Virtual cache?

[+narcissa]

 

Once you take the differences that are not the same between the two sets away, the only difference left is between sites..

GC you get

Waymarking you get &

 

 

When I go to Waymarking.com, this is my reaction:

 

????????????????? ???????????????????????????

 

It's not about the smileys. It's about the fact that GC.com has pocket queries, a nice user interface, and good reviewers. I go over to Waymarking.com and it's just total disarray.

[+GunnerMac]

 

You've obviously never been to my virt (GCK12J) Last stop for a weary traveler. The object of this virt is something that is intentionally hidden from the masses. It is an "Easter Egg" at the WW II Memorial.

 

At last count there were nearly 2500 log entries.

 

And there is a Waymarking category for just what your virtual is. (There might be a waymark for your virtual though not in that category)

Lets do a quick comparison geocaching v Waymarking...

 

GCK12J has 2300+ visits. Now to be fair lets only count visited since a similar waymark was created on 31 Aug 2009 = 237 (some might not have email the answer the cache owner.)

 

A virtual located at the same location has 18 visits. Now lets subtract armchair visits to this waymark. Logs with no photos 8 (which is a requirement to log it according to the description), one from 1954? come on, and 5 with photos posted but were logged before the waymark was even created (31 Aug 2009) . So 5 people visited and met the requirements since the waymark was posted.

 

237 vs 5

 

Waymarking = tons of fail

 

Now if they integrated Waymarking into the geocaching website I think it would do better. I cant be bothered to search two different sites for each area I am going to visit. Just create a filter so I can decide when and what waymarks I want to view.

 

Just my 2 cents. now going back to lurking

Edited April 9, 2010 by GunnerMac

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

You've obviously never been to my virt (GCK12J) Last stop for a weary traveler. The object of this virt is something that is intentionally hidden from the masses. It is an "Easter Egg" at the WW II Memorial.

 

At last count there were nearly 2500 log entries.

 

And there is a Waymarking category for just what your virtual is. (There might be a waymark for your virtual though not in that category)

 

Fantastic. Too bad Waymarking is cluttered and hard to use.

OH do I so agree about the clutter.

[+narcissa]

Lets do a quick comparison geocaching v Waymarking...

 

GCK12J has 2300+ visits. Now to be fair lets only count visited since a similar waymark was created on 31 Aug 2009 = 237 (some might not have email the answer the cache owner.)

 

A virtual located at the same location has 18 visits. Now lets subtract armchair visits to this waymark. Logs with no photos 8 (which is a requirement to log it according to the description), one from 1954? come on, and 5 with photos posted but were logged before the waymark was even created (31 Aug 2009) . So 5 people visited and met the requirements since the waymark was posted.

 

237 vs 5

 

Waymarking = tons of fail

 

Now if they integrated Waymarking into the geocaching website I think it would do better. I cant be bothered to search two different sites for each area I am going to visiting. Just create a filter so I can decide when and what waymarks I want to view.

 

Just my 2 cents. now going back to lurking

 

Thumbs up.

[+brslk]

 

Once you take the differences that are not the same between the two sets away, the only difference left is between sites..

GC you get

Waymarking you get &

 

 

When I go to Waymarking.com, this is my reaction:

 

????????????????? ???????????????????????????

 

It's not about the smileys. It's about the fact that GC.com has pocket queries, a nice user interface, and good reviewers. I go over to Waymarking.com and it's just total disarray.

 

I belong to an offroading forum... they do not talk about certain SUVs because... well... they do not fit into the group... certain people complain that they should have a thread or forum for their other SUVs...

 

The moderators keep telling them that they do have a site just for that. But these people keep complaining that it isn't as good as the forum I belong to and are not as good as the forum for serious offroad vehicles (BTW the sites that the moderators have recommended to these people are owned by the same people).

 

What do you recommend?

 

I keep telling them to start their own sites and if people want it they will come.

 

Yet a small but very vocal group of people keep insisting the website must be all things to all people.

 

odd...

Edited April 9, 2010 by brslk

[+GunnerMac]

 

Once you take the differences that are not the same between the two sets away, the only difference left is between sites..

GC you get

Waymarking you get &

 

 

When I go to Waymarking.com, this is my reaction:

 

????????????????? ???????????????????????????

 

It's not about the smileys. It's about the fact that GC.com has pocket queries, a nice user interface, and good reviewers. I go over to Waymarking.com and it's just total disarray.

 

I belong to an offroading forum... they do not talk about certain SUVs because... well... they do not fit into the group... certain people complain that they should have a thread or forum for their other SUVs...

 

The moderators keep telling them that they do have a site just for that. But these people keep complaining that it isn't as good as the forum I belong to and are not as good as the forum for serious offroad vehicles (BTW the sites that the moderators have recommended to these people are owned by the same people).

 

What do you recommend?

 

I keep telling them to start their own sites and if people want it they will come.

 

Yet a small but very vocal group of people keep insisting the website must be all things to all people.

 

odd...

 

???

 

Did your forum used to talk about these "certain SUVs" and then one day just stop talking about the "certain SUVs"?

 

Virtuals once were a part of geocaching.com (they still are, but are dying a slow and painful death) and then once day the got switched to waymarks and ceased accepting new virtuals.

 

I do understand you overall point but the example was poor.

[+joukkusisu]

 

You've obviously never been to my virt (GCK12J) Last stop for a weary traveler. The object of this virt is something that is intentionally hidden from the masses. It is an "Easter Egg" at the WW II Memorial.

 

At last count there were nearly 2500 log entries.

 

I remember that one! That was great! Totally would've missed it if it weren't for the virt.

[+joukkusisu]

 

How about because benchmarks are tracked but are not counted with the caches.

Benchmarks are liken to virtual caches and actually are tracked but unlike the Virt they are not counted with real caches.

 

 

I've been thinking, why not include Waymark finds on the GC public profile, but don't let it add to your total finds, like benchmarks. I enjoy finding benchmarks and like seeing a tally of what and how many I've found. And I don't mind at all that they don't add to my total finds. Including Waymark finds, in a sense, make them "mean" something, since everyone only cares about their public profile on GC. The icon can even be the WM logo.

[+brslk]

 

Once you take the differences that are not the same between the two sets away, the only difference left is between sites..

GC you get

Waymarking you get &

 

 

When I go to Waymarking.com, this is my reaction:

 

????????????????? ???????????????????????????

