Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
WalruZ

Question About Logging Requirements

Recommended Posts

ok, so I'm full of questions tonight. I would like something clarified, if it's not too much trouble.

 

How are the logging requirements of a waymark set?

 

does the category owner set the logging requirements (it seems so)

 

can a waymark be submitted with differing requirements?

 

Example 1. A category owner says "post a picture of yourself at the waymark, next to this sign".

 

can the waymark owner blow off that requirement?

 

Example 2. A category owner has lax logging requirements - "just tell me how you liked the spot."

 

can a waymark owner then require photo verification of their particular waymark within the category?

 

I know that waymarks are initially vetted by the category owner and so the answers to both questions are probably defered to the category owner. Still, I'm wondering how others would answer these questions.

Share this post


Link to post
ok, so I'm full of questions tonight. I would like something clarified, if it's not too much trouble.

 

How are the logging requirements of a waymark set?

 

does the category owner set the logging requirements (it seems so)

 

can a waymark be submitted with differing requirements?

 

Example 1. A category owner says "post a picture of yourself at the waymark, next to this sign".

 

can the waymark owner blow off that requirement?

 

Example 2. A category owner has lax logging requirements - "just tell me how you liked the spot."

 

can a waymark owner then require photo verification of their particular waymark within the category?

 

I know that waymarks are initially vetted by the category owner and so the answers to both questions are probably defered to the category owner. Still, I'm wondering how others would answer these questions.

This questioin's too simple to get an answer here. Can you dress it up a little with a few college words? Might get answered then.

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding is that a category owner can require specific requirements to log a waymark, and these requirements can be made more stringent by the waymark owner. A waymark owner is not free to blow off the requirements of the category owner, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll try to expand WalruZ's questions a little bit:

 

Will there be a "minimum standard" for logging requirements, or will it be a free-for-all?

 

Personally, I prefer an implementation of a minimum standard since Waymarks won't have log books to verify the visits with. Photo requirement would be one way, although there will surely be complaints from people who normally don't carry cameras around.

 

HINT: digital camera manufacturers can advertise on Waymarking. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
I'll try to expand WalruZ's questions a little bit:

 

Will there be a "minimum standard" for logging requirements, or will it be a free-for-all?

 

Personally, I prefer an implementation of a minimum standard since Waymarks won't have log books to verify the visits with. Photo requirement would be one way, although there will surely be complaints from people who normally don't carry cameras around.

 

HINT: digital camera manufacturers can advertise on Waymarking. :unsure:

Personally, I think there's absolutely no _need_ for any requirement.

 

This is why I've discussed the _need_ for quickly determining ahead of time whether something does have requirements or not and enabling those that do want requirements to see their verified "finds" ala GC.com via this same method.

Share this post


Link to post
I'll try to expand WalruZ's questions a little bit:

 

Will there be a "minimum standard" for logging requirements, or will it be a free-for-all?

 

Personally, I prefer an implementation of a minimum standard since Waymarks won't have log books to verify the visits with. Photo requirement would be one way, although there will surely be complaints from people who normally don't carry cameras around.

 

HINT: digital camera manufacturers can advertise on Waymarking.  :unsure:

Personally, I think there's absolutely no _need_ for any requirement.

 

This is why I've discussed the _need_ for quickly determining ahead of time whether something does have requirements or not and enabling those that do want requirements to see their verified "finds" ala GC.com via this same method.

Yeah, I agree that having the Waymark's page arranged so that the logging requirements (if any) are easily visible is a good idea.

 

My concern is more political, referencing fizzymagic's concerns. Without a minimum standard, there's a big cloud of unknown regarding how people will react to getting the finds accepted or rejected.

 

Worst case scenario: What if a find was rejected because the owner of the listing doesn't like the visitor? Even if this was done "in stealth," there'd be no end in accusations and counter-accusations without using the minimum standard as the final word: "you signed the log book, it's a legitimate find"

Share this post


Link to post

I don't feel that it's in the spirit of the game as I first understood it to require photo identification for creating or logging. I know most if not all of the old locationless people are still requiring the standard GPS photo. I think that the new catagory managers or whatever you call them are not requiring this photo. This is going to determine whether I play the game or not because I will not take a stupid picture of my hand holding a GPS to prove I was there. If it's going that route I'll just pass on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Worst case scenario: What if a find was rejected because the owner of the listing doesn't like the visitor?

