Waymarking

[+narcissa]

BUT, I have come to a conclusion, I need to get involved, and more people need to also, once we are involved and have made location contributions, that are significant, then we can start complaining about the other stuff.

I came to the same conclusion and after getting involved, I think Waymarking is way cool. Now that I've become involved, it is more than obvious that narcissa type comments are nothing more than nonsensical rambling. As long as her stats say 'placed = 0' and 'visited = 5', her opinion holds little to no value. I'm just bummed that I spent 3 years believing the nonsense that is constantly thrown around without trying it for myself.

 

I might place some, if the site wasn't hard to use, had PQs, and was integrated with Geocaching.com. Most of the Waymarks I've looked at have fewer than five visits. If I want to bring people to a cool spot with their GPS around here, it makes more sense to place a geocache.

 

I'm not an indiscriminate Waymarking hater. I think it's something that has potential, but until the site works better, setting up new Waymarks is a waste of time. All the great Waymarks in the world won't get people to the site until the site has more appealing features.

[+narcissa]

 

actually no, that wasn't his bet, you may want to read his post again. his bet was "number of waymarks > number of virtuals", which is why i asked to clarify your numbers.

 

 

Last night it simply said geocaches. I checked twice before hitting post because it seemed like such an absurd thing to say, even for him. It's pretty clear that briansnat is not interested in any kind of productive discussion with people who could be brought into Waymarking if the site was better designed.

 

It was a typo that was corrected. I'm certainly interested in productive discussion. As I stated before I agree with some of the criticisms of Waymarking. I'd love for it to have PQs and profile integration between sites would be nice. The site at first can seem difficult to negotiate, but if you take a little time it actually works quite nicely and allows users to focus on the kinds of waymarks that they enjoy (I wish GC.com could do that for geoccaches).

 

My quarrel is with those who claim they love virtuals for the cool places that virtuals bring them and their educational value, yet dismiss Waymarking and those who say that waymarks are boring yet virutals are fascinating. If it really is about visiting interesting locations and educational value, Waymarking is certainly the answer to virutal caches. It's why I find the arguments about the educational factor and coolness of virtuals to be disingenuous and I suspect that if you scratch below the surface it's really about the smiley.

 

The fact that you edited your comment and my reply to it, but deleted the "edited by" line says pretty much everything. I am appalled. DTM.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

 

Would you elaborate on that? Waymarking is an exercise in creating waymarks with no particular expectation that they will be visited? I'm sure I'm reading that wrong, or am I?

 

 

You are reading more into it than I had intended. Up to this point the emphasis of Waymarking along with most site improvements have been for those creating Waymarks, I think there had to be some "critical mass" of Waymarks, this has been achieved in some areas and not in others. No where did I say that there no expectation of visits. As has been mentioned several times in this thread it would be good now to develop more tools to encourage visits such as pocket queries.

 

Most of my own visits originally started out with the intent of creating a new Waymark only to find there was one there already. I seldom search the site for Waymarks I intend to visit more often I search for areas with an absence of Waymarks and head to those.

Cool, thanks!

[+briansnat]

 

actually no, that wasn't his bet, you may want to read his post again. his bet was "number of waymarks > number of virtuals", which is why i asked to clarify your numbers.

 

 

Last night it simply said geocaches. I checked twice before hitting post because it seemed like such an absurd thing to say, even for him. It's pretty clear that briansnat is not interested in any kind of productive discussion with people who could be brought into Waymarking if the site was better designed.

 

It was a typo that was corrected. I'm certainly interested in productive discussion. As I stated before I agree with some of the criticisms of Waymarking. I'd love for it to have PQs and profile integration between sites would be nice. The site at first can seem difficult to negotiate, but if you take a little time it actually works quite nicely and allows users to focus on the kinds of waymarks that they enjoy (I wish GC.com could do that for geoccaches).

 

My quarrel is with those who claim they love virtuals for the cool places that virtuals bring them and their educational value, yet dismiss Waymarking and those who say that waymarks are boring yet virutals are fascinating. If it really is about visiting interesting locations and educational value, Waymarking is certainly the answer to virutal caches. It's why I find the arguments about the educational factor and coolness of virtuals to be disingenuous and I suspect that if you scratch below the surface it's really about the smiley.

 

The fact that you edited your comment and my reply to it, but deleted the "edited by" line says pretty much everything. I am appalled. DTM.

 

I did no such thing. In fact I couldn't if I wanted to. The edited by lines can not be deleted even by a moderator. Even if they could I have no moderator powers in this forum and could not edit any post other than mine. Your apology is accepted.

Edited May 1, 2010 by briansnat

[+simpjkee]

BUT, I have come to a conclusion, I need to get involved, and more people need to also, once we are involved and have made location contributions, that are significant, then we can start complaining about the other stuff.

I came to the same conclusion and after getting involved, I think Waymarking is way cool. Now that I've become involved, it is more than obvious that narcissa type comments are nothing more than nonsensical rambling. As long as her stats say 'placed = 0' and 'visited = 5', her opinion holds little to no value. I'm just bummed that I spent 3 years believing the nonsense that is constantly thrown around without trying it for myself.

