silverquill

While I sympathize with your cause, Ian, I think prevalence and permanence might be problems for such a category. I've got some photos of some gorgeous black swans in Chapultepec Park in Mexico City. They were taken in 1964, and I didn't have my Garmin with me, so I guess I can't use them for a waymark. Oh, well.

FIRST of Its Kind accepts other wording, such as oldest, original, etc., IF the wording indicates that the site commemorates something that was the first of its kind. In the Case of Dunant, probably a "FIRST OF" is not indicated. I suppose one might exrapolate that he was the first member of the Red Cross. John Wesley was the founder of the Methodist Church, so was he the FIRST member? I would say that unless the plaque or sign clearly indicated this, then they waymark might not fit. As the founder of the Superlatives category, which was started partly to include sites that didn't qualify for the FIRST of Its Kind, I'm also ambivalent about including these. Of course, the category doesn't accept "plaque only" waymarks anyway. I don't think a category for the few cases of these that would not fall into some other category would be such a good idea. With a little head scratching, I bet you could find a home for them.

That is at least close to a record for a waymark. I've seen a few with 20-30, which is rare. Yes, it takes a lot of time. Could you post the link to that waymark? I'd love to see it.

Sure, I think it is a great idea, but who would publish it? I think there is a very limited market, unfortunately.

I don't think there are enough of these to sustain a category. AND, these could be submitted to the Superlatives category. We accept fish tales!

This is an oversight on my part. I will add this to the key word list.

I think things are fine in Germany! Germany and the Czech Repulbic have contributed so much to Waymarking.com It is great to see all of the activity from Europe. Looking for it to spread even more. In regard to your two situations above. Certainly Waymarking every house on a street may seem extreme or silly, it is still a valid way to approach these. And, there may be value in having each of these individually waymarked. A similar thing happens with the NRHP Contributing Buildings category in the U.S. Many of these official historic districts have hundreds, even thousands, of qualifying buildings. It is not uncommon for every house on a street to be listed. They may all be very similar. Even so, I think there is value in each individual waymark. As group leader for both the Murals and the Graffiti category, let me say that in most cases individual waymarks are preferred. This is especially true of murals if each one is a distinct work of art. It is not uncommon to find high density areas of these. Each one of theme deserves its own waymark with its own set of photos and description. Graffiti is more difficult because these street art creations often run together. I would suggest looking for logical divisions or groupings. Perhaps all graffiti on one building or one section of wall. Even then, a building or wall might have easily identified, separate, graffiti creations, and these can be done individually.

Okay, time to take a deep breath. You are correct, of course, that this a clear example of a waymark that should not have been approved. There could be many reasons, but probably the reviewing officer did not really read the waymark. (The description itself is very poor). Or, maybe the reviewer is not familiar with the category guidelines. Maybe he was just tired and inattentive. I've made mistakes myself in approving a category that shouldn't have been approved. What to do? Usually a short, polite note to the person who reviewed the waymark is sufficient. That person can then use the "reconsider" function and decline the waymark. I know that I appreciate having someone point out an error like this. If there really is a deeper issue, then other options are available. An alternative would be to send a polite note to the person who submitted the waymark. Probably they just submitted it to the wrong category, since there are two for scenic viewpoints and they are named quite similarly. I have a hard time keeping them straight myself. Mistakes happen. Just find the easiest and most polite way to deal with it.

