PATHETIC

[+GeoLobo]

Waymarking is pathetic!

 

I have been geocaching for some time now. I have found lots of great places to add to Waymarking. However, It look a long time to get one written up and submitted (unlike geocahing), and even longer to get it approved. Very pathetic.

 

I tried a second one. After a nice lengthy write up, two weeks later it got denied (YES, TWO WEEKS). Sent back to me to tell me wrong category. Instead of New Yourk Historical Markers, it should be in the National Registry. But they told me, "Nice write up!" . Instead of just changing the category and approving it, they denied it. So, I changed the correct category, but then lost all the info I added. I had no plans of reentering all the data again. I deleted it, then went and archived the first one.

 

I give up on Waymarking and going back to what I enjoy most (geocaching) and will keep all my Adirondack Gems to myself

 

GeoLobo

[+MountainWoods]

Too bad. On the one hand, it's too bad that you had a bad experience. On the other hand, it leaves more gems for other serious waymarkers to write up.

 

I have over 340 waymarks (since November 2012) and have only had 3 declined.

One was in the wrong category, so I quickly recategorized it.

One was a misunderstanding on my part as to what the category wanted.

One was just a try on my part to see if something was acceptible in a category, but my guess was wrong.

The other 340 have been approved with no back-and-forth arguing with reviewers.

 

There's no reason to expect the waymark approver to change your waymark to be acceptible. They have waaayyy too much to do reviewing them to have to bother doing other folks' homework for them. Maybe you consistently spelled New York wrong like you did in your post above and they got tired of it.

 

On the other hand, I went looking for 2 geocaches yesterday and found neither of them. No fun in that. (One is from a newbie who has found a whopping 5 geocaches and placed 2 of them -- both with coordinates so far off that they must have only been guessing from a paper map. The other GC that I DNFed had photos posted by other finders, but the container in their photos was not anywhere near GZ [any more?].) Both of them had me beating bushes to try to find their lousy containers. Wow. Great. "I hope they get rid of that soggy paper game." (Takes dollies and whines all the way home.)

Edited September 18, 2013 by MountainWoods

[+BruceS]

Waymarking is pathetic!

 

I have been geocaching for some time now. I have found lots of great places to add to Waymarking. However, It look a long time to get one written up and submitted (unlike geocahing), and even longer to get it approved. Very pathetic.

 

I tried a second one. After a nice lengthy write up, two weeks later it got denied (YES, TWO WEEKS). Sent back to me to tell me wrong category. Instead of New Yourk Historical Markers, it should be in the National Registry. But they told me, "Nice write up!" . Instead of just changing the category and approving it, they denied it. So, I changed the correct category, but then lost all the info I added. I had no plans of reentering all the data again. I deleted it, then went and archived the first one.

 

I give up on Waymarking and going back to what I enjoy most (geocaching) and will keep all my Adirondack Gems to myself

 

GeoLobo

 

When a person does not understand something it easy to blame others. The people that manage and approve New York historical markers can not change the category only you can. They are not the ones that review waymarks for the National Register either as it has different requirements. If your waymark was one that belonged in the National Register category it would have been reviewed probably within 24 hours as seldom do waymarks wait long in that category. Each category has its own group of fellow waymarkers that review the waymarks submitted to that category.

[+Chasing Blue Sky]

 

I tried a second one. After a nice lengthy write up, two weeks later it got denied (YES, TWO WEEKS).

 

Out of curiosity, I thought I'd take a look at his profile. At the risk of sounding nit picky, his latest geocache hide was: http://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC4M0YC_castle-rock-gem-cough .

 

It was hidden: 08/03/2013

 

It was published: 08/27/2013

 

While it was, in fact, published; didn't that over three weeks? Hmmm...

[+MountainWoods]

Good point. It may point even more to my Conspiracy Theory.

[+elyob]

It was hidden: 08/03/2013

 

It was published: 08/27/2013

 

While it was, in fact, published; didn't that over three weeks? Hmmm...

 

Cache may have been hidden long before it was submitted...just saying.

[+Chasing Blue Sky]

OK, I thought that was a bit ironic after complaining about the time it took to get a response from the reviewer. But that wasn't even the reason I went to his geocaching profile - it was just an interesting thing I noticed while I was there.

 

Comparing geocaching and Waymarking, in general, is like comparing apples and oranges. When specifically comparing write ups for submitting a geocache and write ups for submitting a waymark, it is like comparing apples and hamburgers. Let me explain.

 

The main reason I went to his profile was to see how much went into the write up of his geocaches. Because, in general, geocache write ups are quite brief for traditional caches, which is the largest category of geocache types. This certainly isn't an indictment of his geocaches. From my experience, most traditional caches write ups consist of not much more than, "Hey, I hung a micro in a pine tree! Come try to find it!" or, "Hey, I put a mint tin under a light pole cover! Come and find it!" OK, I'm exaggerating, of course, but not much. Really, the only geocache type that is similar to a waymark, is an EarthCache. With an EarthCache, you have to research your topic, take the time to write it up, format it, and include pictures - your attempting to educate, not just get them to show up. OK, some Unknown caches take effort to produce, but not always - they can vary quite a bit.

 

He's right, writing up a waymark, in general, does take more effort than writing up a geocache. For example:

 

One of my traditional geocaches, picked at random, has a word count of 109.

 

I didn't look at all of them, by my Unknown caches, which are mostly challenge caches, range from about 140 words to 1140 words.

 

I've only created one EarthCache, but it has a word count of 1066. And it took a lot more effort than one of my Traditional caches.

 

In my word count numbers, I didn't count the hint or any content added after publication - like, congrats to the FTF cacher and subsequent notes of clarification, or changes in the rules to claim a find, etc.

 

Again, not an indictment of his geocaches or the effort put into them. I didn't search through all of them, I just picked the last one published:

 

His latest Traditional geocache published had 30 words.

 

His latest Unknown cache had 27 words - not counting the hint.

 

He hadn't created an EarthCache, which undoubtedly would have had more content.

 

My latest approved waymark had 446 words - not including the variables and the html coding. Another recent one has 1320 words, and I'm sure that isn't the longest. Waymarks for some categories have much fewer words, while submissions to other categories have many more words. A lot of it depends on how much information there is available and how much effort you want to put into it - both researching and writing.

 

OK, so here's my point - I think I have point here, somewhere...

 

Are there frustrating things about Waymarking? Absolutely! I don't think I have to list them here.

 

Are there frustrating things about geocaching? Absolutely! I don't think I have to list them here.

 

We each have to decide whether the enjoyment we get out of an activity is enough to "overlook" the frustrations that come along with it. Waymarking isn't something you can jump into and have it mastered in a short period of time. But then again, neither is geocaching. In both, there are things you learn as you go. And there are frustrations you deal with as you go.

 

Granted, from a submission standpoint, Waymarking does take more effort. More effort is not necessarily bad. It is in the eye of the beholder, as the saying goes. Some of us take pride in putting out that effort. If the effort is too much for you, then by all means, do something else that is satisfying to you. But hey, thanks for giving it a try.

[+Chasing Blue Sky]

It was hidden: 08/03/2013

 

It was published: 08/27/2013

 

While it was, in fact, published; didn't that over three weeks? Hmmm...

 

Cache may have been hidden long before it was submitted...just saying.

 

Good point, I didn't think about that. Unlike Waymarking, I believe you can alter the "hidden" date in geocaching, when you submit it for review.

[+MountainWoods]

...

Are there frustrating things about Waymarking? Absolutely! I don't think I have to list them here.

 

Are there frustrating things about geocaching? Absolutely! I don't think I have to list them here.

 

We each have to decide whether the enjoyment we get out of an activity is enough to "overlook" the frustrations that come along with it. Waymarking isn't something you can jump into and have it mastered in a short period of time. But then again, neither is geocaching. In both, there are things you learn as you go. And there are frustrations you deal with as you go.

 

Granted, from a submission standpoint, Waymarking does take more effort. More effort is not necessarily bad. It is in the eye of the beholder, as the saying goes. Some of us take pride in putting out that effort. If the effort is too much for you, then by all means, do something else that is satisfying to you. But hey, thanks for giving it a try.

These are excellent points.

 

I think that one of the issues is that probably the majority of folks who (try to) get into Waymarking came to it from Geocaching. I'm not just saying that because that's what happened to me. It seems to be a common trend you see when reading (sometimes between the lines) a lot of the Waymark forum posts.

 

So let's take the case of, what I consider to be, the majority of new Waymarkers. If one is not careful, one immediately thinks that Waymarking is essentially the same as (virtual) geocaching, and can greatly over-simplify one's expectations of the hobby. Doing so usually leads to some (even a lot of) frustration, due to the fact that they are no where near the same - as experienced Waymarkers know. The careless geocacher-turning-to-Waymarking then blasts out at what s/he considers a ridiculous hobby, and walks away, without ever getting to the point in their mind where they realized the major differences, which time and experience would have shown them.

 

I'm a bit of an odd duck in some ways. When I get into something (or purchase something) I read all of the instructions before proceeding. When I looked at Waymarking, I first familiarized myself with how the hobby is done, in terms of groups that create categories for folks to create waymarks, how those groups get started (usually from forum discussions), and so on.

 

The hierarchical layout of categories makes perfect sense to my organized mind. Although some posting requirements in some categories are, admittedly, laughable and/or ridiculous and/or confusing, as are some of the visiting requirements, the need for requirements seems completely logical to me. These have to be category-specific requirements that go beyond the normal Groundspeak site usage requirements which, of necessity, have to be generic. A potential poster needs to know what the "founding fathers" of the category really want in that category, and how they want it presented, and that is done through requirements.

 

The geocacher can read the Groundspeak site usage requirements, including how to post new GCs, and that is sufficient to play that game. But Waymarking requires the second level of the category requirements. It takes more thinking and research to do waymarks. Also, let's admit it, one needs to be a bit of a documentarian, if not a documenting freak (like me), to want to post waymarks. That trait is not universal. Thus the hobby, in so far as posting of waymarks, is not as (I can't think of the word I really want, so I'll say) universal as the placing side of geocaching.

 

There are obviously differences in thinking between the waymark visitor and the geocache searcher, but those aren't usually the source of deeper frustration for the new geocacher-turning-waymarker, so I haven't gone into them in this long treatice.

[+elyob]

The word count observation may be important. I bet many of us who post descriptive write-ups for our geocaches eventually moved to creating waymarks.

[+Outspoken1]

I am sorry that GeoLobo became easily frustrated and will (apparently) not continue with Waymarking. I wish him/her the best with their geocaching.

 

While I did begin as a Geocacher and have many great memorizes - Waymarking really better fit my personality and desire. I love to explore, practice photography, research and walk. I enjoying trying to help others with Waymarking and try to be clear why a Waymark has been declined (unless it is an ongoing issue with a few Waymarkers). Most people are trying to do the best job they are able. Some are just after numbers; others more about quality and/or teaching. Most Waymarkers tend to find their 'home' in certain categories that they tend to post/visit many Waymarks.

 

Please, let's not feed the 'Geocaching versus Waymarking (what about Wherigo)' monster. We are free to participate in some or all of these wonderful experiences that is coordinated by Groundspeak.

 

Now, if I just had time to get those 1,000 or so Waymarks on my computer posted!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GT.US]

Of all the *privilege* accorded to category reviewers, the one thing we can't do is change a category.

 

If I get one that I have to deny, and I think it will go into another category, I generally spell out the steps to change a category.

 

Back when I was getting my first denials, my only choice for changing a category was starting from scratch and re-uploading all my pics, etc. Anyone who has been through that dance would be happy as a clam to change the category on their own waymark.

[+BruceS]

 

Back when I was getting my first denials, my only choice for changing a category was starting from scratch and re-uploading all my pics, etc. Anyone who has been through that dance would be happy as a clam to change the category on their own waymark.

 

And when there were only a few hundred categories you might have to wait a while before the appropriate category got created for the location that got declined before you could upload everything all over again.

[+gpsblake]

It only takes one bad category owner to completely alienate people from Waymarking. This shouldn't be a hobby for rich people who can only afford high end cameras. I had actually had a category owner criticize me because my photo quality was poor. Didn't realize these were poor quality pictures. Maybe the category reviewer was having a bad day. Anyhow, I did tell him that such petty things alienate people from Waymarking.

 

 

Didn't realize these qualify as low quality picture.

 

[+Manville Possum]

It only takes one bad category owner to completely alienate people from Waymarking. This shouldn't be a hobby for rich people who can only afford high end cameras. I had actually had a category owner criticize me because my photo quality was poor. Didn't realize these were poor quality pictures. Maybe the category reviewer was having a bad day. Anyhow, I did tell him that such petty things alienate people from Waymarking.

 

 

Didn't realize these qualify as low quality picture.

 

 

Are you new here?

 

No, really it hurt my feelings quite much when a Waymarker Grande here told me that my photos and waymarks were substandard, so I understand how you feel.

 

I think this site only is for a select few, it's too political for most of us. I'm not here to manage hundreds of categorys, I just enjoy posting photos of things and places that I visit. I can do that on my flickr account and not have to be insulted by someone that thinks they are special.

 

I don't see anything wrong with your photo, looks fine to me. Waymarking is not popular and never will be popular. Groundspeak quit putting any effort to improve it long ago.

[+BruceS]

It only takes one bad category owner to completely alienate people from Waymarking. This shouldn't be a hobby for rich people who can only afford high end cameras. I had actually had a category owner criticize me because my photo quality was poor. Didn't realize these were poor quality pictures. Maybe the category reviewer was having a bad day. Anyhow, I did tell him that such petty things alienate people from Waymarking.

 

 

I am not sure what category you received this response. In the one category that it was submitted to that I review in (but not in this case) it was rejected because the category requires two photos of the sculpture and only one was uploaded. They had also requested additional information about the sculpture if it was available. I personally have no problem with the quality of the one photo.

[+Bear and Ragged]

IF those are the 'two' photos you submitted.

 

Have to say, that is only one photo...

 

OK you've cropped the first photo (probably why the 'quality' is low) and submitted a head shot, to go with the full figure photo.

 

Still only one photo in my book.

Edited December 14, 2014 by Bear and Ragged

[+gpsblake]

Bear and Ragged,

 

really???? Zoom in on the large photo of the Elk, and tell me if it is the same picture as the close up of the elk????

 

Of course it's not.

 

BruceS,

here is the actual waymark in question that you are an officer of the group and have the power to approve it.

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMN279_Im_the_Boss_Elk_statue_Columbia_SC

[+The Leprechauns]

Thanks, gpsblake, for bumping this thread. It reminded me of when I gave up on submitting new waymarks way back in 2006, due to a similar experience. I submitted five photos to accompany a single waymark, but the waymark was rejected due to poor photo quality. All the photos were taken with a high-quality digital camera (a high-end Canon, not a cellphone). I learned photography while growing up as the son of an Eastman Kodak chemical engineer, who has an Oscar and a People's Choice award on the mantle for his technical improvements to movie film. I've won two photography contests myself.

 

When I got in on the ground floor of Waymarking, I had hoped that it would be about visiting locations -- a replacement for locationless and virtual caches. Instead, it's become Flickr with text summaries and coordinates. Unlike Flickr, however, your submissions can be rejected here based on photo quality, at the whim of a category officer.

[+gpsblake]

Yes, and I am afraid that some of the "old guard or good ole boy" of Waymarking has forgotten the simple concept of the game.

 

To encourage people to visit unique places, and for users to share these unique places via Waymarking and to spread the hobby of Waymarking

 

I will say every single category owner except the one I mentioned here have been very cooperating and never had a problem with. However, it only take one bad category reviewer to completely alienate the game for dozens of others.

 

Okay, let's say you visited a nice site but for some reason, only one photo turned out. Why disqualify and alienate someone who did go through the effort of visiting, photographing, then the process of submitting a waymark all of which takes time and effort? Perhaps the person was 100's of miles away and will never turn to that site again? Maybe it was a special memory for that person. The category owner has no idea.

 

Let's discuss proactive (person who cares about Waymarking) versus reactive (person who looks for reasons to not approve, under a pretense.

 

The PROACTIVE person would ask....

 

"Dear xxxx, I noticed you have submitted one photo instead of the two required. Please in the future try to submit a 2nd photo or please add another photo the next time you are in the area. I will approve your waymark but just for future reference, please two photos" -

If you notice, there no hostility, nothing that would alienate the poster, and would encourage quality while not alienating the waymark poster.

 

Here how some REACTIVE acts....

 

xxx, your waymark has been declined for the following reasons: two photographs are required. Your waymark will not be approved until a 2nd photo is submitted

that is the kind of stuff that immediately gets people to quit Waymarking. Nothing positive, nothing constructive, just negative.

[+BruceS]

 

BruceS,

here is the actual waymark in question that you are an officer of the group and have the power to approve it.

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMN279_Im_the_Boss_Elk_statue_Columbia_SC

 

I have reviewed the notes on the declines for that waymark and I see two and neither of them questions the quality of the photos. They both indicate that you had submitted only one photo thus the reason for the decline. Typically if another officer declines a waymark, I allow them to do the subsequent reviews as they are familiar with the history etc. especially if the decline is done by the leader of the category.

Edited December 15, 2014 by BruceS

[+gpsblake]

BruceS, did you even read the image I posted of his response to my denial in private??? Or did you even look at the waymark in question?? did you even read the reviewer note I left when I initially posted the waymark???

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMN279_Im_the_Boss_Elk_statue_Columbia_SC

 

Go view it again.

 

Since you are an officer, you do have a voice in this.

 

For once, do the right thing, not play the "good ole network" that drives so many away from this game.

[+elyob]

I have had submissions rejected when I tried to create two photographs out of one. Perhaps you did take two separate photographs but the two perspectives are very similar.

[+BruceS]

Yes I viewed your waymark and it currently has two photos with the second one uploaded sometime today, 12/14. The waymark was resubmitted on 12/12, thus it was resubmitted with with only one photo. I saw what you posted but did not realize that came in a separate email, I was referring to the decline messages entered when the waymark was declined. I can not see the private notes you enter once the waymark has been reviewed. I don't play the "good ole network", I have been mostly away from reviewing waymarks and Waymarking in general for several months due to health reasons. I decline very few waymarks overall. However, if I let one in that is missing a photo etc. in the end it is a problem because the next one I decline that is missing a photo that waymarker will invariably go back and find where I approved another one with same problem and most of us that review a lot of waymarks have experienced the same thing.

[+gpsblake]

Elyob,

 

I offer you the same thing... Take the distant photo... blow it up... And tell me how I could have that low resolution photo, produced a high resolution like the close up.

 

Please, show me how that is possible. I would love to learn how to that, I got so many old photos I would love to enhance the quality of.

Edited December 15, 2014 by gpsblake

[+funkymunkyzone]

At a guess, I'd say you start off with a higher res photo of the whole statue from your camera, you crop it down to the head and save one copy, then you go back to the original and reduce it's size down a bit and save a copy giving you one photo of the whole statue and one of the head, but it's actually the same photo.

[+Manville Possum]

When I got in on the ground floor of Waymarking, I had hoped that it would be about visiting locations -- a replacement for locationless and virtual caches. Instead, it's become Flickr with text summaries and coordinates. Unlike Flickr, however, your submissions can be rejected here based on photo quality, at the whim of a category officer.

 

Waymarking has been a very big dissappointment to me. I too thought of this site as a virtual geocaching replacement, but there is just very little if any interest in Waymarking in my area. Most of mine have never been visited and likely never will. I am really glad to have a place to store my photos with text and coordinates. Waymarking did lead me to Flickr where I have started storing most of my waymarks with text and coordinates. I figure that Flickr will be around longer than the Waymarking site as I don't see it gaining any popularity or any improvements being made to the site. When something does go wrong, repairs are very slow.

[+The A-Team]

Elyob,

 

I offer you the same thing... Take the distant photo... blow it up... And tell me how I could have that low resolution photo, produced a high resolution like the close up.

 

Please, show me how that is possible. I would love to learn how to that, I got so many old photos I would love to enhance the quality of.

Clearly the crop was taken from the original higher-resolution photo. I say this because unless you're using a very old digital camera that only takes photos at 1024x768, the "distant" photo has been significantly reduced in size, meaning there had to be a previous photo with a higher resolution. Obviously you wouldn't be able to get a good-resolution crop out of the reduced one posted above, but there had to be a version before that.

 

Also, I can't spot a single difference in the angle of the photo, so it seems unlikely that they were originally two distinct photos. For example, it would be impossible to walk closer to the statue to take a closer photo without the perspective changing. Since they're different distances from the camera, the plant and blocks in the wall would change position relative both to features on the statue and each other.

 

∴ The two images above were derived from the same original, higher-resolution photo.

[+UMainah]

Elyob,

 

I offer you the same thing... Take the distant photo... blow it up... And tell me how I could have that low resolution photo, produced a high resolution like the close up.

 

Please, show me how that is possible. I would love to learn how to that, I got so many old photos I would love to enhance the quality of.

 

What I find pathetic is that you're lying over a simple waymark submission just to get around a category's rules

 

Even though you pretty much admit that your second photo was ruined by the sun and you didn't want to go back to the site to get a replacement.

 

http://www.Waymarkin...tue_Columbia_SC

 

No worries, it got declined by the group owner because the 2nd photo I took the sun completely blinded the statue (so I didn't submit it) and he's strict that it must be 2 photos with no exceptions, although this is 35 miles from my house, first time any waymark of mine ever got declined. Oh well.....

[+iconions]

I'm not sure WHY the original poster didn't open Waymarking.com in a second instance of his browser and copy and paste from the old category to the new one??!!?? I'm sorry that his experience was like that, however, there are times when people post in the incorrect category. As far as keeping the Adirondack gems to himself, some waymarker may get to them at some point. It's too bad that he decided not to work with someone - I learned a WHOLE lot more about Waymarking from getting a few of my early waymarks denied that anything else, isn't that right BruceS and SilverQuill! LOL

 

Again, it's not an us vs. them with Waymarking. I still do both and enjoy both, however, there are only so many lamp post skirts one can lift before one becomes bored. Waymarking takes time, it takes research, and it takes effort to create a quality waymark. This is why I have such a HUGE backlog of pictures on my hard drive, especially right now as I work through the pictures I took at Vicksburg Military Park going through unit histories and personal histories as to WHY this particular monument is at THIS particular place. (especially the gruesomely fugly Kansas Memorial - Benchmark Blasterz knows what I mean!!!!)

[+MountainWoods]

Well said, iconions. Waymarking has taken me to places I never would have thought to go to, and seen wonderful Ozark landmarks that I would never have known where still out there.

 

Perhaps the same thing could be said about Geocaching to some extent, but that's probably a regional thing. In my area, there are a few good GCs out in a conservation area -- in fact the first GCs that I went after; and a few other historically-oriented GCs, mostly put out by GEO*Trailblazer 1, who had an interest in history and was therefore a good Waymarker; but otherwise, the vast majority of GCs outside of the aforementioned are in really boring areas with nothing to recommend the visit other than the GC itself!

 

Certainly the GCs in this area of the Ozarks didn't help me to see "wonderful Ozark landmarks that I would never have known where stil out there" (to quote myself)!

 

Perhaps in the reader's area it is reversed. I won't argue that 'cause, like I said, it may be a regional thing. But in my area I am really glad that I bumped into Waymarking, even if my Waymarks are very seldom or never visited. I've learned so much about this area; and I'm proud of the work that I did in photographing and researching the things/places that I was Waymarking. Wish I had more time to do it.

[+iconions]

Well said, iconions. Waymarking has taken me to places I never would have thought to go to, and seen wonderful Ozark landmarks that I would never have known where still out there.

 

Perhaps the same thing could be said about Geocaching to some extent, but that's probably a regional thing. In my area, there are a few good GCs out in a conservation area -- in fact the first GCs that I went after; and a few other historically-oriented GCs, mostly put out by GEO*Trailblazer 1, who had an interest in history and was therefore a good Waymarker; but otherwise, the vast majority of GCs outside of the aforementioned are in really boring areas with nothing to recommend the visit other than the GC itself!

 

Certainly the GCs in this area of the Ozarks didn't help me to see "wonderful Ozark landmarks that I would never have known where stil out there" (to quote myself)!

 

Perhaps in the reader's area it is reversed. I won't argue that 'cause, like I said, it may be a regional thing. But in my area I am really glad that I bumped into Waymarking, even if my Waymarks are very seldom or never visited. I've learned so much about this area; and I'm proud of the work that I did in photographing and researching the things/places that I was Waymarking. Wish I had more time to do it.

 

I need to get into your area more to fill up your inbox with visits. I do miss the quality of the GC's of GEO*Trailblazer 1 - he was another great resource for both geocaching and Waymarking. I'm glad that the midwest has some REALLY quality people Waymarking. It's really been an honor to be able to learn from them - even you Blasterz! :laughing:

[+T0SHEA]

Well, the way I see it: More for us.

 

Everyone has an opinion: warts and all...

 

We started out as Geocachers: Got tired of finding the same cache over and over, just different locations. Will say we have found some great hides and deserving of a favorite.

 

However, we stumbled on Waymarking looking for a place to post Benchmarks. The rest is history. We will continue to Waymark, plan our trips around it and still feel the rush of finding that new category.