I’m using the word great because that is what is in the Niantic eligibility narratives. Niantic Wayfarer
I think we should put a significant amount of weight on that word, especially given it’s repeated three times.
“A great place for exploration”
“A great place for exercise”
“A great place to be social with others”
Hah! Well caught 
Good old Niantic consistency rearing it’s head again. (Niantic, not Scopely, in this case.)
Good and Great can have different meanings for different people, but regardless of the meaning, everyone can understand that good is of a lesser quality than great. Scopely, the merciful, perhaps understands this and thus instructs leniency when reviewing.
The waiting shed earlier in this thread is a good place for being social. So are bus stops, in some cultures. It’s very hard to argue they’re not good for that, which is why good isn’t good enough.
I think the problem with “good” is that, as you say, it can be interpreted in many ways, but "great "is harder to misinterpret.
But as you can see, “great” is the level that the submitter believes their nomination reaches, whereas us reviewers only have to see if the nomination is good.
If we put weight on the word great we should do that same for good.
We can easily label the criteria as good or great, each interpretation will vary. The context remains that it asks for social spaces understood as what have been seen as “great” IMO.
The bus stop may make as the only shade structure near here but it doesn’t make it a place for socialization at all. These are horrible to get stuck at when raining. Being a government building also isn’t an automatic qualifier.
Niantic uses post offices and little free libraries as examples for “great” in the social category. Neither of those are intended as places for socializing.
So this guy will pass as a gazebo?..thanks for that info.. just search it up and it really seems like a gazebo
I thinks it fits the criteria.. but since its a rural area things/building/infrastructure are commonly joint as one..same as the photo above
You can try.
When considering whether a subject is eligible to apply for Wayfarer or meets the eligibility criteria, you should consider the following
Why is the subject located where it is?
Why was the subject installed or preserved?
Does the reason meet any of the three eligibility criteria?
Does the subject continue to exist?
Here are some examples
Murals Painted with Permission
These are painted over several days to enhance the beauty of a building or town, to be viewed as a work of art. They are, of course, desired by the building’s owner and can continue to exist.
Gazebos and pavilions in parks and squares
These are places where users of parks and squares can not only rest, but also gather without hesitation to sit and chat.
Walking trail distance markers
These are placed to verify that the trail has been established as a walking trail and that the user has walked the target distance for the day.
We have been through this before.
I highly suggest against this as it can be seen as misrepresenting the shed.
When submitting an object, focus on what it is currently is. A square hole may fit a lot of other shapes but a shape may not fit in all the holes.
Please consider why the Niantic Wayfarer team still exemplifies these. They are great places to socialize. The team will not give examples of things for which they are not eligible.
I have no clue why the team exemplifies them. Please explain Niantic’s thinking to me.
Yes and no one as been able to explain it.
Do not call something something it isn’t in the hopes that a “magic” word will get your nomination accepted. You can try again if you genuinely believe this meets the criteria of a great place to be social. Or you could also appeal this rejection directly to Niantic Scopely to review if you don’t think the community will accept it, but it should be accepted. You get 2 appeals, each on a 15 day timer before you can use it again, so I usually will resubmit at least once before I use an appeal.
What does this look like on Maps? Is there street view? I don’t see this as anything that I would submit from what you have shown us. Your explanation that “locals regularly use it while waiting for transport” makes it sound like it is just a bus stop, which is just infrastructure. Not a place designed to bring people together.
Added for context
My argument there is the same one here: OP described a shared experience among the locals. Which is a condition to prove “great place to socialize”
