Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
SRD525

You Did The Work, Now I Can Make It, My Waymark

Recommended Posts

If you take for example the locationless cache - For Valor - GC9544. 306 geocachers have done the hard work of finding and recording the info, photos, coords and history of the medal of honor recipient. Now on this site, I could just cut and paste that info to DIRECTORY/PEOPLE/MEMORIALS and claim credit of all 306 LOGS as MY WAYMARKS, and it counts on my stat page, when I never even visited the location. I think I will feel a bit ripped off when that happens to me.

 

What about you ?

Share this post


Link to post

It will be up to the category owners to decide how that is dealt with. I really don't see this as too big a deal. Also, if there is a mechanism for transfering ownership of waymarks, then it will be possible to get the original finder to be the owner if they so desire.

 

--Marky

Edited by Marky

Share this post


Link to post

Ive been adding a lot of waymarks to the site. I havent copied the locationless data onto the Waymarking page. It never occured to me to do that. The category manager would be the one to watch out for that kind of thing. I can see it being a problem though, given how some people cheat at geocaching or benchmarking.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, that is a good point.

 

I would never steal a previously used Loactionless find, for my Waymark. Unless I claimed the spot in the first place.

 

And yes... some people will do that... but the person that originally logged the LC can log it again as a Waymark.

 

I myself don't care if someone wants to place a Waymark at a location I previously used for a Locationless.... but I hope to see the opporunity as it becomes available, and submit them myself.

 

If I really cared about any of the sites that I want as a Waymark, I will keep my eyes open for the chance to submit it.

 

:ph34r: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Well that's just it, a zillion waymarks, with a million category owners who are going to be left to their own devices without very much oversight. Sounds like a clusterf#*& in the making for sure. I'm disappointed that TPTB lacked the spine to just say no more virts and locationless, all those that are in are grandfathered, but we feel it was a mistake, and not in the true spirit of "geocaching" so that's the end of it. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is quite a tawdry affair and, IMHO, Jeremy himself has made a mockery of this effort by starting a Mcdonald's directory. I predict this Waymarking endeavor will be one of the jellyfish that washes up on the beach because it lacks the focus required of geocaching. I'm also dismayed that my dues were diverted to launch such a scatterbrain reaction to a very simple problem. Don't get me wrong here, I only toss this out as a constructive criticism,,, you have a dedicated group of people that take pride in the activity you have created and are willing pony up to enhance the website, and I'll bet you a bag of swag that not many will be crossing over to this Waymarking malarkey.

Share this post


Link to post
It never occured to me to do that. The category manager would be the one to watch out for that kind of thing. I can see it being a problem though, given how some people cheat at geocaching or benchmarking.

That brings up two interesting questions.

 

Question 1

Is it really cheating to claim a waymark you've never been to or seen as long as you satisfy the stated requirements for the Category?

 

I was looking at a Category and decided to Google it. I quickly found several websites that provided everything I needed to satisfy all the stated requirements. I didn't notice anything in the rules that said you can't do this.

 

Question 2

When you say:

The category manager would be the one to watch out for that kind of thing.

If you satisfy the stated requirements can the Category manager add to or change the requirements/rules ex post facto? I think I'd be pretty POed if I went to the time and trouble to claim a waymark and the manager said, "I didn't intend you to do this or that. I didn't make the rules clear, so I'm disallowing your claim."

Edited by Thot

Share this post


Link to post
Question 1

Is it really cheating to claim a waymark you've never been to or seen as long as you satisfy the stated requirements for the Category?

 

I was looking at a Category and decided to Google it. I quickly found several websites that provided everything I needed to satisfy all the stated requirements. I didn't notice anything in the rules that said you can't do this.

 

If you satisfy the stated requirements, then it isnt cheating. Personally my hubby and I have gone to all the waymarks we have posted. Im a bit compulsive and wont claim something unless Ive been there. We havent decided whether or not we will log our waymarks as finds yet either. Even tho this is allowed.

Share this post


Link to post

For my category of Penny Smashers, I could care less if the person creating the waymark has actually been to the site (as long as all of the information is accurate). Creating a waymark != visiting a waymark. I can create a waymark of a machine that I have never been to, but have all the info for, and then claim a visit on it when I actually visit it. This is just fine for my category.

 

--Marky

Edited by Marky

Share this post


Link to post
Don't get me wrong here, I only toss this out as a constructive criticism,,, you have a dedicated group of people that take pride in the activity you have created and are willing pony up to enhance the website, and I'll bet you a bag of swag that not many will be crossing over to this Waymarking malarkey.

Perhaps you can help me out here.

 

I can see the 'criticism' part of your post, but I'm having trouble recognizing the 'constructive' part.

Share this post


Link to post

Constructive because it illustrates how lax the requirements are, as an example, Marky just stated "I can create a waymark of a machine that I have never been to, but have all the info for, and then claim a visit on it when I actually visit it" does that practice sound like it would fly in the geocaching community ? Logging your own caches ?

Share this post


Link to post
does that practice sound like it would fly in the geocaching community ? Logging your own caches ?

This isn't geocaching, and these aren't caches. This is a whole different thing.

 

And logging visits to your own waymarks has already been stated as being an acceptable practice. Whether or not people will choose to do so is a different question, however.

Share this post


Link to post
If you satisfy the stated requirements can the Category manager add to or change the requirements/rules ex post facto? I think I'd be pretty POed if I went to the time and trouble to claim a waymark and the manager said, "I didn't intend you to do this or that. I didn't make the rules clear, so I'm disallowing your claim."

This has already happened, and while the waymark submitter certainly didn't handle a response in any way, shape or form as tactfully as possible, fact is he met the "listed requirements" and got told - "that's not what I meant."

 

This topic as evidence.

 

Though - this has been the case for caches since we started this whole thing, right? We like to say we follow the "Hike your own hike" mentality, but we really don't mean that. I mean, "cache your own cache" doesn't really mean that. It means "cache the cache owner's cache." Heck, I've found caches and because I admitted that I didn't have a pen to sign the log, I couldn't claim it once.

 

Ultimately, WM.com will have the same mentality as GC.com. People will either like it or not, and will play it or not with the reality that you're playing by someone else's rules.

 

VW

Share this post


Link to post
Constructive because it illustrates how lax the requirements are

The requirements are only lax if the category owners don't place strict posting requirements for waymarks in their category.

 

It's ok for a category manager to require a visit the site of a waymark, verified with a picture, in order to allow someone to post a waymark.

 

Category managers can also choose not to have such restrictions.

 

Granted, this hasn't all been completely hammered out yet - there are still some open issues. But I don't see this as being a state of anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post

You just have to free you mind on this one SRD525 :ph34r: I can see your point and I mentioned this problem when the Vinson Massif was listed under the Summits Category. I, like the Viking up there, have been only logging Waymarks that I've visited since the site came up, but if someone has the tenacity to sit down and input 300+ Waymarks just to pump up their numbers, then I applaud their data entry skills. It does make the Waymark Stats a bit meaningless though.

 

I don't see a problem with Visiting your own Waymark. I mean, if Nate were to actually Visit his Vinson Massif Waymark, I'd be the first to applaud that outstanding achievement.

 

To me, the numbers that are going to have the most meaning are the Visited Stats, and the quality ranking. I've also mentioned in another thread that grouping Waymarks together in seperate categories (like CA and CO peaks over 14,000 ft) was another way to reward people with some meaningful Stats.

 

I think we just have to sit back and give this thing a chance. Sounds like there's some heavy hitters from the gc.com community that are signed up on this one, and I trust they'll learn from the shortcomings of the gc.com site and make Waymarking.com even better.

 

So far, I like what I've seen more than I've disliked.

Share this post


Link to post
If you satisfy the stated requirements can the Category manager add to or change the requirements/rules ex post facto?  I think I'd be pretty POed if I went to the time and trouble to claim a waymark and the manager said, "I didn't intend you to do this or that.  I didn't make the rules clear, so I'm disallowing your claim."

This has already happened, and while the waymark submitter certainly didn't handle a response in any way, shape or form as tactfully as possible, fact is he met the "listed requirements" and got told - "that's not what I meant."

 

This topic as evidence.

Thanks for that link. I've been there and posted a more extensive message on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post
If you satisfy the stated requirements can the Category manager add to or change the requirements/rules ex post facto?  I think I'd be pretty POed if I went to the time and trouble to claim a waymark and the manager said, "I didn't intend you to do this or that.  I didn't make the rules clear, so I'm disallowing your claim."

This has already happened, and while the waymark submitter certainly didn't handle a response in any way, shape or form as tactfully as possible, fact is he met the "listed requirements" and got told - "that's not what I meant."

 

This topic as evidence.

 

Though - this has been the case for caches since we started this whole thing, right? We like to say we follow the "Hike your own hike" mentality, but we really don't mean that. I mean, "cache your own cache" doesn't really mean that. It means "cache the cache owner's cache." Heck, I've found caches and because I admitted that I didn't have a pen to sign the log, I couldn't claim it once.

 

Ultimately, WM.com will have the same mentality as GC.com. People will either like it or not, and will play it or not with the reality that you're playing by someone else's rules.

 

VW

Please explain to me how a lighthouse that's in a harbor area 350 feet from a river meets the category requirement that says the lighthouse cannot be near an ocean, lake or river.

 

This should be fun. Maybe Bill Clinton can help you with the definition of "near."

Share this post


Link to post
If you take for example the locationless cache - For Valor - GC9544. 306 geocachers have done the hard work of finding and recording the info, photos, coords and history of the medal of honor recipient. Now on this site, I could just cut and paste that info to DIRECTORY/PEOPLE/MEMORIALS and claim credit of all 306 LOGS as MY WAYMARKS, and it counts on my stat page, when I never even visited the location. I think I will feel a bit ripped off when that happens to me.

 

What about you ?

I would hope that when a locationless cache gets moved to Waymarking.com as a category, the category owner (who is likely to be the original locationless owner) will give the finders of the original locationless the chance to create waymarks for their finds before opening this up to others. There has been some discussion on whether the logs from locationless caches should migrate to waymarks but this is a non-trivial task so it is not likely to happen.

 

On the other hand, even though the locationless cache will be archived, the original finders will still get credit for their finds. They don't lose anything by someone else claiming the waymark. The Waymarking category is a new game. Perhaps the original locationless finder isn't interested in Waymarking or maybe has even stopped geocaching. Why should the original locationless finder be entitled to a waymark anymore than anyone else who meets the category requirements? Its up to the category owner to decide if the waymarker must visit the site to get coordinates or can just post a waymark using coordinates that they found elsewhere (perhaps in a locationless log on geocaching.com).

Share this post


Link to post
This isn't geocaching, and these aren't caches. This is a whole different thing.

 

And logging visits to your own waymarks has already been stated as being an acceptable practice. Whether or not people will choose to do so is a different question, however.

I think the above statement summed it up pretty good.

 

I still see that there are too many categories that try to emulate what the equivalent locationless cache was on gc.com. Jeremy mentioned it somewhere, that accuracy should be what is important here on wm.com. One certainly should not have to visit a location in order to create/own a waymark, as long as the information they enter when they create the waymark is accurate. If someone wants to create 100 or even 1000 waymarks for a certain category, then so be it, as it only adds value and makes the category more complete. I would think the goal is to get as many (ideally all) waymarks for each category as possible, so that if I know there is a certain object in the town I am visiting, I should be able to find it on wm.com. So I think that category owners that are stating additional requirements like taking a picture or including your GPS in the picture to create a waymark, is going a bit too far and is totally unnecessary. Instead of FORCING people to do this, why not say that it adds value and is recommend, but no one should ever have a waymark deleted because they did not post a picture...the accuracy of the waymark should take precidence.

 

Same goes for visiting a waymark. You visit it, you log it. Very simple. If there is a problem with accuracy of a waymark, then as people visit the waymark, they will note it in their "visit" logs, and the waymark can be corrected/adjusted as necessary.

 

I see Jeremy stated that there will be some variations and other neat types of categories, which to me sounded like they would be adding categories possibly for things like (just a guess) scavenger hunts, puzzles, etc, and for these, there will certainly be additional requirements, be it pictures or other things, but that would be perfectly ok in that case as those would be different than the regular waymarks.

 

As many have said, this is not geocaching. We have a fresh concept/game/site to start out with here. Lets not get bogged down with unnecessary details. wm.com should appeal to all, and not be limited to us geocachers who have a GPS and a Camera, as a lot of people that will find out about wm.com won't have a GPS or camera, but yet they still would like to contribute. I think a lot of people are still looking at wm.com as a straight replacement of locationless/virtuals, but I don't thik it is.

