Question about timeframes

[+bigcheesenz]

I have been geocaching for a about 6 months and thought i'd give Waymarking a go too! I have a question about timeframes. If I have visted the waymark many years ago, does that still count? Can I still log it? or do I need to visit since I have 'started' Waymarking?

 

Thanks for your answers!

[+fi67]

Welcome to Waymarking!

 

The visit requirements are defined by the category managers and can vary. You find them at the bottom of each waymark page and in the expanded category descriptions.

 

Most categories require a picture and some narrative, some not even a picture. "Retro visits", as we call them, are generally welcome.

 

But there are a very small number of categories, that do not allow them. This and other very specific instructions are today considered exotic and bad practice in the community, but they stay valid in older categories.

 

So the short answer is: Old visits are usually welcome if you can provide a picture, but you have to check the instructions if this is also true for the specific waymark you want to log.

[+BruceS]

In general I like retro visits to my waymarks as long as you have a story/photos from then. Just saying something like "Was here as a kid" or "Was here years ago" with nothing else does not cut it with me. Tell me a story about your visit, what has changed since then etc.

[+Max and 99]

I have been geocaching for a about 6 months and thought i'd give Waymarking a go too! I have a question about timeframes. If I have visted the waymark many years ago, does that still count? Can I still log it? or do I need to visit since I have 'started' Waymarking?

 

Thanks for your answers!

 

A photo and a brief story are the best retro visits. The worst, as others have stated, are visit logs like these: "Went to school here."

"Visited". "Found while Geocaching" (my least favorite of all), or "Found it". I hate it when I got dozens of visit logs in one day, all with the exact same wording "Found while Geocaching". You know how boring that is to read? Say something interesting and you'll make my day!

[+Manville Possum]

I passed by a waymark yesterday that I have already logged my visits in more than one category. Now it is listed in another category, published in 2013, visited by the owner in 2008. Now I find that strange, but this is Waymarking and it is acceptable to many. Just not me. I will take a photo and log my visit the next time I pass by.

[+silverquill]

In general, I certainly agree with the waymarks above. Additional photos are nice, but I don't require them in any of my categories, but do check because some do. Retro visits are welcomed by me, but, as with BruceS, I want a bit of a story. This really applies to all waymarks regardless of when the visit was. If someone can't be bothered to say something meaningful, then why log it? It doesn't have to be a paragraph, but something about the visit. In case of retro visits, try to give an approximate time and why you visited it, and especially mention any differences if there are any.

 

I don't delete logs, but I agree, "Found while geocaching," is my least favorite.

[+wv-yen]

What about creating new waymarks significantly after a visit to a place. I just recently recovered some photo files that I thought I had lost when my computer had crashed. Included were a bunch of pictures from four to six years ago that I took while I was working in different locations around the country with the intention of creating waymarks. I am kind of split about it, it was a long time ago, but on the other hand I did take the pictures with Waymarking in mind. What are y'all's thoughts?

[+Max and 99]

What about creating new waymarks significantly after a visit to a place. I just recently recovered some photo files that I thought I had lost when my computer had crashed. Included were a bunch of pictures from four to six years ago that I took while I was working in different locations around the country with the intention of creating waymarks. I am kind of split about it, it was a long time ago, but on the other hand I did take the pictures with Waymarking in mind. What are y'all's thoughts?

 

In my opinion, if you have the specific coordinates and the required photos, go for it.

[+Bear and Ragged]

What about creating new waymarks significantly after a visit to a place. I just recently recovered some photo files that I thought I had lost when my computer had crashed. Included were a bunch of pictures from four to six years ago that I took while I was working in different locations around the country with the intention of creating waymarks. I am kind of split about it, it was a long time ago, but on the other hand I did take the pictures with Waymarking in mind. What are y'all's thoughts?

 

In my opinion, if you have the specific coordinates and the required photos, go for it.

 

Go for it!

 

What's the difference between taking the photos last week, last month, last year or longer ago, and then making an interesting waymark?

[+fi67]

I think this depends on the category and the specific location. A historic tourist attraction will most probably not change much in a few years, but there are things that can change fast. Commercial locations can close or move away, also public art is sometimes relocated.

 

You should only post waymarks based on older records if you can verify that the location is still valid.

[Country_Wife]

Sometimes older photos can be a blessing. I just submitted a Time Capsules waymark today. The time capsule is indoors, so the category requires an external shot of the building in that situation. Well, I hadn't taken one on my recent visit. After searching my computer, I found a photo of the right spot which I took in 2012. There hasn't been any significant change since then, so I used that.

 

(Edited for clarity.)

Edited July 13, 2014 by Country_Wife

[GCEdo]

So, is it OK to post new waymarks (not visits) after I returned back home from vacation? Some of them I took pictures even without the idea there is a waymark category for that object, and found there is just afterwards when I returned home (I just started Waymarking, and was at those locations as geocacher). It's all within a month from now, even just few weeks.

Not sure if it's OK to post those waymarks (not visits, but new waymarks)? Especially problematic seems the one that I wasn't even aware there is a waymark category for them (although I have enough pictures and coordinates to satisfy waymark rules).

Would like to hear what more experienced waymarkers think about it.

[+Bear and Ragged]

So, is it OK to post new waymarks (not visits) after I returned back home from vacation? Some of them I took pictures even without the idea there is a waymark category for that object, and found there is just afterwards when I returned home (I just started Waymarking, and was at those locations as geocacher). It's all within a month from now, even just few weeks.

Not sure if it's OK to post those waymarks (not visits, but new waymarks)? Especially problematic seems the one that I wasn't even aware there is a waymark category for them (although I have enough pictures and coordinates to satisfy waymark rules).

Would like to hear what more experienced waymarkers think about it.

 

Sure, go ahead.

So long as you have the information to fill the listing requirements, and can do a good write up.

[+Max and 99]

So, is it OK to post new waymarks (not visits) after I returned back home from vacation? Some of them I took pictures even without the idea there is a waymark category for that object, and found there is just afterwards when I returned home (I just started Waymarking, and was at those locations as geocacher). It's all within a month from now, even just few weeks.

Not sure if it's OK to post those waymarks (not visits, but new waymarks)? Especially problematic seems the one that I wasn't even aware there is a waymark category for them (although I have enough pictures and coordinates to satisfy waymark rules).

Would like to hear what more experienced waymarkers think about it.

 

It is definitely OK to post those waymarks a month later! It took me two years to finish posting my waymarks from a vacation. Sometimes new categories are created after I took a photo of something, but if I have the required photos and coordinates, I add them to the new category. One category that I've added to retroactively is Roadside Attractions. New places/things are added frequently to that site, and if something I visited on vacation is now a Roadside Attraction, I add it.

 

Go for it!

[GCEdo]

Thank you both for your inputs!

[+jhuoni]

I see you referred to VISITS three times. It is also permissible to post visits after the fact.

 

As Max and 99 pointed out, sometimes it takes time to get through all those vacation photos and sometimes you find that there was a waymark that you didn't know existed.

 

Welcome to the OTHER SIDE of Groundspeak - Waymarking.

I hope you find Waymarking a enjoyable!

[+MountainWoods]

And before the fact.

 

Something to keep in mind: Waymarking is not Geocaching. It has a totally different look and feel.

 

Waymarks document a fun thing or place to go and see. Folks, like myself, who make such waymarks are usually happy to see different aspects of a visit from a Waymark visitor; and that includes historical visits. (There are bound to be some folks who don't appreciate such things, but they are probably confused, thinking that Waymarking is a type of Geocaching.)

 

Waymarking does not create things. It only documents things/places that already exist, and that are worth visiting.

 

I have logged 1982 visits to Waymarks for which I have the photos of the visit and some description of our visit to the thing or place being visited. Why not? I did visit the thing or place described in the Waymark. It does not matter that the game would not exist for another 23 years. I visited the thing that will someday be documented in a Waymark -- thus I visited the Waymark.

 

I have never had anyone delete such visits. They include an interesting photo from perhaps 25 to 30 years before the poster was able to make a Waymark, and allow other visitors to see what the thing/place was like "back then".

 

When you visit a Waymark, you are visiting a thing or place that someone got around to documenting days or years or centuries after the thing came into being. So what matter is it if your visit precedes their document (Waymark)?

 

Some folks may thing that my attitude is too flexible; but note that I am not condoning fake visits or armchair Waymarking. I am only talking about flexibility in timeframes. The Visitor must have actually been there and visited the thing or place, that is the definition of a visit (not the requirements for posting a visit, but the definition of a visit). And time should not come into it.

Edited September 15, 2014 by MountainWoods

[+wv-yen]

And before the fact.

 

Something to keep in mind: Waymarking is not Geocaching. It has a totally different look and feel.

 

Waymarks document a fun thing or place to go and see. Folks, like myself, who make such waymarks are usually happy to see different aspects of a visit from a Waymark visitor; and that includes historical visits. (There are bound to be some folks who don't appreciate such things, but they are probably confused, thinking that Waymarking is a type of Geocaching.)

 

Waymarking does not create things. It only documents things/places that already exist, and that are worth visiting.

 

I have logged 1982 visits to Waymarks for which I have the photos of the visit and some description of our visit to the thing or place being visited. Why not? I did visit the thing or place described in the Waymark. It does not matter that the game would not exist for another 23 years. I visited the thing that will someday be documented in a Waymark -- thus I visited the Waymark.

 

I have never had anyone delete such visits. They include an interesting photo from perhaps 25 to 30 years before the poster was able to make a Waymark, and allow other visitors to see what the thing/place was like "back then".

 

When you visit a Waymark, you are visiting a thing or place that someone got around to documenting days or years or centuries after the thing came into being. So what matter is it if your visit precedes their document (Waymark)?

 

Some folks may thing that my attitude is too flexible; but note that I am not condoning fake visits or armchair Waymarking. I am only talking about flexibility in timeframes. The Visitor must have actually been there and visited the thing or place, that is the definition of a visit (not the requirements for posting a visit, but the definition of a visit). And time should not come into it.

 

 

Thanks MountainWoods, this was the best explanation I've ever seen to this question.

[+QuesterMark]

I got photos and coords for a time capsule in January when it was scheduled to be opened in April. I didn't get it posted until May, and I found a newspaper article about it being opened. I explained all that to the category managers and they approved it. I haven't logged a visit yet. Holding off until I can visit AGAIN and see the contents!

 

Sometimes older photos can be a blessing. I just submitted a Time Capsules waymark today. The time capsule is indoors, so the category requires an external shot of the building in that situation. Well, I hadn't taken one on my recent visit. After searching my computer, I found a photo of the right spot which I took in 2012. There hasn't been any significant change since then, so I used that.

 

(Edited for clarity.)