What's Wrong With Waymarking?

[+Razak]

What a terrible world it would be if everything went to a vote and if people weren't interested in it then it would be banished away.

 

So apparantly you would fully support tyrannical United States=P I personally think that people are generally able to know what they are interested in and that if McDonald's was worth having by enough people then it would remain and you wouldn't have to worry your little self.

 

You seem oddly fixed on the though that if those 60-70% that aren't interested in a category that the category would get "banished" just because people aren't interested which just isn't the case. The ones no one is interested in would likely have the greatest chance at surviving just because of that fact. I do honestly think that 95% of the Waymarking community DON'T vote on the categories that they have no interest in... up or down... they only vote on the ones they like and the ones they really really hate (and sometimes only the ones they like). Thusly, only the categories in which a lot of people really hated would recieve the axe, and seriously if you are one of 3 or 4 people out of thousands who actually LIKES the category, then it should rightly be axed... regardless of if you like it. Just like if the majority of people like it, it should stay regardless of if I HATE it. That is it, no more to it.

 

An oddity I think is that you actually used to be able to go and look at least liked categories... something that has strangely been taken off the site as far as I can tell... wonder if it has to do with the fact that McDonald's was always the least liked category....

 

Which brings me to Jeremy.... since Wal-Mart and McDonald's never went through peer review, and since both categories were started and run by Groundspeak the new question now crosses my mind.... Are they paying for their categories? Are they essentially getting a free pass because they are greasing the monkey pockets at Groundspeak? And is this why the categories seem so dang important to Groundspeak and why they want everyone to just stop talkin about it. Because apparantly hatin these two categories is hating the whole site, so the whole site must be only to support these two categories and makes these two categories pretty dang important for some reason....

Edited April 17, 2006 by Razak

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

So apparantly you would fully support Bush's plan for a tyrannical United States=P ..............................Otherwise, I mean seriously... just because the majority of American voters voted against Bush under your theory he should be president... just cause some idiot rigging the votes liked him... oh wait bad example.

 

Why did politics enter into this discussion? Really this has no application to Waymarking.

 

Thusly, only the categories in which a lot of people really hated would recieve the axe, and seriously if you are one of 3 or 4 people out of thousands who actually LIKES the category, then it should rightly be axed... regardless of if you like it. Just like if the majority of people like it, it should stay regardless of if I HATE it.

 

I dislike McDonalds and Walmart categories very much. Walmart especially, for a personal reason. Yet I do not think it is fair at all for me to demand these categories disappear. Im content to be able to ignore them. Why cant you? Why should a category disappear for the few who are interested in it, just because the majority isnt? Worse, why should it disappear just because a very few of that majority who hate a category are so meanspirited that they cant conceive of letting the few who like it have their own fun?

 

Im curious, how many waymarks have you found? I am curious how much you have participated.

[+Razak]

 

Why did politics enter into this discussion? Really this has no application to Waymarking.

 

Took it out, you were correct, I'd take the quote out in yours but can't. (less it does it by itself)

 

 

I dislike McDonalds and Walmart categories very much. Walmart especially, for a personal reason. Yet I do not think it is fair at all for me to demand these categories disappear. Im content to be able to ignore them. Why cant you? Why should a category disappear for the few who are interested in it, just because the majority isnt? Worse, why should it disappear just because a very few of that majority who hate a category are so meanspirited that they cant conceive of letting the few who like it have their own fun?

 

Again I will say that I'm not advocating that they remove it for my sake just because I don't like it... would never. Just like I wouldn't say keep a category just because I am the one who likes it... but I do think that finding a way to get rid of truly bad categories that the majority of people agree are truly bad out may be a good idea. Personally the reason these bother me so much is the corporate advertising that it essentially is that is opposite view of the geocaching view. Geocaching is so grass routes, there is almost no advertising in it. sure they had the jeep bugs but this was minor and wasn't that intrusive at all, you did get a special icon but that's not a huge deal... hear it is more intrusive... it is complete sponsorship and in an obtrusive fashion... I deem it not unlike spam, you may not that is your issue, I'm sick of advertising every where I go is fricking advertising and geocaching was one thing I could do where it just wasn't there as much. And I guess I wish that Waymarking was the same. But apparantly everyone else is liking the additional advertising in yet another place in their lives. These two categories weren't even sponsored or approved by the community like many of the other categories are.

 

Im curious, how many waymarks have you found? I am curious how much you have participated.

 

This is a red herring. It bears as much on this conversation as my Bush comments and you know it. I can tell you that I have 0 waymark visits and 1 waymark created, 1 category owned, and 1 going through peer right now. And now I can give you 4 reasons why I haven't participated. 1) we are just leaving winter and I haven't done anything most of the winter outdoors, geocaching and Waymarking included (though Waymarking is much more winter friendly). 2) I don't have time due to overload in school. 3) There are a total of 2 (oh wait I just made the third)... 3 waymarks in my general area... which brings me to 4) I don't have a digital camera like you rich boys seem to so even if there were more waymarks to visit, many log requirements wouldn't allow me to visit them, and because most categories require a picture to place a waymark, there won't be that many waymarks created by me until you rich boys give me your money.

