Waymarking

[+davy boy]

Lets try a poll on here as to who has been on Waymarking and logged a few????

Come on all own up,have you logged a waymark?

Personally i have not even looked at the site and not interested at all!

[+Kitty Hawk]

Hmm, you did the right thing - I looked at the site before deciding it's not worth the bother!

[+Geo-Kate]

Lets try a poll on here as to who has been on Waymarking and logged a few????

Come on all own up,have you logged a waymark?

Personally i have not even looked at the site and not interested at all!

 

Some of it is quite interesting- the oddities and unusal things or places is quite good. I have logged one, a 4 3/4 mph speed limit. It's only round the corner from here and I saw it on there...

[+Hillhappy1]

Yep, I've logged a couple and have even got a couple, one in the Canaries.

I can't say they light my fire much and i only log 'em if there is little caching activity around.

My own have only been logged a couple of times so i don't think many others

are interested either.

[+Learned Gerbil]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Unusual speed limit - wasn't that a locationless once?

[+Geo-Kate]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Unusual speed limit - wasn't that a locationless once?

 

Possibly. The Waymarking website was designed to do away with locationless caches. I think.

 

Edited to correct typo

Edited March 18, 2006 by Geo-Kate

[+Cave Troll and Eeyore]

Waymarking? Never heard of it.

[+Moote]

Waymarking? Never heard of it.

Never heard of it! This is the future of caching, wake up and join the fun of finding a McD

 

NOT

[+Sensei TSKC]

No.

[+Bill D (wwh)]

I looked at it when it was first up and running, and found it of no interest whatsoever.

[+minstrelcat]

Nope I'm not interested - I don't even know what you need to do to log a waymark. But then, I never bothered with locationless caches either.

 

Lisa

[nobby.nobbs]

that would be another vote for why waste your time.?

[+Woodbury Walker]

I'm a cacher not a waymarker!!

[+macroderma]

Nope

 

What with caches and trig points I have plenty to occupy myself

[+Stuey]

I treat it as a completely separate hobby. I don't relate it to the old locationless caches because those were "one log per locationless" only. These ones it appears you can log as many of them as you want, even if someone else has "found" it already.

 

I also see that you don't need to prove you were there like you did with locationless caches where you needed to post a photo with your GPS in it.

 

It's a no from me too, but I'll keep an open mind on it for the future.

[+Learned Gerbil]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz! Unusual speed limit - wasn't that a locationless once?

 

Possibly. The Waymarking website was designed to do away with locationless caches. I think.

 

Edited to correct typo

 

My point exactly - done away with, and replaced with something lesser.

[+Nellies Knackers]

Waymarking...thats a button on the GPSr isn't it?

Is there another type then?

Looked once and won't bother again.

[+kbootb]

Looked at the site once, didn't get it, either emotionally or intellectually (didn't understand what I was meant to do). Never been back since.

[+Teasel]

I looked at it when it was first released, as I was a bit concerned about the possible impact of the "UK Trigpoints" category upon T:UK. Needless to say, my worries didn't last long!

[+M0GEJ]

No. I have looked at the website though- and decided I couldn't be bothered.

[+Geo-Kate]

I really am supprised at the negative reaction this has stirred up. It seems as though this is a sore point among some of you. I can't see why. I really must be in the minority to have logged a visit to a waymark Gosh, I feel like an outcast!

 

I would have thought it would have got more support from here, being a GPS based activity with (albeit rather loose) links to caching.

[+Kitty Hawk]

I really am supprised at the negative reaction this has stirred up. It seems as though this is a sore point among some of you. I can't see why. I really must be in the minority to have logged a visit to a waymark Gosh, I feel like an outcast!

 

I would have thought it would have got more support from here, being a GPS based activity with (albeit rather loose) links to caching.

 

Sore point? - I suppose it could be in a way as the advent of Waymarking signalled the demise of virtual & locationless caches (and Earthcaches). It was heralded as an inspired solution to the knotty problem of caches that didn't require signature logs with a long 'wait and see, you're going to love it' style lead up. Then the example that was thrown around was the prospect of logging every McDonalds as a waymark.

 

So a different presentation may have had a different result, but I think what you see here is a feeling of being underwhelmed.

[+Alibags]

Not to mention that fact that one category of 'caches that didn't require signature logs', USA benchmarks, was retained on geocaching, so some of us have been left a bit baffled by how any the decision to bin virtuals et al was arrived at.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I've logged a few - a much improved system from the old locationless, IMHO! But (almost) everyone hated locationless, and most despise virtuals, so I'm not surprised that most don't like waymarks. I'd do some more, but there's little interest on this side of the Atlantic as yet so it's not very rewarding.

 

HH

[+McDeHack]

I have not done any yet. But if it means that I can use my

GPS to get me to different places then I might try it some time.

