Why is this nomination repeatedly rejected ?
Derechoes-PGO
Posts: 34 ✭✭
My initial nomination was titled : Rathbun Dam Outlet Spillway
The nominated image supplied for that initial nomination was this one: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/IzO-AS6lnOEECOOdUpALpbcZllCsHkTpgCj5nhmNKvyYe305xiauNMKnIPdpSnk_YsYtnOScLv7mtLUvJyd2r70FWw
It was rejected due to people being visible in the image, this location is a popular POI in a State Park.
This was my second nomination title: Rathbun Dam Outlet. Due to the initial attempt being rejected because of people visible in the image I kept checking the location for a day when there were very few or no other people present, needless to say that took a while.
That nomination attempt was rejected due to the nomination appearing "to be of a natural landscape".
This was the image provided with that second nomination: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Tz7tySivhSDDlIJs6Q1n30bS7Cww7IUgppBAHPcJCYsJzNth2Qb9dJsft5JOnMQ1cc8nKUUV5BqNTumqQUdtQRlR
Obviously I climbed the stairway to the observation pad of the outlet to obtain that image, FYI I am legally handicapped due to a motorcycle accident 5 years ago and this was not a 'walk in the park' however as you can see I did make it and lived to tell about it, so obviously it is reasonably safe to access.
On my third, recent attempt at nominating this, in my opinion obviously eligible point of interest, this was my title: Rathbun Dam Outlet & Spillway.
This was the image I provided with that third nomination: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VcUvLX7_KQKRkGJ0TolxjrtpI8OTacZH1huOGEnsWI0whrI_6WlpSLp9zDs3SBljQrLSQajMpljxrOP57Ci4jOE-PMad
That nomination was rejected for the following reason: This nomination has been rejected due to the following reason: "The real-world location of the nomination could not be confirmed to have an acceptable pedestrian pathway leading up to it, Nomination does not meet acceptance criteria."
These are the three Supplemental Info images provided in the order as sent above.
This is the Google Maps Sat. image of this location: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8223833,-92.8925176,237m/data=!3m1!1e3
Note: I hope this works, I have never linked a Gmaps image before and am flying blind here.
If the image is visible as hoped, you will clearly be able to see that the point of interest nominated has direct pedestrian access trails leading up to both sides of the 'Outlet & Spillway' structure then intersecting with concrete staircases ascending both sides to the observation platform at the head of the structure.
Those trails and staircases are what I used to access the fore mentioned observation pad.
This point of interest is located in so named "Outlet Park", a fairly large public access state park constructed for the large number of visitors who visit this location to view the structure itself and fish along the spillway.
Adjacent to the large parking area located near the Outlet you can see an information & map kiosk as well as restroom facilities.
II have also provided descriptions as to what this facility is, and even why it is eligible per wayfarer criteria, obviously to no avail, why is this nomination being continuously rejected ?
FYI this outlet structure an its associated dam are part of a historical government project to control flooding and provide water for hundreds of communities in Southern & central Iowa, as well as provide recreational waters for a very extensive area beyond our states borders.
Comments
Well, I obviously screwed up the third info pic, it is the same as the second, however here it is for posterity.
The reason it gets rejected is because it doesn't meet criteria.
Why does it not meet criteria ?
Per- Niantic Wayfarer Clarifications: January 2020:
Parks and items within Parks
I'd say this massive permanent structure of human construction makes for a point of interest located in a park named and created after and for it pretty well fits the description of something "Visually Distinct Within A Park"
That combined with it being : A cool piece of 'unique architecture' of Historical & community significance ( it is an integral component of a works project built and designed to control historic flooding as well as provide a water supply for hundreds of communities in Southern Iowa, there are also hundreds of 'blue water tower wayspots' stretching for miles linked to this POI ) as well as being utilized for recreational purposes giving it cultural significance meets a couple of criteria
It is also an 'adventurous tourist attraction' to boot with its associated trails and adjoining walkways staircase's and fishing along the spillway.
