Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Further to Ariberna's Hórreos Thread, below, I got to thinking about Elevated Buildings in general. Though not at all common, neither are they are exceedingly UNcommon.

In our travels we have encountered a few:

817228854_ORIFireTower-05.5.jpg.9f1e18ec202272bfdf1ab61e6ba342b6.jpg

Fire Tower in Orient, WA

 

81868095_LookoutTower(1.5).JPG.e9a68f285bbb0f8780b3fc62d42b3076.JPG

Fire Lookout Tower in Fort Missoula, MT

 

Check out This Waymark.

 

Admittedly, a similar category, Look-Out Towers, exists, but it would create only a minor overlap with the proposed category, in that Look-Out Towers demands that one climb the tower and post a view from the lookout.

BTW, in my vision, elevated residential structures would be EXcluded.

 

So, now it's your turn. Opinions? Lemme hear (well, see, actually) what thoughts you have on the matter.

Keith

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)

I think the overlap with the Look-Out Towers might be a problem and additionally I have a few ideas, that we have to think about:

  1. What about drilling islands? They are also on stilts and they don't have a category yet. However, I have never seen one in person and probably never will. Are there any drilling islands that one can visit or at least take a photo of from a distance? Or are they not permanent enough for a waymark?
  2. Houses on a slope sometimes have stilts on one side and hit the ground on the other side. Would these qualify? 50% elevated? :-)
  3. There are houses on stilts in the water. What about these?
  4. Hunter High Stands?
Edited by PISA-caching
Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

I think the overlap with the Look-Out Towers might be a problem and additionally I have a few ideas, that we have to think about:

  1. What about drilling islands? They are also on stilts and they don't have a category yet. However, I have never seen one in person and probably never will. Are there any drilling islands that one can visit or at least take a photo of from a distance? Or are they not permanent enough for a waymark?
  2. Houses on a slope sometimes have stilts on one side and hit the ground on the other side. Would these qualify? 50% elevated? :-)
  3. There are houses on stilts in the water. What about these?
  4. Hunter High Stands?

 

Let's take this one point at a time:

1. A Hard No on Drilling Platforms. As you pointed out, they are not permanent,

2. Houses on Slopes - NO - I wish to exclude residential buildings.

    Buildings on Slopes - YES - I'd rather be inclusive than exclusive. How about I arbitrarily decree that Buildings on Slopes must have at least 50% of their floor area obviously clear of the ground, just as you've suggested?  (Great Minds ...)

3. Houses above water - YES - After all, they are elevated above the ground and just happen to have water between them and the ground.

4. Hunter High Stands - YES - I think This Waymark should show that when you say Hunter High Stands and I say Elevated Cache we refer to much the same thing. They must be enclosed and roofed, though, not simply a platform.

OOPS! - I guess not. I just took the time to search on Hunter High Stands and see that, for the most part, I would refer to them as Elevated Hunting Blinds. Searches on the two yielded pretty much the same results. Most of those returned in both searches would be acceptable as they qualify as buildings and are elevated.

Merriam-Webster defines a building to be simply: "a usually roofed and walled structure built for permanent use (as for a dwelling)".

The Cambridge English Dictionary definition is similar.

 

Another category of building which I consider to be acceptable would be commercial towers, such as the one in my hometown, Calgary Tower, due to reopen soon, BTW. Though usually supported by a central column instead of stilts, the structure atop is a true building in that it has walls all around, a floor and a roof. Another good example is the Seattle Space Needle, open now. In these examples, the supporting columns/structures are there solely to support the "building" atop, as are stilts. In contrast, a tall building is "building" all the way from the ground to the top. Then, of course, there's Toronto's CN Tower, the world's tallest free-standing structure when completed in 1976, though it is no longer. While these towers also have enclosed "buildings" at their bottoms, we'll disregard that fact and concentrate only on the elevated portions.

 

Submissions to Elevated Buildings would need to be of fully enclosed buildings, with walls all around, a full roof and a floor. Their purpose would be of little importance, as long as that purpose was NOT residential. It is expected that most Elevated Buildings submitted would have been built for storage of a commodity.

Converted residential buildings - those originally built for another purpose and converted to residences - would NOT be acceptable.

 

A small subset of submissions to Look-Out Towers would be acceptable, t'is true. Concern about overlap of categories always takes me back to concern of Steeples & Bell Towers (which themselves overlap) overlapping with This Old Church & Catholic Churches (which also overlap). Overlap in a great many categories is impossible to avoid.

The Look-Out Towers category has been allowed to run amok as many have been accepted without the "required" photo from the top:

Requirement: "Please log only if you have been up there and you must include a photo of the scenic view from the top."

 

Requirements will be somewhat rigorous; at least 3 pix and 2 paragraphs (or 3 sentences). I'll never understand why it is that some Waymarkers find it so difficult to provide useful, pertinent, and interesting, information on a historical item upon its submission. When dealing with items of historical interest, it's usually more the story that makes the Waymark than the pix.

 

This category interests me primarily because the great majority of Elevated Buildings I've seen, or have seen photos of, have a historical aspect. Ariberna's Hórreo (below) is a good example as it is obviously quite old. Ones I've experienced personally are historical in a North American context of 50 years to 100 years of age being historical. Photos I've seen of Elevated Buildings in Europe and Asia usually fall within their historical contexts, that being several hundred years of age in many cases. So, from my paradigm, this is a historical category.

 

IMG_20210607_082932.jpg.752ce6af7161cc45

 

 

Then we have the possibility of multi-use buildings - part residential, part commercial or retail. Again, trying to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, I would suggest that such would be acceptable, provided that a maximum of 50% of the elevated portion of the building, or 50% of the building, if entirely elevated, be residential.

What else ... ... ...

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to post
2 hours ago, pmaupin said:

 

Yeah, Phil, I think you've found some really cool Elevated Thingies.

From what I gather, though these are actually used as residences for short periods, their primary purpose is as a fishing hut, similar in concept to Elevated Hunting Blinds. So YES, I'm pretty sure I would accept those.

Keith

  • Helpful 1
Link to post
43 minutes ago, FamilieFrohne said:

I seem to have overlooked the part with the residential buildings :wacko:.

 

That's Ok (the overlooking), but Andreas was absolutely correct.

Link to post
1 hour ago, T0SHEA said:

Huble Homestead - NE of Prince George

 

I had completely forgotten about that one. And, typically, i only got one pic of it, thinking it was unWaymarkable.

Link to post

A Roundup:

So far we've established that Commercial Towers (for which see above), French fishing shacks, elevated meat/foodstuff/supplies caches, elevated hunting blinds, various lookout towers and Hórreos, are to be considered acceptable in our still virtual category.

 

In the absence of any real and true objections to the establishment of a category entitled Elevated Buildings, I am on the verge of creating a group for said category AND beginning the outline for same.

Keith

Link to post
Posted (edited)

Here's a first draft of the category description:

(See the actual Elevated Buildings description here)

 

Elevated Buildings 
 [edit] invisible
 
Managed By: Icon Here Above the Ground
Description:
Elevated buildings are those which, for myriad reasons, were constructed with the desire that they not be in contact with Terra Firma. They may occur in various forms, the predominant one being that of a relatively small building elevated well above the earth by posts or columns. These may be elevated caches, granaries or warehouses constructed for storage of food or supplies, fishing huts, bird watching or hunting blinds, or fire lookout towers.
Expanded Description:
It is likely that the oldest extant example of an Elevated Building would be the Hórreo, a stone building elevated upon stone pillars. Similar structures have been used for the storage of foodstuffs since the Roman times, the idea being to prevent the incursion of animals and ground moisture, thereby spoiling that which is stored within.. Examples have been found in much of Europe, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Polynesia, Australia, New Zealand and the Americas.

A secondary, and much more contemporary, form which this category chooses to encompass is the commercial, or tourism oriented, "tower", usually supported well above the ground by a central column or structure, such as Calgary Tower, the Seattle Space Needle, or Toronto's CN Tower.
Elevated Buildings Around the World
Photo goes Here Photo goes Here
France Canada
Photo goes Here Photo goes Here
Okinawa Spain
Photo goes Here Photo goes Here
Switzerland Sweden
Photo goes Here Photo goes Here
Missoula, MT U.S.A. Orient, WA U.S.A.
 
Instructions for Posting a Elevated Buildings Waymark:
Merriam-Webster defines a building to be simply: "a usually roofed and walled structure built for permanent use (as for a dwelling)".
The Cambridge English Dictionary definition is similar.
 
  • This category will not accept elevated buildings which are entirely residential, UNLESS they can be proven to originate prior to the year 1900, in which case they are acceptable for their potential historic significance. However, mixed use elevated buildings, such as commercial or retail establishments sharing space with a residence, are acceptable, as long as a maximum of 50% of the total floor area is occupied by residence.

    Also unacceptable are:
    • Water Towers
    • Small elevated structures, i.e. enclosed weather instruments
    • Enclosed structures which are elevated within a larger structure.
      These will be deemed not acceptable if, in the absence of the larger structure, they would no longer function as useable buildings.

Multiple Elevated Buildings at a single site should be submitted as a single Waymark if they are historically, thematically and architecturally related. Otherwise they may be submitted individually. The discretion of the officers may be brought to bear in this regard.
 
This category will gladly accept any building (though see above) which is only partially elevated above the ground, such as those built on hillsides, but they must have at least 50% of their floor area obviously clear of the ground.
 
Buildings elevated above water are acceptable as, after all, they are elevated above ground but happen to have a layer of water between building and earth. Submissions must be accompanied by:
  • At least 3 (three) photos of the elevated building, including, as much as is possible, a closeup and 2 different views, allowing visitors to obtain a good overall perspective of the building.
  • At least 3 (three) sentences of description or historical context, composed by the submitter.
The inclusion of quoted text from an outside source, detailing either the building itself or its history, is encouraged. Quoted text must be presented in such a fashion as to make it easily distinguishable from any other text, through the use of quotes, quotes and italics, or placement within a "blockquote" or similar HTML container. Attribution, in the form of an appropriate URL, must immediately follow.
 
Submissions must include a translation in English, Français, or Deutsch if none of those are your native language. However, at least the short description must be in English for those who do not speak German or French.
 
The title of submitted Waymarks must include a name or designation for the elevated building, followed by its town or location, presented in the following format: Name - Town(, optional region)
Country is not necessary as it appears below the title.
Province, state, canton, department, etc. are also not necessary, as long as they can be selected from the dropdown "State / Province:" selector.

 

Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:
You must include both a photo of the Elevated Building visited, as well as any impressions you have of the building. Any new information you might have on the building would be appreciated, as well.
Edited by ScroogieII
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
6 hours ago, NW_history_buff said:

This is a weather station and there's a category for them here:

 

 https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/wmWRHT_High_Desert_Ranger_Station_Weather_Station_Bend_OR

 

Actually, not quite true. This is a contributing object in a Historic District and has been out of commission since 1969. It recorded rainfall, wind and temperature from 1919 to 1969.

Keith

Link to post

A lot of these can be submitted to "lookout towers" category. How will you differentiate between lookout towers and this one? Anything with an elevated platform (either interior or exterior) is considered a lookout tower. 

Link to post

I also think the required 3 photos is a bit much. Really should only require a clear closeup of the building and one taken with the entire structure in view. 

Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, pmaupin said:

Very nice description.
What should we mark in the title?

 

Oh yeah - forgot about the title. Thanks for reminding me.

Also, need to add a bit about languages. Since we have English, French and German speakers in the crew, I was thinking of allowing submissions in any of those languages.

Keith

 

I just added this:

  • Submissions must include a translation in English, Français, or Deutsch if none of those are your native language.
  • The title of submitted Waymarks must include a name or designation for the elevated building, followed by its town or location, presented in the following format: Name - Town(, optional region)
    Country is not necessary as it appears below the title.
    Province, state, canton, department, etc. are also not necessary, as long as they can be selected from the dropdown "State / Province:" selector.
Edited by ScroogieII
Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, bluesnote said:

A lot of these can be submitted to "lookout towers" category. How will you differentiate between lookout towers and this one? Anything with an elevated platform (either interior or exterior) is considered a lookout tower. 

 

A small subset of submissions to Look-Out Towers would be acceptable, t'is true. Concern about overlap of categories always takes me back to concern of Steeples & Bell Towers (which themselves overlap) overlapping with This Old Church & Catholic Churches (which also overlap). In a great many categories overlap is impossible to avoid.

The Look-Out Towers category has been allowed to run amok as many have been accepted without the "required" photo from the top:

Requirement: "Please log only if you have been up there and you must include a photo of the scenic view from the top."

 

Given the above, I don't see the overlap as being much of a problem.

Elevated platforms, obviously, would not be acceptable in Elevated Buildings.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to post

Another question: Would the houses of prehistoric pile dwellings in Unteruhldingen qualify (see attached image taken 2014 as an example)? Considering the rules above these would not, since after all they were used as residential buildings in the prehistoric times.

 

 

3 minutes ago, ScroogieII said:

Also, need to add a bit about languages. Since we have English, French and German speakers in the crew, I was thinking of allowing submissions in any of those languages.

I'd like to see at least a short description in english for the ones that do not understand German or French.

Unteruhldingen-1.jpg

Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, bluesnote said:

I also think the required 3 photos is a bit much. Really should only require a clear closeup of the building and one taken with the entire structure in view. 

 

If you can get enough people to agree with you I'll relent. Otherwise it remains 3 pix.

Consider this: Any sensible, thinking Waymarker will err in the direction of taking too many pix. After all, digital images are free.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to post
32 minutes ago, FamilieFrohne said:

I'd like to see at least a short description in english for the ones that do not understand German or French.

 

OK, that sounds reasonable...

...DONE

Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, FamilieFrohne said:

Another question: Would the houses of prehistoric pile dwellings in Unteruhldingen qualify (see attached image taken 2014 as an example)? Considering the rules above these would not, since after all they were used as residential buildings in the prehistoric times.

 

"Dwellings" would be the operative word here, provided that they are still used as such.

When were the buildings in the photo erected and what is their present use?

Keith

https://www.pfahlbauten.de

 

Galerie_05.jpg

 

Basically, these are reconstructions of prehistoric dwellings, now a museum.

So Yes, these would be acceptable.

As I mentioned at the outset, I would rather be inclusive than exclusive, AND I will always lean toward accepting buildings of historic value, even reconstructions typifying historic structures.

 

This brings up an interesting possibility, though.

I'm thinking that, with a view toward history, I could sort of branch the category into pre and post 1900 buildings, with pre 1900 elevated buildings of any type, including dwellings, becoming acceptable.

THANKS for bringing this to my attention!

 

Any thoughts on this? 

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to post
Posted (edited)

The above site brings up the possibility of multiple Elevated Buildings on a single site, which is not an easy situation to handle.

For example, I would suggest that the above site be treated as a single Waymark, as opposed to submitting each building individually, as the group constitutes a single entity, in this case a museum.

 

Another case might be a museum which displays more than one Elevated Building, with the buildings being unrelated, except for their placement at the museum.

For example: three fire watch towers relocated to a museum, but originating at three separate sites and of somewhat different architecture and vintage.

Here I would suggest 3 Waymarks.

 

Referring to the Okinawa photo, below , since the two Elevated Buildings in view are of different architecture, I would suggest 2 Waymarks there.

