Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
ChapterhouseInc

Armchair Loggers

53 posts in this topic

i have just recieved several suspected armchair logs. i have removed the user and mark names to remain in a general state of discussion.

 

1) XXXXXXXXXX visited XXXXXXXXXXXX on 8/20/2006 10:13:45 PM and posted the following comments:

 

"visited"

 

2) XXXXXXXXXX visited XXXXXXXXXXX on 8/20/2006 10:14:59 PM and posted the following comments:

 

"visited"

 

3) XXXXXXXXXX visited XXXXXXXXXXX on 8/20/2006 10:16:19 PM and posted the following comments:

 

"visited"

 

All logs are from the same user, none have pics uploaded. All waymarks are in the same category, and are geographically located less than 20 miles from each other. The category logging requirements are more of a waymark submittal connotation, thus, making the logs of a 'legal' type.

 

Has anyone else noticed this type of activity?

I checked the logging requirements, to delete the pic-less logs, but it seems that i do not have sufficient permission to do so.

 

what are your comments on the matter?

0

Share this post


Link to post

i have just recieved several suspected armchair logs. i have removed the user and mark names to remain in a general state of discussion.

 

1) XXXXXXXXXX visited XXXXXXXXXXXX on 8/20/2006 10:13:45 PM and posted the following comments:

 

"visited"

 

2) XXXXXXXXXX visited XXXXXXXXXXX on 8/20/2006 10:14:59 PM and posted the following comments:

 

"visited"

 

3) XXXXXXXXXX visited XXXXXXXXXXX on 8/20/2006 10:16:19 PM and posted the following comments:

 

"visited"

 

All logs are from the same user, none have pics uploaded. All waymarks are in the same category, and are geographically located less than 20 miles from each other. The category logging requirements are more of a waymark submittal connotation, thus, making the logs of a 'legal' type.

 

Has anyone else noticed this type of activity?

I checked the logging requirements, to delete the pic-less logs, but it seems that i do not have sufficient permission to do so.

 

what are your comments on the matter?

 

I recieved a few myself yesterday in a category that does not require pictures.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Well, since you asked, I think the having to have a picture of any kind to log a Waymark is going to be the thorn in the side of the game. I have tried and tried to understand what difference it makes if a picture is submitted with the log and I can't come up with anything. I've had a few logs on my Waymarks and far as I know none has had a picture. I would really be kind of PO'd if those logs got deleted. I know I knew the rules but the more I think about it the more useless it seems to me to require a picture. If Waymarking becomes what Jeremy and his bunch hope for it is going to have to include a lot of people who don't necessarily have a GPSr or camera. They won't be Geocachers. They may never have heard of Geocaching. They'll be Waymarkers.

 

I know that having a picture with GPSr to place a Waymark is seems almost non existent on the site now. There's still a few die hard Cachers that are hanging on to the "standard GPSr in picture" thing. I have a couple of Waymarks that I am waiting to submit when they join the new way of thinking.

 

I guess my way of thinking is that they're Waymarks not Geocaches.

 

Glad you asked and as always, just my opinion.

 

Mike

 

edited to change some wording

Edited by mikemtn
0

Share this post


Link to post

in another private Waymarking conversation i had the idea that the above srtream of thought might have some truth in it. the heart of this being the camera phone. not all have gpsr and camera, lots only have cameras (dig or cell).

 

capera pics are not an acceptable form of creating a waymark, but they should be acceptable for logging. not all pic submitions will be from cameras, and then can be compared.

 

there needs to some sort of checks and balances to the whole operation.

0

Share this post


Link to post

there needs to some sort of checks and balances to the whole operation.

 

I agree, there is a need for checks and balances.

If not a photo then what? Maybe we could harken back to the old-fashioned virtual method, require finders to answer questions that they would only find if they visit the site?

 

JARS

0

Share this post


Link to post

Another random thought that kinda worries me. When someone posts an image to a Waymark and it goes into the gallery for the Waymark. My question, do my images always stay first in the gallery or do they get mixed up in some order with all the other images? I try to take several pictures of most Waymarks I submit and I'd not like for them to become just a few images in a gallery of hundreds of "GPSr in pic" images.

