Jump to content

'us' Nrhp Category Discussion


Recommended Posts

so, in my approving of submitions just now it has posed a question--though in doing my own researching for submitions and in monitoring the submition emails it is noticable.....

 

the issue is that of the 'places' on the register labeled as 'Boundary Increase'.

 

i have choosen not to categorize these 'places' as seperate from the original point. for all intensive purposes they just make the original 'place' larger in area. in marking these 'districts' i try to choose a central point for my waymarks. waymarks are set up to only have 1 coord set, where as boundary increases my require more than 1 point, and since the 'center' is already posted, what mark do you use?

 

so then, i pose the question to the masses: are boundary increases valid as seperate marks, or should they be incorporated into the 'original location'?

 

submitting them as seperate marks is almost classifiable as number inflation. i would suggest that they be treated as the same mark, with the extentions included in the description.

 

your most basic scenerio would be 'your town square', usually with the courthouse being the central point or close to it. so you submit 'your town square district' (for example: Union Station). Instead of submitting the boundary increase as a seperate mark (for example: Union Station Boundary Increase), take points at the new boundary (as in the 'four corners' of the boundary) and include them in the 'original' waymark.

 

i an not calling anyone out on this, i just found the first 2 examples already posted in the category to use as examples.

this category has been through some harsh words in the recent past. we are trying to work to avoid any more in the future.

Link to comment

Nothing would please me more than to see "districts" taken out of the category altogether and just allow NRHP sites that are a single structure or related group of structures. Districts are too nebulous. Where do you mark the waymark. The center? How do you define this? What if it's boring and not photogenic? Do you attempt to waymark each of the four corners? Could be a lot of work.

 

I vote for allowing one entry for a "district" and not two or more simply because the boundaries of the district increased.

 

If I could use a real world example for a new category - City Halls. If a city hall is waymarked and new addition is built on that city hall, another waymarker couldn't place another City Hall waymark on the addition, right? The same should apply to NRHP and be so stated in the requirements.

 

There are those who will play the game just to rack up numbers. Two or more waymarks for the same district is unnecessary.

 

sbk

 

 

so, in my approving of submitions just now it has posed a question--though in doing my own researching for submitions and in monitoring the submition emails it is noticable.....

 

the issue is that of the 'places' on the register labeled as 'Boundary Increase'.

 

i have choosen not to categorize these 'places' as seperate from the original point. for all intensive purposes they just make the original 'place' larger in area. in marking these 'districts' i try to choose a central point for my waymarks. waymarks are set up to only have 1 coord set, where as boundary increases my require more than 1 point, and since the 'center' is already posted, what mark do you use?

 

so then, i pose the question to the masses: are boundary increases valid as seperate marks, or should they be incorporated into the 'original location'?

 

submitting them as seperate marks is almost classifiable as number inflation. i would suggest that they be treated as the same mark, with the extentions included in the description.

 

your most basic scenerio would be 'your town square', usually with the courthouse being the central point or close to it. so you submit 'your town square district' (for example: Union Station). Instead of submitting the boundary increase as a seperate mark (for example: Union Station Boundary Increase), take points at the new boundary (as in the 'four corners' of the boundary) and include them in the 'original' waymark.

 

i an not calling anyone out on this, i just found the first 2 examples already posted in the category to use as examples.

this category has been through some harsh words in the recent past. we are trying to work to avoid any more in the future.

Link to comment

If I knew then, what I know now, I would have suggested the exclusion of districts entirely, but I didn't. Districts introduce several undesirable issues, including the one you mention. District extensions are suspect, but the rules as they are stated today do not exclude them.

 

Do you have a rule that you'd like to propose?

 

While we're amending the rules, we ought to take a position regarding individual structures within a district. The rules do not prohibit Waymarking multiple structures within a district.

Link to comment

In general I would agree that district are difficult even for the lister. However there are exception where very significant historic sites would be left out as they are only listed as districts. Two that come to mind were two very historic churches I listed in Florissant, Missouri. One was was constructed in the 1820 and the other in 1866, in both cases these buildings were only listed as parts of the two districts (though in both cases they were the most significant contributing site in each district). Other sites which are also listed typically as districts are historic farms. Other examples of districts I have run across are colleges including Washington University Hilltop Campus District in St. Louis which is significant enough to be listed as a National Historic Landmark (a much tougher criteria than being only on the registry of historic places)

 

I do not think it is right to list a boundary increase in addition to the original listing. In many cases the increase is so insignificant and is done solely for tax purposes.

 

My recommendation is to allow districts but only one listing for the district including any boundary increases. All other should be entered as logs with additional pictures contained with the logs.

Edited by BruceS
Link to comment

Historic District's have also raised questions in my mind.

