Virtual Caching vs. Waymarking

[+killrb14]

I started Geocaching in May 2009 and the most interesting caches I have found to date have mostly been Virtual Caches. I have read the posts regarding the decision to stop Virtual Caches in favor of Waymarking.

 

I have looked at Waymarking and it appears to me that the intention is not being met with Waymarking.

 

-If a Jack N the Box restaurant can be a Waymarking site, there has to be an issue.

- If there is a one mile area saturated with Waymarking, all the rules are different, why have them?

 

I guess the point I am trying to make is that I would LOVE to see Virtual Caches brought back, or make Waymarkings count in our cache totals.

 

Your thoughts fellow cachers?

[+BlueDeuce]

Google fight - Virtual Caching 2230000 results Waymarking 144000 results

Edited September 4, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+L0ne.R]

I started Geocaching in May 2009 and the most interesting caches I have found to date have mostly been Virtual Caches. I have read the posts regarding the decision to stop Virtual Caches in favor of Waymarking.

 

I have looked at Waymarking and it appears to me that the intention is not being met with Waymarking.

 

-If a Jack N the Box restaurant can be a Waymarking site, there has to be an issue.

- If there is a one mile area saturated with Waymarking, all the rules are different, why have them?

 

I guess the point I am trying to make is that I would LOVE to see Virtual Caches brought back, or make Waymarkings count in our cache totals.

 

Your thoughts fellow cachers?

 

What I'd like to see is another spin-off site for traditional virtuals -- bring someone to a location and have them answer questions that they pick up from features at the site (plaques for instance), then plug the final answer/code into a box on the cache page. If you get it right, you get a smiley. I waymark but I feel that Waymarking is about locationless caching not virtual caching.

[Dinoprophet]

I started Geocaching in May 2009 and the most interesting caches I have found to date have mostly been Virtual Caches. I have read the posts regarding the decision to stop Virtual Caches in favor of Waymarking.

 

I have looked at Waymarking and it appears to me that the intention is not being met with Waymarking.

 

-If a Jack N the Box restaurant can be a Waymarking site, there has to be an issue.

- If there is a one mile area saturated with Waymarking, all the rules are different, why have them?

 

I guess the point I am trying to make is that I would LOVE to see Virtual Caches brought back, or make Waymarkings count in our cache totals.

 

Your thoughts fellow cachers?

Some Many would argue that if you can hide a geocache in a parking lot, there has to be an issue with geocaching. At least with Waymarking, with a single click, I'll never see another Jack n the Box waymark again, ever.

 

Yes, the rules are different for Waymarking. None of the reasons for the geocache proximity rule apply to waymarks.

 

I'm all for more integration between the two sites, but the waymarker in me would not want to see the counts being included here. That would generate a lot of uninteresting, unresearched, poorly-written waymarks.

 

Points of interest are different from geocaches. Locationless were even more different. Waymarking is a better way to handle both.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+BruceS]

I started Geocaching in May 2009 and the most interesting caches I have found to date have mostly been Virtual Caches. I have read the posts regarding the decision to stop Virtual Caches in favor of Waymarking.

 

I have looked at Waymarking and it appears to me that the intention is not being met with Waymarking.

 

-If a Jack N the Box restaurant can be a Waymarking site, there has to be an issue.

- If there is a one mile area saturated with Waymarking, all the rules are different, why have them?

 

I guess the point I am trying to make is that I would LOVE to see Virtual Caches brought back, or make Waymarkings count in our cache totals.

 

Your thoughts fellow cachers?

 

If you want to concentrate on the 28 Jack in Box waymarks near you and ignore the rest of the 4882 waymark within 100 miles of your location not much I can say. Just ignore those categories, if you ignore all the national food chain waymarks within 100 miles of your location you will only miss out on a total of 102 waymarks. Maybe you would be interested in the 1323 waymarks within 100 miles that are historical or 952 that are architectural. Your choice what you want to concentrate on.

Edited September 4, 2009 by BruceS

[+Harry Dolphin]

What I'd like to see is another spin-off site for traditional virtuals -- bring someone to a location and have them answer questions that they pick up from features at the site (plaques for instance), then plug the final answer/code into a box on the cache page. If you get it right, you get a smiley. I waymark but I feel that Waymarking is about locationless caching not virtual caching.

 

Locationless caching was far more interesting than Waymarking. Find a street sign with your name on it. Even find a Jack-in-the-Box that no one else has found.

What is availabe in Waymarking? My nearest list is:

St. John's Church.

St. John's Church.

Entering Town Sign

Doughboy Statue

Doughboy Statue

Doughboy Statue

Doughboy Statue (Hey! Is is Visqueney!)

