Jump to content

"Over Our Heads" Group Created


Followers 2

Recommended Posts

I have created a group for a possible new category with this description.

"A group to promote the Waymarking of structures that cross over a road, highway or interstate, watercourse or pedestrian trail. This does not include signs, overpasses, power lines, rail or monorail lines, or common crosswalks, but does include those that might be significant (to be determined later).

A list of possible inclusions:
Buildings, Mine conveyors or sluices, Glass Crosswalks, Catwalks, Significant utilities that may or may not be enclosed such as oil, gas or electrical. Snow or avalanche sheds (not to be confused with tunnels. More may be added later as they are come across. All must be over public throughways. No private roads!"

 

Example Links: Will Rogers Archway, Avalanche control, Conveyor bridges, Pennsylvania Anthracite, 18 Pedestrian Bridges (most of the 18 are over water but are accessible on foot to waymark they're definitely not your typical pedestrian bridges).

 

Some possible variables:

How is this waymark viewable? From the road, by foot, by boat, multiple explain.

Is this waymark in a safe place to pull over and view or is it a drive by visit only?

Some waymarks might be in a location you can't safely pullover and get a picture of. It can however be taken by a passenger and be accepted, blurry maybe, but acceptable if you can clearly make out the subject.

Link To Your Waymark:

 

 

This is only an idea and might not go anywhere.

Open enrollment is on for anyone interested in possibly becoming an officer to get the category up for a vote if there is any interest. All input is welcome. Thanks, SearchN.

Image from wikipedia.

 


 

Will Rogers Archway.JPG

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I honestly like the idea, but there will be a ton of exclusions. First that came into my mind:

Man-made Animal Bridges and Crossings

Pedestrian Suspension Bridges + all other bridges of course.

 

A nice list of not allowed structures will be needed.

 

3 hours ago, SearchN said:

This does not include signs, overpasses, power lines, rail or monorail lines, or common crosswalks, but does include those that might be significant (to be determined later).

 

I think this part is going to be hard. Defining what is too common or uninteresting is very subjective.

 

 

 

Link to comment

Concentrate on a clear definition! Everybody (posting waymarkers, officers, voters in peer review, and preferably also you) needs to exactly know what is allowed and what not.

 

I you cannot define the scope of a category in two or three sentences that also people with a very limited English can easily understand, then start all over again.

 

For the moment I don't understand, why all those totally unrelated objects should reside in the same category.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

A lot of those can be submitted to other categories such as Freestanding arches. This idea could work, if the category is well written to work out what is not accepted or what is. I feel this does have potential.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, fi67 said:

Concentrate on a clear definition! Everybody (posting waymarkers, officers, voters in peer review, and preferably also you) needs to exactly know what is allowed and what not.

 

I you cannot define the scope of a category in two or three sentences that also people with a very limited English can easily understand, then start all over again.

 

For the moment I don't understand, why all those totally unrelated objects should reside in the same category.

Sorry if you are confused on the subject matter. This is not a peer review it 's merely a discussion on what could possibly be in such a category. Are they varied? Yes, but they all do have one thing in common they span a road, highway or interstate, watercourse or pedestrian trail. Varied waymarks in a particular category isn't a bad thing in my opinion and waymark variants can help sort that out.  If it were to go on to peer review it would be better defined at that point. We are far from that though.

 

I see by your profile you live in Switzerland, love to visit there someday. I'm not familiar with what may or may not be there but I know you have highways, rivers and trails along with snow and mountains. Perhaps you have structures over some of those that prevents an avalanche of rock or snow from completely blocking travel. Those would be accepted here if you wished to waymark them. Do your cities have any buildings that a road, highway or navigable waterway pass through or under? Those too could be added where as now you don't have a category to submit them.

 

Think of it as more of a theme and not a particular object or structure like the lighthouses category would naturally have lighthouses and not airport beacons, both are structures both emit light in a circular pattern but each would have their own category, but if they didn't you could have a single category for say "Structures That Emit Rotating Light" and suddenly they are all in one category because they are related. Scavenger hunts can have a wide variety of items or objects to find but often have a common theme that make them all related. Make a game of it, how many varied waymarks can you find to fit the same category? It may be harder then you think. Waymarking means different things to different people, it all boils down to how you define it. Is it for pure historic purposes, interesting to look at, to pad your numbers or is it just to get out and have some fun? The answer is all the above. I hope that makes it a little more clear on the purpose and I didn't just make things worse. :D

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

Hello sernikk and bluesnote.

Defining it in a clear way is going to be a challenge and any input is definitely a help, the more the better. It's getting to the point where it's hard to come up with new categories that in some shape or form doesn't cross over into another. Interest in a category is up to the individual to define, can't please everyone but you might thrill some. I have noticed that some categories with waymarks that are widely available aren't being added to as you would expect, new submission or visits either one.

 

Anymore when reviewing a new category I focus more on, does it invade anybody's privacy, does it unrealistically place you in danger, and is there already a category for it? As long as it's not a category for something like "Where I Found A Pencil On The Sidewalk" which a few have seem to come up, I see no harm. Wamarking made that turn a long time ago. Might sound a little jaded but that seems to be the direction it's gone. I don't know if people have lost interest, or Covid's behind it or what guess we'll see. Could be some people are just looking for a new challenge to waymark in new categories.

 

Back to the subject, does anyone have any other ideas on what could be included or excluded?

Edited by SearchN
Link to comment

The most elegant solution to defining inclusions and exclusions would be to exclude all that could be WMed in another category and include all else. However, this inevitably would lead to folks WMing power and telephone lines, NOT your goal.

With over 1,100 categories extant it becomes evermore difficult to divine a new category which would satisfy the majority of WMers.

 

Appealing to the majority can be a difficult task anymore. Example:

If benchmark categories did not exist and I were to propose such a category, a dozen WMers would immediately jump in and insist that it was not in the least interesting and I should forget such a silly notion. Benchmarks, though, I personally find to be one of the most interesting of the 1,100+ categories we have.

 

As for what might be included, you will  doubtless be apprised of many possibilities you hadn't even thought of by people who view the world differently than yourself. That's one of the benefits of letting a category proposal such as this sit and simmer for a time as you hone in on your target. Keep the thread fresh and over time some new and good ideas will trickle in - along with a lot of flotsam about why this is such a BAD idea. You'll never get one without the other, so don't be discouraged by that.

 

Keith

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Welcome advice Scroogiell, thanks.

I too have submitted to the benchmark category, not that easy to find just on chance and I'd say you are correct on if it were to come up today it would have some opposition.  To many are quick to jump on, "it's boreing" and seem to place to much emphasis on just that one criteria.  I have the officers now to proceed in getting started, but I agree about letting this sit to get more ideas on what this idea could turn into.  Please post more if you come up with anything. David

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Quote

Is this waymark in a safe place to pull over and view or is it a drive by visit only?

Some waymarks might be in a location you can't safely pullover and get a picture of. It can however be taken by a passenger and be accepted, blurry maybe, but acceptable if you can clearly make out the subject.

 

Please stop with making this stupped category.

Whether a driver of the car takes the picture or a passenger you cannot check.
Don't make another waymarker with this category to put his life in danger just for a few points on Waymarking.

  • Upvote 1
  • Funny 1
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
21 hours ago, ScroogieII said:

along with a lot of flotsam about why this is such a BAD idea

 

The post above makes my point quite elegantly.

2 hours ago, SearchN said:

To many are quick to jump on, ... too much emphasis on just ... one criterion.

 

And yours, as well.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, dreamhummie said:

 

Please stop with making this stupped category.

Whether a driver of the car takes the picture or a passenger you cannot check.
Don't make another waymarker with this category to put his life in danger just for a few points on Waymarking.

OK, not my wording, but I just was working on a post on that specific point. So, short version:

 

When you think of allowing - or even actively support - drive-by waymarks, my support has gone.

 

I do have some input regarding the actual topic, but I will not waste my time on a category that is going to "the Dark Side". I would like to see a statement on this, before we can move on.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, fi67 said:

When you think of allowing - or even actively support - drive-by waymarks, my support has gone.

 

I totally agree. I, too, will never support drive-by Waymarking in any form. Reading back in the thread, I note that the OP did mention (see below) that he would consider drive-bys acceptable, a Pandora's Box that should never be opened.

 

On 6/17/2021 at 10:08 AM, SearchN said:

It can however be taken by a passenger and be accepted, blurry maybe, but acceptable if you can clearly make out the subject.

 

On my first pass through the thread I somehow missed that. Even the consideration of accepting blurry, ill framed photos constitutes yet another Pandora's Box that we'd be much better off leaving tightly shut, chained and locked.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

I see the conversation has picked up while I was away, good! Again folks nothing set in stone. This is just a discussion not peer review. I too was a bit iffy on the drive-by part when it was thrown in and it can be removed. Calling something Stupid doesn't add to the conversation, simply making your objection to a point is however, but I do see the reaction to it has been negative so no drive-by Waymarking.  I don't understand peoples instant hostility to anything they disagree with seems to be the norm these days. This isn't politics. By the way I don't waymark for points either a quick look at my numbers on how long I've been a member and how many logs and visits I have will reflect that. Here is a link to my Waymarking profile to make it easy SearchN. You can have a look at other categories I've been involved with.

 

Don't get hung up on one thing, lets hear your ideas, this is to help create a new category based upon the needs of it and what fellow waymarkers deem to be reasonable to add or deny in such a category or to drop it altogether and leave it behind.Thanks, David

Edited by SearchN
Link to comment

I believe that around Innsbruck, Austria, the old Olympic bobsled track goes over the road (or at least, it did around 1993). It would be a great addition to the category.

 

Now, as for discussion -- I think I understand the objective of the category. But I can think of a certain waymarker <snip> that plays the game their own way, that might need a specific description, or you will get a lot of submissions of very ordinary things going over roadways -- like high tension electric lines, train bridges, etc.Writing that description is going to be the hard part.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I like the idea - sort of - but it's only a shadowy thing in the mist yet. It will need a lot of work to come to a clearer picture and maybe we will find out that it is not worth it.

 

So here my personal input: 

 

Buildings across a highway rest area with restaurants and shops? Cool.

 

Brigdes, no. Bridges are brigdes and they already have a lot of categories. No bridges except for exceptional ones is even worse. this would open an awful can of worms.

 

Pipelines? Why? Are they worth a visit? I am not convinced at all.

 

Avalanche protection? Well, no.

I  know a lot of them. They are impressive, but you don't protect a spot, you protect an area. They are at least several hundred meters long, easily several miles. The don't cross a road, the road crosses them. So they just don't fit the original idea.

 

Conveyor belts or the like. Why not? Around here, they are quite rare and exceptional and thus interesting. I don't know how this is in other parts of the world, but a shy yes from my neck of the woods.

 

Vulture's bobsled track? Great! Any more ideas like that?

 

Ooh, I see, this is going to be difficult for a concise category description. But let's wait for more input.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, SearchN said:

By the way I don't waymark for points either a quick look at my numbers on how long I've been a member and how many logs and visits I have will reflect that. Here is a link to my Waymarking profile to make it easy SearchN. You can have a look at other categories I've been involved with

I like the list of the categories you founded or help to manage. Decent.

But the link you provided leads everyone to their own profile. Here is the correct one: SearchN.

Edited by fi67
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

Hey great responses here, thanks! Just to let you know I spent a lot of time replying to everyone here with quotes and replies and such. I hit the "Submit Reply" button and poof! All but the first three replies disappeared. Something about reverting back to a prior state? Very frustrating! So here goes again.

 

23 hours ago, vulture1957 said:

I believe that around Innsbruck, Austria, the old Olympic bobsled track goes over the road (or at least, it did around 1993). It would be a great addition to the category.