That combined with the spectacle of the water pouring down the spillway and fish flying through the air when the gates of the outlet are opened to release excess water is an event that always attracts a crowd of spectators making it a POI that many locals direct or bring visitors to see and explore.
And most importantly it has DIRECT, SAFE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.
If you ask me it checks off the Niantic Wayfarer criteria boxes in several important major categories !
So once again, WHY do YOU say it does not meet criteria ?
I would makr this with a low score as it appears to be just a bit of manmade concrete spillway. I can see nothing of interest I would vote up in this picture.
On first glance it looks like generic infrastructure and as such doesn't meet the criteria.
It looks like a generic slipway - if you can evidence it as being architecturally special (evidence of awards etc.) then yes it could qualify. If you can evidence it's historically important (is it on your local historic building register?) then yes it could pass, but it looks just like any other modern slipway to me. Flood defences to control historic flooding doesn't make the flood defences historically interesting.
If it's an adventurous tourist attraction I assume you can link to a local tourist guide? It might sway reviewers, but it doesn't exactly look like a tourist destination, or particularly adventurous - it looks like a generic piece of infrastructure.
I'd need a lot of good evidence to pass this. Is there an information board explaining how it works, why it was installed etc. ? That might stand a better chance.
At first glance I would also reject this as a standard piece of infrastructure and move on. I don't find anything interesting about a spillway, it doesn't exactly look like a fine piece of art. If you could pursuade reviewers that it IS, provide as much information and history as you can. And if it's really this culturally (not industrially, I don't think that's relevant) important, a sign would do wonders. Since there is none, it may as well be just another spillway.
Because it is an ordinary spillway and is part of the infrastructure of a damn. There is nothing that is architecturally interesting about it. There is not a single acceptance criteria that it meets.
>"At first glance I would also reject this as a standard piece of infrastructure and move on."
You mean like a 'water tower' or maybe say a bridge, swimming pool or a police & fire station etc. etc. ? I myself am given what looks like a pile of scrap metal or , some unidentifiable paint spill considered art to review now and then, however I respect the fact that someone took the time to go to this POI and nominate it, due to that fact I look beyond my own personal opinion and gauge the POI on its merits and criteria eligibility, just because I or someone else thinks it sucks does not make it ineligible.
> "Because it is an ordinary spillway and is part of the infrastructure of a damn."
'D. A. M.' not damn, as for a reply to your statement, See above.
And it is not just an 'ordinary spillway' the spillway is part of the assembly, the nominated structure is the actual DAM OUTLET itself, that being the massive concrete and steel structure pictured with staircases on either side, an observation platform at the top of the incline and a steel fencing atop the retaining walls to prevent people from falling in or doing something really stupid like jumping into the outlet.
>"I would makr this with a low score as it appears to be just a bit of manmade concrete spillway."
To be specific the 'SPILLWAY" itself is not constructed of concrete, it is compressed soil lined with 'rip rap', shock rock etc., the concrete and steel structure is the 'Dam Outlet', the spillway is basically a 'trough' to guide the released water exiting the Outlet away in a manner to control erosion and flooding.
Since you brought it up where in the Wayfarer criteria are POI's constructed of "manmade concrete" deemed to be ineligible ? you would be eliminating a lot of structures, buildings, art pieces, swimming pools, tennis courts etc. etc. etc. if that is the case.
The historical and cultural aspects of this point of interest are known by those who live in this area and well beyond , and could be linked to for those interested, however as all of you should probably know by now there is only so much room on a nomination submission, and be honest, the majority of you would never bend a finger to click on it anyway making it a complete waste of time.
I also noticed those of you who have commented avoided any comment on the reasons the three nominations were rejected, That being 'People in the image', a 'natural landscape not man made' , and the latest 'NO DIRECT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS' all of which were obviously total B.S. !
