Recreated Forest Wetland Areas - revisited

[+honymand]

This is a the description copied from the category - comments are to follow in next post (posting this because some on this suggested this had potential, but the description needed to be improved)

 

Description:

A forest wetland area basically is just what it says: A bog, mire or similar inside a forest. Many have been lost due to drainage, but now nature is being restored.

 

Expanded Description:

Forest wetland areas have become rare in Western Europe since the 1950'es where modern forestry and with that, drainage, took over much of the west-european forest area. This in the end lead to monocultures without any meadows, bogs or ponds inside the forest.

 

But now that is changing again. Focus is on recreating natural forests, both for environmental and recreative purposes.

 

This category is for Waymarking recreated forest bogs and ponds, a special and rare biotope in western Europe, often home to rare mosses and ferns.

 

Instructions for Posting a Recreated Forest Wetland Areas Waymark:

Describe the area and provide at least one, preferably two photos.

 

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

Describe the current state of the wetland area and/or provide a photo.

[+honymand]

Reading through the peer review comments there seems to be three main problems raised by the community.

 

1) Some claim that it wasn't discussed in the forums, but in fact it was. Only it was discussed almost a year before I put it to vote. OK, that is my mistake and I'll certainly improve on that the next time :-)

 

2) The second problem relates to geographical location. Actually my original description of the category was not with "recreated" nor "western europe" in the description. It was simple named "Forst bogs and ponds".

However, in the forum, one person pointed out that this matched huge areas of Canada and Siberia and probably also other places, and that hence this was not really acceptable. Thats why I added the "Recreated" and "Western Europe" - but actually I'd rather not.

 

However, we can boil down that problem. In my country (Denmark) forest bogs are relatively rare (and new, almost all were removed via drainage in the 50's and 60's). In next door Sweden they are abundant.

 

So how to deal with that in the description - something common in one country may be rare in another.

 

3) Finally, and this is my biggest problem. Many say that the description is bad, vague, unclear etc. so I understand that his really must be the case. But I need some help here, suggestions, examples, ideas, references that will help me to improve.

 

Best regards,

Hans Olav

[+Max and 99]

honymand,

I think your chances of getting this category approved would be much greater if you delete the reference to Western Europe. This is far too limiting for a category that could be considered global. If you limit the area to Western Europe, and state that the recreated forest wetlands are rare, that is even more limiting and decreases your chances of an approval.

 

Some things to consider based on the category description (and I know nothing about wetlands, so excuse my ignorance of the matter):

Why limit the waymarks to RECREATED wetlands? What is the difference between a recreated wetland and a wetland? Do you only want forest wetlands, or any wetlands? How will you deal with wetlands that are very large in area (regarding where to post the coordinates)? In my opinion, you should require a photo for visiting a wetland waymark. Taking photos is part of the hobby.

 

There are just a few questions to get the discussion going.

[+The A-Team]

In addition to what Max and 99 said, some examples would be very helpful. Do you have any photos of one or more of these wetland areas? It would be a lot easier for someone to understand what's desired for the category if photos are provided.

 

Also, if the category will still be focused on recreated wetlands, how will someone know it has been recreated? Does there have to be a sign describing it as recreated, will an online source be acceptable, or is just local knowledge good enough?

I also don't like the word "recreated". Maybe it's just me, but it seems awkward. The verb "recreate" can have two definitions: "to give new life or freshness to" or "to take recreation", and for some reason I keep reading it like the latter. Might a word like "rehabilitated" work better?

 

Thanks for bringing this back to the forums for discussion. If we can sort out a few things, we could probably get this category to the point that it could pass peer review.

[+fi67]

A geographical limitation is an absolute no-go and results in a sudden disqualification. (I do know that there exist some regional categories, but they are clearly defined exceptions for mainly historic reasons. No chance to get you idea into that group!) So get rid of all these 'Western Europe' references first!

 

Your original idea with just any pond has a prevalence problem; not where I live and not where you live, but there are regions that have millions of them. I think your trick to limit it to 're-created' ones is quite clever. It makes them rarer, thus more interesting, and it also shows that there are people caring for them. This adds a dimension of history.

 

The term 'recreated' seems to be misleading. We need to find a better one. I neither like 'rehabilitated' very much. What about 'restored'? Or maybe even 'preserved'? You could broaden the category from wetlands that have been destroyed and re-whatever-ed to also include the existing ones that are actively maintained for ecological reasons. (Just a thought; and I am not sure if it's a good one.)

 

However, you have to describe better, what you meant. You had some ponds or wetlands in mind that fit your description, but it is not clear enough for other people. This is a common mistake with beginners. Do not think about the perfect prototype for the category, think about the limits of what is acceptable! Sooner or later you will receive submissions of cases you did not think of, but somehow it almost seems to fit the requirements. Then you cannot realy deny it for good reasons, and for every exceptional approval you make, someone is going to try to push the limits farther. Iusually know, what a forest pond is when I fall into one, but when it is small, very small, tiny... Can I submit it? When it is only seasonal? Half the year, just in winter, couple of weeks, irregular. I came across a small restored and protected wetland fauna and flora habitat last week. But it was not really in the forest, more the edge of the forest. Well, to be honest it was next to a forest, but its back side bordered the trees, and the forest was also maybe not large enough to bear that name with pride. But I took some pictures, would you accept that?

 

So you have to work more on your definition. This is not nitpick. On one hand people have the right to know in advance if their find is valid; on the other hand some people will test the water and try to push the limits.

 

Then there are some details. What proof is needed that this area was in fact re-created? The posting instrcutions are a bit lazy, "The area was wet, and here's my picture." Is that what you want? You'll get it. Encourage people to write more, to create waymarks that are fun to visit online and in the real world, but don't require anything an average travelling non-expert cannot deliver.

 

(Edit for typos)

Edited August 9, 2014 by fi67

[+honymand]

Hi, and thanks for all your answers.

 

First of all I'll give an example of what I am after. Take a look at waymark http://coord.info/WMJCFG - it is uncategorized but should be viewable. And please feel free to suggest another category if you can think of one that fits.

 

About geography:

I completely agree that a global category is what we want, and that was in my original group description before someone wrote "we can't have that, because in some countries there are forest bogs and ponds everywhere".

 

But how else to deal with stuff which is common in some places and rare in others ?

 

About recreated:

Again I'd much rather be without it, and again decided to include it to limit the category. By the way I agree that "restored" is probably better if at all.

 

About description:

Yes, I'll have to work with that - I get it now. Both about size/type of water and degree of "forestness".

 

By the way, what do you think would be the most relevant and interesting?

- Forest bogs and ponds: Doesn't cover larger lakes or larger areas at all, and doesn't have to be restored. My favorite, but then there is the problem that in some countries they are everywhere

- Restored Forest bogs and ponds: Like above but have to be restored.

- Restored Forest wetland areas: Have to be restored but size doesn't matter. My second, because why limit on size. A very large restored area is just the more impressive and interesting I think.

 

Best regards, Hans Olav