The nomination below was rejected on a criteria which is not mentioned in the Rejection Criteria as per Rejection Criteria — Wayfarer Help Center which was mentioned.
Even if “Natural Feature” was included in the Rejection Criteria, this pond would not fall under this term as it is clearly man-built.
I know the Eligibility, Acceptance and Rejection Criteria well. My wayfinder rating is great and have done a lot of forum-searching, and I can conclude that this is a WRONG decision.
You can find all the information below with this news article which clearly makes this a well-know hotspot.
Communale vijver
A really old pond accessable to everyone who walks the path of the park. Great place for some peace far from the busy streets.
The pond seems to be completely surrounded by a fence so that it is not itself accessible. Even in the news article that you voted, it shows people standing outside the pond at the fence looking at it.
Actually, it is. You have to be able to physically walk up to the thing that you’re nominating. Or, in the case of something up high like a Clocktower, for example you need to walk up to the base of it. The fact that the pond is completely inaccessible, makes it in eligible…
I am trying to give you valid feedback based on wayfarer criteria. If in fact, this pond is surrounded by a fence designed to keep people out that means it it is not accessible by pedestrians, which in fact is a rejection criterion.
The proof article requires an account for me to read it. Normally, i would translate it to English but i can’t get past the firewall. So, that article is not good proof material.
Something being old doesn’t mean it automatically qualifies to be a wayspot. For a “natural feature” like this, it would need to be a significant gathering spot or the site where something significant once happened. Visually, i see no proof that there’s any way to gather at this “pond.” There’s no shelter, no seating, no platform, etc.
Additionally, this honestly looks more like a puddle to me. I’m not convinced that this doesn’t dry up and disappear during dry seasons.
Finally, the fence absolutely looks like it is designed to keep people away from the puddle. If there is an opening in the fence somewhere, the supporting photo should show that.
Ok, but are you voting for the water feature or the puddle? If there was a bench here, i might be tempted to vote this as a scenic viewpoint because the willow tree is lovely. I’m sure it would make a great spot to sit and take in the natural world, listen to birds, etc.
But this puddle doesn’t appear to have any of that from what we’ve been shown.
I am a champion of correcting appeal decisions that are clearly wrong but idk if this is.
Thanks for the appeal, Explorer! The nomination is connected to a waterbody (pond) and it falls under rejection criteria. If there is an information sign that represents this feature to be a public attraction site or historic, it would greatly increase the odds of this nomination being eligible…
What I see there is that they are explaining that it seemed to be a waterbody to explain what they thought the nomination was, AND that they thought this falls under rejection criteria. Not that it falls under rejection criteria because it is a waterbody. So I don’t see this as being an egregiously wrong appeal rejection reason that Niantic should overturn.
I also can’t view the linked articles to advise if you should try resubmitting the nomination. And there is no Google Street View there for me to suggest a different photo. A sign would be great, as the appeal reviewer suggested.
