Nomination is rejected as it appears to be on private residential property or farm

Hi there!

I have nominated a location and received info that it is rejected as it appears to be on private residential property or farm.

1) It's not a farm and that is visible from the picture of the nomination and the other one attached to nomination.

2) It's not a private residential property as that can be checked on official web site:


It's not a problem to me to submit that location again, but how can I explain to the one who didn't approve my nomination that he is wrong?

Thanks,

Ante

Comments

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,601 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Maybe first post a picture of your submission. If the PRP rejection is wrong, put a link in the extra information to proove it for reviewers.

  • tataAntisa-PGOtataAntisa-PGO Posts: 9 ✭✭

    Here is the object nomination picture:


    Here is the one which prove that object is almost on the public street and not on the farm nor any public property. Fence of the public property is clearly visible on both images.


    That old well is a bad shape, for sure, but IMHO it' still something worth visiting.

    One reason for being in a bad shape is because it's 108 years old and another one is that inside local community leaders nobody care about the artifacts like this one. They even do not care about streets or other common infrastructure, so this well is not an exception too. The only thing they did, some time ago, they have sealed it with the concrete so nobody can get hurt by falling inside.

  • LukeAllStars-INGLukeAllStars-ING Posts: 4,601 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I have no clue what this is xD

    For me ot looks like an entrance to the sewerage or something like this. You really need to proove that this is POI worthy.

  • tataAntisa-PGOtataAntisa-PGO Posts: 9 ✭✭
    edited December 2020

    This is well and 108 years ago this was the only source of drinking water:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well

  • tataAntisa-PGOtataAntisa-PGO Posts: 9 ✭✭

    Of course you don't know, same as most younger people don't. It's an very old well, built at 1912. When it was in good shape it was looking something like this:

    If all the objects need to be new, shiny and in good shape, then this object for sure do not satisfy and I did a mistake. The question is why it was not rejected with that explanation then. 🤔

  • sogNinjaman-INGsogNinjaman-ING Posts: 3,273 ✭✭✭✭✭

    It may well be old, but it looks like an old capped concrete sewage pipe. You need a sign or information dealing specifically with this POI to convince people. Pedestrian access may also be a reason for rejection, there is no direct footway leading to the "well".

  • tataAntisa-PGOtataAntisa-PGO Posts: 9 ✭✭

    With all the respect to your opinion:

    1) Location was rejected because it was marked as it is private property, or it is possible that it was rejected for some other reason and I have received wrong reason by email.

    2) This street which is 1 meter away from well, is a local street without extra pedestrian part, same as 99,99% of local streets in Croatia 😁. People are actually walking on this street, as that's the only way for them to go somewhere by foot.

    3) I didn't know that all locations need the explanation sign to be accepted. Can someone quote this requirement for me? Somehow I have understood that title and description might help instead of the sign.


    Don't get me wrong, as I appreciate any help with this. If this location is worthless by niantic standards , I'm fine with it, but I didn't understand it that way when I was reading criteria. 🙄

  • Kellerrys-INGKellerrys-ING Posts: 694 ✭✭✭✭✭

    All POIs don't need a sign, but as this one looks abandoned and insignificant well, it'd really help.

    If I saw this photo, the description and support should be somewhat special for me to believe it's significant for the locals.

    -

    Rejection reasons don't always make sense, but I could see someone not familiar with more rural infrastructure thinking there's no safe pedestrian access or that it's part of the farm lands. Make a note on support section "Not part of the private farm, see the fence in support photo"?

  • tataAntisa-PGOtataAntisa-PGO Posts: 9 ✭✭

    Thanks.

    I will think about the better description for it and I will add a proof that this is not private property and with normal safe pedestrian access

    I know it's old and rusty, ugly too, but there is some history behind it.

  • TheFarix-PGOTheFarix-PGO Posts: 4,030 ✭✭✭✭✭
    1. If the reviewer cannot determine that a Wayspot is not on private residential property, they are obligated to reject it. In the photos you have shown thus far, it is not clear if this is on or not on private residential property.
    2. A well, in and of itself, is not eligible. In order for a well to be eligible, it must be of historical of cultural significance. And that requires documentation.
    3. Just because something is old doesn't mean it is historic.
    4. All Wayspots must clearly have safe pedestrian access. Just because you think it is OK to walk in the middle of a road used by vehicles doesn't mean that others will agree. Nor are they obligated to accept a Wayspot they see as not have pedestrian access.
    5. Whether a nomination is accepted or rejected depends on a consensus among mutiple reviewers. One reviewer cannot cause a nomination to be rejected.
  • tataAntisa-PGOtataAntisa-PGO Posts: 9 ✭✭

    1. Fence is behind well and there is a street on the other side. In most countries I have visited in my life, people usually put fence around their property and not vice versa.

    2. Can you give me the link where this is written?

    3. I can't agree more, but that is very subjective thing and nit the reason why this topic started.

    4. This location have very safe pedestrian access. Some very small kids are walking on this street every single day, as elementary school is just few hundred meters away. I can only conclude you have never seen a local pedestrian street in suburbs.

    5. When I get some nomination for review I skip it if I'm not sure about it and it seems from your explanation that every other reviewer is perfect and it never happened that legitimate location was rejected.


    Thanks for your help. I will try to add additional support info to this nomination and if it will be rejected again, I'll quit from it.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Can you explain how this well meets any of the criteria and maybe show what your description and supporting info was since you claim it should be eligible? Also just because its not in the fenced in side of a private residence doesnt necessarily mean its not on the property. If its still infront of someone’s home it will get rejected for prp

  • tataAntisa-PGOtataAntisa-PGO Posts: 9 ✭✭

    "Somewhere or something that tells the unique story about a place, its history, its cultural meaning, or teaches us about the community we live in."


    That is what I was after.

    Here is the description:

    "Perhaps the oldest preserved well in Sesvete from the time when there was no water supply. The year 1912 is inscribed on it, as the year of construction."


    It took me 2 minutes to find a proof that this is not the private property, because I know where to look it for. That is one of the reasons why I skip nominations approval from Hungary, Austria etc., if I'm nit sure about something, as I'm not very good at finding all the data I need for those countries.

  • Jtronmoore-PGOJtronmoore-PGO Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭✭✭

    There is still no pedestrian access there so more than likely it will get rejectedfor that reason alone

  • HannesTheHammer-PGOHannesTheHammer-PGO Posts: 97 ✭✭✭
    edited December 2020

    Don't focus too much on the cited rejection reasons. People are telling you in an indirect way that this isn't a great nomination. What you need to do to convince reviewers in Croatia is the following: Take better photos when it is sunny and write a nice description.

  • cyndiepooh-INGcyndiepooh-ING Posts: 767 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Everyone has addressed the issues why this would be hard to get approved and I agree with them. To address your original question about the rejection reason: I have learned that the emailed reasons are just to be taken as clues. A reviewer could have had that similar "what am I looking at" feeling as one person who responded here, and just rejected as not being able to tell if it was on private property. And the "private property" criteria also applies to IMPACTING private property, not just being ON private property - and even that map you linked seems to indicate that could be a problem. That is listed under Help>What makes a good Wayspot?

    "Please be sure to closely review nominations whose real-world location appears to be within 40 meters of private, single-family residential property, and nominations whose real-world location appears to be in a neighborhood park. To be clear, nominations should be rejected if their real-world location appears to be on private, single-family residential property or might encourage people to go onto private property (e.g., because the real-world location is at the end of a private driveway)."

    I love the idea of using a Wayspot to educate about how people used to do things, but if the well is not documented to be being preserved for this purpose, it is not a good candidate.

Sign In or Register to comment.