Cross Posting Waymarks In Different Categories -- Yes or No?

[+TerryDad2 0]

Here I just want to ask a philosophical question about Waymarking design.

 

Later on a person looking for say libraries doesn’t find their “library” in the libraries category because it is listed under “historical buildings” category. Because it was listed in “historical buildings” it will never be listed under libraries given the no nearby waymark rule. Being new to the are they don’t know it’s there thus they will never find it.

 

While this is a simplistic example and how could someone never find a library this example can be applied to many other categories. A botanical garden with a cool water fountain, a McDonalds in the same shopping center as a steakhouse, etc

 

Is this the intent of Waymarking? If this has already been discussed, I couldn’t find it in the forum. Please direct me to that discussion if it has.

[+cache_test_dummies 2]

Later on a person looking for say libraries doesn’t find their “library” in the libraries category because it is listed under “historical buildings” category. Because it was listed in “historical buildings” it will never be listed under libraries given the no nearby waymark rule.

There is no "no nearby waymark" rule. Not only does the site allow waymarks to be in close proximity to other waymarks, the same location or object can be listed under multiple categories.

[+TerryDad2 0]

There is no "no nearby waymark" rule. Not only does the site allow waymarks to be in close proximity to other waymarks, the same location or object can be listed under multiple categories.

 

So if a waymark is denied because it is cross listed in another category it is the perogative of the category reviewer.

Edited July 20, 2006 by TerryDad2

[+BruceS 4]

There is no "no nearby waymark" rule. Not only does the site allow waymarks to be in close proximity to other waymarks, the same location or object can be listed under multiple categories.

 

So if a waymark is denied because it is cross listed in another category it is the perogative of the category reviewer.

 

And it should not be denied. Each category is their own entity with their own requirements. When I have a category cross listed each submission will be different based on the emphasis of the category. In your example of the historic building and the library, I would write about the age and architecture of the building for the historic building category; for the library category I would write about the collection of books and library services.

[+cache_test_dummies 2]

There is no "no nearby waymark" rule. Not only does the site allow waymarks to be in close proximity to other waymarks, the same location or object can be listed under multiple categories.

 

So if a waymark is denied because it is cross listed in another category it is the perogative of the category reviewer.

I've never heard of a waymark being denied for this reason. Do you have an example of a waymark being denied because it was already listed in another category, or was this just a hypothetical situation?

[+TerryDad2 0]

I invited the reviewer to look at this thread and speak for himself. The examples I gave are hypothetical so as to not single the person out, but there is an example.

 

I will say the waymark had a second issue in that exact coordinates could not be obtained due to topography (in a 100 foot deep by 20 foot wide slot canyon). A second reason for denial was that exact coordinates could not be obtained. The reviewer is insisting on exact coordinates, as is his rightful prerogative.

[+NorStar 0]

As an example, I have a plaque that is in both the "Presidental Birthplaces" Category and the "Massachusetts Historic Markers" categories. Each is a separate waymark (using the same waypoint). When I was putting in the waymark for "Presidential Birthplaces" I received no warnings that this was close to the other waymark that had already been entered and accepted. However, when I was putting in a string of historic signs in Cambridge that were less than a tenth mile away from one another but had no relation to one another, I did see a page warning me that the waymark that I was entering was close to these other waymarks. I clicked on the button "Submit Waymark Anyway."

 

So, there is no code that will prevent someone from submitting a waymark. It's up to the category managers to review and approve the waymark. And a feature to the managers that shows the proximity of waymarks in the category to the one submitted would be nice to have, accessible by a button, maybe.

[+mtn-man 1]

I invited the reviewer to look at this thread and speak for himself. The examples I gave are hypothetical so as to not single the person out, but there is an example.

 

I will say the waymark had a second issue in that exact coordinates could not be obtained due to topography (in a 100 foot deep by 20 foot wide slot canyon). A second reason for denial was that exact coordinates could not be obtained. The reviewer is insisting on exact coordinates, as is his rightful prerogative.

Gonna' be hard to respond without being specific, now isn't it.

 

My problem beyond not having coordinates (which I thought was the whole basis of the game), is the way this one is cross listed. I understand and agree with the cross listing points brought up in this topic. This one is different.

 

I see Earthcaches as a potential building problem. Is there a need to cross list an Earthcache? Is the Earthcache type now moot? The waymark in question already is an Earthcache waymark. It features erosion features in that specific area in Zion Nat'l Park. One is the valley itself explaining the difference in how a small stream and a river create the geological features in canyonland country. He then shows potholes and an arch. Now he wants to cross-list the arch. I don't want to get into the semantics of the submission itself in this broad topic. If he wants to submit a topic about his specific waymark, then fine. I have to get somewhat specific to illustrate my point though.

