DominoDoggy

Thanks. It worked!

When Waymarking first appeared, I clicked the "favorite" box on a number of categories to make a list of waymarks that I planned to find. I was using the list the same way one uses the bookmark feature on geocaching.com. Perhaps I've overlooked it, but how does one remove a category from one's favorites list? Is it possible at this time? Help!

I too have come across these plaques and enjoy them. I was going to propose a locationless for them once but didn't when I saw that no new ones were being accepted. So to this category I say "yes".

MORE REFINEMENT & CLARIFICATION Waymarking has been a bit difficult to understand (so many conflicting posts! ), but I'm slowly getting a better grasp. As such, I see the need to refine my proposal further, especially as related to "logging". CREATING VS. LOGGING A WAYMARK: Earlier I said. . . I'm now applying these rules only to the creation of a waymark --- not to those logging it. Obviously visitors logging an existing waymark don't need to repeat information that's already there. Nor do those visitors need to post a picture with their log. However, it is appreciated and encouraged. Why should the creator be required to post a picture of his GPS in front of the waymark? I want to spread the fun of Waymarking around to everybody that's interested. It's very easy for an "armchair waymarker" to get on the internet and grab the coordinates to hundreds of spaceflight sites around the world, even though he (or she) has never made the effort of getting there. The "armchair waymarker" could create all those waymarks and dominate this category himself by controlling the logs to his waymarks. I don't think that's fair to those who are willing to make the effort to be FTF at a potential waymark, but lose out to somebody sitting in front of a computer 3,000 miles away. It's both fun and a privilege to create a waymark, and the opportunity should be open to everybody. SUGGESTION FOR THOSE CREATING WAYMARKS: If at all possible, in addition to the coordinates, please include the nearest address to your waymark. Why? Most automotive GPS units don't accept coordinates -- only addresses. Including an address is a courtesy that helps people plan a driving route to your waymark. After they park they can use their handheld to get the rest of the way. This is just a suggestion. . . As usual I welcome feedback to these proposals.

FURTHER REFINING OF PROPOSED SPACEFLIGHT CATEGORY CATEGORY GOAL: To provide a resource for spaceflight enthusiasts who like to visit places of historic significance. CATEGORY PLACEMENT: Spaceflight is a wide ranging subject that involves people, places and things, so it can properly be inserted under all 3 of those major categories. If it must be put under only one category, I'd suggest THINGS. HOW TO LOG: *YOU MUST PHYSICALLY VISIT THE SITE/OBJECT and document it by taking a picture of your GPS infront of it (your face does not have to be in it). This will keep people from using the internet to locate things and claim credit. The log must include: *GPS Coordinates *Object name and/or type (example: Saturn V rocket engine) *Site location, including city, state/country. If it is on display in a building, include the facility's name. (example: Smithsonian Air & Space Museum, Washington D.C., USA). *Informative description. If necessary, a paragrapgh copied from the internet would suffice, or a legible picture of the descriptive plaque. WHAT TO LOG: Anything directly related to spaceflight history, past and present, from any nation. Objects can include: *Authentic spacecraft and related hardware (such as spacesuits). They can be flown or unflown (flown stuff is rare because things were often abandoned in space or burnt up upon reentry). The definition of spacecraft is based on the US Air Force standard of the 1960's during the X-15 program. That means a vehicle would have to be capable of flying at least 50 miles high. It can be orbital or suborbital, military or civilian. Parts of spacecraft are also allowed because few complete rockets exist. Smaller parts like surplus engines often remain and are on display. *Major or noteworthy facilities, including launch sites, training facilities & vehicles, hangar & assembly buildings, mission control sites, headquarter buildings, buildings where historic decisions were made, and major factories. A major factory would be where the final assembly of a large, key component was completed (example: an entire module of the International Space Station). Sub-contractor sites generally would not be allowed unless something of significance occured there. For instance, an exception would be made for the subcontractor that makes the foam that broke off and damaged the Shuttle Columbia, or the factory where Apollo 13's damaged oxygen tank was dropped. *Anything else of direct historic value, including crash sites, astronaut hangouts, murals, memorials, graves, tribute monuments, museums, or other permanent displays that contribute to public education. Direct historic value means that you can log Neil Armstrong's house, but not his favorite Starbuck's. Full scale replicas and small scale models are allowed but they must be on permanent public display. That way nobody can log that space shuttle model they built when they were 12 years old. Objects/sites do not need to have a marker or plaque proving their heritage, but your description should provide the proof. WHAT IS NOT ALLOWED *Rockets and missiles that cannot fly in space. This includes air-to-air missiles on fighter planes and missiles that cannot go at least 50 miles high. *Rocket-like objects (that really aren't!) including bombs, torpedos, and playground displays. It is up to the cacher to figure out what is authentic before logging it. Often a simple Google search will answer the question in a few, short minutes. Links to helpful internet sites will be included on the category's main page to make research easier. Inappropriate logs will be removed.

