Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Michel Dignand

Can't See The Point

Recommended Posts

I really don't see what is 'locationless' about the 'waymarks' you have used to start the thing off. In what way is this different to geocaching?

 

Are you all just not busy enough?

 

Michel

(I reckon we're a bit saner down here in Australia)

Share this post


Link to post
I really don't see what is 'locationless' about the 'waymarks' you have used to start the thing off. In what way is this different to geocaching?

 

Are you all just not busy enough?

 

Michel

(I reckon we're a bit saner down here in Australia)

No paper logs, for one, AFAIK. Good for places where you CAN'T put a physical cache...

Share this post


Link to post
:lol: Just my opinion but I think they suck. At least with locationless caches you had to find something and then document that you were there. I logged two waymarks tonight and did not have to provide any evidence that I was really there. Some to the waymarks I looked at were very well documented but most were just thrown up with little or no information provided. Keep the locationless caches you have now as it’s better than this.

Share this post


Link to post

Some people might be bridge fanatics. If there is a bridge category, they can do a search when they go to some new town and then go check out the bridges nearby. They can then rate the bridges. This will be a very cool site for those who have an interest in seeing interesting things.

 

Also, there are functional waymark categories, such as free wifi hotspots. I wouldn't mind seeing a subcategory of 100% vegetarian restaurants. That would so totally rock.

 

--Marky

Share this post


Link to post
:lol: Just my opinion but I think they suck. At least with locationless caches you had to find something and then document that you were there. I logged two waymarks tonight and did not have to provide any evidence that I was really there. Some to the waymarks I looked at were very well documented but most were just thrown up with little or no information provided.

 

It is up to the category owners to approve or deny submitted waymarks. They are the ones who will determine a category's waymark quality.

 

As far as logging requirements, that is up to the waymark creator, not the category owner. The waymark creator has the power to delete bogus visit logs. This is all still being worked out. No need to be so immediately negative about it.

 

Keep the locationless caches you have now as it’s better than this.

That is not an option. All locationless caches will be archived by the end of the year, regardless whether the category is moved over or not.

 

It is my opinion that properly managed categories and waymarks totally don't suck.

 

--Marky

Share this post


Link to post

I think I get it,and it seems pretty cool. Kinda like a "Points of interest" by the masses.

 

Say you got an afternoon to kill, you and the S.O. do a quick look up for a catagory that appeals to both of you, and go visit some those waymarks in your town.

 

Seems like a great way to get out and go see something different! I like it! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

Give it a chance. Ive been playing with it for a couple of weeks. Sure, there are some categories that are awful...like McDonalds (Sorry Bootron). And now there is another one that is even worse in my opinion, Bus Stops. Unless they meant artistic bus stops. Otherwise, how droll.

 

But there are also some cool categories. Weird Story Locations is fun. I have a lot of stories that I had researched for cache locations that Im using here. If I can just pinpoint a good location for the pteradactyl hunt, I will be ecstatic. This even got me all excited about doing earthcaches, something I previously ignored on gc.com. I drove out today to check out the location for one of them.

 

Is it perfect? No. There are somethings I would like to see that I dont think will happen. I do think it is worth my time to play with it. Mike and I are looking forward to having fun using Waymarking as well as geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

That is a good point too Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking.

 

There are a few lame catagories... but more often I think that the challenge is to find a Waymark in those lame catagories that is exceptional.

 

Many (MANY) people have jumped on the Anti-McDonald's Waymark bandwagon... and it is voted down so low that the new people cannot see it unless they alter their own Popularity Filters.

 

I happen to like the McDonald's Catagory but I only think that the really outstanding ones should be listed... the average everyday ones are too mundane.

 

Continue the idea that, if you are going to submit a Waymark, that it should still have some reason for visiting... regardless of the catagory.... that makes the visit worthwhile.

 

Not saying it should have the huge need for a WOW factor like Virtuals did, but not so regular that anyone would say "Yeah, whatever".

 

Good marketing of your Waymark will make it successful, regardless of the Catagory. Every Catagory has great examples, mixed in with the huge amounts of regular versions.

 

:ph34r: The Blue Quasar

 

edit: typo

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Over the last several weeks I've been shocked at the comments from people disparaging Waymarking, because truthfully, I think it is the best thing to happen to locationless caches. In the current system on geocaching.com, most of the locations can only be logged once, and each user can only claim one find. That limits the fun factor for anyone other than the locationless owner in my opinion.

 

Take minor league ball stadiums, for just an example. If I log one I'm done. There's no incentive for me to follow the listing, view anyone else's logs or photos, or care one bit about it once I've gotten my find. With Waymarking, however, I (and anyone else) can visit the sites.

 

I have the opportunity to participate as a category owner, a waymark owner, or just a visitor. There are many ways to play the game now. And wherever my interest lies, be it in ballparks, wineries, clocktowers, covered bridges, or yes, even McDonalds, this provides a fun tool for helping me locate these (or share with others) and visit them for myself. It only helps expand the concept of location-based games.

