Bring back virtuals (just the counts)

[+ChileHead]

About every 30 minutes somebody posts a topic asking for virtuals to be brought back to geocaching.com because they don't think anybody else ever posted such a topic.

 

The answer usually goes "They aren't coming back, go to Waymarking.com" "No I don't want to, Waymarking.com sucks", "blah blah blah"

 

Wouldn't it be fun to see how many of these anti Waymarking.com people change their tune, if for a period of one week and one week only, any finds you make on Waymarking.com were automatically added to your geocaching.com find count?

 

Just a thought of a one week sort of promotion for Waymarking.

 

I'm not about the numbers, but it would be fun to watch the finds roll in.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

I still say Waymaking is made of awesome.

 

- Elle

[+supertbone]

About every 30 minutes somebody posts a topic asking for virtuals to be brought back to geocaching.com because they don't think anybody else ever posted such a topic.

 

The answer usually goes "They aren't coming back, go to Waymarking.com" "No I don't want to, Waymarking.com sucks", "blah blah blah"

 

Wouldn't it be fun to see how many of these anti Waymarking.com people change their tune, if for a period of one week and one week only, any finds you make on Waymarking.com were automatically added to your geocaching.com find count?

 

Just a thought of a one week sort of promotion for Waymarking.

 

I'm not about the numbers, but it would be fun to watch the finds roll in.

 

Including WM in find counts and having Waymarking PQs would increase activity in Waymarking a lot. Personally, I wish virtuals would come back.

[+MountainMudbug]

You could quadruple the counts.... it still wouldn't get me to like Waymarking.

[+Isonzo Karst]

If it had a Waymarking icon attached to it, I'd do one for the icon. I suspect that would be all, but I'd definitely nail that icon while it was available.

[+BruceS]

About every 30 minutes somebody posts a topic asking for virtuals to be brought back to geocaching.com because they don't think anybody else ever posted such a topic.

 

The answer usually goes "They aren't coming back, go to Waymarking.com" "No I don't want to, Waymarking.com sucks", "blah blah blah"

 

Wouldn't it be fun to see how many of these anti Waymarking.com people change their tune, if for a period of one week and one week only, any finds you make on Waymarking.com were automatically added to your geocaching.com find count?

 

Just a thought of a one week sort of promotion for Waymarking.

 

I'm not about the numbers, but it would be fun to watch the finds roll in.

 

If that were to happen just let me know a few days in advance so I can redirect Groundspeak email for the duration. With over 5,000 waymarks in over 30 states I would probably get a few visits

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

If that were to happen just let me know a few days in advance so I can redirect Groundspeak email for the duration. With over 5,000 waymarks in over 30 states I would probably get a few visits

 

You've posted 5341 Waymarks and visited 194?

 

How does that work?

 

Does one look about the internet, see some place that might be cool and create a Waymark for it?

 

Or have you been to those 5341 places?

[+briansnat]

You've posted 5341 Waymarks and visited 194?

 

How does that work?

 

Does one look about the internet, see some place that might be cool and create a Waymark for it?

 

Or have you been to those 5341 places?

 

I can't speak for Bruce, but I got involved in Waymarking when I was laid up and really enjoy it.

 

Like many waymarkers I find some categories that interest me and keep my eyes open for possible waymarks in those categories. I know Bruce is big on Waymarking National Register of Historic Places sites. It's one of my favorite categories as well.

 

I may not actually visit the site specifically to create a waymark, but they are always places that I have visited

at one time or another. Perhaps when it was a virtual, or a real cache, or maybe for some other reason.

 

Most waymark submissions require original photos, so a visit to the site at one time or another is usually a requirement. For instance I found this cache a few years ago. Using the coords from that cache and my photos from my visit I created this

this waymark and have another pending approval because its also on the National Register of Historic Places.

 

I visited this sitewhile on vacation several years ago and used the photos from that visit and coords from Google Earth to create the waymark.

 

This is a virtual cache that I visited in 2002. I used the coordinates of the virt and some photos I took back then to create this waymark.

 

Someone like Bruce who has about 10 times as many geocache finds as I do probably has a huge mental library of places to waymark.

