Groundspeak Portal

Don't these fall in the Public Lands category?  Why is this restricted to United States? Or is it, I wasn't sure when I read the description.   What do they want waymarked?  Some of these cover 1,000's of acres and in some cases millions.

They way I read it, ANY thing in ANY national OR state forest can be waymarked as long as there is a sign or marker.  That makes this category way to broad.  I think it would also cross waymarking departments, which we've been told cannot be done.  (Not mentioned in the category creation guidelines, though).  Buildings, natural features, recreation, maybe technology.

This also means that this category is predominantly redundant with most, if not all, qualifying sites being waymarkable in other categories.  Consider Public Access Lands, State Parks, National Parks, Ranger Stations, Campgournds, Waterfalls, Birdwatching Sites, Fishing Holes, etc.  That is not even mentioning the multiples categories for trails and roads from Trailheads to Scenic Hikes, or the Scenic Overlook category.

Global - unclear from the description.  But, keep in mind that many, many other countries have national forests, and/or the equivalent of state forests.  They may or may not have web sites - another requirement that may not be reasonable.

I thnk this is a well-intentioned category, but not very well executed, it seems to me.

I agree with the above:

Is it, or is it not, limited to the US? (Global criterion)  Text is unclear on this point.

More research on other countries' national/state forests and websites needed.

How does it relate to the othe cats such as state parks, public access etc.  Guidelines for when to submit/not submit needed. (Redundant criterion)

Are grasslands included (yes according to the text) if so why are they not mentioned in the short description or title?

I personally don't like the idea that you can waymark any point of interest at all within the forest.  This means you would be marking the individual POIs (which may go in cats themselves) rather than the forest itself.  Do all POIs necessarily have signs?

Stricture against cellphone pictures repeated twice, but some comms devices have very sophisticated cameras.   Maybe stipulate a minimum resolution?

This may make a good cat but as you say - more questions than answers at the moment.

I can't see the wood for the trees at the moment (ho ho ho)

It does seem redundant and too broad in scope while too narrow in location. I don't see a reason to restrict it to the United States only.

About the cellphone camera portion... my Waymarking camera is circa 2004 and is a 4.0 Megapixel. Many cellphones are superior to my handheld camera.

BQ

the blue quasar:

It does seem redundant and too broad in scope while too narrow in location. I don't see a reason to restrict it to the United States only. About the cellphone camera portion... my Waymarking camera is circa 2004 and is a 4.0 Megapixel. Many cellphones are superior to my handheld camera. BQ

More megapixels does NOT a superior camera make.

Pinhole fixed focus cameras are more susceptible to blurring from camera movement.  Especially as it gets darker.  And most phones aren't shaped very well for trying to hold them stable.

And digital zoom is a joke in ANY platform*. Optical zoom is a good thing, though, and very very few phones have that. I have the digital zoom capability turned OFF in my main camera.

IOW, I can take much better photos with my 2 megapixel Canon S110 than I can with my 2 megapixel iPhone 3G.

All that being said, there are some cellphones with good cameras. But they were designed specifically to have a good camera and I've never actually SEEN one IRL.

*in my opinion.  Your opinion might be wr...er...different.

The category description includes grasslands although the title says forests. This makes this category proposal even more difficult to distinguish from other public lands categories.

Reading the category description, it is impossible to tell whether or not it is intended to be U.S. Forests only or worldwide. The paragraphs in it seem to alternate between U.S.-only versus global.

The terms Park and Forest are clear in the U.S. only because one is run by Interior and the other is run by Commerce. In other nations, this difference isn't necessarily clear.

The statement on cellphone pictures is likely to be anachronistic soon. What is a cellphone camera like 3 years from now? It's perhaps better to just say if your photo is lousy, we will reject your waymark.

In a big Forest with 9 highway entrances, how many waymarks for it are allowed? The description doesn't state a rule explicitly on this.

black dog trackers:

The statement on cellphone pictures is likely to be anachronistic soon. What is a cellphone camera like 3 years from now? It's perhaps better to just say if your photo is lousy, we will reject your waymark.

This is an excellent point.

black dog trackers:

Tn a big Forest with 9 highway entrances, how many waymarks for it are allowed? The description doesn't state a rule explicitly on this.

Actually the rules do address this, but rather unsatisfactorily. It says "Each point of interest within the forest can also be waymarked as long as there is a forest sign designating it as a point of interest." so theoretically you could waymark all 9 highway entrances, provided there is a "forest sign designating it".

Team Sieni:

black dog trackers:

Tn a big Forest with 9 highway entrances, how many waymarks for it are allowed? The description doesn't state a rule explicitly on this.

Actually the rules do address this, but rather unsatisfactorily. It says "Each point of interest within the forest can also be waymarked as long as there is a forest sign designating it as a point of interest." so theoretically you could waymark all 9 highway entrances, provided there is a "forest sign designating it".

It also means you can waymark every picnic grounds, camp grounds, trail head, boat landing, ranger station, historical site etc as long as it has a "forest sign designating it"

0ccam:

black dog trackers:

The statement on cellphone pictures is likely to be anachronistic soon. What is a cellphone camera like 3 years from now? It's perhaps better to just say if your photo is lousy, we will reject your waymark.

This is an excellent point.

 
Agreed I have taken some nice pics with my outdated cell phone and some horrible ones with my DSLR you can't always blame the camera a bad photo is a bad photo.

nvtriker:

0ccam:

black dog trackers:

The statement on cellphone pictures is likely to be anachronistic soon. What is a cellphone camera like 3 years from now? It's perhaps better to just say if your photo is lousy, we will reject your waymark.

This is an excellent point.

 
Agreed I have taken some nice pics with my outdated cell phone and some horrible ones with my DSLR you can't always blame the camera a bad photo is a bad photo.

A great camera does not a good photographer make, either.

Luck helps!

:)