Razak
-
Posts
156 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Razak
-
-
but what is with evangelian-lutheran churches?
I was making examples lol I wouldn't make too many categories, I just figured those 4 are the primary christian denominations, other fills in=P For a church that might be two denominations, maybe someone could just put it in both
Okay, But the medivial is one catergory to much. When I have an old katholic church. In which category will I put the waymark?
I see no reason why you can't put a single church in two categories as long as it truly fits both. Waymarks are cross-listed fairly often.
It is both possible. I dont know, how much waymarks can be add to a cache (maybe 4, too?) or add the current waymark the next in a row. So there is only on waymark which is linking to an other (the next) waymark.
I really have no idea how this could work, I've never actually planted a geocache before so I don't know the process... that they have over there and not sure how to do it
That sounds great. But first, we need the new catergories
Well the only way to create new categories is to create a group and get 2 officers.. which is why I was lending my support to the tours and geocaching category if you chose to go there, am sure you could find others for the other categories you are looking for (they do limit to 5 right now).. I'm tryin not to join too many=P
-
This is a category proposal i had awhile ago and wasn't able to get a picture of one of the wax statues until recently to show what they were.
Wax statuette machines were fairly popular at tourist hotspots in the 80s and early 90s but have slowly dwindled away as the less expensive, and easier to collect penny smashers came into being.
Essentially wax statuette machines were large machines that you could make small wax statues. The statues varied depending on where you got them, zoos usually had animals, but other places had other objects as well.
Waymark creator would need to provide a picture of the items the machine makes (if there are more than one machine only one waymark is necessary, can do alternate coords), get coords, provide the cost of making a statue, provide name of the place the waymark resides in, provide hours of the place it is in, and any additional cost that might be associated with getting into the spot.
Visitors would just need to visit, since the pictures are already proivded, I see no reason why a picture needs to be there. But I would allow waymarkers to require this proof if they want it.
If anyone is interested in joining this group to get this into a waymark just head to the group page and join.
If anyone has ideas how to make this category better, please post thoughts in this thread.
-
Waymarking is an entirely different activity than geocaching. In geocaching you put the coordinates into your GPS, you go to a location (which may or may not be interesting), you find a container, you sign the log, and you may trade items. Waymarking has two components. You find an example of something that fits into a category (which may or may not be interesting), ideally you go to the location with your GPSr and get the coordinates (some categories have relaxed this requirement in order to get more waymarks listed), and you create a waymark for the location. This corresponds to the old activity of locationless caching. Once the waymark has been created, a person can enter the coordinates into their GPSr and visit the waymark. If the location is interesting to the visitor, he or she will think its a worthwhile activity. This is very similar to to the activity of finding a virtual cache. (I found many virtual caches to be lame and uninteresting - I still logged them cause they counted as a find
)I'm not sure if this is an accurate portrayal of how they are different... I agree they are different, though I'm tired of this argument because it is just non-sensical... yes they are different, but they both have many similarities, Waymarking is here because of geocaching, and are very tied to each other in many ways. They aren't entirely different, but yet they are. The argument seems to be like "You can't compare SUVs to Trucks, because SUVs have room for a whole family where a truck doesn't!" Even though they are both automobiles, and actually fairly closely related in the automobile family...
But on to your description... Waymarking consists of two components... so does geocaching... actually Waymarking consists of three components....Comparing the two Creating a Waymark is not unlike creating a cache... you need to find an interesting spot and log it... there is more to it here because we all like to take the picture out, say exactly what it is you are looking for, etc... essentially it is virtual caches without the hunt. Second component... visiting = logging nothing different in concept... logging in geocaching is way better than visiting in Waymarking... there is a hunt, there are treasures (though most don't even do this), there are physical logs, etc... The missing component that geocaching really doesn't have is categories... that is the creation of similar waypoints into (hopefully) interesting groups.
If you were to ask me what the real difference between Geocaching and Waymarking it is that Geocaching is a hunt or a game... Waymarking is a collection of interesting locations that really need no visiting to enjoy. You can easily surf through a theme you like and enjoy the pictures and read its history without ever actually setting foot on the spot. (this isn't always the case since everyone jumps on any little thing... but it seems to be the case given the grand majority of pictures involved and detailed descriptions... and lack of any info at the location that isn't given to you on Waymarking.com... heck often you get more info here than you would if you actually went to the place).
Each has its benefit, I think the benefit of Waymarking is that if you aren't into creating waymarks, you get a lot out of it without investing much time into needing to physically go to the places that are interesting.
-
With all due respect, I don't think you are in an appropriate position to speak about what other people are "mostly interested in". Characterizing other people in such a light is unfair and frankly, I find such a statement to be pretty offensive.
Generalizations are just that, there are always exceptions to the rule, I know more than a couple from here on the forums, but then I could go to the McDonald's category and find more people than even post here on a regular basis.
Now this list consists of just 5 pages... considering the rather small community that comes to the forums probably about the same #, only 2 are very big contributors over here (Silver & Chapter) the rest don't post enough to make me remember their names. What the list consists of are those who consecutively post 3 or more with little or no information on the Mcdonalds or 6 or more with a short paragraph. This means the person was likely hunting for McDonald's, and why would someone hunt McDonald's? To buff numbers. This wouldn't be surprising for Chapter, think he is #1 or 2 on waymarks listed. Oh and the McDonald's listed have to be generic...
now this does exclude a couple other numbers whores... Chstrss for example is a Self admitted Numbers Ho whom only had 1 on the first 5, and (I wanna say) she has also stated that she tends to only look for extraordinary McDonald's to post and won't post the generic ones. So a numbers whore with a sense of quality, who woulda guessed! (= Usually they don't care bout the quality.
Not sure if that puts your mind at ease CTD but there it is. Your name wasn't on the list, and to be honest I'm not sure if I would even equate you to being on that list. Even if you were, there isn't necessarily anything wrong with being a numbers whore... each has their own game... my point was that given the propensity (happens in geocaching too, just look at lamppost caches) the quality of the average waymark is extremely low and this is a problem if you only want to visit. (unless you are a numbers whore in which you likely won't care). Essentially I'd say that it is up to the category owners to police whether a site is waymark worthy, unfortunately too many seem more interested in commas and whether a photo is included than whether it is an actual quality site.
Edit - On a side note, after looking through the McDonald's Category I did realize that this category is fairly unused outside of Silver and clevortrevor in the past two months. Considering how easily the category could be abused, it's not too bad yet
-
Well Jake and I had a breif email exchange about this very topic a few weeks back. And if it isn't obvious by now, I'm rather neurotic about things...
For the OHP Category, I favoured that only the Blue and Gold ones would be included so that the Category stays easy to identify what belongs in it, and what does not.
Other plaques, markers and similar could have their own Category.
This is kind of what I'm talking about when I'd say I'd rather have more general categories than what we have now... So we could have Blue, Gold, whatever color pleases, but also maybe do historical markers for presidential (global), or historical markers for literary (a lot of writers have their birthhouses marked)... make the category about something, not about somewhere... (Although you could probably do a category with the more general "Area History Markers" or something). And rather have these type of categories than Pennsylvania... Like I said, Penn would be ok for travelers, but the categories for the most part make me feel like i have nothing to do with them...
I'd rather have 50 historical marker categories that I can take an active part in, than 50 historical marker categories where I only can actively take part in 1. (Think this last sentance was the best I've put it in the thread! YAY ME!)
-
Yes, I am planing a Cache with waymarks. At the waymark you can find something to find the cache.
Perhaps churches by denomination? (Catholic, Lutheran, Evangelical, Baptist, Other) Midevil Churches would also be very interesting in and of itself.
I like the framework houses before, maybe I just never knew what to call those. I knew what they were looking at them though (just make sure to include a picture in the category description if you suggest this one to stop confusion).
I'll be devil's advocate and say what about a geocache category not unlike what you are wanting to do. (I realize most waymarkers want to keep them seperate, but why not one category that brings them together? If this is supposed to be about everything why not?) You could put it in Waymarking games, and part of it would be that the waymark would lead you to a geocache. Not sure how you would deal with this on geocaching side if you wanted the find to count over there as well, but would be a very cool idea IMHO.
Also I like a Waymark Tours category (maybe also in games?) idea, could only get 4 coords right now in a single waymark but perhaps if you get em in an interesting area with several unique features per coord, that may be good enough.
These last two categories would certainly be worth visiting! I might be interesting in joining as an officer if you need em for a possible geocache or tours category.
-
This was actually a really funny thread to read for me. I realize it isn't funny to you but it is just funny to be out of the situation and reading it. I can't even believe that these things are that big of a deal where someone would even bother mentioning them WITH approval, let alone denying because of them!!
Although there are apparantly these perfectionists out there I got a deny vote on my last category because I spelt address, adress. If that was my only type, I think I did fairly well though=) I should get a ribbon!!!!
