Groundspeak Portal

Often one of the first things someone hears about Waymarking, after it being the replacement for Virtuals and Locationless Caches, involves a reference to McDonald's.  Typically this seems to be a comment presented by those from Geocaching that still wish that Virtual Caches would return.

While those of us that have been involved with Waymarking for more than a year, some of us are nearly two and a half years, understand the scope of Waymarking is far beyond its roots but some back history might be of value to those coming in now as interest levels are increasing.  What follows is a hope to explain how we reached the point we are at today.  The accuracy of this posting is as close to the way I remember this all falling into place.

Set the wayback machine for 2003.  Geocaching's primary activity was about locating containers with logbooks but there was still Virtuals being created.  The main issue was that Virtuals were supposed to be in places where a physical cache could not exist.  But still people kept trying to make more Virtuals and despite many suggestions like hiding an extremely small container or using data to create an offset, people still wanted to get this 'hard to come by' icon.  A concept often refered to as the "Wow Factor" had also not succeeded in making Virtuals work properly.  What one finds interesting another does not.  The subjective nature of being interesting just could not be quantified and since the game of Geocaching was supposed to be primarily about hidden containers it was finally decided to phase out Virtuals.

But what to do?  Many members of Geocaching still wanted to be able to make locations where they could just see something instead of having find a hidden container.  The focus of the location was of key importance and some people just wanted to share these locations without the concern of a physical placement.  Thus was born Waymarking.  But instead of repeating the problems found in Virtuals, a new plan was brought forward.  By organizing locations into basic groups then subdividing by more specific content people could create and search for locations that met their specific tastes.

Groundspeak first created several 'seed' categories to beta test and get some feel for how this new game could work.  And in that time the first Waymark was created "McDonald's", as a sign that this would not be as restrictive as Virtuals had been.  That bears further comment.  The reason that McDonald's was introduced was to show people that Waymarking was going to be set up as a far more open approach to the places of interest people wanted to share.  A kind of "anything goes" style where everyone could find their own place to share locations.

Next, the existing Locationless caches were offered the chance to migrate over to Waymarking as the second set of 'seed' categories.  Some adjustments had to be made but most of them that did transfer over did so pretty much as they were originally created.  As forum discussions about possible new categories continued, some were added over time.  This would be the third set of 'seed' categories which would also be the last.

Once Waymarking had established a basic scheme of how categories would work and how people could create Waymark entries into these categories, it was time to move on to the version we have today.  Around the time of Waymarking 2.0 the addition of the "Group Management System" was introduced. Premium members could create groups for the purpose of making a category for inclusion into the list of existing categories.  The difference is that Geocaching submissions are handled on a local level whereas Waymarks are handled by people with a specific interest in the category topic.  This is a much more global approach which is needed because nearly every Waymarking category can span the globe.

Anything of interest to you can likely be added to an existing Waymark category and if such an area does not exist then it likely can be created.  However to view Waymarking based on the belief that it is nothing more than a place that shows people fastfood restaurants is the same as viewing Geocaching as a place that shows people guardrails and lampposts.  Each game has very enjoyable aspects and some that are not as appealling.  In here, you set the limits yourself.

Consider the entire Waymarking website as online library of places to visit, complete with descriptions, maps and images.  Be selective in what you wish to look for, be open to expanding your horizons and above all else enjoy sharing the world through this game.  Likely it is far more interesting than some would lead you to believe and hopefully you will find places where you can contribute to building onto this game.  When in doubt, ask!  We love to help people enjoy the game!

BQ

Hey BQ,

That sounds about right. I just thought of something though. Geodesic Domes never made "over" from the locationless/virtuals. Anybody interested?

 

Team Farkle 7

Im 'in' on geodesic domes.   Always liked the name Buckminster.

team farkle 7:

Hey BQ,

That sounds about right. I just thought of something though. Geodesic Domes never made "over" from the locationless/virtuals. Anybody interested?

 

Team Farkle 7

Will both geodesic dome houses and geodesic theaters in the round be included?

