Virtual Waymarks

[bootron]

Unfortunately "Auto-Approve" is still around to rear its ugly head. This probably wouldn't have happened otherwise.

 

The truth is, if no one had brought this specific Waymark to the Forums, eventually people would have attempted to Visit this listing, and written some nasty notes to the Owner of the Waymark when they were disappointed by not seeing a Quonsit Hut, especially if they believed it was made to look like the one from "CARS". (People don't always read so well, or might just go based upon the title of the listing)

 

Personally, the three month guideline from Geocaching would be a good guideline here. Although, that would be a bare minimum in my opinion.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

Just so everyone is aware, "auto-approve" is about to become an obsolete feature. We should have removed it when we initially released the groups, but somehow it remained. Anyhow, it will be gone with the next update. It will be up to groups to manage the own categories from then on, as it makes zero sense to require a board of directors when they serve no function whatsoever.

Edited August 23, 2006 by bootron

[Jennifera26]

One last attempt to have Jennifer and John from Team Farkel7 to see this from a different perspective.

 

When we discover a new activity we sometimes see that activity in a glowing light as we do with new relationships.. The good qualities dominate the foreground of our perception The activity just doesn't seem to have any flaws. This temporary state of grace is commonly known as putting something or someone on a pedestal. ( Here that Nate, you must be pretty high up on that pedestal ) Often times we put favorite activities and people on pedestals. We have all done this to someone or about something at one time or another, and as long as we remember nothing is actually "perfect," the pedestal phase can be enjoyed for what it is-a phase. It's when we actually believe our own projection that troubles arise. ( As have here)

 

Everything & everyone has problems, & flaws, atc., When we entertain the illusion that something is perfect, so when the activity or person disappoints or is seen as a contradiction to the idea of perfection, we become disillusioned. We may get angry or distance ourselves in response. ( Exactly as you have done Jennifer, you got angry and threaten to leave Waymarking alltogether)In the end, the activity or person is not to blame for the fact that you idealized it. Granted, you may have enjoyed seeing the activity as perfect through your eyes, but you are the ones who chose to believe an illusion. If you go through this process enough times, you learn that nothing is perfect. We are all a combination of divine and human qualities and we all struggle. When we treat the activities & people with this awareness, we actually allow for a much greater scope and understanding of the activity than when we held the activity or person aloft on an airy throne. ( Take that TPTB you have been dethroned) The moment you see through your idealized projection is the moment you begin to see how the activity truly is .

We cannot truly connect with the activity when we idealize it. In life, there are no pedestals-we are all walking on the same ground together. When we realize this, we can own our own divinity and our humanity. This is the key to balance and wholeness within ourselves .

Now to balance this out and keeping on topic. The links do not work for me either, AND IT is aabout the LOCATION!!!!

 

Okay, this is my last posting and I will make this very simple.

 

Waymark = Joke

Approval = Surprise

Archiving = no big deal

Nasty little attitude from Waymarking management = not acceptable

 

I have reiterated that finding out thru a message board with Nate's attitude regarding it is what infuriated me NOT that it was archived. And just because the word sorry is used doesn't make it an apology. His intention was to offend and it infuriates me that he can't just say he stepped out of line. If you don't have some respect for the posters you all will be playing by yourselves. I notice Jeremy didn't need to jump in and be ugly about it. You want me to see the point of view of TPTB, I did that several posts ago. You don't seem to be able to see the side that involves our right to be upset about the treatment of the situation. I was under no illusions that the moment belonged to any but us.......but obviously from the other poster, others got the joke. In your own words don't "attach motives to others that you assume", I've never had a problem with it being archived as I've stated several times. The disrespect is just another problem I've had with this site, that's why I'm leaving the group.

[Great Balls of Fire]

I'm sorry if I am entering into a discussion where what I would like to discuss may not belong, but here goes.

 

We are geocachers with 6 years of experiance (111 caches to date, 1 hidden., 2 travel bugs{presently missing}) so as you can see we are not heavily addicted but on every trip we plan we try to catch several geocaches and a couple of benchmarks. I can honestly say that I have been a positive force in getting several people interested in geocaching simply by stating, "it takes you to places of interesat that you may not have stopped at otherwise". I may not be involved in the geocaching way as I should have so therefore I have recently become privy to a new bit of news, which you folks all ready have known for some time. Geocaching.com no longer accepts "virtual" geocaches and when I recently tried to post such a cahce I was directed to Waymarking.com.

My question is this, why did geocaching have to split out Waymarking into a whole separate site? Some of the best caches I have been to have been virtual caches that I have driven past hindreds of times and never taken the time to stop! Yes, I like to find a cache and see what is in the "box" but my feeling is it is not so much the destination as the trip to get there. I hate to have to go to two separate sites to find places to go to before a trip.

I can honestly say that if the sport had stayed under one umberella "geocaching" it would be very easy to elminate what you are discussing here because a "turttle" has nothing to do with "GEO" or geography in my humble opinion.

I guess what I'm saying here is sometimes in an effort to make things better we muddy up the waters with a bunch of stuff that shouldn't have even been brought up.

I understand that every organization has growing pains and in trying to cope with them we must modify what is being done but in my opinion eleminating virtual caches to another realm was not the best way to fix the problem.

[+Lil Devil]

My question is this, why did geocaching have to split out Waymarking into a whole separate site?

There are only about two hundred other threads discussing that very question. Instead of derailing this unrelated thread, how about taking your question to an appropriate thread

[+ChapterhouseInc]

i would like to bring up a word that appears on EVERY page at WM.com:

 

BETA

 

the site is still in development. obviously this is not GC.com. us waymarkers are doing our part to make it the best we can before the world starts using it. the few that have remained active in the WM.com world know that you have to accept some of the BS that has been going around. Waymarking will never be like geocaching. they have very similar aspects, but are each their own. invividuals. we are all individuals. misunderstandings, misconceptions and misers are frequent. we work it out.

 

Waymarking is a democratic arena. we like to speak, we like to listen, we like to take action on our ideas. there is always the 'electoral college' to put a kink in our plans, but we are doing what we can to discard that B word that seems to inhibit new Waymarking habits from forming.

 

if you think it is bad now, you should have been a user a year ago.....

Edited August 23, 2006 by ChapterhouseInc

[Great Balls of Fire]

[There are only about two hundred other threads discussing that very question. Instead of derailing this unrelated thread, how about taking your question to an appropriate thread

EXCUSE ME.... now I know why I didn't ever get involved in any other forums!

[+tozainamboku]

My question is this, why did geocaching have to split out Waymarking into a whole separate site?

There are only about two hundred other threads discussing that very question. Instead of derailing this unrelated thread, how about taking your question to an appropriate thread

 

I can understand that someone who wants ask why virtual caches are now waymarks might post this question to a thread titled "Virtual Waymarks". Of course this topic was whether or not a virtual object could be a waymark. Not too different from the examples of "armchair" virtual caches where you can claim a find without leaving your house. Clearly it was never the intent of either geocaching or Waymarking to allow these virtual objects. Both are intended to list places where you put coordinates into a GPSr and go visit. However, I don't really see how a few virtual locations really spoils the fun for anyone else, unless you are a friend of briansnat and you drive 250 miles to visit a quonset hut only to find out that the only thing there is a drive-in movie theater

[J.A.R.S.]

My question is this, why did geocaching have to split out Waymarking into a whole separate site?

There are only about two hundred other threads discussing that very question. Instead of derailing this unrelated thread, how about taking your question to an appropriate thread

 

Not everyone has been around long enough to know about the 200 other threads.

200 other threads about this same issue would suggest that there's a real problem.

 

Here's a link to one of the threads on this topic....

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2329624

 

J.A.R.S.

[OpinioNate]

200 other threads about this same issue would suggest that there's a real problem.

 

 

"Who moved my cheese?!" pretty much sums it up for me. It's a work in progress. Have fun with it and try not to take life too seriously.

 

EDIT to add: Let's try to keep this thread focused on "virtual" waymarks.

Edited August 23, 2006 by OpinioNate

[+chstress53]

HMMMMMMM!!!!

Hem & Haw

I propose a search for new cheese.

 

This bit of cheese was over there:

Taken from the Geocaching page

"A virtual cache is a cache that exists in a form of a location. Depending on the cache "hider," a virtual cache could be to answer a question about a location, an interesting spot, a task, etc. The reward for these caches is the location itself and sharing information about your visit.

Because of the nature of these geocaches, you must actually visit the location and acquire the coordinates there before you can post. In addition, although many locations are interesting, a virtual cache should be out of the ordinary enough to warrant logging a visit." and it directs you to the Waymarking page.

 

This bit of cheese is over there

http://www.cachearoundtown.com/index.html which first introduced me to virtual locations is all about the location with wouldn't you know it too has Waypoints for specific locations

 

And if we all put are heads together we will surely find bits of new cheese here and there.

 

And I liked the way Nate smelled the cheese!

 

ALLWAYS REMEMBER !!!

 

They Keep Moving The Cheese

 

Get Ready For The Cheese To Move

 

Smell The Cheese Often So You Know When It Is Getting Old

 

The Quicker You Let Go Of Old Cheese, The Sooner You Can Enjoy New Cheese

 

Move With The Cheese

 

Savor The Adventure And Enjoy The Taste Of New Cheese!

 

They Keep Moving The Cheese.

Edited August 24, 2006 by chstress53

[+cache_test_dummies]

In my mind, the problem with the celluloid Quonset hut is not that the hut was animated, but that it only existed in that location for a brief period. If the animation had been part of a permanent art display in which a Quonset hut was projected on a screen, should the waymark have been allowed to remain? In the art display case, the artifact isn't made of steel, but visiting the recorded location would allow a visitor to see a Quonset hut, right? The category description seems to imply a requirement for 'real', but after all it doesn't actually say it must be real (nor should it have to, I don't mean to imply there is anything wrong with the category as written).

 

Following this train of thought, a waymark which is permanent but not 'real' could be acceptable, as long as the category managers allow it, correct?

 

I sure hope so, because there is an approved waymark in my Grave of a Famous Person category that identifies a real and permanent location of a grave site, and the name on the stone is that of a clearly famous individual. It's an interesting location that even appeared in a movie. But the person identified by the stone on the grave is fictitious.

 

Is this considered a virtual waymark? Should it be allowed? Or did we step over the line when we approved this waymark?

 

The first person to post a link to the waymark that I am describing wins a virtual prize.

 

edit: added a couple of missing words

Edited August 24, 2006 by cache_test_dummies

[+BruceS]

 

Following this train of thought, a waymark which is permanent but not 'real' could be acceptable, as long as the category managers allow it, correct?

 

I sure hope so, because there is an approved waymark in my Grave of a Famous Person category that identifies a real and permanent location of a grave site, and the name on the stone is that of a clearly famous individual. It's an interesting location that even appeared in a movie. But the person identified by the stone on the grave is fictitious.

 

Is this considered a virtual waymark? Should it be allowed? Or did we step over the line when we approved this waymark?

 

The first person to post a link to the waymark that I am describing wins a virtual prize.

 

edit: added a couple of missing words

 

In your example the site does truly exist. If I go back to those coordinates today I would find the grave of Ebenezer Scrooge

Edited August 24, 2006 by BruceS

[+tozainamboku]

In my mind, the problem with the celluloid Quonset hut is not that the hut was animated, but that it only existed in that location for a brief period. If the animation had been part of a permanent art display in which a Quonset hut was projected on a screen, should the waymark have been allowed to remain? In the art display case, the artifact isn't made of steel, but visiting the recorded location would allow a visitor to see a Quonset hut, right? The category description seems to imply a requirement for 'real', but after all it doesn't actually say it must be real (nor should it have to, I don't mean to imply there is anything wrong with the category as written).

 

Following this train of thought, a waymark which is permanent but not 'real' could be acceptable, as long as the category managers allow it, correct?

 

I sure hope so, because there is an approved waymark in my Grave of a Famous Person category that identifies a real and permanent location of a grave site, and the name on the stone is that of a clearly famous individual. It's an interesting location that even appeared in a movie. But the person identified by the stone on the grave is fictitious.

 

Is this considered a virtual waymark? Should it be allowed? Or did we step over the line when we approved this waymark?

 

The first person to post a link to the waymark that I am describing wins a virtual prize.

 

edit: added a couple of missing words

 

Bah Humbug!

[+cache_test_dummies]

In your example the site does truly exist. If I go back to those coordinates today I would find the grave of Ebenezer Scrooge

That was fast!

 

So you think it's fine because the location is permanent even if the artifact isn't 'real'?

[+cache_test_dummies]

Bah Humbug!

[+BruceS]

In your example the site does truly exist. If I go back to those coordinates today I would find the grave of Ebenezer Scrooge

That was fast!

 

So you think it's fine because the location is permanent even if the artifact isn't 'real'?

 

The stone is real. It is in a real cemetery. It appears that there is some "permanence" to it. Scrooge is famous. It seems to meet the requirements to me.

[+Team Farkle 7]

OK, let's just kill this once and for all. way too many people have gotten worked up over nothing, including some who don't seem to have waymaked in the category. whatever.

 

Sarge was a lark, that got auto-approved, no ones fault. just unfortunate timing.

I know ecocyclist would not have approved it, he strikes me as a purist and i can live with that. although I do believe he would have appreciated the humor behind it.

 

Thank you 8 nuts & mother goose and anyone else who got the joke for getting it.

 

ggmorton, may the shwartz be with you. no hard feelings.

 

nate, apology accepted, please in the future to avoid this bs, it might help to let the member know what's going on and why

oh, and just out of mild curiousity, is the monastery club still in seattle?

 

jeremy, and Groundspeak, thanks for creating the site(s) i haven't had this much fun since napster.

 

chstress53, please you don't have to tell a buddhist about perfection or its unattainability and thank you for watching over the turtles

 

frivlas & Jake 39, sorry links are to site for yahoo group, my bad. if you do want the pdf's email me through member profile, or join the yahoo Quonset group, where Sarge has a permanent home, or at least until we run out of coal & oil and our commputers shut down.

 

There, I'm done. Now all I have to do now is get my teammate back. Wish me luck.

I leave you all with this.

 

-Harvey Farkle

 

Second Place Winner of the Fall 2005 Kansas in Verse Poetry Contest:

 

PARKING

By Jim Eighmey

 

Time as it is in our hearts

is not that of stars or

loams or muddy creeks,

but rather the iron something that holds the warm hum of us

out before a trunk-full

of what we can’t quite throw away;

a rising dust cloud

moving fast among the locust rows.

 

And memories roll around in there

within the front or back pleats

at Jackrabbit hill,

or in with the tires and cans

not quite forgotten

and sometimes needed,

groped for

on warm summer nights.

 

Those roads have left us dust-covered

behind gates with their many locks.

But there in the glove box

is a night behind a Quonset hut

when a sunset-burned

hood and prairie spread out beneath us

and everything,

for a moment,

was ours.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Team Farkle 7