Parks rejected
FruSkatteKat-PGO
Posts: 305 ✭✭✭
Just today, I had 2 parks rejected.
The first park is not very big, but it is there none the less. A bench, flower beds and a central tree with decoratively planted Helges.
It's visible on google maps, but it is unnamed as many small parks are in this city.
It looks a bit boring on the main photo, because it is photographed in January.
Rejection criteria:
Natural Feature (no kidding!)
Submitter Identifiable (I am definately not in the picture)
Other Rejection Criteria
Second rejection is also a small park, surrounded by 2 or 3 appartment buildings. It's a public space, with 3 circular areas for different purpose. A playground in one circle, a decorative water fountain in an other circle, and the third circle has a trellis of roses.
It's recognisable on google maps. I focused on the fountain.
Rejection criteria:
Natural Feature (still not kidding!)
Other Rejection Criteria
According to the guidelines parks are eligeble under both exercise and socialising criteria.
Did I miss something here?
Comments
Missing the images and location information? And maybe use of the Nomination Improvement forum?
Probably not.
I think a lot of reviewers are not willing to acceptance a park without very definite signage yet even if the criteria says the opposite.
Give them a year or two :)
Park 1
Description
Small park area for socializing. popular place for new mums to meet up with their babies. also used as a photography spot for weddings as the gray house in the background looks like a small castle.
Google maps
Park 2
Description
fountain in a small park (not running at the moment since its february and too cold) with benches to meet up with friends and neighbours. no PRP, Strandgården are apparment buildings (rentals). Public access. encurrages socializing.
Google maps
Those should probably be accepted but they would have to be presented well, IMO.
The first is a bit of stretch. The second should be fine.
With better pictures they appear eligible. People just don’t want to read that Niantics state small parks and area to gather are eligible without a sign post. Take pictures of the area with the pathways and the benches as a focal point. The one with the rock formation should have that as the focal point I reckon looks more like a place to gather. That’s what I think anyway lol.
You're too fast for me 😄
Thank you for leaving your comments.
And could someone (@NianticAaron , @NianticTintino-ING or @NianticLC maybe) move the thread to the nomination improvement forum, please?
Neither of those look like parks. They both look like landscaping of a larger property; the description of the second one even states that it’s the grounds of the apartment building. Neither one appears to be labeled a park in Google, and maybe they had names in the titles (which are not shown), but in this thread they do not.
A fountain at an apartment building is an eligible subject - just call it a fountain and not a park - but it might require an image with the water to demonstrate its fountain-ness, and probably best to get an image without a shadow across it.
The first one will probably need a sign with a name for the park to demonstrate that it is, indeed, a park. TBH, I don’t think it is a park.
The first one is a tree with some grass around it.
That's not a park, at least not around here.