Waymarking

[+Vater_Araignee]

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.

1. My project is still in the garner support phase so it cant proceed.
   
2. It involved addig to an activity you already do so you only need to...
   1. 
      
   2. Be more aware of your surroundings.
      
   3. Take a point for what you notice that falls withing the criteria.
      
   4. Maybe it will require a picture tho I can see why it should.
      
   5. I would automatically publish something as simple as, This "Insert Object Type" is at the listed coordinates.
      

[*]Does not involve reading other peoples pages, except by those who would be reviewing submissions.

[*]The only committal I ultimately asked of you was to join my group so I could use you as one of the minimum necessary officers.

As far as I know you wouldn't have to do a thing after point 4 and could be removed once the slot was not needing a body, but you can't even be bothered to use 5 minutes of your oh so precious time to do that much. I guess it is better spent just complaining vs giving a minimum then walking away to someone trying.

[+narcissa]

 

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.

 

That doesn't help people who use a GPSr, not an iPhone. I need a way to get Waymarks into my GPSr in bulk, with the descriptions. Maybe Groundspeak doesn't want to invest in the system upgrades it would take to support that, since so few people use Waymarking.

[+narcissa]

1. My project is still in the garner support phase so it cant proceed.
   
2. It involved addig to an activity you already do so you only need to...
   1. 
      
   2. Be more aware of your surroundings.
      
   3. Take a point for what you notice that falls withing the criteria.
      
   4. Maybe it will require a picture tho I can see why it should.
      
   5. I would automatically publish something as simple as, This "Insert Object Type" is at the listed coordinates.
      

[*]Does not involve reading other peoples pages, except by those who would be reviewing submissions.

[*]The only committal I ultimately asked of you was to join my group so I could use you as one of the minimum necessary officers.

As far as I know you wouldn't have to do a thing after point 4 and could be removed once the slot was not needing a body, but you can't even be bothered to use 5 minutes of your oh so precious time to do that much. I guess it is better spent just complaining vs giving a minimum then walking away to someone trying.

 

I'm not interested in your project because I don't think it will benefit my local geocaching community. As I explained to you, geocachers in my area don't use Waymarking. Adding more waymarks won't change that - there's no way to get all these waymarks into our GPSrs along with geocaches, so they're virtually useless.

 

As I have also explained, I contribute to my local geocaching community in several other ways, so your snarky comments about my "precious time" are completely unwarranted. I give lots of my time to my local geocaching community, and I intend to continue doing so. I won't spend that time on a project that doesn't appeal to me. I also won't spend my actual geocaching time on a project that doesn't appeal to me. Get over it and ask somebody else. There seem to be several Waymarking enthusiasts commenting in this thread who know how to use the site and would be much better suited to your project.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

 

 

Adding more waymarks won't change that - there's no way to get all these waymarks into our GPSrs along with geocaches, so they're virtually useless.

 

Adding more Waymarks will create and demonstrate a need for better tools in the Waymarking game though. Eventually someone will start playing in your area more actively, and will help grow the site to a point that the tools you seek will be created.(hopefully)

[+roziecakes]

I decided to try a Waymark on our trip to California this weekend. I did an easy one to start, the Subway in Lucerne, CA, just to see what it was all about.

 

I have decided two things.

 

1) Waymarking looks like it could really be a lot of fun; something I could get into, and perhaps something my husband would like better than caching even.

 

2) It would be really nice to integrate Waymarking better with caching, and for the site to be more usable.

 

Therefore, we probably won't be doing a lot of it, because we really just don't have the time to try to work through the Waymarking site. We're computer professionals, and therefore extremely computer literate, but the Waymarking site *is* in fact tedious to use.

 

However, I do like the link on each cache page to find "nearby waymarks" It makes things a lot easier, and the Waymarks that I do get will probably be done that way because it's less time consuming and easier.

 

I think Waymarking has a lot of potential, but I do agree with Narcissa that the site needs some help.

 

If Groundspeak does want to work on improving the site, I know several folks, myself included who would want to be beta-testers!!

Edited May 4, 2010 by nymphnsatyr

[+narcissa]

 

 

Adding more waymarks won't change that - there's no way to get all these waymarks into our GPSrs along with geocaches, so they're virtually useless.

 

Adding more Waymarks will create and demonstrate a need for better tools in the Waymarking game though. Eventually someone will start playing in your area more actively, and will help grow the site to a point that the tools you seek will be created.(hopefully)

 

Seems to be a chicken-egg thing. It's just ridiculous, considering that all these tools already exist at Geocaching.com, which is owned by the same company.

[+cx1]

 

The people who want virtuals back can keep asking for them. But TPTB have made it pretty clear that isn't going to happen.

Actually I have not seen an official statement from any person with the authority to change this in any of the recent threads. Until they restate that it will continue to be the policy there is still hope that they might change their minds.

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".

Where have I suggested that? I feel the interface needs a good bit of work and even pro-waymarker's have stated that the site is currently set up to cater to waymark placement and not finding.

It was virtual caches that failed.

They took up too much of reviewers' time, No more then any other cache type if you eliminate the subjective 'wow' factor.

were considered lame by many geocachers, Easily fixed by ignoring them instead of taking them away from everyone

provided a way for land manager to ban physical caches and still say they were pro-geocaching, Earth caches provide the exact same way for Land Managers to stop physical caches.

and were abused by cache owners who had no interest in maintaining their virtual caches easily fixed with reviewers monitoring them the same way they monitor the other cache types. Don't log into the site for 6 months or a year and the virtual is locked.

and by couch potato loggers who used them to log finds with out ever loading the coordinates into their GPS. this is a self issued issue. As an individual geocacher why care how someone else claims a find. The 'cheater' is the one missing out on the experience and it doesn't affect anyone else.

 

Once again an easy way to bring them back and it would satisfy most issues.

 

1. Make them easy to ignore on maps and PQs (believe that is already the case)

 

2. Make it a Premium member only feature to place them. Why not have an extra incentive to become a paying customer.

 

3. Only allow 1 virtual placement per year per premium account. This would eliminate the need for a 'wow' factor and stop the possibility of a virtual 'power-trail' under all but the most extreme circumstances.

 

This would make the pro-virtual crowd satisfied, the anti-virtual crowd can easily ignore the virtuals and the poor Waymarking site can be allowed to grow in whatever direction it's members desire.

[+TheBeanTeam]

...- there's no way to get all these waymarks into our GPSrs along with geocaches, so they're virtually useless.

 

This is not entirely true. You can get downloads of waymarks in batches of 25. I can select them a page at a time or individually and build a file in a relatively short time drop them in GSAK and then export them painlessly. This is how geocachers had to do it for years. I have a database that I use for trips where I supplement my geocaching with Waymarking locations.

