Benchmark cache type

About the Opencaching Site

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby TermiteHunter » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:40 pm

Manville Possum Hunters wrote:
Mr.Yuck wrote:I really do like the idea of ownership reverting to OCNA, but it's not like I'm totally convinced either.


Here is where we disagree. I would not be interested in going out and gathering data, coordinates, and my photo uploads for OCNA to post as their property.


I understand that but there is still nothing that would prevent one from taking all that leg work and listing it elsewhere if it is accepted.

Possible reasons to list under a unified name:
1) They are more or less permanent and not subject to the same level of loss as a container
2) Members leave the game (or OCNA) and sometimes archive their listings. Appropriate for those that require maintinence but these do not.
3) An inactive member that doesn't archive the listing following destruction of the marker. We might be better able to notice these and not allow them to linger.
4) Archived listings due to a member leaving etc, may then be "found" again and re-listed by another member and would again have to go through generally unnecessary approval.
5) The "cache" is retained for others to search should a member leave.
6) OCNA would better be able to adjust information such as coordinates based on user information. Notes to an absent owner about the condition of the mark would otherwise be missed by OCNA.


Anyway, I went out today for a short time to see what I could find based on memory. In an hour or so I managed 6. Just looking for the markers, no investigation online for additional info.

1) A BENCHMARK at a foot bridge in a park placed by city of Charlotte Watershed / Storm Water w/ ID I beleive this one is listed on Waymarking
2) A Transverse Station Marker w/ ID
3) A Right of Way Boundry Marker disk placed / marked by NCDOT no unique ID
4) A Right of Way Boundry Marker disk w/ no markings but a flat plastic post identifying it as such
5) A Right of Way Boundry Marker disk placed / marked by NCDOT no unique ID
6) A BENCHMARK at a foot bridge in a park placed by city of Charlotte Watershed / Storm Water w/ID

Each is of the Alum metal disk in the ground or concrete.
Clearly the 2 (#1 & 6) marked "Benchmark" would be acceptable at most any benchmark type listing service
The Transverse Station (#2) also acceptable I assume
What about these? (#3,4 & 5) all are clearly along the same lines of concept. These are marked in some manner as a survey related marker. I did see them or others nearby marked on a map of Charlotte benchmarks but do not recall the details about them (remember I didn't go looking for web data for these).
They do NOT have unique ID marks on the disks other than some NCDOT wording. 1 of them had no markings descernable on the disk but did have (like the others) a thin plastic 4' tall marker (like those for gas pipelines etc) that a "Right of Way Boundry marker is nearby".
User avatar
TermiteHunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby KnowsOpie » Thu Nov 10, 2016 5:41 pm

TermiteHunter wrote:
Manville Possum Hunters wrote:
Mr.Yuck wrote:I really do like the idea of ownership reverting to OCNA, but it's not like I'm totally convinced either.


Here is where we disagree. I would not be interested in going out and gathering data, coordinates, and my photo uploads for OCNA to post as their property.


I understand that but there is still nothing that would prevent one from taking all that leg work and listing it elsewhere if it is accepted.


I believe that OCNA should first focus on attracting new people that will want to use this site for Benchmarking. I for one will not be listing any BM's here under the condition that MY work becomes the property of OCNA.
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby TermiteHunter » Thu Nov 10, 2016 6:52 pm

Not that i prefer either option over the other but i have to ask. ..why?
Is it simply so that you have the option to withdraw your submissions should you become dissatisfied with the site because you did the initial research (find, photograph, write where it was, get coordinates, fill in what ever blanks there are in the form)? Or is there something else? What other benefit do you perceive there is in retaining ownership by the lister?

Sent from my SM-J320P using Tapatalk
User avatar
TermiteHunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 832
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby KnowsOpie » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:29 pm

TermiteHunter wrote:Not that i prefer either option over the other but i have to ask. ..why?
Is it simply so that you have the option to withdraw your submissions should you become dissatisfied with the site because you did the initial research (find, photograph, write where it was, get coordinates, fill in what ever blanks there are in the form)? Or is there something else? What other benefit do you perceive there is in retaining ownership by the lister?

Sent from my SM-J320P using Tapatalk


I believe OpenCaching should be exactly that. Open. And I do agree that OCNA ownership of a new cache type is the best direction to take if OCNA wants to keep a data base.

First you need to build that data base. OCNA needs something to offer for an existing hobby.

I'm the dumbass here because I confused Benchmarking with Benchmarks being allowed as a cache type on OCNA by people that don't know Jack Snot about Benchmarks.

I have some BM cache drafts in your review, take a look at my ideas.


Sometimes I forget that I am the customer here and not a OCNA Team Member. Wait, I'm not even a customer here. I'm a Freeloader! :D
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby Bon Echo » Thu Nov 10, 2016 11:44 pm

Manville Possum Hunters wrote:
Mr.Yuck wrote:I really do like the idea of ownership reverting to OCNA, but it's not like I'm totally convinced either.


Here is where we disagree. I would not be interested in going out and gathering data, coordinates, and my photo uploads for OCNA to post as their property.


If it goes the "OCNA-as-owner" route, there has to be some form of recognition to the player that submits the info. It should be clear on the listing page "submitted by NAME" but it's also be great to have it as a stat "Benchmarks submitted" and "Benchmarks Found".
Bon Echo
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby KnowsOpie » Fri Nov 11, 2016 12:42 pm

Bon Echo wrote:
Manville Possum Hunters wrote:
Mr.Yuck wrote:I really do like the idea of ownership reverting to OCNA, but it's not like I'm totally convinced either.


Here is where we disagree. I would not be interested in going out and gathering data, coordinates, and my photo uploads for OCNA to post as their property.


If it goes the "OCNA-as-owner" route, there has to be some form of recognition to the player that submits the info. It should be clear on the listing page "submitted by NAME" but it's also be great to have it as a stat "Benchmarks submitted" and "Benchmarks Found".


I agree Bon Echo, Benchmarking is an existing hobby and OCNA needs something to attract people to using it's service.

One major problem I see is that cache types and coordinates can be altered here once accepted. I have a few BM cache types in review queue now, if OCNA takes the route that they want to own our work that we submit,... then I will not list them as a BM type cache. They can be code phrase virtuals and OCNA can continue down that path as a virtual listing service.

I had several more listings that I wanted to add to OCNA, but I'm putting that on hold because I'm totally against their ownership of our work. Virtuals seldom ever require maintenance, so will OCNA want to own them too?

We all know that listings are dumped here, but I don't think things would be any better if OCNA owned the listings. There is just too many bad data listings here now that need a good clean up. ;)
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby KnowsOpie » Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:21 pm

This form can be used to submit recovery information for survey marks to the National Geodetic Survey.

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/recvy_entry_www.prl

I'm still not seeing a reason that I would want to give my work to OCNA when there are other more legitimate places like the NGS.
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby Mr.Yuck » Tue Nov 15, 2016 12:48 pm

Bon Echo wrote:
Manville Possum Hunters wrote:
Mr.Yuck wrote:I really do like the idea of ownership reverting to OCNA, but it's not like I'm totally convinced either.


Here is where we disagree. I would not be interested in going out and gathering data, coordinates, and my photo uploads for OCNA to post as their property.


If it goes the "OCNA-as-owner" route, there has to be some form of recognition to the player that submits the info. It should be clear on the listing page "submitted by NAME" but it's also be great to have it as a stat "Benchmarks submitted" and "Benchmarks Found".


I would agree, and the stats benchmarks submitted, and benchmarks found should be no problem.
ImageImage
User avatar
Mr.Yuck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:09 pm
Location: Buffalo, N.Y.

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby KnowsOpie » Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:19 am

Just a few questions. My photo uploads are going to be from my flicar account and I have several tagged and grouped as Benchmarks and Historical Markers, ect. Shit I picked up as a Waymarker, and most of them are not public yet. I also have several photos that show up on Google Earth, so yes I want credit for my work that I may want to list here.

Just like the Waymarking site, I don't expect anyone to ever visit any of my work here, it's just sharing pictures with the public. I wanted control over my work because I have had assclowns on the Waymarking site post edits just to be well, assclowns.

I have looked at Bon Echo's BM's on the Waymarking site, and it is excellant. I would consider trusting him to manage Benchmarking here.
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby Bon Echo » Wed Nov 16, 2016 2:16 pm

Thanks Manville for your comments. It’s too bad a few Waymarking managers have ruined it for you. Have you ever thought about contributing to Wikipedia? Then your images and content will be used / viewed / appreciated, but they might also be edited since that’s how it works (community-generated content).

I don’t really have any great desire to manage BMs here on OCNA - it was more of an offer to help to get them listed since I was basically saying that a group of players should do the bulk of the work on researching and listing BMs after photos, coordinates and descriptions are submitted. Using a standardized submission form where all that info is required in order to hit submit would negate that requirement but it might also dissuade some players from bothering. My goal is to keep it simple while still maintaining a high standard. You can’t really do that with any other cache types – if someone hides a traditional and writes two words for the description, what can you do? I wish everyone played the game the way you and I do but that’s not the reality.
No matter how it ends up being rolled out, I’m looking forward to submitting and finding. There are very few OCNA caches around here for me to find and this gives me a chance to hunt for something, instead of just hiding. It’s double the fun!
Bon Echo
 
Posts: 207
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:39 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Opencaching Website

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron