I'm afraid I'm going to be the party-pooper who does oppose this. At least on first reading (I'm open to persuasion 
).
What specifically are to be included/excluded as waymarks? Trailheads? (we already have trailhead categories) birdwatching locations? (ditto), and so on.
This category doesn't seem to be asking for a specific type of thing but rather a specific location of various things (which either could go into other categories, or which are too subjective/unremarkable to go into any category, or which are really interesting - and occur globally - and are crying out for their own category).
Now, on the other hand we already have categories like "route 66" that operate successfully on a similar principle. So perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree. If you could explain what the rules for in/exclusion are then perhaps I'll understand a bit better.
Hope I'm not being too negative - this is intended in a spirit of constructive criticism. 