Groundspeak Portal

I will vote NO:

1) If I feel the category is too regional - with exceptions to historical markers and survey markers.  This is especially true for commercial franchises.  This is to be global game.  Give everybody a chance to play, and not just in your back yard.

2) If the category is too pervasive.  If I can throw a rock anywhere at any time and hit the intended waymark, it is not unique enough.

3) If the category does not hit me in the "Standout" criteria.  You are inviting others to visit these waymarks.  Make it interesting.  Make me want to visit it, too.

4) If there is not a good chance I can visit the waymark when I am in the area.  Temporary and Random waymarks annoy me greatly.  I can handle seasonal waymarks, but if the waymark is only available 3 days out of 365 then it doesn't really exist.

I guess I am trying to say is to think of the perspective of the visitor. 

Thank you for letting me rant.  Go back to your GPSr's now and go find some more waymarks.

-cldisme

I agree - all sensible stuff, and all in line with the criteria.

The standout one can be hard to gauge.  Personally I'm nuts about milestones, but lets face it they are pretty dull really.  Only a complete saddo could possibly be interested in lumps of stone with distances engraved on them.  I try to consider this when a really, really uninteresting commercial franchise comes up.  Some people might really like these.

My common reasons:

If the category has not been clearly written up - there is too much ambiguity in what is and is not allowed.  I try to think from the point of view of the cat manager and imagine all of the  waymarks that don't really fit that could possibly be submitted, and the headaches they will cause.

If the category has factual errors. eg in the recent "Iraqi-Afghanistani war" cat.  (What?  there's no such conflict - Since when was Iraq at war with Afghanistan?  These are two entirely separate engagements with different forces operating.)

If the category is missing instructions for posting or visiting.  Come on, it's not a difficult form to fill out.  Put a bit of effort in!

If it's Monday morning and I'm in a bad mood.

 

- If the category is vague/has very little info

- BIGGEST pet peeve: Strict requirements.  Ugh.  If I have to stand in the right spot, take the picture at just the right angle, take 3 different perspectives, have my gps in the picture, have myself in the picture......etc. etc. etc.

Please keep this enjoyable.  Especially with the gps in pics.  This isn't geocaching.

ambrosia:

 have my gps in the picture, have myself in the picture......etc. etc. etc.

Oh, I agree.  Mind you, I don't vote no on that basis.  I just note that I won't be seeking the category myself if the requirements stay in place.  And how would they know if it was really me anyway?

I also wonder about the categories that prohibit you having your GPS in the picture.  I am supposed to be using it to find the waymarks and may well have it in hand or around my neck when my picture is taken.  Has anyone actually had a visit deleted because their GPS was in the shot?

dudleygrunt:

I also wonder about the categories that prohibit you having your GPS in the picture.  I am supposed to be using it to find the waymarks and may well have it in hand or around my neck when my picture is taken.  Has anyone actually had a visit deleted because their GPS was in the shot?

Who wants to see a gps covering up half a historic building or a most of a statue?  No one.  If you are in the photo and happen to have a gps in hand or around neck no problem but if you are holding it at arms length just to get it in the photo then I view it as just noise in the photo.

I do my best to adhere to the voting requirements and set my personal feelings and waymarking preferences aside, understanding that not all categories are going to meet all the requirements. There's got to be something individual about it. It needn't "wow" me (because that would rely too much on my personal waymarking preferences) but I do have to see the purpose.

Opening a dialogue will help me to understand the purpose. When someone gives me responses in support of a category, I read and consider that information carefully and have changed my vote more than once based on this dialogue. I don't allow my preconceived notions to drive my vote.

If it's lacking in requirements and is poorly written, I will vote "no".

Just because your area may have Super Awesome MegaMart on every corner does not mean you can write a category that only says, "Waymark Super Awesome MegaMarts!" and nothing else. Tell me what Super Awesome MegaMart is. Give me some company background. When did they start? Why did they start? Where did they start? Are they all over the world?  What makes this company and store interesting enough to waymark instead of using the yellow pages to find one and never thinking more about it? Why should I know more about these stores than what Google Maps can give me?

