Picnic Area At County Park Does Not Meet Criteria?

Comments

  • RGood-PGORGood-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    I’m curious, what was the cause for rejection? I could see it failing due to lack of cultural value. I’m not sure that a picnic table in and of itself meets the criteria. I think this is one that the right group of reviewers would accept.

  • Geosafe1-PGOGeosafe1-PGO Posts: 10 ✭✭

    It was just “Does not meet criteria “ was all I got.

    My nomination includes the fact that the park was made from a giant landfill, which to me makes it pretty significant. I may try to resubmit with more details about the ex landfill and the fact that it is not a natural feature, it’s a giant man made trash pile.

  • RGood-PGORGood-PGO Posts: 24 ✭✭

    If the park has no other notable features (such as a playground, pavilion, etc.) I would nominate this as well. I would definitely include more about the history of the park. Good luck!

  • JSteve0-INGJSteve0-ING Posts: 501 ✭✭✭✭

    First impression: No offense, but it just looks like a picnic table. Being built at the site of an old landfill doesn't really seem all that significant.


    Upon further inspection...

    Looking at Open Street Map, that hill is marked Mt. Trashmore. I might be interested in this site if you connected it as being the thing that marks the peak of Mt. Trashmore.

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

    If the park is already a waypoint based off the park sign, the picnic table probably won't go through, since probably a lot of reviewers are like myself and don't consider it too unique.

    If the picnic table is the only viable waypoint in the park, then you might be able to use the picnic table as a proxy to submit the park itself.

    The easy-to-find guidelines for parks are kind of vague on what counts as individual vs. generic, which I think really harms your chances here. Personally, single picnic table falls in line with "drinking fountains" and "bike racks" to me, whereas a picnic area would be more of a communal gathering area and a valid waypoint (like gazebos and pavilions).

    https://wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/help#niantic-wayfarer-clarifications-january-2020

    Parks and items within Parks (signs, gazebos, chess boards, fountains, sculptures, etc.)

    Acceptable: 

    • Individual features within a park, as long as they’re visually distinct.
    • Generic nomination for the park overall as long as the photo includes a signboard of the park.

    Not acceptable:

    • Nominations for a park that do not include a signboard. Note that if the park is too small for a signboard, consider submitting other eligible nominations instead. 
    • Non-unique nominations within the park: trash cans, drinking water fountains, bike racks etc.


  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 797 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I gave this 5* after googling the park. maybe include the link in the supporting information next time for those who don't bother to google. I would definitely play up the peak of mount trashmore angle next time.

    hello from cary XD

  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 797 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I gave it 5* again. Great description and supporting info. If this doesn't go through, it's because reviewers look at the grass and don't read the rest. Showing you what I saw so you will know where your supporting statements cut off if you have to resubmit - a link to the website there could replace a lot of words. Good luck!

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭✭✭

    From the Eligible Wayspots Criteria:

    Public parks are great, high-quality places for Wayspots: they are common all around the world and encourage players to walk, exercise, and enjoy public spaces. However, park benches, picnic tables, or other common features might not meet criteria unless there is something significant about them.

    So reviewers were correct in rejecitng your nomination because it was a picnic table.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭✭✭

    No, this is completely wrong. This particular nomination should be rejected under "natural feature". Even if it is man manipulated, it is still just a landscape and landscapes do not meet criteria unless they have an educational sign or marker.

  • Sugarstarzkill-PGOSugarstarzkill-PGO Posts: 437 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Oooof. I think you can probably sell it eith a good description but for the main photo, you HAVE to do something man made like the picnic tables. I have not reviewed this. But for the newest one posted here I'd have rejected as natural feature. The quoted AMA is correct, in that basic items like picnic tables aren't usually eligible, but at the end it also says "unless there is something significant about them".

    I would probably take a photo of the picnic tables, and try to sell it as a nomination for the park in general. Explain in support that there isn't a sign, so you used the tables as the man made object as a proxy for the whole park. I agree the extra background info makes it more interesting. But it will be a tough sell. I also agree with using a link in support to cut down some of the text.

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,300 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Picknic table - 1* Does not meet criteria. I'd be interested to know what criteria it could possibly meet.

  • Geosafe1-PGOGeosafe1-PGO Posts: 10 ✭✭

    " However, park benches, picnic tables, or other common features might not meet criteria unless there is something significant about them.

    The " something significant " for me was that the picnic table is at the summit of a 500 foot pile of garbage that was turned into the centerpiece of a park.

    Thanks for the lively discussion.

  • elnonoold-PGOelnonoold-PGO Posts: 2 ✭✭

    Tal vez si hubieses puesto el cartel con el nombre del parque, por el nombre del parque será perpetuo, es mi humilde opinión

  • 0ryanKetchum-ING0ryanKetchum-ING Posts: 15 ✭✭

    OFF TOPIC: How are you getting the Cells to show up in the wayfarer viewer? @cyndiepooh-ING

Sign In or Register to comment.