+Beast of Traal Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 (edited) Intersting Bridges Quick Description: Locations of interesting bridges Detailed Description: Inseresting can include: Covered bridges suspension bridges cable stay bridges arch bridges picturesque bridges exceptional long bridges very tall Bridges Bridges with complex super stucture bridges of historicl significance. Bridges like the golden gate Bridge the Broklen Bridge would be considered interesting. Simple overpasses crossing the Highway or flat woden plank bridges on a walking path are not interesting. here is an example of an interesting bridge the moderator of the category will decide if the bridge you submit is interesting enaugh to be listed. Instructions for placing waymarks into this category: Make sure to include a picture of the bridge and the coordinates of where the picture was taken from also include the body of water or highway or whatever it crosses. Instructions for logging waymarks of this category: Include a picture of the bridge and the coords of where the picture was taken from. Bridges can look very different from various angles so try to get a unique perspective. Edited August 16, 2005 by Beast of Traal
+mtn-man Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 If you take pictures of some bridges you will go to jail. Bridges in NYC have signs that say that. This might not actually be a good category. I don't know though.
+5 Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Is there a requirement that a waymark be "interesting"? A few minutes ago I found a waymark for a McDonalds in downtown Seattle... Not much "Wow factor" there. Just stirrin' the pot...
+montythemule Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 The "interesting" qualifier seems to come up to question. How about ANY briidge and just assume it is interesting to the guy who found it anyway. I mean, what if I was looking for a bridge, ANY BRIDGE, to use as a bridge. I wouldn't care how interesting it was as long as it got me there
+Hemlock Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 No, there is no requirement that a waymark be interesting, per se, but the OP suggested "Intersting Bridges" (sic) I was just asking him to define that further. Don't forget that categories and waypoints can be rated, so over time the cream will float to the top
+WildGooseChase Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 I like this one. Bridges can have some of the most interesting and beautiful architecture in a city. I say make it a category!
+Z_Statman Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 (edited) I add "of historical interest" or "significance" See my Bridges Across Time Would really like it to be a part of this effort Edited August 16, 2005 by Z_Statman
+graveyard mom Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 What about covered bridges? Or did I miss that one somewhere?
+Thot Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 Seems like this might need subcatagories. Other than that it's a
+ibycus Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 From a practical perspective, I'll say the same thing as I said over in the outhouse one. Might be an idea to make it a sub-category of a more general 'its a bridge' waymark. I'm thinking of being stuck on the wrong side of a river while looking for a geocache...
+Beast of Traal Posted August 16, 2005 Author Posted August 16, 2005 a regular old bridge just to use as a bridge can be found by looking at a map. no need for a category for that. a map usuly wont show you if the bridge is interesting or not. Thats the point of this category
+Jeremy Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 It is too broad. You should stick to one item like, say, suspension bridges. There is already a locationless bridge type: drawbridges I believe.
+ibycus Posted August 16, 2005 Posted August 16, 2005 a regular old bridge just to use as a bridge can be found by looking at a map. no need for a category for that. a map usuly wont show you if the bridge is interesting or not. Thats the point of this category Really, what maps are you using.... Most bridges in parks that I know of (around here), aren't marked on any map, with maybe the exception of an information board somewhere in the park, that is very hard to orient yourself on, and is never around where you need it, I've actually taken pictures of a few of these, and worked out some calibration information, and digitized the bridges on them for just that reason. It is not uncommon to be looking for a cache, find yourself on the wrong side of the river, and have no idea if you'd be better off going upstream, downstream, or just plain ol' wading the river. Maybe a better thing to say would be bridges people can cross (and are allowed to cross) that aren't generally indicated on GPSrs.
+Beast of Traal Posted August 16, 2005 Author Posted August 16, 2005 (edited) how about somthing like Directory Home > Things > Structures > Bridges > Picturesque Bridges waymarks for bridges just fro crossing could go under bridges with no picture required interesting bridges would go under Pictuesque Bridges with a picture required. Edited August 17, 2005 by Beast of Traal
+ibycus Posted August 17, 2005 Posted August 17, 2005 how about somthing like Directory Home > Things > Structures > Bridges > Picturesque Bridges waymarks for bridges just fro crossing could go under bridges with no picture required interesting bridges would go under Pictuesque Bridges with a picture required. Well I like, thought that was what I said, just not so succinctly. Might be an idea to make it a sub-category of a more general 'its a bridge' waymark.
