Loss of Adventure

[+Renegade Knight]

...The main reason they got rid of virtuals is because they were a PITA for the reviewers. Waymarking solves that issue by assigning managers. However, most waymarks in my view do not have the "wow factor." There may be exceptions like your seven waymarks but I'm not sure how to find the others exceptions. But more importantly, I don't know how to find the exceptions that are close to where I live....

 

Virtuals were a PITA to owners and reviewers. Partly because this site chose to enforce a subjective wow factor which is impossible. The adventure angle is interesting becuase as mtn-man noted it's something virtuals had. Good or bad. Waymarks do for the first people to submit a new rock arch in that they get a quest out of it. But nobody else can have that quest. Locationless and Waymarks minimized the number of people who got an adventure. Virtuals didn't but had the WOW thing. I'm not sure Waymarking solved the problems with locationless and virtuals so much as created something different then got rid of the other cache types, leaving a lot of people with nothing.

[+Renegade Knight]

Duplicate post deleted to protect the innocent from the last rights and confession of the guilty.

Edited November 27, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+TrailGators]

So besides those 7 best kept secrets what other waymarks have the element of discovering the unknown?

I have one in Japan, on an island that requires access by an airplane (40 minutes minimum) or a jetfoil (2.5 hours). It's a World Heritage Site so the location is well known, but the spot I picked for the verification is less known. I could have made the requirements tougher, but I figured people will visit there on its merits whether my waymark is there or not.

 

If you are lucky, you'll get to meet wild monkeys, like I did. (Project APE? )

 

Sounds very cool!

[+TrailGators]

I'm not sure Waymarking solved the problems with locationless and virtuals so much as created something different then got rid of the other cache types, leaving a lot of people with nothing.

Exactly! There are many virtuals that blow the doors off of many traditionals. We all know that there are many places that traditionals are not allowed. It is interesting to see that containerless Earthcaches have come back to GC! So maybe there is hope for virtuals if they can find a way to manage them. I suggested a long time ago that exceptional waymarks be allowed to reside on both systems. This would be a win-win for everybody!

[+Ambrosia]

....From several things that you say here, it sounds like you think that you've come upon some big thing that nobody else has noticed, and that you're coming here and informing us of this tragedy and that we need to tell all your friends about it. I'm sorry to let you know, sweetie, we've had so many threads about it, and so many discussions. It's been hashed out so much! Thank you for your concern.

 

At the same time, obviously, the people who are upset about the do away of virts/locs and the enstatement (is that a word?) of Waymarking don't feel that their needs have been met. But the thing is, it's not going to be. It's sad, but life changes. It's like children growing up, parents need to let go and let their children be their own people and leave and go out into the big world.

 

No, Waymarking isn't the same as virts. We lose a bit, yes, but at the same time, Waymarking gives us so much more than virts (or locationless) ever could and so I am willing to take that trade.

 

I've let it go, and I'm embracing Waymarking. And you know what? I'm having a great time! The more you get into it, the more you understand it and the website. Try it, I think you'll be pleasantly suprised.

Not because I can't find them, I drive by one almost daily and dont log it, it just doesn't capture my interest. Waymarks are not caches.

First of all, I want you to know that I have heard and understand all the argument and reasons why people feel that Waymarking isn't cutting it. But, let's use your last comment as an example.

 

Let's just say this was reversed, and this waymark that you drive by every day was really a virtual. With your argument, it sounds like you would log it. But what is the difference then of the waymark or the virt? The only thing that I can see is that one you get a smilie for and one you don't.

[+briansnat]

The only thing that I can see is that one you get a smilie for and one you don't.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. If fnding a waymark incremented the find count Waymarking would be be the best thing since sliced polenta to most people.

[+budd-rdc]

Let's just say this was reversed, and this waymark that you drive by every day was really a virtual. With your argument, it sounds like you would log it. But what is the difference then of the waymark or the virt? The only thing that I can see is that one you get a smilie for and one you don't.

But don't forget that we are conditioned to use smilies as a measure of merit for Geocaching. It'd be unfair to suddenly ask Geocachers to abandon the smilies.

 

When I first started to visit Geocaches, I signed a few log books, but did not get an account at GC.com, because I was simply thrilled with the idea of hidden objects in the woods. I even skipped logging a few caches after I signed up, because I'd tell myself "bah, not worth the trouble." That has changed. I've been conditioned now.

 

Why not use the smilie addiction to promote Waymarking instead? Have a new tab in Geocaching profile for "Waymarks visited" stats. Change the interface so that there's a checkmark for Waymarks in Pocket Queries. The fact that this hasn't happened yet means integrating Geocaching and Waymarking is not a trivial task, but that's OK. At least, Waymarking .LOC is there. Let's be fair and leave out the smilie.

[+sbell111]

I think the 'Bring Back Virts' movement gets weaker with each new thread. I really think that most people have moved on.

[+Jhwk]

lamemarking (new virts) are dead to me.

 

Luckily, you can still tour the National Mall and still find the good ol' virts.

Edited November 28, 2006 by Jhwk

[+Renegade Knight]

....Let's just say this was reversed, and this waymark that you drive by every day was really a virtual. With your argument, it sounds like you would log it. But what is the difference then of the waymark or the virt? The only thing that I can see is that one you get a smilie for and one you don't.

