Groundspeak Portal

As Waymarking grows, more and more people are wanting to carve out a place of their own within the Directory.  To place their flag on the grid so to speak.

Consider however how your Category concept helps to enhance the enjoyable recreational aspects of Waymarking.  There are four general ideas that should be thought about, and in my view "Stand Out" is by far the most important one of all.

This is not to say that useful Categories do not have their place.  Educational and Novelty are easy to understand and support, but the Useful ones are not so easy to pidgeon hole.

Lately there seems to have been many proposed Categories which really have little to offer in terms of usefulness.  While a restaurant or a store provides a service, quite a few of the ideas of late apply to a select niche.  They are likely well known to those in the local area, and not something that a tourist would seek out.

Don't get me wrong, documenting locations is what Waymarking is all about.  Just not every 'thing' in the world needs to be Waymarked.

A good rule of thumb is "Would people take visiting relatives to see things that this Category is hoping to provide?" and "If it happened that I went by one, might I want to stop at it and then continue on my way?" If you cannot say YES to either of these, then it is likely that the concept holds little appeal or value in Waymarking.

Let's not start, or maybe I should say let's not continue, to bring ideas forward that have little usefulness or appeal to those outside of a small segment of the possible audience.

BQ

One man's usefull is another man's boring.

the blue quasar:

A good rule of thumb is "Would people take visiting relatives to see things that this Category is hoping to provide?" and "If it happened that I went by one, might I want to stop at it and then continue on my way?" If you cannot say YES to either of these, then it is likely that the concept holds little appeal or value in Waymarking.

If this was the case we wouldnt have the US Benchmark category. It's the second most filled category of any. Would I ever take someone to see a benchmark? No. But people must like making new waymarks though.

I think with Waymarking the object has become more of marking then of visiting.

It's interesting to read this post.  When I discovered Waymarking last fall my initial reaction was that this program could be incredibly useful in the tourism industry.  People could log onto the site while travelling, search the community they are in, and learn more about what there is to see and do there. 

Something I've discovered, however, is that most people don't really use the waymarking site as a tool.  The joy seems to be coming from posting a new waymark, not posting a visit.  

So this poses the question ... what IS "usefulness"?  Are people using Waymarking.com as a resource for touring and travel (I do, but I'm special :p)

Don't get me wrong, I AGREE with you.  I think that as a resource this site is VERY underused.  The question is what can be done to turn it around.  I'm not sure if the answer is fewer waymarks.   

saopaulo1:

One man's usefull is another man's boring.

When it comes to categories which can best viewed as commodity categories, why waymark them... they are their, they are useful but they don't need to be waymarked.  Waymarking common ordinary things makes little sense.  Lamp posts are useful, stop signs are useful, and storm drains are useful however I don't think they should be categories.... they are boring.

saopaulo1:

the blue quasar:

A good rule of thumb is "Would people take visiting relatives to see things that this Category is hoping to provide?" and "If it happened that I went by one, might I want to stop at it and then continue on my way?" If you cannot say YES to either of these, then it is likely that the concept holds little appeal or value in Waymarking.

If this was the case we wouldnt have the US Benchmark category. It's the second most filled category of any. Would I ever take someone to see a benchmark? No. But people must like making new waymarks though.

Sheer numbers of waymarks in a category should not be the judge of a successful category.... there are many reasons why a category has many waymarks.  It may be that they are easy (they have big signs out in front that say here I am and no research is needed to write them up).  It may be that they have a core group which contribute a substantial number of  the waymarks.  It may be that there are many potential targets. 

saopaulo1:

I think with Waymarking the object has become more of marking then of visiting.

It did not become this, it had to start with marking rather than visiting (can't visit what is not there).   If categories become more and more commodity type categories it will remain only a marking activity and it will also start to lose interest in that area too.  Maybe waymarking should have had only one statisic "Visiting" and when you submitted a waymark it was a visit (that is what happened really anyway) and each subsequent person also visited too (it just the first person had to put a little more effort into their visit)

BruceS:

saopaulo1:

One man's usefull is another man's boring.

When it comes to categories which can best viewed as commodity categories, why waymark them... they are their, they are useful but they don't need to be waymarked.  Waymarking common ordinary things makes little sense.  Lamp posts are useful, stop signs are useful, and storm drains are useful however I don't think they should be categories.... they are boring.

Hey!  I liked the idea of manhole covers!!

saopaulo1:

the blue quasar:

A good rule of thumb is "Would people take visiting relatives to see things that this Category is hoping to provide?" and "If it happened that I went by one, might I want to stop at it and then continue on my way?" If you cannot say YES to either of these, then it is likely that the concept holds little appeal or value in Waymarking.

