I can’t help but notice that I’ve been getting some…questionable decisions on some of the POIs I’ve been nominating lately, and I think this might just take the cake.
So I’m at a park which had pretty much no POIs in it, and I take it upon myself to build the area up. One of the very first things I see there is a prominent picnic Pavillion smack in the middle of the park, and luckily it’s in a free cell, so I nominate away, thinking nothing too much of it beyond the excitement of adding another POI to the park.
However, a couple of days later and I get a rejection notice for it having “unsafe access”.
That’s odd, because this pavillion is smack in the middle of the park, in probably the most pedestrian-friendly area in the entire immediate region:
So I go to file an appeal like any POI that I know in my bones should be accepted, pointing out how you can tell from satellite view that access to this picnic pavillion is perfectly safe, being in a park and whatnot.
But then, I’m even more befuddled by the response I get from appeals:
Apparently my photo is “too blurry and unclear”, even though you can clearly see the pavillion front and center in broad daylight, and can even make out the benches on said pavillion (although this admittedly isn’t helped by the shadows cast by the harsh sunlight). I’m of the understanding that a photo is low-quality only if you literally can’t tell what the photo is supposed to be of, which you should be able to clearly tell with the photos I took, even if they aren’t my most photogenic disc photos of all time.
I hope this can be resolved quickly and efficiently.
Title: Flat Shoals Park Pavillion
Description: The picnic Pavillion at Flat Shoals Park.
Supporting: Picnic Pavillions are amazing places to socialize!
And here’s the isolated photodisc photo, for a closer look:
