Historical Markers

[Jeremy]

There's a current issue with these historical marker categories that have been cropping up lately. I hope you guys can understand this since it is sort of a grey area, but the point was not to create a category for any kind of marker plunked down in the world.

 

The Pennsylvania Historical marker category, for example, is a marker that looks like this:

 

 

It's a very unique marker and only these kinds of markers are listed. So check this out:

 

 

This is a historical marker, but it is still only a plaque that is telling you some information of the history of an area.

 

This is where the grey line is and my interpretation. The first example is of a particular type of historic marker that is very unique and manufactured in such a way as to be unique. The second marker, however, is just a general marker and in the category Washington State Historic markers, there is no formal marker like the ones in Pennsylvania.

 

The distinction, IMO, is that a generic marker should be international, while a very unique type of marker can be specific to a region. In this case it is not the place that is important but the manufacturer (in this case Pennsylvania historical societies). Does this make sense?

 

I know that the historical markers are getting a lot of traffic lately, so I felt that it would be nice to point out that the gazillions of signs out there who tell a little history should probably have their own category, while pointing out a particular series of signs are unique enough to have their own. Let me know your thoughts on this.

[+cache_test_dummies]

The distinction, if any, should be left up to the category managers.

 

If category managers specify that only Official State Historical Markers are acceptable, then only Official State Historical Markers should be submitted. The definition of what makes an Official State Historical Marker will have to be spelled out, of course, and good luck to Texas in this regard.

 

But if category managers decide that other historical markers which are physically located within a given state and denote a place of particular historical significance in that spot are ok, then I don't see a problem.

 

From the Pennsylvania Historic Markers category description:

 

Please only list historic markers that are part of the official program administered by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.

From the Massachusetts Historic Markers category description:

 

Whether you're walking the Freedom Trail, driving along Route 1, strolling through Springfield, out on the Cape, or in any one of the 50 cities or 301 towns in Massachusetts, you are bound to come across some site of historic significance. Share your discovery here by Waymarking historical plaques in the Bay State.

 

I think both these descriptions are legitimate, and I don't think I'd have any problem determining what would make a valid waymark submittal in either state.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

For Arizona, there was not a single agency that placed the historical markers. There are many agencies involved. For that reason, we are allowing any historical marker within the state. (And yes, I researched this.) It would be nice to limit it to a specific state agency's markers, but in the case of Arizona, that isnt feasible.

[+Razak]

Just thought I'd chime in on the subject, since I like to do that=P My personal feeling is that I would rather have more general topics than what we have and more unique ones than we have at the same time... more general in the sense that the historical marker topics shouldn't be split up into states... they should just be maybe "government sanctioned historical markers"? and then more unique in the way that the sub-categories would then be split up into different types rather than different states... there are a ton of historical markers as we all know... but then there are a ton of say buildings... I would much rather see an octagon shaped buildings, odd-shaped buildings, and shot towers than Texas Buildings, Florida Buildings, and Arizona Buildings.

 

That being said I realize there is some benefit and reason to having it seperated like it is. I would just like to see them more explained by the category title. As it is I don't even bother looking at any of them because I don't really know what is involved in any of them and there are far too many to wade through. I also have the assumption that with their current titles they involve all historical markers in the state (perhaps you could subcategorize the state markers if you want to keep the state title) and like I said in another thread, there are just too many in most places in the U.S. Everything seems to have a historical marker.

 

I guess the point I'm having is that I'd rather see categories that unify the entire world and show of similar markers so that we can actually compare and see what the differences are like (I think that'd be neat) than segregate us off. I live in Wisconsin, I could go out and log all the Wisconsin ones but I just don't feel like it. I know it'd be interesting for those traveling here, but otherwise the only ones looking at the list are those living here. And lets face it we can get the locality through search, what we can't get through search as well is similarity of type.

[+tozainamboku]

I think the point is that Waymarking already lets you sort waymarks by geographic region (state, country, province, territory, etc.) since the latitude and longitude of the waymark is known. Categories should never be "regional". However, because of their nature some categories will be regional. The Pennsylvania State Historical Society could decide to put up a marker in Ohio or perhaps at William Penn's bithplace in England. So its not the region that makes it a Pennsylvania marker, but the group responsible for placing the marker. US Civil War monuments might only be found in certain parts of the United States, but the category has to do with a particular event or period of history and conceivably there could be a monument in Europe commemorating some involvement - perhaps a shipyard that provided ships to one side or the other. However unlikely, the "regional" name of these categories do not preclude that there might be a waymark in another place. A category that requires the waymark be in a particular region is probably not a good use of Waymarking.

[+TheBeanTeam]

I am unsure of all the ins and outs of forum etiquette so forgive me if I make etiquette errors.

 

I may have inadvertently started this trend. When setting up the Oregon Historic Markers prior to group management, I asked about this in an email conversation with Groundspeak last February.

 

I wrote... “In Oregon there are only about 100 "official"

state signs. There are however countless other regional, county or agency

signs throughout the state. Can we open up this category to any marker in

the state utilizing the variables to define them or should we limit it to

the official markers and request a subcategory for the non-official

markers?

The reason I ask is the other marker categories to date seem to be

focusing

on the official state markers but we would like to see a listing of all of

our states markers yet want to approach it in a way that is best for the

site.

 

Thanks.”

 

Out of respect for the sender of the reply’s privacy I will not post the reply here but will paraphrase the response I received from Groundspeak to my question.

 

1) Subcategories can be covered in most cases by variables and I should use those to define the category.

2) I was encouraged to create a variable using a dropdown list for the various markers in our state.

3) I was told that I need not feel like making a “carbon copy” category and that “It's your category to manage however you see fit”.

 

Based on this response I set up the category and opened it wide to all markers in the state. I later referred National Historic Register sites to the proper category.

