ScroogieII

Thank You, BeayPepe, for the explanation. AND - Welcome to the Wild and Wooly World of Waymarking. First, it wasn't your Peer Review submission that caused my initial concern, but another, for which I initially overreacted by speaking before researching. Keith

I think he meant the whatsapp group.

Good point!!! Now I have to figure out whether this is truly unethical behavior, should it really be happening. Such behavior, should it be weaponized, also could be employed to quash otherwise worthy proposals, not just push less worthy proposals over the top. Keith EDIT: Further to the above, it seems I've created "Much Ado About Nothing". It was with insufficient research that I wrote the above. If a "Letter Campaign" was, indeed, undertaken, it appears to have been aimed exclusively, or almost exclusively, at relatively active Waymarkers, the intention being to encourage Peer Review voting. Admittedly, the alleged "campaign" was resoundingly successful, in that it elicited a substantially greater number of votes than have other recent proposals, and included "ayes", "nays" and abstentions. Hence, I see no skullduggery here, so I'll have to call it "No Harm, No Foul". Keith

Keeps us from dozing off, at least.

I believe that ship sailed several years ago.

Same here. Not good! NOT GOOD at ALL!!! EDIT: This would, instead, appear to be a rare glitch. I just opened a goodly number of Waymarks at random, from randomly chosen categories, all without issue. Keith

Your disinclination may prove a bit premature, given the reception of the category currently in Peer Review. Keith

I'm guessing you're about the same age as myself, possibly older, if that's possible. It was "Spy vs Spy" that gave you away! Keith

Again, worthy of reiteration: - The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.

Specific Wars Monuments and Memorials might have at least part of your proposal category covered. Battlefields might have much of the rest of your proposal covered, too. That notwithstanding, continue, so that we might see what you propose. It certainly can't hurt (other than possibly your pride) but you may have an angle or an approach which may appeal to enough hereabouts to make this a possibility. Keith

And now, on to the more serious stuff... OK, first, though I'm vaguely familiar with Shakespeare and his missives, from high school English classes, I remember essentially nothing of his characters, so a Google (actually, in my case, a Duck Duck Go) trip immediately became necessary. The first hit returned this: "Ophelia’s role in the play revolves around her relationships with three men." Two or five things there immediately eliminate any slight possibility of my being "Offelia": 1 - I'm reasonably certain that I'm a male. (I can look down and check, should that become necessary.) 2 - I'm even MORE certain that I've not had "relationships" with three men. Not one at a time, not with two nor three, not even in groups of a dozen or more. (Now I'm sounding like I "doth protest too much", so I'll move on.) 3 - I've DEFINITELY never had an affair with Hamlet. 4 - I certainly do not remember all the murder and cruelty that surrounded this "Offelia" lady. My upbringing on a farm in a small rural prairie community was nothing whatever like Offelia's. All green, serene and pastoral with fluffy clouds in the sky floating gently past. - - - Or was that the movie I watched last night?!? 5 - Not sure whether it counts one way or the other, but I did once Waymark an "Olivia Crescent" as part of a William Shakespeare Waymark. Nope! Can't think of a single connection between myself and her. I vaguely recall that she was Danish. Though I've encountered a great many nationalities populating my family tree, offhand I recall no Danes. Mebbe, instead, there are a plethora of Spaniards in the upper branches of my tree, and you could be a descendant of one of them!!! Does that scare you?!?!?! It SHOULD!!! There is quite a bit of insanity, both inherited and self-induced, in my lineage. I have cousins, even a sister, who believed in unseen, unknown deities. Many of them even worshiped their deities. Others in my family were pagans. So, BEWARE, Ariberna! Keep Your Distance!! I, like my kin and sibling, am MAD AS A HATTER!!! (Evil, Witch like Warlock like cackle here, volume >90db)

Yes, indeed, Silly You! How could you possibly believe that a category proposal with even a scintilla of potential "overlapedness" (overlapeddness?) could succeed in this day and age?!?!?! How could I?!?!??! How could we?!?!?! How could anyone else?!?!?! I tell ya, It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World - In spite of the fact that this is no longer 1963. ... ... I think ... ... er - I believe ... ... What time is it... ...? And "for nothing", in return you get "Je t'en prie, et pas de quoi". Thanks for playing, though, Keith

Noted and (hopefully) remembered. Thanks, Guy! Keith

Love that quote - I shall reiterate it here, in fact - Something is only hopeless if it isn't attempted - It could well be that such a sentiment has gotten us, as a species, to where we are today, for better or for worse. Thanks for that Ivo - I'll try to always keep it in mind - Keith

Well, Ivo, I can only congratulate you for your "sticktoitiveness". I think I may have written that same, self created non-word, somewhere else nearby, but can't be sure. In fact, I sincerely doubt that I created it, as I believe I've encountered it elsewhere. First, a search on "Waffle" in the complete category list yields no results. Hence, the inclusion of "Waffles" or "Waffle Houses" would definitely be to your benefit here, Ivo, however distasteful (or insignificant) that may be to you. A (somewhat short) RANT: While sitting and thinking about other things, and well before coming back to this thread, I had been considering the already achieved redundancies we've created within Waymarking. The primary category which came to mind was This Old Church. Created in 2006, it was thereafter mirrored by a great many categories which followed, such as Bell Towers, Unique Steeples, Stained Glass Windows, specific denominations, etc, etc, each of which are, for the most part, copy-and-pastes. As one example, I once managed to wring well over 35 categories from a single church, albeit with a mess of diligent searching. Another fine example would be the Seattle Space Needle, from which about 45 Waymarks have been derived, sadly none of them mine. My point here is that redundancy alone should no longer be a make-it-or-break-it consideration when considering the potential acceptance of a Waymarking Category proposal. I would find no difficulty whatsoever in unearthing ever more examples of Waymarks by myself which have counterparts in other categories at the same site. Nor should a category proposal for a Department which has not received a new category in some time be rejected out of hand. I believe, rather, that what I'm witnessing here is laziness on the part of Waymarkers. I review quite a number of categories and almost universally find that Waymarkers (people in general, truth be told) are loath to put fingers to keyboard to express personal feelings or experiences, predominantly because its not demanded of them. Were I to propose such a category, I would step outside the box and DEMAND that each submission be by a Waymarker who has actually eaten at the proposed Waymarked site, and that each submission include a full writeup of said Waymarker's experience. IE - the ambiance, the cleanliness, the quality of the food, the taste experience, the quality of the service, the satisfaction (or not) derived from the complete experience of having dined at a particular establishment. In essence, each Waymark would theoretically constitute a relatively comprehensive, though not necessarily exhaustive, review of the eatery in question, essentially from a personal viewpoint. Unfortunately, as can be witnessed above, any other methodology by which a food related category proposal might be accepted by the community is almost certain to fail. You see, it needn't be necessary that you, the Waymarker, MUST make an attempt at a submission to this, or any other, category today, this week, this month, or even this year. It's a pretty good bet that we all eat out on occasion, occasionally trying new eateries, maybe sometimes even a new pancake or waffle house, possibly even discovering one that is just OVER-THE-TOP in your estimation. Wouldn't it be a shame if you found that Supercalifragilistic pancake or waffle house you've always dreamed of, but couldn't tell the world about it via Waymarking?!?! Regardless of your feelings and beliefs, should you be the one to deny another the opportunity to share their wonderful experience? Keith

Thanks for the support, Ariberna, but, in retrospect, methinks this was a non-starter from the git-go. Really, I can't imagine what would have prompted me to make the proposal. Mebbe I'm beginning to lose touch with reality. What year is this? Is it winter yet? Don't see any snow. Is it spring yet? Don't see any robins out my window, so mebbe not. Now I don't know where we are. Is this still the third planet from the sun? Is that the sun, or the moon? What is a moon? Is that important? Is being important even important? My TV is showing me Australians throwing curling rocks. Something's wrong here. What year is this & what planet is this? OR - mebbe that's an Australian's TV. BUT WHY am I watching an Australian's TV? Am I there? Why does "there" look just like "here"? Soooo many things to research, and sooo little time. ... ...

