HMMM?

[+8Nuts MotherGoose]

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.

[+Max and 99]

That's why I tend to avoid that category. 

[+elyob]

Your waymark survived and now you will have many more views.

 

I suspect that this all came about because a new waymark in the category was recently published and it was very very close to your older waymark.

Edited November 2, 2019 by elyob

[+8Nuts MotherGoose]

11 minutes ago, elyob said:

Your waymark survived and now you will have many more views.

 

I suspect that this all came about because a new waymark in the category was recently published and it was very very close to your older waymark.

Yes, you are right about the new Waymark submitted in the Category. I can understand mine needing to be moved to the proper location.

But when I put the coordinates to the parks parking lot entrance that I used, why did the reviewer choose to move it to a parking lot entrance on the other side of the park that I was never at? The web page I listed showed my parking area as part of the park, but it didn't show as part of the park on HIS Google map. Then he changed the web page on the Waymark so now that map doesn't show it either. My original Web Page listing did show it as part of the park, and still does if you go to the original web page I listed.

It's rather funny also:

After I changed the coordinates, My Waymark page map shows my parking lot as part of the green colored park in the upper right corner so I resubmitted it. But that wasn't acceptable. The cache I listed on the Waymark page says in its write-up that it's located in the Park. But that wasn't acceptable.

If you do a search for nearby caches, and then show on map, which is Google map, it shows my parking lot and the cache as part of the park. But that wasn't acceptable.

If you do a Google search for the Park and Town, and then show on map, my parking lot is not shown as part of the park and neither is the cache. I guess that was acceptable proof for denial.

 

As we all know, acceptance is at the whim of the reviewer.

[+elyob]

Maybe you should place your original web page within the long description, especially since it includes a decent map.

[vulture1957]

it's your waymark. Go back in and write it the way you want it. and tell the reviewer to "pound sand"

[+DougK]

 

On 11/1/2019 at 3:03 PM, Max and 99 said:

That's why I tend to avoid that category. 

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think this is one of the easiest categories in which to get a waymark approved. Municipal/County parks are everywhere and we get plenty of submissions every day. I especially appreciate the help takeabrake has given to this category. He was promoted because he had submitted 100+ Municipal Parks that were model submissions. Now, when I get up on the west coast, my east coast compadre, has generally cleared out the waiting queue of approvals for Municipal Parks. Waymarks get addressed daily in this category.

 

Generally, the first two things I/we look for during approval is 1.) there's photo showing a sign with the park name and 2.) hopefully a web link to the park at the city's web site. Those two things verify the park is correctly identified. There are some parks so small or cities so small that there is no park sign. The category states if there is no park sign, to state that in the private message. I may look in Google Street View to verify that there is no sign and if I see a park sign that could have been photographed, the waymark will be declined, because I can't fix your missing photo.

 

Regarding the URL to the park website: The field can be a URL to the city web site or, even better, a link to a web page for the  park itself. Including it will definitely expedite the approval. Not including it will cause me to go find an appropriate webpage and insert it for you, at least on your first submission. Just because the field is not marked as required, doesn't mean you should not attempt to find one to improve your submission. My preference would be to make this a required field to aid in approval, but I can't edit the category requirements. It's also hard to make the field required, because we do receive submission from rural cities that don't even have a city website, let alone a list of the parks in their city.

 

As I've mentioned before, when I'm approving waymarks, I will generally edit/fix spelling errors or minor problems, if I can, rather than reject them and send them for another round trip to approval. Things I can't fix are improper coordinates or missing photos. Those problems I do return to the submitter for them to fix.

 

 

 

The back story of WM1Z36;

 

Clearly, this came into my concern from a recently submitted Municipal Park, WM11J6C. WM1Z36 was shown as a possible duplicate. So I looked to make sure the new waymark wasn't a different part of the same park or whatever. The posted coordinates (sorry, now gone) were in a parking lot west of a building marked as a self service station, but certainly not in Scidmore Park. I suppose I could have doctored up some new coordinates and just updated it myself, but I felt it would be clear to the submitter that these coordinates were inaccurate and that was their responsibility.

 

The returned waymark had coordinates in another parking lot on an island. I could see that this was an overflow parking lot that was connected to to main park by some pedestrian bridges. I just thought the coordinates for this park should be near the petting zoo, playgrounds and main facilities of this beautiful park, so I returned it again asking for coordinates at the entrance to the park.

