silverquill

Wow, this is a complex category idea, but one that I think is worth pursuing. In general, I'm not in favor of writing a category with a lot of exclusions, especially if those exclusions are based on the existence of other categories. IF it qualifies for more than one category, then a waymark should be valid for each category. This is not ALWAYS true, but I think it is a general principle. Then one has the choice of which category is best, or if one wants to post it in multiple categories. I do think the exclusion of certain types of mass produced objects is valid, and necessary. I think that trying to determine what is a "stock" production or common object presents a challenge, injecting an element of subjectivity, but I think we have to try. There are many cemetery related categories, and I see nothing disrespectful about them per se, as long as they are created in a respectful way. There are many other sites besides Waymarking.com that document graves, after all. One additional question that arises after my visit to England--what about effigies? I saw many crypts that had a likeness of the deceased on the cover. I'll see if I can post a photo, or maybe someone else has one. I think these could be included, or maybe even warrant their own category. So, count me in!!

This is probably true. I don't know what the actual statistics are. Waymarking is significantly different from Geocaching, even from the virtual and locationless caches, in that visiting them is not necessarily the goal. While many people do enjoy visiting them, others are pretty casual about logging visits. Waymarking is still driven primarily by the creation of the waymarks as a way of documenting interesting (and some not-so-interesting) sites around the world. The adventure is in the discovery of new places to waymark, taking the photos, maybe doing some research, and then writing a good description. We've built up a tremendous information base through Waymarking. Just see how often they show up on web searches related to them! With over 1,000 categories, many find particular areas of special interest, concentrating on certain categories or types of categories. Others like the challenge of filling in the "grid" by creating and/or visiting waymarks in as many categories as possible. So, I would not let the small percentage of logged visits discourage you from either creating your own waymarks or visiting ones that interest you.

I'm not in the anti-commercial category camp. I think they have their place. A place somewhere near the bottom, but still a place. A category like this would have a special focus, but it may be too narrow to be sustainable. Many places offer fair trade products, but few deal with them exclusively. And, I wouldn't disqualify one because they also sell other types of products, especially ones that just aren't available as being labeled "fair trade."

Yes, yes! A great achievement, especially since your Waymarking is not about cranking out the numbers but producing high quality, original waymarks! You continue set the bar high and offer examples of what is the best in Waymarking. Add to that -- active involvement in category management and contributions to the Waymarking community -- and we have a leader. Thanks and congratulations! ~Larry (who will finally meet BruceS this weekend, and who hopes to make it to NJ on of these days)

As always, the challenge is to define the category so that you get what you want, and not what you don't want; making it neither too narrow so that it is only a small niche nor so broad that the boundaries are blurred and a unwieldy mish mosh results. How about something a little broader, such as Civic Projects? This could include urban redevelopment projects that revitalize an urban core as well as environmental type projects. I would say that anything undertaken by the community for its enhancement could be included. The key is that there must be some sort of permanent sign, plaque or display that informs the public about the project (not just a dedication plaque, for instance). There might need to be a few exclusions such as historical preservation of single buildings or structures, normal parks, etc. This could be a very informative category that would highlight a lot of things that don't get much coverage on the internet! As for the original question: You might ask the leader of the Municipal Parks and Plazas group about accepting it there. It is a bit out of the box, but I think he might be flexible enough to give it a home. Oh, hey, that would be yours truly.

Well, that depends entirely on what definition of library you use! What we usually think of are "lending libraries." But, that is only one type of library. There are many research libraries that do NOT lend material, and a more like what you describe, but they are still libraries. They may also be called "reference libraries." Many are associated with academic institutions. Another example in the U.S. are the presidential libraries which are generally not lending libraries. Some of these may be called archives, but they are still libraries in the broader sense. Many libraries also have research and reference sections that are non-lending, and may have sections called archives. So, I think it is a challenge to define archives as something distinguished from other types of libraries. In the U.S., for instance, the county court houses all have archives of public records. But, I don't think any one would want to include them. Many other government institutions or branches have archives of important records. (Genealogists often consult these.) Now, if the existing category will accept ONLY lending libraries, then I think the category should be renamed. But, as I've illustrated, they have in the past accepted waymarks for libraries bearing the name "archives." If the types of places you have in mind truly do NOT have a place in an existing category, AND you can create a sufficiently clear definition to distinguish them from similar institutions, then I think there is a good case for a new category. Oh, there is a good discussion of the definition of "library" in the Libraries Magazine You can also see the Wikipedia article on libraries for a good overview of library types.

