Jump to content

Waymarking vs. Geocaching


Recommended Posts

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.

 

Why would I want to log a visit to someone else's find when I could log the category itself, instead another persons find?

 

John

Link to comment

Maybe for me the turn-off with Waymarking is that every McDonald, Taco Bell, Star Bucks and Walmart is a Waymark. I don't really need or want a service that when I browse GPS location near me the thing that pop up are pure commercialism. If Waymarking took out all the stores and commercial places and stuck to just interesting and quirky spots I'd be more interested. That just how it comes off to me. I know some people really like Waymarking, and that is cool for them -- do it and enjoy it.

Link to comment

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.

 

Why would I want to log a visit to someone else's find when I could log the category itself, instead another persons find?

 

John

You *can't* log the category itself, because it's already been logged in the category.

 

Just like you can't place a cache where someone has already placed a cache.

Link to comment

 

You *can't* log the category itself, because it's already been logged in the category.

 

Just like you can't place a cache where someone has already placed a cache.

 

You miss understood, I did not mean use the same point to log the category. If the category is weather vanes, then I would just log a different vane and not bother "Finding" one someone else has logged. That's where Waymarking fails, by thinking category logs are the same as virtuals.

 

John

Link to comment

 

You *can't* log the category itself, because it's already been logged in the category.

 

Just like you can't place a cache where someone has already placed a cache.

 

You miss understood, I did not mean use the same point to log the category. If the category is weather vanes, then I would just log a different vane and not bother "Finding" one someone else has logged.

 

Well, you could, yes. That would be comparable to looking for places to hide caches instead of finding caches that are already placed.

That's where Waymarking fails, by thinking category logs are the same as virtuals.

I, and I think most people, agree that category logs are not the same as virtuals. Visit logs are the part that is comparable when people say that Waymarking replaces virtuals, though I would say it's not exactly the same.

 

(though I guess you could get waymark coordinates and go there without looking at what they are)

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

Saying that Waymarking is a failure is silly. At most you can say is that it fails as a substitute for virtual caches; perhaps this is the reason Groundspeak is promissing to bring back some kind of virtual cache.

 

Sure there are more people using geocaching than Waymarking and geocaching accounts for most of Groundspeak revenues. But using that criteria, terrain 5 caches are a failure and the only sucessful geocaches are power trails and lamppost hides.

 

There is a active Waymarking community creating waymarks and more and more are being visited. Unlike geocaching, waymarkers are not so interested that their waymarks are visited. They are interested instead in cataloging places in different categories. A few categories turn out to be places people visit when looking for something to do. But many are getting more use when someone Googles something and the waymark for it shows up near the top of the results. Often the writeup by the waymarker and the photos are just what the person was searching for. Compare Waymarking to Wikipedia and it has been tremendously sucessful.

 

Geocachers are looking for a game. Put some coordinates in your GPS and find something. They don't care what they find -but they will complain if the place is "lame" and make it a favorite it is "wow". With virtual caches, the volunteer reviewers decided what was "wow" enough to publish. As such, people tended to find that virtuals were in cool places. (Prior to the "wow" requirement, there were lots of complaints about how virtuals are lame; and after the "wow" requirement their were lots of complaints about "why wasn't my virtual published?").

 

Waymarking categories were supposed to allow you to select the categories you found interesting so you would never have to visit a lame site. This proves easier said than done. With a virtual geocache, you didn't have to go through a list of 1000 categories to pick out the ones you found interesting. You just downloaded all the nearby virtuals and went off. Often you be taken to a place you would not have thought about going to had it not been a virtual cache. So just knowing what category something is in is not enough to tell if you'll find it interesting. Perhaps it was the combination of things you found in one place, or perhaps the surprise of finding something you wouldn't expect to find in that location - like a street paved with wood in the middle of a modern city.

 

The definition of "wowness" that proved so hard to define for virtual caches, was thrown out in Waymarking. I've tried to encourage categories that have their own definition of "wowness" so that virtual caches could find a place within Waymarking. But this has failed to get traction, with waymarkers interested in cataloging and geocachers finding it hard to combined these with the geocaches they were finding on geocaching.com.

Link to comment
Why do people want virtuals back then.

 

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

This is 100% false in my case.

 

For me, I like virtuals because they tend to be a little more informational and they let you put a cache in an area that is special but has too many muggles or a special concern. You can put a virtual at the state capitol, sensitive natural areas or a statue in our local dog park. A traditional in such a place would be problematic. The alterative is a QtoA Multi, and honestly I'm fine with those... but they feel like a band-aid, because I don't NEED the container all the time and they usually take you AWAY from the special location which on it's own feels a little against the philosophy...

 

As for waymarks, I tend to not mess with them because it seems messy to have to go to some other site and deal with other stuff. I knew about virtuals before I knew about waymarks so they'll probably always feel like this other vague concept similar to caching.

 

This thread has inspired me though, maybe I'll go over there and see what they have to offer again. Last time I checked the closest one to me was indeed a fast food place :/

We have caches at dumb places in Austin, but often our LPCs and stuff actually are in the lots of cool places.

Link to comment

Maybe for me the turn-off with Waymarking is that every McDonald, Taco Bell, Star Bucks and Walmart is a Waymark. I don't really need or want a service that when I browse GPS location near me the thing that pop up are pure commercialism. If Waymarking took out all the stores and commercial places and stuck to just interesting and quirky spots I'd be more interested. That just how it comes off to me. I know some people really like Waymarking, and that is cool for them -- do it and enjoy it.

 

If that is your only hang up one click of the mouse will eliminate all businesses. Of the nearly 330,000 waymarks you will eliminate 33,300 or roughly 10%. The remaining 90% are not business waymarks.

Edited by BruceS
Link to comment
Sure there are more people using geocaching than Waymarking and geocaching accounts for most of Groundspeak revenues. But using that criteria [sic], terrain 5 caches are a failure and the only sucessful geocaches are power trails and lamppost hides.

I had no idea that terrain 5 caches are listed on a separate site with a different user interface. I didn't know that you can't get them in regular PQs.

 

Oh, wait. They are the same as other caches, and you can get them in PQs just like the others.

 

Analogy FAIL.

Link to comment

 

This thread has inspired me though, maybe I'll go over there and see what they have to offer again. Last time I checked the closest one to me was indeed a fast food place :/

We have caches at dumb places in Austin, but often our LPCs and stuff actually are in the lots of cool places.

 

I encourage you to go look. From your first placed cache the closest waymark is indeed a fast food place... but alas that is the only fast food place waymark for 44 miles :)

Link to comment
Sure there are more people using geocaching than Waymarking and geocaching accounts for most of Groundspeak revenues. But using that criteria [sic], terrain 5 caches are a failure and the only sucessful geocaches are power trails and lamppost hides.

I had no idea that terrain 5 caches are listed on a separate site with a different user interface. I didn't know that you can't get them in regular PQs.

 

Oh, wait. They are the same as other caches, and you can get them in PQs just like the others.

 

Analogy FAIL.

I still don't accept that Waymarking is a failure because more people use geocaching or because most waymarks are rarely visited.

 

I do accept that Waymarking is a failure for fizzymagic and others as a substitute for virtual caches. I fully agree that that the lack of a PQ integrated with the PQ for physical caches is a problem for those who view virtual caches an integral part of geocaching. I also agree that depending on your definition of "wow", Waymarking may not provide a way to find these "wow" location you would like to visit.

 

There are clearly other uses of Waymarking and people who are enjoying Waymarking as it now functions.

 

I've looked for ways to use Waymarking that is more like the virtual cache experience. I understand that these ways still don't address all the issues for those who want virtuals integrated with geocaching. I've even proposed some ways to integrate this subset of Waymarking with Geocaching, though I will admit that it would not be 100% of what some people want.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment

Saying that Waymarking is a failure is silly.

If you see a product offered to a very specific customer base, and those customers vote with their feet, expressing discontent in the product, that product has failed. Insisting that it is not a failure, despite the evidence in front of you, is silly. It really doesn't matter if you view Waymarking as a failed replacement for virtuals, or if you view it as an entirely different experience. The fact that the customers, for the most part, don't like it, means, in a business sense, it's a failure. You could insist that the McDonald's Salad Shakers were not a failure, because there were a few folks who liked them, but that would also be silly.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment

A quote by Jeremy from the Waymarking forums from long ago.

 

"Posted 09 September 2005 - 12:18 PM

 

If I say the word "bounties" - what do you think you could do with that idea?

 

Jeremy Irish"

 

From this thread (from long ago).

 

What happened to this idea? Wasn't this supposed to sort of compensate for the lack of smilies in Waymarking?

Edited by mikemtn
Link to comment

Maybe for me the turn-off with Waymarking is that every McDonald, Taco Bell, Star Bucks and Walmart is a Waymark. I don't really need or want a service that when I browse GPS location near me the thing that pop up are pure commercialism. If Waymarking took out all the stores and commercial places and stuck to just interesting and quirky spots I'd be more interested. That just how it comes off to me. I know some people really like Waymarking, and that is cool for them -- do it and enjoy it.

 

I hear this criticism frequently, often from people who have no problem with every McDonalds, Taco Bell, Star Bucks and Walmart having a geocache hidden next to it.

 

Actually one of the great things about Waymarking is that you can ignore the those commercial waymarks with a click of the mouse. I wish geocaching had a similar feature.

Link to comment

A quote by Jeremy from the Waymarking forums from long ago.

 

"Posted 09 September 2005 - 12:18 PM

 

If I say the word "bounties" - what do you think you could do with that idea?

 

Jeremy Irish"

 

From this thread (from long ago).

 

What happened to this idea? Wasn't this supposed to sort of compensate for the lack of smilies in Waymarking?

I don't remember that idea. Interesting. My guess would be that it made it too competitive. As uncompetitive as geocaching is (in essence -- obviously some people play their own competitive games with it), Waymarking is even less competitive.

 

Personally, I find the icons in Waymarking far more gratifying than smilies. I suspect many people who say the lack of smilies is the issue aren't savvy to the Waymarking category grid.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

 

This thread has inspired me though, maybe I'll go over there and see what they have to offer again. Last time I checked the closest one to me was indeed a fast food place :/

We have caches at dumb places in Austin, but often our LPCs and stuff actually are in the lots of cool places.

 

I encourage you to go look. From your first placed cache the closest waymark is indeed a fast food place... but alas that is the only fast food place waymark for 44 miles :)

My first placed cache is not really in my neighborhood at all, but the closest one to me is indeed fast food.

All of the ones I saw were places I'm already aware of, so I didn't feel compelled to visit them, BUT I do think I'll use it as a handy tool when out of town.

Link to comment

Saying that Waymarking is a failure is silly.

If you see a product offered to a very specific customer base, and those customers vote with their feet, expressing discontent in the product, that product has failed. Insisting that it is not a failure, despite the evidence in front of you, is silly. It really doesn't matter if you view Waymarking as a failed replacement for virtuals, or if you view it as an entirely different experience. The fact that the customers, for the most part, don't like it, means, in a business sense, it's a failure. You could insist that the McDonald's Salad Shakers were not a failure, because there were a few folks who liked them, but that would also be silly.

I posted that I agree that Waymarking fails as a replacement for virtual caches and that, perhaps, is the reason that Jeremy talks about bringing back some sort of new virtual caches on Geocaching.com. I personally believe there are ways to use Waymarking to provide an experience closer to virtuals, but will admit that you can't make them 100% of what those who want virtuals back want.

 

You need to accept that Waymarking is more than just a substitute for virtual caches. It is precisely the flexibility to support many different uses, that makes it seem overly complex and hard to use. Perhaps it would have been better for Groundspeak to create many separated websites to appeal to different users that exposed only subsets of Waymarking.

 

Geocachers are so self-centered. It's always about me. Even when discussing physical geocaches it's to complain about the caches they find lame; "Why aren't all the caches the ones I like?" So it doesn't surprise me that you think Waymarking was created specifically for you. When I drew the Venn diagrams I thought nobody really thinks Waymarking is a proper subset of Geocaching:

geowmvenn2.jpg

But this discussion really shows that is how some people are viewing it. They want Groundspeak to change the Waymarking site to make it into Geocaching II. They ignore the many people who are using Waymarking in a totally different way. While I'm not sure that Groundspeak has a good business model for turning this into another revenue source like Geocaching; if they do and put the effort into it, I'm confident that it would be as sucessful.

 

As far as Salad Shakers, of course putting a salad in a cup is going to fail. And I suppose this is apt analogy if you think of it as putting a virtual cache in a waymark wrapper. While I personally believe that you can: not all waymarks are virtual caches but you can make specific categories like Best Kept Secrets that are resonably similar, I understand that for those who like their virtual caches served to them in a geocache wrapper, my solution may seem as odd as eating a salad out of a cup.

Link to comment
You need to accept that Waymarking is more than just a substitute for virtual caches.

I don't see Waymarking as a substitute for virtuals. I mentioned that because that is a common theme whenever the topic comes up. I suspect that past Groundspeak promotions for Waymarking led to that belief. I probably should have bolded the part in my last post where I stated "It really doesn't matter if you view Waymarking as a failed replacement for virtuals, or if you view it as an entirely different experience." By that, I meant that, regardless of how you view Waymarks, they are a failure. The customer tried them on, found they didn't fit, weren't fashionable, and chafed around the waistline. When the customer says "No" to a product, basic economics say that product is a failure. Having a few customers clamoring for the return of Salad Shakers doesn't mean that McDonald's should bring them back.

Edited by Clan Riffster
Link to comment
You need to accept that Waymarking is more than just a substitute for virtual caches.

I don't see Waymarking as a substitute for virtuals. I mentioned that because that is a common theme whenever the topic comes up. I suspect that past Groundspeak promotions for Waymarking led to that belief. I probably should have bolded the part in my last post where I stated "It really doesn't matter if you view Waymarking as a failed replacement for virtuals, or if you view it as an entirely different experience." By that, I meant that, regardless of how you view Waymarks, they are a failure. The customer tried them on, found they didn't fit, weren't fashionable, and chafed around the waistline. When the customer says "No" to a product, basic economics say that product is a failure. Having a few customers clamoring for the return of Salad Shakers doesn't mean that McDonald's should bring them back.

I think the fact that Groundspeak continues to support and improve the site suggests otherwise.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

I think the fact that Groundspeak continues to support and improve the site suggests otherwise.

Then I would argue that you don't really comprehend business. In a business environment, the only thing that can determine if a product is a failure is the customer. No matter how much support or updating a product gets, if the customer refuses to use it, that product is a failure, for now. If Groundspeak makes enough changes that the customer finally embraces the product, then we could call Waymarking a success.

 

A small percentage of customers, really loving a product, does not make that product a success.

 

Hence, the Salad Shaker reference.

Link to comment

I think the fact that Groundspeak continues to support and improve the site suggests otherwise.

Then I would argue that you don't really comprehend business. In a business environment, the only thing that can determine if a product is a failure is the customer. No matter how much support or updating a product gets, if the customer refuses to use it, that product is a failure, for now. If Groundspeak makes enough changes that the customer finally embraces the product, then we could call Waymarking a success.

 

A small percentage of customers, really loving a product, does not make that product a success.

 

Hence, the Salad Shaker reference.

I disagree with your assertion that the site is a success only if a large percentage of geocachers start using it. Especially since I haven't seen the numbers. Where can I find them?

 

If McDonald's introduced the Salad Shaker by targeting it at seniors, and seniors hated it but teens went crazy for it, along with new customers who never liked their burgers, would it be a failure?

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment
You need to accept that Waymarking is more than just a substitute for virtual caches.

I don't see Waymarking as a substitute for virtuals. I mentioned that because that is a common theme whenever the topic comes up. I suspect that past Groundspeak promotions for Waymarking led to that belief. I probably should have bolded the part in my last post where I stated "It really doesn't matter if you view Waymarking as a failed replacement for virtuals, or if you view it as an entirely different experience." By that, I meant that, regardless of how you view Waymarks, they are a failure. The customer tried them on, found they didn't fit, weren't fashionable, and chafed around the waistline. When the customer says "No" to a product, basic economics say that product is a failure. Having a few customers clamoring for the return of Salad Shakers doesn't mean that McDonald's should bring them back.

Sorry I don't buy that. There are people who creating new waymarks everyday, there are new categories proposed and going through peer review, there are even more and more waymarks being visited, and there are waymarks showing up in more and more Google searches because waymarkers have documented and photographed many interesting locations.

Then there are the waymarkers like BruceS and Dinoprophet who respond to your mindless repetition of failure expressing not only their enjoyment of Waymarking but the fact they see many others taking it up as well. And not all of these waymarkers are geocachers or former geocachers. There are others who have found Waymarking from some other link and now participate because they like the idea of cataloging places they think are special in some way.

 

As I've said, I'm not sure that Groundspeak has a business model to make Waymarking into a revenue producer like geocaching. So perhaps you can argue that it is a failure from a business view. However, so far Groundpeak hasn't abadoned it entirely. While they do seem to spend more money and effort making tweeks to Geocaching.com, there have been recent changes in Waymarking too. I don't know what their long term strategy is, but I think it's far too soon to declare failure on their behalf.

Link to comment
I disagree with your assertion that the site is a success only if...

That's kewl. Business is a tough concept for some folks. Many have what is referred to as "Make A Wish Economics". The notion that, if they really, really like something, (like Salad Shakers or Waymarking), then others should really, really like it as well. As such, (in their mind), it's just bound to be a success, some day. These folks can often be found with their hands grasped in supplication, gazing skyward, with hope gleaming in their eyes. In some circles, faith like that is considered a positive thing.

 

There are people who creating new waymarks everyday

Yup. There are. I'm one of them. Well, not every day, but I do own several.

I'll likely own more Waymarks as I find locations/items that match catagories that interest me.

There are people creating new Navicaches on a regular basis as well.

I'm not sure I'd call Navicaching a success, but perhaps you would.

If so, it's all good. I can respect your opinion even though I disagree with it.

 

...your mindless repetition...

Wow. I didn't expect that from a person who claims to promote tolerance.

I'm sorry you feel that any opinion that doesn't comply with your's is mindless.

The mind is like a parachute. It works best when it is open.

 

So perhaps you can argue that it is a failure from a business view.

It's not really "my" argument, per say. It's basic Business 101.

If you invest a million dollars on a product, and see a five dollar return, it's a failure.

If you sell a product, and your target audience doesn't use it, it's a failure.

Link to comment
If you sell a product, and your target audience doesn't use it, it's a failure.

Your assumption seems to be that Groundspeak's target market for Waymarking is geocachers.

 

I don't believe this is the case. That may have been the plan back when Waymarking was being conceived or was first introduced, but I don't believe Groundspeak has been targeting geocachers for at least 4 years. Perhaps longer.

 

I simply see no evidence that Groundspeak has been trying to sell Waymarking to geocachers for quite some time. If anything, they seem to have made a deliberate effort to separate Waymarking from Geocaching. The only real overlap that I see between the two activities is the "Nearest Waymarks" links on geocaching pages, and "Nearest Geocaches" links on the Waymarking pages.

Link to comment
I disagree with your assertion that the site is a success only if...

That's kewl. Business is a tough concept for some folks. Many have what is referred to as "Make A Wish Economics". The notion that, if they really, really like something, (like Salad Shakers or Waymarking), then others should really, really like it as well. As such, (in their mind), it's just bound to be a success, some day. These folks can often be found with their hands grasped in supplication, gazing skyward, with hope gleaming in their eyes. In some circles, faith like that is considered a positive thing.

You are completely ignoring the fact that Waymarking has found an audience who enjoys it, even if that audience isn't who GS expected. That's the point the rest of my post made that you deliberately didn't quote -- I'm honestly surprised at you.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment
So perhaps you can argue that it is a failure from a business view.

It's not really "my" argument, per say. It's basic Business 101.

If you invest a million dollars on a product, and see a five dollar return, it's a failure.

If you sell a product, and your target audience doesn't use it, it's a failure.

I suspect there are many products that weren't adopted by their target audience yet became successful when other uses were discovered.

 

Since Groundspeak is a private company we don't know how much they invested in Waymarking and we don't know what plans they have to develop it as business. Sure their initial target included geocachers who wanted to share cool locations that they previously could do with virtual caches. We know that many geocachers found it not useful for one reason or another. We know that others actually found it a better way to share these locations and have become waymarkers.

 

We know that as far as Jeremy is concerned, virtuals are not coming back as they were in the past. He has accepted that Waymarking fails a substantial number of geocachers as substitute for virtual caches. He is about to try something else, which will no doubt not please everyone. Those that don't like it will declare it a failure, others may find it just what they were missing.

 

In the meantime they continue to tweek both the Geocaching site and the Waymarking site based on feedback from users.

Link to comment
Since Groundspeak is a private company we don't know how much they invested in Waymarking and we don't know what plans they have to develop it as business.

 

Can you get a GPX file of Waymarks from a query? How long has Waymarking.com been around?

 

That tells you how much Groundspeak is investing in it. Doesn't take a nuclear physicist to figure that it's not exactly a runaway success.

Link to comment
Since Groundspeak is a private company we don't know how much they invested in Waymarking and we don't know what plans they have to develop it as business.

 

Can you get a GPX file of Waymarks from a query? How long has Waymarking.com been around?

 

That tells you how much Groundspeak is investing in it. Doesn't take a nuclear physicist to figure that it's not exactly a runaway success.

It is clear that Geocaching is Groundspeak's primary revenue and that they spend more on Geocaching than on the other sites like Wherigo and Waymarking. However Jeremy and others have indicated that they are not abandoning the other sites. Just because one product that a company has is a lot more successful than its other products and they spend more to advertise and maintain/improve that product, doesn't mean the other products are failures. When a product is a failure, companies stop selling it altogether like Salad Shakers. (BTW, you can still get a Salad Shaker but it is only available in countries that have a Project A.P.E. cache :ph34r: )

 

The fact that Jeremy has announced some sort of virtuals coming back to Geocaching.com shows that Groundspeak does consider Waymarking a failure as a substitute for virtual caches. Certainly the lack of a PQ is one reason for this (but not the only one). But even a nuclear physicist should know that even when something fails one of it's initial stated goals, it could still be very useful for something else.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
Since Groundspeak is a private company we don't know how much they invested in Waymarking and we don't know what plans they have to develop it as business.

 

Can you get a GPX file of Waymarks from a query? How long has Waymarking.com been around?

 

That tells you how much Groundspeak is investing in it. Doesn't take a nuclear physicist to figure that it's not exactly a runaway success.

You can't get a Big Mac Value Meal with hash browns. Clearly the Big Mac is a failure.

 

No, Waymarking is not a "runaway success". Geocaching.com is GS's bread and butter. As successful websites go, I would imagine it's in the top 50 (if it's not, then I guess it's a failure). That doesn't mean their side projects with a smaller audience is a failure. Honestly, I dread the day when there's a rush of geocachers using it. It's better as a smaller, niche activity. It's too community-based, and too many cooks and all that.

 

How about a musical analogy: Was Wings a failure because they didn't have the Beatles' popularity? Or John Lennon's solo career? Audioslave? A Perfect Circle?

 

Edit to clarify a bit: I don't want to sound like I'm slamming geocachers. It's the power trail/spew/FTF race type thing that I feel wouldn't fit what Waymarking has evolved into. It would probably be best for everyone if people who don't like it continue not liking it. It's when people slam it or have misconceptions about how it works that waymarkers get defensive.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

I have brief moments when I think to myself, "I should give Waymarking another chance!"

 

I see where people are complaing about all the WMs being McDonalds and Wal-Marts and then I see BruceS pop in with a "hey it looks like the of the X number of WMs near you only one is a fast food joint". So I figured that I'd go over to wm.com and see what was near me.

 

Home page... where's the "all the waymarks nearest you" link? Profile tab? Nope. Locate waymarks link? Nope. New to Waymarking link? Nope. Quick Search list...? Nope. My Waymarks* link? Nope.

 

And, as has happened every other time, my attempt to re-visit Waymarking has resulted in an experiance of confoundedment and bewilderment.

 

 

*Shouldn't that be YOUR Waymarks, Groundspeak? I guess that theology didn't migrate past geocaching, huh?

Link to comment

I have brief moments when I think to myself, "I should give Waymarking another chance!"

 

I see where people are complaing about all the WMs being McDonalds and Wal-Marts and then I see BruceS pop in with a "hey it looks like the of the X number of WMs near you only one is a fast food joint". So I figured that I'd go over to wm.com and see what was near me.

 

Home page... where's the "all the waymarks nearest you" link? Profile tab? Nope. Locate waymarks link? Nope. New to Waymarking link? Nope. Quick Search list...? Nope. My Waymarks* link? Nope.

 

And, as has happened every other time, my attempt to re-visit Waymarking has resulted in an experiance of confoundedment and bewilderment.

 

 

*Shouldn't that be YOUR Waymarks, Groundspeak? I guess that theology didn't migrate past geocaching, huh?

 

Edit: Ah, I misread what you were saying.

 

Agreed, a Home search under quick links would be nice for those who want to do visits. I have my home search under a Saved Search (ooh, wouldn't that be nice to have on gc.com? Saved searches?), so it's not something I think of, but yes, it should be there.

 

Beyond that shortcut, is it really so complicated, though?

 

Ironically, I just went to compare to the geocaching search page....where'd the nice sidebar search fields go?

