Why Would Anybody Use Waymarking.com?

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking 1]

I didnt want to read that.

[+catcher24 0]

I agree with Norstar, Crash Test Dummies and Blue Quasar. Having a site to find places to find interesting or unusual things/places to visit is a good idea. I was very leery about WM when I first heard about it, and first visited the site. But after spending more time, and digging a little deeper, and using a little more imagination, it became obvious to me that the site has great potential. This is particularly so for those who enjoy virtuals. There will be many, many categories which equate to good virtuals. I always enjoyed virtuals much more than micros - a pleasant place to visit; an informational monument or tablet - I enjoy finding these when travelling, and this site can make finding them a lot easier. I think it will succeed, and hope that it does.

[+40 0]

I agree with Norstar, Crash Test Dummies and Blue Quasar. Having a site to find places to find interesting or unusual things/places to visit is a good idea. I was very leery about WM when I first heard about it, and first visited the site. But after spending more time, and digging a little deeper, and using a little more imagination, it became obvious to me that the site has great potential. This is particularly so for those who enjoy virtuals. There will be many, many categories which equate to good virtuals. I always enjoyed virtuals much more than micros - a pleasant place to visit; an informational monument or tablet - I enjoy finding these when travelling, and this site can make finding them a lot easier. I think it will succeed, and hope that it does.

But why does the virtuals, webcams and Earthcaches have to move from gc.com at all? Couldn't the gc.com site incorporate some of the wm.com site attributes instead into gc.com?

 

I can understand that the locationless caches never seemed to work well in the whole geocaching.com stucture but the others seem to work well (if you ignore the addition of the "WOW" factor that was added to the VC criteria for listing which seemed to me to just muddy the water and gave the TPTB a reason to discontinue these type of caches). Personally I wish the WOW factor would be added to some of the 35mm micros (but that is just me).

 

I've heard the arguments against VC; there isn't a log to sign and so they aren't a "real" cahce. I disagree with that argument - it you feel the need to sign a log instead of describing something to verify that you've been to the site then don't search for this type of cache. The argument usually adds the qualifier that there isn't anyplace to trade items - which I can also use for a majority of the micros! Also, if you use argument that a container is required to make it a "real cache" then the CITO and events don't really belong in GC.com either.

 

There was response regarding my earlier comments (not quoted again) on long term/high count finders thoughts on this subject. I haven't done a survey but the local caching group mailing list had a thread on wc.com a week or two ago. A number (but not all) of the long time/high count finders that responded were lamenting the impending loss of the locationless caches. A few seemed to like wc.com and the potential. There were many that didn't chime in at all. When I say high count finders that includes finds of more than 2-3 thousand caches with some having more thatn 100 locationless finds. I have only 500+ finds which is nothing compared to these guys/gals. Why NOT a survey for the all of the active cachers including the heavy finders and/or long term cachers and see what their feelings are on these changes?

 

-40-

[+The Blue Quasar 18]

It would seem that the reason for Waymarking.com instead of Geocaching.com is only that with Waymarking.com the hobby can be enjoyed by people without GPSr units.

 

It could be marketed differently, and attract an additional segment of the population.

 

It also allows people with similar interests to locate additional resourses in their field.

 

It is like pooling information.

 

People might say that the LC's did that before and that is true, but with this system you can easily locate the co-ords for places near where you will be. With LC's, you would have had to self-filter through all of the logs. The LC's didn't stand alne like individual Waymarks do. The scope of locations will also be much bigger in the future.

 

People someday will be able to use this as a tool to find places they are interested when vacationing... be it sight seeing, or if they need a hotel, restaurant etc... if they are looking for museums, historical places... the list is huge.

 

Far easier to describe if each stands alone too.

 

But I still think the main reason is to involve a new or additional group of players, whether that be for monetary reasons of not.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+40 0]

It would seem that the reason for Waymarking.com instead of Geocaching.com is only that with Waymarking.com the hobby can be enjoyed by people without GPSr units.