 

I like the current method of defining historic boards by region or geographic area as defined by the Oregon category. The history is Oregon’s, the Markers are Oregon’s, and Oregon is a specific region. The argument for internationalism is fine and for most categories I agree with it and have encouraged others to broaden the scope of their category in the peer review process to make the category more regional or global. However, there are some things that are regional by nature and therefore can and should be defined regionally.

 

US Civil War monuments might only be found in certain parts of the United States, but the category has to do with a particular event or period of history and conceivably there could be a monument in Europe commemorating some involvement - perhaps a shipyard that provided ships to one side or the other. However unlikely, the "regional" name of these categories do not preclude that there might be a waymark in another place.A category that requires the waymark be in a particular region is probably not a good use of Waymarking.

 

tozainamboku makes a good argument here in his post and though I am not sure I agree with the argument yet, I plan on reviewing our categories strict requirement of state boundaries with the other members of the Oregon, My Oregon management team and discuss if we should open up the category to markers outside of the state boundaries on a case by case basis, based on if the historic marker has direct significance on the history of the State of Oregon.

 

All that being said,

 

I agree with Cache_Test_Dummies.

 

The distinction, if any, should be left up to the category managers.

Edited April 18, 2006 by TheBeanTeam

[+Razak]

I think the point is that Waymarking already lets you sort waymarks by geographic region (state, country, province, territory, etc.) since the latitude and longitude of the waymark is known. Categories should never be "regional". However, because of their nature some categories will be regional. The Pennsylvania State Historical Society could decide to put up a marker in Ohio or perhaps at William Penn's bithplace in England. So its not the region that makes it a Pennsylvania marker, but the group responsible for placing the marker. US Civil War monuments might only be found in certain parts of the United States, but the category has to do with a particular event or period of history and conceivably there could be a monument in Europe commemorating some involvement - perhaps a shipyard that provided ships to one side or the other. However unlikely, the "regional" name of these categories do not preclude that there might be a waymark in another place. A category that requires the waymark be in a particular region is probably not a good use of Waymarking.

 

You make a valid point, however I could also certainly argue that a more broad Civil War Monument category may still be more approriate than a US Civil War Monument, it is more than one event yes, but in a way that's why it would be better=P You could still attach US Civil War monuments in there, but you could also attach monuments for other civil wars as well....

 

Likewise there are a lot of historical societies out there that provide markers... why not just have a historical society marker category instead of just pennsylvania? The point is you are saying these are not necessarily regionalized, but in a way they certainly are. You say PHS could put a marker in Timbuktu but seriously what are the chances that they go outside of Penn very often? Likewise, I am sure there are 1 or 2 US Civil War monuments, but I'm guessing it is seriously only one or two... if there are more i think it would be more interesting to see a category on the US Civil War monuments not in the US and have that just be the category lol

Heck I doubt there are really that many US Civil War monuments in much of the west, Hawaii, and Alaska.

 

All that being said, having the historical society thing explained a little better i guess I am more not liking those such as the Arizona above who seem to be without a historical society (must not be much history in Arizona), but I still think it would be preferable to group them by historical society than by each state's historical society....(because I bet Arizona is in the minority on this subject)

[+LSUMonica]

I personally think it is up to the category management group. I personally have contributed to the Kentucky and Tennessee group as well as am the leader for the Louisiana Marker group.

 

I think that as long as the category defines what is acceptable and what is not, then it is fine to have multiple types of markers for a category. In Tennessee, there are markers issued by the Tennessee Historical Commission, county historical commissions, war group historical commissions, cities, etc. In fact, it is markers by these lesser known groups which I find the most interesting as it is often as little known fact that is honored by their attention.

 

In my description for the Louisiana Historical Markers category I purposely worded the description as follows

Other markers documenting historical places may be erected by local organizations or governments and are eligible for inclusion in this Waymarking database.

. There are just too many areas and markers of historical interest in the State of Louisiana that WERE NOT ERECTED by the state. (In Louisiana, the state does not pay for the "official" markers, local groups do but they have to have approval from the state!)

 

My 2 cents -- I vote for the category management to determine the direction of the category.

 

LSUMonica

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

All that being said, having the historical society thing explained a little better i guess I am more not liking those such as the Arizona above who seem to be without a historical society (must not be much history in Arizona), but I still think it would be preferable to group them by historical society than by each state's historical society....(because I bet Arizona is in the minority on this subject)

 

There are dozens of historical societies in Arizona alone that posted historical markers. Would it really be better to have seperate categories for each historical society than to have them grouped by the state? Who would be able to run each one given the 5 category limit? Maybe Arizona shouldnt have a category at all, at least to your way of thinking?

 

The best way to handle the historic markers in my state is to have all markers in Arizona under one category instead of dozens of categories.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Looks like Arizona isnt alone. Tennessee and Louisianna also have multiple organizations placing the historic markers. Let the category owners decide what is included and what isnt.

[+Razak]

Looks like Arizona isnt alone. Tennessee and Louisianna also have multiple organizations placing the historic markers. Let the category owners decide what is included and what isnt.

 

<shrug> I don't care that much was just adding my two cents... I just not gonna touch em (maybe best for them=P)

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I agree with many here - it should be up to the category manager. (Perhaps Lep will want to widen scope and re-initiate his friendly competition thing. )

 

The topic is an interesting issue and there is no logical answer obtainable. Any concept for a category could be accused of including too much and any concept of a category could be viewed as a subset of another category concept and should be just a variable. Indeed all 10,000 waymarks could be in a category called Waymarks Of Stuff with each variable mapped to a category name in the current list of categories.

 

I was going to start a similar topic on the Exceptional Trees (in process) category. The same issue applies. (I think I'll start one anyway even though this has already started, just to see if there's any difference, plus we're still working on the Exceptional Trees category.)

 

There is already the stated rule that it is legal to waymark the same item in more than one category. Its a game of set theory here and sets WILL intersect no matter how much one tries to make that not happen. We've already crossed this bridge as we know.