 

I asked a few weeks ago on what Jeremy's vision on the direction that he would like to see Waymarking evolve, but he never replied to that thread. I think it may clear up some questions if we understood more about what Jeremy's vision is and I guess now is the time for all of us to give input and shape the future before the site goes public.

Share this post


Link to post
Well that's just it, a zillion waymarks, with a million category owners who are going to be left to their own devices without very much oversight. Sounds like a clusterf#*& in the making for sure.

If you want to say you are using constructive criticism you should start by watching your mouth (figuratively - I know it is typing). I don't care if you pretty up your foulness with # or whatever but keep that off the forums. This is no place for it.

 

I'm disappointed that TPTB lacked the spine to just say no more virts and locationless, all those that are in are grandfathered, but we feel it was a mistake, and not in the true spirit of "geocaching" so that's the end of it.

 

Dude. Seriously. We are saying no more virts and locationless, so I suppose our spines are perfectly intact, thankyouverymuch.

 

The fact that we think that locationless caches are cool and should have their own place to grow and flourish is a different thing altogether.

 

Changing the rules in the middle of the game is quite a tawdry affair and, IMHO, Jeremy himself has made a mockery of this effort by starting a Mcdonald's directory. I predict this Waymarking endeavor will be one of the jellyfish that washes up on the beach because it lacks the focus required of geocaching.

 

It's a whole new world and we're starting fresh. I don't think there has been any rule changing. In fact we're following your first point in your post and shutting down new locationless and virtuals entirely, so I'm not understanding the "changing the rules" part.

 

As for the jellyfish comment, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Are you prepared to eat your own shoe if it is wildly successful? I would settle for you eating a jellyfish. :D

 

I'm also dismayed that my dues were diverted to launch such a scatterbrain reaction to a very simple problem.

 

I checked our finances and your Premium Membership went towards the geocaching.com bandwidth fees for February. So be assured that you individually didn't contribute to the Waymarking.com web site.

 

Don't get me wrong here, I only toss this out as a constructive criticism,,, you have a dedicated group of people that take pride in the activity you have created and are willing pony up to enhance the website, and I'll bet you a bag of swag that not many will be crossing over to this Waymarking malarkey.

 

Here's an example of constructive criticism for future posts:

 

That is not constructive criticism because constructive criticism involves some attempt at criticizing and offering some possible solutions or pointing out particular reasons for the criticism. Your post would be better defined as a tirade or perhaps a rant. In no way was it constructive. Next time you could say "I believe that x doesn't work because of y."

Edited by Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post
... I still see that there are too many categories that try to emulate what the equivalent locationless cache was on gc.com.

Sorry, but to many of us, Waymarking is a solution to replace LCs and virts. I have no problem playing the game in that manner. In my opinion, creating a new waymark in a category is exactly like logging an LC. Logging your visit to a waymark is just like logging a virtual cache. I believe that this is what TPTB were going for and I'm very thankful for it.

... One certainly should not have to visit a location in order to create/own a waymark, as long as the information they enter when they create the waymark is accurate.
In this, we certainly disagree. If you attempt to fraudulently add a waymark to one of my categories, it will be denied.
If someone wants to create 100 or even 1000 waymarks for a certain category, then so be it, as it only adds value and makes the category more complete.
I agree, as long as someone follows the requirements. One of which should be that you actually got off your rear and visited the location.
I would think the goal is to get as many (ideally all) waymarks for each category as possible, so that if I know there is a certain object in the town I am visiting, I should be able to find it on wm.com.
The doesn't sound like a very fun game to me. There are plenty of tools out there that can track down lighthouses for you, I'd rather WM.com was fun, instead.
So I think that category owners that are stating additional requirements like taking a picture or including your GPS in the picture to create a waymark, is going a bit too far and is totally unnecessary.  Instead of FORCING people to do this, why not say that it adds value and is recommend, but no one should ever have a waymark deleted because they did not post a picture...the accuracy of the waymark should take precidence.
As explained above, I think your vision of WM.com is more of a tool for travellers and less of a game to be enjoyed. I have tools, I'm paying for fun.
...I see Jeremy stated that there will be some variations and other neat types of categories, which to me sounded like they would be adding categories possibly for things like (just a guess) scavenger hunts... and for these, there will certainly be additional requirements, be it pictures or other things, but that would be perfectly ok in that case as those would be different than the regular waymarks.
Huh? Take another look at WM.com. It is the very definition of a scavenger hunt.
... I think a lot of people are still looking at wm.com as a straight replacement of locationless/virtuals, but I don't thik it is.
To me, it totally is.

Share this post


Link to post
... One certainly should not have to visit a location in order to create/own a waymark, as long as the information they enter when they create the waymark is accurate.
In this, we certainly disagree. If you attempt to fraudulently add a waymark to one of my categories, it will be denied.

You seem to be saying creating a waymark at a location you haven't been to is 'fraudulent.' Can you point me to this requirement/condition for Waymarking?

Edited by Thot

Share this post


Link to post
In my category, I certainly can.

So it's not a generic requirement, it's up to the category manager?

Share this post


Link to post

It is up to the category owner to police those waymarks being submitted.

 

I'm reminded of the 'penny press' category. A few years ago, Cathy and I were at Canaveral. They had machines there and we squished a couple of pennies. Should I create a waymark for the location? Of course not because I have no idea if the machines still exist. Let someone who actually visits the location submit the waymark.

 

I'm also reminded of when the 'Wooden Bridge' LC was created. I went online and tracked down the nearest bridge. There was plenty of info online about it and it would have been simple to get coords for it using mapping software. When I went to the spot, however, I found that it had been recently destroyed. If there is no 'visitation' requirement to create new waymarks, the data will be useless.

Share this post


Link to post
... I think a lot of people are still looking at wm.com as a straight replacement of locationless/virtuals, but I don't thik it is.
To me, it totally is.

It is to me too, but with more potential, I think. I am looking forward to see how it evolves.

Share this post


Link to post
It is up to the category owner to police those waymarks being submitted..

You did it again. That remark suggests if someone creates a waymark at a location they haven't been to it requires 'policing' (meaning it is a violation of something) just as you previously suggested the same thing by implying such behavior is 'fraudulent.'

 

Please say whether you think doing this is against the general rules of Waymarking (not just your categories). If you say it is, please point us to this rule?

Share this post


Link to post
It is up to the category owner to police those waymarks being submitted..

You did it again. That remark suggests if someone creates a waymark at a location they haven't been to it requires 'policing' (meaning it is a violation of something) just as you previously suggested the same thing by implying such behavior is 'fraudulent.'

I didn't get that impression at all. Almost any category will need policing at some time or another.

Share this post


Link to post
... One certainly should not have to visit a location in order to create/own a waymark, as long as the information they enter when they create the waymark is accurate.
In this, we certainly disagree. If you attempt to fraudulently add a waymark to one of my categories, it will be denied.

You seem to be saying creating a waymark at a location you haven't been to is 'fraudulent.' Can you point me to this requirement/condition for Waymarking?

I agree with what Thot said. No where in the wm.com rules does it say you have to visit the location in order to create the waymark...if it says that somewhere on wm.com, then I must have missed it. As long as the waymark is accurate, that is what is important. I don't know how you, sbell111, or anyone would consider accurate information to be fraud...makes no sense. By people visiting the waymark afterwards to log their visit, that will provide further confirmation of the validity of the waymark. If something for whatever reason is inaccurate about a waymark, as proved by "visits" or by other who know additional information about the waymark, then the waymark can be updated with the additional information as necessary.

 

I know this site is still in Beta, and we are here to help Jeremy shape it's future through these discussions. There obviously seems to be a division on how people look at wm.com. There are those that simply see wm.com as just a replacement for locationless/virtuals (if that's all it was, then we didn't need this whole new website), and those of us that see the tremendous potential of what wm.com can be if we can only get away from the legacy locationless mindset from how locationless caches were on gc.com (there was enough hostility when it came to locationless caches at gc.com). Of course in the end it comes down to what Jeremy's decides, and either way I hope we will all come to respect what Jeremy has in mind for wm.com. I will contribute to wm.com either way, but if it's just a replacement to locationlesses, then it really doesn't interest me as much.

 

Whatever is decided, I do think there needs to be a set of common rules for creating waymarks. It will cause too many problems if waymark ABC has one set of rules such as requiring people to take a photo of themselves with their GPS (again not everyone playing will have a GPS) in order to create/own the waymark, and waymark XYZ has no waymark creation/ownership requirements. There needs to be some kind of consistancy, and I feel that is "accuracy" of the waymark. Anything else such as pictures is just a bonus.

Share this post


Link to post
... I still see that there are too many categories that try to emulate what the equivalent locationless cache was on gc.com.

Sorry, but to many of us, Waymarking is a solution to replace LCs and virts.

Waymarking does seem to be a good replacement to the locationless caches as far as I have seen so far....

 

and it should work as a good replacement for many of the different types of virtuals out there (but not ALL of them -- which is why there is so much angst and discussion about the future of the current virtuals on gc.com that work better as geocaches and not waymarks).

 

It's just going to take some time... i don't tihnk Groundspeak was really prepared to handle things regarding Waymarking when they opened it up to premium members.... there's still a lot of growing pains going on right now, and I imagine it will just get worse before it gets better once they start accepting new categories.... like the 5 trillion mostly redudant ideas posted in the companion thread....

 

so, i've been lying low regarding Waymarking until Groundspeak and the Waymarking ocmmunity get their acts together and try and hammer something out that's gonna work... and i am looking forward for that moment... i do look forward to doing Waymarking... once we actually know what that is, and what's gonna happen with the geocaches that aren't waymarks....

Share this post


Link to post

Instead of "lying low," why not offer your views on how you think the process ought to work? You own a locationless cache that's converted, and you've put together some nice virtual caches. Input from people like you is important.

Share this post


Link to post

According to the current version of Waymarking rules, which I understand to be beta[/] mode, a category owner can decide whether to:

 

1. Require that all waymark establishers to prove that they visited the location, or

2. Not to require that.

 

(I'm assuming that the intent of Waymarking is for loggers of a waymark to prove that they visited the waymark.)

 

The advantage to #2 is that there will tend to be lots more waymarks for loggers of waymarks to log. Cool.

 

The advantage to #1 is that it makes Waymarking about the same as the familiar locationless 'cache'.

 

The advantage of #1 offers comfort with the familiar or some such, but I think the advantage of #2 is more dynamic - the number of sites to have fun logging, rating, and photographing will increase much faster than the locationless type.

Share this post


Link to post

My humble opinion is that all waymarks should be visited by the poster. Also when you log a waymark you should have visited it. Geocaching is defiantly a active hobby and I like how it gets me off my butt. I plan on continuing my mentality to Waymarking.

 

So how do we make sure that someone visits a place? Best way in my opinion is to have a picture of the "object" with your GPSr in it. I'm going to do this for all my waymarks and I plan on requiring it with any category I own, as long as there isn't something put in the rules telling me I can't and it's okay with my guild/team/posse.

 

I would like to see a general rule to make it so you have to visit every place you mark, but hey, that’s not my call!! But I'll support the site no matter which way they go on this.

 

If you are wondering I do have 2 waymarks I've made that don't have the picture with the GPS. One is a webcam so I just have a picture of me taken with the cam. Another is a fountain. I just forgot to take one :blink: . I'll fix that mistake next time I'm in town.

 

Anyway, just my opinion

-Robbie

Team Robrad

Edited by Team Robrad

Share this post


Link to post

I think we need to get used to the idea that the category owner decides the logging requirements.

 

If TPTB put the logging requirements as an absolute across all categories, this would make Waymarking less flexible.

 

There is room in Waymarking for all sorts of inventive use of categories, once things start settling down, so the last thing we need is for this to be stiffled by heavyhanded use of rules at the top level of the tree. Let the category owners decide on the requirements, and we will see some inventive waymarks I am sure.

 

I would say that more prominence is needed to the logging requirements when you look at a particular category, at the moment you need to click on "more detail", where I feel the info should be up front.

Share this post


Link to post

Since Waymarking is the solution that we have waited for regarding LCs, shouldn't we be allowed to play the game on WM.com? Well, the thing about LCs is that the first person who goes to the location gets to log it. In Waymarking terms, that means that the first person gets to create a waymark. Future finders get to log the find as they would a virt.

 

Allowing people to create a waymark because they found an example on the internet is against the spirit of the game, in my opinion, and should not be allowed. I have yet to see a convincing argument for how 'armchair Waymarking' adds to the game.

 

The only argument that I have heard is that more locations will be in the database. While its true that the database would be added to quicker, I don't see why that is such a big deal. I think that we will see that the database will be added to really quickly as soon as WM.com is available to all players.

Edited by sbell111

Share this post


Link to post

I'll speak of the one category I'm familiar with - penny smasher locations. In the original LC, the requirement was that each penny smasher could only be logged once - by the person who visited it first. Understandably so, but there, that was the end of it. No one else could get any kind of 'credit' for visiting that sight - if you are into numbers. Although, to be honest, I don't believe Marki & Joani deleted multiple logs on a single penny smasher. To be honest, I think it would have been a logistical nightmare to 'police' anyway. With waymarks, the first person to create the waymark gets credit for 'owning' the waymark. They can choose to log it if they want (personally, we haven't logged the penny smasher waymarks we created - we're still 'pondering' if we should or shouldn't). But the advantage is that anyone who then visits that location, can log their visit to the waymark for their stats, or 'numbers'.

 

On to the point I was going to make - I personally like Marki & Joani's idea that anyone can create a waymark in their catagory even if they haven't visited it. Why? Because it is a way to create a database of penny smashers and know where they are before you visit an area. In this particular category, often the smashers are located in some out of the way place. Decades ago I used to love collecting smashed pennies for myself. Then we started collecting them with the kids - this was before geocaching. Maybe they are more 'out in the open now', but I can remember walking into places, asking if they had a penny smashing machine, and getting the 'deer in the headlights' look from the person behind the counter. They either had no idea what I was talking about, or often the answer would be "I don't know", or "No, I don't think so".

 

If anyone can create a waymark for a smashed penny machine that they knew existed at one time or another, it helps for those looking for them when they visit an area. Will I be disappointed if I visit the site and find the penny smasher no longer exists? Sure. But at least the database will then be updated by my posting that the waymark needs to be archieved. And at least I have some places to start looking for machines when I get to an out of state area that I may or may not ever visit again.

 

Take wooden bridges for example. Again, it's a great way to have a database of a certain 'feature' or 'item' in an area you are visiting and not familiar with. If someone knows it exists, even if it was a year ago, why not let them waymark it, so that it is in the database for those to 'search' for, find, then log - and archive the waymark if needed.

 

As for McD's being a silly waymark - yeah, okay, for us it is - we have MapSource, and if we are in search of a McD's (NOT!), then we can us our GPS to find the nearest one. However, not everyone has MapSource, or whatever similar programs there are out there. More to the point though, wooden bridges, lighthouses and penny smashers are not databased in MapSouce - this is where Waymarking comes in. Why not fill the database the quickest way possible? Why limit the potential of Waymarking by placing restrictions on those that have the knowledge of a waymark for your category? As for having mulitiple ways on the internet to find what you are looking for in an area - such as google - yeah, that works, but honestly, do you REALLY want to waste a ton of time trying to find a particular feature in a particular area, just so you can visit it when you get there? Personally, I like the potential of Waymarking being a huge one-stop shop database of information on anything you can think of that you might be interested in visiting in an area!

Share this post


Link to post

Wow. That was one long post.

 

The fact is, the database will grow even if armchair Waymarking is not allowed. Just take a look at the penny smasher LC. There are tons of logs, even though people were required to go to the location. When WM.com is open to general participation, it will grow and grow.

 

Armchair Waymarking only takes away the enjoyment of those that liked LCs. It is fun to try to beat your friend in logging the object first. Allowing armchair Waymarking takes away this enjoyment.

 

To me the beauty of Jeremy's (et al) solution is that it allows the thrill of hunting down the unfound item to create a waymark while allowing visitor #2 to still log a find. Further, the waymark lives on as a virt.

Share this post


Link to post
It's just going to take some time... i don't tihnk Groundspeak was really prepared to handle things regarding Waymarking when they opened it up to premium members....

If we didn't release it early enough to get some input on it, we would have been criticized for keeping it quiet and not allowing any input before it was launched. Personally I think that the saying "growing pains" means that the concept is growing. If you don't think we opened this up with our eyes shut to the possibility of conflict or wringing our hands you're ignoring the fact that we've gone through this many times before.

 

A visceral reaction to the creation of Waymarking.com makes me think we did something right. It's not the shouting that concerns me it is the lack of interest - something that doesn't seem to be lacking here.

Share this post


Link to post
The fact is, the database will grow even if armchair Waymarking is not allowed. Just take a look at the penny smasher LC. There are tons of logs, even though people were required to go to the location. When WM.com is open to general participation, it will grow and grow.

I agree that it will grow, but I think that certain categories can benefit from having "sets" of data loaded in, much in the way that benchmarks are loaded from a common source. A good example might be California Historical Landmarks. I would love it if we could just get a preloaded set of waymarks created for them so that I could search for them when I am going to different areas the state. I don't really care who creates them.

 

In regards to my penny smasher waymark category, I don't require a visit to create a waymark, just accurate information. As long as there is enough information so that a future visitor will have no question that he or she is at the right smasher, then that is all that really is required. Instead of a photo, just a detailed description of the designs that the machine produces is enough information. The end goal of my category is to have as complete a list of currently available machines as possible and to allow people to search for machines they haven't visited yet. I think Waymarking.com allows for that nicely.

 

--Marky

Share this post


Link to post
In regards to my penny smasher waymark category, I don't require a visit to create a waymark, just accurate information. As long as there is enough information so that a future visitor will have no question that he or she is at the right smasher, then that is all that really is required. Instead of a photo, just a detailed description of the designs that the machine produces is enough information. The end goal of my category is to have as complete a list of currently available machines as possible and to allow people to search for machines they haven't visited yet. I think Waymarking.com allows for that nicely.

 

--Marky

I dont mean to be difficult, but you do require a visit and a photo of at least the entrance. It is why I havent posted any in your category yet. The photos are still on the camera waiting for me to finish the roll so I can take them to walgreens and have them put on a disk to upload onto the computer. Now that I see that all I needed was an accurate description, well I can add them now.

 

Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

1) Find a penny (or any other coin) smashing machine that has not been waymarked yet.

2) Take a photo of the machine (if possible) or a photo of the entrance to the building if photography is banned at the location of the machine. If a photo of the machine is not possible, please provide a detailed description of the design(s) it produces.

3) Post coordinates to the machine, or the nearest location that you can take coordinates if the machine is indoors.

Optional:

4) Photos of the actual smashed coin and photos of the available designs are appreciated.

5) Any information about the location that the machine resides at, such as operating hours, admission price, local history, etc. would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
I dont mean to be difficult, but you do require a visit and a photo of at least the entrance. It is why I havent posted any in your category yet. ...

 

Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

1) Find a penny (or any other coin) smashing machine that has not been waymarked yet.

2) Take a photo of the machine (if possible) or a photo of the entrance to the building if photography is banned at the location of the machine. If a photo of the machine is not possible, please provide a detailed description of the design(s) it produces.

3) Post coordinates to the machine, or the nearest location that you can take coordinates if the machine is indoors.

Optional:

4) Photos of the actual smashed coin and photos of the available designs are appreciated.

5) Any information about the location that the machine resides at, such as operating hours, admission price, local history, etc. would be great.

There is an alternative to the photo. I highlighted it for you. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Take a photo of the machine (if possible) or a photo of the entrance to the building if photography is banned at the location of the machine. If a photo of the machine is not possible, please provide a detailed description of the design(s) it produces.

 

The way I read it (sorry Marky, not trying to make this difficult) is that you take a photo of machine or photo of entrance. If machine photo isnt possible, then description is necessary. Photo of entrance is still required.

Share this post


Link to post

Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking is/are being 'technical' and who can blame them after the Capt Jack Sorrow incident.

 

Seems all of us are very much aware of wordings of the Catagories.

 

Probably more so now.

 

The challenge is to write in a way that causes no confusion or loop holes. That is if you are trying to be rigid. But now people cannot tell if the Catagory owner is being tightly restrictive or just not wording it in a way that the Waymark Owner is comfy with.

 

For such an easy activity, it doesn't need to be made so complicated.

 

When it comes to Geocaching, the only logging rule is that you must sign the logbook. There is nothing 'required' about images and such.

 

So ask yourself... why are you making people jump through hoops to enjoy your Waymark?

 

I don't think that was Marky's intent... but I think that Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking is/are wise for erring on the side of caution.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...