Casa Manana

Absolutely. Just formed "The Buck Ministers". Just back from vacation and have lots to catch up on.

If interested please join the group. We'll start a new thread to discuss the creation of the category.

-TF7

ha.. I just posted the "why McDonalds" question on a different thread.. which goes to show, that you probably need to get rid of them if you truely want to make this site work..  because it causes confusion and turns off a lot of potential new members..  can you really blame them for not wanting to check it out when the first thing they say when they do a search is McDonalds and an Animal Clinic on a major street in the burbs?

I mean how much more of a wow factor would it be if instead of the above, I got a page that shows some hidden waterfall, or a breathtaking vista on a cliff high above Puget Sound?

robdogg:

ha.. I just posted the "why McDonalds" question on a different thread.. which goes to show, that you probably need to get rid of them if you truely want to make this site work..  because it causes confusion and turns off a lot of potential new members..  can you really blame them for not wanting to check it out when the first thing they say when they do a search is McDonalds and an Animal Clinic on a major street in the burbs?

I mean how much more of a wow factor would it be if instead of the above, I got a page that shows some hidden waterfall, or a breathtaking vista on a cliff high above Puget Sound?

 

You might want to ditch the "Wow Factor" mentality.  Virtuals NEVER really had it no matter how much people are desperate to believe it.

It really comes down to being honest with yourself and what you are just not willing to try.  Imagine if Geocaching allowed you be as selective as you would like.  That is what we enjoy here.  Don't like caches in cemeteries?  Too bad, they are in your pocket query anyway. You like micros but not if they are at a Cracker Barrel or Wal-Mart?  Well, hope you can figure out which those are, cause geocaching can't.

Don't like McDonald's (which by the way I find very hard to believe that everyone hates them as much as they claim)... either Log a Visit or click ignore Category... whoosh!  Gone.  Don't want to see Starbucks locations.... click... bye bye.

Better yet, as you said you like Waterfalls... then by all means, search for Waterfalls in the search tool.  I like Anchors and Bells... and see lots.  But you know, I also see tons of cool stuff because I don't judge an entire category in one swoop.  Payphones will never interest me, but I bet there might be the occational cool entry.

Although there are categories on here that lack the "WOW", they are also not created for that purpose.  They are for usefulness, reference or because people like to collect them.  Think about the Rollercoaster Enthusiasts of America.  They don't concern themselves with the other rides in the parks, they focus on what they like.

Something tells me that you are selective when it comes to renting DVDs.  That mentality applies here too.  Avoid the areas that you don't like, and select from what you do.

BQ

robdogg:

ha.. I just posted the "why McDonalds" question on a different thread.. which goes to show, that you probably need to get rid of them if you truely want to make this site work..  because it causes confusion and turns off a lot of potential new members..  can you really blame them for not wanting to check it out when the first thing they say when they do a search is McDonalds and an Animal Clinic on a major street in the burbs?

I mean how much more of a wow factor would it be if instead of the above, I got a page that shows some hidden waterfall, or a breathtaking vista on a cliff high above Puget Sound?

Waymarking has no rules for style, taste or substance. These are subjective factors.

Now, your area only has a McDonald's and an Animal Clinic and you're not impressed with that. This happens when a couple of the geocachers in an area decide to "try out" waymarking so they waymark something obvious... like the McDonald's... or where they take their dog for his rabies vaccination. When I started waymarking, there were three waymarks in my area, two of them were Palindromes. I would've had to travel 20 minutes north or south on the Interstate to get to the next waymark. What did I do? I began posting waymarks!

Take a look at the categories and then think about your area. Is there a library? Is there anything in the National Register of Historical Places? Do you have a YMCA? Do you have a birding park? A fitness park? Any ol' kind of municipal park? A cemetery? Is there a place where somebody was buried that's not in a cemetery (Out of Place Graves)? Any of those graves made of zinc? You got a courthouse nearby? What about a City Hall? Is there a Mural somewhere? Is there a Mosaic? Is there a Mosaic Mural that could be cross-posted to both Murals and Mosaics? Where's the Catholic Church? Baptist Church? Episcopal Church? Lutheran Church? Church of the Nazarene? Are any of them older than 100? Any of them have a really awesome steeple?