 

I think it would be nearly impossible and at least very unworkable to attempt to design (or restrict the designs of) categories such that they'd not be a superset of any possible category concept. That PA marker in the picture:

is about something in the 1700s

is about a military thing

is in a particular county

has 2 jags on each edge instead of one

is not about a person (some are)

This is obviously a bit of an exaggeration, but the point exists, expecially about the county and military distinctions.

 

All these state historic markers could all be state-variables and country variables in one big happy hysterical marker category. Similarly, and more to the point, the existing Pennsylvania Historical Marker category could be allowed to expand a bit and the ones currently in it can go under a variable within it (the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Markers). Why not?

 

An (obnoxious) alternative is to force a re-work of all the other state historical marker categories and split them up by the agencies that supervised the signs. Then you'd have a ridiculous mess of categories, some states could have 20 or more.

 

Another (amounting to the exact same thing) alternative is to re-name the PA category the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission Historical Marker category. If that was what was meant, then it should have been called that in the first place. Then it would be in the directory under Pennsylvania Historical Markers subdirectory among categories of other kinds of Pennsylvania Historical markers. (The same scenario as above).

[+Jake39]

TheBeanTeam Posted Today, 09:49 AM

Out of respect for the sender of the reply’s privacy I will not post the reply here but will paraphrase the response I received from Groundspeak to my question.

1) Subcategories can be covered in most cases by variables and I should use those to define the category.

2) I was encouraged to create a variable using a dropdown list for the various markers in our state.

3) I was told that I need not feel like making a “carbon copy” category and that “It's your category to manage however you see fit”.

This is a conundrum I am also facing with my "Ontario Historical Plaques" as the there are 'Ontario Markers' placed by different departments, societies or foundations in the Province.

 

Historic or Commemorative or only Informative? and how old is 'Historic' ?

The "Carolinian Forest Sign' identifies an area millions of years old.

[+TheBeanTeam]

TheBeanTeam Posted Today, 09:49 AM

Out of respect for the sender of the reply’s privacy I will not post the reply here but will paraphrase the response I received from Groundspeak to my question.

1) Subcategories can be covered in most cases by variables and I should use those to define the category.

2) I was encouraged to create a variable using a dropdown list for the various markers in our state.

3) I was told that I need not feel like making a “carbon copy” category and that “It's your category to manage however you see fit”.

This is a conundrum I am also facing with my "Ontario Historical Plaques" as the there are 'Ontario Markers' placed by different departments, societies or foundations in the Province.

 

....

Historic or Commemorative or only Informative? and how old is 'Historic' ?

The "Carolinian Forest Sign' identifies an area millions of years old.

 

Oregon's "Official", historic markers and many of the unofficial ones detail geological history so one of the variables I added used a radio button that identified the type of history that was covered in the marker.

 

Native American

Pioneer

Modern Age 1900 to date

Geological

[+TeamRJMK]

Like many here, at first I thought it would make sense to have a single "historical marker" type category that would have markers from all over. It would be pretty obvious from the coordinates which state and country contained the waymark.

 

Then I thought some more & realized that due to the current management structure, the category should span only what the category managers have a real interest in managing. Say you have a love of the history of Oregon and want to manage the historical markers there - do you really want to be responsible for managing a category that includes markers for the entire world?

 

So my vote (not that we're voting here, but if we were...) is to let the group define the category like we do today. (Just try to have a directory and naming structure that reflects the span for each category.)

 

~J of TeamRJMK~

[+The Blue Quasar]

Well Jake and I had a breif email exchange about this very topic a few weeks back. And if it isn't obvious by now, I'm rather neurotic about things...

 

For the OHP Category, I favoured that only the Blue and Gold ones would be included so that the Category stays easy to identify what belongs in it, and what does not.

 

Other plaques, markers and similar could have their own Category.

 

The OHP Database makes it easy to tell if the plaque was created by the Ontario Heritage Commission and provides a listing of location... it's sweet!

 

I found 35 OHP's today (as part of about 80 Waymarks) and have to just find the time to create the entries. It was great knowing where they were and that they were actual OHP's

 

But I also found tons of Canadian National Historic Site Plaques... they are totally different and I wouldn't want to see those in the Ontario Historic Plaques group, as they are from a different origin

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Razak]

Well Jake and I had a breif email exchange about this very topic a few weeks back. And if it isn't obvious by now, I'm rather neurotic about things...

 

For the OHP Category, I favoured that only the Blue and Gold ones would be included so that the Category stays easy to identify what belongs in it, and what does not.

 

Other plaques, markers and similar could have their own Category.

 

This is kind of what I'm talking about when I'd say I'd rather have more general categories than what we have now... So we could have Blue, Gold, whatever color pleases, but also maybe do historical markers for presidential (global), or historical markers for literary (a lot of writers have their birthhouses marked)... make the category about something, not about somewhere... (Although you could probably do a category with the more general "Area History Markers" or something). And rather have these type of categories than Pennsylvania... Like I said, Penn would be ok for travelers, but the categories for the most part make me feel like i have nothing to do with them...

 

I'd rather have 50 historical marker categories that I can take an active part in, than 50 historical marker categories where I only can actively take part in 1. (Think this last sentance was the best I've put it in the thread! YAY ME!)

[+Black Dog Trackers]

The Pennsylvania Historic Markers category currently requires that only those historic markers in Pennsylvania that are administred by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission can be waymarked in it.

 

If someone else wanted to make a category for all the Pennsylvania Historic Markers that were not ones administered by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission then WHAT would it be called?

 

Perhaps .....

The Pennsylvania Historic Markers That Lep Didn't Want To Include?

The Pennsylvania Historic Markers That Are Not Administered By The Pennsylvania Historical And Museum Commission ?

 

The name can't be:

Pennsylvania Historic Markers

because that category name's already taken.

