Groundspeak Portal

I have floated this concept with Groundspeak but feel it should be discussed by the Waymarking community.

Background:

As I review the new group listing I see many groups for categories which really have no chance of making it through peer review as "regular" categories.  They would fail primarily for being too geographically restricted or too special interest  or lack prevalence.  What I propose is Private/Special Interest/Restricted categories. (not sure of how to title them)

How would these categories be different from regular categories?

- Would require only one officer (must be a Premium member)

- Category would not go through peer review, only Groundspeak review

- Category would not show in normal category views by default but can be searched if flag is selected

- Waymarks submitted to category will by default not show in searches of site but can be searched by changing search flag to include them.

- Category would not show in grid

- Waymarks submitted to these categories and visits to these waymarks would not count in normal waymark counts on the site

- Category can be fully open to new waymarks or restricted to members of group only.

Why have this type of category?

- Opens Waymarking to new types of users.  For example Historical Societies, various clubs etc.

- Interesting yet non-global categories can have a place on Waymarking without "interferring" with normal Waymarking categories.

- A reasonable way to handle those special temporary type categories such as the Seattle Art challenge category

From this if the Hawaii Snowmobile Club want to post snowmobile Trails of Hawaii they can just as the Sunbathers of Siberia.

A few issues to be worked out (I am sure there are more):

- Can a "private" category be changed to a regular category?  If so what is the process? What happens to waymarks in the private category? Are they now counted?  etc.

- Can a regular category be changed to a private category?  If so... same questions as above.

 I am sure there are other considerations but I am wondering how the community feels on this type.

 (Note in my communication with Groundspeak I have emphasized that this type of development should be undertaken after some of the higher priority for the site are done) 

What are your thoughts?

My short version would be that I am opposed to this suggestion.

I see no reason why such locations cannot fit within the already established format. Global is only one aspect of four, and perhaps what is needed is a new category that is broad enough to be able to accept these.

Everything should go through Peer Review, should be listed in the Grid/Directory and count for "scoring".

I could get behind that idea of a new 16th Department to handle "Community Services"

BQ

The idea of special limited categories that don't behave like other categories seems to be contrary to the overall scheme of things, and certainly would add some confusion. And the beneficiaries of such categories would seem to be extremely limited, especially considering how relativley small the entire waymarking comunity is at this point.

And like BQ, it's not clear to me why such categories couldn't somehow fit within the current structure of things. The concepts of 'global' and 'prevalent' have always been so difficult to pin down anyway - perhaps what is really needed is a better set of requirements for establishing categories in general.

the blue quasar:

My short version would be that I am opposed to this suggestion. I see no reason why such locations cannot fit within the already established format. Global is only one aspect of four, and perhaps what is needed is a new category that is broad enough to be able to accept these. Everything should go through Peer Review, should be listed in the Grid/Directory and count for "scoring". I could get behind that idea of a new 16th Department to handle "Community Services" BQ

I agree everything could made broad enough, made more global or non-special interest but the organization may not be interested in doing that.... thus instead of broadening Snowmobile Trails of Hawaii to Snowmobile Trails of the World they walk away... their interest or need is not served... new potential waymarker lost.

cache_test_dummies:

The idea of special limited categories that don't behave like other categories seems to be contrary to the overall scheme of things, and certainly would add some confusion. And the beneficiaries of such categories would seem to be extremely limited, especially considering how relativley small the entire waymarking comunity is at this point.

I am not looking at this really serving the current waymarking community as much as broadening the waymarking community in other ways. 

Some of the searching stipulations I have listed are ways to avoid confusion.  For the normal waymarking community these categories and waymarks would not be seen unless desired thus they would be almost like they were on your ignore list but they would be available to those that have the specific interest in them.

Personally, I have no problem with "special interest" categories. I just don't think that they need to be separate. As far as the grid goes, could it not be set up so that they form a second grid?

