Another category in my blacklist: Hostels

[+Torgut]

Some months ago I mentioned in these forums that I keep a black list of categories, which include categories with requirements I consider silly or with officers behaving poorly. Today I am adding a new one: Hostels. Reason:

 

1) Submitted this waymark: http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMHXJH_Celica_Ljubljana_Slovenia

 

2) Got this declination comment: "Please read the instructions, again, for the required logging of a Waymark and then resubmit for approval."

 

These are the "instructions":

 

Instructions for Posting a Hostels Waymark:

In order to waymark a hostel, please provide originally obtained coordinates and photograph(s). One (required) photograph must be an outside image of the building with the name and/or address clearly showing in the photo.

- Additional photographs (suggested) of inside the facilities would be helpful to other Waymarkers but, due to privacy concerns might not be possible. Hostels usually have an open door policy (except during 'closed' hours) and would more than likely welcome you to go in and take a look around. Please try to give other WMers a good idea of what they might encounter when staying at this hostel. (dormitory, private rooms, common areas, kitchen facilities, etc.)

 

What the hell!? First of all I am not "logging" a waymark, I am creating a new one. Anyway, is this a game, trying to figure out what did I miss? If it is, it's a difficult one because I did read (again) the instructions and found nothing wrong in my waymark. It might be, I just don't know what it is. But even if there it is, what kind of comment is that? Do you guys usually write these things when you get a submission which doesn't comply with the category rules? I explain people what they did wrong, where did they step out of the rules and so on.

 

I really don't get what's in these people minds. I mean, I love when I get new waymarks in the two categories I founded. I am very happy when a submission is clean and I see no problems to accept it. Sometimes I even take some which are not 100% accordingly to the rules. But some fellows, it's like they got a reward for declining waymarks, or even it's like they are happy to have people NOT submitting new waymarks. It's a pity because I do stay in lots of hostels during my many trips, but if it's the way they want it, so be it.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Torgut

[+Weathervane]

It would be instructive for all of us waymarkers to obtain the exact reason why this waymark was denied. It appears as if all of the information required to post a waymark was included. The instructions required one photo with the name of the hostel appearing on it. Words like "suggested" and "try" do not imply that additional photographs and information were required. The coordinates are accurate and the required information was provided. I may have missed something, and if I did, I will apologise accordingly.

[+Max and 99]

That has happened to me before. Once, I wrote up a waymark after getting home and realizing no one else had. I read the requirements carefully, and even drove back to the site to make sure I had the required photos. I wrote an excellent long description, included many great photos, and the waymark was declined with the reason "please read instructions".

At a loss, I emailed an officer and said I did not understand why my waymarke was declined since no reason was given, and I HAD carefully read the posting instructions. He/she said she couldn't figure it out either, and approved it.

 

Officers, PLEASE give a reason when you decline a waymark. A specific reason!

 

I feel for you, Torgut. The fact that the officer mentioned logging instructions makes him/her sound clueless. Waymarkers should not have to try and guess the reason for a decline. That is just ridiculous. Keep us posted.

[GT.US]

I feel like I put much more effort into a decline than I do an approval. My goal is that a person understands very clearly what it will take to be approved or why it will not be approved.

 

My pet peeve is people that send things to group vote with no comment. If you think something could go either way, the least you can do is say why.

 

Then there are the people that are afraid to deny, so they send it to group vote. Example, if it says 2 pictures and there is only one, you deny and you don't send it to group vote.

 

P.S. I will be in Ljubljana tomorrow afternoon.

[+silverquill]

The thing I dislike most about reviewing waymarks is declining one!

 

I don't like to disappoint someone.

I don't like to make people mad.

I don't like the time it takes from other things.

 

Unless the reason is very simple, like incorrect coordinates, then it does take some time to explain what the deficiency is. Often I try suggest ways to improve the waymark or bring it up to standard. And I try to be flexible. If there is a missing photo, and the place is 1000 miles away, I understand. I sometimes quote the relevant portion of the category description and instructions, but never say just, "Read it!"

 

I must say that the vast majority of people are cooperative and try to make the changes. Only rarely do I have someone flatly refuse to make a requested change just because they don't want to. It happens, though. And, sometimes people kindly point out that I was in error to decline the waymark. To err is human.

 

I do recall having a waymark declined with that same comment, "read the instructions." I submitted it three or four times, each one coming back with the same comment, until by luck, I guess, I got it right. I don't really black list the category, but . . . well, there are others that are more fun.

