Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I saw Crash Test Dummies kind of touch on this in a previous thread, but didn't see any consensus on the subject.

 

I know that Category Owners do have the ultimate authority on what to accept or reject, but I have seen some instances of "bent" rules.

 

Here's an example:

 

Vinson Massif

 

While it certainly ranks as a very interesting Waymark, the rules of the Category suggest that photo documentation is required and "trailhead information" (not sure how you would do it for that one). In other words, it sounds like you have to visit the Waymark in order to log it.

 

I've also noticed some instances of people logging Waymarks at some point in the past (the NPS Cancellation Station comes to mind). This is kind of a grey area, but I've been assuming that I should only log Waymarks that I've visited since the inception of the Waymark site. I did see where Jeremy et al, said that previous finders of locationless caches are welcome to log their finds on the corresponding Waymark (which sounds only fair), and I wouldn't even mind Archiving my Waymark find if someone has already logged it under the same Locationless Cache.

 

I know everyone plays the game differently, but was curious how others see it.

Link to post

How many people read the 'more detail' link on the category page to see these requirements? If there's specific guidelines maybe they should at least be hinted at in the category's short description.

Otherwise, some people are only going to read the "This is a listing of mountain summits and the locations. Directions to trails would be appreciated." and list any summit accordingly.

Link to post

Surely what constitutes a log is up to the category owner.

 

Personally I think that physically visiting a place to log it is reasonable, but as has been stated many times, this is not geocaching. The flexibility afforded is to allow imaginative use of Waymarking, as there are many ways of playing the Waymarking game that are definitely not in line with geocaching.

 

As for being able to determine the Waymarking requirements easily, I am sure that if it is suggested by enough people, TPTB will do it, remember we are looking at a beta release of the site, therefore there is probably much development to do yet.

Link to post
Surely what constitutes a log is up to the category owner.

I dunno about that. I was thinking this is more the role of the guide (the person who posted the Waymark).

 

Not being one myself yet, I don't even know if the category manager can reject a log left by a visitor to a waymark. I have posted a couple of waymarks, but nobody has logged them yet so I can't tell what options I have to reject them if they don't meet the category requirements.

 

This gets tricky if both the category manager AND the guide have the ability to reject logs for noncompliance. What happens if they disagree?

Link to post

I'd say accuracy is the most important. From there I think it is up to the category manager to decide what is proper and what is not.

 

As for the above example I am aware that the most precise equipment available was used to mark the coordinates of the summit of Vinson Massif. Since this is quite the difficult area for Joe hiker to go on it seems like it should be ok. However, again it is up to the category manager to decide.

Link to post

First of all, if a category manager isn't being consistent with the legislation of his category, you should take the issue up with him. We don't know what he was thinking when he accepted the Antarctic mountain against his own policies.

 

That being said, I personally believe (yes, this isn't a law, just an opinion) the only time an actual visit to a waymark should be required IMHO is when you post a log (a visit) for a waymark. I think the main requirement for posting a waymark is to provide accurate and extensive information about that location. It shouldn't matter if you have been there before or not. Placing a waymark is a similar responsibility to that of the cache owner, only the waymark guide doesn't have to worry about a cache container. But he should care that the information provided is informative and hopefully somewhat entertaining as well.

 

The term "waymark guide" is growing on me. I think it's pretty appropriate.

Link to post
First of all, if a category manager isn't being consistent with the legislation of his category, you should take the issue up with him. We don't know what he was thinking when he accepted the Antarctic mountain against his own policies.

 

That being said, I personally believe (yes, this isn't a law, just an opinion) the only time an actual visit to a waymark should be required IMHO is when you post a log (a visit) for a waymark. I think the main requirement for posting a waymark is to provide accurate and extensive information about that location. It shouldn't matter if you have been there before or not. Placing a waymark is a similar responsibility to that of the cache owner, only the waymark guide doesn't have to worry about a cache container. But he should care that the information provided is informative and hopefully somewhat entertaining as well.

 

The term "waymark guide" is growing on me. I think it's pretty appropriate.

This is exactly what I have been thinking. This isn't geocaching, it's a marking service, and I don't think that you have to have been to a spot to make a waymark, as long as the coordinates are correct, and the info is correct. After that, everyone going to it should have actually been there. But still, what's so wrong that you did these waymarks before the site was up? I'm not sure why this is a criteria. You were there. It's not a cache that had to be done since it was physically there.