Yes - like most bridges they're basically not eligible unless there is something special about.
Yes it's an individual feature within a park, but that doesn't mean all individual features within a park are automatically eligible, it's simply to clarify that as well as the park itself being eligible individual features may be. It doesn't mean any or all visually distinct features within a park are eligible - a generic bench in a park isn't eligible, nor are fountains, nor would most washrooms in a park be eligible. Being in a park doesn't make something eligible that would be ineligible elsewhere.
Yes you've been given incorrect rejection reasons but it's still ineligible unless you can provide proof that it's architecturally special or historically important.
I agree with the majority here: this is not eligible. But to add something constructive as well: @Derechoes-PGO, you mentioned there's an observation platform on top of the structure. Does it have any signs or information displays? It might be eligible if it does
@Derechoes-PGO
>>"At first glance I would also reject this as a standard piece of infrastructure and move on."
>You mean like a 'water tower' or maybe say a bridge, swimming pool or a police & fire station etc. etc. ?
Water tower, bridge, yes, that's about right. Or a spillway. Any piece of infrastructure that has to have something 'extra' for it to be eligible. Also notice the words "at first glance" please. It's the submitter's job to convince reviewer that it HAS 'that something extra' and I am not reviewing, nor have reviewed, your candidate.
>I myself am given what looks like a pile of scrap metal or , some unidentifiable paint spill considered art to review now and then, however I respect the fact that someone took the time to go to this POI and nominate it, due to that fact I look beyond my own personal opinion and gauge the POI on its merits and criteria eligibility, just because I or someone else thinks it sucks does not make it ineligible.
Here it sounds like you're bringing up your own merit as a reviewer to state that all other reviewers who reviewed your candidate do the opposite. Most reviewers think the umpteenth playground or trailmarker suck. Yet most come online because they are accepted.
You asked why this gets rejected, and people here helped you by giving their opinion on the matter, and even helped you with tips on future submissions (namely: provide as much information as you can to reviewer). I am not convinced if Niantic says 'any visibly distinct feature in parks goes' they also mean the toilet stalls and the dog poop stand, for example. People simply don't agree with you on this candidate, which looks like standard infrastructure.
Oh, and I don't "work hard to claim otherwise", I simply disagree. And apparently so do the majority of reviewers of your candidate. It's not the people in the forum you need to convince. Look, Wayfarer is not that black and white. It's not like the guidelines are perfect enough to get a 100% desired result, the world, people and objects are too diverse and each person is different in their attitude towards POIs. Wayfarer is based on reviewers opinions, guided by the guidelines set out for them, and those guidelines are (and have always been) open for interpretation to some degree. It can't be 100% airtight. Nowadays it's way better than years before though.
Does anything you said above honestly make sense to you ?
>"Yes it's an individual feature within a park, but that doesn't mean all individual features within a park are automatically eligible, it's simply to clarify that as well as the park itself being eligible individual features may be."
Once again per Wayfarer Criteria: "Parks and items within Parks (signs, gazebos, chess boards, fountains, sculptures, etc.)"
Note, check it for yourself, you will find it under : "Niantic Wayfarer Clarifications January 2020" in the 'HELP' file.
As I have pointed out repeatedly and as should be more than obvious from the images I supplied as well as the Google Maps Sat view , This ITEM is exceptionally VISUALLY DISTINCT, and it is LOCATED WITHIN A PARK, a park by the way that was created for this DISTINCT one of a kind ITEM and even NAMED AFTER IT.
Nowhere in the clarification I quoted does it mention anything that would give rise to the twisted logic you have created out of thin air !
>"I agree with the majority here: this is not eligible. But to add something constructive as well: @Derechoes-PGO, you mentioned there's an observation platform on top of the structure. Does it have any signs or information displays? It might be eligible if it does"
>I agree with the majority here: this is not eligible.
