Groundspeak Portal

With the increasing use and accessibility of aerial/satellite views as a mapping and navigating tool, comes a neat surprise: There are places where names of places, companies or structures are readable from above - sometimes painted on surfaces (roofs, etc.) or created through landscaping (shrubs, rocks, grass). Example -- if you go to N 40.287936 W 76.645497, you can see the words "HERSHEY COCOA". Creating a waymark is easy - just find one of these using the aerial/satellite view, and log the coordinates using a GPS converter app. (The map in the listing would qualify as the "posting photo".) Logging the waymark would require a physical visit to the location, and a photo of the lettering from ground level, or the structure where the lettering is located. (Only 'permanent' lettering would qualify, and some additional guidelines would probably be advisable to prevent copyright issues.) Anybody see a fun, worthwhile challenge here? Let's get a category...Thanks!
(Yes, I've read the 'googly earth' thread - this is a more specific subset- and expect the 'armchair' bloodbath. If so, I will try to put it in photo goals.)

I think it has merit and it has been discussed before. Wish I knew where it had some good insights in the thread.

I think the ability to waymark anything without visiting first will be the biggest hurdle if you proceed that way. From reading your description I could create a waymark and then the visit would take place on the ground at the location. Is this correct?

This is not the standard approach and I don't think it will go over well just from memory of how other ideas have fared when they stepped away from the norm.

What about lettering that disappears with time?Like corn mazes or field advertising. Should there be an exclusion written in?

I will not support this without an on the ground visit and recording of the coordinates to submit the waymark.  There are plenty of sites to submit armchair google earth discoveries to but I don't think this is one.

My uncle owned an airport in Paramus, NJ in the '30s and pointed out several of these to me as a child - it seems these were the 'original' waymarks for aviators, marking the names of towns (and some advertising) just to be visible from the air. That's where the idea comes from.

I wasn't aware that there are sites that offer this type of thing -- another sign that I am spending way-too-much time on this one...? 

telomere:

I wasn't aware that there are sites that offer this type of thing -- another sign that I am spending way-too-much time on this one...? 

Here is one and there are others

I think a category similar to this (but looking for permanent oddities or something) just went through the approval process.  It might be still in process. Not sure.

IIRC, that category requires a personal visit to Post the Waymark, in addition to actual personal visits to log a Visit.

Make sure this one is differentiated from the "Letters on Hills" category.

I swear I suggested something like this once, but I might have changed my mind and never posted.  I'd support it WITH a required ground visit.

Here is a thread with a discussion that is similar to this one. It will give you insights on how to create the category. The idea didn't pass peer review as I remember because of the broadness and I think lack of an on the ground visit to create the waymark. With the narrower focus of "Readable" I think it may fly if written well.


And another thread that touches on the idea.

TheBeanTeam:

And another thread that touches on the idea.

Wow, that happened longer ago than I thought!!!

First, thanks to all for the gracious handling of this request; your input is helpful and appreciated.
By following your hints, it occurs to me this category would have to step carefully on several issues, - and it therefore becomes quite narrow - and the theory of diminishing returns was looming. BUT:
Since you have been generally positive in your guidance, and since one Waymarker (capital W) has already signed on to the group (thank you Big B Bob), and since I have adequate textual skills, It behooves me to rise to the challenge and propose the guidelines here. Let's see how high this bounces:

-- READABLE FROM ABOVE --
This category seeks to waymark words that can be read in the aerial or satellite views of Google Maps. These can be painted on surfaces - (roofs, walls, natural surfaces) or created with landscaping materials (stones, rocks, shrubs), and can be the name of a place or company, or an advertising slogan. As an example, at N 40.287936, W 76.645497 you can read the words "HERSHEY COCOA".

To create a waymark:
1. A visit to the site is required, and  ground-level photo and GPSr-obtained coordinates must be submitted.
2. The waymark must be complete word(s) -- no single letters or acronyms/abbreviations, (These are already recordable in the 'letters on hills' category) and no logos only.
3. The lettering must be visible in the Google Map 'satellite' view that normally accompanies the waymark page. If it is only visible in Google Earth, it will not qualify. (Note many of our low-bandwidth members do not have/use GE)
4. Please do not include or submit any 'screen grabs' from Google or any other mapping source - respect the copyright and the service provider.
5. Lettering must be permanent in nature. Seasonal-type lettering, such as corn mazes or hayfields will not qualify, because it might disappear the next time the aerial shot is updated.
6. Normal traffic wording on streets and parking lots will not qualify.
7. Please respect private property.

To visit a waymark in this category:

1. A personal visit to the site is required. A photo of the wording is required if it is visible at normal eye-level; otherwise a photo of the building/structure is acceptable.
2. Please respect private property.

