Benchmarks..why they don't count as a cache, but a simple event cache does?

[+jlcslc2053 0]

Hi,

 

I'm new to geocaching and am curious why benchmarks do not count as part of your total number of geocaches but simple event caches do? I use my GPS to find a benchmark so I don't understand why they don't count.

 

I know that there are some "major" event caches, but I've noticed that a group of cachers in my area frequently meet at a local eating establishment to drink coffee, and each time they meet counts counts as a cache.

 

Ahh, can someone explain this to me??????

 

Thanks.

[+agentmancuso 0]

The simple answer has to be that benchmarks not only aren't caches, but have nothing to do with Groundspeak. Benchmarks have been around for a lot longer - there are many from the 1840s still extant in the UK, and I'm sure the US is similar.

 

Whereas event caches are orchestrated under the auspices of Groundspeak, largely as a form of PR I suppose.

[+LSUFan 0]

Hi,

 

I'm new to geocaching and am curious why benchmarks do not count as part of your total number of geocaches but simple event caches do? I use my GPS to find a benchmark so I don't understand why they don't count.

 

I know that there are some "major" event caches, but I've noticed that a group of cachers in my area frequently meet at a local eating establishment to drink coffee, and each time they meet counts counts as a cache.

 

Ahh, can someone explain this to me??????

 

Thanks.

 

Howdy, we have discussed this before and the short reason is that geocaches (and geoevents) are placed/owned by geocachers. Benchmarks are not either placed nor owned by geocachers.

[BlueRajah 71]

If you log a benchmark wrong there is no cache owner to delete your bogus log.

[+Gushoneybun 1]

If you log a benchmark wrong there is no cache owner to delete your bogus log.

True but the only person that you cheat is yourself, its the same with virtuals and now earthcaches after the photo requirement has gone.

[+Manville Possum 287]

If you log a benchmark wrong there is no cache owner to delete your bogus log.

This sounds very discouraging to those of us that enjoy hunting benchmarks. Would Groundspeak stand behind bogus logging of benchmarks? I think it would be wrong to do so. What if users log missing/destroyed ones as found, this would really mess up the data base. I have 15 BM finds listed on my geocaching account, and I also enjoy posting unlisted/recovered BM's in the US Benchmarks category on the Waymarking site. I still enjoy uploading photos of my finds, BM's, EC's, and waymarks.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[BlueRajah 71]

If you log a benchmark wrong there is no cache owner to delete your bogus log.

This sounds very discouraging to those of us that enjoy hunting benchmarks. Would Groundspeak stand behind bogus logging of benchmarks? I think it would be wrong to do so. What if users log missing/destroyed ones as found, this would really mess up the data base. I have 15 BM finds listed on my geocaching account, and I also enjoy posting unlisted/recovered BM's in the US Benchmarks category on the Waymarking site. I still enjoy uploading photos of my finds, BM's, EC's, and waymarks.

 

I am not saying what they would do. An earthcache, virtual, or regular cache owner can delete logs if the answer is not given. As an owner of earthcaches I have deleted those that could not respond to my questions (normally after emailing them - but I do not wish to turn this discussion into that one).

 

A benchmark does not have an owner that gets an email when someone logs it. So there is a difference between them. I will not guess the actual reasons here. I enjoy posting them as well, and hunting.. I have been very annoyed and disgusted when people post finds on ones that obviously have been missing for some time.

[+Manville Possum 287]

If you log a benchmark wrong there is no cache owner to delete your bogus log.

This sounds very discouraging to those of us that enjoy hunting benchmarks. Would Groundspeak stand behind bogus logging of benchmarks? I think it would be wrong to do so. What if users log missing/destroyed ones as found, this would really mess up the data base. I have 15 BM finds listed on my geocaching account, and I also enjoy posting unlisted/recovered BM's in the US Benchmarks category on the Waymarking site. I still enjoy uploading photos of my finds, BM's, EC's, and waymarks.