Other than the 10' X 3' signs at each entrance of the park that say 'OUTLET PARK' there is an info kiosk and a restroom facility just a bit to the east of the OUTLET walkway itself which has info relating to the outlet and its history etc., maps of Outlet Park itself as well as maps of the entire lake area and its facilities etc. etc. and an assortment of other maps, guides blah blah.
As for the Platform itself, there is no sign located there, as can be CLEARLY SEEN in two of the images I provided in my original post.
There are 4 large red signs two to each side of the Outlet located along the staircases on the chain link fencing (you can see them in the images provided) which say WARNING: Siren will sound several minutes prior to increased water flow., to be honest I cannot remember verbatim what else they say other than something along the line of, be ready to run like hell if you are stupid enough to still be standing by the waters edge when that happens. LOL !
Ok, now, back to the serious stuff.
Other than your own personal bias why is it not eligible ?
What Niantic Wayfarer rule declares it ineligible or 'taboo' ? here, I'll make it effortless and simple for you:
Low quality nominations
Now, Which one of the above do you believe applies to the Item/point of interest I nominated ?
If I used the personal bias of 'It don't interest me so trash it' I see expressed by others on here I have to admit a lot of CRITERIA ELIGIBLE nominations would get trash canned by me as well.
However as I have stated in another post, I do not do that, I review each and every nomination by its merits and its eligibility per Wayfarer criteria, even if I personally do not find it interesting or boring etc.
Sometimes I run across a nomination where I do not understand the language, but the intent of the nomination is obvious, as stated, I judge it by merits and eligibility, than vote upon it just as I would any other.
I also run across some that I do not speak or understand the language where I cannot figure out just what is even being nominated, when I encounter such nominations I leave a message saying I do not speak the language and do not understand the nomination, that being the case I chose to SKIP this nomination and allow those who can to review it fairly, then I do as I stated.
I do not consider my fellow 'players' 'nominators' or reviewers to be some enemy to fight against or diss, I consider them friends engaged in an activity we all enjoy working to construct a global playing field of OUR OWN MAKING that we all can share, explore and play on with others.
"Individual features within a park, as long as they’re visually distinct." still require some sort of cultural, historic or communal value - unless otherwise explicitly stated by Niantic, eg. footbridges (which I am still of the opinion that was a mistake on Niantic's behalf because most of which are generic infrastructure, but I'm digressing).
You mentioned "cool piece of 'unique architecture' of Historical & community significance", but the outlet does not have interesting architecture to an objective viewer, and it appears no information on its architecture or design was provided. Someone asked earlier if links to travel guides mentioning the outlet could be supplied, no links were provided. Can you name the architect? Can you describe why the architect was notable and why this outlet in particular represents a notable piece of that architect's work? If you can answer these three questions then you might have a chance for success.
Engineering-wise, it serves a purpose, but that doesn't immediately make it a point of interest. The dam itself does have historical significance in the sense of its reason to be constructed (flood control with the additional benefit of recreation activities), but that is in relation to the dam, not one of its outlets.
An outlet is a generic piece of infrastructure and is not mentioned anywhere when performing a quick Google search on Rathbun Lake's significance. If the outlet itself were significant, it would have an information sign explaining why it is notable and its history.
Realistically and as stated by everybody else in this thread, the outlet is simply not eligible. It is generic infrastructure. That is why it has already been rejected three times and that is why everybody else is providing the same feedback.
It's also interesting to note that feedback in this thread has been given by many people from all over the world, all with their cultural biases and experiences, and all agree that it is not eligible.
>"You mentioned "cool piece of 'unique architecture' of Historical & community significance", but the outlet does not have interesting architecture to an objective viewer, and it appears no information on its architecture or design was provided."
Words have meanings, case in point 'architecture' : Per Merriam Webster - ar·chi·tec·ture - 1: the art or science of building, specifically : the art or practice of designing and building structures and especially habitable ones
As for the historical & community significance, this entire water control Dam and its associated lake were designed and constructed as part of a historical Federal Government "Works Project Program" with the intention of controlling destructive flooding in this area caused by the Chariton River.
The resulting Lake and its surrounding park created by this construction are utilized for, A. Flood Control , B. Recreational purposes, such as fishing , boating , camping etc. , C. A Water supply resource that serves A MULTITUDE OF COMMUNITIES across Southern Iowa and their surrounding areas through the RRWA: Rathbun Regional Water Association. ( if you were ever to visit Southern Iowa and travel around for a bit you will inevitably see several of the RRWA Water Towers, easily Identifiable by being strikingly Blue In color, a color that by sheer coincidence matches the well known blue color of 'Pokestops' exactly ! )
LINK to map of the RRWA service area: https://www.rrwa.net/CMDocs/RRWA/Map2019.pdf
Anyone HONESTLY interested in the above information could easily have found it by doing a simple GOOGLE SEARCH, as I noted in a previous post, we are restricted to a limited space on the Nomination presentation page, and as I also noted on that same previous post, providing a link to such info is a veritable waste of time because if said reviewers were being honest they would admit very very few of them would ever put up the effort to lift a finger and click that link.
Exactly what do you mean by 'An Objective Viewer' ?
Once again WORDS HAVE MEANINGS , and once again Per Mr. M. Webster : Definition of objective ; a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Therein lies the very problem here, YOU and your ilk are judging THIS nomination through a perspective DISTORTED by YOUR PERSONEL FEELINGS AND PREJUDICES.
You and your ilk are NOT being OBJECTIVE VIEWERS / REVIEWERS at all, for some reason you concoct criteria and rules out of thin air, or outright lie to justify your biased disdain for an obviously ELIGIBLE and ACCEPTABLE POINT OF INTEREST !
Which is precisely the reason I ask, WHY ?
Jesus, man, calm down. You asked the forum why your nomination was rejected and people told you. It's not eligible. Still, you go on tirades attacking and accusing everyone of being biased, prejudiced and a lot of other things just because you cannot accept what everybody here is telling you.
By the way, it's funny that you're the one quoting definitions and obsessing about individual words, when you're the one who can't understand that just because visually distinct individual features in parks are acceptABLE, they're not to be automatically accepted. They're just not automatic rejections. They still have to have something about them that makes them eligible.
Now, before launching into another rant, please take a step back and try to consider what everyone's telling you here.
@NianticCasey-ING I think it is safe to close this topic since the OP is unwilling to accept feedback on why their nomination was rejected and would rather argue instead.
>"Jesus, man, calm down. You asked the forum why your nomination was rejected and people told you. It's not eligible."
AGAIN, WHY is it not eligible ?
Utilizing NIANTIC/WAYFARER criteria, and not your own personal bias, show me where this Nominated point of interest is INELIGIBLE per criteria ?
After all that is what we are required to go by in nominating and reviewing a POI and its associated nomination.
If I screwed up and missed something in the criteria that proves me incorrect in my belief that this structure is eligible show me so I will not waste my time nominating such in the future.
@Derechoes-PGO We're running around in circles here, and your tone is becoming increasingly condescending towards reviewers who actually are helping you by voicing their opinions on the candidate, and giving you tips to better formulate your case on the next submission attempt.
Again: you need to persuade the reviewers instead of venting your anger here. Good luck with your spillway.
Again: you need to persuade the reviewers
How do I persuade the reviewers when they are rejecting the nomination using reasons outside of criteria or distorting criteria to reject it despite it being well within parameters ?
Case in point the initial nomination was rejected because there were people present in the image, this is a public park and this facility gets extensive use around the clock especially during the fishing seasons, per criteria people are allowed in the image as long as they are not the focus of the image which these obviously were not. Image described: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/IzO-AS6lnOEECOOdUpALpbcZllCsHkTpgCj5nhmNKvyYe305xiauNMKnIPdpSnk_YsYtnOScLv7mtLUvJyd2r70FWw=s0
That being the case on my following attempts I did my best to eliminate that reason for rejection by waiting until a time I could catch the area with little to no visitors present.
