Virtuals VS Waymarking

[+SVC]

Hi,

I was wondering if anyone else felt that we need to bring back virtuals. I know myself and the people I cache with really like them. We plan caching trips every weekend and try and hit as many as we can. Sometimes on these a virtual is a nice break in the action.

 

I know waymaking is really just a collection of virts but I have a few problems with the site.

1. It's a graveyard. I don't think its being used as much as Groundspeak thought

2. Getting a waymark approved is like getting checked for colon cancer. I hate the approval method

3. Earthcaches were brought back, so I dont see why this can't be either.

4. Waymarking.com is a wasteland (needed to be said again).

5. I hate having to log onto a different site just to register my find.

 

So please, archive "waymaking.com" and bring back virts

 

I'm sure this will get some flack but this is how I feel. Groundspeak does a great job not matter what the outcome of my request and no hard feelings if its a big NO. Thanks for keeping me entertained on the weekends and for all the hard work you do.

 

Fellow geocacher,

SVC

Vincent Ciaramella

[+StarBrand]

Like it or not - virtuals just didn't fit in around here very well. Way back - just about any sneaker in the woods could get approved as a virt. Then later the "wow" test was so ill defined that VERY few virts got approved. In my opinion - they are just better suited over at Waymarking. I try not to confuse Waymarking with geocaching - they are 2 separate activities and deserve 2 different sites. Geocaches (Earthcaches excepted) should be a physical container.

[+The Leprechauns]

1. It's a graveyard. I don't think its being used as much as Groundspeak thought

4. Waymarking.com is a wasteland (needed to be said again).

I see you live here in Pittsburgh, where I'm an active waymarker. Let's look at some facts.

 

Number of waymarks within 50 miles of downtown Pittsburgh (zipcode 15222): 339, in 68 different categories, with history and culture being the most popular.

 

Number of virtual caches published within 50 miles of downtown Pittsburgh, 2000 to 2005, and which remain active: 18.

 

Wasteland is right -- but it's the virtual cache category that's the wasteland.

 

2. Getting a waymark approved is like getting checked for colon cancer. I hate the approval method

 

Getting a virtual cache published was a one in four longshot in the sample area, Pittsburgh. I know -- I was the person charged with saying "no" to most all of them, under my other account. In contrast, getting a waymark approved in the same area is a 90-something percent "sure bet." I've yet to have a waymark flat-out refused, in any category.

 

What has your experience been with getting virtual caches published, and with getting waymarks published, that would cause you to form the conclusion that the virtual cache system is superior? Please be specific.

[+Renegade Knight]

...2. Getting a waymark approved is like getting checked for colon cancer. I hate the approval method

...

 

Ok, now that was funny. Especially if you ever went through the pain of actually getting a virtual approved.

 

Other than that I agree. Oh and virtuals don't exist on Waymarking. Locationless and visits do.

[+tozainamboku]

1. It's a graveyard. I don't think its being used as much as Groundspeak thought

 

True Waymarking hasn't caught on yet. There are a few active waymarkers but the number is growing. Waymarking is adding new ways to make it easier to load up the waymarks your interested and vist them while you are out geocaching. In the mean time you can still find the grandfathered virtuals.

 

2. Getting a waymark approved is like getting checked for colon cancer. I hate the approval method

 

explain that to all the people who tried to get their virtual approved when they had to meet the "wow" requirment. Waymarks get approved.

 

3. Earthcaches were brought back, so I dont see why this can't be either.

 

I personally think this was a mistake. Some day I believe the GSA will realize this as well. They had an agreement with geocaching to list Earthcaches. In spite of this, they initially agreed to move to Waymarking. When they saw waymarks getting fewer visits and had complaints from people who had earthcaches, they invoked their original agreement to get move back. Perhaps if you had a Virtual Caching Association and got corporate sponsorship and would have the the VCA approve the virtuals (with formal permission from land managers for virtuals in National Parks and the like) you could make a similar agreement with geocaching.

 

4. Waymarking.com is a wasteland (needed to be said again).

 

Waymarking is cool. But you're entitled to a different opinion.

 

5. I hate having to log onto a different site just to register my find.

 

I hate that I have to buy groceries at the grocery store and clothe in the department store. Oh wait, I fogot can go to Super Wal*Mart. Maybe geocaching.com could be the Super Wal*Mart of location based activities. I don't find it that hard to log visits to waymarks and geocaches and there are links that take me back and forth between the sites. But perhaps there could be better coordination. I may be reading between the lines and think this is also a complaint that waymarks don't count in your geocaching stats.

[+mtn-man]

Let's archive the forum search feature. I don't think it is being used as much as Groundspeak thought.

[+mtn-man]

Oh and virtuals don't exist on Waymarking. Locationless and visits do.

Not really. This is the breakdown as things equate to the old ways.

 

Locationless = Waymark Category.

Virtual = Individual Waymark within a Category.

Find = Visit.

[+ThePropers]

Let's archive the forum search feature. I don't think it is being used as much as Groundspeak thought.

 

Well, it has been a couple of days since someone griped about it.

[CoyoteRed]

I wonder if a consolidated "Nearest List" which included not just the geocaches, but also the nearest waymarks (as filtered by the user's preferences) would eliminate this issue of "I want my virtuals back!"

 

As for the issue of having to log onto different sites to log caches, my solution is built right into GSAK. It's pretty much straight forward. I can skip from site to site at will.

[+tozainamboku]

Oh and virtuals don't exist on Waymarking. Locationless and visits do.

Not really. This is the breakdown as things equate to the old ways.

 

Locationless = Waymark Category.

Virtual = Individual Waymark within a Category.

Find = Visit.

