Waymarking vs. Geocaching

[+Team GPSaxophone]

You use a GPS for both activities but they are clearly not the same thing. With one, you're finding a location. With the other, you're finding a container and a logbook. In the old days that container was usually in a special location but these days it seems there's one under every lamp post skirt.

 

If waymarks take you to special places and geocaches don't, why all the hatred towards waymarks? Well, maybe it isn't hatred, but people don't seem to embrace that activity like they do geocaching. It can't just be the site design because there's a pretty vocal group out there that embraces virtuals, which are far closer to waymarks than geocaches but use the same site as geocaching.

 

Why?

[+Keelmann And Cici]

You use a GPS for both activities but they are clearly not the same thing. With one, you're finding a location. With the other, you're finding a container and a logbook. In the old days that container was usually in a special location but these days it seems there's one under every lamp post skirt.

 

If waymarks take you to special places and geocaches don't, why all the hatred towards waymarks? Well, maybe it isn't hatred, but people don't seem to embrace that activity like they do geocaching. It can't just be the site design because there's a pretty vocal group out there that embraces virtuals, which are far closer to waymarks than geocaches but use the same site as geocaching.

 

Why?

I suspect for a new cacher like myself, it's a combination of what you heard about first (geocaching), combined with the actual treasure hunt itself. Great places to see existed before I knew about geocaching, and I got out to see a few of them. But geocaching adds the extra incentive of finding an actual hidden object.

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

"If waymarks take you to special places and geocaches don't"

 

Every fast food place around here has a waymark, very few fast food places here have geocaches.

[+WVangler]

There are about a dozen waymarks in my whole state. I may be exaggerating but NOBODY does Waymarking here. So it is lame to create waymarks that nobody finds. For me, it is a lot more fun to participate in an activity that others are participating in. I could take up underwater horseshoes too. But why?

[GOF and Bacall]

For me it IS site design. It is a mess. Search one location and you get dozens of returns that are the same place. What is the point in that? Add that the search function is something less than user friendly and it just isn't all that much fun.

[+Panther&Pine]

If Waymarking had a PQ, I'd try it out. But it doesn't so... yeah not going to mess with it.

 

Edit for going back and looking at the site.

 

I'm confused. I've got my search sorted by distance but oddly there are few from NM in the middle of the Durango ones.

Edited June 23, 2011 by MooseJawSpruce

[+BruceS]

"If waymarks take you to special places and geocaches don't"

 

Every fast food place around here has a waymark, very few fast food places here have geocaches.

 

It is really good to know you don't have a single fast food place within 10 miles of where you live.... that is the closest fast waymark to you, 10 miles away... did they outlaw fast food in Gastonia?

Edited June 23, 2011 by BruceS

[4wheelin_fool]

In geocaching you usually are taken to an unknown place, while Waymarking lists it already and there is no surprise. I suppose that's why virtuals are liked better, because you usually had to see something previously unknown and describe it to prove you were there. I believe there is one hidden place category, but that is just a tiny part of Waymarking.

 

That, and the fact that the waymarks are not listed on the GC profile, making it a completely different game.

[+BruceS]

There are about a dozen waymarks in my whole state. I may be exaggerating but NOBODY does Waymarking here. So it is lame to create waymarks that nobody finds. For me, it is a lot more fun to participate in an activity that others are participating in. I could take up underwater horseshoes too. But why?

 

West Virginia is on the low side when it comes to number of Waymarks with 1175 but is is also on the low side with the number of caches 4142. Looks like lots of space for both there.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

"If waymarks take you to special places and geocaches don't"

 

Every fast food place around here has a waymark, very few fast food places here have geocaches.

You mean there isn't a Waymarking category for lamp posts?

 

 

Either way, it seems like there are uninspired waymarks just like there are uninspired geocaches. I'm looking for answers in more general terms because, like I said, at one time geocaches were placed for something other than the numbers.

 

What is it that makes people really like geocaching and really dislike Waymarking, other than the site design and why do some people really like virtuals, which are far closer to waymarks, but hate Waymarking (site design aside).

[+Ms.Scrabbler]

"If waymarks take you to special places and geocaches don't"

 

Every fast food place around here has a waymark, very few fast food places here have geocaches.

 

It is really good to know you don't have a single fast food place within 10 miles of where you live.... that is the closest fast waymark to you, 10 miles away... did they outlaw fast food in Gastonia?

 

nearest fast food one to me is less than 5 miles. Driving west there are a string of them. I hadn't looked at the site for a year or more but it does look like some of those have been taken off so monuments, etc. don't get lost in the midst

 

I just didn't get the marking McDs, Subway, BK, Wendy's and more along one stretch of road.

[+dfx]

I can't answer the original question but I don't seem to be part of the group the question is aimed at. I like geocaching because I like to find hidden containers. The location is secondary. Caches in nice locations are definitely a plus, but a nice location without cache is much less appealing to me. I'm also not particularly keen on getting virtuals back.

[+BruceS]

"If waymarks take you to special places and geocaches don't"

 

Every fast food place around here has a waymark, very few fast food places here have geocaches.

 

It is really good to know you don't have a single fast food place within 10 miles of where you live.... that is the closest fast waymark to you, 10 miles away... did they outlaw fast food in Gastonia?

 

nearest fast food one to me is less than 5 miles. Driving west there are a string of them. I hadn't looked at the site for a year or more but it does look like some of those have been taken off so monuments, etc. don't get lost in the midst

 

I just didn't get the marking McDs, Subway, BK, Wendy's and more along one stretch of road.

 

I based my search on your first cache location... nearest fast food was 10.1 mile... and none were in Gastonia. I don't like the fast food ones either... I just click the ignore button on food chains when doing a search and I don't see them until I want to.

[+Afterburned]

We have about 250 Geocaches and 40 Waymarks.

One waymark is a shipwreck, to claim it you have to visit and take a photo.

Now I am not saying that the person who posted that has not visited the shipwreck 40m below some pretty fast tides (can only dive around low), but they have not posted a photo!

 

It would be very easy to add every shipwreck around to Waymarking.

 

With Geocaching the Cache Owner has to visit the site, possibly several times, and has to be able to maintain it.

 

I have almost run out of geocaches on the island, so will probably go for all the waymarks except this one eventually, but there really is no sense of achievement when you get to the location, and hardly any of the local ones have clues to find or tasks to do. Armchair logging anyone?

[+Walts Hunting]

Lets keep it simple. Find Geocache get smilie. Find waymark get nothing.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Lets keep it simple. Find Geocache get smilie. Find waymark get nothing.

Doesn't that diminish the worth of geocaches though? Numbers are far more important than quality?

 

Why do people want virtuals back then. After all, the virtual threads are all about the locations being so special and waymarks are too mundane. You can't have it both ways.

[+dfx]

Why do people want virtuals back then.

 

Same reason: they want a smiley, just without the hassle of having to find a cache. Same goes for creating them: They wanna own a listing without the hassle of having to find a hiding spot and place a container.

[+webscouter.]

For me it is a simple matter of simplifying my adventure. I don't want to go to two different places to find something to look for. Geocaching is where I started so I stick with that. If I didn't have to go to a second site and could pull up waymarks from the geocache page or in a pocket query I would do them as well.

[+Castle Mischief]

Stop me if you've never heard this, because I'm pretty sure in the history of Waymark vs. Geocache I think it's only come up a bagillion times... Disregarding ascetics and the obvious container vs no container thing-

 

Waymarks:

 

No PQ

Clunky interface

Not any/very few in my area

Multiple WMs stacked on top of each other in different categories for the same location

Don't add to my total find count at geocaching.com

 

Geocaches:

 

None of the above

[Tahosa and Sons]

Sax: Its simple.

