I am looking for feedback on a nomination that was recently rejected by the community, and subsequently rejected on appeal by Niantic.
The nomination is for a “Casetta dell’Acqua” (Public Water House) in Genzano di Roma, Italy. These are public structures that dispense treated water (still and sparkling) to the community to reduce plastic waste and promote sustainability. They are permanent gathering spots for locals.
Reason for confusion: I see many similar structures accepted as Wayspots in neighboring towns and throughout Italy. However, my nomination was rejected, and the appeal verdict upheld that decision.
A public dispensing point for treated and chilled drinking water. It offers fresh water—both still and sparkling—free of charge to citizens and passersby, promoting sustainability and reducing the use of plastic bottles.
Via Palermo, 1, 00045 Genzano di Roma RM, Italy
Additional Information
This “Water House” (Casetta dell’Acqua) was recently installed and has already become a key service point for the local community. It is a place where residents gather to refill their water supplies and socialize. It encourages on-foot exploration and a healthy, sustainable lifestyle. It is a safe, permanent public installation that is easily accessible to pedestrians.
Could someone explain what specific criteria this fails to meet? Is it considered “generic infrastructure” or “mass-produced” despite being a community hub? I would appreciate any insight on why this specific one is invalid while others are live in the game.
I respectfully disagree, and I would like to add some cultural context, as these structures in Italy function differently than simple vending machines or utilities.
Here is how it meets the three criteria:
1. A great place to socialize: In Italian towns, the “Casetta dell’Acqua” has replaced the ancient village well or fountain. It is a true community hub. Residents go there daily to fill their bottles, and there is almost always a queue. While waiting, neighbors chat, discuss local news, and socialize. It is not a “grab and go” spot; it is a gathering place for the neighborhood.
2. A great place to exercise: These locations are designed to encourage walking. Residents walk from their homes carrying crates of empty glass bottles and walk back carrying full, heavy bottles. It is a physical activity. Furthermore, they are often used as “hydration stations” (pit-stops) by joggers and cyclists passing through the area.
3. A great place to explore: For a visitor, this is a unique point of interest that highlights local sustainability efforts. It teaches how the municipality is fighting plastic waste (providing free sparkling water to avoid buying plastic bottles). It is a distinct, permanent structure that represents a specific, eco-friendly lifestyle choice of the town.
Sorry, but these are just infrastructure for people to obtain water to drink. They are generic and most places in the world have places to obtain water for free. I do not see this meeting criteria due to this reason.
There is an important difference between a place that has the purpose of being social and a place where you might end up talking to someone by chance.
In this case the purpose of this place is to provide water.
You might make conversation with others in the queue but it is not why you go there, you go to get water.
In some countries that are hot there is a need for this sort of place. So this type of place becomes common. In other words not an unusual site. Do many of them look the same?
You might get one that has something distinctive and unusual about it and you could then make a case for that one.
Is there an information panel about promoting healthy lifestyle? Something that is educational at the site might be eligible.
