Jump to content

Gps Or Person Required In A Waymark Picture?


Recommended Posts

Some categories require a 'proof' picture with a GPSr in the picture. Is this necessary, I wonder.

 

I realize that it depends on the category and the management of the category. However, I think this 'gray area' is worth discussing.

 

There are really 2 kinds of Waymarking documentation 'proof' pictures.

 

1. A picture of the item - to prove that what you waymarked fits in the category.

 

2. A picture of the item with either you, or your 'teammate', or your GPS receiver in the picture to prove you were there.

 

To me, a picture with a GPSr blocking part of the view is really ugly. One in a hand and wrist is even worse. These pictures are difficult to have both the GPSr and background being even vaguely in focus. Usually only one is in focus. Yuck.

 

The alternative is to ask for 2 pictures - one with the GPSr in it, and one without. This is an obvious load on the server for perhaps a dubious reason.

 

Would it make sense to have just #1, as opposed to #2, as the normal requirement for waymarks in categories?

 

There are a lot of new categories coming into existence now, and it might be good to hash this out thoroughly before there are a lot more categories.

 

(My apologies if this topic has been done before and if so, please provide the link.)

 

(Please make a new topic if you want to discuss the different question of whether or not any picture should be required. :lol: )

Link to post

Personally I think the proof is needed. Otherwise you can have people just downloading photos off the internet to post. The easiest, because we are cachers, is to have the gps in the photo. I have considered that if a non cacher wants to play, then they can use something else instead of the gps in the photos as proof. Something like a gnome or holding up their car keys, just something out of the ordinary or a pose out of the ordinary that would indicate this isnt a photo they found on google.

Link to post

Waymarking is supposed to be the replacement for Locationless and Virtual Caches. Both of those required "Proof of Visit"

 

"Proof of Visit" is not too much to ask. It all depends on what form it takes. The debate about alternative to Photos is about the only course this could go.

 

The other argument that states 'those that claim visits that didn't really visit are only cheating themselves' is not entirely true.

 

The Waymark Owner spent the effort to set up the visit, and hopes to read of other people's enjoyment. SO do the Armchair Watchers.

 

For any endevour to be successful, an amount of effort must be put forward or the result becomes half-hearted and ultimately lacks respectability.

 

And that means providing adequate "Proof of Visit" for most Category Managers and Waymark Owners

 

:lol: The Blue Quasar

Link to post

Waymarking is supposed to be the replacement for Locationless and Virtual Caches. Both of those required "Proof of Visit"

 

"Proof of Visit" is not too much to ask. It all depends on what form it takes. The debate about alternative to Photos is about the only course this could go.

 

The other argument that states 'those that claim visits that didn't really visit are only cheating themselves' is not entirely true.

 

The Waymark Owner spent the effort to set up the visit, and hopes to read of other people's enjoyment. SO do the Armchair Watchers.

 

For any endevour to be successful, an amount of effort must be put forward or the result becomes half-hearted and ultimately lacks respectability.

 

And that means providing adequate "Proof of Visit" for most Category Managers and Waymark Owners

 

:lol: The Blue Quasar

 

Honest question here. Is the point to list the waymark (and then post it for others to visit) , or prove you've visited the posted waymark?

Link to post

I thought the point was to have fun with this. My fun includes requiring proof of visit, a challenge for the finder.

 

My fun tends to have nothing to do with proof of purchase but tends to get ruined if the proof of purchase results in throwing random objects in the picture for no particular reason...

 

You can say that Locationless & Virtuals required a proof of purchase, I haven't done locationless but the virtuals I've looked at did not even require photos most of the time. So I don't feel this is a worthy argument.

 

My theory is that #1 is fine if there is a reason to do it (adding different points of view of the waymark, inside/outside/upsidedown whatever... But if it is something that doesn't have many views, is boring to look at, really has no point for having 200 pictures of the same object, I just don't see why the picture is needed (for instance Generic McDonald's #339 has no reason for a picture proof of purchase they all look the same... but if you had say Planet Hollywood category, it might be interesting if you asked for a picture of the booth you sat at, or an object in there that is interesting (since those places are museums essentially)).

 

#2 I just can't think of a reason why you'd do it... if you are worried that someone goes and finds a picture online... well I understand that people want to know that their waymark is being "enjoyed" but really it isn't that huge of deal... just stop asking for the picture if you are really worried about that. IF there is a reason to take the picture, this will never be a problem... this only becomes a problem if there is no reason. And I've been unable to make a few waymarks because the picture with the GPS just didn't work out which sucks IMO. This totally ruins the point of it for me and what really annoys me is that some of the categories I would be most interested in are rendered unvisitable/markable due to retarded GPS requirements

 

If you can't fulfill a reason to take the picture and are really jonesing for the proof that someone visited for some odd reason... just insert a question like virtuals... is this really so hard?

Link to post
Razak

 

You can say that Locationless & Virtuals required a proof of purchase, I haven't done locationless but the virtuals I've looked at did not even require photos most of the time. So I don't feel this is a worthy argument.

 

Virtuals all were supposed to have a variation of proof. It was a necessity due to the lack of a logbook. If you have found Virtuals that did not require proof, it is likely because the owner changed it or is too lazy to continue checking the find, or they have abandoned it, and then Virtual should (in my opinion) be Archived or Adopted.

 

Razak

 

My theory is that #1 is fine if there is a reason to do it (adding different points of view of the waymark, inside/outside/upsidedown whatever... But if it is something that doesn't have many views, is boring to look at, really has no point for having 200 pictures of the same object, I just don't see why the picture is needed (for instance Generic McDonald's #339 has no reason for a picture proof of purchase they all look the same... but if you had say Planet Hollywood category, it might be interesting if you asked for a picture of the booth you sat at, or an object in there that is interesting (since those places are museums essentially)).

 

Every Planet Hollywood looks the same as every other Planet Hollywood to me. Most people set the requirement to be "Include a picture of yourself at the Waymark, or a picture of your GPS at the Waymark". The Owner doesn't want to see dozens of pictures of the same thing, true, but they are simply asking for a way to ensure the Visitor was really there.

 

Razak

 

#2 I just can't think of a reason why you'd do it... if you are worried that someone goes and finds a picture online... well I understand that people want to know that their waymark is being "enjoyed" but really it isn't that huge of deal... just stop asking for the picture if you are really worried about that. IF there is a reason to take the picture, this will never be a problem... this only becomes a problem if there is no reason. And I've been unable to make a few waymarks because the picture with the GPS just didn't work out which sucks IMO. This totally ruins the point of it for me and what really annoys me is that some of the categories I would be most interested in are rendered unvisitable/markable due to retarded GPS requirements

 

The reason is to establish proof. That is a valid reason IMHO

 

Razak

 

If you can't fulfill a reason to take the picture and are really jonesing for the proof that someone visited for some odd reason... just insert a question like virtuals... is this really so hard?

 

There are alternatives. You could contact the Waymark Owner that you are wanting claim a Visit on and get them authorize an 'exception' based upon your circumstance. Or you could contact the Category Manager and request the option to update to include a "Verification Question" option. That would still mean that the Waymark Owner would have to edit their WM to include that option.

 

If you don't have a camera, it will be a bit more effort for you to claim a Visit. But since you are already willing to email an answer to a question, then you must be willing to email to explain why you should be able to Visit without a camera. If they agree, be sure to include it in your log that the Waymark Owner was nice enough to allow the exception and why.

 

^_^ The Blue Quasar

Link to post

If you can't fulfill a reason to take the picture and are really jonesing for the proof that someone visited for some odd reason... just insert a question like virtuals... is this really so hard?

 

I could turn the tables on you and ask, is it really so hard to get a disposable camera and have it put on CD when you are done? At this point, it is less than the cost of the gas to drive to the locations. I know, because this is how we do it.

 

This is how Im setting up my waymarks. Im often flexible in my virtuals and earthcaches. If someone can prove they were there without a photo, Ive allowed it, since the point is to go there and appreciate what is there. If you dont care for the photo requirement, then either only post notes saying you were there, or just ignore them altogether.

Link to post

 

Virtuals all were supposed to have a variation of proof. It was a necessity due to the lack of a logbook. If you have found Virtuals that did not require proof, it is likely because the owner changed it or is too lazy to continue checking the find, or they have abandoned it, and then Virtual should (in my opinion) be Archived or Adopted.

 

Apparantly you misread... I am not saying that virtuals had no proof of visitation, I am saying they did not require photo... I am sure there are some virtuals out there that do require photos, but usually they require an answer to a question... What I am saying is that it is not a valid argument to say we need to have pictures with a gps in it as proof of visit just because virtuals required you to answer a question... they are seperate ways to require a proof of visitation.

 

Every Planet Hollywood looks the same as every other Planet Hollywood to me. Most people set the requirement to be "Include a picture of yourself at the Waymark, or a picture of your GPS at the Waymark". The Owner doesn't want to see dozens of pictures of the same thing, true, but they are simply asking for a way to ensure the Visitor was really there.

 

Maybe I'm wrong because I've never actually been to one but it was my understanding that Planet Hollywoods were full of movie memorabilia. Given this, each one would have a different item because I thought that they each had the real thing, not copies... though maybe they have changed this.

 

The reason is to establish proof. That is a valid reason IMHO

 

Well it isn't in my opinion. For a number of reasons, the least of which you don't need a picture to establish proof. The better of the reasons is that it really doesn't matter if someone visits or not. But if someone wants proof, to each his own... you still don't need a picture to get this proof.

 

There are alternatives. You could contact the Waymark Owner that you are wanting claim a Visit on and get them authorize an 'exception' based upon your circumstance. Or you could contact the Category Manager and request the option to update to include a "Verification Question" option. That would still mean that the Waymark Owner would have to edit their WM to include that option.

 

If you don't have a camera, it will be a bit more effort for you to claim a Visit. But since you are already willing to email an answer to a question, then you must be willing to email to explain why you should be able to Visit without a camera. If they agree, be sure to include it in your log that the Waymark Owner was nice enough to allow the exception and why.

 

If waymark/category owners are willing to accept other forms of verification they NEED to have wording in their descriptions saying what type of proof they are looking for, or at the least they should say that they will listen...

 

I could turn the tables on you and ask, is it really so hard to get a disposable camera and have it put on CD when you are done? At this point, it is less than the cost of the gas to drive to the locations. I know, because this is how we do it.

 

Well as long as you are willing to incur the fee of the disposable camera, etc. for every category/waymark you require people to take pictures of, yes this would be an option... I don't care if they don't cost much, they still cost. Some people have a hard time with the cost of gas as it was 6 months ago, tacking on more is not a valid argument as to why anybody can do it. Increasing costs on an already costly game is not helpful, nor necessary... and might I add it is also not ecologically sound considering those camera cases do go somewhere.... (seeing as geocachers are usually looking out for the environment in some fashion and that most waymarkers have their roots in the environment, it is surprising that so little care could be given to the environment in the name of some ubiquitous "proof")

 

However, your idea to ignore such categories that require photo proof, while at the same time saying that categories should require photo proof is your way of just saying to someone that "Hey Ignore Waymarking" as a selling point. It is not good business sense for this site to do that, I don't think at least. I think this site would be fun, but unfortunately it seems more and more that there are too many here saying "Hey ignore Waymarking" just so that they can have some proof that you are ignoring Waymarking. It is ridiculous. I think more effort should be done to make this site more inclusive of any who wish to join, and less exclusive... especially considering that the population who actually use this site is rather small... to say to people who don't own a camera that they should not join is rather obnoxious... I'm sorry I'm not an elitist, I'd rather that the poor have a chance to play as well.

 

All in all though, two people argue me, neither have actually argued my points... it is interesting. Therefor I must assume that I am right, that proof of visit via photo ID is not even remotely necessary.

Link to post

I'm pretty sure I summed up options in the various replies to the items I quoted.

 

But if you need a shorter version, and believe me it's difficult for me to be short.

 

You can write to the Waymark Owner to see if they will accept an alternative to supplying a picture for verification. When doing so, explain your reasons (e.g. Not owning a camera) and asking if a 'verification question' could be created.

 

Maybe they would accept GPS Track Data as proof. Superimpose your GPS Track into Google Earth and upload the screen capture. That's free! There are lots of options, but you gotta make the effort if you are having the issue.

 

Roll the dice, see how it goes. Never hurts to ask, if it is done with diplomacy. I asked you about your Video Arcade category... and I accepted your response... and it encouraged me to look harder.

 

^_^ The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar
Link to post
Razak

 

All in all though, two people argue me, neither have actually argued my points... it is interesting. Therefor I must assume that I am right, that proof of visit via photo ID is not even remotely necessary.

 

It is not necessary.

 

It is desired or wanted.