1. Find a cache get a smiley. (Lets ignore quality for the time being)

2. Find a virtual get a smiley. (Lets ignore quality for the time being)

3 Find a waymark and you don't get any credit, maybe some fun. But no smileys.

 

You and I both know the game has evolved into a numbers game, and that is something that I don't relish. Many of those that have high number counts have not even found your 5 x 5 or mine that we both placed back in 05. I own some waymarks and do it for just something else to do. As to virtuals I own a bunch of them and like caches they are either easy, difficult or lame. Its all how one looks at it and what they enjoy. I was hoping to finally making it to the magic 1000 finds by time I have 10 years of caching, but due to econmonic and environmental issues I don't think I'll make that number by Sept. and I don't really care. I have fun just being me.

So I'll keep my best cache in my Kilt and cache for what I enjoy it for.

[+fizzymagic]

Why?

 

Because I like geocaching and I do not like Waymarking.

 

Why is it that you insist that I justify my preferences to you? I like one and not the other. Period. No explanation required.

 

A discussion about the reasons might be interesting, but this has been hashed out many times in these forums, and the results have not generally been very satisfying.

 

The way you frame your question starts from the premise that if you like geocaching then you should like Waymarking. I completely disagree with the premise. It's a fallacy. They are very different activities and enjoying one does not imply that I should enjoy the other. Either direction.

[cezanne]

It can't just be the site design because there's a pretty vocal group out there that embraces virtuals, which are far closer to waymarks than geocaches but use the same site as geocaching.

 

Why?

 

I can only speak for myself. For me waymarks are very different from the caches I like. The container and the search for a container is not what is essential for me in geocaching. I am a fan of caches with multiple stages where the way from stage to stage is something very essential for me and this way is neither a location nor a waymark.

 

I do not hate Waymarking, it just does not fit nicely what I am interested at. Apart from that the offer of waymarks in my area is

ridiculous

http://www.Waymarking.com/wm/search.aspx?f=1&lat=47.069383&lon=15.445683&t=6

Waymark 25 on this list is already more than 80 km from my home. I am familiar with all the locations near to my place.

Moreover, even the existing waymarks do have either no visit at all or a very small number. There are no interesting logs there to read etc, there are no interesting tasks (mainly taking photographs which I hate), no information not already known to me etc

 

Certainly one could come up with new categories at Waymarking, but this requires to be PM, the willingness to take care of a category (i.e. doing the work of reviewing), one needs to get together with others and find compromises etc. I am neither willing to become PM nor to act as a manager for a Waymarking category. I am also not willing to do whatever the managers of a waymark require me to do. That's even more authocratic than at Earthcaching.

 

Cezanne

[+Team GPSaxophone]

The way you frame your question starts from the premise that if you like geocaching then you should like Waymarking. I completely disagree with the premise. It's a fallacy. They are very different activities and enjoying one does not imply that I should enjoy the other. Either direction.

Actually the question is more about why some people like virtuals so much and Waymarking so little by bringing up the quality of virtuals over the lack thereof with waymarks, taking out the usual reason of the horrible Waymarking site design. Those same people somehow prefer low quality caches (numbers runs) over the way geocaching used to be (caches in nice locations).

[+Coldgears]

The way you frame your question starts from the premise that if you like geocaching then you should like Waymarking. I completely disagree with the premise. It's a fallacy. They are very different activities and enjoying one does not imply that I should enjoy the other. Either direction.

Actually the question is more about why some people like virtuals so much and Waymarking so little by bringing up the quality of virtuals over the lack thereof with waymarks, taking out the usual reason of the horrible Waymarking site design. Those same people somehow prefer low quality caches (numbers runs) over the way geocaching used to be (caches in nice locations).

I'm going to be honest, the fun of geocaching is finding something, no matter how easy or hard. This is why number runs don't get old, i'm finding something.

 

With virtuals you have to find a plaque or statue or something similar.. I have DNFed one before... With Waymarking you know exactly what to look for, and you arent finding anything.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Coldgears

[+fizzymagic]

Those same people somehow prefer low quality caches (numbers runs) over the way geocaching used to be (caches in nice locations).