Thanks for your long and considerate response. I won't go point by point, but just add a few comments. Are my arguments motivated by subjective reasoning? Are your arguments NOT motivated by subjective reasoning? Of course we bring to the table our personal evaluations and judgments concerning these things. Opinions by definition are subjective. We speak from the values that we hold, and that is subjective. I think we strive to anchor ourselves in something greater than personal whim, however. But, it seems that you want to dismiss all of my arguments by suggesting that they are "motivated by subjective reasoning." What we should be concerned about are inconsistencies of reasoning and logic. Have you heard of the logical fallacies of reductio ad absurdum and "straw man?" Or even the one known as reductio ad Hitlerum? Of course I see the lunacy in some of the things you suggest, but none of them follow logically from what I'm suggesting in regard to categories for war memorials and veterans. What I am suggestion is that these categories be set up as objective, historical categories. (Why you think this implies what you call the "romantic beast" of pacifism is a mystery to me). To bring in the possibility of celebrating perpetrators of the Jewish holocaust, racial terrorists, or mass murderers is to resort to the logical fallacies mentioned above. None of those things are implied by what I have said, Maybe this thread has gone so far afield that we've forgotten the original question. The initial issue raised was the inclusion of only U.S. memorials in the Vietnam War Memorial category. I think that you clarified this by stating that all memorials for allied forces are indeed accepted and that all memorials to the opposing side are excluded. It is that exclusion which is in question.. Your argument, as it seems to me, is based on a clear view of what and who is'was right and wrong. By claiming to take the moral high ground you try to put those who disagree with you in the realm of those who have lost their moral compass. Such is not the case. My contention is merely that as a matter of history we see both sides and record sites that relate to that history. Hypothetically, if I were to create a waymark commemorating the fallen Viet Cong, would that imply that I support their ideology, their cause, or condone their atrocities? I don't think so. Another example: Although having substantial differences, a waymark for the Hiroshima Peace Memorial would not suggest support for the atrocities of the Japanese Empire during (and before) WWII, but would commemorate those who perished from U.S. bombing. Nor would it imply that the dropping of the bomb was morally wrong. The waymark is for the memorial. It seems that you would view a waymark in memory of the fallen enemy as an endorsement of their ideology and approval of their atrocities. If the waymark is written objectively, I think that is not the case. So, we will probably not resolve this difference of opinion. Nonetheless, please do not think that I don't have a sense of morality, or that I don't value the difference between righteousness and evil. Believe me, living in this divided country that has suffered so much, the distinctions are very clear. My town is home to the national Independence Hall which dramatically presents the struggle for freedom here. And, my visit to the U.N. Memorial Cemetery in Pusan was a moving experience, especially the wall containing the names of every allied casualty of the war, from many nations. This excludes the far larger number of Korean casualties. And, there are NO memorials anywhere to the North, although I have visited the summer home used by Kim Il Sung, which fell below the DMZ when it was drawn. Or I could mention the WWII memorial in Manila with its tens of thousands of names as an equally moving experience. No, we are not in danger of forgetting! ~~silverquill writing from Cheonan, Rep. of Korea

I've not seen these. I'm really surprised Koreans haven't made any of these. They love to pose for pictures. The closest I've seen have been some heart frames. So, Waymarking would allow me to see these and learn about them. Cool enough for a category in my book! We don't need a million to make a good category.

This is a fascinating idea. Okay, so maybe there is a lack of prevalence, but I think that is irrelevant. One of the values of Waymarking is education - learning new things. There are many categories for things I'd never heard of, but now know about because of Waymarking. The set of architecture categories is a good example. So, this category would help me learn about insect hotels. This would be a more challenging category than "fountains," which are everywhere, but I think that is a valid reason for having a category. We might find some in the most unexpected places. Be sure to exclude common bee hives and apiaries, though.

Your question is unclear. Are you an officer in these groups, or a regular member, and what about the inactive members you're concerned about - officers or regular members? In active members are not particularly a problem. If the group manager wants to remove them, that's fine, but really they are just names on a list. Having inactive officers may or may not be a problem, and there are different ways to define inactive. The real question is, "Is this category functioning well?"? There is one large category that has only one active office who has approved ALL of the waymarks in that category. The other two others never log in and have zero waymarks created and zero waymarks visited. It seems to have been created and run by someone with a big ego who has paid to have two sock-puppets as place holders just so he can control the category. Then there are some categories that have a long slate of officers who login regularly but seldom review waymarks. So, in my book, they are inactive and are just dead weight. It is really up to the group leader to maintain the officer rolls. There may be a good reason why someone is inactive but wants to maintain a presence within a category. With all of that said, it is still certainly fine for another officer to call for a vote to demote an inactive officer. It might just be good to contact that person first out of courtesy, or maybe the group leader knows something. But sometimes we just need to clear out the dead wood.

