Forgive me if this has been hashed out in another post but I couldn't seem to find a post after the November Criteria update. I originally drafted this regarding viewpoint, Scenic viewpoint, observation point, viewing point, vista point, scenic overlook, etc. but after everything was said and done, I think my question applies to all natural features.
In the last few days, I noticed a Reddit post looking for feedback on a submission. I think several good points were made but I think the topic got a little too heated over there to have a meaningful discussion, so I stayed out of it. Link to the post: https://www.reddit.com/r/NianticWayfarer/comments/mph9bv/nomination_feedback_viewpoint/
People that were in support of the rejection (FYI, I'm currently one of them) responded with things like "Natural features aren't an eligible waypoint" and "Benches without a plaque commemorating a notable figure are a no go". (I agree with the latter, generic mass-produced object, but disagree with the former, November Criteria update.)
People that believed that it should have been accepted countered with the fact that Natural features were removed from Rejection Criteria with the November Criteria update and that a man-made object, in this case, a bench, could be used to “anchor” the overlook. I’m paraphrasing from multiple users here but a counter-argument was made that the bench is the object that you go to observe the scene of the overlook and is, therefore, a part of the POI. 'They' went on to state that this meets all three of the eligibility criteria stating "A great scenic viewpoint would bring people to the location. Bench for social gatherings and pedestrian access to enjoy the location. Exploration of enjoying a nice scenic viewpoint in a quiet and peaceful place. Exercise to get to the location." (the usage of Exercise is a little bit of a stretch).
Interestingly enough no one over there bothered to invoke the November AMA https://community.wayfarer.nianticlabs.com/discussion/10321/november-ama-your-questions-answered/p1
Where the topic of natural feature eligibility was brought up, "When considering these, think about whether there’s a specific location you can direct people to: a sign, an informational board, etc.". I feel like the usage of etcetera is not ambiguous here, but I could be wrong.
Finally, one Reddit user brought up that the criteria across the complete Wayfarer product seem to be talking out of both sides of its mouth. That the criteria pages were left ambiguous to give submitters the latitude to submit things like this while the reviewer panel’s one-star reason for natural features only permits signboards, note this is even slightly more restrictive than the AMA and is intentionally non-ambiguous.
Oof that ended up more long-winded than I intended but here is my Criteria Clarification question:
Are there cases where the usages of a non-sign generic man-made object are acceptable to direct people to a natural feature to “anchor” a POI?
Non-Criteria questions (I don’t expect an answer but I’m still putting them down):
Is the one-star text in the reviewer panel currently misaligned with the criteria after the November Criteria update?
Are there any plans to roll the AMA text into the criteria page? Even with access to multiple sources the folks in that Reddit thread seemed to be all over the place.