Waymarking Proposal

[+noshdoo tsoh]

I've checked out the Waymarking site and much of the postings here. This is a lot to take in, so forgive me if I mis-represent Waymarking or any opinions posted, but based on what I’ve seen and understand of it, I have some comments and suggestions for consideration.

 

To start with, I'm not sure if I understand why their is such an emphasis on approving/denying categories. If a member wants a certain category (within the law), why not let them create it. I think anything less than that will open a can of worms, no different than the one that prompted locationless and virtuals to be pushed off of gc.com to begin with.

 

For those who cite a possible organizational mess, just look at Google. The most popular, largest, and effective search engine doesn't bother with categories. Why not extend that successful search engine methodology to user-created categories. The category owner submits a few keywords that apply to their category to search against. That's it. If someone wants to create some loose taxonomy to group categories, fine, but don't make that the primary way to interface with the waymarks. A rigid AOL Keyword or Yahoo categorization will stifle creativity in my opinion.

 

In addition, why not allow users to cross-post waymarks into any category that applies (and that the category owner will accept).

 

Let's say, for example, someone goes out and marks the coordinates at the top of a peak near their home. That peak is the highest point in Jefferson County, Missouri. That peak has a summit register. That peak has a fire lookout tower. That lookout tower is made of steel. The rare rainbow titmouse nests here.

 

A person should be able to submit this waymark to several categories that may exist:

 

US Summits

Missouri County Highpoints

Summit Registers

Fire Lookouts

Steel Fire Lookouts in the Ozarks

Emblem Peaks of the Eastern Missouri Hiking Club

Rainbow Titmouse Nesting Sites

Bill's Not-so-cool Waymarks

Joe Blow's Cool Missouri Waymarks

 

The owner of each of the above categories can accept or decline the waymark depending on if it meets their own criteria. For example, Bill may decline this waymark because it’s much too cool for his category.

 

With the one category per waymark system being talked about, maybe you could stick it into one called summits. Well, ho hum. Talk about the stifling of creativity! There's too much of a regional spin on Waymarking for that to work anyway. What about Big Saguaro Cacti? Where outside of Arizona and northern Mexico will that apply?

 

Additionally, what if the Tree Club of Northern Idaho wants a list of very large trees. They can create a category called "Large Trees of Northern Idaho". Won't be long before that category has a bunch of waymarks in it! How cool is that? In addition, one of those large trees might be a huge Ponderosa Pine and also can be listed in a category called "Large Pines of the Western USA" maybe owned by the Tree Society of America or something.

 

I see no justifiable reason to restrict categories with an elaborate approval process. If someone creates a category called "Stoplights at intersections" or "purple cell towers" or “trash cans next to mailboxes”, well, guaranteed, there are some people who want to go around and mark those. So what. Using the keywords idea, you won't be bothered with categories you're not interested.

 

Hopefully the focus will be on enabling, not restricting, that's what caused problems to begin with, I hope it's not heading in the same direction.

 

So to sum it up, my suggestions for consideration are:

• approve all legal categories

• allow multiple category submissions

 

Just like on Google, there's lots of stuff out there you don't want to see come up on a search. Just like Google, don't search for stuff you don't want to see. Just like Google, don't restrict other's ability to have their webpages (categories and waymarks).

[OpinioNate]

You're thinking big, and that's awesome! But try to keep in mind this site is still in beta, and a lot of the features you bring up will be implemented in one way or another eventually. One of the reasons the site does not allow cross-posting of waymarks, for instance, is simply because we did not have time to create the feature yet.

 

As for making it "open season" for category creation, there is one big reason we haven't gone that route - at least in the beginning.

 

You've no doubt noticed the distinct lack of categories currently in the directory. Since there are so few, these categories give a certain "flavor" of what Waymarking is or should be. We want to allow the community to guide Waymarking in a certain direction; one that everyone can (somewhat) agree upon. When a potential waymarker visits the site for the first time they should be able to browse the directory and get an idea about what is a good category and what is a bad one. That first impression will frame their thinking from then on. That's why it's important to not allow just any category in the directory right out of the gate. That said, Groundspeak has only hopes for the future of Waymarking, not expectations. Those are for the community to decide.

 

Please keep the suggestions coming! I really think everyone is starting to "get it".

[+noshdoo tsoh]

Thanks for the feedback. You make a good point that the Waymarking site is in beta. Thanks for sharing this project with the members at this early stage and for allowing idea flow from the community as this evolves. I think this has huge potential, not just for current members, but also for just about any entity or organization that uses geographically based data. I am looking forward to future developments.