Daymarks/Baken

[+lumbricus]

Hi,

kallehaugerne asked me today where to post 'Baken'/'Daylights'. I talked with Bruce about it. Some time ago there had been a thread in the forum, I can't find it.

 

Baken1

 

Baken2

 

Daymark

 

Baken3

 

Kingswear Daymark Tower

 

Gribbin Daymark

 

Daymark, St. Martins

 

What do you think?

 

-lumbricus

Edited February 22, 2013 by lumbricus

[+UMainah]

Some can be pretty mundane, but there are many that could be a very good waymark. Where you thinking of adding some restrictions?

Here are some along the coast of New England:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[+BruceS]

The ones I have seen along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers (and there are several) are of the more mundane type. I am sure there are some interesting ones too, just those I have seen are just big colored red or green signs.

[+lumbricus]

The coloured signs are really boring. Perhaps we could combine the nice ones with the existing lighthouse category. (But: There's no light) :/ I'm afraid that the number of great ones will be too small for an own category.

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

In the US, many of these daymarks are also benchmarks and could go in that category. Unfortunately, the benchmark navigation aids we have found are of the pretty mundane type -- dayboards on skeleton steel towers or colored numbered channel markers (yawn).

 

The best part about finding these navigation aids for us has been the adventure getting to them. The dayboards on towers are not so fulfilling in and of themselves.

 

Hurricanes tend to wipe out the older more interesting marine navigation stuff on the TX Gulf coast.

[+flipflopnick]

I'm afraid that the number of great ones will be too small for an own category.

Not having many potential Waymarks is good. Getting back to the ideals of Waymarking. (Also less work for group officers :-))

 

Perhaps state that MUNDANE postings will be rejected.

 

UK does have evolutions of coastal markers. Cockerham Sands in the Lune Estuary has this light which probably will not fit in Lighthouse group.

 

It was never manned nor modernised. Not sure it is even lit now. Back when it was in use, the paraffin lamp was refilled and wick trimmed, daily.

 

[+onfire4jesus]

Not having many potential Waymarks is good. Getting back to the ideals of Waymarking. (Also less work for group officers :-))

 

Perhaps state that MUNDANE postings will be rejected.

 

UK does have evolutions of coastal markers. Cockerham Sands in the Lune Estuary has this light which probably will not fit in Lighthouse group.

First, let me say that offhand it sounds like a good category.

 

Although I agree that there need not be 10,000 items to waymark to make a category, there does need to be some minimum number. I've been out of Waymarking for a number of years due to health reasons, but I thought I remembered we used 100 as sort of a rule-of-thumb minimum (even though a couple of categories have fewer than that.)

 

If you exclude MUNDANE postings, please give very clear boundaries as to what that means. It can be very frustrating if what you think is not mundane is rejected as such. I agree that metal posts with lights and reflectors on them should be excluded.

 

I am not an officer in the lighthouse categories, but I would have thought your example would be acceptable (I think it would come down to what type of light it uses.) That doesn't necessarily mean it can't also be included in your category (at least in my opinion - others may disagree.)