Manmade waterfall difficulty
Daemare-PGO
Posts: 95 ✭✭✭
So my dad submitted this as a Pokéstop months ago and it got rejected. Since then I've also reviewed two more submissions of this same waterfall. This waterfall is manmade due to the origin of the falls being the exit pipe from the Water Authority testing facility as explained in the supporting info.
So I decided to try my hand at it. Is there anything else I can do to prevent a natural feature rejection? There is no sign. The pipe and rocks were placed by the builders of the water authority and bridge.
Comments
Perhaps entitle it something like:
Little Occoquan Run man-made water feature
so the concept is introduced before prejudice can set in.
Maybe a little about fresh air and exercise (assuming this is true).
In my opinion ineligible as long as you dont have a sign with the name and/or information about the waterfall. It looks like it actually has a safe pedestrian access (at least a bit), whats also often a problem. For me, its still a 1*, but if you got a sign, its quickly a fully eligible nomination.
I wish that I could combat this meme, @LukeAllStars-PGO . I wouldn’t wish to vanquish you, since you seem to be a major reviewer with an excellent track record, especially with regard to fakes. But my reading of the rules says this should get more stars unless it is truly uninteresting, since it doesn’t run afoul of any of the gamut of private, emergency, unsafe, sensitive et al.
People enjoy waterfalls and waterworks enormously. There’s something about the splashy sound and ever-changing movement and the smell of aerated freshness.
If @Daemare-PGO were to put the same information into the waypoint title and description that would otherwise be on a small plaque, shouldn’t this be acceptable? Players get AUGMENTED reality. The object or experience is really there, and players read the info when they interact e.g. gift cards, or when they visit the location.
Niantic does not call for rejecting this under the current rules. Why should we?
I may be wrong, but under the new guidelines, didn't Casey say that if a sign is not available for a notable landmark it can still be eligible?
I have trouble findng correct words is in English, but...
Make the platform(?) used for photoshoots and scenery viewing the focus point of nomination?
Lookout point over artificial waterfall?
But it isn't a notable landmark and there is nothing else about it that allows to be eligible.
I'd agree with Kellerrys, if anything can pass about this, it'll be the lookout platform/viewpoint. I'd focus the main picture on that, even though its not as pretty as the main falls, because that screams 'man made' and 'here's a place to stand' which can help to combat some rejections.
It might be a hard one to get approved - I wouldn't assume you'll get it first try, but I do think things like waterfalls fall under the exploration criteria, and they're a good place to walk to and spend some time at.
I find something like this interesting. Our local weir is a waypoint too (a very old one though, pre wayfarer) and I love visiting to listen to the water rushing over it. I don't think your waterfall with viewing area is ineligible, but it's not a "slam dunk 5*" either.
NianticGiffard said that artificial waterfalls are eligible.
By the way, I saw your finger in the photo. That might cause low-quality photo rejection.