Groundspeak Portal

I've been toying around with the idea of putting together a category for capturing the locations of things that are the tallest of that type of thing within a hundred miles (or some other reasonable radius).

I'm not sure if this is viable, but here's what I was thinking:

First, there would be a limited number of acceptable type of things which will be considered (probably buildings, statues, bridges, and possibly natural land elevations). The idea would be to find one of these things that you think qualifies as the tallest one of these things within a hundred miles, and submit it.

Different types of things would not compete with each other for the distinction of being tallest in the region. For example, there could be a tallest building and a tallest statue right next to each other. As long has they were the tallest building and the tallest statue within a hundred miles, they would both be allowed.

For the man-made objects, the height would be from the base of the structure to the top of the structure (for natural elevations, I guess we'd go with height above sea level). You'd have to list a reference that documented the actual height of the object, or you'd have to measure it somehow - estimates would not be allowed.

Agreement to be de-throned: Since, in some cases, knowing for certain that a particular thing is actually the tallest of that type of thing within a hundred miles (and sometimes a new taller thing is constructed later), I suspect we'll have some waymarks that 'trump' previously submitted waymarks within a hundred miles. So what I'm thinking is that people submitting waymarks to this category would have to agree in advance that if someone later submits a legitimately taller thing of that type (say, a building) within a hundred miles of your previously listed thing of the same type (building), that you'd either archive the listing, or allow the officers to archive the listing, or allow us to change the waymark to note that it is no longer considered to be the tallest of that type of thing within a hundred miles.

Thoughts? Could this work? Would this be at all interesting?

Game directory?

I would think so.

In fact, the 'de-throning' feature might represent an opportunity for a little friendly competition among waymarkers.

Generally I like it. I welcome a lot of flexibility for the game directory so the de-throning sounds interesting.

That's a really good idea, and I'm thinking about waymarks already. Here in the UK there are lots of detailed lists of the top hills/mountains and figuring out the tallest in various 100 mile circles could be a nice little project for a rainy day.

Would you ask for online evidence to back up the claim? Or would you allow a "challenge" eg, "I've no reason to believe there's a taller statue for 100 miles than that of General Oddbod atop his 50ft column in Oddville. Disprove this if you can".

Would you require the waymarker to actually GO to the top? Obviously not for statues (because that would be impractical) but for buildings it would be a real issue (you can't get to the top of most tall buildings in London for security reasons). But for hills, it would be a bit lazy to post a waymark in the carpark at the trail head and say "I couldn't be bothered walking all the way up there".

100 miles?  Just remember that the U.S. is about the only odd-ball non-metric region in the world!

I think determining the validity of such a status could be quite difficult in many cases.  Determining the radius, could be tough.  Documenting the dimensions maybe even tougher.  And, since you brought up the subject of category management being hard work (it is!), this seems like a nightmare, so don't look for me to join.  Not my game, but it might be for some.

Could be some overlap with the Superlatives category.  We've got a lot of TALLESTS.   With superlatives, I accept the fact that there are competing claims, but that's not the point.  (I think we have two SHORTEST covered bridges right next to each other on the list).  All we require is that someone, somewhere makes the claim in a somewhat official way.  Just part of the fun.  And, if a superlative gets trumped, then all the better.  Both are there for people to see and enjoy.  I've just drawn the line at "second tallest," etc.  Otherwise, we try to be generous and have fun.  A few creative ones come along, too.

If you want to make a game out of it, by all means.  Just be prepared!

Team Sieni:

Would you ask for online evidence to back up the claim? Or would you allow a "challenge" eg, "I've no reason to believe there's a taller statue for 100 miles than that of General Oddbod atop his 50ft column in Oddville. Disprove this if you can".

I think it would be interesting to allow the challenge model depicted in your example. We'd just have to work out some wording to prevent people from abusing the category. For example, we couldn't allow someone to deliberately trump their own waymarks by continuously posting taller and taller waymarks within a specific radius. We'd also have to encourage (or somehow enforce) 'reasonably tall' submittals to prevent the only active waymarker in an area from posting undersized structures with humorous or sarcastic intentions.

Team Sieni:

Would you require the waymarker to actually GO to the top? Obviously not for statues (because that would be impractical) but for buildings it would be a real issue (you can't get to the top of most tall buildings in London for security reasons). But for hills, it would be a bit lazy to post a waymark in the carpark at the trail head and say "I couldn't be bothered walking all the way up there".

For the man-made structures, people wouldn't need to go to the top, since the coordinates could be obtained at the base of  the structure by the waymarker with sufficient accuracy. But for hilltops and mountain summits, a trip to the top (and photo proof that you were there) would be required, in keeping with the spirit of Waymarking (no Internet coordinates!!).

I'm an officer in the Mountain Summits category, so I'm familiar with this aspect of obtaining coordinates for high points of land. In fact, it was during recent discussions with the other officers in that category that I came up with the idea for this new category - we were discussing ways to handle summit waymarks that were in proximity to other summit waymarks.

silverquill:

100 miles?  Just remember that the U.S. is about the only odd-ball non-metric region in the world!

