Groundspeak Portal

I created a post yesterday that got lost somehow....so here are my thoughts again.


I worry about waymarkings reputation with categories like this.

We already have an entire crowd that refuses to see past the McDonalds category. They will have a heyday with the restrooms category.

"Those waymarkers are so desperate they will waymark anything. Now they are waymarking toilets."

Anyone remember the Mockumarking category "places I've peed in the woods"? This category may legitimize the criticism's in some folks minds.

I also didn't prefer the manhole covers cat and have had a change of mind about it as well as the bicycle tender category...for the most part. I opposed both of those and have been pleasantly surprised for the most part and I may be again....but, it doesn't pass the smell test for me.

Can you imagine the visit logs.

Never-mind don't. 

i suggest that this category REQUIRE that NO PICS in visit logs.....if you must, tell me about it, but dont show it to me....

and it might not be so much what you ar doing in there, as what you might find.....

in reference to benchmarks, i have seen a few of those that were private enough to relieve oneself on.....

TheBeanTeam:

I created a post yesterday that got lost somehow....so here are my thoughts again.


I worry about waymarkings reputation with categories like this.

We already have an entire crowd that refuses to see past the McDonalds category. They will have a heyday with the restrooms category.

"Those waymarkers are so desperate they will waymark anything. Now they are waymarking toilets."

Anyone remember the Mockumarking category "places I've peed in the woods"? This category may legitimize the criticism's in some folks minds.

I also didn't prefer the manhole covers cat and have had a change of mind about it as well as the bicycle tender category...for the most part. I opposed both of those and have been pleasantly surprised for the most part and I may be again....but, it doesn't pass the smell test for me.

Can you imagine the visit logs.

Never-mind don't. 

TheBeanTeam brings up my main concerns on this category.  There is already enough of an image problem without waymarking toilets.  Useful or not it causes perception problems.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Since proposing this category idea I have been rather interested in all of your comments. However, I have been noting some valid concerns which I would like to address. First a bit of background of where I am coming from.

 

At all times I have taken this subject seriously. How I arrived at this category was through several periods in my life. At one time I had a job that was outdoors and took me to different parts of a large city on a whim. Knowing where public toilets were was essential. When I started the job there wasn’t a listing for the staff. When I discussed the need for a listing most of the staff — 80 or so employees — were too proud to admit needing such a listing. Once the list was produced they were most appreciative. This included some who had been on the job for 10 years and thought they knew where all the toilets were.

 

In my present job I have been finding that the lack of knowledge of public toilet locations is actually preventing older people and others with incontinence issues from leaving their homes just to go for a walk.

 

In 1998 the federal government of Australia recognised that not knowing where public toilets is a serious issue. At that time they began the National Continence Management Strategy. This had led to the National Public Toilet Map, which lists public toilets as the NCMS finds them. However, it is doubtful that such an initiative will be taken up in Canada, the United States, New Zealand, or elsewhere.

 

Specific concerns:

 

The outhouse category vs. the public toilet category

I agree with gt.us that the inside shot requirement for the outhouse category is a bit odd; however I do understand the need for the shot to ensure authenticity. BTW, I have great respect to the Seated Leaders group for doing this as outhouses are disappearing. But I see the two categories as being different with little or no overlap. Outhouses covers all outhouses whether they be working or not, on public or private property. Just as long as it is an outhouse meeting the requirements it can be posted regardless even if the public can not use the facility.

 

Photos

The intent of the public toilet category is not to have any lewd or disgusting photos of public toilets. Any waymark submitted with such photos would be declined. In fact, there is no requirement to have interior shots.

 

Stand alone public toilets vs. those in commercial establishments

This is not about waymarking for the sake of waymarking. As I have written before, places like McDonald’s, Starbucks, libraries, and the like are categories well established. Yes, these places do have public toilets in them. Sometimes subject to being limited to customers only; with this stipulation I would have to then question that they are indeed public toilets. This would be about those public toilets that are stand alone, and therefore generally unable to be waymarked in any other way. There will be exceptions such a murals painted on the toilet's exterior.

 

Finding a toilet

cache_test_dummies wrote:

I've encountered a few unexpected public toilets in rural areas that were most welcome. Lots of small towns don't have fast food places, and in small towns especially, libraries and other public buildings can have pretty unusual business hours. But sometimes there are rest rooms located in a small visitor's center just off the town common, or tucked away behind a community center, or located at a baseball field.