I forget the mislabeling/misspelling of the category title but the "Iraq-Afghanistan war" category really bothered me with how it was pieced together. I only voted "nay" based on the fact that there is no such thing as the Iraq-Afghanistan war, unless they want to waymark memorials for a war that was between the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, which they would have needed to explain much differently than they did. Since I believe it was intended to waymark memorials related to the two separate military engagements that began after 9/11/2001, I had to vote "nay" since it was presented as a single military engagement.

The image requirements and writing requirements for a category don't bother me. I do my best to meet the requirements. If I cannot meet the requirements for reasons related to the waymarking not having what's needed to meet those requirements, I'll write it in the Private Message. If my waymarks don't get approved and there's nothing I can do to improve it, then that's okay. I won't vote "nay" on a category because the officers have a mind about how they want things done.

- Elle

haunthunters:

Just because your area may have Super Awesome MegaMart on every corner does not mean you can write a category that only says, "Waymark Super Awesome MegaMarts!" and nothing else. Tell me what Super Awesome MegaMart is. Give me some company background. When did they start? Why did they start? Where did they start? Are they all over the world?  What makes this company and store interesting enough to waymark instead of using the yellow pages to find one and never thinking more about it? Why should I know more about these stores than what Google Maps can give me?

That's a big one for me.  I try hard with every waymark I post to thoroughly research the subject and give as much relevant information as I can.  Categories should be at least as well researched as any given waymark.

haunthunters:

I forget the mislabeling/misspelling of the category title but the "Iraq-Afghanistan war" category really bothered me with how it was pieced together. I only voted "nay" based on the fact that there is no such thing as the Iraq-Afghanistan war, unless they want to waymark memorials for a war that was between the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, which they would have needed to explain much differently than they did. Since I believe it was intended to waymark memorials related to the two separate military engagements that began after 9/11/2001, I had to vote "nay" since it was presented as a single military engagement.

The proper names for these engagements are

Operation Iraqi Freedom for Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom for Afghanistan

AnneBeth - Proud Michigan Military Mom

In response to Sieni:

The "Afghani-Iraqi" part of the title is a commonly accepted form to express this war. Memorials to this war have this name.  It represents the war on terror, which is currently being fought on two fronts in two theaters of engagement; Afghanistan and Iraq.  Hence, the use of a dash rather than a "vs".  It is a single conflict, it is the same enemy. The liklihood that this war could end, and then another war on terror should ignite somewhere else, such as Iran, makes titling it "The War on Terror" unprudent.  I can see your point, but since there is already a precedent for refering to this war this way, and for lack of a more acurate and fitting name, we chose this one. 

globetrotters.us:

haunthunters:

I forget the mislabeling/misspelling of the category title but the "Iraq-Afghanistan war" category really bothered me with how it was pieced together. I only voted "nay" based on the fact that there is no such thing as the Iraq-Afghanistan war, unless they want to waymark memorials for a war that was between the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, which they would have needed to explain much differently than they did. Since I believe it was intended to waymark memorials related to the two separate military engagements that began after 9/11/2001, I had to vote "nay" since it was presented as a single military engagement.

The proper names for these engagements are

Operation Iraqi Freedom for Iraq and Operation Enduring Freedom for Afghanistan

AnneBeth - Proud Michigan Military Mom

These Operation names change as the mission changes, which is a substantial concern when titling a category. Operation Desert Storm was also Operation Desert Shield, both Operations were a part of the same war. I also oppose removing the word "War" from a military action that's a war.

I read "Michigan Military" and automatically thought of "Michigan Miltia". LOL I'm glad it's not the Michigan Militia!

