PISA-caching
-
Posts
1140 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by PISA-caching
-
-
Thanks for all the feedback. The pump is close to a small village called Zeiselmauer with around 2,000 inhabitants. I doubt that there is a Wikipedia entry about it and I also doubt that I will find a newspaper article about it. Doesn't matter, I found many more other waymarks there, including a red telephone box, which I definitely didn't expect to find there.
-
I think they would fit in the "Permanent Charity Donation Locations" category, no?
-
Lately I found an "Archimedes' screwpump" that looks similar to this one:
In my case it is a pump (with only 2 screws) located in a flood plain (?) - an area reserved next to a river in case of extreme highwater - and is obviously used to pump out the water (over a small dam), when the highwater is over.
I was wondering, if there is a category for such structures, but didn't find any water pumps beside the "Hand Operated Water Pumps". It's likely not an "Engineering Landmark" (BTW: several links in their description don't work anymore) either. So, any ideas for a category that this screwpump would fit into?
I did a little research, but most of the ones I found where hand-operated ones on playgrounds. I guess the big ones are not very prevelant, right?
-
I tried with IE and couldn't open it, but Firefox and Chrome worked. They have saopaulo1 as the leader and two officers: ucdvicky and scrambler390
Another phenomenon: In both Chrome and Firefox the link "hide category" doesn't work.
HTH
-
There was a time, when Waymarking was not only open and welcoming to new players, but also to all sorts of new categories, no matter what it was. But we had to learn, when you welcome any trash, then you will end up in a junk yard. We already have a lot of trash categories we will never get rid of. Nobody does want more of them. I think this is something we all can agree with. (just not which ones are the great and the bad categories.
)So now Waymarking has become more restrictive for new categories. When someone wants to create one, he should be prepared to lose and not take it personal. Because it will most probably happen.
I think there is a lot of room between welcoming any new idea and the opposite. My impression (and this might be completely wrong) is, that "in the old days" new ideas where discussed, like "Overprevelant, but if you limit it to..." or "Not that interesting, but if we include..." and so on. Nowadays, new ideas are either "good" or (most of the time) "bad ideas" from the start.
Don't get me wrong, I really DON'T want to continue the "discussion" about my defibrillator idea, but nobody really tried to get this in the right direction. In my second posting I talked about "Outdoor" or "Out of place" Defibrillators. And a few posts later I was informed that on a college campus in Dallas there are lots of them. Yes, there are lots of them, but "Outdoor"??? To me it sounded like "Nope and now shut up" and this is what I will do now. :-)
The intent of my post was not to tell you to, in your words, "shut up and go away." I'm from Texas. If that's the message I want to send you, I know how to do that.
I thought the discussion we were having was on the topic of whether or not this is a viable category, and if in fact it could have a prevalence problem.
As for your attempts to solve the prevalence issue with exclusions, I personally do not think the overprevalence of defibrillators issue can be solved by erecting artificial distinctions without differences, such as "outdoor" or "out of place" -- whatever that means. Why would any agency place a device that is designed to save lives in a place that is OUT OF PLACE? Wouldn't the fact that the defibrillator is provided at a particular location mean that the device was NOT "out of place", but was needed in that place?
Also, as others have pointed out, there are issues with whether the devices are interesting, and global.
What you choose to do with your category idea is up to you. If you decide to pursue it, I wish you good luck in peer review -- by which I mean: any further comments about this category from me will be written in peer review..
I guess you don't really care, but what I meant with "out of place" is: Not in places like hospitals, red cross stations etc. where you would expect to find Defibrillators (just like "Out of place graves" that are not in a cemetery). What I had in mind are defibrillators that you can see without leaving the sidewalk. They also should be available 7*24 (not in buildings that are closed at night).
