Archiving waymarks that have been destroyed or moved

[Country_Wife]

As I look back on my old waymarks, I know a number no longer exist, at least at their old locations. I gather it is best to “archive” those waymarks, so others don’t go off on a wild goose chase. It would be sad to lose these, after putting in the work. Will archiving waymarks affect my category grid? The number of waymarks posted?

 

*sigh* I suppose I will delete archive them anyway, but I would be less reluctant if I knew it wouldn’t affect my grid or number of waymarks posted. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Country_Wife

[+Max and 99]

22 minutes ago, Country_Wife said:

As I look back on my old waymarks, I know a number no longer exist, at least at their old locations. I gather it is best to “archive” those waymarks, so others don’t go off on a wild goose chase. It would be sad to lose these, after putting in the work. Will archiving waymarks affect my category grid? The number of waymarks posted?

 

*sigh* I suppose I will delete archive them anyway, but I would be less reluctant if I knew it wouldn’t affect my grid or number of waymarks posted. 

Instead of archiving them you can preserve their record by putting something like "Legacy" or "Gone" at the beginning of the title.

One of my centenarian waymarks I did this to since the headstone is completely gone now but I would certainly want to preserve the record of it!

Edited July 27, 2023 by Max and 99

[Country_Wife]

Oh, I like this idea! One of my waymarks is a mural by a well-known artist. It was one of her first commissions for public art. I have no idea whether it was taken down or covered up, but aside from my waymark, there are very few other records of it. Also, I have recorded several other of her works, and she is one of the two main people behind a new sculpture garden/trail that I want to waymark. 

Edited July 27, 2023 by Country_Wife
More info

[401Photos]

I'd second Max and 99's recommendation to preserve rather than delete any Waymark. History remains even once something is gone or changed.

Would it be appropriate to use "Former Site of" as another type of re-naming convention?

[+Max and 99]

I like that version!

[+fi67]

First the plain facts: Archiving does not influence your stats. And it does not have an effect on visitors either. That's the basic reason why it's not even possible to really delete a once approved waymark.

 

The other aspect is more about personal preferences and the such. The effort spent on the given waymark is one side. I completly understand that you don't want that to be wasted. This is maybe reason enough to let a "dead" waymark stay still active.

 

My (very personal) focus is on avaiability and accessibility of information. Maybe your waymark is the only documentation of this site at a given point in time. Don't hide it, it is nowhere else. Maybe some future historians would be thankful for that minor piece of information about our recent past.

 

What I do in this situation is to change the waymark a bit. I add something clear to the title like "{LEGACY}" at the beginning and an "Edit: " with the date of knowlegde of the change and  its reason at the beginning of the short and long description.

 

This solution is not perfect for potentional visitors, I know, but still the best I can think of.

[+Max and 99]

On 7/26/2023 at 7:32 PM, Country_Wife said:

As I look back on my old waymarks, I know a number no longer exist, at least at their old locations. I gather it is best to “archive” those waymarks, so others don’t go off on a wild goose chase. It would be sad to lose these, after putting in the work. 

I too have been adding a date and edit to the waymark page to explain the situation.

I also wanted to mention to you that just because you're waymark is marked in some way as missing, it can and quite possibly will still get visited.

Sometimes, it's because someone just wants to clear all their unfound waymarks in the area. Another reason is if the waymark shows up on a scavenger hunt. You can't skip even one waymark in a hunt or you can't complete it, so it will get visited. The hunt cannot filter out missing waymarks.

[Country_Wife]

Thanks for that info, I’ll go back and add a date to the ones I recently updated. Should’ve thought of that myself.

Edited July 28, 2023 by Country_Wife

[+MarvoyH]

I understand that for some waymarks it makes sense to label them “Legacy”, “Gone” or “Retired” — to indicate something used to be somewhere of some significance and now it is not — at which point I also believe the description needs to be changed to include why x location is still significant.  Eg this is the spot where some famous person first did whatever made them famous.  But there are some people who really just need to archive their waypoints.

 

There are waypoints listed for things that are no longer present — and we’re never really tied to a location to begin with…. And no effort is even made in the listing to indicate why this might be a good place to visit even if Taco Bell is no longer there or whatever it is that is no longer there.  I get people wanting to keep a historical record — but it just gets stupid if at least 1/4 of the waypoints in your area no longer exist.  I also get people like an easy record pf places they been and you put effort into a waypoint you don’t want to let it go… but honestly other then keeping a historical record of what used to be at a place — which from what I read can still be maintained now with the updates through archiving.  There is no point to clutter the virtual map with places that no longer exist.  Doing so makes it difficult to document the present time state of a given location.

 

There is also the fact that active waypoints (even ones of things no longer there) are generated into scavenger hunts for anyone who hasn’t been to them.  This is less a problem for folks been at it for a while — but for anyone just starting out and wanting to enjoy Waymarking to see new things — it’s annoying.  It’s like virtual litter which makes it hard to find actual active waypoints that are worth the visit — especially if you want to use the scavenger hunt feature.  This clutter discourages new waymarkers.

[+PISA-caching]

Can you give an example (coordinates) where 1/4 of the waymarks are no longer there?

[+ScroogieII]

On 7/26/2023 at 5:32 PM, Country_Wife said:

As I look back on my old waymarks, I know a number no longer exist, at least at their old locations. I gather it is best to “archive” those waymarks, so others don’t go off on a wild goose chase. It would be sad to lose these, after putting in the work. Will archiving waymarks affect my category grid? The number of waymarks posted?

 

*sigh* I suppose I will delete archive them anyway, but I would be less reluctant if I knew it wouldn’t affect my grid or number of waymarks posted. 

 

This is like reliving one of my (misremembered??) yesterdays.

I'm quite certain that I had responded to a very similar query in the relatively recent past, but have gone back three pages worth of posts, yet can't find the appropriate subject.

 

Anyhoo, I shall try to respond similarly to how I (believe I) responded then, with an example I'm quite sure (if I'm sure of anything anymore) I included in that thread.

 

I have had many buildings and objects destroyed following my Waymarking of same. In some cases Waymarks may well be the last published accounts of their existence, hence the Waymarks might become valuable, in an historical sense, and should not be summarily destroyed.

 

To indicate how I believe all defunct Waymarks should be handled, I'll follow with a couple of examples of how no longer extant objects or structures of note have been handled by myself:

St. Mary's and St. Paul's Anglican Church - Lytton, BC

Lytton Joss House Site - Lytton, BC

 

And, in Alberta:

Former Morleyville Methodist Mission - Morley, AB

Unfortunately, I no longer have access to this series of Waymarks, so am unable to interject the appropriate title changes.

Keith

Edited September 18, 2023 by ScroogieII

[+ScroogieII]

DING! DING! DING!

Sorry, CW, the bell and the light bulb both just now went on.

I now remember where I had previously lived this experience, I think. 

Am I right?

Keith

Edited September 18, 2023 by ScroogieII

[Country_Wife]

Beats me. ❓

[+Bear and Ragged]

On 9/18/2023 at 11:36 AM, ScroogieII said:

Unfortunately, I no longer have access to this series of Waymarks, so am unable to interject the appropriate title changes.

 

One of the category officers might be able to help... Especially as I accepted one of them.

 

(Shame to lose it. Is there anything still on the site? Remains/notice boards etc)

 

Edt to add.

Can you have a Former former...

Edited September 19, 2023 by Bear and Ragged

[+ScroogieII]

On 9/19/2023 at 1:29 PM, Bear and Ragged said:

 

One of the category officers might be able to help... Especially as I accepted one of them.

 

(Shame to lose it. Is there anything still on the site? Remains/notice boards etc)

 

Edt to add.

Can you have a Former former...

 

Sorry to say that it's not a situation which might be aided by category officers.

 

I've not been back to any of the sites for a few years, so have no idea what might be on the sites given above.

 

A Former former? Sure, the McDougall Memorial United (formerly Methodist) Church actually is now the Former Former Morleyville Methodist Mission. 

Keith

[+Bear and Ragged]

On 9/26/2023 at 7:31 PM, ScroogieII said:

I've not been back to any of the sites for a few years, so have no idea what might be on the sites given above.

 The downside of Waymarking.

 

We have our favourite categories that we Waymark when away from home, when found.

 

I've Waymarked things, and found they have already been Waymarked by another... Will always log a 'Visit' and make a comment if anything has changed, or I notice something connected with the Waymark.

[+Axel-F]

I don't see the problem in archiving a WM that is gone. I mean nothing last forever.  I have archived a few ANWB paddestoelen which are replaces bij sigh posts. Having said that , I can imagine that there are cases in which  something like eg Legacy  might be a solution as well.

[+bluesnote]

7 hours ago, Axel-F said:

I don't see the problem in archiving a WM that is gone. I mean nothing last forever.  I have archived a few ANWB paddestoelen which are replaces bij sigh posts. Having said that , I can imagine that there are cases in which  something like eg Legacy  might be a solution as well.

 

I disagree. Archiving a waymark means we loose that documentation and history of that object. For example, recently a lot of Confederate memorials have been removed here in the US. A lot of them are waymarked. Waymarking preserves their history. You can still visit the site of where a statue once was, but by archiving the waymark you loose that history and documentation. Instead, what has been accepted at least in the Waymarking community is to say "legacy" in the title to signify the object is either missing, stolen, or no longer standing. Makes it easy to know if something has been reported missing. Just my two cents.

[+Axel-F]

I do agree on that, that's why I stated "" I can imagine that there are cases in which  something like eg Legacy  might be a solution as well. 

As for eg Aldi stores, all kind of sightings, restaurants, they can be archived  when gone...

Edited February 29 by Axel-F

[+ScroogieII]

On 2/28/2024 at 11:02 PM, Axel-F said:

I do agree on that, that's why I stated "" I can imagine that there are cases in which  something like eg Legacy  might be a solution as well. 

As for eg Aldi stores, all kind of sightings, restaurants, they can be archived  when gone...

 

Have to agree with both yourself and the Bluesnote. When an Aldi store is gone, I would suppose that not much of our (collective, as opposed to personal) history is taken with it.

The loss of an XXXX year old building, structure or artefact is usually quite another thing.

The Scrooge

Edited April 5 by ScroogieII