Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
RakeInTheCache

Protected Natural Areas and Sites

69 posts in this topic

Any takers? Need two others to form a group and launch the category.

 

A category in which to record areas public and private, protected by law for their natural value and accessible to the public.

 

To include

 

Naturdenkmäler (feel free to suggest equivalent in other countries)

Naturschutzgebiete (feel free to suggest equivalent in other countries)

Designated Natural monuments / features

State/Provincial and National Designated Wilderness Areas

The Nature Conservancy Preserves

Regional Land Conservancy Preserves

Local government (city, township, departmental and county) nature preserves

Areas called Nature Centers not having buildings with educational nature exhibits.

Natura 2000 locations

Feel free to propose others ...

 

To exclude

 

National Parks (US or otherwise)

State/Provincial Park Lands and Recreation Areas outside the boundaries of protected natural areas.

Nature Centers (with exhibits)

U.S. National Wildlife Refuges

UNESCO Biosphere Reserves

 

I'm on the fence about whether to include natural hunting reserves.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for taking step further for this category idea!

 

Since there are lots of different local names for such places maybe you could use IUCN categorization of protected areas, as they categorize those local differences into several common groups. Their database could also be used as checklist to check if some area should be included in this wm category.

 

So, this wm category could include iucn categories I to VI excluding category II (national parks).

 

Those IUCN categories can also help in defining wm category and writing it up.

 

Another approach would be to create sepparate wm category for each IUCN category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Curious to know how to Waymark them...

They can cover a rather large area!

 

http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/

 

Welcome to the National Parks

Britain's breathing spaces

 

There are 15 members of the National Parks family, beautiful areas of mountains, meadows, moorlands, woods and wetlands.

 

They are areas of protected countryside that everyone can visit, and where people live, work and shape the landscape.

 

And each one has an organisation that looks after the landscape and wildlife and helps people enjoy and learn about the area.

 

 

And elsewhere in the UK we can have AONB -

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty http://www.landscapesforlife.org.uk/

 

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty – Landscapes for Life

 

An Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) is exactly what it says it is: an outstanding landscape whose distinctive character and natural beauty are so precious that it is in the nation’s interest to safeguard them.

 

There are 46 AONBs in Britain (33 wholly in England, four wholly in Wales, one which straddles the English/Welsh border and eight in Northern Ireland) and they cover 18% of our countryside.

 

AONBs are designated in recognition of their national importance and to ensure that their character and qualities are protected for all to enjoy.

 

Although they have some legal protection, it's not as high as that for the National Parks.

 

eta

Or do these fall into the 'Excluded' areas?

Edited by Bear and Ragged
0

Share this post


Link to post

Welcome to the National Parks

 

National Parks are excluded

 

And elsewhere in the UK we can have AONB -

 

AONB would be included.

 

I've also been thinking about how to waymark areas which can cover very large areas. I do see on the internet that at least some AONB do have associated signs. This could be one possible solution.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Naturschutzgebiet (Landscape Protection Area?) and Nature 2000 Areas are about the size of National Parks, often larger.

So I think we should either include all of them or exclude them all.

I'd opt for the first option.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Naturschutzgebiet (Landscape Protection Area?) and Nature 2000 Areas are about the size of National Parks, often larger.

So I think we should either include all of them or exclude them all.

I'd opt for the first option.

A Naturschutzgebiet is usually very small, I know some with less than 100 square meters. According to Wikipedia, 60% of the German ones are below 50 hectares.

0

Share this post


Link to post

A Naturschutzgebiet is usually very small, I know some with less than 100 square meters. According to Wikipedia, 60% of the German ones are below 50 hectares.

 

So, it's probably more like natural reserve than landscape park?

 

In Poland, there are Rezerwat Przyrody (natural reserve) - the strickest nature protection form, with no human intervention allowed, that are quite small, and Park Krajobrazowy (landscape park), which are usually large, but are quite liberal when it comes to human intervention (only the landscape as the whole is protected, so you can build roads, houses etc., but no factories or big settlements).

 

Nature 2000 areas can be quite large.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have made a first draft of the category write up, please feel free to have a look and comment. Click here .

 

In Poland, there are Rezerwat Przyrody (natural reserve) - the strickest nature protection form, with no human intervention allowed, that are quite small, and Park Krajobrazowy (landscape park), which are usually large, but are quite liberal when it comes to human intervention (only the landscape as the whole is protected, so you can build roads, houses etc., but no factories or big settlements).

 

Both of these kinds of areas are covered in this category. In France there are areas which must correspond to the Park Krajobrazowy. These are called Parcs Naturels Régionaux.

 

However, any National Park is excluded because there is already a category dedicated to them.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The category looks good to me.

 

The last paragraph of the description requirements needs some modification to better fit natural features: "In the long description, include any relevant information about the history, architecture, or other notable elements of the building or site."

 

What are the variables?

0

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I updated the description and added the following variables.

 

•Is this an Area or a Feature?

•Area/Feature Type

•Website dedicated to or describing the Area/Feature

•Website of the responsible organization

•Rare or Endangered Species

•Justification for Protection

0

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I updated the description and added the following variables.

 

•Is this an Area or a Feature?

•Area/Feature Type

•Website dedicated to or describing the Area/Feature

•Website of the responsible organization

Rare or Endangered Species

•Justification for Protection

 

Some organizations don't like to publicly say what rare/endangered species are in a particular area...

(There are those that will go and steal/destroy them. :( )

 

Otherwise, it sounds a decent category! :D

Edited by Bear and Ragged
0

Share this post


Link to post

The last time I submitted a category to vote it failed to be accepted. My impression was that once the category had failed the information was deleted from the site and I would have had to start all over and create it from scratch if I had wanted to try again. This was rather frustrating so, in order to avoid losing the category on the chance it is not accepted in the vote I'm coping the html here.

 

Waymark Category Formal Name :

 

Protected Natural Areas and Features

 

Description :

 

A category in which to record areas public and private, protected by law for their natural value and accessible to the public.

 

Expanded Description :

 

While Waymarking already has categories dedicated to certain classes of protected natural areas such as <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=f424a305-f365-42dc-98ef-bc62567c4203"> National Parks of the World</a>, <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=57c9b918-8203-4210-bdbd-8ba85c3953fe"> National Parks (U.S.)</a>, <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=d816e7fa-f742-44ea-a363-ac9643539934"> U.S. National Wildlife Refuges</a>, and <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=e2f492e7-4944-4239-a1c5-b6f3a87e2869"> UNESCO Biosphere Reserves</a> this still leaves many protected natural sites left uncovered. This category is intended to be a catch-all for any other location which does not already fit into one of these other categories. <u>Waymark submissions to this category that already fit under the aforementioned previously established categories will be rejected.</u>

<P>

Locations which will be accepted in this category include, but are not limited to :

<ul>

<li>Naturdenkmäler (Germany)</li>

<li>Naturschutzgebiete (Germany)</li>

<li>Rezerwat Przyrody (Poland)</li>

<li>Park Krajobrazowy (Poland)</li>

<li>Parcs Naturels Régionaux(France)</li>

<li>Natural monuments / features (geological, botanical, or pertaining to natural history) designated by well-established governmental or private organizations</li>

<li>State/Provincial and National Designated Wilderness Areas</li>

<li>The Nature Conservancy Preserves (US)</li>

<li>Regional Land Conservancy Preserves (US)</li>

<li>Local government (city, township, departmental and county) nature preserves</li>

<li>Areas called Nature Centers not having buildings with educational nature exhibits.</li>

<li>Natura 2000 locations (European Union)</li>

<li>Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (UK)</li>

</ul>

<P>

What these all have in common are legal frameworks which greatly restrict which activities can be carried out within their boundaries and protect the nature within them from overuse, misuse and destruction, while still allowing the public to enjoy them.

<P>

We are interested in learning about other types of protected natural areas in all countries of the world. Don't hesitate to contact the category leader if you have one to add to the list.

<P>

The qualifications for a site to be listed in this category are fairly precise so the posting instructions should be followed carefully in order to avoid any waymark being rejected.

<P>

REVIEWERS PLEASE NOTE : Waymarks which are declined must be justified in referring explicitly to some violation of the requirements given below. Revisions to these criteria will be made to resolve any ambiguous cases. When in doubt, please put the waymark up for a vote.

<P>

Also, keep in mind that descriptions may be completely written in the local language (Please use an on-line translator in this case to review the waymark.)

 

Instructions for Posting a Protected Natural Areas and Features Waymark:

 

<P>

<ol>

<li><B>QUALIFYING SITES:</B> To qualify as a waymark in this site the natural area or feature and the organization responsible for its protection must be well documented on the internet and the link between the two verifiable by the reviewer.</li>

<P>

<li><B>COORDINATES:</B> Personally obtained coordinates must be taken as follows:

<ol>

<li>In the case of a natural feature, from a point as close to the feature as possible.</li>

<li>In the case of natural areas which are sign posted, from the location of a clearly legible sign demarking the natural area. If the natural area has a public entrance sign, or a sign indicating the name of the area, the location must be this one.</li>

<li>In the case of natural areas which are not sign posted, from a public access parking lot, a trailhead sign, or the boundary point among those providing easiest access to the area. </li>

</ol></li>

<P>

<li><B>PHOTOS:</B> At minimum one daylight photo is required with the characteristics given below. Additional photos are encouraged, preferably with the most aesthetically pleasing one as the default photo :

<ol>

<li>In the case of a natural feature, a photo which clearly captures the essence of the feature within any imposed spatial limitations.</li>

<li>In the case of natural areas which are sign posted, the required photo must be of this sign. If the natural area has a public entrance sign, or a sign indicating the name of the area, the photo must be of it.</li>

<li>In the case of natural areas which are not sign posted, a photo of the public access parking lot, trailhead sign, or the boundary point indicated by the coordinates. </li></ol>

<P>

While we don't expect professional photography, waymarks submitted with underexposed, blurred, skewed or otherwise poor quality photos may be declined.

