Waymarking

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

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.

 

Bruce beat me to the same reply....but I have graphics.

 

View at EasyCaptures.com

[+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.

 

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.

You're making the assumption that I am exclusively referring to you.

I am not, so don't take it so personal.

[+Semper Questio]

I went back and re-visited Waymarking. I had tried it off and on since its inception and never really liked anything about it. It has come a long way and I have incorporated into my geocaching routine. I find myself specializing in cemeteries, Texas Historical Markers, and a few other things, but I hit other things of interest when I run across them and feel like marking them.

 

My biggest gripe about Waymarking has to do with the requirements for listing and/or visiting a WM.

 

Since each category requires different things I find myself having to take a lot of pics of various types and make note of lots of information. But I still often find that I missed something critical so I either have to save the waymark until I get the rest of the required info or just forget about it.

 

What would make the site better for ME is...

1) Pocket Queries where I could select the categories to include.

2) Include the visit logging requirements in the PQ (data not currently in a WM GPX).

3) Develop a seperate, special PQ to be able to download the Waymarking requirements for a new WM in a category.

 

That 3rd one is the most important for me. Assign each category a special code - maybe WCxxxxx for Waymark Category) - and in the GPX put the category title, the cat. description, and the cat listing and visiting requirements. Then I could pull that into my GSAK and drop it into my cachemate so when I'm out in the field and I see a cool spot to mark, I have at my fingertips everything I need to gather to mark or visit it.

 

It'd be really cool to be able to subscribe to a category GPX so when a new category was added or requirements on a cat changed, you would automatically get an email with the updated WM Cat GPX attached.

 

If I had these tools, I would probably do FAR more Waymarking than caching these days. Since I generally can't go after the caches I prefer due to my physical limitations, Waymarking has become an often-times better alternative. I can find a lot more cool things to mark or visit than I can find really fun caches given my situation.

[+narcissa]

 

You're making the assumption that I am exclusively referring to you.

I am not, so don't take it so personal.

 

Whatever.

 

No matter who you're referring to, if people aren't interested in helping with your project, it's likely because they also see it as futile. Adding more content isn't going to fix the fundamental barriers that are preventing geocachers from using the site. Why bother creating more and more categories that nobody uses? The Waymarkers themselves have admitted that they'd rather create waymarks than visit them. Lame.

[Dinoprophet]

 

You're making the assumption that I am exclusively referring to you.

I am not, so don't take it so personal.

 

Whatever.

 

No matter who you're referring to, if people aren't interested in helping with your project, it's likely because they also see it as futile. Adding more content isn't going to fix the fundamental barriers that are preventing geocachers from using the site. Why bother creating more and more categories that nobody uses? The Waymarkers themselves have admitted that they'd rather create waymarks than visit them. Lame.

If you shift your thinking from "waymark owner = cache owner" to "category owner = cache owner", you might get a better understanding of what waymarkers are in it for.

 

As I said, it's closer to locationless than virtuals. The visiting aspect tries to recreate the virtual experience, and it's true, that's not the big draw for most waymarkers (though I do know of several people who only visit).

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

You're making the assumption that I am exclusively referring to you.

I am not, so don't take it so personal.

 

Whatever.

 

No matter who you're referring to, if people aren't interested in helping with your project, it's likely because they also see it as futile. Adding more content isn't going to fix the fundamental barriers that are preventing geocachers from using the site. Why bother creating more and more categories that nobody uses? The Waymarkers themselves have admitted that they'd rather create waymarks than visit them. Lame.

The intention is to put in categories and marks that are functional, there by drawing in more people to lend a larger voice to help with saying "Hey, this needs to be fixed."

Complaining is not contributing to a solution, kind of like complaining about an elected official but never voting.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

Whatever.

 

No matter who you're referring to, if people aren't interested in helping with your project, it's likely because they also see it as futile. Adding more content isn't going to fix the fundamental barriers that are preventing geocachers from using the site. Why bother creating more and more categories that nobody uses? The Waymarkers themselves have admitted that they'd rather create waymarks than visit them. Lame.

Is it equally as lame for Geocachers who would rather Hide than Find? That's just the stage where the game is right now. There will eventually be a tipping point where there are plenty of interesting places to just log a visit. Speaking of lame, I think it would be lame to just want to log a visit to some place that someone has listed.

 

If a person wants to take the experience of geocaching(visiting) and just apply it to Waymarking, then you are right...Waymarking is not yet big enough to support that. Eventually it will have enough places listed that there will be a good use for a PQ type function, where I can get a downloaded list of all the locations in any given category. Maybe the way in the future to self support the site will be to sell that information in chunks. If you want a PQ of 100,000 Abstract Public Sculptures, then you can pay $1. Right now we are in the process of listing those locations. After a few more years of work, then the site will be ready for those people who only want to log visits. Maybe we'll see you there then?

[+Vater_Araignee]

Whatever.

 

No matter who you're referring to, if people aren't interested in helping with your project, it's likely because they also see it as futile. Adding more content isn't going to fix the fundamental barriers that are preventing geocachers from using the site. Why bother creating more and more categories that nobody uses? The Waymarkers themselves have admitted that they'd rather create waymarks than visit them. Lame.