 

I might place some, if the site wasn't hard to use, had PQs, and was integrated with Geocaching.com. Most of the Waymarks I've looked at have fewer than five visits. If I want to bring people to a cool spot with their GPS around here, it makes more sense to place a geocache.

 

I'm not an indiscriminate Waymarking hater. I think it's something that has potential, but until the site works better, setting up new Waymarks is a waste of time. All the great Waymarks in the world won't get people to the site until the site has more appealing features.

Spoiler alert: this response is tl;dr but what the heck. It don't matter anyway.

 

Your argument is for virtuals to be brought back to geocaching. GS has stated it clearly that Virtuals are gone and they're never coming back. EVER. Yet you still argue that they be brought back. Talk about 'all aboard the failboat'. GS has done their best for Virtual lovers by already stating that someone who is in to a virtual cache type experience can find that experience and more so on Waymarking. But that is not what you want. You want virtuals. So now you're means of arguing for the return of virtuals is to become an indiscriminate Waymark hater and beat Waymarking to a pulp. In your mind, if you can prove that Waymarking is fail, then maybe GS will consider bringing virtuals back.

 

So how do you beat Waymarking to a pulp? You spout out made up stuff and latch on to the ideas that stick. In the last thread you were saying that 'the moderation is tyrannical'. You and I both knew that was nonsense. You even admitted that it was stuff you heard from other people and not based on any experience. Had that idea 'stuck' you'd still be spouting that nonsense in this thread. It didn't stick and you dropped it.

 

In this thread, you argue that the site is hard to use. This argument has stuck so far, but its nonsense too. You know it and I know it. You have struck me as a very computer literate woman, especially when it comes to navigating the interwebs. Your internet lingo is far advanced compared to everyone else here. You have barely even used the Waymarking site and you admit that. Yet you boldly argue that it is hard to use. I refuse to believe that someone with your knowledge of the internet and computers would find Waymarking hard to use. You and I are both pretty computer literate people and I have picked it up about as quickly as I picked up geocaching.com. You don't really think the website is hard to use, but the argument has stuck so far so you spout it as much as possible to try and beat down Waymarking in an effort to advocate for Virtuals.

 

Virtuals are gone forever. If want to argue that they return, go for it. But don't beat up Waymarking as a means to achieve the impossible goal of bringing Virtuals back. It's not gunna happen and I think Waymarkers take exception to you continuing to spew this nonsense that has no validity. Give Waymarking a try if you really want to see it improve, but until you try it, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[+narcissa]

 

It was a typo that was corrected.

[+narcissa]

 

Your argument is for virtuals to be brought back to geocaching.

 

It used to be, but for the last little while I've been firmly in the "improve Waymarking so it is a reasonable replacement" camp. The rest of your comment isn't so much tl;dr as it is completely irrelevant and based on weeks-old comments from previous threads.

Edited May 2, 2010 by narcissa

[+simpjkee]

 

Your argument is for virtuals to be brought back to geocaching.

 

It used to be, but for the last little while I've been firmly in the "improve Waymarking so it is a reasonable replacement" camp. The rest of your comment isn't so much tl;dr as it is completely irrelevant and based on weeks-old comments from previous threads.

 

You said the site was hard to use this morning at 10:37am.

[+narcissa]

 

Your argument is for virtuals to be brought back to geocaching.

 

It used to be, but for the last little while I've been firmly in the "improve Waymarking so it is a reasonable replacement" camp. The rest of your comment isn't so much tl;dr as it is completely irrelevant and based on weeks-old comments from previous threads.

 

You said the site was hard to use this morning at 10:37am.

 

It is hard to use. How does that equal "bring back virtuals?"

[+briansnat]

 

It was a typo that was corrected.

 

That was written assuming that was the case (actually I went back to see what you were referring to and couldn't find the post so I assumed that I must have corrected a typo). The simple fact is that it is impossible for me (or anyone) to do what you accused me of. Also a moderator removing an audit trail for personal reasons (if it were possible here) would be an ethical violation, so I take your accusation seriously. I will be awaiting your apology.

[+BruceS]

 

It is hard to use. How does that equal "bring back virtuals?"

 

You keep claiming that the site is hard to use yet you have never posted a question or asked for assistance in the Waymarking forum. We have a getting started section of the forums just like here. I guess you figured it out on your own.

 

If your real interest is improving the Waymarking site then you should post your suggestions in that forum. That forum is where Waymarking developers look for ideas on improving the site.

Edited May 2, 2010 by BruceS

[+tozainamboku]

 

Your argument is for virtuals to be brought back to geocaching.

 

It used to be, but for the last little while I've been firmly in the "improve Waymarking so it is a reasonable replacement" camp. The rest of your comment isn't so much tl;dr as it is completely irrelevant and based on weeks-old comments from previous threads.

 

You said the site was hard to use this morning at 10:37am.

That certainly seems consistent with what narcissa says now. Waymarking is hard to use for her purposes.

 

If you are looking to visit a few interesting places that are in the same area where you are planning to look for geocaches, it can be a bit overwhelming. You get your geocaching pocket query. It has physical caches, EarthCaches, virtual caches, and webcams all in one place. No need to look elsewhere. Load them into your GPSr and off you go. Now with Waymarking you have to go to another site. You have to set up which categories you are interested in, and you have get the LOC file with the coordinates and load these along with your geocaches. Any there is no paperless description, so if there is a visit logging requirement you might miss this when you visit the location.

