Wow Waymarkers Group

[+The Blue Quasar]

Almost hate to ask these questions:

 

How are you going to determine the "Wow Factor" of International locations? For the most part (and I'm reaching while saying this I know) locations in North America are going to be easier to judge than a location in the Third World. That was based solely on the current feel of this thread that the locations should be Unknown while Impressive.

 

The prospect of "armchair waymark viewing" doesn't detract from going to see them. If you see an image you like and it inspires you to visit then great. If you can't visit then at least you got to see it. "Wow" doesn't have to equal "Surprise"

 

If this was going to be a "Things to see before you die", or "Instant Travel Guide" kind of Category, then it would filled with KNOWN items that are Impressive.

 

How about "MUST-SEE MARVELS" or "MOST-MISSED MARVELS" or "OVERLOOKED LOCATIONS" ?

 

The Blue Quasar

Edited April 26, 2006 by The Blue Quasar

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

How are you going to determine the "Wow Factor" of International locations? For the most part (and I'm reaching while saying this I know) locations in North America are going to be easier to judge than a location in the Third World. That was based solely on the current feel of this thread that the locations should be Unknown while Impressive.

 

I think we can do this to some extent. I think the reed boats in the andes are wow. They are local, unique, cool to see. All those who have seen that virtual have agreed they were cool to see. I think the glass headstones at the cemetery in Italy is the same. I dont need to be in that country to appreciate its wow factor. It may be harder to appreciate, and there may be some bias that cant be eliminated...but if the person posting the waymark makes the effort, they should be able to demonstrate why this is wow.

 

There will be many waymarks in this category that will probably end up being denied. Or perhaps not. Virtual caches originally were just what people wanted as a virtual cache, then objected later on about the wow restriction. This will start with the bar set high. It will be a locationless cache to find a wow location to create a waymark. A different mindset might make it easier in the long run.

[Jeremy]

Virtual caches originally were just what people wanted as a virtual cache, then objected later on about the wow restriction.

 

You may think that, but the reality is that almost all of the original virtual caches were just viewing locations. The first virtual, Rift Valley (formerly Equitorial Divine), was a marking on a tree. Many of the other early virtuals were just viewpoints or caches placed on vacation that went missing and were converted to virtuals. The earliest one closest to wow was this location but was archived due to the sign being vandalized.

[+Razak]

Almost hate to ask these questions:

 

How are you going to determine the "Wow Factor" of International locations? For the most part (and I'm reaching while saying this I know) locations in North America are going to be easier to judge than a location in the Third World. That was based solely on the current feel of this thread that the locations should be Unknown while Impressive.

 

I think one thing that'd help would be one or two international officers to judge these better, but of course this would only happen if someone actually volunteered to do that...

 

But like Tsegi said, this is where the "prove it" would come into play... I would assume international markers know that the majority of Waymarking right now is American (both US and Canada), so they would need to make sure to go an extra mile that we KNOW why this location is special because we are ignorant about it maybe by looks....

 

4) Prove that it has WoW factor

 

Seems viable to me.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm a little disappointed if all we can come up with is "Prove this has Wow." First of all it doesn't say what wow is. At least the requirement for virtual caches tried to define wow as being "novel, of interest to other players, and have a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from everyday subjects". Second, it doesn't address what is that makes many people who liked virtual caches reject Waymarking as not being a satisfactory substitute.

 

I postulated that what many people liked about seeking virtual caches was discovering some place that they were unaware of (or only vaguely aware of). This is similar to the excitement some people have in finding urban micros - thousands of people pass everyday who don't know there is a cache in that lightpole but they do. Or like knowing how to run the Easter Eggs on a DVD or video game.

 

There are already many Waymarking categories (or proposed categories) that can claim some degree of Wow: funny mailboxes, simulacra, weird signs, out of place graves, Ripley's Believe or Not, and so on. But even after pointing these out to people who complain that they have no interest in visting McDonalds, I get remarks that these don't have the excitement of finding a virtual. I think that this is partly because the waymark doesn't increase their find count on geocaching.com. We probably will never statisfy some people.

 

Here's what I am proposing:

 

Best Kept Secrets

Do you know of some place in your town or neighborhood that is unknown to most of the locals that you would like to share? A place with a great view, an interesting artifact, or the location of some event that is of interest to the general public. If you discover an location like this on vacation we may require additional information to show that it is a well kept secret - we may allow locations known to locals that most visitors would never see.

