+TheBeanTeam Posted June 6, 2006 Share Posted June 6, 2006 Are people having fun with Waymarking ? I would like to hear from people who say they are really getting out and seeking out waymarks and having fun with it. I am having fun with it. I loved doing locationless caches and placing a waymark is very similar in my estimation. I like many of the features on Waymarking.com and I am enjoying playing with them to learn them. For example I can search for waymarks in several different ways. I can search by one of many origins of my choosing using the origin search function. I can also search by most popular, newest, or by using a tag search. If I am only interested in a few categories I can mark those categories as favorites and search by favorite as well basically ignoring everthing that I haven't flagged as something I am interested in. I really like being part of the peer review process. This is where anyone (premium members?) in the Waymarking community can review potential categories and vote yes or no to them. I have seen several that have been denied. Some of the proposals vanished completely. Others took the advice given to them in the review process and transformed the category into something very well thought out and original. Some stinkers will probably get through. Those I can ignore. Are there bugs in Waymarking? Yes there are, but TPTB seem to get on most of them quickly. The popularity filter does have some problems in my opinion. I have turned mine to 100% just so I don't have to deal with it. I think this will be fixed as time passes. I also enjoy and like (for the most part) the group management idea. With group management I will almost always hear back about a waymark that I have submitted in a timely manner. Without group management I have had some of my submissions languish for several months without approval or response from category owners that are AWOL. The thing I like about it most though is that I am so much more aware of my surroundings. I noticed spectacular railroad bridge that I have driven past many times and never "really noticed". The last time I passed by I not only noticed but realized that this bridge is a thing of beauty. I have passed it by in the haze of life but saw the crazy thing for the first time just last week. I haven't waymarked it yet but I plan to. New concepts to grasp. New ideas. New (old) locations to find that I have never been to before, and New (old) stories that I get to share one more time. Yeah I like Waymarking. Quote Link to comment
+TheBeanTeam Posted June 7, 2006 Share Posted June 7, 2006 Yes, it's about the smiley. I'm not spending money on gas to go to this place if I don't get any credit for it. Credit? One Find logged on Geocaching.com gets you One Visit logged on Waymarking.com gets you I didn't know they were really worth anything. I'm gonna have to start saving up so I can turn them all in for something really nice. remember Green Stamp stores?, hmmmm I am a bit bored with the smiley Check out the cool things I am earning at Waymarking.com . Oh, by the way, there are some category owners who are offering bounties as incentive to find waymarks. Even better than Green Stamps. No aftertaste of glue. Quote Link to comment
+D-cachers Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I don't post often...but as a family guy...I have to comment... Geocaching is marketed/geared, at least partially, as a family activity. Virtuals truly add a learning opportunity for the kids...and they get a kick out of finding answers and logging on-line. Simply for those reasons, virtuals should continue to be an option on GC.com. The numbers issue shouldn't matter...those that are in it for the numbers will get an "ego boost" as they watch their numbers climb...and those that aren't in it for the numbers won't care. Regarding using others sites...as a paying member of GC.com, I want to use this website for all my geocaching needs... Quote Link to comment
+Team Cotati Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 <snip> . . . I think the thing that makes it "boring" or unacceptable for most people is that they don't get a smiley. The day that visited logs count towards your GC.COM find count is the day that Waymarking.com becomes the cat's pajamas in most people's eyes. Yesterday, when someone mentioned using Waymarking to find WiFi hotspots, I checked out Waymarking for the first time in many months, looking at the WiFi category. In the entire San Diego area, there were none. So, after learning that, just for "fun," I spent a couple of hours doing Internet searches for locations in San Diego and mapping them on my Mapsource maps. However, if I were to drive to those 53 locations to verify the existence of the WiFi spot, I would sure like to get smilies for my trouble . . . and for spending all that money on gas. Maybe when/if the stats for the two sites get incorporated, more people will be willing to participate. Edit for speeeling . . . Perhaps you ought to consider carpooling. Quote Link to comment
