Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
BigBadger & Li'l SG

What's All The Hubbub, Bub?

Recommended Posts

What is/was the reasoning behind separating Waymarking from Caching?

 

I realize this is far from a new topic but I found no forums illustrating reasoning behind the separation from caching. (Finding thoughts within threads within topics within forums is like finding needles within pinstacks within haybales within barns, within.......)

 

Benchmarking is still on GC.com and what makes that any different from Waymarking.com?

 

Why is the Waymarking website not just a varied clone of the GC'ing website? It seems clunkier and more scattered? No PQ's, no Hide and seeks, no series of filter fields to search, etc.

 

This all seems redundant considering the GC.com tracking of TB's, benchmarks, grandfathered VC's, etc.

 

YES, I have read many items within forums, Waymarking FAQ, GC.com..... I am neither trying to be belligerent nor obstinate, only trying to understand.

Share this post


Link to post

What is/was the reasoning behind separating Waymarking from Caching?

Here's my take on this. There were two problems which needed to be addressed:

 

Problem 1: In an architectural sense, the GC.com site wasn't set up to properly handle locationless caches. There was no good way to prevent duplicate entries, and as the locationless cache submittals grew large, performance became a real problem. Also, once someone had logged a locationless cache, there was no mechanism built into the site that would allow others to log visits to these locations.

 

Problem 2: When virtuals were first introduced to the GC.com site, things ran fairly smoothly. But a problem arose when numerous virtuals were submitted for low, or no, value locations. Rather than allowing GC.com to become polluted with the locations of discarded shoes and dead birds, GC.com put in place a "wow" requirement for new virtual submittals. It turned out that there was no good way to define what "wow" meant, so the reviewing and approving process became a nightmare for the reviewers. Ultimately, very few new virtual caches were allowed, and many people were unhappy with the situation.

 

Rather than attempting to redesign GC.com to somehow solve these two problems, Groundspeak decided to solve both of these problems at the same time by implementing a clever scheme of "categories" and "waymarks". They did this starting with a clean slate - a new site (Waymarking.com). By essentially starting from scratch, the developers would have the opportunity to develop new and better technologies that could eventually support not only Waymarking, but geocaching, benchmarking, letterboxing, and maybe a few other things.

 

What you see today on the Waymarking site is the early implementation of the new structure. It's not done yet (the site is still in beta). Many features we take for granted on GC.com (like PQs) are not yet available on the Waymarking site, but will be added later. Notice that there are some features on the Waymarking site which are not available on GC.com yet (like multiple origins). Eventually, the best features of both sites will be available everywhere.

 

Benchmarking is still on GC.com and what makes that any different from Waymarking.com?

I'm certain that eventually the benchmarking activities from the GC.com site will find an appropriate home. There already is lots of benchmarking going on on the Waymarking site - in fact, the Recovered US Benchmarks category is the largest and most active category on WM.com

 

No PQ's, no Hide and seeks, no series of filter fields to search, etc.

See my comment above about PQs, but WM.com does have the concept of "hide and seek" (record new waymark, search for waymarks). There are already plenty of ways to filter and search for waymarks, and these tools are being improved.

 

Hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post

Its an entirely different game - or is that not obvious enough. Yes they both use GPS units and they are both administered by Groundspeak but the concept and aims are entirely different. Caching and Waymarking were not separated at all - they were never created together, they're milestones apart in objectives, format and rule. I really don't see the point of the original question!!

Share this post


Link to post

Not trying to be belligerent nor obstinate either.... but here goes.

 

I don't understand why Web Cam Caches and EarthCaches... and Benchmarks are still on Geocaching.com either.

 

There is a Category on Waymarking for all of these, in fact the one(s) for Benchmarks is/are FAR superior on Waymarking because it is now INTERNATIONAL, whereas before it was restricted to US Benchmarks.

 

Also, from what I read someone in one of the thousands of messages, the Waymarking engine is far superior to the Geocaching engine for scalability and functionality. I have no proof of this, I just recall reading it somewhere.

 

Getting away from all the politics and debate, to me it comes down to a simple thing....

 

Geocache = hidden physical container that you should need a GPS to locate so you can sign the logbook

Waymark = public access location that fits into a distinct classification that may be of interest

 

Why are they running on separate site now? Because it relieves a lot of headaches for Groundspeak and the Volunteer Reviewers, while being able to bring back certain elements people once enjoyed, and allowing them to participate to a much greater degree.

 

At the risk of saying something that sounds contradictory.... many Waymark Categories are lame. So were a lot of Locationless. So what? There are a lot of lame Geocaches out there too. I don't see many people jumping on that bandwagon.

