Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
GCEdo

New Category Proposal: Geology Information Signs

12 posts in this topic

Similar in scope as Flora and Fauna Information Signs, but with focus on Geology.

 

The category for signs that highlight interesting facts about the local geology.

 

Same as with Flora and Fauna Signs, the educational content is very important here.

 

Yes? No?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I like the Flora and Fauna Signs category.

So it could be a good and valid addition.

But it might be already covered in Places of Geologic Significance? I'm not sure if we need a new category only for the signs.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Not all Places of Geologic Significance have sign and not all geology signs are near Place of Geologic Significance. It can be sign that explains geology of some area or park without some specific Place of Geologic Significance present at the site.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It's a valid idea. This can be a nice category.

 

Even better the Flora and Fauna signs, rocks don't go away when it's the wrong season or bad weather. :ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post

not all geology signs are near Place of Geologic Significance. It can be sign that explains geology of some area or park without some specific Place of Geologic Significance present at the site.

 

It's my interpretation that if there is an explanation in the form of a sign, we are observing a significant site. If for no other reason, because someone (a municipality, a tourism board, etc), decided the place was interesting enough to be explained from a geological point of view. I personally consider this potential category redundant and I will vote accordingly.

0

Share this post


Link to post

not all geology signs are near Place of Geologic Significance. It can be sign that explains geology of some area or park without some specific Place of Geologic Significance present at the site.

 

It's my interpretation that if there is an explanation in the form of a sign, we are observing a significant site. If for no other reason, because someone (a municipality, a tourism board, etc), decided the place was interesting enough to be explained from a geological point of view. I personally consider this potential category redundant and I will vote accordingly.

 

Redundant with what category? Signs of History? National Parks? UNESCO Biospheres?

 

Many categories in Waymarking are redundant with others, as waymarks can be placed in many different categories. Historic Forts, for example, will almost always also be on the U.S. National Register or foreign equivalent. Is Historic Forts a redundant category then? I don't really understand the viewpoint, so I am asking for clarification, not trying to be argumentative.

 

I am inclined at this point to see how the category develops before I make the call on if I think it is redundant, but of course other waymarkers differ. Right now, my first impression is that this category could fill a gap and could support Eathcaching at the same time -- and so I would support it.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Not all Places of Geologic Significance have sign and not all geology signs are near Place of Geologic Significance. It can be sign that explains geology of some area or park without some specific Place of Geologic Significance present at the site.

 

Yes, we have seen this many times while out earthcaching -- a very significant earth science place with NO SIGNAGE.

 

We have also seen random earth science signs in parks etc explaining geologic features not accessible to the public (on private lands, etc). These signs could go there . . .

0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not much convinced this category is equal to or to great extent redundant with Places of Geologic Significance. I saw (quite often) features that are geologically important and even had natural monument status but no geology related educational sign. I even have an Earthcache on one such location.

 

At the same time, I quite often see educational sign in natural park or similar protected area about geology of that park or area, although the location is not something that is geologically important (but sign can still explain how the area is geologically formed). Very similar to fauna and flora signs really.

 

Sure, some of them will be in more than one category and it doesn't even had to be the Places of Geologic Significance category. Some caves have nice geology signs, but certainly not all and maybe not even the majority.

 

I most certainly think there are geology signs that can't go in any other category and it will fill the gap.

 

I really don't think this situation is much worse than for example Equestrian Statues and Monarchs of the World or Cathedrals and Roman Catholic Churches. Some are the same but many are not.

Edited by GCEdo
0

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I admit I have a certain bias but I do think it is redundant. I think any geological sign that has been submitted to the Places of Geologic Significance has been accepted in that category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Could you post some examples of geology information signs that would not match places of geological significance?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Sure, there might be some overlap. I know there are a lot of these signs in the Oregon Historical Markers category, for instance. But, I think it is a clear enough focus for a category that would stand on its own merits. Having clear guidelines would be essential for this category. I would like to see a requirement that the text of the sign be included in the long description, because that would make the waymarks searchable the web search engines and thus make this information available to the world. It is one of the ways Waymarking can make a valuable contribution to the body of knowledge.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I really like this idea. As a current student studying geology, I can see that this category is quite different and useful. I, myself, have found over 100 earthcaches and have created 60+. These signs help me create some of my earthcaches. I see these all the time and I don't think it's redundant enough to not pass peer review. These signs have no history to be included in the Signs of History Category. These signs aren't about Flora or Fauna and can't be submitted there either. Sometimes, these signs are placed a few miles from the actual geologic site which would mean that they don't go into the Place of Geologic Significance category. I've seen signs about mountains and such over 10 miles away from the actual site. Usually, these signs are at a rest stop or view point or along a trail.

 

I think you can expand this category to include natural disasters as well such as historical markers about floods, or monuments about large earthquakes and tsunamis. Yes, there may be some crossing over, but most calories about historical markers do anyways.

 

Here's a few of my waymarks that I think would be great additions to this category, if it passes. Some of these can cross over to more than two categories.

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMQF53_Silica_Dome_Overton_NV

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMPZPY_The_Confluence_of_the_Santa_Clara_and_Virgin_Rivers_St_George_UT

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMN2R1_Discovery_Well_Long_Beach_CA

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMMPEX_The_San_Andreas_Fault_Palmdale_CA

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMMC9H_The_San_Rafael_Swell_Emery_UT

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMDFCD_Las_Vegas_The_Meadows_Las_Vegas_NV

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM9KN8_Mixocetus_Baleen_Whale_Aliso_Viejo_CA

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMJRAW_Volcano_Steam_Vents_Volcano_HI

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