Why would this not be accepted
BlankJB-PGO
Posts: 4 ✭✭
The notes honestly seem like a joke...
Could not be confirmed to have acceptable pedestrian pathway leading up to it?
Never mind the hiking path underneath it, it clearly has side walk on top of it.
Insufficient evidence that it matches the real world? The bridge is clearly visible, not just from street view, but by satellite.
And street view
Comments
The picture is very bad. Try to put the trailmarker in the center. The mountain in the back makes it look like a natural feature.
That looks like a sign pointing towards the trekking path, not a part of the path itself.
If you change the language of your phone to English before submitting (and before logging into the game I imagine) then the email you get back with a rejection has the top 3 reasons in English. Apparently this doesn't happen for other languages. I've submitted a coal nomination with phone in French to check this but it's yet to come back...
No sign People probably said natural feature?
What exactly did you submitted?
Can you share all of your submission? Title, description, map, supplemental, etc... by that picture alone, I don't know what you are submitting.
Is there a namesign? If not, maybe work with the town/village council to put a sign in place.
Unnamed greenspace - Niantic say you need a sign / Natural feature - a bunch of average trees / Picnic bench - ineligable / Footbridge - generic, not on a named trail, not visually interesting. I can't see anything in this photo to make a good Waypoint.
Just looking at the picture, I would probably have rejected it.
Though, I might have passed it, if I had seen that the area was marked as a park on OSM as well.
i would resubmit with concentrating on the footbridge as that is the most likely to pass with what is show in that picture.
Submit the bridge, bruv
Ask for the bridge, those are usually accepted. If the bridge is rejected try again until it's accepted. Some users here spread lies that they are not accepted, but Casey has said multiple times that they are. Casey never ever said they need to be historical according to the new criterias but for some reasons users here that like to mass reject thing keep spreading that lie. If anything Casey allowed to be more flexible.
Footbridges dont exactly meet any of the new criteria. When was the last time they said they were an eligible stop? I know they were previous to the new criteria but they aren’t specifically mentioned anymore
Even before the 3.1 update, footbridges were only eligible if they were part of a marked trail. I wouldn't presumed that carries over post the 3.1 update.
Trails in parks are still trails.
No trail is seen in that photo. And I'm not obliged to assume there is a trail without evidence.
The question in the old guide referred to park and trails. Niantic NEVER EVER said that bridges in park were not allowed.
The answered never referred to footbridges in parks. It ONLY mentioned footbridges on trails.
Right, Niantic has never provided a list of all the things that aren't allowed. So what's your point?
Casey never claimed to be harsher with the new criteria. Stop spreading disinformation. He never ever said they were not elligible anymore.
They actually said any of the previous clarifications are no longer valid due to the creation of the new criteria. So any ama’s previous to criteria overhaul are null and void. Literally what we’ve been telling you but you wont listen
which means the ama including footbridges is not valid anymore
We have to review under the new criteria and footbridge do encourage exploration. Exercise? Well people tend to like jogging in parks and trails. There's also two valids categories that fit the new criteria which are parks and hiking trails. I think Niantic do not want us to accept car bridges or random bridges in malls, but footbridges in park are permanent man made object that do encourage exploration especially since many allow to access areas that would be hard to explore otherwise.
You are really trying to stretch anything to make that bridge eligible. Fact is until they release something saying bridges in parks are acceptable they wont really get accepted. You aren’t exploring anything in that park if its even considered a park of the town (most cities put signs in a park). A bridge itself doesn’t exactly encourage exercise. So it really needs something else to help it pass if you are trying to pass a bridge. Like previous people had said if it was on a named trail according to past ama’s which are no longer valid it was acceptable. With the criteria reset you dont have that ama to rely on anymore so until niantic comes out and says it is eligible. It isnt
Isn't this the second discussion you have created for this nomination? Maybe you should review the comments left in that thread before starting another.
While a picnic table may represent a social gathering location, it will likely be overwhelmingly reviewed as a piece of generic infrastructure and rejected. The footbridge may hold significance for the area, should you choose to attempt to nominate that, but would need to be the primary focus of the nomination.
@Gendgi-PGO
Yes it is. I saw the comments and improved my nomination as you can see.
Now, in the additional information I posted a photo with a sign, proving that this is a rest zone or leisure zone. In the project there were created 3 bridges and several benches with lamps for people, but because it is in a extended area with a lot of trees I cannot capture all this. This could be considered as a park but because it is in a small vilage (more or less 200 people living there) in google maps this POI dont show as a park. I really don't know what to do anymore for this to be accepted, as this POI meets the niantic criteria.
If the sign is permanent and implies it to be a park, you could nominate it with that as the primary photo.
What text details were used for the title, description, and supporting information?
That sign would be a terrible nomination. It just "state propaganda" showing who has paid for the project.
I would say its the best chance at this being an actual acceptable poi. Call it a leisure zone and there is something tangible like the sign to anchor the poi too. Kinda like a park sign would it not?
@Gendgi-PGO
The discription and aditional information:
"Leisure area where the inhabitants of the village get together to socialize. Very important space for our community."
"In the photo, in addition to seeing that the environment is rural and perfectly safe, we can see the sign of the project for the creation of this leisure area, which makes it a valid POI!"
@WheelTrekker-ING
Yes I know that the sign is "state propaganda" thats why I added it on the addinional info photo and not on the POI one. Anyway, I think Its enough to show that this is a park created by this project.
The pictures about benches left in bad shape really don't sell the "Very important space for our community."
Tidy up the place, choose an angle that shows the place at it's best.
Are there any annual happenings in the park? Is it regularly used as gathering place by local accosiations? Something else? In other words, tell how and in what kind of occasions the park is important for the community. More convincing than just claiming it's important.h
Having said that, this will propably be a hard sell. The easiest way would propably be requesting a proper sign for the park.