 

I have one Historic District, "Spring Grove Borough", entered and was not sure how to enter it due to the district covering a large area and several streets, so I entered the district showing about six different building's, but did not list coordinates for each building site. Should someone want to look up these historic sites they would have to walk all over the district looking for them.

 

Would it help in a district, if each photo's taken within the district had coordinates with them?

 

I agree that a rule(s) need to be adopted or Historic District's eliminated.

Link to comment

thanks for your quick and thoughtful responses.

 

i appears that we are all of a similar mindset about districts.

 

in an effort to keep this category spirited with NRHP, i feel that districts should still be allowed, with 1 point 'in the center of the district'. though these are hard to sumbit/manage, it is often the case that they are blanket classification for areas where individual structures are not quite vaild for NRHP status. it might also be something of a 'locationless' idea.....mark a point for the district, and maybe provide points/descriptions of how far the area extends.

 

if it happens that a site with in that district is also listed on the register, then it becomes a valid submition for another mark in the category. otherwise, those who visit the district can proceede to the center and take their 'i been there' pic, and maybe even find some other aspect of the district that appeals to them, and include pics/coords/info (if known) in their logs.

 

therefore in layman's terms:

it appears that the exclusion of districts is not a valid plan of action.

 

if you have posted a boundary extention previously, take the initiative to merge it with the original mark, archiving the increasing mark. the category group will be contacting owners of such marks requesting that this happen when we get a chance to locate them within the existing waymarks.

 

the NRHP group will update the category description (rules) to include a statement about this issue in the coming days (today is a holiday).

 

sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused anyone. just undergoing some routine peer review processing in an effort to maintain the integrity of the NRHP category.

Chapterhouse

Edited by ChapterhouseInc
Link to comment

thanks for your quick and thoughtful responses.

 

i appears that we are all of a similar mindset about districts.

If by "we", you mean the few people who have been involved in this thread, okay.

 

 

in an effort to keep this category spirited with NRHP, i feel that districts should still be allowed, with 1 point 'in the center of the district'. though these are hard to sumbit/manage, it is often the case that they are blanket classification for areas where individual structures are not quite vaild for NRHP status. it might also be something of a 'locationless' idea.....mark a point for the district, and maybe provide points/descriptions of how far the area extends.

I don't know how the ordinary waymarker will determine the "center of the district", so making that a requirement will be problematic. Letting the individual waymarker use their judgment regarding the most suitable location for the waymark encourages innovation and creativity on the part of the waymark "owner", while not violating the spirit of the "game".

 

I would expect that district entries would attempt to describe the boundaries of the district; that may be difficult in some areas because the needed information (such as a map) may be difficult to locate on the WWW.

 

if it happens that a site with in that district is also listed on the register, then it becomes a valid submition for another mark in the category. otherwise, those who visit the district can proceede to the center and take their 'i been there' pic, and maybe even find some other aspect of the district that appeals to them, and include pics/coords/info (if known) in their logs.

 

therefore in layman's terms:

it appears that the exclusion of districts is not a valid plan of action.

 

if you have posted a boundary extention previously, take the initiative to merge it with the original mark, archiving the increasing mark. the category group will be contacting owners of such marks requesting that this happen when we get a chance to locate them within the existing waymarks.

 

This is a proposal. We're debating this proposal right now. A decision will be made at the end of the debate.

 

 

the NRHP group will update the category description (rules) to include a statement about this issue in the coming days (today is a holiday).

Yes, the category description will be updated to reflect decisions made at the end of the debate.

 

 

sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused anyone. just undergoing some routine peer review processing in an effort to maintain the integrity of the NRHP category.

Chapterhouse

No one should be inconvenienced, since the category description (the rules) haven't changed. When they do, some people may, indeed, be inconvenienced.

Link to comment

Well, I am going to make your discussion even more complicated if that is possible. I have found several historic buildings in Old Town/Chinatown, Portland, OR with bronze plaques stating that "This property has been placed on the NR of HP by the U.S. Department of the Interior." However, these buildings are not on the NRHP list nor are they included in the lists that the city maintains of Historic Landmark buildings and objects in the Historic Districts. Do I submit those buildings since there is a bronze plaque? Or do those buildings need to have both: appear on one or the other lists plus have a bronze historic plaque. And what about buildings that appear on one or the other lists but DO NOT have bronze plaques? Do I submit those buildings even though they do not have a bronze plaques that I can photograph and submit with my waymarks.

Link to comment

Well, I am going to make your discussion even more complicated if that is possible. I have found several historic buildings in Old Town/Chinatown, Portland, OR with bronze plaques stating that "This property has been placed on the NR of HP by the U.S. Department of the Interior." However, these buildings are not on the NRHP list nor are they included in the lists that the city maintains of Historic Landmark buildings and objects in the Historic Districts.

 

If you check you will find that these buildings are in a historical district and are considered a "contributing" building in the district. Any building which is considered to be "contributing" within in the district is eligible to place the sign and also eligible for the tax credits available to an individually listed building. When a district is submitted each building in the proposed district is "survey" and determined to be "contributing" or "non-contributing"

 

I had the same question about these "extra" signs and that is what my research revealed.

Link to comment

in an effort to keep this category spirited with NRHP, i feel that districts should still be allowed, with 1 point 'in the center of the district'. though these are hard to sumbit/manage, it is often the case that they are blanket classification for areas where individual structures are not quite vaild for NRHP status. it might also be something of a 'locationless' idea.....mark a point for the district, and maybe provide points/descriptions of how far the area extends.

 

 

The center of the district may cause some problems. First determining where it is and second it may end up being a "non-contributing" portion of the district. I usually pick the most significant place in the district or a good representation of the district, this is what I take the picture of and post on front page. I do like the idea that if additional photos are taken then the coordinates for those photos should be listed in the description of the photo. One other consideration is how you want the address of the district listed and where. Some of the address descriptions are quite long and not really suited to the address box.

Link to comment

And what about buildings that appear on one or the other lists but DO NOT have bronze plaques? Do I submit those buildings even though they do not have a bronze plaques that I can photograph and submit with my waymarks.

 

The category does not require a photo of the plaque. Of the several sites I have listed most do not have the plaque on the building even though they are listed. The individual owning the building has to pay for the plaque and to have it posted. Many people do not want to do this. In other cases the plaque is deemed as detracting from the appearance of the building and the owners choice not to post it.

Link to comment

The Couch Block 1906 located at 24-26 NW Second Avenue, Portland, Oregon has a bronze plaque: "This Property has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places by the U.S. Department of the Interior." However it does not appear on any lists either national or district. Can I create a waymark since it has a bronze plaque even though it is not on any lists?

Edited by Rose Red
Link to comment

You have to ask yourself what is the point of Waymarking. Is it just to rack up numbers? I have created 18 historical geocaches. If you just want to rack up numbers, you do not want to do my historical geocaches. They are not easy geocaches with one or two exceptions. And all you get at the end is a small log sheet. However, if you want to learn about an area, you will learn with my geocaches. The same should hold true with waymarks. You should learn about a town or a district within the town. Think about the incredible buildings or objects that you will not be able to share with other waymarkers when you restrict the category. One of my districts may only one Historic Landmark in it that I wish to share with other waymarkers however another district may have several Historic Landmarks. Will they never be shared with another waymarker or, like Solomon, will I have to choose which one gets picked with the exclusion of the other great historic buildings. Once again, you have to ask yourself what is the point of this category. It should be fun. It should be the joy of sharing a special building or object.

Link to comment

The center of the district may cause some problems. First determining where it is and second it may end up being a "non-contributing" portion of the district. I usually pick the most significant place in the district or a good representation of the district, this is what I take the picture of and post on front page. I do like the idea that if additional photos are taken then the coordinates for those photos should be listed in the description of the photo.

This sounds like a great approach to the challenge of listing "districts".

Link to comment

The Couch Block 1906 located at 24-26 NW Second Avenue, Portland, Oregon has a bronze plaque: "This Property has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places by the U.S. Department of the Interior." However it does not appear on any lists either national or district. Can I create a waymark since it has a bronze plaque even though it is not on any lists?

Is it physically within the geographic boundaries of a listed district?

Link to comment

The Couch Block 1906 located at 24-26 NW Second Avenue, Portland, Oregon has a bronze plaque: "This Property has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places by the U.S. Department of the Interior." However it does not appear on any lists either national or district. Can I create a waymark since it has a bronze plaque even though it is not on any lists?

Is it physically within the geographic boundaries of a listed district?

 

The Couch Block is located at 24-26 NW Second Avenue, Portland, Oregon in the same district one block east of The Merchants Hotel (1880) (1884) which is located at 123 NW 2nd Avenue. The Couch Block and the Merchants Hotel are located in the Portland Skidmore/Old Town Historic District (added 1975 - Multnomah County); Also known as Skidmore/Old Town Historic District roughly bounded by Harbor Drive (now called Naito Pkwy/Front Avenue), Everett, NW 3rd Avenue, and Oak Street, Portland (440 acres, 30 buildings, 1 object--White Stag Sign).

 

Whereas the Merchants Hotel appears on the District List (http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/index.cfm?c=30429) the Couch Block is NOT listed with either the NRHP or the District. However it does have a bronze plaque: "This Property has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places by the U.S. Department of the Interior."

