Jump to content

Waymarking vs. Geocaching


Recommended Posts

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.

 

The requirement listed is really more of a hold over from what was required with Locationless caches and most of the first 200 categories required a photo with person or gps. Most categories since then have mostly required or encouraged a photo, thus the gps photo requirement is no longer as common of a requirement. I personally dislike gps photos as they add nothing of value to the waymark and form no proof of being there. As far as the NRHP category requiring them for visits, all I can say it is a fairly early category and yes I am a active participant in the category with nearly 2,000 personal waymarks in the category but I do not lead that category as far as the category description.

Link to comment

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.

 

Maybe you are right and I am wrong.

I understood

 

I never was able to live with that requirement

 

in the sense that he had a problem with that type of requirement.

 

The part

 

I guess it was I wasn't able to break the rules just because everybody else was doing it.

 

was there to say that ignoring the logging requirements as many do did not offer a solution to the problem he had with the

photo requirement.

 

For example, I do not like local events where one needs to post a "will attend" log say three days in advance (according to the rule set on the cache page) as it ruins

spontaneous visits. There are cachers that do ignore this rule and I find it annoying that they do this and that the rules (they are referred to as rules on the cache page)

are not enforced as this creates a disadvantage for those who behave properly. I am in favor of "Either do away with a rule or enforce it whereever it is possible".

 

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.

 

I agree with you in case your interpretation is the right one.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Some categories are just inane, such as watertowers. There are 70 watertowers waymarked within 50 miles of my house. Why? If I was 14 or 15 it might be interesting to go climb a few, but otherwise why would anyone visit? I need to bring a camera and take 2 pictures and upload them to the site to prove I was there. Seems like a colossal waste of time. If there were some criteria, such as interesting or unusual watertowers, it might be worth it. Otherwise the site is just providing a list of targets of our country's infrastructure.

 

There are 285 Government services buildings listed; schools, firehouses, town halls, post offices, police stations. Again, why? There is nothing unusual or interesting to see, and they are much easier to find if you need to go there by looking elsewhere. Since all of them are not listed, it would be a waste of time to try to use the site to look for them anyhow if I needed to go. Hours and other info would be better found other places online.

 

There are 699 historic markers. I really enjoy history and historic places, but most of these markers are just that - markers. In many cases there is just a sign where something used to be, but there is nothing there now. Many of the listings only describe the area, and provide the same info that is on the sign - or less.

Quick Description: This historic marker is located on Main Street. It sits in front of a well-developed area including a bank and a busy strip mall. If you visit, park in the strip mall lot as it is located near a congested intersection. Long Description:

This is marker number 5 along the official Medford Historic Trail. The entire street, going north is littered with these historic blue markers. It is a very rich Waymarking environment.

So I have to wade through all of the historic markers to find one that has an actual historical object nearby, or I can just visit the sign and bring a camera to upload pictures to prove I was at the sign? Id rather find an actual object with signatures hidden in a guardrail, than looking at a sign in a strip mall that has a single sentence on it, that I already know what it says.

 

1000 Places to See Before You Die sounds interesting. What's listed is The Jersey Shore, 130 miles of it. No defined place in particular, just anywhere within the 130 miles. There are plenty of places on the Jersey shore that Id rather not go, and not before I Die. New Castle, Delaware is listed, and its a very nice town, but why would I want to go there Before I Die? Just visit anywhere in the town and you get credit. The Mummers parade is listed also and it is great, but its a once a year event, not a place. This place looks interesting, and I may want to visit someday, but to list it in 1000 Places Before You Die is a little absurd. How about old, or historic restaurants?

 

Honestly, the site just seems to be mostly for people with OCD who feel a need list everything they can find in a category, whether it is interesting or not and get an award for it. The obsessive categorizing and listing probably appeals to certain types, but obviously most people are turned off and are confused at navigating the site. Since there is varying criteria for what each person may find interesting, the result is to just list everything. Finding an actual object hidden in an uninteresting place is much better than simply just visiting an uninteresting place, and having to bring a camera and upload proof of it. I personally have visited a few of the places, but why go through the trouble to take a pic, and upload it to the site to provide proof that you were there, but to a completely different website which is not compatible with the GC site? You have to provide proof, but you dont get any credit for it on GC? So you need to go through more trouble to get zero credit?