<P>

All photos must be the waymarker's original photos and be placed in the photo gallery for the waymark.</li>

<P>

<li><B>DESCRIPTIONS:</B> Keep in mind that the quick description is what people see when browsing, so do your best to give a succinct description that will give people an "at a glance" overview of the waymark.

<P>

Bi-lingual descriptions of sites located in non-English speaking countries are encouraged in order to open the hobby to non-English speakers.

<P>

Further to this point, descriptions may be written completely in the local language.

<P>

In the long description, include any relevant or informative information about the responsible organization and the reasons why this place has been chosen to be protected.

</li>

<P>

<li><B>VARIABLES:</B> Please make a good faith effort to provide the information for the variables. Most are not required as they may not apply in all instances.

</li>

<P>

<li><B>WAYMARK NAME:</B> The waymark title must include the full official name of the feature or area followed by a dash and the closest community located near it (city, township, village, named place, etc.) and the State, Province or country separated by a comma must be at the end of each waymark name using the following format. (Two letter state abbreviations are preferred for U.S. sites but please spell out country names). Example: Echo Lake Nature Preserve - Negaunee, IL</li>

</ol>

 

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

 

In your log, consider answering the question "What brought you to this place?".

 

A complete sentence or two or an uploaded photo taken by the waymarker will be required in the log to confirm that the logger is participating in the hobby in good faith. Logs of only a few words like "Visited it" without an original photo are subject to deletion.

0

Share this post


Link to post

My personal note, could you consider grouping the accepted objects in the group description into single-feature/site ones:

 

<li>Naturdenkmäler (Germany)</li>

<li>Natural monument</li>

<li>Pomnik Przyrody (Poland)</li>

 

and large-area ones (the rest).

 

The distinguishing feature is, by single-site waymarks you need to go to the coordinates, and in the area-ones the coordinates are only the example point where you can go to visit the waymark (preferably, the place where the original picture was taken).

0

Share this post


Link to post

...

 

To exclude

 

National Parks (US or otherwise)

State/Provincial Park Lands and Recreation Areas outside the boundaries of protected natural areas.

Nature Centers (with exhibits)

U.S. National Wildlife Refuges

UNESCO Biosphere Reserves

 

This proposal looks a lot like the category, Public Access Lands.

What would go in the new category that wouldn't fit in Public Access Lands? What are the differences?

Should Public Access Lands also be excluded from Protected Natural Areas because of the overlap?

 

What about excluding U.S. National Natural Landmarks?

0

Share this post


Link to post

...

 

To exclude

 

National Parks (US or otherwise)

State/Provincial Park Lands and Recreation Areas outside the boundaries of protected natural areas.

Nature Centers (with exhibits)

U.S. National Wildlife Refuges

UNESCO Biosphere Reserves

 

This proposal looks a lot like the category, Public Access Lands.

What would go in the new category that wouldn't fit in Public Access Lands? What are the differences?

Should Public Access Lands also be excluded from Protected Natural Areas because of the overlap?

 

What about excluding U.S. National Natural Landmarks?

Public Access Lands does have the term Nature Preserves in a list of accepted examples, that's true. But all the rest of the description is completely different. This category is simply not applicable to many Continental European countries, because it does ignore the fact that here all open land is public access by law anyway. And it is especially awkward that just nature protection zones are the only ones where access is regulated. You may enter, but not leave designated trails, not pick any fruits or other plants and not make a fire; all things that are no problem in any other piece of forest, no matter who owns it.

 

Public Access Lands claims to be also for nature reserves, but it does not fit and nature reserves (at least the types I know from here) should be excluded there.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I can't understand the concept of Public Access Lands category... to waymark every forest or meadow?

 

But, for sure, nature monuments doesn't fit that category because they have 'no area' (single trees) or limited area (geological openings etc.).

0

Share this post


Link to post

I can't understand the concept of Public Access Lands category... to waymark every forest or meadow?

That is what I meant. The concept behind Public Access Lands does not work here. I also did not understand it and had to do some reasearch first. Then I found, that in some countries access to privately owned open land like forests is (or can be) forbidden. In these areas the category can be useful, but here, where I live, it's totally weird.

0

Share this post


Link to post

What about excluding U.S. National Natural Landmarks?

 

Missed this one. Will integrate it into the exclusions.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This proposal looks a lot like the category, Public Access Lands.

What would go in the new category that wouldn't fit in Public Access Lands? What are the differences?

 

I confess I did not take a close look at Public Access Lands before creating this category. But I am familiar with it as I have placed waymarks there before. The points you raise are good ones and should be clarified.

 

For me the spirit of Public Access Lands has to do with recreation (hiking and other) and not specifically protection. I know that when we start talking about National Forests and BLM land in the U.S. the topic can get a little fuzzy because even if they are (apart from wilderness areas) for recreation and resource exploitation certain wildlife laws may still apply. Because Public Access Lands includes nature preserves, it can be interpreted as a superset of Protected Natural Areas.

 

So there is overlap between the two categories. What I envision is that nature preserves can be posted in either and in both (not unlike other overlapping categories).

 

Should Public Access Lands also be excluded from Protected Natural Areas because of the overlap?

 

What I would consider is that nature preserves can be posted in either and in both (not unlike other overlapping categories).

Edited by RakeInTheCache
0

Share this post


Link to post

Updates made. Check it out here. I did not include Pomnik Przyrody (Poland) in the Features because it seemed to me like it could still be an area.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I can't understand the concept of Public Access Lands category... to waymark every forest or meadow?

 

 

I would say that Public Access Lands is a "New World" centric category. In the U.S. walking across any land which is held privately can be considered "trespassing" and you could be subject to prosecution if the owner was so inclined (which is often not the case but still technically not open to public access. Normally the land would be posted with "no trespassing" signs if prosecution was a risk). Having said that, there is an awful lot of land in the U.S that belongs to government bodies. The land is normally accessible to the public unless explicitly forbidden. This includes National and State Forests, and Bureau of Land Management lands in which normally some sort of conservation principal applies but which are managed for multiple uses including natural resource exploitation as well as recreation. The public is usually not far from areas where one can wander freely and enjoy nature.

 

It is nice to be reassured that you are on lands truly made accessible (open) to the public thus the value of this category.

 

In France, I waymark Forêts Domaniales as Public Access Lands as they are managed similarly to U.S. National Forests (for the timber and open to hunting)

Edited by RakeInTheCache
0

Share this post


Link to post

I like the write up. I'm only concerned that features will overtake the category and that it will not be balanced between those two aspects of protected nature (features and areas). For example I just read the number of protected features (natural monuments) in Poland alone is more than 36000! Probably other countries are high on those numbers when compared to areas. So, features could easily overtake this category and the protected areas could be lost among all the protected features.

 

Maybe we should make two separate categories... one for features (natural monuments) and another for areas?

Edited by GCEdo
0

Share this post


Link to post

I like the write up. I'm only concerned that features will overtake the category and that it will not be balanced between those two aspects of protected nature (features and areas). For example I just read the number of protected features (natural monuments) in Poland alone is more than 36000! Probably other countries are high on those numbers when compared to areas. So, features could easily overtake this category and the protected areas could be lost among all the protected features.

 

Maybe we should make two separate categories... one for features (natural monuments) and another for areas?

 

In order to better understand the situation in Poland, what is the Polish name of the government body which is in charge of protecting these features? Is there a list of them on the internet?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I found this info about their number on Polish wikipedia article about nature monuments...

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomnik_przyrody

 

I guess their state office for nature protection manage them...

http://www.gdos.gov.pl/forms-of-nature-protection

 

Although, in Croatia nature monuments are managed by local government body (county level)...

http://www.dzzp.hr/eng/protected-areas/protected-area-categories/categories-of-protected-areas-in-croatia-255.html

 

Couldn't find the list online. The best I could find is this...

http://blog.protectedplanet.net/post/102481051829/2014-united-nations-list-of-protected-areas

 

I guess they list all protected areas for each country, but it's separate file for each country and I can't open it on my computer to check what's in there.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I like the write up. I'm only concerned that features will overtake the category and that it will not be balanced between those two aspects of protected nature (features and areas). For example I just read the number of protected features (natural monuments) in Poland alone is more than 36000! Probably other countries are high on those numbers when compared to areas. So, features could easily overtake this category and the protected areas could be lost among all the protected features.

 

Maybe we should make two separate categories... one for features (natural monuments) and another for areas?

 

I added "Pomnik przyrody" (Polish natural monuments) to the list of features.

 

The common, unifying element between features and areas is that they are land with boundaries and legal protection due to their nature value. I'm not sure there needs to be a balance between them in the category.

Edited by RakeInTheCache
0

Share this post


Link to post

OK, I agree with this approach.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Doing another save of the category before calling a vote.

 

Description:

 

A category in which to record areas and features public and private, protected by law for their natural value and accessible to the public.

 

Expanded Description:

 

While Waymarking already has categories dedicated to certain classes of protected natural areas such as <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=f424a305-f365-42dc-98ef-bc62567c4203"> National Parks of the World</a>, <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=57c9b918-8203-4210-bdbd-8ba85c3953fe"> National Parks (U.S.)</a>, <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=d816e7fa-f742-44ea-a363-ac9643539934"> U.S. National Wildlife Refuges</a>, <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=8d1459a9-637a-4783-bc6e-62fb36ade600"> U.S. National Natural Landmarks</a>, and <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=e2f492e7-4944-4239-a1c5-b6f3a87e2869"> UNESCO Biosphere Reserves</a> this still leaves many protected natural sites left uncovered. This category is intended to be a catch-all for any other location which does not already fit into one of these other categories. <u>Waymark submissions to this category that already fit under the aforementioned previously established categories will be declined.</u>

<P>

Locations which will be accepted in this category include, but are not limited to :

<ul>

<li>Features</li>

<ul>

<li>Naturdenkmäler (Germany)</li>

<li>Pomnik przyrody (Poland)</li>

<li>Natural monuments / features / landmarks (geological, botanical, or pertaining to natural history) designated by well-established governmental or private organizations</li>

</ul>

<li>Areas</li>

<ul>

<li>Naturschutzgebiete (Germany)</li>

<li>Rezerwat Przyrody (Poland)</li>

<li>Park Krajobrazowy (Poland)</li>

<li>Parcs Naturels Régionaux(France)</li>

<li>State/Provincial and National Designated Wilderness Areas</li>

<li>The Nature Conservancy Preserves (US)</li>

<li>Regional Land Conservancy Preserves (US)</li>

<li>Local government (city, township, departmental and county) nature preserves</li>

<li>Areas called Nature Centers not having buildings with educational nature exhibits.</li>

<li>Natura 2000 locations (European Union)</li>

<li>Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (UK)</li>

</ul>

</ul>

<P>

What these all have in common are legal frameworks which greatly restrict which activities can be carried out within their boundaries and protect the nature within them from overuse, misuse and destruction, while still allowing the public to enjoy them.

<P>

As there is overlap between this category and the <a href="http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=91d3d64a-ddba-496c-9f09-e3a018ca0528"> Public Access Lands</a> category concerning nature preserves, these can be posted in either and in both. <u>U.S. National Forests, BLM Lands, French Forêts Domaniales, other land managed by ONF and equivalent managed land in other countries will generally not be accepted in this category because they serve multiple purposes including exploitation of natural resources (Hunting, Timber, Fossil fuel and Mineral extraction, etc.). Exceptions are made only if the waymark refers to a designated wilderness or other protected area within the multi-use land. Livestock herding will be exempt from this rule in areas where such activity does not harm the biodiversity of the protected area.</u>

<P>

We are interested in learning about other types of protected natural areas in all countries of the world. Don't hesitate to contact the category leader if you have one to add to the list.

<P>

The qualifications for a site to be listed in this category are fairly precise so the posting instructions should be followed carefully in order to avoid any waymark being rejected.

<P>

REVIEWERS PLEASE NOTE : Waymarks which are declined must be justified in referring explicitly to some violation of the requirements given below. Revisions to these criteria will be made to resolve any ambiguous cases. When in doubt, please put the waymark up for a vote.

<P>

Also, keep in mind that descriptions may be completely written in the local language (Please use an on-line translator in this case to review the waymark.)

 

Instructions for Posting a Protected Natural Areas and Features Waymark:

 

<P>

<ol>

<li><B>QUALIFYING SITES:</B> To qualify as a waymark in this site the natural area or feature and the organization responsible for its protection must be well documented on the internet and the link between the two verifiable by the reviewer.</li>

<P>

<li><B>COORDINATES:</B> Personally obtained coordinates must be taken as follows:

<ol>

<li>In the case of a natural feature, from a point as close to the feature as possible.</li>

<li>In the case of natural areas which are sign posted, from the location of a clearly legible sign demarking the natural area. If the natural area has a public entrance sign, or a sign indicating the name of the area, the location must be this one.</li>

<li>In the case of natural areas which are not sign posted, from a public access parking lot, a trailhead sign, or the boundary point among those providing easiest access to the area. </li>

</ol></li>

<P>

<li><B>PHOTOS:</B> At minimum one daylight photo is required with the characteristics given below. Additional photos are encouraged, preferably with the most aesthetically pleasing one as the default photo :

<ol>

<li>In the case of a natural feature, a photo which clearly captures the essence of the feature within any imposed spatial limitations.</li>

<li>In the case of natural areas which are sign posted, the required photo must be of this sign. If the natural area has a public entrance sign, or a sign indicating the name of the area, the photo must be of it.</li>

<li>In the case of natural areas which are not sign posted, a photo of the public access parking lot, trailhead sign, or the boundary point indicated by the coordinates. </li></ol>

<P>

While we don't expect professional photography, waymarks submitted with underexposed, blurred, skewed or otherwise poor quality photos may be declined.

<P>

All photos must be the waymarker's original photos and be placed in the photo gallery for the waymark.</li>

<P>

<li><B>DESCRIPTIONS:</B> Keep in mind that the quick description is what people see when browsing, so do your best to give a succinct description that will give people an "at a glance" overview of the waymark.

<P>

Bi-lingual descriptions of sites located in non-English speaking countries are encouraged in order to open the hobby to non-English speakers.

<P>

Further to this point, descriptions may be written completely in the local language.

<P>

In the long description, include any relevant or informative information about the responsible organization and the reasons why this place has been chosen to be protected.

</li>

<P>

<li><B>VARIABLES:</B> Please make a good faith effort to provide the information for the variables. Most are not required as they may not apply in all instances.

</li>

<P>

<li><B>WAYMARK NAME:</B> The waymark title must include the full official name of the feature or area followed by a dash and the closest community located near it (city, township, village, named place, etc.) and the State, Province or country separated by a comma must be at the end of each waymark name using the following format. (Two letter state abbreviations are preferred for U.S. sites but please spell out country names). Example: Echo Lake Nature Preserve - Negaunee, IL</li>

</ol>

 

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:

 

In your log, consider answering the question "What brought you to this place?".

 

A complete sentence or two or an uploaded photo taken by the waymarker will be required in the log to confirm that the logger is participating in the hobby in good faith. Logs of only a few words like "Visited it" without an original photo are subject to deletion.

 

Variables:

Is this an Area or a Feature?

Area/Feature Type

Website dedicated to or describing the Area/Feature

Website of the responsible organization

Rare or Endangered Species

Justification for Protection

0

Share this post


Link to post

Note to myself while the category is blocked for voting : Add "Réserves Naturelles de France" as a sub-class of natural area.

0

Share this post


Link to post

This database can be used to check the status of area / feature submitted as waymark...

http://www.protectedplanet.net

This is a great resource! I checked my closer area and a found a lot of areas I had not know of. But on the other hand, about 80% of the ones I know are missing. So it is absolutely not suitable to check a submission.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Can there be more than one waymark for a larger natural area?

0

Share this post


Link to post

Can there be more than one waymark for a larger natural area?

 

I would be inclined to say no.

0

Share this post


Link to post

What frustrates me the most about this proposed category is that RakeInTheCache didn't bother to take the time to reach out to the Public Access Lands category leader/officers (which includes me) to address the overlapping issues that this new category would create. He even admits in an earlier post:

 

"I confess I did not take a close look at Public Access Lands before creating this category. But I am familiar with it as I have placed waymarks there before. The points you raise are good ones and should be clarified."

 

In prior experiences when proposing a new category that has overlapping issues in another category, I've ALWAYS reached out to the other category leader/officers via e-mails for their input BEFORE I expend lots of time and energy writing up a category only to risk having it shot down in Peer Review.

 

The Public Access Lands category's intent was to be a catch-all for any publicly accessible lands that couldn't be submitted into other existing categories. Does the Public Access Lands category need some fine-tuning in its verbiage to make it more clear and understandable for waymarkers? YES. Could the Public Access Lands category include all the Protected Natural Areas and Features? again, YES.

 

I hate to say that RakeInTheCache jumped the gun on this category proposal but it appears that is exactly what he's done.

 

:unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post

What frustrates me the most about this proposed category is that RakeInTheCache didn't bother to take the time to reach out to the Public Access Lands category leader/officers (which includes me) to address the overlapping issues that this new category would create. He even admits in an earlier post:

 

"I confess I did not take a close look at Public Access Lands before creating this category. But I am familiar with it as I have placed waymarks there before. The points you raise are good ones and should be clarified."

 

In prior experiences when proposing a new category that has overlapping issues in another category, I've ALWAYS reached out to the other category leader/officers via e-mails for their input BEFORE I expend lots of time and energy writing up a category only to risk having it shot down in Peer Review.

 

The Public Access Lands category's intent was to be a catch-all for any publicly accessible lands that couldn't be submitted into other existing categories. Does the Public Access Lands category need some fine-tuning in its verbiage to make it more clear and understandable for waymarkers? YES. Could the Public Access Lands category include all the Protected Natural Areas and Features? again, YES.

 

I hate to say that RakeInTheCache jumped the gun on this category proposal but it appears that is exactly what he's done.

 

:unsure:

 

I honestly did not consider reaching out as I saw (and see) Public Access Lands as having a distinctly different focus - namely for hiking and exploring. This is not at all the focus of Protected Natural Areas and Features. But my bad if I stepped on any toes.

