Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
The Daniel Boone Gang

Waymarking.com Thoughts

Recommended Posts

Persionally, I'm not too keen on Waymarking.com as a way to replace the Locationless / Virtual caches.

 

I don't like it. Not at all what I enjoyed about locationless caches. <_<

 

I was hoping that "they" would bring back locationless caches, but with a few more guidelines. I think it was a great idea that got out of control.

 

The idea of finding a fire truck and counting it as a cache is dumb. There were several "dumb" locationless caches. There were also many great ones. Finding castles, historic sites, etc. Great stuff. :lol:

 

I know there are purists who believe that if you haven't had to go through trails and bushwhack, it's not caching. I disagree. There are many tradiional caches that don't require these kinds of efforts - camera caches, what I call drive-through cacehes (where you can park within 10 meters of the cache). To each his own.

 

I think that statement would work well for Locationless caching too - with some guidelines, it should continue to be great and part of geocaching.com.

Edited by The Daniel Boone Gang

Share this post


Link to post

I agree. I think some of the Locationless caches and many of the Virtual caches could be kept on this site, if the rules had been tightened up.

 

As for using Waymarking.com, I probably won't visit the site at all. I have a very slow Internet connection (24KB). I'm not likely to spend time searching over there for something of interest when logging it doesn't affect my statistics on this site.

Share this post


Link to post

Finding a fire truck (unless it's a cool antique one) is dumb whether it's for geocaching or Waymarking. Personally I have mixed feelings about the new site, but am warming up to it, and do agree that there was a lot of "broken stuff" with the current situation for LC's and virts, which I mostly do like, and webcams which I do not. But this isn't really the place for that discussion as there is an entire Waymarking Forum down below. You and Capt. Jack will get along swell, I predict. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

There will be some cool things to find and share, and some lame things to find and share...people will have to learn to filter out the good from the bad.

 

Once it shakes out, it'll probably be pretty cool, but I hope that it becomes more separate from gc.com...and also switches to separate fees so that I can pay for geocaching without paying for Waymarking if I don't want to.

 

nfa-jamie

Share this post


Link to post
I don't like it. Not at all what I enjoyed about locationless caches. <_<

But why?

 

What is it that you used to be able to do with Locationless caches, what was it that you used to enjoy about them, that you can't do with Waymarking?

 

:lol:

 

Pro Waymarking:

 

Waymarking allows the same hunt for the location of particular instance of a 'theme' that Locationless caches did.

 

Waymarking allows you to lay claim to that particular instance if you are the first to log it, like Locationless caches did.

 

Waymarking allows you to search and seek opportunities to do this in a logical and organized fashion, which Locationless caches never did.

 

Con Waymarking:

 

Locationless caches used to allow you to add to your find count on GC.com, which Waymarking doesn't allow you to do.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, Locationless Caches are one of my favorite types of caches that I've only recently started to find. I like the aspect that everyone's log is different, with a different location- it kind of adds to the fun of it all.. I agree with those that said gc.com should just put tighter restrictions on Locationless,Virtuals, etc. As for Waymarking.com.. I may give it a try, I may not.. have to wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post

I just posted this on another subject but it still applies here also.

 

To me Waymarking fits great in either replacing locationless caches or virtuals, but not both. I think that there should be 2 main categories specifing virtual or locationless then go on from there. Searching from your home location should give you results similar to virtuals. However if you search in a certain area, any of the waypoints of the locationless type would have already been found. Whats the point? I agree w/ cache_test_dummies it is nice that "Waymarking allows you to search and seek opportunities to do this in a logical and organized fashion, which Locationless caches never did."

 

Plus many geocachers (myself included) use locationless caches to add to their cache counts. For me I have already found all of the caches in my immediate area. Without me driving way out of my way, I am stuck with nothing to find until someone else hides one. Will the Waymarking stats and geocaching stats be incorporated into each other.

Share this post


Link to post
What is it that you used to be able to do with Locationless caches, what was it that you used to enjoy about them, that you can't do with Waymarking?

