What rejection reasons did you get in the emails? Your descriptions and supporting statements seem very lacking.
As the submitter, it’s up to you to provide enough information for the reviewer to make an informed decision. It seems you have not in this case so even if they would be valid, it seems that they’ve been right to be rejected in light of the limited information here.
The paved area in front of the information board makes it looks like no pedestrian access. Now i would look at this and see the parking lot and assume that the paved area is for golfers and golf carts to use, but I also golf often and I am familiar with these types of areas. I can see how the photos would make it look like you have no pedestrian access. A better supporting photo would help a lot. #1 is eligible.
#2 looks like a warehouse, not a Post office. If there is an obvious Point of Sale area that the public is supposed to use focus on that. If its just a freight/staging/delivery area, not eligible. Good luck.
Have you ever seen or heard of a public notice board that was not pedestrian-accessible? Why would this ever be a thing? They set up these bulletin boards where people can view them, so they -what?- stick them in the middle of a busy roadway for access from your car? Descend a rope ladder from a hot-air balloon? Tread water while swimming? How could this notion make any sort of possible sense?
Theres notice boards aplenty in the little villages near me which are adjacent to the road, no path or pavement, just on slim patches of grass with the information pointing out into the road. The only way to walk to and read those boards are in the road.
Now people can argue that walking in the road is deemed normal for those rural areas, and to some extent thats correct. However classifying it as safe pedestrian access is another thing entirely.
If the real-world location of the nomination cannot be confirmed to have safe pedestrian access (for e.g. on a roundabout or on the side of the road with no sidewalk access), rate 1 star for the “Can it be safely accessed?” question.
So something on the side of a road without a sidewalk / path should be rated 1*
Its got nothing to do with if the local council/ government has deemed access to it is safe without a path, we've been specifically told to reject them.
Now you may deem Niantic in being a bit over zealous with safety, however considering the possible legal ramifications let alone the bad publicity should an accident occur with a borderline saftey issue such as this, it's easy to understand why they have such a "draconian" approach to saftey and what is and isn't acceptable.
This shouldn’t even be an argument, though. If law and custom recognize a pedestrian space, it is a pedestrian space. Why should remote viewers be choosing certain strips of land to be reclassified contrary to local authorities?
Its their game, they make the rules on what they deem is acceptable and have total authority on how they classify safe access and they have said they want a footpath to access something on the side of the road.
Should they want to they could make a totally ridiculous rule up of, we shall only accept noticeboards if they are govement stamped, painted pink with purple stripes, and over 3 meters in height.
Thats going to nix every noticeboard in the world as being acceptable. It wouldn't matter if your local government only made them green and were 1 meter high. Because it doesn't meet the stipulation for what is acceptable it would not be an acceptable candidate.
Its Niantics games and database, they have said what they deem is acceptable for safe access, you may not like it, you may not agree with it, however you must accept it because its their games their rules.
Yes but when some reviewers go through quickly they look at first impressions, make a snap judgement, decide to reject, and in attempt to not get cooldown will select random rejection reasons. Not historically or cultural significance just means that a couple reviewers rated this average or poorly and gave that criteria 1*.
I would also guess that there were at least 1 or 2 other rejection reasons that where not included in the OP, but that would be an assumption on my part. I can see someone marking this poorly for visible license plate as well , even though its in the supporting photo. Some reviewers are just not good.
I still stand by original comment, the supporting photo does nothing to add to the overall submission, in fact it detracts from it. From a snap view it makes it appear that this is next to a driveway leading to a parking lot. If you area familiar with golf courses, common sense dictates otherwise, but that characteristic is often lacking with some reviewers.
That's not a notice board. It literally has the name of the place and that's it. Those are a dime a dozen here and some are placed in non pedestrian acessible areas because.... And this might come off as a shocker to you, they have nothing important to read.
Please look up the difference between a City/Town Plaque and a Notice Board. They aren't the same thing. Also, those stairs next to that plaque are clearly to be used by cars, right? 🤡
Re: pedestrian access. It’s been discussed before and as long as you aren’t in the middle of the street, it’s pedestrian access. Shoulder on the road? Pedestrian access. Grassy area? Pedestrian access. Parking lot? Pedestrian access……unless we all teleport into businesses from our cars now. Heck even a median as long as it has a crosswalk going past it is considered pedestrian access. This last example is actually part of the wayfarer test. I think a lot of people on here would reject that example nomination, especially considering most don’t even think grass is accessible. 🙄🙄
Comments
The noticeboard looks like it is behind a walll on a driveway without a footpath so it would be rejected as unsafe access.
The second looks like a delivery center not an actual post office, so wouldn't meet criteria.
Just going off of the limited information you've shown, neither appear to be valid submissions.
As an addition you may want to improve your descriptions and support statements as they are rather lackluster.
What rejection reasons did you get in the emails? Your descriptions and supporting statements seem very lacking.
