elyob

That is a great find for the Åland Islands. Well done.

Try to create a Waymarking group that would manage a Tourist Token category. That might be a better measure of support for your idea.

Your complaint is understood and familiar. For the past five or six years our response to your final question was like this. “But restaurant categories are no longer accepted in Waymarking, for those obvious reasons.” However, in 2022 Waymarking has accepted a new restaurant category for the first time in years. Don’t take the lack of replies here as a lack of support. Many of us oldsters are still in shock with the ‘new’ and ‘unofficial’ category review process.

According to Groundspeak, Jersey and Guernsey and Sark are their own countries. Interestingly, Alderney is considered to be Guernsey. Isle of Man is a country. Northern Ireland is an area within Ireland, not part of the UK.

Your proposed category will focus on the location of the machine which provides the tourist coins, correct? If the category focus is the real-life location of the image on the tourist coin, then the category would be very similar to Tourist Stamps Photos.

Pepé Le Pew

1. For the Nordic countries with a public database (Denmark, Sweden, Finland), the database will determine if waymarks are accepted outside Denmark, Sweden, or Finland. 2. For the Nordic countries which use a heritage marker at the site or on the object, the category description must fully describe requirements. 3. For the Nordic countries with no heritage markers and no public database (possibly Greenland, Iceland, Faroe, Åland), there will be a different set of requirements. Will those countries include waymarks beyond their borders but the database countries do not? Things are going to get complicated with different requirements for different countries within the same category. Complicated is not good for officer-reviewers.

However, we may find exceptions in the future. As an officer in the Histoire du Quebec (Quebec Historical Markers) category, there are "signs" that are so old that the "signs" themselves are in the database as heritage objects.

I agree. Let any "signs" of history in the Nordic countries fall in the existing Signs of History or Norway Historical Sites categories. The heritage places and things described by such "signs" belong in this proposed category.

http://www.rky.fi/read/asp/r_mkl_list.aspx This link is a database for nationally significant built heritage in Finland. Apparently, it is available in the Finnish and Swedish languages.

You did it your way and it worked.

This is so awkward.

Norway Historical Sites has ten officers. Only one officer has been active in 2022 (and not since July). Replacing that many officers would require years of in-group voting. Help? @wayfrog

How do they contact Norway Historical Sites? The leader has not been around since 2014. Wouldn't it be less wait and less work to add Norway to the new Nordic heritage proposal?

Looking at the officer list, nobody has been active since July.

I am sorry to stray from original post. You are likely correct that I exaggerate wayfrog’s burden. However, there is still something wrong. Active waymarkers are active reviewers but then one single individual has the responsibility to do all that we cannot. That much responsibility on one person is not good for our game’s survival. You are definitely correct about volunteers to lead dead categories and alleviate that burden. In the smallest category similar to the OP, I would love to be in a position to help bring it back to life.

Hear, hear.

I'm actually wondering if Norway Historical Sites should be left to die; create a new heritage category to cover Iceland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Creating a new category should take less time and energy than would be required to clean up Norway Historical Sites. I fear that our game's future must include letting some categories die, rather than burdening wayfrog so much.

I think Iceland should be included.

Does the Danish database include Greenland and Faroe Islands?

Here's a different idea. Since Norway Historical Sites is no longer a functional category, what if your new category includes Norway heritage?

I am very interested. Could Norway Historical Sites be modified to accept these waymarks? Edit: my idea will not work. wayfrog is the reviewer for Norway Historical Sites.

I will restate my original question. For the next category in peer review, are we okay with campaigns by group members to increase the votes to accept a new category?

My prediction was so incorrect.

Both of those strategies have been used in the past. Some waymarkers were angry about the use of such strategies. Today, what do people think about those vote-gathering strategies?