Logging archived Locationless caches?

[+tgjamin]

Hello,

 

I found a list of the Locationless caches online here: http://home.comcast.net/~geocacherbb/Locationless.html and I was intrigued. I understand that they are now Waymarking.com categories, but I do want to log the archived ones on geocaching.com.

 

What do you recommend?

[+Touchstone]

They were all Locked to prevent folks from logging them. My suggestion? Try out Waymarking instead

[+tgjamin]

They were all Locked to prevent folks from logging them. My suggestion? Try out Waymarking instead

They are locked. I might try out Waymarking then.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Ther is no correlation between Locationless and Waymarking. Locationless no longer exist. Waymarking is something entirely different. Unfortunately.

[Dinoprophet]

Ther is no correlation between Locationless and Waymarking. Locationless no longer exist. Waymarking is something entirely different. Unfortunately.

I get that it's different from virtuals, but locationless? Waymarking is a vast improvement over the way the exact same activity was implemented here. I would be very interested in hearing what you feel the differences are. The logging requirements maybe?

[Mr.Yuck]

They were all Locked to prevent folks from logging them. My suggestion? Try out Waymarking instead

They are locked. I might try out Waymarking then.

 

Yup. If they weren't locked, we'd have forum threads every week about trying to log them. There's an alternative Geocaching website that still has them. Or you can give Waymarking a try. I will stay out of the ensuing Waymarking vs. Locationless debate.

[+Too Tall John]

Ther is no correlation between Locationless and Waymarking. Locationless no longer exist. Waymarking is something entirely different. Unfortunately.

I get that it's different from virtuals, but locationless? Waymarking is a vast improvement over the way the exact same activity was implemented here. I would be very interested in hearing what you feel the differences are. The logging requirements maybe?

Well, it certainly isn't the . . .

 

. . . or the .

 

 

 

 

From my experience, to list a new locationless waymark, the review process is much more temperamental.

[+sbell111]

When Waymarking was initially implemented, it was a good substitute for LCs. That is simply no longer true.

[Dinoprophet]

When Waymarking was initially implemented, it was a good substitute for LCs. That is simply no longer true.

What changed? I'm honestly curious.

[+sbell111]

When Waymarking was initially implemented, it was a good substitute for LCs. That is simply no longer true.

What changed? I'm honestly curious.

If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing.

[+TheBeanTeam]

When Waymarking was initially implemented, it was a good substitute for LCs. That is simply no longer true.

What changed? I'm honestly curious.

If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing.

 

Interesting,

 

That is not the feeling I get. In every category I assist with or created there is a strong locationless aspect.

 

This is the object. Go find it, share with the community where you found it and offer a description of it and photos. This is exactly the way locationless worked for the most part. The difference is that with locationless caches once a spot was found it was out of play. In Waymarking the spot is visitable.

 

Especially for the posting of waymarks I think there is an expectation that the waymarker visit the location and most of the categories clearly stipulate that you personally obtain coordinates at the spot with your GPS at the location waymarked.

 

Armchair logging of waymarks is generally frowned on as well and forum thread pop up discussing armchair logging whenever someone appears to be logging visits without actually visiting. In one case I know of a user had logged visits on several hundred waymarks. When it came to light his numbers dropped rapidly one by one as the different category officers and waymark owners started deleting his finds.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Ther is no correlation between Locationless and Waymarking. Locationless no longer exist. Waymarking is something entirely different. Unfortunately.

I get that it's different from virtuals, but locationless? Waymarking is a vast improvement over the way the exact same activity was implemented here. I would be very interested in hearing what you feel the differences are. The logging requirements maybe?

 

You're not kidding, are you? Locationless was 'find something that fits this category, that no one else has found'. It was a challenge! Waymarking is 'find anything that anyone else has ever found.' No challenge involved. I can walk down the street and log the church three or four times. Whybothermarking?

True, there were some pretty dumb Locationless caches: Find an American Flag. But that's still better than waypoint every MacDonalds in the country. And, of course, Locationless was not maintained well. People logged anything. The challenge to find a Frank Lloyd Wright building, or Visqueney doughboy was fun. And you don't know how hard it was to find a street sign with the name "Jesus" on it for "Where's My Name". Had to go to Carmel, New York for that one! Googled it, and that's the nearest street with Jesus in its name, and it's ninety miles away.

Adding a new entry to Locationless was simple. Upload photo and coords. Theoretically, the cache owner checked to make sure the log qualified and was not used before. (And that was one of the weak points. Many cache owners did not.) Adding a new waypoint is far more difficult than submitting a new cache, and takes far longer for review. (Yes. I have one. Center of Population Benchmarks. I submitted it for my benchmarking friends.) I will never go through that hassle again!

Waymarking lets you log a find on anyone else's waymark, with the ease one used to have logging on Locationless. But whybothermarking? I'm not that bored! (Yes, I did log a find on a covered bridge in Maine. Got one. All I need.)

IMHO, Waymarking took all that was fun and challenging about Locationless and eliminated it, or made it much harder. It took all that was wrong with Locationless, and expanded it. Whybother? Nope. I do not plan on logging the church five times. Or the doughboy three times. I'm not that bored. I'd rather go find an LPC! They're far more interesting!

[+briansnat]

Ther is no correlation between Locationless and Waymarking. Locationless no longer exist. Waymarking is something entirely different. Unfortunately.

 

Waymarking is actually very similar.

 

With locationless caches, someone would submit a object (for example, observatories) and you would have to go out and find an example of it that nobody else has found. When you would find one you would usually take a photo of it, obtain the coordinates then log it online.

 

With Waymarking, someone submits a category (for example, observatories) and you have to go out and find an example of it that nobody else has found. When you find one, you take a photo of it, obtain the coordinates, then create a waymark for it.

 

All but the last step are essentially the same.

 

ou're not kidding, are you? Locationless was 'find something that fits this category, that no one else has found'. It was a challenge! Waymarking is 'find anything that anyone else has ever found.' No challenge involved. I can walk down the street and log the church three or four times. Whybothermarking?

 

I think you are confusing logging waymarks with creating waymarks. The latter is the replacement for locationless caches. The former is the replacement for virtuals.

 

Think of it as if you could log finds on someones locationess logs. BrianSnat creates a locationless cache for lighthouses. Harry Dolphin finds a really cool lighthouse and logs it. Now everyone else can come along and use Harry D's posted coordinates to find that lighthouse and log it as a virtual. That is Waymarking.