[+Jake39]

Some months ago I mentioned in these forums that I keep a black list of categories, which include categories with requirements I consider silly or with officers behaving poorly. Today I am adding a new one: Hostels. Reason:

1) Submitted this waymark: http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMHXJH_Celica_Ljubljana_Slovenia

2) Got this declination comment: "Please read the instructions, again, for the required logging of a Waymark and then resubmit for approval."

These are the "instructions":

Instructions for Posting a Hostels Waymark:

In order to waymark a hostel, please provide originally obtained coordinates and photograph(s). One (required) photograph must be an outside image of the building with the name and/or address clearly showing in the photo.

- Additional photographs (suggested) of inside the facilities would be helpful to other Waymarkers but, due to privacy concerns might not be possible. Hostels usually have an open door policy (except during 'closed' hours) and would more than likely welcome you to go in and take a look around. Please try to give other WMers a good idea of what they might encounter when staying at this hostel. (dormitory, private rooms, common areas, kitchen facilities, etc.)

 

 

I might be guilty of sometimes adding similar comments.

All I can say is respond with a "Why" e-mail.

I get hundreds of Waymarks for approval and I know I will sometimes be a little short with my comments.

[+Torgut]

Jake.. yeah... but things become more tricky when reading the conditions and rules doesn't make clear why the waymark was declined.

 

Just out of curiosity, these are a few more categories I have in my black list and reasons:

 

- Manual water pumps (or something like this). Why: I submitted a waymark. Near the pump some wires were visible. Declined: that is not manual, it's electric. I submitted again with a comment like: I understand your doubts, but those wires are not related with the pump; the pump itself is manual. It was declined again. That officer told me by acts: "you are lying". Not acceptable. There are 1.000 ways to trick an officer if I want to.

 

- Recycling bins (or whatever it's called). I submitted a nice location with three containers for recycling; declined: they are too small. I submitted again explaining: they are not small... what you see it's just their "mouth"... they are underground and huge. It was accepted. After a couple of months, the same situation. And you know what: there is nothing in the category rules saying they have to be big!

[+Jake39]

F.Y.I.

- I should have said: thousands

 

Below is my "In-box" with probably over 50% already deleted. No time for housekeeping

 

[+Torgut]

And another one added. Fortunately it's a trivial category which I won't miss in my waymarker life. As in other cases, the people in the group come out with demands and requests which are not contemplated in the category listing and submitting conditions. So:

 

Direction and Distance Arrows

 

Reasons for declining after voting:

 

Initial vote call comment: Not all arrows are visible. It's OK for approving?

 

Vote comments:

 

[nay] Sorry. To approve it you need to add another picture. All the arrows should be visible.

[yea] Missing more pictures, but it is well described.

[nay] no.

 

Hold on.

 

1) Where does it says that all arrows must be visible (which anyway would be a strange request)?

2) Where does it says two pictures are necessary?

 

Well, sadly, as I repeat, this is the main reason why Waymarking never became popular. Offering individuals the power to decline - sometimes in the most absurd way - a listing which takes time and effort from the submitter. I've been affected in the past by these silly declinations. Now, I just throw the category into an imaginary rubbish bin and carry on with categories ran by responsible and reasonable people.

 

The declined Waymark:

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMJJJW_Afkule_Kayakoy_Fethiye_Turkey

[+Rikitan]

And another one added. Fortunately it's a trivial category which I won't miss in my waymarker life. As in other cases, the people in the group come out with demands and requests which are not contemplated in the category listing and submitting conditions. So:

 

Direction and Distance Arrows

 

I'm sorry to see this waymark declined

I was the only officer who voted YES for this submission. Name of just one destination is hidden behind other slat, but it is written in name of the waymark ("Afkule") as well as in description. For me it is sufficient enough. Unfortunatelly I can't change mind of other officers.

 

Anyhow, it is recommended to attach at least 2 good pictures to posted waymark basically of any category. One picture of object itself with all relevant details, second should be picture of waymark with its surroundings. I use to keep this in mind as general rule. You are right this is not explicitly written in our category description yet. I'll recommend to clarify it a bit. There's no need to blacklist category just because of one declined waymark.

 

Thank you for bringing it here ..

[+lumbricus]

I also think that this Waymark should be accepted.

Perhaps you can discuss it again.

