visit instructions

[kowalski78]

I was create my firs waymark

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMKK1Q_Lvka_u_Harrachovky

but I can´t find to edit: Visit instructions :-/

[+DougK]

I was create my firs waymark

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMKK1Q_Lvka_u_Harrachovky

but I can´t find to edit: Visit instructions :-/

 

Visit Instructions are uniformly defined and unique for each category. At the bottom of your waymark for Hiking Footpath Bridges it says:

 

Photos are encouraged, but not required.

[kowalski78]

Thanks for answer

[+MountainWoods]

By the way, this brings up something that has puzzled me for a while. Some of the categories say something like this in their description: Please do not add any additional visiting requirements than are provided by the category. Or some such.

 

I've never thought of adding any additional visiting requirements to any of my waymarks. But it puzzles me that the descriptions say that. How would someone who wanted to (for whatever twisted reason) put in additional visit requirements?

 

I'm guessing that they could do so in the description. But that is really lame. The description is the description of the thing being waymarked. One might jokingly put in something like "extra credit if you notice ta-da-ta-da-ta-dah while you're visiting this waymark." But if I ever saw a "visiting instruction" in a description, I'd blow it off. The visiting instructions are at the very end of the write up. And as DougK said, they are a category thing.

 

Have any of yuns ever seen "additional visit instructions" in a waymark? Was there a good reason?

 

"You have to provide 67 photos of this McDonald's and the food you ordered, including one of each French fry you purchased, before I will allow your visit." Jeesh.

[+fi67]

Have any of yuns ever seen "additional visit instructions" in a waymark? Was there a good reason?

There are plenty of them. It's always the same story. A geocacher who doesn't speak English and has no idea about Waymarking wants to give it a try and submits a waymark with nothing than additional visit instructions in the long description. Then you only need an officer who does not speak that language and/or does not care.

 

Germany and France are full of those; most are from the early days of Waymarking. It seems not to happen that much anymore, maybe also because there are now some very active officers in many categories who speak German.

[+Max and 99]

 

Have any of yuns ever seen "additional visit instructions" in a waymark? Was there a good reason?

 

 

It happens! There was one discussed in the forums last year, and it had a pretty long list of requirements in order to log a visit on the waymark. It got corrected, needless to say, when the officer who approved it realized what was going on.

 

And no, there's never a good reason since the category decides what the visit requirements are, not the individual waymarker.

[+silverquill]

Well, I've seen this from time to time in the years that I've been reviewing waymarks. I always decline these, with an explanation. Some are corrected and resubmitted, but I few are never seen again. These are almost always from people new to Waymarking who probably come over from geocaching without taking the time to read instructions or understand the nature of Waymarking.

 

Of course, they could edit the waymark after it has been accepted and put those requirements back in. This is perhaps a weakness as well as a strength in the way the system is configured. This is also on possible reason why an officer might freeze a waymark to prevent such changes.

 

There has also been talk from time to time about standardizing logging requirements, but that is likely never to happen. Categories are just too different.

 

I try to keep them simple for categories I write. Just give us the date and an account of your visit. Add new photos to the gallery if possible, or add new information. Still, I get too many that are not much more than, "I visited this while geocaching in the area."

[+MountainWoods]

Thanks for the responses. It makes sense, as a couple of you mentioned, that the additional visit requirements would usually come from folks who are new cross-overs from geocaching to Waymarking. I remember well that I had to rethink some things when I came over. Probably there is less RE-learning curve for anyone who comes directly into Waymarking, not by way of geocaching. But that's a different topic.

 

It also appears that some folks never did quite leave the geocaching mentality. The most cornfusing category to me is Pony Express Markers, which prohibits visits from when you were on vacations. Say what?!? You mean that I can only visit the hundreds of PEMs by setting aside a trip just to visit them and not consider it a vacation? Other than the one marker not far from where I live, I don't know how I could ever log a visit to any of the other Pony Express Markers, because I'd obviously be visiting them on a vacation trip. Unfortunately, that makes it yet another "write it off" category. I guess that's what the founders wanted...