About the discussion "interesting or not": If you follow the link in my initial posting you can see a defibrillator that is quite special I think. If you take it out of the compartment, you automatically have a voice connection to the emergency call center for Viennese professional rescue. Additionally an automatic GPS positioning is performed. The touchscreen shows info about the correct usage of the defibrillator and changes to a map of the city when touched. I found all that very interesting and I doubt that all your college campus defibrillators have those features. Anyway, don't worry, I will not go on with this idea as I seem to be the only one interested in it.
-
There was a time, when Waymarking was not only open and welcoming to new players, but also to all sorts of new categories, no matter what it was. But we had to learn, when you welcome any trash, then you will end up in a junk yard. We already have a lot of trash categories we will never get rid of. Nobody does want more of them. I think this is something we all can agree with. (just not which ones are the great and the bad categories.
)So now Waymarking has become more restrictive for new categories. When someone wants to create one, he should be prepared to lose and not take it personal. Because it will most probably happen.
I think there is a lot of room between welcoming any new idea and the opposite. My impression (and this might be completely wrong) is, that "in the old days" new ideas where discussed, like "Overprevelant, but if you limit it to..." or "Not that interesting, but if we include..." and so on. Nowadays, new ideas are either "good" or (most of the time) "bad ideas" from the start.
Don't get me wrong, I really DON'T want to continue the "discussion" about my defibrillator idea, but nobody really tried to get this in the right direction. In my second posting I talked about "Outdoor" or "Out of place" Defibrillators. And a few posts later I was informed that on a college campus in Dallas there are lots of them. Yes, there are lots of them, but "Outdoor"??? To me it sounded like "Nope and now shut up" and this is what I will do now. :-)
-
Anyway, it was worth a try.
I don't think the forums here are active enough to get real opinions, just the same small group of nay sayers unless it's their idea.
Waymarking is full of silly ideas, and I believe it has room for yours as well.
Write it up and send it to peer review, there you will get your answers, not here in the forums.
The forum might not be active enough to get a representative answer, but I heard some good arguments against my idea and it doesn't make sense to do all the work, if there isn't at least one other waymarker who is excited about the new idea. But thanks for the positive Feedback "silly idea" :-)
-
When this idea came up the first time, they were still quite rare in my area. But this has changed. My opinion: Over-prevalent, not enough interesting.
It would be a category on the quality level of Payphones, with the same few people posting masses of uninteresting waymarks just to blow up their numbers. And everyone else would do one for the icon. No thanks!
I see payphones many times - every day and everywhere, but hardly any outdoor defibrillators. I really wonder where people would find "masses" of them (at least here in Vienna). Anyway, it was worth a try.
-
In the US I think they are overprevalent -- they are pretty much everywhere, anywhere people congregate. They're God things - cheap, easy to use, and have saved lives. There are hundreds at DFW Airport, dozens at sports arenas, several in high schools, and at least one in every city hall or fire station I have been in. They're in hospitals, large office buildings, train stations, churches, supermarkets, YMCAs -- everywhere!
I'm not sure how interesting they are, or if they are global.
For me, if this becomes a category, it will be a one-and-done.
For me they are more interesting than Radio and Television Transmitter Towers
, but I agree that they will all look alike in certain countries. About prevelance: I would rather create an "Out of place defibrillators" or "Outdoor defibrillators" category - in other words: Hospitals, supermarkets etc. wouldn't be accepted.
-
Lately I was walking around here in Vienna and suddenly I noticed a public defibrillator. I thought that this is a great idea, because everything, that saves lifes, is a good idea. So I did a little research and learned that several of these can be found in Vienna and also in other parts of the world.
What do you think? Would that be a good idea for a new category?
See for example: https://www.wien.gv.at/presse/2015/11/27/drei-oeffentliche-defis-auf-wiener-mariahilfer-strasse-in-betrieb-genommen
-
It is not even a year ago, that a very similar category was denied in peer review. I have no reason to think it would be different this time.
It's true, there are already some other coordinate related categories. But this does not mean we need more of them. A good category has something interesting and physically real to take a picture. A location to take an interesting screen shot of your GPS device does not make the location itself interesting. It would become a try-once category for icon hunters. We don't need that.
100% agreed. The chance to find exotic coordinates where something photo-worthy can be found are very slim.
-
After 8 years with Waymarking I'm more and more unhappy from common problem in many categories, where date (birth, death, construction... et cetera) is one of input data fields. Category leaders used date field in fixed m/d/yyyy format, predominantly as required field. This fixed system is absolutely annoying in many and many cases - for example in Grave of a Famous Person category you can not input date lower than 1000 AD. So I was recently in deep s***s with person with Date of birth / Date of death in period 400-500 AD. And that fields were both REQUIRED, without complete of them you can not send waymark for approval. Similar date problem is in dozens other categories...
So, I'm appealing to officers and leaders of categoreies where is this system used, change it to free text fields, without ordered and fixed date format... I'm using this free format in my categories without any problems and it offers more freedom in date publishing (e.g. ca 1300, 300 BC, beginning of the 9th century - which is common situation in subjects from medieval/ancient periods, where the exact date of the event is mostly unknown and we are under four digit year 1000 AD barrier). IMHO I think, that majority of these categories was taylored only for US users, where known event horizon begins in ca 1650...
). But Waymarking is global and Old World has really longer history.Mike, Dorcadion Team
I may be completely wrong, but the coders should be able to make date fields more "tolerant". I sometimes have a problem with leading zeros (for example "12/01/2008" wouldn't be accepted, but "12/1/2008" is ok). Changing the date fields to text fields is quite a big change, but it should be rather easy to change the rules for date fields.
And: I totally agree to BK-Hunters' request for ONE address input field.
Andreas
-
Expanding the category to include recipients of other, similar, medals and awards from other countries seems to be the next logical step. This category would give us cemetery habitués one more thing to search for in our travels.
Keith
I did a little research and found the following story: A 23 year old paramedic of the Red Cross saved the lives of two girls who got into a vortex while swimming in the Danube. After the girls were saved he lost his strength, got into a vortex himself and drowned. A memorial was erected in front of the Red-Cross-House in Hollabrunn. He also received a "Persönlichkeit des Jahres 2015" (Personage of the year 2015) award. The memorial doesn't mention the award and I guess that his tombstone will not mention it either, but still I think that his sacrifice deserves a waymark. So, do you see any chance that we could add a waymark of this memorial in that category? Or in other words: Will a medal or award be obligatory?
-
I tend to vote against categories which WM's will not be global, as defined in the criteria for voting.
If the category was for "Lifesavers" (no, I'm not talking about the candy), I would be all for it. There are people around the world who risk (and in worst case loose) their lives while trying to save others. Why not include those too as long as the story can be proven?
-
And once again: I wanted to DISCUSS about it.
I am all for a discussion. And as said before, I would welcome other Stolpersteine, not created by the original artist. However, I think my bottom line would be: It has to be something you can STUMBLE over, meaning, something on the ground. I think anything else would dilute the category too much.
All right. No Stolpersteine on walls. :-) Next try is the Holocaust category. Wish me luck. :-)
-
My waymark was about 3 victims and I think that it's a good idea to create a waymark about that. If not in the Stolpersteine category, then in the Holocaust category. And once again: I wanted to DISCUSS about it. If the group says "No, we don't want to change anything and we don't want to talk about it", it is fine for me. If the solution is to post it in the Holocaust category, fine. If they also have a reason to deny it, ok, then I will go and search other waymarks instead. I just wanted to hear what people think. Ok?
It does sound like something nice to Waymark, but could not be included to the Stolpersteine category. I think the proper way to discuss this would be within the category managers, and not just another my WM was denied thread.
I think most of us have had WM's rejected that will fit in other categories. I would submit it to the proper category and move on.
Ok, some more facts for you: ALL the other waymarks of this category so far are plates that are put on the ground. My waymark is the first where they attached it to the wall. In my humble opinion it is legit to ask if this could be accepted by changing the category description. And it is also legit for the group to say "no". And since they will not accept them on the wall, the next question would be: Would the Holocaust group accept them? Or is "Citizen Memorial" better? That's why I thought that discussing it in the forum would be best. This is not a rant about a denied waymark, it's the attempt to find the best solution, because there are a few more that are attached to a wall.