 

Indeed, that's the very type of waymark a category like this could include. The exclusion list would be a fairly long one, simply saying "no bridges of any type" would eliminate having to go into all the different types of bridges and should suffice. There are still a couple types of, shall we say "spans", I'd like to see included. More on that in some other replies below.

 

21 hours ago, fi67 said:

Buildings across a highway rest area with restaurants and shops? Cool.

Those are a definite in a category such as this, couldn't do without them.

 

21 hours ago, fi67 said:

Brigdes, no. Bridges are brigdes and they already have a lot of categories. No bridges except for exceptional ones is even worse. this would open an awful can of worms.

Agreed to a point. A bridge is nothing more than a span a structure that crosses over something basically.  Which if you want to get down to it a building that crosses over or a road cuts through is a form of a span, but does that make it a bridge and would they be accepted under bridges or any subcategory of bridges? A "Spans" category would be all inclusive, but we don't have that, it's not that simple. Perhaps the word "Span" could even be used in the category title. Any suggestions?

 

21 hours ago, fi67 said:

Pipelines? Why? Are they worth a visit? I am not convinced at all.

I'll answer that using your own words against you. Lol not trying to insult or mean to you in any way.

21 hours ago, fi67 said:

Conveyor belts or the like. Why not? Around here, they are quite rare and exceptional and thus interesting. I don't know how this is in other parts of the world, but a shy yes from my neck of the woods.

A pipeline is nothing more than a form of conveyor but for liquids and not solids. If you find a conveyor rare and exceptional because of where you live then why not a pipeline to someone else?

 

21 hours ago, fi67 said:

Avalanche protection? Well, no.

I  know a lot of them. They are impressive, but you don't protect a spot, you protect an area. They are at least several hundred meters long, easily several miles. The don't cross a road, the road crosses them. So they just don't fit the original idea.

I believe you are thinking of snow fences maybe? Here is a link to an image search for Snow Sheds. You'll see several good examples of those that do cross over and protect specific points along a road or rail...yes you read right, rail, another can of worms lol. Dare I drag that in as well? Most appear in mountainous regions where snow is a common issue and seems to be in reoccurring spots though some are for rock slides as well. These are not tunnels that were built to go through a hill or mountain but made for a another specific purpose instead. No tunnels or animal crossings would be allowed.

 

21 hours ago, fi67 said:

Ooh, I see, this is going to be difficult for a concise category description. But let's wait for more input.

I agree on both points.

 

20 hours ago, fi67 said:

I like the list of the categories you founded or help to manage. Decent.

But the link you provided leads everyone to their own profile. Here is the correct one: SearchN.

Thank you, I'll take that as a complement. Funny about the link it must of been how I went to my profile and the link I copied. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

So I hope this cleared a few things up, confused you more or brought up some new ideas or questions. Just throwing this out, if you were to include the following.

On 6/17/2021 at 1:08 PM, SearchN said:

Waymarking of structures that cross over a road, highway or interstate, watercourse or pedestrian trail.

Why would you exclude over a railway? Case in point the snow sheds. If they could be viewed from a safe location on public property could they be included as well? Surprisingly nothing has even been mentioned about what type of thoroughfare's these structures crossover should or shouldn't be included. Please be nice in reply and lets have this conversation too. Is it to much to add to the list? Personally I like a varied category. The only real thing I dislike is having to wade through the mundane to find the one gem of a waymark. That's only what I consider mundane though, maybe not to another, but high tension power lines would flood the category, not that I don't think they are interesting in their own right just to common everywhere to most with the possible exception of those who live on small islands or beyond the furthest reaches of civilization. There can be harmony even in what appears at first to be pure chaos. Thanks, David

I wanted to add something else several more people have joined the group and am glad, but at the moment we already have four more officers on a first come basis so I probably won't promote anymore to officer right now. Please don't let that discourage you from making comments or suggestions to the potential category. Everyone is still welcome to join the group.

Edited by SearchN
Added info about the group membership
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, SearchN said:

So I hope this cleared a few things up, confused you more or brought up some new ideas or questions. Just throwing this out, if you were to include the following.

Why would you exclude over a railway? Case in point the snow sheds. If they could be viewed from a safe location on public property could they be included as well? Surprisingly nothing has even been mentioned about what type of thoroughfare's these structures crossover should or shouldn't be included. Please be nice in reply and lets have this conversation too. Is it to much to add to the list? Personally I like a varied category. The only real thing I dislike is having to wade through the mundane to find the one gem of a waymark. That's only what I consider mundane though, maybe not to another, but high tension power lines would flood the category, not that I don't think they are interesting in their own right just to common everywhere to most with the possible exception of those who live on small islands or beyond the furthest reaches of civilization. There can be harmony even in what appears at first to be pure chaos. Thanks, David

One problem here ... roads - OK. Rail - OK. Hiking path - OK.

Then we have ----- waterways. That will have bridges, oil derricks, utility easements (electric, natural gas, water), and just about anything else! It either goes over or under! That'll be a bear to write in the description.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, vulture1957 said:

One problem here ... roads - OK. Rail - OK. Hiking path - OK.

Then we have ----- waterways. That will have bridges, oil derricks, utility easements (electric, natural gas, water), and just about anything else! It either goes over or under! That'll be a bear to write in the description.

The waterways would follow the same guidelines as with the other thoroughfares.  I don't remember where or when I saw it. Was years ago but there was a hotel or inn that was built over a creek that was popular with canoeists, Tennessee maybe? That could be accepted. Then there was a hotel in Kansas City I think that was built over a creek, but I don't believe it was a navigable waterway but a waterfall. That would not be allowed if navigable were a requirement simply by boat then no, but say a trail ran along side open to the public then I guess it could be. Lots of little details to work out and whatever was allowed would have to be relied upon variants and the submission photos and description to determine that. Same as any category really.

