The Return of Virtuals (?)
- Posted on the groundspeak feedback site...
"We have been discussing this in-house and plan to work on a solution that should support those interested in virtuals and not upset those who don't want them back."
After that they'll get to work on world hunger, end disease, and that whole world peace thing. ;)
- Kludgy interfaces abound -- and some are more kludgy than others. One forgives/ignores/wades through what they're more used to, I suppose.
Anyway. Give me time -- Georgetown is on my waymarking target list. BWAHAHAHAHA! [Unless Semper Q beats me to it!]
But, no, it's not as ... um ... condensed in its popularity as geocaching. However, there are a LOT of fans.
---------- Original Message ----------
From: Jay Bingham <binghamjc@...>
Subject: RE: [CentralTexasGeocachers] Re: The Return of Virtuals (?)
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 00:58:21 -0500
It was nice to meet you at the event the other day.
Thank you for you point of view on waymarking, I concede that it could be cool for certain things; I will even go so far as to say might excel for certain things.
I guess one of the things that I find disorienting about the waymarking.com site is that the mapping behaves differently than on geocaching.com. Perhaps that is one of the things that an earlier poster (I can’t recall who it was and could not find the message in the archives) had in mind when they said something to the effect that it did not appear that GroundSpeak had put the same level of effort into improving the waymarking web site that they have put into the geocaching site.
I also find it disorienting that there is no concept of a home location on waymarking.com, so when I select a category there is no logical, at least to me, order for the waymarks that are listed. It just seems clunky that I need to enter my home coordinates every time I want to see a list that is centered around my home.
Another feeling that I get when visiting the waymarking site is that it just does not appear to have caught on like geocaching has. Maybe I am reading this wrong. I have no idea when waymarking was started, I cannot find any information on the website about its history. So it may be too soon to tell if it has taken off or caught on. Never the less, when I tell it to show me all the waymarks near a cache near the center of Georgetown, I see more waymarks in Round Rock on the first page of the list than I see in Georgetown. Too me, that says that folks in Georgetown don’t care much about it; if they did there would be more than seven waymarks in Georgetown in the list of the 25 closest to that cache. Also when I see waymarks that have never been visited in the three years since they were created I get the feeling that folks just don’t care much about waymarking, (another explanation could be that folks just don’t care about that category of waymarks, like windmills, manhole covers or benchmarks).
(Speaking of benchmarks, I am still trying to figure out why Find a Benchmark has a geocaching.com address and why it wasn’t moved to waymarking. To me is seems more closely related to waymarking than it does to geocaching. I think incorporating it into the waymarking website would be a big improvement for it because its web page is even more primitive that I feel that waymarking’s site is).
Having said all that, I don’t see any reason that waymarking and virtual caches must be mutually exclusive, some locations could even be listed in both; Letterboxing and geocaching share some locations (which sharing is more overt, at least from the geocaching point of view, than any duplicative listing of waymarks and virtual caches would ever be) and no one seems to have any heartburn about that. Of course it could be the covert nature of the duplicative listing of locations that is upsetting to some folks :).
+-+ Jay - BingOGT
|+| Georgetown, TX USA
+-+ “What you see depends mainly on what you are looking for.”
Mortgage Rates Hit 3.25%
If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Obama's Refi Program