On the second attempt it was rejected for being an image of a natural landscape, despite the the outlet and its fencing and upper deck pad being prominent in the image and the surrounding park landscape naturally in the background. Image at issue: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/IzO-AS6lnOEECOOdUpALpbcZllCsHkTpgCj5nhmNKvyYe305xiauNMKnIPdpSnk_YsYtnOScLv7mtLUvJyd2r70FWw=s0
For some reference I was inspired to try the above mentioned image because upon nominating this structure located in another park several miles away I had success and this nomination was accepted: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/bqboEG0BTsQZqmcPv-zQaXWJWPjqGj3b_PmbhFfRo-N_XxNt1a6ZmaZ7Ky3izO8UbGUgZXz6ep0gJaGaLZDuBWkX3fDf=s0
Now the third attempt was rejected due to 'no apparent pedestrian access leading directly to the location', despite the fact there obviously is in the image provided as well as the Google Maps Sat View. Image at issue: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/VcUvLX7_KQKRkGJ0TolxjrtpI8OTacZH1huOGEnsWI0whrI_6WlpSLp9zDs3SBljQrLSQajMpljxrOP57Ci4jOE-PMad=s0
Google maps sat view: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8223292,-92.8929153,71m/data=!3m1!1e3
I am considering taking my vid cam and making a walk through vid of the location then linking to it, do you think that might work, or will it be a total waste of time and effort because someone pushes that single reject star instead of taking the time to give the nomination a fair review ?
This is honestly not some boring point of interest, yeah it has its days when not much is going on especially if its hot and the sun is bearing down and you don't feel like getting out of the car or off the bike and taking a stroll to check it out, however it also has its days of awesomeness !
After some heavy rains and the lake has to be lowered to maintain nominal level, and they open the gates up and let er rip, it;s pretty damn spectacular , and an event that always attracts a big crowd, this location is truly one of the sites in the area locals take visitors from out of town to see.
Even when the flow is not all that spectacular there is still something mesmerizing about watching the turbulence at the base of the outlet and the fish jumping and flying out of it.
Another special by invitation only event that is interesting is the annual Corps Inspection of the Gate and Dam Structure, I was a marine technician for 25 plus years until a motorcycle spill ended my career, and did all of the maintenance, servicing and rigging on the local Corps of Engineers water craft, I had the pleasure of joining the inspection team on a few occasions during the annual event.
You would be amazed at what gets caught up in the gate screens.
So, going throught the 6 questions asked of a revieiwer, how would you score them? I'm particularly thinking of "Historic or Cultural Significance". I can't see any "Historic or Cultural Significance" to this, so on that alone I would mark it down.
Rathbun Lake was constructed and is operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Located at Chariton River mile marker 142, approximately 7 miles north of Centerville, Iowa, in Appanoose County, it is one of the largest lakes in Iowa. The lake was constructed to control flooding, provide recreation opportunities, abate stream pollution, fish and wildlife enhancement, and maintain minimum stream flow on the Chariton, Missouri, and Mississippi Rivers. The Chariton and South Fork of the Chariton River are the major sources of water flowing into Rathbun Lake.
The construction of Rathbun Dam and Reservoir was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-780). Construction of the dam and embankment began in September 1964. The dam itself is rolled earthfill construction and is 10,129 feet long, 30 feet wide at the top, and rises 100 feet above the streambed. Operation as a multi-purpose unit began November 1969 and the top of multi-purpose pool (904 msl) was reached on October 10, 1970. Rathbun Lake was dedicated July 31, 1971 with President Richard Nixon being the keynote speaker.
Using the crietria that you pinpointed how would this POI be any different than a 'Water Tower' ?
