Second time rejected


Can I have your input om why this gets rejected? Picture showing the additional information and explanation. Translated:

From the website: Sydostleden and Sydkustleden are two of Sweden's three nationally classified tourism cycle routes. The certification certifies that the trail is of high quality, is traffic safe and that there is a wide range of experiences and service along the trail. The certification also means that the trail is signposted according to national standards and when you cycle the trail, you safely follow the red and white signs


With these reasons:


This nomination has been rejected due to the following reason(s):

The real-world location of the nomination could not be confirmed to have an acceptable pedestrian pathway leading up to it, Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria, Nomination appears to be a natural feature (waterfall, mountain, lake, etc.) that is not connected to a man-made object.



Any thoughts in how to improve it?

Comments

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 157 ✭✭✭

    We would need to see your title, description and wayspot photo to be able to help you improve your nomination.

    But I don't think the quality of your submission is the problem. Sadly, there are many reviewers who don't like trail markers as wayspots. Maybe that is also a problem in your area.

    I assume the cycling path can also be used by pedestrians? So pedestrian access is not the problem.

    As a marker for a cycling trail, it certainly meets eligibility criteria (I think acceptance is the wrong word here).

    It certainly is not a natural feature, although that reason is sometimes wrongfully used when the object is only a small part of the wayspot photo, and there is much "nature" seen in the background of the photo.

  • hestennielsen-PGOhestennielsen-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭

    This is the wayspot picture.

    It is a pedestrian walk also, I can't see the problem with it..

    If it seems eligable I'm gonna try a third time then and hope for the best.. 😏 Maybe center the picture to the sign. Thank u for the answer.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 621 ✭✭✭✭

    The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting - 1*.

  • Rostwold-INGRostwold-ING Posts: 152 ✭✭✭✭

    Common traffic sign, generic, no pedestrian access - 1*

  • Hamson67-PGOHamson67-PGO Posts: 21 ✭✭

    It looks more like a direction sign. And safe pedestrian accses does not look safe to me. But I don't know Sweden so it could be good for you. But it certainly is no natural feature.

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 157 ✭✭✭

    You shouldn't judge a nomination just on it's looks. If you look up Sydostleden, you will find that it is a 274 km long trail between Växjö and Simrishamn. So it is a trail marker for a cycling trail, and therefor falls under the "Promotes exercise" eligibility criteria.

    On pedestrian access, unless that lane behind the guardrail is only for cyclists, pedestrians can walk there too, and there is nothing unsafe about walking onto the grass to be able to safely touch the marker.

    This is where the marker is located:

    https://www.google.be/maps/@56.1050435,14.6704443,3a,53.2y,235.65h,78.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBV7nzlgGVlCKuwnQz2FM3A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

    I do not know Sweden's traffic laws, but I don't see anything there that indicates pedestrians can't walk there behind the guardrail.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 452 ✭✭✭

    I would also be careful as this most likely could get rejected on being next to a farm

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 157 ✭✭✭
    edited January 9

    The marker is located on top of the hill, right next to the lane. The actual farmland is over 2m away from the marker. The hill appears to be part of the road infrastructure (probably for stability reasons, as the road is higher than the land below), and is therefor public space.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 452 ✭✭✭

    Even if it is beside a farm property it can be denied for that reason. Just like when people put a free little library on easments that are just passed there property line.

    But tbh for me this has no pedestrian access anyways as its part of a major road. The walking on grass arguement doesnt hold much because that is most likely not whats happening there either

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 157 ✭✭✭

    If we follow that logic, rural area's cannot have any wayspot besides the church, the bar and the playground. All other candidates will have some farmland, paddock or orchard behind it. Nice roadside chapel? Nope, farmland behind it.

    There is nothing there that indicates that road is off limits for pedestrians. Where do pedestrians go? To me, it would make sense that they use the same lane as the cyclists do. There is even a guardrail between the area for cars and the area for cyclists/pedestrians. Pedestrians don't have to walk on the grass, but they can use the grass if necessary. Say you are a pedestrian there, and you see a group of cyclists approaching, where do you go? You take a step to the side into the grass and wait for the cyclists to pass. I only mentioned the grass because that is where the marker is located. There doesn't have to be a path from the sidewalk to the marker to be considered safe pedestrian access. It is not unsafe to take one step away from that lane onto the grass to reach the marker.

  • hestennielsen-PGOhestennielsen-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭

    There is a guardrail between the road and the pedestrian access as the pic above shows. In Sweden we do not have separate lanes for pedestrians and cyclists, it is shared. And there is no farm there either? Only a few small houses.

    Maybe it is unclear about the surroundings then.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 452 ✭✭✭

    If you look right beside the sign that looks very much like a farmers field to me. Large plot of soil plowed. Also the farm house in the background. The plot is obviously not growing currently but its still a farming plot of land

  • hestennielsen-PGOhestennielsen-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭

    It is a farmers field. The owner and the farm itself is about 1,5km from here though. It is an ordinary small house next to the field.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 452 ✭✭✭

    It would still be right beside the farmers field though. Which is what I would reject it as 100% each time

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 157 ✭✭✭

    You are going off of the the criteria "Location is a private residential property (even if historical), farmland, a K12 and under school (preschool, primary/elementary, secondary/high school), child care/daycare center, rehabilitation center, safety shelter". "Location is a farmland". This nomination's location is not a farmland. It is on the grassy verge between the road and the farmland and that is allowed.

    This is a recent thread where a wayspot was removed on the grassy verge between a road and a single family private residential property. There wasn't even a sidewalk on that side of the street. The OP requested for the wayspot to be reinstated and the appeal was accepted. That is a recent Niantic decision that proves that they do not consider a grassy verge between the road and a private residential property or farmland to be on farmland/private residential property, or lacking safe pedestrian access.


  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 452 ✭✭✭

    Your wrong but okay 😂 cherry pick an example that is obviously not correct. As someone could easily report that as private property and it would get removed. It also looks like graffiti so its not eligible to begin with. What I said stands and obviously syncs with reviewers are seeing for that sign.

    Pedestrian access is either extremely limited if at all.

    Its beside a farm which can make it get rejected for prp. Even if its in thegrass beside the farm its the same idea as people putting free little libraries on easements of there property. Technically city land. But still is considered prp from niantic standpoint.

    Also with the fact niantic says hiking and biking trails may be eligible. I wouldnt call this really a trail sign and would want further clarification on it. As it looks like a bicycle lane road sign.

    say what you want but to me this looks like a hard one to get accepted and I personally wouldnt try it

  • TWVer-INGTWVer-ING Posts: 157 ✭✭✭

    Why are you trying so hard to get this nomination down? Can you find me an example of the opposite? That thread that I linked had many people arguing the same thing you do now , yet Niantic eventually decided to reinstate the wayspot anyway.

    I am not arguing the eligibility of the wayspot in that thread. I also think that it doesn't meet eligibility criteria. It just doesn't meet any removal criteria. Private residential property and no safe pedestrian access are removal criteria, yet Niantic decided that they were not met, and therefor restored the wayspot.

    It is not on private land. An easement is private land. An easement is a road or path on private land, that certain people who do not own the land are allowed to use to reach another land. A grassy verge between a farmland/PRP and a road is not an easement.

    I assume you are referring to this:

    Q48: Adam - Little Free Libraries... when reviewing potential portals in OPR, should LFL be approved if they are next to the road or sidewalk within the county/city right-of-way, but the lawn they are on is owned and maintained by a residential home privately owned? These seem to be on county/city property and private property at the same time. It seems the LFL is inviting the public to stop by. What do you say?

    A48: According to NIA OPS, If it's on someone's private residential property (right-of-way or not), it does not meet criteria. If it's on a common area that's not associated to any private residence, that should be ok.It's hard for us to know the local nuances of legal access for a global game, so as a general rule, if it's on the 'Do Not Submit' list, do not submit them.

    Here, they are also talking about "on" someone's private residential property (right-of-way or not). Meaning that if it is on someone's private residential property, it should be rejected, even if people are allowed to go there (right-of-way). If it is not private residential property, it should be okay. Apparantly in the US, PRP extends all the way to the road. In Europe, that is not the case.

    Are you arguing that this is not a trail marker now? How do you think I managed to find it's location? I looked up the trail name, looked up the village, where the trail passed in that village, and voila, there was the marker. If it was a bicycle lane road sign, I would have never found it.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 452 ✭✭✭

    I’m just pointing out very obvious flaws in this nomination that I would reject it for. You argued for it and I gave reasons why it wouldnt be eligible. 🤷‍♂️ My reasoning really doesnt change where you try to loop hole around everything to try and get this to pass. I’m saying 99% of time it will get denied

Sign In or Register to comment.