Pimping my waymarks

[+PISA-caching]

I'm trying to pimp my waymarks, because I want to increase their overall quality - at least a little. I will start with my oldest waymark and once I'm completely satisfied with it, I will change all the others one by one.

One thing I want to change: Every waymark should have a long description in the local language first and the English text after that. I haven't yet decided whether all titles should either follow the same pattern (local language title / English title), or just have an English title or just the local title. The short description will always be local and English language. I've seen that many waymarkers have their own system (sometimes it's just the two languages separated with a " / ", sometimes there is also "DE", "FR", "EN" etc. in the short description to make it easier to find the desired language.

The other thing is: The long description should have a little more color. As I'm not very good at HTML, CSS and all that I "borrowed" some code here and there. The local text has a red border/background and a flag of Germany and Austria for the German text and blue border/background and flag of USA and UK for the English text.

If anybody has any advice as to what I should or shouldn't do to make them look even better, I would be very grateful.

Also: I created an unfinished waymark and uploaded these two flag image files. Since I don't have a website where I could store these images, I thought that this would be the best thing to do. As far as I know Images can be called with different URLs and I'm not sure, if https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-Waymarking-images/36a32ac9-6a31-41bb-9b26-caabe6e5c2bc.gif is the best choice. Again, every advice is highly appreciated.

Andreas

[vulture1957]

that is a wonderful idea. I think I'll try that on mine (and I have quite a bit smaller listing than most on here).

[+fi67]

A great idea, but don't forget that quality is determined by content. The researched and presented information and the pictures do make the value of a waymark. Bells and whistles are fine, but only when the rest is worth it.

Your example looks good to me. I would personally not use flags that are so large, they are icons, not pictures, so their ideal size is about the one of the font. And I would use more padding around the text and the flags (the space between the content and the border). But this is just my personal preference.

I think, the flag solution is perfectly valid, but I have experienced that in some environments this can be sensitive. Waymarking is not such an environment, so just for completeness: There are very little one-to-one language country relations; what combination you chose is always a political statement. Why not Canada or Australia instead of the UK? Or Switzerland instead of Austria? (well, I know why ) (And the Kiwis are even more upset, because I don't even mention them ). Will you use a Spanish and what South American Flag when you are going to visit Cuba and Argentina?

For my own waymarks I do not really follow a pattern for the title, usually it's English, but not always. I have tried two and in some cases even three languages in the short description, but came back to English alone, because sometimes the available space does not allow larger texts for more than one language.

I currently try to have all my waymarks in local language and English, and from time to time I update some of my older ones, that are still English only.

I decided to have English first for two reasons. First, I use different local languages, I live only two miles from a language border, and I have waymarks in countries where I do not speak the local language. So the constant factor is the English version, and for me this is a reason to put it in the first place. And second, this is the version I expect the officers to understand.

I also use a waymark gallery to store additional pictures, e.g. for category descriptions. Mine is not unfinished, but an old denied one, but this does not make a difference, technically.

[+pmaupin]

I'm not very good at HTML, so I prepared a template for my waymarks in word, and I just have to copy what I prepare and stick in my waymark, it's true that the color brings a little more gaiety in the presentation, I must thank "BK-Hunters" for its beautiful presentations.

[+PISA-caching]

Thanks for the helpful input. Of course I will also look over the content and add more Information, make a quick spell check, check the other data etc.

The flags were just the first try and I agree that they should be smaller. I understand, that people from Australia and other countries will not be happy with the UK and USA flag, but these two are the best-known flags of all the countries that have English as the main language. If the flag of England (not UK ! ) would be more famous, I would use the flag of Germany for German, the flag of England for English, the flag of Spain for Spanish and so on. Maybe I pass on the flags completely and do something else instead.

About the languages: I think we had that discussion already and my reason for putting the local language in front is that most of the visitors are local waymarkers. And I create the waymarks for the visitors, not the officers. :-)

[+fi67]

9 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

About the languages: I think we had that discussion already and my reason for putting the local language in front is that most of the visitors are local waymarkers. And I create the waymarks for the visitors, not the officers. :-)

That's interesting! Here, it's different. About three of four visit logs I receive are from international tourists, maybe more. Only my waymarks in France have a little more local visitors.

[+fi67]

31 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

There's something that had not occurred to me until reading fi's post. When we're Waymarking south of the 49th, we should be doing our WMs in both 'Merican & Canuck. We'll have to start doing that!! 

Keith

Oouuh! I won't follow you that road. While German is the official language in the part of Switzerland I live, absolutely nobody uses it except for teachers, news presenters and immigrants. We do write German, but in a way people wrote Latin in the Middle Ages, not as a living language. We speak Swiss German or Alemannic, It is called a German dialect, but according to ethnologue.com it is an independent language and not inherently intelligible with Standard German. Now, there is no Standard Swiss German, it is a bunch of different dialects with very little in common and the rules change every mile. Adapting the 'real' local language would be a nightmare.

[+fi67]

2 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

You could always just go with Romansch. 

Keith

If I only was more firm in one of the five main variants of Romansh ...

I have a few waymarks in the Romansh area, one a Sign of History written in the Bargunsegner sub-variant of  Putér, was a challenge to translate without any existing online dictionary.

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

3 hours ago, fi67 said:

Oouuh! I won't follow you that road. While German is the official language in the part of Switzerland I live, absolutely nobody uses it except for teachers, news presenters and immigrants. We do write German, but in a way people wrote Latin in the Middle Ages, not as a living language. We speak Swiss German or Alemannic, It is called a German dialect, but according to ethnologue.com it is an independent language and not inherently intelligible with Standard German. Now, there is no Standard Swiss German, it is a bunch of different dialects with very little in common and the rules change every mile. Adapting the 'real' local language would be a nightmare.

If y’all’d just speak Texan, y’all wouldn’t have none of these problems, and y’all could just be out yonder waymarkin’.  Everthang’d be just fine. 

[+PISA-caching]

13 hours ago, fi67 said:

That's interesting! Here, it's different. About three of four visit logs I receive are from international tourists, maybe more. Only my waymarks in France have a little more local visitors.

Well, of course I have not counted all the visits and it was more a feeling, but now I checked a few of my waymarks and there are some that are in typical tourist areas and they have a lot of foreign visitors, but here in Vienna there are a few geocachers who also visit lots of my waymarks and I think that makes the difference. One active local waymarker/geocacher will visit many more waymarks over the year while tourists just stay a week or so and just visit a limited number of waymarks.

[+PISA-caching]

14 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

Andreas - I disagree with fi67 - the flags are just the right size to me, the British flag, for example, would lose most of its detail if it were smaller.

I agree with fi67 about the padding. I would replace "padding-left:15px;padding-right:10px;" with simply "padding:15px" or maybe even a couple more pixels. 

The code you're using to place the flags would be pretty hard to beat for simplicity and effectiveness. To pull them in from the radiused corner, add 15 or 20 pixels of transparency to the left edge, then use the same code you're using now.

Like these:

These have 16 px of transparency. Use them if you want.

Keith

Thanks a lot for the feedback. I also think that the size is good, because we might once visit a country with a flag that has even more detail than the UK flag. And if I find a good source in their language I might use that text and then I need that flag. I have already done waymarks with Swedish and Norwegian text, so you never know. :-)

If I used "padding: 15px", the "[DE]" would go down too much, but I changed it to "padding: 0 15px" (0 for top & bottom, 15px for left & right). Thank you for the flags with transparency, but right now I'm thinking about putting the language code between the 2 flags and/or using different flags, so I have to recreate these Images anyway. One idea I'm still considering is to create round (or rounded) flag buttons like these (but smaller):

 or

These would perfectly fit into the round corner, but I have yet to think about that.

Edited January 13, 2018 by PISA-caching

[+PISA-caching]

14 hours ago, fi67 said:

Oouuh! I won't follow you that road. While German is the official language in the part of Switzerland I live, absolutely nobody uses it except for teachers, news presenters and immigrants. We do write German, but in a way people wrote Latin in the Middle Ages, not as a living language. We speak Swiss German or Alemannic, It is called a German dialect, but according to ethnologue.com it is an independent language and not inherently intelligible with Standard German. Now, there is no Standard Swiss German, it is a bunch of different dialects with very little in common and the rules change every mile. Adapting the 'real' local language would be a nightmare.

I can confirm that Swiss German has very little in common with Standard German. When we once visited Switzerland we had a hard time to understand what people were talking about. People from Vorarlberg (the most-western province of Austria bordering Switzerland) also speak their special kind of German that you wouldn't understand unless you have been living there for years. :-)

[+elyob]

For waymark creation, it is the local "written word" that is important.  If the waymark is written in the language of the local newspaper or restaurant menu, is that adequate?

[+fi67]

10 hours ago, elyob said:

For waymark creation, it is the local "written word" that is important.  If the waymark is written in the language of the local newspaper or restaurant menu, is that adequate?

That's a good definition.

I generally do expect English, but do not require it unless the category does. Additional languages are always welcome, but should never be required, because there are so many great waymarks created by tourists without knowledge of the local languages. Thus, I would not even require local language for regional categories. Local language is, according to your definition, the predominant written language in the area and/or the official language of the region. There are many places with an official minority language although today the majority of the locals speak another language, like Romansh in Switzerland, Alsatian in France or Basque in Spain. Here the language choice is not obvious.

However, this is quite academic, because in reality we cannot expect anyone to know these languages. I would keep it simple. But whatever a category requires, the officers need to be able to handle it. It is better to require English than not to be able to correctly review a submission in another language. (and I have seen a lot of non-English waymarks completely unrelated to the category, only approved because an officer did not dare to admit he cannot read it. This must not happen.)

Online translation tools have moved forward a lot. Some language combinations work better than others, but normal sentences get quite acceptable results. You have to consider five points:

1. Simple sentences work better, subordinate clauses and complex constructions lead to mistakes.
2. The tools are usually overstrained with grammatical genders. English versions will have a lot of he/she instead of it.
3. Technical terms are usually translated incorrect, especially when these terms also exist in other fields with different meanings.
4. When you translate between two languages that are not English, then the software does this in two steps in the background, language A to English, the English to language B. So these translations do tend to have much more mistakes than the ones to and from English.
5. Google translate changed the algorithms a few months ago. Before, it did not translate things it did not know. Now, it assumes a typo and translates something similar. This is especially unfortunate for place names.

Edited January 13, 2018 by fi67

[+fi67]

13 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

I can confirm that Swiss German has very little in common with Standard German. When we once visited Switzerland we had a hard time to understand what people were talking about. People from Vorarlberg (the most-western province of Austria bordering Switzerland) also speak their special kind of German that you wouldn't understand unless you have been living there for years. :-)

I have some nice Swiss German tongue twisters for you.

The first is not a tongue twister at all for locals, but still nearly impossible for most foreigners:

"S'Chüeli hett äs Chüechli us äm Chuchichäschtli gchlaut." (The little cow stole a cookie out of the kitchen cupboard.)

This one is a real tongue (better: lip) twister for anyone:

"Dä Pabscht hett z'Schpiäz s'Schpäck-Bschteck z'schpot bschtellt." (The Pope was too late in ordering his bacon cutlery in Spiez (town name).)

[Bon Echo]

This topic has got me to thinking about the HTML we use to dress up our waymarks. if I understand it correctly, Waymarking.com uses HTML 4 which has been superseded by HTML 5 and CSS. We don;t need to use HTML but we often do because the finished product is so much nicer than just plain text. But are we setting ourselves up for problems down the road, when HTML 4 is no longer supported by the newer browsers? In theory most websites adapt over time to keep up with the changing standards. Do do we really expect waymarkers to go and update their hundreds, or thousands, or tens-of-thousands of waymark pages because they are all broken? Maybe not using HTML in our waymarks would be better in the long run. Although I admit to having a very hard time not using HTML, no mater how simple the item I'm Waymarking. Photos, hyperlinks and blockquote boxes have become my "normal".

Edited January 13, 2018 by Bon Echo

[+PISA-caching]

9 hours ago, fi67 said:

I have some nice Swiss German tongue twisters for you.

The first is not a tongue twister at all for locals, but still nearly impossible for most foreigners:

"S'Chüeli hett äs Chüechli us äm Chuchichäschtli gchlaut." (The little cow stole a cookie out of the kitchen cupboard.)

This one is a real tongue (better: lip) twister for anyone:

"Dä Pabscht hett z'Schpiäz s'Schpäck-Bschteck z'schpot bschtellt." (The Pope was too late in ordering his bacon cutlery in Spiez (town name).)

