Groundspeak Portal

Today I received an email informing me that a waymark that was approved over 2 years ago was being declined now because the category group has tightened up their category requirements.  Fine, but an existing waymark should remain.  Here is the email:

Dear Waymark owner in the Border Crossing Category:

	This category has had poor management for some time now. This is one of the categories that was ‘moved’ to Waymarking from a Locationless Cache, in 2005. Since that time, about four years now, the description has not been updated, and it appears that a number of waymarks were approved that were against the ‘1 per border’ stipulation (agreed, this would have been better worded by saying ‘1 per border crossing’).

	You are receiving this message because you have posted a ‘duplicate’ mark for an existing border crossing waymark. As list was compiled of suspected erroneous marks, after looking at each item on the list your waymark was chosen as the one to be reevaluated. This was decided by the first one posted, this one came afterward and is being denied. Yes, we know that the waymarks chosen by this process might have a better description of more accurate coordinates. Thanksfully, the majority of the waymarkes being denied in this process were also posted by the same waymarker that posted the one remaining. If this is the case, we recommend that you update the border crossing to reflect the new directions for posting a waymark in this category.

	Some of the confusion might have arose from the lack of border crossing waymark naming protocol. This has been addressed in the updates in the category description and should not be an issue in the future.

Archived Waymark (WMXXX – Date Stamp – Name)
WM2CF3  10/11/2007 3:33:53 PM    Alabama Welcomes You (the better cords)



I believe this is unfair and puts all of our waymarks at risk by a category group that wants to "update" their category requirements.

I have requested that my waymark be reinstated.

Not very happy waymarker,

snfromky

here is a copy of the entire email sent. it also included the info on the nearby waymark.

---------

Dear Waymark owner in the Border Crossing Category:

This category has had poor management for some time now. This is one of the categories that was ‘moved’ to Waymarking from a Locationless Cache, in 2005. Since that time, about four years now, the description has not been updated, and it appears that a number of waymarks were approved that were against the ‘1 per border’ stipulation (agreed, this would have been better worded by saying ‘1 per border crossing’).

You are receiving this message because you have posted a ‘duplicate’ mark for an existing border crossing waymark. As list was compiled of suspected erroneous marks, after looking at each item on the list your waymark was chosen as the one to be reevaluated. This was decided by the first one posted, this one came afterward and is being denied. Yes, we know that the waymarks chosen by this process might have a better description of more accurate coordinates. Thanksfully, the majority of the waymarkes being denied in this process were also posted by the same waymarker that posted the one remaining. If this is the case, we recommend that you update the border crossing to reflect the new directions for posting a waymark in this category.

Some of the confusion might have arose from the lack of border crossing waymark naming protocol. This has been addressed in the updates in the category description and should not be an issue in the future.

Archived Waymark (WMXXX – Date Stamp – Name)

Remaining Waymark (WMXXX – Date Stamp – Name)


If you do not ‘own’ the remaining mark, please send them a message about things you might feel would add to the waymark (if they posted the northbound welcome center, you can share insight into the southbound rest area). Though, editing waymarks, much like a wikipedia article, is supposed to be a function in the new release (as this is being written the site is down for upgrading).

A note about a grandfather clause: Yes, we have developed a clause for some marks approved into the category prior to this update. This mark did not fall into one of those classifications—primarily historic survey stones.

We appreciate your consideration as this category is trying to bring itself up to date with the current waymarking environment. If you know of any ‘duplicate’ border crossing points, please send a note to the officers so that we might correct the situation.

Thanks,
The Border Crossing Officers

Even in it's entirety it does not excuse the fact that a waymark was taken from me that had been active for over 2 years. This is just plain wrong.

Guess my prior post did not make it when I lost wireless connection, so will try again.

Yes, the same category just denied my waymark as it was a duplicate.  Error in the original waymark was the wrong interstate number, which was not caught during the review process as being too close the existing interstate waymark.  (I have improved my technique by rechecking for existing waymarks before submission as I do put in temp coords due to repeat wm.com failures during first submission.)  A visitor later noted the error which was updated in the header. 

There is no grandfathering for errors, so appears that both our waymark should have been denied as duplicates in the first place.  My recommendation is to get over the numbers... and go find a great new border crossing to post.

Again for the category managers...  How do I take the denied waymark out back and shoot it?  There is no delete or archive function on the right side of the waymark - even in edit mode.

vhasler:

Again for the category managers...  How do I take the denied waymark out back and shoot it?  There is no delete or archive function on the right side of the waymark - even in edit mode.

this must be a function/bug of the new release. try reporting it there (you did use this function before didnt you)

on edit mark page, look under the map, it is last on the list after lof a visit, comment, edit, view, etc....

I'm not worried about numbers as you can see from my home page.  I'm worried about fairness and the idea that a waymark category can be "tightened up" and suddenly your waymark is gone.

I understand how you must feel. I'd probably not be happy about having a waymark declined after having been approved years earlier.

For cases where a category description is updated and previously approved waymarks fail to meet the new requirements, I think grandfathering is appropriate. But in the case of Border Crossing category (at least as I understand it) the only waymarks that were changed from approved to declined were those that never met the original requirements, and still don't meet the new requirements.

The situation is unfortunate, but I think the decision was arguably the right one under the circumstances.

Yup, it sucks, but whatcha gonna do? I too had one at the Michigan border with Canada that was archived. My theory at the time is there are two bridges crossing over, one was waymarked and the other was not. But like they say them's the breaks.

I might be upset if these things were rare and I might not be able to find another one but in this case they are quite plentiful.  If you are located where it says under your avatar then getting another is only a short drive away.  My only problem with this category is that I forget about it when I am crossing a border which I usually do a few times a week.

OK, I'm giving this one up.  I've already spent more time and energy than it's worth.  I still believe it's wrong to "decline" an existing waymark.   Having said that, I'll continue waymarking, just a little wiser now.

I just had a "Border Crossing Category" stripped from me too in the last week.  It was posted in May 2009, and visited by only one other person.  And now it's gone. 

Personally, I don't care if you decline a Waymark during the submission stage.  But to have it pulled 6 months (or more) after it's been a Waymark - well too bad if your group can't manage your category in a timely manner.  Why make the Waymarker lose a Waymark?

Do the management groups realize this is a GAME?  It's for fun?  It's to show folks where interesting places, monuments, or what not is located.  And when we submit a Waymark and/or visit a Waymark we get a cute little icon.  It's a GAME!!!!!

I say to management groups, leave your need to control the world in your back pocket and remember that we who Waymark are trying to have fun and play a GAME!!!!! 

It's not the end of the world if there is a Border Waymark on BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET!  Who cares?  It's a GAME for goodness sake. 

What if I'm driving to the other coast and will never pass by in the other direction.  But I can't get that waymark on the other side of the street due to traffic, or I'm pulling a trailer and can't make u-turns or whatever.  So now I can't get that Border Waymark icon because the management group won't allow one in both directions.

I'm so mad. 

I am thinking of quitting Waymarking due to the Border management group YANKING my 6-month old Waymark.  And I know no one will miss me.  And more folks will come along and PLAY this GAME.  But in the mean time

Okay, notice the red ink and bold letters?  yeah, i'm fuming mad.

My last words - People, it's a GAME!!!!!  Stop TAKING AWAY Waymarks that have been up and running.  What is wrong with you "managers" anyways?  Power tripping?  Can't let folks just have a good time?  Afraid chaos will overtake?

Coming in and yelling at everyone for one individuals actions will not help your cause or garner sympathy. 

Would I be frustrated....maybe, maybe not. I have archived waymarks (my own) because they were duplicates of someone elses and they slipped through. I have emailed others when there was an apparent error in a double posting.

I have faced this situation from both sides of the fence. Once a lighthouse and another time....I don't remember the details. Oh yes, it was in Oregon Historical Markers....A category I manage.  The lighthouse was ignored and there are still two for teh same location (mine was first), for the other one,  I elected to archive my mark. We struck a deal so to speak.

There was one that ticked me off. A category manager had his category set on auto approve. This was a feature that went away a long time ago now. I emailed the leader prior to submission several times for clarification and then again when I submitted it. Almost a year later I get a re-evaluation denial saying it didn' t fit because....blah blah blah. Yes I was frustrated but my choice was to move on. I just don't submit to that category anymore.  Actually there are a few categories that I don't submit to now for one reason or another but.....,

To quote some wisdom I just read somewhere......

wicked witch of the west coast:

  Who cares?  It's a GAME for goodness sake.

TheBeanTeam:

Coming in and yelling at everyone for one individuals actions will not help your cause or garner sympathy. 

 

I'm not really yelling at everyone.  I'm just yelling.  Kinda like Billy Mays used to yell.  Just to be heard.

Thanks for your generous reply.

 

 

I worried I wasn't being generous enough. Glad you are still here to comment and sorry for your frustration.

Wish I could help the situation.

