Waymarking

[+N7MFT]

I was just on the Waymarking site yesterday and I too think they need PQ's, I also would like to see all of the needed information in the GPX file. I downloaded several and put them on my Colorado. I purchased the Colorado because I did not want to waste paper and ink on things that could be done without them. In my opinion the most important information (besides the coordinates) is the logging requirements. Someone dropped the ball there. It would also be nice to be able to upload field notes, but I could wait for that. I actual reason I am posting here is that I too want virtual caches back. At least til I can get one so I have the ICON. I hate the fact that there is an ICON that I cannot acquire. That's my two cents.

[+ElliPirelli]

I was just on the Waymarking site yesterday and I too think they need PQ's, I also would like to see all of the needed information in the GPX file. I downloaded several and put them on my Colorado. I purchased the Colorado because I did not want to waste paper and ink on things that could be done without them. In my opinion the most important information (besides the coordinates) is the logging requirements. Someone dropped the ball there. It would also be nice to be able to upload field notes, but I could wait for that.

Thank you. My sentiments entirely.

I actual reason I am posting here is that I too want virtual caches back. At least til I can get one so I have the ICON. I hate the fact that there is an ICON that I cannot acquire. That's my two cents.

There are still some virtuals active. So it is possible to get that icon.

 

What am I to say?

I started caching after locantionless caches were all archived. An icon I'll never get.

Also those benchmarks are impossible for me to reach, as they're seem to be an US-american feature...

 

I like waymarks, but I would wish for the same usability at the site as geocaching.com.

After all, it's the same company, it can't be so tricky to get the same features for waymarks as for caches...

[+roziecakes]

Yeah, there's actually a lot of virtuals still active, tons in Oregon... trust me on this one!

 

In fact, you have 2 virtual finds on your profile, with the ghost icon... but maybe I'm missing the point.

Edited May 7, 2010 by nymphnsatyr

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I like waymarks, but I would wish for the same usability at the site as geocaching.com.

After all, it's the same company, it can't be so tricky to get the same features for waymarks as for caches...

Lacking having heard anything but a rather deafening silence from Groundspeak on the combined Waymark/Geocache PQ issue, and the vast difference in how the Waymarking and Geocaching websites operate, I can only surmise that they were built by two separate development teams who do not talk to one another.

 

I don't know how otherwise the same team could develop such a successful site as geocaching.com and totally blow it with Waymarking.com.

 

If that's the case blending the two into a usable PQ may not be possible without a redesign of one of them.

[+tozainamboku]

I like waymarks, but I would wish for the same usability at the site as geocaching.com.

After all, it's the same company, it can't be so tricky to get the same features for waymarks as for caches...

Lacking having heard anything but a rather deafening silence from Groundspeak on the combined Waymark/Geocache PQ issue, and the vast difference in how the Waymarking and Geocaching websites operate, I can only surmise that they were built by two separate development teams who do not talk to one another.

 

I don't know how otherwise the same team could develop such a successful site as geocaching.com and totally blow it with Waymarking.com.

 

If that's the case blending the two into a usable PQ may not be possible without a redesign of one of them.

There is no doubt that Waymarking was designed from scratch to support a completely different model than Geocaching. Of course some of that model was built to handled objects (locationless caches) that previously were shoehorned into Geocaching.

 

Waymarking was designed to be more scalable than Geocaching at a time when Geocaching.com was having problems keeping up with the growth in the numbers of geocaches. Since then there have have been some success at improving the performance of Geocaching.com so the difference is not a noticeable as it was before. It's just a guess, but some of the ideas for scalability that were designed into Waymarking may have already made their way to Geocaching.

 

Waymarking has a more generic model. Geocaching could, in theory, be a category of waymaking. In fact, at one point Groundspeak talked of a grand plan for Geocaching version 2.0. Some the details that they let out indicated that in fact the idea was to combine the Geoaching.com database with Waymarking. Geocaches would, in fact, become a category of Waymark. Geocaching.com would be a "skin" on Waymarking that would show only Waymarks in this category. There would only be a few minor changes to the look and feel of the Geoaching site, so most cachers would not even notice this. However one capability would almost certainly be the ability to get PQs that combined both geocaches and other types of waymarks.

 

At some point, TPTB stopped talking about Geocaching version 2. I'm not sure what happened to the grand plan. It could be that it is still something that Groundspeak is working on. Perhaps they have just decided to put more resources in maintaining the current Geocaching.com site to meet the immediate needs of the users who at this time still generate the most revenue. Perhaps, after looking at what it would take to combine the Waymarking and Geocahing databases they changed their mind and decided not to proceed with the grand plan.

[+TheBeanTeam]

Yeah, there's actually a lot of virtuals still active, tons in Oregon... trust me on this one!

 

In fact, you have 2 virtual finds on your profile, with the ghost icon... but maybe I'm missing the point.

 

I think their point is that the icon isn't in the right column for them. They want to own one.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...

