This is why I'm a Geocacher, NOT a waymarker

8k · October 30, 2009

What's lamer?

A waymark owner who deletes a log because there is no picture (even though it might not be explicitly required)

or

A virtual cache owner who deletes a log that has the required picture but also appears to have been logged by someone sitting in a armchair in Dusseldorf?

For physical geocaches we have a physical log and signing the physical log is enough to claim a find. You can post only "TFTC" or even less online and should the owner delete your log you'd have TPTB behind you in getting it restored. For virtual caches and for some waymarks, the owner wants some proof you actually visited the location. Usually it's posting a picture or answering a verification question. But recently, Groundspeak has asked virtual cache owners to delete armchair logs (which presumably have met the verification requirements) or risk having their virtual cache archived. So far they haven't gone this far with waymarks. Many waymark categories don't have any particular requirement for proof of a visit. Many others ask for a picture, sometimes including the waymarker and/or his GPSr. Some Waymarking categories will give the individual waymark owners some leeway in determining what proof is needed. Whether proof is required or not, many waymark owners like seeing pictures posted in visit logs. There was some hope among waymarkers that visit counts wouldn't become so important that it would result in armchair logging waymarks or posting only TFTW logs. But of course this was too much to ask for. So now waymark owners will sometimes delete logs that they don't find up to snuff.

I had proposed at one time that there by two kinds of logs for waymark visitors. A "Visit" log that could be used without meeting any additional requirements. It would simply be on the honor system. If you say you visited the waymark then you did. Of course it would be nice if you wrote something about your visit and posted an optional picture or two. A second log type "Found" or "Task Completed" could be logged if you accomplished some extra task that the waymark owner wanted to require from visitors to the waymark. It could be a required photo or emailing the answer to some question. Not all Waymarking categories would have a Task Completed option. It would be up to the category managers if this made sense. Some geocachers have a difficult time understanding why you would simply visit a waymark, but if there was a specific challenge that had to be met that would make it more like a virtual cache.

Finally, at the risk of raising the ire of the moderator, I seem to recall there has always been an issue with waymark owners and category managers being somewhat arbitrary in accepting visit logs or new waymarks. Very early on I recall one category manager who caused a stir by denying a waymark because his definition of landlocked didn't agree with the definition used by waymark creator. For now my only recommendation if your waymark isn't approved or if a waymark owner deletes your log, is to forget about it.

Edited October 30, 2009 by tozainamboku

21.9k · October 30, 2009

What I do under my player account ought to have no bearing on my ability to moderate this thread's many forum guideline violations.

Truth be told, as a player I pretty much lost interest in Waymarking after a bad experience last year as an officer in one of the groups managed by The Blue Quasar. Another officer took me to task in front of the entire group for accepting a waymark with a photo he deemed to be of insufficient quality. The lecture was similar to the message that prompted this thread.

I have not created or visited a waymark since that incident. It's a buzz kill for sure to get a message like that when the rules have been followed.

October 30, 2009

Just listen to the difference:

"I'm a geocacher"

"I'm a waymarker"

The first might sound a bit geeky, but the second sounds absolutely lame!

Totally uncalled for. Just curious how people would feel if their camouflage duct tape cover film canister would be found and logged as, "Oh yea, after crawling around for 30 minutes swatting chiggers, inside I found the world's tiniest log book, a nub of a pencil with the tip broken off, and WEE! a keychain. Then I went and waymarked the world's largest figural neon sign. That was awesome!"

Seriously, some people have no class.

October 30, 2009

ChannelFadge, please pull another chair over to the corner marked for people contributing nothing to the discussion, and don't post to this thread again.

Sensorship????????????????

No not sensorship. Censorship. Learn how to spell. Then maybe try having something to contribute.

October 30, 2009

What's lamer?

A waymark owner who deletes a log because there is no picture (even though it might not be explicitly required)

or

A virtual cache owner who deletes a log that has the required picture but also appears to have been logged by someone sitting in a armchair in Dusseldorf?

