Ponds, most are not natural features.
Dirtwing1200-PGO
Posts: 2 ✭✭
So I gather ponds are being denied because they are natural features. Most ponds are man made or constructed. I would say a **** pond could be considered natural, but other wise if it has a damn, drain, and/or spillway it is not a natural feature.
I don't think this applies, both ponds I have submitted are man made, Definity not natural features. To that extent, all the lakes in my state are man made. If it is a great spot for fishing, boating, throwing food to ducks etc. and it is a man made pond, why would it not qualify? Is there another reason?
Comments
Normal pond are ineligible, but unique pond are eligible. Make sure you check place before new wayspot. Natural features is a make obstacle for objects, but you need rearrange or remove to accepted.
Being man made is not alone a reason to be accepted. Most neighborhood ponds, for example, are little more than retaining ponds to help control runoff.
On that is used for recreation such as boating or swimming will usually have eligible features around that should be nominated, instead, such as piers, water access spots, signage, or similar.
Would you be comfortable sharing examples of what you've tried submitting?
I've had my share of pond rejections, too. It's difficult when it doesn't have a named park, pond or lake and some kind of park object to distract it from rejecting it as natural feature.
I believe pond aerators spots are still acceptable but I don't vote high on these either because I read that aerators can be moved or there are usually several ponds with multiple aerators that looks the same.
These were incorrectly rejected in my opinion:
"Natural feature" rejection -
"Pedestrian access" rejection -
Aerators aren’t eligible because they aren’t a great place to exercise, explore or gather. They are super common, in nearly every neighborhood retention pond. Not to mention, they lack pedestrian access. I know that seems obvious, but I can’t count how many retention pond nominations I’ve seen with the POI marked right in the middle of the pond.
In the UK ponds have been a central point of towns and villages for centuries. Used for fishing, cattle, washing, etc. Most of them are located on a village green, a communal piece of land.
They are still a central part of those communities but more as a gathering place.
Like this
Good luck getting them accepted if they don't have a sign.
That's why pins should be on the sidewalk or trail path instead of in the middle of the pond with an aerator. It can still be a good place to explore and gather with a well-developed scenic view, fishing, picnic, or romance just as I posted in the photo above. There was a reasonable discussion about this around 2021 and then I left for about a year, so opinions may have changed.
But it should be unique and inviting, not a mass produced pond aerator commonly in the lame U.S. suburbs.
The more scares a natural feature is, the more likely my community Approves it. My pond nomination features a mountain pond & fountain. In a region without such water bodies.
The pin must be on the object or in certain situations such as where the object is very large "where it makes sense." A nomination for a pond aerator should NOT be placed on the shore as that would be grounds for a misplaced rejection.
However, a pin could be placed on a jetty, landing, or even a bench where the photos acknowledge the fountain to represent it as a place you might go to observe the water.
Well then pardon me as the message must have changed since 2021. That's why I've been reading here and catching up on updates.
I still see pond aerators Waystop pins on the water or on the sidewalk right next to the pond. Do you want me to report them and deprive all players' joy and dreams of spinning Pokestops or deploying Ingress portals at scenic lakes and ponds so we can go to for-profit shopping signs and stare at restaurant wallpapers?
If a POI is on the water in the middle of a
pond, it should be reported because it lacks safe pedestrian access. If the pin for a pond aerator is safely accessible on the ground, then there is no reason to report it. Not meeting any eligibility criteria is not a reason for removal.
If the pin for a pond aerator is placed on the shore instead of where the aerator actually is, then it should be moved to the actual location of the aerator, except that the actual location of the aerator does not have safe pedestrian access. So it should be removed as well.
I can guarantee these have been the guidelines further back than 2021. And regardless of your emotional appeal, my answer is yes, you should report those wayspots for removal.
It's not where the pin is located, but where the object itself is located. If the object is in the middle of a pond, then it is invalid for lacking pedestrian access, even if the pin is on the shore. The same goes for an object in the middle of a roundabout. Putting the pin on the nearest sidewalk doesn't turn an invalid Wayspot into a valid one.
I don’t disagree at all, I just know from reading tons of invalid wayspot appeals, that it’s nearly impossible to get things removed just because of that, that’s all. I wish it was easier.
More than likely someone who nominates a pond with an aerator doesn’t actually nominate the aerator, and a spot near the pond can be valid, which is why I guess they are so hard to get removed.
Here’s a perfect example: https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/31891/3-pond-aerator-fountains-which-do-not-have-safe-pedestrian-access. The response was to retire the wayspot in the middle of the pond but to leave the others be. There are lots of example like this, unfortunately.