Some of us are interested in history, others art.   One can waymark a neon sign and then turn around and find a shoe tree or peace pole or a wastewater plant.    Usefulness?  Appeal?  Small segment?   Many of us will waymark all of these, either to fill in the grid, to get the numbers up or merely because we just enjoy photo-journaling our travels and discoveries.  And WMers with specific interests can focus on whatever categories appeal to them.  

Sheer numbers of waymarks in a category should not be the judge of a successful category.... there are many reasons why a category has many waymarks.  It may be that they are easy (they have big signs out in front that say here I am and no research is needed to write them up).  It may be that they have a core group which contribute a substantial number of  the waymarks.  It may be that there are many potential targets. 

If there are alot of WMs in a category, evidently someone or ones have an interest in WMing them. 

saopaulo1:

I think with Waymarking the object has become more of marking then of visiting.

It did not become this, it had to start with marking rather than visiting (can't visit what is not there).   If categories become more and more commodity type categories it will remain only a marking activity and it will also start to lose interest in that area too.  Maybe waymarking should have had only one statisic "Visiting" and when you submitted a waymark it was a visit (that is what happened really anyway) and each subsequent person also visited too (it just the first person had to put a little more effort into their visit)


As the WM site becomes more user friendly and we are able to sort by variables, etc. I do think people will begin to use it to find existing WMs.  And also, the more people that join the community and waymark, the more we will have to visit.

I believe we - WMers - are a very diverse group.   Some of us are interested in history, others art.   One can waymark a neon sign and then turn around and find a shoe tree or peace pole or a wastewater plant.    Usefulness?  Appeal?  Small segment?   Many of us will waymark all of these, either to fill in the grid, to get the numbers up or merely because we just enjoy photo-journaling our travels and discoveries.  And WMers with specific interests can focus on whatever categories appeal to them.   

Lastly, for any of us to decide what is 'useful' or 'appealing' would be a very subjective call.   I know how difficult it is to define  'artistic' or 'creative' WMs to include in a category --  I can't imagine trying to define what is or isn't an appropriate category based on 'usefulness' or 'appeal'.  

From Wikipedia

A rule of thumb is a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation. It is an easily learned and easily applied procedure for approximately calculating or recalling some value, or for making some determination

Again, I am not here to judge the intrinsic nature of anyone's passions.  And I also qualified my statements by saying that "useful" is not easy to define.

Some categories are simply 'collectors' and while I absolutely REFUSE to cite specific categories that do exist I will say it this way.

There is a pride in being able to locate all of the historic plaques within a region but it is far less likely that the same can be said of all of the local bus shelters.

Novelty covers some categories but does not apply to some of a more mundane foundation, whereas an implied 'usefulness' to the general public does make sense.  If you are not passionate about the category concept then you might want to ask yourself why you are making it.

This feeling has been nagging at me for a few months and I've spent many a 'dog-walk' trying to figure out how to express my concerns.  In no way am I saying that I have a 'hard and fast rule' which can be applied with the wide paint brush.  But I also know that I read some proposals and roll my eyes and think "why?"

BQ

Personally I hardly invoke the wow criteria when voting. Example; let's say there's a category up for traffic lights and painted boulders. I would vte no on the first and yes on the second. But in the end I think they're both useless and stupid.  It's just not my thing. Maybe someone loves painted boulders.

I'm a fan of commercial establishments, but I would vote no on a Luby's restuarant. It's just no global enough.

Last May I presented a program during a conference of Museum Professionals, introducing them to Waymarking.  I proposed Waymarking as one of the untapped resources of Cultural Tourism and we discussed how they might use waymarking to provide a new service to their visitors/constituents.

One of the most interesting to them was "Cyber-Collecting."  They compared it to bird watching which allows people to create an maintain a list of things they would like to see.

Another was customized mapping while travelling.  They really liked how people could search a community online and make note of the waymarks of interest.  We also discussed how travelers can use waymarking.com as a vital resource when in unfamiliar territory. They all saw the value of logging some of the "mundane and boring."  Are you traveling and looking for an offleash dog park?  What about a self-locking bike rack (sports cyclists don't like to carry the weight of their own lock and chain).  Are you addicted to Starbucks?  Having some of these items waymarked would be a huge service to travelers.

But of course, following this lively discussion, there was the anticipated road-block:  the only people who know about the value of waymarking are the WMs themselves.  Here is this terrific resource that is completely untouched by potential audiences.

So that, to us, was the greater challenge.  How can we get our audiences to learn about, and use, waymarking.com?  And once we get them, will we have enough to hold their interest?  This is why I am still of the mindset that as long as it's something that is interesting or useful, it should be waymarked. 

Interesting things aren't always useful.  Useful things aren't always interesting.  But both are necessary.

 

 

Pahaska_1:

But of course, following this lively discussion, there was the anticipated road-block:  the only people who know about the value of waymarking are the WMs themselves.  Here is this terrific resource that is completely untouched by potential audiences.

