Category Proposal: Texas Historic Markers

[+clayj]

I'd like to propose the Texas Historical Markers category. Other states have their own category, and I must have driven by dozens of those markers coming back from Dallas this weekend. Can we please have a Texas category?

 

Thanks,

Clay

[+ksd823]

First step is to create a Group with a leader and two officers. I would be glad to be part of a group for documenting the Historical Markers in Texas.

[+clayj]

Great! Looking for others ... post reply here or contact me through gc.com

[+ksd823]

Well - if anyone has read this far in the thread - take a a quick visit to the group membership page and join the group to promote a category for Texas Historic Markers.

 

Group Membership Page - Visit to Join

 

To learn more about how Texas designates Historical Sites, please visit the FAQ Page of the Texas Historical Commission. One thing I learned there is that there are four types of designations. I am not sure how to do it, but we should likely record those designations in the waymark entries that will come.

[+ksd823]

This group has it's work cut out for it.

 

There are 12,456 lines in the spreadsheet I pulled from the Texas Historical Commission database, and even if there are a few blanks, that's a lot of markers.

 

Here are the fields of info that THC maintaines in their database. I would guess that we would want to take that as a starting point for information we would collect. Comments after the field names are mine.

 

markernum - appears to be a serial number system, don't know if it appears on the marker.

atlas_number - System generated master database number

title - Title from the marker

indexname - A version of the title for indexing "The Important Place" would be "Important Place, The"

address city - Single line repersentation of the address, not broken by city state zip

county - County of location

utm_zone - You likely can guess this - not all have them - an opportunity for us to help?

utm_east -

utm_north -

code - Appear to be a subject matter code, have not located key yet

year - Year marker was placed ?

rthl - ?

loc_desc - A text field with directions

size - Size of the marker

repaircom - Comments on the condition of the marker

repairdate - no data in this field

comments - appears to refer to the ticket that placed it or other internal notes

markertext - Text of the marker, have not verified if summary or full text

rthlcond - Appears to refer to the condition of the structure or item the marker refers to if there is one

 

And here is a sample of their database output.

 

Marker Number: 168

Marker Title: Andrews County Discovery Well

Index Entry: Andrews County Discovery Well

Address:

City:

County: Andrews

UTM Zone: 13

UTM Easting: 720424

UTM Northing: 3579690

Subject Codes: OL;

Year Marker Erected: 1965

Designations: na

Marker Location: From Andrews, take Hwy. 87 West about 5 miles

Marker Size: 18" x 28" Subject

Repairs Completed: N/A

Marker Text: C. E. Ogden No. 1, producing 200 barrels a day from San Andres lime formation was brought in, Dec. 1929, by Deep Rock Oil Co.--the Andrews County discovery well and first of 730 wells in Fuhrman-Masco oil field. Bought, Feb. 1932, by Tripplehorn brothers, of Fort Worth. Has now pumped for more than 35 years. Since 1956, Andrews has been top producing county in Texas and U. S. Fuhrman-Masco field has produced 55 million barrels of oil--its contribution to total of more than a billion barrels for Andrews County in May, 1965. (1965)

Edited April 6, 2006 by ksd823

[+clayj]

Well, everything's bigger in Texas

 

I think the title, text, location, and type of marker are important enough to have variables. For logging requirements, it's hard to imagine something that's NOT in the database. Maybe a picture?

 

Still need one more "officer" for this group.

[+ksd823]

I agree - althought we might consider logging condition and seeing if the state would accept reports from waymarkers on markers that are not in good shape or have been damaged. I know that the benchmarking groups have had some success in having their efforts help out the USGS.

 

Photos I think are the way to go. We would need to make sure that every initial entry has a baseline photo to compare against. Should it be a requirement that you include the GPS in the photo?

 

A couple of other field that might be good to have is that subject field - if we can get the key and change it to readable text. That would help people who want to use this for education or trip planning. And then a personal favorite of mine - if the marker is on the route of the Texas Historic Trails system (like the Forts Trail, etc).

 

(Edit to correct some of my spelling errors)

Edited April 6, 2006 by ksd823

[+ksd823]

Well - it looks like we have a leader and two officers now. The next step should be to "3. Fill out the category submission form on your Group page" (from the FAQ page).

 

With luck we can have this in peer review next week

[+rilekyle]

I am very much interested in this idea. What is the current status of this project? What can I do to help?

[ggmorton]

Yeah, what can I do to help get this category started? I want to start waymaking the ones close to me real soon. I was really surprised when Texas did not already have a category approved.

[+ChapterhouseInc]

in creating your category, i would also take into account hoe the other "Hist Mark" categories are ran....

older ones, like GA, are very basic, whereas, the newer ones have a little more information and options....

 

and remember that if you want all the info from the TX site, provide a link to in in the category description....

 

welcome to the historical marker category club....

[ggmorton]

Yeah, I would vote for the simpler approach like the requirements for Georgia. If we require too much info to be submitted for each waymark, then a LOT less people will participate. It still has to be fun.

[+ChapterhouseInc]

Yeah, I would vote for the simpler approach like the requirements for Georgia. If we require too much info to be submitted for each waymark, then a LOT less people will participate. It still has to be fun.

yes, but others also have a slot for the name of the marker (incase you are trying to be funny with the name) which would also help in search functions--so when all GA markers are posted, i could search for Sherman in the Marker Name field and, hopefully, recreate his march through the state to the sea.

 

the types of markers is also limited in GA as well--though i have not investigated other categories this far--whereas i have added more variable choices in the categories i help manage. and i also see that there can be more--as i submit cemetery markers as 'parks'--it is greenspace you know. and the war (battle) choice is good for the Civil War happenings. there might could be another for counties--in GA it is the county name. in KY it is 'county named, date' or 'county name, date'. but would this just be called 'County"? and another category could be 'person' since many describe things in peoples lives (NOT the 'buildings' they lived in). which bring me to the point that a marker describing a building or other site NOT AT the marker is also called 'other'....

[+silverquill]

I agree - althought we might consider logging condition and seeing if the state would accept reports from waymarkers on markers that are not in good shape or have been damaged. I know that the benchmarking groups have had some success in having their efforts help out the USGS.

 

Photos I think are the way to go. We would need to make sure that every initial entry has a baseline photo to compare against. Should it be a requirement that you include the GPS in the photo?

 

A couple of other field that might be good to have is that subject field - if we can get the key and change it to readable text. That would help people who want to use this for education or trip planning. And then a personal favorite of mine - if the marker is on the route of the Texas Historic Trails system (like the Forts Trail, etc).

 

I agree that the waymark requirements should be kept fairly simple. Some of it depends on how the markers are actually constructed.

 

I totally agree that photos are necessary for a waymark. In fact, I require two for New Hampshire markers -- one is a close-up so that the text of the marker is readable. a second is a panoramic shot showint the marker in its setting. I encourage a third, if necessary, showing the building or site being marked, if there is one (sometimes there really is nothing to see at the marke site).

 

Personally, I feel strongly that rquiring a GPSr to appear in a photo is unnecessary and, in fact, detracts from the waymark itself. The two photos are to be origninal and the coords are to be personally obtained, as part of the requirements. I have a degree of trust in the waymarkers, and I think I could tell of something was submitted that wasn't the result of a personal visit.

 

Location includes Town, but not county, which is appropriate for our state. County would be more important for Texas.

 

Although numbers do not appear on the markers themselves, they are numbered in an official database, so I have a variable for that as well as for the date the marker was created.

 

I also require the text of the marker to appear in the long description. This is available on the web site, so it is easy to enter. It includes a general location description.

 

I encourage additional research on the historical even/place/person commemorated and have an optional variable for website URL.

 

So, entering a waymark is farily simple, and encourages people to look for these. I try to think of what I want to see when I bring up a waymark page -- a nice photo, a short description, and some basic info such as date, number, place.

 

Oh, I also allow for other historical markers, other than the official state markers, such as those put up by local communities. We have only 200 or so NH markers, so 12,000+ in Texas sound about right!!

[ggmorton]

Are we in Peer Review yet for this category? What else needs to be done to get this category going again?

[+clayj]

I created the category and submitted it to officers for review/vote about 5 minutes ago.

 

I based the information largely on the Georgia page. I agree that simplicity is better. Since Texas has a database of markers, I did add a variable for marker number so that a relationship between the waymark listing and the state database could be established.

 

clayj

[+ksd823]

Simpler works for me - I would like to see lots of people take advantage of logging and setting the waymarks. From the discussion it's clear that more info will likely result in less participation.

Edited June 2, 2006 by ksd823

[+ksd823]

To update all on the Officer Vote to Approve Category here are the results:

 

Vote to approve group's category (Texas Historical Markers): Successful

 

Now on to the next stage!

[+clayj]

Category now in peer review.

[+ksd823]

Texas Historic Markers has entered Peer Review. Please take a moment to add your support for this new category.

 

A copy of the details are included below.

 

 

Present Directory Location:

History/Culture > Historic Markers > Texas Historical Markers

 

Quick Description:

Seek out a Texas Historical Marker. Record the coordinates, text, and a picture of the marker.

 

Detailed Description:

The waymarks for this category are marks for Texas Historical Markers.

 

The waymarks must be actual Texas Historical Markers, not sawmills, historic court houses, etc.

 

Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

Please include the following in your post:

 

- Quality picture of the marker (No need for you to be in picture, actually preferred that you're not). This picture is required. Optional pictures: a panoramic view of the site, a picture of the thing being marked.

 

- The title of the marker (use the "name" field in the waymark submission form for this)

 

- The marker number (available from the Texas Historic Sites Atlas)

 

- The text on the marker

 

- The lat/long in minute decimal format WGS-84 datum of the marker (N37 13.432 W083 56.913 for example)

 

NOTE: With the exception of the picture, most required information is in the Texas Historic Sites Atlas. You are required to actually visit the marker site, take a picture, and either establish or confirm the coordinates (if they were provided in the database).

 

This is a category that can collect a large number of entries - there are Historic Markers in almost every town in Texas. No matter if you are a lifelong Texan or just visiting the Great State of Texas, you can learn something new.

 

Please take a moment to vote today - don't wait till later!

[Icache4Life]

Texas Historic Sites Atlas Link has more 'Markers' than all other States combined.

[+clayj]

Seems like our category has been sitting in peer review for a little longer than advertised. The screen says:

 

Category Status: Your group's category, Texas Historical Markers has been sent to peer review. It will be reviewed by the Waymarking community until 6/5/2006.

 

Today is 6/7.

 

Is there anything I'm supposed to do to move it forward?

 

clayj

[+clayj]

And now it's all set. Guess I was just impatient.