In a perfect world...

[Alan White]

Due to a couple of enquiries, this is an example of what I meant by "Best Kept Secrets". Sorry to go on about this, I didn't really want to get drawn in again.

It's interesting that there's a rating system for Waymarks, yet Groundspeak has consistently said that there shouldn't be one for Geocaching .

 

As a result of that link I've just realised what it is that I don't like about WM: there's no challenge, no sense of achievement. I'm told where to go and what I'll find when I get there. I felt the same about virtuals on GC.com: I logged them because they were there and I was in the area. I can think of only one where I thought "WoW!". But each to their own, which is why I'm pleased that WM & GC are separate.

 

I was amused to see that two of the most recently logged waymarks are Taco Bell restaurants and Pizza Hut restaurants .

[+Happy Humphrey]

I was amused to see that two of the most recently logged waymarks are Taco Bell restaurants and Pizza Hut restaurants .

I'll have to take your word for it: I've deleted those categories (another feature request for Geocaching!) so I don't see them at all. The latest ones I see are Czech trig points (Czech Geodetic Points), but I doubt that that's an icon I'm going to acquire in a hurry. But one point is valid: if you don't like virtuals then you won't like the BKS category because they're virtuals. Other categories are a different matter.

 

As a result of that link I've just realised what it is that I don't like about WM: there's no challenge, no sense of achievement. I'm told where to go and what I'll find when I get there.

Sorry, that might be true for the "virtual" example I linked to (although I don't see where this one tells you what to expect) but it shows that you haven't understood the WM concept. This isn't the place to reopen that can of worms though.

 

On rating, I believe that the rating system works for Waymarking because of categories. That's why it doesn't work for geocaches. With a category, you know what the intention was so you can judge how successful the waymark turned out.

So if someone's waymarked something under "Victorian Post Boxes", you know not to expect the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. It'll be a post box. You probably wouldn't log it: most likely it'll never be logged (not a problem). If it's in "Best Kept Secrets" like this one and the mystery turns out to be a post box: instead of exclaiming, "Wow! I didn't know this was here" you give it a low rating.

Unfortunately, for caches you need to glean the intention from the description of each cache, then match it against your preferences. Possible in many cases, but inconvenient and prone to misunderstanding.

Edited November 8, 2008 by Happy Humphrey

[Alan White]

if you don't like virtuals then you won't like the BKS category because they're virtuals. Other categories are a different matter.

Are not all Waymarks, by definition, virtuals? Or are there some waymarks where you have to find a physical container? If so, how is that then different from caching?

 

As a result of that link I've just realised what it is that I don't like about WM: there's no challenge, no sense of achievement. I'm told where to go and what I'll find when I get there.

Sorry, that might be true for the "virtual" example I linked to (although I don't see where this one tells you what to expect) but it shows that you haven't understood the WM concept.

OK, there should have been a "usually" or "often" between "and" and "what". There's still no comparison between having to hunt, sometimes for a long time, for something specifically or craftily hidden and an item which is intended to be visible and found. I think we agree that WM and GC are different (which is why Groundspeak have treated them differently) and that what attracts one won't necessarily attract the other.

 

You're right on categories. I've long said that the present cache types haven't kept up with the types of cache, if you see what I mean. They're too high level: smaller groupings are required to e.g. seperate simple trads from extreme trads, and solve-at-home puzzles from solve-in-the-field puzzles. D/T and attributes have been attempts to classify these but I think that a more straightforward system would be easier to manage and understand. The problem, of course, is that all existing caches would need to be re-classified and, a bit like UK regions, that would take a long, long time to come to fruition.

[+Team Sieni]

Are not all Waymarks, by definition, virtuals? Or are there some waymarks where you have to find a physical container? If so, how is that then different from caching?

"Virtuals" in this context are Virtual caches. Something you log on geocaching.com.

 

So no, not all waymarks would be suitable for falling into the concept of "virtual" (such as the restaurant chains that seem to obsess you so much). Waymarking is a much broader concept: a waymark is a categorised thing with coordinates. Which means that - for instance - a geocache could be considered a specialised kind of waymark - one where there is a log book in a container.

 

Only the BKS category really fits the definition of "virtual" we are using here.

 

So no, not all waymarks are virtuals, but all virtuals are waymarks.

 

This neatly brings the discussion back on topic.

 

What I would do would be to allow a certain subset of categories to allow some of their waymarks to be loggable on GC.com. For example, trigpoints. The quality control on these would go through the usual Waymarking procedure (group approval) but the final step for an individual cache would be QC'd by GC reviewers. New rules could be introduced - eg more stricter prevalence rules to stop too many getting created, and thus keep the rarity value.

 

This would remove one of the problems that virtuals had previously - that the acceptance criteria were way too subjective for GC reviewers - because they would have been pre-vetted for adherence to the category rules. And would provide a variety of other things that GC-ers could log and increase their find count - which is what is being requested.

 

... between having to hunt, sometimes for a long time, for something specifically or craftily hidden and an item which is intended to be visible and found. I think we agree that WM and GC are different (which is why Groundspeak have treated them differently) and that what attracts one won't necessarily attract the other

 

If all geocachers agreed with you, there would be no problem at all because then Geocaching would purely be the "hidden container with logbook" type cache. But the problem is that quite a number would still like to be able to log other kinds (without logbooks).