It is interesting to note that there are only three commercial categories in the top 100. McDonalds at # 17 One of the original set of categories, with a huge international pool Subway at #37 There are more of these locations around the world than there are McDonalds and Starbucks at #48 Again a business with a huge, international pool of sites. So, I think that is a good indication of what people find interesting and worthwhile to waymark. In general I won't go out of my way for a waymark in a commercial category but will do them if I am close for some other reason. Sometimes a drive down a major city street can be overwhelming if one thinks of all the potential waymarks passing by! Try driving down a fast-food alley. But, in general, they can be quick and easy waymarks to put up and get the number bump. Still, I think they have a legitimate place in the Waymarking universe. I think you are partly right in the reasons for this being documentation. I think this is also a weakness because no group of waymarks goes stale quicker than commercial categories. I've seen some businesses change two or three times within the first year! So, keeping our waymrks current in these categories is very difficult. Another weakness of commercial categories is that the process is so hit and miss. No category is any where near comprehensive enough to be any sort of directory, so the value has to lie elsewhere. Preserved for posterity, I guess.

Get well soon! That is NOT fun. Truthfully, I see no need for this category unless it can be demonstrated that a significant number of these sites can NOT be included in the general Libraries category. I don't think we need to start splitting it up into smaller more specialized pieces.

Well, I'm not familiar at all with this group. But, this appears to be an organized group with a headquarters and central administration, at leas similar to what we call "denominations," and not truly independent. There is probably no logical larger grouping for them, so in that sense an individual category would be called for. Now, it is a small group with a limited pool of potential waymarks and a limited geographical distribution, but this also illustrates my point that if there is a group interested in creating and maintaining a category for this group. Not all categories have to have thousands of potential waymarks and have sites in a hundred countries. While we have long advocated global categories, and still do, I would like to here a reasonable argument against having smaller and more limited categories. Independent churches would be those which have no affiliation with a larger administrative group. Each individual church is independent for its theology, government and administration. Even this definition is problematic because there are networks of independent churches that may share some oversight or cooperative associations. And this is an ever shifting ground as new churches and groups arise, join, split, and proliferate or fade away. But, we need not delve into that too much for our purposes.

I think most of these can be submitted to the Libraries category since archives are just a specialized type of library. In fact, I have a waymark for one of them on your list in that category, Masschusetts Archives So, you might want to check with the leader of the Library category to confirm this before you go too far in working on a new category.

A great milestone! Congratulations and keep 'em comin'!

I think they war S & H (Sperry and Hutchinson). We filled books full! There were also Gold Bond Stamps and Blue Chip, and probably some others.

This question comes up fairly frequently. And, the answer has to do partly with the type of waymark. If it is a commercial business that has relocated, then I think it is best to leave the old waymark up and label it as MOVED. (I put that as the first word in the title, quick description and detailed description, where I also add a short explanation.) The new location gets a new waymark, and and each can get a link to the other. If it is something more moveable, like a sculpture or statue, then the same approach can be used, or the current waymark can be updated with new photos and a description of the move along with the old photos. In your case, the best you can do is exactly what you have done. We hope that the waymark creator will make the modifications. If he doesn't then you might just want to create a new waymark and link to the old one, depending on the type of site and significance of the move.

Not a bad idea, although I think there aren't so many of these. Maybe enough for a category. Do you want to include "Junk Houses?" I think writing a good definition of a "Folly" may be difficult. Some structures are odd (we have the Odd Buildings category) or eccentric in some way, but are functional. Do you want to include both building and other objects? This makes the problem more difficult. But, I still think it is an idea worth pursuing.

I do have to disagree with this approach. I guess I'm partly to blame since I wrote some of the first denomination-specific categories. This is a constant question in Waymarking - how to slice the pie? There needs to be a balance between very small slivers, and just dishing up the whole pie. Each field has its own particular characteristics that will give different answers. Lets take a look at just a few. How about museums? How many museum categories are there? I count at least twelve: Maritime Museums Railroad Museums Science Museums Wax Museums History Museums Art Museums Aviation Museums Wildlife Museums Children's Museums War and Military Museums Motor Vehicle Museums Oddball Museum This covers most museums with some overlap, and I think this is better than having one omnibus category for all museums. There may be some museums that don't fit any of these categories. What to do? I could create a category for Wine Museums, or we could just have an "Everything Else Museum" category, just so none is left out. What about Christian churches? Well, I count 32 church and church-related categories. There are at least 19 that are identified by specific denominations or related groups of denominations: Presbyterian Churches Church of the Nazarene Orthodox Churches Lutheran Churches Wesleyan Churches Baptist Churches Methodist Churches Anglican and Episcopal Churches Church of Christ Scientist Roman Catholic Churches Orthodox Churches Assembly of God Churches Seventh-day Adventist Churches LDS Church History Sites Salvation Army Locations Quaker Meeting Houses Historic United Methodist Sites Mormon Temples New Apostolic Church ======== There are only 5 that are based on criteria other than organization. This Old Church Country Churches Medieval Churches Megachurches Cathedrals ============ There are at least 8 more categories that are largely church-elated though they may include other types of buildings or sites. This does not count several categories which often have a large number of churches in them such as Town Clocks, Bell Towers, etc. There may be others that could be added to this list. Stone Church Artefacts Unique Steeples Outdoor Stations of the Cross Churchyard Cemeteries Stained Glass Windows Churchyard Crosses Christian Crosses Outdoor Altars Disclaimer: This discussion is limited to the broad grouping of Christian churches and in no way intends to lessen the value of other religions, some of which are represented by categories, such as Synagogues, Buddhist Temples, and Hindu Temples. So what do we do with those churches that still do not fit into any of these categories? 1). NOTHING -- Not every church, every building, and every object and site needs to be waymarked. 2). Create a category for every denomination in existence. Possibly hundreds. If anyone doubts the complexity of this, just take a look at the Wikipedia article on Christian denominations! (I could probably add a few to that list.) 3). Create a "catch-all" category for those not included in a category. Here are some of the problems I see with this approach. 1). The result would be a sprawling category that includes buildings that have nothing in common except that they are churches and may actually have huge differences. I think this could be especially sensitive when it comes to religious groups that may not want to be lumped together with other types of churches. Sad, but true. This is not due only to denominational or theological factors, but is often influenced by nationalistic factors. 2). I think it would be almost impossible to come up with a set of criteria for inclusion in such a category unless it is open to all churches. Things like "interesting," "significant," etc. are just too subjective. 3). I think a general principle of category creation, which I know has been articulated by Groundspeak although I cannot find the reference, is that a category should stand on its own merits without reference to other existing categories. So, categories that are defined by what is not included in existing categories really lack a rational basis. 4). Such an approach would preclude the formation of other, more specific categories. Well, I think there is another approach. Really, it is nothing new, but is valid, especially in view of the above fourth point. This is simply to allow new categories for churches to be created as there is interest in them--a leader and management team and a positive peer review. I would suggest that there is room for several more such categories, some that may be broader. For instance, a category for independent pentecostal and charismatic churches might be viable. Maybe a larger category for all independent (non-denominational) Christian churches. Or some groupings based on broader criteria such as Reformed Churches, or Congregational Churches. This would be similar to the Baptist Churches category that lumps together many dozens of different denominations and even independent churches. Other church categories do much the same thing. (There are many denominations of Lutherans and Presbyterians, for instance.) Then there are a few denominations that are probably significant enough to warrant a category such as the Unitarian Universalist Church, or Evangelical Free Churches. While it is true that this approach leads to more categories and still doesn't include EVERY church (should that be a goal?), I think it is a more reasonable approach. As mentioned, one of the keys is that someone is interested and knowledgeable enough to create any particular category. I don't want a bunch of splinter categories, but neither do I think a conglomerate catch-all category is in our best interest. I think a better balance is possible.

That is essentially what I did for the 4 1/2 years in Korea. Now back in New England, which is pretty well covered - at least for the 10,000 plus category. I might check anyway.

Here is the web site for the U.S. church .... http://www.nac-usa.org/ Only 250 churches and it is not clear if they all have buildings. Also, there are many churches that have "Apostolic" in their name but are NOT part of this denomination, so it is important to make that distinction and verify the church's identity. I'm sorry that some find churches boring, but many of them find them of great interest. Just personal preference should not be the criterion for evaluating the merits of a category. Move ahead.

These are very popular at folk festivals in Korea and have a long tradition. I've got some great video. But, I have never seen a permanent installation. Even in the "folk villages" these are seasonal and are removed and set up, usually at least close to the same location, but not always.

I think you have certainly hit on one of those gaps that many of us have encountered! I may have some in my bag, but often I pass them by if I think they won't fit in a category. We do have a few categories that might overlap, but these are fairly easy to exclude. I wouldn't necessarily exclude agricultural machines, however. Some are just tools, or implements that fit in that category, or old tractors, or other vehicles. But there may be some very interesting machines, say a vintage combine that harvested wheat, or something involved in other steps of food production. As long as they meet the other criteria, I think it makes sense to include them. Bravo for introducing this!

These are nice stores with good prices in the UK. I shopped at several, but never thought about getting coordinates, and don't regret that decision. Another discount store chain is probably not the way to go right now. Yes, I think boring is the word that comes to mind. Lacks any other value that I can think of.

Yep, this is the most annoying bug in the system, although the group vote hang-up bug is a close second! It doesn't happen on the Geocaching.com side though. Defaults to ones home hemisphere, I believe. It seems so inconsistent and random. Sometimes the coords will stick. Sometimes they will flip the first time or the thrid time after edits. If it weren't for this bug, I'd probably have more waymarks posted just because of the time it takes to go back and change it again and again.

If I understand what you're looking for, then there isn't such a thing here at Waymarking.com. There are a few Waymarking categories focused on Disney (just do a category search on that name), and there are waymarks across different categories that appear in Disney parks, but there is no comprehensive set of POI's for Disney World or any of the other many Disney Parks around the world. That really is not the purpose of Waymarking.com. Then, what we do is really hit-and-miss as waymarks are created by individuals at their whim, so any collection would be incomplete and inconsistent. I wonder if Disney has a smart phone app for this sort of thing?

This is important information, of course, and wonderful to have. Our waymarks are based on the best information we have. If this is a listing from the NRHP, then that is what we are tied into. It might be good to see if you can get a copy of the original nomination form which will have all the detailed information on it. I think there is a procedure for amending that information with the NPS, but I'm not sure. Contacting them might be worthwhile for you. As far as the waymark itself is concerned, please contact the person who created the waymark and pass on this additional information. Although the name of the waymark will still have to correspond to the name on the NRHP, this personal information can be incorporated into the waymark description which will be an excellent way to make it available to the rest of the world. From time to time I get notes like this and it's great to be able to add, or correct, information in a waymark. Recently I got a not about a mural that I had mistakenly attributed to an artist of the same name. I was embarrassed, but also glad for the additional, correct information.

What makes this even more impressive is the high quality of his waymarks! Not drive-bys, not a lot of quickie commercial waymarks, but well-written and photographed waymarks that make a real contribution to the body of knowledge available in the world. Thanks for your example to us all, Bruce!

What? Now you actually want to get things done? Don't know. We can suggest to the PTB, but they've got their hands full with Geocaching.com which puts the bread on their table. If we can just convince them that Waymarking.com is their butter and jam, maybe we'd have a chance.