Jump to content

My Wagon is getting uncovered


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Hello Wmarkers !

 

I submitted a WM (WMN0PM) on december on category "covered wagon", and resubmitted it on february.

After weeks of non review, I contacted the leader who seemd to be very active on GC.

Without answers, I contacted Checkmark, which is active too but don't answer...

 

What can I do know ? Is Waymarking dying ? :o

I can take leadership and even review the actual pending waymark if needed.

I just simply don't know what to do now that nobody answer me.

 

Thank you for your attention ;)

Link to comment

Basically, you pointed out all the flaws of Waymarking which we've been complaining about for months and years.

 

Unfortunately, Waymarking is all but abandoned by Groundspeak, they merely pay the hamster to keep the wheel running for the game to keep going on. But there is no development in the game and few people play it. You can go years and years without having a single visit to a waymark.

 

The answer to solution is easy... After 7 days of non-action, the waymark gets auto-approved. It would probably take Groundspeak an hour to code for this to happen. That alone ends 90% of the aggravation that has driven nearly everyone away from the game.

Link to comment

Why is that too bad? I'd love to see photos of the things I've waymarked taken 9 or 20 years before I got around to Waymarking the thing.

 

I suppose that I'm just into following instructions set in the category. What next, can I just post that I visited a site because I drove by it? Waymarking gets more fun everyday when we make up our own rules. :anicute:

 

"Visit Instructions:

Photos of your visit to the marker are required, but PLEASE, no old vacation photos taken just because it was there!"

Link to comment

For those of us who like to do it, it's still very much alive.

For those who have to support it, it is dying.

 

Guess who wins.

 

I hope Waymarking is not dying. I have put A LOT of time and effort into creating my waymarks, and I have learned SO MUCH from this hobby. I look at the world differently and with more attention to detail now. Plus, I think I am preserving some history too :)

Link to comment

Looks like a bunch of covered wagon waymarks just got approved within the last few hours.

 

Which is great, and now I wish that category owner would extend an invite to the OP of this thread to become an officer there. Just for insurance to make sure a huge delay doesn't happen again.

Edited by gpsblake
Link to comment

Why is that too bad? I'd love to see photos of the things I've waymarked taken 9 or 20 years before I got around to Waymarking the thing.

 

I suppose that I'm just into following instructions set in the category. What next, can I just post that I visited a site because I drove by it? Waymarking gets more fun everyday when we make up our own rules. :anicute:

 

"Visit Instructions:

Photos of your visit to the marker are required, but PLEASE, no old vacation photos taken just because it was there!"

Sorry. I didn't realize you were talking about one of those old geocache-mentality categories, rather than just a general statement.

 

Yeah, I'd follow the rules on this, like anything else. But it's definitely a silly rule. Just gotta live with it.

Link to comment

Why is that too bad? I'd love to see photos of the things I've waymarked taken 9 or 20 years before I got around to Waymarking the thing.

 

I suppose that I'm just into following instructions set in the category. What next, can I just post that I visited a site because I drove by it? Waymarking gets more fun everyday when we make up our own rules. :anicute:

 

"Visit Instructions:

Photos of your visit to the marker are required, but PLEASE, no old vacation photos taken just because it was there!"

Sorry. I didn't realize you were talking about one of those old geocache-mentality categories, rather than just a general statement.

 

Yeah, I'd follow the rules on this, like anything else. But it's definitely a silly rule. Just gotta live with it.

 

Yeah, this Waymarking is about as lame as it gets. Now I'm getting those generic copy paste logs that "We visited the area during a mega event" and no photos uploaded. I guess this is what Waymarking is all about now.

 

I'm just not ready to log WM's that I only drove past, but if that is what you new waymarkers find acceptable, so be it. I'll stick with my geocacher mentality where we don't armchair log our finds.

Link to comment

Why is that too bad? I'd love to see photos of the things I've waymarked taken 9 or 20 years before I got around to Waymarking the thing.

 

I suppose that I'm just into following instructions set in the category. What next, can I just post that I visited a site because I drove by it? Waymarking gets more fun everyday when we make up our own rules. :anicute:

 

"Visit Instructions:

Photos of your visit to the marker are required, but PLEASE, no old vacation photos taken just because it was there!"

Sorry. I didn't realize you were talking about one of those old geocache-mentality categories, rather than just a general statement.

 

Yeah, I'd follow the rules on this, like anything else. But it's definitely a silly rule. Just gotta live with it.

 

So do I understand you correctly that visit instructions are just silly rules? :blink:

Link to comment

Why is that too bad? I'd love to see photos of the things I've waymarked taken 9 or 20 years before I got around to Waymarking the thing.

 

I suppose that I'm just into following instructions set in the category. What next, can I just post that I visited a site because I drove by it? Waymarking gets more fun everyday when we make up our own rules. :anicute:

 

"Visit Instructions:

Photos of your visit to the marker are required, but PLEASE, no old vacation photos taken just because it was there!"

Sorry. I didn't realize you were talking about one of those old geocache-mentality categories, rather than just a general statement.

 

Yeah, I'd follow the rules on this, like anything else. But it's definitely a silly rule. Just gotta live with it.

 

Yeah, this Waymarking is about as lame as it gets. Now I'm getting those generic copy paste logs that "We visited the area during a mega event" and no photos uploaded. I guess this is what Waymarking is all about now.

 

I'm just not ready to log WM's that I only drove past, but if that is what you new waymarkers find acceptable, so be it. I'll stick with my geocacher mentality where we don't armchair log our finds.

This whole GC vs. WM mentality discussion is purely theoretical and does not reflect the reality at all. The greatest and the lamest visits I receive from people who are primarily geocachers. We all know the "found while geocaching" logs. You call that "you new waymarkers"? I never heard of "found while Waymarking" logs in caches.

 

I do not police the visits I receive. The lame ones stay there for everybody to read, they blame only those visitors, but I do delete obvious armchair visits or, more often, clear mistakes in the location.

Link to comment

Why is that too bad? I'd love to see photos of the things I've waymarked taken 9 or 20 years before I got around to Waymarking the thing.

 

I suppose that I'm just into following instructions set in the category. What next, can I just post that I visited a site because I drove by it? Waymarking gets more fun everyday when we make up our own rules. :anicute:

 

"Visit Instructions:

Photos of your visit to the marker are required, but PLEASE, no old vacation photos taken just because it was there!"

Sorry. I didn't realize you were talking about one of those old geocache-mentality categories, rather than just a general statement.

 

Yeah, I'd follow the rules on this, like anything else. But it's definitely a silly rule. Just gotta live with it.

 

Yeah, this Waymarking is about as lame as it gets. Now I'm getting those generic copy paste logs that "We visited the area during a mega event" and no photos uploaded. I guess this is what Waymarking is all about now.

 

I'm just not ready to log WM's that I only drove past, but if that is what you new waymarkers find acceptable, so be it. I'll stick with my geocacher mentality where we don't armchair log our finds.

There's a world of difference between logging something just because you drove past it (wrong!) and logging a visit to something you really did visit from many years before. Of course, if the category rules don't allow for the latter types of visits, then fine, we don't log them. But I would not advocate a "visit" is "well, I was in the general area" any more than I'd count that sentiment as a Geocache Find.

 

I go by the rules, and unless expressly forbidden by the category's visit rules, I'm happy to log a 1991 visit. I did visit the thing. Can't help it if Waymarking didn't exist yet. Waymarking is just documenting things that already exist (unlike Geocaches).

Link to comment

Why is that too bad? I'd love to see photos of the things I've waymarked taken 9 or 20 years before I got around to Waymarking the thing.

 

I suppose that I'm just into following instructions set in the category. What next, can I just post that I visited a site because I drove by it? Waymarking gets more fun everyday when we make up our own rules. :anicute:

 

"Visit Instructions:

Photos of your visit to the marker are required, but PLEASE, no old vacation photos taken just because it was there!"

Sorry. I didn't realize you were talking about one of those old geocache-mentality categories, rather than just a general statement.

 

Yeah, I'd follow the rules on this, like anything else. But it's definitely a silly rule. Just gotta live with it.

 

So do I understand you correctly that visit instructions are just silly rules? :blink:

WOW! Was that taken out of context! You might want to go back and read the post.

 

"it's definitely a silly rule" == "visit instructions are just silly rules" ???

Link to comment

Why is that too bad? I'd love to see photos of the things I've waymarked taken 9 or 20 years before I got around to Waymarking the thing.

 

I suppose that I'm just into following instructions set in the category. What next, can I just post that I visited a site because I drove by it? Waymarking gets more fun everyday when we make up our own rules. :anicute:

 

"Visit Instructions:

Photos of your visit to the marker are required, but PLEASE, no old vacation photos taken just because it was there!"

Sorry. I didn't realize you were talking about one of those old geocache-mentality categories, rather than just a general statement.

 

Yeah, I'd follow the rules on this, like anything else. But it's definitely a silly rule. Just gotta live with it.

 

So do I understand you correctly that visit instructions are just silly rules? :blink:

WOW! Was that taken out of context! You might want to go back and read the post.

 

"it's definitely a silly rule" == "visit instructions are just silly rules" ???

That was a question. If you feel that visit instructions are silly rules or not. I guess that you and a few others don't agree with visit instructions, it's pefrectly OK to claim you visited a WM before it was ever posted on this site. Most would disagree, and that is why the category managers set standards or visit instructions.

 

Whybother marking is not worth my two cents, you are free to complain about category horders and other things wrong with this game that are runing it. This site is going to be what you make of it. I've had enough of it. It's the politics that have ruined it for me. :mad:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...