Stormwater and Protected Area Signs
ValorWilbert-PGO
Posts: 11 ✭✭
Hey there folks,
I have gotten a plethora of nominations in Washington, where the nomination looks like one of two signs.
I just wanted to confirm that both of these are in-eligible, because I have voted 1* 'Doesn't Meet Criteria" or "Natural Feature" on a ton of these, and yet they keep coming. Thanks!
Best Answers
-
sq3rjick-ING
Posts: 15 ✭✭
I would guess they'd be ineligible due to "mass produced" sign. If there are a whole bunch of them, they're likely mass produced and not specifically relevant.
-
CCTF-ING
Posts: 6 ✭✭
I’m saying they are not identical signs like the nature signs. While they are mostly similar but is OP seeing five of them in one location? They are probably spaced miles apart and even if the text is the same, it is still educating the public, unlike say a ‘trail rules’ sign that tells you what not to do on the trail.
And to be clear, different jurisdictions have totally different looking Stormwater Pond signs.
-
Gendgi-PGO
Posts: 3,277 Ambassador
I wouldn't argue that they are at least slightly mass produced - sure, there may be hundreds to thousands made, but not assembly-line signs that just anyone can go to WalMart or similar general store to purchase.
The "mass produced" argument gets brought up, and may be fair. However, the other day, I was using the Googles to search for "Playground" was was surprised by how many pieces of playground equipment are mass produced, many you could simply purchase from a catalogue and get a kit that would be the same quality playground for your backyard or community as you would see in a park.
Anyways, even if produced at some sort of scale to be considered "mass," if there is still a level of educational value provided by the sign, I would approve it for educational value and not reject for the potential of mass production. These are definitely more unique than the examples provided to us in Ineligible Wayspots and Potentially Confusing Nominations.
Answers
I would guess they'd be ineligible due to "mass produced" sign. If there are a whole bunch of them, they're likely mass produced and not specifically relevant.
I would reject the first one. It does not provide educational information about the area and is more of a generic marker of an ecosystem. We have dozens of similar signs on a stretch of trail going along a watershed not even a few miles apart.
The second one I would probably approve, but pretty much only because of the information in the top right corner. It does provide educational information about how stormwater is collected to prevent flooding and erosion control. I don't find the nomination very well made and find the description a little irrelevant and the supplemental information entirely unnecessary.
Protected area signs are mass produced, yes.
Stormwater Pond signs are NOT. If you look carefully, each of them have alphanumeric designations unique to that particular location. They are 3* or 4* candidates in my book, as they, if you read the signs again, explain what the ponds are for. They educate the public on water management much like other educational signs you see out in parks and trails.
Also, people are nominating the SIGN, not the pond itself, so you shouldn’t ding them with ‘natural feature’. Unless they specifically nominate the pond itself with no signs.
@CCTF-ING
@Gendgi-PGO but the only differences between the different run-off pool signs is the number designation, which is not exactly useful or really providing any educational benefit to the reader of the sign. Since the sign is at multiple different storm-water ponds, and all have the same educational description, shouldn't that make it a mass produced item that is ineligible?
I’m saying they are not identical signs like the nature signs. While they are mostly similar but is OP seeing five of them in one location? They are probably spaced miles apart and even if the text is the same, it is still educating the public, unlike say a ‘trail rules’ sign that tells you what not to do on the trail.
And to be clear, different jurisdictions have totally different looking Stormwater Pond signs.
I wouldn't argue that they are at least slightly mass produced - sure, there may be hundreds to thousands made, but not assembly-line signs that just anyone can go to WalMart or similar general store to purchase.
The "mass produced" argument gets brought up, and may be fair. However, the other day, I was using the Googles to search for "Playground" was was surprised by how many pieces of playground equipment are mass produced, many you could simply purchase from a catalogue and get a kit that would be the same quality playground for your backyard or community as you would see in a park.
Anyways, even if produced at some sort of scale to be considered "mass," if there is still a level of educational value provided by the sign, I would approve it for educational value and not reject for the potential of mass production. These are definitely more unique than the examples provided to us in Ineligible Wayspots and Potentially Confusing Nominations.
The Stormwater Pond signs should be considered educational and thus eligible. They are giving the reader information as to why they were created, how they benefit the eco system and in addition lets the reader know where they can get additional information if so inclined. Each of these signs are individual because they have their own assigned # and often an assigned name. These Stormwater ponds are man-made and should not be declined for being a natural feature such as a waterfall. Declining the submission under that criteria is totally incorrect.
Generic & mass produced signs, definitely 1*.