 

In one instance you are given the parameters for the find, the other you are given the find and told to go visit it and when you get there to mark that you have been there. One involves the search, the other is just plug and go. That seems to be the way it is shaping up in my mind. Perhaps you can explain it better. It doesn't seem to be jelling for me, but I also think it will take time to see where or if it flies.

Share this post


Link to post

As a fan of good Locationless "caches", I'll miss this aspect of Geocaching at the end of the year when all of them have been migrated to Waymarking or archived. There isn't much you can do here. Groundspeak has made a decision, and many of the Locationless owners have migrated their listings.

 

I'm going to continue to lobby for grandfathering of Virtuals, which might be reaching the point of annoyance for some. :)

 

Keep in mind that Locationless, Virtuals, Earthcaches, and Webcams were derived from the "treasure hunting" aspect of Geocaching - finding great "secret" locations, interesting trinkets, Travel Bugs (especially Jeeps), and "claim jumping" a Locationless exclusively all tie-in with that theme.

 

Proponents of Waymarking have insisted that this will be a very different game from Geocaching. In that case, Waymarking might not appeal to the "treasure seeker" in us, since by having the information organized/categorized, Waymarks present a more pragmatic way to seek for locations.

 

For people who enjoy the unknown adventures while seeking a GC waypoint, I can see how Waymarking might not be appealing, since one has to keep categories of interest in mind before embarking on a trip in order to log one - but that's not too different from what a serious Locationess hunter has done in the past.

Share this post


Link to post

Packanack, the categories themselves are the "locationless" caches that you are looking for...aka, giving you the parameters for the find. If you liked to do locationless, then now you would look for a category that interests you (and honestly there's not a better way than a hierarchical tree to do that...as opposed to before where you just looked through lists or keyword searches).

 

Once you find a category of interest (I've lost my premium membership currently, so we'll go with one I'm familiar with: Brewpubs), then you can read through what the category wants (in this case, places where you can buy the beer that's brewed directly on-site).

 

Finding one (I found Boston Beer Works), you create a waymark (the equivalent of logging a locationless find) and give the details specified by the category owner.

 

Your list of "Waymarks created" will be your count of "Locationless found".

 

Visiting waymarks is like finding virtual caches. I tell you that Boston Beer Works exists at a specific coordinates and if you go there and find the brewpub (maybe have lunch or a beer) then you come back to the website and list a "find" for that waymark...the same as if you had found a virtual (some waymarks may require validation, verification, an e-mail to the creator, etc).

 

Maybe that helps. The creation of a waymark in the system (akin to a locationless find) requires the searching aspect that you seem to be looking for. In the process, you actually end up creating a page where other people who like to do a virtual-like "plug and go" can also participate! It's a win-win for everyone looking to do "locationless" and "virtual" style "caching".

Share this post


Link to post
What is it that you used to be able to do with Locationless caches, what was it that you used to enjoy about them, that you can't do with Waymarking?

 

In one instance you are given the parameters for the find, the other you are given the find and told to go visit it and when you get there to mark that you have been there. One involves the search, the other is just plug and go.

Here's how to compare Locationless caches and Virtual caches on Geocaching.com to their counterparts on Waymarking.com:

 

A Waymarking category is the equivalent of a Locationless cache. In both cases, someone thinks of a theme, and it gets published with instructions on how to find and log instances that match that theme.

 

A waymark is the equivalent of a virtual cache. A waymark is what is created when an individual is the first to find and list a specific occurance of a person, place, or thing which matches the requirements for a particular category.

 

Logging a visting to a waymark is the equivalent of logging a find of a virutal cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Aha, your explanation of looking in the category of interest makes it all so much clearer. In fact I found one that I think I could get into real easily, other than the Boston Beer of course. :)

 

These are among the clearest explanations I've yet seen, and I believe will help others to "get it". Thanks.

Edited by Packanack

Share this post


Link to post
Here's how to compare Locationless caches and Virtual caches on Geocaching.com to their counterparts on Waymarking.com:

 

A Waymarking category is the equivalent of a Locationless cache. In both cases, someone thinks of a theme, and it gets published with instructions on how to find and log instances that match that theme.

