How to write an appeal on appeal? :)
a1mirr-ING
Posts: 59 ✭✭✭
Hi there! Some of my appealed nominations was rejected, but I believe it's a mistake. Take a look:
A free little library in Amsterdam. Private property?! it's right on the street: https://goo.gl/maps/ZZSERWdAQGCZHRXP8
История здания храма. Couldn't verify location. If you open a Google-made panorama, you may see the object (old version, at least) right at the location: https://goo.gl/maps/GCC6ZpBf9AD9ckFV9
Динозавр. Can't verify location. Did you even try? https://goo.gl/maps/c5QYpWwM4HFBvDTY7
Первый общественный хромакей. Generic? It's one of the best modern street-art objects I've ever seen. Not just a green wall! You may even find it in local news: https://www.obltv.ru/news/culture/v-ekaterinburge-poyavilsya-pervyy-obshchestvennyy-khromakey/
Шавлеев Ю. И. Can't find location. Please, check the additional photo, then check panorama from the location: https://goo.gl/maps/2JupXdr3uc5b25j39. Looks like the same building, isn't it?
900 years old tree. Natural feature without the sign. Didn't you try to check additional photo and panorama? https://goo.gl/maps/KvyCEzW56iHMTYDe7
We have only one appeal per month, and we deserve a better review.
Comments
I don't think "resubmit" is a good option for you.
Anything on the wall of a single family private residence is still classified as being part of that property. That's why your little free library was rejected. It is clearly part of number 72, and number 72 appears to be a single family private residence.
The tree you should've submitted the sign for and not the actual tree.
5-floor building = single family private residence, really?
For tree - they shoudld write it in appeal, not "without a sign" which is obviously lie
I do live in a town where lots of the houses do in fact have 5 floors. I just wish I was lucky enough to live in one of them myself haha.
I was going mostly on the fact the front door does not appear to have individual doorbells and/or letterboxes, which are typically signs that a building is used as apartments.
I'm sorry to intrude, but here are a few thoughts I'd like to share.
While you believe it's private property, I'd like to present my perspective on why it should be considered a public space.
Here's how I see it:
1) Location and Accessibility:
Sure, houses can be private property, that's not up for debate. But what about when a house is set up so that its wall faces the street? I like to think of this as the 'hand touch' test. If you can touch something on that wall without violating someone's ownership, doesn't that suggest a level of public accessibility?
2) Function and Interaction:
The library's purpose is clear -- it's a place for people to contribute and take books. You have to physically interact with the box by reaching out to exchange books. That's inherently a public act, meant for community engagement.
3) Ownership and Public Space:
Even if we're not entirely sure whether the library's on a private house's wall, its role in the community is what matters. If it's facilitating community sharing, the concept of private ownership seems less significant. It's almost like it transforms into a part of the public sphere.
4) Maintenance and Identity:
Here's something to consider: the library hasn't been taken down. That could mean the owner accepts its role as a communal fixture. Plus, the glass door lets you see the books inside-- it's an invitation for engagement, reinforcing its place within the neighborhood's identity.
So, in my view, that little free library in Amsterdam should be seen as a public space -- its location, function, and connection to the community make a compelling case.
Thankfully we have clear guidance from Niantic on this:
So to respond to your points:
1) as the above post says
Our take has been that candidates on private family residential property are ineligible. This includes outward facing boundary walls that are part of the residence or otherwise on the privately owned residential land.
Assuming the building is private residential property, then this would apply to the little free library, as it is anchored to the wall of the building and thus forms part of the outward facing boundary wall, and it is not anchored to any public land.
2) what you say is true. However, that is not part of the criteria set out by Niantic. They are very strict with private residences, in part due to potential lawsuits. Additionally, there is a difference between using a little free library for its intended purpose, and storing it in a database that could be used to encourage people to gather and be nuisances, which the library owner may not have envisioned when they placed the library.
3) This isn't the case and comes across almost like a poorly constructed ChatGPT argument. It very much matters to Niantic whether this is or is not on private residential property, as it's their database, and they don't want anything on private residential property in that database.
4) again, the owners put it there so that it could be used as a library. There's consent to use it for that purpose. That doesn't imply they consent for Niantic to store it in a database and use it in games and other products though. They may not even be aware it could be used for such things. We don't know. What we do know though is that it's anchored to their property, and that Niantic doesn't want things on private residential property.
I think there isn’t much to say… A Colonial Catholic Church is now not culturally significant…
This rejection reason by itself is not supposed to appear, but sometimes shows up if your nomination is marked as a duplicate by some reviewers, but not by enough to actually trigger the duplicate message.
In this case the church already exists in the wayspot database @DiggerD1-PGO