 

I would guess that some people would visit every virtual in an area they were geocaching in. You could be cynical and say that this was to get an easy smiley. Or it could be that people went because they didn't know what they would find. Many virtuals were boring - get some information off a plaque or sign and leave. But, because of the "Wow" requirement, enough virtuals would make you think "wow", that is was worth taking the chance and visit them all. It is certainly not the case that any individual is going to want to visit every waymark.

 

There have been some discussions on ways to improve Waymarking for those that are looking for interesting places to visit a la virtual caches. Perhaps a filter of preselect categories such as Best Kept Secrets and others that would make it easier to setup. Certainly a PQ that includes both geocaches and waymarks could help.

 

A lot of waymarkers are upset at the references to Waymarking as a "failboat" and other comments that Waymarking is not successful. The fact is that Waymarking has been very successful. Waymarkers are adding new categories and most of these categories are successfully collecting waymarks. Some categories are even getting visitors. I own a waymark for the Hollywood sign and it gets visited far more often than most of my geocaches. Not all categories are setup to get a lot of visitors. Instead the categories are a place to share information about locations. Often if you Google something that has been waymarked the waymark will show up in the search results and the information on the Waymarking page is useful to the person who did the search. It's this extra information collected for each waymark that distinguishes Waymarking from other sites that list coordinates of POIs. In addition to a description and photos of the site, each category can define as set of fields that must be filled in for the waymarks in that category. There have been some suggestion to improve on this aspect by adding a wiki like interface where people could add and correct information about a waymark. My guess is that over time we will continue to see changes made in Waymarking to make it better, but even without these improvements, I don't think you can reasonably call it a failure.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

A lot of waymarkers are upset at the references to Waymarking as a "failboat" and other comments that Waymarking is not successful.

 

...

 

My guess is that over time we will continue to see changes made in Waymarking to make it better, but even without these improvements, I don't think you can reasonably call it a failure.

Does Waymarking support itself with its own income stream?

 

If geocachers who don't use it and apparently don't much like it have to pay for it else it would fail, that's a pretty good indication that it's a failure.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

A lot of waymarkers are upset at the references to Waymarking as a "failboat" and other comments that Waymarking is not successful.

 

...

 

My guess is that over time we will continue to see changes made in Waymarking to make it better, but even without these improvements, I don't think you can reasonably call it a failure.

Does Waymarking support itself with its own income stream?

 

If geocachers who don't use it and apparently don't much like it have to pay for it else it would fail, that's a pretty good indication that it's a failure.

I just really wish that you would stop pretending and insinuating that you are being charged extra for the Waymarking site. It was a BONUS thing that they have thrown in for FREE for all the premium members of Geocaching. They didn't start charging you extra for it. Does it have it's own income stream?...Neither you or I can know that. Will it eventually have one...most likely, and when it does...there's a good chance that GS will be able to continue providing you with all the tools available to you now at Geocaching without raising the rates.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

A lot of waymarkers are upset at the references to Waymarking as a "failboat" and other comments that Waymarking is not successful.

 

...

 

My guess is that over time we will continue to see changes made in Waymarking to make it better, but even without these improvements, I don't think you can reasonably call it a failure.

Does Waymarking support itself with its own income stream?

 

If geocachers who don't use it and apparently don't much like it have to pay for it else it would fail, that's a pretty good indication that it's a failure.

I just really wish that you would stop pretending and insinuating that you are being charged extra for the Waymarking site. It was a BONUS thing that they have thrown in for FREE for all the premium members of Geocaching. They didn't start charging you extra for it. Does it have it's own income stream?...Neither you or I can know that. Will it eventually have one...most likely, and when it does...there's a good chance that GS will be able to continue providing you with all the tools available to you now at Geocaching without raising the rates.

Is it your contention that Waymarking is not funded by the membership fees that we pay Groundspeak?

 

Really?

 

Any money that goes to support Waymarking does not go to support geocaching.

 

There is no pretense or insinuation involved, just fact.

 

I only mention this because some folks insist that Waymarking is not a failure.

 

Fine, if it is a success then it should be able to get by on its own subscription base.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

 

It was a typo that was corrected.

 

Give it a rest. Stop discussing that issue.

[+narcissa]

 

It is hard to use. How does that equal "bring back virtuals?"

 

You keep claiming that the site is hard to use yet you have never posted a question or asked for assistance in the Waymarking forum. We have a getting started section of the forums just like here. I guess you figured it out on your own.

 

If your real interest is improving the Waymarking site then you should post your suggestions in that forum. That forum is where Waymarking developers look for ideas on improving the site.

 

If Groundspeak wants to know why geocachers who like virtuals aren't making the leap to Waymarking, they can check out the numerous threads about it over here. To say that my "interest" is in improving Waymarking is overstating. My opinion about the virtual geocache debate has shifted, but that's about it.

 

If Waymarking is the "replacement" for virtuals, then the site should have been designed properly to start with. Poor site design turns users off - not rocket science.

 

Besides that, wasn't someone just saying that the active Waymarking forum isn't even hosted in here? So I have to go to yet ANOTHER site to discuss Waymarking even though this is the Groundspeak forum? Seriously, what?

[+BruceS]

 

It is hard to use. How does that equal "bring back virtuals?"

 

You keep claiming that the site is hard to use yet you have never posted a question or asked for assistance in the Waymarking forum. We have a getting started section of the forums just like here. I guess you figured it out on your own.

 

If your real interest is improving the Waymarking site then you should post your suggestions in that forum. That forum is where Waymarking developers look for ideas on improving the site.

 

If Groundspeak wants to know why geocachers who like virtuals aren't making the leap to Waymarking, they can check out the numerous threads about it over here. To say that my "interest" is in improving Waymarking is overstating. My opinion about the virtual geocache debate has shifted, but that's about it.

 

If Waymarking is the "replacement" for virtuals, then the site should have been designed properly to start with. Poor site design turns users off - not rocket science.

 

Besides that, wasn't someone just saying that the active Waymarking forum isn't even hosted in here? So I have to go to yet ANOTHER site to discuss Waymarking even though this is the Groundspeak forum? Seriously, what?

 

As I thought no real interest in improving the Waymarking site, just want to bash it.

[+BruceS]

 

Besides that, wasn't someone just saying that the active Waymarking forum isn't even hosted in here? So I have to go to yet ANOTHER site to discuss Waymarking even though this is the Groundspeak forum? Seriously, what?

 

Maybe Groundspeak wanted to move Waymarking forum to Community Server to learn more and test that software and some of its capabilities with a smaller community rather than just move this forum to it. These are business decisions that I leave to them to make.

Edited May 2, 2010 by BruceS

[+narcissa]

 

As I thought no real interest in improving the Waymarking site, just want to bash it.

 

I am a geocacher. Virtual geocaches were taken away and replaced by something broken and inferior in many regards. If the topic comes up in the geocaching forum, I will comment on it. If Groundspeak wants geocachers like me to use the site, the onus is on them to design a site that is a reasonable replacement for the service they took away. I am a customer, not a site designer. Right now, the site is so lacking in basic functions and so dead in terms of local activity that it would be an utter waste of time for me to use it.

 

If Groundspeak and Waymarkers want more people using the site, then geocachers should be the natural target audience to get things rolling. The place to find out why geocachers are avoiding the site is here.

 

If Waymarking was brought to a basic level of functionability, I might take a real interest in using it. Right now, I can't even get Waymarks onto my GPS in a sensible way. Don't try to blame me for Waymarking's problems. The necessary site functions should be obvious, yet they aren't there.

[+cx1]

So I tried Waymarking again.

 

Yes it has potential, maybe someday it will work as smoothly as regular geocaches but it has a long way to go.

 

Finding waymarks near caches is a tedious affair.

 

The GPX 'lite' files don't include logging requirments. So much for paperless Waymarking I guess.

 

I go to log my waymark visits. I now see why visits are not often logged. Uploading field notes are not supported. So I try and search by WM number. That doesn't work. There is no simple way to re-find the waymarks you visit to log the visit. Basically I had to type in the exact name of each of the waymarks I found to be able to log them. When I uploaded my required photos there is no way to edit the photos. So a few of my pictures are sideways and I can't fix them.

 

Now to address the easy smiley issue. People can hunt only easy caches or only hard caches or whatever type of caches that they like to hunt. What is that to anyone else? This is a game that has all sorts of ways to play it. Stating that people only want virtuals back for easy smileys is just such a completely lame argument against virtuals that is just makes me sad. It would be like saying 'well waymarks are just for people too lazy to find a real cache'

 

This whole Waymarking/virtual thing would not really be such an issue to me if there wasn't such a biased attack against virtuals by certain members of the reviewing community. I have seen many virtuals archived in my area by a very anti-virtual reviewer. The reviewer is from several States away yet has archived many of the perfectly good virtuals around here. This smacks of a personal vendetta by the reviewer which is clearly shown in their archival activities.

 

I do not understand the animosity by the anti-virtual crowd. A simple unchecking of a box in PQs and map pages and you never have to see virtual caches. So why is there so much energy spent trying to keep them away from everyone else? The pro-virtual group doesn't have such a simple and easy option. We can either watch them disappear or try to fight to keep them.

 

If a person doesn't like virtuals, that's fine and dandy. Simply don't hunt them. Why take them away from those of us that do like them?

[+Team Cotati]

 

As I thought no real interest in improving the Waymarking site, just want to bash it.

 

I am a geocacher. Virtual geocaches were taken away and replaced by something broken and inferior in many regards. If the topic comes up in the geocaching forum, I will comment on it. If Groundspeak wants geocachers like me to use the site, the onus is on them to design a site that is a reasonable replacement for the service they took away. I am a customer, not a site designer. Right now, the site is so lacking in basic functions and so dead in terms of local activity that it would be an utter waste of time for me to use it.

 

If Groundspeak and Waymarkers want more people using the site, then geocachers should be the natural target audience to get things rolling. The place to find out why geocachers are avoiding the site is here.

 

If Waymarking was brought to a basic level of functionability, I might take a real interest in using it. Right now, I can't even get Waymarks onto my GPS in a sensible way. Don't try to blame me for Waymarking's problems. The necessary site functions should be obvious, yet they aren't there.

 

Very well said.

 

It often amazes me to watch some folk sing the praises of Waymarking while at the same time using old meaningless arguments against Virtual caches such as "there were things such as telephone pole serial numbers and old tennis shoes in the woods..blah, blah, blah........" that were being listed on the site geocaching.com.

 

While playing to the lowest common denominator works for a few seconds, the only meaningful thing of course is observable, measurable results. And those results are there for all to see, no excuse making required.

[+BruceS]

So I tried Waymarking again.

 

Yes it has potential, maybe someday it will work as smoothly as regular geocaches but it has a long way to go.

 

Finding waymarks near caches is a tedious affair. Really... there a link on every cache page just for that

The GPX 'lite' files don't include logging requirments. So much for paperless Waymarking I guess. Take a couple photos, one with your gps and that will cover you more than 99% of the time

 

I go to log my waymark visits. I now see why visits are not often logged. Uploading field notes are not supported.

Nope we don't have field notes and Geocaching only has had them for a relatively short time. It sure didn't when I was active with Geocaching

 

So I try and search by WM number. That doesn't work. There is no simple way to re-find the waymarks you visit to log the visit. Basically I had to type in the exact name of each of the waymarks I found to be able to log them. Incorrect, just type in the Waymark number in the search box... yes it works When I uploaded my required photos there is no way to edit the photos. So a few of my pictures are sideways and I can't fix them. Agreed I wish this would be added I make the mistake every once in a while and have to delete my photo and reupload.

 

Now to address the easy smiley issue. People can hunt only easy caches or only hard caches or whatever type of caches that they like to hunt. What is that to anyone else? This is a game that has all sorts of ways to play it. Stating that people only want virtuals back for easy smileys is just such a completely lame argument against virtuals that is just makes me sad. It would be like saying 'well waymarks are just for people too lazy to find a real cache'

 

This whole Waymarking/virtual thing would not really be such an issue to me if there wasn't such a biased attack against virtuals by certain members of the reviewing community. I have seen many virtuals archived in my area by a very anti-virtual reviewer. The reviewer is from several States away yet has archived many of the perfectly good virtuals around here. This smacks of a personal vendetta by the reviewer which is clearly shown in their archival activities.

 

 

My comments in red. I haven't seen anywhere in this thread that people were claiming that they didn't want virtuals because they were easy smileys, maybe I missed them. I am not against virtuals I have a couple and have logged a few hundred however I have been around long enough to remember the old threads about how vile virtuals were and how they were a huge detriment to the game. These threads were long before the anti-micro threads but were just as adamant and heated. Most of us involved in Waymarking would like to see improvements to the site and would like to see things that are added to the Geocaching site added to the Waymarking site at the same time. But I have also been around long enough that I can remember when Geocaching did not have these features and got along fine without the features then as I do now.

[+narcissa]

 

My comments in red. I haven't seen anywhere in this thread that people were claiming that they didn't want virtuals because they were easy smileys, maybe I missed them. I am not against virtuals I have a couple and have logged a few hundred however I have been around long enough to remember the old threads about how vile virtuals were and how they were a huge detriment to the game. These threads were long before the anti-micro threads but were just as adamant and heated. Most of us involved in Waymarking would like to see improvements to the site and would like to see things that are added to the Geocaching site added to the Waymarking site at the same time. But I have also been around long enough that I can remember when Geocaching did not have these features and got along fine without the features then as I do now.

 

If Groundspeak's official answer to the question "Why did you take away virtuals?" is "We moved them to Waymarking," then Waymarking.com should have the same basic functions. There's no good reason why a site built by the same company should be without the functions that geocachers now rely on, and that distinguish Geocaching.com from its direct competitors.

 

I'm not now going to tolerate shoddy site design and poor services just because I "got along fine" entering coordinates manually into my eXplorist 100 five years ago.

 

There are several obvious reasons why Geocaching.com is so much more popular and successful than the other sites. One of those reasons is that Groundspeak has continuously improved the site, added features, and worked to improve the compatibility of the site with popular GPS devices. If it wants Waymarking to get more attention, it should take a lesson from its own success.

 

I suspect, though, that Groundspeak has given up on Waymarking, and this line we keep being fed about virtual geocaches is just being maintained to appease the reviewers who don't want to deal with them.

 

It does leave a compelling niche available for someone else looking to get into the GPS game business.

[+ADTCacheur]

Here's how to make me happy with Waymarking: at least give the option to download them in a format where I can see them along with my geocaches on my GPS. At the moment they are waypoints.

[+ADTCacheur]

Also, Narcissa, are you TRYING to get a mod to kick you out? Because I find it easy to believe that if you keep pestering them...

[+narcissa]

Also, Narcissa, are you TRYING to get a mod to kick you out? Because I find it easy to believe that if you keep pestering them...

 

How is responding to comments in a public forum thread "pestering" anyone? The Groundspeak moderators aren't petty tyrants who kick people out for disagreeing with them.

Edited May 2, 2010 by narcissa

[+cx1]

To BruceS to save myself a big nested quote nightmare....

 

Rechecking, you are somewhat correct. wm3xn is different then WM3XN though. So the search is case sensitive. It makes no clear mention of this though.

Geocache searches are not case sensitive.

Benchmark searches are not case sensitive.

For some reason Waymarks are...../shrug to me just another example of the user unfriendliness of the site.

 

FWIW the benchmark area of this site could use some of the same attention the Waymarks need IMHO.

 

Yes there is a link to a Waymarking page on each cache page, but it goes to another site with a different map so its really hard to tell actually how close the various waymarks are to the geocache I was just looking at. The map provider is not even the same which makes comparing them even more difficult. Why can't it be a simple google map with the geocache marked and the near-by Waypoints shown?

 

I honestly don't want to knock on the waymark site. But when TPTB state it is the replacement for a cache type that I enjoy and would like to see more of I feel it necessary to point out the shortcoming of this 'replacement'.

 

The reintroduction method I purposed in a previous thread eliminates 99% of the potential issues with bringing virtual caches back and has zero impact on Waymarking.

[Dinoprophet]

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.

I, for one, renewed my several-years-lapsed membership once I started Waymarking. If it were to split and I had to choose where my $30 went, it'd go to Waymarking. Just for the record.

[+fizzymagic]

But I have also been around long enough that I can remember when Geocaching did not have these features and got along fine without the features then as I do now.

Geocaching started pocket queries with real GPX files in 2003. That was 7 years ago, less than 3 years after geocaching started. Since then, tools to create and manipulate XML data have advanced a great deal. There is no technical reason why the GPX format cannot be used for Waymarks. I could write the code in about 10 minutes.

 

While I admire your patience and dogged insistence that Groundspeak can do no wrong, everybody else knows that the Waymarking site sucks, and that there is no rational reason for it to be so bad. Personally, I believe that Groundspeak has discovered that there is no revenue opportunity there so they are not giving it any attention. Which is a smart business decision.

[Dinoprophet]

But I have also been around long enough that I can remember when Geocaching did not have these features and got along fine without the features then as I do now.

Geocaching started pocket queries with real GPX files in 2003. That was 7 years ago, less than 3 years after geocaching started. Since then, tools to create and manipulate XML data have advanced a great deal. There is no technical reason why the GPX format cannot be used for Waymarks. I could write the code in about 10 minutes.

 

While I admire your patience and dogged insistence that Groundspeak can do no wrong, everybody else knows that the Waymarking site sucks, and that there is no rational reason for it to be so bad. Personally, I believe that Groundspeak has discovered that there is no revenue opportunity there so they are not giving it any attention. Which is a smart business decision.

I don't know why they haven't done PQs yet. However, there are feature upgrades much more frequently there than here, so I wonder why anyone believes Groundspeak has abandoned the site.

[+narcissa]

I don't know why they haven't done PQs yet. However, there are feature upgrades much more frequently there than here, so I wonder why anyone believes Groundspeak has abandoned the site.

 

I guess the feature upgrades aren't noticeable to those of us who can barely make it past the main page. The site is cluttered and not intuitive, and that hasn't changed in years. Waymarkers can scold me all they want for not getting it, but that won't change the fundamental fact that the site itself is unappealing and difficult to navigate.

[+simpjkee]

I don't know why they haven't done PQs yet. However, there are feature upgrades much more frequently there than here, so I wonder why anyone believes Groundspeak has abandoned the site.

 

I guess the feature upgrades aren't noticeable to those of us who can barely make it past the main page.

 

[+narcissa]

I don't know why they haven't done PQs yet. However, there are feature upgrades much more frequently there than here, so I wonder why anyone believes Groundspeak has abandoned the site.

 

I guess the feature upgrades aren't noticeable to those of us who can barely make it past the main page.

 

 

Not sure what your objective is or why you insist on getting personal over a website, but your behaviour isn't much of an inducement for me to use Waymarking more often.

[+simpjkee]

I don't know why they haven't done PQs yet. However, there are feature upgrades much more frequently there than here, so I wonder why anyone believes Groundspeak has abandoned the site.

 

I guess the feature upgrades aren't noticeable to those of us who can barely make it past the main page.

 

 

Not sure what your objective is or why you insist on getting personal over a website, but your behaviour isn't much of an inducement for me to use Waymarking more often.

[Dinoprophet]

I don't know why they haven't done PQs yet. However, there are feature upgrades much more frequently there than here, so I wonder why anyone believes Groundspeak has abandoned the site.

 

I guess the feature upgrades aren't noticeable to those of us who can barely make it past the main page. The site is cluttered and not intuitive, and that hasn't changed in years. Waymarkers can scold me all they want for not getting it, but that won't change the fundamental fact that the site itself is unappealing and difficult to navigate.

Yes, I've heard it many times, most of them from you. I have no problem with the site. The search is on the front page, all the navigating is done from there. I acknowledge there is a learning curve to the activity itself, especially coming from a geocaching background. I also agree that it doesn't duplicate the virtual experience. I'm done trying to convince virtual lovers that Waymarking has what they want; they clearly want something other than a place to post and visit interesting places. I'll argue until the end of time, though, that Waymarking is vastly superior to locationless caches

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I find it extremely interesting that FTH (First To Hide) and putative founder of geocaching Dave Ulmer has a preference for waymarks and virtuals!

 

That may be common knowledge but it is news to me.

 

It's interesting to contemplate what this game would be like if he'd gotten his way.

 

See the thread at http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4318711

[+dfx]

well, if you don't like the fact that gc.com has stopped listing virtuals, you can always go ahead and create another site to list only those types of caches. kinda like waym--- oh wait.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

well, if you don't like the fact that gc.com has stopped listing virtuals, you can always go ahead and create another site to list only those types of caches. kinda like waym--- oh wait.

Or we could ask the company that we already support with our membership fees to consider what we would like to get for our money.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Just a thought...for those who are shouting down Waymarking...

 

What did you expect to see when you visited the site?

What would you hope to see?

What would Waymarking have to offer to make it interesting to you?

Have you ever looked at the category list and tried listing new locations, or do you only want to log visits at existing locations?

 

I started using Waymarking a week ago and have two gripes so far:

 

1) The same Waymark may be listed multiple times because it falls into different categories. I think same building/bridge/etc should only be listed once, but make it possible to list it in multiple categories.

 

2) It's less obvious what Waymarks you've visited already. Where are my big red checkmarks? Where are my smiley faces on the map? Where are my totals for how many I've visited broken down by category?

 

I have already submitted by first Waymark (and had it approved): an Army Corps of Engineers benchmark I came across. I'll probably try to add a few more around town.

[Dinoprophet]

I started using Waymarking a week ago and have two gripes so far:

 

1) The same Waymark may be listed multiple times because it falls into different categories. I think same building/bridge/etc should only be listed once, but make it possible to list it in multiple categories.

That complaint comes up a lot, and I do think it would be great if they could resolve it. The site may be to mature to change it now. It would involve merging multiple writeups from different people. But it's something for GS to consider.

2) It's less obvious what Waymarks you've visited already. Where are my big red checkmarks? Where are my smiley faces on the map?

That would be a good feature. At least an optional one. I wouldn't want to see smileys in place of the category icon, but I can see where others would.

Where are my totals for how many I've visited broken down by category?

That one I can help with: it's on your profile, under the Waymark Lists tab (change the list from "Waymarks Posted" to "Waymarks Visited")

 

More fun is the "Category Grid" tab, with the icons for all your categories posted, visited, or both. I don't think the grid gives you the numbers of each though.

 

I have already submitted by first Waymark (and had it approved): an Army Corps of Engineers benchmark I came across. I'll probably try to add a few more around town.

I hope so.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I have already submitted by first Waymark (and had it approved): an Army Corps of Engineers benchmark I came across. I'll probably try to add a few more around town.

Why did you list a benchmark as a waymark instead of listing it as a benchmark on the site designed for that purpose (http://www.geocaching.com/mark/default.aspx)?

 

Edit to add: And why is Groundspeak allowing benchmarks to be listed as waymarks when they have a perfectly good benchmarking site with ~734K benchmarks listed. Does this signal a move to incorporate benchmarking into Waymarking? If not then benchmarkers now have to search and post on two sites?

Edited May 3, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[Dinoprophet]

I have already submitted by first Waymark (and had it approved): an Army Corps of Engineers benchmark I came across. I'll probably try to add a few more around town.

Why did you list a benchmark as a waymark instead of listing it as a benchmark on the site designed for that purpose (http://www.geocaching.com/mark/default.aspx)?

 

Edit to add: And why is Groundspeak allowing benchmarks to be listed as waymarks when they have a perfectly good benchmarking site with ~734K benchmarks listed. Does this signal a move to incorporate benchmarking into Waymarking? If not then benchmarkers now have to search and post on two sites?

The Benchmarking site has always only accepted benchmarks that are in the NGS database. There are countless other kinds of benchmarks.

 

The "U.S. Benchmarks" Waymarking category has existed since 2005. I don't think a global shift is imminent.

Edited May 3, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+tozainamboku]

I find it extremely interesting that FTH (First To Hide) and putative founder of geocaching Dave Ulmer has a preference for waymarks and virtuals!

 

That may be common knowledge but it is news to me.

 

It's interesting to contemplate what this game would be like if he'd gotten his way.

 

See the thread at http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4318711

It was no suprise to me. I've perused some of the early geocaching discussion groups that predate Geocaching.com. Very early on Dave proposed an idea where the just being at the place would be the reward. Early discussions on the difficulty of placing urban caches and whether or not caches were littering, lead Dave to look for a new direction which he called the Wondert game. Some guy named Jeremy Irish registered the name Wondert.com and the rest is history.

 

With regard to the pace and the kinds of improvements being made to Waymarking.com: My impression is that it is driven by the people who are participating in Waymarking rather than by geocachers posting "bring back virtuals" threads. For now, those participating in Waymarking are more concerned with listing new waymarks rather than with visiting ones that others have listed. There is a lot of work that has been done on how to organize the categories, how to get new categories approved, how to deal with category groups that are not being actively managed, what to do with uncategorized waymarks, etc. There is not much demand for PQs because there isn't much of a group yet visiting waymarks. However there is an iPhone app for certain historic Waymarking categories so if you're out traveling you can find the nearest historic marker or historic building.