 

The same questions always come up about why people are not interested in Waymarking, and they always get the same answers. The waymarkers don't understand, or don't believe them. Then they ask again, and again.. After a bit the people that give answers get categorized, and labeled..:rolleyes:

Link to comment

 

For example, I do not like local events where one needs to post a "will attend" log say three days in advance (according to the rule set on the cache page) as it ruins

spontaneous visits. There are cachers that do ignore this rule and I find it annoying that they do this and that the rules (they are referred to as rules on the cache page)

are not enforced as this creates a disadvantage for those who behave properly. I am in favor of "Either do away with a rule or enforce it whereever it is possible".

If I'm hosting an event I'd sure like to know ahead of time how many people are coming so I can buy enough stuff (food, prizes, etc).

Link to comment

Some categories are just inane, such as watertowers. There are 70 watertowers waymarked within 50 miles of my house. Why? If I was 14 or 15 it might be interesting to go climb a few, but otherwise why would anyone visit? I need to bring a camera and take 2 pictures and upload them to the site to prove I was there. Seems like a colossal waste of time.

 

You obviously still don't understand Waymarking.

 

Geocaches are placed and listed so that they can be found. Some require effort to get to, or effort to get the coordinates of the cache, but the idea is the same: they're there to be found. It's their one and only purpose, to make people go there, look for the thing and (hopefully) find it.

 

Virtuals are listed for the same reason: to make people go there, do something, see something or whatever. It's the same idea, only without placing a container.

 

Waymarking doesn't have any of that. Waymarks aren't listed to make people go there, they're listed simply because there's a category for it. That's it, there's nothing else to it. Of course, some people may list waymarks in hopes that somebody may find them useful and interesting at some point, and some categories exist to have things listed that probably more people may find interesting, but all that isn't integral part of Waymarking.

 

So if you don't find water towers particularly interesting, just ignore them and don't go there. Nobody says you should. Nobody says they should be interesting to you, or anyone for that matter. There's a good chance that not even the people who posted the waymarks found them interesting. It's not what Waymarking is about.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment

Some categories are just inane, such as watertowers. There are 70 watertowers waymarked within 50 miles of my house. Why? If I was 14 or 15 it might be interesting to go climb a few, but otherwise why would anyone visit? I need to bring a camera and take 2 pictures and upload them to the site to prove I was there. Seems like a colossal waste of time.

 

You obviously still don't understand Waymarking.

 

Geocaches are placed and listed so that they can be found. Some require effort to get to, or effort to get the coordinates of the cache, but the idea is the same: they're there to be found. It's their one and only purpose, to make people go there, look for the thing and (hopefully) find it.

 

Virtuals are listed for the same reason: to make people go there, do something, see something or whatever. It's the same idea, only without placing a container.

 

Waymarking doesn't have any of that. Waymarks aren't listed to make people go there, they're listed simply because there's a category for it. That's it, there's nothing else to it. Of course, some people may list waymarks in hopes that somebody may find them useful and interesting at some point, and some categories exist to have things listed that probably more people may find interesting, but all that isn't integral part of Waymarking.

 

So if you don't find water towers particularly interesting, just ignore them and don't go there. Nobody says you should. Nobody says they should be interesting to you, or anyone for that matter. It's not what Waymarking is about.

 

If waymarks are not listed to make people go there, then why ask for proof of a visit? Or why list them at all? Really what IS Waymarking about? And why does nobody visit?

 

they're listed simply because there's a category for it. That's it, there's nothing else to it.

 

Wait, I see. :D

 

Everything needs to be organized. Got it.

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment

 

For example, I do not like local events where one needs to post a "will attend" log say three days in advance (according to the rule set on the cache page) as it ruins

spontaneous visits. There are cachers that do ignore this rule and I find it annoying that they do this and that the rules (they are referred to as rules on the cache page)

are not enforced as this creates a disadvantage for those who behave properly. I am in favor of "Either do away with a rule or enforce it whereever it is possible".

