the locationlesses that are there, and supplement things with the Waymarking.

Locationless cache hunting is still a cool game, this is just a different 'game'.

1.3k · August 18, 2005

Junk Design Houses

Here is an example of how a waymark catagory can require a verification of a visit.

To log a waymark for this catagory you must post a photo of yourself or your gps that shows off one of the pieces of art.

It's up to the waymark catagory owner to decide if they want to require verification. If you look at some old virtual caches they don't have verification requirements either. That was something that was added as time went on.

August 18, 2005

I played with Waymarking for about an hour a couple of days ago. Sat on the chair and waymarked my local brewpub and "found" an internet site. The big difference between Waymarking and geocaching is that I only used my GPS (iQue 3600) to calculate the coords from the address, which I had gotten off the internet (I had eaten dinner there a couple of days before, so this wasn't a random choice). I haven't been back to the site, but I suspect there are lots of waymarks and finds that could be done without a GPS and without leaving the house.

On the other hand, geocaching, whether it's a virtual or a traditional cache, gets me out of the house and often on a trail. And with locationless caches, I've learned more about, for instance, bridges then I ever thought I would. I liked the randomness of the categories of the locationless caches. It made the find more challenging and rewarding.

One more thing, please don't start up a WalMart category on the Waymarking site - we can find the local "WallyWorld" using the lamppost caches without that.

My vote (if I had one) would be to grandfather in at least the current virtuals and locationless caches on the gc.com site.

Debby

20.7k · August 19, 2005

...I haven't been back to the site, but I suspect there are lots of waymarks and finds that could be done without a GPS and without leaving the house. ...

The same can be said about the current virts and LCs.

I really think that WM.com will play the same as current virts and LCs. Let me explain. A category is created. Part of the fun will be to get out and create a waymark for a location that fits the new category before someone else does (like LCs). Once the waymark exists, it isn't forgotten like 'found' LCs currently are. It becomes a virt for anyone who is interested in that place to log.

The more I think about it, the more I am excited about it.

Thanks Jeremy, et al.

Edited August 19, 2005 by sbell111

5.2k · August 19, 2005

I guess I'm proud of the fact that I hiked all the way in to Devil's Soup Bowl so I could get a photo

Cool! You can log that on my Devilish Locations waymark category.

1.8k · August 19, 2005

By the way, the current totals of posts are: Favor changes 5, Do not favor changes 13, Neutral 8. Not a very good start.
P.S. I had to interpolate some posts and sort the "Brew people"

You failed to mention 162 waymark category proposals in 2 days without any formal announcement of the site. But hey, who's counting right?

Oh right. You are. Poorly.

Some flawed logic there. Just because someone has proposed a category does not mean they want to see any changes at GC.com.

1.2k · August 19, 2005

By the way, the current totals of posts are: Favor changes 5, Do not favor changes 13, Neutral 8. Not a very good start.
P.S. I had to interpolate some posts and sort the "Brew people"

You failed to mention 162 waymark category proposals in 2 days without any formal announcement of the site. But hey, who's counting right?

Oh right. You are. Poorly.

Some flawed logic there. Just because someone has proposed a category does not mean they want to see any changes at GC.com.

Thanks Learned Gerbil. I may count poorly but my logic is at least rational. I guess flaming does't count for everybody.

Edited August 19, 2005 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

9.4k · August 19, 2005

Some flawed logic there. Just because someone has proposed a category does not mean they want to see any changes at GC.com.

Yes. You fell into my trap. Neither does counting posts in a random topic.

9.4k · August 19, 2005

Thanks Learned Gerbil. I may count poorly but my logic is at least rational. I guess flaming does't count for everybody.

Try reading your first post again, and be careful about applying double standards.

1.2k · August 19, 2005

I don't believe in double standards. My first post was not a response to an individual posting or aimed at an individual forum member nor was it meant to be personal. Too bad you took it that way. It was just honest criticism of the proposed ( it is a beta isn't it) new system.