Link to post
First of all, if a category manager isn't being consistent with the legislation of his category, you should take the issue up with him.  We don't know what he was thinking when he accepted the Antarctic mountain against his own policies.

 

That being said, I personally believe (yes, this isn't a law, just an opinion) the only time an actual visit to a waymark should be required IMHO is when you post a log (a visit) for a waymark.  I think the main requirement for posting a waymark is to provide accurate and extensive information about that location.  It shouldn't matter if you have been there before or not.  Placing a waymark is a similar responsibility to that of the cache owner, only the waymark guide doesn't have to worry about a cache container.  But he should care that the information provided is informative and hopefully somewhat entertaining as well.

 

The term "waymark guide" is growing on me.  I think it's pretty appropriate.

This is exactly what I have been thinking. This isn't geocaching, it's a marking service, and I don't think that you have to have been to a spot to make a waymark, as long as the coordinates are correct, and the info is correct. After that, everyone going to it should have actually been there. But still, what's so wrong that you did these waymarks before the site was up? I'm not sure why this is a criteria. You were there. It's not a cache that had to be done since it was physically there.

I will qualify my earlier statement by saying it is MUCH more ideal if the waymark guide/poster actually visits the site prior to posting it so that he can assure that the coordinates are truly accurate, not just ballpark figures that you get from geocoding. Plus, it's nice to have a photo of the location that the waymark guide took instead of some stock photo that you can easily google. Accuracy and the inclusion of as much relevant information as possible is what waymark guides should be shooting for. There's no substitute for actually going to the location, but it's not like we can police this, so we leave it as a strong recommendation, and allow the category managers to enforce it if they so desire.

 

It would be truly disappointing to me if people started posting logs even if they've never been to the waymark. But then again, people are only cheating themselves if they are doing that, so I'm not worrying too much about it.

Link to post

I've gone back and retro-logged a visit that I made to a waymark site in 2004. It was a once in a lifetime hiking experience at a place I'm unlikely to return to. Now, I don't plan on doing this for every restaurant, mountain summit or historical marker I've ever visited, but in this case I made an exception. The waymark guide and the category manager were both with me on that hike, and neither has objected to my log. Now, I would never dream of retro-logging a geocache because the integrity of "my numbers" is important to me. If stats features for Waymarking improve, and the community ethos shakes out to approximate geocaching, then perhaps I'll go back and delete that pre-Waymarking "visit."

 

I've also established a waymark in one of my own categories, based upon a site visit that I made to it in February 2005 to find a nearby geocache. Thus, I was able to provide accurate coordinates, a photo of the waymark target, and some interesting historical background. I didn't bother also logging a "visit" on my own waymark, since the find count isn't important to me (yet) and I already "told my story" on the waymark's page. I suppose that I could log a retro-visit to my own waymark, and I don't much care what others choose to do, so long as they are having fun.

Link to post
I am waiting to eat at a McDonald's before I log a visit.

Good boy. It's a requirement, you know. :laughing:

 

I think it's up to the category manager to decide whether or not retroactive logs are allowed. For the McDonald's category, I'd prefer if people start like Langner91 and only log their visits that took place after the waymark was posted. But that's just me.

Edited by bootron
Link to post

I have two Minor League Stadiums that I entered as waymarks, but the category owner doesn't seem to want to approve them. I haven't been to the parks recently, but I have been to them. My cache pages have a lot of information about the stadiums, the teams that play in them, etc. As well, the coords are quite accurate.

 

But the category owner will only list if I have a picture of myself and my GPSr outside the stadium. A dumb requirement, in my opinion. This isn't geocaching.com, but the category owner is setting up requirements that mirror those of virtual and locationless caches from geocachin.com.

 

Oh well, Waymarking.com loses out on two additional (and quite good) listings.

Link to post

I don't think the requirements are dumb at all. This is a game. Listing a waymark is like a FTF. I think you should have to visit the location AFTER the waymark category was created - and will treat any waymark categories I end up managing in that manner.

 

It just so happened that the Minor League BallPark category popped up the very day I was taking my daughter to a game for her birthday. I would have been upset if I had went to list the waymark and somebody who had visited the place years ago (of course, it would have been months in this case - new ballpark) had listed it.

 

I have never logged a locationless "cache" but I thought it was a sort of honor thing about only logging "finds" on caches after the "cache" was created.