 

Just because Waymarking doesn't meet the perceived need of some geocachers who want it to replicate the experience of visiting virtual caches, doesn't mean it is not successful. Many people are finding is works quit well for sharing locations in categories that interest them. Other are finding it a resource not just for places to visit but also to get facts and photographs of certain locations they may be interested in. Sharing an interesting location does not just mean listing coordinates for someone to go visit it.

 

I'm frustrated because from the start I tried to address some concerns about Waymarking being a replacement for virtual caches. I started the Best Kept Secrets category because I felt that while there were plenty of interesting categories, the waymarkers penchant for just listing a bunch of location missed some of the flavor of virutal caches. I had hope that others would have joined me and try to carve out a small slice of Waymarking as a place where virtuals could be better represented. But instead of getting support I get told that my tirades are to long to read. It is easier for some people to complain than for them to make an effort to influence the direction of Waymarking.

[+Vater_Araignee]

<clip>

It is easier for some people to complain than for them to make an effort to influence the direction of Waymarking.

Boy oh boy, I am learning that.

[+narcissa]

Until the site is functional at a reasonable level that makes it a reasonable replacement for virtuals, using the site is a waste of time. People in my area don't use the site. If there's something cool we want to mark with a GPS and bring people to see, Geocaching.com is a better place for that. I can create a puzzle or multi incorporating something that doesn't lend itself to a hide. It's a bit clumsy, but at least people will actually visit the site.

 

See, if I'm sharing coordinates, it's not just for my own amusement, it's so other people can enjoy them too. If I want a personal list of cool places, I can keep that in a document on my computer and not deal with a review process.

 

As far as my area is concerned, Waymarking is a wasteland with virtually no activity. Setting up new Waymarks won't fix the fundamental problems with the site that have prevented most geocachers from embracing it. If they want to cater to the people who are already using the site as a glorified personal database, fine, but they need to stop telling us that Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals and just admit that virtuals were taken away, period.

[+narcissa]

<clip>

It is easier for some people to complain than for them to make an effort to influence the direction of Waymarking.

Boy oh boy, I am learning that.

 

Just this year I was responsible for getting geocoins and t-shirts made for my local caching club. I also host events, and keep a geocaching blog. My geocaching volunteer time is pretty well spoken for, and I'm not interested in spinning my wheels on your Waymarking project. As I told you, twice, people in my area just don't use Waymarks. If you want to take that personally and gripe about it, fine, but the insinuation that I'd rather complain than contribute to my community is way off-base.

[+briansnat]

I started using Waymarking a week ago and have two gripes so far:

 

1) The same Waymark may be listed multiple times because it falls into different categories. I think same building/bridge/etc should only be listed once, but make it possible to list it in multiple categories.

 

The problem with doing that is that each category has its own requirements for what has to appear on the page.

Say for example you have a church that is on the National Register of Historic Places, it's over 100 years old and it's a Catholic church.

 

It could be listed in all three categories, but the National Register listing asks info about when it was placed on the register, a link to its entry in the register, its historic use and some other things. The Catholic Church category wants you to note the diocese and archdiocese and the Old Church category wants things like the date the sanctuary was built, denomination and the history of it.

 

So though it is one object, each waymark page for it can look significantly different. It would be very hard to integrate pages of a waymark that is in multiple categories.

 

For example here are some waymarks for St Joseph's Church and how the page looks in three different categories. Old Churches, Catholic Churches and First of Its Kind. The information at the bottom required by each category is quite different.

Edited May 3, 2010 by briansnat

[+BruceS]

 

2) It's less obvious what Waymarks you've visited already. Where are my big red checkmarks? Where are my smiley faces on the map? Where are my totals for how many I've visited broken down by category?

 

 

The red checks are there. May not as big as those on the geocaching site but they are to the left of any that you have visited. They will look like

 

Also to see how many you have posted or visited by category go to your profile (My Page) then go to tab label Waymark lists. Then it will list each category you have visited or posted waymarks in and how many. If you click the number listed it will filter to those waymarks.

Edited May 3, 2010 by BruceS

[+TheBeanTeam]

I have already submitted by first Waymark (and had it approved): an Army Corps of Engineers benchmark I came across. I'll probably try to add a few more around town.

Why did you list a benchmark as a waymark instead of listing it as a benchmark on the site designed for that purpose (http://www.geocaching.com/mark/default.aspx)?

 

Edit to add: And why is Groundspeak allowing benchmarks to be listed as waymarks when they have a perfectly good benchmarking site with ~734K benchmarks listed. Does this signal a move to incorporate benchmarking into Waymarking? If not then benchmarkers now have to search and post on two sites?

 

As another poster indicated the benchmarks listed here are only NGS marks. It is a static list that is now out of date, and it cannot be added to. Benchmarkers would love to see it updated. That being the case there are literally thousands (hundreds of thousands) of marks that are not in the database here at geocaching.com and therefore they are not recorded. The most oft asked question in the benchmark forums is "I found a benchmark why isn't it listed?". When the benchmarks category was started at Waymarking it was to compliment the out of date geocaching site not replace it.