I haven't even gotten into rules and regulations as to what types of structures are even allowed to be built over the interstate or other public systems here in the states nowadays. As with the McDonald's, could other structures like that be built today or was it more or less grandfathered in if the regulations had change? If anymore could or couldn't be built really isn't a concern though, it still exists in any case. Then there are waterways, what is considered "navigable" and public varies from state to state. Here where I live you'll see some land owners run cables across the creek because they own land on both sides and don't like people using their "private" waterway even by passing through in a kayak or canoe. I disagree with that and think that should be a downright crime. We have stocked trout streams here that we all pay for to be stocked with tax payer dollars and trout stamps. Buy the land on the edge of that stream and you instantly can put up signs and boom your own private Trout stream stocked and paid for by the taxpayers who you can now have arrested for fishing your private land even if your in a boat, landowner owns to the center line of the stream. The real kicker is they aren't even required to post it, it's up to you to know where that private and public boundary is! That regulation is printed right in the handbook. I'm way off course here now, where were we?..oh a quick reply to a question lol. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
12 minutes ago, SearchN said:

I haven't even gotten into rules and regulations as to what types of structures are even allowed to be built over the interstate or other public systems here in the states nowadays. As with the McDonald's, could other structures like that be built today or was it more or less grandfathered in if the regulations had change? If anymore could or couldn't be built really isn't a concern though, it still exists in any case.

there was a news article just in the past couple of weeks in Oklahoma City. They are planning a similar Wendy's over I-35 in Moore, OK, just south of OKC. One of us here in the OKC area will get that one quickly, if the category passes.

 

Another question -- does it have to go completely across the road, trail, whatever? Or just be on one side and go over? Would buildings on boardwalks be OK (as they could be considered on a bridge/pier, and the bridge/pier would not be OK)?

Link to comment
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, vulture1957 said:

there was a news article just in the past couple of weeks in Oklahoma City. They are planning a similar Wendy's over I-35 in Moore, OK, just south of OKC. One of us here in the OKC area will get that one quickly, if the category passes.

 

Another question -- does it have to go completely across the road, trail, whatever? Or just be on one side and go over? Would buildings on boardwalks be OK (as they could be considered on a bridge/pier, and the bridge/pier would not be OK)?

That's great to hear about the Wendy's! Good to know there may be more future potential submissions.

 

As far as having to go completely across that's one I haven't even thought of since I really haven't seen any examples of what that might be or what purpose it would serve to only hang over one side of a road and not the other. Do you have examples of such a structure? If I understand your question correctly. The closest I can think of is the pier discussed below but why it would only go as far as one side of the road I don't know. Possible though. Another would be sign structures or traffic sensors, cameras of some sort which wouldn't go into the category.

 

1 hour ago, vulture1957 said:

Would buildings on boardwalks be OK (as they could be considered on a bridge/pier, and the bridge/pier would not be OK)?

In my view I would include them due to the buildings, just a pier then no without them and I wouldn't necessarily call them a bridge specific though they do bridge something. In this case the intent is more than just to travel from one side to the other to avoid or traverse something that happens to be in the path of travel. Would that be a duplicate waymark? Yes, one under this category and again in the piers category. Each for a different reason and as I said before some people like adding to their numbers so it would be a bonus to them and if that's their thing fine affects me none and if that wasn't a part of Waymarking then there would be no need for a count. I have several of the same waymark in various categories because they fit. Or at least I think I do, I have a lot I've never submitted hanging around. I think each deserves a different description to fit those categories and not the same for both. Take a sign as example, you have a sign that says something historic and there is a category for it. That's 1 oh but it also says something was a first ever. Another category, First of its kind. That's 2. Oh but wait the little map shows "You Are Here"...now that's 3! Bonus! Does that sign exist I don't know, but if it does there's three categories it can go into and all legit. There are plenty of multiple category waymarks around. I bet if many were to really dig they would find some of their own waymarks fit other categories but they weren't aware of the others existence and only submitted to the one. They keyword system is helpful but leaves a lot to be desired. It's funny I don't even have a single waymark I could add to this category without a several hour drive in any direction but I know something has to exist.

Thanks David

 

Edited by SearchN
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SearchN said:

As far as having to go completely across that's one I haven't even thought of since I really haven't seen any examples of what that might be or what purpose it would serve to only hang over one side of a road and not the other. Do you have examples of such a structure? If I understand your question correctly. The closest I can think of is the pier discussed below but why it would only go as far as one side of the road I don't know. Possible though. Another would be sign structures or traffic sensors, cameras of some sort which wouldn't go into the category.

I was thinking about some of the restaurants on the Gulf coast. The restaurant is on stilts over the water, but the entrance door and front of the building is on the beach

Link to comment
15 hours ago, vulture1957 said:

was thinking about some of the restaurants on the Gulf coast. The restaurant is on stilts over the water, but the entrance door and front of the building is on the beach

I think that perhaps that would be something for Elevated Buildings if it passed and if their criteria allowed it, then there's the piers category same with their criteria.

I did vote to approve Elevated Buildings and hopefully it did pass.

 

It was in a roundabout way, what led me making this category proposal. While looking up few things for the peer review an image web search brought up the McDonald's pictured above, don't know what the word was but it did, listed under the McDonald's Restaurants category and I thought, really that's it just another McDonald's Restaurant for such a unique building and over the highway? Btw I've been there long ago before it was a McDonald's a friend of mine lived in Vinita. That got me to thinking about other possibilities and here we are.

 

Back to the point. If neither would take something like that I suppose it could be a possibility if it were to again meet the criteria for this proposed category.  Do people pass underneath it safely along the beach?  If not then it probably wouldn't fit this category either. That's one of those grey areas and needs better defined here and in the categories this type of structure could possibly fit into. I can say however a structure that only overhangs the path of travel and does not cross completely over could be a possibility. What do fellow waymarkers think? Is this something you could foresee being included or should it be required to span completely from side to side?

 

It would be easy to simply say "Only buildings that have a road or highway that pass completely through it will be accepted."  but I would rather see a more varied and lively category that could include the additional structures that have been listed prior. Still much to think through and people to hear from to get a better idea.

Thanks for your interest and keeping the conversation going.