Bridget Smith House

Bridget Smith House

Bridget Smith House

(Yawn!) (Boring!)

[GOF and Bacall]

Yup. It's Thursday again.

[+tozainamboku]

Yup. It's Thursday again.

Newbies don't know the history of what the problems were with listing virtual cache on the geocaching.com website and why the solution that TPTB came up with was to create new site call Waymarking. They often haven't really looked at Waymarking to understand that you can ignore the Jack N the Box waymarks or any other category that you find boring.

 

There seem to be three areas that people keep coming back to when comparing virtuals to waymarks.

1. Virtuals were a bit like a potpourri category. I won't say that you didn't know what you would find, because most virtuals you knew exactly what you were going to find, but you didn't have to think about what categories were interesting; you basically got a selection of locations from many different categories.
   
2. Virtuals were pre-screened by the reviewers for "wowness". Of course this was also one of the problems with virtuals, but since so few got approved, what did get approved was much more likely to be something you would find "wow".
   
3. Your find count is incremented when you visit a virtual cache.
   

I don't think much can be done about number 3. But 1 and 2 can be fixed by getting more people who feel these aspects are missing involved in Waymarking. Waymarking categories can be proposed that have more of the feel of virtual caching. I know because I started one. Best Kept Secrets attempts to allow a variety of locations. You can even describe your location in terms that make it a mystery as to what you will find there. We used a definition of 'wowness' as being something that most locals don't even know about. When you visit you should think "Wow, I didn't know this was here". There are other definitions of what makes something wow and I fully expected there would be other categories to express other definitions of "wow". In a way all Waymarking categories are "wow" - even Jack In The Box. Some group of waymarkers has formed a group because they are interested in locations in that category. Not everyone is going to be interested in every category.

[+DonB]

I started Geocaching in May 2009 and the most interesting caches I have found to date have mostly been Virtual Caches. I have read the posts regarding the decision to stop Virtual Caches in favor of Waymarking.

 

I have looked at Waymarking and it appears to me that the intention is not being met with Waymarking.

 

-If a Jack N the Box restaurant can be a Waymarking site, there has to be an issue.

- If there is a one mile area saturated with Waymarking, all the rules are different, why have them?

 

I guess the point I am trying to make is that I would LOVE to see Virtual Caches brought back, or make Waymarkings count in our cache totals.

 

Your thoughts fellow cachers?

I would like to see virtuals brought back also, but the bottom line is the TPTB are going to do as they please and nothing is going to change no matter how many members want it to.

[+The Leprechauns]

Locationless caching was far more interesting than Waymarking. Find a street sign with your name on it. Even find a Jack-in-the-Box that no one else has found.

I am one of the founders and managers of the "Your Name Here" category at Waymarking. I don't recall seeing any submission for a "Harry Highway" or "Dolphin Drive." What's holding you back, and why would you lament the loss of something that's still there?

 

When you discover a Jack-in-the-Box that no one else has found, then you create a new waymark for it. That's just like locationless caching, except that others can log a visit to the same spot once it's "taken," and the information is well-indexed.

 

So how is a visit to the exact same spot more "boring" when it's a waymark instead of a locationless cache? There's no smiley.

[+briansnat]

irtuals were pre-screened by the reviewers for "wowness". Of course this was also one of the problems with virtuals, but since so few got approved, what did get approved was much more likely to be something you would find "wow".

 

That was only the last year or so of virts. Before that nearly anything went, which is why there are so many lame ones out there.

 

When you discover a Jack-in-the-Box that no one else has found, then you create a new waymark for it. That's just like locationless caching, except that others can log a visit to the same spot once it's "taken," and the information is well-indexed.

 

That's what is nice about Waymarking. It is locationless caching and virtual caching rolled into one. Someone creates a category and you go out and find examples of it that haven't already been listed. Nearly identical to locationless caching.

 

Once it is listed it becomes a place that others can plug the coordinates into their GPS and go find it. Very similar to virtual caching.

 

My chief quarrel with Waymarking is no pocket queries. It's why I'm more of a lister than a finder when it comes to Waymarking.

[+Markwell]

Virtuals were pre-screened by the reviewers for "wowness". Of course this was also one of the problems with virtuals, but since so few got approved, what did get approved was much more likely to be something you would find "wow".

 

That was only the last year or so of virts. Before that nearly anything went, which is why there are so many lame ones out there.

Virtual lock down started in 2003. Virtual creation prohibition was in 2005.

