Jump to content

Are there any saturation rules?


GeoLog81
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Each category is independent in this respect. There are no cross-category saturation rules, in contrary, it's very popular to find yet another new valid category to post for places that already have many waymarks. Some special places, like the Seattle Space Needle or the Eiffel Tower are in over 50 categories. So can also log over 50 visits, if you meet the specific visit requirements.

 

Inside a category there may be rules, but they are rare. Cityscapes has a minimum distance rule, Philatelic Photographs only allows one waymark per location by the same poster, some headstone categories only allow a given limit of submissions by the same poster in the same category. There are some others, but most categories have no limits at all. You have to check the specific posting requirements to be sure, but this is something xou should do anyway before posting a waymark.

Link to comment

Hmmm taking into account you can create your own categories, there's no upper limit how much waymarks can there be within 100 m radius? Have I got that right?

 

Yes you can create categories, however it is not that easy. Currently less than half of all categories that go to peer review are approved.

Link to comment

I just had a historical marker declined because there was another HM in sight of it. The reasons: (1) confusion potential for waymarkers between the Metal plate HM marker and my stone HM, and (2) saturation -- lots of historic marker waymarks here means that some won't be approved.

 

???????

 

Here is the discussion in the email, with category details [redacted] so no one feels like they are being "named and shamed", which I would NEVER do.

 

"Your waymark, [name] has been denied for the following reason:

 

Your waymark was voted on by the category managers, here are comments made about your waymark by them:

 

Initial vote call comment: I have been a member of this group, and have reviewed submissions for 8 years now. occasionally, I have needed to refer to the published guidelines and use them to clarify criteria for inclusion of submitted waymarks. The rules were quite clear: any sign or marker was eligible, including signs that were not the usual [standard] signs. This has now been changed , making the current submission ineligible, but many signs are already included which do not meet the stated criteria. There is a [standard] sign visible from this waypoint, and that is reason enough for me to deny it, but the owner is apparently not aware of the rule change. I believe that we need to change the rule back, to include signs that are not Green Aluminium with a [standard decal], but that this mark should be declined because it is so close to a current waymark.

 

Vote comments: [nay] There is a current waymark, "[name]" visible from this location. this could create confusion due to over saturation and the submission should be declined."

 

I am going to engage POLITELY with the category managers, but it seems to me that if a place is so historic that it has a ton of markers that are appropriate for the category, then all those markers should be accepted. I know that caching has distance rules but have never seen such a rule in Waymarking.

 

Are there other categories where this idea of saturation is a reason for declines? I am not trying to be ugly or confrontational. I am really just puzzled as to why if you are running a history category, you would not allow waymarks on ALL the history appropriate in your category.

 

I have combined similar separate nearby waymarkable items into one single waymark before, but the idea that you could have 2 historic markers about different topics near one another, and the 2nd would be declined because of where the first one is -- I am not understanding that reasoning.

 

I also wonder about declining otherwise acceptable waymarks out of concerns for confusing waymarkers. I have not been confused by many waymarks in one place, whether they are a single thing in many categories or many things in a single place.

 

Am I off-base?

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
Link to comment

I just had a historical marker declined because there was another HM in sight of it. The reasons: (1) confusion potential for waymarkers between the Metal plate HM marker and my stone HM, and (2) saturation -- lots of historic marker waymarks here means that some won't be approved.

 

???????

 

Here is the discussion in the email, with category details [redacted] so no one feels like they are being "named and shamed", which I would NEVER do.

 

"Your waymark, [name] has been denied for the following reason:

 

Your waymark was voted on by the category managers, here are comments made about your waymark by them:

 

Initial vote call comment: I have been a member of this group, and have reviewed submissions for 8 years now. occasionally, I have needed to refer to the published guidelines and use them to clarify criteria for inclusion of submitted waymarks. The rules were quite clear: any sign or marker was eligible, including signs that were not the usual [standard] signs. This has now been changed , making the current submission ineligible, but many signs are already included which do not meet the stated criteria. There is a [standard] sign visible from this waypoint, and that is reason enough for me to deny it, but the owner is apparently not aware of the rule change. I believe that we need to change the rule back, to include signs that are not Green Aluminium with a [standard decal], but that this mark should be declined because it is so close to a current waymark.

 

Vote comments: [nay] There is a current waymark, "[name]" visible from this location. this could create confusion due to over saturation and the submission should be declined."

 

I am going to engage POLITELY with the category managers, but it seems to me that if a place is so historic that it has a ton of markers that are appropriate for the category, then all those markers should be accepted. I know that caching has distance rules but have never seen such a rule in Waymarking.