So that, to us, was the greater challenge.  How can we get our audiences to learn about, and use, waymarking.com?  And once we get them, will we have enough to hold their interest?  This is why I am still of the mindset that as long as it's something that is interesting or useful, it should be waymarked. 

Interesting things aren't always useful.  Useful things aren't always interesting.  But both are necessary.

 

Ask them to provide links on their site to Waymarks would be one way, creating more Waymarks would be another.  Basically if any group wants to promote certain areas they can do so by adding links to various Waymarks in the area.  Something tells me that if theyhad ideas for Waymarks, they could easily create rich and interesting pages that they would be proud to show off and entice or augment their current visitor programs.

 

BQ

Pahaska_1:

But of course, following this lively discussion, there was the anticipated road-block:  the only people who know about the value of waymarking are the WMs themselves.  Here is this terrific resource that is completely untouched by potential audiences.

So that, to us, was the greater challenge.  How can we get our audiences to learn about, and use, waymarking.com?  And once we get them, will we have enough to hold their interest?  This is why I am still of the mindset that as long as it's something that is interesting or useful, it should be waymarked. 

I don't believe this is the case any more.  From the emails I have received from various people from outside the waymarking community, they are finding waymarks through google searches.  An interesting one I received recently was from a funeral home in Swift Current, SK asking me to change the name of my waymark from the funeral homes name (which is what it was listed on the Saskatewan  Heritage List)  to the former name of the  building because the funeral home had moved however if someone did a websearch the waymark came up first in the list... in front of his own site.  I complied and changed the name and let him know the naming was based on the name on the SK Heritage list.  He was not concerned about that list as his site was listed before it. 

As more and more waymarks are submitted more people will stumble on them through searches.  Will people come to waymarking to find where a chain restaurant is... probably not because most of the chains have a website with a store locator which is usually complete and up to date.  For other types of categories the locations are not as easily found elsewhere thus will be potentially used more by those outside the current waymarking community.

I just hope we are not developing a commercial web site here. If someone want's a guide for tourism there are many already developed by tourist commuities of specific destination. I don't think we should do the job of tourist promotors for free in our free time. I hope this website is made for participants to have fun. And it seems WMers have fun by going out and searching for and finding specific locations defined within Waymaring game. If someone will use our findings for their traviling so be it, but I don't think it should be main focus of this game.

What I find attractive in Waymarking is the aspect of going out with my daughter and my wife and looking for different waymarks (from payphone to cathedrals). And we really do have excellent and fun time. I couldn't care less if someone will ever visit waymarks I found on my expeditions because I already was rewarded while I hunted them. If potential tourist wants to findout about attractions in my town there are certainly better places to look for. Same if one wants to find different services etc.

I just hope the reason there are categories for hospitals, museums etc. is for waymarkers to have fun looking for them and not to build ultimate global guide that will be used by turists.

WayExplorer:

I just hope the reason there are categories for hospitals, museums etc. is for waymarkers to have fun looking for them and not to build ultimate global guide that will be used by turists.

I don't see why it can't be both.  When I vacation I always google the location before I walk out the door, just to insure I am aware of the potential sights and activities of the area.  You would be amazed at how many Museums, sculpture gardens, cool shops or rerestaurants are NOT included in local visitors bureau information.  Sometimes the waymark might be the only way an outside will even know of it's exisitance.

Case in point:  I was in New Olreans YEARS ago.  Prior to my visit I had read about the Voodoo Museum in a travel guide.  I didn't note the address because I figured that once I was in town I would be able to find it through local resourcres.  NOPE!  It was not included on one single map.  The hotel I was at had no idea, and it wasn't in the phone book.  The Museum's budget didn't allow them to have a brochure or website (the Voodoo priest ran it out of his home).  After 3 days I finally stumbled upon it while wandering the French Quarter.  So if I hadn't learned of its existance from an outside resource I never would have enjoyed one of the most unique museums I have every visited. If it had been waymarked, however, I would have been able to find all of the information I wanted, including the exact location, online.

To Bruce: 

That's GREAT that you are receiving feedback!  I am going to do another presentation about waymarking in as a cultural tourism resource in Kansas City this fall.  Hopefully people will start posting information about this in their Museum's newsletters.

Pahaska_1:

To Bruce: 

That's GREAT that you are receiving feedback!  I am going to do another presentation about waymarking in as a cultural tourism resource in Kansas City this fall.  Hopefully people will start posting information about this in their Museum's newsletters.

There are not a great number of waymarks in Kansas City  at this time, maybe I can change that with a trip or two before then.  Just waymarking the hundreds of fountains in KC will take a long time let alone the other art forms and historic buildings. 

