silverquill

(sic{k}) Or how about this? Category: Stone Church Artefacts Description: "This category is for stone church artefacts"... Surprised the pants off of me! ('Twould be nice to explain what they are...) What have you seen lately? Oh, my! The first one sounds a lot like something I wrote! It has been copied by others, which is fine, so I guess I better check it out. It is always good just to send a note to the category leader about these. I know that I really appreciate people who take the time to let me know about my goofs. I make a lot of them, and there is a reason why an author is the worst person to proof read his own material. I don't know if I have seen it any category descriptions, but in submissions I see a lot of "cemetary" waymarks.

I've replied privately to this question, but a recap here might be useful. Probably we could do with a rewrite of the description to make the category description clearer. A name change could help, too. The original intent, as I understand it, was to have a category for anniversary commemorations not covered by the "Community Commemorations" category. There seems to be no good single term for that. "Non-community" doesn't really sound good. My suggestion is something simple like, "Anniversary Commemorations," with a clear exclusion for those that are "community commemorations."

This could probably go in at least two categories: Maritime Memorials and maybe Shipwrecks. Let's not forget the Signs of History category for something that seems to fit nowhere else, as long as it has some historical detail to it.

Well, I've seen this from time to time in the years that I've been reviewing waymarks. I always decline these, with an explanation. Some are corrected and resubmitted, but I few are never seen again. These are almost always from people new to Waymarking who probably come over from geocaching without taking the time to read instructions or understand the nature of Waymarking. Of course, they could edit the waymark after it has been accepted and put those requirements back in. This is perhaps a weakness as well as a strength in the way the system is configured. This is also on possible reason why an officer might freeze a waymark to prevent such changes. There has also been talk from time to time about standardizing logging requirements, but that is likely never to happen. Categories are just too different. I try to keep them simple for categories I write. Just give us the date and an account of your visit. Add new photos to the gallery if possible, or add new information. Still, I get too many that are not much more than, "I visited this while geocaching in the area."

About the only way I can see a physical event would be to piggy-back on one of the major Mega Geocaching events. I hear Germany is having a Giga Event! Some type of virtual event would certainly be worth pursuing, though! Love meeting waymarkers on the road, but those encounters are too few! I try to keep my sticker handy, though.

Fascinating! My true confession is that I do very little planning. I'm not interested in logging visits, so that is just random. Usually,, I just waymark whatever I find in my travels. I might go to That Town and start in the center, in New England there is usually a town green, where some of my favorite categories are, then wander around from there. Sometimes there is something specific that I will go for, maybe for a new category or other particularly interesting site, then I'll work from there. The most planning that I do is for NRHP listings. So, some of those map ideas might be useful for that, and then doing the qualifying buildings. I'll see what comes up. I export my waymarks into GSAK. I used to carry a notebook to write down the numbers and short ID for each waymark. Now I can add a comment on my Oregon 550. I can't find a way to import the comment field into GSAK, so I have to use a somewhat cumbersome workaround. But, then I export everything into one master spreadsheet. This is where I add fields for categories and flesh out the description and keep track of what is posted. I have more that are NOT posted than are. Organizing my photos is more problematic. Way back in the beginning I tried to have a folder for each category. Not only was that a lot of work, but made it more difficult to find the photos in some ways. Then when the number of categories increased and cross-posting became more common, it didn't work as well. So, now I just keep them in chronological order in dated folders, sometimes with a not about the location. My camera is supposed to geotag, but I haven't figured out how to use that, or figure out if it would be useful. The Oregon has a camera, but I've not really used it much. Now, I guess I'll have to play around with Basecamp and custom maps. IF technology makes it easier, fine, but if it just adds more work, then I don't know if it is worth investing the time to set it up and try to use it. We'll see.

This issue continues to pop up. I do agree that when an officer sends a waymark for a vote they should give some reason for it so that others can give due consideration. I also would prefer that the officers identify themselves when doing so. There really is no reason for anonymity among officers. I try never to decline a waymark without giving specific reasons, and frequently with suggestions. I will often quote, or at least refer to, the relevant part of our posting instructions, along with the suggestion that these be read if it is obvious that they have really missed the boat. Commenting on accepted waymarks is a little more spotty. Blue Quasar was the master of this! Always a pithy comment. I try at least to give thanks, but sometimes I miss. And, for quick waymarks, usually commercial categories like McDonalds or Chinese Restaurants, I'm more likely just to click through. I try always to "sign" my declines, sometimes my accepts, although the person can always see that if they want.

Well, here are some hints: Read the posting instructions. Look at existing waymarks to see how the clocks are described. Ask one of the officers. Pretend that there is no photo, then tell the world what the clock looks like. In describing any object, what kind of things would you say? What about size, shape, style, color, location? All of these vary widely in town clocks.

The uncat waymark feature was added a few years ago as a way to encourage people to contribute who perhaps didn't have the time to fully create a waymark or find the right category. It can also encourage the creation of new categories to accommodate some of these orphans. It does create some statistical problems with the "credit" issue. The person who completes and categorizes the waymark does indeed get credit for it. So, I've got one waymark in Africa and I've never visited that continent - just provided the category. So, my stats are messed up and my map! I wasn't aware that the person who created the uncategorized waymark also got credit. I thought that was surrendered. I'll have to check that out.

Sigh. Yes, I was copied on some of this correspondence as well, from an alert reviewer. I was too busy or tired to check it out, and by the time I looked at it, the offending waymark had been archived. So, Lep is right, be patient; we don't all respond as quickly as you might like for various reasons. Also of suspicion in this case is the the coordinates for the two waymarks we exactly the same. I myself could waymark the same site twice and not come up with exactly the same coordinates! That two people at different times could waymark the same object and have the exactly the same coordinates stretches my credulity. This lends evidence that this was an armchair waymark -- that the person never visited the site at all. I'll confess that I don't understand the mentality of someone who would even want to do this! What satisfaction could there possibly be from filling the grid by hacking someone else's waymarks? Not anything I could be proud of. I will be taking another look at some suspicious waymarks.

Granted that the internet and web have muddied the waters, but one does NOT have to register something as copyrighted to be protected by copyright laws. If it is your work, then you own the copyright, even without a copyright logo or claim. It is more than common courtesy; it is common law. Your work is yours UNLESS you specifically waive those rights in some way. Commonly, things posted on the web are done so under terms under which the author relinquishes some or all rights. But, that is NOT the case on Groundspeak sites as stated in the relevant portion quoted by BruceS. I'd go after your dulcimer work.

Just which bridge category would you like to expand to include these? I really so no logical category. I still think a broader category of "Floating Structures," might be viable.

This is a pretty narrow category concept. This is not only confined to one country, but to one state. While it may be true that the battle for Texas was international and that there were a few defenders at the Alamo, are there memorials to them anywhere outside of Texas, or the U.S.? That is the real question. Even if the answer is yes, are there enough of them to sustain a stand-alone category? While I do believe there is a place for niche categories, I'm not sure this is one of them. There are probably hundreds of similar, largely local, categories. How about the heroes of the Samil movement of 1919 in Korea's struggle for independence from Japanese rule? Oh, here is a list of other sieges, including the Alamo: List of Sieges I'm just raising the questions. Far be it from me to mess with Texas!

Interesting discussion! Certainly the concept itself for such a category is valid. It does seem, form Bruce's comments, that it might be nearly impossible to establish criteria within the category to verify the authenticity every building that someone might submit. IF you can do this, it might work. But, unless there is some recognized authorizing source, then I think it would like beyond our ability to verify these building either as a waymark creator or reviewer.

Even if it is not totally global, this is still a good category idea. We certainly have similar categories, that are country-specific. So, I see no reason not to have this category.

I'll have to try Ian's tip. But, I've just had to live with it for a long time, and since I still have a huge backlog from Asia, it will be a long road. Seems as if it should be a simple fix, but I don't really know. I mean, as far as I know, this doesn't happen over on Geocaching.com. I fix would sure help encourage international participation.

I think these ancient grave sites might be too few to make a good category on their own. Broadening to "ancient burial sites" might enlarge the pool, say over 1,000 years old? There is also the issue of protection of many of these sites which may be sensitive archaeological locations. There are many of these listed in the United States in the Register of Historic Places, for instance. Others, of course, may be bona fide tourist locations. Or, we might conceive of a category for "Publicly Accessible Archaeological Sites." Just try to define that term, though. Any other brainstorming ideas out there?

Anyone want to volunteer to be a link checker?

This is an interesting thought, but probably this thread needs to be moved to the New Categories forum. Floating bridges might be a viable category, even though probably very few around the world. Adding other floating structures/objects/buildings might make for a more interesting and diverse category. Variables could be used for type of floating site. I visited a very interesting floating pagoda on off shore from Anmyeon-do, Korea. But, it is on solid ground at low tide. Personally, I would include something like this. One of the most important criteria would be permanency. There are floating restaurants in the harbor at Pattaya, Thailand, and I'm sure other places. Seasonal, or other temporary structures should be excluded, and maybe some other things such as diving docks, piers, boat houses, house boats, etc. Perhaps limiting the category to named and publicly accessible structures would be feasible. In any case, I think this is an idea that is worthy of further discussion and development.