- Elle

It is true that these "campaigns" have these titles.  But in actuality, an "Operation" is an intermediary objective of a war.  These titles are in fact misnomers given for political purposes to avoid using the word "war".  In fact they are two theaters of one conflict with the same stated objective or cause against the same stated enemy or enemies who are allied against us.  The D-Day invasion was actually given the name Operation Overlord.  But history remembers that war as "World War II".  Further,the "African Campaign" against Germany and the "Philipine Campaign" against Japan were two different theaters with two different countries that constituted one enemy: The Axis.  Many of our sevicemen and servicewomen have served in both campaigns and some have done three  or more tours in both areas. They are an "Army Of One".  It is unlikely that in the future that this conflict will be refered to as an "operation" rather than what it is: a war.  Indeed, this category is a bit tricky to title in a way that would be rational to all, but since the memorial that I referenced has already set a precedent in this regard, we went with them. 

waypointazoid:

In response to Sieni:

The "Afghani-Iraqi" part of the title is a commonly accepted form to express this war. Memorials to this war have this name.  It represents the war on terror, which is currently being fought on two fronts in two theaters of engagement; Afghanistan and Iraq.  Hence, the use of a dash rather than a "vs".  It is a single conflict, it is the same enemy. The liklihood that this war could end, and then another war on terror should ignite somewhere else, such as Iran, makes titling it "The War on Terror" unprudent.  I can see your point, but since there is already a precedent for refering to this war this way, and for lack of a more acurate and fitting name, we chose this one. 

It is not the same enemy. The enemy of these wars change and evolve constantly. This is not too unlike the drug wars in South America. The location of countries and people in power changes, so the military objectives change to combat the current threats.

In fact, the use of the words "Afghani-Iraqi" makes me cringe because it communicates that it's a war on a country's people, instead of on a country, engaging that country's military. If the common enemy is terrorists, this "Afghani-Iraqi" label has lumped all Afghanistan and Iraq citizens into this terrorist lump. While I'll give leeway to say such an association was unintentional, I still don't like it.

The link you provided goes to memorial named Afghan-Iraqi Freedom Memorial. It's location is Oregon. Do you have more than one example to claim that all future memorials will be given this title in reference to these two distinctly different military engagements? I'd be interested to see more.

Until then, I propose that you call it - "Military Memorials for The War on Terrorism" and expect that any present and future associated countries where conflicts occur, inside or outside the Middle East, be included. If we're going to say that the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are identical because of a shared enemy, you need to name that enemy with its only blanket term: Terrorism. Terrorism is fought in many countries and on many levels. If you want to waymark the memorials constructed in honour of the military who have fought against terrorism, then that's what it is. Your oddly named Oregon memorial would still fit, but you would just not be naming the whole category after it.

- Elle

Just my two cents... BUT, I really think that the reason there aren't too many of these markers is because the war is still on.

I would fully expect to see as many OEF and OIF memorials as any other in a few years. Probibly more, because more people have been touched by the war in some way

 

In response to waypointazoid

Only in the very broadest sense is it the same "war", and parallels with WWII don't really hold.   As far as I know (and I could be wrong in detail) operations in Afghanistan are NATO led and UN mandated and involve forces from one group of countries; those in Iraq are not UN mandated, don't involve NATO, and involve another entirely distinct set.  I don't claim any special expertise on this - just from reading the papers - so I stand to be corrected.  I've never come across the term "Afghani-Iraqi" before, it may be a US-media term.

I'm not opposed to the category in principle by the way, just the terminology.

Whether you or I opine that it is not the same enemy is irelevant.  I said that it is the same "stated" ememy, meaning Official US Policy.  Consider this: Osama Bin Laden, who was the primary leader of the enemy in Afghanistan was clearly shown and proven to be the Ally of  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the most sought after terrorist leader in the world other than Bin Laden, who was operating in Iraq.  After Zarqawi was killed, documents directly linking him financially and operationally to Osama were found in his posssesion. Bin Laden praised him later in a video as a brother and a Martyr.  If this does not constitute an alliance, what does?  There are Shiite fundamentalists, Sunni fundamentalist, Druse fundamentalist and there are foreign insurgents from over 20 Islamic nations that are known to pariticipate as enemies in both theaters and they all have two things in common:  They are Islamic fundamentalist with the same malevolent cause, and they are our enemy.

The war against the North Vietnamease communist Army and the Viet Cong insurgency of South Vietnam is refered to as the Vietnam War.  It denotes the location, not the combatants.