-
I was the one sending this to group vote (and I voted against it).
In your long explanation you forgot to mention one important fact: Your Stumbling Stones" were plaques at a wall. I would have actually approved it (in spite of not being "original") had they been on the sidewalk. The idea of a "Stolperstein" (stumbling stone on German) is that one can stumble over it (That was the basic idea of raising attention to the people who lived in the houses now honored by those stones).
I just don't get how one could stumble over a plaque bolted to a wall four feet above ground.
I have no problem with adding other "Stolpersteine" to the category; in fact I would love to see that other people picked up the artists idea. But they would still have to be stumbling stones, not plaques at a wall.
Once again, my main intention was NOT to get my waymark through review. I understood, that there are 2 problems with it. The "smaller" one is that it is not original. I have seen some of these that have been approved, although they are not original. I appreciate that, although I would feel better it the description would clearly allow the other ones. BTW, what do you think of https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Stolpersteine_in_Rostock? I think it would be great, if the description would clearly define, what is accepted or not.
As far as the other problem, I can see that Stolpersteine on a wall make no sense and so far I just found out that the same association placed some plates into the pavement and a few on walls. I even sent them an email asking for the reason, but haven't received an answer yet. My guess is, that either it was too difficult to do or the city didn't allow it. Or maybe it was just temporarily attached to the wall, because they know that the pavement will soon be restored and they thought it would be much easier to include it when the pavement is renewed. I agree that they should be on the ground, because one of the ideas was that one has to bow to see them and by doing that bows to the victim. On the other hand they still share the same purpose and what if they want to put it on the pavement but merely can't for some reason? It's a difficult decision.
-
I don't understand what you wanted to discuss, other than your WM was denied and you suggested change to the category to accept your WM. Confusing.
Ok, I will try to explain it one more time. Maybe I didn't make my point clear enough, blame it on my bad English.
"Stolpersteine" are small metal plates with the names of Holocaust victims that are produced by the mentioned artist Gunter Demnig. Here in Vienna, Austria some people wanted to order some of these, but they would have to wait for a year or more, because the artist was so busy. So they decided to create their own "Stolpersteine". The are about the same size, are also made of metal, show the name of Holocaust victims and are built into the pavement in front of the house where the victim lived.
If you want to compare: http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMNPJ0 is a real Stolperstein by Gunter Demnig. http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMQZNR is part of the project "Steine der Erinnerung" (Stones of Remembrance) and not done by Gunter Demnig. You will see that they both look pretty similar AND they both have the same purpose. However, the description of the category is currently just allowing the work of Gunter Demnig. That means that all the other similar, but not "real" Stolpersteine would either have to be listed in the Holocaust category or the Citizen Memorials category or ??? or not at all.
My waymark was about 3 victims and I think that it's a good idea to create a waymark about that. If not in the Stolpersteine category, then in the Holocaust category. And once again: I wanted to DISCUSS about it. If the group says "No, we don't want to change anything and we don't want to talk about it", it is fine for me. If the solution is to post it in the Holocaust category, fine. If they also have a reason to deny it, ok, then I will go and search other waymarks instead. I just wanted to hear what people think. Ok?
-
The third option would be to change the description and allow Stolperstein-like memorials to be added to that category. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolpersteine and also https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolpersteine_in_%C3%96sterreich list some of the projects that are similar (Steine der Erinnerung, Erinnern für die Zukunft etc.) to the original.
Enough said, what do the officers and maybe other contributors or visitors think? Can't wait to read your Feedback.
Are you the leader or an officer of the category? Not sure I'm understanding where you are going with your WM was denied so change the category to accept it.
No, I am not the leader of that category and no, I'm not an officer either. And no, I don't want to change the category, because I am not in the position to change it. I offered to discuss about it. That's all. I wish I had never started that thread.