Edited July 1, 2010 by briansnat

[+BruceS]

When Waymarking was initially implemented, it was a good substitute for LCs. That is simply no longer true.

What changed? I'm honestly curious.

If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing.

 

What in general we don't like is photos with a gps in the middle of them. We want people to submit good photos they have taken instead.

[Dinoprophet]

You're not kidding, are you? Locationless was 'find something that fits this category, that no one else has found'. It was a challenge!

That's what Waymarking is as well.

Waymarking is 'find anything that anyone else has ever found.' No challenge involved. I can walk down the street and log the church three or four times. Whybothermarking?

No, it's "find something that fits this category, that no one else has found". It also lets you "find something in this category that someone else has found". Brian's post above lays it out nicely, I think.

 

True, there were some pretty dumb Locationless caches: Find an American Flag. But that's still better than waypoint every MacDonalds in the country. And, of course, Locationless was not maintained well. People logged anything. The challenge to find a Frank Lloyd Wright building, or Visqueney doughboy was fun. And you don't know how hard it was to find a street sign with the name "Jesus" on it for "Where's My Name". Had to go to Carmel, New York for that one! Googled it, and that's the nearest street with Jesus in its name, and it's ninety miles away.

You admit there were dumb locationless categories just as there are dumb Waymarking categories, and all the locationless categories you list are also Waymarking categories. I'm still looking for the difference.

 

What makes you think you can't find a Doughboy statue or a FLW building or a Jesus street in Waymarking?

 

Adding a new entry to Locationless was simple. Upload photo and coords. Theoretically, the cache owner checked to make sure the log qualified and was not used before. (And that was one of the weak points. Many cache owners did not.)

Yes, it was a weak point, eliminated by the Waymarking site. The check is done automatically. It's also trivial to see if a location has already been posted, unlike locationless.

Adding a new waypoint is far more difficult than submitting a new cache, and takes far longer for review. (Yes. I have one. Center of Population Benchmarks. I submitted it for my benchmarking friends.) I will never go through that hassle again!

It's true you have to actually learn something about the spot before posting it. Isn't that the point? Are you saying you like locationless because they were essentially park-and-grabs?

 

As for taking longer to review, that depends on the category owners. Mine are turned around in hours if not minutes (depends on how soon I get the notification. ETA: in the hour since I posted this, a new post arrived in my inbox. Someone else in the group had already approved it by the time I saw it). I've had some of my posts take a couple days. Never longer than a reasonable wait for a cache posting (I do recognize that a few categories do have an absentee owner problem). At least with Waymarking, there are multiple people who can review it, unlike locationless, where you relied on one person, who may or may not still be active.

 

Waymarking lets you log a find on anyone else's waymark, with the ease one used to have logging on Locationless. But whybothermarking? I'm not that bored! (Yes, I did log a find on a covered bridge in Maine. Got one. All I need.)

That's a separate part of Waymarking, more akin to virtuals. We're talking about locationless here.

IMHO, Waymarking took all that was fun and challenging about Locationless and eliminated it, or made it much harder. It took all that was wrong with Locationless, and expanded it. Whybother? Nope. I do not plan on logging the church five times. Or the doughboy three times. I'm not that bored. I'd rather go find an LPC! They're far more interesting!

It removed what made it challenging AND made it harder......

 

For all that, I still don't understand why you think Waymarking is significantly different from locationless. What was eliminated?

 

Log the doughboy once, in the Doughboy category. Done. Why is that less fun than the Doughboy locationless? I've posted waymarks to categories that could fit other categories but decided not to. No biggie.

 

BTW, for anyone checking out my finds and not seeing any locationless, that's because I logged them as notes. I thought it was a fun activity -- I loved it, in fact -- but it wasn't geocaching, so I didn't want them in my find count. Also, it was a pain to know what ones were out there because they had arbitrary coordinates (this being a site for listing geocaches, after all), so there was no way to search for them. And they had clever names that hid what the category actually was. I was thrilled when I heard locationless was being moved to a site designed for the game.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+sbell111]

When Waymarking was initially implemented, it was a good substitute for LCs. That is simply no longer true.

What changed? I'm honestly curious.

If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing.

 

What in general we don't like is photos with a gps in the middle of them. We want people to submit good photos they have taken instead.

The beauty of digital photography is that one can easily take and upload both photos.

[Dinoprophet]

When Waymarking was initially implemented, it was a good substitute for LCs. That is simply no longer true.

What changed? I'm honestly curious.

If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing.

Does that really significantly change the activity of finding locations that fit categories?

[+sbell111]

When Waymarking was initially implemented, it was a good substitute for LCs. That is simply no longer true.

What changed? I'm honestly curious.

If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing.

Does that really significantly change the activity of finding locations that fit categories?

You mean other than the fact that you can do the entire activity from your couch?

[Dinoprophet]

When Waymarking was initially implemented, it was a good substitute for LCs. That is simply no longer true.

What changed? I'm honestly curious.

If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing.

Does that really significantly change the activity of finding locations that fit categories?

You mean other than the fact that you can do the entire activity from your couch?

Well, I suppose you could. Except for those categories that some have said are too hard to log. And the ones where the photo requirements are too strictly enforced ("tin dictators", I think I've seen waymarkers called for their logging requirements).

 

I don't log from my couch, thus I haven't seen a change in the activity.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+tozainamboku]

When Waymarking was initially implemented, it was a good substitute for LCs. That is simply no longer true.

What changed? I'm honestly curious.

If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing.

Does that really significantly change the activity of finding locations that fit categories?

You mean other than the fact that you can do the entire activity from your couch?

Within Waymarking each category group is given a lot of latitude as to how they manage their category. Some groups want to develop lists or catalogs of locations. These groups may allow you to create waymarks without visiting the locations even to take accurate GPS coordinates. Other groups want to have use the waymarks to collect information about these locations that may not be available elsewhere. These groups may have strict requirements to provide the values for the category specific variables, or may require original photographs of the location - without a GPS detracting from the picture. Still other group choose to view their categories as locationless caches. They challenge folks to find examples, get good coordinates with a GPS, and provide proof with a picture of the GPS at the location. Similarly groups can choose what the requirements are for visiting a waymark. Some have no requirement and anyone may log a visit, others want a picture, and others ask for the waymark owner to provide a verification question that can be answered only by a visitor.

