So why exactly was a river sign rejected for being a "natural feature"
Euthanasio2-PGO
Posts: 272 ✭✭✭
other reason is "do not fit criteria".
The sign is annoyingly high and the picture was hard to take. I was worried about the quality, but signs for rivers are legitimate right?
Comments
No, they are not eligible candidates. Given that it is a sign for a natural features, I can understand why reviewers chose that reason. But the correct rejection reason is "doesn't mean criteria".
An information sign about the river would be a good candidate. A sign with the name meets no criteria.
I mean when I read the old guide, it seemed like a sign for a river was acceptable, but not the river itself. Does anyway have a link to an old guide?
That is providing that the sign was an educational signboard or noted an "adventurous location" or historic feature. But this is a common mass-produced street sign.
I believe the old guideline was that a natural feature with a sign could be accepted, not that it should be accepted. I'm going to paste what I said in another recent thread about the same situation:
"This is the kind of thing that doesn't really meet a particular rejection criteria, but doesn't really seem notable enough to be accepted. The sign doesn't provide any useful information about the [river] beyond its name, and this particular spot on the [river] is just where the road crosses it and doesn't have any real significance beyond that. So I don't think it's a particularly strong candidate."