 

Is there some other point that we are debating? I like debating. I can admit when a good point is made in a debate, and as long as others can contend the same, then a debate is worthwhile.

 

To quote Monty Python: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

 

:mad: The Blue Quasar

Link to post

To me, a picture with a GPSr blocking part of the view is really ugly. One in a hand and wrist is even worse. These pictures are difficult to have both the GPSr and background being even vaguely in focus. Usually only one is in focus. Yuck.

 

 

I agree - it's ugly and pretty tacky. Admittedly i was a bit of an advocate of this myself initially but now it just seems amatuerish to me and wouldn't make it a prerequisite of any logging or posting. But certainly it seems others are not of the same mind.

I do see some merit of having to place a picture of yourself in some pictures - but not necessarily with a GPS in hand either and not in all pictures . Some pics are spoiled also by having people in them whereas there can be more value in a picture of the subject without human interference.

There you go - my 2c worth.

Link to post

Increasing costs on an already costly game is not helpful, nor necessary... and might I add it is also not ecologically sound considering those camera cases do go somewhere.... (seeing as geocachers are usually looking out for the environment in some fashion and that most waymarkers have their roots in the environment, it is surprising that so little care could be given to the environment in the name of some ubiquitous "proof")

 

Walgreens disposable camera is recycled. They take the outer covering and use them again for future cameras. I am hardly making the environment worse that way. Of course, all the driving I do, using gas...that isnt helping the environment.

Link to post

Increasing costs on an already costly game is not helpful, nor necessary... and might I add it is also not ecologically sound considering those camera cases do go somewhere.... (seeing as geocachers are usually looking out for the environment in some fashion and that most waymarkers have their roots in the environment, it is surprising that so little care could be given to the environment in the name of some ubiquitous "proof")

 

Walgreens disposable camera is recycled. They take the outer covering and use them again for future cameras. I am hardly making the environment worse that way. Of course, all the driving I do, using gas...that isnt helping the environment.

 

Hardly disposable camera... should rename it recyclable camera... disposable implies that you dispose of it... And believe you me if they a car based on water as was invented after World War II, and I had the money, I'd be in line to get one.

 

Quasar... my short argument was that if someone wants proof of visit they should do it in question form like virtual caches... you and tsegi were countering me by saying that you wanted proof of visit and I should buy disposable cameras... neither of these were really related to the subject so much.

 

What I think the problem is is that you two are saying what *I* should do, and *I* am arguing what all waymarkers and categories should do... try to make it so that as many people that can waymark, will be able, to regardless of if they got the money to do so. I think the questions worked fine for this in virtual caches, I see no reason why we need to get more complicated than that. (Though some waymarks I can totally get are better with a picture, but not most of them). My argument against sticking a GPS in the picture was that this was totally unnecessary and more often than not sticking a GPS in the picture have ruined my pictures to not being able to even allow me to waymark it... (i get a nice shot of my GPS, not much else though lol I should create a category for just people showing a GPS at a certain coord with nothing interesting at the location, that'd rock)

 

And for the record tsegi, I have scrounged up a really crappy camera (and i mean really crappy, this camera would have cost 20 bucks 3 or 4 years ago)... but I do have problems with it with stuff like GPS being stuck needlessly in the picture... and I will still argue that if there is an easier answer to verification that includes more people in the activity THAT should be the standard... this is what the questions is... pictures are nice, but like I said they are not necessary, if you desire a picture with the thing just say please try to take a picture of you enjoying the location, or something lots of geocaches do this already, just dont make the poor sit in a corner because they are poor... it just isn't right.

Link to post

My argument against sticking a GPS in the picture was that this was totally unnecessary and more often than not sticking a GPS in the picture have ruined my pictures to not being able to even allow me to waymark it...

 

And for the record tsegi, I have scrounged up a really crappy camera (and i mean really crappy, this camera would have cost 20 bucks 3 or 4 years ago)... but I do have problems with it with stuff like GPS being stuck needlessly in the picture...

 

pictures are nice, but like I said they are not necessary, if you desire a picture with the thing just say please try to take a picture of you enjoying the location, or something lots of geocaches do this already, just dont make the poor sit in a corner because they are poor... it just isn't right.

 

You contracdicted yourself. First you say you cant afford a camera. Then you say the real issue you have trouble with is the gps in the photo. Then you go back to "the poor cant afford to waymark". Well the price of gas now is going to stop the poor from Waymarking far more than the price of a disposable camera and the cost of developing a cd.

