Title:
Port of San Diego – Protect Our Birds and Beaches Sign
Description:
Port of San Diego educational sign explaining how feeding wildlife can harm birds, affect water quality, and contribute to beach closures along the Chula Vista waterfront.
Supplemental:
This permanent educational sign along the public waterfront helps visitors learn about protecting local wildlife and the coastal environment. Installed by the Port of San Diego, it explains how feeding birds can create ecological problems and negatively affect water quality. The sign is safely accessible from the waterfront walkway and encourages visitors to learn about and responsibly explore the San Diego Bay envi
I recently nominated a permanent Port of San Diego – Protect Our Birds and Beaches sign located along the Chula Vista waterfront. The nomination was atumatically rejected and subsequently appealed. The appeal was also rejected, with the Niantic reviewer stating:
“The submission lacks uniqueness or historical and cultural meaning”
I would like some clarification on how this should be distinguished as this should fall under a “Nature Sign”, which Wayfarer’s eligibility guidance specifically lists as an example of a great place for exploration.
I understand why a simple sign that only says “Do Not Feed the Birds” would be considered a generic regulatory sign. However, this particular sign goes substantially beyond stating a rule.
The sign explains why visitors should not feed the birds and provides information about the local environment. It explains that feeding wildlife can cause birds to become dependent on humans, contribute to overpopulation and ecological imbalance, increase bacteria levels in the water, negatively affect water quality, and potentially contribute to beach closures.
It is a permanent sign installed by the “Port of San Diego Environmental” department directly along the San Diego Bay waterfront—the environment and wildlife that the sign is educating visitors about.
As the appeal note says, this is just a regulatory sign. It is not a place to exercise, explore, or be social. While it may explain the regulation (I can’t read the small print) it is not an sign that has real educational value. This is an example of what we often refer to as a “rules” sign.
While I understand that reasoning, I also feel its to subjective. Which I guess alot of this is so its a mute argument lol.
For example, this could be worded as
Nature Sign describing the importance of not feeding local wildlife and in the impact on the local environment
Regardless, not trying to argue as people seems to be in agreement that this shouldnt be a stop. I will cry myself to sleep tonight.
Always consider the key criteria - Exercise, Explore, Social. Every wayspot must be a great place to do at least one of these by actively encouraging them.
I hope you agree this sign does not assist with exercise or social. That leaves Exploration. Would this sign be something that people want to show to others and are excited to find? If the answer is “definitely not”, this is why it doesn’t meet criteria.
(If you try and say that the answer is yes, this is exciting, then you will never find agreement.)
So here is the other that got declined twice actually, its been on my to do list to appeal.. but unfortunately I just used my two appeals on this sign so it will have to wait.
Rejection:
This submission was declined by Niantic’s automated process for not adhering to Wayfarer criteria
Title:
Chula Vista Harbor Park Pier Walk
Description:
A waterfront pier extending into San Diego Bay from Chula Vista Harbor Park. This pedestrian pier is popular for walking, fishing, sightseeing, and enjoying panoramic views of the Chula Vista waterfront, marina, and surrounding bay.
Supplemental:
This permanent, publicly accessible pedestrian pier provides a dedicated waterfront destination for walking, fishing, sightseeing, and exploring San Diego Bay. Visitors regularly use the pier to stroll along the waterfront, fish from its railings, and enjoy views of the marina and bay. Its wide pedestrian deck and protective railings provide safe pedestrian access and support outdoor recreation and exploration within Chula Vista Harbor Park.
This was the original picture that I submitted. I figured it was denied because of this picture
Imho i would reject the warning sign because it seems like common sign thats placed in multiple places in that area. But the pier seems got potential. Try resubmit with fresh foto (without people of possible) and if fail, you can try appeal
People are allowed in photos when they are incidental, unavoidable and so small that they cannot be identified. This is the case with both your pier photos, so I hope they were not rejected for containing people.
For something like a pier, it is really really hard to take a photo with no-one using it. If you could manage this, it would suggest no-one uses it, so you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If you have appealed the pier rejection and it was then rejected by Scopely Explore staff, I recommend creating a new thread for that issue, as it removes the noise about the sign which is of no value as a wayspot.
I’ve just realised that the first supplementary photo is the best one of all of them and is the one I would use as a wayspot main photo.
Use this for your main photo. You’ve posted it on this forum, but that is OK. Or take a new one like it, as you will need a new supporting photo (or more, using web submit).
It’s from further away so people are even smaller. You can sit there and wait a few hours to get a good window with minimal people
Well I guess its because I am thinking more about the location of the sign rather than the sign itself being the POI.
The signs themselves are part of the park\pier
So in my mind it would actually cover Exercise\Explore\Social because of where they are located. But yes I could see why it would get declined if I look at it that way. Although to play devils advocate you could the same about trail markers.. but I’ll let that be lol.
Signs can be used as a proxy for the POI, but rarely meet criteria themselves. (This is true for trail markers - they are a proxy for the trail). When using something as a proxy, you have to make clear that it is a proxy and why you need to use one. Here, the pier doesn’t need an anchor, so the sign isn’t needed as a proxy.
A good example would be a sports field with nothing else suitable as the anchor.
These warning signs can be educational – this is one I submitted recently that is meant to encourage people to care for their environment while at the beach while also providing loads of information about local wildlife. The sign you submitted seems mpre focused on the warning than the education. I would only stop to closely read the one I submitted, I wouldn’t stop for yours