 

This is really my intent, to help us just know where the stand alone toilets are. Yesterday I was travelling about and thinking a bit more about the need for public toilets – yes, this is really a part of my job – when I began to realise that I was travelling the busiest highway in my region which is anchored by two significant sized communities that are 65 km | 40 miles apart. In this distance there are five public toilets that fit into the proposed requirements, yet only two are signposted from the highway. One requires very local knowledge to know it is there. Just as cache_test_dummies mentioned. And having lived in Canada and extensively travelled in the US and Western Europe, I find where I presently live – New Zealand – that here the local governments are very good at marking public toilet locations. But they do not mark all of them.

 

The WOW factor

Never had a WOW factor behind this proposal. From the very beginning I took the viewpoint that this would be utilitarian. But then one can view a lot of the Waymarking categories as utilitarian even if that wasn’t the intent to begin with.

 

Take Canadian Benchmarks as an example. This doesn’t interest me in the least. Every so often I’ll look at waymarks around where I grew up just to see what other people see as interesting and unique. However, within a 10 km radius of my childhood home Canadian Benchmarks make up 130 out of 502 waymarks. That’s 26%! This doesn’t mean there aren’t Canadian Benchmarks I don’t find interesting – There is one in New York State!  But overall I find this category to be boring and even wonder why to even waymark this to begin with. Nevertheless I accept this is an interest of many people and respect those people for having such an interest. All I ask is please do the same for other proposals. It might not be your interest, that’s fine. Please be objective about it.

 

Rating public toilets

This is actually important. More for women than men. I don’t know about you but I don’t like going into toilets to find them filthy. At least as a male most times I go into a toilet I’m standing, but having talked with several woman about this issue many do not like some public toilets as they must sit down. In many cases the seats aren’t well cleaned. Giving people knowledge in advance might be worthwhile for them to decide between two toilets – the clean one and the not so clean one. However, I would like to avoid lewd and crude comments and photos.

But rather than just voting against this category because you think it may go that way let’s give it a try and see what happens. I have faith in fellow waymarkers to keep this on the up-and-up.

I'd also like to add that the perception would most likely be a U.S. thing. Other countires aren't quite as hung up as we are when it comes to taking a squat.

I'll echo Bean Team's post and add an additional "No Interest" to the fray, for what is worth.

If this category idea gets approved, I will submit only one set of bathrooms.  They are easy enough to find around here at the local parks or trailheads.

I see little difference between this category and one that came up before "Where I Pee In the Woods" which was rejected outright except maybe "Where the Public Pees"

TheBeanTeam:

I created a post yesterday that got lost somehow....so here are my thoughts again.


I worry about waymarkings reputation with categories like this.

We already have an entire crowd that refuses to see past the McDonalds category. They will have a heyday with the restrooms category.

"Those waymarkers are so desperate they will waymark anything. Now they are waymarking toilets."

Anyone remember the Mockumarking category "places I've peed in the woods"? This category may legitimize the criticism's in some folks minds.

I also didn't prefer the manhole covers cat and have had a change of mind about it as well as the bicycle tender category...for the most part. I opposed both of those and have been pleasantly surprised for the most part and I may be again....but, it doesn't pass the smell test for me.

While I accept the premise that a category stands, sits, or squats on its own merits, I do think that the public image issue raised here is a valid one.  It is really hard to take this one seriously as a waymarker, and I think it would be even more difficult for non-waymarkers to view this as a positive undertaking.  So, while "Is this good for waymarking as a whole?" may night be one of the official criteria, I do think it is a legitimate concern.

I too initially was cool to the idea of manhole covers (and neon signs) but I think we've shown another fascinating side to these.  I don't think that would happen with this one.

dunbar loop:

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

At all times I have taken this subject seriously. How I arrived at this category was through several periods in my life.

This is really my intent, to help us just know where the stand alone toilets are.

-----

Rating

This is actually important. More for women than men. . .  many do not like some public toilets as they must sit down.

Your serious intent is obvious, though I seriously thought this was another gag category.  Of course, that is part of the point  - it has the gag factor.

You have gone to great lengths to say why you think it is important to have this category to help locate public toilets, yet that is one of the most unconvincing arguments!  Do you honestly think the the hit-or-miss widely scattered waymarks that this category might gather are going to make a difference to anybody?  Who is going to download them and carry them around in his/her GPSr?  And, what are the chances that the one you need would be waymarked anyway?  I just don't see that waymarking serves this purpose very well at all.  To have a comprehensive, useful list of anything is almost impossible due to the random nature of this hobby.  Without that, the utility of such a category in achieving your goal is almost nil.

