Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BK-Hunters

Search and Rescue Stations - Proposal

128 posts in this topic

It's in the grid, but i thought that was a glitch. I have seen other categories on the grid and then the servers sync or something and the unapproved category goes away. 

So -- it's an active category now?  It has 3 waymarks posted in it. 

Did I miss a revote? How did this happen? 

Or is the peer review process irrelevant now? If so, I guess no one cares about global, interesting, redundancy and prevalence criteria anymore. 

 

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
0

Share this post


Link to post

The category is archived now. It was a glitch. In rare cases denied categories come active in a magic way. I'm on holiday in Italy so sorry for the delay. 

0

Share this post


Link to post

I see SAR stations have shown back up in Peer Review -- how has the category description currently in peer review been changed  from when this category was rejected in peer review? 

0

Share this post


Link to post

Concerning criteria (Global and Prevalence), has there ever been a suggestion of minimum distance?  In other words, has a waymarker in the forums ever suggested..."If I have to travel more than (insert number) hundred miles to the nearest waymark, it is too regional and not prevalent."

Edited by elyob
0

Share this post


Link to post

These remarks are copied from our NAY vote.

When this category was denied at the last vote we stated that all our valuable SAR groups are associated with our police stations and based there. This hasn't changed, and it appears your category description hasn't changed either! So you are going to wipe out an entire countries SAR waymarks, of valuable trained and experienced  volunteers that provide land search and rescue services to the Police and public of New Zealand including the many overseas tourists, at NO cost, who get lost and under-estimate the dangers of our great outdoors, just because you insist on having stand-alone organisations. Because of this we have to deny the existence of many groups, that we are extremely proud and thankful for, that work all hours in extreme weather without pay. Our SAR groups usually have interesting Facebook sites for each area group. We have to strongly vote NAY. The reason why we are so disappointed and angry to be excluded is because we live in an area where SAR is very important and very often called out, large groups with even the public often assisting with food for the searchers, and we have only just finished a 20 day search involving over 100 SAR and police in horrendous weather conditions which ended with the retrieval of 2 bodies of young men. It makes us angry that we cannot waymark the efforts of these valuable groups because of your restrictive category instructions.

NOTE: There are 61 local groups throughout New Zealand. See website: https://www.landsar.org.nz/ 

Please take time to read the website to appreciate how our Search and Rescue organisations work. We feel they deserve to be recognised in your category and should not be excluded for any reason.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, elyob said:

Concerning criteria (Global and Prevalence), has there ever been a suggestion of minimum distance?  In other words, has a waymarker in the forums ever suggested..."If I have to travel more than (insert number) hundred miles to the nearest waymark, it is too regional and not prevalent."

I have never seen a minimum distance test for prevalence or underprevalence, and I would not support such an idea. Something I might have to travel 4000 miles to waymark may have 2 dozen opportunities in your home city. (Medieval Churches anyone?) Does that make that thing overprevalent FOR YOU and underprevalent FOR ME? Maybe, but is that same thing overprevalent or underprevalent FOR EVERYONE? I don't think so. 

My prevalence objection in this category is that over 98% of Texas SARS are excluded from the category either because (1) they office in city halls, or (2) office or store equipment in fire and police stations. Out of over 250 recognized SARS in Texas, the only waymarkable SAR I have identified is Texas EquuSearch, (and I think they got flooded out by Harvey). So - 250 SARS, and 1 *possible* waymark: That's underprevalent by definition, but the underprevalence can be fixed by allowing SARS that office in city halls or fire/police stations. 

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
Typos
0

Share this post


Link to post

In an attempt to broaden the previous Search and Rescue Stations, it failed in peer review. As stated on the forum, we would return to the original concept for the category, which we did.  I am using Punga and Paua’s link, selecting LandSAR Wellington, as an example. 

There is information about this particular SAR  “We provide search and rescue services to the Police and the Rescue Coordination Centre across the Wellington region.”

Then you go to “About Us” “We are one of 63 LandSAR units affiliated to LandSAR New Zealand.  As an affiliated unit, we provide specialist search and rescue capabilities to New Zealand Police and the Rescue Coordination Centre under a Memorandum of Understanding.”

My concern is, which police station and where is the Rescue Coordination Centre?

Potentially, every police station becomes a Search and Rescue Station. I was unable to determine which specific police station is the home location for the LandSAR in Wellington.

This is just one example in the Wellington District that has 30 police stations. The link shows there are 63 SAR units, however we found a website that shows 345 pages of individual police stations using  a conservation average of 40 per page, now those 63 SAR units has potentially becomes about 14,000 throughout New Zealand.that can call a SAR unit for services. 

The issue of fire departments, city halls and police stations, to just name a few potential locations where SAR units can be called to serve, could reach 100,000s worldwide.

Without verification (website) that a specific SAR unit is located at a specific location then the category becomes an accumulation of police stations, fire stations and city halls that can make a call for SAR services.

Update: Firehouses, Paramedic Stations and  Lifeboats and Rescue Stations are already excluded. There was an oversight to also include City and Town Halls and Police Stations as an exclusion.

Edited by BK-Hunters
0

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

In an attempt to broaden the previous Search and Rescue Stations, it failed in peer review. As stated on the forum, we would return to the original concept for the category, which we did.  I am using Punga and Paua’s link, selecting LandSAR Wellington, as an example.  . . . 

My concern is, which police station and where is the Rescue Coordination Centre?

Potentially, every police station becomes a Search and Rescue Station. I was unable to determine which specific police station is the home location for the LandSAR in Wellington.

This is just one example in the Wellington District that has 30 police stations. The link shows there are 63 SAR units, however we found a website that shows 345 pages of individual police stations using  a conservation average of 40 per page, now those 63 SAR units has potentially becomes about 14,000 throughout New Zealand.that can call a SAR unit for services. 

The issue of fire departments, city halls and police stations, to just name a few potential locations where SAR units can be called to serve, could reach 100,000s worldwide.

Without verification (website) that a specific SAR unit is located at a specific location then the category becomes an accumulation of police stations, fire stations and city halls that can make a call for SAR services.

There is just no way that 63 SAR units in NZ can become 14,000 waymarks, in the same way that 250 SARs in Texas cannot become 500,000 waymarks of cities, sheriffs departments, police agencies, county courthouses and fire departments -- just because they have a SAR on the speed dial. That's just silliness. 

First of all, in P&P's example, not every one of the 14,000 police stations can be a SAR station, since there are only 63 SARs in the whole country. There is a difference between BEING ABLE TO CALL OUT A SAR and HAVING A SAR OFFICE IN THE BUILDING, and I am surprised that you do not understand how to differentiate the two.

Oh wait, YOU DO know how to differentiate them: by requiring a "verification (website) that a specific SAR Is located at a specific station." <---- That sentence cures all the issues with this category, because it allows SARs that office in fire departments, city halls and police stations to be waymarked. 

So why wasn't that sentence added? Why the stubborn focus only on stand-alone buildings with signs, which was why the catehory failed last time? Why refuse to take into account the different ways SARs (especially volunteer SARs) exist in the safety net by arbitrarily excluding the ones that share space with an unaffiliated governmental agency? 

I understand why you don't want to waymark SARs that office out of private homes or whose business address is a PO box, with each member storing their SAR gear in their garage or on a storage unit. But what's so objectionable to Waymarking a SAR who uses a spare room or two at a fire station, or who stores its trailer at a police station, or who locks up their communications equipment in a room at city hall IF the SAR website (or a government list) proves that's where the SAR office is? Cities always have extra space, and many offer that space to volunteer or joint SAR groups as a way to ease the cost burdens on those SAR groups whose skills are so valuable in times of need. States keep lists of SARs with updated contact and location info. A "verification website" is not hard to find. 

 

 

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
Typos
0

Share this post


Link to post

Personally I think we spend way too much time trying to eliminate cross posting, which causes confusion.  Yes, I am against making a new category that is a "proper subset" of another category (such as the old Abandoned Cemeteries and Churchyard Cemeteries categories).  But I see no problem with making a group for a new thing (such as a Search and Rescue Station) as long as the requirements make allowance for the fact that the submitter must validate somehow that it is a SAR, and not just a fire station, for example.

I know why the aversion to cross posting came about -- far too many of the old categories (before I started Waymarking in 2012) were a bit goofy with cross posting potential.  But we seem to have swung too far the other way.

In my opinion.

0

Share this post


Link to post

The problem of this category is the gap between the title and quick description, that suggest the category is looking for ALL SARs, and the long description that excludes almost all of the before mentioned and only accepts a tiny little subset. Clarifications and clear definitions are an important part of the long description, but this one is a different beast. And don't forget that there really are quite some Waymarking beginners out there who have no idea what an expanded description is (I see that almost daily when reviewing submissions).

There must be some reasonable compromise between the extreme positions that a majority can agree on.

Not having any location of a new category in the home area is not so much a issue for many waymarkers, but having lots of them and seeing them all excluded by arbitrary restrictions is. So the solution cannot be the stand alone building with a sign, they seem to be non-existent in major parts of the world.

On the other hand, I think there should be some real physical representation of what is waymarked. A firehouse is still a firehouse and a police station is still a police station when they have a SAR unit. They still look the same, there is nothing to see for a visitor, an online address list does not change that.

My preferred option would be to accept all permanent real, physical manifestations of SAR units. Of course, these would be the stand alone buildings, but also co-locations with other agencies as long as there is an SAR sign (or other permanent items that prove the existence of a SAR there). I guess there are some other possibilities: the usual parking of the SAR helicopter at the local airfield, a plaque at their training site?

But I would not want to see addresses from a directory without anything specific to photograph. If there is something real there, then cross-posting is no issue at all in my opinion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MountainWoods said:

Personally I think we spend way too much time trying to eliminate cross posting, which causes confusion.  Yes, I am against making a new category that is a "proper subset" of another category (such as the old Abandoned Cemeteries and Churchyard Cemeteries categories).  But I see no problem with making a group for a new thing (such as a Search and Rescue Station) as long as the requirements make allowance for the fact that the submitter must validate somehow that it is a SAR, and not just a fire station, for example.

I know why the aversion to cross posting came about -- far too many of the old categories (before I started Waymarking in 2012) were a bit goofy with cross posting potential.  But we seem to have swung too far the other way.

In my opinion.

The category in peer review does not make the allowance that you ask for - it excludes those exact SARs that you would like to see included.  

So why did you vote in favor of the category AS WRITTEN? If the category goes down a second time, perhaps BKH will finally make the changes to the category that many in the community of active waymarkers has been asking for -- the change you said you would like to see. :) 

My experince has been that once a category is approved, the officers don't make changes unless it's to make the category MORE RESTRICTIVE or account for something not foreseen at the time of creation. 

If the allowance you asked for was implemented into the category, I would vote YEA in a heartbeat. 

 

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
0

Share this post


Link to post

The whole concept here is sharing vacation pictures of oddities and interesting places and I see no need for perfection because Waymarking is just a silly hobby.

I have to admit, the hateful nature of this group has turned me away from Waymarking. I still vote because I'm a paying member of geocaching.com but I am not a Waymarker.

0

Share this post


Link to post

There was one comment that the (SAR) (in peer review) needs more discussion on the forum. 

More discussion: What does that mean exactly? In view of the current trend expressed on this thread and others, do we need more negative and demanding comments that are counter-productive?

In view of previous events, I am less likely to yield to pressure exerted by others.

I may consider allowing SARs that are based at police, fire and similar locations only if a verifiable website can be provided that clearly states exactly where it is located, an address is provided and some photographic evidence that a SAR does exist at that location. The website must provide detailed information about the services provided. This would in most cases be a planned visit so entry into the location is possible and photographs are taken either of equipment and/or vehicles, printed materials (these can be scanned and uploaded to the gallery) and/or sign, etc.  

Remember Life Boats and Recue Stations will continue to be excluded. All requirements stated in the proposal still stand as written, with the exception of the possible amendment stated above.

Due to an accumulation of circumstances based on demands, upheaval in existing categories, negative comments on the forums and the lack of constructive commentary, the acceptance of some recently approved categories, I am wondering what is happening to Waymarking as a whole and especially on the forums.  

Whatever the outcome of the Search and Rescue Stations proposal that is currently in peer review,  it is my opinion that some of the comments on this thread have reached an all time low.

Barb of BK-Hunters

Edited by BK-Hunters
0

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

In view of previous events, I am less likely to yield to pressure exerted by others.

 

3 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

I may consider allowing SARs that are based at police, fire and similar locations only if a verifiable website can be provided that clearly states exactly where it is located, an address is provided and some photographic evidence that a SAR does exist at that location. The website must provide detailed information about the services provided.

This would in most cases be a planned visit so entry into the location is possible and photographs are taken either of equipment and/or vehicles, printed materials (these can be scanned and uploaded to the gallery) and/or sign, etc.  

Barb of BK-Hunters

This is the change the Waymarking community was asking for in the forums before this category went to peer review the first time.  Reading the vote comments, it was clear to me that the officer's absolute refusal to allow co-located SARs directly led to the failure of the category. 

If the officers had decided to allow co-located SARs, I'd have voted YES instead of NO on the category now in peer review -- and I bet I would not have been the only one. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post

The current proposal is NOT the one that failed peer review. It was a broader version of this one. Though no one seems to remember that. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

The current proposal is NOT the one that failed peer review. It was a broader version of this one. Though no one seems to remember that. 

I recognize this -- but I also recognize that the community asked for co-located SARs to be included before that first trip through peer review, and they were not.

That first category was rejected for being too restrictive.  It looks like that continues to be the issue the community is having with this 2nd iteration of the category.

Whether to expand the category to allow SARs co-located with police and fire departments (with a verification website and photos) is up to the COs, but I would certainly support that version of the category in peer review.

0

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Benchmark Blasterz said:

I recognize this -- but I also recognize that the community asked for co-located SARs to be included before that first trip through peer review, and they were not.

That first category was rejected for being too restrictive.  It looks like that continues to be the issue the community is having with this 2nd iteration of the category.

Whether to expand the category to allow SARs co-located with police and fire departments (with a verification website and photos) is up to the COs, but I would certainly support that version of the category in peer review.

You are mistaken, it was a broader version of this one. Seems you have a lapse of memory. 

Keith and I both worked on including co-located SARs before officer vote and peer review. Do you actually think I would forget the days we spent revising the category. 

Edited by BK-Hunters
0

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

You are mistaken, is was a broader version of this one. Seems you have a lapse of memory. 

Keith and I both worked on including co-located SARs before officer vote and peer review. Do you actually think I would forget the days we spent revising the category. 

Barb -- It is clear this discussion is not welcomed or helpful. Have a great day -- I'm going back to posting new waymarks and visiting existing ones :)

Edited by Benchmark Blasterz
0

Share this post


Link to post

What are you a psychologist now? You do not have a clue what I am feeling.  To assume and even express your opinion about how I am feeling is inappropriate.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

What are you a psychologist now? You do not have a clue what I am feeling.  To assume and even express your opinion about how I am feeling is inappropriate.  

Agreed, it was my impression of your feelings. I edited my post.

0

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

The current proposal is NOT the one that failed peer review. It was a broader version of this one. Though no one seems to remember that. 

I admit that I do not remember the earlier version being a broader version.  In both versions, the nearest qualifying SAR site that I could create as a waymark was geographically more distant than dozens of non-qualifying SAR sites.

0

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, elyob said:

more distant than dozens of non-qualifying SAR sites.

elyob, give me an example of an non-qualifying SAR,  can you provide the coords.

0

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

SARs that are based at police, fire and similar locations only if a verifiable website can be provided that clearly states exactly where it is located, an address is provided and some photographic evidence that a SAR does exist at that location. The website must provide detailed information about the services provided. This would in most cases be a planned visit so entry into the location is possible and photographs are taken either of equipment and/or vehicles, printed materials (these can be scanned and uploaded to the gallery) and/or sign, etc.  

Remember Life Boats and Recue Stations will continue to be excluded. All requirements stated in the proposal still stand as written, with the exception of the possible amendment stated above.

Look this over, if this will cover your example.

0

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

elyob, give me an example of an non-qualifying SAR,  can you provide the coords.

Life Boats and Rescue Stations: I'm too close to the seaway so the easy-to-access SAR sites are in that excluded group. 

http://ovsarda.on.ca/

OVSARDA is in an industrial park, based in a dog-training facility, without signage.

http://www.tigsar.ca/contact-us/

TIGSAR functions from many police stations and their one advertised location is a private residence, without signage.

The Peterborough County Specialized Rescue Units are based out of many local fire stations. 

The situation in Québec is similar.  Some of the partnered fire stations and police stations have signage concerning the SAR units.  Perhaps I should check the situation in upstate New York.

 

 

Edited by elyob
0

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, elyob said:

Some of the partnered fire stations and police stations have signage concerning the SAR units.

elyob, when you say signage, does that imply that they are just "partners" and say it on the sign and the SAR is not located at that location? Do you know where they are located or home base fire station? 

Unfortunately, that makes for a difficult determination. 

0

Share this post


Link to post

It appears that the SAR units and the police or fire stations are simply partners.  The SAR units work out of the police or fire stations but the SAR units apparently have no base of their own, making for a very difficult determination.

0

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, elyob said:

It appears that the SAR units and the police or fire stations are simply partners.  The SAR units work out of the police or fire stations but the SAR units apparently have no base of their own, making for a very difficult determination.

elyob, thanks for pointing that out. The SAR stations category was a difficult one to make it manageable for the officers. We are very much aware that it is restrictive, The dilemma is determining which are actually located at a fire station, police and etc. and those that are just partners that in time of need make a call for services. This was what I was trying point out about the New Zealand police stations (partners/affiliated units). Oh well, guess we will see if it passes peer review today or tomorrow... I am not too optimistic as some do not understand the challenges of managing a category like this one.    

Edited by BK-Hunters
0

Share this post


Link to post

I'm closing this thread as requested by the topic starter.

0

Share this post


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