Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
SCOTUS

Visits Before A Waymark Was Posted

31 posts in this topic

Is there any protocol about visits before a waymark was posted? Also, is there any protocol on an owner posting a visit to their own waymark? I have a waymark that I own in Antarctica and I'd like to post a visit to said waymark, on the visit I took the picture which is posted on the waymark page.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Thanks,

SCOTUS

0

Share this post


Link to post

Is there any protocol about visits before a waymark was posted? Also, is there any protocol on an owner posting a visit to their own waymark? I have a waymark that I own in Antarctica and I'd like to post a visit to said waymark, on the visit I took the picture which is posted on the waymark page.

 

There are some who say one should always log a visit when creating a waymark. I'm not sure what the point is for this. It could be that they want to have the log as part of their stats. Anyway, there is certainly no reason not to log a visit to one's own waymark. And, obviously, that would be a visit before the waymark is posted - - unless one goes back to visit it a second time. Any of these options are legitimate, it seems.

 

Others may have a different perspective.

0

Share this post


Link to post

SCOTUS -

 

Is there any protocol about visits before a waymark was posted?
There is no such protocol as far as I recall. Many categories have a proof-of-visit rule that applies to logs. In those categories, one's vacation picture from 1980 probably wouldn't have the requisite GPSr in the view. <_<

 

Also, is there any protocol on an owner posting a visit to their own waymark?
This question has been asked lots of times. Every time, it comes to the same answer - some do and some don't, and no one really cares whether you do or not.

Here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here are examples.

(I figured I'd collect some for the next time this was asked.)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Is there any protocol about visits before a waymark was posted? Also, is there any protocol on an owner posting a visit to their own waymark? I have a waymark that I own in Antarctica and I'd like to post a visit to said waymark, on the visit I took the picture which is posted on the waymark page.

 

There are some who say one should always log a visit when creating a waymark.

 

 

I log a visit to all the ones I own. I visited. So I log it. I believe this is one of the ways Waymarking DIFFERS from virtual caching.

 

Eventually, I'll visit someone else's waymark. I'll log that too, but I won't own it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

If there is no logging requirement with a photo for proof of visit, then I guess it is ok.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I visited a Waymark long before it was listed as Waymark.

 

I posted my visit since when I was at the site, I took a picture and took coordinates. :sad:

0

Share this post


Link to post

If a person does not having logging requirements like a gps or something, then I have logged visits to waymarks that I have visited years ago. It's been fun to glance through and see where I have been in the past. And since I'm addicted to taking pictures, I usually have lots of pictures to post.

Edited by Ambrosia
0

Share this post


Link to post

My two cents worth:

 

I see that I will be editing my waymarks requirments to address this. I personally do not think it is approiate to log stale photos of a long time ago visit, and if it where me I would delete the log if it was visited before you created the waymark. But everyone plays the game different, but I sure will mnake it clear in my Categories that it should be a current photo.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Although I have a picture of me with my GPSr from last September, I didn't quite feel right about logging a visit on Glen Falls, so I left a note and a rating. It was one of my favorite stops on our vacation last year, and with its proximity to Niagra Falls, I could see people overlooking it unless a good rating made them take a look. Unfortunately, it's just a bit too far away to do a day trip to log a current visit and I have no idea when I'll be back in that part of NY. Leaving a note seemed like a good compromise to me.

0

Share this post


Link to post

As I understand Groundspeak's concept of Waymark logs, the point of them is the photos and the comments that you have to offer about the waymarked place.

 

I don't see that specifically denying older pictures enhances this purpose. Putting in a requirement that you have to re-visit a place after the Waymarking site was initiated, and the place waymarked, seems somewhat artificial if the other aspects of your photo meet the qualifications of the category's logging requirements.

 

If someone has a log that says: "Hey I really like this XXXX and especially the YYYY aspect of it! Here is my photo that I took just as the light was perfect.", why should anyone care if they went there in 2006 or 1996 or 1986? If I take a picture of a place and someone makes a waymark of it a day later, why should I have to go back there again to be able to make a log for it? What about a week later, a month later, a year later, 5 years later, etc.? Does it really matter? If it's a place that changes in some interesting way, then it would be all the more interesting to have older logs!

 

I think allowing older logs is a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

Most cateogries require a GPS reciever in view, so this whole topic is somewhat limited in scope.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I own several Waymarks now and would not mind if someone logged a past Visit to one of them, as long as they have a picture they took, and posted a nice log about their experience at the time. ;)

 

Heck . . . I'd just be happy if my Waymarks got visits. B)

0

Share this post


Link to post

,y issue with logging before the mark is approved is that you CANNOT UPLOAD a pic....when it 'becomes live' you can then post pics.....

 

my procedure was to put the pics on my log, so they might be in my gallery (when that tab appears), but since i can't do this--the pics have to be loaded for it to be approved, many of my logs are pic-less due to this.

