Better Your Waymarks with HTML Code

[+wildwoodke]

BT and I were exchanging notes on a little improvement done to one of my waymarks (thanks again by the way), but did you ever think about adding html code to your long descriptions? When you look at the best waymarks they usually do have html built in.

 

In the exchange we had, to improve on the suggestion, I went to an old geocache I had with a bunch of code and grabbed this which pops up a new browser window to hop over to the reference that keeps your waymark page open.

 

p>See: <a rel="nofollow" href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_was_so_much_owed_by_so_many_to_so_few' target="_blank">Wikipedia Link</a> </p>

 

If you put a < in front of the p in the above line it sets up a new paragraph....etc. See this waymark for how it works:

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMDTXJ_Sir_Winston_Churchill_Never_has_so_much_Legion_125_Memorial_Rochfort_Bridge_Alberta

 

Can anyone tell me if the geocaching html valid codes listed below are the same for Waymarking...we should use them more.

 

Thanks

 

wildwoodke

 

 

Valid HTML Tags:

Click the tag name to view allowed attributes.

• <!-- //-->

• +a

• +abbr

• +acronym

• +address

• +area

• +b

• +bdo

• +big

• +blink

• +blockquote

• +br

• +caption

• +center

• +cite

• +code

• +col

• +colgroup

• +dd

• +del

• +dfn

• +dir

• +div

• +dl

• +dt

• +em

• +fieldset

• +font

• +h1

• +h2

• +h3

• +h4

• +h5

• +h6

• +hr

• +i

• +img

• +ins

• +isindex

• +kbd

• +label

• +legend

• +li

• +map

• +marquee

• +menu

• +nobr

• +ol

• +p

• +pre

• +q

• +s

• +samp

• +small

• +span

• +strike

• +strong

• +sub

• +sup

• +table

• +tbody

• +td

• +tfoot

• +th

• +thead

• +tr

• +tt

• +u

• +ul

• +var

• +wbr

[+silverquill]

I have no idea.

 

But, once I discovered how HTML can be used to enhance a waymark, I started using it more often. Just simple things. Most often I use it to insert photos. Then the simple ones like fonts, centering, columns, etc. I finally found out how to use hyperlinks (anchors) so I'm doing that more often, frequently to link to other related waymarks. I also prefer this as the way to cite sources. Anything beyond that is too techie for me. I don't use an HTML editor, so I limit myself to things I can easily type into my description..

 

The thing I'd like to see more is photos inserted into long descriptions! Really adds a lot to a waymark.

[+Team Sieni]

I use:

 

P to separate paragraphs

BLOCKQUOTE for the text from plaques etc

OL and LI for Ordered (numbered) Lists (eg numbered list of web references)

UL and LI sometimes for bullet point lists

A for links.

 

That's about it. Maybe also

CENTER

I for Italics

STRONG for bold

 

So a typical waymark of mine (eg WMDGRX) would be:

 

<P>Blah blah, see reference[1], blah blah see reference[2]</P>

<P>The plaque reads:</P>

<BLOCKQUOTE>

Blah blah plaque text

</BLOCKQUOTE>

<P>References:</P>

<OL>

<LI> <A target="_blank" href="http://something"> Link 1</A> the first link blah blah </LI>

<LI> <A target="_blank" href="http://something/else"> Link 2</A> the second blah blah </LI>

</OL>

 

A note on "A" for links. There is (or used to be) a bug where links were not rendered properly by WM.com unless you included something before the href. In the example above I've said target="_blank" but I could have put cheese="tasty" or any nonsense to work around the bug. target="_blank" actually opens a new browser window, and is considered bad form by some web designers, so maybe I should choose something else instead. For more on this bug see this old thread I don't know if the bug has now been fixed.

 

I've never put pictures into a long description as suggested by silverquill. I may try it sometime.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Team Sieni

[+3l diesel]

i created an earthcache (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=3879651b-4ef7-4047-b1c3-4cda0e578e33) with the assistnace of http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMA8J3_1871_Congregational_Church_Parramatta. That waymarks ownwer helped immensely with the idea of "reverse engineering" the code atteched and using it to develop my earthcache. Maybe the results are too similar, but was happy with the outcome.

[+Ianatlarge]

To be frank, no. Words, not html.

[La de Boheme]

Yes, I use HTML in all my long descriptions -- very similar to how Team Sieni uses it. HTML can enhance and make a description look cleaner when quoting text from signs, plaques, etc. and including links or lists.

 

A note on "A" for links. There is (or used to be) a bug where links were not rendered properly by WM.com unless you included something before the href. In the example above I've said target="_blank" but I could have put cheese="tasty" or any nonsense to work around the bug. target="_blank" actually opens a new browser window, and is considered bad form by some web designers, so maybe I should choose something else instead. For more on this bug see this old thread I don't know if the bug has now been fixed.

 

I actually prefer a link to open in a new window/tab so I do not navigate away from the original page. In spite of what many web designers think, I frequently will right-click on a link anyway to open in a background tab. I don't know if the bug has ever been fixed, but I will continue to use the target="_blank"' because I had a whole lotta links to fix when that happened. That was a PITA! Better safe than sorry.

 

[+Queens Blessing]

The Geocaching.com website has this knowledgebook link for basic HTML. You may find it helpful. I like the examples, since I learn best by "seeing".

 

http://www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk/resources/htmlcodes.html

 

QB

[+thegorilla23]

Every time I have tried to use HTML on a waymark, it has been denied and I have been told to take the HTML out and use plain text. I don't put special effects on the words or anything ... simply tried to use a chart to list the required info. One that I remember, since it was a few days ago, is a Lucky 7. I made a chart to list the Department #, cat. name, WM#, and a thumbnail of waymark picture linked to the actual waymark page. It looked MUCH nicer than a typed out list, IMO, but it was denied. Oh well, back to boring regular listings for me!

[+Team Sieni]

Every time I have tried to use HTML on a waymark, it has been denied and I have been told to take the HTML out and use plain text. I don't put special effects on the words or anything ... simply tried to use a chart to list the required info. One that I remember, since it was a few days ago, is a Lucky 7. I made a chart to list the Department #, cat. name, WM#, and a thumbnail of waymark picture linked to the actual waymark page. It looked MUCH nicer than a typed out list, IMO, but it was denied. Oh well, back to boring regular listings for me!

That's odd, I had my lucky 7 "WMDE47 Lucky 12, Rotherhithe, London, UK" approved no problems and it's chock full of HTML

[+wildwoodke]

Okay....got a brain wave...(they do happen every now and then besides the usual brain fert)

 

See http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WME5AK_Big_Brothers_Big_Sisters_of_Calgary_and_Area_Calgary_Alberta once it is approved and the html code for the photos is like this:

 

img src="http://img.Groundspeak.com/Waymarking/77636d91-17ec-4270-81c8-d6aaf625d4e9.JPG" width="600" height="800"

 

with the usual brackets. You get the width and height when you look at the properties of the photo you uploaded. To see the whole kit and kaboodle right click in the page and view source.

 

 

KE

[+ToRo61]

I have question about an images inside long description...

the image must either be in the gallery this waymark or somewhere else outside www.Waymarking.com?

[+fi67]

I have question about an images inside long description...

the image must either be in the gallery this waymark or somewhere else outside www.Waymarking.com?

Technically, it does not matter where the image is stored. You just need to know the URL of the picture to use it in your HTML.

 

From a maintenance point of view it is always easier to have all resources close together, so the Waymarking gallery is the obvious location to put the pictures, but if you have a good reason do do it differently, it will work as well.

[+silverquill]

I have question about an images inside long description...

the image must either be in the gallery this waymark or somewhere else outside www.Waymarking.com?

Technically, it does not matter where the image is stored. You just need to know the URL of the picture to use it in your HTML.

 

From a maintenance point of view it is always easier to have all resources close together, so the Waymarking gallery is the obvious location to put the pictures, but if you have a good reason do do it differently, it will work as well.

 

There are several problems with linking to photos NOT on the Waymarking.com site.

 

1. There is a greater chance that the links will be broken as sites change or go off-line.

2. There is also a greater likelihood that links may be to copyrighted photos, or other photos that should not be used.

3. If the photo is NOT in the photo gallery of the waymark, then the waymark is incomplete. The gallery is an important part of the waymark itself. I specify in most of my categories that the photos MUSE be original, and placed in the photo gallery. Most categories either specify original photos, or at least assume that they will be.

 

If I am crossposting, the links may be to photos in another waymark, but I will ALSO put the photos in the gallery of each waymark. There may be a few exceptions, but I try to follow this practice so that each waymark is complete in itself. I think this is very important.

[+Rikitan]

I have question about an images inside long description...

the image must either be in the gallery this waymark or somewhere else outside www.Waymarking.com?

Technically, it does not matter where the image is stored. You just need to know the URL of the picture to use it in your HTML.

 

From a maintenance point of view it is always easier to have all resources close together, so the Waymarking gallery is the obvious location to put the pictures, but if you have a good reason do do it differently, it will work as well.

 

There are several problems with linking to photos NOT on the Waymarking.com site.

 

1. There is a greater chance that the links will be broken as sites change or go off-line.

2. There is also a greater likelihood that links may be to copyrighted photos, or other photos that should not be used.

3. If the photo is NOT in the photo gallery of the waymark, then the waymark is incomplete. The gallery is an important part of the waymark itself. I specify in most of my categories that the photos MUSE be original, and placed in the photo gallery. Most categories either specify original photos, or at least assume that they will be.

 

If I am crossposting, the links may be to photos in another waymark, but I will ALSO put the photos in the gallery of each waymark. There may be a few exceptions, but I try to follow this practice so that each waymark is complete in itself. I think this is very important.

Exactly.

[+Rikitan]

To be frank, no. Words, not html.

Frankly, words = raw food. Words delivered in good format = a well prepared and offered meal.

HTML can help a lot.

On the other hand .. why to worry too much for listing with 5 views in 5 years?