Absolute Bulls***

[+CapnJackSparrow]

I offerd this :

 

This lighthouse, built in 1822, stood on the shore of Lake Ontario. In 1829 piers were built to stop sand bars from blocking the mouth of the Genesee River. The idea worked except that the sand began to fill the area outside the piers. This created a whole new landscape and the light now stands almost one mile from the shore. Scheduled to be torn down by the government in the early 60's, the light was saved due to a write in campaign by local high school students to their congressman. In 1984 the light and house were officially turned into a museum and opened to the public on weekends throught the summer.

 

The a****** in control of this category replied with this:

 

Uh-oh! Your waymark, 'Charlotte - Genesee Lighthouse' has been denied by the category owner. The following reason for the denial was given:

 

"Having grown up in Irondequoit, I am well familiar with this lighthouse. Most recently, I visited last December to find a nearby microcache.

 

Sorry, but I'm declining this for the landlocked lighthouses category. I feel that it originally served as a navigation aid for mariners, and although it's a ways down Lake Avenue from the beach, it's still in the general area of the lakeshore.

 

Now, if you found a lighthouse in Chili, that'd be cool! Thanks for your interest in Waymarking!"

 

The only waymark that has been accepted into this category is a manufactured lighthouse by a church in the year 2000 that never served as a light at all.

 

What kind of crap is this

 

How can this be a viable source of information when you allow ignorant idiots to control it's content.

 

If this cannot be resolved, I quit

[Jeremy]

Unless you refrain from personal attacks and further violations of the Forum Guidelines posted at the top of every page here in the forums, you should probably quit. Your post is far more unacceptable than any denied listing. Take a break and come back when you've cooled down.

Edited September 1, 2005 by Jeremy

[+CapnJackSparrow]

Unless you refrain from personal attacks and further violations of the Forum Guidelines posted at the top of every page here in the forums, you should probably quit. Your post is far more unacceptable than any denied listing. Take a break and come back when you've cooled down.

Bite me a******!

 

How do I quit??

Edited September 1, 2005 by CapnJackSparrow

[Jeremy]

60 days suspension in the forums will do it I think.

[+dogbreathcanada]

Other than the temper, he does have a point.

[+Ambrosia]

That was odd.

 

(((CJS)))

 

[+Runaround]

Other than the temper, he does have a point.

I would agree. The category is to vague. It reads:

It's normal to see a lighthouse along the seashore or overlooking a harbor. But sometimes we find them where there is no water! Record these out-of-place lighthouses here.

 

I live about one mile from the shore of Lake Erie. Anything around here would certainly seem to qualify as landlocked to me. How far from the shoreline do you need to be?

[+sbell111]

Was that the first Waycide?

[+The Leprechauns]

I am the owner of the category in question, and the author of the note. I thought that the rejection was polite and personalized. I am looking for lighthouses that are NOT near water. This one is. It's on the banks of a river and you can see the lake when you're standing at the lighthouse. This cache was located less than 100 feet from the lighthouse. Pop up the map and see for yourself. EDIT: I did that, and the lighthouse is approximately 2700 feet from the lake and 400 feet from the river.

 

I spotted a lighthouse structure last weekend; it was part of a restaurant near Lake Erie. I rejected my own possible waymark for the same reason -- it was within view of the lake, although it was at least a half mile away. It could've been used for navigation at one time.

 

Folks will need to get used to the idea that there will be hundreds of category managers out there, making decisions on what ought to be in their categories. If there is disagreement, this can be worked out through respectful correspondence between the category owner and the waymark submitter, or through respectful forum threads.

 

There was certainly nothing personal about my decision and I am saddened by the attacks made against me.

Edited September 1, 2005 by The Leprechauns

[+The Leprechauns]

Other than the temper, he does have a point.

I would agree. The category is to vague. It reads:

It's normal to see a lighthouse along the seashore or overlooking a harbor. But sometimes we find them where there is no water! Record these out-of-place lighthouses here.

 

I live about one mile from the shore of Lake Erie. Anything around here would certainly seem to qualify as landlocked to me. How far from the shoreline do you need to be?

I find your selective quotation of my category requirements to be misleading. The text goes on to say the following:

 

Find a lighthouse that is NOT located near an ocean, lake, river or other body of water.

 

The last I checked, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario were lakes. My daughter went swimming in Lake Erie last weekend and will be swimming near this lighthouse in Lake Ontario over Labor Day weekend, just to be extra sure of this conclusion.

[+Stunod]

Was that the first Waycide?

[+Robespierre]

I've decided not to be involved in the waypoint game, the same as I pretty much didn't do virtuals- I just don't care that much about it. I certainly don't understand why we would fight about it. If you're the lister, you make decisions. If you're the finder, yoiu submit for a decision. simple enough. Maybe someone should go loot TVs and video games in N'Orleans with his peers?

[+Glenn]

Other than the temper, he does have a point.

I would agree. The category is to vague. It reads:

It's normal to see a lighthouse along the seashore or overlooking a harbor. But sometimes we find them where there is no water! Record these out-of-place lighthouses here.

 

I live about one mile from the shore of Lake Erie. Anything around here would certainly seem to qualify as landlocked to me. How far from the shoreline do you need to be?

I find your selective quotation of my category requirements to be misleading. The text goes on to say the following:

 

Find a lighthouse that is NOT located near an ocean, lake, river or other body of water.

 

The last I checked, Lake Erie and Lake Ontario were lakes. My daughter went swimming in Lake Erie last weekend and will be swimming near this lighthouse in Lake Ontario over Labor Day weekend, just to be extra sure of this conclusion.

People have very different definitions of near. I've seen many a lighthouse on an outcropping of rocks surounded by nothing but water. So to me a lighthouse that is quarter mile inland, could seem land locked when compaired to those that seems to sit right in a body of water.

 

I know of a lighthouse that used to hit in the Chesapeake bay. It's stilts came right out from the water. It is now sitting on a peir in Baltimores Inner Harbor. It is now landlocked because the stilts are no longer touching the water?

 

All I am getting at is that you should think about making your description a little more concrete. What the OP said was uncalled for and unfortunately made a valid point invalid by his choice in language. Here is a suggestion, "Find a lighthouse that is NOT located within' sight of a navigable body of water."

[+The Leprechauns]

Glenn, thank you for a constructive suggestion. I had thought that most people would equate "near" with "I can see it from where I'm standing," but apparently that's not the case.

 

This is supposed to be fun -- a game -- and I was hoping not to have to write a long rulebook like the guidelines for hiding a geocache. But a bit of polishing may not be a bad thing, if people are going to react so strongly. I'll take it into consideration.

 

Mainly I am concerned that I don't interfere with the separate Waymarking category for lighthouses that ARE (or were) used as an aid to marine navigation. They're two different things.

Edited September 1, 2005 by The Leprechauns

[+VegasCacheHounds]

Holy cow! I just can't imagine getting that upset over part of a game. Yes, folks, this is all a game.

 

I realize that most of us know this, and go along happily, but sometimes someone blows their top over something that has very little effect on regular life.

 

I mean really, is there anything so bad about having a Waymark denied that warrents such an explosion?

 

If I recall correctly, the OP has had a few other, not quite as bad but close, outbursts before over denied Virtul caches. He must not have anything better in life to worry about.

 

Back to the Waymark in question, if I understand it correctly Lep, you're not looking for real lighthouses per se, but mock ones such as the one infront of a new housing development here in Texas that is nowhere near water (well, there may be a swimming pool nearby, but thats it ). Is this correct? If so, I call dibs on that one!

[+dogbreathcanada]

I am the owner of the category in question, and the author of the note. I thought that the rejection was polite and personalized.  I am looking for lighthouses that are NOT near water.  This one is.  It's on the banks of a river and you can see the lake when you're standing at the lighthouse.  This cache was located less than 100 feet from the lighthouse.  Pop up the map and see for yourself.  EDIT:  I did that, and the lighthouse is approximately 2700 feet from the lake and 400 feet from the river.

 

I spotted a lighthouse structure last weekend; it was part of a restaurant near Lake Erie.  I rejected my own possible waymark for the same reason -- it was within view of the lake, although it was at least a half mile away.  It could've been used for navigation at one time.

 

Folks will need to get used to the idea that there will be hundreds of category managers out there, making decisions on what ought to be in their categories.  If there is disagreement, this can be worked out through respectful correspondence between the category owner and the waymark submitter, or through respectful forum threads. 