Bruce, that would be cool, AND ironic!  The previous program I presented was in Sheridan, Wyoming.  I showed the room how to do a search by looking up Waymarks in Sheridan.  As you know, you made about 90% of them!  Because I was working and not able to spend much time searching for anything new, I was able to at least log some visits to several of these :)

BruceS:

Maybe waymarking should have had only one statisic "Visiting" and when you submitted a waymark it was a visit (that is what happened really anyway) and each subsequent person also visited too (it just the first person had to put a little more effort into their visit)

I think that would have been cool.

This is a theme that has popped up before in the forums.  Just a reminder that for those "undesirable" categories, however you define them, you do have the option to exclude them from your "view" of the site.  I have used this for benchmarks for example.

Waymarking has become many things to many people.  The voting process does screen out many of the "lame" category proposals.  For me the process works pretty well.

I've been getting into the process lately of collecting icons.  I think this feature should continue to be developed.  It makes you see things you might never before have looked at or considered interesting in a new light.

 

And, speaking of 'undesirable' and 'lame' categories......      

is the Bicycle Tenders category 'stuck' in limbo somewhere, or just a difficult decision whether to approve or reject?    No response yet from the powers that be.  

fishingwishing:

And, speaking of 'undesirable' and 'lame' categories......      

is the Bicycle Tenders category 'stuck' in limbo somewhere, or just a difficult decision whether to approve or reject?    No response yet from the powers that be.  

The person who normally does the final release on categories at Groundspeak  is not available to do the review this week.  Also categories which are close in vote sometimes take a little longer to be reviewed.

fishingwishing:

And, speaking of 'undesirable' and 'lame' categories......      

is the Bicycle Tenders category 'stuck' in limbo somewhere, or just a difficult decision whether to approve or reject?    No response yet from the powers that be.  

The person who normally does the final release on categories at Groundspeak  is not available to do the review this week.  Also categories which are close in vote sometimes take a little longer to be reviewed.

Thanks,  BruceS.  

Pahaska_1:

Another was customized mapping while travelling.  They really liked how people could search a community online and make note of the waymarks of interest.  We also discussed how travelers can use waymarking.com as a vital resource when in unfamiliar territory. They all saw the value of logging some of the "mundane and boring."  Are you traveling and looking for an offleash dog park?  What about a self-locking bike rack (sports cyclists don't like to carry the weight of their own lock and chain).  Are you addicted to Starbucks?  Having some of these items waymarked would be a huge service to travelers.

But of course, following this lively discussion, there was the anticipated road-block:  the only people who know about the value of waymarking are the WMs themselves.  Here is this terrific resource that is completely untouched by potential audiences.

So that, to us, was the greater challenge.  How can we get our audiences to learn about, and use, waymarking.com?  And once we get them, will we have enough to hold their interest?  This is why I am still of the mindset that as long as it's something that is interesting or useful, it should be waymarked. 

Waymarking is missing two tools that would greatly enhance visits - bookmarks and pocket queries.  IF we had bookmarks, you could create a bookmark list of interesting waymarks in an area that you wanted to see, like cool historic buildings in St. Louis or something.  Then you could run a pq for the bookmark list and have them all downloaded.  It would also facilitate separating waymarks that you think are mundane from waymarks that you want to see.  The only way I can do this now is to download in .loc page-by-page, then I get everything confused when I open up the multiple downloads.

JimmyEv:

Waymarking is missing two tools that would greatly enhance visits - bookmarks and pocket queries.  IF we had bookmarks, you could create a bookmark list of interesting waymarks in an area that you wanted to see, like cool historic buildings in St. Louis or something.  Then you could run a pq for the bookmark list and have them all downloaded.  It would also facilitate separating waymarks that you think are mundane from waymarks that you want to see.  The only way I can do this now is to download in .loc page-by-page, then I get everything confused when I open up the multiple downloads.

 

Funny thing was that when I read the first few words I thought I knew what you were going to say.  For me, it is Pocket Queries (only to filter out certain options, like New York) and Waymarks Along a Route... which is really what I need.  But all of this would be better suited to the Waymarking Feature Requests thread (or whatever it is called)

Back on topic, if possible.  While I am not here to judge what some people find useful, I am saying that useful only goes so far.  Continuing to use "Bus Shelters" as the default "lame category", they serve a purpose in life, but these hardly are something worth Waymarking.  Waymarking faces enough hurdles within the GPS community, and if we hope to show Waymarking as a recreational activity to new groups do we really want categories which very little "Return on Investment"?

Let's take a real life group... the "American Coaster Enthusiasts" http://www.aceonline.org/ would be a group that could hugely enjoy the use of the current "Roller Coasters" category, as could people on vacation.  Something tells me that there isn't a "Great American Bus Shelters Enthusiasts".  Nor any groups for  "Hand Rails", "Places to park your car for free", "Subway Station Entrances", and "Public Trash Cans".

BQ