RakeInTheCache

I think lumbricus spoke too soon. I think it was fixed but today it is broken again. Seems Groundspeak has been tinkering again but why? The site seemed to be working ok for a while. :-(

Giving another plug for most visted waymarks (top 100/500 ...) and most visited by country. Then what about the waymarker with the most number of visits to their waymarks. Categories have the most number of visits, etc.

Officers in the Frank Lloyd Wright buildings, Assemblies of God, and Seventh Day Adventists seem to be doing the Rip Van Winkel thing. According to this post, Groundspeak is periodically checking for aging waymarks. Anyone know how long you have to wait before an aging waymark grabs Groundspeak's attention? An what about ignored offers to take over leadership of the category or help out by becoming an officer. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=333577&view=findpost&p=5528027

Down again.

Seems to be up again.

Site seems to have come down. Anyone else having access problems?

Yes, the concept of a protected natural site is well known in France, but I think that for the most part, they don't call them natural monuments but rather "sites classés". My post was about coming up for a good name for the category.

OK, I admit I have a certain bias but I do think it is redundant. I think any geological sign that has been submitted to the Places of Geologic Significance has been accepted in that category.

Uh, two guys talking does not a flop make ... (sorry also for the off-topic) [insert contrite emoticon here]

I see how you get "Natural monument" from the German concept. I guess its different than Naturschützgebiet which would be more the concept of a protected natural area. What about some sort of merger between the two concepts? In the US, I think natural monument is problematic as a term because we have National Monuments and State monuments (which can be natural areas) but nothing really called a natural monument. In France, I personally have not come across anything that I can remember being called a "monument naturel" although the concept may be known, I'm not sure if it is very common. By the way, keep in mind that there are already categories for Historic Trees and Exceptional Trees. That's why I would prefer the broader term "protected natural area" or maybe "protected natural site" is better in case it has more to do with an object than an area.

Just an add on to me previous post, many of my waymarks are in highly traveled areas, thus my experience may not be the same as many other waymakers when it comes to visits.

I get visit e-mails daily.

This category whould fill the gap between State/Provincial parks and municipal parks which both have their own categories. This would cover - County parks Township parks (Michigan) Departmental parks (France) What else? Do you feel there is a need?

I get visit notifications daily. Of course not all of my waymarks get visited and I do have quite a few so statistically it works in my favor. But I'm thinking you're underestimating the interest out there in Waymarking.

Yes, sorry skimmed over this post. Why not call it "wildlife refuges". Or maybe "protected wildlife and natural areas". Or "Protected natural sites".

Hey all, why not create an international category? I was thinking about wildlife preserves. I would certainly volunteer to be an officer.

Yes I have. Admittedly not a regular at peer review. Well I just learned something!

Oh, didn't know that. Glad to hear it.

It just occurred to me, there's something that seems strange about the voting. In more than one case I had responses like - "As with the others who voted to deny", or "As already stated by others" Does this mean some voters are able to see the responses of other voters before the vote is completed? This seems really strange

For me, the far greater issue with Waymarking in terms of its longevity is the problem of abandoned categories. Sorry Bruce, but I think time would be much more productively spent finding a way to automate the replacement of absentee leaders than in voting off categories.

I might be able to be convinced to require a long description. Will think this one over.

I think the beauty of the hobby is that it is flexible enough to appeal to many different kinds of interests (even those who like statistics). I think, as in a number of areas, inclusivity is better than exclusivity.

Sorry, don't see the connection between commercial categories and any "rut". I think the number of non-commercial categories far outnumbers the commercial ones (or the payphone type of category for that matter). And I don't think it's about Waymarking everything. More like Waymarking something that a certain population has an interest in.

I guess its about diversity. I do believe that chains, their coming and going, and their longevity, are interesting subjects. Wow, some of us are interested in old Ho jos, and old Burger chef's. It's nostalgic. Some of the more recent chains could hold nostalgic value as well (maybe not all of them today, but sometime in the future). In researching this category, I was fascinated to learn that Chi-chis continues to exist, albeit no longer in the U.S. but rather in Belgium. I also lead a number of other categories which the chain naysayers might find more interesting. I happen to believe there is room in Waymarking for diversity - both the obscure and what some might find more "mondane". And I frankly don't understand why those who are not fond of the category are not willing to let others who are enjoy their interests. It really is as simple as excluding any category that you don't like. It disappears completely from your experience. For me, there is absolutely no reason to discriminate in this way. Many responded by saying the category was well written and had positive qualities but voted no anyway. Does seem a bit harsh to me. Some responded that they were not happy that a long description was not required. Hmmm, well what do you say about these locations? I guess you could say something about when it opened, etc but I think most often waymarkers won't have access to this information. Because a location doesn't have a long description, doesn't make it any less interesting to know that the restaurant is there today, has existed at least since it was waymarked, or has closed. There were obviously too many "nos" for them to have all expressed themselves in the forum. I really wish that those who voted "no" had taken the time to express their opinions in the forum so the issues could be discussed openly and perhaps we could arrive at a solution to the objections that could be acceptable to the majority.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. That said - the democratic process takes its course and here is the tally of the "beholders" Out of 45 votes Approve = 14 (31%) Deny = 25 (56%) Abstain = 6 (13%) Hmmm, let's mull this over a bit...