The intention is to put in categories and marks that are functional, there by drawing in more people to lend a larger voice to help with saying "Hey, this needs to be fixed."

Complaining is not contributing to a solution, kind of like complaining about an elected official but never voting.

I'll also mention that everyone I have spoken to about TC.com, having taken one look, has that "Not enough content" attitude.

 

I don't like virts and I don't like Waymarking, but I see potential for Waymarking to become functional for any geocacher and through that functionality give a voice towards improving other areas. People are needed to effect change.

You don't have to even have to help anyone in their Waymarking endeavors to accomplish this end, but you do have to go to their forums and actively and logically voice your concerns and voice your ideas of improvement and garner support for them. Here your falling on a majority of def and oppositional ears.

[+cx1]

 

I don't like virts and I don't like Waymarking, but I see potential for Waymarking to become functional for any geocacher and through that functionality give a voice towards improving other areas. People are needed to effect change.

You don't have to even have to help anyone in their Waymarking endeavors to accomplish this end, but you do have to go to their forums and actively and logically voice your concerns and voice your ideas of improvement and garner support for them. Here your falling on a majority of def and oppositional ears.

 

But this IS the proper forum to discuss bringing virtuals back to geocaching. If people stop saying the Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals then Waymarking would not need to be discussed here.

 

The Waymarking people can't even get their story together. I point out that the gpx file does not contain logging requirements. 1 waymark supporter says its no big deal and that a picture will cover 99% of the logging requirements. But when discussing combining waymarks at the same location waymarker #2 states that because the logging requirements are so different for each one it would be too difficult to combine the listings. Which is it?

 

I like to FIND virtuals. But due to an overactive reviewer my local options are very limited. And due to the policy there will not be any new ones. So then Waymarking is brought up. But Waymarking is not really set up for people who want to FIND waymarks (this is from several pro-Waymarking people), just those who want to post them.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

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.

I agree, and they don't complain about how lame those caches are.

[+narcissa]

 

Is it equally as lame for Geocachers who would rather Hide than Find? That's just the stage where the game is right now. There will eventually be a tipping point where there are plenty of interesting places to just log a visit. Speaking of lame, I think it would be lame to just want to log a visit to some place that someone has listed.

 

 

It doesn't matter how many Waymarks there are, if the site continues to be difficult to use and lacking in basic functions.

 

Why is it lame to want to be able to visit cool locations that others have pointed out?

[+narcissa]

 

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.

I agree, and they don't complain about how lame those caches are.

 

This is a giant red herring that keeps coming up. Lots of people complain about "lame" caches (I rarely do, because I find most caches can be fun in the right circumstances).

 

I think many of us can see the utility in marking "uninteresting" places as well as interesting ones. Waymarking has the potential to be used for many different purposes - as a simple POI database, and as a more game-like way to explore with a GPS.

 

It's too bad the site is so difficult to use and there's no simple way to get the coordinates and the descriptions onto my Dakota 20.

[Clan Riffster]

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

It's also easier to dismiss any argument that one might find uncomfortable. Derisionary tactics, such as labeling folks as "whiners", just for posting their honest opinions, do nothing to further either site, nor does that tactic improve the discussion at hand. If I, or anyone else, were to post words to the effect of, "Waymarking Stinks!", with little or no follow up, I would agree that this could earn me/them well deserved whiner status. However, if I were to do as Narcissa has done throughout this discussion, offering specific examples of improvements that WM could make to bring in more customers/income, that's hardly whining. In fact, I would say Narcissa is "making an effort to influence the direction of Waymarking".

 

That is, if Groundspeak is listening. The jury's still out on that.

[+narcissa]

 

Complaining is not contributing to a solution, kind of like complaining about an elected official but never voting.

 

Waymarking is like trying to vote, but finding out when you get to the voting booth that there's a complicated sort of preferential ballot, and no clear instructions on how to use it.

 

Or not. Convoluted metaphors are a nice distraction from the real issues, but they don't really contribute much to the discussion.

 

So I like this burger joint that happens to have a great club sandwich, but the other day I went in and they had taken it off the menu.

 

They told me their new restaurant up the street now has club sandwiches.

 

I went up the street to the new place, and it had poor lighting and ugly decor. There was only one other person in the whole restaurant. Looked bad, but I went in anyway because I really liked that club sandwich they used to serve at the burger joint.

 

Turns out, they don't have a club sandwich. They have a chicken sandwich, but it's not the same. They seem to have the facilities and the staff it would require to make a club sandwich, but they just won't. When I asked about it, they just sort of shrugged, and that one other person in the restaurant talked to me for 15 minutes about how great the pastrami is. But I don't want pastrami, I want a club sandwich.

 

So I went back to the burger joint to ask them about it, because that's where the great club sandwich used to come from, but they won't make me one. So I guess I'm out of luck.

 

(Or I can go to a different restaurant. That's the problem with silly metaphors - at some point they just don't work anymore.)

[Clan Riffster]

 

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.

I agree, and they don't complain about how lame those caches are.

