Trailhead rejected
Janetx68-PGO
Posts: 82 ✭✭✭
Okay, this one has me baffled. A signed trailhead should have been an easy yes.
Main picture:
Location:
Supplemental:
Link to a municipal trail mail, multiple photospheres all along the trail, location dead on. I'm stumped.
It does sort of solve one mystery--I actually reviewed a POI for this trailhead while mine was languishing in the queue. When nothing ever appeared, I decided maybe something was wrong with the other one that I had missed, so I upgraded mine, with no luck. So there's something about this spot people don't like.
Comments
It all looks good to me. Maybe focus only on the sign so reviewers can see the name of the park clearly?
Uggggh, you may be right. I always try to make stops as attractive as possible, and a close up of a sign is so blah.
The images are not strong. In the primary, the angle is weird, it’s not well centered, and the extra stuff (fence posts, power lines) in the frame is cluttered and confusing. In the secondary the signage is hard to find, though it might be enough if there’s more or less a matching scene in street view.
That doesn’t align with your rejection reasons, though, so I’m not sure. “Other rejection criteria” seems out of place.
Yeah. You can do a photo edit after if you don't like boring signs.
I thought it might be "Other" if reviewers don't zoom in on the sign to see what it is. Maybe they think the nomination is a generic rules sign since you can't really see the trail name right away.
I'd definitely focus on the sign as others have said. You are correct about it being boring. I quite often have to stop myself when it comes to the photo 'This looks better to me vs this isn't what reviewers want to see' even if technically either is perfectly fine for the nomination.