 

It's not about the smileys. It's about the fact that GC.com has pocket queries, a nice user interface, and good reviewers. I go over to Waymarking.com and it's just total disarray.

 

I belong to an offroading forum... they do not talk about certain SUVs because... well... they do not fit into the group... certain people complain that they should have a thread or forum for their other SUVs...

 

The moderators keep telling them that they do have a site just for that. But these people keep complaining that it isn't as good as the forum I belong to and are not as good as the forum for serious offroad vehicles (BTW the sites that the moderators have recommended to these people are owned by the same people).

 

What do you recommend?

 

I keep telling them to start their own sites and if people want it they will come.

 

Yet a small but very vocal group of people keep insisting the website must be all things to all people.

 

odd...

 

???

 

Did your forum used to talk about these "certain SUVs" and then one day just stop talking about the "certain SUVs"?

 

Virtuals once were a part of geocaching.com (they still are, but are dying a slow and painful death) and then once day the got switched to waymarks and ceased accepting new virtuals.

 

I do understand you overall point but the example was poor.

 

yes and I also understand your point. The certain SUVs.. well actually the term SUV has been watered down over the last several years to include a Suzuki sx4...

 

I would not take most of the things considered to be called an SUV offroad these days but in the not too distant past a Jeep used to be passable... now they have the Patriot and various other crap.

 

A it was decided by the moderators and the forum members that certain vehicles should not be included in the forum and that's when they created alternate forums for those who own them.

 

Those forums quickly went downhill in membership and post counts...

[+narcissa]

 

Did your forum used to talk about these "certain SUVs" and then one day just stop talking about the "certain SUVs"?

 

Virtuals once were a part of geocaching.com (they still are, but are dying a slow and painful death) and then once day the got switched to waymarks and ceased accepting new virtuals.

 

I do understand you overall point but the example was poor.

 

I wonder if the SUV forum gets infiltrated by dilettantes who try to derail threads with incoherent rants about geocaching...

[+GunnerMac]

 

How about because benchmarks are tracked but are not counted with the caches.

Benchmarks are liken to virtual caches and actually are tracked but unlike the Virt they are not counted with real caches.

 

 

I've been thinking, why not include Waymark finds on the GC public profile, but don't let it add to your total finds, like benchmarks. I enjoy finding benchmarks and like seeing a tally of what and how many I've found. And I don't mind at all that they don't add to my total finds. Including Waymark finds, in a sense, make them "mean" something, since everyone only cares about their public profile on GC. The icon can even be the WM logo.

 

That makes too much sense. Great idea though.

[+narcissa]

 

You've obviously never been to my virt (GCK12J) Last stop for a weary traveler. The object of this virt is something that is intentionally hidden from the masses. It is an "Easter Egg" at the WW II Memorial.

 

At last count there were nearly 2500 log entries.

 

I remember that one! That was great! Totally would've missed it if it weren't for the virt.

 

Me too! It's one of my favourite caches, virtual or otherwise.

[+brslk]

 

Did your forum used to talk about these "certain SUVs" and then one day just stop talking about the "certain SUVs"?

 

Virtuals once were a part of geocaching.com (they still are, but are dying a slow and painful death) and then once day the got switched to waymarks and ceased accepting new virtuals.

 

I do understand you overall point but the example was poor.

 

I wonder if the SUV forum gets infiltrated by dilettantes who try to derail threads with incoherent rants about geocaching...

 

I guess you missed the point. Not surprising though with your agenda.

 

And please stop attacking me.

Edited April 9, 2010 by brslk

[+simpjkee]

 

You've obviously never been to my virt (GCK12J) Last stop for a weary traveler. The object of this virt is something that is intentionally hidden from the masses. It is an "Easter Egg" at the WW II Memorial.

 

At last count there were nearly 2500 log entries.

 

And there is a Waymarking category for just what your virtual is. (There might be a waymark for your virtual though not in that category)

Lets do a quick comparison geocaching v Waymarking...

 

GCK12J has 2300+ visits. Now to be fair lets only count visited since a similar waymark was created on 31 Aug 2009 = 237 (some might not have email the answer the cache owner.)

 

A virtual located at the same location has 18 visits. Now lets subtract armchair visits to this waymark. Logs with no photos 8 (which is a requirement to log it according to the description), one from 1954? come on, and 5 with photos posted but were logged before the waymark was even created (31 Aug 2009) . So 5 people visited and met the requirements since the waymark was posted.

 

237 vs 5

 

Waymarking = tons of fail

 

Now if they integrated Waymarking into the geocaching website I think it would do better. I cant be bothered to search two different sites for each area I am going to visit. Just create a filter so I can decide when and what waymarks I want to view.

 

Just my 2 cents. now going back to lurking

 

Some valid points. I'll debate you, but only if you promise to get all serious and defensive like narcissa.

[+narcissa]

 

How about because benchmarks are tracked but are not counted with the caches.

Benchmarks are liken to virtual caches and actually are tracked but unlike the Virt they are not counted with real caches.

 

 

I've been thinking, why not include Waymark finds on the GC public profile, but don't let it add to your total finds, like benchmarks. I enjoy finding benchmarks and like seeing a tally of what and how many I've found. And I don't mind at all that they don't add to my total finds. Including Waymark finds, in a sense, make them "mean" something, since everyone only cares about their public profile on GC. The icon can even be the WM logo.

 

That makes too much sense. Great idea though.

 

I check in on Waymarking.com every once in a while to see if anything's changed. Now, maybe it's just where I live, but it's just dead over there. There are a handful of Waymarks close to me, and most of them have been visited... never.

 

Aside from the iPhone app - which they're charging for - I don't get the sense that Groundspeak is putting much into Waymarking. It's too bad they had to make it so different from Geocaching.com to start with. If they had kept them closer together to start with, they could work on improving both sites at the same time more easily.

[+simpjkee]

 

How about because benchmarks are tracked but are not counted with the caches.

Benchmarks are liken to virtual caches and actually are tracked but unlike the Virt they are not counted with real caches.

 

 

I've been thinking, why not include Waymark finds on the GC public profile, but don't let it add to your total finds, like benchmarks. I enjoy finding benchmarks and like seeing a tally of what and how many I've found. And I don't mind at all that they don't add to my total finds. Including Waymark finds, in a sense, make them "mean" something, since everyone only cares about their public profile on GC. The icon can even be the WM logo.

 

I'm totally down with this idea. It's beyond my understanding why Groundspeak hasn't moved to a centralized Groundspeak profile with tabs for each of their sites. They already kinda do this in that the profile descriptions are the same on each site and a premium membership applies to all sites and such.

 

I guess it does just make too much sense.

[+narcissa]

 

How about because benchmarks are tracked but are not counted with the caches.

Benchmarks are liken to virtual caches and actually are tracked but unlike the Virt they are not counted with real caches.

 

 

I've been thinking, why not include Waymark finds on the GC public profile, but don't let it add to your total finds, like benchmarks. I enjoy finding benchmarks and like seeing a tally of what and how many I've found. And I don't mind at all that they don't add to my total finds. Including Waymark finds, in a sense, make them "mean" something, since everyone only cares about their public profile on GC. The icon can even be the WM logo.

 

I'm totally down with this idea. It's beyond my understanding why Groundspeak hasn't moved to a centralized Groundspeak profile with tabs for each of their sites. They already kinda do this in that the profile descriptions are the same on each site and a premium membership applies to all sites and such.

 

I guess it does just make too much sense.

 

Oh, look who decided to read the thread!

 

Of course, they'd have to make Waymarking not suck, on top of integrating them, so that's a pretty big barrier.

Edited April 9, 2010 by narcissa

[+simpjkee]

 

How about because benchmarks are tracked but are not counted with the caches.

Benchmarks are liken to virtual caches and actually are tracked but unlike the Virt they are not counted with real caches.

 

 

I've been thinking, why not include Waymark finds on the GC public profile, but don't let it add to your total finds, like benchmarks. I enjoy finding benchmarks and like seeing a tally of what and how many I've found. And I don't mind at all that they don't add to my total finds. Including Waymark finds, in a sense, make them "mean" something, since everyone only cares about their public profile on GC. The icon can even be the WM logo.

 

I'm totally down with this idea. It's beyond my understanding why Groundspeak hasn't moved to a centralized Groundspeak profile with tabs for each of their sites. They already kinda do this in that the profile descriptions are the same on each site and a premium membership applies to all sites and such.

 

I guess it does just make too much sense.

 

Oh, look who decided to read the thread!

 

Of course, they'd have to make Waymarking not suck, on top of integrating them, so that's a pretty big barrier.

 

Yeah, when joukkusisu posted, I read it and quoted it.

 

I gotta go watch Survivor now. Nice talkin witchu.

Edited April 9, 2010 by simpjkee

[+CoastieMike]

Gotta tell ya - the first geocache that my wife and I did was a virtual at Acadia National Park in Maine, it took us two days to complete the series and got us hooked on geocaching.

 

Since then I have placed a bunch of conventional caches in my area and really wanted to place some on property owned by The Nature Conservancy. When I asked pemission I was told that their policy was no conventional geocaches were allowed, but they would work with me on a series of "virtuals" - I had to decline because of the geocaching.com policy which is a shame, because the land has some of the most scenic views and historic sites along the coast of Maine.

 

And yes - I visited the Waymarking website, but was not impressed.

 

I know I'm beating a dead horse - but now I've said it and feel better. No matter how long I continue to chase caches, there will never be the excitment of my first geocache find - which was virtual.

 

CoastieMike

Edited April 9, 2010 by CoastieMike

[+GunnerMac]

 

Some valid points. I'll debate you, but only if you promise to get all serious and defensive like narcissa.

 

...but seriously Im waiting for the rebuttal [/seriousness]

[+simpjkee]

 

Some valid points. I'll debate you, but only if you promise to get all serious and defensive like narcissa.

 

...but seriously Im waiting for the rebuttal [/seriousness]

 

Okay I'll provide my rebuttal after watching Survivor. Priorities, man

[+joukkusisu]

I would like to add that I've just started Waymarking. I get everyone's criticisms of the site. When I first heard of it, I checked periodically to see what waymarks are being listed. In my area, only McDonalds, Caribou Coffee, and peace poles were being listed. Not my cup of tea. I kept hearing about these fantastic waymarks in place of virts, but not in my area. But thanks to one dedicated cacher near the U of M campus, there are a plethora of interesting waymarks to visit, such as historical buildings and campus history. The campus has been saturated with geocaches and since I work here, I've grown bored and needed something caching-related to do. I think all these virtuals by way of Waymarks will give me plenty to do for a while. So I'll see how the waymark experience goes.

I do have to say though, the multiple categories for the same location can be confusing. I think the Weisman museum has 4-5 categories. It was a real challenge to come up with 5 different logs for the same location. I come from a library background, where any topic falls neatly into one classification in order to avoid this problem, such as Dewey or Library of Congress call#s. Multiple categories is more akin to faceted classification.

[+narcissa]

 

Some valid points. I'll debate you, but only if you promise to get all serious and defensive like narcissa.

 

It's all fun and games until someone busts out the strawman.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Since then I have placed a bunch of conventional caches in my area and really wanted to place some on property owned by The Nature Conservancy. When I asked pemission I was told that their policy was no conventional geocaches were allowed, but they would work with me on a series of "virtuals" - I had to decline because of the geocaching.com policy which is a shame, because the land has some of the most scenic views and historic sites along the coast of Maine.

Earthcache

[+narcissa]

Since then I have placed a bunch of conventional caches in my area and really wanted to place some on property owned by The Nature Conservancy. When I asked pemission I was told that their policy was no conventional geocaches were allowed, but they would work with me on a series of "virtuals" - I had to decline because of the geocaching.com policy which is a shame, because the land has some of the most scenic views and historic sites along the coast of Maine.

Earthcache

 

Yeah, that sounds like the perfect opportunity for a really great Earthcache, or series of Earthcaches. And if the conservancy is willing to work with you, I bet they'd be willing to provide resources and contacts too.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Since then I have placed a bunch of conventional caches in my area and really wanted to place some on property owned by The Nature Conservancy. When I asked pemission I was told that their policy was no conventional geocaches were allowed, but they would work with me on a series of "virtuals" - I had to decline because of the geocaching.com policy which is a shame, because the land has some of the most scenic views and historic sites along the coast of Maine.

Earthcache

 

Yeah, that sounds like the perfect opportunity for a really great Earthcache, or series of Earthcaches. And if the conservancy is willing to work with you, I bet they'd be willing to provide resources and contacts too.

I'm not fond of the Earthcache either.

I do plan on making a run for platinum and once I have received my pin delete my finds.

Plant life is as important as geology as is, and the only interest I have in geology is relation to the plants I tend to favor. Can I have a Biocache? No, even better, Plantae cache!

I can get painfully technical about how they would work including requiring an object the CO would have to place in the area (giving us an intentionally hidden object) and stating that in order to claim the find you must find the object and photograph it with the target plant.

To bad I can bribe people to be interested in the concept, I'd start my own site.

 

*Runs off to see if he has a spare URL slot anyway.*

 

~~~edit to add~~~

nope, gotta decide if I should give up my RLName.us

Edited April 9, 2010 by Vater_Araignee

[+bittsen]

I'm not fond of the Earthcache either.

I do plan on making a run for platinum and once I have received my pin delete my finds.

Plant life is as important as geology as is, and the only interest I have in geology is relation to the plants I tend to favor. Can I have a Biocache? No, even better, Plantae cache!

I can get painfully technical about how they would work including requiring an object the CO would have to place in the area (giving us an intentionally hidden object) and stating that in order to claim the find you must find the object and photograph it with the target plant.

To bad I can bribe people to be interested in the concept, I'd start my own site.

 

*Runs off to see if he has a spare URL slot anyway.*

 

~~~edit to add~~~

nope, gotta decide if I should give up my RLName.us

 

Don't forget stratacaches. Sort of like earthcaches and plantaecaches but you have to find individual rocks.

 

And then we can argue about virtual stratacaches. You know, imagine IF there were a rock at a certain place...

[+Vater_Araignee]

I'm not fond of the Earthcache either.

I do plan on making a run for platinum and once I have received my pin delete my finds.

Plant life is as important as geology as is, and the only interest I have in geology is relation to the plants I tend to favor. Can I have a Biocache? No, even better, Plantae cache!

I can get painfully technical about how they would work including requiring an object the CO would have to place in the area (giving us an intentionally hidden object) and stating that in order to claim the find you must find the object and photograph it with the target plant.

To bad I can bribe people to be interested in the concept, I'd start my own site.

 

*Runs off to see if he has a spare URL slot anyway.*

 

~~~edit to add~~~

nope, gotta decide if I should give up my RLName.us

 

Don't forget stratacaches. Sort of like earthcaches and plantaecaches but you have to find individual rocks.

 

And then we can argue about virtual stratacaches. You know, imagine IF there were a rock at a certain place...

There are already stratacaches, we just call them rock in a rock pile.

Wouldn't logging a found it on a rock in a rack pile without signing the log make it a virtual stratacache?

 

~~~edit~~~

Oh yeah, oh yeah and a lot of earth caches.

Edited April 9, 2010 by Vater_Araignee

[Clan Riffster]

...The interface at Waymarking.com is horrible, and it's not integrated with Geocaching.com. This - not the lack of "credit" for finds - is the problem for me.

I'd bet if TPTB fixed the stodgy WM interface, and gave GC credits for WM visits, WM would take off faster than Rosie O'Donnell chasing a Ben & Jerry's delivery truck. Make a toy easy to use and kids will flock to it, as evidenced by the GC website. Make it overly complicated and only a few kids will play with it. Kinda like WM, eh?

 

...But the interface doesn't suck...

According to the customer it does.

A business that buries its head in the sand, refusing to acknowledge the customer, is a business doomed for failure.

 

...no conventional geocaches were allowed, but they would work with me on a series of "virtuals"...

Hey Mike, you could accomplish the same objective as a virt if you used those sites in a Wherigo cache.

Just sayin'...

[+simpjkee]

 

Some valid points. I'll debate you, but only if you promise to get all serious and defensive like narcissa.

 

It's all fun and games until someone busts out the strawman.

 

It's still fun and games.

[+simpjkee]

Lets do a quick comparison geocaching v Waymarking...

 

GCK12J has 2300+ visits. Now to be fair lets only count visited since a similar waymark was created on 31 Aug 2009 = 237 (some might not have email the answer the cache owner.)

 

A virtual located at the same location has 18 visits. Now lets subtract armchair visits to this waymark. Logs with no photos 8 (which is a requirement to log it according to the description), one from 1954? come on, and 5 with photos posted but were logged before the waymark was even created (31 Aug 2009) . So 5 people visited and met the requirements since the waymark was posted.

 

237 vs 5

 

Waymarking = tons of fail

 

Now if they integrated Waymarking into the geocaching website I think it would do better. I cant be bothered to search two different sites for each area I am going to visit. Just create a filter so I can decide when and what waymarks I want to view.

 

Just my 2 cents. now going back to lurking

 

Alright, first things first, it is not my intention to try and convince or persuade people to like Waymarking. I like it, but if you dont, I'm totally at ease with that. It's all good. In fact, in you or anyone doesn't like Waymarking, I would suggest that you not Waymark. Just as I would suggest that someone who doesn't like geocaching not geocache. I do like debate though so here goes

 

The first thing I'd point out in your argument is that the Virtual you posted is at the WW2 Memorial in Washington D.C. The Waymark you linked to is for the National Mall. Not the same. A more accurate comparison to the Virtual you posted would be the Waymark you linked and all of these waymarks combined:

 

National Mall and it's Monuments

WW2 Memorial

National WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

 

I didn't do the Math, but if you wanted to I think you'd find that the waymark numbers in your comparison are pretty inaccurate. If you want to talk next about the difference of marking many categories for one location instead of one location for many categories, I'll debate that with you next.

 

Regardless of the difference in Virtual finds vs. Waymarking visits, I wouldn't agree that the number of logs decides if something is tons of fail. I don't think you'd find one geocacher who would say that something that has a lot of logs is better than something that doesn't have as many. I love caching, I would never suggest that to anyone.

 

This alone pretty much changes your comparison, but for the sake of good debate, I'll continue.

 

In regards to people not posting photos with their logs. This I'm not totally clear about, but am learning. I've heard that the only requirement for logging a visit on a waymark is to have actually visited the site in person. The section called 'visit instructions' is written by the category owner, not the waymark owner. It is my belief that even if the 'visit instructions' include posting a photo or any other instruction, it is not a requirement. The only requirement is that the location be visited. Same goes for the owner of the waymark putting additional requirements in their description.