 

This isn't (or shouldn't be) a WM vs GC "which is better" discussion - SP did put an extra "please keep on topic" in the OP - I think we can agree they are entirely different. It's about how GC now could be improved. Virtuals and trig points were requested, and are frequently requested by cachers, so I put my thinking cap on for how they could be deployed from where they live now (WM.com) into GC.com.

 

There is, of course, the alternative that cachers could just log them where they are now (WM.com) but cachers don't all want to be told that - some of them would prefer a single interface for all their logging. And if that's what they want, why not try to provide it?

 

One last (unashamedly off topic ) point. This took me longer to bag than any cache I've done. Everytime I went there it was cloudy, or raining, or I'd missed the sunset, and had to return again.

Edited November 9, 2008 by Team Sieni

[+Happy Humphrey]

One last (unashamedly off topic ) point. This took me longer to bag than any cache I've done. Everytime I went there it was cloudy, or raining, or I'd missed the sunset, and had to return again.

That's a nice illustration of the part of Waymarking that Alan seems to have missed. At that level it's very much a hunt (i.e. a hunt for something defined by the category). Another example: I've been looking for a Simulacra for ages but still haven't managed to log one.

 

With apologies to SP.

[+Simply Paul]

...I've been looking for a Simulacra for ages but still haven't managed to log one.

 

With apologies to SP.

Try Scilly- loads of rock formations with names like 'loaded camel' there. And no need to apologise, I can't even see what there is to apologise for...

[Alan White]

I've been looking for a Simulacra for ages but still haven't managed to log one.

That used to be a locationless cache: GCAB95. Should be plenty of ideas in there for you .

[Alan White]

"Virtuals" in this context are Virtual caches. Something you log on geocaching.com.

That's one definition certainly, but virtual caches were rarely that as they're not usually hidden. I meant it in the sense that the item is pre-existing (i.e. not placed there by waymarkers); easy to find (noticeboard, plaque, hut, trigpoint etc); and, perhaps, requiring some proof of visit other than a logbook. That's a description of what used to be virtuals (or locationless) on GC.com. Are not all waymarks like that?

 

such as the restaurant chains that seem to obsess you so much

Not just me. Those categories do seem to be rather popular and, more seriously, they provide a stick to beat Waymarking with. There's a reason why the McDonalds category is always quoted as an example of why people don't like Waymarking. From another perspective, I can't understand why it's OK to have a Waymarking category for McDonalds/Pizza Hut etc but a cache which mentioned them wouldn't be published. What's the difference?

 

What I would do would be to allow a certain subset of categories to allow some of their waymarks to be loggable on GC.com. For example, trigpoints.

I don't understand this request. Trigpoints are UK things. Why would I want to log trigpoints on a Groundspeak website when there's more than one suitable website already available in the UK?

 

Geocaching would purely be the "hidden container with logbook" type cache.

Umm.. it is . Except, of course, for grandfathered caches, earthcaches (virtuals by another name) and events (not caches by any definition).

 

This isn't (or shouldn't be) a WM vs GC "which is better" discussion

It isn't, at least not from my perspective. The two are different: some will enjoy one, some the other, some both. I believe it's right that they have different approaches, and we know that at some time the interfaces will merge so perhaps then those who want to work with both in the same way will be able to do so. Hopefully those, like me, who don't will also be able to keep with caching.

 

One last (unashamedly off topic ) point. This took me longer to bag than any cache I've done. Everytime I went there it was cloudy, or raining, or I'd missed the sunset, and had to return again.

This is one other thing I don't understand about WM. Very few of the examples - including that one - quoted in this thread have been much logged. In that particular case I guess by "bag" (which I would normally interpret as meaning "find" or "log") you mean "create the WM"? But then it hasn't been logged at all in six months? Or is it two months: I don't know which way round the date is? Still a while: surely someone must have attempted it by now?

[+L8HNB]

That's a nice illustration of the part of Waymarking that Alan seems to have missed. At that level it's very much a hunt (i.e. a hunt for something defined by the category). Another example: I've been looking for a Simulacra for ages but still haven't managed to log one.

Theres a stone that looks like an elephant on Bredon Hill in Worcs @ N52 03.615, W002 03.859 and several good caches too. We also found a face in a knarled old tree on the way to GCT704, see log dated 19.02.06 by It's Spitting!

 

H

[+Happy Humphrey]

Those categories do seem to be rather popular and, more seriously, they provide a stick to beat Waymarking with. There's a reason why the McDonalds category is always quoted as an example of why people don't like Waymarking.

That was, I'm led to believe, the first WM category. Not by accident, either, but in a (misguided?) attempt to separate waymarkers and geocachers. Perhaps it's worked, as I'm seeing more and more people waymark and not cache. It doesn't stand up as an argument now, as there are a host of categories and you can customise your view of them.

In that particular case I guess by "bag" (which I would normally interpret as meaning "find" or "log") you mean "create the WM"? But then it hasn't been logged at all in six months? Or is it two months: I don't know which way round the date is? Still a while: surely someone must have attempted it by now?