I think I have a picture of one near where my wife grew up in Ohio. But, yes, very uncommon. I'll post it if I can locate it.

This reminds me of the Waymarking photo contest that we had several years ago. It wasn't a category and was conducted through Flickr submissions. I really enjoyed it, but had a hard time keeping up with it, but I submitted some of my best photos. They were all from waymarks already submitted. I think this is workable as a category as a type of game category. A couple of suggestions. Unlike other categories, coordinates would be for the location from which the photo was taken. That way visits would be a visit to those coordinates with a photo matching the view of the original as closely as possible. This could be quite interesting, esp. with seasonal topics. Browsing Flickr groups will give you a good idea of the wide variety of possible monthly themes. Some wouldn't be suitable for waymarks, but others would work great. One of my favorites was Yellow -- photos that feature yellow things comprising most of the photo area. Since the potential themes are so many, I'm trying to think of a way we could get two categories out of these to offer more Waymarking opportunities. I'd rather see themes without too much overlap with existing waymark categories. So, as much as I love waterfalls, that wouldn't make a good theme because we have a waterfalls category. The themes should be permanent and visitable. So, sunsets, reflections, etc. would be good, but dogs wouldn't. I'll look forward for this one. Sounds like a lot of fun.

Good category eye! When I visited my daughter and son-in-law a while back, we went non a geocaching trip to pick up a couple new states and stopped by a local eatery - real country stuff. But they had one of these challenges - a giant burger of some sort, I think. You know, free if you can eat the whole thing within a specified time. They had winners posted on the wall. I think a Waymarking category for these places is a great idea! Food eating contests, etc. are another possibility, but deserve their own category.

My dear beaver, While I respect the requirements of the other "dated" categories, you are right that there are many others dated buildings and structures that are left homeless waifs because the date is on a sign or plaque or they are neither buildings nor bridges. I've passed by so many of these because I new they would not qualify. Should there be a multifarious category for the rest of these dated things? Are they too common and ubiquitous? Well, I won't argue from the many other dime-a-dozen categories we have. can such a category stand on its own merits? I think the overriding issue is exactly the one you have addressed: Is it interesting or useful? Even the seemingly most mundane plaque or other date has a story to tell. It is a tangible record of something important enough that someone wanted to record the date. Creating a waymark is a new form of documentation for that event/structure/building often containing information that may not exist or be readily available elsewhere. I think one of the keys to such a category is requiring a good description as well as good photos. Telling the story is the point. Close-ups and text of plaques are essential. Sure, it may take time to type in the names, inscriptions and dates on a plaque, but that is what a good waymark can do. So, I do think you have another good one here. Now I'll wish I hadn't passed up so many of these.

Wow, this turned into a long thread! Might as well add a few more comments. The original speed question: Reviewer wars, really? Didn't know reviewing waymarks was a competition. If anyone really wants to review some more waymarks, let me know and I'll fix you up! The only time I might be fast is if a waymark appears in my queue while I'm working my way through it. Good Reviews: I've reviewed enough waymarks to have made some bad reviews - wrong state, bad coords, etc. Sometimes it actually is because I've been in a hurry. Other times, I just missed something, or misread something. There are several things that do affect how long I spend reviewing a waymark. One is the category. A McDonalds or a Chinese Restaurant gets less of my time than an old church or a superlative. Another is who is submitting the waymark. If it is from someone who has a track record of good waymarks, it may get a more cursory look. We can all make mistakes, so I take a look at the basics. A waymark from someone I'm less familiar with or who has an unfavorable track record will get a closer scrutiny. I do assume a basic level of competence in most cases, so don't check all facts or every word for spelling and grammar, for instance. And, if the waymark is from a place that I have no experience with, then it can be more difficult to verify descriptions, sometimes even coordinates. I do decline waymarks, and try my best to give a detailed explanation and suggestions when I can. That is by far the most time consuming part of reviewing, but an important one. Usually people are responsive to these comments, and the result is a better waymark. I do know a few officers who seemingly review anything and everything regardless of quality or accuracy, but that is by far an exception. I think most of us really try to do our best.

The biggest obstacle I see for this concept is that is is vague and subjective. Aircraft can be seen from multiple vantage points, especially around large airports. Just think how many places one could chose to watch aircraft around LAX! Are we talking landings and takeoffs only? How close to an airport does the location need to be, or can they be somewhere else? What about sites at or within an airport? This might be relevant especially for smaller airports. What about private airports? If the category is tied to airports, how many waymarks are allowed for one airport. Maybe a description could be written that would address all of these issues, but it would be a challenge.