Rating?  Well, conditions change, for one thing.  Maybe one just hit it on a bad day - or a good day!   And, granted you've traveled a lot, but have you been to Asia?  There are still plenty of these public facilities where neither men nor women sit on anything!  It's the Asian squat.  Maybe other parts of the world have them too.  Oh, we also have the high-tech ones - warmed seat covers, mechanical assistance for various things, motion-sensor flushers and electronic deodorizers.  Bidets, not as common.

And, I still say, "So what?" 

I've waymarked a fair number of restrooms that were unique for some other reason.  And, I see that as the point of waymarking, NOT waymarking any public restroom no matter how ordinary, mundane, boring, and unremarkable it may be.  Ocatagonal ones, historic ones, ones with murals, etc. but not the standard, "seen-one-youv'e-seen-them-all" types.

Oh, and "Restroom Facilities" is a variable in some categories, and a requirement for Roadside Rest Areas (so you might want to exclude those places - if the unfathomable happens and this passes).

The only thing that this category has with the peeing in the woods one was bodily function. To compare the two is like comparing payphones to a category of "where I use my cell phone." Both involve phones, though one is too subjective. The peeing in the woods one was a sarcastic joke, this one isn't.

I've read all the comments that have negative views towards this category, and I don't agree at all. Perhaps I look at waymarking a bit differently than others do, to me it's basically a listing service. Is it useful to a fair amount of people? Than it can be listed. Whether I like it personally, or if it's wow or not, or how non-waymarkers think about it, should have no bearing on how I judge the worthiness of a category. There's lots of categories that I don't care about, but others do.

I've hoped for a category like this for a while. Heck, probably for almost 20 years. As one who travels a lot, and practically lives out of the car sometimes, and has travelled with children a lot, I've wanted to know where toilets are quite often. Boy, my life could have been so much easier on numerous times if I had coordinates to a public restroom in a new place that I staying or passing through.

I really hope that this doesn't fail because it's not "wow", because I don't see that criteria in the guidelines. McDonald's don't wow me, but they wowed the person who started the category. I'm happy for him! I shouldn't think down on the category because of how I feel about it. Lots of people like it.

This meets these guidelines:

Informative: On the flipside, you may not exclaim "Wow!", but perhaps you or someone else might find the waymarks in this category useful in some way. These waymarks can aid in accomplishing an everyday task more efficiently,

Also, as an aside, the category "Highway Rest Areas" passed, and this is basically just a continuation of that. I need to go in other places than just the highway.

silverquill:

Your serious intent is obvious, though I seriously thought this was another gag category.  Of course, that is part of the point  - it has the gag factor.

We are all of different strokes. You feel this is a gag category or a gag factor; I feel it is an important category. That is the difference of our opinion. It would be like me saying that US Post Offices is a gag category. After all you can obtain all the US Post Offices at usps.com, just not the latitude and longitude. So using your logic is it important to even waymark these post offices?

However, with pubic toilets there are only two comprehensive listings -- the United Kingdom and Australia. The latter does feel this is an important topic.

silverquill:

You have gone to great lengths to say why you think it is important to have this category to help locate public toilets, yet that is one of the most unconvincing arguments!  Do you honestly think the the hit-or-miss widely scattered waymarks that this category might gather are going to make a difference to anybody? 

Using your logic then we would not waymark anything. Take the category of U.S. National Register of Historic Places. Why even bother waymarking this one. Just like the US Post Offices there already exists a comprehensive online listing of these places. Logically someone could really wonder why a bunch of people would even try to waymark something that has a detailed listing.

silverquill:

Who is going to download them and carry them around in his/her GPSr?

Hmmm... Taking a look at the Australian National Toilet Map somebody takes the concept of GPSring toilets. At this site -- http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/ -- there instructions on how to browe the database using your mobile phone and there is an iPhone application that is available to download. And if you don't use either of these tools then you can download Australian toilets to your GPSr. Take a look at http://www.toiletmap.gov.au/browse.aspx?type=area&id=392e0a73-e858-42c6-9dc1-01635bef1a33

silverquill:

And, what are the chances that the one you need would be waymarked anyway?  I just don't see that waymarking serves this purpose very well at all.  To have a comprehensive, useful list of anything is almost impossible due to the random nature of this hobby.  Without that, the utility of such a category in achieving your goal is almost nil.