 

I am not saying what they would do. An earthcache, virtual, or regular cache owner can delete logs if the answer is not given. As an owner of earthcaches I have deleted those that could not respond to my questions (normally after emailing them - but I do not wish to turn this discussion into that one).

 

A benchmark does not have an owner that gets an email when someone logs it. So there is a difference between them. I will not guess the actual reasons here. I enjoy posting them as well, and hunting.. I have been very annoyed and disgusted when people post finds on ones that obviously have been missing for some time.

I agree that it is very annoying when a user bogus logs a BM, or any other cache for that matter. But "I am not saying what they would do" does not answer my orginal question as to what Groundspeak would do about it.

[+2oldfarts (the rockhounders) 842]

If you log a benchmark wrong there is no cache owner to delete your bogus log.

This sounds very discouraging to those of us that enjoy hunting benchmarks. Would Groundspeak stand behind bogus logging of benchmarks? I think it would be wrong to do so. What if users log missing/destroyed ones as found, this would really mess up the data base. I have 15 BM finds listed on my geocaching account, and I also enjoy posting unlisted/recovered BM's in the US Benchmarks category on the Waymarking site. I still enjoy uploading photos of my finds, BM's, EC's, and waymarks.

 

I am not saying what they would do. An earthcache, virtual, or regular cache owner can delete logs if the answer is not given. As an owner of earthcaches I have deleted those that could not respond to my questions (normally after emailing them - but I do not wish to turn this discussion into that one).

 

A benchmark does not have an owner that gets an email when someone logs it. So there is a difference between them. I will not guess the actual reasons here. I enjoy posting them as well, and hunting.. I have been very annoyed and disgusted when people post finds on ones that obviously have been missing for some time.

I agree that it is very annoying when a user bogus logs a BM, or any other cache for that matter. But "I am not saying what they would do" does not answer my orginal question as to what Groundspeak would do about it.

 

So, what do you suggest? Benchmark police to verify each and every benchmark log? As long as they don't log with the NGS they will not screw-up the national database.

 

John

[BlueRajah 71]

But "I am not saying what they would do" does not answer my orginal question as to what Groundspeak would do about it.

 

I should have said "I do not know what they would do". I apologize for the error.

 

Back to the original posters question... My guess why they do not count:

-Other than community pressure there are no benchmark police, or benchmark watchers to maintain logs.

-They also have not loaded other countries benchmarks in.

-They are not caches.

 

So they appear to have many strikes against them.

[AZcachemeister 3]

If you log a benchmark wrong there is no cache owner to delete your bogus log.

True but the only person that you cheat is yourself, its the same with virtuals and now earthcaches after the photo requirement has gone.

 

There are indeed professional surveyors who check our site to see if a Geocacher might have correctly recovered a mark they want to use.

 

While most incorrect logs for benchmarks are simple mistakes, there is no mechanism to remove incorrect logs. If they counted towards the total find count, you can bet a lot more 'mistakes' would be made.

 

Virtuals, Events, and EarthCaches all (theoretically at least) have owners who (theoretically at least) will delete bogus/erroneous logs.

 

The steps needed to be certain what benchmark has been found are a bit more involved than those needed to find and log a Geocache. I would dearly like my Benchmark finds to be included in MY total count, but I'm not prepared to open the floodgates to those who are not prepared to actually work the fairly steep learning curve to correct logging.

 

We have previously discussed the possibility of a Benchmark Police Force, and the volunteers are already lined up and ready for service.

[+Manville Possum 287]

But "I am not saying what they would do" does not answer my orginal question as to what Groundspeak would do about it.

 

I should have said "I do not know what they would do". I apologize for the error.

 

Back to the original posters question... My guess why they do not count:

-Other than community pressure there are no benchmark police, or benchmark watchers to maintain logs.

-They also have not loaded other countries benchmarks in.

-They are not caches.