 

It could be marketed differently, and attract an additional segment of the population.

 

It also allows people with similar interests to locate additional resourses in their field.

 

It is like pooling information.

 

People might say that the LC's did that before and that is true, but with this system you can easily locate the co-ords for places near where you will be. With LC's, you would have had to self-filter through all of the logs. The LC's didn't stand alne like individual Waymarks do. The scope of locations will also be much bigger in the future.

 

People someday will be able to use this as a tool to find places they are interested when vacationing... be it sight seeing, or if they need a hotel, restaurant etc... if they are looking for museums, historical places... the list is huge.

 

Far easier to describe if each stands alone too.

 

But I still think the main reason is to involve a new or additional group of players, whether that be for monetary reasons of not.

 

The Blue Quasar

Ah the first good reason stated for the new site! But why can't the existing LC and the other "out of favor" cache types stay on at geocaching.com even though new caches of this type aren't allowed anymore? Any new caches would be created at wc.com but no new caches - similar to the A.P.E. caches. As the caches are archived over the passage of time they will eventually go extinct.

 

-40-

[+catcher24 0]

40 - I don't disagree with your arguments three posts above, which quoted my post. However, as it appears TPTB at gc.com have quite obviously decided not to permit virtuals at gc.com any longer, my next move is to start using wm.com. I too would prefer that the virts stay at gc.com, but it simply isn't going to happen. My favorite caches have always been Virtuals or Regulars (read: caches large enough to put items in). For virtuals,you don't need to be inconspicuous, and most good sized regulars are in more isolated locations. Both almost always took me to a place - monument, park, rest area - that I might never have found otherwise. I was introduced to one of my favorite small parks by going there to look for a regular cache. I really don't care much for micros or like searching for them in parking lots, small parks, or other areas where there may be many muggles around wondering what the hell I'm doing. I try to be discrete, but it doesn't always work out. And I can't figure out why a lot of cachers achieve so much satisfaction from making it nearly inmpossible to find their caches! I've gone looking for caches in rural areas where the placer used a micro, when a larger cache could have been used. Many times, I had to return to find it after getting more info from the owner.I prefer a cache that I can locate the first time out, especially with the cost of gas these days, and the limited time I have to cache. It has gotten to the point that I simply don't go back for micros, or even look for them at all. With wm.com, that problem will be virtually (no pun intended! ) eliminated.

 

So, I see your argument and don't disagree with it, but learned long ago not to keep banging my head against a wall when it didn't do any good!

[+40 0]

...snip...

 

So, I see your argument and don't disagree with it, but learned long ago not to keep banging my head against a wall when it didn't do any good!

I agree also. I have hit my head against the wall enough now so I'm heading back to gc.com and not worry about the demise of VC over there but I still don't see what wc.com will be it for me. I guess I'm in the resignation phase of recover!!! I will check wm.com in the future to see if it has change (or that my opinion of it has changed). Contrary to someone's implied opinion I do have an open mind that is willing to change!!!

[+sbell111 2]

It would seem that the reason for Waymarking.com instead of Geocaching.com is only that with Waymarking.com the hobby can be enjoyed by people without GPSr units....

 

People someday will be able to use this as a tool to find places they are interested when vacationing... be it sight seeing, or if they need a hotel, restaurant etc... if they are looking for museums, historical places... the list is huge.

I disagree. Waymarking is different than traditional geocaching only in that it is a repository for LCs and virts. LCs did poorly on GC.com because they could not be organized well and because 'found' LCs had no utility. WM.com solves both of these issues by giving clear category descriptions and by making 'found' LCs live on as virts. I don't understand why you insist that Waymarking is not a GPS game or that it will merely build a database of places of interest for travelers (Isn't the web filled with those already?).

[+Black Dog Trackers 0]

A GPS game or not?

