Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
NW_history_buff

AWESOME Category Proposal #3

85 posts in this topic

Yes, that is correct, MountainWoods. We category officers will concentrate on the dated structures and worry less about what other category they may or may not fall into (cross-listing). The focus is to appreciate the thought and effort that architects, contractors and other individuals have put into their architectural structures and have cared enough about them to preserve the erection dates as either plaques or engraved dates. These structures don't have a place in the Dated Buildings and Cornerstones category or the Bridge Date Stone and Plaques category but would now have a place to call 'home' in this new category. We approved a really nice dated tunnel yesterday and is a perfect example of what we're looking for, in addition to all the metallic plaques hanging in front of buildings that I'm sure we'll be inundated with soon (including from me).... :anitongue:

0

Share this post


Link to post

I also noticed that the category description has been changed to be more succinct. So we are getting there! Thanks to the officers working to get this going.

 

BTW, I don't see anything in the description concerning a requirement for the kind of material used for the date plaque or sign. The comment from my reviewer (thanks thebeav69!) mentioned something about it needing to be a "metallic plaque" rather than just a "placard/sign", though my sign was metal, but thin (< 1/4"). But then you need to be specific about what you are really looking for.

 

What if the date is etched into wood? I know of a dated church where the date is woodburned into a support beam over the doorway. What about 1/8" or 2 to 3 mm signs? Can the date be painted on with a good permanent paint onto a surface?

 

Maybe I'm missing it big time (though I just read through the description), but I don't see anything that would help us consider candidate dated structures and skip them versus try submitting them, based on the material involved.

 

Thanks again!

 

Edit: I was typing at the same time. But the above is still a bit of concern.

Edited by MountainWoods
0

Share this post


Link to post

Wow. Another valid point. I'll reword the category description to convey that we are looking for dated plaques or signs on buildings of a permanent nature in whatever material it may happen to be constructed of.

Edited by thebeav69
0

Share this post


Link to post

I couldn't be more confused about this category, and I am really frustrated.

I got a nice approval email yesterday, saying something like "Perfect. Just what we wanted in this category."

 

Then today, the same waymark was declined, with the reason that it can be submitted to the Signs of History category.

 

Let me be clear: I never, ever, ever, ever would have votes YES for this category if I really thought the intent was to exclude all other categories (not just the two dated ones, as most of us understood). I take responsibility for not MAKING SURE that BruceS's question about this specific matter was answered by the officers. I should have insisted they respond to the question instead of assuming anything. It's my own fault. I will not make that mistake again.

 

So, what's going to happen when someone waymarks a building in the new Dated Multifarious category FIRST, it's approved, then LATER, adds other categories? Are the officers going to continually check the waymarks, to ensure that none of them are cross-waymarked into any other category? Are the officers of the Multifarious category expecting officers of other categories to watch for this? I think not.

 

What a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into. A fine mess indeed.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I couldn't be more confused about this category, and I am really frustrated.

I got a nice approval email yesterday, saying something like "Perfect. Just what we wanted in this category."

 

Then today, the same waymark was declined, with the reason that it can be submitted to the Signs of History category.

 

Let me be clear: I never, ever, ever, ever would have votes YES for this category if I really thought the intent was to exclude all other categories (not just the two dated ones, as most of us understood). I take responsibility for not MAKING SURE that BruceS's question about this specific matter was answered by the officers. I should have insisted they respond to the question instead of assuming anything. It's my own fault. I will not make that mistake again.

 

So, what's going to happen when someone waymarks a building in the new Dated Multifarious category FIRST, it's approved, then LATER, adds other categories? Are the officers going to continually check the waymarks, to ensure that none of them are cross-waymarked into any other category? Are the officers of the Multifarious category expecting officers of other categories to watch for this? I think not.

 

What a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into. A fine mess indeed.

It was my understanding based on thebeav69's recent posts that this is no longer the case, but apparently that hasn't been adequately communicated to the officers.

 

thebeav69: Can you please make it clear to jhuoni, BK-Hunters, and iconions that Waymarks that already exist or could potentially exist in any category (excluding DB+C and BDS+P) are allowed? The description also needs to be updated, because the red text right at the top completely contradicts this. The first sentence of the following paragraph should also be changed, because it also adds ambiguity. That sentence would be more clear if it read:

The objective of the Dated Structures Multifarious category is to provide a place to waymark the many worldwide dated architectural structures that aren't accepted into other categories, particularly the Dated Buildings and Cornerstones and Bridge Date Stones and Plaques categories.

