Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Deneye

Rules Need Not Apply

Recommended Posts

I submitted a waymark yesterday that I had visited over the weekend only to have it declined because I don't have a photo of my GPS at the place. This particular rule is a carry-over from when the category was a GC locationless.

 

I can see how such a rule would/should apply to a geocache, but Waymarking isn't geocaching...right? The rule should not have been carried over. It's ridiculous that I can't share something with the world because of the adherance to an outdated rule.

 

Ok. So I have trouble reading the fine print at times :blink: But I feel that I shouldn't need to have a photo of my GPS at the spot. This is Waymarking. We are recording places of interest and sharing them with the world, not playing the game of geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

The GPS in the photo is to prove that you were actually there. without the rule, armchair seekers will log waymarks without ever leaving the house.

Share this post


Link to post

The requirements are left up to the category manager. In each of my four categories, I ask for a photo. I don't insist on a photo that shows the GPS, because my personal opinion is that this ruins a lot of perfectly good scenic photos. That is my personal compromise between the competing goals of keeping things simple and fun, vs. assuring some quality and integrity to the waymark by requiring a personal visit to the site. Also, I think that photos make browsing the category more interesting and informative.

 

Other category managers may reach stricter or looser conclusions. And that's fine by me. I will read the requirements before visiting. When waymarks become available as bulk files similar to pocket query GPX files, the data ought to include the logging requirements for the waymark so when I'm in the field, I won't overlook something like "show your GPS in the photo."

Share this post


Link to post
The GPS in the photo is to prove that you were actually there. without the rule, armchair seekers will log waymarks without ever leaving the house.

So what, let them log all they want. It's not about the numbers B)

 

But more to the point, this wosn't about logging a waymark. it was about adding one to a category.

 

A GPSr is also handy to capture the coords so everyone else can find the thing.

 

and here i thought that's what the posted coords were for.

Share this post


Link to post
So what, let them log all they want. It's not about the numbers B)

I require folks to submit at least one photo of the sites that I maintain that has their GPS in the picture. This helps to prove that they were at the site for the purpose of Waymarking and that they didn't just download the pictures off of the internet or somewhere. I require the GPS shot on both categories and submissions.

 

Sure its not about the numbers, but its about the experience. If I don't in some way monitor this then "armchair cachers" will just log all of the good locations providing only the minimum information required and take away from the "First To Find" challenge that submitting a waymark provides.

 

I enjoy reading the submissions and looking at the pictures that are sent in. Most of the folks tend to write good submissions and provide some good photos.

 

Maybe folks don't like the way I "micromanage" my categories, but I'm trying my best to preserve their integrity so they don't fall the way of the "Yellow Jeeps".

Share this post


Link to post

I see that bamageek's requirements are one notch stricter than mine when it comes to photos. And you know what? That's perfectly fine by me. When I'm looking for a waymark in bamageek's category, I'll follow his rules. I don't see that as being any different than virtual caches and locationless caches, whose rules and the enforcement thereof were all over the map.

Share this post


Link to post

May-be I didn't understand the purpose of this new Waymarking site. Suppose we would have a list of nice B&B where Geocachers could sleep between two cache huntings. Suppose I slept in such a place, but had no picture-box or no GPS with me, or forgot to take a picture... It would be a shame to reject my interesting information about this B&B for this reason. I could easily find accurate enough coordinates on MapSource for example, and complete a valuable entry with this info...

Share this post


Link to post
May-be I didn't understand the purpose of this new Waymarking site. Suppose we would have a list of nice B&B where Geocachers could sleep between two cache huntings. Suppose I slept in such a place, but had no picture-box or no GPS with me, or forgot to take a picture... It would be a shame to reject my interesting information about this B&B for this reason. I could easily find accurate enough coordinates on MapSource for example, and complete a valuable entry with this info...

Exactly. Too many people are applying their geocaching sensibilities to Waymarking. Creating a waymark should be about adding a valuable write-up to an interesting (for the category) location.

