Need A Nature Sub-category For Monuments & Nps

[+Drgnfli]

Let me put it bluntly – I hate it that Geocaching.com has moved Virtual caches to Waymarking.com. We enjoyed finding them as there was no log to sign or SWAG to handle, just questions to answer and views to see.

 

I have attempted to set a virtual cache with them for a week. They keep “rejecting” my cache (3 times now) because they do not have a “category” to put it in. My Virtual Cache is a view of the Three Sisters spires in Monument Valley, AZ. Although it is a “Nature” category, Waymarking.com does not have a sub-category for National Parks/Monuments. They have sub-categories for Nude Beaches, Civilian Conservation Corps, Mountain Summits, Glaciers, Volcanoes, etc but nothing for National Parks or Monuments.

 

When I tried to submit it to the “Scenic Roadside Lookouts” they rejected it because I did not submit a picture of the “lookout sign.” There are no “lookout” signs in Monument Valley.

 

When I tried to submit it as a “Scenic Overlook” the rule is you cannot “drive” to the view. You can drive to all the views at Monument Valley.

 

Then, once, I got ACCEPTED until the person in charge of the “Nature” sites REJECTED it and said the person who accepted it was a “New Officer”. HA! – I don’t have a chance!

 

Can you tell me what is going on with Waymarking.com? What is the reasoning they will not accept Monument Valley’s Three Sister spires? I have given up on “virtual caches” and I will stick to Geocaching.com caches as they are a lot more fun to find, place and log.

 

Any comments, suggestions, or ideas on this subject will be appreciated.

[+BruceS]

Let me put it bluntly – I hate it that Geocaching.com has moved Virtual caches to Waymarking.com. We enjoyed finding them as there was no log to sign or SWAG to handle, just questions to answer and views to see.

 

I have attempted to set a virtual cache with them for a week. They keep “rejecting” my cache (3 times now) because they do not have a “category” to put it in. My Virtual Cache is a view of the Three Sisters spires in Monument Valley, AZ. Although it is a “Nature” category, Waymarking.com does not have a sub-category for National Parks/Monuments. They have sub-categories for Nude Beaches, Civilian Conservation Corps, Mountain Summits, Glaciers, Volcanoes, etc but nothing for National Parks or Monuments.

 

When I tried to submit it to the “Scenic Roadside Lookouts” they rejected it because I did not submit a picture of the “lookout sign.” There are no “lookout” signs in Monument Valley.

 

When I tried to submit it as a “Scenic Overlook” the rule is you cannot “drive” to the view. You can drive to all the views at Monument Valley.

 

Then, once, I got ACCEPTED until the person in charge of the “Nature” sites REJECTED it and said the person who accepted it was a “New Officer”. HA! – I don’t have a chance!

 

Can you tell me what is going on with Waymarking.com? What is the reasoning they will not accept Monument Valley’s Three Sister spires? I have given up on “virtual caches” and I will stick to Geocaching.com caches as they are a lot more fun to find, place and log.

 

Any comments, suggestions, or ideas on this subject will be appreciated.

 

Yours was rejected because it did not comply with the requirements of the categories submitted to. You may be able to submit it in the earthcache Waymarking category as long as you write the Waymarking submission up in the format they require. If you think there needs to be a category then form a group and create the category. If it passes peer review then the category will be formed. All new categories go through the same process. But then again if you hate the Waymarking activity so much then it may be best to stay away.

[+Jake39]

When I tried to submit it to the “Scenic Roadside Lookouts” they rejected it because I did not submit a picture of the “lookout sign.” There are no “lookout” signs in Monument Valley.

 

When I tried to submit it as a “Scenic Overlook” the rule is you cannot “drive” to the view. You can drive to all the views at Monument Valley.

 

If you would have read all the rules you wouldn't have submitted the "Waymark" in the first place.

 

You posted a picture of some hilly peaks and "ONLY" requested a number of items a "Logger or "Visitor" should post to your "Waymark" ..eg picture - what animal you see etc. (can't remember all)

 

I politely wrote you 3 times that a sign or in the absence of a sign a picture of the parking area must be submitted and requested a description of the area ........not a shot of a couple of cars from 3 miles away.

 

In my last e-mail I suggested that you try to submit your "Waymark" to 2 other "Categories" as I could never accept yours as you keep sending it back for re-submission,( although you changes the first picture with an equally unacceptable one.)

 

Go back and read the e-mails I send you before complaining here on the "Forum"

 

Not once did you respond to my requests or contact me personally or any of my "Officers"

 

Added later --->

 

The only description on the page, beside some "Variables".

 

Long Description:

One of the many scenic views in Monument Valley. Please answer these questions to verify you were there. 1. Before reaching this view, what large mammals did you see?

2. From this view, what "relatives" do you see?

3. From this point, when viewing the middle "relative", what animal appears to have climbed to the top.

 

Is this the 2nd or 3rd page you submitted ???

