Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
ggmorton

Virtual Waymarks

67 posts in this topic

What do you think about virtual waymarks?

 

By definition don't you have to be able to go to the coordinates posted and see something remotely like the category?

 

For example:

WMKW6

 

What do you think?

0

Share this post


Link to post

What do you think about virtual waymarks?

 

By definition don't you have to be able to go to the coordinates posted and see something remotely like the category?

 

For example:

WMKW6

 

What do you think?

 

I personally don't like them. Why post coordinates that you can't go back to and see what is being marked. Should I waymark my house because I watched a Gomer Pyle rerun and there was a quonset hut in it... I think not.

0

Share this post


Link to post

yes, the purpose of wamarking is marking/documenting a specific point so that others might go and visit themselves, and thus, share their experience at the location.

 

the only acceptable 'virtual waymark' that i have come across is the Turtle Xing Category--and this is just because the (previous, i do believe when it was transfered from GC.com) leader of the category made a forum posting stating that it was not expected that others would visit your mark, and also save a turtle. note: i think that the category has since been adopted out, as if i remember correctly, it was a female). i just searched for that thread in the forums, but it seems to have disappeared from the 'que'.

 

the explanation amounted to: what are the odds that someone will save a turtle in the SAME spot that 'you' did? it was in relation to the proximity of waymarks in the same category.

 

my interpretation of this situation would be:

#1: my first submition, which i logged as a locationless cache, was at a spot in the road where a waterway (creek) went under the road. it is plausable that someone could find a sutable mark, only a matter of feet from my posted coords, but this should be denied; with them just logging the mark i created--and maybe even adding their own coords to their log and/or pics for the log (that is an option: 'this pic has coords')

 

#2: after a large rain spell in Mammoth Cave National Park, near Sloans Pond, there were lots of turtles crossing the road (we saved like 5 in a matter of minutes). I only collected coords for the first one. HOWEVER, there are several different roads in this area. This is where group approval would come into play, deciding if the new mark is far enough away to constitute a new waymark location, or if they should just log my posting.

 

though the explanation was interpreted to be 'virtualesque', it would be possible to visit these locations AND have the DESIGNATED activity occur.....

 

it is highly doubtful that anyone will ever be able to visit AND log your 'virtual waymark'.....this does provide a good example of why the auto approve function is outmoded and the category group needs to moderate submitions. i would also like to mention that your waymark has no name as the approver--leading me to believe it is set on 'auto'--though the campground category is, but it lists the leader's name as the approver.

 

just dont get upset when they decide to archive your mark....

 

my 2 cents on the discussion.

0

Share this post


Link to post

If it doesn't have a specific location to visit with a specific item to be located I don't feel it fits properly within Waymarking. "Language of Location" and all of that. Where is the location? Location, Location, Location.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Yes

I am a female and here is the reply I made in the old thread. I am in that management group for Turtle crossings and are currently discussing the description after we adopted from the original locationless Category that was transferred. Some changes were made but there will probably be more.

 

"A turtle Crossing is not just a one time happening. There is a location that is permanent and if someone returns to that location at the correct time they will see babies cross back. Someone can also return again the following year as turtles take the same path to lay eggs as in previous years. This just needs to be addressed on the Category description page.

 

Something like

 

Why did the turtle cross the road?

Do a turtle a favor and help it across the road.

 

"Watch out for mother turtles crossing the road during the summer when they seek higher ground to lay their eggs. Please avoid hitting them and if possible, you might want to help the turtle cross the road. But remember to always move turtles in the direction they are headed. If they are moved back to the side from which they were crossing, they will just try to cross the road again in the same place. And do not forget to come back again next year and see if you can watch this happen again. Or come back in a day or two and watch the turtle return to the water after laying her eggs. Miracle of miracle the the turtles will cross back over the same route to return to the water each and every year at the same time of year..

 

Once the eggs hatch be on the watch out for babies crossing the road headed for the water, along the vary same path that the mother took. "Mother Blanding had made her nest between the goldenrod and bluestem outside my office window late last June.

By chance we were sitting on the porch when we noticed little blandings in the same location we had seen the mother take 2 months earlier.

 

As a naturalist I can say with authority that this is most definetly not a moving location and if searchers had good info on the waymark page someone intersted in watching nature up close and personnal could come back at just the right time and witness a wonderful natural occurence. over and over again year after year in the same location , ( That is why Turtle Crossing signs are installed at some locations because the turtles are in the same place every year and could be visited by finders of this waymark. the trick is it must be the right time of year for that particular species. links to species info both on the Category page and the Waymarking page would be essential so finders could ID the turtle and sonmone interested could also discover when to look for the babies.

SO For the moment You must post links and identify the species.

 

ANd now back on topic, Waymarks are all about Locations that can be visited. There can be comparisions that the Category itself is the Locationless and the waymarks are the virtuals.

0

Share this post


Link to post

What do you think about virtual waymarks?

 

By definition don't you have to be able to go to the coordinates posted and see something remotely like the category?

 

For example:

WMKW6

 

What do you think?

 

This is NOT ok and the managers of that category should never have approved it. I'm surprised anyone would even think to do such a thing. If not for marking actual locations, then what is Waymarking for? There is a huge difference between marking where a turtle has crossed in the real world, and marking pixels in an animated movie. *boggles*

 

EDIT: I have archived the waymark

Edited by OpinioNate
0

Share this post


Link to post

This is an interesting thread because my group-mates and I were discussing this very issue a couple days ago. My Art Vehicles category was originally created to collect permanently-located sculptures that were made out of cars or parts of cars. However I started receiving submissions of uniquely hand-painted cars that were seen driving down the road. Even though they are not what I originally envisioned for the category, they have been interesting and I have enjoyed seeing them.

 

I thought one of the benefits of Waymarking over the old virtual and locationless caches, is that the category owners make the rules. Not Groundspeak. But in the case that stated this thread, Groundspeak stepped in and said No Way! and archived the waymark, even though the category owners approved it.

 

Am I to expect Groundspeak to come in and archive all the transiently-located waymarks in my category?

 

Are there guidelines someplace telling me I shouldn't allow these?

0

Share this post


Link to post

While logging where you saw a quonset hut in an animated movie may not be the intent of the quonset hut category, I see no reason why there couldn't be categories that would allow waymarks like this, perhaps under the Waymarking games department. We already have Pikachu Sightings, Hershey's Kissmobile, Crime Scenes, and "Marry Me" Markers. None of these necessarily will have anything to find when you visit. (Although one would hope that the marriage proposals category would take to you to a romantic spot where you could follow the waymark owners example). I once remarked that you could have a Yellow Jeep Waymarking category. You would record the place where you saw a Yellow Jeep. Nothing for a visitor to find (expect to record whether the Jeep was still there).