[+Razak]

 

If someone else wanted to make a category for all the Pennsylvania Historic Markers that were not ones administered by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission then WHAT would it be called?

 

Perhaps .....

The Pennsylvania Historic Markers That Lep Didn't Want To Include?

The Pennsylvania Historic Markers That Are Not Administered By The Pennsylvania Historical And Museum Commission ?

 

 

How bout picking an area of interest that might have historic markers instead of picking a state of interest that has historic markers?

 

Although I like your category, we should make a category that has a rediciously long name... maybe it can be a category of waymarks with ridiculously long name... like if you find a city with a gigantic name or something lol that'd rock!

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Razak -

 

How about a category of items that can be waymarked in 5 other categories?

Edited April 20, 2006 by Black Dog Trackers

[+Razak]

Edit- decided to end my part on this discussion=) Good luck on figuring it out guys=)

Edited April 20, 2006 by Razak

[+tozainamboku]

Razak -

 

How about a category of items that can be waymarked in 5 other categories?

 

Maybe you just found the definition we need for the "Wow" category - A wow waymark is one that is already listed in at least five other categories

[+Shorelander]

When I was alone in managing the Massachusetts Historic Markers, this was a decision I had to make (and I believe that my group managers would reach the same decision today).

 

Massachusetts has a series of historic markers, but they're really scattered in their "officialness". The Tercentenary commission markers were installed in 1930, and haven't really been maintained or added to since. Then there are Boston-wide ones - in 1976, there were a series of Boston 200 plaques put up, and since, the Bostonian Society has put plaques up. There are also miscellaneous City of Boston plaques up, along with those from other groups.

 

That's, obviously, just Boston. Then there are markers from the Cambridge Historical Commission, from the Town of Needham, the National Park Service, and other municipalities that no one's found yet, presumably.

 

So the question I was facing was whether to keep the category restricted to the Tercentenary plaques or to open it up, and if it is opened up, how wide? I chose to open it up, partially because it made some sense: the umbrella of a Massachusetts Historic Markers category allows for all markers, not just those from the Tercentenary commission. Furthermore, I was thinking about the grouping problem that BDT mentioned: would it really be beneficial to have a "Bostonian Society Markers" category, a "City of Boston Markers" category, a "Boston 200 Markers" category, a "Cambridge Historical Commission Markers" category, and on and on? So I chose to imagine the category as a "historic markers that are in Massachusetts" as opposed to "Commonwealth of Massachusetts-placed markers".

 

Then, of course, there's the question of what is a historic marker. I wrote to the group when I switched it over to group management:

There's a fuzzy line that I've drawn in my mind about what constitutes a historical marker. I tend to divide plaques and the like into two categories - historical and dedicatory. The latter is stuff along the lines of "John T. Smith Bridge", with a spiel on who John T. Smith was. The former falls into the "On this spot..." or "In 1894..." category.

So far no one's submitted a dedicatory plaque, and I think that's because people recognize that it's not quite historical. In the end, yes, the category is huge, but I feel that it's better to have one umbrella category for those interested in the history of Massachusetts as opposed to a bunch of different, geographically overlapping ones.

 

One last note - this category allows for plaque consolidation. For the Way to Charlestown, there are both Cambridge Historical Commission markers and a Tercentenary marker close to each other describing it. So, instead of two waymarks, I consolidated it into one.

[+WalruZ]

Well, i'm part of the California Markers group, and it's set up to only allow official california state historical markers. (there are 1100 of them). However, there are plenty of other historical type thingies scattered about, from city historical markers to plaques placed by local chapters of E. Clampus Vitus. Where would one put "California Historical Markers - other" ?

 

ETA, believe it or not, Adam was the first Clamper. (banjoes seem to have something to do with it...)

Edited April 29, 2006 by WalruZ

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I think that's a significant problem with the startup of Waymarking. The name of some categories is general but their actual scope turns out to be much narrower than their name would imply. A rather subtle problem, but it wraps things around the axle for the growth of Waymarking.

 

Examples (rather un-subtle, I know):

 

Category: Words

However the Words category only allows words starting with the letter M.

 

Category: Numbers

However, the Numbers category only allows numbers evenly divisible by 9.

 

It's going to be difficult to predict when a scope problem will exist. It seems that there should be some mechanism (intervention) when it is determined that a scope probem exists, in which the name of the category is changed, and a new super-category is formed.

 

Examples - do the following changes to the above example categories:

 

New category: M-words

New super-category (directory name): Words

 

New category: Factors of Nine

New super-category: Numbers

 

It seems that TPTB want categories to be rather narrow in scope. But when their names are general, well, that's when the problem happens.

[+tozainamboku]

I think that's a significant problem with the startup of Waymarking. The name of some categories is general but their actual scope turns out to be much narrower than their name would imply. A rather subtle problem, but it wraps things around the axle for the growth of Waymarking.

 

Examples (rather un-subtle, I know):

 

Category: Words

However the Words category only allows words starting with the letter M.

 

Category: Numbers

However, the Numbers category only allows numbers evenly divisible by 9.

 

It's going to be difficult to predict when a scope problem will exist. It seems that there should be some mechanism (intervention) when it is determined that a scope probem exists, in which the name of the category is changed, and a new super-category is formed.

 

Examples - do the following changes to the above example categories:

 

New category: M-words

New super-category (directory name): Words

 

New category: Factors of Nine

New super-category: Numbers

 

It seems that TPTB want categories to be rather narrow in scope. But when their names are general, well, that's when the problem happens.

 

The problem here is the "there should be a Waymarking category for everything" mindset. Categories are simply lists of locations that meet the criteria of the group managing that category. Sure, the category name should be accurate (M-Words instead of Words). But in order to keep the names short there are sure to be problems. The full description of the category should provide the details of what is included. If there is an official state historical markers category than non-official markers aren't included. You could have a second category of non-official markers, or you could have a category of E. Clampus Vitus markers, or whatever the group decides. If a group forms that wants to have any marker in the state, they should be able to set that up too.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

If a group forms that wants to have any marker in the state, they should be able to set that up too.

OK, lets be just a bit narrower than just any marker and keep to historical markers. Shall we set up a category for any historical marker in Pennsylvania? We should be able to, right? What shall we call it?

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

All other Pennsylvania historical markers?

 

The rest of Pennsylvania historical markers?

[+tozainamboku]

Pennsylvania Historical Markers II

All Pennsylvania Historical Markers

 

Get the existing group to change the name to Official Pennsylvania State Historical Markers and then name this one Pennsylvania Historical Markers.

[+Shorelander]

What do people think about playing with the folders? It's currently

 

History/Culture > Historic Markers > Pennsylvania Historic Markers

 

What about

 

History/Culture > Historic Markers > Pennsylvania Historic Markers > State-Placed

History/Culture > Historic Markers > Pennsylvania Historic Markers > Others

 

or even

 

History/Culture > Historic Markers > Pennsylvania Historic Markers > State-Placed

 

with other markers going in

 

History/Culture > Historic Markers > Pennsylvania Historic Markers

 

- does that make sense? It would require reworking the current stuff, but if there is a conflict like this, it seems like anything's going to require that.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Agreed.

 

Currently there's no reasonable way to make categories for the other historical markers in PA. They're all stuck at this point (assuming there was a group who wanted to waymark them).

 

It's up to TPTB to recognize the issue and develop a plan.

[+Dew Crew]

What do people think about playing with the folders? It's currently

 

History/Culture > Historic Markers > Pennsylvania Historic Markers

 

What about

 

History/Culture > Historic Markers > Pennsylvania Historic Markers > State-Placed

History/Culture > Historic Markers > Pennsylvania Historic Markers > Others

 

or even

 

History/Culture > Historic Markers > Pennsylvania Historic Markers > State-Placed

 

with other markers going in

 

History/Culture > Historic Markers > Pennsylvania Historic Markers

 

- does that make sense? It would require reworking the current stuff, but if there is a conflict like this, it seems like anything's going to require that.

Or

History/Culture > Historic Markers > State-Placed > Pennsylvania Historic Markers

History/Culture > Historic Markers > Others > Pennsylvania Historic Markers

Edited May 3, 2006 by Dew Crew

[+az_pistolero]

I'll chime in on the side of individual groups (geographic) of Historical Markers. In the US, that'd be states.

 

The only example we have so far is the one Jeremy initially posted. I didn't read the text, but if it fits into two waymarks, enter it twice. see this topic

 

As for Arizona, it is precisely because there are so many organizations that have placed markers that makes this category attractive. I believe there's no single catalog of these markers anywhere in the state. Go Waymarking.com !

[+WalruZ]

Actually I can see right now that I could try a group that would be

 

history / historic markers / california historic plaques

 

thus, the difference would be between markers and plaques. somewhat opaque though...

[+silverquill]

Intriguing discussion! Several threads here. Historical markers -- I'm with the "leave it to each management goup" crowd. The simple reason for this is that there is wide variation from state to state, so each one has different paramaters, as we have seen. That is also one argument for doing them by state or country/province or other regional division. The other reason is that markers do lend themselves easiyl to regionalization. Ultimately, though, markers exist as regional categories because someone decided to create a category that way! And, their popularity is obvious -- they are easy "targets" for waymarkers!

 

In our New Hampshire Historic Markers we have a dropdown variable for Official State Markers, Local Markers, and Other Markers. I have a request to include war memorials as a variable, but probably will not as there are already categories for those. The requester's point, however, was that he wante a regional place for them. We could go that way, and encourage cross listing.

 

It is possible to have ctegories that are topical, and global, that cut across these regional categories, however. An example is the new "FIRST of its kind" category. So far, it seems all of the waymarks are historical markers from various states, though that is not a requirement. Another overlapping category is US National Register of Historic Places. There are others, that are topical, and therefore more likely to be global, and may incude historic markers. I see this crossover, or overlap, as a desirable part of Waymarking rather than as a problem.

 

The other thread that has emerged here, tangentially, is how (by whom) is the whole Waymarking taxonomy set? Should the TPTB take a more proactive role in this? Should it continue to be a hodge-podge of categories that can garner a management group and get through peer review? I'm in favor of the latter, but think it is also desireable to have a more logical taxonomy. The 15 prime headings, for instance . . . well, it could be argued that this whole system could be reworked. It wouldn't change the individual categories, just arrange them in a more coherent fashion.

 

The other question that I've asked several times and haven't had answered, is, "Can a given category later be subdivided if it becomes too large?" For instance, lets say a category of War Memorials were created, and later it appeared that it was desirable to divide it into different wars, WWI, WWII, etc. Or, if the Penn. Historical Markers included everything, and then the group wanted to divide it by agency? We face this with a lot of categories that may seem too broad, but would work to begin with if subdivision were possible once they began to grow.

 

Probably this should be another thread . . . . . .

[+PFF]

I was drawn to this thread as a result of E-mail exchanges with frustrated contributors to the site, and it seems to be an ideal place to post this thought. Like other users, I enjoy scanning the Waymarks in an area that I will be visiting. It provides suggestions about things I might like to see, and it introduces me to the history, culture, and customs of the region. This is especially valuable if there will be children on the trip. Many sites are learning experiences!

 

It appears that the entire focus of Waymarking.COM is logging as many sites as possible to run up a large score. I would encourage the site leaders to consider other uses being made of the entries. It can make the site much more interesting.

 

In addition, I respectfully urge those who administer categories to reconsider any "iron hand" policies and the effect this has on attracting newcommers to the hobby. The correspondence referred to above is from folks whose participation level is similar to mine; i.e., we post occasionally when we find something that looks interesting, such as a covered bridge, lookout tower, etc. Here are the problems we encounter:

 

*There is no consistency among catetgories;

 

*There are "unstated" rules, such as "We want two photos for a submission, and we want them posted in HTML so they show on the main page", while the posted rule simply says, "Submit two photos".

 

*When a submission does not match exactly, there is no feedback. It simply is ignored. Many leaders seem to have no interest in helping new folks. Contributors are left hanging, wondering if their submission got lost.

 

My personal measure of success with Waymarking is the percentage of my submissions that subsequently are visited by others. And I have been very pleased with the results. E-mails and posted comments have been very positive on a spot on the Blue Ridge Parkway, in the Sarah Duke Gardens, and at a historic marker when I pointed out a benchmark in the wall of a nearby building. One mother wrote to tell me her children enjoyed playing on the cement foundations of an old water tower I'd logged. And the list goes on and on.

 

This is simply to illustrate my point that Waymarking.com should not be "just about numbers". There are folks who actually enjoy reading the entries, and who will make contributions of their own--provided the rules for submission are consistent and not a burden. And if a historic site has the potential to spark a child's interest in learning and an appreciation for his state or nation, let it be added to the category.

 

I encourage the leadership to allow people to have fun with the site. And if you administer a category, consider becoming a mentor, and avoid the temptation to slide into the dictator mode. It can be very rewarding, on a personal level.

 

-Paul-

[+BruceS]

I was drawn to this thread as a result of E-mail exchanges with frustrated contributors to the site, and it seems to be an ideal place to post this thought. Like other users, I enjoy scanning the Waymarks in an area that I will be visiting. It provides suggestions about things I might like to see, and it introduces me to the history, culture, and customs of the region. This is especially valuable if there will be children on the trip. Many sites are learning experiences!

 

I do the same when I travel though I often do some research on the area to find interesting places in the area that I can also list as new waymarks, particularily in categories that are of most interest to me.

 

It appears that the entire focus of Waymarking.COM is logging as many sites as possible to run up a large score. I would encourage the site leaders to consider other uses being made of the entries. It can make the site much more interesting.

 

[Large score... didn't realize any score was being taken. I am here because there is less score keeping here than elsewhere. In someplaces I may list a high concentration of waymarks, this is not to build numbers. It is because there are a high number of individual sites to list... I can't help there are 15 Medal of Honor recipients buried in two adjacent cemeteries along with a Revolutionary War veteran and a few other people that are quite famous. I can't help when a city goes through a "campaign" to list several sites on the National Registry of Historic Places, I don't decide what is placed on the registry, I just find them and list them as waymarks.

 

In addition, I respectfully urge those who administer categories to reconsider any "iron hand" policies and the effect this has on attracting newcommers to the hobby. The correspondence referred to above is from folks whose participation level is similar to mine; i.e., we post occasionally when we find something that looks interesting, such as a covered bridge, lookout tower, etc. Here are the problems we encounter:

 

*There is no consistency among catetgories;

 

Yes this can be a problem. I have several photos and coordinates for locations but don't have the one missing part to complete the waymark. If I get back to the area I will get what I need. I then know what is required for that category. If I don't like what I am required to do to be able to submit a waymark in that category then I just skip the category.

 

*There are "unstated" rules, such as "We want two photos for a submission, and we want them posted in HTML so they show on the main page", while the posted rule simply says, "Submit two photos".

 

I have run into "unstated" rules a few times though it has been less with the newer categories as groups resolve these ambiguities quickly. In the past I have emailed category owners back and told them to clean up the category descriptions to include all such rules.

 

*When a submission does not match exactly, there is no feedback. It simply is ignored. Many leaders seem to have no interest in helping new folks. Contributors are left hanging, wondering if their submission got lost.

 

I have not run into this. I have always gotten feedback when something is not right with my submission. I also understand that the category owners want the waymarks in their category to be consistent and why they want the element I had omitted.

 

My personal measure of success with Waymarking is the percentage of my submissions that subsequently are visited by others. And I have been very pleased with the results. E-mails and posted comments have been very positive on a spot on the Blue Ridge Parkway, in the Sarah Duke Gardens, and at a historic marker when I pointed out a benchmark in the wall of a nearby building. One mother wrote to tell me her children enjoyed playing on the cement foundations of an old water tower I'd logged. And the list goes on and on.

 

Yes I enjoy the feedback too. I also realize that some of the waymarks I list will be of interest to a limited number of people however to those people my listing could be very important. There may not be a large number of people that want to visit a grave of a Revolutionary War veteran, however descendants of that veteran may have great interest. As stated earlier there are other uses of entries, these uses can also extend far beyond the "Waymarking community". To illustrate this do a google search on Revolutionary War veteran graves .... the first listing may well be Waymarking

 

This is simply to illustrate my point that Waymarking.com should not be "just about numbers". There are folks who actually enjoy reading the entries, and who will make contributions of their own--provided the rules for submission are consistent and not a burden. And if a historic site has the potential to spark a child's interest in learning and an appreciation for his state or nation, let it be added to the category.

 

Waymarking is not about numbers. Rules need to be consistent at least within the category however different categories will have different rules. Learn the rules for the categories that interest you and submit waymarks in those categories. I agree if the site sparks interest it should be allowed as long as the site also qualifies for the category and the submission is consistent with the other waymarks that are in the category. If you find a 50 year old church that "spark a child's interest", I would not allow you to list in "This Old Church" category because it would not qualify, it has to be 100 years old. If everything that "sparks a child's interest" were listed then this site would become about numbers. I have seen kids playing with worms in a gutter after the rain, play with dandelions in a park... I would not want those sites listed even though they "spark a child's interest"

 

I encourage the leadership to allow people to have fun with the site. And if you administer a category, consider becoming a mentor, and avoid the temptation to slide into the dictator mode. It can be very rewarding, on a personal level.

 

 

I agree and I think most people do have fun wit the site. Often the fun I have is doing the research to get the information to submit a good waymark. Sometimes I can't find the information I would like but submit the waymark to spark others interest. In a few cases visitors to the waymark have given me feedback with information which fills in the gaps I was looking for.

Edited June 29, 2006 by BruceS

[+PFF]

I have seen kids playing with worms in a gutter after the rain, play with dandelions in a park... I would not want those sites listed even though they "spark a child's interest"

 

Actually, I was thinking about historical markers, and specifically the discussion of allowing "state" and/or "non-state" monumentation. But your point about worms is well-taken.

 

Your recommendation about simply not posting in certain categories probably is a common approach to the situation, as shown in this E-mail that I received yesterday from a participant on the West Coast (USA):

 

Waymarking is so new that it is going to take some time to work out all the bugs. I made a couple big errors when I began. So I asked my "mentor" what was going on. He filled me in on the politics of the game. Waymarking is run by a small community of people (I can't think of a better term this morning). And there is not a lot of agreement within that community. Just check out the Forum. So I just do what I think is right for each of my waymarks. I often go back to add new information as I find it. I fight for consistency. And sometimes there is a lack of consistency.

 

I have a small but growing list of categories that I will not create Waymarks for. It is not fun and just not worth the hassle.

 

Her comment about "not worth the hassle" should not be taken to mean that she is a "free spirit" who does not wish to follow rules. This individual recovers benchmarks and logs her finds with the National Geodetic Survey. And as some contributors to this thread can attest, NGS gives new meaning to the term "specifics required for submission"!

 

Does the hobby need "gatekeepers"? Certainly. My post was simply to encourage any "hard line" administrators to uncross their arms, smile occasionally, and stretch out a helping hand to those who seek to participate in their categories. And, to recognize that a category might be slightly broader in scope than what was originally envisioned; i.e., historic markers.

 

Best regards,

-Paul-

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I want to add a couple of observations here.

 

On the part of submitted waymarks being ignored, if you're a category manager, the list of pending waymarks is sitting there in the list and you see it - they don't go away by ignoring them. I have noticed a pattern in the US Benchmarks category - those marks that obviously meet the category description are handled quite quickly - generally they wait no more than a couple days, sometimes only a few minutes. On the other hand, the difficult ones on, or over, the edge of the category description take a lot of hand-wringing, maybe some emails among officers, etc., before deciding what to do and what to say to the submitter. Feeling like you have to decline a waymark submission hurts. It's not an easy thing to just go and do. It isn't pleasant for the person who has submitted the waymark either, I know. So, anyway, I don't know about other categories, but the extra wait time on the RUSBM category is due to gray areas, etc. It seems that no matter how carefully you try to describe a category in terms of what fits and what doesn't fit, there are gray areas that you never thought of. Then what?

 

On the 'unstated rules' thing, we're all learning the process. When there are categories up for peer review I try to caution category authors to make sure to spell out what they want and don't want their category to be so they don't find themselves drowning in gray areas, not knowing what to say to submitters, and whether ot Accept or Decline. When you start a category, it's really hard to address all the possible 'unstated rules' you haven't thought about!

 

On the 'hard line' administrators, and uncrossing arms thing, it is interesting to note that the topic was started by Jeremy, presumably at the behest of The Leprechauns, apparently in favor of categories having a rather narrow scope. On another occasion, I was proposing a category for excellent places from which to take a photograph. I thought it would be a nice little category. Jeremy came into the topic and suggested splitting the idea into 3 separate category concepts. I gave up right then. Talk about being trumped on. So, it seems to me that TPTB want categories that some of us would consider rather narrow. I'm not faulting anyone here - just like a category, you try to convey what you think the concept of a thing is, and then other people have a different concept of it. Neither are right and neither are wrong. Gray areas.

 

On the agreement / disagreement and inconsistency thing - it seems that Groundspeak didn't want to be the administrator of every category. I don't blame them! So, every category has separate management and separate management styles. No surprise, I think. How would Groundspeak attempt to standardize management of categories? They'd have to write a 3 volume book! Talk about gray areas!

 

On the numbers thing, I think there is going to be an issue about numbers every time there are things that people do that can be counted. I'm not a numbers competitive person, and I think many other waymarkers aren't either. I think in general Waymarking is much less a numbers-goal kind of game than geocaching. It's more like a tracking, exploring, and collecting kind of game - you track where you've been with your waymarks and explore a category you like by collecting Waymarking things that fit in it. It's like collecting stamps - you get a new stamp and put it in your stamp book - with Waymarking you go to a place so you can put it and your pictures of it on the website. Fun.

 

On the dictatorial and hard-liner thing. What should categories be - what the group managing the category thinks it should be, or what all the waymark submitters to it think it should be? The way the concept of Waymarking was set up, it's the former, not the latter. So, we try to go with that. Not that either one is more correct than the other. There are pro-s and con-s to each.

[+cache_test_dummies]

Excellent observations, Black Dog Trackers. Well said.

 

On the part of submitted waymarks being ignored, if you're a category manager, the list of pending waymarks is sitting there in the list and you see it - they don't go away by ignoring them. I have noticed a pattern in the US Benchmarks category - those marks that obviously meet the category description are handled quite quickly - generally they wait no more than a couple days, sometimes only a few minutes. On the other hand, the difficult ones on, or over, the edge of the category description take a lot of hand-wringing, maybe some emails among officers, etc., before deciding what to do and what to say to the submitter.

The same thing happens in the categories I manage. Amazingly similar to what the GC.com reviewers must face each day. To me, this is just another reason why Waymarking's distributed approval model was such a good idea.

[Jeremy]

 

On the 'hard line' administrators, and uncrossing arms thing, it is interesting to note that the topic was started by Jeremy, presumably at the behest of The Leprechauns, apparently in favor of categories having a rather narrow scope.

 

I don't exactly remember my state of mind then, but I was just trying to explore what others felt about the vagueness of historical markers. With peer review and group management it seems less important for Groundspeak to take on a more active role - instead relying on the comments from the community through peer review.

