silverquill

These kind of situations arise periodically - categories that seem too restrictive to someone. There are three solutions: 1) The category group agrees to open it up 2) A new category is created to fill the void 2) Nothing happens and the gap remains. In this case, I would hope that option one would happen. But, if not, then I think a new category would certainly be in order. Not optimum, but better than leaving a lot of cool places without waymarks.

Sure, there are lot of categories that leave much to be desired when it comes to descriptions, posting instructions, and logging instructions. I lot of it has to do with the evolution of Waymarking. In the early days we had a kind of minimalist approach. And, yes, some categories were created with a lack of understanding and forethought. I guess my greatest blunder was in creating the Municipal Parks category which has a place for waaay to many, and redundant, variables. I keep them in place because if I delete them, then all previous information entered into them would disappear. Of course categories can be revised, and frequently are. I would say that the majority of my categories have been modified in some way since they were created, and the same is true of ones that I've inherited or adopted. Probably I need to go through them systematically again. Other solutions? Well, in some cases I think a note to the category group leader might help. I know some of the changes I've made have been in response to someone's suggestion. This will not always work, of course, especially when the leaders are inactive or just unresponsive. Periodically the suggestion is made that there be a group formed and given the ability to edit categories, or to get them jump started when they are stalled or abandoned. I don't see that happening. There is, or was, a system for getting inactive categories going again, but with the departure of Checkmark, I don't know what the status of that is. So, for the most part, we just try to do the best we can with the idiosyncrasies of our categories. But, keep trying.

When I review a waymark, I don't care what kind of camera was used; only quality matters. Blurry, under of over exposed, skewed, lack of detail, etc. may cause me to decline a waymark, depending on other factors. I've got a good pocket digital camera with a fairly wide angle lens and good zoom - and other functions are barely know how to use. In a pinch, I've used my phone to take pictures. Even my Oregon 550 can take pictures. But, if that was all I had to rely on, I would be hard put to do some waymarks that are more challenging to photograph. I also take the time to edit most of my photos, partly because I'm not that good behind a lens. It is amazing what some simple cropping, straightening and lighting can do to improve an otherwise marginal photo.

The only possibility I see for the pigeon houses is Unique Bird House category, but may not qualify there. There is no category for monochrome tile buildings as such. they would have to qualify in some other category, as mentioned, such as dated building, etc. They are not mosaics at all. Sometimes there are nice sites that just aren't suitable for Waymarking. . . .

It depends on the definition of "brick." And, as raised above, it depends on the definition of "road." Motorized traffic, pedestrian way? And, it is also true, as you mention, that Waymarking something that is not a single point or well defined area is problematic. I faced this when creating a category for rivers. So, I settled on three possible points to waymark - where the river begins, ends, or joins another river. I can't think of a similar solution for a brick road which could be a few meters of preserved roadway, or many miles. So, my opinion is that his probably is not workable as a Waymarking category. But, someone else may have some better ideas.

I don't think Groundspeak is going to dump Waymarking.com anytime soon! We need to think of ways to make it more viable, and I believe that means reaching out in ways that take us beyond our geocaching roots. But, that is a topic for another thread. Category creation is certainly more and more of a challenge. That is partly due to the changing winds of what "the community" deems worthy. We are more international than ever, for one thing. While we do have many country or regional specific categories, that is different from restricting a category arbitrarily. While I think there is a place for more limited, niche categories, that is a different question. And thee is no question that the organizational structure is a mess. That was partly intentional and partly just due to the organic development that was set in place. That quirkiness is part of what gives Waymarking its character, but also a source of frustration to most of us at times. Keep pushing the boundaries.

There are several reasons why a WRITTEN description is necessary. 1). Sometimes there are things that really can't be seen that clearly in the photos. 2). Some things, even if they are clear, need some sort of explanation. (Think of museums with explanations of the pictures or sculptures.) 3). One of the most important reasons is that written text becomes searchable on the web. This adds to the accessibility of the waymark and increases the value of Waymarking.com in general as a contribution to the body of knowledge on the internet. This is also one of the main reasons for entering the text of plaques, markers and signs into the waymark description. Sometimes our waymarks are the only place some of this information appears. 4). Some people really do use screen readers to browse/search the internet, and a good description helps a lot. In my view, good pictures and a good description are the two wings upon which a waymark flies.

Thanks for putting the effort into this! Fascinating and very revealing stats.

MountainWoods is correct, I believe. The general guidelines do NOT say that uploading an image is "optional." You are misquoting the text! Here, "option" means "opportunity" in a functional sense. It has nothing at all to do with requirements. The requirements to post a visit log for a waymark are set individually for each category. Many do require a photo, others do not. Some require specific information, others do not. Even the enforcing of the stated requirements may be lax. As for "trolls," probably another misnomer, we very rarely have what I call "armchair waymarkers" who log visits to waymarks that they haven't actually visited. They are usually easily spotted and reported. Then it is up to the creators of each waymark to delete them. In this sense logging visits to waymarks is a lot looser than finding a geocache. It is a very different game, and there are many ways to play, most of them non-competitive.

Well, 2013 wasn't as great in terms of numbers as I would have liked. The travel did allow me to add new countries and categories, I gathered way more waymarks than I've had time to post while traveling. My retirement was short-lived, and was filled with other projects, and now I'm back pretty much full-time in a new job adventure that has been pretty demanding so far. Still waiting for "normal," but maybe this is it. So, I'll have to think about new goals for 2014. I'd love to add some new states, but have no definite plans to do so. Anyway to waymark grandchildren?

First, this is a wonderful category concept! Kudos for following up on this. The category as written is well thought out and covers most of the essential points. The policy on Waymarking a museum or other concentration of qualifying objects is well-taken, and is consistent with most other categories where these situations exist. Museum categories don't allow for Waymarking each individual display, even though they each may have a story to tell. (The exception may be sculpture gardens, but that is different from a museum.) Would we waymark every train in a train museum? The provision for areas where the objects are spread out gives some flexibility. Even a single waymark can do justice to a group. Just put in a little more effort - more photos, more detailed description! Seems simple enough to me. When it comes to markers and plaques, I would lean toward including the text more of a requirement, or at least a stronger request. There can be some flexibility if the markers are extremely long. Sure, once again, it takes more time and effort to do this, but the results are worthwhile. As you mentioned, this may be the only place this information exists on line. This is one of the valuable contributions that Waymarking can make! It will be nice to see this category on the grid!!

Whew, got out of southeast New England just as the coastal storm hit! Now we are in beautiful Pasadena, California for a week or so - til the 30th. We have some unscheduled time, so if any waymarkers in the area would like to meet, I'd love to get together. Darn, left my sticker book at home. PM me.

These kinds of encounters are really great. I've had a few, usually involving historic sites. The more unpleasant ones tend to be from commercial sites. Draw your own conclusions. I still believe the the future growth of Waymarking.com will come as we explore the world beyond Geocaching. Approached in the right way, I think there are others who might be drawn into Waymarking who have no background or interest in Geocaching. We already have a good group so those, like the previous post in this thread. W Whether this could be leveraged into an income stream is another question, but one that I think is important to explore.

INDOOR MALLS seems to be stalled. The leader, Blue Quasar, has apparently decided to drop out of Waymaking after having made a significant contribution during the formative stages of our hobby. Unfortunately, he just left his categories hanging. I haven't heard back from my inquiry, and my waymark has been languishing there for a month now.

I haven't seen this app, but might check it out. I do agree that some type of Waymarking app would be great, and Groundspeak recognizes that too, but is unwilling to commit resources into something that doesn't bring in revenue, so it is a business decision. But, isn't there some way to make money from an app? If this app draws from multiple databases, why not draw from Waymarking.com? Could that be licensed? Or at least some selected categories. In my opinion, Waymarking.com will never reach its true potential until it breaks with its Geocaching.com roots and explores options in the larger world.

Yeah, very funny, Bruce

May be some redundancy issues, true. Do we know if all of these would be included in the existing Campgrounds category? As for one country -- all I can say is there is something very similar in Korea, and they are called "auto-camps." I'll have to see if I can find a couple of examples.

Reading this with fresh perspective, I think that there may be some possibility with this one. "Publicly accessible towers or other structures where people can climb on and enjoy a great view." As I understand it, the focus of the existing Lookout Towers category is on towers and other similar structures, that one can ascend in some fashion as a viewpoint. While fire lookouts may be included, as long as they may be ascended, they are only a fraction of what is included. I really wonder if all of these fire lookouts in the category are open to the public? It seems to me that this requirement is NOT adhered to consistently. This one, for instance: Promontory Point Look-out Tower This appears to be fenced and of a type that isn't just open to the public. I think there are many other examples. I think that a carefully written description that focuses specifically on fire towers would include many of these excluded towers. Having the specific databases is a plus, too. In regard to former towers, I think there has to be something there to see in order to waymark it - and old foundation, perhaps, AND some sort of documentation to authenticate the site. And, I think having a good set of variables would add value to the category, serving a greater purpose in documenting this worthy sites that just doesn't and wouldn't happen within the existing category. Maybe I'm just nostalgic about the summer I spent with my cousin in Idaho climbing one of these towers by Lake Lowell. I think it was supposed to be locked, but what is that to curious boys?