Edited August 22, 2008 by briansnat

[+NYPaddleCacher]

 

Most waymark submissions require original photos, so a visit to the site at one time or another is usually a requirement. For instance I found this cache a few years ago. Using the coords from that cache and my photos from my visit I created this

this waymark and have another pending approval because its also on the National Register of Historic Places.

 

I wonder if it would make more sense to require an ALR for a waymark which requires finders to provide some information to the owner that is only available by visiting the location. That would also imply that the owner visited the waymark site to obtain that information as well.

[+gof1]

Hey Chilehead, how do you decide how big a spoon to use when stirring the pot?

[Dinoprophet]

If that were to happen just let me know a few days in advance so I can redirect Groundspeak email for the duration. With over 5,000 waymarks in over 30 states I would probably get a few visits

 

You've posted 5341 Waymarks and visited 194?

 

How does that work?

 

Does one look about the internet, see some place that might be cool and create a Waymark for it?

 

Or have you been to those 5341 places?

Posting and visiting are two different things. Posting (or creating) is analogous to owning a virtual cache; visiting is analogous to logging one.

 

Some people do post visits for waymarks that they've created, but not many. I'm sure some wm-hater will yell that that's like logging a find on your own caches, but it isn't. You can't find something you hid; you can visit something you found.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Dinoprophet

[Mr.Yuck]

If that were to happen just let me know a few days in advance so I can redirect Groundspeak email for the duration. With over 5,000 waymarks in over 30 states I would probably get a few visits

 

You've posted 5341 Waymarks and visited 194?

 

How does that work?

 

Does one look about the internet, see some place that might be cool and create a Waymark for it?

 

Or have you been to those 5341 places?

 

Well it is true that Waymarking evolved into a creators game, with hardly anyone ever visiting them. There is a rabid cult following, and they do a great job of writing stuff up.

 

Except for me, I've visited over 50, and never created any. But I'm like the only one. I even have a couple of medals. Woohoo!

[+BruceS]

If that were to happen just let me know a few days in advance so I can redirect Groundspeak email for the duration. With over 5,000 waymarks in over 30 states I would probably get a few visits

 

You've posted 5341 Waymarks and visited 194?

 

How does that work?

 

Does one look about the internet, see some place that might be cool and create a Waymark for it?

 

Or have you been to those 5341 places?

 

I have been to those places. I don't post visits on my own waymarks (though that is acceptable and many do). I have taken more than 15,000 photos while Waymarking. All my waymarks were visits specifically for Waymarking because prior to this I never took photos of places I had been.

 

As Brian stated earlier I somewhat specialize on buildings on the National Register of Historic Places which I have over 1,000 waymarks in that category. Each of these usually involves some research to find information about the building and its historical significance. Each of the locations has been visited and I have taken a few photos of each.

 

I also "specialize" in old church buildings (over 100 years), sites listed in the American Guide series (a set of travel guides written during the Great Depression), graves of Revolutionary War veterans (not easy for someone west of the Mississippi) and other non-commercial categories.

Edited August 22, 2008 by BruceS

[+BruceS]

duplicate

Edited August 22, 2008 by BruceS

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

 

Well it is true that Waymarking evolved into a creators game, with hardly anyone ever visiting them. There is a rabid cult following, and they do a great job of writing stuff up.

 

Except for me, I've visited over 50, and never created any. But I'm like the only one. I even have a couple of medals. Woohoo!

 

I think it's awesome that you're logging visits. A lot of geocachers don't even realise that when they find one of my caches, they could've logged three or four visits to different waymarks (and would know about it just by clicking the Nearest Waymarks link on the cache page).

 

Maybe with the more that areas get filedl up with waymarks, people will start visiting more. I enjoy visiting others' waymarks, especially when someone finds something in my area. It means there was something that I didn't see and, thanks to them, now I see it and know about it.

 

pseudoprime had written a list of benefits in visiting waymarks in the Waymarking forums.

 

- Elle

[+ChileHead]

Hey Chilehead, how do you decide how big a spoon to use when stirring the pot?

 

As big as I can find.

 

I am serious though. I'm not a huge Waymarking fan, but have dabbled with it here and there. I think it's a big improvement over what we used to have here with virtuals and locationless, and IMHO the main reason people don't visit the virtual equivalents is that they get no for it on geocaching.com

 

I really don't want to include wm stats on gc, but thought it would be an interesting short term experiment.

