DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Cache Walker
HTML https://cachewalker.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Caching
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Will Waymarking merge back with Geocaching?
DIR By: Griff Grof
Date: July 24, 2014, 7:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow, the site seems to be used more than I thought, thanks for
those stats [member=6]Bear and Ragged[/member]!
--- Quote from: SangueG link ---
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
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!
--- Quote from: walktall link ---
>
> In the dark about that one ::)
>
--- End Quote ---
Me too - any more hints [member=51]SangueG[/member]?
--- Quote from: Bear and Ragged link ---
>
> Do wish people would read the 'Visit Instructions' ::)
>
> Can't photograph the 'Waymark'? Equivalent of not signing the
log!
>
> ;D
--- End Quote ---
Really?! So how do you claim them properly? I remember a lot of
people were using photos to claim Challenges when they were
around.
#Post#: 8137--------------------------------------------------
Re: Will Waymarking merge back with Geocaching?
DIR By: Bear and Ragged
Date: July 24, 2014, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Griff Grof link ---
>
> Really?! So how do you claim them properly? I remember a lot
of people were using photos to claim Challenges when they were
around.
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 8139--------------------------------------------------
Re: Will Waymarking merge back with Geocaching?
DIR By: SangueG
Date: July 24, 2014, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bear and Ragged link ---
>
> Wonder if they would fit in here >
HTML http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=2597eaed-763d-49b7-952f-b750e4188e1c
>
> ;)
>
--- End Quote ---
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
HTML http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=2848856d-1d19-4cc9-815a-f917e4afb2d9<br
/>and Cave Entrances (Natural)
HTML http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=bb628bec-42c7-4e73-a47e-5e75d7be86b2.<br
/>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
#Post#: 8141--------------------------------------------------
Re: Will Waymarking merge back with Geocaching?
DIR By: Bear and Ragged
Date: July 24, 2014, 2:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: SangueG link ---
>
> 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
HTML http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=2848856d-1d19-4cc9-815a-f917e4afb2d9<br
/>and Cave Entrances (Natural)
HTML http://www.waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=bb628bec-42c7-4e73-a47e-5e75d7be86b2.<br
/>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
>
--- End Quote ---
Don't think it fits in Mines, and Cave entrances has
--- Quote ---
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
Which could be the exclusion...
Wonder if there is anything in the Art categories?
Might be worth a question in
HTML 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...
#Post#: 8144--------------------------------------------------
Re: Will Waymarking merge back with Geocaching?
DIR By: Griff Grof
Date: July 25, 2014, 3:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's a good idea [member=51]SangueG[/member] :)
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!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page