 

As for virtuals, Some of the ones I have still going, it seems that the logs I get from most visitors

state that the locations are of interest, and they would not have known of their existance if I had not placed them.

[+wizard1974uk]

I may try this in future. Probably when I cannot get to a certain area to cache for a few weeks, but I won't be doing so on a regular basis.

[+Paul G0TLG]

I may do one day. I only started trigpointing when there were no caches within reach of an "evening-after-work" trip, so one day I might hunt round for an interesting waymark to do. But like others here, I've had a look, and there were at that time no Waymarks around here which were interesting enough to be worth making a trip to.

 

I suppose it's a bit chicken-and-egg: There are never going to be interesting waymarks until someone makes the effort to create some. If we (the UK caching community) really wanted Waymarking to work, we could make it happen by putting effort into making some interesting waymarks. But we're all having too much fun caching, and placing caches, to divert our attention.

 

I suspect the difference is that in the YooEssAy, there are enough people who care about numbers above all else to support a variation that generates big numbers at the expense of quality - look at the huge numbers of Walmart-parking-lot caches they have over there. The real shame is that TPTB felt we had to lose virtuals and earthcaches to kick-start the new game.

[+t.a.folk]

For me most of the attraction of doing the Locationless caches was the challenge of finding an example of the target that no-one else had logged .

 

Unless Iv.e understood it incorrectly there can be multi logs fo examples in Waymarking .

Not interested solely for that reason .

[Deego]

I created one to see how it worked (it’s still not been logged though ) Not sure if its up my street but I never say never.

 

With Trigpoints, caches and soon mountain and hill tops think I have enough to keep me going for the next few lifetimes

[+Happy Humphrey]

Unless Iv.e understood it incorrectly there can be multi logs fo examples in Waymarking

I think you have understood it incorrectly, and it appears that most people do, so you're in good company.

 

As a random example, the "Ghost Towns" category is the equivalent of a Locationless. I've "logged" this by adding the waymark "Bodie", and I could "log" it again by submitting another ghost town. I can't see how that's a problem.

 

Now people can log "Bodie", which is a waymark (same as a virtual cache) but will only log it once.

 

Hopefully, logs will perhaps start appearing once the snow clears!

 

HH

[+Moote]

But (almost) everyone hated locationless, and most despise virtuals

All the people I know and speak with on a regular basis either face to face or in the GoeChat room, actually like(d) the old style caches. In fact I only know of one cacher who actually likes the new system and appears to dislike the old one!

 

We rarely see people singing the praise or defending the new Waymarking site, but often see people questioning it's need.

[+Moote]

I created one to see how it worked (it’s still not been logged though )

That's because UK cachers rarely visit Waymarking.com

[Deego]

I created one to see how it worked (it’s still not been logged though )

That's because UK cachers rarely visit Waymarking.com

 

Fact

 

But I did not know this back in August when I created it

[+dino-irl]

With Trigpoints, caches and soon mountain and hill tops.....

Have you seen MountainViews.ie?

 

Sounds like what you're thinking about

[+maxkim]

We really enjoyed the locationless caches and gave us something to look for on long car trips. We don't like the dumbed down alternative at all and will continue to ignore them. If they do get rid of all verts and Earth caches it will be to the detriement of caching generally.

[+gazooks]

When it initially started I converted a few of my locationless cache finds into waymarks. To date I have had only one log and have no logged any myself.

 

Seems to be taking off in the US more than over here.

 

I agree that with caching and the occasional trip point there is enough to keep me busy - especially with the number of new caches appearing practically daily - soon be at 10,000 !!

 

happy caching

 

Gazooks

[+t.a.folk]

Unless Iv.e understood it incorrectly there can be multi logs fo examples in Waymarking

I think you have understood it incorrectly, and it appears that most people do, so you're in good company.

 

As a random example, the "Ghost Towns" category is the equivalent of a Locationless. I've "logged" this by adding the waymark "Bodie", and I could "log" it again by submitting another ghost town. I can't see how that's a problem.

 

Now people can log "Bodie", which is a waymark (same as a virtual cache) but will only log it once.

 

HH

 

Thanks for explaination .

Quite confused now .

 

I knew how to log locationless caches and what was required to claim a find ....but neither of us can understand how Waymarking works .

 

Like ....here with your examples ..

I don't understand the difference between "ghost towns "example being the equivalent of a locationless and "Bodie " being a waymark .

 

I think I don't know if I need to find and visit a ghost town that is not already listed ...or .visit a ghost town that is listed .

Edited March 20, 2006 by t.a.folk

[+davy boy]

Well that seems to have answered that question, us Brits are not at all interested in Waymarking and logging a mc donalds snack shack!! We can leave all that to those the other side of the Atlantic.........