Edited by RakeInTheCache
0

Share this post


Link to post

What frustrates me the most about this proposed category is that RakeInTheCache didn't bother to take the time to reach out to the Public Access Lands category leader/officers (which includes me) to address the overlapping issues that this new category would create. He even admits in an earlier post:

 

"I confess I did not take a close look at Public Access Lands before creating this category. But I am familiar with it as I have placed waymarks there before. The points you raise are good ones and should be clarified."

 

In prior experiences when proposing a new category that has overlapping issues in another category, I've ALWAYS reached out to the other category leader/officers via e-mails for their input BEFORE I expend lots of time and energy writing up a category only to risk having it shot down in Peer Review.

 

The Public Access Lands category's intent was to be a catch-all for any publicly accessible lands that couldn't be submitted into other existing categories. Does the Public Access Lands category need some fine-tuning in its verbiage to make it more clear and understandable for waymarkers? YES. Could the Public Access Lands category include all the Protected Natural Areas and Features? again, YES.

 

I hate to say that RakeInTheCache jumped the gun on this category proposal but it appears that is exactly what he's done.

 

:unsure:

 

I honestly did not consider reaching out as I saw (and see) Public Access Lands as having a distinctly different focus - namely for hiking and exploring. This is not at all the focus of Protected Natural Areas and Features. But my bad if I stepped on any toes.

I feared that this would come up again. I know the Public Access Lands category, and I know that previous attempts to create a category for nature protection areas have failed because of this category. But you have to face it that this category is not a global one. The very basic prerequisite of this category is not viable at all in many countries; and there is no way to make it global, whatever you try.

 

Public Access Lands officers have tried to make their best to create a catch-all category. I see that and I do appreciate it. But it does not work. The basic idea of this category is meaningless in all countries that have a long tradition of right of way. It is not possible to change this. The best solution would be to allow this new category. Maybe Public Access Lands can drop the inclusion of protected areas, it is not that important but it would be a cleaner solution.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The Public Access Lands category's intent was to be a catch-all for any publicly accessible lands that couldn't be submitted into other existing categories. Does the Public Access Lands category need some fine-tuning in its verbiage to make it more clear and understandable for waymarkers? YES. Could the Public Access Lands category include all the Protected Natural Areas and Features? again, YES.

 

Does the Public Access Lands category include land that is not accessible for public? If YES, it could be catch-all for nature reserves, but if not, most nature reserves won't match that category. Almost everything would match that category, but not the areas with restrictive nature protection.

 

Nature 2000 or Landscape Parks etc. could usually be matched by Public Access Lands, but I don't think it's very intuitive to list the areas that are meant to have more restricted access than the rest of the country in the category meant for areas that are broadly accessible...

0

Share this post


Link to post

Does the Public Access Lands category include land that is not accessible for public? If YES, it could be catch-all for nature reserves, but if not, most nature reserves won't match that category.

 

Just a small clarification, it is required for a Protected natural Areas and Features waymark to be publically accessible, why, because it should be able to be visited and enjoyed by the public. (I don't think I would want to attract attention to a site which is not supposed to be visited). However, there is no focus on hiking and exploring which, according to the Public Access Lands description, is its reason for being. It is quite possible that you would be able to drive to a protected feature. A protected area may only allow visitors access to a tiny part of its land (possibly a short boardwalk through a marsh or only a lookout).

 

Again, for me the two categories have completely different objectives.

Edited by RakeInTheCache
0

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe Public Access Lands can drop the inclusion of protected areas, it is not that important but it would be a cleaner solution.

 

Unfortunately, the leader of Public Access Lands appears to no longer be active in Waymarking. I believe that only the leader could make changes to the category.

0

Share this post


Link to post

From the 'Public Access Lands' category description:

 

"...Areas that will qualify for this category include (but are not necessarily limited to): National forest, State forest, State game lands, wildlife management areas, nature preserves/refuges, nature conservancy areas and general public use lands..."

0

Share this post


Link to post

A protected area may only allow visitors access to a tiny part of its land (possibly a short boardwalk through a marsh or only a lookout).

 

 

Often, it's only possible to hike around the feature. I've recently visited a nature reserve, that was fully fenced (probably because it was in the middle of the meadows, so that the cows or other animals could enter it otherwise.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Propably the best way would be create separate category for nature reserves only, and allow Exceptional Trees category to accept any natural monument tree, even if the girth and height are unknown to the poster. Every nature monument must met particual girth requirement, and height is also measured, but those parameters are seldom made public. Inability to measure or estimate them is the major factor I haven't posted numerous nature monument trees as waymarks, and it stops many others from doing that.

 

Erratics and geological openings can be posted as places of geological significance.

 

The reason I'm supporting the category is inability to waymark nature reserves and monumental trees. First because there's actually no category that would host them, the second because of unavailability of girth and height data.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Propably the best way would be create separate category for nature reserves only, and allow Exceptional Trees category to accept any natural monument tree, even if the girth and height are unknown to the poster. Every nature monument must met particual girth requirement, and height is also measured, but those parameters are seldom made public. Inability to measure or estimate them is the major factor I haven't posted numerous nature monument trees as waymarks, and it stops many others from doing that.

 

Erratics and geological openings can be posted as places of geological significance.

 

The reason I'm supporting the category is inability to waymark nature reserves and monumental trees. First because there's actually no category that would host them, the second because of unavailability of girth and height data.

 

Let's see how the voting turns out.

0

Share this post


Link to post

RakeInTheCache is incorrect in his assumption that the Public Access Lands category is focused on hiking and exploring. Nowhere in the category does it state that. I've submitted a couple of parks that I didn't hike to that didn't fit into any existing category (and were denied) but fit nicely into the Public Access Lands category.

 

RakeInTheCache IS CORRECT in that the Public Access Lands category leader is INACTIVE with the category. I've reached out to him with an e-mail that the category is currently in the spotlight and needs his attention and I've received no answer thus far. If I don't hear back from him within the next few days, I'll move forward with notifying a Waymarking administrator to possibly promote me as an officer to allow me to edit the category to make it more inclusive and to read better for potential waymarkers.

 

More to come...

Edited by thebeav69
0

Share this post


Link to post

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the intent of Public Access Lands are neat sites that are available to the public, and may be considered "neat" because of a plethora of things: scenery, hiking/biking/ATVing/etc. trails, dams, and so on, and any combination of the aforementioned. And protected things (either flora or fauna) is just one of the things that may be in a Public Access Land, but it is not a requirement for a PAL waymark.

 

The new category is for protected things. If there is some overlap, that is called "Cross Posting" and is not a dirty word. Protected areas may or may not have hiking/biking/etc. trails; they may or may not have scenery, for that matter; or any of the other things (aside from the protected things) that can be found in Public Access Lands.

 

Seems like the intent of both categories is in different (NOT to say opposing) directions, for which there is going to be some overlap. Personally I do not see overlap as a bad thing, unless the overlap on a Venn diagram shows that the one category is just a subset of the other. And in this case, the two circles on a Venn diagram merely intersect in some cases, but there are still LOTS of other cases that fit only in the one category or in the other.

Edited by MountainWoods
0

Share this post


Link to post

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the intent of Public Access Lands are neat sites that are available to the public, and may be considered "neat" because of a plethora of things: scenery, hiking/biking/ATVing/etc. trails, dams, and so on, and any combination of the aforementioned. And protected things (either flora or fauna) is just one of the things that may be in a Public Access Land, but it is not a requirement for a PAL waymark.

 

The new category is for protected things. If there is some overlap, that is called "Cross Posting" and is not a dirty word. Protected areas may or may not have hiking/biking/etc. trails; they may or may not have scenery, for that matter; or any of the other things (aside from the protected things) that can be found in Public Access Lands.

 

Seems like the intent of both categories is in different (NOT to say opposing) directions, for which there is going to be some overlap. Personally I do not see overlap as a bad thing, unless the overlap on a Venn diagram shows that the one category is just a subset of the other. And in this case, the two circles on a Venn diagram merely intersect in some cases, but there are still LOTS of other cases that fit only in the one category or in the other.

Public Access Land is a perfect example that more inclusive is not always better. For the US, there is an overlap, maybe a large overlap, still the intention of the category is different. But for many countries around here, there is no PAL circle at all in the diagram, because it covers the whole continuum. Of course, then protected sites are a subset, but a subset of something completely useless, because it is over inclusive.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I think it was a big mistake to mention other categories in group description, as well as making that description so long. It should be plain and simple: every area or feature with access restrictions made by the government for the sake of protecting nature fits that category. The names should deal as example.

 

Long description makes people unable to read everything, and reading the 'no' votes, I see most of those people has read at most single paragraph (those about interactions with Public Access Lands). Nobody has written about overlap with Exceptional Trees, which should actually be the most serious issue here, but no vote 'against' has even mentioned it. Another argument people have generally not analysed the topic and made some assumptions on premises of the fragment of the description :(

0

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, so the category was not acceppted. Here is the vote tally :

 

22 Approve

16 Deny +1 Groundspeak pronouncement

6 Abstained

 

"As a general rule of thumb, a two-thirds majority is necessary to pass a category."

 

What about reducing the category in scope to only Protected Natural Features?

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

Public Access Land is a perfect example that more inclusive is not always better. For the US, there is an overlap, maybe a large overlap, still the intention of the category is different. But for many countries around here, there is no PAL circle at all in the diagram, because it covers the whole continuum. Of course, then protected sites are a subset, but a subset of something completely useless, because it is over inclusive.

 

I believe that the vast majority of voters are North American. Therefore I conclude that as long as this is the case, it will be impossible to achieve a general understanding on this issue.

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 1