CacheWalker
Caching => General Caching => Topic started by: Griff Grof on July 23, 2014, 09:25:24 am
-
Almost a spin-off from the "Is Wherigo really heading to the dustbin? (http://cachewalker.createaforum.com/general-caching/is-wherigo-really-heading-to-the-dustbin/)" thread. With the Wherigo project basically abandoned, as noted by a GS forum moderator, he rounds off his post saying he can only imagine the situation Waymarking is in.
As many of you will know, many years ago GS Grandfathered Virtuals, Webcams and Locationless caches on Geocaching.com, which was not received entirely positively, and even less so when they gave us Challenges in 2011 after an uproar for their return. They launched waymarking.com as the home for these cache types.
Strangely, GS never Grandfathered Earthcaches on Geocaching.com, which possibly suggests that they know few would log them on Waymarking, and they wouldn't want this as Earthcaches are supported by the GSA.
Do any of you use Waymarking? and do you think that Waymarking is set to merge with Geocaching again?
The point is, Wherigo is encouraged on Geocaching.com, and that's in poor condition. BUT Waymarking is completely isolated, so, indeed, on its deathbed.
-
Such a poor interface compared to Geocaching, I rarely use it. I've got a few waymarks to log but not sure if I can be bothered :o
-
Earth Caches DID go to Waymarking.
The GSA group that sponsors Earthcacheing complained, and GS moved them back!
The Waymarking site was (if I remember correctly) supposed to be a trial for the new Geocaching 2 website.
But as GS have never taken any notice of feedback from the users... (Where have we heard that before ::))
Main request PQ's for Waymarks. Never materialised!
(Yes, there are very basic PQ's, but need to be done on a page by page basis, or waymark by waymark basis...
(http://www.waymarking.com/dyn_img/stats.aspx?f=1&guid=51a02f14-ead8-4fb8-9624-4ea140cac997)
Yes, I do a bit of Waymarking. ;D
Mostly posting them.
It's not all McD's, the active waymarkers seem to be getting away from the 'Commercial' waymarks- read the forums, when things get discussed prior to going to Peer Review- and getting more towards what (I consider) to be more towards the old 'Locationless Caches' of Groundspeak yesteryear.
Things may have 'taken off' better for Waymarking if GS had included the statistics -Visits and Posting- (somehow) into the Caching side of things.
Maybe the real question is: Does Waymarking want to join Geocaching?
-
Such a poor interface compared to Geocaching, I rarely use it. I've got a few waymarks to log but not sure if I can be bothered :o
@walktall, I agree. I had a look at it earlier, and it is definitely no where near as good. I have one to log, but, again, I don't feel invited by the website to do so :D
@Bear and Ragged that's interesting, I seem to remember you mentioning that on another thread now.
Impressive stats too! I do think it's ironic how GS partly grandfathered virtuals due to their downgrading quality - but yet on Waymarking you can turn McDonald's into Waymarks... is this still the case B&R?
I think Waymarking has to join Geocaching in order for people to take it up. I think the majority of people don't realise their membership is valid across all three sites. I would cut Waymarking and simply reinstate all Virtual cache types, which would please the community and put GS in people's good books for finally listening to the demand.
B&R, do your Waymarks get logged often, are there many active Waymarkers?
What does everyone else think ???
-
Waymarking Site Statistics
Presently there are 558744 waymarks worldwide, listed in 1076 user-created categories.
Half a Million Waymarks!
Congratulations to Lord Abercrombie for posting the 500,000th waymark, St Cattwg's - Churchyard - Port Eynon - Swansea, Wales, Great Britain.
With its thorough description and beautiful photographs it's the perfect example of the quality and detail our community has come to expect from its users.
We are extremely proud of the Waymarking community for achieving this amazing goal, but it's not the only amazing goal worth noting.
The site regularly adds approximately 1500 approved waymarks and 5000+ visits per week, 20,000 unique visitors per day, and there are over 100 categories that have more than 1000 waymarks posted under them.
UK ranks high for waymarks posted!
Country/Region Waymarks Posted
United States 360448
United Kingdom 47152
Canada 40957
Czech Republic 22383
Germany 13168
Portugal 9408
France 8908
Netherlands 8048
Australia 7589
Brazil 4597
New Zealand 3446
Switzerland 3048
Spain 2896
Austria 2881
Thailand 1970
Italy 1947
Denmark 1425
Belgium 1173
Finland 1110
South Africa 1017
With a UK breakdown of
United Kingdom 47152
London 6892
Eastern England 6395
South Wales 4228
North Wales 3462
Northwest England 2953
Yorkshire 2677
East Midlands 2455
South West England 2178
South East England 1912
Southern England 1821
West Midlands 1527
Northeast England 374
Southern Scotland 306
Northern Scotland 217
Ulster 10
A lot of waymarks out there, just waiting for a first visit!
-
I have just logged a few that I could prove from the photos on my ipad
-
I have just logged 3 retrospective logs this morning of some places away from my home location I have found interesting. That is the first time I have used the site. They were previously found via Geocaching and TerraCaching.
I don't know if there is any intention to merge it with Geocaching.com. If it does or doesn't, I can't see myself logging many more just yet. If the idea is to be taken to an interesting location to see something I would not have otherwise without Waymarking, then my most local ones to Cirencester are not really inspiring me to go see them.
