Please clarify why this does not meet criteria

I had an appeal rejected today. I didnt receive any email, luckily I checked on it.

The appeal was for a bridge. It was the first prefabricated concrete bridge in the UK, one of the first in the world with only a couple in switzerland considered older. The experimental technology was developed for repairs during world war II, at a pioneering research institution in Derby established by the London Midland and Scottish Railway. This bridge is the first example of the technology being used for a full-scale design, built in 1946, the year after the war. It pre-dates the two stone bridges which were accepted further up the road by decades. It was the dawn of modern construction, and is a piece of local, national and international history. It is literally a grade II listed heritage site. It is listed by many official organisations as a point of interest...

Historic England: https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1061327?section=official-list-entry

British Listed Buildings: https://britishlistedbuildings.co.uk/101061327-adam-viaduct-douglas-ward#.YnaO6-iZPIU

Heritage Gateway:https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?resourceID=5&uid=1061327

Wigan & Liegh Buildings of Interest: https://www.wiganbuildings.co.uk/building.php?id=508

In addition to being a historical point of interest it spans a walking trail through a scenic natural area.

The rejection text on wayfarer simply says "The object in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria. We recommend you review the Wayspot Criteria before submitting your next Wayspot contribution". So here are the eligibility criteria...

I'm struggling to see why this isn't eligible. Please can you clarify or reconsider.

Thankyou.

Comments

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,751 ✭✭✭✭✭

    You pasted a screenshot of the wayfarer criteria that everyone can see, but not your nomination so people can try to give their opinion on it.

  • FunneIWeb-INGFunneIWeb-ING Posts: 74 ✭✭✭

    I posted for Niantic to clarify or reconsider their decision, not for random people to give their opinion

  • FunneIWeb-INGFunneIWeb-ING Posts: 74 ✭✭✭

    Thats just not true, Various Niantic staff have responded to my posts previously

  • WheelTrekker-INGWheelTrekker-ING Posts: 2,751 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I'm sorry, but your have posted in a public forum, so random people might reply to such posts.

  • FunneIWeb-INGFunneIWeb-ING Posts: 74 ✭✭✭

    People can leave relevant opinions if they want, there is plenty of info above to say whether the bridge meets criteria.

  • FunneIWeb-INGFunneIWeb-ING Posts: 74 ✭✭✭

    The rest of my submission isnt in question. They didnt reject for access or photo or description, they said this bridge doesnt meet criteria and pointed me to a list which clearly lists historic sites and unique architecture. I dont think it is unreasonable to ask Niantic to clarify their criteria and explain why this example of unique historic architecture is different and what criteria they rejected it on. Especially since they are no longer sending emails when they reach a decision.

  • HankWolfman-PGOHankWolfman-PGO Posts: 2,174 ✭✭✭✭✭

    If your submission was rejected by regular reviewers, and Niantic also rejected it on appeal, your only option is to resubmit it as a new nomination. You can't overturn an appeal decision. So in this case I do think it would be beneficial for you to show screenshots of your nomination rather than being overly defensive about it, as being rejected by both regular reviewers and Niantic suggests something may need improvement, and we can't help you improve your nomination if we can't see it.

    I've looked at the viaduct on street view, and whilst yes, it's a listed structure (which is in its favour), the architecture looks fairly uninspiring (which is hardly surprising for a prefabricated concrete structure), and I suspect that may be a part of the issue. If I didn't know I was looking at a listed structure, nothing jumps out at me to say that this bridge is special or important. You might've covered all of this in your description and supporting info, but we can't see that, so it's impossible to say what you did right and what could've been done better.

  • GazH1983-PGOGazH1983-PGO Posts: 1 ✭✭

    Any building/ structure that is given a grade II listing status in the uk means it is considered nationally important which if I was reviewing would make it a good submission, with this being the first of its kind in the uk would also make it a good choice for a submission (obviously dependant on the quality of the submission made) Out of curiosity did you provide a link to the listing on the historic England website in the additional comments?

    https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1061327

  • FunneIWeb-INGFunneIWeb-ING Posts: 74 ✭✭✭

    The reasons given by reviewers have all been unhelpful or nonsense. "Title or description": All factual, with evidence, no spelling or grammar errors. "Other": not helpful. "Obstructs emergency services": clearly doesnt. "Natural feature": clearly not. Niantics only reason given is that "the object doesnt meet criteria" but pointed me to a list that seems to contradict. Again, I dont think its unreasonable to ask Niantic to clarify a confusing communication from themselves. If they really want me to keep resubmitting then fine, I have 80 subs across my pokemon and ingress accounts, but that will just further clog the system and helps nobody. Isnt it just easier for everyone if they explain their decision?


  • 5T3F5H-PGO5T3F5H-PGO Posts: 1 ✭✭

    This nomination is a prime choice, it has historical value and a listed site meets the criteria not sure why they wouldn’t accept it.

    Surely just saying it doesn’t meet criteria isn’t enough to reject one that clearly does.

    should be accepted or more clear info been given

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,271 ✭✭✭✭✭

    We have a lot of modern "listed buildings" in the UK, mostly chosen by "Architects". Just because a building is listed does not make it automatically accepted. Historical or not, the Wayfarer reviewing community have rejected this and so have Niantic. "Historical" or not, it is just "another" concrete road bridge.

  • FunneIWeb-INGFunneIWeb-ING Posts: 74 ✭✭✭

    @HankWolfman-PGO " If I didn't know I was looking at a listed structure, nothing jumps out at me to say that this bridge is special or important."

    Isnt that all the more reason to give it a waypoint and let people know of its significance?

  • patsufredo-PGOpatsufredo-PGO Posts: 2,268 ✭✭✭✭✭

    They are only responded to your appeal posts, which is one of their job.

    Responding to criteria clarification specific questions are something Niantic will 'rarely' to do in this forum. Maybe you should ask to @NianticDanbocat via @NianticWayfarer in Twitter.

  • FunneIWeb-INGFunneIWeb-ING Posts: 74 ✭✭✭

    This is an appeal, which was aleady dealt with but their response was confusing an lacking detail. They could be making the most of the appeal process by taking a few extra minutes to explain their decision, in turn educating submitters and reviewers to make better contributions.

  • OneFromTheSky-PGOOneFromTheSky-PGO Posts: 28 ✭✭

    I would have rejected this as it's just another regular British concrete bridge. It neither excites me, nor makes me want to stop and look at it so from that point o can totally see why it would be rejected by both the community and on appeal. As above, just because it's listed, does not make it interesting. This, on the outset, is not interesting.

  • DonTock-PGODonTock-PGO Posts: 1 ✭✭

    This is a great submission for me. The criteria posted at the top say "something that tells the unique story about a place". The bridge has a unique story and is exactly the kind of local trivia I want to find whilst exploring a new place. I agree that the fact you could walk by and never know its story is more reason to highlight it. I think it's refreshing to learn something that you weren't expecting whilst out playing. Wouldn't this otherwise dull stretch of road be a lot more interesting? It's not just another concrete bridge, there were no others when it was made. Without this experiment all the others may not even exist. It shaped the world around us. I've seen many insignificant unnamed bridges accepted just for being on a trail, I'm surprised it didn't get through just on that. I don't see anything wrong with OP's submission. The text is accurate, the picture is clean & the Historic England link is provided as evidence. Historic England only list structures that are unique architecture or historically significant, both of which are on Niantic's eligibility criteria. Other than the many which are PRP I would consider them great candidates. I wish people would submit more listed buildings instead of just another trail marker, notice board or playground. I don't find any of those things exciting or inspiring to look at but they are eligible. I don't understand why people are so eager to reject things. It meets the given eligibility criteria and none of the rejection criteria so I would accept it. I do think the communication on appeals could be better. If a submitter is convinced enough that it is eligible to appeal to Niantic and the response is just "No, look again" then nothing is learned and they will likely just resubmit it which just uses up more reviewers' time. If Niantic don't want it in the system then they should say why. It's a missed opportunity for Niantic to educate reviewers on what they expect. The responses to this are pretty mixed so obviously the criteria are unclear.

  • FunneIWeb-INGFunneIWeb-ING Posts: 74 ✭✭✭

    Actually this "dull stretch of road" has more history than you think. The other end, 400m away, is Wigan Pier, made famous by George Formby and George Orwell's book "The Road to Wigan Pier". Lots of people come to see the historic structures of the industrial revolution, includng the canals & locks, railways and mills. I thought this would compliment the existing wayspots in telling the history of the area. As well as history enthusiasts, there are lots of people that are into brutalist architecture that would appreciate this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

Sign In or Register to comment.