New Category Proposal - People Named Natural Features

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

I just came across a mountain in Arizona, named after the the first Native American Woman who died in combat serving with the US military. I would love to waymark this place, but the closest category "People-Named Places" only allows structures built by humans, such as cities, counties, airports, bridges, dams or buildings.

 

If we can waymark every school named after George Washington, we should be able to waymark Mountains or Rivers named after their discoverers or other famous people.

 

I imagine this to be a rather easy categories to put together and it matches all the common requirements. Allowed should be anything in its natural stage (not altered by humans) - mountains (Mount Everest), mountain ranges (Uinta Mountains, Utah), rivers (Hudson River), lakes (Lake Victoria), valleys (Castro Valley), deserts (Gibson Desert, Australia), etc. Only exception (since bodies of water are excluded from "People-Named Places") could be reservoirs, such as Lake Powell.

 

We may run into some problems defining where exactly to point the coordinates, but other categories have solved that too.

 

Let me know, what you think.

[+Max and 99 2147]

I just came across a mountain in Arizona, named after the the first Native American Woman who died in combat serving with the US military. I would love to waymark this place, but the closest category "People-Named Places" only allows structures built by humans, such as cities, counties, airports, bridges, dams or buildings.

 

If we can waymark every school named after George Washington, we should be able to waymark Mountains or Rivers named after their discoverers or other famous people.

 

I imagine this to be a rather easy categories to put together and it matches all the common requirements. Allowed should be anything in its natural stage (not altered by humans) - mountains (Mount Everest), mountain ranges (Uinta Mountains, Utah), rivers (Hudson River), lakes (Lake Victoria), valleys (Castro Valley), deserts (Gibson Desert, Australia), etc. Only exception (since bodies of water are excluded from "People-Named Places") could be reservoirs, such as Lake Powell.

 

We may run into some problems defining where exactly to point the coordinates, but other categories have solved that too.

 

Let me know, what you think.

 

I think this is a GREAT idea for a category!

 

I am a little bit confused on the bodies of water issue, though.

[+silverquill 1]

The concept is good because of the limitation of the People Named Places category. There are a few issues that need to be considered. First, would ALL types of natural features be included? What about things like parks? Named Gaps have a category. Waterfalls and beaches have categories of their own, but not all of them are named for people, of course. I think cross-posting in these cases would be fine.

 

The other issue is that many of these natural features are extremely large and are therefore difficult to identify with a point marked by geographic coordinates. So, where do we want coordinates for Mt. Jefferson? Distant viewing area, base, summit? The same would be true of deserts, lakes, rivers, etc. I'm not sure there is a good solution to this issue, but it must somehow be dealt with.

 

Thanks for bringing this one to the table.

[+lumbricus 52]

I like the idea!

[+jennyanykind 0]

I really like this idea; it is a definite gap that needs covering. I don't have a good solution to the coordinates problem: some possible candidates will have visitors' centers or main viewing platforms that can be used, but others, like Mt. Everest, are viewable from so many places, and so few people would make it to the actual site that was closest to the waymark, that that solution would not work for all places.

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

How about this for coordinates:

 

If there is a plaque or anything else with the name of the feature, use that as location. If you can't find such a plaque, provide a picture of a map with the feature clearly named and use a viewpoint from which one can get a good view at the feature.

 

I also tend to allow only one entry per named feature for viewpoints. So you can't drive through the Gibson Desert and waymark every turn in the road.

 

I am, however open to allow multiple plaques or markers for the same feature as long as the name is written on it. Or maybe not. What do you think?

 

As for water bodies:

 

Since these are explicitly excluded from people named places, I am leaning towards allowing reservoirs and canals. Anyway, it is often hard to tell a reservoir from a natural lake and a canal from a river.

 

Again: what do you think?

[+fi67 154]

I think it should be more about the location than the plaque, so I would prefer to see only one waymark per location; I am aware of the problems that this can bring for larger areas.

 

"mountains, mountain ranges, rivers, lakes, valleys, deserts" sound fine. I would add glaciers and smaller features like named rocks. I would not allow countries (like Colombia) or Continents (America is named after a person, too). And I am not sure about islands, waterfalls, straits, passes and mountain gaps; maybe yes.

 

What about features named after people with an unproved existence, maybe even mythological?

[+NW_history_buff 16]

Excellent category proposal here but I'm so busy with my other approved categories, I can't touch this one.