 

Whatever is the real issue you have with Waymarking and the gps photo (and Im wondering if just being a poor picture taker is the real issue) you are free to do what you want with your categories and waymarks. Just like the rest of us are free to do what we want with our gps and camera.

Link to post

Well this has gone from the original question about 'proof items' to the more general question of whether or not categories should require photos at all, even though I wanted that to be a separate topic. But I see it's really impossible to discuss the more particular issue without moving right into the larger issue.

 

Back to the original question though, it could be true that 'proof pictures' need not be required in establishing a waymark, but 'proof pictures' should be required in logs of existing waymarks.

 

(As before, the definition of a 'proof picture' is a picture of the waymark including a GPS receiver or 'team member' in the picture.)

 

There's no polls allowed anymore.

However, here are the questions (to which the answers are: "proof" or "regular"):

(A 'regular picture' is a picture of the waymark without a GPS receiver, 'team member' or toy.)

 

1. In general, should the establishment of waymarks require a 'proof picture' or a regular picture?

2. In general, should a log of an existing waymark require a 'proof picture' or a regular picture?

 

My own view is leaning toward:

1. regular

2. proof

 

What is yours?

Link to post

My own view is leaning toward:

1. regular

2. proof

 

What is yours?

 

Same.

 

I agree very much. I was on a trip this weekend, and visited some places that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I didn't get pictures of them with a GPS, but just by themselves. Just my luck that it is a requirement to have a picture with GPS to create a waymark in the category. I feel it should just be for visting.

Link to post

I agree very much. I was on a trip this weekend, and visited some places that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I didn't get pictures of them with a GPS, but just by themselves. Just my luck that it is a requirement to have a picture with GPS to create a waymark in the category. I feel it should just be for visting.

 

From the Waymarking category page for National Register of Historic Places:

 

Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

 

To post a new waymark in this category, please:

 

1) Provide the name as it is listed in the [u.S.] National Register of Historic Places,

 

2) Determine the latitude and longitude (in the WGS84 datum) by physically visiting the site,

 

3) Provide one or more non-copyrighted photographs of the place from that location, and

 

4) Provide the values of the variables as best you can.

Please verify with either of the WWW sites provided above to ensure your waymark is listed in the register.

 

Instructions for logging waymarks of this category:

 

1) To log a waymark in this category, please provide a photograph that shows you (or your GPS receiver, if you're Waymarking solo) and the place.

 

From what I can see, to create a waymark, you only need a photograph with or without a gps. To log a waymark you must have a gps photo. Were you denied a waymark in this category because you did not have a gps in the photo?

Link to post
Razak

 

snipped ....... My argument against sticking a GPS in the picture was that this was totally unnecessary and more often than not sticking a GPS in the picture have ruined my pictures to not being able to even allow me to waymark it... (i get a nice shot of my GPS, not much else though lol

but I do have problems with it with stuff like GPS being stuck needlessly in the picture

.... just dont make the poor sit in a corner because they are poor... it just isn't right.

#1 ....If you "Geocache" you need a GPS = $$

#2.....If you "Waymark" you need a GPS = $$

#3....and a computer = $$

------and a donation to become a "Premium Member"

 

If you play 'Tennis you need 'balls' and oh yah a tennis racket = $$

If you ski -- you need boots - skiis - a suit and pay for the day = $$$$$$

 

If you want to play the game or participate in "Waymarking" and a picture is required you must have a camera, or you can just sit in front of your 'computer = $$' and read all the gripes only.

 

F.Y.I. - I removed my GPS requirement a long time ago (now optional)

Link to post

I agree very much. I was on a trip this weekend, and visited some places that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I didn't get pictures of them with a GPS, but just by themselves. Just my luck that it is a requirement to have a picture with GPS to create a waymark in the category. I feel it should just be for visting.

 

From the Waymarking category page for National Register of Historic Places:

 

Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

 

To post a new waymark in this category, please:

 

1) Provide the name as it is listed in the [u.S.] National Register of Historic Places,

 

2) Determine the latitude and longitude (in the WGS84 datum) by physically visiting the site,

 

3) Provide one or more non-copyrighted photographs of the place from that location, and

 

4) Provide the values of the variables as best you can.

