Groundspeak Portal

Having been turned down on several sites that have been designated as "sites" and not parks I think there is a niche for this category.

Description: There are other categories that cover state parks and other major places. This group is for those that are small in nature and managed by smaller groups such as State or local Historical or Genealogy groups.

Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Also membership is now open.

Hard to comment without a more detailed description.  There have been various attempts, from time to time, to fill gaps and it's difficult to define gaps.  I think the Signs of History has done it quite successfully, though I've not submitted much there, so it's hard to say.  I think a category such as you are proposing may end up looking like a gerrymandered congressional district, with boundaries difficult to define, but I'd like to see exactly what you have in mind.  I mean, we can't leave these place unwaymarked, can we?!  They need a home.  Maybe the uncategorized waymark is the route to go; I don't know.  Not convinced on that one either.

Once I have one more officer I will start details. Here in Texas we have a number of Historical Sites that are overseen by the State park system but are not state parks.

One of the more famous is the http://www.thc.state.tx.us/museums/musnimitz.shtml National Museum of the Pacific War which is managed by the Texas Historical Society. This surely does not fit under signs of history or any other I can think of.

These would require more than a sign or marker. There must be something there that is open to the public.

Another is the Texas State Railway which was once a State Park but is now operated by a private company.

If I can identify 20 or better sites here in Texas that are listed under the state park system I would imagine that most all other states and countries would have similar types of historical sites.

I think the uncategorized waymark thing is just a reason to start a new category.

I started a group, but it's been hard to define them. I've also been worried about how widespread they are and do other countries have them.

I have look at this a bit. I have googled a state name like Arizona Historical Sites and numerous sites that come up with buildings etc that would be prime for this category.

I flew a B-24 back to England a few years ago and found that all of the old airbases have historical societies associated with them.

I can not believe that there are not hundreds of these smaller sites that need waymarking.

Ok, I have the major blanks filled in on the category.

I have pulled up several states up by putting in (state) historical sites and all so far have many to chose from.

I have tossed quite a few local historical group signs under the Signs of History category, so I'm not sure if this category is needed.

Can you mention what the criteria is in more detail?

dunbar loop:

I have tossed quite a few local historical group signs under the Signs of History category, so I'm not sure if this category is needed. Can you mention what the criteria is in more detail?

Exactly.  I have too, but there are others that don't have a sign with enough information (according to that category's guidelines) to qualify.

I can say that here in Korea, although there is an extensive numbering system for historic sites, both at the national and provincial level, there  are still some worthy sites that don't fit the Korean Historic Sites category and don't have enough information on the sign for Signs of History, that could use a category such as this.

My main concern is that this might be too broad - with state park sites, town sites, historical society sites, and who knows what else.  I think it would also be a challenge when casting such a broad net to define precisely what qualifies.  The advantage of more specific categories is that the either qualify or they don't based on a numbering system, inclusion in a specific program, etc.  I'm not saying this is an insurmountable challenge, but one that will take a lot of thought, planning and careful writing.

Let's see what you've got.

Again, this group does not include anything that presently has a category. This group is pointed at the cracks between the other categories.

the current description is as follows.

There are other categories that cover state and national parks and other major places. This group is for those that are small in nature and managed by smaller groups such as State Historical Societies, local Historical Societies or possibly Genealogy groups.

There must be a physical building or something that still exists today.

Signs of History, Historical Markers, etc in them selves do not count. A sign or marker that says that “John and Mary were married here” would not be included. BUT, if the building or structure was still there AND it was being managed or taken care of by an identifiable person or group then it would count.

One example of a historical site that would be included would be the Confederate Reunion Grounds State Historic Site http://www.thc.state.tx.us/hsites/hs_conf_reunion.aspx?Site=Confed This was once a State Park but it is now managed by the State Historical Commission. In this case there are active actions going on at the site.

Local Historical Society quite often will manage “John Smith’s home” , In this case the house must be available for tours, at least by appointment.

txoilgas:

Again, this group does not include anything that presently has a category. This group is pointed at the cracks between the other categories. the current description is as follows. There are other categories that cover state and national parks and other major places. This group is for those that are small in nature and managed by smaller groups such as State Historical Societies, local Historical Societies or possibly Genealogy groups. There must be a physical building or something that still exists today. Signs of History, Historical Markers, etc in them selves do not count. A sign or marker that says that “John and Mary were married here” would not be included. BUT, if the building or structure was still there AND it was being managed or taken care of by an identifiable person or group then it would count. One example of a historical site that would be included would be the Confederate Reunion Grounds State Historic Site http://www.thc.state.tx.us/hsites/hs_conf_reunion.aspx?Site=Confed This was once a State Park but it is now managed by the State Historical Commission. In this case there are active actions going on at the site. Local Historical Society quite often will manage “John Smith’s home” , In this case the house must be available for tours, at least by appointment.