Edited August 19, 2005 by Konnarock Kid & Marge

20.7k · August 19, 2005

As a counterpoint to your initial post, I really like what I've seen of WM.com. I think it is a great melding of virts and LCs.

Thanks, again.

August 19, 2005

may i ask what beta means?

9.4k · August 19, 2005

may i ask what beta means?

Beta means it's running, but there are still some bugs to work out.

August 19, 2005

And the next question, What is a production system?

Answer: It's running, but there are still some bugs to work out.

August 20, 2005

And the next question, What is a production system?

Answer: It's running, but there are still some bugs to work out.

Nah. Once it's considered production, they become features.

Elias

7.2k · August 20, 2005

I played with Waymarking for about an hour a couple of days ago. Sat on the chair and waymarked my local brewpub and "found" an internet site. The big difference between Waymarking and geocaching is that I only used my GPS (iQue 3600) to calculate the coords from the address, which I had gotten off the internet (I had eaten dinner there a couple of days before, so this wasn't a random choice). I haven't been back to the site, but I suspect there are lots of waymarks and finds that could be done without a GPS and without leaving the house.

Interesting. I have seen error after error with this method. You might be sending people to a cleaners or to a drug store somewhere nearby. Google maps misses my house, for example. Are you sure your method is accurate within say 50 feet?

It would be nice if you actually used your GPS at the site rather than on your couch. If you don't want to participate in the activity correctly then those of us who do would appreciate it if you would not guess as to whether you got it right or not. I personally took the time to visit the two free WIFI spots I have waymarked so far. I'm sure future seekers of these waymarks will appreciate the time I took to make sure my waymark listing is indeed accurate.

August 20, 2005

Same here. I even went back to check my coordinates for my waymark in the Junk Design Houses category, Winos. I had taken the original coordinates and pictures about 6 weeks ago (the first day I got the GPSr in fact) just because I thought it was interesting. Since then I've upgraded my software version and I find it's more accurate, so I went back to re-record the coordinates.

Simply converting addresses online to coordinates for use in waymarks is very inaccurate -- try your own address on Geocode or someplace else and see what happens. For my waymark I didn't want to lead anyone to the middle of the street in front of the house, or to the front door, or to the mailbox, or any random spot, but to a very specific location for optimal viewing of the target. (edited to add, not to mention so that no one would be trespassing on private property.)

Edited August 20, 2005 by Bear Paughs

3.8k · August 20, 2005

...It's important to recognize why a virtual and why a locationless were fun to do and capture that with the new format...

This is the key to the answer to Huntnlady's concern. And I suggest that this point (posted by Carleenp before RK's post) explains part of the fascination with virtuals and locationless caches:

Why does counting on the cache tally matter so much?

I understand that locationless caches are not traditionals, and poo-pood on by Groundspeak, but I too, liked the old system where you got a smiley for finding one, and I understand the OP's concern.

But then, as I've always said, it's not about the numbers. (Have I been wrong all this time?)

BTW, all this brew ha ha about beer and winos is making me thirsty!

August 20, 2005

i'm afraid that the purpose of not grandfathering the the established virtuals and locationless to gc.com is to, in essence, force us to the new site. hope i said that right. now, dont beat me up too bad, just a thought. i would love to see the old, established virts and locationless stay where they are.

julia

9.4k · August 20, 2005

I understand that locationless caches are not traditionals, and poo-pood on by Groundspeak, but I too, liked the old system where you got a smiley for finding one, and I understand the OP's concern.

Kind of unfair, don't you think? It seems to me by the very effort of working through a solution that can accomodate all the existing issues with locationless caches, we're not pooh poohing them but actually raising them to a higher status? We are committed to waymarks as a concept and want to make sure it succeeds, but business is definitely not as usual. All along locationless caches have been broken and we have admitted it, not pooh poohed them. Doing so would be ignoring them.

It seems to me that not giving Waymarking at least a few months is a travesty. As I have indicated before, Waymarking will be "about the numbers" so the whole find count thing on geocaching.com will be trivial some day (soon).

Edited August 20, 2005 by Jeremy

Many People Liked Locationless Caches

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment