Jump to content

Many People Liked Locationless Caches


Recommended Posts

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.

If I posted a waymark that I gave estimated coords for, I might add some text requesting that better coords be taken by the finders. I think, as the owner of the waymark, I can go in and correct the coords and remove the request later, right? Problem solved. :lol:

 

--Marky

Link to post
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.

Mostly I was just trying out the new site, and chose something close (Consider it a beta entry). The coords couldn't have been too far off though, since someone already found it.

 

I'm trying to stay open to all these changes to the game we love so much, but I don't have the time to keep up with all the different forum topics and information is hard to find. What Jeremy just said about the numbers makes me nervous and I'll have to be nervous until a) he spills the beans and :lol: I find time to search for the answer, so I'll be nervous for awhile. It'll be a great day when Groundspeak.com has the money for a marketing person. (The previous statements were not made to tick anybody off - I'm just in a state of frustrating confusion)

 

This may have been discussed elsewhere, but will events, which usually don't envolve finding a piece of Tupperware, stay on gc.com or go to wm.com?

Link to post
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).

I'm not sure how to interpret that ... are you saying the numbers on geocaching.com will go away, or that the Waymarking.com will have a similar numbers system as geocaching.com?

Link to post
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?

 

...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).

I'm not sure what I said that is unfair (maybe the use of poo pooh).

 

Please don't misunderstand; although I may sound a bit skeptical, I'm more than willing to give the new waymark concept a fair chance. But as RK pointed out above, it is important to identify the essence of the attraction to these types of caches/waymarks.

 

I really doubt that the find count on GC.com will ever become trivial (to some). It would be nice if the Waymarking site does elevate these types (of caches) to a higher status, but status can only be determined by the community as a whole.

 

I find it interesting, but somewhat confusing when you say Waymarking will be "about the numbers." :lol::lol:

Link to post
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).

I'm not sure how to interpret that ... are you saying the numbers on geocaching.com will go away, or that the Waymarking.com will have a similar numbers system as geocaching.com?

It took years for people to get into the 5,000 to 10,000 finds range on geocaching.com. I think it will be mere months before people reach those kinds of numbers on Waymarking.com. In a year or two, the numbers on geocaching.com will seem trivial by comparison.

Link to post

That depends on your point of view. Some cccachers might not like the fact others have more visits then them, but joeblow_newbie who doesn't have a hope in hell of getting into the top 10 on geocaching.com, will relish (another food reference) in the fact that he's #3 in waymarks.

Link to post
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).

I'm not sure how to interpret that ... are you saying the numbers on geocaching.com will go away, or that the Waymarking.com will have a similar numbers system as geocaching.com?

It took years for people to get into the 5,000 to 10,000 finds range on geocaching.com. I think it will be mere months before people reach those kinds of numbers on Waymarking.com. In a year or two, the numbers on geocaching.com will seem trivial by comparison.

Are you folks falling into the same rut not recognizing that Waymarking is NOT Geocaching? Yes, 1000 logs here will be comparatively easy. But isn't that like saying that accumulating 30 college credits is easier than climbing 30 14ers? It's a different game. Sorry, Jeremy. You are right that Waymarking is about the numbers but Geocaching is also about the numbers to many people and that won't change. Committed Geocachers will consider high number Waymarkers as people who can't find caches (unless they also have a high number of cache finds). To someone who has climbed a 14er, someone saying they walked to the post office 12 times last month isn't all that impressive. My ace beats your pocket full of acorns. They are different games!

Link to post
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. ...

Much like virts and LCs on the geocaching site, it will be up to the category owner to determine if the waymark should be listed (and up to the waymark owner to determine if the 'find' should be allowed.

 

On my minor league ballparks category, I stated that a pic (with GPSr) is required for waymark approval. If there isn't a pic, its not approved.

Link to post

I have to say I am very disappointed that the current virtuals and locationlesses will be archived. I have enjoyed finding many locationless (including 1 of the few Merci boxcars still existing) and many virtuals as well. I hope that Jeremy will change his mind and at least let the existing ones stay on GC.com. I have learned so much historical and fun information from virtuals and locationlesses, that I will really miss them.

 

Yes I am a premium member, yes I "own" an earthcache, yes I hunt locationlesses and virtuals. But I also see I'm not alone in wishing that they be kept here on GC.com.

 

Why not let the owners post them here and also at waypoint.com? That way the folks who have no interest in using waypoint.com can still hunt and find these very cool and limited type caches? Lots of people double post there caches both at GC.com and navicache.com and it doesn't seem to hurt either site.

 

Just my two pennies worth.

 

Jeff

"Barthonis"

Link to post

Well, I have been browsing this site and I am really disappointed in the fact that there will not be 'true locationless' allowed. I had such a blast by doing the 'Yellow Jeep' and when we found Geocaching.com, the ability to post more locationless had already been taken away. So, we never got the chance to try our hand with these unique, fun types of caches. (Yes, I called them caches...they were listed on GC so I thought of them as caches - and very FUN).

 

The virtuals have taken us a little longer to try (and we did not want to place any till we couldn't any longer) and when we did try them - found out they are very refreshing in that "all" take you to a very interesting spot (one that you might have just driven by) - versus a lot of the 'traditional caches' that have just been placed by people that seem to not have much imagination. Some have been placed out in the middle of the desert - not hidden very well, where if they would have had a fantastic view, if they had just driven farther down the dirt road to look for a cache site, sometimes just a 1/4 mile to 2 miles.

 

I like the GC site just as is. It is very easy to use, (including benchmarks). This new site might grow on us but, why fix something that did not seem broken?

 

Speaking of the 'benchmark hunting' on GC. Are you planning on moving all of our data base and finds and the picture gallery over to 'Waymarking'? I for one, like the benchmark hunting just where it is. It has it's own find count, so it is not bothering anyone, as it might have if it had been included with the cache count. Please tell us that you aren't planning on moving the existing benchmark hunting to this site...it will NOT be the same - cannot be the same as it is now.

 

Sorry if this sounds negative, the new site just looks so different and I like the GC site so much...

 

Shirley~

Link to post
Well, I have been browsing this site and I am really disappointed in the fact that there will not be 'true locationless' allowed. I had such a blast by doing the 'Yellow Jeep' and when we found Geocaching.com, the ability to post more locationless had already been taken away. So, we never got the chance to try our hand with these unique, fun types of caches. (Yes, I called them caches...they were listed on GC so I thought of them as caches - and very FUN).

 

The virtuals have taken us a little longer to try (and we did not want to place any till we couldn't any longer) and when we did try them - found out they are very refreshing in that "all" take you to a very interesting spot (one that you might have just driven by) - versus a lot of the 'traditional caches' that have just been placed by people that seem to not have much imagination. Some have been placed out in the middle of the desert - not hidden very well, where if they would have had a fantastic view, if they had just driven farther down the dirt road to look for a cache site, sometimes just a 1/4 mile to 2 miles.

 

I like the GC site just as is. It is very easy to use, (including benchmarks). This new site might grow on us but, why fix something that did not seem broken?

 

Speaking of the 'benchmark hunting' on GC. Are you planning on moving all of our data base and finds and the picture gallery over to 'Waymarking'? I for one, like the benchmark hunting just where it is. It has it's own find count, so it is not bothering anyone, as it might have if it had been included with the cache count. Please tell us that you aren't planning on moving the existing benchmark hunting to this site...it will NOT be the same - cannot be the same as it is now.

 

Sorry if this sounds negative, the new site just looks so different and I like the GC  site so much...

 

Shirley~

What exactly about the locationless caches on Geocaching.com are you not seeing yourself as able to do with Waymarking.com?

 

In a majority of cases, the locationless experience should actually be enhanced, not the other way around, as we haven't taken anything away. You still have the locationless cache in the form of a waymark category, and the individual logs in the form of waymarks. The beauty now is that you can actually search for and visit the waymarks. You can "log the logs" so to speak.

 

For example, the person who owned the "kitschy capitals" locationless would now manage a category called "kitschy capitals" or "kitschy capital signs". Instead of posting logs when you found a sign, you'd now post each sign as their own waymark. It's the same experience. However, now people can actually search what used to be the logs (and are now waymarks), and even visit the locations if they wanted. You can now look for the logs (waymarks) in your area if you want. The only difference is in how they are organized.

 

Did you think it was tedious to sort through each of the logs? What exactly would you do if you actually wanted to visit one of them? How would you find the ones in your area? You couldn't. Well now you can.

Edited by bootron
Link to post
What exactly about the locationless caches on Geocaching.com are you not seeing yourself as able to do with Waymarking.com?

My personal feeling, is the one thing that is being taken away with Waymarking.com is the 'exclusivity' factor. There were only very few locationless caches, so there were very few things that you were actually looking for.

 

With Waymarking.com, there is such a wide range of categories that you are looking for just about anything and everything.

 

Of course this is pretty much exactly what people asked for, but it makes it very different than searching for locationless caches.

 

I too would keep locationless caches and virts on gc.com to maintain the 'exclusive' factor of them. Maybe the top n% of categories are given the option to set up a 'locationless cache' for them, or just keep the existing ones as they are.

 

(for the record, I really like the Waymarking concept as I see it, and I can imagine how it might evolve, I also really appreciate the structuring of the data, and can imagine that once it is properly searchable/downloadable, it could be a very neat tool)

Link to post
I too would keep locationless caches and virts on gc.com to maintain the 'exclusive' factor of them. Maybe the top n% of categories are given the option to set up a 'locationless cache' for them, or just keep the existing ones as they are.

Not only can you still find the exclusivity, but you can set the level of exclusiveness (n%) to your own personal definition of "Wow" by using the popularity filter on the right (assuming the more something is "Wow", the more people will like it).

Link to post
I too would keep locationless caches and virts on gc.com to maintain the 'exclusive' factor of them. Maybe the top n% of categories are given the option to set up a 'locationless cache' for them, or just keep the existing ones as they are.

Not only can you still find the exclusivity, but you can set the level of exclusiveness (n%) to your own personal definition of "Wow" by using the popularity filter on the right (assuming the more something is "Wow", the more people will like it).

Yeah, I know, I'm just not seeing it.

 

I'm assuming that things are still lumped together when I look at other people's stats pages etc? I personally prefer to have a 'hard' limit, not a personally set one. Something outside of the individual user's control. I can see where you're comming from, I just don't buy it.

Link to post
I too would keep locationless caches and virts on gc.com to maintain the 'exclusive' factor of them. Maybe the top n% of categories are given the option to set up a 'locationless cache' for them, or just keep the existing ones as they are.

Not only can you still find the exclusivity, but you can set the level of exclusiveness (n%) to your own personal definition of "Wow" by using the popularity filter on the right (assuming the more something is "Wow", the more people will like it).

Yeah, I know, I'm just not seeing it.

 

I'm assuming that things are still lumped together when I look at other people's stats pages etc? I personally prefer to have a 'hard' limit, not a personally set one. Something outside of the individual user's control. I can see where you're comming from, I just don't buy it.

One thing to keep in mind is that the stats that are displayed right now are extremely rudimentary compared to what they will be. Pretty much all you get at the moment is a list of waymarks you've posted, a list of categories you manage, a list of visits and a list of waymarks that you have visits for. There's more to come.

Link to post
One thing to keep in mind is that the stats that are displayed right now are extremely rudimentary compared to what they will be. Pretty much all you get at the moment is a list of waymarks you've posted, a list of categories you manage, a list of visits and a list of waymarks that you have visits for. There's more to come.

Awww, you're such a tease. Ok Ok I reserve judgement, for now...

Link to post
Well, I have been browsing this site and I am really disappointed in the fact that there will not be 'true locationless' allowed. I had such a blast by doing the 'Yellow Jeep' and when we found Geocaching.com, the ability to post more locationless had already been taken away. So, we never got the chance to try our hand with these unique, fun types of caches. (Yes, I called them caches...they were listed on GC so I thought of them as caches - and very FUN).

 

The virtuals have taken us a little longer to try (and we did not want to place any till we couldn't any longer) and when we did try them - found out they are very refreshing in that "all" take you to a very interesting spot (one that you might have just driven by) - versus a lot of the 'traditional caches' that have just been placed by people that seem to not have much imagination. Some have been placed out in the middle of the desert - not hidden very well, where if they would have had a fantastic view, if they had just driven farther down the dirt road to look for a cache site, sometimes just a 1/4 mile to 2 miles.

 

I like the GC site just as is. It is very easy to use, (including benchmarks). This new site might grow on us but, why fix something that did not seem broken?

 

Speaking of the 'benchmark hunting' on GC. Are you planning on moving all of our data base and finds and the picture gallery over to 'Waymarking'? I for one, like the benchmark hunting just where it is. It has it's own find count, so it is not bothering anyone, as it might have if it had been included with the cache count. Please tell us that you aren't planning on moving the existing benchmark hunting to this site...it will NOT be the same - cannot be the same as it is now.

 

Sorry if this sounds negative, the new site just looks so different and I like the GC  site so much...

 

Shirley~

What exactly about the locationless caches on Geocaching.com are you not seeing yourself as able to do with Waymarking.com?

 

In a majority of cases, the locationless experience should actually be enhanced, not the other way around, as we haven't taken anything away. You still have the locationless cache in the form of a waymark category, and the individual logs in the form of waymarks. The beauty now is that you can actually search for and visit the waymarks. You can "log the logs" so to speak.

 

For example, the person who owned the "kitschy capitals" locationless would now manage a category called "kitschy capitals" or "kitschy capital signs". Instead of posting logs when you found a sign, you'd now post each sign as their own waymark. It's the same experience. However, now people can actually search what used to be the logs (and are now waymarks), and even visit the locations if they wanted. You can now look for the logs (waymarks) in your area if you want. The only difference is in how they are organized.

 

Did you think it was tedious to sort through each of the logs? What exactly would you do if you actually wanted to visit one of them? How would you find the ones in your area? You couldn't. Well now you can.

 

As I "clearly" stated in my post...the "TRULY LOCATIONLESS" caches are now gone. You cannot post any 'waymark', that does not have a "Location" ie coordinates, as in the famous "Yellow Jeep" 'locationless'. There was no 'place' to return to and see a particular yellow jeep. You just hunted one down...that was the fun.

 

This kind can NOT be done on this site.

 

I am editing my post to say that waymarks are NOT Locationless, they ARE Virtual caches. They all have coordinates, which in my book is a virtual cache, no matter what you call it.

 

Shirley~

Edited by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)
Link to post
As I "clearly" stated in my post...the "TRULY LOCATIONLESS" caches are now gone. You cannot post any 'waymark', that does not have a "Location" ie coordinates, as in the famous "Yellow Jeep" 'locationless'. There was no 'place' to return to and see a particular yellow jeep. You just hunted one down...that was the fun.

 

This kind can NOT be done on this site.

 

I am editing my post to say that waymarks are NOT Locationless, they ARE Virtual caches. They all have coordinates, which in my book is a virtual cache, no matter what you call it.

 

Shirley~

Although it may be hard to get this sort of category approved, given the current proposals for category approval, I see no reason why you couldn't have a Yellow Jeep category. There are a few different ways you could work this one.

 

1. You could create a waymark when you see a Yellow Jeep. Visits to these waymarks are not allowed (pure locationless)

 

2. You could create a waymark when you see a Yellow Jeep. People could then visit that waymark and record whether or not they saw a yellow jeep there.

 

3. You could create a waymark when you see a Yellow Jeep. The category will require you to enter the license plate number and state/country. Assuming there is a way to search the waymarks in a category based on the category variables, when you find a jeep that has already been found, instead of creating a new waymark you would log a visit and post updated coordinates. Of course, this proposal is fraught with privacy issues. I don't know if every owner of a yellow Jeep would want to have a website that tracks the locations where the Jeep was seen.

Link to post

As I "clearly" stated in my post...the "TRULY LOCATIONLESS" caches are now gone. You cannot post any 'waymark', that does not have a "Location" ie coordinates, as in the famous "Yellow Jeep" 'locationless'. There was no 'place' to return to and see a particular yellow jeep. You just hunted one down...that was the fun.

 

This kind can NOT be done on this site.

 

I am editing my post to say that waymarks are NOT Locationless, they ARE Virtual caches. They all have coordinates, which in my book is a virtual cache, no matter what you call it.

 

Shirley~

I don't want to get in a big argument here, but I think you aren't realizing that waymark categories are now the locationless caches, not the waymarks. And while there isn't presently a "Yellow Jeep" waymark category right now, there hypothetically could be (if the community decides to let it through). There is, however, this category: "Art Vehicles", that is similar in nature to the one you're discussing. And there will soon be a "Kissmobile" category as well.

Link to post

This is very easily solved by allowing waymarks for "coordinates unknown/unavailable" or something like that. This would require that each waymark in the category would require some other form of "validation" or "annotation" to allow you to create a waymark in that category.

 

Of course, the silliness of that is that you're placing a markless "waymark" and you've abstracted that much further from "geocaching".

 

I think it's time for a new site: www.ISawSomething!.com

Edited by ju66l3r
Link to post
Although it may be hard to get this sort of category approved, given the current proposals for category approval, I see no reason why you couldn't have a Yellow Jeep category. There are a few different ways you could work this one.

 

1. You could create a waymark when you see a Yellow Jeep. Visits to these waymarks are not allowed (pure locationless)

 

2. You could create a waymark when you see a Yellow Jeep. People could then visit that waymark and record whether or not they saw a yellow jeep there.

 

3. You could create a waymark when you see a Yellow Jeep. The category will require you to enter the license plate number and state/country. Assuming there is a way to search the waymarks in a category based on the category variables, when you find a jeep that has already been found, instead of creating a new waymark you would log a visit and post updated coordinates. Of course, this proposal is fraught with privacy issues. I don't know if every owner of a yellow Jeep would want to have a website that tracks the locations where the Jeep was seen.

Yup, the license plate part is definitely "fraught with privacy issues." There's a reason why media censors blur them out.

 

Personally, I would probably ignore a waymark like Yellow Jeep LC. You can tempt me with a train-spotting waymark, but it won't work. :laughing: If anything, we should hold off on "moving waymarks" until we see how well the rest of the waymarks do.

 

I really enjoyed the Locationless caches on GC.com. It was adventurous trying to find, then exclusively claim a hard-to-find LC. It was better than the scramble for FTFs since it wasn't just speed and luck, but some research was necessary and the experience often ended up being educational.

Link to post
This is very easily solved by allowing waymarks for "coordinates unknown/unavailable" or something like that.  This would require that each waymark in the category would require some other form of "validation" or "annotation" to allow you to create a waymark in that category.

 

Of course, the silliness of that is that you're placing a markless "waymark" and you've abstracted that much further from "geocaching".

 

I think it's time for a new site:  www.ISawSomething!.com

I should qualify my last post by emphasizing the "you can HYPOTHETICALLY have a Yellow Jeep" category. But most people aren't interested in waymarks that won't be there when you search for them again. Logging people's cars is kind of a freaky thing to do I think, unless they clearly aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

But nonetheless, the point still stands that waymark categories are basically locationless caches.

Link to post

Art Vehicles doesnt cover one locationless Ive wanted to do for yrs now. Non stationary uniquely decorated vehicles. There is a vehicle in my area that is a van with funky tail fins, and markings making it look like a jet. Another one Ive seen is a car that had plastic stuff glued all over it, from dinosaurs, ants, hula girls.. weird but cool. They are not stationary but a funky category worth having. I hope the true locationless ones are allowed.

Link to post
This is very easily solved by allowing waymarks for "coordinates unknown/unavailable" or something like that.  This would require that each waymark in the category would require some other form of "validation" or "annotation" to allow you to create a waymark in that category.

 

Of course, the silliness of that is that you're placing a markless "waymark" and you've abstracted that much further from "geocaching".

 

I think it's time for a new site:  www.ISawSomething!.com

I should qualify my last post by emphasizing the "you can HYPOTHETICALLY have a Yellow Jeep" category. But most people aren't interested in waymarks that won't be there when you search for them again. Logging people's cars is kind of a freaky thing to do I think, unless they clearly aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

But nonetheless, the point still stands that waymark categories are basically locationless caches.

 

I think you are making an assumption that does not fly. Just how many logs were there for 'Yellow Jeep'? And, how many AFTER it was archived? That should give you a clue as to how many people like True Locationless.

 

Shirley~

Link to post
Art Vehicles doesnt cover one locationless Ive wanted to do for yrs now. Non stationary uniquely decorated vehicles. There is a vehicle in my area that is a van with funky tail fins, and markings making it look like a jet. Another one Ive seen is a car that had plastic stuff glued all over it, from dinosaurs, ants, hula girls.. weird but cool. They are not stationary but a funky category worth having. I hope the true locationless ones are allowed.

I'm not sure how you would incorporate it, but they are funny.

We saw this on vacation in Miami back around 1999. Sorry that they are blurry.

How do you like the green sprinkler on the roof on the bottom picture! :D

 

plantcar1a.jpg

 

plantcar2a.jpg

Link to post
I think you are making an assumption that does not fly. Just how many logs were there for 'Yellow Jeep'? And, how many AFTER it was archived? That should give you a clue as to how many people like True Locationless.

I think you're making the assumption that just because lots of people logged it, that those same people thought it was a good idea to have the locationless. I think a lot of the people who logged it did so because they thought it was kind of funny, and it was an easy log. The same 'joke' told again isn't likely to get as much support.

Link to post
Another one Ive seen is a car that had plastic stuff glued all over it, from dinosaurs, ants, hula girls.. weird but cool.

I used to have Sesame Street Characters glued all over my truck. Had Ernie and Bert playing baseball on the back. Super Grover on the hood, a couple of "Big Birds" on the top, and a whole crowd of others. Then someone stole every last one of them while I was parked at the train station.

Link to post

Maybe my last post wasn't clear enough, so I'll ask again more precisely and hope that Jeremy might answer.....

 

Why are the locationless and virtuals being archived and not allowed to exist simultaneously with their Waymarking counterparts? Do the two HAVE to be mutually exclusive? I for one will not be moving my earthcache to the Waymarking website. If it is archived by the powers that be, then so be it. Although I think forcing cache owners to move their caches to Waymarking if they want to keep them is absurd. You don't have to destroy one/remove one to have it on another site. Why are the two sites being made mutually exclusive?

 

Locationlesses have a moritorium on them and are disappearing as owners decide to archive them, so they are becoming less of a problem to you "pureists" out there. And virtuals took almost an act of God (or at least congress) to get them approved lately, so they aren't profilerating at any vast rate. If you don't want any more virts, that just put a moritorium on them as well and leave them here on gc.com for those of us that hunt them to enjoy. And if the locationless/virtual owners want the Waymarking folks to enjoy them, then the can add them over there too.

 

Also, I really, really, really, really (get the point), really hope you don't move the benchmark hunting to Waymarking. Maybe, give it it's own website, but I happen to like it just the way it is......if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

Jeff

"Barthonis"

Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...