 

But you know what? That is a seperate discussion. And if you wanna get into the issues currently involved in why someone can or cannot make a waymark or log one, I've made a post on such a thread in the past and already made my peace. The community seems to be dead set on making it a requirement, so guess what, what the majority says I will have to live with because a bunch of "mean-spirited" people are forcing me not to participate. Ironically, Blue Quasar is all for keeping photos as a requirement and keeping the minority out there... and I am all for getting rid of unliked categories, but am all for getting rid of the photo requirement... funny irony no? All the same, my experience shouldn't matter... issues with the site should...especially if they are preventing people from getting said experience that apparantly we now need in order to particpate in a discussion about these things... and for the initial poster the McDonald's category turned him off to the point that he didn't really even wanna try Waymarking that much even though he seems to want to like the idea (otherwise why would he take his time to post? especially considering he seemed to wait until Jeremy wasn't swamped, if he was just flaming he woulda done it when jeremy was swamped.)

 

I for the record do like Waymarking, in fact in some ways I like it more than geocaching, in some ways i like it less than geocaching (this topic aside). But I do like it. And actually I like Jeremy better than almost any corp, admin, or developer I have ever met or seen on-line, he seems cool. And I doubt he takes anything said too personally otherwise he wouldn't continue to stick his arse in the fire like he seems to enjoy doing given his degrading comments to various customers=P (which I find funny btw)

[+The Blue Quasar]

WOW... A Wal-Mart Category!

 

Now I can double up on Waymarks, since most Wal-Mart's have a McDonald's built right in!

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Razak]

WOW... A Wal-Mart Category!

 

Now I can double up on Waymarks, since most Wal-Mart's have a McDonald's built right in!

 

The Blue Quasar

 

LoL My local Target has a Taco Bell in it... there are two categories for ya too=P Maybe they will pay for their placement as well=P

[Jeremy]

WOW... A Wal-Mart Category!

 

Now I can double up on Waymarks, since most Wal-Mart's have a McDonald's built right in!

 

The Blue Quasar

 

That was a test category used for group testing and should have been removed afterwards. All new categories from now on will go through a peer review first.

[Jeremy]

If you're going to hate on Waymarking the laziest thing to do is to marginalize the activity because of one category. It's just a lazy argument for a hater.

Translation: Customer feedback about what they really think is "hate."

 

Good luck with that.

 

You missed the "Shut up about McDonalds already" part. It was part of the context.

[Jeremy]

And actually I like Jeremy better than almost any corp, admin, or developer I have ever met or seen on-line, he seems cool. And I doubt he takes anything said too personally otherwise he wouldn't continue to stick his arse in the fire like he seems to enjoy doing given his degrading comments to various customers=P (which I find funny btw)

 

I just dish it based on how it is being dished to me. I'm glad you can see that

 

My ultimate pet peeve? Someone who blasts the site and when I blast back they say "ooh. Look how bad your customer service is." How lame.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Jeremy

[+Razak]

 

I just dish it based on how it is being dished to me. I'm glad you can see that

 

My ultimate pet peeve? Someone who blasts the site and when I blast back they say "ooh. Look how bad your customer service is." How lame.

 

Well I realize you are no PR person... you are just one of the people who created/create the site. As a gamer one of the things I miss most about games of the 90s was that the developers actually visited forums and interacted with people to get ideas on how to make the games better... this practice died because too many developers would either say something back or say something like "that would be a cool idea" or "we are trying to add this" and it never got put in. Now devs are too scared to talk on forums because of the crap they are likely to take... I may blast some of the things you guys do, but I respect that you actually come out and talk about it in person...

[Jeremy]

 

I just dish it based on how it is being dished to me. I'm glad you can see that

 

My ultimate pet peeve? Someone who blasts the site and when I blast back they say "ooh. Look how bad your customer service is." How lame.

 

Well I realize you are no PR person...

 

Actually I have a marketing degree and my technology background comes second (and some people would say it is a poor second ). My philosophy is that people would rather experience honesty over customer grovelling. Since you appreciate that developers do pop in and respond to questions I would say that it's pretty effective.

 

To bring this back on track I would say that there will be detractors regarding Waymarking but this is certainly a learning process for all of us. It will be interesting, now that peer review is in place, that categories will get more scrutiny and that you, the customer, will have a better opportunity to vett out these new categories and make it what you want it to be. Perhaps we should run some of the original waymarks through this process to see if they are veto'd out of the system.

Edited April 17, 2006 by Jeremy

[+wilsonjw]

Perhaps we should run some of the original waymarks through this process to see if they are veto'd out of the system.

 

Running the original categories through the entire process would have several useful outcomes. First, it would provide an opportunity to bring all the categories up to a consistent level of quality -- there's quite a range in the system today. Second, it would provide an opportunity, as you mention, of weeding out some of the less popular / more contentious categories. If these lightning rod categories survive the peer review process, then the debate can shift from crummy categories to crummy peers.

[+The Blue Quasar]

For the record Jeremy... I don't have any issue with either the McDonald's Category or the Wal-Mart Category.

 

I was simply saying that with the addition of the Wal-Mart Category, that around here that's a "Two-For". Every Wal-Mart I've ever seen has a McDonald's in it.

 

So, basically if I was so inclined, I could Waymark both. I've posted far too many time defending the McD's category to be opposed to it suddenly.

 

Waymark the world!

 

If I was going to be honest... I see far more use in the 10% crowd of Categories that people keep harping on about than I do in some of the old Locationless that just don't translate well to Waymarking.

 

For example... "What's in a name?"... now that to me is "Lamarking"... it was a good idea for cooperative efforts in a Locationless Cache... but that's where it ends.

 

That would be like someone trying to ressurect the retched "Yellow Jeep" as a Category... the obvious problem is that the locations are not static (Yes Virginia.... jeeps really move!)

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Razak]

Actually I have a marketing degree and my technology background comes second (and some people would say it is a poor second ). My philosophy is that people would rather experience honesty over customer grovelling. Since you appreciate that developers do pop in and respond to questions I would say that it's pretty effective.

 

To bring this back on track I would say that there will be detractors regarding Waymarking but this is certainly a learning process for all of us. It will be interesting, now that peer review is in place, that categories will get more scrutiny and that you, the customer, will have a better opportunity to vett out these new categories and make it what you want it to be. Perhaps we should run some of the original waymarks through this process to see if they are veto'd out of the system.

 

Marketing is different than PR though no? (At least Game Developer Magazine had an article talking about the differences between the two).

 

I think honestly that putting old categories through peer review would be a good idea to give the old ones that filter that everything now has to go through. I probably wouldn't harp on McDonald's as much if it made it through (though I would still make jabs...) After all, these categories that tend to produce the mire were not added AFTER the peer review/3 officer thing went into place. Although I still do think there is some value in allowing a future Waymarking community to have some ability to get review categories somehow (my way likely isn't the best way, it was just A possible way). Waymarking won't be in the same place in 10 years as it is now, and I don't know if the players at that point will like to have certain categories that are being created now associated with it. (And we won't have any idea what these categories will be, it could be anything... 10 years from now this site may be nothing but chain businesses.) Although I do realize you guys may agree here but think you got bigger fish to fry (I wouldn't disagree here), I wouldn't even mind if something went up for review 1 time a year so the category owners wouldn't have to constantly worry about it... I just think there needs to be some way to weed out what we as a community may grow out of... there is already too much grass in the field (I have considered a blade of grass waymark at times lol).

[Jeremy]

So why didn't puzzles move with the other near-beers of caching?

So you propose we ruin more kinds of caches by moving them to Lamemarking?

 

No, thanks.

 

Nice way to keep an open mind, fizzymagic.

[+Razak]

So why didn't puzzles move with the other near-beers of caching?

So you propose we ruin more kinds of caches by moving them to Lamemarking?

 

No, thanks.

 

Nice way to keep an open mind, fizzymagic.

 

Did I totally miss a post?

[+cache_test_dummies]

So why didn't puzzles move with the other near-beers of caching?

So you propose we ruin more kinds of caches by moving them to Lamemarking?

 

No, thanks.

 

Nice way to keep an open mind, fizzymagic.

 

Did I totally miss a post?

The post was from a different topic.

[Jeremy]

Forum tip. These little icons take you back to the original quote.

[+Dew Crew]

Forum tip. These little icons take you back to the original quote.

 

I never new that! Thanks...

[+Razak]

Forum tip. These little icons take you back to the original quote.

 

I never new that! Thanks...

 

Obviously neither did I, would be cool to have a thread/FAQ with such features shared, not that I'd probably read it (and heck it's probably there lol)

[+fizzymagic]

Nice way to keep an open mind, fizzymagic.

Hey, I was just trying to live up to being a "hater."

[+Zilvervloot]

Let’s introduce myself, I’m an ordinary, relative new, Dutch geocacher and, in the way it is now set up, I will never be interested in the whole Waymarking thing.

 

First of all, there are too many uninteresting categories that I do not even bother to look further. It’s not exciting to look at an other bridge, an other street corner or a henhouse. Possibly heaven on earth to an enthusiast, but to me, it is not interesting. It might be; I can not see trough all the rubbish to find the supposed gems.

 

But, what’s really wrong with Waymarking?

 

It has nothing to do with geocaching. And that is what is binding us here in this forum. Geocaching means physically going to a location and be surprised. It can be by finding the cache; it can also be that you visit an extraordinary place. You go to a place where you would never have gone if you did not have a GPSr.

Waymarking can be done from your desk, you just Google a picture, put it on the site and that's it.

 

Zilvervloot.

 

Sorry for any errors in my grammar/spelling, English is not my native language.

[+cache_test_dummies]

First of all, there are too many uninteresting categories that I do not even bother to look further. It’s not exciting to look at an other bridge, an other street corner or a henhouse. Possibly heaven on earth to an enthusiast, but to me, it is not interesting.

Fair enough. But if none of the current categories interest you, perhaps you could propose some ideas for categories which you do consider interesting. If there are others who share your interest, you should be able to get a new category created. Maybe you'll be able to introduce others to something previously unknown.

 

That's the way it's supposed to work. Waymarking is still very new, so there is plenty of room for new ideas.

 

But, what’s really wrong with Waymarking?

 

It has nothing to do with geocaching. And that is what is binding us here in this forum.

Actually, these forums are the Groundspeak Forums, not the Geocaching Forums. There are many active discussions which don't necessarily relate to geocaching at all.

 

Waymarking can be done from your desk, you just Google a picture, put it on the site and that's it.

Not if you are doing it correctly. While it is possible to create new waymarks without actually going to the site, most people aren't doing it that way. There is an emphasis on obtaining accurate coordinates, and the best way to do so is to stand on the spot with a GPSr in your hand.

 

People could geocache without leaving their desks, but I don't think many people do.

 

Sorry for any errors in my grammar/spelling, English is not my native language.

No need to apologize - your English is actually quite good.

[+Razak]

First of all, there are too many uninteresting categories that I do not even bother to look further. It’s not exciting to look at an other bridge, an other street corner or a henhouse. Possibly heaven on earth to an enthusiast, but to me, it is not interesting. It might be; I can not see trough all the rubbish to find the supposed gems.

 

To the bridge categories credit, there are many interesting bridges out in the world. The problem is there are many times that number of interesting bridges in uninteresting bridges that aren't worth the time. It is hard to sort out the difference, and I doubt many want to put in that kind of work into the site. Waymarkers are mostly interested in upping their number so they will mark everything in site, whereas visitors just want to see the interesting ones. Sadly this site relies on the waymarkers to find the interesting and only the interesting...

 

on a side note... is there really a henhouse category?

 

But, what’s really wrong with Waymarking?

 

It has nothing to do with geocaching. And that is what is binding us here in this forum. Geocaching means physically going to a location and be surprised. It can be by finding the cache; it can also be that you visit an extraordinary place. You go to a place where you would never have gone if you did not have a GPSr.

Waymarking can be done from your desk, you just Google a picture, put it on the site and that's it.

 

I agree. This site is designed for creating waymarks not for visiting them. This is a problem that i don't think many recognize. I personally am trying to figure out categories worth visiting right now more than categories worth Waymarking. I just got Building Buildings through which I think creates a visiting situation (to update pictures on a building under construction), but once the building is complete, reason to visit drops drammatically. I also have put up suggestions for a movable waymark and tracking railroad cards as they travel the country but both of these are basically on hiatus until they get the tech in for this type of category (as per Jeremy's request).

 

Perhaps though this is right now the issue that needs to be rectified by those creating categories. Perhaps we need more markers who notice the problem and are creative enough to think up categories that help solve it. There are some categories worth visiting already, just not many=/ (Berry Picking I think will be a great category when it gets in season). One problem in this area is the current limitation of 5 groups and 5 categories per person... I got 5 groups and only 2 categories and can't create any more because of the group issue. But even if you didn't screw up your groups because you unkowingly created some for ideas you hadn't completed yet or accidently, 5 categories isn't alot. Hopefully this gets changed in the future.

[+cache_test_dummies]

<snip> Waymarkers are mostly interested in upping their number so they will mark everything in site, whereas visitors just want to see the interesting ones.

With all due respect, I don't think you are in an appropriate position to speak about what other people are "mostly interested in". Characterizing other people in such a light is unfair and frankly, I find such a statement to be pretty offensive.

[+Razak]

With all due respect, I don't think you are in an appropriate position to speak about what other people are "mostly interested in". Characterizing other people in such a light is unfair and frankly, I find such a statement to be pretty offensive.

 

Generalizations are just that, there are always exceptions to the rule, I know more than a couple from here on the forums, but then I could go to the McDonald's category and find more people than even post here on a regular basis.

 

Silverquill (yes I like him)

Chapterhouse

Fishpole

Wilke-maus (maybe misplet)

Pioneer'n'tiff

Geogordie

Les Predateurs

Stone Posse

Team Taskmaster

Jay Walking

Jeremy (hahaha just kidding, actually given the location, this one isn't bad and is his only in first 5 pages)

Ziggy Crew

Clevortrevor

 

Now this list consists of just 5 pages... considering the rather small community that comes to the forums probably about the same #, only 2 are very big contributors over here (Silver & Chapter) the rest don't post enough to make me remember their names. What the list consists of are those who consecutively post 3 or more with little or no information on the Mcdonalds or 6 or more with a short paragraph. This means the person was likely hunting for McDonald's, and why would someone hunt McDonald's? To buff numbers. This wouldn't be surprising for Chapter, think he is #1 or 2 on waymarks listed. Oh and the McDonald's listed have to be generic...

 

now this does exclude a couple other numbers whores... Chstrss for example is a Self admitted Numbers Ho whom only had 1 on the first 5, and (I wanna say) she has also stated that she tends to only look for extraordinary McDonald's to post and won't post the generic ones. So a numbers whore with a sense of quality, who woulda guessed! (= Usually they don't care bout the quality.

 

Not sure if that puts your mind at ease CTD but there it is. Your name wasn't on the list, and to be honest I'm not sure if I would even equate you to being on that list. Even if you were, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with being a numbers whore... each has their own game... my point was that given the propensity (happens in geocaching too, just look at lamppost caches) the quality of the average waymark is extremely low and this is a problem if you only want to visit. (unless you are a numbers whore in which you likely won't care). Essentially I'd say that it is up to the category owners to police whether a site is waymark worthy, unfortunately too many seem more interested in commas and whether a photo is included than whether it is an actual quality site.

