Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11
Jeremy

Creating New Waymark Categories

Recommended Posts

Could new categories have a "Probation Period" instead of being required to gain 2/3 vote in the forums? I have been reading some of the posts on the other topic and consensus looks to be hard to get let alone 2/3 majority. <_<

 

Say I suggest Burger King (I know, I know). After there is consensus that it should be allowed and Groundspeak has their say, it gets listed with the condition that the "community" must log X-number of Burger Kings in the first 6 months or the category goes away.

 

Now, each category would require a different "X-number". There are Tens of Thousands of Burger Kings but only a few Major League Baseball stadiums.

 

This way, the community (not just the forum regulars) would be voting with their participation.

Share this post


Link to post
After there is consensus that it should be allowed and Groundspeak has their say, it gets listed with the condition that the "community" must log X-number of Burger Kings in the first 6 months or the category goes away.

 

Now, each category would require a different "X-number". There are Tens of Thousands of Burger Kings but only a few Major League Baseball stadiums.

 

I don't think that x-numbers is the answer. I think this is a great opportunity to index places that would appeal to the interest of the whole community. It's a great idea. Think about visiting a new place in the country and you wanted to find a local Burger King, this would be the yellow pages for GPS users. It in a sense it takes away from the original and unique, but that's where the filters and categories come into play.

Edited by BayouBug

Share this post


Link to post

I absolutely agree with you, BayouBug. 100%.

 

My point is that, after reading the threads on that other topic, getting 2/3 majority to vote yes is going to be difficult at best, and may be impossible.

 

Which means we will be left with the best "GPS Yellow Pages" for McDonald's (only)ever put together. <_<

 

I was / am trying to help brainstorm a process to get categories created. I really have fears about the whole "reach consensus in one thread, then earn 2/3 majority in a poll to get your category listed" approach. Either everything will get listed, or nothing will.

 

I was hoping to include all eligible members in the voting somehow, not just the folks who happen into the forums.

 

But, maybe I just need to see it work.

Share this post


Link to post

The voting thing seems to be the major problem of the forward progress. I'm glad that Jeremy thinks that we as PM should have the vote on each category, but I think that all suggestion be entertained then there be a condensed list of categories for waymarks to be listed.

 

Maybe the Ebay taxonomy way of listing Waymark categories should be an example. I don't think that we need as many sub-categories as they do. That can be a filter feature.

Edited by BayouBug

Share this post


Link to post

When I created my Categorized List of Locationless Caches, I came up with the following categories. This list was not meant to be a list of "good" categories; rather, it was simply a list that categorized the current locationless caches. It might server as a staring point for further discussion.

 

Buildings (by designer)

Buildings (by shape)

Buildings (by style)

Buildings (by use)

Buildings (towers)

Venues and Points of Interest

Regional Point of Interest

Sports Venues and Related Sightings

Religious Sites

Bridges

Trail and Border Markers

Benchmarks and Survey Markers

Historical Markers

Special Designated Areas

Towns and Cities

Ancient Ruins (and other old things)

Events

Statues

Monuments

Graves and Memorials

Art, Sculpture, and Cultural Icons

Signs

Hydrographic Landmarks

Vehicles and Transportation

Military

Industrial (and other) Equipment

Interesting Sightings

Special Coordinates

Referential

Share this post


Link to post

I like that list too. I think it could be a starting place. The building category could be condensed into one with subs. Some are too general thought. A great list over all. <_<

Share this post


Link to post

Just as a small taste of what is to come with a voting process as discussed, note how many people have responded to this forum subject by suggesting category names, rather than actually commenting on the voting process.

 

Furthermore, people who are unfamiliar with taxonomy-type systems are going to make a real jumble of categorizing things. Just because 2/3 of people are happy to support their fellow geocachers, that doesn't mean it makes any sense to have a particular category. That's why librarians don't just let random people toss books back on the shelf where ever they think they should go. I'm not a great fan of Dewey's Decimals, but at least they offer some standardization. If 2/3 of library patrons vote that Chevrolet Repair Manuals should be located in the Science and Engineering section, is that where we should put 'em?

 

I am all for having discussions about possible new categories in the forums, but there MUST be a better way to handle making the final decisions.

Share this post


Link to post

I say we just cast lots for each category. <_<

 

It seems that this voting subject has grown into a vicious circle of speculations. To have a vote there must be voters (which is not the problem) and something to vote on (which is the problem). It will be impossible to appease everyone over what should and what shouldn't be. There will always be those who oppose and those who propose and those who will just ride the fence.

 

I still think that all suggestions be entertained with a category list proposed from a condensed polling of the suggestions, afterwards we vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Furthermore, people who are unfamiliar with taxonomy-type systems are going to make a real jumble of categorizing things.

You're right. I'm not suggesting that the final decision as to where a waymark category will go within the directory. It does, however, need a peer review to refine the category before it passes the vote litmus test.

 

Not ever doing this before I don't know how the votes will work, and perhaps we should just have only 5 active votes at any given time. However, the site hasn't even been officially announced yet and you can see the traffic we're getting here already. The forums get a small percentage of the overall geocaching.com user base, so it will be interesting to see what happens when a wider audience is involved.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps we should hit this part to discuss:

 

When a consensus has been reached in the forum thread, and the idea is shown to have merit, it is moved to the next stage of the process.
\

 

Initially I was thinking that the category submitter should decide when they think it is ready for a vote, but x number of days is required in the submission request category to have any suggested changes/etc. That way the category will be fleshed out before it ends up in the vote.

Share this post


Link to post

What about category or sub-category suggestions? Are they still being entertained?

Share this post


Link to post

I have noticed new sub-catergories being listied on the site today. Are these coming from the forum? I would like to suggest outdoor recreations as a sub.

Share this post


Link to post

This is starting to remind me of the early days of Yahoo (around 1995). At the time they were trying to index the web and really ended up indexing the world. They had to decide upon categories and sub categories and it became enormous. But they did something right judging by the results. Other indexing sites were far less successful, in large part because they weren't well organized. It will be interesting to see how this "indexing by enormous committee" plays out, rather than having it done by a dedicated small team.

Share this post


Link to post
It will be interesting to see how this "indexing by enormous committee" plays out, rather than having it done by a dedicated small team.

I think maybe there is still some confusion. You are not requesting a taxonomy but instead you are requesting a waymark category. Where it fits in the directory isn't really up to the waymark category manager.

 

Comparing it to Yahoo, at that time you would suggest where you thought your web site would go. It is pretty much the same thing here. But instead of web sites you have waymark categories which are, essentially, mini geocaching.com web sites.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll be happy when this thing evolves into a usable site. There are many good ideas being proposed, I'm not sure why they haven't been listed yet.

 

Maybe it's just me, but there seem to be lots of common sense proposals that are not showing up in the categories, but some oddball ones like pikachu sitings and painted fireplugs are.

 

I'm not trying to belittle those by any means, but I'm just kind of curious how those made the list when other more obvious choices seem to have been left out.

Edited by cachew nut

Share this post


Link to post

I'd like to propose three categories that could go under "Places > Entertainment":

 

* Water Parks

* Spray Parks

* Theme Parks

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps instead of a 2/3 vote there can just be a minimum number of yes votes required. I don't really know what forum traffic is like, but if a suggested category gets 20, 50, 100 approvals, whatever the number may be, isn't that enough to suggest that it's wanted, rather than, as suggested above, people voting against a category because they don't like the person placing it. Of course if you want to hold veto power, you can use that in the face of several people voicing an objection to a particular suggestion. But the 2/3 approval (or even 50%+1) seems stiff, especially since it's typically the same people in the forums, and it's their biases the new submitter is up against. A standard minimum may make it more practical to get a new category published.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok. I’ve got over the emotional shock of seeing Micky D’s on the list, I’ve removed my GC cap, and I’ve had a good nights rest, and had a closer look at WM. This does have huge potential, and benefit to GPS owners who travel etc. BUT, I never want to see GC and WM amalgamated. These are two different activities and should be kept as such. With that in mind… I’ll extend congratulations to the team, and now it’s up to the community to mold WM into something useful.

 

I can now also see how Virtuals and LC’s fit into the WM setup. They are kind of intertwined. But much is dependent on how the category is defined.

 

Looking at the category Civil Rights Memorials. “Civil Rights Memorials” owned by jeff35080. This category can be seen as the “locationless cache” even though a log can not be made against the category. Therefore Muirwoody’s creation of Kennedy- King memorial is essentially the first placement within this “locationless category” but it’s actually a virtual cache which everyone can go and find. The category keeps growing while more people create virtual caches within the “Civil Rights Memorial” “locationless” category.

 

Confused… well bottom line is that instead of creating a locationless cache… you now create a “locationless category”. 99% of the old LC’s will actually become virtuals, and the “locationless” category owner actually becomes the “owner/custodian/manager” of however many “virtual caches” within that category, the waymarks.

 

This works fine for what are essentially virtual caches. This doesn’t work for those other locationless’s which aren’t static objects such as the wienermobile. But I think the point is to eliminate these??!! If such locationless’s want to be retained then an entirely separate category is required for “Roaming Objects”. But then again… is there any point in tagging a roaming waymark??? (personally wouldn’t shed a tear if they disappeared but I guess some still want them)

 

Based on the current categories the Wienermobile LC could fall under Directory Home > Things > Vehicles > Art Vehicles as a waymark. Each find for the waymark can have the log with waypoint and pic as with old LC’s. But in this same category you could have an Art Vehicle which is essentially a virtual cache, say some vehicle painted up and cast in concrete outside a museum or something. If the plan is to retain “roaming” caches I think they need to be identifiable somehow, either as a separate category as mentioned above or a different waymark type.

 

Getting back to the high level categories listed so far.

 

There’s never going to be an ultimate answer for the highest level categories, and I’m sure there have been many people spending many hours thinking about these highest levels being People, Places, Things. How one breaks down a database and how you want the information cube to be interrogated and the results displayed is a matter of opinion and debate…errrr…I guess that’s what this forum is about. I just wonder how much we can influence these categories at this point in time as there has clearly been much thought and plenty of coding done already.

 

It may not be a problem, but I notice that “historic” type waymarks are categorized within all 3 high level categories. I compared this to the high level categories one would see on the POI on enabled GPSr’s. The categories on the GPSr made more sense to me… but then again I’ve used these for a long time so it may just be a comfort zone.

 

I’ve looked through (briefly) the list of categories within each one… and they are essentially all PLACES. I’d get rid of the 3 high level categories, and concentrate on consolidating the sub categories currently listed. So the three historical categories , Memorials, Historic Things, and Historic Places would all fall under either “History” or “Attractions>Historic”. Should Structures and Buildings not be under a similar category?? Unfortunately there’s no real answer. Should Versailles fall under a Building or a Historic place?

 

It’s all a matter of definition. Guiding principle in categorisation is that if you have an object that you can not categorise or it falls into more than one category the categories or the object have been improperly defined.

 

Good work to the team at Groundspeak/WM.com!! :P

Share this post


Link to post

I am good with using the newsgroup method of selecting categories. I also like using maybe 1/2 favorable voting on selection. I am also ok with Groundspeak reserving the right to veto.

 

Looking forward to seeing how this will all work.

Share this post


Link to post
Artemis directed me to this site for oddities... Have you considered 50's style Drive-Ins? There are still a handful around the nation that have 50's sock hops or are just as they are from back in the day!! :blink: Good eats!!

Wouldn't that just fit under Restraunts?

Share this post


Link to post
I'll be happy when this thing evolves into a usable site. There are many good ideas being proposed, I'm not sure why they haven't been listed yet.

 

Maybe it's just me, but there seem to be lots of common sense proposals that are not showing up in the categories, but some oddball ones like pikachu sitings and painted fireplugs are.

 

I'm not trying to belittle those by any means, but I'm just kind of curious how those made the list when other more obvious choices seem to have been left out.

The only categories showing up currently are those that were created during the alpha test phase (right now is beta test, until the site's open to everyone). If you look at the category owners, they are Groundspeak employees, volunteer cache reviewers, volunteer forum moderators who aren't cache reviewers, and other people who work closely with Groundspeak or are "friends of the frog." I was part of that group, and I've been playing around with the site since early July. I own four categories.

 

Yesterday the Earthcaching category was added, with the enthusiastic support of Geoaware from the GSA. Soon, we'll see the wave of existing locationless caches whose owners took up the offer to have them converted over. After a month or so, new proposals will be considered for additional categories. See the pinned threads/FAQ's.

 

Consider the existing 50 or so starter categories to be a cross-section. Some you may find cool, some you may find lame, and that's what the ratings button is for. There's already one category relating to benchmark lovers (UK Trigpoints) and many more benchmarking-type categories are sure to follow. There are several historical categories, a few commercial categories, a few that would have made good locationless caches three years ago, and a few "specialty interest" categories like Pikachu sightings. Multiply that by 100 and you can begin to imagine what the site will look like in a year or so!

Edited by The Leprechauns

Share this post


Link to post

I've been reading this thread and am ready to throw my two cents in on the new category procedure.

 

I think first there should be a forum thread as described by Jeremy to 'flesh' out the topic idea. After a 'reasonable' time frame the OP can go to the Waymarking.com home page and click a link to 'Submit a Category Proposal'. They would then fill out a form to essentially create their category. There can be extra fields for the url to the forum thread on that category proposal and one for comments to Groundspeak (similar to the note to reviewer on cache submissions now).

 

A Groundspeak team member can review the submission, to make sure the submitted category has all the necessary information and then that category would be put to a vote by the general Waymarking community. Not through the forums though, from the Waymarking.com home page. There could be a little area that has a link to 'vote on new categories'. IMHO the name of the person submitting the category should be hidden until it is approved. (people should vote on the idea not the person behind it) If/when the established criteria have been met for voting the category gets published and/or rejected.

 

I'd also like to see a minimum number of votes yes rather than a majority rule. I'd like to think I will vote fairly for a category based on it's worth not my personal like or dislike for the subject, but I can't say that I trust everyone to do that. I envision many categories that will only appeal to a small percentage of the Waymarking community. I'd hate to see a good suggestion shot down just because the majority of voters don't have an interest in ABC or XYZ locations.

 

I think this might work well in the Long Term, but it will be very cumbersome short term. So to that end, I suggest that the Groundspeak team be allowed to do and end-around the voting process. If a category is proposed that the 'majority' of Groundspeak personnel feel is worthy they can publish it with out putting it to a vote by the users. Categories that don't get the majority of support from Groundspeak would continue the process to be voted on by the community. I see this as being a short term set up to get the category fields populated.

 

Whew!!! That much typing should be worth more than .02 cents but who’s counting.

Share this post


Link to post
A Groundspeak team member can review the submission, to make sure the submitted category has all the necessary information and then that category would be put to a vote by the general Waymarking community. Not through the forums though, from the Waymarking.com home page. There could be a little area that has a link to 'vote on new categories'. IMHO the name of the person submitting the category should be hidden until it is approved. (people should vote on the idea not the person behind it) If/when the established criteria have been met for voting the category gets published and/or rejected.

 

I'd also like to see a minimum number of votes yes rather than a majority rule. I'd like to think I will vote fairly for a category based on it's worth not my personal like or dislike for the subject, but I can't say that I trust everyone to do that. I envision many categories that will only appeal to a small percentage of the Waymarking community. I'd hate to see a good suggestion shot down just because the majority of voters don't have an interest in ABC or XYZ locations.

I second that idea! That's very good and worth more than .02 cents in my mind! :D

Share this post


Link to post
I'd like to think I will vote fairly for a category based on it's worth not my personal like or dislike for the subject.

I envision the initial category voting process to be similar to how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution. We will have a set of guidelines for waymark category creation (our so-called constitution). If the user's submission fits the criteria, like it or not, you should vote yes. If it doesn't fit the criteria, you vote no.

 

Once the category has been accepted you can then use the upgrade/downgrade to put your likes/dislikes into the equation.

 

Here's an example.

 

Let's say the rules for an acceptable waymark category include the following:

 

1. Must be able to record globally (no regional waymark categories).

2. Must be visitable (no moving or temporary waymarks)

3. Must not be too many or too little amount of waymarks to record for this category (1 is too little, 1 billion is too much...definitely subject to interpretation)

 

Now, let's say someone submits a category called "Sidewalk Cracks"

 

Since these cracks exist globally, the first criteria is met. Each crack can be visited, so that criteria is also met. But then you hit the stopping point. Too many sidewalk cracks. It doesn't work. You vote no, even if you absolutely love sidewalk cracks.

 

Ok, then someone submits a category called "Five way intersections"

 

These definitely exist globally. They are visitable and also have a manageable number (not too many, not too little). It should receive a yes vote, whether or not you like the category.

 

Once any category is accepted, you can downgrade it if you don't like it, and it will be reflected in its popularity. But we want people to be able to do their thing. So long as their thing fits the minimal criteria, it should be accepted.

Share this post


Link to post
I envision the initial category voting process to be similar to how the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

:D And we can all see how well that works out. Is the court system really the best example?

 

Politics aside....

 

1.  Must be able to record globally (no regional waymark categories).

 

I was hoping to have a sub category of Arizona historical plaques. There is no updated record of them in the state. An effort was nearly made a few years ago to record them, but it fell through. I was hoping to have this so that people couple add to the database of the historical plaques. Some of these are in such isolated areas. I recall one where it was on a trail that you could only reach by an old dirt forest service road.

 

If it is only acceptable to have global and not regional categories, then why is there a UK trigpoints?

Share this post


Link to post
1.  Must be able to record globally (no regional waymark categories).

 

If it is only acceptable to have global and not regional categories, then why is there a UK trigpoints?

There is a distinction I tried to make in another thread, that an object that is manufactured and placed regionally can be fine as a waymark category. The UK Trigpoints and NGS Benchmarks are two very good examples.

 

Those points were just taken as "what if" and don't take them as actual rules, ok? His points were hypothetical.

Edited by Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post
Thanks Jeremy.

Actually thank Keystone as he made some good arguments when suggesting his PA Historical Markers waymark category. The idea is to make waymark categories that are not specific to any region. However some of them make sense - especially those like historical markers that may even have their own unique ID number. NGS Benchmarks, for example, have PIDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Thanks Keystone.  :D

My sock puppet says "you're welcome." By the way, Keystone the Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer will never post in this forum. I think it's important to note that the volunteer group will have no special say in how categories are approved, or on individual waymarks other than in the categories we manage personally. Leprechaun gets one vote just like everyone else.

 

Keystone would like to say that the volunteer group had a lot of input into how this process ought to work, and we appreciated the opportunity. As frustrating as the locationless cache moratorium and the strict rules for virtual caches were for everyone else, it REALLY SUCKED to be the person saying "no" to everybody all the time. Keystone has an extensive collection of hate mail. I was just following the rules for virtual caches -- as you can tell by Leprechaun's participation in this forum, I am very enthusiastic about Waymarking. The virtual cache process WAS BROKEN.

 

So, Leprechaun owns the "Pennsylvania Historic Markers" category. These were automatically archived by Keystone whenever one was submitted as a virtual cache target. I think that says a lot about the open structure of Waymarking. Go fill up my category with your marker finds, fellow Pennsylvanians. As virtual caches, historic markers left me wondering "why is this a cache?" As waymarks, I think they rock.

 

I would like to thank Jeremy and his team for taking my views into consideration, and deciding that it did make sense for a distinct program like the PA Historic Markers to be its own category (maybe someday it will be a subcategory of "Historic Markers"). The decision process was not always easy, even among friends, and it is subject to change as we all learn from each other. I look forward to working with anyone else who wants to set up a historic markers category.

Edited by The Leprechauns

Share this post


Link to post
Thanks Keystone.  :D

My sock puppet says "you're welcome." By the way, Keystone the Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer will never post in this forum.

Oops. My bad. I have trouble telling the difference between the two usernames.

Share this post


Link to post
Thanks Keystone.  :D

My sock puppet says "you're welcome." By the way, Keystone the Geocaching.com Volunteer Reviewer will never post in this forum.

Oops. My bad. I have trouble telling the difference between the two usernames.

Keystone's the one who doesn't have an obsession with rodents.

 

Where is the approval you promised for my "hamster sightings" category?

Share this post


Link to post
Thanks Jeremy.

Actually thank Keystone as he made some good arguments when suggesting his PA Historical Markers waymark category. The idea is to make waymark categories that are not specific to any region. However some of them make sense - especially those like historical markers that may even have their own unique ID number. NGS Benchmarks, for example, have PIDs.

Will it not make more sense to have a Category called Surveymarks, and then subcategories for NGS Benchmarks, UK Trigpoints, SA TSM's etc.

 

Or

 

Surveymarks

|_US

| |_Benchmarks

| |_xxxx

|

|_UK

| |_Trigpoints

|

|_SA

| |_Trigpoints

| |_TSM's

|

|xxx

Share this post


Link to post

I think a majority vote will not work in most cases since people will just vote against those they do not feel they like and not on the suggestions merit. It is easier to get 'No' vote then yes. Most people that feel indifferent towards a topic wouldn't even vote.

 

The idea put forth by esquimaux of having a set number of 'Yes' votes sounds like a much better idea. Submit the proposal and have it sit in a queue until the required number of votes come in. Set a time limit so votes are not collected over 'years'.

 

Search should allow for cross categories. ie: Clock Towers should show up under Towers, Clocks, Timepieces, Outdoor Clocks, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

I had considered a category for statues of Football(soccer) players, not Gridiron players (someone else can create that as I don't live in America), as I'm sure that there may be many statues to players of this worldwide game but I'm not sure that it might get approval as many of the forum users are probably American, so where would that leave my suggestion?

It might not get the votes?

Share this post


Link to post

Wow

I am impressed with the work that went into the site. I am therefore proposing that a catagory for Muffler men be added. ( These are extremely large figures that were manufactured in the 30's and 40's)Mufflermen now appear all over the country from advertisements for business's to shore communities to miniture golf courses. If this catagory is accepted I would love to own it. My family have gone out of our way to find them when we travel and I think others would too. Usually they are in places that you can not put an actual cache so to me it fits here in this new place.

Share this post


Link to post

We're not accepting category ideas at this time. We're first trying to at least partially formulate a procedure for them.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems that manual labor is one of the major obstacles when it comes to deciding where categories are placed. Maybe this can be addressed in the polling period by adding a poll option to adopt the submitters suggestion of category location.

 

1/2 or more positive votes for the category gets it listed

 

2/3 or more positive votes for the category location gets the category listed where the submitter suggested. Less than 2/3 vote sends it to location review committee.

 

And how about spell checking for these forums (I know wrong place) but I just had to correct about a dozen misspellings in this post...

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Jeremy, the two I would like to add are stone etc stepping stones, and stocks (the medieval ones used in UK) I could manage these two groups. Cheers MaxKim. How do I proceed?

Share this post


Link to post

I was very distressed when I first perused the categories in the Waymarking site. I saw some of the categories and thought "What the heck is this?", feeling the new site would be a tremendous disappointment and waste of time. I thought (and still do) that some of the categories shouldn't be there. However, in reading over some of the posts, and the FAQ's, I see some potential for the stie.

 

I like the idea of the membership voting on a proposed category. Perhaps it will help to control some of the more ridiculous categories from being accepted. I would agree with most of Jeremy's proposal. I think perhaps 50% positive votes should be sufficient for now. I also agree with whoever suggested NOT listing the name of the member requesting a particular new category until AFTER the vote - that would help to eliminate favoratism, and make a new category proposal fly on it's own merits. I do believe that TPTB should always retain the ultimate approval, and be able to disapprove something totally unacceptable, even if it received enough positive votes. Or, conversely, to approve something they feel is a great addition, even if not enough members choose to vote on it. I also have a couple of ideas for categories, but per Jeremy's post above they are not accepting new categories at this time but trying to establish and refine the process, so I will wait to make my category proposals.

Share this post


Link to post
Let's say the rules for an acceptable waymark category include the following:

 

1. Must be able to record globally (no regional waymark categories).

2. Must be visitable (no moving or temporary waymarks)

3. Must not be too many or too little amount of waymarks to record for this category (1 is too little, 1 billion is too much...definitely subject to interpretation)

 

I like points 2 and 3, but . . .

 

I don't agree with global because there are certain types of things that are commonly found in one area but not another. Here are two examples - UK Trig points, Iron age hill forts.

 

I think both of these are reasonably common in the UK, but not globally. So they would not fit the global criterion.

 

However, I feel certain that both of these categories would be majority voted YES by UK waypointers. It would be a shame if our great hill forts were voted NO by the larger number of USA cachers who might never get to visit one.

 

In other words, there is likely to be cultural bias in the voting.

Edited by Happy Landins

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that they make exceptions. I know that the Pennsylvania State Historical Markers were accepted as a category, so I think your iron hill forts would be acceptable if the concept and reasoning were explained.

Share this post


Link to post

My five cents worth:

 

I think the idea is that people should be setting up these categories with the idea that this is a list that would not be easy to obtain elsewhere and the waymarks contained in it are something 'out of the ordinary.' For example, if you are such a Starbucks fan, you can go to their website and find the nearest Starbucks to you. Often these are plotted on mapping tools, and if they aren't now, they will be in car navigation systems (yet another avenue for advertising). However, a list of 'Fast Food Firsts' where you are finding and recording the location of the first Starbucks store, or the first Dunkin' Donuts store (an eastern states brand of the same kind of store) might be interesting and isn't easy to obtain elsewhere.

 

Another five cents:

 

I can see potential for an occasional contest, for instance scavenger hunts. The category might have a theme of items to find, geolocate, take a picture and submit within a certain period of time (this may require an 'archiving' feature such as that used in geocaches). For instance, a 'fish' themed scavenger hunt might list the following: a fish in a picture; a fish-and-bait shop or sporting equipment store; a pond with fish in it; and a place where people often go to fish. I would see the contestants creating their own sub categories under the main one to list their finds. - Would I do this? I might not since I don't have THAT much time on my hands, but there might be enough other people who are interested, and it might be interesting to see what is submitted around the world.

Share this post


Link to post

Go on vacation and work travel and the whole world changes overnight. And lots know that i have been waiting for this day....sigh, always left at the pier :(

 

So, i whizzed through this and dont see a clear indication on the way ahead. Has anyone consolidated the various points into a readers digest version?

 

Sub-category recommendations:

 

Buildings: Lighthouses (Ocean)

Scouts: Boy Scout Camps

Stores: Disney

Historic things: Display Ships

Memorials: Historical figures gravesite

Share this post


Link to post

:( I have an idea to propose. Is your hometown or city a sister city? Where I live we have 7 sister cities and we have a couple of things around town that honor them. One is a fountain (which I will be logging) and then there are some sculptures in another area, plus we even have a road named for one of the sisters. Has anyone proposed a category like this? If not, could I propose it, I would be willing to manage it.

 

Jen AKA The Blind Acorn.

Share this post


Link to post

I like the idea of at least starting with just a majority rule for new categories. After we start filling up the site you can always throttle it back. If some unpopular ones slip through at the beginning they will die off eventually. :anitongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 11

×
×
  • Create New...