With any waymarking category at the beginning it can not be comprehensive and many will never be comprehensive. If we mandated that all categories MUST be comprehensive before they get peer review approval than would any ever get approved? I never said that it must be comprehensive. That is your word, not mine. It is, however, my goal to list public toilets as waymarkers come across them to be of value to later waymarkers visiting an area. Over time I can see it becoming an extensive listing, but this can take years. But unless this category is approved it will never happen at all.



I find it interesting as on the page -- http://www.waymarking.com/cat/peer_review.aspx?f=1&cst=6&st=2 -- it states the philosophy of category peer review.

2009 Groundspeak, Inc. :

One of the things to keep in mind when voting on categories is that some people have a different idea of what is "wow!" If you think a number of people will enjoy the category, even if you won't personally, you should vote "yea" and perhaps give some recommendations for improvement.

What I am noting from some of those being negative regarding public toilets is that they seem to be ignoring this Waymarking philosophy. While I doubt anybody would find public toilets to be a "wow", many people have indicated that they would find this category a good service. I really wish that some of the negative people towards this category can just see beyond what they think might work.



What I do know is that a few people thought this category was good enough to join a group and that a few more people through this forum agree with that thought. Reading through the Waymarking philosophy on approving categories that is no statement that 50-percent-plus-one have to agree 100% with the category for it to go ahead. If eight people think it is a good idea and support it than it may work. As the philosophy states: If you think a number of people will enjoy the category, even if you won't personally, you should vote "yea" and perhaps give some recommendations for improvement.

silverquill:

Rating?  Well, conditions change, for one thing.  Maybe one just hit it on a bad day - or a good day!   And, granted you've traveled a lot, but have you been to Asia?  There are still plenty of these public facilities where neither men nor women sit on anything!  It's the Asian squat.  Maybe other parts of the world have them too.  Oh, we also have the high-tech ones - warmed seat covers, mechanical assistance for various things, motion-sensor flushers and electronic deodorizers.  Bidets, not as common.

Is not every Waymark a hit-and-miss thing? An earthquake could level 10% of the Waymarks in San Francisco. A tsunami could wipe out any coastal boardwalk. A neon sign could be torn down tomorrow. Again I have to disagree with you on this point. We live in a world that is constantly changing. Yes, with toilets the ratings could change on a day-by-day basis. So be it. Are we here to discuss the merits of change or just to discuss waymark places that interest us?



While I haven't travelled to Asia, I have been in many a squat toilet in rural France. Interesting thing is I have never seen a bidet in any public toilet. But I would be delighted to know where you found one.

As to BruceS's comment:

BruceS:

I see little difference between this category and one that came up before "Where I Pee In the Woods" which was rejected outright except maybe "Where the Public Pees"

One could argue the same for outhouses. I do see the historical value in documenting these places before they disappear from the American landscape. But I am sure there many a Waymarker who just wonders "why would anyone do this". It is very subjective what we choose to Waymark as it is all about our personal interests.

saopaulo1:

The only thing that this category has with the peeing in the woods one was bodily function. To compare the two is like comparing payphones to a category of "where I use my cell phone." Both involve phones, though one is too subjective. The peeing in the woods one was a sarcastic joke, this one isn't.

I realize the other was a sarcastic joke and this one isn't however from a perception point of view there is little difference.

ambrosia:

This meets these guidelines:

Informative: On the flipside, you may not exclaim "Wow!", but perhaps you or someone else might find the waymarks in this category useful in some way. These waymarks can aid in accomplishing an everyday task more efficiently,

Does it really?  I mean seriously?

Okay, this is the purported reason for this category - not finding unique and interesting places to visit, but to help people find public facilities.

No one has yet explained or demonstrated how this category would "aid in accomplishing an everyday task more efficiently."

The efficient way is to learn how to say, "Where is the restroom" in the local language!

How are random waymarks going to be more efficient?  

How many people are going to walk around with GPSr in hand with all the waymarks from this category loaded in just in case they're out and about and need to find a public restroom that they couldn't find more efficiently some other way?  That is neither practical nor realistic. 

And, there could be one just around the corner and you would never know  -  unless someone happed to have waymarked it.  Yes, "comprehensive" may be my word, but without something approaching that, the category would be pretty useless.  Years?  Try decades.  Okay, you might find a small area, a city or two, with a waymarker so utterly dedicated to waymarking public restrooms that it might be useful there, but other than the category creator, I haven't seen any sign of anyone feeling passionate about doing this. 

It is fine to have the attitude, "Not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to rain on your parade," except that there doesn't seem to be very many people in the parade!   That alone decreases its viability.  It is being said that we a category shouldn't get a nay vote just because we don't like it.  That is partly true, but what we could end up with is a category hardly any one really likes or wants, but which most people voted for because - well, they thought someone, or a few wanted it!  That just doesn't make sense to me.

So, after people post a token toilet for an icon on the grid, and cross post a few that are waymarks because they are unique or interesting for some other reason in other categories, what is left?

And, I mean no disrespect to our gentleman who proposed this category.  I enjoy your reasoned arguments, even if I remain unconvinced.  Your are an example of good public discourse!

I don't really have a horse in this race, but I still haven't seen any good reason for not allowing it. Nothing that I thought was a good reason, anyway.

silverquill:

Okay, this is the purported reason for this category - not finding unique and interesting places to visit, but to help people find public facilities.

Many categories don't specify a reason for their existence. Are you saying that those that do must somehow demonstrate how the category can be guaranteed to deliver on it's stated purpose?

Or are you just saying that if some people don't find a category to be of interest, the category creators must demonstrate some purpose and explain how that goal will be reached in order to qualify as a viable category on this site?

Or is it something else? I get that some people don't find public toilets to be of interest. But clearly some do.

silverquill:

No one has yet explained or demonstrated how this category would "aid in accomplishing an everyday task more efficiently."

No one has done this for any other categories, either.

silverquill:

How many people are going to walk around with GPSr in hand with all the waymarks from this category loaded in just in case they're out and about and need to find a public restroom that they couldn't find more efficiently some other way?

I believe some will.

I assume you aren't looking for an actual number. If so, why don't we ask the same question for every category?

silverquill:

It is fine to have the attitude, "Not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to rain on your parade," except that there doesn't seem to be very many people in the parade!   That alone decreases its viability.

If you are basing your count of 'people in the parade' on the number of people who have posted in this topic, I'd say that isn't a viable way of gauging interest.

Peer review is a better way to gauge interest, so we'll see what happens now that the category has been called to a vote.
 

silverquill:

It is being said that we a category shouldn't get a nay vote just because we don't like it.  That is partly true, but what we could end up with is a category hardly any one really likes or wants, but which most people voted for because - well, they thought someone, or a few wanted it!

That could be said of many categories. Yup - peer review is a flawed process, but it's the best we've got right now.

cache_test_dummies:

Many categories don't specify a reason for their existence. Are you saying that those that do must somehow demonstrate how the category can be guaranteed to deliver on it's stated purpose?

This is an interesting point. One group that I have contributed to is an example of what many would consider floundering and may want to mark it for termination. However, it is proving useful and interesting. It just took a long time to take off.


This is the Maori Historic Sites category. Here is its history.

2007 Jan 13 = The managing group is founded, Maori Historic Places


2007 Jan 26 = The first waymark


2008 Jun XX = The next 5 waymarks


2008 Nov XX = Another waymark


2009 Sep XX = Another two waymarks


2009 Oct XX = Another four waymarks


Total waymarks is 13, or a waymark on average every 2 months and 21 days or so.

It is very far from being comprehensive. I know of several hundred sites that are worth waymarking under this category. Just have not had the time to get to them.


cache_test_dummies, thanks for bringing this point up.

cache_test_dummies:

I don't really have a horse in this race, but I still haven't seen any good reason for not allowing it. Nothing that I thought was a good reason, anyway.
I assume you aren't looking for an actual number. If so, why don't we ask the same question for every category?

silverquill:

It is fine to have the attitude, "Not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to rain on your parade," except that there doesn't seem to be very many people in the parade!   That alone decreases its viability.

 - How many have posted here compared to the number that will vote..? Not a good example to assume no one will vote for it!

Peer review is a better way to gauge interest, so we'll see what happens now that the category has been called to a vote.

silverquill:

It is being said that we a category shouldn't get a nay vote just because we don't like it.  That is partly true, but what we could end up with is a category hardly any one really likes or wants, but which most people voted for because - well, they thought someone, or a few wanted it!

