General Waymarking Topics

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

telomere — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:09:30 GMT

Here's another variation I personally experienced: planned to visit a theme park on vacation, read the WM, programmed the coordinates into the thingy, followed them through 3 states, to an empty parking lot in a commercial development...not a soul around (sunday). But, the street name matched the info on the listing...hmmm. Found the place (the old-fashioned way) about a mile away we and had a good time. Found out later the coordinates and the address matched, the CORPORATE OFFICES for the theme park parent company...somebody did a grab-any-website-address-convert-to-coordinates as the WM info. So, instead of my usual visit post, I related this misadventure and placed the "correct" address and coordinates in the text.

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

globetrotters.us — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 02:35:21 GMT

If I notice an error on someone elses waymark, I will let them know.

The *note to self* I have on this subject is if I correct my own error after successfully entering the coordinates page, I need to go back and check proximity to ensure I'm not making a duplicate, as the process of correcting doesn't reset the proximity check.

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

GEO*TRAILBLAZER 1 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:21:25 GMT

I have had to send a few back for checks but try to be polite about it.

I have fat fingered chords ...coords too.

I have also sent them back approved with a note.
I was hoping and most do read the note.
One of ya even thanked me for finding a typo or two.

You just have to do the best you can sometimes when your 3000 miles away.

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

team farkle 7 — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:01:50 GMT

norstar:

I've had a reviewer tell me that it would be hard to get to the waymark since it is in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.

Hmmm, I think I've been at that very spot...

norstar:
the canyon effect

Our trip to Toronto last year gave us several readings that when entered landed in Saskatchewan.

I love the canyon effect!

yeah...

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

norstar — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:02:35 GMT

I've had a reviewer tell me that it would be hard to get to the waymark since it is in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. I think I had copied the minutes and seconds for each but did not enter the degrees for either one. This person had actually accepted it with the note to correct the coordinates.

There is also an issue for waymarking in cities - the canyon effect - where if you get a signal at all, it can be some times blocks from where you actually are. I've corrected ones that are really off but have tended to keep the ones that are off but within sight of the waymark. So, on a Google Map or another map, the WM may not be on the corner that it's supposed to be at.

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

TheBeanTeam — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:31:19 GMT

Much better to be notified in a nice note than to have folks roaming around looking without finding which is what happened on one of my errors.

I had fat fingered the coords.

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

Redneck Parrotheads — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:29:21 GMT

silverquill:
Just had a note from a waymarker who happened to be looking at one of mine, and noticed that it was in the wrong part of the city. He wrote me a nice note, and even offered to get the correct coordinates for me! We'll, I still don't know how I got the wrong coordinates, but the were right on the spread sheet and corrected now. I'm really grateful that someone caught this.

That was a really nice way for them to handle it. Kudos to them!

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

silverquill — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 16:04:32 GMT

Just had a note from a waymarker who happened to be looking at one of mine, and noticed that it was in the wrong part of the city. He wrote me a nice note, and even offered to get the correct coordinates for me! We'll, I still don't know how I got the wrong coordinates, but the were right on the spread sheet and corrected now. I'm really grateful that someone caught this.

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

0ccam — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:18:36 GMT

Redneck Parrotheads:
It is a common error, one I've been guilty of once. Also often numbers are inverted or other typographical errors do happen when entering coordinates. I think it's best for waymarkers to take the extra moment to proof their own waymarks for I-D-10-T errors before submitting (or cancelling submission and resubmitted if an error is found immediately after submitted - been there, done that, too!). Waymarkers who are already careful to proof before submitting, whether that's been part of their process or they learned from their own mistakes, might find an additional system check to be irritating. I wouldn't... but waymarkers can react to circumstances differently so I can't speak for everyone. It's an interesting idea.

I normally (95% of the time) do the same kind of Google check on the Preview page as I describe earlier in this thread. Also I request that folks let me know of ANY errors, whether typos or factual errors or whatever, if they see something. I'm really bad about choosing Texas as the State when the waymark is not actually in Texas...

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

Redneck Parrotheads — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:06:38 GMT

It is a common error, one I've been guilty of once. Also often numbers are inverted or other typographical errors do happen when entering coordinates. I think it's best for waymarkers to take the extra moment to proof their own waymarks for I-D-10-T errors before submitting (or cancelling submission and resubmitted if an error is found immediately after submitted - been there, done that, too!). Waymarkers who are already careful to proof before submitting, whether that's been part of their process or they learned from their own mistakes, might find an additional system check to be irritating. I wouldn't... but waymarkers can react to circumstances differently so I can't speak for everyone. It's an interesting idea.

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

pseudoprime — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:08:30 GMT

Would it make sense to have some sort of warning message when the minutes end in 000? (Similar to the proximity warning.) I've already caught 2 approved waymarks with that error. One after driving around looking for it, the other when looking at nearby waymarks and noticing, "That's not supposed to be so close to home." In both cases, the waymark poster corrected it, but it seems like a common error.

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

0ccam — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:58:19 GMT

silverquill:
Coordinates is one of the things I try to check, at least with the eyeball. I find that Google maps can be misleading. I had a coordinate questioned on a ferry terminal because on the map it appeared to be too far inland. The satellite view showed it accurately at the water's edge. So, it can be more reliable in some cases. The caveat is that the satellite images are several years old in most cases, and the new Walmart may not be visible. I live in a building that doesn't show up on any Google views!

No, Google's not perfect. But if it's reasonably close on Google, then I'll let the poster have the benefit of the doubt.

With some things, like TxHMs that are near a road, StreetView is a WONDERFUL way to check (where they've collected the data).

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

silverquill — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:08:34 GMT

Coordinates is one of the things I try to check, at least with the eyeball. I find that Google maps can be misleading. I had a coordinate questioned on a ferry terminal because on the map it appeared to be too far inland. The satellite view showed it accurately at the water's edge. So, it can be more reliable in some cases. The caveat is that the satellite images are several years old in most cases, and the new Walmart may not be visible. I live in a building that doesn't show up on any Google views! I guess if one pays for Google Earth more current images are available.

I put a great deal of importance and accurate coordinates. It is often difficult to tell how accurate they are, but if there is a question, I always decline the waymark with a request to recheck the coordinates. For most categories, I require them to be AT the object/site and NOT from a distant viewpoint.

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

dinoprophet — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:50:24 GMT

This is what I did. I got a pleasant reply back and hopefully it will be resubmitted soon.

Re: Protocol for questionable coordinates

0ccam — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 15:24:52 GMT

dinoprophet:
Last night a new participant submitted two different waymarks to Omnivorous Trees. Both submissions are very good additions, but they both have the same coordinates. Furthermore, they have 000 for the Decimal Minutes, and the location on the map appears to be several blocks south of the cemetery where they're supposed to be located. The first of these marks has already been approved (twice in fact, thanks to a user error by me). What is the typical protocol in this situation? Deny with a polite request for new coordinates perhaps?

This happened recently on a waymark I was reviewing in a different cat. I DID reject it and asked for a coordinate check and resubmission.

It was resubmitted rapidly and I approved it quickly.

Please note that it's a good idea to check the coordinates for reasonableness if possible. I click on the Google Maps link. If there's an address in the waymark, I can see if it's near there on the map. At worst I can make sure it's in the right REGION.