Bogus/Excessive Requirements…

[+Bob Blaylock]

  This touches somewhat on this thread and also on this one.

 

  What is Waymarking really about, and what ought to be required in order to create a Waymark, or to log a find on an existing Waymark?

 

  It seems to me that at its core, what Waymarking is about is getting out and personally visiting the locations in question; seeing what is there to see, and possibly participating in whatever that location is about.

 

  In this thread I made mention of a benchmark that I discovered over a year ago, that I would like to post as a Waymark.  I have not been allowed to do so because I cannot produce a photograph of it.  At the time I discovered it, I did not have a camera with me.  The only digital camera that I own is not of sufficient quality to take a clear picture of something as small as this benchmark.  I do have some high-quality stone-aged film cameras, but by the time I get to taking one of them out to where the benchmark is, taking the picture, getting it developed, scanning it, and such…well, to be blunt, it's just not worth that much trouble.  And beside that, Waymarking isn't about what equipment I happen to own, and what I can do with it; it's about visiting the actual location.  I've been to the location; I discovered the benchmark; I've copied down all the information therefrom; I've recorded its location with my GPS.  By any reasonable interpretation of what Waymarking is all about, I ought to be able to claim this as a Waymark.  I'm only being prevented from doing so by arbitrary technical requirements that have nothing whatsoever to do with what Waymarking is really about.

 

  OK, that's the old rant.  The new one isn't so bad.  Yesterday, I submitted a Waymark in a different category, and it was promptly approved.  But I must take issue with some of the requirements there as well.  My new waymark is http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/details...4d-40e58f207cf5.  I had previously noted the existence of this category, noted that this particular example was not yet listed as a Waymark, and made note of what the requirements were for posting it.  As my wife and I had plans to visit this location, I took along my digital camera; and worried that it might not be able to take sufficiently good pictures to satisfy the reviewer, I also took along a stone-aged film camera of considerably better quality.  (As it happened, I was able to get sufficiently good pictures wth the digital, so I did not use the stone-aged camera.)

 

  I recognize the validity of establishing some requirements in order to post a Waymark, along the lines of establishing that the person submitting it has actually been to the location, has made a measurement of the coordinates with his GPS, and can establish the location as being worthy of listing as a Waymark.  The requirements for submitting a Waymark in the category seem a bit excessive; but not horribly so.

 

  What strikes me about this category, however, is that once a Waymark is established, the requirements for logging it are stricter than those for submitting a new waymark; and they are not well-presented, either.

 

To post a log for waymarks, you must complete the same requirements as posting a waymark, as well as post a picture of something in addition to the identification sign. This can be information you obtained from the Internet or from your visit. If there is a visitor's center on site, you must take a picture in front of the visitor's center.

 

  To begin with “To post a log for waymarks, you must complete the same requirements as posting a waymark…”.  It is not conveniently defined for the person seeking to log a find to this Waymark what the requirements are for posting a Waymark.  The user would have to go to a significant amount of effort to find this information listed elsewhere.  The instructions that he hopefully would be able to find elsewhere and comply with read…

 

In order to log this waymark you must visit the temple grounds and take TWO PICTURES:

 

A picture the temple sign AND a photo of the temple itself. One photo must include your GPS unit.

 

These must be HQ shots, no low resolution camera phones please. Clear, daytime photos only.

 

  That's the requirement that I had to meet in order to submit this Waymark.  This required significant preparation on my part, that I really do not think ought to be required of one who visits this location, and thereafter wants to log a find on it.  As cameras are not allowed inside the building, people who are coming here to use this facility for its intended purpose may very well not wish to bring along valuable cameras that they will be required to either leave in their cars or check in at the front desk.

  

  

  

  I think that anyone who hereafter visits to this site, ought to be able to log his visit.  I think that logging an existing Waymark ought to be no more difficult — and probably considerably less difficult — than submitting a new Waymark.  In this case, however, it's more difficult.  To log an existing Waymark in this category, one must meet the same requirements as for submitting one “… as well as post a picture of something in addition to the identification sign. This can be information you obtained from the Internet or from your visit.”  Aside from my objection to the fact that logging this Waymark has additional requirements beyond what I had to meet to submit it, I find this instruction vague.  It's not at all clear what would be acceptable to fulfill this additional requirement.

 

  I also find it very odd that the Internet is cited as a source from which one may obtain a picture to post to fulfill this requirement.  The point of any picture or other information that might be required of one in logging a visit would be to prove that that one actually did personally visit the location.  I don't see how anything obtained from the Internet would be at all relevant to this purpose.

 

  If a particular Temple also has a Visitors' Center (this one doesn't) then one is required to take a picture in front of it as well in order to log a Visit.  Again, I think this is just plain excessive.

  

  

  

  I guess what I'm really going on about is that Waymarking is about visiting locations; not about taking pictures or meeting other arbitrary requirements.  I recognize some validity to the idea that one should provide some evidence that one actually has visited the location in question, but a lot of the requirements I am seeing go rather far beyond that.

Edited October 9, 2006 by Bob Blaylock

[+The Blue Quasar]

Very interesting read, IMHO.

 

And you're right that there has been much discussion on the topic of Waymark Requirements, both Creating and Visiting.

 

I would certainly hope that the example you have provided is the exception, and not the norm.

 

In my mind...

Creating a Waymark should be more involved than Visiting. This is mostly because of creativity. When someone is Creating a new Waymark Listing, I believe they should be researching the location and providing details and information along with images to enhance the listing. Basically make the idea of Visiting the Waymark more appealing. Sometimes this isn't possible, but for a majority of listings it is.

 

Visiting a Waymark on the other hand should be a relaxing opportunity to see first hand what the listing has to offer. There should be a 'Proof of Visit' portion, normally an image taken at the Waymark. This should only require a minimal amount of time so as to not detract from Visiting the Waymark itself.

 

As with most things in life, Creating a Waymark should take more effort than Visiting one. But the entire process should be focused on having fun.

 

Over time, either the Groups that are managing the 'difficult to participate in' categories will edit their requirements, or people will find other categories to participate in instead.

 

The Blue Quasar

[+Crystal Sound]

I wont repeat what I just posted in the "Camera-less revolution" thread, although I'm really tempted to cut&paste.

 

I think that any/all requirements should be kept relatively simple. I dont see how making people jump through a bunch of hoops, is going to help Waymarking's popularity.

 

I think we need to follow the K.I.S.S. principle. IF we dont, then people just wont go through the hassle.

[+5winters]

I am the current category manager for the LDS temple category that Mr. Blalock is complaining about. I was promoted to the leader after the category creator, who that is I don't even know, quit. I didn't write the category or make the decision on what is needed to do the waymark. I received a very long rant via mail than I haven't had time to look at or digest. Sorry I have a Life and a Job. I haven't had time to address your concern. We had a bogus waymark submitted near the waymark Mr. Blalock submitted that was blank which had been denied by another manager. If Mr. Blalock has a problem with how categorys are run he should do it himself. I myself am reconsidering doing anymore Waymarking.

 

text of email sent to me

 

(text removed)

Edited October 10, 2006 by 5winters

[OpinioNate]

It's generally considered to be in poor form to reproduce someone's personal correspondence. I know that when it happens to me it feels a bit like forgetting to zip my fly.

 

/derail