bluesnote

Here's a wikipedia link with all the sets, including rare ones given to employees. Many of the sets have multiple buildings or structures included in them, so it would make sense to create separate waymarks if this became a category. Lego adds a few sets to the line every year. So far in 2018, they have released 4 more sets. It's not like this category is limited as new sets are being added each year. I think this would be a unique category given that it shows impressive architecture of buildings that can't be already waymarked in other architectural categories. These lego sets are based off of buildings and structures in 5 continents (North America, Asia, Europe, Africa, Oceania) so you wouldn't have to travel far to waymark a building or structure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Architecture

Those are for lego sculptures. This category would be for buildings that have lego architect sets you can purchase.

I've had this idea for a while so here's what I'm thinking. Lego has had a series of sets that are based on real buildings and structures. Similar to the Numismatic Photographs, Philatelic Photographs, and Tourist Stamp Photos, I think there should be another category called "Lego Architect Structures". To categorize buildings and structures which have their own lego set. I think it would be really neat to see them categorized. They are making new sets every few months and are already have dozens in many parts of the world. Sometimes, a set has more than one building which means more waymarks. What's your thoughts on this? Here's a link to Lego's website about their sets: https://www.lego.com/en-us/themes/architecture

I'm unfamiliar with this type of classification, but after reading the articles I see that there is a distinction between contributing properties and individual NRHP listings. I have actually seen quite a few of these, which makes them difficult to post in either category because of their distances. I've seen ones that literally cover entire states. I'd be in favor of such category as it clearly helps fill in the gaps where these two categories alone cannot.

Thanks for the update on one of the most active categories! Hope to be submitting a lot more with these restrictions being lifted.

Wish I could go, but it's quite far from California. Would anyone be interested in a similar event like this in California? Metro2? DougK? Saopalo1?

I would be okay with this category, so long as these are actual Belgian historical markers, and not just historical plaques on every street corner. Is there a government website that has a list of all the sites? I'm against historical marker categories that accepts every historical maker, even though it's not an official government issued one. Is there a way to disguising a normal plaque from one that is a true Belgian historical marker like a logo, a designation or site number, or website? If so, I would vote yea.

As an officer of the Ancient Roman Civilization category, we would accept these. Don't think there is enough here to create a separate category if it can already be way marked in an existing one no problem.

This issue has been happening for years. To save your reviewer note, you must make a change somewhere in the waymark description or variables. Sometimes, you forget and you'll loose your entire note. It's little things like this that Groundspeak just lost interest in because Waymarking isn't a money making website.

I've had similar issues with reviews and Groundspeak in my area. Just last October, there was a Mega event on the RMS Queen Mary in Long Beach, California. I wanted to host an event nearby the following day, but the reviewer declined my cache submission stating that cache events are not allowed within 10 miles of the mega during the weekend of the mega. I have never heard this rule before, and quite frankly its these smaller events close to the main one throughout the weekend that make going to a mega much more enjoyable, having done similar things at previous megas. My suggestion is to host an event either the Thursday leading up to the event or have it at a town center, about 10 miles away from the event during the event weekend. I'm sure it will draw some attention and "will attends". Make way marking fun, possibly do it in a sculpture garden or NRHP district to give everyone a chance to create at least one submission. Heck, you could even make it a game for visitors to visit specific buildings, art scuptures, or plaques to win a trackable.

Agreed, this is more of a photo goal than it is it's own category. I would say "nay" in peer reviewer if it got that far.

These can already be categorized in "Places of Geological Significance" so this category seems redundant to me. So far, I'd say "nay" to the category. However, if a few issues can be addressed I would consider voting yea. I had a similar geologic category a few years ago not pass peer review (Lava Tubes) since most of the community agreed they can be put into "Places of Geological Significance" and there was no need to expand on existing categories. I'm not so sure if I see a need here, since sand dunes are in limited numbers.

I had submitted two waymarks recently into this category, approved by lumbricus and were denied by the leader, stating it must have a clear connection to the Nobel winner. I think this requirement is really holding the community back as it explains way the category has low numbers to begin with. Most of these monuments are so obvious, that they don't include this information to the visitor. I would make sense to include any memorial to a Nobel prize winner, so long as we can prove the person did in fact win at least one award. It would make it one of my favorite categories to waymark in and one of the most interesting if this requirement was omitted. I submitted a Marie Curie bust and was denied because the monument didn't have a "clear connection" when in fact she did was the first person to win two Nobel prizes in science. I think this requirement needs to be removed as most of the Waymarking community can agree. Can wayfrog step in or is this not possible?

As much as I love aviation, as an avid enthusiast of commercial aviation, I feel this category would be difficult to review. There are an infinite amount of locations that can be considered for plane spotting. I love the idea, don't get me wrong, but how can you make sure thousands of waymarks are not being published for every clear viewing of a runway? Also, what if the viewing spot is a few miles away from the airport, say on approach. How far is too far for a waymark to be accepted? I feel this could be redundant as well with the "scenic views" category and turn into a redundant category all together like "inside airport". For me to say "yea" if it get to peer review, here's what I would suggest. 1. Limit the amount of waymarks being submitted to an airport by user. Say, a user can submit up to 3 per airport as this can get redundant and allows waymarkers to choose the best three viewing spots of a given airport of thier choosing. For larger international airports, say JFK in New York, that gets millions of visitors a year. A few of them are way markers and each can submit up to three waymarks to where they believe is the best spot to watch planes from the airport. Don't limit the number to the airport, limit the number to the user can submit to any given airport. 2. Limit the location of the viewing spots by say no more than 5 miles from any given airport. Any longer distance and the aircraft would be too small to identify the airline from the ground without zooming in or binoculars, making the viewing spot not really a good viewing spot. This would allow waymarks to be published from a nearby lookout tower, hotel, or natural viewing point like a hill. I know a few good spots at my home airport of LAX that I can submit if this category gets approved. 3. Have the waymarks be published outside of the airport boundaries only. This would help eliminate waymarks being created from inside the airport such as from the windows at the gate. I would see an exception only if the location is itself an official designated spot to view aircraft. I've seen this at a few airports, past TSA such as at BWI, Baltimore where there is a terrace that is outside and overlooks the airport. 4. The category name should be something that would encompass all aircraft types, including lighter-than-air aircraft such as blimps or balloons or even rocket launches (as this would qualify mostly as un-manned aircraft). Something along the lines like "manned aircraft (or flight) operation viewing spots (or locations)". This would exclude rocket launched that are un-manned like current Space-x launches (like the one that occurred a few days ago that I saw from home that blew up over social media), although Soyuz launches out of Kazakstan would be included, however the milage may want to be increased as rocket launches can be seen for hundreds of miles away from the launch site. I believe this category should only include manned flight operations, to make it simple and more interesting. 5. The posting requirements must have at least two photos. One of the site such as the view or viewing spot, and the other must be the aircraft. If these suggestions were to be met, I would greatly consider voting "yea" for this category. If/when you make the group I'll happily join to become an officer. I took a few flight simulator classes inside an actual 737 cockpit and flew a Cessna a few times. Aviation is one of my other passions, outside of Geocaching and Waymarking.

I would say copies and replicas should be placed in the Exact Replica category. Only actual artifacts that have visited the moon should be accepted.

I would be down, but not sure if I can see it from the Los Angeles area. when it passes over Texas.

Like I said, those are examples. It's not trash, but rather history that should be catalogue here on Waymarking.com. I should rephrase what I meant by leftovers. Many of the astronauts had leftovers. Packages that have yet to be opened. These food bags were sent to museums around the globe. I'll be updating the category to be much more clear in the next few days. This is news to me as I know for a fact this is one of the stricter categories. I assume they would only accepted rocks that have been dedicated to other astronauts. I don't think I know of any moon rock memorials. I agree and thanks for letting me know of this issue. I believe the intent of the category is to waymark items that have been to the moon whether they originated there or not. This would imply graves of only those who visited would be eligible for this category, while those who were left in the service module while in orbit around the moon would not be eligible. I think it'll be in my best interest to include a list of a wide variety of items that would be accepted in this category if is does pass peer review as it's still unclear. Let me re-write a few things and I'll post an update back here when those charged have been made. Thank you everyone for your input.

Those are just a few examples, but I would also accept items the astronauts brought with them such as photos, or freeze dried food leftovers. I also explained that graves of Apollo astronauts would also be acceptable. Should I make this more clear in the category description?

The directions are to assist those wanting to find these artifact. Sometimes museums these are quite large, for example the Smithsonian's, so directions as in "enter the building, go up the escalators and look for the Space Hall" are all that's needed. Also if there are other artifacts inside the same museum, it helps finders and reviewers know which waymark goes with which exhibit. Maybe I rewrite this as a suggestions rather than a requirement as sometimes its much more clear as to where to find the specimen inside a museum. I would say that this is very much prevalent. With pieces and artifacts in numerous small and large museums around the globe, even outside the US. There are over 800 pounds of moon rocks that were brought back to earth, with over half in public collections. They are not hard to find at all. It's not really redundant as items in this category cannot be fully crossposted in other categories. Examples would be space suits, or scrap metal from a lunar lander, or boots from an astronaut. Categories that can be fully cross-waymarked are airports and inside airports, fossils and rock displays, azimuth and US benchmarks, etc. Here, I believe there is a clear, unique cut. Finding not just moon rocks, but actual artifacts that have been to the moon. Many of these cannot be waymarked in existing categories. Like metal scraps from lunar landers picked up by astronauts and personal items brought to the moon. This photo has a map of the locations of the Apollo command modules that are on display with most being in North America, but some artifacts in Europe, Asia, and Australia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module#/media/File:Apollo_Spacecraft_Locations_World_Map.png Perhaps instead of Lunar Specimens, the category be renamed to Lunar Artifacts to imply items that have been to the moon verse items that have originated from the moon.

I've had this idea for a while, and finally I've gotten around to write up a category for it. I think it would be a great place to categorize objects, including moon rocks, that have actually visited the moon. Objects like space suits, Apollo astronauts personal items, Apollo astronaut grave sites, Apollo spacecraft, spacecraft brought back to earth from the moon (Surveyor 3), etc. The possibilities are quite large here and I think it would be a great category. Thoughts? Questions? Concerns? Let's hear them! http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=97ce8dd0-9922-469a-b905-c60e6f8fef70&r=200&gid=6&exp=True

"Dated buildings and cornerstones" and "Dated Structures" are the same way. You can cross post waymarks. Not every 100 year old bridge will have a cornerstone or plaque, which is why the website is very useful. I think it would be unique to have a collection of bridges that are over 100 years old, regardless of their function.

Well, the same goes with "This Old Church". You can cross post it in other existing categories. Not all 100 year old bridges can be placed in other existing categories like roadway/highway bridges.

I've had this idea for a while, and now I think it'll be good to discuss it. There's already a "This Old Church" category so why not have a "This Old Bridge"? There are so many historical bridges that are well over 100 years old and I think it's would be fun and interesting categorizing bridges that are 100 years old. Thoughts? Questions? Concerns? Let's hear them! http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=aa9d83fb-7caf-44e8-9bbe-250700635973&gid=6&exp=True

I guess I should have seen this sooner. Not sure how I missed this thread. Didn't know you guys were waiting on me for approval. So here's my thoughts. Based on other existing benchmark categories, and following the icons they have (Canadian Benchmarks, Portugal Geodetic Points, and others for example) they seem to have the writing above the benchmark icon. I think it would be best if we try and follow that route just to be in the norm. If it's possible, the word "Latin" should be above the benchmark icon. Another option is to have both "Latin" and "America" on it as well. With "Latin" being above the benchmark and "America" being below. Not sure if having two spaces for these words would make the icon appear too small or not. If that's too much to ask, then the one razalas has in the previous reply would do just nicely. Either of these options would be alright with me. Thanks for your hard work razalas and wayfrog. Much appreciated!

Can anyone who is an officer tell me in an email why I'm being removed from this group constantly? If there's an issue or a problem, removing me without consent or reason will not solve anything. Please let me know. Thank you.