 

All I know is that I have seen more cool pictures and learned far more from Waymarking than I ever did from the Locationless Cache principle. And from that, I am enjoying Waymarking whereas I felt no desire to get really involved in Locationless.

 

The only problem so far, to me, seems to be that 'true Virtuals' are still getting lost in the sea of Waymarks. But that is a Category issue, that some people are trying to solve. And with increased participation in the future, hopefully many will migrate over. For some to survive, cross-linking will have to happen.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

At the risk of repeating what the others have already said:

 

I got into geocaching as a "detour" in my searches for interesting locations to visit. I was looking for a particular location (an abandoned train tunnel), and ended up finding a reference to a geocache.

 

I found geocaching to be an interesting pastime. The concept is pretty cool - hide a box with a logbook and some trade items at a (hopefully interesting) location. People come, visit, sign the logbook "i was here".. yada yada.

 

Problem was: Sometimes a particular location couldnt support a geocache, or wasnt allowed, or muggles kept stealing the box, or whatever may have happened.

 

The Waymarking concept appeals to me. It gets back to what I originally liked to do: Visit interesting locations. The categorized layout helps in the organization. I can seek out, and/or share, interesting locations, post pictures, tell of visits, and so forth.

 

I still like geocaching... Finding a box, especially in a place I have never been, that is an interesting spot, is still fun. It just gets harder to find a "good" one, from many of the "fair" ones.

 

Different strokes for different folks....

 

If you like hunting for containers, signing logbooks, and trading items - then geocaching is up your alley.

 

If you like visiting or seeing something interesting - perhaps Waymarking is your thing.

 

Me? I prefer mapping and benchmarking - so the National Map Corps, and reporting benchmark recoveries to the NGS is what I like. But I'll still grab the occasional cache, or submit a waymark when I get the chance.

Share this post


Link to post

What is/was the reasoning behind separating Waymarking from Caching?

 

You may be interested in Jeremy's response to a similar post I made a while back, which is here: My Post

Share this post


Link to post

Its an entirely different game - or is that not obvious enough. Yes they both use GPS units and they are both administered by Groundspeak but the concept and aims are entirely different. Caching and Waymarking were not separated at all - they were never created together, they're milestones apart in objectives, format and rule. I really don't see the point of the original question!!

 

Well I supppose it is merely a case of perspective. As in "a Square is a Rectangle but not neccesarily vice versa".... of course if you look at a rectangle from a certain perspective you WILL only see a square.

 

I just don't see them as 'entirely different', only variations of . I have not been looking into concepts and aims because they matter little to my downloading of waypoints and searching them out while getting groceries or while taking my kids for a hike.

 

It is very obvious that you take the matter considerably more seriously than I. I applaud your conviction but as you can see there is a matter of 2 perspectives here.

Share this post


Link to post

Its an entirely different game - or is that not obvious enough. Yes they both use GPS units and they are both administered by Groundspeak but the concept and aims are entirely different. Caching and Waymarking were not separated at all - they were never created together, they're milestones apart in objectives, format and rule. I really don't see the point of the original question!!

 

Well I supppose it is merely a case of perspective. As in "a Square is a Rectangle but not neccesarily vice versa".... of course if you look at a rectangle from a certain perspective you WILL only see a square.

 

I just don't see them as 'entirely different', only variations of . I have not been looking into concepts and aims because they matter little to my downloading of waypoints and searching them out while getting groceries or while taking my kids for a hike.

 

It is very obvious that you take the matter considerably more seriously than I. I applaud your conviction but as you can see there is a matter of 2 perspectives here.

 

Had Waymarking come first, geocaching could've have been invented as a subcategory of Waymarking games. Since geocaching came first it has its own website and it is more mature with features such as pocket queries, travel bugs, etc. As Waymarking matures and has features added we may see the sites become more integrated. The same is true for the NGS benchmarks on Geocaching. Waymarking needs to have a few features added to support these benchmarks and once these are added, not only can these benchmarks be integrated into Waymarking, but the features could be added to the other benchmarking subcategories (and perhaps other Waymarking categories).

Share this post


Link to post

What is/was the reasoning behind separating Waymarking from Caching?

 

You may be interested in Jeremy's response to a similar post I made a while back, which is here: My Post

 

Yes. My response still holds true. Thanks for linking to it!

Share this post


Link to post

I do believe there are some (locationless, virtual, webcam) caches that should be on wm.com. But there are many other caches (virtuals) that should stay on gc.com. In Boston along the freedom trail would be perfect for caches of a virtual nature. Finding historical landmarks and plaques relating to history or an event that occured at a specific location. I wish there could be some exemptions in the review process to be able to place virtuals on gc.com.