 

The problem with it is that the downloads are only in loc. or GPXlite. format meaning you have only the coordinates or a minimal description that doesn't give enough information.........so they are indeed virtually useless when you need to know that particular categories requirements for posting a visit or in some cases what the item is that you are searching for if the title and short description are not clear.

[Clan Riffster]

When you make a personal statement like "narcissa is a whiner," that's personal, and unnecessary.

It's necessary for him, because labelling you in a dismissive manner is all he's got left. He can't counter your points effectively, and being a fan of Waymarking, feels some inner obligation to defend it from all perceived attacks, regardless of the accuracy of the attacks. His only other option would be to acknowledge that your suggested fixes are pretty much identical to those proposed by folks who do use the website. That angle would not be effective, considering his biased agenda.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Let's ratchet down the personal comments, everyone.

 

If you can't post without sniping at others, then take a break for a few days until you can.

 

Thanks

[+joukkusisu]

I like virtuals, I wouldn't mind seeing them come back. With that said, for all of you pro-virtual folks, virtuals are alive and well on other caching sites. In fact, I just created a locationless cache on one of them.

[+joukkusisu]

I've been Waymarking pretty heavily for the last several weeks. Some observations:

 

I've been Waymarking around the U of Minnesota campus, and while I thought I knew the campus pretty well, the information on the pages are very informative. The historical buildings category has informed me a lot about old buildings on campus I didn't know much about. I appreciate this. Some of the waymarks brought me to places on campus I didn't know about, which is similar to one of the appeals of virts. Very cool.

 

I no longer mind that some waymarks have multiple categories. Confusing, but I got used to it. More "smilies."

 

So far, I've been clearing my area radius-slave style, like in geocaching, and have not discriminated between categories. I wish that the map function in WM showed all waymarks across categories for an area. As far as I know (maybe someone can correct me), the map only shows the locations for the waymarks on each result page. This is kind of a neat improvement over GC if you're selecting a specific category (only historical buildings displayed in map, for example), but if you're radius Waymarking, like me, it's easy to miss waymarks that are on subsequent result pages.

 

I wish that logging requirements were more standard. In geocaching, you have to sign a log. In Waymarking, you should have to take a picture, or something, standardize it. As it is, some WMs don't require a picture, some do, some require you in the pic, some require the GPSr in the pic, some require both you and the GPSr. I have a hard time keeping track, hopefully the waymark owner won't delete my visit if I miss a detail. I understand that each category has its own standardized requirements, but if it requires a picture, have all WMs that require a picture, require the same kind of picture requirement. Is all I'm asking.

[+cx1]

I like virtuals, I wouldn't mind seeing them come back. With that said, for all of you pro-virtual folks, virtuals are alive and well on other caching sites. In fact, I just created a locationless cache on one of them.

While I have checked into other sites they do not provide much if any local content. Plus going to another site for virtuals is akin to going to another site for waymarks.

 

 

*** this post is not meaning to belittle waymarks or other geocaching site but rather to improve this site.

 

****the previous disclaimer is only my opinion that returning virtuals would be an improvment

[+narcissa]

 

This is not entirely true. You can get downloads of waymarks in batches of 25. I can select them a page at a time or individually and build a file in a relatively short time drop them in GSAK and then export them painlessly. This is how geocachers had to do it for years. I have a database that I use for trips where I supplement my geocaching with Waymarking locations.

 

The problem with it is that the downloads are only in loc. or GPXlite. format meaning you have only the coordinates or a minimal description that doesn't give enough information.........so they are indeed virtually useless when you need to know that particular categories requirements for posting a visit or in some cases what the item is that you are searching for if the title and short description are not clear.

 

GSAK is not made or distributed by Groundspeak. It's a fantastic application that I happily paid for. It was great when I had an older GPS that couldn't read straight GPX files, but it should not be necessary for me to use GSAK to get Waymarks into a format that I can put into a GPS that accepts Geocaching.com's GPX files. I have the Dakota in part because it eliminates several steps and I can have caches loaded into it in the time it takes to drag and drop a file. I'm not now going to add those steps back in. Waymarking should have pocket queries with GPX formatting.

 

The fact that the file downloads that Waymarking does offer are the loc files without details is simply ridiculous. The other reason I like the Dakota is that it has built-in paperless caching. I'm not going back to having a separate device or paper for Waymarking descriptions.

[Dinoprophet]

I like virtuals, I wouldn't mind seeing them come back. With that said, for all of you pro-virtual folks, virtuals are alive and well on other caching sites. In fact, I just created a locationless cache on one of them.

While I have checked into other sites they do not provide much if any local content. Plus going to another site for virtuals is akin to going to another site for waymarks.

 

 

*** this post is not meaning to belittle waymarks or other geocaching site but rather to improve this site.

 

****the previous disclaimer is only my opinion that returning virtuals would be an improvment

But withholding patronage is the classic way of getting a company to change its service. If enough people left this site because of the lack of virtuals, maybe TPTB would listen.

[+Team Cotati]

I like virtuals, I wouldn't mind seeing them come back. With that said, for all of you pro-virtual folks, virtuals are alive and well on other caching sites. In fact, I just created a locationless cache on one of them.

While I have checked into other sites they do not provide much if any local content. Plus going to another site for virtuals is akin to going to another site for waymarks.

 

 

*** this post is not meaning to belittle waymarks or other geocaching site but rather to improve this site.

 

****the previous disclaimer is only my opinion that returning virtuals would be an improvment

But withholding patronage is the classic way of getting a company to change its service. If enough people left this site because of the lack of virtuals, maybe TPTB would listen.

 

Left and then...................?

[Dinoprophet]

I like virtuals, I wouldn't mind seeing them come back. With that said, for all of you pro-virtual folks, virtuals are alive and well on other caching sites. In fact, I just created a locationless cache on one of them.

While I have checked into other sites they do not provide much if any local content. Plus going to another site for virtuals is akin to going to another site for waymarks.

 

 

*** this post is not meaning to belittle waymarks or other geocaching site but rather to improve this site.

 

****the previous disclaimer is only my opinion that returning virtuals would be an improvment

But withholding patronage is the classic way of getting a company to change its service. If enough people left this site because of the lack of virtuals, maybe TPTB would listen.

 

Left and then...................?

And then TPTB would bring back virtuals or they wouldn't. I don't know, I'm fine without virtuals. This isn't my boycott, I'm just wondering how important it really is to people.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I like virtuals, I wouldn't mind seeing them come back. With that said, for all of you pro-virtual folks, virtuals are alive and well on other caching sites. In fact, I just created a locationless cache on one of them.

While I have checked into other sites they do not provide much if any local content. Plus going to another site for virtuals is akin to going to another site for waymarks.

