Waymarks Belonging To Multiple Categories

[+dogbreathcanada 0]

I have a waymark that could easily belong to two separate categories. Right now I have it listed under "Plane Crashes", but it could easily belong to "Mountain Summits" too.

 

Any plans to allow waymarks to belong to more than one category in the future?

 

(If this has already been discussed in another thread, my apologies in advance for bringing it up again in a new thread.)

[tozainamboku 5]

My first Waymarkwell

[Jeremy 4]

Markwelled already. but yes, you can post them in multiple categories. In many situations the waymark variables may be entirely different.

 

On the same note, we'll also be adding a "see also" under certain waymark categories that are related to other categories. For example, a cemetary waymark category may have a "see also" for a gravestone waymark category.

[+Team Neos 0]

Does that mean that I could potentially go see one headstone and waymark (as a visitor)

a) the headstone for being unusual

the headstone for being more than 100 years old (or whatever that category ends up being)

c) the headstone for being that of the famous person

d) the grave for being that of a famous civil war veteran

e) the cemetery for being civil war cemetery

f) the location for being a civil war battlefield

g) the roadmarker for being misspelled

 

(All of these are just suggestions that I have seen put out there for discussion)

 

That seems wrong, just wrong.

 

OK, I have tried to edit this post four times, and I keep getting that smiley instead of a letter b...so smiley = b

Edited August 20, 2005 by Team Neos

[tozainamboku 5]

I'm pretty sure that in the current game there were virtuals that were logged by some people who also realized that the location could also be count as a find on a locationless. There may have even been cases where someone logged the same location for two different locationless caches.

[bootron 45]

I have a waymark that could easily belong to two separate categories. Right now I have it listed under "Plane Crashes", but it could easily belong to "Mountain Summits" too.

 

Any plans to allow waymarks to belong to more than one category in the future?

 

(If this has already been discussed in another thread, my apologies in advance for bringing it up again in a new thread.)

As per what Jeremy said, you can create the same waymark for two different categories. But I think I can further the explanation...

 

Let's say hypothetically that you come across a McDonald's that has wi-fi access.

 

You remember that there is a McDonald's category and you also remember that there's a wi-fi category. What do you do (in Keanu Reeves "Point Break" voice)?

 

The answer is that you can/should write up two different waymarks for the same location, each one tailored to the category it's written up for. For the McDonald's category, you'd write up a waymark talking about all the good McDonald's history, food, and playplace information (without confusing them with techincal jargon that comes along with wi-fi access); and you'd write up another waymark for the wi-fi category discussing what a great connection you get with your PDA (without boring people with details about Grimace and the Playplace). No one's stopping you from adding additional information in either category, but just remember that the guy searching the wi-fi waymark category isn't likely going to care much about Mayor McCheese and the Hamburglar.

 

Once you've entered both waymarks, someone who searches for McDonald's waymarks in the McDonald's category will have the Mcdonald's themed waymark returned. And they'll get the wi-fi version when they search the wi-fi category.

 

If you hate the McDonald's category (I don't know why anyone would, but we're talking hypotheticals here ), you can just skip it. Just add to the wi-fi category if that's all you care about. You don't have to add anything you don't want to. Someone else will come along later and add that McDonald's if you don't.

[+Team Neos 0]

Oh, don't get me wrong--I don't really care if "some people" log one visit multiple places (if they want to take the time to hunt up all the places they could log one visit, more power to them)...it just seems ...odd... that it is almost built into the system as it gets set up.

[bootron 45]

Does that mean that I could potentially go see one headstone and waymark (as a visitor)

a) the headstone for being unusual

the headstone for being more than 100 years old (or whatever that category ends up being)

c) the headstone for being that of the famous person

d) the grave for being that of a famous civil war veteran

e) the cemetery for being  civil war cemetery

f) the location for being a civil war battlefield

g) the roadmarker for being misspelled

 

(All of these are just suggestions that I have seen put out there for discussion)

 

That seems wrong, just wrong.

 

OK, I have tried to edit this post four times, and I keep getting that smiley instead of a letter b...so smiley = b

Hypothetically, yes. If you are aware of the same grave existing in all of those categories, more power to you.

 

Again, you have to get out of the geocaching mindset and into the Waymarking mindset. Everyone will have the same opportunities as you. The counts will be different. It's a brave new world.

[+dogbreathcanada 0]

Okay. So I just create the waymark twice, versus applying multiple categories to a single waymark.

 

Didn't want to create another (mostly) duplicate waymark until I knew what plans were coming down the pipe in this regard.

 

Thanks.

[+Team GPSaxophone 2]

Okay. So I just create the waymark twice, versus applying multiple categories to a single waymark.

 

Didn't want to create another (mostly) duplicate waymark until I knew what plans were coming down the pipe in this regard.

 

Thanks.

Didn't you read Bootron's post? You wouldn't be duplicating any information (except the coordinates). One category would have a completely different description than the other.

[+Langner91 0]

Does that mean that I could potentially go see one headstone and waymark (as a visitor)

a) the headstone for being unusual

the headstone for being more than 100 years old (or whatever that category ends up being)

c) the headstone for being that of the famous person

d) the grave for being that of a famous civil war veteran

e) the cemetery for being  civil war cemetery

f) the location for being a civil war battlefield

g) the roadmarker for being misspelled

 

(All of these are just suggestions that I have seen put out there for discussion)

 

That seems wrong, just wrong.

 

OK, I have tried to edit this post four times, and I keep getting that smiley instead of a letter b...so smiley = b

I don't see a difference between waymarks in your example and the existing "locationless caches" at GC.com.

 

I will be logging a Drive-In Movie Theater today that has a really unique Mail box.

 

It was allowed before, it should be allowed now. The only difference is before we couldn't easily add more locationless caches. Now we can add waymark categories, so there is more chance of a place fitting into two.

 

YMMV.

[+FtMgAl 0]

Does that mean that I could potentially go see one headstone and waymark (as a visitor)

a) the headstone for being unusual

b ) the headstone for being more than 100 years old (or whatever that category ends up being)

c) the headstone for being that of the famous person

d) the grave for being that of a famous civil war veteran

e) the cemetery for being  civil war cemetery

f) the location for being a civil war battlefield

g) the roadmarker for being misspelled

 

(All of these are just suggestions that I have seen put out there for discussion)

 

That seems wrong, just wrong.

 

OK, I have tried to edit this post four times, and I keep getting that smiley instead of a letter b...so smiley = b

If the shoe fits...

 

I did it for locationless Fire Fighting Vehicles and Former Fire Fighter. You will notice the super-lazy cut and paste. But it fits the requirements for an active Fire Fighting Vehicle (IMHO and it wasn't rejected by the owner). It was also retired from fire fighting. Since I posted those logs I have seen it out working on bilboards. It still fits the requirements for both LCs and I can imagine there are others out there that do also. It might not be exactly what either LC owner was looking for but if either didn't like it they could cancel my log or change their rules.

 

BTW, I had the pictures and was ready to do it also for a military LC and also the flag LC but the military half got logged the day before I came to log it.

 

Actually I didn't plan either of these. I searched all of the LCs and picked the ones I wanted to do. When I found one that fit multiple catagories, I was shameless.

 

Finally, note the "b" in the quote. It can be done.

Edited August 20, 2005 by FtMgAl

[Jeremy 4]

In Fort Townsend, Wa, where Officer and a Gentleman was filmed, there was a location where you could fit 4 or 5 different locationless caches. we joked about finding a place where you could find more, so this pretty much mirrors the way locationless caches work now.

 

With that said, this question has come up and the idea of linking waymarks to each other has come about from it. Like a "see also" for waymark categories, the idea is we can link two separate waymarks so you know at a glance that multiple waymarks are similar to each other. However since the metadata is different you can view all the similar waymarks together in one area to learn all the information about that object, or place, or person. However one person marking a location of an object will not preclude someone from marking another category with the same location.

[+dogbreathcanada 0]

Okay. So I just create the waymark twice, versus applying multiple categories to a single waymark.

 

Didn't want to create another (mostly) duplicate waymark until I knew what plans were coming down the pipe in this regard.

 

Thanks.

Didn't you read Bootron's post? You wouldn't be duplicating any information (except the coordinates). One category would have a completely different description than the other.

I'd be duplicating as much information as I wanted to duplicate (to save time), which is why I used the word "mostly" in parentheses. I wouldn't create a complete brand-new, unique entry from scratch for each category. That would be silly.

Edited August 20, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

[bootron 45]

Okay. So I just create the waymark twice, versus applying multiple categories to a single waymark.

 

Didn't want to create another (mostly) duplicate waymark until I knew what plans were coming down the pipe in this regard.

 

Thanks.

Didn't you read Bootron's post? You wouldn't be duplicating any information (except the coordinates). One category would have a completely different description than the other.

I'd be duplicating as much information as I wanted to duplicate (to save time), which is why I used the word "mostly" in parentheses. I wouldn't create a complete brand-new, unique entry from scratch for each category. That would be silly.

It wouldn't be a problem to dupicate the information, so long as the duplicated information was relevant in the new category as well.