Really? We don't? Uh... OK. I reckon I learned something today. I could've sworn I've been complaining about Home Depot parking lot type hides since I started playing this game, but apparently you know something I don't. Perhaps I merely thought I was complaining. Maybe I've been hallucinating? Just to clear the air, (and to disprove such an ridiculous claim), uninteresting locations don't suddenly become kewl simply by the addition of a cache or a waymark. If it sucked yesterday, when there was nothing there, it'll likely suck tomorrow after some mook plops out a film can or types up a waymark.

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

The Waymarking people can't even get their story together. I point out that the gpx file does not contain logging requirements. 1 waymark supporter says its no big deal and that a picture will cover 99% of the logging requirements. But when discussing combining waymarks at the same location waymarker #2 states that because the logging requirements are so different for each one it would be too difficult to combine the listings. Which is it?

 

 

Both.

 

Actually you are talking about two separate things.

 

Visit Logging Requirements: Most visits can be covered by certain types of photos in almost all of the categories except for the goals or game type categories. Closeup, Area view, GPS,

Combining waymarks: This doesn't really have to do with logging requirements but waymark creation requirements. To create a waymark in a specific category you must provide the variable information specific to that category. Each waymark category has a specific focus. The waymark itself while on the surface may look identical in most cases the focus and the variable information are much different.

 

I agree that the multiple listings of the same place is at the least distracting. It doesn't bother me but can see why it does others. The Space Needle is one of the most cross posted locations in Waymarking.

 

Let me use these two as an example.

 

Space Needle - Seattle, WA in Philatelic Photographs

 

This category focuses on specific locations that have been featured on a stamp

 

Space Needle - "The Phone" - Seattle, WA in Movie Locations

 

This category focuses on specific locations that have been featured in a movie.

 

The variables and information are quite different. It would be hard to merge each of these because their focus is so different.

 

I agree that this is an issue that needs to be addressed along with other things but my how things have changed since the beginning of Waymarking. I think the critical mass has been reached in some areas and the focus is shifting to visits rather than creation in those areas. That is why there is the call for PQ's and other visit mechanisms that haven't been the focus earlier.

 

Early on there was discussion of "stacking waymarks"

 

Perhaps a random waymark in a specific radio's could represent the "50+ additional waymarks found at or near this location" or something like that.

 

edit to fix url

Edited May 3, 2010 by TheBeanTeam

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

Is it equally as lame for Geocachers who would rather Hide than Find? That's just the stage where the game is right now. There will eventually be a tipping point where there are plenty of interesting places to just log a visit. Speaking of lame, I think it would be lame to just want to log a visit to some place that someone has listed.

 

 

It doesn't matter how many Waymarks there are, if the site continues to be difficult to use and lacking in basic functions.

 

Why is it lame to want to be able to visit cool locations that others have pointed out?

That's not lame at all, but if that's ALL you want from the site, it seems pretty boring to me. I don't really see the site as "difficult to use and lacking in basic functions" for the way I play. I'm not a big user of PQs here either, so I guess that's just me. So the site doesn't work in all the ways you wish it did, hopefully that will get better with time. It's too bad that if you thought you coud have fun playing that game that you haven't taken the time to learn how to make it work for yourself.

 

If you're interested in logging visits, and not in listing new locations, I hope that you will give it another try from time to time in the hopes that we have listed enough locations for you to visit. If you want to combine it with geocaching, then when you are on the way to a Cache, click the button that will list the nearest Waymarks and see if any interest you. If they do, then a few simple clicks should lead you to the info you'll need to collect in order to log your visit.

 

I'm looking at a Cache listing...

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...4c-748049976e7f

 

One click yields this list of nearby Waymarks(which will allow you to select and download the ones that interest you)...

http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/search.aspx?f...75.6261&t=6

(It looks like this area is very furtunate not to be saturated with the lame business categories)

 

Looking through the first page on the list I see (at least) one that interests me, this one...

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM7H0Q_...useum_Ottawa_ON

which includes these instructions...

Visit Instructions:

Please post a photo of the lighthouse, showing either you or your GPS in the photo.

 

and this one...

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM808V_..._6200_Ottawa_ON

which includes these instructions...

Visit Instructions:

Waymark creators for this category are encouraged to create a visit verification question for visitors. See individual waymarks for specific logging criteria.

Photos of visits are encouraged but not required for this category.

The individual logging requirements are listed right on the page...

I hope you enjoy your Visit to this Waymark. As a suggestion for your Visit log, please make every effort to supply a brief-to-detailed note about your experience at the Waymark. If possible also include an image that was taken when you visited the Waymark.

 

 

For me, it just doesn't seem that hard. I probably search for Cache listings differently than many other players do (by looking at them on the map, which also works on the Waymarking map...I just found a couple when I was sitting in San Jose by looking on the map), so for me it seems easy. One more click would take me to the "Log a Visit" page.

 

 

In the future, I really hope that they WILL be able to provive something like a PQ, but it will probably come in the form of an APP that will include the Category Description, Listing Requirements, and Logging Requirements, and then a list of X numbers of listed locations. That will be very fun when we get to that point, and will likely be the best way for the game to raise it's own funds, either by individual APP sales, or by selling the data to other bulk users like GPS makers and websites(like travel/tour companies).

 

I'm not posting that above example as an argument, only a demonstration. I hope that someday the frustrated potential users will find a way to make the game fun, or that it WILL become easy enough for they way they would like to use it.