I'm also not sure why there's a need for the paragraph on cross-posting. AFAICT, cross-posting is generally acceptable in Waymarking, and there are many situations where a building could validly fit both in this category and many others. Why is this category trying to prevent this from happening?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I couldn't be more confused about this category, and I am really frustrated.

I got a nice approval email yesterday, saying something like "Perfect. Just what we wanted in this category."

 

Then today, the same waymark was declined, with the reason that it can be submitted to the Signs of History category.

 

Let me be clear: I never, ever, ever, ever would have votes YES for this category if I really thought the intent was to exclude all other categories (not just the two dated ones, as most of us understood). I take responsibility for not MAKING SURE that BruceS's question about this specific matter was answered by the officers. I should have insisted they respond to the question instead of assuming anything. It's my own fault. I will not make that mistake again.

 

So, what's going to happen when someone waymarks a building in the new Dated Multifarious category FIRST, it's approved, then LATER, adds other categories? Are the officers going to continually check the waymarks, to ensure that none of them are cross-waymarked into any other category? Are the officers of the Multifarious category expecting officers of other categories to watch for this? I think not.

 

What a fine mess we've gotten ourselves into. A fine mess indeed.

I hear you. But like The A-Team says, this was supposed to have changed. In fact, thebeav69 updated the category description to explicitly mention that cross-posting to other date-related categories was prohibited; and the wording was changed to allow cross posting with non-date-related categories. Apparently there is someone who is not aware of the change (or maybe doesn't like it?).

 

I definitely agree with your points on (1) not having voted for the category IF the intent was to disallow non-date-related cross-posting, and (2) the problem with disallowing any cross-posting because of the crazy-but-logical idea that one could post into this category first, then await the approval and cross-post into other non-date-related categories. 'Twould be difficult to enforce the unwanted requirement of not cross-posting to non-date-related categories.

 

Hold onto those declined waymarks. I think that things are working themselves out amongst the officers. Hopefully we'll get some definitive answers here, and then you can resubmit them. The pains of new birth.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I understand that the category description has been updated, but it STILL confuses me. It really does! Just fyi, my dated plaque is ON a building, not in front of it.

 

My decline today was from the Beav, and I really hope he doesn't mind me posting the text in the forums.

 

Max and 99, your submission into this new category has really helped the officers fine-tune the category description. With that said, we've decided to edit the category to NOT allow dated historical markers/plaques in front of buildings or other structures since they already have a home in the 'Signs of History' category or a state historical marker category. You could easily submit this dated plaque into the 'Signs of History' category. We appreciate your submission, nonetheless. You've helped us define this category much better! ~thebeav69

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmmmmmmm. That's like saying that "We're only going to be mutually exclusive with other date-related categories. <Pause> Except that we're also going to be mutually exclusive with category A and category B and category C, and whatever else we happen to think up next."

 

I have to admit that I am totally confused now too. I thought this was getting straightened out. I think the only way this is ever going to work, and stop the confusion, is to just make this new category mutually exclusive with the other 2 date-related categories, and stop adding more and more other categories to the mutual exclusion.

 

The rules need to be finalized and clear, not we-make-them-up-as-we-go.

 

Edit: By the way: Signs of History does not indicate to the Waymark visitor that the folks who built or occupied the structure thought enough about its wonderful construction that they decided to date the structure with an added-on plaque or sign (since it was too late to build the date into the structure). I thought that this new category was to convey that idea (admittedly my paraphrase). But if not, then what is it for?!?

Edited by MountainWoods
0

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, that is correct, MountainWoods. We category officers will concentrate on the dated structures and worry less about what other category they may or may not fall into (cross-listing). The focus is to appreciate the thought and effort that architects, contractors and other individuals have put into their architectural structures and have cared enough about them to preserve the erection dates as either plaques or engraved dates. These structures don't have a place in the Dated Buildings and Cornerstones category or the Bridge Date Stone and Plaques category but would now have a place to call 'home' in this new category. We approved a really nice dated tunnel yesterday and is a perfect example of what we're looking for, in addition to all the metallic plaques hanging in front of buildings that I'm sure we'll be inundated with soon (including from me).... :anitongue:

 

By way of a ping....

0

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like the rules changed again...

 

... The most common waymark accepted into this category would likely be a dated plaque hanging in front of a building that notes its construction date and the individuals who contributed in some way to its development. These dated plaques are often denied in the Dated Buildings and Cornerstones category because they aren't built into the fabric of the structure (like a cornerstone or an etched date) but will gladly be accepted here. This category is NOT a resource for dated historical markers/plaques hanging in front of buildings or other architectural structures. ...