For physical geocaches we have a physical log and signing the physical log is enough to claim a find. You can post only "TFTC" or even less online and should the owner delete your log you'd have TPTB behind you in getting it restored. For virtual caches and for some waymarks, the owner wants some proof you actually visited the location. Usually it's posting a picture or answering a verification question. But recently, Groundspeak has asked virtual cache owners to delete armchair logs (which presumably have met the verification requirements) or risk having their virtual cache archived. So far they haven't gone this far with waymarks. Many waymark categories don't have any particular requirement for proof of a visit. Many others ask for a picture, sometimes including the waymarker and/or his GPSr. Some Waymarking categories will give the individual waymark owners some leeway in determining what proof is needed. Whether proof is required or not, many waymark owners like seeing pictures posted in visit logs. There was some hope among waymarkers that visit counts wouldn't become so important that it would result in armchair logging waymarks or posting only TFTW logs. But of course this was too much to ask for. So now waymark owners will sometimes delete logs that they don't find up to snuff.

I had proposed at one time that there by two kinds of logs for waymark visitors. A "Visit" log that could be used without meeting any additional requirements. It would simply be on the honor system. If you say you visited the waymark then you did. Of course it would be nice if you wrote something about your visit and posted an optional picture or two. A second log type "Found" or "Task Completed" could be logged if you accomplished some extra task that the waymark owner wanted to require from visitors to the waymark. It could be a required photo or emailing the answer to some question. Not all Waymarking categories would have a Task Completed option. It would be up to the category managers if this made sense. Some geocachers have a difficult time understanding why you would simply visit a waymark, but if there was a specific challenge that had to be met that would make it more like a virtual cache.

Finally, at the risk of raising the ire of the moderator, I seem to recall there has always been an issue with waymark owners and category managers being somewhat arbitrary in accepting visit logs or new waymarks. Very early on I recall one category manager who caused a stir by denying a waymark because his definition of landlocked didn't agree with the definition used by waymark creator. For now my only recommendation if your waymark isn't approved or if a waymark owner deletes your log, is to forget about it.

The short answer. The waymark owner, if the picture isn't a requirement.

It seems "Armchairing is a common problem for both games. Unfortunately, it is hard to prove someone didn't actually visit a location if they provide photographic evidence. Sure you can scour the web looking to see if the photo was ripped from another site, but who has the time? A hand written message in a log book is hard to dispute.

I know I speak for myself, and a few other waymarkers who enjoy what we do, when I say how sorry I am to hear about the difficulties cachers or newbies have when delving into Waymarking. We enjoy it and wish to see others enjoy it as well.

Yes there are some categories that make you jump through hoops while on fire (and sometimes it's hard to tell if the smoke is coming from the hoop or you), but there are many that have been created purely for the enjoyment of finding interesting things and to see others find them as well. If you have a moment please check out any of the categories I've started. I try not to be a hardass. Emphasis on try, mind you. As has been said, we can all have bad days.

Now let me just get back to visiting waymarks. Like my Canadian friend Blue Quasar, I'm thrilled when one of mine gets visited, disappointed when there's no pics, but oh well. Personally, I don't make a lot of effort visiting other waymarks. To me, it's like being the second guy to step foot on the moon (which I suppose is contrary to Geocaching, since if nobody visited, why bother hiding a cache).

So, let me just say once again, some categories can be difficult. I say avoid them. If you get into it and wonder what's up with the grid, then there's always the one and done policy. Before totally giving up on Waymarking ask yourself what kind of things are you into besides geocaching. If you should find an interest in any of the categories I'm an officer in, shoot me an email, I'd be glad to walk you through.

October 30, 2009

one of the main reasons I geocache and don't waymark much:

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...f5-8f39541db337

there is nothing special about these kind of finds other than running up numbers. my 2 cents.

Edited October 30, 2009 by KJcachers

October 30, 2009

What I do under my player account ought to have no bearing on my ability to moderate this thread's many forum guideline violations.

Truth be told, as a player I pretty much lost interest in Waymarking after a bad experience last year as an officer in one of the groups managed by The Blue Quasar. Another officer took me to task in front of the entire group for accepting a waymark with a photo he deemed to be of insufficient quality. The lecture was similar to the message that prompted this thread.

I have not created or visited a waymark since that incident. It's a buzz kill for sure to get a message like that when the rules have been followed.

Again, I hate to hear that another player gets jerked around over something I probably would think is frivolous. I can understand, as I myself have had my buzz killed more than once. (Ask me about the one and only virtual waymark {long since archived, and rightfully so}). But honestly, I've enjoyed Waymarking since it started, and have been known to push the envelope once or twice. Keep the officers on their toes.

