Jump to content

Obligatory Waymarking Post


Recommended Posts

What makes Waymarking lame? I've been genuinely curious to find a rational answer to this question.

 

Personally, I have no problems with Geocaching or Waymarking and don't care that they're separate (but related) hobbies. My Waymarks don't show up in my Geocaching count, but I have a Waymarking counter to take care of that.

 

Last weekend I logged a visit to a Waymark. A few days later, I remembered that it was also a Virtual so I logged a find. Identical Virtual and Waymark. I'd be hard pressed to know what makes one cool and the other lame when they're exactly the same. The differences are that only one was very easy to find using a category search, and only one was counted in my Geocaching stats... but the other wasn't uncounted, it was counted in my Waymarking stats. So, I'm still at a loss for why Virtuals is a better system for creating, maintaining and visiting notable locations.

 

While I was visiting that Waymark and Virtual, I was able to waymark a couple more things about the area. Waymarking seems a lot more interactive than Virtuals would have ever allowed and it's neatly organised. It's no longer a proverbial junk drawer of notable places. If Geocaching was Oscar Madison, Waymarking would be Felix Ungar.

 

So, what makes the Waymark lame compared to identical Virtual? Is it just the count on the geocaching total and the separation of hobbies? Do you just want higher Geocaching numbers for Waymarking?

 

Since I enjoy Geocaching and Waymarking and have no problems with either, I'm genuinely curious why Waymarking is considered so lame in comparison to Virtuals.

 

- Elle

Link to comment

I think maybe they are percieved as "lame" because there is little or no mystery about the waypoint. Many of them are complete with a big write-up and 3 or 4 pictures. You can research it on the web, and for many, you don't have to go there in order to know about it. It sort of takes the "adventure" out of it.

 

I didn't know quite how to put it, but you did well. This is the basic issue for me. Note that this can be the same for some Virtuals as well, Germany in particular is famous for having cachers that log a Virtual using "Google research" without visiting and there are Bookmarks of "Armchair caches" that are mostly virtuals you can technically do this way. Sometimes they have been archived by either admins or more often a virtual cache owner who really does want you to visit it.

 

Would also be nice to have both on one site. The smiley count I think is a factor for many others, virtuals can get very popular as supposed "easy smilies" compared to other caches.

Link to comment

There's a perception about virtuals that there's some sort of mystery involved with them, as it comes up over and over in virtuals vs. Waymarking topics. I just have not found that to be true.

 

I looked at the last 25 virtuals that I've done (out of 101), and these are the stats from those 25 that show this not to be true:

 

- Only 3 of them have no description or photos in their gallery, lending that "mystery" or "surprise" or "unexpected" criteria that is mentioned often. In all three cases, I wasn't taken to some great, unexpected find. One was a plaque about an accident, one was a non-descript sculpture, one was a historic plaque.

 

- 15 of them describe the spot that they take you to in description, some in great detail.

 

- All but the 3 mentioned before, have galleries with pictures of the virtual. 10 of them even have 95 + pictures in their gallery, up to 686 pictures in the largest gallery.

 

- 6 of them I found the answers to in a very brief google search/search of the virt itself. 2 more virts didn't even ask for answers.

 

I just don't see any support for the argument that virtuals bring you to a mystery/surprise location. In the end, I'd much rather use the Waymarking site, because at least it does an excellent job of organizing everything, so I can find and keep track of it easily. I personally like knowing what I'm going to, so I can learn something from the site, remember what I visited later when looking back, and so I can feel free in posting the pictures that I want to.

Link to comment

There's a perception about virtuals that there's some sort of mystery involved with them, as it comes up over and over in virtuals vs. Waymarking topics. I just have not found that to be true.

 

I looked at the last 25 virtuals that I've done (out of 101), and these are the stats from those 25 that show this not to be true:

 

- Only 3 of them have no description or photos in their gallery, lending that "mystery" or "surprise" or "unexpected" criteria that is mentioned often. In all three cases, I wasn't taken to some great, unexpected find. One was a plaque about an accident, one was a non-descript sculpture, one was a historic plaque.