According to the Waymarking FAQ in the section called "Do I need a GPS unit to use the web site?" a GPS is not required for finding waymarks and, depending on the rules set by each category manager, a waymark can be submitted using "online tools" instead of a GPS.

 

My personal opinion is that the best option would be to allow waymarks to be established with either a GPS reading, or "online tools", or available databases, and that waymark logs require a GPS.

 

(Isn't the web filled with those already?)

The only coordinate sites I've seen on the web have almost nothing in them. When this site really gets going, IT will be the one that travelers use, in my opinion.

[+Bambi&Thumper 0]

I agree with Norstar, Crash Test Dummies and Blue Quasar. Having a site to find places to find interesting or unusual things/places to visit  is a good idea. I was  very leery about WM when I first heard about it, and first visited the site. But after spending more time, and digging a little deeper, and using a little more imagination, it became obvious to me that the site has great potential. This is particularly so for those who enjoy virtuals. There will be many, many categories which equate to good virtuals. I always enjoyed virtuals much more than micros - a pleasant place to visit; an informational monument or tablet - I enjoy finding these when travelling, and this site can make finding them a lot easier. I think it will succeed, and hope that it does.

But why does the virtuals, webcams and Earthcaches have to move from gc.com at all? Couldn't the gc.com site incorporate some of the wm.com site attributes instead into gc.com?

 

I can understand that the locationless caches never seemed to work well in the whole geocaching.com stucture but the others seem to work well (if you ignore the addition of the "WOW" factor that was added to the VC criteria for listing which seemed to me to just muddy the water and gave the TPTB a reason to discontinue these type of caches). Personally I wish the WOW factor would be added to some of the 35mm micros (but that is just me).

 

I've heard the arguments against VC; there isn't a log to sign and so they aren't a "real" cahce. I disagree with that argument - it you feel the need to sign a log instead of describing something to verify that you've been to the site then don't search for this type of cache. The argument usually adds the qualifier that there isn't anyplace to trade items - which I can also use for a majority of the micros! Also, if you use argument that a container is required to make it a "real cache" then the CITO and events don't really belong in GC.com either.

Here here!!

 

We've only recently heard the arguments about virtual caches and to be honest, we don't see the problem. We know there is a difficulty checking that people have actually been there , but how many cache owners really go through their logbooks and check that the list of visitors agrees with those listed online? In the case of a lot of caches we're sure we could just log them to increase the number of finds...

 

On the other hand we think a photo or the answer to a question is more likely to prove a genuine visit than a logbook...

 

As with all these things, market forces should govern - we aren't so keen on Locationless, CITO or Event caches, but that doesn't mean we'd stop others calling them caches. This isn't a competition, it's a game where we make our own rules and set ourselves challenges. However, we feel that the advent of Waymarking will probably detract from our GeoCaching game

 

Shame really.

[+The Blue Quasar 18]

sbell111 - I think I'm confused, since I agree with what you said

I disagree. Waymarking is different than traditional geocaching only in that it is a repository for LCs and virts. LCs did poorly on GC.com because they could not be organized well and because 'found' LCs had no utility. WM.com solves both of these issues by giving clear category descriptions and by making 'found' LCs live on as virts. I don't understand why you insist that Waymarking is not a GPS game or that it will merely build a database of places of interest for travelers (Isn't the web filled with those already?).

 

I am pretty sure I've said similar things to this elsewhere.

 

The only part I don't 100% follow is the GPS requirement to play.

 

You owned a Locationless Cache, which is now a Waymark Catagory, that involved going to a Minor League Baseball Park.

 

I even submitted a LC find in my home town for one. I didn't need my GPS to find it, in fact I don't even need the GPS to get the co-ordinates for the field.

 

Someone did post an example of a Virtual Cache that actually REQUIRED a GPS to locate, but that is certainly the exception IMHO.

 

It's like Black Dog Trackers said, when quoting the Waymarking FAQ.

A GPS game or not? According to the Waymarking FAQ in the section called "Do I need a GPS unit to use the web site?" a GPS is not required for finding waymarks and, depending on the rules set by each category manager, a waymark can be submitted using "online tools" instead of a GPS.

 

Even if Waymarking is going to be 100% a replacement for Virtuals and all the variations of Virtuals, and the GPS is brought over... I still don't need a GPS to find a Waymark in most cases.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+JDandDD 0]

Someone did post an example of a Virtual Cache that actually REQUIRED a GPS to locate, but that is certainly the exception IMHO.

 

Even if Waymarking is going to be 100% a replacement for Virtuals and all the variations of Virtuals, and the GPS is brought over... I still don't need a GPS to find a Waymark in most cases.

Quasy, you are right that most virtuals and almost all locationless didn't need a GPS. But I can also say, that a good virtual is the one I wouldn't otherwise have known about or found without geocaching.com and the coordinates. In some cases, I would never even have gone down the path or road that was required to find the virtual if the coordinates didn't tell me to go in that direction.

 

One of the problems, of course, was the number of virtuals for which the GPS was not integral. That is one of the things that is making it hard for me to warm up to Waymarking, the lack of need for the GPS hunt, though that may change when a larger number of categories appear and the concept worked out a bit more.

 

I would still like to see virtuals for which the GPS is required to find the site remain part of geocaching.

[+budd-rdc 0]

Not sure if I'm in the minority, but MOST of the virtuals I've visited would not have been found easily without a GPS. Since I add cache types to my GPSr waypoints, it's always nice to see a "V" near where I'm driving for a little detour.

 

As for the general argument about finding locations without a GPS, I've done that on numerous occasions for traditional and puzzle caches, and I know many others who have done the same... so

 

Even though I want to resist the migration of locationless to Waymarking, I've seen valid reasons presented in the forums here, so I'll accept it.

 

For virtuals, though, I feel like good ones are being punished due to the existence of allegedly mediocre ones. I still advocate grandfathering as a viable option. No one has convinced me why Virtuals and Waymarks can NOT co-exist.

[+JDandDD 0]

Not sure if I'm in the minority, but MOST of the virtuals I've visited would not have been found easily without a GPS.

I agree with that statement actually. To me these are the good virtuals.

 

For virtuals, though, I feel like good ones are being punished due to the existence of allegedly mediocre ones.

 

Same here. The issue with virtuals was the lack of clear specifications for virtuals. I think that virtuals shouldn't be thrown out from geocaching.com altogether but another attempt be made to come up with a good definition, and vague words like WOW factor aren't it.

 

I haven't yet seen Waymarking handling virtuals well but it does seem to be a spot for locationless though its still a work in progress and needs polish. The interface makes it much harder to navigate than geocaching.com

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking 1]

I thought the reason why virtuals were not in favor at gc.com was because of the land managers who pointed to virtuals as the viable alternative to a physical container traditional geocache. By getting them off to their own site, geocaching is only about the container now. (And maybe event/ cito events.)

[+catcher24 0]

To all: I agree with the concept of keeping GOOD virtuals at gc.com. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen. Jeremy has made it abundantly clear in numerous posts with his obvious opposition to ANY virtuals,locationless, cams, etc being left on gc.com, that you can forget about it. I am only suggesting (and believe me, it pains me to do this, as virtuals were my favorites) that we give up trying to keep virtuals at gc.com and instead target our efforts and suggestions towards making Waymarking.com the best it can be. And no, Jeremy nor any of TPTB did NOT pay me to post that!

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking 1]

...and instead target our efforts and suggestions towards making Waymarking.com the best it can be.

I agree.

 

 

And neither Jeremy nor any of TPTB nor catcher24 paid me to type this.

 

(I couldnt resist.)

[+Bambi&Thumper 0]

Jeremy has made it abundantly clear in numerous posts with his obvious opposition to ANY virtuals,locationless, cams, etc being left on gc.com, that you can forget about it.

