jennyanykind

I really like this idea; it is a definite gap that needs covering. I don't have a good solution to the coordinates problem: some possible candidates will have visitors' centers or main viewing platforms that can be used, but others, like Mt. Everest, are viewable from so many places, and so few people would make it to the actual site that was closest to the waymark, that that solution would not work for all places.

I am not experienced at this, but I would think that the stress in the category should be on the availability of food for free or purchase at the site that is specifically intended to feed the animals. I can feed the ducks in my local park all I like, and it is permitted so long as I do it from the shore, but to me it shouldn't qualify because I bring my own food. But you don't want any place where animals can be fed, because there are too many of those and they'd be very subjective in nature.

I should say I got a nice email from thebeav69 saying he'd reviewed the declined waymarks in the category given this discussion and that my declined one should have been accepted, so I resubmitted it just now.

The above was not in the original category description when it was voted on. Since it is not clear what really is allowed, and it keeps changing, I'm going to throw in my $.02 opinion. I think that what they are looking for are plaques or signs that look like the kinds of things that would be allowed in Dated Buildings and Cornerstones, but can't go into that category because the plaque/sign is not built into the fabric of the building. This is my guess. So what might be acceptible is a sign that says: Dedicated 1923 or Established 1871 or Brent Building - Built 1901 but not This building was originally the private residence of Such And So and was built by him and his brother in 1935. Later it was reused as the town library, until the library outgrew the building. Now it is used for thus and so. The latter has a date in it, but it has too much history, and does not look like what one would find built-into the fabric of the building but just didn't happen to be. (That's not my opinion. That's my guess at an opinion by the category officers. Since we're still confused.) Is that it????? Or have the officers come to a decision yet? We all need to know what meets the requirements for this new category, since the modified description seems to be spending more time telling us what isn't wanted. I don't think that is it, because I submitted a plaque that was very much like your hypothetical example (as well as one of their own examples), and which was not an integral part of the structure, but it was declined, with a suggestion to submit it to Cornerstones, a category for which it does not qualify. My understanding of Signs of History is that it's a more narrative category. They want what happened at the site, not dates or names of builders. Anyway, I'm still confused too and my issue wasn't even the "exclusive categories" problem - my waymark could indeed have been waymarked in another category, but hadn't been, plus that was not the reason given for declining.

I think the six or seven major architectural categories cover the styles most non-architects are familiar with, but I agree that there should be a space for other styles. Maybe a Miscellaneous type category that could include Cubism, Beaux Arts, Neoclassical, etc.? Though I may be missing a relevant category.

I would like some clarity too. First, I like the category, it's a great idea because of the necessary limitations of the other dated structure categories. But, I'm confused because I had a submission declined today because I had submitted a plaque that had the building date on it and (probably, I don't know for sure) the plaque had been placed when the building was built. The reviewer advised me to submit to dated buildings and cornerstones instead. I did this, but I expect a decline there because it's a plaque that isn't integral to the structure. The reason I submitted it here first was that it seemed to fit exactly an example given here and this description from the first post in this thread: "Whenever I try to submit a dated plaque on a building into the Dated Buildings and Cornerstones category, it gets denied because it's a plaque, even though it may have been placed when the building was erected." So if Cornerstones rejects my submission, is that what qualifies my waymark for this category? Seems to me that means extra work for the Cornerstones people. This isn't a complaint, I'm just puzzled like others. I think the category is a great idea.

Usual report - last few days, lots of morning glitches, must better at night my time (yes, AZT is Arizona time, we never change the clocks and so we switch between Mountain time from November - March and Pacific Time the rest of the year. Never having to turn the clocks backwards or forwards is nice, though since my family is in Philadelphia I have to mentally adjust contact times for them every few months.) I suppose I'll follow the advice of the last two posts and go find some new places to waymark. Here's hoping the site works when I want to post them.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply there was some special status for premium members. However, Groundspeak does promise a certain product to all members, and it hasn't been delivering. A few days of problems with a website is acceptable to me, 10 days is ridiculous. I had zero problems uploading last night around 6 pm AZT, this morning I am not getting the previous log issues I mentioned above but the photo timeout is still an issue.

I tried later in my time zone, and it's even worse. Multiple 500 server error pages for just trying to post a single log. I have sent an email, because it's ridiculous that people who pay premium membership rates for Groundspeak's service should get this kind of service.

Got a timeout error posting this morning. I haven't been on later in the day or evening lately, but I'll try that and see if that works better. I am on Arizona time (currently the same as Pacific Daylight) so early morning for me is late morning or early afternoon for most other users.

Unfortunately not my experience - getting on today to post one waymark visit, the site was slow, but I can deal with that. But I got yet a third error message trying to post the log (just the log, not the picture): "Object reference not set to an instance of an object." Yesterday's logs all actually posted despite the error messages (which meant I had to go back and delete the extras, painful on a site so slow), and so did this one, but it adds an extra step to the process if you want/need to post a photo as well as you cannot get from the log screen to the upload photo post without going back to the main waymark screen. I have a handful of waymarks I'm ready to create, but I don't want to start the process till the site looks better.

For 7-10 days I've been getting the 500 error when trying to upload pictures or continue submitting a waymark. Usually after a second or third try everything cleared itself up. But in trying to post 3 visits this morning, I got timeout messages over and over again on two of them. One was just a timeout message ("Timeout expired. The timeout period elapsed prior to completion of the operation or the server is not responding.") The other was more complicated: "Procedure or function 'spwmedit_EditedWaymark_Insert' expects parameter '@EditComment', which was not supplied." Not my browser and not my internet connection, as I get this response on different computers with different wireless or data access.