- If nobody wants it they would obviously vote against it! ... and if it passes just IGNORE IT!
Nobody has been asked to submit Waymarks  to all Categories.

The effect on people's perception of waymarking is a big issue with me.  We should start compiling a list of outhouse and rest stop geocaches to have ready as a retort.

Jake39:

 - How many have posted here compared to the number that will vote..? Not a good example to assume no one will vote for it!

Peer review is a better way to gauge interest,

Maybe . . . .  How many typically vote in peer review?  About 65, sometimes more, sometimes fewer.

But, that is not my point.

Let's say, for example, that out of the 65 there are 15 who really like it, and there are 50 who actually think that it is a bad category but vote for it because they think a lot of other people are in the parade.  So, we end up with a category that really very few want but gets passed because people think that anything that gets put up for peer review should get a yea vote regardless of how they feel.

Jake39:

- If nobody wants it they would obviously vote against it! ... and if it passes just IGNORE IT!
Nobody has been asked to submit Waymarks  to all Categories.

Again, NOT the point!  Who said anything like that???

Should we vote for a category that we think is bad just because we can ignore it an not post waymarks in it?  If that is the case, let's just do away with peer review all together and take any category that someone wants because, after all, we can ignore it . . . .   I don't think that's what you intend, but that's where your line of reasoning leads.

I reject the notion that we have to park our opinions and sensibilities at the door when we undertake peer review.  Objectivity doesn't mean that we can't make a reasoned judgment on what we think makes a good category and what doesn't.

It is not the subject itself that I find lacking, but the inability of the subject to satisfy the criteria.   That is also a judgment  -  one with which we may disagree.  But, don't say everyone has to vote for it just because they don't have to play with it.

cache_test_dummies:

Many categories don't specify a reason for their existence. Are you saying that those that do must somehow demonstrate how the category can be guaranteed to deliver on it's stated purpose?

Or are you just saying that if some people don't find a category to be of interest, the category creators must demonstrate some purpose and explain how that goal will be reached in order to qualify as a viable category on this site?

All I am saying is that it must be demonstrated that the category meets the criteria. 

Then, I am challenging the statements made by the category leader, and others, about the usefulness of the category, as a way of fulfilling on of the criterion.  So, is it unreasonable to ask that someone illustrated why they think their assertions are true? 

silverquill:

No one has yet explained or demonstrated how this category would "aid in accomplishing an everyday task more efficiently."

cache_test_dummies:

No one has done this for any other categories, either.

No, but, again, since the statement was made, I'm merely stating that the assertion has not been supported convincingly, in my opinion.  I'm quoting what was said about this category, not another.  So why bring up other categories?

Not every category has a utilitarian purpose to it.   But, that is what is being used to state why this one fulfills that particular criterion.
 

silverquill:

It is being said that we a category shouldn't get a nay vote just because we don't like it.  That is partly true, but what we could end up with is a category hardly any one really likes or wants, but which most people voted for because - well, they thought someone, or a few wanted it!

Nor am I just talking about personal interest.  Most of us have voted for categories in which we have had no personal interest, but which we've recognized as worthwhile categories and a general positive contribution to the waymarking community as a whole.

cache_test_dummies:

That could be said of many categories. Yup - peer review is a flawed process, but it's the best we've got right now.

Of course that could be said of many categories!  And, peer review is the venue in which this will be decided.  But, my argument is that we shouldn't be made to feel as if we must vote for a category we feel is a bad category and a bad for waymarking, just because someone has created it, in the name of tolerance.

I cannot say how many people would truly be interested in this category, I don't think anyone can. For me, it would be extremely helpful and yes, interesting. But I can only speak for myself.

I was going to use other categories that have passed that to me are much less useful and interesting, and some that have very few postings, as examples, but I have decided not to be specific.

I don't see how this is different than Highway Rest Areas, like I mentioned before. Why is it ok to waymark toilets only when they are on the highway (which most gps have in their maps already), but not in towns and other places?

No need to answer me specifically. I've decided to unsubscribe to this topic. The discussion is disapointing me and is starting to add to my "normal" stress, something I don't need right now.

I hope this category does well, and hope the fun continues in spite of this thread, category, and any results thereof.

What was the result of the peer review on this category?

cache_test_dummies:

What was the result of the peer review on this category?

It failed

Thanks for the update, Bruce.

Do you happen to know if it failed by peer vote, or was it not allowed by Groundspeak?