-lumbricus

[+Torgut]

Rikitan, no worries, I don't take declined waymarks seriously anymore. I just stop submitting to the specific group if it's caused by silly reasons, as it's the case. Peace be upon you but you are the minority amongst the officers of that category. Anyway... it's not a matter of the request being clear or not. It's plainly non-existent. Just to make things clear, this is the text:

 

Description:

This category contains direction and distance markers -- signs with multiple physical "arrows" (think of a small slat with a name and arrow painted on it), each pointing to a separate location (with the distance to that location indicated).

 

Note that this category is intended to include only signs that point to distant places.

 

Expanded Description:

If you happen across a sign outdoors, accessible to the public, with multiple "arrows", each pointing to a different location, that sign may be a candidate for this category.

 

Note that each "arrow" should be a separate small sign -- in other words, it should be something like a slat (small board) with a location name and a distance. That slat should be affixed to a post, and should point in the general direction of the location whose name is on the slat.

 

Instructions for Posting a Direction and Distance Arrows Waymark:

To post a new waymark in this category, please determine the latitude and longitude of the marker, and take a picture (preferably with yourself or a friend) of the marker. Also, please include a narrative that explains the historic significance of this sign (who placed it? why is it here? why is it maintained?).

 

As everybody can see, not a word about multiple images or the perspective and angle of the picture. There is a mere recommendation, and it's not even related with the incident.

 

Lumbricus, honestly, doesn't worth a discussion. Just posted so others will know what to expect from this group (sorry Rikitan, you are the minority as I said).

[+DougK]

Description:

…

 

Note that this category is intended to include only signs that point to distant places.

 

...

 

I am not an officer in this category, not have anything to do with it. Looking at this one-photo waymark, my opinion is that it’s a weak entry. Compare it to other entries in the category.

 

This sign should probably fail because it looks like a normal sign with local distances. The greatest distance we can see is 9 km.

 

The spirit of this category, as I see it, if for arrows pointing off to distant cities, not how far you are from local destinations.

[+Rikitan]

 

This sign should probably fail because it looks like a normal sign with local distances. The greatest distance we can see is 9 km.

 

The spirit of this category, as I see it, if for arrows pointing off to distant cities, not how far you are from local destinations.

 

I would say it is an avegare-quality waymark compared to others in our category. Single picture would not be a problem if all slats with destinations and distances are visible and readable. From my experience, officers pay attention on following:

• there are at least 2 separate slats with different directions
  
• on each of at least 2 should be the name of destination and distance
  
• all slats are visible and readable
  

 

I was promoted to officer as the last one so far, only this year and haven't follow category from its beginning. So I can't say too much about the spirit or intention. Fact is, that we use to accept 'arrows' to places 9kms far, this is not an issue for sure. From description:

 

Note that this category is intended to include only signs that point to distant places.

 

... without further specification of distance. My own limit is somewhere around 1km, just to get rid off those municipal markers such as Billa 400 metres right, Police 250 metres left.

I admit that our category description has to be more precisely formulated to avoid problems.

[+Torgut]

Doug,

 

1) If you bother to look at the previously approved waymark in the category (actually the one before the last one)... it's mine and it was collected in the same walk. Approved. Same everything.

 

2) Last approved shows distances under 10 km. And perhaps 90% of the waymarks in the first page are about hiking signs with distances about the same as mine.

 

So...?

 

However it's interesting that your bring another weakness of the category: after all, what is a distant place? Nobody knows. Rikitan has his interpretation, but it's a personal one.

[+DougK]

Doug,

 

1) If you bother to look at the previously approved waymark in the category (actually the one before the last one)... it's mine and it was collected in the same walk. Approved. Same everything.

 

2) Last approved shows distances under 10 km. And perhaps 90% of the waymarks in the first page are about hiking signs with distances about the same as mine.

 

So...?

 

So, I think WMJJJV, with only two slats, pointing in opposite directions is even weaker than the one rejected. IMO, this one should have been rejected also, so it didn’t lower the bar to justify the one your squabbling over.

 

Here’s my thoughts on what this category was designed to waymark i.e. what I would submit to it.

