Comrades! Join The Camera-less Revolution!

[+LeoGeo]

It seems clear from other forum threads that there are at least some Waymarking players who would rather not mess with photo requirements for creating or logging waymarks. I freely admit that my reasons for belonging to that category are that I'm (1) cheap and (2) lazy. Other people's reasons may be more noble.

 

My intention is not to criticize owners of categories that require photos. In many cases there are good reasons for requiring the photos. I'd just rather find categories that I can have fun with, visit, and log without the photo hassle.

 

In any case, maybe we members of the Camera-Free Party could use this thread to recommend Waymarking categories that can be used without photographs. I'll get the ball rolling by mentioning a few that I've found.

 

Categories that don't require photos either to create or to log:

 

Brewpubs;

Wineries;

Wi-Fi Hotspots.

 

The Wineries category is especially imaginative and thoughtful in that, for logging, it requires, not a photo, but tasting notes for at least two of the winery's products! (Of course, this causes a problem for people who don't drink wine, but perhaps an alternative method of logging could be provided.)

 

There are also some categories that require a photo to create a waymark but not to log it, including:

 

Giant Board Games;

Oddball Museums;

"Z" Welcome Signs;

Amateur Radio Repeaters (although non-hams must provide a photo in this last category).

 

So please post: Where else can the photographically-challenged community go Waymarking? Thanks!

[+chstress53]

The Category I started for Covered Bridges requires no phot only a suggestion of a photo. My other Categories that I created all require photos, especially Art O Mats as ssomeone can only appreciate the Art O Mat after a phot is uploaded as each is a different work of art onto itself and it would detract from the waymark without a photo. If I could conceive of a way to have no photo requirements for B&B Lighthouses or the NJ Historic MArkers I would take it under advisement. I too do not believe all Categoriees should require Photo submissions to create them, maybe only for proof of those logging a find though as we did with some virtuals.

[+WalruZ]

The problem I have with this is that photographs are what makes Waymarking work for me. I don't want to look at waymark pages that have no pictures. I don't want to get dull one-line logs. When I browse the waymark categories, the nicely done pages with photos and HTML work are the ones that impress me. I'm not into marking every possible railroad bridge - I want them to be special, at least the ones I mark, and I want to be able to show why they're special, and I want other people to show themselves at the same spots.

 

If you're cheap and lazy it'll be reflected in the waymarks you mark and the logs you leave. Is that really how you want things to be, how you want things to appear? Cheap and Lazy? Not me, sorry.

[+LeoGeo]

I don't want to look at waymark pages that have no pictures. I don't want to get dull one-line logs. [...] I'm not into marking every possible railroad bridge - I want them to be special, at least the ones I mark, and I want to be able to show why they're special

 

Well, WalruZ has nothing to fear from me; I don't propose to leave "dull one-line logs" (or create "dull one-line" waymarks). The few waymarks I've created contain verbal descriptions, history, hyperlinks, etc., about the waymarks. Our species has evolved this amazing capability called "language," and I propose that we use it.

 

Perhaps I was being subconsciously sarcastic when I called myself "lazy" for not posting photos. Maybe the truly "lazy" waymarker is the one who <i>only</i> takes a photo instead of <i>thinking</i> about what makes the spot unique and then <i>describing</i> it to fellow waymarkers.

 

I wonder: would WalruZ reject, and condemn as "dull," books like The Odyssey, Don Quixote, Pride and Prejudice, and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, in favor of comic books, <i>just</i> because the former books contain no pictures?

[+LeoGeo]

Another category that encourages but doesn't require photos is: Payphones.

[OpinioNate]

The funny thing is you're both discussing different aspects of well-crafted waymark pages. If I have my choice I will prefer a waymark with a nicely worded and thoughtful description as well as colorful images. Maybe I'm just a 'cake and eat it, too' kind of person. Heck, if we allowed video uploads I'd enjoy those, too. Maybe a clip of a Fokker D flying in the Air Shows* category, or 10 seconds of footage from the Nude Beaches* category.

 

At the end of the day, just do the best you can with what you have.

 

My contribution to the thread: Shop24 Machines has no photo requirement, but you'll have to go to Europe to log one.

 

-Nate

 

 

*Do not exist, yet.

