Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Tante.Hossi

Tabula Rasa @ Artesian Well Category

21 posts in this topic

Today 10 of my 12 waymarks submitted over the last years into the Artesian Well category have been declined. It seems one or more of the officers is doing some Tabula Rasa in the category. ph34r.gif I don't like such things!

 

Is it only me? Or have your waymarks been declined as well? Actually there are only 132 waymarks left at the category. I don't know how many there have been before.

Maybe the officers are right. Maybe the submitted waymarks did not fit and have been approved in an error. But is it good to decline them after years have passed?

I know we have had this at some other categories before.

0

Share this post


Link to post

On January 4 there were 154 artesian well waymarks. Almost half the reduction came from your re-evaluations. What was the reason given?

0

Share this post


Link to post

This was the decline text:

'I am so sorry but this was added in error and is not an artesian well. An artesian well is a pumpless water source that uses pipes to allow underground water that is under pressure to rise to the surface. This type of well seems to defy gravity because the pressure that builds up between layers of rock gets relieved when the water finds a path to the open air. In addition, the water has been naturally filtered because it passes through porous rock as it seeps into the Earth to reach the aquifer, which is the underground water source. For centuries, people have drilled artesian wells to drink filtered water that doesn't need to be manually or mechanically hauled up from the depths.'

 

So maybe my waymarks should not have been approved at any time. Maybe they do not fit to this definition. Hmmmm but I don't like it anyway.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I do like this category, because it's a really rare one, at least in my area. After over five years of Waymarking, I still have none yet. This icon is more worth than two dozen fast food chains.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I do like this category, because it's a really rare one, at least in my area. After over five years of Waymarking, I still have none yet. This icon is more worth than two dozen fast food chains.

 

You'll have to visit Down Under & take this drive: http://www.greatarte...om.au/Home.aspx

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

This was the decline text:

'I am so sorry but this was added in error and is not an artesian well. An artesian well is a pumpless water source that uses pipes to allow underground water that is under pressure to rise to the surface. This type of well seems to defy gravity because the pressure that builds up between layers of rock gets relieved when the water finds a path to the open air. In addition, the water has been naturally filtered because it passes through porous rock as it seeps into the Earth to reach the aquifer, which is the underground water source. For centuries, people have drilled artesian wells to drink filtered water that doesn't need to be manually or mechanically hauled up from the depths.'

 

So maybe my waymarks should not have been approved at any time. Maybe they do not fit to this definition. Hmmmm but I don't like it anyway.

 

I got the same decline text on a well that WAS an artesian well -- said so in the history books, and on the sign at the well. But what do I know, apparently?

 

I do not agree with waymarks that were approved in categories years ago being "cleaned up" and declined like this -- grandfather, rewrite category descriptions to be more specific, but don't just decline longstanding waymarks, especially ones that have been visited.

 

I am going to resubmit my waymark and see what happens.

0

Share this post


Link to post

My last two waymarks in this category have been declined today. I'm off. I lost 12 waymarks and one icon. What a bad weekend!

0

Share this post


Link to post

One of my published waymarks in the same category got declined today.

 

Not really a problem for me, I don't play Waymarking as a grid filling icon collecting game.

 

I'll just post my photos on Flicar where they will be seen. :laughing:

0

Share this post


Link to post

One of my published waymarks in the same category got declined today.

 

Not really a problem for me, I don't play Waymarking as a grid filling icon collecting game.

 

I'll just post my photos on Flicar where they will be seen. :laughing:

 

I resubmitted my waymarks to more clearly point out that this was a real artesian well and it was approved.

 

Maybe those of you who got blanked can do the same?

 

I disagree with the very late after the fact declines. But not my category, so all I can do is salvage the WMs that are salvageable.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, just checked into the forums and saw this post. I will take responsibility for the re-evaluations. I didn't think it would be a very popular action but ...

 

In posting a new artesian well waymark I noticed that many of the waymarks were not artesian wells!!!! It seemed quite likely that the hobbyist who was doing all the reviewing did not know what an artesian well was. It also seemed to me that the posters did not take the time to read the category description. As it turned out, the previous category leader was not even a Premium member and had logged less than 10 waymarks during his entire Waymarking career.

 

Now I could understand a grandfathering argument if the category description had changed. But it hadn't!!!

 

So for me, if you post a waymark that doesn't fit the description and it gets accepted you are still liable to having that waymark be rejected later down the road.

 

Because there were many waymarks that did not fit the category, I felt it necessary to reject any waymark that did not specifically mention or justify that the waymark was an artesian well.

 

I think doing so helps to maintain the integrity of the category and to keep it special.

