Reviewer Rigidity: Lighten up! It's a game!!

I have found that some waymarkers become so rigid in their interpretation of category requirements that they take the fun out of the game. I'll use a waymark that I posted last year as an example, because it still burns me up.

Last August I was in Portland for my little sister's wedding. She had rented out this incredible octagonal barn that McMenemin's Restaurant rents for functions. I, of course, immediately thought of the "Octagon Shaped Buildings" category. It was a great barn and how cool is it to waymark your sister's wedding, I ask?! I took pictures of the barn, inside and out, and detail shots of the structural work you see when you looked up at ceiling. The picture to the left is one of those pictures. When we arrived home I researched the history of the barn and the many owners of the farm before it became a restaurant and then I wrote up and submitted the waymark. Well, in my excitement to photograph the things that are important to tell a building's story I forgot to take a picture of the building with my GPS in the shot. DENIED. I wrote back explaining that I could send a picture of the wedding invitation which would prove that I was there the same day as the photos were digitally date stamped. Still a no go. According to the reviewer they had refused to make exceptions in the past and didn't plan on starting now, no matter what kind of proof I had. The worst part is that it was first approved by a different officer, then denied, then approved again when I resubmitted with an explanation, and again, overturned and denied.

What is the point of this, people?! What's important is a well written, and well photographed waymark to adequately describe a place. If someone has a great picture of a building without their GPS in it, then who cares. Another common denial is because there's only one photo of the building (that clearly shows the sign within the shot) but not the second photo showing only the sign. Is that omission really worth losing a cool waymark to your category?

If they were logging a visit, I might understand the GPS requirement, but even then this whole GPS picture grinds me the wrong way. If someone visits my waymark, takes pictures and wants to log that visit why would I be so uptight about if the blasted GPS is in the shot. Are people only allowed to log visits that were intentionally planned with waymarking in mind?

Now, some of my categories require visitors to a waymark to upload a picture with themselves or their GPS in the shot. I want them to at least give show another shot of the waymark, but if they had a great experience there, and can describe the place and tell us their story, well, isn't that exactly what the log is for? As I write this I realize that I want to go back through the 8-9 categories that I've created and rewrite the logging requirements. Pictures are an important part of waymarking, but stories and history are equally important.

That's it for the mid-week rant. I need to go edit some category requirements. I'll be back to post later in the week once I decide the details of this weekend's waymarking daytrip.