 

FYI, I'm an officer in the People Named Places category. With that said, one good first step might be to assimilate the category description for People Named Places into the People Named Natural Places category. This way, waymarkers would approach both categories the same way. Continuity is ALWAYS a good thing in my book.

 

Good luck.

 

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

I think it should be more about the location than the plaque, so I would prefer to see only one waymark per location; I am aware of the problems that this can bring for larger areas.

 

Come to think of it, I agree: one entry per feature it is

 

"mountains, mountain ranges, rivers, lakes, valleys, deserts" sound fine. I would add glaciers and smaller features like named rocks. I would not allow countries (like Colombia) or Continents (America is named after a person, too). And I am not sure about islands, waterfalls, straits, passes and mountain gaps; maybe yes.

 

No problems with waterfalls (I know one), Islands etc. Anything that is in an unaltered natural state (I see we are going to have a problem with reservoirs and canals). Countries, Continents etc. age not a natural feature, but a political one - man-made, thus excluded.

 

What about features named after people with an unproved existence, maybe even mythological?

 

"People named Places" excludes religious and mythological names, and I think, we should do the same

 

How should we handle places named after organizations (Society Islands, named after the British Geographical Society, Admiralty Islands (named after the British Admiralty) etc.? There also is a mountain top in the Altai Mountains named after a German Newspaper. I would love to include them but I'm afraid it would cause more problems than benefits.

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

one good first step might be to assimilate the category description for People Named Places into the People Named Natural Places category. This way, waymarkers would approach both categories the same way. Continuity is ALWAYS a good thing in my book.

 

Good luck.

 

 

VERY good idea! Thank you!

[+silverquill 1]

Good thoughts here. I'd really like to see this category fly.

 

- One or more waymarks per feature? I still think that it might be reasonable to allow more than one waymark for some of the larger features. For instance, the north face or south face of a large mountain. I'm not sure that a sign is always necessary because many times there are no signs for natural features. But, if there is a definite viewpoint or access area, then I think these should be valid for a waymark. It would be hard to develop guidelines for ALL features, so some of the main ones might have to be defined with their own guidelines. So, you can specify the requirements for Waymarking mountains, lakes, waterfalls separately, for instance. This same approach could be used for the other other features such as canals. You can't cover everything or every situation, but these can be dealt on a case-by-case basis and can even result in additions or revisions to the category.

 

I do think it is important to have two parts to a waymark - one for the feature itself and one for the person(s) for whom it is named. This is similar to the approach taken by the People Named Places category.

 

Keep working; this is a great idea.

[+T0SHEA 180]

To quote lumbricus: "I like the idea!"

 

Can't think of many that we've come across, though mountains certainly does come to mind. Yes, I'm sure we'd be able to find a bunch of these. Gives us one more thing to hunt for...

 

EDIT: Further, it creates a venue for increasing the knowledge database of historical figures, some as yet little known, who deserve a wider exposure.

Edited October 3, 2014 by BK-Hunters

[+Rikitan 189]

Ouch! Aren't these prevalent far too much? Just brief look at the small map slice around my village gives me dozens of places named after some specific person. Meadows, groves, hillsides, fields, valleys - many many named after almost or completely forgotten people who lived there or owned that land once. For most of the places - there is no other evidence who that particular person was, when he lived (rarely in memories, or stories) - only name /or surname.

[+MountainWoods 25]

Please, please, please do not generalize everyone's situation based on your own. I have seen this exact same thing in another topic. "There are too many of them around here." Good for you! There aren't too many of them around here!

 

"Such things are always boring." to you. Please allow for the fact that other people have different interests than you, and that they live in other areas than you.

 

Sheesh!

[+Rikitan 189]

Sure, dont worry. Just opening one aspect for discussion before it will gain several nays in review because of prevalence.

It was rather question, if all people named natural places will be accepted, including those with no further knowledge about person.

Imagine submission of 'Ray`s meadow'. Coordinates, picture, 1-2 sentences where it is. But no word about 'Ray', because I don`t have a clue who it was. And (hypotheticaly) I can submit hundreds of them. Are they all right, or do you prefer to limit them? If limit, it will be better to mention it in category write-up now.

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

It was rather question, if all people named natural places will be accepted, including those with no further knowledge about person.

 

That is a very valid point. I'm glad I waited a while for more comments before moving ahead, because I would have missed this one.

 

Yes, I wouldn't like to see places like Jack's Peak or Cooper's Meadow, unless there is clear explanation, who Jack or Mr. Cooper was and why he deserved the merits of a place named after him.