[Dinoprophet]

Hey Chilehead, how do you decide how big a spoon to use when stirring the pot?

 

As big as I can find.

 

I am serious though. I'm not a huge Waymarking fan, but have dabbled with it here and there. I think it's a big improvement over what we used to have here with virtuals and locationless, and IMHO the main reason people don't visit the virtual equivalents is that they get no for it on geocaching.com

 

I really don't want to include wm stats on gc, but thought it would be an interesting short term experiment.

It could be that, and it would be interesting to see. But even avid waymarkers tend to not log visits, despite there being a Visit Count. I think it's more the learning curve. It's not exactly like geocaching, and the terminology takes some getting used to. "Hide a cache, find a cache" is pretty straightforward. It's not quite so obvious how categories, waymarks, and visits all tie together (as evidenced by some questions in this thread). It's all very clear once you know what's what.

[Clan Riffster]

If it had a Waymarking icon attached to it, I'd do one for the icon.

Yup! Gimme a sparkly new icon and I'll go away quietly, mumbling to myself. I'll add it to my one virt icon.

[+BruceS]

If it had a Waymarking icon attached to it, I'd do one for the icon.

Yup! Gimme a sparkly new icon and I'll go away quietly, mumbling to myself. I'll add it to my one virt icon.

 

Every category at Waymarking has its own icon so there are 750+ icons available. and they are nicely arranged in a grid.

Edited August 22, 2008 by BruceS

[+tozainamboku]

 

Posting and visiting are two different things. Posting (or creating) is analogous to owning a virtual cache; visiting is analogous to logging one.

 

Some people do post visits for waymarks that they've created, but not many. I'm sure some wm-hater will yell that that's like logging a find on your own caches, but it isn't. You can't find something you hid; you can visit something you found.

However what is more interesting is that while you can find a cache or attend the same event more than once, you can't visit the same waymark more than one time. Once you have have logged a visit on a waymark that option goes away on Waymarking.com while on Geocaching.com the Found It and Attended log options never go away. This alone has convinced me that the only thing we can predict about Groundspeak guidelines is that they will be inconsistent.

[Dinoprophet]

 

Posting and visiting are two different things. Posting (or creating) is analogous to owning a virtual cache; visiting is analogous to logging one.

 

Some people do post visits for waymarks that they've created, but not many. I'm sure some wm-hater will yell that that's like logging a find on your own caches, but it isn't. You can't find something you hid; you can visit something you found.

However what is more interesting is that while you can find a cache or attend the same event more than once, you can't visit the same waymark more than one time. Once you have have logged a visit on a waymark that option goes away on Waymarking.com while on Geocaching.com the Found It and Attended log options never go away. This alone has convinced me that the only thing we can predict about Groundspeak guidelines is that they will be inconsistent.

Huh, I didn't realize that (but just verified it). That is strange.

[+Renegade Knight]

About every 30 minutes somebody posts a topic asking for virtuals to be brought back to geocaching.com because they don't think anybody else ever posted such a topic.

 

The answer usually goes "They aren't coming back, go to Waymarking.com" "No I don't want to, Waymarking.com sucks", "blah blah blah"

 

Wouldn't it be fun to see how many of these anti Waymarking.com people change their tune, if for a period of one week and one week only, any finds you make on Waymarking.com were automatically added to your geocaching.com find count?

 

Just a thought of a one week sort of promotion for Waymarking.

 

I'm not about the numbers, but it would be fun to watch the finds roll in.

 

It wouldn't change anything in my world. Waymarks are not part of my PQ's. They are a separate universe with different rules, means, and methods. I don't like that the main problem with locationless wasn't solved. Therefore I won't even bother with anything other than a "visit". However for a visit the main element that made it like a cache (and interesting) is gone. Rolling up my zero waymark finds with my cache finds would change nothing. I'm not on Waymarking because it's another thing and caching is my thing.

 

Where I may use a waymark is if I want a local example of something that may be a waymark. Then I might check for "Frank Lloyd Wright" and see if he's got something nearby that I can go look at. Even then there is only a 20% chance I'd log my visit because the interest is reversed. I'm not finding the house because of the quest presented by the waymark. I'm using the waymark to find the house because of non caching reasons.

