Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
LSUMonica

Standardization Of Logging Requirements

Recommended Posts

I know this is still in beta and there have been quite a number of new categories due to the transitioning from locationless geocaches but...

 

I would like to see some standardization in the waymark requirements or logging requirements format. Right now, some categories do not have anything listed within these sections of a category but include the requirements in the description. Other go on verbally to list a number of requirements sometimes obtusely.

 

I'd like to see that you have to put the waymark or logging requirements in a simple numerical format. Example:

 

1. Picture with GPSr

2. Name of soldier

3. Years of service (optional)

 

etc. Note: this was just a made up example.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry for the long response.

 

If I understand you correctly, you are advocating a standard way of presenting logging requirements when such logging requirements exist.

 

If so, I agree with you. I think logging requirements are something which will need to be fleshed out in much more detail as Waymarking moves forward.

 

I see two issues:

1) How the logging requirements will be represented on the waymark page and later in PQs (with respect to both the creation of waymarks and visits to the waymarks - two separate sets of requirements).

 

2) How the logging requirements will be enforced (again, with respect to both waymark creation and visits).

 

Since your post seems to highlight the first of these two issues, I'll talk about that one.

 

I see the potential for lots of frustration for people who are try to create or visit waymarks, only to realize later that they didn't take the right picture or collect the right information because the requirements for that particular waymark were too hard to figure out, or find on the waymark page, or remember at the waymark site. I think what will happen in these cases is that people will do one of the following:

 

a ) ignore the logging requirements and post what they've got while hoping for the best;

b ) come to the conclusion that this is all just a big bookkeepping effort, and not worth the trouble;

c ) decide to forever more skip over any waymarks with any logging requirements, or

d ) have already decided to settle on a generic set of logging requirements which they'll try to meet for every single waymark, regardless of what the actual logging requirements are.

 

The question is, what could be done to help standardize the presentation of logging requirements to help minimize the frustration?

 

One simple approach which wouldn't require lots of development effort would be to provide a standard description on the category creation form (which I've never seen, since I have never created a category) which suggest how logging requirement should be presented if the owner wishes to use them.

 

Without any type of guidance about how to present logging requirements, new category owners are left on their own to decide how this should be done, which leads to inconsistency.

Share this post


Link to post

Standardization can be achieved if TPTB would create templates for category owners to use. From the confusing logging instructions that I see on many category pages, there are many category owners that do not even understand the difference between logging the creation of a new waymark and the logging of a visit to an existing waymark.

 

A template for the creation of a new waymark could be as such:

1. Co-ordinates

2. Photo requirements, if any

3. Attributes, if any

 

A template for the visit to an existing waymark could be as such:

1. Date and time of visit

2. What you saw, or did, or bought there, etc. (as with Virtual Caches)

3. Photo requirements, if any

 

I am sure others can improve on these suggested templates.

Share this post


Link to post
If I understand you correctly, you are advocating a standard way of presenting logging requirements when such logging requirements exist.

 

Exactly.

 

I see the potential for lots of frustration for people who are try to create or visit waymarks, only to realize later that they didn't take the right picture or collect the right information because the requirements for that particular waymark were too hard to figure out, or find on the waymark page, or remember at the waymark site. I think what will happen in these cases is that people will do one of the following:

 

a ) ignore the logging requirements and post what they've got while hoping for the best;

b ) come to the conclusion that this is all just a big bookkeepping effort, and not worth the trouble;

c ) decide to forever more skip over any waymarks with any logging requirements, or

d ) have already decided to settle on a generic set of logging requirements which they'll try to meet for every single waymark, regardless of what the actual logging requirements are.

 

The question is, what could be done to help standardize the presentation of logging requirements to help minimize the frustration?

 

This is exactly what I am trying to highlight.

 

I travel a lot and always have my GPS and digital camera handy. I was able to copy and paste from the Waymark directory to make a quick "hit list" of current categories to carry with me. My frustration is that I have no idea what the requirements are unless I have the specific page. There are some REQUIRED variables when you input the waymark that are not LISTED under the REQUIREMENTS.

 

Honestly, I have about 20 waymarks in different categories that I found on recent trips to Dallas TX or Louisiana that I can't post because I don't have all of the variable information that is required.

 

I would like to look at the page and KNOW what I NEED in order to log it. Not have to wait to log it to find out if a variable is required or optional.

 

there are many category owners that do not even understand the difference between logging the creation of a new waymark and the logging of a visit to an existing waymark.

 

Exactly.

 

I know this is still a "new" game and I realize there are bumps along the way but I feel fortunate that I am able to offer my opinions and suggestions for the improvement of enjoyment of the game.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I have about 20 waymarks in different categories that I found on recent trips to Dallas TX or Louisiana that I can't post because I don't have all of the variable information that is required.

 

I would like to look at the page and KNOW what I NEED in order to log it. Not have to wait to log it to find out if a variable is required or optional.

I agree with you about this. That is why I offered my suggested templates so the category owners can put all the required logging information together in a simple format on the category pages.

Share this post


Link to post

As long winded as it gets (actually I have no idea at this point, just getting started)

 

There certainly seems to be valid concerns regarding how to Submit a new Waymark to a Catagory, and also regarding how to Visit an existing Waymark.

 

It is not very easy at all, in my opinion, since each one contains variable data or requirements.

 

Sounds like if you are really interested in the Catagory, then you know all these attributes related to the Catagory... for example... if you are into Waterfalls, you can identify each by type before you even started Waymarking.

 

To compound it, when you look at a nearby Waymark, it rarely lists the actual requirements to log a Visit... you have to look at the top level for the Catagory Owner's requirements, and then bear in mind that the individual Waymark Owner might have so too.

 

I have long felt that the GPS should not be a REQUIRED part of Waymarking. These were supposed to be the replacement for Virtuals... you should be able to find these with basic descriptions, maps and local knowledge....

 

Taking the "TIME CAPSULE" Waymark... if I owned one, I wouldn't care if the Visitor didn't submit a picture show his/her GPS... I'd rather see their Watch in the picture as proof of visiting... at least that is related to time. No one (well, most people) wouldn't take a picture of their watch infront of a Time Capsule, unless they were Waymarking.

 

I thought the idea of Waymarking was to take people to Points of Interest that met a certain criteria... why keep trying to revert it back to Geocaching???

 

But when it comes to the requirements to Own a Waymark, or Visit a Waymark... it certainly has to be more accessible than it is now... and if PQ's ever come along... those requirements have to be included.

 

<_< The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
I thought the idea of Waymarking was to take people to Points of Interest that met a certain criteria... why keep trying to revert it back to Geocaching???

 

But when it comes to the requirements to Own a Waymark, or Visit a Waymark... it certainly has to be more accessible than it is now... and if PQ's ever come along... those requirements have to be included.

My sentiments exactly! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...