You're missing the point (deliberately, I guess): TS enjoyed bagging the waymark. It doesn't matter whether anyone later visits it or not. This latter was to solve the problem with Locationless whereby you'd try and add your find, only to discover that someone had beaten you to it so you could do nothing. However, it doesn't suit all types of waymark so it's quite common for them to remain unvisited.

 

That used to be a locationless cache: GCAB95. Should be plenty of ideas in there for you .

Bit of a cheat, although I ran down the list for quite a while before chancing on a UK one. Where are all the nice maps that show you where they are? (rhetorical question!).

 

And no need to apologise, I can't even see what there is to apologise for...

For not dropping out before getting embroiled in the old "Waymarking is rubbish because" tedium!

[+Happy Humphrey]

Theres a stone that looks like an elephant on Bredon Hill in Worcs @ N52 03.615, W002 03.859 and several good caches too. We also found a face in a knarled old tree on the way to GCT704, see log dated 19.02.06 by It's Spitting!

 

H

Darn: I love Bredon Hill but won't be back that way for a while. You wouldn't care to waymark it, would you? The Lancashire one is impressive!

Edited November 9, 2008 by Happy Humphrey

[+Team Sieni]

I meant it in the sense that the item is pre-existing (i.e. not placed there by waymarkers); easy to find (noticeboard, plaque, hut, trigpoint etc); and, perhaps, requiring some proof of visit other than a logbook. That's a description of what used to be virtuals (or locationless) on GC.com. Are not all waymarks like that?

By & large yes, but not necessarily. Depends on the category definition.

 

Not just me. Those categories do seem to be rather popular and, more seriously, they provide a stick to beat Waymarking with.

I think this particular horse was been flogged to death long ago. It's a bit like refusing to shop in Sainsburys because you don't like salt and vinegar crisps, which they sell. No one forces you to buy them, there are plenty of other products on offer. Anyway, it's got nothing to do with this topic.

 

I don't understand this request. Trigpoints are UK things. Why would I want to log trigpoints on a Groundspeak website when there's more than one suitable website already available in the UK?

Trigpoints were just one example - consider the broader term of "benchmarks" there are repeated requests from cachers (including on this thread) to include these as GC.com loggables. As I am "king for a day" on this thread I've been listening to what my consumers want and proposing a solution for them. Such a caring sharing monarch that I am.

 

Geocaching would purely be the "hidden container with logbook" type cache.

Umm.. it is . Except, of course, for grandfathered caches, earthcaches (virtuals by another name) and events (not caches by any definition).

And? Your point is? There are repeated requests to "bring back virtuals" and so forth, including on this thread. As I am in charge in this hypothetical situation, I'm considering a way forward, to find a compromise.

 

This isn't (or shouldn't be) a WM vs GC "which is better" discussion

It isn't, at least not from my perspective. The two are different: some will enjoy one, some the other, some both. I believe it's right that they have different approaches, and we know that at some time the interfaces will merge so perhaps then those who want to work with both in the same way will be able to do so. Hopefully those, like me, who don't will also be able to keep with caching.

Ah, well there we have it. You're happy with the current situation that GC.com is "logbook only" caches, and that non-logbook things should be logged elsewhere. (ie that the calls for "bring back virtuals" and so forth are not to be heeded) That's fair enough, and to be honest I have a deal sympathy with that view. ie that trigs, Virtuals, Webcams & so forth can be logged on WM.com, or on other specialist sites, for those who are interested, and that geocaching.com should be just about finding ... well ... geocaches.

 

It's just that as a benevolent dictator I thought I'd listen to my thralls, and add a few types of "non-logbooky" things available through GC.com.

 

Actually I think we agree more than we disagree. (Apart from the rather daft argument about McDonalds, which is off the topic of this thread - and this forum even).

[Alan White]

You're missing the point (deliberately, I guess): TS enjoyed bagging the waymark. It doesn't matter whether anyone later visits it or not. This latter was to solve the problem with Locationless whereby you'd try and add your find, only to discover that someone had beaten you to it so you could do nothing. However, it doesn't suit all types of waymark so it's quite common for them to remain unvisited.

I miss the point, certainly, but not deliberately.

 

Let me see if Ive got things clear. Someone (anyone?) can create a waymark on WM.com on a subject that interests them, and no-one else ever needs to visit it or log it? Sorry, I just don't see the point of that at all. But each to their own.

[Alan White]

Actually I think we agree more than we disagree. (Apart from the rather daft argument about McDonalds, which is off the topic of this thread - and this forum even).

Oh you're right: forum users will almost always agree more than not, because they share an interest. There's always only ever slight degrees of disagreement, usually unintentionally emphasised by the medium.

 

But I don't agree about the McDonalds thing. I suggest that having silly categories like that puts people off Waymarking. It doesn't matter that they can be hidden: the fact that the site considers them to have value is problem enough.

[+Simply Paul]

And no need to apologise, I can't even see what there is to apologise for...

For not dropping out before getting embroiled in the old "Waymarking is rubbish because" tedium!

