jonathanatpsu

Don, While we've never met or interacted, I've definitely noticed the numerous Waymarks you've posted, and have been very impressed. Thank you for your immense contribution to Waymarking! I wish you many more happy years of exploring and sharing what you've found with all of us. Jonathan

I agree. Perhaps it should be required to say whether or not there is an admission fee to access the machine.

I think the proposal looks good. I did notice that the first link for the examples of acceptable machines will not open for me.

Hi everyone, I recently saw the house pictured here, which has a large tree growing through two stories of porches. I thought it was very neat and took some photos. I'm wondering if it would fit in any Waymarking categories. My first thought was Omnivorous Trees, but in this case it seems that the house was built around the tree intentionally, and the tree isn't really "eating" the house. I also thought of "Treehouses," but that category says that the house must be elevated. Does anyone else have any ideas about which category this might be good for? Thanks!

The category is Roman Catholic Churches. I just checked and it is now allowing me to get to the Preview and Submit page. Thanks!

First, thank you for the work on the site! Today I was trying to post a new Waymark and it won't allow me to get to the "Preview and Submit" page. I keep getting an error message (see screenshot). Thankfully it did save what I had entered already, but I can't finished and submit it.

I had forgotten about this category idea, but when I was in St. Louis, Missouri this week I happened to see one of these at the Gateway Arch.

I have seen many Virtual and Mystery caches where the information you need to submit is easily available by looking at Waymarks. In fact, I have hidden a Mystery cache where you need to find information on a plaque, and have also posted a Waymark for the same plaque. If someone wants to get the information from the Waymark page, that's fine with me, because they still have to go find the actual cache. Often times you can find photos of plaques and historical markers on other websites anyway. I guess it would be possible to log a Virtual cache without visiting it if you could find the information on a Waymark or other online source. But, I think the number of people who would do something like that is quite small. And, frankly, if that's the way someone wants to play the game, so be it. I don't let the few people who like to pad their numbers by logging caches they didn't actually find get to me. Anyway, the "nearby" links are the ones I use most often, and have been for a long time. That's usually how I search for Waymarks in a particular location - I go the Geocaching map, find a cache near where I'm going to be, and then click the link. It's a very useful tool.

I have never created a category, nor am I an officer in any categories, so my thoughts might not be as useful as one who has experience in those things, but I read through the category description and I like it. The only suggestion I have for a change is in the Long Description section, maybe include a minimum number of sentences required (e.g. at least 3 sentences). I know a lot of categories have that. The only other concern I would have with this category is if it overlaps with other categories. I can't think of any, but others might be able to point out if these city names would already be covered by another category. Interestingly, I just heard that in the city where I grew up, they recently installed the name of the city in large letters. So, I will have a Waymark to contribute if the category is accepted.

I understand the frustration in those cases, but thankfully, based on my experience, the vast majority of reviewers are kind and helpful. I have had many instances in which I have not included something that was required and the reviewer explained it to me and helped me to get the Waymark accepted. There have been a couple of occasions when the reviewer was not very helpful, but those have been few and far between. I try not to let the rare bad experience overshadow the fact that most reviewers do a great job, especially considering that they are volunteering their time to support our hobby.

The category instructions for News Article Locations state that there is only one Waymark allowed per location. I have found that not all reviewers follow the category instruction the same way - some are more strict and some less. It has happened to me in another category where my Waymark has been denied despite there being almost identical approved Waymarks. Ultimately, I think we have to accept that sometimes Waymarks that don't follow the instructions get through the review process, but that doesn't mean that we should expect others to do the same if they don't follow the instructions for the category.

Regarding whether this would be considered global, so far we've identified locations in Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America. That leaves out North America and Africa. However, there may be locations on those continents as well; we just haven't found them yet. Even if it is just the 4 continents, I don't think that is "too restricted by region."

Here are other examples of tourist coins besides GW: National Tokens: https://nationaltokens.com/about-us/ - Locations in 40 countries. Auscoinswest: http://www.auscoinswest.com.au/ - Locations in Australia Monnaie de Paris: https://www.monnaiedeparis.fr/en/mini-medals-for-places-of-interest - Locations in France and Spain Hellenic Heritage Coins: http://hellenicheritagecoins.com/ - Locations in Greece I would assume there are others as well. I don't think the fact that these may not available in North America should disqualify the idea. There are a lot of categories that are only available in the U.S. and exclude Waymarkers from other parts of the world.

Are these the same or similar to what are in this category?