 

Mike

0

Share this post


Link to post

all pics dont need the gps.....just a proof shot--when requested....

the rest is up to the logger....

0

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I've sat down before and logged several waymarks that I have been to in the past, that do not have logging requirements. But I usually try and put the date that I visited them, and include lost of pictures.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The category needs to define the req'ments for logging. If those req'ments aren't written to -try- to prevent armchair logging, then expect armchair logging.

 

On the other hand, if I log a visit I'll try to do something to "prove" that I was actually there. I might -say- that I was there on some date before the mark was created or I'll say something that happened when I was there or I'll upload a picture or something.

0

Share this post


Link to post

lets begin by describing the two different types of loga being discussed....

 

the OP was talking about armchair logs - those where the person obviously had not been there, and in this specific case, there were waymarks, owned by three different people, in three DIFFERENT states.

 

a seperate issue are insufficient logs - those that are lacking a requirement (often a pic)....

 

it is one thing to guess what date you went to a place years before WM.com, it is another to say you went somewhere you never did.....

0

Share this post


Link to post

Why not have two categories of log entry -- those with the "me with my GPS" picture and those without? Call them "Proofpic" and "no proofpic" logs.

 

That way those of us who just want to visit sites and write about them without having to bother with taking and uploading pictures have a way to do that. This would give Waymarking site developers a way to restrict Waymarking game scores (how many waymarks has a person visited, how many people have visited a particular waymark) to the "proofpic" entries. Waymark owners would probably want a button to click to validate log entry type.

 

On geocaching, most of the interesting logs that indicate whether I want to hunt for a particular cache don't have a proof pic. The bogus ones are easy to skim past.

 

I just deleted two log entries to a couple of waymarks I visited the other day because I just noticed the requirement for proof pics. That sure dampened the fun.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen some too. One of my waymarks got "visited" in a category I don't own with the log:

 

"Can't remember the date I visited this"

 

No picture posted even though this was a category that requires a picture. I don't believe I can delete the log and not sure if I really want to anyway. If someone wants to visit then that's fine with me although I wish they'd say something slightly more interesting :lol: . It really is an interesting spot :o

0

Share this post


Link to post

i have just recieved several suspected armchair logs. i have removed the user and mark names to remain in a general state of discussion.

 

1) XXXXXXXXXX visited XXXXXXXXXXXX on 8/20/2006 10:13:45 PM and posted the following comments:

 

"visited"

 

2) XXXXXXXXXX visited XXXXXXXXXXX on 8/20/2006 10:14:59 PM and posted the following comments:

 

"visited"

 

3) XXXXXXXXXX visited XXXXXXXXXXX on 8/20/2006 10:16:19 PM and posted the following comments:

 

"visited"

 

All logs are from the same user, none have pics uploaded. All waymarks are in the same category, and are geographically located less than 20 miles from each other. The category logging requirements are more of a waymark submittal connotation, thus, making the logs of a 'legal' type.

 

Has anyone else noticed this type of activity?

I checked the logging requirements, to delete the pic-less logs, but it seems that i do not have sufficient permission to do so.

 

what are your comments on the matter?

 

Next trip for maintenance, replace the log. If they didn't sign, they didn't visit!!! Then, delete. One of the appealling things about caching to me was the opportunity to get out of the armchair and get some excercise. My $0.02

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Next trip for maintenance, replace the log. If they didn't sign, they didn't visit!!! Then, delete. One of the appealling things about caching to me was the opportunity to get out of the armchair and get some excercise. My $0.02

 

 

am i the only one that sees fallicies with this argument? who wants to explain it to them?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know about others, but I always take a picture of myself at a waymark regardless of what it is. That's my visit picture and it's what I upload with my visit description. That's the way I think the game should be played so that's how I play it. Digital cameras are very affordable these days. Get with it.

 

"hands off" picture tip - silly putty can be used to affix your camera to many types of supports, including the top of a hiking pole jammed into the ground. Set the auto-timer and pose.

0

Share this post


Link to post

there needs to some sort of checks and balances to the whole operation.

 

I agree, there is a need for checks and balances.

If not a photo then what? Maybe we could harken back to the old-fashioned virtual method, require finders to answer questions that they would only find if they visit the site?

 

JARS

 

Yes!!! :laughing::tired::laughing:

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have no problem submitting a photo of waymarks. I hate the GPS-on-zero requirement since my little yellow booger has yet not to go bonkers the moment it hits zero. But I take a picture of one of us holding the GPS at the site and the owner can tell it's the site because it's zir waymark. Look, we're here.

 

But I have a digital camera and it's very easy for me to get pictures uploaded. Even with my laptop crashed, I have a memory card reader and a travel drive so I can plug in anywhere that has two USB ports to make the transfers. Not everyone has that. Should they have to get a disposable camera, develop it, scan the photo, upload it to a flickr or photobucket account, just to get credit for a place they went to (at this point) days ago? I don't know, but I do know that if you want to be a Geocacher, you have to get a GPS. There's no way around that. I know that if you want to do Letterboxing, you have to get a stamp book, stamp and inkpad. You do absorb some expense for these hobbies, the least being fuel, water, and food. A lot of these waymarks, you want a camera with you, anyway, because they're beautiful, historical and/or significant.

 

I'm not sure you can get a numbers obsession on Waymarking like you can with geocaching. I'm one of the few making waymarks in my area so I've been considering logging visits on my own waymarks. When it comes down to it, the number of places I visit doesn't matter to me. I do Waymarking for the experience, so if I'm making the waymark or visiting it, that's my experience. And I take more than enough photos when I'm making the waymark.

 

That said, Waymark owners (or at least the category team upon receiving a complaint from a Waymark owner) should be able to delete visits that violate the category's guidelines.

 

I've seen Virtual Caches that ask for a specific question that you'd only know if you:

1. went there for the waymark and knew to look for the answer so you could get credit;

2. been there so many times that you know the answer (in which case, you might as well get credit).

 

I haven't seen it in a waymark but see no reason why it couldn't be. Some categories do specify that no visit guidelines beyond those established by the category should be added to waymarks. That's something to look out for if you want to have a pop quiz.

 

- HauntHunters

0

Share this post


Link to post

"hands off" picture tip - silly putty can be used to affix your camera to many types of supports, including the top of a hiking pole jammed into the ground. Set the auto-timer and pose.

 

GOOD TIP! THANKS!

 

- HauntHunters

0

Share this post


Link to post

I do know that if you want to be a Geocacher, you have to get a GPS. There's no way around that. I know that if you want to do Letterboxing, you have to get a stamp book, stamp and inkpad. You do absorb some expense for these hobbies, the least being fuel, water, and food. A lot of these waymarks, you want a camera with you, anyway, because they're beautiful, historical and/or significant.

 

yes. 'these' hobbies will benefit from a camera, but what about the rest of your life--you dont only (want to)take pics of your 'hobbies' do you?

and then, if you are not computer/camera savvy (in transferring/managing pics), you can always take the card to a photo shop and get them put on a cd. if cost i an issue, then you must look harder and limit the criteria you put in a choice. with the price of gas these days, you can get something that will suffice for the purpose of Waymarking for the price of a tank of gass (or less depending on what you drive).

0

Share this post


Link to post

I do know that if you want to be a Geocacher, you have to get a GPS. There's no way around that. I know that if you want to do Letterboxing, you have to get a stamp book, stamp and inkpad. You do absorb some expense for these hobbies, the least being fuel, water, and food. A lot of these waymarks, you want a camera with you, anyway, because they're beautiful, historical and/or significant.

 

yes. 'these' hobbies will benefit from a camera, but what about the rest of your life--you dont only (want to)take pics of your 'hobbies' do you?

and then, if you are not computer/camera savvy (in transferring/managing pics), you can always take the card to a photo shop and get them put on a cd. if cost i an issue, then you must look harder and limit the criteria you put in a choice. with the price of gas these days, you can get something that will suffice for the purpose of Waymarking for the price of a tank of gass (or less depending on what you drive).