I think there needs to be language in the peer review page that typos should be pointed out but categories should not get denied for a typo! Same with waymarks regardless of who owns the category... certianly fi teh etnrie txt lOOks bd, but not if it is just the occassional tpyo/mis-pelling, or perfectionist hell of where to put commas! (I'm an English major and don't care that much bout this stuff!)
-
I just realized that it'd be really nice if we could get a search within the category. I realize that you can filter out anything but your local coords but what if you could do searches based on variables that the category owner sets, or keywords in the category?
For instance, I just created the Building Buildings category. In it I have a variable for building completion checkbox. If visitors to the category could filter out those that are checked (meaning completed) and those that weren't (meaning you'd only see completed) that would be really cool...
or maybe in the fountain category there keyword search that would look through descriptions of all words in the category so if I was looking for a whale fountain all I would need to do is go to fountains, type in whale in the category search and "Killer Whale Fountain" would be staring me in the face.
I think this would allow everyone a better way to digg =P through the junk on the site and find what they are more interested in seeing. Allowing the category owners some kind of control over the more important variables I think would also be nice because not every variable is worth searching through, but some I think might and only those in the category would truly know that.
On a related note, I'd also like to see "Newest in Category" (Which I realize are on top right now), "Most Popular in Category", and "Least Popular in Category." Would just be interesting I think to have these.
-
To me there is no reason to leave them on Groundspeak indefinitely. They should, in my opinion, be treated the exact same way that Locationless Caches were. Perhaps a target of 31 Dec 06, then all active listings get Archived. That gives people more than 6 months to migrate their WC and EC's over.. and if they were allowed to double list for the remainder of the year it might soften the blow.
I'm sure they will make this sort of deadline at some point in time. I'm guessing they want the system down first, so right now they will get rid of bugs, perfect the system, and get more categories added in hopes that all those at geocaching.com won't have the issue of not having a category to go to.
-
First of all, there are too many uninteresting categories that I do not even bother to look further. It’s not exciting to look at an other bridge, an other street corner or a henhouse. Possibly heaven on earth to an enthusiast, but to me, it is not interesting. It might be; I can not see trough all the rubbish to find the supposed gems.
To the bridge categories credit, there are many interesting bridges out in the world. The problem is there are many times that number of interesting bridges in uninteresting bridges that aren't worth the time. It is hard to sort out the difference, and I doubt many want to put in that kind of work into the site. Waymarkers are mostly interested in upping their number so they will mark everything in site, whereas visitors just want to see the interesting ones. Sadly this site relies on the waymarkers to find the interesting and only the interesting...
on a side note... is there really a henhouse category?
But, what’s really wrong with Waymarking?
It has nothing to do with geocaching. And that is what is binding us here in this forum. Geocaching means physically going to a location and be surprised. It can be by finding the cache; it can also be that you visit an extraordinary place. You go to a place where you would never have gone if you did not have a GPSr.
Waymarking can be done from your desk, you just Google a picture, put it on the site and that's it.
I agree. This site is designed for creating waymarks not for visiting them. This is a problem that i don't think many recognize. I personally am trying to figure out categories worth visiting right now more than categories worth Waymarking. I just got Building Buildings through which I think creates a visiting situation (to update pictures on a building under construction), but once the building is complete, reason to visit drops drammatically. I also have put up suggestions for a movable waymark and tracking railroad cards as they travel the country but both of these are basically on hiatus until they get the tech in for this type of category (as per Jeremy's request).
Perhaps though this is right now the issue that needs to be rectified by those creating categories. Perhaps we need more markers who notice the problem and are creative enough to think up categories that help solve it. There are some categories worth visiting already, just not many=/ (Berry Picking I think will be a great category when it gets in season). One problem in this area is the current limitation of 5 groups and 5 categories per person... I got 5 groups and only 2 categories and can't create any more because of the group issue. But even if you didn't screw up your groups because you unkowingly created some for ideas you hadn't completed yet or accidently, 5 categories isn't alot. Hopefully this gets changed in the future.
-
But what if it's somebody elses Webcam or Earthcache that is listing on geocaching, should I mark that on Waymarking, even though it isn't really mine?
Personally I'd say leave em for now... especially since Groundspeak hasn't "officially" announced Waymarking as live. It seems a lot more live since the last big upgrade but I'm sure there are a few more features on the way and a few more bugs to squash... so until that happens I say leave it...
now on webcams you may have a little leeway if indeed there is a cache nearby for the webcam... I think you could technically mark the cam since it would still be needed for the cache anyway and would not be moved over...
there is a virtual cache in my town that I'd like to move to Waymarking so I feel yer pain=P
-
I've been wondering, if there is an earthcache or webcam listed on geocaching.com, should I go ahead and mark it on Waymarking.com? Should I wait until Waymarking is announced to the geocaching community as a whole? Do those who have these listed on geocaching get first dibs on these? To the last question, I'm assuming not, but just want to make sure.
It was my understanding that all the old earthcaches, locationless caches, virtual caches, and benchmarks would eventually get moved over. I'm not sure on when they are going to do this and I don't know what they'd do with webcams... after all many webcams have real geocaches associated with them don't they? (I think the one in my city has a real cache somewhere)
-
Forum tip. These little icons
take you back to the original quote.I never new that! Thanks...
Obviously neither did I, would be cool to have a thread/FAQ with such features shared, not that I'd probably read it (and heck it's probably there lol)
-
Looks like Arizona isnt alone. Tennessee and Louisianna also have multiple organizations placing the historic markers. Let the category owners decide what is included and what isnt.
<shrug> I don't care that much was just adding my two cents... I just not gonna touch em (maybe best for them=P)
-
This thread is being started to allow a discussion format for officers and group members of the Building Buildings category. If you are not a member, feel free to chime in and offer opinions on the category anyway, always looking to make the category better!!
Thanks to all who voted the category in, as well as to those who left feedback on the forms, I felt they were very helpful and have made some changes and am considering others already=)
-
So why didn't puzzles move with the other near-beers of caching?
So you propose we ruin more kinds of caches by moving them to Lamemarking?
No, thanks.
Nice way to keep an open mind, fizzymagic.
Did I totally miss a post?
-
I think the point is that Waymarking already lets you sort waymarks by geographic region (state, country, province, territory, etc.) since the latitude and longitude of the waymark is known. Categories should never be "regional". However, because of their nature some categories will be regional. The Pennsylvania State Historical Society could decide to put up a marker in Ohio or perhaps at William Penn's bithplace in England. So its not the region that makes it a Pennsylvania marker, but the group responsible for placing the marker. US Civil War monuments might only be found in certain parts of the United States, but the category has to do with a particular event or period of history and conceivably there could be a monument in Europe commemorating some involvement - perhaps a shipyard that provided ships to one side or the other. However unlikely, the "regional" name of these categories do not preclude that there might be a waymark in another place. A category that requires the waymark be in a particular region is probably not a good use of Waymarking.
You make a valid point, however I could also certainly argue that a more broad Civil War Monument category may still be more approriate than a US Civil War Monument, it is more than one event yes, but in a way that's why it would be better=P You could still attach US Civil War monuments in there, but you could also attach monuments for other civil wars as well....
Likewise there are a lot of historical societies out there that provide markers... why not just have a historical society marker category instead of just pennsylvania? The point is you are saying these are not necessarily regionalized, but in a way they certainly are. You say PHS could put a marker in Timbuktu but seriously what are the chances that they go outside of Penn very often? Likewise, I am sure there are 1 or 2 US Civil War monuments, but I'm guessing it is seriously only one or two... if there are more i think it would be more interesting to see a category on the US Civil War monuments not in the US and have that just be the category lol
Heck I doubt there are really that many US Civil War monuments in much of the west, Hawaii, and Alaska.
All that being said, having the historical society thing explained a little better i guess I am more not liking those such as the Arizona above who seem to be without a historical society (must not be much history in Arizona), but I still think it would be preferable to group them by historical society than by each state's historical society....(because I bet Arizona is in the minority on this subject)
-
I actually created a group to lead the first day it was available. I just haven't gotten around to jotting my ideas down for logging requirements. I like what you have started so far though. Here's the linky.
Editing to add: I'm actually in the midst of setting up a Frank Lloyd Wright cache series using all 7 of his buildings/structures and 2 proposed buildings in the Buffalo area.
Figured you might have been interested in at least joining a group for this, glad to see you are also willing to lead it, this I think is a long over due category for Waymarking.com
-
Hello,
I'm planing a waymark-series through a city. But for the most of my waymarks I would create, I can't find the right categories.
So here are my ideas
Buildings > Religious Buildings -> christian Churches
Like small Chappels, villagechurches, or Dom
Buildings -> Citywalls
Buildings -> Frameworkhouses
I hope, that is the correct word for it. In german -> 'Fachwerkhaeuser'
I think christian churches may be a tad broad, not sure how it is where you are but a city with 10k people in it here is bound to have probably 20-40 christian churches in it. I would suggest trying to narrow it down a tad.
Not entirely sure what a framework house would be... can you give an example? That may help.
Otherwise your english is fine and city walls would be cool, though I bet would be more old world than new world for the most part. (to me still interesting though so would love to have it in!)
-
Just thought I'd chime in on the subject, since I like to do that=P My personal feeling is that I would rather have more general topics than what we have and more unique ones than we have at the same time... more general in the sense that the historical marker topics shouldn't be split up into states... they should just be maybe "government sanctioned historical markers"? and then more unique in the way that the sub-categories would then be split up into different types rather than different states... there are a ton of historical markers as we all know... but then there are a ton of say buildings... I would much rather see an octagon shaped buildings, odd-shaped buildings, and shot towers than Texas Buildings, Florida Buildings, and Arizona Buildings.
That being said I realize there is some benefit and reason to having it seperated like it is. I would just like to see them more explained by the category title. As it is I don't even bother looking at any of them because I don't really know what is involved in any of them and there are far too many to wade through. I also have the assumption that with their current titles they involve all historical markers in the state (perhaps you could subcategorize the state markers if you want to keep the state title) and like I said in another thread, there are just too many in most places in the U.S. Everything seems to have a historical marker.
I guess the point I'm having is that I'd rather see categories that unify the entire world and show of similar markers so that we can actually compare and see what the differences are like (I think that'd be neat) than segregate us off. I live in Wisconsin, I could go out and log all the Wisconsin ones but I just don't feel like it. I know it'd be interesting for those traveling here, but otherwise the only ones looking at the list are those living here. And lets face it we can get the locality through search, what we can't get through search as well is similarity of type.
-
We keep hearing that Jeremy and bootron have ideas for a bounty for creating and then visiting waymarks. I don't see the need for something to stand in for travel bugs and coins when Waymarking, but perhaps this is how the bounty system will work. The category managers could award bounty points for creating waymarks in their category. Once a waymarker has earned bounty points, he can award them to vistors for his waymark, or he could leave them in other categories where he would like to see more waymarks or in waymarks that he would like to see get more visits. Each user's profile would show the number of bounty points they have earned. People would soon be competing for bounty points.
Bounty points does indicate (to me at least) that it isn't just a number, that there is a prize attached to it.... like you get 1000 bounty points and you get a free Waymarking hat or something. It isn't a bad idea, in fact I had almost posted it in this thread as an idea before ya'll started talkin about it (I had never heard it) but honestly I thought it might it be difficult to make it worthwhile because while a free hat every now and then would be cool, it isn't collectable or tradeable (less they started coming out with series and taking old ones out of print every now and then).
I still don't mind the idea of some sort of collectable icon, or shutterbug, or integrated travel bug either.
-
Very neat idea!
I would be willing to be an officer, but I don't think I wanna lead this one..Sweet so we only need a leader if anyone is up for it hehehe
-
There was an earlier "Birdwatching Proposal" by ecocyclist
There were sadly a lot of good ideas that got lost in the old boards when we switched here (there were a lot of proposals that never got put in during the random additions and the original creators seem to have gone awal) I hope some more people come around and start resurecting some of them because some of them were really good... bird watching is definitely something that SHOULD be in Waymarking... but jeremy is right, this needs to be as broad as possible... global is better! (can't remember who said that hehehe).
-
Ok I think it is high time this site got a list of Frank Lloyd Wright buildings compiled. Wikipedia Link be Here.
To Create a waymark:
Get the Coords
Take a picture
Get the name of the building
Get Date of completion
History of the project (including why it was built, who comissioned the work, what Wright was trying to do with it, etc.)
Special features.
To Log:
Up to the waymark owner... prefered to not require picture (since I don't have a digital camera and I am not the only one, however some buildings like the Gugenheim may be cool if you could take pictures of exhibits if that is allowed, or maybe other houses you could ask the person to take a picture of a non-photographed part of the building)
Possible Variables
Date of completion
History of project
Special Features
Cost of project
Checkbox for if the building has tours
If so, the hours of tours
I will join the group as an officer, so we would only need a leader and another officer to get this group off the ground if anyone is with me. If you want to be the leader of this group... create the group, open its enrollment and post a link in response.
I would be willing to be an officer, but I don't think I wanna lead this one..
Historical Markers
in Waymarking Archives (Read-Only)
Posted
How bout picking an area of interest that might have historic markers instead of picking a state of interest that has historic markers?
Although I like your category, we should make a category that has a rediciously long name... maybe it can be a category of waymarks with ridiculously long name... like if you find a city with a gigantic name or something lol that'd rock!