 

So they appear to have many strikes against them.

I agree, they do have many strikes against them. I still enjoy seeking them, but like some unmaintained geocaches we can always go back and read the logs and view any uploads if possible. I think the ones that I enjoy most are the ones that I find by accident. Some are just old property markers chisled into stones. I read an article a few days ago about some of these old chisle marks that are around 200 years old that were marked by early surveyors along the North and South Carolina State lines. I found that very interesting.

[+mtbikedirtygirl 0]

I also would love bench marks to be counted on my finds. But, can totally understand why they are not.

 

Example: I found a cache called "Close to the Mark" GCNDDC next to Wilson Dam in Colbert co. Alabama. The cache is located near a TVA bench mark. Cachers are logging this bench mark into EF1009. I have even gone as far as to make a Waypoint for it. One cacher even went as far as to copy and paste the picture I posted on the cache page to claim the find on the Benchmark page. It is sad that they don't read the whole description before placing the log find.

 

When I find a bench mark. I try and take pictures of the mark and surrounding area (points of interest), and to get the best coord reading from my GPS to post.

 

So far to date bench marks has to be my favorite thing to do out of all geocaching has to offer.

[+Manville Possum 287]

I also would love bench marks to be counted on my finds. But, can totally understand why they are not.

 

Example: I found a cache called "Close to the Mark" GCNDDC next to Wilson Dam in Colbert co. Alabama. The cache is located near a TVA bench mark. Cachers are logging this bench mark into EF1009. I have even gone as far as to make a Waypoint for it. One cacher even went as far as to copy and paste the picture I posted on the cache page to claim the find on the Benchmark page. It is sad that they don't read the whole description before placing the log find.

 

When I find a bench mark. I try and take pictures of the mark and surrounding area (points of interest), and to get the best coord reading from my GPS to post.

 

So far to date bench marks has to be my favorite thing to do out of all geocaching has to offer.

I really love finding old BM's. While searching for one near the Cherokee Mueseum on the Reservation in Cherokee, North Carolina I stumbled upon a HUGE boundry marker. It is one of the Qualla Indian Boundry marker, and was unlisted. I listed it on the Waymarking site, but it has a twin that is a listed BM in Soco Gap. I always take a close up with my GPS for reference. I found another pipe cap marker last sunday in a National Forest while Waymarking an old abandoned cemetery. There is also a NFS Bearing Tree near the marker. I just think that they are really cool, so I list them on the Waymarking site. That seems to be the only place that I can share my finds with the public.

[foxtrot_xray 4]

abandoned cemetery

Completely off-topic, but isn't this impossible?

[+mtbikedirtygirl 0]

I also would love bench marks to be counted on my finds. But, can totally understand why they are not.

 

Example: I found a cache called "Close to the Mark" GCNDDC next to Wilson Dam in Colbert co. Alabama. The cache is located near a TVA bench mark. Cachers are logging this bench mark into EF1009. I have even gone as far as to make a Waypoint for it. One cacher even went as far as to copy and paste the picture I posted on the cache page to claim the find on the Benchmark page. It is sad that they don't read the whole description before placing the log find.

 

When I find a bench mark. I try and take pictures of the mark and surrounding area (points of interest), and to get the best coord reading from my GPS to post.

 

So far to date bench marks has to be my favorite thing to do out of all geocaching has to offer.

I really love finding old BM's. While searching for one near the Cherokee Mueseum on the Reservation in Cherokee, North Carolina I stumbled upon a HUGE boundry marker. It is one of the Qualla Indian Boundry marker, and was unlisted. I listed it on the Waymarking site, but it has a twin that is a listed BM in Soco Gap. I always take a close up with my GPS for reference. I found another pipe cap marker last sunday in a National Forest while Waymarking an old abandoned cemetery. There is also a NFS Bearing Tree near the marker. I just think that they are really cool, so I list them on the Waymarking site. That seems to be the only place that I can share my finds with the public.