 

A waymark is the equivalent of a virtual cache. A waymark is what is created when an individual is the first to find and list a specific occurance of a person, place, or thing which matches the requirements for a particular category.

 

Logging a visting to a waymark is the equivalent of logging a find of a virutal cache.

On paper those comparisons look better than they do in practice. A waymark is not a virtual cache once you look past their common attribute of lat/lon. Waymarking.com is an entirely different system of looking for things of interest (or uninterest). Rather than being out on a caching day with "physical" caches and "virtual" caches in the same area and you hunt what you want to hunt and maybe get a pleasant surprise, you first need to decide what you are wanting to look for (even start by picking Person, Place or Thing). Though I was never into locationless caches, I can see how this model kind of fits that. But something is just lost in translation when it comes to the virtuals. I think maybe its that all the mechanics of the hunt were recreated but none of the emotion. Kind of like in The Fly when he teleports the steak for the first time... it looked the same... but just didn't taste the same. There is more to life than just the mechanics of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Waymarking.com is an entirely different system of looking for things of interest (or uninterest).  Rather than being out on a caching day with "physical" caches and "virtual" caches in the same area and you hunt what you want to hunt and maybe get a pleasant surprise, you first need to decide what you are wanting to look for (even start by picking Person, Place or Thing).

I'm assuming that when the Waymarking site becomes more full-featured (PQs, better searching functionality, "Nearby caches", etc) that the ability to easily plan a trip which encompasses both hobbies will be there.

 

I'm imagining that I'll be able to run a PQ of just those categories in which I have an interest, for a specific geographic region that I plan on visiting. I'll be able to load those waymarks into my GPSr and my PDA, along with a bunch of geocaches that I've already loaded up from the GC.com site. Should be a full day of hunting and logging finds and visits.

 

Remember, the web site as it stands today is in Beta. More good stuff is on the way, I'm sure.

 

edit: typo

Edited by cache_test_dummies

Share this post


Link to post
Here's how to compare Locationless caches and Virtual caches on Geocaching.com to their counterparts on Waymarking.com:

 

A Waymarking category is the equivalent of a Locationless cache. In both cases, someone thinks of a theme, and it gets published with instructions on how to find and log instances that match that theme.

 

A waymark is the equivalent of a virtual cache. A waymark is what is created when an individual is the first to find and list a specific occurance of a person, place, or thing which matches the requirements for a particular category.

 

Logging a visting to a waymark is the equivalent of logging a find of a virutal cache.

On paper those comparisons look better than they do in practice.

In any case, the comparisons were provided as a point of orientation.

 

They aren't the same thing, but many people, when first exposed to the new site, seem to be having difficulting understanding how the category-waymark-visit terminology connects with what they are used to on GC.com. I had the same problem until it clicked, and then things were much clearer for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Waymarking.com is an entirely different system of looking for things of interest (or uninterest).  Rather than being out on a caching day with "physical" caches and "virtual" caches in the same area and you hunt what you want to hunt and maybe get a pleasant surprise, you first need to decide what you are wanting to look for (even start by picking Person, Place or Thing).

I'm assuming that when the Waymarking site becomes more full-featured (PQs, better searching functionality, "Nearby caches", etc) that the ability to easily plan a trip which encompasses both hobbies will be there.

 

I'm imagining that I'll be able to run a PQ of just those categories in which I have an interest, for a specific geographic region that I plan on visiting. I'll be able to load those waymarks into my GPSr and my PDA, along with a bunch of geocaches that I've already loaded up from the GC.com site. Should be a full day of hunting and logging finds and visits.

 

Remember, the web site as it stands today is in Beta. More good stuff is on the way, I'm sure.

