Dog swimming area

Purptacular-PGOPurptacular-PGO Posts: 284 ✭✭✭✭

I submitted this and had it rejected for "not historically or culturally significant" and "Other Rejection Criteria". It is a designated area for pet swimming within a metro park... it is bordered by a fence with benches inside for pet owners to sit to watch while their pets swim. There is no other dog park area in this park.

I thought this checked all the same boxes as traditional dog parks do - and those pretty much receive automatic approval in my local area - so I was not expecting this rejection. I would appreciate suggestions for improvement. I also would be glad to hear from anyone who thinks that this doesn't meet acceptance criteria and why.


Comments

  • MysticCapybara-PGOMysticCapybara-PGO Posts: 25 ✭✭

    Man that's rough, that's a really great submission. I feel like most reviewers are rejecting everything now-a-days for no reason. Maybe it's bots or maybe it's just jealousy.

  • X0bai-PGOX0bai-PGO Posts: 1,667 ✭✭✭✭✭

    “Not historically or culturally significant” is speculated to be an erroneous rejection reason presented when some number reviewers classify the submission as “duplicate.” Is the dog park already a POI?

  • JillJilyJabadoo-PGOJillJilyJabadoo-PGO Posts: 1,082 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Can you take a supporting photo where the sign from the main photo is easier to see? I can see what's probably the sign, but it's not obvious.

    Do you have a dog? Maybe a dog playing in the supporting photo would help. (Ofc, that's just as likely to bring out the "animal" rejections.)

  • Purptacular-PGOPurptacular-PGO Posts: 284 ✭✭✭✭

    @X0bai-PGO That is an interesting thought. There is definitely no existing POI for the dog park, but there is a Wayspot for a nearby trailhead that has a directional arrow for the dog park at the bottom. I suppose some reviewers could have thought the two were too similar? There are three or four reference points on that sign so I personally wouldn't have considered it a duplicate for the dog park, but it makes sense that it could have created confusion for some reviewers.

  • Purptacular-PGOPurptacular-PGO Posts: 284 ✭✭✭✭

    @JillJilyJabadoo-PGO That is a great suggestion. In my original photo I was trying to get a shot showing the long section of fence to help reviewers identify location from satellite, but maybe it is better to use this section to showcase the positive features of the area. I think I will try a supporting photo focusing on the gateway to the dog area, the sign, and the benches.

  • MargariteDVille-INGMargariteDVille-ING Posts: 2,846 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Trying to put myself in the mood of someone who rejected this, what I think is: "Wayspots are supposed to be for humans. How many dog things are going to be let in?"

    So, I suggest naming it "Dog Park Swimming Area", and try to get it labeled on Google Maps. Also, if the park website mentions this, put a link in Supporting Info. I'd also move the humans up in Supporting Info, to give them more umph. The more words you have before mentioning the humans, the less important they seem. "This specialty dog park is a place for pet owners to be social..."

Sign In or Register to comment.