Don't over simplify Waymarking. RK has a valid point. Ask yourself what it is about virtuals that you like. Do like visiting historic sites? Graves of famous people? Unique public art? Do you like to be suprised and not know what you will find till you get there? Do you like being taken to places you wouldn't have know about otherwise? Do you like the challenge of having to find the answers to the verification question at the virtual site?

Not all Waymarking categories will provide you with the experience of those virtuals. You need to look through the Waymarking directory and find those categories that you want to visit. And this is not an easy task as there are many categories and new ones added all the time. On the other hand, even many of those who enjoy virtual caches would admit that many were just not that interesting. If you wisely select Waymarking categories you will have increased your odds of actually being interested in what you visit.

 

I wonder if a consolidated "Nearest List" which included not just the geocaches, but also the nearest waymarks (as filtered by the user's preferences) would eliminate this issue of "I want my virtuals back!"

 

As for the issue of having to log onto different sites to log caches, my solution is built right into GSAK. It's pretty much straight forward. I can skip from site to site at will.

Yes, I think that getting a combined list of geocaches and waymarks will help in getting more visits to waymarks. It's not an easy task to do as most people will want to filter the waymarks to categories they are interested in. GSAK can be used to combine your geocache list with your waymark list and download the coordinates to your GPS. I'm not sure what CR means about GSAK logging into different sites to log your visit as I haven't used it for this.

[+adjensen]

 

Let's look at some facts.

 

Number of waymarks within 50 miles of downtown Pittsburgh (zipcode 15222): 339, in 68 different categories, with history and culture being the most popular.

 

Number of virtual caches published within 50 miles of downtown Pittsburgh, 2000 to 2005, and which remain active: 18.

 

Wasteland is right -- but it's the virtual cache category that's the wasteland.

 

Okay, call me an ignoramous, but can you tell me:

 

1) The number of visits to those 339 waymarks

 

and

 

2) The number of logs on those 18 virtuals

 

Allowing you to create a plethora of waymarks (virtual spew, I guess,) that no one ever visits seems to be some sort of ego boost to the creator, without being actually useful to anyone else.

 

Since they first sent me the link to the Waymarking Beta site way back when, I've looked in off and on, and have never found it to be interesting enough to merit much attention. To me, anyway. If I need to know where the nearest McDonalds is, I'll look it up on my Garmin, and I don't really care where there is a local water tower, pet cemetary or movie theatre.

 

Virtuals were (and are, for those that are still here,) an interesting component of caching precisely because there are so few of them. I appreciate the fact that they were a headache for reviewers and that most of the good virts were probably created by 2004. I'm not necessarily in favour of them returning as an active cache type. But, after two or three years of "beta" status and a few revisions, for me at least, Waymarking is a poorly conceived replacement.

 

Almost every discussion that I've seen here has had numerous people that I respect, such as yourself, posting something along the lines of "try Waymarking, give it a chance, and you'll like it," but, given that thousands of cachers have had access to it (maybe everyone, have they opened it up to non-premium members,) and you have to really hunt to find any waymark that has any visits, that tells me that whatever it is, it isn't working.

 

It seems to be an excellent replacement for those who want to create a virtual, and an incredibly poor replacement for those who wish to find them.

[+mtn-man]

Don't over simplify Waymarking.

One of the main complaints I hear when talking to people about Waymarking is that it is too complicated to navigate. When I explain it as I have above, they seem grasp the concept better. You can then go into more details as you have ("Ask yourself what it is about virtuals that you like." etc.). First thing you need to explain is how to navigate the site. Once you grasp that, you can decide what you want to navigate to.

[+mtn-man]

Okay, call me an ignoramous, but can you tell me:

 

1) The number of visits to those 339 waymarks

 

and

 

2) The number of logs on those 18 virtuals

To compare apples to apples, you would need to make sure you keep the time frame the same. You cannot look at the total visits to the virtuals. You have to compare the same time frame. Most people forget that. In addition, you should only look at the virtuals that were created in the first year of geocaching.com since Waymarking is barely a year old. If you are going to ask for a comparison, make sure it is an accurate one.

 

Edited to add... doing a quick PQ, the number of virtuals created in the first year drops down to less than 5. Their visits in the first year are about 20.

Edited January 8, 2007 by mtn-man

[+tozainamboku]

Okay, call me an ignoramous, but can you tell me:

 

1) The number of visits to those 339 waymarks

 

and

 

2) The number of logs on those 18 virtuals

To compare apples to apples, you would need to make sure you keep the time frame the same. You cannot look at the total visits to the virtuals. You have to compare the same time frame. Most people forget that. In addition, you should only look at the virtuals that were created in the first year of geocaching.com since Waymarking is barely a year old. If you are going to ask for a comparison, make sure it is an accurate one.

 

Easy comparison of Apples to Apples

 

This virtual has had 11 finds since 8/23/06 when this waymark was listed. The waymark has had exactly one visit.

[+Renegade Knight]

Oh and virtuals don't exist on Waymarking. Locationless and visits do.

Not really. This is the breakdown as things equate to the old ways.

 

Locationless = Waymark Category.

Virtual = Individual Waymark within a Category.

Find = Visit.

 

That's how the rough math works and I'll give credit for a fairly close match between a waymark catagory and a locationless cache. After that it changes and instead of a virtual cache you have something closer to waypoint.org with logs.

 

While this site may not want to bring back virtual caches for a lot of reasons, I think they should keep a realistic outlook as to what exactly they have created and what exactly they have lost. The simple truth is that it's opinions. You can tell me I should like a visit as much as a virtual, but I don't. It's different in some way that may be subtle, but which matters.

[+Cheminer Will]

It's not an easy task to do as most people will want to filter the waymarks to categories they are interested in.

 

I'm not sure about this as most cachers I know that use GSAK want to do a PQ for all caches in the area they are visiting. I would think most of us would do the same for waymarks and then use GSAK to filter the ones we want uploaded to our GPSr.

 

I would love to have proximity PQ's available for download from Waymarking.com. I think this one feature would really increase the interest in Waymarking.

 

There are a few areas in the U.S. where an active waymarker lives that have a bunch of waymarks. The suggestion always given to the solve the dearth of waymarks in other areas is to list some of your own. This will help, but it does take a while to understand the process. I have now visited one waymark and listed another. I *THINK* I am beginning to understand the process well enough to contribute more.

 

As far as the search feature is concerned.... On this topic, at least, it helps to have the virtual question keep coming up in a new thread as it gives more facetime to Waymarking.

[Mr.Yuck]

 

It seems to be an excellent replacement for those who want to create a virtual, and an incredibly poor replacement for those who wish to find them.

 

I'd agree with adjensen's post in it's entirety, with a couple of minor differnences in opinion, most notably the last sentence. I don't think the fact that the visitors aren't coming makes it an incredibly poor replacement for those who wish to find them.

 

But everything else, pretty much right on. It's been darn near 1.5 years for Waymarking. In March 2002, after 1.5 years, it was rather obvious this geocaching.com thing might catch on. You've got the same people with hundreds (in a couple cases over 1,000) Waymarks "founded" (i.e. placed), with almost no one visiting those Waymarks. And it ain't just Pittsburgh, it's everywhere.

 

I don't have any answers, but I can definately make that observation. It's quite apparent.

[+kdv]

For what it's worth, I also think a 'list nearest' feature for Waymarking would be great. Personally I prefer geocaching, but sometimes when introduce new people to geocaching they end up saying: I like discovering interesting spots, but I hate the treasure hunt aspect at the end of the ride. Then I tell them that they might like Waymarking better. But I can't really help them get started with it, because it is set up so differently. I live in Italy, and there are very few waymarks. With so few of them around, you have yet another reason to 'skip' the categories and just jump at any listing that pops up, because they are few and far between anyway.

 

Katja-kdv

[+adjensen]

Okay, call me an ignoramous, but can you tell me:

 

1) The number of visits to those 339 waymarks

 

and

 

2) The number of logs on those 18 virtuals

In addition, you should only look at the virtuals that were created in the first year of geocaching.com since Waymarking is barely a year old. If you are going to ask for a comparison, make sure it is an accurate one.

 

That's not entirely valid, as the number of people that knew about geocaching.com in the first year was probably pretty small. Every premium member, I assume, got the email announcing Waymarking.com and inviting them to check it out. Everyone who reads the forums, I assume, has seen multiple "Bring back virtuals" threads, which direct them to check out Waymarking.

 

The number of people aware of Waymarking.com is significantly higher than gc.com in the first year, the fact that few of them use it and no one of apparent consequence says "maybe this wasn't a good idea" seems odd. Sort of like saying "it didn't work before, it doesn't seem to be working now, but at least we're not doing it the old way."

 

I looked at Waymarking again this morning in reference to this thread. A category that I wandered into was "Country Churches". There are probably a hundred actual churches within 200 miles of me here, but there are eight listed, all by the same person, all unvisited, except by the person who created them (which strikes me a bit of getting a "find" on your own cache, but I digress.) Even if Waymarking was insanely popular, I doubt that those eight churches would get visits by anyone, because, if you're into country churches for some reason, there are 92 others within the same distance, and there's no compelling reason to limit yourself to these eight.

 

A virtual, at least, required someone saying "okay, you want to put a virtual in at that country church. Why?"

 

In the classic "vote with your feet" sense, it doesn't bear out that Waymarking is a suitable replacement for virtuals, at least for the vast majority of geocachers. I'm not going to suggest that I know how to fix it (though removing the google map from every page would greatly speed up page loads!) or what a better replacement might be, but it just doesn't seem like this is it.

[+mtn-man]

Oh and virtuals don't exist on Waymarking. Locationless and visits do.

Not really. This is the breakdown as things equate to the old ways.

 

Locationless = Waymark Category.

Virtual = Individual Waymark within a Category.

Find = Visit.

 

That's how the rough math works and I'll give credit for a fairly close match between a waymark catagory and a locationless cache. After that it changes and instead of a virtual cache you have something closer to waypoint.org with logs.

 

While this site may not want to bring back virtual caches for a lot of reasons, I think they should keep a realistic outlook as to what exactly they have created and what exactly they have lost. The simple truth is that it's opinions. You can tell me I should like a visit as much as a virtual, but I don't. It's different in some way that may be subtle, but which matters.

I will give you this... it is all about opinions. I feel we all know how each other feel. One person brings it up and the same people bring out the same points over and over.

 

Really, there is only one opinion that matters I guess:

There's no plan to return virtual caches to geocaching.com. Thanks for your feedback.

I'm done with the issue.

Edited January 8, 2007 by mtn-man

[+tozainamboku]

 

Really, there is only one opinion that matters I guess:

There's no plan to return virtual caches to geocaching.com. Thanks for your feedback.

I'm done with the issue.

My personal thought is that Waymarking is the appropriate place for virtual caches, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a look at what is or is not working with Waymarking. Many geocachers enjoy finding virtuals for a variety of reasons and Waymarking lacks some features in this regard.

Perhaps the most important is the ability to find interesting virtuals to find in an area where you happen to be geocaching. You could download all the waymarks near one of the geocaches, but you may get a list of McDonald's Restaurants (perhaps useful if you are looking for a place to eat lunch while out geocaching) and a few historical markers where they may be nothing to see other than the plaque.

Many geocachers liked virutals because someone else (the reviewer) served as a gatekeeper to ensure that the virtual had some "wow" quality. Looking at the virtuals I've found, I'm not sure how true this is. But certainly there was some chance you would be surprised by what you found at a virtual. Many Waymarking categories may take you to an interesting place, but there is no surprise as to what you will find.

Many geocachers felt that a virtual that required you to find the answers at the location gave virtuals an aspect that was similar to finding a hidden cache container. Again, most Waymarking categories aren't set up to get you to discover something at the waymark. If there is any verification requirement it is likely to be to post a picture of the waymark.

Many geocachers liked to find virtuals because it counted in your geocaching finds. You see a lot on the forums that say the smiley doesn't matter. But it does matter to a lot of cachers and they won't look for waymarks as long as they don't count as finds.

I think threads like this are useful in seeing why people like virtual caches and why they don't feel they can get the same experience from Waymarking. I believe that we can do things with Waymarking to improve the experience for everyone. This includes the creation of more categories like Best Kept Secrets, improvements to searching the category directory, better integration with Geocaching.com, etc.

[Jeremy]

 

Really, there is only one opinion that matters I guess:

There's no plan to return virtual caches to geocaching.com. Thanks for your feedback.

I'm done with the issue.

My personal thought is that Waymarking is the appropriate place for virtual caches, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take a look at what is or is not working with Waymarking. Many geocachers enjoy finding virtuals for a variety of reasons and Waymarking lacks some features in this regard.

Perhaps the most important is the ability to find interesting virtuals to find in an area where you happen to be geocaching. You could download all the waymarks near one of the geocaches, but you may get a list of McDonald's Restaurants (perhaps useful if you are looking for a place to eat lunch while out geocaching) and a few historical markers where they may be nothing to see other than the plaque.

 

We've been putting together a specification on ways that the Waymarking community can really "bubble up" the more interesting locations on Waymarking. It actually fits well within the area of community awards that has been discussed for geocaching. Users can give personal awards to geocachers whose geocaches are really good, or waymarks, etc. By aggregating these rewards we can find the caches and waymarks that are the best of the best and make them filterable through the site.

 

As much as the nay sayers opinions are about Waymarking it is a qualified success. It's definitely accelerated over the past year far faster than geocaching ever has, and once we finally announce it officially to the rest of the geocaching community we'll definitely see some more growth.

 

I'm especially impressed with the way peer review has worked for new categories, and the huge success we've seen in categories like Historical Markers and Covered Bridges - both categories that were common virtual submissions.

 

Keep the cool categories coming!

[+Jaz666]

I'm of the opinion that Waymarking will never gain popularity outside the U.S. until Waymarking and geocaching are merged into one site, with waymarks found showing up on your profile.

 

For most of us, part of the enjoyment of Geocaching comes from logging our adventures, including visits to Virtual caches. If "visits" to waymarks became part of that logging experience more and more of us would warm up to the idea.

 

Sadly, no matter how much effort is put into the site, I don't think many people will ever wake up in the morning and think "what a nice day, lets go Waymarking". But if it became part of the overall Geocaching experience more would consider giving it a try.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Jaz666

[+adjensen]

As much as the nay sayers opinions are about Waymarking it is a qualified success. It's definitely accelerated over the past year far faster than geocaching ever has, and once we finally announce it officially to the rest of the geocaching community we'll definitely see some more growth.

 

Likely idiotic to be arguing/questioning you, as it's your business and you want, more than anyone else, what's best for it, but as a "nay sayer," I clearly don't understand what you mean by "accelerated over the past year far faster than geocaching." If you mean by number of POIs, I suppose so, though, as I pointed out above, as your target audience, I find the signal to noise ratio of wm.com to be a detriment, not a benefit. The Alexus traffic report from the past five years doesn't bear out any other argument that I can see. Seasonal fluctuations aside, gc.com has experienced fairly constant growth, with an amazing growth in 2006, but wm.com has stayed fairly level over the 1 1/2 years it's been around.

 

Being more visible will certainly add more growth, but doesn't everyone already see the "Nearby waypoints" link on the cache pages? Beyond email marketing, I'm not sure than anything other than true integration (where waymarks count as gc.com statistics) is going to drive huge numbers to Waymarking.

 

I'm especially impressed with the way peer review has worked for new categories, and the huge success we've seen in categories like Historical Markers and Covered Bridges - both categories that were common virtual submissions.

 

Again, my lack of experience probably limits my view and level of understanding, but, in the instance of the Country Churches I cited above, most of the churches were approved by the person who "founded" them, who also was the only person to "visit" them. They may be super-awesome churches, and maybe things are different where there are more waymarkers, but I question the validity of any approval system where I can approve my own submissions.

 

Jeremy, I'm not a jerk (well, don't ask my wife about that ) I'm a "nay sayer" not because I enjoy arguing, I'm a nay sayer because I don't understand your game. Or maybe I do understand it, and I just don't like it. But either way, if I'm your target audience, what I have to say should have some relevance. Ditto for everyone else that is having a hard time with Waymarking.

 

One thing that I've learned as a small business owner is that statistics and projections, whether I agree with them or not, tend to bear themselves out. If you're happy with the current rate of adoption and the results that you're seeing on Waymarking, then you don't really need to worry about what those of us who don't get it are saying.

[Edgemaster]

Just trying a basic search from a cache page (the "Nearby...all nearby waymarks on Waymarking.com" link) it takes you to a rather intimidating category list. Maybe collapse this by default, with a bolder 'Search by Category' link to expand it?

 

It would certainly assist with the confusion issue noted previously.

[Mr.Yuck]

As much as the nay sayers opinions are about Waymarking it is a qualified success. It's definitely accelerated over the past year far faster than geocaching ever has, and once we finally announce it officially to the rest of the geocaching community we'll definitely see some more growth.

 

Likely idiotic to be arguing/questioning you, as it's your business and you want, more than anyone else, what's best for it, but as a "nay sayer," I clearly don't understand what you mean by "accelerated over the past year far faster than geocaching." If you mean by number of POIs, I suppose so, though, as I pointed out above, as your target audience, I find the signal to noise ratio of wm.com to be a detriment, not a benefit. The Alexus traffic report from the past five years doesn't bear out any other argument that I can see. Seasonal fluctuations aside, gc.com has experienced fairly constant growth, with an amazing growth in 2006, but wm.com has stayed fairly level over the 1 1/2 years it's been around.

 

Being more visible will certainly add more growth, but doesn't everyone already see the "Nearby waypoints" link on the cache pages? Beyond email marketing, I'm not sure than anything other than true integration (where waymarks count as gc.com statistics) is going to drive huge numbers to Waymarking.

 

I'd hope I'm not a nay sayer, but just an observer of the lack of visits to Waymarks. I think if Waymarking were afforded basically the exact same exposure as Benchmarking, namely an icon in your geocaching.com profile with the number found, and a link on the main page of geocaching.com on the left-hand side, that would help. Of course there is a "nearby benchmarks" link on cache pages, and "nearby Waymarks" are there as now as well.

[+Mopar]

Add waymark visits to your GC.com smiley count and I bet suddenly Waymarking.com will be the best thing ever!

[Jeremy]

Just trying a basic search from a cache page (the "Nearby...all nearby waymarks on Waymarking.com" link) it takes you to a rather intimidating category list. Maybe collapse this by default, with a bolder 'Search by Category' link to expand it?

 

It would certainly assist with the confusion issue noted previously.

 

Scroll down or hide the directory list. The waymark results are below the category list.

 

I default the directory list to close. Like you I prefer seeing the waymarks first.

[Jeremy]

I'm not going to suggest that I know how to fix it (though removing the google map from every page would greatly speed up page loads!) or what a better replacement might be, but it just doesn't seem like this is it.

 

If you have a slow connection you can uncheck "show map" to remove the google map.

[+The Leprechauns]

See? If something doesn't look or work the way you want it, just ask. There's a whole forum for that, full of people who will help answer questions and show how the site works. And if you *do* find something that doesn't have a convenient answer, the odds are good that the programmers will address it in the next version.

 

Last Friday I started using GSAK for the first time. There is a learning curve. But I didn't say "this stinks, I'll never use it again" because I've heard so many other people rave about how cool it is once you get the hang of it. When I get stuck, I ask questions.

[+adjensen]

I'm not going to suggest that I know how to fix it (though removing the google map from every page would greatly speed up page loads!) or what a better replacement might be, but it just doesn't seem like this is it.

 

If you have a slow connection you can uncheck "show map" to remove the google map.

 

I don't have a slow connection at work (where I posted that) -- it's a T1, and I did find the check box to turn them off. However, it's not generally a good idea to have something that is quite often slow and relies on external resources turned on by default. New users may well think that it's your site that's bogged down, and not return. Google maps are notoriously slow to load at times, so the default setting might be something to consider having "off".

[+The Leprechauns]

"I would like the Waymarking site a whole lot better if it had cool Google maps."

 

[+Ambrosia]

All I can say is, I have a difficult time learning and understanding things like Waymarking, computers, etc. So if I can figure out Waymarking and enjoy it, I'm sure most people can. You just have to go into the site and throw yourself into it. Click on all the links, explore the place until you understand it. And go into the Waymarking forums and read stuff there and ask questions if you need to. Just like Lep said, anything big like this takes work and learning. But when you do it, you get rewarded.

[+altosaxplayer]

Jeremy has said numerous times that virtuals, locationless, webcams, etc are never going to be brought back.

[+HaLiJuSaPa]

Add waymark visits to your GC.com smiley count and I bet suddenly Waymarking.com will be the best thing ever!

 

But that's why I think this all started in the first place. Too many people really saw virts (and especially locationless) as "free smileys" and the resultant popularity flooded the site to the point where it would crash a lot and people had a hard time posting "regular" cache logs.

 

On the other hand, I think that the total divorce from geocaching went a little too far and killed it as well. As many have suggested, maybe making it like benchmarks (where you do see an icon and numbers with your other caching stats but it's not a true "smiley" that ups your find count) would be a happy medium.

[+Renegade Knight]

Add waymark visits to your GC.com smiley count and I bet suddenly Waymarking.com will be the best thing ever!

 

But that's why I think this all started in the first place. Too many people really saw virts (and especially locationless) as "free smileys" and the resultant popularity flooded the site to the point where it would crash a lot and people had a hard time posting "regular" cache logs....

 

Ever tried to find one of those funky lakes with the hot and cold reversed? Or an EPA Superfund site? Or a mini statue of liberty in a park, or a Carnagee Library, or a CCC project, or a Frank Lloyd Wright house in a state with one of them? Free? Ha!

 

A couple of those I did find, but could not log thanks to the "one locationless find per item" rule. A couple more I found but never logged because I'd rather find regular caches and never did make the final journey. A few others I did log.

 

If it's about the fun, it's about the fun and all the smilies and bonus smilies in the world won't make me lift a finger to find it. I still drive by my first waymark several times a week. Still haven't logged it. Gimme a GC.com smilie and...I'd still drive by it and still wonder if I'm ever goinig to log it.

 

Apparently some enlightened users wallow in the joy that is Waymarking without the smilies and throw out the smilie argument because dang it, it just sounds good.

[+TrailGators]

We've been putting together a specification on ways that the Waymarking community can really "bubble up" the more interesting locations on Waymarking. It actually fits well within the area of community awards that has been discussed for geocaching. Users can give personal awards to geocachers whose geocaches are really good, or waymarks, etc. By aggregating these rewards we can find the caches and waymarks that are the best of the best and make them filterable through the site.

Hallelujah!!!

[+Renegade Knight]

As much as the nay sayers opinions are about Waymarking it is a qualified success. It's definitely accelerated over the past year far faster than geocaching ever has, and once we finally announce it officially to the rest of the geocaching community we'll definitely see some more growth.

...One thing that I've learned as a small business owner is that statistics and projections, whether I agree with them or not, tend to bear themselves out. If you're happy with the current rate of adoption and the results that you're seeing on Waymarking, then you don't really need to worry about what those of us who don't get it are saying.

 

Waymarking is it's own thing. It will not attract some cachers and it will attract some folks who just like Waymarking and don't think caching is fun. It will also find some folks who like both. It's akin to bechmarking in that regard.

 

About the only real difference was that when benchmarking was introduced it was 100% it's own thing and nobody tried to sell you on it being a replacment for something else.

 

Turkey Burger works well enough for most purposes where you need burger, but it's not hamburger. You cant make hamburger fans like the turkey and turkey fans are wasting their breath trying to convince the hamberfolks that everthing tasts like chicken so beef and turkey are the same.

[+SVC]

Wow, I had no idea that this thread would have this many replies. First off I never check the forums (as you can see by my post count, I think this makes #8 since 2004) so if this has been covered to death, then sorry to litter the forum with a redundant topic.

 

To anwser a few of the questions:

Leprechauns- I remember when I first heard about Waymarking and I was excited. I checked out the site and found it a tad confussing. I wanted to add a waymark but the process of getting it approved just didn't sit right with me. You have to get a peer review which I couldn't figure out. Also the one that I wanted to submit didn't fit into any of the catagories at the time. So I asked what people would think of the one I proposed (which was forgotten neighborhoods) and people were all over the map with their replies ranging from "good idea" to "do you think this will offend people?". The latter I have no idea where that came from since I wanted to add a waymark for PGH's Lost Chinatown. But it seems now that theres a tons of waymakers that I feel have no value (the McDonalds being one of them).

 

I agree with who ever said that no one will wake up and say "What a great day for Waymarking." Plus what I meant by graveyard is that these sites never seem to get visited. There are a TON of waymarks around here but look how many are visited and you'll see what I mean.

 

To anwser the last question, no I never tried to get a virtual approved. I never found anyplace that I felt needed one. I stick to the traditionals but if by some chance down the line I found one I wished the option was avaliable. But if it's not to be then it's not to be. I won't lose any sleep over it. I feel that Groundspeak has done a great job and I have no complaints. Yes I know I can log on to Waymarking.com to log my find but I'd rather have them on the other site. Switching sites really isn't that big of a deal but the Wal-Mart comment was stretching it.

 

Geocaching is a hobby, one that I enjoy very much. I like getting a smiley face for a find. Not for some bragging rights but I like to see how many I visited, what area I visited the most...etc. It's a way to keep track of what I've done. I know waymaking has something like that but I like to keep everything in one place, that's just the nature of my groove. I'm kind of a hermit cacher, meaning I dont keep up on what's what with everyone. I see alot of people complain about micros and smileys. I see no problem with either. Some people just have way too much time on their hands and try to make a crusade out of nothing. So I ususally stay out of the way. Again I just wanted to voice my opinion. I see the pros and cons of everyones argument. Maybe I'll give waymaking another try but then again I might not. We'll see. Jermey + Groundspeak crew, keep up the good work and thanks for giving me something to do on the weekends.

Edited January 9, 2007 by SVC

[+The Leprechauns]

Leprechauns- I remember when I first heard about Waymarking and I was excited. I checked out the site and found it a tad confussing. I wanted to add a waymark but the process of getting it approved just didn't sit right with me. You have to get a peer review which I couldn't figure out. Also the one that I wanted to submit didn't fit into any of the catagories at the time. So I asked what people would think of the one I proposed (which was forgotten neighborhoods) and people were all over the map with their replies ranging from "good idea" to "do you think this will offend people?". The latter I have no idea where that came from since I wanted to add a waymark for PGH's Lost Chinatown.

What you are describing is the process for getting a category approved, not for getting a waymark approved. They are two very different things. I agree with you, getting a category approved does take some effort. I am in the middle of putting one together right now. Interestingly, there is a discussion just this week in the Waymarking forum about the concept of "neighborhoods" as waymarks, and Pittsburgh was cited as an example of a city with distinctive neighborhoods. Like you, I am proud of them. But a vaguely defined area like a neighborhood doesn't quite fit in with a database full of precise latitude and longitude coordinates. Feel free to join in the discussion. If you have an interest, help make it happen! That is more helpful than sitting back and saying "there's no place to waymark a neighborhood."

 

But it seems now that theres a tons of waymakers that I feel have no value (the McDonalds being one of them).

What's the total of all McDonald's waymarks out of that 339 grand total of waymarks within 50 miles of Pittsburgh? That's right, zero. If you ignore one waymarker's obsession for Starbucks, the overwhelming majority of local waymarks are exactly the kinds of targets that used to get submitted as virtual caches. Only now they get listed. Anyways, suppose that one of the other waymarkers in Pittsburgh loves taking their young kids to McDonald's, and they have fun doing a writeup of each one they visit. So what? Put the category on permanent "ignore." You can ignore my Starbucks waymarks, too. I won't be offended or sad. I am only sad when I see people not having fun.

 

I agree with who ever said that no one will wake up and say "What a great day for Waymarking." Plus what I meant by graveyard is that these sites never seem to get visited. There are a TON of waymarks around here but look how many are visited and you'll see what I mean.

It is hard not to take this personally, since my daughter and I *do* wake up and say "let's go Waymarking today!" For example, we have thoroughly explored three sections of Pittsburgh: East Liberty/Homewood, the North Side and the Hill District. They are devoid of caches because they are old, rough neighborhoods. Yet Waymarking opportunities abound, because the neighborhoods are rich in history and cultural diversity. I've enjoyed teaching Little Lep the local history and then documenting it for others. So, please don't make sweeping generalizations. It belittles my fun. It is like saying that no one will wake up and say "What a great day to bushwack through thorns to find a piece of tupperware in the woods." Some think that is stupid, but thousands love to do it.

[+TrailGators]

I was a bit skeptical about Waymarking at first, but went I ahead and became a Category Manager because a friend of mine came up with in interesting idea called New World Evidence. So the new waymarks have been coming in and we are now up to 21 waymarks for this category. Unfortunately only 8 of them have actually been visited so far. I have also created two waymarks. One is a fountain and the other is a shoe tree. I feel like I'm logging a locationless cache when I created those waymarks. So maybe the Waymarking game is more about finding and creating a locationless rather than logging someone else's locationless find.....

Edited January 9, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Ambrosia]

Every morning I wake up and say, "What a great day for Waymarking".

 

I'm not joking.

 

Lol. I should know by now to thoroughly read Lep's posts before I respond.

Edited January 9, 2007 by Ambrosia

[+SVC]

Leprechauns- I remember when I first heard about Waymarking and I was excited. I checked out the site and found it a tad confussing. I wanted to add a waymark but the process of getting it approved just didn't sit right with me. You have to get a peer review which I couldn't figure out. Also the one that I wanted to submit didn't fit into any of the catagories at the time. So I asked what people would think of the one I proposed (which was forgotten neighborhoods) and people were all over the map with their replies ranging from "good idea" to "do you think this will offend people?". The latter I have no idea where that came from since I wanted to add a waymark for PGH's Lost Chinatown.

What you are describing is the process for getting a category approved, not for getting a waymark approved. They are two very different things. I agree with you, getting a category approved does take some effort. I am in the middle of putting one together right now. Interestingly, there is a discussion just this week in the Waymarking forum about the concept of "neighborhoods" as waymarks, and Pittsburgh was cited as an example of a city with distinctive neighborhoods. Like you, I am proud of them. But a vaguely defined area like a neighborhood doesn't quite fit in with a database full of precise latitude and longitude coordinates. Feel free to join in the discussion. If you have an interest, help make it happen! That is more helpful than sitting back and saying "there's no place to waymark a neighborhood."

 

But it seems now that theres a tons of waymakers that I feel have no value (the McDonalds being one of them).

What's the total of all McDonald's waymarks out of that 339 grand total of waymarks within 50 miles of Pittsburgh? That's right, zero. If you ignore one waymarker's obsession for Starbucks, the overwhelming majority of local waymarks are exactly the kinds of targets that used to get submitted as virtual caches. Only now they get listed. Anyways, suppose that one of the other waymarkers in Pittsburgh loves taking their young kids to McDonald's, and they have fun doing a writeup of each one they visit. So what? Put the category on permanent "ignore." You can ignore my Starbucks waymarks, too. I won't be offended or sad. I am only sad when I see people not having fun.

 

I agree with who ever said that no one will wake up and say "What a great day for Waymarking." Plus what I meant by graveyard is that these sites never seem to get visited. There are a TON of waymarks around here but look how many are visited and you'll see what I mean.

It is hard not to take this personally, since my daughter and I *do* wake up and say "let's go Waymarking today!" For example, we have thoroughly explored three sections of Pittsburgh: East Liberty/Homewood, the North Side and the Hill District. They are devoid of caches because they are old, rough neighborhoods. Yet Waymarking opportunities abound, because the neighborhoods are rich in history and cultural diversity. I've enjoyed teaching Little Lep the local history and then documenting it for others. So, please don't make sweeping generalizations. It belittles my fun. It is like saying that no one will wake up and say "What a great day to bushwack through thorns to find a piece of tupperware in the woods." Some think that is stupid, but thousands love to do it.

 

I don't know why you should get offended but if you did then sorry but that's the way I feel. I see your point about bushwacking, it's not for everyone. I like the woods and don't mind getting a bit torn up. Call it battle scars call it stupidity, it's your choice. If you and your daughter enjoy Waymarking then have at it. I see nothing wrong with wanting to teach your child about history, heck more parents should take that initiative. I don't know why my opition should belittle your fun. That's like saying I hate McDonalds and you getting offended by that and never eating there again. Survey 10 people about any topic from Iraq to Bigfoot and you'll find half are for and half are against. That's just human nature. If you enjoy it then my opinin should have no baring on the matter. Remember this is just a hobby not a life style choice.

 

On a side note, I've heard that somewhere in the Homewood cemetery theres are a few Chinese graves. I've never checked up on that since I live 12 miles south of PGH and besides for work I never go there. If you find them send me an email or a photo. Good luck and have fun. Mayeb I'll run into you in the field or on the asphalt.

Edited January 9, 2007 by SVC

[+TrailGators]

Every morning I wake up and say, "What a great day for Waymarking".

Every morning I wake up and say, "Oh crap, I have to go to work..." Edited January 9, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Ambrosia]

Every morning I wake up and say, "What a great day for Waymarking".

Every morning I wake up and say, "Oh crap, I have to go to work..."

Ah, just because I say that it's a good day for Waymarking, doesn't mean that I can go Waymarking.

[+TrailGators]

Every morning I wake up and say, "What a great day for Waymarking".

