What's the difference between a Virtual cache and a Waymark?

April 8, 2011

I read here the other day that Virtual caches are coming back in May(?) and I was already checking out the Waymark section here and I started wondering whats the difference? The Virtual doesn't get you a pic where the Waymark does but both are just going to the posted coords and looking at something right? No searching for a cache but experiencing a place. Help me out here guys why have both?

5.2k · April 8, 2011

One gives you a smiley, the other doesn't.

One makes the volunteer reviewers run away screaming, the other doesn't.

18.9k · April 8, 2011

One gives you a smiley, the other doesn't.

....

I have always suspected that this is the only important difference to most cachers.

April 8, 2011

One makes the volunteer reviewers run away screaming, the other doesn't.

Why are virtuals hard on reviewers and waymarks are not? Is it the distance thing from traditional cache?

7k · April 8, 2011

One is PQable and the other one isn't.

April 8, 2011

One gives you a smiley, the other doesn't.

....

I have always suspected that this is the only important difference to most cachers.

Why not just give a smiley for Waymarks like virtuals?

38.2k · April 8, 2011

One makes the volunteer reviewers run away screaming, the other doesn't.

Why are virtuals hard on reviewers and waymarks are not? Is it the distance thing from traditional cache?

Reviewers are not involved with the publication of waymarks. They were involved with the publication of virtuals and for many years there was something called "the wow factor". The location had to 1. Make you say wow! when you saw it and 2. there had to be no way to hide a physical cache there.

Reviewers caught a lot of grief when they declined caches for not living up to the wow factor or didn't believe that there was no way to hide a physical cache.

Of course every person who submitted a virtual thought it deserved to be published.

Edited April 8, 2011 by briansnat

April 8, 2011

One makes the volunteer reviewers run away screaming, the other doesn't.

Why are virtuals hard on reviewers and waymarks are not? Is it the distance thing from traditional cache?

Reviewers are not involved with the publication of waymarks. They were involved with the publication of virtuals and for many years there was something called "the wow factor". The location had 1. Make you saw wow! when you saw it and 2. there had to be no way to hide a physical cache there.

Reviewers caught a lot of grief when they declined caches for not living up to the wow factor or didn't believe that there was no way to hide a physical cache.

Of course every person who submitted a virtual thought it deserved to be published.

I see your point "In the eye of the beholder...". I could see a lot of people getting mad because of a reviewer not thinking their "virtual" wasn't "special" enough. It just seems that if Waymarks are so easy for everyone why not just roll all the waymarks over to the cache "system" and let er rip? I virtual sounds like a waymark to me that is just censored more.

18.9k · April 8, 2011

...

Of course every person who submitted a virtual thought it deserved to be published.

What?? You don't miss those forum discussions?? The "It is an important statue - they denied it!! - I've been wronged" threads??

3k · April 8, 2011

1) Waymarks can be anything. That means while there are categories for statues, benchmarks, and monuments there is also a category for Starbucks locations.

2) Reviewer process is different. We don't know what the new process/requirements will be when Virtuals come back. Limiting them to certain categories and/or areas that couldn't have a physical geocache is likely (though only speculated).

3) Waymarks usually lack any surprise. For example, most/all the war memorials category require the person listing the Waymark to include very clear photos and to type out the entire text of the memorial. You could armchair visit (though not necessarily armchair log) tons of waymarks without ever visiting them in person yet see them in great detail. Some Virtuals request Finders not to post photos and even those with photos usually are more of the scenic variety rather than detailed closeups.

As someone who both loves Virtuals and is somewhat active in Waymarking (despite quite a few things about it that bug the hell out of me), I don't even have a clear mental distinction beyond some kind of "Wow Factor" (which is not exactly a clear concept).

Edited April 8, 2011 by Joshism

April 8, 2011

...

Of course every person who submitted a virtual thought it deserved to be published.

What?? You don't miss those forum discussions?? The "It is an important statue - they denied it!! - I've been wronged" threads??

Guys, I'm new to all of this but I could see where people would mad.

4.2k · April 8, 2011

Waymarks are not much different than venues on Foursquare or any random set of "points of interest". Multiple Waymarks can exist in the same physical space. Waymarks can be extremely mundane or placed on top of a physical Geocache or an existing Virtual cache.

