Hello again, I would like to know why gazebos have such superiority over table + bench sets? Aren’t they equally powerful in terms of socialization? Let’s look at my country specifically as an example. In every country, people have different priorities. As such, our country is quite a green country in terms of the fact that we have a developed culture of planting trees, they stand along all (at least old) roads, even those outside the cities and people don’t go there. There are also trees in all parks and near houses as a natural sound insulator and an umbrella that creates shelter for both the sun and light rain so that it is pleasant to sit. Based on all these factors, most of these places refused to spend extra money on the roof, but this does not make them a worse place for socialization than the same table and chairs with a roof; moreover, in terms of socialization, Gazebo buildings lose out here, because they usually also have an enclosing fence, which is not very popular with the local population. So, maybe it’s not worth making such huge differences between these buildings that are identical according to their purpose if there are trees next to the roofless structure that do the same job. I’m speaking from personal experience because I think all my gazebos went through, but only 30 percent of roofless ones, and for the last ones I even detailed specific description of how this set is used, you can say that it’s history. And for me, this is very strange that places with such a historical description are not passed, but buildings with much less historical and socialization value are passed unconditionally
Gazebos are easier to get accepted, because it is easier for reviewers to confirm a distinct designated point of interest when there is a building structure there. But these kinds of parks and picnic areas without a roof are being accepted where I live. You can try adding the corresponding link to from Criteria Clarification Collection in your supporting statements to inform reviewers.
How do i do that?
Go to that section here and find the one you want to edit into your supporting statement. There are several ways to get the link. For this one, I would click on the title and copy the link that appears at the top to paste into my supporting statement in my contributions page:
If you use the chain symbol at the bottom of the post, it will have your username on it. Be sure to backspace over your name if you get the link from there, or someone might reject your nomination as “submitter identifiable” for the link. But links are allowed in the supporting section.
Just transfer theme if it’s in wrong place
I don’t understand.
same…
@cyndiepooh was recommending that you include a link to the Picnic area criteria in your supporting information section of the nomination.
What are you asking here? I am sorry if I confused you.
Hi
Criteria Clarification Collection isn’t a category to move this post onto.
There’re cleared topics like “picnic areas” and @cyndiepooh advices you to copy the link of this clarification in your supporting information field.
Make that sense to you?
Ty again - that’s what they thought I meant! I just meant to look there for relevant clarifications.
I’m not talking about concrete nominations in this, I’m trying to say that Table+bench set=Gazebo
I can include the link on the rejected set if it’s necessary I didn’t understand how to do that, it’s too confusing, maybe there’s a video tut. And once again I want to repeat that Gazebos are less popular here and they all almost look the same because they are government-built and sets all look unique because they are made by local communities so they have better places and attract more locals
did you think i wanted you to link us to your nomination? no that is not necessary. if you want to share a screenshot, we can try to help with suggestions on improving the photo for a new submission
here are some without roofs that i have had approved in case this helps:
Oh and only to add this if this could be a question:
In your rejected nomination you can’t put in anything. If you have an appeal remaining you can use this (open the nomination in your contribution page → a button appears on the right corner if you have one).
The other way is to resubmit. Means, start the nomination process again (new pokestop?)
I guess I did that
Didn’t understand what does that
I think I got it know.
While you posting your thoughts in nomination support, Cyndiepooh gave you the support, but you don’t need support.
Maybe you could contribute on this topic:
There’s a ongoing discussion about the recent clarifications.
Hi, I think you got some great advice above already, but maybe just to clarify a little further.
I sympathize with your rejections of picnic areas, maybe reviewers in your area or ML are not aware that non-roofed ones can be great places to socialize as well. However a covered picnic area and a gazebo are different structures, and I wouldn’t necessarily call a gazebo an upgraded picnic area, or a roofed picnic area a gazebo.
Shade structures including but not limited to gazebos could meet some additional exploration criteria if they are for example architecturally interesting. In addition, that probably makes them more visible on satellite and helps establish permanence. So it’s not unfairness per se but it’s a slightly different type of nomination, with potentially different questions that reviewers are going to ask themselves.
Happy to try to help tackle some of those rejections if you’re willing to share examples 