silverquill

I know there was a lot of talk about categories being assigned to those who first suggested them, and some seem to have definite feelings about this. Is this now a bygone concept? It seems now that it is the first to form a management group for a particular category, whether or not it has been previously proposed by another. Is this correct? No problem with that -- suggestions are cheap; the work of defining a category and getting the management group together speak of more committment. Also, I think I saw it mentioned that there was a limit of three categories per person. Does this mean a person can be a member, or officer I should say, of only three groups, or that he/she can be primary officer of only three groups? Or what?

We are supposed to vote Yea/Nay/Abstain in response to the question "Does the category meet all three of these criteria?" If the category isn't a global category, but is still a good category (for example, a regional historical marker category), we can't legitimately vote 'Yea' (it doesn't meet the Global criteria). But I don't want to vote against a good regional category. So, is the idea that for good regional category proposals, we should vote 'abstain' and add comments? I had the same question! While I applaud the creation of global categories, there is no reason to reject regional ones. In fact, we need them! I think the point is to make categories global when that is a feasible option rather than arbitrarily confining it to a region. This can often be done with the judicious use of variables. So, I would like to see the wording of this modified in order to reflect what is already seemingly the current philosophy operating in Waymarking.

Yes, apologies for not clarifying. At first we will only allow a Premium Member to manage 3 categories. Does this mean as Primary Officer, or as an officer/manager? In other words, can one "own" three categories and also be part of a management group for other categories?

Unless there is a specific limitation (and why should there be?) there should be no problem with this. In fact, I think this is part of the fun of Waymarking!! Ther only reason there is a requirement for access for traditional caches is so that the owner can maintain it. There is no corresponding need for a waymark.

Having been raised in Oregon and then having moved to New England, my definition of "old church" has changed drastically!! I've attended services in the oldest, continually used house of worship in the United States, and worked at the second church built in Boston. Then, again, I've visited churches in other countries that make these seem like contemporary! South America, Europe, Asia!! Let's remember we are an international hobby. Mayber we should have regional definitions of "old." Also, it is not always easy to determine the date of a church's construction. And, what is the definition of "church?" Are we to assume this means Christian church (Catholic and Protestant)? What about Abbeys, Monasteries and Convents, Seminaries etc.? Mosques, Jewish Temples, Buddhist Temples, etc. belong in other categories? As variables? There is already a general category topic of houses of worship. Some categories are denominatioal (and we might assume others will be added) -- can we cross list an old church with another category? I assuem so. Anyway, I'd definitely submit waymarks for this category -- many within walking distance of my home, and dozens all over New England!! They are cool and have lots of history to tell.

This is the way it should be. Some careful thought should go into how to structure this group of categories -- Cats, sub cats, variables, etc. so that it is logical and easy to use and add to/modify. I'm not particulaly a RR buff, but these old RR stations are often neat places and have a lot of history to tell. I'd certainly submit waymarks to this category! I had an uncle who worked in a RR museum in Sacramento, which is another possible part of this category grouping -- RR Museums I hope there will be a way to cross list categories. RR museums might be a good example -- listed under an RR category and under a museum category.

Lots of covered bridges here in NH and the rest of New England -- and many, many in other states as well. I've just been waiting for this category to be activated so I can submit some cool Waymarks!!

Although there is no official state historical marker program in Maine, there are hundreds of local markers throughout the state. Many are very unique and commemorate lesser known events, people and places and are ofen in strikling scenic places.

There are probably multiple configurations througout the United States. However, I think we should make every effort to make such categories international. What are the Canadian terms? What about our European members and others?? Let's go for a more universal description and leave specific terminology and labels more flexible.

None here in New England, but I grew up in eastern Oregon where they were common. I always looked forward to seeing them as we travelled. So, I think this would be a worthwhile category if it is well defined.

It is maple sugaring time! This would be somewhat of a regional category although some 13 states have some maple syrup production, and Canada has numerous production sites. Vermont really does account for about a third of U.S. production. Maple sugar houses or shacks dot the landscape with the steam from evaporators rising in the cool spring air. As I was searching for other waymarks today, I stopped to mark several of thise pcituresqe places, and thought this would be a great, though limited, waymaking catgegory.

According to the National Inventory of Dams <http://crunch.tec.army.mil/nid/webpages/nid.cfm> there are some 76,000 dams in the U.S. Worldwide, from Aswan to Amoskeag, dams are fascinating points of interests with stories to tell and sites to see. For security reasons, they are not really suitable for traditional caches, it would seem, so a Waymark category would fit the bill. One can conceive of many variables. ~~silverquill

I've found traditional caches near two different powder houses -- one in Milton, Mass (where I lived for several years) and last week one in Exeter, NH. There may ones in other parts of the country/world, too. This would be an interesting and educational category! Hope you get it.

This is a very instructive thread, illustrating the complexities of developing the taxonomy to be used here. Do you have lots of individual categories -- one for each type of museum? A large category with lots of branches? How many levels within a category before it becomes unwieldy? Then, how do variables fit? A general category of Museums could have sub-categories for each specific type -- Art, History, etc. But one could also classify them by ownership -- National, State, Private, Religous, etc. althought that would probably be more logically indicated through variables. Maybe just one category for Museums with Type or Subject as a variable to be defined would be better. Whatever the ultimate solution, it should be inclusive so we don't have to say, "I have a museum to waymark, but there is not category for it." I should say that the same reasoning applies to other categories such as Parks, Campgrounds, etc. Hey, is waymark really a verb???