[+LeoGeo]

The funny thing is you're both discussing different aspects of well-crafted waymark pages. [...]

At the end of the day, just do the best you can with what you have.

 

-Nate

 

*Do not exist, yet.

 

Amen! I ain't anti-picture; sheesh, I have in my wallet, at this moment, annual membership cards to both the Metropolitan Museum in NYC and the San Diego Museum of Art. And I do enjoy seeing photos of interesting waymarks. But our species has progressed some, I hope, from the days when the only way we had to communicate was drawing pictures of the mammoth-hunting expedition on cave walls.

 

I also don't want to imply that I'm as good a verbal describer as Homer, Dickens, Poe, etc., but then, one doubts that all the wielders of digital cameras are 21st-century Ansel Adamses, either. I agree with OpinioNate: let's do the best we can.

[+The Blue Quasar]

I know I keep teeter-tottering on this one... but

 

For entering New Waymarks, I like to see images. I set the Category up to see the places that are submitted, kinda like a travel broucher. But people Visiting... they can do as they please, but I hope the give a visitor's review and not just say "I was here"

 

The Blue Quasar

[+StagsRoar]

I know I keep teeter-tottering on this one... but

 

For entering New Waymarks, I like to see images. I set the Category up to see the places that are submitted, kinda like a travel broucher. But people Visiting... they can do as they please, but I hope the give a visitor's review and not just say "I was here"

 

The Blue Quasar

 

"Ditto"

[+QuesterMark]

The Texas Historical Markers don't require a photo upload to visit.

[+tozainamboku]

The Texas Historical Markers don't require a photo upload to visit.

 

Too bad I didn't know this this past weekend

[Aushiker]

G'day

 

In light of the OP comments and the responses, you can now add Long Distance Hiking Trailheads, to the list. I have just edited the logging requirements.

 

Personally I would like a story and a photo in the log.

 

Regards

Andrew

[+Bob Blaylock]

  I guess we don't have the difficulty/terrain ratings with waymarks that we have with geocaches. I would argue that a geocache that requires a photo to be posted would have to have a 5-star difficulty, because a digital camera would constitute “special equipment” that not everyone has, and which most people don't normally expect to be required when geocaching.  Perhaps some similar principle should apply somehow to Waymarking as well.

 

  I've been rather put off by the fact that I cannot in any way log a benchmark that I discovered some time ago, because the appropriate Waymarking category for it requires me to post a photograph; and the digital camera that I have is not of sufficiently good quality to take a clear, recognizable picture of something as small as this benchmark.

 

  I keep telling myself that some day, I'm going to go to that benchmark with one of my high-quality, stone-aged film cameras, and take a picture of it.  Then, when I get the film from that camera processed, I can scan the picture, and get an acceptable image to post to log that benchmark.  But that's an awful lot of trouble to go to just to log a benchmark, and it probably isn't going to happen.

 

The Wineries category is especially imaginative and thoughtful in that, for logging, it requires, not a photo, but tasting notes for at least two of the winery's products! (Of course, this causes a problem for people who don't drink wine, but perhaps an alternative method of logging could be provided.)

 

  I wonder if a willingness to consume alcohol could be considered “special equipment”.  As a practicing member of a religion that proscribes alcohol, I wouldn't be able to log such a waymark without violating my religious principles, unless an alternative way was provided for me to do so.  But then it does seem to me that there's a line to be drawn, where it is simply understood that not everyone can log every waymark.  If I'm unwilling to consume alcohol, then there's really no reason for me to be logging a waymark that is based on doing so.

[+8Nuts MotherGoose]

  I guess we don't have the difficulty/terrain ratings with waymarks that we have with geocaches. I would argue that a geocache that requires a photo to be posted would have to have a 5-star difficulty, because a digital camera would constitute “special equipment” that not everyone has, and which most people don't normally expect to be required when geocaching.  Perhaps some similar principle should apply somehow to Waymarking as well.

 

  I've been rather put off by the fact that I cannot in any way log a benchmark that I discovered some time ago, because the appropriate Waymarking category for it requires me to post a photograph; and the digital camera that I have is not of sufficiently good quality to take a clear, recognizable picture of something as small as this benchmark.

 

  I keep telling myself that some day, I'm going to go to that benchmark with one of my high-quality, stone-aged film cameras, and take a picture of it.  Then, when I get the film from that camera processed, I can scan the picture, and get an acceptable image to post to log that benchmark.  But that's an awful lot of trouble to go to just to log a benchmark, and it probably isn't going to happen.

 

The Wineries category is especially imaginative and thoughtful in that, for logging, it requires, not a photo, but tasting notes for at least two of the winery's products! (Of course, this causes a problem for people who don't drink wine, but perhaps an alternative method of logging could be provided.)

 

  I wonder if a willingness to consume alcohol could be considered “special equipment”.  As a practicing member of a religion that proscribes alcohol, I wouldn't be able to log such a waymark without violating my religious principles, unless an alternative way was provided for me to do so.  But then it does seem to me that there's a line to be drawn, where it is simply understood that not everyone can log every waymark.  If I'm unwilling to consume alcohol, then there's really no reason for me to be logging a waymark that is based on doing so.

[+8Nuts MotherGoose]

  I guess we don't have the difficulty/terrain ratings with waymarks that we have with geocaches. I would argue that a geocache that requires a photo to be posted would have to have a 5-star difficulty, because a digital camera would constitute “special equipment” that not everyone has, and which most people don't normally expect to be required when geocaching.  Perhaps some similar principle should apply somehow to Waymarking as well.

 

  I've been rather put off by the fact that I cannot in any way log a benchmark that I discovered some time ago, because the appropriate Waymarking category for it requires me to post a photograph; and the digital camera that I have is not of sufficiently good quality to take a clear, recognizable picture of something as small as this benchmark.

 

  I keep telling myself that some day, I'm going to go to that benchmark with one of my high-quality, stone-aged film cameras, and take a picture of it.  Then, when I get the film from that camera processed, I can scan the picture, and get an acceptable image to post to log that benchmark.  But that's an awful lot of trouble to go to just to log a benchmark, and it probably isn't going to happen.

 

The Wineries category is especially imaginative and thoughtful in that, for logging, it requires, not a photo, but tasting notes for at least two of the winery's products! (Of course, this causes a problem for people who don't drink wine, but perhaps an alternative method of logging could be provided.)

 

  I wonder if a willingness to consume alcohol could be considered “special equipment”.  As a practicing member of a religion that proscribes alcohol, I wouldn't be able to log such a waymark without violating my religious principles, unless an alternative way was provided for me to do so.  But then it does seem to me that there's a line to be drawn, where it is simply understood that not everyone can log every waymark.  If I'm unwilling to consume alcohol, then there's really no reason for me to be logging a waymark that is based on doing so.

[+8Nuts MotherGoose]

When we were doing the Locationless Caches, we used a 35 mm film camera. I would then take the film in, have it developed and have a CD made with the pictures on it. The photos would be back in a week. The next step was to reduce the size of the image to meet web site requirements (< 120k). I then got on the internet with my landline running at a max speed of 24.5K. It was at that point that I would discover that the LC had been archived 2 months ago or maybe two days ago.

In December of 2006 we received a digital camera for Christmas. A mad dash around the countryside and lots of time on the internet got us some more LC claims at the last minute. I love that $50.00 camera.

 

I don’t even check to see if these waymarks require photos. I put them in - even at 24.5K rate. With the research and write-up, I’m lucky to get more than 6 or 8 waymarks posted in a 16-hour day. Photo up-loads and page downloads with pictures takes the most time.

Personally, I want to see a photo. Without photos, it’s just a virtual cache. “The most beautiful park you’ve ever seen” waymark means nothing without a photo. (The above waymark doesn’t exist - yet).

As for that benchmark photo – It took me three 20-mile road trips and three half-mile hikes back to the benchmark to get what I considered an acceptable photo with my camera.

 

As for the wine tasting and giving my comments – not a bad idea but it does need an alternative way to log it. I do not like wine or other such adult beverages. What would I comment about the flavor? Should I give my honest opinion and say it tastes like #$*@? Or perhaps say that it is the “Ambrosia of the Gods” Either comment may be true or false for someone else.

[+chstress53]

I just have to ask if you do not like wine or other alcoholic bevarages what would you be doing going to this kind of Category in the first place?

