Merging Categories

[+TerryDad2]

If it turns out that two approved categories end up overlapping too much, is there a way to merge two categories?

[+Jake39]

How about an "Egg-sample?

[+TerryDad2]

How about an "Egg-sample?

My National Parks of the World and National Parks (U.S.) which I'm an officer on.

 

I'm not trying to stir up trouble or take away anyone's category. I would expect this to come up as more globally oriented categories get created that will overlap the country specific categories that have been created.

[+ChapterhouseInc]

it does seem that these are the 2 categories that will settle this sort of issue.

 

it does seem to be a bit too much overlapping. however this is a good opportunity to mention subcategories. coule it be that there is a national park category that contains a sub category for each nation. TPTB would still 'lead' the national park 'group', and then user groups would manage/create the nation's category--thus, each could have their own icon (different things need different icons).

 

on the other hand, the US category is 'out of line', and needs to become a variable of the 'world' category--as run by the Department of the Interior's National Park Service.

[+Jake39]

on the other hand, the US category is 'out of line', and needs to become a variable of the 'world' category--as run by the Department of the Interior's National Park Service.

I understand your logic, except there is one problem here.

The U.S. - Park was created on 7/12/ 2006

and the -National Park was created on 8/10/2006

 

What do you tell the first "Category Owner and Officers"? ---Take your job and shove it?

[+TerryDad2]

The US Parks was created first and I have no intent on bumping any of them. The idea of a subcategory for each nation is an idea. That does mean that someone would have to head up a category for each nation. It could take a while for all 200 odd nations to be represented.

 

Should National Parks of the World adjust it's criteria to exclude parks in the US? My original intent for this category was to focus on natural parks and not include parks for man-made monuments, battlefields, and other cultural features. This might have differentiated it from the US national parks, but TPTB dropped the natural portion of the title.

 

To leave out national parks in the US would also leave a large hole in a listing of world national parks since the US is part of the world (if not the center of the universe )

[+The Blue Quasar]

There is nothing wrong with the concept of "National Parks (US)". You guys have lots of parks I would imagine.

 

And Americans make up a large majority of the participants of Groundspeak GPS Games. So that category will have a large opportunity to have growth of listings.

 

However, it was suggested by a key person at Groundspeak that people try to make categories that have an international appeal.

 

If I was running the "National Parks of the World", there wouldn't be any US Parks in it since they already have their own category (which also was created first).

 

But that isn't right either... because it promotes a division between America and every other country.

 

Maybe merging the two groups together is a good idea, taking officers from each and let them elect a leader. Then splice the two categories together in "National Parks"

 

But afterall, what's the worst that will happen? People score two points for visiting Yosemite... and only one for Fathom Five. If that is the biggest problem we have... life is good!

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Jake39]

But afterall, what's the worst that will happen? People score two points for visiting Yosemite... and only one for Fathom Five. If that is the biggest problem we have... life is good!

Why not dilute it a little further "Blue Quasar" and let's start a "Canadian National Parks" Category and after that maybe one for "Ontario" and then every other "Province". (Oh - yes and "Territories")

[+ChapterhouseInc]

the argument i see is that those in the 'US' will [primarily] use 'their' category, while someone visiting the US [will] primarily be a participant in the 'world' category.

 

-the US group was first--great idea for a category.

-the World was second--great way to make it global.

-but there will be no more--in no way can you create the 'New Zealand National Parks' category, it is just a variable for the 'National Parks of the World' category......sorry BQ

 

once again i will submit Benchmarks as a good example. It is a selection of specific instances of that type of item.

 

this tree is able to have its branches move and grow 'as we please'.....

[+The Blue Quasar]

ChapterhouseInc Posted Today, 02:17 PM

the argument i see is that those in the 'US' will [primarily] use 'their' category, while someone visiting the US [will] primarily be a participant in the 'world' category.

 

-the US group was first--great idea for a category.

-the World was second--great way to make it global.

-but there will be no more--in no way can you create the 'New Zealand National Parks' category, it is just a variable for the 'National Parks of the World' category......sorry BQ

 

I'm not sure why you are saying sorry to me. I totally agree with you.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Jake39]

 

- -

[+ChapterhouseInc]

 

I'm not sure why you are saying sorry to me. I totally agree with you.

 

The Blue Quasar

 

you are the most prominent waymarker in canada.....

[+tiki-4]

Not that it appears that the topic was dying....

 

Why do we have National Park Stampers and National Parks (U.S.) ???

In over 100 parks that i have visited, i didnt get a stamp at one of them, as they were still waiting for it to arrive.

 

A peer review needs to be established to consolidate overlaps. The process should be simple and spelled out. Some of the current categories should never have gotten the green light, as they clearly duplicate or overlap. Bridges has that issue (moving/vertical lift) and science museum in buildings, while history museums in history/culture?

At least they got rid of the extra lighthouse cat....

[+tiki-4]

Whispering Giant Sculptures & Outside Wooden Display Carvings

 

Did this really need to be two seperate cats?

[+silverquill]

If it turns out that two approved categories end up overlapping too much, is there a way to merge two categories?

 

Difficult.

 

I think this is an inherent problem in the hodge-podge way Waymarking has been developed. We don't have one person, or group of people, sitting down and logically trying to create all possible categories and structure. Categories are created as people have interest in specific things, and then we try to fit them into a some sort of classification system (which needs a lot of work, IMHO). So, this overlap is unavoidable to some degree. And, I'm okay with that. I think this ragged-edge aspect of Waymarking is part of its character and flavor.

 

There have been many instances where a narrowly defined category has been created, and then a more general category created later which could potentially include the earlier, specific category. So, the approach is often, "This category includes everthing except those specific ones which already have their own category," and I think that is just fine.

