Groundspeak Portal

I had someone post a "Visit" to a Historic District Waymark with the words: 1988-1990.  No required photo.  Just the dates.  It looks like the Waymarker joined today and already has about 30 Visits.

Maybe a quick note to the new Waymarker welcoming him to the game and ask him to include some detail and photos of the visits.

Politely, of course.

Send him a link to a good example of a detailed visit.

Just a thought.

I got a similar visit to one of mine. If it is the same guy, I didnt see anything by you in his/her visits. Did you manage to delete it?

Big Booty Bob:

Maybe a quick note to the new Waymarker welcoming him to the game and ask him to include some detail and photos of the visits.

Politely, of course.

Send him a link to a good example of a detailed visit.

Just a thought.

I think they saw your thread on expanding the year dates

saopaulo1:

Big Booty Bob:

Maybe a quick note to the new Waymarker welcoming him to the game and ask him to include some detail and photos of the visits.

Politely, of course.

Send him a link to a good example of a detailed visit.

Just a thought.

I think they saw your thread on expanding the year dates

 

Not quite what I had in mind.

Big Booty Bob:

saopaulo1:

Big Booty Bob:

Maybe a quick note to the new Waymarker welcoming him to the game and ask him to include some detail and photos of the visits.

Politely, of course.

Send him a link to a good example of a detailed visit.

Just a thought.

I think they saw your thread on expanding the year dates

 

Not quite what I had in mind.

I was just joking

Hi,
I am brand new to waymarking, but an experienced geocacher. Does the conversation about "armchair" waymarking mean that one might log a visit to a location one visited before joining waymarking.com? I understand that since there is no physical log, this puts people on their word, but I have travelled a lot and before I went off logging visits, wanted to be sure it was ok (or not) to log places previously visited, perhaps with photos even - I am a "pro-sumer" photographer as well...
Is there a particular etiquette here?
Thanks

I personally log visits to waymarks that I've visited years ago.  I always do a couple things with that, however:

1. I read the category/waymark description carefully first, to make sure that it doesn't specify posting restrictions like date of visit, etc.

2. I feel that if it's an older visit, I should probably make an even better write up for the visit log, and most likely post some pictures.  If I don't have a few pictures to post, I'll probably not post the log.

I have lots of places that I've visited in the past, but I'm mostly starting with the ones that have special meaning to me and that I have pictures for.  Also, I feel its best to try and focus on logging recent visits, which could keep me busy for a long time.  But I figure that people are concerned with the lack of visits to waymarks, and if there's a nice write up and nice pictures to an older visit, most people should appreciate that.    Remember, this is for other waymarkers as well, and not just the category/waymark owner.  I like going to waymark pages and seeing lots of pictures and descriptions that describe the spot. 

Armchair waymarking to me means when someone posts a visit to a waymark that they did not physically visit. This can be shown if there are multiple visits to many waymarks where it would be physically impossible to visit all of those in one day. Some armchair waymarkers may be more sneaky with their logs and make them appear legit (such as in my next paragraph). That is one reason why I advocate photographs should almost always be required if possible for all visit logs. But I have too many waymarks to be the waymark police.

Slightly different but similar to geocaching's TFTC is where someone posts a lot of visit logs where there are no posted pictures and very short descriptions such as "I drove by here once" or "TFTW".

I like reading the visit logs when someone actually takes a minute to describe their visit, what they saw, what if anything they learned, etc.

ggmorton:

Armchair waymarking to me means when someone posts a visit to a waymark that they did not physically visit. This can be shown if there are multiple visits to many waymarks where it would be physically impossible to visit all of those in one day. That is one reason why I advocate photographs should almost always be required if possible for all visit logs. But I have too many waymarks to be the waymark police.

I like reading the visit logs when someone actually takes a minute to describe their visit, what they saw, what if anything they learned, etc.

Hi,

the only problem you can run into with that, is if someone goes to a bunch of similar places in an extended period of time then posts them back to back to back, into the same category. Many of us do have backlogs and it would make a reviewer wonder how someone managed to get to so many places so far apart in such short time.