 

As far as the fact that the same location is listed in more than one category makes perfect sense to me, and will actually help GS develope targetted APPs/Lists for sale in the future. If you want to seek Lighthouses, there's(will/can be) an APP for that...If you want to seek Landlocked Lighthouses, there's (will/can be) an APP for that...if you want to seek Relocated Structures, there's (will/can be) an APP fopr that... and so on for each category that a place will fit into.

 

Edit for spelling.

Edited May 3, 2010 by WRITE SHOP ROBERT

[+simpjkee]

<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.

 

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

 

So you're "not interested in spinning my wheels on your Waymarking project", but you are apparently extremely interested in bashing, beating , dissing, complaining, whining, and moaning about Waymarking. Oh, AND spouting that Waymarking is a wasteland, saying Waymarking is hard to use (interesting comment from someone who is apparently not even interested in using it), calling it a failure, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

 

 

You crack me up narcissa. Keep posting! Your posts are chock full of good material to laugh at.

[+simpjkee]

 

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

 

This was really helpful for me, but you can also make a "closest unvisited Waymarks list" like a "closest unfound caches list"

 

I did this by doing a waymark search from my home coordinates, clicking the “exclude waymarks visited box”, clicking update, and then saving that page as a bookmark in my internet browser.

[+simpjkee]

 

I don't like virts and I don't like Waymarking, but I see potential for Waymarking to become functional for any geocacher and through that functionality give a voice towards improving other areas. People are needed to effect change.

You don't have to even have to help anyone in their Waymarking endeavors to accomplish this end, but you do have to go to their forums and actively and logically voice your concerns and voice your ideas of improvement and garner support for them. Here your falling on a majority of def and oppositional ears.

 

But this IS the proper forum to discuss bringing virtuals back to geocaching. If people stop saying the Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals then Waymarking would not need to be discussed here.

 

The Waymarking people can't even get their story together. I point out that the gpx file does not contain logging requirements. 1 waymark supporter says its no big deal and that a picture will cover 99% of the logging requirements. But when discussing combining waymarks at the same location waymarker #2 states that because the logging requirements are so different for each one it would be too difficult to combine the listings. Which is it?

 

I like to FIND virtuals. But due to an overactive reviewer my local options are very limited. And due to the policy there will not be any new ones. So then Waymarking is brought up. But Waymarking is not really set up for people who want to FIND waymarks (this is from several pro-Waymarking people), just those who want to post them.

 

Waymarker #1 is talking about visiting Waymarks.

Waymarker #2 is talking about placing Waymarks.

 

I can't speak for other Waymarkers, but the first part of Waymarking for me was getting out and 'clearing' my area by visiting them. I had a blast and saw some cool stuff I never would have seen through geocaching.

Edited May 3, 2010 by simpjkee

[+simpjkee]

 

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.

I agree, and they don't complain about how lame those caches are.

 

This is a giant red herring that keeps coming up. Lots of people complain about "lame" caches (I rarely do, because I find most caches can be fun in the right circumstances).

 

I think many of us can see the utility in marking "uninteresting" places as well as interesting ones. Waymarking has the potential to be used for many different purposes - as a simple POI database, and as a more game-like way to explore with a GPS.

 

It's too bad the site is so difficult to use and there's no simple way to get the coordinates and the descriptions onto my Dakota 20.

 

It's too bad the site is so difficult to use

 

This is a giant red herring that keeps coming up.

[+simpjkee]

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

It's also easier to dismiss any argument that one might find uncomfortable. Derisionary tactics, such as labeling folks as "whiners", just for posting their honest opinions, do nothing to further either site, nor does that tactic improve the discussion at hand. If I, or anyone else, were to post words to the effect of, "Waymarking Stinks!", with little or no follow up, I would agree that this could earn me/them well deserved whiner status. However, if I were to do as Narcissa has done throughout this discussion, offering specific examples of improvements that WM could make to bring in more customers/income, that's hardly whining. In fact, I would say Narcissa is "making an effort to influence the direction of Waymarking".

 

That is, if Groundspeak is listening. The jury's still out on that.

 

Not really dude. narcissa is a whiner. She's certainly spouting stuff, but it has nothing to do with improving Waymarking. A lot of the stuff she's going on about is coming from a completely uneducated and illogical perspective. It is good entertainment though. Post on narcissa!

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I can't speak for other Waymarkers, but the first part of Waymarking for me was getting out and 'clearing' my area by visiting them. I had a blast and saw some cool stuff I never would have seen through geocaching.

And it probably helped you learn how to work the site?

[+simpjkee]

 

Complaining is not contributing to a solution, kind of like complaining about an elected official but never voting.

 

Waymarking is like trying to vote, but finding out when you get to the voting booth that there's a complicated sort of preferential ballot, and no clear instructions on how to use it.

 

Or not. Convoluted metaphors are a nice distraction from the real issues, but they don't really contribute much to the discussion.

 

So I like this burger joint that happens to have a great club sandwich, but the other day I went in and they had taken it off the menu.

 

They told me their new restaurant up the street now has club sandwiches.

 

I went up the street to the new place, and it had poor lighting and ugly decor. There was only one other person in the whole restaurant. Looked bad, but I went in anyway because I really liked that club sandwich they used to serve at the burger joint.