 

So if by chance I rejected any waymark that was a true artesian well (and please read the category description) than do update the waymark description and resubmit.

 

Happy Waymarking!

 

RitC

Edited by RakeInTheCache
0

Share this post


Link to post

One of my published waymarks in the same category got declined today.

 

Not really a problem for me, I don't play Waymarking as a grid filling icon collecting game.

 

I'll just post my photos on Flicar where they will be seen. :laughing:

 

I resubmitted my waymarks to more clearly point out that this was a real artesian well and it was approved.

 

Maybe those of you who got blanked can do the same?

 

I disagree with the very late after the fact declines. But not my category, so all I can do is salvage the WMs that are salvageable.

 

When your waymark was approved the second time, were all the visits reinstated? That's where I feel bady. How many waymarkers took a journey just to seek the "approved" artesian well only to have that visit disappear years later?

0

Share this post


Link to post

One of my published waymarks in the same category got declined today.

 

Not really a problem for me, I don't play Waymarking as a grid filling icon collecting game.

 

I'll just post my photos on Flicar where they will be seen. :laughing:

 

I resubmitted my waymarks to more clearly point out that this was a real artesian well and it was approved.

 

Maybe those of you who got blanked can do the same?

 

I disagree with the very late after the fact declines. But not my category, so all I can do is salvage the WMs that are salvageable.

 

When your waymark was approved the second time, were all the visits reinstated? That's where I feel bady. How many waymarkers took a journey just to seek the "approved" artesian well only to have that visit disappear years later?

 

My visit from Dec 2013 when the category was approved is still there :) It is the only visit posted to that WM, which surprises me with the several active WMers in Dallas. Guess they have the icon? :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

I had one of my Artesian Wells decline because - it wasn't an artesian well. It was one of my earlier Waymarks while I was still learning. While annoying, sometimes an officer will accidentally approve a Waymark that does not fit category criteria. Many of us are reviewers in many categories and we sometimes forget the nuances of a category (ex., Figurative cannot be of a 'known' subject, so Cupid would go int Statues of Religious Figures instead or Building Buildings must be 6 stories or taller) and might accidentally approve. A later re-review may find the error. Please, everyone makes mistakes. I too, am an icon collector and it is frustrating when one loses an icon, but that is the nature of Waymarking. It is encouragement to do more exploring. Take care, Outspoken1

0

Share this post


Link to post

As it stands today this is the single most asinine category I know of in Waymarking. I wish I would have seen this post earlier. I apologize for being so late to the topic.

 

I had two waymarks from years ago pulled because there was no sign at the well nor could I find a newspaper article on the internet that mentioned each well. Yes, that is why they were pulled. Not because I didn't offer to submit any other proof asked of me to verify they were indeed artesian wells. I offered to submit any other proof they would like. The offer was flatly refused. No further discussion was tolerated. They even refused to identify themselves when asked.

 

It seems to me that when a person has dialogue with the reviewer about the location including photographs and offers to supply ANY further pertinent requested data to help the reviewer feel more confident in the waymarkers submission then the submission should at least be considered for approval. Instead the reviewer insisted that there either be a sign or that an online newspaper had acknowledged it was a artesian well. Now that is what I call asinine. Think about it. I have a picture of water coming out of the ground in a pipe and there is no man made devices for over a 1 mile radius from the site. There is not even any electricity anywhere remotely near the site. There literally is nothing for over a mile from the well site, just water flowing out of the ground and forming a small stream. No trees, no hills, no hidden anything, wide open space with nothing but a pipe and water coming out of it. I offered all this information and more. I offered links to the geocaching.com earth caches that had identical coordinates as my waymarks with combined visits totaling over 200 logs of people who visited these sites and attested to the fact they are indeed artesian wells as defined by earthcache.com (who are experts in geology by the way and who's approval must be gained before such artesian wells are approved as an earthcache) and geocahing.com. But despite all of this both wells were denied after 3 years of approval and remain pulled to this day.

 

If this category's officers truly wanted to waymark the location of artesian wells they would rethink the ridiculous requirements of verification. They will approve if any old sign a person could/would pound into the ground by it says it is an artesian well. That is good enough for them. No further proof needed. That sign trumps my offer of providing hard factual geological information to prove it is an artesian well and the logs of over 200 people who have visited the sites. Yes Mr Waymarker only a sign will do. No sign, no approval, period.... Well that is unless you submit to our other golden method of verification... if you could find a journalist, any journalist, even a junior journalist fresh out of high school (it really doesn't matter just so long as he or she is trained and schooled in journalism - not geology or anything like that) to write an article just mentioning that there is an artesian well 3 or so miles outside of town well then we constitute that as testimony of an "expert" and as far as we the reviewers are concerned it is a done deal, there is indeed an artesian well there. Yes we will accept the casual mention of a well by an unknown journalist "expert" who may never have even visited the site over the personal observations of waymarkers who have photographic proof they have been there and of their observations. We the officers know how to verify a real artesian well, trust a journalist or a sign, that is true proof! (no that is not proof, that is nuts)

 

And we call this Waymarking, the hobby so many flock FROM. Is it any wonder?

