Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
The Blue Quasar

Official Local Tourism Attractions

11 posts in this topic

Shameless plug for my category.

 

Official Local Tourism Attractions

 

I've seen lots of existing great Waymarks that would fit beautifully into this one. Let's join together and help make a list for people on vacation to find an online travel broucher for most areas!

 

:laughing: The Blue Quasar

 

p.s. okay, I am begging here... I'm not proud of it, but I'm trying to get this one moving. Rose Red has the only Waymarks in it so far.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have contributed two waymarks. I plan to contribute many more tourism waymarks in downtown Portland, Vancouver USA and perhaps Seattle, Washington however I am waiting for others to contribute to the Category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This is a cool category. I just submitted my first one to this category last night and look forward to sharing the rest of our local tourism attractions with the Waymarking community!

0

Share this post


Link to post
The Blue Quasar

p.s. okay, I am begging here... I'm not proud of it, but I'm trying to get this one moving. Rose Red has the only Waymarks in it so far.

Looks like begging helps :mad: Check out the 14 waymarks submitted by manchanegra :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting....I just read the description for the category again. It says, "Exclusions: any attraction not listed on the local city/town/municipal/regional listings. Items on links page are not acceptable. The city/town/municipal/regional URL must contain a description of the attraction on its tourism page. "

 

Here is my recent submission: Linky. The website that I used to reference this tourist spot seems to be the main tourism website for Seattle. Yet they do not describe the attractions in their website, all of them seem to just be links to the attraction's website. I assume that Seattle has so many attractions that they didn't want to bother with descriptions that would take up the whole website. My question....why did this get approved (now that I see that I've seemed to have made a mistake), and what should I do for future Seattle submissions (or even other towns with the same issue) that I intend to submit?

 

Thanks! :mad:

0

Share this post


Link to post

At first I couldn't figure out what you were referring to. I see it now. The Official Tourism site only has a link to the actual site's webpage.

 

Personally I don't see a problem with this kind of item. As long as the location itself is listed on the tourism site for the town or city, it should be sufficient.

 

I will attempt to reword that part.

 

:mad: The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

New version:

 

<p><b>Exclusions:</b> Any attraction not listed on the local city/town/municipal/regional listings. Items on links page are not acceptable. The city/town/municipal/regional URL must contain at least the name of the attraction on its tourism page with a link to the actual location being showcased.

 

Does that work better? If not, can you suggest a method to describe what I'm trying to get across?

 

:mad: The Blue Quasar

0

Share this post


Link to post

New version:

 

<p><b>Exclusions:</b> Any attraction not listed on the local city/town/municipal/regional listings. Items on links page are not acceptable. The city/town/municipal/regional URL must contain at least the name of the attraction on its tourism page with a link to the actual location being showcased.

 

Does that work better? If not, can you suggest a method to describe what I'm trying to get across?

 

:mad: The Blue Quasar

Were you meaning links to other websites that mention the attraction maybe?

 

I think that looks fine. I wanted to make sure I was doing it right! Thanks. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

What I was basically going for was a way to ensure that any Waymark that is proposed is actually a location that a locally operated Tourism group, be it city or state/province, would list on their website.

 

I'm not looking for Travelocity, Yahoo Travel like items or independantly operated websites.

 

There had to be a method to say "Bob's Garage" or "The Hooter-Hut" wasn't going to be submitted. This took us AGES to figure out, since there is no actual way to define "Official" anything.

 

So, as long as the Tourism website is one that is hosted by something along the lines of the local governing council, then it is fine.

 

Even now, typing this, it seems hard to detail. If I recall, the Officers all seemed to know what was the general idea but agreed it was hard to put into words

 

:mad: The Blue Quasar

 

edit: typos

Edited by The Blue Quasar
0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks, BQ and Ambrosia for clearifing. I had a county web page list only county operated things. One was a historical museum and pioneer village. Its discription was given and then the last line said "and the "X" is right next door". Elsewhere on the page was a link to the "X" page. I didn't think that would be allowed so I didn't submit it.

Believe it or not, when I just went back to that county web page, they had updated the page and now it also fits for the former discription of the waymark. :mad: It now gives a one sentence discription of "X" which you click on to see the link.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Actually. This is a very good category to enter.

It could prove to be a fun endeavor.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2