 

Now if they ever had a cache challenge that required a icon for each kind of cache, and APE caches were still around then I might do a waymark for the icon, for that cache. If they wanted all 750 Icons. Nope.

[Dinoprophet]

I don't like that the main problem with locationless wasn't solved. Therefore I won't even bother with anything other than a "visit". However for a visit the main element that made it like a cache (and interesting) is gone. Rolling up my zero waymark finds with my cache finds would change nothing. I'm not on Waymarking because it's another thing and caching is my thing.

A little off topic for a second: RK, you've mentioned the unsolved problem with locationless before but not what it is. As I see it, wm fixes everything that was wrong with locationless, so I'm honestly curious what you still find wrong with it.

 

Where I may use a waymark is if I want a local example of something that may be a waymark. Then I might check for "Frank Lloyd Wright" and see if he's got something nearby that I can go look at. Even then there is only a 20% chance I'd log my visit because the interest is reversed. I'm not finding the house because of the quest presented by the waymark. I'm using the waymark to find the house because of non caching reasons.

That is one major difference between wm and gc. Besides the game aspect, Waymarking is meant to be used that way. That's why you'll find a single object marked under many categories.

 

But visiting is also the closest thing we have to virtuals. Someone marks an interesting thing, you go see it, and you submit your photo as proof. The biggest difference -- and it is a big one -- is you know exactly what you're going to see. Often, virtual caches were a mystery until you got there (though not always. In fact of my sixteen virt finds, only two were mysteries).

[+briansnat]

 

Most waymark submissions require original photos, so a visit to the site at one time or another is usually a requirement. For instance I found this cache a few years ago. Using the coords from that cache and my photos from my visit I created this

this waymark and have another pending approval because its also on the National Register of Historic Places.

 

I wonder if it would make more sense to require an ALR for a waymark which requires finders to provide some information to the owner that is only available by visiting the location. That would also imply that the owner visited the waymark site to obtain that information as well.

 

Most waymarks require some proof of a visit. Usually a photo, sometimes with a GPS in it. It's up to the category owner to decide if and what kind of proof he wants for visits.

 

Well it is true that Waymarking evolved into a creators game, with hardly anyone ever visiting them

 

Visits are picking up. I'm starting to get logs for my waymarks.

[4wheelin_fool]

Wouldn't it be fun to see how many of these anti Waymarking.com people change their tune, if for a period of one week and one week only, any finds you make on Waymarking.com were automatically added to your geocaching.com find count?

 

They don't really need to add it to the find count. If the stats just simply appeared on the profile page automatically (like benchmarks) there would be a sharp increase.

 

There are 5 tabs - Profile, Geocaches, Trackables, Gallery, and Bookmark Lists. Just add Waymarks and that would be even better.

Edited August 22, 2008 by 4wheelin_fool

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I can do totally without the stats on either site, they are very rarely accurate, mean nothing and just cause misunderstanding.

 

What I am awaiting for WM is a PQ feature; the ability to get a GC.com caches PQ that also includes the WMs in that area - now that would rock!

 

Thanks for answering my questions. When I saw someone with 5000+ WMs I immediately thought of armchair caching and wondered if this was the Waymarking equivalent. That he's been to all those places and created WMs for them is true dedication to the game and has my respect!

[Dinoprophet]

I can do totally without the stats on either site, they are very rarely accurate, mean nothing and just cause misunderstanding.

 

What I am awaiting for WM is a PQ feature; the ability to get a GC.com caches PQ that also includes the WMs in that area - now that would rock!

As are we all. The demand is high, so I really hope it's soon.

 

Thanks for answering my questions. When I saw someone with 5000+ WMs I immediately thought of armchair caching and wondered if this was the Waymarking equivalent. That he's been to all those places and created WMs for them is true dedication to the game and has my respect!

And that's just his WM profile. Did you see his GC profile?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

And that's just his WM profile. Did you see his GC profile?

Well, yeah, I gotta admit that 5000 cache finds and 5341 waymarks is what made me think "armchair!". Ooops.

[+BruceS]

And that's just his WM profile. Did you see his GC profile?

Well, yeah, I gotta admit that 5000 cache finds and 5341 waymarks is what made me think "armchair!". Ooops.

