New Category Idea: Cáritas

[OLapis]

I recently started to explore the categories to start shooting for Waymarking things that I normally would not do while traveling, and I found this type of categories:

YMCA / YWCA, Ronald McDonald Houses, Salvation Army Locations, Big Brothers Big Sisters, Humane Societies and Rescues, Masonic Temples, Knights of Columbus Councils, Odd Fellow Lodges, Knights of Pythias, Elks Lodge, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Grange Halls, Moose Lodges and Centers, Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Lions Clubs International, Soroptimist International, Kiwanis International, Rotary International.

And I noticed that there is no category for Cáritas. My idea was to create a category that, like other ones I saw, was to include buildings and monuments related to Cáritas International.

"Caritas Internationalis is a confederation of Catholic relief, development and social service organisations operating in over 200 countries and territories worldwide. Collectively and individually their claimed mission is to work to build a better world, especially for the poor and oppressed. The first Caritas organisation was established by Lorenz Werthmann on 9 November 1897 in Germany. Other national Caritas organisations were soon formed in Switzerland (1901) and the United States (Catholic Charities, 1910)." Wikipedia

[+fi67]

Basically, this organization fits well with the other ones mentioned above. I just do not know, if there are really so many places to waymark. I may be biased by the situation in my home area and it looks different in other countries, but here there are hardly any places that would qualify, although the organization itself is very present with billboards, TV ads and the like. But they have no meeting halls and very little other locations.

I know a regional headquarters not far away, this is a simple office building like many, without any special sign or anything else of interest. And then I know a shop they run downtown with cheap food for underprivileged people, you need an official permit to enter, not sure if there is a sign outside, maybe not, but these locations are always a bit delicate to photograph.

[+Iris & Harry]

We have seen many Caritas locations on our journeys.

To verify how many are out there and if there are signs or markers with the Caritas Symbol i did a serch in google pictures like this:

Caritas Haus

Caritas Building

The result is that there are many and most of them has a sign or painting with the symbol.

Next check was to open google maps and type in a city, Bonn, New York, Prague for example. Then type DRK (for the german Red Cross) and see how many buildings are there. Or type Red Cross for searching in international areas. Doing the same using Caritas shows that in some areas there are more Red Cross / DRK buildings, in other areas are more from Caritas.

I think it is a good idea to get this category in place.

Harry (Team Iris & Harry)

 

 

[+Torgut]

Not my favorite kind of category but fair enough, if you go for it I would vote "yes".

[OLapis]

Thank you all for your coments. I did some more research and it's possible to find Caritas locations all over the world 

[OLapis]

On 14/03/2018 at 0:20 PM, fi67 said:

Basically, this organization fits well with the other ones mentioned above. I just do not know, if there are really so many places to waymark. I may be biased by the situation in my home area and it looks different in other countries, but here there are hardly any places that would qualify, although the organization itself is very present with billboards, TV ads and the like. But they have no meeting halls and very little other locations.

I know a regional headquarters not far away, this is a simple office building like many, without any special sign or anything else of interest. And then I know a shop they run downtown with cheap food for underprivileged people, you need an official permit to enter, not sure if there is a sign outside, maybe not, but these locations are always a bit delicate to photograph.

Has you mentioned your home area I took a look at your profile and found out that it is Switzerland so using the street view from google I was able to see several places of the caritas in Switzerland that would enter perfectly into the category 

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

But are these locations interesting? Do they overlap with existing categories like thrift stores and Medieval spiritual warriors?

Is it time for a catch all category of Church-affiliated charitable organizations? 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Benchmark Blasterz

[+fi67]

17 hours ago, OLapis said:

Has you mentioned your home area I took a look at your profile and found out that it is Switzerland so using the street view from google I was able to see several places of the caritas in Switzerland that would enter perfectly into the category 

I did not say, there are none. The two I mentioned are both in the closest city to home, and I have found two more in the same city, both thrift stores. There are enough locations to make it a valid category, when you consider the global and prevalence criteria.

But I have not seen any location yet that would be unique or interesting. No place worth a special visit, not a great category. We don't need it, but I won't stay in the way.

[+PISA-caching]

On ‎19‎.‎03‎.‎2018 at 5:34 PM, Benchmark Blasterz said:

But are these locations interesting? Do they overlap with existing categories like thrift stores and Medieval spiritual warriors?

Is it time for a catch all category of Church-affiliated charitable organizations? 

1. Interesting? If the Thrift Stores and the Permanent Charity Donation Locations are not included, I can't think of any interesting locations to remain.

2. Overlap? Yes, they either would overlap or just include offices, that don't accept donations, right?

3. Catch all charitable organizations? If interesting locations could be included, it would be a good idea, but why only Church-affiliated ones?

[razalas]

I like the idea, despite not being a religious person I think that due to its size and importance Cáritas deserves a category.

 

[+Benchmark Blasterz]

Catholic Charities of Dallas is a MEMBER of Caritas -- they run thrift stores to raise funds and items to help refugees and the Catholic poor of Dallas.  Is this what you want to waymark with this proposed category, or will there have to be a sign that says specifically CARITAS?

 

https://catholiccharitiesusa.org/members/catholic-charities-of-dallas

Edited March 21, 2018 by Benchmark Blasterz

[OLapis]

The category would accept all members of Caritas Internationalis .

[OLapis]

I'm trying to create the category but it's not easy, Can anyone help me? Thank you.

[razalas]

Just now, OLapis said:

I'm trying to create the category but it's not easy, Can anyone help me? Thank you.

I'll be happy to help, I'll contact you 

[OLapis]

We now have a written category  Caritas Internationalis  do you have any suggestion before sent it to review?

Thank you.

[+pmaupin]

The acceptance criteria are well defined and very precise.

[+elyob]

Naming convention is not needed in the visit instructions.

[Bon Echo]

Too narrow in scope IMO. There are other similar organizations, one that comes to my mind in Mennonite Central Committee which also does international relief work and also runs thrift stores. That's just one of a few that come to mind. Samaritans Purse is another.

How about "International Relief Organizations" as a category? Does not necessarily need to be faith-based (although many are). would need to exclude any that already have their own  category (i.e. Red Cross).

Another issue to consider is that many faith-bases organization do relief work as well as other activities - specifically evangelism and church development. Many examples here (in addition to the ones I mentioned above): World Vision, Compassion International, Christian Children's Fund, Far East Broadcasting (disaster response and relief), Canadian Foodgrains Bank, many many more.

Next questions is what is the Department: Buildings or Monuments or even Business? That will have some bearing on what can be accepted (i.e. if department is buildings, then signs and monuments will not likely be accepted).

Edited September 11, 2018 by Bon Echo
guess I had more to say :)

[+Alfouine]

I am not sure we decide in what departement a new category would be, but it would be coherent to be in Buildings / Charity

 

Caritas is a huge international organisations present in all countries, the french name is "Secours catholique".

 

We do not want to create a multifarious charity category, for all litlle organisations, Caritas is sufficiently significant.

Edited September 11, 2018 by Alfouine
.

[Bon Echo]

1 minute ago, Alfouine said:

I am not sure we decide in what departement a new category would be, but it would be coherent to be in Buildings / Charity

 

Caritas is a hudge international organisations present in all countries, the french name is "Secours catholique".

 

We do not want to create a multifarious charity category, for all litlle organisations, Caritas is sufficiently significant.

 

I don't think that I would consider World Vision for example as a little organization: 22,500 employees and over $1 billion USD in revenues in 2016. Should we also start a category for that charity then?

[+T0SHEA]

2 hours ago, Bon Echo said:

We do not want to create a multifarious charity category, for all litlle organisations

 

My question is why not?

 

The Dated Multifarious and Religious Buildings Multifarious (RBM) have worked out well. Though challenging at times, once the kinks are worked out, with good officers and a concise description, clear requirements and include what is not acceptable, a "Charity Multifarious" should work. 

 

The Dated and Religious Buildings Multifarious are an alternative to "little" sub-categories. 

 

The RBM accepts big groups such as LDS, as well as smaller and lesser known  religious groups that are too "little" for their own category. 

 

A Charity Multifarious has a better chance of succeeding then a new category for just Caritas and another for World Vision for example.

Edited September 11, 2018 by BK-Hunters

[+Alfouine]

It's not a question of chance, just a question of coherence, all great religions have a category for their worship buildings, and Religious Buildings Multifarious collect all those which do not have enough prevalence to have their own category.

 

It should be the same for charity organisations, if it's global and prevalent, they diserve their own category

I had never heard about world vision before, but it could have a category.

And all minors organisations could have a multifarious category.

But they need a leader and officers to support the idea.

 

Caritas has a group, a well write-up description, it's global, interesting and prevalent.

 

We could also put any new idea in a multifarious category or earn a lot of times creating the ultimate category "Multifarious multifarious" and in case of succeed it would be the last peer review....

 

[+PISA-caching]

In my humble opinion organizations like Caritas don't need our assistance in promoting their locations. Those locations are as easy to find as are McDonalds restaurants and alike. Therefore a "Caritas alone" category would we a one-visiti-one-posting category for me. On the other hand, small organizations that also do great jobs might benefit from having a waymark and - as a visitor - I would love to browse through a category of various charity organizations, while browsing through hundreds of Caritas locations will be rather boring (in my opinion).

[+iconions]

On 3/14/2018 at 7:20 AM, fi67 said:

Basically, this organization fits well with the other ones mentioned above. I just do not know, if there are really so many places to waymark. I may be biased by the situation in my home area and it looks different in other countries, but here there are hardly any places that would qualify, although the organization itself is very present with billboards, TV ads and the like. But they have no meeting halls and very little other locations.

I know a regional headquarters not far away, this is a simple office building like many, without any special sign or anything else of interest. And then I know a shop they run downtown with cheap food for underprivileged people, you need an official permit to enter, not sure if there is a sign outside, maybe not,  but these locations are always a bit delicate to photograph.

This wasn't answered in the string - .  I would not want to have a bunch of waymarkers descending on locations where they are trying to dispense charity to the poor and hungry.  
Maybe, in this case, instead of Waymarking the location, maybe actually donate some time or resources to the location to assist, instead of possibly getting in the way of what is being done.  I think, in this case, this is a rather selfish and self-serving reason to make a category.
I do not think this would be a good category for the above reason - again, just because something CAN be waymarked doesn't mean something SHOULD be waymarked.

[+T0SHEA]

5 hours ago, iconions said:

This wasn't answered in the string - .  I would not want to have a bunch of waymarkers descending on locations where they are trying to dispense charity to the poor and hungry.  
Maybe, in this case, instead of Waymarking the location, maybe actually donate some time or resources to the location to assist, instead of possibly getting in the way of what is being done.  I think, in this case, this is a rather selfish and self-serving reason to make a category.
I do not think this would be a good category for the above reason - again, just because something CAN be waymarked doesn't mean something SHOULD be waymarked.

 

Again - HEAR, HEAR!!!

Keith

[+Alfouine]

6 hours ago, iconions said:

This wasn't answered in the string - .  I would not want to have a bunch of waymarkers descending on locations where they are trying to dispense charity to the poor and hungry.  
Maybe, in this case, instead of Waymarking the location, maybe actually donate some time or resources to the location to assist, instead of possibly getting in the way of what is being done.  I think, in this case, this is a rather selfish and self-serving reason to make a category.
I do not think this would be a good category for the above reason - again, just because something CAN be waymarked doesn't mean something SHOULD be waymarked.

 

You really have a problem with new idea

If i understand correctly, as i support this idea, i am selfish, really strange way of thinking, completely free charge

I support this idea as i supported "Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement" category, as i am involved, it's important for me

 

And you know what i am thinking about "self-serving reason to make a category", how new waymarkers would like to submit and support their ideas in the forum reading this kind of arguments ? If you like Waymarking try to be more forgiving, you are the first one to complain when other waymarkers behave badly to you

[+iconions]

2 hours ago, Alfouine said:

 

You really have a problem with new idea

If i understand correctly, as i support this idea, i am selfish, really strange way of thinking, completely free charge

I support this idea as i supported "Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement" category, as i am involved, it's important for me

 

And you know what i am thinking about "self-serving reason to make a category", how new waymarkers would like to submit and support their ideas in the forum reading this kind of arguments ? If you like Waymarking try to be more forgiving, you are the first one to complain when other waymarkers behave badly to you

You know, you're correct.  I do complain when other waymarkers behave badly to me, and why not, we are supposed to be adults here.  You have decided to attack my character by doing the same thing you are accusing me of - that is truly precious.  I did not attack you or any other waymarker in that post.  If you feel attacked by that post, maybe it's a guilty conscience of knowing maybe I'm correct in my assessment.  It had nothing to do with you or anyone personally.  It has been my experience in the past that when I get accused of something like this through the forum, I get a really nasty personal note sent to me through the geocaching messaging app from the person accusing me of behaving badly so that they themselves can remain above the fray in the forum.  Please don't do the same thing as has happened the last couple of times.  

That said, I said NOTHING, and let me repeat, NOTHING about any waymarker personally in my post.  If you think I did, I suggest you re-read my post.
Now, instead of refuting my point, you decide that you will belittle me.  Sheesh, what is it around here?  If someone brings up something against a new proposed category all of a sudden you're an enemy to Waymarking?  No, I do not pay my money every year JUST so I can be a troll on the forums.  I really do my best to be a positive force in this community, and believe it or not, many people besides myself actually believe that I am a positive force - go figure!  I will, however, point out what I think are real problems with the proposed category.  Like it or not, that is the purpose of the forum.  It isn't personal unless you are SO invested in the category that you make it personal.  That's on you - not me.

You must misunderstand the purpose of this forum - it isn't to like and support new Waymarking ideas.  NOPE, NOPE, NOPE!!!!!  It is to critique those ideas, to weed out those that aren't plausible, to get the submitter to think about things that they may not have thought of.  It ISN'T supposed to be a rah-rah fan club for new ideas - hopefully, the forum helps get the idea in shape and ready for Peer Review.  It has nothing about being forgiving or whether or not I like Waymarking (which, by the way, I've been doing this since it started so yea, I kinda like Waymarking).  That said, I want to make and keep Waymarking a quality game and I don't want it to become geocaching where every lamp post is going to have a geocache under the skirt.  I pretty much stopped geocaching because of that fact!

As far as my original post, which you STILL haven't answered ME or fi67, what about those locations where actual charity is being handed out.  I still think it is more than indelicate to be around that area taking photographs and logging GPS coordinates around people who are there trying to get assistance.  My comment stands - I think that those areas should be absolutely off-limits.  I believe that would take away most of the locations you would be trying to waymark - I know it would here in my area as the Catholic Charities are also the same buildings by and large handing out the aid.  To me, there is NO difference exploiting the poor to waymark where they get aid as there was the comments about exploitation in the former brothels category that was proposed and denied.  

 

Now, I have had my say.  I'm sure what is going to happen is that you will try to drag me into a protracted conversation where all you are going to do is anger me and I am going to anger you.  You are going to do what you are going to do, that's fine.  Just remember, if opinions on new categories are being sought, be prepared to get both positive and negative, or in my case, a followup to answer the original post.   

[OLapis]

After a clear attack on my person , I wat to make it clear that I do not consider myself selfish (I give a lot of my time and money to help others.) and as a rule when I am attacked by haters on the internet this will be my last post here.

 

I'm still thinking this is a nice and very valid idea for a category, and I hope it becomes a reality.

 

Thank you to everyone who made constructive comments.

[OLapis]

Please Admin.  close this topic. Thank you.

[+PISA-caching]

On ‎12‎.‎09‎.‎2018 at 3:54 PM, iconions said:

I think, in this case, this is a rather selfish and self-serving reason to make a category.

 

On ‎13‎.‎09‎.‎2018 at 3:06 AM, iconions said:

That said, I said NOTHING, and let me repeat, NOTHING about any waymarker personally in my post. 

 

Since there is only one person who started to make that category, I would consider the first posting a personal one. Tell me, if I'm wrong and please explain. Not all of us are native English speaking people, so maybe we misunderstood something.

 

On ‎13‎.‎09‎.‎2018 at 3:06 AM, iconions said:

You must misunderstand the purpose of this forum - it isn't to like and support new Waymarking ideas.  NOPE, NOPE, NOPE!!!!!  It is to critique those ideas...

 

Nothing wrong with negative feedback (I've had my share too), but you accused him of making this category for selfish and self-serving reason, no? I'm not a fan of this category (so far), and I agree that we have to think carefully, which locations should not or can be waymarked and the category description has to make these limits clear, but let's stick with arguments and proven facts. Or can you prove that he made this category for a selfish reason? ;-)

[+iconions]

6 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

 

 

Since there is only one person who started to make that category, I would consider the first posting a personal one. Tell me, if I'm wrong and please explain. Not all of us are native English speaking people, so maybe we misunderstood something.

 

 

Nothing wrong with negative feedback (I've had my share too), but you accused him of making this category for selfish and self-serving reason, no? I'm not a fan of this category (so far), and I agree that we have to think carefully, which locations should not or can be waymarked and the category description has to make these limits clear, but let's stick with arguments and proven facts. Or can you prove that he made this category for a selfish reason? ;-)

The selfish and and self-serving reason, for the record, if you go back and READ the full post instead of picking up a single line out of context, was the fact that waymarkers were going to be getting in the way of people trying to deliver aid to the poor and needy.  That comment was not directed to the poster, but to anyone trying to waymark and get in the way of those helping.  That is why the line about selfish and self-serving came AFTER instead of Waymarking the location, maybe donating time and resources!!!!!!  Where in that FIRST sentence did I slam the original poster and the second sentence was dependent on the first.  BUT, because everyone is so sensitive on these forums and they think it is ALL about them, yea, they took it personally.  If I wanted to call the original poster selfish and self-serving, trust me, I am more than capable of doing that, and MUCH, MUCH, MUCH WORSE.  I would have come straight out and said it, and not be subtle about it.  But you know what, I actually stay pretty positive on these forums up until someone decides to get personal with me.  Then, and only then, do I allow my snarky side to come out - like now.

 

Now, in the spirit of "sticking with arguments and proven facts", how about someone (you) now going back and REREADING my original post with the above explanation instead of trying to stir the pot some more.  Let me know what you find out.  Or, you can continue to take that single line out of context, your choice, I don't care.  Y'all can decide that I offended the original poster and use that fact to try to get the category approved.  Just for the record, I have already have had a few waymarkers contact me personally about this thread and saw absolutely nothing wrong with my comments.   I'm not holding my breath on you getting back to me...
 

[+Alfouine]

50 minutes ago, iconions said:

Now, in the spirit of "sticking with arguments and proven facts", how about someone (you) now going back and REREADING my original post with the above explanation instead of trying to stir the pot some more.  Let me know what you find out.  Or, you can continue to take that single line out of context, your choice, I don't care.  Y'all can decide that I offended the original poster and use that fact to try to get the category approved.  Just for the record, I have already have had a few waymarkers contact me personally about this thread and saw absolutely nothing wrong with my comments.   I'm not holding my breath on you getting back to me...
 

 

Few waymarkers contact you personnaly that your are right, and few waymarkers wrote your are wrong

But all waymarkers thinking you are wrong are not english native, and may be we are not able to understand the right meaning of what your are writting. If you understand that, there is no more issue.

This is an international forum, and everybody should make an effort to be understood, especially english native and especially in this part of the forum ie 'Recruiting and Category Proposals', in others discussions do what you want, it's not so important.

But every times you will write something we understand like "you do not care about your idea, the only thing you want is to get your own category (like a Graal)", it wil be an issue.

[+PISA-caching]

Iconions, believe me, I read your post several times. If you say that "that comment was not directed to the poster", I hope that OLapis read that too and that this misunderstanding is now resolved. Just for the record (sorry for stealing one of your preferred phrases), I'm not trying get the category approved and yes, you can call me sensitive. I'm sensitive, because I know that misunderstandings like these are able to drive off people. I hope that one day we will all agree that this category is either a good category or not. And I also hope that OLapis and others will continue to post their ideas to this forum.

[+iconions]

42 minutes ago, Alfouine said:

 

Few waymarkers contact you personnaly that your are right, and few waymarkers wrote your are wrong

But all waymarkers thinking you are wrong are not english native, and may be we are not able to understand the right meaning of what your are writting. If you understand that, there is no more issue.

This is an international forum, and everybody should make an effort to be understood, especially english native and especially in this part of the forum ie 'Recruiting and Category Proposals', in others discussions do what you want, it's not so important.

But every times you will write something we understand like "you do not care about your idea, the only thing you want is to get your own category (like a Graal)", it wil be an issue.

This forum is to flesh out new ideas and to give feedback.  This forum isn't a place to instantly approve any category idea placed in here.  You realize that the actual questions posted were never answered because it was MUCH easier to mock offense at something I didn't say and then completely ignore the posed questions.

Interesting that it is the non native English speakers that are up in arms on my comment.  Yes, this is an international forum, BUT the lingua franca of this forum is English.  Let me know exactly what I need to do to be completely understood by everyone on this board short of not posting?  I can only follow the rules of English writing I have been taught with my lowly college degree.  I cannot help those people who only read what they want to read. </sarcasm>

The thing is, people who want to create a new category have to have REALLY thick skin.  A person may think that they have the most perfect idea, but another person may not think so.  That's why this forum is important, it gives a chance for a person creating a new category to think about things that they didn't when they first thought up the idea.  If I don't like your idea, I'll tell you.  In this case, I was TRYING to get a question answered that the original poster has so far not answered.  At that time, the original poster had no idea my position on the category - I simply wanted a question answered and was pointing out WHY it was a bad idea to allow for those locations handing out aid.   

 

In my original comment, I highlighted, in a quote from Benchmark Blasterz, about locations serving underprivileged people; I re-asked the question, and adding to the question because having waymarkers taking pictures of locations where people are getting handouts, and if those people are accidentally photographed, how would that look?  Let's turn the situation around.  How would I feel if some stranger was taking pictures of ME while I was getting aid?  I wouldn't be too happy.  Again, now think about what I said in my original post in that context.  

 

 

[Bon Echo]

5 hours ago, iconions said:

The selfish and and self-serving reason, for the record, if you go back and READ the full post instead of picking up a single line out of context, was the fact that waymarkers were going to be getting in the way of people trying to deliver aid to the poor and needy. 

 

Sorry but I don't think this is necessarily going to be the case. This is like saying that waymaking a police station will interfere with the police as they go about their work, or a Waymarking a hospital will prevent the ambulances from arriving to the ER rooms. No more than Waymarking a Starbucks gets in the way of those needing their overpriced coffee. It doesn't happen. Yes it could happen, but we are all (presumably) mature adults who can take care and use good judgement.

 

Should we be Waymarking the locations or just helping out? We should be able to choose to do either/or. I can waymark a church and choose to not attend there, or I can attend a church and choose not to waymark it.  I think this is a slippery slope to start telling others how they should spend their time or resources.

[+PISA-caching]

On ‎13‎.‎09‎.‎2018 at 3:50 PM, OLapis said:

I'm still thinking this is a nice and very valid idea for a category, and I hope it becomes a reality.

 

Thank you to everyone who made constructive comments.

 

OLapis, if you still think that the idea is valid, you shouldn't give up so fast. In the end, you might agree that the idea wasn't good enough for a category. Or you might end up with a category that is not exactly what you were thinking of, but is a good compromise. I really do understand iconions argument about taking photos of locations where underprivleged people are around. I remember that I didn't feel good when I wanted to take a photo for my Salvation Army Locations waymark. I was waiting quite a while in some distance on the other side of the street until really nobody was in front of the building and took the photo. But you can't expect that every waymarker will be that patient, so maybe these locations should be excluded. If that would decrease the number of possible locations too much, you might consider to allow other organizations. Whatever you think, let's try to solve this problem.