You're in the treasured position of being able to make Waymarking awesome for the next Geocacher in your area to "try it out".

- Elle

I think that one of the main problems is that most people that stop by for the first time don't know about the ignore function when they open the site.  And there are over 100 commercial categories to ignore.  A person checking it out isn't going to sift through all the crap.  If they are browsing around for the first time in an area with a fanatic commercial waymarker, they might not come back.  I think that's what robdogg is trying to say. 

If this is the robdogg that I'm thinking of, he's posted some very great waymarks and even nabbed a few right out from under my nose so he's not someone coming over to the waymarking side just to gripe.   

I understand that there is an ignore button.  But the site seems slowly to be listing toward the commercial side and it has turned me off as well.  There are issues with the voting process that will likely never be addressed and I'm tired of being hopeful that changes will be made.  It's a bit depressing because you guys know that I love the hobby, but I've kind of given up on the dream that some of the issues will be tweaked so the site can evolve.

It is a big turn off for me to browse and see McDonalds and Taco Bell and Starbucks. They have no significance, historical or otherwise, and I don't need help finding them. They just clutter the site and detract from the value of the site. Commercial, franchise type establishments should be removed. The site should be for things that have some value, such as art and monuments. I'm okay with commercial buildings if they have some significance, such as the TransAmerica building in San Francisco, but common franchise businesses like Starbucks, that are on every street corner, just degrade the site.

michael3900:

It is a big turn off for me to browse and see McDonalds and Taco Bell and Starbucks. They have no significance, historical or otherwise, and I don't need help finding them. They just clutter the site and detract from the value of the site. Commercial, franchise type establishments should be removed. The site should be for things that have some value, such as art and monuments. I'm okay with commercial buildings if they have some significance, such as the TransAmerica building in San Francisco, but common franchise businesses like Starbucks, that are on every street corner, just degrade the site.

I would not count on any of the existing commercial categories being removed but if you don't want to see more.... vote no during peer review as new ones come up.

michael3900:

It is a big turn off for me to browse and see McDonalds and Taco Bell and Starbucks. They have no significance, historical or otherwise, and I don't need help finding them. They just clutter the site and detract from the value of the site. Commercial, franchise type establishments should be removed. The site should be for things that have some value, such as art and monuments. I'm okay with commercial buildings if they have some significance, such as the TransAmerica building in San Francisco, but common franchise businesses like Starbucks, that are on every street corner, just degrade the site.

I'm kind of torn.  I agree those give Waymarking a poor image, and I have most of them on Ignore.  But I tend to view this site as a game as well as being informational.  I needed to find some army surplus stores last week, and this site turned out to be much more useful than even Google Maps.  I hate Google Maps for finding businesses.

McDonalds have a lot to answer for!
In more ways than one.

I'm a cacher.
I've started to post waymarks.

They can have that "Takes you to places you may not otherwise have gone to" factor that cachers claim. (How many of the Micro/nano's that are popping up have that factor?)

Waymarks just need a little thought, to add that "Takes you..." factor.

I think the "McDonalds" and other commercial waymarks have their place -how do you keep the youngsters interested, while you go for the 'not so obvious waymark' -end of the day McDonalds for the kids to log a visit!

dinoprophet:

I'm kind of torn.  I agree those give Waymarking a poor image, and I have most of them on Ignore.  But I tend to view this site as a game as well as being informational.  I needed to find some army surplus stores last week, and this site turned out to be much more useful than even Google Maps.  I hate Google Maps for finding businesses.

THANK YOU!!!