 

Turns out, they don't have a club sandwich. They have a chicken sandwich, but it's not the same. They seem to have the facilities and the staff it would require to make a club sandwich, but they just won't. When I asked about it, they just sort of shrugged, and that one other person in the restaurant talked to me for 15 minutes about how great the pastrami is. But I don't want pastrami, I want a club sandwich.

 

So I went back to the burger joint to ask them about it, because that's where the great club sandwich used to come from, but they won't make me one. So I guess I'm out of luck.

 

(Or I can go to a different restaurant. That's the problem with silly metaphors - at some point they just don't work anymore.)

 

You're never out of luck. You could always go to that restaurant up the street and spout a bunch of nonsense about how bad the food is even though you've never eaten there. If they don't listen to you, just keep yelling and yell louder. It'll work eventually.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

You're never out of luck. You could always go to that restaurant up the street and spout a bunch of nonsense about how bad the food is even though you've never eaten there. If they don't listen to you, just keep yelling and yell louder. It'll work eventually.

And if you do it well enough, all the other customers will leave, and then you can use the absence of customers to prove how bad the food is.

[+simpjkee]

I can't speak for other Waymarkers, but the first part of Waymarking for me was getting out and 'clearing' my area by visiting them. I had a blast and saw some cool stuff I never would have seen through geocaching.

And it probably helped you learn how to work the site?

Excellent question. I'm glad you asked that. Actually it did help me learn how to use the site. I had heard all the rumblings of it being hard to use, but when I actually tried to use it, I found the website to be quite helpful and easy to navigate in a week or less.

[+TheBeanTeam]

You're never out of luck. You could always go to that restaurant up the street and spout a bunch of nonsense about how bad the food is even though you've never eaten there. If they don't listen to you, just keep yelling and yell louder. It'll work eventually.

And if you do it well enough, all the other customers will leave, and then you can use the absence of customers to prove how bad the food is.

 

Nah, I've eaten there I know how good the food really is.

Edited May 3, 2010 by TheBeanTeam

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I can't speak for other Waymarkers, but the first part of Waymarking for me was getting out and 'clearing' my area by visiting them. I had a blast and saw some cool stuff I never would have seen through geocaching.

And it probably helped you learn how to work the site?

Excellent question. I'm glad you asked that. Actually it did help me learn how to use the site. I had heard all the rumblings of it being hard to use, but when I actually tried to use it, I found the website to be quite helpful and easy to navigate in a week or less.

Me too, and I haven't even used it that much. Now my challenging task is to write up my waymarks in the thoughtful and detailed manner which I would like to see them before someone else lists them in a boring and hurried manner. Of course there are ways to improve the site, but I won't be able to point them out until I have more experience.

[+BruceS]

You're never out of luck. You could always go to that restaurant up the street and spout a bunch of nonsense about how bad the food is even though you've never eaten there. If they don't listen to you, just keep yelling and yell louder. It'll work eventually.

And if you do it well enough, all the other customers will leave, and then you can use the absence of customers to prove how bad the food is.

 

Nah, I've eaten there I know how good the food really is.

 

And sometimes that good food is listed the lunch menu, the dinner menu and also on the appetizer menu.

Edited May 3, 2010 by BruceS

[+TheBeanTeam]

You're never out of luck. You could always go to that restaurant up the street and spout a bunch of nonsense about how bad the food is even though you've never eaten there. If they don't listen to you, just keep yelling and yell louder. It'll work eventually.

And if you do it well enough, all the other customers will leave, and then you can use the absence of customers to prove how bad the food is.

 

Nah, I've eaten there I know how good the food really is.

 

And sometimes that good food is listed the lunch menu, the dinner menu and also on the appetizer menu.

 

Yes, and I just ignore the portion of the menu I don't like. Easy and I still leave satisfied.

[+tozainamboku]

You're never out of luck. You could always go to that restaurant up the street and spout a bunch of nonsense about how bad the food is even though you've never eaten there. If they don't listen to you, just keep yelling and yell louder. It'll work eventually.

And if you do it well enough, all the other customers will leave, and then you can use the absence of customers to prove how bad the food is.

 

Nah, I've eaten there I know how good the food really is.

 

And sometimes that good food is listed the lunch menu, the dinner menu and also on the appetizer menu.

 

Yes, and I just ignore the portion of the menu I don't like. Easy and I still leave satisfied.

But, but, the menu is in French and I can't read it. I like the other restaurant where the menu is in English. (Note this might be a real problem in Ottawa).

[+narcissa]

 

You're never out of luck. You could always go to that restaurant up the street and spout a bunch of nonsense about how bad the food is even though you've never eaten there. If they don't listen to you, just keep yelling and yell louder. It'll work eventually.

 

Why would I talk about how the bad food was if I haven't eaten it? The fact is, I couldn't bring myself to order the food because they didn't have what I was told I could have there, and, furthermore, the decor and lighting were unpleasant. That's what I'm shouting about.

 

Bah, the convoluted metaphors just don't work very well. It's better to say things plainly.

