iconions
-
Posts
661 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by iconions
-
-
On 4/8/2022 at 4:05 PM, ScroogieII said:
And what is a "poor slob", non-coder doing on the support desk in the first place, Tom? I should think a "poor slob" coder would have been of more use in such a position.
"undocumented design features", BTW, should be marketed as what they really are - FREE GIFTS!
Keith
Yea, I've got words for your "free gifts" - they're the gifts that keep on giving. I have done quite well in life being on a Support Desk answering the phones with my 35+ years of experience in Customer Service supporting software with the user perspective in mind. Problem is that esteemed coders usually can only communicate with end users through Post-it notes and whiteboards - not really the milieu of phone support. Besides, do programmers actually ever leave their caves for anything other than more Diet Mountain Dew and cold pizza? I thought that talking to customers would make the developers break out into the D.T.'s? LOL
Nah, I never had the slightest desire to program after dropping a significant stack of unnumbered keypunch cards back in 1978. I pretty much had my fill after that...
-
With my two waytours, I only used the waymarks I created. I did, however list all of the waymarks associated with the site - whether or not the waymark was mine. I felt like if someone was taking the time to follow this tour - it is only fair to cut the person some slack about what other waymarks they could get creditt.
-
On 3/1/2022 at 8:32 AM, FamilieFrohne said:
Thanks for reminding me of this category. I must check, what interesting places can be turned into a waytour in my hometown ....
Well ... my fingers are already black with the sticky ones and zeroes, but at least I can use that to pay my rent ... not like this guy here
See, there are two kinds of people in this world...
Coders...
and the the poor slobs like me on the support desk that have to bear the slings and arrows from customers because of the "undocumented design features" introduced by coders.
Just sayin' ...
-
10 hours ago, Max and 99 said:
The damage is astounding. The pictures I've seen look just like the destruction after the Moore Oklahoma tornado. It looks so so bad from the photos but when you get there in person it's worse than you could have ever imagined. When the streets were cleared a friend who lived in the area said you really have to come by in person to understand the extent of the destruction.
I took photos of something outside a school while I was working there, and just a few months later that entire school with kids inside was flattened by a tornado. Gone.
It's definitely an eerie feeling. I know I survived an apartment fire back in '83 - I only kind of understand what people are going through. Destruction on this scale - no, I can't comprehend. Like I posted, I'm upset I didn't have more time to get more pictures of the town - I love late 19th century, early 20th commercial architecture and Mayfield was a typical town that had preserved the downtown area.
-
Last evening, Mayfield, Kentucky got hit by a very large tornado. I was lucky enough to get a few waymarks of the town, although now, in hindsight, I am kicking myself for not getting more pictures as there were (past tense) great Victorian buildings contributing to the National Register. I'm posting a picture of the Courthouse; news reports are showing that the ENITRE clock cupola has been destroyed and that the surrounding area looks like Godzilla completely stomped through. Needless to say, prayers for all in the affected areas, as well as any support one can spare, would be great be appreciated.
This is why Waymarking isn't about numbers - it is about the moment in time we, as waymarkers, document. Just my two cents....
-
.png)
1
-
-
Yes, there is an edit function Waymarking where one can make changes to other waymarkers submissions and the officers of those categories can approve.
The WRONG way to do this is to completely wipe out the title and use words like GONE instead. Also, no backup - no news article, no picture - nothing submitted as evidence that the item is no longer there.- First, waymarks should not be archived in my opinion - they existed and they need to stay in the record for historical access. This is especially true for historic buildings - my town lost our historic Courthouse this summer with about 6 of my waymarks, cemetery headstones, and monuments and statues; which seem to be especially vulnerable.
- Second, the procedure should be - the title - add (former){title} or something to that nature - do not remove the old title with the word GONE or whatever. ADD information to the LONG DESCRIPTION of the waymark giving the reason for the update AND submit pictures - you need to think of it as a reverse waymark submission. Officers in the category are not in the area and cannot and should not take information without proof. They would not do this for a waymark submission.
