Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
The Blue Quasar

Has There Been A Decision?

Recommended Posts

This is a gathering of the statement ideas that some other people have brought up. I am hoping that we all can get on the same page, before the real flood gates are opened to the masses.

 

Has there been a decision made regarding the requirements for claiming a VISIT? And for that matter... submitting a new Waymark?

 

Here are my concerns, and why

 

PHOTO Required: I think this one is okay, as long as it can be a photo of the person at the site. (See GPS below).

 

LOCATION: While it is nice to have coordinates to get there, eventually not everyone that plays this game is going to have a GPS and Jermey has alluded to the fact that people should be able to find/play without the use of one. So, should there be a requirement that there is at least a "How to get there" set of instructions? For myself, I will be adding this detail into my Waymarks for the non GPS user.

 

GPS in picture: Totally disagree with this one, as the idea seems to be that people Visit the Waymark and tell a tale of their visit, with photo being optional. If, as above, non GPS users will be playing, there is no way that they can do this. This idea of GPS in picture is a carry over from the Locationless mentality, and I think that the LC's that migrated should be updated to remove this aspect.

 

MOVING Waymarks: Some Waymarks/Locationless Catagories are not stationary, and I am very concerned about how they will be handled. The Hershey's Kiss Mobile, the Oscar Mayer Weinermobile, the Nude Cacher... all of these do not stay in the same place, but the Kiss Car thing is here... I thought all Waymarks had to be permanent.

 

To me, let's try to get the GPS itself to be a very minor part of Waymarking. As long as the person can find the spot as described, why force the GPS to be seen or needed to locate it.

 

GPS is required for Geocaching

GPS should only assist for Waymarking, not be needed.

 

There are numerous things that people use for Geocaching that are not required, but a GPS always is. I don't see that a GPS must be used for Waymarking.

 

:huh: The Blue Quasar

 

Feel free to add your own additions to this... I have missed some for certain.

Share this post


Link to post

I think such requirements should be left up to the category manager - perhaps following some guidelines.

 

Some categories will really be meant as replacements for locationless/virtual caches. For these categories I would expect the category manager to require a somewhat stricter verification requirement. For recording a new waymark this might mean a photo including the GPSr. Visits might require a photo or an answer to a verification question. Category managers should have the option of leaving the verification requirement up to the waymark recorder/guide. I would also expect that these categories would require or at least prefer the use of GPSr.

 

Other categories will be meant to be simply a list of places of interest. For these, new waymarks could be reported without proof that recorder/guide has visited. Coordinates could come from an internet search or by using a map. Visits may or may not require verification. Visiting these categories should not require using a GPSr. The category manager could require that an address or directions be provided in addition to coordinates.

 

There is no reason to prevent a category manager to define rules for his category that fall somewhere in between the examples I gave above.

 

I also see no reason to disallow the moving waymark categories. It may mean that you record a waymark where you saw the Oscar Mayer Weinermobile but no one would be allowed to visit the waymark. Or you might allow visitors to the location and have them report in their log whether the Weinermobile was there or not. There could also be categories that are semi-permanent. I believe there are already some. For example a cornfield maze that is only available a few months of the year. Category variables can be used to indicate dates and times when the waymark is available.

Share this post


Link to post

GPS is required for Geocaching

GPS should only assist for Waymarking, not be needed.

 

There are numerous things that people use for Geocaching that are not required, but a GPS always is. I don't see that a GPS must be used for Waymarking.

No it isn't. Just because waymarks are a tad more commonplace than the location of geocaches doesn't mean you need a GPSr to find them.

 

Of course, that doesn't negate the fact that GPS-in-picture shouldn't be a requirement of general Waymarking logging..but then again, if the waymark manager wants it that way, I don't see why they can't.

 

Unfortunately, I see this coming down to a "is it a duplicate category if one requests validation steps in order to place waymarks or log visits and another does not"?

 

The answers that I can foresee is either "it's duplicitous and therefore not allowed...first one to create the category/waymark gets to deem whether those coming afterwards need to jump through hoops or not" OR "it's not duplicitous and so here are two categories (one requiring strict logging and the other not)...now everyone gets to search through twice the categories/waymarks...yay!".

 

I asked in another thread that there be a flag for "Strict Logging Requirements" and if that were created in the latter situation above (duplicate categories with/without requirements) with a small icon of some sort, then a filter could be established and you could see just items with/without such strict requirements as you chose. The strict requirements categories/waymarks could even be used by those looking to keep the competitive nature and the potential "game" aspects open (so stats would have "strict only" or "all" as options).