 

In regards to the person who logged a visit in 1954. Every so often a newbie comes in the forums and says "This isn't fair, someone found the cache before it was published". The cachers 'in the know' are quick to point out that geocaching.com is just a listing service. That doesn't mean that the cache didn't exist or was unfindable before the cache owner decide to submit their cache on geocaching.com and the reviewer published it. In fact, the cache was in existence the second it was placed by the owner. If someone found the cache before it was published on gc.com, it is totally acceptable that they log a find and back date it to when they found the cache. So lets say that my grandpa hid a container out in the desert and in 1954, my dad found the container and signed a piece of paper inside of it to say he found it. Then today, I create a cache listing and submit it to gc.com and the reviewer published it. It would be acceptable for my dad to log a find and back date it to 1954. This rarely happens because a geocache usually does not exist until a few hours or days before it is published. It has happened though. Check out this Virtual. In the case of the Waymark you linked, the location has existed for over a hundred years! People have been visiting the area and meeting the requirements of the Waymark for over a hundred years. However, a Waymark listing for the location wasn't published until 200?. Why wouldn't it be acceptable for someone, who has fulfilled the requirements, to log a visit and backdate it to when they visited? It is acceptable. It may be looked at (by some) as bad form, but it is acceptable. Personally, I kinda think it is bad form. I went on vacation to Washington D.C. in 1994. If I wanted, I'm sure I could dig up a photo of myself at the monuments to verify my visit, but I made the personal decision to only log a visit on Waymarks that I visited after I signed up on Waymarking.com.

 

In regards to the integration of Waymarking in to the geocaching website for it to do better. I'm not sure exactly what ideas you have for this or what you consider 'doing better', but I tend to agree that there should not be such a separation between the two games.

 

In regards to the filter. That is already in place. In fact, the filtering of Waymarks is far more productive than the filtering of geocaches. For example, if you aren't interested in looking at McDonalds waymarks, they all fall under the McDonalds category and the whole category can be ignored all at once. One click and every McDonalds waymark is wiped off the Waymarking map never to be seen again unless you unignore it.

 

In regards to you going back to lurking. I disagree with this. I would hate to see that happen. If everyone lurked, there would be no one to talk to and nothing to talk about. It's people posting their thoughts, opinions, stories, etc, etc, that make the forums so much fun!

[+GunnerMac]

Lets do a quick comparison geocaching v Waymarking...

 

GCK12J has 2300+ visits. Now to be fair lets only count visited since a similar waymark was created on 31 Aug 2009 = 237 (some might not have email the answer the cache owner.)

 

A virtual located at the same location has 18 visits. Now lets subtract armchair visits to this waymark. Logs with no photos 8 (which is a requirement to log it according to the description), one from 1954? come on, and 5 with photos posted but were logged before the waymark was even created (31 Aug 2009) . So 5 people visited and met the requirements since the waymark was posted.

 

237 vs 5

 

Waymarking = tons of fail

 

Now if they integrated Waymarking into the geocaching website I think it would do better. I cant be bothered to search two different sites for each area I am going to visit. Just create a filter so I can decide when and what waymarks I want to view.

 

Just my 2 cents. now going back to lurking

 

Alright, first things first, it is not my intention to try and convince or persuade people to like Waymarking. I like it, but if you dont, I'm totally at ease with that. It's all good. In fact, in you or anyone doesn't like Waymarking, I would suggest that you not Waymark. Just as I would suggest that someone who doesn't like geocaching not geocache. I do like debate though so here goes

 

The first thing I'd point out in your argument is that the Virtual you posted is at the WW2 Memorial in Washington D.C. The Waymark you linked to is for the National Mall. Not the same. A more accurate comparison to the Virtual you posted would be the Waymark you linked and all of these waymarks combined:

 

National Mall and it's Monuments

WW2 Memorial

National WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

WW2 Memorial

 

I didn't do the Math, but if you wanted to I think you'd find that the waymark numbers in your comparison are pretty inaccurate. If you want to talk next about the difference of marking many categories for one location instead of one location for many categories, I'll debate that with you next.

 

Regardless of the difference in Virtual finds vs. Waymarking visits, I wouldn't agree that the number of logs decides if something is tons of fail. I don't think you'd find one geocacher who would say that something that has a lot of logs is better than something that doesn't have as many. I love caching, I would never suggest that to anyone.

 

This alone pretty much changes your comparison, but for the sake of good debate, I'll continue.

 

In regards to people not posting photos with their logs. This I'm not totally clear about, but am learning. I've heard that the only requirement for logging a visit on a waymark is to have actually visited the site in person. The section called 'visit instructions' is written by the category owner, not the waymark owner. It is my belief that even if the 'visit instructions' include posting a photo or any other instruction, it is not a requirement. The only requirement is that the location be visited. Same goes for the owner of the waymark putting additional requirements in their description.

 

In regards to the person who logged a visit in 1954. Every so often a newbie comes in the forums and says "This isn't fair, someone found the cache before it was published". The cachers 'in the know' are quick to point out that geocaching.com is just a listing service. That doesn't mean that the cache didn't exist or was unfindable before the cache owner decide to submit their cache on geocaching.com and the reviewer published it. In fact, the cache was in existence the second it was placed by the owner. If someone found the cache before it was published on gc.com, it is totally acceptable that they log a find and back date it to when they found the cache. So lets say that my grandpa hid a container out in the desert and in 1954, my dad found the container and signed a piece of paper inside of it to say he found it. Then today, I create a cache listing and submit it to gc.com and the reviewer published it. It would be acceptable for my dad to log a find and back date it to 1954. This rarely happens because a geocache usually does not exist until a few hours or days before it is published. It has happened though. Check out this Virtual. In the case of the Waymark you linked, the location has existed for over a hundred years! People have been visiting the area and meeting the requirements of the Waymark for over a hundred years. However, a Waymark listing for the location wasn't published until 200?. Why wouldn't it be acceptable for someone, who has fulfilled the requirements, to log a visit and backdate it to when they visited? It is acceptable. It may be looked at (by some) as bad form, but it is acceptable. Personally, I kinda think it is bad form. I went on vacation to Washington D.C. in 1994. If I wanted, I'm sure I could dig up a photo of myself at the monuments to verify my visit, but I made the personal decision to only log a visit on Waymarks that I visited after I signed up on Waymarking.com.

 

In regards to the integration of Waymarking in to the geocaching website for it to do better. I'm not sure exactly what ideas you have for this or what you consider 'doing better', but I tend to agree that there should not be such a separation between the two games.

 

In regards to the filter. That is already in place. In fact, the filtering of Waymarks is far more productive than the filtering of geocaches. For example, if you aren't interested in looking at McDonalds waymarks, they all fall under the McDonalds category and the whole category can be ignored all at once. One click and every McDonalds waymark is wiped off the Waymarking map never to be seen again unless you unignore it.

 

In regards to you going back to lurking. I disagree with this. I would hate to see that happen. If everyone lurked, there would be no one to talk to and nothing to talk about. It's people posting their thoughts, opinions, stories, etc, etc, that make the forums so much fun!

 

So, I took a look at some of the links you provided. Now they are more comparable to the original virtual I posted. Unfortunately most have been found by the same people. So the war memorial has fallen into multiple categories and people who visited once racked up a bunch of waymarks for one location. I am on vacation so I have taken time to compile the data;

 

WM3XR9

 

Visites - 16 (not even going to bother not counting non-photographed / logging before the waymark was published)

 

WM6GJX

 

Visits - 4 # duplicate visits ie visited other war memorial waymarks - 2 (50%)

 

WM332

 

Visits - 28 # duplicate visits - 10 (35%)

 

WM1B0K

 

Visits - 34 # duplicate visits - 17 (%50)

 

4 waymarks total aggravated visits 54 (not including those that didn't meet requirements) now a lot of the logs date back as far as when the virtual was created. So 2300+ geocache visits to 54 unique visits. Now I understand that lots of logs doesn't mean quality as seen here a great cache that me and my friend are the only ones to visit in 3 years 10 months and 17 days as of post. Thats why these waymark/cache is a good example people are visiting here anyway at least 2300+ but cant be bother to log the waymark of the same location.

 

Not providing a photo/logging before the waymark was submitted could be argued to death but it comes down to two things;

 

Does the waymark owner care? If they see it as legit then its their call.

 

People will play the game how they feel like.

 

Now all that being said - One two things I like about the Waymarking links I looked at are;

 

Page views, which allows one to see how many people actual manage to navigate to your page.

 

User rating, I dont know how well it would work for geocaches, but I do like fact that you can voice your opinion about the waymark. This is a good idea since we are a user policed community.

 

I should have clarified more to what I wanted for intergeneration in geocaching; when I do a search I want to be able to select geocache, waymark or both. Wherigo, Earthcaches each have separate websites, but are integrated into geocaches searches. Now I also don't want 900 different icons to show up on my google map when I search. Just a WM logo would do. Then I could hover over the icon and see a brief description. You would also need pre-search filter (located under my account) so you could deselct any catergoy you wan to ignore *cough* McDonalds */cough*

 

As far a counting stats just make a separate tab on your profile to keep track of waymarks and the different icons.

 

The only issue that I see with complete integration is that since we can only see 500 geocaches on a map it could drastically narrow the area you could search unless they up the limit.

 

Well that enough for now. Awaiting a reply. Until then back to the shadows

[+bflentje]

I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Can someone tell me how this is that all that much different than this, or how this is so incredibly different from this?

 

If you are into the discovery thing then there is none. If you are into the numbers scene then I can see your quarrel. You don't get a smiley. Then just admit that, it's about the numbers to you, not the experience. That's cool too, but don't be afraid to admit it.

 

For me, it's the combination of the two, seriously. I want the number and NEVER afraid to admit it. Whenever I am headed on vacation or some place new, first thing I do is look for the virtuals and earthcaches as "generally" speaking, they can bring you to some pretty cool places. The cache listings themselves in all liklihood tell you whether it's cool or lame. I filter at that point.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...Yet a small but very vocal group of people keep insisting the website must be all things to all people.

...

This, to me, is the crux of the issue... I don't believe that it is a "small but vocal" group of people asking for virts, which is why I believe that a proper survey (poll) of geocachers would reveal that most cachers want virts.

 

Am I right? Only a poll will tell.

 

Does Groundspeak care what a poll would reveal? Yes, I think they do. My experience with them is that they are very customer-facing and would seriously consider this topic if they believed that it is what the majority of cachers want.

 

The "Bring back virts" effort would and should fail if it is perceived that we want virts the way they used to exist. What we must do is create a new paradigm for virts which addresses the problems virts had. At least one poster to this thread stated that we need to keep the 'Wow' factor... if that's what we're asking for you can count on it never happening!

 

Lastly, we're not "insisting the website must be all things to all people", we're trying to find a path to virtual caches that is satisfactory to Groundspeak and to the geocaching community.

[+Semper Questio]

I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Can someone tell me how this is that all that much different than this, or how this is so incredibly different from this?

 

If you are into the discovery thing then there is none. If you are into the numbers scene then I can see your quarrel. You don't get a smiley. Then just admit that, it's about the numbers to you, not the experience. That's cool too, but don't be afraid to admit it.

 

The big difference to me is that 1 comes in my PQs and the other doesn't. If I am loading up data on the fly to make a run while I'm on a trip, then I am no going to spend a lot of research time on another site looking for nearby waymarks and try to figure out the logging requirements. Even downloading GPX data from Waymarking does not give listing requirements. So with those you either make a best guess on site or you have to get the info before you go out.

 

Add waymarks to PQ's and add logging requirements to the waymark GPX, and THEN we'll have something far more viable for many more of us.

 

I went out yesterday and did a bunch of Waymarking over lunch. When I got back I was SOL on a couple because I did not know of additional requriements beyond coordinates, a picture, and my log. But that's OK because it is local and I can go back and get that info any time. But if I travel from Texas to Europe and try to do some waymarks and find I don't have enough info when I return, I'd be awfully upset. So when I travel, odds are I won't be doing much Waymarking till these deficienies are remedied.

[+Semper Questio]

Give a smiley for a waymark and argument disappears, I have a 20 that says I am right.

 

You don't get a geocaching smiley, but you get a Waymarking smiley. Put'em together and you get a lot of Groundspeak smileys.

 

And THAT brings us back to a consolidated profiles and stats pages. Maybe in the profile have a line that says "Total Groundspeak Icons:" or something.

[+Semper Questio]

 

I check in on Waymarking.com every once in a while to see if anything's changed. Now, maybe it's just where I live, but it's just dead over there. There are a handful of Waymarks close to me, and most of them have been visited... never.

 

 

I have the same issue where I am. The answer? Go post your own waymarks. Just like in caching, if you don't have enough caches, go place some and help spur interest. I've never really liked Waymarking and I started looking at it the day it launched. But it has come a long way in that time and I am now working with it more and trying to learn it better. Went out yesterday and made a bunch of visits and new waymarks. Once you get used to the structure of the thing, the only real deficiencies are the lack of integration to GC.com and no PQ's.

 

I'd LOVE to see a PQ option on GC to grab all nearby waymarks with an exclusion for ignored cats. Oh, and a special GPX with Waymarking listing requirements and including logging requirements in waymark GPXs. Then I'd be all over it everywhere I went.

[+Castle Mischief]

...but not in my area.

 

Behind "no PQs" and "multiple listings" this is the other reason that I haven't gotten into Waymarking.

 

The waymarks that exist, I've already visited via geocaching, or I own a geocache located at the waymark- some of these have 0 visits. Regionally our area is pretty unsupportive of Waymarking. Nationally, I think it's pretty safe to say that the ratio of logged visits to listed waymarks is kind of lop-sided.

 

With all this talk, I might have to dive into the "tyrannical sea" of the review process and see if I can get a few listed myself. Just because.

 

 

(PS: The waymarks that this account has logged were all done by my wife. She was kind of non-plussed. She'd much rather organize/post her visits via blog and photo album on her own site.)

[+Semper Questio]

Gotta tell ya - the first geocache that my wife and I did was a virtual at Acadia National Park in Maine, it took us two days to complete the series and got us hooked on geocaching.

 

Since then I have placed a bunch of conventional caches in my area and really wanted to place some on property owned by The Nature Conservancy. When I asked pemission I was told that their policy was no conventional geocaches were allowed, but they would work with me on a series of "virtuals" - I had to decline because of the geocaching.com policy which is a shame, because the land has some of the most scenic views and historic sites along the coast of Maine.

 

And yes - I visited the Waymarking website, but was not impressed.

 

I know I'm beating a dead horse - but now I've said it and feel better. No matter how long I continue to chase caches, there will never be the excitment of my first geocache find - which was virtual.

 

CoastieMike

 

The only solution there is to make a series of virtual steps in a multi leading to a physical final outside the conservancy. Of course, as the cache owner you could opt to allow 'find' logs for each virtual step. Purists on here would not like it, but it's your cache.

[+narcissa]

I have the same issue where I am. The answer? Go post your own waymarks. Just like in caching, if you don't have enough caches, go place some and help spur interest. I've never really liked Waymarking and I started looking at it the day it launched. But it has come a long way in that time and I am now working with it more and trying to learn it better. Went out yesterday and made a bunch of visits and new waymarks. Once you get used to the structure of the thing, the only real deficiencies are the lack of integration to GC.com and no PQ's.

 

The only reason I'm even remotely interested in Waymarking is because Groundspeak insists it's the "replacement" for a cache type I like. As long as the user interface remains horrible and it's not integrated with Geocaching.com and doesn't have PQs, they can stuff it. I'm not wasting my time wading through that mess. If it's really a replacement, it should have been designed to reflect that.

[4wheelin_fool]

 

Lets do a quick comparison geocaching v Waymarking...

 

GCK12J has 2300+ visits. Now to be fair lets only count visited since a similar waymark was created on 31 Aug 2009 = 237 (some might not have email the answer the cache owner.)

 

A virtual located at the same location has 18 visits. Now lets subtract armchair visits to this waymark. Logs with no photos 8 (which is a requirement to log it according to the description), one from 1954? come on, and 5 with photos posted but were logged before the waymark was even created (31 Aug 2009) . So 5 people visited and met the requirements since the waymark was posted.

 

237 vs 5

 

Waymarking = tons of fail

 

Thats slightly skewed data on the virtual geocache (GCK12J) Several of the logs mention that the e-mail is not working because the owner did not verify it going back to 2006. You would need to go back and check how many, "Greetings from Germany" logs there are, plus verify that the users did not simply read the past log entries and posted a find anyway if they could not figure it out.

 

 

Sort of like logging a strip of virtual velcro..

Edited April 9, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

The only solution there is to make a series of virtual steps in a multi leading to a physical final outside the conservancy. Of course, as the cache owner you could opt to allow 'find' logs for each virtual step. Purists on here would not like it, but it's your cache.

A Virtual stage (or stages) leading to an off-site regular cache final has been what I have recommended since the no-new-virt-listing policy was enacted.

 

I still don't understand why folks don't do this, it's such a simple answer.

 

Some argue that they won't get a virtual icon. True, but it's not about icons, it's about neat places where physical caches might not be desirable.

 

Some argue that many cachers don't hunt multi-caches. True, but I posit that those folks wouldn't hunt virts anyway. Besides, knowing that a multi includes interesting virtual stages would entice more folks who now ignore multis to hunt them.

 

As far as logging each stage, no. That supports the idea that smileys are a driving motivation, and I do not believe that.

Edited April 9, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[4wheelin_fool]

A Virtual stage (or stages) leading to an off-site regular cache final has been what I have recommended since the no-new-virt-listing policy was enacted.

 

I still don't understand why folks don't do this, it's such a simple answer.

 

Some argue that they won't get a virtual icon. True, but it's not about icons, it's about neat places where physical caches might not be desirable.

 

Some argue that many cachers don't hunt multi-caches. True, but I posit that those folks wouldn't hunt virts anyway. Besides, knowing that a multi includes interesting virtual stages would entice more folks who now ignore multis to hunt them.

 

As far as logging each stage, no. That supports the idea that smileys are a driving motivation, and I do not believe that.

 

The driving motivation varies among different cachers. Some really do care about the numbers, icons, and achievement badges. Some are motivated purely in spirit out of fun.

 

Myself?

 

Badges? I don't need no stinking badges..

Edited April 9, 2010 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Semper Questio]

A Virtual stage (or stages) leading to an off-site regular cache final has been what I have recommended since the no-new-virt-listing policy was enacted.

 

I still don't understand why folks don't do this, it's such a simple answer.

 

Some argue that they won't get a virtual icon. True, but it's not about icons, it's about neat places where physical caches might not be desirable.

