Officers Wanted For New Category

[+The Blue Quasar]

I am looking for a set of Officers to help create a Category, then assist in Accepting/Declining submitted Waymarks in a new Category called "Vacationing with Waymarking"

 

The premise is to build a database of locations that people would visit while traveling. These places can be large scale like the Leaning Tower of Pisa or Graceland that offers tours, as well as things you just go to see on your own like Moscow's Red Square or Sudbury's Big Nickle

 

Cross-listing with other Categories would be allowed, and encouraged. In fact some would be almost automatic like "Roadside Attractions", "Art Museums", etc.

 

Basically, the long term goal is to provide a method for others so that they could find full descriptions of things to do at their chosen destination.

 

If they are going to Paris, France... hopefully they would get listings for "Arc de Triomphe", "Eiffel Tower", "Musee de Louvre" and others.

 

Each Waymark entry would have to have direct website links to the suggested location, as well as detailed (even if copied from other websites) descriptions of what to expect at the location.

 

We can provide our own Tourism by sharing what is local to us, or places we visit.

 

Please feel free to add any suggestions or input here in this thread so we can all build together.

 

I have made the Group "Open Enrollment" but to become an Officer, please also send me a Note through my Profile, or say so here in this thread.

 

Vacationing with Waymarking - Group Page

My Profile Page

 

The Blue Quasar

[Rayman]

This is a very good idea, BQ. I always enjoy showing off and promoting the Buffalo area's great touristy spots, so I'll be sure to add a few submissions to this. Naturally it'll be good to know of places to see when traveling too. I'll be an officer if you need one.

[+Henki]

We just got back from D.C., and I was surprised by how much that's there ISN'T listed as waymarks. I just created waymarks for 2 of the museums, but I lost the coordinates for the third I was going to create. Many of the memorials and statues don't seem to fall into any other category, either. I think this would be a wonderful and helpful new category.

[+JDandDD]

I like the idea of the category but wonder about how it would be written up to distinguish waymarks in it from other categories. I wonder if instead of Vacationing it should instead be called Tourist Sites. Then, the waymark could require a tourism site link for the waymark. That might ensure the the quality of the waymarks that I know you are interested in. Just some preliminary thoughts.

 

I could be interested in being an officer in this one.

 

JD

[+The Blue Quasar]

Agreed... after I started the Group it became obvious to me that the name "Vacationing with Waymarking" would not be the name of the Category.

 

But what?

 

"Attractions to Visit"?

"Local Attractions"?

 

Other ideas?

 

I don't really have any reason to differentiate Waymarks in the Category from other Categories... in fact, I hope that many will be copied directly. But to be fair, I think that the original owner should be the one to submit it again to this Category. People shouldn't steal other people's Waymark work.

 

JD&DD.. can you expand on what you were meaning when you asked that?

 

The Blue Quasar

Edited July 8, 2006 by The Blue Quasar

[+JDandDD]

Agreed... after I started the Group it became obvious to me that the name "Vacationing with Waymarking" would not be the name of the Category.

 

But what?

 

"Attractions to Visit"?

"Local Attractions"?

 

Other ideas?

 

I don't really have any reason to differentiate Waymarks in the Category from other Categories... in fact, I hope that many will be copied directly. But to be fair, I think that the original owner should be the one to submit it again to this Category. People shouldn't steal other people's Waymark work.

 

JD&DD.. can you expand on what you were meaning when you asked that?

 

The Blue Quasar

Not sure what you are referring to BQ. I certainly wasn't commenting on stealing other people's waymark work. Never entered my mind as a matter of fact and a bit startled that what I was saying in my post could be interpreted that way.

 

Perhaps as you say there is no reason to make the waymarks unique from other categories. My first impression was about a category that would capture things not covered by other categories, i.e. a place for items that don't fit the criteria of other categories but would of interest to vacationers/tourists to an area. So, the tangent I heard was a place for tourist activities not covered in things like monuments, amusement park etc. categories.

 

If, as I hear it now, that the category is a place for someone on vacation to look for any kind of tourist item then that's ok too and obviously there would be overlap.

 

But stealing other people's Waymark work, wow, for the record I can assure you I don't think that way at all and still recovering from the shock on that. Just trying to be part of the discussion to help develop a good category idea.

 

JD

[+The Blue Quasar]

Actually I didn't think you were suggesting that some people would steal other people's Waymark work. But I'm glad that concept came up since there would have to be a policy on this.

 

There are many locations already that fit into multiple Categories. In fact, there are some participants that try to get 5 Waymarks for one location as a challenge. I think that is pretty clever!

 

So, nothing explains things better than an example....

 

Here is a location that is obviously a place that people would want to visit if they were in town... Niagara Falls

 

And yes, there is a Waymark already for it... see it here! Waterfalls - Niagara Falls

 

As it stands right now... unless you either Filter by coordinates, or search the directory for Waterfall.. you may not find it.