 

Some overlap is fine, but there are times it seems a bit much. A recent case involved the creation of an Aviation Museum category even though all of them could have been placed in existing categories -- Science Museums or History Museums, for instance, and some were already in these categories. So, now, if I waymark an aviation museum, it already qualifies for at least two or three categories. That is what I call redundancy.

 

As to the National Parks, I think it is reasonable to have U.S. National Parks and a World National Parks category, but only if the latter excludes the former.

 

The real question for me is not merger, but division. So, if there is a World National Parks category, and I want to have a category specifically for Canadian, or Japanese, or African Continent, national parks, can that larger category be subdivided? Could a category leader, or management group, sub-divide its own category if it becomes too large and unweildy?

 

Certainly a lot depends on goodwill and good humor!

[+BruceS]

Whispering Giant Sculptures & Outside Wooden Display Carvings

 

Did this really need to be two seperate cats?

 

In this case probably yes, but mainly due to the order that the categories were created. If the more general Outside Wooden Display Carvings had been created first then probably not. Whispering Giants only consist of less than 100 sculptures by one artist, thus a more general category was needed.

[+tiki-4]

Why not roll them into the other category?

Why did they allow a 100 only listing? For the sake of an old LC?

This was the one hazarad of the LC, to limiting and not enough room to participate. The WM allows multiple visits, but it shouldnt need to be a seperate category. It could be a radial on the OWDC page.

[Jeremy]

 

Certainly a lot depends on goodwill and good humor!

 

The solution will be to allow waymarks to literally overlap each other. We've been talking about the idea of creating relationships between waymarks, like:

 

x waymark is inside y waymark

x waymark is similar to y waymark

x waymark is identical to y waymark

x waymark is related to y waymark

 

Once this is in place we'll end up "stacking" the waymarks so they make sense and so they "merge" their data and attributes in a useful way.

 

So no. I think that in some ways we may end up overlapping categories but it is all for the common good. And I do think there is a certain ragged appeal about this approach.

 

The worst thing to do would be to rely on folksonomies (keywords). *shiver*

[+QuesterMark]

 

Certainly a lot depends on goodwill and good humor!

 

The solution will be to allow waymarks to literally overlap each other. We've been talking about the idea of creating relationships between waymarks, like:

 

x waymark is inside y waymark

x waymark is similar to y waymark

x waymark is identical to y waymark

x waymark is related to y waymark

 

Once this is in place we'll end up "stacking" the waymarks so they make sense and so they "merge" their data and attributes in a useful way.

 

So no. I think that in some ways we may end up overlapping categories but it is all for the common good. And I do think there is a certain ragged appeal about this approach.

 

The worst thing to do would be to rely on folksonomies (keywords). *shiver*

 

It would be nice to be able to hook them together...like if there's a Texas Historical Marker on a Masonic Lodge, for instance. I know they'd be in the list of Nearby Waymarks....I guess what I'm really saying is that it'd be nice to have the same WMxxx ID show up in multiple categories.

[+TerryDad2]

It would be nice to be able to hook them together...like if there's a Texas Historical Marker on a Masonic Lodge, for instance. I know they'd be in the list of Nearby Waymarks....I guess what I'm really saying is that it'd be nice to have the same WMxxx ID show up in multiple categories.

Kind of like submitting a waymark once and checking off the categories it should be listed under instead of having to reinput all the data in multiple add waymark to category forms.

[+The Blue Quasar]

I dunno... maybe I just can't see the bigger picture.

 

I have a few "Multiples" and sometimes I copy the descriptions verbatim, but often I provide a description as it applies to the specific category.

 

Personally I think the "Nearest Waymarks" link is sufficient. Otherwise it will become "This is a 4 Point Waymark Listing.". Also people may have different listing and/or visiting requirements. What if different people submit the same location in different categories? There are a few categories that I refuse to participate in. They just don't interest me, so I left them for others. I don't really want my listings "TIED" to someone else's.

 

Besides, why should people be able to claim a visit for a listing they had no interest in. Just because there is another, or even several more Waymarks at the same spot, maybe they don't want to visit them or didn't read those descriptions.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+ChapterhouseInc]

 

Certainly a lot depends on goodwill and good humor!

 

The solution will be to allow waymarks to literally overlap each other. We've been talking about the idea of creating relationships between waymarks, like:

 

x waymark is inside y waymark

x waymark is similar to y waymark

x waymark is identical to y waymark

x waymark is related to y waymark

 

Once this is in place we'll end up "stacking" the waymarks so they make sense and so they "merge" their data and attributes in a useful way.

 

So no. I think that in some ways we may end up overlapping categories but it is all for the common good. And I do think there is a certain ragged appeal about this approach.

 

The worst thing to do would be to rely on folksonomies (keywords). *shiver*

 

i think it would be great to use the category icons for multi location marks--take a civil war monument, many are both a CWM and on the NRHP, but there is only 1 true x, y, z for the monument. so the desctiprions should display the icon for the current category (CWM) and have the other (NRHP) also displayed--the issue is when the two marks are owned by different users.....

 

and then what about mammoth cave national park? i have marked many of the boundary markers, and every other mark associated with the park is within them.

 

who will choose what marks are similar/identitical/related?

[Jeremy]

 

who will choose what marks are similar/identitical/related?

 

In my mind anyone could set up relationships, but there is more weight for the officer and the person who initially waymarked the location.

[+JimmyEv]

At first I didn't like this redundancy because it's redundant. But now I'm seeing that having overlapping categories allows different people an opportunity to write about the same waymark and put their own spin on it. And it allows people interested in specific things to find them easier (say an art museum's sculpture garden when all you're interested in is sculpture). Overlap is good. You could relate waymarks to one another on a bookmark list. If we had bookmarks.