 

Exactly! Many of us even had a GPS before we started these hobbies. A lot of us had stamps, stamp books and ink, too. It just depends on what else we do. I don't want to demean the financial struggles of anyone, but someone shouldn't log visits to places they've never been (whether or not they can or cannot get there) nor should someone log a visit without being able to meet the category requirements for that log. I think it really takes balls to do that.

 

- HauntHunters

0

Share this post


Link to post

Isn't Waymarking supposed to be a "GPS game" like geocaching is? If you don't use a GPS to determine the coordinates and a camera of the waymark with your GPS to prove you were there, what is the point of this? Just to say you know of a specific bowling alley, or McDonald's, or fallout shelter sign?

 

I know there will be a lot of disagreement on here, especially by the PTB, but this is why I think it would've been best to continue with Virtual, Locationless, and Earth caches. At least there owners could delete logs and you could have some sort of checks and balances.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

I know there will be a lot of disagreement on here, especially by the PTB, but this is why I think it would've been best to continue with Virtual, Locationless, and Earth caches. At least there owners could delete logs and you could have some sort of checks and balances.

 

Owners can and should delete logs of loggers who do not meet the requirements of the category. (It is actually called Archive log but it has same effect which is actually the same as what happens on geocaching.) Thus your argument about keeping Virtual, Locationless and Earth caches has no merit.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Owners can and should delete logs of loggers who do not meet the requirements of the category. (It is actually called Archive log but it has same effect which is actually the same as what happens on geocaching.)

 

I didn't realize that. Cool! Thanks!

 

- HauntHunters

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

I know there will be a lot of disagreement on here, especially by the PTB, but this is why I think it would've been best to continue with Virtual, Locationless, and Earth caches. At least there owners could delete logs and you could have some sort of checks and balances.

 

Owners can and should delete logs of loggers who do not meet the requirements of the category. (It is actually called Archive log but it has same effect which is actually the same as what happens on geocaching.) Thus your argument about keeping Virtual, Locationless and Earth caches has no merit.

 

I didn't realize it either, the impression I got from this forum thread was that you couldn't do that. Then you are right, my argument does not have merit and I stand corrected, thanks!

0

Share this post


Link to post

yes, the 'deletion' of logs is possible, but

 

it is wrong to delete logs with no good reason.

 

this thread was doing research on the incident and checking to see how 'regular' the 'occurence' was.

 

at this point, i let logs to my marks go, unless there is reason to be suspiscious.

 

several of the posters here have sent PM discussing the OP, and logs have been deleted (no way could they have been in 3 states in the same day). and if someone were to visit 'those marks', they would have visited others in the area......

0

Share this post


Link to post

HELP!!!!

 

Where is this "Archive Log" of which you guys speak.

 

I did a fake log on my own Waymark so I could learn how to address 'fake' visits. But I still cannot see where, as the Owner, I can delete it.

 

All this time I thought this tool was absent, but you guys say it is there. I must be blind or doing something wrong.

 

There are no fake logs in my Waymarks (except my own) that need addressing, but it would be good to know how.

 

:( The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

HELP!!!!

 

Where is this "Archive Log" of which you guys speak.

 

I did a fake log on my own Waymark so I could learn how to address 'fake' visits. But I still cannot see where, as the Owner, I can delete it.

 

All this time I thought this tool was absent, but you guys say it is there. I must be blind or doing something wrong.

 

There are no fake logs in my Waymarks (except my own) that need addressing, but it would be good to know how.

 

:( The Blue Quasar

 

Click View Log and then to right there will be Archive Log :huh:

Edited by BruceS
0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks guys!

 

That option doesn't show up when you log your own... but I was able to see it on someone else's log.

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks guys!

 

That option doesn't show up when you log your own... but I was able to see it on someone else's log.

 

B) The Blue Quasar

 

I just found out how to delete a log "when you log your own."

 

Go to the waymark;

Click on All Logs

Your own will have an EDIT

Click that.

In this case I see:

Once a log has been in the system for one hour it can no longer be edited (but can still be archived).

And a check box to delete this log and the Update button.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, i'm new to Waymarking, My question is: Is it ok to log somthing I already logged for a locationless cache? would this be armchairing, I have been to the spot and have the coords. and photo. or is this frowned upon.