 

I'm so sorry....I ment Waymark on my prev. post. I totally agree...I also do the same. Unlike the McD's Waymarking. I only post Benchmarks when found unpublished too. I have only two...I will only post waymark bm if I think they are safe for children. My father and I found a BM near his house. We placed a geocache near it and called it "Good place for a BM". Geocachers are getting a kick out of it.

Edited January 9, 2011 by mtbikedirtygirl

[+Manville Possum 287]

abandoned cemetery

Completely off-topic, but isn't this impossible?

This is not off topic, I found a unlisted BM at the corner of a wall surrounding an abandoned cemetery while Waymarking in a National Forest.

Is there something that I misunderstand about your post? What do you mean by "isn't this impossible?"

Edited January 9, 2011 by Manville Possum Hunters

[+Manville Possum 287]

I'm so sorry....I ment Waymark on my prev. post. I totally agree...I also do the same. Unlike the McD's Waymarking. I only post Benchmarks when found unpublished too. I have only two...I will only post waymark bm if I think they are safe for children. My father and I found a BM near his house. We placed a geocache near it and called it "Good place for a BM". Geocachers are getting a kick out of it.

 

That sounds like a funny cache. I found a old 1944 TVA BM while looking for a cache. I listed it on the Waymarking site. I will not do the McD's and phone booth waymarks either. I enjoy history, these are the kind of waymarks that I enjoy. Most BM's in our area are on Rail Road property, get caught looking for a BM, get busted for tresspassing.

[+LSUFan 0]

abandoned cemetery

Completely off-topic, but isn't this impossible?

This is not off topic, I found a unlisted BM at the corner of a wall surrounding an abandoned cemetery while Waymarking in a National Forest.

Is there something that I misunderstand about your post? What do you mean by "isn't this impossible?"

 

Yes, Foxtrot was just being funny (it's actually hilarious when you think about it). Technically, how can a cemetery be "abandoned" , since it's inhabitants are not really in any shape to leave it.........at least on their own accord. LOL

 

And if they all did leave somehow, then it wouldn't be a cemetery anymore.

 

You could really say the cemetery has been neglected or disregarded (possibly forgotten)......by it's caretakers.

 

He was also stating his humorous comment was off-topic, not your post.

Edited January 9, 2011 by LSUFan

[foxtrot_xray 4]

abandoned cemetery

Completely off-topic, but isn't this impossible?

This is not off topic, I found a unlisted BM at the corner of a wall surrounding an abandoned cemetery while Waymarking in a National Forest.

Is there something that I misunderstand about your post? What do you mean by "isn't this impossible?"

 

Yes, Foxtrot was just being funny (it's actually hilarious when you think about it). Technically, how can a cemetery be "abandoned" , since it's inhabitants are not really in any shape to leave it.........at least on their own accord. LOL

 

And if they all did leave somehow, then it wouldn't be a cemetery anymore.

 

You could really say the cemetery has been neglected or disregarded (possibly forgotten)......by it's caretakers.

 

He was also stating his humorous comment was off-topic, not your post.

Exactly - sorry, did not mean to imply MPH's post was off-topic, but my question was.

 

Having lived in Georgia, where it's been known that cemeteries have been "moved", for roads and development (and one moved for a strip mall), I thought THAT was technically an 'abandoned cemetery'.

 

But, like MPH, I like finding the non-disk marks a lit more. Trees, boundary markers, other survey stones..

[+Manville Possum 287]

abandoned cemetery

Completely off-topic, but isn't this impossible?

This is not off topic, I found a unlisted BM at the corner of a wall surrounding an abandoned cemetery while Waymarking in a National Forest.

Is there something that I misunderstand about your post? What do you mean by "isn't this impossible?"

 

Yes, Foxtrot was just being funny (it's actually hilarious when you think about it). Technically, how can a cemetery be "abandoned" , since it's inhabitants are not really in any shape to leave it.........at least on their own accord. LOL

 

And if they all did leave somehow, then it wouldn't be a cemetery anymore.

 

You could really say the cemetery has been neglected or disregarded (possibly forgotten)......by it's caretakers.

 

He was also stating his humorous comment was off-topic, not your post.

Exactly - sorry, did not mean to imply MPH's post was off-topic, but my question was.

 

Having lived in Georgia, where it's been known that cemeteries have been "moved", for roads and development (and one moved for a strip mall), I thought THAT was technically an 'abandoned cemetery'.

 

But, like MPH, I like finding the non-disk marks a lit more. Trees, boundary markers, other survey stones..

Oh, sorry. I misunderstand. The waymark category is called "Abandoned cemeterys". These are old, unmaintained and long forgotton cemeterys that many are in forests. I research geneology, and photographing and listing the coordinates is one way to preserve their locations. When harvesting trees in a forest, it is very nessary to not disturb cemeterys, some are Native American or pioneer cemeterys and are federally protected.

[+GrizzFlyer 2]

Although counting benchmarks as "finds" would certainly boost the numbers for those of us who actively hunt benchmarks, allowing them to count towards total "finds" would bring on some unwanted problems. Members of the geocaching community who presently do not hunt benchmarks would be enticed to start logging them to boost their numbers. Unfortunately, this would bring many errors in benchmark recoveries that cannot be resolved with todays Groundspeak benchmark rules. There are hundreds or perhaps even thousands of erroneous or outright bogus "finds" on benchmarks now, what would happen if Groundspeak made these numbers part of the total finds? Yes, for many it IS about the numbers. With us benchmarkers, not so much.

 

I'm in favor of a Review Committee comprised of active, experienced, serious, and knowledgeable benchmarkers that would be given the means to delete erroneous benchmark logs. However, not at the compromise of allowing benchmark recoveries to count towards the total geocaching stats.

[+2oldfarts (the rockhounders) 842]

I'm in favor of a Review Committee comprised of active, experienced, serious, and knowledgeable benchmarkers that would be given the means to delete erroneous benchmark logs. However, not at the compromise of allowing benchmark recoveries to count towards the total geocaching stats.

 

I'm against giving anyone the power to delete logs they feel are wrong, unless they actually visit the benchmark site and do their own recovery first. Too often there are circumstances that need to be checked in person to determine if a log is wrong. What about those that didn't post a picture? How would you verify the accuracy of those recoveries.

 

How many of us here have made a mistake/s when logging benchmarks? Are we going to insist that all those logs are deleted. What about destroyed logs that are then proven wrong? Are we going to insist that someone log a DNF instead of destroyed if there is no disk to prove it is destroyed.

 

This will be a real can of worms.

 

As to people logging benchmarks for the numbers - well they already log them for the icon & what about those that log benchmarks with the NGS to color in a map?

 

Who gets to define "active, experienced, serious, and knowledgeable benchmarkers"?

 

It is only a game here on GC.

 

John

[+shorbird 1]

I'm with you 100%, John. We really don't need a can of worms here.

[+agentmancuso 0]

 

Who gets to define "active, experienced, serious, and knowledgeable benchmarkers"?

 

 

In the UK benchmarks are mainly logged on two distinct sites, one for horizontal marks and one for vertical, but as both sites are, necessarily, run by people who know what they're talking about it's a fairly simple matter to point out dodgy logs for them to delete.

[+Manville Possum 287]

I'm in favor of a Review Committee comprised of active, experienced, serious, and knowledgeable benchmarkers that would be given the means to delete erroneous benchmark logs. However, not at the compromise of allowing benchmark recoveries to count towards the total geocaching stats.

 

Why not just move them to the Waymarking site? We already have a category for them.