 

Needless to say this category and its officers really tick me off. I apologize if in my expression I have offended innocent or undeserving waymarkers. I want our hobby to flourish. If I knew how to rid us of the excessive load of self empowered egos and rubbish we encounter in our hobby I would put down my pen in a heartbeat and join in the activities that would rid us of them. Diane and I enjoy Waymarking the unusual and "off the beaten path" things around us. We don't do McDonalds and Subways (no offense intended, that just not our thing). Submitting things like artesian wells or weird story locations are important to us. Its what drew us into Waymarking, finding the unusual where ever we find ourselves. These are the things a person can't just "google" and find. There is no app or search engine that will tell you where in northern Indiana you can find the tail of an airplane sticking out of a pole barn garage hidden off the main road in the woods is at and why it might be there. To us these are the real stories that only Waymarking can tell. They are what our site has to offer that no search engine can do.

 

Loosing a category to self appointed egocentrical divas is a true loss for us and our hobby. Sure we can just avoid the category (and we do) but it drives us away from Waymarking. After this encounter with the artesian well "officers" I stayed away from Waymarking for nearly 6 months. It just infuriated me. Waymarking should not be something that infuriates a person, not if it expects to grow and flourish. I came back but it is officers and leaders like those in this category that have extinguished the enthusiasm I once had for Waymarking. We put so much effort into finding and documenting many of our waymarks it is just crushing to have twits like these "officers" dismiss our hard work that is clearly valid. As Waymarking stands today I could never even consider recommending it as a hobby to anyone I know. I dont even tell people I do it any more because I am ashamed of the site and how it could treat one of my friends if they were to join and try to participate. That is a sad note. One that the leaders and organizers of Waymarking should fully digest.

 

But so as not to leave on such a down note I propose a new category. I call it "Real Artesian Wells". Submissions must be documented by real geological evidence and photos. Officers will be willing to budge a bit and will accept any coordinate that has had over 200 logged visits by geocachers who attest that it is a artesian well. Heck if 200 people say it quacks like an artesian well, smells like and artesian well, and looks like an artesian well we will take their word for it and we will call it an artesian well too. Naysayers be damned! However please note: all submissions verified through high school newspaper articles or by handwritten signs that read "artesian well here" with an arrow pointing to water coming out of a pipe are categorically denied and should be submitted to the existing category.

 

Rick (of dnrseekers)

Edited by dnrseekers
0

Share this post


Link to post

Today 10 of my 12 waymarks submitted over the last years into the Artesian Well category have been declined. It seems one or more of the officers is doing some Tabula Rasa in the category. ph34r.gif I don't like such things!

 

Is it only me? Or have your waymarks been declined as well? Actually there are only 132 waymarks left at the category. I don't know how many there have been before.

 

April 1st 2016, a year and 2 months later they are down to 121 waymarks. And excuse me but in my opinion the April Fools in that category are not in the number.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently they only want urban Artesian Wells, and won't consider any that are in more remote locations.

 

Urbanophiles!

0

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently they only want urban Artesian Wells, and won't consider any that are in more remote locations.

 

Urbanophiles!

 

That doesn't seem to be the case with our artesian wells. We've submitted three in the last few years, all rural, and all three remain extant.

 

Urbanophobe?? :huh:

Edited by BK-Hunters
0

Share this post


Link to post

As it stands today this is the single most asinine category I know of in Waymarking. I wish I would have seen this post earlier. I apologize for being so late to the topic.

 

I had two waymarks from years ago pulled because there was no sign at the well nor could I find a newspaper article on the internet that mentioned each well. Yes, that is why they were pulled. Not because I didn't offer to submit any other proof asked of me to verify they were indeed artesian wells. I offered to submit any other proof they would like. The offer was flatly refused. No further discussion was tolerated. They even refused to identify themselves when asked.