 

My original envisioning of historical markers are the metal markers that are required for logging in PA. Since WA and OR both don't have a formal program like this I was skeptical when I saw them listed as a category. Since then I honestly haven't looked that closely in the categories.

 

On another occasion, I was proposing a category for excellent places from which to take a photograph. I thought it would be a nice little category. Jeremy came into the topic and suggested splitting the idea into 3 separate category concepts. I gave up right then. Talk about being trumped on. So, it seems to me that TPTB want categories that some of us would consider rather narrow.

 

I'd say initially we wanted very specific categories because we didn't want a sort of land grab for any particular thing. Nowadays we rely on your peers to help decide what is important. Also I don't have much of a concern anymore about overlapping waymark categories. We'll eventually have functionality in place to stack different waymarks on top of each other.

 

Additionally when we release our location-baed forum software we'll have a place where each category can have its own forum section to discuss all sorts of topics, instead of one post in a single forum. That along with being able to do a zipcode search on local topics, will hopefully encourage a community feel for each category instead of a "Waymarking" category as it is now. By customization of the different categories I hope to create a community feel that attracts different people to each.

 

This continuing customization will hopefully create a broader sense of community. Granted there may be some communities that can turn you off but that's the nature of a social network.

[+PFF]

Update:

 

Thanks to BDT and others for shedding light on the submission/approval process. I also received E-mail from several folks who offered to look into specific situations and give recommendations. This was very encouraging. With their assistance, I'm confident these waymarks will be approved after some "tweaking".

 

Best wishes,

-Paul-

[+The Blue Quasar]

There is definitely 'tweaking' that occurs. And it should occur. Often things are brought forward after a Category has been established and hadn't occurred to the Leader or other Officers.

 

And sometimes a 'hard line / heavy handed' approach is needed too. The line might be blurry, but beyond the fringe shouldn't be allowed in the list.

 

So, when a Category is not clear or new items come up, the 'ammendments' should be added or sentences edited for clarity. That way the same issues don't keep repeating themselves.

 

For me, I like specific narrow targets. If a Category is too broad, I tend to look for unusual examples instead of mundane, unless I am really interested in the Category on the whole.

 

e.g. I have a McDonald's... because mine has a story to it, and it is unique. I also have lots of Libraries... because my wife is a Librarian and I want to try to visit all the ones within my work area.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+PFF]

For Blue Quasar:

 

You're right. That's an interesting history! And you did a great job with the documentation.

 

It proves you can put a McDonald's anywhere--if you're willing to make some concessions. I like your requirment for logging this waymark--eat at the restaurant. But can I substitute a photo of my GPSr in front of the menu, instead of having to reveal how many Big Mac's I consumed?

 

-Paul-

[+flyingmoose]

I love the historic markers category but one thing I never understood is why each state has their own and why some states exclude the county roadside markers. I am a GIS tech and have created hundreds of Geodatabases and see no point in having more than one category and that for each log there should be variables for state, county, city, etc..

 

I also have been seemingly ignored or boycotted by the Maryland Historic markers group for trying to debate that the Maryland county markers should be accepted as well. I had since submitted 2 more markers and both of them had either gotten shot down (with one response) or ignored. I was told from one intial response to start my own category; Maryland's "other" Historic markers. This is fine by me but I do not see getting it passed thru the cue and feel it would be a waste when the category that already exist would be able to accept them if they were not so old fashioned. I even emailed each member of the group with an email that they should think about accepting other markers in the state but all emails have been ignored. I am kind of shocked because I like the group leader but this is certainly putting a bad taste in my mouth for anything Maryland (my home state). But alas it is their group and their choice to live in the stone age of GIS.

 

Well, thanks for any constructive responses that I might get.

 

flyingmoose

[+Black Dog Trackers]

flyingmoose -

 

I certainly agree that it is rather awkward to be in the position of wanting to make a new category for those markers excluded, but the obvious name has already been taken. As the result of a 'name grab', for a category with a too-narrow scope, you're forced to come up with some other kind of name for the other markers in Maryland.

 

I suggest that you go ahead and create a category. I live right near Maryland so I could support it in some way if you need it. I suggest the name: "Maryland's Historic Markers". In its description, you would specifically exclude the type of markers that the other Maryland historic markers category restricts itself to allowing.

 

I don't fault the creators of the Maryland Historic Markers category. They were following the Pennsylvania Historic Markers model, I imagine.

 

There are lots of agencies besides one specific state agency placing historic markers. Why not collect the locations of them? To completely exclude these from Waymarking would be absurd, so I suggest making a new category for them.

[+BruceS]

I love the historic markers category but one thing I never understood is why each state has their own and why some states exclude the county roadside markers. I am a GIS tech and have created hundreds of Geodatabases and see no point in having more than one category and that for each log there should be variables for state, county, city, etc..

 

 

The main reason there are separate categories for each state is purely a management and workload problem. When the original historic marker categories were formed groups did not managing categories they were managed by individuals. If one person tried to manage a category for all historic markers for all states, it could have become a fulltime job. Also different states have different historic marker programs, it would be hard to understand all the programs for all states. I agree it would be better if all historical markers within a state were allowed as long as placed my some governmental body or historical society and delineate between types etc. using variables.

[+flyingmoose]

Well, the nice thing with most GIS tools is that you can merge Databases into one big one. So I see the Separate states being good for management, but the fact that all states are managing it differently makes it confusing.

[+Renegade Knight]

Most markers have a sponsor. That sponsor maintains a list or had a list of some type. Transporation Departments, the NPS, Historical societies etc.

 

You can break down markers into any group that has a list. You can kludge the remaining ones that don't have enough (whatever that number is) numbers of markers to make a unique catagory into a few general catagories like Battlefields, Historical Events, Architectural History etc.

 

That would give you dozens upon dozens of verifiable marker catagories and some general catch alls.