Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by PISA-caching

  1. Don't get me wrong. I didn't want you to include artillery, I just wanted to know the difference between these two groups. Thanks for explaining it.
  2. See but it never came true. I wonder how permanent this kind of art is.
  3. I'm a little late on this one, but I was wondering: Why do you exclude artillery ["artillery (cannons, shells, ect. should be waymarked in the static artillery category unless displayed in a museum setting, of which the museum shall be waymarked)"], but allow battlefields that have their own category too? I do not understand that logic.
  4. Mantova/Mantua (and more to come) -> 48.414 (31-3-2021)
  5. Funny, we will travel to Italy too very soon, and I have found a small city that also has no WMs yet.
  6. As an officer of that category, I want to remind everyone that this is an ART category. It's tempting, but don't just copy/paste the description from a waymark for the same grave you made in another category, unless the other description contains a lot of information about the artwork. I and hopefully all the other officers will decline all the waymarks that tell a lot about the person for whom the headstone was made, but little to nothing about the artwork itself. Size, material, color, condition, what is depicted,.... ? So, save your and our time and add a (required) description of the artwork. To make it clear: There is nothing wrong to have information about the person (often it is necessary to know something about him/her to understand the artwork), but the WM should also include as much information about the artwork that you can find.
  7. Same here. We have three email addresses at www.geocaching.com. Most of the visit emails go the primary email address, but some go the 2nd account.
  8. 300 is a lot. :-( At least I can repeat that it works if you don't just edit the date, but also the Comment. It then has the nasty text "[Log Edited by xxxxxxxxxx on ...]", but at least the correct date.
  9. You're comparing apples with firetrucks. The category is called "Relocated Structures", not "Relocated Parts of a Structure". In one case the (as far as I understand it) stand-alone Coat of Arms was moved, in the other case all the parts of an unfinished fountain have been moved and in Ariberna's WM two columns of an entire church have been moved. From my point of view, there is much difference with these WMs. And if you don't want any flexibility, then try to understand WHY the officer declined it, and don't pour oil into the fire by saying that "some folks in this game take themselves too seriously and like to make things hard to everybody". Discussion closed - at least for me. :-(
  10. There are people, who say that or something similar, if the officers follow the rules (in their opinion) too strict, and there are also people who complain about other officers if they "approve everything". We all have had such decisions on one or more of our own waymarks. I myself have a different view since I started to be an officer in a few categories. One thing is for sure: I had to decline several waymarks already and never did I "like to make things hard to everybody" and I doubt that there are such officers who do. There may be some that are very strict and others who are more flexible. But as a waymark owner noone should believe that a decline is a personal vendeta or that an entire category is full of strict officers. Just go back one step and try to think about it objectively.
  11. As far as I understand it, the Coat of Arms have always been just a Coat of Arms ("near Gate 1", not part of the gate!) and the parts of the fountain have always been all that existed of that fountain, but the columns of that church are just a small part of the church. What, if they would ever deconstruct a church and everybody can buy a piece of it and include it in their private homes. Hundreds of Relocated structures?
  12. As a side question: I see that there are almost 200 waymarks missing their region in the Mountain Summits category. I assume, that some of them are also the border between two regions. What is usually done then? No region, maybe? Or does a mountain summit always "belong" to one or the other region?
  13. Oooops, sorry. I should read more carefully.
  14. Unfortunately, I don't think so. The Signs of History says: "Ontario Allows only those on the 'search the database' link." and I doubt that this cenotaph is in that database.
  15. I found 2 in Austria, that are in the "Austrian and Swiss National Heritage Sites" category, where I am an officer. I corrected those two.
  16. There is no general answer for that. I guess it depends on which group of persons the cenotaph is for. One possible category would be Citizen Memorials of course. Or one of the War categories in the Monuments department. Further details would be helpful.
  17. The category description of "Odd Fellow Lodges" says: "The goal is to find and photograph Odd Fellows lodges, as well as any homes, encampments, grave yards, or other affiliated locations."
  18. I found the waymark: https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/wm14AR9, but like Max and 99 said, it would help a lot to know why it was declined in the Medal of Honor category. I also found https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/denis-buckley. Maybe the reason is, that Dennis Buckley was buried in Marietta, GA and the marker is in Ontario, Canada.
  19. The key word is "usually". "convey some knowledge" can also be interpreted as "learning how it feels to walk on stones, sand, fir cones etc. barefoot". Of course, it doesn't fit 100%, but most of these barefoot trails contain natural materials (not broken glass or something ) and I could also say that "Nature Trails" (where you learn about fauna and flora, geology etc.) and "Historic Walks" (where you learn about history) don't fit to each other. You might even say that these two topics are different departments (Nature and History).
  20. Oh, oh. The last few WMs of the "Self Guided Walks and Trails" category have been approved by wayfrog. :-(
  21. I haven't created many categories, but nevertheless I'm willing to help. The first step would be to ask the leader of the "Self Guided Walks and Trails" category (personally), if he would allow barefoot walks in his category. The description says: "Self Guided Nature Trails and Historic Walks are the main focus of this Category, but there may be some leniency as long as the basic principle of "Self Guided" is followed.", but it also says "In general though, the Self Guided Trail or Walk should be educational.". If he will not allow them there: I would ask for some feedback from other WMers from different countries/continents. How prevelant are these in your area? Are there any suggestions what would also fit in this category, that we haven't thought about?
  22. The Kneipp pools are meanwhile accepted in the "Spas, Hammams, Mineral Baths and Saunas" category and in my humble opinion these barefoot walks fit to the Kneipp pools as much (or little) as to the Fitness Trails. So, the question is: Are there enough of them to qualify for a new category? And the second question is: How permanent are they? They are quite easy to create, but as easy to be removed. For example: Barfuß-Parcours - Wien zu Fuß (wienzufuss.at)
  23. I blame it to my lack of English, but I don't understand what you are trying to say with that sentence. I once again blame it to my lack of English, but in my example I was trying to say: The Chronograms category shouldn't (and doesn't) exclude all the WM that would also fit in Dated Buildings and the Dated Buildings category shouldn't (and - as far as I know - doesn't) exlude Chronograms (I never tried posting a Dated Building that was dated with a chronogram, but maybe I will one day). I was not talking about any other restrictions of either of the two categories. It was a theoretical example, of what COULD have been added to the category descriptions (but wasn't). Quote from the (maybe one day) category "Funerary Art": Our category, 'Funerary Art' is looking for those stunning, unique 'WOW' works of art.
  24. That's exactly what I was thinking. I understand and agree that new categories that fills some kind of gap to similar categories will not accept WMs that fit in any of the other related categories (f.e. Religious Buildings Multifarious simply says: "Religious Buildings Multifarious will NOT accept any place of worship that can be approved in any existing designated 'denominational' religious building category."). I'm 100% fine with that. A church is either Roman Catholic or Presbyterian or whatever OR something else. But there are examples, where a category excludes WMs (that would perfectly fit to the general idea and name of the category), because they are also allowed in other categories. I don't want to point at any certain category, but I will try to explain with my own category Chronograms. Many of these chronograms refer to the year, the building/structure was erected. One could say that a building with a chronogram on the facade, telling the year of the construction, is a "Dated Building" or a "Dated Architectural Structures Multifarious". Most likely such a building/structure would be accepted in either of the two categories. But would I allow just chronograms that don't qualify the building for one of these two categories? Hell, no! I don't know, if anybody ever made such a crossposting, but even IF somebody did, I would never limit the number of WMs in my category for that reason. Whoever is interested in Chronograms, should find ALL of them, that ever have been documented with a WM, in that category. On the other side: Should "Dated Buildings ..." and/or "Dated Architectural Structures Multifarious" deny WMs, that use a chronogram to date themselves? Again, no (IMHO)! Same goes with "Feeding the Animals". This category doesn't exclude any other category (f.e. Zoos, Petting Farms and Zoos, Fish Hatcheries etc.), because if you want to go and feed some animals together with your children, why would you have to check "Feeding the Animals" and additionally all the Zoos (IF they allow feeding), Fish Hatcheries (IF they allow feeding) and so on? But that's exactly what I see with other categories. You are interested in a certain topic and have a look at the category. But in some cases you also have to check all the categories, that are excluded, because they most likely contain WM that also fit to the topic you are looking for. See what I mean? My impression is - and that's really sad to say (and hopefully not true) - that some officers create categories and think about how difficult/easy it will be for the officers to approve the WMs, how difficult/easy it will be for the WMers to understand why their WM has been declined or not, or how to get just "interesting" WMs in their category. But we should also think about the visitors, who IMHO have the right to find all the WM of one topic in one category and not one category, plus a little bit of the other category and some WMs in a third category etc.
  • Create New...