 

sd

Link to post
I don't think the requirements are dumb at all. This is a game. Listing a waymark is like a FTF. I think you should have to visit the location AFTER the waymark category was created - and will treat any waymark categories I end up managing in that manner.

 

It just so happened that the Minor League BallPark category popped up the very day I was taking my daughter to a game for her birthday. I would have been upset if I had went to list the waymark and somebody who had visited the place years ago (of course, it would have been months in this case - new ballpark) had listed it.

 

I have never logged a locationless "cache" but I thought it was a sort of honor thing about only logging "finds" on caches after the "cache" was created.

 

sd

Waymarking is not a game. You're mistaking this for geocaching.com.

 

Waymarking is more of a travel/vacation assistant.

Link to post
I have never logged a locationless "cache" but I thought it was a sort of honor thing about only logging "finds" on caches after the "cache" was created.

Yes, that was a locationless cache. These aren't locationless caches. These are WAYMARKS.

 

At geocaching.com (where you can find locationless caches), there were prescribed ways to log "finds" because over there it is much more of a game, where players often compare their "scores" to other players "scores", thus some unwritten rules were adopted.

 

Waymarking is not a game. The statistics really mean nothing, except personally. There's no easy way to compare one persons stats to anothers. How do you compare a person who's visited 30 Mountain Summits to someone who's visited 200 McDonalds? You can't.

 

I wish people would stop bringing their preconceived geocaching notions over to Waymarking. Two different beasts.

Link to post

Incorrect, Waymarking is a method for posting coordinates. It's not a vacation assistant any more than it is a regulated game. The individual sub-category managers will decide how much of a game or simple assistant their category will be.

 

In the case of minor league ballparks, the manager wants a photo and checks each entry.

 

In the case of Brewpubs, I was able to create a waymark for my local brewpub without having to go there in the past week or so.

 

The site as a whole has made no decision on creation requirements. That is left to individual categories/sub-categories.

 

I see this as good and bad. Good, because there's a user-level control on things that doesn't require a top-down administration of everyone's ideas. Bad because I don't see the opportunity at this point to create duplicate sub-categories and therefore, it's going to be a first-come/first-serve sharkfest to establish the prominent and most interesting categories in your own image (unless the final category creation method takes this into account and acts to prevent it in some way).

Link to post
Bad because I don't see the opportunity at this point to create duplicate sub-categories and therefore, it's going to be a first-come/first-serve sharkfest to establish the prominent and most interesting categories in your own image (unless the final category creation method takes this into account and acts to prevent it in some way).

Exactly, a complete lack of consistency.

 

If Groundspeak is trying to attract non-geocachers to the new site, new users are going to be frustrated and confused why their Brew Pub waymark was accepted, but their Minor League Ballpark waymark wasn't.

 

Categories are the strength of Waymarking, but if they aren't properly managed, they'll end up being their greatest weakness.

Link to post
I don't think the requirements are dumb at all.  This is a game.  Listing a waymark is like a FTF.  I think you should have to visit the location AFTER the waymark category was created - and will treat any waymark categories I end up managing in that manner.

 

It just so happened that the Minor League BallPark category popped up the very day I was taking my daughter to a game for her birthday.  I would have been upset if I had went to list the waymark and somebody who had visited the place years ago (of course, it would have been months in this case - new ballpark) had listed it.

 

I have never logged a locationless "cache" but I thought it was a sort of honor thing about only logging "finds" on caches after the "cache" was created.

 

sd

Waymarking is not a game. You're mistaking this for geocaching.com.

 

Waymarking is more of a travel/vacation assistant.

I wouldn't say this quite yet. We do want it to be a game, similar to geocaching (although it is still important to note that it isn't geocaching). The difference is that it also can be used by people as a yellow pages of waypoints if they so desire. It's kind of a combination of both. It might not be a game for you, but will be for others. We hope to add a bunch of features so that it will be treated more like a game in the future. It's still early and in beta form.

 

We are taking the posts in the forums very seriously while developing this product. The idea is still evolving. We will do our best to accomodate as many people as possible, but obviously making everyone happy isn't a possibility.

 

In the meantime, I would say if you have a beef with the way a category manager is running his category, contact him politely and do your best to try and convince him to change his policy.

Link to post

Waymarking is not a game. You're mistaking this for geocaching.com.

 

Waymarking is more of a travel/vacation assistant.