If I'm hosting an event I'd sure like to know ahead of time how many people are coming so I can buy enough stuff (food, prizes, etc).

 

It gets OT, but let my clarify:

On the one hand, I have never said that I cannot understand the reason for such requests (BTW: the events I have in mind take place in a restaurant about once a month and there are no prizes etc).

On the other hand, what I do not like is that if there are rules, they are not enforced as this means those who are inpolite and do not care about rules are the winners.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
If waymarks are not listed to make people go there, then why ask for proof of a visit? Or why list them at all? Really what IS Waymarking about? And why does nobody visit?

 

http://coord.info/GC5285

 

That's what it is. People find one, they post a waymark. That's it, end of story. The difference is only that on Waymarking, the posted item sticks around as a waymark and not just as a log with coordinates. It becomes searchable, shows up on a map, etc. And that's all there is to it. Do you do benchmarking? They haven't been placed to make people go there either. People still do though. Maybe somebody enjoys hunting for watertowers and logging them online. Who knows?

Link to comment
... "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.

Why weren't you willing to abide by that requirement?

Link to comment
If waymarks are not listed to make people go there, then why ask for proof of a visit? Or why list them at all? Really what IS Waymarking about? And why does nobody visit?

 

http://coord.info/GC5285

 

That's what it is. People find one, they post a waymark. That's it, end of story. The difference is only that on Waymarking, the posted item sticks around as a waymark and not just as a log with coordinates. It becomes searchable, shows up on a map, etc. And that's all there is to it. Do you do benchmarking? They haven't been placed to make people go there either. People still do though. Maybe somebody enjoys hunting for watertowers and logging them online. Who knows?

I actually like water towers. It's my dad's fault. :laughing: We were at a camp meeting in Spangle last weekend, and the boarding school we were camping at has two tall water towers. He kept commenting on how he needed to wander around and get cool shots of the water towers. :P So of course, I did, too. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

It can't just be the site design

Why can't it just be the site design? The Waymarking website is, quite simply, horrible. It is so bad that it is almost a caricature of hideous website design. After spending five minutes there, one would have to wonder if some evil genius at Groundspeak, who secretly hated the concept of Waymarking, was tasked with designing the site, and intentionally designed it to fail.

 

Have I mentioned the website is not very user friendly? :unsure:

Link to comment

Some categories are just inane, such as watertowers. There are 70 watertowers waymarked within 50 miles of my house. Why? If I was 14 or 15 it might be interesting to go climb a few, but otherwise why would anyone visit?

 

Never underestimate how narrow some people's interests can get. I have a friend who is doing a personal photo project to capture as many water towers as he can, now that he has done most of the grain elevators in the prairie provinces.

 

Not to go to OT, but water towers often have an interesting history. They often are some of the older structures in town and often served as landmarks visible from the surrounding countryside. I remember driving home and you knew you were getting close when the grain elevator and the water tower started coming into view.

 

Regardless of why someone who visit them, the great part about the Waymarking site is that by Ignoring the category you'll never have to see those listings again -- unless they are listed under multiple categories, which is one of my pet peeves about the site. I was at a lighhouse a couple days ago that was listed under six different categories.

 

As for the original point of the thread, I think some people have hit on the key difference. Geocaching is about a surprise -- what will I find there? Waymarking is about "I know what I want to find, now show me where they are."

 

I love old firehalls. When traveling it is great to look into that category and see where the nearest ones are. It's much easier to locate something of a special interest on Waymarking than it is to search through 1000s of caches hoping to find one that might be located in a place that highlights the local historical firehall.

 

Two totally different games.

Link to comment

Some categories are just inane, such as watertowers. There are 70 watertowers waymarked within 50 miles of my house. Why? If I was 14 or 15 it might be interesting to go climb a few, but otherwise why would anyone visit? I need to bring a camera and take 2 pictures and upload them to the site to prove I was there. Seems like a colossal waste of time.

 

You obviously still don't understand Waymarking.

 

Geocaches are placed and listed so that they can be found. Some require effort to get to, or effort to get the coordinates of the cache, but the idea is the same: they're there to be found. It's their one and only purpose, to make people go there, look for the thing and (hopefully) find it.

 

Virtuals are listed for the same reason: to make people go there, do something, see something or whatever. It's the same idea, only without placing a container.

 

Waymarking doesn't have any of that. Waymarks aren't listed to make people go there, they're listed simply because there's a category for it. That's it, there's nothing else to it. Of course, some people may list waymarks in hopes that somebody may find them useful and interesting at some point, and some categories exist to have things listed that probably more people may find interesting, but all that isn't integral part of Waymarking.

 

So if you don't find water towers particularly interesting, just ignore them and don't go there. Nobody says you should. Nobody says they should be interesting to you, or anyone for that matter. There's a good chance that not even the people who posted the waymarks found them interesting. It's not what Waymarking is about.

 

The last 3 paragraphs are, in my opinion, a pretty good explanation of why Waymarking developed into a "Creators game" (Creators being the people who list the Waymark). In other words, lots of people creating them, many of them who are really into the game with hundreds or thousands created, and pretty much almost no one visiting them. And I seriously doubt in 2005 when Waymarking was created that it was expected it would evolve that way.

Link to comment
You have to provide proof, but you dont get any credit for it on GC? So you need to go through more trouble to get zero credit?

 

Perhaps the type of Geocacher you are determines whether you will like Waymarking or not.

 

I never look at finding a Geocache as "getting credit". I see Geocaching as a way to find interesting places and experience different things. Regardless of whether or not I find a box at the end I get to log my experience online to record the experience I had.

 

For me Waymarking is the same thing -- a way to find things that interest me.

 

I don't care about getting credit on gc.com. I'm not in either hobby to run up numbers.

Link to comment

It's interesting that people say that the site is hard to get through, as I find it easy and helpful. More so than geocaching, in fact. :unsure:

I thought the same thing. Sometimes I wish Geocaches were organized into categories like Waymarks. How wonderful it would be to be able to click Ignore and never see any "Caches hidden on dumpsters behind strip malls" ever again. :laughing:

Link to comment

It's interesting that people say that the site is hard to get through, as I find it easy and helpful. More so than geocaching, in fact. :unsure:

I thought the same thing. Sometimes I wish Geocaches were organized into categories like Waymarks. How wonderful it would be to be able to click Ignore and never see any "Caches hidden on dumpsters behind strip malls" ever again. :laughing:

Yet there are more and more of those types of hides on geocaching.com while people complain about garbage categories on Waymarking.

Link to comment

I actually like old, strange looking, and unusually painted watertowers, but to find them I have to wade through all of the others. Using the site is as about as interesting as looking through the white pages of a phone book. Yes, I'm sure I can find something, but it's not as easy as they say it is. It's like entering someone's house and noticing everything is very neatly organized, but in a very special way that only that person would understand. Do you have a newspaper from the day Kennedy was shot? Yes! But wait, you have all of them... and all of the TV guides too... :blink:

Link to comment
The last 3 paragraphs are, in my opinion, a pretty good explanation of why Waymarking developed into a "Creators game" (Creators being the people who list the Waymark). In other words, lots of people creating them, many of them who are really into the game with hundreds or thousands created, and pretty much almost no one visiting them. And I seriously doubt in 2005 when Waymarking was created that it was expected it would evolve that way.

 

Quite possible. It was advertised as replacement (among other things) for virtuals, wasn't it? I don't think it is quite that. It definitely is a replacement for "locationless caches", a very good one I think.

 

On the other hand, if people were still allowed to list virtuals without restrictions, you can be pretty sure that somebody would have gone and created one for every watertower there is. Virtuals would be as lame to the cachers as they see Waymarking now.

Link to comment

I actually like old, strange looking, and unusually painted watertowers, but to find them I have to wade through all of the others. Using the site is as about as interesting as looking through the white pages of a phone book. Yes, I'm sure I can find something, but it's not as easy as they say it is. It's like entering someone's house and noticing everything is very neatly organized, but in a very special way that only that person would understand. Do you have a newspaper from the day Kennedy was shot? Yes! But wait, you have all of them... and all of the TV guides too... :blink:

I do have OCD, so I guess it doesn't bother me. ;)

Link to comment

I actually like old, strange looking, and unusually painted watertowers, but to find them I have to wade through all of the others. Using the site is as about as interesting as looking through the white pages of a phone book. Yes, I'm sure I can find something, but it's not as easy as they say it is. It's like entering someone's house and noticing everything is very neatly organized, but in a very special way that only that person would understand. Do you have a newspaper from the day Kennedy was shot? Yes! But wait, you have all of them... and all of the TV guides too... :blink:

I do have OCD, so I guess it doesn't bother me. ;)

 

I have a bit of it too, but the site will always be incomplete until every object on the planet is listed and organized. :)

Link to comment
I have a bit of it too, but the site will always be incomplete until every object on the planet is listed and organized. :)

 

Which is exactly why you should get going and list more waymarks! :P

Oh, please, I'm going to have a panic attack thinking about it!

 

Breathe in, breathe out. Breathe in, breathe out. :blink:

Link to comment
I have a bit of it too, but the site will always be incomplete until every object on the planet is listed and organized. :)

 

Which is exactly why you should get going and list more waymarks! :P

Oh, please, I'm going to have a panic attack thinking about it!

 

Breathe in, breathe out. Breathe in, breathe out. :blink:

 

The proper way to do it is to start with google earth and go from county to county, starting from one end to another, with a team of people who would record everything in sight visible from the ground. When each county is done, they can cross it off and move to the next one. A followup team would need to check periodically for any changes. :D

Link to comment
The last 3 paragraphs are, in my opinion, a pretty good explanation of why Waymarking developed into a "Creators game" (Creators being the people who list the Waymark). In other words, lots of people creating them, many of them who are really into the game with hundreds or thousands created, and pretty much almost no one visiting them. And I seriously doubt in 2005 when Waymarking was created that it was expected it would evolve that way.

 

Quite possible. It was advertised as replacement (among other things) for virtuals, wasn't it? I don't think it is quite that. It definitely is a replacement for "locationless caches", a very good one I think.

 

On the other hand, if people were still allowed to list virtuals without restrictions, you can be pretty sure that somebody would have gone and created one for every watertower there is. Virtuals would be as lame to the cachers as they see Waymarking now.

 

It was advertised to us as the replacement for Virtuals and Locationless for darn near a year, from what I remember. (EDIT: without it being named; teasing, so to speak).

 

Oh yes, you are correct. Virtuals would have totally overrun the game. There are, according to Wikipedia (which is never wrong) "over 2,800" historical markers in New York State where I live. That would have been 2,800 virtuals long before today. Along with every water tower. :lol:

 

While I'm editing, I use several of the alternative Geocaching websites, and Virtuals never overran them. I figure that's because this website set the "don't make them too lame" precedent.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment
The proper way to do it is to start with google earth and go from county to county, starting from one end to another, with a team of people who would record everything in sight visible from the ground. When each county is done, they can cross it off and move to the next one. A followup team would need to check periodically for any changes. :D

 

You know, this is actually another problem of Waymarking: it's incomplete! I'm not kidding, I just thought of a category that would be quite useful to me: dive sites. And yup, they have it, awesome! Along with dive shops. Problem is, none of the local dive sites are listed, neither are any of the local dive shops. So I'd be better off finding that information elsewhere as I did before. So I guess I'm gonna chip in and list a few of my own. And for dive sites, logging a visit makes total sense too.

Link to comment
I have a bit of it too, but the site will always be incomplete until every object on the planet is listed and organized. :)

 

Which is exactly why you should get going and list more waymarks! :P

Oh, please, I'm going to have a panic attack thinking about it!

 

Breathe in, breathe out. Breathe in, breathe out. :blink:

 

The proper way to do it is to start with google earth and go from county to county, starting from one end to another, with a team of people who would record everything in sight visible from the ground. When each county is done, they can cross it off and move to the next one. A followup team would need to check periodically for any changes. :D

You're mean. <_<:anitongue:

Link to comment

 

The proper way to do it is to start with google earth and go from county to county, starting from one end to another, with a team of people who would record everything in sight visible from the ground. When each county is done, they can cross it off and move to the next one. A followup team would need to check periodically for any changes. :D

You're mean. <_<:anitongue:

 

Yes, but you know darn well that there are plenty of people that would be dying to do such a thing. Thats the direction it's going..

 

Are electrical boxes a category yet? I would like to see some unusual ones. How about fire hydrants? There's a few cool ones out there, but they all should be listed so each person can decide.

Link to comment

 

The proper way to do it is to start with google earth and go from county to county, starting from one end to another, with a team of people who would record everything in sight visible from the ground. When each county is done, they can cross it off and move to the next one. A followup team would need to check periodically for any changes. :D

You're mean. <_<:anitongue:

 

Yes, but you know darn well that there are plenty of people that would be dying to do such a thing. Thats the direction it's going..

 

Are electrical boxes a category yet? I would like to see some unusual ones. How about fire hydrants? There's a few cool ones out there, but they all should be listed so each person can decide.

There is a category for decorated fire hydrants. :)

Link to comment
Are electrical boxes a category yet? I would like to see some unusual ones. How about fire hydrants? There's a few cool ones out there, but they all should be listed so each person can decide.

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=385e2792-795a-4abf-a57d-1495777d2b9c

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=9d20dc53-f63c-452f-8d01-ae2a434f0d4e

I didn't realize/forgot about the electrical boxes. Our town (not sure who, one person was an art student from the college, I know) has been having some of our boxes painted. I need to waymark them. :ph34r:

Edited by Ambrosia
Link to comment

It can't just be the site design

Why can't it just be the site design? The Waymarking website is, quite simply, horrible. It is so bad that it is almost a caricature of hideous website design. After spending five minutes there, one would have to wonder if some evil genius at Groundspeak, who secretly hated the concept of Waymarking, was tasked with designing the site, and intentionally designed it to fail.

 

Have I mentioned the website is not very user friendly? :unsure:

 

I've wondered about that too (intentionally designed to fail). When GS first considered a new site, I thought they'd just replicate the geocaching.com site, and move the locationless and virtual caches over as is (same format).

Link to comment
Are electrical boxes a category yet? I would like to see some unusual ones. How about fire hydrants? There's a few cool ones out there, but they all should be listed so each person can decide.

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=385e2792-795a-4abf-a57d-1495777d2b9c

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=9d20dc53-f63c-452f-8d01-ae2a434f0d4e

 

I like those categories, they are actually pretty cool! Now if they started Waymarking ALL hydrants and electrical boxes, that would be a different story.

Link to comment
I like those categories, they are actually pretty cool! Now if they started Waymarking ALL hydrants and electrical boxes, that would be a different story.

 

They could still do that and have categories for the special ones. You pick what you're interested in.

Link to comment
I like those categories, they are actually pretty cool! Now if they started Waymarking ALL hydrants and electrical boxes, that would be a different story.

 

They could still do that and have categories for the special ones. You pick what you're interested in.

 

So how do I pick out the unusual watertowers from the others? I look at nearest waymarks within 50 miles and see just "watertowers".

Link to comment
I like those categories, they are actually pretty cool! Now if they started Waymarking ALL hydrants and electrical boxes, that would be a different story.

 

They could still do that and have categories for the special ones. You pick what you're interested in.

 

So how do I pick out the unusual watertowers from the others? I look at nearest waymarks within 50 miles and see just "watertowers".

 

You make a new category for it and post them there, and let other people post them there.

Link to comment

It's interesting that people say that the site is hard to get through, as I find it easy and helpful. More so than geocaching, in fact. :unsure:

 

I was thinking the same thing... though I am sure it is that I haven't tried navigating around gc.com site for a few years. I now find the gc.com site extremely confusing and Waymarking easy but I guess it is just what you get used to using.

Link to comment

It's interesting that people say that the site is hard to get through, as I find it easy and helpful. More so than geocaching, in fact. :unsure:

 

I was thinking the same thing... though I am sure it is that I haven't tried navigating around gc.com site for a few years. I now find the gc.com site extremely confusing and Waymarking easy but I guess it is just what you get used to using.

Yup, the new geocacaching site is more confusing for me now. My poor MIL can barely use it. I've played around with it enough now that I can get around fairly ok for basic things.

Link to comment
... "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.

Why weren't you willing to abide by that requirement?

I was against ALR's long before Geocaching knew what they were. Don't even ask my feeling about the GPS picture thing to post a Waymark. (There's still at least one of those I know of.)

Link to comment
I like those categories, they are actually pretty cool! Now if they started Waymarking ALL hydrants and electrical boxes, that would be a different story.

 

They could still do that and have categories for the special ones. You pick what you're interested in.

 

So how do I pick out the unusual watertowers from the others? I look at nearest waymarks within 50 miles and see just "watertowers".

 

You make a new category for it and post them there, and let other people post them there.

 

Won't be quite that easy... that would be viewed as a duplicate category and probably would not get through peer review.

Link to comment
... "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.

Why weren't you willing to abide by that requirement?

I was against ALR's long before Geocaching knew what they were. Don't even ask my feeling about the GPS picture thing to post a Waymark. (There's still at least one of those I know of.)

 

I also have practical reasons why I do not like such requirements. I almost never have a camera with me and often not even a GPSr when I know the location anyway (I also go for many caches without GPSr). Moreover, it's extra work to upload photos. I like geocaching and not taking photos.

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Another issue with Waymarking that hasn't been mentioned in this thread: archiving.

 

If a cache is gone, it's archived and no longer shows up in searches.

 

If a Waymarked object is gone (building torn down, sign stolen, mosaic bench moved) it still shows up in the search results. If you're lucky the person who posted will edit the Waymark name to include "LEGACY" or something like that to indicate it is gone, but that's it.

Link to comment

I was against ALR's long before Geocaching knew what they were. Don't even ask my feeling about the GPS picture thing to post a Waymark. (There's still at least one of those I know of.)

 

I believe there are three categories that do require gps photos to post a Waymark (they don't get many waymarks from me because I never remember to take the gps photo). This excludes the categories where gps photos actually make sense such as Confluence Spots, Coordinate Palindromes and GPS Art.

Link to comment

I was against ALR's long before Geocaching knew what they were. Don't even ask my feeling about the GPS picture thing to post a Waymark. (There's still at least one of those I know of.)

 

I believe there are three categories that do require gps photos to post a Waymark (they don't get many waymarks from me because I never remember to take the gps photo). This excludes the categories where gps photos actually make sense such as Confluence Spots, Coordinate Palindromes and GPS Art.

 

Do you talk about posting a waymark or about visiting a existing one? I have never cared about the requirements for the former, but haver encountered many waymarks where a photo is required for the visit. I though that mikemtn was referring to visiting waymarks.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

I was against ALR's long before Geocaching knew what they were. Don't even ask my feeling about the GPS picture thing to post a Waymark. (There's still at least one of those I know of.)

 

I believe there are three categories that do require gps photos to post a Waymark (they don't get many waymarks from me because I never remember to take the gps photo). This excludes the categories where gps photos actually make sense such as Confluence Spots, Coordinate Palindromes and GPS Art.

 

Do you talk about posting a waymark or about visiting a existing one? I have never cared about the requirements for the former, but haver encountered many waymarks where a photo is required for the visit. I though that mikemtn was referring to visiting waymarks.

 

 

Cezanne

We started out discussing visiting and I just threw in the comment about posting. If there's only three categories left that require a GPS pic to post a Waymark it would be easy enough to ignore them. My original argument was that Waymarking is not Geocaching. If somebody had started Waymarking as a complete stand alone thing instead of trying to merge it with Locationless caches I believe it would have been a whole different game.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...