No PQs.

No smiley.

Often listed, seldom logged.

8k · April 8, 2011

Here's a somewhat long (8.5 minutes) video I made explaining why virtual were replaced with Waymarking

I suppose the biggest complaint is the Waymarking site itself. For those who want to find virtual caches while they are out and about geocaching, going to a separate to download the waymarks and then selecting which waymarks you might find interesting ("wow") is much more difficult that getting the nearby virtual caches which have be pre-screen by reviewers for "wowness" as part of your regular pocket query.

IMO, virtual caches were supposed to not just take you to an interesting place, but there would be something to find there. Something that could be identified at the posted coordinates. You either answered some questions about what you saw or posted a picture to prove you found the object. The majority of waymarks are not set up this way, but a few are.

Edited April 8, 2011 by tozainamboku

2.7k · April 8, 2011

Other than a smiley they are basically the same. It all depends on the creativity of the cacher to make a good virtual or a decent waymark. I own both kinds and I find that virtuals are more fun to do than just visiting a place and telling me what the name of the pub was or who was buried there or the old tractor that sits next to the road. . . . . .

5k · April 8, 2011

Other than a smiley they are basically the same. It all depends on the creativity of the cacher to make a good virtual or a decent waymark. I own both kinds and I find that virtuals are more fun to do than just visiting a place and telling me what the name of the pub was or who was buried there or the old tractor that sits next to the road. . . . . .

I don't see them as "basically the same" at all.

Virtuals, you go to the coordinates to find an item that is unknown to you, ie: a historical bridge. You report what you found to the CO and log your find.

Waymarks, with very few exceptions, you find a historical bridge that you all ready know about and create a waymark in the Historical Bridge category. In turn, you can take coordinates of other historical bridges and go look for them and then log your experience. If anything, Waymarking better mirrors the old Locationless caches. The simple fact that all Locationless caches were automatically converted to Waymarks, then archived and locked, while Virtuals weren't seems to bear that out.

1.3k · April 8, 2011

I don't even have a clear mental distinction beyond some kind of "Wow Factor" (which is not exactly a clear concept)

I have a clear distinction on my own Wow factor. I have no idea on someone else, so I can see the difficulty in defining it. I might be awestruck by the sight of The Grand Tetons and someone else might look at them and say "They're mountains. Whoopee."

Waymarks are alot like benchmarks for me. I don't actively search the database for nearby benchmarks but if I see a benchmark when I'm out caching, I'll grab a photo and then see if it's listed when I get back home and log it if it is. The difference, of course, is that there's nothing in the field to indicate that I'm standing right on top of a Waymark. If I could include waymarks in a PQ, I'd at least know they were near and decide to do it or not.

3.7k · April 8, 2011

I don't see them as "basically the same" at all.

Virtuals, you go to the coordinates to find an item that is unknown to you, ie: a historical bridge. You report what you found to the CO and log your find.

Waymarks, with very few exceptions, you find a historical bridge that you all ready know about and create a waymark in the Historical Bridge category. In turn, you can take coordinates of other historical bridges and go look for them and then log your experience. If anything, Waymarking better mirrors the old Locationless caches. The simple fact that all Locationless caches were automatically converted to Waymarks, then archived and locked, while Virtuals weren't seems to bear that out.

Sort of correct, but if you like you can choose a category, get a description of a waymark in it and then go and log it. So basically the same as a Virtual.

Where people often get confused is where they see a category that seems to be incredibly unpopular, in that few waymarks have ever been logged. That's often because that category suits the "locationless" approach better than the "virtual" one.

5k · April 8, 2011

I don't even have a clear mental distinction beyond some kind of "Wow Factor" (which is not exactly a clear concept)

I have a clear distinction on my own Wow factor. I have no idea on someone else, so I can see the difficulty in defining it. I might be awestruck by the sight of The Grand Tetons and someone else might look at them and say "They're mountains. Whoopee."

Waymarks are alot like benchmarks for me. I don't actively search the database for nearby benchmarks but if I see a benchmark when I'm out caching, I'll grab a photo and then see if it's listed when I get back home and log it if it is. The difference, of course, is that there's nothing in the field to indicate that I'm standing right on top of a Waymark. If I could include waymarks in a PQ, I'd at least know they were near and decide to do it or not.

I'm going to go OT for a moment here. There was a recent thread that asked if money was not an object, where would you cache? My answer was the International Space Station. My second choice would be the Grand Tetons. No mountain is "They're mountains. Whoopee.", to me. Every day I open my door and can usually see Mt. Lukens, the highest point in Los Angeles County. It's 20 miles away, and because of the atmosphere, and pollution, it looks just a bit different each time I see it. I live in a valley that is encircled by four distinct mountain ranges. Some of the ranges are very old, geologically, and some are very new. Every time I explore a new trail, I'm "awestruck".

Now back to our regularly scheduled topic.

5k · April 8, 2011

I don't see them as "basically the same" at all.

Virtuals, you go to the coordinates to find an item that is unknown to you, ie: a historical bridge. You report what you found to the CO and log your find.

Waymarks, with very few exceptions, you find a historical bridge that you all ready know about and create a waymark in the Historical Bridge category. In turn, you can take coordinates of other historical bridges and go look for them and then log your experience. If anything, Waymarking better mirrors the old Locationless caches. The simple fact that all Locationless caches were automatically converted to Waymarks, then archived and locked, while Virtuals weren't seems to bear that out.

Sort of correct, but if you like you can choose a category, get a description of a waymark in it and then go and log it. So basically the same as a Virtual.

Where people often get confused is where they see a category that seems to be incredibly unpopular, in that few waymarks have ever been logged. That's often because that category suits the "locationless" approach better than the "virtual" one.

No, I do not agree. With a Virtual geocache, you have no idea what you are going to find. It's the surprise and hopefully, the "Wow", that makes it different from a typical Waymark in a known category.

3k · April 8, 2011

I don't see them as "basically the same" at all.

Virtuals, you go to the coordinates to find an item that is unknown to you, ie: a historical bridge. You report what you found to the CO and log your find.

Waymarks, with very few exceptions, you find a historical bridge that you all ready know about and create a waymark in the Historical Bridge category. In turn, you can take coordinates of other historical bridges and go look for them and then log your experience. If anything, Waymarking better mirrors the old Locationless caches. The simple fact that all Locationless caches were automatically converted to Waymarks, then archived and locked, while Virtuals weren't seems to bear that out.

Sort of correct, but if you like you can choose a category, get a description of a waymark in it and then go and log it. So basically the same as a Virtual.

Where people often get confused is where they see a category that seems to be incredibly unpopular, in that few waymarks have ever been logged. That's often because that category suits the "locationless" approach better than the "virtual" one.

No, I do not agree. With a Virtual geocache, you have no idea what you are going to find. It's the surprise and hopefully, the "Wow", that makes it different from a typical Waymark in a known category.

And I'm going to have to disagree with you, in turn.

In this country (the UK) at least, most virtual write-ups are pretty specific about what you're going to find, so although there may well be a "Wow" when you get there (in most cases), it's hardly ever a surprise!

They're also mostly in places well known for having a Wow factor of their own - places that people would visit whether there was a cache there or not.

3.7k · April 8, 2011

In any case, we only said "basically" the same, not "exactly" the same.

With many waymarks, you

go to the coordinates to find an item that is unknown to you, ie: a historical bridge. You report what you found to the CO and log your find.

So, basically the same in those cases. I've logged a few like that: here's an example;

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM87G_Sproat_Lake_Petroglyphs

2.6k · April 8, 2011

I don't see them as "basically the same" at all.

Virtuals, you go to the coordinates to find an item that is unknown to you, ie: a historical bridge. You report what you found to the CO and log your find.

Waymarks, with very few exceptions, you find a historical bridge that you all ready know about and create a waymark in the Historical Bridge category. In turn, you can take coordinates of other historical bridges and go look for them and then log your experience. If anything, Waymarking better mirrors the old Locationless caches. The simple fact that all Locationless caches were automatically converted to Waymarks, then archived and locked, while Virtuals weren't seems to bear that out.

Sort of correct, but if you like you can choose a category, get a description of a waymark in it and then go and log it. So basically the same as a Virtual.

Where people often get confused is where they see a category that seems to be incredibly unpopular, in that few waymarks have ever been logged. That's often because that category suits the "locationless" approach better than the "virtual" one.

