Exactly - places that encourage or facilitate socializing, exercising, or exploring.
Just gone back and checked. I tweaked it a little but all the links and such in supporting information were the same
That is my same experience. Sometimes, the solution is just to resubmit.
Just to clarify — I didn’t mean families are responsible for nominating these benches. My point was that the current criteria puts pressure on families by asking them to “prove” their loved one was notable enough, which can feel unfair or insensitive. The issue is the expectation of justifying someone’s worth, not who submits the nomination.
If the family isnt submitting, they don’t need to prove anything though - the submitter does!
I’d say that for a memorial bench to be eligible for the person it’s memorializing, anyone walking up to it and doing a quick google of the name on the bench should be able to find sufficient support for their nomination to explain to the average reviewer why that person was significant within their community.
TBH, that’s one of my big things against most memorial bench nominations: it’s abundantly clear that the submitter hasn’t even looked to see who this person is and is just submitting with supporting information of “RIP” or “we need more pokestops here”. Which feels really disrespectful to me!
I get that resubmitting can work, but honestly I think Niantic should adjust the criteria so it doesn’t come to that. I put a lot of time and care into my nominations, and it would be nice not to have to drag the process out when something is already a solid candidate.
Sometimes it just has to come to that. We cannot know the education level (regarding Niantic criteria) of reviewers. Unfortunately it is not consistent. Most persons memorialized on a bench tend to have a “hyper local” notability and can only be appreciated by those locals. Reviewers may be from further reaches of the country and cannot know (understandably) said memorialized person.
I read this reply to a different situation this morning.
Can you really say that a nameplate dedicated to Pop-Pop and Gammy makes a bench intrinsically interesting to the larger community?
[quote=“darkersolstice, post:27, topic:110099, full:true”]
I’d say that for a memorial bench to be eligible for the person it’s memorializing, anyone walking up to it and doing a quick google of the name on the bench should be able to find sufficient support for their nomination to explain to the average reviewer why that person was significant within their community.
TBH, that’s one of my big things against most memorial bench nominations: it’s abundantly clear that the submitter hasn’t even looked to see who this person is and is just submitting with supporting information of “RIP” or “we need more pokestops here”. Which feels really disrespectful to me!
I get what you’re saying, and I agree that “RIP” or “we need more PokéStops” is definitely not respectful or enough information for any nomination. But I don’t think a memorial bench should only be eligible if a quick Google search pulls up results. Most people who make a real impact in their community don’t have an online footprint, and that doesn’t make their memorial any less meaningful or relevant to the space it’s placed in.
To me, what matters is the bench’s setting, purpose, and contribution to the location — not whether the honoree happens to be searchable on the internet.
I see what you mean, but I don’t think the appeal has to come from the names themselves. Most memorial benches are meaningful because of the spot they highlight or the moment of reflection they offer, not necessarily because everyone knows the people named on them. The value is often in the bench’s setting and how it adds to the space.
To me, what matters is the bench’s setting, purpose, and contribution to the location — not whether the honoree happens to be searchable on the internet.
Then what you’re nominating isn’t the memorial bench, but the setting and location anchored by the bench, and the supporting information you provide should support that purpose–see the bench I have above at Centennial Park. If the honoree is irrelevant, then you’ve got to prove that the bench itself has the intrinsic value of representing a place to explore/exercise/socialize.
Which is doable, but may be an uphill battle.
Ah then you are submitting it for other reasons than being a memorial bench. We don’t disagree then.
Love a good bench with a view 
Yeah, and that inconsistency is exactly why I’d really like to see the “notable person” requirement changed. Reviewers from other areas are never going to know the people on most memorial benches, even if those individuals were genuinely important in their own community. It feels unfair to expect that kind of recognition, and it’s a big reason why the criteria could be more flexible.
If it’s the spot that you’re nominating, the type of bench and any plaque are kind of irrelevant- I shared one above that is literally just a block of plain concrete but it had the most incredible view and was accepted
The notable person clarification is for a memorial bench to be interesting enough for reviewers to find it acceptable. No one is stopping you from submitting a bench for other reasons.
This is important because they are many that submit fake memorial plague in bench. Notable figures usually have historical record somewhere that can be proven. Unknown figures are hard to prove. If you ask wayfarer to accept all family/friend memorial without proof, that will create many fake nomination.
I think we do agree on the location being the key factor — that’s exactly why I’m questioning the “notable person” rule. If the value comes from the bench’s setting and not the fame of the person, then that requirement doesn’t really make sense to keep.
On the contrary, I might be more likely to approve a bench from afar with proper context than a local one without.