[+8Nuts MotherGoose]

I just have to ask if you do not like wine or other alcoholic bevarages what would you be doing going to this kind of Category in the first place?

I may not like alcoholic beverages, but I have no objections to the drinking and enjoyment that others get from these products. I would be going to this category for the same reason that I went to a "Dog Park" even though I don't own a dog. I am assisting others in the search for their favorite subject in my part of the world. Isn't that what Waymarking is all about?

I could say that MotherGoose enjoys a fine wine now and then, but medication that she is taking prevents her from doing what she used to enjoy.

I could also say that I'm doing it for the "Icon", but we traveled the back roads, and explored new places before geocaching and Waymarking. This just adds another bit of fun to our road trips.

If only I could find a "Nude Beach" for those who enjoy that type of thing.

[+sbell111]

My contribution to the thread: Shop24 Machines has no photo requirement, but you'll have to go to Europe to log one.

That is so cool. The next time I'm in the Syracuse-area (or Europe), I'm going to check it out.

[+swizzle]

I for one love to see the pics but I also don't see the need for the poster of a waymark to post a pic. I just had a waymark denied because I didn't post a pic of the covered bridge. With my current situation its difficult for me to post pics. Not impossible but difficult. First I have to go back to the location then drive 20 miles to the nearest Walmart and then drive 20 miles back to a computer to post the pic. Its just not convient for me at this point. So if someones computer crashes or their camera dies then they can't go Waymarking? It just don't seem right to me. I figure if a spot is special enough to warrent pics then the visitors to come will post them. Maybe not every waymarker but the pics will come. Swizzle

[+StagsRoar]

I just had a waymark denied because I didn't post a pic of the covered bridge. So if someones computer crashes or their camera dies then they can't go Waymarking? It just don't seem right to me. I figure if a spot is special enough to warrent pics then the visitors to come will post them. Maybe not every waymarker but the pics will come. Swizzle

 

But if your computer crashes you won't be logging any waymark in any case - whats the options: Waymarking via text message because our computers broke. Thats just life. If your bike has a flat you can't ride it either - whether it feels right or not.

To request a photo is the perogative of the managing team - if you don't like it then stay away from that category - it all boils down to choice!

Edited August 20, 2006 by StagsRoar

[+WalruZ]

Picture == 1K words.

[+DiS02]

Slightly old thread but just catching up on them...

 

My PoV is that I really dont like categories that require pics. Really really dont like.

 

1- I'm on dialup & do not have _easy_ access to highspeed. There are reasons I cant do dsl, cable or highspeed sats.

 

2- I did not have the extra money currently to pay to some of these wi-fi groups when I may only use them once a month. And there are no free wifis in my area, I have to travel over 50 miles/1 hr to get to one & at around $2.75-3 per gall of gas thats not a tradeoff.

 

3- I am lucky I have a Garmin V that I can use for my GPSing jones, it was something I had purchased for other usage then found out about geocaching/waypoints/benchmarking.

 

4- I have occasional usage of a higher end digi camera, but am thinking that maybe a cheap digi camera so I can use it when I want & not depend on the owner allowing me to use theirs. I can not afford currently to buy a disposible camera, then to get it processed as it gets expensive fast. Least with geocaching all I really need is a pen to mark the log aside from my gps, as long as I take nothing from the cache I dont need to leave anything.

 

5- the rq to have a pic of me holding my gps? Nah, not gonna happen for 2 reasons. I do not have my pic taken for personal reasons nor can I gum up someones elses digi camera because I do this on my own so sticking it on something isnt going to happen.

 

Tonite I was trying to upload some pics of a USAr CoE survey mark I found, got one up but kept failing on the 2nd one. Same thing with a benchmark I was trying to upload, that one wouldnt even allow me to upload one pic.

 

I can understand the reqs of pics for some things, but I cant even log some stuff I did in Hawaii last year because I dont have a pic of me with my gps at the site that is required.

 

Something some cat managers need to think about is.. do you want people to actually enjoy this great hobby or do you want to be a elitest jerk? Set the reqs too stiff & you will drive people off instead of attracting people to this hobby.

 

Diane

and her two pence

[+Jake39]

.... or you want people to actually enjoy this great hobby or do you want to be a elitest jerk? Set the reqs too stiff & you will drive people off instead of attracting people to this hobby.

I resemble that remark If it's not your cup of tea stick to coffee.

If you want to print a phone book join the phone company.

[+DiS02]

Jake, thats fine if you want to call yourself a 'elitest jerk', just remember I didnt (tongue out)

 

But also be prepared to lose people then, I know for a fact that where I live currently does not have more than 1 or 2 waymarks here in DE, lower DE.

 

I'm going to try & change that, but I wont post pics of myself & if the cat leader wants to refuse my waypoints then I'll have to start my own cats then. Considering I'm on dialup I may not post any pics & explain why to them, they dont like it then again I'll start my own without the req to add pics.

 

And yup, I do Geocaching as well as benchmarks & waypoints so I can cover a hell of a lot of ground when I finally put my mind to it. And with my upcoming job I'll have access to getting the word out to a lot of people, a lot of people.

 

So whatever, like it or not having a digi camera & a highspeed connection should not be a requirement to what used to be a Fun Hobby

I could care less for you & your angry faced snots. Sheesh

[+Volcanoguy]

I wouldn't consider only having a dial up connection that big an problem. I've created 485 waymarks in 49 categories with multiple photos for most of them using a dialup connection only.

[+DiS02]

I wouldn't consider only having a dial up connection that big an problem. I've created 485 waymarks in 49 categories with multiple photos for most of them using a dialup connection only.

 

Glad you got a good connection then 8-)

 

Me, I spent time this wkend banging my head on my desk trying to upload 2 pics to 2 different cats. I was able to do 1 pic for 1 category but not the 2nd, I kept getting smacked off line. For the 2nd catergory I wasnt even able to upload 1 pic.

 

Consider myself a geek so check all the usal things, but it only happens when I tried uploading those pics, which werent of a different size from the 1st so not sure why it happened. I hope to be able to get temp access to a wifi in the next couple days so will be able to do the rest.

 

Anyways, I can understand needing a camera for some categories, I really can, but not all cats should have the req of posting a pic just to prove you were there. (Yes, I know not all do, yet)

If the owner is that concerned if a person was there then do something other than a pic, a puzzle (simple) or have them jot down maybe a sentence from a plaque, if there is one. Stupid suggestions maybe but no harder than having to do a pic.

 

(shrugs)

 

Diane

[+dawgs]

I think pics are great to have and should defintly be a requirment

[+sbell111]

... Anyways, I can understand needing a camera for some categories, I really can, but not all cats should have the req of posting a pic just to prove you were there. (Yes, I know not all do, yet)

If the owner is that concerned if a person was there then do something other than a pic, a puzzle (simple) or have them jot down maybe a sentence from a plaque, if there is one. Stupid suggestions maybe but no harder than having to do a pic.

The thing is, the pic is what makes Waymarking work for me. It was presented to us as a replacement for LCs & virts and that's what I consider it. Without the pic, I can 'find' most waymarks from my desk at work. That's no fun and reduces the value of everyone's WMs, in my opinion.

 

Also, the idea that these can be validated using some verbiage from a sign doesn't work, in my opinion. I have no idea what is on a sign at some location that I'm not aware of in another part of the world that just happens to fit into my waymark category.

[+DiS02]

... Anyways, I can understand needing a camera for some categories, I really can, but not all cats should have the req of posting a pic just to prove you were there. (Yes, I know not all do, yet)

If the owner is that concerned if a person was there then do something other than a pic, a puzzle (simple) or have them jot down maybe a sentence from a plaque, if there is one. Stupid suggestions maybe but no harder than having to do a pic.

The thing is, the pic is what makes Waymarking work for me. It was presented to us as a replacement for LCs & virts and that's what I consider it. Without the pic, I can 'find' most waymarks from my desk at work. That's no fun and reduces the value of everyone's WMs, in my opinion.

 

Also, the idea that these can be validated using some verbiage from a sign doesn't work, in my opinion. I have no idea what is on a sign at some location that I'm not aware of in another part of the world that just happens to fit into my waymark category.

 

And as I said, it works for some cats, not all. If you cant know what is on some waymark that is halfway across the world that happens to fit into your cat then maybe you should rethink your cat.