 

That's a fair question. You need to know that I thought you get smilies in Waymarking. So as far as I knew I'd get a smilie either way. Given that, it's got to be something else that isn't as easy to figure out don't you think? The simple fact is that if it were a virtual I'd have logged it. As a locationless I'd have logged it if it met a couple more bits of criteria that I have for them chiefly I have to remember my camera, and I don't especially like to appear in the photo. As a waymark it was my first experiment wiht it and I flat out didn't feel any compulsion to log it once I got past the initial "wow, there is a waymark I drive by all the time".

 

When all is said and done. Waymarks and Caches are two different things. They are related, but different and will attract a combination of folks who do both and folks who do one but not the other. Waymarks are not a replacment for virtual caches in that if they were all folks who liked virtuals would like waymarks.

 

For this site, it's really about what their goals are. Were they trying to create a new thing? Or replace virtuals and locationless in a way that those who liked those would also universially enjoy? Perhaps something else?

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

The only thing that I can see is that one you get a smilie for and one you don't.

 

I think you hit the nail on the head. If fnding a waymark incremented the find count Waymarking would be be the best thing since sliced polenta to most people.

 

I think this is very very true. But I also think unless TPTB get to a point where they feel * desparate * to keep WM.com alive, this will never happen.

 

While I do think that virts were a PITA for reviewers and that it was part of the reason, I think an equally big reason for moving virts and locationless to Waymarking was to eliminate the "free smilie" that some came to see them as, which resulted in a major unneccesary taxing of the GC.com web servers.

 

If they ever really did "smilies" for Waymarking, the site would probably eventually also become overloaded. Then they'd have to buy more servers, and to pay for it either membership fees would have to go up, or they'd have to eliminate the free "non-premium" member option. While this wouldn't necessarily be wrong, it may turn off newbies or other casual users of the site, etc. and the lesser traffic would eliminate the need for this extra server expense in the first place, a major "catch 22".

 

The moving of Earthcaches back to GC.com is what I see as proof of what would otherwise sound like a "conspiracy theory". Unlike any other type of caches, an outside educational organization is involved in these. Though it will never be truly admitted, I'm sure they balked at the relative lack of traffic of earthcaches on WM.com vs. GC.com and demanded it go back there to regain its old popularity. If you look at any earthcaches that originated on Waymarking, they are already getting more logs in one week than they got in a year on the old site: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry2576597

 

Personally, I think that Locationless didn't belong on GC, but virts did. The difference is that the former is not a set location, but the latter is, and all this action did is promote lame micros in otherwise great locales that would normally be a "virt". But maybe Tozaimbuku with his category can somehow use Waymarking to bring virts back as close as possible to their "old glory", I really hope so.

Edited November 28, 2006 by HaLiJuSaPa

[+tomfuller & Quill]

If you're looking for adventure looking for virtuals (and logging smilies) try walking the Mall (Wash. DC).

It appears that 90+ % are virtual in DC. I only did the Forest Service Info Center and The Zero Milestone benchmark when I was there in April. You could easily log 100+ virts in a 24 hr period if you wanted to.

The other memorable virtual I logged was Doc Holliday's memorial on the hill overlooking Glenwood Springs Colorado. It was an adventure climbing up there with Quill .

Tom Fuller

Crescent, Oregon

[+mtn-man]

For this site, it's really about what their goals are. Were they trying to create a new thing? Or replace virtuals and locationless in a way that those who liked those would also universially enjoy? Perhaps something else?

"Something else" is the right answer. It is a matter of functionality.

 

Let's go back to the natural arches example. With a locationless cache for arches, you had to search through hundreds of logs to find targets to seek out. There was no way to search them by distance from a certain location. You could not download a .loc file to get the coordinates into your GPS. You had to manually enter them. All of this functionality is brought together with Waymarking.

 

Basically a Waymarking category is equal to a locationless cache. Each individual waymark is equal to a virtual cache. Yes, there is a counter for finds, or "visits" as they are known on the Waymarking site. It is easy enough to add both together for numbers folks. Both have cool little banners even. Click the links below to see the little banners.

 

http://img.geocaching.com/stats/img.aspx?t...d08578&bg=1

http://www.Waymarking.com/images/stats.asp...f2-7b2446d08578

Edited November 28, 2006 by mtn-man

[+sbell111]

For this site, it's really about what their goals are. Were they trying to create a new thing? Or replace virtuals and locationless in a way that those who liked those would also universially enjoy? Perhaps something else?

"Something else" is the right answer. It is a matter of functionality. ...

I suspect that the real answer is 'All of the above'. If so, so what?

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

If they ever really did "smilies" for Waymarking, the site would probably eventually also become overloaded. Then they'd have to buy more servers, and to pay for it either membership fees would have to go up, or they'd have to eliminate the free "non-premium" member option. While this wouldn't necessarily be wrong, it may turn off newbies or other casual users of the site, etc. and the lesser traffic would eliminate the need for this extra server expense in the first place, a major "catch 22".

 

 

I don't think this is an accurate assessment because there are icon equivalents to the smilie for each and every visit that is made to a waymark. As I stated elsewhere who needs a smile when you can have a stable full of Waymarking icons (click on my visits and owned waymarks tabs to see for yourself). If smilies taking up too much server space was an issue I would think that an individual icon for each category would take up more. I don't think potential smilie overload is an issue.

 

I do think a single Groundspeak profile with tabs for each of the finds/visit types for all Groundspeak activites would be nice. The separate profiles and how they affect each other is a bit of a pain on occasion.

