This was rejected by Niantic review, please teach me why
TryAndKeepUpPlz-PGO Posts: 6 ✭✭
It's a small public park with a decorative bench in it. Because it was Niantic reviewed and rejected, they did not give a reason as to why it was rejected.
Here are the geo coordinates if you want to take a look around. I'm realizing that in Google maps the bench is not there, our small town does not get scanned very often. How does one go about setting up a Google sphere?
Any insight or information people can give me would be great.
If the photo of the bench is truly serving as the anchor for the whole park, then title it simply "Mill Street Park." A link in the supporting info to a town or county website listing the part would also help. A park without a sign is difficult because most true parks have signs (even if the sign is small/old) and because some submitters will call any little patch of grass a "park" even if it isn't one.
To make a Photosphere, you have to download the Google Street View app (separate from Google Maps). Through that, you can follow the instructions to take, create, and upload a Photosphere. Also, check the settings in there to make sure your photospheres can be seen by the public.
Looks like a relatively dull bench.
The first word in the title is “Bench.” The description is about a bench. If the subject is not a bench, then it should not be in the text; it should especially not be the focus of the text. I agree in theory that a bench could/should be a good anchor for a park or trail, but Niantic has declared most benches (“generic” benches) ineligible. So if the nomination is a park then name and describe the park, even if the image shows a bench.
That said, I looked at the coordinates provided and I think this is a very uphill battle. There is no park labeled on Google Maps. This spot appears to be adjacent to PRP. There is no sidewalk or even parking lot to clearly demonstrate pedestrian accessibility. If someone did not tell me this was a park I would think it is just landscaping and part of the residential property nearby.
So in addition to a photosphere (download the Google Street View app and follow the prompts… maybe see if you can catch a pedestrian in the park in the photosphere to prove access), I think the supporting needs to have some third party support proving that this is a public use area (a municipal parks department web site perhaps) and not an extension of neighboring PRP.
What are the decorations on the bench?
Thank you to this comment and all the other ones too.
As per the city zoning, this bit of land is a park
But I can appreciate that to people not from the town why it may not seem like one. I will create a photosphere and try to do it when some of the locals are fishing in the stream.
I titled the waypoint "bench" because it is a bench. A small decorative, not really great for sitting on, bench. However, in my mind the requirements for a waypoint are 1. Place to be social. 2. Place to excercise or 3. Place to explore. So a bench in my mind, does not meet any of these, even the nicest of benches. Therefore the real waypoint is the park, which satisfies the requirements, but an open park will be flagged as a "natural feature" so I use things like this bench, to be visual for the actual waypoint.
I happen to think I'd have voted to approve the bench as a bench. It isn't generic by any stretch and its positioning between the trees adds to that/ And can be a place to socialize, or even explore. However, if thats the case, you'd need a little different approach. Closer picture of the bench, I'd like to see the two circles pictures more clearly in the photo. What sets that bench apart as explore worthy might well be the pictures.
I'd think it be interesting to resubmit the place twice.
1) Bench as Anchor for Park. But remove bench from title. And Change the Description to be about the park. And put in supporting your link above and say that its on city map a park and you are using this as the anchor point of the park.
2) Bench as a Decorative Bench. Get a better picture closer up. Change the description to be about the bench and that's it a unique piece you wont see elsewhere. Maybe talk about what is in those circled pictures. In supporting can mention that its a park.
Benches as Artwork (Explore) or Social (Gather) are hard to get approved. BUT, this one I think comes close with the right picture/description.
I think I'd find it interesting to submit both methods and see which comes back first.
It's a casual bench, not a wayspot since it is a generic object
Your definition of generic is vastly different than mine. I have never seen a bench remotely close to the one pictured.
That said this type of concept comes up in many categories. Neighborhood Entrances. Normally those are generic and not eligible but some are artistic enough to merit consideration and get accepted. Park Gates. Do these merit a seperate wayspot from the park itself? Not normally. But if the gate is ornate enough and stands out enough, they do.
It's not an easy nomination by any stretch. But this particular bench is a candidate for that same type of treatment.
To use perhaps a far more extreme counter to your statement. If "Generic Object" was a fail. How do so many play structures get insta-approved. They are generic objects too. We also wouldn't have upteen threads on trail markers. Generic objects in the extreme that have had countless Niantic Clarifications are eligible.
Now I am not saying this bench will get through.... but is unique enough to consider. I'd vote it 3-4 star range.
I don't think anyone disagreed with using the bench photo for the submission. They were just saying to submit the park, call it a park, describe the park, use a photo of the bench. In your supporting info you can note that you're using the bench as an anchor because there's no sign, and give the link to the land survey showing it's a park.
There's something off about that photo.
My two cents are. As a park it is not a waypoint. The bench is. So I think it rejected, because a park is not a point. And you can debate long and hard if it is naturaly object or a man made object.
The bench is. So go for the bench. Or find another point of interest. But yes. That some parts of the world is not a google street view can give a problem in the future. Maybe the niantic can buy or trade some of their data with google maps and the other way around.
Parks are far more likely acceptable waypoints than benches are. Natural feature is no longer a rejection criteria. Yes, it is still in the drop-down list when reviewing, but read the rejection criteria page.
As I wrote, it's still on the drop-down but not listed anywhere on the criteria pages. Casey specifically said natural features are allowed (with an anchor) after the criteria refresh. Are you really surprised Niantic changed the criteria without updating their menus?
Here's the AMA to refresh your memory @sogNinjaman-ING
Thanks for the link:
Reading this, a nomination can still be rejected on the basis if a "natural feature".
I don't know man, i give you that, it is a interesting bench, but it is still a bench. If there was any sign or anything which tells me something i would gladly accept it but like this? I don't know probably won't. Trail markers and stuff is also generic and so are most playgrounds items but the point is they meet criteria. Trail markers? Good place for exploration and exercise. What about the bench? Playground? Good place to be social with others, the bench? I don't think so. But yes, it looks nice and cool so it isn't a hard decline from me, give me a few good reasons and i would accept it, but in my opinion it won't be accepted by the community. Btw, Trail markers are in my opinion eligible for meeting criteria but still they are really hard to get in the game since most people also decline them.
But that's not being rejected for a "natural feature", that's being rejected for not meeting eligibility criteria. A "random rock/tree" is not a great place to exercise, socialize, or explore. In that case, the applicable rejection reason is "Other Rejection Criteria".