Benchmarks

[+ComputerSnack]

I think there should be a way to add benchmarks to geocaching.com. I found a benchmark and it was not listed, and I decided to try to add it to Waymarking.com and did, however, It would be nicer to be able to do this on geocaching.com (so it would count towards the stats, etc.).

 

-Kevin

[+Lil Devil]

I think I saw it stated somewhere that once Waymarking is out of beta, the Benchmark section on geocaching.com would go the way of the Dodo bird.

[+chaosmanor]

I think I saw it stated somewhere that once Waymarking is out of beta, the Benchmark section on geocaching.com would go the way of the Dodo bird.

I sure hope not!! There'll be a lot of complaints from us die-hard benchmarkers!!

[+Lil Devil]

Seems redundant to have it in both places.

[+gnbrotz]

From what I understand, there isn't/won't be any redundancy. The Waymarking category is for benchmarks not listed on the regular benchmarking site.

Edited August 24, 2006 by gnbrotz

[+cache_test_dummies]

But you have to ask yourself - why there is a need to have some benchmarks on one site, and all other benchmarks on another site?

 

Seems to me they should all be together on the site that can best support the activity. Ultimately, which site will be better positioned to handle what is needed for benchmarking?

[+alexrudd]

Seems to me they should all be together on the site that can best support the activity. Ultimately, which site will be better positioned to handle what is needed for benchmarking?

Right now, the geocaching.com site is better set up for the limited benchmarks in its database. Numerous additions would have to be made to the benchmark category at Waymarking.com before the gc.com benchmarks could move there. For example, more logs than just "Visited" and "Note."

[+cache_test_dummies]

Numerous additions would have to be made to the benchmark category at Waymarking.com before the gc.com benchmarks could move there. For example, more logs than just "Visited" and "Note."

True. And numerous changes would have to be made on the GC.com site to support requested benchmarking enhancements such as PQs and the ability to list new benchmarks. Right now, neither of the two existing Groundspeak sites represent a perfect fit for benchmarking activities. Which site will get the resources needed for a better fit?

 

I honestly don't know. Maybe there is another option besides WM.com and GC.com. But I do know that benchmarks don't have a container and a log to sign, and that's probably significant.

[+budd-rdc]

But you have to ask yourself - why there is a need to have some benchmarks on one site, and all other benchmarks on another site?

 

Seems to me they should all be together on the site that can best support the activity. Ultimately, which site will be better positioned to handle what is needed for benchmarking?

 

Not sure if such a macro view of benchmarking is a good way to improve the game.

 

Why two different sites? The Waymarking Benchmark categories fill the need for what's missing on the Geocaching.com site. The motive was NOT replacement, like LCs. So there's a reason why they co-exist.

 

Groundspeak will have to populate the Waymarking BM database from the NGS database again. To improve the game, they should also setup an automated way to updated it periodically. Right now, Waymarking relies on individuals to make the entries. Without an automated process, it will be a VERY VERY LONG TIME before the database becomes as useful as what's already on GC.com.

 

As noted by alexrudd, there's a lack of choice for types of log entries in Waymarking. There isn't even a DNF in Waymarking, not to mention "Mark Destroyed." I'm sure this can be remedied pretty quickly since it's software, so it's a minor issue... but it also demonstrates that we shouldn't rush to migrate.

 

By the way, I personally ignore the "container and log book" argument. Benchmarks are similar to Virtuals - there's an object at or near the coordinates, and one has to verify its existence somehow. At least, BMs don't need to be "approved" by a reviewer, so they lack the political problems of Virtuals and LCs. THAT is more siginificant than "container and log book", IMHO.

 

Virtuals have been grandfathered on GC.com, so having Benchmarking on GC.com makes some sense, at least for now.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Please don't misunderstand - I'm not trying to present arguments for why benchmarks belong on the Waymarking site, my posts here are more a reflection of the direction I see things heading. I could be way off base. But here are my responses to your post.

