401Photos

I'd second Max and 99's recommendation to preserve rather than delete any Waymark. History remains even once something is gone or changed. Would it be appropriate to use "Former Site of" as another type of re-naming convention?

A thought, and certainly not pressing -- Unless the functionality already exists and I just haven't found it, adding a "My Waymarks Visited by Others" option under the Waymark Searches: list could be a useful companion to any visit email notifications. For instance, I received four notifications today and, if I've got this right, we have to bounce between the email (to click on the link) and WM website to check each visit. Is there a more streamlined process that I may have overlooked? Again, not super urgent in my book for sure...I'm still always amused when anybody visits my Waymarks! Thanks Bootron and all at HQ! Jason/401Photos

Hello and welcome, VC, all the way from...Rhode Island!

To deal with disappearing coordinates, I always enter them in the Long Description box first... then copy and paste into the coordinates field(s) after completing all other fields, ticking the two "terms of use boxes, and just before moving on to upload photos... but have to move quickly (less than 5 seconds?) to click on the "Upload Photos" link... then delete from the Long Description as part of proof-reading the WM before submitting to be certain they were recorded. It's always nice when they stick the first time.

This just in -- Oscar Meyer has renamed and re-branded the Wienermobile: Can Oscar Meyer's renamed 'Frankmobile' cut the mustard? https://www.yahoo.com/autos/oscar-meyers-renamed-frankmobile-cut-193500222.html Can the WM community smoothly navigate the change? Stay tuned, folks! UPDATE: Thanks to PISA-caching for catching my typo...It is not often that I write "wiener" --mobile or otherwise. I just call them hot dogs!

If anybody ever finds their way to Rhode Island, please feel free to reach out. It may be the smallest state, but that makes for easy travel -- from one end to the other will cover city, rural, and ocean shore locations in about an hour! Providence, the capital, is very walkable, full of variety and lots of history. Also: Boston, Massachusetts is about an hour's drive (depending on traffic), so that'd potentially be an option for a meet-up, too. Plus, I've recently reached over 1,000 Waymarks here -- in more than 350 categories...I've found lots of good stuff to visit in the Ocean State! Happy to play tour guide, Jason/401Photos

C o n g r a t u l a t i o n s !

Exactly!

Yesterday's new-to-me category -- Pankcake and Crepe Restaurants -- had a bonus first-for-me, too: S K U N K ! ! A very friendly skunk unexpectedly happened by La Creperie as I started snapping pictures! We acknowledged each other, kept our distance, and he waddled along without incident. My snapshots are included the WM photo gallery for additional documentation/amusement. What's the most surprising, odd, or out-of-place combination of "Waymark and Guest" (creature, object, action, etc.) you've captured?

Keen eye, indeed. You're right! Submitted and approved the other day: 1924 - Franco-American Heritage Center Also: Veterans Memorial Museum and Photos Then and Now It's that Historical Society Headquarters category...or any potential others related to that type of organization...that I'm curious about. The website also says they have "...over 20,000 books and nearly 7,000 reels of microfilm..." and "...is an affiliate library of the Family History Center in Salt Lake City, Utah", so I'm hopeful it'd be good enough for our Libraries category, too. Thanks, guys.

The radiator, boxy/flat top roof, triple side windows, mid-height body line detail, running board step plate (?), and wooden spoke wheels looks to be more aligned to your match with the Cadillac, but a 1924 DeVille because of the small lights just below the windshield. Based on the age of the car, it might be a custom coach work situation? And/or the front door handle location might not be original? (Owner preferred rear-hinge opening.) Buuuut...the small lights just below the windshield make me also think 1928 Chevrolet AB National and 1928 Chevrolet AB National Imperial is a possibility, too.

I'm trying to figure out where (or if) this might belong -- Would the Franco-American Heritage Center (home of the American-French Genealogical Society) fit in the "Historical Society Headquarters" category? Many French-Canadians, especially from Quebec, emigrated to Woonsocket, Rhode Island, (where this is located) for about a century starting in the 1840's. From the organization's "About" webpage: "The mission of the American-French Genealogical Society is to: Collect, preserve and publish cultural, genealogical, historical and biographical matter relating to Americans of French and French Canadian descent; Play an active part in the preservation of French and French Canadian culture and heritage; and highlight the role that they have played in the history of North America; Maintain an educational, research and cultural center; Conduct periodic educational programs and conferences to explore cultural, genealogical, and historical topics; Disseminate cultural, genealogical, historical, and biographical information to members and the general public." Thanks ---j/401Photos

If you're asking about the Admission Price: field, only digits should be entered there. No need for currency signs - eg, $, £, ¥. Hope this helps!