The Military Surplus Stores cat is mine and you have just paid me one of the highest compliments possible, and THE highest for a commercial business cat.

dinoprophet:

michael3900:

It is a big turn off for me to browse and see McDonalds and Taco Bell and Starbucks. They have no significance, historical or otherwise, and I don't need help finding them. They just clutter the site and detract from the value of the site. Commercial, franchise type establishments should be removed. The site should be for things that have some value, such as art and monuments. I'm okay with commercial buildings if they have some significance, such as the TransAmerica building in San Francisco, but common franchise businesses like Starbucks, that are on every street corner, just degrade the site.

I'm kind of torn.  I agree those give Waymarking a poor image, and I have most of them on Ignore.  But I tend to view this site as a game as well as being informational.  I needed to find some army surplus stores last week, and this site turned out to be much more useful than even Google Maps.  I hate Google Maps for finding businesses.

This is a great story dinoprophet.   Even though it was my waymark that you are referring to (thanks for the nice visit).  In my opinion, Google maps is much more complete in scope than waymarking.  In my first search I typed "army surplus in Lake Orion" into Google maps and found 10 locations with phone numbers, websites, all itegrated.  Waymarking shows only 3 within 100 miles of Joe's (hmm....sounds like something to put on my to-do list). I used the same feature from Google maps on my phone in Seattle when I went out and forgot to pack my dress shoes.  I found shoe stores, bought shoes my size, and still met up with Hikenutty on time.  I can't say I liked the shoe style, but hey, it was Seattle .

Don't get me wrong, what is great is that you found what you wanted, the way that you wanted.  But, it's just like someone said before, "Waymarking is not the Yellow Pages".  If I want to look for an Aldi Store or other commercial location, I'll look many other places before I look here.

s5280ft:

  If I want to look for an Aldi Store or other commercial location, I'll look many other places before I look here.

Well, me too, because I might be willing to drive just a little farther or a little bit of a different direction to find one that has NOT been waymarked yet.  :)

s5280ft:

dinoprophet:

michael3900:

It is a big turn off for me to browse and see McDonalds and Taco Bell and Starbucks. They have no significance, historical or otherwise, and I don't need help finding them. They just clutter the site and detract from the value of the site. Commercial, franchise type establishments should be removed. The site should be for things that have some value, such as art and monuments. I'm okay with commercial buildings if they have some significance, such as the TransAmerica building in San Francisco, but common franchise businesses like Starbucks, that are on every street corner, just degrade the site.

I'm kind of torn.  I agree those give Waymarking a poor image, and I have most of them on Ignore.  But I tend to view this site as a game as well as being informational.  I needed to find some army surplus stores last week, and this site turned out to be much more useful than even Google Maps.  I hate Google Maps for finding businesses.

This is a great story dinoprophet.   Even though it was my waymark that you are referring to (thanks for the nice visit).  In my opinion, Google maps is much more complete in scope than waymarking.  In my first search I typed "army surplus in Lake Orion" into Google maps and found 10 locations with phone numbers, websites, all itegrated.  Waymarking shows only 3 within 100 miles of Joe's (hmm....sounds like something to put on my to-do list). I used the same feature from Google maps on my phone in Seattle when I went out and forgot to pack my dress shoes.  I found shoe stores, bought shoes my size, and still met up with Hikenutty on time.  I can't say I liked the shoe style, but hey, it was Seattle .

Don't get me wrong, what is great is that you found what you wanted, the way that you wanted.  But, it's just like someone said before, "Waymarking is not the Yellow Pages".  If I want to look for an Aldi Store or other commercial location, I'll look many other places before I look here.

You'll notice, though, that several of those aren't army surplus at all.  Most are industrial and auto salvage.  That's why I say I hate Google maps for this kind of thing (doing "+army +surplus" does improve the results).  But you're right, the flip side is, I can't expect Waymarking to necessarily be complete.

michael3900:

It is a big turn off for me to browse and see McDonalds and Taco Bell and Starbucks.

...but why not just ignore them? Some people obviously like them, but if you don't, simply give it the "thumbs down" and they will all magically disappear (except you'll see the subcategory on your Ignore List).