No, I do not agree. With a Virtual geocache, you have no idea what you are going to find. It's the surprise and hopefully, the "Wow", that makes it different from a typical Waymark in a known category.

This has been my experience as well, further compounded by the different Waymarking requirements for different categories that sucks the fun out of it, the cumbersome website, no PQ capability, and just being on another site. I was on the Waymarking bandwagon for a while and still have a mild interest in it, but the logging and website issues made it pretty tiresome for me in a big hurry. I do this stuff for fun, not to build a catalog of POIs. Doing virtuals, to me, can be just as (if not more) interesting and keeps an element of surprise and fun.

3.7k · April 8, 2011

...Doing virtuals, to me, can be just as (if not more) interesting and keeps an element of surprise and fun.

So, using my Petroglyphs example above; what would the Virtual have that the Waymark doesn't?

2.6k · April 8, 2011

...Doing virtuals, to me, can be just as (if not more) interesting and keeps an element of surprise and fun.

So, using my Petroglyphs example above; what would the Virtual have that the Waymark doesn't?

I have no idea. I've never been there. That's why I prefaced my statement with "This has been my experience...". An isolated example proves nothing and does not alter my experiences. I could just as easily prove my point with other waymarks, but that would also prove nothing or change anything. Excuse me as I step away from beating this dead horse. I've got a meeting to go to.

7k · April 8, 2011

...Doing virtuals, to me, can be just as (if not more) interesting and keeps an element of surprise and fun.

So, using my Petroglyphs example above; what would the Virtual have that the Waymark doesn't?

The virtual would give you +1 on the same website that you use for your favorite hobby, the waymark won't.

The virtual would make some people believe that they've actually found a cache there, the waymark won't.

The virtual is one among few, the waymark is one among many.

The virtual would appear in your PQ, the waymark won't.

I think that's about it.

April 8, 2011

One is PQable and the other one isn't.

Yes you can do PQ for Waymarking.

I do this with GEOGET and his plugin GEOJARRY. Very easy and free, this app. can replace GSAK.

look here : http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=265608

and here : http://translate.google.com/translate?client=tmpg&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgeoget.ararat.cz%2Fdoku.php%2Fstart&langpair=cs|en

4.1k · April 8, 2011

...Doing virtuals, to me, can be just as (if not more) interesting and keeps an element of surprise and fun.

So, using my Petroglyphs example above; what would the Virtual have that the Waymark doesn't?

More finders. The linked waymark was placed in March of 2006 and has exactly 2 logs in 5 years.

The difference between Virtuals and waymarks is you go find a virtual. With waymarks you go find a category waypoint or you can find someone's log for that category. Never heard of anyone looking for someone's log on the old locationless caches, they just looked for the requirement for the locationless cache.

Waymarking tried to blend the 2 cache types together and the people just didn't buy it. Add to that, the site is just to hard to navigate. We tried to find a waymark that we knew existed and it took over an hour to finally find it. We ended up using the map in the category we knew it belonged to and scrolled around until we got to the correct area and then we found it.

Waymarking is best described as the old locationless caches (categories) where you find a waymark for entry into a category or you find (& log) other people's category logs.

John

4.1k · April 8, 2011

One gives you a smiley, the other doesn't.

Which is to say that virtuals are part of this game. I do another location-based game that is separate from this one. I do not get a smiley for that either.

Virtuals provide a task different than waymarks, some can be challenging. They bring this game into areaa where I could not otherwise cache, and considering the numbers of virtuals on my favorites list (and the lists of others) they add something to the experience within this game.

Waymarking to me is closer to gowalla or foursquare - without the badges or inventory items. The check in model did not hold my interest in the same way that virtuals or other location games do.

But these threads make me curious about how Groundspeak is going to reintroduce virtuals to satisfy both camps and retain the core experience.

Edited April 8, 2011 by mulvaney

7k · April 8, 2011

One is PQable and the other one isn't.

Yes you can do PQ for Waymarking.

I do this with GEOGET and his plugin GEOJARRY. Very easy and free, this app. can replace GSAK.

No. First of all, I can't use this program (at least not without jumping through some hoops) nor can I use GSAK. Second, I don't know how this plugin works (the google translated version of the website is really useless), but I can only assume that it scrapes the website. That's hardly a replacement for PQs.