One other thing, just so you know, Waymarking is currently going through some major "updates", and there'll be a bit of an adjustment, you might say. But aside from that I do still enjoy what I do. I also wouldn't mind seeing some neon signs of old motor courts, restaurants, and/or bars from the Pennsylvania area get posted. I don't mind admitting I'm quite proud to say, it is the 8th largest category.

Anyway, most of us are there willing to help. After all some of us play both games. Now what's this Wherigo???

1.6k · October 30, 2009

one of the main reasons I geocache and don't waymark much:

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...f5-8f39541db337

there is nothing special about these kind of finds other than running up numbers. my 2 cents.

If you want to concentrate on a category which has about .2% of all waymarks or even if you expand it to all commercial waymarks which make up about 10% of all waymarks then not much I can say except you can ignore them all with one click of a mouse. But then I also assume you have never found a skirt lifter cache or a guard rail hide a key cache either.

October 30, 2009

one of the main reasons I geocache and don't waymark much:

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...f5-8f39541db337

there is nothing special about these kind of finds other than running up numbers. my 2 cents.

You're absolutely right! 100%. Stupid category. That's right I said it, and I will not take it back. My fingers will fall off before I finished typing the list of stupid categories, but that's just my personal opinion and like BruceS says, ignore them. Fortunately, there are far more interesting things to look out for in this world than a franchise, and a good chance there's a spot to post it @ Waymarking. Having said that, I will admit to being an officer in two franchise categories.

The first of which is Hooters, because um, they have uh, really great food. Yeah, that's the ticket...

And the second is for Howard Johnson's, because there's only two left, but if somebody finds an old one being used for a different business they can post it, because they had really cool building designs. That, and I miss their clam strips.

October 30, 2009

one of the main reasons I geocache and don't waymark much:

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...f5-8f39541db337

there is nothing special about these kind of finds other than running up numbers. my 2 cents.

If you want to concentrate on a category which has about .2% of all waymarks or even if you expand it to all commercial waymarks which make up about 10% of all waymarks then not much I can say except you can ignore them all with one click of a mouse. But then I also assume you have never found a skirt lifter cache or a guard rail hide a key cache either.

the fact is I will grab a quick guardrail or LPC just to clear it from the map in my area, not because I enjoy them, but I certainly don't want to have to visit and take pictures of every retail establishment that is listed as a Waymark just to clear the map. And no...I don't like ignoring caches. I don't especially enjoy puzzle caches but I will work them to get them off the map. This is how I roll, you don't have to agree with it. :rolleyes:

3.3k · October 30, 2009

Why is this in the Geocaching forum? Isn't there a Waymarking forum?

Anyway, that guy sounds like a jerk. Forget him!

Edited October 30, 2009 by Andronicus

7.7k · October 30, 2009

What I found puzzling about this is that from the first post, it sounds like it is the OP's first experience with Waymarking. From his Waymarking history, however, this is obviously not so.

I don't appreciate being told part of the story. It makes your point so much less convincing.

Anyway, there are rude cache owners too. We read about them just about every week here. Hopefully the OP will not encounter one, or he'll be committing geocide next.

October 30, 2009

I can assure everyone that we are now able to resume an on-topic discussion of the relative rudeness of geocachers vs. waymarkers. Thanks everyone who has contributed on-topic opinions.

I started reading this tread in the hope of understanding "Waymarking" ...

I am totally confused .....

Just what is wrong with "complaining" to a fellow cacher about their "lack of consideration" for a Cache Owners reasonable requests ?

I personally have mailed and or deleted logs that "are not sympathetic" to my wishes -

-- like logging that they climbed over fences when the Landowner objects to that practice.

-- like using non-child friendly language in the log ...

-- like elluding to the fact the cache was "rubbish" when it was their ineptitude with a map / GPS / compass / comprehension of cache notes etc . etc .=====

I wish the moderators had been a BIT MORE ENTHUSIASTIC with their chopping out of the DROSS from this thread ....

9.3k · October 30, 2009

"If you really want photos' in each log you should be asking for them as part of your logging requirements".

