Mark A Waypoint

[Jeremy]

I propose a new log type:

 

Mark Waypoint

 

which would read:

 

X marks a waypoint for Y

 

Use: Locationless caches

 

Replaces: "Found It"

[+Team GPSaxophone]

That would probably work for virtuals too. You're just confirming that a particular object hasn't moved since the cache page was created

[Mushtang]

So, no more finds for locationless only, or for other types too?

[+planetrobert]

Jeremy, that is the best idea i have seen in a long time regaurding LC caches.

[+The Foote]

I am all for it. I have had discussions as to whether or not these would be "finds" really anyways. Would this change our past "finds" or would we have to do that manually ourselves?

[Jeremy]

Good question about changing old finds. Probably not since we always like to grandfather old logs. But it is an option.

[+Team DEMP]

What's the reason for the change?

 

Would locationless caches no longer be considered a find? What about virtual caches since the only difference I feel between the two is one is at a specific spot while the other isn't. Otherwise, I'm not signing a log, can't trade, don't need to re-hide the cache, etc.

[robertlipe]

Would this be valid only for locationless, or would it be used for the "dude, your coords stink; found 350 feet away at XXX YYY" logs?

[Jeremy]

Possibly. Just gauging interest at this point. Good idea, though there was another recommendation in the past to have a "needs maintenance" log type where you could post corrected coordinates and wasn't as harsh as "needs archived"

[+CrimsonWrath]

Would this be valid only for locationless, or would it be used for the "dude, your coords stink; found 350 feet away at XXX YYY" logs?

That type of log should probably not be available for Mystery caches. Someone could give away the final cache location.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

Possibly. Just gauging interest at this point. Good idea, though there was another recommendation in the past to have a "needs maintenance" log type where you could post corrected coordinates and wasn't as harsh as "needs archived"

Maybe instead of "Should be archived" it should say "this cache needs attention". The log would say what that attention is.

[+RJFerret]

Sounds like a useful change assuming the new log type still counts as a "find" (I'm not a virtual fan but the locationless I've done have been harder than most traditionals).

 

The concept of "needs maintenance" seems redundant to logging your find with coords as now (otherwise you log twice--once for your find and immediately again selecting "needs maintenance"!?)

 

I'll take this moment to suggest "DNF" needs to be added to Event logging as that happens quite a lot (last event some potential attendees couldn't find it and others missed it--both due to issues on the cache page that ultimately weren't flagged to the owner for future reference.)

 

Enjoy,

 

Randy

 

PS: Can you tell I'm a fan of K.I.S.S.? (Particularly dealing with as much of the public as this site does.)

[+MarcB]

Good question about changing old finds. Probably not since we always like to grandfather old logs. But it is an option.

Do it! It'll be hilarious to see everyone's find counts drop down (or doesn't it work like that?).

MarcB

[+Hynr]

I propose a new log type:

Mark Waypoint

which would read:

X marks a waypoint for Y

Use: Locationless caches

Replaces: "Found It"

It seems to me that this is one of those things where "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". But since I have not done any Locationless ones, perhaps I'm not understanding the problem.

 

I think the concept of enhancing ones ability to communicate what is going on is good. So perhaps it is not a matter of adding a log type, but adding (1) a set of check boxes for: "no comment", "log sheet is full", "geosheet needs replacing", "cache is in bad shape", "cache was mowed into little pieces" ... and (2) a set of edit boxes where one can enter "corrected coordinates".

 

I would also like to have checking one of these count as a log comment.

[+GentleWhisper]

Jeremy, I'm all in favor of the new log suggestion. Good Work.

[+Semper Questio]

I, too, like the "Mark a waypoint" option for locationless, though I'd leave it as a counted find. Like others, some of my locationless took more effort and thought than many regulars.

 

I like the other poster's suggestion of check boxes for general cache condition covering the most coomon maintenance issues just to save typing. A maintenance log type seems pretty rundnandant when you are already logging a find or DNF.

 

While we're on the topic of logging, how about taking a bug from a cache when logging a find by being able to pick a TB off a list of those in the cache? When the sunmit button is clicked, and 1 or more TB's were selcted, the logger is asked for the bugs' numbers to verify the logger really has it/them. Would sure make picking up a bug a whole lot easier.

 

Thanks Jeremy!

[+Captain Morgan]

I'll give my thumbs up to your proposal!

 

But the bigger question, IMHO, is that the locationless caches should be moved under their own section, like benchmarks. And the name "locationless cache" should be changed to something like "Photo waypoints". Your proposal "Mark a waypoint" would work even better then!

 

Regards, Captain Morgan

[+AB4N]

I like the idea - and hope it becomes a reality. I have what I think will make a fun LC that will interest many people, and have been waiting to list it. Cool proposal

[+Renegade Knight]

Sounds like it accomodates the intent of how we are supposed to log a locationless to begin with. The cache coordinates don't matter but the logs do.

