Discrepancies between the category rules and what is approved

[+Torgut]

This is an old topic and one of the most disturbing things in Waymarking, for me. I lost count of cases when the category description presents a set of rules and then they are not followed by the people approving their waymarks. This can sound harmless. But the real problem is that reading the rules makes me discard the category, and then, I found out that it would be all right.

 

Recently and occasionally I found this about the Vietnam Memorials, where apparently US allies memorials can be submitted although the rules say the opposite.

 

Today I found another situation, and this one mess with me, because I clearly remember skipping submitting waymarks to this one on account of the rule.

 

Scenic Overlooks

 

"Instructions for Posting a Scenic Overlooks Waymark:

The scenic overlook has to have a good view. A picture will be needed of the view, and of the actual overlook. It can be any type of overlook that can't be reached by car."

 

Now... this is the short description of the latest approved waymark:

 

Captain James Cook Lookout - Corner Brook, Newfoundland

in Scenic Overlooks

This lookout is accessible by car, and provides great views of scenic Corner Brook.

 

 

And there are plenty of examples out there. People really should updated the published rules if they decide to change the category policies!

[+fi67]

You are completely right!

 

But we have to distinguish between categories where the rules have changed over time and the description was not updated, and the ones that have lazy officers who approve submissions without checking the rules.

[GT.US]

I have a tough time reviewing in the Gi-Normous Everyday Objects category. I get a lot of "But there is another similar" arguments. The rules have changed over the years, and also being a subjective category some reviewers are a little easier than others. What I would like to do is go through and tag the subject line with a [GF] for grandfathered waymarks that wouldn't pass review today.

[+Torgut]

I have a tough time reviewing in the Gi-Normous Everyday Objects category. I get a lot of "But there is another similar" arguments. The rules have changed over the years, and also being a subjective category some reviewers are a little easier than others. What I would like to do is go through and tag the subject line with a [GF] for grandfathered waymarks that wouldn't pass review today.

 

GT.US, there is no space for the subjectivity reason in the thread I started. Look at the two examples I provided, specially the second.... it's totally objective. Rules say that, the description of the waymark says the opposite.

[GT.US]

I have a tough time reviewing in the Gi-Normous Everyday Objects category. I get a lot of "But there is another similar" arguments. The rules have changed over the years, and also being a subjective category some reviewers are a little easier than others. What I would like to do is go through and tag the subject line with a [GF] for grandfathered waymarks that wouldn't pass review today.

 

GT.US, there is no space for the subjectivity reason in the thread I started. Look at the two examples I provided, specially the second.... it's totally objective. Rules say that, the description of the waymark says the opposite.

 

Since reviewers haven't been to each place being waymarked, there is a certain amount of trust that the waymarker is submitting according to the rules necessary. Just looking at a map doesn't tell the reviewer that a scenic overlook isn't reachable by car. Could it be down a flight of stairs? Is 20 feet from parking acceptable, or must it be a mile from parking? If the rule is 50 feet, might you bend the rule for a 49 feet that is really amazing? What might seem clear and concise to one person can seem vague and subjective to another. The best we can do is learn from our mistakes and go on. I have updated category descriptions in an attempt to clarify points.

[+Torgut]

I have a tough time reviewing in the Gi-Normous Everyday Objects category. I get a lot of "But there is another similar" arguments. The rules have changed over the years, and also being a subjective category some reviewers are a little easier than others. What I would like to do is go through and tag the subject line with a [GF] for grandfathered waymarks that wouldn't pass review today.

 

GT.US, there is no space for the subjectivity reason in the thread I started. Look at the two examples I provided, specially the second.... it's totally objective. Rules say that, the description of the waymark says the opposite.

 

Since reviewers haven't been to each place being waymarked, there is a certain amount of trust that the waymarker is submitting according to the rules necessary. Just looking at a map doesn't tell the reviewer that a scenic overlook isn't reachable by car. Could it be down a flight of stairs? Is 20 feet from parking acceptable, or must it be a mile from parking? If the rule is 50 feet, might you bend the rule for a 49 feet that is really amazing? What might seem clear and concise to one person can seem vague and subjective to another. The best we can do is learn from our mistakes and go on. I have updated category descriptions in an attempt to clarify points.

 

Geez man, it says in the description !! The description says the waymark it's against the published rules, still it's accepted. Not an isolated case. It keeps happening in several categories. It's just what I said: they change policies, they don't change rules. People like me who read, trust and follows the rules will have spot excluded, which wouldn't happened if the rules were updated as they should.

 

"What might seem clear and concise to one person can seem vague and subjective to another."

 

RULE: It can be any type of overlook that can't be reached by car."

 

Statement in the waymark: This lookout is accessible by car

 

If this is not "clearly" and "concisely" colliding to everyone reading....

Edited September 6, 2012 by Torgut

[+silverquill]

Okay, time to take a deep breath.

 

You are correct, of course, that this a clear example of a waymark that should not have been approved. There could be many reasons, but probably the reviewing officer did not really read the waymark. (The description itself is very poor). Or, maybe the reviewer is not familiar with the category guidelines. Maybe he was just tired and inattentive.

 

I've made mistakes myself in approving a category that shouldn't have been approved.

 

What to do?

 

Usually a short, polite note to the person who reviewed the waymark is sufficient. That person can then use the "reconsider" function and decline the waymark. I know that I appreciate having someone point out an error like this. If there really is a deeper issue, then other options are available.

 

An alternative would be to send a polite note to the person who submitted the waymark. Probably they just submitted it to the wrong category, since there are two for scenic viewpoints and they are named quite similarly. I have a hard time keeping them straight myself.

 

Mistakes happen.

 

Just find the easiest and most polite way to deal with it.

[+Torgut]

Silverquill, you, like other fellows in this thread, assume that the reason for the occurrence I used as an example was caused for any other reason but the one which inspired this topic. As I said this is an example. What I am denouncing was clearly described by me in the opening post and in some of the following posts and it's a reality: in many categories, the policy changes but not the published rules. I could pick more examples, but I don't think it will be necessary.

 

I will add another situation: when the rules were updated but the Category name will still transmit a totally wrong idea. Example for this: Renaissance Fairs. It came to my attention, when I thought about creating a Medieval Fairs category, that actually most of the waymarks being published in Renaissance Fairs were not about Renaissance but about Medieval times. Initially I actually failed to submit my Medieval fair waymark, as browsing the name of the categories passed me quite a solid idea: it's about Renaissance fairs. Well, it's not.

[+waypointazoid]

To be fair and global, why do we need two categories for fairs? What reason do we have to distinguish them from one another...a fair is a fair, right?

[+Max and 99]

To be fair and global, why do we need two categories for fairs? What reason do we have to distinguish them from one another...a fair is a fair, right?

 

Exactly! Just like a Vietnam War Memorial is a Vietnam War Memorial.

[+waypointazoid]

Am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious when blatant sarcasm is missed?

[+Torgut]

To be fair and global, why do we need two categories for fairs? What reason do we have to distinguish them from one another...a fair is a fair, right?

 

We do not need two categories for fairs, neither I said so. We do need, however, categories with correct naming. You created your Vietnam War Memorials, right? Imagine there was already a Korea War Memorials category. So you browse the list of the categories, you see this one, and you think "ah, there is something we need... a Vietnam War Memorials category". Fair enough. Now, what if in the Korea War Memorials, 75% of the Waymarks were about Vietnam War Memorials? That's exactly what's happening with this fair category. My point is: either stick to what is published (title, rules, etc) or CHANGE it!