Please understand that I'm not trying to be argumentative - I'm just trying to understand the value of your idea versus the 'cost'.

BruceS:

I am not looking at this really serving the current waymarking community as much as broadening the waymarking community in other ways.

Even if a special categories feature isn't intended to serve the current waymarking community, as long as the underlying purpose of your proposed enhancement is to get new people involved in waymarking, then it is an idea worth considering. I'd like to see your idea included on a list of ideas of what can be done to get new people involved in waymarking, along with other ideas that could serve the same purpose.

Then we could discuss and compare the ideas, and choose a few that seemed like they would have the biggest potential benefit versus the cost and risk.

My guess is that such a list would contain a few ideas that would both serve the current waymarking community and draw in new participants.

But at the moment, I just don't see a large enough benefit to your proposal to justify the effort and the risk.

BruceS:

Some of the searching stipulations I have listed are ways to avoid confusion.  For the normal waymarking community these categories and waymarks would not be seen unless desired thus they would be almost like they were on your ignore list but they would be available to those that have the specific interest in them.

I understand how keeping the special interest categories hidden might help avoid some confusion. What it less clear to me is what other confusion might be introduced by categories which have no peer review, one officer, and might ultimately consist of waymarks that could fit entirely within another category.

And I think that would might end up happening is that this special type of category (that doesn't require the involvement of other officers, and doesn't have to go through peer review) will be the first and most desirable avenue tried for creating most new categories (even if the traditional category style would be more important, and even if approved, the new category would be invisible). After all, getting a regular category started is such a daunting task, and getting a special category started sounds so easy. The consequences of creating a new avenue for category creation (even if Groundspeak doesn't approve them all) could add great deal of confusion to the current category creation process, and could impact the creative process in ways that were never intended.

BruceS:

the blue quasar:

My short version would be that I am opposed to this suggestion.

I see no reason why such locations cannot fit within the already established format. Global is only one aspect of four, and perhaps what is needed is a new category that is broad enough to be able to accept these.

Everything should go through Peer Review, should be listed in the Grid/Directory and count for "scoring".

I could get behind that idea of a new 16th Department to handle "Community Services"

BQ

I agree everything could made broad enough, made more global or non-special interest but the organization may not be interested in doing that.... thus instead of broadening Snowmobile Trails of Hawaii to Snowmobile Trails of the World they walk away... their interest or need is not served... new potential waymarker lost.

That is a good point. The purported "Snowmobile Trails of Hawaii" should be able to make a Category for their items.

We have Rhode Island Historical Markers... there's what??? two of them?? We're fine with that.

Those, and forgive me for not looking it up, German mushroom things for cyclists... we have those too.

However, pandering to a small niche by creating a specialized area does not seem justified. Are we even sure that such groups have even expressed an interest?

Let them come knocking, and with the help of the Waymarking Forums, we will find a way to fit them into our structure. If however, the idea is to change our rules to fit their mold... they can create their own game to play.

BQ

the blue quasar:

BruceS:

the blue quasar:

My short version would be that I am opposed to this suggestion. I see no reason why such locations cannot fit within the already established format. Global is only one aspect of four, and perhaps what is needed is a new category that is broad enough to be able to accept these. Everything should go through Peer Review, should be listed in the Grid/Directory and count for "scoring". I could get behind that idea of a new 16th Department to handle "Community Services" BQ

I agree everything could made broad enough, made more global or non-special interest but the organization may not be interested in doing that.... thus instead of broadening Snowmobile Trails of Hawaii to Snowmobile Trails of the World they walk away... their interest or need is not served... new potential waymarker lost.