 

Doublestuff

Share this post


Link to post

I do believe there are some (locationless, virtual, webcam) caches that should be on wm.com. But there are many other caches (virtuals) that should stay on gc.com. In Boston along the freedom trail would be perfect for caches of a virtual nature. Finding historical landmarks and plaques relating to history or an event that occured at a specific location. I wish there could be some exemptions in the review process to be able to place virtuals on gc.com.

 

Doublestuff

 

I agree. From what I've seen of positions of the National and Federal Parks systems being resolute in having NO Caches placed, and State and Provincial parks seeming to be less absolute in their posturing. There seems to be little choice in the former other than virtuals.

Share this post


Link to post

And why can't that be on Waymarking?

 

Sounds like several other concepts already in place here.

 

 

:P The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

And why can't that be on Waymarking?

 

Sounds like several other concepts already in place here.

 

 

:P The Blue Quasar

Although I'm much more of an advocate of Waymarking than I used to be (I have placed over 150 waymarks now) I still have to say that the response of "Why can't that be on Waymarking" is not a response at all. It gives no reason why it must be and the corresponding questions "Why should that be on Waymarking?" and "Why can't that be on geocaching?" are equally valid responses also without reasoning attached.

 

That, of course, is the central issue to all of the discussions about how the two sites have progressed and why there continues to be voiced dissent. The main problem is definitions. What are geocaches and what are waymarks? Answer that and much of the problem will be resolved. Its clear, to me at least, that the geocaching/Waymarking communities have not agreed on accepted standards and definitions and that is shown by the fact that this question keeps coming up.

 

That said, having given Waymarking an honest try, and frankly enjoying a lot of it, I can get a sense of what is a waymark and what's a geocache but certainly can't provide a definition yet. I think that's because there is as much muddle about waymarks as there was about locationaless and virtuals. Maybe eventually we'll all figure out the definitions and both activities will be better for it.

Share this post


Link to post

I do believe there are some (locationless, virtual, webcam) caches that should be on wm.com. But there are many other caches (virtuals) that should stay on gc.com. (snipped)

I wish there could be some exemptions in the review process to be able to place virtuals on gc.com.

Doublestuff

I for one have always advocated that "Web-cams" stay with G.C. The statistics below speak for themselves.

Yes, I know "Waymarking" is only in 'Beta'

 

Ali'i Drive webcam on "Waymarking".

Kailua Cam on "Waymarking"

 

...and Ali'i Drive Cam on G.C. :ph34r:

..also Kailua Cam on G.C. :P

Edited by Jake39

Share this post


Link to post

 

...

That, of course, is the central issue to all of the discussions about how the two sites have progressed and why there continues to be voiced dissent. The main problem is definitions. What are geocaches and what are waymarks? Answer that and much of the problem will be resolved. Its clear, to me at least, that the geocaching/Waymarking communities have not agreed on accepted standards and definitions and that is shown by the fact that this question keeps coming up.

 

...

 

A "geocache" is a waymark with a container and log book - right?

Share this post


Link to post
I agree. From what I've seen of positions of the National and Federal Parks systems being resolute in having NO Caches placed, and State and Provincial parks seeming to be less absolute in their posturing. There seems to be little choice in the former other than virtuals.
In life, sometimes you must make the decision to 'stay the course'.

Share this post


Link to post

At the risk of being different from my Ontario brothers.... I had already given my opinion on why the suggested items could not be on Geocaching earlier in this thread.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

Getting away from all the politics and debate, to me it comes down to a simple thing....

 

Geocache = hidden physical container that you should need a GPS to locate so you can sign the logbook

Waymark = public access location that fits into a distinct classification that may be of interest

 

Even based on the old definition of a Virtual Cache... none of the signs along a trail would meet the criteria.

 

Jeremy has repeatedly explained the difference between a Geocache and a Waymark. He has also indicated that Virtuals and Locationless were broken, and Waymarking is the solution. These issues have been repeated time and time again in various threads on both the Geoaching and Waymarking Forums... the decision is as locked as the "Yellow Jeep Locationless Cache" is.

 

Jake39 Posted Yesterday, 06:36 PM

 

(doublestuff @ Jul 12 2006, 04:36 PM) *

 

I do believe there are some (locationless, virtual, webcam) caches that should be on wm.com. But there are many other caches (virtuals) that should stay on gc.com. (snipped)

I wish there could be some exemptions in the review process to be able to place virtuals on gc.com.

Doublestuff

 

I for one have always advocated that "Web-cams" stay with G.C. The statistics below speak for themselves.