 

Oh, and I see they still haven't given gc.com full-text searching. Huh. Waymarking has that. You'd think that would be an easy change. Easier than PQs. :P

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

Here are some waymarks near me:

 

Subcategories: Government Services

Post Offices (120)

Education (116)

Firehouses (101)

City and Town Halls (53)

Police Stations (33)

Military Installations (16)

Courthouses (15)

Highway Rest Areas (12)

Tourist Information Centers - Visitor Centers (11)

Retired Prisons (10)

Hospitals (6)

Places for Recycling (4)

Capitol Buildings (1)

Diplomatic Missions (1)

Paramedic Stations (1)

Abandoned Air Force Radar Sites (1)

 

Can anyone explain WHY it would be part of an online game to go to most of these places and prove you were there? And you are supposed to through the trouble of taking a picture and upload it? How do you explain that to somebody who has never geocached? The meaning of the Waymarking game is closely associated with geocaching, but both sites are not compatible - as they are 2 separate games. Why would someone go around and visit all of these government services and get some credit for it? How do you explain that to someone. "We visited our local post office and schools today and got credit for it". Huh?

 

What it needs is a filter for uniqueness. Either by design, or by age. If there is nothing unique about the place, which can be found in a phone directory or an online page, why bother?

 

Business

Food and Drink (486), Stores/Retail (186), Wineries (34), Lodging (25), Factory Tours (11), Newspaper Headquarters (9), Television and Cable Broadcasting Stations (7), Coin Operated Self Service Car Washes (5), Pick-Your-Own Farms (5), Funeral Homes (4), Flea Markets (4), Farmers' Markets (4), Greenhouses and Nurseries (2), Named Farms and Ranches (2), Indoor Malls (2), View more Business subcategories...

 

Lets see, Factory tours and wineries seem like valid categories - fairly unique. But coin operated self service car washes??? I do visit them, but why on earth would I want to go and get some credit for it? And to prove it? How about a simple review? No, you need to prove it. How do you explain that to someone? Most people are confused at the meaning of the game with these common listings that can be found elsewhere with much more info listed.

 

If any of these places were unique by design or very old in some way, I would go. But how do you filter for that?

 

Historic markers (1311) Cool! But wait, they are only signs listed. Yea! I visited a sign?!?! Can I filter out the signs from the areas that actually have something there to see?

Link to comment

Can anyone explain WHY it would be part of an online game to go to most of these places and prove you were there? And you are supposed to through the trouble of taking a picture and upload it? How do you explain that to somebody who has never geocached? The meaning of the Waymarking game is closely associated with geocaching, but both sites are not compatible - as they are 2 separate games. Why would someone go around and visit all of these government services and get some credit for it? How do you explain that to someone. "We visited our local post office and schools today and got credit for it". Huh?

I don't know why you would want to. Apparently you wouldn't. I can only know why I want to, and why most waymarkers seem to.

 

It's a different game. Yes. I think we all agree. It's not geocaching. I"m really not sure why it comes up anymore.

 

Geocaching is hide-and-seek -- find a specific thing at a specific place. Waymarking is a scavenger hunt -- find one of these anywhere you can. Waymarking has the hide-and-seek aspect in Visits, but as is repeatedly noted, it isn't used much. People generally prefer the scavenger hunt aspect.

 

Waymarkers also in general enjoy the photography aspect. It's part of the game. That's why people do it -- they like the things the game involves. If you don't, cool, but why get a bee in your bonnet that someone else does?

 

And -- brace yourself -- most of the civilized world says the same things about geocaching. "What's the point? Why would I do that? You found a pill bottle hanging from a tree and got credit for it? Huh??"

 

What it needs is a filter for uniqueness. Either by design, or by age. If there is nothing unique about the place, which can be found in a phone directory or an online page, why bother?

Business

Food and Drink (486), Stores/Retail (186), Wineries (34), Lodging (25), Factory Tours (11), Newspaper Headquarters (9), Television and Cable Broadcasting Stations (7), Coin Operated Self Service Car Washes (5), Pick-Your-Own Farms (5), Funeral Homes (4), Flea Markets (4), Farmers' Markets (4), Greenhouses and Nurseries (2), Named Farms and Ranches (2), Indoor Malls (2), View more Business subcategories...

 

Lets see, Factory tours and wineries seem like valid categories - fairly unique. But coin operated self service car washes??? I do visit them, but why on earth would I want to go and get some credit for it? And to prove it? How about a simple review? No, you need to prove it. How do you explain that to someone? Most people are confused at the meaning of the game with these common listings that can be found elsewhere with much more info listed.

 

If any of these places were unique by design or very old in some way, I would go. But how do you filter for that?

 

I say the same about parking lot caches. At least with Waymarking, I can ignore them through the site's features.

 

Historic markers (1311) Cool! But wait, they are only signs listed. Yea! I visited a sign?!?! Can I filter out the signs from the areas that actually have something there to see?

If I did that, I would have no Virtual Cache finds. Oh, except for that one that was a broken golf cart in a ditch.

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment

You can't get a Big Mac Value Meal with hash browns. Clearly the Big Mac is a failure.

I love these faulty analogies. Here's the more accurate one:

 

At Wendy's you can order fries and get a bunch in a nice cardboard container. At McDonald's you have to order and carry out each fry individually. People prefer getting their fries from Wendy's rather than McDonald's. McDonald's selling system is a failure.

Link to comment

There are no waymarkers in my area who like the photography aspect of the game, or who enjoy visiting these places.

 

How can I say this? Brace yourself, it's because there are no waymarkers in my area. If you count the 2 or 3 people that list the waymarks, it really doesn't count. Ninety percent of the listed waymarks have no visits at all. Many are from 2006. Perhaps I could understand what way markers enjoy if there were any. There are only a few that list them. Visiting them? You have to be kidding me.

