Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BK-Hunters

Search and Rescue Stations - Proposal

128 posts in this topic

The original intent for the Search and Rescue Stations (SAR) category was for stand-alone or store front locations. Seeking examples of other locations associated with fire/police/ambulance etc. did not produce the results I was hoping would be forthcoming.

 

I have researched other locations and though some say “Rescue” these technically are not Search and Rescue units as defined in the category description.

 

“Expanded Description: Search and Rescue units whose primary purpose is finding individuals who are lost and/or injured. They provide medical aid, search and rescue from dangerous environments and some have canine and aerial support teams to assist with the search.”

 

Fire, Police and Ambulance departments provide valuable services to their communities by providing emergency services to individuals in need but not necessarily lost. I think this is the key for most of these locations.

 

The category will proceed as written. I have made a few minor revisions, none of which substantially changed the proposal on the forum.

 

If a sign that says "X SAR" is required, then this category will exclude every volunteer SAR unit that does not have its own station or that does not work out of a separate office in a fire/police station WITH a separate sign.

 

There is a local SAR unit that is a ministry of a First Baptist Church. There is no SAR sign at the church. The SAR equipment is stored in a garage at the Fire Department. The address is a private home. Another local SAR unit is a PO Box and its equipment is in the restricted-entry area of a local PD.

 

I know how important signs are as proof of location, but how can we waymark volunteer SAR groups without much money, the ones whose office is a PO Box or private home, and whose equipment is stored in a residential driveway or self-storage place?

 

These groups should be able to be waymarked in this category SOMEHOW -- IF they have a real website and not a Facebook page.

 

Would a photo of the SAR unit's equipment suffice as a sign for the waymark? If so, where would the waymark coordinates be? At the SAR's "official" address, or at the spot where the equipment is parked (even if access is non-public, or even if it's on the scene of a search or at a training)?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I think this is basically a viable category, but I have no idea about prevalence in the global scope.

 

. . . .

 

The SAR situation here in Switzerland is quite complicated, SAR is in the realm of the cantons, basically, but in some it is delegated to the municipalities, and they can cooperate with private companies and associations. Then, there are SARs that are connected to civil defense or military units. There are calculations of at least 130 independent SAR organizations, but I have not noticed more than two signs yet.

 

One is a combined road maintenance depot/fire station/SAR in a small alpine village that has the word Rescue in the sign. The other one is the helicopter depot of a large private SAR organization, that is located deep inside the restricted area of an international airport. Unless you book a flight with a minor airline to an exotic destination that does not use the finger docks, you will not be able to come in sight.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure about the global nature of the category either.

 

I also think underprevalence is a concern given the way the various SAR groups are constituted and how the category exclusions and requirements have been drawn up. As I understand it, the intent of the category is to waymark BUILDINGS with SARs in them, and NOT SAR groups themselves.

 

Looks like the category is headed to peer review though, so we shall see what the community thinks :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

The original intent for the Search and Rescue Stations (SAR) category was for stand-alone or store front locations. Seeking examples of other locations associated with fire/police/ambulance etc. did not produce the results I was hoping would be forthcoming.

 

I have researched other locations and though some say “Rescue” these technically are not Search and Rescue units as defined in the category description.

 

“Expanded Description: Search and Rescue units whose primary purpose is finding individuals who are lost and/or injured. They provide medical aid, search and rescue from dangerous environments and some have canine and aerial support teams to assist with the search.”

 

Fire, Police and Ambulance departments provide valuable services to their communities by providing emergency services to individuals in need but not necessarily lost. I think this is the key for most of these locations.

 

The category will proceed as written. I have made a few minor revisions, none of which substantially changed the proposal on the forum.

 

If a sign that says "X SAR" is required, then this category will exclude every volunteer SAR unit that does not have its own station or that does not work out of a separate office in a fire/police station WITH a separate sign.

 

There is a local SAR unit that is a ministry of a First Baptist Church. There is no SAR sign at the church. The SAR equipment is stored in a garage at the Fire Department. The address is a private home. Another local SAR unit is a PO Box and its equipment is in the restricted-entry area of a local PD.