[CallawayMT 0]

I am not sure how you could go about policing the recoveries by the happy-go-lucky caching community. As all of us that frequent this forum know, the majority of the cacher's see a disk and anything nearby is the correct station to log. Buckbrooke used to go crazy trying to email and post notes to people when he saw obvious incorrect posts. I just returned from an excellent vacation to the Hawaiian Islands and I was able to go to the top of Haleakala and finally answer some of those incorrect posts with my finds.

SATELLITE TRIANG STA 011

SATELLITE TRIANG STA 011 RM 1

HALEAKALA 7120

UWEKAHUNA BLUFF

 

Even though I have accurately described the circumstances and included photos; I would be willing to bet within one month there will be more innacurate posts. They find the azimuth mark, get excited that they found a benchmark and have to report it as something.

 

A game for some, an important hobby to others and a profession for some of us.

 

Oh by the way, the three stations located on top of Haleakala are located within the large military and university area setup for celestial viewing. I took my daughter and walked up past the DO NOT DRIVE PAST THIS POINT sign; after we found most of the stations that I hoped to find; we did get yelled at for going into an off-limits area. She was amused and I simply explained to the gentleman that the sign stated no vehicles and that we apologized and would leave.

 

Kurt

[+GrizzFlyer 2]

I'm in favor of a Review Committee comprised of active, experienced, serious, and knowledgeable benchmarkers that would be given the means to delete erroneous benchmark logs. However, not at the compromise of allowing benchmark recoveries to count towards the total geocaching stats.

 

I'm against giving anyone the power to delete logs they feel are wrong, unless they actually visit the benchmark site and do their own recovery first. Too often there are circumstances that need to be checked in person to determine if a log is wrong. What about those that didn't post a picture? How would you verify the accuracy of those recoveries.

 

How many of us here have made a mistake/s when logging benchmarks? Are we going to insist that all those logs are deleted. What about destroyed logs that are then proven wrong? Are we going to insist that someone log a DNF instead of destroyed if there is no disk to prove it is destroyed.

 

This will be a real can of worms.

 

As to people logging benchmarks for the numbers - well they already log them for the icon & what about those that log benchmarks with the NGS to color in a map?

 

Who gets to define "active, experienced, serious, and knowledgeable benchmarkers"?

 

It is only a game here on GC.

 

John

 

There are many erroneous benchmarking logs, and many threads here on this forum about them. Those logs that have been verified as in error by personal visits from reliable benchmarkers (that's where the "active, experienced, serious, and knowledgeable" comes into play) have been the topic of several discussions on this forum. No ONE person should have the power to delete logs, it could be by a consensus of a review committee, as was mentioned above. Only those logs that have been positively verified as in error would have any action taken. If there was any doubt, leave it be.

 

Even though I do not do this professionally, so I guess its a "game" to me, if I made an error on a BM I'd sure like to be notified of it so I could correct it.

 

My original comments were purely philosophical, we all know that its not going to happen.

 

Now if only the snow would melt around here, I could use a good benchmarking day!

[+mtbikedirtygirl 0]

Now if only the snow would melt around here, I could use a good benchmarking day!

 

I wish the same here. I looked for two bench marks today in the snow with no luck...Duh!!

[+agentmancuso 0]

Now if only the snow would melt around here, I could use a good benchmarking day!

 

Our snow has disappeared over the past week, so I'm getting out tomorrow for the first time in ages.

[+Stugel2012 0]

Hi,

 

I'm new to geocaching and am curious why benchmarks do not count as part of your total number of geocaches but simple event caches do? I use my GPS to find a benchmark so I don't understand why they don't count.

 

I know that there are some "major" event caches, but I've noticed that a group of cachers in my area frequently meet at a local eating establishment to drink coffee, and each time they meet counts counts as a cache.

 

Ahh, can someone explain this to me??????

 

Thanks.

I think this is an interesting and controversial topic I think. Yes it would be nice for benchmark finds to be included in your cache count since tectonically they are a cache type. Like many have said they are not overseen by individual "Owners" per say, and there is truly no way to designate/assign people to oversee benchmark logs.