Edited by tozainamboku
0

Share this post


Link to post

Seriously, guys. There's no comparison between this waymark and any that can be posted in the more transient categories that exist on the site. Take any waymark in Turtle Crossings, Art Vehicles, or Kissmobiles and you're still talking about a physical location in the real world.

 

If this Quonset hut waymark were allowed, what would stop people from marking every single theater in the world that screened "Cars"? Why don't we all watch our favorite movie and pick out as many waymarks as we can, and then post them all with our living room coordinates.

 

In fact, come on over tonight and we'll rent Supersize Me. I'll buy the :) .

0

Share this post


Link to post

In fact, come on over tonight and we'll rent Supersize Me. I'll buy the :) .

*checks watch, notices that I'd be there by 6:30pm*

 

*hmmmmmm....maybe I can get some dinner out of this deal, as well*

 

 

 

OK! :):)

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Am I to expect Groundspeak to come in and archive all the transiently-located waymarks in my category?

 

Are there guidelines someplace telling me I shouldn't allow these?

 

Good point. Since we haven't hit upon this issue before I think I'll take a stab at it.

 

The intent of Waymarking is to go out and find something that someone also marked. But there's also an interest in just documenting interesting things.

 

When you create a category around an object, like quonset huts, the intent is that the quonset hunt isn't likely to be shined onto a screen with light, but an actual physical hut. When the category shifts focus and becomes a listing area for transitory objects it takes on a new behavior which can be confusing for those who are actually interested in the location-based (real) category.

 

There's a bunch of ways that Groundspeak can address this without over-administrating the categories.

 

First, we will be removing the autoapprove feature on Waymarking.com since there are group leaders who can go through the reviewing process. Before you could just sit back and let the waymarks go through unsupervised. Some of the categories end up getting bad entries (and no offense, but me watching a military movie doesn't mean I was there).

 

Secondly, for those category leaders who decide to make their categories "anything goes" may end up seeing their category moved to other sections of the site that better fit a transitory category. If quonset huts decided to show all quonset huts on trailer trucks as well as in wallet sized photos in my wallet, it would be moved to a section more appropriate for that. That way a true physical location-based category could be created for those who have more of an interest in actual, physical locations.

 

These are my thoughts. I'd be interested in hearing from others.

Edited by Jeremy
0

Share this post


Link to post

However I started receiving submissions of uniquely hand-painted cars that were seen driving down the road. Even though they are not what I originally envisioned for the category, they have been interesting and I have enjoyed seeing them.

 

 

I can't say I'm not disappointed. The category was pretty good before it was messed up with moving art cars.

 

That's just my opinion. I'm not going to archive them but it pretty much makes the category worthless to me now.

0

Share this post


Link to post

However I started receiving submissions of uniquely hand-painted cars that were seen driving down the road. Even though they are not what I originally envisioned for the category, they have been interesting and I have enjoyed seeing them.

 

 

I can't say I'm not disappointed. The category was pretty good before it was messed up with moving art cars.

 

That's just my opinion. I'm not going to archive them but it pretty much makes the category worthless to me now.

 

I think the moving art cars sounds like fun (just like the old yellow jeep LC but better IMO). Might be best as a seperate category tho. As far as the ones where you'd see it in a film or online, don't think those are anywhere close to the intent of Waymarking, but should probably be left up to those in charge of the individual categories.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Being honest, to a fault probably.

 

Most of my Geocaching friends are not impressed with Waymarking. Between finding the site confusing, and many of the categories are lacking the "WOW" that Virtuals had, they are not willing to look for the interesting within the mundane.

 

That is their stance, not mine.

 

But suggesting that "Moving Waymarks" be an option is a poor one in my mind. Any listing for a specific Waymark should always be found at the listed coordinates. Allowing things that are 'fleeting' or 'one-timers' serves no purpose for future visitors. How would they enjoy it or share in the viewing? Going back to other people's views... this concept would make Waymarking even more confusing and disappointing for them. We need consitent and easy items for people to enjoy.

 

And if they were listed on Waymarking as is, and I went to the site... and there was nothing there, I would feel like I wasted my time.

 

Moving Waymarks, like Moving Caches just won't work in my opinion.

 

:) The Blue Quasar

Edited by The Blue Quasar
0

Share this post


Link to post

What do you think about virtual waymarks?

 

By definition don't you have to be able to go to the coordinates posted and see something remotely like the category?

 

For example:

WMKW6

 

What do you think?

 

This is NOT ok and the managers of that category should never have approved it. I'm surprised anyone would even think to do such a thing. If not for marking actual locations, then what is Waymarking for? There is a huge difference between marking where a turtle has crossed in the real world, and marking pixels in an animated movie. *boggles*

 

EDIT: I have archived the waymark

 

yes, this is a waymark that could never be visited by others.

 

This is an interesting thread because my group-mates and I were discussing this very issue a couple days ago. My Art Vehicles category was originally created to collect permanently-located sculptures that were made out of cars or parts of cars. However I started receiving submissions of uniquely hand-painted cars that were seen driving down the road. Even though they are not what I originally envisioned for the category, they have been interesting and I have enjoyed seeing them.

 

I thought one of the benefits of Waymarking over the old virtual and locationless caches, is that the category owners make the rules. Not Groundspeak. But in the case that stated this thread, Groundspeak stepped in and said No Way! and archived the waymark, even though the category owners approved it.

 

Am I to expect Groundspeak to come in and archive all the transiently-located waymarks in my category?

 

Are there guidelines someplace telling me I shouldn't allow these?

 

my opinion of these moving art cars is that, they will still exist in the areas they were waymarked--the ones i have found should not leave town (as for a vacation), i know i wouldnt trust them to get me there and back.

 

i would say that these are acceptable Waymarking subjects. i happened to find them in front of the owners place of residence (presumably, it could have been a friends house). therefore, until they relocate to another residence--its a college town, they all move eventually, but these vehicles have been around for years--you have a good chance of spotting it in the same locations. otherwise, this is what the logs are for: either by including the 'new' coords in your log, or attaching it to your pic upload. this wold then look like gaecaches where there are stages, and the different stages have points displayed on the description. something to the effect that it was found on (date) at these coords--on (date) it was logged at these coords--and so on........then there might be a frequency factor, in that it has been logged in this location (X number of times).....but we do not want to be stalking these prople either so that you might log the waymarks....these would rall in to the DIFFICULT waymark ranking; much like five star caches.