 

There was certainly nothing personal about my decision and I am saddened by the attacks made against me.

Well, perhaps you've mislabelled your category then.

 

"Landlocked Lighthouses" seems misleading. Based on your criteria the category name should be "Mock Lighthouses".

 

Because you've certainly had a Landlocked Lighthouse submitted to you, which you rejected, mainly because it wasn't a "Mock Lighthouse".

Edited September 1, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

[+dogbreathcanada]

Glenn, thank you for a constructive suggestion. I had thought that most people would equate "near" with "I can see it from where I'm standing," but apparently that's not the case.

 

But he couldn't see the water from where he was standing at the base of the lighthouse. As you agreed, the lake (a mile away) could only be seen if he went to the top of the lighthouse.

 

Mainly I am concerned that I don't interfere with the separate Waymarking category for lighthouses that ARE (or were) used as an aid to marine navigation.  They're two different things.

 

But he submitted a lighthouse that is no longer used for navigation. It's a museum now. So, it couldn't very well be mistaken for a lighthouse currently in use.

 

Your category title is misleading. You should really consider changing it to "Mock Lighthouses."

 

Let someone else do "Landlocked Lighhouses", because that's obviously not what your category is about.

[+The Leprechauns]

Glenn, thank you for a constructive suggestion.  I had thought that most people would equate "near" with "I can see it from where I'm standing," but apparently that's not the case.

 

But he couldn't see the water from where he was standing at the base of the lighthouse. As you agreed, the lake (a mile away) could only be seen if he went to the top of the lighthouse.

You're assuming facts not in evidence; namely, that he could not see the water, and that the lake is a mile away. The lake is 2700 feet away and the river is 400 feet away. (There are 5280 feet in a mile.) I have been there; I grew up a few miles from this lighthouse. It is an integral part of the Rochester Harbor area. You stand ON THE GROUND and look down a hill at the river, as well as out towards Lake Ontario. Have you been there?

 

Mainly I am concerned that I don't interfere with the separate Waymarking category for lighthouses that ARE (or were) used as an aid to marine navigation.  They're two different things.

 

But he submitted a lighthouse that is no longer used for navigation. It's a museum now. So, it couldn't very well be mistaken for a lighthouse currently in use.

 

Reading comprehension check: my phraseology was "ARE (or were) used as an aid to marine navigation." This one is covered by the word "were."

 

Your category title is misleading. You should really consider changing it to "Mock Lighthouses."

 

Let someone else do "Landlocked Lighhouses", because that's obviously not what your category is about.

 

I know very well what my category is about, and I feel quite capable of managing it. A prototypical example of what I'm looking for has, indeed, been submitted: a lighthouse in the UK that was used to guide LAND travelers through the fog. Unfortunately the waymark owner checked the "temporarily disabled" box so that this outstanding example doesn't appear in the directory, and my e-mail through Waymarking to the waymark owner has bounced. (Bootron, can you check on this, and perhaps offer category owners the ability to enable a submitted waymark?) Other examples include lighthouses previously located along a seashore or lakeshore, but relocated inland, stone by stone, as a novelty attraction. A third category would be mock lighthouses which often appear as restaurants, etc.

 

This is intended to be a "rare find" sort of waymark. The idea occurred to me when I saw one during my geocaching travels.

Edited September 1, 2005 by The Leprechauns

[+sbell111]

I think the title is fine.

 

If you want to get picky with the verbiage, state that you are looking for lighthouses that can't be seen from the water, not lighthouses from where the water cannot be seen.

 

On second thought, leave it as is, because my suggested change could cause some 'mock' lighthouses from making the cut.

Edited September 1, 2005 by sbell111

[Jeremy]

So some folks know I have a sense of humor:

 

Absolut Bull****

- 2 part(s) Absolut Vodka

- 1 part(s) Triple Sec

- 1 part(s) Red Bull

Edited September 1, 2005 by Jeremy

[+tozainamboku]

So some folks know I have a sense of humor:

 

Absolut Bull****

- 2 part(s) Absolut Vodka

- 1 part(s) Triple Sec

- 1 part(s) Red Bull

I tried that and now all lighthouses look landlocked to me

[+BlueDeuce]

So some folks know I have a sense of humor:

 

Absolut Bull****

- 2 part(s) Absolut Vodka

- 1 part(s) Triple Sec

- 1 part(s) Red Bull

 

Ad slogan

 

Just tell the bartender: Bite me!

[+Cache Viking]

Sorry Jeremy

Edited September 2, 2005 by Cache Viking

[Jeremy]

He was suspended from posting. Don't poke at him. He can't view the topic anymore anyway. If there's anything useful to discuss we'll leave it open - otherwise I'll close the topic.

[+pghlooking]

This is so much smoother and less open for interpertation than those dang virtuals ever were.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Jeremy's "Mixology 101" aside

 

I cannot help tossing in my $0.0164 (CDN) in for this one.

 

Whether or not the Catagory Manager has worded his/her submission criteria well or poorly has no bearing.

 

The Catagory Manager has the authority to decide the suitability of any submission. If it comes to light that the wording is causing the Catagory Manager a lot of grief, then the Catagory Manager will be either inspired to change/update the wording, or if he/she fails to rectify Waymark Submitter concerns then the Catagory will get "Un-Popped" to death (Hey, I can make up terms too )

 

The proper method has always been that an email exchance commences and the idea is worked on. There is no need to immediately take out frustrations rudely to the community 'en masse'.

 

I don't know this Leprechaun person what-so-ever, nor anyone else in here... but from the minimal ammount of exchange in here, I think that Leprechaun handled this incident with maturity and composure.

 

Hopefully this example can shine like a beacon for further situations (sorry, couldn't resist )

 

I just hope everyone can remember that this game is just getting started and just like that other Groundspeak game, there are going to be some problems at first.. please be patient.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

When I submitted one waymark, to one category, I followed every rule on it. It was denied. Sure I was not happy. I emailed the category manager and showed him that I did not violate any of his conditions, but suggested he update his requirements if he had additional conditions that had to be met. He updated his category description. (Edited to add: Eventually I will fix the problem with the waymark listing and it will be accepted. No big deal.) The way I see it, this is a learning process for all of us. Im sure some people will eventually be unhappy with me, and the requirements I set as waymark owner and as eventual category manager.

 

Its just a game. Nothing worth having a hissy fit over. We have virtuals and locationless back again. And a new way to play. Im excited and grateful. Thanks!

Edited September 2, 2005 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[+noshdoo tsoh]

I’ve previously mentioned my suggestions for the Waymarking site in another post. I think this situation of the angered quitter brings up my point quite well, though, and so I’ve developed the ideas a little more and laid it out here for further consideration by the community and developers.

 

If someone submits a waymark to a category and gets denied by the category owner, they should have the recourse of creating their own category without fear of denial. Without any recourse, many people are going to be immediately turned off to Waymarking when they get denied – whether it was a fair denial or not. Most will go away quietly without a verbal tirade, never to return. Some will give the category owner a hard time before they leave, unnecessarily making category-owning a real pain at times.

 

I submit to the community that the denial of ANY lawful categories by some chosen few will not work. It stifles creativity and it will cause unnecessary conflict and headaches for the deniers and deni-ees. Similar to the problems cited between approvers (deny-ers) and virtual cachers at gc.com, for example.

 

If you get denied by the “Landlocked Lighthouses” category owner, you should be able to immediately create a new category, “Not-Quite Landlocked Lighthouses”, for example, without the fear of being denied, and then stick your waymark in it. The better category and/or better category owner will prevail in the end if the two categories are too similar. If both categories are useful to the community and both are well-managed, they’ll both endure.

 

And then, a waymarker should be able to submit their lighthouse waymarks to one or both categories, and get accepted by neither, one, or both. If neither category owner accepts their waymark, the waymarker can create their own category! Let the members truly determine the content here by lifting the category submission restrictions. This approach will assure that the best categories can rise to the top. It will also then make it ok for category owners to deny a waymark without reprisal, because now that waymarker has the option of creating his or her own category.

 

As far as showing a taxonomy of categories on the start page of the website, the designers of the site, of course, should feature whichever ones they like there, sorted or ranked however they want – as they currently do. But ALL of the many, many user-submitted categories should be accessible with a keyword search. I think this deny-no-category approach will be a huge improvement, with much less grief and way more creativity.

[+fizzymagic]

When I submitted one waymark, to one category, I followed every rule on it. It was denied. Sure I was not happy. I emailed the category manager and showed him that I did not violate any of his conditions, but suggested he update his requirements if he had additional conditions that had to be met. He updated his category description.

So, as I understand it, this means that category owners can change the rules for their categories whenever they want, in whatever way they want, and that is just "part of the game?"

 

I have a feeling we will find that people who are naturally drawn to positions where they can jerk other people around are going to find category ownership very attractive.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

So, as I understand it, this means that category owners can change the rules for their categories whenever they want, in whatever way they want, and that is just "part of the game?"

 

I have a feeling we will find that people who are naturally drawn to positions where they can jerk other people around are going to find category ownership very attractive.

I dont think so. The manager stated in his requirements for logging waymarks that he wanted things done a certain way, but didnt make it clear in the requirements for listing waymarks that he wanted those done the same way. I saw a loophole and went for it. It was denied. Then he clarified in the listing requirements that they be done the same way as the logging requirements.

 

I dont think you will have any more "jerks" managing categories than you would find "jerks" owning caches. At least with Waymarking, you wont find "jerks" soiling a waymark or pirating a waymark.

[+Team GPSaxophone]

When I submitted one waymark, to one category, I followed every rule on it. It was denied. Sure I was not happy. I emailed the category manager and showed him that I did not violate any of his conditions, but suggested he update his requirements if he had additional conditions that had to be met. He updated his category description.

So, as I understand it, this means that category owners can change the rules for their categories whenever they want, in whatever way they want, and that is just "part of the game?"

 

I have a feeling we will find that people who are naturally drawn to positions where they can jerk other people around are going to find category ownership very attractive.

Not at all, Fizzy. Category owners don't necessarily know exactly how to setup their category just yet. The category I started with was actually too broad and has been broken down into smaller (more specific) categories as a result. As we all learn how to use the new system, things will get modified a bit and/or moved around. In a few months it should settle down.

[+FtMgAl]

I also had a waymark denied for what I at first believed was a totally unreasonable rule violation. I thought I had complied with the rule but the owner said it must be done differently and in a way that I still believe will eventually cause problems. But I had the ability to comply so I did. I told the manager of my concerns and left it at that. The manager is the boss. If you don't like the rules the manager sets, don't post waymarks in their catagory. If you can't possibly comply with or just don't like the 528 foot rule, don't place caches with GC.

 

Waymarking rules are far looser today than GC. If you don't like the rules a manager sets, as said above, you can go for a new category. If others agree you can be the boss and set the rules that you want. If others don't agree, take consolation that you know a great place that others won't desecrate by over use.

 

IT'S A GAME!!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!

[+BlueDeuce]

IT'S A GAME!!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!

No offense to anybody, but I don't even consider it a game. It's just something to do and eventually then there is enough entries I'll use it to find things, lighthouses, museums, etc. No game there either.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I don't think Waymarking, in and of itself, is a game.

 

I do think, however, that the combination of soon-to-be-added features and user creativity will allow Waymarking.com to serve as a gameboard for some really interesting games.

[+mini cacher]

IT'S A GAME!!!! DEAL WITH IT!!!

Tell that to all those that got bent and sent all the hate mail about denied LCs and Virtuals which caused this whole new "game" to begin with. If THEY had just dealt with it, we may not even be having this discussion since LCs and Virtuals would not have become the total pain in the arse that I guess they became and TPTB would not have had to attempt a better solution. It already was a game that apparantly not everyone could deal with. Just give this one some time and I'm sure enough people will cause enough angst that the whole thing will change again. And then everyone who loves their Waymarking might feel a little of what we feel when something you enjoy gets pulled out from under you because a minority of people cause a majority of trouble. That's life. Deal with it.

[ju66l3r]

Neither GPS or Tsegi have addressed Fizzy's point: Since you can edit categories after creation, you can tweak it any way you want. Don't want cacher XYZ to post to your category? When he submits one, change your description and then deny him for the new description. Or, just for fun, deny him without a good reason. Category owner is king, right?

 

Until a category creation method is instituted that is open enough to deal with these affrontive possibilities, I don't see this being any better than what we had before...except now "approvers" are "category owners"...and only current approvers are currently owners.

 

Category creation and improved pruning of the tree for those categories that interest you are the two most important problems to solve at this point before this gets rolled open to any bigger crowd.

[+wigglesworth]

I cannot help but reflect on the trials and tribulations of everyone on the south coast - New Orleans. What can we do as a community to help?

 

Peter

[+sbell111]

...

If someone submits a waymark to a category and gets denied by the category owner, they should have the recourse of creating their own category without fear of denial. ...

 

If you get denied by the “Landlocked Lighthouses” category owner, you should be able to immediately create a new category, “Not-Quite Landlocked Lighthouses”, for example, without the fear of being denied, and then stick your waymark in it. ...

 

And then, a waymarker should be able to submit their lighthouse waymarks to one or both categories, and get accepted by neither, one, or both. If neither category owner accepts their waymark, the waymarker can create their own category! ...

I couldn't possibly disagree with this idea more. A much simpler solution is that people make an effort to meet a category's requirements.

 

Would you drop this same plan down on the waymark level also? If you don't meet the waymark owner's logging requirements, you can just create another waymark in tht category for the same object?

 

Bah.

[+The Leprechauns]

...except now "approvers" are "category owners"...and only current approvers are currently owners.

Actually, as of late, a majority of the waymark categories consist of converted locationless caches whose managers are the owners of the locationless caches. Sure it was started off with a list of categories managed by an alpha test group, many of whom are Groundspeak employees or volunteers or officers of geocaching associations or software developers or whatever. But it's exciting to watch the locationless caches convert over!

[ju66l3r]

That's fine, but I really must stress that my point was more about category control than who was controlling them. If the overriding idea behind this website is to be: "list a waypoint, any waypoint" then category control needs to be about "does it fit my category" not "i don't like your waypoint". Maybe categories where people have chosen to review waypoints upon submission should have a mechanism to transplant (or officially suggest where to transplant) an errant waypoint into a more appropriate category. The idea being that the waypoint isn't at fault for not fitting the category, more simply the category is wrong for the waypoint.

 

There are two sets of users: those that want to manage a set of waypoints and those that want to submit interesting waypoints. Currently, it would seem that the managers have all of the control on this situation. This makes it hardly any different than what we had before except that it's not just the approvers that can setup their virtual fiefdoms.

 

Honestly, it'd be better for both groups if managers couldn't deny waypoints in their category but petition them instead. Waypoints petitioned are put up on a bulletin board of sorts for either a certain number of votes or certain time limit (or combination of the two). Site users vote for it being good for the category or bad for the category. The will of the users be done.

 

This would encourage the category owner to make the best description of what he wants (because that's what the users will be voting based on) and the waypoint to fit as well as it can and be defendable based on its text as well. This is important for users, as well as managers who can not know the exact details of every submitted waypoint around the country (and world). We haven't even seen the first "how can This be in That category?? That category manager sucks!!" third-person curation yet.

[Jeremy]

I was going to post my response here but based on the OP I decided to post it in my deciding the process thread. It may or may not address these issues but I think it is a good step in the right direction.

 

I also want to stress that the categories being converted or created now did not have the benefit of a discussion prior to being created on the Waymarking site. One of the hopes of creating a process for new waymark categories is to allow some discussion to remove ambiguities before the category exists in the directory.

Edited September 2, 2005 by Jeremy

[+The Leprechauns]

That's fine, but I really must stress that my point was more about category control than who was controlling them.  If the overriding idea behind this website is to be: "list a waypoint, any waypoint" then category control needs to be about "does it fit my category" not "i don't like your waypoint".  Maybe categories where people have chosen to review waypoints upon submission should have a mechanism to transplant (or officially suggest where to transplant) an errant waypoint into a more appropriate category.  The idea being that the waypoint isn't at fault for not fitting the category, more simply the category is wrong for the waypoint.

I agree with this. The current thread would make sense if I had denied the waymark because I thought the Charlotte lighthouse was too ugly, or I didn't like it because one time I got bit by a dog when riding my bike past it. But the fact is, I denied it because it didn't fit the category parameters. I really, really like this lighthouse. It holds fond memories from my youth -- riding past it to the beach and my favorite ice cream stand. It was most cool to return there last year to find a nearby microcache.

 

If the regular "lighthouses" waymark category were up and running, I would have linked to it and encouraged the submitter to visit there and re-submit. But I don't know that it is every category manager's job in a decentralized system to point the submitter to the proper category, as a matter of site design.