Please verify with either of the WWW sites provided above to ensure your waymark is listed in the register.

 

Instructions for logging waymarks of this category:

 

1) To log a waymark in this category, please provide a photograph that shows you (or your GPS receiver, if you're Waymarking solo) and the place.

 

From what I can see, to create a waymark, you only need a photograph with or without a gps. To log a waymark you must have a gps photo. Were you denied a waymark in this category because you did not have a gps in the photo?

When recording a waymark:

ee7ea22a-1c56-4473-afa9-6996ad874b2c.jpg

Link to post

Not sure if this has any value add or not.

 

But first, I'll answer the posed question

 

1. Images for establishing a new Waymark should be unspoiled, no GPS or people, etc.

2. Imgess for Visiting a new Waymark should include a verification item, like a GPS or person, etc.

 

Honestly, when I happen by a possible new Waymark to establish, I take both a 'Waymark Image without GPS ' and a 'Waymark Image with GPS'. I only include the WITH if necessary.

 

But I can see that having a WITH image being useful for Category Managers to verify that the person establishing the new Waymark actually Visited the site to get the proper data. It also is a 'lead by example', otherwise some people will create new Waymarks from sites across the world that they did not visit.

 

Not saying I'm in favour of this, just explaining possible thought processes

 

:unsure: The Blue Quasar

Link to post

There's no polls allowed anymore.

However, here are the questions (to which the answers are: "proof" or "regular"):

(A 'regular picture' is a picture of the waymark without a GPS receiver, 'team member' or toy.)

 

1. In general, should the establishment of waymarks require a 'proof picture' or a regular picture?

2. In general, should a log of an existing waymark require a 'proof picture' or a regular picture?

 

My own view is leaning toward:

1. regular

2. proof

 

What is yours?

1. Proof - Remember that Waymarking is a replacement of both virts and LCs. The establishment of waymarks in a category is basically the same as logging new LCs. Certainly, in order to maintain the integrity of this aspect of the game, proof would be required. It would be impossible for category owners to create verification questions for each possible location, since the owner has never been to each location.

 

2. Proof - As others have stated, logging a waymark is basically just like logging a virt. Virtual finders have always been required to submit proof of visit. I see no problem with waymark loggers being required to, also.

Link to post

What I remember about Waymarking is that it was not only was designed to replace both virts and LCs, but was designed to be a much bigger and newer concept than those it replaced. So, Waymarking is not necessarily to be, in general, restricted to the virt and LC concepts.

 

Certainly any category manager group can make their category stick to the virt and LC concepts if they so choose.

Link to post

What I remember about Waymarking is that it was not only was designed to replace both virts and LCs, but was designed to be a much bigger and newer concept than those it replaced. So, Waymarking is not necessarily to be, in general, restricted to the virt and LC concepts.

 

Certainly any category manager group can make their category stick to the virt and LC concepts if they so choose.

Ummm, so why did you want to discuss the issue? :laughing:

Link to post

Well for what it's worth, in one of my Categories I allow the Waymark Owner the option to include a "Verification Question" instead of the Photo, so people can claim a Visit.

 

I however insist on a Photo for my Waymarks. Unless the Logging requirements say otherwise of course!

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Link to post

Some categories require a 'proof' picture with a GPSr in the picture. Is this necessary, I wonder.

 

Coming late to this thread, but I do have some feelings on the subject.

 

I totally dislike the GPSr in photo requirement! Stupid pictures. This is especially true for creating the waymark. While I suppose someone could be an armchair waymark creator, I don't see that as a major threat or problem.

 

I do uderstand the proof issue for logging visits. In my categories I just require a photo different from the one on the home page. Again, I suppose someone could "steal" a photo and falsify a visit, but what's the point?

 

If I could think of a viable way to use the verification question format, I might go for that. It would require the waymark creator to come up with the question and answer, then the category owner would have to keep track of each of these some way and make them available to all officers who might be approving waymark visits, and each would have to be checked. Also, it might be difficult to come up with a reasonable question for some types of waymarks!

 

I think the verification/answer helps preserve the integrity of both the waymark creation and visit. Is anyone using this right now? How are you implementing it and how is it working for you????

 

Of course, the other question is if this is even the point of Waymarking as it is now being set up and envisioned for the future? It seems to me that the emphasis is almost more on the waymark creation than on logging visits!! Certainly not visits in the same sense that one visits traditional geocaches. Or am I wrong?