 

this type of transitory Waymarking category (i never had the luck to find this YJ LC) is a great addition to the site. it adds some sort of skill level (and a lot of luck) to the 'searching' aspect.i hope that we can all find some way to keep this type of waymark alive--and as for the 'cars q-hut', that could be mentioned in your log for the theatre/drive-in; ie: 'while visiting the waymark i was watching "movie X" and these waymark categories were seen on the screen.'.....

 

the kissmobile does not really visit all of the same locations every year does it? it has the potential to create the same sort of issues.

0

Share this post


Link to post

My two cents

 

I feel that the accepting of movable Art cars has changed the dynamics of what the Category was when it was established and as a result of these changes, this Category should then appear in the game section, and not were it is currently. I personally would like to see it there, as it is now a game and not a Category were you can find art cars. This is now in the same boat as kiss mobiles. In no way, can you compare this to turtle crossings because those are real locations and are not transient. Turtles cross in THE Same Place EVERY year. ANd babies cross back shortly after the mother turtle does. SO you can ACTUALLY FIND SOmething!!!! at the stated coords. You do however need to know the species so you know when to look. HAving accepted moveable art Cars has most definetly diminished the original Category. ( That is not saying that it would not fit into the game section . Movable Art Cars has a place but not were it was originally placed. When you changed what was acceptable you changed the Categoryt to something different. When the officers in my groups made changes to our Categories, our changes did not change the direction of the Category.)

0

Share this post


Link to post
chstress53 Posted Today, 09:20 AM

My two cents

In no way, can you compare this to turtle crossings because those are real locations and are not transient. Turtles cross in THE Same Place EVERY year.

Turtles might be transient but the location isn't6d299998-074b-47d3-b361-a4e3d7a9ddd6.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think the moving art cars sounds like fun (just like the old yellow jeep LC but better IMO). Might be best as a seperate category tho.

 

I agree. Changing the category focus from permanent to anything goes is just gross.

 

Though I don't care for transient categories, I don't see why it would be a big deal to create a root category for them. That way I can play the game I want while others can play the game they want.

 

Of course I have insider knowledge about the new ignore category functionality coming soon, which will make the entire section go away for me.

Edited by Jeremy
0

Share this post


Link to post
I feel that the accepting of movable Art cars has changed the dynamics of what the Category was when it was established and as a result of these changes, this Category should then appear in the game section, and not were it is currently. I personally would like to see it there, as it is now a game and not a Category were you can find art cars. This is now in the same boat as kiss mobiles. In no way, can you compare this to turtle crossings because those are real locations and are not transient. Turtles cross in THE Same Place EVERY year. ANd babies cross back shortly after the mother turtle does. SO you can ACTUALLY FIND SOmething!!!! at the stated coords. You do however need to know the species so you know when to look. HAving accepted moveable art Cars has most definetly diminished the original Category. ( That is not saying that it would not fit into the game section . Movable Art Cars has a place but not were it was originally placed. When you changed what was acceptable you changed the Categoryt to something different. When the officers in my groups made changes to our Categories, our changes did not change the direction of the Category.)

That sort of sums it up for me too.

 

I think the moving art cars sounds like fun (just like the old yellow jeep LC but better IMO). Might be best as a seperate category tho.

I agree. Changing the category focus from permanent to anything goes is just gross.

 

Though I don't care for transient categories, I don't see why it would be a big deal to create a root category for them. That way I can play the game I want while others can play the game they want.

It would be nice if you could create a new category, but you would almost have to move the waymarks associated with the new category over to the new category. That sounds like a lot of trouble maybe. If there are not too many, maybe you could. You guys would have to decide if you have the time and all I guess.

 

Frankly, I hope category modification will not be allowed to happen in such a drastic manner. Category acceptance is now decided by peer review. I would have to say that if I had voted on the original category in the affirmative, then it was changed afterward to something that I would have voted negatively on, I would not be happy about it.

Edited by mtn-man
0

Share this post


Link to post

Frankly, I hope category modification will not be allowed to happen in such a drastic manner. Category acceptance is now decided by peer review. I would have to say that if I had voted on the original category in the affirmative, then it was changed afterward to something that I would have voted negatively on, I would not be happy about it.

 

Coundn't have said it better myself. I agree so much that if I had voted yes to this to see it so drasticially changed I would not be happy. That said this has me concerned that a managment group could conceivably get a Catagory past review and then completely change it to say one that was turned down by the community. So I ask what can be done regarding this possibility, I am drawing a blank.?

0

Share this post


Link to post

That said this has me concerned that a managment group could conceivably get a Catagory past review and then completely change it to say one that was turned down by the community. So I ask what can be done regarding this possibility, I am drawing a blank.?

This is a good subject for a more lengthy discussion. I spun it off into a separate topic.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly! Not only was the category approved via peer review, but also officers joined and agreed to certain details as well. Dramatic changes in scope should not be allowed, but how to regulate this is difficult to detail.

 

While Jeremy's proposed "Ignore" solution is a broad stroke of that paint brush, it is over compensating in my opinion. Not every Waymark in the category should be judged by a few that are bending the rules. There will be excellent examples in that ignored category that would be of interest, and the poor ones should be commented on when people visit them.

 

Examples: Since we are talking about Art Vehicles.

 

In my town there is a man that owns a "Mystery Machine" from Scooby Doo. He drives it around.... this is not a permanent location and therefore should be listed under the "games" section that someone else suggested.

 

But on the other hand, if someone owned a restaurant that was Hanna Barbara themed, and the "Mystery Machine" was parked in the middle of the front lawn as part of a landscaping idea and obviously couldn't move around... that would be perfect.

 

This is a great topic for discussion, as it might impact the future of Waymarking.

 

To me, Waymarks shouldn't move around, and Categories should only change slightly as needed. This would be abused if allowed to continue.

 

Certainly things come along that might need to be considered, but not to the point that it becomes a whole new category.

 

:shocked: The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

So, with all the complaints about Virtual logs, how come no one has mentioned that recent rash of "visits" to Wikipedia Entries? Or am I the only one annoyed by this?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Wow, I guess I set off a firestorm when I asked about virtuals. I just saw that waymark and thought it was wrong. I feel that as long as there is a pretty good chance that a visitor to the coordinates will see what the waymark owner posted then that is a valid waymark. With the art cars example, if the car is NORMALLY parked at the owners residence, then there is a very good chance that a visitor would see it if he went there.