I have made no claim as to what future memorials will be named.  If they are the whole or part of this war, then they would fit the category.  If we create two categorys for this one war, and then in the future if the trend is to recognize these two theaters together, then any waymarks created for them would certainly only fit into the "Non Specific Wars" category.  In my humble opinion, I think these men and women have earned a better distinction than that.

To claim for this category all present or future wars against terrorism would be too broad.  Many wars have been fought against communist aggression, but would we also want to bunch Korea and
Vietnam into the same category and call it the "War against Communism Memorials'?

Who remembers a Vietnam era poster? It had a flower down the middle, and the words had a "written in crayon" look that said "War is not healthy for children and other living things".

Having grown up in the Viet Nam era, and having seen the consequences of how our Veterans were treated, it fills me with Pride for all Americans to see the way all people, reguardless of their politcal beliefs, have come together in support of our troops.

The good intentions of the people who made a waymarking category for our soldiers are undeniable. I commend you.

I think Collaborating over wording is more productive than Quibbleing over wording on the category description. The only point in playing with the wording is to prevent people from mistakenly submitting something that might be rejected, or someone not posting for fear of being rejection.

When you click View Waymark, you don't see the category description, you see a photo of a beautiful stone marker. The wording on the marker didn't come from the waymark poster, or the category owner.

Team Sieni:

ambrosia:

 have my gps in the picture, have myself in the picture......etc. etc. etc.

Oh, I agree.  Mind you, I don't vote no on that basis.  I just note that I won't be seeking the category myself if the requirements stay in place.  And how would they know if it was really me anyway?

I actually vote no if a gps picture is required, and also if a picture of the waymarker is required as well.  I give an explanation why.  I feel very strongly about the subject, and I highly doubt that they would change this requirement just because I explained it to them in my "yes" vote.  If everyone voted no with an explanation, then the category owner could change it and resubmit the category. 

 

BruceS:

dudleygrunt:

I also wonder about the categories that prohibit you having your GPS in the picture.  I am supposed to be using it to find the waymarks and may well have it in hand or around my neck when my picture is taken.  Has anyone actually had a visit deleted because their GPS was in the shot?

Who wants to see a gps covering up half a historic building or a most of a statue?  No one.  If you are in the photo and happen to have a gps in hand or around neck no problem but if you are holding it at arms length just to get it in the photo then I view it as just noise in the photo.

This is true.  The point of the pictures to me, is to highlight the object being waymarked.  There are so many locationless pictures with gps in them, and no other picture.  What a waste.

waypointazoid:

In response to Sieni:

The "Afghani-Iraqi" part of the title is a commonly accepted form to express this war. Memorials to this war have this name.  It represents the war on terror, which is currently being fought on two fronts in two theaters of engagement; Afghanistan and Iraq.  Hence, the use of a dash rather than a "vs".  It is a single conflict, it is the same enemy. The liklihood that this war could end, and then another war on terror should ignite somewhere else, such as Iran, makes titling it "The War on Terror" unprudent.  I can see your point, but since there is already a precedent for refering to this war this way, and for lack of a more acurate and fitting name, we chose this one. 

Actually no these are not the accepted names for this war.  In both cases Afghani and Iraqi implies the war is with a nationality of people, this is not correct.  The wars are in Iraq and in Afghanistan.  In many cases the combatants are not Afghani or Iraqi... they just happen to be in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

cldisme:

I will vote NO:

1) If I feel the category is too regional - with exceptions to historical markers and survey markers.  This is especially true for commercial franchises.  This is to be global game.  Give everybody a chance to play, and not just in your back yard.

2) If the category is too pervasive.  If I can throw a rock anywhere at any time and hit the intended waymark, it is not unique enough.

3) If the category does not hit me in the "Standout" criteria.  You are inviting others to visit these waymarks.  Make it interesting.  Make me want to visit it, too.

4) If there is not a good chance I can visit the waymark when I am in the area.  Temporary and Random waymarks annoy me greatly.  I can handle seasonal waymarks, but if the waymark is only available 3 days out of 365 then it doesn't really exist.