 

Some argue that many cachers don't hunt multi-caches. True, but I posit that those folks wouldn't hunt virts anyway. Besides, knowing that a multi includes interesting virtual stages would entice more folks who now ignore multis to hunt them.

 

As far as logging each stage, no. That supports the idea that smileys are a driving motivation, and I do not believe that.

 

The driving motivation varies among different cachers. Some really do care about the numbers, icons, and achievement badges. Some are motivated purely in spirit out of fun.

 

Myself?

 

Badges? I don't need no stinking badges..

 

And it varies by cache owners as well.

 

I'd not set up a cache to award a find for each stage of a multi. I do have 1 cache that will allow extra finds for helping clean up an area that really needs it but surprisingly few people actually take me up on it.

 

On the other side of that coin, I have taken extra finds on a cache when the CO specifically stated it was acceptable to them AND I actually had to find something for the extra find(s). For example, one in particular said you had to find certain specific locations in town based solely on an incomplete photo and get info from those sites to get the final. The CO awarded a find for finding each location. For some that was easy. If it were easy for me, I wouldn't have taken the extra finds. But I didn't know where those places were and it took me some work to find them, so I claimed them.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

On the other side of that coin, I have taken extra finds on a cache when the CO specifically stated it was acceptable to them AND I actually had to find something for the extra find(s). For example, one in particular said you had to find certain specific locations in town based solely on an incomplete photo and get info from those sites to get the final. The CO awarded a find for finding each location. For some that was easy. If it were easy for me, I wouldn't have taken the extra finds. But I didn't know where those places were and it took me some work to find them, so I claimed them.

That describes event caches, where cachers could log Attended for each of several temporary unlisted caches hidden for the event. Personally I liked them, I logged several hundred, but the forum community overwhelmingly rejected the concept and the practice was banned.

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

How about because benchmarks are tracked but are not counted with the caches.

Benchmarks are liken to virtual caches and actually are tracked but unlike the Virt they are not counted with real caches.

 

 

I've been thinking, why not include Waymark finds on the GC public profile, but don't let it add to your total finds, like benchmarks. I enjoy finding benchmarks and like seeing a tally of what and how many I've found. And I don't mind at all that they don't add to my total finds. Including Waymark finds, in a sense, make them "mean" something, since everyone only cares about their public profile on GC. The icon can even be the WM logo.

 

That makes too much sense. Great idea though.

 

There are several of us waymarkers/geocachers who have advocated something like this for years as well.

[+Vater_Araignee]

The only solution there is to make a series of virtual steps in a multi leading to a physical final outside the conservancy. Of course, as the cache owner you could opt to allow 'find' logs for each virtual step. Purists on here would not like it, but it's your cache.

Some argue that they won't get a virtual icon. True, but it's not about icons, it's about neat places where physical caches might not be desirable.

Now see, I can't understand the "icon" reasoning either.

If you want the icon then do a virt and get the icon, each virt after that "for the icon" is pointless.

Like a geocoin, you could find 20 "MIGO Summer Geocoins 2007" but your only going to get 1 icon.

[+TheBeanTeam]

The only solution there is to make a series of virtual steps in a multi leading to a physical final outside the conservancy. Of course, as the cache owner you could opt to allow 'find' logs for each virtual step. Purists on here would not like it, but it's your cache.

Some argue that they won't get a virtual icon. True, but it's not about icons, it's about neat places where physical caches might not be desirable.

Now see, I can't understand the "icon" reasoning either.

If you want the icon then do a virt and get the icon, each virt after that "for the icon" is pointless.

Like a geocoin, you could find 20 "MIGO Summer Geocoins 2007" but your only going to get 1 icon.

 

The problem for some is that they can only get the Ghost icon in one column and not two. This bothers some for some reason.

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

A virtual located at the same location has 18 visits. Now lets subtract armchair visits to this waymark. Logs with no photos 8 (which is a requirement to log it according to the description), one from 1954? come on.......

 

 

In the case of the Waymark you linked, the location has existed for over a hundred years! People have been visiting the area and meeting the requirements of the Waymark for over a hundred years. However, a Waymark listing for the location wasn't published until 200?. Why wouldn't it be acceptable for someone, who has fulfilled the requirements, to log a visit and backdate it to when they visited? It is acceptable. It may be looked at (by some) as bad form, but it is acceptable. Personally, I kinda think it is bad form. I went on vacation to Washington D.C. in 1994. If I wanted, I'm sure I could dig up a photo of myself at the monuments to verify my visit, but I made the personal decision to only log a visit on Waymarks that I visited after I signed up on Waymarking.com.......

 

This has been debated at length elsewhere early in the Waymarking forums at the bottom of this forum.

 

Visiting prior to the creation of a waymark is fine in my opinion (though I haven't done so myself).

 

That said, I actually encourage "retro-visits" to my waymarks. Unlike geocaches which have a start point when listed on geocaching.com, a waymarks start point is not when the coordinates are published. There is a whole history of the location that occurred before the location was published as a waymark.

 

Lets say there is a waymark for some feature of the Seattle World Fair in the 1960's. The feature was waymarked in 200? but XYZ was there . If they have a story or photos of their visit I would love to see them.

 

One waymark I remember seeing but can't find features a location that has a changing of the guard. A retro-visit dating to the 90's on that waymark is from a soldier (including pictures) who actually served at that location. A great and appropriate retro-visit in my way of thinking.

 

Anyhow I don't think an artificial published date for the start of a waymark should be applied to something that has a history beyond that published date nor do I feel it is bad form for someone to post a visit if they actually visited the location.

 

Edit to add:

Oh yes. here is an item of interest. Waymarks can be visited more than once. I can post as many visits to a waymark as I want.

 

Don't worry though. The visit count doesn't go up with additional visits. It only reflects the first one in the visit count unlike the multiple finds on one cache that cause consternation here on occasion.

Edited April 9, 2010 by TheBeanTeam

[+Semper Questio]

Oh yes. here is an item of interest. Waymarks can be visited more than once. I can post as many visits to a waymark as I want.

 

Don't worry though. The visit count doesn't go up with additional visits. It only reflects the first one in the visit count unlike the multiple finds on one cache that cause consternation here on occasion.

 

I just did that yesterday...to my own waymark. I had waymarked a Medal of Honor gravesite back shortly after the recipient had been interred (also my first waymark). I also logged the 1st visit. But at that time, there were no markers in place yet. Yesterday I went back got new pics including the markers, and logged another visit.