Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Outspoken1

  1. Just to respond to a couple of private emails I have received: The category was not created for genealogy, is was created for art (because tombstones can't go in Figurative). (Since I also do genealogy, it did take me awhile to figure that out. Some of the proposed category requirements were more data related than art related. Those requirements were deleted before the category went to vote.) If you want to create data for genealogy, then also submit to Find a Grave. Also, there are many local genealogy societies who would appreciate the information (you probably already know this). I have been doing double posting (when appropriate) on Find A Grave since I have already taken the photos and transcribed the tombstone. Maybe it will help out someone working on their genealogy. Take care, Outspoken1
  2. I am sorry that you do not want to participate. The structure of the category came about from discussion on this Forum. The reason for not having mass produced is two-fold: One, that is common in all the art categories and this is an art category; Second, an example used was the common (at least in the USA) lamb on a headstone often used with the death of a child. This was very popular in the 1900s (when child death was more common). The membership did not want to see 300 lambs or fingers pointing upwards or just common funerary art. Yes, there is the mention of the 'Wow' factor, but again, this is an art category created because Figurative Public Art does not allow tombstones. Discussion was had as to whether limit the number of headstones a person may submit from a cemetery. That was NOT included as we did not want to limit anyone from Waymarking. Please reconsider trying the category out and see if you can enjoy it -The category asks for the full text on the headstone and that is required. However additional stones that are part of the possibly family plot do NOT have to be transcribed unless you want to. Again, this is an art category, not a genealogy category.
  3. Woo hoo! The category is live. Thanks to everyone who helped to create and voted in support for this category. I have not had time to look at the comments from the vote (work gets in the way of Waymarking - sheesh!!). Take care, Outspoken1
  4. Funerary Art is now in Peer Vote. Many of the comments from the Waymarking Community were incorporated into the final category. Because of live demands, NW_history_buff has stepped down as leader and put the category under my name. He is still active in the category, just did not have time to be leader. Lumbricus who originally started the category is also still involved, just not the leader. They have both provided (and will provide in the future) guidance and clarification of the goals of the category. I hope we receive support to make this an active new category. Thanks for all of your input!! Please vote Yes! Take care, Outspoken1
  5. IOOF Memorial - again what category. Does not go in IOOF because it is not a lodge. It does not commemorate an anniversary, so it does not go in Commercial Commemorations. Arrgghh!
  6. OK, I have had this Cenotaph for a couple of years. It is in Denver, Colorado. Where does a cenotaph go? NOTE: I saw the category for Canadian Cenotaphs - but that won't work.)
  7. I just approved this Waymark, John 11:25 - Woodlawn Memorial Gardens - Harrisburg, PA , in the Etched in Stone category. I think this probably would also fit in the funerary Art category. So what if this is cross posted. It meets all of the requirements for each category. Just sayin.... Take care, Outspoken1 (Sandy)
  8. I am really enjoying this conversation. First, I am more in the inclusive category as so many other categories are inclusive. But inclusive means that the submitted Waymark must truly meet all the criteria of the category into which it is submitted. Not just "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks." Second, I would argue against the limit of Funerary Waymarks from a specific cemetery. I may speak blasphemy, but the Waymarking community is not that large of a community and the limit may impede great submissions because there is no one else Waymarking in that area/location. Most of the Waymarks I review are from 'maybe' a total of 40-50 consistent Waymarkers. I think of Waymarkers as a small dedicated group who are exploring, photographing, explaining and documenting the wonders of the world. Rarely do we step on each other's toes when finding and submitting Waymarks. Third, I would like to add an provision to Zinc Headstones as while most were ordered from a catalog (mass produced with the desired names and quotes), Zinc (white brass) was very popular for a time. There may be some tremendous Funerary Art made from zinc that was not mass-produced. I was joking (kinda) about a new category. Sorry if I unintentionally hurt anyone's feelings. I LOVE new categories. Take care, Outspoken1 (Sandy)
  9. That is an interesting point. Here is the issue. Figurative allows sculptures in a cemetery as long as it is NOT part of a tomb. In other words, a generic angel to all who have passed versus and angel on John Doe's tomb to honor John Doe. I offered to just delete that exclusion from Fig, but the respondents thought a specific category would be better. (Who does not like a new category [grin!]) So if the piece was lying within the plot to mainly honor the deceased or the deceased's family (multi-generational/family plot), then it could not go in Fig. But if it was to honor all deceased as a general statement of commiseration for all deceased everywhere, then it could go in Fig. Phew! Did I clear that up of make it worse? Again, the list of possible exclude/include categories was just for comment -- it is NOT a list of all categories to be excluded. Take care, Outspoken1 (Sandy)