 

The waymark should be a specific target that the visitor can find using their GPSr. It should not be something large like a park, a beach, or a mountain. For a view you want to have the visitor go to a very specific spot. For a large building you will want to take them to a particular entrance or other spot in or near the building. For locations inside of buildings, you should post coordinates for the entrance and provide letterbox-style hints to take the visitor to the location.

 

There should be one or more questions about an item at a location, something seen at that location, etc., that only the visitor to that physical location will be able to answer. The questions should be difficult enough that they cannot be answered through library or web research. In some instance, we may allow a photo of the visitor at the location to be used as verification.

 

Waymarks may be cross-listed in other categories, be an existing virtual cache, or have a physical cache, but they must meet the above requirements to be accepted in this category.

 

Visitors must answer the verification questions (or post a photo when that alternative is allowed). The answers should be emailed to the waymark owner for verification, not to the category officers. Answers should never be posted in the logs. Visitor are also asked to rank their experience for "Wow". We won't define wow for the visitors but expect it to be a combination of how much of a secret the location was to them and how interesting the location is.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

 

The waymark should be a specific target that the visitor can find using their GPSr. It should not be something large like a park, a beach, or a mountain. For a view you want to have the visitor go to a very specific spot. For a large building you will want to take them to a particular entrance or other spot in or near the building. For locations inside of buildings, you should post coordinates for the entrance and provide letterbox-style hints to take the visitor to the location.

 

I disagree with this part. For example, Rx:GPS prn is a 5 acre park that combines native plants, art, and storytelling. The entire park is the wow factor. One must experience the park as a whole to appreciate it. For that waymark, I was thinking of having the people go to the entrance and follow the trail through the story until its end. The qualification you posted would preclude this. Perhaps it should be stated that the coordinates lead to a specific location for the desired object or view. In this case, the entrance to the park and the path is the desired starting point. The answer would be at the end of the trail.

 

Also, if a waymark is cross listed, should they tell us where in the private message to approver part, so we can see how much is given away by the cache/ waymark/ other listing page?

 

The rest looks fine.

[+jon & miki]

I have to agree. Sometimes the "wow" factor is not a specific thing, but the entire body of work. For example, Living Art. There is no specific bush that's nearly as amazing as the entire couple of acres (though the harp-shaped tree comes close) and the years of work that went into it. Every single bush and tree is sculpted and standing in the middle of the garden and taking it in is truly a "wow" experience..

[+jon & miki]

I forgot to say that other than the one issue brought up by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking, the overall description is great. Well done!

[+Razak]

I think it's a fairly good description and you may very well have narrowed down what to look for more than we had before. This one is a lot more natural and I think has a higher chance of getting passed... The park issue I can see either way... maybe like you said you can get around the requirement by having the entry only the entry and then the final point be after the trail... (kinda like how the description would say for inside a building mark the entrance and have clues to get to destination...)

[Jeremy]

Great description - and name

 

You should consider some kind of naming convention for the waymarks in this category. Perhaps:

 

When you name your waymark do not use it to give the location away but you are welcome to use a pun or a clever turn of phrase that makes sense once you arrive at the location. An example would be [some example my puny brain can't think of at the moment].

[+Corp Of Discovery]

If the object of waymarks in this category are to be kept unknown until you find them, how is this for a name?: Mystery Marks.

 

I don't know that WOW could ever be quantified in a way that would satisfy most cachers. But in order to do so in this category instead of just having the members vote on whether a certain waymark was WOW enough, what if the finders themselves could be part of an ongoing system as to if it is worthy? A rating system basically. It could be done thru the software like categories themelves are done (but that would be a bit much to ask for 1 category only) or just make it part of the requirements for logging a waymark in this category.

 

Sorry if any of this has been brought up before, I'm still trying to get up to speed a bit on Waymarking.

[Jeremy]

Nice name. And yes, each waymark category has a checkbox to allow ratings on the waymarks. So the finders can rate how worthy the mystery waymark is.

[+Boatniks]

I too miss virtuals and will join the group. But I am still curious why Geocaching.com eliminated them in the first place.

[+tozainamboku]

 

The waymark should be a specific target that the visitor can find using their GPSr. It should not be something large like a park, a beach, or a mountain. For a view you want to have the visitor go to a very specific spot. For a large building you will want to take them to a particular entrance or other spot in or near the building. For locations inside of buildings, you should post coordinates for the entrance and provide letterbox-style hints to take the visitor to the location.

