Jump to content

silverquill

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    609
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by silverquill

  1. Sounds interesting. I'm just wondering if there are enough of these to merit a category. I don't think a category has to be huge to be viable, but these seem to have a limited distribution. I'd love to see some examples.
  2. My initial reaction is that this would be redundant because the Fountains category already includes them -- and every other fountain in the world. Nonetheless, a category such as this does have merit, and there are precedents. The most obvious example is the omnibus category for Cemeteries of the World. (There is a mysterious story about how this category was created, approved and managed by shadow puppets.) We have several smaller, specialized categories for different types of cemeteries such as Churchyard Cemeteries and Veteran Cemeteries. Other subjects have multiple categories to cover particular niches. Sculptures come readily to mind, and include categories such as Abstract Sculptures, Figurative Sculptures, Realistic Object Sculptures, Silhouette Sculptures, Car Part Sculptures, and even Insect Sculptures and Lion Sculptures, one for bears too. The value of a category such as you suggest is to draw attention to a particular niche which gets lost in the all-encompassing category and gives a place for people to display and search for these particular type of fountains. I think this is a worthy undertaking and would support it, even though I usually am not in favor of redundancy. Welcome to Waymarking.com! Let me know if I can help in any way.
  3. I would be interested in seeing these sculptures. My guess is that they would all fit into one of our sculpture categories. 1 Abstract - Probably most of the would fit here. 2 Figurative - If they depict something recognizable as a human or animal figure, this is the category. 3 Realistic Object - If they are not figurative but depict another recognizable object, they go here. 4 Silhouette - Could be any of the above, if they meet the definition of silhouette. Sheet metal sculptures often find a home in this category. There are a few other specialized categories such as Insect Sculptures, Dinosaurs, and even Outdoor Wooden Carvings. So, I really don't see the need for another category -- unless you can think of one that doesn't fit in any of these, or have an example to show.
  4. Still has my support. Let us know if you would like to go forward.
  5. Yep, it is getting worse. I have four blank days in my calendar for waymark posts - two of them are today and tomorrow! I'll be really unhappy if I can't get a waymark to upload today, but so far NOTHING! Shouldn't take this long to fix.
  6. We have a number of categories that are seasonal. Holiday displays are one, Festivals is another, and so are most Farmers Markets -- to name just a few. As long as the location itself is permanent, then seasonality should not be a major issue. These nativity scenes are often of artistic and historic importance and I think are worthy of being waymarked, especially if they have a good description. In the U.S. there are still some communities that have outdoor nativity displays at Christmas. One's inside churches tend to be more ad hoc creations. Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches may have more of a tradition for these. I would support this category.
  7. The people at Groundspeak DO care! There are a lot of factors that come into play in regard to Waymarking.com Yes, we do get the short end of the stick, but it is not because of a lack of caring. Anyway, yes the photo loader was almost unusable a couple of days ago. Things a a little better now, but still timing out some when trying to review waymarks.
  8. The Garmin Oregon 550, and probably other models, geotag, but I never take photos with it so it is rather a useless feature. My Panasonic Lumix DMC-257 also has a GPS, but I have never been able to figure out how to get the coordinates when I download the pictures, much less import them into any kind of program where it would actually do some good. I would never use those coordinates for a waymark since they would be coordinates camera position NOT the object/site I was Waymarking -- unless I was very close to it. Still, it is a great point-and-shoot camera with wide angle and great zoom capabilities. And, it is almost as good as a dedicated video cam for taking short action scenes.
  9. I totally agree with you about required field where the information might not always be easily available, and I try to avoid this in categories that I write. The downside to that, however, is that some people just won't bother to try to fill in variables that are optional, and then get upset if the waymark is declined with a request for basic information that is readily obtained. I am an officer in this category, but I do not have editing privileges and the category leader is not very active anymore. I have worked with him in the past, however, so I'll see what I can do. This really should not be a required field. Thanks for bringing this issue to light.
  10. Personally, I think this is an important issue from several aspects. First, there really are some legal issues involved, and Groundspeak does periodically get complaints about copyright infringement, so we cannot take this lightly. Beyond this, it is just good practice to cite one's sources. This is not only an ethical obligation, but it actually strengthens the waymark! Quoted material should be clearly indicated as such. Quotation marks are the accepted and obvious way to do this. I cannot imagine a reason NOT to do this, except laziness. Then the source should be clearly cited. If it is from a web site, the the NAME of the web site AND the URL should be given. I prefer to have them embedded with HTML tags, but that is optional. Even if the actual writing is my own, I still cite my sources. This is really standard practice in writing. So, I might say something like, "The above (or belowo) is taken from Source A and Source B." I also see people listing resources saying something like, "For further information see Source A and Source B." All of this makes a very strong waymark, providing resources for those who might want to find out more. Most of us do a lot of "cut and paste," and that is fine if proper attribution is given. But, I have a strong preference for having at least SOME original description. This is what Waymarking can contribute to the body of knowledge -- our personal observations and experience of the waymark, even if it is just a statue or even a McDonald's store. I Do decline waymarks if it appears that unattributed material has been copied or used. Usually people are cooperative, but once in awhile someone gets offended. That's no fun, but I believe we have an obligation to uphold the integrity of Waymarking.
  11. Every time I see one of these I think about the fact that there isn't a Waymarking category for them. Then I think, "No, I don't feel like creating one." If you do, that is fine. I see no reason why we shouldn't have one. But, it should be restricted to independent pet grooming salons. As has already been mentioned, many pet stores offer grooming services and we do have a category for them. Some boarding kennels and pet breeders also offer grooming services, but these could be included in your category. But, as others have also mentioned, the climate in the global Waymarking community at the moment is not favorable toward more commercial categories, so be prepared for a tough time in peer review. Although commercial categories have their detractors, I see no reason to deny them just because I don't like them. They are a big part of Waymarking, and I think they deserve a place so those that are interested in them can enjoy them, and everyone else can ignore them.
  12. Boy, you bring up an issue that is a thorn for us all, I think. As long as I've been doing this, I still can't remember which categories allow waymarks if they are part of a memorial that mentions other wars! Now we have a catch-all category for all other wars that don't have a specific category, but ONLY if they are not part of a multi-war monument. Definitions are also vague because there may be individual memorials that are in close proximity so some may view them as one memorial. I am in favor of allowing a waymark for a specific war even if it is part of a multi-war memorial. GT.US gives us one good reason for doing so. This also highlights wars that are often overlooked. Allowing individual waymarks allows us to focus on that particular war. So, that's the way I wrote the Korean War Memorial category. It highlights this war and the vets who served, and anyone who is interested in that war has a place to go for information. Otherwise, many of these would be buried in the non-specific category where the Korean War may have only a passing mention, or maybe none at all. Still, I would not be in favor of eliminating the non-specific category. Here the entire monument or memorial can be highlighted and described with its various elements, etc. It can also be a starting point for research, and gives that valuable overview. I wish I knew of a way making them all uniform, but, as you point out, that is difficult. We could continue this discussion, and that may be helpful, but in the end, only the category officers can make the change. And, things do change, and opinion's change, so it might be worthwhile for a group to get together and come up with some suggestions, and propose some changes to the category management groups. Beyond that, I think we are stuck with what we are stuck.
  13. As usual, BruceS has given an accurate reply, which is in line with the others. I am curious about the reasons someone would want to adopt a waymark. Is it to get a new icon, increase stats, or to work on it to make it better? Waymarking can be viewed as a collaborative effort. Once a waymark has been published it remains under the name of the person who created it. Unless, as in the case DougK cited, there is a valid reason to disqualify a waymark, it should not be deleted or replaced. Following on Bruce's suggestions, there are several ways to modify an existing waymark. 1. The easiest is simply by adding photos to the waymark's photo gallery. This, in fact, is what happens frequently when people post visit logs and upload a photo. Changes to any other part of the waymark -- title, quick description, detailed description or variables can be made by using the feature to suggest an edit to the waymark. You could include HTML to insert a photo, add or change description, provide web links, etc. These all go to an officer for review -- a system that has its flaws, but still provides an element-by-element review of the suggested changes. I probably wouldn't approve one that significantly changed the original. If I had some substantial changes I would probably prefer to leave the original intact and than append the new information. And, as a reviewer, I would welcome the new contributor to include their identifying information, such as: The following paragraph(s) provided by ..... Also, as an officer, although I COULD make substantive changes, I would do so only when I could preserve the integrity of the original waymark. We don't really OWN waymarks once they are published, in the sense that is true of geocache listings. See the terms of service on this one.
  14. Yeah, we all know you've been slacking off! Seriously, our thoughts and prayers are with you. Have you been able to maintain your posting streak? THREE YEARS Plus at last count. I hope to get my own posting rate up, but between job, volunteer work and grandchildren . . .
