Thoughts On Data Imports

[Jeremy]

When we started Waymarking.com we decided to start the site with a clean database. Although there are numerous databases out on the Internet, the NGS placenames database being one of them, we left it out of Waymarking.com.

 

We're rethinking the idea to include more unique data that people provide us since those folks are offering them to be listed on the Waymarking site. With the latest interest in Lep's Pennsylvania Historical Markers, however, I wanted to make sure that these new categories (with potentially thousands of waymarks) won't interfere with the spirit of that challenge or other waymark category challenges in the future.

 

My thought is if a category is imported into the site with data that it would be flagged so it wouldn't show up in the growing list of homegrown waymark categories. That way the challenges would continue without being impacted by these new categories.

 

Thoughts?

[+The Blue Quasar]

Don't see the need for third party databases to be used DIRECTLY by Groundspeak for Waymarking.

 

Maybe I don't understand the question, but to me the Catagory Manager can USE databases they know for verification, but using Lep's example.. they already know how to verify them.

 

Even Bootron's McDonald's Catagory doesn't REQUIRE an imported third party database.

 

I think that the use of a third party database by Groundspeak would be viewed as at best unnecessary and unneeded, at worst unethical and lazy.

 

But like I said... maybe I don't understand the question.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Corp Of Discovery]

Admittadly I haven't been reading everything on Waymarking but since you asked...

 

The interest in the PA historical marker category seems to have been driven (at least recently) by the contest for the volunteer coins (nothing wrong with that). So I don't know that that is a valid situation upon which to base the possible popularity of this idea.

 

Personally I think I'd prefer to see it stay away from 3rd party databases tho. Keep it 'pure' so to speak. Only have WMs found and listed by waymarkers.

Edited February 15, 2006 by Corp Of Discovery

[+The Leprechauns]

There is good data and bad data. I like to think that the community here is better at gathering accurate location-based information. We take nice pictures and write nice stories, too.

 

As a historic example of working with an existing dataset, look at the excellent work of the benchmarking community over the past few years. They are always snickering at how the US Power Squadron messed up a recovery, saying that a benchmark was recovered when it's plainly been destroyed.

 

As a recent example of building a dataset from scratch, look at my Pennsylvania Historic Markers category. Waymarkers are uncovering numerous examples where the State's official database says the marker is missing (we found it), or where the wording of the marker in the field varies from the wording listed on the website, etc. We are planning to share our findings with the State Museum Commission once the Waymarking category is filled up with accurate and interesting information. EDIT to add: this interest existed well before I sponsored a contest. My category was already the second-busiest, measured by number of waymarks, at the time when the contest was announced. The contest simply added more momentum and fun to the category. Therefore I believe my example is VERY valid, and I thank Jeremy for his sensitivity in not wanting to step on the toes of those who wish to have that kind of fun.

 

Both models are fun. The benchmarkers enjoy proving others wrong, and taking bad "to reach" descriptions and turning them into accurate coordinates. My waymarkers enjoy building a database from scratch.

 

I guess where I come out on this is "it depends." If a particular category would be more interesting or fun if it was filled up by waymarkers, then don't import any data. If, like the benchmark database, it makes more sense to post the data and say "go out and find it," then import the data. Perhaps Groundspeak would consider posting a poll in each case to see if there was a group interested in managing the category in a "build from scratch" model, and whether the community is for or against a mass import of a class of data.

Edited February 15, 2006 by The Leprechauns

[+Renegade Knight]

Waymarking is a new way of thinking and it seems that way of thinking is more akin to people building Leps database than it is to import a bunch of waymarks. In the end you have to have something to make Waymarking different than waypoint.org.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Interesting question. There are 4 concepts that are related to it.

 

1. The actual question refers to new categories being already populated with waymarks. This concept is essentially the same as the regular benchmark area. It has 700,000 'waymarks' (all 'owned' by Groundspeak) and we log them. Many of them are quite difficult or impossible to find even with accurate coordinates already provided.

