Similar in some ways, but different.
I appreciate you are trying to understand but you are examining the words in too much detail and in doing so you are losing the overall context and understanding.
Take some time to read and reflect a little more.
That sounds offensive.
Sincerely. I see no way to read that that isn’t an intentional sleight.
For a sports field nomination at a multi-field complex, on the “Permanent and Distinct” question: you could answer “I don’t know”. This field is similar to others around, but you’ve read good arguments that each is distinct, so you’re not sure.
If Niantic wanted, they could use that information to select definitely-distinct Wayspots to show in game. (They don’t, but that’s on them.)
The first of the rejection criteria states.
The title of this section is “Does not meet eligibility criteria”. Generic, mass-produced, not visually unique or interesting is a commentary and should not mean that even one of these cases will lead directly to rejection. Places that are not ideal for exploration, interaction, or exercise are generic or mass-produced. However, even generic or mass-produced places can be ideal for exploration, socialize and exercise, and these can be interesting places even if they are not visually unique.
It may be easier to understand “Such objects are neither visually unique nor interesting, they are generic or mass-produced” instead of “The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting”.