 

Trust me the easy part was the visiting the locations... the hard part is the part in the armchair typing them all up. At any time I have several hundred in my queue to enter where I have enjoyed a visit to the location, taken coordinates, taken photos and done the preliminary research. I just need about 10 week of rainy weather to get caught up

 

Your home state is the only one I have left in the southeast to get a waymark in. I guess I will have to find some excuse to drive into Alabama. (Is it on the way from Missouri to New Mexico... I guess it could be )

Edited August 22, 2008 by BruceS

[+Renegade Knight]

I don't like that the main problem with locationless wasn't solved. Therefore I won't even bother with anything other than a "visit". However for a visit the main element that made it like a cache (and interesting) is gone. Rolling up my zero waymark finds with my cache finds would change nothing. I'm not on Waymarking because it's another thing and caching is my thing.

A little off topic for a second: RK, you've mentioned the unsolved problem with locationless before but not what it is. As I see it, wm fixes everything that was wrong with locationless, so I'm honestly curious what you still find wrong with it....

 

If you think of locationless as a scavenger hunt then the challenge is to find the items on the list. Just like the real deal. The problem is that we don't all get the list at the same time. Whoever comes first, finds the item then that's it. Done. No more finds. The problem is the one find per locationless. The alternate solution is to hide all finds until you have found it yourself. Then you can read the logs.

 

I spent a lot of time working to find a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Idaho. There is one. It's in Bliss. Someone drove through, logged it, and forever shut out my find. For me the challenge was the effort to find the house and check off the item on my scavenger list. Logging a visit on their solution isn't the same as posting my own.

 

If the logs were hidden then I could enjoy my list, do the work and then post my log, then when I can see the other logs I could see that the other logs and compare notes with my fellow scavengers.

 

The concept of a visit solves another problem with locationless. It was & is a good new spin on the whole locationless issue. The spin that I enjoyed is still only there for the FTF. I want to take my own time in my spare time.

[Dinoprophet]

I see. I've viewed visits as solving the multiple log problem, but I understand what you're saying about doing the work, or even just knowing more than someone else, and not being able to post it. Kind of like having an awesome idea for a cache, then someone dumps a lame <insert your own definition of lame> cache in the spot first.

 

I know that the site will let you submit a waymark even if it is a double in the category. But it's then up to the reviewers to decide whether it is accepted or not. I don't know how often double posts are accepted or how it's viewed by the community.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Dinoprophet

[+BruceS]

I see. I've viewed visits as solving the multiple log problem, but I understand what you're saying about doing the work, or even just knowing more than someone else, and not being able to post it. Kind of like having an awesome idea for a cache, then someone dumps a lame <insert your own definition of lame> cache in the spot first.

 

I know that the site will let you submit a waymark even if it is a double in the category. But it's then up to the reviewers to decide whether it is accepted or not. I don't know how often double posts are accepted or how it's viewed by the community.

 

Sometimes you kind of have to settle for the "consolation prize" and take it as a visit, though I try not to view it that way, I enjoyed my visit either way, how it shows on a website does not change the enjoyment I had visiting the site. As a waymark owner I appreciate greatly when someone puts something in a visit log which I did not know about the site and often will update my waymark with their information and credit it to the provider.

 

Many times I will find a different category to submit the waymark to. In the case of a Frank Lloyd Wright house, maybe someone else submitted in the Wright category but maybe it is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (as many of them are) and I can show my good write up in that category instead.

[+gof1]

 

Posting and visiting are two different things. Posting (or creating) is analogous to owning a virtual cache; visiting is analogous to logging one.

 

Some people do post visits for waymarks that they've created, but not many. I'm sure some wm-hater will yell that that's like logging a find on your own caches, but it isn't. You can't find something you hid; you can visit something you found.

However what is more interesting is that while you can find a cache or attend the same event more than once, you can't visit the same waymark more than one time. Once you have have logged a visit on a waymark that option goes away on Waymarking.com while on Geocaching.com the Found It and Attended log options never go away. This alone has convinced me that the only thing we can predict about Groundspeak guidelines is that they will be inconsistent.

 

Look! A thread about Waymarking! I'll bet I can twist it to suit my own agenda!

(Thread begins it's slow slide over the edge into one of the same old same old arguments by all the same old suspects.)

