Waymarking

[+kewfriend]

May I start us off.

 

To some extent its a 'fait accompli' and we will have to live with the results

 

How do UK geocachers feel about the gradual disappearance from geocaching.com to Waymarking.com of all cache listings that do not have a physical end conclusion. Will you miss the icons, will you miss the hunt, will you miss your earthcaches and virtuals etc?

 

Is there a different issue on this in Europe to the USA. Waymarking.Com will accept commercial type 'waymarks'. Already its far harder to search on Waymarking.com.

 

Will you be using Waymarking.com or will you just accept the gradual loss of all non-physical caches

 

Anyway - thats a starter

[+Birders]

We probably enjoyed Locationless Caches as much as any other, if not more so, and regret that they may "disappear". Just why they had to muck everything about we can't imagine..

[+Moote]

I looked at the site and it just appears so user un-friendly I'm a seasoned surfer and find it hard to understand what is going on in there. I'm going to leave it till others sort it out

 

Milton (aka Moote)

[+Kitty Hawk]

I've got the icons for the disappearing varieties so I'm not overly concerned although it'll be a shame if earthcaches go over there (only becuase I like them and set the 1st in the UK) - are you sure?

 

I took a look at the waymerking website, but there seems no reason for me to go back - I don't see the attraction. I suspect that it's not designed to be a killer location, more an answer to those that want things that Jeremy doesn't want.

 

Anyway, I've taken a view that it is something I can't influence so I am not going to worry about it.

[Deego]

I set one up to see how it worked 26/08/05 WMJW Drayton Manor Theme park. Its not been logged yet.

 

But there are none near me, so haven't been able to log one yet. (not in a rush to either)

 

I will be sad to see Locationless and Virtual disappear.

Edited October 23, 2005 by Deego

[+Wadders]

I enjoy geocaching, why bother logging a macdonalds in your local town.

Looked at the site once and it can stay there too!!!!

As for the icons..........whatever will be will be.

[+Cave Troll and Eeyore]

The new site doesn't interest me at all and if they do eventually decide to move all virtuals over then i will reluctantly archive the ones i currently have listed on gc.com.

[+Moote]

Thinking head on here (again and yes I can think)

 

Why is it that there needs to be a separate site? I read somewhere that it was due to the hard work required by the good old bods at GC.com finding it hard to manage the present site.

 

Well the solution is simple and something I do with databases at work all the time, that is have a separate database server for each major part of your database.

 

What confuses me though is that why not then have the web interface designed to work with both database then you would not require 2 sites.

 

This is how I do it at work we have 4 SQL servers containing 4 databases (one on each server) and just one single web interface which can function across all the databases simultaneously.

 

I guess that we will never know why the division in the game but it's happened and I think unfortunately there will be no going back.

 

Milton (aka Moote)

[+Moote]

.............. it'll be a shame if earthcaches go over there (only becuase I like them and set the 1st in the UK) - are you sure?

Yes as of October 1st 2005, all new Earthcaches will be listed on Waymarking.com. I believe that the present Earthcaches will stay on GC.com (for the now at least)

 

I'll shut my Earthcache if they ask for it to be moved.

 

Milton (aka Moote)

[+Learned Gerbil]

I look ed arrounbd whan it wwas launched, but the more I saw the less I liked the concept - I can't see what the point is. I have not been back to the site since about a week after the launch. It just irritates me that my GC subscription goes to pay for a site I won't ever use - which I won't use because it is so ill concieved.

[+Gralorn]

Will certainly miss the locationless and virtuals, have not given a minute to the other site, just not interested I'm afraid, tried it and decided it was not for me. Why fix it if it was not broken.

[+Haggis Hunter]

I've made a few waymarks up, just to see if it would work, they don't get much attention, I'll leave the waymarks as they are, it may flick someones switch, but it doesn't do anything for me.

 

Perhaps it's because it is difficult to navigate and do searches of nearby waymarks?

 

I think it is going to fall by the wayside, because the only people that appear to like it are the Jeremy Fan Club (It may not be official but it does exist)

[+purple_pineapple]

I'm with all the above - not interested in the slightest and disappointed to see the demise of or virtuals etc. One thing puzzles me - is there still the option to ask for confirmation of a find, or can anyone log it without proving it?

