I have tried submitting this information sign at a dog park two times. The first time I had typos in the description and it was rejected rightfully as I caught the typos after the fact.
I asked for help with making a better description and on the resubmission I took it off of hold and instantly duplicated on the park sign that is about 10ft away.
Now appeals is telling me a sign about the dog park and its mission statement is a common sign when it has the logo of the dog park and I gave a synopsis of the writing instead of typing word for word from the sign.
I am trying to understand where to go from here. I was submitting it as a lightship only poi to add to the database. I am thinking about just moving on due to how the system and the niantic reviewer decided.
Is there anything I could do to improve this nomination?
In my opinion, without seeing the Dog Park in question (size, number of closed areas, placement of signs), I would lean towards only 1 sign being eligible.
Not sure how size of the dog park would matter? You can have valid objects within 10m of each other just that each would have to follow the inclusion rules for each game.
With the expansion of the transcontinental railroad in the late 1800s, Arlington became a depot town, a magnetic place for people to live, prosper, and created meaningful connections. Since then, Downtown Arlington has grown up around these tracks. While the city’s historic center continues to transform with the times, community-building remains a constant.
This is a snippet from the orignal submission text that is on the sign I used in the first submission.
So this is something I haven’t seen before. It looks like this is an educational sign that gives town history and context for the dog park. I think this could be eligible in its own. But you may need to do some things to adjust the title and/or description.
Most times a sign is used as an anchor for the dog park itself and is not the actual the interesting aspect of the wayspot. So the reviewers may have been a bit confused and so marked it as a duplicate to the existing dog park.
Additional note: please be careful to use your own words in the description. What you wrote above appears to be what is on the sign itself. That could be refused for third party text.
I do see the extra value of the information provided in this sign, but can also see why reviewers felt it should be considered a duplicate of the dog park sign. So I am on the fence about this one. If it were me, then I would move on.
I don’t have a problem with someone restating the words they are showing us on the sign in the description. This advice blew me away the first time I ever read it. I do now put “Sign reads” in front when I quote the sign.
i don’t know what you erased, but i assumed you knew from WDD that I would have accepted this in review as an information sign. i just see where the appeals reviewer is coming from, too.
I erased why I felt ML had rejected the nomination as a duplicate. I needed to stop typing and take a break as I was just staying frustrated by keep thinking about the topic. I apologize.
Do take some time to chill, having a discussion shouldnt be stress inducing.
But equally I understand that when you have a nomination rejected like this it is going to feel frustrating.
Okay so here are my thoughts.
Having read through the posts I have swung one way then the other on this.
You are spot on, distance doesn’t matter between wayspots. So the crucial factor really is how distinct is this from the actual dog park.
This is where things get murky for me.
As an information sign this looks good.
I would have a question in my head in terms of context, as to whether the intention was for this sign to mark the existence of the park. Or if the intention was provide an information board just for anyone to read and learn and as such it didn’t need a close connection with the play area.
From the details about the other wayspot that seems to have independent signage to mark the park so it looks as though the board is there for education purposes.
I do think from the limited information about the two wayspots that a greater difference could have been drawn out. It does sound as though they are talking about 1 thing.
So I can see why this was being duplicated. And why effectively the appeals people thought it was nothing special…….
But yes it is special.
Personally, i would have passed this, to me, thats an information sign that gives context about the dog park, so youre submitting the sign itself as its own poi, rather than the dog park itself.
This to me seems like another bad appeal review, which seems to be a more common issue as though the appeal people are just quickly looking and moving, rather than giving them a fair review
Theres defo some bad acceptions as well, for example theres a health center near me thats become a waypoint, i camt see normal submitters accepting it. Even personally ive done appeals on things i think are 50/50 at best and had them accepted, not complaining, but i did at least sell it to get it in. But even when i get appeals rejecyed on the 50/50s, its the crap reasons that annoy me
I got an email this morning stating that the appeal was accepted on a second look(the wording wasn’t mentioned like that) just that it had been accepted on a second email. I had originally though the email was for another appeal I had made last week.