 

Edit - On a side note, after looking through the McDonald's Category I did realize that this category is fairly unused outside of Silver and clevortrevor in the past two months. Considering how easily the category could be abused, it's not too bad yet

Edited April 19, 2006 by Razak

[+tozainamboku]

Waymarking is an entirely different activity than geocaching. In geocaching you put the coordinates into your GPS, you go to a location (which may or may not be interesting), you find a container, you sign the log, and you may trade items. Waymarking has two components. You find an example of something that fits into a category (which may or may not be interesting), ideally you go to the location with your GPSr and get the coordinates (some categories have relaxed this requirement in order to get more waymarks listed), and you create a waymark for the location. This corresponds to the old activity of locationless caching. Once the waymark has been created, a person can enter the coordinates into their GPSr and visit the waymark. If the location is interesting to the visitor, he or she will think its a worthwhile activity. This is very similar to to the activity of finding a virtual cache. (I found many virtual caches to be lame and uninteresting - I still logged them cause they counted as a find )

 

You first need to accept Waymarking as a separate activity and decide what you want to get out of it. If you approach it from a geocaching perspective you need to remember that not all locationless caches were interesting and many virtuals were pretty lame as well. Waymarking is a work in progress. It needs ways to find "interesting" categories and waymarks among all the mundane ones. Remember that "interesting" to you may be different than "interesting" to me. Still, the number of people who say that they enjoyed virtual caches has inspired the creation of the Wow Waymarking group. If you have ideas about what made a good virtual, I invite you to join our group and share your ideas. Perhaps we will come up with a category for waymarks that can be found in lieu of virtual caches, or at least provide suggestions on ways to find those interesting waymarks.

[+Razak]

Waymarking is an entirely different activity than geocaching. In geocaching you put the coordinates into your GPS, you go to a location (which may or may not be interesting), you find a container, you sign the log, and you may trade items. Waymarking has two components. You find an example of something that fits into a category (which may or may not be interesting), ideally you go to the location with your GPSr and get the coordinates (some categories have relaxed this requirement in order to get more waymarks listed), and you create a waymark for the location. This corresponds to the old activity of locationless caching. Once the waymark has been created, a person can enter the coordinates into their GPSr and visit the waymark. If the location is interesting to the visitor, he or she will think its a worthwhile activity. This is very similar to to the activity of finding a virtual cache. (I found many virtual caches to be lame and uninteresting - I still logged them cause they counted as a find )

 

I'm not sure if this is an accurate portrayal of how they are different... I agree they are different, though I'm tired of this argument because it is just non-sensical... yes they are different, but they both have many similarities, Waymarking is here because of geocaching, and are very tied to each other in many ways. They aren't entirely different, but yet they are. The argument seems to be like "You can't compare SUVs to Trucks, because SUVs have room for a whole family where a truck doesn't!" Even though they are both automobiles, and actually fairly closely related in the automobile family...

 

But on to your description... Waymarking consists of two components... so does geocaching... actually Waymarking consists of three components....Comparing the two Creating a Waymark is not unlike creating a cache... you need to find an interesting spot and log it... there is more to it here because we all like to take the picture out, say exactly what it is you are looking for, etc... essentially it is virtual caches without the hunt. Second component... visiting = logging nothing different in concept... logging in geocaching is way better than visiting in Waymarking... there is a hunt, there are treasures (though most don't even do this), there are physical logs, etc... The missing component that geocaching really doesn't have is categories... that is the creation of similar waypoints into (hopefully) interesting groups.

 

If you were to ask me what the real difference between Geocaching and Waymarking it is that Geocaching is a hunt or a game... Waymarking is a collection of interesting locations that really need no visiting to enjoy. You can easily surf through a theme you like and enjoy the pictures and read its history without ever actually setting foot on the spot. (this isn't always the case since everyone jumps on any little thing... but it seems to be the case given the grand majority of pictures involved and detailed descriptions... and lack of any info at the location that isn't given to you on Waymarking.com... heck often you get more info here than you would if you actually went to the place).

 

Each has its benefit, I think the benefit of Waymarking is that if you aren't into creating waymarks, you get a lot out of it without investing much time into needing to physically go to the places that are interesting.

[+tozainamboku]

.

 

I'm not sure if this is an accurate portrayal of how they are different... I agree they are different, though I'm tired of this argument because it is just non-sensical... yes they are different, but they both have many similarities, Waymarking is here because of geocaching, and are very tied to each other in many ways. They aren't entirely different, but yet they are. The argument seems to be like "You can't compare SUVs to Trucks, because SUVs have room for a whole family where a truck doesn't!" Even though they are both automobiles, and actually fairly closely related in the automobile family...

 

I wasn't addressing you or anyone else that accepts Waymarking for what it is. The argument that it is different than geocaching is meant more for the people who don't like Waymarking because they don't think Waymarking is a satisfactory substitute for either locationless caches or virtuals. Certainly there are similarities, the argument that they are different however is entirely sensical. If you take away my SUV and give me a truck, I don't care that they are both vehicles that can take me to a particular place. I care that there isn't room for my family anymore.