 

OK, so he has made up his mind already.

 

But that doesn't mean that we can't explain our point of view and maybe TPTB will see fit to take on board some of our comments.

 

I'm all for making Waymarking the best site possible, but I see Waymarking and GeoCaching as very different things. As I understand it, Jeremy et al. are all sold on Waymarking being bigger and better than GeoCaching, and see GeoCaching as being almost a special case of WayMarks (ones with boxes). He could be right but the rest of us haven't had time to get used to these new ideas yet and already we are being informed that some aspects of caching that we are variously very fond of are going to be removed...

 

There seems to be a lot of objection to removing benchmarks, virtual, webcam, events and earth caches from GeoCaching.com. Maybe there's a reason for that?

 

Bambi.

 

[Jeremy 4]

but the rest of us haven't had time to get used to these new ideas yet and already we are being informed that some aspects of caching that we are variously very fond of are going to be removed...

More like moved. Perhaps you should take your own advice and spend some time to get used to these new ideas then.

 

There seems to be a lot of objection to removing benchmarks, virtual, webcam, events and earth caches from GeoCaching.com.  Maybe there's a reason for that?

 

Yeah. People always fear change. No mystery there. And Event caches aren't being moved. Have you checked out the Geocaching Tour Guides waymark category? Pretty cool.

[+mini cacher 0]

I am only suggesting (and believe me, it pains me to do this, as virtuals were my favorites) that we give up trying to keep virtuals at gc.com and instead target our efforts and suggestions towards making Waymarking.com the best it can be.

I'm at the same place regarding this. I've given up... or given in. I even spent a lot of time browsing the site, created a waymark, visited a waymark and then wrote up a lengthy assessment of the whole situation. I felt it had very contructive things to say... and it wasn't all negative. Sadly it got very little response. I felt as though after I finally took their suggestion to give Waymarking a try and give feedback, it went unoticed. Perhaps it was becasue it was not the "goo goo gah gah, I'm in love" type of feedback they were wanting. Maybe they just don't have time to give feedback on our feedback. But I still check back once in a while just in case it gets better. While I've given up on the virtuals surviving at gc.com, I've not given up on wm.com getting better... yet. At this point I actually wish we'd all stop talking about virtuals because it just gets me pissed off again everytime it comes up. I just want to forget about them now. Whether I ever get into Waymarking is yet to be seen, but not looking very promising at the moment.

[+onefastsol 0]

Ok now after reading all of these posts my opinion has changed slightly. I do think that Waymarking has its place. However I think that it should be an extension of Geocaching.com not something totally separate. If it needs to start off as something separate for development, that works for me. But in the long run I think they belong as one.

 

For the short term links need to be added on each cache page for nearby waymarks, and on each waymark page a link for nearby caches. This would help to integrate the two sites.

Edited October 4, 2005 by onefastsol

[+catcher24 0]

And neither Jeremy nor any of TPTB nor catcher24 paid me to type this.

 

Gee, Tsegi Mike, I sent you all that money and now you're going to deny it??

 

JUST KIDDING, FOLKS! I think I have stated previously that I was originally opposed to Waymarking, especially it's "absorption" of all the virtuals. And Jeremy flamed me to a burnt crisp for voicing my opinion. However, upon further review (it is football season, after all ), I can see the potential that Waymarking has. So I hope it succeeds; time will tell.

[+mini cacher 0]

"Being opposed to Waymarking's absorption of all the virtuals" and "Seeing the potential that Waymarking has" are not mutually exclusive opinions. They can both be had at the same time. I am in that camp. I think Waymarking.com is likely to be a pretty good tool for doing some things, but I also think it sucks as a tool for including virtuals in my day to day caching.

