I did think it seemed intended that way, but it’s not exactly specific enough to make those with years of prior knowledge of the “because Niantic said so” rejection reason on those stop using it 
Despite thinking the original ruling was illogical, I, myself, haven’t been comfortable with voting at all on those nominations recently because there hasn’t been an official announcement of a criteria change, despite some community assertions.
If you’re saying that is indeed the intent Niantic is communicating behind closed doors, that’s good to know, but it won’t disseminate easily, especially for those who don’t use the forums. If the statement isn’t clear and concrete enough to point others to as an update or clarification, then I’m not inclined to try to use it to convince anyone else, personally 
I’m sure you know what I’m saying 
It does often seem that there is a lot discussed and decided internally that is never actually disseminated to the people that need it. It makes everything feel so disjointed and unprofessional. Even the official team send conflicting messages and the appeals section don’t seem to understand half of the criteria properly.
Wayfarer and the Lightship map are the foundation of one of the biggest and most profitable mobile games in the world (and others), its insane to think the Niantic are unwilling to put proper resources into a team to mange it properly and communicate well.
I will confess to not paying that much attention to the history of pools discussions over the years …because I don’t see them to review 
There is clarification about pools in this document, so there is nothing behind closed doors about the pools.
These clarifications are not attempting to cover every single possible instance. So with each nomination you have to make a judgement based on what that nomination is presenting. Location of a pool has relevance as those located in Single family private residential property or in under 18 focused locations eg schools are not allowed because the location takes precedent. Since it has been clarified that gated communities can be acceptable that means that is not a reason (as was given previously) to deny a pool.
There are several instances where you might have to look and see if there is a conflict.
I think that is clear.
In the UK we basically don’t have residentially focused pools, because who wants to go in an outdoor swimming pool when it’s likely going to rain? So yeah, it’s understandable that we rarely have to deal with the whole pool issue over here.
The residentially focussed pools I know oof are the ones caused by blocked drains and heavy rain. 
Short UK digression
Yeah, but as shown in the screenshot (it’s also been in previous official clarifications specifically stating there was no change to this ruling and they were still “off-limits”), Niantic’s stance on pools in apartment complexes and hotels was that they were “ineligible” and they never really provided a valid reason, so it just became a stupid “because Niantic said so” rejection reason that’s really ingrained now.
As I said, I always hated it because it made no sense, but it’s their product and they had been quite clear about that situation, so it wasn’t really open to interpretation…
People theorised it might have been to do with a lack of lifeguards, but that also makes very little sense to me given that many lakes, rivers, beaches, etc with eligible access points are also unpatrolled
If there has been a change to this ruling Niantic has not stated it to the community at all, and this clarification doesn’t serve that purpose as most who knew this rule will read community pools as public/municipal pools, because they’re called all of those things rather interchangeably.
The community on the forum has largely come to the conclusion that the review flow changes made them too hard to reject, so they would no longer bother doing so, but a few of us have repeatedly asked for Niantic to make a clear and direct statement on these pools that they have always said were ineligible, but have had absolutely no official response that I’ve seen
I’m not saying I want to reject them, but quite the opposite, I’d like a clear-cut greenlight to approve them, if they meet no rejection criteria other than “because Niantic said so” and refused to revoke the ruling publicly 
There’s a few Lidos around but nothing similar to the Swimming Pool/Party Pavilions I’ve seen in the challenge.
I’m skipping those for two reasons
-
I haven’t got a clue about them
-
If I invited someone I know to The Party Pavilion they’d think I was ill or on drugs.
I think that pair is a good example of what makes the difference between something that should make it in and something that will probably be rejected.
Not probably… 
Still technically not a trail marker as they state, but thats not a hill I’ll die on, the views aren’t very nice. 
This really does show the difference that putting some effort into a submission makes, unique title, great description. Fantastic comparison.
I’d like to discuss this part, not in terms of the content, but imho there are some bad wordings. So I’d like to ask the staff, whether you want that in here, or maybe in PMs?
(reason why I ask this: there might be problems with a bad word filter, if the new forum has one, and I guess there might be some actual political examples necessary, that could derail the topic, when others jumo in)
It would be useful to know more.
If you think it would be better by PM then I will set one up.
Otherwise you can try your best as yes there are word filters on here.
Yes, users have had issues submitting places with “hol0caust” in the name, as it seems to be banned in the apps. These aren’t sensitive locations, but typically a town memorial, a museum, etc. I know of a museum for this at a university, and I can see it having to be renamed to get submitted.
I don’t think it’s a political thing so much as words that could be offensive and/or explicit to some. For example, “gr0tto” is banned, even though they are small caves, many with religious shrines; I found this out when submitting one at a church, so had to change the title even though the plaque uses “gr0tto.” I have come to think that it may be banned due to a certain mansion in Beverly Hills, CA that has a man-made swimming gr0tto, where some adult things have been known to take place.
Criteria is one thing, banned words is another, and many of the ambos have been working on gathering banned words in the apps, not so much the forums, so that Wayspots can have accurate titles and descriptions.
I was updating descriptions for some fantastic carvings done by a renowned master carver and elder and didn’t even think about it when typing his name. Although of course it was denied so had to just refer to him by his first name only and a nickname he is known by. Which is unfortunate. While the word itself is inappropriate it is a common last name for many Indigenous families.
The banned words filter is an absolute pet peeve of mine. We have a local mural artist named Kevin Burdi k and I have had to pull some weird shenanigans just to credit him!
If im going to submit a portal of a sign, similar to that, do I put the name as the place title or something like “sign of *place title”?
I don’t know, sorry. I’ve never submitted one and I rarely see them in review or in game.
I think they are more common in the US.
I’ve never seen it too, there are a bunch of exemples shown in this topics created that I see almost impossible being approved here in Brazil.
I might start linking the posts on the nominations support text, to prove its actually something “approvable”