[Clan Riffster]

Gof, is that my cue to toss in an anti-film canister slur?

 

Seriously though, I own two waymarks. While I can't point at anything specific about WM's that irk me, they just aren't my cup of tea... yet. Maybe some day I'll get the bug, but I ain't holdin' my breath. They just feel too much like virts to me.

[+gof1]

As long as you are tossing it into an ammo can. But then someone will complain it is to far from the parking and it's just another can under a pile of sticks.

 

I agree about the WMs just not being my cup of tea as you say. I'm gonna save 'em for when the bomb squads have blown up the last "real" geocache.

[+Sioneva]

The reasons that Waymarking doesn't hold my interest is my perception of it as a "lazy way" of geocaching. This is solely MY perception, and I have a royalty on it - if you share it, that's great, but you gotta cough up some money.

 

A large part of the reason I enjoy geocaching is the time and effort someone else puts into creating and hiding a cache, and the time and effort that I put into finding it, or vice versa, if I'm the one hiding the cache. Waymarking doesn't really require much creativity or effort, IMHO... you're marking something that already exists, not creating something new. I don't go after benchmarks either - same reason.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

The reasons that Waymarking doesn't hold my interest is my perception of it as a "lazy way" of geocaching. This is solely MY perception, and I have a royalty on it - if you share it, that's great, but you gotta cough up some money.

 

A large part of the reason I enjoy geocaching is the time and effort someone else puts into creating and hiding a cache, and the time and effort that I put into finding it, or vice versa, if I'm the one hiding the cache. Waymarking doesn't really require much creativity or effort, IMHO... you're marking something that already exists, not creating something new. I don't go after benchmarks either - same reason.

 

I do a great deal of research and writing when I post a waymark. I appreciate the time, effort and perception of visiting another's posted waymark.

 

The mosquitos ate me alive, the thorns scratched the hell out of me and I had three ticks (and that was wearing long denim pants, a long sleeve shirt and bug repellent) at WM4860. No one's going to tell me this is was lazy. This place could never have a geocache here because you have no way of knowing what's a grave. I doubt anybody geocaching would really understand the severity of this location if they were just after a bit of tupperware. But I can get all that information out with Waymarking, especially since it's not easy to find any resources about this place anywhere else.

 

You don't like Waymarking. Cool. One can't expect Waymarking to be like geocaching. It was born from virtuals but it's clearly evolved into a different activity that's organised and approached much differently than geocaching ever will be. There's a great amount of variation in this activity, from places that you can find in a phonebook to places that you would never know existed if it weren't for a waymarker taking the time to go out there. You're not finding a logbook, you're finding a place. There's no competition in it. It's all experience.

 

And I believe that fulfills my Waymarking Cheerleading quota for today.

 

- Elle

[4wheelin_fool]

About every 30 minutes somebody posts a topic asking for virtuals to be brought back to geocaching.com because they don't think anybody else ever posted such a topic.

 

It has slowed to one every few weeks now.

[+Manville Possum]

BruceS was the person that suggested Waymarking to me, I have a interest in history. I enjoy Waymarking and virtuals more than most geocaches. I enjoy EarthCaches also, and I have listed a few as Waymarks. I enjoy taking photos, so Waymarking fit what I was looking for.

 

Thanks again BruceS for letting me know that there is more to Waymarking than McD's and phone booths.

[+St.Matthew]

Waymarking has such potential that is not being utilized. I submitted a waymark and it took the category leaders 5 months to approve it.

Edited September 6, 2012 by St.Matthew

[Mr.Yuck]

Waymarking has such potential that is not being utilized. I submitted a waymark and it took the category leaders 5 months to approve it.

 

They have had problems with inactive leaders from what I've heard. I would have posted in their forums for advice, or maybe even pestered Opinionate, the chief Lackey in charge, personally.

[+Manville Possum]

Waymarking has such potential that is not being utilized. I submitted a waymark and it took the category leaders 5 months to approve it.

 

They have had problems with inactive leaders from what I've heard. I would have posted in their forums for advice, or maybe even pestered Opinionate, the chief Lackey in charge, personally.

Yes, I have had the same issues. And yes, I pester whoever it takes. Many category leaders have not signed on in years, so I just contact a member that has signed on most recent. I also manage a category and I try to list in less than 24 hours.