Groundspeak Portal

In both of the new architecture categories in Peer Review, I have had to vote "nay". And since y'all should know how rarely I speak negatively about anybody's category proposal or chide anyone for trying to make a category, you know this is an extremely rare action for me.

"There's no reason to exclude structures that are used for religious reasons. - Redneck Parrotheads"

It makes absolutely no sense.

Some of the most significant architectural feats in history have been demonstrated in Church structures, just the same as some of the most beautiful and significant artworks have been religious-related. So because somebody prays there, a significant architectural structure which qualifies for the category no longer qualifies? Logic, please.

There are lots of architectural structures in New York and Chicago. Would the category be best served to exclude major cities so there aren't so many waymarks?

I've written two denomination church categories and gotten intense criticism on both because "OMG! We're gonna have a category for every denomination!" I assisted in writing a third denomination church category and saw the same feedback.

This re-enforces that there needs to be a category for every single religious denomination. Otherwise, we'd never be able to waymark a church... certainly not for the reason that the church is an interesting building: architecture.

So which is it? Do we create a category for every denomination so we can waymark interesting churches (which includes ones that architecturally interesting and ones that are not) or are they included in architecture categories where churches will be recognised for being one of the original forefront leaders and inspirations in architecture in the first place?

It's early Saturday morning when I'm writing this. I was checking email and saw there was a Group Vote so I voted on the group vote and then did the Peer Review and now here I am. I haven't even had coffee. I ought to have waited until I had time and desire to write a thought-out post that included the history of churches in architecture to show just how frivolous and illogical it is to exclude churches from architecture categories. I didn't, though. So here ya go.

Not only are categories restrictive as excluding churches but they are are basically restricted to "Old World" architecture, just as the same group restricted the Gothic category to "Old World" gothic... read these category descriptions carefully and vote appropriately.

I felt the same way and responded as such...Why exclude Religious Buildings that are the major contributor to this style of Architecture?  Isn't the structure of the building (architecture) an entirely different view then the posting that describes the congregation? (ie: Baptist Churches)

...as an author of three architecture categories I have to respond. It was not so easy for me to exclude churches from Architecture styles (Gothic, Baroque and Rennaissance), but it is not so illogical. In Europe, majority of churches was countinuously ceconstructed during centuries of their existence, so originally Romanesque church has a Gothic aisle, Rennaissance steeples, Baroque interior and facade. Rusult looks great, but discussions what style is the most important and key for this or that church are for neverending discussions. Moreover, here is good waymark - Medieval churches for "old" - it means Romanesque and Gothic churches and vast group another waymarks for resting churches. I know that it is not ideal, but I do not like putting one church into 5 categories :)

These three categories (Gothic, Baroque and Rennaissance) are primarily focused to non-sacral bulidings - because for them on Waymarking is virtually impossible to find category. These bulding are for example: chateaux - using Castle category for them is nonsense, chateaux are non-fortified representative bulidings, city palaces, burgerhouses, fortification objects, baroque columns and lot of another... So only in City of Prague we have more than 1000 objects fitting into that categories. In Europe we are discussing about thousands and thousands objetcs.

I know, that these categories are not so interestig for colleagues from USA, but for us, European are crucial... We cannot seek dozens and dozens of specifically US categories, it is no problem for us, but please, try to understand non-US waymarkers... :)

Do you know, why is Waymarking so unpopular in Europe in comparison with Geocaching...? Try to think about it from point of view of European users.

We have in the Czech Republic more than 12 000 geocaches for 78 000 sq km of our territory (so we belong to the most cachefull countries in the World), but only 700 waymarks, which are made by tiny group of way-fans... We hope, that we can change it soon, but we need some support...

Dorcadion Team:

Do you know, why is Waymarking so unpopular in Europe in comparison with Geocaching...?

I was completely unaware that Waymarking was any more unpopular in Europe than it is in America.

Your explanation still doesn't jive with me.

Medieval Churches handles specific types of structures constructed in a specific time period.

I am aware of church reconstruction however I don't see where this is relevant. Many structures are prone to reconstruction during the same regime changes and revolutions.

The only point that made any contact was that you had a preference not to cross-list waymarks.

Anyone who looks at a cross section of my waymarks knows I love waymarking churches.  Therefore I was disappointed these categories did not include them, but I had to admit that these were reasonable categories.  I may never get a chance to waymark in them due to the limited number of examples of this type of architecture in the New World, but I stand by my vote of yes for these categories (actually I think I missed the vote for one of them since I only remmeber voting for two.)

By excluding churches and xxxx-revival architural styles, this turns this into a mainly European category, but I have no problem with that.  We have way too many USA/Canada-only categories.

My main suggestion is to add pictures of examples for those of us who are not architectural students.  Although that won't be necessary once each category gains more and more waymarks.

Good luck!

And tossing my thoughts in, I have commented many times about my support for "Church based" categories because I like looking at the architecture, the stain glass, the organ... I think older churches look really cool.

So when I see a Category about architecture, I hope to see cool buildings and honestly, old churches are cool buildings.