 

 

*** this post is not meaning to belittle waymarks or other geocaching site but rather to improve this site.

 

****the previous disclaimer is only my opinion that returning virtuals would be an improvment

But withholding patronage is the classic way of getting a company to change its service. If enough people left this site because of the lack of virtuals, maybe TPTB would listen.

 

Left and then...................?

And then TPTB would bring back virtuals or they wouldn't. I don't know, I'm fine without virtuals. This isn't my boycott, I'm just wondering how important it really is to people.

"Left and then..." That's the real issue. There is no "then" that works for me. I think that I've seen just about every alternative site and each one makes me appreciate geocaching.com that much more!

 

I'm not avoiding Waymarking as a way to hurt Groundspeak or force them to do something that they don't believe fits into their vision... I avoid the Waymarking site because I don't like how it works.

 

I am fairly vocal about not liking the Waymarking.com site and about my desire for Groundspeak to provide a user option to have Waymarks mixed in with PQs.

 

As to 'How important is this issue?', to me, not terribly. I want mixed PQs and ask for them whenever these threads arise, but it really won't affect my game or loyalty to Groundspeak. It's just something I want and believe that membership gives me the right to ask for.

 

I do hope that enough paying members who feel that way will join me in that request so that we'll be able to show Groundspeak that sufficient interest in mixed PQs is there to make it worth their while.

 

Groundspeak evidently feels differently but I don't think that the requests of a non-paying member mean much. If you don't care enough to pay or if your loyalty is so weak that you will stop paying if you don't get your way then that tells TPTB that chasing your business is not a viable business plan.

 

I believe that to make a difference we must pay membership fees and support Groundspeak, then we have credibility as dedicated customers when we ask for something we want.

[+briansnat]

I wish that logging requirements were more standard. In geocaching, you have to sign a log. In Waymarking, you should have to take a picture, or something, standardize it. As it is, some WMs don't require a picture, some do, some require you in the pic, some require the GPSr in the pic, some require both you and the GPSr. I have a hard time keeping track, hopefully the waymark owner won't delete my visit if I miss a detail. I understand that each category has its own standardized requirements, but if it requires a picture, have all WMs that require a picture, require the same kind of picture requirement. Is all I'm asking.

 

What I do when visiting a waymark is take 3 pics, one of the object, one of my GPS and the object and one of me w/GPS in front of the object. One of those 3 will cover 99.9 percent of the logging requirements for waymarks that require verification.

Edited May 5, 2010 by briansnat

[Dinoprophet]

I like virtuals, I wouldn't mind seeing them come back. With that said, for all of you pro-virtual folks, virtuals are alive and well on other caching sites. In fact, I just created a locationless cache on one of them.

While I have checked into other sites they do not provide much if any local content. Plus going to another site for virtuals is akin to going to another site for waymarks.

 

 

*** this post is not meaning to belittle waymarks or other geocaching site but rather to improve this site.

 

****the previous disclaimer is only my opinion that returning virtuals would be an improvment

But withholding patronage is the classic way of getting a company to change its service. If enough people left this site because of the lack of virtuals, maybe TPTB would listen.

 

Left and then...................?

And then TPTB would bring back virtuals or they wouldn't. I don't know, I'm fine without virtuals. This isn't my boycott, I'm just wondering how important it really is to people.

"Left and then..." That's the real issue. There is no "then" that works for me. I think that I've seen just about every alternative site and each one makes me appreciate geocaching.com that much more!

 

I'm not avoiding Waymarking as a way to hurt Groundspeak or force them to do something that they don't believe fits into their vision... I avoid the Waymarking site because I don't like how it works.

 

I am fairly vocal about not liking the Waymarking.com site and about my desire for Groundspeak to provide a user option to have Waymarks mixed in with PQs.

 

As to 'How important is this issue?', to me, not terribly. I want mixed PQs and ask for them whenever these threads arise, but it really won't affect my game or loyalty to Groundspeak. It's just something I want and believe that membership gives me the right to ask for.

 

I do hope that enough paying members who feel that way will join me in that request so that we'll be able to show Groundspeak that sufficient interest in mixed PQs is there to make it worth their while.

 

Groundspeak evidently feels differently but I don't think that the requests of a non-paying member mean much. If you don't care enough to pay or if your loyalty is so weak that you will stop paying if you don't get your way then that tells TPTB that chasing your business is not a viable business plan.

 

I believe that to make a difference we must pay membership fees and support Groundspeak, then we have credibility as dedicated customers when we ask for something we want.

I was referring to a boycott for the return of virtuals, not boycotting Waymarking. But yes, I suppose withdrawing monetary support would be just as effective.

 

Please note, I'm not actually encouraging a boycott. Please don't. I'm just making the point that if someone refuses to go to another site for virtuals, be it Waymarking or another geocaching site, then virtuals can't be that important.

[GOF and Bacall]

I wish that logging requirements were more standard. In geocaching, you have to sign a log. In Waymarking, you should have to take a picture, or something, standardize it. As it is, some WMs don't require a picture, some do, some require you in the pic, some require the GPSr in the pic, some require both you and the GPSr. I have a hard time keeping track, hopefully the waymark owner won't delete my visit if I miss a detail. I understand that each category has its own standardized requirements, but if it requires a picture, have all WMs that require a picture, require the same kind of picture requirement. Is all I'm asking.

 

What I do when visiting a waymark is take 3 pics, one of the object, one of my GPS and the object and one of me w/GPS in front of the object. One of those 3 will cover 99.9 percent of the logging requirements for waymarks that require verification.

 

Wouldn't one picture of you, your GPS, and the object do the same thing?

[Dinoprophet]

I wish that logging requirements were more standard. In geocaching, you have to sign a log. In Waymarking, you should have to take a picture, or something, standardize it. As it is, some WMs don't require a picture, some do, some require you in the pic, some require the GPSr in the pic, some require both you and the GPSr. I have a hard time keeping track, hopefully the waymark owner won't delete my visit if I miss a detail. I understand that each category has its own standardized requirements, but if it requires a picture, have all WMs that require a picture, require the same kind of picture requirement. Is all I'm asking.

 

What I do when visiting a waymark is take 3 pics, one of the object, one of my GPS and the object and one of me w/GPS in front of the object. One of those 3 will cover 99.9 percent of the logging requirements for waymarks that require verification.

 

Wouldn't one picture of you, your GPS, and the object do the same thing?

Some categories specifically prohibit GPS pictures. Most prefer at least one without it but won't necessarily decline a posting with it. So you're probably safe with two -- one with GPS, one without.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I was referring to a boycott for the return of virtuals, not boycotting Waymarking. But yes, I suppose withdrawing monetary support would be just as effective.

