Celui ci m’a été refusée car ce n’est qu’un simple banc générique. Sauf que je ne l’ai pas proposé pour le banc en lui même mais pour la localisation, le point de vue et le fait que ce soit sur un sentier de randonné très utilisé et prisée des promeneurs du coin et est balisé a certains endroits un peu plus bas. Ce ne sont pas de grand panneaux, juste une balise losange rouge.
Pour celui ci, je ne connais pas le motif du refus, il m’a surement été refusée a cause de la route ? Ou parce qu’il est sur un terrain privée ? Aucune idée
The Old water fountain was probably rejected for private property, as that looks like single-family private residential property which is strictly forbidden for wayspots.
Benches with a view need to be sold to reviewers - you need to justify which this bench, which is generic, is actually special because of where it is. It may be you didn’t provide enough justification or that this location was not seen as special by reviewers.
Here’s my justification: Banc situé pres d’une voie ferré. Tout est securisé, c’est un lieu de promenade recurant des civiles, notemment avec les chiens. Le chemins est baliser comme chemin de randonné. C’est un lieu extremement sollicité et aimé de par sa vue et le fait de pouvoir voir des trains passer de temps en temps avec les jeunes.
And for the appeal: Il a été refusé par le processus automatisé de Niantic alors que dans la charte, ll semblerait que ce wayspot soit éligible, le banc est permanent, donne sur une vue panoramique, est a coté d’un sentier de marche, j’ai mis le pont en plus même si il est moins pertinent. Donc je ne sais pas trop pourquoi il est refusé a part peut etre le fait qu’il ne soit pas « artistique » mais bon, ce ne sont pas normalement les seuls critères d’éligibilité
Your description is good. It isn’t trying to claim more than can be justified and it seems it should be allowed to go to reviewers. This doesn’t guarantee it would be accepted.
The automatic rejection system often, but not exclusively, goes by the photo. Since your text is OK, it is likely to be the photo that it disliked.
I suggest you retry with a different photo that has a lot less grass. Your photo is fine for reviewers, but maybe not for the ML system. Evidence suggests that the ML system dislikes green.
(I believe that appeal reviewers stick with the original decision unless there is an obvious error, which isn’t the case here as “bench with a view” isn’t a 100% submission type.)
When I get rejected by the “automated process,” I try to reevaluate my nomination. I don’t use the same photo that has already been rejected in a resubmit.
View benches are very difficult to get accepted when the bench itself is generic. You will need to really convince that the view is worth exploring
The old water fountain appears to just be infrastructure to me. What is your justification that this is a great place for exercise, exploration, or being social per criteria? The same would apply to a water pump. Wayspot Criteria — Wayfarer Help Center
Have a good statement ready if you decide to appeal, since you mentioned that. Just being eligible does not mean it must be accepted. We get 2 appeals, each on a 15 day counter before we can use them again, so I usually try a resubmit first.
My own take on the “bench with a view” submission is that I would accept it, after checking the density of nearby wayspots and confirming the trail (etc). Although the view isn’t a dramatic one, if this is a bench on a named trail (evidence of this would be very helpful) and is isolated, it /is/ a useful stopping point on the trail.
Using the new web submission form you can include up to 5 supporting photos. I suggest using this to provide evidence that this is on a named trail, as well as linking to a website if one exists.
Merci pour ce retour !
He bien, je l’avais déjà suggérer il y a quelques mois, il m’avais également été refusée, la il est passé en appel et également refusé une 2eme fois alors que dans les règles, il est censé passer. Mais pourquoi pas refaire avec une autre vue pour la photo principale
I disagree with this. Leaving aside the private property question, old infrastructure like this is worthy of exploration in the UK, so I imagine this is equally true in France. To meet this criteria, It does need to be an original pump/fountain that exists where it was used, not an ornament that has been put up as decoration.
There is no “supposed to be accepted.” From the link I gave earlier:
A note on eligibility: if a Wayspot nomination meets one of the below criteria, that’s great! But remember that eligibility alone isn’t sufficient to turn a nomination into an accepted Wayspot.
You really need to talk about what you can see there:
That is why I said this looks like it “to me” and asked for the justification. The appeals reviewers do not seem to be from this part of the world either.
I agree it is an old pump - the question is whether it was used in this location, or is an old pump that someone bought for the purposes of decoration. (The private property issue is still a problem though.)
So it is on a marked walking trail but one that doesn’t have a name? That doesn’t prevent this wayspot, just makes it harder. Same evidence required - show proof of the marked walking trail.
Hmm, good question. And a don’t think that I can proove it. And for the privacy property, it’s a problem even if it’s in front of the house and don’t need to go on the privacy property ?