 

I use the rule in my All Things Star Wars category:

The item you find must be a phisical item or place that is considered "permanent" and can be re-visited by other members of this community. Keep in mind, PERMANENT is the key word here. Putting a Yoda doll on your living room floor and taking a picture of it does NOT count.

Moving objects (Cars, planes, etc) can be listed if it is resting in it's "home" and will most likely be there for at least 6 months. In other words, an x-wing model at a museum is ok, a suped up A-Wing car parked in the owner's driveway is ok, however that same A-Wing car parked in a parking lot is NOT ok.

 

I have rejected waymarks for this Star Wars category for places that would only be there for 2 weeks. For example, a traveling museum. It needs to be more permanent in my opinion.

 

Also, on the notion of Wikipedia entries, I think you have to actually visit the location listed for the entry. Not just the web address of the entry. So that is valid in my book.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Also, on the notion of Wikipedia entries, I think you have to actually visit the location listed for the entry. Not just the web address of the entry. So that is valid in my book.

 

Check the logging requirements for the category....it doesn't read that way to me. If I am wrong, PLEASE tell me.

0

Share this post


Link to post

F.Y.I.

Turtle Crossings Crew

founder: chstress53

date created: 6/15/2006

Turtles -Turtles-everywhere,,,,Oh how I love my turtles !!!

 

The turtles are alive and crossing the road daily. ;)a95daad7-3ff9-4ff8-bfc4-39c49b3dd6f8.jpg

 

Edit: a life for alive... :)

 

I believe this was supposed to be a fun waymark (which was an actual location and was posted as such in the drive-in category) since quonset huts appearing in anything nowadays is so rare. I also believe that's exactly why it was approved, because it was fun & rare. I believe anyone who was looking at this and reading the description would immediately see that it was a movie and not try to actually visit Sarge at his Army Surplus store. I swear this new Waymarking category out from under Geocaching has completely sucked all the fun out of it with all it's rules & regulations. No wonder hardly anyone that posted in Geocaching bothered to continue over here. You people need to relax a little, obviously you wouldn't want someone Waymarking these things continuously but a little fun injected into a rare waymark isn't that bad.

 

At least it's good to know that despite what the managers may or may not approve that someone else will gestapo their way in and take care of it. So basically this has said loud and clear that the managers of the group are not in charge and big brother is watching and will archive anything he doesn't like. Way to go guys censorship is alive and well!! So much for the fun part, just remember if you make it too hard people don't participate.

 

Anyway just thought I'd put my two cents in about the building disappointment in this Waymarking site, this just puts paid to it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Seriously, guys. There's no comparison between this waymark and any that can be posted in the more transient categories that exist on the site. Take any waymark in Turtle Crossings, Art Vehicles, or Kissmobiles and you're still talking about a physical location in the real world.

 

If this Quonset hut waymark were allowed, what would stop people from marking every single theater in the world that screened "Cars"? Why don't we all watch our favorite movie and pick out as many waymarks as we can, and then post them all with our living room coordinates.

 

In fact, come on over tonight and we'll rent Supersize Me. I'll buy the ;) .

 

I also think that some of the people with Groundspeak could use a little "grace & tact" training. The sarcasm category hasn't been started yet, but you get the first post.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I also think that some of the people with Groundspeak could use a little "grace & tact" training.

Since you seem to have some knowledge in this area, would you say the following is a better example of "grace" or "tact"?

At least it's good to know that despite what the managers may or may not approve that someone else will gestapo their way in and take care of it. So basically this has said loud and clear that the managers of the group are not in charge and big brother is watching and will archive anything he doesn't like. Way to go guys censorship is alive and well!!

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

I believe this was supposed to be a fun waymark (which was an actual location and was posted as such in the drive-in category) since quonset huts appearing in anything nowadays is so rare. I also believe that's exactly why it was approved, because it was fun & rare.

 

So now if it is "fun & rare" we can enter a waymark where ever we want... interesting concept. Hmmm I think when I was walking through Walmart last night they had a WWII movie showing on one of the TV's... I am pretty sure it showed a Luftwaffe Radar Site.... haven't seen many of those around Missouri lately... I guess it is "fun & rare"... I guess I will mark the Walmart as a Luftwaffe Radar Site...... NO, I DON'T THINK THAT IS HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

Edited by BruceS
0

Share this post


Link to post

 

I believe this was supposed to be a fun waymark (which was an actual location and was posted as such in the drive-in category) since quonset huts appearing in anything nowadays is so rare. I also believe that's exactly why it was approved, because it was fun & rare.

 

So now if it is "fun & rare" we can enter a waymark where ever we want... interesting concept. Hmmm I think when I was walking through Walmart last night they had a WWII movie showing on one of the TV's... I am pretty sure it showed a Luftwaffe Radar Site.... haven't seen many of those around Missouri lately... I guess it is "fun & rare"... I guess I will mark the Walmart as a Luftwaffe Radar Site...... NO, I DON'T THINK THAT IS HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

 

Well if there is a category for Luftwaffe Radar Sites I suppose you could. Then you could also post it to the ever "rare" Wal-Mart postings, since we all need GPS to find one of those. The point is if management thought it was okay for their category and people thought it was fun what is the problem?

 

As far as my "grace & tact" I don't believe I'm within the management community. If you are in charge of something don't you think you would try to be a little more diplomatic? This is turning into a little group of people who aren't thinking about everyone, just what they want. Like I said that's why instead of having the amount of people that did virtual caches in Geocaching you just have the few here. Obviously the person who runs the Art Cars group thought it was fun & interesting to have cars that were found posted to his group.

 

The quonset group doesn't specifically restrict against this, it met the qualifications and it was different. There are lots of postings (i.e. Wal-Mart & McDonald's) that don't need to be cached either, but to each their own. Nobody seems to have their panties in a wad over that one.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Well if there is a category for Luftwaffe Radar Sites I suppose you could. Then you could also post it to the ever "rare" Wal-Mart postings, since we all need GPS to find one of those. The point is if management thought it was okay for their category and people thought it was fun what is the problem?

 

 

There is a Luftwaffe Radar Ruins category and no I couldn't... there is not a Luffwaffe Radar Ruin at the Walmart... it was on the TV. What is the problem?.... Maybe the problem is... let me guess ...The quonset hut did not exist where they marked one as existing!!!!! But I guess that is not a problem for you.