 

edit: typo

I'm only going by what's there and not what other people are trying imagine will be there. Technically speaking, a "beta" has the feature set it is designed to have but they might not work fully or bug free. An "alpha" is still having the featrues added. So yes, this version of the site is a beta which means to me that this version has the features it will have and now we try to break them, so to speak. That is all I can go off of. I have no doubt that somewhere there exists an alpha of the next version of the site which will be put to us as a beta when it is ready... but my experience in the business tells me not to bank too heavily on what might be in the next version and when it might be coming out. Even though web sites/applications usually update more quickly than shrink wrapped software, they still tend to follow the alpha/beta/release model.

 

But that doesn't address the issue that I see in that Waymarking.com appears to be primarily geared toward "what are you looking for?" rather than "where are you looking?" Imagine, if you will, that geocaching.com required to first pick "Large", "Medium", "Small" or "Micro" before you proceeded to do any searching. Then once you chose size, you had to browse the various type of containers in that size. It forces you to needle through things that really don't matter if you just want to find some stuff around town. But thats my opinion. As I stated in my assessment of the site, I'll keep checking back from time to time to see if things improve. But as it sits... its already clicked for me and it is clear.... clearly not something I'm too keen on. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
I'm only going by what's there and not what other people are trying imagine will be there.

My 'imagining' is based on things we've been told will be available someday, but your point is taken.

 

It does seem likely that some of the yet-to-be-implemented features I mentioned are not scheduled for the first 'production' release, but will be made available at some point further down the road.

 

I'm fine with that. I can find plenty to do with Waymarking until it's all there, but I understand that not everyone will feel that way.

Share this post


Link to post

A solution already exists for identifying all of the Waymarks at once.

 

Set an ORIGIN, then search from that Origin.

 

So, if you know what Cache you are going to do, simply take those coordinates and apply as your Origin and create your list.

 

Since the upper level allows for all within 10 Miles / 16 Kilometers, a centrally placed Origin would suffice.

 

:D The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
A solution already exists for identifying all of the Waymarks at once.

 

Set an ORIGIN, then search from that Origin.

sigh... sadly, as I mentioned, that only means anything after you have first decided person, place or thing. Back to the "what?" instead of "where?" as the primary focus.

 

I also understand that not everyone will feel the way I do.

Share this post


Link to post
Here's how to compare Locationless caches and Virtual caches on Geocaching.com to their counterparts on Waymarking.com:

 

A Waymarking category is the equivalent of a Locationless cache. In both cases, someone thinks of a theme, and it gets published with instructions on how to find and log instances that match that theme.

 

A waymark is the equivalent of a virtual cache. A waymark is what is created when an individual is the first to find and list a specific occurance of a person, place, or thing which matches the requirements for a particular category.

 

Logging a visting to a waymark is the equivalent of logging a find of a virutal cache.

On paper those comparisons look better than they do in practice. A waymark is not a virtual cache once you look past their common attribute of lat/lon. Waymarking.com is an entirely different system of looking for things of interest (or uninterest). Rather than being out on a caching day with "physical" caches and "virtual" caches in the same area and you hunt what you want to hunt and maybe get a pleasant surprise, you first need to decide what you are wanting to look for (even start by picking Person, Place or Thing). Though I was never into locationless caches, I can see how this model kind of fits that. But something is just lost in translation when it comes to the virtuals. I think maybe its that all the mechanics of the hunt were recreated but none of the emotion. Kind of like in The Fly when he teleports the steak for the first time... it looked the same... but just didn't taste the same. There is more to life than just the mechanics of it.

I sort of agree with mini cacher. When you went hunting virtuals you simply looked for virtuals in the area you were going to go caching in. The fact that you got these along with the traditional caches in the area was nice but I don't think that's the main point. The main point is you could simply look for virtuals. You didn't care if they were statues, historic sites, or odd shaped buildings. For many virtuals, the cache page didn't even give a hint as to what you would find. You would be suprised when you got there. A lot of virtuals were lame, but usually you would find something that would make you think it was worth your time to visit. This was in part because of the "Wow" requirement. A virtual had to "be novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects".

