Jump to content

Danish Cultural Heritage / Swedish Cultural Heritage


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, FamilieFrohne said:

I took a closer look at the database from Finland and found out that they also have entries that include the Åland isles.

From rky.fi site? I cannot find.

Yes, Åland is one of "states" of Finland. With quite independency. Swedish speaking people. It is strange that Waymarking treats Åland islands like country. Are the English Channel islands done same way?

Link to comment

According to Groundspeak, Jersey and Guernsey and Sark are their own countries.  Interestingly, Alderney is considered to be Guernsey.  Isle of Man is a country.  Northern Ireland is an area within Ireland, not part of the UK.

Edited by elyob
Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Smurffaaja said:

From rky.fi site? I cannot find.

I found some on https://www.kyppi.fi/ ... as an example this one https://www.kyppi.fi/to.aspx?id=130.200848

 

1 hour ago, Smurffaaja said:

Yes, Åland is one of "states" of Finland. With quite independency. Swedish speaking people. It is strange that Waymarking treats Åland islands like country. Are the English Channel islands done same way?

Groundspeak has it's own understanding of countries and their country subdivisions (i.e. as I had to learn for the UK that the Northern Ireland district is part of Ireland now, England, Wales and Scotland have more than the NUTS-2 divisions given by the government and the Channel Islands are own countries to name a few ...). Unfortunatly they were not stringent and created sub units for all the other countries that have them in the geocaching world - for example Denmark or Finland.

 

Link to comment

I've written messages to the active officers of the last year asking them on their thoughts about an expansion of their category with the one I had in mind and this was the reply:

 

15 hours ago, FrkBrum said:

I wasn´t aware that I´m the last woman standing in Norway Historical Sites. A couple of times every year there is a new listing, and I have reviewed them. 

 

Norway could absolutely be included in a Scandinavian or Nordic Cultural Heritage category, but the Norway Historical Sites should still live on. It covers much more than a cultural heritage group based on official lists as kulturarv.no. Several waymarks in the heritage category are already listed in other categories, for example Medival Churches. 

 

So if I understood this reply right, they want to keep their category as it is beside a new one because they see themselves as a superset of the planned one for Norway. For me this means that we should exclude the Norwegian Sites from the new category and point to their category instead. I have changed the description in my draft accordingly (see https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage-v2.html ) and will continue to create the category at Waymarking.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 12/11/2022 at 3:50 AM, FamilieFrohne said:

So if I understood this reply right, they want to keep their category as it is beside a new one because they see themselves as a superset of the planned one for Norway. For me this means that we should exclude the Norwegian Sites from the new category and point to their category instead. I have changed the description in my draft accordingly (see https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage-v2.html ) and will continue to create the category at Waymarking.

 

OK, here the one problem I DON'T have is distinguishing between historical markers and heritage sites. With my categories in Canada, there is a definite distinction, and separation, between the two. Historical Markers go in a Historical Markers category and Registered Heritage Sites go in a Registered Heritage Sites category. This keeps everything simple and understandable. Admittedly, Registered Heritage Sites which also have a Historical Marker on site are, and should be, admissible in both categories, THOUGH the reverse is not true.

 

I really don't think that an approach different from the one employed in Canada would well serve the community.

Keep the two, distinct, categories of sites separate and any problems should evaporate, with ALL sites being Waymarkable in one category or the other, with a bit of overlap among Registered Heritage Sites which also bear a Historical Marker.

---

EDIT:

There seems one obvious solution:

1.- FrkBrum: Expand the Norway Historical Sites category, while changing the name to Nordic Historical Markers, accepting only Historical Markers in all of the Nordic Countries and Possessions.

2. -Erik: continue with your Nordic Heritage Sites category proposal, accepting only Registered Heritage Sites in all of the Nordic Countries and Possessions.

 

With that, all potential sites in all of the Nordic regions become Waymarkable and any related issues vanish.

Keith

Edited by ScroogieII
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
10 hours ago, ScroogieII said:

OK, here the one problem I DON'T have is distinguishing between historical markers and heritage sites. With my categories in Canada, there is a definite distinction, and separation, between the two. Historical Markers go in a Historical Markers category and Registered Heritage Sites go in a Registered Heritage Sites category. This keeps everything simple and understandable. Admittedly, Registered Heritage Sites which also have a Historical Marker on site are, and should be, admissible in both categories, THOUGH the reverse is not true.

 

I really don't think that an approach different than the one employed in Canada would well serve the community.

Keep the two, distinct, categories of sites separate and any problems should evaporate, with ALL sites being Waymarkable in one category or the other, with a bit of overlap among Registered Heritage Sites which also bear a Historical Marker.

---

EDIT:

There seems one obvious solution:

1.- FrkBrum: Expand the Norway Historical Sites category, while changing the name to Nordic Historical Markers, accepting only Historical Markers in all of the Nordic Countries and Possessions.

2. -Erik: continue with your Nordic Heritage Sites category proposal, accepting only Registered Heritage Sites in all of the Nordic Countries and Possessions.

 

With that, all potential sites in all of the Nordic regions become Waymarkable and any related issues vanish.

Keith

 

Seems like a good way to go. I've updated the category description (see https://Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=6f4827ee-70c4-432e-91bb-9b54ad9a836a&gid=6&exp=True or my draft at https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage-v2.html) to reflect that. Please take a look at the paragraphs "accepted waymarks" / "not accepted waymarks" and tell me if the wording is clear enough.

Link to comment

As a potential reviewer in the potential category, I am fine with using the updated category description, especially because “a link to an official database entry or a document maintained by the national agencies” is required.  It will be difficult to review submissions with no official database entry, no official document or no official on-site marker.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, FamilieFrohne said:

 

Seems like a good way to go. I've updated the category description (see https://Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=6f4827ee-70c4-432e-91bb-9b54ad9a836a&gid=6&exp=True or my draft at https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage-v2.html) to reflect that. Please take a look at the paragraphs "accepted waymarks" / "not accepted waymarks" and tell me if the wording is clear enough.

 

Looked at your draft, Erik. Not perfect, but pretty good. There are only a couple of things I would change, for example:

This category would also accept the rare cases of a historic waymark heritage site in [countries] other countries than the Nordic ones with a really strong connection to the Nordic countries - ideally this one MUST be listed in an official register of the Nordic country [to which] you are referring to. If you do not have an official entry do your best effort to convince the officers.

 

BTW, "Nordic" must always be capitalized, in English at least..

In place of "official database" my personal preference is "Heritage Register", which is basically a North American thing.

Understandably for a German First Language writer, the English could use a bit of tweaking, but if you're satisfied with it, it's sufficiently clear and understandable to avoid serious problems. Otherwise, if you want, I can edit the entire text and fix the few little foibles that remain.

Keith

 

  • Funny 1
  • Helpful 1
Link to comment

"The cultural heritage must be registered in some official database or document collection that also should be available for anyone (so that you can provide the web link to the required variable)."

Has any cultural heritage register been found for the Faroe Islands? I have only found a map of listed buildings but no information. And it has been impossible to find a database or official articles on the total cultural heritage, such as excavated Viking settlements...

 

https://www.tjodsavnid.fo/bygningadeild

Link to comment
21 hours ago, ScroogieII said:

 

Looked at your draft, Erik. Not perfect, but pretty good. There are only a couple of things I would change, for example:

This category would also accept the rare cases of a historic waymark heritage site in [countries] other countries than the Nordic ones with a really strong connection to the Nordic countries - ideally this one MUST be listed in an official register of the Nordic country [to which] you are referring to. If you do not have an official entry do your best effort to convince the officers.

 

BTW, "Nordic" must always be capitalized, in English at least..

In place of "official database" my personal preference is "Heritage Register", which is basically a North American thing.

Understandably for a German First Language writer, the English could use a bit of tweaking, but if you're satisfied with it, it's sufficiently clear and understandable to avoid serious problems. Otherwise, if you want, I can edit the entire text and fix the few little foibles that remain.

Keith

I fixed the language issues you mentioned in the paragraph - also the small "nordic" has become the grown up "Nordic". I also added the reference Walking Boots mentioned for the Faroe Islands.

 

I would be happy to accept your offer to edit the text so that the corners and edges are sanded down. Current version is still on https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage-v2.html.

 

Thanks for your offer,

 

 

Erik.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
On 12/15/2022 at 12:27 PM, FamilieFrohne said:

would be happy to accept your offer to edit the text so that the corners and edges are sanded down. Current version is still on https://erik.familie-frohne.net/wm/nordic-heritage-v2.html.

 

OK, Erik - I'll go and dig out my sander right now. Probably don't need the belt sander - the small palm sander should be enough to do the job. Probably a finer grit paper should be enough - start with a 180 (edited from 160 - haven't done much cabinet making lately and the memory ain't what it once was. HELL - I was lucky to get the "220" right [ and that likely only 'cause it corresponds with common electronics values]) or 220 grit, then go over it one more time with a 320.

Keith

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

 

OK, Erik - I'll go and dig out my sander right now. Probably don't need the belt sander - the small pad sander should be enough to do the job. Probably a finer grit paper should be enough - start with a 160 or 220 grit and go over it one more time with a 320.

Keith

 

400

by hand

Edited by elyob
Link to comment

Thanks for the fast reply. I have taken your changed text and put it into a third version of the draft for comparison with the previous one. I also changed the category description (see https://Waymarking.com/cat/details.aspx?f=1&guid=6f4827ee-70c4-432e-91bb-9b54ad9a836a&gid=6&exp=True ).

 

If nothing else changes I will give it to officers vote in the todays late afternoon/early evening (depending on my work day). 

Link to comment
On 12/15/2022 at 6:21 PM, elyob said:

 

400

by hand

 

By Hand?!?! - Sorry, but I'm not that ambitious.

400?!?! - Never use 400 and 600 seemed like overkill so I stuck with some 320. Few people will notice the difference.

 

(Just by the by - This conversation just may be a tad LESS metaphorical than the less inciteful within the general populace may infer.)

Edited by ScroogieII
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...
×
×
  • Create New...