 

I know how important signs are as proof of location, but how can we waymark volunteer SAR groups without much money, the ones whose office is a PO Box or private home, and whose equipment is stored in a residential driveway or self-storage place?

 

These groups should be able to be waymarked in this category SOMEHOW -- IF they have a real website and not a Facebook page.

 

Would a photo of the SAR unit's equipment suffice as a sign for the waymark? If so, where would the waymark coordinates be? At the SAR's "official" address, or at the spot where the equipment is parked (even if access is non-public, or even if it's on the scene of a search or at a training)?

 

There are new inclusions in the amended version of the proposal that will soon be in peer review.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The original intent for the Search and Rescue Stations (SAR) category was for stand-alone or store front locations. Seeking examples of other locations associated with fire/police/ambulance etc. did not produce the results I was hoping would be forthcoming.

 

I have researched other locations and though some say “Rescue” these technically are not Search and Rescue units as defined in the category description.

 

“Expanded Description: Search and Rescue units whose primary purpose is finding individuals who are lost and/or injured. They provide medical aid, search and rescue from dangerous environments and some have canine and aerial support teams to assist with the search.”

 

Fire, Police and Ambulance departments provide valuable services to their communities by providing emergency services to individuals in need but not necessarily lost. I think this is the key for most of these locations.

 

The category will proceed as written. I have made a few minor revisions, none of which substantially changed the proposal on the forum.

 

If a sign that says "X SAR" is required, then this category will exclude every volunteer SAR unit that does not have its own station or that does not work out of a separate office in a fire/police station WITH a separate sign.

 

There is a local SAR unit that is a ministry of a First Baptist Church. There is no SAR sign at the church. The SAR equipment is stored in a garage at the Fire Department. The address is a private home. Another local SAR unit is a PO Box and its equipment is in the restricted-entry area of a local PD.

 

I know how important signs are as proof of location, but how can we waymark volunteer SAR groups without much money, the ones whose office is a PO Box or private home, and whose equipment is stored in a residential driveway or self-storage place?

 

These groups should be able to be waymarked in this category SOMEHOW -- IF they have a real website and not a Facebook page.

 

Would a photo of the SAR unit's equipment suffice as a sign for the waymark? If so, where would the waymark coordinates be? At the SAR's "official" address, or at the spot where the equipment is parked (even if access is non-public, or even if it's on the scene of a search or at a training)?

 

There are new inclusions in the amended version of the proposal that will soon be in peer review.

 

Will you be posting that amended version here first?

0

Share this post


Link to post

I see that SAR stations have been posted to peer review without coming back to the forums.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I have a few questions regarding this category, but waited (too long) for others to ask them. So here they are now:

 

If there has to be a website, does it have to have an English text also? Or would you translate a lets-say Swedish website to English to see if the waymark meets the requirements?

 

I don't get the exact point of the sentence "The Search and Rescue Station cannot be permanently located at these locations, but only provide their services at these water based locations when needed." Does it mean "The Search and Rescue Station can, but does not have to be permanently located at these locations...." or "The Search and Rescue Station may not be permanently located at these locations..."?

 

If they are not located at the water, but have a boat and some equipment there, in case they have to find someone on a small lake or so, can I waymark the boat/equipment (if they are clearly regarded to the SAR team) or just the headquarter building that is somewhere else?

 

Last question: Here in Vienna the mountain rescue team has an outpost (a small hut) that is only used in winter, especially on holidays and sundays they have 1 or 2 guys there. Apart from that the hut is closed, but it has their logo on the outside. Would that qualify for your category or does "permanent locations" mean that they have to be active permanently?

0

Share this post


Link to post

PISA-caching, I have a few questions regarding this category, but waited (too long) for others to ask them. So here they are now:

 

If there has to be a website, does it have to have an English text also? Or would you translate a lets-say Swedish website to English to see if the waymark meets the requirements?

 

Languages on websites are easily translated to English, though the translation may not be perfect, we have not experienced any difficulty understanding them. To answer your question: No the website does not need to be in English.

 

I don't get the exact point of the sentence "The Search and Rescue Station cannot be permanently located at these locations, but only provide their services at these water based locations when needed." Does it mean "The Search and Rescue Station can, but does not have to be permanently located at these locations...." or "The Search and Rescue Station may not be permanently located at these locations..."?

 

If I am understanding your question correctly: The reason for stressing this point is if a SAR station/unit is located at these major water based locations and their primary function is search and rescue on the water they are submitted in the Lifeboat and Recuse Stations.

 

If they are not located at the water, but have a boat and some equipment there, in case they have to find someone on a small lake or so, can I waymark the boat/equipment (if they are clearly regarded to the SAR team) or just the headquarter building that is somewhere else?

 

Is it just equipment such as lifeboats? “They are not located at the water” Can you locate where they are based? Without more detailed information about the SAR and where they are head-quartered, it would be difficult to adequately answer this question.

 

Last question: Here in Vienna the mountain rescue team has an outpost (a small hut) that is only used in winter, especially on holidays and sundays they have 1 or 2 guys there. Apart from that the hut is closed, but it has their logo on the outside. Would that qualify for your category or does "permanent locations" mean that they have to be active permanently?

 

We are very much aware that SAR stations are not manned 24/7 but always on call. From what you described, though only used during the winter it seems to meet the guidelines. You would use coordinates for the hut. That is where it is located. As mentioned in the forum, the individuals who are part of a Search and Rescue team are dedicated to assisting those who are lost. I think that if a need arises that they would be willing to help even at other times of the year.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

I am looking at the inclusions, which I think were added to try and solve the extreme underprevalence issue. I still think e category is too restrictive and will be underprevalent. It's also problematic to require signs and buildings, when the vast majority of SARS have neither, and exclude SARS that office (and store?) equipment at fire departments/police stations. SARS work closely with PDs and FDs, so it is natural that they would cooperate closely. If the waymark location must be available to the general public, to my mind that will exclude every SAR which stores equipment in secured locations or in non-public areas like private garages or storage units.

 

I am having trouble understanding where a waymark could be for a SAR that is all-volunteer and that operates either out of a private home or PO box. These units have equipment they store at fire or police departments, but they don't have offices there. Is this SAR excluded as being part of a police or fire department? If not, where would the waymark be -- at the storage location? Would a photo of the mobile equipment be enough to satisfy the signage requirement?

 

Can SARS that store equipment at restricted non-public locations (like at DFW Airport) be waymarked if we see the equipment at an event or at a training? Where would the coordinates be, at DFW Airport where the equipment usually is (even if it can't be visited, although the airport itself is open to the general public) or at the location of the event or training?

 

One of the largest SAR organizations in North Texas primarily serves the North Texas Council of Governments (COG) but is available to be deployed statewide or in a 5-state FEMA region. This SAR is "sponsored" by the Dallas Fire Department and the SAR uses the DFD as its primary point of contact for requests for service, but it is officially part of a regional COG and is paid for by the COG, not the DFD or city of Dallas. The SAR members are made up of volunteers from many county, municipal, and state fire and police departments in NTX. The SAR equipment is stored at the DFD Training Center. Can this SAR be waymarked? Where would coordinates be? At Dallas City Hall (the SAR office), or where the equipment is stored? At the COG office?

 

I just keep coming back to the fact of over 250 SAR groups operating in Texas, and maybe 3-5 that could be waymarked here. 98% are excluded by the category description.

 

I think there may be a way to solve the underprevalence issue, but I don't see the inclusions having much impact, without addressing the exclusions.

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

 

I think there may be a way to solve the underprevalence issue, but I don't see the inclusions having much impact, without addressing the exclusions.

 

Interesting, under prevalence was not an issue that was even considered when thinking about the idea for Search and Rescue Stations. They exist all over the world.

 

How to write a workable proposal was the challenge. We are officers in a particular category that in our opinion it is a free for all. If you see it and photograph it you can waymark it, it maybe there one minute and gone the next.

 

We were trying to avoid this very situation. Reviewing categories at times is difficult, relying on "judgement calls" sometimes you get it right sometimes you do not.

 

I am still working on your other questions.

 

You maybe have 3 to 5 you could waymark in Texas, but you at least have some. How many Moon Trees do you have in Texas? Maybe one.

Edited by BK-Hunters
0

Share this post


Link to post

 

I think there may be a way to solve the underprevalence issue, but I don't see the inclusions having much impact, without addressing the exclusions.

