Why Wasn't This Trail Marker Accepted?
AScarletSabre-PGO
Posts: 754 ✭✭✭✭✭
All trail markers for named trails should be 5*, so what's going on?
I can see no reason why it shouldn't be accepted. But apparently, this trail marker "does not meet acceptance criteria". There are no other trail markers from this trail submitted nearby it so it can't possibly be a duplicate either. Plus, the supplemental photograph clearly shows the curve in the path, thus showing it's where I said it is.
This is the second time I've attempted to submit this trail marker. The first time it got rejected as abuse because I said "this lake is where the river has been damned" instead of "this lake is where the river has been dammed". I avoided the word entirely this time and it still got rejected.
Best Answer
-
AgentB0ss-ING
Posts: 555 ✭✭✭✭✭
Honestly it’s very unfortunate this was rejected. I see nothing wrong with this submission.
my advise is to resubmit and add a note in the submission statement that references the potentially confusing Wayfarer help guide listing the criteria for Trail Markers.
I wish you the best of luck on this submission.
Answers
What was the rejection reason?
It simply said "does not meet criteria" as a rejection reason @TheFarix-PGO, nothing more.
It's possible reviewers found it visually bland or thought it was to basic, being "just" a 4x4 post.
Also, wow, fast turnaround. I wish all areas could get Wayspots through, without upgrade, in less than a week.
Honestly it’s very unfortunate this was rejected. I see nothing wrong with this submission.
my advise is to resubmit and add a note in the submission statement that references the potentially confusing Wayfarer help guide listing the criteria for Trail Markers.
I wish you the best of luck on this submission.
Seems like a good one, I would resubmit and hope for different set of reviewers. Also, there aren't any guaranteed 5-star nominations. Do your best to create 5 star nominations and never assume that something is inherently 5 star quality on its own.
Depending on where you are from the markers are different. Here in the uk trails are normally on disks which would definitely get in if a named Trail. That as a picture probably wouldn't get much of a rating without it.
Maybe try again.
I get worried if it's still in the queue after a week. Occasionally, something will perpetually stay in the queue and I have to "upgrade" it and that does force it into voting. I feel like it's a glitch in the system when some of my nominations remain queued. I do review on a regular basis (at least one reviewing session a week, I'd say) so it's not as if I'm just submitting. Otherwise, I like to use my "upgrades" when I want one nomination to be accepted first (for example if I want one wayspot to become a gym in Pokémon GO and not another in the same area).
Then I'd keep trying if the others are in. Try adding a 360 where they are.
I've had a few I've had rejected it's no big deal just a pain.
Looks like you fell unlucky with the reviewers you got. It doesn't look like it should be rejected, though I would perhaps tweak the description a tad bit. Really, this should have been approved.
Just had a wooden trail bridge complete with named trailmarker be rejected as 'not visually unique' (only one within 5 miles and made for the site) and does not meet criteria (I make it meeting two criteria) - aaarrrggghhh. Meanwhile a trailmarker I was iffy about submitting, because it's essentially identical to one two cells along sailed through...
I agree that it shouldn't have been down voted on visual uniqueness, based on what you're saying.
A lot of reviewers seem to misunderstand that particular rating. Like if there were a handful of other bridges with the exact same design, then yeah, rate lower on visual uniqueness, but when it's the only one in the area, that deserves a fairer rating.
I think a lot of reviewers are probably sick of seeing bridges now but that isn't valid reason, in my opinion, to down vote a bridge on visual uniqueness - especially with a named trail marker attached to it.
You'd think people would be sick of seeing post boxes before bridges and yet I've yet to have a post box rejected. I've submitted at least ten I think. Some post boxes are admittely boring looking, but hey, they are valid wayspots so why wouldn't I submit my local post boxes!
Speaking of, @Faversham71-PGO I sent you some more coordinates for interesting post boxes, including an Edward VIII (yes 8th) pillar box that I know of near me. There's also a quirky green pillar box I found.
I'm sick of seeing both to be truthful. Most of the bridges I see are generally just footbridges that go over roads or a tiny bit of river/stream without a trail marker attached to them, and most of the postboxes I see are GR or E2R. I've had two postboxes declined that I've subbed before. The first one got through on a second attempt and the other one got subbed by another player before I could resub it.
There's a grade one listed bridge not too far from me. I'm sure a medieval bridge would be a welcome sight in your review pool. Certainly makes for an interesting change to the usual modern sort.
P.S. Shame there's no information board next to it. :(
Yes, yes, yes! Somethingike a medieval bridge I would definitely approve, especially if there's evidence of it being a listed structure!