I'm really not sure why this topic has to be a thing - it is rather disrespectful to other waymarkers to completely wipe out a title like that so that the waymark no longer shows in the listings.-
.png)
1
-
15 hours ago, ScroogieII said:
Well, Tom, you're certainly more dedicated than myself in rereading a category description at the beginning of each session. I simply can't make myself go to that length. However, my memory is sufficiently spotty that I do find myself referring to the requirements often, especially when presented with Waymarks which don't seem to quite match the requirements as I remember them.
As for a desire to see quality Waymarks, I'm afraid that if I adhered to such a regimen I would be declining about 90% of the submissions that come my way. They may well meet the requirements as stated, but precious few could be considered Quality Waymarks.
Keith
That's probably why I tend to deny more than most and am considered a strict reviewer. Well played on the last statement, though....
-
I was taught to review by the late, great, BruceS. I was taught to look objectively at the submitted waymark and compare it to the standards set by category description - no more; no less. Funny thing- if one READS the category description either before or during their write-up just to make sure they haven't missed anything, they will get an approval from me. There isn't malace or favoritism - just a desire to see quality waymarks.
Just a secret - I go over the category description before I do an approval session for that category just to make sure that I have the requirements fresh in my mind. I do this each and every time. That's probably why I'm the "strict" approver, but I can also back up WHY I sent the denial.
-
.png)
1
-
1
-
-
On 10/25/2021 at 6:30 PM, iconions said:
...and remember that the world is a circle without a beginning where no one knows where it really ends.
You know - a joke REALLY isn't funny if you hafta explain it....
https://genius.com/Burt-bacharach-the-world-is-a-circle-lyrics
Just Sayin' .... I at least thought, Keith, you being at least as old a fart as I am, you woulda given me a well played or at least a smiley.... -
On 10/24/2021 at 3:09 PM, ScroogieII said:
First, Andreas, I wouldn't trust Google translate completely.
This may have been a typo, or the result of an incomplete education, as "Heptagonal" should always translate to "Heptagonal" and nothing else.
If one peruses the definitions offered by several dictionaries they will find nothing but agreement on the meaning of the word Heptagonal.
Heptagon definition is - a polygon of seven angles and seven sides. - Merriam-Webster
Heptagon Definition. A heptagon is a polygon with 7 sides and 7 angles. Sometimes the heptagon is also known as "septagon". - byjus.com
Heptagon definition, a polygon having seven angles and seven sides. - Dictionary.com
English dictionary definition of heptagon. heptagon n. A polygon with seven sides and seven angles. - The Free Dictionary
Definition. A heptagon is a polygon with seven sides and seven angles.. A heptagon is also known as 7-gon or septagon. - Math Monks
AND, should you need to find the area of a regular heptagon:
The area of a regular heptagon with side length 'a' is calculated using the formula, Area = (7a²/4) cot (π/7)
The Free Dictionary, incidentally, redirects from Hectagon to Polygon
From the Free Dictionary:
As for an Official List of English Words, I used to have that, or certainly the next best thing. It was a very large, two volume dictionary entitled, I believe, The Complete Oxford English Dictionary. I likely ended up donating or selling it when we moved as it was deemed too big to lug around the country and had been effectively superseded by myriad online clones.However, the Compact Edition of The Oxford English Dictionary can still be had at Amazon for the ridiculously low price of U.S. $452.49.More than 100 years in the making, The Oxford English Dictionary is now universally acknowledged as the world's greatest dictionary--the supreme arbiter on the usage and meaning of English words.The online Dictionary contains the complete A to Z sequence of the Second Edition, its three-volume Additions Series, and also draft material from the revision programme, which represents the latest progress towards the Third Edition. More revised and new entries will be added to the online Dictionary every quarter, and these will eventually cumulate to form the complete new edition.
The online edition requires an annual subscription of £100/$100, BUT may be available to you, free, if your library subscribes to it.
The complete Second Edition of The Dictionary, published in 1989, consists of 20 volumes, with 21,730 pages.Since that time there have been three volumes of additions, adding ~1,000 pages, with further online additions following.This, then would have to be the "official source to find out what words exist in English or not" that Andreas requested.Hectagonal is not a word I've had occasion to utter with any regularity. With my septuagenarian eyesight, a Hectagon becomes just a circle.
Keith
...and remember that the world is a circle without a beginning where no one knows where it really ends.
-
On 6/18/2021 at 5:41 PM, ScroogieII said:
Trust Tom to always be the one to be at the ballgame which provides the exception!
Keith
We have had several of these go up around town temporarily, especially down at our Union Station. They are especially popular when our sports teams get ready for opening day or they go into the playoffs....
-
Believe it or not, URLs go bad. People do not pay to keep websites active. Please remember this when you are posting waymarks and you only just put the URL link in as the long description. If that URL goes bad in a year or 10, what happens to that information? Go ahead and put the actual information into the long description and use the URL as the sourced reference.
-
4
-
-
27 minutes ago, adgorn said:
I'm trying to change the "Website for more information:"on https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/wm41JQ_Todd_M_Beamer_Center_Wheaton_College_Wheaton_IL but it won't retain the new one I put in.
I made the edit - the reason you couldn't was that the waymark was REALLY old and the date of dedication was in the wrong format. You had to edit it, also.
-
9 hours ago, Max and 99 said:
I recently asked for clarification in a category in which I was doing most of the recent reviewing. I was shot down by the leader and my question ignored.
I know I appreciated you getting back with me helping me get past my ignorance on a category I was reviewing - it was appreciated.
As far as the other category - I would rather someone get with me first than get pissed off at me after I denied it. -
13 hours ago, PISA-caching said:
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.
That's pretty funny - you called out the same waymarker on two of the three categories.
Just to be fair, and to make sure that we are comparing apples to apples and not to toaster ovens, the Feeding the Animals category isn't trying to be the catch-all category like Dated Buildings Multifarious is. The reason for all of the restrictions is because of the catch-all nature of the category - if the founder just allowed anything with a date, then it wouldn't have passed peer review - too broad and covered by other categories - which is one of the four main reviewable tenets. The founder HAD to be VERY restrictive of what could and couldn't be accepted because of what he was trying to get waymarked. Dated buildings weren't allowing non-historical plaques or other kinds of very specific dated material and it was better to get that put in as a category than to get the category denied for being too broad.
Your impression isn't true. Categories are created to: a.) get approved in peer review; and b.) create a set minimum expectation to both the waymarker AND the officer of what is expected as to a successful waymark. Unfortunately, the b part is just the minimum - your statement about "interesting" waymarks is dependent on the waymarker - not the officer and certainly not on the category creator. The category creator gives the framework - the skeleton for the waymark. The waymarker can either pretend s/he is in 7th grade art class and turn that in and get by; or actually go above and beyond the minimums and try to create a Picasso; a Rembrandt; a Pollock. That's on the waymarker - not on the officer or the category creator. As far as officers not understanding what is or isn't acceptable in a category - that officer has a duty to get with the category creator and ASK!!!!! I still ask for clarification and I have been doing this since it started. -
Here's my take - I'm usually working either historic buildings on the National Register here in the US or I'm in a cemetery working Woodmen or Historic figures or what not. I'm doing some significant research, especially on these buildings, and yes, if I find that the building was a former bank, or a former Post Office, or has a cornerstone, or whatever, I am going to post whatever waymarks are going to be germaine for that situation. Think about it, your research isn't just for other waymarkers, it could be useful for students, etc. Cross posting could draw someone interested in former banks, but not in the National Register. Also, if my research was deep enough, another waymarker may not FIND that reference to the former Post Office, etc.
If you only want to post one waymark per object, great! Don't, however, get upset if another waymarker follows behind you and grabs however many waymarks they can find on that object - 99.9% will not followup with just one - I wouldn't, especially if I wrote a very lengthy long description... -
1 hour ago, 401Photos said:
Because St. Joseph Cemetery Chapel ( https://stjosephashtonri.org/st-joseph-cemetery ) includes spaces for 250 cremations in marble wall niches, it doesn't fit the requirements for "Cemetery Chapels" since the category states "no remains". It belongs to a Catholic parish half a mile north. Suggested categories? The cemetery itself has already been Waymarked in "Worldwide Cemeteries". "Religious Buildings Multifarious" appears to want places that host regularly scheduled worship services. Nice building, but I'm feeling stuck. Thanks!
Since the building allows remains, this makes the building a mausoleum. This is why, when I wrote the category description, I had to state that no remains could be in the chapel - mausoleums were already accepted.
-
Here we have a classic example of WHY we have peer review for new categories. Talk about a category that is completely subjective - one person's "urban legend" may not be another's... Then, you have the creator of the category bugging out of Waymarking the same year he created this "interesting" piece of Waymarking.
My question is - if you expand to just "Legends", and these are people, how would this be different than "Epic Beings" if Epic Beings allow a statue of Lewis and Clark to be included in their category???? -
3 hours ago, NW_history_buff said:
As the leader of this potential category who took over the role from lumbricus, the vision and emphasis is to create a home for those works of funerary art that wouldn't be accepted in the myriad of other existing categories, through whatever reasons. Most, if not all other categories in question, have the potential to include funerary art but don't for whatever reasons (leaders/officers don't want to make an amendment to their categories, inactive officers in categories don't respond to messages, etc.). I'd like to think of funerary art much like I do of the Dated Architectural Structures Multifarious category It's a dedicated, last-resort repository for beautiful and eye-catching works of art that would be rejected anywhere else in the Waymarking community but would have a home in this category.
Outspoken1 and I are collaborating together on the fine-tuning of the category details. We agree on most aspects but disagree on one argument, that being how inclusive/exclusive we want this category to be. I've adopted a more exclusive 'vision' for this category since I don't personally want it to be a category that could also be cross posted into a number of other categories. I've started putting together a growing list of excluded categories in the category description much like I did with the Dated Architectural Structures Multifarious category. For example, Woodmen of the World and zinc headstones have their own respective categories, and although a small number of them possess a 'wow' factor, wouldn't be accepted in Funerary Art.
It should also be mentioned that there are a good number of cemetery works of art around the world that aren't figurative in nature, as I've come across dozens of photos that argue that point but possess other 'wow' factors. I'm in the process of putting together photo collages of funerary art for the category description that would qualify and photos of art that wouldn't qualify by either being too mainstream, mass-produced or not possessing enough of a 'wow' factor. Outpoken1 pointed out to me recently that a large work of funerary art shouldn't be the determining factor in whether it deserves inclusion in the category. I agree. I've seen some amazing photo examples of cemetery works of art that aren't substantial in size but definitely possess a 'wow' factor. I hope to be able to provide examples of what constitutes a 'wow' work of art compared to other less appealing works of art.
Another argument I have is to possibly limit the number of individual funerary art submissions in a particular cemetery to possibly the top five works they encounter (much like the Woodmen of the World category). Why, you ask? Well, I've come across many cemetery landscape photos online of headstones of funerary art that would technically qualify in the dozens in one cemetery. Including this limitation to the top five funerary works of art would encourage waymarkers to narrow down the options to their five favorite works of art as well as allow other waymarkers to contribute from the same cemetery.
I welcome comments and suggestions from the community.
I've only come across a couple of zincs that I would say have the "Wow" - this being the most impressive: https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/wmDDGN_J_E_Barrow_Mt_Mora_Cemetery_St_Joseph_Mo
I like the idea of limiting submissions - I know in Bellfountaine Cemetery in St. Louis there are some spectacular examples that I can't wait to load into the category....
I hope we can see a proposed description before peer review.... -
23 hours ago, The Snowdog said:
... a game in which you go 'round and 'round and 'round with the reviewer about how something is spelled, but neither of you notice that the coordinates are in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean until after it's published.
Sometimes the map works for the reviewers - sometimes it doesn't. You put your money down and you take your chances....
-
19 hours ago, T0SHEA said:
Thank you for the suggestion. Charlie Lake Memorial
You are welcome.