Link to post
silverquill Posted Today, 12:13 PM

 

If I could think of a viable way to use the verification question format, I might go for that. It would require the waymark creator to come up with the question and answer, then the category owner would have to keep track of each of these some way and make them available to all officers who might be approving waymark visits, and each would have to be checked. Also, it might be difficult to come up with a reasonable question for some types of waymarks!

 

I think the verification/answer helps preserve the integrity of both the waymark creation and visit. Is anyone using this right now? How are you implementing it and how is it working for you????

 

Of course, the other question is if this is even the point of Waymarking as it is now being set up and envisioned for the future? It seems to me that the emphasis is almost more on the waymark creation than on logging visits!! Certainly not visits in the same sense that one visits traditional geocaches. Or am I wrong?

 

That's why things are being discussed.... the full fleshed out version isnt here yet. Let's find the issues and provide optional solutions.

 

I was looking a Virtuals (which to me is what a Waymark is) and they seemed to favour "Questions" more than "Photos"

 

It can be done now, except there is no way to delete 'invalid' Visits. There also is the idea that Waymarks aren't supposed to be as restrictive as Virtuals were. Most of the original Waymark Categories have NO requirements.

 

But as things developed, people added restrictions and conventions... and that seems to be the route that is being followed.

 

I can only speak for myself... Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking have it right that a text box for a Verification Question is the best way... that is fully automated, or at least cleaner that the old "Email me the answer"

 

;) The Blue Quasar

Link to post

Increasing costs on an already costly game is not helpful, nor necessary... and might I add it is also not ecologically sound considering those camera cases do go somewhere.... (seeing as geocachers are usually looking out for the environment in some fashion and that most waymarkers have their roots in the environment, it is surprising that so little care could be given to the environment in the name of some ubiquitous "proof")

 

Walgreens disposable camera is recycled. They take the outer covering and use them again for future cameras. I am hardly making the environment worse that way. Of course, all the driving I do, using gas...that isnt helping the environment.

 

Can I make a point I've made before? You couldn't geocache without a GPS Receiver right? Why is it so hard for people to understand - a GPSr and a camera are going to be required for Waymarking. Period.

 

I am against GPSr in the original waymark photo, but for logs, why not? Proof is proof.

Link to post
Razak

snipped ....... My argument against sticking a GPS in the picture was that this was totally unnecessary and more often than not sticking a GPS in the picture have ruined my pictures to not being able to even allow me to waymark it... (i get a nice shot of my GPS, not much else though lol

but I do have problems with it with stuff like GPS being stuck needlessly in the picture

.... just dont make the poor sit in a corner because they are poor... it just isn't right.

#1 ....If you "Geocache" you need a GPS = $$

#2.....If you "Waymark" you need a GPS = $$

#3....and a computer = $$

------and a donation to become a "Premium Member"

If you play 'Tennis you need 'balls' and oh yah a tennis racket = $$

If you ski -- you need boots - skiis - a suit and pay for the day = $$$$$$

If you want to play the game or participate in "Waymarking" and a picture is required you must have a camera, or you can just sit in front of your 'computer = $$' and read all the gripes only.

F.Y.I. - I removed my GPS requirement a long time ago (now optional)

And lastly...

Let's not forget that 'Waymarking' is not designed to be "used" only by us, but by a much wider audience in the future.

--This is a business!

--A business needs a product to sell.

--Groundspeak is not doing this for our entertainment only, as this is a business and you can can not sustain a business without a profit.

 

In the future I forsee that a lot of perusers will refer to the comprehensive reference work of the "Worldwide Encyclopedia of Waymarking" without ever owning a GPS but may still want to post their pictures or log their comments.

 

 

Link to post

And lastly...

Let's not forget that 'Waymarking' is not designed to be "used" only by us, but by a much wider audience in the future.

--This is a business!

--A business needs a product to sell.

--Groundspeak is not doing this for our entertainment only, as this is a business and you can can not sustain a business without a profit.

 

In the future I forsee that a lot of perusers will refer to the comprehensive reference work of the "Worldwide Encyclopedia of Waymarking" without ever owning a GPS but may still want to post their pictures or log their comments.

