大量にあることによる否認は同じ物が何個以上で否認ですか。2個以上ですか。よく、東屋などの一般的な休憩所や時計台などでそういう物がありますが。
Hello,
I’m not sure I understand correctly is this about the voting system?
There is no need for us to know how the voting works and it is something the Wayfarer Team won’t comment on.
Knowing details of the voting system would be subject to malicious manipulation of it.
Or is this about making multiple of the same thing?
If you would like to tell us details of the submissions that have had problems we will be happy to help.
He seems to be asking about the boundaries of what is determined to be a mass-produced product. For example, they want a response of more than 20 pieces, more than 100 pieces, etc.
There isn’t a set number. This is where you have to use your best judgment. Is the mass produced item a great place for exercise, exploration, or being social? In the examples you gave, they usually are. Other mass produced items may not be. So don’t try to determine eligibility by counting how many there are, but by the function of the specific item you are evaluating.
As @cyndiepooh stated, it is not a issue of quantity. We must consider the definition of mass production.
Mass production is a manufacturing method that produces large quantities of standardized products using automated processes and assembly lines. Key features include:
Standardization: Uniform product design and specifications for consistency and interchangeability.
Efficiency: Use of automation and streamlined workflows to reduce production time and costs.
Economies of scale: Lower per-unit costs due to high-volume output.
I looked back at the definition of mass production, but in fact, mass production itself does not necessarily meet the rejection criteria. It is necessary to carefully reread the rejection criteria.
- Does not meet eligibility criteria
Does not seem to be a great place of exploration, place for exercise, or place to be social. The object is mass-produced, generic, or not visually unique or interesting.
The point to note here is “the object”. I believe this should be interpreted as a way to distinguish or explain places that do not fall under any of the three eligibility criteria mentioned above (exploration, socialize, exercise). Otherwise, “the” would not be used.
In fact, some pavilions installed in parks are mass-produced. They are used not only by children but also by adults and young people for chatting. Park operators install pavilions with this intention. Pavilions are mass-produced products, but they are interesting places where people can socialize. Therefore, the fact that they are mass-produced does not immediately make them subject to rejection criteria. It is just one example of something that does not meet the eligibility criteria.
ありがとうございます。ちなみに一般的で同一が複数存在する東屋と、特徴的であるが複数存在する休憩所(同一の東屋より少ない)はどのような審査にしますか。東屋より少ない方の休憩所は審査されずに自動的に否認となっている。
If there are multiple pavilions close together, then one of them should be used to represent them. Similarly with rest areas.
Obviously there is a grey area : what is “close together” and how do you decide whether things deserve to be separate items. That’s down to subjective opinions and if you want to submit multiple identical objects, it’s up to you to sell this to the reviewers, but it will generally be difficult to get them accepted if the same thing is visible nearby.
An unrelated example: there was some unique artwork as fencing/barriers that someone asked for assistance with, spread over an area that would take maybe 3-4 minutes to walk. The general advice was they were suitable for POI.
ありがとうございます。ちなみに複数存在の休憩所は"近く"もそうなのですが、近くではなく日本の場合では日本国内に複数の場合でも一般的判定なのですが、それについてはどうですか。
Are you saying that a rest area will be marked as duplicate by reviewers if there are other rest areas elsewhere in Japan (e.g., 100 miles away)? That is what the translated text is implying, but this doesn’t make sense.
That’s not the case. It is common to find gazebos in parks. They are unremarkable in appearance. And most of them are mass-produced standard products. However, if a gazebo has benches attached to it, it becomes an “interesting place” that is perfect for socializing, where you can sit and chat with friends and neighbors at any time. Even if it is mass-produced, generic, and lacks distinctive features, it is acceptable as long as the location is optimal for social interaction and exercise. Of course, most mass-produced standardized products, those lacking distinctive features, and generic objects are not suitable for exploration. However, there are exceptions. Each one must be carefully evaluated and reviewed before submission.
ありがとうございます