 

The above was not in the original category description when it was voted on.

 

Since it is not clear what really is allowed, and it keeps changing, I'm going to throw in my $.02 opinion. I think that what they are looking for are plaques or signs that look like the kinds of things that would be allowed in Dated Buildings and Cornerstones, but can't go into that category because the plaque/sign is not built into the fabric of the building. This is my guess.

 

So what might be acceptible is a sign that says:

Dedicated 1923

or

Established 1871

or

Brent Building - Built 1901

but not

This building was originally the private residence of Such And So and was built by him and his brother in 1935. Later it was reused as the town library, until the library outgrew the building. Now it is used for thus and so.

 

The latter has a date in it, but it has too much history, and does not look like what one would find built-into the fabric of the building but just didn't happen to be. (That's not my opinion. That's my guess at an opinion by the category officers. Since we're still confused.)

 

Is that it?????

 

Or have the officers come to a decision yet? We all need to know what meets the requirements for this new category, since the modified description seems to be spending more time telling us what isn't wanted. :blink::blink:

Edited by MountainWoods
0

Share this post


Link to post

I saw the revised description this morning, after my waymark was retroactively declined, but I STILL don't understand what is and isn't accepted into the category. We need clear and concise explanations of what the category will accept. PLEASE.

 

Why can't the category just accept the "permanent" dated plaques that are attached to a structure? By definition, these aren't accepted into the other two Dated categories. Things are getting too complicated.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like the rules changed again...

 

... The most common waymark accepted into this category would likely be a dated plaque hanging in front of a building that notes its construction date and the individuals who contributed in some way to its development. These dated plaques are often denied in the Dated Buildings and Cornerstones category because they aren't built into the fabric of the structure (like a cornerstone or an etched date) but will gladly be accepted here. This category is NOT a resource for dated historical markers/plaques hanging in front of buildings or other architectural structures. ...

 

The above was not in the original category description when it was voted on.

 

Since it is not clear what really is allowed, and it keeps changing, I'm going to throw in my $.02 opinion. I think that what they are looking for are plaques or signs that look like the kinds of things that would be allowed in Dated Buildings and Cornerstones, but can't go into that category because the plaque/sign is not built into the fabric of the building. This is my guess.

 

So what might be acceptible is a sign that says:

Dedicated 1923

or

Established 1871

or

Brent Building - Built 1901

but not

This building was originally the private residence of Such And So and was built by him and his brother in 1935. Later it was reused as the town library, until the library outgrew the building. Now it is used for thus and so.

 

The latter has a date in it, but it has too much history, and does not look like what one would find built-into the fabric of the building but just didn't happen to be. (That's not my opinion. That's my guess at an opinion by the category officers. Since we're still confused.)

 

Is that it?????

 

Or have the officers come to a decision yet? We all need to know what meets the requirements for this new category, since the modified description seems to be spending more time telling us what isn't wanted. :blink::blink:

 

I don't think that is it, because I submitted a plaque that was very much like your hypothetical example (as well as one of their own examples), and which was not an integral part of the structure, but it was declined, with a suggestion to submit it to Cornerstones, a category for which it does not qualify.

 

My understanding of Signs of History is that it's a more narrative category. They want what happened at the site, not dates or names of builders.

 

Anyway, I'm still confused too and my issue wasn't even the "exclusive categories" problem - my waymark could indeed have been waymarked in another category, but hadn't been, plus that was not the reason given for declining.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks jennyanykind. We really need to have the category officers chime in here and tell us why Waymarks are being declined when they seem to match all of the conditions in the category description. Even with the changes.

 

BTW, I have only submitted two waymarks to the category and both were approved - so far. But Waymarking is a community, and as a community we all are suffering from confusion over the new category. For my own part, I'm not sure what to try to submit any more. There are a lot of buildings with dates of construction on them around here, but the date is on a nice sign or thick plaque, rather than being built into the fabric of the building. But I don't know what qualifies for this new category and what doesn't.

 

For example: shouldn't both a sign or a plaque with the same information be acceptable because the only difference is the thickness of the metal?? Or is there some other consideration that is causing the declines?