From my vantage, this seems to be the key issue. The Waymark owners in question, decided, for whatever reason, to type up their Waymarks in such a way as to not require pictures. To even consider deleting a log on a Waymark that doesn't require pictures, simply because there were no pictures taken, seems rather ludicrous. If I logged a bunch of Waymarks like that, and received a similar e-mail, I think that ignoring it would be as diplomatic as I could get. A much harsher reply would be more likely.

Fortunately, most Waymarkers are as polite as most Geocachers, so I don't expect this to be a recurring issue.

1.6k · October 30, 2009

Fortunately, most Waymarkers are as polite as most Geocachers, so I don't expect this to be a recurring issue.

Thank you for saying that. I think it is important to note as you have done that most people are polite and helpful in both games. It is a terrible thing when one person has such a negative impact on another to make them quit anything that they once enjoyed. I miss Keystone being involved in Waymarking but I respect his decision.

My question for the OP if they are still following this thread is to ask if they also logged Waymarks from other people, like perhaps Rayman, and how that went. Was it a positive experience?

:rolleyes: BQ

Edited October 30, 2009 by The Blue Quasar

1.6k · October 30, 2009

one of the main reasons I geocache and don't waymark much:

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...f5-8f39541db337

there is nothing special about these kind of finds other than running up numbers. my 2 cents.

If you want to concentrate on a category which has about .2% of all waymarks or even if you expand it to all commercial waymarks which make up about 10% of all waymarks then not much I can say except you can ignore them all with one click of a mouse. But then I also assume you have never found a skirt lifter cache or a guard rail hide a key cache either.

the fact is I will grab a quick guardrail or LPC just to clear it from the map in my area, not because I enjoy them, but I certainly don't want to have to visit and take pictures of every retail establishment that is listed as a Waymark just to clear the map. And no...I don't like ignoring caches. I don't especially enjoy puzzle caches but I will work them to get them off the map. This is how I roll, you don't have to agree with it.

Fair enough... I don't think anyone would dispute that many categories are lack-luster, and provide little in the way of fun. This sounds like it would match what you said about grabbing a quick guardrail or LPC. Both have their place, even if it is number padding or just to get out and do something.

How do you feel about these Waymarks? which are featured for their content. I hope you find some of them interesting, even though they might not be local to you.

BQ

October 30, 2009

:rolleyes:

Well guess that I'm "Bi" (Geo/Marking) Do and Enjoy-Both......and @ 73 I can't see changing! (Don't really care what anyone says)

3.6k · October 30, 2009

Still, I remain confused why people are so anti-Waymarking when they also appear willing to find virtual caches, lift lampskirts at Walmart, go after EarthCaches, or any other fairly easy caches (yes I know, there are hard virtuals... let's not go there okay?)

I like finding a container. I enjoy doing virtuals, but for me they're not as much fun as the feeling you get when you're looking for a cache and have that aha moment and go "Ohhh, there it is...".

That said, if there was better integration between the GC.com site and Waymarking.com, that would probably draw more people into Waymarking.

I know they're separate by design, but when we're planning to go caching, we pick an area and look at all the caches around there, picking which ones we want to find. Now, if I wanted to do some Waymarking too, I'd have to go to a different site and do it all over again, hoping I can remember where the caches are that we picked so we're not picking waymarks that are out of the way.

If things could be integrated better, like waymarks could be downloaded with caches when creating a PQ and the number of caches found and waymarks visited could show up on one page, I imagine a lot more cachers would show an interest in Waymarking.

Edit for typo.

Edited October 30, 2009 by Skippermark

4.2k · October 30, 2009

I'll just come out an admit that I don't waymark because it just hasn't "clicked" with me. Maybe I like my geo-navigational hide/find stats in one central location.

Regardless, I really can't see one group dedicated to one form of geo-navigational hiding/placing and finding could possibly be more rude than the other. It's just absurd.

A variation on something I've said many times in the past: Some people are jerks. Most cachers/way-markers are people. Learn to filter the signal from the noise.

October 30, 2009

yes, the key factor missing from the OP was this was NOT the FIRST message sent to them. ( i want to say it was the 3rd, but have no record of that).

i believe all of us, after our polite messages were seemingly ignored, we would get al little more 'nasty'.

This was the first message I got from anyone on the Waymarking site in over a year.