Every morning I wake up and say, "Oh crap, I have to go to work..."

Ah, just because I say that it's a good day for Waymarking, doesn't mean that I can go Waymarking.

What about being a good day for "geocaching?" Isn't this a "geocaching" thread? Edited January 9, 2007 by TrailGators

[+Ambrosia]

Every morning I wake up and say, "What a great day for Waymarking".

Every morning I wake up and say, "Oh crap, I have to go to work..."

Ah, just because I say that it's a good day for Waymarking, doesn't mean that I can go Waymarking.

What about being a good day for "geocaching?" Isn't this a "geocaching" thread?

Oh, that too.

 

Every morning I wake up and say, "What a great day for Geocaching and Waymarking"!

 

Better?

[+TrailGators]

Every morning I wake up and say, "What a great day for Waymarking".

Every morning I wake up and say, "Oh crap, I have to go to work..."

Ah, just because I say that it's a good day for Waymarking, doesn't mean that I can go Waymarking.

What about being a good day for "geocaching?" Isn't this a "geocaching" thread?

Oh, that too.

 

Every morning I wake up and say, "What a great day for Geocaching and Waymarking"!

 

Better?

[+adjensen]

I was a bit skeptical about Waymarking at first, but went I ahead and became a Category Manager because a friend of mine came up with in interesting idea called New World Evidence. So the new waymarks have been coming in and we are now up to 21 waymarks for this category. Unfortunately only 8 of them have actually been visited so far. I have also created two waymarks. One is a fountain and the other is a shoe tree. I feel like I'm logging a locationless cache when I created those waymarks.

 

Not to be critical, but to be accurate, in that category (which is a pretty cool category, far better than water towers and McDonalds drive thrus,) there is one visit by another waymarker on his/her own, one additional visit by someone taken there by the waymark placer, and the rest of the visits are either not detailed (may be a bug -- the list of waymarks shows it being found, the page itself says "no logs") or visited by the person who made the mark.

 

Here in Grand Forks, there is one, count it, one waymark. Population of 50,000 or so, 25 or so caches in the city area, and there is one waymark. Of? A water tower, which you can see from pretty much anywhere in town. To get "credit" for the "find", you are to post a photograph of it. I don't need a GPSr to find it, I don't need the coordinates, I hardly even need directions.

 

Within an hour's drive (roughly 60 miles) there are three additional waymarks, two historical markers that have no relevance to me, and the Karlstad Post Office, which is... a post office. Nothing special, just a post office. Oh, there's something in the Long Description: "Around the corner on CR 14 is a fine Swedish theme mural." That's actually the whole of the description, so it sounds like the interesting thing at this location isn't actually the post office, but the mural. When virtuals existed, I guess that he might have made the mural a virt, now it's a side note on a boring waymark.

 

Now, of these four waymarks, the oldest of which was placed about 1 1/2 years ago, none have ever been visited. Well, I'm sure that plenty of people go to the post office, and I see the water tower pretty much every day, but no one has logged any of these visits.

 

Where's the "Wow factor" in any of this? In your "New World Evidence" category, I can see a bit of it, there is none in any of these four. Zero. Waymarking has taken away the problem of "too many crappy virtuals being submitted" and replaced it with "an entire site filled with crappy virtuals" that requires you to wade through the junk to find the gem. Instead of Joe Reviewer being my filter to eliminate stuff unworthy of my time, I now have to do it myself.

 

Put it another way. Let's say that there's an absolutely cool McDonalds someplace. Three stories tall, free cheeseburgers, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, whatever. Under gc.com, it would have gone in as a virtual, and would have popped up on a PQ if I was visiting. Under wm.com, it's going in as a McDonalds, and, because 99.9% of McDonalds are crap and I'm not interested in seeking them, I ignore the whole category and I'm going to miss it. That extends through any category that I don't have some sort of OCD connection to, because I don't want to fill up my PQ, GPSr and schedule finding historical markers that are of questionable importance or value.

 

Along with the confusing interface and lack of connection to gc.com, that's, I think, the reason that Waymarking doesn't get the visitors, support and enthusiasm that virtuals did. And why there is a "bring back virtuals" thread here, pretty much all of the time. The decision not to do so is a business one, but, short of bannination for anyone talking about it, the discussion and dissent is never going away, because while it might make perfect sense to Groundspeak and the reviewers that had to deal with crappy virtuals, it doesn't make perfect sense to seekers.

 

BTW, google maps appear on all of those waymark pages, even though I'd turned them off on the category listing, and there is no way to turn them off on that page. Just an FYI, since the comment was made yesterday that they could be turned off if they slowed things down too much.

 

So maybe the Waymarking game is more about finding and creating a locationless rather than logging someone else's locationless find.....

 

My point exactly.

[+Crystal Sound]

I cannot argue the fact that my 68 waymarks get far fewer visits than my 13 (active) geocaches.

 

But after having gone through permit applications to be able to place geocaches in interesting locations, and then watch them get a mere fraction of the visits that my "lame" caches get, its almost heartbreaking.

 

I've put out caches loaded with good swag, and then within one month, only junk remains. (As evidenced by the cache that was placed loaded with foreign coins, and less than one month later, was filled with pennies.)

 

It's obvious to me, that there are a small percentage of people who truly care about visiting interesting places. Everyone else just wants to find a box of junk.....

 

To each their own...

 

I create waymarks and categories for my own benefit. If someone wants to visit, fine. If not, fine. But at least I'm not paying for ammo boxes, log books, and trade items that only seem to get stolen or vandalized.

 

Maybe I dont wake up in the morning and think "what a great day for Waymarking", but on those days that I can choose to waymark or geocache - I've decided to waymark more times than geocache.