Jump to content

World war I sites


Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Today I visited a field in the Netherlands where an army camp from WW1 has been. To my astonishment, there isn't a category 'World war I sites'. I think it would be a great addition and can lead to many wm's in different countries globally. I'm a basic member so I can't make this category, but there might be premium members who like this idea?

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Becktracker said:

Today I visited a field in the Netherlands where an army camp from WW1 has been. To my astonishment, there isn't a category 'World war I sites'. I think it would be a great addition and can lead to many wm's in different countries globally. I'm a basic member so I can't make this category, but there might be premium members who like this idea?

I've notice this too. We do have Civil War Sites and WWII sites. WWI sites might be an interesting topic. I could get is started, but it is up to others if this is even worth pursuing to create a proposal.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, bluesnote said:

Feel free to add yourself.

I felt so free ... :) - there are many places in the world where the Great War was fought (of course most battlefields were in Europe (east and west) , but also the Japanese-Russian-War was part of it and also the fights lead by Lawrence of Arabia).

Link to comment

I agree with Becktracker, the description looks great.

 

I found some typos and misunderstandings in the description:

  • Acceptable waymarks section:
    • "- cemeteries (where 50% or more of the cemetery are WWI veterans; this excludes veteran sections unless that section is a different cemetery)" -> Do you mean, that for example the graveyard space maintained by the "Commonwealth War Graves Commission" on the Cologne Southern Cemetery (see WM14DT3) would be acceptable? If not the sentence has much room for interpretation ...
  • Non-acceptable waymarks section:
    • Like Becktracker already mentioned: at "graves of WWII veterans" the second "I" should be deleted.
  • Concerning "- artillery (cannons, shells, ect. unless in a museum of which the museum shall be waymarked)" -> I think this wording would be better: "- artillery (cannons, shells, etc. belong to the category Static Artillery Displays. If they are in a museum the museum shall be waymarked)"
  • In the PHOTO section:
    • "However, depending on the size of the site it additional photos may be requested on a case by case basis." -> Here the "it" after "site" seems a little bit weird, but I'm not a native speaker so I don't know for sure.
    • " If permission has been granted to use photos that are not yours, your waymark will be denied." -> Not sure about the intention here, but I think you want to emphasize, that the picture was taken personally. I would suggest that the sentence starts with "Even if permission ..." to make this more clear.
    • I would also add a sentence/section telling that the "text on photographed signs should be readable". And a hint of "no GPS in the picture".
  • In the COORDINATES section:
    • "If this is a large building or site, coordinates can be obtain at the main entrance or visitor center" -> Not sure, but "can be obtained at" sounds better to me.
  • In the DESCRIPTION section:
    • "expanded in the long. LONG descriptions need to" -> For optical ans semantic reasons I'll would add an extra line between "long. LONG" -> for example
      "long.

      LONG descriptions ..."

That's all for now. Yours

 

 

Erik.

Link to comment

Thanks Erik. I guess typing up the write up at 1am allowed for a few grammar/spelling errors to slip through the cracks. I made the necessary changes and added a few more clauses. I'll leave this open for discussion for a few more days before I call a group vote and send it off to peer review.

Link to comment

Sorry, but this line: "You must have actually taken the photos yourself, zero exceptions." I get the meaning of the line, but it might be fun to also add some pictures from the era of World War I itself, taken from the internet. This line pretty much lets your waymark be declined if you do that. Maybe add another line: "Pictures from the World War I era used for background infromation, taken from the internet or some other source are excluded, if you cite the source. These pictures don't count as one of the two required photos."

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment
51 minutes ago, Becktracker said:

Sorry, but this line: "You must have actually taken the photos yourself, zero exceptions." I get the meaning of the line, but it might be fun to also add some pictures from the era of World War I itself, taken from the internet. This line pretty much lets your waymark be declined if you do that. Maybe add another line: "Pictures from the World War I era used for background infromation, taken from the internet or some other source are excluded, if you cite the source. These pictures don't count as one of the two required photos."

I see what you are saying, however I disagree. I believe we should only use photos we personally taken to be added to the gallery. If I do open it up, it might be abused and cause problems down the line. Let me explain:

 

If there are historical photos the submitter would like to use, links can always be provided of that. I can add that technically to make it explicit after peer review. Right now, the category passed an officer group vote so it's auto-locked from editing until peer review is complete.

 

In my opinion, photos uploaded to the gallery should only be photos the submitter or visitors took. If we do open it up to allow photos from the internet, this could be a problem for reviewers trying to decide if a photo was personally taken by the submitter. I had an experience in the last year or so where one of my waymarks was declined because my photos didn't match (even though I took them at different times of the day while visiting a theme park). I happened to walk back and take another photo a few hours later and they said the clouds/shadows/lighting didn't match.

 

This has been the norm for all categories (with exceptions from those that require internet photos: There's a Book about it, Tourist Stamps, Numismatic Photographs, just to name a few). I don't think we need to break that norm with this category.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, FamilieFrohne said:

Huh? Am I missing the context for that reply? Fact is that I understand the words, but not the meaning.

I was asking because I'm not sure either. If you can only use your own photos then those  WWI category waymarks can never be an uncategorized waymark for someone else to submit.  ? 

There is at least another category that only allows your own photos. You cannot use someone else's. 

Link to comment
10 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

So this category is banned from the uncategorized waymarks, right? It's not the only one. 

I did not think of that. We would allow uncategorized waymarks (as should all other categories) because the original submitter is properly credited on the waymark. I can edit the category once is passes/fails peer review to include this clause. I don't think we would get too many uncategorized waymarks, but we might get a few.

Link to comment

Ok, so I decided to cancel the group vote and make the slight edits as discussed here as I feel like they needed to be added. The clause that uncategorized waymarks are the only exception was added to the photo section. I also removed "Even if permission has been granted to use photos that are not yours, your waymark will be denied." because permission may have been granted for uncategorized waymarks. I will re-call an officer vote in a few hours if I do not hear anything else on this page and then send it off to peer review by tomorrow if all goes well.

Link to comment

"Note that these requirements may be updated as submissions get reviewed and we (officers) reserve the right to update the category at anytime without any notice."

 

So after peer review you can rewrite the entire category and/or in part?

Link to comment

I'm a little late on this one, but I was wondering: Why do you exclude artillery ["artillery (cannons, shells, ect. should be waymarked in the static artillery category unless displayed in a museum setting, of which the museum shall be waymarked)"], but allow battlefields that have their own category too? I do not understand that logic.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
2 hours ago, T0SHEA said:

"Note that these requirements may be updated as submissions get reviewed and we (officers) reserve the right to update the category at anytime without any notice."

 

So after peer review you can rewrite the entire category and/or in part?

My intention for this statement was for us (officers) to update the lists of what is accepted and what is not. Many categories in their early days of infancy will go through changes, after it passes peer review. I wanted to be explicit about this as we get submissions in the first few weeks. This is not for us to change the category all together.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, PISA-caching said:

I'm a little late on this one, but I was wondering: Why do you exclude artillery ["artillery (cannons, shells, ect. should be waymarked in the static artillery category unless displayed in a museum setting, of which the museum shall be waymarked)"], but allow battlefields that have their own category too? I do not understand that logic.

The reason to not include artillery is because these are small and are everywhere. Cannons and shells, for example, may be located all over a military park or cemetery. We do not want to waymark each one, as that would be redundant. Instead, we would allow battlefields because there's only one waymark for a large site (instead of hundreds of waymarks for the same size of site).

 

Like I replied to T0SHEA's comment, as we get submissions we might have to update what is accepted and what is not. I am open to include artillery, but I think the category would get flooded with waymarks where the intention of the category is to mark sites that are of historical importance. I don't think artillery falls in that definition, but as time goes on (i.e. as we get submissions), I could be wrong. I am willing to make this change if there is a need to make this change.

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 0
×
×
  • Create New...