Groundspeak Portal

I'm not sure how this differs from Ghost Towns.  Am I missing something? 

My perception is that this category is for individual remanants that might not qualify as a ghost town.

I actually haven't submitted to the Ghost Towns cat, but it looked like something that would be formal with documentation.

I was out doing a geocache last weekend in a woods. It was hidden in the old stone footings of a long gone house. There was a cistern hole nearby. I thought it was interesting, and I think that the new cat might be the kind of place to record it.

My comment on the cat in vote was that I couldn't really tell how much documentaion would be required. Would running across something that looked interesting but there was no information about going to be okay? Or does it have to be something with a written history somewhere? I didn't see that clearly in the proposal.

So then how is it different from Preserved Remnants and Ruins? ;)

Redneck Parrotheads:

So then how is it different from Preserved Remnants and Ruins? ;)

Preserved remnants are a specifically constructed display, and ruins (in the context of that cat) are specifically preserved ruins.  So if you trip over an old homestead or fall down a well then these are probably not preserved.

I'm not anti this new cat, I'm just trying to get a better feel for it. 

I realised that after I posted it. But not being intentionally preserved bothers me. The category runs the risk of (1) trespassing on private property; or (2) being overwhelmed with crap. I'm hoping the requirement of a history of the place is enough of a restriction. I ended up voting for it because I think they'll start establishing clarity through trial and error of waymarks being submitted... if they don't want a bunch of private property partial sheds and barns.

And they gotta get rid of that Visit requirement for a GPS or person to be in the shot. That's so Virtual Cache.

as long as we keep timmy from falling in the well.

and i got some ruins that arent exactly preserved. no wait, that was a chimney....

I'm excited about this category!  Take a look at my Among the Ruins thread on gc.com, and realize that very few of those fit in an existing category (there are some furnaces and chimneys there, yes).

I would like to see the description cleaned up a bit, and no GPS/person photo requirement.

That said, I'm concerned about the membership.  I'd gladly join but they have enrollment off.

dinoprophet:

I'm concerned about the membership.  I'd gladly join but they have enrollment off.

looks like a good example of minimum requirements. only 4 posts and no visits between the 3.

and why is group membership 'off' a default setting? is there any harm to being a groupie?

I emailed the leader and asked if I could join (I'm truly interested).

It is possibly a good start but needs to be more clearly defined.

There are the other categories previously mentioned and then this one fits in it as well.

Unoccupied Buildings, Shacks, and Cabins

In the requirements I find it a bit intriguing that "Almost one photo is requied" Reading the description it is almost as if it was run through a translator program. This should be cleared up just a bit.

A specification for being respectful of private property should be added as well.

TheBeanTeam:

It is possibly a good start but needs to be more clearly defined.

There are the other categories previously mentioned and then this one fits in it as well.

Unoccupied Buildings, Shacks, and Cabins

In the requirements I find it a bit intriguing that "Almost one photo is requied" Reading the description it is almost as if it was run through a translator program. This should be cleared up just a bit.

A specification for being respectful of private property should be added as well.

Hmm, well that changes things.  I don't think I've found that category.  Does it accept foundations?

Looking it over it doesn't appear to allow them. They want lone standing buildings.

So what are we actually waymarking? Individual cellar holes or a group of cellar holes? I'd like to see something on individual cellar holes and maybe stone lined wells in the woods. Around here there is a ton of old cellar holes that are now in wilderness areas. Then again you could be setting up a treasure map for metal detectorist who might want to clean areas like this out. The one spot I know has 3 cellar holes but the 2 closest are a half mile apart and the 3rd is over 6 miles away. Is that a settlement? Maybe I should read it before I type more words. Swizzle

Ok I looked it over and it got the ol' Naw ain't happenin' from me. I really like the idea but it really needs to be re-written and more cut and dry. In one area that I hike in there is an old stone lined well, a partial stone dam, stone walls, cellar holes, and rock piles. Are they all waymarkable? I can't picture one waymark for a 10 mile square area that was a settlement. I'd like to see individual cellar holes on public lands being waymarked. Swizzle

It may be well intentioned but my first thought was that we have several categories that cover this concept already between various ruins and of course ghost towns.

For me to vote yes I need to see how this is unique from existing categories or more specific in the content. I'm not getting that at this time.

BQ

the blue quasar:

It may be well intentioned but my first thought was that we have several categories that cover this concept already between various ruins and of course ghost towns. For me to vote yes I need to see how this is unique from existing categories or more specific in the content. I'm not getting that at this time. BQ

I agree, and voted nay as well. Redundant and far too broad, and poorly written. Although in all fairness it does seem to have been dragged through some translation, the group leader is from the Czech Republic.

I am actually exited about the category concept, but have to admit that I’m not crazy about the name.

When I first joined, one of the first categories I looked for was ‘ruins’ and was a little disappointed at only finding ‘Preserved Ruins’ (Preserved Architectural Remnants and Ruins)

I spend most of my spare time rummaging around old ruins that are specifically ‘not preserved’ such as cellars, mills, abandoned mines and industries. As it is now I have to find new ones to explore in amongst categories that mostly include modern or rebuilt structures.

 IMO it would be really nice to have a category that focuses on ‘Non’ Preserved Architectural Remnants and Ruins.

I am only suggesting this name so it would tie in nicely with the other ruins category, but this may be too broad a category for what the submitter intended.

[cleaned up extra html - BruceS]

Sorry, I don't know why that stuff appeared at the top of my post.

my issue is with cemeteries that havent been used in hundreds of years, but the NPS (or other agency) happens to keep the grass mowed....

just cause someone cuts the grass occasionally doesnt mean its not abandoned....

Different from Ghost Towns, Preserved Remnants and Abandoned Buildings although there is certainly some possible overlap with these and maybe Lonely Chimneys, etc.

While I appreciate the intent of the category, it is just not written well enough to work.  I'm left wondering, at least, what exactly qualifies as a waymark, what sort of documentation is required, etc.  When a category attempts to cast such a broad net, more definition is needed.  Who wants, "Hey, I found this interesting stone foundation in the woods; I wonder what it is?" type of waymark.  Maybe that's the intent, but, if so, I think it falls short.

I'd like to see this one reworked with broader participation, and see if a viable category could come about.  It is headed in the right direction, but just not ready for prime time, in my view.

i always thought the footings of long gone brides were interestingt

gt.us:

i always thought the footings of long gone brides were interestingt

Are footing of long gone brides called socks??   At what point does a bride become long gone?   Sorry I could not resist.

Brides become long gone once the groom does some extramarital stuff. What about grooms footings? Swizzle

this is why I hate typing on laptops

Hello to all... Thank you for very interesting feedback about Remains of settlements category... I still think that this category is usefull and it is different from other categories (for example Ghost Towns)... My English is not excelent and I had a lot of language mistakes in listing which can be interpreted badly... I will try to make it good to next review...

Ghost town
---
A ghost town is a town that has been abandoned, usually because the economic activity that supported it has failed or because of natural or human-caused disasters.
-->
It is only category for towns/villages, but our category is more general...




One example of Remains of settlements waymark:
In the midle of woodland is the old well... About hundred metres from well is old orchard. There was no ruins here... But if you sit here, you can found other remains (old well, old orchard, rests of water underground pipes)... Preserved Architectural Remnants and Ruins is not good for it, because our waymark was common homestad, but with interesting history (may be it exists some interesting stories about this place) nad nice place... If ruins are here, it does not important - the important is hisory and nice place - nothnig for Preserved Architectural Remnants and Ruins... It was not Architectural interesting... There was no town here, only for example homestad - it is not good for Ghost town...

Our goal is to make a general category for places like this example or another places with Remains of settlements which cannot find relevant category... I hope it will be usefull for all (or almost all) comunity :-)... Thanks...

I'm glad that you are going to continue with this... I heard the vote was pretty close and with some rewordings it would likely pass.

Based on your last post, I understand better about what you are looking for. In much the same way that we already have abandoned cemeteries, you are looking for abandoned structures where once people were active but that is no longer the case.

e.g.

Built in 1905 the Elizabeth St pump house transferred water from Lake Ontario to this 90,000 gallon reservoir which was decommissioned in 1981 when the Region of Niagara took over control the water treatment system. During its time water that was pumped to the reservoir would be fed back to the town simply by gravity. There were three steps near the rear of the reservoir that lead at one time to the chlorine room which contained a valve that controlled the amount of chlorine that would be added to the water. Previous to the 1905 construction, water was drawn directly from the lake and filtered through baskets of charcoal. Dr James Morris strongly advocated a more modern filtration system be built and the names of those involved are engraved on a cement plaque on the north side of the pump house. The pump house today has been restored for use as a meeting room and artists’ gallery and stands at the site of the Battle of the Forty 1813 on the shore of Lake Ontario. During a conversation with Mr. Andy Forbes of the Region of Niagara Water Department told Dorothy Turcotte of the Grimsby Archives about the maintenance of the reservoir. The seams were checked using a small rubber raft. The raft was washed with sodium hydrochloride to prevent any contamination and the boots of the men were treated in the same fashion. Any cracks found were filled with mortar or concrete. Mr. Forbes went on to say that the water level was measured by pressure gauges at the Elizabeth St station. This would be a remarkable piece of engineering in 1905. However, many local reports suggest that a different method was used at one time. Mr. Edgar J. Farewell was recorded as stating that in the early days of the pump house a telescope was used to check the water level float at a reservoir on the side of the mountain. This would correspond to the large opening that faces the direction of the pump house.

BQ