 

- 15 of them describe the spot that they take you to in description, some in great detail.

 

- All but the 3 mentioned before, have galleries with pictures of the virtual. 10 of them even have 95 + pictures in their gallery, up to 686 pictures in the largest gallery.

 

- 6 of them I found the answers to in a very brief google search/search of the virt itself. 2 more virts didn't even ask for answers.

 

I just don't see any support for the argument that virtuals bring you to a mystery/surprise location. In the end, I'd much rather use the Waymarking site, because at least it does an excellent job of organizing everything, so I can find and keep track of it easily. I personally like knowing what I'm going to, so I can learn something from the site, remember what I visited later when looking back, and so I can feel free in posting the pictures that I want to.

 

I didn't say that I personally found waymarks to be "lame". Quite the contrary. However, the majority of the virtuals around this area don't come anywhere near the description that most of the waymarks have.

I simply posed this as one of the possible answers the OP's question.

What would your research then tell you might be the answer, because there certainly seems to be some reason for the label?

Simply because there are no smilies?

Edited by BC & MsKitty
Link to comment

Ambrosia is right in that only a few virtuals really were ones where the description didn't say what you would find, where you would go to the coordinates and be surprised by what the object was that you were to look for. However, since many did have a verification question to answer, there was still a bit of mystery. Unless you live in Germany and were willing to spend hours searching the Internet, you had to go to the location and find something there that had the answer to the question. Not every virtual did this, but those that did were IMO caches because you used your GPS to get close enough to the target that you could search and find out the answers to the verification questions.

 

Most waymarks don't have this verification requirement. At most a visitor is asked to post a picture as proof they were at the site. There is no hunt or search involved.

 

But detractors from Waymarking miss an important point. There is nothing that says a waymark can't be like a virtual. A waymark can have a verification question and make it into a search for the answer. Unfortunately, some category managers won't allow this and want to stick to the only verification is a picture. Waymarkers have becomes like geocachers with PQs who want to load the coordinates into their GPS and not take the description. Then they get upset if they can't log a visit because they took a picture instead of finding what the waymark owner wanted them to search for.

 

I once suggested that waymarks allow two types of logs. A visited log for those that simply wanted to visit the waymark and perhaps take a picture and a found log for those who would search for the answers to verification questions or perform some other task like finding the visitors book and signing their name.

 

The Best Kept Secrets category is meant to try to emulate some of the features that made virtuals different. While not a requirement, the best kept secrets category allows waymark owners to leave what they want you to find a mystery till you get there. A verification questions, or in rare instances, a photo is required for logging visits to best kept secrets.

 

Whatever people come up with a difference between waymarks and virtuals, with the possible exception of having the visit be counted as a find on geocaching, a Waymarking category could be created to account for that difference. I'd encourage those that think Waymarking is lame to think about ways to make Waymarking not be lame - starting with suggesting Waymarking categories that they would find interesting and worthwhile.

Link to comment

The only lame thing to me is that it's another web site to search. If I could pick certain categories of waymarks to appear in my gc.com searches and maps (the Best Kept Secrets linked by Toz being the obvious category), then I'd probably find and post waymarks. I don't of course want all waymarks showing, just categories I choose.

 

But I'm spending enough time at the computer reading geocaching forums :huh: and don't need to search another web site.

 

Edward

Link to comment

I think maybe they are percieved as "lame" because there is little or no mystery about the waypoint. Many of them are complete with a big write-up and 3 or 4 pictures. You can research it on the web, and for many, you don't have to go there in order to know about it. It sort of takes the "adventure" out of it.

 

I agree with this point, which I've heard many times in the past. Also the other line I've heard many times in the past, people don't get a "smiley". So (an observation I've made many times in the past), it's become a "placer's game" with a small cult following. I believe the correct term is "creator". B) But almost no one ever visits, and I don't see this changing, ever.

 

I think it was Trailgators who once made the observation that the art of creating a waymark, which involves research, photography and write-up, is almost like finding a locationless cache for the creator. I think that's a pretty interesting analogy.

 

I've heard Geocaching.com and Waymarking.com will be much more integrated when the new version of the website is unveiled. Someone said thats going to be Tuesday. :huh:

Edited by TheWhiteUrkel
Link to comment

The only lame thing to me is that it's another web site to search. If I could pick certain categories of waymarks to appear in my gc.com searches and maps (the Best Kept Secrets linked by Toz being the obvious category), then I'd probably find and post waymarks. I don't of course want all waymarks showing, just categories I choose.

 

But I'm spending enough time at the computer reading geocaching forums B) and don't need to search another web site.

 

Edward

 

For me also, keeping track of the goings-on at another site has a lot to do with it.

 

Some of us 'old timers' still yearn for the days when a virtual cache could still be created if it had a 'WOW' factor. But, the quality of virtuals was degrading...getting lamer and lamer...so TPTB decreed that if it didn't have a logbook, it wasn't a cache and had to be listed on the Waymarking site. Fair enough, too much reviewer time and effort was being expended attempting to maintain the very subjective question of perceived quality for the virtual and reverse-locationless categories.

 

At least at first, things continued to go downhill; perhaps even accelerating. I looked at the (Waymarking) site a week or two after the initial release. The largest category was McDonalds restaurants! LAME-O TO THE MAX! :huh: I suspect things have probably improved a bit since then?

 

I know there are folks who can keep track of:

Geocaching

Terracaching

Navicaching

and

Waymarking

all at the same time!

 

It's enough for me to be Geocaching and Benchmarking.

Link to comment

 

So (an observation I've made many times in the past), it's become a "placer's game" with a small cult following. I believe the correct term is "creator". :huh: But almost no one ever visits, and I don't see this changing, ever.

 

 

A big difference between visiting a Virtual cache and Waymarking is I don't "own" the virtual "Log" and have no requirements to maintain said "Log" after doing it. If I pick a waymark from the list and "create" a new place for that waymark category, I "own" it and am expected to maintain said new waymark. I do NOT want to own that waymark log!

 

A virtual cache has all the finders visiting the same place, whereas a waymark may have numerous places to visit.

 

Waymarks are closer to the old "Locationless Caches" than they are to Virtuals. I just can't see people wanting to "Visit" the logs of a Locationless Cache which is what Waymarking expects.

 

John

Link to comment

For me also, keeping track of the goings-on at another site has a lot to do with it.

 

Some of us 'old timers' still yearn for the days when a virtual cache could still be created if it had a 'WOW' factor. But, the quality of virtuals was degrading...getting lamer and lamer...so TPTB decreed that if it didn't have a logbook, it wasn't a cache and had to be listed on the Waymarking site. Fair enough, too much reviewer time and effort was being expended attempting to maintain the very subjective question of perceived quality for the virtual and reverse-locationless categories.

 

At least at first, things continued to go downhill; perhaps even accelerating. I looked at the (Waymarking) site a week or two after the initial release. The largest category was McDonalds restaurants! LAME-O TO THE MAX! :laughing: I suspect things have probably improved a bit since then?

 

I know there are folks who can keep track of:

Geocaching

Terracaching

Navicaching

and

Waymarking

all at the same time!

 

It's enough for me to be Geocaching and Benchmarking.

Not wanting to pick up another hobby is totally understandable. I think HH's question is meant to address those who bash the hobby here or even take time actively log in the wm.com to tell us how much it sucks.

 

IMO, McDonalds are the log-only Walmart LPCs of Waymarking, and not at all representative. Most of the other 787 categories are historical, artistic, and natural. The ten most recent are:

 

Bailey Bridges

Gifts from Other Countries

Maritime Monuments & Memorials

Old Agricultural Equipment

Histoires de France (French historical markers)

Afghanistan-Iraq War Memorials

Cross Country Ski Trailheads

Statues of Religious Figures

Peanuts Characters

Land Locked Boats

 

 

A big difference between visiting a Virtual cache and Waymarking is I don't "own" the virtual "Log" and have no requirements to maintain said "Log" after doing it. If I pick a waymark from the list and "create" a new place for that waymark category, I "own" it and am expected to maintain said new waymark. I do NOT want to own that waymark log!

Maintenance is nothing like here, though. "Does this log have an appropriate picture? If yes, super; if no, delete". That's the bulk of it.

 

A virtual cache has all the finders visiting the same place, whereas a waymark may have numerous places to visit.

Not quite. A waymark category may have numerous places that can be visited, and it is analogous to a locationless cache listing. Each waymark is one spot, and it is analogous to both a virtual cache and a "find" on a locationless cache.

 

Waymarks are closer to the old "Locationless Caches" than they are to Virtuals. I just can't see people wanting to "Visit" the logs of a Locationless Cache which is what Waymarking expects.

This is true. Why people will go out of their way to post a find on a virtual that is clearly just a historical marker, for instance, but not for a waymark is a separate but good question. I suspect the largest reason is :laughing:. Maybe the lack of mystery plays a part, but as people have said, few virtuals are truly mysterious. I've even figured out (99% certain) what this one is.

Link to comment
Waymarks are closer to the old "Locationless Caches" than they are to Virtuals. I just can't see people wanting to "Visit" the logs of a Locationless Cache which is what Waymarking expects.

This is true. Why people will go out of their way to post a find on a virtual that is clearly just a historical marker, for instance, but not for a waymark is a separate but good question. I suspect the largest reason is :laughing:. Maybe the lack of mystery plays a part, but as people have said, few virtuals are truly mysterious. I've even figured out (99% certain) what this one is.

 

The question is "Would you log a find for someone else's locationless found log"?

 

The difference between Virtual caches and Locationless caches is simply the virtual cache hider thought that site was worth visiting and the locationless cache 'hider' thought it would be fun to find some particular type of item.

 

This is why people will waymark something for a category, but not waymark something that someone else has already waymarked (found). They would rather find something new (different) than repeat a find for the same item in a category.

 

John

Link to comment
Waymarks are closer to the old "Locationless Caches" than they are to Virtuals. I just can't see people wanting to "Visit" the logs of a Locationless Cache which is what Waymarking expects.

This is true. Why people will go out of their way to post a find on a virtual that is clearly just a historical marker, for instance, but not for a waymark is a separate but good question. I suspect the largest reason is :laughing:. Maybe the lack of mystery plays a part, but as people have said, few virtuals are truly mysterious. I've even figured out (99% certain) what this one is.

 

The question is "Would you log a find for someone else's locationless found log"?

 

The difference between Virtual caches and Locationless caches is simply the virtual cache hider thought that site was worth visiting and the locationless cache 'hider' thought it would be fun to find some particular type of item.

 

This is why people will waymark something for a category, but not waymark something that someone else has already waymarked (found). They would rather find something new (different) than repeat a find for the same item in a category.

No argument on that, but the question remains why people want to visit a place that's already been found when it's called "finding a virtual" but not when it's called "visiting a waymark". The mystery seems to be the greatest factor. I can't say how often virtuals are truly mysterious. I can only say that no more than four of my sixteen virtual finds (admittedly few) had any sort of surprise to them, and of those, two could be found out online if one tried.

 

I do seem to recall that when virtuals were still around, they received almost as much scorn from some people as LPCs do today. So maybe calling waymarks "lame" isn't really so new. But I get the sense that those who call Waymarking "lame" are the more ones who want virtuals back.

Link to comment

In many ways Waymarking is harder than geocaching. You have to take pictures, gather information and make a well-written description of some thing that you are Waymarking. Visiting is less work but good manners on the site call for some written description of your visit. GeoCachers who just grunt 'TFTC' don't have much to offer to Waymarking, and frankly, we don't miss them.

Link to comment

***I just don't see any support for the argument that virtuals bring you to a mystery/surprise location.***

 

Neither do a lot of micros under a lamp skirt, but the only difference is that the micros have a "Log" to sign.

 

I don't go to Waymarking because I don't want to go to two different sites just to play a game where everything (like counts) used to be integrated into one site.

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...