  10. This is GREAT input! It is so nice to have the experience of other Waymarkers to gain a fuller perspective. Thnk you so much for your thoughts. Take care, Sandy
  11. Again, I did NOT say all those categories should be excluded. I wanted input as to include/exclude. I prefer an inclusive category. As I wrote above, I am not against cross posting. I also support any type of art - figurative and abstract. But I want input from others so we understand what we want the category to accomplish. Thak you so much for your comments and guidance! Take care, Outspoken1 (Sandy)
  12. OK, so I am working up preliminary areas where Funerary Art could be found. Up front I will say I am not religious, so I have not been raised in any religious tradition (calm down, I am not going to talk about religion). Therefore, I am not familiar at what types of tombs/stones/art on final resting places would be found in places of worship. Most of the locations I am finding are related to Christian churches and burial traditions. If anyone can help with other religions/burial traditions, I would be quite grateful. Remember, the reason this category is getting up and rolling is that Figurative does not accept Funerary Sculptures. We are not trying to create a redundant category and there are many categories that deal with markers for the deceased. The thrust of the category is funerary art, not final resting places or type of monument for the deceased. This category recognizes that most of the sculptures would be found in a cemetery. However, there are other burial locations that may include sculptures that are funerary in nature, such as churches, cathedrals (bigger church), mausoleums and some burial locations that were owned by the deceased (family burial locations). Are there other locations common in other faiths/burial traditions I am missing? (Help please.) Any comments/thoughts on what should/shouldn't be accepted and why. Here are some locations where Funerary Art could be found. Should the category accept/decline from these various locations and styles of burial for the deceased: Sculpture/Artwork found on a headstone, columbarium, crypt, tombstone, mausoleum, ledger grave marker, cenotaph, tomb, effigies, church monument, cadaver monument, .... ? I know some of these have their own categories. Any of these that are related to s specific burial of an individual would not be accepted in Figurative. Figurative only accepts monuments that are, in essence, honoring all the deceased. Figurative does not accept pieces of a specific ('known") individual--that goes in Statues of Historic/Religious Figures. Just looking for comments/thoughts on what should/shouldn't be accepted and why. Existing Waymark Categories (I probably missed some) that need to be considered to be included/excluded: Death Mask Gravestones Broken Column Headstones Occupational/Hobby Grave Stones Woodmen of the World Grave Markers/Monuments Headstones of Centenarians **Veteran Memorials (Many categories - Specific wars and general categories) Homemade Tombstones Graves Mentioning a Cause of Death Out of Place Graves Statues of Historic Figures Statues of Religious Figures Dead Poets Society Zinc Headstones Mausoleum Relief Art (I am contacting Relief Art to verify if they accept/reject relief funerary art) Figurative Public Sculpture Sphinx Sculptures Equestrian Statues Epic Beings Lions, Bears, ... Pet Cemeteries (**There are many categories that honor the resting places of Veterans. For my convenience, I am grouping them into this overall term.) I am not against cross-posting and NOT suggesting all the above should be excluded. Remember the goal of this category is to highlight the art of the memorial - not the final resting place of the deceased. Members are concerned about the premise of the "Wow" factor as to what the category is wishing for. There is concern that the criteria may be too subjective (though there are many categories with 'wow' factor, this is not new). The reason for that idea of "Wow" is that, for instance, there are many headstones with little lambs (for the tragic loss of a child), or fingers pointing upwards, etc. Would a size criteria help (ex., roughly over 3 ft/1m square)? The piece must not be mass produced-it need to be a unique piece. How would members like to see this phrased/defined? Please don't get bogged down in format for title, etc. Right now, we need to best define what the category is trying to highlight and thus clearly define the types of sculptures/art the category is looking for. And I know there are always exceptions when a Waymarker finds something so magnificent we did not anticipate that. Again, I am just thinking aloud and looking for input. Please don't shoot the writer [grin]. Take care, Outspoken1 (Sandy)
  13. Yes, the category was initially proposed 99 months and 2 days ago. That is exactly the reason it needs to be reviewed and revised. As with any other hobby, especially one such as Waymarking that uses technology, proposals need to be updated to meet the current needs of the hobby (Waymarking). Remember when cell phone photos were not accepted because of the poor quality of cell phone cameras? Now cell phone cameras take excellent photos! Remember when the requirement to log a visit was to take a photo of yourself with your GPSr? I have not used my GPSr in years! Remember when it Waymarking used the honor system that the person had personally visited the Waymark. Then a small number of Waymarkers were using Google Street View to create and/or visit Waymarks, so we had to add the requirement that one must "personally visit the Waymark." Yes, things change and we need time to do this right. We have been working on this category revision for 4 days. Please breathe!! Poster I used to have in my office --"Why is there never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it over?"
  14. I have just read all of the posts on this Forum (does not mean I remember everything that was said, but to get a feel for where the membership is going). I have sent an email to most of the members who have posted on the category asking for input about the Funerary Art category. To clarify, Figurative does accept freestanding sculptures that are not part of a tomb. I had been accepting some of the outstanding pieces that were part of a tomb because there was no where to put them. We are working on the category this weekend, but it does take a bit of time to create a clear category without too much confusion. And there is such variety in the world, it is hard to write a category that includes (and/or excludes) examples of the content of the category (speaking in a general sense of all Waymark categories). So lets take a little bit of time to nail down specifics instead of rushing a category to vote that is too much of a jumble of requirements. Thank you so much for your input. Outspoken1 (Sandy)
  15. Per member input, we will work to create a new (actually completed, since the category was proposed years ago!) category for Funerary Art. I will NOT modify Figurative to accept Funerary Art (which would be part of a tomb - freestanding sculptures NOT related to a tomb/headstone would still be approved). Those that were previously approved in Fig would either be grandfathered or can be moved to the new category - as the Waymarker prefers. I have an unexpected sick dog, so I have been off the Forums for a couple of days. We will work on the Funerary category incorporating members suggestions/guidance to create a proposal for the membership and Groundspeak. Take care, Outspoken1 (Sandy)
  16. Andreas and I began discussing this a couple of days ago since Fig excludes Funerary Art (if the sculpture is part of a tombstone - not a freestanding piece which is acceptable in Fig.). I had been approving them in Fig since they did not have a home anywhere else. If the members prefer, I could just remove this exclusion from Fig and no new category is needed. Or we can create a new category. Whatever the membership prefers. Take care, Outspoken1 (sandy)
  17. If I had found these signs, I would have (depending on the text and intent of the sign), submitted to possibly Official Local Tourism Attractions , possibly Roadside Attractions , and possibly Silhouette Public Art Sculptures . I was sent email about the Silhouette category and this proposed category, thus am responding publicly to the question. 'Text' artwork has always been accepted in the Silhouette Public Art Category. From the Silhouette category description, "This category is for a sculpture that is generally a silhouette, that is, only has shape when viewed from one or two angles instead of full dimensionality as is found in Figurative Public Sculpture. A Silhouette Sculpture is commonly viewed from the front or rear; a side or top view would only reveal the thickness of the medium (usually metal). Flat sculptures of metal or similar material that are embedded into concrete (or similar material) will also be allowed if they do not fit into another more appropriate category. Also, the silhouette sculpture may be made from round tubing; if the artist's final sculpture is basically flat, that is acceptable. The sculpture may be left in its natural state or painted or finished in another manner. These sculptures must be a public art piece; not an advertising figure or humorous lawn-ornament or holiday decoration(s). Added August 14, 2012: Silhouette will also accept art pieces that are text (see example below). The piece must be on permanent display; not a temporary exhibit. A sculpture in an airport (or any other secured location) that is within the secure area would not fit this category as only people with tickets would be able to view the sculpture." For Silhouette category pieces, see: Red Heart - Glenelg, SA, Australia , Robert Indiana's "Love" Sculpture - Dallas, TX , Papa D's Ice Cream - Post, TX , LOVEwork in Russell County ~ Castlewood, Virginia - USA. , LOVE TAUPO letters. Taupo. North Is, New Zealand. , etc. I just don't have time to scan the other categories for examples (sorry). I do understand that the new category proposal is to highlight the heart symbol and/or the word 'love.' This may be a credible proposal. What would be examples of signs that are not accepted? Not against the category - just thinking out loud. Take care, Outspoken1
  18. What interesting stats. I really enjoying reviewing Waymarks since I get to learn about all sorts of new things others find throughout the world. Thank you for allowing me to help our hobby along!