I've visited WDW many times & take less & less pics each time. You come home with all the same pics after a while. Downy has been way more times than I have. If I have been as many times as he, I don't know if I would even been bringing a camera.

I've been there 2-3 times a year for over 10 years, and have 800+ pictures and 20+ hours of video from just the past 5 years. I broke my camera at the last C&G event, and was using a camphone for this trip.

I had pics for almost every waymark, but wanted to do it right, no "armchair" visits.

one of the main reasons I geocache and don't waymark much:

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...f5-8f39541db337

there is nothing special about these kind of finds other than running up numbers. my 2 cents.

Geocaching: Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com

A commercial cache is a geocache....perceived by Groundspeak,... as having been submitted...with the intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain.

Waymarking:To log this "WayMac", you must have eaten at this particular location. Please enter the items you ordered from this visit in the log description.

What I found puzzling about this is that from the first post, it sounds like it is the OP's first experience with Waymarking. From his Waymarking history, however, this is obviously not so.

I don't appreciate being told part of the story. It makes your point so much less convincing.

I had hidden some, but had only found about 20, all near home, when the site was first started. This was my first time going after a large number at once.

Many categories require a picture to be uploaded, and it seems you have been only logging those that dont require one.....
its a wonder i dont delete all of your logs to all of my waymarks that do not have a picture uploaded--required or not.

This is the part that bugged me the most and I wanted to point out. I have gotten rude emails from cachers, but most had a legitimate reason. If I could have taken the pics I needed, I would have found all 1000+ marks in the area, but I went after only the ones that didn't need a picture because I didn't want to 'fake' it.

October 30, 2009

yes, the key factor missing from the OP was this was NOT the FIRST message sent to them. ( i want to say it was the 3rd, but have no record of that).

i believe all of us, after our polite messages were seemingly ignored, we would get al little more 'nasty'.

This was the first message I got from anyone on the Waymarking site in over a year.

Well now we have a He said, He said.

Let me throw this out as a thought. Recently I made a waymarker mad. I had sent several emails requesting an update on a particular waymark that was in error. As a category officer I politely let them know that I was happy to assist with the edit and if I didn't hear from them and it wasn't edited by a certain date that I would do the edit after that time.

After the time elapsed and I made the edit I got some very irate emails about changing the waymark.... The waymarker had never received the emails I had sent him. We were able to hash it out amicably because I never resorted to strong arm tactics and even (gasp) apologized for my part in the situation, but I was frustrated with him and he was frustrated with me all because of an email fail.

I wonder if that could be a contributing factor here as well. :rolleyes:

8k · October 30, 2009

one of the main reasons I geocache and don't waymark much:

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx...f5-8f39541db337

there is nothing special about these kind of finds other than running up numbers. my 2 cents.

If you want to concentrate on a category which has about .2% of all waymarks or even if you expand it to all commercial waymarks which make up about 10% of all waymarks then not much I can say except you can ignore them all with one click of a mouse. But then I also assume you have never found a skirt lifter cache or a guard rail hide a key cache either.

the fact is I will grab a quick guardrail or LPC just to clear it from the map in my area, not because I enjoy them, but I certainly don't want to have to visit and take pictures of every retail establishment that is listed as a Waymark just to clear the map. And no...I don't like ignoring caches. I don't especially enjoy puzzle caches but I will work them to get them off the map. This is how I roll, you don't have to agree with it.

It seems your problem is that you believe you have to find every waymark in every category just as you seem to feel you have to find every geocache. My god! Do you really go out the way to solve puzzles you don't enjoy and find caches that aren't fun just to clear them off your map? I thought the reason people geocache was to have fun. Perhaps you get some enjoyment by creating a challenge for yourself of finding every thing in some area, and maybe this is enough that you will suffer the indignity of lift a lamppost skirt or hurting some braincells solving a puzzle (or do you just phone a friend for the answer?)

I don't think anyone who waymarks tries to visit every waymark in an area. Instead they generally will visit the categories that they find interesting. There is no need to go to a "boring" place if you are a waymarker because you can ignore entire categories. There are some waymarkers who play a sort of a bingo game, trying to find at least one waymark in each category, but there aren't going to visit 500 Starbucks, just one will be enough to achive your goal.