Edited July 19, 2006 by Jake39

[+tozainamboku]

Once you find the right category and comply with the requirements for submitting the waymark in that category your chance of getting accepted is 1,000,000 times better that it would have been getting this accepted as a virtual cache. While the "monuments" of Monument Valley certainly meet the "wow" requirement that existed for virtual caches they would probably not have been approved as virtual caches. A virtual cache had to be a specific target you could find using your GPSr. A view was not a virtual cache. A mountain was not a virtual cache. In addition, there should have been one or more verification questions that could only have been answered by visiting the location. (Many virtuals allowed a picture with your GPSr in it as proof of visit - but these were supposed to be the exception).

 

Earthcaches would be a good category but you would have to write up something education to explain the geology of Monument Valley. I do think it would be reasonable to have a category for Rock Formations or Geological "Monuments" for people to waymark. If you are a premium member you could start a group to manage such a category. Or try to get someone else to start one.

 

Waymarking can be frustrating, especially when there is no obvious category for what you want to waymark. Or even if you thought there was a category, but it imposes some requirement that your waymark doesn't meet. But there is always the opportunity to propose a new category or to try to get category managers to relax their requirement. In the old days, the Groundspeak volunteer reviewers had control over what was a virtual and they routinely rejected everything that was submitted. When people appealed to the forum here, they would never get much support. I think most people who went through the old process, would find the current solution, is much better.

[+Drgnfli]

When I tried to submit it to the “Scenic Roadside Lookouts” they rejected it because I did not submit a picture of the “lookout sign.” There are no “lookout” signs in Monument Valley.

 

When I tried to submit it as a “Scenic Overlook” the rule is you cannot “drive” to the view. You can drive to all the views at Monument Valley.

 

If you would have read all the rules you wouldn't have submitted the "Waymark" in the first place.

 

You posted a picture of some hilly peaks and "ONLY" requested a number of items a "Logger or "Visitor" should post to your "Waymark" ..eg picture - what animal you see etc. (can't remember all)

 

I politely wrote you 3 times that a sign or in the absence of a sign a picture of the parking area must be submitted and requested a description of the area ........not a shot of a couple of cars from 3 miles away.

 

In my last e-mail I suggested that you try to submit your "Waymark" to 2 other "Categories" as I could never accept yours as you keep sending it back for re-submission,( although you changes the first picture with an equally unacceptable one.)

 

Go back and read the e-mails I send you before complaining here on the "Forum"

 

Not once did you respond to my requests or contact me personally or any of my "Officers"

 

Added later --->

 

The only description on the page, beside some "Variables".

 

Long Description:

One of the many scenic views in Monument Valley. Please answer these questions to verify you were there. 1. Before reaching this view, what large mammals did you see?

2. From this view, what "relatives" do you see?

3. From this point, when viewing the middle "relative", what animal appears to have climbed to the top.

 

Is this the 2nd or 3rd page you submitted ???

[+Drgnfli]

Thanks for the pleasant reply! It was much nicer than Jake39's hard line attitude. I read some of his forums and he is a hard dude to please. I see where he has asked to resign - maybe a good thing for Waymarking in general!

 

As I stated earlier because it is so difficult to get a Waymark approved, I think I will wait a few months before I submit another one. I cannot submit Monument Valley and get it approved because I do not have the correct pictures or information that is required by the category and I don't intend to drive up to Northern AZ in the near future to get them. I hate to think I will have to print out all the "requirements," to have with me when I see a beautiful sight, so I can read up on it to see if it conforms to the categories. I also don't want to be in charge of a category as I am still new at this and I think I need more experience at both Geocaching and Waymarking.

 

BTW, I did submit some questions to be answered when "sitting" on the waymark co-ordinates, so I was not really submitting a "view" or a mountain. You had to be at that "spot" to answer the 3rd question.

 

Thanks for your time and so patiently explaining. I hope you are around when I submit waymarks later on.

 

Once you find the right category and comply with the requirements for submitting the waymark in that category your chance of getting accepted is 1,000,000 times better that it would have been getting this accepted as a virtual cache. While the "monuments" of Monument Valley certainly meet the "wow" requirement that existed for virtual caches they would probably not have been approved as virtual caches. A virtual cache had to be a specific target you could find using your GPSr. A view was not a virtual cache. A mountain was not a virtual cache. In addition, there should have been one or more verification questions that could only have been answered by visiting the location. (Many virtuals allowed a picture with your GPSr in it as proof of visit - but these were supposed to be the exception).

 

Earthcaches would be a good category but you would have to write up something education to explain the geology of Monument Valley. I do think it would be reasonable to have a category for Rock Formations or Geological "Monuments" for people to waymark. If you are a premium member you could start a group to manage such a category. Or try to get someone else to start one.

 

Waymarking can be frustrating, especially when there is no obvious category for what you want to waymark. Or even if you thought there was a category, but it imposes some requirement that your waymark doesn't meet. But there is always the opportunity to propose a new category or to try to get category managers to relax their requirement. In the old days, the Groundspeak volunteer reviewers had control over what was a virtual and they routinely rejected everything that was submitted. When people appealed to the forum here, they would never get much support. I think most people who went through the old process, would find the current solution, is much better.