I am having hard time seeing why this being rejected it is communal area for community (the gated community which is not something that can be rejected on) and sru. It is important community focused point for the community of gated community.
A beautifully maintained communal garden serving the residents of Marans Court, a gated residential development in the heart of Barrow upon Soar. Featuring mature trees, well tended shrubs and a seating bench, the garden provides a peaceful green space for residents to relax and socialise. The development takes its name from Marans in France, the twin town of Barrow upon Soar.
Location
4 Warner St, Barrow upon Soar, Loughborough LE12 8PB, UK
This communal garden is located within Marans Court, a gated residential development situated in the centre of Barrow upon Soar, Leicestershire, LE12 8UB. Please note this is not a single family private residence. Marans Court is a multi-unit residential development comprising a number of apartments, with this communal garden serving all residents of the development. This nomination therefore meets Wayfarer eligibility criteria for communal spaces within multi-residence developments. The garden is a well maintained communal green space featuring mature trees, carefully tended shrubs, gravel pathways and a communal seating bench. It provides residents with a peaceful outdoor space to relax, socialise and enjoy the green environment, fulfilling the Wayfarer criteria of a place to socialise and a place to exercise. The development takes its name from Marans, a town in the Charente-Maritime region of southwest France, which is the official twin town of Barrow upon Soar. This twinning connection has been an important part of the community identity of Barrow upon Soar for many years. Further information about the Barrow upon Soar and Marans twinning can be found at: Twinning Association - Barrow upon Soar Village Website
This photo is not good. It looks like it was taken from a car that is still moving. I think this could possibly meet criteria as a great place to be social, but you will need to work on taking a photo that illustrates that. I can’t see this area on satellite or street view to recommend a different angle for the photo, but you can take some new pictures and post them here for advice.
I disagree a bench in maintained communal garden does it is focus point for the gated community bench on its own no but garden is clearly a focus point as shared area used by community so is important to that community.
So what is best way if AI system is wrong.. appeal or retake the photo?
That is hard to say. We have 2 appeals, each on 15 day counter before we can use them again. If I see something that is easy to fix, like a more focused photo, I usually will resubmit, since I have more nominations than appeals. If you appeal an “automated process” rejection and it is accepted, it could potentially help with training of the Machine Learning model it uses. If the appeal is rejected, you can still resubmit later, and the Niantic Note will tell you that.
I found the location on Google Maps - Google Maps .
The site appears to be a gated community. That in itself doesn’t mean it’s not acceptable, but am wondering if that is the reason why the AI could have rejected it or could it be down to the AI not being able to find a specific POI to lock onto. These types of locations could be tricky to nominate and am wondering if there is anything could be eligible, like a playground set?
I think it is just the bad photo. People would be screaming here if every nomination in a gated community were rejected by the automated process. And there are plenty of trail markers in dense woods that go into voting that can’t be seen on Maps.
I do t think this looks like a good place to submit since it looks small with one bench. With the cars as well just doesn’t convey that it’s good.
Personally I think this is much stronger.
I was going to add gate anyway as in own s2 cell. I will work on other one and resumbit as I would still argue it is important to community at that gated community but all good points I just need to make strong case in description. So objections in thread are useful for my counter argument ;).
I would also recommend more focussed text.
You mention link to their town for example. That may be helpful if you were submitting the buildings but you are submitting a social space so it is irrelevant.
What needs to be covered is what makes this a social space. And the social element is the bench. Don’t try to over egg it or reviewers will stop believing. It should only need 30 words max to describe this.
The supporting statement needs to state simply it is a social space and the main issue will then be about the location since you only have satellite view. Use web submit to provide photos that link it to the main road and explain how they can check location. That’s all that is needed
Completely agree. I never know how much to bring up at once. Since I didn’t think it was causing the automated process rejection, I didn’t say anything, but I would take the description from this
to something like
A beautifully maintained communal garden serving the residents of Marans Court. Featuring mature trees, well tended shrubs and a seating bench, the garden provides a peaceful green space for residents to relax and socialise.
Spot on! Reviewers do not want to wade through a bunch of text at the bottom. Just point out features they can use in your photos to match up to Maps views to verify for themselves that placement is accurate.
But here is the thing……you are not the one reviewing this nomination​
You have to craft your nomination for the majority of reviewers.
Look at it through their eyes.
You are writing 1 nomination, they are reading through a lot ( mainly trail markers admittedly )
You said more than enough in the description about the seating area, you don’t need to expand. You said nothing about verifying the location which as a reviewer I do want to know.
I have spent ages reading up on something of historic interest but had to crop that down to the essence of what was critical.
This is all about a bench keep it focussed.
I wasn’t disagreeing with you been long time since submitted stops just interesting how “community” has changed (not a bad thing). Sorry if it came across as disagreeing with you.
I do agree with you got to submit to how community is now and what majority of reviewers now want
)