 

But on to your description... Waymarking consists of two components... so does geocaching... actually Waymarking consists of three components....Comparing the two Creating a Waymark is not unlike creating a cache... you need to find an interesting spot and log it... there is more to it here because we all like to take the picture out, say exactly what it is you are looking for, etc... essentially it is virtual caches without the hunt. Second component... visiting = logging nothing different in concept... logging in geocaching is way better than visiting in Waymarking... there is a hunt, there are treasures (though most don't even do this), there are physical logs, etc...

 

Correct that geocaching can also include hiding a cache. This would correspond in a way to creating a waymark. However, to create a waymark you must first have a category for it. A geocache just needs to meet the guidelines for geocaches. So there is a big DIFFFERENCE. Especially for virtual caches - in geocaching you had to meet the "wow" guideline. In Waymarking, I see a lot of people complain that there isn't a category for something they want to waymark. Not a problem when you accept that creating a waymark is DIFFERENT than creating a virtual cache. Creating a category is roughly like creating a locationless cache. Since there was a moratorium on creating locationless caches from roughly the time I started geocaching, while category and group creation seem to be quite healthy on Waymarking - I would have to say there is a DIFFERENCE here as well.

 

The missing component that geocaching really doesn't have is categories... that is the creation of similar waypoints into (hopefully) interesting groups.

I supposed you could say that geocaches are divided into categories by cache type, container size, and d/t.

 

If you were to ask me what the real difference between Geocaching and Waymarking it is that Geocaching is a hunt or a game... Waymarking is a collection of interesting locations that really need no visiting to enjoy. You can easily surf through a theme you like and enjoy the pictures and read its history without ever actually setting foot on the spot. (this isn't always the case since everyone jumps on any little thing... but it seems to be the case given the grand majority of pictures involved and detailed descriptions... and lack of any info at the location that isn't given to you on Waymarking.com... heck often you get more info here than you would if you actually went to the place).

 

Each has its benefit, I think the benefit of Waymarking is that if you aren't into creating waymarks, you get a lot out of it without investing much time into needing to physically go to the places that are interesting.

 

I personally don't have much interest in either armchair Waymarking or geocaching. For now, many people are creating waymarks without visiting them. Reading the home page of Waymarking.com, it seems clear that the original intent was to actually go to the location and get the coordinates for a waymark using a GPS. However, in order to get Waymarking going it seems that many categories allow you to create a waymark with coordinates from a map program or some other source. Some category managers are still requiring a picture or photograph to prove you have visited the location when you create a waymark. If you have an interest in a category, you may enjoy reading the logs and waymark descriptions. Still, many people will want to visit waymarks. Some people enjoyed visiting virtual caches even when they had no intrinsic interest that location. Actually getting out and visiting a place you would not otherwise have gone to is something that many people seem to enjoy. Waymarking may have an advantage over geocaching in that different people will find different ways to participate. (I have noticed that some people participate in geocaching by putting out a few travel bugs or collecting geocoins and don't seem to find many caches ).

[+WalruZ]

I think the benefit of Waymarking is that if you aren't into creating waymarks, you get a lot out of it without investing much time into needing to physically go to the places that are interesting.

 

That's suprisingly true. I recently posted a note to a "captured in lyrics" waymark - Carefree highway - that I might never visit, but just reading about it was cool enough.

 

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

 

In any case, I stopped by here today, suprised to see this thread still alive, and thought about McDonalds a little more. Here's the thoughts...

 

1. Fizzy actually has a cache at a McDonalds. In the parking lot. -- not that that means anything or anything...

 

2. One thing I know about McDonalds is that they generally have unique interior decor. You may not notice, but franchisees are encouraged to attempt to combine some local flavor into the decoration of the dining area. Some do a better job than others. As an example, my nearest McDonalds is in the area of what once was a dairy farm. There are displays of old milk and ice-cream equiptment on some walls. You could argue that a McDonalds category would actually be interesting and worthwhile provided that this aspect of each restaurant was required to be recorded when a new waymark was submitted.

 

What it comes down to is quality control. The issue with virtuals was who performs quality control? GS? Reviewers? They sure didn't want to listen to the chorus of whining that rose up every time some so-so virtual was turned down. So, we have Waymarking, where somehow the community will perform quality control organically. Maybe. Somehow...

 

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

 

Anyway, Jeremy, please, here's what I want.

 

1. Apparently I can search based on an origin, like my house, and I've done that. I would like to be able to filter out a.) waymarks I've 'found', and b.) waymarks I 'own', ie, have placed. This give me a "nearest list". I would also like a few more preset distances, like 10, 20, 30. I would also like the last distance applied saved in my cookie and re-used, thus if I'm looking at a 40 mile distance I would like my default distance to stay at 40 until I change it.

 

2. If I set a location filter to my house, it trims the category filter to only show categories that are within some distance of my house. I would like that filter to also apply when i actually click on one of the categories. That makes sense. The way it works now (showing you everything in the category, unfiltered) doesn't.

 

If my demands are met, I will make an effort at adding and logging waymarks. promise.

[+Razak]

 

I wasn't addressing you or anyone else that accepts Waymarking for what it is. The argument that it is different than geocaching is meant more for the people who don't like Waymarking because they don't think Waymarking is a satisfactory substitute for either locationless caches or virtuals. Certainly there are similarities, the argument that they are different however is entirely sensical. If you take away my SUV and give me a truck, I don't care that they are both vehicles that can take me to a particular place. I care that there isn't room for my family anymore.

 

 

I realize you weren't addressing me, but the problem with the argument is when people bring geocaching in comparison to Waymarking. A lot of people seem to just say "they are different don't compare them" and that is their main argument. This doesn't work, because they are similar so you can compare them. Not only that, most waymarkers come from a geocaching background, even moreso Groundspeak is targeting geocachers to get them a strong initial userbase before they really start branching. Because of these, just saying "don't compare them" becomes non-sensical. And that's more what I was saying. Comparing the two is advantagous because it allows us to figure out what exactly made geocaching popular, and what Waymarking might be missing. That doesn't mean we move things directly but we can certainly realize the ideas behind geocaching and come up with similar ideas. (Meaning we may not have goecoins per say in Waymarking, but the idea of a collectible item may certainly take hold in Waymarking.) Furthermore, comparing the two works because since we all understand geocaching on some level, it allows us all to gain a language that we can use when we are trying to portray an idea, especially if that idea is new or missing in Waymarking. Shutting down an idea just because geocaching has it is not beneficial. (After all geocaching did not invent the idea of collectable items, it has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years in human society and is proven to be enjoyed by nearly every human alive in some fashion... we are hoarders by nature!)

 

You may not have been addressing me, or even meaning it the way I took it, and if this is the case I'm sorry. But I've been hearing that as an argument too much lately lol

 

However, to create a waymark you must first have a category for it. A geocache just needs to meet the guidelines for geocaches. <snip> Creating a category is roughly like creating a locationless cache. Since there was a moratorium on creating locationless caches from roughly the time I started geocaching, while category and group creation seem to be quite healthy on Waymarking - I would have to say there is a DIFFERENCE here as well.

 

I supposed you could say that geocaches are divided into categories by cache type, container size, and d/t.

 

You could group them that way but it isn't comparable, or even that searchable (to some extent it is). I don't use locationless caches as a talking point because only a minority actually did it. I never used it so I can't talk about the rules in it. I do think categories are currently the strength and failure of Waymarking. The strength in the really good categories, and the failure in the really bland categories. Waymarking has a long way to go to be complete and I think one of the main ways it needs to really go is for visitation of a waymark to take a bigger priority than Waymarking. Even though it is easier to create a waymark than it is to place a cache, I still think that there is a much larger audience wanting to visit than create...it's just how the world works... less work. Not only that, eventually creating waymarks will be much more difficult as more people place them... we need to start thinking of what will happen to this site when that eventuality takes place... you can keep creating categories... but what happens when most of the new categories only have waymarks that were already created in other categories just lumped together in a new way? Are these going to be as fun to go get knowing that there really is little finding in it? Or is it going to be done mostly to buff stats?

 

Some people enjoyed visiting virtual caches even when they had no intrinsic interest that location. Actually getting out and visiting a place you would not otherwise have gone to is something that many people seem to enjoy. Waymarking may have an advantage over geocaching in that different people will find different ways to participate. (I have noticed that some people participate in geocaching by putting out a few travel bugs or collecting geocoins and don't seem to find many caches ).

 

Maybe we will see a bunch of odd ducks dress up as Ronny McDonny and see how many McDonald's they can visit in a single day... that'd be a picture worth taking <QQ at Quasar and jots down a birthday present idea>

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I happen to like the armchair Waymarking aspect, but the search function is prohibitive. When I try and search, all I ever get is that "no waymarks within 10 miles" message EVEN if I know there is a waymark well within the 10 mile limit. For an Arizonan, 10 miles is nothing. We often travel well beyond 30 miles just for one cache. We often travel that distance just for lunch.

 

Armchair Waymarking, where I read the waymark descriptions but dont log a visit, is fun to do when the weather is 115° and I just dont feel like going out in the heat. (I often do armchair geocaching that way. Did you know one of the coolest caches is in the Andes Mtns? Boats, made of reeds, with unique depictions of mythical animals.)

 

Thanks for the plug on Carefree Highway, my waymark!

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I personally dont care for the McDonalds category, but I did see one cool waymark in there. Set in NYC, this McDonalds has a grand piano in it. I was quite impressed by that McDonalds.

 

Ive been considering logging one here in my area. The oldest existing McDonalds in Phoenix. Sadly the previous oldest McDonalds is torn down. It was the first McD's EVER to have the golden arches.

[bootron]

1. Fizzy actually has a cache at a McDonalds. In the parking lot. -- not that that means anything or anything...

Oh the irony.

 

Anyway, Jeremy, please, here's what I want.

 

1. Apparently I can search based on an origin, like my house, and I've done that. I would like to be able to filter out a.) waymarks I've 'found', and b.) waymarks I 'own', ie, have placed. This give me a "nearest list". I would also like a few more preset distances, like 10, 20, 30. I would also like the last distance applied saved in my cookie and re-used, thus if I'm looking at a 40 mile distance I would like my default distance to stay at 40 until I change it.

There is no question the waymark search functionality needs some additional work. There are definitely planned enhancements that you should be seeing within the next couple of months.

