I submitted 11 permanent informational signs located throughout a wastewater treatment plant. Seven of them were rejected by Niantic’s/Scopely’s automated process.
The signs form an official wastewater educational trail. Each numbered sign marks a separate station, is installed directly beside the corresponding stage of the treatment process, and provides information about it.
Although the individual signs are relatively small and concise, I considered them eligible because they serve as permanent markers for distinct stations of an official educational trail and help visitors explore and understand the different stages of wastewater treatment.
Is this assessment incorrect, or are these suitable Wayspot candidates in principle?
Is there anything I could improve in the primary photos, titles, descriptions or supporting information to help the nominations reach community review?
The information sign itself might be somewhat interesting for someone learning about water treatment . Personally i am chemical engineer so i am interested in this. But while the entire trip it self might be educational, each individual plaques itself is not really interesting. You might have success submitting it as a package but if you try submitting it separately, i think it will be more difficult. Not only the plaque is small, but I expect each plaque to talk more about the process in each stage and not just data sheet. But this is just my opinion.
Additionally since you are dealing with small object which inside water treatment plant which may not have street view. I highly suggest you to take extra effort to proof its location.
Thank you for the feedback. I understand your point that the plaques are concise and that some of them are closer to technical data sheets than detailed educational panels.
My reasoning was that each nomination represents a distinct numbered station of the official educational trail, rather than only the plaque. Each plaque is permanently installed directly at the corresponding treatment unit and serves both as an information sign and as the physical marker identifying that specific stage of the wastewater treatment process. Visitors learn about the process by moving from one actual treatment stage to the next, so I viewed each station as its own point of exploration.
Regarding location verification, there is no Street View inside the treatment plant. For each nomination, I included a supporting photo showing the plaque together with the corresponding facility and the paved access area. I also uploaded the official trail map, which shows the numbered stations at the respective treatment units, and linked the official city document.
Do you think that combination is sufficient to verify the location?
Each wayspot should be judged by its own merit. The data sheet itself is not really interesting, so it will be hard to get it approved. Personally i wont pin much hope to it.
Last, When proofing location , step back and take wide angle foto. Try locating any object thats visible from satelite. By taking surrounding foto that include such object, you can get extra proof of location.
I understand that each nomination must be judged individually. However, I see these plaques in a similar way to trail markers: the physical object is assessed individually, but its significance comes from its role as part of an established route.
Each plaque marks a distinct numbered station of the official educational trail and identifies the corresponding stage of the wastewater treatment process. The educational value is therefore not limited to the amount of text on the plaque itself. It also comes from guiding visitors through the treatment process.