Waymarking has a more generic model. Geocaching could, in theory, be a category of waymaking. In fact, at one point Groundspeak talked of a grand plan for Geocaching version 2.0. Some the details that they let out indicated that in fact the idea was to combine the Geoaching.com database with Waymarking. Geocaches would, in fact, become a category of Waymark. Geocaching.com would be a "skin" on Waymarking that would show only Waymarks in this category. There would only be a few minor changes to the look and feel of the Geoaching site, so most cachers would not even notice this. However one capability would almost certainly be the ability to get PQs that combined both geocaches and other types of waymarks.

 

At some point, TPTB stopped talking about Geocaching version 2. I'm not sure what happened to the grand plan. It could be that it is still something that Groundspeak is working on. Perhaps they have just decided to put more resources in maintaining the current Geocaching.com site to meet the immediate needs of the users who at this time still generate the most revenue. Perhaps, after looking at what it would take to combine the Waymarking and Geocahing databases they changed their mind and decided not to proceed with the grand plan.

That has been my impression all along, though I have never heard Groundspeak say it, that geocaches would become a Waymarking category. A geocache is just a waymark with a container and vice versa.

 

I'm all for it! One site, one profile, mixed waymarks and geocaches in PQs... I hope that they are still moving forward with the 'grand plan'.

 

Actually they could make Waymarks a new type of Geocache and walk away from the Waymarking.com site mess altogether.

Edited May 7, 2010 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+cx1]

 

I'm all for it! One site, one profile, mixed waymarks and geocaches in PQs... I hope that they are still moving forward with the 'grand plan'.

 

Actually they could make Waymarks a new type of Geocache and walk away from the Waymarking.com site mess altogether.

 

I agree, maybe give them a special name....hmm something like virtual cache ?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

 

I'm all for it! One site, one profile, mixed waymarks and geocaches in PQs... I hope that they are still moving forward with the 'grand plan'.

 

Actually they could make Waymarks a new type of Geocache and walk away from the Waymarking.com site mess altogether.

 

I agree, maybe give them a special name....hmm something like virtual cache ?

Shhh... they weren't supposed to notice!

[+joukkusisu]

That's interesting about the supposed grand plan. Makes sense from a hierarchical point of view (geocaching is a child category of Waymarking), but it would wreck havoc on their marketing. Right now, their name is synonymous with geocaching. They say in their promotional material, "Just go to geocaching.com..." With the grand plan, they'd have to say, go to groupspeak.com, or Waymarking.com... then select geocaching, which is a Waymarking category... New comers or those interested would be at a loss. I bet that's why they dropped the grand plan, if it existed. They have a good thing going, why kill it for waymarks?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

That's interesting about the supposed grand plan. Makes sense from a hierarchical point of view (geocaching is a child category of Waymarking), but it would wreck havoc on their marketing. Right now, their name is synonymous with geocaching. They say in their promotional material, "Just go to geocaching.com..." With the grand plan, they'd have to say, go to groupspeak.com, or Waymarking.com... then select geocaching, which is a Waymarking category... New comers or those interested would be at a loss. I bet that's why they dropped the grand plan, if it existed. They have a good thing going, why kill it for waymarks?

There would be no reason to change the name at all. No one in their right mind would do anything to dilute the geocaching.com brand, it is invaluable.

[+joukkusisu]

Well, what Toz was describing would mean that geocaching would be part of something else. Wouldn't the parent site (Waymarking) have to house the geocaching category?

[+BruceS]

Well, what Toz was describing would mean that geocaching would be part of something else. Wouldn't the parent site (Waymarking) have to house the geocaching category?

 

He indicated that they would "skin" it as geocaching. Just use the underlying structure of the Waymarking site as its structure is more generic.

[+ElliPirelli]

As interesting your theories about a 'grand plan' are, that is long term planning.

 

As a short term solution I would like to see the feature of PQs implemented at Waymarking.com.

Not mixed together with caches, that can GSAK do for me.

But at the moment I find it nuisance to download each and every waymark individually.

I can't even filter properly the already visited waymarks, or maybe I was unable to find that button.

Why is it such a problem to get the same workablilty on Waymarking.com as already exists in geocaching.com?

 

It must be two different developing teams, as TheAlabamaRambler indicated.

It's a pitty, that they are unable to work together.

 

I wouldn't even mind to pay extra for the feature of PQs at waymarks, there is no logical reason, why my PM is cross-platform.

But I really would wish for PQs at waymarks with all information and not only the light version, that's no help at all....

[+tozainamboku]

Exactly. The plan was that Geocaching.com would still be all about geocaching. Most geocachers would not even notice a change. If you log onto Geocaching.com you would only see geocaches and perhaps events. It might be that the "bring back virtuals" contingent could convince Groundspeak to throw in EarthCaches (since they are currently list on Geocaching.com) and few of the historic categories to hunt as virtuals.

 

One other thing. Virtual caches are not a subset of geocaches in the way that geocaches are a category of waymarks. Sure you could go back to what we had and allow caches to be using the virtual cache type - if you could define such a thing in a way that would differentiate it from other Waymarking categories.

 

Right now you can have Waymarking categories for historic markers, odd shaped buildings, natural wonders, and even best kept secrets. It would not be hard to define a category for places where someone has hidden a container with a log book. In order to log a find you could say that you must find the container and sign the logbook. What would be harder is to define a Waymarking category for virtual caches and explain why the waymarks listed in it aren't an historic marker, odd shaped building, natural wonder, best kept secret, or some thing else. (More precisely - since waymarks can be listed in multiple categories you would need to define a category where the location could be listed in addition to being listed as one of the traditional Waymarking categories. This is somewhat more doable; but so far no one has been able to propose one that works.)

[+BruceS]

 

But at the moment I find it nuisance to download each and every waymark individually.

I can't even filter properly the already visited waymarks, or maybe I was unable to find that button.

 

 

Ask your filtering question over on the Waymarking forum.... someone over there will gladly help you out.

[+Vater_Araignee]

As interesting your theories about a 'grand plan' are, that is long term planning.

 

As a short term solution I would like to see the feature of PQs implemented at Waymarking.com.

Not mixed together with caches, that can GSAK do for me.

But at the moment I find it nuisance to download each and every waymark individually.

I can't even filter properly the already visited waymarks, or maybe I was unable to find that button.

Why is it such a problem to get the same workablilty on Waymarking.com as already exists in geocaching.com?

 

It must be two different developing teams, as TheAlabamaRambler indicated.

It's a pitty, that they are unable to work together.

 

I wouldn't even mind to pay extra for the feature of PQs at waymarks, there is no logical reason, why my PM is cross-platform.

But I really would wish for PQs at waymarks with all information and not only the light version, that's no help at all....

Figure out that categories that you don't want and add them to your ignore list.

[+ElliPirelli]

Figure out that categories that you don't want and add them to your ignore list.

There are presious little waymarks in my region, I really don't need an ignore list.

 

But for holidays I'm just spoiled by those handy PQs for caches, I just would like to see the same feature for the gpx of waymarks.

Edited May 8, 2010 by ElliPirelli

[+roziecakes]

Yeah, there's actually a lot of virtuals still active, tons in Oregon... trust me on this one!

 

In fact, you have 2 virtual finds on your profile, with the ghost icon... but maybe I'm missing the point.

 

I think their point is that the icon isn't in the right column for them. They want to own one.

 

Ah... I see.

[+Team Cotati]

I like waymarks, but I would wish for the same usability at the site as geocaching.com.

After all, it's the same company, it can't be so tricky to get the same features for waymarks as for caches...

Lacking having heard anything but a rather deafening silence from Groundspeak on the combined Waymark/Geocache PQ issue, and the vast difference in how the Waymarking and Geocaching websites operate, I can only surmise that they were built by two separate development teams who do not talk to one another.

 

I don't know how otherwise the same team could develop such a successful site as geocaching.com and totally blow it with Waymarking.com.

 

If that's the case blending the two into a usable PQ may not be possible without a redesign of one of them.

 

I think that there is a fair chance that the managers and supervisors over there are relatively smart systems types. Thus, I also believe that they are more than capable of creating coherent system designs and the technical specs that would accompany them.

 

I think that it is a fair stretch to presume that those folks do not meet, talk and consult with each other on a frequent basis. For the technical management people over there to knowingly stand by and watch a system evolve away from business and systems specifications just does not pass the smell test.

 

You wouldn't do that, I wouldn't do that. Why would the people who run Groundspeak do that?

 

Now if you want to offer that the business and systems plans for the two different entities were consciously developed to produce the products as we see them today.....that I can fully buy into.

[+Mosaic55]

Figure out that categories that you don't want and add them to your ignore list.

 

Right now that's easier said than done. I don't want to ignore everything in some of the high-level categories, I want to pick and choose specific sub-categories to ignore. That would be much easier with a one-page pick list with check-boxes for all the categories.

 

And why can't they put ALL the listing description (inc. logging requirements) in the .GPX file? It seems like a feature that would be very easy to implement and greatly increase usability. (even if it's only 25 at a time available for download, it would be so much better than printing out description pages).

[Tahosa and Sons]

If I own a cache that shares the same place as a waymark, can I visit the waymark. Or do I need to prove I was there with some redundant photos and answer some questions.

I think this recent waymark is so much easier to mark your visit than the requirements required for a older virtual at the same location, which in my opion really shows the difference between the two.

 

Back in '04 when virtuals started to die on the vine it was necessary to incorporate them into a multi. And now I think I have found a way to do the same with waymarks. But it will be about a 10 mile hike, so that will probably eliminate about 98% of the cachers.

 

Its all a matter of your choice and for the hiders you are only limited by your creativity.