Rules Need Not Apply

[+The Blue Quasar]

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!

 

Totally!

 

That is the cool thing... seeking out a special Waymark location... learning about it, posting it and sharing it.

 

I will admit that I have some Waymarks that are not as good as I would like to think I am capable of, but I consider those to be the ones I learned on... I will be refining and improving what I consider acceptable for me to submit as a Waymark.

 

I can say that my Fountain is cool, my McDonald's is cool, my Water Mill is cool and whenever my Covered Wagon gets approved (it's been 11 days now... patience is a virtual right?) that it is cool. At least these in my opinion are.

 

But my Berry Pickings are lame, my Web Cam is semi-lame, my Water Tower is semi-lame.

 

But still.. I have 36 Physical Caches... and yup... some are cool, and some are lame... that's the way it goes...

 

Learn from what you have done before and improve... slip every once in a while to remain humble and remember to keep trying... you'll get there.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Deneye]

We were discussing requirements for waymark creation.

 

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

This sure turned into a can of worms

 

Lets try and stay on topic people, just as DogBreath is pointing out. I couldn't agree with you more, DBC.

 

We can choose to play it as a game or as a listing service

 

No. This is not true. This is exactly where I ran into a problem. I tried to list (as in create...not log) a waymark and couldn't because I needed a photo to prove that I really was there. I really don't care if anyone else goes to this same place (although I do know that it is frequented by many, some of whom geocache). All I wanted to do was share the location with anyone wanting to find like-places through the use of the database.

 

The fact remains that such proof of existence need not apply to the creation of a waymark. People here want to compare WM.com to GC.com? Fine, where are all your verification photos for the caches you have planted...

 

What? No photo? Well gee whiz....does the cache really exist then? What gives?

 

Why should WM.com be treated differently???

 

Wasn't there a category proposal for McDonald's a couple weeks back? Would you really want to be taking pictures of every outlet just to list a new location in the database???

 

I think Jeremy would be hard-pressed to keep up with the demand for server disk-space should such a requirement be enforced.

Edited September 14, 2005 by Deneye

[+Deneye]

Ok, after having read further into the thread, I'm starting to see the other side of the coin here...

 

the categories of WM.com are what has replaced the LCs of GC.com. And the waymarks within said categories are the logs of what has been found....

 

so in essence, the creation of a waymark is actually the logging of an LC place...hence the optional requirement of proof.

 

OK...

 

So hey, can i doctor a pic in photoshop and submit it as my proof? Will the cat owner be able to tell if it's real or not since they probably can't visit the site for real?

[Jeremy]

OK...

 

So hey, can i doctor a pic in photoshop and submit it as my proof? Will the cat owner be able to tell if it's real or not since they probably can't visit the site for real?

Can you or should you? Technically you can log a find for every cache on geocaching.com but it does make you look like a real jerk.

[+Deneye]

OK...

 

So hey, can i doctor a pic in photoshop and submit it as my proof? Will the cat owner be able to tell if it's real or not since they probably can't visit the site for real?

Can you or should you? Technically you can log a find for every cache on geocaching.com but it does make you look like a real jerk.

Ahh..now I see what sock puppets are for

 

(oops...off topic there. Sorry)

Edited September 15, 2005 by Deneye

[+bamageek]

Wasn't there a category proposal for McDonald's a couple weeks back? Would you really want to be taking pictures of every outlet just to list a new location in the database???

As I said before theres room for both. The photo requirement should be up to the category owner. I agree you most likely wouldn't care about having a photo of each McDonalds, especially since there are probbably enough McDonalds out there for everybody to log their own. I don't think anybody is dissagreeing with you on this.

 

However, at the same time please try to understand the other side of the argument that is being made. In the same manor that we have different levels of difficulty in gc the same can be applied to Waymarking. This site was designed to serve as a multi-purpose site, one of which is to serve as a replacement for Loctionless caches. As such cache owners should be allowed to operate their categories in a way that will preserve the unique thrill that Locationless caching offers.

 

There are some targets that are simply more challenging and offer more return to the person seeking them. Some targets may be limited to a set number and some may require a lot of research to find. In many of these cases, its the art of finding the waymark initially that is most enjoyable.

