Monumental trees
TheDutchestPony-PGO
Posts: 50 ✭✭
I’ve seen a lot of trees with signs getting accepted.. Well, the sign is.
However a tree falls under the decline option as being a ‘nature object’ wich would be obvious if it were your average tree.
So now im wondering if monumental trees are eligible when they dont have a sign?
They arent planted there for a person or special occasion, its an old neigborhood for rich people that decided they wanted special trees in their park and now they are over 100 years old and on the herritage list for trees.
Basically Full scale bonsai trees
Example:
They are registered after meeting the next requirements (Google translate)
There are three conditions that trees must meet in order to be included in the National Register of Monumental Trees: 1. The tree must be at least 80 years old. 2. The tree must be sufficiently healthy and have a life expectancy of at least 10 years. 3. The tree must also meet one of the following criteria: - determines the image of the environment; - is of cultural-historical value: location is an important place in (local) history; - is dendrologically valuable: rare species or variety; - is it scientifically or ecologically valuable: is it a mother tree, does the tree contain special plants and/or animals; - has rarity value: size, height, age or otherwise striking in a provincial or national perspective.
Comments
This is going to be a natural feature rejection. I think the difference to Niantic is the sign has some educational value but the tree with no sign explaining about it doesn't.
Also, you could imagine people seeing these kinds of "special" trees as wayspots and the proceeding to submit absolutely every slightly interesting tree in their area because all trees must be valid, right?
Without a plaque they are a simple 1* Natural Feature. They don't meet any eligibility criteria whatsoever. Even with a plaque in most cases you would be accepting the plaque as opposed to the tree. I view these types of nominations in the same way as memorial benches. Unless they represent a significant person/event then they are fairly simple rejections for me. I expect the nominator to put forward a good verifiable case as to the significance. Sadly most nominators fail to do this.
Unless they are for someone significant, I reject them.
Im not referring to memorial trees or whatever
These are trees that have significant value over your average tree because of age and other standards.. Not related to any person whatsoever.
Some have signs stating basic info like: species of tree and estimated age, of which the sign would be accepted… Like in a botanical garden..
Hence my point that the waypoint could give the same information a sign would about a tree that, in my opinion, would qualify as a waypoint if it had a sign.
I understood, but that's not what Niantic wants. By visiting the tree, without a sign, you would not get that information. You could only get it by reading the information in the game. Should that be enough? Maybe, but it's not what Niantic has decided.
This section is Criteria Clarification. If your goal is to try to persuade Niantic that they should allow these types of trees with no signs, you should probably post in General Discussion instead.
Well there isn’t a specific rule that say trees should be rejected.
They should if generic trees, for obvious reason
But nature objects are presumably declined as being non-permanent however I doubt they leave the sign after the tree dies, so why are those with signs allowed?
waypoint requirements
Monumental trees:
So i’m not debating for them, I think they already should be accepted
I’ll just go for an upgrade and I’ll defend my case, probably easiest way to get an answer
Found this
Natural features were previously explicitly excluded from eligibility but are now listed as examples of good Wayspots. Can you provide more information about any requirements for these locations?
Good question! It’s true that these are now up for consideration as eligible Wayspots. Famous waterfalls and lagoons, or popular cenotes and lakes are great places to explore. When considering these, think about whether there’s a specific location you can direct people to: a sign, an informational board, etc. Additionally, think about whether this natural feature is “just a random rock/tree” (which would be a poor nomination) or whether it’s a named feature with a famous backstory and/or a history (a great nomination!).
Like I stated, they are not just a random tree in my opinion.
So obviously not a great nomination but I dont see how they arent on the same level as trailmarkers.
"When considering these, think about whether there’s a specific location you can direct people to: a sign, an informational board, etc. "
That says it right there. Need a marker at the tree. As a hiker who lives in the countryside, I appreciate "natural features", but Niantic says they need a sign to be the wayspot.
"Additionally, think about whether this natural feature is..."
Notice "Additionally". That means the tree should be important *in addition* to having a sign, not as an alternative to having a sign. That's to prevent every single sign with a tree species name on it in a botanical garden from being accepted, not to allow trees without signs.
Actually, that quote doesn't mandate a sign. It's simply pointing out that a sign would be the preferred anchor point ... for reasons we're already well familiar with. If a sign was mandated, there would have been no actual update to the natural feature criteria, because all these signs were always eligible.
They're just trying to point out the most likely method to getting something approved, which is using the sign. So: look for one, consider using one if it's there. AND the tree has to be famous or notable somehow.
But you do have the legitimate option to nominate the tree itself with no sign. However, all the burden is on you to defend it, so you need to really make your case. A simple sentence or two won't cut it, and even then you'll get people operating under the old natural feature rejection criteria.
Can't agree with everything in this comment enough. Signs are not explicitly required (this is Wayfarer, not Signfarer), although they do go a drastic way to "prove" significance.
We don't have such trees in my region, so if I reviewed one I would look for some kind of article explaining the cultural context and one "proving" the location of the nomination is accurate and not just a random tree in somebody's yard. I would be very dubious seeing it and almost auto reject, but I'd be willing to approve based on what you've shared.
Hmm. I see you're right. There's nothing in the Rejection Criteria section of the Wayfarer guide about Natural Feature. Cool. I wonder why they left it as an option in Rejection Reason menu?
Maybe because they still want generic natural features to be rejected, but then again Niantic has never been strong with consistency in language of criteria and rejections.
Agreed, but then they could just use "other" like generic businesses. Leaving it there made me think the natural feature criteria update was because people were rejecting natural features like waterfalls even when they had signs, so the rejection for natural features without signs was still proper.
After all, we don't know if your story is true. If there is a sign on that tree, more judges will believe your story and you will be more likely to be approved.
Since this tree is registered as a Monumental Tree - your Supporting Information should include a link to its registration. The tree's web mention will include its address and a picture.
I'm not saying it would be accepted, even with this website proof of being a registered Monumental Tree. But it would give you a better shot at acceptance.
In the U.S. there's a society for trees over 500 years old. My grandmother registered an oak tree on her property, and named it after me because I'm the one who most liked to climb it. It is listed on the web site. But I don't think it would be a good wayspot. It is not a place to be social, doesn't encourage exercise, and it looks a lot like other oak trees in the area - not something you'd get out and explore.
Actually this forum would be more for Niantic to answer a clarification on criteria and is proper place.
That said, I just dont see it happening without some sort of sign.