Oh, that old chestnut. Well, some people like Waymarking, and some don't. I like some features of that site, but not enough to want to play that game; I wouldn't want to try to sway anyone either way though. Still, I did say how would you change geocaching, so technically it's an off-topic area anyway

Some really good points made on this thread. I'm taking notes

[+Happy Humphrey]

Let me see if Ive got things clear. Someone (anyone?) can create a waymark on WM.com on a subject that interests them, and no-one else ever needs to visit it or log it? Sorry, I just don't see the point of that at all. But each to their own.

The "subject that interests them" is the category that they're interested in (places related to musical lyrics, in this case). So obviously, anyone can create a waymark under that category if they find a relevant place.

 

It's exactly the same with a locationless: I thought you understood them (which is why I thought you were being mischievous: apologies for that). In this context, "Category" = "locationless cache", "Waymark" = "cache log".

[+Team Sieni]

, so technically it's an off-topic area anyway

 

I'm being good! It's been an effort but I'm still on topic! (mostly) You're a hard, hard thread moderator

[+purple_pineapple]

You're missing the point (deliberately, I guess): TS enjoyed bagging the waymark. It doesn't matter whether anyone later visits it or not. This latter was to solve the problem with Locationless whereby you'd try and add your find, only to discover that someone had beaten you to it so you could do nothing. However, it doesn't suit all types of waymark so it's quite common for them to remain unvisited.

I miss the point, certainly, but not deliberately.

 

Let me see if Ive got things clear. Someone (anyone?) can create a waymark on WM.com on a subject that interests them, and no-one else ever needs to visit it or log it? Sorry, I just don't see the point of that at all. But each to their own.

 

i've steered clear of the WM discussion, as it doesn't interest me at all, and isn't likely to. Which is fine, each to their own on all that!

 

However, I tought I'd have a look at the posted link, out of interest, and I'm also completely confused! As I seem to understand it, TS have created a 'virtual' (sorry to use the term, but you know what I mean) which other WMers can go and log/bag/waymark. It appears no-one has done so, despite it being in central London. Furthermore, to quite the last part of the page,

 

Visit Instructions:

There are no specific requirements for logging a waymark. You are, however, encouraged to include any funny or interesting pictures of your visit.

 

So from this I gather one just has to log in and log it? Or is one expected to visit the site? Or even take a photo at sunset? I can't see where this is specified though.

 

Does this mean I can create a waymark for each of the houses I've previously lived in, and people can log them without ever going near the place?

 

As I said, I'm not anti-WM as such, just not bothered about them, but I am now completely confused!

[+Team Sieni]

So from this I gather one just has to log in and log it?

Nope

Does this mean I can create a waymark for each of the houses I've previously lived in, and people can log them without ever going near the place?

No it doesn't - don't be so daft.

 

And keep on topic or SP will get you!

 

Edited to add - on re-reading that post comes across as incredibly rude, but it wasn't intended that way. For "no specific requirements" read "no additional logging requirements" in GC-speak - ie just visit it and log it. But as HH has noted, there's more emphasis in on setting than visiting in most categories. Not that you're really interested anyway and not that it's on topic

Edited November 9, 2008 by Team Sieni

[+purple_pineapple]

So from this I gather one just has to log in and log it?

Nope

Does this mean I can create a waymark for each of the houses I've previously lived in, and people can log them without ever going near the place?

No it doesn't - don't be so daft.

 

And keep on topic or SP will get you!

 

Edited to add - on re-reading that post comes across as incredibly rude, but it wasn't intended that way. For "no specific requirements" read "no additional logging requirements" in GC-speak - ie just visit it and log it. But as HH has noted, there's more emphasis in on setting than visiting in most categories. Not that you're really interested anyway and not that it's on topic

 

daft is a good word - generally lighthearted! OK, I note that the second point was somewhat extreme, merely to make a point! Anyway, I sort of understand what you mean about ALRs - there's an underlying requirement to actually visit the location...

 

As you say, I'll let this get back on topic before SP slaps me with a haddock!

[Alan White]

It's exactly the same with a locationless: I thought you understood them (which is why I thought you were being mischievous: apologies for that). In this context, "Category" = "locationless cache", "Waymark" = "cache log".

Nope, still don't understand . For a locationless cache one had to find a particular thing specified by the cache owner (e.g. a simulacra in the above example). In WM it seems that one can publish anything as a waymark and no-one ever has to visit it. So the discussion, while being OT (thanks, Paul) has confirmed to me that Waymarking isn't something I'm likely to be interested in.

 

So, to bring it back on topic, it's important that whoever is king for a day ensures not only that some people get what they want by having virtuals in some form, but also that those who don't want virtuals in some form don't get them. And therein lies the challenge. Which surely Groundspeak have already met by providing a separate site for Waymarking .

[+Happy Humphrey]

Nope, still don't understand . For a locationless cache one had to find a particular thing specified by the cache owner (e.g. a simulacra in the above example).

Perhaps it's me that doesn't understand, then. Please explain how the "Simulacra" Waymarking category differs from the "Simulacra" locationless.

 

If I was out Waymarking and on the Simulacra trail, I'd be looking for the particular thing (Simulacra) specified by the cache owner (category owner). If I find one, I log it (create the waymark). Doesn't look like rocket science to me (except for the difficulty of finding the blighters). That's all there is, as far as the "locationless equivalent" goes.

 

Additionally, if it turns out that the one I found has already been logged (waymarked) then I can log the waymark itself. Simple.

 

And...should I just be intrigued by one of the waymarked Simulacra, I know where to go to look for myself - and perhaps log it.

 

In WM it seems that one can publish anything as a waymark and no-one ever has to visit it.

I can't see where you get that bit from. You select a category and then go seek something in the real world that fits the requirement. Then you may log the category (i.e. create a waymark).

 

You could continue to find more items within the same category, or perhaps you're playing the Bingo game, so collecting one icon is enough.

Quite possibly people will revisit it, or perhaps not - it depends on what it is. Coal Tax posts, for instance: interesting to find/waymark but perhaps not significant enough to be worth logging/visiting.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Happy Humphrey

[+vw_k]

Waymarking can be seen as a tool for people to either search for and visit things they are interested in, or to log the locations of things they are interested in. Whilst there are some waymarkers that attempt to find one of every category I'd guess that most people only concentrate on things that interest them. There may well be some waymarkers that don't hunt caches or participate in other location based games but who just use the website as a resource for logging or finding the locations of things they are interested in (for example, a victorian post box enthusiast or someone interested in visiting certain types of museum).

[Alan White]

Perhaps it's me that doesn't understand, then.

No, that expanded version explains things. Thanks for posting it.

 

The confusion arises because, if I've now understood things correctly, in caching a cache owner publishes a cache and cachers go to find and log it. In Waymarking a waymarker publishes a category, waymarkers find something which fits in that category and then create a waymark in that category, which others may then log or not.

 

IOW, I had assumed:

Cache type = Category

Cache = Waymark

whereas it's really closer, but not quite like:

Category = Cache

 

So, as I think we've agreed all the time, caching are Waymarking are completely different .

[+The Slaughter Family]

I enjoyed the virtual cache we did recently.....would never have visited te village without.

WM are great to add more interest/education for my children too when out

[+purple_pineapple]

I enjoyed the virtual cache we did recently.....would never have visited te village without.

WM are great to add more interest/education for my children too when out

 

interestingly, having had a poke around to see what waymarks are near me, I can see more use, for me personally, in finding unusual places to take people for a cache (maybe as part of an offset multi). a VR post box fairly near me looks good, but its in a hotel foyer...

[+Happy Humphrey]

interestingly, having had a poke around to see what waymarks are near me, I can see more use, for me personally, in finding unusual places to take people for a cache (maybe as part of an offset multi). a VR post box fairly near me looks good, but its in a hotel foyer...

This one is a hybrid waymark/multi/mystery geocache...

[+The Slaughter Family]

I enjoyed the virtual cache we did recently.....would never have visited te village without.

WM are great to add more interest/education for my children too when out

 

interestingly, having had a poke around to see what waymarks are near me, I can see more use, for me personally, in finding unusual places to take people for a cache (maybe as part of an offset multi). a VR post box fairly near me looks good, but its in a hotel foyer...

 

could always use a number from outside the hotel......and note on the cache page about the pbox

[+Team Sieni]

interestingly, having had a poke around to see what waymarks are near me, I can see more use, for me personally, in finding unusual places to take people for a cache (maybe as part of an offset multi).

Brentorboxer has a multi like this: GC10PZR

 

If I were in charge ... well ... on reflection perhaps I'll lower my ambitions a bit, and say I'd foster better relations between Waymarking and Geocaching, so that GC'ers who want virtuals are more likely to pursue them through the WM site, and those who aren't interested in them ... don't. Which is pretty much where we are now. (Does that mean we live in a perfect world? )

 

This thread, which has been thoughtful and un-acrimonious has been a teeny tiny step in that direction I think.

 

I might go so far as to introduce a combined stats logo that showed your GC stats and WM stats, optionally, for those who are interested, but I'd never consider merging the stats because they just aren't comparable. That would please hardly anyone, and would annoy a lot of people.

 

Moving away from virtuals, one other thing I might consider would be to make a minor change to the cache approval procedure whereby - if explicit written approval has been obtained - the cacher is encouraged (not forced! just suggested!) to add a line acknowledging this on the cache page. One the one hand this may seem like acknowledgement by GC.com that some caches don't have explicit permission ( ) but I always feel more secure when I see this on a cache, because I know I won't be inadvertently going somewhere where I shouldn't.

 

PS For Alan's reference;

Category roughly approximates to "type of cache". It doesn't exist in GC, but you hypothetically could have a categories for mysteries, micros, multis, trads etc. [Category also equates to "locationless cache" which didn't fit GC.com very well]

Waymark = cache (visitable object) [Waymark also = visit log for locationless] A thing that must fulfil the category criteria and which is reviewed by the category owners, for compliance with the cat. aims.

Visit log = cache visit log. [there was no equivalent for locationless.]

 

But the way the games are played is very different, and WM has developed so that logging is rarer, and after a day's Waymarking you are likely to write up a bunch of new waymarks and maybe a few visits. After a day's caching you would write up a bunch of cache visits. Why? Because ... well ... they're different and that's how things have turned out. It may change with time, who knows?

Edited November 10, 2008 by Team Sieni

[+The Slaughter Family]

though it is nice to see people have visited the waymarks you have uploaded....makes it worthwile that you have shared something 'meaninful' iyswim

[Alan White]

if explicit written approval has been obtained - the cacher is encouraged (not forced! just suggested!) to add a line acknowledging this on the cache page.

That's already the case. From the guidelines:

If you have complied with special regulations by obtaining a permit, please state this on your cache page or in a 'note to the reviewer'.

 

PS For Alan's reference;

Please don't confuse me any further. I quite liked my simple, if not entirely accurate, definitions .

 

Category roughly approximates to "type of cache".

It doesn't seem so to me, because in WM you can log a category by creating a waymark in it; you can't log a multicache by placing one .

 

Waymark = cache (visitable object)

Visitable yes, but an unvisited WM is apparently common; an unvisited cache is pointless.

 

there was no equivalent for locationless.

Yes, there was. A locationless cache (with a few armchair exceptions) had to be found and visited in order to be logged.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Category roughly approximates to "type of cache".

It doesn't seem so to me, because in WM you can log a category by creating a waymark in it; you can't log a multicache by placing one .

I think what TS meant was that you're "logging" the "multicache" category by placing a multicache (I imagine an improvement would be to have categories such as "Multicaches for ramblers" or "Great Scenic walks", but that's an aside although back on topic!).

Visitable yes, but an unvisited WM is apparently common; an unvisited cache is pointless.

Some people collect the icons, and if they haven't placed a letterbox hybrid (for instance) have an inclination to place one just to add it to the collection. As it happens, people tend to like having visits to their placed caches (the equivalent of a waymark visit), but I could just about imagine someone who doesn't care as long as they've got the icon in their "List of items owned" in their profile. So it wouldn't be a pointless cache even if unvisited (although it's stretching things a bit).

 

there was no equivalent for locationless.

Yes, there was. A locationless cache (with a few armchair exceptions) had to be found and visited in order to be logged.

The point is, that once a location had been "logged" (i.e. a waymark created), you couldn't log your visit to the same location (i.e. a waymark visited).

 

(Edit to apologise for quotes not working - not sure why).

Edited November 10, 2008 by Happy Humphrey

[+Team Sieni]

Please don't confuse me any further. I quite liked my simple, if not entirely accurate, definitions .

OK I won't

 

There's a saying "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail". You're trying to squeeze the WM concept entirely into GC.com terms and it doesn't fit. Either that or you're being mischevious.

 

If you're really interested (and I suspect you're not particularly) I'm sure the nice folks over at the Waymarking forums will help.

[Alan White]

You're trying to squeeze the WM concept entirely into GC.com terms and it doesn't fit.

Yes, that's right (in both respects). I was trying to use a concept I know to understand about one I don't. I'd assumed that as they were both location-based games run by the same company that there would be similarities. There are, but there are also differences which make it difficult for a cacher - or at least this cacher - to understand Waymarking.

 

If you're really interested (and I suspect you're not particularly)

If this thread has taught me nothing else, it's certainly that I'm less interested in Waymarking than I might have been before .

 

But thanks for trying .

[+careygang]

 

Bring back virtuals and webcams, but ensure virtuals have an educational aspect like earthcaches, perhaps introducing something like a "heritage cache" for cultural/historical/artistic themed virtual caches in association with national groups like English Heritage, National Trust etc.

 

 

Cool idea. When I negotiated with the National Trust for GAGB they were very interested in the educational aspects of Earthcaches and are discussing this further. A Heritage cache would be even more appropriate, enabling virtual-like caches to be placed at locations of educational interest. They could be limited by a requirement that the location is at least a certain age.

 

I think that is a 'Cracking Good Idea, Grommit', however, I do see one small problem....

Remembering that any 'age criteria' would have to be applicable across the entire global geo-community, including the USA, it kind of looses impact.

 

In the UK we could happily go for 200 years; but in the USA that would limit the use of the category to specific sites on the East Coast and even then the choices would be limited

 

Would 100 years suffice, or does that pull in too much?

 

Or even younger, for example the Hoover Dam. It meets the requirement to be Educational and of historic significance, but it was only built in the 1930's...

Edited November 10, 2008 by careygang

[+careygang]

 

Geocaching would purely be the "hidden container with logbook" type cache.

Umm.. it is . Except, of course, for grandfathered caches, earthcaches (virtuals by another name) and events (not caches by any definition).

 

 

Actually Alan you're quite wrong in that assertion. Only this weekend I was in discussion with some cachers who had failed to meet the requirements for placing some Earth Caches in the local mountains, since they did not meet the criteria of being sufficiently geological in their purpose. You can't just pick a nice rock or hole in the ground and call it an Earth Cache, whereas you could just get any old location, perhaps a statue in town centre, and call it a virtual

[Alan White]

Geocaching would purely be the "hidden container with logbook" type cache.

Umm.. it is . Except, of course, for grandfathered caches, earthcaches (virtuals by another name) and events (not caches by any definition).

Actually Alan you're quite wrong in that assertion. Only this weekend I was in discussion with some cachers who had failed to meet the requirements for placing some Earth Caches in the local mountains, since they did not meet the criteria of being sufficiently geological in their purpose. You can't just pick a nice rock or hole in the ground and call it an Earth Cache, whereas you could just get any old location, perhaps a statue in town centre, and call it a virtual

I do take your point but I don't believe that it makes me "quite wrong". I assume you're questioning my view that earthcache=virtual. I stand by that. As I mentioned further back in the thread, a virtual is something that is pre-existing (i.e. not placed there by cachers); easy to find (noticeboard, plaque, hut, trigpoint, rocks etc, though for some of them getting to the location can be tricky); and, perhaps, requiring some proof of visit other than a logbook. An earthcache fulfils all of those criteria and my guess is that that's why the type was grandfathered at the same time as all the other non-logbook caches.

 

Earthcaches were brought back after GSA convinced Groundspeak that the educational aspects were important. But that argument can be applied to many non-geological things: battlefields, castles, monuments and other historical items, places of literary or architectural significance - yes, even that "statue in town centre". They all have educational value and are places where it might be difficult to place a physical cache.

 

You're right that the problem was - and is - the subjective measure of "virtual quality" and again I guess that that was one reason for the removal of virtuals from geocaching.

Edited November 11, 2008 by Alan White

[Alan White]

in the USA that would limit the use of the category to specific sites on the East Coast and even then the choices would be limited

You've not been to Casa Grande, then? Or Montezuma's Castle? Or a whole host of other monuments in USA which are far older than 200 years and can easily match many in England in age and historical significance.

[+Happy Humphrey]

I see careygang's point that earthcaches can't be set up just for any old hole in the ground, but also Alan's that they aren't caches. IMO it was a pity that they were taken out of geocaching then moved back in. As far as "Heritage caches" is concerned, as we're suggesting "virtual" types then I have to point out that we already have them and you can go out and collect the icons...

...to your heart's content.

[+Amberel]

I assume you're questioning my view that earthcache=virtual.

I think it's just a terminology thing - they are a subset of virtuals. Hey, as an ex-programmer you might have known better than to use = in that way .

 

Earthcaches were brought back after GSA convinced Groundspeak that the educational aspects were important.

My understanding is that the "convincing" takes the form of a dollar bill, does anyone know if I have that right?

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Team Sieni]

I think that is a 'Cracking Good Idea, Grommit', however, I do see one small problem.... [ snip discussion of age criteria ]

 

Tetigisti acu!

 

Here (and in subsequent posts disputing it) I believe you have touched upon the biggest problems with virtuals. The criteria for acceptability. Bear in mind how many knots we tie ourselves up in regarding guidelines for ordinary tupperware boxes - now consider how you could write acceptable guidelines so that the poor overworked, abused GS volunteer reviewers could decide if such and such a submission has adequate historical interest. Remember the reviewers aren't necessarily expert geologists and historians.

 

You cant suggest "bring back virtuals" without solving the question of how to do it without presenting the reviewers with an impossible task.

 

Waymarking handles this by having approval carried out by the category managing group.

Earthcaches handle this by having the approval devolved to the Geological Society of America (GSA).

 

If you think hard about this you may come up with the idea of separate dedicated groups managing each type. eg. GS reviewers handling geocaches, with their special permission/guideline issues. GSA handling Earthcaches, and so on. You'll end up with something that looks pretty much like Waymarking.

 

---------------------------------------

PS. For everyone except Alan (who's not interested :) ) , here's an explanation of the various levels of object handled by Groundspeak, and who does the approval.

 

A set of locations

The set of locations has its own criteria as to what is allowable, and a body responsible for approving locations. The set itself may also have been approved for use by another body.

GC.com : Geocaches (approval managed by Groundspeak volunter reviewers)

GC.com : USGS Benchmarks (no approval: uploaded froma USGS dataset)

GC.com: Earthcaches (approval managed by GSA)

WM.com : A Category, eg Greenwich Meridian Markers (approval of locations managed by Managing group ; approval of the category itself done by peer review vote)

[Old locationless caches: A locationless cache, eg GCA8B7 Greenwich Meridian Markers approval of locations by the cache owner; approval of the locationless itself by volunteer reviewers]

 

A location with co-ordinates

The location must conform to the rules/guidelines of the owning set. Is approved by the body responsible for the set.

GC.com: A cache, eg GC11CPE

GC.com: An Earth cache, eg GC1CH2F Rainhill Stone

GC.com A USGS Benchmark eg GZ3095

WM.com: A waymark, eg WM4MHX Chailey Meridian Marker

[Old locationless caches: these were implemented as visit logs, the co-ords were typed in as a waypoint attached to the log, eg: This log of Chailey Common Meridian Marker ]

 

A visit to a location

The visit may be deleted by the account who owns the visited location.