 

I disagree with this part. For example, Rx:GPS prn is a 5 acre park that combines native plants, art, and storytelling. The entire park is the wow factor. One must experience the park as a whole to appreciate it. For that waymark, I was thinking of having the people go to the entrance and follow the trail through the story until its end. The qualification you posted would preclude this. Perhaps it should be stated that the coordinates lead to a specific location for the desired object or view. In this case, the entrance to the park and the path is the desired starting point. The answer would be at the end of the trail.

 

I still think there should be a specific target for the waymark. Unlike some other Waymarking categories, I would like to make it so this one provides a way to incorporate using a GPSr in the visit. This was an important part of virtual caches. The Living Art example even demonstrates this. The coordinates are for a specific location where you need to find what is written on the ground. Visitors can use their GPSr to find this location. In doing so, they will undoubtly experience the rest of Mr. Fryar's garden, which is what the hiders wanted. I figure there are several ways to handle your desert garden. You could post the coordinates for the starting point and instructions to follow the path that begins here. Or we could allow a type of multi waymark where you post several coordinates that you want the visitor to go to. In either case, I would have a series of questions that have to be answered at different points along the path rather than just one at the end.

[+tozainamboku]

Also, if a waymark is cross listed, should they tell us where in the private message to approver part, so we can see how much is given away by the cache/ waymark/ other listing page?

 

You should consider some kind of naming convention for the waymarks in this category. Perhaps:

 

When you name your waymark do not use it to give the location away but you are welcome to use a pun or a clever turn of phrase that makes sense once you arrive at the location. An example would be [some example my puny brain can't think of at the moment].

 

If the object of waymarks in this category are to be kept unknown until you find them, how is this for a name?: Mystery Marks.

 

I don't know that WOW could ever be quantified in a way that would satisfy most cachers. But in order to do so in this category instead of just having the members vote on whether a certain waymark was WOW enough, what if the finders themselves could be part of an ongoing system as to if it is worthy? A rating system basically. It could be done thru the software like categories themelves are done (but that would be a bit much to ask for 1 category only) or just make it part of the requirements for logging a waymark in this category.

 

Sorry if any of this has been brought up before, I'm still trying to get up to speed a bit on Waymarking.

 

I don't know how this turned from Best Kept Secrets to the Suprise category. My feeling is that the waymark owner is free to "give away" as much of the waymark as he/she choose. The requirement is that this is a place the waymark owner feels is interesting enough to share that people wouldn't know about otherwise. I like the idea of encouraging waymark owners to be creative. Try to sell your waymark. Don't give too much away - but only to make the reader curious so they will want to visit your waymark.

 

The issue with cross listing is that we don't know how people will search for waymarks yet. It may be that someone will see there is a botanical garden or an historic marker nearby and check it out. So these don't really need to be in our category. But if there is something beyond the fact that its a botanical garden or this is more interesting that your run-of-the-mill historic marker then maybe it should be cross listed. My feeling now is that if the waymark is listed or could be listed in another category you would have to convince us that it is interesting to others beyond the people who are just interested in that category.

 

The description that I am working on for this category, does ask visitors to rank the "wow" appeal of the waymark. I'm not sure if we should give a definition of "wow" for the visitor use or leave it open-ended. I suspect that wow is partly how much of a secret was this site to you and how interesting did you find the site.

[+tozainamboku]

I too miss virtuals and will join the group. But I am still curious why Geocaching.com eliminated them in the first place.

 

Boatniks -

 

I'm not sure why Jeremy directed you here. We are discussing a new Waymarking category that will try to address some of the things that people who liked looking for virtuals say is missing from Waymarking. We are not going to replace virtuals. Many virtuals are better off (IMO) as waymarks in the existing Waymarking categories. We are trying to here to define a what it is that made virtuals so much fun and that can't be caught by other Waymarking categories.

 

First of all, remember that existing virtuals have been grandfathered on Geocaching.com. That means you can still visit the virtuals on the National Mall in DC or on the Strip in Las Vegas. If you have a place you want to share with others you can sumbit a waymark if there is a category for it or you can suggest a new category here if there isn't. If after looking at Waymarking for awhile, you still feel that it is missing something that virtuals gave you (aside from the smiley and the geocaching find count ), then let the Wow Waymarkers know.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

A portion of what made a virtual WOW for me was having no idea what I would find and then enjoying what I did end up finding. So I'd say being surprised is an integral part of what this category should be.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I recall seeing quite a few comments about how the categories took away the element of surprise in general, which took away some of the fun for people. In thinking how I enjoy some cache locations, I find the element of surprise helped. Not fully knowing what to expect, and finding something cool there, made a cache special. I mentioned this earlier in this thread. I believe the sense of finding the unexpected is important to the wow factor.

[Jeremy]

I too miss virtuals and will join the group. But I am still curious why Geocaching.com eliminated them in the first place.

 

Boatniks -

 

I'm not sure why Jeremy directed you here.

 

Boatnicks wanted to relive the wonder years of virtuals, so I directed him here to contribute to the new category's creation. Often people feel like they're not part of the planning process so it seemed fitting here.

 

It seemed obvious to me that the people complaining the most about virtuals being shut down would be the best contribitors for a new category on Waymarking.

[Jeremy]

A portion of what made a virtual WOW for me was having no idea what I would find and then enjoying what I did end up finding. So I'd say being surprised is an integral part of what this category should be.

 

It sounds to me like there may be more than one category that replaces virtuals then. The majority of virtuals I have seen on geocaching.com had no surprise at all - just a verification that could only be found at the location.

[+Razak]

 

It sounds to me like there may be more than one category that replaces virtuals then. The majority of virtuals I have seen on geocaching.com had no surprise at all - just a verification that could only be found at the location.

 

I think a lot of the virtuals out there now would fit into already existing categories... for instance in my town there is a virtual that points to a statute of Lincoln that is like the one in D.C.... think there are two or three categories this one could fit in. (might even fit in a WoW type one as well if we think it as something that not many people would know bout... I lived in this city almost all my life and never knew the statue was there and it was downtown and not too small either... it just so happens it is on the campus mall so you can only see it if you are walking campus (thus I'm sure most students know of it... but unless you walk campus you may not))

[+The Blue Quasar]

To me, the reason Virtuals failed on Geocaching is that they never could be defined.

 

Don't get me wrong, I liked some Virtuals. Jeremy can claim that he tried and failed all he likes, but to me the truth of it is that no one really could understand what a Virtual was. I can't blame Jeremy for that. That would be like trying to explain "LOVE"... good luck.

 

To try to apply that same approach with WOW, then try to rule out 'surprise' or 'little known' or 'amazing' is just not going to work.

 

Some great Virtuals were well known locations that couldn't support a cache.

Some great Virtuals were interesting historical 'I never knew that', or 'Is that where that is?'

 

Maybe being that narrow of a definition is what caused Virtuals to fail.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Boatniks]

I too miss virtuals and will join the group. But I am still curious why Geocaching.com eliminated them in the first place.

 

Boatniks -

 

I'm not sure why Jeremy directed you here. We are discussing a new Waymarking category that will try to address some of the things that people who liked looking for virtuals say is missing from Waymarking. We are not going to replace virtuals. Many virtuals are better off (IMO) as waymarks in the existing Waymarking categories. We are trying to here to define a what it is that made virtuals so much fun and that can't be caught by other Waymarking categories.

 

First of all, remember that existing virtuals have been grandfathered on Geocaching.com. That means you can still visit the virtuals on the National Mall in DC or on the Strip in Las Vegas. If you have a place you want to share with others you can sumbit a waymark if there is a category for it or you can suggest a new category here if there isn't. If after looking at Waymarking for awhile, you still feel that it is missing something that virtuals gave you (aside from the smiley and the geocaching find count ), then let the Wow Waymarkers know.

 

What I enjoyed about virtuals was some of the thought provoking questions asked in order to log the cache. Not knowing that virtuals had been eliminated from geocaching.com, I noticed there were no geocaches in Tibet and since I was travelling through Tibet I created two virtual caches; one each at the Dala Lamai's Summer and Winter Palaces. Both of these include coordinates and then ask the user to answer a couple of questions pertinent to that location. From what I have seen with Waymarking, there is currently no way to create this same type of experience. Or is there?

[+tozainamboku]

What I enjoyed about virtuals was some of the thought provoking questions asked in order to log the cache. Not knowing that virtuals had been eliminated from geocaching.com, I noticed there were no geocaches in Tibet and since I was travelling through Tibet I created two virtual caches; one each at the Dala Lamai's Summer and Winter Palaces. Both of these include coordinates and then ask the user to answer a couple of questions pertinent to that location. From what I have seen with Waymarking, there is currently no way to create this same type of experience. Or is there?

 

Thanks for your input. This is exactly the kind of input the Wow Waymakers group is looking for. You enjoyed having to discover the answer to "thought provoking questions". Our proposal will very likely require one or more verification questions (though we might allow photos in some instances).

 

You also liked the idea of having a virtual where you couldn't place a traditional cache. Because we are Waymarking, we may have a more relaxed attitude toward this than geocaching had. Your virtuals would not have been approved on Geocaching.com because they were vacation caches. Many people objected to the no vacation rule on virtuals - what is there to maintain? In your case - perhaps the signage you used to get the answers to the questions will change making it impossible to do the cache. Who will go to Tibet to check on this for you? Also, perhaps in the future some Tibetan will want to hide a physical cache near one of these sites. Is it fair to allow some tourist to block a physical cache with a virtual they placed on vacation?

 

I won't guarantee that we will have a category where your virtuals would be accepted as waymarks. The Dalai Lama's Summer and Winter Palaces are probably too well known to qualify as best kept secrets. If the coordinates and verification question did bring to someplace where you would find some suprising unknown facts about either the Palaces or the Dalai Lama, then it would qualify.

[+tozainamboku]

A portion of what made a virtual WOW for me was having no idea what I would find and then enjoying what I did end up finding. So I'd say being surprised is an integral part of what this category should be.

 

I recall seeing quite a few comments about how the categories took away the element of surprise in general, which took away some of the fun for people. In thinking how I enjoy some cache locations, I find the element of surprise helped. Not fully knowing what to expect, and finding something cool there, made a cache special. I mentioned this earlier in this thread. I believe the sense of finding the unexpected is important to the wow factor.

 

It sounds to me like there may be more than one category that replaces virtuals then. The majority of virtuals I have seen on geocaching.com had no surprise at all - just a verification that could only be found at the location.

 

My feeling was that the surprise was simply that the virtual took me someplace I didn't know about. Many virtuals gave you quite a bit of details about the location and the only suprise was that what you found at location in order to answer the question. The Living Art virtual mentioned above is an example of a virtual that pretty much tells what you are going to find. Still, the responses above made me go back and look at the virtuals I have found. There were some pretty lame ones that were cryptic about what you would find and a few good ones where the page gave it away. But it seems that, in general, the less the cache page gave away the more I enjoyed the virtual. I'm a bit wary about asking people to be cryptic in their title and description. Some people just don't have this skill. I would rather suggest that waymark owners try to sell their waymark by using an interesting title and description - something that will make visitors want to find out more. A cryptic title and description would be one way to improve your waymark.

 

I don't know how the community will accept a category requirement that your waymark page must be interesting. There is already a controversy over spelling and grammar - can we require creative writing skills?

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

But it seems that, in general, the less the cache page gave away the more I enjoyed the virtual. I'm a bit wary about asking people to be cryptic in their title and description. Some people just don't have this skill. I would rather suggest that waymark owners try to sell their waymark by using an interesting title and description - something that will make visitors want to find out more. A cryptic title and description would be one way to improve your waymark.

 

I don't know how the community will accept a category requirement that your waymark page must be interesting. There is already a controversy over spelling and grammar - can we require creative writing skills?

 

For any other category I would say no, we shouldnt require creative writing skills. But this is wow Waymarking. The intent is to have a waymark that fits that gold standard of the virtual cache that made us cry out WOW! It isnt a category for statues. It is a category for the ultimate virtual cache-like experience. I think for this category, as you said, you have to sell it. Convince us that your waymark belongs in this category. Consider it a challenge. For this category, how the waymark page presents itself, as well as the destination, will be important. Some wow destinations can be just as effective with an ordinary page. Some will be enhanced by creativity. Perhaps instead of a requirement, it should be encouraged in the creation of the waymark. And perhaps we should also be encouraged to go back and forth with some people/ some waymarks to optimize the wow factor.

 

I can see Jeremy and the approvers all snickering at us, knowing that this all boils down to subjectivity and possible hassles with rejected waymarks. I think part of why we can make this work is a difference in who is in control of the decisions about the waymarks. With virtuals, the people approving/ rejecting caches were the ones in charge of the site. With wow waymarks, the ones approving/ rejecting them are just category owners, people who can be ignored otherwise.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I can see Jeremy and the approvers all snickering at us, knowing that this all boils down to subjectivity and possible hassles with rejected waymarks. I think part of why we can make this work is a difference in who is in control of the decisions about the waymarks. With virtuals, the people approving/ rejecting caches were the ones in charge of the site. With wow waymarks, the ones approving/ rejecting them are just category owners, people who can be ignored otherwise.

 

The subjectivity is what was wrong with the WOW factor as far as virts were concerned. It was tacked on after they were pretty well established and changed the requirements too drastically all at once. This category is a bit different as it is starting out with the WOW factor being a prerequisite. It will be interesting to see how it goes.

 

When a waymark is submitted is it basically the same thing everyone will see when it's posted? If the object of a waymark does need to be kept hidden for this category, is there a process that needs to be followed/implemented so that only the group managers can see the full info on them? I also think that, unlike other categories, it wouldn't be good to have pictures on the waymark page.

[+The Leprechauns]

I can see Jeremy and the approvers all snickering at us, knowing that this all boils down to subjectivity and possible hassles with rejected waymarks. I think part of why we can make this work is a difference in who is in control of the decisions about the waymarks. With virtuals, the people approving/ rejecting caches were the ones in charge of the site. With wow waymarks, the ones approving/ rejecting them are just category owners, people who can be ignored otherwise.

"Wow." I didn't know I was one of the "ones in charge of the site." Think of my alter ego as part of a category management group for a category called "geocaches." I am just a volunteer. Groundspeak is "in charge of the site."

 

Yep, I have a long history with virtual cache submissions. I would say that the majority of them fit Jeremy's description from a few posts up. But the really good ones made my daughter say 'wow' when we visited them. And the wow test was born. Have fun figuring out what it means.

 

I do wish you good luck with your project. Too bad I can't play here.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

"Wow." I didn't know I was one of the "ones in charge of the site." Think of my alter ego as part of a category management group for a category called "geocaches." I am just a volunteer. Groundspeak is "in charge of the site."

 

Lol, please note what time I posted this. I was struggling with trying to figure out how to phrase it. I was also distracted by a real time situation elsewhere that needed my attention. However it is phrased, there is still a perception of "them versus us". That perception isnt there (I think) on Waymarking.

 

I do wish you good luck with your project. Too bad I can't play here.

 

I wish you would. I dont see any reason why you couldnt play here too.

[+tozainamboku]

I do wish you good luck with your project. Too bad I can't play here.

 

Good news, Lep. If you look at the original post in this thread inviting people to join the Wow Waymarkers group:

 

I invite anyone who feels that Waymarking is not giving them the experience of hiding or finding virtual caches to join the Wow Waymarkers group.

 

The "Wow Waymarkers" group will develop ideas for a Waymarking category to provide a Waymarking experience more like a virtual cache. We will look at ways to create waymarks that are challenging to find as well as having a "Wow" quality that makes them stand out from ordinary waymarks. If we come to some consensus, we will propose a new category for these "Wow" waymarks or whatever we decide to call them.

 

This is not a place to whine about not being able to create new virtuals on Geocaching.com. The idea is to find ways to get a similar experience in Waymarking. It is possible that the group will decide that we don't need a special category for virtuals on Waymarking.com. But if we decide that is the way to go it probably won't be the Wow Waymarks I proposed last August.

It now looks like the group will be proposing something different then my previous proposal and it won't have the restriction on Geocaching volunteer reviewers that I had proposed back then

Edited May 2, 2006 by tozainamboku

[+The Leprechauns]

Well if that is the case Mr. T, I am happy to bury the hatchet and forget the rhetoric from last August, because your thinking has developed considerably and in a positive direction.

 

I would likewise hope that it hasn't escaped notice that not all volunteer cache reviewers are opposed to the concept of going to a cool spot without the lure of a logbook to sign. I for one am very much enjoying my visits to waymarks without the distraction of finding the hide-a-key container and scribbling "Lep" on a waterlogged scroll of paper, and instead focusing on the interesting object or information that is available to see at those coordinates.

 

Some of them make me say "wow."

[+WalruZ]

I for one am very much enjoying my visits to waymarks without the distraction of finding the hide-a-key container and scribbling "Lep" on a waterlogged scroll of paper, and instead focusing on the interesting object or information that is available to see at those coordinates.

 

Me too. I have been trying to mix in some Waymarking with my geocaching and, stats aside, the Waymarking is more 'place oriented' rather than 'hide oriented', and for urban areas that's more appropriate and more interesting overall. The 'geocache' part of the outings pay off in stats still, but the 'waymark' part of the outings pay off in 'sense of place'.

 

I'm still not so sure that waymarks really work in large open-space preserves and such.

[+tozainamboku]

The Best Kept Secrets category is now available for peer review.