 

I can see Earthcaches being cross-listed into specific categories across the whole spectrum. I think the category type is one that has outlived its usefulness, maybe. I would think that you could put an Earthcache into a specific category very easily. My questions, relating this to the hypothetical question posted which I was asked to respond to:

 

Should I list a waymark in my category that has already been listed as a waymark in the Earthcaches category?

 

Since probably any waymark in the Earthcache category could probably be broken out into an individual category anyway, is it time to eliminate the Earthcache category to cut down on cross-listing the exact same thing?

[+BruceS 4]

 

I see Earthcaches as a potential building problem. Is there a need to cross list an Earthcache? Is the Earthcache type now moot? The waymark in question already is an Earthcache waymark. It features erosion features in that specific area in Zion Nat'l Park. One is the valley itself explaining the difference in how a small stream and a river create the geological features in canyonland country. He then shows potholes and an arch. Now he wants to cross-list the arch. I don't want to get into the semantics of the submission itself in this broad topic. If he wants to submit a topic about his specific waymark, then fine. I have to get somewhat specific to illustrate my point though.

 

I can see Earthcaches being cross-listed into specific categories across the whole spectrum. I think the category type is one that has outlived its usefulness, maybe. I would think that you could put an Earthcache into a specific category very easily. My questions, relating this to the hypothetical question posted which I was asked to respond to:

 

Should I list a waymark in my category that has already been listed as a waymark in the Earthcaches category?

 

Since probably any waymark in the Earthcache category could probably be broken out into an individual category anyway, is it time to eliminate the Earthcache category to cut down on cross-listing the exact same thing?

 

If I understand what you are saying, that being that the Earthcache category is overly broad, I agree. And in time nearly everything that could be listed as an Earthcache could also be listed in another category as new more specific categories get created. I would expect that many of the waymark locations which would qualify for my category "U.S. National Natural Landmarks" would also qualify to be Earthcache listing. I am not going to prevent someone from listing in both places. I also would not want you to deny a natural arch in your category just because it is also listed as one of the U.S. National Natural Landmarks, might be one of the best arches in the country.

[+TerryDad2 0]

I will withdraw the specific arch submittal (http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/details.aspx?f=-1&WTGUID=6e682577-3d89-4153-8d0e-bdb5831e75f3&WMGUID=a70802db-bfef-437c-b9f3-986c6ca80826)to remove the additional complications.

 

I would like to address the issue of crosslisting as you mentioned in mtn-man's private e-mail to me

 

“I don't think we want crosslisted waymarks. I personally don't want them in my category at this time. I need to search the forums and see what the consensus of opinion is. “

 

To keep it somewhat specific, take any one of the arches in Arches NP http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/details...c4-169f25e39b3c. These could be also listed under National Park, Scenic Overlooks, Historic Locals, etc. Should they be or once they are listed in these other categories should they never be listed in the Arches category?

 

In defense of the Earthcache, it should add the educational element completely missing from these other categories. For example, the waterfalls category only tells you where to find them, not the reason they are there or other cool features about the falls. (see http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/details...dd-78ddef6f1e7a vs http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/details...3b-50258288bb1e. And I plant to shamelessly advertise the crosslisting as seen on the waterfall listing.

 

This would go the same for arches, active volcanoes, etc. There are people that just want to see these wonderful features, that is what the individual categories are for. If they want to understand the feature and learn something from it, that is what earthcaches are for. The earthcache is broad because someone with a reputable scientific background needs to review them to make sure bogus info isn’t posted.

Edited July 21, 2006 by TerryDad2

[+mtn-man 1]

I guess that I am trying to understand. Thanks BruceS.

 

For your Nat'l Landmarks example, I would agree with that too. Another great point.

 

Thanks for posting my private email. As I said, I am trying to understand. I've been reading many topics trying to understand better. It is easy enough to accept a waypoint even if it has been denied. If the concensus of opinion is different than mine then a good discussion can sway me, such as some of the good points in this topic.

 

I do think that the earthcache category is too broad. Maybe it could still exist, but if the geological item is found frequently in nature, like arches, then maybe some waymarks that are submitted should be held up while a new category for that type of submission is formed or the Waymarking category owner should direct the submitter to the right waymark category. I just don't think there should be a duplicate earthcache for every earthcache related waymark that has been broken out into a specific category. I think we are going down that road and have had a submission like this.

 

I am going to ask that we break this discussion out into a new topic since we are way off topic at this point. Since I am involved in the topic, I should not moderate it.

Edited July 21, 2006 by mtn-man

[+TerryDad2 0]

Thanks for posting my private email.

 

Poor etiquette. I see that and I apologize. Justified admonishment.

[+mtn-man 1]

Thanks for posting my private email.

 

Poor etiquette. I see that and I apologize. Justified admonishment.

Thank you! Accepted and no worries. On with the discussion. No angst, I love it!

 

EDITED TO ADD: Thanks OpinioNate for spliting this discussion out into its own topic.

Edited July 21, 2006 by mtn-man

[+Miragee 2]

I see Earthcaches as a potential building problem. Is there a need to cross list an Earthcache? Is the Earthcache type now moot? The waymark in question already is an Earthcache waymark. It features erosion features in that specific area in Zion Nat'l Park. One is the valley itself explaining the difference in how a small stream and a river create the geological features in canyonland country. He then shows potholes and an arch. Now he wants to cross-list the arch. I don't want to get into the semantics of the submission itself in this broad topic. If he wants to submit a topic about his specific waymark, then fine. I have to get somewhat specific to illustrate my point though.

 

I can see Earthcaches being cross-listed into specific categories across the whole spectrum. I think the category type is one that has outlived its usefulness, maybe. I would think that you could put an Earthcache into a specific category very easily. My questions, relating this to the hypothetical question posted which I was asked to respond to:

 

Should I list a waymark in my category that has already been listed as a waymark in the Earthcaches category?

 

Since probably any waymark in the Earthcache category could probably be broken out into an individual category anyway, is it time to eliminate the Earthcache category to cut down on cross-listing the exact same thing?

If I understand what you are saying, that being that the Earthcache category is overly broad, I agree. And in time nearly everything that could be listed as an Earthcache could also be listed in another category as new more specific categories get created. I would expect that many of the waymark locations which would qualify for my category "U.S. National Natural Landmarks" would also qualify to be Earthcache listing. I am not going to prevent someone from listing in both places. I also would not want you to deny a natural arch in your category just because it is also listed as one of the U.S. National Natural Landmarks, might be one of the best arches in the country.

I agree with BruceS. I can see how something one person finds might fit in one category, but also fits into another category. I don't see why it should not be cross-listed, as long as the category criteria are met. Earthcaches have lots of Geology information on their pages. An arch found amidst that geological feature wouldn't have all that information.

 

As another type of example, what if a Thrift Store that will be managed by the Bargain Hunters group (which needs members, by the way ) is logged as a Thrift Store waymark but someone else comes along and notices only the historic building the Thrift Store occupies? What if the building has a Ginormous Everyday object outside of it?

 

It could happen . . .

[+TheBeanTeam 1]

Cross posting is a feature that I like and I would hate to see restrictions placed on a particular waymark only because it happened to be listed elsewhere. I have several that I have cross posted already. Each of the waymarks has been unique in that the information for each is different. Earthcaches should be heavy on earth science information. I have a waymark for the earthcache category in mind that would explain columnar basalt. This same area happens to be a popular local climbing area and when the climbing area category goes on line (assuming it does) I will want to post it there as well. The climing waymark will not be heavy on earth science info at all. Different information. Different purposes. Different waymarks. They just happen to be of the same feature. Some folks may never see the columar basalt waymark. But if the climbing area management group doesn't allow a cross post of waymarks (hypothetical) It is guaranteed that the waymarkers who are interested in that catefory will never see it. If it is cross posted someone may hit the nearby waymarks button and say "hey cool, I didn't know that about those rocks".

 

Cross posting IMO should be encouraged.

 

edited for clarity

Edited July 22, 2006 by TheBeanTeam

[+mtn-man 1]

Interesting. Thanks for continued replies. Please keep them coming. Maybe I am thinking too much like a purist type geocacher. With Waymarking, are we trying to bring attention to these things in as many ways as we can?

[+chstress53 0]

Please read these old threads regarding this topic and Jeremy's response. Cross posting is encouraged and there will eventually be a way to find specifics. i.e. "STACK " them so that you can read different things about the same exact location.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...l=cross-posting

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=129077&hl=

Edited July 22, 2006 by chstress53

[+mtn-man 1]

Thanks for the links! I may have some cross listing to do then.

 

[Aushiker 1]

G'day

 

Good to see this thread. Very timely for me as having just got back from a week's geocaching and Waymarking road trip, this very issue of cross posting has come up in the context of campsites. Currently there are two categories for campsites that I am aware of - Campgrounds and Free Campsites.

 

Some of the places I camped at during the trip are free camping areas and I would not call them "campgrounds" and so would not have a problem listing them once, however, a few places we either stayed at or visited are more structured camping areas (e.g., have facilities such as toilets, fire rings, pinic tables etc) and therefore would fit in the campgrounds category and because they are free, they would also fit the free campsites category. My concern is that there is nothing to really distinguish them from one category to the other, unlike some of the suggested cross-postings in this thread.

 

All this leads to the question, is it okay to list these structured camping areas in both categories even though the listings will be virtually the same?

 

Personally I would I would prefer the single category with maybe more defining variables but that is another discussion.

 

Regards

Andrew

[+mikemtn 1]

Thanks for the links! I may have some cross listing to do then.

 

 

Hunting Island State Park Lighthouse would fit nicely in The National Register of Historic Places category. I don't think it's been done and it would save me giving them another $3.00 or whatever it costs to go back and take a picture.

 

Mike