It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Repeated denials of a historic barn along a pedestrian path in a public park. Website included in supporting information that specifically highlights this building, and a photosphere as its in the woods.
what am I doing wrong?
I think the lack of signage to make your “historical” case is what’s killing you. Without historical context it’s just an old cabin (which I’m sure you know based on your inclusion of some of the building’s history) and it certainly looks like an abandoned and run-down shed.
and add the URL in the description.
I know this was probably a typo, but for anybody reading this who isn't sure, please add the URL in the *supporting information*; the submission should get rejected if it's in the description!
Yes thank you.
Even though I obviously haven't reviewed it I did take the time to search on Google for the link and read up on the area. It's a fascinating place that can trace the local and wider history through its locations and buildings.
But... Apparently nobody wants to click your link when they are reviewing, just look at the picture and see an old barn. It's a dumb meta in reviewing that *everything* must have a sign because some reviewers won't take the time to look at your submission.
Yeah. Even some of the peeps answering this didn’t bother to look at the supporting info.
there is only 1 way this will become a wayspot:
Talk to opendurham and let them place a sign there. Generally, they should do this. It is so much better when you visit places like this.
I would've given it 5 stars on everything after visiting the website as long as if like you said there's a photosphere and it's location can be confirmed as accurate. I've learned majority or reviewers don't care to take the time to validate with external sources provided however. And some just blatantly don't care, they think "meh it's a boring old shed" rather than "wow a century old historic building with a great story to be told". Also the fact that it says farm might make some believe that it's on PRP even though it's a public park open to all. My only bit of advice is to understand that while this was a great nomination in my opinion and your opinion, the community is full of different opinions, and the group that reviewed it this time was of a different opinion than us. You can submit again and hope for a different result. You may get it accepted or it may get rejected again, ultimately the community of reviewers is a mixed group of opinions and some things are so subjective that it's almost based on luck rather than logic. The only thing I think is a slam dunk(guaranteed accepted) to upgrade now after a few days on these forums is playground equipment in a park that currently has no other POIs. This saddens me but is the reality because common sense is not so common apparently. Best of luck, stay positive!
Do a collage with all the supporting information on it. Almost every reviewer can’t be bothered to look at external links. I’m sure having a URL field was a well liked suggestion but hasn’t been implemented.
Remember the 3 criteria: Does this place encourage exercise? Do people gather there? Do people go inside and explore there?
Looks like no, no, and no.
This looks like, if I tried to walk around inside it, I would get in trouble. Or worse, if people kept going in it to play, it could be dangerous.
Have you read the criteria page though?
A great place for exploration
A place you love to venture out to; a destination or a placemark of local interest and importance and which makes our communities unique and shapes its identity. Somewhere or something that tells the unique story about a place, its history, its cultural meaning, or teaches us about the community we live in.
This meets that definition perfectly, it's over a century old historic building with a unique story and was culturally important to the development of the area which I'm sure most people wouldn't know about so it's educational.
This nomination is also located in a park, therefore it's listed as a great place to be social with others.
You could even make the stretch that you can't drive up to it therefore forcing exercise.
So one person sees it as meeting all 3 in a way and another sees it as meeting none, you can use the supplemental information to sway as much as you can but ultimately if that's too long some reviewers might not bother reading it thinking you're making stuff up to oversell it.
This is what I mean though, everyone looks at the same thing and sees something different, and common sense is not so common apparently. So due to varying perspectives getting an eligible nomination accepted is purely luck based and you shouldn't get upset by the fact that you happen to roll snake eyes a few times trying.
Please reread the criteria. Exploring does not mean going “inside” Many great POIs are explored/enjoyed from the exterior
Resubmitting with your advice. Did not find sign, but it is part of a guided tour. Put critical info on title as supporting info is apparently useless.
I'd still probably include the URL in the Supplemental Information, some reviewers that could be the deciding factor, but others won't check it out. I'd maybe add the year it became a park. "...This is not a private farm but a public (city) park since 2005 as stated on https://www.opendurham.org/buildings/leigh-farm..." but like I said it may get rejected again. Best of luck!