As a longtime amateur astronomer I'd enjoy this category.

I'd love to see this approved! However, I must admit that I'd prefer that fossils go in one category and rocks and minerals in another. It's not that rocks don't interest me (they really do, just see my cache 1 Million, B.C.), but paleontology and geology are two very different sciences. Although there is some crossover between the two, fossil hunting is about ancient life and geology is about processes that formed our planet. They're both great pursuits, but I hope they're approved under seperate categories. Just my humble opinion. . .

My reply here is a near duplicate of what I posted on the Spaceflight Memorial forum. It is included here for those following the discussion through this forum. It also references some things said on that board. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ To start off, it's not argumentative to disagree with me or share your viewpoint, so no harm done. The purpose of the forums is to solicit opinions from everybody so that appropriate categories can be created. That's all we're doing. I hope we can continue this in a friendly spirit. Where I see a difference between my Spaceflight Category and your Spaceflight Memorial Category is focus. Yours is defined as "public and permanent monuments, plaques, statues, memorials, etc." As defined, the object/site must have some sort of label on it. Without it many historic sites would be ignored. While things logged under my category would include labeled objects and sites, they wouldn't be required. A broader category would allow more for more history to be preserved and appreciated. I respectfully disagree that "historic spacecraft, facilities and sites are frequently converted into memorials" . . . and thus "would seem to fall into this category." I live in Southern California, where an abundance of manned and unmanned spacecraft have and are being built by major aerospace contractors. For example, within 25 minutes of my house (L.A. area) are construction sites of major space projects, including the X-15, Saturn V 2nd & 3rd stages, SkyLab, Apollo CM & SM, Space Shuttle, ISS, the future replacement Hubble Space Telescope (the Webb scope), various interplanetary probes, pioneering satellite types (comm, spy, weather, etc.), as well as many subsystems for every major manned and unmanned space vehicle. Numerous military space projects were also conceieved and built near me, including America's nuclear arsenal. To the best of my knowledge not one of these sites has been "plaqued" as a historic site or had it's contributions to spaceflight permanently acknowledged for the public (trust me, I've looked! ). I was so dismayed at the destruction of North American Aviation's plant that I created a cache to memorialize it myself. Currently the plant is being converted to offices, a movie studio, and yet another mall. A small museum is being set up offsite and some distance away, but that doesn't replace a plaque on the historic site itself. If you read my write up about the plant, you'd see that it is indeed VERY historic but that it wouldn't qualify for listing as a Spaceflight Memorial. Near me is a beautiful Challenger Memorial (with cache). It is very moving and educational, and certainly more exciting visually than an old building. But in my humble opinion I would rather visit the NAA plant because it has been visited by every man who walked on the moon, President Kennedy, the first human to walk in Space (Alexi Leonov), and it's where space exploration actually happened. Brass plaques and models have their place, but I don't think they compare to the real thing. That's why I propose a broader Spaceflight Category.

You're not missing anything. The mistake was mine and I apologize. Somehow I misread the date of your post and thought I had preceded it. I guess I thought the "Last Action" column showed the creation date. I'm inexperienced with the forums Sorry for the error. To start off, it's not argumentative to disagree with me or share your viewpoint, so no harm done. The purpose of the forums is to solicit opinions from everybody so that appropriate categories can be created. That's all we're doing. I hope we can continue this in a friendly spirit. Where I see a difference between my Spaceflight Category and your Spaceflight Memorial Category is focus. Yours is defined as "public and permanent monuments, plaques, statues, memorials, etc." As defined, the object/site must have some sort of label on it. Without it many historic sites would be ignored. While things logged under my category would include labeled objects and sites, they wouldn't be required. A broader category would allow more for more history to be preserved and appreciated. I respectfully disagree that "historic spacecraft, facilities and sites are frequently converted into memorials" . . . and thus "would seem to fall into this category." I live in Southern California, where an abundance of manned and unmanned spacecraft have and are being built by major aerospace contractors. For example, within 25 minutes of my house (L.A. area) are construction sites of major space projects, including the X-15, Saturn V 2nd & 3rd stages, SkyLab, Apollo CM & SM, Space Shuttle, ISS, the future replacement Hubble Space Telescope (the Webb scope), various interplanetary probes, pioneering satellite types (comm, spy, weather, etc.), as well as many subsystems for every major manned and unmanned space vehicle. Numerous military space projects were also conceieved and built near me, including America's nuclear arsenal. To the best of my knowledge not one of these sites has been "plaqued" as a historic site or had it's contributions to spaceflight permanently acknowledged for the public (trust me, I've looked! ). I was so dismayed at the destruction of North American Aviation's plant that I created a cache to memorialize it myself. Currently the plant is being converted to offices, a movie studio, and yet another mall. A small museum is being set up offsite and some distance away, but that doesn't replace a plaque on the historic site itself. If you read my write up about the plant, you'd see that it is indeed VERY historic but that it wouldn't qualify for listing as a Spaceflight Memorial. Near me is a beautiful Challenger Memorial (with cache). It is very moving and educational, and certainly more exciting visually than an old building. But in my humble opinion I would rather visit the NAA plant because it has been visited by every man who walked on the moon, President Kennedy, the first human to walk in Space (Alexi Leonov), and it's where space exploration actually happened. Brass plaques and models have their place, but I don't think they compare to the real thing. That's why I propose a broder Spaceflight Category.

Earlier I proposed a category called "Spaceflight". Although I orginally suggested only logging space vehicles, launch sites and other related support facilities, I think Thot has a good suggestion here because memorials serve to educate us us about spaceflight in general. I know of a few space memorials in my area, and when I visit them I always feel appreciative of the sacrifices astronauts of all nations have made in behalf of exploration. Thus I support this as a viable Waymarking subject. I'm not trying to steal any of Thot's thunder here, but because my proposed category is much more broad in nature, maybe "Space Flight Memorials" should be placed within it as a subcategory (if either of our categories are ever approved ).

As the original proposer of this category I guess I should expand it to more than the earlier description of vehicles, hardware and important facilities. After reading Thot's proposal for a category called "Space Flight Memorials" (a fine subject in itself), I now believe the Spaceflight category should be open to anything of a historical or noteworthy value, including memorials, graves, tribute monuments, museums, or other displays that contribute to public education on the subject.

I have to go with this. It's hard to find fossil sites (at least in my area), let alone where it's legal to collect. I think this would make a fine category.

I propose a category for logging spacecraft and their historic facilities and sites. This will serve as a historical resource for those interested in the space age. To qualify, a spacecraft is a real vehicle from any nation that can or has achieved an altitude of 50 miles, whether orbital or sub-orbital (50 miles was the US Air Force standard during the X-15 program). It can be civilian or military. Spacecraft components can also be logged (some rocket engines are the sizes of buses so only part of the rocket will fit in parks and buildings). Facilities can include launch sites, headquarter buildings, hangar and assembly buildings, major factories where final assembly took place (not sub-contractors; there are way too many of them!), and crash sites. Logs must include coordinates, vehicle or site name, city, state/country, and brief description. No rocket shaped slides at McDonald's and the like would count. Anybody agree with this?