 

At the end of the day, Groundspeak most likely wouldn't want to apply this idea just for the fact that many surveying company's use this site to double check the condition of benchmarks.

[+dfx 10]

Yes it would be nice for benchmark finds to be included in your cache count since tectonically they are a cache type.

 

No they aren't. At least event "caches", virtuals, earthcaches etc etc all use the same kind of listing. You go to the submission form, enter the description, coordinates, date, ratings and all that, and then you can select between traditional cache, multi, event, earthcache (and formerly virtual, locationless...). The resulting listing will be the same, except for the icon and the name of the type (within parenthesis). Benchmarks don't share this property, they're a seperate entity with a seperate type of listing, they just happen to be listed on the same site.

Edited February 9, 2011 by dfx

[+Stugel2012 0]

I do see where your coming from, I was talking more in the terms it is listed under "Geocaches found"

[kayakbird 5]

DELETE POST

Edited February 9, 2011 by kayakbird

[+Harry Dolphin 1170]

Why not just move them to the Waymarking site? We already have a category for them.

 

Which would, of course, be the same as moving them to oblivion. I realize that you enjoy Whymarking. That puts you in a minority. I'm glad that you enjoy it! But if benchmarks were moved there, I would stop hunting them.

Benchmarks on Whymarking are for those not listed on Geocaching. I listed one (a few years back) as part of the Center of Population series. It has had ONE FIND! Wow!!

[foxtrot_xray 4]

But if benchmarks were moved there, I would stop hunting them.

This actually makes me curious because I rarely use GC.com for any benchmark finding. I'll only update logs there after I find them. Never to 'find' marks or stations I want to go hunting after. Yes - I originally got into BM hunting from GC.COM, but I never use it anymore. I'll use my GE tool, or Scardycat's page to find marks that I want to find, and then use my databases in GSAK to pull them up and transfer them to my GPS. I'm surprised that you - whom I thought was a serious hunter - would put that much lean towards whether BMs were on GC.COM or not?

[+2oldfarts (the rockhounders) 842]

But if benchmarks were moved there, I would stop hunting them.

This actually makes me curious because I rarely use GC.com for any benchmark finding. I'll only update logs there after I find them. Never to 'find' marks or stations I want to go hunting after. Yes - I originally got into BM hunting from GC.COM, but I never use it anymore. I'll use my GE tool, or Scardycat's page to find marks that I want to find, and then use my databases in GSAK to pull them up and transfer them to my GPS. I'm surprised that you - whom I thought was a serious hunter - would put that much lean towards whether BMs were on GC.COM or not?

Oh no, it is the "Logging" of the benchmarks on GC that is the main thing.

 

If they were to move the database from GC to Whymarking, I agree, we would not bother any longer.

 

Shirley~

[foxtrot_xray 4]

This actually makes me curious because I rarely use GC.com for any benchmark finding. I'll only update logs there after I find them. Never to 'find' marks or stations I want to go hunting after. Yes - I originally got into BM hunting from GC.COM, but I never use it anymore. I'll use my GE tool, or Scardycat's page to find marks that I want to find, and then use my databases in GSAK to pull them up and transfer them to my GPS. I'm surprised that you - whom I thought was a serious hunter - would put that much lean towards whether BMs were on GC.COM or not?

Oh no, it is the "Logging" of the benchmarks on GC that is the main thing.

 

If they were to move the database from GC to Whymarking, I agree, we would not bother any longer.

 

Shirley~

Aaah! I understand - sorry about that.

 

Yes - actually, I would really have to agree to that.

[+agentmancuso 0]

Aaah! I understand - sorry about that.

 

Yes - actually, I would really have to agree to that.

 

It's the same over here - a Waymarking category does exist for UK benchmarks, but I don't use it, because, well, Waymarking is pretty dire to be honest. i just use the dedicated UK sites & GSAK.