Groundspeak Portal

The SuzyQs:

Since you are asking, how about the ability to serach for waymach by WM number similar to searching for caches by GC number.

The ability to search by waymark number already exists just put waymark number in the keyword search box and it will find the waymark.  You do have to include the WM with the number.

The SuzyQs:

Since you are asking, how about the ability to serach for waymach by WM number similar to searching for caches by GC number. Maybe add the box at the bottom of the page to goto the next waymark once you have posted your visit.

I was trying to search on a WM number, and was getting frustrated, until I figured that all I have to do is go to any waymark, and change the URL.

Yes! GPX

Send to GPS

Chat area for group officers in groups. The option to email all memberes or officers from the groups home page and not have to switch to the members tab

Graveyard  for each category. For those waymarks that have been retired yet still can be visable in the cat on seperate page.

Groups I Manage  not to show Groups I Belong To

On the filter I would like an added checkbox with the option to exclude my unfinished waymarks.

Another option to exlude all waymarks except those that have been submitted for review but not yet approved would be nice too.

Feature Request: Waymark Owners (as opposed to Category Owners) should be able to edit the Logging Instructions for a Waymark.
Have the Category Instructions there as default (like now) but allow the owner of the waymark to change them...for that particular waymark.

0ccam:

Feature Request: Waymark Owners (as opposed to Category Owners) should be able to edit the Logging Instructions for a Waymark.
Have the Category Instructions there as default (like now) but allow the owner of the waymark to change them...for that particular waymark.

I would disagree with this...  waymarking is already viewed by many as having to many inconsistent logging instructions at the category level.  Having ALR's at the waymark level will only make that worse.

I tend to agree with Bruce on this as well. I have a category where I purposefully tried to keep the visits relatively easy. It always bugs me a bit when a waymark comes through which adds to the minimum requirements or even worse attempt to change them altogether.

Edit to add:  While I am not a fan of additional logging requirments,  I do support alternative logging methods though and in one of the categories I created I left it open to create a verification question for waymark visitors who do not have photos etc.. Nobody has done it.

 I once advocated a feature that would allow for verification questions but the lack of interest in creating that type of waymark experience, (aka virtual caches)  has led me to rethink even this.

TheBeanTeam:

I tend to agree with Bruce on this as well. I have a category where I purposefully tried to keep the visits relatively easy. It always bugs me a bit when a waymark comes through which adds to the minimum requirements or even worse attempt to change them altogether.

Edit to add:  While I am not a fan of additional logging requirments,  I do support alternative logging methods though and in one of the categories I created I left it open to create a verification question for waymark visitors who do not have photos etc.. Nobody has done it.

 I once advocated a feature that would allow for verification questions but the lack of interest in creating that type of waymark experience, (aka virtual caches)  has led me to rethink even this.

But if that feature IS added, then at least the waymark postings will LOOK more consistent.

Because NOT having the feature does NOT stop people from putting their own logging requirements.
See?

0ccam:

TheBeanTeam:

I tend to agree with Bruce on this as well. I have a category where I purposefully tried to keep the visits relatively easy. It always bugs me a bit when a waymark comes through which adds to the minimum requirements or even worse attempt to change them altogether.

Edit to add:  While I am not a fan of additional logging requirments,  I do support alternative logging methods though and in one of the categories I created I left it open to create a verification question for waymark visitors who do not have photos etc.. Nobody has done it.

 I once advocated a feature that would allow for verification questions but the lack of interest in creating that type of waymark experience, (aka virtual caches)  has led me to rethink even this.

But if that feature IS added, then at least the waymark postings will LOOK more consistent.

Because NOT having the feature does NOT stop people from putting their own logging requirements.
See?

And there is nothing that says you have to accept waymarks in your category with ALR's either

Hmmm, I have visited there often. I see that I need to drop by next time I'm up in the area. 

Yes, I see but I don't think that there should be an encouragement for ALR's. The edit ability would only encourage it in my opinion.

Perhaps this needs to be split off in another thread so we don't pollute the requests thread with the positives and negatives of ALR's or we could link to one of the many acrimonious threads in the old forums that discussed this from every angle in regards to geocaching.

I thought of one little thing. When a category is created, make the variable show up in peer review as they would if you were making a new waymark. Then you could see the drop down menu items and such.

My opinion is to keep ALR's out of Waymarking.  But of course my opinion is that uploading a photo should always be optional to visit a Waymark... but I generally tend to believe that any logging on mine is just a nice thing to have.

I'm not seeing any benefit in making people jump through a flaming hoop to enjoy my listings.  They can figure out their own ways to enjoy themselves if my entry doesn't quite give them the thrill they were hoping for.

 

BQ

Here's one that came up from a different thread in this forum category:

Waymarks in the queue for approval should be sorted by submission date/time rather than creation date/time.

http://portal.groundspeak.com/forums/thread/12216.aspx

s5280ft:

Here's one that came up from a different thread in this forum category:

Waymarks in the queue for approval should be sorted by submission date/time rather than creation date/time.

http://portal.groundspeak.com/forums/thread/12216.aspx

 

I do not share that opinion.

 

BQ

I do.  I had "pre-waymarked" several waymarks with generic info before going on a road trip (and by several I mean about 75).  They were well known tourist spots that I knew we'd be visiting and I figured I'd get a jump on the after-vacation posting.  This was 3 months out before I actually went and gathered the info, pics, and coordinates.  Then when I returned I added the info and submitted.  It would be unfair to a person who gets all of this info 2 months before I manage to get the info and yet, they aren't allowed to submit it because my "waymark" has been created.

 

Have the last visited on the waymark list be the closest date to the current date. As is, if some visits a waymark yesterday, then someone visiting it dating it 1999, it  looks like the waymark hasnt been visited in 8 years.

hikenutty:

I do.  I had "pre-waymarked" several waymarks with generic info before going on a road trip (and by several I mean about 75).  They were well known tourist spots that I knew we'd be visiting and I figured I'd get a jump on the after-vacation posting.  This was 3 months out before I actually went and gathered the info, pics, and coordinates.  Then when I returned I added the info and submitted.  It would be unfair to a person who gets all of this info 2 months before I manage to get the info and yet, they aren't allowed to submit it because my "waymark" has been created.

 

 

I think we are getting a bit off track here.  We are talking about two or more Waymarks that have been submitted for review to the same category and none have been accepted yet.

First In... First Out. works well, and to me First In = lowest WM#

If however people are talking about reserving a set of coordinates for getting around to eventually making a Waymark, then basically if it is not send for review... too late.

 

As an example: 

OpinioNate creates WM1234 for the Waymarking Tours category and uses Groundspeak HQ for the location.

Bootron creates WM1235 for the Waymarking Tours category and uses Groundspeak HQ for the location.

Both send them  for review.... OpiniNate gets it, Bootron doesn't.

If OpinioNate hadn't sent his in because he wants to work on more, but Bootron sent his in right away... Bootron gets it.

 

BQ

I agree with first in first out as well but it should be first to submit for review not lowest number.

I do like Hikenutty does. Currently I have 24 waymarks that I am "working on". The oldest indicates that is was listed in November of 2007. That is when I used the save and submit later button to create the unfinished waymark. . I can't find my pics for it but....lets say I finally get my lazy body into action and get it submitted for review but Joe Waymarker has visited the location this last weekend and submitted it for review two ours before I did today. Hypothetical?  Not really it happened similarly in a group that I lead not to long ago.

His is the larger WM #, Mine is the earliest and lower #.

Should I have the waymark or should Joe.

I vote for Joe. He hit the submit for review button first.

Joe gets my vote, too.

By the way!!...There's a new MacDonald's under construction in Pacifica, CA...Be sure to pre-log your waymark NOW!! so you (i.e., any waymarker) can get credit for it...Of course, the waymark will not be approved until it opens for business :-)

Just to add another 2cents, I would like to add another yeah for the generic post a new waymark feature.  One that would allow us to choose the category after we've loaded everything.  I don't always know which category something belongs to in advance or  I have waymarked items for the future and the category is still in the creation mode and isn't ready for posting to yet.  I also like the idea of being able to have public vs. private generic category for others to help determine the best categories for the more obscure waymarks.

What I like to see is:
1: a more stable waymarking page
--- without crashes.
--- the country to stay after being added instead of disappearing or giving you "You need to add ...
--- the $ amount of admissions not disappear 75% of the time.
---. when updating or at other times (before submitting waymark)  to get the next page instead of that dreaded "Error" page.
2. For the co-ordinates to be accurately posted instead of being scrambled.
3. Like to see some kind of indicator if an "Officer" hasn't signed into a/my Category group when a crucial vote is being called. (say they haven't signed into "Waymarking"  for a week)
...the -MY STATUS- 'active & away link is completely useless as I haven't seen a single person use it yet.

BTW. Had a Waymark page completed this evening with a photo on the main page which along with the  title and some of the text disppear. On one,  1/2 of the co-ordinates were also corrupted (again)
Waymark page was OK after a couple of changes but then went back to an earlier old version.

I've never had the coordinates get scrambled.  AFAIK.  I really hope I don't START getting that.

I would like the option to skip the "photo upload page in the waymarking  submission wizard if photos have already been uploaded.

Currently when you edit a waymark and update it the default page is the photo "upload page" which is great but after I have already uploaded several photos the option to go to the "submit waymark page" would be nice.

Also it would be very nice to have a button that allowed a user to go to the next photo in the galleries rather than the roudabout navagation that we currently need to do to see the next in a series of photos in the gallery.

Oooh, I second that bit about the photo gallery navigation.

After waymarking, I download my coordinates into the mapping software that came with my GPSr (Garmin Mapsource).  I would like a way to paste in coordinates as a whole (N42 27.511 W83 41.785), instead of me having to parse them into N/S, E/W, longitude degrees, latitude degrees, longitude minutes and latitude minutes.  It would save me a few minutes.