wilsonjw

It would be very helpful to have a batch deletion capability in Your Created Routes, similar to the capability in Pocket Queries. If you want to batch delete Pocket Queries, you select the PQs to be deleted, then scroll to the bottom of the page to delete them. Pretty simple, though highlighting the "Delete Selected" clickable area when one or more selections have been made would be a nice addition. If you want to delete any of Your Created Routes, you have to do that function manually, one at a time. For those of us who plan very long trips, that one-at-a-time behavior is tedious.

In the past hour, Chrome has started blocking .gpx downloads from GC.com. Is anyone else having this problem this morning?

I've disabled the c:geo script -- the problem is still here. I've also tested using IE, with the same results.

It was working for a while; it's broken again (this time with an error message).

Looking forward to an update, if you're still working on it.... Thanks!

I'm experiencing an error every time I try to use the "find a category (e.g. castles, firehouses, art museums, etc.):" search function. Is anyone else having that problem? Is there a general problem with the site?

What are the general complaints about the apps?

I'll pile on.... There are several features that will make Waymarking much more useful...an app is among them. I'd like to be able to search for waymarks while "in the field", and upload photographs to the waymark pages from my phone.

We see this slowdown every year after the holidays; the weather has been particularly good in some parts of the U.S., so I'm not surprised that the slowdown is so noticeable. We had a significant slowdown last March or April, as I recall, and the folks at Groundspeak did significant tuning and restructuring of the server-side applications. Performance was great all last summer, so I expect once we're over this spike (and weather returns to "normal"), the site will return to normal, as well.

Is it physically within the geographic boundaries of a listed district?

This sounds like a great approach to the challenge of listing "districts".

That discussion is running already.

If by "we", you mean the few people who have been involved in this thread, okay. I don't know how the ordinary waymarker will determine the "center of the district", so making that a requirement will be problematic. Letting the individual waymarker use their judgment regarding the most suitable location for the waymark encourages innovation and creativity on the part of the waymark "owner", while not violating the spirit of the "game". I would expect that district entries would attempt to describe the boundaries of the district; that may be difficult in some areas because the needed information (such as a map) may be difficult to locate on the WWW. This is a proposal. We're debating this proposal right now. A decision will be made at the end of the debate. Yes, the category description will be updated to reflect decisions made at the end of the debate. No one should be inconvenienced, since the category description (the rules) haven't changed. When they do, some people may, indeed, be inconvenienced.

If I knew then, what I know now, I would have suggested the exclusion of districts entirely, but I didn't. Districts introduce several undesirable issues, including the one you mention. District extensions are suspect, but the rules as they are stated today do not exclude them. Do you have a rule that you'd like to propose? While we're amending the rules, we ought to take a position regarding individual structures within a district. The rules do not prohibit Waymarking multiple structures within a district.

I use small gauge aircraft cable and ferrules to attach the tag to the item. Heavy duty cutters are needed to hack through the aircraft cable; scissors and ordinary pliers just won't do. The cable and ferrules are available at many neighborhood hardware stores; the big places usually don't carry this kind of stuff because there isn't enough sales volume.

1. I've seen spotty performance on the site's email feature, which has caused some anguish in the Waymarking community. Even if it were completely reliable, email is a poor way to coordinate team actions (such as taking a position on a particular waymark). The forum feature isn't enabled yet, so we'll need to live with email for a while. 2. There's no way to do this, yet. This, along with an ability for officers to edit waymarks, is a highly desired feature.

I just sent a note to TPTB, asking for a category name change...that will clear the way to opening the category up for waymarks....

Deleted double post.

I haven't enabled it yet because I want to incorporate the changes received during peer review. The biggest change is changing the name of the category to focus solely on ferry landings. There's no elegant way to include the ferries themselves (because of their mobility), so including them in the category title is misleading. Changing a category name requires intervention of TPTB, which I just haven't gotten around to soliciting. Focusing on the landings also changes the category variables, but those changes are easy....

Thanks...sounds like a good approach...I think it would help a lot, particularly as the database gets larger.

Here's the results of peer review for our group: Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Abstained Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: Good waymark overall! I definitely like allowing for multiple stops on the waymark page like Jeremy suggested. I also think that it would be nice to have a cost variable as most of these ferries are not free. Personally, I am not for forcing visitors to have a photo as proof of visit, especially if there isn't a particular need for it. At worst I would leave it up to the waymark owner. I'd received other suggestions regarding a cost variable, but didn't pursue it because cost, for some ferries, is so dependent upon factors such as vehicle size, number of passengers, route, and berthing requirements. It's a great idea to include such a variable, but it would be very difficult to have it be meaningful in the face of so many factors. I prefer to have a photograph requirement for new waymarks to provide visual context for a subsequent visit. I prefer a photograph requirement for waymark visits (though I understand there is a portion of the Waymarking community that does not agree) to reduce the incidence of "virtual visits". As much as I really like the notion of logging the ferries themselves, given the present technology, it just isn't feasible. While we could "pin" a particular ferry at a particular landing / terminal, it doesn't help in the waymark finding process, given the fact that the ferry may be actually located in another place at the time of the search. For that reason, I propose changing the name of the cateegory to "Ferry landings and terminals", and making appropriate changes to the description and waymark variables. Right...see above. Changing the category name and description will help this. The changes proposed above should help....

Here's the results of peer review for our group: Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Abstained Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: Good waymark overall! I definitely like allowing for multiple stops on the waymark page like Jeremy suggested. I also think that it would be nice to have a cost variable as most of these ferries are not free. Personally, I am not for forcing visitors to have a photo as proof of visit, especially if there isn't a particular need for it. At worst I would leave it up to the waymark owner. Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: Can't pass up an opportunity to vote for our own category. -- wilsonjl Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: Like the idea but I do think it needs to be clear that its ferry landings not ferries. I'm thinking of a case here where we have a ferry in dock for refit - several hundred miles from its normal run. Waymarking it here wouldn't make sense because if someone went to those coordinates in a months time there would be nothing to indicate that a ferry was ever there! A waymark should be a place where people should at least be able to see something to indicate ferry related activity - not just a point where a ferry may once have been. Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Deny Comments: You should pick one. I would suggest ferry landings for the initial category. Ferries shouldn't be marked since they are mobile and the coordinates don't change. Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: I think you need to define where you want the coordinates taken. Vote: Approve Comments: Too many variables making it way too complicated for Waymarking. Vote: Approve Comments: Looking good - and look at those variables .WOW. ***** Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: None Vote: Approve Comments: Great Job!

I can see waymarks that have been approved / rejected by others, but only if I arrive at that page through the email link that's sent as a result of the waymark being submitted. These waymarks, I believe, were submitted while the site was in debug mode, so emails weren't sent. I'll check that later today, when I can run through the email archive....

Yes, these features would be very helpful....

This is very similar to the issue we have with Ferries and Ferry Landings. Having a waymark for each ferry landing / terminal is pretty straightforward. The hard part is how to handle the ferry itself -- that problem may not be solvable, given the mobility of the ferry. The difficulty in how to handle the ferry as a waymark is too bad, considering that while some people visit train stations for non-train-related reasons (e.g., dining, motion picture viewing), I haven't seen too many ferry landings / terminals that are attractions in their own right.