I wouldn't say this quite yet. We do want it to be a game, similar to geocaching (although it is still important to note that it isn't geocaching). The difference is that it also can be used by people as a yellow pages of waypoints if they so desire. It's kind of a combination of both. It might not be a game for you, but will be for others. We hope to add a bunch of features so that it will be treated more like a game in the future. It's still early and in beta form.

 

We are taking the posts in the forums very seriously while developing this product. The idea is still evolving. We will do our best to accomodate as many people as possible, but obviously making everyone happy isn't a possibility.

 

In the meantime, I would say if you have a beef with the way a category manager is running his category, contact him politely and do your best to try and convince him to change his policy.

Granted, some of the categories will be game related, but you should have a top level category called Games to go along with People, Places, and Things. The waymarks under the latter three categories should be straight forward and consistent in the waymark creation and logging requirements. The category owners under the top-level Games category should be able to do whatever they want.

 

The gaming aspect of Waymarking should be separated out from the "yellow pages" aspect of Waymarking.

Edited by dogbreathcanada
Link to post
The gaming aspect of Waymarking should be separated out from the "yellow pages" aspect of Waymarking.

 

Thats exactly what is needed, if we could have a mechanism that allows the category owner to specify that the waymarks are "collectable", and a way of counting these seperately, we could all use the useful waymarks, but still use the game aspects of the collectables.

 

Despite what everyone says, most of us do like the numbers, and do not want to see them diluted by some people sitting at the computer endlessly marking the ones that need little or no effort.

 

I realise that the above is probably beyond the first release, and may not even be possible, but it would offer a solution to the idea that Waymarking stats will be meaningless.

 

Another possibility is to let the category owner specify what counts in the stats.

This could work by having the option to:

 

Allow no "points" for this category.

or

Allow only the waymarker a "point".

or

Allow waymarkers and visitors a "point".

 

Again not sure on the technicalities of this, but I think it would be a workable system.

Edited by The Royles
Link to post

So, this is what I need to be clear on. If an owner requires a picture and coordinates to do a waymark, can you make a waymark that you have visited in the past, if you have the photos and good coords? This is assuming that the owner has said nothing about this in their catagory.

 

Is this an allover Waymarking rule, or does each owner have to specify "no waymarks from before Waymarking was created". We need to nail this down to avoid confusion for this new site.

 

I still don't see this the same as geocaching. There isn't a physical cache, so I don't see why creators of a waymark have to have been to that site after Waymarking was created. If I know of a really cool spot in my area, and have the coords and pictures, I don't see what is wrong with posting it. After the waymark is created, I think that people should go to it to log it, just cause it is now a recorded spot. (Not that that last part makes much sense to me after I have said it. :rolleyes: )

 

How are we going to address this? Official waymark policy, or each owner specify this?

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to post

The idea is to get away from "official policy". Even with virtuals, you didn't have to have been there after the virtual was created if you could pass muster on the requirements for logging with what you have from your previous trip there.

 

If you can log it, log it. You can log it if you jump through the hoops of the waypoint owner. You can own a waypoint if you can jump through the hoops of the sub-category owner. Hoops may be set anywhere from 0' to 9' high, jump at your own risk.

Link to post
The idea is to get away from "official policy". Even with virtuals, you didn't have to have been there after the virtual was created if you could pass muster on the requirements for logging with what you have from your previous trip there.

 

If you can log it, log it. You can log it if you jump through the hoops of the waypoint owner. You can own a waypoint if you can jump through the hoops of the sub-category owner. Hoops may be set anywhere from 0' to 9' high, jump at your own risk.

So it's not something that people are going to say, "you're cheating", as long as the owner doesn't actually say, "no old photos"?

Link to post
I don't think the requirements are dumb at all.  This is a game.  Listing a waymark is like a FTF.  I think you should have to visit the location AFTER the waymark category was created - and will treat any waymark categories I end up managing in that manner.

 

It just so happened that the Minor League BallPark category popped up the very day I was taking my daughter to a game for her birthday.  I would have been upset if I had went to list the waymark and somebody who had visited the place years ago (of course, it would have been months in this case - new ballpark) had listed it.

 

I have never logged a locationless "cache" but I thought it was a sort of honor thing about only logging "finds" on caches after the "cache" was created.

 

sd

Waymarking is not a game. You're mistaking this for geocaching.com.

 

Waymarking is more of a travel/vacation assistant.