[+Team J]

I like the Mark a Waypoint log type for Locationless if it still counts as a find. It would be the same as it is now for finds (I'm not so much into the number competition as I am in just knowing how many I've found for myself), but maybe then we could grab all the waypoints from a GPX file on the locationless page and be able to load it into a map program and see where all the finds are at? That is what I'd really like to be able to do. Especially when I'm trying to see if a locationless was already claimed near my home. If that GPX file could name each waypoint with something like (GC#### - find ###) that would help in finding the correspoding log. Or if the logger could specify a WPT name (with a check to make sure it is unique) it would be searchable on the LC page to find the log as well. Then I could know who found the one near me. Great idea.

[+Stump]

I am all for it. I have had discussions as to whether or not these would be "finds" really anyways. Would this change our past "finds" or would we have to do that manually ourselves?

Don't webcam "Webcam photo taken" logs count as finds. Couldn't "mark waypoint" work the same way?

 

Not saying it should, just thinking there's no reason it couldn't work the same as a find.

 

Definitely in agreement with adding a "Needs maintenance" log.

[+BlackstoneVal]

Good option that might be useful for traditional caches, as well, to Mark a Waypoint for somewhere located, by the way, along the route such as the vista view or potential CITO at lat/long. However, it seems this should be more like a Note than a Find for user stats. Moreover, it might be considered a spoiler for a multi or mystery cache, but of course the cache owner could delete the log.

 

I assume the Mark a Waypoint would require a valid set of coordinates, but would there be any other changes on the Log a Mark page?

 

Next question, with no other changes, would this give the poster the option to use the Mark a Waypoint, Log a Find, or write note for an existing Locationless (and/or other types such as Virtual)?

 

Would the moritorium on locationless be lifted if this log type where introduced?

[+ynots4]

I vote "yes" for the new log category "Mark a Waypoint" for locationless caches only, since virtuals already have a waypoint.

 

I am also okay with my current locationless cache "finds" not being counted in my total finds as I also agree this is not really geocaching - it's more like playing around with our gps! I still love virtuals and think they have a valuable place in geocaching - as long as they are really unique in some way, ie: they are a worthwhile find. - Chickasaw

[+PeterNoG]

I like the idea of having locationless caches being treated differently, but I think it would be better if they were in a separate catagory just like benchmarks.

 

Would there be any "count" of the new "Mark a Waypoint"? If so, I would go to the trouble of converting all my locationless finds. I would like to be able to maintain my "count" of locationless; but not necessarily as "finds".

 

I have several Virtuals and a couple of Mysteries that are actually locationless. I would like to be able to change these also.

[+paintfiction]

I think the concept of enhancing ones ability to communicate what is going on is good. So perhaps it is not a matter of adding a log type, but adding (1) a set of check boxes for:  "no comment", "log sheet is full", "geosheet needs replacing",  "cache is in bad shape", "cache was mowed into little pieces" ...

Given the rash of recently placed brutally difficult puzzle caches in my area, I think "cache hider needs his butt kicked" should be one of those check boxes...

[+Starglider]

Given the rash of recently placed brutally difficult puzzle caches in my area, I think "cache hider needs his butt kicked" should be one of those check boxes... 

Instead of this I would prefer an "ignore list" that would allow me to specify caches that I am not interested in to be excluded from nearest cache lists, maps, PQs...

 

But that's off-topic here so I am going to kick my own butt now for posting OT

[+FarSideX]

Unless you are not going to count a locationless as a find I do not see any point in a new log type. The current 'Found it' log type allows for entering a set of coordinates.

 

I think it would be much more useful to allow searching logs for 'log nearest to' a set of coordinates to make it much easier to see if a certain spot has been found before or not. The way it is now you have either search manually through all the logs or guess at some word a previous seeker would have used in their log for your location.

[+paintfiction]

Unless you are not going to count a locationless as a find I do not see any point in a new log type. The current 'Found it' log type allows for entering a set of coordinates.

 

I think it would be much more useful to allow searching logs for 'log nearest to' a set of coordinates to make it much easier to see if a certain spot has been found before or not. The way it is now you have either search manually through all the logs or guess at some word a previous seeker would have used in their log for your location.

AMEN! and ditto

[+solid-rock-seekers]

I understand the proposal as being one to allow a new log type that allows one to specify a waypoint for the log. However, I'm confused by the need for the new log type. "Found It" logs already allow the addition of a waypoint - how would the new log be different than a "found it" log? Is the only difference the log name? (i.e. "mark waypoint" still counts as a "find", it still shows a smiley in the cache page, etc.)

 

What is the motivation for having a new log type? The existing "found it" log seems to work well for locationless caches. I think understanding the reason for the new log type would help understand why it may be a good (or bad) idea.

 

--ken

[+WalruZ]

'needs maint.' logs are not needed. active cache owners read the incoming logs, and if they say something is wrong, they deal with it. Inactive cache owners don't respond to anything. What's really needed is for approvers to get together (as they often do) and decide to enforce some standards in regards to how long a cache can be ignored by the owner before it gets summarily archived.

 

Basically, in addition to a "needs archived" log, i would like to see a "cache owner is jerking us all around" log, and/or a "cache owner appears to be dead" log. Those are the two things that I keep seeing as I work my way through my area.

[+Divine]

Good question about changing old finds. Probably not since we always like to grandfather old logs. But it is an option.

If the current locationless caches were moved into their own benchmark-like section, like suggested, then it would be reasonable to move the old logs there too. I'm also all for removing the webcam and event 'caches' from the total find count, and keeping it only geocaching -related. (No, not a big issue.)

[+cache_us_if_you_can]

I, too, like the "Mark a waypoint" option for locationless, though I'd leave it as a counted find. Like others, some of my locationless took more effort and thought than many regulars.

I like this idea. I've spent a lot more time researching and looking for some of these than I have looking for some regular caches.

[+RJFerret]

Another issue that plays into this are regular caches with locationless find options.

 

IE, there are physical geocaches placed at a feature. The owner encourages non-local geocachers to also log the cache with a waypoint and photo from a like feature they've found elsewhere.

 

If some of these changes are instituted, allowing for greater discrimination/categorization, there may be unintended ramifications such as more of the above hybrids being placed to avoid system limitations.

 

Food for thought,

 

Randy

[markandlynn]

'needs maint.' logs are not needed.  active cache owners read the incoming logs, and if they say something is wrong, they deal with it.  Inactive cache owners don't respond to anything.  What's really needed is for approvers to get together (as they often do) and decide to enforce some standards in regards to how long a cache can be ignored by the owner before it gets summarily archived. 

 

Basically, in addition to a "needs archived" log, i would like to see a "cache owner is jerking us all around" log, and/or a "cache owner appears to be dead" log.  Those are the two things that I keep seeing as I work my way through my area.

We would like to see a performed maintanance visit log, this would help when checking caches ie it was last maintained on and would allow us to log our visits as more than just notes.

[dboggny]

hey how about just doing something so we can get locationless and virts back again last year.

[Prairie Jeepin]

I don't see why this is of concern considering Locationless are still in a limbo moratorium. Are we not diuscussing something that is currently not active?

 

My question is: Why the change? and What is going on with this supposed Moratorium?

 

People like Locationless caches. It is as simple as that. Yes I understand that perhaps some of the proposals for them may have been somewhat redundant and stupid (caches for the sake of making caches) causing this holding pattern, but can the powers that be not exercise some reasonable common sense? Can they not continue to allow the odd new proposal that contains an actual thought out and interesting proposal?

 

I have had a lot of fun with the locationless caches. In fact, I have only 2 finds and they are both locationless (I just started in this game). They take a lot of effort to do. One has to research the thing and then plan one's day and routes. And then actually find it and log it. This involves a lot more than simply looking for existing coordinates IMHO (the known verses the unknown). Of course there is always the "on the spot" locationless finds that happen as you are doing something else and realise "Whoa!!! Thats a locationless! Let's get it!"

 

They should remain as a "find" and count as a "found" when discovered. There is too much work put into many of them (more so by the finder than the creator) to not count or be logged as a find.

 

I apologise for getting a bit off the topic, but discussing the details of something that technically isnt allowed anymore got me to thinking about more than just the proposal.

 

I also agree with other posters re: the check boxes -- I can definately see these being useful and helpful to not only the logger, but the cache owner as well. The proposed concept of them being in a separate catagory like benchmark is also a worthy suggestion. As is the "Performed Maint'ce" notice.

 

I think, however, that before this "Mark Waypoint" idea goes any further in replacing Locationless caches, they should be out of moratorium holding pattern and in full swing once again.

 

Then again, who am I to say -- I'm just a newbie!

 

PJ

Edited September 18, 2004 by Prairie Jeepin

[+New England n00b]

I think, however, that before this "Mark Waypoint" idea goes any further in replacing Locationless caches, they should be out of moratorium holding pattern and in full swing once again.

 

There's usually enough angst when things work the way they are supposed to. Adding a feature/listing that isn't up to snuff yet would cause aggravation amongst the users and is certainly not best approach...

Edited September 19, 2004 by New England n00b

[+briansnat]

While we're on the new log type discussion, I'd like to see a 'Maintenance Check' or 'maintenence performed' log type available to owners. The point of this log would be to update the last found date when an owner performs maintenance.

 

As it stands now if I do a maint check today and post a note, but the last find was back in March, the March date will still show when people will do a search, even though I verified the cache was still there as of today. Since a lot of people are hesitant to look for caches that haven't been found in a while, they'll just skip it when they see it was last found in March.

[+Starglider]

While we're on the new log type discussion, I'd like to see a 'Maintenance Check' or 'maintenence performed' log type available to owners.  The point of this log would be to update the last found date when an owner performs maintenance.

Great idea!