That is a good point. The purported "Snowmobile Trails of Hawaii" should be able to make a Category for their items. We have Rhode Island Historical Markers... there's what??? two of them?? As the category is written it accept more than just the two placed by the state of Rhode Island thus there are more than 2  AWe're fine with that. Those, and forgive me for not looking it up, German mushroom things for cyclists... we have those too. These are in the Netherlands and it is one of the largest categories.   However, pandering to a small niche by creating a specialized area does not seem justified. Are we even sure that such groups have even expressed an interest? Let them come knocking, and with the help of the Waymarking Forums, we will find a way to fit them into our structure. If however, the idea is to change our rules to fit their mold... they can create their own game to play. BQ

   If you look at the mess in the new groups area you will see that there seems to be an expressed interest.  But I guess you would prefer they go somewhere else and Waymarking will remain only an off-shoot of the Geocaching community.

That is not what I'm saying... and I already did admit that I was not looking up specifics.

I flip-flop constantly as to whether Waymarking should even be associated with Geocaching at all or not in any way.

It is more likely that I'm just not understanding your proposal and why it needs to be handled differently than what we already have set up. Likely you've seen me tenaciously fight for something that I believe in, and since you are continuing this thread then I am hopeful that you also are fighting for what you believe will be a good thing.

Please help me see what you are hoping be developed because at this moment I can't understand it.

BQ

BruceS:

As I review the new group listing I see many groups for categories which really have no chance of making it through peer review as "regular" categories.  They would fail primarily for being too geographically restricted or too special interest  or lack prevalence.  What I propose is Private/Special Interest/Restricted categories. (not sure of how to title them) 

----

What are your thoughts?

Well, frankly, I also see some merit in the basic concept, and have thought along these lines from time to time, though not in depth.

You know, in some ways, waymarking is such an enclosed world, that we fail to see the possibilities of anything beyond the old virtual and locationless geocaching model.  Don't get me wrong, it has served us well thus far, and I'm sure will continue to do so as we draw closer to the 1,000 category mark.

Why shouldn't Waymarking be big enough to allow for activities that don't fit neatly into our grid, or follow the format of the four sacred criteria?  (I'd favor the term "Special Interest," by the way).  But, there would need to be some kind of criteria.  Some category ideas are just plain bad ideas.  This can't be a dumping ground for ideas that would never see the light of day because they could never meet the existing criteria well enough to pass peer review.

In looking over the New Group list, what one's are you thinking of that might fall into this new classification? 

I remember some time back, someone wanted a category that tracked various aspects of the development of a religious movement, but it cut across departments, so the idea never went forward.  That might be a special interest type category.

I think that perhaps some categories that have a limited pool of potential waymarks, such as ones that are restricted to a single small country, state, or even city, might also be potential special interest categories.   That would be the geographically limited type category.  For example, I remember visiting Littleton, New Hampshire, a fairly small town, that had put up historical plaques on several dozen buildings with short descriptions.  While these may or may not qualify for the "Signs of History" category, they would make an excellent special interest category.

What about really personal ones?  For instance, I have a daughter named Holly, so I might like a category for "Holly Place Names."   Or, "Highlights of Our Magical Vacation?"     Okay, maybe not, but that's what I mean about having some guidelines.

Here are a couple of examples from this side of the world.  In Korea many cities and provinces have mascots that look like animated characters.  Many festivals will have them, too.  While they might fit into "Figurative Sculptures," they are unique enough in their own right for a special interest category.  But, I wouldn't try to float that as a regular category.   Or, many villages have stone dolmen at an entrance - something fairly unique to the area, but not global enough for a regular category, yet very interesting.  I'm sure the same kind of situation exists the world over - things and sites that are narrowly represented and would not pass general peer review, but are of sufficient value that they would be served by a waymarking category.

What about commercial categories that may be regional, local or of a special interest?  Not sure about that.

I'd like to see some brainstorming on ideas for these.

Then, we'd have to think about ways to promote this beyond the traditional geocaching/waymarking community.  I think it could attract a new type of waymarker, but the concept has to be opened up.  I certainly don't see it as a threat to what we already have or that it would detract from it in some way.