Link to comment
On 6/23/2021 at 6:46 PM, SearchN said:

I believe you are thinking of snow fences maybe? Here is a link to an image search for Snow Sheds. You'll see several good examples of those that do cross over and protect specific points along a road or rail

No, it was exactly this, I was thinking about and I know them well. I know roads where the majority of the length is in such "galleries" as we call them. My initial thought was that all your other examples were quite small. You drive under them and then there behind you. Something that is five miles long does not fit the picture I had when I read your proposal. But I can open my mind - why not, it does cover a road or railway line, it just needs a different point of view. Maybe this needs to be covered in the description, but people who do not have a deeper knowledge of high Alpine areas will not note a difference anyway.

 

 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, fi67 said:

high Alpine areas

 

Yeah, we have a mess of snow sheds here in BC (Canada), too. Many over railways. Not that I'm about to go trekking to Rogers Pass or the Coquihalla tomorrow morning, but prolly somewhere around half of our snow sheds are over railways, possibly more.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
Link to comment
6 hours ago, ScroogieII said:

 

This brings to mind the Simplon Tunnel (went through it a couple of times in 1968-1969 {so now you can figger out how really old I am :D }).

So now a question: Would a mountain over one's head qualify?

Keith

Actually, it was the Simplon that made me think that snow sheds are not a good fit. Not the tunnel, although there are a few small sheds just south of it, but the road over the pass: the sections between Rothwald and Kulm and between Gabi and Gondo are almost completely covered, which does not mean the rest of the road is free of them.

 

BTW: What about trees?

Link to comment
12 hours ago, fi67 said:

Actually, it was the Simplon that made me think that snow sheds are not a good fit.

 

After a moment's thought, I feel that snow sheds might be a "good fit" for the category. While the Swiss, and some Canucks, may think them much too common, to much of the rest of the world they would be considered a novelty, something they would have to trek a few thousand miles/kliks to see.

 

The Canadian snow sheds I know of would be, for the most part, difficult to photograph, as there are seldom pullouts near the sheds (avalanche area, after all) and stopping inside a snow shed is really frowned upon, possibly even illegal.

Keith

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
On 6/24/2021 at 5:35 PM, fi67 said:

No, it was exactly this, I was thinking about and I know them well. I know roads where the majority of the length is in such "galleries" as we call them. My initial thought was that all your other examples were quite small. You drive under them and then there behind you. Something that is five miles long does not fit the picture I had when I read your proposal. But I can open my mind - why not, it does cover a road or railway line, it just needs a different point of view. Maybe this needs to be covered in the description, but people who do not have a deeper knowledge of high Alpine areas will not note a difference anyway.

Sorry about my misunderstanding, we don't have these here in the southern US lol. It would be difficult to pinpoint the waymark in that case. It would all boil down to the direction of travel. The entrance coordinates could be miles apart. Down in Atlanta, Ga. and I'm sure in any major city, you can pass beneath several blocks of streets and building just like some of your snow sheds. Thanks for making that clear it definitely needs more thought on how to do something like that. Any ideas? Allow only those limited to a certain distance? Either a single building or single block?

 

On 6/24/2021 at 5:56 PM, ScroogieII said:

Yeah, we have a mess of snow sheds here in BC (Canada), too. Many over railways. Not that I'm about to go trekking to Rogers Pass or the Coquihalla tomorrow morning, but prolly somewhere around half of our snow sheds are over railways, possibly more.

Keith

I noticed that in the image search some good examples in BC, but if you can't pull over and get a picture of it then it's not safe. A definite problem and I'm sure there are other possible waymarks that could be in the same situation. Many interstates only allow you to pull to the side for emergencies.  In most cases , if say a building then its a simple matter of getting off at an exit and making your way to that point to get your coords and pics and possibly require a picture from another safe viewpoint of the highway passing underneath the building from a sidewalk above or something along those lines.  If it's a public building there has to be a way for the public to access it either by road or foot. Safe and legal is the key, if you can't meet that then it definitely would not be accepted. You can only lay the ground rules for waymarkers anything beyond that is out of your control and can only rely on what information and images they supply.

 

 

On 6/24/2021 at 6:02 PM, ScroogieII said:

This brings to mind the Simplon Tunnel (went through it a couple of times in 1968-1969 {so now you can figger out how really old I am :D }).

So now a question: Would a mountain over one's head qualify?

Keith

60 years here Keith so your not alone :)...We both should remember when smiley's were cool long before the emoji came to be. :D

 

On 6/25/2021 at 1:30 AM, fi67 said:

BTW: What about trees?

I suppose they would fit by definition, except there is at least one listed in the Roadside Attractions category and I'm sure more in other tree categories. I have no qualms about waymarks in several categories and there is no specific category dedicated to them now, it's kinda the nature of Waymarking anymore.

What about where a passage connects from building to building over a road? Could that be a possible submission in such a category. It's not just to get from one side of the road to the other like a pedestrian footbridge, but to allow passage from building to building.

Unless someone else chimes in there still appears not to be any real issues with allowing multiple thoroughfares,  road, rail, etc. or with varied categories in general correct?

David

Edited by SearchN
Propsed a few more questions.
Link to comment
Posted (edited)

Congratulations ScroogieII

"So, Elevated Buildings has squeaked through peer review and is now a viable category, though not quite yet a completed category.

It doesn't seem to be on the Categories List yet, so, for now, here's the URL."

 

Vulture1957 asked a question above and an example of what he was thinking of.

On 6/23/2021 at 5:44 PM, vulture1957 said:

I was thinking about some of the restaurants on the Gulf coast. The restaurant is on stilts over the water, but the entrance door and front of the building is on the beach

and my reply:

On 6/24/2021 at 10:57 AM, SearchN said:

I think that perhaps that would be something for Elevated Buildings if it passed and if their criteria allowed it, then there's the piers category same with their criteria.

Reading your requirements his example would be accepted into your category am I correct?  No better person then you to answer that. :)

David

 

 

David

Edited by SearchN
Link to comment
1 hour ago, SearchN said:

What about where a passage connects from building to building over a road?

 

Calgarians, at least, would love these. There are dozens of these downtown - they call them Plus Fifteens. (15 feet above the street)

One can navigate most of Downtown Calgary without going outside, which is great on a winter day without Chinook Winds blowing.

 

43 minutes ago, SearchN said:

Reading your requirements his example would be accepted into your category am I correct?  No better person then you to answer that

 

Yeah, Lee, I expect pretty much all of the restaurants on stilts over the water would qualify (as long as they fit within the 50% rule) - a good enough reason for you to chow down on the Gulf Coast next week.

 

And Thank You, David, tor the Congratulations. I appreciate it.

Keith

Link to comment
Posted (edited)

Here's a new overview of what this category could be. Please post your thoughts.

 

A category to waymark structures that cross over the following public thoroughfares ; Roads, Rail, Pedestrian/Bike trails, paths and waterways.

 

All proposed waymarks must span the path of travel without impeding the flow of traffic meaning no structures that end over a roadway such as a parking garage. These can span from one side of the thoroughfare to the other or part way if the the structure overhangs partially over one side. 

 

What can be included? Structures can be public buildings, commercial or multi-use with or without a road access such as a street in front of a commercial row. In this case it is not merely a bridge but serves another purpose as well. Industrial structures like conveyors of materials solids or liquid or industry buildings themselves. Those that allow the passage of pedestrians from building to building. Sheds built over a thoroughfare that prevent the blockage of traffic or damage due to snow or rock slides. Other possible structures not listed here can be submitted but must still follow the basic guidelines and not be on the list of exclusions.

 

All submissions must be viewable from a publicly accessible area and presented in a safe manor. If a picture of the entire waymark, such as a wide shot showing the structure and thoroughfare that passes through, isn't possible you may provide several photos to show each and note in your description the circumstances that prevent a single photo from being captured. The more pictures the better in either circumstance. Please put in your description any specific instructions on how to see your waymark if for some reason you can't simply pull to the side and visit.

 

What is excluded? Bridges intended for the sole purpose of traversing an obstruction that prevents the flow of traffic such as a river or canyon. Power lines. Signs. Traffic cameras and sensors. Pedestrian cross-walks example; those metal type structures near schools etc. that allow pedestrians to cross over the road rather than a crosswalk through traffic. Piers. Tunnels or animal crossings. Buildings such as parking garages where the road terminates. Toll booths.

"Just thought of toll booths I'm sure that would come up at some point if the category was approved. What are your thoughts to common like power lines? Any possible exceptions historic or otherwise?" What about check points for borders etc?

 

Please submit the excluded items to their appropriate categories. "a list of links will go here to any categories known that already accepts those exclusions."

 

Variants;

What type of thoroughfare? Motor vehicle, Pedestrian or bike trail/path, waterway, railway..more explain

If your waymark is a conveyor what types of materials does it transport?

"more to come."

 

This is only a recap still a ways to go and discuss.

David

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by SearchN
Link to comment
1 hour ago, ScroogieII said:

Calgarians, at least, would love these. There are dozens of these downtown - they call them Plus Fifteens. (15 feet above the street)

One can navigate most of Downtown Calgary without going outside, which is great on a winter day without Chinook Winds blowing.

I don't blame them :ph34r: brrr..that's my boggin.

Link to comment

Some more ideas:

 

Sculptures that span across a road, like this one: https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM9Y1Y

 

Town gates: https://www.google.com/search?q=town+gate&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&biw=1920&bih=973

 

Arches in old town centers. They are called Schwibbogen in German or Prampouch in Czech. The generally accepted English translation for these seems to be "diaphragm arch", but in fact those are inside buildings and not over roads (The same must be said for the French and Spanish terms).

 

The latter two are probably more prevalent in Europe, but I have also seen examples in Northern China and Central America.

 

 

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, fi67 said:

Some more ideas:

 

Sculptures that span across a road, like this one: https://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM9Y1Y

 

Town gates: https://www.google.com/search?q=town+gate&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&biw=1920&bih=973

 

Arches in old town centers. They are called Schwibbogen in German or Prampouch in Czech. The generally accepted English translation for these seems to be "diaphragm arch", but in fact those are inside buildings and not over roads (The same must be said for the French and Spanish terms).

 

The latter two are probably more prevalent in Europe, but I have also seen examples in Northern China and Central America.

Those are some great examples and would add much to this category. Though I can see a lot of cross posting from other categories like Freestanding Arches. Personally I don't have an issue with that nor with something being global as you probably know if you've read my prior posts, convincing others can be. I can see where down the road one will be submitted to the category since they do fit the criteria. I'm open to it and apparently you are as well so let's hear from others on this matter.

Link to comment
Structures That Span A Thoroughfare
Managed By: Icon Here Over Our Heads
Description:
A category to waymark a structure that cross or partially span/extend over the following public thoroughfares; Roads, Rail, Pedestrian/Bike trails, paths and waterways etc.
Expanded Description:
What can be included?
 
  • Structures can be public buildings, commercial or multi-use with or without a road access such as a street in front of a commercial row. In this case it is not merely a bridge but serves another purpose as well.

     
7N3SaLZ2_o.jpg
PKhkJmix_o.jpg
The Gate Tower Building in Fukushima-ku, Osaka, Japan is notable for the highway off ramp of the Ikeda Route that passes through the building. Wikipedia

UaLRDxIL_o.jpg
This McDonald's is located in Vinita, Oklahoma and spans over the Will Rogers Turnpike. It was originally a rest area called the Oasis. Wikipedia
 
  • Industrial structures like conveyors of materials solids or liquid or industry buildings themselves.

     
RnJfs4xY_o.jpg
A coal conveyor crossing over Route 54 near Shenandoah, PA. Image from Skook News
 
  • Those that allow the passage of pedestrians from building to building.

     
DPaXTZuH_o.jpg
This passageway located in Calgary, Alberta, Canada connects between buildings. Wikipedia


 
b1Hg19Ys_o.jpg
Once part of The High Line, an elevated railroad in New York, this bridge is located in Brooklyn and spans between buildings. The old High Line is being converted to a greenway and for other pedestrian uses. Wikipedia
 
  • Sheds built over a thoroughfare that prevent the blockage of traffic or damage due to snow or rock slides. For example a snow shed that covers the roadway. These should not be confused with tunnels which cut through a mountain or ridge.

     
mXC2Q9sy_o.jpg
A Rock shed in Japan protects the road as well as travelers from the frequent rock slides that occur here. Similar sheds are built to protect from snow avalanches. Wikipedia

Other possible structures not listed here can be submitted but must still meet the basic guidelines and not be on the list of exclusions.
 
Instructions for Posting a Structures That Span A Thoroughfare Waymark:
 
All submissions must be viewable from a safe and publicly accessible area.

Any road, path or waterway must pass entirely through the structure and not impede the flow of traffic. An example would be a parking garage, even though it does extend over the roadway it terminates at that point and restricts the flow of traffic. The garage would however be acceptable if the road were to continue on through the structure and merely span the roadway.

The waymark title should be in this format:
Name of the structure - city - state-country.

Your description should give as many details as possible. Just a simple one line description will not be accepted. There are only a few variables, a good description should really eliminate the need for a multitude of variables so be complete in your waymark description.

All languages are welcome, but please provide an English translation in your description as well.

If a picture of the entire waymark, such as a wide shot showing the structure and thoroughfare that passes through isn't possible, you may provide photos, to show the thoroughfare it spans and others showing the waymark itself. Your images must make it evident that the thoroughfare does indeed pass through. Also note in your description the circumstances that prevent a single photo from being captured. The more pictures the better in either case.

Please include in your description any specific instructions on how to visit your waymark if for some reason you can't simply pull to the side and see.

What is excluded?
 
  • Bridges or underpasses that do not have any buildings or structure on them. These are intended for the sole purpose of traversing an obstruction that would otherwise prevent the flow of traffic.
  • Power lines.
  • Traffic signs, cameras and sensors.
  • Simple pedestrian cross-walks. Example; the metal type structures near schools etc. that allow pedestrians to cross over one side of the road to the other rather than a crosswalk through traffic. The exception would be from building to building
  • Piers.
  • Tunnels or animal crossings.
  • Buildings such as parking garages where the road terminates.
  • Toll booths.


     
  • Please submit any excluded items to their more appropriate categories if applicable. Here's a list of a few and some subcategories.

    Bridges, Structures, Elevated Buildings, Man-made Animal Bridges and Crossings, Hiking Path Footbridges, Freestanding Arches, Canal Tunnels.

    If for some reason you have submitted your waymark to other categories and it was turned down, you may submit it to this category for review as long as it meets all the criteria. Please provide the reason it was denied along with your submission.
  •  
Instructions for Visiting a Waymark in this Category:
To post a log please provide pictures of the waymark along with your experience of the visit. Include any changes you may have noticed from other waymarkers visits or any changes from the original submission. Have fun and be safe while making your visit.
 
Category Settings:
  • Waymarks can be added to this category
  • New waymarks of this category are reviewed by the category group prior to being published
  • Category is not visible in the directory
Variables:
  • Types of thoroughfare it extends over.
  • Related Website
  • Is your waymark assailable to people with disabilities?
  • Hours Open

 

This is just a copy and paste to give a better idea on this category proposal with some more example pictures. Should pedestrian bridge crosswalks be included or not? Please leave feedback on any changes or, additions anything you may have in mind.

Thanks David

 
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
On 6/26/2021 at 12:27 PM, SearchN said:

that's my boggin.

 

First, a question Dave(I hope you don't mind my calling you Dave. One of my best buddies in high school was a "Dave", a genuine, rootin', tootin' cowboy. Weren't nobody brave enough to call him "David".), by a Countrified Canuck willing to display his ignorance: What's a "boggin"?

 

Onward we go:

I see you have excluded power lines. Good move. I can't really think of any historic power lines. Decommissioned lines are generally removed shortly after decommissioning, for obvious reasons.

 

Exclusion of "Bridges or underpasses that do not have any buildings or structure on them" makes sense, to reduce the number of junk submissions.

"Structures can be public buildings, commercial or multi-use with or without a road" - we already have a collision with Elevated Buildings (see this Waymark, approved by myself), but that's fine with me. It's the rest of the WM community which may gripe.

 

In the requirements - "you may provide photos" - NEVER allow Waymarkers an out. If you want more photos, DEMAND them!. Otherwise you'll often get just one and will be unable to request more, as they weren't REQUIRED. Same with textual description - you MUST spell out any textual requirements you want completely or you may find yourself having to approve Waymarks with empty Long Descriptions. Long experience approving Waymarks in older categories rising to the surface here.

If you're going to include lots of pix, best you rework them so they can be put into a nice, compact table (or do a collage), with links to larger pix, should people need that facility. A collage, however, eliminates the possibility of linking to each photo as we aren't allowed to use scripts here. I know - I've tried. People quickly get bored with a lot of scrolling AND it makes for a cleaner page that looks like it was done by someone who knows what they're about, hopefully engendering a bit of respect from the submitter.

 

That said, a good handful of representative pix are a GOOD thing, enabling those with a tenuous grasp of your category and its requirements to possibly see the light. They can also be a GREAT HELP to non English speakers, which is just what you want in order to attract really cool Waymarks from around the globe. You could look at that as "Waymark Fishing".

 

Otherwise, fix it up, post your changes and we'll have another look. Good luck and keep on keeping on.

Keith

PS & BTW - I've been under that McDonald's in Vinita, Oklahoma. We may still have some pix of that.

 

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
Posted (edited)
On 7/4/2021 at 2:12 AM, ScroogieII said:

First, a question Dave(I hope you don't mind my calling you Dave. One of my best buddies in high school was a "Dave", a genuine, rootin', tootin' cowboy. Weren't nobody brave enough to call him "David".), by a Countrified Canuck willing to display his ignorance: What's a "boggin"?

Sure you can call me Dave, I been called much worse..lol.

A boggin :ph34r: is a type hat typically knit, probably other spellings as well. In this case it's pulled down cause of the cold Canadian weather showing only my eyes, hopefully those won't freeze. Picked the word up living in Maine and it's stuck ever since. Just like shopping carts are called "buggies" where I live now. Local dialect and pronunciation can be quiet colorful and a good way to spot people "who ain't from around here" like the town of Buchanan it's not pronounced as in James Buchanan, but like buck cannon all ran together to make one smooth flowing  word or up in Maine if it ends in keag it's pronounced Keg not Key ag. I butchered many a word till I caught on to that one, but your only halfway there, you still have to know how to pronounce the first part of that word. Now I can travel to and from and none be the wiser, except for my slight southern accent which I didn't know I really had till my coworkers in Maine seemed to go out of their way to point out and get a kick of. I'm sure you being from Canada you've never ran into anything like that...eh. :rolleyes:

 

but I ramble on again to the point now.

 

On 7/4/2021 at 2:12 AM, ScroogieII said:

"Structures can be public buildings, commercial or multi-use with or without a road" - we already have a collision with Elevated Buildings (see this Waymark, approved by myself), but that's fine with me. It's the rest of the WM community which may gripe.

Yes I see what you mean that one fits exactly in this category proposal too. Thanks for giving a pass for those that might cross. Not all would though, like "The Gate Tower Building in Fukushima-ku, Osaka, Japan" pictured above, it's not on stilts but sits firmly on the ground.

 

As far as the community not liking it? Happens all the time and much worse in some cases. If it means that much to someone, only submit your waymark to one category and one category only, but I bet plenty will submit to multiple categories that fit and in some of those cases do a copy and paste not even changing the description to match the other's category.  In a way the Waymarking community has already spoken to allow it by approving categories in peer review, otherwise there wouldn't be any cross or sub categories to submit to.

 

On 7/4/2021 at 2:12 AM, ScroogieII said:

In the requirements - "you may provide photos" - NEVER allow Waymarkers an out. If you want more photos, DEMAND them!.

Agreed, that's just was just my friendly way of demanding ;) I'll have to reword that and other parts to make it more clear. Was trying to use honey rather than vinegar.

On 7/2/2021 at 9:41 PM, SearchN said:

Your images must make it evident that the thoroughfare does indeed pass through. Also note in your description the circumstances that prevent a single photo from being captured. The more pictures the better in either case.

In my defense I did think this summed it up on part of the image requirements. I'll have to reword the "single photo" part so some won't think just a single picture will suffice. In most cases a waymarker should be able to get a wide shot and if so that should be their main image for their submission. 

 

Still need to figure out how to do a long waymark like the rock shed. It spans a distance along the highway and isn't in a single spot. Depending on direction of travel the entrances could be far apart and the same structure listed twice because one submitter spotted it traveling one direction and another going the opposite. Off the top of my head it would almost have to require two coordinates and photos one for entrance another for an exit, but I've never seen anything like that in Waymarking. Another way would be to get the coordinates at the midway point, in many cases that wouldn't be possible. Has anyone seen any waymark like that and how was it done? I'll post an updated category description soon.

Thanks, David or Dave

 

Edited by SearchN
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SearchN said:

how to do a long waymark like the rock shed. It spans a distance along the highway and isn't in a single spot. Depending on direction of travel the entrances could be far apart and the same structure listed twice because one submitter spotted it traveling one direction and another going the opposite. ... would almost have to require two coordinates and photos one for entrance another for an exit, but I've never seen anything like that in Waymarking

 

Categories such as UNESCO Biosphere ReservesPlaces of Geologic SignificanceNational Parks of the World and World Heritage Sites come to mind. The location of coordinates is an even greater problem with these categories. None of these four more or less randomly chosen categories really deals with the issue. Instead, the first, UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, aware of the issue, allows one submission per Waymarker, but multiple Waymarkers to post the same Biosphere Reserve. I have no easy fixes to offer. You're on your own here.:wacko:

If you were to peruse, one by one,  all the categories in the Nature department, one of them may have an answer for you.

 

Boggin = Toque = Sock hat = Knit cap = Stocking cap, depending on your location. Of course, the only correct name is Toque:P

We toured Maine, but in the summer, so the subject of boggins never came up.

 

2 hours ago, SearchN said:

pulled down cause of the cold Canadian weather

 

Yeah, like 49.6° (121° F) last week. You mean THAT cold weather?

 

Keith

Link to comment
On 7/5/2021 at 2:57 PM, ScroogieII said:

Categories such as UNESCO Biosphere ReservesPlaces of Geologic SignificanceNational Parks of the World and World Heritage Sites come to mind. The location of coordinates is an even greater problem with these categories. None of these four more or less randomly chosen categories really deals with the issue. Instead, the first, UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, aware of the issue, allows one submission per Waymarker, but multiple Waymarkers to post the same Biosphere Reserve. I have no easy fixes to offer. You're on your own here.:wacko:

If you were to peruse, one by one,  all the categories in the Nature department, one of them may have an answer for you.

Thanks for the attempt anyway. More thought on how is ongoing.

On 7/5/2021 at 2:57 PM, ScroogieII said:

Yeah, like 49.6° (121° F) last week. You mean THAT cold weather?

That was some terribly destructive weather for sure. Hopefully they, and here in the states as well, won't see any more weather like that. You can expect it in Death Valley but Canada?

David

Link to comment

Thank you for that first proposal!

Unfortunately, it's still very confusing.

 

Maybe I know what you want, maybe not.

 

Medieval town gates are fine, aren't they?

 

What about aerial lifts crossing a road? Maybe not. But if there is a metal net stretched across the road between them to prevent the passengers from throwing things onto the road, would that one qualify?

 

Cloth lines? Ever been to Naples? They're really wow there, but still...

 

 

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.

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...
Followers 2
×
×
  • Create New...