I wanted to add to the Military Surplus Store sub-discussion going on here.

If you search for Military Surplus Stores in my area, you'll get (1) The store in the mall that doesn't really carry anything; (2) the store I go to; (3) a porn shop; (4) stores that are well out of the area.

I'm not sure what's most appalling about these websearch results, the fact that one of the stores isn't mentioned at all before leaving the area to show stores 30+ miles away or the fact that A PORN SHOP is listed.

Meanwhile, if you use Waymarking, you'll get the posting that I put in (the store that I go to). You won't have a selection of choices unless I waymark the rest but at least you won't be walking into a place that only carries sex-related products. You'll also be given information about the businesses and their hours of operation.

- Elle

haunthunters:

I wanted to add to the Military Surplus Store sub-discussion going on here.

If you search for Military Surplus Stores in my area, you'll get (1) The store in the mall that doesn't really carry anything; (2) the store I go to; (3) a porn shop; (4) stores that are well out of the area.

I'm not sure what's most appalling about these websearch results, the fact that one of the stores isn't mentioned at all before leaving the area to show stores 30+ miles away or the fact that A PORN SHOP is listed.

Meanwhile, if you use Waymarking, you'll get the posting that I put in (the store that I go to). You won't have a selection of choices unless I waymark the rest but at least you won't be walking into a place that only carries sex-related products. You'll also be given information about the businesses and their hours of operation.

- Elle

Maybe it's Army surplus porn? You know, leftovers from before the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy.

I still don't see Waymarking as the Yellow Pages. I'd still use Google maps (or just plain Google) to find what's out there, visually sift through it like you did and call the most likely places to find what I need. Or at least that they have the kind of...um....selection that I was looking for. Cheaper than driving around to each one. The good news is that it looks like you found some more places to waymark that aren't too far away.

s5280ft:

Maybe it's Army surplus porn? You know, leftovers from before the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. I still don't see Waymarking as the Yellow Pages. I'd still use Google maps (or just plain Google) to find what's out there, visually sift through it like you did and call the most likely places to find what I need. Or at least that they have the kind of...um....selection that I was looking for. Cheaper than driving around to each one. The good news is that it looks like you found some more places to waymark that aren't too far away.

Hahaha! Standard Issue Cat-o-nine-tails? Toys that come in camoflauge? Who knows!

I do hope Waymarking doesn't evolve into the Yellow Pages, and I don't know if it really has the set-up to be a direct substitute. I do think there are ways that Waymarking can be a valuable resource to a Waymarker in ways that Yellow Pages would be lacking. As a Waymarker, I'm not really looking at the system as a way to serve everyone... just me and people like me.

- Elle

haunthunters:

just me and people like me.

- Elle

People, people who need people ...

Camo-porn perhaps? You know it when you see it, but is it really pornography if you don't see it?

Maybe all they have is vintage bathing beauties from WWII. You know like the Vargas style drawings on the sides of the old fighter planes .

 

team farkle 7:

haunthunters:

just me and people like me.

- Elle

People, people who need people ...

Camo-porn perhaps? You know it when you see it, but is it really pornography if you don't see it?

Maybe all they have is vintage bathing beauties from WWII. You know like the Vargas style drawings on the sides of the old fighter planes .

 

I thought the whole point of camo was to NOT be seen.

Back on topic: Yes, the use of filters is a great option. However it is important to point out that Waymarking may have started with a shock to the system.

Some could argue, well too, that geocaching has changed a lot in the last 7+ years. How would someone that started in 2001 view that?

Wait!!!! I started then... let's just say that some categories in Waymarking do not hold appeal for me but the percentage of what I view as quality in Waymarking exceeds what I've found in Geocaching.

I have no blinders on, I know that some Geocaches are better as Waymarks. Some Geocaches are placed because they really would have rather placed a Virtual but that isn't allowed. Instead of embracing Waymarking as a good replacement, they place a stealth micro.. bletch. I rarely employ stealth when caching... Waymarks don't disappear because someone saw me there.

BQ