[+Kansas Seeker 0]

While reading through these posts on the pros and cons of Waymarking, I started to recall some other “New” ideas that have come up over the years that have received negative comments, such as; “Bottled water! Are you crazy? Who is going to pay for water just because you put it in a bottle?” “Tobacco! Why would anyone roll-up a leaf, put it in their mouth and set it on fire?” I remember the day we approached our supervisor about looking into the use of Commodore 64’s at work. “That’s just a passing fad,” we were told, and it took us years to play catch-up.” Other ideas didn’t work, like the Edsel, Disco and Madris shirts. But they all had one thing in common, and that is that they gave it the college try.

 

Personally I think there is a lot of potential for Waymarking, both as a hobby and as a business opportunity, especially in advertising. But then again I’m the guy that thought selling water in a bottle was a bad investment, so who knows. But I do know that if this isn’t given a try, no one will know. Yep, it’s going to be a bumpy ride, but hang on, we might just end up in the “New World”.

[+budd-rdc 0]

While reading through these posts on the pros and cons of Waymarking, I started to recall some other “New” ideas that have come up over the years that have received negative comments, such as; “Bottled water! Are you crazy? Who is going to pay for water just because you put it in a bottle?” “Tobacco! Why would anyone roll-up a leaf, put it in their mouth and set it on fire?” I remember the day we approached our supervisor about looking into the use of Commodore 64’s at work. “That’s just a passing fad,” we were told, and it took us years to play catch-up.” Other ideas didn’t work, like the Edsel, Disco and Madris shirts. But they all had one thing in common, and that is that they gave it the college try.

 

Personally I think there is a lot of potential for Waymarking, both as a hobby and as a business opportunity, especially in advertising. But then again I’m the guy that thought selling water in a bottle was a bad investment, so who knows. But I do know that if this isn’t given a try, no one will know. Yep, it’s going to be a bumpy ride, but hang on, we might just end up in the “New World”.

I think bottled water is a bad example. It was hilarious to hear "rumors" of excessive Fluoride content and fears of damage worse than lead poisoning from drinking tap water around the time the bottled water industry took off.

 

I don't see proponents using fear and doom tactic to promote Waymarking.

 

I see potential in Waymarking, too. For serious locationless cachers, I think this is a good replacement. Keep in mind that LCs catered to a small percentage of the Geocaching population, despite the log counts, so it's tough to gauge its success just from Premium Member feedbacks.

[tozainamboku 5]

I don't see proponents using fear and doom tactic to promote Waymarking.

I'm not so sure. I keep seeing the argument that as long as we have virtual caches, land managers will continue to ban physical caches since they can point to virtuals as an alternative. That may be true, but then it may be true that there is excessive flouride content or the possibility of lead poisoning in tap water

[Jeremy 4]

I don't see proponents using fear and doom tactic to promote Waymarking.

I'm not so sure. I keep seeing the argument that as long as we have virtual caches, land managers will continue to ban physical caches since they can point to virtuals as an alternative. That may be true, but then it may be true that there is excessive flouride content or the possibility of lead poisoning in tap water

If it was one of the prime reasons for it maybe. But it's just a bonus.

[+kewfriend 0]

I'm not sure how much of a European perspective has crept into these dsicussions. The laws of access are generally more relaxed in Europe which has meant far fewer virtuals and 'silly' locationless caches needing to be created. As a result actually visiting a virtual cache in Europe actually may have as much significance as a cache with a box and logbook.

 

In some countries ( France is a good example ), the removal of earthcaches, virtuals and locationless from geocaching.com will significantly alter the nature of the pastime and enjoyment.

 

I know that it is difficult ( in the USA ) to take fully on board an international perspective and no doubt the various country moderators have been consulted, but spend a moment thinking of the punter.

 

Recently on the UK forums of geocaching.com I started a forum about percentages of different types of cache visited and the vast majority of responses did not throw up a high proportion of virtuals and locationless.

 

I'll go with the flow - but I personally like the opportunity on geocaching.com to visit a 'nice' virtual or 'interesting' locationless.

[+Jeep_Dog 1]

Waymarking should be separate from Geocaching. Separate subscription base, to be clear. Geocaching.com revenue should be wholly separate from Waymarking revenue.

