Walking Path in park denied
donandlan-PGO
Posts: 201 ✭✭✭
Other than the usual non-sequiter, asinine reason (not permanent? Seasonal display?) The only relevant input I got back was "does not meet acceptance criteria." But this clearly meets the acceptance criteria. It is:
A great place for exercise
A place you'd go to get some fresh air, stretch your legs, or exercise. Places that encourage walking, exercising, and enjoying public spaces.
This is EXACTLY what the walking path is.
The only possible relevant rejection criteria is:
Does not meet eligibility criteria
Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social. The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
The first is clearly not applicable; it is a great place for exercise. The second part about "mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique" is also not applicable. It is not mass-produced or generic. It is a one-off intentionally designed curving path. As a paved path through a grass field, it is visually distinct.
Some help please...
Comments
%
The sign is a physical marker for the walking path. Do you deny that there is a walking path? You can see it in both map and satelite view.
Named trails are not required, just a physical marker for the obvious trail.
The new criteria lists hiking trails and biking trails as eligible examples under a great place for exercise. Are there any additional requirements for these locations to be eligible (e.g. survey markers, trail signs or other man-made objects)? Do they need to be named trails or paths?
While this criteria is much more inclusive than before, there would still need to be some sort of visual indicator of the Wayspot. This is because you're dropping a pin on the map and since trails are long and linear, you'd want to direct players to a safe location somewhere along that trail that's easy to find and safe to access. This would apply to trail markers, survey markers, trail signs, etc.
If this was a treadmill in the park, it would be accepted readily without a sign. But because it's an ACTUAL walking path, you reject it because you don't like the sign?
Right, there were some changes to that. I am always very critical on such signs. I would like a sign with the name more. It has a non-generic aspect. This sign could stand anywhere around the world..
I'm not nominating the sign. I'm nominating the walking path.
thats always hard. In special, if you set the focus on the sign. Signs are always better^^
The swing set in the park doesn't need a fancy sign. The baseball field in the park doesn't need a fancy sign. The basketball court in the park doesn't need a fancy sign. Why are you holding this additional excersise promoting element of the park to a higher standard?
Paths (when they are out of sand) are quickly getting rated as natural features. A Basketball court is clearly viewable as non natural.
Also, your rejection criteria was "seasonal/unpermanent", which doesnt make any sence oa a trail.
Im not sure what you are saying here.
This isn't a dirt parth. It's a man-made paved walking path designed and installed to promote walking at the park. You can see that in the pictures and on satelite.
The first rejection criteria was "does not meet acceptance criteria" which is not accurate. It does meet acceptance criteria.
As for the second rejection reason. Do you believe the paved walking path is a temporary or seasonal display? This is clearly nonsense.
thI was talking in general about paths. In your case, its definately man-made and permanent. I also said that the rejection reasons doesnt make any sence. But I believe because you put the focus on the sign, the submission got calle "unpermanent" even if it isnt.
It's very frustrating because it feels like the nomination is being rejected without adequate viewing/consideration. A walking path very obviously meets the 3.1 acceptance Criteria. The AMA clarification further supports that this is meets eliligible criteria. I also believe that if reviewed with the same considerations as other park elements, it should be accepted.
maybe link it in your extra information
Your submission photo shows a sign, so this is the focus of the submission. For me, this is not a named trail, rather a distance marker, so I would reject it, it looks "mass produced / generic".
If you are hoping to submit the tarmac path then you need a sign or similar to anchor it to, just saying "I've put the pin on this bit of pavement / sidewalk in the park" is not sufficient. It's not a "Hiking Trail" or a "Biking Trail". I don't think you have an acceptable nomination here.
A great place for exercise
A place you'd go to get some fresh air, stretch your legs, or exercise. Places that encourage walking, exercising, and enjoying public spaces. Or something that teaches or encourages us to be our healthiest selves.
Examples of Wayspot categories
The most recent AMA clearly indicated we no longer need a "named trail". Maybe you missed that? The sign is just the "visual indicator of the Wayspot" that @NianticCasey-ING said was necessary. The sign is not a "distance marker." It doesn't denote distance walked, but describes the distance of the path in total. The sign being "mass produced / generic" is immaterial as the sign is not the POI. The walking path is the POI. Can you really look at the nomination in total, maps, description, and supplemental material included, and not see the intentional walking path is not just a "bit of pavement / sidewalk in the park?"
Those examples are exemplars and not an all inclusive list of what is eligible. There is no way you can argue in good faith that this intentional walking path at a public park, isn't the very definition of "A place you'd go to get some fresh air, stretch your legs, or exercise. Places that encourage walking, exercising, and enjoying public spaces."
If you think the main photo determines the focus of the submission, then I guess you believe every public park is nothing more than a sign? How does any sign, anywhere, ever promote exercise? The photo can be the POI, but just as often it is representative of the POI. If you are a reviewer that can't be bothered to read the title and description, but decides on the image, you are a bad wayfarer. Shame on you.
I think it’ll most likely an iffy one. Id re submit but not upgrade so local reviewers who know the area vote accordingly