 

Worse yet... you decide to "show me ALL of the Waymarks around Niagara Falls"... it would take a while to figure out what you wanted to actually visit. Which you can see at this link ALL Waymarks near Niagara Falls

 

But if the person was able to filter just by a Category of "Tourist Attractions" or something like that, then they could skip the things the didn't want to know about AND hopefully if this Category is working correctly, get detailed descriptions and correct links to this locations. Certainly saving on researching it themselves.

 

So, for the Waymark I used for Niagara Falls... hopefully the Owner would copy their own listing (with additional information if needed) into the new Category. If someone else tried to, then an Officer should contact the original Owner and try to get them to either provide it themselves, or give permission for the other person to list it.

 

Not too sure on that part... that's why I hope to discuss operation with the Officers.

 

Plus, this gives the option of having everything in one tidy package... instead of "Waterfall" for the Falls themselves... "Casino" for Casino Niagara... "Botanical Gardens" for Niagara Botanical Gardens... you get the idea I'm sure.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+JDandDD]

Actually I didn't think you were suggesting that some people would steal other people's Waymark work. But I'm glad that concept came up since there would have to be a policy on this.

 

There are many locations already that fit into multiple Categories. In fact, there are some participants that try to get 5 Waymarks for one location as a challenge. I think that is pretty clever!

 

So, nothing explains things better than an example....

 

Here is a location that is obviously a place that people would want to visit if they were in town... Niagara Falls

 

And yes, there is a Waymark already for it... see it here! Waterfalls - Niagara Falls

 

As it stands right now... unless you either Filter by coordinates, or search the directory for Waterfall.. you may not find it.

 

Worse yet... you decide to "show me ALL of the Waymarks around Niagara Falls"... it would take a while to figure out what you wanted to actually visit. Which you can see at this link ALL Waymarks near Niagara Falls

 

But if the person was able to filter just by a Category of "Tourist Attractions" or something like that, then they could skip the things the didn't want to know about AND hopefully if this Category is working correctly, get detailed descriptions and correct links to this locations. Certainly saving on researching it themselves.

 

So, for the Waymark I used for Niagara Falls... hopefully the Owner would copy their own listing (with additional information if needed) into the new Category. If someone else tried to, then an Officer should contact the original Owner and try to get them to either provide it themselves, or give permission for the other person to list it.

 

Not too sure on that part... that's why I hope to discuss operation with the Officers.

 

Plus, this gives the option of having everything in one tidy package... instead of "Waterfall" for the Falls themselves... "Casino" for Casino Niagara... "Botanical Gardens" for Niagara Botanical Gardens... you get the idea I'm sure.

 

The Blue Quasar

Yep that all makes sense to me. The category in that form would be a great category and I'm on board with that one and would be glad to be an officer in it.

 

I agree than the orginator should be able to place first. Might be a bit of work to make that work to try to figure out who placed a waymark that fits in several categories but that's details that can be worked through.

 

The category is a great idea.

 

JD

[Rayman]

Yes I like this solution too BQ. Plus it also answers my dumb question of who would add Niagara Falls to this category, you or me, since we're both equally close.

 

Actually I didn't think you were suggesting that some people would steal other people's Waymark work. But I'm glad that concept came up since there would have to be a policy on this.

 

There are many locations already that fit into multiple Categories. In fact, there are some participants that try to get 5 Waymarks for one location as a challenge. I think that is pretty clever!

 

So, nothing explains things better than an example....

 

Here is a location that is obviously a place that people would want to visit if they were in town... Niagara Falls

 

And yes, there is a Waymark already for it... see it here! Waterfalls - Niagara Falls

 

As it stands right now... unless you either Filter by coordinates, or search the directory for Waterfall.. you may not find it.

 

Worse yet... you decide to "show me ALL of the Waymarks around Niagara Falls"... it would take a while to figure out what you wanted to actually visit. Which you can see at this link ALL Waymarks near Niagara Falls

 

But if the person was able to filter just by a Category of "Tourist Attractions" or something like that, then they could skip the things the didn't want to know about AND hopefully if this Category is working correctly, get detailed descriptions and correct links to this locations. Certainly saving on researching it themselves.

 

So, for the Waymark I used for Niagara Falls... hopefully the Owner would copy their own listing (with additional information if needed) into the new Category. If someone else tried to, then an Officer should contact the original Owner and try to get them to either provide it themselves, or give permission for the other person to list it.

 

Not too sure on that part... that's why I hope to discuss operation with the Officers.

 

Plus, this gives the option of having everything in one tidy package... instead of "Waterfall" for the Falls themselves... "Casino" for Casino Niagara... "Botanical Gardens" for Niagara Botanical Gardens... you get the idea I'm sure.

 

The Blue Quasar