As I noted in another post, if this integral component should fail it would have a massive direct effect on the the associated lake and its various uses, be it a water supply for a huge area of southern Iowa, flood control and recreational use on the lake itself, one or even more water towers could fail and be isolated by control valves with little effect on the rest of the system this outlet is the only one, should it fail it would have a huge, possibly even catastrophic effect on the entire system.
The structure you see in the Wiki image above is actually part of the outlet itself, it is the control tower, however it is not safely accessible nor is it open to the public as is the 'Outlet' Itself on the opposite side of the dam.
I am also unaware that every nominated POI have historical and cultural significance to be eligible, if that is the case I would question how an artifact such as a simple park sign, trail marker etc. are eligible ?
Beyond their bearing the name of a given park, church, town, housing development, establishment etc. what historical and cultural significance do they have ?
Were they to somehow vanish, there would be very little to no effect on the POI's they were associated with, the park would still exist and be fully functional, as would the church, town, housing development etc., they are in effect just a component of a much larger structure as is the outlet, however unlike the outlet their loss would not have a direct immediate effect on the structure with which they are associated.
Why would the outlet structure have any less cultural and historical significance than those signs ?
You can fight it all you want but when majority of people say yea it dosnt meet criteria cause its just a generic object that tousands exist around the world (spillway) it doesnt meet criteria theres a good chance that shockingly it doesnt meet criteria. youve been given several reasons why it doesnt meet criteria. one generic object, two it doesnt realy have historical signifance. and thats just what i saw quickly glanceing over this post. it has no real identifying features it wasnt made by any well known arcitect. it litarly is just a plain and simple spill way you can find at any dam.
moral of story if you come asking for help on something and everyone tells you same answer theres a huge chance thats the correct answer. no matter how much you argue or how mad you get that wont change the fact. and expescaly with it is a user voted system and the users are majority saying yea it wont fit what we need it will never go trough.
I was in agreement with most of the people saying that this didn't meet the criteria; however, your more recent post finally indicates that there is some historical importance to the site. However, it would be hard to find a good spot to anchor it. My recommendation would be to try to find a dedication plaque (which are common on these types of facilities), use a picture of that and in the description, state that it was dedicated by then President Nixon in 1971. Then in the supporting information provide a link and provide a little additional context about its role in your community.
There's still no guarantee that it would be accepted; however, that would give you a better chance than just submitting a spillway.
There is actually such a site, with 'Plaque' dedicated to the 'historic dedication' of this lake/project not far from this POI's location called "Rathbun Lake Dedication Site", I already nominated it (successfully) and several POI's surrounding it in the park named after it. In fact it was the first nomination I made upon being allowed to do so, Link To associated Image : https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/p9UNO8QvBkiticlexXwyCYxJml55gedc7d9JZETcQ4wSwe76UL4hAwP5myd18JBn4owQ1O_6CSjF1ga2xNV8LxroEg=s0
I long felt it should have been a 'wayspot' from the outset and took it upon myself to personally correct that oversight.
I have a question for any and all interested, while performing reviews this morning I ran across a nomination that gave me an idea I hope may change those opposed to the POI at issue's eligibility.
I noticed there is a category under the heading of "structure" for DAM.
My question being that since 'Rathbun Dam' itself is so huge, and its structural design would appear to be a grassy hill in any image taken of it, would this POI be acceptable if nominated under the 'TITLE' Rathbun Dam' ?
The reason I ask this is because it is obviously a major component of the dam itself, and is in fact the ONLY point of the entire structure that is legally and safely accessible to and by the general public, which is why the park and associated walkway, Staircase & Observation deck were constructed around this POI .
I would of course mention this in such a nominations supp info if that would actually help.
A little feedback on such an attempt would be greatly appreciated.
The What is it section is not a list of eligible items. I know that's very counterintuitive, people have been asking for them to add more applicable items and remove ineligible ones for a long time now.
Just adding to that, a prime example is that Primary and Secondary Schools are listed in the "What Is it?" section. Yet they are explicitly prohibited. Therefore what is listed isn't indicative of what is eligible.
They do need to add more 'applicable Items' for instance park shelters of various types and kinds as well as sports fields, courts, whatever.
And buildings as well, for instance a community theater would be a nice addition to that category.
What irks me is this is eligible and was accepted with no prob. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/NkImxp91gkd-j65h7gmupQl6MeaMCojyssXe2Q3ehfj3xaLpbxLITbEsV0IAVMw5cRMaqz1oU8gEwAm95cFCOzfUVTg=s0
But this interesting POI less than 100 feet away was rejected. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/2huHSIXivZcVRRfRLd5Dm4Asoa9Hs6s8kTFwFAOHlIE9_5cfsdLgz0fqqFVhW148f9zwHTFmQFFnYBPGcGsm6LkQpBo=s0
This is the same object above from a distance away. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/TMuMx8LmamPwE9_ZK33u946_yX-0LdCgzTGILy6xvLkTtjjxeHokMpbrOi1smqNFIPlDe92Xai_Ujgivll6P17Xj4w=s0
What is it you ask ?
It was a specially built structure designed to assist handicapped or special needs people easily and safely load and unload from boats/watercraft of various sizes prior to and after launch and recovery.
Now due to my occupation I travel by this area quite frequently, especially during the boating season and beyond thanks to fishermen and waterfowl hunters.
I have seen this handicapped assist ramp being used on many occasions even during those early spring and late fall fishing/hunting seasons. That nearby baseball/ sports field,,,, I cannot recall ever seeing it being used in this century, and I have trouble recalling it being used for anything but a tent site during one music event held at the Dedication Park in the 1990's.
Yet it is now a wayspot, simply because it has what I believe is called a 'batting cage' located on it, there is no discernible diamond left, it disappeared decades ago.
That **** ramp is fairly unique I have discovered, my friends in the Corps of Engineers are proud of it and have received many letters from people who have utilized it over the years thanking them for constructing it and making the job of taking a disabled friend or family member for a nice ride on the lake much safer and easier.
Yet despite its obvious benefits to the community and residing in a park with obvious safe ped access, it has been rejected twice.
That old batting cage, accepted first try.
As was this fine example of an eligible wayspot which is a GYM by the way. https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/OQbAEytRSyOUKlqma57GKU1NaYv8pk4e6maIDAW5M282cF05fZhztYEZDBOAx_IiAhvlaMZDTguFfOQiY1VzoZX8wL8=s0
What was it one person who replied to me said, "I would makr this with a low score as it appears to be just a bit of manmade concrete spillway." obviously one mans field of dreams is another's bit of concrete spillway.
A purpose built access ramp for disabled access is still just a ramp, just as a set of stairs for abled body access is just a set of stairs, neither would be good candidates and should be rejected.
Is it a benefit to disabled people, undoubtedly, is it a worthwile POI for a wayspot, not in the slightest.
While recently discussing the POI at issue here and its continued rejection by,, 'reviewers' with some of my Corps of Engineers friends, one of who is also a player (sub 40 level ) she suggested I refer to it as a "Trail Foot Bridge" instead of the Dam Outlet or spillway, and she's right, the staircases and the bridge/platform at the apex are actually a bridge between the East & West Outlet Park trails which are segregated by the spillway and Chariton River.
In fact until this 'Bridge' was constructed the engineers utilized a cable car system that still exist not far from the outlet while performing general maintenance and inspections of pumping and testing equipment on either side of the river.
The very reason these staircases and deck were built was to provide a safe pedestrian access from one side of the park to the other by those traversing the trail system that extends throughout this park and adjoining parks that surround the lake, a fact I was unaware of until this conversation with my C.O.E friends.
You don't have to explain here why you're nominating those things. No one here will review your nominations, people can tell you only what they think about it.