Elevated Buildings - the obligatory changes

[+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.

I have done some rewriting, the details of which follow. Here's the most recent version.

Photos - As I mentioned in my vote in peer review, I had already decided to reduce the number of required photos from 3 to 2 (3 {or more, as necessary} if there is a photo, or photos, of any signage)

Language - Language requirement has been changed to your native language AND English.

Residential Structures - My initial belief was that including elevated residential structures in the category might create an invasion of privacy problem. However, I have since realized that there are several categories extant which either concentrate on residences specifically, or include residences, and invasion of privacy has not, to my knowledge, become an issue with those categories.

Air Traffic Control Towers - for a few reasons, both aesthetic and legal, I think we'd be better off leaving these alone.

Elevated Grain Bins - Another HARD NO. In North America alone there are tens of thousands of these. Accepting them quickly could change the category from Elevated Buildings to Elevated Grain Bins.

Lighthouses - Something I had considered out of bounds until a truly elevated lighthouse was submitted, a type I'd not seen before. Lighthouses of this general structural type are now acceptable:

 

 

A question: What is the framework supporting the lighthouse called? I'm doing the rewrite of the category and just can't think of what it should be named.

BTW, this one is now part of a museum.

 

Anyhow, I will accept this style of lighthouse, as it is truly elevated and not an integral part of a tall, truncated conical structure.

 

Anything else that needs to be addressed?

 

FOOTNOTE: I just approved the  Hórreo, by Ariberna.

 

 

You'll note that the Waymark failed to contain the otherwise obligatory three sentences composed by the submitter. Somewhat arbitrarily, I have chosen to treat her  Hórreo as a unique case, in that it was the inspiration for the Elevated Buildings category.

Don't get to thinking that there will be more special cases and that you, too, will be able to bend the rules. It ain't gonna happen, if I can help it.

But Thank You, Ariberna, for submitting that Waymark. I think that  Hórreo is truly cool. I just wish we knew more about that particular one.

Keith

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by ScroogieII

[+Tuena]

Under the forum titled Buildings on Stilts you were adamant that elevated residences constructed after 1900 would not be acceptable. Now you're saying (based on the URL) that these are acceptable eg:

 

This category will accept elevated buildings which are entirely residential, whether permanent residences, beach or lake rental properties, hotels/motels or condominiums.

 

Such a change should have been mentioned prior to Peer Review.

 

There are a huge number of elevated weatherboard houses in flood prone areas. Many have been jacked up with the steel framework built under them. Not something I would take a photo of given they are someone's home. 

 

[+ScroogieII]

16 hours ago, Tuena said:

Under the forum titled Buildings on Stilts you were adamant that elevated residences constructed after 1900 would not be acceptable. Now you're saying (based on the URL) that these are acceptable eg:

 

This category will accept elevated buildings which are entirely residential, whether permanent residences, beach or lake rental properties, hotels/motels or condominiums.

 

Such a change should have been mentioned prior to Peer Review.

 

There are a huge number of elevated weatherboard houses in flood prone areas. Many have been jacked up with the steel framework built under them. Not something I would take a photo of given they are someone's home. 

 

 

I agree with what you're saying here. However, the change of heart took place DURING peer review. As well, there were several concerns addressed by other Waymarkers DURING peer review which should have been raised in the forum thread, but weren't.

Elevated steel silos is one which comes to mind.

 

To quote myself:

"Residential Structures - My initial belief was that including elevated residential structures in the category might create an invasion of privacy problem. However, I have since realized that there are several categories extant which either concentrate on residences specifically, or include residences, and invasion of privacy has not, to my knowledge, become an issue with those categories."

 

Not being situated in a flood prone coastal area, I know precious little about "huge numbers of elevated weatherboard houses". I, too, doubt that I would find them exciting or interesting, but their existence cannot be used as a valid reason for excluding ALL elevated residences. Excluding only them (elevated weatherboard houses) would surely elicit a dozen or more haughty replies howling about a confusing category, the result of convoluted, or nonexistent, logic.

Keith

[+Tuena]

Had you stuck to: This category will not accept elevated buildings which are entirely residential there could be no haughty replies etc. 

[+ScroogieII]

16 hours ago, Tuena said:

Had you stuck to: This category will not accept elevated buildings which are entirely residential there could be no haughty replies etc. 

 

Possibly true, possibly not. There might be a dozen WMers hiding in the weeds with dozens of photos of elevated residences for WMs not yet submitted.

At least now I am less likely to hear from them,  and only have to put up with the disgruntled Aussies. 

[+ScroogieII]

Elevated Buildings is now on the Category Master List - under Buildings