Link to comment
How can I say this? Brace yourself, it's because there are no waymarkers in my area. If you count the 2 or 3 people that list the waymarks, it really doesn't count. Ninety percent of the listed waymarks have no visits at all.

 

Why do you think you have to visit waymarks in order to be a waymarker?

Link to comment
How can I say this? Brace yourself, it's because there are no waymarkers in my area. If you count the 2 or 3 people that list the waymarks, it really doesn't count. Ninety percent of the listed waymarks have no visits at all.

 

Why do you think you have to visit waymarks in order to be a waymarker?

:D

Is that not the entire point of the game? Places to visit? Suppose you were new to geocaching, and you saw that there were hundreds nearby in mostly uninteresting places. But no records of any visits. Wouldn't that seem a little odd?

 

Is a master chef someone who cooks many dishes, and then let's them sit and rot away? Or perhaps he takes a picture of them before he tosses them. Does that make him a chef? :rolleyes:

Edited by 4wheelin_fool
Link to comment
How can I say this? Brace yourself, it's because there are no waymarkers in my area. If you count the 2 or 3 people that list the waymarks, it really doesn't count. Ninety percent of the listed waymarks have no visits at all.

 

Why do you think you have to visit waymarks in order to be a waymarker?

 

They should at least list some waymarks and if there are less than a handful you do that and like in my area most of them did it just to try out how the procedure works, then I guess that a statement of this form can be made. BTW: In his sentence the OP explained the situation in his area in more detail. I think that in this situation (provided that he described it correctly) the statement makes sense.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
Is that not the entire point of the game? Places to visit?

Not necessarily. What makes you think that?

 

Suppose you were new to geocaching, and you saw that there were hundreds nearby in mostly uninteresting places. But no records of any visits. Wouldn't that seem a little odd?

I already explained that difference in an earlier post, I guess you've forgotten it already. Geocaches are hidden so that they can be found, it's their only purpose. Waymarking doesn't have that aspect.

 

But all that aside: even if you only hide geocaches and never visit any, you're still a geocacher. Personally I feel that it's mostly/only the hiding that makes someone a geocacher, not the finding, but I understand that that's controversial.

Edited by dfx
Link to comment
Is that not the entire point of the game? Places to visit?

Not necessarily. What makes you think that?

 

Suppose you were new to geocaching, and you saw that there were hundreds nearby in mostly uninteresting places. But no records of any visits. Wouldn't that seem a little odd?

I already explained that difference in an earlier post, I guess you've forgotten it already. Geocaches are hidden so that they can be found, it's their only purpose. Waymarking doesn't have that aspect.

 

But all that aside: even if you only hide geocaches and never visit any, you're still a geocacher. Personally I feel that it's mostly/only the hiding that makes someone a geocacher, not the finding, but I understand that that's controversial.

 

Simply listing geocaches does not make one a geocacher. Perhaps in the strict definition it does, but if there were only people listing caches and not finding them there would be no game at all. What if nobody visited Dave Ulmers bucket? What if he then kept hiding more anyhow? Why are there no billboards in the middle of the desert, or on the moon? What if the TV broadcasters had 200 channels, but sold no TV sets? Would they evaluate the reason, or keep adding more? :huh:

Link to comment

I have brief moments when I think to myself, "I should give Waymarking another chance!"

 

I see where people are complaing about all the WMs being McDonalds and Wal-Marts and then I see BruceS pop in with a "hey it looks like the of the X number of WMs near you only one is a fast food joint". So I figured that I'd go over to wm.com and see what was near me.

 

Home page... where's the "all the waymarks nearest you" link? Profile tab? Nope. Locate waymarks link? Nope. New to Waymarking link? Nope. Quick Search list...? Nope. My Waymarks* link? Nope.

 

And, as has happened every other time, my attempt to re-visit Waymarking has resulted in an experiance of confoundedment and bewilderment.

 

 

*Shouldn't that be YOUR Waymarks, Groundspeak? I guess that theology didn't migrate past geocaching, huh?

 

Edit: Ah, I misread what you were saying.

 

Agreed, a Home search under quick links would be nice for those who want to do visits. I have my home search under a Saved Search (ooh, wouldn't that be nice to have on gc.com? Saved searches?), so it's not something I think of, but yes, it should be there.

 

Beyond that shortcut, is it really so complicated, though?

 

 

Y'all made me look... one person seems to think it's hard to find waymarks near him, another says it's easy.

 

Yeah, it's easy. Right there on the front page: Find waymarks <space for optional keywords> near <space for optional address or zip code>. Pretty simple.

 

So, what's near me? Among the 20 closest, there are:

8 historical markers

4 fire stations

1 water tower

1 reconstructed mill in a city park

1 nature trail in that same city park

1 grocery store

1 historical site that has 3 separate listings

1 kid's Eagle Scout project

 

Meh.

Link to comment
Simply listing geocaches does not make one a geocacher. Perhaps in the strict definition it does, but if there were only people listing caches and not finding them there would be no game at all. What if nobody visited Dave Ulmers bucket? What if he then kept hiding more anyhow? Why are there no billboards in the middle of the desert, or on the moon? What if the TV broadcasters had 200 channels, but sold no TV sets? Would they evaluate the reason, or keep adding more? :huh:

 

Sure, I'll repeat it again for you:

 

Of course do people go look for geocaches, because being found is their only purpose. Waymarks on the other hand are not listed with making people go there as their only purpose.

Link to comment
Simply listing geocaches does not make one a geocacher. Perhaps in the strict definition it does, but if there were only people listing caches and not finding them there would be no game at all. What if nobody visited Dave Ulmers bucket? What if he then kept hiding more anyhow? Why are there no billboards in the middle of the desert, or on the moon? What if the TV broadcasters had 200 channels, but sold no TV sets? Would they evaluate the reason, or keep adding more? :huh:

 

Sure, I'll repeat it again for you:

 

Of course do people go look for geocaches, because being found is their only purpose. Waymarks on the other hand are not listed with making people go there as their only purpose.

 

And that is exactly why the site is not popular.

Link to comment

You can't get a Big Mac Value Meal with hash browns. Clearly the Big Mac is a failure.

I love these faulty analogies. Here's the more accurate one:

 

At Wendy's you can order fries and get a bunch in a nice cardboard container. At McDonald's you have to order and carry out each fry individually. People prefer getting their fries from Wendy's rather than McDonald's. McDonald's selling system is a failure.

What? I don't get it.

 

Is that not the entire point of the game? Places to visit?

Not necessarily. What makes you think that?

 

Suppose you were new to geocaching, and you saw that there were hundreds nearby in mostly uninteresting places. But no records of any visits. Wouldn't that seem a little odd?

I already explained that difference in an earlier post, I guess you've forgotten it already. Geocaches are hidden so that they can be found, it's their only purpose. Waymarking doesn't have that aspect.

 

But all that aside: even if you only hide geocaches and never visit any, you're still a geocacher. Personally I feel that it's mostly/only the hiding that makes someone a geocacher, not the finding, but I understand that that's controversial.

 

Simply listing geocaches does not make one a geocacher. Perhaps in the strict definition it does, but if there were only people listing caches and not finding them there would be no game at all. What if nobody visited Dave Ulmers bucket? What if he then kept hiding more anyhow? Why are there no billboards in the middle of the desert, or on the moon? What if the TV broadcasters had 200 channels, but sold no TV sets? Would they evaluate the reason, or keep adding more? :huh:

I said in my post above, and dfx is trying to explain, the main point is the scavenger hunt. I log a post office because I find one that hasn't been logged. The photography is fun too. When I travel, I'll look at what waymarks are around that I might like to visit. But mainly, it's the hunt.

 

When people complain about the lack of waymarks near them, to me that says there are probably hundreds of things around them they could make waymarks for.

 

You're trying to make Waymarking too analogous to geocaching. It is exactly like locationless caches. Beyond that, there aren't a lot of similarities, and trying to make them like each other doesn't make much sense.

 

Well, there's this: both have made me a lot more aware of my surroundings. Where a cacher says, "Ooo, that would be a great hiding place!", a waymarker says, "Wow, I never noticed the architecture on that building before!"

Edited by Dinoprophet
Link to comment
How can I say this? Brace yourself, it's because there are no waymarkers in my area. If you count the 2 or 3 people that list the waymarks, it really doesn't count. Ninety percent of the listed waymarks have no visits at all.

 

Why do you think you have to visit waymarks in order to be a waymarker?

Because he sees the relationship of Waymarking and geocaching this way

geowmvenn2.jpg

The point of geocaching is to go to a set of coordinates and to find the cache hidden there. For a virtual cache you go to a set of coordinates and find something to prove you were there. For a web cam you go to a set of coordinates and get your picture taken to prove you were there. For an EarthCache you go to a set of coordinates and answer questions about earth science. If you view everything as a kind of geocache then the point is to go to the coordinates and do something that shows you were there.

 

Of course there are many other ways people use geolocated information beside just as a game of "go to the coordinates". Waymarking is simply a way to associate geographic coordinates with objects that fall into some category. How this information is used (and how it is collected in the first place) is not defined by Waymarking.com. It is defined by the way the Waymarking community wants to use the site and by the way the groups that manage individual categories define it for their group. For most categories, visiting the waymark is not the primary concern. Sure if you like to stop at historic markers you can record your visit. If you want to write up each of your visits to McDonalds you can do this as well. But the people who created these categories and those who list waymarks in them are probably more interested in having the list so the data can be used in other ways than in whether or not anyone visits.

Link to comment
And that is exactly why the site is not popular.

 

Possible. So what? You don't have to like every website there is, you know?

 

That's correct. But the topic always comes up about why Waymarking is not popular. It gets explained. The waymarkers disagree and go back to what they were doing. After awhile the topic comes up about why Waymarking is not popular. It gets explained. The waymarkers disagree and go back to what they were doing...

Link to comment
But the topic always comes up about why Waymarking is not popular. It gets explained. The waymarkers disagree and go back to what they were doing.

 

Who disagrees about what? I haven't seen that. It's an obvious fact that geocaching is more popular than Waymarking, there's nothing to disagree about. And I don't think there's much disagreement over the fact that the two are completely different things. If anything, it's the geocachers who disagree about that and think that Waymarking is supposed to be something like geocaching.

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...