 

as far as the logging a date preposting, it has not been much of an issue....though i do believe that wamark owners have the right to delete your log is you do not meet the requirements......

0

Share this post


Link to post

Not quite sure how I feel about this. My preference would be for people to actually visit the waymark, not post pics of their family vacation from 1984. I could go through and log visits on places I've been in my life, but I'd prefer [for me] to log the waymark as it is today. Maybe that's why I don't have a bunch of stats in my "waymarks visited" tab! :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Robert, but I have many many waymarks all recent visits. But it is up to the Groups to decide this and make it perfectly clear in the requirments. Sometime this week I will be asking my officers what they think, and if all are in agreement I will make this a requirment. I personally had made assumptions that they should be current photos, when I creatd the Categories, come to find out others feel differently. But I will let each of my groups decide.

0

Share this post


Link to post
My preference would be for people to actually visit the waymark, not post pics of their family vacation from 1984.

 

In looking at this thread, I don't see why not. If you waymark a waterfall, and someone pipes up and says "I was at that waterfall in 1984. see? I really liked it. blah blah blah", how is that not a visit? I mean, you just waymarked the waterfall. You didn't create the darn thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Tiki-4 and I have discussed certain aspects related to this discussion and I think we agree on these ideals....

 

The owner of a Waymark listing should NOT log a visit on their own listing UNTIL AFTER the listing has been Approved by the management group.

 

Some people have said "Well it's easier for me to log my visit at the time I list the waymark". This isn't accurate. It is just as easy to log the visit when the owner receives their 'Your listing was approved' notification. Click the link and log the visit, and upload any needed photos.

 

As for Retro-Logging :laughing:, if someone wants to say "Yeah I was here ten years ago, and it was really cool"... I can't see how that is a bad thing... someone enjoyed a place that I listed... great!

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

The owner of a Waymark listing should NOT log a visit on their own listing UNTIL AFTER the listing has been Approved by the management group.

 

Ok...I'll bite...why not? What does it hurt exactly? What's the worst that happens? You write a log on a waymark that doesn't get approved? I haven't seen any guidelines that forbid logging before the waymark is approved. So, why do you consider this to be so wrong?

 

Friv

0

Share this post


Link to post
Ok...I'll bite...why not? What does it hurt exactly? What's the worst that happens? You write a log on a waymark that doesn't get approved? I haven't seen any guidelines that forbid logging before the waymark is approved. So, why do you consider this to be so wrong?

I'm with you. If someone is going to log 100 waymarks from when they were there in 1980 (which I'm not fond of), why not let them log it when they submit it? Not like you got a FTF prize or something. :D

 

If you won't allow logs on a waymark before it's approved, how can you allow logs on it from before it's even a waymark (ie the logs from the 80s, 90s, etc)? :D

0

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly, I don't really know.

 

I guess I just think that you shouldn't be able to log a visit until the listing is actually published.

 

There is nothing actually wrong with it, just doesn't feel right to me. Your mileage may vary.

 

Personally, and I don't expect anyone to agree, I don't visit my own waymarks, I don't retro-log and I don't visit without actually visiting the location.

 

I'd rather make the effort to go to the listing location after it is listed, since the "listing" (not the location) didn't exist beforehand.

 

If I was to add content about a previous visit, it would be in tandem with the current visit.

 

But everyone is able to play how they like. If you are happy and no one is getting hurt... then have fun!

 

:huh: The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar
0

Share this post


Link to post
But everyone is able to play how they like. If you are happy and no one is getting hurt... then have fun!

I agree! But don't forget "as long as it's within the rules". :unsure:

I just can't grasp the theory that retro-logging waymarks before they were even waymarks is more acceptable than logging a waymark before it's approved. At least the visit on the waymark submission is from the same day in most cases, and even from the same decade! :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post

As a former Dungeons and Dragons "DungeonMaster"... my favourite thing is the DM's Guide states

 

These are guidelines, not rules. The Dungeon Master makes the final decision.

 

So, as it applies here... Groundspeak sets up guidelines as a suggestion (for the most part) and the Leader has the final say on what is allowed and not.

 

But like I said... in Waymarking, I only care that people enjoy my listings and categories. I'm not here to judge how they enjoy them, only what is suitable to be listed in my category.

 

I'm all for watching what gets listed in my categories, for accuracy. Visits though... you get 'carte blanche' :unsure:

 

:unsure: The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

"As long as you're having fun."

We all do this for fun, and as long as you keep it in that spirit, it's all good.