[+GIDEON-X]

I guess it's what one is looking for as a pass time / hobby. I have one regular (Grandfatherd Virtual). When the POTB closed Virtuals, I flopped over to Way-Marking........a lot of Historic stuff to mark out there. true a zillions Jack's and Pay phones........it's what blows your Horn. If one wants there is a "number game" (no Smileys) just awards Working the grid is sort of neat

Waymarking

[Dinoprophet]

What I'd like to see is another spin-off site for traditional virtuals -- bring someone to a location and have them answer questions that they pick up from features at the site (plaques for instance), then plug the final answer/code into a box on the cache page. If you get it right, you get a smiley. I waymark but I feel that Waymarking is about locationless caching not virtual caching.

 

Locationless caching was far more interesting than Waymarking. Find a street sign with your name on it. Even find a Jack-in-the-Box that no one else has found.

What is availabe in Waymarking? My nearest list is:

St. John's Church.

St. John's Church.

Entering Town Sign

Doughboy Statue

Doughboy Statue

Doughboy Statue

Doughboy Statue (Hey! Is is Visqueney!)

Bridget Smith House

Bridget Smith House

Bridget Smith House

(Yawn!) (Boring!)

I think you don't understand how Waymarking works. It is exactly like locationless: find an X that that no one else has found.

 

The part that compares to virtuals is that once a location is waymarked, it can be logged as a visit.

 

create a Waymarking category => create a locationless cache

log a waymark => log a locationless cache / create a virtual

log a visit on a waymark => find a virtual

 

Show me a virtual, or name a locationless cache, I'll show you what Waymarking category it can be logged in. (and if I can't, you can always create the category for it)

Edited September 4, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+Renegade Knight]

...I have looked at Waymarking and it appears to me that the intention is not being met with Waymarking. ...Your thoughts fellow cachers?

They are very clearly not the same thing. While they both involve locations how you go about the entire thing is different.

 

A waymark is like a list of POI's where you can "visit". There isn't so much a find challenge as a visit challene".

 

Creating a waymark is actually very similar to finding a locationless cache complete with the problems of the orginal locationless catagory.

 

In my opinion the waymark system is a pretty smart way to organize cacheless POI's. It's just not caching, and alas gets in the way of some of the potential fun to be had by not letting everone play (the problem with locationless).

 

Edit: To be fair, Waymarking is a different form of caching. Just not like the virtuals that it replaced. It should appeal to a different audience with some overlap with some part of the orginal virtual cache enjoying folks. However it wouldn't cover all the virtual cache folks because it is different.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think you don't understand how Waymarking works. It is exactly like locationless: find an X that that no one else has found....

 

That's exactly the problem. Locationless was more interesting than virtual to me. I used to keep a list of the interesting ones and there was a real challenge on those (nevermind the Yellow Jeep, that was just cool for no particularly good reason). The problem is that once found all the rest of us are locked out.

 

I spent a lot of time looking for a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Idaho. I found the general area but my first recon (150 miles from here) failed since I didn't have an address an didn't stumble on it. More work was needed and I was working on that last bit. A check of the locationless though and someone passing through found it. I was done. I could no longer meet the challenge and claim my "find". Sure if it were a waymark I could now "visit" but bah humbug. The challenge was finding that dang house on my own. Not borrowing the other guys waypoint.

 

My solution to locationless is to hide the solutions of others until you, yourself have posted your solution. Maybe your the first, maybe 200th. Regardless your work and the challenge is your own.

 

If a challenge cache were only open to the first person who completes it in that area it would be about the same. "Yup, you met the State Delorme Challenge for Idaho, but Joe Cacher beat you to it. "No

Soup For You"

[+Isonzo Karst]

The challenge was finding that dang house on my own. Not borrowing the other guys waypoint.

 

Yep, that was sure part of the joy of Locationless, plus there was the added joy of locking the other guy out ;-) At least for me, I was in hot competition with some local cachers for Locationless features.

 

(but didn't work too hard on Frank Lloyd Wright, the largest group of FLW buildings in the world is in Lakeland FL, where he designed the new campus of Florida Southern College, and my sister lives in a Wright home in NC).

[+Harry Dolphin]

I spent a lot of time looking for a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Idaho. I found the general area but my first recon (150 miles from here) failed since I didn't have an address an didn't stumble on it. More work was needed and I was working on that last bit. A check of the locationless though and someone passing through found it. I was done. I could no longer meet the challenge and claim my "find". Sure if it were a waymark I could now "visit" but bah humbug. The challenge was finding that dang house on my own. Not borrowing the other guys waypoint.

 

Oops. I logged the Guggenheim Museum for that one.

[+fizzymagic]

Show me a virtual, or name a locationless cache, I'll show you what Waymarking category it can be logged in. (and if I can't, you can always create the category for it)

I'll bet I can show you any spot on the Earth and you could find me (or create) a category where I could log it as a waymark. As far as I can tell, there doesn't need to be anything special about a spot to be listed.

 

Which is one of many reasons it doesn't hold any appeal for me. But don't let me stop you from having fun with it.

[+tozainamboku]

Show me a virtual, or name a locationless cache, I'll show you what Waymarking category it can be logged in. (and if I can't, you can always create the category for it)

I'll bet I can show you any spot on the Earth and you could find me (or create) a category where I could log it as a waymark. As far as I can tell, there doesn't need to be anything special about a spot to be listed.

 

Which is one of many reasons it doesn't hold any appeal for me. But don't let me stop you from having fun with it.

There is actually quite a procedure for getting new categories approved on Waymarking. First of all you need to form a group with at least three premium members to serve as officers. Once you have formed this group, the group may submit a category proposal. The group will discuss what they want to call the category and the detailed description of what waymarks can be listed in the category. When the officers agree on the category details, the category goes to peer review. All premium members can comment on the category and vote on whether or not this should be accepted as new Waymarking category. Finally Groundspeak reserves a veto power to make a final approval, but generally categories that pass peer review are added to the list of categories.

 

Each group is responsible for approving the individual waymarks in their category. The group officers have the same function as geocache reviewers. They accept or reject waymarks submitted to their category based on whether or not the waymark meets the category guidelines. An officer can also call for a vote of all the officers to decide if a waymark is acceptable.

 

I disagree that you can waymark any spot on the Earth. Categories are locations of interest to the members of the managing group whether or not fizzymagic finds them interesting. Further more the peer review process helps to ensure that categories are specific enough that you can't just throw everything into that category (and general enough that there will more than just a few locations that qualify). There may be some groups that approve everything submitted their category whether or not it truly belongs there, but I have not seen it. The group officers are generally interested in making sure that the guidelines for the category are enforced.

[+Arrow42]

I've really enjoyed every virtual cache I've run across.

 

That said, I checked out Waymarking. I looked around, logged a few visits and even created one of my own. Then I start looking around at what's near me... Jack in the Box, Burger King, a dog park, a few more fast food restaurants... it's so... meh.

 

What I would love to see in geocaching is something similar to EarthCaches, but dealing with historical locations instead. "HistoryCache"

 

Before any Waymarking fans point me at some category, I'm not interested. Waymarking is too diluted. Why in gods-green earth should there be 8 waymarks at the exact same location. Ugg.

 

Err... I donno. I might get into Waymarking at some point. *shrug* I sure as hell won't be logging advertisements for fast-food restaurants.

[+Team Cotati]

irtuals were pre-screened by the reviewers for "wowness". Of course this was also one of the problems with virtuals, but since so few got approved, what did get approved was much more likely to be something you would find "wow".

 

That was only the last year or so of virts. Before that nearly anything went, which is why there are so many lame ones out there.

 

When you discover a Jack-in-the-Box that no one else has found, then you create a new waymark for it. That's just like locationless caching, except that others can log a visit to the same spot once it's "taken," and the information is well-indexed.

 

That's what is nice about Waymarking. It is locationless caching and virtual caching rolled into one. Someone creates a category and you go out and find examples of it that haven't already been listed. Nearly identical to locationless caching.

 

Once it is listed it becomes a place that others can plug the coordinates into their GPS and go find it. Very similar to virtual caching.

 

My chief quarrel with Waymarking is no pocket queries. It's why I'm more of a lister than a finder when it comes to Waymarking.

 

What would be a few examples of these many lame ones?

[+Arrow42]

What would be a few examples of these many lame ones?

 

Any I don't like or find interesting.

[+GIDEON-X]

 

Why in gods-green earth should there be 8 waymarks at the exact same location. Ugg.

 

Well There Will Be ONE @ The Exact Same Location and 7 visits (Ugg?) (unless the exact same location is used in 2 or more different categorizes) (ugg-ugg??)

[+doingitoldschool]

I'm not a waymarker, and I would love to see more virtuals, but I wasn't playing in 2003-2005, and I certainly wasn't responsible for keeping this fine, fine activity solvent and workable.

 

Who knows, maybe if TPTB has kept virtuals going, we'd be stuck with 1000 virtuals marking every fast food place in a 100 mile radius. That would inflate some find counts, but really, really suck.

 

And maybe one day I'll give Waymarking another shot.

[+tozainamboku]

 

Why in gods-green earth should there be 8 waymarks at the exact same location. Ugg.

 

Well There Will Be ONE @ The Exact Same Location and 7 visits (Ugg?) (unless the exact same location is used in 2 or more different categorizes) (ugg-ugg??)

Under current geocaching guidelines you can have a virtual cache, and EarthCache, and a physical cache all at the same location. I'm not sure but maybe you could even have multiple virtual caches at one location. Back in the days of locationless caches it was not uncommon for people to submit the same location for credit in two or more locationless caches, and many time people would use an existing virtual cache as the location for a locationless cache.

 

Early on in Waymarking, the community discussed what to do if a location could satisfy the requirements for multiple categories. It was decided that the location could be listed in each one of the categories as a separate waymark. This was probably due to the many Waymarkers who saw the activity as one of creating lists of locations in each category. They category would not be complete if a good location could not be listed just because it was listed in another category first.

 

Some may think that a waymarker creating multiple waymarks for one location or claiming to have visited many waymarks when they only went to one location is cheating. But Waymarking is clear about it. The same location can be listed in multiple categories and visitors may post logs for each of these waymarks. It seems there is an awful lot of people who think Waymarking isn't any fun because you might get some credits they don't think are deserved- either because they waymarked a place that isn't "Wow" enough or they waymarked the same location multiple times (in different categories). The funny thing is that the Waymarking stats don't even show up in geocaching, so why are some people complaining about what counts as Waymarking statistics as if it matter to geocachers.

 

The silliest thing that Groundspeak did was to only allow one visit per waymark. Now the geocaching puritans can point to Waymarking and say that if waymarkers can only log one visits, shouldn't Geocahing be changed to allow only one find per cache? You can clearly visit a waymark more than once. You can even log multiple visits to one location assuming it is listed in more than one category. Why then was the Waymarking site changed so on a particular Waymark in a particular category you can only log a visit once? It makes no sense except to signal that visits counts are some kind a score and by inference that geocaching finds are a score. The puritans can try to glean that TPTB actually support their position and I can only rail about how TPTB do things that make no sense.

[Dinoprophet]

Why in gods-green earth should there be 8 waymarks at the exact same location. Ugg.

Because it fits more than one category. If a covered bridge on the National Register of Historic Places, why would it only be allowed in one of the categories? You're bringing a geocaching mindset to a different game if you're worried about double posting or whatever.

 

Err... I donno. I might get into Waymarking at some point. *shrug* I sure as hell won't be logging advertisements for fast-food restaurants.

And I won't be hiding any LPCs. I'm still going to keep geocaching.

...I think you don't understand how Waymarking works. It is exactly like locationless: find an X that that no one else has found....

 

That's exactly the problem. Locationless was more interesting than virtual to me. I used to keep a list of the interesting ones and there was a real challenge on those (nevermind the Yellow Jeep, that was just cool for no particularly good reason). The problem is that once found all the rest of us are locked out.

 

I spent a lot of time looking for a Frank Lloyd Wright house in Idaho. I found the general area but my first recon (150 miles from here) failed since I didn't have an address an didn't stumble on it. More work was needed and I was working on that last bit. A check of the locationless though and someone passing through found it. I was done. I could no longer meet the challenge and claim my "find". Sure if it were a waymark I could now "visit" but bah humbug. The challenge was finding that dang house on my own. Not borrowing the other guys waypoint.

 

My solution to locationless is to hide the solutions of others until you, yourself have posted your solution. Maybe your the first, maybe 200th. Regardless your work and the challenge is your own.

 

If a challenge cache were only open to the first person who completes it in that area it would be about the same. "Yup, you met the State Delorme Challenge for Idaho, but Joe Cacher beat you to it. "No

Soup For You"

When I come across a Michigan Historical Marker, I get the coordinates and photos needed to post to that category. If I go to post it and it has already been done, I log a visit. To worry that that adds to your Visit count instead of your Waymark count is another instance of the geocaching mindset, as I see it. Your hidden coordinates idea is interesting, but suppose I want to just visit the waymarks? I know people who do that. If you don't want to know where it is, just don't use the coordinates.

 

ETA: it just happened again, here. I had the info to waymark it, but it was waymarked, just a week before. So I logged a visit. No problem.

Edited September 7, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+geodarts]

I thought locationless were a fun part of the game, in part because of the challenge they provided. As part of that, I tracked down historical unmarked lime kilns, found an underground rail station in the SF Bay area, and visited on old mill still working on steam power. They were interesting because of the limited "universe" of challenges. I thought it too bad that Groundspeak had to throw out everything to develop Waymarking. A limited rotating number of cross-over locationless categories might have helped bridge the gap between the two sites.

 

I enjoy virtuals for much the same reason. Places that give me aspecific task. It's not just going to a particular category. They are the first caches I note whenever we travel. Again it's too bad Groundspeak had to eliminate any new virtuals to let the old ones disappear when there are so many places that do not allow physical caches.

 

Overreaction.

 

Waymarking just does not interest me. Perhaps it's universe is too large. Perhaps I do not multitask well (a reason I don't terracache). I went there before a recent trip, but it did not show me anything that made me want to join that particular game

[Dinoprophet]

I thought locationless were a fun part of the game, in part because of the challenge they provided. As part of that, I tracked down historical unmarked lime kilns, found an underground rail station in the SF Bay area, and visited on old mill still working on steam power. They were interesting because of the limited "universe" of challenges. I thought it too bad that Groundspeak had to throw out everything to develop Waymarking. A limited rotating number of cross-over locationless categories might have helped bridge the gap between the two sites.

Ovens and Kilns

Underground Railroad Sites

Mills and Gins (specifically mentions that it accepts steam-powered mills)

 

Many if not most locationless caches are Waymarking categories.

 

I fully acknowledge there are some significant differences between virtuals and Waymarking. But I have yet to understand why anyone says locationless caches were better, other than they were on the same site, even though this site has none of the capabilities to properly handle that kind of game.

Edited September 8, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+Renegade Knight]

...To worry that that adds to your Visit count instead of your Waymark count is another instance of the geocaching mindset, as I see it. ...

 

That mindset is worth somthing. We all had the ablity to get out and explore the nooks and crannies of our world before caching. Most of us didn't. Caching brought something to the table that motivated us to do what we said we all liked to do but never did.

 

When folks said "bring back virtuals" (Before Waymarking) other folks said "visit waypoint.org" and I said "it's not the same".

 

Whatever you call it successfully solving the locationless had value to me. Visiting it from the others solution didn't. One was an enjoyable challenge, the other was meh.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Locationless caching was far more interesting than Waymarking. Find a street sign with your name on it. Even find a Jack-in-the-Box that no one else has found.

I am one of the founders and managers of the "Your Name Here" category at Waymarking. I don't recall seeing any submission for a "Harry Highway" or "Dolphin Drive." What's holding you back, and why would you lament the loss of something that's still there?

 

Nor shall you ever! I found that on Geocaching.com! A street sign in Princeton Borough two letters off from my name. We worked long and hard to find a street with my caching partner's name on it. Have you ever seen a street sign with Jesus on it?? We found one in Carmel, New York. Old religious camp turned into a housing development. And they kept the old street names! Jesus Gospel Way!

 

why would you lament the loss of something that's still there?

 

Ah. But it's not still here. It's someplace else! That's whymarking. This is Geocaching! That's smething else. Like telling me to go to terracaching? Or letterboxing?

 

I do have one listing on whymarking. Entered as a favor for some friends. It was far more difficult to set up than hiding a new cache! It's even had one visit in two years (or however long.)

 

Nope. Sorry. Whymarking is boring! Lots of caches for me to find. Why waste my time at letterboxing or whymarking? Nothing of any interest for me there. I have one listed, and one found. That's all I'll ever bother with there.

[Dinoprophet]

Locationless caching was far more interesting than Waymarking. Find a street sign with your name on it. Even find a Jack-in-the-Box that no one else has found.

I am one of the founders and managers of the "Your Name Here" category at Waymarking. I don't recall seeing any submission for a "Harry Highway" or "Dolphin Drive." What's holding you back, and why would you lament the loss of something that's still there?

 

Nor shall you ever! I found that on Geocaching.com! A street sign in Princeton Borough two letters off from my name. We worked long and hard to find a street with my caching partner's name on it. Have you ever seen a street sign with Jesus on it?? We found one in Carmel, New York. Old religious camp turned into a housing development. And they kept the old street names! Jesus Gospel Way!

 

why would you lament the loss of something that's still there?

 

Ah. But it's not still here. It's someplace else! That's whymarking. This is Geocaching! That's smething else. Like telling me to go to terracaching? Or letterboxing?

 

I do have one listing on whymarking. Entered as a favor for some friends. It was far more difficult to set up than hiding a new cache! It's even had one visit in two years (or however long.)

 

Nope. Sorry. Whymarking is boring! Lots of caches for me to find. Why waste my time at letterboxing or whymarking? Nothing of any interest for me there. I have one listed, and one found. That's all I'll ever bother with there.

I can understand "it's boring" and I can even kind of understand "it's not on this site". I cannot understand "It's fun if it's on this site* but boring if it's not".

 

* I'm assuming your locationless finds were fun

Edited September 10, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+Isonzo Karst]

But I have yet to understand why anyone says locationless caches were better, other than they were on the same site, even though this site has none of the capabilities to properly handle that kind of game.

 

So how is a visit to the exact same spot more "boring" when it's a waymark instead of a locationless cache? There's no smiley.

 

hmmm, I've addressed this a number of times, even in this very thread. Locationless were competitive. Once I'd logged a time capsule locationless two interesting things happened:

1) I got a smiley

2) no one else could log it (muhahahaha)

 

Two simple but critical differences. Really, that's it, but it matters. Also from late 2002 on, they were locked as a type. Limited supply ....

 

Read RK's post above, he did some work for a Frank Lloyd Wright Locationless log, and then someone else logged the one he'd been researching. Game over.

Made each find kind precious. My find on This Way In.....Form Two Lines is still one of my all time favorite finds. Precious, precious ... ;-)

 

This is not anti-Waymarking. I do some Waymarking, but it's really not the same game.

[+BruceS]

But I have yet to understand why anyone says locationless caches were better, other than they were on the same site, even though this site has none of the capabilities to properly handle that kind of game.

 

So how is a visit to the exact same spot more "boring" when it's a waymark instead of a locationless cache? There's no smiley.

 

hmmm, I've addressed this a number of times, even in this very thread. Locationless were competitive. Once I'd logged a time capsule locationless two interesting things happened:

1) I got a smiley

2) no one else could log it (muhahahaha)

 

Two simple but critical differences. Really, that's it, but it matters. Also from late 2002 on, they were locked as a type. Limited supply ....

 

Read RK's post above, he did some work for a Frank Lloyd Wright Locationless log, and then someone else logged the one he'd been researching. Game over.

Made each find kind precious. My find on This Way In.....Form Two Lines is still one of my all time favorite finds. Precious, precious ... ;-)

 

This is not anti-Waymarking. I do some Waymarking, but it's really not the same game.

 

If I follow your logic... once I submit a waymark for a time capsule three interesting things happen:

1) I got credit for the submission

2) No one else can submit that time capsule (muhahahaha)

3) Others are encouraged to log a visit to it.

 

On some of the more restrictive categories there is that thrill of finding them. I have few FLW house waymarks and as I travel I always research to see if any are available in the area. I remember both of my Gender Separated Entrance (This Way In... Form Two Lines) waymarks... one was researched and planned the other quite by accident, one in Swift Current, Saskatchewan and the other in Cincinnati, Ohio. There are waymarks that I submit while at the site using an aircard as they rare and I have missed out on some just because I was slow submitting.

[AZcachemeister]

Show me a virtual, or name a locationless cache, I'll show you what Waymarking category it can be logged in. (and if I can't, you can always create the category for it)

I'll bet I can show you any spot on the Earth and you could find me (or create) a category where I could log it as a waymark. As far as I can tell, there doesn't need to be anything special about a spot to be listed.

 

Which is one of many reasons it doesn't hold any appeal for me. But don't let me stop you from having fun with it.

There is actually quite a procedure for getting new categories approved on Waymarking. First of all you need to form a group with at least three premium members to serve as officers. Once you have formed this group, the group may submit a category proposal. The group will discuss what they want to call the category and the detailed description of what waymarks can be listed in the category. When the officers agree on the category details, the category goes to peer review. All premium members can comment on the category and vote on whether or not this should be accepted as new Waymarking category. Finally Groundspeak reserves a veto power to make a final approval, but generally categories that pass peer review are added to the list of categories.

 

Each group is responsible for approving the individual waymarks in their category. The group officers have the same function as geocache reviewers. They accept or reject waymarks submitted to their category based on whether or not the waymark meets the category guidelines. An officer can also call for a vote of all the officers to decide if a waymark is acceptable.

 

I disagree that you can waymark any spot on the Earth. Categories are locations of interest to the members of the managing group whether or not fizzymagic finds them interesting. Further more the peer review process helps to ensure that categories are specific enough that you can't just throw everything into that category (and general enough that there will more than just a few locations that qualify). There may be some groups that approve everything submitted their category whether or not it truly belongs there, but I have not seen it. The group officers are generally interested in making sure that the guidelines for the category are enforced.

 

I (and my 'premium' sockpuppets) have the power to create a new category? COOL!

 

I (and again with the help of my 'premium' sockpuppets) can (at least potentially) shoot-down someone else's proposed new category? RIGHTEOUS!

 

I (yeah, the sockpuppets are still around) can insure that nobody but me can submit a waymark in my (uh, OUR) new category? DOMINATION!

[Dinoprophet]

Show me a virtual, or name a locationless cache, I'll show you what Waymarking category it can be logged in. (and if I can't, you can always create the category for it)

I'll bet I can show you any spot on the Earth and you could find me (or create) a category where I could log it as a waymark. As far as I can tell, there doesn't need to be anything special about a spot to be listed.

 

Which is one of many reasons it doesn't hold any appeal for me. But don't let me stop you from having fun with it.