Edited by BruceS
0

Share this post


Link to post

What do you think about virtual waymarks?

 

By definition don't you have to be able to go to the coordinates posted and see something remotely like the category?

 

For example:

WMKW6

 

What do you think?

 

I think it seemed like a natural progression, first there were caches, then virtual caches, then waymarks, so why not virtual waymarks?

I certainly wouldn't be upset to visit a waymark for the kissing mobile and find it was no longer there. Or, a weird story location, and have no paranormal activity occur. And as far as the posting of Sarge goes, the way it was described I can't believe someone would try going to see the waymark, and if they did, maybe then they would get the joke. "Hey wow, we wound up at drive-in, we can still log the visit". As far as belittling the category goes, you should know we live in a Quonset Hut. That was certainly not the intent.

 

Since purchasing our home (a quonset hut), a couple years ago, we have done a good deal of research on them. If it interests anyone, there is a book titled "Quonset: Metal Living for a Modern Age".

There is also a lot to be found right here on the w-cubed. Here for example is a quote from the Univerity of Houston's web page called "Engines of our Ingenuity"

 

Today, we build an instant house. The University of Houston's College of Engineering presents this series about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them.

 

As WW-II war clouds gathered in 1941, the Navy knew it would soon face vast problems of moving and housing people and materiel. War is about logistics, and people need shelter. Someone had a bright idea. Why not create a cheap, lightweight, portable structure that could be put up by untrained people?

 

So they went to the George A. Fuller construction company in New York. The Navy wanted buildings within two months. The British had developed a light prefab structure called a Nissen hut during WW-I. Now the Navy wanted an improved version.

 

And they got it: Peter Dejongh and Otto Brandenberger went to work. Within a month they'd set up a production facility near Quonset, Rhode Island. They moved so quickly that they were producing units while the design was still being tinkered.

 

That's how the famous Quonset hut came into being. Some people thought the old Nissen hut had been modeled on Iroquois council lodges. Now the Quonset hut version had the same shape and an Iroquois-sounding name. The Indian connection was probably fortuitous. Still, the resemblance was strong. The Quonset hut skeleton was a row of semi-circular steel ribs covered with corrugated sheet metal. The ribs sat on a low steel-frame foundation with a plywood floor. The basic model was 20 feet wide and 48 feet long with 720 square feet of usable floor space. The larger model was 40 by 100 feet.

 

So we entered the war armed with this cheap housing meant for airstrips, MASH units, barracks -- you name it. Historian Michael Lamm tells how Quonsets were strung together in Guam to form a 54,000-square-foot warehouse.

 

Around 170,000 Quonset huts were produced during the war -- enough to house the combined populations of Portland and Seattle. Then the war ended, and they were too good a resource to throw away. So the military sold them to civilians for about a thousand dollars each. They made serviceable single-family homes.

 

Returning veterans now occupied Quonset huts by choice. Universities made them into student housing. Architects took an interest and gussied them up in odd ways. Churches and small businesses took up residence in them. In 1948 the Sacramento Peak observatory was housed in Quonset huts. Playwright Robert Finton has written a play about them. He titled it Tents of Tin.

 

Drive your streets today and you'll see them here and there. Much more than relics of war, they're icons of a day in our history -- icons that spread all the way from North Africa to the Aleutian Islands. And now, a new memorial museum for war correspondent Ernie Pyle has just been built of Quonset huts. Once in a while, a really good design surfaces -- robust, simple, and enduring. The DC-3, the Jeep, and the Quonset hut are all examples of the clear thinking that was needed to keep us out of serious trouble, back in the 1940s.

 

I'm John Lienhard, at the University of Houston, where we're interested in the way inventive minds work.

 

Now let's see... Quonset huts were designed to be portable. Hmmm...

Does that mean if an actual one were to be waymarked it might not be there if some came along to visit it?

Chew on that for a bit.

 

Now when we posted Sarge we really didn't think it would be approved (and it didn't matter the drive-in was waymarked already), but hey it was worth a shot. And it wasn't like we were padding our waymarks, we have waymarked a good 3rd of the category's listings already. But what do you know? the people managing the waymark category did approve it. Cool! They must have a sense of humor, maybe even an appreciation for ingenuity!! So needless to say it is a little disappointing to have taken away.

 

Well, anyway I thought the whole idea was for people to be having a little fun.

 

Team Farkle 7

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Well if there is a category for Luftwaffe Radar Sites I suppose you could. Then you could also post it to the ever "rare" Wal-Mart postings, since we all need GPS to find one of those. The point is if management thought it was okay for their category and people thought it was fun what is the problem?

 

 

There is a Luftwaffe Radar Ruins category and no I couldn't... there is not a Luffwaffe Radar Ruin at the Walmart... it was on the TV. What is the problem?.... Maybe the problem is... let me guess ...The quonset hut did not exist where they marked one as existing!!!!! But I guess that is not a problem for you.

 

Ah but it did exist for that time & place it was as temporary as the quonset itself is. Any cached quonset can be picked up & moved at anytime to anywhere. Therefore NONE of the quonsets cached are PERMANENT as you would like all the waymarks to be, so maybe the entire category should be removed for fear they might not be there to visit. It seems as if the cache was done in fun and taken that way by the managers of the group. What's the problem, do you visit every waymark there is? If not how do you know they exist in the first place, maybe there are more virtual ones than you think. Either way it had a fun factor until the people here sucked the life out of it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Ah but it did exist for that time & place it was as temporary as the quonset itself is. Any cached quonset can be picked up & moved at anytime to anywhere. Therefore NONE of the quonsets cached are PERMANENT as you would like all the waymarks to be, so maybe the entire category should be removed for fear they might not be there to visit. It seems as if the cache was done in fun and taken that way by the managers of the group. What's the problem, do you visit every waymark there is? If not how do you know they exist in the first place, maybe there are more virtual ones than you think. Either way it had a fun factor until the people here sucked the life out of it.

 

NO ... it did not physcially exist at that location. It was projected on a screen at that location. Following your logic (or is illogic), if I take a book showing pictures of mountains out on my boat then I can waymark a mountain in the middle of Lake Michigan, because while I was there the mountain was there.

 

True a waymark may not permanent. And if I get a log saying that a building I had waymarked was torn down or moved I would archive the waymark. Thus if they want to waymark it then they can. But now that it no longer exists it needs to be archived.