In some cases, as Bruce mentioned, these are indeed temporary. This is especially true when multiples of the same form are created and each one painted in some unique way. I did a couple of these in a park in Ohio, not quite animals, but the same concept, and found later that they were all gone. Catalina Island has buffalo like this around Avon, but I haven't been back recently to see if they are still there. Of course there are others that seem more permanent. I recently did one of a whale shark south of Pattaya, Thailand, that was fiberglass, but quite permanently mounted, and somewhat weather beaten, and it went well into the Figurative Sculptures category. So, I would evaluate each one individually on its own mertits.

Did this one not pass peer review? I wasn't involved in creating this one, but I'm disappointed anyway. Why? Certainly our ideas of what make a good category have changed from the early days of Waymarking, but I think this clearly has a place along side a good many similar categories. Why should we give a place to Pizza Hut, and deny a category for another pizza chain? Some people think ALL commercial categories should be avoided, some think they all should be accepted, and others, like myself, believe that they have a place within Waymarking and we should select them with care. This seemed like a good fit. If you never want to waymark in a commercial category that is just fine. But, for the many who would like to do these waymarks, why should they not have a place along side the rest? I probably wouldn't go out of may way to waymark one, but I might walk across the street if there was one there. There are other categories I ignore completely. That's the way it should be. It is the strength of Waymarking that we make place for a diversity of tastes and interests. So I fail to see any valid arguments against inclusion. How does this hurt Waymarking? By the way, Little Caesar would not fit the definition of a regional chain since it is national in the U.S., and has expanded to other countries. I'm flexible in adding new chains, and have added many, but not that flexible.

Okay, not a bug, but I'm done doing what I want in the forums, and there is no link to get back to Waymarking.com -- just a tab to go to Geocaching.com. Yes, I know that we're back on the Geocaching forum site, but it is annoying not to have an easy way to get back to our home site. Gripe, complain, guess I'm just tired.

Well this is an old thread, and I think Blue Sky guy has giving some good answers. hancpac - Reminds me of one of our older categories Ansel Adams Photo Hunt - taking a photo matching the view of any of his published photos, and getting the coordinates, of course. Our Philatelic Photos - taking a photos matching a view depicted on a postage stamp. In fact, we have quite a few categories that will take you to unusual and less visited sites. Waterfalls, Mountain Summits, Wilderness Shelters, Long Distance Hiking Trails, and a host history and art categories. Waymarking can be just as fascinating and as adventurous as you want to make it!

Very interesting. I'm not sure how common these are. I'll ask my cousin. He and his wife are world class water skiiers, and the only one of these seen is near their winter home in Thailand. Looked like a lot of fun, but not quite as easy as it looks. But I think this would still be an interesting category. (I have photos and coordinates for that one, so you would have at least one waymark.)

Well, this sounds a bit esoteric and arcane, but I think this is a perfect example of some of the directions that Waymarking can take! Many of these may not be easily identified, or just stumbled upon in one's travels. One would have to seek them out intentionally. And that is where Waymarking can really shine! Here's a great opportunity to contribute something to the body of knowledge in an accessible format. I applaud your imagination. Question: In many areas that have long cold winters, special vaults were built to hold bodies until the ground thawed in the spring so they could be buried later. Would these fit your definition? Then we have a sight near hear identified as a Native American cemetery, although there are no markers of any kind, and no individual graves. But, it was identified as a burial sight through archaeological investigation. No structure ever involved. Anyway, I am glad that your are moving ahead with this idea.

Well, you are right of course. Still, it is an intriguing idea. The approach I took when creating the Engineering Landmarks category and the Superlatives category was simply that it had to appear on an objective list somewhere as being identified as such. So, a site may indeed be an engineering marvel, but it qualifies only if has been designated in some way be an engineering organization. For superlatives, any documented claim - a sign, brochure, web site, book, etc. is accepted. We often end up with competing claims, but that's okay; makes the category interesting. This approach keeps the category from being too subjective. So, for "Wonders of the World," you might allow anything that appears on a list of "wonders." Bully for Kansas, I guess. Even this is a bit arbitrary, because "wonder" is a subjective designation and all sorts of things might be included or excluded just based on the terminology used. I suppose one could maintain a list of approved lists. Of course there would be a lot of overlap, which is not quite the same thing as redundancy, but that's fine. If it adds interest to Waymarking, which I think it does, then why not? It just provides another viewpoint, another way of organizing and looking at these sites.