Waymarking vs. Geocaching

[+dfx]

I think they're talking about a picture with the GPS in it.

[+BruceS]

There are more than three categories that require pictures. I own four categories and pictures are required for all of them.

 

We were referring to categories that require photos with the gps in them to submit a waymark. I think all categories require at least one photo to submit a waymark (but not with a gps)

[+Team GPSaxophone]

For my categories, I guess I have varying photo requirements:

 

Instructions for Posting a Holiday Displays Waymark:

- A picture of the display is required for posting a waymark to this category. Your GPSr does not need to be in the shot, but please only submit waymarks for displays that you have personally visited.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

- A picture of the display is required for visiting a waymark in this category. You should be in the picture with your GPSr.

 

Instructions for Posting a Jazz Clubs Waymark:

- If you can provide a picture of the location it would be great, but providing a picture of someone (preferably yourself) performing at that location would be just awesome.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

- There are no log instructions listed for this category.

 

Instructions for Posting a Musical Instruments Waymark:

- You must include a picture of the instrument to post it here.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

- There are no log instructions listed for this category.

 

Instructions for Posting a Musician Statues Waymark:

- Your waymark must include a picture of the statue and a brief description of who the musician is along with one of their more notable (no pun intended) musical accomplishments.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

- Your log must include a picture of you with the statue.

 

 

 

So three of my four require a picture to post a waymark, two require a picture to visit with one specifically stating the GPSr should be in the shot.

[+yawppy]

If Waymarking had a PQ, I'd try it out.

[/quote

 

If I could load GSAK and do a PQ, similar to that of a geocache...I'd do more of them, how hard is it to generate a .GPX file, doing one here and there, or a .loc file, not my cup of tea.

 

Then I guess visiting the local eateries, would be quite like visiting the ever popular LPC, and no mystery puzzles to solve.

 

I have visited five waymarks, mainly because of the smartphone app, was in the area, and it works well for that.

 

Perhaps one day they will offer the same PQ or a way to upload say 500 at a time..I'd go for that.

[+mikemtn]

For my categories, I guess I have varying photo requirements:

 

Instructions for Posting a Holiday Displays Waymark:

- A picture of the display is required for posting a waymark to this category. Your GPSr does not need to be in the shot, but please only submit waymarks for displays that you have personally visited.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

- A picture of the display is required for visiting a waymark in this category. You should be in the picture with your GPSr.

 

Instructions for Posting a Jazz Clubs Waymark:

- If you can provide a picture of the location it would be great, but providing a picture of someone (preferably yourself) performing at that location would be just awesome.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

- There are no log instructions listed for this category.

 

Instructions for Posting a Musical Instruments Waymark:

- You must include a picture of the instrument to post it here.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

- There are no log instructions listed for this category.

 

Instructions for Posting a Musician Statues Waymark:

- Your waymark must include a picture of the statue and a brief description of who the musician is along with one of their more notable (no pun intended) musical accomplishments.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

- Your log must include a picture of you with the statue.

 

 

 

So three of my four require a picture to post a waymark, two require a picture to visit with one specifically stating the GPSr should be in the shot.

I keep thinking I'm done with this but maybe you're the one to answer my primary question. Why have logging requirements and not require them.

[4wheelin_fool]

I can recall early on they added McDonalds as a category. That turned off plenty of people, but the waymarkers couldn't figure out why. Just filter them out was the standard reply. Now I would think that they would start with unusual or interesting waymarks, and then gradually over time add them in as needed. But, no it was almost immediately put in. There are plenty of nice, old, unique, restaurants out there, but McDonalds was added among the first. It seemed just a cheap way to encourage everyone to run out an add their local McDs, but I doubt anyone really did. Kind of like hearing about a brand new art show with a display of fecal matter somewhere on the premises. You ask why? And they say that it is easy to avoid, just walk past and don't go in that room. Well, that's fine, but then you start to wonder about the rest of the show, and try to figure out the logic that caused it to exist. Did it gradually happen over time, or right off the bat? You look at the brochure and notice out of 100 displays, only a few are interesting, and then figure out that the fecal display was just so someone would get credit for it in art class, so why would you bother going to the show at all? You mention it to the people running the place and they say that the problem is that they need more to make it viable, and could you please contribute. A better way would be to analyze which places were getting visits and which ones weren't, and then focus on that. Rather they just kept adding and adding in a quest to have anything on there. What it needed was an early reputation of uniqueness that couldnt be found anywhere else, and then gradually branch off from there. Its nice to have a wide variety, but there are waymarks that exist only for the sole purpose of the creator to get credit for them, and thats it. Nobody is really expected to visit. Kind of like hiding a powertrail and have nobody show up to look for it. So the next step is to hide more.

 

And why does there need to be so much proof in visiting them? Even more than caching? People write online user reviews for places all the time and they are not required to post a photo to prove they were there. Is it intended as a second game or a directory? If someone logs a fake find on a waymark, what's the worst that could happen? Someone drives an 100 mile trip to find out the place was torn down? How often is that going to occur? If the smileys do not upload to the GC site, why bother worrying about cheating anyway? Encourage logs to describe the experience in visiting, rather than a "found it" with a picture as proof. Instead of a picture, how about a descriptive log consisting of at least a paragraph of what you thought or did?

[+BruceS]

Actually McDonalds was the first category with a Waymark WM1. Why it was the first category, I don't know, and this was before the current peer review of categories. Good or bad it did set a precedence.

[+Ambrosia]

Actually McDonalds was the first category with a Waymark WM1. Why it was the first category, I don't know, and this was before the current peer review of categories. Good or bad it did set a precedence.

It was the first category. And it wasn't a cheap way to encourage people to add McDonalds, as 4wheelin said. From what I remember, it was used as the first category because one of the waymark programers really likes McDonalds and thought it would be a fun category to try out and play around with. No weird reasons, just someone trying to enjoy themselves and have fun.

[+tozainamboku]

Actually McDonalds was the first category with a Waymark WM1. Why it was the first category, I don't know, and this was before the current peer review of categories. Good or bad it did set a precedence.

Really want to stay out of this for another day or so, but I think I can answer this question.

 

The McDonalds category was Bootron's category. He was one of the programmers who developed Waymarking. I believe it was meant only as a test category. But some how it remained in the beta release and once people started creating McDonald's waymarks and visiting them it was hard to say that it was only a test and all these waymarks and associated statistics were going away.

 

In any case it served to show the flexibility of Waymarking categories. Anything can be a Waymarking category from the most mundane to the most "Wow". It is only limited to the imagination of the Waymarking community.

 

BTW, in the early days of Geocaching, Jeremy had a test. He created a cache type whose sole purpose what to shamelessly promote a commercial enterprise. This separate cache type even had its own icon. I'm sure some people complained that a commercial cache type did not belong in Geocaching. We all know how that turned out.

 

Maybe they should archive the McDonald's waymarks one at a time until there is only one left in the world.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Maybe they should archive the McDonald's waymarks one at a time until there is only one left in the world.

No, but they should archive all but one waymark for each location.

 

It makes zero sense to have four Waymarks for a particular McDonald's location because it's a restaurant, it's 'historical' because it's one of the first McDonald's, it has a playground and somebody famous once ate there.

 

Sheesh, give us one waymark for the place. Link it to as many categories as you want to. Categories should be just like attributes in geocaching... you don't have a separate listing for a cache that allows dogs, does not allow campfires, etc., you have one listing that has many attributes. Handle Waymarking categories the same way.

Edited June 25, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+briansnat]

Maybe they should archive the McDonald's waymarks one at a time until there is only one left in the world.

No, but they should archive all but one waymark for each location.

 

It makes zero sense to have four Waymarks for a particular McDonald's location because it's a restaurant, it's 'historical' because it's one of the first McDonald's, it has a playground and somebody famous once ate there.

 

Sheesh, give us one waymark for the place. Link it to as many categories as you want to. Categories should be just like attributes in geocaching... you don't have a separate listing for a cache that allows dogs, does not allow campfires, etc., you have one listing that has many attributes. Handle Waymarking categories the same way.

 

I really don't see the issue with multiple listings for a waymark. A waymark can fit several categories and each category may have different listing requirements so multiple listings make sense. If someone is interested in one category but not another he is free to ignore the other listings. If you don't like it, don't look at it.

 

Do you complain when there is a virtual cache and a traditional at the same location?

 

For my categories, I guess I have varying photo requirements:

 

Instructions for Posting a Holiday Displays Waymark:

- A picture of the display is required for posting a waymark to this category. Your GPSr does not need to be in the shot, but please only submit waymarks for displays that you have personally visited.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

- A picture of the display is required for visiting a waymark in this category. You should be in the picture with your GPSr.

 

Instructions for Posting a Jazz Clubs Waymark:

- If you can provide a picture of the location it would be great, but providing a picture of someone (preferably yourself) performing at that location would be just awesome.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

- There are no log instructions listed for this category.

 

Instructions for Posting a Musical Instruments Waymark:

- You must include a picture of the instrument to post it here.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

- There are no log instructions listed for this category.

 

Instructions for Posting a Musician Statues Waymark:

- Your waymark must include a picture of the statue and a brief description of who the musician is along with one of their more notable (no pun intended) musical accomplishments.

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

- Your log must include a picture of you with the statue.

 

 

 

So three of my four require a picture to post a waymark, two require a picture to visit with one specifically stating the GPSr should be in the shot.

I keep thinking I'm done with this but maybe you're the one to answer my primary question. Why have logging requirements and not require them.

 

For the same reason we have logging requirements on GC.com and many cache owners don't enforce them. Whatever that is.

Edited June 25, 2011 by briansnat

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Do you complain when there is a virtual cache and a traditional at the same location?

No, and I'm not complaining. I stated one of my issues with Waymarking and hope enough people agree with me so that GS will reconsider the issue.

 

I am not against Waymarking, btw, I own two Waymark listings.

 

My biggest issue is with not being able to select whether Waymarks show up mixed in with a PQ. I would love that! But this means that with the current Waymarking schema I would get a lot of waymark listings.

 

Here's an example. The Irondale Whistle Stop Cafe made famous in the movie Fried Green Tomatoes is about a mile from my home. There is a geocache there, Fried Green Geocache. When you hunt that cache you see the restaurant, the wall mural, the train car in the parking lot, etc.

 

But there are four waymarks for the restaurant and a fifth for the train car!

 

 

One waymark listing, linked to those four categories, would allow the single listing to be found when anyone searches for any one of the assigned categories. THEN I could get the one waymark listing in my PQ just like geocaches. Makes sense to me.

 

Plus logging those four waymarks for a single site visit is a PITA. Note that of the four listings only two have been logged, yet every visitor sees all four restaurant waymarks AND the fifth for the train car. Who wants to write five logs for one physical site?

 

Plus note that three of the four waymarks for that restaurant belong to one person. So you can stand in one place, take three pictures, go home and create three waymarks, one 'category' for each picture! Then somebody else can come along, take a different picture of the same place and create a whole new waymark listing. That makes sense?

Edited June 25, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+briansnat]

Do you complain when there is a virtual cache and a traditional at the same location?

No, and I'm not complaining. I stated one of my issues with Waymarking and hope enough people agree with me so that GS will reconsider the issue.

 

I am not against Waymarking, btw, I own two Waymark listings.

 

My biggest issue is with not being able to select whether Waymarks show up mixed in with a PQ. I would love that! But this means that with the current Waymarking schema I would get a lot of waymark listings.

 

Here's an example. The Irondale Whistle Stop Cafe made famous in the movie Fried Green Tomatoes is about a mile from my home. There is a geocache there, Fried Green Geocache. When you hunt that cache you see the restaurant, the wall mural, the train car in the parking lot, etc.

 

But there are four waymarks for the restaurant and a fifth for the train car!

 

 

One waymark listing, linked to those four categories, would allow the single listing to be found when anyone searches for any one of the assigned categories. THEN I could get the one waymark listing in my PQ just like geocaches. Makes sense to me.

 

Plus logging those four waymarks for a single site visit is a PITA. Note that of the four listings only two have been logged, yet every visitor sees all four restaurant waymarks AND the fifth for the train car. Who wants to write five logs for one physical site?

 

Plus note that three of the four waymarks for that restaurant belong to one person. So you can stand in one place, take three pictures, go home and create three waymarks, one 'category' for each picture! Then somebody else can come along, take a different picture of the same place and create a whole new waymark listing. That makes sense?

 

I actually think that's kind of neat, that a single location might interest a wide variety of people for different reasons. You aren't forced to enter 5 logs. One of my major interests is historic sites. If I find a the same location that is listed in the national historic register category and also listed under stained glass windows, I'll only log the national register page. I have no interest in stained glass windows.

[Clan Riffster]

I actually think that's kind of neat, that a single location might interest a wide variety of people for different reasons.

If Groundspeak took Ed's advice, you would both be happy. You could run a search for historic places, excluding the other categories, and that one would show up. BillyBobNosePicker could run a search for Murals, excluding all others, and it would still show up. ThelmaJeanButtScratcher could do a search for official local tourism sites, excluding all others, and that one would show up. Since the various categories would be linked, the person who found it would only need to write one log. Those who Waymark for the numbers could still write logs for all the categories. If I'm interpreting Ed's suggestion correctly, that restaurant he mentioned would only take up one space in a PQ, regardless of how many linked categories it had.

 

I think Ed's looking at a "win-win" scenario.

[+Warturtle]

I just looked into it. On my first page of search results, it wasn't anything I hadn't already seen driving by. Sorry, but getting out a GPS to find a neon sign doesn't sound appealing to me. Now if there's a bison tube there, that's another story...

[cezanne]

I actually think that's kind of neat, that a single location might interest a wide variety of people for different reasons.

If Groundspeak took Ed's advice, you would both be happy. You could run a search for historic places, excluding the other categories, and that one would show up. BillyBobNosePicker could run a search for Murals, excluding all others, and it would still show up. ThelmaJeanButtScratcher could do a search for official local tourism sites, excluding all others, and that one would show up. Since the various categories would be linked, the person who found it would only need to write one log. Those who Waymark for the numbers could still write logs for all the categories. If I'm interpreting Ed's suggestion correctly, that restaurant he mentioned would only take up one space in a PQ, regardless of how many linked categories it had.

 

I think Ed's looking at a "win-win" scenario.

 

At least not for people like me. I do not care about PQs. In the same way as I do not appreciate three single traditionals cache leading me to the same area, one devoted to topic A, one to B and one to C and would prefer a multi cache dealing with all of them at the same time, I am not happy with the situation mentioned by TheAlabamaRambler above. My interests are rather broad and logging is important for me. I would not want to talk about stained glass windows in a log for a waymark not dealing at all with them and I would not want to write 5 separate logs one for each category relevant to my visit.

I guess Waymarking is fine in the way it is as a directory for locations. My focus is on different aspects and that's why I do not like Waymarking.

 

Cezanne

[+RobDJr]

Going back to the original post, the reason I prefer geocaching over Waymarking is simple.

 

Geocaching has an inherent challenge to it, in that you need to go to a location and find something hidden. Sometimes easy, sometimes very difficult, but always on some level you'll be matching wits with someone else.

 

Waymarking, on the other hand, is more like tourism. As I've already seen many of the historic places near home, and am rarely motivated to seek out new fast food restaurants, it holds little appeal to me. On the other hand, I might use it when traveling to places I've never gone to before, if I want to see what is out there (or if I get an inexplicable craving for a big mac and don't know where to get one).

 

Bottom line for me is that Waymarking missed its mark in trying to imitate geocaching. It would be far better as a social-network type travel aid than whatever it is that it's currently trying to be.

[+dfx]

I just looked into it. On my first page of search results, it wasn't anything I hadn't already seen driving by. Sorry, but getting out a GPS to find a neon sign doesn't sound appealing to me.

 

Here's what you do: think of any unusual or interesting feature in your area. See if there's a category for it. Visit, take coordinates, take a picture, post the waymark.

[Clan Riffster]

...I would not want to write 5 separate logs one for each category relevant to my visit.

I'm thinking, if the categories were all linked digitally to that specific geographic location, you would not have to write 5 separate logs. Maybe write one log relevant to the category that brought you to the spot, then have check boxes for the other categories that the location displays? If you wanted to get credit for the other categories, you could just check the boxes that interest you? Just thinking out loud. I think the way Waymarking is set up now, with several categories, each with a completely independent listing, leading you to the exact same object, is an inefficient design. I also think that not having the ability to download multiple Waymarks as a PQ was poorly done, leading many folks to avoid Waymarking as a whole. I think a complete restructuring of the Waymarking website could have tremendous benefits for both Groundspeak and the average geocacher.

[AZcachemeister]

...write 5 separate logs...

 

Are blank waymark logs not acceptable?

 

Maybe TFTWM?

[+Warturtle]

I just looked into it. On my first page of search results, it wasn't anything I hadn't already seen driving by. Sorry, but getting out a GPS to find a neon sign doesn't sound appealing to me.

 

Here's what you do: think of any unusual or interesting feature in your area. See if there's a category for it. Visit, take coordinates, take a picture, post the waymark.

Just tried it. I tried entering the cave that I have as a waypoint on my GC2YKXD. However, it wants to know how it was formed and whatnot, and that is required. I am not an earth scientist so I have no idea. It is almost never visited so there isn't any info online about it.

Seems like too much work for a site that's barely used.

[+tozainamboku]

It was predicted when this topic was started that some would post a very long response. Well here it is.

 

It occured to me a lot depends on what you see as the relationship of Waymarking and Geocaching. I drew some Venn diagrams to illustrate.

 

 

A common view is that Geocaching and Waymarking are unrelated. Some base this on a view that Geocaching is about finding physical containers, so anything other than a physical container is (or should be) a waymark. But many people accept non physical geocaches in the forms of virtual caches, EarthCaches, and the like. While a particular location may be a waymark as well as an virtual cache, the waymark has nothing to do with the virtual cache because Waymarking is an entirely separate activity. These people see Geocaching as over here and Waymarking as over there, and have no desire to mix the two.

 

 

In this view Waymarking is a subset of Geocaching. I originally though this view would be rare, but some of the discussion here tends to make me believe that it may be more common. In this view people see everything as a cache - a location to go visit and possibly to find something. Prior to Waymarking, virtual caches were used to share interesting locations. The people who view everything as a type of geocache, perceive Waymarking as the "substitute" for virtual caches.

 

One problem they find with Waymarking, is that a location may appear in more than one Waymarking category. This makes no sense, since one could not place multiple virtual caches in the same place. When you visit a virtual cache you may be tasked to find a specific object, but the cache page could tell about other things to notice in the location, or even to find multiple objects.

