If you click on the top one, there should be a rejection reason listed. I promise the reason isn’t “elevation bias.” Please show us the rejection reason and all the relavant information so we can help you figure out why it was rejected.
2 Likes
It simply says Wayfarer criteria on that one. But when I tried doing that spot some years ago it seems the rejection that was was upgraded to say: “The object in question does not meet the Wayfarer criteria as the object is a general pathway. We recommend you review the Wayspot Criteria before submitting your next Wayspot contribution”.
The thing is it is a big park entrance, while yes it may be a path it is also an entrance. The lower entrance though has steps and an actual gate, it seems they don’t like accepting nominations that aren’t actual objects. Just in from this upper entrance is a yellow and black barrier which I also tried to nominate before but that was rejected with no reason given.
It’s a shame as I feel a large park entrance is worthy of being a waypoint regardless of whether there’s a physical gate or not.
Yeah. Think of it this way. The POI needs to mark a tangible spot. There must be something there to anchor the POI. A random spot on a walking path or sidewalk, has nothing tangible to anchor to. You feel like its an entrance but without a sign or a bench or something physical, the game can’t “mark” it.
3 Likes
Have to agree with the ambo here. One park I know very well has 2 entrances, a south and an east. The south entrance is the only one with a sign with the park’s name on it, which is a valid place marker, whereas the east has none. There are many Wayspots at this park, with the city pool and start of the disc golf course being near the east entrance and having Wayspots.
2 Likes
Agree with the ambo as well
1 Like