That's why I said "or some other reasonable radius" - 100 miles was just a starting point for discussion. I'd be perfectly happy with "Tallest Within 160.9344 Kilometers". 

silverquill:

I think determining the validity of such a status could be quite difficult in many cases.  Determining the radius, could be tough.  Documenting the dimensions maybe even tougher.  And, since you brought up the subject of category management being hard work (it is!), this seems like a nightmare, so don't look for me to join.  Not my game, but it might be for some.

The way I see this, the category officers wouldn't have to verify that the submitted tall thing was actually the tallest - the officers would only have to click on the 'Nearest "Tallest Within 160.9344 Kilometers"' link to verify that there were no other competitive claims within 100 miles.

silverquill:

Could be some overlap with the Superlatives category.  We've got a lot of TALLESTS.

True - there could be some overlap. The difference would be the challenge and 'game' aspect of this category. And I think we'd have to manage the category with fun in mind as well.

silverquill:

If you want to make a game out of it, by all means.  Just be prepared!

Thanks for the advice, and for the perspective. I'm still just in the 'thinking about' phase with this idea. We'll have to see how my thoughts and enthusiasm progress from here.

Would this have too much overlap with the superlative category?  It's been a while since I looked at that category, but can't tallest things be placed there?

Too much overlap? Possibly, but I'm not sure.

There will some overlap, but the category objectives are different. There are certainly locations that can be listed in Superlatives but not in Tallest Within, and (in theory, anyway) there are locations that would be allowed on Tallest Within but not under Superlatives (for example, someone could get a 'Tallest Within' statue approved that was obviously shorter than a nearby taller statue listed under Superlatives, but this shorter statue wouldn't be approved in Superlatives if the taller nearby statue was already listed there).

I understand the overlap, and suppose that if I pursue this, and it eventually goes to a community review and vote, that the overlap issue might prevent the category from passing.

Personally, I don't see the overlap as being a problem, but I'm sure others will view this differently. It's a legitimate criticism of the idea.

Even with overlap, I don't see the conflict as long as it's a different Waymarking Game. I received a lot of "overlap" concerns with Drawing Waymarks since there's no restriction on what type of site you want to submit (draw a McDonald's? Sure!) but it requires different participation and different coordinates. Overlap will only be a concern for the Tallest until it is no longer the Tallest... But that's how I see it, and I tend to want to like categories rather than look for faults... so I'm probably missing many constructive criticisms.

My question: does the site have to be the current Tallest? Can it be "Tallest Widget until 1958"?

Redneck Parrotheads:

Even with overlap, I don't see the conflict as long as it's a different Waymarking Game. I received a lot of "overlap" concerns with Drawing Waymarks since there's no restriction on what type of site you want to submit (draw a McDonald's? Sure!) but it requires different participation and different coordinates.

Excellent example (and a reminder that I really need to try my hand at a Drawing Waymark).

By the way, Superlatives is listed in the Oddities department, and Tallest Within ... would be in the Waymarking Games department, so there is departmental separation, for what that might be worth.

Redneck Parrotheads:

My question: does the site have to be the current Tallest? Can it be "Tallest Widget until 1958"?

The way I've been thinking about it, the site doesn't have to be the tallest at all - someone just has to claim it to be the tallest by creating a waymark for it. If someone can find a taller one of those things, they get to create a waymark for their thing, and trump the other thing.

So I guess the answer is that it only has to be the current tallest if you don't want your waymark to get trumped by something taller. The fact that it was the tallest in 1958 wouldn't really play into it.

Good enough for me.  I like the idea, I'm just having trouble completely wrapping my head around keeping it separate from superlatives.  With a little clarification of what "tallest" requires for this cat in the description (like what you've put here about it not actually being the tallest something, just being the tallest claim) I could vote "yea" for this. 

yramc600:

Good enough for me.  I like the idea, I'm just having trouble completely wrapping my head around keeping it separate from superlatives.  With a little clarification of what "tallest" requires for this cat in the description (like what you've put here about it not actually being the tallest something, just being the tallest claim) I could vote "yea" for this. 

Since I wrote the Superlatives category, let me respond.

Although I try to be generous and flexible in this category, we probably wouldn't accept something that was  TALLEST - Totem Pole within 100 miles.    If it was the tallest in a state, a park, by a certain tribe, etc. then fine, but not something as arbitrary as a given radius.   It could be both, of course. 

Also, although we don't require proof of the claim, we do require documentation that someone, official or semi-official, makes the claim.  It could be a sign, a web site for a chamber of commerce, tourism or historical site, or whatever. 

Of course we accept many other types of superlatives.

So, there could be some overlap, but it would not be that great.  And, as always, each person is free to cross post or not. 

The real point is that this idea is substantially different in focus and methodology as more of a game.  So, I think it certainly has merit for those who enjoy that approach.