  15. In general, I certainly agree with the waymarks above. Additional photos are nice, but I don't require them in any of my categories, but do check because some do. Retro visits are welcomed by me, but, as with BruceS, I want a bit of a story. This really applies to all waymarks regardless of when the visit was. If someone can't be bothered to say something meaningful, then why log it? It doesn't have to be a paragraph, but something about the visit. In case of retro visits, try to give an approximate time and why you visited it, and especially mention any differences if there are any. I don't delete logs, but I agree, "Found while geocaching," is my least favorite.
  16. Addressing the issues: 1. Easy, thank you for giving me the answer you want. 2. The county is correctly listed on my submission as Broome County. The coordinates fall within Broome County. I would really prefer not to change this to Chenango when I know that is incorrect. 3. Uhhhmmm..... I guess I'll just copy that, even though I don't get the dates at all. 4. How should I re-do my title? Would "Chenango Canal Prism and Lock 107 - Chenango Forks, NY" be appropriate? Part 2 I initially attempted to list this as a Lock (since it is). But the submission page required elevations or some such thing. This is an abandoned lock, the submission page even allows for abandoned and remnants. I don't know these measurements and wasn't able to find them. Can this be listed as a Lock? Part 3 Should I list it as a canal? When I decline a waymark, I usually identify myself, in this case with both my real name and Waymarking name -- Larry (silverquill) That way a person can reply to me via the Groundspeak system using my Groundspeak name and also address me as a real person. There seems to be some controversy over the location of this site, which is why I had trouble finding it. The National Park Service has it listed in Chenango County. See: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/listings/20100625.htm Our default database: www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com also lists it in Chenango County since it reflects the NRHP site. Wikipedia lists it in Broome County. It could be that it is bordered by both counties but since the maps don't show county lines, I can't be sure of that. Does the river there form a county boundary? In these case we have two choices. One, is to list it as it is listed by the NRHP and make a note of the difference. I prefer this because it enables us to find it in the official database. The other is to list it under what you think is correct and make a note of that fact in your description so that people searching for it can find it. If you want to do a little more research on this, that would be great. Sometimes a state or local historical society will have a copy of the nomination form which would probably be the most authoritative document. So, welcome to the fun of Waymarking! All the best, Larry (silverquill)
  17. No one will deny that the growth of this category has been fueled by BruceS with close to 20% of all waymarks in the category. Obviously many of have become inspired and contribute regularly. My own contributions dropped off during my nearly five-year stay in Korea. New people have come on board. The pool of potential waymarks grows as new sites are registered each week! The newer companion category for contributing buildings within NRHP historic districts also continues to grow, and has a astounding number of potential waymarks. There are many districts with over a thousand contributing buildings! When I first created the Smithsonian Inventory category, I think there was an initial surge of crossposting as people looked at the sculptures and statues that they had already posted, and then it tapered off to the current level. I think and interesting pattern would appear in the state historical markers categories with a huge surge, then a decline, especially for states that limited waymarks to an official, finite set. And, what about U.S. State Capitols? Some categories are pretty much defunct such as Kissmobile Sightings and Yellow Arrow.
  18. Technically, it does not matter where the image is stored. You just need to know the URL of the picture to use it in your HTML. From a maintenance point of view it is always easier to have all resources close together, so the Waymarking gallery is the obvious location to put the pictures, but if you have a good reason do do it differently, it will work as well. There are several problems with linking to photos NOT on the Waymarking.com site. 1. There is a greater chance that the links will be broken as sites change or go off-line. 2. There is also a greater likelihood that links may be to copyrighted photos, or other photos that should not be used. 3. If the photo is NOT in the photo gallery of the waymark, then the waymark is incomplete. The gallery is an important part of the waymark itself. I specify in most of my categories that the photos MUSE be original, and placed in the photo gallery. Most categories either specify original photos, or at least assume that they will be. If I am crossposting, the links may be to photos in another waymark, but I will ALSO put the photos in the gallery of each waymark. There may be a few exceptions, but I try to follow this practice so that each waymark is complete in itself. I think this is very important.
  19. I don't understand either set of numbers, but I struggled with statistics. For the second group, why would I appear on five or six countries where I have NO waymarks, and another where I have only one, but NOT on any of the other 12 countries where I have waymarks? I suppose some of those don't have 2,000 waymarks. Korea could have that many if I ever got them all posted. I should try to bring it up to 1,000 at least. Where is one stat I would really like to see -- how many UNIQUE waymark contributors have there been since the beginning? To see annual figures on this would also be interesting. And, as Waymarking.com has become more and more international, are there any stats to show this progression, either by waymarks per country or per waymarkers? Long live the number crunchers!
  20. No, the category you named above waymarks real rivers-lakes-seas at a watershed you see normally no water. Correct. Watersheds are not rivers. I've seen a few watershed markers in my travels, and I think a category for them would be good. The key would be a good description so that we learn something.
  21. First, I just reviewed a waymark from a new person who wanted to know how to add specific logging requirements to his waymark. So, it still does happen. PHOTOS: Terms like old - new - vacation - cell phone, etc. are really irrelevant. When I review a waymark, I don't ask these questions. I want to see photos that accurately and clearly present the site/object of the waymark, and ones that are original for the waymark. For some categories, picture quality is more important than others. If a photo taken on last year's vacation does the job, and the coordinates were obtained by visiting the site, then that's fine with me. If someone submits lousy photos taken yesterday with a digital SLR of a building across the street and that photo is skewed, blurry, underexposed or otherwise of poor quality, then it is not acceptable. How about pictures I took in a town where I lived five years ago? I wasn't on vacation? Or, maybe I took a vacation last week? Maybe it was a business trip.
  22. As far as I know, any officer can at least put up a regular member for promotion to officer status. It does require at least a two-thirds vote which may be difficult to get if there are inactive officers. I have also had to recruit/promote officers in some groups where I am leader in order to get my own waymarks reviewed. There are no written guidelines that prohibit one from reviewing one's own waymarks, but it is generally regarded as poor policy, although I know some people who do it regularly. It is not so much a matter of ethics, in my view, but a matter of quality control. Why do authors hire proof readers? It is simply because we miss our own mistakes, and I don't want to miss my own mistakes in a waymark. There is a protocol for dealing with abandoned or languishing categories, but I don't know if it is still functioning.
  23. "Category drift" can happen for a number of reasons. The one that I face most often as a reviewer is the waymark that is on the fringes of what is acceptable. Do I be strict and decline the waymark, or be flexible and accept it? Each time a borderline waymark is accepted, the further out the boundary gets pushed. I don't like to decline waymarks, and I would rather be inclusive than exclusive. But, there are risks. Subjective criteria for a category are a setup for inconsistencies. What one reviewer may consider unique, another may not. I'm not always consistent in my own evaluations. Once something is accepted in a category, then someone will consider it a precedent. That makes it harder to decline a waymark that is clearly inappropriate. Mistakes do happen. Sometimes I may miss something that should disqualify a particular waymark. Sometimes an inexperienced officer will let something slide in. Then there are a few people who just don't bother reading the waymark and will automatically approve anything. This is bad for the hobby. We as officers need to be conscientious about understanding and applying the written criteria to each submission. Correcting mistakes is possible, but dangerous. Only occasionally will I "reconsider" a waymark that either I or another officer has accepted in error. No one likes to have that happen, but sometimes for the integrity of the category it has to be done. For instance, if it is a waymark that is specifically excluded, then it really should be rejected after further review. Poorly written descriptions also open up a category to inconsistencies. Some of the early categories were rather brief or not well defined. I think the Waymarking community has become more mature and demanding in how categories are written and defined. Changes over time my result in a gradual shift in the character of the nature of a category. In many cases the originator of the category has dropped out. Sometimes none of the original officers are active and completely different people are making the decisions. Along with this may come an actual rewriting of the category. Even with the original officers, descriptions and requirements can be changed. If these changes exclude some things that were previously accepted, then there are apparent inconsistencies. I suppose that as long as humans are reviewing waymarks, there will be some inconsistencies. If we are generous and polite, we can minimize the repercussions of these instances. Most of all, we can try to avoid them as much as possible. Are we having fun yet?
  24. No vacation photos, huh? Well, I have seen a few that seem to being going back through old photos of past travels and cobbling them into a waymark. Sometimes the photos just don't seem to fit. And, who knows how the coordinates were obtained. I see some waymarks with coordinates at a very unlikely location, like the center of a building, but there is really no way to prove how coordinates were obtained. Same for photos frequently. Are there still some categories that say, "no cell phone pictures?" That is certainly outdated,huh?
×
×
  • Create New...