:D

0

Share this post


Link to post

That doesn't even make sense to me. I am the owner of a waymark, and if i am an owner of the waymark then that means i was at the location of the waymark which means I am going to log that i was there. You shouldn't be making a waymark if you weren't even there anyways. Anyone can pick a park from the internet, look at Google earth and pull up the coords and then find an internet picture and make a waymark. Thats cheating. But when you make a waymark it means you were there. And beings you were there you LOG it as such. Before or after the waymark is approved. Who cares. If it isn't approved, well you spent an extra 22 seconds to write about your visit and its not going to be seen. And you have to log a visit in order for it to be added to your stats. Thats the way it is. Waymarks are meant to be fun......so have fun!!! :laughing::laughing::laughing:

0

Share this post


Link to post

I see nothing wrong with logging a WM before it is approved.

 

There needs to be a policy decided on this or each category owner needs to decide what the category policy is.

 

I have seen some officers post that they will disapprove a WM if it is logged before approved. There is no basis for this disapproval in the category requirements. If it is listed as such in the category requirement, then I have no problem with it.

 

Ideas? Comments?

0

Share this post


Link to post

My knee-jerk initial reaction was 'not a good idea'

 

Now after reflecting... I don't really care.

 

All I worry about is the quality of submissions in categories I started.

 

The best comparison I can give is that of a Geocache Reviewer. Is the listing fine? If so, then allow it to be viewed by others. If not then decline with explanation.

 

The Waymark Owner can handle the 'visit logs' just like a Geocache Owner does. (when that tool is created)

 

:D The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

Why waste espace logging a WM that you created? You must be counting crow, as that is the only real reason... Keeping track of your WM's can be done by navigating the site. Everything else is bilge water for an excuse....if that floats your boat, no harm, no foul, but dont call it something it isnt.

 

However, under no circumstances should anyone be able to log it before it is approved.

 

Retro logging - cool label. If i can meet the requirements of the category, why cant i use an older picture? I had over 500 "proof" pictures for LC's that i am now using for WM, as they pulled the rug out from under us. I also have a lot of pictures that i have taken in the last 2 years, but havent the time to develop all of them into WM, so i just hold them in a temp file and wait for someone else to create it. I went to the 5000 year Westinghouse time capsule in NY to do the virtual in April. Than last month someone created the WM, so i logged it. No harm, no foul.

 

As BQ said, if the visit brings more attention to the spot, than the WM, the category itself, as well as the site has utility. Otherwise, it is a place to make electronic notches on a belt.

0

Share this post


Link to post

What if the visit was long before these GPS-based games existed? Before GPS itself existed?

Have to say that after we got three 1999 visits logged, we posted this:

While we are happy that folks are logging this waymark, we encourage only visits done at least since selective availability was turned off in 2000. We will not delete earlier claims, but remember that Waymarking and geocaching are post-selective-availability-shut-off activities. GPS is just the key component to the games.

Do these visits violate the spirit of Waymarking. Does our note? Didn't delete their visits, but no more ancient visits have been posted. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Grasshoppers&Ant Posted Today, 01:27 AM

What if the visit was long before these GPS-based games existed? Before GPS itself existed?

Have to say that after we got three 1999 visits logged, we posted this:

While we are happy that folks are logging this waymark, we encourage only visits done at least since selective availability was turned off in 2000. We will not delete earlier claims, but remember that Waymarking and geocaching are post-selective-availability-shut-off activities. GPS is just the key component to the games.

Do these visits violate the spirit of Waymarking. Does our note?

 

Couple of points there:

 

The spirit of Waymarking is to have fun. If a person can enjoy themselves without it being at the expense of others then it is a good thing.

 

The GPS is not a key component to the game, only in the creation of new Waymarks. Unless the Waymark itself is really really small (like a Benchmark), most can be found using the provided maps like Google Maps. Based upon most descriptions I've seen, right or wrong, the key component of Waymarking is a camera.

 

At one time I would have agreed with the idea that Visit Logs should be from the time of Waymark creation forward, but now I would be thrilled to read the stories of someone vacation in the distant past. If my Waymark entry evoked a fond memory for them to the point that they wanted to share their experience, then they certainly have 'earned' their "Visited It" log.

 

;) The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

My personal rules:

 

1. If I visited an especially cool virtual cache or locationless cache that is now a waymark, and I can fulfill the category requirements, I will retroactively create a waymark if none exists, and I will retroactively log a vist if someone else has created the waymark. Hey, I figure, this is the replacement for locationless and virtual caches, right? Example of retro "visited" waymark. Example of retro "owned" waymark.

 

2. I don't log visits to my own waymarks. I like my statistics to represent the sum total of all the cool places I've seen, whether as a marker or a visitor. Waymarks owned plus waymarks found equals total cool places.

 

3. I am way behind in my Waymarking. I collected photos and information throughout the summer, but only recently have I sat down to enter them into the system. In several instances, I've been "beaten" to the waymark by someone else who visited weeks or months after my visit. Instead of feeling bad about my delay depriving me of a "waymark owned," I'm instead happy that someone else has already done the work to create the waymark. I am delighted to become the first visitor (usually) to that waymark. Example.

 

I don't much care what anyone else does. This game is even less about the numbers than geocaching. That is a good thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1