Maybe I phrased it wrong, I tried to say that you should pay to be credible. 'Give me what I want or I won't pay' doesn't mean much in an environment of free service. Threatening to withdraw monetary support would, to me, be one of the most ineffective negotiating tools unless you controlled a very large part of their consumer base. Firstly you're not really giving up anything since you can still use their site for free, and secondly, as I mentioned above, the business of folks who will quit paying on a whim isn't the business most businesses care much about.

 

Please note, I'm not actually encouraging a boycott. Please don't. I'm just making the point that if someone refuses to go to another site for virtuals, be it Waymarking or another geocaching site, then virtuals can't be that important.

True.

[+TheBeanTeam]

 

This is not entirely true. You can get downloads of waymarks in batches of 25. I can select them a page at a time or individually and build a file in a relatively short time drop them in GSAK and then export them painlessly. This is how geocachers had to do it for years. I have a database that I use for trips where I supplement my geocaching with Waymarking locations.

 

The problem with it is that the downloads are only in loc. or GPXlite. format meaning you have only the coordinates or a minimal description that doesn't give enough information.........so they are indeed virtually useless when you need to know that particular categories requirements for posting a visit or in some cases what the item is that you are searching for if the title and short description are not clear.

 

GSAK is not made or distributed by Groundspeak. It's a fantastic application that I happily paid for. It was great when I had an older GPS that couldn't read straight GPX files, but it should not be necessary for me to use GSAK to get Waymarks into a format that I can put into a GPS that accepts Geocaching.com's GPX files. I have the Dakota in part because it eliminates several steps and I can have caches loaded into it in the time it takes to drag and drop a file. I'm not now going to add those steps back in. Waymarking should have pocket queries with GPX formatting.

 

The fact that the file downloads that Waymarking does offer are the loc files without details is simply ridiculous. The other reason I like the Dakota is that it has built-in paperless caching. I'm not going back to having a separate device or paper for Waymarking descriptions.

 

I can agree with you in principle here, however I was addressing this erroneous statement;

 

...- there's no way to get all these waymarks into our GPSrs along with geocaches, so they're virtually useless.

 

You indicated there was no way. There is a way it just isn't very useful....yet. In this latest post you mention that Waymarking only has loc files and that is one option. Again not entirely true. There is a GPX lite download that gives the coordinates and short description and if the description is good it is helpful. In many/most cases the GPX lite is still not enough in my opinion. Someone could load the GPX lite files directly into their unit if they wanted. It would only be in files of 25 at a time though. So that is why I use GSAK. It isn't strictly needed to get waymarks in your GPS but as you note GSAK is a great tool especially if I want to generate a file that contains both waymarks and geocaches for a certain area.

[Mr.Yuck]

I wish that logging requirements were more standard. In geocaching, you have to sign a log. In Waymarking, you should have to take a picture, or something, standardize it. As it is, some WMs don't require a picture, some do, some require you in the pic, some require the GPSr in the pic, some require both you and the GPSr. I have a hard time keeping track, hopefully the waymark owner won't delete my visit if I miss a detail. I understand that each category has its own standardized requirements, but if it requires a picture, have all WMs that require a picture, require the same kind of picture requirement. Is all I'm asking.

 

What I do when visiting a waymark is take 3 pics, one of the object, one of my GPS and the object and one of me w/GPS in front of the object. One of those 3 will cover 99.9 percent of the logging requirements for waymarks that require verification.

 

Wouldn't one picture of you, your GPS, and the object do the same thing?

Some categories specifically prohibit GPS pictures. Most prefer at least one without it but won't necessarily decline a posting with it. So you're probably safe with two -- one with GPS, one without.

 

I have heard this from a very prominent Waymark owner, and now I've heard it from another. So that's like 10% of you guys, right? Sorry, couldn't resist. As of 2 weeks ago, I had 72 Waymark visits. Then a "find 100 Waymarks" challenge cache came out in my area, now I'm up to 87. I think that's a pretty good idea for you guys to get people to try Waymarking. Don't know if I would have gone for it if I didn't already have 72 visits on the books though.

[+TheBeanTeam]

I wish that logging requirements were more standard. In geocaching, you have to sign a log. In Waymarking, you should have to take a picture, or something, standardize it. As it is, some WMs don't require a picture, some do, some require you in the pic, some require the GPSr in the pic, some require both you and the GPSr. I have a hard time keeping track, hopefully the waymark owner won't delete my visit if I miss a detail. I understand that each category has its own standardized requirements, but if it requires a picture, have all WMs that require a picture, require the same kind of picture requirement. Is all I'm asking.

 

What I do when visiting a waymark is take 3 pics, one of the object, one of my GPS and the object and one of me w/GPS in front of the object. One of those 3 will cover 99.9 percent of the logging requirements for waymarks that require verification.

 

Wouldn't one picture of you, your GPS, and the object do the same thing?

 

I usually do four and that covers all the bases. Three works.

 

Here is my method.

 

1) Closeup of object

2) Closeup of GPS (this gives me a visual record of the coords if I wind up posting a new waymark)

3) Area view

4) photo of myself or family member

 

Works well until I forget one of the photos.

Edited May 5, 2010 by TheBeanTeam

[+cx1]

And then TPTB would bring back virtuals or they wouldn't. I don't know, I'm fine without virtuals. This isn't my boycott, I'm just wondering how important it really is to people.

 

If you are fine without virtuals then simply ignore them. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp? Instead it seems the people that don't like virtuals actively try to prevent their return even though it would not effect their own geocaching experience in the slightest.

 

If a business sees that a portion of their customer base would like an additional product, that product is basically free to provide and adding the product would not effect service to the other customers why would it not be a good business decision to provide that product?

 

There is clearly a portion of the Groundspeak customer base that would like virtual caches returned to this site. The system is already set up to accommodate this return. But because for some unknown reason to me, there are factions here that fight against this return just because they do not like virtuals and feel it is their job to police what others might enjoy.

[+tozainamboku]

And then TPTB would bring back virtuals or they wouldn't. I don't know, I'm fine without virtuals. This isn't my boycott, I'm just wondering how important it really is to people.

 

If you are fine without virtuals then simply ignore them. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp? Instead it seems the people that don't like virtuals actively try to prevent their return even though it would not effect their own geocaching experience in the slightest.

 

If a business sees that a portion of their customer base would like an additional product, that product is basically free to provide and adding the product would not effect service to the other customers why would it not be a good business decision to provide that product?

 

There is clearly a portion of the Groundspeak customer base that would like virtual caches returned to this site. The system is already set up to accommodate this return. But because for some unknown reason to me, there are factions here that fight against this return just because they do not like virtuals and feel it is their job to police what others might enjoy.

I don't see people who don't like virtuals actively trying to prevent their return. Instead I see people who believe that Waymarking is a more approproriate place for sharing of interesting locations rather that putting these waymarks on a site that was meant for listing geocaches. They are having a difficult time seeing the need for allowing new virtuals to be listed on Geocaching.com because the same location can be listed on Waymarking, and in their opinion, done much better for that activity.

 

I don't know exactly why you enjoy virtual caches and prefer being able to list them on Geocaching.com. Some people have made some good points on what makes virtual caches different from your run-of-the-mill waymark; and not just becuase you get a smiley for finding a vitual cache. I myself did not believe that Waymarking would satisfy the needs of most geocachers who enjoyed virtuals because I saw virtuals as true caches - where you actually had to find something at the location and either answer a question about it or take a picture in order to log your find. In addition, I enjoyed vitual caches that made me go "Wow! I never knew this was here." So I started a Waymarking category, "Best Kept Secrets" and made so it would give me the experience I liked about virtual caches.

 

But you may like virtual caches for other reason. I had really hoped that other categories would be created to provide the experiences that others found in virtual caches. Unfortunately, it seems that the barrier of learning the Waymarking site and the lack of a few tools that new geocachers take for granted, results in people prefering to continue to plead for the return of virtuals instead of trying to recreate or improve on the experience using Waymarking. [When I started there were no PQs and when PQ first started there were no tools like GSAK or GPSr that read GPX files so you didn't really get any more that the mini-GPX files you can get now in Waymarking.]

 

The reasons that TPTB have given for starting Waymarking and for grandfathering virtual caches have been stated many times. I doubt they are unknown to you; they are just not accepted by you. Back up the page you responded to another of my posts where I presented some of the reasons why TPTB did what they did. Your arguments are pretty good. They remind me of ones I made prior to the TPTB announcing their decision. Among other things, you said that you haven't seen anyone with authority post in this or other recent thread that virtuals are not comming back. I guess they just got tired of saying it over and over. But who knows. Maybe cx1 has made the point better than anyone has in the past, and if Jeremy reads his argument he just might change his mind. So how about it Jeremy. Look at the arguments made here and let us know. Did you change your mind?

[Clan Riffster]

...why would it not be a good business decision to provide that product?

Because they would be trading one mildly valuable asset, the happiness of a few customers, for a hugely valuable asset, the happiness of their volunteer reviewers. Obtaining a product that generates $5 for your company, at the cost of a product that generates $500, is bad business. If memory serves, Groundspeak ultimately stopped accepting new virtual publications at the bequest of their reviewing staff. They were faced with an incredibly complex and distasteful task; deciding if the "Wow" factor was high enough.

 

The vast majority of folks in these forums in favor of the return of virts do little but whine about how they should be allowed to return.

If these folks went to Groundspeak with solutions, rather than problems, they might have a better chance at seeing their desires fulfilled.

[+cx1]

...why would it not be a good business decision to provide that product?

Because they would be trading one mildly valuable asset, the happiness of a few customers, for a hugely valuable asset, the happiness of their volunteer reviewers. Obtaining a product that generates $5 for your company, at the cost of a product that generates $500, is bad business. If memory serves, Groundspeak ultimately stopped accepting new virtual publications at the bequest of their reviewing staff. They were faced with an incredibly complex and distasteful task; deciding if the "Wow" factor was high enough.

 

The vast majority of folks in these forums in favor of the return of virts do little but whine about how they should be allowed to return.

If these folks went to Groundspeak with solutions, rather than problems, they might have a better chance at seeing their desires fulfilled.

 

I believe I have offered a viable solution a number of times now that would eliminate the issue for reviewers. I also do not believe I have whined in the process of doing so.

 

I also believe that if asked many members who would like to see virtuals return would be happy to be the virtual reviewer for their area. Not a full reviewer but strictly for virtuals.

[+briansnat]

If you are fine without virtuals then simply ignore them. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp? Instead it seems the people that don't like virtuals actively try to prevent their return even though it would not effect their own geocaching experience in the slightest.

 

Actually it can. One of the reasons virts were eliminated was because when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaches in their parks, they increasingly would point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative to real caches. By taking virtuals off the table it allowed negotiations to center on getting real caches in the parks. There are many places where we can now find real caches, that may have been off limits to all but virtuals had they still been around.

[+cx1]

If you are fine without virtuals then simply ignore them. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp? Instead it seems the people that don't like virtuals actively try to prevent their return even though it would not effect their own geocaching experience in the slightest.

 

Actually it can. One of the reasons virts were eliminated was because when negotiating with land managers about allowing geocaches in their parks, they increasingly would point to virtuals as an acceptable alternative to real caches. By taking virtuals off the table it allowed negotiations to center on getting real caches in the parks. There are many places where we can now find real caches, that may have been off limits to all but virtuals had they still been around.

 

With Earth caches still allowed Land managers still have an acceptable alternative to physical caches. So that argument seems a non-starter to me. Now if you wish to have Earth caches moved to Waymarking then I feel your point would be more valid.

[+narcissa]

I like virtuals, I wouldn't mind seeing them come back. With that said, for all of you pro-virtual folks, virtuals are alive and well on other caching sites. In fact, I just created a locationless cache on one of them.

While I have checked into other sites they do not provide much if any local content. Plus going to another site for virtuals is akin to going to another site for waymarks.

 

 

*** this post is not meaning to belittle waymarks or other geocaching site but rather to improve this site.

 

****the previous disclaimer is only my opinion that returning virtuals would be an improvment

But withholding patronage is the classic way of getting a company to change its service. If enough people left this site because of the lack of virtuals, maybe TPTB would listen.

 

Left and then...................?

And then TPTB would bring back virtuals or they wouldn't. I don't know, I'm fine without virtuals. This isn't my boycott, I'm just wondering how important it really is to people.

"Left and then..." That's the real issue. There is no "then" that works for me. I think that I've seen just about every alternative site and each one makes me appreciate geocaching.com that much more!

 

I'm not avoiding Waymarking as a way to hurt Groundspeak or force them to do something that they don't believe fits into their vision... I avoid the Waymarking site because I don't like how it works.

 

I am fairly vocal about not liking the Waymarking.com site and about my desire for Groundspeak to provide a user option to have Waymarks mixed in with PQs.

 

As to 'How important is this issue?', to me, not terribly. I want mixed PQs and ask for them whenever these threads arise, but it really won't affect my game or loyalty to Groundspeak. It's just something I want and believe that membership gives me the right to ask for.

 

I do hope that enough paying members who feel that way will join me in that request so that we'll be able to show Groundspeak that sufficient interest in mixed PQs is there to make it worth their while.

 

Groundspeak evidently feels differently but I don't think that the requests of a non-paying member mean much. If you don't care enough to pay or if your loyalty is so weak that you will stop paying if you don't get your way then that tells TPTB that chasing your business is not a viable business plan.

 

I believe that to make a difference we must pay membership fees and support Groundspeak, then we have credibility as dedicated customers when we ask for something we want.

I was referring to a boycott for the return of virtuals, not boycotting Waymarking. But yes, I suppose withdrawing monetary support would be just as effective.

 

Please note, I'm not actually encouraging a boycott. Please don't. I'm just making the point that if someone refuses to go to another site for virtuals, be it Waymarking or another geocaching site, then virtuals can't be that important.

 

Why would I go to a non-Groundspeak site with even fewer features to protest Waymarking's lack of features? I want to put geocaches and no-container waypoints of interest on my GPS at the same time. If that's in the form of "virtual geocaches" or "waymarks," whatever. I don't really care which.

[+joukkusisu]

Then a "find 100 Waymarks" challenge cache came out in my area, now I'm up to 87. I think that's a pretty good idea for you guys to get people to try Waymarking. Don't know if I would have gone for it if I didn't already have 72 visits on the books though.

 

A prominent hider in our area tried to set up a 100 Waymark challenge similar to his other Century challenges, but the reviewer denied it, since it promoted another website. Never mind it's another GS website!

[+joukkusisu]

 

Some categories specifically prohibit GPS pictures. Most prefer at least one without it but won't necessarily decline a posting with it. So you're probably safe with two -- one with GPS, one without.

 

That's what I'm talking about. Why prohibit GPSr in a picture? I get they may want a picture of you and not the GPSr, but would they really delete your visit if the pic had both you and the GPSr? Seems kind of silly. At least with geocaches, if you signed the log, you know you're good.

[+briansnat]

 

Some categories specifically prohibit GPS pictures. Most prefer at least one without it but won't necessarily decline a posting with it. So you're probably safe with two -- one with GPS, one without.

 

That's what I'm talking about. Why prohibit GPSr in a picture? I get they may want a picture of you and not the GPSr, but would they really delete your visit if the pic had both you and the GPSr? Seems kind of silly. At least with geocaches, if you signed the log, you know you're good.

 

I've looked at hundreds of waymark pages and have seen numerous logs that didn't have the required photo (where one was required). It doesn't seem that most waymark owners are anal about the logging requirements. In fact the logging equirements are set by the category owner, not the waymark owner and sometimes the waymark owner may not even be aware of the requirements. I know I'm usually not. If I receive a log, I read it and if it sounds like the person really visited I let it stand. I don't bother looking at the page to see what the logging requirements are for that specific category.

 

As far as your last sentence, this forum is filled with complaints from people who signed a geocache logbook and had their logs deleted for specious reasons.

Edited May 6, 2010 by briansnat

[+Too Tall John]

Then a "find 100 Waymarks" challenge cache came out in my area, now I'm up to 87. I think that's a pretty good idea for you guys to get people to try Waymarking. Don't know if I would have gone for it if I didn't already have 72 visits on the books though.

A prominent hider in our area tried to set up a 100 Waymark challenge similar to his other Century challenges, but the reviewer denied it, since it promoted another website. Never mind it's another GS website!

Someone needs to reread the guidelines:

Challenge caches incorporate special logging requirements and are listed as Mystery/Puzzle caches. Typically they require the seeker to have previously met a reasonable geocaching-related qualification (Waymarking and Wherigo qualify too, of course) such as first finding a cache in every county in your state. If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please include a note to the reviewer demonstrating either that you have met the challenge yourself, or that a substantial number of other geocachers would be able to do so.

[+tozainamboku]

Then a "find 100 Waymarks" challenge cache came out in my area, now I'm up to 87. I think that's a pretty good idea for you guys to get people to try Waymarking. Don't know if I would have gone for it if I didn't already have 72 visits on the books though.

 

A prominent hider in our area tried to set up a 100 Waymark challenge similar to his other Century challenges, but the reviewer denied it, since it promoted another website. Never mind it's another GS website!

Ditto what Too Tall John says. I always like these stories where the reviewer seems to have not read the guidelines. Perhaps the challenge was denied for some other reason.

[Dinoprophet]

And then TPTB would bring back virtuals or they wouldn't. I don't know, I'm fine without virtuals. This isn't my boycott, I'm just wondering how important it really is to people.

 

If you are fine without virtuals then simply ignore them. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp? Instead it seems the people that don't like virtuals actively try to prevent their return even though it would not effect their own geocaching experience in the slightest.

 

If a business sees that a portion of their customer base would like an additional product, that product is basically free to provide and adding the product would not effect service to the other customers why would it not be a good business decision to provide that product?

 

There is clearly a portion of the Groundspeak customer base that would like virtual caches returned to this site. The system is already set up to accommodate this return. But because for some unknown reason to me, there are factions here that fight against this return just because they do not like virtuals and feel it is their job to police what others might enjoy.

I only defend the Waymarking site from misinformation. I haven't tried to prohibit virtuals.

 

But as briansnat said, there are valid reasons to not want virtuals. Michigan State Parks is one system that considered banning physical caches before virtuals were removed as an option.

[+BruceS]

 

That's what I'm talking about. Why prohibit GPSr in a picture? I get they may want a picture of you and not the GPSr, but would they really delete your visit if the pic had both you and the GPSr? Seems kind of silly. At least with geocaches, if you signed the log, you know you're good.

 

The reason GPSr photos are not desired is they do nothing to enhance the Waymark. What does a GPSr add to a photo... seeing a GPSr taking up half a photo of a scenic view really does enhance the view. Each visitor can enhance the Waymark by showing what it looks like on the day they visited.

[+joukkusisu]

 

That's what I'm talking about. Why prohibit GPSr in a picture? I get they may want a picture of you and not the GPSr, but would they really delete your visit if the pic had both you and the GPSr? Seems kind of silly. At least with geocaches, if you signed the log, you know you're good.

 

The reason GPSr photos are not desired is they do nothing to enhance the Waymark. What does a GPSr add to a photo... seeing a GPSr taking up half a photo of a scenic view really does enhance the view. Each visitor can enhance the Waymark by showing what it looks like on the day they visited.

 

What if I take up half the picture? Trust me, I do not enhance the waymark. Can't just a picture of the object/view be sufficient to prove my visit? That's what I've been doing for the most part, unless I remember I need to include myself in the pic.

[+BruceS]

 

That's what I'm talking about. Why prohibit GPSr in a picture? I get they may want a picture of you and not the GPSr, but would they really delete your visit if the pic had both you and the GPSr? Seems kind of silly. At least with geocaches, if you signed the log, you know you're good.

 

The reason GPSr photos are not desired is they do nothing to enhance the Waymark. What does a GPSr add to a photo... seeing a GPSr taking up half a photo of a scenic view really does enhance the view. Each visitor can enhance the Waymark by showing what it looks like on the day they visited.

 

What if I take up half the picture? Trust me, I do not enhance the waymark. Can't just a picture of the object/view be sufficient to prove my visit? That's what I've been doing for the most part, unless I remember I need to include myself in the pic.

That is what I take for all the Waymarks I visit with few exceptions. Only ones I include myself are those that are specifically interaction type categories (for example Sit By Me Sculptures and Photo Cut Outs). Most of my visits are really with the intent to create Waymarks and end up being visits when I find a waymark already exists.

[Clan Riffster]

...many members who would like to see virtuals return would be happy to be the virtual reviewer for their area.

Not a full reviewer but strictly for virtuals.

Does the Groundspeak software allow for degrees of discrimination? Specifically, could they grant you reviewer status, with access only to a limited type of caches? Not sure. Someone at The Lily Pad would have to answer that one. If so, that could be a viable option. Assuming you can somehow resolve the other issue Groundspeak was facing when they stopped accepting virtual submissions. Specifically, that land managers were using virts as an excuse to disallow physical caches.

 

With Earth caches still allowed Land managers still have an acceptable alternative to physical caches.

Earth caches are a whole nother critter. Just because I can come up with a site in a patch of woods that meets the "Wow" factor, does not mean that site would be accepted as an earth cache. It's apples and tangerines.

 

Personally, my stance on the matter is much harsher: My inner caching aesthetic tells me that a cache should be a container, designed to protect its contents, secreted from normal view. (Yeah, I know that's not Groundspeak's definition) Because of this personal bias, I don't consider virts to be caches. Nor do I consider earth caches, webcams, events or CITOs to be caches either.

 

But that's for another thread.

[+cx1]

 

I only defend the Waymarking site from misinformation. I haven't tried to prohibit virtuals.

 

But as briansnat said, there are valid reasons to not want virtuals. Michigan State Parks is one system that considered banning physical caches before virtuals were removed as an option.

 

Again this argument does not follow logic.

I would say that elimination of virtuals had little if anything to do with the situation.

A more rational reason would be that Michigan officials were shown how in other areas physical caches were not the detriment to the park that they may had once feared. Also as geocaching gained in popularity and acceptance there would be more pressure from the public to open the Parks to physical containers..

 

Basically all the reasons Park officials would have had to prefer virtual caches over physical caches would still be valid for them to prefer Waymarks or Earth caches over physical caches. I believe Earth caches would be even more preferred by Park officials due to the geo-centric nature of them and the educational components. So logically there must be other reasons why physical containers are now allowed that have nothing to do with the grandfathering of virtual caches.

[+Vater_Araignee]

And then TPTB would bring back virtuals or they wouldn't. I don't know, I'm fine without virtuals. This isn't my boycott, I'm just wondering how important it really is to people.

 

If you are fine without virtuals then simply ignore them. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to grasp? Instead it seems the people that don't like virtuals actively try to prevent their return even though it would not effect their own geocaching experience in the slightest.

 

If a business sees that a portion of their customer base would like an additional product, that product is basically free to provide and adding the product would not effect service to the other customers why would it not be a good business decision to provide that product?

 

There is clearly a portion of the Groundspeak customer base that would like virtual caches returned to this site. The system is already set up to accommodate this return. But because for some unknown reason to me, there are factions here that fight against this return just because they do not like virtuals and feel it is their job to police what others might enjoy.

Bringing them back would effect people.

Basic members cant ignore them.

PM can only ignore them during PQ's, on the standard map it does not matter if we can uncheck virtuals, doesn't matter how many there are they are just hidden, not removed from the 500 count.

Then there is the "easy out" for land management to claim pro geocaching without actually allowing a cache.

The lack of wow, a lame LPC is better than a lame McDonalds virt any day. I'll bet that at least one reviewer was told "I find (insert line of BS here) fascinating!". Was the person lying? Probably. Does the reviewer have proof? No. Is it too subjective? Yup, just look at Waymarking.

 

There is clearly a portion of GS customers that want virts back, it only takes 1 person voicing it to make it clear that there is a portion. One does equil a portion. Now I know there are more people out there that would like to see virts back who never come to the forums, but every single one of them voices to me that it is an easy smiley and call me elitist (jokingly). It is more like, I cant be bothered to do anything more than remember if I signed the log, oh wait I dont have to do that because I can simply mark it as found once I sign the log. No pictures, especially no pictures of me (out side of promos, mugs and ID there are only about 50 in existence) no items to mention, no emails to send, so secret words to use in logs, nothing to write down blah blah freaking blah. Just sign the log, tap found it and be on my way. You show me 1 virt interesting enough that I can log strictly from memory if I take as long to log them as real caches, and I'll probably be showing you the only one. They are best left at a place where they can be categorized so that there is a slim chance that the subjective crud can get filtered out or ignored.

[+tozainamboku]

 

I only defend the Waymarking site from misinformation. I haven't tried to prohibit virtuals.

 

But as briansnat said, there are valid reasons to not want virtuals. Michigan State Parks is one system that considered banning physical caches before virtuals were removed as an option.

 

Again this argument does not follow logic.

I would say that elimination of virtuals had little if anything to do with the situation.

A more rational reason would be that Michigan officials were shown how in other areas physical caches were not the detriment to the park that they may had once feared. Also as geocaching gained in popularity and acceptance there would be more pressure from the public to open the Parks to physical containers..

 

Basically all the reasons Park officials would have had to prefer virtual caches over physical caches would still be valid for them to prefer Waymarks or Earth caches over physical caches. I believe Earth caches would be even more preferred by Park officials due to the geo-centric nature of them and the educational components. So logically there must be other reasons why physical containers are now allowed that have nothing to do with the grandfathering of virtual caches.

 

I'm pretty sure that Groundspeak's preference would be for EarthCaches to be listed on Waymarking.com as well. In fact when Waymarking was first rolled out, an EarthCache category was created and new EarthCaches were only accepted there. Plans were put in place to migrate the existing EarthCaches to Waymarking. However, due to the issues with Waymarking at the time, some of which still exists as pointed out in this thread, the EarthCache community rebelled. EarthCache.org was able to point to an agreement that Groundspeak had made to list EarthCaches on Geocaching.com and get the plans to move EarthCaches rescinded.

 

Needless to say that EarthCaches or not, park managers who don't want to allow physical caches in their parks can always point to Waymarking and tell geocachers to place waymarks. The fact that Groundspeak has stated that Waymarking is a replacement for virtual caches has resulted in parks that only want to allow virtual caches being able to say that Waymarks can be placed.

 

The ideal would be to differentiate between geocaching where players hide containers for others to find and waymarks where people give the coordinates of an interesting place that others can go visit, and drop the idea of virtual caches altogether. Then if parks point to Waymarking we could say "but that is not geocaching".

 

Virtual caches were started as a way to allow geocaching in areas where a physical cache could not be placed. This included places where land managers did not allow physical containers as well as places where leaving a container would be impossible or improper (for example in the courtyard of a government building). The idea was that the virtual cache would be some object that could be located using a GPSr and the coordinates. Once the object was located, one would "sign the log" by either taking a picture or by answering a question that could only be answered if you had found the object.

 

These simple guidelines proved to be difficult for some people to follow. Virtual caches were used in places where a physical could have been left or where an offset cache could have been constructed to take the person to the virtual object and then to a physical container located some distance away. Virtual caches were sometimes placed by people as a way to avoid the cost of buying a container and the time spent hiding it, or to avoid the need to ask for permission for leaving a container, or to avoid the need to come back to do maintenance on the container. By far the biggest reason given for hiding virtual caches was "This is a neat place and I want to share it with others". If you want to share a neat place, either hide a physical cache there, use the location as as offset to a physical cache, or make it a waymark.

 

Groundspeak has made a decision that with the exception of EarthCaches and a few grandfathered virtuals and webcams, geocaches are physical containers with at least a log book. Places that are interesting to go visit are listed on a different website - Waymarking.com. This clearly disappoints some geocachers. If they know an interesting location to visit and for some reason they cannot place a geocache there, they are not satisfied being told that they should create a waymark. Some of them have leveled valid criticism of the difficulty in navigating through the Waymarking site. This does not change the fact that no one has yet defined what makes a virtual cache different than an ordinary waymark and why they should deserve a place on Geocaching.com

 

You may have all the answers to how to avoid the problems that led Groundspeak to come up with the idea of Waymarking in the first place. The problem is that once the decision was made to create a second site, TPTB determined that the new site would be where "interesting places" would go. Jeremy kept asking for a definition of a virtual cache and why it would be different from a waymark to justify keeping virtual caches on Geocaching.com. Nobody could come up with a definition that satisfied him. Give us a definition of a virtual cache that will convince Jeremy there needs to be a place for them on Geocaching.com and you might have a shot at getting them restored.

Edited May 6, 2010 by tozainamboku

[+Vater_Araignee]

 

I only defend the Waymarking site from misinformation. I haven't tried to prohibit virtuals.

 

But as briansnat said, there are valid reasons to not want virtuals. Michigan State Parks is one system that considered banning physical caches before virtuals were removed as an option.

 

Again this argument does not follow logic.

I would say that elimination of virtuals had little if anything to do with the situation.

A more rational reason would be that Michigan officials were shown how in other areas physical caches were not the detriment to the park that they may had once feared. Also as geocaching gained in popularity and acceptance there would be more pressure from the public to open the Parks to physical containers..

 

Basically all the reasons Park officials would have had to prefer virtual caches over physical caches would still be valid for them to prefer Waymarks or Earth caches over physical caches. I believe Earth caches would be even more preferred by Park officials due to the geo-centric nature of them and the educational components. So logically there must be other reasons why physical containers are now allowed that have nothing to do with the grandfathering of virtual caches.

 

There was a time B.G. when I asked the rangers at Brighton Rec Area if there was any part of the park they thought I should see. After they started pointing things out I stopped them by saying not the wet lands. I started getting things like "Umm there is this gnarled oak, that rusted out unidentified vehicle, there is a cairn that showed up 5 years ago"

So now that I am into geocaching, if I wanted to do an earth cache there, my choices are lakes and ponds, wetlands that the rangers don't want traffic increasing in, dirt (the oak), rust, or an unnatural pile of stones.

The land managers understood that any doofus could make a page that sez post a picture of your GPSR at GZ but not just anyone can do an educational writeup on the forest floors dirt.

To tell you the truth I could give a hoot about geology beyond it's effects on life, I dont need to know how a kettle bog was formed to know that plant X lives in the type of environment it provides and study the plant.

Oh hey look, another earth cache based off glacial effects in Michigan. who-frelling-ray

[Dinoprophet]

 

I only defend the Waymarking site from misinformation. I haven't tried to prohibit virtuals.

 

But as briansnat said, there are valid reasons to not want virtuals. Michigan State Parks is one system that considered banning physical caches before virtuals were removed as an option.

 

Again this argument does not follow logic.

I would say that elimination of virtuals had little if anything to do with the situation.

A more rational reason would be that Michigan officials were shown how in other areas physical caches were not the detriment to the park that they may had once feared. Also as geocaching gained in popularity and acceptance there would be more pressure from the public to open the Parks to physical containers..

 

Basically all the reasons Park officials would have had to prefer virtual caches over physical caches would still be valid for them to prefer Waymarks or Earth caches over physical caches. I believe Earth caches would be even more preferred by Park officials due to the geo-centric nature of them and the educational components. So logically there must be other reasons why physical containers are now allowed that have nothing to do with the grandfathering of virtual caches.

You're guessing; I've spoken with the people who were involved in negotiating geocahing policies in these parks and know what it took.

 

Earthcaches have certain requirements. You can't just set up an Earthcache for any pretty glade or bend in a river or cool boulder.

 

Waymarking, as people like to remind us, is a different site. It's a different activity. Denying geocaching when you can waymark instead would be like denying snowmobiles because you can x-country ski.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+ElliPirelli]

 

 

Adding more waymarks won't change that - there's no way to get all these waymarks into our GPSrs along with geocaches, so they're virtually useless.

 

Adding more Waymarks will create and demonstrate a need for better tools in the Waymarking game though. Eventually someone will start playing in your area more actively, and will help grow the site to a point that the tools you seek will be created.(hopefully)

 

Seems to be a chicken-egg thing. It's just ridiculous, considering that all these tools already exist at Geocaching.com, which is owned by the same company.

I feed my PQs into GSAK and recently started looking into Waymarking.

I find it tiresome, that I can't create a PQ of an area with all waymarks as well, as I can do for the caches. There can't be such a difference in the gpx files, now can there?

 

To get all information on a waymark into GSAK I have to download each individually.

That's a bit complicated when you're used to to get PQs...

 

GSAK than loads caches and waymarks onto my Oregon and also I can mark the waymarks as found there and they are added into the statistics...

 

I like finding virtuals, I have no problem that waymarks are listed on a different site.

But the service of Groundspeak to create Pocket Queries for caches should be availlable for waymarks as well. After all, it is the same company.

[+N7MFT]

 

I guess I'm a bit dull.

 

No, the steak is too thick.

 

There is no such thing as a steak too thick. Unless your a vegetarian, or a vegan.

Edited May 7, 2010 by N7MFT