4.2k · April 8, 2011

One is PQable and the other one isn't.

Yes you can do PQ for Waymarking.

I do this with GEOGET and his plugin GEOJARRY. Very easy and free, this app. can replace GSAK.

http://sites.rapidus.net/pierregau/waymarkingPQ.jpg

look here : http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=265608

and here : http://translate.google.com/translate?client=tmpg&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgeoget.ararat.cz%2Fdoku.php%2Fstart&langpair=cs|en

So how is that program acquiring the waymark listing for its database? Is it scraping the website for data or is it getting them by a user manually importing them in small "download all on page" buckets or some similar?

In either case, it's still not a Pocket Query.

A PQ can let me grab up to 500 cache listing in one swoop. Tell me how this program can do that for waymarks and not break the TOU agreement.

1.4k · April 8, 2011

I think that's about it.

I can find and log virtuals with the Geocaching iPhone app. There no app for letting me find, photograph and log waymarks.

20.7k · April 8, 2011

I read here the other day that Virtual caches are coming back in May(?) and I was already checking out the Waymark section here and I started wondering whats the difference? The Virtual doesn't get you a pic where the Waymark does but both are just going to the posted coords and looking at something right? No searching for a cache but experiencing a place. Help me out here guys why have both?

There are many differences between how virts were handled on GC.com and how waymarks are handled on WM.com. To me, however, the stumbling block is that WMs are on an entire different site. I don't go to the dozens of other sites that wish to show me interesting locations in order to find virts, I'm not visiting WM.com for this, either.

April 8, 2011

The last time I hopped over to Waymarking.com and looked at my area about 75% of the waymarks were just gravestones that somebody wanted you to go look at for some reason. Not really any "wow" imo. Just another reason why reviewers make geocaching what it is today - quality.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Nicodemus3

7k · April 8, 2011

The last time I hopped over to Waymarking.com and looked at my area about 75% of the waymarks were just gravestones that somebody wanted you to go look at for some reason. Not really any "wow" imo. Just another reason why reviewers make geocaching what it is today - quality.

Listing a waymark doesn't mean that you want people to go visit it. The waymark is there for people who do want to visit it. Big difference there.

38.2k · April 8, 2011

Other than a smiley they are basically the same. It all depends on the creativity of the cacher to make a good virtual or a decent waymark. I own both kinds and I find that virtuals are more fun to do than just visiting a place and telling me what the name of the pub was or who was buried there or the old tractor that sits next to the road. . . . . .

I don't see them as "basically the same" at all.

Virtuals, you go to the coordinates to find an item that is unknown to you, ie: a historical bridge. You report what you found to the CO and log your find.

Waymarks, with very few exceptions, you find a historical bridge that you all ready know about and create a waymark in the Historical Bridge category. In turn, you can take coordinates of other historical bridges and go look for them and then log your experience. If anything, Waymarking better mirrors the old Locationless caches. The simple fact that all Locationless caches were automatically converted to Waymarks, then archived and locked, while Virtuals weren't seems to bear that out.

I looked at the virtuals around me and with nearly half of them the object was described on the page and you knew what was there before you arrived.

Waymarking is a replacement for locationless and virtuals. When you list an object in a category it is like a locationless cache. When other people then visit the object it is similar to a virtual.

Now tell me the difference between each of them other than the smiley.

Edited April 8, 2011 by briansnat

7k · April 8, 2011

The last time I hopped over to Waymarking.com and looked at my area about 75% of the waymarks were just gravestones that somebody wanted you to go look at for some reason. Not really any "wow" imo. Just another reason why reviewers make geocaching what it is today - quality.

Listing a waymark doesn't mean that you want people to go visit it. The waymark is there for people who do want to visit it. Big difference there.

Actually now that I think about it, that may be the biggest difference between the two: why they're created. Virtuals (at least the ones that are still around today) were created because the owner thought there was something worth seeing there. Most waymarks are created simply because there's a category for it.

Edited April 8, 2011 by dfx

1.4k · April 8, 2011

Now tell me the difference between each of them other than the smiley.

The virtual has 276 visits while the waymark has 5.

20.7k · April 8, 2011

Now tell me the difference between each of them other than the smiley.