 

2. If I set a location filter to my house, it trims the category filter to only show categories that are within some distance of my house. I would like that filter to also apply when i actually click on one of the categories. That makes sense. The way it works now (showing you everything in the category, unfiltered) doesn't.

If I am not mistaken, this functionality is already in place. You need to click the search button on the right after you enter the category though in order to see the waymarks. Agreed that it's a little confusing because you still see the most recent waymarks despite the category being filtered.

[+WalruZ]

If I am not mistaken, this functionality is already in place. You need to click the search button on the right after you enter the category though in order to see the waymarks. Agreed that it's a little confusing because you still see the most recent waymarks despite the category being filtered.

 

Yes, I know you *can* do that, but it's... dumb. If I put a location (ne, category) filter into effect, and I only see categories that have waymarks that fall within a set distance of the location, then why would I expect to see all the *other* waymarks in one of the given categories when I click on it?

 

And, if I get a list of say, 12 categories that have waymarks within the distance, using the current (dumb, sorry) functionality, every time i click on one of the categories I then have to click on search to, effectively, re-establish the distance filter I turned on in the first place. Try it yourself. It just doesn't work the way you want it to, at least not the way *I* want it to, and that's what's important, right?

[Jeremy]

Yes, I know you *can* do that, but it's... dumb.

 

In the current design where there aren't a lot of waymarks, it makes sense now just to show the most recent. Once we put google maps in place we'll show you the closest on a map near your location.

 

I can see where you could use the base location as a starting point and show the closest, and have a tab that shows the newest. It is a feature request on the list to be added in the future. However the Google maps are probably the best way, visually, to see the local waymarks in that category.

[bootron]

Yes, I know you *can* do that, but it's... dumb. If I put a location (ne, category) filter into effect, and I only see categories that have waymarks that fall within a set distance of the location, then why would I expect to see all the *other* waymarks in one of the given categories when I click on it?

 

And, if I get a list of say, 12 categories that have waymarks within the distance, using the current (dumb, sorry) functionality, every time i click on one of the categories I then have to click on search to, effectively, re-establish the distance filter I turned on in the first place. Try it yourself. It just doesn't work the way you want it to, at least not the way *I* want it to, and that's what's important, right?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. I do agree that the recent waymarks added list doesn't make sense in terms of being within a filtered directory, because you shouldn't see waymarks that don't meet the filtered directory's criteria. However, just because you are navigating through a filtered category doesn't automatically mean you want to see the waymarks in that category. We provide the button on the right in order to trigger the waymark search within the filtered directory when you are ready for it.

 

Are you asking for the search to be automatically triggered when you are within a filtered directory?

[+WalruZ]

I guess I am. I'm not doing the best at explaining what I'm seeing. Let me try to describe it from my outside point of view.

 

there are two boxes on the right side of the directory screen. one is the search box. I can choose home here and get a list of waymarks, regardless of category, in ascending distance order from home (or wherever). So that's waymarks filtered by distance, regardless of category.

 

there's also location filter. if i click on that, i see a category listing trimmed to just those categories that have waymarks within some distance from my origin (home again for example). So that's waymarks filtered by distance, organized by category.

 

At least that's what it looks like to me.

 

Ok, so if I am using the second approach, filtered by distance and organized by category, if i click on a category, my distance filter is 'gone'. You're telling me to 'search' once i click on a category that survived the location filter. why? the category was already returned to be because it has contents within some distance of the origin. shouldn't you just show me those contents and no others?

 

What am I not understanding?

 

ETA: I think my feeling about the location filter is that it says "only show me stuff within 50 miles and nothing else, no matter what. (or whatever, it would be nice to have an initial distance selector) -

Edited April 21, 2006 by WalruZ

[+The Blue Quasar]

Walruz: I totally understand what you are saying... I thought that was just the way it was supposed to be.

 

On the main Waymarking Page (www.Waymarking.com), if I use my ORIGIN of Home, I get a list of EVERYTHING within 6 miles/10 kilometers, regardless of Category.

 

But on the Directory Page (www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/default....) I get a list of all Categories where there is at least ONE entry that matches. I live near Niagara Falls just for referrence.

 

Now when I click on one of those Categories (I'm going to use TIME CAPSULES as it is a single level Category), I get all of them and the list is nowhere near my ORIGIN. I have to run the ORIGIN FILTER again, I just thought that was normal. I do that by clicking on "SEARCH NOW" in the Waymark Search box over on the right.

 

I understood you to be saying that you feel that step is redundant and would have thought that the ORIGIN FILTER was still running.

 

Going back to the first method... which was running the ORIGIN FILTER on the main page without going to the Directory, will give you what you are looking for.

 

But yes... it would be nice to not have to re-apply the ORIGIN FILTER when you are into a Category.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Razak]

I just wanna say this thread is absolutely nuts... it was only posted like a week and a half ago (if that long) and has double the views of any other topic in the first page.... and then we are on like our 4th or 5th topics lol

[Jeremy]

I have to agree that this has gone off topic several times. WalruZ, bootron and I discussed your points on Friday and have some ways to change the behavior of the site so it doesn't seem so confusing. Once we make the changes feel free to post a topic about it. Closing the thread.