While it is certainly true that some cachers are numbers-obsessed and don't like Waymarking because of the lack of smileys, imputing that motivation to all who don't like Waymarking (but do like virtuals) is fallacious.

 

You would be hard-pressed to label me a numbers cacher, since I really dislike power trails and numbers caching. Yet I do not like Waymarking. It's not just the site (which I agree is horrific) but also the entire process, and the culture. It just does not work for me.

[+Harry Dolphin]

For me it IS site design. It is a mess. Search one location and you get dozens of returns that are the same place. What is the point in that? Add that the search function is something less than user friendly and it just isn't all that much fun.

 

Why do I ignore WhyBotherMarking??? It's a klutzy site filled mostly with garbage. It's boring. It's very tough to use. It's boring.

Why bother???

I look locally, and find that the church had three whymarks? Why? The statue in the park has another three. Why??? It's not worth filtering through for the interesting sites. Yes. I have logged one! And I have even 'hidden' one! (It has had one find in how many years?)

In Geocaching, I can run PQs, filter out what I'm not interested in. Just not worth the effort in that other site. Why Bother??

And, I don't get a smiley.

Okay. I don't get a smiley for benchmarks either. But they're challenging, fun, and useful. I cannot say that about that other site.

There is absolutely no correlation between WhyMarking and Virtuals. WhyMarking is the Junk Pile. Dump all your trash here.

[+Chokecherry]

I don't way mark because the site is clunky and difficult for me to use. I've looked at it a few times. Given it a few chances. But in the end the site is just a pain to use and I frankly don't want to take the time to learn it because it's just not that important to me.

 

That's reason 1.

 

2. I don't particularly want to screw around on a computer logging anything more or printing off any more information before I go out on a cache run. I print out enough before hand and look at enough instructions as is for caching. And I spend enough time writing my logs at the end of the day .Don't want to do anymore.

 

3. When I've attempted to use it (and honestly I can't figure out how that silly site works in general) and I look locally I see city hall and since I work next door to city hall I'm not particularly enthusiastic about logging anything about city hall because I look at it every day. It's not that special. I haven't even bothered to get the benchmark there yet.

 

I do bench marks when they're around where I am because I understand how they work. They're integrated here. It's one log in. I can add it to my logging. It's not a big deal. I can't do that with way marking.

 

As for virtuals? I'm indifferent about if they come back or not. I've been to ok ones and ones that are not that impressive. Same with earth caches and regular caches. But I have no strong desire to see them come back at this point. But it's not going to affect me if they od.

[+Doctroid]

I like finding hidden things. I like solving puzzles. I appreciate creativity.

 

I find there's more of all three in geocaching — especially non-virtual caching — than in Waymarking.

 

I do like finding benchmarks. They're often hidden, if not intentionally; finding the location from the description often amounts to solving a puzzle, again not an intentional one; and... well, no, not much creativity to appreciate, but two out of three's not bad.

 

I log benchmarks on the geocaching site. I've logged some on Waymarking but there's a lot more fuss and bother in what they want you to log for benchmarks than there is here. Which is fine if your aim is to meticulously document all known benchmarks, but I'm not so much interested in that as in just saying, hey, found it!

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Stop me if you've never heard this, because I'm pretty sure in the history of Waymark vs. Geocache I think it's only come up a bagillion times... Disregarding ascetics and the obvious container vs no container thing-

 

Waymarks:

 

No PQ

Clunky interface

Not any/very few in my area

Multiple WMs stacked on top of each other in different categories for the same location

Don't add to my total find count at geocaching.com

 

Geocaches:

 

None of the above

What he said, except for the find count. I rarely log finds of any kind online and stats, especially mine, are less than useless.

 

Give me one listing per location, doesn't matter how many categories it's linked to, just show one listing, and give them to me in a geocaching.com PQ just like any other listing and I will be all over waymarks.

Edited June 23, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+DanOCan]

I never use Waymarking when I am at home. I don't see the point.

 

However, when I travel I love looking through the Waymarking site. It allows me to find hidden gems in categories that interest me. That's the key to getting enjoyment out of Waymarking -- sorting through the crud to find the stuff you really like -- in that sense it is exactly like caching.

 

What I do like about Waymarking is the ability to Ignore entire categories with a single click. Don't like fast food places? Click. Gone.

 

For most people I talk to, it boils down to a simple answer -- no smiley. If someone got a smiley for finding a Waymark, you could bet people would flock there just to run up their numbers.

[+Doctroid]

If someone got a smiley for finding a Waymark, you could bet people would flock there just to run up their numbers.

 

SOME people would.

 

(NTTAWWT)

[AZcachemeister]

I started with Geocaching.

Reverse-locationless, and virtuals were a fun addition to finding a hidden container.

I resisted benchmarks for a long time, mostly because there is no way to download all the information for one, and certainly not in bulk like a PQ. Once I found out how to get Benchmark information in bulk (by downloading from the NGS website) I began benchmark hunting like crazy. While benchmarks don't add to my smiley count, they do show up on my profile.

 

Now Waymarks:

The site is less than intuitive.

No way to download in bulk (that I have seen).

Way too much junk in there obscuring the locations I might really enjoy visiting.

My whymarking profile (presumably, I haven't checked) is separate from my Geocaching profile.

 

In conclusion, I have plenty to do in looking for Geocaches and Benchmarks.

If I somehow manage to run out of either, then I might put in the effort to start going after Waymarks.

If there were suddenly a method to sort through and download (what I might consider) quality waymarks, then I could consider including them in my activities.

[+baloo&bd]

I use waymarks when I need to hide something in a relatively secure place and want to be assured that no one will look for it.

[+mikemtn]

I really never did understand the why of Waymarking but I really enjoyed it for a time. I was working away from home and it gave me something to do when I was stuck out of town on weekends. I guess what ruined it for me was there was a total lack of any kind of supervision. This is a quote from the National Register of Historic Places Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category which is a common requirement on the site. (I use this example knowing that BruseS is very active in this category and maybe I can hear his thoughts on it):

 

"To log a waymark in this category, please provide a photograph that shows you (or your GPS receiver, if you're Waymarking solo) and the place."

 

I never was able to live with that requirement and as I remember there was hardly anybody enforcing it.

But it cheapened the site for me and I just quit playing their game the unprofessional (the way I saw it) way it was being played. I guess it was I wasn't able to break the rules just because everybody else was doing it.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Virtual caches and some physical caches usually have a surprise factor. You don't know for sure what you're going to encounter. Some Virtuals and all Earthcaches also usually require some effort to find the right information.

 

Waymarking just requires a photo and there is little surprise. Really, Waymarking can be used for armchair traveling.

 

Waymarking has no PQs, has duplication in different categories, has a poor interface, doesn't give smileys, and some of the Reviewers are really difficult. I submitted a war memorial waymark that got rejected because they wanted the entire memorial to be readable in the photo AND wanted me to transcribe the entire contents of the memorial on the Waymark page.

 

That said, despite the drawbacks I find Waymarking somewhat worthwhile as both a travel guide (after I set LOTS of Categories to Ignore). If you like Benchmarks, it's also the only place I know of for non-NGS benchmarks.

 

Also, if you like Reverse/Locationless Caches then Waymarking is for you.

[+dfx]

What I'm missing in this thread here is somebody mentioning apples and oranges.

 

Geocaching is usually called a sport or a game. Or a pastime or whatever you wanna call it. Viruals kinda, somehow, in a way, tried to fit in there. Waymarking is, well, just a directory of locations. You can use it in whatever way you like. It's not a game or a sport per se, not at all. You can use it like one if you'd like to, but it's up to you to figure out how and in what way.

Edited June 24, 2011 by dfx

[+CanDMan47]

Since you are asking why I like Virtuals and not Waymarks, I'll skip the part about finding the cache.