Edited by Rose Red
Link to comment

The Couch Block is located at 24-26 NW Second Avenue, Portland, Oregon in the same district one block east of The Merchants Hotel (1880) (1884) which is located at 123 NW 2nd Avenue. The Couch Block and the Merchants Hotel are located in the Portland Skidmore/Old Town Historic District (added 1975 - Multnomah County); Also known as Skidmore/Old Town Historic District roughly bounded by Harbor Drive (now called Naito Pkwy/Front Avenue), Everett, NW 3rd Avenue, and Oak Street, Portland (440 acres, 30 buildings, 1 object--White Stag Sign).

 

Whereas the Merchants Hotel appears on the District List (http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/index.cfm?c=30429) the Couch Block is NOT listed with either the NRHP or the District. However it does have a bronze plaque: "This Property has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places by the U.S. Department of the Interior."

 

I am not sure why Portland does not list the Couch Block on their website. If you look at Property Tax Page this property is listed an qualifying historic property. (The tax records don't match up with the addresses you gave but I think I have the right property) It is bounded on the north and south by non-contributing properties. This locaton is contained in Portland Skidmore/Old Town Historic District (even though not listed on Portland website it is within the boundary) It is not listed as individual site. The reason it has the plaque is because it is within the district boundaries and as indicated from the tax record it is a historic property within in the district.

 

Don't get confused by the designation of Historic Landmark on the Portland site and think it is same as National Historic Landmarks. There are only 2 National Historic Landmarks in Portland one of which is the Portland Skidmore/Old town Historic District and the other being Pioneer Courthouse.

 

edit to fix link

Edited by BruceS
Link to comment

The Couch Block is located at 24-26 NW Second Avenue, Portland, Oregon in the same district one block east of The Merchants Hotel (1880) (1884) which is located at 123 NW 2nd Avenue. The Couch Block and the Merchants Hotel are located in the Portland Skidmore/Old Town Historic District (added 1975 - Multnomah County); Also known as Skidmore/Old Town Historic District roughly bounded by Harbor Drive (now called Naito Pkwy/Front Avenue), Everett, NW 3rd Avenue, and Oak Street, Portland (440 acres, 30 buildings, 1 object--White Stag Sign).

 

Whereas the Merchants Hotel appears on the District List (http://www.portlandonline.com/planning/index.cfm?c=30429) the Couch Block is NOT listed with either the NRHP or the District. However it does have a bronze plaque: "This Property has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places by the U.S. Department of the Interior."

 

I am not sure why Portland does not list the Couch Block on their website. If you look at Property Tax Page this property is listed an qualifying historic property. (The tax records don't match up with the addresses you gave but I think I have the right property) It is bounded on the north and south by non-contributing properties. This locaton is contained in Portland Skidmore/Old Town Historic District (even though not listed on Portland website it is within the boundary) It is not listed as individual site. The reason it has the plaque is because it is within the district boundaries and as indicated from the tax record it is a historic property within in the district.

 

Don't get confused by the designation of Historic Landmark on the Portland site and think it is same as National Historic Landmarks. There are only 2 National Historic Landmarks in Portland one of which is the Portland Skidmore/Old town Historic District and the other being Pioneer Courthouse.

 

edit to fix link

Well, this could certainly get very complicated. I know that there is a difference between the city use of "Historic Landmarks" and the use of "National Historic Landmarks." I have only submitted historic buildings that have the designation "Historic Landmark" on the city lists of Historic Districts. I am not comfortable with either the Noncontributing or Contributing Structure under Resource Status even though it has eliminated some really great historical buildings (some even have the bronze plaques "This property has been placed on the National Register of Historic Properties by the U.S. Department of the Interior.")

Edited by Rose Red
Link to comment

If you start eliminating Boundary Increases and historical buildings in Districts you are going to eliminate some great historical buildings.

 

If you combine Boundary Increases with the Original Locations even though they may be a mile or so apart (for example Bonneville Dam/Visitor Center and the Bonneville Fish Hatchery), you could list both coordinates, both set of photos, and both descriptions in a very, very long waymark. And you could require that the waymarker visit both locations before they received credit for the waymark.

 

As for historic buildings in Districts you could list some or all of the historic buildings in logs under the category of Districts including the coordinates, photos and descriptions in a very, very long waymark. The waymarker could chose which of the historic buildings that they wish to visit in that District and get credit for the waymark.

 

Both proposals would eliminate the problem of numbers. Is that what Waymarking is really all about? How many waymarks can I create? Who has created the most waymarks and where do I stand in that list. And not how many really great historic buildings can I share with another waymarker.

Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...