I’m not sure I’ve seen more than 3 “green walls” in my life. I’m not sure I’d classify them as normal and definitely non-distinct. It’s holds a similar intent as a painted mural while providing greenery to the indoors, basic air purification, and dressing up an otherwise bland wall.
I’ve tried to collect applicable screenshots below.
Appeal text which even included additional map support:
The support photo does a good job showing scale of the living wall - it indeed goes floor to ceiling and along a probably 50” stretch. As noted, the photo shows the Gate location which the map I preemptively linked in the appeal text helps prove. Just for extra measure, I’ve placed a screenshot from my phone gallery of the photo and location.
I get the sense that they copy-paste language like that when they mean to say that they don’t think the type of POI is eligible at all, not that it’s too generic of an example. Reminds me of one I got where they referred to something very unusual as standard, and clearly just copied it in because the grammar doesn’t make sense.
Standard cat windows, which are widespread? Amazing.
I think the appeals team must be given unrealistic targets about how many to resolve per hour, and this maybe causes the wierd rejection reasons because they have this kind of placeholder text to fill in the name of the item like “normal xyxyxyx of no significance”.
It would be nice if they were given time to read the whole nomination, check the links provided, and write a proper appeal decision that makes sense to submitters and helps them in future appeals.
That one bothered me because it was such an unusual attraction that I had difficulty explaining what it was (keep in mind we can’t show animals in pictures), but apparently it was standard. It would be nice if appeals were coherent enough to serve as a way for Niantic to communicate the nuances of what is allowed and what isn’t but the results are too random and the text is about as bad as the rejection reasons submitters get.
I would have made a topic on the forum about it and hoped to get rhe appeal overturned.
By the way, you can show pictures and artwork of animals in wayfarer, just don’t have a live animal as the focus of your nomination ie when the ML is down we see people trying to submit their house with a picture of their dog etc . The odd bird in shot does not mean your nomination of a riverside sign should be rejected either as an example (literally impossible to take a photo in one of our parks without birds in shot!!)
Love it.
That is an unusual and distinct point of interest, especially given its size and location. The environmentalist in me wishes these were “normal” but unfortunately it is far from it. These do add interest to an area and must be a welcome place to admire inside a busy stressful airport. I would much rather look at it than a painted mural that stays the same and does not change. Such a pity I cant go there
I have submitted a living wall in the past - it was the largest in the UK. But sadly the community rejected. I must go back to it as I dont think we had appeals at that time, so now is my chance to appeal it. Thanks for reminding me.
I submitted and had accepted a submission of a living wall that was also acting as a feature to mark the entrance to a retail park.
Later, I was embarrassed when I looked closer at the wall and realised it was plastic plants. It still acts as an entrance feature and (clearly) looks like a living wall, but it’s very much the opposite of what I thought it was. An actual living wall nearby (blocked by other wayspots) has been removed as the plants weren’t surviving.
If this is an actual living wall with real plants, it would make an excellent wayspot. It had an unfortunate result from reviewers.
I don’t think it should matter at all if it’s an “actual” one or not - and I did (proudly) submit a fake flower one that I also believe was incorrectly rejected for being a “generic business” (also wrong) by appeal reviewers despite it being for a bakery/cafe within a publicly accessible area of an airport.
But indeed, yes, it is “actual.” The photos don’t capture it well but the trough under the plants has running water and there was noticeable water pouring down when I went by.
@NianticAaron I see you’ve already edited this post, any chance you think it’s necessary to review or can at least comment on otherwise? Bonus if you can overturn “Flores de La Panera Rosa” that was also recently rejected.
Visually, the bits of brown vegetation do a better job at demonstrating this as being real plants. Whenever I see a plant in a pot that I am suspicious about, but not close enough to be sure, it is the lack of “dead” bits that makes the difference.
I do feel it is very different it being plastic or real. Both look roughly the same from a distance, but the latter has a lot more inherent value.
While we have differing opinions, being real plants is not a requirement and it should be reviewed in full context. And “more” value is purely subjective and again depends on context.
Regardless, this one is real. With real live plants and running water.
Well, “Flores de La Panera Rosa” was overturned - the fake pink flowers that made artistic signage for a bakery/cafe intended as a place to socialize in an airport.
This comes across as just a print in a shop window. It looks like a closed-down shop in the UK which has been brightened up with art, which makes it potentially eligible as a point of exploration, but it’s hard to tell that from this photo.
It’s a rotating artist showcase, the second supporting photo is just the sign explaining what it was which you can see in the corner. What it isn’t is a portrait and the fact that every negative appeal I’ve gotten back has included an error copy pasted into what reads like a form letter is starting to concern me.
The appeal rejections are form letters with something inserted. It would take a lot of extra time for a careful detailed letter to be written each time.
Generally, it appears the appeal reviewer sticks with the community decision unless there is an overriding reason or a clear category error made (such as an actual gym being rejected, because the community don’t understand about exercise vs chain establishment).
The inserted text is not always the best but the overall impression seems fair for that photo.
I would retry with a different main photo which better shows that this is an artist showcase, not just a random piece of art.
I’m not worried about getting it in, I know I’ll get it through, I’m frustrated by the fact that whoever is on the other end of this looked at paintings of bridges and thought the word for that was portrait. It harms their legitimacy and is unprofessional.
You need to prove this statement. Otherwise it just seems like temporary display on sale.
I am not sure about this particular nomination but my inderstanding about similar example in jakarta airport seems to have plenty of it around. Which bring concern about uniqueness. You might want to highlight why this particular nomination is unique.
The second supporting photo is just the sign explaining what it is, but again, I’m not that bothered by the rejection or interested in workshopping it, that’s not the point. My issue is the extremely low quality of appeal write ups which are beginning to make me doubt the English fluency of the people making them
I’m struggling to understand why something claimed to be commonplace in Jakarta would affect eligibility of a candidate in Buenos Aires - that’s not how “visually unique” intended to be applied and the whole “post 3.1 category refresh” further moved away from. I hope the staff reviewers weren’t making that mistake.
Nevertheless, I brought up this rejection with Tintino and he said it should have been approved and will help resolving it.
. The odd bird in shot does not mean your nomination of a riverside sign should be rejected either as an example (literally impossible to take a photo in one of our parks without birds in shot!!)