CoyoteRed Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I am a bit bored with the smiley Check out the cool things I am earning at Waymarking.com . Your link takes you to the MyProfile on Waymarking meaning it takes you to the profile of whoever is logged in. I click on the link and I'm taken to my profile, not yours. The link I think you were meaning--the one to your profile. Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Virtuals truly add a learning opportunity for the kids...and they get a kick out of finding answers and logging on-line. Simply for those reasons, virtuals should continue to be an option on GC.com Please to explain to me why a geocache at the site of the would-be virtual, or using information on the would-be virtual to point to a real cache nearby would take away from this learning opportunity. Also, why would a site listed on Waymarking.com be any less educational than the same site listed on Geocaching.com? Quote Link to comment
+D-cachers Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Virtuals truly add a learning opportunity for the kids...and they get a kick out of finding answers and logging on-line. Simply for those reasons, virtuals should continue to be an option on GC.com Please to explain to me why a geocache at the site of the would-be virtual, or using information on the would-be virtual to point to a real cache nearby would take away from this learning opportunity. Also, why would a site listed on Waymarking.com be any less educational than the same site listed on Geocaching.com? Based on your previous posts, this is essentially the response I expected...and here is mine: 1. What is the harm of having virtuals on GC.com? Server space? The numbers issue? 2. Less educational? You are partially right...but the experience of submitting answers to a virtual "owner" and then looking for a response (hopefully one will come) that verifies you were correct, gives a sense of accomplishment for kids. As a father, I appreciate...and value...that. 3. I prefer to use one site. I don't have the time/opportunity to camp out on the internet to work through different sites...I pay GC.com and would like to do everything on this one site...simply my preference... I know this is an old issue...but I still find it disappointing that there is significant double-speak on certain issues with the caching community. The phrase "each to each's own" when it comes to how people cache...as long as there is no harm done...has been applied to discussions on micros vs traditionals, numbers vs "the experience", ec...so why not virtuals. If you must have hard and fast policies/rules...they should be focused on things that truly go against the most fundamental requirements of geocaching....such as pocket caches, the recent team "record" in Dallas, etc...where the basic action of going to a specific location and finding the "target" didn't even happen... So...what IS the harm of new virtuals still being allowed? I just don't get it... Quote Link to comment
+Yellow ants Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I spent about an hour messing around with the Waymarking site and finally gave up out of frustration. I failed at all aspects of using the site as it is intended. "Glad" to hear I'm not the only one who thinks the Waymarking.com site is completely, utterly useless! For sheer intuitiveness and ease of use, it about compares to a steam-driven computer with a tagalog keyboard Quote Link to comment
+Team Cotati Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 (edited) Virtuals truly add a learning opportunity for the kids...and they get a kick out of finding answers and logging on-line. Simply for those reasons, virtuals should continue to be an option on GC.com Please to explain to me why a geocache at the site of the would-be virtual, or using information on the would-be virtual to point to a real cache nearby would take away from this learning opportunity. Also, why would a site listed on Waymarking.com be any less educational than the same site listed on Geocaching.com? Based on your previous posts, this is essentially the response I expected...and here is mine: 1. What is the harm of having virtuals on GC.com? Server space? The numbers issue? 2. Less educational? You are partially right...but the experience of submitting answers to a virtual "owner" and then looking for a response (hopefully one will come) that verifies you were correct, gives a sense of accomplishment for kids. As a father, I appreciate...and value...that. 3. I prefer to use one site. I don't have the time/opportunity to camp out on the internet to work through different sites...I pay GC.com and would like to do everything on this one site...simply my preference... I know this is an old issue...but I still find it disappointing that there is significant double-speak on certain issues with the caching community. The phrase "each to each's own" when it comes to how people cache...as long as there is no harm done...has been applied to discussions on micros vs traditionals, numbers vs "the experience", ec...so why not virtuals. If you must have hard and fast policies/rules...they should be focused on things that truly go against the most fundamental requirements of geocaching....such as pocket caches, the recent team "record" in Dallas, etc...where the basic action of going to a specific location and finding the "target" didn't even happen... So...what IS the harm of new virtuals still being allowed? I just don't get it... There is none. However, you must understand that there are certain topics about which there is no negotiation...period. This is one of those. Why? I do not know. I do know that about a year in advance of the banishment of new virtuals on gc.com there was a never ending stream of what I call 'excuse making' that had as it's main theme some weird historical transgression of the reasonable existance of virtuals that had to do with toilet seats and telephone poles. Why such virtuals, assuming that they actually existed, were approved in the first place was never clear to me. Further why they weren't simply wiped off the site and forgotten remains a puzzlement. It was then that I first came to appreciate the seemingly deep-seated bias against virtuals being listed on gc.com. There is no reason to assume that that has changed in any measure. Edited June 10, 2006 by Team Cotati Quote Link to comment
