Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
lumbricus

Naturdenkmäler

23 posts in this topic

Hi,

not sure if we had this topic some time ago. This would be a German only category. We have "Naturdenkmäler" https://www.google.de/search?q=naturdenkmal&biw=1920&bih=1089&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=8ZijVfCiHMuR7AbGlriwAg&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ Many old trees, but also wetlands, special rocks, special forests, special lakes, etc. If there is a "Naturdenkmal" sign it's in.

Good idea? Tante.Hossi :cool:

Regards,

-lumbricus

0

Share this post


Link to post

I think we have had a very simular discussion not long ago: http://forums.Ground...howtopic=330046

This was about protected natural objects (trees, wetlands, etc.). But a more general category.

I don't think we should try to make a German-only category. I see no need for. This is a global thing.

But I'm not sure it is a real good idea.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Danke Uwe, da hab ich wohl auch mal was übersehen. Hast Recht, die meisten Sachen sind ja eh schon mit anderen Kategorien abgedeckt. Thanks for the link, I missed this thread. :yikes:

0

Share this post


Link to post

It was my topic on that forum :)

I feel quite uncomfortable with Exceptional Trees category for nature monument - each tree, in order to become nature monument must be measured, but those measurement are a bit hard to get. There's, for example, wikipedia site with all nature monuments in Warsaw listed, together with their registry numbers, but only a few of them has height and perimeter given.

 

The criteria for listing in nature monuments category would be easy - a picture taken with the official plaque for given country.

 

I think, however, that creating separate categories for each country would make a lot of sense, just like with cultural monuments or benchmarks - to make the criteria if something belongs or not deadly simple - either a tree has that official plaque or not.

 

In any case, I declare my support for the category. I think I have a few pictures of beautiful trees in Germany, together with GPS coords, for that I've failed to obtain the perimeter and height required for Exceptional Trees category, and I'd like to waymark them.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I've created group Polish Natural Monuments Register for managing Polish Natural Monuments. If you create similar group for Germany, I'll be glad to support it. Creating country-specific category has the same pros as with country-specific groups for cultural monuments and benchmarks - it's very easy to define, what exactly belongs there and what doesn't. As with cultural monuments, if some object has official plaque stating it's natural monument - it belongs to the category and can be waymarked.

0

Share this post


Link to post

These regional category types - like heritage sites, post offices, benchmarks and such - began long ago, before there were peer review and the global criterion. When some areas already had their category, then others may have theirs as well.

 

But today, I cannot see any justification for a completely new class of regional categories.

0

Share this post


Link to post

These regional category types - like heritage sites, post offices, benchmarks and such - began long ago, before there were peer review and the global criterion. When some areas already had their category, then others may have theirs as well.

 

But today, I cannot see any justification for a completely new class of regional categories.

Dito! Exactly!

I see no need for several national categories for natural monuments. It's something completly different with benchmarks or trigpoints. They are very very very different in different countries.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Dito! Exactly!

I see no need for several national categories for natural monuments. It's something completly different with benchmarks or trigpoints. They are very very very different in different countries.

 

So we can make a global category for natural monuments, but it must accept all natural monuments, and not just some subcategory of it, and the criteria for accepting the waymark is the object being natural monument.

 

If it won't work, than we'll have to go back to national categories.

 

Should I rename and redefine my group or someone else will create own one?

0

Share this post


Link to post

So we can make a global category for natural monuments, but it must accept all natural monuments, and not just some subcategory of it, and the criteria for accepting the waymark is the object being natural monument.

That sounds reasonable at first; I would have thought the same. But since you told us that Poland has over 80,000 individual trees listed, I am not sure anymore. Isn't that overkill, from a Waymarking point of view? And there are other types of monuments, like rocks, waterfalls, lakes, beaches, and so on. I am not sure if it's a good idea to create a category with a potential to bury all other categories with its numbers. It is certainly a nice hobby to go out a lot and collect as many of those as possible. But is Waymarking the right site for that? Would this still be interesting for the officers and visitors and not only for the poster?

0

Share this post


Link to post

That sounds reasonable at first; I would have thought the same. But since you told us that Poland has over 80,000 individual trees listed, I am not sure anymore. Isn't that overkill, from a Waymarking point of view? And there are other types of monuments, like rocks, waterfalls, lakes, beaches, and so on. I am not sure if it's a good idea to create a category with a potential to bury all other categories with its numbers. It is certainly a nice hobby to go out a lot and collect as many of those as possible.

 

But this is only theoretical number. If you see other categories, many of them have potential to generate much more, for example wikipedia entries, picture perfect postcards, town clocks, benchmarks etc. And some categories, like payphones, are dominating some cities like Prague. Nature monuments are much more interesting than payphones :)

 

But the reality is, only a little part of that potential is utilized practically. If the potential to generate over 10.000 listings for given country would be a no-go criterion, a substantial number of existing categories would have to be closed. We can always add some extra vicinity criteria, for example if 2 trees are less than 50 meters away, they should be registered as a tree group, even if they stay in register as separate entities.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Too bad you cut my last sentence from your citation, because it was the most important one of my post.

 

I do like the idea of a category for nature monuments, and I do support it. I just feel that the way you plan it, it has a weak point. Many of the existing categories have the same problem, I know; you named a few of them and we could add much more, especially most commercial categories; but this does not mean that it cannot be done better.

 

Waymarking as it is today is all about posting waymarks. Nobody cares about visitors, they do not exist. This mismatch is the basic problem of Waymarking and why so many people are against it.

 

It is interesting to go out and find a new location and post it. Not all categories the same for everyone, but it generally works well. Now some locations stay interesting also for some or even many visitors, and these are the great categories. The ones with that often cited WOW effect. And there are the locations that lose all their magic, once found. Like payphones or chain stores and many others. They're fine to post, but then the cookie has been eaten and there is no real reason for anybody else to go there as well.

 

Posting thousands of trees is not a bad thing and I am not against it, but it's not very WOW.

 

You still have the choice between a nice category or a more restrictive, but greater one. That is what I wanted to say.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Hey all, why not create an international category? I was thinking about wildlife preserves. I would certainly volunteer to be an officer.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

So we can make a global category for natural monuments, but it must accept all natural monuments, and not just some subcategory of it, and the criteria for accepting the waymark is the object being natural monument.

 

 

Yes, sorry skimmed over this post. Why not call it "wildlife refuges".

 

Or maybe "protected wildlife and natural areas".

 

Or "Protected natural sites".

Edited by RakeInTheCache
0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Waymarking as it is today is all about posting waymarks. Nobody cares about visitors, they do not exist. This mismatch is the basic problem of Waymarking and why so many people are against it.

 

 

I get visit e-mails daily.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Waymarking as it is today is all about posting waymarks. Nobody cares about visitors, they do not exist. This mismatch is the basic problem of Waymarking and why so many people are against it.

 

 

I get visit e-mails daily.

I get them, too. Of course, they do exist. That was not what I meant.

 

They do exist out there, but not here in the forum and not in the heads of many people creating new categories.

 

Many categories can be enjoyed while creating new waymarks, because they are easy to find and document. But they are absolutely worthless in the eyes of a potential visitor, because they are all the same and often do not even lead you to a new and interesting area. This is especially true for most commercial and payphone type categories.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Waymarking as it is today is all about posting waymarks. Nobody cares about visitors, they do not exist. This mismatch is the basic problem of Waymarking and why so many people are against it.

 

 

I get visit e-mails daily.

 

I don't get visits daily but have a few every week. Always from the same two guys, who are geocachers and find waymarks I created in geocaches locations. Denial it's useless. I had this conversation with someone before. Waymark is a flop, a failure... like it or not (double meaning: like it being a flop, or like Waymark). Sorry for the off-topic.

 

As to the topic, I will never support anything regional/national. A wider category sounds good. Specially if it also accepts trees. I had enough of all the demands for a waymark in the Trees category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, perhaps we can go with "Natural monuments". We have only a few trees which are natural monuments, perhaps 15 in our Landkreis and these are absolutely worth to waymark. But I don't have the time to write a category at the moment so if someone is in the mood to go with it, I would support it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Very interesting category proposal. Could it be same as IUCN Protected Area Category III per IUCN's classification of protected areas...

https://www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/gpap_home/gpap_quality/gpap_pacategories/gpap_category3/

 

It very nicely defines boundaries between Category III and other types of protected areas.

 

Also, I think we could find a list of all areas categorized as Category III (natural monuments) worldwide.

 

A searchable database where we could check if some location is listed as Natural Monument...

http://www.protectedplanet.net/

Edited by GCEdo
0

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, perhaps we can go with "Natural monuments". We have only a few trees which are natural monuments, perhaps 15 in our Landkreis and these are absolutely worth to waymark. But I don't have the time to write a category at the moment so if someone is in the mood to go with it, I would support it.

 

I see how you get "Natural monument" from the German concept. I guess its different than Naturschützgebiet which would be more the concept of a protected natural area. What about some sort of merger between the two concepts? In the US, I think natural monument is problematic as a term because we have National Monuments and State monuments (which can be natural areas) but nothing really called a natural monument. In France, I personally have not come across anything that I can remember being called a "monument naturel" although the concept may be known, I'm not sure if it is very common.

 

By the way, keep in mind that there are already categories for Historic Trees and Exceptional Trees.

 

That's why I would prefer the broader term "protected natural area" or maybe "protected natural site" is better in case it has more to do with an object than an area.

Edited by RakeInTheCache
0

Share this post


Link to post

I had this conversation with someone before. Waymark is a flop, a failure... like it or not (double meaning: like it being a flop, or like Waymark).

 

Uh, two guys talking does not a flop make ... (sorry also for the off-topic) [insert contrite emoticon here]

0

Share this post


Link to post

In the US, I think natural monument is problematic as a term because we have National Monuments and State monuments (which can be natural areas) but nothing really called a natural monument. In France, I personally have not come across anything that I can remember being called a "monument naturel" although the concept may be known, I'm not sure if it is very common.

 

Per http://www.protectedplanet.net/country/FR seems that France has 13 Natural Monuments.

 

Also, US has 540 Natural Monuments (Category III protected areas).

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Per http://www.protectedplanet.net/country/FR seems that France has 13 Natural Monuments.

 

Also, US has 540 Natural Monuments (Category III protected areas).

 

Quite interesting, I've checked French wikipedia and I see Polish natural monument (tree) used as example... It would mean, that natural monuments are de facto localized category. But it doesn't mean they can't be single, global category. Christian crosses are in the way localized (to christian countries), but it doesn't mean they should be local (per-country) category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Per http://www.protectedplanet.net/country/FR seems that France has 13 Natural Monuments.

 

Also, US has 540 Natural Monuments (Category III protected areas).

 

Yes, the concept of a protected natural site is well known in France, but I think that for the most part, they don't call them natural monuments but rather "sites classés". My post was about coming up for a good name for the category.

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 0