Waymarking vs. Geocaching

[Dinoprophet]

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.

Exactly. I think more than getting visits logged, waymarkers hope the info they post is useful to people beyond the game. That's why there are categories like Smithsonian Art Inventory. And that's why spots can be marked in more than one category.

 

Waymarks list the number of views of that page, and I love to track those. A bump in that is as good as a visit log to me.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Dinoprophet

[4wheelin_fool]

The categories and lists hold a certain appeal to people who like to categorize and list things. The people who would actually like to visit these places disagree and find the site confusing. It's tough to explain it to the waymarkers, but perhaps the canned responses could be copy and pasted over and over to get through to the coalition of OCD waymarkers eventually..

[Dinoprophet]

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.

Well, I think 4WF is right that we waymarkers disagree with some of the perceptions of what Waymarking is meant to be, and we get vocal about it. The same would happen if a Leave No Trace site claimed geocaching was spoiling the outdoors.

 

He did, however, miss the part where these threads are almost always followed by a new recruit or two to Waymarking. I swear it's true.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Dinoprophet

[+dfx]

The categories and lists hold a certain appeal to people who like to categorize and list things. The people who would actually like to visit these places disagree and find the site confusing. It's tough to explain it to the waymarkers, but perhaps the canned responses could be copy and pasted over and over to get through to the coalition of OCD waymarkers eventually..

 

So what exactly are you trying to achieve here? You already found out that you didn't like it and you agreed that it's ok and you can just not use the site. Yet you continue to bash it and insult those who do like it. What's the point?

[Dinoprophet]

The categories and lists hold a certain appeal to people who like to categorize and list things. The people who would actually like to visit these places disagree and find the site confusing. It's tough to explain it to the waymarkers, but perhaps the canned responses could be copy and pasted over and over to get through to the coalition of OCD waymarkers eventually..

Well, that's at least semi-constructive, minus the swipe (I'm sure no geocachers are obsessed with clearing an area, or getting all combinations of difficulty/terrain, or collecting pathtags or sig items). Come over to the wm forums and post a topic, "I want to visit waymarks but the site fails in this way"

[4wheelin_fool]

The categories and lists hold a certain appeal to people who like to categorize and list things. The people who would actually like to visit these places disagree and find the site confusing. It's tough to explain it to the waymarkers, but perhaps the canned responses could be copy and pasted over and over to get through to the coalition of OCD waymarkers eventually..

Well, that's at least semi-constructive, minus the swipe (I'm sure no geocachers are obsessed with clearing an area, or getting all combinations of difficulty/terrain, or collecting pathtags or sig items). Come over to the wm forums and post a topic, "I want to visit waymarks but the site fails in this way"

 

Don't take it as a swipe, I just can spot OCD from a mile away unfortunately and am oversensitive to it from past experiences. I would go over there later, but now I'm at the gym just posting on an iPhone between sets to keep busy.

[Dinoprophet]

The categories and lists hold a certain appeal to people who like to categorize and list things. The people who would actually like to visit these places disagree and find the site confusing. It's tough to explain it to the waymarkers, but perhaps the canned responses could be copy and pasted over and over to get through to the coalition of OCD waymarkers eventually..

Well, that's at least semi-constructive, minus the swipe (I'm sure no geocachers are obsessed with clearing an area, or getting all combinations of difficulty/terrain, or collecting pathtags or sig items). Come over to the wm forums and post a topic, "I want to visit waymarks but the site fails in this way"

 

Don't take it as a swipe, I just can spot OCD from a mile away unfortunately and am oversensitive to it from past experiences. I would go over there later, but now I'm at the gym just posting on an iPhone between sets to keep busy.

Okay, okay. I won't take offense.

 

Hey, does that gym have a climbing wall?

[+Avernar]

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.

Fizzymagic was saying that one of the most requested features that many believe would make Waymarking more popular has yet to be implemented after all these years. That and other needed improvements that haven't been done is what makes Waymarking less than a success.

 

Your analogy didn't match what he was saying. You're analogy was that you couldn't get an odd combination of features that only a few people may want. My analogy is that people want waymarks and a more efficient way of getting them into their GPS. Here's another one:

 

You want to buy 500 burgers for a party. At Geocaching Burgers you can order them and carry them out in a box or even have them delivered. At Waymarking Burgers they will only sell you one burger and make you leave and come back to buy another. Guess which burger joint is going to be more popular.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Avernar

[Clan Riffster]

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

Not necessarily. What makes you think that?

This blurb, from the Waymarking website, seems to indicate that visiting is at least as much as part of the game as cataloging and marking.

"Waymarking.com provides tools for you to catalog, mark and visit interesting and useful locations around the world."

It's entirely possible that this statement might lead folks to believe that the Waymarks listed on the site were meant to be visited.

Unless the good folks at Waymarking have got it all wrong?

Maybe the site really is just for cataloging sites, and having others visit them later is not a part of the game?

 

What if nobody visited Dave Ulmers bucket? What if he then kept hiding more anyhow?

Assuming the hypothetical multiple bucket hiding dude created a website indicating that the buckets should be found, then a vocal minority would insist that the site was a success, and would call any assertion to the contrary "mindless".

[4wheelin_fool]

Reply to Dinoprophet:

 

No, it doesn't. There actually is a smaller one that I used to go to that does. I don't think it's open to the general public, though.

Edited June 30, 2011 by 4wheelin_fool

[Dinoprophet]

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.

Fizzymagic was saying that one of the most requested features that many believe would make Waymarking more popular has yet to be implemented after all these years. That and other needed improvements that haven't been done is what makes Waymarking less than a success.

 

Your analogy didn't match what he was saying. You're analogy was that you couldn't get an odd combination of features that only a few people may want. My analogy is that people want waymarks and a more efficient way of getting them into their GPS. Here's another one:

 

You want to buy 500 burgers for a party. At Geocaching Burgers you can order them and carry them out in a box or even have them delivered. At Waymarking Burgers they will only sell you one burger and make you leave and come back to buy another. Guess which burger joint is going to be more popular.

Ah, I see. No, what I was targeting was the implication that not offering a feature that is available under the other site means that site is a failure.

 

Waymarking.com has had a vastly superior text search for years. I wouldn't say that means GS isn't supporting geocaching.com

 

To go with your analogy, I would make it Waymarking Pizza, and wonder why you're trying to order burgers there.

 

Or more apt, I think: Geocaching Burgers has those cardboard trays to carry drinks. Waymarking Pizza, owned by the same company, for some reason doesn't.

 

On the other hand, Waymarking Pizza has a menu detailing every topping and ingredient, while Geocaching Burgers makes you choose from a pile of wrapped sandwiches. They're labelled "Beef" or "Chicken" or "Fish", but there's no way to know if you're getting tomato or lettuce or cheese.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Dinoprophet

[+Avernar]

Ah, I see. No, what I was targeting was the implication that not offering a feature that is available under the other site means that site is a failure.

I get what you're trying to say. One thing is that I and fizzymagic didn't say it was a failure, just not as successful as it could have been. What fizzymagic was saying is that if Groundspeak really wanted to make Waymarking more popular that just need to take a few of the good ideas from Geocaching and port them over.

 

Since we're tossing around analogies, here's another:

 

Burger place and Pizza place are owned buy the same parent company Rot Your Gut Foods. They both start cash only. The Burger place is slightly more popular so RYGF decides to make a few small improvements. The change the registers and let their customers pay by bank card. All of a sudden the burger place becomes hugely popular.

 

The customers who like pizza too (or pizza only) ask RYGF to change the registers in the pizza place so they can pay by bank card there. They say it will make the pizza place more popular and attract more customers. RYGF doesn't change the registers and the pizza place stagnates.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Avernar

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I did a search from my zipcode and found a few waymarks that I have visited, though not specifically to log the waymark. I went ahead and logged them and found that I had to log some twice as they are in different categories. This doesn't make any sense. Sure, the description of the waymark can be slightly different to fit different categories, but one description that covers them all is probably more than enough.

 

Also, several of the waymarks had "photo required" to visit. I know we discussed that a few pages back when someone said there were only a few that had such requirement, but this shows that there are more than that.

[+tozainamboku]

I have been of the opinion from the very start of Waymarking that most categories were not going to be visited like virtual caches. In fact most of the coordinate games categories are simple to find spot where your GPS displays an interesting number. I suppose someone may want to visit a spot someone else has found but don't really understand why.

 

Even ordinary categories like historic markers or burger joints didn't seem like anything to visit. Again someone might want to stop at every marker and log that online, and hothers might use Waymarking to let us know how many calories they ate for lunch, but why?

 

However, unlike most geocachers bemoaning that Groundspeak was grandfathering virtual caches, I saw an opportunity. Why not carve out a little piece of Waymarking to highlight places that you might want to visit as part of a game of "go to the coordinates and see what you find there" I created one category - Best Kept Secrets and hoped that others would follow.

 

Unfortunately, this category has failed (according to the Salad Shaker test). There are only 65 Best Kept Secret waymarks and they don't get visited all that much more often than other categories.

 

Why? Well waymarkers are confused by this category for one. Most submissions are turned down because the waymarkers fail to read and follow the instructions for posting a waymark in this category. Instead the are looking for a category for their waymark and find this as catch-all category to use when they can't find anything else. Or they are playing the game of listing the waymark in as many categories as possible and this is just one more category. On the other side, geocachers look a the Waymarking site and decide that it isn't for them. The categories they see aren't that interesting that they would want to visit, the user interface is confusing, and they can't get waymarks in their pocket queries. On top of this is the expectation that Waymarking is something like geocaching. When they discover it isn't they don't look any further to find the few categories that they might like.

 

I'm waiting to see what Jeremy has in mind. If there is a better solution for those looking for virtuals, it is very possible that I will abandon the Best Kept Secrets category to the waymarkers. If not, I will continue to argue that everyone has too narrow a definition of what Waymarking is. A narrow enough definition and anything can be called a failure. (My definition of a salad probably wouldn't include a cup of lettuce).

[Dinoprophet]

Ah, I see. No, what I was targeting was the implication that not offering a feature that is available under the other site means that site is a failure.

I get what you're trying to say. One thing is that I and fizzymagic didn't say it was a failure, just not as successful as it could have been. What fizzymagic was saying is that if Groundspeak really wanted to make Waymarking more popular that just need to take a few of the good ideas from Geocaching and port them over.

 

Since we're tossing around analogies, here's another:

 

Burger place and Pizza place are owned buy the same parent company Rot Your Gut Foods. They both start cash only. The Burger place is slightly more popular so RYGF decides to make a few small improvements. The change the registers and let their customers pay by bank card. All of a sudden the burger place becomes hugely popular.

 

The customers who like pizza too (or pizza only) ask RYGF to change the registers in the pizza place so they can pay by bank card there. They say it will make the pizza place more popular and attract more customers. RYGF doesn't change the registers and the pizza place stagnates.

That makes sense. Pocket Queries are a fairly common topic in the wm forums. I don't know if it would increase people making waymarks, but I think it would greatly increase visits.

[+Avernar]

That makes sense. Pocket Queries are a fairly common topic in the wm forums. I don't know if it would increase people making waymarks, but I think it would greatly increase visits.

Actually, it probably would increase people making waymarks. One of the reason my friend and I don't list that many new waymarks is we don't want to go through all the trouble of grabbing pictures and information only to find out there's already a waymark there. Pocket queries would help and an iPhone app would be perfect.

[+dfx]

This blurb, from the Waymarking website, seems to indicate that visiting is at least as much as part of the game as cataloging and marking.

"Waymarking.com provides tools for you to catalog, mark and visit interesting and useful locations around the world."

It's entirely possible that this statement might lead folks to believe that the Waymarks listed on the site were meant to be visited.

 

You misinterpret that. It means that the sites can be visited if you want to, which is entirely true. It also means that some of them might be of interest to you, which is also true. It doesn't mean that whoever posts them (or the website itself) suggests that you visit them, or that you're supposed to find them all interesting. Not at all. Visiting waymarks is definitely not the "entire point" of the "game" (which I think it isn't).

Edited June 30, 2011 by dfx

[Clan Riffster]

I created one category - Best Kept Secrets and hoped that others would follow.

Neat category! I know of a few locations that might fit that one. I also admire the mission statement for Wow Waymarkers. I recognize that my preferences are highly biased, as compared to the typical cacher/Waymarker, and I greatly appreciate those folks who hide caches/promote Waymarks that fit my quirky aesthetics. Thank you!

[Clan Riffster]

"Waymarking.com provides tools for you to catalog, mark and visit interesting and useful locations around the world."

 

You misinterpret that.

I doubt that very much. Perhaps you should read what I typed again?

The way I interpret that statement is, according to the folks who created the site, cataloging, marking and visiting all have equal value, since none of those three are stressed more, or less, than the others. That's why I specified that, from what I'm reading, visiting is at least as much as part of the game as cataloging and marking. I don't see visiting locations that others have marked as the only point, or even the primary point. I see it as just one of several aspects. But that wasn't really the issue I addressed in my post, was it? I was replying to your question, which asked why folks might see the main point of Waymarking as visiting interesting spots. I pointed out, rather clearly I thought, that some folks might read that blurb and arrive at the conclusion that visiting was important. At least as important as cataloging and marking.

 

From my perspective it is the Waymarkers themselves who have decided that cataloging and marking have way more value than visiting. In the early days of the site, I expected this, as folks who were interested in what the site offered created a starting database that others could work with. The only thing that surprised me, was learning that years later, this is still the case. I would love to see ratio data from the early days of Waymarking, and from now, comparing how many Waymarks are created each week with how many are visited.

 

I can't say that this is a bad thing, as the players are playing the game the way they want to play it, however, the end result does appear, at least on the surface, to run contrary to the expectations of the site's creators.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Clan Riffster

[Dinoprophet]

"Waymarking.com provides tools for you to catalog, mark and visit interesting and useful locations around the world."

 

You misinterpret that.

I doubt that very much. Perhaps you should read what I typed again?

The way I interpret that statement is, according to the folks who created the site, cataloging, marking and visiting all have equal value, since none of those three are stressed more, or less, than the others. That's why I specified that, from what I'm reading, visiting is at least as much as part of the game as cataloging and marking. I don't see visiting locations that others have marked as the only point, or even the primary point. I see it as just one of several aspects. But that wasn't really the issue I addressed in my post, was it? I was replying to your question, which asked why folks might see the main point of Waymarking as visiting interesting spots. I pointed out, rather clearly I thought, that some folks might read that blurb and arrive at the conclusion that visiting was important. At least as important as cataloging and marking.

 

From my perspective it is the Waymarkers themselves who have decided that cataloging and marking have way more value than visiting. In the early days of the site, I expected this, as folks who were interested in what the site offered created a starting database that others could work with. The only thing that surprised me, was learning that years later, this is still the case. I would love to see ratio data from the early days of Waymarking, and from now, comparing how many Waymarks are created each week with how many are visited.

 

I can't say that this is a bad thing, as the players are playing the game the way they want to play it, however, the end result does appear, at least on the surface, to run contrary to the expectations of the site's creators.

They might have intended that, I don't know. I always thought that, first and foremost, it was a replacement for Locationless. Whether the customers followed or not, functionally it fulfills that purpose very well. The site is better than locationless were because the site is built for them. There was no way to search for "found" locationless, the category had to have arbitrary coordinates assigned to it, names were generally unhelpful. That's the game most waymarkers play today -- "post the coordinates and information for one of these" (see also: my sig).

Edited June 30, 2011 by Dinoprophet

[+dfx]

I doubt that very much. Perhaps you should read what I typed again?

I can read quite well, thank you. Statements like this is what gets people on my ignore list. Not that you would care about that of course.

 

I was replying to your question, which asked why folks might see the main point of Waymarking as visiting interesting spots. I pointed out, rather clearly I thought, that some folks might read that blurb and arrive at the conclusion that visiting was important. At least as important as cataloging and marking.

Exactly. "Main point" != "one of the points". I don't see the reason for arguing.

[+fizzymagic]

I always thought that, first and foremost, it was a replacement for Locationless.

 

If you'll go back and read the OP for this thread, you will see that it is a discussion of WM as a replacement for virtuals.

 

Waymarking may be a fine replacement for locationless caches, but unfortunately that is not the topic we are discussing.

[+Castle Mischief]

It doesn't mean that whoever posts them (or the website itself) suggests that you visit them, or that you're supposed to find them all interesting. Not at all. Visiting waymarks is definitely not the "entire point" of the "game" (which I think it isn't).

 

I'd agree that there does seem to be much more enthusiasm surrounding the creating of new listings vs the posting of logs that you have visted the Waymark.

 

I just did a search in my zip code. Realized that out of the first 40 locations I've either been there for some random reason, been there to find/hide a geocache, or would never ever visit the location beyond driving by it at a high rate of speed on the way to do something else.

 

Since visiting isn't the entire point of the game... I THINK I JUST WAYMARKED! HEY GUYS, I'M A WAYMARKER!!! WOOHOO!!!!!

[Dinoprophet]

I always thought that, first and foremost, it was a replacement for Locationless.

 

If you'll go back and read the OP for this thread, you will see that it is a discussion of WM as a replacement for virtuals.

 

Waymarking may be a fine replacement for locationless caches, but unfortunately that is not the topic we are discussing.

I just reread it. His question was:

If waymarks take you to special places and geocaches don't, why all the hatred towards waymarks?

He only mentioned virts as a way of explaining away one theory (site design).

 

Also, the subject is "Waymarking vs. Geocaching", not "Waymarking vs. Virtuals".

 

And as the conversation has turned toward whether Waymarking.com has met its intent, determining what that intent was seems apropos.

Edited June 30, 2011 by Dinoprophet

[Dinoprophet]

Here is an old thread foreshadowing Waymarking, by the way. I don't offer it up as proof of anything or to bolster any argument. I just find it to be an interesting retrospective. Edited June 30, 2011 by Dinoprophet

[+tozainamboku]

Here is an old thread foreshadowing Waymarking, by the way. I don't offer it up as proof of anything or to bolster any argument. I just find it to be an interesting retrospective.

Three interesting points:

 

1. Jeremy used to decide the direction of geocaching by taking polls in the forum.

 

2. Jeremy was no better at estimating the time to implement something in the past that he is now.

 

3. I've often pointed out that when I started Geocaching there was already a moratorium on new Locationless caches. Well, it's true; that moratorium had been in place for two whole days.

[Stormcrow790]

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

 

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

 

Why?

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

[Dinoprophet]

Here is an old thread foreshadowing Waymarking, by the way. I don't offer it up as proof of anything or to bolster any argument. I just find it to be an interesting retrospective.

Three interesting points:

 

1. Jeremy used to decide the direction of geocaching by taking polls in the forum.

 

2. Jeremy was no better at estimating the time to implement something in the past that he is now.

 

3. I've often pointed out that when I started Geocaching there was already a moratorium on new Locationless caches. Well, it's true; that moratorium had been in place for two whole days.

Personally, I like that thread because I see my opinion of locationless was the same as it is now -- it was a cool concept that was too different from geocaching to be played here, and a separate site for it would be great. It took a few years before Waymarking got to where I thought it should be, but I've been using it happily for three years now.

[Clan Riffster]

Not that you would care about that

You may be right. When someone starts a discussion with me by questioning my reading comprehension skills, then objects when I question their's, I assume that we are communicating on two very different levels. Childish antics in Internet forums may be fun to watch, as an outsider, and must obviously appeal to your younger inner self, but they do little for me. By all means, if shoving your fingers in your ears, whilst singing "La la la la la" is your response when someone demonstrates that you have been mistaken about some minor point, please feel free to "ignore" me.

 

I don't see the reason for arguing.

I wasn't sure if we were arguing or not. Thanks for clearing that up for me. From my perspective, we were saying the same thing. Specifically, that visiting is one aspect of Waymarking. We did drift apart a bit when you mistook an opinion I posted as to why folks might feel that visiting Waymarks was a key factor in the game as me making a statement of fact, and you got a little snippy, but we are still saying essentially the same thing.

 

Probably, the only point we disagree on is if Waymarking is a failure.

 

But if you're going to "ignore" a dissenting opinion, I guess we won't have that discussion.

[Clan Riffster]

I always thought that, first and foremost, it was a replacement for Locationless. Whether the customers followed or not, functionally it fulfills that purpose very well. The site is better than locationless were because the site is built for them.

You may be right. While I understand the concept of locationless caches, they were before my time, so I never got to experience them first hand. The two certainly seem fairly analogous. The biggest difference I see, (not counting the whole finds count debate), is that players did not go visit locationless caches that had been marked by others. Take that out of the equation, and they are darn near identical.

 

I still view Waymarking as a failure, though I respect your beliefs to the contrary. It's entirely possible that my outlook has been tainted by entitlement, doused with disappointment. When Waymarking first took off, I had high hopes for it, as it was promoted. I became disappointed when these hopes didn't pan out. At the time, I recognized that I was a part of the problem, as I was a "hider", not a "finder", and if the site is supposed to be balanced, my own preferences were aiding in it's downfall. I wasn't being part of the solution. The visiting side of the game just didn't feel fun, to me.

 

I would like to see Groundspeak take steps to make folks more likely to embrace the visiting aspect of the game. In various past debates I've seen several suggestions geared toward that goal, and while I don't know if any of these would ultimately succeed, I do think that, in at least trying, The Lily Pad would show that they were listening to those of us who like the game, but would like it more if it were improved.

[+cache_test_dummies]

At the time, I recognized that I was a part of the problem, as I was a "hider", not a "finder", and if the site is supposed to be balanced, my own preferences were aiding in it's downfall. I wasn't being part of the solution. The visiting side of the game just didn't feel fun, to me.

The "hider" phenomena came as the result of an early emphasis by the site's creators on waymark creation (hiding) rather than waymrk visits (finding). From the beginning, waymarkers requested PQ-like features (in fact, many of us were surprised that the site was introduced without them). We were told that PQs would come later, after we had populated the database with waymarks.

 

So we populated the database with waymarks, but the PQs never came.

 

I would like to see Groundspeak take steps to make folks more likely to embrace the visiting aspect of the game. In various past debates I've seen several suggestions geared toward that goal, and while I don't know if any of these would ultimately succeed, I do think that, in at least trying, The Lily Pad would show that they were listening to those of us who like the game, but would like it more if it were improved.

 

By late 2007 it was pretty clear that the "visit" aspect of Waymarking wasn't going to happen as long as Waymarking remained in its present form. I was a proponent of the concept of a "challenge" model being added to Waymarking. Inspired by toz's work on the Best Kept Secrets category, and following on some basic ideas suggested by others, I tried to garner support for the addition of a new type of Waymarking visit: the "challenge met" visit. The idea was that for certain categories, waymark creators would have the option of adding a "challenge" aspect. People finding some specific information while at the waymark location could log a "challenge met" rather than a "visit" if they were able to provide the answer to the challenge question.

 

This type of feature, along with PQs, would have made the visit aspect of Waymarking similar to the Find aspect of Virtual caches.

 

But even at that time, the idea wasn't widely embraced by the Waymarking community. I think by 2007, Waymarking was solidly locked in the "hider" model, and visits were pretty much irrelevant.

 

Groundspeak never added PQs to Waymarking, although they did introduce a "Scavenger Hunt" feature last fall, presumably to encourage visits to waymarks. As far as I can tell, this feature is not widely used.

[+tozainamboku]

Groundspeak did add the waymark scavenger hunt as an attempt to get people to visit waymarks. It works something like a challenge cache. The systems generates a list of waymarks from catagories selected by the scavenger hunt creator within a specified distance from a set of coordinates. Waymarker who visit the way waymarks on the list get a badge or something on their waymark page. So far this is about as popular as Salad Shakers.

 

The problem is that early adopters of Waymarking were more interested in building lists. The categories often did not have visit requirements or if they did it was to post a picture. Visits miss almost any game dynamics like they have with geocaching. Instead if some is interested in a category they may visit the location just for the sake of visiting and they may or may not have any interest in logging this visit online.

 

I believe this is one reason that generic Waymarking categories do not server the purpose of virtual caches. Someone who want to share a "wow" location with other geocachers that had something you could find using your GPS and some way to verify your visit would have trouble making the generic Waymarking categories work. That was the reason I created the Best Kept Secrets category.

[+defamily]

I have a similar opinion to most posts.

 

1)The website makes me cringe

2)There's no smiley (I am by no means a numbers cacher but enjoy being able to count a smiley and award favourite points!!!)

3)Waymarks aren't really creative- I enjoy hiding and finding fake drains, sprinklers etc.

4)Waymarks are usually (at least around me) based on boring places I already know and are usually boring.

 

That's just my opinion

 

Defamily

[+tozainamboku]

I have a similar opinion to most posts.

 

1)The website makes me cringe

The website is different than Geocachings.com. If you go there expecting geocaching your going to find it confusing. Some people actually find the Waymarking site fairly well laid out for its purpose. In any case it iscertainly is better than Healthcare.gov

 

3)Waymarks aren't really creative- I enjoy hiding and finding fake drains, sprinklers etc.

It might make others cringe that you find fake drains, sprinklers, etc. creative. Some people believe this caches are in violation of the guideline on digging/making holes. Others simply believe they are a bad idea because they encourage cachers to mess with real drains, sprinklers, etc. Some people claim to have seen evidence of geocachers damaging property in their search becuase they are looking for fake drains, sprinklers, etc.

 

4)Waymarks are usually (at least around me) based on boring places I already know and are usually boring.

There are boring Waymarking categories and Waymarking categories that some people find very interesting. The key is to learn to ignore most waymarks and just view the categories you find inteteresting and worth visiting.

 

That said, managing a category that has some kind of "wow" requirment, such as Best Kept Secrets, shows just how hard it is to define an "interesting and worthwhile" guideline. It's much easier to create a Waymarking category that has a objective definition that end up being just catalogs of the mundane.

 

That's just my opinion

[cezanne]

That said, managing a category that has some kind of "wow" requirment, such as Best Kept Secrets, shows just how hard it is to define an "interesting and worthwhile" guideline. It's much easier to create a Waymarking category that has a objective definition that end up being just catalogs of the mundane.

 

I agree, but I think that's inherent in the Waymarking approach.

Somehow Waymarking invites imitation and assembling catalogs. For example, if in some area already an EC exists that teaches something about a certain volcanic feature, there is no chance that a further such caches will be published in the same area. Or when I want to hide a cache at a waterfall, I would select a very beautiful one and not just an arbitrary one where no cache existed before. Waymarking does not make any distinctions and even encourage catalogs that are as complete as possible.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Blackavar1]

I was just pondering Virtuals caches and that got me thinking about Waymarking. I went to the website to see if it could captivate even a second of my interest. It did not!

 

After some investigation I noticed that there were several Waymarks at Disneyland that have been unfound since they were listed at the end of last year. With over 10 million visitors per year that seemed impossible to me. Then I checked the Golden Gate Bridge and found a Waymark that has not been found since being listed at the beginning of June. With over 39 Million people that drive across the bridge every year I began to wonder...just who does like Waymarking? My homework was done. Waymarking can't possibly be interesting....at least to me. If you like Waymarking more power to you, but I would rather see Groundspeak do something more valuable with their time and resources. If these same Waymarks were virtuals they would get logged multiple times every day.