Yes, I know "Waymarking" is only in 'Beta'

 

Ali'i Drive webcam on "Waymarking".

Kailua Cam on "Waymarking"

 

As passionate as your response is, it is not about statistical data or success rates based over a period of time. It is about accurate classifications.

 

In the old days we had "Vehicles"... there were lots of cars, and there were many trucks, some planes, a few helicopters and a couple of motorcycles and one or two blimps and balloons.

 

Now we have "Ground Based" and "Air Based".

 

We moved blimps and balloon over to Air Based, but people think Airplanes and Helicopters are cool, so we will pretend they are Land Based...

 

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Even though there are a lot of Airplanes doesn't mean they aren't Air Based.

 

Don't be surprised when the Beta wall comes down if Groundspeak decides to do some spring cleaning. I bet the only reasons they are holding off are the Beta Testing, and to 'ease' people into it.

 

You show me how a Web Cam or a Virtual or a Locationless or an EarthCache is an actual Geocache.... and I'll ask you for the logbook to sign it. As it stands now, Groundspeak has grandfathers all of those. The good thing is that they provided an alternative place to continue enjoying it.

 

:( The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

You show me how a Web Cam or a Virtual or a Locationless or an EarthCache is an actual Geocache.... and I'll ask you for the logbook to sign it.

Sign these :)B)

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...a4-6610dc91c890

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...c3-4dca2c8ea7b7

 

I know I just a big pain. They aren't my logs though and at one location the log hasn't been replaced after being filled up (not just by earthcachers though) :lol:

 

I know this isn't what you were really thinking and these two are the exception rather than the rule. B)

 

I may have just set my self up as a target B) Let um fly.

Share this post


Link to post
The Blue Quasar

 

Getting away from all the politics and debate, to me it comes down to a simple thing....

 

Geocache = hidden physical container that you should need a GPS to locate so you can sign the logbook

Waymark = public access location that fits into a distinct classification that may be of interest

 

Even based on the old definition of a Virtual Cache... none of the signs along a trail would meet the criteria.

 

Jeremy has repeatedly explained the difference between a Geocache and a Waymark. He has also indicated that Virtuals and Locationless were broken, and Waymarking is the solution. These issues have been repeated time and time again in various threads on both the Geoaching and Waymarking Forums... the decision is as locked as the "Yellow Jeep Locationless Cache" is.

 

 

I don't see too many opinions stating that these are the same. It is quite obvious and reasonable to conclude that there are in fact different waypopints to search for and find.

 

What I see as the issue at hand would be that there is no reason to separate them onto different websites. And now having read so many opinions and facts of the matter. It seems quite reasonable to work out the bugs that make these differences a challenge and THEN re-integrate them somewhat back together possibly under a new website called GEOMARKING.COM . :)

 

As with your analogy of the air-based and land-based transportation, maybe they should be administered differently........... but counted and recorded from a centralized system.

 

If not, and things become seperated due to their differences... logically we might see "mysteries" and any other variations pulled aside for re-working and ultimately ending up with their own websites.... dumb

 

The biggest problems I have had to deal with are not the fact that there are no log-books or boxes to trade stuff from, but the inconsistencies of the owners of the caches to properly indicate "cache-type", or have inaccurate co-ord's, or hints where the description should be, or any other of a dozen small mistakes made when starting up a cache. With an updated system of pre-made form fields and checking feedback from cachers (non-owners) there is no reason these problems, small as they might be, can't be fixed.... and we can all be happy little cachers or markers, or geohunters, or ........ (steps down from soap-box, pats baby on head, shakes hands, throws stick for dog)

 

my 2¢

Share this post


Link to post

TerryDad2:

 

Those are both excellent examples of a well written EarthCache. And you aren't 'setting yourself up as a target' by any means of the expression.

 

However I'm sure that you know that you cannot enforce the 'if the visitors station is open, sign their guest book' portion.

 

If on the other hand, the park management insisted that a "EarthCache Logbook" was placed at the visitors station so they could track participation....

 

I applaud your effort to create EarthCaches that are interesting and educational.

 

Still no need for a logbook however. An EarthCache is still a variation of a Virtual, and Virtuals require verification by posting an image or answering questions via email.

 

At least with yours, to make the effort to raise awareness with the park regarding the activity, and provide much more detail and content than a lot I've looked at...

 

So my question back to is.... why haven't you duplicated these two excellent EarthCaches on Waymarking? They are separate listing sites, so I would think that it can exist on both... kinda like listing it on Geocaching.com and any of the other knock-off wannabes.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

 

So my question back to is.... why haven't you duplicated these two excellent EarthCaches on Waymarking? They are separate listing sites, so I would think that it can exist on both... kinda like listing it on Geocaching.com and any of the other knock-off wannabes.