 

It should not have had a life, then the fun could not have been sucked out it it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It's nice to see enthusiasm about something, but I have to wonder why someone who has no logged waymarks or geocaches is getting so passionate about this.

 

About the Quonset huts...I don't know how they are in your area, but in my area, they have long since become permanent fixtures that would be extremely difficult to move and keep intact, so that arguement doesn't really apply.

 

I think what a lot of this comes down to is basically the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. With the quonset hut while the one in the movie might technically according the the letter of the category be ok, it doesn't really fit with the spirit of the category. I mean lets face it...on the quonset hut page it says "Quonset huts are prefabricated, corrugated steel structures" the one in the movie was not and has never been steel.

 

While the category owner and waymark owners may "own" their respective items, the website and everything on it still belongs to Groundspeak. It's their playground and they have the right to make the rules, change the rules, and break the rules whether we like it or not. When it comes to the bottom line, it is Jeremy's name that is on each waymark.

 

Just my long rambling opinion.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Jennifera36, I'm sure it was fun for you at the time. You were at the drive-in, having a good time with your family, and something on the screen reminded you of Waymarking. Great! I think the fact that you are thinking about Waymarking spontaneously is really cool.

 

But you have to ask yourself if the experience you had could be /useful/ to someone else. And by "useful" I mean entertaining, educational, or otherwise impacting a life in some meaningful way. Can it be replicated? This is primarily a community exercise designed to share experiences and locations that can be recreated by another waymarker. While your waymark may have been clever in some ways, it detracted (as frivlas remarked) from the "spirit" of our humble little enterprise here, and could potentially open the door to less carefully vetted waymarks. I used sarcasm to illustrate my point, not to offend. My apologies if you took it that way.

 

I, and Groundspeak, have always made an earnest effort to maintain a laissez faire style of governance when it comes to our websites. We realize most of the innovations to the site will come naturally from you and other waymarkers over time. However, there are certain trends which we'd prefer to discourage in advance. I hope we (I) haven't discouraged you as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Jennifera36, I'm sure it was fun for you at the time. You were at the drive-in, having a good time with your family, and something on the screen reminded you of Waymarking. Great! I think the fact that you are thinking about Waymarking spontaneously is really cool.

 

But you have to ask yourself if the experience you had could be /useful/ to someone else. And by "useful" I mean entertaining, educational, or otherwise impacting a life in some meaningful way. Can it be replicated? This is primarily a community exercise designed to share experiences and locations that can be recreated by another waymarker. While your waymark may have been clever in some ways, it detracted (as frivlas remarked) from the "spirit" of our humble little enterprise here, and could potentially open the door to less carefully vetted waymarks. I used sarcasm to illustrate my point, not to offend. My apologies if you took it that way.

 

I, and Groundspeak, have always made an earnest effort to maintain a laissez faire style of governance when it comes to our websites. We realize most of the innovations to the site will come naturally from you and other waymarkers over time. However, there are certain trends which we'd prefer to discourage in advance. I hope we (I) haven't discouraged you as well.

 

You have discouraged in the way that it was addressed. While I expect opinions like that from others here, management should be above that. And you sarcasm was meant to be offensive and make the poster feel stupid, hence the little "boggles" addition. If it was to be discouraged it needed to be done in a more diplomatic manner. As far as I'm concerned I could care less if we bother again.

 

As far as it being "entertaining", obviously the ones managing the quonset group thought so. I'm sure it might have been just as entertaining as some of the ghost story locations. I understand your reasoning and that is how it should have been presented. I don't care so much about the removal but the way it was done and the arguements that were encouraged. You have a very elitest attitude that really turns me off. Rejecting the post is one thing, making it something that needed explaining or defending goes against the very fun of this whole project. This was definitely a whole lot more fun when it was virtual caching under geocache.

Edited by Jennifera26
0

Share this post


Link to post

It's nice to see enthusiasm about something, but I have to wonder why someone who has no logged waymarks or geocaches is getting so passionate about this.

 

About the Quonset huts...I don't know how they are in your area, but in my area, they have long since become permanent fixtures that would be extremely difficult to move and keep intact, so that arguement doesn't really apply.

 

I think what a lot of this comes down to is basically the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. With the quonset hut while the one in the movie might technically according the the letter of the category be ok, it doesn't really fit with the spirit of the category. I mean lets face it...on the quonset hut page it says "Quonset huts are prefabricated, corrugated steel structures" the one in the movie was not and has never been steel.

 

While the category owner and waymark owners may "own" their respective items, the website and everything on it still belongs to Groundspeak. It's their playground and they have the right to make the rules, change the rules, and break the rules whether we like it or not. When it comes to the bottom line, it is Jeremy's name that is on each waymark.

 

Just my long rambling opinion.

 

As far as how long quonsets are there doesn't matter, we have one right here in Michigan that has been in existence for over 20 years that is being dismantled and moved to Ohio. If it was put together with the panels (which is the nature of the quonset) then it can be dismantled & moved no matter how long it's been there. They get moved piece by piece not as a whole.

 

I didn't know that you had to post something to be involved in the discussions here. So is this another rule? If you don't cache you don't get to participate? Please lets add that to the description too.

 

And technically if anyone had gone to that location in the 4 weeks the movie was playing there they would have been able to see & log the cache as well.

 

I guess there should be a note to all, "don't do anything that might be fun, because if it accidentally gets accepted or the group managers agreed with you, Groundspeak will blow it way out of proportion and make a national incident about it". Really this is very encouraging especially considering how many quonsets Team Farkle7 has posted. Since that team seems to be one of the few that bothered to make the transition from the other site.....very encouraging indeed.

Edited by Jennifera26
0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Ah but it did exist for that time & place it was as temporary as the quonset itself is. Any cached quonset can be picked up & moved at anytime to anywhere. Therefore NONE of the quonsets cached are PERMANENT as you would like all the waymarks to be, so maybe the entire category should be removed for fear they might not be there to visit. It seems as if the cache was done in fun and taken that way by the managers of the group. What's the problem, do you visit every waymark there is? If not how do you know they exist in the first place, maybe there are more virtual ones than you think. Either way it had a fun factor until the people here sucked the life out of it.

 

NO ... it did not physcially exist at that location. It was projected on a screen at that location. Following your logic (or is illogic), if I take a book showing pictures of mountains out on my boat then I can waymark a mountain in the middle of Lake Michigan, because while I was there the mountain was there.