Edited September 2, 2005 by The Leprechauns

[+tozainamboku]

In the current system (geocaching.com), a Locationless owner can delete a log because it doesn't meet his requirements, a Virtual owner can delete a log because the verification requirements were not met, a physical cache owner can delete finds because they weren't legitimate or even because the finder posted a spoiler. Are there abuses? - of course, but we accept that the cache owner has this right. Why shouldn't category owners have the same rights?

[+wigglesworth]

Leprechauns

I was very sorry to hear about you getting bitten by a dog when riding past the lighthouse. And yet in spite of this you did not deny the entry for that reason.

 

I recently got stung by nettles and cut by brambles but did not deny the logging of a cache. Together we can make the world a better place.

 

Peter

 

"The current thread would make sense if I had denied the waymark because I thought the Charlotte lighthouse was too ugly, or I didn't like it because one time I got bit by a dog when riding my bike past it. But the fact is, I denied it because it didn't fit the category parameters."

[+dogbreathcanada]

...

If someone submits a waymark to a category and gets denied by the category owner, they should have the recourse of creating their own category without fear of denial. ...

 

If you get denied by the “Landlocked Lighthouses” category owner, you should be able to immediately create a new category, “Not-Quite Landlocked Lighthouses”, for example, without the fear of being denied, and then stick your waymark in it. ...

 

And then, a waymarker should be able to submit their lighthouse waymarks to one or both categories, and get accepted by neither, one, or both. If neither category owner accepts their waymark, the waymarker can create their own category! ...

I couldn't possibly disagree with this idea more. A much simpler solution is that people make an effort to meet a category's requirements.

I agree and disagree.

 

Category approval should go through a peer-review process (yes, there's a thread all about this, so hopefully some good will come of it). Too many ill-conceived categories and Waymarking will fail.

 

And the onus should be on category owners to be open and flexible, not complete rule nazis. They should be trying their best to build the database, not be overly rigid about some really narrow (or oddly broad) set of criteria that makes up a particular category.

 

Now how about a Mock Lighthouses category so that Landlocked Lighthouses is actually a category containing only Landlocked Lighthouses. As it stands, Landlocked Lighthouses certainly wouldn't have withstood any serious peer review. It has a rigidly narrow definition in some areas and an incorrectly generalised definition in others.

Edited September 2, 2005 by dogbreathcanada

[+The Blue Quasar]

Now how about a Mock Lighthouses category so that Landlocked Lighthouses is actually a category containing only Landlocked Lighthouses. As it stands, Landlocked Lighthouses certainly wouldn't have withstood any serious peer review. It has a rigidly narrow definition in some areas and an incorrectly generalised definition in others.

 

This in and of itself is not the correct thread to post suggested Catagories.

 

People keep trying to sneak suggestions for Catagories, when it has been stated a few times that this is not the time.

 

The Alpha Group were allowed to seed Waymarking with some Catagories to get things going.

Then...

The current active Locationless Cache owners were asked to move their LC's over to Waymarking.com

 

The site is not open to the public yet, and there is a chance that the non-Premium members and those that have not stumbled onto WM.com might be offended that they didn't get a chance to contribute Catagories, but new ones were suggested by Premium members as solutions to existing problems.

 

This thread is seems to be more about deciding the amount of power the Waymark Catagory Manager has and should have.

 

To me, the Manager is the Owner... and has final say on the suitability of all submitted Waymarks. If a person doesn't like that, they can wait till they can make their own Catagory under the guidelines, or post in the useless pinned topic of suggestions for Catagories, since no one is accepting them yet.

 

I don't understand why that is there, that pinned topic, but people are treating like some sort of "line up for concert tickets".

 

The Blue Quasar

[+noshdoo tsoh]

...

If someone submits a waymark to a category and gets denied by the category owner, they should have the recourse of creating their own category without fear of denial. ...

 

If you get denied by the “Landlocked Lighthouses” category owner, you should be able to immediately create a new category, “Not-Quite Landlocked Lighthouses”, for example, without the fear of being denied, and then stick your waymark in it. ...

 

And then, a waymarker should be able to submit their lighthouse waymarks to one or both categories, and get accepted by neither, one, or both. If neither category owner accepts their waymark, the waymarker can create their own category! ...