 

Not sure if such a macro view of benchmarking is a good way to improve the game.

Which game? Serious question, not arguing.

 

The Waymarking Benchmark categories fill the need for what's missing on the Geocaching.com site.

Well, not exactly. Benchmarks on WM.com don't bring benchmarking PQs to GC.com.

 

Without an automated process, it will be a VERY VERY LONG TIME before the database becomes as useful as what's already on GC.com.

Agreed, but Jeremy has already opened a discussion on bulk imports. I don't know the time frame for implementation of such a capability.

 

By the way, I personally ignore the "container and log book" argument. Benchmarks are similar to Virtuals - there's an object at or near the coordinates, and one has to verify its existence somehow.

True, but clearly, the future of virtuals is NOT on GC.com.

 

Virtuals have been grandfathered on GC.com, so having Benchmarking on GC.com makes some sense, at least for now.

I agree completely with the 'at least for now part' - WC.com isn't ready for all the benchmarks at this point.

 

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

When logging a benchmark will be approved by the "Owner" of that benchmark section then there is no need to waste my time logging benchmarks on Waymarking! I will find another new hobby.

 

John

[+budd-rdc]

Please don't misunderstand - I'm not trying to present arguments for why benchmarks belong on the Waymarking site, my posts here are more a reflection of the direction I see things heading. I could be way off base. But here are my responses to your post.

 

Which game? Serious question, not arguing.

That would be the benchmarking on GC.com side which is well-established and has a good following. On the Waymarking side, I expect it to evolve over time, so no comments there.

Well, not exactly. Benchmarks on WM.com don't bring benchmarking PQs to GC.com.

Correct, and that fault exists on both GC.com and WM.com.

Agreed, but Jeremy has already opened a discussion on bulk imports. I don't know the time frame for implementation of such a capability.

Since the NGS database has a set format, this shouldn't be a problem to implement. However, I've seen some errors in the NGS database (especially concerning dates) that can be an interesting challenge depending on how Waymarking interprets the data.

True, but clearly, the future of virtuals is NOT on GC.com.

I agree completely with the 'at least for now part' - WC.com isn't ready for all the benchmarks at this point.

 

And hopefully, TPTB does not rush the migration if they deem it necessary in the future, especially since the benchmarkers are an apolitical bunch and are not known to cause grief.

 

My preference is to keep it on GC.com as long as possible, especially since I can do a "search nearest" and download .LOC files and combine it with my Geocaching.

[+cache_test_dummies]

When logging a benchmark will be approved by the "Owner" of that benchmark section then there is no need to waste my time logging benchmarks on Waymarking! I will find another new hobby.

I assume by 'logging a benchmark' you mean the process you go through today when you log a 'Found it' on an existing benchmark. The analogy on Waymarking.com is to record a 'visit'. WM.com visits don't need to be specifically approved by the waymark owner. The creation of a new waymark, on the other hand (that is, when a brand new location is identified and recorded for others to then seek out - for which there is no analogy on GC.com with regard to benchmarking) is generally subject to approval by the category owners.

 

Not trying to argue with you, just trying to clarify how things work on the Waymarking site.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Well, not exactly. Benchmarks on WM.com don't bring benchmarking PQs to GC.com.

Correct, and that fault exists on both GC.com and WM.com.

It does. But I am quite confident that they are working on implementing PQs for all waymarks on WM.com. I have no reason to believe that PQs for benchmarks will ever be implemented on GC.com. Perhaps there are plans to do so.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

When logging a benchmark will be approved by the "Owner" of that benchmark section then there is no need to waste my time logging benchmarks on Waymarking! I will find another new hobby.

I assume by 'logging a benchmark' you mean the process you go through today when you log a 'Found it' on an existing benchmark. The analogy on Waymarking.com is to record a 'visit'. WM.com visits don't need to be specifically approved by the waymark owner. The creation of a new waymark, on the other hand (that is, when a brand new location is identified and recorded for others to then seek out - for which there is no analogy on GC.com with regard to benchmarking) is generally subject to approval by the category owners.

 

Not trying to argue with you, just trying to clarify how things work on the Waymarking site.

 

Currently anyone can find and log a benchmark listed on GC.com and need no approval. When things become listed on Waywhatever who will have control? Someone will have "Ownership" of the list and you are right back to having to get their approval! NO Thanks!

 

John

[Bill93]

While there could be some incremental improvements, on the whole I would not like to see any radical change to the present methods.

 

The NGS data base has evolved a lot since the GC benchmark snapshot was taken, and it would be good if they find a way to update it in its present form. I know there are lots of issues with how to handle the details in doing that.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I like the GC benchmark area staying like it is as I said here a few days ago. I agree with Bill93 that it would be nice if the NGS source basis of it could be updated from present NGS files.

[+budd-rdc]

Well, not exactly. Benchmarks on WM.com don't bring benchmarking PQs to GC.com.

Correct, and that fault exists on both GC.com and WM.com.

It does. But I am quite confident that they are working on implementing PQs for all waymarks on WM.com. I have no reason to believe that PQs for benchmarks will ever be implemented on GC.com. Perhaps there are plans to do so.

You're skipping a step. GPX for benchmarks have to be generated first. GC.com has the edge here, since the site already does that for Geocaches. I've looked at the source code for BMGPX (which translates NGS database to GPX) and the implementation should be straightforward, although TPTB knows that best.

 

Once that's done, then you can generate PQs. A BM PID can be treated like a GC waypoint.

[+BuckBrooke]

Unfortunately, I have to get a little personal here. All of the people who want to merge the benchmarks into the Waymarking site have little to NO experience benchmarking. That's why the geocaching.com administrators listen to the folks like Black Dog Trackers, 2oldfarts, etc. who've benchmarked for years.

 

I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I'm a Premium member of Geocaching.com and view Geocaching and Waymarking as inconsequential compared to what I want to do with benchmarks. I'm extremely glad that the Geocaching.com folks have included benchmarks into their engine; I'm satisfied with how the website is set up and I financially support it by being a Premium member in order to keep it that way.

 

The benchmarking database on geocaching.com has a particular purpose that is above and beyond the geocaching or even Waymarking-Benchmark site. The benchmarking database mirrors the NGS benchmarks.

 

I know surveyors who actually go to the www.geocaching.com/mark site because they want to know whether a useful survey mark in their nearby area has been logged with photos. This is a feature that the NGS does not have. But the logging requirements for benchmarking (Found, Poor, Not Found, Destroyed) have to be there to support the field, and hobby. Heck, many of the folks in the benchmarking forum/community are professional surveyors.

 

Most of the Waymark-benchmarks are one time throwaways. Noone goes back and relogs them; most of the folks who want to merge the benchmarks into Waymark-benchmarks, or vice versa, seem to say, "I tripped over this thing, how can I get credit for it and then forget about it?" The attitude seems different among benchmarkers; few benchmarkers care about how many benchmarks they've logged. Look at their profiles. Everyone here who has logged more than 10 benchmarks or so seems to want to keep the two categories separate.

 

There's no way that the amount of Waymark-benchmarks will ever come close to the number of NGS benchmarks, and as such noone goes after the Waymark ones. Even if you merged the two categories, they number of Waymark-benchmarks will never matter. As such, there's no point in merging them.

 

I have not seen a good argument for what is gained from merging geocaching/mark with Waymarking.

Edited August 25, 2006 by BuckBrooke

[+Lil Devil]

What if?

1. The Waymarking database was pre-populated with all the benchmarks from the NGS database. Groundspeak did populate the Waymarking database with millions of locations (benchmarks, mountains, lakes, streams, etc.) from the NGS database when they were alpha-testing the site. They could do it again.
   
2. The Waymarking site supported all the log types (Found, Not Found, Destroyed, etc.). This is probably trivial to add.
   
3. The Waymarking site had PQs for all categories. Groundspeak has stated that PQs for waymarks are coming. I've heard rumor that they are already working on extending the schema.
   
4. The benchmark category on Waymarking.com doesn't require any sort of approval. Auto-approve exists now. They said it's going away, but it could easily be kept for a benchmark category.
   

What if all that were to happen? Would there still be resistance from the hard-core benchmarkers?

[+gnbrotz]

What if all of those changes were made, but everything was left exactly where it is: In the benchmark section? Benchmarks are certainly unique enough to warrant their own seperate area (IMO). The aren't any closer to being waymarks than they are to being geocaches.

 

I think TPTB realize this. Waymarks are ok, but still can't encompass everything. That's why letterboxes are rumored to be coming to their own site, rather than being folded into the Waymarking site. While the Waymarking site has opened many possibilities, it's not the ultimate answer to every situation that might arise.

Edited August 25, 2006 by gnbrotz

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

What if?

1. The Waymarking database was pre-populated with all the benchmarks from the NGS database. Groundspeak did populate the Waymarking database with millions of locations (benchmarks, mountains, lakes, streams, etc.) from the NGS database when they were alpha-testing the site. They could do it again.
   
2. The Waymarking site supported all the log types (Found, Not Found, Destroyed, etc.). This is probably trivial to add.
   
3. The Waymarking site had PQs for all categories. Groundspeak has stated that PQs for waymarks are coming. I've heard rumor that they are already working on extending the schema.
   
4. The benchmark category on Waymarking.com doesn't require any sort of approval. Auto-approve exists now. They said it's going away, but it could easily be kept for a benchmark category.
   

What if all that were to happen? Would there still be resistance from the hard-core benchmarkers?

 

When Waymarking first started (and I haven't been there in months) Someone would list a category (an owner) then some would find an object in that category and become the "Owner" of that object, then whomever came along and found said object would log it & the "owner" would either accept or reject the log (just like we do with caches, now). When I find a benchmark I do NOT want to "Own" it & I don't care if someone else finds it or not.

 

If GC.com were to move Benchmarks to Waymarking what would happen to all the current logs? I believe that the reason virtuals were grandfathered was to due the fact the found logs would have been lost. It would be a shame to loose all this valuable information.

 

The only advantage for having a PQ for benchmarks would be to see the GC.com logs. Right now the more serious benchmarkers get the county downloads from the NGS with the latest NGS data for the benchmarks. With programs like GSAK we can sort the benchmarks to our hearts content. For us the only reason to check the 'found logs' on GC.com would be to see if it will be a "First To Recover" before going out to look for the benchmark.

 

What if GC.com left things alone? Would the hardcore benchmarkers be happy? Well, there will always be something requested to improve things, but Waymarking isn't an improvement as far as most die hards can tell. If the current system works, why try to change it? Tweak it maybe, but drastic change isn't needed or desired.

 

What if?

What if?

What if?

 

John

[+budd-rdc]

What if?

1. The Waymarking database was pre-populated with all the benchmarks from the NGS database. Groundspeak did populate the Waymarking database with millions of locations (benchmarks, mountains, lakes, streams, etc.) from the NGS database when they were alpha-testing the site. They could do it again.
   
2. The Waymarking site supported all the log types (Found, Not Found, Destroyed, etc.). This is probably trivial to add.
   
3. The Waymarking site had PQs for all categories. Groundspeak has stated that PQs for waymarks are coming. I've heard rumor that they are already working on extending the schema.
   
4. The benchmark category on Waymarking.com doesn't require any sort of approval. Auto-approve exists now. They said it's going away, but it could easily be kept for a benchmark category.
   

What if all that were to happen? Would there still be resistance from the hard-core benchmarkers?

If Groundspeak migrates the data to Waymarking's code base, but keep everything looking the same (including retaining past recovery logs and photos) and allow the benchmarkers to play the game the same way (with improvements like GPX, PQs), why would people complain? I don't think a minor change in where the stats are displayed shouldn't matter.

 

The bigger question is, why would TPTB want to spend the extra cycles to migrate benchmarking to Waymarking? What's broken that needs to be fixed?

[+Kryten]

You should consider yourselves lucky that logging of benchmarks is available to you. For those of us outside the USA we have to view benchmarking as as interesting curiosity. It's a part of the game in which we'd like to participate but since TPTB have never seen fit to include the equivalent data for any other country us foreigners are out of luck.

[+gnbrotz]

The reason they "haven't seen fit to include" that data is that very little of this info is free and publicly available to them to use, like it is here in the USA.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

McKryton -

 

There is the UK Trigpoints waymark category where you can log benchmarks in Scotland.

 

I poked around the internet and found this UK Ordnance Survey site, used their example station name, found some stations and even saw a picture of one with a tripod over it.

 

Admittedly you have to enter the coordinates yourself, but you can log them.

[+Klemmer]

As a long time premium (actually a Charter member) GC.com member, I have to line up behind Buckebrooke. I also do some geocaching (500+), own some very active grandfathered virtuals (Disney related), and even got involved into Waymarking a little (Disney Benchmarks). But - I would certainly not want to see any changes that DECREASED our benchmarking capability / data / access less than it is now. TRUE improvements, sure, you bet cha'. But nothing LESS, nothing LOST. From historical precedents I've seen from Jeremy & company, they value that philosphy. Grandfathered things are good (even though I'm not quite one yet myself!). Keep on grandfatherin', Jeremy!

Edited September 12, 2006 by Klemmer & TeddyBearMama

[+Nazgul]

What if all that were to happen? Would there still be resistance from the hard-core benchmarkers?

There would be from me, to some degree. First, the Waymarking site needs a lot more development and such, beyond what you listed. If you're going to say "what if" all those things and more are done, my reply is that you could probably achieve the same level of functionality with a lot less work by leaving benchmarks on the geocaching.com site.

 

Second, geocaching.com is currently my one-stop shopping for benchmarks and geocaches, the things I'm interested in. Moving benchmarks to another site complicates things for me because I have to work with two sites that do things differently.

 

Third, like budd-rdc I don't see a reason to buy into the "If it's not a geocache with a logbook it belongs on the Waymarking site" argument. It's arbitrary and artificially limiting.

 

As far as I have seen, the opinion of the people who are "hard-core" benchmarkers (and most or all have also done Waymarking) has been unanimous, at least in the forums here. It's an extremely limited sample, but I have yet to hear someone who is really into benchmarking say that they'd prefer to have it all moved to the Waymarking site.

 

I'm not a fanatic or afraid of change here, so I'm perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, but right now the balance sheet as I see it is in favor of leaving benchmarking on the Geocaching site. Hence the resistance.

 

When you're back in town Lil Devil, I'm sure that budd-rdc and I would be happy to discuss it over beer, my treat.

[+Sagefox]

I think I saw it stated somewhere that once Waymarking is out of beta, the Benchmark section on geocaching.com would go the way of the Dodo bird.

 

I sure hope you are wrong about this. I would hate it if benchmarking went to Waymarking. It's not hurting anything where it is. Benchmarks are not like virtuals because benchmarks don't add to the gc cache Found count.

 

If benchmarks were to go to Waymarking I would not likely follow.

[mloser]

Well, I had about 3 elegant and witty rejoinders composed and deleted them all, mostly because they turned out to be elegant and witty only inside my head.

 

I can't say it any better than some others here, from John, to BuckBrooke, to Budd, to BDT, Nazgul and Sagefox. All of those folks hunt benchmarks seriously, less as a hobby than an obsession, and none of them want the benchmark site diluted with other things. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Put benchmarks in another category if you want, but leave the benchmark site alone.