I'm less certain about the implementation of some of the suggestions.  I think one-officer categories could be problematic. (Although, we have to admit that many categories now are, in effect, single person categories).  Some provision has to be made for the case in which the single officer is unable or unwilling to continue.

I'm not sure why these categories should not appear in the directory.  I really don't like the idea of invisible and inaccessible categories.  Of what value is a totally private category?  But, all of that is stuff to be explored.

The bottom line is that many worthy sites go unwaymarked because under our current restrictions there is no possibility of a category for them.  And, I believe there are ways that waymarking can contribute to the larger world of knowledge and information by breaking free from having just one waymark category model.

Ideas worth exploring, at the very least!  Thanks for bringing it up.

silverquill:

I think that perhaps some categories that have a limited pool of potential waymarks, such as ones that are restricted to a single small country, state, or even city, might also be potential special interest categories.   That would be the geographically limited type category.  For example, I remember visiting Littleton, New Hampshire, a fairly small town, that had put up historical plaques on several dozen buildings with short descriptions.  While these may or may not qualify for the "Signs of History" category, they would make an excellent special interest category.

yes, but in the case of Georgia Historic Markers, we would probably accept those small town NH plaques....

but this is a rarity amonget the 'Historic Markers', as many of those fail to recognize any marker not erected by the 'official' agency.....

i think it s a bad idea, cause anything that fails peer review could just then become a 'secritive special interest'.....

however, in the case of 'Zaxby's'....it failed, but there were a fair number who know nothing about it, and if it was a 'special cat', it might eventually evolve into a 'regular cat'....but this essentially brings us back to merging/splitting categories......

i thought the purpose of uncategorized marks was to point them out, in our current restrictions, so that there might one day be a category for them....

noone has mentioned 'death masks'.....

my list of 'little' categories:

norway hitoric sites
norwegian post offices
luftwaff radar (i really should find one of these to post)
shop 24 machines
latvin benchmarks
accessible recreation areas (when did this even become a category? and now, when did i see that playground?)


you can finish the list yourself at the end of the 'largest cat search'......
yes, some of these might be new, but shop24 has been around a long time now....

and, since these are 'excluded' from the 'game', what incentive is there to get new people to play? they already complain about the current choices, so lets add a 'nonchoice' in there too?

you say they are 'ignored' unless i say i want to search them, but do they count in my viisits? why not just 'sit on' the pics/coords until there is a proper place for them?

silverquill:

In looking over the New Group list, what one's are you thinking of that might fall into this new classification? 

A couple examples I can think of that came up as categories and were rightfully not adopted in peer review were: Something like Springfield Historic Places, which was from my understanding was proposed by a teacher who was trying to get his student to catalog a number of historic buildings in Springfield. Another was Trails of Beltrami County or something like that..   These are categories which I don't really should be in the main part of the game and overlap or fit into other categories however is there some way to accommodate these special interest.

One example I could see this fitting well is say a local historical or genealogy society wanting to have a place to list all the cemeteries in their county.   And the response will be that they could list them in the World Wide Cemetery category... however maybe they want to have them in a specific format or have specific information which is not required in the larger category.  By letting them create their own special interest category they can get what they need, link directly to the category from their website etc. 

But because these are special interest categories I think they should be separate from the main "game" thus their existence should not negatively impact on the main Waymarking game (as long has resources are not overly impacted by it)

BruceS:

One example I could see this fitting well is say a local historical or genealogy society wanting to have a place to list all the cemeteries in their county.   And the response will be that they could list them in the World Wide Cemetery category... however maybe they want to have them in a specific format or have specific information which is not required in the larger category.  By letting them create their own special interest category they can get what they need, link directly to the category from their website etc. 

But because these are special interest categories I think they should be separate from the main "game" thus their existence should not negatively impact on the main Waymarking game (as long has resources are not overly impacted by it)

but, with the new propose edits, why couldnt they just propose edits to the marks to fit their needs?

they want a format or specific info, but that is in addition to the current requirements. maybe they would help diversify the variables of that category and foster a variable search function (that is easily searchable). the cat doesnt really have many variables. so create some new ones: county, state, 'ownership', and whatever they desire.

i do not see a way that EVERY person interred there could have their name on the waymark description--some cemeteries are HUGE. but this could be incorporated into the 'visit/comment' realm:
the local group want every name listed--well, create a note, write up everythink 'known'/desired about the grave, include some coords for it.

now the other functions need to catch up:
-the visit gets the 'added info' icon, the 'coords added' icon. and is now searchable (google will return the visit log when that person's name is entered), is it not?
-there should be some way to 'download all associated points with this waymarked cemetery' or 'download coords associated with this log' --wouldnt it be nice to pull up a uhaul and see all the places on the map it has been logged? --or you find the grave of an ancestor, and can now locate it 'with ease'....

so then, just because someone want more info why must it be a 'new' waymark? why not use this opportunity to make the existing mark better?

so the Clark County, Nevada 'cemetery society' wants to include specific information (ie: established date), why not let the other marks benefit? make it a optional variable, if it is known, it will get filled in. if not, it can sit unanswered until someone comes along to provide the answer.

i have in my possession (and it is no longer for purchase) a DVD that was given to me as a gift. this DVD was designed by 'some' Jackson County Georgia society. It contains EVERY cemetery in the county (short description and coords), which then has EVERY grave listed (name, birth, death), and a good number of them have pics. IMO, waymarking (relating to cemeteries) is a public accessable, glorified version of this local creation. Yes, someone somewhere had to invest in the project (thats why it cost $60), and it just so happens that groundspeak has found a way to get up to do it for free.

Speaking generally:
we all love NRHP, historic markers, AGS, NRHP contributing, and many other historic based categories. It isnt so much that we 'work' for 'free', we love seeing historic things and learning something about it. now we love finding these things more since we can share them with each other.

i dont think the variable functionality of the site is currently being used to its greatest potential--yea we all dislike those categories with a million variables--however, 'in the future', if the cemetery category included as much information as the local group wants Waymarking will be a source of info. as in, if my last name was 'Jinglehopperschmidt', (and a lot of cemetries had this abundance of posted info) i could make a worldwide map of the graves of everyperson with the same name....

in summary: i think that we should use the 'special interest categories' to add depth and character to existing categories. peer review can be the best thing to happen to waymarking; we just have to get the right people to start playing the 'game'....

I think there are two types of special groups.

One is the small niche group. The other is the subset group. Months ago there was a Lego Store group up for review. There's less than 50 worldwide, and it failed.  I think that's a different case than a California McDonalds category. Maybe for the latter, some sort of bookmarking is needed.

if the variable set and the searching/advanced browse allowed for anyone to--within a few clicks--isolate US Post Offices in Utah.

The intention is solid.

BruceS:

How would these categories be different from regular categories?

- Would require only one officer (must be a Premium member)I would still leave it at 2 PM officers and require a total of 5 members. This would reduce abuse.

- Category would not go through peer review, only Groundspeak review

- Category would not show in normal category views by default but can be searched if flag is selected

- Waymarks submitted to category will by default not show in searches of site but can be searched by changing search flag to include them.

- Category would not show in grid add a secondary grid (reason below) 

- Waymarks submitted to these categories and visits to these waymarks would not count in normal waymark counts on the site

- Category can be fully open to new waymarks or restricted to members of group only.

Why have this type of category?

- Opens Waymarking to new types of users.  For example Historical Societies, various clubs etc.

- Interesting yet non-global categories can have a place on Waymarking without "interferring" with normal Waymarking categories.

- A reasonable way to handle those special temporary type categories such as the Seattle Art challenge category

From this if the Hawaii Snowmobile Club want to post snowmobile Trails of Hawaii they can just as the Sunbathers of Siberia.

A few issues to be worked out (I am sure there are more):

- Can a "private" category be changed to a regular category? Yes

If so what is the process? Group must have 3 officers and receive 3 "nominations for review" from at least 3 PMs who have never been part of the group, then it can go up for PR. People taking on the responsibility of reviewing should also review individual marks for exclusion before giving the nomination.

What happens to waymarks in the private category? Voting against means they all fail but the voter should be able to flag individual marks as reasons and a for vote should be allowed to flag individual marks for exclusion. 3 flags and the mark is gone even if the category fails PR, this penalty would help prevent a group from putting it up for review before it is ready. Visit log prior to change remains on secondary grid.

Are they now counted? Once it passes PR.

- Can a regular category be changed to a private category? 3 nominations + peer review. Everyone that logged a visit before the category is changed keeps it on the main grid.

 I am sure there are other considerations but I am wondering how the community feels on this type.

 (Note in my communication with Groundspeak I have emphasized that this type of development should be undertaken after some of the higher priority for the site are done) 

What are your thoughts?

Another considerations would be a keep alive.

The category needs to be actively used (marks added, logs, downloads) or one of the officers would need to regularly enter it and hit an button for the purpose. Either one of those conditions would reset a countdown timer and if neither one happens in a timely fashion, category deletion.

This prevents people from starting a project and forgetting about it thereby taking up server space with something nobody is interested in.

This would be an excellent method to prove/disprove a category before bringing it up for PR.

I nominate the portion of my membership fee earmarked for WherIGo be shifted to Waymarking.

Now that I mention money, it strikes me that credits seem appropriate. Say every PM gets 18 a year (non accrued) $12.00 get 52 nonrefundable credits and for every week a category is private. No credits, no private category.

First of all I'll come clean that I was the instigator of London Coal Tax Posts  There are 200 of these in a ring around London.  I wouldn't propose this as a category if I had my time over again.  I'd maybe propose for Historic Boundary Markers or some such.

I quite understand the thinking behind this.  For example I was in discussion with the leader of a web group that is interested in Pill Boxes, to help create a Pill Boxes category.  During the discussion I pointed out that they were already being successfully waymarked under WWII sites.  But the pillbox chap wanted his OWN cat of JUST pillboxes.  I was still willing to try for a pillboxes cat, but he stopped communicating eventually.

However, I think this would just result in a mess.  The lack of peer review would just encourage an explosion in abandoned categories. 

In my opinion, if GS want to offer this kind of service they should brand it separately from Waymarking.  Thus a mycological society can use the groundspeak facilities to track the locations of all kinds of finds of fungi; a birdwatching society all the locations of sightings of lesser spotted whistling finches, and the Hawaii snowmobile club can have all their locations logged too.    But the web "skin" over the Waymarking DB would be branded by the society in question.

Slightly changing the subject, I think the extension of Bookmark lists to Waymarking would be a boon.  So, if you have a particular subset of locations within a category, or across different cateogories, "places visited by Billy Bigfoot on his round the world trek" then a bookmark list would be the way to go.  Like Geocaches each WM would show back-links to all bookmark lists on which they are included (but I would like to see functionality so the WM owner and/or the cat owner could block certain lists from showing, in case someone mischevious created a list of "really lame places" ...)

Team Sieni:

Slightly changing the subject, I think the extension of Bookmark lists to Waymarking would be a boon.  So, if you have a particular subset of locations within a category, or across different cateogories, "places visited by Billy Bigfoot on his round the world trek" then a bookmark list would be the way to go.  Like Geocaches each WM would show back-links to all bookmark lists on which they are included (but I would like to see functionality so the WM owner and/or the cat owner could block certain lists from showing, in case someone mischevious created a list of "really lame places" ...)

I like the idea of the bookmarks list for waymarking. It would be really nice if that were a spot where geocaching and waymarking could share the same bookmark. They could compliment each other.