Weathervane

Ok thanks, I’ll give that a try.

That’s exactly where they’re going. I didn’t think of looking there. Thanks Now how do I get them to go to my inbox. I’m not sure how to do that. I’ll search the web for advice but any help to resolve this issue would be appreciated.

Ok thanks The problem I’m having is probably linked to the changes recently made by Yahoo. I changed my password as directed but not sure what to do to get the Waymarking e-mails. Otherwise everything else is working fine as I am receiving my other e-mails.

I have not been receiving confirmation e-mails from Waymarking for a few weeks now. Have you experienced this recently. If not, is there something you can suggest I try at my end. Thanks

The United Churches of Canada have now found a home in this category.

I did some more thinking after making the last post, and I'm wondering if the title Continental Reform and Congregational Churches would be more understandable for the majority of waymarkers. I wonder how many people are able to make the connection between Reformed and Congregational Churches and Calvinism. Just a thought. I'm also hesitant to give complete control to Wikipedia over the criteria for this category due to the fact that there could be omissions and inaccuracies. That's why I added the second criteria as a complement to Wikipedia. (I had more difficulty finding an equivalent site for Congregational Churches) It would certainly be easier to identify the churches to be waymarked if you were to use Continental Reform and Congregational Churches as a title. Your second criteria is excellent as well.

I support calling this new category "Calvinism". Continental Reform and Congregational Churches" is also a very valid title for this category, but 'Calvinism" will allow us to reduce the number of church related categories as opposed to the total number of churches to be waymarked. If Calvinism is used as the title for the category, I would simply exclude all of the churches listed under Presbyterian as per the List of Christian Denominations, on Wikipedia. To explain a little more on the differences between categories and individual churches, I take Pietists and Holiness Churches as an example. Two categories have already been created for churches under that orientation, they are Wesleyan and Church of the Nazarene. The remaining category within that orientation are as follows: The Salvation Army Church of God (Anderson) Christian and Missionary Alliance Bible Fellowship Church Christian Baptist Church of God Christ's Sanctified Holy Church All of the above noted churches could be waymarked under a Holiness and Pietist Churches category. Otherwise, 6 categories would have to be created to waymark them. If you extrapolate and look at all the orientations and their individual churches under the List of Christian Denominations on Wikipedia, you will note that over 400 potential categories could be submitted for approval. I am prepared to serve as a reviewer for this new category should you be looking for volunteers.

I respectfully and without pointing fingers at any posters would like to inform folks that the Christian Identity movement is designated a radical racist hate group by many respected civil rights organizations, and followers of Identity Christianity have been on US government terrorist watch lists for years. I recognize the poster was cut-and-pasting a list from Wikipedia, and assume did not know about this particular brand of doctrine, but there is well-founded debate about whether Identity Christianity is really a constitutionally protected religious affiliation, or just a cover for racist whites bent on fomenting race war or carrying out attacks on other religious groups, law enforcement, or racial minorities. I think we need to be very careful in Waymarking not to slice and dice denominations much further than we have already. I like the Calvinism category idea. On the Wikipedia list, there are three entries under "Calvinism". They are "Continental Reformed Churches", "Presbyterian" and "Congregationalist". There is already a category on Waymarking titled "Presbyterian". These three denomination represent 55, 80 and 34 different congregations for a total of 169. I have not found the number of individual churches per congregation. The issue is fairly simple, does the creator of this new potential category wish to manage all three denominations or only one being Continental Reformed Churches? Considering that there is already a category for Presbyterian Churches, it may be preferable to create only the Continental Reformed Churches at this time and wait for another volunteer to come forward to create a Congregationalist category. On the other hand, creating a Calvinism category would go a long way in reducing the number of categories and create a precedent whereby the "orientation" would be the vehicle by which categories would be approved. Other orientations, to name a few, are: Lutheranism, Anglicanism, United and Uniting Churches, Pentecostalism,, etc. It's really for the Waymarking community to decide.

