Archiving other people's waymarks

[+iconions]

Yes, there is an edit function  Waymarking where one can make changes to other waymarkers submissions and the officers of those categories can approve.
The WRONG way to do this is to completely wipe out the title and use words like GONE instead.  Also, no backup - no news article, no picture - nothing submitted as evidence that the item is no longer there.

• First, waymarks should not be archived in my opinion - they existed and they need to stay in the record for historical access.  This is especially true for historic buildings - my town lost our historic Courthouse this summer with about 6 of my waymarks, cemetery headstones, and monuments and statues; which seem to be especially vulnerable.
• Second, the procedure should be - the title - add (former){title} or something to that nature - do not remove the old title with the word GONE or whatever.  ADD information to the LONG DESCRIPTION of the waymark giving the reason for the update AND submit pictures - you need to think of it as a reverse waymark submission.  Officers in the category are not in the area and cannot and should not take information without proof.  They would not do this for a waymark submission.

I'm really not sure why this topic has to be a thing - it is rather disrespectful to other waymarkers to completely wipe out a title like that so that the waymark no longer shows in the listings.  

[+Max and 99]

Archiving someone else's waymark: 

Disrespectful, unacceptable, and should never happen. 

[+pmaupin]

22 hours ago, iconions said:

I'm really not sure why this topic has to be a thing - it is rather disrespectful to other waymarkers to completely wipe out a title like that so that the waymark no longer shows in the listings.  

 

21 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Archiving someone else's waymark: 

Disrespectful, unacceptable, and should never happen. 

I totally agree, it is better to change the title than to remove the waymark. It's a real lack of respect for the person who posted it, because there is always a lot of work that has been done.

[+FamilieFrohne]

I totally agree with iconions and the other posters here that one should add value to the waymarks description if the (physical) waymark changes. I had to do this for a waymark once when I started with Waymarking (WMX1AG) and I added an explaining text to the long description - I thought it was better that way. Also I agree that a waymark - once approved - should not be archived (i.e. technically remove the ability to do so also for the waymarks owner - but that surely would require a change in the underlying software).

 

But I don't get the specific point of the original posting:

- Are you sad or angered, because some owners of waymarks archived their listings or that they edit their waymarks and left rubbish behind?

- Or that officers accept these disrupting changes if done by others?

- Or worse that officers cause these disrupting changes by themselves?

- Or is this just a reminder to us all to strive for more quality?

- Or is it something else?

 

Yours,

 

 

Erik.

[+Alfouine]

53 minutes ago, FamilieFrohne said:

But I don't get the specific point of the original posting:

- Are you sad or angered, because some owners of waymarks archived their listings or that they edit their waymarks and left rubbish behind?

- Or that officers accept these disrupting changes if done by others?

- Or worse that officers cause these disrupting changes by themselves?

- Or is this just a reminder to us all to strive for more quality?

- Or is it something else?

 

You can edit someone else waymark and make changes.

An officer of the category of the waymark modified can approve or decline each change.

A waymarker (and according to me only one) use to edit waymark and change waymark title with DUPLICATE or GONE because the waymark is duplicate or because the location does not exists anymore.

It's a bit cavalier, if it's the same meaning in english than in french, i can not find the right translation

If the waymark is really duplicate and recently approved, i used to decline it otherwise it's grandfathered

If the location does not exist anymore, i decline the change, edit the waymark and add [GONE] at the beginning of the title.

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, FamilieFrohne said:

Also I agree that a waymark - once approved - should not be archived (i.e. technically remove the ability to do so also for the waymarks owner

I disagree.

[+FamilieFrohne]

19 hours ago, Alfouine said:

A waymarker (and according to me only one) use to edit waymark and change waymark title with DUPLICATE or GONE because the waymark is duplicate or because the location does not exists anymore.

It's a bit cavalier, if it's the same meaning in english than in french, i can not find the right translation

In german you would probably say it is a "Kavaliersdelikt" (cavalier offense / infraction cavalière (translated to french by google)).

I already knew the (technical) possibilities that an officer has, but thanks for explaining the way you work - it could help me (as a newbie officer) to avoid mistakes.

 

But I see, that the message I wanted to transfer was not delivered. What I wanted to know from iconions is WHY was the original post posted?

 

20 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

I disagree.

That's ok for me . But it would help me (and probably someone else) to understand your point of view a bit more if you could tell the reasons for your disagreement. I may have missed  reasons in my thinking before I wrote - so I am willing to learn from the more experienced on that topic.

[+Max and 99]

4 minutes ago, FamilieFrohne said:

In german you would probably say it is a "Kavaliersdelikt" (cavalier offense / infraction cavalière (translated to french by google)).

I already knew the (technical) possibilities that an officer has, but thanks for explaining the way you work - it could help me (as a newbie officer) to avoid mistakes.

 

But I see, that the message I wanted to transfer was not delivered. What I wanted to know from iconions is WHY was the original post posted?

 

That's ok for me . But it would help me (and probably someone else) to understand your point of view a bit more if you could tell the reasons for your disagreement. I may have missed  reasons in my thinking before I wrote - so I am willing to learn from the more experienced on that topic.

I do not think you should take that option away from the waymark owner.

Just an example: I archived a waymark so that no one would visit it and get in trouble. If I mark it as gone or missing it'll still get visited and that doesn't solve anything. 

 

I realize that it may still show up in searches, but as an archived waymark it will not be as easy to see it. 

[+FamilieFrohne]

I see your point. There are more complex facets to this than first imagined .