 

edit to fix broken link

Edited November 28, 2006 by TheBeanTeam

[+Ambrosia]

....Let's just say this was reversed, and this waymark that you drive by every day was really a virtual. With your argument, it sounds like you would log it. But what is the difference then of the waymark or the virt? The only thing that I can see is that one you get a smilie for and one you don't.

 

That's a fair question. You need to know that I thought you get smilies in Waymarking. So as far as I knew I'd get a smilie either way. Given that, it's got to be something else that isn't as easy to figure out don't you think? The simple fact is that if it were a virtual I'd have logged it. As a locationless I'd have logged it if it met a couple more bits of criteria that I have for them chiefly I have to remember my camera, and I don't especially like to appear in the photo. As a waymark it was my first experiment wiht it and I flat out didn't feel any compulsion to log it once I got past the initial "wow, there is a waymark I drive by all the time".

 

When all is said and done. Waymarks and Caches are two different things. They are related, but different and will attract a combination of folks who do both and folks who do one but not the other. Waymarks are not a replacment for virtual caches in that if they were all folks who liked virtuals would like waymarks.

 

For this site, it's really about what their goals are. Were they trying to create a new thing? Or replace virtuals and locationless in a way that those who liked those would also universially enjoy? Perhaps something else?

I read this two times, and I'm sorry that I still didn't understand it. You say that if is was a virt or a loc you would have done it, but as a waymark you just don't have any compulsion? That doeasn't make any sense when you get down to it. Why do you think that you feel that way?

 

And sure...you do get smilies for Waymarking. But the smilies stay within Waymarking.com and do not add to your smilie count within geocaching.com. That's a really important distinction to some people for some reason. A really important distinction. If Groundspeak ever adds a tab to our profile like benchmarks or virts have with our Waymarking stats, hoo boy. I guarantee you that we'd see a bunch of people start Waymarking more. And the people who have been Waymarking all that time would have a huge leg up.

[+Renegade Knight]

....I read this two times, and I'm sorry that I still didn't understand it. You say that if is was a virt or a loc you would have done it, but as a waymark you just don't have any compulsion? That doeasn't make any sense when you get down to it. Why do you think that you feel that way?...

 

It comes down to that it's flat out missing the appeal that a virtual has. I can't tell you why some people like cola and some don't. It just is. Things are fun, or not fun. People enjoy different activities. Early on in the virtual wars some posters loved to point at waypoint.org as a good place for virtuals. They didn't care that waypoint.org failed in whatever magic a regular virtual has that makes it a cache for some in their eyes they were the same (and they didn't do either virtuals or waypoing.org). Waymarking does a better job than waypoint.org at attracting users and capturing some kind of magic related to caching. But not to everyone who liked virtuals. The adventure of a virtual is gone. The method of finding them and seeking them has changed. The way you go about it has changed. Why would it attract all of the orginal seekers of locationless and virtuals?

 

Changing tack:

I used to eat at a restaurant often enough to know which cook did the best job with my favorite omelet. Same ingredients, same price but one cook had the magic and others just didn't. Life is like that. Waymarking just doesn't put the ingredients together in a way that has the same appeal as the orginals. Naturally others may like this new 'cook' better.

[+budd-rdc]

And sure...you do get smilies for Waymarking. But the smilies stay within Waymarking.com and do not add to your smilie count within geocaching.com. That's a really important distinction to some people for some reason. A really important distinction. If Groundspeak ever adds a tab to our profile like benchmarks or virts have with our Waymarking stats, hoo boy. I guarantee you that we'd see a bunch of people start Waymarking more. And the people who have been Waymarking all that time would have a huge leg up.

 

The Geocaching smilie is like a drug addiction. It provides emotional low or high for the finder, depending on the circumstances. It also provides one for the hider... "cool, someone likes MY cache!"

 

I already have a handful of visits to my Waymarks, and I'm very thrilled about them. It is especially rewarding since I did the research and physically visited all the Waymarks I've placed. So given time, Waymarking will provide the same sort of addiction, the joy (or anger) of sharing an experience.

 

Having said that, I still think there is a place for Virtuals in Geocaching.com. The problem is political, and I don't see any workable solutions right now, except for what's happening with Earthcaches. Keep in mind that there's an enforceable quality control there (GSA and the "educational element") which is far less subjective than the "WOW factor."

[+TrailGators]

Changing tack:

I used to eat at a restaurant often enough to know which cook did the best job with my favorite omelet. Same ingredients, same price but one cook had the magic and others just didn't. Life is like that. Waymarking just doesn't put the ingredients together in a way that has the same appeal as the orginals. Naturally others may like this new 'cook' better.

This is a good analogy! I want my old cook back! I honestly have tried Waymarking and the geocaching site works so much better. It's really hard for me to go backwards. I can run a PQ for the 500 closest waymarks to my home in seconds on GC. After many months, Waymarking can't do this and it's always a "someday" excuse. Well my response is maybe I'll try Waymarking again "someday." But even if they fix the website they would still need to provide me with an easy way for me to filter out all the stupid waymarks that are nothing like the good 'ol virtuals.

[+TheBeanTeam]

But even if they fix the website they would still need to provide me with an easy way for me to filter out all the stupid waymarks that are nothing like the good 'ol virtuals.

 

As a premium member there is now the ability to ignore any category you wish (or whole sections for that matter). If you want you could ignore everything but the one category you like. Functionality has also improved dramatically over the last several months with improved searches by location that can show you as many or as few categories as you choose. Most who criticize haven't taken the time to learn the site or haven't bothered to ask for assistance in understanding how it all works. Is it geocaching...no. Is is supposed to be...no. Is it fun....Yes, If you're interested and you are willing to make it so. What is stupid to you may not be stupid to me. I might have a real interest in it. Why denigrate my interests based on yours?

 

By the way...You have a great profile. Really enjoyed it.

Edited November 28, 2006 by TheBeanTeam

[Luckless]

Is there any aspect of virtuals/Waymarking that cannot be incorporated in a container cache?

A cache can take you to a great and interesting place. Finding a cache can require gathering information found at the spot. A cache can contain a camera.

[+Renegade Knight]

Is there any aspect of virtuals/Waymarking that cannot be incorporated in a container cache?

A cache can take you to a great and interesting place. Finding a cache can require gathering information found at the spot. A cache can contain a camera.

 

Most of the time the answer would be no. However there are exceptions or reasons to do a virtual.

 

The area won't support a regular cache. You can do a multi cache (yuck) or a virtual (better). Or the area would support a cache but locals for whatever reason threaten to steal it. You can't keep a cache nailed down. Preference. Some people flat out like virtuals better than regulars. Every variation of a cache will have it's fans. If you did a DaVinco code hunt for a treasure I'm not sure it gets more fun if you replace the clues that are in plain sight with a box at each state.

 

For locationless the entire process is reversed. Now you are on the quest to find an object, location, or something. That's a different experience than finding a box. There is still a search but it's not for a box. There are even variations of locationless caches. Find a mini Statue of Liberty is a different quest than "Find the highest point in your county". One you can do some mapwork before you leave, the other may take goodle work. You really can't trade out a locationless/reverse cache for a box and have the experience be the same, though most of the time you could place a cache at the same location and bring people there to see it.

 

There is more to caching than the box even if the box is what you like at the end of your hunt.

Edited November 28, 2006 by Renegade Knight

[+briansnat]

Is there any aspect of virtuals/Waymarking that cannot be incorporated in a container cache?

 

I have yet to encounter one. Perhaps in very rare instances, but the overwhelming majority of the time there is no reason that a virtual can't be turned into a cotainer cache. Methods can include hiding a micro at the site, using something at the site to create an offset or projecting a waypoint from the site.

 

Once the crackdown on virts was instituted I created several container caches out of something that I would previously have made a virutal. They have the effect of highlighting the object I wanted to bring people to and also providing them with a geocache to hunt. Double the fun!

[+budd-rdc]

Is there any aspect of virtuals/Waymarking that cannot be incorporated in a container cache?

A cache can take you to a great and interesting place. Finding a cache can require gathering information found at the spot. A cache can contain a camera.

There's a certain elegance in arriving at a great location and ending the journey there. Scrambling to another stage "just to prove my find" feels a bit clumsy...

 

"Convert it to a multi" is often the answer given for your question, and I will agree only if each stage of the multi (including the final) enhances the experience. That's subjective of course.

 

Having a cache camera inside the container really doesn't relate to a Virtual cache, because posting a photo online usually requires you to take the camera home, rather than leaving it in the cache.

[+The Leprechauns]

Is there any aspect of virtuals/Waymarking that cannot be incorporated in a container cache?

A cache can take you to a great and interesting place. Finding a cache can require gathering information found at the spot. A cache can contain a camera.

I am finding with Waymarking that I am focused totally on what the location has to offer. If it's a historic marker, I read the entire marker, not just the fourth word on the second line needed to answer the verification question. I admire the architecture of the waymarked building, rather than having to hunt down a film canister in a guardrail. The location itself is enough to bring me there.

 

Yes, many places are good spots for both waymarks and caches. But I am finding lots of cool waymarks in places where I'd never dream of hiding or finding a cache. As an example, my daughter -- a budding jazz keyboard player -- really enjoyed visiting the old jazz clubs that are now historic sites, and the historic markers at the homes of our city's jazz greats. All of these were in the "bad part of town" where there is no geocache for miles around.

[+The Leprechauns]

Changing tack:

I used to eat at a restaurant often enough to know which cook did the best job with my favorite omelet. Same ingredients, same price but one cook had the magic and others just didn't. Life is like that. Waymarking just doesn't put the ingredients together in a way that has the same appeal as the orginals. Naturally others may like this new 'cook' better.

This is a good analogy! I want my old cook back!

I'm one of the old cooks. I don't miss saying "NO SOUP FOR YOU!" one little bit, I truly don't.

 

You really want to keep eating at a restaurant that only allowed in about 1% of the customers who wanted to eat there? Waymarking's more like a food court at the mall. Choose the food that you want, ignore the other stuff, and nobody says "sorry, but pizza doesn't have enough wow factor."

[+TrailGators]

Changing tack:

I used to eat at a restaurant often enough to know which cook did the best job with my favorite omelet. Same ingredients, same price but one cook had the magic and others just didn't. Life is like that. Waymarking just doesn't put the ingredients together in a way that has the same appeal as the orginals. Naturally others may like this new 'cook' better.

This is a good analogy! I want my old cook back!

I'm one of the old cooks. I don't miss saying "NO SOUP FOR YOU!" one little bit, I truly don't.

 

You really want to keep eating at a restaurant that only allowed in about 1% of the customers who wanted to eat there? Waymarking's more like a food court at the mall. Choose the food that you want, ignore the other stuff, and nobody says "sorry, but pizza doesn't have enough wow factor."

 

No soup for me?!

 

 

I think the point we were making is that mystery is fun! Waymarks for the large part have no mystery. Mr. T. pointed out 7 waymarks that have mystery but this is rare.

 

By the way, I thought the food court was the waymark! I guess if I'm hungry and I want to log that I ate a burger, then Waymarking is not so bad....

[+tozainamboku]

Waymarks are not the same as virtual caches.

1. There is no surprise of discovery. You know what you are going to find from the category or from the description of the waymark. Of course that can be fixed by having more categories like Best Kept Secrets.
   
2. There is nothing to find. The requirement for logging a waymark is usually to take a picture or even just tell about your visit. The verification of a find of a virtual caches usually required finding something at the site even if it was just the third word on the second line of the sign. Again Waymarking could use some categories that provide this game like experience instead of just go and visit.
   
3. There are many categories that you have absolutely no interest in visiting. Of course you have no interest in finding many virtuals (other than to get a smilie) and you wouldn't know till you got there. Waymarking may be an improvement as you can ignore categories.
   
4. There is no reviewer to check on the wowness. Instead the category managers review the waymarks according to the guidelines for their category. I thought deciding if something was a Best Kept Secret would be less subjective than Wow - but I'm not sure anymore.
   
5. There is no option for multi or puzzle hybrids, perhaps using physical caches to lead you to a virtual final. There are very few virtual caches that do this, but some of them can be a lot of fun. I think Waymarking could use a few categories that allow this.
   
6. They don't show up in your pocket query or in an online search with other caches. Many people only did virtuals because they were looking for geocaches in the area. The virtuals showed up in their search for geocaches and they could download the coordinates to their GPS along with the physical caches. Some method of getting the coordinates of nearby waymarks in categories you are interested and combining them with geocache coordinates is needed. I suspect this will be a combination of enhancements to the Waymark site and 3rd party software.
   
7. You don't get a geocaching find for visiting a waymark, but you do get Waymarking statistics. TPTB have even hinted that they may have Waymarking games where participants can compete with one another to achieve certain goals.
   

[+TrailGators]

But even if they fix the website they would still need to provide me with an easy way for me to filter out all the stupid waymarks that are nothing like the good 'ol virtuals.

As a premium member there is now the ability to ignore any category you wish (or whole sections for that matter). If you want you could ignore everything but the one category you like. Functionality has also improved dramatically over the last several months with improved searches by location that can show you as many or as few categories as you choose. Most who criticize haven't taken the time to learn the site or haven't bothered to ask for assistance in understanding how it all works. Is it geocaching...no. Is is supposed to be...no. Is it fun....Yes, If you're interested and you are willing to make it so. What is stupid to you may not be stupid to me. I might have a real interest in it. Why denigrate my interests based on yours?

 

By the way...You have a great profile. Really enjoyed it.

Actually I have asked for some help. I still think that the Waymarking site is not nearly as user friendly as the GC site. But maybe the problem is that I didn't know that I had to pay another 30 bucks to be a premium member on Waymarking.com. By the way, I didn't mean to denigrate your interests, I was just giving my opinion. I'm sure you know the old saying "Opinions are like _-holes, everyone has one and they all stink!"

[+cache_test_dummies]

But maybe the problem is that I didn't know that I had to pay another 30 bucks to be a premium member on Waymarking.com.

You don't need to pay another $30. Your Premium Member account is good on both sites.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

And sure...you do get smilies for Waymarking. But the smilies stay within Waymarking.com and do not add to your smilie count within geocaching.com. That's a really important distinction to some people for some reason. A really important distinction. If Groundspeak ever adds a tab to our profile like benchmarks or virts have with our Waymarking stats, hoo boy. I guarantee you that we'd see a bunch of people start Waymarking more. And the people who have been Waymarking all that time would have a huge leg up.

 

You make a really good point, Ambrosia. Why can't Waymarking stats just be an icon like Benchmarks. I note benchmarks because unlike the other icons, these don't add to your "find count". That could be a good thing actually, maybe cut down on the "logging craze" about a year ago when Locationless was getting ready to be moved to WM.com, yet I think having some integration with that would get more people interested in Waymarking.

 

I actually liked the Waymarking concept when it first came out and created a few waymarks and tried to log a few, but what has turned me off is that the site seems to be so "dead" (i.e. I have few if any visits to any of my waymarks, and often I'm the only visitor at the ones I've found). Maybe better integration with GC.com would help. I admit "giving up" on the site is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if others feel the way I do, we're kind of "killing it ourselves", but maybe as winter comes we'll try to visit some more waymarks.

[+TrailGators]

And sure...you do get smilies for Waymarking. But the smilies stay within Waymarking.com and do not add to your smilie count within geocaching.com. That's a really important distinction to some people for some reason. A really important distinction. If Groundspeak ever adds a tab to our profile like benchmarks or virts have with our Waymarking stats, hoo boy. I guarantee you that we'd see a bunch of people start Waymarking more. And the people who have been Waymarking all that time would have a huge leg up.

 

You make a really good point, Ambrosia. Why can't Waymarking stats just be an icon like Benchmarks. I note benchmarks because unlike the other icons, these don't add to your "find count". That could be a good thing actually, maybe cut down on the "logging craze" about a year ago when Locationless was getting ready to be moved to WM.com, yet I think having some integration with that would get more people interested in Waymarking.

 

I actually liked the Waymarking concept when it first came out and created a few waymarks and tried to log a few, but what has turned me off is that the site seems to be so "dead" (i.e. I have few if any visits to any of my waymarks, and often I'm the only visitor at the ones I've found). Maybe better integration with GC.com would help. I admit "giving up" on the site is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if others feel the way I do, we're kind of "killing it ourselves", but maybe as winter comes we'll try to visit some more waymarks.

I like that idea!

Plus maybe they could give waymarks a cool icon like this:

 

Just kidding!!!!

[+Jake39]

I actually liked the Waymarking concept when it first came out and created a few waymarks and tried to log a few, but what has turned me off is that the site seems to be so "dead" (i.e. I have few if any visits to any of my waymarks, and often I'm the only visitor at the ones I've found). Maybe better integration with GC.com would help. I admit "giving up" on the site is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if others feel the way I do, we're kind of "killing it ourselves", but maybe as winter comes we'll try to visit some more waymarks.

I think there is some confusion here.

 

Pick any "Category" and you'll find "Waymarks"

Check the "Waymarks" and you'll find very few "Visits"

 

Now lets look at L.Cs. If you are the owner of an "LC' you get lots (hopefully) log visits, but each log/post doesn't get any visits at all. ( a 1 step 2 step system)

 

LCs = "Categories"

LC logs= "Waymarks"

LC logs= no visits

Waymarks get visits

 

Go find and submit a "Category" or find someone elses and be the first to submit a "Waymark" or maybe "Visit" one yourself. (a 1 step -2 step -3 step system)

So where is the beef? Is this it? --->

[+Renegade Knight]

Changing tack:

I used to eat at a restaurant often enough to know which cook did the best job with my favorite omelet. Same ingredients, same price but one cook had the magic and others just didn't. Life is like that. Waymarking just doesn't put the ingredients together in a way that has the same appeal as the orginals. Naturally others may like this new 'cook' better.

This is a good analogy! I want my old cook back!

I'm one of the old cooks. I don't miss saying "NO SOUP FOR YOU!" one little bit, I truly don't.

 

You really want to keep eating at a restaurant that only allowed in about 1% of the customers who wanted to eat there? Waymarking's more like a food court at the mall. Choose the food that you want, ignore the other stuff, and nobody says "sorry, but pizza doesn't have enough wow factor."

As an approver you were told to only approve WOW. That was a simple administrative decision by this site. Nothing more. That same decision could be made for caches on some idle tuesday afternoon. Heck a lot of people are clamoring for that. Maybe cachemarking is for them.

[+budd-rdc]

So where is the beef? Is this it? --->

Yes that is it.

 

1. Make more meaningless. Hide it from public view.

2. If that doesn't work, stop tracking counts altogether.

3. If that STILL doesn't work, change GC.com, so logging a find online is not part of the game.

 

is not an end-all to refuting anti-Waymarkers. Try something more convincing.

[+webscouter.]

Part of what I liked about virtuals is that once I logged them they no longer showed up. My goal wasn't and isn't to log smileys but to clear an area. I liked the fact that I can do a search for caches I haven't found. When Waymarking gets that ability I will probably play it also. For what it is worth I joined Terracaching and cleared everything within 50 miles of my house and then stopped. If more Terracaches show up within 50 miles I will find them.

[+Ambrosia]

And sure...you do get smilies for Waymarking. But the smilies stay within Waymarking.com and do not add to your smilie count within geocaching.com. That's a really important distinction to some people for some reason. A really important distinction. If Groundspeak ever adds a tab to our profile like benchmarks or virts have with our Waymarking stats, hoo boy. I guarantee you that we'd see a bunch of people start Waymarking more. And the people who have been Waymarking all that time would have a huge leg up.

 

You make a really good point, Ambrosia. Why can't Waymarking stats just be an icon like Benchmarks. I note benchmarks because unlike the other icons, these don't add to your "find count". That could be a good thing actually, maybe cut down on the "logging craze" about a year ago when Locationless was getting ready to be moved to WM.com, yet I think having some integration with that would get more people interested in Waymarking.

 

I actually liked the Waymarking concept when it first came out and created a few waymarks and tried to log a few, but what has turned me off is that the site seems to be so "dead" (i.e. I have few if any visits to any of my waymarks, and often I'm the only visitor at the ones I've found). Maybe better integration with GC.com would help. I admit "giving up" on the site is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if others feel the way I do, we're kind of "killing it ourselves", but maybe as winter comes we'll try to visit some more waymarks.

Well, I'm sure that a lot of people felt that geocaching seemed dead 5 years ago. Heck, when I started over 4 1/2 years ago, I wiped out half the caches in a one hour radius of me in one trip. Yup, we did a whole 3 caches.

[+briansnat]

Waymarks are not the same as virtual caches

 

1. There is no surprise of discovery. You know what you are going to find from the category or from the description of the waymark. Of course that can be fixed by having more categories like Best Kept Secrets..

 

I just looked and for over half of my virtual finds the object was known before I got there. I many cases there was a lengthy description of the history behind the virtual on the cache page. In several more cases I could easily guess what the object was before I got there.

 

2. There is nothing to find. The requirement for logging a waymark is usually to take a picture or even just tell about your visit. The verification of a find of a virtual caches usually required finding something at the site even if it was just the third word on the second line of the sign. Again Waymarking could use some categories that provide this game like experience instead of just go and visit.

 

The early virtuals had no verification requirements. All you had to do was visit and log. The requirement for verification information was added a few years later.

 

Besides, there is nothing keeping a waymark owner from asking for verification info instead of a photo.

 

3. There are many categories that you have absolutely no interest in visiting. Of course you have no interest in finding many virtuals (other than to get a smilie) and you wouldn't know till you got there. Waymarking may be an improvement as you can ignore categories.

 

As I mentioned earlier, many virtuals spell out what is at the coordinates on the cache page. But knowing what is at the coordinates ahead of time could be a good thing. Too many virtuals left me standing there saying "Yeah, so. You brought me here for this?"

 

4. There is no reviewer to check on the wowness. Instead the category managers review the waymarks according to the guidelines for their category. I thought deciding if something was a Best Kept Secret would be less subjective than Wow - but I'm not sure anymore.

 

The "wow factor" for virtuals was added in early 2003, afterwhich very, very few virtuals were published. So the overwhelming majority of existing virtuals were not subject to the "wow factor" test.

 

5. There is no option for multi or puzzle hybrids, perhaps using physical caches to lead you to a virtual final. There are very few virtual caches that do this, but some of them can be a lot of fun. I think Waymarking could use a few categories that allow this.

 

No, but I haven't seen a heck of a lot of multi and puzzle virtuals, so I don't think there is much of a demand for this anyway. Physical caches can however be piggybacked onto waymarks, so people can get a two-fer.

 

6. They don't show up in your pocket query or in an online search with other caches. Many people only did virtuals because they were looking for geocaches in the area. The virtuals showed up in their search for geocaches and they could download the coordinates to their GPS along with the physical caches. Some method of getting the coordinates of nearby waymarks in categories you are interested and combining them with geocache coordinates is needed. I suspect this will be a combination of enhancements to the Waymark site and 3rd party software.

 

Probably on its way as you suspect

 

7. You don't get a geocaching find for visiting a waymark, but you do get Waymarking statistics. TPTB have even hinted that they may have Waymarking games where participants can compete with one another to achieve certain goals.

 

This is the big difference. Waymarks don't give you the almighty smiley. If they did the Waymarking site would be the cow's pajamas for most of the current detractors.

Edited November 29, 2006 by briansnat

[+The Leprechauns]

Part of what I liked about virtuals is that once I logged them they no longer showed up. My goal wasn't and isn't to log smileys but to clear an area. I liked the fact that I can do a search for caches I haven't found. When Waymarking gets that ability I will probably play it also.

I'm not sure what you're asking for. When doing searches, Waymarking.com already allows you to exclude waymarks you've already visited. And, if there are a bunch of waymarks of a type you have no interest in, you can clear your area by ignoring categories. "McDonalds" and "Payphones" don't ever show up in my search results. Historic markers, Starbucks and bike trails do.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

HaLiJuSaPa hit on it in a post above that sums up how the folks I have discussed Waymarking feel.

I actually liked the Waymarking concept when it first came out and created a few waymarks and tried to log a few, but what has turned me off is that the site seems to be so "dead" (i.e. I have few if any visits to any of my waymarks, and often I'm the only visitor at the ones I've found). Maybe better integration with GC.com would help. I admit "giving up" on the site is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if others feel the way I do, we're kind of "killing it ourselves", but maybe as winter comes we'll try to visit some more waymarks.

Waymarking is a site that Groundspeak and the Reviewer community are interested in.

 

The geocaching community is underwhelmed and as far as I can see won't play there.

 

It's a mistake lots of companies have made, trying to sell the product they want you to have rather than the product consumers want.

 

It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

 

I suspect they'll have to find a new customer base for Waymarking, as geocachers seem, from where I sit, to be rejecting it.

 

Ed

[+budd-rdc]

HaLiJuSaPa hit on it in a post above that sums up how the folks I have discussed Waymarking feel.

I actually liked the Waymarking concept when it first came out and created a few waymarks and tried to log a few, but what has turned me off is that the site seems to be so "dead" (i.e. I have few if any visits to any of my waymarks, and often I'm the only visitor at the ones I've found). Maybe better integration with GC.com would help. I admit "giving up" on the site is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if others feel the way I do, we're kind of "killing it ourselves", but maybe as winter comes we'll try to visit some more waymarks.

Waymarking is a site that Groundspeak and the Reviewer community are interested in.

 

The geocaching community is underwhelmed and as far as I can see won't play there.

 

It's a mistake lots of companies have made, trying to sell the product they want you to have rather than the product consumers want.

 

It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

 

I suspect they'll have to find a new customer base for Waymarking, as geocachers seem, from where I sit, to be rejecting it.

 

Ed

To be fair, I recall Jeremy promising an enhancement for Locationless a few years ago, so Groundspeak WAS trying to meet customer demand. Maybe the LC fanatics were a vocal minority. Off topic, though.

 

I do feel (and agree with your observation) that "Waymarks replacing Virtuals" was an idea that was hatched up in haste... a software "hack" if you will. Even if my speculation is untrue, the lack of mechanisms for enhancing the visit when Waymarks were opened to the public is quite telling.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

I'm not sure if this is OT or not, but I believe I speak for many who simply don't like the functionality of the Waymark site. I have no problem with getting rid of virts or locationless at GC. I wish they'd go ahead and move puzzle cache while they're at it.

 

I just don't like the Waymark site. It just doesn't work as smoothly as GC. Let me enter a zip code and get a list of all the waymarks, regardless of category, and then be able to load a PQ on my GPS, and I might like it. Of course, you may be able to do all of that now. It's been 6 months since I checked it out.

[Dale_Lynn]

They lost me as soon as VIRTUAL caching was changed to WAY MARKING....

 

WAY MARKING just seems to designate a single point along a long series of locations to get to the end.....

 

The name sort if kills the concept of a single VIRTUAL cache....

 

I personally am boycotting WAY MARKING...

 

IT really was probably the LOCATION LESS cache that really killed VIRTUALS.... After all VIRTUALS never moved.... LOCATIONLESS cache were never where I was looking....

 

 

Dale

Edited November 29, 2006 by Dale_Lynn

[+Renegade Knight]

...

This is the big difference. Waymarks don't give you the almighty smiley. If they did the Waymarking site would be the cow's pajamas for most of the current detractors.

 

I'm not sure you are actually reading or understanding what people are saying about Waymarking. You keep coming back to this point. It's a factor. One of many, and not the end all be all of why Waymarking is different than what it replaces.

[+TrailGators]

HaLiJuSaPa hit on it in a post above that sums up how the folks I have discussed Waymarking feel.

I actually liked the Waymarking concept when it first came out and created a few waymarks and tried to log a few, but what has turned me off is that the site seems to be so "dead" (i.e. I have few if any visits to any of my waymarks, and often I'm the only visitor at the ones I've found). Maybe better integration with GC.com would help. I admit "giving up" on the site is kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy, if others feel the way I do, we're kind of "killing it ourselves", but maybe as winter comes we'll try to visit some more waymarks.

Waymarking is a site that Groundspeak and the Reviewer community are interested in.

The geocaching community is underwhelmed and as far as I can see won't play there.

It's a mistake lots of companies have made, trying to sell the product they want you to have rather than the product consumers want.

It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

I suspect they'll have to find a new customer base for Waymarking, as geocachers seem, from where I sit, to be rejecting it.Ed

I think this is fairly true. I don't know many fellow geocachers that waymark. To me a ton of waymarks are like opening mapsource and going to visit some food or entertainment spot on mapsource and then getting credit for finding that spot. There are some decent waymarks but they are muddled in a sea of bottom feeders. I still think this same issue is also happening to geocaching because of the wide open door on what is allowed to become a cache. I have pointed out that many people throw rocks at virtuals, but there are way more traditionals out there that are sub-par caches than virtuals. So they didn't solve the main issue by getting rid of virtuals. INHO both sites need to provide a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise both sites will end up with only chaff lovers.

[+Renegade Knight]

.... INHO both sites need to provide a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise both sites will end up with only chaff lovers.

 

They have ointments for that.

[+Qoheleth]

I'm very new to geocaching, but I've just completed what I thought was a nicely done three-part virtual cache. To find waypoints 2 and 3, you had to find and read information off of plaques and/or signs at the location to fill in missing parts of the locations for the next point. At the final point, you had to answer two questions that would prove that you actually found the final point.

 

A photo of you at the site is fairly trivial. I'd prefer a bit more challenge. It's part of the fun.

[Clan Riffster]

"McDonalds" and "Payphones" don't ever show up in my search results. Historic markers, Starbucks and bike trails do.

Folks create Waymarks for McDonalds? Are they that afraid that someone won't be able to find a McToy?

[+TrailGators]

.... INHO both sites need to provide a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise both sites will end up with only chaff lovers.

They have ointments for that.

I think you can buy the ointment at a waymark.......I mean a drugstore.

[+mtn-man]

They lost me as soon as VIRTUAL caching was changed to WAY MARKING....

 

WAY MARKING just seems to designate a single point along a long series of locations to get to the end.....

 

The name sort if kills the concept of a single VIRTUAL cache....

 

I personally am boycotting WAY MARKING...

 

IT really was probably the LOCATION LESS cache that really killed VIRTUALS.... After all VIRTUALS never moved.... LOCATIONLESS cache were never where I was looking....

 

Dale

Some of your post is rather confusing, but one thing I notice is that you have found no virtual caches. You also found no caches at all between October 2003 and July 2006, and then you only found three in two days. No caches found since then. As a rather sporadic geocacher, the Waymarking site would not be affected by your "boycott" anyway. To relate this to the topic in the original post, you are not losing and sense of adventure since you don't really chose to participate in it (no virtual caches found, though you have submitted one virtual).

 

This post and others brings up a big picture issue -- misinformation believed to be fact. The Leprechauns points out above that the site can be searched now while some think it can't. He has also pointed out another fact elsewhere -- Waymarking is giving virtual targets that would not be listed on the GC site a place to flourish. That is a great point. Thousands of targets that would be denied as virtuals are not listed. There are cachers that no longer geocache that *love* the freedom on the Waymarking site. As I have said before, as the site grows, the sense of adventure will grow as well. I remember GC.com in the early days very well. I've enjoyed the growth in functionality of the GC site. I am sure in five years, the functionality of the Waymarking site will be far advanced and the sense of adventure for future waymarkers will grow as well.

 

(spell check, spell check, spell check (hits forehead))

Edited November 29, 2006 by mtn-man