 

Help please!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, i'm new to Waymarking, My question is: Is it ok to log somthing I already logged for a locationless cache? would this be armchairing, I have been to the spot and have the coords. and photo. or is this frowned upon.

 

Help please!

 

no, back in the 'conversion' days it was acceptable to post your LC find here--they just moved....many of the LC pages probably still state this.

 

armcharing is more of a never been, dont plan on going......if you want to armchair it, post notes.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm pleased to find this discussion thread since I'm new to Waymarking. I had wondered if any kind of restrictions would, could (should?) be applied to prevent people from saying "been there" when they haven't left the safety of their home.

 

I have logged 1 waymark to date because it was also a Geocache I found in May. I've started using the "look for Waymark" feature when checking out caches and have found quite a few are in the area.

 

My belief of Waymarking was that it was designed to replace the Virtuals on the GC site. Am I incorrect? I had hoped to be challenged by having to take pictures as proof or even better, to answer questions about the location. I like the picture idea, but it's a little difficult when caching alone.

 

Anyways, it seems all of my thoughts on the subject had already been said in this thread. Thanks to all who posted some rather interesting information.

 

:D

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand the photo requirements of gpsr's for most of waymarks. You should be able to demonstrate that you visited a site within your log. I've been reading through and seen a lot of logs that just say 'visited.' Surely you can add something to the waymark. Was it enjoyable? Have conditions changed? Is it worth visiting? Why? Not only does this add to the information, it should also be a good indicator that it's not an armchair log.

0

Share this post


Link to post

.. I had hoped to be challenged by having to take pictures as proof or even better, to answer questions about the location. I like the picture idea, but it's a little difficult when caching alone.

 

I've been wondering why answering questions as proof of a visit is not used more often in Waymarking. My experience is that asking finders to answer questions (rather than requiring a photo) is not encouraged. Any reason for this?

 

J.A.R.S.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I've been wondering why answering questions as proof of a visit is not used more often in Waymarking. My experience is that asking finders to answer questions (rather than requiring a photo) is not encouraged. Any reason for this?

 

J.A.R.S.

 

Sometimes you may only put the coordinates in the GPSr. Then you do what you might normally have to do to log a visit (take pictures of yourself, or your GPSr at the location). If there are other requirements on the waymark, then it might not be discovered until you get ready to log the visit when you are home. That is a major bummer when you know you were there, but you didn't read the waymark ahead of time or have it printed out. I don't mind pictures or info required to log a visit as long as all of the waymarks in a category are consistent in their logging requirements. I don't like it when a waymark owner takes it upon them selves to add additional logging requirements that are not posted in the category description. Just my 2 cents.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I've been wondering why answering questions as proof of a visit is not used more often in Waymarking. My experience is that asking finders to answer questions (rather than requiring a photo) is not encouraged. Any reason for this?

 

J.A.R.S.

 

Sometimes you may only put the coordinates in the GPSr. Then you do what you might normally have to do to log a visit (take pictures of yourself, or your GPSr at the location). If there are other requirements on the waymark, then it might not be discovered until you get ready to log the visit when you are home. That is a major bummer when you know you were there, but you didn't read the waymark ahead of time or have it printed out. I don't mind pictures or info required to log a visit as long as all of the waymarks in a category are consistent in their logging requirements. I don't like it when a waymark owner takes it upon them selves to add additional logging requirements that are not posted in the category description. Just my 2 cents.

 

Very good point. So why are the logging requirements hidden from finders until they go to log a find? Can't the site work it so that all waymark pages include logging requirements front and center on the page? When virtuals were on gc.com the requirements were right there in the description.

 

J.A.R.S.

0

Share this post


Link to post

yes, the 'not knowing you had to answer a question' bit sucks....how many caches have i missed because i didnt know to 'walk 100 paces at 258 degrees.......and when having to look for the answer it guides your visit....whereas, if you just go to the mark and have your own experience, finding what you want/like, and posting about this......taking pics will also show the state of the mark in addition to you writing of it......

