Please help me in improving my nomination

Just now I got the rejection e-mail with the following reasons given: Private Residential Property or farm, seasonal and not permament

I will translate everything into english for you.

Title: Seats with heart-formed cutout

Description: Through craftmanship somebody created three exceptional seats with backrests. For decoration purposes material in the form of hearts was removed from the backrests with a charming result.

Addition information:

When you see the seats for the first time, you feel the need to look closer at them. They are quite comfortable, which suprised even mysel. I randomly discored them on a walk on this pathway that is only accessible to pedestrians and bikes. If you zoom in on Google Maps, one is able to recognize the shape of the seats. I suggest to look for the street lantern and the hedge on the left aswell. The hedge has a 90° angle hinting at the junction that can be seen on Google Maps.

What could I do to improve this particular nomination? The seats are not on private residential property, but I am not sure how to demonstrate that. I appreciate any helpful tips.


  • DeDuckIsDees-INGDeDuckIsDees-ING Posts: 158 ✭✭✭

    I think you are going to have a hard time getting it approved. I would personally not reject it. But I wouldn’t rate it very highly either.

    They are quite cute but not THAT artsy/elaborate

    For starters I would make the main picture show all three of the chairs instead of just one.

    Would also mention that it is a fun gathering spot. (the ‘socialise’ criteria).

  • CipherBlakk-PGOCipherBlakk-PGO Posts: 209 ✭✭✭

    I agree that I would take a photo that shows the entire seating area as the focus. With just that chair, my first thought is that it's possibly temporary or movable, possibly something that's in someone's front yard.

    I like your supporting info, but you should try to add something about the property that they're on. It looks like an apartment area, based on one of the buildings you can see? So maybe something about it being in the common/socialization/park area of an apartment complex (if that is actually the case), and add that, per Niantic's clarification, this kind of housing area doesn't fall under the private property rejection reason. I wouldn't be surprised if most people don't know that clarification so sometimes it's helpful to mention it.

    I personally think it looks like a solid POI! Good luck!

  • Catlin7891-PGOCatlin7891-PGO Posts: 13 ✭✭

    Thanks for your suggestions @44karen44-PGO and @CipherBlakk-PGO.

    I kinda enjoy it to get edge cases accepted, so this is not an issue for me. Showing the entire sitting area is a great idea I haven't thought of before. I'll go back there and take another picture tomorrow. I have no idea yet on how to verbally integrate the fun gathering spot, but it's is definetly worth thinking about. Does this belong into the description or the supporting information?🤔

    I plan to use another picture for the surroundings aswell. Currently I alternatively have this one:

    I didn't choose this one before because I wanted to show more of the path for orientation purposes on Google Maps. I can supplement this with a photospehre though. This one is better in showing the property it is on. I'd describe it as a backyard of an appartment complex that is next to a pedestrian and bike path. In about 12 hours I will have posted the new pictures and a link to the photosphere here.

    Please let me know your opinions.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 771 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited September 18

    Can you try to get a photo that is a closeup of the chair on the right with the other two chairs visible in the background? I think that might be kind of a "best of both worlds" photo--show the details of one chair while also showing the extent of the gathering area.

    Also, are these actually carved from tree stumps in the ground there? If so, I didn't see that mentioned in your description or supporting info. I think that important detail both makes this a more interesting place and helps to counter the "temporary" rejections.

  • Catlin7891-PGOCatlin7891-PGO Posts: 13 ✭✭

    I'm back home from a walk to with more photos, please let me know what you think. Which is best for the main photo and which for the surroundings? Are they any good at all?

    I grouped all new photos into a folder on Google Photos for you to look at:

    I like the second picture on the right in the top row the most for the main picture, and the picture on the right in the second row the best for the supporting picture.

    Additionally I created two photospheres, visible on the website of Google Earth with the following links:

    Directly by the seats

    At the nearby junction

    @flatmatt-PGO Yes, they are carved from tree stumps still rooted in the ground. Some background on why I didn't mention it in the description and the supporting photo: This was my second attempt at this nomination. The first attempt got rejected for a bad photo and a natural feature. I took the new pictures to be seen in the first post and removed any mentions of trees. After the second attempt was rejected for being temporary and on private residential property, I was unsure how to proceed asked for help on here.

    I plan on changing the title into something like Carved tree stump seats. With the new pictures above I am weary on mentioning the hearts, since the heart cearving on the front seat is the weakest of the three.

  • DeDuckIsDees-INGDeDuckIsDees-ING Posts: 158 ✭✭✭

    I wouldn’t mention the word backyard. Parc maybe. Would definitely mention next to bike path. If there is a named cycle route passing by that would be even better. Because I looked at it on maps now and see why people would pick PRP .

    Yeah it is unfortunate that the chair you focussed on doesn’t have the heart. I like the second picture best.

  • Catlin7891-PGOCatlin7891-PGO Posts: 13 ✭✭

    What makes you think it is RPR? I am curious, maybe I can answer your doubts that others may be sharing while reviewing. Ideally I'd find a way to disprove or argue that convincingly. I would reject it being PRP because the house is atleast 3 storeys high. I consider it highly unlikely that this could be a single-family home. I could find out by checking at the door, but obviously couldn't use that in any way to convince reviewers.

    There is no sign of the bike path that I know of, but if you check the adress under this link on openstreetmap.

    Take a look at this picture.

    If you click the button I marked with an arrow and deselect hike and select bike, the path lights up and is right by my nomination.

    The adress is Krummenackerstraße 107

  • DeDuckIsDees-INGDeDuckIsDees-ING Posts: 158 ✭✭✭
    edited September 18

    I know this isn’t prp because they are obviously flats but many reviewers are confused about this rule.

    that is why I just wouldn’t mention ‘Backyard’ anywhere.

    would just say it is a nice resting point along a biking path or something :)

  • CipherBlakk-PGOCipherBlakk-PGO Posts: 209 ✭✭✭

    Congrats! Glad you stuck with it! :)

Sign In or Register to comment.