 

Depending on the way you want to use Waymarking, a case can be made that categories need to have attributes or some other way to see at a glance the requirements for posting new waymarks and for visiting existing ones, so that you could find only those categories that meet your definition of a locationless cache or a virtual cache.

[+BlueDeuce]

Huh, just pasted a seven year anniversary of logging one of those locationless caches.

 

Edited July 1, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+briansnat]

When Waymarking was initially implemented, it was a good substitute for LCs. That is simply no longer true.

What changed? I'm honestly curious.

If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing.

Does that really significantly change the activity of finding locations that fit categories?

You mean other than the fact that you can do the entire activity from your couch?

Well, I suppose you could. Except for those categories that some have said are too hard to log. And the ones where the photo requirements are too strictly enforced ("tin dictators", I think I've seen waymarkers called for their logging requirements).

 

I don't log from my couch, thus I haven't seen a change in the activity.

 

Geocaching has its couch loggers as well. Both sports can be done from the couch. It depends on how vigilant the cache and waymark owners are.

[+sbell111]

When Waymarking was initially implemented, it was a good substitute for LCs. That is simply no longer true.

What changed? I'm honestly curious.

If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing.

Does that really significantly change the activity of finding locations that fit categories?

You mean other than the fact that you can do the entire activity from your couch?

Well, I suppose you could. Except for those categories that some have said are too hard to log. And the ones where the photo requirements are too strictly enforced ("tin dictators", I think I've seen waymarkers called for their logging requirements).

 

I don't log from my couch, thus I haven't seen a change in the activity.

 

Geocaching has its couch loggers as well. Both sports can be done from the couch. It depends on how vigilant the cache and waymark owners are.

That's just the thing. With the community being against requiring GPS pics, it is much more difficult for a waymark owner to determine whether a visit was actually made. This is in addition to the waymark owners who merely consider WM.com to be a location listing service and could care less if any actual visits are made. The two attitudes colliding is what ensures that WM.com will never be a viable replacement for LCs, as it was once believed to be.

[+Harry Dolphin]

For all that, I still don't understand why you think Waymarking is significantly different from locationless.

 

Ah. Sorry. My fault. I thought you were looking for the answers to questions, not someone to argue with. I have answered your questions. If you don't like the answers, then I'm sorry.

I started on Geocaching six years ago this week. I enjoy it very much. If I had started at Waymarking, I would have lasted a week, if that.

Why bother? Is the question I ask. You could read a book, or you could read a dictionary. All the same words! But one is interesting; the other is not.

For your edification, I have explained why whybothermarking has no interest for me. Why bother?

[Dinoprophet]

For all that, I still don't understand why you think Waymarking is significantly different from locationless.

 

Ah. Sorry. My fault. I thought you were looking for the answers to questions, not someone to argue with. I have answered your questions. If you don't like the answers, then I'm sorry.

I started on Geocaching six years ago this week. I enjoy it very much. If I had started at Waymarking, I would have lasted a week, if that.

Why bother? Is the question I ask. You could read a book, or you could read a dictionary. All the same words! But one is interesting; the other is not.

For your edification, I have explained why whybothermarking has no interest for me. Why bother?

I didn't ask why it isn't interesting to you. I asked what the difference is. Your answer was

Locationless was 'find something that fits this category, that no one else has found'. It was a challenge! Waymarking is 'find anything that anyone else has ever found.' No challenge involved.

And that's not true. "find something that fits this category, that no one else has found" is exactly what Waymarking is. It's other things as well, but finding new places is the main activity (as we're reminded every time the virtuals subject comes up).

 

I'm really not trying to argue. I sincerely believe Waymarking is the same activity with an improved site, you said it isn't. I asked why you say that, and you haven't convinced me, because the difference you cited isn't correct.

 

 

Let me put it another way: how is doing this different from doing this?

 

Locationless:

We would like to find where all these statues were placed. If you can find when yours was placed that would be great. Please take a picture of your statue and the nameplate and give your coordinates. To verify your find you and your GPS should be in the photo. (No internet downloads, scanned magazine photos, or old vacation photos.) One log per 'cacher, each statue can be logged only once.

Waymarking:

While naming your submissions please state the name first, then city and state. Example - Spirit of the American Doughboy - Johnson City, Tennessee. One clear picture of the entire statue is required. A second picture of Viquesney's signature or copyright plate,on the base of the statue, website documentation or similar proof that it is a Viquesney statue will be accepted. What organization presented this statue - if known. What year was it dedicated - if known. Address: Were there any viewing restrictions? Hours/Days?

Edited July 1, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+Harry Dolphin]

I didn't ask why it isn't interesting to you. I asked what the difference is.

 

You may continue arguing with yourself all you like. (Like talking to a brick wall.)

Whybothermarking is boring. Like reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica to find what 'boring' means. And it's annoying. Locationless Cachers were fun and interesting.

Fine! You win! (Like talking to a brick wall!) They're exactly the same! (Except that whybothermarks are Boring!) Now go find all the MacDonalds in the civilized world, and have fun. I'll go geocaching. You go find all the covered bridges in North America. And all the stop signs.

If you enjoy it, go for it! I don't, so I shan't! I've got better things to do that I enjoy (I did enjoy Locationless. I have absolutely no interest in WM.)

[+tozainamboku]

I didn't ask why it isn't interesting to you. I asked what the difference is.

 

You may continue arguing with yourself all you like. (Like talking to a brick wall.)

Whybothermarking is boring. Like reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica to find what 'boring' means. And it's annoying. Locationless Cachers were fun and interesting.

Fine! You win! (Like talking to a brick wall!) They're exactly the same! (Except that whybothermarks are Boring!) Now go find all the MacDonalds in the civilized world, and have fun. I'll go geocaching. You go find all the covered bridges in North America. And all the stop signs.

If you enjoy it, go for it! I don't, so I shan't! I've got better things to do that I enjoy (I did enjoy Locationless. I have absolutely no interest in WM.)

I wonder what about locationless caches you found fun and interesting. I never found them fun or interesting and that's why I never bothered finding one. Even when we knew they were going away and it would be the last opportunity to get the icon, that was not enough to interest me into doing one. I did consider doing one that was called "Fill In the Blanks" that essentially was to place a geocache on some location that was the name of a USGS quad where there was no cache already. But what interested me there was the chance to place a cache on a remote location more than the idea of logging the locationless. I have created a few waymarks though, and yes I even admit to creating multiple waymarks in different categories for the same location. It's not something that I do often, but I thought I could share some interesting places that I know about with other people who might be interested in those categories. There definitely is a difference between creating a waymark and finding a locationless cache. Primarily I think it is something like . Though it is certainly the case that most categories ask you to provide some additional information about the location and write it up as a waymark page instead of just posting coordinates and a picture.