  19. I'm in Denver, Colorado, if that would be of help to anyone. I am willing to get up early, if need be.
  20. I am so shaken by this news. Bruce was a great person and friend. I wish to extend my deepest condolences to his family and friends. He was a guiding personality for Waymarking and Geocaching who always acted kindly and with the vision to improve our hobbies. He will be greatly missed.
  21. I have also been looking further into the Multiple Listing and am finding that the properties are often already or eventually listed as a stand-alone or part of a district. The specific properties are often listed in a narrative form instead of a list of the specific property as one often finds in NRHD. So I am thinking this may not be that valid for another category. Thanks for everyone's interest! Take care, Sandy
  22. Yes, I am looking at various Multiple Property listings and there is no index similar to the NRHD Contributing Buildings. There are many properties listed in the text of the Multiple Property Listing, but not a unique list as is done in NRHD. Hmmm... I have found some of the Ornamental Concrete Block Buildings in Colorado (see page 21). I just did a web search for the buildings and found some of them on the various County's website (ex. CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO HISTORICALLY LANDMARKED & SIGNIFICANT PLACES see page 15). Thus my curiosity was aroused regarding Multiple Property Listings. I found a webpage regarding National Register Multiple Property Submission Contexts for California . Since I am not familiar with California (other than general knowledge), perhaps you could peruse these documents and give us your opinion.
  23. I have posted a topic regarding NRHD Multiple Property Listings to see if these would fit in any existing category. It appears this is an unserved topic and I am opening discussion to see if there would be interest in this category. Here is info from the National Park Service regarding Multiple Property Submissions explanation and submissions . It does appear this is a distinct category of NRHP that is not covered by NRHP or NRHD. There is a spreadsheet on the NPS NRHD Search page of Multiple Property Listings. Maybe this is an unserved category that could be fun for Waymarking. I have created a group named US National Register of Multiple Property Listings for those who are interested. I see this category as being similar in style to U.S. National Register of Historic Places and NRHP Historic Districts - Contributing Buildings . I know this is specific to the USA, but it does allow for greater exploration of our history.
  24. Here is info from the National Park Service regarding Multiple Property Submissions explanation and submissions . It does appear this is a distinct category of NRHP that is not covered by NRHP or NRHD. The above links from the Colorado website are not the complete form (arrgh! They do that often - just post part of the form leaving out the details). There is a spreadsheet on the NPS NRHD Search page of Multiple Property Listings. Maybe this is an unserved category that could be fun for Waymarking.
  25. I checked regarding districts years ago (emailed BruceS since he is the Leader of US NRHP and NRHD). No, they are not districts since they may cover specific sites throughout the state. These are another category of NRHP that would be fun and interesting to Waymark. I am finally getting time to start posting Waymarks (must have 4,000 on my computer!) and came across this issue from some Waymarks I acquired in 2016. So I thought I would raise the question for guidance.
  • Create New...