 

Should we make a short, one paragraph biography a requirement? It certainly would increase the educational value, and for me, Waymarking is not about listing 10,000 places I can take a picture of, but learning something new with every waymark I post.

[+PISA-caching 165]

In my area (Vienna, Austria) it's not very common to name natural things after special people. Usually people are honored by naming a street, a school or whatever. One possible waymark I can think of is the "Hanslteich" (Hansl pond), BUT: The pond was created by people in the 19th century so that they could cut ice out of it. This leads to my first question: Does "Natural" mean that a man-made pond wouldn't qualify? And what about barrier lakes for example?

 

After a little research I found out that the name "Hansl" refers to a woman called "Hansen" (I couldn't find her first name), who - in the old days - was allowed to cut ice out of the pond. So, she wasn't a very interesting or famous person and I doubt that I could find out much more about her, but that leads to the next questions: Does it have to be a "famous" person or would "Mrs. Hansen" be interesting enough?

 

And the next question: Do we need the full name of the person?

 

Don't worry, I won't post this pond to the category, but maybe my questions can help to avoid later discussions.

 

And another thing: In Austria you will find many natural places named "Kaiser....." (Kaiser = emperor). They don't have the name of a specific emperor in their name, but most of them refer to a specific one. The just didn't want to name it "Emperor Franz Joseph woods". :-) So, the last question would be: Does the name of the person have to be in the name of the natural place or would it be enough to prove that the natural place was named after a specific person?

 

Remark: If anything of the above confuses you or doesn't make sense it's due to my lack of proper English, but I hope you still understand what I was trying to say/ask. :-)

[+fi67 154]

Just a side note: I was thinking, that all these names have been given a long time ago, but yesterday the second highest peak in Switzerland was named after Henri Dunant on occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Red Cross. The official ceremony was attended by the federal president, s well as representatives of the ICRC and members of the regional government.

[+silverquill 1]

It was rather question, if all people named natural places will be accepted, including those with no further knowledge about person.

 

That is a very valid point. I'm glad I waited a while for more comments before moving ahead, because I would have missed this one.

 

Yes, I wouldn't like to see places like Jack's Peak or Cooper's Meadow, unless there is clear explanation, who Jack or Mr. Cooper was and why he deserved the merits of a place named after him.

 

Should we make a short, one paragraph biography a requirement? It certainly would increase the educational value, and for me, Waymarking is not about listing 10,000 places I can take a picture of, but learning something new with every waymark I post.

 

This is a tough call. Sometimes there just may not be much information available about the name of a place, even if it is obviously a historical person in the name. But, maybe that is the challenge for those of us who might want to put waymarks in this category. I do think that we need BOTH components for a waymark -- THE PLACE and THE PERSON.

 

Is for generic names, such as Kaiser, Presidential, etc. I would think that these would be excluded. A specific individual, or group of individuals, should be the focus. Of course some names would come up over and over again. I think in the U.S. there are many natural features with the name Washington of Lincoln, for instance.

 

And, it just occurs to me that in the U.S. we have many places named for Native Americans.

 

The goal would be to have a category that would be both fun and educational, it seems to me. Some flexibility might be called for. Probably it would be difficult to cover every possible contingency in the description. It is still worth going after though!

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

Sorry, I was out (first sick and then on vacation) for a while. But now I really want to get this category going. I think we have the information and comments we need. Last question: Who would be interested in starting a group for this category?

[+silverquill 1]

If anyone wants to know why we recommend bringing new category ideas to the forums, they just need to read this thread!

 

Count me in.

[+KaPsTeam 0]

First greetings to all, because we are new to this forum.

 

I would like to support the category.

[+MountainWoods 25]

Looks like you are a premium member. You should be able to go into the Peer Review link and vote for it there.

 

Votes for new categories expire after so many days (3, I think). But I'm not a PM now, so I can't go in there and see how it's doing. But I support the category, too. In spirit. And hopefully in future Waymarks.

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

I finished a proposal for the category and put it up for vote twice, but KaPs and I were the only two voting. The third officer (not naming any names here - you know who you are ) has not been online for quite a while.

 

We desperately need one more premium member to get this category going.

 

Thanks to everybody supporting the idea!

[+MountainWoods 25]

Never mind. I just remembered that you have to be a premium member to vote for the category. After that, you can promote non-premiums in as officers.

Edited May 6, 2015 by MountainWoods

[+The A-Team 1858]

We desperately need one more premium member to get this category going.

You can use me if you want!

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

You can use me if you want!

 

Thank you! Just sent you an invitation.

[+The A-Team 1858]

Thank you! Just sent you an invitation.

Received and accepted.

 

I just took a look at the category description, and I have a couple of questions/comments:

• Rivers are accepted, but what about smaller features such as streams? fi67 also mentioned rocks. The examples in the description are all fairly large. Is there a lower limit to the size of the accepted features? Does it qualify regardless of size as long as it's natural and named after a historic person? If so, you might want to explain this somehow in the description and/or add some smaller features to the list of examples.
  
• For the proof, what about accepting other official sources (would that fall under "encyclopedic"?)? For example, in my province there's an excellent website run by the government that provides information about geographical features and often provides background around the name. Here's an example of a local hill.
  

Otherwise, I think it looks good.

[+Metro2 2]

You can add me too as a member of the category.

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

You can add me too as a member of the category.

 

Thank you! Invitation is on its way

[+Outspoken1 7]

Finally having time to catch up with the Forums. This sounds like a category with great potential. A few thoughts:

 

As for the coordinates of the location - if there is a general site that has coordinates (like Wikipedia, State hunting/fishing/hiking location, [a GIS person could probably answer this question)?), those would be the coordinates for the Waymark and then you would submit the second set off coords where you took the photo. This is how we handled U-Haul Supergraphics.

 

As for the 'name'; to avoid places with names that have been lost to history. Credible documentation needs to be provided. As a genealogist, many towns have their history online or other digitized info (search genealogy or [location] to help figure out which ancestors owned property. So Cooper's Meadow would have to be accompanied with documentation as to who was Cooper and why the Meadow was named after him/her. The documentation should both be copy and pasted and the URL provided.

 

Bodies of water could follow the criteria already set in the Natural Lakes and other bodies of water categories (no reason to reinvent the wheel).

 

An English translation is needed since many of the officers are (sadly) not multilingual and the Waymarking membership is primarily English speaking (sorry, not trying to be insensitive - just realistic. As an officer, when I get a Waymark in French or German or Czech, I am just stumped).

 

I would be happy to join this group and help out, if wanted.

 

Take care,

Outspoken1

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

Thanks for the valuable additional suggestions! I like the coordinates Idea. However, in the original proposal I wrote that for large features we'd allow more than one entry per waymark, like the north and the South entrance. Should we go with general coordinates instead and only allow one entry per feature?

I agree there has to be credible information about the namesake, but I would not insist in an online source. A picture of a plaque or print media (with proper quotation) should be sufficient.

Lastly, in my personal opinion (and that really is just me) I am not very comfortable disciminating non-English speakers. Google translate has gotten pretty good. Lately,I have approved waymarks in French, Czech, Dutch and Portuguese without any problem.

I will send you an invitation to join the group and work your suggestions into the proposal.

 

Thanks for helping!

[+Outspoken1 7]

OK, this may be a resource to find the 'master' coordinates of a people-named location similar to the way U-Haul Supergraphics uses the 50States website for the master coords for each supergraphic.

 

A friend suggested Acme Maps. I just looked up Mount Evans, Colorado, USA, in the Find box (lower right hand corner). When I clicked on the marker (inverted teardrop), it brought up a dialog box with the coords of Mount Evans. The map has many other nearby mountain peaks indicated (not that all are relevant to the proposed category, but that it provides the info). Now we need some N/C/S American, European, Asian, Australian, etc. Waymarkers to look at locations in their area and see if it works for them. Again,this is just a suggestion.

 

Take care,

Outspoken1

[+Tuena 9]

I just used Acme Maps to look up Mount Kosciuszko, named after a Polish fellow, & it works fine.

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

I would like to revive this discussion. It fell somewhat to the wayside. Last year, we got all the way to a written proposal but got stuck there. Either I did something wrong and the officers I invited never got the invitation or something else went wrong, either way two attempts to vote on the category proposal timed out without enough votes.

 

If anybody is interested and willing to commit him/herself to this category, please let me know.

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

Here is the category description we hammered out so far:

 

This category seeks to document natural features named after a real life person. These can include mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, forests, glaciers, waterfalls or other natural features.

 

There is no upper or lower limit in size. Features can be as large as the Gibson Desert (156,000 km2 / 60,232 sq mi) or as small as the only 2.5 miles long McWay Creek, as long as all other criteria are fulfilled. Not accepted are human made structures likes dams, walls, reservoirs or canals and entities created by drawing a human made boundary, such as national and state parks, countries, counties or continents. Also not accepted are places named after religious deities or mythical figures.

 

Also not accepted are generic rock formations composed of minerals named after a person (like a rock consisting of Stephanite (named after Archduke Stephan of Austria) or a grove of Douglas firs (named after Scottish botanist David Douglas). An individual rock named after the Archduke or an individual forest named after the botanist would qualify. Examples:

 

Mount Everest ------------- YES!

Mackenzie River ----------- YES!

Lake Victoria-------------- YES!

McWay Creek-----------------YES!

Strzelecki Desert --------- YES!

 

St. Thomas Mountain ------- NO!

Lake Powell (A reservoir)-- NO!

Washington State ---------- NO!

Continent of America -------NO!

The Pillars of Hercules --- NO!

 

Also, the person in question should have some historical merits. A Wilson Peak named after the former US President would be OK, a Wilson Meadow, named so just because it belongs to a farmer named Wilson, wouldn't. For this reason, we require at least one paragraph about who the person was (preferably with a wikipedia reference).

 

For very large features like deserts, we will allow multiple entries for the same feature, as long as they are distinctively different (For example: the northern and the southern entrance road into a desert will be accepted, but every mile marker along the road will not.

[+T0SHEA 180]

If anybody is interested and willing to commit him/herself to this category, please let me know.

 

Wondered if this would see the light of day again. Yes, we like this category proposal and would like to support it, officer wise, that is. One thing you'll have to accept in return may be a lot of suggestions and possibly even lots of edits. First, since I haven't thought about this proposal for many months, I'll have to restart my brain and try to come up with some of the things that will have inevitably been missed by all those who offered suggestions earlier.

 

Read your category description below; it's looking good, just need to cogitate awhile on some of the yet unknown variables that will mess this up. (There always are a few - we speak from experience here.)

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

I'll have to restart my brain ...

 

I had to restart my brain too. Take all the time you need. It has been over a year since the idea fell to the wayside, another day or two (or three) won't make a difference.

[+T0SHEA 180]

 

I had to restart my brain too. Take all the time you need. It has been over a year since the idea fell to the wayside, another day or two (or three) won't make a difference.

 

Brain slowly warming up now...

[+T0SHEA 180]

Reading your category description for a third or fourth time, it seems to me that you have it well covered. I still haven't come up with any serious "Gotchas", so I'll concentrate on Waymark quality for now.

 

For the minimum of a paragraph of biographical information, can it be purely copy and paste, or must it be an original piece?

There are a number of terminally lazy Waymarkers who will do a complete copy and paste if it will garner them a Waymark.

And, of course proper attribution must accompany any quoted material.

 

Photos - I would suggest a minimum of two - three if there is a sign or plaque included in the Waymark.

Expand "preferably with a wikipedia reference" to something like "preferably with a wikipedia or similar online biographical reference".

 

One more thing, when this is ready to go and sent to peer review, start a new thread to announce it - a lot more people will see it that way.

 

More if/when I think of it. Have to first run several scenarios through the analog processor here.

 

Aside: I doubt that this type of thing will cause a problem, but I discovered a well known natural feature that I expect most people assume was named after Christopher Columbus, the Columbia River. It was, instead, named after a ship, which was, in turn, named after Columbus. So we have an Indirectly People Named Natural Feature here. Not really acceptable, in my mind.

[+T0SHEA 180]

This is still a good idea.

 

Since we are a regular member, we can not read the actual category description. Perhaps you could post it here so we can look at it.

 

Thanks, BK-Hunters

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

Sorry I did not respond earlier. I am currently on vacation in Germany and while I took enough pictures for about 200 waymarks, I did not have much time to work on that proposal. I will be back home in a week, but will have a short business trip after that. When that is done, I will focus all my energy on getting this category afloat.

 

Happy Waymarking and thanks for the support!

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

 

Since we are a regular member, we can not read the actual category description. Perhaps you could post it here so we can look at it.

 

 

Here is what I have done so far:

 

Describe your waymark category in one or two sentences:

 

The purpose of this category is to document specific natural features such as mountains, rivers, valleys and the like that are named after a real life person.

 

Please define the waymark that should be placed in this category:

 

This category seeks to document natural features named after a real life person. These can include mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, forests, glaciers, waterfalls or other natural features.

There is no upper or lower limit in size. Features can be as large as the Gibson Desert (156,000 km2 / 60,232 sq mi) or as small as the only 2.5 miles long McWay Creek, as long as all other criteria are fulfilled.

 

Not accepted are human made structures likes dams, walls, reservoirs or canals and entities created by drawing a human made boundary, such as national and state parks, countries, counties or continents. Also not accepted are places named after religious deities or mythical figures.

 

Also not accepted are generic rock formations composed of minerals named after a person (like a rock consisting of Stephanite (named after Archduke Stephan of Austria) or a grove of Douglas firs (named after Scottish botanist David Douglas). An individual rock named after the Archduke or an individual forest named after the botanist would qualify.

 

Mount Everest ------------- YES!

Mackenzie River ----------- YES!

Lake Victoria-------------- YES!

McWay Creek-----------------YES!

Strzelecki Desert --------- YES!

 

St. Thomas Mountain ------- NO!

Lake Powell (A reservoir)-- NO!

Washington State ---------- NO!

continent of America -------NO!

The Pillars of Hercules --- NO!

 

Also, the person in question should have some historical merits. A Wilson Peak named after the former US President would be OK, a Wilson Meadow, named so just because it belongs to a farmer named Wilson, wouldn't. For this reason, we require at least one paragraph about who the person was (preferably with a wikipedia reference).

 

For very large features like deserts, we will allow multiple entries for the same feature, as long as they are distinctively different (For example: the northern and the southern entrance road into a desert will be accepted, but every mile marker along the road will not.

 

Please list any specific requirements for posting a new waymark in this category (optional; these instructions will be displayed on the waymark entry page):

 

Coordinates have to be taken from a point that clearly shows the feature. Preferably, coordinates should be taken from within the feature, but we understand, that this might sometimes (Glaciers, Waterfalls) be impossible.

 

A Short description of the feature and at least one picture must be provided.

 

Also, a short description of the person, the feature is named after, must be given.

 

A proof of the name must be provided either by a picture of a plaque or sign, or a map reference or an encyclopedic reference (such as wikipedia or a website dedicated to feature). Here is good example of such a source http://apps.gov.bc.ca/pub/bcgnws/names/20929.html).

 

Please list any specific requirements for posting a new log for waymarks of this category (optional; these instructions will be displayed on the log entry page):

 

Provide your own picture and describe your experience.

[+T0SHEA 180]

Hello, Bernd das Brot Team

 

If I am understanding about the vote, it was officer review that failed twice?

 

We would like this category proposal to be discussed further, and hopefully see peer review. We joined the group, and are still interested in being an officer.

 

We are in favor of this category.

 

BK-Hunters

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

Hello old friends,

after taking a break for Waymarking, I lately got back into the game and would like to give this idea a fresh start.

Please take some time to go over the previous discussion and maybe we can get this going this time.

 

Happy New Year, everybody.

[+elyob 156]

It's interesting to again read our conversation from so long ago.

[+PISA-caching 165]

More than 5 years ago I asked several questions regarding this idea, but didn't get any specific answers. Some questions were answered by the draft of a category description, but not all of them.

[+Bernd das Brot Team 3]

Sorry I totally dropped this for so long.

So, what were the unanswered questions?

 

I think the biggest problem was weather to allow only one entry per name or multiple entries. How would one regulate multiple entries for something like the the 200 miles long Stanislaus River (named after Native American Chief Estanislao) or the over 1,000 miles of shoreline of Lake Victoria.

 

For now, I would like to include lakes, rivers, forests, deserts, mountains, glaciers and other natural features. I would exclude political entities (Countries or counties, states, districts etc.) named after people (Washington State or the Country of Columbia, for example). I would also exclude submerged features like the Lomonosov Ridge at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean and continents - America was named after Amerigo Vespucci.

 

There was also a suggestion regarding mythical creatures and deities - I would recommend against that as there is too much uncertainty.

 

As for the burden of proof: should we require a sign with the name on it or is a map or Wikipedia reference good enough? A compromise for both the double entry issue and the proof would be to allow only one entry per subject proven by a map or online reference but to allow multiple signs, if the clearly spell out the name.

 

What do you think?

 

[+elyob 156]

In the Natural Lakes category, large lakes could have more than one waymarked location but only one waymark for each country or state/province.

 

 

[+elyob 156]

In the Public Access Lands category,  "waymarks will be accepted for all visibly marked trailheads and/or designated parking locations for the area (meeting reasonable distance requirements, etc)." 

 

'Reasonable distance requirements' seems too subjective to me.