Rejected for Natural Feature? Hilarious

Any suggestions for how I can avoid troll reviewers? Also rejected for private residence before this when it's clearly a public park and I stated as such in the nomination.


  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,336 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It needs an “anchor.” A nomination has to be a manmade, permanent subject; a lovely lawn does not meet that standard. You’re looking for a sign, a shelter (gazebo, pavilion, etc), an athletic field with specific boundaries/goals, or a hardscape (statue, fountain) to show the reviewers ‘THIS is my nomination, in THIS spot, for THIS verifiable reason.’

  • 14FCaliU-PGO14FCaliU-PGO Posts: 3 ✭✭

    Public parks are listed among the criteria. This is also a scenic lookout but there is no good way to show the park and the view in one picture. Would it be better to nominate each bench individually or something? There is no sign at this park as with most around here but it still meets the qualifications (social spot and exercise) and I have gotten others approved without anything that is more of an anchor than the bench(s) in the photo.

  • flatmatt-PGOflatmatt-PGO Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭✭✭

    From the December 2021 AMA:

    Eligibility of parks with no traditional physical markers - If there is a documented park but the park had none of the normal Wayspot objects would this park still be eligible?

    Alright, so yes, they’re still eligible but just make sure you take a photo of the park where: the photo makes the park identifiable to someone who has not been there before. Try capturing enough of the scene so that as someone is walking towards the destination, it’s easy to spot. Note that we plan to restructure the rejection reasons next year, as some no longer apply with the criteria refresh we did a year ago. For example, a rejection simply for being generic isn’t sufficient anymore, what is important is how interesting and relevant it is as a place worthy of adventuring out to.

    Unfortunately, your main photo does not give me a very good picture of the park. I see a hedge and a str*p of grass with two benches, but what seems to be the rest of the park is cut off to the right. I would suggest turning your phone to landscape mode and taking a picture that shows more of the park. You will also need to provide evidence that this is an officially-designated park and not just a random greenspace with a few benches, especially if it isn't marked as a park on Google Maps.

    Having said all that, the above guidance is still relatively new and some reviewers will probably still be expecting a sign for the park. I think there's a good chance you'll still receive a rejection and need to appeal your nomination to Niantic.

  • PepeFuentez-PGOPepeFuentez-PGO Posts: 31 ✭✭

    The short answer is no, you're not going to get past disgruntled/lazy reviewers (which seem to make up the majority of voters these days).

    If it's not a playground or public artwork, it likely wont get accepted.

  • Himillsy-PGOHimillsy-PGO Posts: 166 ✭✭✭✭

    i've had a small public park dinged for "natural feature" as well, when it's obviously a park. they are tough to get through. make sure your supporting photo shows most of the park and consider making a photosphere on google street view. appeal it if you have to. placing the location pin on a bench helps, and so does a strong supporting statement.

    most reviewers are going to be picky about them, or just lazy.

  • OneFromTheSky-PGOOneFromTheSky-PGO Posts: 28 ✭✭

    I would probably reject this on the photo, it's not particularly good. If there is a wider angle to encompass the whole thing that would be better. Almost looks as if something is trying to be deliberately excluded.

Sign In or Register to comment.