 

Interesting, under prevalence was not an issue that was even considered when thinking about the idea for Search and Rescue Stations. They exist all over the world.

 

How to write a workable proposal was the challenge. We are officers in a particular category that in our opinion it is a free for all. If you see it and photograph it you can waymark it, it maybe there one minute and gone the next.

 

We were trying to avoid this very situation. Reviewing categories at times is difficult, relaying on "judgement calls" sometimes you get it right sometimes you do not.

 

I am still working on your other questions.

 

You maybe have 3 to 5 you could waymark in Texas, but you at least have some. How many Moon Trees do you have in Texas? Maybe one.

 

I agree that Moon Trees are SERIOUSLY underprevalent. I think they date from another era of Waymarking, back when several very narrow and woefully underprevalent categories made it onto the grid. Toynbee Tiles, anyone? No? How about a Yellow Arrow, or an Outdoor Wind Harp?

 

Ditto seriously overprevalent categories, such as WiFi Hotspots, and odd ones, like Bloggers. I never figured out how you could waymark a live person, and then I had to for Geocaching Tour Guides.

 

I know that writing the SAR category description, and figuring out how to review them, is VERY DIFFICULT. That's why I was hoping your revision would come back to the forums.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

“this category is almost but not quite ready for peer review, and could benefit from more work and collaboration in the forums.”

I have thought about all the comments on the forum and peer review. Even lost sleep over it.

 

I first want to address the above quote from peer review:

 

I have tallied those that commented on the forum.

 

60 total posts, which the majority were ours, I did not count us in the numbers that follow;

9 individuals posted other than ourselves

2 contributed the most which was over 50%

7 contributed the rest

 

Though more work and collaboration is needed, my question is from who?

If more waymarker to not participate in the forum and provide input rather than in peer review, then how is more collaboration going to happen?

 

I realized that I was lacking in a global perspective and requested on the forum for examples so I could see exactly what these SAR stations/units looked like and could read more information for myself. It produced little results in a global context, which was disappointing.

 

With very limited perspective globally, I attempted to rewrite the proposal to be more accommodating to the worldwide community. At this point it lost focus and direction from the original proposal. Though maybe more limiting at least it was clear what, where and how to post a waymark in the category. The current proposal in peer review does not reflect much of this, and I will not be disappointed if it fails peer review. So a rewrite is possible.

 

We successfully have several new categories that easily passed peer review as they all have these things in common; clear guidelines of what is to be waymarked, restrictions are clearly stated, and clear instructions on how to post a submission.

 

We will wait and see the outcome of peer review, if it proceeds then the category will have to be amended to be more clearly defined as to what, where and how to post a submission.

 

As all of you are aware once it passes officer vote and proceeds to peer review it is locked and nothing can be done at this point.

 

I will make a copy of all the comments in peer review then proceed from there. I am aware that there is most likely deny votes that are hidden from view.

Edited by BK-Hunters
0

Share this post


Link to post

 

As all of you are aware once it passes officer vote and proceeds to peer review it is locked and nothing can be done at this point.

 

 

It was posted in the forums, and the same three, maybe four people bickered about it. Proceeding to peer review was the correct thing to do, we as officers voted to proceed. You can't depend on the forums as your only resource to better a category. :anibad:

 

From what I'm reading in peer review is the category is too restrictive and there are too few SAR stations that would fit the category.

We know that SAR stations exist globally, but filling that grid may not be possible for most Waymarkers, myself included. But that don't mean it would not make a nice addition to Waymarking, just that some will vote against it because they see it as a hole in the grid that they can't fill. :(

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

“this category is almost but not quite ready for peer review, and could benefit from more work and collaboration in the forums.”

I have thought about all the comments on the forum and peer review. Even lost sleep over it.

 

I first want to address the above quote from peer review:

 

I have tallied those that commented on the forum.

 

60 total posts, which the majority were ours, I did not count us in the numbers that follow;

9 individuals posted other than ourselves

2 contributed the most which was over 50%

7 contributed the rest

 

Though more work and collaboration is needed, my question is from who?

If more waymarker to not participate in the forum and provide input rather than in peer review, then how is more collaboration going to happen?

 

That's a great question, and I wish I had a better answer. I wish other waymarkers who I respect and who are active on the site would wander over to the forums and post. Getting No votes and comments in peer review about issues that could have been hashed out and solved on the forums is frustrating.

 

I also would have liked to have seen more perspectives here. I researched the SAR groups in Texas, but not anywhere else. So far I have found 1 that I could waymark: Texas EquuSearch, which has an office with a sign in a creepy Dollar-General-anchored strip center in the rough part of Dickinson TX -- 300 miles away.

 

I realized that I was lacking in a global perspective and requested on the forum for examples so I could see exactly what these SAR stations/units looked like and could read more information for myself. It produced little results in a global context, which was disappointing.

 

With very limited perspective globally, I attempted to rewrite the proposal to be more accommodating to the worldwide community. At this point it lost focus and direction from the original proposal. Though maybe more limiting at least it was clear what, where and how to post a waymark in the category. The current proposal in peer review does not reflect much of this, and I will not be disappointed if it fails peer review. So a rewrite is possible.

 

I'm willing to help with the rewrite if anyone wants me to.

 

We successfully have several new categories that easily passed peer review as they all have these things in common; clear guidelines of what is to be waymarked, restrictions are clearly stated, and clear instructions on how to post a submission.

 

This may be a category that will require deviation from some of what worked with other categories.

 

For example, what about using a public-domain image (with a source or photo credit) of the SAR's logo for the default waymark photo? Every Texas SAR I have researched has a pic of their logo or patch on their website. But the category as written bans these images completely. A second photo could be of equipment, or a location tied to the SAR (search place, training place) or the city PD/FD that works with the SAR.

 

The answer about where to place the waymark still has not been nailed down -- at the SAR's office (which can be in a building, a private home, or postal center), or where the equipment is stored, or at the site of a search, or at a training place, or . . . where? Example: The WPA American Guide Series category requires that waymarks for entire cities have their coordinates located at City Hall. Maybe waymarks for otherwise locationless SARS could be at the central police or fire department station of the city where the SAR is based. Or maybe the SAR coordinates could be at a location where a SAR mass-casualty drill was held. Those make news, and the locations should be both publicly discoverable and visitable. I remember a joint SAR/Amateur radio-operator mass-casualty drill at Garland High School a few years ago. Kids were made up, bandaged, laying around in pools of fake blood, scattered around crashed cars -- it was something else.

 

I still think SAR units located in/associated with/staffed by fire and police departments should be included, as long as they are "true" SARs, doing search and rescue, not just rescue. An example is TexSAR1, a joint group operated by the NTX Council of Governments, and sponsored by the Dallas FD. The waymark coordinates for TexSAR1 could be at the COG, DFD office at Dallas City Hall, or the DFD Training center.

 

Those are just some ideas on how to expand the universe of possible Waymarking opportunities.

 

We will wait and see the outcome of peer review, if it proceeds then the category will have to be amended to be more clearly defined as to what, where and how to post a submission.

 

As all of you are aware once it passes officer vote and proceeds to peer review it is locked and nothing can be done at this point.

 

I will make a copy of all the comments in peer review then proceed from there. I am aware that there is most likely deny votes that are hidden from view.

 

You can do this? I had no idea. So how many votes have there been, if some votes are hidden? Last number I saw was 23.

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
0

Share this post


Link to post

You can do this? I had no idea. So how many votes have there been, if some votes are hidden? Last number I saw was 23.

 

Sure you can vote and not allow others to see how you voted in private. :) That keeps people here from complaining that our Facebook geocaching group friends that are premium members are not Waymarkers and should not be voting in peer review. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post

As a test, I just voted in peer review and attempted to remain hidden.

0

Share this post


Link to post

As a test, I just voted in peer review and attempted to remain hidden.

 

Still 23 votes, so I guess you're hidden :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

As a test, I just voted in peer review and attempted to remain hidden.

 

Still 23 votes, so I guess you're hidden :)

 

I really thought that most here already knew this. :unsure:

 

"Some reviewers have opted to make their comments public to assist you in making an informed decision about this potential category. Anonymous comments are not shown."

 

Still, if not posted in the forums first there may be nay votes just because it was not posted in the forums first, and I have even had nay votes for that reason and DID post my idea in the forums first. :blink:

 

In my opinion, Waymarking is a lot like Geocaching. You can play the game with other people's categories just like finding geocaches, but some of us are not happy just finding other members stuff and want to hide a geocache or create a WM category of our own. This is where I say Waymarking has room for all of us, not just a few members that stick together and crap on the rest of us. :)

 

Edit to add: Removed the word "privileged" before the word "members".

Edited by Manville Possum
0

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion the description has more exclusions than necessary. The disqualification of co-locations is not helpful. As long as a SAR group is acting independently, I see no reason to not allow buildings shared with police stations, firehouses or the like. On the other hand, I would not support the inclusion of SAR groups that have no permanent location that is visible to the public. After all, Waymarking is about locations and coordinates, this is the lowest common denominator of (almost) all caegories.

0

Share this post


Link to post

After all, Waymarking is about locations and coordinates, this is the lowest common denominator of (almost) all caegories.

 

And a sign at the posted coordinates. Yes, that is Waymarking. Taking pictures of signs on buildings. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion the description has more exclusions than necessary. The disqualification of co-locations is not helpful. As long as a SAR group is acting independently, I see no reason to not allow buildings shared with police stations, firehouses or the like. On the other hand, I would not support the inclusion of SAR groups that have no permanent location that is visible to the public. After all, Waymarking is about locations and coordinates, this is the lowest common denominator of (almost) all caegories.

 

But THIS proposed category is attempting to waymark SARs, the majority of whom DO NOT have a location (being officed out of private homes or PO Boxes), and for those SARS that DO have a location, if they are with a FD or PD, they are excluded.

 

250+ SARs in Texas. I have found 1 that can be waymarked under the current description.

 

Maybe this is a category that cannot be shoehorned into Waymarking norms -- a building, and a sign.

 

Maybe this is a category that will require a new norm.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Duplicate post.

Edited by Manville Possum
0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Maybe this is a category that cannot be shoehorned into Waymarking norms -- a building, and a sign.

 

Maybe this is a category that will require a new norm.

 

I see nothing wrong with moving Waymarking forward. You agree that there is one SAR station that you could WM. That is one more than I have found so far, but they do exist.

 

Really, I thought you would be more supportive of your fellow Waymarkers. :(

 

I found this SAR Station that is not too far away.

Edited by Manville Possum
0

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe this is a category that cannot be shoehorned into Waymarking norms -- a building, and a sign.

 

Maybe this is a category that will require a new norm.

 

I see nothing wrong with moving Waymarking forward. You agree that there is one SAR station that you could WM. That is one more than I have found so far, but they do exist.

 

Really, I thought you would be more supportive of your fellow Waymarkers. :(

 

I found this SAR Station that is not too far away.

 

I am VERY supportive of my fellow waymarkers. :) I want as many folks as possible to join in and enjoy the hobby, and be able to have chances to find and create wonderful waymarks in interesting, global, prevalent, and informative categories :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe this is a category that cannot be shoehorned into Waymarking norms -- a building, and a sign.

 

Maybe this is a category that will require a new norm.

 

I see nothing wrong with moving Waymarking forward. You agree that there is one SAR station that you could WM. That is one more than I have found so far, but they do exist.

 

Really, I thought you would be more supportive of your fellow Waymarkers. :(

 

I found this SAR Station that is not too far away.

 

I am VERY supportive of my fellow waymarkers. :) I want as many folks as possible to join in and enjoy the hobby, and be able to have chances to find and create wonderful waymarks in interesting, global, prevalent, and informative categories :)

 

Sorry, but it does not appear so from where I'm setting. :(

0

Share this post


Link to post

In my opinion the description has more exclusions than necessary. The disqualification of co-locations is not helpful. As long as a SAR group is acting independently, I see no reason to not allow buildings shared with police stations, firehouses or the like. On the other hand, I would not support the inclusion of SAR groups that have no permanent location that is visible to the public. After all, Waymarking is about locations and coordinates, this is the lowest common denominator of (almost) all caegories.

 

But THIS proposed category is attempting to waymark SARs, the majority of whom DO NOT have a location (being officed out of private homes or PO Boxes), and for those SARS that DO have a location, if they are with a FD or PD, they are excluded.

 

250+ SARs in Texas. I have found 1 that can be waymarked under the current description.

 

Maybe this is a category that cannot be shoehorned into Waymarking norms -- a building, and a sign.

 

Maybe this is a category that will require a new norm.

Waymarking has two sides: posting and visiting.

 

Most new category proposals do not care about visits and I see that as a problem.

 

Locations that only serve as placeholders to give coordinates for the research of a posting may look a sensible solution, but if they do not offer a potentional visitor any experience in the sense of the category, they are not worth anything. In my opinion, these are the norms we must not go beyond.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Most new category proposals do not care about visits and I see that as a problem.

 

99.5 % of my WM's never get any visits and never will. I list WM's to share places that I find interesting.

 

If never getting visits is a problem, then Waymarking has failed badly.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

Most new category proposals do not care about visits and I see that as a problem.

 

99.5 % of my WM's never get any visits and never will. I list WM's to share places that I find interesting.

 

If never getting visits is a problem, then Waymarking has failed badly.

It's about 70%, even here in my area where I am the only waymarker within 100 miles.

 

And, yes, exactly, it's about sharing intersting locations. If the given location has nothing to offer, then Waymarking is not the right site to publish it.

 

I neither have a problem with not receiving many visits, but I still oppose proposals that implicitly discourage visits. It is not my problem, but I feel it is one of the problems of Groundspeak HQ.

Edited by fi67
0

Share this post


Link to post

Most new category proposals do not care about visits and I see that as a problem.

 

99.5 % of my WM's never get any visits and never will. I list WM's to share places that I find interesting.

 

If never getting visits is a problem, then Waymarking has failed badly.

It's about 70%, even here in my area where I am the only waymarker within 100 miles.

 

And, yes, exactly, it's about sharing intersting locations. If the given location has nothing to offer, then Waymarking is not the right site to publish it.

 

I neither have a problem with not receiving many visits, but I still oppose proposals that implicitly discourage visits. It is not my problem, but I feel it is one of the problems of Groundspeak HQ.

 

I have never encountered ay WM proposalS that implicitly discourage visits. Can you provide an example? :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post

For some of us, Waymarking is much more balanced. In 2017 so far, I have posted/created 95 waymarks. I have visited 54 waymarks created by others. My posted waymarks have received 68 visits. Waymarks are being visited.

0

Share this post


Link to post

For some of us, Waymarking is much more balanced. In 2017 so far, I have posted/created 95 waymarks. I have visited 54 waymarks created by others. My posted waymarks have received 68 visits. Waymarks are being visited.

 

I have started filling empty grids and visiting my own Waymarks, and attempting to create a few new categories. B) I may become Waymarker after all. :D

0

Share this post


Link to post

So would the "Bergwacht Stations" be accepted?

 

http://www.bergwacht-bayern.de/index.php?id=6270

 

Bergwacht is a part of the Red Cross I think, so is this a problem? 90% of all rescues in mountain terrain are done by the Bergwacht in Germany.

0

Share this post


Link to post

So would the "Bergwacht Stations" be accepted?

 

http://www.bergwacht-bayern.de/index.php?id=6270

 

Bergwacht is a part of the Red Cross I think, so is this a problem? 90% of all rescues in mountain terrain are done by the Bergwacht in Germany.

 

Seems they meet the category criteria if they are stationed at a building with a sign. We may be talking about the same. I'm not sure about translation. :unsure:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

So would the "Bergwacht Stations" be accepted?

 

http://www.bergwacht-bayern.de/index.php?id=6270

 

Bergwacht is a part of the Red Cross I think, so is this a problem? 90% of all rescues in mountain terrain are done by the Bergwacht in Germany.

 

Seems they meet the category criteria if they are stationed at a building with a sign. We may be talking about the same. I'm not sure about translation. :unsure:

 

I would think they are NOT accepted because Bergwacht is part of the Red Cross, which has its own category, and SARS that are part of other organizations with categories are EXCLUDED. What say you, Barb & Keith?