 

3 reasons

1 - I though Jeremy was discouraging cross posting on gc and wm. I can't pull the reference for that though.

2 - I like to have people visit my earthcaches. 99% of the visits are from the listings on GC. So I don't want any reason to have the gc earthcaches removed. I would be worried that once they are on wm I would be asked to archive the GC ones.

3 - I don't know how that would show up on the earthcache.org listings. I wouldn't want duplicates there.

Share this post


Link to post
What I see as the issue at hand would be that there is no reason to separate them onto different websites. And now having read so many opinions and facts of the matter. It seems quite reasonable to work out the bugs that make these differences a challenge and THEN re-integrate them somewhat back together possibly under a new website called GEOMARKING.COM .

 

People would submit Virtuals and try to force them through with logic like this "Well, you allow Virtuals here and mine meets the criteria"

 

Now Geocaching.com can simply say "We don't allow Virtuals here... go play that game at Waymarking.com"

 

Seems that most people that come here either forget the time from 2002-2005, or weren't playing then. Years of arguing and debating 'What is a Virtual?". And that breeds the next problem "I found a really cool Virtual someone else placed, and I want to own one too.... what do you mean I can't do that anymore?" That to me is why all those "grandfathered" items need to be pulled, it just causes confusion and the continuation of the "I wanna make one too"

 

But if you can convince Jeremy and the boys of a workable solution, something that has eluded the community for over three years, then I wish you all the success.

 

My opinion, judging by his tone, I think Jeremy is sick to death of the whole discussion. And that is why he and his group created Waymarking... to fill the void of something that wasn't working but people wanted.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

MY last word on web-cams

 

I listed 6 on "Waymarking" - no more work - nothing to do.

.....and 3 on "Geocaching" --- lots of work --- (well some work) :)

 

You need a log book for "Geocaching" ??? BIG DEAL! B) jump out of the car, find a mini and run?

 

NOW... To locate and log a web-cam you have to phone a friend -$$$ and submit a photo. That's a lot more work than just signing a log book.

At least "Web-Cam Geocachers" have something to show for their effort.

Share this post


Link to post

Never said it wasn't hard to log a Web-Cam cache. I did say that since there is no container or logbook that it isn't really a cache.

 

Is that really your final word on Web-Cams, dear friend Jake39? I like to banter with you.

 

Still no one has shown me how a Virtual, or Locationless, or Web-Cam, or EarthCache are REALLY Caches.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Apologies for the very delayed response, but I do not frequent this forum.

 

There is a Category on Waymarking for all of these, in fact the one(s) for Benchmarks is/are FAR superior on Waymarking because it is now INTERNATIONAL, whereas before it was restricted to US Benchmarks.

 

I respectfully and strongly disagree. Benchmarking on geocaching.com and Waymarking.com are effectively using mutually-exclusive criteria, with the ones on geocaching.com being (arguably) more limited, of more use to surveyors, and of more interesting targets, to me anyway.

 

I would also expect to see a higher percentage of benchmarks on the geocaching.com site which are located as known targets that someone went looking for, while on the Waymarking.com site I would expect (but don't know for certain) that a much higher percentage are just stumbled upon at random, which changes the nature of that game. Effectively, looking for benchmarks on geocaching.com is more like looking for a geocache, and benchmarks on Waymarking.com are more like finding other waymarks. For me, I really really enjoy hunting benchmarks on geocaching.com, and have no real interest in the way the category is set up on Waymarking.com. That's just my individual preference, and I'm sure that others feel otherwise.

 

I would however suggest that someone with no benchmark finds on geocaching.com and no waymarks listed in the "Recovered US Benchmarks" category as far as I could check (back to 4/5/06) is perhaps not the ideal person to comment on what makes one "FAR superior" to the other. Simply expanding things to a potential audience outside the U.S. doesn't seem to be a sufficient improvement, given the other changes.

Edited by Team Nazgul

Share this post


Link to post

 

I would also expect to see a higher percentage of benchmarks on the geocaching.com site which are located as known targets that someone went looking for, while on the Waymarking.com site I would expect (but don't know for certain) that a much higher percentage are just stumbled upon at random, which changes the nature of that game. Effectively, looking for benchmarks on geocaching.com is more like looking for a geocache, and benchmarks on Waymarking.com are more like finding other waymarks. For me, I really really enjoy hunting benchmarks on geocaching.com, and have no real interest in the way the category is set up on Waymarking.com. That's just my individual preference, and I'm sure that others feel otherwise.

 

 

None of my benchmarks that I have found for Waymarking were stumbled upon. All were found first on a database and then I went out looking. They just were not found on the geocaching database. When I am traveling I check the NGS database for any that are newer than the data in the benchmark database roughly 2000 and those are the ones I find. This is how I search for most of my waymarks, I know what I am looking for and from research where they are before I go, and I also pick up a few random ones along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
None of my benchmarks that I have found for Waymarking were stumbled upon.

 

Fair enough! Similarly, I have benchmarks logged on geocaching.com that I did stumble upon and look up later.

 

I don't dispute that benchmarks are located that way by Waymarking users, I just suspect that the "stumbled upon" finds are more common on that site. But that's just a gut feeling, I have no real evidence to back that up, it just seems that way from anecdotal evidence that I hear from our local Waymarkers.

 

I will reiterate that I strongly prefer to leave benchmarks as they are (or better yet, enhanced with the current NGS database contents, etc.) on the geocaching.com site where they have existed happily for many years. Blue Quasar's not understanding why they are still there notwithstanding. Many people enjoy them there, so why are others (that aren't even benchmarking on geocaching.com) so eager to see that taken away? Now there's something I don't understand, or rather, simply don't agree with.

Share this post


Link to post

Feel free to continue with your US vs them mentality. That's fine. I've 'met on-line' many Americans that are wonderful people, that can look beyond the border to see the global vision.

 

NGS Benchmarks are US-centric. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Your comment of

Benchmarking on geocaching.com and Waymarking.com are effectively using mutually-exclusive criteria, with the ones on geocaching.com being (arguably) more limited, of more use to surveyors, and of more interesting targets, to me anyway.
makes very little sense outside or the US.

 

They would be of more use to AMERICAN surveyors... because the disks are American.

 

As well

I would however suggest that someone with no benchmark finds on geocaching.com and no waymarks listed in the "Recovered US Benchmarks" category as far as I could check (back to 4/5/06) is perhaps not the ideal person to comment on what makes one "FAR superior" to the other. Simply expanding things to a potential audience outside the U.S. doesn't seem to be a sufficient improvement, given the other changes.
is really funny.

 

I can't figure out why a Canadian such as myself hasn't found any American National Geodetic Survey disks. Total mystery to me. How many "Luftwaffe" towers have you visited? Or "Kindereggs" have you eaten? Or "Scottish Castles" have you been to?

 

Maybe including everyone is better than just people from one country.

 

Have you considered that perhaps people from other countries might actual enjoy the same options you have? Have you considered that maybe an international uniformity might be viewed in a positive light?

 

Basically the way you are coming across is that on the Geocaching side of Groundspeak... everyone can enjoy Traditional, Multi, Mystery and Letterbox... but only Americans can enjoy "Claiming a find" for Benchmarks. and yes.. I know... 90% of the participants of Groundspeak are American. That doesn't seem relevant for hosting a listing site for specific international games.

 

And you still have yet to explain, like everyone else that tries to argue this point... what exactly about a Benchmark makes it a GEOCACHE? Does it unscrew to reveal a secret logbook for people to sign?

 

All I was suggesting was putting all of the same items in the same place... if it is not a cache, take it off Geocaching.com and put it in a place that is designed for non-physical container items. That would be Waymarking.

 

:anicute: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post
Feel free to continue with your US vs them mentality. That's fine. I've 'met on-line' many Americans that are wonderful people, that can look beyond the border to see the global vision.

 

And you feel free to continue the insults, painting with a broad brush, and doing all of the things you are apparently trying to make claim against. ("Kettle? There's a Pot calling for you on line one.")

 

Perhaps you see why I and so many others do not frequent this forum.

 

NGS Benchmarks are US-centric. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Agreed.

 

Your comment of
Benchmarking on geocaching.com and Waymarking.com are effectively using mutually-exclusive criteria, with the ones on geocaching.com being (arguably) more limited, of more use to surveyors, and of more interesting targets, to me anyway.
makes very little sense outside or the US.

 

They would be of more use to AMERICAN surveyors... because the disks are American.

 

You actually supported part of my arguments there without realizing it, since you haven't done any benchmarking. That first point is that they're not all just disks. There are more interesting things than just disks, although most of those are specifically excluded in the Waymarking version of benchmarking.

 

And yes, American surveyors find the data helpful. Removing benchmarking from geocaching.com would also remove the NGS-centric find classifications, the useful search queries, etc., denying them that benefit.

 

I can't figure out why a Canadian such as myself hasn't found any American National Geodetic Survey disks. Total mystery to me. How many "Luftwaffe" towers have you visited? Or "Kindereggs" have you eaten? Or "Scottish Castles" have you been to?

 

I believe the commonly accepted term is "Flak tower", no? That's how all of my (international) reference works refer to them. No matter.

 

You seem to have missed my point. You've passed judgment on two different systems which you have apparently never taken part in. Have you ever logged a benchmark on Waymarking.com? Yet you're happy to pronounce one of the two systems as "FAR superior" (your words) based on apparently a single-item litmus test, that one is open to an international audience. That's a bit like saying that one sports car is superior to another because one is available outside the borders of a given country.

 

Contrary to your inexplicable attempt to paint me as some sort of foreign-hating, ignorant American, I have no quarry with making non-US benchmarks available. That would be great. My quarrel is against you (and only you, not all Canadians or the "international community") when you want to take away something I enjoy from geocaching.com, when you yourself don't use it.

 

Allow me to reiterate. I enjoy benchmarking as it is on geocaching.com. You do not. You rule that benchmaking on Waymarking.com is far superior, although you don't seem to use it. I have no problem with anyone doing what they like on the Waymarking site. You don't understand (again, your words) why benchmarking is allowed to remain on geocaching.com. You want to take away something I enjoy, something you don't understand, while I want to take nothing away from you or anyone else. Is that all making sense?

 

Maybe including everyone is better than just people from one country.

 

Nobody ever said otherwise. Certainly not I. Again, I'm saying "Don't take away benchmarking from geocaching.com." I am not against *expanding* benchmarking on geocaching.com.

 

Have you considered that perhaps people from other countries might actual enjoy the same options you have? Have you considered that maybe an international uniformity might be viewed in a positive light?

 

Currently they cannot do that on geocaching.com. I am in favor of adding your "international uniformity" (not a term I like because of the potential connotations of dumbing down to the lowest common denominator) to the geocaching.com site. You don't want to let any benchmarking remain on the geocaching site.

 

The version of benchmarking as done on Waymarking.com is already not restricted to US benchmarks, and I have no problem with that. Please do not insist that I do. I have no strong opinion of what is done on the Waymarking site because I am not a user there.

 

Basically the way you are coming across is that on the Geocaching side of Groundspeak... everyone can enjoy Traditional, Multi, Mystery and Letterbox... but only Americans can enjoy "Claiming a find" for Benchmarks. and yes.. I know... 90% of the participants of Groundspeak are American. That doesn't seem relevant for hosting a listing site for specific international games.

 

If you have an axe to grind there, and you clearly do, kindly refrain from doing it on me. It's not my site and I don't make the rules. Again, I never said I was against adding international options to benchmarking there, I just don't want it all removed because you can't do it. I wasn't against the Canadian geodetic network or other Locationless caches that weren't loggable from the US either, but apparently you would have been?

 

And you still have yet to explain, like everyone else that tries to argue this point... what exactly about a Benchmark makes it a GEOCACHE? Does it unscrew to reveal a secret logbook for people to sign?

 

I was unaware that you required an explanation, but here it is: Benchmarking is different than geocaching. It's also different - in it's current form - from Waymarking. It's existed happily for many years on the geocaching site anyway, giving many people a great deal of enjoyment. You want to see that taken away, because you apparently believe that everything on the geocaching site should be limited strictly to geocaches. I disagree with that opinion. Apparently, this makes me a Bad Person.

 

All I was suggesting was putting all of the same items in the same place... if it is not a cache, take it off Geocaching.com and put it in a place that is designed for non-physical container items. That would be Waymarking.

 

Yes, and all I did was to disagree with your opinion, and in return I was accused of being something ugly that I am not, and I don't appreciate it. Although it's often tolerated it's really not appropriate in these forums. I have gone to great length not to put words in your mouth, or to insult you, Canadians, Jeremy :laughing:, or anyone.

 

I have been belatedly warned by another Waymarker that disagreeing with you in this forum was a bad idea. Perhaps you can prove them wrong and continue the discussion - or let it drop - without resorting to hyperbole.

 

To summarize:

- You think it makes sense to have all benchmarking in one place, and that place is Waymarking.com.

- I think that benchmarking as done on geocaching.com is fun and I don't want that source of enjoyment removed.

 

I'm fine with that.

 

Now if you'll excuse me, I have an internationally unconforming benchmark to log.

Share this post


Link to post

Debate is always good, especially during beta testing. I am in no way the definitive source for anything. Mistakes are made, and I like to think that I have in the past posted notes in the Forums when I have been wrong.

 

Feel free to discuss, debate or similar, any point raised by me. We are all in this together to help mold Waymarking.

 

You actually supported part of my arguments there without realizing it, since you haven't done any benchmarking. That first point is that they're not all just disks. There are more interesting things than just disks, although most of those are specifically excluded in the Waymarking version of benchmarking.

 

And yes, American surveyors find the data helpful. Removing benchmarking from geocaching.com would also remove the NGS-centric find classifications, the useful search queries, etc., denying them that benefit.

 

Perhaps I am supporting your point, but I'm not suggesting that the option be removed. I am suggesting that it be relocated to Waymarking. Thus all the current benefits would be maintained, just on a site that is more designed for that kind of activity in my opinion.

 

You seem to have missed my point. You've passed judgment on two different systems which you have apparently never taken part in. Have you ever logged a benchmark on Waymarking.com? Yet you're happy to pronounce one of the two systems as "FAR superior" (your words) based on apparently a single-item litmus test, that one is open to an international audience. That's a bit like saying that one sports car is superior to another because one is available outside the borders of a given country.

 

I haven't taken part in it because I cannot. Actually I have looked for one, but I wasn't sure if I had the right item so I deleted it since I didn't want to spoil the database with wrong data.

 

I enjoy benchmarking as it is on geocaching.com. You do not. You rule that benchmaking on Waymarking.com is far superior, although you don't seem to use it. I have no problem with anyone doing what they like on the Waymarking site. You don't understand (again, your words) why benchmarking is allowed to remain on geocaching.com. You want to take away something I enjoy, something you don't understand, while I want to take nothing away from you or anyone else. Is that all making sense?

 

It's not that I Do not, it's that I Can not. But it's true. I don't understand why benchmarks (and web cams and earthcaches as well) are still on Geocaching. They are not representative of physical caches and have been grandfathered there. They belong here, since they are exactly what a Waymark is in my opinion, where they can grow.

 

I'm glad you enjoy Benchmarking on the Geocaching site.

 

I don't want to argue with you, or even try to make you see through my eyes. But you are right that I don't like that GC.com allows NGS finds but no other countries. Jeremy and his employees seem to be moving in a direction of getting Geocaching back to its roots of a hidden container with a logbook. Keeping these grandfathered items active on that site, when there is an alternative, seems unnecessary.

 

Of all of them.. Benchmarks should be the last to migrate. Web Cams and Earthcaches should go the way of Locationless in my opinion.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

Share this post


Link to post

Currently, I prefer that the GC.com benchmark area stay where it is with the features that it has there.

 

My main reasons are:

 

1. The ability to download a .loc or .gpx file is critical to many people's technique or at least toolbox in benchmark hunting. It doesn't exist on Waymarking.

 

2. A log on the Recovered U.S. Benchmarks (RUSB) Waymarking site can only be of 2 types: Visited, Write note. These are OK for other kinds of waymarks but probably not for benchmarks.

 

3. Waymarking doesn't have a link to "Nearest Benchmarks". (Easily fixable.) But then, neither does the GC.com benchmarking section have a Nearest RUSB link.

 

Obviously the first one is by far the most critical. I was more worried about this before the RUSB existed as I said in this post. That post is followed by a more pertinent post by Jeremy 2 posts later. He said that the merging of features would happen gradually. I see no reason to move the GC.com benchmarking section before that, if ever.

 

One advantage that benchmarks on Waymarking has is that with Google Earth, you can see all the waymarked benchmark locations on a map.

 

For whatever reason, Groundspeak has not yet made a provision for showing linkable icons for benchmarks on the "Geocaching.com maps" or "Google Earth Geocaching.com" maps in either the the regular geocaching benchmark site or in Waymarking.

 

----

 

I think that saying that benchmarking on Waymarking is far superior is, I think, somewhat of a logical fallacy. The statement was made based on the fact that, before Waymarking, there was no benchmarking site for Canada and now there is. That change (non-existence to existence) is not a quality change. It's a change in existence. It certainly says nothing about any quality difference between the GC.com site for NGS benchmarks and the RUSB site.

Share this post


Link to post

I just wanted to say that I wish there was a concise explanation easy accessible so, perhaps, more people would become involved in Waymarking. I have the suspicion that they aren't because they don't see "a thrill" or point in it, when that's hardly the reality.

 

We love geocaching, but Waymarking guarantees me something to photograph when we get there and our kids (and us) usually learn something very interesting. We don't have to bushwack our way to the spot, get bit by bugs, or watch for gators. I wish more people would do Waymarking in my county so we're not one of three doing it (the only ones if you minus the other two because they just did a palindrome waymark each).

 

- HauntHunters

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...