Jump to content

City/State in Waymark Titles


Metro2

Recommended Posts

I've noticed a lot of Waymarks lately do not have the City and or State in their title. Sometimes that makes sense... such as for City Halls. Some categories, I believe firehouses expressly forbid it. Many others require it..and for all others it has really been the practice by most to do so. I find that having the City and State (where appropriate) in the title is very helpful. I just had a discussion with another Waymarker who thinks that putting the City/State in the title makes it looks cluttered. Any thoughts?

Link to comment

I try to remember to do it, for the aforementioned reasons, except in firehouses where it isn't allowed. But I have to admit that I'm not 100% consistent in doing it.

 

In some cases I use the county and state instead. For example, Country Churches are, by definition, not in a town. So I'll use something like Such-and-So Church in rural Barry County, Missouri.

 

It makes sense to me.

Link to comment

I try to remember to do it, for the aforementioned reasons, except in firehouses where it isn't allowed. But I have to admit that I'm not 100% consistent in doing it.

 

In some cases I use the county and state instead. For example, Country Churches are, by definition, not in a town. So I'll use something like Such-and-So Church in rural Barry County, Missouri.

 

It makes sense to me.

 

I think that's fine, my problem is when the Title gives no clue as to where it is. As Sao Paolo said... there can be 100 fountains on different Main Streets. I would just ask that reviewers enforce the rule if it is a rule in your category.

Link to comment

I do this for all my submissions and require it in all my categories, because this is not just helpfu, it's essential for a location based game to know at first sight in what area an object is located.

 

Still, these naming conventions are good practice, but I would always accept and even welcome a better title, if the circumstances are special. In my home country there are no unincorporated areas on dry land. Every square inch is in a town, officially. The dead letter of this naming convention can be waved easily e.g. if it is on a well known mountain that is on the soil of a municipality nobody has ever heard of. The goal of the naming convention is to give a quick overview where something is located on a larger scale. City and state is an obvious choice, but if you find a nicer way to do this, the better.

Link to comment

I always do what I'm told so if a town & state is required that's what I do. As to whether that would help me narrow down a visit - probably not. State abbreviations in another country eg. IN have no meaning so I would check the location based on the selected state & country requirements.

That in itself poses a couple of questions. Why do we have to repeat ourselves? Wouldn't just the town/city be sufficient in the title? You have to select the state & country anyway.

Link to comment

That in itself poses a couple of questions. Why do we have to repeat ourselves? Wouldn't just the town/city be sufficient in the title? You have to select the state & country anyway.

 

For those of us who use an RSS Reader to watch news feeds of all waymarks, waymarks for categories we're interested in, and from particular waymarkers, what we see is a list showing just one line with title of the waymark. It's nice to get as much information from this one line to see if we want to explore more in depth and open the web page for the waymark. If the title is just "Clear Lake", I have no idea where it is, not which country, not which state.

 

If the title just says the city is Greenville, there is a Greenville in 49 of the 50 US States! If the city is just shown as Franklin, that narrows it down to 30 states. If the city name is Springfield, there are 29 states with one. I'd prefer not to have to open the waymark to see which state it's in. There're are many duplicated city names through the USA, and some probably overlap with foreign city names.

 

It makes for a uniform presentation of all waymarks when there's some consistency and standard applied to all waymarks filed.

 

IMO, Firehouses are a mess. They changed the rules after the category started (2010), so early waymarks, have the city and state, while newer ones don't. They Have 11 waymarks titled "Fire Station" and too many to count titled "Fire Station" & some number. For me, that's not very informative.

 

The name of the place in the title may be obvious to the local waymarker doing the posting, but not so to the worldwide readership. I appreciate the city and state in the title line.

Link to comment

Another issue with fire stations is if the folks who built a station chose not to put any signage on the station, then what? In fact, I took photos and coordinates of a beautiful firehouse that has no signage. I have an email out to an officer in the category as to what to do about it, but I haven't received a response yet. Since the sign is all important in determining the waymark name, I'm assuming that the answer is going to be: "tough luck - no sign, no waymark".

 

Which is too bad. Lots of categories state a mission like "It is our intent to document all X in the world." Example: Worldwide Cemeteries. I noticed that the firehouses category does not say that. I don't think it could be a mission, given that there are firehouses with no signage, that, I'm assuming, couldn't be waymarked.

 

Anyway, I know that is a digression from the discussion on including the city/state or province; but it is just one more reason that firehouse category needs to lighten up a little and allow a bit more information in the name. For example, they could require a quoted portion with the exact name, and then an unquoted portion with more information in the title:

 

"S.A.R.F.A. No. 1" Seligman, Missouri

 

instead of just

 

S.A.R.F.A. No. 1

 

!! (The latter stands for Seligman Area Rural Fire Association, which is pretty obvious, right??)

 

I would gladly go back and change all of my firehouses accordingly.

Link to comment

Is there a possibility to get a naming convention for all Waymarks in all 1068 categories?

 

Perhaps. The first part can be different from category to category.

 

E.g.:

 

'River Origins, Destinations and Confluences' category: CONFLUENCE: Meeting House Creek - York River - York, ME

 

'Superlatives' category: ONLY -- Log Plank Summer Kitchen - Gettysburg, PA

 

The ending should be the nearest town/city + state and country: (the location you used for creating the Waymark could be copied easily)

 

- Munich, Bavaria, Germany

- Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, USA

- Paris, Île-de-France, France

- Guaraqueçaba, Paraná, Brazil

- Malmö, Skåne, Sweden

 

.....

 

But how can we do this for all categories?

 

1) Ask Groundspeak to add this rule for all categories with a script. I tink they will not do this because the leaders are responsible for that.

 

2) Ask all leaders individually to change/add this rule. (Horror!)

 

3) We please our fellow Waymarkers to do so. If we see they are not doing so.

 

4) Checkmark adapts our 486,633 Waymarks and goes occasionally through the new submissions to adapt them. :anibad:

 

5) ...

 

6) ...

 

Some better ideas?

 

-lumbricus

Link to comment

I've noticed a lot of Waymarks lately do not have the City and or State in their title. Sometimes that makes sense... such as for City Halls. Some categories, I believe firehouses expressly forbid it. Many others require it..and for all others it has really been the practice by most to do so. I find that having the City and State (where appropriate) in the title is very helpful. I just had a discussion with another Waymarker who thinks that putting the City/State in the title makes it looks cluttered. Any thoughts?

 

I see where in some cases it help describe the waymark more accurately...but in the case of, say, Texas Historical Markers, the originator wanted the historic marker title to be the only title for accurate representation of the signage.

So, it depends on the subject matter, and how the category founder feels is best to represent what he/she was aiming for.

Link to comment

All my Waymarks have the city/state/country in the title.

I think it's a very good thing. I thought this all the time. (I totally agree with fi67 and DougK)

I'll try to have this requirement for all my categories. If some Waymarkers don't like that, then I'm sorry it's with no ill intent.

Imagine a Waymarker gets interested in bells; he waymarks about 67 bells in 55 towns. He is in the mood to name every of them "Bell".

If he submitts them near togehther you will have let's say 65 bells in a line. Not very clear/user friendly.

Is it a big deal to write: "Bell - Paris, France"?

I please the Waymarkers with different opinions to discuss it here, perhaps I missed an important detail.

All the best,

-lumbricus

*Edit: Typos

Edited by lumbricus
Link to comment

I think that including the city & state in the waymark name is an excellent idea, and I try to remember it even when not specifically required. I spend a lot of time on TripAdvisor, another site where such geographical information is vital.

I must admit, though, to a bit of North American bias, as I do NOT include the name of the country for US or Canadian waymarks. Rather arrogantly, I expect site users to be familiar with the names of the 12 Canadian provinces and territories and all 50 US states. My excuse is that including the country name would make the name too long.

Link to comment

I was out for a beer with a good friend, yes, there are other things like Waymarking in this life. :grin:

 

 

I agree with lumbricus on this, but only because I now know that he has a life outside of Waymarking... ;)

 

I do think it is helpful to add both city and state. In fact, I think the country is helpful too - even in the U.S. :shocked:

 

I try to add all three, but I've been told by multiple reviewers that adding USA to the end is not necessary, so I tend to waffle on it, but I do prefer including it. I don't think adding those three letters is cumbersome, cluttered, or unnecessary. Besides, as long as it takes to put together a submission, three key strokes isn't going to make a difference (OK, five key strokes if you include the comma and the space). :rolleyes:

 

My personal opinion is that it is more than a little ethnocentric not to include it. Why should everyone else know everything about the U.S., just because we're the U.S.? Just my opinion; I know others differ, and that's fine. Overall, I'd say uniformity is a good thing, as far as titles. Categories are unique enough by themselves without having to have unique title requirements, as well.

Link to comment

As with BruceS and fi67, I include this on nearly all my waymarks and require it for nearly all the categories where I am leader.

 

There are a few exceptions, of course. We must always have some flexibility. I have a few legacy categories that I lead that I need to update.

 

For categories where the sites may not always be in a city or town, perhaps historical markers, then it doesn't make much sense to require it. Other geographic identification can often be substituted, however. In the U.S., counties or major park, or just "near. . ." All U.S. sites are within a state. Appropriate geographical designations can be used for each country.

 

Other categories that come to mind those such as Mountain Summits, many of the trail categories, rivers, beaches, waterfalls and other natural sites. I'm sure there are others.

 

So, there is no uniform waymark naming format that can be adopted as required for ALL categories.

 

There have been many good reasons given already for the inclusion of this information, and I concur with them all.

 

When I review a waymark and this information is lacking, I will often add it as a simple matter of minor editing of format of a title, or I might add a comma or dash. I've had only one person over the years and thousands of waymarks object to this.