[+Max and 99]

Thanks for the responses. It makes sense, as a couple of you mentioned, that the additional visit requirements would usually come from folks who are new cross-overs from geocaching to Waymarking. I remember well that I had to rethink some things when I came over. Probably there is less RE-learning curve for anyone who comes directly into Waymarking, not by way of geocaching. But that's a different topic.

 

It also appears that some folks never did quite leave the geocaching mentality. The most cornfusing category to me is Pony Express Markers, which prohibits visits from when you were on vacations. Say what?!? You mean that I can only visit the hundreds of PEMs by setting aside a trip just to visit them and not consider it a vacation? Other than the one marker not far from where I live, I don't know how I could ever log a visit to any of the other Pony Express Markers, because I'd obviously be visiting them on a vacation trip. Unfortunately, that makes it yet another "write it off" category. I guess that's what the founders wanted...

 

You are exactly right in that the "vacation photo" exclusions that some categories have are frustrating. If I'm not mistaken, the jist of the exclusion is to avoid people posting OLD vacation photos. I absolutely agree with you that the wording makes it sound like if you visit the waymark during your vacation, it doesn't count. They really need to update the wording on that visit requirement.

Sometimes this topic comes up when new categories are created, with officers not wanting old vacation photos posted. It's a touchy subject for some. I personally think it's really fun to see a waymarked item across a span of time.

 

A recent forum discussion did make a very good point about no "vacation" photos when visiting memorials. I can't remember which specific category, but the intent was to make sure people were being respectful when posing/taking photos are some places (not in your bathing suit). I had never considered that before, but it made sense to me.

[+MountainWoods]

You know Agents 86 and 99, I kinda wondered if that's what they meant was no OLD vacation photos. Seems like it would have been only a tiny bit more typing to say something like "no photos allowed from before the posting date of this waymark" or some such (inanity).

 

But of course, it still shows the geocaching mentality. Lots of us Waymarkers would love to see historical photos of things that we have Waymarked. And (as I've beat this dead horse before) a visit to a thing that is (later) waymarked is a still a visit -- in waymark thinking, as opposed to GC thinking.

 

I admit that I went back through vacation photos as far back as our 1982 Honeymoon trip to log visits to things that have (obviously) been waymarked since. Since there is no log book signature required -- only that I visited the thing that was waymarked -- I have no issues with that. And the folks who posted the waymark, and those who look through the photo gallery, get to see how things have changed or stayed the same in over 30 years. I didn't do it to increase visit numbers (that's another GC thing), but to document the various places and things I've visited.

[+silverquill]

No vacation photos, huh?

 

Well, I have seen a few that seem to being going back through old photos of past travels and cobbling them into a waymark. Sometimes the photos just don't seem to fit. And, who knows how the coordinates were obtained. I see some waymarks with coordinates at a very unlikely location, like the center of a building, but there is really no way to prove how coordinates were obtained. Same for photos frequently.

 

Are there still some categories that say, "no cell phone pictures?" That is certainly outdated,huh?

[cezanne]

These are almost always from people new to Waymarking who probably come over from geocaching without taking the time to read instructions or understand the nature of Waymarking.

 

But of course, it still shows the geocaching mentality.

 

I came across this thread by chance.

 

Both the statements quoted above show nicely why a lot of fans of virtual geocaches think that Waymarking does not come even close to being a substitute for virtuals and locationless caches in contrast to Groundspeak's marketing strategy for Waymarking.

 

I've read the instructions for Waymarking and I think that I do understand the nature of Waymarking, but that also pushes me at the same time away from Waymarking and makes it unattractive to me.

 

I wish to keep the geocaching mentality and I certainly would prefer the freedom to set up my own visit instructions (among many other things that do not match well with the philospophy in Waymarking).

I respect that Waymarking is different and that keeps me from using the site. It will not keep me however from wishing there existed a platform for virtual geocaches.

[+fi67]

No vacation photos, huh?

 

Well, I have seen a few that seem to being going back through old photos of past travels and cobbling them into a waymark. Sometimes the photos just don't seem to fit. And, who knows how the coordinates were obtained. I see some waymarks with coordinates at a very unlikely location, like the center of a building, but there is really no way to prove how coordinates were obtained. Same for photos frequently.

 

Are there still some categories that say, "no cell phone pictures?" That is certainly outdated,huh?

There is a significant difference between posting and visiting. While I do not see any good reason to deny old vacation pictures for visits, I do not think a new waymark post should be created with (only) old pictures.

[+MountainWoods]

No vacation photos, huh?

 

Well, I have seen a few that seem to being going back through old photos of past travels and cobbling them into a waymark. Sometimes the photos just don't seem to fit. And, who knows how the coordinates were obtained. I see some waymarks with coordinates at a very unlikely location, like the center of a building, but there is really no way to prove how coordinates were obtained. Same for photos frequently.

 

Are there still some categories that say, "no cell phone pictures?" That is certainly outdated,huh?

I think I agree with your assessment of not using old vacation photos for posting new waymarks. But I was specifically talking about using old photos for visits.

 

It's especially ludicrous for a category that involved waymarks strung out across a continent to not let folks use vacation photos. Sounds like an ego trip. "If you want to 'visit' our waymarks, you must drive directly to them across the continent for no other purpose that might be construed as a vacation." OK, so I'm overstating it. Or am I? How in the world does one visit such waymarks??

 

Perhaps, counter to what the category description says, that Max and 99 are right: It's OK to use vacation photos as long as they are not "OLD" -- whatever that may mean in the group leader's thinking. (Like I say, perhaps not wanting photos taken before the waymark was posted; definitely a geocaching mentality.)

[+silverquill]

First, I just reviewed a waymark from a new person who wanted to know how to add specific logging requirements to his waymark. So, it still does happen.

 

PHOTOS: Terms like old - new - vacation - cell phone, etc. are really irrelevant. When I review a waymark, I don't ask these questions. I want to see photos that accurately and clearly present the site/object of the waymark, and ones that are original for the waymark. For some categories, picture quality is more important than others. If a photo taken on last year's vacation does the job, and the coordinates were obtained by visiting the site, then that's fine with me. If someone submits lousy photos taken yesterday with a digital SLR of a building across the street and that photo is skewed, blurry, underexposed or otherwise of poor quality, then it is not acceptable.

 

How about pictures I took in a town where I lived five years ago? I wasn't on vacation? Or, maybe I took a vacation last week? Maybe it was a business trip.

[+Max and 99]

I don't know how many categories have similar visit instructions, but this was a first for me, under POSTING a waymark:

 

(you may not however log this waymark as visited, until you make a special trip to it).

[+MountainWoods]

That is dead wrong. Typical fresh-from-geocaching thinking. Whatever category that is, if I was posting a waymark, I'd just walk away a few yards, then turn around and come back to visit it. Maybe even throw in another photo from the "visit". I guess the group officers still don't get the idea that you are visiting something to post it as a waymark. (What part of visiting something don't they get?)

[+Max and 99]

That is dead wrong. Typical fresh-from-geocaching thinking. Whatever category that is, if I was posting a waymark, I'd just walk away a few yards, then turn around and come back to visit it. Maybe even throw in another photo from the "visit". I guess the group officers still don't get the idea that you are visiting something to post it as a waymark. (What part of visiting something don't they get?)

 

I would do the same, but when I turned around I'd say "Oooooh, isn't that special?"

[+MountainWoods]

:D :D :D :D :D

 

Good idea.

[+UMainah]

I don't know how many categories have similar visit instructions, but this was a first for me, under POSTING a waymark:

 

(you may not however log this waymark as visited, until you make a special trip to it).

 

That is dead wrong. Typical fresh-from-geocaching thinking. Whatever category that is, if I was posting a waymark, I'd just walk away a few yards, then turn around and come back to visit it. Maybe even throw in another photo from the "visit". I guess the group officers still don't get the idea that you are visiting something to post it as a waymark. (What part of visiting something don't they get?)

 

There's actually two categories that use that exact wording.

Off-Leash Dog Areas and Arboretums

 

For Arboretums they actually specify that you don't need to physically visit the site to post the waymark. It was brought up in this forum thread http://forums.Ground...howtopic=312642

Edited May 21, 2014 by UMainah

[+Max and 99]

I can't believe I've never noticed this before, in one of my favorite categories, too!

 

To visit a waymark listed in this category, please add to your log a picture taken by you. To complete this basic visit requirement, each owner is free to propose particular visit requirements (see optional variable) if you can't provide a picture.