In both Waymarking and geocaching each individual is able to decide their own goal and find those waymarks or geocaches that they need to achieve that goal. So you are free to choose the goal of visiting or finding every single waymark or geocache even those you don't enjoy and be miserable while you are doing do. You are also free to choose to suffer only the miserable geocaches because nobody is forcing you to do any Waymarking. Please allow those waymarkers who are interesting in listing the locations of 7-11 stores the right to set their own goals as well. You cannot know if this is just a numbers game. They may genuinely be interested in this category. It would not be any stranger than someone who intentionally finds geocaches they don't enjoy.

October 30, 2009

Still, I remain confused why people are so anti-Waymarking when they also appear willing to find virtual caches, lift lampskirts at Walmart, go after EarthCaches, or any other fairly easy caches (yes I know, there are hard virtuals... let's not go there okay?)

I like finding a container. I enjoy doing virtuals, but for me they're not as much fun as the feeling you get when you're looking for a cache and have that aha moment and go "Ohhh, there it is...".

That said, if there was better integration between the GC.com site and Waymarking.com, that would probably draw more people into Waymarking.

I know they're separate by design, but when we're planning to go caching, we pick an area and look at all the caches around there, picking which ones we want to find. Now, if I wanted to do some Waymarking too, I'd have to go to a different site and do it all over again, hoping I can remember where the caches are that we picked so we're not picking waymarks that are out of the way.

If things could be integrated better, like waymarks could be downloaded with caches when creating a PQ and the number of caches found and waymarks visited could show up on one page, I imagine a lot more cachers would show an interest in Waymarking.

Edit for typo.

Thank you.... that is a great post. It also is respectful of the other game and I really appreciate that. I'm never offended when people say that they have looked at Waymarking and have decided that they aren't interested. But I do find it rude when people that don't like Waymarking try to destroy the fun for others.

BQ

oops: I am signed in under my reviewer account... my mistake.

Edited October 30, 2009 by CacheDrone

10.2k · October 30, 2009

Still, I remain confused why people are so anti-Waymarking when they also appear willing to find virtual caches, lift lampskirts at Walmart, go after EarthCaches, or any other fairly easy caches (yes I know, there are hard virtuals... let's not go there okay?)

I like finding a container. I enjoy doing virtuals, but for me they're not as much fun as the feeling you get when you're looking for a cache and have that aha moment and go "Ohhh, there it is...".

That said, if there was better integration between the GC.com site and Waymarking.com, that would probably draw more people into Waymarking.

I know they're separate by design, but when we're planning to go caching, we pick an area and look at all the caches around there, picking which ones we want to find. Now, if I wanted to do some Waymarking too, I'd have to go to a different site and do it all over again, hoping I can remember where the caches are that we picked so we're not picking waymarks that are out of the way.

If things could be integrated better, like waymarks could be downloaded with caches when creating a PQ and the number of caches found and waymarks visited could show up on one page, I imagine a lot more cachers would show an interest in Waymarking.

Edit for typo.

Thank you.... that is a great post. It also is respectful of the other game and I really appreciate that. I'm never offended when people say that they have looked at Waymarking and have decided that they aren't interested. But I do find it rude when people that don't like Waymarking try to destroy the fun for others.

BQ

oops: I am signed in under my reviewer account... my mistake.

And all this time I thought I was just "in" on the identity.

Yes, I have logged a couple of BQ Waymarks where I didn't have a pic, but I'm sure he knows I was there, and my visits certainly weren't deleted. As far as this thread, the original post made the Waymarker in question look quite evil, but then the fact that there were earlier conversations surfaced. I have no idea what to make of the whole thing. Certainly I wouldn't blow off Waymarking forever because of it.

October 30, 2009

oops: I am signed in under my reviewer account... my mistake.

RINGBONE....is that you.

Why does my post say CacheDrone

Thank you.... that is a great post. It also is respectful of the other game and I really appreciate that. I'm never offended when people say that they have looked at Waymarking and have decided that they aren't interested. But I do find it rude when people that don't like Waymarking try to destroy the fun for others.

BQ

Yes Skippermark makes some good points. I have always held that even if the stats page supplied a statistic like the benchmark statistic for waymarks more people would participate.

I also appreciate the respectfulness of the thoughts and can in turn respect someone who plainly states that they "are not interested".

Someone earlier mentioned that waymarkers seemed to be elitist. BQ took me to task for a comment once that seemed elitist but was merely an attempt at humor. So Geocaching has its champions in the Waymarking forums.

It is good to have reasonable people in these discussions because after being verbally backhanded time after time for engaging in a personal preference in GPS games I find myself distancing myself from Geocaching more and more because of the ugly stepsister treatment given to Waymarkers. These reasonable people help me gain perspective (I hope). It is regrettable that on occasion the ugly step sister finally says "enough" and does something regrettable in an email or in the forums. Seems that Waymarkings detractors often paint with a wide brush and for some reason cannot get past WM1 even when there are WM100 Mailbox Peak , WM1000 Bedford Springs Hotel Historical District and a few hundred thousand more. The majority of which are not commercial by the way. In the blog A Number of Ways the 50 largest categories only have two "commercial" categories in the mix. When many of Waymarkings detractors begin to rant it would seem they are all McDonalds. Personally I have posted one McDonald's, and out of over 600 other listings there are very few commercial ones. A few because I like to fill my grid but still not a lot. Yet, here, I still find mocking, complaining, whining about virtuals, and misinformation about a past time I enjoy. And then I am accused of being an elitist. WOW

October 31, 2009

Reading the waymarkers emails to the OP makes me not ever want to Waymark.

i just came back from a week in Florida and took 1 picture, I guess that would be gross negligence in his eyes, with the 1000's of pictures he takes in a visit.

Even with Geocaching Virtuals I forget to upload a picture because I download pics to my computer every month or so and not directly after I log my finds.

Its Waymarkers like them that would definitely make me want to stay away.

OP, the heck with them, we"ll keep ya!

3.6k · October 31, 2009

I have always held that even if the stats page supplied a statistic like the benchmark statistic for waymarks more people would participate.

Yes, that's what I was thinking. A total count of waymarks found showing on the GC statistics page.

Even keeping the sites separate would be okay. If there could be a checkmark added to the PQ screen where you choose caches types, but an additional one for waymarks, that would be great. People could then download waymarks with their caches if they wanted them. Not even sure if it's possible.

9.3k · October 31, 2009

Its Waymarkers like them that would definitely make me want to stay away.

I think the lesson learned in this thread is that jerks are very few and far between in both GC and WM.

For some reason, this game seems to draw heavily from the nicer end of the gene pool.

Maybe because the game is utterly dependent upon trusting strangers?

38.2k · October 31, 2009

Its Waymarkers like them that would definitely make me want to stay away.

Nearly every month we get threads here complaining about cache owners deleting logs over minor issues or sending rude e-mails to finders. It doesn't seem to stop too many of us from geocaching.

I'm sure the percentage of waymark owners who are jerks is no higher than the percentage of cache owners who are jerks.

2.4k · November 2, 2009

ChannelFadge, please pull another chair over to the corner marked for people contributing nothing to the discussion, and don't post to this thread again.

Sorry, can't. That corner is full.

I think what is going on is that they think that the OP did not actually go to those places.

The pictures in Waymarking seem to prove you were actually.

If someone only goes after waymarks that don't require pictures, I can see why they think that person is "armchair" Waymarking, and just logging and not visiting the sites.

On the other hand, if someone does not have a digital camera or has a very old computer that would also account for this person just doing photo-less waymarks.

I think the more waymarks he does, the more the OP is going to run into this reaction.

I guess getting set up to upload photos on Waymarking is kind of like getting a GPS for geocaching.

Expensive, but It seems to be an important part of the game.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Sol seaker

2.4k · November 2, 2009

I would like to try Waymarking, but seem to be quite inept at uploading pics (note the absence of any of mine in the forums or my logs) so I figure I'd be screwed. Oh well, caching it is!

9.3k · November 2, 2009

I think what is going on is that they think that the OP did not actually go to those places.

Maybe Waymarking needs to rewrite their guidelines to prohibit paranoid folks from owning Waymark categories.

Or, at the very least, come up with some sort of IQ test for category owners? :rolleyes:

That way, the paranoid ones would be bright enough to include photo requirements.

Edit after reading Bruce's post.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Clan Riffster

1.6k · November 2, 2009

I think what is going on is that they think that the OP did not actually go to those places.