The pictures can be of anything, as long as they're on the coordinates. Got it. Thanks.

If you're not in a hurry, there's a chance I might be able to plan a stop while driving across that line a few times...over the next six months. It goes right through a cemetery near the intersection of the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway (40°32'52.4"N 74°18'44.0"W ) and Legoland New York theme park (41°22'29.6"N 74°18'44.0"W) which could be possibilities for me. (The NJ location may be doable as early as the later part of next week.) It'd be a first-in-the-category for me, so I'll need some clarification of the requirements.

Thanks for the responses, friends. It looks like we’re saying the same thing — if/when we make a mistake and the reviewer lets us know what is wrong, we make adjustments. I'm grateful for the opportunity to discuss this, and, hopefully, make things more efficient. Apologies in advance for such a long post -- It seems better to get it all out in one fell swoop so we can find resolution and move forward. To clarify using Benchmark Blasterz reply (thank you!) regarding consistency, I didn’t say Monsieur Alfouine was personally targeting me. Rather, this has been my experience: Based on approvals by other managers, my submissions met criteria and only his reviews (not in all categories, of course) resulted in declines and more work -- for both him and me. What happens when you submit a Waymark — in good faith, that definitely fits a category, and follows the guidelines — but it gets declined? Have you ever appealed to the officer? That main point started with ambiguity in Town Clock category — How close is a close-up? I think we can agree that there’s got to be an obvious difference between the shot of the whole structure (ie. building or clock tower) and the close up picture of the clock. And the close up is framed in a way that excludes most of the surroundings. But how close is a close-up? The instructions do not specify — “the clock face must take up 75 percent of the width of your photo”; “the crop must be to the edge of the clock face.” We can presume the category creators' intent was to show a close enough view so that most folks would understand that the clock is the main subject and can see it clearly. A look at the Waymarks list and we’ll see that, with variety, most follow the format and are generally similar. In this case: Along with an extensive write-up and 12 other pictures, the image I submitted as a close up is framed to show that the subject is a specific clock. In looking at other peoples' examples, with a good faith effort to meet category requirements, and my personal preference, that’s how I chose to crop it. So, I politely appealed. Our genial exchange, after Alfouine had, for my second Waymark in a week, declined another Town Clock for the same reason: Decline Notice: “Need a close-up photo as default one You can zoom and cut an existing one Thank you, Alfouine” In response, I wrote: “Dear Alfouine: Thanks for all the work you do as a manager of multiple categories! Based on my extensive descriptions and broad range of high quality images in the photo galleries for this and the rest of my 800+ Waymarks, can you please trust my judgement for submitting what I feel is a close up shot to illustrate the Waymark? (To be fair, other peoples' WMs represent clocks in similar general proportion to mine within their key photographs.) -- Jason" Alfouine: “We ask a close-up photo for each submission, i can understand your feeling, but i have to validate the same way for each submission otherwise i will receive messages from waymarkers to complain about different treatment. So please add a close-up photo as default, you can do what you want with others photos. And next time try to always take a close-up photo corresponding to the category. Thank you, Alfouine” Here’s a side-by-side comparison of my declined close up with one of Alfouine's that he had posted just a few days earlier: Instead of concentrating on creating more Waymarks at that time, I did a little side project and compared all of Alfouine’s Town Clock close-ups with this one. If you want, I can share the others, too. On that day, I had about 30 and he had 14 posted in total…and though a couple of his close ups showed clocks appearing ever so slightly larger in frame, 2 were about the same size and 9 were definitely smaller than mine. If it was good enough for his, why not mine? Alfouine - You are an enthusiastic, engaged, dedicated and productive Waymarker who adds to the game's success. I appreciate your work, too. You obviously know who I am, have seen the work I do, and approve my Waymarks in multiple categories. So, weather it is clocks or gazebos or anything else, can we agree that I submit in good faith and that we want categories to continue growing in a way that is efficient and fun for all?

