Heating Plant Sign Nomination Help

Nomination Support
1

Hello everyone,

I’ve been trying to get this sign accepted as a nomination, but I haven’t had any luck so far. I’d really appreciate any tips or suggestions on how to improve my nomination and hopefully get it approved.

Coordinates: 56.140238, 8.966545

A bit of historical information about this heating plant

Years of construction (and later changes)

  • Main building (energy production building): built in 1955.

  • Major renovation/rebuild recorded: 1962.

What it is today

  • The site is registered/marketed as “West Heating Plant” (Varmecentral Vest) at Møllevænget 11 (often shown as 11–13) in Herning, and is associated with Verdo Varme Herning A/S (district heating).

  • It is described in environmental documentation as an “emergency or peak-load plant” (nød- eller spidslastanlæg).

  • Denmark’s Energy Agency plant data lists “West Heating Plant” (Varmecentral Vest) as a natural-gas boiler (kedel) installation with a capacity of 16.2 MW (under the Verdo Varme Herning A/S / Herning–Ikast District Heating (Herning-Ikast Fjernvarme) context).

Historical significance (what makes it notable)

  • It is part of the early build-out of district heating in Herning. Verdo’s background material states that district heating in Herning was established in 1950, and a plant building date of 1955 places West Heating Plant (Varmecentral Vest) in the early expansion period of that system.

  • Infrastructure role (reliability and peak demand): As an emergency/peak-load facility, its importance is less about architecture and more about ensuring a stable heat supply during very cold periods or during outages/maintenance at the main production units.

Here are a few of my attempts so far:

Title

  • “West Heating Plant – Møllevænget 11–13” (Varmeværk Vest – Møllevænget 11–13)

  • “West Heating – Energy heritage from 1955” (Vestervarme – Energy heritage from 1955)

Description

  • “Permanent pylon sign for the West Heating Plant, located at Møllevænget 11–13. The sign marks the heating plant’s location and is clearly visible from the public sidewalk.”

  • “District heating plant established during the 1955 oil crisis. It represents Herning’s shift from oil to more sustainable district heating and still operates today as a key part of the local energy supply.”

Supporting information

  • “Permanently mounted pylon sign placed next to the sidewalk at the driveway entrance to Møllevænget 11–13. There is safe public pedestrian access via the sidewalk along the road. The location can be confirmed in Street View using the hedge and the row of houses on the opposite side of the road.”

  • “Permanent and easy to see from the public road. The site reflects the city’s historical transition to shared heating and can encourage interest and discussion about green energy.”

Categories (I have mainly used)

  • Place Name Sign (sign)

  • Utility (structure)

  • Other

Any help on how to make this nomination stronger would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

unnamed (2)
unnamed (2)384×512 99.5 KB

unnamed (1)
unnamed (1)384×512 85 KB

2

Sounds like it is of historical interest for that industry but I don’t think that makes it a great place for exploration or meets any other criteria, in my view

Outside of that

I don’t think you need to say in any descriptions that a POI is permanent. Maybe mention it in the supporting information if anywhere.

Also

it doesn’t matter what Categories you select in the nomination process

5 Likes
3

I do not see this sign as eligible at all.

There is a general problem with signs for things - it is the thing itself that is interesting, the sign just points to it. A sign should only be used when the actual POI is not suitable for some reason. An example would be a viewpoint for a lake that has a sign - the viewpoint itself might struggle to get past review even if it is a legitimate POI for exploration.

This particular sign only has value because of the thing it is a sign for, so submit the thing, which is potentially eligible under exploration.

(To paraphrase what @PkmnTrainerJ said, the category you select has no meaning to any player anywhere and has no impact on reviews.)

3 Likes
4

I find it hard to read AI generated text

What was the issue with your nomination-did it get rejected? It would help to see screenshots of the whole nomination including the rejection reasons

It sounds like its just infrastructure for heating, why is it a good place to exercise, socialise or explore at this sign? Because it doesnt sound like a good place to do any of those things unfortunately.

3 Likes
5

I agree that it doesn’t seem like a good place for exercise, socialising or exploration.

If you care about Pokemon Go, please note that it also wouldn’t appear as a Pokestop or Gym if accepted.

I was going to say though that the chimney looks cool, and it was nice that it got approved. It definitely appears to be a local landmark which is visually interesting and would be something I would ask someone about if I was visiting the area, which would link with the ‘Exploration’ criteria.

image
image1084×1226 227 KB

5 Likes
6

The chimney does look cool!

1 Like
7

Thanks for all the replies — it helped! I might just give up on this PokéStop nomination :sweat_smile:

2 Likes