 

In some cases because there are limited targets, a category owner may feel that some restrictions such as a required visit are in order to help prevent "armchair waymarkers" from logging all of the prospective targets and taking the enjoyment of the hunt away from those who are willing to go out and visit the sites.

 

In some cases, the category owner himself enjoys seeing photos of the targets. As such he may require the photos for his own personal enjoyment. Most likely the waymarks will not get visited very often once it has already been logged initially, so requiring a photo up front ensures that he will get to see a picture of the waymark.

 

Theres lots of reasons FOR requiring a photo in some cases and lots of reasons for NOT requiring a photo, so whats the big deal in allowing the category owner to decide how they want to run their category?

 

Should we also say that all geocaches have to be exactly 100 feet from the car and all have to be magnetic keyholders hidden under a light pole?

[+FtMgAl]

OK...

 

So hey, can i doctor a pic in photoshop and submit it as my proof? Will the cat owner be able to tell if it's real or not since they probably can't visit the site for real?

Can you or should you? Technically you can log a find for every cache on geocaching.com but it does make you look like a real jerk.

From Cache Listing Requirements/Guidelines:

"Traditional Caches

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. ..."

 

That is the root issue. Will Waymarking have a similar requirement for validation of logs. You can NOT log every cache since my cache is currently still in my garage and "temporarily unavailable" and I will delete your log. Someone tried it a couple of months ago (along with about 1100 other caches). It was immediately deleted. They logged it again with a date of over 2 years ago. I went out to the garage and got the logbook. Sure enough the date was correct. Log stands.

 

So the question is, will TPTB institute a minimum logging standard. Or a maximum logging standard (no pictures because someone may have bought a GPS before they bought a camera). Or will TPTB leave it open to the category manager's discretion (ANARCHY RULES!!!).

 

Personally I vote for the latter. I also think that logging caches for your kid two years after a visit is kind of jerky but that comment doesn't belong in a WM forum.

[HoMiPa]

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.

I'd have to agree with DogBreath here - what difference does it matter to "Waymark Category Owner A" or "Waymark Logger A" if "Waymark Logger B" didn't actually go visit the waymark? Honestly, it seems many are making this about the numbers, yet hiding behind the excuse that it is about the experience of the visit. If "Waymark Logger B" didn't actually go visit the waymark, then really it is his/her loss - no one else's!

 

By saying you don't care about the photo requirement for fast food resturants, I infer you are saying that they aren't as valuable as a waymark as say "granite stone outdoor fireplaces". I'm not saying they are - but, really, aren't you judging a waymark's value based on your standards, then expecting everyone else to agree with and use your standards?

 

I think most people would have to agree, there really isn't any sense to logging a waymark you haven't actually visited. Maybe I'm being nieve, but I'd like to think that a large percentage of the people using Waymarking will use common sense logic and not create 'fake' logs of visiting a waymark. If some do, who really cares? Only those who care about the numbers care. To me, if you only care about the numbers, and are bent on watching your own or someone else's overall standing in the numbers count, then you have STILL missed the fun in Waymarking - because the fun should be about visiting a site.

 

If you want to compare gc.com and wm.com, then really, the creation of a waymark 'equates' to a FTF on gc.com. Again, some people like to keep track of that sort of thing, some like to get as many as they can. There are many others that don't care about it one way or the other. I think those that care about it will do what they can to get out there and create those waymarks before anyone else, including armchair cachers. Good on them. But if some of those waymarks were created by someone who never actually visited the waymark, does it really matter in the long run? Again, only to those who watch 'the numbers'. Honestly, does it matter in the experience of visiting the waymark if you are visitor #1 and therefore create the waymark, or visitor #873? The experience of visiting it is no different no matter where you come in the line of logging. If it does make a difference to someone, then it really only matters to them and others that 'watch the numbers'. There are certainly plenty of people out there that REALLY only look at the experience of visiting a cache or waymark, not what number they were or how many they have found this week, month, year.....

 

As for waymarks being created in remote areas and the fear that no one will ever log them, "build it, they will come" comes to mind. If there is also a cache within miles, someone will log the waymark at sometime. There are plenty of cachers out there that when they visit an area, they try to get every cache available - they will do the same with waymarks.