silverquill

I think once a week is too seldom to review waymarks. My goal is to clear my queue at least once per day. That is not always possible, of course and there are times that several days or even a week may go by, but not often. I think every three days should be the minimum since the stated goal is to have waymarks reviewed within 72 hours. Of course, if there are at least three active officers reviewing waymarks in each category, then every three days should provide quick turn around. Unfortunately, we know that there are some categories where only one person is really actively reviewing waymarks. I think that should be the real goal, then the burden doesn't fall on just one person. Three is a minimum.

After having fallen into limbo, the Dunkin Donuts category is now active again! Enrollment is now open for new members. I have updated the description and posting requirements. The major change is requiring a minimum of TWO PHOTOS. I have also added a handful of variables that I think are useful but not burdensome for this type of category. I've also asked that waymark names follow a standard format and include a street name in cases where there is more than one Dunkin Donuts in a town or city. There are now over 11,000 Dunkin Donuts outlets in 33 countries. 900 of those are in Korea! Dunkins opened its first store in Los Angeles County this year, and plans to expand by 1,000 stores in the next year. There are major expansion plans for other places such as Texas. Of course here in New England one is never more than a few minutes from a Dunkies! There is at least one place where there are two across the street from each other. We run on Dunkins!

First, another comment about this category directly -- Although there is a strong Reformed stream in the United Church of Christ from its formation in 1957, and other threads joining later, I think that is a strong enough denomination in its own right to merit its own category, particularly considering its size with over 5,000 potential waymarks. And, there are many, especially here in New England, that scarcely would bear the label of Reformed. So, I would specifically exclude them. Second, some remarks in general -- There is no reason for an antipathy toward categories for Christian churches other than personal preference. Religion is an integral part of culture and history regardless of one's personal preferences and beliefs. And in the case of religious buildings there may be also elements of art and architecture that are of interest. Thus they are legitimate objects for Waymarking categories. One could pick many other broad categories and say we have enough, or too many -- museums, sculptures, historical markers, bridges, just to name a few have an array of categories. So there is no reason to single out Christian churches. An analogy to commercial categories entirely misses the point, it seems to me. Third, on observation about Christian church categories -- it is a difficult pie to slice. There have been previous discussions about this. The history of the Christian Church is so fragmented and the present state of things so tangled, that it is difficult to come up with a logical way to create categories. Clearly, a single category for ALL Christian churches is untenable. One might then go to the three major divisions - Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant. Of these, the latter is the one with the most fragmentation, and the former two each have a category encompassing all churches. Some of the protestant categories are very specific, such as the Church of the Nazarene, Wesleyan Church, and Friends. Others lump similar denominations together such as Presbyterian and Methodist. Then there is the Baptist Church category that includes a diverse group of denominations and independent churches together merely on the basis of having Baptist in the name. This is not unlike other waymark category groupings that have developed in a hodge-podge way with sometimes crazy ways and with differing criteria. It is often based on who has the interest to develop a particular category. And, unless there is a drastic flaw in the way the category is conceived and written, I so no reason NOT to approve them just because I don't like them. We serve a large and diverse community, and we should be generous in allowing new categories to develop.

Dunkin Donuts seems to have dunked way under. I've also have had waymarks in there for months and have contacted the group leader with no response. I live in Dunkin country again (New England) although we had many of these in Korea too. But, I've held off submitting any more until this one is back on track. I'd be more than happy to lead it. We run on Dunkins!

I think this would be a worthy category, as long as people don't vote just on personal preference. Some people think we have too many church categories, but there are also a lot of people who love these categories. Churches are an important part of history and culture, regardless of one's personal beliefs. At least here in the U.S., there are churches who identify themselves as being in the "reformed tradition," that do not have "Reformed" as part of the church or denomination name. Or, they may use "reformed" in a different sense. Some denominations for which there are already categories may consider themselves to be in the theological camp of John Calvin. I'm just saying that writing a description so that it includes exactly what you want to include may be a challenge. I'd love to see this one come to fruition.