 

For people who view the relationship this way, not only are multiple waymarks at a location a problem but so are mundane (and ofter commercial) categories like McDonalds. These Waymarking site just doesn't appeal to people who want to view everything as a geocache.

 

 

In this view Geocaching is a subset of Waymarking. The developers of Waymarking attempted to design a database that could be used to store all sorts of data that was tagged with a geo-location (latitude and longitude). It was designed from the start to be extensible and scalable and avoid some the problems the Geocaching database was having at the time.

 

Waymarking takes the approach that there are many categories of things that people would want to store along with the geographic coordinates. They created a database where users could define these new categories. Each category could define its own attributes for objects in that category to store along with the name, descriptions, and coordinates. In this view, it is very natural to expect that there can be locations with objects that belong to multiple categories. There could be a waymark in each of the categories.

 

The definition of categories provides a good framework for creating catalogs and list of objects, but it all is flexible enough to allow the creation of new geolocation based games. Categories have been defined for palindromic coordinates, the old "where in a name" locationless cache, coordinate confluences, etc.

 

It is also possible to define a category for hidden containers (geocaches). This category would have the coordinates, the name, a description, and a set of attributes - size, type, difficulty, terrain, attributes, hidden by, etc. Subcategories could be defined for multi-caches (the coordinates are for the first stage) or mystery caches (coordinates within a mile or two of the actual cache). And it is not hard to define specific categories that could correspond to virtual caches (only need a definition of "Wow").

 

 

The final view is one where there is overlap between Geocaching and Waymarking, but both have features that are not found in the other.

 

One interpretation is that virtual caches are a subset of geocaches that are also a subset of waymarks. Not every waymark is a virtual cache, instead a small group of categories are designated the "replacement" for virtuals. Instead of trying to force all Waymarking categories into a geocaching centric view, geocachers would be able to hunt for waymarks in this small subset of categories. There could even be some standardization of these categories so that the waymarks appear more geocaching like, including proximity rules so that a particular location would only appear in one of these special categories. And these categories could then appear in PQs and searches on the Geocaching.com website.

Edited June 26, 2011 by tozainamboku

[+dfx]

TLDR

 

Well said

[+DanOCan]

I'm thinking, if the categories were all linked digitally to that specific geographic location, you would not have to write 5 separate logs. Maybe write one log relevant to the category that brought you to the spot, then have check boxes for the other categories that the location displays? If you wanted to get credit for the other categories, you could just check the boxes that interest you? Just thinking out loud. I think the way Waymarking is set up now, with several categories, each with a completely independent listing, leading you to the exact same object, is an inefficient design.

 

Best idea to come out of this thread. I love this idea.

[+Chokecherry]

I'm thinking, if the categories were all linked digitally to that specific geographic location, you would not have to write 5 separate logs. Maybe write one log relevant to the category that brought you to the spot, then have check boxes for the other categories that the location displays? If you wanted to get credit for the other categories, you could just check the boxes that interest you? Just thinking out loud. I think the way Waymarking is set up now, with several categories, each with a completely independent listing, leading you to the exact same object, is an inefficient design.

 

Best idea to come out of this thread. I love this idea.

 

That seems like it would make the site more usable to me if the categories were like that or more like attributes or something. One log applied to all the categories. Instead of seeing the city hall listed 4 different times in there. Too much to wade through for me. If it was organized like that I could easily see that way marks are around me with out multples.

[+BuckeyeClan]

I'm thinking, if the categories were all linked digitally to that specific geographic location, you would not have to write 5 separate logs. Maybe write one log relevant to the category that brought you to the spot, then have check boxes for the other categories that the location displays? If you wanted to get credit for the other categories, you could just check the boxes that interest you? Just thinking out loud. I think the way Waymarking is set up now, with several categories, each with a completely independent listing, leading you to the exact same object, is an inefficient design.

 

Best idea to come out of this thread. I love this idea.

 

But would the person who created the waymark then have to indicate all the categories that are applicable? How many categories are there? What if they miss one--could somebody else "link" that waymark to different categories?

[+DanOCan]

But would the person who created the waymark then have to indicate all the categories that are applicable? How many categories are there? What if they miss one--could somebody else "link" that waymark to different categories?

 

In my mind, yes. I could see someone going to add a waymark to the category such as "Water Towers" and they would be prompted with something saying "It appeears this site is already listed under a different category. Would you like to add the category "Water Towers" to the existing waymark?"

 

I would assume there would be some sort of process so that the Waymark owner would be notified that someone added a category to their Waymark and some sort of approval would then take place.

 

Just kicking around ideas.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Ohh an opportunity to go off! But I won't

Not a fan of waymarks, or any of the not caches.

Now I do see potential in waymarks. It can stand alone and work for those that like it that way but it can become a great companion to geocaching with proper integration.

See, I have an issue with child waypoints.

I download 50 caches on a trail and load them into my gpsr and it starts behaving slow. WTF, I'm 200 points away from the slow down point. Oh I see, I have parking listed as 50 points spread between 20 different sets of cords, and the same for parking at the other end. I have both trail heads listed 50 times each. There is my max before slow down. Ah, an old cabins fire place listed 10 times, a burial marker list 20, A great view from the trail 10, etc etc.

Now properly integrated some one could put in the cords for a trail head on the cache submission and the system could ask them if they meant X Trailhead on Waymarking.com, they click yes and it gets flagged for download with the cache. If 1000 caches flag the same point it only gets downloaded once.

Even without integration it has potential, I would love to know where every free potable water source in an area is at, it isn't as obvious as one would like to think. Every junction marker on a trail would be a boon because it would give people a better idea of where caches and waymarks where along the system and help reduce unnecessary bushwhacking.

But just try to convince the waymarkers that utilitarian categories would be a plus because it would start drawing people to the site, ain't gonna happen. McNasties and the rest of the absolutely mundane killed that possibility.

[+tozainamboku]

To me this concept of one waymark per location seems artificial. The reason we have one geocache at time at a given location is because of the proximity guidelines. Because of this guideline no physical cache can be within 528 ft. of an existing physical cache. But as soon as the cache is archived, nothing stops a new cache from being placed in exactly the same place. I've to find a new cache and ended up in the same place where I had found a cache previously. Several of those time I found the original cache still there... and few times that original container had been re-purposed as the new cache. I've also found letterboxes at locations where I was looking for a cache.

 

Under current rules a physical cache can be placed in the same location as a virtual cache. In geocaching you can go to a location and find both a virtual cache and a physical and log them both. I know of locations where there is an EarthCache and virtual cache. They are both taking you to see the same thing - only the virtual cache is logged with a picture and the EarthCache is logged by taking a geology pop quiz.

 

Waymarking was developed from the old idea of locationless caches. When you had a locationless cache you found a location that met the criteria and which no one had already used for this locationless cache. But there were no rules that said that once you used the location for a one locationless cache you couldn't use it again for another. In fact many locations were used for finds in multiple locationless caches. Even more common was a location used for a locationless find that also was used for a virtual or physical cache.

 

From the waymarkers point of view, you can ignore completely any categories that don't interest you. Asking a waymarker to select all the categories a waymark they are submitting makes no sense. They are likely looking for a example in a particular category and will create the waymark in that category. Sure, there is a challenge some waymarkers see in trying find a location that can be use in many categories. But nobody is going thru the list of every category trying to find all the categories that match the location.

 

Each category has its own category specific attributes. While some complain that these ask for specific information the waymarker may not know (and therefore make creating waymarks too much of a chore), others find these attributes greatly enhance the usefulness of waymark for creating catalogs or list of locations in a category.

 

If people really want to use Waymarking as substitute for virtual caches, I would suggest selecting just a few categories. The chance of overlap will be greatly reduced. If it does happen occasionally, just select one of the waymarks to log.

[Clan Riffster]

...could somebody else "link" that waymark to different categories?

Not sure. I'm not a programmer. We'd need a techie person to properly address that.

I am an officer in the Natural Springs Waymark category, and I get notified whenever someone submits one to be published. I can either approve it or decline it, depending on what they submitted. Something I've noticed is there seems to be some kind of automatic proximity alert process in place, because if BillyBob Nose Picker has an existing Natural Spring Waymark, and ThelmaJeanButtScratcher submits a new one with similar coords, I get notified that there is already an active one fairly close. I don't know what the necessary distance is, to activate the proximity alert. I also don't know if this works for Waymarks that are not in the same category, but I would think the process could be tweaked to allow it. Maybe?

 

Something to the effect of;

 

Billy Bob finds something cool that he wants to submit as a Waymark. As part of the submission process, he types in the coords to what he found. A window displays all the nearby existing Waymarks, asking him if he wants to submit his as an addition to one of the existing Waymarks, or if he wants it to stand alone. Either way, that same decision gets made by the officer reviewing the newly submitted Waymark. If BillyBob submitted a mural that he found on a building already listed as a Tourist Attraction, and ignored the existing Waymark, the officer of the mural category could decline the request to make it a stand alone Waymark, instead linking it to the Tourist Attraction Waymark. If BillyBob wanted to link it to the existing Tourist Attraction Waymark, the officer would check to verify that both Waymarks are referencing the same location.

 

Again, just thinking out loud. I have no idea if this would be viable.

I just think it could address some of the complaints seen about Waymarking.

[+fizzymagic]

I am an officer in the Natural Springs Waymark category, and I get notified whenever someone submits one to be published. I can either approve it or decline it, depending on what they submitted.

 

Well, there's yer problem right there.

 

Does any of the waymarkers in this thread have even a hint of a clue about why the above statement is problematic?

 

I suspect not. And that is a perfect illustration of why there is such a lack of understanding on either side.

[cezanne]

...I would not want to write 5 separate logs one for each category relevant to my visit.

I'm thinking, if the categories were all linked digitally to that specific geographic location, you would not have to write 5 separate logs. Maybe write one log relevant to the category that brought you to the spot, then have check boxes for the other categories that the location displays? If you wanted to get credit for the other categories, you could just check the boxes that interest you?

 

My issue is not about getting credit. I am not interested into getting credit and I do not care about not logging waymarks if I am not interested into them. What you suggest however is the same as if I would manually copy&paste my log for one waymark for the others that are related to my visit (that does not necessarily include all at the location!). I hate copy and paste logs however and wish to log individually. That would however then mean that I need to mention e.g. what I want to comment about the stained glass windows in the stained glass windows waymark, the historical comments in the historcal location waymark etc and that's exactly the type of separation I do not want to do either. What's behind my reasoning is about the same as one of my reason for preferring a multi cache to a series of traditionals along a hiking trail where the individual caches are not any longer distinguishable after my return. Many of my fellow cachers write the same log for all members of the series or one longer log at the end and just links to the longer log in the remaining log entries. I do want to do justice to each cache and I can do that easily for the multi cache by reporting about all my experiences during the hike. If I need to separate my experiences among too many caches, it gets annoying for me. That's certainly something subjective and depends a lot on my approach to logging.

 

Cezanne

Edited June 27, 2011 by cezanne

[+Team GPSaxophone]

 

In this view Geocaching is a subset of Waymarking. The developers of Waymarking attempted to design a database that could be used to store all sorts of data that was tagged with a geo-location (latitude and longitude). It was designed from the start to be extensible and scalable and avoid some the problems the Geocaching database was having at the time.

 

Waymarking takes the approach that there are many categories of things that people would want to store along with the geographic coordinates. They created a database where users could define these new categories. Each category could define its own attributes for objects in that category to store along with the name, descriptions, and coordinates. In this view, it is very natural to expect that there can be locations with objects that belong to multiple categories. There could be a waymark in each of the categories.

 

The definition of categories provides a good framework for creating catalogs and list of objects, but it all is flexible enough to allow the creation of new geolocation based games. Categories have been defined for palindromic coordinates, the old "where in a name" locationless cache, coordinate confluences, etc.

 

It is also possible to define a category for hidden containers (geocaches). This category would have the coordinates, the name, a description, and a set of attributes - size, type, difficulty, terrain, attributes, hidden by, etc. Subcategories could be defined for multi-caches (the coordinates are for the first stage) or mystery caches (coordinates within a mile or two of the actual cache). And it is not hard to define specific categories that could correspond to virtual caches (only need a definition of "Wow").

This one makes a lot of sense in that a better database was designed to accommodate geocaches, virtuals, and locationless all on one site. Fortunately, geocaches weren't moved over like the locationless were. It's just too bad virtuals stayed on the geocaching site.

[+SgtSue]

To be honest, I couldn't care less for "credit" of finding a Waymark. I would love to use Waymarking to learn the history of a place I'm visiting, to find the cool things that are around me either at home or away.

 

My issue with Waymarking two fold. First, is like many, the lack of PQs. The second is a place/object being listed in multiple categories. If the categories were more a subset of the waymark and the place/object show in a search once but also display the different categories that would be better. I am not going to log a visit to a McDonald's, but I might log a visit to the first McDonald's or a McDonald's that is special in an interesting way. Have it listed once with an indication of the different categories it fits. But now if I am going to an area and search for waymarks the same place/object will be listed over and over and over again. Makes it hard to sort through. The ability to run a PQ for an area which would display a waymark once indicating the different categories it fits or a PQ that would allow me to select the categories I am interested in just might entice me into trying it again.

[+BruceS]

To be honest, I couldn't care less for "credit" of finding a Waymark. I would love to use Waymarking to learn the history of a place I'm visiting, to find the cool things that are around me either at home or away.

 

My issue with Waymarking two fold. First, is like many, the lack of PQs. The second is a place/object being listed in multiple categories. If the categories were more a subset of the waymark and the place/object show in a search once but also display the different categories that would be better. I am not going to log a visit to a McDonald's, but I might log a visit to the first McDonald's or a McDonald's that is special in an interesting way. Have it listed once with an indication of the different categories it fits. But now if I am going to an area and search for waymarks the same place/object will be listed over and over and over again. Makes it hard to sort through. The ability to run a PQ for an area which would display a waymark once indicating the different categories it fits or a PQ that would allow me to select the categories I am interested in just might entice me into trying it again.

 

I don't think you will get any argument on pocket queries. However only listing a waymark once will not solve your problem of having to sift through all the McDonalds to find that special one. A better way already exists... just ignore the categories that don't appeal to you. In your case ignore all major departments except History (would be only 14 ignores) and then you will only see that McDonalds that happens to be listed as on the National Register of Historic Places or has a historical marker. Also shown would be other historic sites... the number of duplicates would be down significantly. You would see a courthouse listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the historical marker in front of it but you would not see following: the courthouse listed as a government building, the clock as a town clock, or the benchmark right at the front door.

[Clan Riffster]

My issue is not about getting credit. I am not interested into getting credit and I do not care about not logging waymarks if I am not interested into them. What you suggest however is the same as if I would manually copy&paste my log for one waymark for the others that are related to my visit (that does not necessarily include all at the location!). I hate copy and paste logs however and wish to log individually.

And that's the real beauty of my hypothetical setup. Whatever category initially brought you to the aforementioned tourist trap would be at the top of your digital pile. You could log that one all by its lonesome and walk away happy. Or, you could click the check boxes for the linked Waymarks, either all of them or just the ones which match your particular tastes, and log them all at once. Or, you could log the first one, then log the second, then the third, etc, etc, till that single location ran out of Waymarks.

 

You would retain control over how you log stuff.

Just one, all at once or one at a time. The choice would be yours.

Still sounds like a win-win.

[+BruceS]

 

And that's the real beauty of my hypothetical setup. Whatever category initially brought you to the aforementioned tourist trap would be at the top of your digital pile. You could log that one all by its lonesome and walk away happy. Or, you could click the check boxes for the linked Waymarks, either all of them or just the ones which match your particular tastes, and log them all at once. Or, you could log the first one, then log the second, then the third, etc, etc, till that single location ran out of Waymarks.

 

You would retain control over how you log stuff.

Just one, all at once or one at a time. The choice would be yours.

Still sounds like a win-win.

 

I like your idea in theory however what would be considered the same location? And what is the visit "experience" for each listing? Take an example of a courthouse, many times the courthouse itself will be listed in multiple categories and often many objects on its grounds can be listed. Say the courthouse is listed in the Courthouse category, the National Register of Historic Places category, Town Clock category, and the Wikipedia category, a visit to the courthouse would probably be the same visit "experience" and your idea works fine. However depending on what proximity is used as the same location the following could also be included, on the grounds of the same courthouse the following are found: a Civil War Memorial, a bench mark, a Pony Express monument, a statue of Abraham Lincoln and a moon tree. "Visiting" the courthouse itself would be a different visitor experience than visiting the moon tree which the courthouse visitor may not have even seen and this is where your idea has shortcomings.

 

I do wish that after logging a visit to a Waymark it would automatically show me any others in the area I have not posted a visit so I could click the next one and post my visit to it.

Edited June 27, 2011 by BruceS
spelling

[+tozainamboku]

 

And that's the real beauty of my hypothetical setup. Whatever category initially brought you to the aforementioned tourist trap would be at the top of your digital pile. You could log that one all by its lonesome and walk away happy. Or, you could click the check boxes for the linked Waymarks, either all of them or just the ones which match your particular tastes, and log them all at once. Or, you could log the first one, then log the second, then the third, etc, etc, till that single location ran out of Waymarks.

 

You would retain control over how you log stuff.

Just one, all at once or one at a time. The choice would be yours.

Still sounds like a win-win.

 

I like your idea in theory however what would be considered the same location? And what is the visit "experience" for each listing? Take an example of a courthouse, many times the courthouse itself will be listed in multiple categories and often many objects on its grounds can be listed. Say the courthouse is listed in the Courthouse category, the National Register of Historic Places category, Town Clock category, and the Wikipedia category, a visit to the courthouse would probably be the same visit "experience" and your idea works fine. However depending on what proximity is used as the same location the following could also be included, on the grounds of the same courthouse the following are found: a Civil War Memorial, a bench mark, a Pony Express monument, a statue of Abraham Lincoln and a moon tree. "Visiting" the courthouse itself would be a different visitor experience than visiting the moon tree which the courthouse visitor may not have even seen and this is where your idea has shortcomings.

 

This may make a point about what made some virtual caches "wow". If you had listed just the courthouse it would not have been wow. Even an historical plaque indicating the courthouse was the oldest standing building in the county would not have made it. But perhaps the fact that this was the site of a famous trial or the signing of a treaty that ended the civil war would make this location "wow". Now on top of this, the Moon Tree planted outside the courthouse provides a plaque from which you could get confirmation of a visit. Prior to Waymarking, it may have even been unlikely that you would find this information on the internet. The wikipedia entry for the courthouse might mention the moon tree, but would not likely have a picture of the plaque with the information. And when you visited the famous courthouse, you would likely be surprised to find a Moon Tree there. It would in fact be a kind of best kept secret

 

It might be a cool idea to use Waymarking to identify places the would make "wow" virtual caches. Find places that are listed in many categories. One or more of these would have to be a category that provides the location with a special historic, community or geocaching quality that sets it apart from an everyday location. Another category would provide something unexepected at the location, a specific object that can be the target of the virtual cache, or if there is no such target, then something that provides an educational opportunity to learn something new about the place. If there are several targets, you could have a virtual multi where you need to find all of these.

[cezanne]

My issue is not about getting credit. I am not interested into getting credit and I do not care about not logging waymarks if I am not interested into them. What you suggest however is the same as if I would manually copy&paste my log for one waymark for the others that are related to my visit (that does not necessarily include all at the location!). I hate copy and paste logs however and wish to log individually.

And that's the real beauty of my hypothetical setup. Whatever category initially brought you to the aforementioned tourist trap would be at the top of your digital pile. You could log that one all by its lonesome and walk away happy. Or, you could click the check boxes for the linked Waymarks, either all of them or just the ones which match your particular tastes, and log them all at once. Or, you could log the first one, then log the second, then the third, etc, etc, till that single location ran out of Waymarks.

 

You would retain control over how you log stuff.

Just one, all at once or one at a time. The choice would be yours.

Still sounds like a win-win.

 

I agree that it the situation would be improved with respect to the current situation. What I tried to explain is however why I am not really liking the outcome nevertheless. Of course, I do have full control about my logs, but like I cannot turn a series of traditionals into a multi, I cannot glue together all waymarks around an area that form an ensemble for me to just one waymark. My issue with the logging is not the effort it takes to write separate logs, but the need to split up what I regard as one log into pieces or to use the same log more than once.

 

Let me phrase it that way: I do not think that Waymarking can change so that I will ever like it and I do not think that such changes would be meaningful as it would make Waymarking less enjoyable for many other users for whom in contrast to myself the philosophy of Waymarking is much nearer to their way of thinking that this is the case for me.

 

Cezanne

 

 

Cezanne

[+SgtSue]

To be honest, I couldn't care less for "credit" of finding a Waymark. I would love to use Waymarking to learn the history of a place I'm visiting, to find the cool things that are around me either at home or away.

 

My issue with Waymarking two fold. First, is like many, the lack of PQs. The second is a place/object being listed in multiple categories. If the categories were more a subset of the waymark and the place/object show in a search once but also display the different categories that would be better. I am not going to log a visit to a McDonald's, but I might log a visit to the first McDonald's or a McDonald's that is special in an interesting way. Have it listed once with an indication of the different categories it fits. But now if I am going to an area and search for waymarks the same place/object will be listed over and over and over again. Makes it hard to sort through. The ability to run a PQ for an area which would display a waymark once indicating the different categories it fits or a PQ that would allow me to select the categories I am interested in just might entice me into trying it again.

 

I don't think you will get any argument on pocket queries. However only listing a waymark once will not solve your problem of having to sift through all the McDonalds to find that special one. A better way already exists... just ignore the categories that don't appeal to you. In your case ignore all major departments except History (would be only 14 ignores) and then you will only see that McDonalds that happens to be listed as on the National Register of Historic Places or has a historical marker. Also shown would be other historic sites... the number of duplicates would be down significantly. You would see a courthouse listed on the National Register of Historic Places and the historical marker in front of it but you would not see following: the courthouse listed as a government building, the clock as a town clock, or the benchmark right at the front door.

I've tried, but it just doesn't seem to work well for me. There are categories and subcategories I wouldn't even think of. Maybe I haven't put enough effort into it, I just wish it was easier to find what I'm looking for. And also I wish it would have more sharing of one's experience or memories and less "visited it", of course I wish for more of the same in geocaching logs. I'm happy for those who enjoy the site, I'm just not one of them.

[+BruceS]

And also I wish it would have more sharing of one's experience or memories and less "visited it", of course I wish for more of the same in geocaching logs. I'm happy for those who enjoy the site, I'm just not one of them.

 

For those sharing of memories etc. feel free to put those in as comments on the waymark. I really like getting those on my waymarks.... I have had people who had lived in a particular house I had waymarked comment about living in the house when they were a child and that they didn't view the house as historic when they lived there.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...I would not want to write 5 separate logs one for each category relevant to my visit.

I'm thinking, if the categories were all linked digitally to that specific geographic location, you would not have to write 5 separate logs. Maybe write one log relevant to the category that brought you to the spot, then have check boxes for the other categories that the location displays? If you wanted to get credit for the other categories, you could just check the boxes that interest you? Just thinking out loud. I think the way Waymarking is set up now, with several categories, each with a completely independent listing, leading you to the exact same object, is an inefficient design. I also think that not having the ability to download multiple Waymarks as a PQ was poorly done, leading many folks to avoid Waymarking as a whole. I think a complete restructuring of the Waymarking website could have tremendous benefits for both Groundspeak and the average geocacher.

Or just allow Virts again and write off Waymarking as a failure, like Prohibition or the 'war' on drugs.

[+Manville Possum]

...I would not want to write 5 separate logs one for each category relevant to my visit.

I'm thinking, if the categories were all linked digitally to that specific geographic location, you would not have to write 5 separate logs. Maybe write one log relevant to the category that brought you to the spot, then have check boxes for the other categories that the location displays? If you wanted to get credit for the other categories, you could just check the boxes that interest you? Just thinking out loud. I think the way Waymarking is set up now, with several categories, each with a completely independent listing, leading you to the exact same object, is an inefficient design. I also think that not having the ability to download multiple Waymarks as a PQ was poorly done, leading many folks to avoid Waymarking as a whole. I think a complete restructuring of the Waymarking website could have tremendous benefits for both Groundspeak and the average geocacher.

Or just allow Virts again and write off Waymarking as a failure, like Prohibition or the 'war' on drugs.

Virts are being reinstated, but Waymarking is not a failure. Geocachers just don't use Waymarking. It's a great site for virts.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Virts are being reinstated, but Waymarking is not a failure. Geocachers just don't use Waymarking. It's a great site for virts.

 

Waymarking is not virts! Waymarking is logging a find on someone else find of a locationless cache.

 

Categories are the same as the old locationless caches where the object was to find and post a log for a class of objects as in 'unusual weather vanes'.

 

What you are calling virts is the logging of an unusual weather vane that someone else found and logged for the locationless cache 'unusual weather vanes'. Definitely different than logging a virt where everyone goes to the same coordinates and finds the same object as a stand alone cache, Not logging a find on someone else log.

 

If Geocachers don't use Waymarking, then it should be considered a failure, since it isn't fulfilling its purpose.

 

John

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

...If Geocachers don't use Waymarking, then it should be considered a failure, since it isn't fulfilling its purpose.

Without geocaching.com would Waymarking.com revenue support Groundspeak? Without any income from geocaching would Waymarking even survive, say on it's own paid membership and ad revenues? If so I will eat my words. If not then as far as I can tell that would make it a commercial failure.

 

Evidently most geocachers avoid Waymarking, so from that perspective it's a failure.

 

Success on the interweb usually happens because word of and participation in something spreads virally, as happened with the phenomenon of geocaching. Outside of the Groundspeak forum I have never heard of Waymarking. FAIL.

 

So what makes Waymarking a success?

Edited June 28, 2011 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+fizzymagic]

It might be a cool idea to use Waymarking to identify places the would make "wow" virtual caches.

It's been tried. It failed. Sorry.

[Clan Riffster]

I like your idea in theory however what would be considered the same location?

Therein lies the quandary. I don't have an answer for that. Perhaps this could be determined by the folks who approve/decline the newly submitted Waymark? Seems like they would be the best folks to determine if a newly submitted Waymark, (such as an historical marker), should be listed on the site as a stand alone Waymark, or should be linked to an existing Waymark?

 

 

And what is the visit "experience" for each listing?

I'm thinking the visit experience would be whatever the seeker brought to the field.

For instance, your Courthouse example. Did the visitor interact/see/acknowledge the National Register of Historic Places aspect? The Town Clock aspect? The Wikipedia aspect? The visitor would decide, based upon their experience and their aesthetics, which categories they wanted to reference with their trip. If the category officers decided that the Civil War Memorial should be linked because it's only a few feet from the front door, the visitor would decide if they were interested in including that Waymark in their trip, and would check the box for it. If they decided that the Waymark should stand alone because it was just outside the Courthouse parking lot, then nothing would change for the visitor, as they would have to decide if they wanted to log it, and go through the motions required, without having the option of digitally adding that one to their trip with a single mouse click. Same thing for the Pony Express monument, the statue of Abraham Lincoln and the moon tree. If the category officers elected to link them to the Courthouse Waymark, logging would be simplified for them. If the officers decided not to, the status quo would remain.

 

As for the individual visits, I'd think the experience would be unaffected. The player would still get to see/interact/acknowledge the Courthouse, the National Register of Historic Places, the Town Clock, the Wikipedia entry, the Civil War Memorial, the Benchmark, the Pony Express monument, the statue of Abraham Lincoln and the moon tree. That part would not be affected. The only real change would be how they acquire the data, (as a single PQ entry or as nine PQ entries), and how they logged them, (a few mouse clicks as opposed to navigating through nine separate Waymark pages).

 

Maybe?

[Clan Riffster]

...but Waymarking is not a failure.

I don't want to come off as someone slamming Waymarks, as I own several, but from a business perspective, Waymarking, in and of itself, is a failure. It was presented to a very specific target audience, (geocachers), and for the most part, that target said "No thanx!". You said yourself that geocachers don't use it. I agree, for the most part, they don't. We can argue endlessly about "Why", but unless Groundspeak actively listens to the reasons, and takes active steps to address them, nothing is going to change. The intended customer will continue to pass that product by.

 

Waymarking is logging a find on someone else find of a locationless cache.

Judging from what I'm seeing on the site, Waymarking is finding a spot that matches a particular catagory, and submitting it. I'm not seeing the second half of the equation, where others follow, finding your submitted site and logging it. A good example of this is my Wheri(wanna)go Spring Hopping cache. It's a Wherigo that takes you on a tour of ten natural springs off the beaten path, in a state forest. Each of these springs is a Waymark. 29 people have logged finds on the cache. Looking at one of the Waymarks at random, 2 people have logged it. Yet the other 27 people were there, at each Waymark, at some point in their hunt.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Waymarking is logging a find on someone else find of a locationless cache.

Judging from what I'm seeing on the site, Waymarking is finding a spot that matches a particular catagory, and submitting it. I'm not seeing the second half of the equation, where others follow, finding your submitted site and logging it. A good example of this is my Wheri(wanna)go Spring Hopping cache. It's a Wherigo that takes you on a tour of ten natural springs off the beaten path, in a state forest. Each of these springs is a Waymark. 29 people have logged finds on the cache. Looking at one of the Waymarks at random, 2 people have logged it. Yet the other 27 people were there, at each Waymark, at some point in their hunt.

 

Exactly my point. You Logged the locationless cache/category for 'springs', but there are very few logs/visits for your finds/virtuals. That is why Waymarking fails when it comes down to finding 'virtuals'.

 

John

Edited June 28, 2011 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

[Dinoprophet]

Virts are being reinstated, but Waymarking is not a failure. Geocachers just don't use Waymarking. It's a great site for virts.

 

Waymarking is not virts! Waymarking is logging a find on someone else find of a locationless cache.

 

Categories are the same as the old locationless caches where the object was to find and post a log for a class of objects as in 'unusual weather vanes'.

 

What you are calling virts is the logging of an unusual weather vane that someone else found and logged for the locationless cache 'unusual weather vanes'. Definitely different than logging a virt where everyone goes to the same coordinates and finds the same object as a stand alone cache, Not logging a find on someone else log.

 

<snip>

That's nothing but semantics. You could just as well say that logging a cache is just logging a find on someone's hide "log". After all, don't cachers say you can't get "credit" for both hiding and finding on the same cache? That some cachers are in the hiding game and some are in the finding game?

 

- Virtuals: go to geocaching.com, do a search, get a list of coordinates where virtuals are, note the requirements for each, go to each site and fulfill the requirements, log my visit on the virtual's page, see Found count go up

 

- Waymarks: go to Waymarking.com, do a search, get a list of coordinates where waymarks are, note the requirements for each, go to each site and fulfill the requirements, log my visit on the waymark's page, see Visited count go up

 

The only significant difference is you know what you're going to see. And I do recognize it's a major difference, enough to say they're not the same thing. But frankly, I would have skipped most of the virts I've found had I known what they were.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Dinoprophet