FamilieFrohne

As far as I can see you are right with your findings. And I can also imagine, why there is no category for "Movie Theatres" in general. If they would serve meals (I know that this is very unlikely from the description you gave us) the place could be accepted by "Movie Theater Meals" ... So the best fitting category would be "Vintage Movie Theaters" - but you'll have to wait at least until 2030, as they say in the description that the theatre "has also been in existence for more than 60 years." ....

Thanks for fixing.

Although I live near Cologne, I didn't immediately find any buildings or places directly related to the Hanseatic League - admittedly I didn't search hard enough. Apart from the obvious Hanseatic cities in Germany (Hamburg, Bremen, Rostock), the other cities probably won't much advertise their affiliation with the Hanseatic League. Accordingly, the question arises as to how one wants to present the topic as a Waymarking category without getting too much overlap with other historical categories. I'm curious how things will continue.

Huh? That (archived) category was not visible in the grid last week when the voting for giant letters started - why now?

I was asked by "YoSam." if there is a problem with changing the profile. He explained, that he wanted to change just one row in his century club category list and got the message "Image tags that contain data are not supported." when he tried to save the text. So I tried to do a similar change on my profile and got the same message. Thinking that it might some misbehaving HTML code, I copied the text to a file and cleared the text box for the profile. Saving the empty text box succeeded. Then I started to input some new text without any HTML tags and the error message appeared again: Even entering a single letter is not possible without seeing the error message, so currently a change of the profile is not possible. I don't know if this is a side effect of a change they did for the geocaching platform, but I think that this is another nail for the coffin, because I have to assume, that Groundspeak will not put any energy and money into fixing that bug.

When creating a virtual Groundspeak said in their donation note, that you should be aware that some information may be obtained by google search or Waymarking. So they know about that possibility. If the creator of the virtual does not stick to the warning it is his own fault. And yes, I use this feature also quite often ...

As I expressed in my denial this category description needs more work. Currently I'm not sure what they really want to accept. And as you pointed out there is also the category "Ginormous Everyday Objects" where the giant shoes might fit.

Looks like Chinese.

I agree that the fix should be easy (but I don't know the code), but from the financial aspect (costs of fixing that bug versus how much money could the fix generate in return) very unlikely. And then there are currently only about 9048 different waymarkers that have posted a waymark since the start of Waymarking, only 412 waymarkers posted in the last year. I guess that there are probably about 5 times the number (~ 2000) active waymarkers that do log visits, but never post a new waymark. Compared to around 2,000,000 active geocachers, the active waymarkers are a negligibly small proportion (smaller than 1%) - and thus not really interesting for the management.

As I wrote a little earlier the update of coordinates is not done automatically: After the import of the new waymarks the coordinate of these are missing in my database. My program runs a query and does an import of these missing values by reading the according waymark pages. For all other waymarks that have already a coordinate this is not done. Checking all the waymark pages again and again to find the changes would take at least 14 days minimum for each run - so that this would be impractical. Seeing your need (and with that also the amount of work coming my way) I refined a small Tampermonkey script (see https://www.tampermonkey.net/). The script that can be found at https://wm.familie-frohne.net/downloads/WaymarkingDBScript.user.js and will add a small window on the waymark page that allows an update of the coordinate (and who approved the waymark) in my database when clicked. See the output below. Simple, but hopefully useful.

This is a known one to me ... I had some buildings in the past I wanted to waymark that were created around between 850 and 950. In the categories that had this date field as a mandatory variable I entered 1/1/1000 and mentioned the real date in the long description. I still wonder why the date field was restricted that way ...

Happy new year for everyone. I wish you that you stay healthy and that you always get something suitable for Waymarking in front of the camera.

Thanks for the trust in my abilities, but .... since the access to the profile page requires a login my program can't retrieve data from these pages (I suppose that you took the data from the category grid page). The data collected for my database are from the waymark category pages and the according active(!) waymark pages only, as they do not need a login for display. So my database could only give you a value for distinct posted categories (also on active waymarks only, so the number may differ from the profile page).

@wayfrog: I'd like to use the following image as the one for the grid: ( https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordicheritage.gif ). Thanks for the update ...

Officers vote was successful - a minor change on the Danish paragraph will follow after peer review (thanks to Keith for rephrasing that part). Now on to peer review. Proceeding with fingers crossed.

Thanks for the fast reply. I have taken your changed text and put it into a third version of the draft for comparison with the previous one. I also changed the category description (see https://Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=6f4827ee-70c4-432e-91bb-9b54ad9a836a&gid=6&exp=True ). If nothing else changes I will give it to officers vote in the todays late afternoon/early evening (depending on my work day).

I fixed the language issues you mentioned in the paragraph - also the small "nordic" has become the grown up "Nordic". I also added the reference Walking Boots mentioned for the Faroe Islands. I would be happy to accept your offer to edit the text so that the corners and edges are sanded down. Current version is still on https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage-v2.html. Thanks for your offer, Erik.

Then I'll request advice on how to do it better. Since this is my first attempt on creating a category I'm willing to learn from the experienced ones.

Seems like a good way to go. I've updated the category description (see https://Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=6f4827ee-70c4-432e-91bb-9b54ad9a836a&gid=6&exp=True or my draft at https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage-v2.html) to reflect that. Please take a look at the paragraphs "accepted waymarks" / "not accepted waymarks" and tell me if the wording is clear enough.

I've written messages to the active officers of the last year asking them on their thoughts about an expansion of their category with the one I had in mind and this was the reply: So if I understood this reply right, they want to keep their category as it is beside a new one because they see themselves as a superset of the planned one for Norway. For me this means that we should exclude the Norwegian Sites from the new category and point to their category instead. I have changed the description in my draft accordingly (see https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage-v2.html ) and will continue to create the category at Waymarking.

I found some on https://www.kyppi.fi/ ... as an example this one https://www.kyppi.fi/to.aspx?id=130.200848 Groundspeak has it's own understanding of countries and their country subdivisions (i.e. as I had to learn for the UK that the Northern Ireland district is part of Ireland now, England, Wales and Scotland have more than the NUTS-2 divisions given by the government and the Channel Islands are own countries to name a few ...). Unfortunatly they were not stringent and created sub units for all the other countries that have them in the geocaching world - for example Denmark or Finland.

I took a closer look at the database from Finland and found out that they also have entries that include the Åland isles (just as I suspected - if I remember right Åland is still a part of Finland with extended rights since the 1920ies). I don't know if there were all entries added, but I'll add a hint to the description that the Finnish database may contain some usable input. Still searching for the other open countries.

Looks to me that the proposed category is very similar to the elongated coins category (aka Penny Smashers) in the aspect of an automaton creating/selling a touristic token. T0SHEA told me (not a week ago) that we should strive for inclusion if we have similarities to another category. So you should have a talk to the category leaders / officers first if they are willing to expand their category to accept these touristic tokens also.

Case 1 should be clearly acceptable. Although I doubt that there are many (if any) entries outside the mentioned countries. Case 2 (and 3): I agree that we have missing information here and that an approval might be getting complicated. I don't know how many cases we might have in the end - and how to get a reliable proof for these. But I alsoagree to fi67's comment: I added some of my expansions/thoughts/questions to the document (https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage.html).

I would have to think a little bit more about it. First thought when reading this was that it would make the category to complicated - second thought was that it might be possible - but requires a thorough examination by the officers then. But I'm not sure here if we should include these. What do the others think?