Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What about this for thought. Will you be able to log a Travel Bug at a Waymark? Since there's not really any virtual locations or locationless locations you should be able to take a Travel Bug to some of these spots so that they can get credit for the location.

 

I can see it now. A "Where's the Beef" Travel Bug that stops at every Wendy's around the country.

 

I like the idea. How about you?

Link to post

We have considered allowing travel bugs to jump from waymark to waymark as well, but travel bugs are currently just a geocaching activity. Like geocoins we may come up with a similar tracking mechanism but it is possible it will be different than travel bugs. Or some people will allow their travel bugs to be tracked on Waymarking.com. We haven't really decided. Let's see how it goes.

Link to post
We have considered allowing travel bugs to jump from waymark to waymark as well, but travel bugs are currently just a geocaching activity. Like geocoins we may come up with a similar tracking mechanism but it is possible it will be different than travel bugs. Or some people will allow their travel bugs to be tracked on Waymarking.com. We haven't really decided. Let's see how it goes.

Yes, I think that Travel Bugs should have the continuity of both sites. It would allow owners of Travel Bugs to actually see thier TB log sites that they weren't able to before.

 

The advent of a new geo critter for Waymarks could be good idea. I like the idea of calling them "Tags" or "Tag Bugs". The point would be to "tag" the person, place, or thing. You know the "Tag, you're it" game? hmmmmm

Link to post

I'd like to see TB logging allowed. I log my personal travel bug to track the miles I've traveled, as I know many many others do. Plus, if I were the owner of a traditional TB I'd imagine I would like to see all the different places it could visit.

Link to post
I think many folks would disagree if I indicated that Travel Bugs could be dropped off and picked up from waymarks.

I would have to agree with that Jeremy. Unless the location was setup to handle TBs, I would have to say "That's a No No". The only thing you could do is "Tag" the person, place or thing with a "Tag" or TB.

Link to post

Could there be some functionality added in the future maybe that would allow you to show a visit by a travel bug, where the TB does not leave the inventory of the person carrying it? That way it can reflect the visit to the waymark, including the mileage perhaps, which I think the TB owners WILL like. But make it impossible to drop off a bug into a waymark so there's no worry of someone logging it in and not picking it right back up.

Link to post
What about this for thought. Will you be able to log a Travel Bug at a Waymark? Since there's not really any virtual locations or locationless locations you should be able to take a Travel Bug to some of these spots so that they can get credit for the location.

 

I can see it now. A "Where's the Beef" Travel Bug that stops at every Wendy's around the country.

 

I like the idea. How about you?

I like it.

 

I like it a lot.

 

I have a personal travel bug that I'd love to be able to log at waymarks that I visit.

 

I would pay for a single Tag bug just so I could log waymarks with that special tag.

Link to post
Unless the location was setup to handle TBs....

Like a GEOCACHE......!? :P

 

Could there be some functionality added in the future maybe that would allow you to show a visit by a travel bug, where the TB does not leave the inventory of the person carrying it? That way it can reflect the visit to the waymark, including the mileage perhaps, which I think the TB owners WILL like.

 

Just track the User ID then...or would these owners be selective in how they want to calculate the mileage??

Link to post
The advent of a new geo critter for Waymarks could be good idea. I like the idea of calling them "Tags" or "Tag Bugs". The point would be to "tag" the person, place, or thing. You know the "Tag, you're it" game? hmmmmm

Given the connotations with graffiti and gang activity (Tagging), I'd shy away from the terms "tag", "tagger", "tagging", etc.

 

I do like the idea of creating a trackable item for the new activity though.

Link to post
Could there be some functionality added in the future maybe that would allow you to show a visit by a travel bug, where the TB does not leave the inventory of the person carrying it? That way it can reflect the visit to the waymark, including the mileage perhaps, which I think the TB owners WILL like.

 

Just track the User ID then...or would these owners be selective in how they want to calculate the mileage??

I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting by tracking the users id. My idea was basically to be able to show a travel bug visit to the cache but to disable the ability to 'drop' a bug into a waymark. That way the bug reflects the sites visited and their mileage. Eliminate the room for error by not having the ability to drop a bug into a waymark, but allow for a visit to be logged without doing a drop-and-retrieve.

 

The owner can see in their TB listing that the particular bug moved from point A (cache picked up in) to point B (a waymark it visited) to point C (cache bug left in). Without being able to log TB visits in waymarks, they would only see point A to point C and not have a true record of its journey.

Link to post
The owner can see in their TB listing that the particular bug moved from point A (cache picked up in) to point B (a waymark it visited) to point C (cache bug left in). Without being able to log TB visits in waymarks, they would only see point A to point C and not have a true record of its journey.

Since it's a different site/activity, create a new trackable item.

 

TBs don't get credit for visiting a terracache or a letterbox or my aunt Mildred's house...why should they get logged at a waymark?

Link to post
TBs don't get credit for visiting a terracache or a letterbox or my aunt Mildred's house...why should they get logged at a waymark?

That's the great part about this new world. These are real locations rather than a locationless or virtual. Letterboxes are somewhere else. This would open the door for Bugs to be logged at places otherwise forbidden.

 

I also think that some locations can be setup to handle the exchange of Bugs. The Bugs can still move from Geocaching to Waymarks and back without getting trapped in one world.

Link to post

While a new trackable item would be interesting, it wouldn't exactly serve the purpose I'm suggesting. The way I see it, geocaching and Waymarking are two separate -- but comparable -- aspects to Groundspeak, if we consider Groundspeak to be making a game out of finding a location we've been pointed to, using tools like GPS (or compass for those that do it that way.) The difference being in the existence of a container/logbook at the end of the hunt. I think Travel Bugs shouldn't be limited to only one side, and that if they can be incorporated into Waymarking then the *entire* journey of a TB can be accurate.

Link to post

Travel Bugs are distinctly defined as moving from cache to cache. Only a new type of traveler would be appropriate to the new site. There are quite a few people who would be unhappy if we started allowing people to move their travel bugs outside of caches.

Link to post
Travel Bugs are distinctly defined as moving from cache to cache. Only a new type of traveler would be appropriate to the new site. There are quite a few people who would be unhappy if we started allowing people to move their travel bugs outside of caches.

 

Okay, I know what you're saying. I didn't realize the definition specified the "cache" aspect of it, or that that wouldn't change along with the other changes. I was thinking of all those travel bugs that have specific goals like visiting as many ballparks, car dealerships (yes, I saw this somewhere), county fairs, etc. on their journey. I thought this would be a good way to record those side travels when a cache wasn't at the site, but there was a waymark for it.

 

If there was a new type of traveler, how would the passing it from one person to another be handled? It seems it would have to be in person, because you couldn't physically drop a traveler (of any kind) into a waymark, or likewise pick one up. It seems they'd have to be limited to personal travelers, virtual travelers, or physical bugs that require person-to-person handoff (which I think could be an obstacle to keeping them moving.)

Link to post
If there was a new type of traveler, how would the passing it from one person to another be handled?

I think there is plenty enough do discuss about Waymarking before we start introducing new hitchiker type functionality on the site. However, it is very possible for someone to put something at a physical location unattended without having a cache there, which is the main reason why we will not allow travel bugs to be handled in this way. Many people would be upset to find out their travel bug was dropped off at the Space Needle, or on top of a unique fire hydrant.

Link to post

I gotta dumb question...

 

If a waymark is like a locaitonless, or a virtual, adn thereis no container, how in the world is a TB to be transfered (dropped off and picked up) at a waymark?

 

If what I am imagining is right, then peoplewill be out in National Parks and other Cache restricted areas digging around rocks and leaves, turning over logs, or crawling under picnic tables.... That is what Geocachign is about... but waymarks?

 

I dont know about the TB thing unless there is another way to transfer TB's from one person toanother

Link to post
I gotta dumb question...

 

If a waymark is like a locaitonless, or a virtual, adn thereis no container, how in the world is a TB to be transfered (dropped off and picked up) at a waymark?

It's not a dumb question, it's more like a good point. Actually waymark categories are like locationless caches, while waymarks are virtuals. And no, it doesn't make much sense for a travel bug to be dropped off at a virtual.

 

That's generally the point I'm making - it is a Bad Idea to allow Travel Bugs to move from waymark to waymark. Another type of tracker should be in place for that, but we need to go through the baby steps as we implement the Waymarking site.

Link to post
I gotta dumb question...

 

If a waymark is like a locaitonless, or a virtual, adn thereis no container, how in the world is a TB to be transfered (dropped off and picked up) at a waymark?

It's not a dumb question, it's more like a good point. Actually waymark categories are like locationless caches, while waymarks are virtuals. And no, it doesn't make much sense for a travel bug to be dropped off at a virtual.

 

That's generally the point I'm making - it is a Bad Idea to allow Travel Bugs to move from waymark to waymark. Another type of tracker should be in place for that, but we need to go through the baby steps as we implement the Waymarking site.

Looks like you have some pretty firm opinions on the subject but always being one to put my 2 cents on the counter long after the barkeep has said last call...

 

Create a new entry on the TB log page for Visited. Visited is only available for users who have Retrieved or Grabbed which will be from a real cache. Visited adds miles but doesn't change current location (in the users hands). That might actually reduce the server load of people dropping and picking TBs right back up just to log miles.

 

I know, lots of programming required and server traffic between sites but HEY! Buy a new server and hire a programmer! What do you think I paid you $30 for? :laughing:

Link to post

Since I enjoy taking TBs to location that fit their goals, you'd think that I'd be in favor of allowing TBs to visit Waymark locations, right?

 

Nope.

 

You can always post a note with photos and coordinates of the Waymark location on the TB log, and if possible, link to the actual Waymark in question.

 

I foresee a mess if people can easily log TBs into Waymarks, as the numbers will become so large it'll be hard to sort them out. By keeping TBs to Geocaching and making association to Waymarking more manual, people'd be forced to be stingy with which ones to visit, thus keep the history of the TB from too much clutter.

Link to post

I really like the idea of having "Bugs" move around in the WM world. Having the ability to log these little creatures at places that were taboo before is exciting to me.

I would like to see the new creation of a "Bug" called "Hikers" or "Hitch-Hikers" that could move in both worlds. Let the Travel bugs be exclusive for GC and the "Hitch-Hikers" be exclusive for WM but allow them both to log both worlds.

Link to post

I think there is plenty enough do discuss about Waymarking before we start introducing new hitchiker type functionality on the site. However, it is very possible for someone to put something at a physical location unattended without having a cache there, which is the main reason why we will not allow travel bugs to be handled in this way. Many people would be upset to find out their travel bug was dropped off at the Space Needle, or on top of a unique fire hydrant.

 

Everyone who has ever lost a Travel Bug knows that there's enough confusion now about how to properly log and transfer them. Please don't let them into Waymarking. If Waymarks are opened as places to log bugs some people will just assume it's OK to physically drop a bug off at a Waymark.

 

I had nice bug, which on its first transfer, was physically left at a virtual cache site and of course has not been seen since. :laughing:

 

Maybe down the road, in a year or two, when Waymarking is nicely established , some kind of tag or mark visitor can be invented.

 

NevaP, happy that 15 of her 20 Travel Bugs are still alive and traveling. :laughing:

Link to post

I think FtMgAl's suggest of a "visit" log for TBs might be a possible solution.

 

Then again, it adds another dimension to the already confusing TB world, and NevaP does have a good point.

 

---

 

On a seperate note, I like the idea that somebody had of keeping track of the mileage of the user.

 

Lets say I have my home coordinates created. It'd be neat to track MY mileage from home to the waymark - to the next waymark - etc.

 

You could even have an feature that would allow you to go from waymark back to home if you returned home before listing/logging the next waymark.

 

So - I find my first waymark and it's 50 miles away. I track the mileage from home -> wm -> home and I'm at 100 miles.

 

Then - If I visited 2 (or more) waymarks before coming home it could track home -> waymark > waymark > home. (You'd need some manual step to return home before visiting another waymark. Perhaps by default you could leave your "location" at the waymark until you return home or visit another waymark).

 

sd

Link to post
On a seperate note, I like the idea that somebody had of keeping track of the mileage of the user.

I haven't seen the other thread so I may be stating the obvious that has been discussed to death already but the potential for fraud is enormous. Numbers are going to be high. I do a 50 mile loop and bag 50 waymarks. I then log them in order so that I cut a circumference of the circle for each log. I could take a 2 hour trip and turn it into over 800 miles of travel. Requiring me to go "home" first just increases my distance.

 

Worse yet, as discussed in another thread, the current rules don't require a visit in many cases. I could sit here at the computer and "travel" 10,000 miles in the next hour and my logs could comply with all of the currently written rules.

Link to post
Everyone who has ever lost a Travel Bug knows that there's enough confusion now about how to properly log and transfer them. Please don't let them into Waymarking. If Waymarks are opened as places to log bugs some people will just assume it's OK to physically drop a bug off at a Waymark.

 

I had nice bug, which on its first transfer, was physically left at a virtual cache site and of course has not been seen since. :rolleyes:

 

Maybe down the road, in a year or two, when Waymarking is nicely established , some kind of tag or mark visitor can be invented.

 

NevaP, happy that 15 of her 20 Travel Bugs are still alive and traveling. :laughing:

I'm sorry but I just have trouble understanding the mentality that would leave a TB at a Virtual. Where do you put it? Just hide it somewhere? How could you think someone would find it? It was Oscar Wilde who said "There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life."

 

At first I thought automation could solve this problem. Since you can't drop a TB at a waymark (the dropdown list has only visit and note available), no one could get confused. No,wait, they left it before they came back from vacation and started logging where they had been for the past two weeks. Stupidity is far more powerful the even the smartest computer program.

 

I'm guessing that people will lose TBs at a waymarks no matter what we do. Is there any record of a TB being left at a Benchmark? :laughing:

 

I really like the visit idea for GC but I have been converted and no longer like the idea of TB's going to Waymarks.

Link to post
On a seperate note, I like the idea that somebody had of keeping track of the mileage of the user.

I haven't seen the other thread so I may be stating the obvious that has been discussed to death already but the potential for fraud is enormous. Numbers are going to be high. I do a 50 mile loop and bag 50 waymarks. I then log them in order so that I cut a circumference of the circle for each log. I could take a 2 hour trip and turn it into over 800 miles of travel. Requiring me to go "home" first just increases my distance.

 

Worse yet, as discussed in another thread, the current rules don't require a visit in many cases. I could sit here at the computer and "travel" 10,000 miles in the next hour and my logs could comply with all of the currently written rules.

Actually, I thought the idea was posted in THIS thread, but after reading this post from GlobalRat - I realize I misunderstood what was suggested:

 

Just track the User ID then...or would these owners be selective in how they want to calculate the mileage??

 

Regardless, this inspired my idea.

 

Anyways, I do not understand your objections. What do you mean, numbers are going to be too high? To high for what? This isn't a competition - it's a way for me to keep track of my personal mileage while I visit/log waymarks. People already do this with travelbugs (it's a common practice for people to have "personal" tbs that never leave their possession).

 

I also think you have misunderstood my suggestion about "going home".

 

I'd think, if this feature was implemented - that after you log a waymark visit you'd get an option that says:

 

"Would you like to log another waymark visit? Y/N". If chose no, it'd automatically reset your location to home and calculate the mileage.

 

I guess some people like to dwell on the negative - but almost every geocacher I've met is honest. Regardless of what you do, people will find some way to "cheat" but I honestly don't know how this would hurt anybody - you don't win any rewards for having the most waymark visits.

 

I also think you're talking about the People->Internet->Blog waymarks. I just checked those out - and I don't see a place to put a waypoint. I don't know that these do or would count with distance - or that it even matters. As someone with a small amount of programming ability, I know that it would be incedental to program it so that waymarks not requiring coordinates wouldn't count in distance calculations.

 

Of course, all of this is rather pointless because there is so much more important stuff that needs to take place.

 

sd

Link to post
Travel Bugs are distinctly defined as moving from cache to cache. Only a new type of traveler would be appropriate to the new site. There are quite a few people who would be unhappy if we started allowing people to move their travel bugs outside of caches.

A new item for us to buy at Groundspeak.com! Now I know what this Waymarking site is all about! :lol:

Link to post

I can't believe that some of you are getting caught up in the numbers.

 

A new item for us to buy at Groundspeak.com! Now I know what this Waymarking site is all about!

 

This is not about money or seeing how many miles you can log around your home town to beat your neighbor that lives 15 miles away. The fact of the matter still remains that if someone wants to cheat he's going to find a way to cheat. It's a basic principle of worldly situation ethics. Greed will always show it's ugly face no matter what's at stake.

 

We should campaign for the "No Travel Bug Left Behind" act. Maybe if newbies took time to read the directions before playing the game then we might not have some of the problems that we do. Who wants to read directions? How many people sit down and read the directions for an item that was purchased with instructions? It just doesn't happen with most people. The same thing goes here too. Some people assume too much and that causes problems. When problems arise then one might say, "Maybe I should read the directions".

 

I still think that "Hitch-Hikers" would be a nice addition to Waymarking.

Link to post
Anyways, I do not understand your objections.  What do you mean, numbers are going to be too high? To high for what?
Not going to be TOO high. Just going TO BE high. I can see hundreds of waymarks in the area we now have a single cache. I could already register more waymarks in a 10 mile radius around my house that the total number of caches ever placed in a 25 mile radius. And I'm just one person. So when you say you want to do a 50 mile loop I envision a lot of waymarks.

 

This isn't a competition - it's a way for me to keep track of my personal mileage while I visit/log waymarks.  People already do this with travelbugs (it's a common practice for people to have "personal" tbs that never leave their possession).

I understand. But I come from a background where my job was to find problems and I think I found a big one. You want a public solution for a personal issue. TB's were an easy way to solve your problem at GC without opening the hole you are trying to open here. A TB had to travel from cache to cache. If you did 10 caches in a day that was a pretty good day. You can do a waymark in less than a minute and they will be so close together... And if you want spend an afternoon and do a 50 mile loop... Now you sit down at the computer to log 50 waymarks. YOU will do them in the order you physically visited them so that you can track your mileage. The evil kid will scramble the order just for the numbers. In the end, your tiny number will be of interest only to you and the competition for high mileage will create angst for everyone else. IMHO, get a spreadsheet and record your car mileage (or hiking distance) on every trip if you want. That won't bother me.

 

I also think you have misunderstood my suggestion about "going home".

I'd think, if this feature was implemented - that after you log a waymark visit you'd get an option that says:

"Would you like to log another waymark visit? Y/N".  If chose no, it'd automatically reset your location to home and calculate the mileage. 

That's exactly the way I understood it and the evil kid is going home after every visit and then running back out to the next one.

 

I guess some people like to dwell on the negative - but almost every geocacher I've met is honest. 

That is my experience also. And I have never walked into a bank and seen a bank robber. Yet the guards there always seem to have guns.

 

Regardless of what you do, people will find some way to "cheat" but I honestly don't know how this would hurt anybody - you don't win any rewards for having the most waymark visits.

Tell that to the 6 year old kid that logged 1100 caches in a week last month and the cache owners who had to decide what to do about each log. For some people it IS about the numbers. And we can't ignore them just because you and I neither care. Or maybe we can. Maybe the standard of anarchy that Waymarking is setting is fine and those that care about numbers will spend their lives here and those who don't will visit occasionally to see if they can find something interesting.

 

Of course, all of this is rather pointless because there is so much more important stuff that needs to take place.

sd

Now there's something we can both agree on.
Link to post

I have to admit, I didn't read the whole thread, mostly just stopped and read a post here or there to get the gist of what was being said.

 

Anyways my personal feeling is:

 

Don't create two different tracked items. I think it will only create confusion. Heck, we could have a third tracked item, that could be tracked on both!.

 

I can imagine the problems when someone passes someone else a waymark 'bug' that wanted to visit Wendy's locations, and then it got dropped in to a cache (how exactly would the waymark bugs travel anyways, if not passed through geocaches?). Then we have some 'bugs' that are logged in to caches that can visit waymarks and some that can't... Hmmmm, seems kind of silly to me.

 

Personally I would set up an opt-out system where people decline to let their bugs be logged at waymarks (just a flag on the TB page that says "Please do not log my waymark visits").

 

Or maybe if you're a premium member you can visit waymarks with bugs in your hands, but not if you aren't.

 

Maybe any bug that you have in your inventory gets 'logged' at a given waymark when you log your visit to that waymark (obviously this kind of functionality would have to be 'opt-in' for privacy reasons.).

 

Just a few thoughts anyways.

Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...