I'm sorry, but as far as I am concerned this IS a game. I am not confusing anything with geocaching.com. I'm offended by the insinuation that I can't tell the difference.

 

It's very obvious - geocaching is finding a container with a log.

 

Waymarking is listing waymarks and visiting waymarks. A category is like a "locationless". A waymark is like a virtual. The person who lists it basically is FTF. Anybody who logs a visit is basically logging a find on a virtual.

 

Listing a waymark is very much like a FTF in my opinion. All of the people pissing and moaning that the unique nature of locationless caches (all of the hard work they did to log a unique "find" is gone) are missing out on the fact that the person who lists the waymark pretty much has the FTF and the people who log visits (just like logging a find on a virtual) are getting to participate in a way they didn't in the past.

 

For a travel or vacation guide - get a map, a phonebook, or a tourguide.

 

Jeremy, Bootron, and others have gone so far as to say that Groundspeak is approaching this like a game (but more than just a game). I won't markwell you - but do a search. The best part is there WILL be statistics - which I know will piss all of the "anti-stats" folks off - even if it ends up being opt-out/opt-in. I know some people lack the self control to ignore what they don't like.

 

You can use this however you want to - for me (and MANY MANY others) it will be a game. I bought the GPS for fun, not for travel. I am very happy that, as far as I can tell, I am the first person to have listed a waymark in my state.

 

As hard as people try to seperate geocaching from Waymarking - it's very obvious that Waymarking has its routes in geocaching. They're not the same but the similarities are striking. So are the differences.

 

While I am totally against LOGGING requirements for geocaches (that have nothing to do with actually finding the cache) I totally support listing requirements for waymarks and for waymark-visits.

 

Anyways - it's a game to me and that's how I WILL approach it. I'm sorry if that annoys you. :rolleyes:

 

sd

Link to post
Listing a waymark is very much like a FTF in my opinion. All of the people pissing and moaning that the unique nature of locationless caches (all of the hard work they did to log a unique "find" is gone) are missing out on the fact that the person who lists the waymark pretty much has the FTF and the people who log visits (just like logging a find on a virtual) are getting to participate in a way they didn't in the past.

Then you're misguided and you're not going to get out of Waymarking what you're expecting. There is no such thing as an FTF with Waymarking. It's a different beast than geocaching, and just this transference of terminology tells me you can't really tell the difference between the two sites.

 

...

 

I've created several waymarks for sites I've not visited in years. My goal is to simply add to the database. I plan to create many more.

 

...

 

I could buy a travel guide, but no travel guide will have the wealth of worldwide information that Waymarking will have in a couple years time.

 

...

 

And I believe Bootron said that Waymarking is best compared to the "yellow pages", but he HOPES that eventually there'll be gaming aspects.

Link to post
So it's not something that people are going to say, "you're cheating", as long as the owner doesn't actually say, "no old photos"?

Some people might ... but just ignore them. If the owner doesn't stipulate requirements, then you're free to add the waymark however you like (of course the category owner is still free to reject waymarks).

 

I've added several waymarks that I've not visited in years. Actually, I've not visited any waymark I've created in at least the last two months (except for my most recent mountain summit).

 

I plan to add a lot more. The goal is to populate the database with locations. The Waymarking stats are pretty much useless anyhow.

Link to post
Then you're misguided and you're not going to get out of Waymarking what you're expecting. There is no such thing as an FTF with Waymarking. It's a different beast than geocaching, and just this transference of terminology tells me you can't really tell the difference between the two sites.

Heh. Whatever. You don't anything about me - but please keep making assumptions. You have no idea what I expect to get out of Waymarking - but I can tell you that so far with my first waymark it really seems to be EXACTLY what I was looking for and the answer to all of the reasons I didn't log locationless caches.

 

It's clear they are different. If you read what I said - I clearly used the word LIKE. I didn't say it was the same thing, I said it was similar. You know what... it is.

 

If the use of analogies is a sign of a lack of understanding - you need to tell Jeremy he truly doesn't understand Waymarking (he uses analogies too):

 

Here's a Jeremy quote from the "Can travel bugs" thread:

 

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.

 

Here's a Jeremy quote from the "Many people liked locationless caches" thread:

 

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).

 

"About the numbers" sounds like there will be a "score" of some type. Seems like a game to me.

 

Here's another quote from Bootron in from the "Many people liked..." thread:

 

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

 

And - most importantly something Bootron posted in this very thread:

 

I wouldn't say this quite yet. We do want it to be a game, similar to geocaching (although it is still important to note that it isn't geocaching). The difference is that it also can be used by people as a yellow pages of waypoints if they so desire. It's kind of a combination of both. It might not be a game for you, but will be for others. We hope to add a bunch of features so that it will be treated more like a game in the future. It's still early and in beta form.

 

It will be a game and more. It seems to me that you're mad because somebody rained on your parade and you didn't get to record a waymark. Don't rain on my parade and tell me I can't approach this activity with FUN on my mind. If I wanted to mindlessly enter coordinates and other information - I'd get a job working for a directory of some sort.

 

To paraphrase a few wise geocachers :rolleyes: "You waymark the way you want to, I'll waymark the way I want".

 

sd

Link to post

Well, it certainly been edifying reading through these comments, and I'd like to thank everyone for posting. I guess what I've come away with is that Waymarking is not Geocaching. I can't make any assumptions about the game yet because it's too new.

 

Probably my favorite thing about Geocaching is getting to read the stories that people have to tell. I assumed that the Waymark site would be something similar. Populating the database with a bunch of coordinates seems kind of meaningless to me. The Vinson Massif would certainly be an amazing place to stand, but I'd prefer to hear about the journey that it took to get there.

 

I would much rather read a funny story about someones visit to a McDonald's than have some Waymark that never sees a soul. That's just my game.

 

So in the interest of trying to help out this lonely spot on the planet, I submitted a DNF for Vinson Massif (all in good humour, of course).

 

Vinson Massif DNF Part 1

 

Vinson Massif Part 2

 

Someday I hope to read someones amazing journet to this Waymark, but in the meantime I just can't let a great spot go to waste.

Link to post

Very interesting debate... I never even considered this aspect.

 

I have only logged one Waymark... coincidentally it was for one of DogsBreathCanada's Listings (I'm sorry if I am getting terms garbled, still not fully sure of what is what by name)

 

I claimed a VISIT to "Odd Shaped Buildings - CN Tower"

 

I have been there so many times, it means very little to me, except that I am proud of its standing in the world.

 

I was there about a month ago. Didn't take any pictures... why? No need... got lots.

 

So when I claimed my visit, I posted an image from much earlier this year of a Travel Bug that wanted to visit.

 

I was thrilled when I saw CN Tower because I think it is worthy of being my First Waymark Visit.

 

If DBC had said "Un-un... that picture is from March" and deleted my entry, what good would it have done?

 

I've been to the CN Tower enough to know I can see it again in the future, but not willing to wait to log it.

 

Don't really know where I am going with this... but I think the "Old Vacation Photo" idea is true in that the picture probably doesn't meet the requirements. But a photo that was taken for the purposes of Geocaching/Waymarking should count even if it was taken in the past.

 

I've had one person "visit" my Web Cam Waymark... they don't live anywhere near it.... doesn't matter.

 

They captured an image, said they were watching it.... they did all they could. I'm not gonna make them jump through hoops. Waymarking is supposed to be fun and easy, and not forcing the person to go through all the old Virtual Cache stuff.

 

:rolleyes: The Blue Quasar

Link to post
I claimed a VISIT to "Odd Shaped Buildings - CN Tower"

 

I have been there so many times, it means very little to me, except that I am proud of its standing in the world.

 

I was there about a month ago. Didn't take any pictures... why? No need... got lots.

 

So when I claimed my visit, I posted an image from much earlier this year of a Travel Bug that wanted to visit.

 

I was thrilled when I saw CN Tower because I think it is worthy of being my First Waymark Visit.

 

If DBC had said "Un-un... that picture is from March" and deleted my entry, what good would it have done?

Considering I was last there in 2002, who am I to complain? :laughing:

 

Heck, I don't even think I have a photo logging requirement.

Link to post

So on this train of thought...I thought I had heard someone say that when a locationless is moved over to Waymarking, the people who had already logged that locationless had the opportunity to use their old log on the locationless to make a waymark on the new category.

 

Is this something that we should do? I see several locationless that I have logged are now Waymarking categories, and I'm wondering if I should use my finds for these "new" waymarks.

Link to post

Southdeltan said:

 

Jeremy, Bootron, and others have gone so far as to say that Groundspeak is approaching this like a game (but more than just a game). I won't markwell you - but do a search. The best part is there WILL be statistics - which I know will piss all of the "anti-stats" folks off - even if it ends up being opt-out/opt-in. I know some people lack the self control to ignore what they don't like.

