Fifth time rejected

I am so tired of even trying every building gets rejected because of private residence of does not meet acceptance criteria or the picture is upside down i am really wondering if people see a building they automatically say PRP

Before you say picture is bad it is not simple to take a picture from a building like this

This building was part of the tramstation now it is empty and situated next to footpath on a little hill

I feel it is historic enough to meet acceptance criteria but clearly i am the only one


  • Jeroenix-INGJeroenix-ING Posts: 205 ✭✭✭
    edited September 2020

    Very odd indeed, I think this is an excellent candidate. It's even on the historic heritage list.

    As for the photo: it's fine too, but try holding the camera above your head so there's less of the hedge in the foreground.

    Otherwise; keep submitting, because I think historic sites like these are quite eligible.

    I can't **** those signs in the distance. If they pertain to the historic site, those signs should be in the foreground, that'll usally do it. Reviewers love signs. :)

  • Skywalkered-PGOSkywalkered-PGO Posts: 103 ✭✭✭
    edited September 2020

    It should pass with enough effort. Perhaps it's worth trying a different angle, like where the actual pedestrian access is (hopefully there'll be a nice sign as well) - if there isn't a safe access to it, then that might be part of the problem.

    In any case, I would hold off submitting this for a month or two. If this really is the 5th time, then chances are that your local reviewers are sick of seeing it which may lower their ratings. Given time, people may be more forgiving and hopefully gain some fresh reviewers as well.

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 694 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I know you didn't want photo comments, but... Try landscape? Closer and more detailed photo might prevent some of those lazy private residence reviews.


    Nomination seemed fine for me.

  • garfieldfreakje-PGOgarfieldfreakje-PGO Posts: 183 ✭✭✭

    There is no sign and i already tried different angles the first time i only got bad picture while it was fine i really get odd reasons

    I don't see why the footpath could be a problem yes you can't reach the whole building but you can even touch it from the footpath

  • XK150-INGXK150-ING Posts: 81 ✭✭✭
    edited September 2020

    I think vacant buildings nobody can reach aren't great wayspots, myself.

    Maybe you should wait until whoever owns the building decides what they're doing with it.

  • DukeOfBellaire-PGODukeOfBellaire-PGO Posts: 74 ✭✭✭

    While it may meet the basic criteria, the consensus rate will probably remain low for abandon buildings and tumble weeds. The fence barrier tells us that we are not welcome here.

    In USA, I would not want children to loiter around abandon buildings as they are usually not safe with criminals, ****, drug dealers, and destructive vandalism.

    Hard to overcome this criteria rating: Safe Access?

  • FrealafGB-PGOFrealafGB-PGO Posts: 354 ✭✭✭✭

    I think the comments about the fence and hedge are right - try taking the picture with the phone really high and ensure that you can't actually see the hedge or fence in the main picture. I had to do this a few days ago because I wanted to submit an allotment area which had a 7 foot high gate which just screams "keep out" and puts off reviewers even though its accessible to those with a key and perfectly eligible, we all agreed that taking the main picture with the gate featuring prominently would be rejected.. I think its similar for your place.

    Focus your supporting information more on why you think the building is interesting - when was it in use and what value did it bring to the area? Don't mention the footpath as the first thing - it's not the most important. The most important is the history of the place and why you think its cool, so talk about that first.

    Good luck!

  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 768 ✭✭✭✭✭

    an important part of an historical poi is that it is being preserved. in the "what makes a good wayspot" section of help, it says

    • "Historical significance (apart from just being old)"

    if there are no signs and no link you can provide in the supporting information to an effort to preserve this, it is being rejected correctly. i agree the reasons in the email are not very helpful.

  • garfieldfreakje-PGOgarfieldfreakje-PGO Posts: 183 ✭✭✭

    I did put a link where it says what it is that it is part of a tramstation and now recognized as real heritage

  • SPD85-PGOSPD85-PGO Posts: 163 ✭✭✭✭

    I find that a link in the supporting statement is great. As an FYI, During the duplicate submission bug, I submitted a historic structure twice by mistake, the first one was rejected and the second accepted.

    Without having information on the history of the submission, it's hard to tell what to improve. One thing that I've found is to try to emphasize the architectural style. I could provide additional comments if you provide a translation of the description.

  • TorvoTeratos-PGOTorvoTeratos-PGO Posts: 161 ✭✭✭

    The link looks good and looks like it makes this a valid nomination. However, none of that is highlighted that well in your title, description, or even in your supporting info.

    Try something like:

    Title: Historic Tram Station

    Description: Tram depot, circa 1900, listed as a protected monument in 2005 and granted historical status for its architectural heritage in 2010.

    Take out "listed as a protected monument in 2005 and" if that's too many characters.

    Then in supporting information, after you post the building link, instead say something like "granted historical status by the heritage agency for being an example of a rare rural station site". Do leave in the part about it being accessible by the footpath as well because I think that should also help your nom.

Sign In or Register to comment.