+D-cachers Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Team C...I appreciate your comments. We have been engaged just a little longer than you (Jun 04 vs Sep 04) and are aware of the historical bias/posturing associated with the issue of virtuals. I agree that there are some out there that should never have been approved...and the responsibility for that lies with the reviewer/approver. If it doesn't pass the common sense test...don't approve it. Deal with the complaints and press on. When it comes down to it...my 10 yr old son simply wants to be able to geocache with me...in the woods, on the trails, in the fields...and an occasional virtual...looking for the owner to let him know he got it right. How often does GC.com take that into consideration when contemplating the virtues of virtual caching...thats my .02... Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 I am a bit bored with the smiley Check out the cool things I am earning at Waymarking.com . Your link takes you to the MyProfile on Waymarking meaning it takes you to the profile of whoever is logged in. I click on the link and I'm taken to my profile, not yours. The link I think you were meaning--the one to your profile. Forget geocoin collecting - looks like Waymarking is the place to be. - icon groupie Quote Link to comment
+tozainamboku Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 Virtuals truly add a learning opportunity for the kids...and they get a kick out of finding answers and logging on-line. Simply for those reasons, virtuals should continue to be an option on GC.com Please to explain to me why a geocache at the site of the would-be virtual, or using information on the would-be virtual to point to a real cache nearby would take away from this learning opportunity. Also, why would a site listed on Waymarking.com be any less educational than the same site listed on Geocaching.com? Based on your previous posts, this is essentially the response I expected...and here is mine: 1. What is the harm of having virtuals on GC.com? Server space? The numbers issue? 2. Less educational? You are partially right...but the experience of submitting answers to a virtual "owner" and then looking for a response (hopefully one will come) that verifies you were correct, gives a sense of accomplishment for kids. As a father, I appreciate...and value...that. 3. I prefer to use one site. I don't have the time/opportunity to camp out on the internet to work through different sites...I pay GC.com and would like to do everything on this one site...simply my preference... I know this is an old issue...but I still find it disappointing that there is significant double-speak on certain issues with the caching community. The phrase "each to each's own" when it comes to how people cache...as long as there is no harm done...has been applied to discussions on micros vs traditionals, numbers vs "the experience", ec...so why not virtuals. If you must have hard and fast policies/rules...they should be focused on things that truly go against the most fundamental requirements of geocaching....such as pocket caches, the recent team "record" in Dallas, etc...where the basic action of going to a specific location and finding the "target" didn't even happen... So...what IS the harm of new virtuals still being allowed? I just don't get it... I also enjoy finding virtuals when I go geocaching. The best virtuasl are the ones where you learn something new. However - 1. While all those good virtuals stick in your mind its not hard to go back and see that there were as many lame virtuals as good one. Add to that, many that I thought were lame, others thought were great and visa versa. What makes a good virtual - what makes "Wow" is subjective. 2. Geocaching put the decision on deciding "Wow" on the volunteer cache reviewers. These people already had there hands full ensuring that physical caches weren't be placed near railroad tracks or in other areas where they weren't allowed. Everytime a virtual cache was submitted the review knew that they were in for an exchange of emails with the virtual "hider" if not about to get flamed in the forums for "why wasn't my virtual approved" In Waymarking, the decision whether the waymark is worthy falls to two groups. First the category managers will decide if the waymark is appropriate for their category. If not, the waymark creator can try a different category or if there is none can propose a new category. The person looking for the waymark, can also make a decision - what are the categories they find interesting. If you like geology you can look