 

1.)I have two GPSr; an iPhone and a Geomate Jr. Neither work for Waymarking.

2.)I have looked at the site a few times, and while I may not have given it 100%, the site is not easy to use.

[benji55545]

Why do I ignore WhyBotherMarking??? It's a klutzy site filled mostly with garbage.

 

That's pretty much how I feel, too.

I for one am not excited for virtuals to return. I fear that the virtual saturation will become so great that the site will be more like we all moved over to Waymarking.com and transferred a few geocaches for the heck of it.

[+AlohaBra and MaksMom]

There are about a dozen waymarks in my whole state. I may be exaggerating but NOBODY does Waymarking here. So it is lame to create waymarks that nobody finds. For me, it is a lot more fun to participate in an activity that others are participating in. I could take up underwater horseshoes too. But why?

ditto

[+AlohaBra and MaksMom]

Is it possibly that Waymarking is just too Geeky??!!

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I've "found" a few Waymarks and while I didn't walk away feeling as though I wasted my time, I also didn't feel any kind of rush or sense of "awe" (for lack of a better word). They were just places to go see and take a picture of. That would still be enough for me except there is no feeling of community with Waymarks. Most of the waymarks around here have been found twice or less since being posted. It's hard to feel like your sharing your adventures when there is noone paying attention to the site.

 

There is also no real sense of adventure with waymarks. You already know what you're going to see, so it becomes little more than driving/walking to a spot just to say you've been there. It's true that that's basically what virtuals are as well, but you normally didn't know what the virtual was about until you arrived at the spot.

[+briansnat]

The way you frame your question starts from the premise that if you like geocaching then you should like Waymarking. I completely disagree with the premise. It's a fallacy. They are very different activities and enjoying one does not imply that I should enjoy the other. Either direction.

Actually the question is more about why some people like virtuals so much and Waymarking so little by bringing up the quality of virtuals over the lack thereof with waymarks, taking out the usual reason of the horrible Waymarking site design. Those same people somehow prefer low quality caches (numbers runs) over the way geocaching used to be (caches in nice locations).

I'm going to be honest, the fun of geocaching is finding something, no matter how easy or hard. This is why number runs don't get old, i'm finding something.

 

With virtuals you have to find a plaque or statue or something similar.. I have DNFed one before... With Waymarking you know exactly what to look for, and you arent finding anything.

 

With many virtuals you know exactly what your are looking for and aren't finding anything.

[+briansnat]

I really never did understand the why of Waymarking but I really enjoyed it for a time. I was working away from home and it gave me something to do when I was stuck out of town on weekends. I guess what ruined it for me was there was a total lack of any kind of supervision. This is a quote from the National Register of Historic Places Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category which is a common requirement on the site. (I use this example knowing that BruseS is very active in this category and maybe I can hear his thoughts on it):

 

"To log a waymark in this category, please provide a photograph that shows you (or your GPS receiver, if you're Waymarking solo) and the place."

 

I never was able to live with that requirement and as I remember there was hardly anybody enforcing it.

But it cheapened the site for me and I just quit playing their game the unprofessional (the way I saw it) way it was being played. I guess it was I wasn't able to break the rules just because everybody else was doing it.

 

How is that any different from the people who log finds on caches they didn't find, or people who log finds on proxy caches, or people who "attend" the same event dozens of times, or the numerous other "different" ways of geocaching that don't involve actually finding a geocache listed on this site?

[+Ambrosia]

The way you frame your question starts from the premise that if you like geocaching then you should like Waymarking. I completely disagree with the premise. It's a fallacy. They are very different activities and enjoying one does not imply that I should enjoy the other. Either direction.

Actually the question is more about why some people like virtuals so much and Waymarking so little by bringing up the quality of virtuals over the lack thereof with waymarks, taking out the usual reason of the horrible Waymarking site design. Those same people somehow prefer low quality caches (numbers runs) over the way geocaching used to be (caches in nice locations).

I'm going to be honest, the fun of geocaching is finding something, no matter how easy or hard. This is why number runs don't get old, i'm finding something.

