Geocaching vs. beanchmarking

[+Pinehurst]

In the past 30 days, their have been 1928.630844314299365544168 times as many geocaching logs as benchmark logs. What is wrong with bench marking?

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

In the past 30 days, their have been 1928.630844314299365544168 times as many geocaching logs as benchmark logs. What is wrong with bench marking?

 

It takes more intelligence to be able to log benchmarks!

 

John

[+SwineFlew]

Because u dont get any brownie points for finding them.

[+Too Tall John]

Not sure where you get your Benchmarking numbers, but the Benchmark Hunting Page only gives stats for the last 7 days. There have been 686 found, according to that page. A daily average of 98 benchmarks.

 

According to the Front Page of GC.com: In the last 30 days, there have been 5,645,378 new logs submitted. A daily average of 188,179 caches.

 

If you figure it that way, I get a number similar to yours, though. 1920 times more caches than BMs. Is there a place to get a 30 day BM total, or for that matter, a 7 day cache log total?

 

As far as why? A few reasons come to mind:

• Look at the size of the databases. There are 736,425 listed benchmarks. This includes benchmarks that are no longer there. There are 1,430,608 active geocaches. If we were able to eliminate the number of missing/destroyed BMs, there'd be more than twice as many caches!
• Convenience. I can think of a few benchmarks that are "Park and Grab" type, but most involve more strenuous terrain, at least around me.
• The link to BM's is hidden waaaay down at the bottom of the front page now. Find it? Good. Even being told it was there, it took me a second glance to locate it.
• This is Geocaching.com we're talking about. People sign up for an account to find geocaches. For some, BMs are a fun side game, but for others, it has very little with what they want to do on the site.

[Pup Patrol]

Geocaching vs. beanchmarking

 

Whahahaha...I read the thread title as "beanmarking".

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

I quite like benchmarking. I have an escalating disability that has pretty much robbed me of being able to do long walks and rough terrain, otherwise I would find a lot more.

[+wimseyguy]

I thought he was looking for a Waymarking category that had benches on beaches.

[+Ambient_Skater]

Whahahaha...I read the thread title as "beanmarking".

I read it as "beachmarking".

[4wheelin_fool]

In the past 30 days, their have been 1928.630844314299365544168 times as many geocaching logs as benchmark logs. What is wrong with bench marking?

 

Why???

[cezanne]

Not sure where you get your Benchmarking numbers, but the Benchmark Hunting Page only gives stats for the last 7 days. There have been 686 found, according to that page. A daily average of 98 benchmarks.

 

According to the Front Page of GC.com: In the last 30 days, there have been 5,645,378 new logs submitted. A daily average of 188,179 caches.

 

If you figure it that way, I get a number similar to yours, though. 1920 times more caches than BMs. Is there a place to get a 30 day BM total, or for that matter, a 7 day cache log total?

 

As far as why?

 

What about the reason that benchmarks only exist in a small part of the world?

You would need to count only cache logs in countries where benchmarks exist.

Some of the countries with the most active geocaching scenes do not have benchmarks.

 

Cezanne

[+Doctroid]

Because u dont get any brownie points for finding them.

 

I concern myself with numbers little enough that this isn't really relevant to me — but the discussion over in the Geocaching vs. Waymarking thread indicates there are a lot of people who'd me more interested in Waymarking if they got smileys for it. If Groundspeak wanted to promote benchmarking they could recognize them as the one form of virtual cache currently permitted and give smiley credits for benchmarks. I'm guessing that would make a big uptick in the benchmarking numbers.

 

On the other hand, if Groundspeak wanted to promote benchmarking, they wouldn't relegate it to the smallest, most un-findable corner of their user interface, would they?

[AZcachemeister]

In the past 30 days, their have been 1928.630844314299365544168 times as many geocaching logs as benchmark logs. What is wrong with bench marking?

 

I don't think this subject is in this weeks rotation, perhaps it can be included as a wildcard?

 

Anyway:

The biggest thing that is wrong with benchmarking is that the marks in the database are only in the United States (and some selected territories).

This leaves out something like 90% of the world.

Most other countries do have comparable geodetic systems, but Groundspeak chooses not to add their marks to the Geocaching database. Groundspeak also chooses not to update the U.S. database even.

 

In rough figures, probably 65% of the listed benchmarks have 'less than accurate' co-ordinates, which requires a person looking for it to actually read AND UNDERSTAND the description. This is not always as easy as it may seem.

