news visited WM

[+Ariberna]

Hello.

Now there are some new waymarkers that visit WM. The problem is that not put photo or photos that aren't of the WM. For example one WM is of a statue and put photo of the buiding outside, or other WM is of a orientation table and put an other view.

I contacted with them and I deleted their marks, but again mark.

Can I block this WM for future WM? or always I have to deleted and deleted.

Thanks

[+Max and 99]

8 minutes ago, Ariberna said:

Hello.

Now there are some new waymarkers that visit WM. The problem is that not put photo or photos that aren't of the WM. For example one WM is of a statue and put photo of the buiding outside, or other WM is of a orientation table and put an other view.

I contacted with them and I deleted their marks, but again mark.

Can I block this WM for future WM? or always I have to deleted and deleted.

Thanks

No, you cannot. 

[+Ariberna]

I can't understand.

Some cathegories must to be have 2 or 3 photos for posted and later none for visit? and the owner can not deleted because photo is not necesary in a log?

[+Max and 99]

It is my opinion that every single category should require a visit photo. It's the nature of Waymarking, and proof of your visit.

This is my number one complaint about scavenger hunts. In my opinion Groundspeak made a colossal mistake with that decision. 

Edited January 10, 2023 by Max and 99

[+bluesnote]

On 1/10/2023 at 2:10 PM, Max and 99 said:

It is my opinion that every single category should require a visit photo. It's the nature of Waymarking, and proof of your visit.

This is my number one complaint about scavenger hunts. In my opinion Groundspeak made a colossal mistake with that decision. 

Personally, I don't log any waymarks as a visit without a photo regardless if I know if I visited the location or not. I have skipped visiting some waymarks because I didn't think the object being waymarked could fit into any other category, only to find out later there was an obscure category I wasn't thinking of. I always add a photo of the object being waymark to my logs. In my opinion no photo should imply no credit. It's not that hard to take photos nowadays.

 

Back when Waymarking was created in 2005, smartphones did not exist so not everyone had the capabilities of taking photos of everything like they do now. I think this is the original reason many older categories did not explicitly require them. But today, it's kinda an unwritten rule to log waymarks. How else are you supposed to prove you visited it? With geocaching, we have logbooks which makes it very easy for an owner to check the online logs to the physical log in the cache. With Waymarking, that's not really applicable.

 

Even if the object is very blurry in the photo or is very far away in the photo, I still allow it on my waymarks because it proves you visited that object. So long as the object being waymark is in a photo that the visitor uploaded, I allow it. Otherwise, no photo should equal no credit (in my opinion).

[+Ariberna]

Yes, but why don't change the officers the cathegories and includes photo.

For example we have a problem with one person that logged in Lanzarote Places for Recycling and say: that foto is optative.

Other logged lot os WM in Dubai without the element and I deleted that. But in Places for recycling i can't delete that.

[+bluesnote]

18 minutes ago, Ariberna said:

Yes, but why don't change the officers the cathegories and includes photo.

For example we have a problem with one person that logged in Lanzarote Places for Recycling and say: that foto is optative.

Other logged lot os WM in Dubai without the element and I deleted that. But in Places for recycling i can't delete that.

 

If only it was that simple. Most of the time, the only person who has access to edit the categories are the category leaders. Many of whom are inactive. So it's unlikely they will be updated anytime soon.