Jump to content


+Premium Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Country_Wife

  1. I don't have a big problem with picking a date out of a hat, but when I do, I always use Jan 1 in the hope that people will take the hint that the date is approximate. Edited to add: In hindsight, it would probably be a good idea to make a note of that in the long description as well.
  2. Here are some photos (I hope these links work) showing dates on buildings to help further the discussion. This date (1909) would be suitable for the Frieze Art category: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/YiP5msXibGDGpw4dN_XSqtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink This one also fits into Frieze Art (and it is absolutely gorgeous IMO, looking forward to submitting the whole building): https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/nyBkVXg1QfTSg325SSwFvdMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink This one, I think, would be more suitable for the Cornerstones category: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/JNnzMXznqag6AwWkn9EbKtMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink Hard to see if this date was carved proud (background material was removed) and therefore suitable for the Cornerstones category (I guess) or if the date and building name were attached to the building separately: https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/G4LWtF4Lqh4GmUh19rhjydMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink This building (Delaware Block) probably had dates once, but they have since fallen off; with the dates still attached, would it be acceptable to Cornerstones, or is the proposed category the only possible home for it? https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/8qf0hSHtny4sZvSw0M1jqdMTjNZETYmyPJy0liipFm0?feat=directlink
  3. Thanks, Bruce. I'll have a few of those to submit as a result of some recent Waymarking expeditions during Historic Calgary Week.
  4. Are you suggesting that I shouldn't worry about this? Because that's what I'm asking about, whether it's appropriate for me to consider copyright issues when approving waymarks, or if I should approve waymarks even in cases where I'm pretty sure there is a copyright issue, because that's up to the person submitting the waymark.
  5. I really like the idea of this category. As someone interested in local history, I would find this information helpful and interesting. Many historic buildings do not have cornerstones, but do have the dates placed in large numbers below the roofline, next to the building name. In some cases, there are two dates - usually the date of the original building, and then a later date for the construction of an addition. Dates of bridges, tunnels, culverts, etc. are also interesting. A few other categories which should have priority over this one are frieze art (where the date is part of a decorative element on the exterior of a building) and any other works of art such as dated murals, sculptures, etc which have dates on them or incorporated into them. Those belong in the appropriate art category.
  6. Good point. I wanted to review that for my own information, and this link does a good job of describing the difference between a good paraphrase that doesn't plagiarize, and some examples of paraphrases that are also plagiarism. The Writing Center, University of Wisconsin - Madison, "Avoiding Plagiarism: Successful vs Unsuccessful Paraphrases"
  7. Thanks to everyone for your feedback -- it's been most helpful!
  8. I'm an officer in one category. I've noticed that the long descriptions for some of the waymarks that I see submitted are cut & pasted directly from other websites. Because I'm new at this, in the past I've approved a few of those waymarks. However, Groundspeak's terms of use say that content may not violate existing copyright: "D. Restrictions. Permission to use our services is subject to the following restrictions. Whether these restrictions have been violated shall be determined in our sole discretion. You agree not to: ..." "x. Upload, post, transmit or otherwise distribute any content that infringes any patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright or other intellectual property or proprietary rights of any person, including without limitation under any privacy or publicity rights." from http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx I'm not actively looking for copyright violations in every waymark I see, but certain things make me suspicious and it is very easy to find out if something has been copied. Should I approve waymarks that I know are plagiarised, or is that solely on the shoulders of the person who submits the waymark? (In the spirit of full disclosure, I admit that this has become more of a concern for me since I recently found some of my own content was cut & pasted into the long description for a geocache.) Edited to add: I should clarify that I'm aware of the non-copyright issues around Wikipedia's Creative Commons licenses and similar copyleft and public domain issues; I'm talking only about things which are not covered by such copyright exceptions, such as most business and personal websites.
  9. Since WayWizard is the go-to guy now for stuck waymarks, perhaps this sticky could be updated to reflect that? http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=307998
  10. Sometimes older photos can be a blessing. I just submitted a Time Capsules waymark today. The time capsule is indoors, so the category requires an external shot of the building in that situation. Well, I hadn't taken one on my recent visit. After searching my computer, I found a photo of the right spot which I took in 2012. There hasn't been any significant change since then, so I used that. (Edited for clarity.)
  11. I think that including the city & state in the waymark name is an excellent idea, and I try to remember it even when not specifically required. I spend a lot of time on TripAdvisor, another site where such geographical information is vital. I must admit, though, to a bit of North American bias, as I do NOT include the name of the country for US or Canadian waymarks. Rather arrogantly, I expect site users to be familiar with the names of the 12 Canadian provinces and territories and all 50 US states. My excuse is that including the country name would make the name too long.
  12. I think this could be an interesting category too. I just found a news article about one in Vancouver, BC, so they seem to be getting a North American toehold: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/08/08/bc-insect-hotel.html
  13. Roundabouts (often called traffic circles here) are a new trend in my city. Most are fairly boring, I agree, but one has a miniature park in the center, with an artificial hill and lots of decorative shrubbery. It's at the entrance to a residential area, and is unusually large. So it wouldn't qualify under sculpture or (as far as I know) under other existing categories.
  14. I've been posting some new waymarks recently, after a bit of a hiatus. I contribute regularly to a travel website, and I also occasionally contribute to Wikipedia (WP). It occurs to me that Waymarking fills a niche that Wikipedia doesn't: you CAN publish original research, which is not allowed on WP. For a waymark, you still need to provide a location and a photo (99% of the time), so that makes it easy to verify the most basic facts about a waymark. Waymarking is more user-friendly than WP, because you don't have to demonstrate that a waymark is "significant" (which sometimes happens on WP), you just need to have it accepted into a category, and new categories are being created all the time. Visits are nice, too, but my city has only a handful of waymarkers, so I soon realized that there is no point in holding your breath hoping for a visit to be logged.
  15. If a relative newcomer like myself is suitable, I would be willing to help with Ice Cream Parlours.
  16. The Canadian memorials in this category (and there are two listed, but Waymarkers will find that there are more) likely qualify under the existing category guidelines. That's because the Canadians honoured served in the US armed forces. Canada's armed forces were not involved in the Vietnam War. .
  17. Good tip, thanks! I may have seen some categories with that in the past but ignored i0, because everything I've done so far has been accessible.
  18. I've looked in the intro guidelines and I couldn't find anything about this, so I'm asking the more experienced folks for advice. tha I recently toured a site that is ordinarily closed to the public; it's a former brewery and brewery gardens. (It was a free tour that was open to members of the general public, for what that's worth.) I got some nice photos and locations of a few interesting waymarks in the old brewery gardens. Is it okay to post waymarks that are not ordinarily accessible? You can probably get a view of all of them through the fence, if that has any bearing on it. One would be mostly hidden behind foliage. The site in question may be reopened to the public in the future; the redevelopment of the brewery is currently under review, and it's hard to guess what may happen, if anything.
  19. Thanks for the suggestions; I'll look into those categories. I'm a little surprised that there isn't a category for just log buildings, since they are so distinctive. But that's a topic for a different Waymarking forum ;-)
  20. Can anyone suggest an existing category for log buildings? I'm thinking here of log buildings that don't qualify for the Homestead category. In Canada, many log buildings predate our homesteading laws. Also, they may not be on the original site, or they may have been built as trappers' cabins or for other purposes. Thanks!
  21. Thanks so much, Max & 99 - I'll have a look for that. Still learning my way around the site. :-)
  22. I wish I had time for a more complete response to the points you've raised. For now, I'll just note that the original "Device" has had 3 homes. It was first unveiled in Venice, then moved to Vancouver, and Calgary is its current (and permanent, I trust) home. More later :-)
  23. Since this forum is about getting started with Waymarking, perhaps someone will be kind enough to explain what an ALR is? As for the concern about spoiling virtual geocaches, I'm a waymarker who has never geocached and so I suppose that I might unintentionally spoil a virtual through my total ignorance of its existence. I doubt I'll lose sleep over it, but if someone were kind enough to explain how to avoid doing this, I might take the appropriate steps.
  24. Perhaps you could broadening this category so that it could include living history museums that incorporate transit vehicles? I know of two living history museums in my province that operate historic trolley cars for visitors (Ford Edmonton Park and Calgary's Heritage Park.) However, I'm not aware of any museums in Canada that focus on transit exclusively.
  • Create New...