Share this post


Link to post
Has there been a decision made regarding the requirements for claiming a VISIT? And for that matter... submitting a new Waymark?

 

I thought that the decision was, and has always been that the category manager sets the rules for this.

 

If there is a set of rules handed down from above, this would limit severely Waymarking.

 

I asked in another thread that there be a flag for "Strict Logging Requirements" and if that were created in the latter situation above (duplicate categories with/without requirements) with a small icon of some sort, then a filter could be established and you could see just items with/without such strict requirements as you chose. The strict requirements categories/waymarks could even be used by those looking to keep the competitive nature and the potential "game" aspects open (so stats would have "strict only" or "all" as options).

 

This idea has real merit for me, as it is a way of dividing the waymark categories according to the managers intent.

Share this post


Link to post
LOCATION: While it is nice to have coordinates to get there, eventually not everyone that plays this game is going to have a GPS and Jermey has alluded to the fact that people should be able to find/play without the use of one. So, should there be a requirement that there is at least a "How to get there" set of instructions? For myself, I will be adding this detail into my Waymarks for the non GPS user.

 

I have placed two waymarks now and both of them required a physical address. Since the address is listed, then I don't need to give directions on how to get there, that's what google maps and mapquest are for.

 

But then I just had a thougt, both of my waymarks were BBQ Joints, maybe every catagory does not have the physical address requirement. Huh, gotta check that aspect out.

 

Baptist Deacon

Share this post


Link to post

While I do understand and agree with the idea that the Catagory Manager sets the Visiting Requirements, or maybe the Waymark Placer adds more requirements I am just suggesting that the idea of a GPS in the picture probably isn't a good idea if Waymarking is going to be for non-Geocachers.

 

Suspend for a moment that we are all Geocachers for a moment.

 

A Waymark gets placed at Fort Knox. One of the requirements is that you must post a picture and it must include your SCUBA tank.

 

The SCUBA tank is not needed to Visit the Waymark.

 

Now if you substitute GPS unit for SCUBA tank, it's the same thing.

 

But to non-Geocachers, both would be silly.

 

Anyone can find Fort Knox without either item.

 

Can someone identify a person, place or thing that would be a Waymark that NEEDS a GPS to locate?

 

All I am saying is that the GPS image was used for LC's because we were Geocaching. That is the primary tool for Geocaching. I hope people exercise some common sense when setting requirements instead of just 'cut-and-paste' the old locationless.

 

:rolleyes: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Personally though, I think some sort of extra requirement should be in the photos, otherwise people can find photos off the internet and just use those. Ive been toying with the idea of asking people to do something like hold their keys in the photo, something that you would not do unless it was for my waymark. Or hold up a stuffed animal or something goofy like that. Maybe that isnt what some people envision for Waymarking, but I want verification for my waymarks.

 

I can think of one category that would probably require a gps: earthcaches. I can see where the instructions to find them can be a bit difficult without the gps.

Share this post


Link to post

While Waymarking may be something that should be enjoyed by non-geocachers, I do not agree that all waymarks must be available to non GPS users. There is a category for Coordinate Play. I suspect that it may be difficult to know if you were at a Coordinate Palindrome location without a GPSr.

 

Plenty of people find geocaches without using a GPSr, so I suppose that for most of the more traditional categories it would be possible to find waymarks without a GPS. For recording new waymarks, some categories might want to make using a GPSr mandatoryl. For example, bootron's McDonalds category asks for the coordinates of one of the entrances to the McDonalds restaurant. I doubt that you could get accurate coordinates from a map or even from many satellite photos. You might need to visit with a GPSr and mark coordinates.

 

Finally, it may suprise some, but there have been virtuals that I have found that I don't think I would have found without a GPSr. One of my favorite virtuals is GCGG91. This is a statue of the Virgin Mary at the end of a 2 mile hike up a canyon in the Santa Monica Mountains NRA. I had been up this trail many times before. I knew that at the end of the trail were the ruins of a house called the Tropical Terrace, but I did not know of the hidden garden where this statue is. Using my GPSr however I found the hidden garden and the statue. It would be very difficult to describe how to get to it.

Share this post


Link to post

tozainamboku, thank you for giving me what I had asked for... an example that illustrates that a GPS may be needed in some cases.

 

It isn't often that someone actually is able to provide a factual statement that proves the point, and it was nice to see someone make the effort.

