Punga and Paua

Some more examples that have been accepted into the Figurative Sculptures category: http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM28N2_Farm_Work_Horse_Calgary_Alberta http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM3PG9_THE_TOOL_MAN_Oswego_New_York http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM5K71_Figurative_Public_Sculpture_The_Chiropractor http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM55GC_Alotofbull_Moab_Utah http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM6P6E_Longhorn_Sculpture_Johnson_City_TX auto parts??!! http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM975Q_Dragon_in_Voksice_Jicin_CZ http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM94VT_Mailman_Sculpture_Sebastopol_CA http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMCXE1_Stormin_Norman_Pipeline_Lebanon_Missouri http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMDZN6_Trash_Monster_Nampa_ID ....so if these are all acceptable Figurative Sculptures, then what about the next two?.... http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMT5NP_Les_lments_Font_Romeu_France http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMH342 BTW, I really enjoyed looking through your category, you have some wonderful pieces of art and all of them deserve a place in your category, including the ones cleverly constructed out of junk pieces. Can't we just have these two waymarks accepted, let's stop this absurdity and move on.

I can't see any particular car parts on that sculpture, which might explain it being denied. It looks like a figurative sculpture using iron pipes,... did you try listing it in the Figurative Sculptures category? I don't think any new sculpture categories are necessary. My understanding is that it is the Subject and Appearance of the sculpture that defines what category it goes into, not the Materials used. Otherwise we would need categories for "Iron Sculptures, Bronze Sculptures, Tin Sculptures, Fibreglass sculptures, Nuts and Bolts Sculptures etc, the list is almost endless. A Figurative Sculpture can be made of anything (including junk bits and pieces), so long as it is clearly derived from real object sources and really resembles a figure of a human or animal etc. However, Abstract Sculptures are generally attractively thrown-together shapes that represent something but don't really look like anything or maybe vaguely look like something, they break away from traditional representation of physical objects, you have to use your imagination to interpret the art work. Your iron pipe Sculpture obviously looks like a person, and should be accepted as a Figurative Sculpture. Perhaps I should add, obviously "Car Part Sculptures" a specialty category, have to be made of visible car parts...no matter what the subject (human, animal, vegetable, whatever) of the sculpture is.

The Abstract Public Sculptures category gives this example in their category description.... "A slightly abstracted Figurative Public Sculpture example would be: (Link) WM8Y62 Horse - Fountain Hills, AZ. This type of piece should be submitted to Figurative Public Sculpture." And lo and behold, on checking through the Figurative Public Sculptures, there it is, a wonderful horse sculpture made from junk art.... looking exactly like the Les éléments sculpture in question. They are junk art sculptures, artistically made from assorted pieces of junk. If the horse is acceptable, then the "Les éléments - Font-Romeu - France:" should also be placed in Figurative Sculptures. It is exactly the same type of figurative sculpture, it should not require a Vote. It is a Figurative Sculpture! BTW, The Abstract Public Sculptures and the Figurative Public Sculptures are both managed by the same person! Just a few more examples from a quick glance through Figurative Sculptures: WM22BQ Don Quixote WM21AG Big Silver Bird WM1RE5 Soda Can Man WM1YGN Mr Hook WM 2KP5 Horse WM2KP4 Man ...is that enough?

WW -- The fishing ports icon looks good, but the FOE and Space Invaders icons are broken. Can you please check them? Thanks I will contact developers to run job that syncs them between servers. The next time you access them they might be the opposite, they were loaded at different times and randomly ended up on different servers. The syncing is supposed to be automatic but not happening. Yesterday the Fishing Port icon appeared normally for us, then it disappeared, then later on it appeared again so we thought it was OK. This morning it has gone again, replaced by the words Commercial Fishing Ports. When that is clicked on, a black screen shows with the following: The image "http://www.Waymarking.com/images/cat_icons/Fishing Ports.gif" cannot be displayed because it contains errors. BTW, we loved the little fishing boat icon, hope it comes back and stays back.

?????????????? Looks to me that your new category proposal would fit in that existing category. That is ridiculous. Fishing Holes has nothing to do with fleets of fishing trawlers, based in a port, who travel out into the deep ocean following the shoals of fish. Fishing Holes waymarks favourite fishing spots for hobby fishing.

That's the way it works. Makes no sense to me either, but we all know geocachers and their PM's support this site, it's not our Waymarking $'s that keep it adrift. And really, how is it messing up this hobby by allowing new categories that most Waymarkers are not interested in? Does this new game category in peer review already have a devoted third party web site like the Space Invaders one did? The mess is already there. We have learned to live with it and we can even appreciate it because it is a sure sign that there is room for a lot of different ways to play the game. But there is also room to say Nay if the idea does not fit the spirit of the game, the spirit of MY game. And there is room to say Yea, if it fits the spirit of YOUR game. And then we'll see. That is also part of the game. But is difficult to appreciate the vote of people who have only a vague idea at best about the game. Fortunately, those people have not decided any vote yet and I don't expect it to happen in the future. Devoted third party web sites are a good thing for a category, in general. They are proof, that there are people interested in a topic outside of Waymarking, and it's not a "I want to have a category, now I need an idea" thing. You ask "Does this new game category in peer review already have a devoted third party web site?" Yes it does. There is a website devoted to games using the GPS. It is http://gpsgames.org/ The GPSgames.org is an online community dedicated to all kinds of games involving the use of Global Positioning System receivers. This category would fit on that website designed for those who like playing numbers games.

Have you tried the Charnel Chapels, Charnel Houses and Ossuaries Category (under Mounuments, Final Resting Places). They have accepted a waymark for the Ormond Indian Burial Mound and for other ancient burial sites so perhaps this is what you are looking for?

There is already a category that may fit your needs, listed under Nature as "Public Access Lands" whose description says 'This category seeks to waymark forests and lands that are accessible to the general public and do not qualify as National, State, Provincial and/or Municipal parks.' Their requirements include: Has to be lands open to the general public that do not qualify as National, State, Provincial and/or Municipal Parks, Land should be accessible to anyone (no areas that require a membership to visit), The area has to be at least 1 hectare/acre/km/etc.in size, Must be listed as public access land either through signage on location or a reliable internet source verifying the land is indeed for public use. Hopefully this category may cover your waymarks that do not fit into other Park categories.

I guess you find it the same way you find one in Kazakhstan! Check the map/co-ords....http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMFGHC_Saratoga_Park. Is it an attempt to make waymarks more global?