I’m seeing a lot of “green spaces” nominations
I am seeing a LOT of “green space” nominations recently. Specified playing areas/fields but with no playground equipment or adequate signage.
These are a no right? I mean, they are community areas but there needs to be something specific to photograph right.
I am sorry if this has been answered before but they are cropping up a lot for me and I want to review correctly. I have read what constitutes a valid nomination but some things are a little bit of a grey area in my opinion.
Best Answers
-
TheFarix-PGO Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭✭✭
There needs to be a permanent man-made structure or object, whether it be a sign, viewing stands, goal posts, scoreboard, etc. Otherwise they are just a landscape which should be rejected as a natural feature.
-
TheFarix-PGO Posts: 5,063 ✭✭✭✭✭
No, it doesn't count. That is an unrelated mass produced sign. Unfortunately, I've seen too many of them being submitted as "park signs"
-
NorthSeaPoet-ING Posts: 895 ✭✭✭✭✭
A sign or something man-made, within reason, is needed for the green space. Thr sign at the very least should have the green space's name on it. Otherwise they're to be rejected as a natural feature.
Answers
There needs to be a permanent man-made structure or object, whether it be a sign, viewing stands, goal posts, scoreboard, etc. Otherwise they are just a landscape which should be rejected as a natural feature.
Thank you.
@TheFarix-PGO I reviewed one earlier and there was a sign, but it looked very generic and was pretty much a “clear up dog ****” sign... that doesn’t count does it?
No, it doesn't count. That is an unrelated mass produced sign. Unfortunately, I've seen too many of them being submitted as "park signs"
Thank you. This is what I thought but I thought I would ask you too as you seem to have a lot of good knowledge on the subject.
Sometimes, you just have to accept that you can’t nominate something that would make a good waypoint because there is nothing to photograph.
I just submitted such a potentially confusing submission for review. Object is a man-made Outdoor Ampitheater used for outdoor plays and such and features stage crew structures and a bridge leading to the stage, but photo could plausibly be judged as a natural feature by a speed reviewer. There are no signs, but I attached a supplemental Exhibit of the official College map which marked the area clearly as the Outdoor Amphitheater, as evidence refuting the assertion that this is a random lawn.
I also asked if this was valid, and recieved an answer in the affirmative, which a qualification that clicking the Exhibit's link is unlikely to happen, despite the link serving as confirmatory evidence. I'm expecting a rejection and an approval on appeal. This submission could potentially be used as a honeypot to check reviewers who are rubber stamping rejections without actually reading the entire submission.
It sounds valid. Note there is no appeals process for rejections though!
A sign or something man-made, within reason, is needed for the green space. Thr sign at the very least should have the green space's name on it. Otherwise they're to be rejected as a natural feature.
That is most unfortunate, as I even included a Shakespeare pun in the description!
This type of appeal is absolutely needed to reduce cycle times to approval due to bad/lazy reviewers but would come at a price. Have a three-strikes type policy to disincentivize appealing clearly invalid submissions. Like if a user is adamantly appealing a street sign, ban them from only the submission appeal subforum. The intent would be to trigger manual review of submissions that are on the fence, or can be easily Proven by reading the whole submission.