I guess I am trying to say is to think of the perspective of the visitor. 

Thank you for letting me rant.  Go back to your GPSr's now and go find some more waymarks.

-cldisme

I agree with all of  your criteria.  Also if the category description is so scant with its information or requirements, if the group doesn't care enough about the category to "sell" it then I am not sold thus it is a "No"  

BruceS:

cldisme:

I will vote NO:

1) If I feel the category is too regional - with exceptions to historical markers and survey markers.  This is especially true for commercial franchises.  This is to be global game.  Give everybody a chance to play, and not just in your back yard.

2) If the category is too pervasive.  If I can throw a rock anywhere at any time and hit the intended waymark, it is not unique enough.

3) If the category does not hit me in the "Standout" criteria.  You are inviting others to visit these waymarks.  Make it interesting.  Make me want to visit it, too.

4) If there is not a good chance I can visit the waymark when I am in the area.  Temporary and Random waymarks annoy me greatly.  I can handle seasonal waymarks, but if the waymark is only available 3 days out of 365 then it doesn't really exist.

I guess I am trying to say is to think of the perspective of the visitor. 

Thank you for letting me rant.  Go back to your GPSr's now and go find some more waymarks.

-cldisme

I agree with all of  your criteria.  Also if the category description is so scant with its information or requirements, if the group doesn't care enough about the category to "sell" it then I am not sold thus it is a "No"  

 

Would you also say that withholding a yea vote based solely on a personal vendetta is not in the best interests of  waymarking?  If a waymark category otherwise satisfies all  requirements, and the voter clearly states this, but then they withold a yea vote in order to punish someone who they feel has offended them in some way, would this be a practice that should be accepted in any case whatsoever?  And if there are situations where this would be considered an acceptable reason for such an act, and if there are situations where it is not acceptable, where is that line drawn and who is to draw that line?

If waymarking is to remain a largely self-regulated pastime without decending into chaos, vendetta and retribution, it will depend on the character and integrity of it's participants.  The standards for acceptance are already set.  The voter's responsibility is to make an unbiased decision on whether the category meets the criteria of that standard and leave his personal prejudices aside, wouldn't you agree?

waypointazoid:

Would you also say that withholding a yea vote based solely on a personal vendetta is not in the best interests of  waymarking?  If a waymark category otherwise satisfies all  requirements, and the voter clearly states this, but then they withold a yea vote in order to punish someone who they feel has offended them in some way, would this be a practice that should be accepted in any case whatsoever?  And if there are situations where this would be considered an acceptable reason for such an act, and if there are situations where it is not acceptable, where is that line drawn and who is to draw that line?

If waymarking is to remain a largely self-regulated pastime without decending into chaos, vendetta and retribution, it will depend on the character and integrity of it's participants.  The standards for acceptance are already set.  The voter's responsibility is to make an unbiased decision on whether the category meets the criteria of that standard and leave his personal prejudices aside, wouldn't you agree?

Of course people who vendetta vote aren't acting in the best interests of waymarking. There are voters who clearly don't use any of the requirement criteria to decide their vote.

Unfortunately, Groundspeak has not perfected its Thought Crime Detection Application with Anonymity Denial so it's a mystery as to whether each "Nay" vote and comment is given in earnest and who contributed that vote.

It is clear that you feel bullied or attacked by someone. I don't think one or two vendetta votes are going to make that big of a difference to a solid category. Even if someone isn't accepting your explanations in the forum, you've put the information out there. That'll have to be good enough.

- Elle

All in all, I really don't feel my vote matters (here). The new categories that go up seem to have their own momentum behind them. It's not the handful of people that contribute to this small forum that have the main impact on the category selections.

More and more, I find the peer review process an opportunity to give encouragement for both my yes and no votes. Each time I vote, my comments seem to get longer. I see so much negativity on the forums, I try to use my peer review comments to offset that. There should be a rule, no voting before coffee**. It would make the peer review a more productive process. A negative comment can be just as valuable as a positive one, if it's worded in a productive way.