 

I think Waymarking can provide the same experience as virtual caches if there were categories like the Wow!!! category I proposed. I underdstand why Jeremy doesn't think much of this category. One of the reason for getting rid of virtuals in favor of Waymarking is to get away from subjective requirements like Wow. But I think the people who really liked doing virtuals should pressure Jeremy to allow some subjective categories so they can continue to have the experience they like so much in its new home. My Wow!!! category isn't meant as a final answer. Its only there to get people to think of how they want to handle virtual caches if they do move to Waymarking. You can tell by some of the restrictions I added to Wow!! that I am very aware of the problems virtuals caused on geocaching.com. Perhaps, with Waymarking we can find a solution that satisfies more people.

Share this post


Link to post

I have had a different experience than mini cacher Posted on Oct 4 2005, 02:41 PM

(The Blue Quasar @ Oct 4 2005, 02:15 PM)

A solution already exists for identifying all of the Waymarks at once.

 

Set an ORIGIN, then search from that Origin.

 

sigh... sadly, as I mentioned, that only means anything after you have first decided person, place or thing. Back to the "what?" instead of "where?" as the primary focus.

 

I also understand that not everyone will feel the way I do.

 

I went to a far away Waymark, clicked on "Add to my Origins"... returned to the Directory screen, clicked the "Filter by Origin" and chose the Waymark I just added.

 

It listed 2 under PLACES (Earth Science Places, and Parks), and 1 under THINGS (Structures).

 

Seems to work fine as it is. (although I wish it said "Earthcache, Botanical Garden and Fountain" which is what they really are)

 

:D The Blue Quasar

 

Try this one, set the Origin and then Filter by it

 

Royal Botanical Gardens - Ontario

 

edit: {adding this section}

 

By clicking on the Catagory "Structures" it tells me that there is a Fountain nearby, I then clicked on "SEARCH NOW" on the right hand side in the Waymark Search and I get the EXACT Waymark that the Origin Filter identified.

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Try this one, set the Origin and then Filter by it

 

[snip]

 

By clicking on the Catagory "Structures" it tells me that there is a Fountain nearby, I then clicked on "SEARCH NOW" on the right hand side in the Waymark Search and I get the EXACT Waymark that the Origin Filter identified.

But, as mini pointed out, if you want to list everything, you have to:

 

- Click Places

- Click Search Now

- Write down or print the interesting information

- Click Things

- Click Search Now

- Write down or print the interesting information

- If there would be people listed, do the same for them as well.

 

Why not let me see everything in one place once I've selected an origin? I don't know what I'm interested in without seeing everything that's available. Plus, what about locations that aren't clearly either a place or a thing, such as a house shaped like a shoe? I can see arguing for placing it in either category. (And if there's an old woman living there, it could be under people.)

 

I'm withholding judgement until Pocket Queries are available. Hopefully by then I can filter things myself off-line, and not have to worry about the user interface of the site.

Share this post


Link to post

A house that looks like a shoe with an old woman and many children would be a Place. After all, the rest of it is descriptors. They modify the word "house". Houses are Places.

 

I could have sworn I did a search before and just got a list of all the waymarks nearest to my search and they were not listed by category first (although the category was listed in the search output).

 

I think the idea that "OMG, I have to pick through the categories to get everything near me" (if that's the only search output currently) is a petty one. The fact that you'll be able to get a list of every person, place, and/or thing that people wanted you to go see nearby (instead of only those Wow-able enough to pass muster at GC.com) impresses me. I'll then need some sort of category filter to get only those (there will be sooo many at that point) that I'm going to want to try and search for during my GC trip (I can imagine there being 20-40 WM to each GC in Boston).

Share this post


Link to post

You can do a search from the Waymark Category Search that is at the top of the Directory start page. But that is even more specific than just picking Person, Place or Thing.

 

I think a gang of geniuses stiring up a hate storm over denied virtuals is pretty petty... but here we are.

 

And, its not an "OMG" type of statement. I don't have a problem with this type of directory structure when it comes to finding something specific you want. I've said before that I look forward to using some of the categories in a more "informational" way once the database grows enough to be useful. I was simply trying to point out that the structure appears to be geared more toward "what" than "where". Which, in my worthless opinion, is just one reason why this is not a very good replacement for virtuals (and how they previously meshed with geocaching so well, approval guidelines aside).

 

To the "I'll then need some sort of category filter" statement, I'll just use the same answer we keep getting that is supposed to make everything OK.... just use GSAK or the like to do the filtering later. :P

 

To the "I can imagine there being 20-40 WM to each GC" statement... I imagine the same thing. Funny, that is also a reason why I don't think this is a very good replacement for virtuals. It now becomes exactly what the ambiguous "WOW" was trying to prevent in the virtuals. Yes, there was a chink in the armour... which was patched with a bit of C4.

Share this post


Link to post
The idea of finding a fire truck and counting it as a cache is dumb. There were several "dumb" locationless caches. There were also many great ones. Finding castles, historic sites, etc. Great stuff. :o

Isn't that the same now though?

 

The idea of finding a fire truck and counting it as a waymark is dumb. There are several "dumb" waymarks. There were also many great ones. Finding castles, historic sites, etc. Great stuff. :D

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
tls11823 Posted on Oct 4 2005, 06:51 PM

 

But, as mini pointed out, if you want to list everything, you have to:

 

- Click Places

- Click Search Now

- Write down or print the interesting information

- Click Things

- Click Search Now

- Write down or print the interesting information

- If there would be people listed, do the same for them as well.

 

Why not let me see everything in one place once I've selected an origin?

 

I don't understand.

 

I don't see how the ORIGINS method doesn't accomplish this.

 

Can you show me?

 

:rolleyes: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Top level of the Directory with no origin selected.

no.origin.png

 

Top level of the Directory with my home origin selected.

with.origin.png

 

Now what? Can you show me? I can't see any way to get a list of all waymakrs in my area regardless if it is a Person, Place or Thing. The big red circle I've made on the second image highlights what I think might be a problem.

 

And I just realised... is there no way to download a waymark or a list of waymarks?

Share this post


Link to post

It seems using "Origins" will prevent listing of subcategories that are not nearby according to the filter.

 

So far, my observation is consistent with mini cacher's. That one extra step of clicking on a subcategory is still required before we get a list of actual locations... or I'm missing out on a cool shortcut.

Share this post


Link to post
Top level of the Directory with my home origin selected.

with.origin.png

 

Now what?  Can you show me?  I can't see any way to get a list of all waymakrs in my area regardless if it is a Person, Place or Thing.  The big red circle I've made on the second image highlights what I think might be a problem.

 

And I just realised... is there no way to download a waymark or a list of waymarks?

 

This is the #1 most annoying thing about Waymarking and why I've stopped using it.

Edited by dogbreathcanada

Share this post


Link to post

I could have sworn when I used the site I was able to get around that. I thought I did it from the front page (and not from the top-level page). Maybe it was the advanced search option on the front page...

Share this post


Link to post

I see that we are talking about the exact same thing, from different perspectives.

 

It was very helpful to see an image illuistrating the concern.

 

I too wish that it said something more than, in your case "Place - Restaurant" and "Things - Seasonal/Holiday"

 

However...

 

I like that it does only show that, since if I wasn't interested in "Things - Seasonal/Holiday" I wouldn't click it, and if I was... then I would.

 

I'm going to make up a Waymark... imaginary Waymark entitled "Tannenbaum"

 

If the Origin search listed the nearby Waymarks as "McDonalds in USA Town" and "Tannenbaum"... you'd have no idea what Tannenbaum was UNTIL you clicked on it. Then you find out it is a "Cut your own Christmas Tree Farm" and say "Well that was a waste of time!", but it could be "German Restaurant", or "Christmas Music Store", or "Amusement Park".

 

Based on the name only, you'd have no idea what the Waymark was... but if you see "Amusement Park" you might be interested enough to click it, or if it was "Retail Store" you might not... but at least you would know the Catagory and if you are interest or not.

 

Now the cool thing is that you have a complete list of all the Waymark Catagories that have active Waymarks near you. Then you click on the interesting topics to decide what to visit.

 

But yes... I wish we could download them too.

 

:lol: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

So we sort of agree on something... I think. :lol:

 

I think it should be the opposite... but I actually don't want to take the OP's thread any further off topic. Since I pretty much already summed up my assessment of the site in my own topic, I'd feel better running off with a discussion there.

Share this post


Link to post

Speaking for myself, all the discussion here about how to decide categories, logging rules, etc., etc., etc. has compeletely turned me off to the whole Waymarking thing. The activity could easily have been designed to minimize the opportunities for politics, cliques, sycophancy, and pettiness. But, instead, I think it has been designed in such a way that those things will be maximized.

 

Since the quantity of the above already present in geocaching is pretty nauseating, and it looks like it will be a hundred times worse here, I don't find the whole Waymarking thing very appealing right now.

 

Maybe after things get more defined, I will turn out to be wrong and it will be a nice place. But judging from things that have already occurred here, I am not optimisitic.

Share this post


Link to post

fizzy

 

I have a feeling that it'll suite both people. Those that want insane levels of red tape to play with will have their places to play. Those that just want to say "found it!" and move on will have plenty of chance to do that too without even knowing what's going on with the red tape.

 

Either way, just viewing waypoints won't even involve much of any investment.

 

Since it's the same people coding it and the same people populating it as geocaching.com, I'm not sure why you thought some of the most inane things about logging requirements and the like wouldn't show up here too.

Share this post


Link to post

QUOTE=fizzymagic,Oct 8 2005, 07:52 PM] The activity could easily have been designed to minimize the opportunities for politics, cliques, sycophancy, and pettiness. But, instead, I think it has been designed in such a way that those things will be maximized.

 

 

Easily? Not with all the egos and players in this sport/game...but how would you envision it? Not trying to flame, just qurious as to what would/could be designed easier...and if so, maybe TPTB would listen to suggestions to make the site easier (without politics, cliques, etc.) I guess thats why it is still in beta, for us to voice our ideas and help the evolution. I see some flaws, but we'll see if some creative ideas in the future can solve/mediate them.

 

-UA

 

:ph34r::ph34r:<_<

Edited by Uncle Alaska

Share this post


Link to post
Easily? Not with all the egos and players in this sport/game...

Poor choice of words. I meant that the focus could well have been put on the elimination of that kind of thing as a priority.

 

but how would you envision it? Not trying to flame, just qurious as to what would/could be designed easier...and if so, maybe TPTB would listen to suggestions to make the site easier (without politics, cliques, etc.)

 

I've already voiced my concerns and made what I thought were constructive suggestions in other topics since the site was made available to premium members. I'm not gonna hash them over again here. I know how to take a hint.

Share this post


Link to post

Well I only discovered Locationless caches this week after noticing a fellow cacher had claimed an octaganal building at a geocache as locationless. After looking at his profile and seeing he'd found loads, I delved further.

 

I have an interesting Locationless idea which I want to use, put they seam to no longer be on the list of cache types for new geocaches. ('In the future these will have their own section, but currently there is a moratorium on new locationless caches')

 

I sort of under stand way marking, but some way marks are not worth visiting after being found once. Eg way mark Log a Lion GC930D, I don't see the value of logging a random lion as a new way mark, although the cache owner has set up a waymark page. Does that mean no once else can claim that lion (in this example, or does it mean people are encouraged to visit the lion, and also claim it?

 

My idea is to have a Haunted House Way Mark, which would be a good concept for a way mark, and I'd like to be the first to way mark it. People can then use a haunted house way mark to visit such spooky establishments

 

Being able to search for established way marks in your vicinity is good.

Share this post


Link to post
The idea of finding a fire truck and counting it as a waymark is dumb.  There are several "dumb" waymarks.  There were also many great ones.  Finding castles, historic sites, etc.  Great stuff.  :rolleyes:

:blink:[/color]

I like Firetrucks and think Christmas Lights are Dumb. And to hear that you think historic sites, etc. are Great Stuff. I thought the Sax had a strong dislike for Virtuals. But now he seems to like Waymarks. I think I'll go get a bowl of Cheetos to go with my beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...