GT.US

I got a waymark in exceptional trees that I need to deny, but I'd like to suggest another place for it. The plaque says: friedenslinde zur erinnerung an das ende des siebenjährigen krieges 1763 allen menschen zur Mahnung translate: Peace Linden to the memory of the end of the seven year war for all people mahnung I believe it is referring to Third Silesian War (1756–1763) This was a part of the all European Seven Years' War; Austria once more tried to get back Silesia (for the second time). The collapse of the Anglo-Austrian Alliance in 1756 meant that Britain had now changed sides, and in this war they supported Prussia against their former allies the Austrians. After battles in 1761–1762 went well for Russian and Austrian forces, in January 1763 Austria was suddenly abandoned by her ally with the ascension of Peter III of Russia who recalled his army from within Berlin and Pomerania upon the death of Empress Elizabeth of Russia (d. 5 January 1762 [O.S. 25 December 1761]). While Peter was assassinated himself the next summer, before Catherine the Great succeeded him and could once again bring Russia into an alliance, peace talks that were already in progress about the wider war had concluded in February 1763 — and, worse for Austria, Peter had mediated an agreement between Prussia and Sweden, allowing Frederick II's forces to consolidate his position and bolster Prussia's claims in January and February. All these events were against Austria's interests. Consequently, Prussia was then confirmed with her Silesian possessions in the Treaty of Hubertusburg. Not dedicated to one person Not THE Austro-Prussian war, just a Austro-Prussian war Not a Peace Memorial Not a non-specific Vertans memorial nor Multi War memorial Any Ideas?

I usually work from the bottom of my list up. I think just personal preference.

Your Coords not being correct might be the format of the coordinate you are using. There is a setting in the GPS that sets it, we use WGS84 Datum. If you don't have that correct in your setting, the numbers will be wonky. If you have the waypoint saved, and adjust the setting in your GPS it will magically turn into the correct number without you having to do anything. Concerning the additional information, you can contact GS, but I doubt they would want a sale to be solicited directly in the waymark. I would link to another website where the information was available for purchase.

One Helpful hint when trying to see what is available along a route, use the paging after the find nearest waymark, and it will make bigger and bigger rings around where you started from. When you have found another pocket, start again by clicking in and using find nearest waymark. We had a little game going on the forum once that had us going from one place to another making a path of waymarks. It was fun and gave practice on using the interface. Personally, When I am doing trip planning, I use the find nearest waymarks to get a general idea of what is in the area. I occasionally have something specific that I want to make a point to see, but for the most part I enjoy my visit and take pictures of things that interest me. When I come home I log visits of the things I saw that were already waymarked, and make new waymarks for ones that weren't. It makes the visiting more fun and less like a chore.

In the past, I have seen people go through and decline waymarks that were either incorrectly approved or rules changed and they no longer qualified. Offhand, the category that did it isn't coming to me, maybe border crossings? Anyhow, it caused a big debate, and amongst ourselves we have agreed that the proper thing to do is tag the waymark as grandfathered, and not decline it. The thing is, there are some category officers that don't read the forums, or don't know the history behind our "handshake" agreements. It would be nice if there was a formal solution through the GUI. Perhaps, a pop up when declining something over a month approved, or already approved that said "Previously approved waymarks should be grandfathered, and not declined". With the ability to override? Thats my thought

In putting the clues together, I would guess that someone did an edit to it for the "state", and only part of the waymark showed in the approval dialog. So the reviewer scratched their head, and thought "How did this get approved"?, and entered into the decline process.

@Bruce The date is the posted date, the approved date doesn't show anytwhere. @Elyob I can't imagine that it would be common for someone to check Waymarking.com before booking their hotel. Perhaps, if there were a high percentage of hotels waymarked, that might change. For today, I would guess the majority of waymark visits to a hotel would come from someone checking the nearest waymarks to where they were and realized they had stayed at a particular hotel.

It was completely declined, decline message and all, I had to resubmit it. It was subsequently approved. "Hello from Waymarking.com! Your waymark, Euro Hotel - Cascina, Italy, has been denied for the following reason: Can you add some information about why you recommend it? It is not uncommon for waymarks to be denied on the first submission. Waymark category owners can be very particular and may insist that their rules be followed exactly as written. Edit your waymark for resubmission Happy Waymarking! The Groundspeak Team"

To make cross-listed waymarks, some people use a second account to make a uncategorized waymark, and the from their own account categorize it into all the waymarks you want.

I know we have discussed this before, but I just got a decline for a waymark that was approved nearly 5 years ago. On that point, I thought we had agreed that if the requirements changed, previously approved waymarks would be grandfathered, and noted as grandfathered so that they wouldn't set precident for the new waymarks. In this particular case, I think the redenial was in error. http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM4HF0_Euro_Hotel_Cascina_Italy is the waymark, and this is the comment "Can you add some information about why you recommend it? ". I haven't tweaked the waymark at all. I hope this was only a mistake, or their internet was slow and didn't load the full page? (and not ulterior motives on the part of the reviewer).