 

:rolleyes: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
While I do understand and agree with the idea that the Catagory Manager sets the Visiting Requirements, or maybe the Waymark Placer adds more requirements I am just suggesting that the idea of a GPS in the picture probably isn't a good idea if Waymarking is going to be for non-Geocachers.

 

All I am saying is that the GPS image was used for LC's because we were Geocaching. That is the primary tool for Geocaching. I hope people exercise some common sense when setting requirements instead of just 'cut-and-paste' the old locationless.

No, waymarks are still listed by coordinates. These require a GPSr to be of much use as most maps still don't use coordinate space.

 

There are people who don't geocache who have a GPSr. For them the idea that their GPSr needs to be present to log a visit to a specific waypoint isn't unfamiliar. Some waymarks (those with strict logging requirements) may not be for everyone to log (no GPSr, no log allowed).

 

For something like "Fort Knox" to be found sans GPSr isn't an unreasonable idea. For something like my suggested category "Kodak Moments" (waymark the coordinates for where you take a certain picture), the average person would require a GPSr to get the coordinates right. There will be waymarks where people don't want photos from 1970 of your visit there, they want to see that you found something now that they pointed it out. The easiest way to validate that is to ask for something that you wouldn't have otherwise had reason to do unless you were trying to log their waymark. The GPSr-in-photo is that thing and since waymarks are still coordinate-based, I don't see that requirement as being unreasonable. Although I do understand where you're coming from.

 

This is why (as you don't seem to acknowledge in the post I quoted) I questioned whether someone would be allowed to create a non-strict-requirement category of the same type for people to log without requiring the GPSr (and then use filtering to see the strict ones on a user-by-user basis).

Share this post


Link to post

BQ makes some very valid points in his opening post and I agree with what he says, except for the possibility of having photo requirements...I saw make them optional.

 

I realize this site is still in Beta and in the building process and probably will be for awhile. Jeremy is probably sitting back watching to see what us, the players, have to say before he states his vision for Waymarking. But once the site goes fully public I think there needs to be a solid vision statement in place and a base set of rules (no wishy washy guidelines).

 

I know how I envision Waymarking to be, and others see it differently. Unfortunately there are a number of people that simply just want this to be locationless and virtual geocaching, but I think that would be a big mistake and would exlude too much of the population. We have all witnessed that locationless cache did NOT work, as there was just too much hostility and too much of a wishy washy aspect to them that caused problems. We now have a chance to get start all over again with a better and improved system and move forward with it...unfortunately some people want things the way they were.

 

I strongly feel that for regular waymarks (ie your standard average everyday objects, places and things) there should not be any hard set of requirements for creating a waymark or logging a visit to a waymark. Jeremy has stated on a number of occassions that accuracy should be the main goal of a waymark. Anything else like a picture or additional information is a bonus.

 

I really can't understand why we need to jump hoops as someone stated in order to "visit" a waymark. If I visit a waymark, I log it as a visit...pretty simple reasoning and straightforward, and that's the way I plan on playing the game. If I don't visit a waymark then obviously I am not going to log it as a visit. Most people that eventually will place the Waymarking game will not be geocachers.

 

Now I do see and Jeremy has indicated that there will be other aspects to Waymarking, which will be more of a game like atmosphere, for that part, let there be all the logging requirements that people want, but to log a standard waymark like a waterfall or McDonalds, simply stating that one has visited the location should be sufficient. And people shouldn't be so paranoid of others cheating...there is just no reason for that to happen. Yes I take people for their word when they say they have visited a waymark...there should be no reason not to, since there is nothing to gain.

 

I see great potential with Waymarking, and I would hate to see it drag behind by some unnecessary logging requirements. Again, this is Waymarking and NOT geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post

It is also a game to be played, where those who set up waymarks can set up rules for logging them. I choose to have that requirement. Ive seen too many people logging on caches who have not really been there. That irks me. This is how I am choosing to do it. Some wont set theirs up that way. That is ok by me. The flexibility to do either is nice.

Share this post


Link to post

You bring up a good point in your message Tsegi Mike. Is Waymarking a game as you view it or is it a database (with a goal of being as complete and informative as possible as I would like to see it) of people, places and things? I think Waymarking has room for both, in that there should be the standard waymarks of people, places and things, without any unnecessary logging requirements and then a different section, category, aspect, whatever for those waymarks that take on the game aspect of things, such as a scavenger hunt type, task driven (logging requirement), moving waymark object, etc. I recall Jeremy saying there will be a fun/game aspect added too.