As far as visits posted goes, the required pictures helps but if someone decides to find an image online what do you do? Unless you find it somewhere else how do you prove it? I don't know why folks go through the trouble of faking a waymark or a visit. Perhaps it's how shut-ins travel...

ggmorton:

Armchair waymarking to me means when someone posts a visit to a waymark that they did not physically visit. This can be shown if there are multiple visits to many waymarks where it would be physically impossible to visit all of those in one day. That is one reason why I advocate photographs should almost always be required if possible for all visit logs. But I have too many waymarks to be the waymark police.

I like reading the visit logs when someone actually takes a minute to describe their visit, what they saw, what if anything they learned, etc.

Hi,

the only problem you can run into with that, is if someone goes to a bunch of similar places in an extended period of time then posts them back to back to back, into the same category. Many of us do have backlogs and it would make a reviewer wonder how someone managed to get to so many places so far apart in such short time.

As far as visits posted goes, the required pictures helps but if someone decides to find an image online what do you do? Unless you find it somewhere else how do you prove it? I don't know why folks go through the trouble of faking a waymark or a visit. Perhaps it's how shut-ins travel...

Do group managers have the option of denying visits?  Can we make requirements for these as well as the waymark itself? 

It seems that it would be very easy for someone to say they visited any site if there weren't a nice write up or photo required.  Heck, give me a rainy weekend and I can log several hundred visits without leaving my house!

As I sit here in our 95 degree weather someone (probably the same person you are all talking about) posted a visit to one of my waymarks that simply said "Visited on a cold day."  If I could reject that, I would. 

Personally, I only post visits to sites I have gone to since I've started waymarking.  It seems to be more "in the spirit" of the game.  I don't always have a photo, but I try to make an inclusive writeup that will give readers a little insight.

Pahaska_1:

Do group managers have the option of denying visits?  Can we make requirements for these as well as the waymark itself? 

It seems that it would be very easy for someone to say they visited any site if there weren't a nice write up or photo required.  Heck, give me a rainy weekend and I can log several hundred visits without leaving my house!

As I sit here in our 95 degree weather someone (probably the same person you are all talking about) posted a visit to one of my waymarks that simply said "Visited on a cold day."  If I could reject that, I would. 

Personally, I only post visits to sites I have gone to since I've started waymarking.  It seems to be more "in the spirit" of the game.  I don't always have a photo, but I try to make an inclusive writeup that will give readers a little insight.

The category owners are the only one who can delete a visit after a certain amount of time.

saopaulo1:

The category owners are the only one who can delete a visit after a certain amount of time.

Actually I think you can delete a log if you are the waymark owner.  Click edit log and you will have a check box for delete.  I just checked a waymark in a category I am not in the group for and the option is there, I didn't test it though.

The person creating a log only has an hour to make edits to their log.

BruceS:

saopaulo1:

The category owners are the only one who can delete a visit after a certain amount of time.

Actually I think you can delete a log if you are the waymark owner.  Click edit log and you will have a check box for delete.  I just checked a waymark in a category I am not in the group for and the option is there, I didn't test it though.

The person creating a log only has an hour to make edits to their log.

You're right. I never new that.

saopaulo1:

BruceS:

saopaulo1:

The category owners are the only one who can delete a visit after a certain amount of time.

Actually I think you can delete a log if you are the waymark owner.  Click edit log and you will have a check box for delete.  I just checked a waymark in a category I am not in the group for and the option is there, I didn't test it though.

The person creating a log only has an hour to make edits to their log.

You're right. I never new that.

Hey gang,

Not only is Bruce right on the editing/deleting thing, but something else you may or may not know, is if you want to edit a visit (Your visit) and it's apst the hour deadline, you can delete it and then just rewrite it. This is also an option if you visited someplace twice, since you can't post two visits. I just used that option a couple days ago on one of TravisGood's waymarks.

 

DB