I respectfully and without pointing fingers at any posters would like to inform folks that the Christian Identity movement is designated a radical racist hate group by many respected civil rights organizations, and followers of Identity Christianity have been on US government terrorist watch lists for years. I recognize the poster was cut-and-pasting a list from Wikipedia, and assume did not know about this particular brand of doctrine, but there is well-founded debate about whether Identity Christianity is really a constitutionally protected religious affiliation, or just a cover for racist whites bent on fomenting race war or carrying out attacks on other religious groups, law enforcement, or racial minorities. I think we need to be very careful in Waymarking not to slice and dice denominations much further than we have already. I like the Calvinism category idea. The question one should ask regarding that particular entity is whether it has any place of worship worthy of being waymarked. If it hasn't, and a proposal for creating such a category is never received, the Waymarking community will not have to deal with it. Should a request be received, the views expressed in the above noted post will allow the Waymarking community to make an informed decision.

That is a good question. From my perspective, I feel that it is more likely for categories to be approved if the buildings / churches to be waymarked are well represented and found in many countries. Also, it will increase the opportunities for lesser known churches to be waymarked if they are grouped together with churches that share the same classification. quote name='RakeInTheCache' timestamp='1417503512' post='5452192'] Have we thought about why we think about imposing limits on the number of categories that can be created? The rules of the hobby don't impose strict limits. For me as long as the category can be considered distinct from another one, it should be permitted. And I think there are many reasons to consider one protestant denomination to be distinct from another one. Furthermore, we already have categories that could encompass other ones, but we seem to manage these pretty well already using exclusions. [/quote

