bluesnote

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?

If my math is correct, this seems to have been the 1,000,000th: https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/wm1573R_Teatro_Cames_Lisboa_Portugal

My guess is that it'll happen in the next couple of hours. We have about 50 to go. I know in my own queue I have about 25 sitting waiting for others to publish.

I've visited (posted) several that are accessible.

We have two seasons where I live. Hot, dry summer and wet, mild winters. Still in the 80s F this week, so winter/fall hasn't really set in yet. Most of the trees never change colors in Southern California. One of the reasons why I enjoy the east coast so much is that they actually have a proper four seasons.

Been a few weeks since the WWI Sites category has been live. Think it's time for a new category icon, besides the default one. Similar to the WWII sites, I feel the category should have the same icon. But instead of "WW II" it should have "WWI" at the top of the monument. I also feel the WWI memorials/monuments category should also have this fix, from the default memorial/monument icon to differentiate it from others. Thoughts? Comments? Let's hear them!

It's sold directly at the Geocaching Shop, owned by Groundspeak. I think they only ship to US and Canada addresses.

Sounds a lot like "small town, big name" category. Not exactly sure what your idea entails. Could you further explain?

Superfund sites are part of the EPA, a federal agency in the US. Not sure how other countries do or tackle them. Not sure if or even how to expand the existing category to be more inclusive. I am against a new category, as to me that would seem redundant. If you can prove superfund sites (or their equivalent) lie outside the US, I might also agree with option 2. Could you possibly make a list of what the EU or other regions have to offer?

I noticed this too and glad I am not the only one. Seems to be an issue with the current update. As before updating the app the other day, I was still able to edit and rate ALs through the app. Now, on ones I've completed since the update I am no longer able to create a rating for the specific AL. Even then, it shows on the map that I've completed the AL even though I have several waypoints to finish. Super bizarre. Hopefully this can be fixed soon.

Category passed peer review and is currently live. Let's see some great submissions!

The reason to not include artillery is because these are small and are everywhere. Cannons and shells, for example, may be located all over a military park or cemetery. We do not want to waymark each one, as that would be redundant. Instead, we would allow battlefields because there's only one waymark for a large site (instead of hundreds of waymarks for the same size of site). Like I replied to T0SHEA's comment, as we get submissions we might have to update what is accepted and what is not. I am open to include artillery, but I think the category would get flooded with waymarks where the intention of the category is to mark sites that are of historical importance. I don't think artillery falls in that definition, but as time goes on (i.e. as we get submissions), I could be wrong. I am willing to make this change if there is a need to make this change.

My intention for this statement was for us (officers) to update the lists of what is accepted and what is not. Many categories in their early days of infancy will go through changes, after it passes peer review. I wanted to be explicit about this as we get submissions in the first few weeks. This is not for us to change the category all together.

Ok, just sent it to peer review. Fingers crossed!

Less than 5,000 to go now.

Ok, so I decided to cancel the group vote and make the slight edits as discussed here as I feel like they needed to be added. The clause that uncategorized waymarks are the only exception was added to the photo section. I also removed "Even if permission has been granted to use photos that are not yours, your waymark will be denied." because permission may have been granted for uncategorized waymarks. I will re-call an officer vote in a few hours if I do not hear anything else on this page and then send it off to peer review by tomorrow if all goes well.

I did not think of that. We would allow uncategorized waymarks (as should all other categories) because the original submitter is properly credited on the waymark. I can edit the category once is passes/fails peer review to include this clause. I don't think we would get too many uncategorized waymarks, but we might get a few.

I see what you are saying, however I disagree. I believe we should only use photos we personally taken to be added to the gallery. If I do open it up, it might be abused and cause problems down the line. Let me explain: If there are historical photos the submitter would like to use, links can always be provided of that. I can add that technically to make it explicit after peer review. Right now, the category passed an officer group vote so it's auto-locked from editing until peer review is complete. In my opinion, photos uploaded to the gallery should only be photos the submitter or visitors took. If we do open it up to allow photos from the internet, this could be a problem for reviewers trying to decide if a photo was personally taken by the submitter. I had an experience in the last year or so where one of my waymarks was declined because my photos didn't match (even though I took them at different times of the day while visiting a theme park). I happened to walk back and take another photo a few hours later and they said the clouds/shadows/lighting didn't match. This has been the norm for all categories (with exceptions from those that require internet photos: There's a Book about it, Tourist Stamps, Numismatic Photographs, just to name a few). I don't think we need to break that norm with this category.