Waymarking

[+nativtxn]

Is Waymarking just the site that has any new "Virtual Caches"? I see there's a forum for it here, so I guess they're related. Is there a way to see the waymarks in your stats on geocaching.com?

[+journey4truth]

Correct, Waymarking was evolved from virtual caches at Geocaching.com and is geared towards finding locations rather than caches. The stats are done separately so in order to view them you'd have to do so directly at Waymarking.com

 

Hope that helps!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Is Waymarking just the site that has any new "Virtual Caches"? I see there's a forum for it here, so I guess they're related. Is there a way to see the waymarks in your stats on geocaching.com?

No, they are separate sites.

 

 

But this should be a fun thread anyway!

[+StarBrand]

I've long maintained that simply displaying the Waymarking stats over here would likely put a big dent in the number of "Restore Virtual" threads.

[+roziecakes]

I've long maintained that simply displaying the Waymarking stats over here would likely put a big dent in the number of "Restore Virtual" threads.

 

Like how our benchmark finds are displayed? That would be cool. I would probably do some Waymarking if that were the case.

[+StarBrand]

I've long maintained that simply displaying the Waymarking stats over here would likely put a big dent in the number of "Restore Virtual" threads.

 

Like how our benchmark finds are displayed? That would be cool. I would probably do some Waymarking if that were the case.

 

See.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I've long maintained that simply displaying the Waymarking stats over here would likely put a big dent in the number of "Restore Virtual" threads.

ya aint the only one convinced.

[+TheBeanTeam]

I've long maintained that simply displaying the Waymarking stats over here would likely put a big dent in the number of "Restore Virtual" threads.

ya aint the only one convinced.

 

I have maintained the same since the inception of Waymarking.

 

regarding the mention of the Waymarking forums by the OP. The Waymarking forums were also spun off into a new forum of their own at a place called the Groundspeak Portal. The last discussion in the Waymarking section of this forum was held in 2006.

[+StarBrand]

I've long maintained that simply displaying the Waymarking stats over here would likely put a big dent in the number of "Restore Virtual" threads.

Just to clarify...

 

I do not expect this will happen.

I do not care to see this happen (for a number of reasons).

 

But I still maintain it to be a true statement.

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

......I do not care to see this happen (for a number of reasons).....

 

 

StarBrand,

 

I would be interested in your viewpoints. If you do not wish to air them publicly and are willing to share them PM me.

 

Just curious because I think it would be a good change. I would like an alternate viewpoint without the drama that goes with the topic.

[+narcissa]

[+simpjkee]

For now, you can add your Waymarking stat bar to your geocaching profile under 'profile information'. See my profile for an example.

[4wheelin_fool]

Is Waymarking just the site that has any new "Virtual Caches"? I see there's a forum for it here, so I guess they're related. Is there a way to see the waymarks in your stats on geocaching.com?

 

The monthly "Bring back virtuals" thread was supposed to appear by Friday. If this is the subsitute, then you should have added more angst in the title.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Waymarks are boring! WhyBother??? I certanly hope they never bring that trash over here!

Virtuals, on the other fin, could be fun! They should be brought back with the WOW factor. (Something which WhyBotherMarking is missing!)

[4wheelin_fool]

Perhaps they could create a 3rd site for just virtuals and have the stats appear on the Waymarking site to boost it's usage.

[+briansnat]

I've long maintained that simply displaying the Waymarking stats over here would likely put a big dent in the number of "Restore Virtual" threads.

 

If you got smileys for waymark finds you'd probably see the end of those threads. If they showed in a separate category in your stats lthe way benchmarks, it wouldn't end those threads but I agree that it would put a big dent in it.

 

Waymarks are boring! WhyBother??? I certanly hope they never bring that trash over here! Virtuals, on the other fin, could be fun! They should be brought back with the WOW factor.

 

Please explain why this is this boring and this is not or why this is boring yet this isn't. How is this boring but this isn't? Why is this exciting, but this boring?

 

Every time I've posted these I've yet to have an anti waymarker explain the difference between them other than the smiley, which tells me that that it's about the numbers, not the experience.

Edited April 29, 2010 by briansnat

[+cx1]

 

Please explain why this is this boring and this is not or why this is boring yet this isn't. How is this boring but this isn't? Why is this exciting, but this boring?

 

Every time I've posted these I've yet to have an anti waymarker explain the difference between them other than the smiley, which tells me that that it's about the numbers, not the experience.

 

Actually it has been explained before, you just just don't want to listen.

[+briansnat]

 

Please explain why this is this boring and this is not or why this is boring yet this isn't. How is this boring but this isn't? Why is this exciting, but this boring?

 

Every time I've posted these I've yet to have an anti waymarker explain the difference between them other than the smiley, which tells me that that it's about the numbers, not the experience.

 

Actually it has been explained before, you just just don't want to listen.

 

Got a link? I'd really like to see the answer.

Edited April 29, 2010 by briansnat

[+narcissa]

 

Actually it has been explained before, you just just don't want to listen.

 

^QFT

[+briansnat]

 

Actually it has been explained before, you just just don't want to listen.

 

^QFT

 

Then perhaps you can explain it for me. I guess I'm a bit dull.

[+cx1]

[

 

Got a link? I've never seen it and I'd really like to see the answer.

 

No link sorry, search function is well....

Anyway to paraphrase previous statements about it comparing a waymark and virtual at the same place.

 

Waymarks require use of another website, virtuals appear right along with traditional multi's etc on the on-line maps and in the PQs. I've been planning a 3 state trip for next month. Needing to go to each cache page and then clicking to find near-by Waymarks and comparing maps on two different pages is a major time killer and makes waymarks not worth the hassle. Plus since the waymark information is not in the PQ I have to download the gpx of each waymark I may want to vist. Virtuals don't have any of that problem.

 

The interface on Waymarking.com is not as user friendly to many people as the one on geocaching.com.

 

Waymarking has many issues that bother people and TPTB don't seem to be in a rush to address many of them. So since we can't get the replacement for virtual caches to work as smoothly as virtual caches used to work we would like virtual caches returned.

[+briansnat]

[

 

Got a link? I've never seen it and I'd really like to see the answer.

 

No link sorry, search function is well....

Anyway to paraphrase previous statements about it comparing a waymark and virtual at the same place.

 

Waymarks require use of another website, virtuals appear right along with traditional multi's etc on the on-line maps and in the PQs. I've been planning a 3 state trip for next month. Needing to go to each cache page and then clicking to find near-by Waymarks and comparing maps on two different pages is a major time killer and makes waymarks not worth the hassle. Plus since the waymark information is not in the PQ I have to download the gpx of each waymark I may want to vist. Virtuals don't have any of that problem.

 

The interface on Waymarking.com is not as user friendly to many people as the one on geocaching.com.

 

Waymarking has many issues that bother people and TPTB don't seem to be in a rush to address many of them. So since we can't get the replacement for virtual caches to work as smoothly as virtual caches used to work we would like virtual caches returned.

 

I was asking about the specific differences between those waymarks and virts and what made one boring and one not. I was responding to a post that stated that waymarks are boring. I'm aware of the limitations of the Waymarking site, many of which can be addressed once someone takes the time to learn it (though I would love Waymarking PQs). What I wanted to know is why waymarks are boring and virtuals aren't. You said that has been explained before but I've yet to see it.

Edited April 29, 2010 by briansnat

[+Vater_Araignee]

[

 

Got a link? I've never seen it and I'd really like to see the answer.

 

No link sorry, search function is well....

Anyway to paraphrase previous statements about it comparing a waymark and virtual at the same place.

 

Waymarks require use of another website, virtuals appear right along with traditional multi's etc on the on-line maps and in the PQs. I've been planning a 3 state trip for next month. Needing to go to each cache page and then clicking to find near-by Waymarks and comparing maps on two different pages is a major time killer and makes waymarks not worth the hassle. Plus since the waymark information is not in the PQ I have to download the gpx of each waymark I may want to vist. Virtuals don't have any of that problem.

 

The interface on Waymarking.com is not as user friendly to many people as the one on geocaching.com.

 

Waymarking has many issues that bother people and TPTB don't seem to be in a rush to address many of them. So since we can't get the replacement for virtual caches to work as smoothly as virtual caches used to work we would like virtual caches returned.

 

I was asking about the specific differences between those waymarks and virts and what made one boring and one not. I was responding to a post that stated that waymarks are boring. I'm aware of the limitations of the Waymarking site, many of which can be addressed once someone takes the time to learn it (though I would love Waymarking PQs). What I wanted to know is why waymarks are boring and virtuals aren't. You said that has been explained before but I've yet to see it.

Virtuals arnt boring?

[+simpjkee]

I've long maintained that simply displaying the Waymarking stats over here would likely put a big dent in the number of "Restore Virtual" threads.

 

If you got smileys for waymark finds you'd probably see the end of those threads. If they showed in a separate category in your stats lthe way benchmarks, it wouldn't end those threads but I agree that it would put a big dent in it.

 

Waymarks are boring! WhyBother??? I certanly hope they never bring that trash over here! Virtuals, on the other fin, could be fun! They should be brought back with the WOW factor.

 

Please explain why this is this boring and this is not or why this is boring yet this isn't. How is this boring but this isn't? Why is this exciting, but this boring?

 

Every time I've posted these I've yet to have an anti waymarker explain the difference between them other than the smiley, which tells me that that it's about the numbers, not the experience.

 

There's no difference. It's the same thing. When the "Bring Back Virtuals" people get over it, they are going to be very pleasantly surprised with what Waymarking has to offer. Unless, of course, it's all about smileys and not experiences.

[+briansnat]

There's no difference. It's the same thing. When the "Bring Back Virtuals" people get over it, they are going to be very pleasantly surprised with what Waymarking has to offer. Unless, of course, it's all about smileys and not experiences.

 

There are some legit gripes about the Waymarking site. It isn't as hard to negotiate as some people claim. Actually it is very easy to find waymarks that interest you, unlike this website where finding cool caches is a chore. It is a different site and some people don't want to deal with that, though I noticed that some of the anti waymarkers are active on another geocaching website so that kind of kills that argument (at least for those actors). My chief gripe with Waymarking is no PQs. Other than that, if you are truly interested in virtuals for the cool places they bring you, Wamarking gives you that in aces.

[+simpjkee]

There's no difference. It's the same thing. When the "Bring Back Virtuals" people get over it, they are going to be very pleasantly surprised with what Waymarking has to offer. Unless, of course, it's all about smileys and not experiences.

 

There are some legit gripes about the Waymarking site. It isn't as hard to negotiate as some people claim. Actually it is very easy to find waymarks that interest you, unlike this website where finding cool caches is a chore. It is a different site and some people don't want to deal with that, though I noticed that some of the anti waymarkers are active on another geocaching website so that kind of kills that argument (at least for those actors). My chief gripe with Waymarking is no PQs. Other than that, if you are truly interested in virtuals for the cool places they bring you, Wamarking gives you that in aces.

 

^QFT

[+narcissa]

 

I guess I'm a bit dull.

 

[4wheelin_fool]

 

I guess I'm a bit dull.

 

No, the steak is too thick.

[+dfx]

[+cx1]

 

There are some legit gripes about the Waymarking site. It isn't as hard to negotiate as some people claim. Actually it is very easy to find waymarks that interest you, unlike this website where finding cool caches is a chore. It is a different site and some people don't want to deal with that, though I noticed that some of the anti waymarkers are active on another geocaching website so that kind of kills that argument (at least for those actors). My chief gripe with Waymarking is no PQs. Other than that, if you are truly interested in virtuals for the cool places they bring you, Wamarking gives you that in aces.

 

Well it's not easy to find waymarks that interest me while I am searching for geocaches because waymarks are on another site. Include them as an option to be displayed on my geocaching search map and it will help perk my interest.

 

Also there is a ton of not so cool waymarks. Wow a taco bell, yippie.

My biggest gripe about waymarks is the same place having multiple listings. I go to waymark 1, hmm interesting place, waymark 2, same place not so interesting anymore. By the time you get to waymark 6, still the same place its kinda boring.

 

And just to know, how does being a member of another cache listing site somehow invalidate having an opinion about this one?

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

There are some legit gripes about the Waymarking site. It isn't as hard to negotiate as some people claim. Actually it is very easy to find waymarks that interest you, unlike this website where finding cool caches is a chore. It is a different site and some people don't want to deal with that, though I noticed that some of the anti waymarkers are active on another geocaching website so that kind of kills that argument (at least for those actors). My chief gripe with Waymarking is no PQs. Other than that, if you are truly interested in virtuals for the cool places they bring you, Wamarking gives you that in aces.

 

Well it's not easy to find waymarks that interest me while I am searching for geocaches because waymarks are on another site. Include them as an option to be displayed on my geocaching search map and it will help perk my interest.

 

Also there is a ton of not so cool waymarks. Wow a taco bell, yippie.

My biggest gripe about waymarks is the same place having multiple listings. I go to waymark 1, hmm interesting place, waymark 2, same place not so interesting anymore. By the time you get to waymark 6, still the same place its kinda boring.

 

And just to know, how does being a member of another cache listing site somehow invalidate having an opinion about this one?

He was talking about difficulty of use. Some people are active on other difficult to use cache listing services and don't complain about them but complain about Waymarking.com and it's difficulties.

[+tozainamboku]

Well it's not easy to find waymarks that interest me while I am searching for geocaches because waymarks are on another site. Include them as an option to be displayed on my geocaching search map and it will help perk my interest.

Good point. I understand how many people get a PQ with all the caches in an area - physical and virtuals together. Then they go find the caches. The virtuals are combined with the physical caches and you find some virtuals along with the physical caches in the area. This is not easily done with Waymarks. (Note it still can be done. Every cache page has a link to nearest waymarks so you can get a list of the waymarks that might interest you in the are and load the coordinates in your GPS. However, if you cache paperless you might not be able to get the description of the waymark or the logging requirements, if any.)

 

Also there is a ton of not so cool waymarks. Wow a taco bell, yippie.

My biggest gripe about waymarks is the same place having multiple listings. I go to waymark 1, hmm interesting place, waymark 2, same place not so interesting anymore. By the time you get to waymark 6, still the same place its kinda boring.

This is just indicating that you haven't learned how to use Waymarking yet. There are ways to filter waymarks to select only the categories you find interesting - or to ignore any categories you find boring. Also you are looking at the idea of visiting a waymark with the narrow view of a geocacher. It shouldn't bother anyone that a waymark may be listed in multiple categories. When you start to filter by what your are interested you may miss a location if it could only be listed in one category. By listing the waymark in multiple categories anyone who might be interested will be able to find it. When you visit the waymark you can log your visit in each category if you want, but you don't have to. Just pick one category and log it if that is all you want to do.

 

Some people visit every virtual cache. Maybe not all are interesting, but enough are that that you feel if you visit every one you chances are that you will enjoy it. Some people have no doubt visited a virtual cache that seem uninteresting from the write up but once you were there you were surprised at what you found. I can understand certain reluctance to use the filtering provided by Waymarking. However, the idea that you need to visit every waymark or geocache to enjoy Waymarking or Geoaching is a little hard for me to grasp. If there were better ways to filter the geocaches you search for, wouldn't you use them?

 

And just to know, how does being a member of another cache listing site somehow invalidate having an opinion about this one?

My guess is that it only applies to those who complain about the fact that Waymarking is not integrated with Geocaching. If you can take time to see if there are any Terracaches or Navicaches in the area, it is even easier to check on what Waymarks are nearby. I agree that there could be better integration between Geocaching and Waymarking. It may depend alot on how you use the alternative geocaching sites. Edited April 29, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Waymarking.com did evolve from Locationless and Virtual Caches. As the evolution progresses over the years, it is now a completely different GPS-based game and should be regarded as such.

 

Picking an analogy:

This would be like saying, "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" was inspired by "Jeopardy!" Both are game shows on the television and both require trivia knowledge. However, the rules and format of these games are different enough to say that "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?" could not be merged into "Jeopardy!" and provide those fans the same kind of experience, even if "Jeopardy!" fans wouldn't mind.

 

So it is with Waymarking and Geocaching. Waymarking has traveled too far past the fork in the road to double-back and return as Virtuals. In addition, Geocaching has sustained very well without additional Virtuals, which were becoming cumbersome and difficult for reviewers. A large complaint is reviewing consistency and Virtuals made it impossible for reviewers to be consistent and clear. "Wow" factor is just too subjective and the lack of organization must have been a nightmare for site maintenance and search functions.

 

If Groundspeak would provide a stat bar that displays stats for all of their GPS games, I believe everyone would be happy.

[+narcissa]

 

He was talking about difficulty of use. Some people are active on other difficult to use cache listing services and don't complain about them but complain about Waymarking.com and it's difficulties.

 

I complain about Waymarking because Groundspeak insists that it's the replacement for Virtual Geocaches, yet the site is entirely different and not integrated with Geocaching at all.

 

Geocaching.com is the only caching site I use. I've taken a look at the other sites, but, like Waymarking, they are poorly designed and have very few listings in my area.

[+briansnat]

 

He was talking about difficulty of use. Some people are active on other difficult to use cache listing services and don't complain about them but complain about Waymarking.com and it's difficulties.

 

I complain about Waymarking because Groundspeak insists that it's the replacement for Virtual Geocaches, yet the site is entirely different and not integrated with Geocaching at all.

 

Geocaching.com is the only caching site I use. I've taken a look at the other sites, but, like Waymarking, they are poorly designed and have very few listings in my area.

 

If you are into finding locations rather than physical containers then Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals. I'm willing to bet that there are more waymarks in your area than virtuals.

[+narcissa]

 

If you are into finding locations rather than physical containers then Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals. I'm willing to bet that there are more waymarks in your area than virtuals.

 

I'm into finding both, actually - that's why I like virtual geocaches. Unfortunately, Waymarking is difficult to use, doesn't have PQs, and isn't integrated with the site I originally used to find locations AND containers. It's a poor replacement.

 

BTW, within a 10 km radius of my house:

 

84 Waymarks (not filtered in any way)

 

704 Geocaches

 

All aboard the failboat.

 

[+journey4truth]

I've only dabbled with Waymarking a bit since I started geocaching, but I have to agree, it's just a lot easier to find the grandfathered virtual caches.

 

Another thing I've noticed is that they tend to be more intriguing too. On Waymarking some of the things listed in my area were water towers and Dunkin' Donuts. Seriously?

 

I haven't dug in enough to be sure, but if there was a filter that could screen out the more hum ho waymarks (in a way that doesn't involve drilling down into categories when performing searches), that would make things a lot easier. I'm mostly interested in historical landmarks or places that generated a lot of folklore and urban legends, but I've been so busy geocaching that I haven't had time to see if Waymarking had any listings like that close to me.

[+geodarts]

I always look for virtuals first and particularly enjoy those that are in areas where traditional caching is not allowed. They have taken me to places that are not covered by Waymarking, given me a task that is different than Waymarking, and allowed me to play this particular game in amazing locations or shown me things that I would have otherwise missed.

 

I have looked at the Waymarking site on occasion but have never been inspired. Maybe it's just me, but the check-in model of gps games (which Waymarking is one) is of limited interest. In some ways it is better suited to a dedicated application, the way that Gowalla and Foursquare have popularized check-ins on the iPhone.

 

However, I don't see any reason why the Waymarking stats should not be integrated with the geocaching profile. Although I still would miss virtuals and it would not encorage me to have any more waymarks but the one that I recorded just to do it.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Erickson

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Too bad Groundspeak doesn't make Waymarking.com a separate pay site... folks keep saying Waymarking and geocaching are two different things, cool, then why should geocachers have to pay for its development?

 

The number of folks willing to pay to use it would tell right quick if it's the failure that I believe that it is.

 

I'd pay several times Groundspeak's fee to use geocaching.com; I wouldn't pay a dime to use Waymarking.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Too bad Groundspeak doesn't make Waymarking.com a separate pay site... folks keep saying Waymarking and geocaching are two different things, cool, then why should geocachers have to pay for its development?

 

The number of folks willing to pay to use it would tell right quick if it's the failure that I believe that it is.

 

I'd pay several times Groundspeak's fee to use geocaching.com; I wouldn't pay a dime to use Waymarking.

That is a good idea too. Too bad GS wouldn't drop the cost of a membership here because of it.

What kind of benefit to I get on Waymarking for being a PM?

I know that I can't even get tech support from Wherigo for a manual instillation that should be the same across the board on any ce device.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

they are poorly designed and have very few listings in my area.

Well, if one simply wants to visit places that are already listed, then one will need to wait until Waymarking grows a lot. For now the task of Waymarkers is to work on listing NEW locations that others can visit later. For anyone who thinks they might have an interest in the game, but find no listings near them, the course would be to look through the Category list for things that they would like to see listed, and start working on listing them.

[+dfx]

BTW, within a 10 km radius of my house:

 

84 Waymarks (not filtered in any way)

 

704 Geocaches

 

All aboard the failboat.

and how many virtuals?

 

and how many of those 704 caches actually reference a certain location of interest?

[+nativtxn]

Good grief! I thought I asked a simple question! Man, there seem to be so many of you just waiting for an arguement, it's no wonder some newbies don't ask many questions.

[+dfx]

Good grief! I thought I asked a simple question! Man, there seem to be so many of you just waiting for an arguement, it's no wonder some newbies don't ask many questions.

no problem, those threads pop up on a regular basis. at least one per week i'd say

 

and it's always the same arguments, back and forth, never ending

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Good grief! I thought I asked a simple question! Man, there seem to be so many of you just waiting for an arguement, it's no wonder some newbies don't ask many questions.

Actually we love new cachers and new members to this forum. New people are the lifeblood of geocaching.

 

We did answer you politely.

 

Then in post #3 I alluded to the fact that this would become an 'interesting' thread. Interesting as in the ancient Chinese curse "May all your days be interesting."

 

The thing is, had you used Google or this site's search engine before asking you would have not only quickly found your answer but would have seen that this is a hot-button topic that comes up with great regularity and is always controversial.

 

After we answer questions politely and correctly we do tend to sometimes take off down pig trails. Once your question has been answered we tend to treat a thread like it is open season.

 

Don't take it personally. It's not aimed at you. Welcome aboard and please join in our discussions and feel free to ask questions. As in any forum it's best to look to see if the question has already been asked; it's not required, just be ready for some snarkiness from those of us who have answered it every month for years.

[+narcissa]

BTW, within a 10 km radius of my house:

 

84 Waymarks (not filtered in any way)

 

704 Geocaches

 

All aboard the failboat.

and how many virtuals?

 

and how many of those 704 caches actually reference a certain location of interest?

 

I didn't filter either category based on what I consider to be interesting. The raw numbers comparison was simply in response to briansnat's "bet" that there are more waymarks near me than geocaches.

 

Filtering down to a comparable list of "interesting" waymarks vs. virtual geocaches, Earthcaches and "interesting" geocaches is still likely to favour geocaching. Ottawa is a very cache-dense area with an active caching community, and Canada's Parliament, not to mention numerous museums and monuments, are within 10km of me. There's no end of interesting spots to put caches, or at least start multi-caches.

 

We all realized pretty early that Waymarking was a bust, and have instead opted to highlight locations of interest by incorporating them into geocaches. Perhaps if the Waymarking site had been better designed and integrated with geocaching from the get-go, it would have caught on here, but in talking to other Ottawa geocachers it's pretty clear that nobody wants to use a completely different site.

[+narcissa]

they are poorly designed and have very few listings in my area.

Well, if one simply wants to visit places that are already listed, then one will need to wait until Waymarking grows a lot. For now the task of Waymarkers is to work on listing NEW locations that others can visit later. For anyone who thinks they might have an interest in the game, but find no listings near them, the course would be to look through the Category list for things that they would like to see listed, and start working on listing them.

 

Yeah, too bad the site is poorly designed, difficult to use, and not integrated with Geocaching.com.

[+Team Cotati]

Too bad Groundspeak doesn't make Waymarking.com a separate pay site... folks keep saying Waymarking and geocaching are two different things, cool, then why should geocachers have to pay for its development?

 

The number of folks willing to pay to use it would tell right quick if it's the failure that I believe that it is.

 

I'd pay several times Groundspeak's fee to use geocaching.com; I wouldn't pay a dime to use Waymarking.

 

Well said.

 

Thank you.

[+briansnat]

BTW, within a 10 km radius of my house:

 

84 Waymarks (not filtered in any way)

 

704 Geocaches

 

All aboard the failboat.

and how many virtuals?

 

and how many of those 704 caches actually reference a certain location of interest?

 

I do find it funny that some of the people who complain about uninteresting waymarks for places like McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts won't hesitate to hunt a geocache in a Home Depot parking lot.

[+Team Cotati]

BTW, within a 10 km radius of my house:

 

84 Waymarks (not filtered in any way)

 

704 Geocaches

 

All aboard the failboat.

and how many virtuals?

 

and how many of those 704 caches actually reference a certain location of interest?

 

I do find it funny that some of the people who complain about uninteresting waymarks for places like McDonalds and Dunkin Donuts won't hesitate to hunt a geocache in a Home Depot parking lot.

 

Ya, I find that funny too.