Category Proposal: Clothing Optional Beaches

[+Mary&Dave]

I'm fairly surprised this category doesn't already exist. I'd like to create one for clothing optional/nude beaches. These are public places (not including member-only clubs) where you can LEGALLY go without a swimsuit. If anyone is interested in helping manage it, please join here.

 

Also, I'd like feedback from the community. Does it make sense to have a waymark category for something that is well documented elsewhere? There are several other databases/reviews of these spots. Should I skip creating this category because these other information sources exist?

[+ChapterhouseInc]

no...sounds like it would be a good category....but this brings us back to the "adult" section of Waymarking.....how are we to keep kids from 'reading' about them? and the content of pics will have to be moderated...

[+StagsRoar]

I'm of the thinking that this idea has been done already in the earlier days of Waymarking - I'm quite sure it was brought up! But as Chapterhouse stated - and I believe he is correct - the idea was left to die with the thinking that it is not conducive to a family recreation - which is where Waymarking wants to stay. I believe this subject was beaten to death during suggestions of Strip Clubs and Marijuana Plots as well - someone could correct me if I am wrong. My own thought is to leave these ideas in the grave as well.

[+Mary&Dave]

I believe this subject was beaten to death during suggestions of Strip Clubs and Marijuana Plots.

 

Frankly, I'm offended by the suggestion that naturist recreation is on par with strip clubs and marijuana plots. The majority of nude beaches are family friendly places where everyone can have fun in a non-sexual atmosphere. I'd hope that these, and not the perverted exceptions, would be the target of the category.

 

The few clothing optional beaches and hot springs I've visited are clean, friendly places, and I would have no problem bringing a child to them. Nudity does not equal sex. Generally, groups that operate such places go out of their way to make sure they stay non-lewd and family friendly. The same cannot be said about all (clothing required) beaches.

 

Anyhow, it's an age old debate, and it's certainly not one I'm going to win here. Can anyone tell me how to delete a group?

Edited May 26, 2006 by Mary&Dave

[+chstress53]

I am not going to weigh in on the good or bad of this category but I will weigh in that the category should be created and let it go to peer review, let the community weigh in on this Category Everyone should have a voice and we should be self regulating, and that does not happen in the forums, create the Category establish a group and send it to peer review, if it passes it was wanted, and no one knows who votes how.

[+silverquill]

I believe this subject was beaten to death during suggestions of Strip Clubs and Marijuana Plots.

 

Frankly, I'm offended by the suggestion that naturist recreation is on par with strip clubs and marijuana plots. The majority of nude beaches are family friendly places where everyone can have fun in a non-sexual atmosphere. I'd hope that these, and not the perverted exceptions, would be the target of the category.

 

Well, sorry your sensibilities are so sensitive. I don't think the comment implied what you infer -- just that these were discussed in the past and a general consensus seemed to exist that these were inappropriate for the Waymarking community. As someone else has suggested, the peer review process might work here. But, of course, Groundspeak has final veto authority over any category.

 

I would proffer the rejoinder that many of us are offended that public nudity could be called "family friendly." This may be true for a very, very small minority of families. One does not have to be prudish or a radical right wing fascist to feel this way, either!

 

There might be some practical concerns as well. I can see some interesting variables -- total nudity, topeless only, etc. In some countries virtually all beaches are at least "women's top optional" which would make this category meaningless.

 

As to your secondary question about categories that are well-documented in other resources: NOT an impediment as far as I can see! State or National historic morkers are a good example -- many have very good on line directories! Most do lack GPS coordinates, which is a huge part of what we are doing.

[+Mary&Dave]

Let's just agree to disagree here. As I said, it's a long-standing argument that won't be resolved here.

 

I'll judge by the fact that I didn't get any interest in the group to be a good indication that the category probably will not be approved. That's fine. Does anyone know if it is possible to delete a group? I don't think I'll be using this one, and there's no "Resign as leader" button on groups without other users.