I don't comment about my religious beliefs as that is the ONLY area of my life that I do not share with others, but otherwise I have an opinion on everything (right or wrong) and in Waymarking my usual stance is that I oppose any category that excludes items that would belong based on the reasoning that they are already accepted elsewhere.

This also has nothing to do with Europe at all. I "want" to see European architecture, and if that means a majority are churches, that's fine.

BQ

Well, I'm glad you brought up this issue, because it is also a sticking point with me.  And, like BQ, it has nothing to do with my religious beliefs.  For me, the issue is first about the intrinsic nature of these categories, and second it is an issue for waymarking and category creation.

First, it seems to me that the point of any architectural style category, and we have many, is to gather together in one place instances of that style regardless of the type of building.  I'm not aware of any exclusions in other similar categories.  So, in my view, these exclusions weaken the category, that must now limp along without an important appendage.

As our eminent waymarker from the Czech Republic has pointed out, there is an issue with architectural styles in regard to European churches in that many of them combine elements of several styles.  If this is the main issue, then I would suggest that the way to address this is not with a blanket exclusion, but with some attempt at defining how they should be handled.  For instance, excluding mixed styles only, or adding some variables, or defining how a mixed style building should be defined.

Second, the underlying philosophy of categories is that each one stands one its own merits without reference to other categories.  And, so, exclusions should not be made solely on the basis of having other possible categories which overlap.  Granted, we do have some of these, including an early category that I created, but to exclude a class of items from a category, that otherwise qualifies, just because it can also be posted in another category is not a good approach.

If you don't want to put a church in five categories, as you say, then that's fine.  One can choose not to cross-post!  But, there is no reason why a church shouldn't be listed in several categories if it qualifies and someone wants to post it.

These categories would accept city halls, capitols, libraries, court houses, museums, schools, etc.. all of which also have their own categories.  So, why exclude all religious buildings?

I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a Europe vs North American issue at all.  Sure, the architecture is vastly different, but these categories should be able to accommodate both sides of the ocean.  I think there would be very few, if any, examples of these architectural styles here in Korea where I live.  We have a growing number of Asian waymarkers, too.  And, it's okay to have categories that favor one global region or country more than another, as long as it is kept global as far as criteria are concerned.

So, I fail to see how including religious structures in these categories would detract from them or be harmful to them in some way.  On the contrary, it seems that being inclusive rather than exclusive in with these would result in a richer, deeper more valuable category.

To our Czech friend, thanks for entering into the discussion.  It really helps to be able to hear all of the points of view and try to understand things from another perspective.  It is easy to get focused on the end of one's nose.  And, whatever you decide, we will support you and the categories!  Your contributions are truly appreciated by the community.

Thank you (especially to Silverquill) for interesting discussion and support. Finally, both categories were denied - firstly I was disappointed and frustrated, but after while, i recovered from disillusion  I think that some things have to be changed in future (if any...) resubmission of both categories (Baroque and Renaissance).

After long and painfull discussion with friends -"officers" of both groups we decided that especially in Baroque we have to include religious buildings (so category will be without any object restrictions) - because from several points of view they are really masterpieces and jewels of Baroque architecture, (and some cross-waymarks are not so problematic). We have still one problem - and it is neo-baroque or pseudo-baroque, we would like to exclude these "styles" again, because here, in Europe in 19th century practically every building was built in some kind of neo- or pseudo-style (Renaissance, Baroque, Gothic...) and I will be very unhappy from waymark at every second building in Prague (or in any historic European  city). The same is valid for Renaissance.

I sepnt several hours with cahnging the listing, creating some pictures with examples etc and finally system srashed after resubmission and I can not again chnge anytging in the category... It is not only our problem, here is several another categories and groups with the same bug in the System. Hopefully Groudspeak will repair it (probably damaged record in dtabase...). Till we are not able to do any changes and resubmit improved category for your second reviews...

BruceS:

Not only are categories restrictive as excluding churches but they are are basically restricted to "Old World" architecture, just as the same group restricted the Gothic category to "Old World" gothic... read these category descriptions carefully and vote appropriately.

at first:  i apologize for my english :)

at second:

Baroque restricts "New World"? well well, it is really funny. :))) Baroque buildings you can find in the "New World" too - e.g. Salvador baroque buildings are actually in UNESCO list. BUT at first look, i see about 10 categories, that are targeting ONLY for "New World" especially US e.g. New World Ancient Eviddence, Route 66,  US post offices, US states A-Z, US historic places, US civil war, US WW memorials, US parks etc etc ..... and you say us, that we restrict? this makes me really ROFL.

when i sarcastic paraphrase you : read descriptions carefully, think and vote.

Europe is old, thats why we are interesting in and read about old architecture, it is part of us legacy. And thats why we made (or tried make) these categories. I really didnt expected, that you will  have problem with it, if i see so many US only waymarks. So this are oriented mainly on europe, does it really matter (with look at previouse sentence)?.

or is it everything about that you will not have new "icon" in few days?

 

Dáin & Olík ( co-founders of mentioned categories.)

btw: I will probably never make or visit US only waymark, never mind. 

and at third: i apologize for little hot blooded comment ;)

The reason for comments was to prevent people from thinking they were going to be able to waymark that courthouse down the street because it is a Baroque styled building... as it really is a Baroque revival style building.   I am sure when many voted for Gothic they thought of many Gothic buildings they could waymark not realizing those buildings would be considered Gothic Revival.

Dáin & Olík:

Baroque restricts "New World"? well well, it is really funny. :))) Baroque buildings you can find in the "New World" too - e.g. Salvador baroque buildings are actually in UNESCO list. BUT at first look, i see about 10 categories, that are targeting ONLY for "New World" especially US e.g. New World Ancient Eviddence, Route 66,  US post offices, US states A-Z, US historic places, US civil war, US WW memorials, US parks etc etc ..... and you say us, that we restrict? this makes me really ROFL.

when i sarcastic paraphrase you : read descriptions carefully, think and vote.

Europe is old, thats why we are interesting in and read about old architecture, it is part of us legacy. And thats why we made (or tried make) these categories. I really didnt expected, that you will  have problem with it, if i see so many US only waymarks. So this are oriented mainly on europe, does it really matter (with look at previouse sentence)?.

or is it everything about that you will not have new "icon" in few days?

Dáin & Olík ( co-founders of mentioned categories.)

btw: I will probably never make or visit US only waymark, never mind. 

Posted By: Dáin & Olík in Recruiting and Category Proposals
Subject: Re: Churches in Architecture
__________________________________


at first:  i apologize for my english :)

at second:

Baroque restricts "New World"? well well, it is really funny. :))) Baroque buildings you can find in the "New World" too - e.g. Salvador baroque buildings are actually in UNESCO list. BUT at first look, i see about 10 categories, that are targeting ONLY for "New World" especially US e.g. New World Ancient Eviddence, Route 66,  US post offices, US states A-Z, US historic places, US civil war, US WW memorials, US parks etc etc ..... and you say us, that we restrict? this makes me really ROFL.

when i sarcastic paraphrase you : read descriptions carefully, think and vote.

Europe is old, thats why we are interesting in and read about old architecture, it is part of us legacy. And thats why we made (or tried make) these categories. I really didnt expected, that you will  have problem with it, if i see so many US only waymarks. So this are oriented mainly on europe, does it really matter (with look at previouse sentence)?.

or is it everything about that you will not have new "icon" in few days?

 

Dáin & Olík ( co-founders of mentioned categories.)

btw: I will probably never make or visit US only waymark, never mind.

Thank you for your thoughtful note.

Please understand, as I stated in my previous Forum note  -- I do not think this is an issue of US only categories  VS  European categories. 

I do NOT live in the US now.  I live in Korea.  And, I started one category for Korean Historic Sites.
There are also a some European only categories, and others that are for only one country.
All of these specific categories are fine, and each one has its place in the waymarking community.

My ONLY objection is excluding religious buildings from categories for a specific architectural style. 
One reason given in your description is that there are many other categories for religious buildings.  That is true.

It is also true that there are categories for other types of buildings that you would accept, such as schools, libraries, court houses, museums, etc.

The fact that there are other categories for some churches, but not all churches, is NOT a reason to exclude them.

If there is another reason to exclude religious buildings, then could you explain it?
I understand there may be a problem with buildings that consist of several architectural styles, and perhaps including them is difficult.   Or is it that Baroque style religious buildings are too common, for instance?

Please understand, I think you basic idea for these categories is excellent, and I want to see them active!  The purpose of my comments is to help make them BETTER categories!  I think including religious buildings is best. 

Keep working on this, and I'm sure you will have an excellent category that will win peer approval!

Sincerely,
Larry Wilson (silverquill)

I also don't want fight US vs Europe waymarks. I only wanted to answer Bruce, whose main objection was, that we restrict New World.

We prepare new Baroque and we plan that religious buildings will be included, because this requirement has repeated in your votes.

For me, the main problem with religious buildings is the same as Dorcadion just wrote - one half of church is renaissance and second baroque and tower is gothic and chapel is secession :))). maybe you say:  it is the same with other buildings, but it is not. Common buildings weren't rebuildt so much. Church as organization exists for thousand years and was always rich, thats why their buildings were rebuilding so many times with many trends. But vox populi, vox dei, we add religious buildings :)

David (Dáin & Olík)

I dont feel, that US categories restrict me, the only one thing, that could restrict me is my fantasy ;)

I LOVE the idea of more architecture categories, but I'm clueless about the subject. I enjoy waymarking because I learn more than I do with geocaching. With that said, if you could address some of the discussion from this forum in your category re-write (what is and isn't accepted, resources to identify what you're looking for, how to handle buildings with multiple-era architecture, etc) , I think you'll have two great new categories.

Half the battle of getting through peer review is educating those peers on what they're voting on.

I do not think churches should be excluded. I would like the architecture categories to not be restrited to Europe, but if the style is only there, so be it. I understand what revival and neo- mean. :( I don't like it but I understand and would vote "yea".

...dear colleagues, we resubmitted The Baroque Architecture category, hoping that the new version will be acceptable for all fans of architectural heritage. There are no exception in type of building and structures built in Baroque and Rococo style.