FamilieFrohne

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?

The above discussion strengthens my first consideration to take only the registered heritage. So I added the markers as an exclusion with the hint that they should go into the "Signs of History". Also the notion, that there may be more than one official source was added to the description. Sure. Smurffaaja (Finland) and Walking Boots (Denmark) are the officers I had in mind when I started thinking on the topic and I would like to have them for that category, also kallehaugerne (also Denmark) and dvddragon (Sweden) if they want to participate. Sadly I don't know if we have active waymarkers from Iceland that could support us to do the job properly.

Now you got me thinking on a specific point. I was thinking more along the line of registered heritage only (like the categories for "Rijksmonument" for the Netherlands or the "Deutsche Denkmalliste"). If we would accept also historical markers (which would include something like "at this place famous person XXX was born/lived/died") I fear the category would become overfilled. I have seen that in the "Norwegian historical sites" are many markers on historical events - that could lead to this possible solution: rework the "Norwegian historical sites" to a category that includes the "Nordic historical sites" for any other historical markers in the nordic countries and continue to create a new category for the "Nordic cultural heritage". Any other ideas?

Regarding that we can also have a fourth option : 3a. Wayfrog promotes some other officer (perhaps the active one) and I have to talk again to the new leader. Or we could make it completely different and create a single category for each of the seven remaining countries (but for that option I would like to have a poll with at least two-thirds majority in favor for the split) ... Or something else that the community wants - just say it here. (This may include the (in my eyes really bad) idea to not have any new categories any more - but I think that should require a full approval with at least 95% of all waymarkers in favor ... And then we should close this recruiting part of the forum ... ).

Using a font size one category larger than normal, along with a bold font weight, means you want to get your point across. In a face-to-face conversation, you would raise your voice at this point – which I would then perceive as being shouted at. It wasn't my intention to be rude to you. However, I feel very unsure about how to proceed. In order to keep all options open for now, I will wait until the answer to the message I sent to the category leader. The following options would result from the answer: Conversion of the category "Norway historical sites": change the category description to "Nordic Cultural Heritage" with the category leader the leader doesn't like it anymore and appoints me as his successor - then I would rearrange the category accordingly without his help (but maybe with that of others). the leader doesn't answer and I ask Wayfrog if he can appoint me as category leader. Creation of the category "Nordic Cultural Heritage" the manager expresses the opposite - ideally here in the forum - then I would create a new category (and then explicitly exclude Norway) the manager makes a survey of his officers and they express their negative opinion -> see point 2 above In the meantime, I'll probably have to do some research on some open topics and additionally try to incorporate the requirements of the "Norway Historical Sites" - those who are interested may have a look my first draft on my web space at " https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage.html ". Constructive criticism and ideas for improvement are welcome.

To be honest - I'm confused now: I had the impression that the posters here were thinking that taking over of the "Norway Historical Sites" category would take too much time and I should start thinking about details for the new category. Now you are yelling at me that I shouldn't create a new category and try to convince the leader and then a group of (as it seems inactive) officers to adopt changes to their category, which they probably do not want. Fine - I'll do it the hard way then. I'll write to the leader of the category and ask for his opinion on the topic - hopefully he will answer to my request. So this topic is on hold until he answers - or until 10 days have passed and I could contact wayfrog then.

Finally back at home after a weekend with a metal concert yesterday and a day with the family today. I have no issues with renaming the category to Nordic Heritage, in fact I will change the title of the group and also add the Faroe islands to the list of countries right after this message. I'm currently working on a first draft for the category description and requirements. BTW: Smurffaaja you are welcome to join the club - I'll send you an invitation.

As first step I created a group for that: Scandinavian Heritage Managers: "Mission of this group should be the creation and maintenance of a "Scandinavian heritage" category for the scandinavian countries Denmark, Finnland, Iceland, Sweden, Greenland and the Åland isles. Also probably Norway (even though there is already a category on historic waymarks). Scandinavia is rich with cultural heritage sites from the time of the vaning ice age (i.e. the rock carvings in Tanum and Alta) over the vikings (i.e. Fyrkat near Hobro) and the middle ages (i.e. the danish towns of Tønder and Ribe) to the modern times. Denmark and Sweden collect their cultural heritage in some official database: the Danish kulturarv / Kulturstyrelsen (https://www.kulturarv.dk) and the Swedish Riksantikvarieämbetet (https://www.raa.se/). We look for waymarks that describe the cultural heritage sites in these countries." The enrollment is open. As officers I'd prefer someone living in one of the countries named above - but anyone is welcome to give it's input to create a category that will be accepted by the community.

In the last few weeks I started thinking about one or probably two categories that maintain the Scandinavian cultural heritage in Denmark and Sweden. Both countries are rich with cultural heritage sites: from the time of the vaning ice age - for example the rock carvings in Tanum (Sweden) over the time of the Vikings - i.e. Fyrkat near Hobro (Denmark) or Trelleborg in southern Sweden - and the middle ages - as the danish towns of Tønder and Ribe can tell to the modern times in the last two centuries (like the old town of Karlshamn or Eksjö in Sweden). Denmark and Sweden collect their cultural heritage in official databases: the Danish Kulturstyrelsen in the https://www.kulturarv.dk the Swedish Riksantikvarieämbetet at https://www.raa.se . The category would be similar to the other cultural heritage categories (like "Deutsche Denkmallisten", "Australian Heritage Sites", "Belgium Monument Registers", "Spanish Heritage", "Norway Historical Sites", ... to name a few). I would like to first get an idea on how the proposed category is received by you before I give it any more thought. Also I don't know if I should make these two separate categories (here some advice from the experienced ones in that matter would be appreciated).

He means this one : https://www.Waymarking.com/images/cat_icons/pancakes.gif ( )

Strange - I didn't do any edits on the waymark mentioned above. Perhaps the pentesting issue again? Don't know if the user doing the edits has more rights than the usual officer, but on the categories I'm officer in I also can't see the decline message when wayfrog declined a waymark - perhaps the same happens here for the edited waymarks. BTW: I'm sure there was an edit, since the parking coordinates changed automagically from east to west without the need of an approval - which they usually do, when you edit a waymark in the north-eastern hemisphere ...

Taxes (and Death) are inevitable. If you are a corrupt politician you may avoid some taxes by a change in the tax laws - but the common taxes (like VAT) would even apply to you.

I get some mails on visits - but to the wrong account: I have a couple of registered and validated emails (home, work, mobile phone) but the mails of the visits are sent to my work account (which was used first when I registered to geocaching in December 2008) and not to the selected primary address. Perhaps the same effect is causing your trouble.

Well ... then I must be old, too. But I really don't feel like I'm old ... BTW: I liked the "Spy vs Spy" strips in the various MAD magazines I've read (in the seventiees, at school time, sometimes even during the lectures ^^ ). But enough of the off-topic stuff ...

With that description I'll also vote for the category.