It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
Sign In with Ingress Sign In with Pokémon GO
Can anyone tell me why this submit is rejected? It's a pole that's points to a walking route.
It completely meets the eligibility criteria. November ama confirmed this. That all trail signs and markers are eligible with pedestrian access. This should of been accepted. Looks like it even has a name too which strengthens its case
i would try to re-submit. May take a try or so to get it passed. But it 100% meets the exploration and exercise eligibility requirements
I also made a photo shpere on Google street view.
Because it's common, uninteresting, mass produced and doesn't meet the eligibility criteria.
Is it "A great place for exploration"? - No.
Is it "A great place for exercise"? - No.
Is it "A great place to be social with others"? - No.
is it "... mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting" - Yes.
Trail markers are eligible under the november ama. I put it in a comment just needs to be approved here it is word for word
The new criteria lists hiking trails and biking trails as eligible examples under a great place for exercise. Are there any additional requirements for these locations to be eligible (e.g. survey markers, trail signs or other man-made objects)? Do they need to be named trails or paths?
Hiking trail signs encourage exploration as prt of the trail you explore your community or the rural wooded areas
hiking itself is a physical activity which means its a great place to use for exercise
people keep using the massed produced excuse to reject these but it is incorrect. How many of these signs are in existence that exactly like that? Maybe 10 so it is not massed produced. Visually unique refers to the surrounding area, do you see 100 of these and can’t differentiate which one is which? No so it is visually unique to its area.
interesting is subjective, do you personally think it is interesting? Well if I was outside enjoying a hike a poi like this a sign pointing in the right direction(a trail marker), is very much important and in my best interests to keep attention to them
Eligible means it CAN be accepted not that it MUST be accepted. It would still have to meet all the usual criteria. It IS mass-produced, it IS generic, or not visually unique and it's simply NOT interesting, even if the "walking/bicycle" route it points to is. We're rating the sign, not the route.
You clearly do not understand the criteria if that is your stance. Many other reviewers will agree that this is a fine submission and that your stance is very much not correct
Take a look at the title of the thread and you'll see who reviewers are agreeing with.
Just because it was rejected once doesn’t mean it isnt eligible. Half the time reviewers dont know all the criteria. This 100% is eligible so id just submit it. And it will most likely pass as its listed in the ama as an eligible object.
I would disagree on the second point, as this trail marker is a representative of the trail which is obviously for pedestrians and walking. It's clear that we cannot simply nominate the trail itself, as no part of it would stand out. By your own standards, the trail itself would also be generic, and not visually unique. How else do you expect to nominate a reference to the trail, as you seem to be suggesting ("We're rating the sign, not the route.")?
I would also question your immediate dismissal that this isn't a good place to explore. If you're going to suggest something like, "you don't explore a sign", then this logic will apply to almost _all_ nominations.
What aspect of the trail does this marker represent? Does it represent the start or endpoint of the trail? an access point or trail head? A junction with another trail? Or some other feature?
By the supporting image, I would suggest that this is a junction. Out of curiosity, why would this matter?
This is under the category “general” under the november ama first page
For some more context here is the google street view photo sphere
I changed the text Into; (what do you guys think)?
Ariane park - Route pointer - Hof van Delfland
Route pointer for the ”Delfland wandelnetwerk”. Access point to the route.
This is a great point of interest because it's a route pointer that points to a nice walking/bicycle route that leads to the big city. People come here to explore the route/park and its nature and for exercise activities like running. In the surrounding, this is the only route pointer in the park. This poi meets the criteria to be considered ineligible according to the November criteria update walking routes and signs. Thank you for reviewing.
This is a poi in a nice park. People come here all the time for walking, running, enjoy nature. Having a picnic in the surrounding. The pointer is close by all of that. The walking / bycele route access point is a bit hidden. The pointer points that out. Because of that it is interesting. It's the only pointer in the park, so outstanding in the surrounding.
Because you can more easily "sale" the marker as being a physical representation of some aspect of the trail instead of being an ordinary, boring, [mass-produced] marker.
I would edit the word ineligible to eligible though lol
You've misunderstood the point I'm making. Jtronmoore-PGO said the submission qualifies as "as great place for exploration", I'm saying it's not, because we're rating the marker not the "walking route" it points to.
Another major problem with this is that the people who are desperate to bend the rules in favour of acceptance it are calling it a "hiking trail". Where's your evidence that this is anything other than a simple boring piece of pavement in a park? Even the submitter says it's just "... a pole that's points to a walking route."
Th evidence that it isnt a boring piece of pavement? Seriously? The trail marker itself. This isnt a bend of any rules. It completely follows them. Would you say the same about a park sign? Its just a patch of grass with your logic...
the fact that its part of a trail system is what gives it its exploration factor as all trail markers do (your part of a specified trail).
the biggest problem in wayfair are people not understanding the guidelines. Everyone else on this forum has said this is fine besept you. Nominations that a perfectly eligible like this tank because reviewers like you incorrectly tank them not understanding the guidelines. I’m done trying to explain it if you can’t read the ama and think with logic we are basically at a stopping point
Where's your evidence that this is 'part of a trail system'? The original submitter never claimed that.
It is part of the trail system. The pointer says so. Its part of Delfland wandel netwerk. Wandel means walk.
Like the new text is a access point the the route.
I don't believe I misunderstood at all. I addressed this. I even quoted you. I'm done with this any further.
As far as I can tell the pointer is just two generic red arrows, probably mass produced, which doesn't 'say' anything. I know you wrote that it's part of "Delfland wandel netwerk" in the text, but reviewers won't know if that's true, or what it means if it is true. If the words "Delfland wandel netwerk" are actually on the pointer, you'd have more chance of getting this accepted if they were visible in one of your photos, and including a link that shows what "Delfland wandel netwerk" is in your supporting info would help too.
above each arrow it actually states the path it belongs to. Just zoom in.
The problem with these markers is that they're very generic. A "wandelnetwerk" (or walking network) or a "fietsknooppunt" (biking node) is a spot on the map where you can walk or bike to. There are paths marked towards all those nodes, making the signs generic objects. On that point I totally agree with @Rostwold-ING .
The second point @Jtronmoore-PGO makes is that it's part of a walking tour. Well, it is and it isn't. The nodes help people navigate from one point to another by a safe route. This means they're quite different from a hiking trail (which is one route that brings you back to the starting point): a hiking trail can be seen as a 'whole' often passing interesting landmarks.
Some network nodes can be interesting if there's something to see there but in general I would vote against them as they're not a great place to explore.
It's not clear enough for reviewers to see. The submitter should do the zooming in, not the reviewers.
So part of a walking tour would be equivalent to a trail marker. They both are the same object and are actually mentioned in november ama’s as eligible. You shouldnt be denying these on the generic aspect as they are listed as eligible objects already.
Seems like you will take any reason to reject something instead of actually looking at a photo.
It's literally impossible to read.
If you say this object should be accepted, then all objects of the same type should too. What happens is this:
I don't think this was the intention of allowing the trail markers. You mark an entire trail by one single object.
Nodes are even worse: given that all roads connecting nodes with eachother have those markers on almost every single crossroad makes it too generic to be a wayspot imho.