The following is only meant to spur further discussion regarding the creation of church categories. The issued at hand, Worldwide Reformed Churches, is discussed at the end of this document. The many variants and exceptions within the Christian churches will make it difficult to achieve consensus. According the above noted Wikipedia article, “the Catholic church does not consider itself to be a denomination, while “some groups viewed by non-adherents as denominational actively resist being called a denomination and do not have any formal denominational structure”. Others are included because they “include some elements of Christian practice or beliefs.” Whatever nomenclature we use to classify the various groups, denominations, congregations, churches, affiliated to a larger group, strictly independent, etc., the terminology employed may be opened to interpretation and lead to some debate of one form or another. We have a tendency to defer to the status quo and approve church related categories when the write-ups are adequate, prevalence is met to a certain degree and we find no valid reasons to deny the addition of a new category. Luckily, most of the larger groups are well known and encompass the highest number of congregations and individual churches. The following list of Christian denominations, congregations and churches, is available from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Protestant_churches#Esoteric_Christianity In an attempt to reduce confusion between the various terms, I have drawn upon them to mean the following in this write-up: Denomination: A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name. Waymark categories have been created for the following denominations and individual churches: The number in parenthesis corresponds to the number of individual churches / congregations within that particular denomination) Catholic Orthodox (Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy) (51) Lutheran (68) Anglican (68) Presbyterian (80) Methodist (18) Baptist (97) Churches / Congregations The following churches / congregations are affiliated with the denominations listed in parenthesis. Wesleyan (Pietists and Holiness Churches) Church of the Nazarene (Pietists and Holiness Churches) Assemblies of God (Pentecostalism) New Apostolic Church (Appears to be an independent church) Seventh Day Adventist (Sabbath-Keeping Churches, Adventist Church of Christ Scientist (Independent from the main denominations) Categories have not yet been created for the following denominations. The number of churches per the respective denominations are in parenthesis: Continental Reform (55) Congregationalist (34) Anabaptist (29) Brethren (22) Pietists and Holiness (16) Spiritual Baptists (1) Pentecostalism (61) Charismatic (12) Neo-Charismatic (6) African Initiated (8) Messianic Judaism / Jewish Christians (8) United and uniting Church (16) Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (9) Stone Campbell Restauration (5) Southcottites (3) Sabbath-Keeping churches, Adventist (7) Sabbath-Keeping churches, Non-Adventist (14) Sunday Adventists (4) Sacred Name Groups (3) British-Israelism (4) Christian Identity (4) Miscellaneous/Other (23) Nontrinitarian groups Latter Day Saints (11) Oneness Pentecostalism (13) Unitarianism and Universalism (13) Bible Student groups (6) Swedenborgianism (3) Christian Science (1) Other non-Trinitarians (18) New Thought (8) Esoteric Christianity (6) Syncretistic religions incorporating elements of Christianity (7) Based on the preceding, there is potential for approximately 425 new waymark categories under Christian churches. This number could be reduced significantly should more emphasis be placed on the denomination, as opposed to the churches within the denominations listed on Wikipedia, when categories are created. Currently, categories have not yet been created in relation to churches within some of the largest denominations, e.g., Pentecostal (61), Continental Reform (55), Congregationalist (34), Anabaptist (29), Brethren (22) and Pietists and Holiness(16). Some of the churches are independent from any of the denominations listed on Wikipedia. An independent category may have to be created to accommodate these churches. I doubt if anyone would object to a Church Category titled: “Christian Churches? It could accommodate the smallest denominations/churches that are not included in one of the main denominations. I assume that adherents of a church listed within one of the main denominations would not object to being identified as being from that family of churches on Waymarking.com. It may be that someone may object to their churches being grouped as part of an independent Christian or Christian Church category, but this should not prevent the Waymarking community from approving these categories. Our objective is to waymark buildings, not endorse, promote or defend a religion. From my cursory review of other religions, there appears to be as many distinctions within their religion as there are within the Christian faith. If we approve separate categories for all other churches, sects, faiths, etc, it will become unmanageable While we have not yet reached our saturation point, we may do so in the near future. In an attempt to address, this issue, I offer the following suggestions. Please also contribute suggestions that will hopefully lead to some form of consensus. Consider Approving denominations as opposed to churches in that denomination. It would be easier to do this if categories already existed for all of the Christian denominations listed on Wikipedia. If someone were to submit a waymark for the Church of Tuvalu (Church), for example, that waymark could be added to the Congregationalist Churches (Denomination) category. If that category had not yet been created, the peer review process would have to review the submission on its own merit, unless the owner is asked and agrees to create the Congregationalist Churches category first. If the individual has no interest in doing so, the only alternative will be for someone coming forward and volunteering to create this new category (denomination). If there are no volunteers, the category will either be denied or approved, should all of the relevant conditions be met. If the waymark is approved, this will not help in reducing the proliferation of church categories. Since the Waymarking community is given a key role to play in the approval of categories, we should exercise our prerogative and deny some of the church categories that would better fit within a larger denomination category that would include churches of different names but sharing the same beliefs. Also, categories for the main Christian denominations, as well as those for Independent or Christian Churches, should perhaps be created at the earliest opportunity. Volunteers could be sought through the forums. An absence of volunteers will lead to the status quo being maintained. With respect to the proposal for a Worldwide Reformed Churches Category, I have reviewed the relevant write-ups on Wikipedia for some of these churches and note that Calvinism is identified as an “orientation”, as opposed to an actual denomination and/or church. I stand to be corrected however, as I am not an expert on this subject. However, wikipedia defines churches by classification, orientation and polity (governance). The following reformed churches are classified as follows: Christian Reformed Church - Classification -Protestant - Orientation - Evangelical / Calvinist - Polity - Presbyterian - United Reform churches in America - Classification - Protestant - Orientation Mainline / Calvinist - Polity - Presbyterian - Reformed Churches in the Netherlands - Classification - Protestant - Orientation - Mainstream Reformed, polity- presbyterian. The common denominators are Protestant and Presbyterian. The orientation, while influenced by Calvinism, is not shown as such for all the churches listed under the title “Continental Reform Churches”. If these Reformed churches follow a Presbyterian governance, one would think that the reformed churches could be waymarked under the Presbyterian category. Another alternative would be to create a “Continental Reform Church” category as it would be easier to manage for reviewers, in that all of the churches listed under the Continental Reform churches on Wikipedia would be accepted, irrespective of their orientation and polity / governance. In so far as the Church of Scotland, it is classified as Protestant, Calvinist and Presbyterian. In my view, that church, if waymarked, should be under the Presbyterian category as it is listed under the Presbyterian banner on Wikipedia.

Why not create a category titled: Calvinism. The followiing URL has a list of many reformed churches under the Calvinism banner. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomkinations#Calvinism The web site also lists denominations, for lack of a better word, that have many churches affiliated with them. To prevent / reduce the number of church / religious categories, it may be preferable to support categories that include churches that share the same beliefs, faith, dogma, etc. There are probably minor differences within individual churches listed under Calvinism, but that should nor bar them from being included in the Calvinism category. I would most definitely support such a category. quote name='RakeInTheCache' timestamp='1417155059' post='5451280'] I'm thinking now of requiring that the church meets at least two of three criteria. (plus the presbyterian exclusion) 1) The theology must be linked to Zwingli/Calvin 2) Have "Reformed" in the name 3) Be listed on the web site I mentioned above

You could try Signs of History.