 

We cannot look to Groundspeak to make or enforce any of these standards, nor should they do so. We are to be a self-regulating community. The result, as we all know, is a ramshackle group of over 1000 categories with their differing requirements and approaches. So, if the Firestation category leaders want to enforce a bizarre naming format, then that is their right. When I choose to submit a waymark to a category, I must conform to their requirements. If I'm asked to change something, I either do it, whether or not it makes sense to me, or I withdraw the waymark.

 

Larry Wilson - Carver, MA

(for a few more days, anyway)

Link to comment

It's been a while since I looked but as far as I recall all of my categories have a suggested format but none enforce it. I believe the title of a Waymark should be reflective of the object. I don't see how city and/or political division aids in any way at all. It is just extraneous text.

 

To be honest, it is this "jump through my burning hoop" mentality that turns people off. And none of the search concepts even apply since we search by location, not title. Even if we do, we put the content in one box and the general area in the other.

 

This sounds like micro management has a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Obviously you can't expect me to change any of my 50+ categories to such an enforced naming scheme. I'm not interested in finding ways to deny people ways to participate.

 

B) BQ

Link to comment

It's been a while since I looked but as far as I recall all of my categories have a suggested format but none enforce it. I believe the title of a Waymark should be reflective of the object. I don't see how city and/or political division aids in any way at all. It is just extraneous text.

 

To be honest, it is this "jump through my burning hoop" mentality that turns people off. And none of the search concepts even apply since we search by location, not title. Even if we do, we put the content in one box and the general area in the other.

 

This sounds like micro management has a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Obviously you can't expect me to change any of my 50+ categories to such an enforced naming scheme. I'm not interested in finding ways to deny people ways to participate.

 

B) BQ

 

Hey BQ,

 

I can definitely understand where you're coming from on this issue. We certainly don't want to make people jump through burning hoops, just because we can. There's no point in doing that. I'd like to explain why having the city included in the title is helpful - to me.

 

Let's say I'm planning a trip to San Francisco. While I'm there I'd like to visit any waymarks that might add to my category grid. So, in preparation, I search through those categories that I don't have on my category grid, trying to determine if there are any waymarks close by that I can visit while I'm in the area. Obviously California is a big state. If the state is the only information that I have to go on, I have no idea where in California the waymark is. If I'm searching a specific category I'll have to click on each waymark to see if it is in the vicinity of San Francisco. Searching in this fashion is cumbersome and time consuming. For me, having the city included in the title allows for a much quicker search.

 

Granted, maybe there is an even better way to search, but I haven't found it. Having come over to Waymarking from geocaching, the way the site is set up, searching for waymarks is definitely not as easy as searching for geocaches. If anyone has tips for better ways of searching for waymarks, I'd certainly be glad to hear them.

Link to comment

There can always be scenarios where a certain naming convention is not helpful. To have the category in the title is redundant when you browse a category, to have the town in the title is redundant when I do a proximity search in a city with many waymarks, but only then.

 

There are many regions where the closest 25 waymarks spread over dozens of miles. So even in location based searches the town can be an important piece of information. It's much easier to ignore the additional text if you don't care than to find this information in every single long description if you could use it, but it's missing.

Link to comment

Surprised to hear the remark below from 'T.B.Quasar' as I see all (or almost) all the "Canadian Historical Sites" require a: CNHS prefix... and almost all have city/province included. - doh -

 

""This sounds like micro management has a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Obviously you can't expect me to change any of my 50+ categories to such an enforced naming scheme. I'm not interested in finding ways to deny people ways to participate/""

 

Remember well B.Q.,

what's with the change of heart?

Link to comment

In all the categories I have written, I always ask for Title - City, State/Province as a naming requirement. It seems to be pretty much a standard in Waymarking - and a useful standard. I've noticed that Waymarking's search engine is sometimes faulty. By having a city and state/province, I know that I am looking at the correct city in the correct state. Visit here for a list of the most common USA city names.

 

As a reviewer, the city, state/province helps to make sure the coordinates are close to the location by looking at the Google map. I know my area, I am not at all familiar with Germany!

 

Take care,

Outspoken1

Link to comment

Just an additional point about searching. Perhaps adding city/state/country in the waymark title is not necessary for a search, it is VERY useful when browsing. Scroll down through a category, and see if you can easily tell where a waymark is located if this information is missing.

 

But, each category management group is free to set whatever requirements they deem appropriate. When I choose to submit to a waymark to any particular category, I either follow all of the requirements, and requests from the management team, or I don't post. Seems simple enough to me.

Link to comment

I've noticed a lot of Waymarks lately do not have the City and or State in their title. ... Any thoughts?

I found City/State/Country in waymark names useful - in majority of categories. So I also keep this convention when posting my waymarks, even when not required by category rules.

 

But I don't think it should be general rule (as mentioned in some other posts). There are some categories like Photo Goals, where it doesn't make sense. In several others (especially outdoor, out-"city" categories) is helpful different naming convention. I'm talking about mountains, waterfalls, some lakes, backcountry shelters, scenic trails, etc. where name of the Mountains / Country is more appropriate than City.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...