 

Furthermore to the discussion, there are some things that really interest me, such as Waterfalls for example. I am always amazed by the beauty of them and the uniqueness of each. I would be looking to get the list as complete as possible without any unnecessary logging requirements. I would hate to miss out on some unknown out of the way waterfall that someone has found but can't log because of some logging requirement that they didn't meet.

 

If you think about it, someone creating a waymark and then someone else subsequently logging a visit to it, is certainly solid proof of the waymarks existance...as more people visit, more information will be gathered about the waymark...and as stated, accuracy is what it's all about.

Share this post


Link to post

All this talk has led me to think that if I eventually get to manage a category (I hope I do, there are a few ideas that interest me), then to list a waymark, I will not require any proof. To log on the waymark would require proof. This way, the listing is as filled in as possible, with the proof part of the game present too.

Share this post


Link to post

Those are all some good points.

 

I totally agree that the Catagory Manager should set the intial requirements for both Posting a New Waymark/Visiting a Waymark.

 

I think some sort of proof of physically being there, in most cases, should be encouraged.

 

I talked to one of my caching buddies about this and he brought up something I hadn't considered.

 

This has to do with "Retro-Visits", as in claiming a Visit for a place that you were at before Waymarking. The might be interest in seeing older photos, and reading about how the site looked back then. Things change, or people might share a really cool story about their visit. It might be footage of construction, or an event that happened there long ago.

 

I hope to own a Catagory someday too. For me, the GPS is very minor for all aspects of a Waymark. It will not be a requirement for Visiting, at least in the picture. But there will be requirements.

 

That's all I am saying, is that the requirements should be reflective of the Waymark. Not just slapping "GPS" or other unrelated specialised item into the requirement images. Lots of Virtuals used Flags or similar easy to obtain items... that to me is more realistic.

 

<_< The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
is that the requirements should be reflective of the Waymark. Not just slapping "GPS" or other unrelated specialised item into the requirement images.

Now that is an excellent idea to have an item related to the actual waymark category in a required picture.

 

However, I still feel strongly that there should not be any requirements to create a standard (people, place, thing) type of waymark or to "visit" them. Special game type waymarks like scavenger hunts, etc as I posted in my last message is a different situation and that is more leans more towards the gaming aspect of Waymarking. The log type "Visit" says "Visit", NOT "Visited and met some unnecessary requirment in order to log it". By having unnecessary requirments, it will deter people from potentially including "actual information", since if they don't jump the hurdles, they won't post what otherwise they would have. A person's word should be enough proof. I know that this will play a big factor in deciding if I choose to play in the Waymarking game or not and probably many others too. I would like to see Waymarking succeed and not have the same problems and hostility that locationless caches had over the years. I guess for now all we can do is to take the wait and see approach as to what Jeremy decides/intends for the future direction of Waymarking.

 

Yes retro visits add value to a waymark too, and I know I have logged a retro visit to a waymark and of course posted the actual date I visited it. I even posted pictures to show what the place looked like then, which is quite different now 1.5 years later.

Share this post


Link to post

If they cant log a visit because of the extra hoops, they can always post a note. Some people want the game aspect, and that includes the extra hoops.

 

I may change mine to include not only a gps photo, but an option to have a mascot photo, or a goofy pose photo or something off beat like that for mine. Still thinking about it.

Edited by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

Share this post


Link to post

I won't post a photo of me or my son, but my GPSr doesn't mind being in pics.

 

I alread posted a few waymarks of places I've been that fit into categories here, so others could know they exist and choose to visit or not. Just sharing what I know exists. If anyone logs a visit, then there's the proof.

 

There's a few categories that want a pic of the place, like airports, or zoos, so I only add one of those after I've been to them. But, like the fountain waymarks I put up, I know they're there, been there or pass them, and I have the coords from GE. I wouldn't log a visit until/unless I go there, and hope to take pics there too.

 

I also put up the Landlocked Lighthouse here on Staten Island, and we stopped by so I could add a pic of it and because my son was never there.

 

I guess each category will have a manager with their own creative requirements. I would imagine sharing one would have different requirements from logging a visit.

Share this post


Link to post

How many threads are you going to try to make the same arguments in? :D

 

I'm sorry that we disagree (not really) but Waymarking is a GPS game, in my opinion. It is the replacement for LCs and virts. Eventually, I hope that we will be able to pull a PQ of waymarks so we can find them just like we find virts now.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...