how to delete category/group

[+Christopher geertsen]

i created a group quite a while ago and my question was, how do i delete it. alot of the members are inactive and each time i call for a group vote, no one ever votes, so i can't ever get the category to the review cue where everyone can vote on the category. could someone help me out? thanks!!

[+lumbricus]

Do you still have interest in your category idea? Please give us a link that we can take a look. A forum discussion about a new category idea is everytime a good idea.

[+Christopher geertsen]

Do you still have interest in your category idea? Please give us a link that we can take a look. A forum discussion about a new category idea is everytime a good idea.

actually it wouldnt be a good idea. i would get haggled everytime from someone. i have an interest in it but someone told me there was already a category just like the one i created, so my group would never become a category anyway. at this point i just want to delete it. the group is called forgotten places. any idea how i would delete the group that i created please? thanks.

[+MountainWoods]

I remember some discussion on that one. Actually, I don't think there is something just like it for a couple of reasons.

 

The Unoccupied Buildings, Shacks and Cabins category only allows you to waymark something on public land. I know a lot of neat old cabins and buildings that are on private land, but that folks can get to within a few meters of to take photos and get view-from-here coordinates. They would make awesome waymarks, and would definitely be much more worth visiting than McDonalds. But they don't go into any existing category. (I know a lot of folks who like these melancholy, nostalgic remains of edifices. Definitely a "market" for visiting them.)

 

Besides that, the UBS&C category is pretty much dead. Post a waymark in it and then wait several months, complain to TPTB, and you may get the waymark approved. That may not be a good reason for starting something that sounds parallel. But I don't know how to fix a dead category if one cannot even join it and become an officer. Anyway, a category that allows waymarks on private land is not overlapping that dead category.

 

If the category description is carefully written, and points out how it differs from other similar-sounding categories, it might stand a good chance. Anyway, that's my opinion.

[+lumbricus]

...Besides that, the UBS&C category is pretty much dead. Post a waymark in it and then wait several months, complain to TPTB, and you may get the waymark approved. That may not be a good reason for starting something that sounds parallel. But I don't know how to fix a dead category if one cannot even join it and become an officer. Anyway, a category that allows waymarks on private land is not overlapping that dead category...

Are you sure? We took over 10/1/2013 1:02:00 PM, so since that date Waymarks are getting reviewed within a few days.

 

@chris geertsen:

There is no need to delete the group. We have many groups without a category. If you really want delete the group you have to demote all officers per votes. If you are the last one there (dismiss all members before) you are able to delete the group. You promoted many memebers to officers so this could take some time. But as I wrote above there is no need to delete the group.

[+Christopher geertsen]

and most all are not active, so that probably wont ever happen. i think if i ever want it to be a category ill have to create a new one that explains better why it differs from other categorys. thanks for your help!

[+Bear and Ragged]

and most all are not active, so that probably wont ever happen. i think if i ever want it to be a category ill have to create a new one that explains better why it differs from other categorys. thanks for your help!

 

Vote wise, if you are the only active member, the vote CAN take place.

Your one and only vote makes the required 66% needed.

 

The problem comes if another member decides to vote NO...

[+MountainWoods]

...Besides that, the UBS&C category is pretty much dead. Post a waymark in it and then wait several months, complain to TPTB, and you may get the waymark approved. That may not be a good reason for starting something that sounds parallel. But I don't know how to fix a dead category if one cannot even join it and become an officer. Anyway, a category that allows waymarks on private land is not overlapping that dead category...

Are you sure? We took over 10/1/2013 1:02:00 PM, so since that date Waymarks are getting reviewed within a few days.

 

@chris geertsen:

There is no need to delete the group. We have many groups without a category. If you really want delete the group you have to demote all officers per votes. If you are the last one there (dismiss all members before) you are able to delete the group. You promoted many memebers to officers so this could take some time. But as I wrote above there is no need to delete the group.

Thanks lumbricus. I didn't know that. My second and last UBS&C waymark was from 6/2013, and then I gave up on it. Now that there are active officers such as yourself in the group, I'll go back out and get some of those waymarked.

 

Sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread. But what I was saying still applies concerning the public/private nature of the forgotten thing. If the successful UBS&C's category description could be used as a basis for this new category -- but changing the private requirement as I mentioned above -- then I think we'd have something here that would fly.

 

In place of "must be on private land" (from the UBS&C description):

• Visitor must be able to park in a legal manner to view the waymark, without blocking any roads or driveways.
  
• Visitor must be able to clearly see and photograph the forgotten place, without causing concern for passers by or whoever may own the forgotten place.
  
• Please make an effort to describe what the site was like before it was forgotten.
  
• Can you tell us why it was forgotten? (Mine played out, railroad tracks went through a different town, etc.)
  