Also i agree it would be a great shame if Earthcaches went the same way as there are some great locations out there and that goes for virts also...

We have got a great standard of caches in the uk and lets try keeping it that way.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I think I don't know if I need to find and visit a ghost town that is not already listed ...or .visit a ghost town that is listed .

You can do either (or both), just like in the old days. I can't see what's confusing about it!

 

Dead Poet's Society is another example: if you find a statue of a significant poet, you can add the waymark (as long as it hasn't already been added, obviously). Or you can do a search for local waymarks, and log one in the usual way.

 

It couldn't really be simpler!

 

HH

[The Royles]

I think that, for a lot of people it is about the numbers. Waymarks do not count as caches, so they are not interested. I own the waterfalls category, and it is no different to the old locationless category - but there is very little interest in the UK.

 

Maybe if the Waymarking stats start to appear on peoples caching profiles, people will view it differently.

[+Happy Humphrey]

You're probably right about the numbers - I sometimes find it hard to appreciate just how seriously people take that aspect of the game. I should have remembered all the forum wars about whether locationless caches should be included in peoples' numbers - I think the prevalent opinion was that you shouldn't include locationless logs because they're not really caches. Several people ended up deleting their locationless logs.

 

HH

 

By the way - I'm glad you mentioned the Waterfall category, there's a great one here which is superb in spring: I must get there and log it!

Edited March 21, 2006 by Happy Humphrey

[The Royles]

By the way - I'm glad you mentioned the Waterfall category, there's a great one here which is superb in spring: I must get there and log it!

That would be good

[Deego]

But what if there is no subcategory that fits the object , i.e sculptures has 2 subcategories (insects and sphinxes) the 35 ft sculpture I would add fits neither of theses and I cant see how you create one.

[+Happy Humphrey]

the 35 ft sculpture I would add fits neither of theses and I cant see how you create one.

You can create one: but this is getting too much into a topic that belongs in the

Waymarking forum. So I'd better not stay off-topic any more (sorry).

 

HH

Edited March 21, 2006 by Happy Humphrey

[Deego]

But there must be millions of waterfalls in the world. What makes it worth listing ?

 

One of my favourite waterfalls is neither big or impressive. So should I add that ?

 

 

Sorry if its off topic but it is waymark related

Edited March 21, 2006 by Deego

[+Happy Humphrey]

Why not waymark it, if you think it's a "hidden treasure" that other people would like to know about (see the category description). If it's really not up to scratch, then the category owner won't approve it (i.e. will "delete" your "log") - but that appears unlikely as the photo makes the waterfall look worth finding. Look through the other waterfalls submitted if you're not sure: there are 54 at the moment.

 

Still off-topic though: apologies to davy boy.

 

HH

[The Royles]

One of my favourite waterfalls is neither big or impressive. So should I add that ?

 

This would definitely be approved, looks like a lovely spot.

[+The Hancock Clan]

Who said Waymarking's boring!

Just got back from Florida where there were literally hundreds of McDonalds all within about 5 mile radius!

Unfortunately we were too busy and didn't find time to log any though

[+Learned Gerbil]

So, let's summarise what HH says - waymarks are like locationless, or they are not. You can look for boring stuff near you to look for, or you may not. You can add a new item to a category, or you may not. You can either create a new category, or you may not. You can either discuss Waymarking here, or you may not. I think one of the reasons why it has never grabbed me is that apparently Waymarking is either something or nothing. It has no real identity or purpose.

 

In comparison, Geocaching has always created new and interesting challenges. I do not choose those challeneges, they are set by others. I am constantly testing myself by what other have crated for me to find. I am constandly surprised and fascinated by the new experiences this brings.

 

The same is true whether the challenge is to find a new box, a new historical landmark, a new geological formation or find something that fits a locationless. I just don't see that with Waymarking.

 

I have just done a 10 mile search from my home coordinates - every single fountain, maze, clock and statue listed is one I am already aware of and know very well. Where is the wow factor and the interest there? The most unusual thing within 20 miles is a 4.75MPH speed limit , which was well covered by an old locationless proving that Waymarking adds nothing to Geocaching, it can only take away.

 

By comparison, I have spent a couple of hours in the last two days around Kings Cross and found four nearby interesting and unique locations through caching which I would never have visited otherwise.

[+Hampk]

It's not for me..

 

I had a look at the site in the very early days when the most popular category was "Sightings of Pikachu" - I kid you not..

 

I thought about creating a category for those 100-metre marker posts on the side of the motorway as I was shortly to drive the length of the M6 and the M5 both ways - which would have achieved several thousand logs in the space of a couple of days.

 

At this point I realised how utterly pointless the whole concept was going to be.

 

It could be a useful resource generally, I suppose - if you *really* wanted to know where your nearest Pennsylvania Historic Marker was..!!