Help determining why this was rejected
OobeBanoobe-PGO
Posts: 12 ✭✭
Hoping for some help to determine why this was rejected. Its a memorial bench along a public walking path within a park with a community garden and arboretum. It's not on private property, and it's affixed to the path permanently. Thank you.
Comments
First at all, change the second picture so you can see the bench in it. This can explain the "mismatched location" rejection. Memorial benches are eligeble, if it is for an important/historical local person. Maybe put a link to a webpage with information about the person. I cannot rate permanent because of the bad extra photo. Its in a park so PRP is wrong. Hope this helps.
Sorry, but after some googling, I'm not convinced that John A. Duenow is important enough to make the bench eligible. He does seem to have been a nice person, but in no way historically significant. I'd give up on this, because IMO it's simply not eligible.
Under the Criteria 3.1, memorial benches are not eligible unless there is something particular about the memorial itself. Even under the previous criteria, memorial benches where only eligable if it was for a significant or historic person in the community. Your nomination doesn't describe either.
I appreciate the information. Unfortunately, doesn't look like my community will be able to get more pokestops. These are among the best opportunities to get new stops and they are constantly rejected.
I had another ineligible stop today saying a monument brick sign for an overall community (not for a housing development) because it appeared to be a generic store or restaurant...I don't even know anymore.
Community "welcome" signs were not eligible unless they were historically or culturally significant. I don't see Criteria 3.1 changing that in favor of their eligibility.
Where are these numbered criteria? In the Wayfarer criteria page none of the items are numbered. I'd be curious why a community sign would not be a viable stop location, particularly when along a walking path and acts as a visual landmark.
3.1 refers to the new criteria that just came out. Look into the criteria page on wayfairer and click criteria
Gotcha, I'm so used to things like city municipal and building codes, that I figured these were sections in the criteria list. However, I didn't see anything in there saying Welcome or Entry signs were not eligible.
According to the acceptance criteria, it falls under, a great place for exercise since it's a walking/running path that many people use for exercise. It's a permanent physical object that placemarks an area. I has safe public access by pedestrians due to the walking path. Information provided was accurate. It also doesn't fall under any of the rejection criteria from what I've read in the criteria section of Wayfarer.
Merely being located next to a sidewalk/path is not sufficient to meet the exercise criteria in my view.
I agree. Being placed next to a walking path means it has pedestrian access. It doesnt how every mean that its meant for exercise. How would you say that specific sign encourages exercise, or exploration? It really doesnt. For the longest time community signs have been rejected merely due to the fact they aren’t architecturally unique. It looks very plain. Thats why it was rejected most likely