 

Waymarking should sink or float on its own merits. It should be riding the coattails of Geocaching.

 

As long as I find features at geocaching.com that empower me to geocache, I will support the site through my Premium Membership. If these features cease to be supported, so too will my financial contribution.

 

So, I support the site (and company) that supports geocaching. If the support from the site (company) remains, I could give a rat's rear end how Groundspeak blows their revenue.

 

Since Waymarking began, I have not seen a talent drain from geocaching.com, rather, I have seen the opposite: improvements! Thus, I elect not to panic over the situation at this time.

[+Black Dog Trackers 0]

Jeep_Dog -

 

I agree!

 

In fact, I would not be surprised if Waymarking overtook geocaching at some point in terms of revenue producing ability. However, even it it doesn't, it will broaden the enjoyment base in terms of people and activities available as well as improving the programming robustness of the site and its features. As always, a challenge to technology improves the technology.

[+BigToys 0]

I will toss it my two copper lincolns...

 

For me, I don't see the draw of Waymarking.com and I do not see that I will be using it except for getting some data on occasion (like the locations of the closest brewpub when on travel).

 

In comparison I use geocaching.com amost daily for fun, adventure, competition, etc. I have tried the locationless a couple of times and there are not for me and that's OK. I will however, miss the Earthcaches, Virtuals and Webcam which look like they are will be moving over to the Waymarking site. I however won't be moving with them. I will have to go grab as many as possible before they disappear!!!

 

-40-

I recently had the opportunity to listen while about 30 cachers like you (been around geocaching several years, have hundreds if not thousands of finds) talked about Waymarking.

You probably won't be surprised to hear that they all agreed with you. It's good that you took the time to say what you thought--a lot of the people who have been into caching for several years don't bother with the forums.

The meandering focus of this thread and many others like it are the reason many people don't bother with the forums. Personally I'd rather be out in the woods looking for a cache or searching Waymarking.com for a great brew pub than spend any more time here reading the rants of folks who seem intent to argue no matter what the topic.

 

Put down the keyboards and go outside!

[+Sir Robin 0]

I posted for the first time on the GC forums that I did not like the changes there, and took plenty of grief WM fans. So I tried even more here, frustrated that after searching several different categories I have given up on finding any near enough for me to go and see.

 

I know there are some, I saw a particularly fascinating picture of a local cacher holding his GPSr up in front of a McDonald's, this was my first time at WM.com.

 

So I came to the forums to see what I might be missing in my searches. I have figured out that you already have to know some thing you want to go find, what category someone else would put it in and about how far away it would be from your search coordinates.

 

If I am going out hunting things in an area with my GPSr whether they are caches or some historical marker or site I tend to want to know what will be in that area. Since I cannot search like that here (unless I already know what I am looking for) the split simply means I have less opportunities for enjoying a great hobby. Hope you all enjoy WMing

 

So when I saw this topic it nailed my feelings right away. I don't get why this site is here or why anyone would use it. Sorry my only post is a negative one I will check back and see if more search options have been added in the future.

[+dogbreathcanada 0]

People always fear change. No mystery there.

You keep telling yourself that.

 

I was actually excited about Waymarking when it first became available to Premium members.

 

Then I started using the site ... and that's what turned me off completely about the whole idea.

 

Interesting idea, really lousy implementation.

 

It has nothing to do with fearing change.

Edited November 7, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

[+Dew Crew 0]

I like the idea and everything of WM. It's just I don't like change! What can I say, a lot of people don't like it. I guess I'm not gonna go on complaining about it because it's here to stay and theres nothing I can do about it. Still gonna take awhile to get me really hooked on it. Now I gotta sign up for the premium membership so I can make a catagory!

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking 1]

Read the threads. Being a premium member is not a guarantee that you can create categories. All categories have to be approved.

[+Dew Crew 0]

I know I've read!