The waymark page states as follows: "Visitors must answer the verification questions (or post a photo when that alternative is allowed)." So clearly, a question must be asked by the person creating the waymark and the person visiting must be in a position to answer it. I have more than once read the statement claiming that finding a location and creating a waymark takes precedence over visiting a waymark. The profiles of those who have created the most waymarks lends credence to that statement. I agree that it is much more satisfying to create a waymark than having to visit one and write a sentence or two about an object that has been waymarked in 10 or more categories. Also, I understand that not much time can be devoted to visiting waymars when traveling to other cities or countries in search of new items to waymark. Having said that, however, my view is that Waymarking will only continue to exist if we can have many more people actually visit waymarks and increase revenue through purchasing yearly memberships. It may be that Groundspeak will find a way to capitalize on the accumulation of currently available waymarks, but the status quo appears to prevail at this time in so far as how the game is being played . Visiting a waymark encourages those who take the time to create them and this may spur others to follow suit. So my resolution for the coming year is to ensure that my visit count remains equal to or superior to my created waymark count.

I tend to agree that most people do not read all of the category descriptions. With over 1000 categories, you have to have a lot of time on your hands to familiarize yourself with all of them. I would probably create a waymark in that category if I could not find one to visit and wanted to get the icon on my grid. Also, we appear to have moved beyond asking visitors to perform a task at the site. People are pressed for time. They may go, take a look and get a photo if it’s in the area they are visiting, but to ask them to find some information related to the waymark is probably more than they are prepared to do given that almost all of the other waymarks do not have that requirement. With this category, it’s difficult for reviewers to assess the validity of the statements provided on the waymark page if they do not live in the same city. A best secret can be something quite subjective that will not necessarily appeal to someone else. At this stage, my take on your category would be to remove the verification requirement and allow the type of waymarks that were recently denied. I would have made an effort to visit both of these waymarks had I been in the areas in question. There would again be some degree of subjectivity on the part of reviewers but it appears to me that it would also generate more interesting waymarks. You may therefore wish to rewrite your category to reflect this. If you prefer not to get involved should removing the verification be the only option, it may be better to seek a new leader and let him/her rewrite the category.

Scenic Roadside Look-Outs

Best of success in your new job silverquill. I've always enjoyed reading your incisive comments. You have provided a great service to the Waymarking community as a volunteer reviewer and hope that you will find time to contribute as you have done in the past when time allows.

I've had waymarks declined before and when I realized that I did not meet a specific requirement, I deleted my submission and moved on. All waymarks have requirements and category owners must be diligent to ensure that the waymarks submitted adhered to these requirements, as to do otherwise would lead to a chaotic mess. In my view, you did not waste your time. You appear to have spent some time outside, you researched and learned about a subject you may not have known before and you are now aware of the fact that some officers are quite exigent. I have found that certain officers are more flexible than others and will bend the rules so to speak to accommodate your waymark. Others will not and it is entirely their prerogative. I am not here to give advice, but I would take this as a learning experience and assess whether I will be in a position to gather all of the required information at the site of the waymark before setting foot outside. If you hesitate or you are quite sure that you won't, then move on to another category, as expecting an officer to approve an inappropriately documented waymark is risky and may lead to disappointment as it did in your case. Furthermore, you may be provided with more accurate feedback by the Waymarking community should you be prepared to share the issue(s) that led to your waymark being declined and the extent of the explanations you forwarded to the category owner. You have many great waymarks to your credit and one bad experience should not deter you from enjoying this rewarding activity. While we may not know how Waymarking will develop in the future and whether it will even survive, the photos you have taken and the information you have gathered are not lost and will be your property forever to be used as you see fit.

Some people take pride in their work and will conduct topic specific research to enhance the quality of their waymarks and as a courtesy to those who seek pet friendly accommodations through Waymarking. As someone has pointed out, however, how many people will bring up the Waymarking website to find such accommodations? It would go faster just to google the name of a city followed by "pet friendly accommodations.” While we would perhaps like Waymarking to be an encyclopedic fountain of knowledge, it has its roots in geocaching and is basically a game, the only difference being that we “discover” rather than “find” things. In so far as all the waymarks having the same information, the creator of this category did not ask for very specific details. The instructions are as follows: This category is dedicated to Dog-Friendly places to stay. Expanded Description: Waymarks for this category should include any hotels that allow dogs. Instructions for Posting a Dog Friendly Hotels waymark: Please only list places that invite our furry friends (places where you have been successful sneaking in a pet are not allowed). That's it. In my view, this waymarker is following the instructions. He is not required to add the hotel's pet friendly policy. But by posting a link to the hotel in question, as this waymarker did, the person reading the waymark page will be able to read the policy or phone the hotel. If the category owner wishes to have this information provided on the waymark page, it is up to him/her to update his/her category and add required fields. Background information, other than what is required in the instructions to post a waymark, is a nice gesture, but not necessary. So, unless someone totally disregards the instructions to post a waymark, the waymark should be approved. If the instructions are not followed as per the mandatory requirements, officers will be on solid grounds to deny the waymark. If you deny a waymark solely because it doesn't fit with your ideals of how a waymark should read, then be prepared to answer to irate waymarkers. In my view, why engage in a battle that will cause you aggravation and cannot be won. In so far as idiosyncrasies such as capitalizing the title, adding a dash as opposed to a tilde, requiring acronyms at the beginning of titles, why do we even bother with that? Let the waymarker be creative, after all, the name of the category is immediately below the title. Should that not be sufficient to inform visitors as to what the waymark is all about? Many a waymark has been denied because of failure to follow requirements that have no bearing whatsoever on the objectives of Waymarking which are to have people get out of the house, get a bit of exercise, discover interesting locations with the aid of a GPS, and, most importantly, have fun.

It would be instructive for all of us waymarkers to obtain the exact reason why this waymark was denied. It appears as if all of the information required to post a waymark was included. The instructions required one photo with the name of the hostel appearing on it. Words like "suggested" and "try" do not imply that additional photographs and information were required. The coordinates are accurate and the required information was provided. I may have missed something, and if I did, I will apologise accordingly.

I received an initial reply from razalas indicating some interest but the need to consult with his officers first. I have not yet received a subsequent reply, so, in consideration of the initiatve put forth that will allow waymarks not captured by Grand Opening to be submitted, I would ask Math Teacher to proceed as intended. Should a reply from razalas be received in the meanting, I will forward it asap. Following reply received from razalas: razalas says, "Hi Weathervane, after contacting the officers one has not yet responded but the others agreed, so in the next days I will change the category description to accept all plaques and not only just those that have the name of someone. I would appreciate that you join the group as an officer, thank you. Best regards, razalas" This is good news for a variety of reasons. Thanks razalas for considering and agreeing to our request. Please let us know once you have amended your category so that we can start submitting waymarks. I will reply to your e-mail re: joining your team as an officer. Weathervane

I received an initial reply from razalas indicating some interest but the need to consult with his officers first. I have not yet received a subsequent reply, so, in consideration of the initiatve put forth that will allow waymarks not captured by Grand Opening to be submitted, I would ask Math Teacher to proceed as intended. Should a reply from razalas be received in the meanting, I will forward it asap.

I received an initial reply from razalas indicating some interest but the need to consult with his officers first. I have not yet received a subsequent reply, so, in consideration of the initiatve put forth that will allow waymarks not captured by Grand Opening to be submitted, I would ask Math Teacher to proceed as intended. Should a reply from razalas be received in the meanting, I will forward it asap.

Math Teacher E-mail sent.

I applaud the initiative taken to create a new category but have some reservations about voting yes for a category whose potential waymarks should be added to the already existing Grand Opening category. Granted, this issue should have been dealt with through the peer review process in order to limit the proliferations of categories inviting almost identical waymarks. Now that Grand Opening has been approved as a category, however, the creators of that category should perhaps be asked if they agree to accept all waymarks related to the opening, inauguration, unveiling or dedication of a building. It would suffice to add a drop down menu to allow contributors to identify the action taking place. Depending on the words written / engraved on the plaque or monument, the contributors would be required to provide information about the building / object in question as well as about the person conducting the opening if the name of the said person was identified. Considering that very well-known individuals may have been at the opening without their names being listed on the plaque, it should be possible to confirm by other means, newspaper / internet articles, etc., that the person who was present was there in relation to the opening of a building. Will these submissions be accepted in the “Grand Opening” category? I hope so, but from reading the forum, they may not. In my view, it would be preferable to group all of these waymarks together because they all relate to the same thing, i.e., the opening, inauguration, unveiling or dedication of a new / renovated building or other structure.