 

The next submission comes with a long private message, no change to the coordinates, an earthcache, GCZY62, listed in the Traditional Geocaches field, and the coordinates being somehow justified by this earthcache, because it had a map from some unknown source, showing that the island is part of the park. My point was that the middle of a parking lot is not the entrance to the park. I looked at Open Street Maps, MapQuest, Bing Maps, etc. so I'm not disputing that the island is part of the park. I spent a lot of time driving around the park virtually using Google Street View. This obviously is a very nice park if you "drive" around it. I found what appeared to be two possible entrances to the park. The park "entrance" on the island, has no sign leading you to believe there might be a park there, as it looks like a beat-up, alley-like road for the neighboring business UNIgrow Hydro. It does not show off the beautiful nature of this park. The mainland park entrance looks much more attractive, looks like a park, and shows off some of the actual park facilities.

 

The URL submitted with  the waymark was the main home page for the city of Three RIvers. It took me a little searching and clicks to two more pages to find the actual park website. At this point I decided another decline would be more time consuming and unfruitful. I had researched all the information that I was seeking to make this a better quality waymark, so I approved it and post-edited the desired changes.

1.) Set coordinates at the main park entrance.

2.) Changed the URL from the city home page to a direct link to the park web page.

3.) Removed the earthcache reference and inserted a traditional geocache that I found in the park, with a little clickable link.

 

After all this, I think this is a much better and more accurate waymark. I'm sincerely sorry for any consternation it caused.

 

 

 

 

[+Max and 99]

33 minutes ago, DougK said:

 

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think this is one of the easiest categories in which to get a waymark approved. Municipal/County parks are everywhere and we get plenty of submissions every day. I especially appreciate the help takeabrake has given to this category. He was promoted because he had submitted 100+ Municipal Parks that were model submissions. Now, when I get up on the west coast, my east coast compadre, has generally cleared out the waiting queue of approvals for Municipal Parks. Waymarks get addressed daily in this category.

 

Generally, the first two things I/we look for during approval is 1.) there's photo showing a sign with the park name and 2.) hopefully a web link to the park at the city's web site. Those two things verify the park is correctly identified. There are some parks so small or cities so small that there is no park sign. The category states if there is no park sign, to state that in the private message. I may look in Google Street View to verify that there is no sign and if I see a park sign that could have been photographed, the waymark will be declined, because I can't fix your missing photo.

 

Regarding the URL to the park website: The field can be a URL to the city web site or, even better, a link to a web page for the  park itself. Including it will definitely expedite the approval. Not including it will cause me to go find an appropriate webpage and insert it for you, at least on your first submission. Just because the field is not marked as required, doesn't mean you should not attempt to find one to improve your submission. My preference would be to make this a required field to aid in approval, but I can't edit the category requirements. It's also hard to make the field required, because we do receive submission from rural cities that don't even have a city website, let alone a list of the parks in their city.

 

As I've mentioned before, when I'm approving waymarks, I will generally edit/fix spelling errors or minor problems, if I can, rather than reject them and send them for another round trip to approval. Things I can't fix are improper coordinates or missing photos. Those problems I do return to the submitter for them to fix.

 

 

 

The back story of WM1Z36;

 

Clearly, this came into my concern from a recently submitted Municipal Park, WM11J6C. WM1Z36 was shown as a possible duplicate. So I looked to make sure the new waymark wasn't a different part of the same park or whatever. The posted coordinates (sorry, now gone) were in a parking lot west of a building marked as a self service station, but certainly not in Scidmore Park. I suppose I could have doctored up some new coordinates and just updated it myself, but I felt it would be clear to the submitter that these coordinates were inaccurate and that was their responsibility.

 

The returned waymark had coordinates in another parking lot on an island. I could see that this was an overflow parking lot that was connected to to main park by some pedestrian bridges. I just thought the coordinates for this park should be near the petting zoo, playgrounds and main facilities of this beautiful park, so I returned it again asking for coordinates at the entrance to the park.

 

The next submission comes with a long private message, no change to the coordinates, an earthcache, GCZY62, listed in the Traditional Geocaches field, and the coordinates being somehow justified by this earthcache, because it had a map from some unknown source, showing that the island is part of the park. My point was that the middle of a parking lot is not the entrance to the park. I looked at Open Street Maps, MapQuest, Bing Maps, etc. so I'm not disputing that the island is part of the park. I spent a lot of time driving around the park virtually using Google Street View. This obviously is a very nice park if you "drive" around it. I found what appeared to be two possible entrances to the park. The park "entrance" on the island, has no sign leading you to believe there might be a park there, as it looks like a beat-up, alley-like road for the neighboring business UNIgrow Hydro. It does not show off the beautiful nature of this park. The mainland park entrance looks much more attractive, looks like a park, and shows off some of the actual park facilities.

 

The URL submitted with  the waymark was the main home page for the city of Three RIvers. It took me a little searching and clicks to two more pages to find the actual park website. At this point I decided another decline would be more time consuming and unfruitful. I had researched all the information that I was seeking to make this a better quality waymark, so I approved it and post-edited the desired changes.

1.) Set coordinates at the main park entrance.

2.) Changed the URL from the city home page to a direct link to the park web page.

3.) Removed the earthcache reference and inserted a traditional geocache that I found in the park, with a little clickable link.

 

After all this, I think this is a much better and more accurate waymark. I'm sincerely sorry for any consternation it caused.

 

 

 

 

Yep. This and other group messages about this category are why I've lost interest.   

Edited November 3, 2019 by Max and 99

[+Max and 99]

I think this is a great category! I'm just not happy about the review policies I've seen. 

Two things for the category officers to consider:

First: why do you want only Traditional caches listed?  Multi and puzzle caches are ok, virtual and ECs are not. I think it's wrong to provide distance and direction to PM caches on a waymark page. How many of those Traditional caches are still in place years later? 

Second: I disagree with the sentiment that this is one of the easiest categories in which to get a waymark approved. I feel that if this was true, you wouldn't object to an officer approving them too quickly. And you wouldn't need to spend so much time "making the waymark better". These are just my opinions and thoughts on the category.

Edited November 3, 2019 by Max and 99

[+DougK]

3 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

First: why do you want only Traditional caches listed?  Multi is ok, puzzles, virtual and ECs are not. I think it's wrong to provide distance and direction to PM caches on a waymark page. How many of those Traditional caches are still in place years later? 

 

…"provide distance and direction to PM caches on a waymark page." I'm lost. What's a PM cache? Where are distance and direction provided on the waymark page? 

 

When I became part of this group, I asked category founder SilverQuill, "Why only traditional caches?" He said it was just a quick way for possible waymark visitors to note that there might be some quick and easy geocaches to locate while they were there. It wasn't likely that puzzle caches would be of interest, because these often require extra preparation and solution time, not easily done in the field. Even then, the resultant cache location might not even be in the park. Similar thinking with multi-caches and earthcaches.

 

I find many Municipal Parks submissions don't bother looking at the "Nearest geocaches" link in their own submission. I never reject a submission because this field is empty, when there are caches that could be listed. I may take the time to post-edit in some geocaches if I see some in the park, but you're probably right. Why bother? Geocaches often don't have a long life. Sixty percent of the caches I've ever found at some time have been archived. The only accurate (current state) is to click the "Nearest Geocaches" link to see what exists today.

 

 

3 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Second: I disagree with the sentiment that this is one of the easiest categories in which to get a waymark approved. I feel that if this was true, you wouldn't object to an officer approving them too quickly. And you wouldn't need to spend so much time "making the waymark better". 

 

Again, I don't understand. Who objects to an officer approving too quickly? Are you talking about the Municipal Parks category or Waymarking in general? Since SilverQuill's "retirement", takeabrake and I are servicing this category daily, while maintaining a standard of quality that I believe was the intent of SilverQuill. I'd have to fault SilverQuill for the original acceptance of WM1Z36, without noting from the inset map, that the coordinates weren't within the park. There could be other submissions lurking in the category with inaccurate coordinates, but I'm not actively searching for them. If they come to my attention, as WM1Z36 did, I will make an effort to correct them.

 

About me: I come from a Quality Assurance background and have an eye for both accuracy or errors. This applies to everything I do in life. My interest in Waymarking has softened as I see so many focused on running up their stats, at the expense of quality (invalid coordinates, blurry photos, pictures taken at night, no long description, spelling and grammar errors, etc). Waymarkers have to know that their waymarks are coming up near the top of Google searches. When someone outside of Waymarking clicks on one of these search finds, my hope would be that they find quality, useful information, that doesn't leave Waymarking with questionable information.

 

[+Max and 99]

Understood. Thank you for your responses. 

Several caches that I looked at in this category provide exact distance and direction to a nearby Premium cache (ex. 317 feet north). I think that info should be removed.  

Edited November 3, 2019 by Max and 99

[+Max and 99]

On 11/1/2019 at 4:47 PM, 8Nuts MotherGoose said:

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've found a couple that mention virtual caches, a multi and a puzzle. 

[+elyob]

If I was a reviewer in the category, I would accept only Traditional Geocaches because that is the variable.  It does not matter if I like that category requirement.  It is my job to approve or deny based on the category requirements determined by the greater Waymarking community years ago.

 

If after the fact I stumble upon waymarks approved by reviewers who think differently than I do, would I require changes to that already approved waymark?  That is another question.

Edited November 3, 2019 by elyob

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, elyob said:

If I was a reviewer in the category, I would accept only Traditional Geocaches because that is the variable.  It does not matter if I like that category requirement.  It is my job to approve or deny based on the category requirements determined by the greater Waymarking community years ago.

 

If after the fact I stumble upon waymarks approved by reviewers who think differently than I do, would I require changes to that already approved waymark?  That is another question.

I can agree with that.