 

Dave

[+Haggis Hunter]

One thing puzzles me - is there still the option to ask for confirmation of a find, or can anyone log it without proving it?

 

Dave

Up to the waymark owner, I just say post proof of your find.

[+Wadders]

.............. it'll be a shame if earthcaches go over there  (only becuase I like them and set the 1st in the UK) - are you sure?

Yes as of October 1st 2005, all new Earthcaches will be listed on Waymarking.com. I believe that the present Earthcaches will stay on GC.com (for the now at least)

 

I'll shut my Earthcache if they ask for it to be moved.

 

Milton (aka Moote)

Had not thought of that Milton

I think i will do the same with my Earthcache too if and when they decide to move them, do we know when?

 

Terry

[+kewfriend]

I do have some serious concerns.

 

CANDIDLY - a lot of the locationless and virtual caches are rubbish and dont add to the experience of geocaching.

 

HOWEVER - some VIRTUAL caches HAVE to be virtual if the particular area is to be visited at all. We live near Kew Gardens ( as if you hadnt guessed ), and it definitely qualifies as an area to be visited not least because in the gardens are some hidden and rarely seen gems. ( Two of the existing virtual caches there are not really very good - one is )

 

On LOCATIONLESS caches, must are just rubbish, but some are excellent. We have done just two and one was inside the Science Museum - and validly so.

 

The LAWS of the LAND in some countries and the culture of the country make setting physical caches problematical. FRANCE is an obvious case in point. We have just done three lovely caches in Paris. FRANCE also lends itself to some superb EARTHCACHES, which because they are in national Parks may never ever have a physical cache allowed.

 

As sometimes happens on GC.COM, I think that a USA-centric view colours other issues. I totally understand the problems of 'drawing the line' and 'setting the boundaries' for non-physical caches.

 

I have enormous respect and sympathy for what Jeremy and the team do. I can see that in the USA ( and to some extent in the UK ) some of the non-physical caches have got out of hand and detract rather than add to the pastime. But twas ever thus.

 

I would urge Jeremy and the crew to look again VERY SERIOUSLY at the issues from a European perspective.

 

I also understand the need to get some 'commercial payback' for the pastime and this is easier in Waymarking which can be more relaxed.

 

Please dont throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[+Moote]

Had not thought of that Milton

I think i will do the same with my Earthcache too if and when they decide to move them, do we know when?

 

Terry

Terry

 

I think the ones on here stand for now, but all the new ones (post 1st October 2005) are being published only on WM.com. This really is a shame as they are great caches.

 

Milton

[+purple_pineapple]

i can see that what is likely to start happening is multicaches becoming more popular, abd with bigger distances between stages. If I can't put a virtual somewhere (say at a blue plaque site) then I'll incorporate it into a multi with a cache possibly a number of miles away.

 

Dave

[+Jaz666]

I've yet to actually do a virtual cache......

From my point of view, the interesting appeal of a virtual is the potential mystery element - many of the virtal listings I've looked at don't give away what's at the final location.

 

From what I've seen, the vast majority of waymarks tell you exactly what you are travelling to. Kinda defeats the whole point.

You might as well just pickup a copy of the AA Tourist Guide.

[+Learned Gerbil]

Kinda defeats the whole point.

Exactly! What is the point if you know what you are looking for? I still can't get my head around the WM idea - I can see the problem - but no way is it anything like a solution.

[+McDeHack]

To me the object of the exercise is to visit a place where your GPs takes you. Be it a Tupper box or blue plaque.

I can proudly say some of my virtual caches are interesting as it will take you to places that many did not realised existed. This I have been told on countless occasions.

 

Have you tried ‘Geogolf’? I did a round once and found it pointless. I was just riding on a bike around my local streets. Trying to get as near to the Co-ords as possible. For points.

 

I feel ‘Way marking’ could get a bit silly if as has been said, listing McDonalds. ( I think we had enough with Mctoys)

But if it gets you out with your GPS to hunt for…..Whatever?

[+G Force]

I will be sad to see Locationless and Virtual disappear.

 

I agree as some virtual I have done have been far been better than some traditionals that I have done.

Some virtuals bring you to place that it's not possible to place a tradional and we (cachers) will lose out on it not being a cache.

I don't think I will go for the waymarks the same as I don't do the trig points.

 

Only my opinion.

[+mongoose39uk]

I would like to see properly monitored virtuals and some locationless stay.

 

Wypointing, whats the point of it? I just cannot seen it!

 

[+Naefearjustbeer]

I had a look at the site, Not impressed but I will look back every now and then to see if it improves any. I wont hold my breath though. Its a shame because I have enjoyed some of the virtual caches that I have done in the past, I just cannot see me scouring the Waymarking site to find the odd one or two that might interest me out of all the crap

[nobby.nobbs]

have grabbed a few locationless and virtuals and so on. visited the Waymarking site a couple of times and have no intention of returning. like most others i can't see the point.

 

real shame that it was not possible to come to a sensible compromise. fait accompli unfortunatley.

 

my virtual and earth cache will be deleted if they are threatened with transfer. not a stroppy response just a matter of principle, i don't approve of the site and do not wish to be associated with it.

[+kewfriend]

I hope the Jeremy and the GC.COM team get a chance to browse this discussion.

 

It might prove helpful.

 

 

Pssst its ok Nobby - your kew one was worth doing.

[+Mr Nibbler]

I've done a couple of virtuals - one good others not so good. Having looked at the Waymarking site like others in here I am frankly underwhelmed and shan't be bothering to go back. If people enjoy it, though, who am I to knock it?

[+Stuey]

Will you be using Waymarking.com

It's a waste of time... and a waste of my subscription money too.

[+Bill D (wwh)]

Like most people above, I don't see the point of Waymarking. I'd like to see my subscription used towards the site I'm subscribing to, not to help build what seems to be yet another online directory.

 

My one locationless cache will remain on gc.com until it's archived by TPTB at the end of the year. My one virtual will remain as long as it's permitted.

 

I know that there are or have been many lame virtuals and locationless caches, but there are lame trads and multis too. Perhaps TPTB should move the whole lot to Waymarking.com and just leave us with the forums, where we can talk about the good old days when we used to go caching...

[+GAZ]

To me the object of the exercise is to visit a place where your GPs takes you. Be it a Tupper box or blue plaque.

I can proudly say some of my virtual caches are interesting as it will take you to places that many did not realised existed. This I have been told on countless occasions.

 

Have you tried ‘Geogolf’? I did a round once and found it pointless. I was just riding on a bike around my local streets. Trying to get as near to the Co-ords as possible. For points.

 

I feel ‘Way marking’ could get a bit silly if as has been said, listing McDonalds. ( I think we had enough with Mctoys)

But if it gets you out with your GPS to hunt for…..Whatever?

 

We had an excellent day trip to London a couple of years ago......never been before, probably won't get the chance again........as McDeHack says....follow the GPSr to, well......what you find at the "arriving destination" place!

[+Mr'D]

I won't be logging these!

 

[+Firth of Forth]

I can't see the point of Waymarking, and haven't bothered to try and work out what it's all about. I'm not interested in a separate website with separate data.

 

I created one virtual cache at the new Scottish parliament building which, obviously for security reasons, it wasn't possible to place a physical container at. I put a lot of effort into it and will be very disappointed if I have to lose it. I won't be maintaining it on another website.

[+littlejim]

Wow! Does anybody actually like the Waymarking site / concept??

Jeremy take note...

[+sTeamTraen]

Wow! Does anybody actually like the Waymarking site / concept??

Jeremy take note...

My guess is that relatively few geocaching.com users will like Waymarking, but almost nobody will give up using gc.com as their listing site for physical geocaches.

 

If true, this would mean that almost of all the people who visit Waymarking.com will be new people.

 

Hmmm, increasing your customer base... sounds like a pretty shrewd business plan to me. Groundspeak isn't a registered charity.

[+kewfriend]

My suggestion is that those with Virtuals which they might wish to 'preserve' start to think about a micro multi-cache. It wont work in all cases and thats one a SERIOUS issue which I'd like Jeremy to take on board.

 

I don't like Earthcaches being moved either, because many Earthcache locations simply (and for obvious reasons) will not lend themselves to conversion to standard or multi caches.

 

I don't have much problem with locationless caches being moved.

 

I have no problems at all with Jeremy seeking to maximise the overall financial input to GC.COM to keep it solvent and effective. I do have problems with the broad sweep approach that seems to be being adopted.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I'm still not sure about the Waymarking web site, but I'm curious about one comment that seems quite common in this thread. People are saying that they "can't see the point" of Waymarking. Yet at the same time, there appears to be a consensus that some (not all) virtual and locationless "caches" are worthwhile.

 

This is contradictory, isn't it? If it's a worthwhile virtual, why does it become "pointless" if it's amended to a "waymark"?

 

Surely if you have a good virtual, you just copy and paste the description into the waymark description, don't you? Then the only difference is that it has a different URL. You could even list the ones you own, using your Geocaching.com profile!

 

HH

[+Learned Gerbil]

In which case, why not move all physical caches over if it is just a different URL?

[+Happy Humphrey]

In which case, why not move all physical caches over if it is just a different URL?

...because we have geocaching.com for physical caches...or have I misunderstood you?

 

HH

[+Chris n Maria]

Surely if you have a good virtual, you just copy and paste the description into the waymark description, don't you? Then the only difference is that it has a different URL. You could even list the ones you own, using your Geocaching.com profile!

 

HH

The thing with a virt is usually the surprise element when you get there, with the classifications in Waymarking all surprise would be lost. In addition the sheer quantity of rubbish waymarks (mcdonalds,bloggers etc) make it difficult to seek out any real gems worth finding.

 

Waymarking seems to fit locationless well but they have tried to squeeze virts and earth caches into the same site and I like them where they are.

 

I have always felt that the point of a cache (whatever type) was to say "here is somewhere/something" interesting/beautifull/unusual etc. and most caches in the UK seem to reflect that view. Waymarking seems to be about collecting locations of anything at all AFAICS the game is totally different.

 

Chris

[+kewfriend]

Essentially Waymarking is a non-gps activity which incorporates the ability to be fully commercial. I have no problems with either of these.

 

However there is an old and long-held view that hunting with a GPS to achieve a delectable ( or perhaps otherwise ) location does not require the physical presence of a 'container' to log the discovery: the Internet provides the major forum of reporting achievment anyway. Webcams for instance will not ( yet ) be moved. However there should be a valid reason why a physical cache canot be achieved.

 

Of course it will be possible for people to browse both sites but they are laid out very differently.

 

The response to this thread so far seems to be one of regret at the passing of many virtuals over to Waymarking and no real intention to participate in Waymarking. The latter really doesnt matter, but the former is of concern because it indicates that geo-satisfaction was achieved for many virtuals.

[+Happy Humphrey]

The thing with a virt is usually the surprise element when you get there

Why not add a category to WM.com along the lines of "Surprising Things" or some such? In fact, that would help weed out those that aren't a surprise at all and describe the item/place but help one to find it using a GPSr.

There's a similar one here (Oddities).

...have tried to squeeze virts and earth caches into the same site

Why not add a category to WM.com along the lines of "Earthcaches"? (in fact, there is one already;

Earthcaches)

Then if you like doing earthcaches, you just bookmark that category on your browser.

 

I still can't see why "what's the point?" is the response to a virtual cache on WM.com when it's fine on geocaching.com. I can understand that the web interface might not be to everyone's liking (including mine), but that can be changed. What I don't get, is why a virtual is no longer worthwhile at all when listed on the other site. Is it all just about geocaching stats?

 

Sorry if I'm being thick, but as an example, FoF's Scottish Parliament virtual (a very good one, I'm told) would surely be just as good if moved to WM.com wouldn't it?

 

The big advantage is that you can now submit all sorts of unusual locations, or create imaginative challenges for the GPSr-wielding adventurer, without needing to have geocaching.com reconstructed to cater for the thousands of new categories and entries.

 

Kewfriend:

Essentially Waymarking is a non-gps activity

...except that it essentially gives locations defined by Latitude and Longitude (waymarks) to which you can find your way - isn't a GPSr handy for that?

 

HH

[+Chris n Maria]

I still can't see why "what's the point?" is the response to a virtual cache on WM.com when it's fine on geocaching.com. I can understand that the web interface might not be to everyone's liking (including mine), but that can be changed. What I don't get, is why a virtual is no longer worthwhile at all when listed on the other site. Is it all just about geocaching stats?

 

Sorry if I'm being thick, but as an example, FoF's Scottish Parliament virtual (a very good one, I'm told) would surely be just as good if moved to WM.com wouldn't it?

"Whats the point" refers to Waymarking as an activity. There may be many worthwhile locations/"virtual experiences" but they seem to disappear in amongst the rest of the dross.

 

As Jeremy is at pains to point out its a different game - one that many here don't want to play. Waymarking is basically a replacement for locationless which was a game I was never interested in. Caches are a different idea that I am interested in.

Chris

[+Happy Humphrey]

Chris,

 

Waymarking is basically a replacement for locationless

...so why are there Earthcaches and Trigpoints in there (for instance), with their GPS locations? (link to Earthcaches in previous post).

 

What I'll do is add a few selected Waymarking sub-categories to browser "favorites" so that there's a few virtual caches to find when I feel like it. I hope some of the better virtuals in the UK will find their way across there eventually.

 

I'm not in the Jeremy Fan Club, by the way!

 

HH

[+The Southseakers]

Why not add a category to WM.com along the lines of "Earthcaches"? (in fact, there is one already;

Earthcaches)

Then if you like doing earthcaches, you just bookmark that category on your browser.

 

Infact, why not add a category to WM.com along the lines of "Physical Caches" .....

 

Then we wouldn't have to worry about there being two web sites or two sets of stats etc.

 

(Ducks and runs for cover)

 

PS: Joking apart, this is where I think things might really be heading......

 

[Edited for bad spelling]

Edited October 26, 2005 by The Southseakers

[+Firth of Forth]

Sorry if I'm being thick, but as an example, FoF's Scottish Parliament virtual (a very good one, I'm told) would surely be just as good if moved to WM.com wouldn't it?

 

The big advantage is that you can now submit all sorts of unusual locations, or create imaginative challenges for the GPSr-wielding adventurer, without needing to have geocaching.com reconstructed to cater for the thousands of new categories and entries.

HH

Thanks for that HH. To be honest, I just haven't bothered going to the other website and trying to figure it out. But, if I followed your suggestion, and moved the virtual cache there, would it then continue to appear under my g.com profile? If logged by anyone, would it be in their g.com logged finds?

 

G.com suits me fine. I'm not sure that I want to split my finds and owned caches across two different websites.

[+Chris n Maria]

...so why are there Earthcaches and Trigpoints in there (for instance), with their GPS locations? (link to Earthcaches in previous post).

Because TPTB have decided thats where they should live! but if you look at the way the site is constructed its all about a replacement for locatinless with the others tacked on as an after thought. Its realy all about appeasing a vocal group on the forums who recon "if it aint got a box it aint a cache".

 

I hope some of the better virtuals in the UK will find their way across there eventually.

Bet they don't

 

Waymarking just seems to have so much dross on it already that I can only see the standard going down and few people bothering to creat really interesting quality waymarks).

Edited October 26, 2005 by Chris n Maria

[nobby.nobbs]

i'll admit that the reason i'm not happy is that i'm lazy and i can't be bothered to wade through the dross to find those gems that appear at the moment as virtuals etc.

wm.com is just overwhelmed with tat. how are you meant to pick out the quality?

 

sledge hammer to crack a peanut.

 

virtuals should have stayed and just been stricter in the quality. likewise earthcaches

 

but this is a waste of time as it's not going to change how a certian person thinks. it's his toy and he makes the rules.......

[+Skippy and Pingu]

We're pretty much ignoring the fact that Waymarking.com exists, might be useful one day if we're stuck in the middle of nowhere with our PDA and need to know where the nearest McDonalds is.

 

Then again, if we're stuck in the middle of nowhere with a PDA I'm sure we could just use yell.com and do a search that way.............

 

I only used McDonalds as an example......we don't go there......I'm not advocating the consumption of junk food.....I hate McDonalds......Ok, sub McDonalds for PUB.....HAPPY NOW???!!!!

[+HazelS]

We joined GC.Com coz we like hunting for pointless boxes of tat in the countryside, not because we want to know where the nearest X or Y is...

 

I don't think virtuals should go over there - in fact some of the best virtuals have been in places where a cache just couldn't be... what a loss, all those very lovely sights we'll never get to see....

 

We're just ignoring Waymarking for now!

[+Pieman]

I looked at it and got very confused. It seemed to me to be a cross between the yellow pages and those websites where you can write reviews of restaurants and pubs. I tried to use the search facility and gave up as in didn't seem set up intuitively. I guess it will potter along for a while and then fold.