As the submitter, it’s up to you to provide enough information for the reviewer to make an informed decision. It seems you have not in this case so even if they would be valid, it seems that they’ve been right to be rejected in light of the limited information here.
Neither of these would meet Niantic criteria.
First was reject as "Not have historical or culture significance". You can see the field on the map, so there is pedestrian way..
The paved area in front of the information board makes it looks like no pedestrian access. Now i would look at this and see the parking lot and assume that the paved area is for golfers and golf carts to use, but I also golf often and I am familiar with these types of areas. I can see how the photos would make it look like you have no pedestrian access. A better supporting photo would help a lot. #1 is eligible.
#2 looks like a warehouse, not a Post office. If there is an obvious Point of Sale area that the public is supposed to use focus on that. If its just a freight/staging/delivery area, not eligible. Good luck.
Have you ever seen or heard of a public notice board that was not pedestrian-accessible? Why would this ever be a thing? They set up these bulletin boards where people can view them, so they -what?- stick them in the middle of a busy roadway for access from your car? Descend a rope ladder from a hot-air balloon? Tread water while swimming? How could this notion make any sort of possible sense?
Very much, yes.
Aren’t those pedestrian-accessible railway maps in a parking lot next to a set of stairs?
Clearly, the stairs exist for skateboarding only.
Parking areas are by definition pedestrian accessible, else they would be highways.
Theres notice boards aplenty in the little villages near me which are adjacent to the road, no path or pavement, just on slim patches of grass with the information pointing out into the road. The only way to walk to and read those boards are in the road.
Now people can argue that walking in the road is deemed normal for those rural areas, and to some extent thats correct. However classifying it as safe pedestrian access is another thing entirely.
It’s really annoying when distant reviewers pretend parking lots and roadsides are made of lava…
…even more so after a municipality has erected a sign or utility that is plainly directed at pedestrians.
The fools! They’ll **** us all!
From the offical guide
Rating Accessibility
If the real-world location of the nomination cannot be confirmed to have safe pedestrian access (for e.g. on a roundabout or on the side of the road with no sidewalk access), rate 1 star for the “Can it be safely accessed?” question.
So something on the side of a road without a sidewalk / path should be rated 1*
Its got nothing to do with if the local council/ government has deemed access to it is safe without a path, we've been specifically told to reject them.
Now you may deem Niantic in being a bit over zealous with safety, however considering the possible legal ramifications let alone the bad publicity should an accident occur with a borderline saftey issue such as this, it's easy to understand why they have such a "draconian" approach to saftey and what is and isn't acceptable.
This shouldn’t even be an argument, though. If law and custom recognize a pedestrian space, it is a pedestrian space. Why should remote viewers be choosing certain strips of land to be reclassified contrary to local authorities?
The short answer is, because Niantic say so.
Its their game, they make the rules on what they deem is acceptable and have total authority on how they classify safe access and they have said they want a footpath to access something on the side of the road.
Should they want to they could make a totally ridiculous rule up of, we shall only accept noticeboards if they are govement stamped, painted pink with purple stripes, and over 3 meters in height.
Thats going to nix every noticeboard in the world as being acceptable. It wouldn't matter if your local government only made them green and were 1 meter high. Because it doesn't meet the stipulation for what is acceptable it would not be an acceptable candidate.
Its Niantics games and database, they have said what they deem is acceptable for safe access, you may not like it, you may not agree with it, however you must accept it because its their games their rules.
It wasn't even rejected for accessibility...
Yes but when some reviewers go through quickly they look at first impressions, make a snap judgement, decide to reject, and in attempt to not get cooldown will select random rejection reasons. Not historically or cultural significance just means that a couple reviewers rated this average or poorly and gave that criteria 1*.
I would also guess that there were at least 1 or 2 other rejection reasons that where not included in the OP, but that would be an assumption on my part. I can see someone marking this poorly for visible license plate as well , even though its in the supporting photo. Some reviewers are just not good.
I still stand by original comment, the supporting photo does nothing to add to the overall submission, in fact it detracts from it. From a snap view it makes it appear that this is next to a driveway leading to a parking lot. If you area familiar with golf courses, common sense dictates otherwise, but that characteristic is often lacking with some reviewers.
That's not a notice board. It literally has the name of the place and that's it. Those are a dime a dozen here and some are placed in non pedestrian acessible areas because.... And this might come off as a shocker to you, they have nothing important to read.
Please look up the difference between a City/Town Plaque and a Notice Board. They aren't the same thing. Also, those stairs next to that plaque are clearly to be used by cars, right? 🤡
Re: pedestrian access. It’s been discussed before and as long as you aren’t in the middle of the street, it’s pedestrian access. Shoulder on the road? Pedestrian access. Grassy area? Pedestrian access. Parking lot? Pedestrian access……unless we all teleport into businesses from our cars now. Heck even a median as long as it has a crosswalk going past it is considered pedestrian access. This last example is actually part of the wayfarer test. I think a lot of people on here would reject that example nomination, especially considering most don’t even think grass is accessible. 🙄🙄