bluesnote

I agree that they should go into the Capitol Buildings category. I have discussed this with other officers. One officer said, "The intent of this category is to waymark current Capitols, not historic ones. While former capitols are historic and very interesting, this category is not meant to include them." This specific officer said nearly the same thing on a previous submission of mine from December. I've been an officer for several years in this group, and we have approved (and seen) several former capitol buildings come my way (excluding the ones I've submitted). I am unsure why this officer all of a sudden changed their mind. The 6 former capitol buildings in the category, currently, were approved by me or another officer. I feel they should go into Capitol Buildings as well. However, I am open to the idea of a new category. One pair of categories comes to mind that makes this dilemma similar: firehouses and converted firehouses. They basically waymark the same building, except one is a current firehouse and the other, well, is the former. My question to the community is to know if there a need to create a new category? I would like to find a place to waymark former capitol buildings and whether that is with a new category, or an existing one, should be discussed.

I created a group that will develop a new category for former capitol buildings. If you are interested in becoming an officer, enrollment is open. I will add members accordingly. https://www.Waymarking.com/groups/details.aspx?f=1&guid=68d7a457-26af-4e13-82f5-90d843c300df&gid=6

What are everyone's thoughts on including former capitol buildings into the category? In the past, the category has approved them. It seems none are getting though now. An officer in the category (not me) believes we should only accept current buildings. Although I stressed the point that we've accepted dozens of them in past. I feel we should continue to include former buildings for their historical importance. I always think visiting former capitol buildings are just as interesting as current ones. Several categories already include former(s) of themselves (i.e. U.S. Post Offices, courthouses, city halls just to name a few). What are your thoughts on the matter? Do you think the category should be expanded to include former historic capitol buildings? Or is there enough support to create a new category to include former capitol buildings? I'm interested to hear the community's thoughts.

I’d be interested in becoming an officer. Does it help if I have a science degree? With the current officers MIA, any votes to promote people are unlikely. Likely wayfrog will need to step in and expedite the process. IMHO, I don’t think this category should be expanded. Leed is pretty well know and is global. It’s the gold standard of sustainability in buildings. Opening up the category would lead to an influx of unneeded and likely uninteresting waymarks. Leed by itself is interesting, at least to me. Just a thought.

And now with the fires from Colorado, some of my waymarks might no longer be standing. As I was watching a news video, I noticed that they showed a Target that I waymarked back in 2014. Being from SoCal, I've become accustomed to living with fires. Last year, one was within my city limits and had part of my city evacuated. Luckily, I wasn't part of that order, but I still think about what I would do if I needed to get out. I hope these fires in Colorado didn't cause any fatalities.

There's a known cacher in my area who makes these puzzles for us to solve. One was published last month, and I'm still working on it. https://coord.info/GC9J317

In the US, there's at least 10 in every shopping/business center. However, like others have said, if you focus on the aesthetics and historical value of them, then sure! That might make a category. But you will need to define what is worthy and what is not going to make the cut.

I can no longer change the category on my unapproved waymarks. All I get is an error message. Super frustrating.

Yes, this too. The Monopoly category is the same way where either a photo or a URL will suffice.

I still feel Lego sets could be its own category. Here me out: The category Becktracker is proposing could stick strictly to 2d puzzles. While another, new category could step in for Lego sets which are based on real world buildings and places (to account for 3d puzzles). That way, we fix Becktracker's category being too redundant allowing all puzzles. I think, IMHO, puzzles in the most basic definition should be classified as 2d ones. However, I am okay with including them for the purposes of a single new category. I could be wrong, but I still think the category proposal, as it currently sits, is messy. If the two category idea is much, here's what I would suggest: 1. Allow one waymark per building or site. No need to have multiple waymarks for the same building if multiple puzzle exist. We are Waymarking the building in the real world, not the puzzle for that building. 2. Puzzles should only be accepted if they are available for mass market. No etsy or custom ones. That said, a URL link to Target, Walmart, Amazon, ect. should be provided to show it is easily purchasable and created in large quantities. I don't think we should be required to purchase or own one. That seems pointless. 3. I am okay with adding all puzzles (both 2d and 3d), but there needs to be some discussion to prevent redundancy. Like I said before, I think it would be better if we limited to several companies which are known for producing high quality puzzles. Lego, for example, is and should be one of them (if we are to keep it as one category). Are there a few companies that come to mind (i.e. quality, aesthetics, price, quantity, ect.) that we should say, "yes, include them" or "no, exclude them"? This is what I would like to know before moving forward. 4. I am against this becoming a Photo Goal because I feel this is more than a Photo Goal. We aren't doing a specific task. Rather, we are documenting real world objects which are represented as puzzles. Its similar to the Monopoly category, which I feel wouldn't be best as a Photo Goal. Just my two cents.

I disagree. We should be Waymarking the sites themselves, not the puzzles. This is going to be problematic and create a lot of unnecessary, repetitive, and redundant waymarks. One waymark per location IMHO.

Groundspeak tends to prioritize resources to things that have monetary incentives. Waymarking, unfortunately is not one of them. The site doesn't bring in much, if any, revenue unlike Geocaching. I don't see this becoming fixed anytime soon. Heck, we've been missing the maps on the stats of our profile pages for years now. And that hasn't been fixed. The trend in the past with Groundspeak is what is the bare minimum we can do to keep the site afloat. And frankly, this issue (while it is a problem), isn't enough for Groundspeak to spend the time and money on (even though it's probably an easy fix in the code).

That happens because the submitter formatted the HTML code incorrectly. Try and tell them to use <p> to separate paragraphs.

This I would agree with. One waymark per structure/building.

I would say, for me personally, if the category would include 3d puzzles, they should only include official Lego sets. No other company. That said, for the 2d puzzles, they need to find an equivalent company that is "king" in the 2d puzzle making business. If they include all puzzles, it would be too prevalent and not interesting. Which puzzle companies are most interesting, or most global (as in which ones sell their products worldwide)?

Well, what I meant by Lego is that it has to be an official set that one could buy from the website. I think the same should be said for these puzzles.

Each category has their own logging requirements. Surely you, as a waymark owner, can do what you want with them, but at the very least we need some standards for those who wish to follow the logging requirements. Categories nowadays can't be approved without basic logging requirements.

As for the requirements for this "updated category", I would like to see visits be accompanied by a photo of the geocoin (without the tracking code of course). This should be standard if you are visiting a sticker as well (although stickers do not have tracking codes, but it would be neat if they did). To prevent people from using the same photo on all geocoin waymarks, I would suggest that it would be required that the visitor submit a "discovered" log on the geocoin's geocaching webpage so that the owner knows they actually did find their geocoin rather than someone else's. The submitter of the waymark could provide a weblink to the geocoin page so it is easier for visitors to track and locate (if the owner decided to put the coin in a cache rather than keep it in their personal collection). Any other suggestions?

It's still available on the main Shop Geocaching site. Europe likely has a more limited supply compared to the US and Canada.

Seeing that these Waymarking geocoins only really are advertised by the Waymarking community, I don't see these selling out anytime soon. And that said, I really don't see these being "that" limited compared to other popular releases. Assuming that Groundspeak knows this, they likely made less than 1,000 (probably closer to 500) knowing that our community is limited in numbers and available buyers. This expansion of the existing category I would favor, if the category name (and eventually description) is updated to: Waymarking Stickers, Coins, and Pins

It would be more helpful if those laughing at my suggestion voiced their concerns, rather than ridicule me. Thank you. I'd like to know why you don't think this would be a feasible category.

Would this include Lego sets as well? I tried to do a category similar to this, but depicted by lego instead of puzzles, and it was heavily disliked many years ago. I like the idea, but I think this would be too prevalent unless you can nail down what is an acceptable puzzle and what is not. Puzzles like this can be created by anyone. Is there a specific puzzle company that is king? For example, with board games Monopoly comes to mind. We need to make sure that people aren't just creating a puzzle for the waymark. IMO, the puzzle should have a barcode on the back of the box to indicate it is readily available to the public to purchase at the bare minimum. When I tried to do this with Lego, my idea was that we would waymark real world structures and objects that were made into a lego sets. For example, the lego architecture series which are based on real world buildings. If lego sets were not to be included in this category, would anyone like to that become its own separate category?

I can't see the date (don't think there's a year), but there's definitely a corner stone just to the right of the ice cream cone sign. Only said Japanese Gardens because of the Bonsai trees. I'm sure there's more easter eggs

Categories I can find in this photo: Sit by Me Statues Statues of Historical Figures (if this statue on the bench is a known figure) Photo Goals Drawing Waymarks Converted Fountains Rose Gardens Famous Fiction Figures Figurative Public Sculpture Independent Pizza Restaurants Ice Cream Parlors Feeding the Animals Parks and Municipal Plazas Arched Bridges Independent Diners Japanese Gardens Independent Bookstores (and/or Used Bookstores) Realistic Art Sculptures Giants of Commerce (if its for use by the restaurants) Ginormous Everyday Objects (maybe Elevated Everyday Objects as well) Dog Friendly Restaurants (and/or Off-leash Dog Areas) Dated Buildings and Cornerstones Natural Lakes Takeout/Delivery Menus Exceptional Trees --Am I missing any? I'm sure I am, and if you wanted to go a step further, we could say that the trees/benches are dedicated

Might be a far fetched idea, but with the new 1,000,000th Waymarking geocoin I thought it might be a good idea to incorporate them into Waymarking somehow. Similar to the Waymarking Sticker category, this new category (proposal) would be similar in that your specific geocoin could have its own webpage on the Waymarking site. Discoverers and finders can then log thier visits both on the geocaching site and on the Waymarking site. Thoughts, comments, concerns?