I can say with a great deal of confidence that, as the site is designed right now, this will happen. Guaranteed.

 

Some category owner will deny a waymark listing in their category because they don't like the person proposing the listing, and will make up some lame excuse for why they denied the listing.

 

Some listing owner will deny a log to a seeker because they don't like the seeker, and will make up some lame excuse to justify their action.

 

Some person seeking to list a waymark will be offended and hurt because the category owner rejected their listing for some arbitrary deficiency not mentioned in the category description. (Oh, wait -- that already happened).

 

Given the current design, it is not a matter of if these things will happen; the only question now is how often they will happen. As far as I can tell, for each of the above situations, there is no recourse for the injured party. None. Period.

 

My current opinion is that this kind of thing will happen often enough to make the whole Waymarking process unpleasant for me. Your mileage may vary. And maybe I am wrong.

Edited by fizzymagic

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I can tell, for each of the above situations, there is no recourse for the injured party.  None.  Period.

 

Do you think this would be resolved by placing power in more than one person's hands? Perhaps there can be a group to whom you could appeal?

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I can tell, for each of the above situations, there is no recourse for the injured party.  None.  Period.

 

Do you think this would be resolved by placing power in more than one person's hands? Perhaps there can be a group to whom you could appeal?

As you probably know, I am a strong supporter of a Slashdot-style distributed rating and moderation system for the Waymarking site. That way, power is diffused as much as possible. So I am leery of the idea of some appointed group to which one can appeal; maybe an elected group would work better.

 

Of course, the Slashdot system has flaws of its own, mostly related to the mob mentality. Yet somehow getting your waypoint denied by a mob is less hurtful than getting it denied by a person.

Share this post


Link to post
a minimum standard since Waymarks won't have log books to verify the visits with.

 

My opinion of photo's for waymark creation:

Someone shoulda told the guy that built the Washington Monument that he needed a photo to prove that it was going to be there before he built it. After all, whether I go take a picture of it or not, it's still there. It's a waymark whether you like it or not. It won't take much effort to weed out "unverifiable" waymarks. They won't be there when someone goes to look for it. I'm not seeing that this is going to be any huge issue unless there's someone that does it on a "waymark creation spree," which I have faith that the already in-place system will find. It's called.... people visiting the waymark.

 

Photo's for logging a VISIT to an already created waymark?

 

Well, once again -

Verify the visits..... This leads us to assume that waymarkers will be naturally dishonest without someone to monitor them. I've got a couple or four waymarks here in Japan and one in Oklahoma. I didn't create them so that I could be some "TPTB" guy. I created them so that people will go visit them and enjoy them like I did. If someone says they went and enjoyed it, but really didn't.... who's loss is that anyway? It certainly doesn't detract from the "game" for me. In fact, it doesn't affect me at all. In fact, it doesn't affect anyone else... but them.

Share this post


Link to post

ok, Since I received an email to join this discussion. Here goes. This post is not meant to flame anyone.

But I have noticed that there have been several found logs of waymarks that are post dated way before waymarks were even created. Some have photos some do not. I personnaly believe that it is up to the waymark creator to decide if logs stand or not; but I think that post dating them way before waymark does not fit right.

 

I am torn between logging a pic or not. I do not think they are necessary for creating a waymark but would be relevant for a finder. I think there should be two options, as I am aware that there are several cachers who do not have access to digital cameras.

 

I also believe that there should be some sort of separate button for FTF separating that log from all others.

 

I also presently think that this layered control over logs having Waymark Creators and catagory managersis a good idea. it may eliminate some future problems. Waymark creators can suggest to the manager other options and vice versa. It just needs to be fleshed out a bit. Currently as I understand it the catagory owner can only control the waymarks and the waymark owner only controls the waymark. I think a duel control of some sort is needed. For example. Catagory owner creats catagory , people create several waymarks One waymark owner has allowed a fake log to stand and the Catagory owner can do nothing as deleting the waymark would nullify the non fake logs. Am I the only one who sees a problem here. I

Edited by chstress53

Share this post


Link to post

I really believe clarification is necessary. Could someone clarify this

please.