 

Dogbreath said:

 

And I believe Bootron said that Waymarking is best compared to the "yellow pages", but he HOPES that eventually there'll be gaming aspects.

 

You are both right. It will be a "yellow pages" of waymarks for some, and a game for some. We are planning to have gaming aspects such as stats and rankings. The most prolific category owners, waymark posters and visitors will be rewarded with high rankings and extensive stats (maybe not so extensive at first, but eventually). But all of these game-like activities will inevitably contribute to a very useful database filled with waymarks that can be used in a yellow pages for GPS format.

 

And while I'm jabbering on here, I might add that the FTF could just as easily apply to the logs of each waymark...not just the first waymark posted for a category. I tend to think of the FTFs on the visits, not the waymarks, though certainly both are possible.

Link to post
Is this something that we should do? I see several locationless that I have logged are now Waymarking categories, and I'm wondering if I should use my finds for these "new" waymarks.

I was browsing around last night and I did see one instance of an old log being used as a Waymark. And Jeremy explicitly said that this would be allowed. Quite frankly, I think this is only fair, especially for some of the harder LC's.

 

Case in point is my find on Buxley's Camera Obscura LC. It took me over a year to find one and I doubt I'll find another unlogged one in my lifetime (maybe I'm exaggerating :( ).

 

Thanks for the insite Bootron. I'm curious to see how this all develops over time.

Link to post
I have two Minor League Stadiums that I entered as waymarks, but the category owner doesn't seem to want to approve them. ...

Since my surgery, I haven't been in the forums very much. Imagine my surprise when I come in today and find a discussion of my category in the first thread I open. I'm doubly surprised that you didn't express your angst to me in an email. Oh, well.

 

Here's my take on it. I do see Waymarking as a game, just like I saw going after LCs and virts as playing a game. You may feel differently, but in my mind, a waymark category is analogous to a locationless cache and waymarks are analogous to virtual caches. As category owner, I feel like I have a responsibility to manage my category just like I am responsible for managing a locationless cache. Towards that end, I'm not going to approve a waymark just because someone goes online and finds the location of a minor league park.

 

I've stated the rules to create a waymark clearly on the category page.

Link to post
I have two Minor League Stadiums that I entered as waymarks, but the category owner doesn't seem to want to approve them. ...

Since my surgery, I haven't been in the forums very much. Imagine my surprise when I come in today and find a discussion of my category in the first thread I open. I'm doubly surprised that you didn't express your angst to me in an email. Oh, well.

 

Here's my take on it. I do see Waymarking as a game, just like I saw going after LCs and virts as playing a game. You may feel differently, but in my mind, a waymark category is analogous to a locationless cache and waymarks are analogous to virtual caches. As category owner, I feel like I have a responsibility to manage my category just like I am responsible for managing a locationless cache. Towards that end, I'm not going to approve a waymark just because someone goes online and finds the location of a minor league park.

 

I've stated the rules to create a waymark clearly on the category page.

And I respect that. If you are clear about your expectations, then we know how that particular category will be "played" out. Even in this instance, I kinda think that is fun, because it gives us variety.

Link to post
I have two Minor League Stadiums that I entered as waymarks, but the category owner doesn't seem to want to approve them. ...

Since my surgery, I haven't been in the forums very much. Imagine my surprise when I come in today and find a discussion of my category in the first thread I open. I'm doubly surprised that you didn't express your angst to me in an email. Oh, well.

 

Here's my take on it. I do see Waymarking as a game, just like I saw going after LCs and virts as playing a game. You may feel differently, but in my mind, a waymark category is analogous to a locationless cache and waymarks are analogous to virtual caches. As category owner, I feel like I have a responsibility to manage my category just like I am responsible for managing a locationless cache. Towards that end, I'm not going to approve a waymark just because someone goes online and finds the location of a minor league park.

 

I've stated the rules to create a waymark clearly on the category page.

I see no problem at all with clearly stated requirements for posting a waymark or for logging visits. If, as in this case, the category manager wants a proof photo, I think that's fine.

 

I think we'll see some conflicts in cases where the requirements are NOT clearly stated, especially if people's waymark posts are being rejected or waymark visits are being deleted in cases where the requirements are unclear.

 

(OT: Hope you are recovering nicely from your surgery, sbell111!)

Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...