 

maybe the is the condition for another unique attribute--confirmation question.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The Best Kept Secrets category encourages the use of answering a question to verify a visit. This is because we are trying to emulate the experience of searching for a virtual cache. Other categories may simply want to encourage visits to the waymark and not have any particular requirments for a visit. Still others want to encourage pictures be posted so that "armchair" visitors can see what the waymark looks like on this site. Trying to view visiting waymarks as a game like geocaching with the object of aquiring the most number of visits probably doesn't work for every single category. I have suggested that we might want to have categories have different kinds of logs. Perhaps a "found it" log for those who meet special verification requirements and a "visited" log for those that visited the waymark - perhaps a some time in the past - and cannot meet special requirements.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand the photo requirements of gpsr's for most of waymarks.

 

Because many Waymarking categories initially had their origins on locationless caches they carried with them a common locationless cache logging requirement off the gpsr photos. Since this how they started others have just followed the precedence. I personally do not like gpsr photos and would prefer the posting of more photos which enhance the waymark. Photos having a gpsr often dominating the photo does not contribute to enhancing.

 

You should be able to demonstrate that you visited a site within your log. I've been reading through and seen a lot of logs that just say 'visited.' Surely you can add something to the waymark. Was it enjoyable? Have conditions changed? Is it worth visiting? Why? Not only does this add to the information, it should also be a good indicator that it's not an armchair log.

 

I agree logs of visits should be more then the "Visited", though more information in a log does not really mean a person was there. On many waymarks I could write a pretty good visit log and never leave my chair. Find a few websites and I can make it sound good.

 

I like answering questions, like how it was done with virtual caches. Of course to do this the logging requirements would need to move from the category page to the waymark page. Having the logging requirements on the category always seemed odd to be but since I log so few and mostly submit it wasn't high up on my concerns.

0

Share this post


Link to post

In the new 2.0 version of Waymarking the logging requirements are displayed on the actual waymark page, so hopefully that will keep people a little more informed.

 

As for the visiting of your own waymark, it really makes no difference to Sean or I. However, it seems like if you were there to record a waymark a log should display on the page seperate from the waymark description describing your specific personal experience. What we have been discussing is something similar to the "published" log on geocaching.com. When you submit the waymark an "originator's" log will be automatically entered, leaving the "first to find" for someone other than yourself. The one major issue, however, is going back over all the currently entered waymarks and bringing them up to date. So far Sean hasn't found the technical solution to this particular problem.

0

Share this post


Link to post

In the waymark categories that I have created, I require new waymarks to have pics, but do not require pics of visitors to the waymark location...this seems to have worked so far, and seems fair to me...

 

Jamie - NFA

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

However, it seems like if you were there to record a waymark a log should display on the page seperate from the waymark description describing your specific personal experience. What we have been discussing is something similar to the "published" log on geocaching.com. When you submit the waymark an "originator's" log will be automatically entered, leaving the "first to find" for someone other than yourself.

 

we create this log we could write about our experience, an auto log will need to be edited for visit date and personalized text.....

0

Share this post


Link to post
I don't understand the photo requirements of gpsr's for most of waymarks.
Because many Waymarking categories initially had their origins on locationless caches they carried with them a common locationless cache logging requirement off the gpsr photos. Since this how they started others have just followed the precedence. I personally do not like gpsr photos and would prefer the posting of more photos which enhance the waymark. Photos having a gpsr often dominating the photo does not contribute to enhancing.
The solution to this is simple and I'm sure that you already employ it. Simply take more than one picture. Take the required shot with the GPSr and then take as many shots of the location as you want to. Upload all of them and everyone is happy.
0

Share this post


Link to post

Well, after a trip to Nashville last weekend, my eyes were opened a bit more to Waymarking.

 

I basically used the virt side of it because I logged a fair bit of waymarks that had already been created. But there were so many everywhere down there! And some spots had more than one waymark represented. Well I'm sorry, but I just could not put a gps in every picture, I was with a group and in a hurry, and half the time my husband had the gps.

 

I ended up logging a spot that had multiple categories represented with one waymark, but not the other because one required a gps and the other did not. That's just plain silly. I was obviously there, and I visited the waymark and have regular pictures.