 

The visit requirements could simply require a visit photograph of the site (I'd even allow historic photos from before Waymarking existed!), and the visitors impression of the forgotten place.

 

I don't remember seeing this category come up for a vote in the past, but I'd vote for it, if it can be shown to be dissimilar to existing categories -- and I think it could, with the public allowance in the requirements. Problem is that I don't usually wonder into the peer review area. Guess I should. So give it a try and POST it here in the forums.

[+Christopher geertsen]

in response to your note bear and ragged, i am not the only member. theres about 10 others, so my vote alone would not be 66% of the vote. ill post the link for the group here mountain woods and you could take a look at it. in fact i just took a look at it and found that you are a member of it all ready! that was a surprise. maybe you forgot that you decided to become a member! here is the link!

 

its http://www.Waymarking.com/groups/details.aspx?f=1&guid=993d1dde-5af0-4707-84bb-a0e57c918124

 

i went to my profile and then to my group page. clicked on the forgotten places link and copied the link in the browser and pasted it here. i hope that it works.

[+Bear and Ragged]

in response to your note bear and ragged, i am not the only member. theres about 10 others, so my vote alone would not be 66% of the vote. ill post the link for the group here mountain woods and you could take a look at it. in fact i just took a look at it and found that you are a member of it all ready! that was a surprise. maybe you forgot that you decided to become a member! here is the link!

 

its http://www.Waymarking.com/groups/details.aspx?f=1&guid=993d1dde-5af0-4707-84bb-a0e57c918124

 

i went to my profile and then to my group page. clicked on the forgotten places link and copied the link in the browser and pasted it here. i hope that it works.

 

The voting to demote a member is % of those voting not the % of those in the group.

 

So, if only you vote it's a 100% vote and the member gets demoted.

[+MountainWoods]

I think I just joined the other day when this came up.

 

I'm not sure I like the insistence that you always obtain permission from a land owner. In some cases it might be difficult to impossible to do that, and yet the forgotten place is easily viewed and photographed by pulling off of the road and taking your photo(s). Here is an example. That is an old school just on the other side of a fence along a road. One can easily park along the road to take the photos for a Former School and/or One-Room School visit, and no one will care at all. Certainly not the land owner. But try to find him or her!

 

Many of the forgotten places around me are in the same circumstances. The land owner is just a name on a plat map IF you can find a current plat map; and there is no contact information available at all. Many of the land owners don't even live in the area.

 

'Twould be better to use some kind of a compromise. Perhaps state that the land owner permission is required if there is any chance that the land owner would object to folks stopping to take photos of areas of their property, or some such. If the land owner certainly does not care, why require it?

 

I suppose one could treat this as a "don't ask, don't tell" thing...

Edited August 14, 2014 by MountainWoods

[+Christopher geertsen]

I think I just joined the other day when this came up.

 

I'm not sure I like the insistence that you always obtain permission from a land owner. In some cases it might be difficult to impossible to do that, and yet the forgotten place is easily viewed and photographed by pulling off of the road and taking your photo(s). Here is an example. That is an old school just on the other side of a fence along a road. One can easily park along the road to take the photos for a Former School and/or One-Room School visit, and no one will care at all. Certainly not the land owner. But try to find him or her!

 

Many of the forgotten places around me are in the same circumstances. The land owner is just a name on a plat map IF you can find a current plat map; and there is no contact information available at all. Many of the land owners don't even live in the area.

 

'Twould be better to use some kind of a compromise. Perhaps state that the land owner permission is required if there is any chance that the land owner would object to folks stopping to take photos of areas of their property, or some such. If the land owner certainly does not care, why require it?

 

I suppose one could treat this as a "don't ask, don't tell" thing...

thanks for the reply and advice. i just succesfully voted out 3 unactive officers. mountain woods i edited the page based on what you said. i think its almost there but maybe if you look at the page again and see if there is anything else that needs to be done, that would be great. hope i can get this to a public vote soon.

[+MountainWoods]

It looks good to me. The only thing I would fix (and this is just a nitpit) is that this game is Waymarking and we are Waymarkers. Each of those is only one word, not two. But like I say, that is just a nitpick.

 

To head off some opposition: Some folks may disagree with this because they'll think that it is too subjective when it says that the waymark might not require landowner permission. They may counter that this may be difficult to determine. In the situations that I am waiting to Waymark under such a category, there is no question at all about whether the landowner would care, since they live anywhere from 1/4 to many miles away. But that won't be the case in every situation.

 

You have covered this by asking that folks try to contact the landowner if they can. That is good. Perhaps that will appease some of the nay sayers.

 

If there is a lawyer in the audience here in the forums (which I am not a lawyer), perhaps they can improve the wording if they think it necessary on this point. For me, I understand it, and it is good enough.

 

What do others say?

Edited August 19, 2014 by MountainWoods