Jump to content

The Reason We Can't Transfer Our Lc Finds

The Blue Quasar
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

The Blue Quasar

+The Blue Quasar

Posted
Posted

I am posting this for two reasons... to type it out to see if it makes sense, and if it does, maybe others might understand what I didn't.

 

Previously I had suggested that all of the logs for Locationless Caches be automatically transferred over to Waymarking when the Locationless Cache is moved. That sounded good until I tried to do it.

 

What I thought was "Okay, I will take the log from my Locationless claim, and copy it to the corresponding Waymark". The problem is that the Locations I've used don't exist as Waymarks, they just fit the Catagory.

 

To do what I was suggesting would mean I would have to submit a new Waymark, and own that specific location. I would be giving up a Finding, and substituting a Listing.

 

So unless someone was to submit a Waymark for the exact spot I used before as a LC find, I will not be able to claim it as a Find for a Waymark.

 

Does that sound like I am thinking this correctly?

 

:( The Blue Quasar

Link to comment
The Blue Quasar

+The Blue Quasar

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well, there are a few little problems with that... and only from a personal preferrence point of view.

 

Some of the Lcationless that I have claimed do not have the WOW factor to become Waymarks.. I know people might say "Then why did you use it?" and it comes down to finding a spot that I knew about, but wouldn't interest most others.

 

I dunno, I think that when I post a Waymark, it shouldn't be the garden variety kind. People shouldn't have to ask "Why am I here?" to log the visit. It should be obvious either from the location itself or the Waymark page.

 

When it came to logging LC's, it was about "Can I find one that hasn't been used?", but when it comes to creating a Waymark, it reflects on me much more... I want it to be special.

 

No one ever looks at your Locationless claim as says "That was a really lame find you got there!"... but when they go and visit that same spot because you own a Waymark that might bring dozens of people there, you might get "Why do you think this is important?", or worse yet, the local community thinks you are wasting their time.

 

Other reasons are that some LC's I claimed I did solely for the find, the actual topic of the LC meant nothing to me. I wouldn't want to own a Waymark for something that isn't revelant to me.

 

I'm selective what I am willing to own, but not what I seek.

 

:( The Blue Quasar

Link to comment
Ambrosia

+Ambrosia

Posted
Posted
So submit it as a waymark, then log your visit to the location.

 

What's the problem?

This is something that I have heard a couple of times now. After you make a waymark, you can log it too?

 

I know that this is not geocaching, but in geocaching it was frowned on if you logged your own locationless. So in Waymarking, it is not only ok, but encorouged?

Link to comment
Langner91

+Langner91

Posted
Posted
I know that this is not geocaching, but in geocaching it was frowned on if you logged your own locationless. So in Waymarking, it is not only ok, but encorouged?

I think that boils down to the category manager. They set the rules for what/how/who can be added and logged.

 

At least that is how I am remembering it.

 

:(

Link to comment
Ambrosia

+Ambrosia

Posted
Posted
I know that this is not geocaching, but in geocaching it was frowned on if you logged your own locationless.  So in Waymarking, it is not only ok, but encorouged?

I think that boils down to the category manager. They set the rules for what/how/who can be added and logged.

 

At least that is how I am remembering it.

 

:wub:

I've seen them say that they only want something logged once. But I don't know what exactly they are meaning. With all the new terminology, I can see it boiling down to different scenarios:

 

1. A person can only create one waymark in a category.

 

2. A person cannot log their own waymark.

 

I can't understand which it is. :(

Link to comment
Langner91

+Langner91

Posted
Posted
I know that this is not geocaching, but in geocaching it was frowned on if you logged your own locationless.  So in Waymarking, it is not only ok, but encorouged?

I think that boils down to the category manager. They set the rules for what/how/who can be added and logged.

 

At least that is how I am remembering it.

 

:(

I've seen them say that they only want something logged once. But I don't know what exactly they are meaning. With all the new terminology, I can see it boiling down to different scenarios:

 

1. A person can only create one waymark in a category.

 

2. A person cannot log their own waymark.

 

I can't understand which it is. :wub:

I am with you on that.

 

I do know, in the McDonald's category. I added two waymarks. I then stated that I was going to "visit" them next time I actually ate at the restaurants (we have two within 5 miles).

 

I was told I was a "good boy" by the manager of the category. Apparently, I was doing it just like he wanted.

 

So, in the case of McDonald's:

 

1. You can add a waymark without visiting.

2. You need to visit the waymark to log a "visit".

3. You can "visit" your own waymark.

 

While I don't completely "get" the whole McDonald's thing, it helps me try the different aspects of this new game. I don't have to try hard to perform the various activities. Except visiting a McDonald's. With my dieting, I haven't been there in awhile. I might just have to take the kids. :(

Link to comment
The Blue Quasar

+The Blue Quasar

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hey! I happen to have a Waymark in the McDonald's Catagory!

 

It is nothing AMAZING, but it is beyond the standard type, due to external requirements.

 

It's kinda funny... I own 2 (waiting for one more to be approved) Waymarks right now... A McD's and a Web Cam...

 

The Web Cam was an accident... I thought I was claiming a FIND in the catagory, instead I own it...

 

The McDonald's one I spend an hour at the computer working on, tweaking and adjusting to get the wording and all that just right.

 

While many McD's are normal and unremarkable, if someone listed the one in Moscow, or the first one in existance, or maybe when the last State capital that doesn't have one gets one (unless it has, then the last State Capital to get one), of if there is one in the Vatican City... stuff like that then it would be cool.

 

It's like the fountain catagory... fountains are pretty common, but there are some that are exceptional... and those are the ones I would be interested in... and the history of those specific ones.

 

Same goes for McD's.

 

But the topic is, why we can't transfer our logs over to the new Catagories... and I guess I have seen the why...

 

Now if only we could start transferring our Virtuals over.

 

:D The Blue Quasar

Link to comment
dogbreathcanada

+dogbreathcanada

Posted
Posted
But the topic is, why we can't transfer our logs over to the new Catagories... and I guess I have seen the why...

Unless the owner of the category (or waymark) has some silly rule that says you can't, why wouldn't you?

 

If there's a Skate Park category (I haven't looked) I'm definitely going to either log the location (if it exists) or create a new waymark using the date and photo of my previous visit.

Link to comment
The Blue Quasar

+The Blue Quasar

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Ambrosia... I wasn't implying anything about going off topic... I like how things evolve. I know some people don't, their issue not mine

 

I still don't see how any Locationless Log that I have done can be re-routed as a Visit on Waymarking.

 

As an example... I have a log for HALL OF FAME by DoomBot.... I couldn't transfer that find to a Waymark until someone creates that Waymark, be it myself or someone else, and the Waymark was at the same Hall of Fame that I logged.

 

I know that I could, once that Catagory exists. Right now it doesn't.

 

This is an example of a spot I would consider due to the nature of the Hall of Fame I logged.

 

But, for the "1 of a kind Mailboxes".... the one I took a picture of is rather lame, in and of itself. I'll never submit it for a Waymark and I doubt anyone else would either... so it will remain on GC.

 

The issue is that initially I was hoping that I could transfer all of my non-physical logs/finds to Waymarking... I don't see how that is going to happen.

 

That is where the Waymarking thing seems to lack a method to rectify it. To me, Geocaching is the physical container with a logbook, and everything else is a Waymark.

 

I guess I could just delete my Locationless finds. They don't mean much to me anyway.

 

:D The Blue Quasar

Link to comment
Ambrosia

+Ambrosia

Posted
Posted
Ambrosia... I wasn't implying anything about going off topic... I like how things evolve. I know some people don't, their issue not mine

 

I still don't see how any Locationless Log that I have done can be re-routed as a Visit on Waymarking.

 

As an example... I have a log for HALL OF FAME by DoomBot.... I couldn't transfer that find to a Waymark until someone creates that Waymark, be it myself or someone else, and the Waymark was at the same Hall of Fame that I logged.

 

I know that I could, once that Catagory exists. Right now it doesn't.

 

This is an example of a spot I would consider due to the nature of the Hall of Fame I logged.

 

But, for the "1 of a kind Mailboxes".... the one I took a picture of is rather lame, in and of itself. I'll never submit it for a Waymark and I doubt anyone else would either... so it will remain on GC.

 

The issue is that initially I was hoping that I could transfer all of my non-physical logs/finds to Waymarking... I don't see how that is going to happen.

 

That is where the Waymarking thing seems to lack a method to rectify it. To me, Geocaching is the physical container with a logbook, and everything else is a Waymark.

 

I guess I could just delete my Locationless finds. They don't mean much to me anyway.

 

:D The Blue Quasar

I looked at all the new categories that have been created so far from people moving them over from locationless. Some of my loggs from those locationless I felt were worthy enough to use to create a new waymark, and some of them I didn't. I think you need to take each one of your locationless finds on it's own and decide if it is worthy enough to become a new waymark.

 

And you could delete your locationless finds, but then it would deprive everyone else of the enjoyment of looking at your pics. I love looking through what everyone else has found in different locationless.

Link to comment
Marky

+Marky

Posted
Posted
So, when a category says that we need a picture, does it mean for both the waymark and the log?

On my categories, I clearly state that you need a picture to create the waymark and also if you want to enter a visit log on the waymark. However, I am now re-thinking this and maybe will add some wording to the effect that visit log requirements are up to the owner of the waymark. This makes sense, since they ultimately have control of the visit logs on their waymark, so they should be the ones to decide what determines a 'proper' visit log.

Link to comment
Ambrosia

+Ambrosia

Posted
Posted
So, when a category says that we need a picture, does it mean for both the waymark and the log?

On my categories, I clearly state that you need a picture to create the waymark and also if you want to enter a visit log on the waymark. However, I am now re-thinking this and maybe will add some wording to the effect that visit log requirements are up to the owner of the waymark. This makes sense, since they ultimately have control of the visit logs on their waymark, so they should be the ones to decide what determines a 'proper' visit log.

This does make sense. But I wasn't sure if waymark owners had the same control over logs, because I don't remember having the option to be able to approve logs on the waymarks that I have created.

Link to comment
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...