-
Have you sent this in an email to the officers for their discussion? Any change made to the category is wholly within their control.
I sent a message to the leader (to draw his attention to this forum topic), but of course it is all up to them. They don't have to discuss it (neither here nor elsewhere), they can ignore it, whatever ...
It's just that some of the comments of the officers sounded like "it's a borderline thing and we would have to discuss it" and I just thought that it would be easier and more efficient if the discussion is made in the forums, just like we discuss new categories or like we discussed the change of the Anamorphous Street Art category.
In any case I don't want to be a pain in the neck of anybody. It was just an offer.
-
A few days ago I posted a new waymark (WMVBVZ) for the "Stolpersteine" category. It was denied after a voting of the officers, because it's not from the original artist Gunter Demnig and because it's attached to a wall, while all the other Stolpersteine are on the ground. I totally understand and accept that my waymark was denied, but wanted to start a discussion about the idea of changing the description of that category. I think the main question is: Is this category focussing on the work of the artist Gunter Demnig itself or is the main purpose to draw people's attention to the victims? There are several projects that add to the original project. Others might say they are copying Demnig's idea. From the artist's point of view, it might be something bad, but from the visitor's point of view it doesn't make a big difference whether Demnig or someone else shed some light on the bitter fate of these victims.
From my personal point of view I have two options now. I could try to post the waymark in the Holocaust category, but I don't like the idea of having "real" Stolpersteine in one category and "almost real" Stolpersteine in another, since they almost look the same and have the same purpose. Second option is to forget about it, but that doesn't feel good either.
The third option would be to change the description and allow Stolperstein-like memorials to be added to that category. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolpersteine and also https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolpersteine_in_%C3%96sterreich list some of the projects that are similar (Steine der Erinnerung, Erinnern für die Zukunft etc.) to the original.
Enough said, what do the officers and maybe other contributors or visitors think? Can't wait to read your Feedback.
-
Lately I found a vehicle on display and took some photos to create a waymark. But now I don't know which category would fit best. The vehicle is a rectifier (Gleichrichter) on track wheels, which was used to assist the static rectifier substations in times of heavy tram traffic. See the second photo on http://www.strassenbahnjournal.at/wiki/index.php?title=Type_glw
Any ideas?
-
When I enter "Pergolas" (or any other word) in the category search form, all I receive is the "An Error Has Occurred" page. Additionally, the link "Forums" on that page points to http://portal.Groundspeak.com/forums/default.aspx?GroupID=6 which can't be found, while the "forums" link on regular pages points to the working URL http://forums.Groundspeak.com/WM.
It is not just "Pergolas" causing the problem, the search function is not currently working at all. Groundspeak has been notified and will be working on it shortly.
Yes, I know. That's why I added "(or any other word)". :-)
-
When I enter "Pergolas" (or any other word) in the category search form, all I receive is the "An Error Has Occurred" page. Additionally, the link "Forums" on that page points to http://portal.Groundspeak.com/forums/default.aspx?GroupID=6 which can't be found, while the "forums" link on regular pages points to the working URL http://forums.Groundspeak.com/WM.
)
, but I agree that they will all look alike in certain countries. 
Approving One's Own Waymarks...
in General Waymarking Topics
Posted
I think part of the problem is, that there is no easy way to communicate with a group of officers. I wish there was a "Send message to the Group" button somewhere. Many times I sent messages to an officer and after a while even to the leader, and many times I didn't get any answer at all. If you say that "calling out other members" is ugly, then I say "ignoring other members" is ugly too. And just to avoid misunderstandings: I'm not saying that YOU were ignoring other members, but it was once a reason for me to ask a question in the forums with the result that I was "attacked" for doing that.
Another part of the Problem: We are all different people living in different cultures. In one culture you're supposed to talk about "A person/reviewer/waymarker" and describe what he/she did and in other cultures (like mine) it is common to be more specific. If you think (or know) that someone did something wrong, why not be specific?