Duplicate Category

[+chstress53]

Just putting this out there. There is a new Category up for review about Old Grave and it is a duplicate of this Category http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/default...e6-c6bf9969aa30

Edited September 2, 2006 by chstress53

[+Jake39]

Your right !!! it is a duplicate category submission.

If they were to change it to pioneer or historic it would pass muster but not as abandoned, regardless of it being historic or not.

My 99 Cents analysis.

[+The Blue Quasar]

I'm not so sure that it is a duplicate category

 

The "Abandoned Cemeteries" category seems to me to be more of "Completely unmaintained and isolated"

 

I think, and I may be wrong, that this proposal is more of a "No Longer available for burials but still being tended to"

 

I have noticed many cemeteries in my travels for the other Groundspeak game that I would love to include, but didn't feel they fit in the Abandoned Cemeteries category because they aren't abandoned. People cut the grass, there is a maintained fence, etc... but there doesn't appear to be any method to, how do I put this... be added to.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

edit: based on Robert's next message.... I agree that a re-write might help clear up any confusion. I had nothing to do with this proposal, and I suggested the same as Robert in my vote.

Edited September 3, 2006 by The Blue Quasar

[+robert]

I saw it as a duplicate as well. With a rewrite it may be able to work. It was written as abandoned and historic, but then said the requirements to add it must be historic. If it can differentiate itself from the abandoned and other similar categories (ie the other historic ones such as Revolutionary War gravesites) etc it might fly.

 

[+ChapterhouseInc]

i thought it was different--as i have not found any that i felt met the specifications of the abandoned category--as with the ones in Mammoth Cave National Park. They are maintained, in that some are groomed and those in the backcountry get maintnance every few years (to protect them from their environment [trees] and prescribed burns). the description should be reworded to prevent confusion, and refrencing the other category. the abandoned category could do the same.

[+BruceS]

The way this category's description was written, I was not sure what cemeteries they wanted in the category. Depending on how one read the description it could easily be seen as a duplicate of Abandoned Cemeteries. In the description when it refers to cemeteries not allowing further burials as forgotten is far from accurate. Many U.S. National Cemeteries administered by the V.A. do not allow further burials because they are full... they are far from forgotten. Determining the historic "value" of a cemetery is problematic. What makes a cemetery historic? Is it who is buried there? Or maybe when it was created? What criteria is appropriate? My feeling was that the category description needed work to clear up what was desired as submissions.