The virtual has 276 visits while the waymark has 5.

:laughing:

8k · April 8, 2011

Every day I open my door and can usually see Mt. Lukens, the highest point in Los Angeles County.

OT here.

Mt. Lukens is the highest point in Los Angeles City. The highest point in Los Angeles County is Mt. San Antonio (aka Baldy). You should know that. In any case, when you look out your door you should be looking to see Cahuenga Peak the home of Ooper's Cache.

4.2k · April 8, 2011

Now tell me the difference between each of them other than the smiley.

The virtual has 276 visits while the waymark has 5.

The Waymark is McDonalds. The virtual isn't.

8k · April 8, 2011

I don't see them as "basically the same" at all.

Virtuals, you go to the coordinates to find an item that is unknown to you, ie: a historical bridge. You report what you found to the CO and log your find.

Waymarks, with very few exceptions, you find a historical bridge that you all ready know about and create a waymark in the Historical Bridge category. In turn, you can take coordinates of other historical bridges and go look for them and then log your experience. If anything, Waymarking better mirrors the old Locationless caches. The simple fact that all Locationless caches were automatically converted to Waymarks, then archived and locked, while Virtuals weren't seems to bear that out.

Sort of correct, but if you like you can choose a category, get a description of a waymark in it and then go and log it. So basically the same as a Virtual.

Where people often get confused is where they see a category that seems to be incredibly unpopular, in that few waymarks have ever been logged. That's often because that category suits the "locationless" approach better than the "virtual" one.

No, I do not agree. With a Virtual geocache, you have no idea what you are going to find. It's the surprise and hopefully, the "Wow", that makes it different from a typical Waymark in a known category.

This has been my experience as well, further compounded by the different Waymarking requirements for different categories that sucks the fun out of it, the cumbersome website, no PQ capability, and just being on another site. I was on the Waymarking bandwagon for a while and still have a mild interest in it, but the logging and website issues made it pretty tiresome for me in a big hurry. I do this stuff for fun, not to build a catalog of POIs. Doing virtuals, to me, can be just as (if not more) interesting and keeps an element of surprise and fun.

In fact most virtuals you know where you are going. But if they are done right, there is something you find there that you don't know without visiting (usually the answer to the verification question). Sometimes this making this discovery is what is "wow". In any case it makes virtual caches a kind of cache in that you use your GPS to find something.

Most Waymarking categories are catalogs. The waymark is a place or object that matches this category. If you are interested in this category then places or object in the category may be "wow".

However, not all Waymarking categories are like this. Waymarking allows for categories that are very creative and more game like. The Best Kept Secrets category is an example of this. Like a virtual cache there must be an object to find and a photo or questions to prove that you found it. Also, Best Kept Secrets waymark owners are encouraged to not reveal everything on the page so as to have an air of mystery about what you will find.

For the past five years, whenever this topic has come up, I have pointed to this Best Kept Secrets category. I had hoped that others would suggest more categories that are not just catalogs. Some of these new categories what would replicate what the category managers see as the je ne c'est qua that makes virtuals different from ordinary waymarks. But there have not been many categories like this and relatively few waymarks get submitted to them. Best Kept Secrets turns down a lot of submission as well - because they aren't "wow" or they don't have something you find. Instead of trying make Waymarking work for the people who liked virtual caches, we just hear people whining about bringing back virtuals. And now Groundspeak is ready to throw in the towel and bring them back. Imagine how I feel after five years of effort to find out that the real difference between vitrual caches and waymarks is that virtuals are listed on Geocaching.com and waymarks aren't - and that is all important if you are a geocacher who simply wants to continue finding virutal caches along with physical caches in one place

I can find and log virtuals with the Geocaching iPhone app. There no app for letting me find, photograph and log waymarks.

There is: Waymarking app

7k · April 8, 2011

I can find and log virtuals with the Geocaching iPhone app. There no app for letting me find, photograph and log waymarks.

There is: Waymarking app

pwnt.

4.1k · April 8, 2011

I can find and log virtuals with the Geocaching iPhone app. There no app for letting me find, photograph and log waymarks.

There is: Waymarking app

Just to clarify, the app is a database of places that are identified as waymarks, but is really designed for people who do not waymark. You could use it in conjunction with icabmobile to allow you to uplodad photos directly to the waymark site, but even the historic places app is a very limited part of Waymarking.

20.7k · April 8, 2011

Every day I open my door and can usually see Mt. Lukens, the highest point in Los Angeles County.

OT here.

Mt. Lukens is the highest point in Los Angeles City. The highest point in Los Angeles County is Mt. San Antonio (aka Baldy). You should know that. In any case, when you look out your door you should be looking to see Cahuenga Peak the home of Ooper's Cache.

I can see Russia from my house.

5.3k · April 8, 2011

Instead of trying make Waymarking work for the people who liked virtual caches, we just hear people whining about bringing back virtuals.

The Toz business model:

Consumers should do what a company tells them to with their products, instead of insisting on getting what they want. That is frustrating to the company because the consumers won't do the work required to make the product successful.

The nerve! Consumers should be sheep and be grateful for whatever companies give them. Don't customers understand that it is their job to make the product successful? If those customers should dare to complain, make sure you show your contempt by characterizing it as "whining."

Thank goodness Groundspeak does not follow the Toz business model!

4.1k · April 8, 2011

Great Falls Waymark

Great Falls Virtual

Now tell me the difference between each of them other than the smiley.

One difference is that with the Great Falls virtual (which I very much enjoyed), you have to obtain information other than "checking in" by posting a picture to show you are there.

With some virtuals there may be little difference -- go to a spot and take a picture. But with others there is a world of difference -- go to a spot and complete a task. The "virtual puzzle" discussed in another current thread comes to mind -- go to a location and track down a piece of information that is not readily apparent.

The virtuals I did in Yosemite also come to mind -- most required tracking down information, whether it be through a series of interpretative signs; searching for particular features or things that may not be seen at first glance; or, hiking to a particular area and analyzing what is found there.

Some virtuals have taken me longer to complete than some traditionals and a few have required a return visit. While waymarks may take me to some best kept secrets that are worth visiting, it is a matter of just checking in by posting a photo.

But the smiley is not an insignificant difference. It is the difference between some opencaches and a geocache that is included as part of this game. It is the difference between what I do as part of this game, and what I do as part of another location-based game that is separate from this site. It is a way of bringing this game to areas like Yosemite. Since I choose to play this game rather than to waymark, gowalla, foursquare, opencache, terracache, or navicache, it is an important difference to me.

Edited April 8, 2011 by mulvaney

5.3k · April 8, 2011

Now tell me the difference between each of them other than the smiley.

One I can get from a pocket query in which I can download and filter waypoints on my computer.
One is integrated with the rest of my geocaching. I can do it along with other caches during the day without herculean effort preparing.
One allows me to track and log my visit along with my visits to geocaches.

I am, after all, a geocacher.

And I am one of the most outspoken about thinking smiley count inflation is a bad thing for geocaching, so, for me at least, it's NOT about the smileys. It's about the inconvenience and time investment of trying to keep track of two activities at once, both of which require the GPS.

20.7k · April 8, 2011

Now tell me the difference between each of them other than the smiley.

One I can get from a pocket query in which I can download and filter waypoints on my computer.

One is integrated with the rest of my geocaching. I can do it along with other caches during the day without herculean effort preparing.

One allows me to track and log my visit along with my visits to geocaches.

I am, after all, a geocacher.

And I am one of the most outspoken about thinking smiley count inflation is a bad thing for geocaching, so, for me at least, it's NOT about the smileys. It's about the inconvenience and time investment of trying to keep track of two activities at once, both of which require the GPS.

Very well put.

1.4k · April 8, 2011

I can find and log virtuals with the Geocaching iPhone app. There no app for letting me find, photograph and log waymarks.

There is: Waymarking app

I know about that one. It only satisfies one of my 3 criteria for a true Waymarking app, i.e. finding them, and even then it's only a subset of the categories.

They even called it Historic Places instead of Waymarking. And from the first review by Mark Oxner: "the app is not designed for Waymarkers, it's designed for non-Waymarkers"

Fail.

1.4k · April 8, 2011

I can find and log virtuals with the Geocaching iPhone app. There no app for letting me find, photograph and log waymarks.

There is: Waymarking app

pwnt.

You've obviously never tried that app.

What's the difference between a Virtual cache and a Waymark?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment