Virtual Caches and Waymarks

[+The Snowdog]

I have for some time been noting the ratio of visits to geocaches (particulary virtual caches, where you are going to take photos anyway) to visits to any associated waymarks there. It runs about 100:1, most of the time. And I just visited a 2002 virtual cache in Kansas that has over five hundred visits, at a waymark-rich location, but with no waymarks posted at all. I will be able to set about half a dozen there without even trying. But that does tell kind of a sad story about the relative popularity of Waymarking amid our other geo-related fun.

[+FamilieFrohne]

Indeed Waymarking is not as popular as geocaching - but Waymarking is fun for me (and some others) and that counts ...

 

Some notes on the numbers: I don't know the actual numbers of geocachers - but if I remember right, there are about 3 million registered geocachers. Probably more, but use these 3 million as the base for this example.

 

Actually we have only 9110 waymarkers, that have posted a waymark since the start in August 2005. And there were only 356 waymarkers actively posting waymarks this year (as of today). If we take this ratio (3 million geocachers / 356 active posters) we get nearly 8427 geocachers for one waymarker. So I think it would be no major problem for an active waymarker to find many places that could be waymarked. 

 

[+cerberus1]

13 hours ago, The Snowdog said:

I have for some time been noting the ratio of visits to geocaches (particulary virtual caches, where you are going to take photos anyway) to visits to any associated waymarks there. It runs about 100:1, most of the time. And I just visited a 2002 virtual cache in Kansas that has over five hundred visits, at a waymark-rich location, but with no waymarks posted at all. I will be able to set about half a dozen there without even trying. But that does tell kind of a sad story about the relative popularity of Waymarking amid our other geo-related fun.

 

When COs were given a time frame to turn their Locationless caches into Waymarks, many who enjoyed finding Locationless were interested at the time. 

 - Then just as many found they no longer counted for "smiley points" for geocaching, and lost interest...

We've found a few, if you want to see what real Locationless was all about, click on "Geocaches" on our profile and scroll to Locationless.  

 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by cerberus1
Forgot the new weren't anywhere near the same as originals...

[+The Snowdog]

3 hours ago, FamilieFrohne said:

Actually we have only 9110 waymarkers, that have posted a waymark since the start in August 2005. And there were only 356 waymarkers actively posting waymarks this year (as of today)...

 

 

Which has long concerned me as well... how much longer do you think the Powers That Be will continue to support Waymarking for such a small number of users? I expect it to go the way of the Benchmarks pretty much any time, and that will be a bitter disappointment.

[+Max and 99]

1 minute ago, The Snowdog said:

 

Which has long concerned me as well... how much longer do you think the Powers That Be will continue to support Waymarking for such a small number of users? I expect it to go the way of the Benchmarks pretty much any time, and that will be a bitter disappointment.

It would be heartbreaking to see all my work disappear, especially documenting centenarians. 

[Becktracker]

My experience is that there are a lot more people visiting waymarks instead of posting them

[+The Snowdog]

7 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

It would be heartbreaking to see all my work disappear, especially documenting centenarians. 

 

Just as it was heartbreaking to see twenty years of community-driven benchmark recovery data disappear...

[+cerberus1]

9 hours ago, Becktracker said:

My experience is that there are a lot more people visiting waymarks instead of posting them

 

Yep.  I'll sometimes check "all nearby waymarks" on the cache page if it's a tough area to walk through, or for access/parking to a cache.

Sometimes I'll visit the waymark if it's a unique area or has a great view, but don't log.

[+Max and 99]

On 9/5/2023 at 1:01 PM, The Snowdog said:

 

Just as it was heartbreaking to see twenty years of community-driven benchmark recovery data disappear...

Yes, kind of like that!

[+ScroogieII]

On 9/4/2023 at 8:38 PM, The Snowdog said:

I have for some time been noting the ratio of visits to geocaches (particulary virtual caches, where you are going to take photos anyway) to visits to any associated waymarks there. It runs about 100:1, most of the time. And I just visited a 2002 virtual cache in Kansas that has over five hundred visits, at a waymark-rich location, but with no waymarks posted at all. I will be able to set about half a dozen there without even trying. But that does tell kind of a sad story about the relative popularity of Waymarking amid our other geo-related fun.

 

Indeed Snowdog, you have uncovered a truth regarding the two.

Waymarking simply isn't for everyone.

Waymarking, at least for those wishing to produce commendable Waymarks, requires one to invest time and energy toward the research required, then the putting to paper, as it were, of one's newfound knowledge, as well as their personal appraisal of a given site, or object.

Quite simply said, most are unwilling to invest that energy - and that assessment includes a great many of those who do partake of the Waymarking game.

Keith

Edited September 18, 2023 by ScroogieII