Nomination rejected for weird reason - help
CoraLorki-PGO
Posts: 19 ✭✭
Hello everybody!
That’s the second Time I’m nominating this wayspot. This time I put the emphasis on it being part of various trails and being a trail marker, but it was rejected for a reason I don’t understand, could you please help me with it?
It says the location of the wayspot seems to have explicit or inappropriate activity?
Comments
The rejection menu says, at least in English, "Inappropriate location". I think some reviewers don't understand how is to be used and mistakenly apply it instead of either "mismatched location" or "generic".
@Lechu1730-PGO
Thank you for your answer, now I understand better. But still, it’s clear that the location is not inappropriate since it’s on public ground, surrounded by a sidewalk and near a crosswalk, as it can be seen on Street view. And it’s also a trail marker, which is eligible. I don’t understand why people reject it...
From what I can see, it is a road sign, not a trail marker, so I would give this a 1* are road signs are not eligible.
@sogNinjaman-ING
It is a trail marker, on the location of a pass, which is part of special trails, as it’s mentioned and explained in the links I provided:
http://users.skynet.be/fb111552/permanentes/permanente_24.pdf
http://www.cyclo-club-manageois.be/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Randocols.pdf
Perhaps you need to say so in the title to make it more obvious - "Trailmarker - Circuit des cols".
Do not mention the AMA in your supporting information, I don't think many reviwers know what an AMA is. I would go straight to the link to trail details.
Not sure if it's just me, but (while reviewing on mobile) I wouldn't be comfortable clicking links that lead to pdf-files.
Cyclo-club address perhaps, but users.skynet.be address no.
@sogNinjaman-ING
Thank you! I’ll do it like that next time, I hope it’ll be understood better by reviewers
@Kellerrys-ING
I’ve never thought about that, could this be a problem for reviewers?
A sign like that alone will not meet the criteria. And it could be risky for pedestrians.
The sign may debatable for eligibility but it is not risky for pedestrians, has safe as can be access
I'm not sure where this is but brown signs are usually signs for parks or similar, This particular sign I even found on the internet in a cycling blog.
description says a trail stage sign.
After looking at it from satellite I believe it was rejected for proximity to private residential
If this is risky for pedestrian, you have to reject everything because everything will be risky...
Yeah, totally correct. This has nothing to do with being risky, it literally has a sidewalk.