 

With virtuals you have to find a plaque or statue or something similar.. I have DNFed one before... With Waymarking you know exactly what to look for, and you arent finding anything.

 

With many virtuals you know exactly what your are looking for and aren't finding anything.

Thank you, Brian. A long time ago in a thread similar to this one, I posted stats from my virtual finds that showed that the majority made it clear what you were going to find before you got there (either through the description and/or pictures). I don't see much of a surprise with virtuals, in general.

[+fizzymagic]

With many virtuals you know exactly what your are looking for and aren't finding anything.

A long time ago in a thread similar to this one, I posted stats from my virtual finds that showed that the majority made it clear what you were going to find before you got there (either through the description and/or pictures). I don't see much of a surprise with virtuals, in general.

 

I don't like boring virtuals any more than I like boring caches. I expect that if virtuals are listed again in the volume they were before the ban, I won't be much of a fan.

 

I have two virtuals that have survived the years. I think both of them work a lot better as virtual caches than they would as waymarks. Heck, for all I know they might even be waymarks. At one of them, you know exactly what to expect, but the way I built the virtual you get something else as well. The other one requires a little additional research that I think is worth it.

 

If virtuals were completely eliminated would I move either to Waymarking? Not a chance.

[+Manville Possum]

I enjoy Waymarking and will not log or submit any listings that I find to be lame, but I sure logged alot of lame geocaches. I find the site quite easy to use.

[cezanne]

I really never did understand the why of Waymarking but I really enjoyed it for a time. I was working away from home and it gave me something to do when I was stuck out of town on weekends. I guess what ruined it for me was there was a total lack of any kind of supervision. This is a quote from the National Register of Historic Places Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category which is a common requirement on the site. (I use this example knowing that BruseS is very active in this category and maybe I can hear his thoughts on it):

 

"To log a waymark in this category, please provide a photograph that shows you (or your GPS receiver, if you're Waymarking solo) and the place."

 

I never was able to live with that requirement and as I remember there was hardly anybody enforcing it.

But it cheapened the site for me and I just quit playing their game the unprofessional (the way I saw it) way it was being played. I guess it was I wasn't able to break the rules just because everybody else was doing it.

 

How is that any different from the people who log finds on caches they didn't find, or people who log finds on proxy caches, or people who "attend" the same event dozens of times, or the numerous other "different" ways of geocaching that don't involve actually finding a geocache listed on this site?

 

Are you sure that you understood the original posting correctly? I am not the poster, but it appears to me that the main point was the type of photo requirement and not the fact that there are cachers who log without fulfilling the requirement. Waymarking somehow could also be called visiting locations and taking photographs as the photo requirements are almost omnipresent.

 

Cezanne

[+Ambrosia]

I really never did understand the why of Waymarking but I really enjoyed it for a time. I was working away from home and it gave me something to do when I was stuck out of town on weekends. I guess what ruined it for me was there was a total lack of any kind of supervision. This is a quote from the National Register of Historic Places Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category which is a common requirement on the site. (I use this example knowing that BruseS is very active in this category and maybe I can hear his thoughts on it):

 

"To log a waymark in this category, please provide a photograph that shows you (or your GPS receiver, if you're Waymarking solo) and the place."

 

I never was able to live with that requirement and as I remember there was hardly anybody enforcing it.

But it cheapened the site for me and I just quit playing their game the unprofessional (the way I saw it) way it was being played. I guess it was I wasn't able to break the rules just because everybody else was doing it.

 

How is that any different from the people who log finds on caches they didn't find, or people who log finds on proxy caches, or people who "attend" the same event dozens of times, or the numerous other "different" ways of geocaching that don't involve actually finding a geocache listed on this site?

 

Are you sure that you understood the original posting correctly? I am not the poster, but it appears to me that the main point was the type of photo requirement and not the fact that there are cachers who log without fulfilling the requirement. Waymarking somehow could also be called visiting locations and taking photographs as the photo requirements are almost omnipresent.

 

Cezanne

Obviously, categories are different, but on all of mine, I only require a picture when people create a waymark, not when they log it. The only reason I ask for a picture to create it, is for it to show up on the listing like a picture encyclopedia. I don't see any reason to require one for logging, as that's really only to "prove" that they were there. Waymarking isn't geocaching, and I don't need proof.

[cezanne]

What I'm missing in this thread here is somebody mentioning apples and oranges.

 

Geocaching is usually called a sport or a game. Or a pastime or whatever you wanna call it. Viruals kinda, somehow, in a way, tried to fit in there. Waymarking is, well, just a directory of locations. You can use it in whatever way you like. It's not a game or a sport per se, not at all. You can use it like one if you'd like to, but it's up to you to figure out how and in what way.

 

I think that you made a good point. While geocaching is neither a game nor a sport for me, the activity aspect plays a major role for me. I feel that a virtual cache with 15 virtual stages along a hiking trail is much closer to the type of multi cache I like (all virtual stages except at the end - which would end with 14 virtual stages and 1 container in my example) than all what I have ever seen on Waymarking.

 

In a geocache I can decide what kind of tasks the finders need to solve in order to complete the cache, in Waymarking many tasks are not implementable at all and moreover for each type of task a new category would be necessary. Typically, the managers of Waymarking groups prefer very simple logging requirements and are very insistent on the fact that no further requirements are added.

 

For example, it certainly would pose no problem to post a waymark for the city park in Graz. It would ba hardly possible to set up a waymark that requires the solution of two puzzles in order to obtain 16 names of tree species and then walk along a given track in order to find these special trees in the park (prior research required). Certainly one could set up waymarks to lead the people to a particular tree, but the interesting task in the cache I have in mind is to find and identify the trees among hundreds of trees without having coordinates for them,

 

The concept of Waymarking is both broader and narrower than the concept of geocaching. There are ideas that can lead to a waymark, but not to a geocache and vice versa.

 

 

Cezanne

[+briansnat]

I really never did understand the why of Waymarking but I really enjoyed it for a time. I was working away from home and it gave me something to do when I was stuck out of town on weekends. I guess what ruined it for me was there was a total lack of any kind of supervision. This is a quote from the National Register of Historic Places Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category which is a common requirement on the site. (I use this example knowing that BruseS is very active in this category and maybe I can hear his thoughts on it):

 

"To log a waymark in this category, please provide a photograph that shows you (or your GPS receiver, if you're Waymarking solo) and the place."

 

I never was able to live with that requirement and as I remember there was hardly anybody enforcing it.

But it cheapened the site for me and I just quit playing their game the unprofessional (the way I saw it) way it was being played. I guess it was I wasn't able to break the rules just because everybody else was doing it.

 

How is that any different from the people who log finds on caches they didn't find, or people who log finds on proxy caches, or people who "attend" the same event dozens of times, or the numerous other "different" ways of geocaching that don't involve actually finding a geocache listed on this site?

 

Are you sure that you understood the original posting correctly? I am not the poster, but it appears to me that the main point was the type of photo requirement and not the fact that there are cachers who log without fulfilling the requirement. Waymarking somehow could also be called visiting locations and taking photographs as the photo requirements are almost omnipresent.

 

Cezanne

 

I'm fairly certain that I understood it. From what I gathered, what ultimately soured him on the site was that people were logging visits without fulfilling the requirements and waymark owners were not enforcing them.

 

"...I guess what ruined it for me was there was a total lack of any kind of supervision... "...But it cheapened the site for me and I just quit playing their game the unprofessional (the way I saw it) way it was being played."

 

Nowhere did he say he he had a problem with photo requirements per se, only that he was uncomfortable with a certain a certain type, and the fact that people were not adhering to them and waymark owners were not enforcing them.

 

To me that's not much different from cachers using imaginative ways to log "finds" and cache owners not caring, or in some cases actually encouraging it.

Edited June 24, 2011 by briansnat