Had some interesting ideas whilst making breakfast for placing a couple of Waymarks myself. But would anyone log if they were difficult to reach? Some may possibly guess where my thoughts are going regarding this.
-
Had some interesting ideas whilst making breakfast for placing a couple of Waymarks myself. But would anyone log if they were difficult to reach? Some may possibly guess where my thoughts are going regarding this.
In the dark about that one ::)
-
Do wish people would read the 'Visit Instructions' ::)
Can't photograph the 'Waymark'? Equivalent of not signing the log!
;D
-
Had some interesting ideas whilst making breakfast for placing a couple of Waymarks myself. But would anyone log if they were difficult to reach? Some may possibly guess where my thoughts are going regarding this.
Wonder if they would fit in here > http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=2597eaed-763d-49b7-952f-b750e4188e1c
;)
-
Wow, the site seems to be used more than I thought, thanks for those stats @Bear and Ragged!
I don't know if there is any intention to merge it with Geocaching.com. If it does or doesn't, I can't see myself logging many more just yet. If the idea is to be taken to an interesting location to see something I would not have otherwise without Waymarking, then my most local ones to Cirencester are not really inspiring me to go see them.
I agree with this - although I think if they were to do so it would simply involve reinstating the grandfathered cache types. What's ironic is that Geocaching really is enhanced by location, and these virtual cache types share many more brilliant places where caches couldn't be placed. A lot of people stick to Geocaching.com only as they want one core find count, and I reckon this puts people off Waymarking, as did Challenges!
In the dark about that one ::)
Me too - any more hints @SangueG?
Do wish people would read the 'Visit Instructions' ::)
Can't photograph the 'Waymark'? Equivalent of not signing the log!
;D
Really?! So how do you claim them properly? I remember a lot of people were using photos to claim Challenges when they were around.
-
Really?! So how do you claim them properly? I remember a lot of people were using photos to claim Challenges when they were around.
Not too difficult.
Read the Visit Instructions.
Some just ask for a photo of the area. Some require a photo OF the waymark.
Some categories will let you log without a photo. BUT. You do need to "Describe your visit" - A decent description, not just "We came, we claim!" (That could be putting off a few cachers, as so many seem to be going for the shortest log possible, and often copy and paste...)
A GPS in the photo is no longer a requirement!
Unfortunate that there is no consistent logging system for Waymarking for all the categories, but usually a photo (of the waymark!) and a reasonable log will do most categories.
-
Wonder if they would fit in here > http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=2597eaed-763d-49b7-952f-b750e4188e1c
;)
Thank you, but no.. well maybe, but this is good. Good in that I haven't really looked at the site properly other than logging those finds this morning, but you have shown me that there is more structure to the site then I thought. "Categories".
I was not thinking of that category, though I know a few interesting places that would fit :) More I was thinking of these two: Mines (http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=2848856d-1d19-4cc9-815a-f917e4afb2d9) and Cave Entrances (Natural) (http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=bb628bec-42c7-4e73-a47e-5e75d7be86b2). But even more so I was thinking this... I might as well spit it out so it can be shot down now if not allowed:
Just an example:
To claim, take a photo of yourself with this particular example of ancient quarrymen drawing and writing. The coordinates take you to the exact spot, but the actual location is subterranean. You will need to research access to the quarry and plot your route under the ground to reach the correct location to find this drawing.
(only example text so you get the drift, would put a lot more detail in that that for the real thing)
So would that be allowed? If it was, I can imagine it not found, or not found often... about as rarely as an evil abanazer opencaching cave cache :P
-
Thank you, but no.. well maybe, but this is good. Good in that I haven't really looked at the site properly other than logging those finds this morning, but you have shown me that there is more structure to the site then I thought. "Categories".
I was not thinking of that category, though I know a few interesting places that would fit :) More I was thinking of these two: Mines (http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=2848856d-1d19-4cc9-815a-f917e4afb2d9) and Cave Entrances (Natural) (http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=bb628bec-42c7-4e73-a47e-5e75d7be86b2). But even more so I was thinking this... I might as well spit it out so it can be shot down now if not allowed:
Just an example:
To claim, take a photo of yourself with this particular example of ancient quarrymen drawing and writing. The coordinates take you to the exact spot, but the actual location is subterranean. You will need to research access to the quarry and plot your route under the ground to reach the correct location to find this drawing.
(only example text so you get the drift, would put a lot more detail in that that for the real thing)
So would that be allowed? If it was, I can imagine it not found, or not found often... about as rarely as an evil abanazer opencaching cave cache :P
Don't think it fits in Mines, and Cave entrances has
Wild (unmanaged) caves with exceptional and/or delicate and unprotected decoration or threatened wildlife (e.g. bat nurseries) are excluded. Be aware that any request by a credible source inside or outside the waymarking community to the managers to archive a wild cave on the grounds that exceptional decoration or threatened wildlife exists there will be honored.
Waymarks should also include in the description any exceptional hazards that may be encountered if the cave is entered.
Which could be the exclusion...
Wonder if there is anything in the Art categories?
Might be worth a question in http://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=144 to see where others suggest it should go? (Sounds rude, wasn't meant to!)
They can often come up with a few not-so-obvious categories...
-
That's a good idea @SangueG :)
Plus it'd make people pay attention to what's down there more :)
Imagine if we could still have virtual caches - all the interesting sites in the Bath mines which you could share!