-
8 hours ago, PISA-caching said:
That's why I wrote "(theoretically!)".
As you said, "usually". There are exceptions though: https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/wmMJHE and the category should say, if and under which circumstances these exceptions will also be approved.
Again, that is exactly why I wrote what I wrote. The deal breaker with cross posting is if ALL of one type of waymark is going to go into the new category, As is being demonstrated so far as I can see, this is not the case. Of course, I always reserve final judgement until I see the real mockup of the category description - so far, we are still dealing with caviar wishes and Champaign dreams...
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, T0SHEA said:
This monument is about the loss of life in a overturned pontoon boat.
Not quite a ship wreak. I know about Citizen Memorial. What about the accident? Is there a category for this?
.JPG.e6122141832763324f2eab6dd4fe991a.JPG)
May 14, 1942
This monument is dedicated to the memory of the United States
soldiers lost with the sinking of a US Corp of Engineers Pontoon Barge
on May 14, 1942 at Charlie Lake, British Columbia, Canada
I would also post this under World War II Memorials. This was part of the U.S. Army's efforts to build the Trans Alaska Highway during that war and this incident was the largest single loss of life that occurred. It cannot go under Non Specific Veterans because only one war was involved. Specific Veterans is out because multiple units were involved. This involved active duty Army personnel so the Citizen Memorial category would be out. Hope this helps.
-
18 minutes ago, Outspoken1 said:
Again, I did NOT say all those categories should be excluded. I wanted input as to include/exclude. I prefer an inclusive category. As I wrote above, I am not against cross posting. I also support any type of art - figurative and abstract. But I want input from others so we understand what we want the category to accomplish. Thak you so much for your comments and guidance!
Take care, Outspoken1 (Sandy)
My take - make it true Funerary art - that is, it must be part of a headstone or grave marker. I can tell you that the Veterans Memorials , both Specific and non-specific are now out of the picture as they specifically exclude headstones. Woodmen markers, as a general rule, should be denied as most were mass produced tree trunk style markers (there were other tree trunk style markers sold by Sears through the catalogue, another story.) A lot of late 19th and early 20th Century headstones had very shallow, mass produced, relief art put into the stones - hands pointing up, hands shaking, pearly gates opening, etc. These probably should be denied - otherwise your category is just going to be overwhelmed with the mundane. Broken Columns are usually pretty austere and devoid of decoration - this reflects the fact that the column is demonstrating a life cut short before it had reached its full potential. My concern is that officers in this category are just not going to have the knowledge of what is mass produced and what is actually unique, It takes time and walking lots of cemeteries to gain that kind of knowledge...
Other categories such as dead poets, graves mentioning cause of death, and other headstone categories should not be a concern. There will be some cross-over, however, not every dead poet grave or other headstone category headstone will fit here - far from it.
-
1
-
2
-
Just sayin' ...
.png)
.png)
.png)
.JPG.e6122141832763324f2eab6dd4fe991a.JPG)
question on WayTours
in General Waymarking Topics
Posted
You have 15,000 characters in which to play with in the long description. It sounds like a lot RIGHT up to the point you start playing with html to make the long description look really nice.
Here is my waytour of a few of the sites of a U.S. Civil War Raid into Lawrence, Kansas, near where I live:
https://Waymarking.com/waymarks/wm13X7N_Re_Ride_with_the_Devil_Quantrills_1863_Raid_Lawrence_Kansas
The waymarks I posted all have to do with the stop - not with anything nearby. My thought is that it is more important to give the opportunity to get the visits of the object of the stop that to start wandering off my WayTour. This is especially important when person doing the tour gets to Downtown Lawrence. I have almost every building from 5th to 11th Street along Massachusetts waymarked, and if I added what's nearby, I wouldn't have space. Besides, there was a tremendous amount of information I had to cut to fit the 15,000 character limit as it was.
Again, I was only concerned with the object at hand and only at the time of publication. It helps that I am one of the few waymarkers in Kansas.
I literally have only 46 out of the 15,000 characters left that I can add to the long description for this waytour.