[+narcissa]

You're never out of luck. You could always go to that restaurant up the street and spout a bunch of nonsense about how bad the food is even though you've never eaten there. If they don't listen to you, just keep yelling and yell louder. It'll work eventually.

And if you do it well enough, all the other customers will leave, and then you can use the absence of customers to prove how bad the food is.

 

Nah, I've eaten there I know how good the food really is.

 

And sometimes that good food is listed the lunch menu, the dinner menu and also on the appetizer menu.

 

It doesn't matter how good the food is. The fact is, they told me I could have a club sandwich there, and I can't. So it was false advertising to tell me I could.

[+narcissa]

It's too bad that if you thought you coud have fun playing that game that you haven't taken the time to learn how to make it work for yourself.

 

 

At the very least, I need pocket queries to make it work for myself. So even if I manage to muddle through all the filtering and whatever, I'm still left with a site I can't really use, because there's no good way to get the descriptions onto my GPS. Learning to use the site won't magically make that function appear.

[+simpjkee]

It's too bad that if you thought you coud have fun playing that game that you haven't taken the time to learn how to make it work for yourself.

 

 

At the very least, I need pocket queries to make it work for myself. So even if I manage to muddle through all the filtering and whatever, I'm still left with a site I can't really use, because there's no good way to get the descriptions onto my GPS. Learning to use the site won't magically make that function appear.

 

You think you need PQ's to make it work.

 

It doesn't matter if you can use the site or not, or if it has the functions you think you 'need', or if those functions will magically appear, because you're not interested in using it anyway, right? You want your virtual caches and you're bitter because you can't have them. When you're ready to get over it and/or decide to give Waymarking a shot, try actually using the site. Since you've never used the functions of the site, it will be almost magical when they appear.

[+narcissa]

 

So you're "not interested in spinning my wheels on your Waymarking project", but you are apparently extremely interested in bashing, beating , dissing, complaining, whining, and moaning about Waymarking. Oh, AND spouting that Waymarking is a wasteland, saying Waymarking is hard to use (interesting comment from someone who is apparently not even interested in using it), calling it a failure, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

 

 

You crack me up narcissa. Keep posting! Your posts are chock full of good material to laugh at.

 

Was Waymarking invented by your grandmother or something? You seem to be very personally invested in it, and your comments are getting disturbingly personal. I suppose I could come up with colourful words to characterize your statements, but I don't see why it's necessary to get personal. They're just websites.

 

Dude's Waymarking project involves hiking around marking Waypoints, creating Waymark pages, reading other people pages. It's a pretty significant time commitment, and I'm not interested in it. I enjoy using the forum when I'm at home and have spare time, but I'm not interested in committing myself to a substantial project involving a website I don't even know how to use.

[+simpjkee]

 

So you're "not interested in spinning my wheels on your Waymarking project", but you are apparently extremely interested in bashing, beating , dissing, complaining, whining, and moaning about Waymarking. Oh, AND spouting that Waymarking is a wasteland, saying Waymarking is hard to use (interesting comment from someone who is apparently not even interested in using it), calling it a failure, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

 

 

You crack me up narcissa. Keep posting! Your posts are chock full of good material to laugh at.

 

Was Waymarking invented by your grandmother or something? You seem to be very personally invested in it, and your comments are getting disturbingly personal. I suppose I could come up with colourful words to characterize your statements, but I don't see why it's necessary to get personal. They're just websites.

 

Dude's Waymarking project involves hiking around marking Waypoints, creating Waymark pages, reading other people pages. It's a pretty significant time commitment, and I'm not interested in it. I enjoy using the forum when I'm at home and have spare time, but I'm not interested in committing myself to a substantial project involving a website I don't even know how to use.

 

It's nothing personal. I just think its hilarious when you argue so vehemently over an issue that you admit you know nothing about. Your phrases like "Waymarking is a wasteland" are so laughable. Keep'em coming!

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

involving a website I don't even know how to use.

To gain some skills in using the website, you could visit some of the listed ones near your Caches. I'd go to the lighthouse and the Train, but they're a little too far for me. Could you go grab some pictures for me?

[+cx1]

Again, what does liking or disliking the Waymarking site have anything to do with wanting new virtual caches on the geocaching site?

The people who don't want virtuals to return can simply ignore them if they do return and ignore the requests for them to return in the mean time.

The people who want virtuals to return can keep asking for them.

It really has nothing to do with Waymarking because it has been already established that they are not quite the same thing and don't work quite the same way.

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

I don't like virts and I don't like Waymarking, but I see potential for Waymarking to become functional for any geocacher and through that functionality give a voice towards improving other areas. People are needed to effect change.

You don't have to even have to help anyone in their Waymarking endeavors to accomplish this end, but you do have to go to their forums and actively and logically voice your concerns and voice your ideas of improvement and garner support for them. Here your falling on a majority of def and oppositional ears.

 

But this IS the proper forum to discuss bringing virtuals back to geocaching. If people stop saying the Waymarking is the replacement for virtuals then Waymarking would not need to be discussed here.

 

The Waymarking people can't even get their story together. I point out that the gpx file does not contain logging requirements. 1 waymark supporter says its no big deal and that a picture will cover 99% of the logging requirements. But when discussing combining waymarks at the same location waymarker #2 states that because the logging requirements are so different for each one it would be too difficult to combine the listings. Which is it?

 

I like to FIND virtuals. But due to an overactive reviewer my local options are very limited. And due to the policy there will not be any new ones. So then Waymarking is brought up. But Waymarking is not really set up for people who want to FIND waymarks (this is from several pro-Waymarking people), just those who want to post them.

Yes this is the proper place for "Bring back virtuals" but that has nothing to do with what you quoted, now does it?

 

Now I have said logging requirements need to be in the GPX, no one can dispute that for the simple fact that "A picture" does not cover 100%. It doesn't even cover 99% because in those waymarks that require a picture, more than a few require a specific picture. You may have a picture of a church, but it is the wrong side of the church, so wile you may have a stained glass window in the picture, it is the wrong one. Not a perfect example I know, but it was the simplest analogy I could pull off the top of my head. I have stumbled onto a waymark that does not require a picture and because I know the waymark author is wrong I could come up with a plausible log that he cant verify, simply because I'm more knowledgeable about the taxonomy than the caretakers, so maybe a picture should be required to claim any waymark. On the other hand, requiring a picture to log a McDonalds is stupid to me and I have seen it with a local one.

Here is a funny one, I have enough pictures of Hell Michigan (I live about 5 miles away) to stitch together multiple 360° panoramas and have every business represented. I have logged one waymark, happens to be my only waymark logged and it didn't require a picture.

 

As for multiple waymarks at the same location.

Why should a churches stained glass window fall under the a church category when it is better served under stained glass window?

Any one not interested in visiting "Churches" is likely to miss an interesting stained glass window if it gets merged with the church it belongs to.

Allow me to give a different example.

 

How would you go about merging a Botanical Gardens waypoint and a waypoint for Darlingtonia californica?

Some people like Botanical Gardens wile those who like Darlingtonia californica could care less about the place if it wasn't for the specific plant and would be just as happy with a waypoint in the wild or someones front yard.

 

Was there ever a proximity restriction on virts?

[+narcissa]

 

It's nothing personal. I just think its hilarious when you argue so vehemently over an issue that you admit you know nothing about. Your phrases like "Waymarking is a wasteland" are so laughable. Keep'em coming!

 

When you make a personal statement like "narcissa is a whiner," that's personal, and unnecessary. If you like Waymarking, that's fine. There's no need to take it as a personal insult that I happen to find the site difficult to navigate and not-at-all suited to one of its stated purposes, which is to "replace" virtual geocaches.

 

I don't need an in-depth knowledge of Waymarking to know that I find the site hard to use, and that other people in my area don't use it. I refer to it as a wasteland because there are so few Waymarks around here, and the ones that are here have rarely, if ever, been visited. I don't know how active it is in other areas - I don't use Waymarking when I travel because it doesn't have pocket queries. As far as this area is concerned, Waymarking is a wasteland.

[+narcissa]

involving a website I don't even know how to use.

To gain some skills in using the website, you could visit some of the listed ones near your Caches. I'd go to the lighthouse and the Train, but they're a little too far for me. Could you go grab some pictures for me?

 

1. There's a geocache that incorporates both of those structures, and I've already done it.

 

2. I can't run a pocket query to put the waymark coordinates into my Dakota, and I'd have to print out or write down the information in order to know what to do when I got there. It's too difficult to get the coordinates into my GPS. I got this GPS so I could do paperless caching. When they support paperless Waymarking, maybe I'll give it a try.

[+narcissa]

 

It really has nothing to do with Waymarking because it has been already established that they are not quite the same thing and don't work quite the same way.

 

As long as the "official" line from Groundspeak is that Waymarking is the replacement for virtual geocaches, the comparison will keep coming up.

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

Complaining is not contributing to a solution, kind of like complaining about an elected official but never voting.

 

Waymarking is like trying to vote, but finding out when you get to the voting booth that there's a complicated sort of preferential ballot, and no clear instructions on how to use it.

 

Or not. Convoluted metaphors are a nice distraction from the real issues, but they don't really contribute much to the discussion.

 

So I like this burger joint that happens to have a great club sandwich, but the other day I went in and they had taken it off the menu.

 

They told me their new restaurant up the street now has club sandwiches.

 

I went up the street to the new place, and it had poor lighting and ugly decor. There was only one other person in the whole restaurant. Looked bad, but I went in anyway because I really liked that club sandwich they used to serve at the burger joint.

 

Turns out, they don't have a club sandwich. They have a chicken sandwich, but it's not the same. They seem to have the facilities and the staff it would require to make a club sandwich, but they just won't. When I asked about it, they just sort of shrugged, and that one other person in the restaurant talked to me for 15 minutes about how great the pastrami is. But I don't want pastrami, I want a club sandwich.

 

So I went back to the burger joint to ask them about it, because that's where the great club sandwich used to come from, but they won't make me one. So I guess I'm out of luck.

 

(Or I can go to a different restaurant. That's the problem with silly metaphors - at some point they just don't work anymore.)

It isn't a silly metaphor considering in another thread you came to understand that Waymarking needs to be fixed not virts brought back. So since then, have you gone to the Waymarking forums and voiced your concerns?

 

2 points for your persistent efforts in insulting people with valid counterpoints.

 

As for your burger joint analogy, I would say the same thing, get enough people and they will listen.

Hmmm, where exactly is the silly metaphor?

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

When they support paperless Waymarking, maybe I'll give it a try.

Well, I hope to see you around the site when they get that set up.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I can't speak for other Waymarkers, but the first part of Waymarking for me was getting out and 'clearing' my area by visiting them. I had a blast and saw some cool stuff I never would have seen through geocaching.

And it probably helped you learn how to work the site?

Excellent question. I'm glad you asked that. Actually it did help me learn how to use the site. I had heard all the rumblings of it being hard to use, but when I actually tried to use it, I found the website to be quite helpful and easy to navigate in a week or less.

Me too, and I haven't even used it that much. Now my challenging task is to write up my waymarks in the thoughtful and detailed manner which I would like to see them before someone else lists them in a boring and hurried manner. Of course there are ways to improve the site, but I won't be able to point them out until I have more experience.

I just recently learned you could do a coord + keyword search.

I didn't know you could because it wasn't that obvious to me.

Then when I figured out you could I was doing it wrong because I was inputting the incorrect datum, but then I accidentally hit coordinate search and it gave me a pop up for the datum format I was inputting.

Once that got cleared up I started wading through less junk.

[+narcissa]

 

It isn't a silly metaphor considering in another thread you came to understand that Waymarking needs to be fixed not virts brought back. So since then, have you gone to the Waymarking forums and voiced your concerns?

 

2 points for your persistent efforts in insulting people with valid counterpoints.

 

As for your burger joint analogy, I would say the same thing, get enough people and they will listen.

Hmmm, where exactly is the silly metaphor?

 

Comparing it to voting is a tired cliche, not a valid counterpoint. Please note - I'm insulting your method of arguing, not you personally.

 

If Groundspeak wants to attract geocachers to Waymarking, and wants to convince geocachers that Waymarking is a real replacement for virtual geocaches, then the onus is on Groundspeak to seek out the opinions of geocachers to find out why we're not flocking over there. If they're not actually interested in attracting geocachers to the site, fine, but they need to just admit that virtuals are dead and there is no real replacement.

 

If I have a lackluster experience with ANY business, whether it's a restaurant, or a website, my usual response is to avoid it, and perhaps mention it to others if it comes up in conversation. I'm not going to keep using the service in the hopes that my continued patronage will somehow improve it.

 

I'll go to a business's website and complain to them directly if they've done something specific to wrong me - rude service at a restaurant, a damaged delivery, etc. but Waymarking hasn't wronged me like that. It's just disappointed me and failed to sustain my interest because the site is poorly designed and hard to use. A well-designed website should have a design that is intuitive. The fact that Waymarking takes "a week or less" for an experienced geocacher to figure out is inexcusable - it should take an hour or two, at most.

 

I've given Waymarking more chances than I give most businesses that disappoint me, mainly because I keep being told that it's the replacement for virtual geocaches. I don't know what sort of site improvements they've done since my first visit, but the site doesn't seem improved since my first visit.

 

And, as we've already covered in this thread, Groundspeak moved the Waymarking forum so it's not even part of the Groundspeak forums. I talk about it in here because this is a forum I like to use, the topic comes up a lot, and I really like virtual geocaches (even though I accept that they're dead forever ).

[+tozainamboku]

Again, what does liking or disliking the Waymarking site have anything to do with wanting new virtual caches on the geocaching site?

The people who don't want virtuals to return can simply ignore them if they do return and ignore the requests for them to return in the mean time.

The people who want virtuals to return can keep asking for them.

It really has nothing to do with Waymarking because it has been already established that they are not quite the same thing and don't work quite the same way.

The people who want virtuals back can keep asking for them. But TPTB have made it pretty clear that isn't going to happen. Unlike the Google Earth KML link, I doubt that any number of people asking for it the forum will change this. What TPTB have said is that if you want to share coordinates of interesting places so that others with similar interest can go visit them then use Waymarking. At least narcissa has give a pretty good description of why the current Waymarking site doesn't work for her. If people can express precisely what features are needed for Waymarking to work for them, there is a chance for there to be alternate interfaces to the Waymarking database that would work better. There may even ways for it to integrate better with geocaching. But don't delude yourself into thinking new virtuals will once again be published as geocaches if only enough people say "Waymarking is a failure". It was virtual caches that failed. They took up too much of reviewers' time, were considered lame by many geocachers, provided a way for land manager to ban physical caches and still say they were pro-geocaching, and were abused by cache owners who had no interest in maintaining their virtual caches and by couch potato loggers who used them to log finds with out ever loading the coordinates into their GPS.

[+narcissa]

When they support paperless Waymarking, maybe I'll give it a try.

Well, I hope to see you around the site if they get that set up.

 

fyp

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

When they support paperless Waymarking, maybe I'll give it a try.

Well, I hope to see you around the site if they get that set up.

 

fyp

Thanks. I had to look up fyp, but knew before returning what the f would be. I suspect the tools you seek will take this form...

http://www.Waymarking.com/news/entry.aspx?f=1&nid=20

but we have a lot of work to do setting up the location listings first. I'll be working on that, but not in Canada, it's too far for me.