 

I feel a lot different about Waymarking after this trip.

0

Share this post


Link to post
"hands off" picture tip - silly putty can be used to affix your camera to many types of supports, including the top of a hiking pole jammed into the ground. Set the auto-timer and pose.

 

  Not all cameras have self-timers.  In fact, most of the less expensive ones do not.

 

  And how many of those who own cameras expensive enough to have self-timers are going to be stupid enough to trust a piece of silly putty to keep that camera from crashing to the ground?

0

Share this post


Link to post
I don't want to demean the financial struggles of anyone, but someone shouldn't log visits to places they've never been (whether or not they can or cannot get there)…

 

  I'm with you so far, but…

 

…nor should someone log a visit without being able to meet the category requirements for that log.

 

  Here, I have to disagree.  I think Waymarking is about visiting the locations; not about what specialized equipment you own or what you can do with it.  I think that anyone who visits a Waymark location ought to be able to log it.  I'm not even sure I'd agree that the person should be required to “prove” that he visited the location, beyond there not being any obvious reason to suspect that he did not.

 

  Waymarking is about visiting the locations.  Any restrictions that prevent someone from being able to log a visit to a site that he did, in fact, visit, goes — in my opinion — against the spirit of what Waymarking is supposed to be about.

0

Share this post


Link to post

HELP !

 

My waymark is also suffering from Armchairlogging.

I tried to search for this "Archive Log" option, but cannot find it.

Is it no longer possible to perform this action since WM 2.0 ?

 

Thanks In Advance.

0

Share this post


Link to post

HELP !

 

My waymark is also suffering from Armchairlogging.

I tried to search for this "Archive Log" option, but cannot find it.

Is it no longer possible to perform this action since WM 2.0 ?

 

Thanks In Advance.

 

It does look like the capability is now missing. List this as a bug in the 2.0 bug thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Does archiving/deleting the log remove the count? If not, then the armchair logger has acheaved his goal - getting a high number by cheating. Some criminals work twice as hard, to illigally get what they want, as the average worker who buys what he wants. And the armchair logger is missing the best part of Waymarking.

I'm wondering about some logs that I may do in the future. I have over 200 waymarks that I haven't had time to create. If someone creates a waymark before I do, then I can log a visit. What if I post a visit in the winter, with a summer photo? Or, if I do log the actual date of my visit, will I get a "You can't log a visit before the waymark/category was created!" Why not, if I just haven't had time to creat that waymark before they did, or if I can cross post from another category.

I've traveled over 5000 miles in 4 states in the past two months. Another 1000 mile trip through 3 states is being planned at this time. Maybe I'll find that Art-o-Matic in Chicago, or Indianapolis, or Louisville. Or maybe someone else logs them as waymarks and I can visit them. If I post visits to all three on the same day, will I be an armchair logger? Of course the gps and some fingers will be in the picture. A picture of me in the picture? Well, I've done that too. No timer on my $50.00 camera. Hold it at arms length and hope that I aimed right. Most of the time I see half of a head. (If you glue the parts of me from several photos, you'll see the real me. It ain't pretty). I do take more then one picture most of the time. But with a 26k phone line I only upload the minimum photo requirment for a visit most of the time.

OK, I've ranted enough. I've read all of the above posts and know what you are working against. I don't think you can stop it completely.

Think about this - A person logs a visit without doing any requirments but says, " I did a Google search for Such & Such and your waymark came up. I thought it was kinda neat. I went to it and really enjoyed seeing it. The fact that it was 300 years old really amazed me. I don't have a camara or gps but thought I would let you know." or perhaps they said, "I happened to come across a Google search that showed Such & Such down the street from my house was a waymark and that people should visit it. I've been there and I think it's really dumb for people to be listing ordinary place for others to visit. I don't have a gps and don't intent to buy one if this is what you do with them."

Will you accept both logs by these "Muggles"? It will happen. Possably sooner then you think. The other day, I did a Google search, and a Waymark came up as the 5th item on the first page. The item that I did the search for had already been waymarked. Check this one also: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=p...torical+markers

0

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3