Groundspeak Portal

Since we don't have the same visit rules as Geocaching,  I would love to open up the "Date Recorded" bring down window on the Log Visit page further back than 1999.

Think about it, if someone visited, for example, Yellowstone in the 1940's and had pictures of that trip as a child, feeding the bears (which is against the law, now) that would be an awesome log with a small history lesson.

I would love to see pictures from the 1933 Chicago's Worlds Fair, before that Waymarker passes into the highest waymark in the sky.

I'm not sure why 1999 is the magic number for logging a past visit, but it would open up a world of visit opportunities if increased.  It might even spark a renewed interest in this fun hobby if we allow visits from over 50 years ago... or more.

Tell me what you think... Would we have to restrict deep past logs to require old photos for proof, or demand a detailed account of one's 30 year old visit?

I say if you've fulfilled the reqs, you should log it. I wouldnt like 100 years of dates to go through to find the right one. Too many years.

When we fill out applications online, most sites ask for your birthday and use a bring down window of years as far back as 1901.  It's not a problem to find the year I need to find (1962, if you must know).  It shouldn't behard work for anyone to find any date you need to log a Waymark visit, no matter how far back.

For example, When I was in High School, my English and French teachers took a few of us on a European trip.  We visited Paris and London and a few areas in England.  There are Waymarks for the places that I visited the spring of 1980.  I would love to "visit" those Waymarks and have the date actually show "Big Booty Bob visited on April 30, 1980."

I don't think this idea is too drastic of a change... Lets be honest most people are Waymarking and not "Visiting".

I agree that this would be a nice change.   Here is a case in point.  This is a great example of a visit from prior to 1999 that should be reflected in the date range.

saopaulo1:

I say if you've fulfilled the reqs, you should log it. I wouldnt like 100 years of dates to go through to find the right one. Too many years.

As long as the years are listed inverse order  for example current on top then you don't have to go through several years except when logging one for when you were young.

Bump...

Well, more than just a bump.

If you read this thread, please leave your thoughts on if this is a good idea or not.

A simple "good idea" or "bad idea" will suffice.

But, hey, if you want to elaborate, please do.

I just logged some visits in Paris from my trip in the spring of 1980... with pictures!

Thanks,

 

Bob

 

I, of course, would be in favor of this.  If it's generally accepted to log older visits, then it's best to have dates that are correct and not confusing.

ambrosia:

I, of course, would be in favor of this.  If it's generally accepted to log older visits, then it's best to have dates that are correct and not confusing.

 

Although I like my dates to be confusing, I think you are not referring to courting.

Seriously, yeah... being able to record accurate actual dates for (what did we call this?) Visits before they were Waymarks is how it should be.  The year should have a lower limit of 1900 but of course you should have to scroll a "reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally" long way to get there.

BQ

the blue quasar:

  The year should have a lower limit of 1900 but of course you should have to scroll a "reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally" long way to get there.

BQ

Now what if your "reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally" old and want a date before then..... oh wait I am not quite that old.

Duplicate.... I must be old enough that I can't seem to avoid getting duplicate posts