GC.com: A visit log to a cache eg visit to GC127BT

GC.com: A visit log to a USGS benchmark, eg visit to GZ3095

GC.com: A visit to an earth cache eg visit to GC1CH2F Rainhill Stone

WM.com A visit log to a waymark eg, a visit to WM4MHX Chailey Meridian Marker

[Old locationless caches. This concept did not exist - eg there was no way to record a subsequent visit to the Chailey Common marker under GCA8B7 once it had been logged]

Edited November 11, 2008 by Team Sieni

[+The Slaughter Family]

OOoo...WM4MHX...been there

[+careygang]

in the USA that would limit the use of the category to specific sites on the East Coast and even then the choices would be limited

You've not been to Casa Grande, then? Or Montezuma's Castle? Or a whole host of other monuments in USA which are far older than 200 years and can easily match many in England in age and historical significance.

 

Did I say there would be none? No, just limited. And yes I have been to Casa Grande...

 

Just because you happen to mention a couple of historic Native American sites in Arizona does not change the fact. Consider the size of the country. The whole of the UK would fit into Arizona with around 30,000 Sq miles to spare!

 

To clarify my earlier statement I should have said 'generally limit the use...'

 

But I've just used the Backspace a lot before I rise to the bait any further....

Edited November 12, 2008 by careygang

[+Team Sieni]

I know this is going waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off topic, but I thought I'd share this bit of information, because I find it fascinating. Have you ever heard of "trail trees"? Native Americans would modify trees, as saplings, so that they grew up as natural signposts, pointing in a particular direction, on growing up the tree has a strange unnatural kink in one of its boughs.

 

(OK I admit it, I only heard about these through this Waymarking category. There's also this category for pre-European history in the Americas)

[Alan White]

in the USA that would limit the use of the category to specific sites on the East Coast and even then the choices would be limited

You've not been to Casa Grande, then? Or Montezuma's Castle? Or a whole host of other monuments in USA which are far older than 200 years and can easily match many in England in age and historical significance.

Did I say there would be none?

Yes, you did. You said "in the USA [a heritage cache requirement of 200 years] would limit the use of the category to specific sites on the East Coast". I pointed out that there are historic places outside the east coast and which are more - much more - than 200 years old. I used just two as examples but there are many, many others.

 

What I find most strange is how often I have to point out to Americans that the history of the landmass they presently occupy extends far beyond 200 years. Yes, I know you're only visiting .

[+careygang]

in the USA that would limit the use of the category to specific sites on the East Coast and even then the choices would be limited

You've not been to Casa Grande, then? Or Montezuma's Castle? Or a whole host of other monuments in USA which are far older than 200 years and can easily match many in England in age and historical significance.

Did I say there would be none?

Yes, you did. You said "in the USA [a heritage cache requirement of 200 years] would limit the use of the category to specific sites on the East Coast". I pointed out that there are historic places outside the east coast and which are more - much more - than 200 years old. I used just two as examples but there are many, many others.

 

What I find most strange is how often I have to point out to Americans that the history of the landmass they presently occupy extends far beyond 200 years. Yes, I know you're only visiting .

 

Selective quoting as usual then Alan... Always picking the pedantic rather than the tone or sentiment of the statement...

 

The point I was making, though clearly not succinctly enough for yourself was that if you are in the original 13 colonies then there are plenty of Historic sites, with markers, though not many date further back than the War of Independence, but across the rest of the country they are about as rare as Hen's teeth, unless you count things like the old Route 66. And yes I am generalising!!

 

As far as 99.% (give or take a few) of US citizens are concerned, History started with Thanksgiving!

[+Happy Humphrey]

As far as 99.% (give or take a few) of US citizens are concerned, History started with Thanksgiving!

I did have some very nice geocaching visitors last year from Colorado, and they were intrigued by all the Bronze Age remains and Viking history all around. They also seemed unaware of the rich heritage in the U.S. which goes back even further.

But Team Sieni has already posted a link to what looks like the beginnings of a very good category for those who are interested in pre-European American sites.

[+MissJenn]

My understanding is that the "convincing" takes the form of a dollar bill, does anyone know if I have that right?

 

Rgds, Andy

That is not true.

[+Amberel]

My understanding is that the "convincing" takes the form of a dollar bill, does anyone know if I have that right?

 

Rgds, Andy

That is not true.

Thanks Miss Jenn - I didn't just make it up, but obviously wherever I got it from wasn't an authoritative source.

 

As it isn't financial, do you know the reasoning behind their introduction, given that virtuals aren't allowed? I'm not complaining, either about the cessation of virtuals or the introduction of earth caches, just interested in the thought processes behind the decisions.

 

Rgds, Andy

[+Bigby & Snow]

(If I could rule the world.)

 

I'd rise the standard of the cache contents.

 

I loved the idea when I started, and used to think carefully what to put in: a postcard & stamp with a note please write to an old friend, a fossil in a presentation box, an amethyst... Something I'd like to find myself! Something I'd pick up if I saw it lying on the ground! But I kept finding things I would pick up: rubbish, old gnawed toys, broken plastic kinder egg surprises, calling cards... OK, I am an adult, but would love a little treasure.

 

I feel East Anglia was pretty good on cache contents. Here doesn't seem to be so...