3fe7c86c-c277-4a3e-9a8c-b9f8cbedef91.jpg

 

Referring to the Switzerland photo, below, I would suggest a single Waymark, as they are of the same basic design AND possibly of the same vintage.

eec1f787-803b-44c8-b70c-bd46600e5e5f.jpg

 

Any thoughts here?

Keith

 

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Helpful 2
Link to post
2 hours ago, ScroogieII said:

This brings up an interesting possibility, though.

I'm thinking that, with a view toward history, I could sort of branch the category into pre and post 1900 buildings, with pre 1900 elevated buildings of any type, including dwellings, becoming acceptable.

THANKS for bringing this to my attention!

 

I have added this to the category description:

This category will not accept elevated buildings which are partially, or entirely, residential, UNLESS they can be proven to originate prior to the year 1900, in which case they are acceptable for their potential historic significance. Also unacceptable are:

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, ScroogieII said:

Just made several changes to the "Instructions for Posting" section.

Keith

 

OH CRAP!!! Now it's all messed up and won't format, no matter what I try.

So, just go to this page to look at the most recent version of the requirements.

 

A further point on Signage has been added:

Signage - Please include a legible, closeup photo of any signage encountered at the site, in particular those which contain architectural or historical information. Said photo may be included in the 3 photo requirement, above. Text from the signage need not be included when accompanied by legible photos.

 

As well, a small historical note on Stone Age and Bronze Age dwellings has been added to the Expanded Description.

Go to this page to view the whole ball of wax.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Upvote 2
Link to post

well, I have a problem. Way back in the first post --

 

2. Houses on Slopes - NO - I wish to exclude residential buildings.

    Buildings on Slopes - YES - I'd rather be inclusive than exclusive. How about I arbitrarily decree that Buildings on Slopes must have at least 50% of their floor area obviously clear of the ground, just as you've suggested?  (Great Minds ...)

3. Houses above water - YES - After all, they are elevated above the ground and just happen to have water between them and the ground.

 

2 says no residential, and then 3 says residences are OK. What is it? OK or not. Residences above ground are still elevated. As it says for 3, the residences are above ground, just with water between ground and residence.

Edited by vulture1957
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
On 6/16/2021 at 11:06 AM, vulture1957 said:

well, I have a problem. Way back in the first post --

 

2. Houses on Slopes - NO - I wish to exclude residential buildings.

    Buildings on Slopes - YES - I'd rather be inclusive than exclusive. How about I arbitrarily decree that Buildings on Slopes must have at least 50% of their floor area obviously clear of the ground, just as you've suggested?  (Great Minds ...)

3. Houses above water - YES - After all, they are elevated above the ground and just happen to have water between them and the ground.

 

2 says no residential, and then 3 says residences are OK. What is it? OK or not. Residences above ground are still elevated. As it says for 3, the residences are above ground, just with water between ground and residence.

 

OOPS! My bad, Lee. I used the word houses in point #3 quite UN intentionally, instead of Buildings.. I guess you were the first to catch my screw up. Thanks for catching that. Basically, residential elevated buildings built after the year 1900 will not be accepted, as it says in the requirements.

 

While I'm here - some votes in peer review coincide with a change of mind I had just AFTER sending the category to Officer Vote, at which time it was too late to edit. The change was/is to reduce the number of pix required, in the absence of signage, to 2. I noted that in my vote, but most everyone seems to have not noticed that.

 

Keith

Link to post

Since the voting is done now (according to the category status in the group description), I'm curious about the results.

 

And this brings me to another question: Is there a page where one can see the results of the peer reviews?

Link to post
1 hour ago, FamilieFrohne said:

And this brings me to another question: Is there a page where one can see the results of the peer reviews?

Not that I am aware, generally speaking.

The only time is through peer review and hidden votes do not show.

If the category fails peer review, the leader can view all the votes, hidden or visible. One note on viewing these votes, the user name if not displayed.

Link to post

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...