Jump to content

Locationless (Reverse) Cache


Recommended Posts

Interesting that the OP linked to the smashed penny locationless. It's proving to be a popular Waymarking category. I waymarked one earlier in the week! On that day, I also waymarked a Pennsylvania historic marker, an amusement park, a National Register of Historic Places location, a carousel, five rollercoasters, a manmade waterfall, three cool fountains, a classic neon sign, a battlefield location, and a statue of George Washington. Then I got back in my car. I have never had so much fun at an amusement park!

Link to comment

You won't find them, they've all been archived.

Really????

Waymarking bud.

 

Good news,you can find McDonalds and pay phones!

 

:huh::rolleyes:<_<:huh:

Can you still log them as location less caches? :anitongue:

 

Yup...in your Waymarking stats. :anitongue:

 

Edit-That means you must do Waymarking AND Geocaching because they're different counts. ;)

But on Geocaching.com ;):rolleyes:

See post #3 for details.(Offer not vaild on Mars,while supplies last).

Link to comment

Interesting that the OP linked to the smashed penny locationless. It's proving to be a popular Waymarking category. I waymarked one earlier in the week! On that day, I also waymarked a Pennsylvania historic marker, an amusement park, a National Register of Historic Places location, a carousel, five rollercoasters, a manmade waterfall, three cool fountains, a classic neon sign, a battlefield location, and a statue of George Washington. Then I got back in my car. I have never had so much fun at an amusement park!

I find actually riding the rollercoasters far more satisfying. :anitongue::anitongue:

Link to comment

Interesting that the OP linked to the smashed penny locationless. It's proving to be a popular Waymarking category. I waymarked one earlier in the week! On that day, I also waymarked a Pennsylvania historic marker, an amusement park, a National Register of Historic Places location, a carousel, five rollercoasters, a manmade waterfall, three cool fountains, a classic neon sign, a battlefield location, and a statue of George Washington. Then I got back in my car. I have never had so much fun at an amusement park!

It is nice to know that some Waymarks actually get visits . . . most of the ones I took the time to create don't . . . even if they are located in busy, popular city parks . . . :anitongue: . . . or near Geocaches that get found . . . :rolleyes:

 

As for Locationless caches, there are a lot here. :anitongue:

Link to comment

I think Waymarking works very well as a replacement for the old Locationless Cache concept. I've enjoyed creating many waymarks in a number of categories that are of interest to me. You don't get a GC.com smiley for creating a waymark, but that doesn't bother me in the least.

 

In regard to several of the post in this thread that mention waymark visits: I don't see how talk of waymark visits is in any way related to the OP's topic of Locationless caches. The Waymarking equivalent of a Locationless cache is the creation of a new Waymark, not the visit of an existing waymark (two very different things). There was never a concept of a 'visit' for Locationless caches, so raising the issue of whether or not waymarks get visited is unrelated to this Locationless cache discussion.

Link to comment

In regard to several of the post in this thread that mention waymark visits: I don't see how talk of waymark visits is in any way related to the OP's topic of Locationless caches. The Waymarking equivalent of a Locationless cache is the creation of a new Waymark, not the visit of an existing waymark (two very different things). There was never a concept of a 'visit' for Locationless caches, so raising the issue of whether or not waymarks get visited is unrelated to this Locationless cache discussion.

To find the types of things to waymark, you have to visit the Waymarking site- which is a headache in itself.

Link to comment

In regard to several of the post in this thread that mention waymark visits: I don't see how talk of waymark visits is in any way related to the OP's topic of Locationless caches. The Waymarking equivalent of a Locationless cache is the creation of a new Waymark, not the visit of an existing waymark (two very different things). There was never a concept of a 'visit' for Locationless caches, so raising the issue of whether or not waymarks get visited is unrelated to this Locationless cache discussion.

To find the types of things to waymark, you have to visit the Waymarking site- which is a headache in itself.

I personally don't have any problem making my way around the Waymarking site. It is very different than GC.com, but so are most of the web sites I visit on any given day. And the Waymarking site has gone through a number of updates since it was first introduced, resulting in an even better experience (for me, anyway).

 

Having said that, I realize that not everyone is comfortable with the way it works. That's fine, and a fair subject of discussion.

Link to comment

To find the types of things to waymark, you have to visit the Waymarking site- which is a headache in itself.

Speaking of headaches, as long as we are comparing Locationless caches to creating Waymarks, the two biggest problems with LCs were 1) the horrible performance issues that used to be associated with Locationless caches (some pages would take 10 minutes to bring up), and 2) trying to figure out whether or not someone had already logged a particular location. Waymarking solved both these problems quite elegantly.

 

I'd say getting those issues fixed were well worth any price paid for having to learn a new user interface.

 

edit: typed "where", meant to type "were". Duh.

Edited by cache_test_dummies
Link to comment

Interesting that the OP linked to the smashed penny locationless. It's proving to be a popular Waymarking category. I waymarked one earlier in the week! On that day, I also waymarked a Pennsylvania historic marker, an amusement park, a National Register of Historic Places location, a carousel, five rollercoasters, a manmade waterfall, three cool fountains, a classic neon sign, a battlefield location, and a statue of George Washington. Then I got back in my car. I have never had so much fun at an amusement park!

It is nice to know that some Waymarks actually get visits . . . most of the ones I took the time to create don't . . . even if they are located in busy, popular city parks . . . :blink: . . . or near Geocaches that get found . . . :)

 

As for Locationless caches, there are a lot here. :)

 

Interesting .... I did not know there was a separatist society

Link to comment

I think Waymarking works very well as a replacement for the old Locationless Cache concept. I've enjoyed creating many waymarks in a number of categories that are of interest to me. You don't get a GC.com smiley for creating a waymark, but that doesn't bother me in the least.

 

In regard to several of the post in this thread that mention waymark visits: I don't see how talk of waymark visits is in any way related to the OP's topic of Locationless caches. The Waymarking equivalent of a Locationless cache is the creation of a new Waymark, not the visit of an existing waymark (two very different things). There was never a concept of a 'visit' for Locationless caches, so raising the issue of whether or not waymarks get visited is unrelated to this Locationless cache discussion.

One difference in "finding" a locationless and "reporting" a waymark is that to find a locationless you basically just entered a found it log like you do for finding a geocache. The difference is that you always posted the coordinates for where you "found" the locationless cache and usually you were required to post a picture as well. To report a waymark you have to fill in a form that is more like creating a new cache page. This requires having a name and a description for your waymark, as well as the coordinates. You often have to know the values for several category specific variables and will almost always need to post one or more pictures. There is a lot more work to "report" a waymark.

 

To find the types of things to waymark, you have to visit the Waymarking site- which is a headache in itself.

 

The Waymarking site may seem like a headache to a geocacher. Especially if you were not around when locationless caches were active. There was no organization of locationless caches - essentially you had to search through every locationless cache to see if there were any you might want to find. The hierarchical categories of Waymarking allows you to find categories you might be more interested in. Also there was no way to see what locations in your area were already used for a locationless cache. A few people wrote offline scripts that essentially scraped the locationless logs to see what locations had already been used. In Waymarking it is very easy to see what locations have been reported in any category in your area. And when you report a new waymark you are given a warning if there are others in the same category close by.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...