Thanks again to all. Further input is welcome....Jim

Got quiet in here...wait a minute....
Guys? GUYS? Hey, guys, this isn't funny anymore...!

I think it reads well.

The screen shot should be a required item in my opinion and it doesn't violate the terms of use for Google. The use here would fall under the fair use clause.

From their permissions page:

 " In many cases, as long as you're not violating Google's terms of service, the concept of 'fair use' applies. This content is owned either by Google or its licensors. In certain circumstances, Google may be able to grant you a further license to use the content in a manner not covered by 'fair use' and not described in the terms of service. These guidelines contain further descriptions of permissions relating to the use of content outside of Google Maps, the Google Maps API and Google Earth."

The screenshot should be the default photo and the ground visit the second photo. 2 images at least being required to create the waymark.

I think it would be good to add a few graphic examples to the category itself to further assist the waymarker in creating their waymark.

All in all I like it.

telomere:

3. The lettering must be visible in the Google Map 'satellite' view that normally accompanies the waymark page.

5. Lettering must be permanent in nature. Seasonal-type lettering, such as corn mazes or hayfields will not qualify, because it might disappear the next time the aerial shot is updated.

Well, with all due respect, I don't see the point in waymarking  - or, especially, visiting  -  a site where the feature can be seen only on a satellite view.  But, that's just me, I guess.

But, in regard to No. 3 and 5 above  -- Keep in mind that the views for the Google Maps we use are several years old.  More than once in reviewing a waymark, let's say a Walmart, and find that it doesn't exist - according to the Google map views.  The waymarker confirmed that it was indeed there, just a very recent building.  The building I live in, several years old, does not show up at all.

So, one could be waymarking something that no longer exists, or whose appearance is greatly altered.

And, what about other aerial maps?  Some may have better resolution in some areas.

I was all set to post this, but I don't know if it will qualify.  It's a logo, but it's also a complete word.  Can you give a verdict before I go collect it?

silverquill:

Well, with all due respect, I don't see the point in waymarking  - or, especially, visiting  -  a site where the feature can be seen only on a satellite view.  But, that's just me, I guess.

They don't have to only be visible from the air (if I read it correctly).  Even for things that aren't visible from the ground, I think it's cool.  I drive by the Ford logo I posted above every day, but I had no idea it was there until a recent Google Maps search.

I agree that other sources should be usable.  Maybe default to the automatically-present Google Map, but put a field where the poster can put a URL to another image source -- no copyright violation that way.

Sorry,

a bit slow on the uptake, I guess, but how would this differ from Satellite Imagery Oddities?

(Re: "It's a logo, but it's also a complete word.")

The Ford logo seems acceptable to me, your reasoning is sound. It, and other 'word features' like it  might get a chuckle from others who, like yourself were not aware they existed until Google maps/earth etc. made them visible. Thanks for the interest.

team farkle 7:

Sorry,

a bit slow on the uptake, I guess, but how would this differ from Satellite Imagery Oddities?

I really don't see much crossover - wording (only) does not rise to the level of an 'oddity' in my opinion. Thanks for the question.

Yeah, I'm a ***. Kind of answered it for myself by reading the word "readable" mere seconds after I'd posted the question. How'd that go again? Proper planning prevents... some kind of performance... hmmm...

Quote from Peer Review:

Instructions for placing waymarks into this category:

To create a Waymark in this category: visit the site, and take a photo of the word(s), or the structure if the words are not visible from ground level. Obtain GPSr coordinates at the location.
Submit your photos along with a description, and if possible a screen-shot obtained from any mapping program's aerial or satellite view of those coordinates. Name your waymark with the word(s) first, then the location (town, state etc.) /quote.

English please.

I didn't understand the category proposal. After re-reading this thread, I was a bit more clear but still don't feel the descriptions are adequate.

The line between what you want and what you do not accept is unclear. For that, I am not comfortable voting in favour.

BQ

Ummm...that is english. If you are requesting clarification, please expand your request beyond the realm of 'snarky'.

telomere:

Ummm...that is english. If you are requesting clarification, please expand your request beyond the realm of 'snarky'.

I understand that it's hard to take words that are precise, and dumb them down.

Please understand that waymarkers are a diverse group, from all education levels and English speaking abilities (for that matter).

As a beginner waymarker, if I wasn't pretty confident that a waymark would be approved, I wouldn't submit it. If your instuctions are written at a level that they might be difficult to understand for some people, you may end up missing some great waymarks.

So, my suggestion is to ask for help with wording. When you have something in your mind a certain way, it might be hard to think of another way to say it. A real simple way to ask for help would be to say "what do you suggest?". Then you take it or leave it.