Statute of Limitations for Visits?

[Country_Wife]

So I've just realized that I have some digital photos of various local waymarks that go back a few years. Would it be okay to post them now as visits, with the original visit date on them, or should I visit & photograph them again? Maybe going back 1 year would be okay, but going back further might be pushing it?

[+Max and 99]

So I've just realized that I have some digital photos of various local waymarks that go back a few years. Would it be okay to post them now as visits, with the original visit date on them, or should I visit & photograph them again? Maybe going back 1 year would be okay, but going back further might be pushing it?

 

In my opinion, it all depends on the category. If I remember correctly some state that they prefer no vacation photos.

 

I think it's important to be as accurate as you can with the visit date (as you mentioned), and (even though I know you wouldn't do this) avoid logs like: "Visited this a long time ago" with no photo attached. I got a bunch of these logs: "I used to live in the area" with no photos. Ugh!

 

Just my thoughts on the subject.

 

I have only posted about a dozen vacation photos, mostly because it's too hard to find all those old pics.

[+fi67]

So I've just realized that I have some digital photos of various local waymarks that go back a few years. Would it be okay to post them now as visits, with the original visit date on them, or should I visit & photograph them again? Maybe going back 1 year would be okay, but going back further might be pushing it?

These are called "retro visits" and they are generally accepted. Another question that pops up once in a while: Can a visit date be even before the waymark creation date? Yes, as long as it is not before the location was established; you cannot visit a building before it was there, but the date the waymark was created is not relevant.

 

When you have a picture, you can log it. I personally have not done any retro visits without pictures yet, but I think they are fine, when you can provide a good story.

 

Some locations are easier than others, I am willing to believe someone has visited and still remembers Disneyland or the Eiffel Tower, but a visit to a benchmark or a manhole cover after 20 years is most probably a cheat.

[GT.US]

There aren't many waymarkers that would complain about a waymark visit that was more than "Thanks for the waymark". There are a couple categories that you could post a new waymark in without a GPS. I think one is drawing waymarks, so you find somthing already waymarked and draw a picture of it. Or cross-posting a current waymark into another category, use the originals coordinates.

 

I think also, there might be a smart phone app that would give you coordiantes. I use C:Geo for geocaching, and if I click the "add another stage" or somthing like that, it gives me the coordinates of where I am. I'm sure some other app has a less clunky way to do it.

[Country_Wife]

Thanks so much for the feedback, everyone! Sounds like a green light all around, then, as none of these are vacation photos; they are photos that I took in my city in the last 5 years or so. And if I want to submit a new waymark for any of them, well, to me that's just an excuse to go back with my (borrowed) GPS in hand :-)

[+Max and 99]

I agree with fi67 that some locations (like Disneyworld) are easier to write about many years later.

 

I personally don't mind retro visits at all, with approximate correct years. Just give me something, anything, other than "Used to live here". Pleeeeeease!

[+a1elec]

I agree with fi67 that some locations (like Disneyworld) are easier to write about many years later.

 

I personally don't mind retro visits at all, with approximate correct years. Just give me something, anything, other than "Used to live here". Pleeeeeease!

 

well those type of statements are at least a bit better than the geocaching one of "TFTC" you would think people would like to be more informative than that but alas there are so many lazy people and the use of smart-phones for geocaching and now Waymarking makes for the less informative and annoying comments.

 

I personally like to at least give an account of the location/cache in my log comment and sometimes end up writing an essay about an interesting happening or about a related thing that happened on the way.

 

As for previous visits it is better to accept them and allow these less interesting comments so long as they add a little after that original statment.

Edited May 23, 2012 by a1elec

[+Team Sieni]

A while back a Waymarker logged a visit on one of my waymarks dating back to his childhood. He'd just had some old photos of a school trip digitised. He emailed me first to check and I was happy to see the visit.

[+bpratt]

I love to see retro logs on my waymarks, they often add to the history of the location.

[vulture1957]

I posted a waymark for a "Defunct Amusement Park". It was torn down before I moved to town. They wanted photos of the park when it was running (understandable) and hopefully a picture of something that is there now that shows it was there before. So I had to pull a picture off the internet for the first photo. It would be very difficult to post some of these type of waymarks if we had to use our own photos exclusively. Now, I did take a photo myself of the area now, and post a writeup of what is left in the area. But there has to be some leeway for posting some of these waymarks.

[+Max and 99]

I posted a waymark for a "Defunct Amusement Park". It was torn down before I moved to town. They wanted photos of the park when it was running (understandable) and hopefully a picture of something that is there now that shows it was there before. So I had to pull a picture off the internet for the first photo. It would be very difficult to post some of these type of waymarks if we had to use our own photos exclusively. Now, I did take a photo myself of the area now, and post a writeup of what is left in the area. But there has to be some leeway for posting some of these waymarks.

 

The category you referenced specifically states that Internet Photos are acceptable for the "Old" photo of the amusement park. Other categories need old photos as well: "Photos Then and Now", and "Picture Perfect Postcards".

 

But.... I think there are categories that specifically state they do not want old vacation photos. I know a fairly new category that was heading in that direction when it was created, but it was changed to allow old photos.

 

Each category is different.

[+fi67]

Each category has different requirements that you can find in the instructions. But we should neither mix posting and visiting. While retro visits with old pictures are fine in most categories, posting old holiday memories are not a good idea, because it is quite clear that you have not personally obtained the correct coordinates with your GPSr back then.

 

If I remember correctly, the category mentioned by Max and 99 did not discourage old vacation pictures because of the age but of the style, they did not want to see smiling people with beachware in front of war memorials or something like this.

[+Max and 99]

 

If I remember correctly, the category mentioned by Max and 99 did not discourage old vacation pictures because of the age but of the style, they did not want to see smiling people with beachware in front of war memorials or something like this.

 

No, it wasn't war memorials that I was referring to. But that category DID have a logical reason for discouraging old photos. That I understand!

[+Chasing Blue Sky]

If I remember correctly, the category mentioned by Max and 99 did not discourage old vacation pictures because of the age but of the style, they did not want to see smiling people with beachware in front of war memorials or something like this.

 

I like this quote. For a while I've been wondering what exactly "vacation photos" meant in the context of Waymarking. Hey, any time I leave my home area, it's a pretty good bet that every picture I take is during a "vacation". I suspected that pictures of the family in front of the "fill in the site" is what was being referenced, but I hadn't known for sure. Now I know. Thanks!