Groundspeak Portal

Ok, just getting started waymarking and I have a quick question. I've submitted two waymarks this morning and wondered if once they are approved, do I "visit" them as well? This particular waymark catagory (Kentucky Historical Markers) only requested information about the marker, not about my visit to the site. One of the places we thought was really cool and I'd like to say that somewhere.

Thanks!

Yes, you can post a visit to your own waymarks.  The visit log is the place to put your feelings about the location.

Sure! That's one of the reasons why it is called a visit instead of a find. Anyone can visit their own waymark (and most should since that's the point of it all). It's also the proper place to offer you experience, while the waymark itself should have a generally unbiased description of the location.

I choose not to visit my own waymarks.  I would like my visit count to reflect just the number of places that other people's waymarks have brought me to see.  But that is just a personal choice.  I recognize that it is not the way the site is intended to be used (for example, you can't exclude "waymarks I've placed" from search results, but you can exclude "waymarks I've visited).

Really, these are just places on the earth, marked for people to visit.  It is not at all like logging a "find" on your own geocache.  That is why they are called "visits," not "finds."

So, do whatever makes you happy.

I visit my waymarks.  I make a point to leave 'visit' specific information out of the waymark description, and instead I add it to my visit.  The more I visit, the longer my visit logs have been getting.  I also go out of my way to visit other peoples waymarks, even the 'dull' ones like benchmarks or payphones.   I belive you don't know exactly what you're going to find or experience when you go out to visit a waymark, and shouldn't dismiss the activity out of hand.  Get out there people!

QUOTE ->...the waymark itself should have a generally unbiased description of the location.

If you then turn around and "Visit" your own waymark and make a comment is that being "unbiased"?
Personally I don't "Visit" my own "Waymark" unless I happened to return and there were more photos or updates to post. Which can always be done on the "Waymark Page" itself I realize)

Hmm.. still can't get quotes to work.

I log a visit to all the waymarks I've created.  I usually have a pic to go with the log too, so by the time anyone else might visit, the gallery is already two pics, at least.

jeremy:

Sure! That's one of the reasons why it is called a visit instead of a find. Anyone can visit their own waymark (and most should since that's the point of it all). It's also the proper place to offer you experience, while the waymark itself should have a generally unbiased description of the location.

As Lep also alluded to, the only method to filter out your own Waymarks is to "Log a Visit".  While there is some debate on protocol, I favour logging my visit to my own after it is approved.  That way I know it is a valid listing.

However unlike Jeremy, I prefer to log my own with "Owner Visit" only since I tend to write long entries, often with praise,  on other people's listings and it would feel weird doing that on my own.

Your mileage may vary.

However, I measure with kilometers.

BQ

I do that as well, especially now that .loc files can be downloaded.  I have a "POI" database in GSAK and Cachemate to go along with the "Default" database full of geocaches.  When I can I check for nearby caches/benchmarks/waymarks every time I run an errand.  It's fun!

Thanks for the input! Sounds like I will go and "visit" them soon and post the other pics of my kids at the area. My husband is going to shoot me cause it looks like I've added another addiction to geocaching!

jeremy:

Sure! That's one of the reasons why it is called a visit instead of a find. Anyone can visit their own waymark (and most should since that's the point of it all). It's also the proper place to offer you experience, while the waymark itself should have a generally unbiased description of the location.

man. you should put that in the FAQ....

yes, this is the point of visiting your own marks. why can we no longer visit more than once? it did not affect the stats.

i have not seen this 'owner log' option yet....i will look for that....

i would upload a pic to my log of my own mark, but i put them all on the waymark page--which is why all pics posted by the owner to the mark should be in 'our gallery'.

i do not visit some of my own waymarks if i dont have sufficient proof i did so.....(eat at the McDs).

i also make an extra effort to visit others marks....though those are quite some distance away...

its your thing do what you wanna do.

run run fast as you can cant catch me im the waymarkingman

chapterhouseinc:

man. you should put that in the FAQ....

good point.

chapterhouseinc:

yes, this is the point of visiting your own marks. why can we no longer visit more than once? it did not affect the stats.

I didn't know this was the case. I'll ask Bootron about it.

Yes yes please!  I need to visit sometimes more than once, to take pics of different seasons, etc, or drinking a different bottle of wine at a winery.

I could go either way on this. I am visiting a spot where I placed a waymark a year ago (Thanksgving with the inlaws) and would love to be able to indicate my second visit and additional observations. A note will work but it is a visit so.....it doesn't need to add to my count...but will additional visits addan addition twist to waymarking confusion?

in my experience 'double visits' never affected the personal stats.....you visited the site, added it to your visits. you visit again, the visited stats remain the same, but the waymarks log stats increases by 1.....

this was removed in the 2.0 udate.....now the mark says: you have already visited. and you can only select 'make note'......

and what about the 'owner visit' option? i have not seen it on my marks....this might allow for 2 visits...1 to the 'owner' and another for them on a later date....

I'm not sure if you are referring to when I said "I log an Owner Visit" when you are looking for another kind of log.

I use the VISIT... but instead of writing a long description, I just type "Owner Visit"

When it comes to multiple visits to the same Waymark... I haven't done it yet, and hadn't thought about it.  But I can see how it can be useful and enjoyable.

BQ

So far, I haven't logged my own Waymarks.

I've been conditioned over 5 years of geocaching that one should never log a find on a cache one owns. 

It's a hard habit to break.  Why should I get 'double credit' for both creating the Waymark and visiting it?  Aren't Waymarks basically the same as locationless or virtual caches?

I just wish I could filter out Waymarks I own.  When we finally get .gpx files, I'll be able to do it in GSAK.

In my opinion, visiting own waymarks it´s completely diferent from visiting our own caches.
I see the creation of a waymark as the possibility to let others know of places unknown to them, and, from that perspective, i try to find all the relevant information i can about that place/waymark. The visit log will be the place where we can (if we want) tell the others about or experience in that place. That´s the way i see it.
As for being locationess caches, i see each category as a possible locationess cache, but, each waymark as a phisical location so it can be logged if you find it. It would be like a normal cache.
Anyway, this is not geocaching!

Regards

Alberto

and do not forget the possibility of 'trading waymarks'.....

i have submitted waymark '#305' and you have '#678'.

you would like to 'own' 305 (a historic marker in your state) and i would like 678 (a historic marker in my state). we can then trade owned marks (through adopton).....if you had not visited 'your mark' you would no longer have a record of having been there since it will move from your owned stats to mine......but then i would have to go out and visit it in order to log it--if i had not already.

and ownership is not really the question of a log....it is more of a have you been there....if you go to a spot and collect info to submit it to a category (taking coords/pics/research), have you not been there, and can then log it?

I wonder if it would be terribly difficult to have a 'revisit' visit type.  :)

While it is true that most waymarks are visited and not found there may be some categories and waymarks that have specific logging requirements other that just take a picture or tell about your experience, e.g. answer a verification question. I would look at this kind of category as one that is findable. I have suggested in the past that some categories may want to have a found it log type in addition to the visited log type. The waymark could still be visited by the owner (or by anyone else who wants to visit but not have to meet the requirement for a find) but only someone who meets the requirements could log a find.

Personally I don't agree with "Additional Visiting Requirements", apart from uploading a photo taken at the site. 

Either include a photo that you took at the site if it is required, and always provide details of the Visit.  I don't see how there can be a 'Found It' option.

 

BQ

i think that if the category as a whole was based upon additional requirements:

 for example this 'absurd' category:

Historic Waymarking Tours

-to submit a waymark you must:

choose a 'local historic story' [sherman's march to the sea through georgia, middle section]

choose points involved/ing this 'story' [30 historic markers, 10 NRHP, 1 USNP, 4 Courthouses, 3 Churches, etc]

design a suggested route (following the storyline) [following is forward progress from the first to the last sections]

create a description which will stimulate/facilitate experential information from loggers [blah blah blah blah, please mention/include pics of anything interesting you see along the way]

-to log a waymark:

you must have successfully logged the refrenced waymarks [is there a way for me to 'link' other logs to this one so that they 'would all appear checked off here?]

provide a description of things you noticed/learned during the adventure [as you wish]

-----------------------------------------------

just came to me off the top of my head.

it does rely on the refrenced categories being 'full', but then it would be another category for us to submit in......

plus everyone loves the history cats (shhhh, dont tell the kids they will learn by playing this game).

im not sayin, im just sayin

the blue quasar:

Personally I don't agree with "Additional Visiting Requirements", apart from uploading a photo taken at the site. 

Either include a photo that you took at the site if it is required, and always provide details of the Visit.  I don't see how there can be a 'Found It' option.

 

BQ

I agree, I don't see a "Found It" option either.  I may have had to find it  when I submitted the waymark.  By submitting the waymark I made it easier for someone else to visit it. When I  went out  and found it for the submission I was  going off  some description of address or  less information, when  someone else goes out they have all that information  plus  the coordinates  and anything else I put in my description, thus they are "Visiting"

chapterhouseinc:

i think that if the category as a whole was based upon additional requirements:

 for example this 'absurd' category:

Historic Waymarking Tours

{absurd details snipped}

im not sayin, im just sayin

Gosh yes, that is truly absurd.  So much so, that someone ought to design an entirely separate GPS activity site around the concept of a "guided tour."  Wouldn't that be somethin?