There is actually quite a procedure for getting new categories approved on Waymarking. First of all you need to form a group with at least three premium members to serve as officers. Once you have formed this group, the group may submit a category proposal. The group will discuss what they want to call the category and the detailed description of what waymarks can be listed in the category. When the officers agree on the category details, the category goes to peer review. All premium members can comment on the category and vote on whether or not this should be accepted as new Waymarking category. Finally Groundspeak reserves a veto power to make a final approval, but generally categories that pass peer review are added to the list of categories.

 

Each group is responsible for approving the individual waymarks in their category. The group officers have the same function as geocache reviewers. They accept or reject waymarks submitted to their category based on whether or not the waymark meets the category guidelines. An officer can also call for a vote of all the officers to decide if a waymark is acceptable.

 

I disagree that you can waymark any spot on the Earth. Categories are locations of interest to the members of the managing group whether or not fizzymagic finds them interesting. Further more the peer review process helps to ensure that categories are specific enough that you can't just throw everything into that category (and general enough that there will more than just a few locations that qualify). There may be some groups that approve everything submitted their category whether or not it truly belongs there, but I have not seen it. The group officers are generally interested in making sure that the guidelines for the category are enforced.

 

I (and my 'premium' sockpuppets) have the power to create a new category? COOL!

 

I (and again with the help of my 'premium' sockpuppets) can (at least potentially) shoot-down someone else's proposed new category? RIGHTEOUS!

 

I (yeah, the sockpuppets are still around) can insure that nobody but me can submit a waymark in my (uh, OUR) new category? DOMINATION!

Groundspeak has final say on all decisions. Denying any waymarks but your own will be about as effective as deleting valid Found logs.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+WoodlandAlliance]

Google fight - Virtual Caching 2230000 results Waymarking 144000 results

 

Googling phrases is the most ridiculous way of proving a point ever. It's meaningless.

 

56,600 for geocaching causes cancer

36,700 for darth vader is the president of the united states

 

I'm not ripping on you. But if you're going to argue at least have an actual argument.

[Dinoprophet]

Google fight - Virtual Caching 2230000 results Waymarking 144000 results

 

Googling phrases is the most ridiculous way of proving a point ever. It's meaningless.

 

56,600 for geocaching causes cancer

36,700 for darth vader is the president of the united states

 

I'm not ripping on you. But if you're going to argue at least have an actual argument.

Yeah. Besides, I get:

"virtual caching": 6,700

"Waymarking": 651,000

 

(without the quotes, virtual caching has you into software and database sites by page three)

Edited September 11, 2009 by Dinoprophet

[+briansnat]

I thought locationless were a fun part of the game, in part because of the challenge they provided. As part of that, I tracked down historical unmarked lime kilns, found an underground rail station in the SF Bay area, and visited on old mill still working on steam power. They were interesting because of the limited "universe" of challenges. I thought it too bad that Groundspeak had to throw out everything to develop Waymarking. A limited rotating number of cross-over locationless categories might have helped bridge the gap between the two sites.

 

I enjoy virtuals for much the same reason. Places that give me aspecific task. It's not just going to a particular category. They are the first caches I note whenever we travel. Again it's too bad Groundspeak had to eliminate any new virtuals to let the old ones disappear when there are so many places that do not allow physical caches.

 

Overreaction.

 

Waymarking just does not interest me. Perhaps it's universe is too large. Perhaps I do not multitask well (a reason I don't terracache). I went there before a recent trip, but it did not show me anything that made me want to join that particular game

 

Waymarking is little different from locationless caching. Someone posts a category (i.e. locationless cache) and you go out and find examples of that category. The only difference is that instead of logging a find, you list your find as a waymark.

 

In my Waymarking quests I've discovered colonial era iron furnaces, a house where George Washington spent the night, a 200 year old church, Robert Frost's grave, the graves of many Revolutionary War veterans, the largest hemlock tree in New England, abandoned mines and historic forts.

 

I find categories that interest me and look for examples of those in my travels, or research local ones so I can waymark them. Essentially the same thing I did while locationless caching.

Edited September 12, 2009 by briansnat

[+Team Cotati]

What would be a few examples of these many lame ones?

 

Any I don't like or find interesting.

 

I knew that I ought to have been a bit clearer there. Sorry about that.

 

I was referring to virtual caches and their associated GC numbers, not urban micros.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

I have wanted to continue with Waymarking. I have trouble accessing the site though. It freezes my browser and makes it impossible for me to do anything there. I have asked for help a few times regarding the trouble Im having. In vain. For me to waymark, I need to be able to access the site.

[+GIDEON-X]

I have wanted to continue with Waymarking. I have trouble accessing the site though. It freezes my browser and makes it impossible for me to do anything there. I have asked for help a few times regarding the trouble Im having. In vain. For me to waymark, I need to be able to access the site.

Hi, I just long on to the site then logged in and all was working fine! TRY THIS ONE