How can I prove something? I have never thought that could be a a rejection reason for my nomination
1GiraffeToman-PGO
Posts: 54 ✭✭✭
So I just got a wayspot rejected. Quick question, how can I prove that the football goal post is not formed by air, land, water, and sun? And how how can I prove there is a pedestrian way given that my supporting photo shows a pedestrian way and a pedestrian is walking on it?
Comments
looks like you got a really cruddy set of reviewers. you can appeal it or resubmit it
Hi!
I think it should get accepted first time, but there are things that you might do to make it easier for some reviewers to see your nomination, so I mention them:
1) Make support photo from a bit more far away, to show both rugby field and pedestrian road near it (it would be good to show rugby goal post that is viisble on main photo too). Your current support photo don't show any characteristic elements of the rugby pitch and it might seems to reviewers that it might not be made in the same location that the first photo.
2) I looked at this location, and there isn't any streetview near or any pin on Google Maps that mentions it's a rugby sports field, and it's not that easy to see on map view if someone is reviewing on mobile and won't zoom very close to see rugby goal's outline.
So if someone won't zoom in very close, it just looks like grassland near some sports fields (if you refresh your page you might see more rejection reasons, and there is a chance you also got mismatched location rejection), so that way you could get someone that rejected it for natural feature. Making photosphere would help this nomination a lot :)
3) Also without streetview some reviewers might think that near this field there isn't any pavement but only road for cars (as pavement is made of asphalt it might looks like road from map view), so that way you could get "no pedestrian access" rejection. Again, photosphere would be a huge help here.
4) I just mention that there is photosphere added that show this area a bit (and show that it's a pavement and sport field too - there are even some benches visible on photosphere, so noone would see that there isn't safe pedestrian access), but it looks like it's too far away from place you added pin for your nomination, and reviewers won't see it.
So either put pin for your nomination closer to the photosphere (the best would be in the same place where photosphere is to be sure reviewers will get it) or made another photosphere that will be closer to location you want to put your pin :)
5) On photopshere I can see that this sports field have a sign - maybe try nominating field using this sign?
As it's visible on photosphere and you can put pin directly on sign, it should be visible for reviewers and rejection for natural feature and no pedestrian acces should not be a problem anymore. It should be the easiest way to get it accepted, as reviewers really loves signs :D
Like Himillsy-PGO mentioned, you can also appeal it, but I think resubmiting with some improvements is better idea for now, as it has big chance of being accepted without appeal.
I hope with these tips it will be accepted next time. Good luck!
Hi there, thanks for your comment. I thought it would be a easy pass, so I didn’t put much effort in it. Indeed that creepy photosphere was added by me afterwards. And there’s another sign for the field around 200 meters away, the reviewers possibly consider the signs are duplicate, but I still think it would be eligible applying the park sign standard (park sign is eligible, park signs for different entrance are also decent, identifiable objects in park as well).
for the location, it’s very hard to decide but I will put it further next time.
what I was expected for the worse outcome is being marked as duplicate to the sign. I feel ok for being rejected. But this one, as the reasons shown, the reviewers are clearly abusing, because the rejection reasons they made are absolutely no sense. That reminds me two years ago I got outdoor gym facilities, gazebo, sculpture rejected by “generic business”, that made me quit wayfarer for a long time.
I would rather just resubmit it cause the appeal chances is precious. I prefer to appeal the eligible places by niantic standards but normally the community ignore their value, such as unique cafe and restaurants.
once again thank you for your excellent recommendations!👍️
The title and description should instantly make it clear what you're nominating, which of the criteria it meets, and why. These last two points can be done explicitly, but it's often the case that it is of course implicit, as would happen in many cases of obvious sports facilities, social gathering places, etc.
And titles must be detailed as well as unique.
Do you have "USC Field 1" in game already. To a lot of reviewers, you get one Waypoint per area, not one for every separate football pitch on site.
personal I prefer to stick to the official name as the guidelines have clearly stated using the wayspot official name, if they have.
No, but lets pretend it is yes. I believe it is still eligible. Just like some people making gazebo 1, 2, 3… in a huge park, but I can’t find the reference for allowing that.
So, one point that probably isn’t related to your rejection, but maybe it could be, is that without satellite view we can’t see exactly where your pin is relative to the field. For athletic fields, the pin location should be on the edge - not the center - of the field, so as not to disturb the sport in-progress. That might have contributed to a “no pedestrian access” rejection reason, I think. That or the fence, which might appear to be an invitation to stay off the field.
”Natural Feature” rejection usually means the reviewers only see the field in the primary image, and while I personally wouldn’t apply that in this case, you might just get tighter in on that goalpost to make it more prominent. Getting tight enough to remove the fence from the foreground would certainly be an aesthetic improvement.
Again, I don’t know that this is the reasoning behind those rejection reasons, but they are things to consider upon resubmission or for future nominations.
Thanks for your comment. Just additional sharing, recently almost all of the wayspots on the grassland have been rejected by natural feature. I think some one confused photo with only natureal feature and wayspot consists natural feature in my community