 

It seems to me that when a person has dialogue with the reviewer about the location including photographs and offers to supply ANY further pertinent requested data to help the reviewer feel more confident in the waymarkers submission then the submission should at least be considered for approval. Instead the reviewer insisted that there either be a sign or that an online newspaper had acknowledged it was a artesian well. Now that is what I call asinine. Think about it. I have a picture of water coming out of the ground in a pipe and there is no man made devices for over a 1 mile radius from the site. There is not even any electricity anywhere remotely near the site. There literally is nothing for over a mile from the well site, just water flowing out of the ground and forming a small stream. No trees, no hills, no hidden anything, wide open space with nothing but a pipe and water coming out of it. I offered all this information and more. I offered links to the geocaching.com earth caches that had identical coordinates as my waymarks with combined visits totaling over 200 logs of people who visited these sites and attested to the fact they are indeed artesian wells as defined by earthcache.com (who are experts in geology by the way and who's approval must be gained before such artesian wells are approved as an earthcache) and geocahing.com. But despite all of this both wells were denied after 3 years of approval and remain pulled to this day.

 

If this category's officers truly wanted to waymark the location of artesian wells they would rethink the ridiculous requirements of verification. They will approve if any old sign a person could/would pound into the ground by it says it is an artesian well. That is good enough for them. No further proof needed. That sign trumps my offer of providing hard factual geological information to prove it is an artesian well and the logs of over 200 people who have visited the sites. Yes Mr Waymarker only a sign will do. No sign, no approval, period.... Well that is unless you submit to our other golden method of verification... if you could find a journalist, any journalist, even a junior journalist fresh out of high school (it really doesn't matter just so long as he or she is trained and schooled in journalism - not geology or anything like that) to write an article just mentioning that there is an artesian well 3 or so miles outside of town well then we constitute that as testimony of an "expert" and as far as we the reviewers are concerned it is a done deal, there is indeed an artesian well there. Yes we will accept the casual mention of a well by an unknown journalist "expert" who may never have even visited the site over the personal observations of waymarkers who have photographic proof they have been there and of their observations. We the officers know how to verify a real artesian well, trust a journalist or a sign, that is true proof! (no that is not proof, that is nuts)

 

And we call this Waymarking, the hobby so many flock FROM. Is it any wonder?

 

Needless to say this category and its officers really tick me off. I apologize if in my expression I have offended innocent or undeserving waymarkers. I want our hobby to flourish. If I knew how to rid us of the excessive load of self empowered egos and rubbish we encounter in our hobby I would put down my pen in a heartbeat and join in the activities that would rid us of them. Diane and I enjoy Waymarking the unusual and "off the beaten path" things around us. We don't do McDonalds and Subways (no offense intended, that just not our thing). Submitting things like artesian wells or weird story locations are important to us. Its what drew us into Waymarking, finding the unusual where ever we find ourselves. These are the things a person can't just "google" and find. There is no app or search engine that will tell you where in northern Indiana you can find the tail of an airplane sticking out of a pole barn garage hidden off the main road in the woods is at and why it might be there. To us these are the real stories that only Waymarking can tell. They are what our site has to offer that no search engine can do.

 

Loosing a category to self appointed egocentrical divas is a true loss for us and our hobby. Sure we can just avoid the category (and we do) but it drives us away from Waymarking. After this encounter with the artesian well "officers" I stayed away from Waymarking for nearly 6 months. It just infuriated me. Waymarking should not be something that infuriates a person, not if it expects to grow and flourish. I came back but it is officers and leaders like those in this category that have extinguished the enthusiasm I once had for Waymarking. We put so much effort into finding and documenting many of our waymarks it is just crushing to have twits like these "officers" dismiss our hard work that is clearly valid. As Waymarking stands today I could never even consider recommending it as a hobby to anyone I know. I dont even tell people I do it any more because I am ashamed of the site and how it could treat one of my friends if they were to join and try to participate. That is a sad note. One that the leaders and organizers of Waymarking should fully digest.

 

But so as not to leave on such a down note I propose a new category. I call it "Real Artesian Wells". Submissions must be documented by real geological evidence and photos. Officers will be willing to budge a bit and will accept any coordinate that has had over 200 logged visits by geocachers who attest that it is a artesian well. Heck if 200 people say it quacks like an artesian well, smells like and artesian well, and looks like an artesian well we will take their word for it and we will call it an artesian well too. Naysayers be damned! However please note: all submissions verified through high school newspaper articles or by handwritten signs that read "artesian well here" with an arrow pointing to water coming out of a pipe are categorically denied and should be submitted to the existing category.

 

Rick (of dnrseekers)

 

I believe I remember this exchange. If I remember correctly, you were informed that merely submitting photos of gushing water was not sufficient to prove that the location was an artesian well. (Heck that could have been a broken water main for all I knew!)

 

You were requested to provide other references to document that the site was an artesian well but apparently you were unable to.

 

With all due respect I frankly don't understand what you're going on about... Denial of waymarks for lack of proof even if they could be legitimate is something that happens all the time.

Edited by RakeInTheCache
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 2