All I am stating is that just because something is used for what it is meant for, ie. Sitting On does not mean it meets the Criteria set by Niantic which we are all meant to abide by.
If your nomination had got past AI with what can be seen of your nomination I would be surprised if it got past reviewers.
For examples see the several threads where people discuss “Neighbourhood Signs” in the US. The Nominators state that neighbours will meet there (social), locals will use these as markers when exercising and visitors can see where there are to “explore”. Due to the original purpose of these being the real estate advertising new houses to sell they are mostly rejected.
A single bench near a car park will be seen as somewhere to rest unless you can show that it is different, it may be used as you suggest but please advise how you are going to prove that.
I seem to have touched a nerve so I will step back from the thread.
You may have already seen this, but just in case you haven’t, these are some helpful tips for people who live in small towns. If you could share with us the GPS of your area/town, we can perhaps help you find some eligible points of interest.
Sorry, if I saw that I’d probably report it as fake. The lettering looks like it has been added later, and the proposed wayspot does not appear in the supporting photograph which is a massive red flag. The supporting photo should also show enough of the surrounding area to confirm its location, especially if it is not visible on StreetView.
The google maps pin would be helpful. You can find the location in the submission receipt email below the photos. It looks something like 56.668164, 9.854022
Your supporting photo doesn’t show much to help reviewers. Sinxe this bench is located between 2 houses (presumably on public land?), you’ll want to show those 2 houses and more of the street with the bench in place at this spot as your supporting picture. That will help eventually reviewers to see that it is where you say it is even if it’s not on street view or satellite yet.
If it is not public land and is actually owned by one of the houses, then the location isnt eligible
Odd. That location is single-family private residential properties. The bench isn’t visible on streetview, but it is extremely unlikely that it could exist anywhere there and be eligible.
In the UK that could be a small strip of public land, hence why I’m not saying its definitely an ineligible location. But it would depend on how things work in different countries. And definitely needs a solid supporting image showing it exists in that location
There is a small strip of (probably) public land nearby. The actual location is 12m away from that, but the supporting photo is definitely not of that pathway.
Yep I’d need to see a better supporting picture to have any confidence that it exists here and is not in an ineligible location (or for it to show on satellite)
That alone makes me suspicious when reviewing, although I do find some genuine submissions where the submitter didn’t realise how helpful it is to show the object in the supporting photo, but manages to get away with a useless supporting photo through the POI being visible on streetview.
This submission as it stands hits a lot of rejection points. Support photo doesn’t show POI. Streetview doesn’t show POI. Location is SFPRP. Permanence of object is doubtful. Location of object is curious for what it is.
There’s a lot for the submitter to overcome if this is genuine.