 

There’s should be a a certain amount of whimsy involved with these signs. There ought to be lots of direction slats pointing in all different, non-right-angle signs, to places hundreds or thousands of miles away, places that might be overseas and you can’t drive to them. Here’s some waymarks that are interesting and exemplify that:

 

Olympic Venues

 

Dodder Buoy - Dublin

 

Homemade Arrow Sign near Twentynine Palms,

 

Palo Alto City Hall Sister Cities Arrows

 

Fort Wayne Children's Zoo

 

Lexington Sister Cities

 

Rock City Park

 

Soda Springs Arrows

 

Cibola

 

San Diego Sister Cities

 

Baton Rouge Zoo Distance Arrows

 

Denali National Park Arrows

 

Dole Plantation Distance Directional Arrows

 

Mansfield Arrows

 

and there’s many more like these...

 

These are all examples of signs that you would probably never use to navigate to these cities or places. They’re irregular and they’re whimsical in a way. And there’s lots of these examples. These are the kinds of waymarks that dominated the early submissions.

 

But whimsy is apparently not a criteria explicitly spelled out for this category. And practicality of the signs is not a factor either. For me, if this category came to a vote without an exclusion of what seem to be local street direction signs, it would be allowing too many uninteresting (too prevalent) signs.

 

Because It appears that Europe has lots of signs to neighboring villages they've come to be accepted. Here’s example an example of a sign that has lots of distances in only TWO directions.

 

Rozcestnik

 

Heck, these places are close enough to walk to. This is a local street sign and less than interesting.

 

Here’s an example of a sign that’s moderately interesting, only because there’re so many signs to many places, even if they are all places to which I could walk. There’s no whimsy here. This sign is very practical. I would accept this signpost anyway, but it's not as interesting as the ones in the above list.

 

Rozcestnik Utechov

 

There’s clearly not enough clarity in the category definition to eliminate the right-angled two and three slat signs of Torgut. It appears that the criteria of "each arrow should be a separate small sign … with a single location name and distance” has not been used on these European signs and should probably be rewritten. I’m not privy to the spirit of the category that the designers had in mind. Over time, I’d say marginal waymarks have crept in, setting precedence for other likely and similar candidates and, IMO, lowering the “interesting” standard for this category.

 

In my mind, this category could have a simple guideline, like:

FIVE of more slats, to eliminate simple right-angled direction sign at a street intersection,

OR

Signs that have directions to places 100’s or 1000’s of miles away.

 

This leaves most all of the existing submissions eligible (of course, I haven’t examined all of them), but explains why I think the two recent Torgut submissions should be ineligible.

Remember, this isn’t my category, just my US-centric view of what the designer's desire for waymarks might have been.

Edited December 1, 2013 by DougK

[+Rikitan]

Remember, this isn’t my category, just my US-centric view of what the designer's desire for waymarks might have been.

 

Oh, wow .. precisely formulated. And I understand your view, fully legitimate, possibly majority of community share this view (or shared, when they voted for). I'm sorry I will limit myself just into the bullets (I tend to write too much):

 

- "interesting" has very subjective meaning

- "interesting / informative" is the criterion for Waymarking, not solely "interesting"

- those Czech examples you posted are not arrows pointing to neighbouring villages, they are parts of complex hiking signage for network of hiking trails - more details .. these slats typically point to destinations where you can hike during one day. This kind of signage is prevalent in most of european countries I visited (10+).

- I'm not fan of artificially-restrictive categories (refer to topic about dedicated trees for example), it's all right for me to see whimsy and hiking arrows in same category.

 

Apart from these bullets, I fully agree with you

[+Rikitan]

more details

 

Ouch, as I read "official" description of mentioned hiking signage:

Sign posts at main hiking route junctions detail also kilometers to the nearest towns.

 

.. it is not best description/translation to english. Sign posts usually point to other sign posts in the network, they are not necessarily located in the towns. They are mostly installed by tourist points of interest (castles, overlooks, challets, mountain summits, passes, train stations, etc.).

[+puczmeloun]

Thanks Rikitan for all the arguments you posted, cause they are more than valid.

 

But just to say, why it all started. It was me who let the group vote about this waymark and reason is pretty simple. I remember when my waymarks were declined due to same reason, even before i were officer in this category. So I'm so sorry, I behaved just according to my previous experiences. BUT you (Torgut) are more than right, that there's nowhere in description written anything about photo of all the slats + remember also reason of not approving of two signage posts due to their "so close" location. I were even trying to speak with leader of category to make it all clear (+ together with special rules for touristic signs in CZ, SK, GE...), it could be half an year, something change but questions are still above this - in reality pretty easy - category.

 

So what can I do sometimes? Maybe you can write to the leader of our group and ask him for reevaluating of this waymark or for making description more "descriptive"...