 

Are there other categories where this idea of saturation is a reason for declines? I am not trying to be ugly or confrontational. I am really just puzzled as to why if you are running a history category, you would not allow waymarks on ALL the history appropriate in your category.

 

I have combined similar separate nearby waymarkable items into one single waymark before, but the idea that you could have 2 historic markers about different topics near one another, and the 2nd would be declined because of where the first one is -- I am not understanding that reasoning.

 

I also wonder about declining otherwise acceptable waymarks out of concerns for confusing waymarkers. I have not been confused by many waymarks in one place, whether they are a single thing in many categories or many things in a single place.

 

Am I off-base?

 

This could be very frustrating, especially if someone is trying to complete a Lucky 7 which only allows you to use Waymarks YOU have posted. I would hope that reviewers do not deny Waymarks because of saturation. Some historic areas (hmmm... Paris, Prague, New York, Teotihuacan...) could have Waymarks that fit in several categories in a very close area due to the long history of the area.

 

On the flip-side, if I find an obvious series of historic markers, I submit as a group (for example, here ). Again, it is a judgement call.

 

Take care, Outspoken1

Link to comment

Well, Lucky 7 or anything similar shouldn't be use as reasoning for posting duplicate waymarks.. Yes, I've noticed, that, for example in Germany, it's very often that almost every building in old town is listed as history monument, with separate registry number, which mean, a waymark could be created for every single of them in the same category! But wouldn't it make more sense to waymark all of them as 'history monument - old city'? Because otherwise it would become a bit extreme - you could, of course, take a picture of every single building in a town, and it makes sense, but then, who would spend the whole week logging them? ;)

Link to comment

...for example in Germany, it's very often that almost every building in old town is listed as history monument, with separate registry number, which mean, a waymark could be created for every single of them in the same category! But wouldn't it make more sense to waymark all of them as 'history monument - old city'?

If all of those buildings were of the same construction, built at the same time, had the same history, etc., I'd agree with you that the entire city could be documented in one Waymark. That seems unlikely, though. Each building will have its own story, which can be told in separate Waymarks. If someone can do enough research to make Waymarks for every building in a city, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed.

Link to comment

Well, Lucky 7 or anything similar shouldn't be use as reasoning for posting duplicate waymarks.. Yes, I've noticed, that, for example in Germany, it's very often that almost every building in old town is listed as history monument, with separate registry number, which mean, a waymark could be created for every single of them in the same category! But wouldn't it make more sense to waymark all of them as 'history monument - old city'? Because otherwise it would become a bit extreme - you could, of course, take a picture of every single building in a town, and it makes sense, but then, who would spend the whole week logging them? ;)

 

Contributing Buildings to National Register Historic Districts may seem that way here in the US until you start Waymarking them and find each building has its own history, architecture, features etc. In St Louis there are districts with 1000s of buildings... I have not waymarked them yet but I have done smaller districts with great history. Take Portland and Westmoreland Places, one Waymark would not explain that neighborhood.

Link to comment

Well, Lucky 7 or anything similar shouldn't be use as reasoning for posting duplicate waymarks.. (clipped by Outspoken1)

 

I was not speaking of a 'duplicate' Waymark which would be, technically, someone trying to submit the same Waymark in the same category. I was speaking if a Waymark fits in several categories, why should that be denied? For instance, if someone finds a Waymark for the Holocaust with a statue, that location could both go in Holocaust Memorials and Figurative Public Sculptures. What is the harm in including the Waymark in both categories? It honors and educates both the topic of the memorial and the interpretation of the sculptor. Waymarking should be inclusive - not exclusive.

 

Take care, Outspoken1

Link to comment

I was not speaking of a 'duplicate' Waymark which would be, technically, someone trying to submit the same Waymark in the same category. I was speaking if a Waymark fits in several categories, why should that be denied?

 

Yeah, I was more thinking of situation, where the single category have potential to get one object every 50 meters or so...

 

Well, I've posted 2 town clocks, which are about at the distance, but they were completely other clocks. But for example, every train platform has usually 1 or 2 clocks, which are usually identical, and theoretically could be posted as separate beings. That issue isn't currently adressed.

 

As well as having a wall of old houses, one by one, each in monument registry. Theoretically all of them could be posted as separate waymarks, and with one picture, you could cover up to 10 of them... On the one hand, if you post separate story for each of them, it still makes sense, on the other, usually the text would be some standard and it would be very overwhelming for the visitor to have so many waymarks on practically the same coordinates.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...