Maybe Waymarking needs to rewrite their guidelines to prohibit paranoid folks from owning Waymarks.

Or, at the very least, come up with some sort of IQ test for owners?

That way, the paranoid ones would be bright enough to include photo requirements.

The requirements for a visit are set by the category "owners" not by the waymark "owners". Most categories require photos for visits but not all.

Edited November 2, 2009 by BruceS

5.3k · November 2, 2009

I'm sure the percentage of waymark owners who are jerks is no higher than the percentage of cache owners who are jerks.

Exactly.

Just because Waymarking is lame doesn't mean that it can't attract jerks.

3.1k · November 2, 2009

ChannelFadge, please pull another chair over to the corner marked for people contributing nothing to the discussion, and don't post to this thread again.

Sorry, can't. That corner is full.

I think what is going on is that they think that the OP did not actually go to those places.

The pictures in Waymarking seem to prove you were actually.

If someone only goes after waymarks that don't require pictures, I can see why they think that person is "armchair" Waymarking, and just logging and not visiting the sites.

On the other hand, if someone does not have a digital camera or has a very old computer that would also account for this person just doing photo-less waymarks.

I think the more waymarks he does, the more the OP is going to run into this reaction.

I guess getting set up to upload photos on Waymarking is kind of like getting a GPS for geocaching.

Expensive, but It seems to be an important part of the game.

I think that's exactly right.

Pretend someone saw a bunch of logs on caches, and they were skeptical that finding all those caches in the given time was possible, so they came to the forums and complained about it. I know that's hard to imagine :rolleyes: , but it's like that.

6.7k · November 2, 2009

... I guess getting set up to upload photos on Waymarking is kind of like getting a GPS for geocaching.

... Expensive, but It seems to be an important part of the game.

It's not expensive if you are creative!

Here's one of many ways to use a $10. disposable digital camera over and over:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/422124/digit...nt_you_to_know/

9.3k · November 2, 2009

... I guess getting set up to upload photos on Waymarking is kind of like getting a GPS for geocaching.

... Expensive, but It seems to be an important part of the game.

It's not expensive if you are creative!

Here's one of many ways to use a $10. disposable digital camera over and over:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/422124/digit...nt_you_to_know/

Neat site, Ed! I finally found a good use for film cans!

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/352175/how_to_free_air_horn/

24.7k · November 2, 2009

ChannelFadge, please pull another chair over to the corner marked for people contributing nothing to the discussion, and don't post to this thread again.

Sensorship????????????????

No not sensorship. Censorship. Learn how to spell. Then maybe try having something to contribute.

Nice contribution.

Did you know English is a PITA to learn and worse has no consistant rules on how to spell words? The entire language should be run though a phoentic engine and re-sequenced so we can all spell by following the rules.

I've left something out that I know about your target that you don't. It's up to you to figure it out. However I can forgive a spelling error for someone who make the effort more than a rude post from someone who doesn't.

9.3k · November 2, 2009

The entire language should be run though a phoentic engine and re-sequenced

If that were done, would phonics finally be spelled phonetically? :rolleyes:

24.7k · November 2, 2009

The entire language should be run though a phoentic engine and re-sequenced

If that were done, would phonics finally be spelled phonetically?

One could hope.

I always liked Ghoti for Fish. I wonder if finding the words that I stole those bits from would count as a visit in a catagory, or would I need to submit a photo?.

November 2, 2009

(snip)

My question for the OP if they are still following this thread is to ask if they also logged Waymarks from other people, like perhaps Rayman, and how that went. Was it a positive experience?

(snip)

FWIW since I'm late to the discussion...

I do indeed have numerous waymarks in Disney World, and the OP did log visits to many of them. Nearly all had the exact same log and no picture. Did it bother me? Ever so slightly, but not to the point where I would send an email threatening to delete their logs. I've gotten used to the fact that not all people post pictures when they log visits. It's just the nature of the game. I would hope that my lack of an email to the OP would have left a favorable experience for them and that they continue to waymark.

You could always look at it this way. There may be a cache hider near you that just has plain old awful hides, and you choose to ignore any cache placed by them. The same theory could apply to Waymarking. If you had a bad experience with someone, just don't visit their waymarks anymore.

This is why I'm a Geocacher, NOT a waymarker

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation