Mountain Summits looking for Officers

[+RakeInTheCache]

Hello,

I have recently become the leader of the Mountain Summits category and am looking for active waymarkers to add to the officer team.  I am primarily looking for waymarkers that are already officers in one or more categories.

 

You should be able to join here :  http://www.Waymarking.com/groups/details.aspx?f=1&guid=3589e0c7-ee9b-4909-a127-fc3193d1b7c8

 

Thanks much for your interest.

RitC.

[+RakeInTheCache]

Great to see there's already some interest in this category.  If you're interested please have a look at the waymark submission requirements.  One part I have always considered problematic is the proof of visit photo submission requirement.  

 

"In some cases, a unique photograph of a particular distinctive feature, marker, or structure at the summit may qualify, but only if it can be determined that the photograph was taken by the person submitting the waymark while at the summit, and not obtained from the Internet or some other source."

 

I propose changing as follows :

 

"A qualifying proof of visit photograph is one that demonstrates you were actually on the summit. Examples include photos showing yourself, your hiking companions, your GPSr, or some other personal artifact such as piece of hiking equipment or Travel Bug, taken at the summit. A unique photograph of a particular distinctive feature, marker, or structure at the summit will also qualify.  The waymark will be disqualified if there is evidence that any of the photos were obtained from the Internet or some other source."

[+Alfouine]

I think the best proof is the photo of your GPS with the summit coordinates

[+pmaupin]

It's not always easy to show your GPS if they are old photos

[Bon Echo]

I say don't make it more complicated than it needs to be. Lets face it, there are very few waymark visits as it is. The waymark owner can decide if any visit it legitimate and can delete one if they feel it is not. So what if someone logs a visit that they didn't actually do - who's keeping score anyway? We're talking about a rare case anyway.

Beside, I can tell you that as a category manager you can make the changes, but if the waymark owners don't police their WMs, are you going to? Sounds like a lot of work to me.

Not trying to discourage you from trying to make rules clear and consistent, just provide my thoughts.

Looking forward to "earning" a submission to this category next time I visit the Canadian Rockies.

[+elyob]

The photo proof is required to post the waymark as well as to visit the waymark.

[+RakeInTheCache]

I just think it's a bummer when you go to a lot of effort to seek out a new waymark location and then return home only to find there was some requirement that you missed (kind of like the two photo requirement which I am not a fan of.)

[+T0SHEA]

9 hours ago, RakeInTheCache said:

I just think it's a bummer when you go to a lot of effort to seek out a new waymark location and then return home only to find there was some requirement that you missed (kind of like the two photo requirement which I am not a fan of.)

The solution to that dilemma would be to NEVER, NEVER take only one pic after climbing a 12,000 foot summit. After all, what would you do if that one photo somehow went bad, climb the summit again? Everywhere you go, think of extra photos as insurance. They don't cost much. 

Keith

[+RakeInTheCache]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 7:03 AM, BK-Hunters said:

The solution to that dilemma would be to NEVER, NEVER take only one pic after climbing a 12,000 foot summit. After all, what would you do if that one photo somehow went bad, climb the summit again? Everywhere you go, think of extra photos as insurance. They don't cost much. 

Keith

Yes, but … it's pretty likely that you'll take that overall photo (or several) and miss the particular detail required, or vice versa, (a) photo(s) of some detail and miss that overall photo.  It's not always the number of photos but what specific detail is required.

 

Having said that, in the Romanesque category, I think i do require a detailed photo of the Romanesque feature.  But I would say usually this is a no brainer.

[+T0SHEA]

I agree, and I disagree. I have managed to completely forget to get an overall photo for something like a Sign of History or a UR Here sign AND I have neglected to look for a cornerstone or plaque, BUT those last didn't detract substantially from the acceptability of the Waymark, only preventing our cross posting the site in another category.

 

Right now I can't think of a specific obscure and arcane detail we've missed for a new category, unless it was in the very early days of our Waymarking. We're pretty anal about detail when it comes to new categories. I expect that Waymarkers quickly learn to search out arcane visual detail for a category with which they're not intimately familiar, snapping pix of everything which may, however unlikely, ultimately prove to be a necessity. The upshot is that, the greater the number of photos taken, the greater the likelihood that the single most important detail will be included in the shots, however inadvertently.

 

After the Waymark is successfully created, submitted and approved, doing away with superfluous digital pix is one of the few endeavours of that nature which doesn't result in material's being assigned to the landfill or the recycler. 

Keith

Edited December 22, 2018 by BK-Hunters