I have made serious errors in judgment in the past in regards to reviewing. I created a category once and made some stipulations for approval of waymarks in the category. Later I submitted a waymark to my own category and it was denied. Now that isn't a problem usually but this time the denial focused on an issue that wasn't part of the criteria. It was denied because of my photo choice. I sent it back with a comment that it met the criteria and it was denied again. I thought "good grief" I created this category and its requirements and this officer is denying my waymarks. I couldn't tell who was denying because when indicates it was "denied by the management group".  I know now there are ways to see who denied it but instead because I was ticked I sent a note off to all me officers asking what was going on and reiterated the guidelines for the category and also mentioned it in the forums. In short I handled it wrong and the officer was embarrassed and left the group with hurt feelings. Was I right.....Yes, I think so. Did I handle it right.....No, I know I didn't. Are both of us still waymarking? Yes, thankfully and we had the opportunity to meat and visit last year with no hard feelings. Am I an evil controlling person? My kids think so sometimes and maybe some waymarkers but really it is category integrity and continuity that  would cause me to re-evaluate a waymark that had been live for some time.

All of that to say....We all make mistakes and on occasion something will happen that we don't agree with. The key to success is moving on an realizing that it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme.

TheBeanTeam:

Coming in and yelling at everyone for one individuals actions will not help your cause or garner sympathy. 

i would like to mention that there were 4 officers that all supported the decision.

there was no resubmition of any of the above waymarks mentioned. they just came to the forums and ranted and raved....

chapterhouseinc:

TheBeanTeam:

Coming in and yelling at everyone for one individuals actions will not help your cause or garner sympathy. 

there was no resubmition of any of the above waymarks mentioned. they just came to the forums and ranted and raved....

Charterhouseinc, if you think I "ranted and raved" you're incorrect. This thread has been my only post EVER on these forums. I am slightly sorry I posted it in RED and BOLD, but not super sorry. I was/am upset and I wanted/got attention.

Of course I did not resubmit my border crossing. Your message was clear it wouldn't be approved. There would be no point.

Since my border crossing had already been accepted and established, I feel particularly singled out (along with other folks who had their established Waymarks yanked), so I reacted.

wicked witch of the west coast:

I am thinking of quitting Waymarking

My last words - People, it's a GAME!!!!! 

Well, I have a lot of sympathy for your position.

Whether or not this is so egregious that you want to go play somewhere else is your decision to make.  But, "it's a game" works both ways.  If that is true, what do we do when we get fouled?  Well, we get no free throw (shucks), but we might cool on the bench for awhile instead of heading for the locker room.  After all, it's just a game.

I've been to that point, over an entirely different issue, and it took me quite a bit of bench time to feel like I wanted to get back into the game at all.  But, part of what helped me was realizing that I was letting someone else rob me of something that I truly enjoyed!  I wasn't going to let them have that power over me, right or wrong.

Anyway, I recently joined this management group because they needed some help rewriting the description, and I haven't gotten around to working on it - format, not content.  Now I'm embarrassed.  I may reconsider.

Basically I think it is poor policy to go back and archive waymarks in this manner.  I understand what they are trying to do, I think, but it seems to me there are better solutions.  One could find any number of categories where there are waymarks that never should have been approved - ones that just don't meet the requirements, or where there are subjective criteria and it seems that whoever accepted the waymark was wrong.

Let's take some examples.  Unique Weathervanes (a legacy category I inherited).  I can go back and say, "Hmmm.  This one doesn't look unique to me by our criteria.  It should never have been approved three years ago.  I guess I'll archive it."  Bad policy.  Or, maybe a category requires two photos, or a photo of a sign, or whatever.  And, I find some that don't meet those requirements - somehow got through (maybe it was me who accepted it).   But, I wouldn't archive it!  If it was something that was really important, and could reasonably be fixed, I might send a note to the waymarker and/or whomever approved it to see if it could be remedied.  Or, I might do nothing at all.  But, I wouldn't summarily archive it.

Now, if I found a duplicate waymark, or maybe a waymark that was clearly outside the scope of the category, or had serious deficiencies that could not reasonably be remedied, then I might archive it, but would first contact the waymarker to discuss the issue.

Even in such cases, what would be the harm in letting the waymark stand?  If you think having a substandard waymark in the category sets a precedent, just add a prominent note in the description - something like, "In a subsequent review this waymark was found to be deficient [or whatever the case might be]  but has been grandfathered in."

Archiving a waymark, especially one that has been approved for months, or years, is an extreme measure and should be reserved for extreme cases.  It is doubtful whether it should be used as a way of cleaning house for an entire category.

Just my initial reactions without really digging into the issue.  But, I do think it is an important discussion.