 

P.S. There are benefits for geocaching too with the removal of these locationless to Waymarking -- for one, it opens up many areas that are suited to physical caches that couldn't have them before because of saturation restrictions.

Share this post


Link to post
And now there is another one that is even worse in my opinion, Bus Stops. Unless they meant artistic bus stops. Otherwise, how droll.

You are not seeing the forest through the trees. Not all categories are created for WOW factor. Some are created for utility, such as WIFI hotspots or bus stops. If I am walking down the street without a car for transportation, how cool is it for me to be able to pull up the nearest bus stop and then use my GPS to route me there? (Of course, I have no idea what route(s) that bus stop services, but the waymark can (and should, probably) state which routes are available, and what major locations are served by the bus stop.

 

--Marky

Share this post


Link to post

Just checked out waypoint.com. Don’t know if I like it yet. Seem like a online yellow pages of places to visit.

 

Waypoint.com – Currently 115 categories (and growing) Ouch!!

Geocaching.com – 9 categories

 

I wish waypointing.com the best!!

Share this post


Link to post
Over the last several weeks I've been shocked at the comments from people disparaging Waymarking, because truthfully, I think it is the best thing to happen to locationless caches.  In the current system on geocaching.com, most of the locations can only be logged once, and each user can only claim one find.  That limits the fun factor for anyone other than the locationless owner in my opinion.

 

Take minor league ball stadiums, for just an example.  If I log one I'm done.  There's no incentive for me to follow the listing, view anyone else's logs or photos, or care one bit about it once I've gotten my find.  With Waymarking, however, I (and anyone else) can visit the sites. 

 

I have the opportunity to participate as a category owner, a waymark owner, or just a visitor.  There are many ways to play the game now.  And wherever my interest lies, be it in ballparks, wineries, clocktowers, covered bridges, or yes, even McDonalds, this provides a fun tool for helping me locate these (or share with others) and visit them for myself.  It only helps expand the concept of location-based games.

 

P.S.  There are benefits for geocaching too with the removal of these locationless to Waymarking -- for one, it opens up many areas that are suited to physical caches that couldn't have them before because of saturation restrictions.

Part of the fun of geocaching.com was going from Point "A" to Point "B" on vacation and hitting caches along the way. Don't see it being as simple on waypoint.com. Plus if you try and do both Geocaching and Waypoints well on vacation, you'll probably never make it because you'll still be at you computer going between sites. Food for thought.

Edited by Boomer and his Cache Bandits

Share this post


Link to post

Hi,

 

I don't think this has been thought through very well. The whole category - taxonomy discussion just seems like asking for lists of mundane locations. Boring.

 

The major problem is verification - there's nothing to stop the more competitive among us looking up the addresses of some shop chain, working out co-ords and logging them without ever setting foot.

 

And the idea that locations have a utilitarian function is also way off track - where does that idea end? - location of shoelace vendors in case your shoelace broke?, location of sunglass shops in case it got sunny? - location of mole-repellent suppliers in case your lawn got invaded by moles? Come on.

 

This is pushing locationless caching towards something the opposite of the fun, creative, and explorative nature of real geocaching.

:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
I really don't see what is 'locationless' about the 'waymarks' you have used to start the thing off.

Waymarks are not the equivalent of locationless caches. Waymark categories are like locationless caches, and waymarks are like virtual caches.

 

In what way is this different to geocaching?

Do you mean how is this different than what was previously available for locationless caches and virtual caches on geocaching.com?

 

Or are you asking how is finding waymark different than finding a geocache?

Share this post


Link to post

I have just had a few moments to look over it and I guess I just don't get it. It seems like these are just virtual caches and not locationless. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough but I don't get this.

Share this post


Link to post
I have just had a few moments to look over it and I guess I just don't get it.  It seems like these are just virtual caches and not locationless.  Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough but I don't get this.

Think of each category as a locationless of sorts -- the owner defines the target and the requirements for posting a waymark (as opposed to a find). The waymark is not exactly like a locationless find, because it can be posted by someone who hasn't necessarily visited it, depending on what the category requirements are. But in general they work much the same as reverse/locationless, and each location can only waymarked by one person within a category.

 

Then think of the resulting waymark as a virtual that can be found and logged as a visit by many. These visits have to meet logging requirements as well (which can be the same or different as the requirements for posting the waymark), but in all cases I've seen (so far) do require a visit to the location.

Edited by Bear Paughs

Share this post


Link to post
Part of the fun of geocaching.com was going from Point "A" to Point "B" on vacation and hitting caches along the way. Don't see it being as simple on waypoint.com. Plus if you try and do both Geocaching and Waypoints well on vacation, you'll probably never make it because you'll still be at you computer going between sites. Food for thought.

I understand what you are saying with this. I would like 2 things -- 1) a link on each cache page "...all nearby Waymarks" (like they currently have for Benchmarks) -- and vice versa; and 2) ability to run pocket queries for Waymarks (and Benchmarks). I think these features would ease route planning. It would still be up to the user to filter out any categories they may not be interested in, but implementing such things would be a good start.

Share this post


Link to post

:ph34r: There should be some sort of check and balance.

After reading the post on this thread it is obvious that the basic human condition of getting away with anything in the name of competitivesness applies. :D

Share this post


Link to post
:D There should be some sort of check and balance.

Are you saying there isn't?

Share this post


Link to post
And now there is another one that is even worse in my opinion, Bus Stops. Unless they meant artistic bus stops. Otherwise, how droll.

You are not seeing the forest through the trees. Not all categories are created for WOW factor. Some are created for utility, such as WIFI hotspots or bus stops. If I am walking down the street without a car for transportation, how cool is it for me to be able to pull up the nearest bus stop and then use my GPS to route me there? (Of course, I have no idea what route(s) that bus stop services, but the waymark can (and should, probably) state which routes are available, and what major locations are served by the bus stop.

 

--Marky

I know of one geocacher here is Southern California who would like to use the bus stop category to see where to hide more caches :D

 

Perhaps the bus stop category needs a category variable: Is there a geocache hidden here (Y/N)?

Share this post


Link to post
I have just had a few moments to look over it and I guess I just don't get it.  It seems like these are just virtual caches and not locationless.  Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough but I don't get this.

Think of each category as a locationless of sorts -- the owner defines the target and the requirements for posting a waymark (as opposed to a find). The waymark is not exactly like a locationless find, because it can be posted by someone who hasn't necessarily visited it, depending on what the category requirements are. But in general they work much the same as reverse/locationless, and each location can only waymarked by one person within a category.

 

Then think of the resulting waymark as a virtual that can be found and logged as a visit by many. These visits have to meet logging requirements as well (which can be the same or different as the requirements for posting the waymark), but in all cases I've seen (so far) do require a visit to the location.

:D Finally someone has explained it in a way I can better understand. Thank you Bear Paughs! I am new to geocaching, just became a Premium Member, and Waymarking e-mail was the first to hit my inbox. I was becoming confused, and somewhat disgruntled, over many of the posts from people who are complaining about how it differs (or seems to) from the locationless and virtual caches on the geocaching site. Since I've never done either of these (though I did finally look at a couple that seemed they could be fun to do), I'm glad there is something in the works to expand my caching skills in the future. Also, being a military dependent, there are many places I have been, and hope to go in the future, that I could add as either categories or waymarks. The biggest thing I thank Bear Paughs for is stating that each waymark should be physically visited (if possible) and some type of "proof" should be required for a visitor to a waymark to log his visit. Some, I'm sure, will say that is not the point, but for competitions sake, that could be the "check and balance" that someone was saying might be missing. Instead of leaving it up to whomever makes up the category or waymark whether physical proof will be required, I say make it a standard rule for the entire site. Else even I could find coordinates for all the places I've visited in the past and have pictures for and never even leave my couch or computer. What's the fun in that? And, where's the health and wellness portion as well as the CITO that is so much a part of geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post
:D There should be some sort of check and balance.

Are you saying there isn't?

Perhaps I missed something here because it appears that several persons have posted that they can log waypoints without anyone checking to see if they have actually visited the site.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

For what it's worth I am not knocking your process.

I think it is an excellant compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
:D There should be some sort of check and balance.

Are you saying there isn't?

Perhaps I missed something here because it appears that several persons have posted that they can log waypoints without anyone checking to see if they have actually visited the site.

If you're saying that people can post a new waymark without a review process, you would be correct. It is much like posting a topic in the forums. No one checks each post before they are listed here (which would be a nightmare).

 

However, category managers can (and do) archive or unlist waymarks so there is a rudamentary check and balance approach now. Just like geocaching.com it is up to individuals to check each others work.

 

We freely admit that there needs to be more work in category management and the current approach (and priority) is to support group management of a category. This will help manage checks and balances.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong.

For what it's worth I am not knocking your process.

I think it is an excellant compromise.

 

I didn't think you were. I was just looking for some clarification. Thanks for your response!

Share this post


Link to post

:D At first thought I wondered what is the difference from this and ghost caches .......

But now after futher review.... so far ...one advantage I see was mentioned

CATAGORY SEARCH for specfic interests ............ and I really like the

WIFI suggested catagory so .............. what are we waiting for LET's GO!

Share this post


Link to post
I have just had a few moments to look over it and I guess I just don't get it. It seems like these are just virtual caches and not locationless. Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough but I don't get this.

I think you're right. While I haven't done a lot with the site, I did spend a fair amount of time poking around it and it makes a lot of sense. I'll spend more time on it when I get the chance but the nay-sayers right now just aren't "getting it" yet. It took me a bit for it to click and when it did, it all makes sense.

 

Keep at it, maybe visit a current waymark or submit one of your own to see how it's a good combination of locationless and virtuals in one spot.

 

:D

 

(emphasis added to original post to show which part I was replying to)

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

×
×
  • Create New...