Reviewing Conundrum

[+Team Sieni]

I have an interesting conundrum. It's a bit long. Bear with me, please.

 

I am an officer on the Birdwatching Locations category. As it happens the only active officer.

 

Obviously a birdwatching location can be huge (eg a lake, a marsh) so we have a "one waymark per site" rule in the category. If a site has many locations, eg several birdwatching hides/blinds/birding huts (call them what you will: "blind" is the N American term, "hide" is the British term) then the firs WM on the site takes precedence.

 

A while back I received a waymark showing a picture of a hide. It was close to an existing WM showing a picture of a different hide at co-ordinates not far away, with a very similar name, so I declined it on the "one waymark per site" rule.

 

The Waymarker resubmitted, saying that there is no hide at the location of the older WM. (Although the older WM shows a photo of a hide), and that the new WM should take precedence.

 

My view is that the site itself has been waymarked, even if there is a query over whether the hide pictured in the original WM may have gone, or maybe the co-ords of the original WM were incorrect. But as the SITE has been waymarked we shouldn't accept a new WM.

 

So ... I put it up to vote. But as I'm the only active officer, my nay vote was the only vote. So it was declined.

 

Now the WM has been resubmitted again, restating that there is no hide at the original location, and the local ranger agrees with this, and suggesting that the original WM should be removed.

 

I haven't changed my personal opinion that the site has already been WM'd. But as I'm the only active member of the group, declining it again would seem a bit dictatorial. Putting it up to vote didn't really achieve anything. So I'm asking the wider community.

 

So ... what should I do. Decline? Contact the author of the original WM to see if the co-ords are wrong? Or what?

[+Bear and Ragged]

On a one per site basis,and that then Waymarks the SITE, the original WM has Waymarked the site.

Even if the hide is no longer there...

 

(Happy to be a fellow officer... )

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

The submitter can always submit a visit on the existing WM too

[+iconions]

I'm also happy to be an officer, if needed.

 

I would let the waymarker know that the waymark has been denied by a group vote. He'll be upset, but the rules of the category are in place. Sometimes this happens in Waymarking. I'm with you, though, it's not fun getting brow-beat into approving a waymark.

[+Lachlan1.77]

I am also more than happy to help you out with you category if needed! Just send me a message!

 

Telling someone their Waymark is denied would be a tough thing to do but unfortunately rules are rules!

[GT.US]

1. You need to elect more officers.

 

2. The first WM should be changes to a legacy tag. (You can do that, especially since you have documentation). It will still be there for reference

 

3. Approve the second.

 

as an alternative to 2 & 3 have them change it to a visit log.

 

I prefer changing the missing Hide to Legacy as it gives a historical perspective

[+silverquill]

GT.US has it perfectly! Just the answer I would have posted.

 

That should keep everyone happy.

 

An alternative is to change the category to allow more than one waymark per location as long as they are, say, more than .10 mile apart and are give a definite location such as a blind/hide, trail head, etc.

 

Of course that would mean having edit privileges, or getting cooperation from the group leader.

 

Still, the solution above is the most sensible approach at this point. Mark the old one as "legacy" or whatever and adding an explanatory note, then accepting the new one, also adding an explanatory note, and maybe a link to the legacy waymark.

 

Thanks for bringing this to the forum.

These things crop up from time to time, and I think the discussion is good.