I asked a waymark owner about a log that was retro made on his waymark years before waymark was even created. and here is the answer. Example Here is one log in date in question 11/27/1999

"{Let the person who logged it wrong know. It may be a typo. Also I have no control over the logs of others. You would have to contact the owner of the topic.' ( This waymark owner is not able or aware that they should control/delete the logs fake or whatever.

So I contacted the owner of the Catagory this is there reply.

"Visiting a waymark can be dated on earlier than the waymark has been published, I don't know why but the system accepts any date for a visit. I agree that this is not very sporty but I have no control over the visits.

I own the category and I can either accept or decline waymarks but the visits are managed by the waymark publisher. I can't even delete a waymark after approval if I notice it was a fake one.

As you can see Wanderer7 has logged visits on her own waymarks, rigth or wrong, I can't help it (some of these visits were logged even before the waymark was approved!'

 

Here is another response.

"Sorry I missed the point the last time I read your email. Your are questioning the ability of someone to claim a visit to a Waymark prior to the Waymark being defined. I am not sure how the management team of Waymarking feels about this, of course I would honor their ruling."

 

To present the other side another waymark owner answered this way.

 

"What's the reason for disliking this log? Is there any rule from Groundspeak that is violated by this log? For me Waymarking is a service where you can retrieve information for sightseeing. You can check which things you already visited and which are left. So it should be possible to log earlier visits. I would not accept this log on a geocache, but on a waymark it makes sense for me."

 

I for one hope someone from Groundspeak rings in on this.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems that there are two opinions regarding Waymarking. One group thinks Waymarking will be used by people that want to visit locations in one or more categories just because they are interested in that category - whether it be McDonald's Restaurants or Civil War Monuments. The other group sees Waymarking as a substitute for Locationless and Virtual caching where the reason you either find examples of locations that fit in a category or visit a location that someone else has listed is for the challenge or to score points.

 

I don't see any reason why both views can't exist side by side in Waymarking. The solution could be handled at several levels. At the category level - the category manager could decide whether or not there are specific requirements for creating and visiting waymarks in their category. At the waymark level - the waymark owner (guide) may want to require verification even if the category manager doesn't. At the individual log - there could be two types of logs: visited if someone just wants to report on a visit to that location and doesn't care to verify that visit, and found for the player who wants to provide verification of their visit.

Edited by tozainamboku

Share this post


Link to post
... As far as I can tell, for each of the above situations, there is no recourse for the injured party. None. Period.

Sure it will, just like it happens with some regularity on GC.com. This is a flaw in the human condition, not in WM.com.

My current opinion is that this kind of thing will happen often enough to make the whole Waymarking process unpleasant for me.  Your mileage may vary.  And maybe I am wrong.
I think that this will happen with the same regularity as it already does on GC.com. That is not very often, in my opinion. As far as that goes, nicer cachers are going to have it never happen while the real jerks will have it happen with some frequency.

 

Clearly, I will have to live with the denials. :mad:

Share this post


Link to post
But I have noticed that there have been several found logs of waymarks that are post dated way before waymarks were even created. Some have photos some do not. I personnaly believe that it is up to the waymark creator to decide if logs stand or not; but I think that post dating them way before waymark does not fit right.

Why does this matter? "Waymarking is a way to mark unique locations on the planet and give them a voice." The unique location in these cases existed prior to Waymarking. These unique locations had a "voice" prior to the invention of Waymarking, right? What is so wrong about the "voice," or history of visits, being heard prior to an arbitrary point in time? A visit to these locations prior the creation of Waymarking still "invites (us) to share (our) part of the world with" others just as much as a visit after the arbitrary point in time. "My part of the world" began long before Waymarking, and those parts of the world are no less valid. The fact that I was stationed at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, in 1999, six years prior to the advent of Waymarking, does not make the fact that I was physically there and can add insight and human histroy to the location any less relevant than someone who first arrived there yesterday!

 

I see Waymarking as a neat tool to chronicle my travels, sort of like a travel diary. I use caching as this tool, but unfortunately there are many spots I have been to that are devoid of caches (like NPs or memorials).

 

Indeed, the only reason I have not logged more Waymarks I have visited (even recent ones since Waymarking began) are the silly photo-proof requirements. I prefer to take mental pictures, and am quite renown for my loud groans when someone insists on detracting from my experience by making me pause for a photo (on the several trips I took into Denali, for example, I noted that many other visitors missed the joy of nature since they insisted on photographing it. They actually missed most of the experience, and would have to wait for their film to be developed before they saw what they should have SEEN! Heck, it would be cheaper for them to stay home and surf the web or watch Travel Channel.). If a cache is located there, then I compromise with my family... if I can "detract" from the moments there while caching, I will be "detracted" by pausing for a photo. Indeed, I may be weird, but sometimes I do NOT want photos, since they may conflict with my perception and memory of the place at the time (I have found that sometimes fond memories are much better to reflect upon than photos). So, is a photo more proof that I was there than my memory? Not at all. The only thing a photo does is provide proof to a third party that I was there, and why should they care?

 

Getting back to my main point: visiting a waypoint prior to Waymarking does not make my visit any less real or any less relevant in the history and spirit of the place. My "stats" are for my purpose of documenting my travels. If my "stats" bother you because they occured prior to the advent of Waymakring or because I do not have "proof" in the form of photos, then please feel free to ignore my "stats."

Share this post


Link to post
Example 1.  A category owner says "post a picture of yourself at the waymark, next to this sign". 

 

can the waymark owner blow off that requirement?

 

Example 2.  A category owner has lax logging requirements - "just tell me how you liked the spot."

 

can a waymark owner then require photo verification of their particular waymark within the category?

As a category owner, I don't have the power to delete visit logs. Only the waymark owner can delete visit logs on their waymark. Maybe this will be changed at some point, but that is how it is for now. Heck, as a category owner, I don't even get email sent to me when a visit log is made on one of the waymarks in my category, so I wouldn't even know to check on a particular log. So, given the current state of things, I was say the answer to Example 1 is yes and the answer to Example 2 is no.

 

--Marky

Share this post


Link to post
... So, given the current state of things, I was say the answer to Example 1 is yes and the answer to Example 2 is no.

While I hope the site is changed to allow category owners more control over logs in their category, I do agree that as it is currently category owners have no direct control over logs. However, this same lack of control further makes me believe that the answer to the second question is 'yes'. Waymark owners do have control of the logs. I can think of no reason that they could not require more stringent logging requirements.

Share this post


Link to post

This logging requirements are confusing to say the least. And even though I own a waymark the only way I can find my waymark is through my page, not under the directory.

And when you look at the categories it is also quite ambigous.

Natural Things - More Detail

 

It says

Instructions for logging waymarks of this category:

No log instructions provided.

 

But when you go farther into the category

 

Natural Bridges - More Detail the logging instructions change.

Instructions for logging waymarks of this category:

Must post Waymark coordinates as well as a picture of your GPSr and the subject arch.

So one sections says no requirements and the the subsection says must post a picture along with the coordinates.

 

And I wonder why would you need to post the coordinates when the coordinates are given on the Waymark

 

After I created the waymark I received the following note from the owner of the category which even shows the ambiquity of the whole process.

--------------------------------------------------------

Hello,

 

I am Moderator for the Waymarking category "Stone Arches and Bridges". Your recent submission of "Keyhole Arch" did not include a GPSr in the photo as required. Also, the opening of any Arch or Bridge submission must be at least 3' by 3'. Please post a photo with a GPSr in the photo and let me know if the arch meets the opening size requirements. Thanks you for your attention to this matter.

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now I wonder why must I submit a photo when I was placing a waymark not logging a waymark.

And the more detail says

Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

The arch must be natural and at least 3 feet high and three feet wide. This will eliminate "finger sized" (or micro arches) which occur in many rock formations. A "stone bridge" shall qualify as an arch for this category.

 

Instructions for logging waymarks of this category:

Must post Waymark coordinates as well as a picture of your GPSr and the subject arch.

 

But there is one feature that is neat with Waymarking, You can leave a message with a photo imbedded that only you and the owner can see. So some lines of communication are open, which can be helpful.

 

But when its all said and done it can be more work to create a waymark that gives less caching satisfication than a good old fashioned Grandfathered Virtual.

Edited by Tahosa and Sons

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...