 

The photo requirement should be kept to the logging of waymarks. Not the creation of waymarks. The only requirement for the creation of waymarks should be accurate coordinates and an interesting and valuable write-up.

Share this post


Link to post

The way I understand it is that Waymarking is a multi-purpose site. One of the purposes of the site is to replace the locationless caches that will be archived at the end of the year. As such I feel that I should maintain my categories in the same manor as I did when they were locationless caches.

 

This being a multi-purpose site I don't see that being a problem if I choose to maintain these categories that way. I don't have a problem with other category owners not requiring photos and I don't think others should complain that I do require them.

 

In my opinion, the most important part of the locationless cache was the research required to find the locations and to log them. Thats where the challenge is. I think once all is said and done you'll see that on average about 80% of the logging here will be setting up new waymarks and about 20% will be folks going to find the waymarks that others find.

 

That being said, I decided that in order for folks to create waymarks on my categories they must visit the site. Thats part of the game to me so thats how I choose to run it. Doing it this way I'm pretty sure that no one person will log all of the candidates of my categories and I'm also assured that I'll get to see at least one photo of each location.

 

I don't think thats asking a lot. My family has done quite a number of locationless caches. Many of these proved to be very fullfilling. We've taken numerous weekend trips out of state for the sole purpose of logging one or two locationless caches. Some of these caches required a lot of research beforehand, in some cases even requiring us to talk to specific artists, architects, and even professional researchers to find out about specific places.

 

I can't explain the satisfaction we got out of acutally going out and finding these locations first hand. I assure you the feelings would not have been the same if we had already been given the coordinates. That satisfaction is something I'm trying to preserve for others by requiring folks to actually go out and find these targets first hand. To me thats the purpose of Locationless caches.

Share this post


Link to post

Waymarking has rules. (The whole thing is beta at this point.) In the Waymarking FAQ page in the paragraph titled What are my responsibilities as a category owner?, it states that

As a category owner it is your responsibility to determine the rules for posting a waymark to your category.
.

 

So, the rules for posting a waymark are variable. They depend on what the category manager wants the category to be like. The Waymarking rule is that the category manager is supposed to uphold the category's rules.

Share this post


Link to post

The great thing about Waymarking is you can "vote" down the popularity of categories to whose rules you don't agree. Conversely, you can "vote" up the popularity of categories to which you do agree.

 

Time and people will determine whose rules people ultimately agree with.

 

VW

Share this post


Link to post
The great thing about Waymarking is you can "vote" down the popularity of categories to whose rules you don't agree. Conversely, you can "vote" up the popularity of categories to which you do agree.

 

Time and people will determine whose rules people ultimately agree with.

 

VW

But in no way is it suggested that a duplicate category (with different rules and manager(s)) will be allowed to exist to replace a particularly poorly rated category. It's just that you can filter out categories where many people don't like the rules/manager.

 

And if it would be allowed, then what about all of the old logs and things...do I have to relog...will I be allowed to relog...should I relog...

Share this post


Link to post
But in no way is it suggested that a duplicate category (with different rules and manager(s)) will be allowed to exist to replace a particularly poorly rated category. It's just that you can filter out categories where many people don't like the rules/manager.

 

And if it would be allowed, then what about all of the old logs and things...do I have to relog...will I be allowed to relog...should I relog...

Nor has that been ruled out. I was going to post the same thing!

 

Assume Manager Group A comes up with a category with very restrictive rules (and assume this gets approved by whatever the process is for new categories). The rules are applied with ruthless efficiency and many waymarks and logs are denied or archived. The category sinks to the bottom of the popularity list and most people filter it out. Along comes Manager Group B with a revised category that has a few common-sense rules. Could that category be proposed? Could it live alongside Group A's category? Or would the first category be shut down when the new one is added?

Share this post


Link to post

Not to diminish the strictness rules people are suggesting...

 

I agree that the GPS in the picture, or even the picture should be semi-optional

 

I guess I will get labelled as a suck up.. but Jeremy has the "BERRY PICKING" Catagory.

 

Those rules are as loose as it gets.