I think you trying to define these is admirable however I think your current definition will have significant problems.  A few examples of where has problems:

State historic sites in Missouri and others are managed by the same state organization which manages state parks thus not managed by "small in nature" does not apply

Many states maintain lists of "State Historic sites or register" which are similar to sites on the National Register but with different standards but these are not managed by an organization but operate just like sites on the National Register.

Many sites listed as State Historic sites are also listed on the National Register of Historic Places (though not all) thus are already "Waymarkable"  in that category  this will make a management nightmare to determine if "Waymarkable" else where.

Your example of a house managed by a local historical society and open for tours in most cases can already be waymarked in the the History Museums as house museums are accepted.

The complications are further compounded if you look at the definition on a global level.

I have found that I have been able to waymark these state historic sites in some category or three even with their exclusion from the state parks category which was your initial premise for creation of the category.

BruceS
Thanks for the comment.

1. "small in nature" is meant to cover most of the submissions. The Texas Historical Society manages many of the ones here in Texas that I am thinking about and they are not exactly small but they cover many of the sites I am targeting.

Another example is the Judge Roy Bean visitors center. This is managed by the Texas Department of Transportation. Another great location for a Historical Site.

2. The State Historic sites and register would be the primary target for this category. While some will also fit on the National Register of Historic Places most will not. I believe that most of the postings will be obvious. Cross posting will happen no matter what. Like the recent Smithsonian Outdoor Sculptures there is cross posting but many more are being covered than were already posted. For example here in Ft Worth there are 63 outdoor sculptures in the Smithsonian data base yet less than 15 had been waymarked. Now a major portion of these are waymarked under the Smithsonian category.

3. I believe the global test is easy. Again my experience in the UK while there with the B-24 aircraft showed me many places, such as the old airfields, that have their own groups set up to pass on the history of the site.

4. I understand you can find a "home" for a lot of these but this category will provide a direct home without fudging. I believe that if there is an "obvious" site for this grouping then people will be less likely to try and expand the requirements of other categories to get one to fit.

I looked at your example site that you listed.  From the gallery of  photos for the site, I only saw 20-30 potential waymarks.  There was at least one  Texas historical marker, a few different Signs of History, there are also arches,  trailheads, hiking bridges,  I assume there probably is a Civil War memorial or two somewhere there.   Unless there is another Reunion grounds near Mexia the site itself is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, thus it appears it would not fall into one cracks your proposed category want to provide for and would not qualify to be listed in it.

txoilgas:

I understand you can find a "home" for a lot of these but this category will provide a direct home without fudging. I believe that if there is an "obvious" site for this grouping then people will be less likely to try and expand the requirements of other categories to get one to fit.

I never have to "fudge" to make a waymark fit into a category, unless category is not clearly written or I totally miss the requirements I can figure out what  will go into a category, if i have any questions I email the group leader.   None of the potential waymarks I listed in above post for the Confederate Reunion grounds would be considered a "fudge" to get them in those categories.

I even missed a few including a  lone chimney and it appeared to be other preserved ruins.

BruceS:

I looked at your example site that you listed.  From the gallery of  photos for the site, I only saw 20-30 potential waymarks.  There was at least one  Texas historical marker, a few different Signs of History, there are also arches,  trailheads, hiking bridges,  I assume there probably is a Civil War memorial or two somewhere there.   Unless there is another Reunion grounds near Mexia the site itself is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, thus it appears it would not fall into one cracks your proposed category want to provide for and would not qualify to be listed in it.

You are correct. There is no place specific to put the location itself.

Let us look at cemeteries. They have historical markers, statues, famous people, etc. Yet we still have a category for cemeteries.

This is along the same line. One site that can envelope the purpose of the site itself.

I seem to be that 1 new Officer txoilgas was waiting on.  I have reviewed the proposed category details and think it has merit.  There are several sites here in Colorado that would fit the bill but just don't meet any of the other category requirements.  It has been kind of frusrating when I find a historic site that is notable and interesting to visit.........but just doesn't seem to have a home in the waymarking categories.  These niche categories are very hard to define and to make qualifying differentiation from existing categories.  This forum should help define and develope this new category so that it is fulfilling its stated purose when it goes to the General Waymarking Community for review.

condor1:

I seem to be that 1 new Officer txoilgas was waiting on.  I have reviewed the proposed category details and think it has merit.  There are several sites here in Colorado that would fit the bill but just don't meet any of the other category requirements.  It has been kind of frusrating when I find a historic site that is notable and interesting to visit.........but just doesn't seem to have a home in the waymarking categories.  These niche categories are very hard to define and to make qualifying differentiation from existing categories.  This forum should help define and develope this new category so that it is fulfilling its stated purose when it goes to the General Waymarking Community for review.

I am not saying the category does not have merit.  As the waymarker who probably has more historical waymarks than anyone I welcome historical categories.  However, each state has a very different definition of State Historic sites.   For example Missouri and Texas have very defined and limited state historic sites (most of which are also listed on the National Register of Historic Places and many are of such significance that they are listed as National Historic Landmarks).  California on the other hand considers anywhere it places an official historical marker as a State Historic Landmark. (there are several hundred)   Other states do not have either state historical sites or registers.

I  would consider it a challenge for you list one of the significant Colorado state historic sites that I could not find a category for.

BruceS
What I want the intent to be is to cover those that do not have the national coverage. I have added wordage that states that State Parks and National Register of Places are excluded.

I have not looked at all of California but many will be included in this category. Since I do not see a category for California Historical Sites like the markers from other states then maybe this is the place for them. Where else would they be put as of now?

The ones from Colorado look like museums. I did not check but are these already covered by the Historical Places category? If so then they would be excluded.

Other historic site locations around the world that have museums would fit here also. Maybe this category will generate interest from locals to include them from a history proint of view rather than maybe a small museum.

Again the whole purpose is to cover those that fall through the gaps of the larger broad brush categories.

saopaulo1:

I started a group, but it's been hard to define them. I've also been worried about how widespread they are and do other countries have them.

Since you are in California have you thought of changing the one you started to cover just the California Historical Sites like other states have with their markers?

saopaulo1:

I started a group, but it's been hard to define them. I've also been worried about how widespread they are and do other countries have them.

Since you are in California have you thought of changing the one you started to cover just the California Historical Sites like other states have with their markers?

dup posting

txoilgas:

saopaulo1:

I started a group, but it's been hard to define them. I've also been worried about how widespread they are and do other countries have them.

Since you are in California have you thought of changing the one you started to cover just the California Historical Sites like other states have with their markers?

The California Historical Landmarks are one thing. In California our state parks system has state historical parks and state historical sites. Sometimes the only place to put them is in the Wikipedia category.

It just became a hassle because some states don't have historical sites on the state level.

i believe it was SQ that said somewhere...'state historic markers' would not pass a vote in the current climate.....

txoilgas:

Again the whole purpose is to cover those that fall through the gaps of the larger broad brush categories.

As I think I said initially, designing a category to fill gaps is immensely difficult.   Fitting a category into ONE gap is hard enough, but to to build one for multiple gaps of different shapes and sizes is formidable.  And, I think that's the problem.  California has one way of listing and managing historical sites of various kinds, Texas another, Colorado yet a different scheme, and then there are cities, towns, counties, entire countries, prefectures, cantons, provinces, etc.  

Then you have different categories handling these in different ways, from state to state and country to country, with some being very broad and inclusive and others being narrow and restrictive.  Additionally there are categories that handle segments or special types of historic sites from the two NRHP categories, to Engineering Landmarks.  These all interlock and overlap in various ways, and still there are odd gaps.

To come up with a reasonable, "gap filler" category defined as "everything that doesn't fit somewhere else" may be out of reach.  There would be too many questionable sites.  They would be so diverse in nature and geography so as to result in quite a hodge-podge with the only commonality being something that is somewhow "historic" by various criteria.  The list of exclusions alone would be a a jumble.

Just trying to be realistic here, that's all.

saopaulo1:

txoilgas:

saopaulo1:

I started a group, but it's been hard to define them. I've also been worried about how widespread they are and do other countries have them.

Since you are in California have you thought of changing the one you started to cover just the California Historical Sites like other states have with their markers?

The California Historical Landmarks are one thing. In California our state parks system has state historical parks and state historical sites. Sometimes the only place to put them is in the Wikipedia category.

It just became a hassle because some states don't have historical sites on the state level.

 

I  know there are several states that have historical sites, Missouri and Oklahoma to name two.  Early on, Missouri's historical sites are typically managed by the state parks system, and unknowingly, I attempted to post one underneath the State Parks category, which was denied. 

In attempting to define, I also believe that you would have to limit.  For example, the National Parks that are historic sites have a place, it is the state level.  What an attempt to paralell this category, limiting the category in that manor, while making it open world-wide.