Add to that the fact that many benchmarks have been visited fairly infrequently, and are often in difficult to get to locations.

 

Benchmark Hunting is not for everyone...just in the same sense that not every cache is for everyone.

[+dfx]

There's quite a magor difference between geocaching and beanchmarking. Hard to compare the two really.

[4wheelin_fool]

There's quite a magor difference between geocaching and beanchmarking. Hard to compare the two really.

 

Quite similar as the difference between Spongebob squarepants, and Spongebob Squaresocks.

[+Pinehurst]

Not sure where you get your Benchmarking numbers, but the Benchmark Hunting Page only gives stats for the last 7 days. There have been 686 found, according to that page. A daily average of 98 benchmarks.

 

According to the Front Page of GC.com: In the last 30 days, there have been 5,645,378 new logs submitted. A daily average of 188,179 caches.

 

If you figure it that way, I get a number similar to yours, though. 1920 times more caches than BMs. Is there a place to get a 30 day BM total, or for that matter, a 7 day cache log total?

 

As far as why? A few reasons come to mind:

• Look at the size of the databases. There are 736,425 listed benchmarks. This includes benchmarks that are no longer there. There are 1,430,608 active geocaches. If we were able to eliminate the number of missing/destroyed BMs, there'd be more than twice as many caches!
• Convenience. I can think of a few benchmarks that are "Park and Grab" type, but most involve more strenuous terrain, at least around me.
• The link to BM's is hidden waaaay down at the bottom of the front page now. Find it? Good. Even being told it was there, it took me a second glance to locate it.
• This is Geocaching.com we're talking about. People sign up for an account to find geocaches. For some, BMs are a fun side game, but for others, it has very little with what they want to do on the site.

 

1. I translated it from 7 days to 30.

2. Yaa, I posted a suggestion for them to move the link: http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1972897-make-the-benchmarking-area-of-the-site-more-visibl

[+Pinehurst]

Geocaching vs. beanchmarking

 

Whahahaha...I read the thread title as "beanmarking".

 

Lol

[+Pinehurst]

I thought he was looking for a Waymarking category that had benches on beaches.

 

Huh?

[+Pinehurst]

In the past 30 days, their have been 1928.630844314299365544168 times as many geocaching logs as benchmark logs. What is wrong with bench marking?

 

Why???

 

I know.

[+Panther&Pine]

A more realistic look athe the numbers of logs would be to compare the number of active caches to logs on them in a set time frame, and look at the same time frame for the number of benchmarks to logs.

[+Pinehurst]

Not sure where you get your Benchmarking numbers, but the Benchmark Hunting Page only gives stats for the last 7 days. There have been 686 found, according to that page. A daily average of 98 benchmarks.

 

According to the Front Page of GC.com: In the last 30 days, there have been 5,645,378 new logs submitted. A daily average of 188,179 caches.

 

If you figure it that way, I get a number similar to yours, though. 1920 times more caches than BMs. Is there a place to get a 30 day BM total, or for that matter, a 7 day cache log total?

 

As far as why?

 

What about the reason that benchmarks only exist in a small part of the world?

You would need to count only cache logs in countries where benchmarks exist.

Some of the countries with the most active geocaching scenes do not have benchmarks.

 

Cezanne

 

What areas of the world are they active in?

[+Pinehurst]

Because u dont get any brownie points for finding them.

 

I concern myself with numbers little enough that this isn't really relevant to me — but the discussion over in the Geocaching vs. Waymarking thread indicates there are a lot of people who'd me more interested in Waymarking if they got smileys for it. If Groundspeak wanted to promote benchmarking they could recognize them as the one form of virtual cache currently permitted and give smiley credits for benchmarks. I'm guessing that would make a big uptick in the benchmarking numbers.

 

On the other hand, if Groundspeak wanted to promote benchmarking, they wouldn't relegate it to the smallest, most un-findable corner of their user interface, would they?

 

Good idea, you should post it on the feedback site, all my bug reports used up my votes.

[+Pinehurst]

There's quite a magor difference between geocaching and beanchmarking. Hard to compare the two really.

 

Quite similar as the difference between Spongebob squarepants, and Spongebob Squaresocks.

 

Who is "Spongebob Squaresocks"?

[+Pinehurst]

A more realistic look athe the numbers of logs would be to compare the number of active caches to logs on them in a set time frame, and look at the same time frame for the number of benchmarks to logs.

 

Good idea, but I don't have time for that.

[7rxc]

Since Benchmarking is sort of US oriented. Many use a subset of Waymarking for their benchmark hunting! You'd have to factor in those finds / listings as well.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+Doctroid]

[On the other hand, if Groundspeak wanted to promote benchmarking, they wouldn't relegate it to the smallest, most un-findable corner of their user interface, would they?

 

Good idea, you should post it on the feedback site, all my bug reports used up my votes.

 

Someone did that. It got 213 votes. Groundspeak said, "Naah, don't think we'll bother." http://feedback.geocaching.com/forums/75775-geocaching-com/suggestions/1580345-move-the-find-a-benchmark-back-to-left-side-of-m?ref=title

Edited June 26, 2011 by Doctroid

[+dfx]

What is wrong with bench marking?

 

There's no bacon flavored benchmarks, that's what.

[+GeoGeeBee]

In the past 30 days, their have been 1928.630844314299365544168 times as many geocaching logs as benchmark logs. What is wrong with bench marking?

Benchmark hunting, using the Geocaching.com website, is seriously broken and has been for a long time. The NGS maintains a database of benchmarks, but the GC.com benchmark database is a snapshot of the NGS database as it existed on a specific date in 2001.

 

So, people post benchmarks on GC.com as a way to meet icon challenges and such. People who decide they really like benchmarking don't generally log their finds here, because they are finding a lot of benchmarks that aren't in this database. And they aren't searching using this database because it contains a lot of benchmarks that don't exist any more.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Here is an interesting stat page.

 

For those of us who enjoy benchmarking, this says it all.

 

Shirley~

[+Doctroid]

Here is an interesting stat page.

 

For those of us who enjoy benchmarking, this says it all.

 

Shirley~

 

Sorry, but it doesn't say anything to me. What does it say to you?

 

Who are these 795 geocachers?

[+Doctroid]

People who decide they really like benchmarking don't generally log their finds here, because they are finding a lot of benchmarks that aren't in this database. And they aren't searching using this database because it contains a lot of benchmarks that don't exist any more.

 

Where are they logging them, and what database are they using?

[foxtrot_xray]

What is wrong with bench marking?

There's no bacon flavored benchmarks, that's what.

 

+1.

 

This is the ONLY reason I benchmark-hunt.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Here is an interesting stat page.

 

For those of us who enjoy benchmarking, this says it all.

 

Shirley~

 

Sorry, but it doesn't say anything to me. What does it say to you?

 

Who are these 795 geocachers?

 

That is a list of Geocachers who have found and logged benchmarks on Gc.com and/or the NGS.

 

The top finder on the list is AZcachemeister with over 4400 benchmark recoveries.

 

We've been sluffing off as we only have 1323 recoveries (on GC.com only).

 

That list says there are people out there that really enjoy searching for benchmarks. They sure beat LPCs and Micro on guardrails!

 

John

[+BruceS]

One thing that is left out of here is that the benchmarks listed on Geocaching.com is a static list several years old, thus a person who has found a few hundred benchmarks now has to travel longer and longer distances to find more. A person who has found a few thousand caches only has to wait a day and there are new caches to find in their home area.

[+GeoGeeBee]

People who decide they really like benchmarking don't generally log their finds here, because they are finding a lot of benchmarks that aren't in this database. And they aren't searching using this database because it contains a lot of benchmarks that don't exist any more.

 

Where are they logging them, and what database are they using?

 

There's a whole forum for benchmarking:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=10

 

They find them using the National Geodetic Survey database. They either log updates to that database, or don't log them at all if they aren't in the GC database.

[Bill93]

>In the past 30 days, their have been 1928.630844314299365544168 times as many geocaching logs as benchmark logs. What is wrong with bench marking?

 

I don't see that this says there is anything wrong.

 

Benchmarking is available for those who find it interesting. If not everyone finds it interesting, maybe because it doesn't run up a score or because it takes a different set of knowledge, so what?

 

And as that statistics page points out, there are a few hundred people in the US who take it seriously enough to do everything they can to be sure they are careful and right in identifying their finds, and post to the government site, where their information helps professionals choose the points on which to base important surveys. I wouldn't encourage people to log benchmarks if they aren't interested in taking the time to assure accuracy. There are hundreds of benchmarks that regularly get mis-identified in the Groundspeak logs because they are handy to some tourist spot and casual observers don't realize that they are not the ones in the data base.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Bill93

[+JL_HSTRE]

Since Benchmarking is sort of US oriented. Many use a subset of Waymarking for their benchmark hunting! You'd have to factor in those finds / listings as well.

 

Non-NGS Benchmarks is one of the best reasons to use Waymarking.

 

One thing that is left out of here is that the benchmarks listed on Geocaching.com is a static list several years old, thus a person who has found a few hundred benchmarks now has to travel longer and longer distances to find more. A person who has found a few thousand caches only has to wait a day and there are new caches to find in their home area.

 

Any chance the geocaching.com database will ever get updated?

[+Doctroid]

 

Who are these 795 geocachers?

 

That is a list of Geocachers who have found and logged benchmarks on Gc.com and/or the NGS.

 

 

Not all of them, though. I'm not listed.

[+Doctroid]

 

Non-NGS Benchmarks is one of the best reasons to use Waymarking.

 

 

And the hoops they make you jump through to log a benchmark is one of the best reasons not to as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure some people enjoy spending 20 minutes describing each benchmark in meticulous detail, and I'm happy someone's doing it, but I'm not much interested in logging much more than "I found it, here are my coords, here are a couple pictures, oh and maybe here's something I thought was interesting about the find" myself.

[+uxorious]

I don't look for benchmarks, and I haven't found any. If I got a smiley for them, and an icon, I still wouldn't look for them. (You could substitute Waymarking here, and it would be the same.)

 

I just ain't interested. Does that mean there is something wrong with me? Or maybe I'm OK, and those that look for them have a problem? No I just think different things interest different people.

 

I get awfully tired of seeing the opinion on the forums, that if some part of the game is a less popular it must be the lack of smilies.

 

I suspect that if they gave smilies for benchmarks and for Waymarking, the number of people finding them might go up a little, but I would be surprised if it was by much.

[+lamoracke]

I enjoy them. I would like them better if the newer ones were there, but obviously it was just a snapshot in time and they are not going to upload anymore. If I intentionally look for benchmarks, I find them and enjoy them. If I accidentally find one in the wild I realize that most likely only 20-25% of the time it will be one I can log on the site. I found 2 yesterday and one was loggable, one was not. Have not researched the 3rd one yet as it was not me who took the picture or info down.

 

I enjoy them, even if they are just tucked away in the corner, never fed, on the website

[+Manville Possum]

I enjoy benchmarks. I also use the Waymarking site to list ones that I find that are not already listed elsewhere. Just part of my GPS fun.

[AZcachemeister]

The top finder on the list is AZcachemeister with over 4400 ATTEMPTED benchmark recoveries.

 

John

 

Thanks John, but you have over-inflated my ego!

 

See above.

[+DragonsWest]

As I've cleared most of the local caches I've taken a renewed interest in Benchmarking and often combine the activities. Between the two I'll say this:

 

Geocaches are new, some are very good to find, others are exasperating (wet logs, crappy containers, coords from iphones, etc.) Geocaching has taken me many varied and interesting places. Sometimes geocaching has taken me to some truly ugly places where geocaches have no business being. Overall I have learned quite a lot while geocaching and consider it an enriching experience.

 

Benchmarks are older, some are very much older, over 100 years. The latest notes are often difficult to reconcile with present day surroundings. Sometimes they are in awful places or buried. While some are quite easy, others are genuine work, mental as well as physical, to locate. It is rewarding to find many of them. Benchmarks were placed for scientific reasons, which adds a bit to the Geek factor. Some are placed in spectacular locations and require careful planning to approach. Some are lost, awaiting someone to find them again, recover them with photos and coordinates. Some are on private lands or in restricted areas, so they will remain unfound by amateurs (unless permission is granted or the military base has an open house, etc.) There is a definite tie into history for many, as well.

 

Both are a hunt and a find, rewarding and challenging in their own ways. I would recommend serious Benchmarking only to those who really desire a challenge to recover something other than a film can or blinky and can put up with quite a few DNFs because they are destroyed or lost.

[+tec_64]

Canada is loaded with really neat benchmarks located is some really interesting places. Personally, I like a benchmark located where a bit of a hike/climb/bushwhack is involved. I live in an area in Ontario that is on the edge of a meteor crater and is the nickel mining capital of the world. The place is littered with benchmarks. As well, I like finding old forest ranger fire tower locations (=benchmark with altitude).

 

I geocache and enjoy it as well, but some of my best times were making to that old mark on top or that ridge.

 

tec_64

Sudbury, On

 

Look me up on Waymarking.com

Edited June 28, 2011 by tec_64

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Who are these 795 geocachers?

 

That is a list of Geocachers who have found and logged benchmarks on Gc.com and/or the NGS.

 

 

Not all of them, though. I'm not listed.

 

Holograph gets his data from the NGS database monthly, and updates his listing. If you do not log with the NGS and would like to have your data included in his listing, just PM him with your GC name so he can add your recoveries to the list.

 

John

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

The top finder on the list is AZcachemeister with over 4400 ATTEMPTED benchmark recoveries.

 

John

 

Thanks John, but you have over-inflated my ego!

 

See above.

 

You have over 4400 recoveries. A recovery does not need be a found it, It can be a not found/recovered due to several reasons, such as road names changed or the road rerouted, or it could be a destroyed benchmark, as in the road was widened into a 4 lane highway and the mark was plowed under.

 

John

[+dorqie]

There is a benchmark just off my front porch. I haven't logged it because it's not in the database. I haven't looked in to why that is. I plead ignorance on benchmarking. I haven't gotten in to it because I don't quite understand all aspects of it.

[knowschad]

In the past 30 days, their have been 1928.630844314299365544168 times as many geocaching logs as benchmark logs. What is wrong with bench marking?

 

Maybe you should start hiding some new benchmarks in your area so that your fellow benchmarkers will have some new ones to find.

[+DragonsWest]

There is a benchmark just off my front porch. I haven't logged it because it's not in the database. I haven't looked in to why that is. I plead ignorance on benchmarking. I haven't gotten in to it because I don't quite understand all aspects of it.

 

To some it's like a geocaching log, to others it's taking a couple photos and a measurement. I think NGS is happy to have confirmation a mark is still in place with some evidence (i.e. photo) Do keep in mind some people get them completely wrong and log finds on wrong benchmarks, destroyed/dismantled stations, etc, ("they all look alike", "it said it was 0.3 miles away, but this is the closest one I could find to coordinates", "it's destroyed/dismantled, but I still log a find") Unlike Geocaching, someone isn't likely to delete your "Find".

 

I reports 'em as I sees em (same's I do for caches, actually) If I find it in good shape I report so. If I find it in poor shape or removed I report so. I've reported one Destroyed, which people claim finds on (the water tank is gone the tower it was on is not the station.) I found a couple which have been struck by something large and heavy (it would have had to be) and moved. I've reported pictures of what I believe to have been part of the mounting, which is now destroyed. I've also found some darn tricky ones (a nail in Petaluma, frinstance) I usually back up my find with at least one photo, two if I can get a good setting or feel a setting is necessary, and coordinates if I can get some within reasonable accuracy, or much closer than the ones provided (some coordinates may be off by hundreds of feet.)

 

Lastly, some geocachers take a particular joy in coming up with Evil Hides .. these have nothing on locating some benchmarks (which may be under a couple of feet of dirt!) This one was one of those "where you might put yourself at risk of injury while seeking," It would also be a really neat place to hide a geocache with a higher terrain rating.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Non-NGS Benchmarks is one of the best reasons to use Waymarking.

 

And the hoops they make you jump through to log a benchmark is one of the best reasons not to as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure some people enjoy spending 20 minutes describing each benchmark in meticulous detail, and I'm happy someone's doing it, but I'm not much interested in logging much more than "I found it, here are my coords, here are a couple pictures, oh and maybe here's something I thought was interesting about the find" myself.

 

Some Waymarking categories definitely have hoops I find annoying (war memorials wanting photos where you can read every word AND the description to contain a transcription of the entire memorial as well annoyed me enough to caused me to temporarily stop Waymarking at all).

 

But the Benchmark category doesn't seem to be one of those. Here's a benchmark listing I got published:

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMB0NJ_Army_Corps_Of_Engineers_7A_Port_Mayaca_Florida

 

Here's one I visited a couple months ago; my log is the most recent:

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM8M1R_AQ1543_NPS_Reset

 

So don't through the benchmarking baby out with the Waymarking bathwater.