This topic contains 8 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
Has anyone else stumbled upon this yet?
http://www.waymarking.com/You have to be a premimum member to access it for now. What do you think? Is it a replacement for virtuals? (They keep mentioning locationless caches, but it seems to me like virtuals might fit in here too.)
~MF
I must be getting REAL old!!!! This site is quite confusing, or at least the concept of categories or whatever they call them. Along with a bunch of other new terms that are hard to decipher.
I did manage to find my way into them, and voted to ‘upgrade’ a few of them, and ‘downgrade’ others.
Waymarking apparently is the replacement for both virtuals and locationaless.
[This message has been edited by marc_54140 (edited 08-22-2005).]
It looks pretty cool. Sounds like it is a lot of responsibility to be a “category owner.” However, I hate to see the death of virtual caches.
Ive been watching the Forum discussions for a while now- So far, I have to admit I don’t really see what the point is.
It seems like nothing more than a points of interest database to me.
I already have one of those in my CitySelect program- and it doesn’t take up any of my 500 waypoints to load it into my GPSr.
My stupid question is… if they can’t handle the current load on geocaching.com (weekend slowdowns, pocket query generator issues), why start another site? If this thing really takes off, what will happen to it during peak periods? (From Jeremy Irish’s profile: “Currently working on keeping up with the ever increasing load on our tiny servers.”)
Because of the lack of approvers (anything goes), there could be many times more waymarks than geocaches listed. Who will pay for storing this information and the bandwidth to serve it? I sure hope there will be a box to “opt out” of giving my premium membership money to waymarking.com… I really don’t need the coords to every McDonald’s restaurant or airport (as someone pointed, most of these waymarks already in a mapping GPS), nor do I feel the need to log / write about my visits to these locations.
Seems like a great way to handle locationless caches. But virtuals??? I don’t agree with that aspect.
A side note(question): Are these going to add to find totals? If so, I could probably go out this afternoon and get a half dozen in a heartbeat. That doesn’t seem quite right.
I guess it’s a step in the right direction as far as a good way to handle locationless. But that’s about it.My thinking is that “find totals” really don’t mean a whole lot anymore. How many parking lot caches (easy) equals one Navarino Bob(hard)? There are a lot of traditional geocaches out there with less difficulty than some of these “Waymarks.”
We know many cachers with over 1,000 finds that have been involved in the hobby for a short amount of time. Amy and I started caching in January of 2003…and we haven’t even hit 150 yet!
I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s all relative. If Groundspeak were to count these Waymarks as “finds” that would be fine with us. A location is a location, whether there be a logbook or not…
I went back and read my post again and was concerned people may take it the wrong way. There is nothing wrong with numbers. Nothing at all. Those who have found hundreds of caches have dedicated a lot of time and energy to the hobby. I wish we had more of both to spend caching!
I guess I’m just saying that this “Waymarking” isn’t as bad as some may have made it out to be. We’ll wait and see how it comes about.
Im pretty sure that waymarking is not going to reflect cache finds on geocaching.com
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.