for Earthcaches, waterfalls, rock-hounding sites, etc. If you like history, there are all the historical markers and other categories. If you interested in popular culture, there are categories for you too. 3. While I don't personally agree with this argument I'm including it for completeness. Geocaching is meant as a hunt for a container. Very few virtuals provided anything like that experience. A few may have required a search to find the answers to a verification question that would have corresponded to the search for the cache. But in truth, most virtuals were just a visit to a waymark. There was really nothing to find. In addition, many land managers would use the existence of virtual caches as an excuse to ban physical caches. "You can still cache in our park - just do virtual caches" Some people feel that by moving virtuals to Waymarking, they may have a stronger argurment to allow physical caches in parks where they currently are not allowed. Quote Link to comment
+welch Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 If you must have hard and fast policies/rules...they should be focused on things that truly go against the most fundamental requirements of geocaching....such as pocket caches, the recent team "record" in Dallas, etc...where the basic action of going to a specific location and finding the "target" didn't even happen... So...what IS the harm of new virtuals still being allowed? I just don't get it... Careful, If we call the 'target' a container, then you have what it is like now. If you want a virtual you have to connect it to a container. The problem is that allowing new virtuals returns to prior problems. Either allowing everything so there are floods of virtuals, or having someone (say the reviewers) decide if the location is worthy (say is a "WOW" location) of being a virtual. Either way people complain, 'there are too many virtuals', 'someone put a virtual where I wanted to put something else', or 'I submited a virtual but a jerk reviewer declined it', 'my virtual is super cool with lots of wow and suger on top, but it got turned down!', etc. The out is to merely say NO to virtuals, and refer people to Waymarking. Which, far from great, does allow a place for them. People submiting don't have to prove WOW to a reviewer, just find a catagory where their pet object fits. People wanting to hunt a large array of things (educational, historical, easy targets for kids) can do so. Sure they have to figure out the search and catagories near with stuff they'd want. But its there, if you choose to use it. Quote Link to comment
+wandererrob Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 (edited) Personally my involvment in Waymarking has been limited, mostly to finds of opportunity (i.e. I see something I recall having seen a category for). I'm even in the process of helping out with a catgory I've made a couple of submissions to. But overall I've found the Waymarking site difficult to use at best. If the Waymarking site had the geocaching site's functionality in temrs of searching, filtering, mapping and PQs I'd probably find it more useful/enjoyable. But as it stands right noiw I find it tends to be cumbersome. Partly in terms of use, but also because the site QUICKLY got bogged down with categories that probably never would have flown as locationless caches. (e.g. McDonalds locations. They have a website, I can look them up there if I have a burning desire to eat there.). I find myself spending a half hour just to find something remotely interesting. And even then, filtering yb location just doesn't seem to work at all. I liked virts and I too would like to see them return. Sadly I think that idea stands the proverbial "snowball's chance" but those and webcams had their place. As for locationless caches, I'm fine with them having been moved. I enjoyed them too but can see how they just didn't lend themselves well to the GC setup. But I think virts and webcams were somewhat unfairly lumped in with them. I'm giving Waymarking a chance, but I'm struggling to keep the faith. Edited June 10, 2006 by wandererrob Quote Link to comment
+Glenn Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 (edited) Waymarking is locationless, not virtual, earth or webcam. <snip> I see you desided not to bias you opinion by actually visiting the Waymarking website. If you look at the WM home page you'll notice that WM is different from GC but WM certainly does have what GC calls virtual caches, Earth caches, and web camera caches. Plus many other "cache types" that will never exist on GC. After reading this thread I am 100% convinced the ONLY reason a geocacher wouldn't enjoy Waymarking is if the "game" to them is only about the number of 's they can collect in the shortest time. Edit: to fix links. Edited June 10, 2006 by Glenn Quote Link to comment
+wandererrob Posted June 10, 2006 Share Posted June 10, 2006 (edited) After reading this thread I am 100% convinced the ONLY reason a geocacher wouldn't enjoy Waymarking is if the "game" to them is only about the number of 's they can collect in the shortest time. You sure about that? I've only got 87 finds spread across 5 years. I'm not saying you're completely wrong, but it certainly isn't the ONLY reason in some cases Edited June 10, 2006 by wandererrob Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.