[+The Blue Quasar]

It doesn't matter what your personal feelings, or other people's either, are regarding suitability of a Category.

 

If YOU want to try to develop a Category for "Clothing Optional/Nude Beaches" then you DO it. Personally I have no interest in that Category, but others will.

 

Backing down because the loud voice says it is wrong is a very slippery slope... what is next? No ZOO Category because it promotes Cruelty to Animals? By that token there are Categories about Graves ("Out of Place" and "Of a Famous Person" as well as the Veterans one that saw a lot of attention, come to mind), and some people are very annoyed that others are utilitzing cemetaries for recreation. They are still here.

 

Bootron has been taking constant flak over his McDonald's Category for eight months, and for various reasons.... do you see him backing down?

 

Someone else owns Graffitti... which I can't stand (I mean Graffitti, not the Owner or Category), but I can appreciate that there are some examples that are worth seeing.

 

If you are not willing to fight for what you believe in, then you do not really believe in it.

 

If "Clothing Optional/Nude Beaches" didn't hold interest for a certain percentage of the population, they wouldn't exist.

 

Expect to take criticism, expect to have to deal with some problems, expect that people may not support you.

 

You're entering uncharted waters, Christopher Columbus, and you might not find land.... but if you never leave the dock... you definitely WON'T.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+The Blue Quasar]

Mary&Dave

 

I'll judge by the fact that I didn't get any interest in the group to be a good indication that the category probably will not be approved. That's fine. Does anyone know if it is possible to delete a group? I don't think I'll be using this one, and there's no "Resign as leader" button on groups without other users.

 

Rome wasn't built in a day.

 

You need Officers, I'll do it. Just don't expect me to actually do anything. I'm offering to help you get the Category established and operating.

 

As long as you and others understand that I am in no way supporting or condoning the activity related to your Category. I view it more as being an employee of a video store. I'll stock the shelves, don't expect me to watch the movies.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+TeamRJMK]

You know, if you created the category & people marked the beaches, it would help people who DIDN'T want to visit the beaches by knowing that they are "clothing optional" before they visit. I could see value in that.

 

~J of TeamRJMK~

 

--> no desire to visit the beaches but think it is a valid category & will help as officer to get the category started if you like. (send an invite)

[+silverquill]

It doesn't matter what your personal feelings, or other people's either, are regarding suitability of a Category.

The Blue Quasar

 

Oh, really? Then I completely misunderstand what peer review is all about! It really does come down to personal feeling. That is why some categories just don't make it through peer review -- enough people personally feel that the category is inappropriate for whatever reason. One only has to read the reasons given for "Nay" votes to understand that there are some pretty silly reasons out there, often contradictory. The same category may draw remarks "too broad" and "not standout" to "too many variables," on the negative side and equally diverse remarks on the plus side -- all expressing personal feelings about a category. Even though the evaluation page does give some objective standards by which a category's worthiness should be judged, it really comes down to personal feelings.

 

Personally, I'm tired of the attitude that insists on foisting upon us things that are clearly out of place all in the name of freedom. While I think the Waymarking community is broad minded enough to allow for great diversity in categories, even many some might consider silly or stupid, that doesn't mean that it is inappropriate to have some limits regarding decency in an open forum. An "anything and everything goes" policy would ultimately lead to a kind of chaos. I do think, inasmuch as this is ultimately a private enterprise (for which we pay), we need some clarification from Groundspeak regarding decency guidelines. Do they really intend that to be defined in an open forum?

 

If the the one proposing this category wants to withdraw, I don't see it as a failure to fight for a belief, but a realistic evaluation of the sentiment of the Waymarking community. If they want to put it up for peer review to get a vote, then I guess that is the way to go, but I don't see it having much of a chance.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Whoa did I write that sentence all wrong. My apologies.

 

I totally agree that PEER REVIEW is the deciding factor... I meant that if someone is interested in a subject and they want to pursue it, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, then they should.

 

I wasn't actually saying any of my previous post to you Silverquill, nor would I expect you to support this kind of Category at all. Like I said, I have no interest in it either.

 

What I did mean is that if they want to try it, then they should. The PEER REVIEW should be the deciding factor if people are in favour of it.

 

Naturally people's opinions matter... I don't think that ONE person's opinion should determine the outcome... that would be more along what I meant.

 

Silverquill, I'm really sorry... I see how you must have read what I said, and I honestly didn't mean it the way it came off... it was very poorly worded.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+silverquill]

Whoa did I write that sentence all wrong. My apologies.

 

Naturally people's opinions matter... I don't think that ONE person's opinion should determine the outcome... that would be more along what I meant.

 

Silverquill, I'm really sorry... I see how you must have read what I said, and I honestly didn't mean it the way it came off... it was very poorly worded.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

Hey, I'm not personally offended! Thanks for the clarification. It is always a fine walk -- to be tolerant and generous and still have standards. We'll all hang in here, and have faith in the process.

[+The Blue Quasar]

Whew! I'm glad you understood what I meant that time, or allowed me the chance to explain myself.

 

I lay in bed for nearly and hour last night thinking about what I was going to write to you privately, had a rough sleep, and it was the first thing on my mind when I got up.

 

So once again I am reminded that I shouldn't write in a hurry, and read things again to make sure they can't be taken an alterative way.

 

The Blue Quasar

[OpinioNate]

Ah, the family friendly topic... I was wondering when this would come up again.

 

As we all know, different cultures have different ideas about what could be considered risqué. As this is a global activity it will be difficult to accurately determine which categories may contain Waymarks Gone Wild.

 

Some preliminary ideas we've had are to create a system to rank categories according to how "adult" they are (think movie ratings). Another is to create a Taboo category for adult-themed cats - Premium only. Then of course you have the "ignore" feature, which will solve some of our Popularity Filter woes as well.

 

Bootron remarked that he would not enjoy sifting through the waymark gallery and being confronted by nudie pics. I have to agree on that point. So for now, we're going to hold off on the Too Hot For WM categories.

[+silverquill]

Whew! I'm glad you understood what I meant that time, or allowed me the chance to explain myself.

 

I lay in bed for nearly and hour last night thinking about what I was going to write to you privately, had a rough sleep, and it was the first thing on my mind when I got up.

 

So once again I am reminded that I shouldn't write in a hurry, and read things again to make sure they can't be taken an alterative way.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

Oh, dear! The hazards of on-line communication -- again. I have the feeling that if we could sit down over a cup of coffee or tea, we'd be just fine. I'm sorry to have caused you lost sleep. I didn't mean to come across that harsh, either. Anyway, I guess it is a moot point for now.

 

I do appreciate all of your contributions in the forums and in the Waymarking community!

 

Ever forward!

~~silverquill

[+StagsRoar]

I didn't mean to come across that harsh, either. Anyway, I guess it is a moot point for now.

 

~~silverquill

Actually I thought it all made good sense - couldn't have said it better myself!

[Nudecacher]

Well, I haven't been following Waymarking and I don't understand the concepts of groups, but I joined the Nude Beaches group. Now, what does that mean?

 

Nudecacher

[Jeremy]

I'm on the fence on this one. If the nudie pics stayed off the web site and the category was more informational I'd personally be ok with it. However you would be walking a fine line here.

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

A category like this is one reason why I would love the option of ignoring specific individual categories. Yes, Im a puritan. I would prefer not even seeing this category listing. The popularity filter might not remove it for me, whereas an "ignore this category" option would.

[+StagsRoar]

A category like this is one reason why I would love the option of ignoring specific individual categories. Yes, Im a puritan. I would prefer not even seeing this category listing. The popularity filter might not remove it for me, whereas an "ignore this category" option would.

 

"Ditto".

[Nudecacher]

I'm fairly surprised this category doesn't already exist. I'd like to create one for clothing optional/nude beaches. These are public places (not including member-only clubs) where you can LEGALLY go without a swimsuit. If anyone is interested in helping manage it, please join here.

 

Also, I'd like feedback from the community. Does it make sense to have a waymark category for something that is well documented elsewhere? There are several other databases/reviews of these spots. Should I skip creating this category because these other information sources exist?

 

One thing that Waymarking could do that the other databases/reviews do not do is to give precise coordinates, instead of possibly ambiguous general descriptions on where the location actually is. The urls of the other references could be included in the description if desired by the owner.

 

Nudecacher

[+Crystal Sound]

This does add a whole new angle to the photo requirement issue

Edited June 7, 2006 by Crystal Sound

[+Mary&Dave]

This does add a whole new angle to the photo requirement issue

 

No photo would be required, and no nudie pics would be allowed.

 

I've been super busy these last few weeks, but I finally had enough time to setup the category. Should be in peer review in a couple days -- stay tuned.

[Jeremy]

Wouldn't a picture of the sign for the beach be ok? The main entrance would be the best location for the coordinates, I think.

[+Mary&Dave]

That would work, but I don't know that every beach has a sign. Is a photo requirement necessary?

 

Here's what I have right now (I'm open to suggestions):

 

"Due to the nature of this waymark, a photograph is not required. Photos of scenery or smiling faces are always appreciated, but please do not post any explicit pictures."

[+Mary&Dave]

Peer review time!!

 

Please cast your votes.

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/groups/peer_review.aspx?f=-1

[+The Blue Quasar]

Hate to beat a dead horse here... but this Category draws attention to a critical issue in Waymarking... lack of Leader controls.

 

For example... let's say this Category gets past PEER REVIEW and then goes LIVE. Someone lists a Waymark that is nice and clean.... it gets approved by an Officer and all is fine.

 

Then the owner of the Waymark 'updates' the page with new content. The LEADER and/or OFFICERS are powerless to do anything.

 

Secondly, anyone that logs a VISIT can put pretty much enter whatever content they like, including images.

 

Right now, there is nothing apart from contacting Jeremy, OpinioNate or Bootron to have it addressed. At least in Geocaching, the Cache Owner can delete the logs, and the local Reviewer (and all of the other Reviewers too) can alter and edit as needed.

 

How will this be handled if this Category gets approved? Even if it doesn't... this issue still remains for others.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+ravens3]

Wow, a great idea! We've been looking for just the right theme for a cache that is within viewing range of our front door, and now we've hit it! The big guy is busy hauling in a load of sand as we speak to create the beach adjacent to our irrigation ditch. We'll be waiting for the hoards to descend. Whoo-hoo! Off with our shirts!

Edited June 16, 2006 by ravens3

[+JDandDD]

Excellent point BQ. If ever there was a need for reviewer controls and ability to delete a waymark, this is the proposal.

 

I think the waymarker who posted such material would find themselves banned but that could take a bit. There are kids viewing waymarks and there has to be some sensitivity to that with a category like this.

 

JDandDD

[+Mary&Dave]

Then the owner of the Waymark 'updates' the page with new content. The LEADER and/or OFFICERS are powerless to do anything.

 

Secondly, anyone that logs a VISIT can put pretty much enter whatever content they like, including images.

 

Just to confirm (I don't know all the bells & whistles of the web site), are you saying that once a waymark is approved, the category officers have no control over it? And category officers have no control over waymark visits?

 

I would have thought that it would be like a geocache log, where the owner of the cache could delete if they wanted/needed to do so. If that's not the case, I agree, this is an issue. (And not one specific to this category.)

Edited June 16, 2006 by Mary&Dave

[+Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking]

Just to confirm (I don't know all the bells & whistles of the web site), are you saying that once a waymark is approved, the category officers have no control over it? And category officers have no control over waymark visits?

 

I would have thought that it would be like a geocache log, where the owner of the cache could delete if they wanted/needed to do so. If that's not the case, I agree, this is an issue. (And not one specific to this category.)

 

Yep, as category manager, you have no control over the waymark once it is initially approved.