1. You need to elect more officers. 2. The first WM should be changes to a legacy tag. (You can do that, especially since you have documentation). It will still be there for reference 3. Approve the second. as an alternative to 2 & 3 have them change it to a visit log. I prefer changing the missing Hide to Legacy as it gives a historical perspective

I try to tell people the value of a waymark isn't the physical visit, but the virtual visit. This is a prime example of that. I'd trade 100, "I visited this" logs for one "The Travel Channel thought my waymark had value"

One other comment on the subject of the less appealing categories. When I am Waymarking near my home, I waymark anything that can be waymarked, whether I like the category or not, because the waymarks end up showing a slice of the world. The combination of the uninteresting waymarks and uninteresting categories (to me) becomes interesting. Over the years, the neighborhood has evolved, and businesses have come and gone, and the layers of history become interesting.

One comment about visit requirements history. In the beginning of Waymarking, some of the categories were written from virtual geocache perspective, or were even virtual geocaches bulk converted to waymark categories. So, the visit requirements might have been written from the perspective that someone my try to armchair waymark like they used to armchair geocache the virtuals. As things evolved, it didn't turn out to be a really valid concern and newer categories had less restrictive logging requirements. Bottom line, different people (waymark creators) enforce logging requirements than generated the logging requirements (category creators). There aren't many reasons a waymark creator would delete a visit log. There was someone clicking about and posting "visited" once that got a portion of his visits deleted, but thats about it in my memory.

In addition to what SilverQuill said, I will say that most "visits" to any given waymark are not physical, but virtual. Waymarks come up in people Google searches when they are researching. If you click on waymarks, up at the top, you will see which of your waymarks have been viewed recently and when. Plus, that is only marking people who are logged into GC.com who viewed your waymark, multiply that for non-members. I always thought that if there were an option for a non-member to put a comment on the Waymark, like beautiful pictures, I enjoyed lo0oking at this, or this was useful to me when I was researching my genealogy, etc., it would be an encouragement to the people who are posting waymarks. I also feel that the waymark provided more and more value the closer it comes to being a complete inventory of any given category. Imagine, one click and you could see all the Civil War memorials in the US? Or pictures of everything on the National Register of Historic place, and a map showing where they were?

To Post a Canadian Benchmark: First Open the Category, http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=ebb67127-d531-4798-9d17-c6b77f235c49 Click on the button that says show additional information and read it Then click Post new waymark link (upper right on page) Fill in the blanks Add pictures. In general for any waymark I post, I will put up a close up and a wide shot.

I would use the category "Waymark Tours (WayTours)" for this. My example is http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM53P8_19th_Century_Greek_Revival_architecture_in_Washtenaw_County which is a driving tour of 19th Century Greek Revival homes in my area. I think if I were to imbed other waymarks into it, it would have the effect of what you are looking for.

Not all National Monuments will go into the "National Parks (U.S.)" Category. If they aren't managed by the National Park Service they will go into " National Parks of the World "Instead. An example of this is http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM8AA4_Kasha_Katuwe_Tent_Rocks_National_Monument_New_Mexico , which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

My worry about the TinyURL is that it couple be linking to a virus. With the longURL at least I can see if it looks like a valid place when I mouseover it.

You know, every now and then I see something that looks like a new featured waymark on the front page. But since they are sorted by date posted, I can't really tell if they are just one I never noticed or a new one. It would be great if there was a forum posting when new featured waymarks went up. Even a list that included the posters would be even better.

Can we get the front page commentary updated? The current comment is well over a year old, and references events of "two weeks" ago.

If you are receive the emails in html format then they all have links to the waymark. On the visit email the Waymark link is labeled "Waymark Details" and the link to the log is labeled "Log Details". On confirmations they also have the link to the waymark labeled "View or edit your new waymark" The links are in a maroon color about in the middle of the email. Thanks, for your advice. I did look at an approval email, and saw that I could click through on the maroon. I guess, over the years, I've been trained that a clickable link is underlined? Or says Click me. Of course now on the visit I see instructions to visit the links below, also. It must be a learning curve to look in the right place.

The Waymarking emails, such as your waymark has been visited, or a waymark has been submitted for approval, no longer have a link to the waymark. When I get a "your waymark has been visited" I often will click through on my phone, just to remind myself which waymark is was. Now I would have to go to Waymarking.com, look at my last viewed waymark, and how the waymark is there. Or copy paste the name from the email into the search string. I generally don't go to the approvals from the email, but on occasion the link in the email would provide value. I'm guessing the group vote emails don't have the link, either. With them being time sensitive, I like to click through right off, rather than waiting for the desktop.

I put a blurb in my profile that says exactly how I feel. People are all over the board on their feelings about other using their pictures. The safest thing to do is state it somewhere. The profile isn't really the best place to list, because people can't see your profile unless they are logged on. I recently approved a waymark for someone that put copyright and creative commons licence statement into the photo description so that it shows on the mouseover.

Yes! That was it! I don't remember it being in the US, but it was a favorite over there.