0

Share this post


Link to post

With all the confusion now surrounding this category, and with the many changes being made, I'm starting to wonder if there's a "retraction"-style function on the Waymarking site. It's becoming more and more apparent that the intent of this category wasn't clearly communicated (or even misrepresented?) to the general public and incorrect assumptions were made by those voting in peer review based on what we were presented with. This category needs to go back to the design phase, the intention cleared up, the description rewritten to clarify everything, and then re-presented to peer review so a proper evaluation can be undertaken. I haven't submitted anything to this category yet, but based on the anecdotal evidence being provided here, the current category isn't what I voted "Yea" for.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm seeing waymarks in this category getting approved, and they sure seem exactly like my waymark that was approved then later declined.

Officers: you need to reply to the forum thread and explain what is going on. We do not understand!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks jennyanykind. We really need to have the category officers chime in here and tell us why Waymarks are being declined when they seem to match all of the conditions in the category description. Even with the changes.

 

BTW, I have only submitted two waymarks to the category and both were approved - so far. But Waymarking is a community, and as a community we all are suffering from confusion over the new category. For my own part, I'm not sure what to try to submit any more. There are a lot of buildings with dates of construction on them around here, but the date is on a nice sign or thick plaque, rather than being built into the fabric of the building. But I don't know what qualifies for this new category and what doesn't.

 

For example: shouldn't both a sign or a plaque with the same information be acceptable because the only difference is the thickness of the metal?? Or is there some other consideration that is causing the declines?

 

I should say I got a nice email from thebeav69 saying he'd reviewed the declined waymarks in the category given this discussion and that my declined one should have been accepted, so I resubmitted it just now.

0

Share this post


Link to post

To reply to Max and 99's recent posts on the category requirements, it was suggested to add a bullet list of categories in the long description that dated Architectural Structures would be accepted into that we officers DON'T want submitted into this new category would be good. It goes back to the 'discouraging cross-posted waymarks' idea.

 

The category's intent is to provide a catch-all for architectural dated structures that just don't fit into any other category. The posted pictures in the long description should give others an idea of what we're looking for --- structures that don't have a place to call 'home'.

 

After viewing Max and 99's waymark submission, it was concluded that it is a 'Signs of History' plaque or a State Historical Marker plaque (whichever category would accept it), since it mentions historical references. This dated plaque on the building should be submitted there. If, for any reason, they deny it (I don't see why they would), we would gladly accept it into our category, hence the 'catch-all' theme.

0

Share this post


Link to post

To reply to Max and 99's recent posts on the category requirements, it was suggested to add a bullet list of categories in the long description that dated Architectural Structures would be accepted into that we officers DON'T want submitted into this new category would be good. It goes back to the 'discouraging cross-posted waymarks' idea.

And just where did that idea come from? In the past there has been a logical reason for discouraging cross-posting where it made sense. But just discouraging cross-posting because the group "feels like it" is not in the spirit of Waymarking.

 

The category's intent is to provide a catch-all for architectural dated structures that just don't fit into any other category. The posted pictures in the long description should give others an idea of what we're looking for --- structures that don't have a place to call 'home'.

Now we're back to the vaguely worded description that we already had. Does "any other category" mean that it cannot be, for example, a country church and a Dated Architectural Structure Multifarious? If so, and the mutual exclusion does, indeed, stretch to include any other category, then what is the purpose of putting the word Dated in the new category's name? If you are going to exclude structures that can go into any other category, rather than just date-related categories, then why not call this category Architectural Structures Multifarious and open it to anything, with a date or not, which has no other category into which it can be put?

 

Either the mutual exclusion does not make sense, or else the wording in the description is too vague.

Edited by MountainWoods
0

Share this post


Link to post

By the way, in spite of the confusion and my rant, the current description of the category is not vague (for now). It looks like it does allow cross-listing into other categories that are not date-related. I hope that is really the case. It is just the post two above this one that confused me because it says "any other category" with no qualification.

0

Share this post


Link to post

We know that dated structures will be cross-posted into other categories, what we're FOCUSING on are the dates etched into the structures and dated plaques that often accompany those structures. If those dated architectural structures and dated plaques can be submitted into other categories, then we want waymarkers to submit them there instead. Will a few slip through into this category? Most likely!

 

As I keep trying to convey, this category should ONLY be utilized for submissions for dated structures with or without dated plaques/signs that just can't be waymarked into any other category (tunnels, arches, archways, culverts, walls, drinking fountains and the most common: dated plaques (without historical text). There have been a few borderline submissions (particularly the metal signs hanging on a building), but if they are permanently mounted with a date (like Est. 1928), then technically, they are OK to submit.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Well, it is obvious that this group does not know what they want for their category. Might as well add this category to your Ignore list.

 

The requirements are now essentially the same as the Date Buildings category.

 

I wonder what they'll be tomorrow....

Edited by MountainWoods
0

Share this post


Link to post

Of all the categories I've created or been a part of within Waymarking.com, the Dated Architectural Structures Multifarious category has been the most time-consuming and challenging for me. I apologize to all the frustrated individuals who have submitted waymarks into the category and had them approved only to have them denied later. As the cliche expression goes... This category has been a 'work in progress'. It's still a young category (barely a month) but has almost 100 waymark approvals.

 

I honestly feel that after this last round of category edits, we finally have the category focusing on what we officers are looking for in waymark submissions. The category description has been tweaked a number of times and now includes what we're NOT looking for in submissions so to eliminate confusion. Many other categories also state what they're NOT looking for in submissions, this category should no different.

 

I've also brought in a 'Big Gun' from the Waymarking community, silverquill, a veteran waymarker, category leader and officer to assist me in our quest. I hope that over time, this category continues to grow and prosper, providing those individuals in the Waymarking world another avenue to submit those dated architectural structures that cannot be waymarked in any other category but this one.

 

Happy Waymarking, all,

 

thebeav69

0

Share this post


Link to post

Don't see how it can grow if the point is to keep limiting what is allowed more and more.

 

We were led to believe that this was the category for those buildings that have signs showing when they were built, but the sign was not put into the fabric of the building as required by other categories.

 

Now there are all kinds of limits as to the material used and so on. The category has gone no where but down.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry you feel the way you do, MountainWoods, but there have to be limits in every category. If there were no limits, then just about anything would fly, and that's not what we want, now is it? This forum is also not the place to speak negatively about a category the way you have. I myself have come across a few categories that frustrated me in their requirements and limitations but I was able to work through those issues and get some quality waymarks submitted.

 

We're all trying our best as officers of the category and if you have a personal problem with it, there are plenty of other categories in the Waymarking community that might better suit your needs.

 

'Nuff said.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Don't see how it can grow if the point is to keep limiting what is allowed more and more.

 

We were MISled to believe that this was the category for those buildings that have signs showing when they were built, but the sign was not put into the fabric of the building as required by other categories.

 

Now there are all kinds of limits as to the material used and so on. The category has gone no where but down.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It turned out different than what I thought too. I was interested in the beginning and supported it. <_<

0

Share this post


Link to post

I guess we should all just laugh it off. We were snookered big time by a bate-and-switch scheme; and there is no recourse at this time. Too bad. It makes me not want to support any new category, because the same thing can happen again:

 

Write up a nice description with criteria A, everyone wants such a category for those things that they've seen that match criteria A. Perfect. Vote for it in peer review. As soon as it passes, go in and change the description and criteria to B such that, the only thing in common with criteria A is that the category still stays in the same place in the hierarchy as placed by the Waymarking lackey (e.g. Animals, Buildings, etc.), but almost no overlap between criteria B and criteria A.

 

It's the classic bate-and-switch trick. It stinks, and has no place in Waymarking. Sorry to see that it happened in this category. Perhaps one of the other categories like Signs of History will accept what we were told this category was going to accept (i.e. matches criteria A).

0

Share this post


Link to post

I guess we should all just laugh it off. We were snookered big time by a bate-and-switch scheme; and there is no recourse at this time. Too bad. It makes me not want to support any new category, because the same thing can happen again:

 

Write up a nice description with criteria A, everyone wants such a category for those things that they've seen that match criteria A. Perfect. Vote for it in peer review. As soon as it passes, go in and change the description and criteria to B such that, the only thing in common with criteria A is that the category still stays in the same place in the hierarchy as placed by the Waymarking lackey (e.g. Animals, Buildings, etc.), but almost no overlap between criteria B and criteria A.

 

It's the classic bate-and-switch trick. It stinks, and has no place in Waymarking. Sorry to see that it happened in this category. Perhaps one of the other categories like Signs of History will accept what we were told this category was going to accept (i.e. matches criteria A).

That is the politics of Waymarking, and why it will never be popular. This whole site is goverened by a select few, so let the "Big Guns" have it their way, it is their site and not for newcomers. :mad:

0

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly feel that after this last round of category edits, we finally have the category focusing on what we officers are looking for in waymark submissions. The category description has been tweaked a number of times and now includes what we're NOT looking for in submissions so to eliminate confusion. Many other categories also state what they're NOT looking for in submissions, this category should no different.

I just took a look at the latest version of the description, and I'm feeling slightly better about it. I'm not completely opposed to the addition of the other categories for which Waymarks will not be accepted in this one (ie. Community Commemorations, Citizen Memorials, etc.), though these could and should have been detailed before Peer Review.

 

As for the following:

Any other dated marker or plaque on an architectural structure that could be waymarked into another existing category.

...this is still concerning. I'm hoping this part of the description just isn't complete. As an example, if there's a plaque that would otherwise be accepted in this category, but it's on a LEED building that's already Waymarked, would the plaque be accepted here?

 

If the answer is yes, as we were led to believe during the forum discussion before Peer Review, then it needs to be clarified that it would only be denied if the plaque or marker itself can be Waymarked in another category, and that it's fine if the structure is already Waymarked. I'd be happy then.

 

However, if the answer is no, then I call shenanigans and will be contacting Groundspeak to see about getting the category repealed, because there will have been a misrepresentation of the intention of the category prior to and during Peer Review.

 

I'm honestly hoping it isn't the latter. We were on board with the originally-proposed concept and I hope this is still the intention of this category (ie. a catch-all for plaques or markers not accepted in the DB&C or BDS&P categories). I have something waiting to add to this category, but I'll be waiting to hear your answer before submitting it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I honestly feel that after this last round of category edits, we finally have the category focusing on what we officers are looking for in waymark submissions. The category description has been tweaked a number of times and now includes what we're NOT looking for in submissions so to eliminate confusion. Many other categories also state what they're NOT looking for in submissions, this category should no different.

I just took a look at the latest version of the description, and I'm feeling slightly better about it. I'm not completely opposed to the addition of the other categories for which Waymarks will not be accepted in this one (ie. Community Commemorations, Citizen Memorials, etc.), though these could and should have been detailed before Peer Review.

 

As for the following:

Any other dated marker or plaque on an architectural structure that could be waymarked into another existing category.

...this is still concerning. I'm hoping this part of the description just isn't complete. As an example, if there's a plaque that would otherwise be accepted in this category, but it's on a LEED building that's already Waymarked, would the plaque be accepted here?

 

If the answer is yes, as we were led to believe during the forum discussion before Peer Review, then it needs to be clarified that it would only be denied if the plaque or marker itself can be Waymarked in another category, and that it's fine if the structure is already Waymarked. I'd be happy then.

 

However, if the answer is no, then I call shenanigans and will be contacting Groundspeak to see about getting the category repealed, because there will have been a misrepresentation of the intention of the category prior to and during Peer Review.

 

I'm honestly hoping it isn't the latter. We were on board with the originally-proposed concept and I hope this is still the intention of this category (ie. a catch-all for plaques or markers not accepted in the DB&C or BDS&P categories). I have something waiting to add to this category, but I'll be waiting to hear your answer before submitting it.

 

Yes. I've now clarified this in the category description. We know that the structures themselves will be waymarked into other categories, we're just focusing on the dated plaques/markers that accompany these structures.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I just went ahead and deleted the two waymarks that I had made for buildings with the date signs on them. They were not allowed into this category, and they were not allowed into other categories such as Signs of History or our state historical markers.

 

So we are still minus a category to be able to waymark the buildings that have a sign on them indicating when they were built. It's too bad, 'cause a lot of them are interesting around here.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I just went ahead and deleted the two waymarks that I had made for buildings with the date signs on them. They were not allowed into this category, and they were not allowed into other categories such as Signs of History or our state historical markers.

 

So we are still minus a category to be able to waymark the buildings that have a sign on them indicating when they were built. It's too bad, 'cause a lot of them are interesting around here.

I'm interested in seeing exactly what type of sign these are. Are you able to post images/links here so we can see what's being denied?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I've now clarified this in the category description. We know that the structures themselves will be waymarked into other categories, we're just focusing on the dated plaques/markers that accompany these structures.

Thanks for clarifying that, thebeav69. That makes me feel better about this category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The category officers came to the conclusion that we didn't want to accept signs/placards/markers on buildings that say things to the effect of 'Established 1892', 'Since 1976', 'Incorporated 1965', and similar. The reason we took this stance is because most of these signs/placards/markers do NOT represent the actual age of the building/structure itself but represent the age of the business or organization, which is misleading.

 

We are focusing on dated architectural structures with placards/markers that represent their actual age, not how long a business or organization has utilized the structure.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3