Most of these sentences I could have translated (reading is always easier than listening), but I think that trying to pronounce them properly is hopeless. :-) 

[+PISA-caching]

5 hours ago, Bon Echo said:

This topic has got me to thinking about the HTML we use to dress up our waymarks. if I understand it correctly, Waymarking.com uses HTML 4 which has been superseded by HTML 5 and CSS. We don;t need to use HTML but we often do because the finished product is so much nicer than just plain text. But are we setting ourselves up for problems down the road, when HTML 4 is no longer supported by the newer browsers? In theory most websites adapt over time to keep up with the changing standards. Do do we really expect waymarkers to go and update their hundreds, or thousands, or tens-of-thousands of waymark pages because they are all broken? Maybe not using HTML in our waymarks would be better in the long run. Although I admit to having a very hard time not using HTML, no mater how simple the item I'm Waymarking. Photos, hyperlinks and blockquote boxes have become my "normal".

Most of HTML 4 is also valid in HTML 5. And even old HTML-tags, that shouldn't be used anymore, still work with most browsers. However, it's a good idea to just use the very basic tags like <div>, <p>, <h1>, <a href> and so on. These will be valid in many future versions of HTML. The rest should be done with CSS. There are updates of CSS too, but same story here. Most of the newer versions of browsers support older versions of CSS.

[+PISA-caching]

I was a little lazy for a while, but today I started again to improve the design of my very first waymark. I decided to put the language code in the top left corner of the <div>s and the flags in the top right corner. So, whether you pay more attention to the left or right side of the text, it should always be easy to find your language very fast. The background image has a selfmade color gradient and the font is 10% bigger (1.1 em) than usual. The border color is closer to being a pastel color now.

Please let me know what you think about it.

[+PISA-caching]

Thanks and yes, there are lots of waymarks to edit. And it will take quite some time, because I not only change the design, but also:

• Check links in the long description and variables
• Standardise the order of languages in short and long description (local language first, English second)
• Check that sources are mentioned in the long description
• Check all the variables....

12 down, 856 to go.

[+PISA-caching]

I noticed that you use "background-size:cover;" which should resize the image to the size of the container. So, if your mask image was 1x1 pixel, it would still be stretched until the entire <div> is covered. I'm not sure, if it will stretch it in both directions, but in worst case is has to be 1x??? or ???x1 pixels. And the long description is usually only 760 pixels wide, so the background image doesn't need to be wider than that, or am I completely mistaken and/or overlooking something?

Just when I had used the new design at the first 20 waymarks I found another nice way to make a border. See the new Version of my very first waymark.

Edited February 15, 2018 by PISA-caching

[+Outspoken1]

Only suggestion I would make regarding color is to remember that many people (more prevalent in men than women - go figure!) are color-limited or color blind. You may want to visit Toptal Color Blind Filter and  Vischeck to learn about good HTML practices for color-limited people. For the categories I manage, I require black text since there was a trend several years ago when people were using HTML to make their text blue or red. Red is one of the most common color limitations, so I ask text be black. Yes, I have color-limited friends, so I am perhaps more sensitive to the issue.

Take care, Outspoken1

[+PISA-caching]

10 hours ago, Outspoken1 said:

Only suggestion I would make regarding color is to remember that many people (more prevalent in men than women - go figure!) are color-limited or color blind. You may want to visit Toptal Color Blind Filter and  Vischeck to learn about good HTML practices for color-limited people. For the categories I manage, I require black text since there was a trend several years ago when people were using HTML to make their text blue or red. Red is one of the most common color limitations, so I ask text be black. Yes, I have color-limited friends, so I am perhaps more sensitive to the issue.

Take care, Outspoken1

Is that a more general suggestion or do you see a problem with my specifiic design, that I don't see? All my text is black. I even paid attention to the color contrast. I use the Colour Contrast Analyser program (https://developer.paciellogroup.com/resources/contrastanalyser/) to check this. From time to time I myself have a problem with reading pages that don't have enough contrast.

[+PISA-caching]

8 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

Hey, that sounds brilliant!! I was in mental shrink mode and never even considered stretch mode. 1x1 pixel may well work. I've gotta give it a try. THANKS!!!

One caveat before I do. I've noticed that the background image is never distorted, only resized, preserving the aspect ratio. I may have to resort to "repeat". We'll see....

A few minutes later - couldn't save a 1X1 image, so I made an 8X8 mask. Works as expected, without "repeat".

Keith

Wow, the new mask is just 97 Bytes. That's great.

New question: Is there any way to replace an image? Or do you have to either keep both versions of the mask PNG or change the code of all your older waymarks (which of course you wouldn't want to do)?

Edited February 19, 2018 by PISA-caching

[+PISA-caching]

Yes, replacing an image would be a great feature. It will take a lot of time to pimp all my waymarks and if I ever think that a different border would look better I would have to start over again. The current border was just a quick&dirty DIY border. But as it is now, I had to choose between quick&dirty and endless variations until I'm completely happy with my border which might never happen.

[+PISA-caching]

Update: I create all my new waymarks in the new design from now on. 

At the same time I go through all my existing waymarks, starting with the oldest one. This was a very good idea, because I found several links in the old waymarks that didn't work anymore and I found better descriptions (sometimes in the local language) etc. It will take quite a while until I pimped all my waymarks, but I think it's worth the effort. Compare this (pimped) waymark with this (unpimped) waymark.

[+pmaupin]

Very nice presentation

[+PISA-caching]

Months have passed and there were times were I was lazy and times where I was diligent. But finally I'm through with pimping ALL my (1,000+) waymarks. Here's what I did:

• Changed the long description from simple text or slightly formatted text to my new design with clear separation of different languages, boxes for text on signs, headlines etc.
• Made sure, that in the short description there is either only English text or local language text first, followed by English text, separated with a "/".
• Checked that headlines are no longer underlined and/or bold, but bold all the time
• Checked all the links and searched for new ones, if the old one wasn't working anymore
• Removed any "http://" or "https://" in the link text, which looks much better now
• Made sure that every link from within the long description opens in a new window
• Added Information that I recently learned, but didn't know when I created the waymark
• Some waymarks had only English text, because I don't speak the local language. So I searched for text in the local language (Norwegian, Swedish,...) in Wikipedia and other sources and added them to make the waymark more attractive for local waymarkers.
• Corrected typos wherever I found them (and I found more than I expected)

It was quite time-consuming, but now that it's done, I'm really happy with the result and of course all the future waymarks will be created in a similar quality.

Edited August 2, 2018 by PISA-caching

[+elyob]

Were most of the web links broken?

Edited August 2, 2018 by elyob

[+Max and 99]

 

On 1/13/2018 at 11:33 AM, Bon Echo said:

This topic has got me to thinking about the HTML we use to dress up our waymarks. if I understand it correctly, Waymarking.com uses HTML 4 which has been superseded by HTML 5 and CSS. We don;t need to use HTML but we often do because the finished product is so much nicer than just plain text. But are we setting ourselves up for problems down the road, when HTML 4 is no longer supported by the newer browsers? In theory most websites adapt over time to keep up with the changing standards. Do do we really expect waymarkers to go and update their hundreds, or thousands, or tens-of-thousands of waymark pages because they are all broken? Maybe not using HTML in our waymarks would be better in the long run. Although I admit to having a very hard time not using HTML, no mater how simple the item I'm Waymarking. Photos, hyperlinks and blockquote boxes have become my "normal".

I don't know how to pimp my waymarks. I don't know html. If html is going to be required for waymarks, I'll be severely limited in what I can submit.  

[+fi67]

10 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

 

I don't know how to pimp my waymarks. I don't know html. If html is going to be required for waymarks, I'll be severely limited in what I can submit.  

I don't think that anyone ever would want to require HTML.

[+Max and 99]

15 minutes ago, fi67 said:

I don't think that anyone ever would want to require HTML.

Some already do. ?

[+PISA-caching]

13 hours ago, elyob said:

Were most of the web links broken?

 

No, I have a lot of links to Wikipedia and they are all still valid, but - for example - there's a website for Viennese cemeteries that I use for Worldwide Cemeteries and some other waymarks and they changed one character in all their URLs from "2" to "3" and unfortunately didn't create a redirect from old URLs to the new ones. So, I had to change all of them. All in all I estimate that I changed around 30-40 URLs.

[+PISA-caching]

13 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

 

I don't know how to pimp my waymarks. I don't know html. If html is going to be required for waymarks, I'll be severely limited in what I can submit.  

 

Well, I do a lot of my waymarks in two languages and I wanted to make it easier for the visitor to find the text that she/he needs. That really was the most important reason for me to do it in HTML. Besides, you don't need to know HTML to use it to a certain level. There are online HTML WYSIWYG Editors like https://html-online.com/editor/ were you can create HTML without any knowledge of it. But, like fi67 I doubt that HTML will ever be required.

 

Apart from that, you can still improve your waymarks by checking the links included, adding current Information and so on.

 

And don't forget that you are a native English speaker. Your English text will always be better than mine, so I have to add some color and blink. :-)

[+PISA-caching]

26 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

Blink?

 

The German word is "Glanz" and I obviously chose the wrong translation. So, it should be glance, gloss, shine, shininess or whatever. :-)

 

19 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

PISA-caching - just looked at your WMs. Nice! One tiny criticism, however. In the first <div> I would add margin-top:20px to the style, or a similar number of pixels.

This creates a bit of a break between "Long Description:" and your WM. I discovered that I didn't look the look of mine when they were right up against the "Long Description:".

Keith

 

Good point, and just in time - now that I finished updating more than 1,000 waymarks. LOL! Anyway, anything else I should change? I think instead of a margin-top I will simply add a <br /> at the beginning. That's also the way I separate the <div>s from each other.

[+PISA-caching]

31 minutes ago, BK-Hunters said:

 

The word I would have chosen is pizzaz, or maybe glitz.

Why do people use <br /> instead of just <br>? <br> seems to work just fine for me. Is it because it's "recommended" that the former be used instead of the latter?

Keith.

 

I use <br />, because someone once told to use it. :-) I never asked why, but here's the answer.

[+PISA-caching]

Well, some years ago our content management system generated XHTML pages. I guess that's why I was supposed to use <br />.

 

And I always use </p> at the end of a paragraph, because this is valid HTML code and I was told, that search engines like Google put a slightly higher rank to pages with valid HTML code. Additionally, you have to think that there might be browsers or other software like screenreaders which might have a problem with invalid code. So, just to make sure I try to stick to valid HTML. On the other hand, if you check a simple waymark page at https://validator.w3.org/ you will see that the validator reports around 170 errors, no matter what you put in the long description. But, if one day Groundspeak will change their code to valid HTML, I don't want to have the only invalid code of the page in my long description. ;-)

[+PISA-caching]

6 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

 

Those are actually quite valid points. I wish I wasn't so lazy ... 

Kwith

 

Do you write your HTML by hand? At work I use Dreamweaver and at home I used an online HTML Editor, that wasn't perfect, but ok. Lately I downloaded BlueGriffon, so that I can save various samples, but BlueGriffon isn't perfect either. So, I will keep searching for a free HTML WYSIWYG editor, that satisfies my wishes, but I hardly type any HTML code by hand. So, who is lazy here?

 

 

Edited August 8, 2018 by PISA-caching

[+Max and 99]

On 1/13/2018 at 11:33 AM, Bon Echo said:

This topic has got me to thinking about the HTML we use to dress up our waymarks. if I understand it correctly, Waymarking.com uses HTML 4 which has been superseded by HTML 5 and CSS. We don;t need to use HTML but we often do because the finished product is so much nicer than just plain text. But are we setting ourselves up for problems down the road, when HTML 4 is no longer supported by the newer browsers? In theory most websites adapt over time to keep up with the changing standards. Do do we really expect waymarkers to go and update their hundreds, or thousands, or tens-of-thousands of waymark pages because they are all broken? Maybe not using HTML in our waymarks would be better in the long run. 

With maybe a few exceptions,  if there is HTML in my waymarks it was put there by an officer. It'll be their responsibility to make corrections if the HTML later causes problems. 

[+fi67]

2 hours ago, BK-Hunters said:

 

Actually, yes, it would not be a good idea to use HTML 4, but then, why would one do so? Use HTML 5 and CSS and your code should remain bullet proof for many years.

The fact that the underlying code is HTML 4 is immaterial to what you choose to put on your page. Contemporary browsers will always understand contemporary code, if not, they have not remained contemporary.

Keith

This is basically true, but most valid HTML 4 tags are also valid HTML 5 tags. There are a lot of new possibilities and very little depreciated or outdated old elements. For most of what most of us want to do here, there is no difference at all.

And for CSS, we have only the possibility to use it inline, this is valid, but would be the least preferred way if we had control over the whole page.

[Bon Echo]

I didn't realize you could use CSS and HTML5 in Waymarking descriptions, I thought those elements were removed when you save the waymark.