NEVER lose your sense of humour, there Ivo. It's what keeps us sane... ... Or relatively so! Keith

Well, it looks as though redundancy is the deal breaker here. Really, that doesn't surprise me, making me question my sanity and why I would propose this in the first place.!! Oh well, another one bites the dust. Keith

By including "almost completely" of wood I'm acknowledging that there will be many metal, as in iron or steel, fasteners, but no, or very little, actual supporting members that are NOT wood. By supporting members I refer to beams, girders, truss structures, decks and the like but NOT pilings, piers and/or abutments. These (pilings, piers and/or abutments) can be of any material, as they are normally built of rock, concrete, steel and similar. A roof is not supporting, hence it could be of a different material, which is often the case. "Because they would be redundant with the "Covered Bridges" category?" Yes they would, and they would be redundant with several other bridge categories, as well. The point is that there exist many old wooden bridges of historic value which as yet have no Waymarking home, primarily trestle bridges. A Historical Wooden Trestle Bridges category would likely be a bit too limiting, as would allowing only bridges NOT already categorized. The governing concept I envision is that acceptable bridges be accompanied by their history, informing the reader of their value to humanity. Necessary information would include their date of construction, date of decommissioning, who or what built it, its initial purpose, its present purpose and finally, why it was built where it was, IE why it was needed and whether it actually served its purpose. Look at the bridges posted to other, here redundant, categories and you'll find that the majority have been submitted lacking historical information. This would not be the case here, as it is the history of the bridge and the story of the crossing which is of primary interest. Why WOODEN bridges, you ask? Because, as humans advanced technologically from simply tossing a log across a stream to actually constructing a lasting structure, the first material used was almost always wood. Why wooden BRIDGES, you ask? Because it was, in a great many cases, bridges which allowed mankind to expand his horizons. As I stated earlier, it was bridges which allowed the opening and settlement of new lands, bridges which created shorter travel routes, bridges which enabled more economical trade routes, bridges which brought communities together and bridges which brought friends, families and loved ones closer.

Given the state of those bridges you are certainly "giving away" your age, aren't you? 'S OK, I may well be older than you. In any event, should this proposal gestate into a category you have a couple of winners there, no worrys! Thanks!!

True! But actually beside the point, as well as the bridge. Just occurred to me that you might be referring to my bridge. In this case it wasn't, thence they don't. But, back to your earlier point - "is an age restriction necessary?" I would have to say no, for the simple reason you presented: "The history will speak for itself." Upon presenting this proposal I hadn't yet given it the thought that you were able to conjure within minutes. Want to be an officer, should it come to fruition? Thanks again - Keith

And what would be wrong with covered, given that it had a good story to tell of its history and its ability to aid the Suisse in getting from here to there, or transporting goods from here to there, or even eliminating hours from a trip from here to there? AND - remember that neither of us know ALL the history of our respective lands. A smattering of those bridges could still be there. In Sierre I remember seeing what I "remember" as a date of 1510 on the header over the entrance to a wooden barn. My memory may be not quite up to snuff, but that date I seem to remember quite well, because of its inherent absurdity, in relation to my personal history. Thanks for responding, fi guy, Keith

Yes, I guess the stories would be the documentation necessary, thereby obviating the necessity of a then unnecessary variable. GOOD point!!! Thanks Age, though, might be a sticking point with some, though not with me, given the historical importance of a bridge. Hmmmm! Still another good point! How is it that you re able to make two good points in just one sentence?!?!?! Keith

Thanks for responding, Dave. Date range? Still unsure. You must have read my last post the instant it was posted. Yes, trestles and remnants WOULD be included. BTW - Either I'm up too late or you're up too early. Keith

Tell me about those bridges, there Goldenwattle. Thanks for posting these!!! What do you know about them? They are all obviously "old", as in vintage. What I propose re submissions is that Waymarkers be able to document the stories and the histories of the bridges they encounter. That would be a requirement for acceptance. Should you be able to provide some good documentation, stories, histories on the bridges you've shown us, they would all be quite acceptable. REMNANTS: Even remnants of HISTORIC wooden bridges, since destroyed or fallen down, would be acceptable, should photos of sufficient WOODEN remnants be provided. After all, it's really the crossing of the particular obstacle by a technological or engineering means (of course employing WOOD to do the job) that is really the point here. The bridge is simply the remaining visible remnant of the means by which the crossing was accomplished, often, in the case of standing bridges, exhibiting the design and engineering prowess of the engineer.. Keith