ddtfamily

I frequently create tables in the Long Description field as a way to display the text found on Historical Markers. I also use Chrome as my primary web browser. I noticed today that some of the tables on my waymarks were not displaying any text. It turns out that the problem was connected to my font choices. Anytime I used the font "Roman" the text would not display in Chrome (but it looked fine in IE). So I changed the font to "Timesnewroman" and it solved the problem. The "Roman" font looked fine until today/recently. So my theory is that updates to Chrome verson 32.0.1700, released on January 14th, may be the issue. I think that's also the same time that the "non-functional slider" issue someone else noted with Chrome became an issue. It's a best practice to use "web safe fonts" (list here: http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css_websafe_fonts.asp so I guess I'm now paying for the mistake of choosing fonts not on the list and I'll need to review all my Historical Marker waymarks. But that Chrome slider problem - that really seems like a bug Chrome would want to address. I've encountered that error in the last few days on other websites as well.

Some possibilities would be "Opening Dedication Plaques" or "Opening Dedication Markers" although somehow make it clear that an engraved stone is just as acceptable as a plaque or sign.

Eric - I'm willing to help as an officer if you like and if this category is viewed favorably by others. To ensure I truly understand the "mission" of this new category: what I think you're describing are signs/plaques that describe the opening, dedication or establishment of "something" (a building, park, bridge, etc.) but without mention of a specific individual who served as "Master of Ceremonies" for the opening event. I also assume we're talking about a marker that is intended to be permanent (not a "Grand Opening July 2013" banner hanging from the entrance to a grocery store). What might be unfortunate is that this idea can't somehow be combined with the Grand Openings category. It almost seems like the Grand Openings category is arbitrarily defined a bit too narrowly, as I'm not sure why "by a person" opening markers should necessarily be a whole, separate category from "not opened by a person" markers. Although maybe the spirit of the Grand Openings category is that the individual is the true subject while here "what's being opened" is the focus. If so, to avoid duplication it seems like this new category would need to specify that the "by a person" markers will not be accepted here. Dan

Some good points made here, thanks. And when I submitted my entry to Flora & Fauna Signs, I wasn't sure myself whether it belonged, so I understand the logic of not including it. The educational value was more about the environmental effort than about any specific plant. I do think that planning-type waymarks could be interesting - I find the one I made to be greatly educational. Across town there's another planning-type sign that I think is intended to drum up support for building another pedestrian/bicycle access bridge from one park over to another park that's in an island in the river. But I also wouldn't want to see waymarks that essentially said "In 'n Out Burger - Coming Soon!" (But I'd sure like to see that sign here in town). The biggest challenge with a planning type category, once it was defined narrowly enough to be limited to civic projects, really would be that we would end up with a bunch of different submissions that amount to signs that will be gone in a year. So the waymark webpages could look great, but there might not be anything to actually go visit, except the finished project would be there. That said, the lifespan of the subjects in many of the restaurant categories are here today and gone tomorrow. As I've noted before, I haven't found an "Independent Hot Dog" waymark yet that still exists (granted, I've looked for maybe 3 of them). So I'm on the fence about a "planning" category. I completely expect that the sign in my subject, which I believe has stood about a year, will eventually go away, maybe replaced by a different sign that talks more in the past tense about the efforts. But I could see an "Environmental Projects" category. I think usually the city/agencies involved in those generally want to "toot their horns" about it forever, so I've often seen signs describing some sort of environmental achievement from years past. I'll think about that. In the meantime, I'll try and see if this Riparian area in my waymark is managed by the Parks Dept or has some other park-like quality that would make a good case for that category.

I made a waymark with the intention of submitting it to the "Flora & Fauna Information Sign" category, however the officers there tell me it doesn't fit the criteria because the sign doesn't seek to educate the public about specific plants. The sign really is describing planning efforts. After searching quite a bit, I'm at a loss as to where the sign could go. Any ideas? Or are "signs describing future or current planning efforts" something that are not covered by a category? Here's my rejected waymark, so that you can see what I'm talking about: http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMGXTC_Mill_Creek_Riparian_Enhancement_Area_Salem_Oregon

Okay here's what I came up with: Link to Tex Mex category Unfortunately, I guess I can't edit the actual title of the category. That's disappointing but with "Mexican" and "Southwestern" in the search terms, maybe it doesn't matter. I didn't change any of the variables (so as not to lose information others took time to add), but I did make a couple of them "optional" to avoid limiting entries for the reasons I described in my first post. Any thoughts or suggested edits? You might wonder about the statement "outside of Mexico" - I modeled that after the Japanese Restaurants category because literally every restaurant in Mexico could be defined as "Mexican" since it's in Mexico and I didn't think we would want them all listed here.

Well it looks like I'm now an officer in the Tex-Mex category. So I'll work up some proposed revisions to that category description. A good point made in this thread: "taquerias are frequently here today and gone tomorrow." That's true of businesses in general and, especially, restaurants. There's a category called "Independent Hot Dog Restaurants" and in the several attempts I've made to visit an existing waymark, all I've come up with so far are empty buildings - and continued hunger pangs! Anyway, thanks for the input; I'll give some more thought on what to do (although ordering something at a taqueria is first on my list). My inclination is to propose altering this category to include any "non-national chain" Mexican restaurant of any type. That will leave a "gap" in Mexican-type food coverage: there is a Taco Bell category under Chain Restaurants, but there are other national/regional chains that deal in food that while I'd hesitate to call it "Mexican," it doesn't currently have a Waymarking home: Taco Time, Del Taco and Taco Del Mar are the most common in my area. If someone else cares enough, I suppose they can create new chain restaurant categories for those.

I live in the Oregon, home to a large number of authentic Mexican food restaurants. There is one Waymarking category that comes close: Tex-Mex Restaurants http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=2f285b0e-f825-4505-a98f-665c10df88ed&r=10. However, nobody in the Pacific Northwest refers to a Mexican Restaurant as "Tex-Mex." And one of the four required attributes for entry of a waymark into the Tex Mex category is that the restaurant must serve margaritas. In short, lack of a liquor license eliminates a lot of potential Waymarking candidates, even though the establishment may meet all other requirements. So here are two ideas: 1) Expand Tex-Mex to include a broader range of authentic Mexican food items. It seems easy easy to do: simply revise the description to exclude fast food chains (Taco Bell) but eliminate the alcoholic beverage requirement. I'd suggest renaming the category "Mexican Restaurants." And I'd suggest making the beef fajitas "optional" as there are some restaurants that sell a broad number of items but maybe not Beef Fajitas. There's a great one near me that specializes in Mexico City street foods, such as pambazo (a torta with a chile-spiced bun), huarache (fried masa with toppings), as well as more typical items like tacos and burritos. But no beef fajitas and no alcohol. 2) Create a new category that somehow excludes Tex Mex and Taco Bell entries. The problem here, though, is that the Tex Mex category already includes approved Waymarks that would better fit any proposed definition of "Non-chain Mexican Restaurants" or something similar. I've even seen people write "Mex without the Tex" in the short description. It seems like a new category would open things up to needless duplication. So I've previously tried approaching some of the officers of the Tex Mex category about the idea of expanding it, and the only response I've ever received was from one who said "personally I'm not too picky reviewing this category. Tex mex really runs the gamut of both ends of the scale. Your more likely to get declined for missing pictures than the menu." But, nobody will take charge and actually revise the posting instructions and description, leaving me feeling not good about the idea of submitting Waymarks where I know that the restaurant isn't really "Tex Mex" as defined in the category requirements. Any thoughts on what to do here? Maybe this just speaks to the issue of non-involved / non-responsive category leaders. Or maybe we really do "need" a new category specific to Non-Fast Food Mexican restaurants that don't really fit the Tex Mex category.