The Royles Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 I think the division should be by type of bridge. Road, Foot, Rail and Aquaduct come readily to mind. I posted this as I was going to propose aquaducts until I saw this thread.
+° Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 If you take pictures of some bridges you will go to jail. Bridges in NYC have signs that say that. This might not actually be a good category. I don't know though. NYC isn't the world - in Europe you can take pictures of every bridge you like I like this category, but what about a minimum size so only really large bridges fall into the category?
+ibycus Posted August 18, 2005 Posted August 18, 2005 NYC isn't the world - in Europe you can take pictures of every bridge you like I like this category, but what about a minimum size so only really large bridges fall into the category? Personally I'd like to see small foot bridges as being much more useful. Large bridges will probably appear on any map you have anyways...
+catcher24 Posted August 20, 2005 Posted August 20, 2005 I like bridges as a category, but as Jeremy mentions that would be too broad. It could be subdivided as someone else mentions - and don't forget the covered bridges subdivision! I have the DeLorme Gazeteers for NY, PA and OH and will often go out of my way to see a covered bridge (they show the locations of covered bridges in these books). The requirement to post a picture of the bridge would not be a problem in MOST locations. I understand the problem with NYC, so some other alternative could perhaps be offerd (photo of a nearby street sign or something).
+VanClan Posted October 2, 2005 Posted October 2, 2005 There's definietly a need for a "Bridges" main category. How it gets subdivided into manageable pieces is the question. Location? Pedestrian/freeway/covered? Construction - steel/cantilever/draw/concrete? What they cross - river/freeway/canyon, etc. Maybe us users could kinda help out by hashing this around, instead of just talking about sub categories we want to see. (BTW - "Interesting" or "Picturesque" as categories are too subjective. I hope all the locations in Waymarking are interesting!) I'll just throw out a few, for no particular reason. Some may cross to another category. Oh well! Harbor (bridges over sea water/marine navigation) River (bridges over moving rivers) Lake (You know - over lakes as opposed to rivers!) Steel Railroad Pedestrian Historic Concrete Suspension OK, that's a start. Errol
+catcher24 Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 Sounds pretty good. How about categories for wooden and covered bridges? Over ravines? Just a couple more suggestions.
+tozainamboku Posted October 3, 2005 Posted October 3, 2005 This is a good category for illustrating what Waymarking is/can be vs. what it isn't/shouldn't be. Bridges is a top level category within the directory. It is just there to help find the "interesting" categories where waymarks can be listed. Under bridges you can define many different sub-categories. These categories should be "interesting". I will now give my defininition of interesting 1. There should be be a reasonable number of potential waymarks in the category. Something that has only one or two examples or something that has several thousand examples are probably not good ideas for categories. It should be something unusual, but not so unusual that it would be impossible to find more than one or two examples. For bridges pedestrian suspension bridges, covered bridges, and wooden trestles may be good examples. Concrete highway overpasses would not be. 2. Categories should avoid subjective rules like "famous" or "picturesque". However, I personally think that we would miss out on many good waypoints if this were a hard and fast rule. I think some thought needs to be given as to how subjective categories could be handled. Perhaps a voting process, perhaps using the waymark ranking in these categories with waymarks that do not maintain a sufficient ranking being archived. Some bridges may fall under more than one subcategory of bridges. It may even fall under another category (for example if the bridge is also a historic landmark). I don't see a problem with this. A waymark is created under each subcategory, perhaps even by different people. A visitor could log a visit under any or all of the waymarks. Of course I suspect that someone will object to getting credit for more than one visit to the same bridge just because it is listed in multiple places. In creating categories, you should also consider that a category can define meta-data associated with waymarks in the category. For sub-categories under bridges this could include type of span (suspension, trestle, arch, etc.), what is spaned (river, lake, gorge, highway, etc.), what is carried on the span (highway, pedestrian, railroad, pipeline, etc.), and length of span. You probably don't want to make categories where a category variable will do. I have a question as to whether category variables can be defined for a top-level category like bridges and be inherited by the sub-categories. One problem Waymarking has is that someone may know of a bridge that he or she considers worthy of being waymarked. The may be no category under bridges yet where this fits. Do you just sit and wait till someone else creates the category and perhaps creates a waymark for your bridge? Do you submit a new category and hope it gets a approved? Is it then OK to create a waymark in a category you manage?
Recommended Posts