I think most of the respondents in this thread have given honest thought to this matter. That can still result in disagreement. There is no question that the veteran/war memorial collection of categories is an inconsistent mess. It is probably one of the best arguments for having a more centralized organization and development of categories. Which categories accept sites that are part of a larger memorial and which accept only sites specific to one war? I still can't keep them straight. So, there is a lot of room to argue about how these categories should be created. One thing that you have to keep in mind, though, is that Waymarking.com strives to be a truly global, international hobby. That means that there may be very different views of who or what is "honorable" or "evil." Should a category be constructed to promote the view or values of one group of people? This is probably best illustrated by the U.S. Civil War Memorials category. Both the Union and the Confederacy considered their cause just and honorable and honored their fallen as honorable heroes in defense of freedom. A case could be made, I suppose, for having two categories, but the single category accepting memorials for both North and South has the more objective, historical perspective. Perpetuating these division base on our perception of who is right and who is wrong continues to promote the divisions of ideology and nationalism. I think that a Waymarking category has a great opportunity to bring a historical, objective approach to an otherwise divisive and emotional area. How much sense does it make to have two categories for every war, one for each side? That is certainly not my vision of a way to promote peace. That is not to say that I don't understand your feelings. I think I really do, and even share some of them. As to your conclusion - well, it veers off from the topic of this thread and I won't address them here except to say this. Despite its roots, and despite the mistakes made when setting it up, and despite the acknowledged organizational chaos, Waymarking has evolved into something quite beyond that into something the is rich and full-bodied, able to stand on its own merits as an intriguing and rewarding activity. We are seeing more and more people coming into Waymarking who have never geocached. I think that is where our future lies, and we need to find ways to promote Waymarking beyond these bounds.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Waymarking! So sorry that you got a rude jolt from someone who is obviously too obsessive about their logs. I truly believe that is an exception, and not representative of the many wonderful people in this hobby. Logging visits to waymarks has some peculiarities. First, because of our roots in geocaching, virtual and locationless caches in particular, there was at the beginning a great emphasis on "proof of visit" in the logging requirements. So a lot of the categories specified a GPSr in the photo, or a photo of the visitor at the site. Most of this has dropped by the wayside, although a few categories still have some of this old language. Proof should really not be an issue in Waymarking. Second, not only are universal guidelines for logging visits absent, they are set individually for each category. This means that the stated logging requirements vary from category to category. Third, although the category manager sets the requirements, which apply to all waymarks within that category, the logs go to the individual waymarker - the person who created the waymark. So, that person can apply his own personal standards to the log even if they are things not mentioned in the logging instructions. Use of "cut and paste" is a good example. My personal feeling is that visiting waymarks is up to the visitor and how they want to "play the game." Sure, I enjoy reading well-written logs that tell me something about the person's experience of visiting it, and like to see new and interesting pictures. Sometimes I get a string of visits that say nothing more than, "Saw this while geocaching in the area." Arrgh. But, I do not delete them. It doesn't detract from my waymark. If this is all that person wants to do, then that's fine with me. Photos? Well, I have waymarks in so many categories I can't keep track of which ones require photos and which ones don't. I really haven't got the time for that. And, I try to make photos optional for the categories I manage. So-called "retro visits" are fine with me, too. If a person visited a waymarked site several years ago and can tell me about it, or, better yet, post another photo, then that's fine, too. Who am I to tell them how to enjoy Waymarking? They can be lazy or write a book and post a dozen photos. All this is with some common sense, of course. The only time I've deleted logs is when there was an obvious arm-chair logger. Oh, we did have a case recently when someone was taking photos from the original waymark, cropping them or doing minor changes, then posting them as his own with his visit logs. Weird. So, I hope you'll not abandon Waymarking. I'd be glad to have you visit some of my waymarks - mostly in New England, California, Ohio and Oregon - and, Korea. All the best!

This is an important question. The generally accepted guideline is that the coordinates should be as close to the actual site/object as is reasonably possible, NOT from a distant viewing point or from where the photo is taken. That means you usually CANNOT rely on the coordinates from your camera. For buildings, coordinates should be at the entrance, not from across the street or from the parking lot. Larger sites such as parks, cemeteries, campgrounds, etc. are more problematic. Sometimes the category may specify where to take coordinates, so do check that. (Outdoor Basketball Courts specifies coordinates taken at center court, for instance). If there is an obvious entrance, as with a cemetery, then that is a logical choice. In these cases, though, I think it is helpful just to state exactly where the coordinates are recorded. So something like, "Coordinates are for the south entrance" will be useful for someone who might want to visit the waymark. In case where coordinates are allowed from a distance, it is especially important to say where the coordinates are. Or, if one is unable to get to the exact physical location for some reason, say a sculpture in a traffic circle, then just state that. Then, we have to admit that some things just may not be waymarkable because we can't get to them. There may be other opinions about this, but this is what I've strived for in my 7,000+ waymarks.

If these are close enough to be considered parts of a larger memorial, then they can be combined as one waymark in the Nonspecific Veterans Memorial category which accepts multi-war memorials. What is the difference between a peace keeping mission and a war? What is the difference between a "police action" and a war? For the U.S. - How many undeclared wars do we still call WARS?

I've just gone through my categories, doing some updates and making sure they are all switched ON for open enrollment. Some are my creations, others have been handed down. I have several categories that need a couple more active officers to give better coverage. Most of these are low volume, but they need some backup. If you are interested, they just join the group and let me know you're interested in serving as an officer so I can promote you up the ranks. Here they are: Auto Clubs Synagogues Ronald McDonald Houses Fish Hatcheries Animal Hospitals Antique Shops Bed & Breakfast Chinese Restaurants Ice Cream Parlors The last two are the most active, but a easy to review.

The university campus where I live is one of the premier institutions in the country in offering education programs for the handicapped, including visually impaired, and for training those who work in the field. So, most places on campus are marked with braille as are many places out in the neighborhood. But this is not limited to our area. Even in Seoul subways have braille and public walkways have guides for the visually impaired. I don't know that there tourist sites design specifically for the visually impaired, many do have braille or some other sort of adaptive features. So, I think you would have to define very carefully what would be included. Also, there is already a category for recreational facilities for the handicapped, which would include visually impaired. This is a nice concept, but I think it may be more difficult than you think.

Wow, lot's of good tips for you here! So I won't add a whole lot. Since you're question was about logging, I'll address that. Usually all you need is a photo of the object/site. But, check the logging requirements, as some do require a GPSr or personal photo. It never hurts to do both then you're prepared. In most of my categories I suggest photos but don't require them. A good way to look at this is that you have the opportunity to add to the waymark. A photo from a different view, of a different detail, or in a different season or time of day can be a really nice addition. More important than the photos, however, for me is the log description. If you have additional information to add, that is always great. Maybe something has changed. Or, you can get chatty and talk about what you did there, what you had for breakfast, what your impressions of the place were, etc. Anything is better than, "Saw this while geocaching nearby." Speaking of geocaching, you can use the "Nearest waymarks" feature to help you find some. Unfortunately there are on Pocket Queries available for waymarks. This is has been our top feature request forever. Let me add my warmest welcome to you! I hope you have a lot of fun with this wonderful hobby. There will always be someone to answer questions.

I will frequently get visit logs for the same site that is listed in several categories. When you find these, the waymarks may be by the same person or by different people, but we all enjoy getting the logs. Just try to say something meaningful about the waymark. And, the above advice is good - to check on the logging requirements. Most of us aren't too strict about them, though. At least I'm not. Welcome to the wonderful world of Waymarking! I hope you have a lot of fun!

Of course this is a sensitive issue, and it will be decided by emotion rather than logic. If the policy of including monuments to only ONE side of a war were extended, many of the other veteran memorial categories would have to be dismantled. We would have to have two separate categories for the U.S. Civil War, WWI, WWII, just to pick on several of the largest. What makes the war in Vietnam so different? I guess some of us are just emotionally too close to it. That's not logical. But, saying that doesn't make such reasoning invalid. We are emotional beings, but let's at least be honest about our reasons. So, don't expect me to accept ANY waymarks honoring the "other side" in the Korean War Memorial category. Not logical, but it ain't going to happen. (Guess I need to put that in the category description since I just inherited it. I doubt that anyone would find any of these outside of that country to which we can't travel anyway, but who knows). And, because of the way Waymarking.com is set up, a category management group can set up just about any arbitrary requirements or restrictions they want. We have to respect that as well. There are a lot of categories that I would have set up differently, and some probably don't like the way I set up the ones I created. Heck, I don't even like the way I set up some of them. Sometimes the only solution is to do as suggested which is to create a category for the other side. Anyone remember how we ended up with two categories for neon signs, or welcome signs? I do think Ian's point is really worth considering, though. We honor the fallen, not the war.

The other town is Stehekin, WA (all of Stehekin is served by boat, as it is at the remote end of a 55 mile long lake). I was just up there last year. I should get around to Waymarking it. It's been on the list for a possible shut down, however. Waymark it quick! That is one of the great things we do - documenting history.

This is the perpetual question for which there is not good answer: "How do we slice the pie?" We have examples of huge, all-encompassing categories like "Cemeteries of the World," and categories that are very small pieces of a pie such as "Insect Sculptures." A lot has to do with the order in which categories were created. So, denomination specific categories were created first. Then there was the category for "Baptist Churches," which to me is totally illogical as it lumps together dozens of distinctly different denominations as well as thousands of independent churches. But, to say that we would have 700 separate categories, or more, is not realistic either. These individual categories came into being as people had the interest in creating and managing them. It is unlikely that the smaller groups of churches would have such an interest. Then, of course, we have other specific categories based on other criteria, such as "This Old Church," "Megachurches," etc. Then there are common elements of churches that show up frequently in other categories such as Stained Glass Windows, Town Clocks, Bell Towers, Unique Weather Vanes, Dated Buildings and Cornerstones, Churchyard Cemeteries, among others. Museums might be another good example. We could have one master category for "Museums of the World." Instead, we have a lot of individual categories for just about every type of museum in existence. Which approach is better? Could we divide these museum categories even further? I guess we could have categories for different types of history museums, and in fact we do to some extent since "War and Military Museums" really are history museums. Many other museums deal with history in one way or another. Again, it sometimes depends on which came first. Usually it is easier to create a more inclusive category that may include a specialized category than to pull a small group of sites out of a larger category to make a more specialized one. Some broad categories are written to exclude sites already included in a smaller category, although this is really illogical. And, so the debate goes on . . . .

I find this an unfortunate exclusion. I think the most favorable outcome would be to see if the category management group would consider expanding the category to be more inclusive so that these memorials could have a home. It would result in a richer and deeper category. Categories are frequently modified somewhere down the road like this, so there isn't any real impediment to doing so. If they feel strongly about keeping this narrow restriction, then that is their privilege and we'll have to look for other solutions. These are two perfect illustrations of why defining a category, and limiting it based categories that someone else has previously created, is not always a good idea. If these are shut out from the logical category, it would be nice if one of these categories would be flexible enough to give these a home. My inclination is always to be more inclusive than exclusive, and I don't see that any category has much to gain by being so inflexible or in so narrowly defining itself that illogical exclusions occur. Exactly. Although there are often these ancillary categories, there should be a place for these sites under their primary designations. I suppose that if none of the above categories is willing to be flexible enough to make a logical change, then the only other option <sigh> is to create another, more inclusive category. It could be something like Worldwide Viet Nam War Memorials with U.S. excluded. This has been done before with other restrictive categories - like the two neon sign categories that you are familiar with. Come to think of it, I guess I haven't tried submitting any of the Viet Nam War memorials that I've recorded here in Korea. This country had quite an extensive involvement there. I'd hate not to have a place for them.

