Groundspeak Portal

Occasionally, people try to waymark unusually-shaped trees in the Exceptional Trees category which is only for exceptionally large or old trees.

Exceptionally large or old trees are great of course, but unusually shaped trees can be more photogenic and special to find and visit.

This would not be an easy category because it would be somewhat subjective.  Even so, there would be many trees that would be obviously unusual or interestingly shaped, worth finding or going to see and photograph, and therefore a worthy waymark.

Examples could include trees with a crazy branch or branches, trees that look like a person or animal,  trees that reach out an unusual distance over water from a shoreline, trees that have recovered from a massive damage, trees that fit their surroundings in an unusual or artistic way, etc.

There is already a Topiaries category so a waymark in this category would have to be not a topiary, although it could be in a park.

Does this sound like a good category?  Anyone interested in particpating?

Ah, the dilemma!  Yep, I think we all see these trees that are striking in some way, but don't fit into any of the existing tree categories.  But, I think you've hit the heart of the matter in pointing out that it is very subjective.  The question is, "Is it too subjective to make it workable?"  My guess is that it probably is.  "Interesting" as a criterion is impossible to define because it is entirely in the eye of the beholder.  I review waymarks in several categories that are subjective, and it is so difficult to make these judgement call.  And I've submitted waymarks to subjective cateories and know the frustration of trying to figure out just what is going to strike the fancy of the reviewers.  (What makes me laugh doesn't strike them as funny, for instance).

I think the only way you can make a category like this work is to be very generous in what you accept.  It almost has to be something like, "If you think it is worthy of a waymark, if you think it is unusual, then we will accept it."  That doesn't mean you can write some broad guidelines, give examples of what would be accepted and what wouldn't be accepted (both are important), and have a list of exclusions (like topiaries, simaculara, etc.) but in the end, the scales have to tip in favor of the waymaker.

Keep it light and have fun, and it could be an enjoyable category.

And, thanks for posting your idea here!  If this had just popped up in peer review, I'm almost certain it would have been shot out of the water.  But, now you have a chance to work on it here and get ideas and reactions from the community.

I submitted photos to the 'carniverous trees' category of an oak tree that grew together with a hemlock tree, such that it looked like the oak was actually biting the hemlock - even chewing on it. This was denied, because the category is written to include only trees that are devouring 'man-made' items - and I believe this would make a great post for your proposed category. Additionally, I photographed mature cedar trees at Salisbury Beach State Reservation, MA that were creatively pruned to grow sideways, downward or even in spirals - (apparently when you work for the state, in a park, you have time to kill?) and I haven't even tried to post those...
So, that would be 2 postings if you proceed. Consider me available to help write/moderate. Jim

When Omnivorous Trees was being created, I came upon a lot of references to arborsculpting.  I thought that would make another good category.  I never got around to making it, but I still think it would be a good one.

You might consider not including ones that look like people or animals -- those are covered by Simulacra (to which I just posted my 50th waymark).