You're right: In some categories, the default photo expectation is explicitly listed. If the gazebo category managers feel it's necessary to specify a default photo, that could be easily changed with amended instructions. We've seen that many times. When we look at category page, many elements make the category apparent: the category name, unique but consistently formatted Waymark titles, the short descriptions, and corresponding photos. No two are identical, yet visitors see there is variation and still identify what is shown as belonging to a group. You may prefer the external shot, but, in this case, the written instructions do not say what the default photo must be. A photo of the railing detail or the floor isn't the default image -- those would certainly make your case since the subject would be ambiguous. The required external view photos are in the gallery, too. I am not making up rules. The rules are the written instructions. My submissions follow expectations as written. My gallery photos clearly show a gazebo. The decision as to what image to feature is intentional -- I'd very much like people to be curious and explore the gallery. Thank you for the ultimatum statement -- It perfectly illustrates the final point in my original post. All my other Waymarks in this, and as you brought up, the Town Clocks category, have been approved, without issue, by other managers. I am asking the community to help us because your out-of-the-ordinary treatment of me is unique and on-going. No matter the category, is it unreasonable to make us guess which particular manager will review our submissions and genuflect to their personal regulations? Just as submissions are obligated to adhere to the written instructions, managers have an obligation to be consistent among each other in any particular category. (And I'd say for the most part, they are.) Do the gazebo category managers want to update the instructions to specify a default photo as you'd like?

A lighthearted yet sincere request for your help communicating with reviewers. BOTTOM LINE: Here's what's got my goat: Submission requirements applied inconsistently. More specifically, the requirements by one manager compared to the other managers, several times over many months and in multiple categories. BACKGROUND: Today, two of my three "Gazebo" submissions were declined because the "right" photo is not the gallery's main image. The official requirement is one photo, the request is for a second from inside, and, finally, an ask for non-mandatory additional photos. My prior 15 gazebo galleries average more than seven photos. Some near, some far, some up close details. Readers can clearly see these are gazebos and, along with the written information, would be able locate and identify them. Of that running total, 13 feature [GASP!] the aesthetically interesting underside of the gazebo as the main image. COORDINATION REQUEST: First, I know, I know: It's *just* a game. I really enjoy it. These specific rejections are frustrating because it is *just* a game and it's consistently happened several times over many months in multiple categories. If I have made a mistake or left something out, I'm always grateful for any guidance and will gladly amend my submission. In cases where I've met the obligations as written and then made additional/personal/artistic decisions, I have respectfully sent appeals directly to the denying manager -- Mostly to no avail, hence this community outreach. Forum etiquette discourages naming those with whom we have any grievance, but I could use some help with this specific person's decision making process over time. Can we ask them to lighten up, perhaps? And, yes, before you write it, I could change the main picture in this case. But this has gone on long enough. I'm a grown-a** man and only want the autonomy and -- after nearly 1200 approved submissions with hundreds more in queue -- expect that I can be trusted to contribute good quality Waymarks without nitpicking...or the power trip. ---j

Thankyouverymuch.

A few minute's poking around - potential half-success: Close-ish east-west swap I could get would be for a city in Kyrgyzstan that matches up with a golf course about 50 miles from me. It looks like there's some sort of sizeable monument on the eastern edge of town at its border with some farmland...Google Street View hasn't gotten there quite yet. Know anybody who lives in Jalal-Abad?!

Best wishes for a happy, healthy, safe, and successful New Year!

I'm 100 percent in agreement with you about avoiding additional costs re. mandatory expenses. And to clarify my "make a puzzle" phrase -- I didn't mean pay for having a custom puzzle created, just "make" as in "put one together." Would outright personal ownership actually be needed? (Who's checking for proof of purchase?!) How about borrowing a puzzle? Someone you know may have one that piques your interest. Public libraries have puzzles to lend, too. Back to the main gist of my idea: It was meant to consider adding "any completed-by-you puzzle and an original picture of same" as an entry to the existing "Photo Goals" category instead of creating a new category which, if I'm understanding correctly, may require buying/finding a matching puzzle in order to count as a new Waymark and visit.

How about "Make a Puzzle of a Real Life Location" as a "Photo Goals" Waymark? It could have a two-part requirement for a qualifying visit -- make a puzzle and submit an original photo of said place...bonus points if photo is from similar view as puzzle. No need to have the OP's puzzle be the only location; any puzzle/place combo counts as a visit.

CONGRATULATIONS! to the Waymarking Community!

Update: It looks like I'm going to late by a few days with that guess -- We're at 999903 on October 28 at 16:39 GMT!