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
0

Share this post


Link to post

So would the "Bergwacht Stations" be accepted?

 

http://www.bergwacht-bayern.de/index.php?id=6270

 

Bergwacht is a part of the Red Cross I think, so is this a problem? 90% of all rescues in mountain terrain are done by the Bergwacht in Germany.

 

Seems they meet the category criteria if they are stationed at a building with a sign. We may be talking about the same. I'm not sure about translation. :unsure:

 

I would think they are NOT accepted because Bergwacht is part of the Red Cross, which has its own category, and SARS that are part of other organizations with categories are EXCLUDED. What say you, Barb & Keith?

 

Then they would be excluded as written, but maybe that could be subject to change. We'll see what the peer review comments suggest. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

And a sign at the posted coordinates. Yes, that is Waymarking. Taking pictures of signs on buildings. :)

 

No,

This is Waymarking, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this.

 

No, that is more like my Flickr account photos that I share, except there are no details explaining what I'm looking at, but sure ain't Waymarking. Just someones vacation photos. <_<

 

OK hotshot, we'll do it this way:

 

No, that's not Waymarking,

This is Waymarking, and this,

and this,

and this,

and this,

and this.

 

Keith

0

Share this post


Link to post

 

And a sign at the posted coordinates. Yes, that is Waymarking. Taking pictures of signs on buildings. :)

 

No,

This is Waymarking, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this.

 

No, that is more like my Flickr account photos that I share, except there are no details explaining what I'm looking at, but sure ain't Waymarking. Just someones vacation photos. <_<

 

OK hotshot, we'll do it this way:

 

No, that's not Waymarking,

This is Waymarking, and this,

and this,

and this,

and this,

and this.

 

Keith

 

Cool. Nice vacation pictures. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post

So would the "Bergwacht Stations" be accepted?

 

http://www.bergwacht-bayern.de/index.php?id=6270

 

Bergwacht is a part of the Red Cross I think, so is this a problem? 90% of all rescues in mountain terrain are done by the Bergwacht in Germany.

 

Seems they meet the category criteria if they are stationed at a building with a sign. We may be talking about the same. I'm not sure about translation. :unsure:

 

I would think they are NOT accepted because Bergwacht is part of the Red Cross, which has its own category, and SARS that are part of other organizations with categories are EXCLUDED. What say you, Barb & Keith?

"The location MUST be permanent, either as a stand-alone building or store front location, but only if they are the sole occupant and not part of another organization*." This is the key sentence from the proposal. This can have two meanings: a. The SAR must not share the rooms with another organization. b. the SAR must not belong to another organization.

 

I guess a. was meant, but I do read b.

 

We need clarification. However, it also looks like this sentence was the main problem for peer review. So if the first try failed, the second one needs something else here anyway.

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

My computer is busted, off today to get another one. Waiting on peer review result before proceeding.

 

Thanks for your comments.

 

Barb of BK-Hunters

Edited by BK-Hunters
0

Share this post


Link to post

All better now, K had to replace the power supply.

 

The SAR is denied, and will resume rewriting the proposal in July as we will soon be leaving on a Waymarking excursion.

 

Beautiful travel photographs will also be included in our waymarks. :rolleyes:

0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

All better now, K had to replace the power supply.

 

The SAR is denied, and will resume rewriting the proposal in July as we will soon be leaving on a Waymarking excursion.

 

Beautiful travel photographs will also be included in our waymarks. :rolleyes:

 

Any hints on possible changes in case we stumble across one on our travels?

 

Have a great trip -- safe and happy Waymarking to you always :)

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
0

Share this post


Link to post

Posted (edited)

 

Any hints on possible changes in case we stumble across one on our travels?

 

Thanks, we hope to have a great time and looking forward to returning to Montana.

 

All I can say right now, if you can find a "stand alone" location (with a sign) this would be your best option.

Edited by BK-Hunters
0

Share this post


Link to post

How is the category active. I thought it had been denied.

0

Share this post


Link to post

I am confused.

0

Share this post


Link to post

It did not pass peer review.  I was an officer at the time of peer review.

Someone had to over-ride the system.

Edited by Manville Possum
Huh?
0

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0