Hold on a minute! I really don't appreciated being attacked on YOUR perception of my "tone" because I have a strong opinion that disagrees with yours. It is NOT a new concept that individual categories should stand on their own merit. I wish this were more clearly stated by Groundspeak, but that is a clear guideline that has been given in the past. Peer review is a strange process, and one that has problems, which is something that I've discussed in the past. Just look at all the bad categories ideas that have been approved over the years. This probably illustrates my point. Categories have been developed over a period of years now in a haphazard way. Is there a more logical way to create and organize categories for war and veteran memorials? I'm sure there is. But, in the beginning it seemed reasonable to have separate categories for each of the major wars. None of them is arbitrarily limited to a single country. Probably most of the monuments to the U.S Revolutionary War and Civil War are found in the U.S., but Korean War memorials are found in dozens of countries. The Boer War - well, not so widespread geographically. It is wrong to view this as an attempt to exclude anything or anybody. I still think that grouping all wars, except those that happen to have a category created before this date, into one all-inclusive category is not a good idea. I really think it dilutes the focus of each war that is lumped together rather than honoring them. We will see. If it works, then that is great. So, what should I do with the dozens of monuments to the Korean fight for independence? Should I have a dedicated category for them, or should I put them in the mix of this category where they will be lost? There are better ways to organize the categories for cemeteries, churches, sculptures, and so forth. No one will deny that it is a mess. Democracy, is messy and inefficient. Oh, here is another thing to consider. I would say that over half of the active waymarkers were not around five years ago. So, naturally standards, opinions, and goals have changed. That is just another reason for the inconsistency we see. And, as far as peer review is concerned, as I have pointed out before, there are sometimes LARGE numbers of people voting who are NOT active waymarkers at all. This really skews the results when this happens. Well, this is another catch-all category that really seems illogical to me. Why should we not then just have one huge "Post Offices of the World" category like we do for cemeteries (another unfortunate category)? Why stop at European? And, if it is going to be European Post Offices, then why exclude ANY of them - just because someone decided to create a few country-specific ones first? Or, why not follow that precedent and continue in that vein. If there is someone in a particular country interested in creating a post office category, then great; if not then that is fine, too. If I'm out of step on this, that is fine. I'm just one voice and I don't intend my tone to be taken as anything other than the expression of my opinion, certainly NOT as if I have the absolute truth about this or anything else. Obviously I think think I'm right. That's why it is called an opinion. No, it wouldn't happen. This is exactly what the "Global" criterion is designed to prevent. Categories may not arbitrarily restrict waymarks by country or region, such as Russian McDonalds. There are many categories that are limited just because they exist in only one country or state. One of the initial experimental categories, for instance, was for historical markers. But, when Groundspeak set up Waymarking.com it was felt that this would be a category just too large to handle. So, they began with Pennsylvania Historic Markers. That actually turned out to be a wise decision. Categories for specific states were added over time as people showed an interest in creating and managing them. Them came categories for country historical markers, and this has worked out well, too. So, when there is an extremely large pool of potential waymarks, it is sometimes reasonable to break them down into logical groups, and sometimes country or state divisions make the most sense, especially when the nature of them vary widely from country to country. So, how do we divide up the pie? Should there be ONE category for ALL churches of ALL types - maybe even ALL places of worship? ALL post offices of the world? All, war memorials everywhere? All, benchmarks in the world? We already have all cemeteries of the world. Obviously some divisions are necessary to give us focus and to make thing manageable, to give some interest for each person. There is no perfect way to do this, and we will never agree on the best way, and peer review will never give us the best way. Tone cue: passionate but respectful, convinced but humble