 

True a waymark may not permanent. And if I get a log saying that a building I had waymarked was torn down or moved I would archive the waymark. Thus if they want to waymark it then they can. But now that it no longer exists it needs to be archived.

 

It should not have had a life, then the fun could not have been sucked out it it.

 

Well since the movie did exist at that location for at least 4 weeks and could have been visited & waymarked that does make it okay. If you want to stay out on your boat for 4 weeks and let us visit you at that location to see your mountain then that would be okay too.

 

As far as it not having a life, please oh please let me guess....you've never had a moment that was so enjoyable that you felt you might try to share? Team Farkle states that they never really expected to have it accepted but it was. The way it was removed was the problem. All this has come across as is petty & small minded like a bunch of bickering old women. Now I know I will never post, let's hope the leader of the Team still will. As far as I'm concerned this is an elitest group that, god help you, will stone you if you stray from the stringent rules. It was posted in fun, accepted in fun, and could have been declined that way as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post

As an officer in the Quenset hut group myself, and leader of the Drive Ins group. I feel I need to be heard! ( I had been with out computer for a few days unexpectedly.) I was not the officer that approved it in the hut Category. In fACT NONE OF US WERE (It was set to Auto Approve)( The Leader felt that this was best) If I had been ON COMPUTER and seen this WAYMARK I would have sent off a polite email Stating that it would be removed as it stands as it did not fit the criteria, I was unable to be and I am thankful TPTB upheld the standards of our Category. I had not even been aware that this was there at all until I read this thread. I am grateful that TPTB archived the waymark before I or others had a chance too, with a respectful email. ( Things do happen in real life and as an officer in the group I speak for myself that it was particularly convienet for me that TPTB upheld the Category for us. IT does however fit into the Drive IN Category if you fulfill the requirments and post a sign of the movie and mention and upload a photo in a log to a Drive In Movie

The way it was removed by this TPTB is not a problem to this officer!!! So why would it be a problem to others?

To Jennifera26 particularly. It was not accepted in fun! IT was accepted by Auto approve! That is one reason why I do not like auto approvals but I am not the only officer and we are discussing the pros and cons of auto approve within the group as a result of this thread; so this thread and the discussion that follows has been extremly helpful and serves a purpose. I am sorry for you that you look at the posts in a negative light. And attach motives to others that you assume. This is a great hobby and you need to develop a thicker skin, and look at things from others viewpoint. The definition of sarcasim is "

It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony. It is often used in a humorous manner and is expressed through over-emphasizing the actual statement or particular words." Please try to view the posts in a positive manner and you will be surprised that they are not negative as you see them. It is only you who are being negative..

0

Share this post


Link to post

As an officer in the Quenset hut group myself, and leader of the Drive Ins group. I feel I need to be heard! ( I had been with out computer for a few days unexpectedly.) I was not the officer that approved it in the hut Category. In fACT NONE OF US WERE (It was set to Auto Approve)( The Leader felt that this was best) If I had been ON COMPUTER and seen this WAYMARK I would have sent off a polite email Stating that it would be removed as it stands as it did not fit the criteria, I was unable to be and I am thankful TPTB upheld the standards of our Category. I had not even been aware that this was there at all until I read this thread. I am grateful that TPTB archived the waymark before I or others had a chance too, with a respectful email. ( Things do happen in real life and as an officer in the group I speak for myself that it was particularly convienet for me that TPTB upheld the Category for us. IT does however fit into the Drive IN Category if you fulfill the requirments and post a sign of the movie and mention and upload a photo in a log to a Drive In Movie

The way it was removed by this TPTB is not a problem to this officer!!! So why would it be a problem to others?

To Jennifera26 particularly. It was not accepted in fun! IT was accepted by Auto approve! That is one reason why I do not like auto approvals but I am not the only officer and we are discussing the pros and cons of auto approve within the group as a result of this thread; so this thread and the discussion that follows has been extremly helpful and serves a purpose. I am sorry for you that you look at the posts in a negative light. And attach motives to others that you assume. This is a great hobby and you need to develop a thicker skin, and look at things from others viewpoint. The definition of sarcasm is "

It is strongly associated with irony, with some definitions classifying it as a type of verbal irony. It is often used in a humorous manner and is expressed through over-emphasizing the actual statement or particular words." Please try to view the posts in a positive manner and you will be surprised that they are not negative as you see them. It is only you who are being negative..

 

Here's Nate's post

 

This is NOT ok and the managers of that category should never have approved it. I'm surprised anyone would even think to do such a thing. If not for marking actual locations, then what is Waymarking for? There is a huge difference between marking where a turtle has crossed in the real world, and marking pixels in an animated movie. *boggles*

 

EDIT: I have archived the waymark

 

Second post from Nate

 

If this Quonset hut waymark were allowed, what would stop people from marking every single theater in the world that screened "Cars"? Why don't we all watch our favorite movie and pick out as many waymarks as we can, and then post them all with our living room coordinates.

 

In fact, come on over tonight and we'll rent Supersize Me. I'll buy the (popcorn icon)

 

Bruce's post

 

So now if it is "fun & rare" we can enter a waymark where ever we want... interesting concept. Hmmm I think when I was walking through Walmart last night they had a WWII movie showing on one of the TV's... I am pretty sure it showed a Luftwaffe Radar Site.... haven't seen many of those around Missouri lately... I guess it is "fun & rare"... I guess I will mark the Walmart as a Luftwaffe Radar Site...... NO, I DON'T THINK THAT IS HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

 

It's really hard to look at those in a postive light, the intent seems pretty clear to all I have asked to read it too. Especially since Team Farkle 7 wasn't notified of it's removal with a "respectful email", which is my point. This forum was the only way that it was found out. Like I said before it's not that it was removed but in the manner that it was done. And I noticed that when you quoted wikipedia in your definition of sarcasm you left out the main definition "Sarcasm is sneering, jesting, or mocking a person, situation or thing." Dictionary.com defines sarcasm as "A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.

A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule." Merriam-Websters defines it as "1 : a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain

2 a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b : the use or language of sarcasm"

I am part of Team Farkle 7 but others head it up, I do have a thick skin but when the team is belittled by someone who is supposed to be in charge I have a problem with that. AGAIN I STATE, IT WAS NOT THE REMOVAL THAT IS THE PROBLEM, BUT THE WAY IT WAS DONE. I would feel the same way no matter who it was done to. The Team hadn't expected it to be accepted in the first place, but then it was, so now we find out it was auto approve, fine. A nice email saying "not appropriate" and it gets laughed off. We were so surprised to find a quonset hut in the movie which only added to the excitement, so the team posted it on a lark, believe me we were surprised when it got approved too. We had already made the drive-in post as well. As for you not being put off by the way it was removed, of course not, you weren't the one that was being made to feel stupid. Also, you posted twice before, why didn't you stop this earlier? I've stated several times that it wasn't about having the post archived that was the issue, I understood, it made sense. But when Nate posts it like we're complete idiots for even trying, that really burns my butt. Whether we were or not having management individuals treat you that way is very off-putting and immediately puts you on the defensive. This is something that could have been resolved with no negativaty at all by including just a little respect for the members. Anyway, I've said all I can stand to, I've also had enough of Waymarking. Thankfully I'm not the only member of Team Farkle 7 so it will continue on without me. Hopefully this group will be able to rise above and not penalize the team. I notice noone bothered to respond to the remarks that the Team leader made, I guess the negativity is the only way to get any attention or explanation.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I thought it was FUNNNNY.

It"s too bad that at this time there isn't a "Write a Note" Button ( Like the old Locationless Caches) for adding this type of "Funny". Then you could mention that it was in a waymarked Drive-in and give that information.

No one would receive credit except those visiting the waymarked Drive-in. But everyone reading it could enjoy it and realize that it was just a "Funny".

I know of a year-around Halloween-type haunted house, it's a business, that is lived in by the owner. The owner is an artist. With car parts sticking into the sides of the house, a flying saucer on the roof and several bony bodys laying around. It also has two "artistic" vehicles that the owner drives to the grocery store. Now, which waymark will it fit in? Probably none, since there are deficiencies for any of the waymarks. But it would be FUN to post-a-note for all to see.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Jennifera26 At the time of my previous posts I specifically choose not to talk about the hut because the leader of the Category has not been online since Aug 9, and I was awaiting there response to this. So I used examples that had been referred to as the Turtle Crossing and art Cars, awaiting to here from the Leader. But when logging on after my computer was down since I last made my response I felt I could not wait, especially after nate even apologized directly to you. I quote Nate " I used sarcasm to illustrate my point, not to offend. My apologies if you took it that way. "

 

You have chosen to ignore the apology!

I attempted to have you look at things differently after that post and others; but I fear that is not possible after your last post.

 

Now getting back on topic virtual waymarks are not what this site is about. It is the Location, location, location!!! And TPTB have every right to keep it that way.

Edited by chstress53
0

Share this post


Link to post

It's nice to see enthusiasm about something, but I have to wonder why someone who has no logged waymarks or geocaches is getting so passionate about this.

 

About the Quonset huts...I don't know how they are in your area, but in my area, they have long since become permanent fixtures that would be extremely difficult to move and keep intact, so that arguement doesn't really apply.

 

I think what a lot of this comes down to is basically the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law. With the quonset hut while the one in the movie might technically according the the letter of the category be ok, it doesn't really fit with the spirit of the category. I mean lets face it...on the quonset hut page it says "Quonset huts are prefabricated, corrugated steel structures" the one in the movie was not and has never been steel.

 

While the category owner and waymark owners may "own" their respective items, the website and everything on it still belongs to Groundspeak. It's their playground and they have the right to make the rules, change the rules, and break the rules whether we like it or not. When it comes to the bottom line, it is Jeremy's name that is on each waymark.

 

Just my long rambling opinion.

 

Like I said before, we have done a good deal of research on Quonset Huts. If you like I'd gladly send you photos of some that were assembled & picked up off the ground by several servicemen and carried to their temporary destination, as well as photos of assembled huts being moved by truck and finally some images of them being put onto large sleds and moved about (mostly in Alaska). Also, in case you ever find yourself in possession of a Quonset Hut, I'd also gladly send to you a copy of its assembling/disassebmling instruction I recieved from the Rhode Island Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission. On second thought, Ill save you the trouble...

 

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wNLrRDOv363xA...e%20quonset.pdf

 

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wNLrRJERZDTxA...e%20quonset.pdf

 

Team Farkle 7

0

Share this post


Link to post

Most huts are now indeed permanent and are now used for other things. I think most of us realize that they were made to be movable If one of then moved for some resaon as you state; the next Person to log the find would state that it was MIA and then it could be archived. Waymarking is indeed about the location and is not about virtual logging in any way shape or form. When a hut is waymarked it is expected to be there again and again for finders; And should continue to be monitered by theTPTB. Just as logging virtual TB's is unacceptable on the other site. What has been referred to as virtual waymarks is indeed unexceptable. ANd as TB's that TPTB become aware of, they are shut down immediately. I can see that your team is fond of These huts as these locationless caches were the majority of what you and Jennifer logged as cachers, but here at Waymarking Categories are similar to those locationless caches, and waymarks are similar to virtual caches. ( Please remember that the virtuals even on geocaching were about a location) But creating Virtual Waymarks are completely unexceptable and not what this site is about. As I stated in this post; Every single time virtual anything is created TPTB have immediately shut them down Waymarking is no exception.

To have expected anything else is unrealistic.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Like I said before, we have done a good deal of research on Quonset Huts. If you like I'd gladly send you photos of some that were assembled & picked up off the ground by several servicemen and carried to their temporary destination, as well as photos of assembled huts being moved by truck and finally some images of them being put onto large sleds and moved about (mostly in Alaska). Also, in case you ever find yourself in possession of a Quonset Hut, I'd also gladly send to you a copy of its assembling/disassebmling instruction I recieved from the Rhode Island Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission. On second thought, Ill save you the trouble...

 

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wNLrRDOv363xA...e%20quonset.pdf

 

http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/wNLrRJERZDTxA...e%20quonset.pdf

 

Team Farkle 7

 

Cool. I guess where you live they keep them a little more originial than they do here. Around here, I've seen them stuccoed over and others have had 12 inch thick stucco facades added to the front and back permanent attachments that would make them awkward but I guess not impossible to move. I'm definately interested, but neither link worked for me.

 

Frivlas

0

Share this post


Link to post

If they look permament -"Waymark" them.

 

If they look like they are temporary -DON"T-

++++

BTW...the links don't work for me either.

Edited by Jake39
0

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

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 :blink: 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 :D ) 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) :blink: The moment you see through your idealized projection is the moment you begin to see how the activity truly is . :blink:

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!!!! B)

Edited by chstress53
0

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

:blink: The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4