+8Nuts MotherGoose Posted November 1, 2019 Share Posted November 1, 2019 I received an email the other day on one of my Waymarks, WM1Z36, that was created and approved in 2007: Your Waymark, Scidmore Park - Three Rivers, MI, has been denied for the following reason: Please verify/correct coordinates and resubmit. The coordinates do not appear to be in the park. Yes, somehow, the coordinates were 2/10 mile off to the Northwest. I changed the coordinates to a point near one of my other Waymarks on an island in the park and resubmitted. I received an email: Your waymark, Scidmore Park - Three Rivers, MI, has been denied for the following reason: I'm still not happy with these coordinates. These appear to be on an island that doesn't even show as part of the green area of Scidmore Park. "Coordinates should be taken from an entrance to the park or area, or some other access point." I would expect the coordinates to at least be in the green area shown on Google Maps as Scidmore Park. OH! The Category does say I should post coordinates for the park entrance. I change the coordinates to the entrance on the island from the main road where I parked while visiting the park 12 years ago. I also explain that on the Geocaching map, the island is in green and the web page on that Waymark also shows the island as part of the park on the map of the park. I resubmit. I receive an email: Your new waymark, Scidmore Park - Three Rivers, MI, has been approved. And the Reviewer posted a note: 1.) This category is not concerned with Earthcaches; we're interested in traditional geocaches, so you can remove that cache listing. 2.) The geocaching map(?) ends up taking me to a Google Map. 3.) If there's a webpage specifically for the park, then that is what the web link should be. We don't want to have to hunt around the city page to find the park page. 4.) I'm not saying this island is not part of Scidmore Park. The point is the coordinates are not at the entrance to the park. This looks like a beautiful park and I'm not trying to exclude it in any way. I'd just like it to conform to category guidelines and specifications. I'm tired of the back and forth, so I'm adjusting this waymark appropriately. I can find two entrances to the park & parking lots. I'm picking the one on the mainland part of the park, mostly because it looks like you're in the park and the bulk of park resources are there. I'm replacing the city link with the direct link to the park web link. I'm eliminating the earthcache reference, as it doesn't apply in the field. I've inserted the traditional geocache, located on the island. Web page was an Optional item - Reviewer didn't like it and changed it. Traditional Geocaches was an Optional item - I listed an Earthcache because it was the only one in the park in 2007. Reviewer didn't like it. He removed the Earthcache, which is still in the park, and listed a traditional cache that was placed in Nov, 2012, five years after I created the Waymark. I get a bit upset when time after time people don't list anything in optional items in the Waymarks I review, so when I create a Waymark I always try to fill in the optional blanks. Now I get raked over the coals by a reviewer who doesn't like what I listed. Makes me re-think doing that in the future. Back in 2006, Waymarking was new and misunderstood by many. There was traditional Geocaching, where you go out and find containers and increase your find count, and there was all those NEW caches with no container that you don't get credit for finding. When this Category was created, and they listed the optional "traditional Geocaches", I'm sure they also meant all Geocache Types as we know them today. But times and interpretations change. Quote Link to comment
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.