Back on the old forum I created a thread where I was posting low quality wayspots, nominations and other things that got approved but that probably shouldn’t have. I was waiting for the right wayspot to start a new thread here, and I found one:
I was today years old when I learned that California has Verdugo county, Santa Susana county and San Gabriel county.
(Those are actually mountain ranges located in Los Angeles county and not California counties, but who has time to check this stuff!)
Title and description edits have been submitted.
UPDATE: I made an edit to the post cause people don’t seem to understand sarcasm or what the problem with this wayspot is. Hopefully it’s more clear now.
How is this low quality? Maybe the title needs to be updated. But if the art is actually there and the box is located where in this spot, this is a fine POI.
I think too often we lose sight of the idea that a POI should be a great place to explore, to exercise, or to socialize. Sure, really cool murals and art can entice exploration. But too often, I see people using this as an excuse to nominate a regular, every day item that’s just been livened up a little with some color. Not every attempt to make things a little brighter is truly an artistic endeavor worth going out to see. Sometimes it really is just something that is a little nicer to look at as you walk by than the gray mundane color it was previously. But no one, absolutely no one would go out of their way just to see it.
I’ll probably get slammed with “Art is in the eye of the beholder,” But that’s not the point, otherwise one can make the argument than anything that anybody thinks his artistic should be eligible. The idea is that a POI it something that is important within the community, it is a “great” place to explore versus, “oh that’s pretty” as you walk by and go on your merry way.
I wouldnt say that this is low quality, perhaps not as good as others but certainly seems to be legitimate art and you said yourself that you have learned something from it. I have definitely seen much worse accepted.
But these are official works of art, sponsored by the city or municipality. In my area, each city has a program for painting murals like this. An artist has to apply and be selected by a committee. Their art has to be approved so that it meets a standard - it can’t just be any old thing they want to paint. The location is chosen by the city using some criteria so that it has an impact on residents.
There is no question that these are worthy POI. Just because you don’t like them, doesn’t mean that they aren’t eligible. When it’s an officially sponsored art project, it’s not even debatable that it’s eligible. It’s eligible.
I think you completely misunderstood my point. I didn’t say if I “like” or dislike some of these submissions. And I don’t in any way say they aren’t eligible. But eligible doesn’t equate acceptance.
My point is that even if there are some art projects to make things prettier, some of these are worthy of exploring, but some may not be great places to explore. The submitter still needs to make the argument that these are great places to explore in their community.
Your statement implies that anything painted as art is automatically is an excellent wayspot. I find that perspective to be in conflict with guidance on other POIs like restaurants. A restaurant can be eligible, but we insist they must be a great place to socialize.
In short, we shouldn’t tell people some types of POIs are categorically excellent just because they are eligible. Make the case they meet the acceptance criteria too.
I would be harsh on a submission like that and reject it for an inaccurate title and description. Perhaps that will encourage the submitter to look more closely at what would otherwise seem a potentially acceptable wayspot.
You clearly misunderstood my post, because first - I said “and other approved things”, and second - I was being sarcastic about learning something, because those aren’t counties, those are mountain ranges
I suppose so, you did say “and other approved things” but only showed one that doesnt actually look particularly bad so I could only respond to the one that you pictured. Apologies for not picking up on the sarcasm, it often doesn’t come across well in text. I have learned something about Californian geography now too.
@Itsutsume could you explain what you are hoping this thread will achieve?
I think the title and your opening comments could be interpreted in different ways.
If it’s meant to be examples to use to help improve things that sounds helpful.
In the one you have posted doesn’t strike me as something that clearly shouldn’t have been approved.
It is always tricky as we often don’t know what things were like at the time it was approved in terms of what was there physically, what the interpretation of criteria was and what information was provided to reviewers.
So perhaps a more charitable approach would be to look at an approved wayspot and ask does this need any improvement? A new photo, a more accurate title?
I don’t understand how this shouldn’t have been approved.
It’s unique art and it taught you something. It’s eligible, and it doesn’t meet any of the rejection criteria. Art doesn’t have to be mind-blowingly amazing to be eligible.
Sure the title isn’t great, but it isn’t bad to the point where this should be rejected.
I’m confused as to what you’re trying to accomplish with this thread.
, even if the POI itself is a great nomination.
