Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RuiJSDuarte

  1. Porque é que dizes que a cache está desactivada há 4 anos?!
  2. My first´s nicknames also reflects your aproach... The most commun was "ilecoguyli"... ecoguy was taken so I add to it an "i" and one "l" to each end. Over the time it turned into "Leco", cause of some friends. In Geocaching it´s plain "RuiJSDuarte" because I wanted to be identified right away... If some tima was taken thinking, it would probably be "RJDuarte".
  3. Well, i´ve took a look in the Database and there´s 30 other countries were the monuments, and so, can be found. I guess is global enough. Seems a nice addiction to the categories.
  4. If away from a church - Worldwide Cemeteries If next to a church - Churchyard Cemeteries If kind of a abandoned - Abandoned Cemeteries I found one of that places and it went to the Worldwide Cemeteries - http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMK0ZB_Cistas_das_Casas_Velhas_Melides_Portugal
  5. Well, I was not very convinced the first time when reading about it but the description now have gain my vote! Plain and simple and with the suport of the "similar" categorie. Thumbs up!
  6. I don't know if in the link would be accepted but it´s really the same concept with another name. A nice addiction although... try to submit there and gives us some feedback.
  7. Hum... ok, some problably will do but ( ) the "from above the door to the cornice." will stop most of them ( ).
  8. I also thinks that it could be a good addition, as stated in another nearby topic.
  9. About nº two, what if something like "Self-service bike stations" and accept all kind of self-service dedicated bike stuff that isn´t covered by other bike categories? I dont know many things that would be accepted around here but I know three or four. A couple self-services DEDICATED bike washers and a water/air DEDICATED station (like those for cars but along a bike trail). Can make a good categorie, i think.
  10. Maybe it... I will give it a shot. TKS
  11. His there a categorie for the "1ª stone" of a building or so? Those plaques indicating the start?
  12. Thanks Tmob for showing me this tread. Well, did this ideia died?! @Chickilim, can it return to discussion?
  13. Anyones knows if this kind of things are already covered by previous categories? Old/Traditional pigeon lofts/houses like this: I took a lot in "Aviaries" but they doesnt seem to fit. And for these kind of monochrome tiled houses?
  14. Well, my first thoughts into the NG categorie came from were "http://www.geopt.org/index.php?option=com_jfusion&Itemid=53&jfile=viewtopic.php&f=124&t=572&p=177787#p177787", a topic regarding the show-off of new obtain waymarks... so, you can think that but we are doing our bit to "recruit" new people to WM. Odly enouth, it just reach 1000 posts and was created a long ago. There´s some more topics of Waymarking discussions there, with a good amounth of opinions too. Take a look.
  15. However using that forum to recruit "ringers" who do not care about Waymarking and will not participate in Waymarking to vote yes for a category that is not ready is bad form and is a disservice to Waymarking. You didn´t understand my comment. I´m recruiting them to became Waymarkers. Just. The forum have hundreds of users...
  16. So, continuing the discussion... The Table of contents for Feb2014 - http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2014/02/table-of-contents @Tante.Hossi [Many good reasons for 'NAY' have already been written. Here's one more: It's totally redundant to the existing category 'Newsarticle Locations', where all the locations of those magazine articles can be posted.] -That´s just for news (in Portugal news and articles are diffent things) and just for online ones. -And if we narrow the sources for only printed magazines (and for just the magazine from a specifc country)? That will do for you? @Sage Rat 5 "Advertisement for magazine sales" Well, i´m a polite guy... and for me this is not a problem. Anyone can borrow my library card fi needed. @Metro2 "I think this will make a good category..but as others have mentioned...first it should have "National Geographic" in it's title. Secondly, there should be time to discuss in the forums for the many good suggestions already mentioned here in peer review." Both taking care of. @Noe1 "The fact that about the particular place writes (any) magazine for me does not bring any added value to the place. I'm sure that 100% of the places about which NG writes can be placed into one or more existing categories - eg wikipedia entries. For me very strongly not." Just to say that I will not adress matthers regarding the wikipedia! I personnaly consider a waste of time. Besides the (to me now) obvious poor description and so described by @BruceS I think that most of the other issues would be solved if One Printed Edition was chosen to be used. The "Original Edition" is the obvious choise but for those who keeps repeting wikipedia the Portuguese Edition can be better as I will bet some money against the heavyweight Wikipedia vs the Portuguese locations described. Tahks a lot for all the imputs!
  17. Well, i´ve took a look before thinking about the NG category and to me, "mine" isn´t about news.
  18. Let me shed some light were too... There´s a Portuguese Forum, called Geopt, dedicated to Geocaching that is growning in Waymarking visibility too, thanks to a few Geoachers/Waymarkers and to the discussions around the theme. There´s the place where most activity around both those subjects starts. I hope to convert some more Geocachers to Waymarking there and you can find some of them in those numbers you present.
  19. "Ok, it is probably better to narrow it to just One Edition, the one in "nationalgeographic.com" in order to get allways the same name and not one in Portuguese, other in Spanish and so on. edit - and it would be less prevalent. " From my latest answer... cause you are probably right.
  20. @Chasing Blue Sky "Comments: While your proposal has a nugget of something that could be a good category, you rushed through peer review so fast that you didn't give it time to gather an appropriate amount of input. There are many experienced waymarkers who have been through this process, some many times, who could have given you excellent guidance. But you didn't stick around long enough to have benefited from their wealth of knowledge. Clearly, one day is way too quick to gather enough helpful information to improve, refine and focus your category. Certainly, not all waymarkers read the forums on a daily basis. Realistically, if this were my submission, I would have waited at least a week after getting my last category proposal comment in the forums, before thinking of going to peer review. Had you really taken the time to get input from others, you likely would have avoided many, if not all, of the "Nay" votes here. Many of the problems I see have already been stated. I'll expand on one that I see as a fatal flaw - that the category is too broad. Any main article from any of the international National Geographic magazines, really? Do you intend to allow submissions for the National Geographic TV sites, as well? They are also listed on the National Geographic website. Even if not, I believe the category is too broad. How would you manage a submission for, say, Paris? I understand that you would only allow one submission - great. At least in the beginning, the first Paris submission is the easy part. I see that the City of Paris is 33.5 square miles. Where in that huge area should the geo-location be? Can it be anywhere in the city? Should the location be somehow tied to the picture(s) being submitted with the proposed waymark? What if the submitter uploaded pictures of the Eiffel Tower, the Arc de Triomphe, Notre Dame Cathedral, and the Louvre? Again, where should the geo-location be? How do you keep any other waymarkers from wasting their time submitting a Paris waymark, when they couldn't see your category icon on the map? What if there are many of your category icons within Paris for specific sites/objects? Do they have to search them all to see if one is for Paris, itself? Do waymarkers have to wade through the entire list of your category's waymarks to determine whether Paris has already been submitted. Wading through the first 20 or so submissions might not be so cumbersome; will waymarkers be so eager to search out Paris in your category when there are thousands of waymarks in your category? Two or three years down the road, are you going to remember all of the waymarks that have been approved? Are you going to have to research each submission to ensure that the article it is referencing hasn't already been submitted? How will you keep track? Do you really want to take on that kind of responsibility? My suggestion, and it's only a suggestion, is that if you want to pursue this category idea, you should approach it more like the following categories: Ansel Adams Photo Hunt, Tourist Stamps Photos, Photos Then and Now, and Movie Locations. In other words, the object is to find a picture found in National Geographic and do your best to reproduce it - in person. That way, you are focusing waymarkers on a specific location, even if that location is a sweeping view overlooking Paris from the top of the Eiffel Tower. That would narrow the category focus, it would tie it to a specific site or object at a specific location, and make it easy to tell if it has already been submitted - for both the submitter and you! Just my two cents - OK, maybe a few more than two..." Well, thank you! Realy. Let me try to explain a bit my thoughts. First, when I want to submit a WM, I use the "search". For example, I want to know if there´s a WM related to "way of st james" in Portugal. It´s easy with the search, right? So, when I say that the name fo the WM should be "Article denomination" it was supposed to mean the Article Name, so that if I have "the" WM in Paris and the article name was "The City of Lights" (the waymark should have the same name) when another waymarker search it, even not chosing the country, the search result will return it easily. I guess. That was my thought. Ok, it is probably better to narrow it to just One Edition, the one in "nationalgeographic.com" in order to get allways the same name and not one in Portuguese, other in Spanish and so on. edit - and it would be less prevalent.
  21. Well, thank you all very much for the inputs, the goods one and the not so good ones. Let me try to shed some light about the issues raised... responding to the issues posted in the votes. 1 - The poor discussion in the proper forum. Well, is this matter new? I see (until now) 6 Replies in 75 Views in my topic! I thought that the interest in the discussion was none. I can give you many more examples like the "New Category: Geocaching Event Sites (world-wide) " with 8 Replies for 229 Views. But, maybe it is only my impression and I sincerely apologize for that! 2 - From - BruceS "This category may have merit however the category description need some work. What do you want included in the submission...What information is wanted in description." -I give you that! Thank you! Either way, this will be done right way, no matter if it passes or not. "What do you want included in the submission...need to set minimum number photos (1, more than 1), realizing more would be desired for broader topic." -Thank for the suggestion, also to be done! Also would be good to have native English speaking individual review description as the translation needs some help. -Roger that. "I know idea was brought up in forums however this was posted before discussion. It would have been better to post the link to category so it could have been viewed before putting to vote." -My bad, didn't realize the possibility to do this. 3 - From Max and 99 "Are you referring to NG Magazine or National Geographic Magazine? Come on, guys. Call it what it is. NG Magazine is an online entertainment source, so do you want submissions for any place mentioned in their magazine? If not, call the category National Geographic, NOT NG." Ok, it was a matter of shortening the category name and avoiding issues with copyrights or so. 4 - From condor1 "National Geographic Magazine... didn't quite get the NG was an attempt to circumvent copywrite." ...as above. "1. Needs more specific requirements for posting." ...as above. "2. This one will be a bear to review if there are multiple articles in different issues." "3. Set specific minimum guidelines for number of pictures." ...as above. "4. Describe specific information requirements in the Long Description." ...as above. "These are just a few, but I review in 38 categories and have seen many well documented categories as well as some way to generic ones. Refine the category before letting it publish." Thank you very much! 5 - thebeav69 "I like the idea but I had no way of knowing that this was for the National Geographic magazine. I also don't appreciate categories appearing in Peer Review without a proper forum debate to hash out the details, like working on this poorly written long description, for one. I can't approve until the verbiage is made more clear." Ok, answered above. 6 - Benchmark Blasterz "We think this needs a narrower focus - any place mentioned in any Nat Geo magazine article published anytime seems overly broad." This is not the goal. The goal is to focus in the Subject of the Article. For example, if the article´s about a Lake, ONE waymark about the lake can be posted, not one about the pier described and another about the diving platforms described and another about the boat ramp described and so on. One WM for the Major Subject, the one the title refers to. "I also think the long description needs tightening up -- more specifics would help reviewers and WM posters. Bring this back to the forum and let's work on it together, then you will get a yes from us!" ...as above. 7 - Tuena "You're giving lip service to the forum discussion. NG means absolutely nothing. If it is an attempt to circumvent copyright then should you have progressed with the idea? The instruction are too brief. My doctor's reception has National Geographic's so old they should be handed over to the National Archive. How would you verify an article from one of these magazine? I clicked on your link in the forum but that's no good as should be in the instructions. I did a search of National Geographic Magazine website for a year in the 1970s for Australian articles & got 4 but only one was actually in Australia. I then did a search for Skylab which crashed in Australia's outback. Got an error eg This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below. Forum discussion would have raised this & other concerns. Appears you would be hard pressed to reject postings of articles appearing in old magazines." I get the concerns. If you find that special place you want to point out in one old magazine (!great!) you should do what you can to prove it exists, no? A rough picture of the cover or the index should suffice, I guess. Speaking for myself, I not expecting to get bogus waymarks just to get the grid complete... 8 - ddtfamily "If calling this "National Geographic" rather than "NG" isn't possible, it shouldn't be a category. But assuming we can just call it what it is, I'm confused about how this adds to the Waymarking "catalog", if you will. Essentially anything in National Geographic already exists as a Wikipedia article and is therefore, waymarkable in that category. I don't see the purpose of this category." Well, let me point out that most of what we waymark may already exist in the Wikipedia, all the different museums categories, churches, castles, forts, and so on. For me this is not realy a problem. Either way, I thing this isn't not true "anything in National Geographic already exists as a Wikipedia article". 9 - stinger503 "Too prevalent, what happens if multiple articles cover the same subject. Or better yet, what happens if different countries cover the same subject?" Well, this is in the description. More as soon as possible... ... fell free to exploit all the above, please.
  22. Well, the "NG Magazine Articles Locations" is out for you to vote!
  23. O requisito para se logar um found é assinar o logbook. Se encontraste as caches e entretanto passaram a PMs, combina com o owner uma altura para que o mesmo te possibilite o accesso, passando a cache a BM por uma hora, por exemplo. Acho que ninguem te recusará isso. Outra maneira que não experimentei é fazendo o upload das fieldnotes para site, é capaz de dar. As challenges são diferentes. Tens de cumprir o que é pedido. Nesse caso, uma cache por cada dia é uma cache EM cada dia, não 366 caches em 200 dias, é uma por dia de calendário.
  • Create New...