Forest bogs and ponds

[+honymand]

Hi,

 

I'm quite new to this (except registering a few waymarks).

 

I've created a new group and obviously I wan't to recruit some more for the group which shares this interest (if any...)

 

Forest bogs and ponds

 

So whats the proper way to go about ?

 

Best regards, Hans Olav

[+fi67]

The right way is what you just did. Let's discuss the proposal in the forums! Not only the idea in general, even more important are the details.

 

I am not against this category, not at all, but it is not very clear to me, yet. What exactly qualifies as a forest bog or pond? Does it have to be natural or can it also be man-made? Is there a minimum size or other mandatory features, or can I just post every wet spot in a forest I come across?

[+MountainWoods]

In a very few cases of Waymarking categories, the boundaries between what is acceptable and what is not are pretty close to black and white, almost an exact science. However, in many categories the boundaries have some grey area as to what can be posted and what cannot, and that is understandable.

 

What you want to do is narrow that grey area down to a very thin slit. Word the category description (and especially the "How to Post a Waymark to This Category" description) in such a way that folks can just look at a potential and say, "yep, that fits" or "nope, that doesn't" -- as much as it is possible to do so. It seems that Visit requirements are never as important as Posting requirements.

 

Like fi67 said, what qualifies? I own 187 acres of land, of which about 170 are woods. Can I post a waymark in this category in every place where there is a local depression that holds water after rain? Does it need to be perpetually moist (except, perhaps, allowing for drought)? Does it have to hold thus-and-so area of water? And for how long?

 

You might want to get a bit more specific on the wording for what the category is for. Think about what folks may try to submit to the category: some are going to be spot on, and some are going to be a bit wild. Think about what you may have to tell the person who submitted something that isn't what you had in mind. Will you be able to (kindly) point them at the requirements and say, "Do you see how this doesn't fit here?"

[+honymand]

Hi guys,

 

Thanks for the reply and sorry for not returning sooner.

 

But I probably need some help to nail a description.

 

When I see it I'm not in doubt - is it just a watery depression, a bog or mire or a proper pond or lake. Perpetually wet is clearly a requirement (except for the aforementioned drought).

 

Maybe the precise requirement is that it should by so large, deep or watery that it clearly alters the vegetation. Either by having its own isolated wetland vegetation or at least by denying the growth of non-wetland vegetation within the area in question. This should rule out meadows for instance.

 

Alternatively specify Natura 2000 nature types. That would make the definition very precise but maybe to hard to use for people wanting to post.

 

Artificial creations are OK as long as they are naturalized.

 

From Marsh/Dense emergent on this picture: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/USGS_image_cropped.jpg.

 

I am also considering:

- An upper size limit. If sufficiently large it is not really "in a forest" more like "next to a forest".

- I'm interested in West European conditions. Does it make sense? You could argue that Finland is one big forest bog. Same goes for large parts of Russia. But in Western Europe it is indeed rare.

 

Best regards, Hans Olav

[+silverquill]

Truthfully, I have great doubts about this proposal.

 

1). As the previous discussion indicates, an adequate description of what would qualify for a waymark is very difficult. Bogs, ponds, depressions, swamps, wetlands, marshes, fens, etc. all lack precise definitions. Setting some sort of size is problematic because of the diverse nature of what is proposed, and because there are usually very irregular boundaries that may be indefinite. A pond would need a minimum and a maximum size. What dimensions would be used? Circumference, surface area? The other factor is that size is very difficult to measure for these natural features.

 

2). In some places these features would be so ubiquitous as to be meaningless. The area encompassed by the town where I live, for instance, is more than 50% ponds, bogs and wetlands of some sort. Worldwide these features would be in the hundreds of thousands, I would think.

 

3). Most ponds may be named, but not marked, while I suspect most bogs are not named. Perhaps they are on detailed topographic maps. One still has the problem of where to record coordinates since it is not a precise point.

 

If you think these problems can be satisfied, then perhaps it might be worth pursuing. I'm just trying to point out some of the issues that need to be faced.