And as I said, they were some suggestions, I'm sure your smart brain can think up better ideas to use.

 

Whatever, your opinion differs from mine, thats fine & dandy. Waymarks are not virts or LCs in my opinion, they are in yours, fine, whatever.

 

Next cat owner that tells me they have to have a pic in order to validate my find I'll tell them what to do with it if they cant accept the info I provide them that I've been there. And yes, I can get quite verbose in my 'been there' descripts. When they buy me a digi camera or pay for my film processing & the time it take to upload on dialup then they can dictate to me how to do things, until then they can stow it.

 

I've got quite a few waymarks under my belt myself, just became premie a couple weeks ago so I'm starting my own cats due to a disagreement with a certain manager who didnt like the way my state lists things so I'm not some newb.

 

I'm out, I have better things to do today, like go find some benchmarks, waymarks, caches & letterboxes on my one day off.

[+Crystal Sound]

Some of this I've said before, however, I thought I'd expand upon it.

 

I fully understand the dislike of a photo requirement. Until about 2 weeks ago, I didnt have my own digital camera. I either had to borrow someone's cam, or use a film camera, and either scan the prints, or get a photo CD. There's the time issue, especially for a dialup user. I was often lucky to get a 28.8 connection at home.

 

I often read in the forums, comments about Waymarking not being as popular as geocaching. Granted, it's new, hasnt really been "rolled out", it's in "beta", yada...

 

The "beta" part is what everyone seems to be forgetting. Waymarking is in development - and WE are the ones who are developing Waymarking. Granted, TPTB have developed a website & structure for Waymarking, but WE are the ones who are creating the waymarks and building the database.

 

The Waymarking site would have been worthless, if TPTB had rolled it out as a public-release, without a single waymark in the database. Thus, we had the early development stages (such as before group management came to be), to start populating the database.

 

When Waymarking rolls out, which would YOU rather see? A database of waypoints with some text only? Or a database of waypoints that includes a text description and a picture to give you an idea of what you would likely see?

 

I think photos will go a long way, into making Waymarking attractive to newcomers. I think it makes things more "alive" and not just a "dead" database full of text and coordinate data. I have .GPX & .LOC files full of all sorts of points of interest, so why would I want Waymarking? The "realism" it brings to a point, and the information about it, that is shared.

 

As a category owner, I like to see the photos that are included with a listing. It adds a bit of realism and authenticity to the waymark. Especially for a waymark that I may never see in person. For one nearby, a photo could go a long ways to luring me into a visit.

 

So yes, for a listing creation, I see the need for a photo.

 

As a logging requirement? I really dont agree with it, for several reasons.

 

I dont see Waymarking as a game - although some do. Making logging requirements is basically making rules on how you can "score" the find. If I have to upload a photo (sometimes of GPS, sometimes not), for every site I visit to log it, *I* wont be logging it. I'll just visit sites, and not worry about logging online.

 

There are cachers who visit my caches, and never log online - I sometimes feel cheated by these people, as I dont get to read their comments about the cache in my morning emails. The only way I know, is if I happen to visit my cache, and read the logbook (hopefully before it gets stolen/ruined/whatever).

 

I would hate to "cheat" people out of my comments about my own experience (which is why I log my benchmarks and geocaches online), but if I'm stuck with not having met the requirements, then that is just what I will do.

 

For now, since there is no real similey count in Waymarking, it doesnt matter. If/when the count starts appearing on the stats screen, I still wont care. I'm on the eve of my 200th cache find, and I'm in no rush to reach it. I'd still rather visit 1 really good cache, than do hundreds of boring ones. I'm not a competitive type. I waymark and geocache for the experience. If someone wants to put a bunch of rules and requirements in my way, I'll find something else to do.

 

Let's be honest: For those of you who geocache, would you really have gotten into geocaching if there were photo requirements for every cache find?

 

I'm sure I can go out on a limb safely and say that in general, webcam & puzzle caches dont get near as many finds as a traditional cache. Theres a reason for that.

 

In summary: At this stage of things, I think it is our duty to make Waymarking as attractive as possible. If we clog up the works, then Waymarking wont catch on.

 

Ok, ok, I'll shut up (for now)....