Religious Buildings Multifarious

2.2k · October 8, 2016

Religious Buildings Multifarious invites you to join the group: http://www.Waymarking.com/groups/details.aspx?f=1&guid=d7140bb3-340f-4165-b723-6a308bcc6389

Who is willing to be an officer, let us know.

Description:

The mission of the “Religious Buildings Multifarious" is to locate public places of worship/churches that are currently active, conducting a religious service at least once a month.

Religious Buildings Multifarious will NOT accept any place of worship (church) that can be waymarked in any existing designated “denominational” church building category.

Religious Buildings Multifarious are those buildings of worship that are a stand-alone or store front location ONLY.

Excluded are chapels or other places of worship that are part of larger entities such as airports, hospitals or similar establishments/businesses. Also excluded are buildings that are NOT owned or rented for the primary purpose of conducting a religious service. These include: any church/place of worship that shares a church/building with other churches or religious groups, and any community buildings/locations such as; youth, seniors, legions, centers/halls, etc. Also excluded are churches/places of worship in a private resident or home.

This category will NOT accept any religious buildings/locations that are administrative or charitable such as; thrift shops, soup kitchens, etc. Nor will this category accept any church owned properties that are NOT for the primary purpose of conducting a church/worship service. This also includes church/bible camps, recreational facilities and similar. Also excluded are buildings/homes etc. used primarily for the study of doctrine, bible, scripture or similar study groups that are NOT held in a church/place of worship.

Examples of a Religious Buildings Multifarious: Non-denominational churches, community churches, Scientology, Mormon Churches (not temples), Unitarians, Spiritualists and other churches/places of worship that CANNOT be waymarked in any existing designated “denominational” church building category.

Requirements:

1. The church/place of worship must be open to the public, currently active, conducting a religious service at a minimum of once a month.

2. It must be a stand-alone or storefront building. Only churches/places of worship that CANNOT be waymarked in any existing designated “denominational” church building category will be accepted.

3. Include at least three photographs taken by the waymarker.

a. one of a sign or similar that shows the name of the church/place of worship.*

b. a close up of the church/place of worship

c. an overview of its location including the church/place of worship.

d. If you were able to go inside, a photograph/s will be appreciated.

e. Additional photographs are always encouraged.

* Officers will review the sign requirement on a case by case and it is the final decision of the reviewer to accept or decline if an alternative is used for the sign requirement. The reviewer's decision is FINAL.

4. The waymarker must personally obtain GPS coordinates.

5. Include at least three sentences describing the location, history or any unique features of the location, church/place of worship, if any. Additional information is always encouraged.

6. An English translation is required.

7. Naming requirement: NO tilde (~) or double hyphens (--) are allowed in the title. Abbreviations are acceptable for state or province.

Use a single hyphen (-) in the title.

Example: Name of the Church/Place of Worship -Town, State/ Province

Waymarks will be reviewed by one of the officers and will be declined if ALL requirements are not met.

Variables:

1. Website of the church/place of worship.

2. Days and Times of services

3. Address: Street, Town, State/Province, Country, Postal Code

Edited October 9, 2016 by BK-Hunters

1.4k · October 8, 2016

Looks good. Except for the last sentence. I guess, you want to shift the "not" between "if" and "ALL".

And I have a small issue with picture requirement a. Signs are not common in my area, regardless of the denomination. Does this mean: no sign, no approval?

Edited October 8, 2016 by fi67

2.2k · October 8, 2016

Looks good. Except for the last sentence. I guess, you want to shift the "not" between "if" and "ALL".

And I have a small issue with picture requirement a. Signs are not common in my area, regardless of the denomination. Does this mean: no sign, no approval?

If you can come up with another means of proof of the identity of the church, fine. But many will not have a website, so the only alternative we have at the moment is a sign.

A possibility might be the obvious exterior nature of the building as a church (crosses, religious figures, etc.) and a website, any website (Churchfinder, as an example), indicating the church to be at the address given by the waymarker.

As for the "not" between "if" and "ALL". - It's fine as is.

K.

Edited October 8, 2016 by BK-Hunters

1.5k · October 9, 2016

I love the idea of a posting that actually requires the effort of at least three photographs and at least three sentences. If I were a reviewer, I would be tempted to edit in my own third sentence rather than deny the waymark.

2.2k · October 9, 2016

I am updating the proposal and clarifying the requirements as I think of other situations.

Such as a religious building multifarious location must be open to the public.

Some additional exclusions are no church/worship services held in a private home/resident: this is to avoid someone who opens up their personal resident/home one day a week/month etc.for worship service.

Also excluded are buildings where the primary purpose is to conduct/hold the study of doctrine, bible, scripture or similar study groups that are hosted at a different location other than the primary church/place of worship where religious services are routinely held.

If you have read the proposal and have a comment, concern, objection or encouragement now is the time to speak up.

It was our experience in the past that objections, concerns were NOT expressed on the forum and during peer review, it was NOT until after the category passed peer review that we were made aware of these concerns and objections.

To summarize: If you have something to say about the proposal, good, bad or ugly and you do not say it now; it will proceed to peer review as written/edited in post 1 above.

October 9, 2016

The proposal looks good to me and i think that this is a good solution instead of creating individual categories for each religion that are not yet included in existing categories.

You have my support.

1.1k · October 9, 2016

Looks good. Except for the last sentence. I guess, you want to shift the "not" between "if" and "ALL".

And I have a small issue with picture requirement a. Signs are not common in my area, regardless of the denomination. Does this mean: no sign, no approval?

If you can come up with another means of proof of the identity of the church, fine. But many will not have a website, so the only alternative we have at the moment is a sign.

A possibility might be the obvious exterior nature of the building as a church (crosses, religious figures, etc.) and a website, any website (Churchfinder, as an example), indicating the church to be at the address given by the waymarker.

As for the "not" between "if" and "ALL". - It's fine as is.

K.

Many (and I do mean many) of the Country Churches that I find have neither a sign nor a website. They are only identified on topographic maps, with the overall shape of the building and parking lot assisting in the identification that it is, indeed, a church -- perhaps a steeple and/or bell tower or something else that is "typical" of churches.

Fortunately, many of these unsigned churches are also located on one of those 1 million "location finder" sites (religious or otherwise), so you have a good suggestion on that. A few of the "topo churches" that I found didn't even appear on a location finder site, for whatever reason. These may be left out in the cold, since nothing identifies them as churches except a topo map.

2.2k · October 9, 2016

I love the idea of a posting that actually requires the effort of at least three photographs and at least three sentences. If I were a reviewer, I would be tempted to edit in my own third sentence rather than deny the waymark.

elyob, thank your for your support of the three photographs and three sentences requirement.

It is a long time concern of ours, when waymarks with absolutely nothing written in the long description are in our review queue.

These are categories that DO NOT require anything written in the long description, so some waymarkers just do not add anything.

In my personal opinion at least two sentences should be required in every category.

We realize for some it is just about the numbers. We like increasing our numbers too, but we do try our best to show some effort in our waymarks.

9.3k · October 9, 2016

Looking good!

Think it is a shame, when a poster cant find 'anything' to write about what they are Waymarking... If they cant find anything to write, why should we visit it?

October 9, 2016

I would like to be an officer. This is the first category I have been a part of forming. I am just starting to do review stuff. I know people like writeup, but if I can't find anything to say it is a real effort. I like taking photos and finding stuff. Sorry to the people that like write-ups. I can usually mange three lines, but it can be an effort.

2.2k · October 9, 2016

Looks good. Except for the last sentence. I guess, you want to shift the "not" between "if" and "ALL".

And I have a small issue with picture requirement a. Signs are not common in my area, regardless of the denomination. Does this mean: no sign, no approval?

If you can come up with another means of proof of the identity of the church, fine. But many will not have a website, so the only alternative we have at the moment is a sign.

A possibility might be the obvious exterior nature of the building as a church (crosses, religious figures, etc.) and a website, any website (Churchfinder, as an example), indicating the church to be at the address given by the waymarker.

As for the "not" between "if" and "ALL". - It's fine as is.

K.

Many (and I do mean many) of the Country Churches that I find have neither a sign nor a website. They are only identified on topographic maps, with the overall shape of the building and parking lot assisting in the identification that it is, indeed, a church -- perhaps a steeple and/or bell tower or something else that is "typical" of churches.

Fortunately, many of these unsigned churches are also located on one of those 1 million "location finder" sites (religious or otherwise), so you have a good suggestion on that. A few of the "topo churches" that I found didn't even appear on a location finder site, for whatever reason. These may be left out in the cold, since nothing identifies them as churches except a topo map.

Mountain Woods, We realize the sign requirement could be a challenge for some/many. However, unless they are "Arm Chair Waymarking" :rolleyes:

the waymarker is at the location, photographing the church/place of worship hopefully there will be "something" that identifies it as a church.

I am so reluctant to even mention this, however officers could offer a little flexibility with the sign requirement.

In no way is this flexibility imply that the sign requirement is waived. The officers will review this on a case by case and it is the final decision of the reviewer to accept or decline.

2.2k · October 9, 2016

I would like to be an officer. This is the first category I have been a part of forming. I am just starting to do review stuff. I know people like writeup, but if I can't find anything to say it is a real effort. I like taking photos and finding stuff. Sorry to the people that like write-ups. I can usually mange three lines, but it can be an effort.

Thank you for joining the group.

I will email you some suggestions about what you could write. Should we start a new thread to discuss this further?

9.3k · October 9, 2016

Looks good. Except for the last sentence. I guess, you want to shift the "not" between "if" and "ALL".

And I have a small issue with picture requirement a. Signs are not common in my area, regardless of the denomination. Does this mean: no sign, no approval?

If you can come up with another means of proof of the identity of the church, fine. But many will not have a website, so the only alternative we have at the moment is a sign.

A possibility might be the obvious exterior nature of the building as a church (crosses, religious figures, etc.) and a website, any website (Churchfinder, as an example), indicating the church to be at the address given by the waymarker.

As for the "not" between "if" and "ALL". - It's fine as is.

K.

In the UK, whilst most churches will have a sign, those that dont often have a notice board that usually has their name on.

2.2k · October 9, 2016

This is another option: A photograph of the interior could be an alternative to the sign requirement if a sign is not available.

2.2k · October 9, 2016

I would like to be an officer. This is the first category I have been a part of forming. I am just starting to do review stuff. I know people like writeup, but if I can't find anything to say it is a real effort. I like taking photos and finding stuff. Sorry to the people that like write-ups. I can usually mange three lines, but it can be an effort.

This is, in truth, what we expect of Waymarkers who submit to categories that we review - a little effort. Myself, I have spent whole afternoons, even as much as a full day (maybe even more) tying to research a really nice church/building/site which deserves a waymark. Though I don't expect the same level of commitment from everyone, I do expect a little effort on their part.

Things such as this can become addictive - that long and arduous hunt for a tidbit of information, ending with that AHA moment when a passage buried deep in a pdf or online book reveals a barebones history of a building or site. These moments I find very rewarding and well worth the effort. Mind you, I strike out completely on occasion, as well. It comes with the territory, as does inputting a little effort.

K.

Edited October 9, 2016 by BK-Hunters

2.2k · October 10, 2016

Religious Buildings Multifarious is now in PEER Review.

Thanks for the suggestions, and now it needs your YEA vote.

The category was long over due, and needs your support.

October 10, 2016

Sorry, one more question before I vote (this may have been answered already and I just didn't see it). Your examples are: "community churches, Scientology, Mormon Churches (not temples), Unitarians, Spiritualists and other churches/places of worship" Does the category include non-christian places of worship?

Specifically, would you accept Sikh Temples? I started a discussion about Sikh temples a while ago but it lead nowhere.

2.2k · October 10, 2016

Sorry, one more question before I vote (this may have been answered already and I just didn't see it). Your examples are: "community churches, Scientology, Mormon Churches (not temples), Unitarians, Spiritualists and other churches/places of worship" Does the category include non-christian places of worship?

Specifically, would you accept Sikh Temples? I started a discussion about Sikh temples a while ago but it lead nowhere.

Hi, The reason for the repetitive phrase: Churches/Places of Worship is for this very reason.

I was hoping to convey that NOT all places of prayer/worship/devotion/are christian. Most building that are named or referred as "Church" at least in my thought process is to mean most generally "Christian."

There are some restrictions the main one is: Religious Buildings Multifarious will NOT accept any place of worship (church) that can be waymarked in any existing designated “denominational” church building category.

Any non-christian place of worship is encouraged to be submitted in the category.

Simply put: YES

I will edit the description after peer review to clarify this very important point and add that non-christian places of worship are encouraged. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to make this more clear.

Barb of BK-Hunters

October 10, 2016

Simply put: YES

And with that, you got my vote!

October 10, 2016

Yea!!! My first vote. I have wanted this category for awhile now. You have probably talked about it before, but it seemed to happen very fast.

2.2k · October 10, 2016

Yea, it was quick.

As with this peer review and others we were involved, if there are any concerns often they will not be discussed until after the review process starts.

And in one case of ours, not until after it was approved.

A few points have surfaced, since submitting it to peer review, however none of these (one a technical issue) will alter the overall description just add a little clarity. Such as actually stating that non-christian places of worship can be submitted to this category.

As long as there is not another denominational religious building category that already exists. I feel I need to keep reiterating this point.

I am still struggling how to explain to someone what the "Multifarious" portion of the category title means. I guess I thought everyone understood it was an assortment/variety, etc. of religious buildings.

Edited October 10, 2016 by BK-Hunters

October 11, 2016

dictionary: multifarious = of many and various kinds

as opposed to nefarious = (typically of an action or activity) wicked or criminal.

The closeness of these words gives it an edgy feel.

I used the term Brand-x, when I would say "no, I can't waymark that it is brand-x. (not belonging to a category)."

Its good word. You could add the definition to the description.

2.2k · October 11, 2016

We are aware of the technical issue before it was sent to peer review, however it was too late to change it.

Post your comments RE: pop-up menu. Give examples of a list and explain why this is necessary.

Edited October 11, 2016 by BK-Hunters

October 11, 2016

It says "churches/places of worship" several times. Why not just "places of worship". This sounds more inclusive with less bias and loses no meaning.

Also Sikh could be added to the example list.

Edited October 11, 2016 by ripraff

2.2k · October 11, 2016

It says "churches/places of worship" several times. Why not just "places of worship". This sounds more inclusive with less bias and losses no meaning.

I am working on it as we speak.

9.3k · October 11, 2016

Voted.

Do wonder if those 'places of worship' that already have a category need to be listed on the page?

(And, yes, I do realize that that makes the description rather long.)

7.8k · October 11, 2016

Do wonder if those 'places of worship' that already have a category need to be listed on the page?

(And, yes, I do realize that that makes the description rather long.)

I agree. If it doesn't make things too unwieldy, the names and links to the relevant existing categories would be useful. A link to the "Religious Buildings" super-category could be enough, but not all of the contained categories are excluded, so the former would be preferred.

Regardless, I've already added my "Yea" vote. The category looks to be well on its way to approval.

2.2k · October 12, 2016

Do wonder if those 'places of worship' that already have a category need to be listed on the page?

(And, yes, I do realize that that makes the description rather long.)

I agree. If it doesn't make things too unwieldy, the names and links to the relevant existing categories would be useful. A link to the "Religious Buildings" super-category could be enough, but not all of the contained categories are excluded, so the former would be preferred.

Regardless, I've already added my "Yea" vote. The category looks to be well on its way to approval.

The category page will look different as added a link for each denominational category. Also will add a link for List of Christian denominations

and a link for Non-Christian Religions. This one does include some Christian religions. The best we could fine. If you know of another link for Non-Christian Religions, this maybe better than one we found.

Let me assure everyone that the content, requirements and the general information is just the same, just a lot cleaner and formatted to read easier.

Edited October 12, 2016 by BK-Hunters

October 12, 2016

Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party and won't be able to vote due to my current status as lowly member. I can tell from reading the description that these two examples would be excluded but you might choose to explicitly state it. In Ontario two common non-church-owned facilities that may be rented by a church group for Sunday services include public schools and movie theaters.

Good luck with the category and peer review. I symbolically vote yea.

October 13, 2016

How does this get from here to being a listed category we can add waymarks to?

1.4k · October 13, 2016

How does this get from here to being a listed category we can add waymarks to?

Once the voting period is over, they result is checked by someone at Groundspeak. They reserve the final decision. This can take a couple of days. When this is over, one of the officers can switch the category to active (but I have also noticed that this happened automatically a few times in the past). So I guess it will be ready early next week.

2.2k · October 13, 2016

How does this get from here to being a listed category we can add waymarks to?

Once the voting period is over, they result is checked by someone at Groundspeak. They reserve the final decision. This can take a couple of days. When this is over, one of the officers can switch the category to active (but I have also noticed that this happened automatically a few times in the past). So I guess it will be ready early next week.

We are also watching the category.

Please give us an opportunity to correct the technical issue and modify the page. The new page will have all the denominational places of worship links and two others: Christian Churches and Non-Christian places of worship. If the approval of the category is automatic please be patient.

Also, since this is a more complex category, please be patient with the officers. Some submissions may be put to vote. This initial phase, is a learning curve for all the officers and the submitter.

Thank you to all of you that supported this category.

Edited October 13, 2016 by BK-Hunters

October 13, 2016

How does this get from here to being a listed category we can add waymarks to?

Once the voting period is over, they result is checked by someone at Groundspeak. They reserve the final decision. This can take a couple of days. When this is over, one of the officers can switch the category to active (but I have also noticed that this happened automatically a few times in the past). So I guess it will be ready early next week.

Just to add that are some events that witch the category to active automatically, I can not specify which they are but one i have already notice.

A waymark can be submited to the category even when it is still inactive, and somewhere in this action the category goes active automatically.

The mysteries of Wymarking :grin: :lostsignal:

1.4k · October 13, 2016

...So I guess it will be ready early next week.

:antenna:

October 13, 2016

...So I guess it will be ready early next week.

Already active and it already appears in the newest categories list. That was fast []

Edited October 13, 2016 by razalas

2.2k · October 13, 2016

Yes, it is ready to go.

We are not receiving any notifications about the submissions. We will try to keep a close watch on "review waymarks"

October 13, 2016

Yes, it is ready to go.

We are not receiving any notifications about the submissions. We will try to keep a close watch on "review waymarks"

Congratulations, and thanks for the hard work in creating the category description.

October 13, 2016

Yea!!! I submitted a Mormon Church. Is this a first to find?

October 13, 2016

There is one other already approved, I just added mine to the queue. (updated with more info I found).

October 14, 2016

Up to 5 so far. I bet we have 500 by the end of the year.

1.5k · October 14, 2016

http://www.Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=74dc4f3a-c4d3-4e55-8ba9-366e38822243

1.5k · October 14, 2016

The Salvation Army is already a category well covered. Oops.

You wanted something to talk about. Be careful what you ask for.

2.2k · October 14, 2016

The Salvation Army is already a category well covered. Oops.

You wanted something to talk about. Be careful what you ask for.

So does unique steeples and bell towers have their own category, so what is your point? The category is for churches and places of worship.

Take it up with the leader of the group.

1.5k · October 14, 2016

The Salvation Army buildings can be churches or places of worship. Steeples and bell towers cannot.

<_<

2.2k · October 14, 2016

The Salvation Army buildings can be churches or places of worship. Steeples and bell towers cannot.

Okay, I have declined my own waymark and removed Salvation Army from the examples. That was one category I did not research. I see now that they will accept churches. I will add the link to the list of other categories.

If I sounded testy, you just caught me off guard. I have already three exchanges of emails about this same church, different issue.

1.5k · October 14, 2016

I have already three exchanges of emails about this same church, different issue.

You get emails?

:laughing:

2.2k · October 14, 2016

I have already three exchanges of emails about this same church, different issue.

You get emails?

Through Geocaching message center. Most of my officers have my personal email so I get them direct.

No, the Waymarking messaging system is still busted.

October 14, 2016

I too would be open to being an Officer. I've been at this for a few years now, and am interested in the review aspect. (Who knows how many current WM's I've 'cleaned up" over the years .

Think this category would be perfect for all the non-traditional houses of worship out there.

Sign me up _

2.2k · October 18, 2016

Help, I would like to know what those three columns are named and the significance in front of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Edited October 18, 2016 by BK-Hunters

January 7, 2017

I have a question about the rule of only submitting places that can't be accepted in another category. I assumed this meant that if the building had ever been used by another group it could only be submitted there, if they accept former churches. In looking at the submissions and in looking at candidates I see that churches often sell their old church when they get bigger or smaller. The group taking over would often fit in this category. If the current usage does not fit in an existing category, can it be submitted even though the church was used by another group. This could result in a double listing in the old former church's category and the new multifarious category. Since multifarious does not accept former it would be one direction only.

Religious Buildings Multifarious

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation