Groundspeak Portal

team farkle 7:

Instead of a list of who visited, have the comments in full on the waymark page, complete with thumbnail to the visitor's default image.

but we have a hard enouth time getting the pages to load as it is......anyone else remember when caches/TBs displayed every log? there is a reason they only have the last few.....

gt.us:

In a perfect world, I would like to see Waymarking more like a wiki, where one person starts it, and others contribute. I have observed that each of us has different 'gifts'. If my gift is spotting a non-specific veterans memorial at 2000 ft, slamming on my brakes, and hitting the mark button on the GPS, it would be nice if the person with the gift of flowery prose could make the words pretty. The end result is the best possible waymark.

In addition to the human relations portion of the 'creating waymarks in a sandbox' experiment, I have one other concern about the physical mechanics of how it will all work.

Do you consider the end users (waymarkers) of the system to be stakeholders in the project? If so, somthing above and beyond a forum discussion might be in order.

amen to that peer review sentiment. i would feel better knowing that i will stop being criticized for not being an english professor, or an html editor, etc....

if we are stakeholders, why were we not incorporated inthe process until it was ready to be activated?

jeremy:

You own your original content. Groundspeak also shares ownership and can modify the content, which would happen in the case of further edits of that content by the community. Whether you own the results of the collaborative effort is a question for the lawyers but my non-lawyer assumption is no.

jeremy:

So, IMO, if the current culture of waymarking is that you own these locations, I say that the culture is broken. For waymarking to succeed it should be both fun and inviting for those to contribute useful information to the cause. If locking down waymarks from being improved over time is a result of the existing culture, that culture should be changed. I personally don't support any changes or features that encourage ownership of waymarks. I'd rather focus on improving the quality and quantity of them.

The Groundspeak Terms of Use Agreement makes the legal nature of this ownership issue pretty clear (to me, anyway). We own our original content, but Groundspeak can do whatever it wants to with regard to derivative works. No argument from me that Groundspeak is completely within its legal rights to allow others to modify the waymarks that I have submitted (and for that matter the categories I have created and managed).

From a purely legal perspective, I've understood this all along. But from a more emotional perspective, the concept of 'ownership' wasn't as clear to me. Thanks to this discussion, and the views presented by Groundspeak, I have a clearer understanding of how I'll need to adjust my thinking in order to remain in sync with Waymarking as it evolves.

But what I find unfortunate and somewhat disappointing is that the 'broken culture' of which you speak is at least partially due to ideas, terms, and structure put forth by Groundspeak, in both forum discussions in which Groundspeak employees have participated, and in the Waymarking site itself over the last 4 years.

How did many of us end up on a different philosophical page than Groundspeak in regard to 'ownership'? In the early days of Waymarking (from what I remember - many of the original discussions in the Groundspeak Forums were removed from public view several years ago) the basic premise of Waymarking was put forth as

1) Find an interesting location
2) Write about it
3) Later, others will visit that location, and write about their experience

Fine - that is still the basic premise of the game.

What I don't remember ever being discussed (perhaps it was, and I missed it) is the missing fourth item:

4) And then later, others will improve your original description by updating the waymark you created. You'll be given credit for the discovery, but the Waymark will be owned by the community.

Other examples of how participants learned to think about the concept of waymark 'ownership':

In the forums, it is common among almost all participants to refer to 'my waymarks' and 'your waymarks'. The use of this terminology was never discouraged or challenged by Groundspeak, and in fact, this type of terminology is used all over the site.

On the waymarking site, there is an actual link titled 'My Waymarks'. I can click it and see the list of all the waymarks I submitted.

The Waymarking FAQ contains the following:

waymarking FAQ:

What are my responsibilities as a waymark owner?

Your responsibilities as a waymark owner are to exactly follow the instructions of its parent category and to describe it in detail. You'll also want to periodically review the logs for your waymark and respond to any issues reported by other waymarkers.

"Responsibilities"? "Waymark owner"? "your waymark"?

Perhaps just semantics, but we see now how easy it was for us embrace a feeling of waymark 'ownership', and we can understand how the culture may have become 'broken'.

The question now is whether or not this new understanding will change the way the community chooses to participate. My hope is that participants will adjust, we'll all get back on the same philosophical page, and that Waymarking will continue to receive the same high level of community support it has seen so far.

In hindsight, it probably would have been better to have had this discussion earlier, rather than the week before the release of an update which challenges the current cultural mindset of the community. It would have given us more time to adjust. I would encourage Groundspeak to continue to help us to better understand its general philosophical views of Waymarking as a community-based activity - in forum discussions, general terminology, and site design itself. This might help us remain on the same page going forward.

cache_test_dummies:

In hindsight, it probably would have been better to have had this discussion earlier, rather than the week before the release of an update which challenges the current cultural mindset of the community. It would have given us more time to adjust. I would encourage Groundspeak to continue to help us to better understand its general philosophical views of Waymarking as a community-based activity - in forum discussions, general terminology, and site design itself. This might help us remain on the same page going forward.

Thanks for everyone's feedback.

This is early. Aside from the unfinished waymark addition and roles, the "ownership" of the waymarks has not fundamentally changed. Hopefully we can get a staging site up so you can see it in action. I'll talk with Nate and Sean on Monday about it.

I put a quote around ownership since I understand that the terminology and wording of text in the future should change to help reflect a hopefully changing culture in what ownership means. Founders of waymarks should have some additional credit and abilities, but ultimately, for the activity to grow, we need to open up waymarks to community contribution without being overly controlling of the waymarks.

We're not going to be a wiki but we're certainly going to apply ideas from the wiki process with the hope that users should be given the opportunity to contribute to listings to make them more accurate and detailed.

Go away for a day, and what do I find?  This thread has really gone wild!  But, it needs to.

It seems that there are two things going on here.

One of them is just creating the mechanism for unclassified waymarks, and the other is the "ownership" and editing issue.  I see that they are related, as presented, but is there some way to separate them?

Okay, I see the potential for waymarks that maybe don't have a category yet, as well as those which are puzzling in terms of appropriate category.  Even so, I'm not sure that creating a slush bucket for these unclassified waymarks will really accomplish anything, and there are potentials for abuse.

We could see all kinds of things end up in this.  Maybe I just like telephone poles, and think they all ought to have a waymark.   Maybe there is a group of six things, not enough for a category, but now I can waymark them anyway.  They may never see the light of day, but hey, there they are.  Or, maybe someone feels passionately about a category proposal that didn't make it in peer review, so why not go ahead and do the waymarks anyway and just drop them in the slush bucket?  Maybe none of this will happen, but it is a potential problem.

So, here's a question - who can actually archive a waymark?   That is a powerful feature.  I suppose if the community owns the waymark, then anyone in the community can decide to archive it?

jeremy:

I put a quote around ownership since I understand that the terminology and wording of text in the future should change to help reflect a hopefully changing culture in what ownership means. Founders of waymarks should have some additional credit and abilities, but ultimately, for the activity to grow, we need to open up waymarks to community contribution without being overly controlling of the waymarks.

We're not going to be a wiki but we're certainly going to apply ideas from the wiki process with the hope that users should be given the opportunity to contribute to listings to make them more accurate and detailed.

Okay, I don't think any of us are saying that finding ways to make waymarking more collaborative is not a worthy goal.  In fact, I think there is a great deal of informal collaboration that goes on as it is.  But, the challenge is to find a way to do this that preserves the integrity the original waymark and the contribution of the waymark creator. 

For someone to take a waymark, even if it is submitted without an assigned category,  add  something, perhaps minimal, and then submit it to a category as his own, even with an acknowledgment to the originator, is not the way to do that.

I still maintain, that waymarks submitted as uncategorized, should be sent back to the originator for actual submission.  If getting a waymark into the right category, either existing or one created in the future, is the goal, then this makes sense.

But, the discussion has gone beyond finding homes for these orphans.  It now seems as if you are talking about implementing broad features that would allow a wider group of people to add, delete, or change content of waymarks.  The hope expressed is that this would result in higher quality waymarks.  In the best of all possible worlds, this might be the case.  But, the opposite could be true.  Maybe the person who wants to make the change is wrong!  Maybe he has an "agenda" and wants to slant something about the waymark a certain way.  Maybe his new information is actually inaccurate.  What was intended to make things better could result in more contention than collaboration!

The way to come up with a collaborative result is NOT to allow each person to add, delete and change whatever they want.  Every project must have a master, and in the case of a waymark, that should be the person who created it in the first place.

How about an analogy?  Say, Iron Chef America.  In the great cookoff, to create the set of perfect dishes around a theme, a great collaborative effort takes place.  But, it is the master chef who coordinates it all.  If each person just threw in whatever ingredients he thought best, and combined them to suit his view of how it should look, the result might not be so good, and the master chef might just want to dump it all into the garbage.

So, the collaboration takes place when I see a waymark, and say, "Hey, here is a mistake; here is some additonal information, here is a way to say it better," and let the waymark creator act upon that - or not as he sees fit. 

Or, I like the direction of Farkle's suggestion.  We ALREADY have a rudimentary mechanism that allows users "the opportunity to contribute to listings to make them more accurate and detailed."  That is the visit log.   They are pretty much hidden, though, and presume a personal visit.

While I would view it as a compromise, would it not be possible to have a section below the content of the original waymark called something like "Edit Notes"  or "User Contribution," where additional information or corrections could be added? (No anonymous notes, though).  This keeps the original content intact, and allows the waymark creator the options to keep the added note as it was contributed, incorporate the information or suggestions into the main body of the waymark, or even delete it if it is deemed inappropriate, or after the information/changes were added.

I've purposefully used the term "creator," because I think that accurately describes the process of making a waymark.  When I submit a waymark, it is something I've created.  I've visited a site, taken photographs, done the research, and written a description.  Some waymarks are more creative than others, but that is the process.  And, that is why I think it is also appropriate to use the term "owner."  I own what I've created.  Now, when I submit it to Waymarking.com, I give up some of those ownership rights.  But, I don't think I should be asked to give up all of my rights to the community, which in this case is anyone and everyone who pays the fee to become a premium member and wants to mess with my creation.  If you want total community ownership, then let's just do away with this talk about "my" waymark and "your waymark," and just submit them all anonymously as generic waymarks into the great community pool of commonality!  Okay, that's extending it beyond what is intended, I know, but I'm trying to make the point.

Personally, I've welcomed corrections, contributions, suggested resources, etc. from others that have helped make some of my waymarks better.  But, to allow someone, at will, to come in and start changing what I've created, even if it is to enhance it, would not set well with me at all.  It would like be playing a game of chess with someone reaching over your shoulder to make a better move for you.  Or, to get back to the cooking analogy, it would be like inviting the gang into your kitchen and each one could add ingredients, change the cooking time, choose a different plate and presentation, etc.

Now, back to the beginning.  I personally would not find the uncategorized category useful to me, and can't think of a reason for submitting anything to it.  I especially would send in something just for someone else to pick of and submit.  I'm just saying.

I've got way too many waymarks that go well into categories to have to worry about those that don't, for one thing.  For me it just would not be useful or helpful.  And, I've got way too many real waymarks to review than to go wading through the slush bucket.  I'm just saying.

And, beyond minor corrections in the course of reviewing waymarks, I would never edit someone's waymark, even to improve it, and would expect the same resepect and courtesy from others.

silverquill:

The way to come up with a collaborative result is NOT to allow each person to add, delete and change whatever they want.  Every project must have a master, and in the case of a waymark, that should be the person who created it in the first place.

Just to clarify - based on what Nate said in the opening post, the new Edit Waymark feature does not provide the ability to for anyone to modify waymarks at will. With the exception of changes made by the people-formerly-known-as-owners and the category managers (who already have the ability to modify their waymarks at will), every waymark change is subject to review (well, as presented, it appears that premium members will be able to fill in missing variables without review, which seems a bit peculiar to me - why isn't everything subject to review?).

So we aren't reverting to a Wild West scenario in which anyone can change whatever they want.

I agree with you that someone needs to have control of the proposed changes (notice that I used the word 'control' so as to not imply ownership). There is a certain logic to having the person who created the original waymark be the one with control over edits, as you've suggested. That person, in theory anyway, is guaranteed to have first-hand knowledge of the location and the waymark located there.

But there is a compelling argument for the category managers to be the ones with control, which is the approach that Groundspeak appears to be taking. Reasons include:

• Increased consistency of waymarks across the category.
• Category managers have a broader understanding of other similar waymarks, knowledge which may put them in a good position to judge the quality of the proposed changes
• Multiple reviewers in a group means proposed changes are more likely to eventually get reviewed. If the waymark in question has an absentee creator, there will never be a review.
• The mechanism for category manager review is already in place.

I suppose you could make the argument that either the waymark creator or the category managers should be able to review proposed changes, but I suspect that would prove to be ineffective and chaotic.

silverquill:

And, beyond minor corrections in the course of reviewing waymarks, I would never edit someone's waymark, even to improve it, and would expect the same resepect and courtesy from others.

I feel the same way at the moment. But I see that it is now inevitable that people will start changing waymarks created by others. When this starts happening, we'll all get to witness (or experience directly) the 'community based ownership' culture clash with the 'creator based ownership' culture.

Now that should be interesting.

with all this talk about editing and access,

if i, as 'mark owner' am locked from editing the mark, does this block my ability to archive the mark? that is a facet of editing, is it not......

Certainly I can appreciate that Groundspeak would like to see accuracy and detailed Waymark Listings for all of its customers to enjoy. And it goes without saying that Groundspeak would like to encourage growth. If a new feature will make contributions easier for new or experienced participants then that likely is a benefit. As we are discussing two separate enhancements in this upcoming update, there are two aspects to my reply.

I am completely fine with the concept of submitting partial listing to an Uncategorized pool such that others can enhance and help complete them for publication. And in that regard, the content should be communal and reproducible for other listings that would also be communal. Be that viewed as Waymarkipedia, which would make sense, then I'm all for that and it would be an added fun element.

As a Waymarking Listing "Poster", I am very open to being given additional or updated content. Says so on each and every Listing that I submit in my long-winded boilerplate. But since every Listing that I have submitted thus far states that I am the one that posted it, going forward any new content added by others would appear to have been provided by me. Imagine how William Shakespeare would react if we were to come along and update his soliloquies. Can't imagine any scenario where Barry Manilow would be impressed to have his lyrics changed without his consent.

Coming back to Waymarking, yes please add ways to make my Waymarks better. But don't cut me out, don't make it appear that other people words are mine and don't encourage ways for people to plagiarize my intellectual property. Like it says section 3 of the WM ToU.

The Site and all content available on the Site are protected by applicable intellectual property laws, and are for personal and noncommercial use. All rights not expressly granted in this Agreement are reserved by Groundspeak or by the respective owners of the intellectual property rights. All materials available on or through the Site, other than Third Party Submissions (collectively, the "Site Materials") are the property of Groundspeak or of its licensors and are protected by copyright, trademark, and other intellectual property laws. Groundspeak reserves the right to impose additional terms and conditions upon Your use and viewing of particular Site Materials, and any such terms and conditions may be posted on the Site in connection with those Site Materials. You may not reproduce or retransmit the Site Materials, in whole or in part, in any manner, without the prior written consent of the owner of such materials, except as follows: You may make a single copy of the Site Materials solely for Your personal, noncommercial use, but such copying must be consistent with any applicable additional terms and conditions and You must preserve any copyright, trademark, or other notices contained in or associated with such Site Materials. You may not distribute such copies to others, whether or not in electronic form and whether or not for a charge or other consideration, without prior written consent of the owner of such materials. If you have any questions, contact us at contact@groundspeak.com.

I know that Waymarking is a different game, but they share a very common-core Terms of Use and I can only imagine that if this idea was presented to the Geocachers... the forums would erupt in a flame-fest.

jeremy:
You own your original content. Groundspeak also shares ownership and can modify the content, which would happen in the case of further edits of that content by the community. Whether you own the results of the collaborative effort is a question for the lawyers but my non-lawyer assumption is no.

Groundspeak has that right, says so in the ToU. It remains unclear that Groundspeak has the right to re-assign that option thus allowing others editing ability to the derivative works of the originating author. Section 7 of the ToU says that Groundspeak respects the intellectual property rights of others. Allowing people to edit or copy that seems to run contrary. Groundspeak's saving grace is Section 6, stating what the company's options are. So in a sense Groundspeak can say that the members are acting on behalf of Groundspeak when such edits are made and without notice.

At the very least, it would be a show of good faith and courtesy to notify the "Poster" when changes have been made. I would think that it should be a simple affair in much the same way that the Site informs you when your log has been deleted (well, in Geocaching it does, not in Waymarking so far)

BQ

I've  read through the comments in this thread, and have a thought about the waymark "ownership" issue  -- which by the way probably deserves to be spun off  into a new separate thread.

I personally participate in a totally different collaborative "database" effort that uses the concept of "Stewardship."  The broad subject is historic tool patents, and the "database" is www.datamp.org.  In that project, "stewardship" of  individual entries can be transferred.  One steward will note & make a "bare bones" entry for a patent & then transfer the entry to the participant with the greatest expertise for that category.    The project leaders also have the ability to take over and reassign "stewardship" in case of death or other event that takes the original "steward" out of the picture.   The individual database entries are also structured to solicit comments & additional information for the "steward" to incorporate into that entry.

 As waymarking matures, a similar capacity should be developed, to allow the waymarks to evolve and keep abreast of current developments.

Although a relative newbie with fewer than 100 waymarks, I understand and appreciate the effort needed to produce a waymark.   Since the waymarks I've posted are all local, and tied to personal / institutional information sources, I'd  not take lightly some "outside" editor toying with them. 
On the other hand, I'd take into account any comments or insights I received that would improve / expand the content of waymarks I've posted.  I know this works, because I've forwarded update / additional information to the "owners" of waymarks posted several years ago, and my new / update information  was  gratefully aceepted and incorporated. 

So I'd be cautious about shifiting to a "wiki" type "wide-open" editing capability for waymarks, when more could be done to encourage conversations / interactions with the waymark "owner."

Regards, Stan Schulz, Library Director, Kilgore Memorial Library, York, NE

silverquill:

And, beyond minor corrections in the course of reviewing waymarks, I would never edit someone's waymark, even to improve it, and would expect the same resepect and courtesy from others.

I agree. Except for a little typo here, I wouldn't want to edit something waymark to change it. In the past I've email people about mistake or addition, and people have emailed me. We've all made mistakes, I think it can be fixed with a nice email.

I liked the idea of a new log like "Additional Information" to add third part information. Though the problem with the log is that in email notifications everything is a visit whether it's a real visit or a note.

saopaulo1:

Though the problem with the log is that in email notifications everything is a visit whether it's a real visit or a note.

but this should be an easy fix, right? kind of how the date is whatever date the log was posted, not date entered as actual 'visit' date......(how many of us actually get to log our visits on the same day we visited?)

Well said BQ.

Thanks to everyone for their reasoned arguments and discussion in this thread! These changes are substantial and will require some modification going forward, so your comments and concerns here and in the future are appreciated and will absolutely be taken into consideration.

We'll be attempting to release the new code this afternoon provided everything goes well. Should we overshoot our 2pm (Pacific) deadline we'll try again tomorrow morning. At the moment everything is looking good. I'll start a new thread when we're back up.

Edit: We couldn't branch the build in time today so tomorrow morning it is. Thanks for hanging in there.

chapterhouseinc:

team farkle 7:

Instead of a list of who visited, have the comments in full on the waymark page, complete with thumbnail to the visitor's default image.

but we have a hard enouth time getting the pages to load as it is......anyone else remember when caches/TBs displayed every log? there is a reason they only have the last few.....

All I notice when a page loads is the map might be sluggish occasionally. The text takes almost no time. The way I see it is how many visits on average actually get made. Out of the 200,000 waymark how many have say over 10 visits?

opinionate:

Thanks to everyone for their reasoned arguments and discussion in this thread! These changes are substantial and will require some modification going forward, so your comments and concerns here and in the future are appreciated and will absolutely be taken into consideration.

We'll be attempting to release the new code this afternoon provided everything goes well. Should we overshoot our 2pm (Pacific) deadline we'll try again tomorrow morning. At the moment everything is looking good. I'll start a new thread when we're back up.

Edit: We couldn't branch the build in time today so tomorrow morning it is. Thanks for hanging in there.

Over a week had gone by, so I had been wondering what was happening with this thread and its topic. Personally I'm bummed that despite all the reasoned arguments and discussion, that it's still going forward.
Just six days ago I posted a caboose and since then I've received two emails from two of the officers. When I got the first one, I took the information and gave my waymark an update. Not to disparage this person's attempt at helping me improve my waymark, but some of the assumptions made were as wrong as my own.
The second email I received however had different information and a link. After looking it over, I'm left with the belief that the second group officer not only knows more about the category, but also is responsible for the content of the reference site, which looks quite comprehensive. I'm assuming he knows what he's talking about. If not, then what?
Either way, it's nice having the ability to decide what information best works for my waymark. Oh, and when it was approved, I got an email that read, "Your waymark has been approved." Will that be changing too?

From all this discussion, I'm just eager to see what the new version will look like and how it will work. I'm confident that no information will be lost--the person that submitted the waymark is stored, the people that edit will be stored, etc--so if something needs to change (back?) then the info is available.

I do tend to think of waymark listings as "mine", so I might have to adjust my thinking. The idea of edits by others might turn out to be interesting when we "encyclopedic waymarking" types encounter waymarks submitted by "personal experience" types...

Good luck with the rollout!

I forgot to mention that "write note" is now "write comment" and  moved from the visit page to the waymark details page alongside "visit waymark". I guess simple edits will be made in comments by anyone too squeamish about editing someone else's waymark.

Another idea we have for notifying waymark owners of edits to their waymark is to have the site automatically post a comment to the page showing the old text vs. new text. This would generate the typical log notification you already get, and be a way for those not involved in the process to see what is taking place.

Anyway, hang with us and try to be optimistic. The release begins in 5-10 mins.

and after 60 mins it must be taking some effort....

chapterhouseinc:

and after 60 mins it must be taking some effort....

It's complicated...

For one thing, the site is tied in with the geocaching payment system so that complicates things immensely. Everything is going well, though.

glad to hear its a caching problem

0ccam:

From all this discussion, I'm just eager to see what the new version will look like and how it will work. I'm confident that no information will be lost--the person that submitted the waymark is stored, the people that edit will be stored, etc--so if something needs to change (back?) then the info is available.

I do tend to think of waymark listings as "mine", so I might have to adjust my thinking. The idea of edits by others might turn out to be interesting when we "encyclopedic waymarking" types encounter waymarks submitted by "personal experience" types...

Good luck with the rollout!

I assume it's mine because it has my name on the top. The same way I assume someone who posted something in a forum is their ideas, not a mishmash of different users. I hope it goes well and doesn't get out of hand.

team farkle 7:

Just six days ago I posted a caboose and since then I've received two emails from two of the officers. When I got the first one, I took the information and gave my waymark an update. Not to disparage this person's attempt at helping me improve my waymark, but some of the assumptions made were as wrong as my own.

I've been disparaged....


You know what they say about assumptions. In my defense I did say that the owner may have renumbered it incorrectly. 

You are right though about this being an excellent example of how editing could go wrong.

I believed what I told you based on information that I had available. I believed it sincerely and without malicious intent and....I was still wrong. If I had edited your waymark....it would have still been wrong.

What is the vetting process for maintaining the integrity of a waymark after it is approved? We shall see but I worry that this may not be a wise step overall for waymarking but then maybe I am assuming again.

TheBeanTeam:

team farkle 7:

Just six days ago I posted a caboose and since then I've received two emails from two of the officers. When I got the first one, I took the information and gave my waymark an update. Not to disparage this person's attempt at helping me improve my waymark, but some of the assumptions made were as wrong as my own.

I've been disparaged....


You know what they say about assumptions. In my defense I did say that the owner may have renumbered it incorrectly. 

You are right though about this being an excellent example of how editing could go wrong.

I believed what I told you based on information that I had available. I believed it sincerely and without malicious intent and....I was still wrong. If I had edited your waymark....it would have still been wrong.

What is the vetting process for maintaining the integrity of a waymark after it is approved? We shall see but I worry that this may not be a wise step overall for waymarking but then maybe I am assuming again.

Sorry Bean,
My intent wasn't to make you look bad. You did say the number could be fudged. Just goes to show, but as Nate says, hang in there...

I wasn't concerned and don't think you made me look bad....only human. It is good for all of us to realize that not everything we believe as fact at a given point is set in stone.

The point you made was a good one.  The issue you cited only highlighted a potential problem with editing of waymarks.  I have been proven wrong more than once and each time I think it helps create a better history for the waymark involved. It remains to be seen if the edit ability will prove positive or negative in the community as a whole.

Is it me or has the Brand New Uncategorized  Category become a dumping ground for half-cooked waymarks?  I thought the idea was to put them there so to be recognized by others that they would actually fit in one the 941 categories.  Instead, I'm seeing requests for names of religious statues and needs for requiered pictures that the owners of the waymarks failed to get in the first place for already well known categories.