 

And that is the point of Waymarking I believe.... you can go to the spot, enjoy the spot and write a Visit about the spot. That's about it.

 

It isn't some scientific experiment that needs to have every step recorded for evaluation.

 

Unless there is a specific reason to require photos... why ask for one?

 

People can lie about going there sure... is there a prize for getting numbers? I don't think that there is or will be. People wanna cheat and say they did a Waymark that they didn't do, I don't care.

Does it affect me? Not unless they write up some garbage that falsely reduces the impression of my Waymark.

 

:D The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
The great thing about Waymarking is you can "vote" down the popularity of categories to whose rules you don't agree. Conversely, you can "vote" up the popularity of categories to which you do agree.

 

Time and people will determine whose rules people ultimately agree with.

 

VW

This problem with this theroy is that those that like the strict Waymarking/logging rules will vote up those categories that have strict Waymarking/logging rules.

 

Those that don't like strict Waymarking/logging rules will vote up those categories that don't have strict Waymarking/logging rules.

 

And vice versa.

 

A lot of people won't bother to 'vote' at all.

 

It won't sort anything out. People not liking strict rules will avoid those categories that require them - it won't make them be less strict. Just as those wanting strict rules may or may not avoid those categories that aren't strict - it won't make those categories be more strict.

 

Different people see Waymarking in different ways. Some see it as only a replacement for locationless/virtual caches. Some see it as something totally different from geocaching, and look beyond the logging of a site and see the endless possibilities of a database of information Waymarking can create. Neither is right or wrong, but in the long run, it will evolve according to how people 'play the game' and how they use it. Maybe the 'voting' will have a 'say' in how it evolves, maybe not, but evolve it will - despite the many different opinions on what Waymarking should or shouldn't be.

Share this post


Link to post
Exactly. Too many people are applying their geocaching sensibilities to Waymarking. Creating a waymark should be about adding a valuable write-up to an interesting (for the category) location.

 

The photo requirement should be kept to the logging of waymarks. Not the creation of waymarks. The only requirement for the creation of waymarks should be accurate coordinates and an interesting and valuable write-up.

I disagree. WM.com is the alternative to virts and LCs.

 

By requiring a pic to log a visit to a waymark, you ensure that the person actually visited the location. This is completely proper to stop people from cheating. This is the virt side of the game.

 

The other half of the game is the alternative to LCs. The fun with locationless caching is finding the object and logging it before anyone else does. This is not an armchair game. It requires you to actually go out of one's home and find something. The find is then documented and the LC is logged.

 

In order for Waymarking to be an alternative to LCs, a visit to the location must be required. Otherwise, you may as well play 'What is It?' in off-topic and hone your Googling skills all day.

Share this post


Link to post
WM.com is the alternative to virts and LCs.

Everybody needs to stop thinking about wm.com in terms of gc.com. The sites are designed differently, and each site has a different focus (due in part to the design).

 

Using geocaching sensibilities with Waymarking will sink Waymarking as a viable (yet very different) alternative to the old virtuals and locationless caches of gc.com. Wm.com isn't designed in the same way as gc.com, thus the same model that worked for gc.com won't work over at wm.com. The wm.com design is a different model (which is as it should be), yet those people trying to implement this new model (category owners are mostly to blame here) are trying to fit it into the old gc.com mold. Square peg, round hole.

 

Categories should be managed in a CONSISTENT site-wide manner. Whereas category ideas should be accepted from the general public, categories should ultimately be managed by Groundspeak alone, to ensure consistency.

 

A lack of consistency with the categories will kill this Waymarking concept. I have no doubt of this.

 

Waymarking is a neat idea, but the implementation is off, such that it's only going to create general chaos once the site opens to all.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Four years plus of forum threads whinging about the centralization of decision-making power over site content in the hands of a small group of "arbitrary" and "inconsistent" decision-makers would suggest that the decentralized model of Waymarking.com is worth a try.

Share this post


Link to post

A lack of consistency with the categories will kill this Waymarking concept. I have no doubt of this.

Flexibility is bad? Help me understand why.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I see a lack of proof as killing the site. Given how everyone whines about fake logs on gc.com and the benchmarking, people will soon start that over at wm.com. If a category owner or a waymark owner chooses not to have that requirement, that is their business. I will require it on all of mine. Im flexible though. If you do not have photo proof, but you can prove your visit to me in an email otherwise, I will allow the visit. The point of my waymarks is to show people something they might not know otherwise. A bit of history perhaps, or an interactive play fountain (a plus in the hot desert). They wont get the full enjoyment of it without going to it. And I dont like fake log entries. It isnt that hard to go along with my requirements. It is how I choose to play. People who dont like my hard stance do not have to log my waymarks as a find. They can visit without a log entry, or post a note, or ignore my waymark altogether. I would probably not be interested in using wm.com if I couldnt require people to prove they were at my listings.

 

One weakness Im having is that I do not have digital camera or scanner. I am taking photos and will eventually post them on logs. Im sure there are others like me. I would like to be able to make my listings have an alternative means of providing proof of visit. So far, that hasnt been easy to do.

 

/sleep deprived rambling

Share this post


Link to post

A lack of consistency with the categories will kill this Waymarking concept. I have no doubt of this.

Flexibility is bad? Help me understand why.

Because you've designed this site around a directory structure, and then you expect that the userbase (most of whom can't organize their own directory structures on their PCs properly) to maintain this site in an organized manner.

 

Within about six months of opening this to the public, the directory structure on this site is going to look like the directory structure of grandpa's home computer. It's going to be a huge mess that'll be next to impossible to navigate and search properly. You're going to have misnamed categories. Categories who's requirements don't exactly match the category name, categories with requirements that are far too strict and rigid, other categories with requirements that are far too lax, categories that are too shallow (tree depth), categories that are far too deep, etc.

 

You can honestly expect that this complex tree structure of directories is going to be effectively maintained by the masses.

 

Perhaps if you had some complex Wiki backend here (which has a slew of self-correcting checks and balances built-in to the design), it might work. But I'm pretty positive you don't have anything of the sort (not even approaching that level of complexity).

 

That's why flexibility, in this instance, is a bad bad thing.

 

(Geocaching works because there is no structure beyond the most simplistic. There's nothing for the masses to screw up. It's nothing more than an unordered list, with a few simple attribute tags to differentiate traditional from multi from puzzle caches.)

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Uhhhh, I thought that Groundspeak maintained control over the directory structure and the names of the Waymark categories. I know that when I edit my categories, the name field is "locked" so that I cannot change a nice descriptive category name like "Iron Furnace Ruins" to something vague like "Vulcans of the Past." This fixes a big shortcoming with the taxonomy of locationless caches.

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I see a lack of proof as killing the site.

Unlike geocaching (where all the fakery complaints revolve around fake logging), fake waymarks (which seem to be the main fakery complaint at wm.com) will self-correct (there are more than enough "police" who'll report the bad from the good). If the waymark doesn't exist (or doesn't exist at the location), then the first waymarker or two to "visit" the location will undoubtedly mention such in their log entries. The waymark will be archived, and the waymark creator will find himself (or herself) ostracised from their behaviour.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post
There are more than enough "police" who'll report the bad from the good.

As your current tag line illustrates.

Share this post


Link to post
Within about six months of opening this to the public, the directory structure on this site is going to look like the directory structure of grandpa's home computer.

 

As I understand it, the masses don't get to define the directory structure. They just get to name some of grandpa's folders. It will still be up to the site operators to maintain an appropriate organizational structure for the folders.

 

edit: 5 minutes ago, this might have been a timely thing to say! Now, not so much. ;)

Edited by cache_test_dummies

Share this post


Link to post
Uhhhh, I thought that Groundspeak maintained control over the directory structure and the names of the Waymark categories.

They, of course, have complete control over the data structures and the database.

 

But judging by the "category creation" threads, Groundspeak wants an open system of category creation with as little Groundspeak involvement as possible. Category approval will come from the masses of userbase (perhaps a polling system), versus TPTB.

 

The masses can't be trusted to maintain order, mainly because the overall intelligence of the mass is only average. You need people who know what they are doing to control the structure. Someone with a lot of database design experience would be a good candidate, or someone with library experience would be the perfect candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
There are more than enough "police" who'll report the bad from the good.

As your current tag line illustrates.

Yes. Anyone who sprays poison at a cache site should be reported. Unfortunately, you didn't archive that cache, as it should have been. ;)

 

Hey man, you haven't approved any caches in my area for over 5 days. You're back from holiday, right? Get on that. Heh heh. Hope you had a good time.

 

Anyhow, off-topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Unlike geocaching, fake waymarks will self-correct. If the waymark doesn't exist (or doesn't exist at the location), then the first waymarker or two to "visit" the location will undoubtedly mention such in their log entries. The waymark will be archived, and the waymark creator will find himself (or herself) ostracised from their behaviour.

 

Fake logs are much harder to detect and deal with on gc.com. That won't be the case with wm.com. There are more than enough "police" who'll report the bad from the good.

A fake waymark is not analogous to a fake geocaching log. A fake waymark (since you seem to be trying to make a comparison to geocaching while suggesting others not to do so), would be more like a fake geocache, which would be just as easy to detect and correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Unlike geocaching, fake waymarks will self-correct. If the waymark doesn't exist (or doesn't exist at the location), then the first waymarker or two to "visit" the location will undoubtedly mention such in their log entries. The waymark will be archived, and the waymark creator will find himself (or herself) ostracised from their behaviour.

 

Fake logs are much harder to detect and deal with on gc.com. That won't be the case with wm.com.  There are more than enough "police" who'll report the bad from the good.

A fake waymark is not analogous to a fake geocaching log. A fake waymark (since you seem to be trying to make a comparison to geocaching while suggesting others not to do so), would be more like a fake geocache, which would be just as easy to detect and correct.

I was replying to Tsengi, who was making the comparison to fake logs, when he was discussing why he requires waymark owners to have proof of their visits under his categories, to deter fake waymark creation.

 

Given how everyone whines about fake logs on gc.com and the benchmarking, people will soon start that over at wm.com.

 

The point of my reply was to suggest that making a comparison between the two sites is rather silly. I don't think you're reading my posts, ctd. Or at least not understanding them. Perhaps that's my failing.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

The confusion lies in the fact that some Waymarks are clearly designed to require a visit, and some verification of that visit.

 

There are a few that do not have that requirement, and those appear to be set up that anyone can log it just by saying that they want to log it.

 

To me it really comes down to one thing...

 

Does the person claiming the Visit HAVE TO prove that they were physically there?

 

I've claimed Visits in the WEBCAM catagory based solely on the fact that I toyed with the camera and captured an image. There was no idication that I needed to actually visit the physical location. There are seveal that say that I must, and those I didn't claim for that very reason.

 

It is tough to know how to ensure that someone actually physically visited the Waymark. Not everyone has a camera that they can upload images with. And from the beginning it seemed to be suggested that people could visit Waymarks without NEEDING a GPS unit. Like most Virtuals, you can find them without one.

 

I'm all in favour of requiring proof of physical Visiting... but how to do that is still vague, and not every Waymark suggests you need to either.

 

Many "Requirements to Claim a Waymark Visit" are devote of instruction.

 

Is that the way they should be set up, or should there be 'required proof' ?

 

;) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
But judging by the "category creation" threads, Groundspeak wants an open system of category creation with as little Groundspeak involvement as possible. Category approval will come from the masses of userbase (perhaps a polling system), versus TPTB.

 

I recall a mention or two that TPTB will have ultimate veto power over categories. So just because the masses want a certain poor category doesnt guarantee it will show up. That should alleviate any concerns you have there.

Share this post


Link to post
Personally, I see a lack of proof as killing the site.

Unlike geocaching, fake waymarks will self-correct. If the waymark doesn't exist (or doesn't exist at the location), then the first waymarker or two to "visit" the location will undoubtedly mention such in their log entries. The waymark will be archived, and the waymark creator will find himself (or herself) ostracised from their behaviour.

 

Fake logs are much harder to detect and deal with on gc.com. That won't be the case with wm.com. There are more than enough "police" who'll report the bad from the good.

 

(Again, people applying their gc.com sensibilities to wm.com, which is not what you should be doing. The models are different. Apples and oranges.)

I personally want to play a game. For me, that would include proof of a visit. Without such proof.....yawn for me.

 

Logs on waymarks that do not require proof of a visit can result in many fake logs. Given that a point system will be in place, I want to see the logs on my waymarks have proof. I wont gripe about other peoples waymarks if they do not require proof, but this is how Im playing the game.

 

Just because it is different than gc.com doesnt mean I have to suddenly drop any logging requirements. All it means is that it isnt necessary to have some, but also means you can if you wish to. I wish to.

Share this post


Link to post
The wm.com design is a different model (which is as it should be), yet those people trying to implement this new model (category owners are mostly to blame here) are trying to fit it into the old gc.com mold. Square peg, round hole.

The round hole at Waymarking.com was designed to be a lot bigger than the square pegs that we used to have at gc.com. Therefore, the square peg will fit perfectly in the round hole and still has plenty of room for other types of pegs as well.

 

Many of us category owners who "are the blame" were told that our locationless caches would be archived on gc.com and that this was the only option we would have left. As such we're trying to work within the environment that we've been given. I think wm.com is designed such that it can accomodate all types of categories no matter how strict or unrestrictive they may be.

 

Users can choose to log a waymark or not in the same manor that they chose wheather or not to search for a particular cache. Its not a big deal. I've logged the McDonalds resturant which didn't require a photo, and I'm planning on logging some categories that do require photos as soon as I can remember to pick up the camera and GPS. I think theres room for all of them!

 

On the other hand, I have a hard time with the concept of migrating Virtual caches to Waymarking. I guess I'll have to wait and see how it works, but to me a Virtual should stay where it is.

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Logs on waymarks that do not require proof of a visit can result in many fake logs.

We were discussing requirements for waymark creation.

 

Logging requirements for visitors are different. I have no problem with logging requirements.

 

I just firmly believe that there should be a consistent policy for waymark creation. (Photos probably shouldn't be required, since fakery is self-correcting by the userbase.)

 

As well, a consistent (and structured and Groundpeak monitored) policy for category creation is necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
I was replying to Tsengi, who was making the comparison to fake logs, when he was discussing why he requires waymark owners to have proof of their visits under his categories, to deter fake waymark creation.

I need to start signing my name at the bottom lol. Im female, Gale, of the Desert Viking half of the team. Tsegi Mike is too busy earning gas money for us, while I use the computer and eat bon bons.

 

Given how everyone whines about fake logs on gc.com and the benchmarking, people will soon start that over at wm.com.

 

The point of my reply was to suggest that making a comparison between the two sites is rather silly. I don't think you're reading my posts, ctd. Or at least not understanding them. Perhaps that's my failing.

 

No, I understand what you are saying. However, human nature what it is, and given how mostly cachers will be using the site (at least in the beginning), then there will be complaints about fake logs and how to verify them.

 

There is flexibility in how this can be done. We can choose to have or not have requirements. We can choose to play it as a game or as a listing service. TPTB have said that both are acceptable on wm.com.

 

I choose to play it as a game. The way I wish to play it, if I set a waymark, then I expect those logging it as a visit to jump through my little hoops of proof of visit. If the site suddenly says I cant set those kind of requirements, then it wont be fun for me to set up a waymark or a category. I will probably not waste my time or energy setting up waymarks. The latest one I set took 2 hours of driving time, a couple of hours of research, and a couple of hours to type out the waymark.

Share this post


Link to post
The point of my reply was to suggest that making a comparison between the two sites is rather silly. I don't think you're reading my posts, ctd. Or at least not understanding them. Perhaps that's my failing.

I am reading your posts, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that I am confused. My comment "since you seem to be trying to make a comparison ... " wasn't appropriate. Please ignore it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
I just firmly believe that there should be a consistent policy for waymark creation. (Photos probably shouldn't be required, since fakery is self-correcting by the userbase.)

I think that should be up to the category owner. In my opinion the art of finding the waymark initially and getting its coordinates is the most enjoyable part. In a situation where there are a finite number of qualifying waymarks I don't think its fair for "armchair waymarkers" to take that fun away from the people who really want to go out and find these sites. Thats not fair to anyone.

Share this post


Link to post

I think we're having two discussions here:

 

1) Should category managers be allowed to call the shots with respect to level of 'proof' when it comes to creating waymarks?

 

My view: Current rules of the site allow this. I understand the arguments which have been made in favor of consistency across all categories, but I am siding with flexibility. Leave it up to the category managers.

 

2) Should category managers require proof of physical proximity even if they don't have to?

 

My view: As I create waymarks, I will endeavor to always provide physical proximity proof, whether or not the category manager asks for it. I hope others will do the same.

 

By the way, once I can PQ the waymark categories and load them into my PDA, I'll be able to carry around the detailed category requirements, and therefore will be better at grabbing the right proof when it is required. I've missed a couple of opportunities because I couldn't remember the exact requirements, despite taking lots of pictures.

Share this post


Link to post

Could it at least be more obvious which categories and waymarks are strict logging? Some sort of bold text or icon?

 

What if a category has no logging requirement listed, but the particular waymark owner within that category wants one for logs? What if the category has a logging requirement and the waymark owner abides by that in setting up the waymark...but doesn't want a requirement for any people who log his waymark?

 

Fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Could it at least be more obvious which categories and waymarks are strict logging? Some sort of bold text or icon?

 

I like this idea. Can we have a box to check when we post a new listing that just puts a flag on the waymark or category to indicate that it has strict logging requirements? This might be some way that they can be sorted out via pocket queries later on too.

Share this post


Link to post
What if a category has no logging requirement listed, but the particular waymark owner within that category wants one for logs?

The only mechanism for a waymark owner to add a logging requirement is to embed it in the body of the waymark page. Presumably the category manager could turn down the waymark submittal if they didn't like the extra requirement, or let it go if they were ok with it.

 

This will probably lead to some good arguments, though.

 

What if the category has a logging requirement and the waymark owner abides by that in setting up the waymark...but doesn't want a requirement for any people who log his waymark?

This will be harder to do, since if a category manager specifies the logging requirements for a visit, these requirements appear on the logging page - the waymark owner doesn't have the ability to turn this off, as far as I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
The way I wish to play it, if I set a waymark, then I expect those logging it as a visit to jump through my little hoops of proof of visit.

That's fine. My beef is with the category specific requirements for waymark creation, not the requirements for waymark logging. Both are two completely different things.

 

The gaming aspect is held within the logging of waymarks. The listing service is held within the creation of waymarks under categories.

 

I view logging waymarks and waymark creation as quite different from one another. The former is governed by the waymark owner, and the latter is governed by the category owner.

 

Oh well, whatever. I'm just babbling into the wind about this. Groundspeak can shoot themselves in the foot if they want. I've already lost most of my interest in Waymarking at this point. There are some neat ideas in the design, I just feel that implementation is going to ruin what could be a great little site and idea.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think its fair for "armchair waymarkers" to take that fun away from the people who really want to go out and find these sites. Thats not fair to anyone.

Why can't these same people just go out to find these sites and then log them, if some "armchair waymarker" has already created the waymark? What exactly is the difference?

 

What I infer from your statement is that the only value in this site is the "owning" of waymarks. Actually logging a waymark is of little consequence or value.

 

Of course, if this is the developing mentality of the site, then category ownership will trump all, with more generalized categories being more prestigious than specific categories. The person that owns "Fast Food" will be higher in the Waymarking peerage than someone who owns "Falafel Joints Next to Hair Salons".

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe someone in a position of authority might step in and set things straight, or at least tell us what the original intention was.

 

I agree that some verification of an actual location visit should be required. I don't think that a GPS should have to be required.

 

I think that each Waymark description should have enough detail for the average person to find it without a GPS. The co-ordinates should just assist those that have GPS's

 

I think that a picture is almost a MUST, or at least the Visitor should need to post a story about their visit... simply saying "Found it" is not good enough.

 

That being said though... I've logged a few Visits, but spend a good deal of time at the WebCams to make sure I earned the find. If they say "Nope, you gotta be there" then hopefully my attempts will help get the text updated.

 

;) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Why can't these same people just go out to find these sites and then log them, if some "armchair waymarker" has already created the waymark? What exactly is the difference?

 

What I infer from your statement is that the only value in this site is the "owning" of waymarks. Actually logging a waymark is of little consequence or value.

Take out of consideration the simple fast food resturant and yellow Jeep type waymarks and think about the more unique targets such as a President's birthplace, or a Viquesney's Doughboy statue, or a NIKE Missle plant. The big thrill of these targets is doing the research to find them AND to go find them in person without being given any coordinates. I can't explain the feeling of reward that comes from doing this, you just have to do it. Thats what its all about.

 

Personally I could care less about driving 500+ miles to take a picture of a waymark that somebody else has already found, but I have driven that far and farther just to find a Locationless cache. If I don't require a photo by the person who creates the waymark, #1 all of the prospective waymarks will be logged up front by a few armchair waymarkers leaving nothing for newcomers and people who actually want to go visit these sites. #2 most of the waymarks since they are often in remote areas will probbably never be logged and the category owners will never get to see a photo of the site.

 

Now for the simple fast food type caches, sure a required photo probbably shouldn't be required, but I think that should be up to the person who runs the category.

Share this post


Link to post
#1 all of the prospective waymarks will be logged up front by a few armchair waymarkers leaving nothing for newcomers and people who actually want to go visit these sites. #2 most of the waymarks since they are often in remote areas will probbably never be logged and the category owners will never get to see a photo of the site.

 

This doesn't make sense to me... everyone can log a Visit for each Waymark... it's not like a Locationless cache where each one can only be logged once.

 

Additionally, people will be in those remote areas to do the other GPS game that Groundspeak has running... so some will also Visit the Waymark while driving by.

 

;) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Maybe someone in a position of authority might step in and set things straight, or at least tell us what the original intention was.

I think they're in the midst of trying to make sure the DB doesn't melt into oblivion first.

Share this post


Link to post
That's fine. My beef is with the category specific requirements for waymark creation, not the requirements for waymark logging. Both are two completely different things.

 

The gaming aspect is held within the logging of waymarks. The listing service is held within the creation of waymarks under categories. ...

This is where we disagree. I explained it before, but you still don't get it.

 

Waymarking was designed as a replacement for virts and LCs. By your definition, the gaming aspect is only the virt part. Going out to log things that other people have already found. Well, that's only half the game.

 

I can only guess that you never went after LCs or that you simply don't like them, but the fun is in researching to find an object that hasn't been logged, getting out to the location, obtaining proof (typically a pic), and logging it before anyone else does.

 

In Waymarking, this is what you keep calling the listing aspect. To me, that is the most fun about Waymarking. That is why I require proof of visit and I hope that most other category owners will, also.

Share this post


Link to post
....the fun is in researching to find an object that hasn't been logged, getting out to the location, obtaining proof (typically a pic), and logging it before anyone else does.

 

I agree. Im getting a real thrill out of researching and finding a place. I dont mean, oh hey I remember seeing a fountain at the mall, but finding out about an obscure fact, researching the location and details, then going to the site and posting a detailed listing for the waymark. Now that is fun to me! I even faced my terror of heights in order to get coordinates for one waymark that I havent written up yet.

 

(Ponders once again...do I need a real life?)

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×
×
  • Create New...