** side story. If I "wake up on the wrong side of bed", rather than putting me into a worse mood by commenting on my bad mood, Mr. Globetrotter will ask if he can bring me a cup of coffee. He is definately getting his message across, but how can you get mad at someone for saying it in such a nice way?

BruceS:

waypointazoid:

In response to Sieni:

The "Afghani-Iraqi" part of the title is a commonly accepted form to express this war. Memorials to this war have this name.  It represents the war on terror, which is currently being fought on two fronts in two theaters of engagement; Afghanistan and Iraq.  Hence, the use of a dash rather than a "vs".  It is a single conflict, it is the same enemy. The liklihood that this war could end, and then another war on terror should ignite somewhere else, such as Iran, makes titling it "The War on Terror" unprudent.  I can see your point, but since there is already a precedent for refering to this war this way, and for lack of a more acurate and fitting name, we chose this one. 

Actually no these are not the accepted names for this war.  In both cases Afghani and Iraqi implies the war is with a nationality of people, this is not correct.  The wars are in Iraq and in Afghanistan.  In many cases the combatants are not Afghani or Iraqi... they just happen to be in either Afghanistan or Iraq.

The point is moot because the category is published and the name of it is changed.  But "accepted" is a relative, and evolving term.  I would venture to say that the Afghans and the Iraqis would beg to differ on whether this is an Afghani or Iraqi war.  This category, and it's design was peculiar in that there is not yet a precedent for what these memorials will be commonly named.  A decision had to be made with little information to go on.  But to call this war an "operation", other than for political correctness, would be tantamount to calling the attack on the World Trade Center a "skirmish" with "freedom fighters".

Consider this: That which is now universally known as "The Vietnam War" was called "a police action" during much of it's duration.  What has occured in Afghanistan and Iraq, although warranted, is in fact an "invasion".  The actual people we are fighting in Iraq are not "terrorists", they are "insurgents". Terrorists attack civilians and are criminals.  Insurgents are unpaid mercenaries who fight an opposing  military outside their homeland and are protected from criminality under the accords of the Geneva Convention as legal combatants. (of course, their status as legal combatants is a matter of debate)

Many of the enemy in Afghanistan are native.  The politically correct would simply call them  "Talaban", but they are in fact "partisans".

So to call this "The War on Terrorism", while warm and fuzzy, is inacurate because this is a war on insurgents and partisans. The government's term of "operation" is a political ploy to avoid using the terms "invasion" and "war". The war on terrorism is an abstract concept, not an actual engagement.

So how will history define what this conflict shall be called?  That was what was before the "Grateful Americans" group when forming this category.  Will it be remembered by the political misnomers that our government uses?  Will someone in the media pin a moniker on it that sticks? Will the name that the victors give it prevail or will it become known by what the world at large call it?

Our first inclination was to name it as closely as we could to what the existing memorials are named, and then include "War Memorials" to define it here on waymarking.

Our primary goal as waymarkers was to begin a database for locating these memorials for the pleasure of those who will come back changed and needing to embrace the symbols of a grateful nation. If I may, on behalf of them I would like to say thanks to those who understood this, put aside their personal misgivings, and voted yea to this category.

 

waypointazoid:

Would you also say that withholding a yea vote based solely on a personal vendetta is not in the best interests of  waymarking?  If a waymark category otherwise satisfies all  requirements, and the voter clearly states this, but then they withold a yea vote in order to punish someone who they feel has offended them in some way, would this be a practice that should be accepted in any case whatsoever?  And if there are situations where this would be considered an acceptable reason for such an act, and if there are situations where it is not acceptable, where is that line drawn and who is to draw that line?

If waymarking is to remain a largely self-regulated pastime without decending into chaos, vendetta and retribution, it will depend on the character and integrity of it's participants.  The standards for acceptance are already set.  The voter's responsibility is to make an unbiased decision on whether the category meets the criteria of that standard and leave his personal prejudices aside, wouldn't you agree?

As I have no idea what you are talking about, I can't respond to that.  My votes are based on how the category is written and whether the category meets the criteria closely following what the OP had in his criteria.