Looking for advice on this location and why ML is auto denying it. I have submitted twice, with different photos, but still no luck.
It is near a high school but it is not on high school property. This is the only reason I can think of for the auto deny. Which if that is the case, I won’t bother to resubmit. Any advice is appreciated, thanks!
To be honest, I think this is the correct ML rejection. Bike Racks / Stations are generally not eligible.
2 Likes
Hm that’s surprising since they promote exercise and exploration pretty solidly.
Do you have a good source for this that I can read?
I believe it’s been discussed on here a few times. I can’t remember which threads specifically (probably take me a while to find it). I’ve asked about this type of thing before and I believe that the Bike Racks / Stations are within itself not eligible, even though the Bikes can encourage Exercise, Exploration and Socialising. The criteria doesn’t apply to the Rack / Station itself, even though you can use the bikes for such criterias.
2 Likes
Gotcha, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks!
I guess I should think of it as yes bikes are good for meeting eligibility but aren’t necessarily a good POI.
Directly from the source, “A note on eligibility: if a Wayspot nomination meets one of the criteria, that’s great! But remember that eligibility alone isn’t sufficient to turn a nomination into an accepted Wayspot”.
1 Like
Yep. It also goes down to interpretation of what the criteria means as they can have broad meanings. However, you have to ask yourself the question, what makes you specifically want to visit the nomination that meets the criteria.
There is an argument about how a Park Entrance sign is eligible. It’s not necessarily in this case the sign that specifically meets the criteria, but the fact that the park does, but as you can’t always nominate a park, the sign would generally act as a POI. (Apology if this example isn’t a fair representation of the truth).
In terms of the Bike Rack / Stand, you wouldn’t go there just to socialise, explore or exercise, even though you could use the bike to achieve one or more of the goals. The bike is a moveable object, so the combination via any combination means that neither can be eligible.
Right that makes sense.
I think my confusion was in the fact that it is a rental spot so theoretically you would search it out to go rent a bike. I guess it could be thought of similarly to a kayak rental stand (though less common). Regardless, I won’t plan to nominate bike rentals going forward unless they are really special ones lol
1 Like
I don’t have an argument regarding Kayak stands, as I can see both sides of the argument. Kayak isn’t as widespread, and can only be used within a constrained space. I defer to other people’s opinion regarding this to be honest.
Hah no I completely agree with you!
How can you articulate that these particular bike rental stations promote exploration or exercise? You would need to be able to make a clear and earnest case that supports this.
I’m not familiar with the candidate you’re presenting in this nomination. In my understanding, these are fairly ubiquitous in Portland. In my city, bike rental stations are in a few parks and only a few locations in the metro. Some of these have been success because they do help visitors explore when they may otherwise have been limited on foot.
I think it’s more about location and use of these rather than any sort of categorical eligibility.
1 Like
Would you say that Bike rentals for the primary and sole use within Parks could be deemed eligible?
Yeah that makes sense to me. Thanks for your advice!
1 Like
No 
just that they aren’t a strict rejection from me, regardless of where.
1 Like