I would think that this would be forthcoming. I suggested a category for municipal parks some time ago, and others may have before that. Just how the taxonomy fo such a broad category remains to be seen. Ideally it would accomodate international park systems. National Parks are common around the world, National Monuments are a U.S. format, and so are U.S. Forest Service Parks. State/Provinical parks, Municipal Parks, other governmental division such as counties and international equivalents should be accomodated. Public squares/greens, etc. are certainly park-like. What about private parks? Some specialized parks -- Amusement Parks, Botonical Parks, etc. may fit better elsewhere. That's just off the top of my head, but illustrates some of the complexities of this undertaking. ~~silverquill

Of course! New England is rich in history and I'd hate to see it left out! Let's do New Hampshire and Vermont.

That is great news! I was just going by another message someone had posted saying that Audubon sites had decided to prohibit physical geocaches and he had to remove his. Perhaps this is not a universal policy. It would be nice to have them open to both! At least some.

This has more to do with taxonomy than with a specific category. Where this distinct category would fit into the taxonomy would be a matter for discussion. Your suggestion that it fit into a structure under Nature Preserves which is in turn under a broader category is one approach. This is the question we are always up against: Broad categories with many sub, and sub-sub, etc. categories (how deep do you want to dig to find the end category) VS many more smaller categories with fewer sub-levels. It is always a compromise and a matter of balance. Add to this the fact that we have to work with the proposals that have been submitted and have someone to manage them rather than creating a coherent taxonomy beforehand. Challenging!

I whole heartedly agree with this! There are already some categories of fairly narrow interest, and that is fine. Specialized categories have their place. As I see it, that is part of the beauty of the whole Waymarking concept -- something for everyone. I find the voting process a bit arcane. Popularity is determined not by votes but ultimately by participation. But, even if a small group of people are interested in Waymarking pink elephants, then why not allow them a category? Certainly there should be some limits and criteria, but sheer popularity need not be the determining factor. If the Waymarking site becomes too bloated to the point of loosing functionality, then that becomes more critical. There might need to be a way of weeding out stagnate categories, for instance. Of course refinement is needed. My understanding is that at this stage we are just making general suggestions and that if they are accepted they will be refined and fleshed out with descriptions, placement and marking requirements, variables, etc. Again, I certainly agree, but at this point the categories are just suggestions, and before becoming active they will need to be put into the taxonomy of the site. Having worked on a similar large-scale project of developing a taxonomy for email newsletters and lists, I know how challenging it can be to come up with a logical, coherent taxonomy. I would hope it would be possible to cross-list categories within the structure. I'm excited, too! Over 700 proposals -- and more to come -- there will be a lot of good times! ~~silverquill

Sorry if my post sounded too complaining. I want to cheer loudly for Jeremy, Sean and all the Groundspeak people who have had the vision for this and are putting in the hard work to make it happen!! Bravo, I say! I guess I missed that update (thought I had my subscription in order) from Jeremy. Thanks Blue Quasar! I've just felt like there has been this mad jumble of category proposals being posted here. I just didn't know if this is the approach we should be taking, if they were going into a black hole, or if they were being organized some way. Are we on track, do you think? I'll try to reign in my enthusiasm. Thanks again for the feedback.

Who knows? Maybe someone knows, but they are not telling! Why? A world-wide geocahing community awaits breathlessly for some morsel of news. There are a lot of us anxiously waiting for a chance to get on with Waymarking. There may be good reasons for the delay, but would it hurt so much to give us an update? Are we just wasting our time suggesting new, interesting categories? What should we be doing? How should we be doing it? Any clues?

Of course many of them are!! That is natural seeing that Geocaching.com was created and is controlled by North Americans, and there is a great preponderance of U.S. members. And, we do have quite a provincial outlook! Members from Europe and other world areas are quite capable of suggesting categories appropriate to their areas. Think about the existing "Castles" category. That is predominantly a European category. I've tried to take this into account in many of my category proposals. For instance, I suggested Bed & Breakfast places for North America and the counterpart of Youth Hostels which are worldwide. My Rivers of the World category suggestion is international as are several of the amateur radio categories. Then there are some that may be more international than they seem at first. How about the McDonalds category! If I had known about Waymarking and had my GPS in November, I would have logged the McDonalds in Quito Ecuador. Other existing broad categories, such as Fire Stations, Libraries, etc. can certainly be considered international. While I think it is in ideal to try for categories that are truly international and try to avoid ones that are narrowly ethnocentric, there is no inherent reason totally to avoid categories that may apply only to the U.S. or only to some other country or part of the world. As long as the owners of Geocaching.com are inclusive in what they approve and in the way categories are organized, then it is up to all of us as members to creative inclusive categories and a diversity of categories that reflect our areas of interest. Other comments? ~~ silverquill

I certainly agree that this is a worthy category which is why I suggested it. True, I included it in the same post as some other suggestions, but that doesn't mean that is is not a separate category of its own. I'm not so sure that categories are "owned," or if they just have "managers." The method of assigning categories to managers is still undefined as far as I can tell. Do they automatically go to whomever is determined to have fist suggested it? Anyway, I would certainly consider having you run this category if it were mine to give away. You obviously have a passion for this one, and that is most important. But, I have a passion for waterfalls, and existing category. That doesn't mean I have to control the category to enjoy it. I can passionately contribute wayponts to it! That is my understanding of how this works, unless one is into an ego thing about "owning" categories. I think some clarification from the Powers That Be would be in order. Larry (silverquill)

Yep, this category has been suggested by several people. It's hard to tell without a search function, unless one follows this forum regularly. So, how are these categories going to be assigned? We seem to have a ship without a rudder . . . .

Places > Conservation Audubon Sites The Audubon Society is highly involved in conservation efforts and sites include sanctuaries and nature centers. These are some of the most fascinating locations in the outdoors, and are now officially closed to traditional caches. Waymarking these valuable resources would be an ideal way tor document and promote them.