I agree that the lack of prevalence is a big concern. It is also true that larger ones present a problem with pinpointing a location for the coordinates, but that is not an insurmountable problem. Some of them may find a home in the Tourist Attractions category. Do some have individual Wikipedia entries? (Weak category, I know). It would take a little hunting based on each walk.

This is a very interesting discussion. And I think MountainWoods has it right - opinions run the gamut from one extreme to another. I see a trend in evaluating new category ideas, both here and in peer review, that gives me some cause for concern. I think the pendulum has swung from "almost anything goes" to "almost nothing is good enough." There seems to be more of an inclination to oppose a category for purely personal, subjective reasons. Understand that I do NOT have anyone in particular in mind, and am, in fact, trying to evaluate my own approach to new categories. There are categories that each of find boring, trivial or even inappropriate. And we all have categories we find exciting, intriguing and significant. We now have a broad global community, which I celebrate. But that means that there is even more diversity of viewpoints. I believe that this means we have to take a more inclusive view of new category ideas. If there is enough interest for a group to form and support a category, unless it really goes against our accepted criteria, than I think we need to be generous enough to allow people to pursue their interests. One-lane roads obviously has an appeal to many. Insect Hotels and Wee Fairy Doors -- probably not so much for me, but they have their niche. Then there are a whole bunch of categories in countries I will likely never visit. Well, who knows? Waymarking is a big tent, and there is room for a lot of variety here. We need to be sensible, but not overly exclusive. That is how I see it, anyway.

That is a very valid point. I'm glad I waited a while for more comments before moving ahead, because I would have missed this one. Yes, I wouldn't like to see places like Jack's Peak or Cooper's Meadow, unless there is clear explanation, who Jack or Mr. Cooper was and why he deserved the merits of a place named after him. Should we make a short, one paragraph biography a requirement? It certainly would increase the educational value, and for me, Waymarking is not about listing 10,000 places I can take a picture of, but learning something new with every waymark I post. This is a tough call. Sometimes there just may not be much information available about the name of a place, even if it is obviously a historical person in the name. But, maybe that is the challenge for those of us who might want to put waymarks in this category. I do think that we need BOTH components for a waymark -- THE PLACE and THE PERSON. Is for generic names, such as Kaiser, Presidential, etc. I would think that these would be excluded. A specific individual, or group of individuals, should be the focus. Of course some names would come up over and over again. I think in the U.S. there are many natural features with the name Washington of Lincoln, for instance. And, it just occurs to me that in the U.S. we have many places named for Native Americans. The goal would be to have a category that would be both fun and educational, it seems to me. Some flexibility might be called for. Probably it would be difficult to cover every possible contingency in the description. It is still worth going after though!

Truthfully, I liked "Angelic Locations" a bit better. I'm afraid of casting the net too wide on this. Your list of terms or names seems to lack focus -- just some religious aspect to them. There are definitely Christian names/terms and one Jewish one, and then there is Allah. I just wonder if those two are really appropriate. I'm not an expert on all schisms of Islam, but I think that certain uses of the name Allah could be considered blasphemous. When the Jewish scriptures were written, the name Yahweh could not be written, so sacred was it regarded. So, this attempt at inclusiveness might not work so well. And then what do we do about places which reference Buddhist believes, or Shinto or . . . well, you can see where we could go. Roman and Greek gods anyone? In short, I would go with a more narrowly defined set of parameters. That being said, I wouldn't exclude Saint, probably. This is ubiquitous in place names, but not so much for natural features. I really want someone to waymark Mt. St. Helens. Good discussion . . .

Thanks so much for posting this! I make it a practice always to take pictures of signs, plaques and inscriptions for my waymarks when they are present, even if they are not required. This gives the waymark more depth, and it may be the only place on the web such text appears. That makes it a real contribution to the general body of knowledge that is available to the world. Obviously for short things, transcription is still easier and quicker, but there are those times when a longer piece of text needs conversion. I've used several OCR programs when scanning printed material, but I don't know why it never occurred to me that OCR could work from .jpg and other graphic files. Why didn't they teach me this stuff in grade school? I would be interested in hearing of other's experience with this, particular if someone is using it in Waymarking. Thanks again!

Good thoughts here. I'd really like to see this category fly. - One or more waymarks per feature? I still think that it might be reasonable to allow more than one waymark for some of the larger features. For instance, the north face or south face of a large mountain. I'm not sure that a sign is always necessary because many times there are no signs for natural features. But, if there is a definite viewpoint or access area, then I think these should be valid for a waymark. It would be hard to develop guidelines for ALL features, so some of the main ones might have to be defined with their own guidelines. So, you can specify the requirements for Waymarking mountains, lakes, waterfalls separately, for instance. This same approach could be used for the other other features such as canals. You can't cover everything or every situation, but these can be dealt on a case-by-case basis and can even result in additions or revisions to the category. I do think it is important to have two parts to a waymark - one for the feature itself and one for the person(s) for whom it is named. This is similar to the approach taken by the People Named Places category. Keep working; this is a great idea.

I think I've seen a few of these in my travels. Some covered bridges are like this. The question is, "Do we need a dedicated category for these?" We have 13 categories for specific types of bridges! Very few would be left out, probably.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the global criterion. Probably at least a third of our Waymarking categories are limited to one country or region either by definition or distribution. So, Dunkin Donuts has a world-wide distribution, but Oregon Historic Markers and London Coal Tax Posts don't. The intent is to eliminated arbitrarily limited categories, such as Fountains of Rome, where a more global category would be a practical and more reasonable solution. Even so, we have certain types of categories that are limited to a country or region such as historical markers, benchmarks or trig points, post offices, and a few others. Then we have the odd ones such as U.S. National Parks and then one category for all other national parks in the world. Makes no sense to me. More to the point, in this case, is that we seem to have had our fill of commercial categories, especially for chain stores and restaurants. Also, the initial description of this category is poorly written with mistakes in grammar and punctuation with very little real thought to how a category should be written. And, while we welcome newcomers, it is still wise to learn more about the hobby by participation and observation before jumping in with contributions that take as much work as developing a new Waymarking category. But, thanks for bringing this up for discussion in the forum!

Wouldn't these fit with the Citizen's Memorial category? If not, then we do have a gap that needs to be filled. . .

Interesting idea. Actually, I could contribute several waymarks to such a category right now. These were buildings that I passed everyday in Korea on my walk to the school where I taught. My original intent was to put them in the Building Buildings category, but they failed to meet the height requirement. I have the signs and the completed buildings (and photos during construction), so I'm all set. Even so, I think this might be a difficult category for most people. I don't know of any others that I have come across or ones that I might conceive as being a possibility. Then again, I haven't checked some of the new buildings going up in Boston right now. Hmmm. New bank and hotel going up down the street. I bet I could have done them. So, this might be a viable category. Good to see you back! Been missing you. If you want to work on this, let me know and I'll be glad to help.

Massacres - It appears that they would fit in the Disaster Memorials category. K-Mart - While it is true the commercial categories have fallen into disfavor of late, I see no valid reason NOT to have a category for K-Mart. Some people enjoy these categories, and it doesn't seem reasonable to deny them as long as the category is sound and well written. If I don't like K-Mart, or covered bridges or mountain summits, why should another segment of waymarkers be denied a category for something that interests them? Someone would have to explain that to me.

Good answers here. -Anyone can view the votes and comments during peer review that users have chosen to make public. -After peer review is over, a Groundspeak lackey makes a final review, with veto power, and must activate it. If this happens on a weekend, it may take a few days, or even if it's not. -All officers can view the entire vote count with comment after this, but there are no user IDs, so it is anonymous unless someone signs their comments. The category can now be revised, abandoned or submitted again for peer review. Too bad there isn't documentation of this process somewhere on the Waymarking.com web site.

Proximity check -- If you are really worried, after you create a waymark, but before you submit it, just click on Nearest Waymark. I sometimes do this to get a general idea of what waymarks are in a general are that I have visited, or plan to visit, so I know what to do. I enter in just the coordinates, title a few characters for the Quick Description and anything else that is required. Dates: Well, I suppose it would be nice to have them all the way they should be, but I don't think it is a huge deal. The date a waymark is CREATED is recorded, NOT the date it is actually submitted, and then the date of "publication." The created date is what shows up on one's personal stats, including the calendar.

Backlog? What back log?

Actually I've never really looked for either Geocaching or Waymarking on social media sites. I'm not sure what the point would be. Maybe. Actually, I believe that Geocaching and Waymarking are registered trademarks for Groundspeak,so in that sense the do own them, along with Wherigo, and some others. The concept, of course, is not owned so there are other similar games that are GPS oriented. Terracache is one. There is also a group in Europe that recently started something similar to Waymarking.

Personally, I think this would make a great category! Sure, I suppose they could go into Art Studios, but they are so much MORE than art studios. There are several in Vermont that we used to visit regularly that do this on a large scale, and some smaller ones. Always a great tour, too.

Read the comments from peer review and make some of the changes. Post the revisions here for more suggestions and see if we can come up with something that is acceptable. Overall, I think it is still a viable category.

The concept is good because of the limitation of the People Named Places category. There are a few issues that need to be considered. First, would ALL types of natural features be included? What about things like parks? Named Gaps have a category. Waterfalls and beaches have categories of their own, but not all of them are named for people, of course. I think cross-posting in these cases would be fine. The other issue is that many of these natural features are extremely large and are therefore difficult to identify with a point marked by geographic coordinates. So, where do we want coordinates for Mt. Jefferson? Distant viewing area, base, summit? The same would be true of deserts, lakes, rivers, etc. I'm not sure there is a good solution to this issue, but it must somehow be dealt with. Thanks for bringing this one to the table.

Although I am not the leader of the Petting Farms category, I helped write it and am still an officer. Although we could add that as a variable, I am not sure that would satisfy the interest. With that said, I think there is too much overlap with other categories to make this stand on its own. Most legitimate places to offer feeding of the animals seem to be included in other categories -- zoos, petting farms, aquariums and even the fish hatchery category. Where else would one find places that offer the option to feed the animals? I'm not totally opposed to pulling out a niche category if there is a compelling reason for doing so, but I just don't see it here. I probably would not vote against it in peer review, because I also believe that even if I don't find a category appealing, there may be others who do and I won't rain on their parade as long as it is well-written and seems to have some support. So -- one man's view. . . .

Once a category goes to peer review the vote is open for three days. There is not a chance that there would be zero votes. I believe Groundspeak is looking for 2/3 positive votes. In any case, after the vote closes it receives a final review before it is activated and goes live. Once a category is sent to peer review it is locked for editing. IF the category fails to pass, then it reverts back to its previous state, open for editing and can be sent for peer review again. If a category idea has been discussed in the forums with a generally favorable response and if it is written well, it has a good chance of passing. Those that do fail tend to be poorly conceived categories that were never brought to the forums, or just poorly constructed and written -- sometimes both. It is still not that uncommon for a category to fail peer review and subsequently revised, resubmitted and passed. There are some flaws in the system, but it has served is well, with a few exceptions. One of the greatest weaknesses is that anyone with a Groundspeak premium membership can vote. This sometimes has resulting in stacking the vote with geocaching buddies who know nothing about Waymarking, or people who just seem to hang around and show up only for peer reviews. Even sock puppets can vote and be officers in a category! It does happen. Anyway, if you have a new category idea, I hope you will bring it to the forums and see it thought to the light of day.