I didn’t claim that alone was enough. It’s only in combination with the landscaping that this can be considered a great place to exercise.
The fact that you can walk through it as part of your exercise does not make it a great place to do so. Unless you are going to do either a very small walk or lots of laps this would likely be a very small part of the walk.
I would forget the “Exercise” criteria on this, if you insist on it you are going to have to prove that it is fact a park and not just a Green Space Cut Through.
I can walk 150 metres either way from my home and reach 5 such Green Spaces but they are not parks.
I would like to hear from the OP as to the official status of this area.
We can all view this differently based on our own experience of this type of area. It would be good to know how it is recognised officially.
It has been designed and landscaped. That is true. It is not well maintained, not beautiful, nowhere to sit and not a place to exercise.
Landscaping is something that is done to spaces when the urban planner (or whoever) couldn’t work out what to do with a space, so stuck some landscaping features in there. This is a radically different idea to creating a usable landscape. (Within the landscape design field, “landscaping” is a derogatory term.)
@seaprincesshnb We are agreeing, I was just being pedantic about your claim that it is undeveloped. It is developed, just not in a way that makes it a POI.
My mistake, I thought I was discussing with the OP.
I get what you mean.
The criteria description reads ‘A place you’d go to get some fresh air, stretch your legs, or exercise. Places that encourage walking, exercising, and enjoying public spaces. Or something that teaches or encourages us to be our healthiest selves.’
Even if walking through the minipark is a small part of your walk, I think this encourages someone to go on a walk rather than stay home as they can route through it to see and appreciate it even if it’s not standout.
I think enough people value and want these kinds of green spaces to make them a great place for exercise.
Everything said here is opinion but I would see it unlikely that someone is going to make this their destination for exercise but just “on route”.
The majority of people passing are going to be doing just that, Passing through to other parts of the estate.
Lets see if the OP @GeneralSecura returns and whether he has any other info / evidence.
I believe presently it’s a great place for exercise even as a waypoint on a longer walk, especially looking at the criteria. But there’s room to debate on this.
To make it great, I realise there’s a difference in opinion here in whether a different level of maintenance - looks pretty good compared to some places near me which people still go out to to enjoy - and or presence of additional features is needed. I suppose the local context is what matters.
I love this. This is a PARK. From the US to the UK to China.
Clearly - saying this is up front- I am a huge fan of pocket parks (sometimes called hyper local or micro). I have nominated a few.
Unfortunately a lot of people compare Pocket Parks/Micro Parks with larger open areas with facilities or even national parks. And there is a lack of understanding of the clear Niantic Criteria section on Parks.
Which is unfair as these people don’t understand the concept and importance of Pocket/Micro/Hyper local parks to the health of the community let alone wider ecosystem.
My LGA (local government authority - the council ) actually calls them pocket parks and describes on their website and official facilities documentation. Clearly articulating their value as place for local communities to go to and share an open space.
That said. Even with evidence of multiple official government documentation - websites etc etc I failed with multiple nominations. Not accepted at every turn. So it took me a while to get it right. And it still took multiple appeals against failed nominations. I was even advised if I kept appealing each new nomination for the same thing I would be accused of abuse.
It was extremely frustrating.
So I hear you.
But I got there. And with my Appeals evidence I had to say see map X on page y square Z. On page D, see para L. On page O see table middle of page line item U and this corresponds with… I included direct links to Street view. Google Photo Gallery. etc. I had to point to evidence of how these Small Pocket Parks provide benefits to the communities they sit in.
And now I follow the same principle… Evidence evidence evidence. Cause reviewers etc see the word Park and the inbuilt bias goes where and they reject.
In supporting I don’t say great place to exercise. I say great place to explore. and I prove the local element of a local park and why such things are important to communities. and with evidence
Go to your government authorities (national to local). Dig up everything they have. Look at how they define local/hyper local community parks and their importance… Look for all sites that mention it. I list a few below as examples - just as random grab from the web… Evidence on size, use, importance to locals etc etc
Then look wider on articles. research into pocket parks (this one from Australia)
This US short article is fantastic on benefits - https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2017/april/the-health-benefits-of-small-parks-and-green-spaces/
I like the last line “”“If we want a healthy and happy society, we need a diversity of quality public spaces for the public to enjoy, and more pocket parks will certainly contribute to that.”“”
Australian Government news Pocket parks a solution to lack of public green space - Government News
This UK article (Portsmouth) on Pocket Parks Pocket Parks (Article) – Pens of the Earth
The London Council defines a Pocket Park as ""Pocket parks are defined in the London Plan as small areas of open space of less than 0.4 hectares that provide natural surfaces and shaded areas for informal play and passive recreation that sometimes have seating and play equipment.
And the UK Government (2019) said funding was available for the creation of Pocket Parks that were"““a piece of land of up to 0.4 hectares (although many are around 0.02 hectares, the size of a tennis court) which may already be under grass but which is unused, undeveloped or derelict”.”“”
My suggestion. Go back. Get great photos. Blue skies. Sunset. make it pop. and the post into nomination support and ask how can I write this better. And evidence 
This has no reason not to pass - presented well - and with evidence. I love it. Good luck @GeneralSecura
I agree with the way you have described a pocket park. But I do not see those features in this piece of land. Please show me where the open space is. Because what I see is all that area with the red outlines being a space that you cannot use. That’s scrubby underbrush, not meant to be walked in or used as any kind of playing surface. We have already talked about how there is no designated seating here. This is only a path to walk through, not unlike a pavement along a road. This does not appear to be a destination to me. It is something you pass by on your way to somewhere else.
I am completely in favor of pocket parks. I do not believe that the way this has been set up that it qualifies as a pocket park.
You’re right, it’s better as a place of exploration.
What I see is a pair of desire paths that have been formalized or accommodated, perhaps. I agree it’s not really a park.
We assess against the criteria, not against what a park is.
If I was in the area and saw this on the map, I would want to explore it. But we appreciate different places to each other.
This really doesn’t make sense to me, we have to assess both.
If it’s a park then it is eligible.
If it isn’t a park then it is ineligible.
I don’t follow.
A park is only eligible because a park meets the criteria.
Do you mean classifying as a park is the only hope for this space to meet criteria?
IMO: This is not a Park and I would personally Reject if it came up in my Review feed.
If there was any evidence that it was a Park then it would be eligible.
So assessing whether it is a Park is part of assessing whether it meets Criteria.
I think folks need to be careful. Really there are no automaticly eligible items. There are things that are typically eligible, but I always walk through each section of the review flow.
Sure, if it’s a park it’s more than likely eligible.
But non-park places can meet the criteria. So we should discuss more than whether it’s a park?
walk through each section of the review flow.
I agree. This sums it up. Whether it meets our definition of park is irrelevant, because that’s not the basis of reviewing.
Focus on the greatness for exercise, exploration and being social, with the other criteria.
Unfortunately in this instance, I don’t see it being great for any of these. It would not be a place that I’d seek to go to or stay for any length of time.
It’s too bad that it isn’t tended to be more appealing for people to go and spend time there. It feels that this is purely a pass through.