[Dinoprophet]

I didn't ask why it isn't interesting to you. I asked what the difference is.

 

You may continue arguing with yourself all you like. (Like talking to a brick wall.)

Whybothermarking is boring. Like reading the entire Encyclopedia Britannica to find what 'boring' means. And it's annoying. Locationless Cachers were fun and interesting.

Fine! You win! (Like talking to a brick wall!) They're exactly the same! (Except that whybothermarks are Boring!) Now go find all the MacDonalds in the civilized world, and have fun. I'll go geocaching. You go find all the covered bridges in North America. And all the stop signs.

If you enjoy it, go for it! I don't, so I shan't! I've got better things to do that I enjoy (I did enjoy Locationless. I have absolutely no interest in WM.)

And you enjoy the Wal-Mart parking lots (since were generalizing the extremes).

 

I know what boring means. What I don't get is why an activity is boring on one site and fun on another.

 

This has prompted me to create a Locationless bookmark list, with Waymarking cross-reference. I'll find it useful, hopefully others will too. It will take a while to finish, though.

[+briansnat]

For all that, I still don't understand why you think Waymarking is significantly different from locationless.

 

Ah. Sorry. My fault. I thought you were looking for the answers to questions, not someone to argue with. I have answered your questions. If you don't like the answers, then I'm sorry.

I started on Geocaching six years ago this week. I enjoy it very much. If I had started at Waymarking, I would have lasted a week, if that.

Why bother? Is the question I ask. You could read a book, or you could read a dictionary. All the same words! But one is interesting; the other is not.

For your edification, I have explained why whybothermarking has no interest for me. Why bother?

 

I think most of us can understand your preference for geocaching over Waymarking. I prefer geocaching myself.

 

When it comes to virts and locationless vs Waymarking, I get the arguments about using a different site. Some people don't want to deal with two sites.

 

I get the arguments about the Waymarking site being a bit difficult to navigate at first. It does take a little effort

 

What I don't get are the arguments saying that Waymarking is boring, but virtuals are not. How is this boring, yet this is exciting? Why is this exciting but this is boring? What is so intriguing about this, while this is dull? What make this so wonderful and this a waste of time?

 

This is something that I've yet to see anybody explain coherently.

Edited July 2, 2010 by briansnat

[+Packanack]

[/quoteThis is something that I've yet to see anybody explain coherently.

 

]

 

I know you will think me nuts, but do not worry--you will find yourself in some good company. Post retirement I would like to re-engage in a second profession -- Psychology--and so I started studying some of it. There is a thing called Flow Psychology and it has to do with how the senses of a person are engaged in an activity. The subject gets into the flow. For instance a fisherman selects a spot, moves into position, had selected gear, chooses the lure and cast the line all in studied concentration--all other concerns and outside influences are removed as the concentration focuses--that is his flow state.

 

I ride a bicycle and at times the way the bicycle moves over pavement, cuts through a turn brings me to a state of mind where all other concerns are removed.

 

There is some of that flow state in caching, concentrating on the time and distance and the hint to focus on the find, noting the appearance of the physical location. It engages a higher form of concentration. The former instances you mentioned all contained some of that element, hunt for the solution as in the manufacturer of the bridge at Great Falls, so that the find can be claimed. I must concentrate to find that part of the puzzle. It is that level of flow and concentration that marks an activity as pleasurable and if the level of concentration is not there, the activity might be passable but long term it is not pleasurable enough to pursue consistently.

 

That element is lacking in the Waymarking equation and as such the same degree of engagement and concentration or state of flow is not achieved. It is just that slight variation in the engagement that makes the difference to most people. Each of us has some activity to which we are drawn by virtue of the flow state we can achieve within the activity. Readers, musicians, athletes all get into that state, artist, knitters --

 

I always envied musicians who could get lost in music. I always wanted to be able to flow in that direction, but alas it is not to be. I will be a listener, not a maker. That is the level of my flow.

 

Waymarking strikes me as missing the same level needed for many to achieve the flow that provides the pleasure.

[+Markwell]

<Markwell removes his moderator hat and places it in a stool in the corner>

 

The question is not that Waymarking is missing that flow. I agree - the concentration and exhilaration of counting down the distance and following the direction, the sense of anticipation - all leading up to the point of "Ah, I found it - I know what it is, that's cool" is missed in Waymarking. Instead it flips it around to no sense of surprise on the find - or location marker. Instead the "finder" has the knowledge and is adding it to a list of possible locations that fit the criteria.

 

Virtual caching is VERY different (as is geocaching). In the caching experience versus the Waymarking, you know very little about the location or the experience you will have. You're putting your trust into a posted website that it will bring you to a location that hopefully will make you say "AH, that was fun. I never knew about that." Plugging the coordinates into the GPS, setting off and watching the distance reduce, figuring out paths when the bearing arrow is pointing you through an insurmountable barrier of stinging nettles - and then finding the location. That is the flow.

 

But - and here's the important part - Locationless caching (not virtual caching) is the same lack of flow as Waymarking. Locationless caches asked people to find a location based on criteria. Waymarking has categories and asks people to find locations based on criteria of the category. Same thing.

 

Virtual caches are different, but I don't believe there should be new ones. Waymarking does not equal the thrill of anticipation that geocaching (virtual or containered) does.

 

But I most certainly agree that virtuals are just not the same thrill on Waymarking as they were with Geocaching.com.

 

<Moderator hat back on for when I return to the Getting Started area>

 

 

 

 

(and for the record I do get lost in the flow of music).

[+Packanack]

Markwell , has it.

 

But with locationless (I am a fan) you were set off into the wide world with the expectation that you would make observations and find the object in familiar settings --your observation powers were engaged.(This is where our opinions diverge--locationless I supplied the location, Waymarking the location is supplied me) It is what the individual is asked to bring something to the table in the former that he is not in the latter.

 

Geocaching (the narrow view) finding a container with a log engages several levels. Physical as in paddling , hiking, biking. Social as in group hikes , events and CITO , intellectual as in following the GPS, solving the puzzle and making the physical observation , sort out the cryptic hints. This activity allows us to dispense with the issues of the day and is thus pleasurable, so much for some that it becomes something of an obsessive quest.

 

Lack of those elements = the micro park and grab vs. the hike for the ammo can at a spectacular location. The experience vs. the numbers debate. For some it is pleasurable to see their numbers climb, for others hours in the woods is pleasant.

 

When Waymarking can decipher what goes into engaging all of the elements it will become more to the liking of cachers.

 

One thing , that bothers me is there seems to be an on going debate over which is best, that in my estimation is a wrong direction. Our focus should be on does the activity benefit us, does it provide recreation for us. Is it good for me and fun for me. I carve out a period of time on Sunday mornings for my activities to recharge , recreate and experience different things . It is this short weekly hiatus that keeps me engaged--for me it is social, physical, and is not work. Don't nag me if I Waymark and I won't nag you if you geocache. Enjoy the holiday weekend, I think I am going to try some Waymarking with some caching.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Packanack

[Dinoprophet]

Markwell , has it.

 

But with locationless (I am a fan) you were set off into the wide world with the expectation that you would make observations and find the object in familiar settings --your observation powers were engaged.(This is where our opinions diverge--locationless I supplied the location, Waymarking the location is supplied me) It is what the individual is asked to bring something to the table in the former that he is not in the latter.

But in Waymarking, you ALSO supply the location. That's where I'm not understanding the claims that the activities are different.

 

Waymarking replaces BOTH locationless and (to a lesser degree) virtuals. And you can do one completely independent of the other. I know people who only post waymarks (locationless) and I know people who only visit them (virtual).

 

Waymarking has a bunch of categories. Your goal is to find things in any of those categories and post coordinates, photos, and specific information to the category. That is the locationless aspect.

 

Once someone posts a location to a category, that location is then available for others to visit. This is the virtual aspect. It does differ in that you know what you're going to see.

 

Geocaching (the narrow view) finding a container with a log engages several levels. Physical as in paddling , hiking, biking. Social as in group hikes , events and CITO , intellectual as in following the GPS, solving the puzzle and making the physical observation , sort out the cryptic hints. This activity allows us to dispense with the issues of the day and is thus pleasurable, so much for some that it becomes something of an obsessive quest.

 

Lack of those elements = the micro park and grab vs. the hike for the ammo can at a spectacular location. The experience vs. the numbers debate.

That, and your previous post, are very interesting.

 

When Waymarking can decipher what goes into engaging all of the elements it will become more to the liking of cachers.

 

One thing , that bothers me is there seems to be an on going debate over which is best, that in my estimation is a wrong direction. Our focus should be on does the activity benefit us, does it provide recreation for us. Is it good for me and fun for me. I carve out a period of time on Sunday mornings for my activities to recharge , recreate and experience different things . It is this short weekly hiatus that keeps me engaged--for me it is social, physical, and is not work. Don't nag me if I Waymark and I won't nag you if you geocache. Enjoy the holiday weekend, I think I am going to try some Waymarking.

I'm fine with people not liking Waymarking. I just don't like seeing people chasing others away from it by saying it's not something it is, or is something it isn't (that's not in reference to you).

 

I hope everyone enjoys their chosen activities this weekend. I'm hoping to do some of both.

[+Packanack]

Add the smiley to Waymarking and bingo

[+briansnat]

There is some of that flow state in caching, concentrating on the time and distance and the hint to focus on the find, noting the appearance of the physical location. It engages a higher form of concentration. The former instances you mentioned all contained some of that element, hunt for the solution as in the manufacturer of the bridge at Great Falls, so that the find can be claimed. I must concentrate to find that part of the puzzle. It is that level of flow and concentration that marks an activity as pleasurable and if the level of concentration is not there, the activity might be passable but long term it is not pleasurable enough to pursue consistently.

 

I get your flow thinking, but in my virtual examples above people don't have to look for anything, all that is required is a photo. Same as Waymarking. Many virtuals only require a photo. To me that would make the flow the same.

 

In the Great Falls example (as well as other examples) the there are two possible logging methods. A photo or info found on a plaque. As owner of that virtual I noticed that most finders choose taking the photo, over finding the plaque and sending me the info. If flow is a key element of virtualst then why would that be the case?

 

Virtual caching is VERY different (as is geocaching). In the caching experience versus the Waymarking, you know very little about the location or the experience you will have.

 

In some cases, yes. But many virtuals tell you up front what you are looking for. Every one of my examples above do.

 

So again, using my examples, how is one exciting and the other not?

 

But with locationless (I am a fan) you were set off into the wide world with the expectation that you would make observations and find the object in familiar settings --your observation powers were engaged.(This is where our opinions diverge--locationless I supplied the location, Waymarking the location is supplied me) It is what the individual is asked to bring something to the table in the former that he is not in the latter.

 

How is that different than Waymarking? Someone provides a category and I set off into the wide world to use my observation skills to find that object in familiar settings. My observational skills are indeed engaged.

 

When we had locationless caches I had a mental list of a about a dozen that interested me and was constantly on the lookout for examples. When I encountered one there was that eureka! moment, as I slammed on the breaks and stopped to take the required photo and obtain coordinates.

 

Now I have a mental list of about a dozen Waymarking categories that interest me. 100+ year old churches is one of them. Earlier this week I was driving through East Hanover, when I spotted a large white building out of the corner of my. A second glance confirmed that it was a church, probably very old. I had that eureka! moment and slammed on the brakes so I could take the required photo and obtain coordinates.

Exactly the same experience as locationless caching.

 

Markwell pointed out that there is SOMETIMES an element of surprise with virtuals. That element is rare (but not totally missing) in Waymarking. I get the attraction of that.

 

But locationless caching vs Waymarking experience is nearly identical. The only exceptions are that with Waymarking you may actually need to learn a little something about the object you discovered. That and the final step is creating a waymark vs logging a find. But as far as going out into the world and using your observational skills - no difference between the two.

Edited July 2, 2010 by briansnat

[+sbell111]

Let me put it another way: how is doing this different from doing this?

 

Locationless:

We would like to find where all these statues were placed. If you can find when yours was placed that would be great. Please take a picture of your statue and the nameplate and give your coordinates. To verify your find you and your GPS should be in the photo. (No internet downloads, scanned magazine photos, or old vacation photos.) One log per 'cacher, each statue can be logged only once.

Waymarking:

While naming your submissions please state the name first, then city and state. Example - Spirit of the American Doughboy - Johnson City, Tennessee. One clear picture of the entire statue is required. A second picture of Viquesney's signature or copyright plate,on the base of the statue, website documentation or similar proof that it is a Viquesney statue will be accepted. What organization presented this statue - if known. What year was it dedicated - if known. Address: Were there any viewing restrictions? Hours/Days?

The exampled LC required that the finder actually go to the location (and prove that he was there). The exampled waymark does not. Since LC caches were all about logging an item before anyone else did, this requirement was important. A waymarker attempting to have the same fun WMing will be frustrated by those who simply google up the required images. Edited July 2, 2010 by sbell111

[+Avernar]

When we had locationless caches I had a mental list of a about a dozen that interested me and was constantly on the lookout for examples. When I encountered one there was that eureka! moment, as I slammed on the breaks and stopped to take the required photo and obtain coordinates.

 

Now I have a mental list of about a dozen Waymarking categories that interest me. 100+ year old churches is one of them. Earlier this week I was driving through East Hanover, when I spotted a large white building out of the corner of my. A second glance confirmed that it was a church, probably very old. I had that eureka! moment and slammed on the brakes so I could take the required photo and obtain coordinates.

 

Exactly the same experience as locationless caching.

Out of curiosity, how many times have you been rear-ended?

 

I agree, I don't see any difference between locationless caches and posting waymarks. Nobody here has given an example of how they're different other than the differences in navigating the two websites.

[+Avernar]

The exampled LC required that the finder actually go to the location (and prove that he was there). The exampled waymark does not.

If you could find a creative commons or public domain photos that match the requirements, yeah, you could cheat. But that's easily fixed by putting in the category's requirements that the photo must be taken by poster.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Avernar

[+BlueDeuce]

A waymarker attempting to have the same fun WMing will be frustrated by those who simply google up the required images.

 

Spirit of the American Doughboy

 

I got the only two in Iowa and I was there.

[+Packanack]

Differences

Subtle to the point that they might not even be recognized, or so subtle as to be deemed immaterial by some ( I tend to fall into that category), but perhaps just as legitimately material to others so as to affect their like or dislike. This is the type of thing I spoke of earlier, in how the activity engages a person. For me the argument over good ,better,best is a matter of preference and not worth the time. If you like it so be it, it not it is not crucial to your enjoying something else. But I do see a difference, especially with the Virtuals. I think certain hiders, and only certain hiders who have demonstrated responsibility to the game should be licensed to hide VIRTUALS, under an anonymous Virtual Hider Banner. In my geographical area I could see Harry Dolphin and Briansnat being two such persons, even though I sense they are polar opposites on the issue, they are both most wonderful hiders, among many in this area.

 

Then:LOCATIONLESS

Tell us about the statue and the dog Different

Post the coordinates for the statue/memorial Different

Post a photo of the statue/memorial Given in Waymarking so different

Post a photo of your GPSr at statue/memorial Same requirement

One log per person, a statue/memorial can only be logged once

 

My emphasis above.

NOW: Waymarking

Visit Instructions:

When logging waymarks posted to this category, please provide a photo of the statue with you and your GPS to show you have visited the waymark.

 

Now back to work for me, I am doggin it coming into the Holiday.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Packanack

[Dinoprophet]

Let me put it another way: how is doing this different from doing this?

 

Locationless:

We would like to find where all these statues were placed. If you can find when yours was placed that would be great. Please take a picture of your statue and the nameplate and give your coordinates. To verify your find you and your GPS should be in the photo. (No internet downloads, scanned magazine photos, or old vacation photos.) One log per 'cacher, each statue can be logged only once.

Waymarking:

While naming your submissions please state the name first, then city and state. Example - Spirit of the American Doughboy - Johnson City, Tennessee. One clear picture of the entire statue is required. A second picture of Viquesney's signature or copyright plate,on the base of the statue, website documentation or similar proof that it is a Viquesney statue will be accepted. What organization presented this statue - if known. What year was it dedicated - if known. Address: Were there any viewing restrictions? Hours/Days?

The exampled LC required that the finder actually go to the location (and prove that he was there). The exampled waymark does not. Since LC caches were all about logging an item before anyone else did, this requirement was important. A waymarker attempting to have the same fun WMing will be frustrated by those who simply google up the required images.

That's a fair point. So far, armchair posts don't seem to have ruined Waymarking for anyone, but it's possible. Someone recently started armchair visits, but it's received the same eyerolling as it does here.

 

I'm finding in making my bookmark list, though, that the GPS picture was not a universal requirement on locationless. Most, yes, but not all.

 

Not long ago, I rejected post to one of my categories by a well-known cacher because it didn't include the required close-up shot. I don't know how that cacher felt about it, but I know of people who are usually engaged in these discussions who would call me a lot of names for being so strict.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+briansnat]

The exampled LC required that the finder actually go to the location (and prove that he was there). The exampled waymark does not.

If you could find a creative commons or public domain photos that match the requirements, yeah, you could cheat. But that's easily fixed by putting in the category's requirements that the photo must be taken by poster.

 

There were cheaters with virtuals and locationless caches too. Anybody remember Mr. Gibabyte? Then of course there is Germany.

 

Besides it would probably take longer to find a public domain photo of many objects than it would to actually visit the site and take your own.

[+tozainamboku]

Markwell , has it.

 

But with locationless (I am a fan) you were set off into the wide world with the expectation that you would make observations and find the object in familiar settings --your observation powers were engaged.(This is where our opinions diverge--locationless I supplied the location, Waymarking the location is supplied me) It is what the individual is asked to bring something to the table in the former that he is not in the latter.

I think you are missing some of how Waymarking works. There actualy three parts to Waymarking.

 

First some one or some group must create a Waymarking category. This step would be roughly equivalent to some creating a new locationless cache for people to find. Very few people remember what creating a new locationless cache was like. By the time I began geocaching in early 2003, there was already a moratorium on new locationless caches. Essentialy the problem was you could create anything you wanted a locationless. The reviewers might have looked to see that is would be something that was not too difficult (there were many places that could fit the category) and that it was not too easy (there weren't too many places that fit the category). You can see already that it would be hard to control what could become a locationless cache. The fact that many people object to certain Waymarking categories as being lame ought to give an idea of how hard it would be to ensure that locationless caches were not lame. Waymarking has a process for getting new categories approved. This obviously doesn't stop all the categories that some people don't like but it probably keeps out the really silly ones. (That may be bad or good. Some people no doubt though the yellow Jeep locationless cache was really fun to do. Something like that may be considered too silly for Waymarking).

 

Second, once the category is approved, waymarks can submit waymarks to that category. This step would be roughly equivalent to finding a locationless cache. The difference being that for a locationless cache one would simply post a log with the coordinates and a picture. The locationless owner would verify the location was not already used and that location met the requirements for the locationless. For a waymark, you have to create a waymark page. This requires a bit more effort. In addition to the coordinates and picture you need to provide a name for the waymark, a description, and often provide the values for several category specific fields. As sbell has pointed out, some category managers don't care if you actually went to the location or not, since they are more interested in getting a list of locations in there category than in providing an experience like a locationless cache. However, I believe that if you can actually visit the location and take original photos, any category manager would appreciate it. Once you submit the waymark page the category managers review the page to see it meets tha category requirements.

 

Third, the waymark has been created. Now people can visit that waymark. This is roughly equivalent to visiting a virtual cache. Depending on the category there may be requirements like taking a picture or answering a questiong to verify you visited. It is true thay many categories have no such requirements. Visitors are simply asked to tell something about there visit. For something like a McDonald restaurant category, there is likely no need to verify visits. Instead managers of that category want to have visitors tell of their experience at the restaurant. Was their order prepared correctly? Was the food ok? For other categories, like Best Kept Secrets, the managers want to make a experience closer to visiting a virtual cache. There is always a requirement to verify your visit by answering questions or posting a picture. The visit also solves another problem of locationless caches. If you visited a location for a locationless that someone else had already logged, you could not log it. You were out of luck. Since in Waymarking this location is now a waymark you can log a visit. That may not be satisifying if you were really trying to find a new waymark in that category but at least you will get credit for visiting.

 

Geocachers tend to want to view everything as a geocache. And the tend to view geocaching as a game or recreational activity with specific goals and objectives. Waymarking is a broader concept. It involves building a database of categorized geolocations that may be used in several ways. It may primarily be just an online resource that alllow people to find things based on where they are located. It may serve as a tourist guide for people interested in particular categories to find place to visit. It certainly has the capability to use the concepts of locationless and virtual geocaches to encourage participation by the geocaching community in building this database. Using counters of waymarks placed and waymarks visted and a grid of the different categories, a game or recreational activity can overlay the dry concept of a geolocation database. Many people are enjoying Waymarking in this way. They go out and look for places to waymark in specific categories and many have even begun to visit other people's waymarks. My impression is that these people have gotten into the flow of Waymarking.

[+Markwell]

Differences...

Then:LOCATIONLESS

Tell us about the statue and the dog Different

Post the coordinates for the statue/memorial Different

Post a photo of the statue/memorial Given in Waymarking so different

Post a photo of your GPSr at statue/memorial Same requirement

One log per person, a statue/memorial can only be logged once

 

My emphasis above.

NOW: Waymarking

Visit Instructions:

When logging waymarks posted to this category, please provide a photo of the statue with you and your GPS to show you have visited the waymark.

Category owners CAN set up requirements as above. I just posted a location to Masonic Lodges for my hometown lodge, and had to jump through several hoops. Two of the category owners kept saying that I was "photoshopping" the image with me and my GPS. I don't have that kind of talent. So the requirements can be more stringent for Waymarks, if - and only if - the owners want to implement and maintain those rules. If they want to have the Dog Statue waymark category insist on telling about the statue and the dog, they could. The coordinates are going to be required. Post a photo could be required.

 

The only real difference is the one log per person. But you have to look at what a "Log" on the old system was, and what a "log" on Waymarking is. Waymarking adds another level in between the cache and the log. Here's the equivalents as Groundspeak sees them (they can strike me down if I'm wrong): Locationless Cache -> Category; Log on a locationless cache -> Waymark

But what they've also added are the ability to log visits to a specific waymark after it's been created. It's an added feature of "You logged this locationless cache, and I revisited it".

Edited July 2, 2010 by Markwell

[+Markwell]

I see getting distracted while posting is a problem. Tozainamboku hit it on the head, except that the logging of a visit to a Waymark (I'll agree with my non-moderator hat) is a poor sub for logging a visit to a virtual cache.

 

On a larger scale think of it this way: If they wanted to completely buck the system and kill Groundspeak's big money booster (and of course I would NEVER suggest this), Geocaches could be a category of Waymarks. I could create a category of really cool locations where containers are hidden. That would be the category. The actual Waymarks would be the cache locations. The logs would be the visits. The location could also be the site of a historical battleground, in which case the same coordinates for the cache in that Waymark category could be submitted as a Waymark in the Battlefields category.

 

But all this is off the main topic, and we should try to bring it back into focus:

Locationless Caches on Geocaching.com are no longer listed. For better or worse, they have been moved to Waymarking.com. If you would like to create or log Locationless caches, you can either (A) Try out Waymarking, or (B) Try another listing site. If you're looking to create virtuals, you can either (A) Try out Waymarking and see if there's a category like "Best Kept Secrets" that can house your idea, or (B) Try another listing site.

 

That's the unfortunate truth for now.

[+baloo&bd]

This unfortunately happens every time someone asks a question about Locationless caches. Instead of simply stating the fact that locationless caches were discontinued and, at present, there appears to be no intention of them returning some choose to try and "evangelize" others over to the waning site known as Waymarking. The two have little to nothing in common.

 

The easiest way to explain Waymarking is they are the electronic equivalent of 35MM vacation slides your aunt Marge and Uncle Lou would pull out on Thanksgiving of their trip to Darwin, Minnesota to see the largest ball of twine. No one else in the family was ever going to visit there and yawned as the presentation was endured, but dang they were proud.

 

Waymarking is the name GS chose for POI's, which have been around for sometime on other sites. In our part of the country, the listing appears to be the only time they are "visited".

 

Please, just answer the questions and don't drift so far off topic. Any other topic and mods would have been giving warning long ago. All the correct information that was needed had been provided in the first 2 responses before this derailed.

[Dinoprophet]

This unfortunately happens every time someone asks a question about Locationless caches. Instead of simply stating the fact that locationless caches were discontinued and, at present, there appears to be no intention of them returning some choose to try and "evangelize" others over to the waning site known as Waymarking. The two have little to nothing in common.

 

The easiest way to explain Waymarking is they are the electronic equivalent of 35MM vacation slides your aunt Marge and Uncle Lou would pull out on Thanksgiving of their trip to Darwin, Minnesota to see the largest ball of twine. No one else in the family was ever going to visit there and yawned as the presentation was endured, but dang they were proud.

 

Waymarking is the name GS chose for POI's, which have been around for sometime on other sites. In our part of the country, the listing appears to be the only time they are "visited".

 

Please, just answer the questions and don't drift so far off topic. Any other topic and mods would have been giving warning long ago. All the correct information that was needed had been provided in the first 2 responses before this derailed.

I agree. The first two responses should have ended the discussion.

 

Someone told the OP to look at Waymarking (response 1), the OP said he might try Waymarking (response 2), and then people started saying Waymarking is nothing like locationless. Had people not tried to prevent the OP from trying Waymarking, the thread would be three posts long and gone.

 

Locationless caches had no visit mechanism at all, so they were even more pointless than Waymarking, by your reasoning.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Dinoprophet

[+baloo&bd]

This unfortunately happens every time someone asks a question about Locationless caches. Instead of simply stating the fact that locationless caches were discontinued and, at present, there appears to be no intention of them returning some choose to try and "evangelize" others over to the waning site known as Waymarking. The two have little to nothing in common.

 

The easiest way to explain Waymarking is they are the electronic equivalent of 35MM vacation slides your aunt Marge and Uncle Lou would pull out on Thanksgiving of their trip to Darwin, Minnesota to see the largest ball of twine. No one else in the family was ever going to visit there and yawned as the presentation was endured, but dang they were proud.

 

Waymarking is the name GS chose for POI's, which have been around for sometime on other sites. In our part of the country, the listing appears to be the only time they are "visited".

 

Please, just answer the questions and don't drift so far off topic. Any other topic and mods would have been giving warning long ago. All the correct information that was needed had been provided in the first 2 responses before this derailed.

I agree. The first two responses should have ended the discussion.

 

Someone told the OP to look at Waymarking (response 1), the OP said he might try Waymarking (response 2), and then people started saying Waymarking is nothing like locationless. Had people not tried to prevent the OP from trying Waymarking, the thread would be three posts long and gone.

 

Locationless caches had no visit mechanism at all, so they were even more pointless than Waymarking, by your reasoning.

 

Ah..revisionist forums, sidestepping the main theme of the post. And posted by one of the more prolific evangelists in the thread none the less.

 

Actually, the second response said there was that there was no correlation (Dolphin).

 

I wish someone had told everyone that visiting locationless caches were not required, would have saved a lot of people a bunch of time.

Edited July 2, 2010 by baloo&bd

[+TheBeanTeam]

The exampled LC required that the finder actually go to the location (and prove that he was there). The exampled waymark does not.

If you could find a creative commons or public domain photos that match the requirements, yeah, you could cheat. But that's easily fixed by putting in the category's requirements that the photo must be taken by poster.

 

There were cheaters with virtuals and locationless caches too. Anybody remember Mr. Gibabyte? Then of course there is Germany.

 

Besides it would probably take longer to find a public domain photo of many objects than it would to actually visit the site and take your own.

 

If someone is cheating they don't bother with public domain. They simply steal the photo from wherever they can find it. The majority of waymarkers are above board with submissions. If a location is submitted and it seems suspect I will do a google image search on the item and browse through the images online to see if it was taken from the net. I often Google anyway to see if the user plagiarized the content but that is a different issue. Anyhow, it is rare, but I have had to deny waymarks because the photos where taken from another site. Even then I am careful with how I approach it. One waymark I was concerned about was for the stained glass window category. The photos were from the church web site. I was ready to deny the listing but asked about it in an email and found that the web site was created for the church by the waymarker. All of the photos where taken by that waymarker for the site and she used them again in the waymark listing. I even got a thank you for being diligent about the photos.

 

Other instances have not been so pleasant. I know of two who once waymarked but no longer do because I caught them using stolen photos and pointed out politely and privately to them explaining that it wasn't a proper use.

 

Just because the photo is on another site doesn't mean it was stolen and just because there is a GPS in ones hand in a photo it doesn't mean the poster actually visited the virtual or locationless.

 

Here is a fun thread that has a tongue in cheek generator for the fake placement of a GPS in a photo to log locationless caches Mr Gigabyte style. This thread has a few good photos of a photo-shopped GPS for the locationless caches too. The argument that a GPS in photos is needed to stop cheaters doesn't really hold up. It hasn't stopped cheaters in the past. The infamous Mr. Gigabyte tread.

 

Just like here at GC.com virtual loggers are frowned upon at Waymarking. It's really not that hard to pick up on weather the poster was "there or not" even without the GPS in photo requirement. If you are cheating you will eventually be found out.

[Dinoprophet]

This unfortunately happens every time someone asks a question about Locationless caches. Instead of simply stating the fact that locationless caches were discontinued and, at present, there appears to be no intention of them returning some choose to try and "evangelize" others over to the waning site known as Waymarking. The two have little to nothing in common.

 

The easiest way to explain Waymarking is they are the electronic equivalent of 35MM vacation slides your aunt Marge and Uncle Lou would pull out on Thanksgiving of their trip to Darwin, Minnesota to see the largest ball of twine. No one else in the family was ever going to visit there and yawned as the presentation was endured, but dang they were proud.

 

Waymarking is the name GS chose for POI's, which have been around for sometime on other sites. In our part of the country, the listing appears to be the only time they are "visited".

 

Please, just answer the questions and don't drift so far off topic. Any other topic and mods would have been giving warning long ago. All the correct information that was needed had been provided in the first 2 responses before this derailed.

I agree. The first two responses should have ended the discussion.

 

Someone told the OP to look at Waymarking (response 1), the OP said he might try Waymarking (response 2), and then people started saying Waymarking is nothing like locationless. Had people not tried to prevent the OP from trying Waymarking, the thread would be three posts long and gone.

 

Locationless caches had no visit mechanism at all, so they were even more pointless than Waymarking, by your reasoning.

 

Ah..revisionist forums, sidestepping the main theme of the post. And posted by one of the more prolific evangelists in the thread none the less.

Huh? What was revisionist in what I said?

 

Actually, the second response said there was that there was no correlation (Dolphin).

Response #1 is Touchstone, response #2 is tgjamin. But regardless of how you count them, there'd be no debate if the OP had been left to find out for himself how unlike locationless caches Waymarking is.

 

I wish someone had told everyone that visiting locationless caches were not required, would have saved a lot of people a bunch of time.

You misunderstood me. Once someone posted a spot to a locationless, that was it. There was no mechanism for someone else to log a visit to that spot. Though you claim it's useless, Waymarking at least has that much.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Dinoprophet