Hi all, I’m seeking constructive suggestions to help improve this nomination. It has been rejected by ML twice. The first screenshots are my most recent rejection, but I’ve also included my first attempt for additional context. I tried to improve the second one based on feedback in the old forum, but it still got rejected by ML.
I’ll note that there is nothing at all in this S14 cell, and I’m hoping to improve gameplay in the area. One challenge is that Google Satellite is outdated and does not reflect newly installed pedestrian sidewalks, crosswalks, and dedicated bike lanes. Another challenge is that it might appear from Google Satellite to be an ordinary retention pond, but it is actually wildlife conservation land officially recognized by the town conservation commission.
You have submitted a natural location with a sign that clearly states that it’s a protected area that no one should disturb. Why are you trying to attract people to a spot that the local authorities have asked people to stay away from?
Presumably the authorities are happy for people to use the area for exercise and exploring on the new paths added, but not getting into the water itself?
So I dont think that makes it ineligible
Areas like this without dedicated signs/infoboards are notoriously difficult to get through voting though.
My hope would be that a nature trail gets signposted through the area or some infoboards added about the conservation efforts for these species and those would be much easier to get accepted.
A trail should be eligible. But since we are supposed to be able to touch POI, a wetlands that has no pedestrian access and shouldn’t be entered, doesn’t seem eligible to me.
There might be other things in the newly redesigned area that would qualify, but we can’t see those yet.
Yeah, I’m making assumptions based on the reconstructed paths mentioned but not pictured, and I guess hoping that if the area is new, some additions might appear in the next few months that would be good submissions.
We had some work done near the riverside in our town last year - a small hydroelectric power station was added, and they had to do some conservation work at the same time to ensure the wildlife wasnt badly impacted including new waterways. A few months later lots of info boards were added to the area explaining the works and talking about the species impacted and the conservation work that happened. So those are now all waypoints
If the machine is doing the rejecting, I wonder if an extreme close-up of the turtle sign followed by a supporting photo with the sign up front and nature visible in the background might work.
Human reviewers seem to dislike small signs, and may interpret this one as a fancy Keep Out sign. It may be difficult to persuade them without a park sign or information board.
This seems like a great place to look, listen, and experience the wild world.
If you are certain that the municipality wants people to stay away from this area, your comment makes sense.
But walking around on the paths, seeing and hearing the creatures and smelling and feeling the breeze is all that is required to experience the location. Going into the water could lead to damage and harm, and is not required.
If somebody nominates a nightclub where musicians perform, we don’t reject it because we are not allowed on the stage and cannot touch the players or their instruments.
You cannot nominate an animal at the zoo, but you can nominate the reptile house, even though you can’t play with the snakes.
Being right there where you can experience something should be close enough, here, as all these other examples.
There’s the rub, you didn’t submit those newly added paths that are there for exercising and exploration. You submitted a sign that basically says “keep out”. Then your supporting photo was an overgrown pond or marsh, and we don’t see the sign. While maybe this could be eligible, the way it was done IMO is almost asking for it to be rejected.
I agree with you, paths without some sort of signs or markers will be difficult to get approved, but IMO that would be the better option. If you try, I would suggest the supporting information includes something (at trail map on the park website?) that shows there are trails where you say there are.
If the trails are brand new, maybe the best option would be to wait a while and see what is put there.