 

 

My question answers:

1) Regular

2) Proof question, no photo

 

But this is essentially what I've been saying... Right now we are in beta, if i were Groundspeak I'd be looking past the current users and get more. And to get more you have to make it as usable for everyone as possible... not just for the rich... And yes you do need a computer, and no you do not need a GPSr as currently I can type everything into google and find directions and since everyone is nice enough to provide a picture, I know what I'm looking for. But even so, does the fact that some money is required predicate that we should require people to use even more? Is this honestly the best idea? And Tsegi, yes someone without a camera can make a comment, but why should they essentially be excluded from a log just because they don't have a camera... If this is your solution, let us take out logs entirely and just leave comments... no numbers, this would solve all our problems! (BTW your previous post is rediculous, I never mentioned that I didn't have a camera in this thread (in a previous thread yes but that was awhile ago), but that doesn't mean I can't still argue for those who may not have a camear... I do not see myself as better than those who have not just because I have, I am sorry that I apparantly do not share this view with others. Also, how very american of you to think that people can only get from point A to point B without the use of a car... last I recall there were other things invented such as trains, busses (yes they use gas but are much cheaper), bikes, and *gasp* legs. Some people don't need to use the car to waymark, some people know how to walk.)

 

I honestly do not get the reluctance to for people in these threads to understand that questions work just as well to proove a visit as a picture with a hand in it (I'm gonna start going to waymarks and logging them with the GPS covering the object and unreadable, if that works I'll start doing it out my window). And if 2 things work as well as the other for proof, I just don't get why you NEED so badly to go to the more expensive route... if it is because the tech isn't as great as you'd like for creating a question easily and getting the proof, then instead of starting these threads debating how to screw over people, why not try to pressure Jeremy & crew into adding the tech to get it done? I think it would be very easy for them to add tech that would allow a waymark creator to set up a question & answer and have the logger match the answer to the waymarker's answer to get approval. This isn't difficult to do, in fact Groundspeak already has this tech down... we use it when we log in to the site. This is the third time I've brought up this idea, yet no one even acknowledges it. Yet people continue to post these threads... it really does boggle me. Why are we making it more costly? Seriously Why? Does everyone here work for a camera company or something?

Link to post

This is how I choose to do it for my waymarks. Sorry if you dont care for it.

 

Also, how very american of you to think that people can only get from point A to point B without the use of a car... last I recall there were other things invented such as trains, busses (yes they use gas but are much cheaper), bikes, and *gasp* legs. Some people don't need to use the car to waymark, some people know how to walk.)

 

Please refrain from sniping. Your comments throughout your post are offensive.

Link to post
Please refrain from sniping.

Now - Now ... "Boys & Girls" let's shake hands and make up!!!

I am sure we can do better than that .458.gif:rolleyes:

fing10.gif

 

Edited to include the fairer (smarter) gender. <_<

Edited by Jake39
Link to post

I fail to understand why you are unwilling to contact the Waymark Owner and/or Category Manager of the item you are interested in to request an alternative 'proof' for logging.

 

But Razak you also said this a few posts ago in this thread

But this is essentially what I've been saying... Right now we are in beta, if i were Groundspeak I'd be looking past the current users and get more. And to get more you have to make it as usable for everyone as possible... not just for the rich... And yes you do need a computer, and no you do not need a GPSr as currently I can type everything into google and find directions and since everyone is nice enough to provide a picture, I know what I'm looking for. But even so, does the fact that some money is required predicate that we should require people to use even more? Is this honestly the best idea? And Tsegi, yes someone without a camera can make a comment, but why should they essentially be excluded from a log just because they don't have a camera...

 

The part that I am referring to is

I can type everything into google and find directions and since everyone is nice enough to provide a picture, I know what I'm looking for.

 

So, in essecence you are relying on others to provide images of the Waymark. From that it implies that you feel it is okay for CM's to insist upon WO's to provide an image, but not WV's to have the same requirement?

 

You own a Category... and within in you request a certain criteria to be met, and have given examples of what is not acceptable.

 

If we take your approach about expense fully, the real truth is this

 

Geocaching requires a GPS unit... and nothing else.

Waymarking requires a Camera... and nothing else.

 

They cost about the same, one for each hobby.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

 

P.S. Don't allow your passion for your opinions prevent you from debating with a respectful nature, lest others view your thoughts with less respect.

 

edit: typo

Edited by The Blue Quasar
Link to post
×
×
  • Create New...