Category Proposal: Tidal Places

[South Surrey Scavengers]

A subcategory of Earth Science Places, places to watch the tide go in and out.

[+NorStar]

Seems pretty general. Perhaps unusual places, such as 'reversing falls,' 'tidal bores,' or caves accessible only at low tide. Otherwise, all I would have to do is go to the coast and sit on the beach or dock.

[South Surrey Scavengers]

I agree, they could all be subcategories of Tidal Places.

[South Surrey Scavengers]

Time to bring this one back.

 

Places to watch tidal movements. But significant in some way such as tidal bores, extreme tidal ranges, speed of flow, etc.

[+chstress53]

This too I feel should stay under Earthcaches

[South Surrey Scavengers]

I have started a group called Tide Watchers. If you wish to join please visit Tide Watchers Group

 

This should definitely be a category that stands on its own. The popular Earthcache category is too restrictive and focuses too much on the geoscience behind it all. Some people just want cool places to visit.

[+Razak]

I have started a group called Tide Watchers. If you wish to join please visit Tide Watchers Group

 

This should definitely be a category that stands on its own. The popular Earthcache category is too restrictive and focuses too much on the geoscience behind it all. Some people just want cool places to visit.

 

I'm not going to suggest earthcache because I don't know I think of interesting rock formations or something in there (Maybe I don't understand earth caches?=P) But I do think a general Tide category isn't necessary yet. We don't get to pick super categories... I would suggest starting with one of your sub-categories and then doing another and another, (maybe even making suggetions in each one for a tidal supercategory) and then hoping to get a supercategory for it. Trying to start with the supercategory will be a pain in everyones butts if you actually get it at some point... you'd have to rearrange everything! In the meantime you wouldn't be stuck with people just wandering down to the beach and waypointing and having several hundred waypoints in the same area. I think the general concensus would be that more refined interesting categories would be preferable over one large category to rule them all.

[+geoaware]

I have started a group called Tide Watchers. If you wish to join please visit Tide Watchers Group

 

This should definitely be a category that stands on its own. The popular Earthcache category is too restrictive and focuses too much on the geoscience behind it all. Some people just want cool places to visit.

 

I'm not going to suggest earthcache because I don't know I think of interesting rock formations or something in there (Maybe I don't understand earth caches?=P) But I do think a general Tide category isn't necessary yet. We don't get to pick super categories... I would suggest starting with one of your sub-categories and then doing another and another, (maybe even making suggetions in each one for a tidal supercategory) and then hoping to get a supercategory for it. Trying to start with the supercategory will be a pain in everyones butts if you actually get it at some point... you'd have to rearrange everything! In the meantime you wouldn't be stuck with people just wandering down to the beach and waypointing and having several hundred waypoints in the same area. I think the general concensus would be that more refined interesting categories would be preferable over one large category to rule them all.

 

one category to rule them all...and in the darkness, bind them!

[+chstress53]

one category to rule them all...and in the darkness, bind them!

[/quote

 

I could not agree with Geoaware more. This should fall under the realm of Earthcaches. ( Maybe Earthcaches should be broken down into tidal Places, Volcanoes Etc.

[+Razak]

one category to rule them all...and in the darkness, bind them!

[/quote

 

I could not agree with Geoaware more. This should fall under the realm of Earthcaches. ( Maybe Earthcaches should be broken down into tidal Places, Volcanoes Etc.

 

not sure if he was suggesting it all be under earthcaches or if he was just going along with my Lord of the Rings referance=P

 

However, after reading a bit of the earthcaches category I start to wonder if the Nature category should just be called Earthcaching and have everything in a subcategory. I mean currently the only category in nature that shouldn't be under earthcaching under your description would be Scenic Road-side Lookouts. I don't know how to reconcile this either because there are bound to be more non-earthcaching nature categories, but it will always remain that most of them belong in earthcaching (that would also take control away from the current earthcaching group, err person)

 

My take on it as of now is that earthcaching is only for educational nature waymarks. Meaning that pretty much anything in nature will apply to the category (and perhaps subcategories do need to be added), but the ones in earthcaches need to have educational information describing the features as well as everything else. The reason for this might just be that not everyone will be interested in explaining WHAT is going on with a particular earthly feature, but is still interested in the feature...

 

The only other alternative is that you do like I said above, have just Earthcaching instead of Nature... and then have members of the group willing to go in and explain features of a waymark even if a waymark creator isn't willing to provide the educational stuff instead of just denying it. And then moving in any non-earthcaching nature stuff to maybe a "Places" category that might combine in structures or something to beef it up a bit? I don't know.

[South Surrey Scavengers]

I guess you all believe that the current categories of "Mountain Summits", "Waterfalls", "Caves", "Natural Arches", "Hot Springs", and "Glaciers" should all be voted down in favour of one big "Earthcache" Category.

 

I for one, believe that Earthcaches were started to educate the public about interesting and important geoscientific phenomena around the world. I am one of the biggest supporters of it in fact just check my stats. However, there are many things that interest people about our natural world that do not require a science lesson for them to be listed here.

 

Case in point, not every waterfall fits the criteria of an Earthcache. Yet that should not stop us from having a waterfall category for people that want to see waterfalls that may have a certain beauty but little to offer scientifically. Then in the case of Tidal Places, one could list the Bay of Fundy and certain features around it as true Earthcaches due to the scientific lesson that can be learned from such a unique place. However, where will you put a fairly common place like Boundary Bay which has a kilometer of mud/sand flats where you can watch the tide come in because you see the water slowly seeping along the ground and you can watch the kids play in the shallow warm water heated by the sun baked sand. This is also seen at Spanish Banks and Qualicum Beach. This is just in my local area and certainly there are thousands more examples of these around the world but they don't exactly scream "Earthcache" to me.

 

On top of that there are places where tidal bores exist, tidal rapids, interesting tidal influenced lakes like Pitt Lake here, and the effects on Rivers near the Ocean. Perhaps 1 or 2 of the really unique ones fit into the Earthcache category but the thousands of other ones have no place to go which is why I propose the Tidal Places Category. This is also why I support the Glacier Category with the first listed glacier and I believe the other aforementioned categories are justtified as well.

 

Come join the

Tide Watchers Group