What prompted my thinking about this possible category is the fact that near where I live (in western Pennsylvania) there are a few sites of former French forts that were involved in the French and Indian War. However, since the forts are long gone, they cannot be Waymarked in the Historic Forts category, which requires the forts to be still standing and/or restored. Granted, these sites do have historical markers that can be Waymarked in the various historic marker and sign categories. I just thought it would be nice to have these sites, along with battlefields, historic markers, etc. all grouped together in a category so that if someone is interested in this particular war, and visiting sites associated with it, they will be easy to find. I definitely also understand the concern many Waymarkers have with redundancy and the fact that creating redundant categories is a slippery slope, as T0SHEA pointed out above regarding the number of possible war site categories. I personally like there being a lot of categories, and being able to cross-post Waymarks. But, as we have seen from recent peer reviewed categories, it doesn't seem the majority of Waymarkers agree. Therefore, I'm disinclined to continue with this proposal. I do, however, appreciate the feedback that was shared.

That is interesting. I guess MDCCCCXXII still works out to the same year, but takes up a bit more space. Perhaps they didn't want any blank space on that part of the building! This reminds me of a clock I have with Roman Numerals on its face that has IIII instead of IV for 4.

Not long ago, a new category was created for World War I Sites. That got me thinking about another war, known in the U.S. as the “French and Indian War,” but also known as the “Seven Years' War,” and wondering if there would be support for a category of sites related to it. The war took place on 5 continents in the mid-1700s. I know a fair amount about the portion of the war that took place in North America, but I know much less about the parts of the war that happened elsewhere. Therefore, I think it would be very interesting to see Waymarks from Europe and the other locations where battles or other events related to the war occurred. I haven’t created a group or began writing a description yet, but I wanted to put the idea here in the forum to see if there is enough interest to start the process of creating a new category. Also, I'm wondering if this category would be at all redundant with other existing categories. Your feedback is much appreciated! Information on the Seven Years' War: https://www.history.com/topics/france/seven-years-war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years'_War

I am also disappointed by this news. I think it's very unfortunate that all those photos and logs are going to be lost. In my area, very few of the benchmarks on the Geocaching site have been Waymarked. When I've found benchmarks, I typically logged them on Geocaching, unless they were not in the database, in which case I would post them on Waymarking. Now, I'll be trying to revisit a lot benchmarks to post as Waymarks. Perhaps others will do the same and we'll see an increase in activity on the Waymarking site. In regard to funkymunkyzone's comment, I've had many "real adventures" associated with Waymarking. It's all in how you choose to play the game. With over a thousand categories, there's something for everyone. You can focus on one, a few, or all of them. Each participant can make it as adventurous as they choose. That's what I love about it.

It seems to me that limiting it to one waymark per state/territory/country would make it very difficult for some waymarkers to contribute to the category. Your example of Canada only being able to have 14 approved waymarks in the category would mean that once the 14 have been posted, the only option is to visit the waymarks, which might require travelling long distances to get to the nearest one in such a large country.

I'm glad to report that the Waymark I referenced in my previous post has now been approved. Thanks to the reviewer who did that!

I submitted a Waymark to the "North Country Trail" category a couple of weeks ago and it has not yet been reviewed. When I looked at the category officers, I saw that 3 out of 4 have not logged-in at all in 2022, and one is taking a review break. I also noticed that the last Waymark approved in that category was in September 2020, which makes me wonder if there are other Waymarks waiting to be reviewed.

I appreciate the offer, but I wouldn't want to post it unless I were able to visit the location myself. It seemed to me from reading the category description that the image of the puzzle could come from anywhere, but the photos of the actual location should come from visiting it in person.

Keith, I'm curious as to why you said, "Perhaps that bespeaks a degree of integrity within the community, which would be pleasant news." Prior to creating the original post I looked at the category description for Puzzles in the Real World and found that it allows photos of puzzle boxes from retail stores and from the internet. I noticed that you are an officer for the category. Would creating a waymark from these photos be unacceptable for the category?

This website lists some pilgrimage routes in Canada: https://comewalkacrosscanada.blogspot.com/2021/03/canadian-caminos-on-great-trail.html?m=1 I haven't looked into them much yet, so I don't know if any have permanent signs or other sites that could be waymarked.

Another example is the Via Francigena, whch passes through England, France, Switzerland, and Italy: https://www.viefrancigene.org/en/ I'm not sure there are many (or any) pilgrimage routes in the U.S., but I still think this would be a great category to add. I don't think distance should matter much, but I do think there needs to be some sort of physical evidence of it being a pilgrimage route, such as a sign or a place where a pass can be stamped, as FamilieFrohne mentioned.