I couldn't possibly disagree with this idea more. A much simpler solution is that people make an effort to meet a category's requirements.

 

Would you drop this same plan down on the waymark level also? If you don't meet the waymark owner's logging requirements, you can just create another waymark in tht category for the same object?

 

Bah.

 

The category owner would have the ultimate decision about accepting or denying waymarks in their category, and what to base that decision on. Sure, you could submit another waymark in that category for the same object, but of course, I couldn't imagine a category owner accepting two waymarks at the same geographic location. But then, that would be up to the category owner to decide. If the category owner does flakey things like that, the category will not last long with the setup I've outlined, and waymarkers won't post to it, they'd post to someone else's category that is better managed and that also applies to their waymark.

 

The big problem with the current discussion on categories in my opinion, is that they are being discussed as non-overlapping, and as if there will not be cross-posting allowed. To me, the idea of a summits category for the whole world seems lame, impossible to be well-managed by a single person or even a group.

 

Summits of the Sierra Nevada, Summits of California, or even Summits of the West, now we're talking. How about summits of Kansas?? That one should be a lot of fun. And in order to let this kind of grouping to exist, you must allow cross posting of waymarks into many categories if necessary.

 

Also, forcing things to be grouped by state, for example, in an effort to avoid overlap doesn't work well either and is unnecessary. Let category owners choose the extents of the waymarks they accept, even if it overlaps with some other category. Loosen up, break the mold here. This will allow special interest groups such as maybe the Eastern Iowa Wooden Bridges Club to have their own category, and also the Upper Midwest Wooden Bridges Club doesn't have to feel like they can't post their category because it overlaps an existing category.

 

The overwhelming amount of talk about creating some elaborate and unnecessary approval process is definitely discouraging my outlook of Waymarking. That's definitely the way it's going based on the talk here, not sure how much of this is coming from the powers that be and how much from those who just want to enforce something over someone else. Yawn.

 

The home page of the site can feature whatever categories site admins see fit, and no one should be worried that someone has created a "dumb" or "overlapping" category. That won't affect whatever the site admins are featuring, they won't feature "dumb" stuff on the main page, you'd have to do a keyword search to find non-featured stuff.

 

In fact, drop the layers of approval, and it will encourage new ideas, and who knows, maybe someday, a new category pops up that at first seemed "dumb" by most and didn't seem to fit into the taxonomy, is suddenly the most popular and interesting thing on the site.

 

Still hopeful, though, and will keep an eye on the evolution of this.

[+The Leprechauns]

As promised above, we drove the 200+ miles this weekend to pay an in-person visit to the lighthouse that is the subject of the OP's complaint. Here are some pictures.

 

The lighthouse, with the Genessee River in the background and Lake Ontario in the far background:

 

 

Historic marker, lighthouse and marina in background:

 

 

Photo taken from the base of the lighthouse, of the marina on the Genessee River:

 

 

I ask again for everyone to read the category definition, which specifically says that I'm looking for a lighthouse that is not "near" a lake, river, ocean or other body of water. I am still shaking my head that this issue is apparently something worth committing waycide over.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Lep,

 

That is one beautiful lighthouse. The pictures are terrific. Who would have thought that such a nice place could have resulted in a thread whose title alone has three asterisks?

 

Doesn't really seem to fit the category description, though. The first time I saw your "Landlocked Lighthouses" waymark, I was pretty sure I understood what you were getting at. Even without any additional pages of legal wording and small print, I thought it was clear that you were looking for lighthouses that had no connection to a normal, traditional lighthouse setting.

 

So I, too, don't see what all the fuss was about.

 

Now HERE's a landlocked lighthouse - the 12th hole at Mel's Tee Off MiniGolf in Litchfield, New Hampshire:

 

 

Ok, I'll admit that there is a fountain in the background. And if you hit the ball too hard, you'll end up in the water hazard. I know, I know, it's not what you were looking for. But either way, I'm ok, cause afterwards we can buy an ice cream at the snack bar.

 

[+Sue Gremlin]

Unless you refrain from personal attacks and further violations of the Forum Guidelines posted at the top of every page here in the forums, you should probably quit. Your post is far more unacceptable than any denied listing. Take a break and come back when you've cooled down.

Bite me a******!

 

How do I quit??

Is it wrong that I snorfed soda out of my nose when I read this?