 

2. A related concept is to add databases to existing categories. I arranged the Recovered US Benchmarks category with the view that it would accept databases if there was a way to parse them into it. The 'Find type' variable has a choice called 'Not searched; waymarked using an online database'. This is the flag for people to use if they manually add waymarks from an online database. I wanted to restrict this type of waymark establishment to online databases so that I could veryify the existence of the database by seeing it online. Certainly there are alternatives to a database being online if I can be sure the database is real, etc. So far, no one has taken the trouble to establish a bunch of waymarks from an online database despite the fact that several such databases are known. A couple of us have used the very similar choice in the 'Find type' variable, called 'Coordinates from a database were used'. In this variety, a database was used to get the coordinates, etc., but the establishment of the waymark involved the person actually visiting the site. I would find it quite acceptable if Groundspeak could find a way to parse in the various databases such as those shown in Zhanna's Local Survey Control Data page. It would not be easy, of course, and every database is arranged differently. The 'waymark owner' would be Groundspeak. People could then log these waymarks just as they do in the regular benchmark site - see if they could actually find them.

 

3. Another related concept is the 'first find'. In the regular benchmark area, the concept of the 'first find' is a somewhat a fuzzy concept. When limited to those of us using the geocaching database, the 'first find' is when one of us is first to add our log to the imported NGS database logs (sometimes there is no log on the NGS site, just the establishment note) for the benchmark. In Waymarking, the 'first find' is the establishment of the waymark.

 

4. The other related concept is the 'subsequent find'. In the regular benchmark area, there is no particular disctinction for this - it's just another log by one of the users of the geocaching website. In Waymarking, there is a great distinction - the 'subsequent find' is the log (of an established waymark).

 

Considering the above, if a database were imported to either an established waymark category or a new waymark category, the 'first find' would be the first log and the 'subsequent find' would be the subsequent logs - just like with the regular benchamark area. The main challenge and main success is of course the 'first find'.

 

The main challenging aspect in Waymarking is doing the 'first find's, not the actual building of databases. There is a big difference, though, between benchmarks and most kinds of waymarks, and that is the size of the thing to find - most waymarks are a lot bigger than a 2-inch benchmark. So the 'first find' in the case of an imported-database waymark category is nowhere near as challenging as the 'first find' in the case of the imported-database of the regular benchmark site. In fact there's little challenge at all in the case of an imported-database waymark category. It becomes a rather un-challeging database validation excercise.

 

In conclusion, I think that importing databases into the waymark benchmark categories is welcome but importing databases, either into existing categories or new categories, of other kinds of waymarks offers very little finding challenge. Perhaps there are people who enjoy logging things that are no challenge to find but I don't understand them. In that vein, I have found it odd that in Waymarking so far, there is only the list of logs done, and no list of waymarks established in the waymark stats. I assume the waymark establishment stats will be coming in the future but it seems a backward way to start.

 

To illustrate the lack of challenge problem of imported (non-benchmark) waymark databases, consider the McDonalds category. It's somewhat of a challenge to establish a waymark for a McDonalds because you have to find them while driving around in your car (You might begin by looking in an address database like the 'yellow pages'). Then, Groundspeak uploads 100,000 coordinates of Burger Bazaar locations into a new category. I doubt the Burger Bazaar category would get much logging activity, but people would still be having fun establishing waymarks for the McDonalds category.

[+Volcanoguy]

My preference would definitely be to not import data base information to waymark categories. The real fun and challenge is finding a location and gathering the necessary information to establish a waymark.

[+cache_test_dummies]

I've read the OP a half a dozen times now, and I haven't been able to determine if the primary question is

 

Should mass data imports be used to populate the database at all?

 

or

 

When mass data imports begin, should those categories/waymarks be flagged in some way to clearly differentiate them from homegrown categories/waymarks?.

 

If the the question is should mass data imports be used, my response would be that it depends on the category, and the accuracy of the data being loaded. I'd love to know more about the type of categories which are being made available to Groundspeak in this regard.

 

If the question is should they be flagged as different, my response is yes - they should be. There will certainly be some numerical competitiveness in Waymarking, and I think it's safe to assume that people will want to differentiate between the mass-import variant of category/waymark and the homegrown type. And depending on the accuracy of the mass imported waymarks, this might be an important consideration for people attempting to locate them.

 

Regardless of which question was being asked, I would like to suggest that no mass data imports take place until the process for creation, management, and ownership of the homegrown type of category has been put in place. Many of us are clamoring for a chance to participate in the creation and ownership of categories, yet few seem to have any true understanding or comfort with how this works, or will work. To introduce a new mechanism by which somebody-besides-me can participate would seem to just increase the frustration among those of us who feel this way.

[Jeremy]

Thanks for the responses!

 

To clarify, I was talking about new categories created for the sole purpose of containing canned data. This is not an actual situation, but one example would be if the folks at the Bookcrossing.com web site had a list of coordinates for all of their Bookcrossing zones and wanted to provide a data feed to that information. We would create another category, probably called Official Bookcrossing Zones that would contain this data. The Bookcrossing Zones category I created would go on as it is now while the other database would stay untouched.

 

They don't have coordinates which is why I created the category in the first place.

 

With that said, there could be some categories that start up that contain canned data *and* you have the ability to submit more waymarks in that category that haven't been collected. This may be someone's personal collection of waypoints (e.g. Disney Benchmarks) or a company's collection of waypoints. So a company, like a playground equipment manufacturer, knows where their playground equipment is installed sends up waypoints of all the playgrounds they know about. Because the data isn't complete it is a pre-seeded collection that begs for more data in the category.

 

In the future we plan to allow categories to run like a wiki, which will allow anyone to make changes to any waymark in that category. The flag will be category specific so only categories with that flag will have wiki functionality. The nice thing about seeded data combined with a wiki is it can be edited by anyone to update information, provide photos, etc.

 

We do have some unique data we plan to add to the site and I think it will add value to Waymarking for those that would prefer to seek waymarks than create them. We always have to consider there is more than one type of waymarker and to accomodate those who enjoy seeking over marking them. I just want to make sure we do it in such a way that doesn't negatively impact those who like the competitive nature of marking locations.

[+ibycus]

My feeling is to allow some kind of data upload, but as you say, to somehow flag the data as being from some kind of canned source.

 

Perhaps allow the listing should be 'owned' by the first person to go out and confirm the location or something like that. That would give people an incentive to go out and physically visit these locations.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I think all waymarks created by mass upload from databases should have Groundspeak (or some other code name like datafrog) as the owner.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

The wikipated description sounds cool computer-wise but I'm wondering about the human interest element. The objective of a wiki is to make a description increasingly accurate and complete via differently sized steps of improvement. For those who prefer to seek waymarks than create them, without even a unit of adding (i.e. a log), they might not be interested. The discrete log provides a space to show your name, your photos, and your comments in a package. With a wiki, your 'stuff' is buried within the public description.

[Jeremy]

The wikipated description sounds cool computer-wise but I'm wondering about the human interest element. The objective of a wiki is to make a description increasingly accurate and complete via differently sized steps of improvement.

 

That's right. Making a waymark increasingly accurate should be a good thing.

 

Canned data is often inaccurate and many people get frustrated when that data could simply be changed by them. One major issue for map makers, for example, is local names for locations. It may be called St. Mark's Church in the official placenames database but to everyone else it is the St Mark's Cathedral. Having the ability to adapt and change location-aware data is important.

 

For those who prefer to seek waymarks than create them, without even a unit of adding (i.e. a log), they might not be interested. The discrete log provides a space to show your name, your photos, and your comments in a package. With a wiki, your 'stuff' is buried within the public description.

 

The logs still exist. You can still visit a canned waymark and provide your own personal log entry.

[Jeremy]

I think all waymarks created by mass upload from databases should have Groundspeak (or some other code name like datafrog) as the owner.

 

Good idea. I'm not sure if having no owner is an option but I'm expecting that we'll have to create an account just for the purpose of "owning" the waymarks.

[+The Leprechauns]

I also liked the ideas from ibycus and Black Dog Trackers. Coming from a benchmarking background, their perspective is especially valuable.

 

Maybe you could make Signal the Frog the owner of all mass-upload waymarks.

[+The Blue Quasar]

If this is the case, where the data set would be preloaded by Groundspeak... why wouldn't the Catagory Manager just use it as a part of his verification process?

 

I too could point out lapses in a database, and would fear the concept that a Catagory Manager may decline a Waymark simply because the item is not in the 'approved database'.

 

There is a definite benefit to having access to a third party database, but no real need for Groundspeak to provide it. Any Catagory Manager should already be interested in the topic, aware of resourses and able to verify them.

 

The other thing you might have to be concerned about is the people that may accuse you of violating copyright agreements. Is it really worth it to secure all these permissions? I know you were referring to ones that requested it, but then other people may request Groundspeak host the database for their Catagories too... then comes the permission problems...

 

For the day that I own a Catagory, I wouldn't find this option useful, but others might. Not to engage in the whole "listing service" argument but what would be the reason from Groundspeak's perspective to provide this? If "Book Crossing" wanted this, they could set up the Catagory themselves couldn't they?

 

(Book Crossing only used as an example, as provided by the OP)

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Crystal Sound]

Just my $.02 :

 

I'm not sure I like the idea of imported data. As mentioned before, sometimes the validity of the data is suspect. I'm not sure having such information in "our" database is truely useful, when much of that information is available elsewhere.

 

Also, adding canned data, almost seems opposite to the requirements that most category owners have for creating a listing: actually visiting the location. I manage "Ohio Historical Markers" - information (including coordinates) for each of the markers is available on the "Remarkable Ohio" website. If someone really wanted, they could mine the RO website, get the data, then create listings for each marker on WM. This would be seen as bad form to many (including myself). By actually visiting the location, several hunters have discovered errors, and missing markers and help update the RO website, something that would never happen without an actual visit.

 

The McDonalds Category (although large) seems to be pretty low in the popularity rating. I'm not sure commercial categories such as this truly belong. This seems simliar to the "sprawlmart micro" situation in geocaching. But where does it stop? Why not a Burger King, Jack in the Box, (or whatever)? Do I need Waymarking to help me find fast food? To each their own. I liked the "mom & pop record shops" category, but I'm sure someone out there dislikes that one and likes the McD category. There's something for everyone.

 

However, if such canned information is put online - I did like the idea of "signal" being the owner. That was cute. I also liked the wiki idea.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I see Waymarking as a way of sharing locations with others, that would be otherwise unsuitable for caching.

 

Although discussions such as this are valuable, after all, to build something, you have to have an idea of where you are going with it to accomplish the task - I think this is getting "ahead of ourselves" in some ways. The process of adding new categories has yet to be unveiled. WM needs to become a little more solid first.

 

Edits for readability.

Edited February 17, 2006 by Crystal Sound

[+ibycus]

From the perspective of the off leash park category, I'd love to see the ability to upload the locations 'en-mass' in fact I'd considered doing it for Calgary anyways (I just discovered a PDF file on the city's website that lists the off-leash parks in Calgary), but I don't think I should be the one to own all these waymarks.

 

My primary interest in the off leash category stems from simply wanting to know where they all are when visiting a new city. I imagine other dog owners feel the same way.

 

This objective can be met nearly as well with canned data, as it can with on the spot data. It could also get people interested in hunting these things down and filling in the blanks in the database.

[+LSUMonica]

From a personal level, I like the challenge of discovery of new waypoints not just the visiting of them.

 

I own the category of "Town Clocks" I have been taking pictures of freestanding clocks for quite a period of time before owning a GPSr. My enjoyment comes from the discovery. I don't go out specifically looking for them. My enjoyment comes from coming upon them by accident -- example: Was geocaching in Clarksville, IN the other weekend and while driving to a McDonald's for a bathroom break I found a freestanding clock! Wow! Stopped the car and took the coordinates and a picture even though I really had to get the the McDonald's.

 

My excitement comes from going to the waymark database and seeing if I am the first one to waymark it! If I am -- Hooray! If it is already in the database, terrific I will still mark it as visited but I don't lose my joy of coming upon it by accident.

 

That's just how I play the game.

 

If there were a preloaded database of clocks -- I might seek out the interesting ones to visit but my joy comes from my discovery of an potential waymark entry.

 

In my opinion,

I think what is "slowing" down the population of waymark entries is the randomness of it. Do I look for Burger Kings or is McDonald's being waymarked? Wait here is a historical marker in Indiana -- it there a category for it or is it just PA and OH markers that are being waymarked?

 

I've taken a lot of pictures of things and obtained coordinates of things I am hoping to be waymarked in the future (TN historical markers, etc) but will I lose the data before then or will I have all of the information the owner requires -- I don't know.

 

Thanks for allowing my to express my opinion.

[+ibycus]

From a personal level, I like the challenge of discovery of new waypoints not just the visiting of them.

 

Good point about the joy of discovering them. I know I really enjoy finding an off-leash park that I didn't know about before. Hmmmm, now I have to decide if the joy of discovering new ones is outweighed by practicality of having the listing available....

 

I suppose there will always be the ones that aren't in the list...

[Jeremy]

If we fast-forward in a few years I expect that there will be many categories that are already filled with well-known waymarks. The challenge then will be to find one that isn't listed. I find that far more challenging than stumbling over them.

 

If there's a pre-generated and researched list I don't see the issue with including this data. Adding wiki-style editing to the data would just make it better.

 

After the observations here I think there is some negativity around adding canned data but at the same time if it is posted in such a way that it doesn't adversely impact the marking aspect of the activity it could be ok. We'll do our best to keep the data distinct and separate from the rest.

[+The Blue Quasar]

I don't see a problem if you provide a list, I just don't think that the items in the list should automatically become an existing Waymark location. Nor should the list be considered "absolute".

 

I won't require such an item, but others might like it.

 

The Blue Quasar

[South Surrey Scavengers]

I missed the earlier discussion on this topic. As a category manager for the Canadian Benchmark category it was always my plan to have the database populated. Look at the success of the USGS database at geocaching.com. The original "Benchmark" category. The interest and the fun is locating these benchmarks. Now how do you go about locating them?

 

Well, you don't just wander around the city or the woods and come across them by accident (at least not very often). To find them you consult a database of them which in the case of Canadian Benchmarks you can't find them at geocaching.com or Waymarking.com unless you count the mere handful that have been listed so far. In most cases cachers or waymarkers will consult one of the existing databases that do not reside with GC or WM to find out what benchmarks are close to them. Then they have to create a new waymark and fill out the form etc.

 

I contend that part of the reason that Waymarking has not taken off as well as it could is that it is NOT a database of items that people are interested in but merely a handful of examples of those items. What people want is a searchable database and they want it convenient. They do not want to go to multiple external databases to find out where to look and then spend a lot of time meeting the waymark creation criteria to list it on the site. They just want to go find them. Make it easy for them and mass populate the Canadian Benchmark category (I know you already have the data) and any other cateogry that the category owners want done.

[+ibycus]

I agree somewhat with SSS, although only to a point. What I'd want to avoid, especially with a category like the Canadian Benchmarks Category is information overload.

 

I list of *all* benchmarks in Canada would just be too much. Where is the fun in going out to find some thing that you can pass a hundred of them on the way to the store (no this might not be an exageration when talking about benchmarks).

 

Its far *cooler* if you have to do some work to get it.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

As a benchmark hunter, I definitely agree with South Surrey Scavengers. Here in the states, we have enjoyed the NGS database of over 700,000 benchmarks with pre-loaded information. There is plenty of physical and psychological challenge in finding these marks. They psychological challenge is due to the fact that, unlike geocaches or any of their variants, many of the benchmarks listed in the database are actually not there - they've been lost to the mists of time.

 

Some marks take a lot of careful work to find even with the coordinates listed and searching directions given. Many marks are over a hundred years old and finding them is quite a challenge and gives quite a sense of satisfacation.

 

I agree with South Surrey Scavengers that gc.com importing and providing the database would greatly increase the fun of finding Canadian benchmarks. Sure, you can find a few by luck or something, but here in the states, we make a list of 5 to 20 to try to find in a day's work. It ain't easy, but it's fun!

[South Surrey Scavengers]

Living only 3 miles from the Can-USA border allowed me to visit quite a few border monuments which were listed in the NGS database. While they were pretty easy to find since the border is quite clearly marked it was fun nevertheless to travel along the border and find each one. Some were actually difficult to identify since there were so many in such a small area around Peach Arch Park. After that got my interest I tried to find some in Canada but there was no database set up at geocaching.com. However there was a virtual cache nearby that used a particular type of benchmark and I went and found that one too. Then I came across various databases like CSRS that listed benchmarks in Canada. But the format is not very friendly and I gave up searching for them after one failed attempt at one that was nearby.

 

Now if there was preloaded data in the Canadian Benchmark category I'm pretty sure that I would be out looking for them and logging them. But to have to go to the trouble of searching a 3rd party database and then creating the waymark each time I found one is quite involved. Plus there is no easy way to load the benchmarks into a GPSr unless they are one of the few that are already listed at Waymarking.com.

 

It seems to me that benchmark categories lend themselves favourably to having the data preloaded which may not be the case with other Waymarking categories. So if TPTB decide that preloading data is not going to be done at Waymarking.com I would request that an exception be made for benchmarks.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I would request that an exception be made for benchmarks.

I heartily agree!

 

For the Canadian databases, I see 2 choices -

1. Import the data into the existing category; Canadian Benchmarks.

2. Import the data into a new Canadian benchmark database with a name like Recovered Canadian Benchmarks or Canadian Benchmark Database.

In either case, the owner of all the imported waymarks should be 'Datafrog' or some such Groundspeak waymark-owner-entity.

 

For the Recovered US Benchmarks, there are several databases listed in Zhanna's website. It wouldn't be a piece-of-cake, but they could be parsed into a database for import by Groundspeak. My preference would be to insert them directly into the existing category, Recovered US Benchmarks with 'Datafrog' as the owner.

 

In my opinion, if there is an available database, especially an online one, that gives the coordinates and instructions to find benchmarks, it is a silly artificiality to resist the idea of importing them into benchmark categories.

[+Shorelander]

I would request that an exception be made for benchmarks.

I heartily agree!

 

For the Canadian databases, I see 2 choices -

1. Import the data into the existing category; Canadian Benchmarks.

2. Import the data into a new Canadian benchmark database with a name like Recovered Canadian Benchmarks or Canadian Benchmark Database.

In either case, the owner of all the imported waymarks should be 'Datafrog' or some such Groundspeak waymark-owner-entity.

 

For the Recovered US Benchmarks, there are several databases listed in Zhanna's website. It wouldn't be a piece-of-cake, but they could be parsed into a database for import by Groundspeak. My preference would be to insert them directly into the existing category, Recovered US Benchmarks with 'Datafrog' as the owner.

 

In my opinion, if there is an available database, especially an online one, that gives the coordinates and instructions to find benchmarks, it is a silly artificiality to resist the idea of importing them into benchmark categories.

Even in that case I would be suspicious, however. I have used the Massachusetts Highway Department online database (MHD) for benchmark hunting, and I've seen several problems with it:

1. The MHD entries are undated for the most part. Not knowing when a mark is from can make you waste your time on something that has been gone for 100 years.
   
2. The coordinates are in a mix of NAD27 State Plane and NAD83 State Plane (both MA Mainland & Islands), although I presume Groundspeak could get this converted.
   
3. The descriptions are oftentimes lacking. Not to rag on the MHD, but oftentimes I get to an intersection, read the description, and absolutely nothing matches what I see.
   
4. The database will go out of date. A problem on the NGS side as well, but I think more people go and actively seek out newly planted NGS marks than going to dig for new MHD marks.
   
5. Some of the MHD entries are not monuments really: they're rivets, bolts, chiseled crosses, and the like. There are literally hundreds of these (that are non-MHD database) that I've seen around Boston and have not waymarked, just because they're so commonplace. Are the ones in the MHD database "more important" that these others by virtue of their being in a database?
   

The other problem (not specific to the MHD database) would be of duplication - what if two different databases contain overlapping data? Is filtering by coordinates enough? And what about those that overlap with the NGS database? You wouldn't be able to see those in the "watch out you're too close to another waymark" box when entering them. I (and I presume others) know if something's NGS or not, but how can a prepackaged import?

 

Admittedly, some of these problems can be solved via smart programming and careful data preparation. I dunno, maybe it's that I like being the first to waymark a benchmark. But I think they're important reservations.

 

SLer

Edited March 17, 2006 by Shorelander

[+TheBeanTeam]

I feel ok about limited data imports for some categories (my key word here is limited). I personally prefer the going to, the finding and marking of a particular location that no one else has bothered to mark or find. Waymarking as verification of canned data loses some of the appeal to me personally. That said, I can see how the benchmark categories and possible other data intensive categories would benefit greatly from the canned data and actually improve that particular category. I would rather Groundspeak err on the side of caution and limit canned data as much as possible. I do like the thought of transferring "ownership" of the Waymark to the first visitor, if canned data is used.

[+Backwards Charlie from Austin]

From the perspective of the off leash park category, I'd love to see the ability to upload the locations 'en-mass' in fact I'd considered doing it for Calgary anyways (I just discovered a PDF file on the city's website that lists the off-leash parks in Calgary), but I don't think I should be the one to own all these waymarks.

 

My primary interest in the off leash category stems from simply wanting to know where they all are when visiting a new city. I imagine other dog owners feel the same way.

 

This objective can be met nearly as well with canned data, as it can with on the spot data. It could also get people interested in hunting these things down and filling in the blanks in the database.

I am as much interested in visiting existing waymarks as in creating new waymarks, unlike many in Waymarking that only are interested in creating new waymarks.

 

I think ibycus (and anyone else) should have the ability to upload the canned data he has found with the following provisos:

1. They be flagged as "canned, unverified data,"

2. The owner, if the waymarks are not wiki-enabled, must monitor and update the waymark with the updated data from visitors to the waymark.

 

I shall leave it to others to determine how ownership should be determined for such waymarks.

[+Klemmer]

I would be OK with canned new categories, with reservations expressed above by Jeremy & BDT, with one caveat: They need to be something special, that you can't find with Google or one of the numerous on-line "yellow page" directories. Don't become Google 2 or a Yellow pages "me too". Benchmarks are a good example of unique things (OK, I'm biased for them). McDonalds are not. If I want a McDonalds, I can find 10 close to me via Google in 15 seconds. I just did it. Don't waste your resources on something already done. I've run a successful high tech business for 20+ years. We have NEVER done a "me too" product. They don't pay in the long run. Just my 2-1/2 cents.