Hi,
some time ago I have appealed to the one of mine nominations. It is a building, that is registered in local list of monuments. And it was rejected stating, that I have to provide proof next time that this building is significant.
So I provided one this time. And this time wayspot was also rejected. And because of wayspot being rejected again I have appealed again. And this time it was rejected for the same reason despite that this time source was provided.
So I am asking, what can I improve in this nomination, so it can get accepted, or is it just total garbage, that I should abandon?
This is, how my additional information looked
The only potencial issue that I can see is in my source:
Despite that source is from local governor, it is just a list of all historic monuments in the city. It is not possible to check only one.
Hello and welcome,
A boundary map link isn’t going to be enough, as it doesn’t prove that the building is of historical value.
Providing links to online articles that explain the historical value is the proof that the appeals team is speaking of. Links can be provided in the supporting info as well, so youi may want to do your research before submitting and provide the link(s) in the supporting info, which could help cut down on having to appeal. I research almost every POI that I’m looking to submit online before doing so, and if there are any links I can provide for proof, I’ll do so.
The burden of proof is always on the submitter, and if you don’t provide enough info, a reviewer may reject.
2 Likes
Definitely try to provide a link in the supplemental info section of the nomination if at all possible, and on appeal you’re going to want to as well. I do wish you could add additional pics sometimes. Other than that you just state why the rejection reason is incorrect and restate why it is a valid nomination. Also, you’re not going to win them all, even if you’re pretty obviously right, and you did everything correctly.
1 Like
I’ve done this before by uploading the photos to a 3rd party site and providing the links in the appeal.
2 Likes
Oh! I can’t believe I didn’t think of that! Thanks!
My two cents worth, ArcGIS and similar systems are definitive. That screenshot does say that the building has historic status, but I suspect somewhere there is a more detailed registry.
Yes, as a reviewer, I’d want something from a historic registry. In the US, historic places on the nationa or statel registry can easily be found online.
Also, it would be nice to see the full nomination, as there could have been something else missing that could have helped, like a plaque or sign at the site.
I have to specify, that this map is a form of official historic registry provided by the city. But you are absolutly right, that boundary map link alone was not be enough. But I think that potencial solution for that might be providing another link to map, but this time it is placed on the goverment website.
https://uml.lodz.pl/dla-mieszkancow/zabytki/informacje-i-ochrona/gminna-ewidencja-zabytkow
On this site there is also provided list of all objects in PDF, and it is easly visible that website is owned by city.
The other thing that have to be specified in this is that the are two different classifications on historical monuments in my city. One is national (red one on the screenshot from previous post) and the second one is given directly from city (yellow ones on the map). So even if I try to use more complex national registry, it won’t work, as object that I had concerns about is part of local list of historical monuments.
I also have found information, that if I want to have more information on objects classified by city I have to go to some city department. And I think, it’s a bit too much for me.
Thank you very much for telling me, what can I improve in my potencial future nominations and appeals
